Mask Manipulation

A friend received this email, and asked me to consider posting it to the blog. It is somewhat of a strange topic to log back into blogger about after all this time. The last thing I posted was a timeline on Luther the Heritic. Back when I wrote that, I would not have believed such a topic would even be worth a discussion. I also see humor in being asked to post about it since my original online avatar used to be the mask pictured in this post. Admittedly, this subject has been on my mind and in my prayers. The subject also coincides somewhat with a recent sermon I have listened to on the subject of "Dialectics".

This email is posted with some redaction, and with full permission from the original sender. Emphasis and links are mine:

+JMJ+

Gentlemen,

I have had conversations with most of you on the subject topic. Most of you know my thoughts on the virus, and that I have never worn a face mask in response. Generally speaking the push to wear masks, and the information behind it seems to be driven as part of a propaganda effort. Use of social media, participation in echo chambers, and reliance on a daily dose of other forms of media seem to drive this propaganda. People willingly participate in the media they consume and are impacted by it.

It should go without saying, but to make sure it is clear... I do not fear the virus. I am not worried about how my personal consumeristic urges might be impacted. I have been willing to suffer the consequences of my actions for a while now.

People can come to similar conclusions, and perform similar actions for very different reasons. This is relevant because I have heard reasons for NOT wearing a mask that are unsound. I have also heard repetition of "pre-recorded sophistry" (internet memes and quick one liners) that leads me to wonder if NOT wearing masks has also become a propaganda effort.

It is not a surprise that opposing propaganda efforts would exist over a subject. I am worried however that if I am right, that the result will lead to division for the wrong reasons. Division over good reason is bound to happen, but division over wrong reasons is just wrong.

I also know that covering one's face with a mask is not objectively wrong. Chances are there are circumstances where most of us have performed this action at some point in our lives. Reasons for wearing a mask certainly exist that could make the act wrong, or at the very least undesirable.

I am sharing my thoughts to caution you all from getting sucked into false dichotomies, or getting sucked into divisive attitudes that are not likely required. At the very least I would be cautious of letting the subject take up to much mental thought. There is certainly a battle here taking place, but maybe this is the wrong "front" to spend all the energy on with those around us and those we interact with.

I welcome any of your thoughts, but please remember, this is not social media. I do not need to be convinced of the ridiculous circumstance we are in. Chances are high that I have read "the science", "statistics", and "politics" and seen all of the same things you all have seen. This is not about convincing anyone to wear/not wear a mask. I am keeping a more concerned eye on the strange divisiveness of this specific topic, and urge you to do the same.

Mary keep you,

The thief is here, did you notice?

Today, our president's Health and Human Services (HHS) anti-conscience mandate will be implemented. After today, nearly all employers will be forced, at the beginning of their next health plan year, to pay for the coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptive medicines, and sterilization procedures.

It is true that some employers have an additional 12 months, but the majority do not. August 1st 2013 will be here without notice, just like today came without notice. The fact that some organizations have an additional year does not negate or lessen the situation that others are facing. Employees and employers across our nation are affected.

Pray first for the employers today who have seemingly impossible decisions to make. Pray also for the employees who also are finding their way through this mess. We pray that they are given prudence to make decisions with eyes on the eternal. We ask specifically for the prayers of the Seven Holy Maccabee brothers.

A Fortnight Later...

In 1521 Henry VIII was declared "Fidei Defensor" by Pope Leo X for his pamphlet accusing Martin Luther of heresy. Thirteen years later Henry abandoned Rome completely through the Act of Supremacy. That same year Parliament also passed the Treasons Act which made the king the "Only Head of the Church of England on Earth."

Those were guilty of treason who:

"...do maliciously wish, will or desire by words or writing, or by craft imagine, invent, practise, or attempt any bodily harm to be done or committed to the king's most royal person, the queen's or the heirs apparent, or to deprive them of any of their dignity, title or name of their royal estates, or slanderously and maliciously publish and pronounce, by express writing or words, that the king should be heretic, schismatic, tyrant, infidel or usurper of the crown..."

Anyone who denied in thought, word, or action that Henry VIII was the "Supreme Head of the Church in England" was guilty of treason, punishable by death. St. John Fisher was the only English bishop who refused to swear to the Act of Supremacy. St. Thomas More also joined in committing this praiseworthy act of treason.

Before their deaths, the stripped, emaciated bodies of both St. Fisher and St. More shocked the crowds at the scaffold. They had suffered utter destitution during their fifteen months in the Tower. St. John Fisher marched towards death courageously and was executed on June 22nd. (Interestingly, his sentence and death by beheading greatly paralleled that of his namesake whose feast was the very next day.) A fortnight later on June 6th, his body was laid beside that of St. Thomas More who had been executed earlier in the day.

Both saints serve as a model of courage and strength during these odd political times. Both saints had practiced mortification from early manhood. They had disciplined their bodies with fasting and other penitential acts. They had strengthened themselves with a devout prayer life. These virtuous habits prepared them for the political persecution they endured, and helped them to accept their eventual imprisonment and execution.

In today's world that encourages over indulgence, we run the risk of being weak in times when strength is required. As seen in the example of today's saints, mortification and prayer bolsters our human nature, and cuts out diseases wearing on the soul.

St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher, pray for us so that we may be prepared for what trials God permits us to endure.

Religious Toleration

The topic of "Religious Liberty" is sprinkled about through various forms of media and discussions in recent months. Unfortunately language used in reference to the topic is often "nuanced", and discussion is unclear.

God created man for a purpose, namely to "know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven." To this end, sin plays no part. God did not create man to sin. Certainly God gave man free will. With our will we can choose good or what we perceive to be a "good"; so it is possible for us (albeit insane) to choose sin over God. Thus the materialists twist freedom into a matter of choosing whatever one desires. In reality, choosing God and fulfilling our purpose is to choose freedom. Choosing sin on the other hand is an abuse of freedom.

Man's God given rights, the "natural rights", are those that assist man with his created purpose. Sin plays no role in assisting man towards his goal. While man is capable of sin, it is never his right to sin.

Sin is nothing else than a morally bad act (St. Thomas, "De malo", 7:3), an act not in accord with reason informed by the Divine law. God has endowed us with reason and free-will, and a sense of responsibility; He has made us subject to His law, which is known to us by the dictates of conscience, and our acts must conform with these dictates, otherwise we sin (Romans 14:23).

If by "religious liberty" it is meant that man cannot be coerced into religious belief against his conscience by the state, or if it is meant the right of man to hold the Catholic faith, then we can concur with this. The latter is not contradictory as we know that the Catholic Church serves to bring us to God, and thus participating in the Faith is in union with our natural rights. The former is known as religious toleration with an emphasis on the true meaning of the word "tolerance".

If by "religious liberty" it is meant as a right of man to choose any religion, dogma, belief, etc., that is contrary to God, then it should be obvious that man has no such right. Often the phrase "Religious Liberty" is used when what is intended is "freedom (meaning right) to worship how we choose (including that which is contrary to God)." This might be a "right" granted by the state, but it is no true natural right any more than something like abortion is a right.

...no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its reaching and practice-not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion...

- Leo XIII, Encyclical Immortale Dei (references: 1, 2, 3)

I believe it necessary for one to have a strong grasp on "religious toleration" before one can properly understand the Church on what some call "religious liberty". The Catholic Encyclopedia has a very extensive article on the topic of "Religious Toleration" that deserves study.

We Are Left to Battle Paganism On Our Own

Since a week ago last Saturday, we can no longer expect them to defend the law of God. These sects will work out the very logic of their ways, and in 50 or 100 years there will be only the [Catholic] Church and paganism. We will be left to fight the battle alone, and we will.

The previous quote was said by then-father Fulton J. Sheen in March of 1931 in reaction to the United States Federal Council of [Protestant] Churches' endorsement of the use contraception by married couples.

In recent weeks our Holy Father stated:

Is it imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church's public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres. The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life.

The day following our Holy Father's address to US Catholic Bishops, the US Department of Health and Human Services issued their own statement:

In August 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued an interim final rule that will require most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible. The rule allows certain non-profit religious employers that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraceptive services. Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA-approved forms of contraception.

[...]

After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law.

The words of Fulton J. Sheen were prophetic. With many of the protestants drowning in their own inherited doctrines on marriage, Catholics are left to battle this alone. Some may stand up against this government action in the name of "religious liberty" but that defense is weak and lacking. True fortified defense is rooted in the Catholic teaching on marriage and its purpose.

I invite you all to listen to and share the latest Audio Sancto sermon: "The Sanctity of Marriage: We Are Left to Battle Paganism On Our Own"

"Who gets to be Caesar?" vs. "What things are Caesar's?"

This post on Curmudgeon's Cave is a must read for all Catholics who are engaged in or know someone who has engaged in the "Santorum or Paul?" debate. The late, great Frank Sheed, in his book Society and Sanity, regarding Christ's comment "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" asserts that the two main political questions of the day are "Who gets to be Caesar?" and "What things are Caesar's?"

The upshot? Only one of the candidates for President in this election cycle are more focused on the latter than the former.

Read Mr. Curmudgeon's post at: http://curmudgeonkc.blogspot.com/2012/01/i-and-dozens-of-other-folks-received.html

Mindless Perpetuation...

"Wait for complete life stability before you get married."

"Two children families are the perfect size, especially if you have one boy and one girl."

"The homosexual lifestyle is normal and should be accepted or even celebrated in our culture."

"Women must work to fulfill what it means to be a true woman in our culture."

"Freedom comes from management and control of fertility."

"Sterilization is encouraged for those who have already had children."

"Contraception should be free and available to all."

"Abortion is a woman's right."

Readers of this blog should be disgusted by those statements. Our current culture is being taught to accept this nonsense, and to provide sophistic argument to support it. Men and women both rattle off these slogans of population control without giving them a second thought. People cling to these concepts as if they were sacred religion, and those who rail against this insanity are treated as blasphemers of this new found fertility goddess. The birth of this "Venus" is the death of our civilization.

Today I came across an article by Abby Johnson about the Jaffe Memo. I believe that the memo is authentic and I have no reason to doubt it. Even if the memo was forged, the listed population control concepts are proposed in other eugenic based literature. The memo lists a number of the concepts covered in the above quotes.

When I worked at Planned Parenthood, there was something that we were not allowed to talk about. If we didn’t talk about it, then maybe no one else would either. It was called the Jaffe Memo. In 1969, Planned Parenthood was asked by the government to produce some ideas to help with overpopulation. They did just that. What is in the memo as a “solution” to overpopulation is astonishing. And, I’m sorry to say, it looks like the Jaffe Memo is starting to show its face in our culture.

I encourage you to read through the article, and look over the memo. Also note that RealCatholicTV.com has produced some documentaries on the subject of population control. To list a few: "CIA : Global Warming Unmasked, the Hidden Agenda", "CIA : The Rockefeller Foundation", and "CIA : The Contraception Deception".

A moral solution for Peoria?

"I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith."

It seems that the Diocese of Peoria has given up the fight and walked off course in regards to the State of Illinois adoption fiasco. It has been reported that the Diocese of Peoria has dropped the legal challenge to a state law requiring equal treatment for same-sex couples in adoption and foster-care services. The Diocese instead has come up with what they feel is a solution [emphasis mine]:

The Peoria office of Catholic Charities, which faced the loss of government contracts [so what?] because it would not comply with the new state law, has chosen to set up a new organization, without formal ties to the Catholic Church, to handle adoption and foster-care cases. The staff of Catholic Charities will join the new organization, which will abide by the new regulations.

This false solution was simply to remove "Catholic" from the name of the organization. The fact that the diocese is still responsible for setting up an organization that performs a function incompatible with the Catholic Faith is disappointing.

"I have a responsibility to assure that Catholic Charities operates consistently with the teachings and values of the Church," said Peoria’s Bishop Daniel Jenky in explaining the decision to drop the legal case. The newly established office will not follow the precepts of the Church, but it will not operate under the "Catholic" label.

Bishop Jenky, thank you for continuing Catholic Charities in some capacity, and withholding the "Catholic label" from the organization that certainly is not Catholic. However, responsibility does not simply end at appearances. How is this non-catholic private adoption organization an example of fighting the fight? Where is the perseverance that some of the other Illinois Dioceses are showing?

Dr. Jeff Mirus writes:

The good news is that Peoria Bishop Daniel Jenky is aware of his responsibility “to assure that Catholic Charities operates consistently with the teachings and values of the Church.” Thus Catholic Charities will divest itself of its State adoption/foster care contracts. Indeed, the Chicago Tribune reports that Catholic Charities will gradually give up all State contracts, which now total some $23 million, and will soon rely exclusively on private funding. That is a highly moral stance, and it also takes at least one diocesan Catholic Charities system in a direction from which it should never have deviated in the first place.

But the bad news is truly troubling. While Bishop Jenky recognizes his responsibility for the moral character of Catholic Charities, nothing has been reported to indicate that he is equally aware of his responsibility for the moral conduct of the persons who make up the staff of Catholic Charities.

The Church is not required to vacate her adoption and foster care role in Peoria because she has some peculiar disciplinary requirement concerning her formal institutional role. Rather, she is required to vacate this role because it is immoral for any person to place adoptive and foster care children with gay couples. Not only does it place such children at increased risk, but it directly participates in the mythology of gay marriage, which is based on a deep denial of reality with serious and inescapable moral consequences.

[...]

Contrary to what is apparently a widespread belief, moral behavior is not required of us only when we happen to work for official Catholic agencies which are actively seeking (as is not always the case) to maintain a specifically Catholic reputation. Moral behavior is required of all of us all of the time.

Catacombs or Christendom?

Pertinacious Papist has re-posted an article by James Tillman titled "An Apology for the Confessional State" I post some of it here, but encourage you to read the entire article itself.

There are perhaps but two views of the state's purpose. In the traditional view, the state helps men to some definite idea of perfection by inculcating virtue in them through good laws; such an ideal has been advanced by Aristotle, Aquinas, and various Popes. In the classical liberal view, the state allows men to pursue whatever they want by protecting their freedom of action; such an idea has been advanced by Locke and various Protestants.

[...]

Rights are meant to delimit a sphere of action, within which each individual may do what he wants and the bordrs of which government is supposed to protect. Under such a system, government does not look to whether property is used for good or for ill; it simply protects one's right to have it and use it. Government does not look to whether free speech spreads lies or truth; it simply protects one's ability/right to speak. Deliberation regarding laws centers on how best to protect the various rights, not onl whether laws will help men be better men. Like that of the Wiccans, the classical liberal motto is "If it harm none, do what ye will."

In reality, however, such an idea of rights cannot ultimately be enforced without appealing to a specific standard of morality and thus without enforcing a specific standard of morality. To see why government cannot enforce rights without an appeal to morality, we must examine a few rights in the concrete.

When such rights are examined, we find quickly that they are not absolute. Freedom of speech infamously does not give one the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Neither does it give one the right to put a sign on one's lawn advocating the lynching of African-Americans. The right to freedom of speech is outweighed by the right to life. The majority of cases, however, are not so clear. Does freedom of speech permit me to sell books advocating a subversive and Communist political philosophy? Does it permit me to sell books on how to conduct a coup d'état? Does it permit one to put up billboards quoting the Levitical laws against sodomy? Such cases are not easy to decide and will require significant prudential deliberation regarding the goods to be gained and lost by each course of action. In each case the so-called "right" to freedom of speech is clearly not an absolute right; those who make decisions do not make them based upon clear and unambiguous laws, but upon prudential weighing of the various goods involved.

Similarly, the right to freedom of religion requires prudential decision-making. Some religions involve smoking marijuana; others involve polygamy; others involve the execution of those who decide to leave that religion and the establishment of a world-wide theocracy beneath religious law. Such religions may be offensive to Catholics, just as the Catholic religion is offensive to those who believe that it teaches people to hate homosexuals, that it represses man's natural instincts, that it advocates the subjugation of women, or that it leaves one ultimately loyal to a monarch in the Vatican rather than to the United States. When government decides what sort of religion to allow and to what extent to allow it, then it does not simply take into account the right to religious freedom; one also takes into account a host of other moral evaluations regarding the importance of various goods. Similar instances might be given as regards education, the right to private property, and so on and so forth.

[...] Inasmuch as the Republican -- or even the Democrat -- agenda agrees with the Catholic, to that extent they can be made temporary allies; but we must never mistake such an alliance for a friendship. There is no agenda for the Catholic but the Catholic agenda, which would require decades of unremitting effort for its realization and which would require men to transcend most of the issues currently dividing political parties. The Catholic agenda requires us to admit what the rest of society yet hypocritically denies -- that between rival moral theories there can be no peace.

Catacombs or Christendom? Society slides and wavers between the two; but there can be no third way.

Only 235 years...

On today's 235th Independence Day remember patriotism.

Prepare for Persecution to Avoid Apostasy

Would you offer a pinch of incense to an idol to save your life and the life of your family? Would you approach the altar of the false idol with fear and confusion as to what you might do? Would run to embrace the false altar ready to denounce your faith? What is the greater tragedy... the mass death of those martyrs who kept the faith, or the mass apostasy of the cowards who left it to save their materialistic lives?

Is your faith solid and built on rock, or is it simply a veneer? If your faith is simply an act for those around you, or a faith that changes with the winds of difficulty... you are at great risk to losing your soul when persecution is placed on your shoulders. Laxity will certainly lead you to a faith that is only skin deep. Standing up for the faith will certainly lead to persecution.

Please listen to the Audio Sancto sermon titled "Prepare for Persecution Lest You Become an Apostate"

Odd presidential news...

It seems that President Clinton has settled back into the White House. President Clinton joined President Obama to help endorse a new tax plan during a press conference.

Obama introduced Clinton lightly as "the other guy" and recalled how Clinton has overseen heady economic times. Obama warned that he wouldn't be staying long -- another White House Christmas party was waiting, as was his wife, Michelle.

After Obama left the conference, Clinton essentially slipped in and commanded the press conference as if he was president again.

Clinton was asked what advice he had for Obama, given the context of the times: the current president has to deal with a Republican Party that just won a convincing victory in the midterm election and will soon grab control of the House. Clinton faced the same halfway through his embattled first term in 1994, worked some major deals with the opposing party and rebounded to re-election.

"I have a general rule," Clinton said, "which is that whatever he asked me about my advice, and whatever I say should become public only if he decides to make it public." Obama didn't provide that permission, saying: "I've been keeping the First Lady waiting for about half an hour, so I'm going to take off."

Where is the leadership?

What may have been less foreseen by President Obama’s team, however, was the stark contrast in what the military calls command presence. Seeing President Clinton in front of the microphone, deftly parrying the tough questions of the White House Press Corps, I couldn’t help but wish that the former Arkansas governor was doing more than consulting in these harrowing economical times.

[EDIT:  This next part comes from an article that is satirical in nature.  This did not happen.]
All of this followed by the fact that President Clinton still has not left the White House.

But twenty-four hours after former President Bill Clinton appeared at the White House to endorse his tax plan, President Barack Obama is "still looking for the right way to ask him to leave," an aide confirmed today.

How about... "get the hell out... you had your turn!"?

Mr. Obama had assumed that once the former president wrapped things up with reporters yesterday, he would say his goodbyes and depart in a waiting car, "but that kind of didn't happen," the aide said.

"Clinton kind of went, 'Do you have a computer I can use? I just want to check my email,' and then kind of made himself at home in the Oval Office," he said. "The president was being polite and all, but you could tell he was kind of pissed."

?!?!

Links of interest:
Bill's Back: Clinton commands stage at White House
The Ghost of Presidents Past – Clinton’s Unexpected Sub for Obama is Telling
[Satire]Obama "Still Looking For Right Way" to Ask Clinton to Leave White House
Has Obama jumped the shark?

Ron Paul on Wiki Leaks

Recently a commenter posted a You Tube video in response to one of our entries related to WikiLeaks. The video (about 5 minutes long) is a speech given by Ron Paul on the US House floor. Ron Paul concludes his speech with a number of the following questions to consider (emphasis mine):

Number 1: Do the America People deserve to know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?

Number 3: Why is the hostility directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?

Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?

Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?

Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?

Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

I would like to encourage readers to provide commentary on how they view WikiLeaks.

Talking points for discussing the TSA full-body scanners

BACKGROUND

There is a plan afoot to market X-ray devices for use in all transportation checkpoints and eventually at football stadiums and schools until they become ubiquitous. This is being done to make money for some government insiders and must be resisted at all costs. It's dangerous and unnecessary. People are also being forced to step into these devices under threat of an onerous and invasive government frisking. The following are talking points to debate the use to abolish of these machines. And when you are at the airport, please opt-out, these machines are indeed dangerous.

POINTS TO ADDRESS WITH FAMILY, FRIENDS, AND NEIGHBORS

• Why did we go from spot checking to everyone getting X-rayed? What changed?
• It's all about the marketing. They want to sell more and more of them.
• Michael Chertoff is behind the machines. His consulting firm helped develop the marketing scheme. Do you think that's right?
• Next thing you know they will put them in schools. Do you want your child X-rayed daily?
• Most experts agree that X-rays at any dose are unhealthy and cause cancer.
• X-rays cause cancer. Minimum exposure levels are just suggestions.
• Physicists and medical experts at UCSF Medical Center say the government is wrong about the safety of these machines. Others agree.
• These machines have not been fully tested. Just the idea has been tested, the machine themselves have not.
• Radiologists do not run the machines. Why not?
• The TSA workers are not allowed to wear dosimeters to check for X-ray exposure... Why? What are they hiding?
• What happens if a machine malfunctions? What happens if you are in it?

ADDITIONAL POINTS REGARDING THE MORE RARE MILLIMETER WAVE MACHINES

• These machines are not proven safe.
• The effect of millimeter waves are still being investigated
• Current evidence shows that millimeter waves cause DNA damage.

Federal Wage Freeze

Federal employees will not receive any pay increases for two years, Obama administration officials announced on Monday. President Obama's proposed pay freeze for 2011 and 2012 will apply to all civilian workers, including Defense Department employees, but not military personnel.

Federal civilian employees... I welcome you to a taste of what the rest of the economy has been going through for a few years now. I am sorry that you have to join in all the fun, but it was bound to happen sometime. If you can ignore inflation for the moment... just be glad that you are not yet seeing pay cuts in addition to your wage freeze.

According to an administration statement, the two-year pay freeze will save $2 billion for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, $28 billion over the next five years, and more than $60 billion over the next decade.

The projected savings of $60 Billion over 10 years hardly seems like it will bring the government back into "fiscal responsibility." It is as if this drop in the bucket will magically remove the mortgage crisis, or the private bank bailouts, or the massive amounts of quantitative easing taking place.

From the White House Fact Sheet:

Because of the irresponsibility of the past decade, [Really only the last 10 years?!?] the President inherited a $1.3 trillion projected deficit upon taking office and an economic crisis that threatened to put the nation into a second Great Depression. He moved quickly to get the economy moving again. Now, the economy is growing,[How is that?] and we have gained private sector jobs for the past 10 months.[Again, How is that?] But families and businesses are still hurting, and our top priority is making sure that we are doing everything we can to help boost economic growth and spur job creation.[Oh I see... wait no I don't.]

Now, we need to turn our attention to addressing the massive deficits we inherited and the unsustainable fiscal course that we are on. Doing so will take some very tough choices. Just as families and businesses around the nation have tightened their belts so must their government.[By of course helping the families of federal workers to tighten their belts.] That must be done in a targeted way that focuses our investments in what works and in what will lay the foundation for job creation and economic growth for years to come while cutting back elsewhere in our budget.

Most people have a hard time seeing problems in the economy until they are directly effected by those problems. Maybe this will wake a large portion of our population up.

Saul Alinsky on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development

The Vortex today... Usually I can watch the video and provide some sort of commentary that gives a reason on why you want to watch it. I have watched it three times now... and I really don't know where to begin.

I suppose I can say that it is a lead in to the new CIA (Catholic Investigative Agency) production on Saul Alinsky and his relation to the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). If you don't know who Saul Alinsky is... you should. Among many things, Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals which stressed that activists must be "people committed to change" and goes on to discuss how to lull the middle class into calmly accepting changes. Here is another quote from the book:

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom.

The quote of course is a salute to Lucifer... I am not saying that one could make that assumption... I am saying that very specifically the book is opened with this dedication specifically to Lucifer.

Please watch today's Vortex (embedded below) and then make a decision to sit down and watch RCTV's documentary. (Follow up episodes can also be found at the website.)



Please see: Saul Alinksy on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development

Change is what they want...

I was thinking about the elections earlier this week. It seems that politicians have caught on to the new buzz word that equates with "electable."

Citizens recognize something is wrong with our country, and that something needs to be different. However, it seems that the majority of citizens are willing to accept anything that resembles a chance at something different. This is very dangerous, and has a great potential to lead our country to its ruin. Many (but not all) voters are being lead down a hidden path by the piper who can best play the tune of change.

Don't Steal: The Government Hates Competition...

When the government is guilty of so many crimes against morality and prudence, is it any wonder that the contractors they hire (at the lowest bid, no less) will resort to unethical practices as well? As it turns out, the contractor whom the CIA hired to work on the targeting system for the Predator drones used pirated software. Not surprisingly the company who makes the stolen software is suing; they also assert that the stolen software was incomplete when it was stolen, which could result in targeting errors on the part of the drones.

So in summary: a shadowy government agency hires software pirates to work on the targeting systems for drones which are then used to conduct "surgical strikes" in Pakistan... and the faulty targeting systems means the CIA will be hitting the wrong targets (read: people). I guess it's a less overt way of picking a fight with the Pakistanis than appointing a Koran burning pastor as U. S. ambassador to Pakistan.