Archive for March, 2007

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor accused Labour of “legislating for intolerance” in his most outspoken attack yet on the imposition of gay rights laws on church bodies.

The leader of England and Wales’s four million Roman Catholics also questioned “whether the threads holding together democracy have begun to unravel”.

The lecture delivered in Westminster made him the first Catholic leader in nearly 180 years to place a question mark over the allegiance of his church to the British state.

He has already threatened to close nine Catholic adoption agencies if they are forced by the Sexual Orientation Regulations to place children with homosexual couples.

He declared: “For my own part, I have no difficulty in being a proud British Catholic citizen.

“But now it seems to me we are being asked to accept a different version of our democracy, one in which diversity and equality are held to be at odds with religion.

“We Catholics – and here I am sure I speak too for other Christians and all people of faith – do not demand special privileges, but we do demand our rights.”

The Sexual Orientation Regulations come into force next month after minimal debate in the House of Commons.

They are aimed at stopping businesses discriminating against gays, but Christian leaders say they will force those of faith to act against their conscience.

The speech is likely to make uncomfortable reading for Tony Blair – he is expected to convert to Roman Catholicism after he leaves Downing Street later this year – and for Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly, a staunch Catholic responsible for pushing through the Sexual Orientation Regulations.



This must be some sad and pathetic joke. I am not sure what is more comic: the fact that Tony Blair sees no problem in giving the Catholic Church the boot in forcing the Church to accept homosexuality or not seeing a contradiction between what he has done as a politician and the Catholicism that he espouses or that the British Church will welcome him with open arms.

I think that we have lost our collective minds.

Comments No Comments »

On March 25, pro-lifers around the world celebrated the International Day for the Unborn Child. Like past legitimate civil rights struggles, this fight is about recognizing the dignity of the human person. In the case of 18th and 19th century slavery, for instance, it was about recognizing the basic humanity of people of different races. It took the great Statesman, William Wilberforce close to 50 years of his life in finally getting the British Empire to abolish slavery. And it would take a bloody and costly civil war before the U.S. would let it go.

The attacks on the dignity of the human person in our time are legion. From the homosexual propaganda which seeks to distort our natural sexuality to Nazi-like research on embryonic stem cells to the burgeoning sex-slave industry, it is amazing just how perverse our world has become. As the late Great John Paul II had reminded us, we have progressed in the technological fields at an amazing rate, but without a moral compass, we are heading towards a new kind of barbarism and totalitarianism.

The definitive human rights struggle of our time, however, is clearly abortion. Like the debate over slavery, one side frames the debate of unborn children as property rights; the other side appeals to human rights. In the case of slavery, slaves were not persons. They were property – just like unborn children are today. The pro-abortion side has been successful in dehumanizing the unborn child so that it becomes merely a matter of property. How many times, for instance, have we heard their shrill screams and ephitets: “My body, my choice”. “Fetus”. “Product of conception”. “Blob of tissue” – basically any kind of jingle to detract from the humanity of the baby. The more successful the pro-abort crowd is at commercializing humanity, the more successful they are in keeping abortion legal. Of course, they too couch their “struggle” in terms of “rights”. What movement doesn’t? But, like any thoughtful person who is confronted with the claims of so-called rights, one must ask: A right to what? In the case of abortion, it is plainly and simply the license to kill a baby so a lifestyle can be maintained. And that is no legitimate right at all.

The pro-slavery crowd did the same thing as well. In order to marshall public opinion to their side, they needed to dehumanize blacks, treating them like animals and talking about them as if they were far lower than whites. So when they traded for “negroes”, they would make them open their mouths to assess their quality (like one does when assessing the quality of a horse), or they would brand them for identification purposes, or they would separate entire families – wives from husbands and parents from children like you might do to animals.

In the infamous Dred Scott Case of 1857, U.S. Supreme Court ruled people of African descent could never be citizens of the U.S. According to the Court, the drafters of the Constitution had viewed all African-Americans as “beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” … The Court also presented a parade of horribles , describing the feared results of granting Mr. Scott’s petition: “It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” (Source)

This kind of language is very similar to the language utilized by Canadian courts in their refusal to grant human rights to human babies within the womb. In December 1985, for instance, when pro-life hero, Joseph Borowski, pressed his case on the humanity of the unborn child, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled that an unborn child was not a person under the Charter of Rights. Four years later in Quebec, in Tremblay v. Daigle [1989], the court also blew past the rights of the unborn by declaring that the “fetus was not a person under Quebec’s Civil Code”.

The Supreme Court of Canada, however, has never ruled on the humanity of the unborn directly. Instead, in the Morgentaller case of 1988, they restricted themselves to stating:

“The right to liberty… guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. … The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state.”(Morgentaler et. al. v. Her Majesty The Queen [1988] (1 S.C.R. 30) at 37)

Although the Supreme Court of Canada has never considered the question of the legal standing of the unborn child as a person, it is clear by their rulings that unborn children’s rights or values are subordinated to the lifestyle decision of their mothers, making them, for all intents and purposes, merely property of their biological mothers (and ultimately the State) to dispense with as they see fit. And usually the dispensing comes in the form of flesh and blood and excruciating pain to the unborn child.

In all of these decisions, it is clear that, like Slavery before it, the judicial high priests of the day have played a pivitol role in denying basic human rights, and that is why, uncoincidentally, their views are held in contempt by those who can see beyond the contemporary political correctness. Like slavery before it, the public acceptance of abortion will one day be exposed for the heinous crime it is, and future generations will look on the liberals of our day with amazement and contempt since they could not accept what their own ultrasound technology showed them.

Like the Dred Scott slavery cases before them, let us hasten the day when Roe v. Wade and Morgentaler et. al. v. Her Majesty The Queen are added to the overthrown pile of judicial excrement which has caused the human race so much shame and misery these past forty years.

And that day is coming, sooner than you think.

Comments 1 Comment »

BERLIN, Germany, March 20, 2007 ( – A leading German TV-moderator and anchorwoman of the country’s top newscast caused an uproar last year when she admitted to regretting her three divorces, and condemned abortion, Die-Tagespost reported. Eva Herman published her account of the fatal flaws in a career-oriented lifestyle in a bestselling book entitled “The Eva-Principle: Towards a New Femininity”, released last year. Now she’s published a second book, this one containing letters from women supporting her rejection of feminist self-fulfillment propaganda, reported The Spiegal news magazine. Her sequel, Dear Eva Herman, captures the responses of women who welcomed the admission that professional success had not compensated for the loss of genuine family life…. Source


Money, glamour, and power do not fulfill women’s needs. They never have and they never will. In fact, they don’t do it for men either, but men are usually too damn stupid to realize this.

I think we are starting to see the start of something of a cultural backlash among women who are beginning to see:

1) abortion as an exploitation of their feminity (which it is) as opposed to an emancipation of it;

2) careers not being able to replace the gaping whole in themselves and the children they never mothered;

3) the relationships with their husbands they never had because they never were able to provide the home environment a loving wife and mother could provide without the career baggage.

The thing that is going to change things around as it will for all of the social kaka we have had to endure these past 40 years are people who have “been there, done that”. In other words, it’s the people who have gone through the desert and have the credibility to speak on these issues honestly. They cannot be easily dismissed by the social leftoids who set the the experential rules for the past 40 years.

Eva. Keep talking.

Comments No Comments »

This article is one of the most insightful articles I have read on the fertility crisis in the West. It comes at it from another angle which is seldom talked about among the chattering classes, but whose impact, in my opinion, is going to fall like a tonne of bricks on Western economies in the coming 2 decades. Like everything these days, it’s all about money and sex and the abuse and manipulation of both.

I encourage everyone to read the entire article. It is excellent.

Just for the record, I am not against pensions per se, but I am against relying on the pension system when it is used to excuse the necessity of large families.

Here are some excerpts from the article with my comments interspersed.

As everyone knows, fertility rates have been declining rapidly since early in the 20th century. In many countries, total fertility rates are far below replacement rates. At current speed, the once-great nations of Germany and Italy will be reduced to half in just about 50 years.

Thank you for your contributions to Western civilization, Mr. Secularism and Mr. Condom.

There are various explanations of what is behind such a rapid change. According to recent research in economics, the most important reason is surprising yet mundane: fertility decline
is the result of misguided pension policies. Public pay-as-you-go pension systems have discouraged fertility by replacing the traditional family system and penalising those who raise
more children.

Great. So we sold out our posterity for the CPP. Boy, we sure made a good investment there, huh? Everyone knows that liberalism tries valiantly to make it very difficult for a MAN AND WOMAN (note the opposite nature of the sexes) to have children. It does this through big government and even a bigger tax system which is geared toward childless or near-childless couples. If you can’t afford to raise children, then you’ll have to put away some money for your retirement and the eventual “fade-to-black” because you’ll have no one to care for you in your old age. Some stranger at a nursing home will change your soiled diaper…and eventually pull the plug (whether you object or not) when you’re becoming just a little too inconvenient. As I have always said, the greatest epidemic of the early twenty-first century will be loneliness…and we have, as this article has plainly shown, bought into it hook, line, and sinker.

Pension systems come in various sizes and shapes, but the most common type of governmental system is the pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) arrangement. It means that current workers pay contributions from their salaries, and this money is distributed among current retirees. In other words, pensions are financed by way of intergenerational transfers. This system was invented in Bismarck’s Germany, from which it spread to various other countries in the first half of the 20th century.

Bad in theory and worse in practice once you don’t have the workforce. And you won’t have the workforce when you don’t have the children.

When there is no compulsory PAYGO pension system, people have children not just for the fun for it, but also because children provide security in old age. The old-age security motive for fertility was clear in the developed world before the 20th century, and it continues to be so in less developed countries (LDCs) today.

And that is why, as Jesus said, “The first will be last and the last will be first.”

The traditional family is actually a kind of private PAYGO scheme. Parents procreate, nurture and educate their children, and in return children look after their elderly parents once they can no longer provide for themselves. This is the common pattern across LDCs even in times of urbanisation and when children travel abroad to work or study.

This is the most logical, humane, dignified and natural way to run a society. Much better than having oodles of money (and likely not even that the way this society spends) and being very lonely as your time to check out approaches.

From the point of view of fertility, a compulsory pension scheme externalises the value of children (or, to be more precise, a portion of their productivity). Children can no longer support their parents in old age, because a chunk of their salary is forcefully taken away from them and distributed to the entire population of retirees. That chunk is growing systematically, because governmental pension schemes are heading towards insolvency due to, among other things, low fertility rates.

Kinda like a dog chasing its tail. When the taxes go through the roof because we have too many old people to support, guess what we’ll do to the old people? After all, if it’s a choice between paying 50% of your income to the government and encouraging “voluntary” termination, which do you think this wicked culture is going to choose? Probably the latter, but we’ll likely get both. Your taxes are going up in any case. Ask yourself if the up and coming generations of seniors are not going to demand “their fair share”. After all, they paid in so they want their dough. And since they will be well over 33% of the population, the political parties will listen.

Now, such socialised generosity sounds nice. Unfortunately, it wreaks havoc on social structures and private incentives. Individual parents no longer retain the economic benefit of having children, but they must still bear the bulk of the costs in terms of time and money spent. Everyone receives the same pension rights regardless of how many children they had, if any. Many are tempted to take a free-ride on the children of others.

“Many are tempted to take a free-ride on the children of others.” Best line of the article that sums up the whole situation, in my opinion.

In other words, the welfare state becomes a “forced family” that replaces the traditional family as a provider of social insurance. It is not only an alternative to the traditional family, but an option one is not allowed to refuse. Undoubtedly it provides some benefits, but it lacks the sense of common goals and reciprocity which is essential to real families. Because the participants in the welfare state system do not know each other and have no regular dealings with each other, there is a strong temptation to seek to maximise private benefits. Hence the free-riding problem.

Kinda like contraception: some benefits but it isn’t real sex. It’s a fraud. In the case of pension support, it acts like a surrogate family, but only comes in the form of money.

The role of families in providing old-age security was, as a matter of fact, commonplace in 19th century Europe. When Bismarck set up the first public pension scheme in the world, his aim was precisely to create a substitute for the family. Whatever his motives for such a move, he succeeded very well indeed. Before Bismarck, Germany had one of the highest fertility rates in all of Europe. Now, its total fertility rate is below 1.4.

Doesn’t that bit o’ information just say it all? It’s like the apple in the Garden of Eden, promising life, it only gives death.

Moreover, as things are going now, the once-great nations of Germany and Italy will be reduced
to a half in size in little more than 50 years. Their pension systems can perhaps be kept running by allowing mass immigration from Middle East and North Africa, but after that not much would be left of their cultures. Mass immigration is a poor solution to the pensions problem for other reasons too, because it tends to create issues even more difficult to resolve.
Oh yes, but that has been the staple tactic of liberal governments in the West for decades. Hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year to bandaid a decaying system. Well, the numbers are going to soon dry up and the culture left behind will be anything but “harmonious”. The jig is up soon, lads.An easier solution may be available. Pension rights could be linked to fertility choices in such a way that those who raise more children are compensated for it. Thus having children would be given its aspect of “investment” in old-age security. Those who have few or no children would have to save more privately. This would be fairer to all participants, and the system would be more sustainable in the longer term.

Precisely. A civilization needs children of its own heritage to build up prosperous and well-adjusted nations with its own culture and social beliefs kept in tact. One way to do this is to adjust the pension and the tax system to recognize the inestimatable value of large families to the nation for parents who choose to bear the sacrifice. If parents choose the hard road, the State has an obligation and indeed a critical vested interest – for not only for the benefit of its citizens but also for its long term survival – to ensure a fair and equitable economic climate for that family to live in. It is extremely short-sighted to believe that the State’s interest is somehow unrelated to the condition of the natural family. If the State does not recognize its duty to support the family, demographic and social upheaval and possible internal collapse are the sad inevitability.

Comments No Comments »

So I stopped into Starbucks with my wife a couple of months ago – perhaps the second time ever – to enjoy a cup of coffee. I like the coffee and the latte, but I don’t like what Starbucks represents, what I call the leftoid latte loser club for boomers. Nevertheless, we were having a nice enough time and then I happened to glance down and read the writing on the paper cup I was drinking from. This is what it said:

The Way I See It #179
The problem we face in public education is not “what” to teach our kids, bur rather “how”. How do we inspire to want to learn? That’s why afterschool programs are so important – they answer the “how”.

How profound, no? I actually saved the cup so I could blog about this piece of silly statist propaganda. Let’s peel this banana back and see what’s really inside.

The problem we face in public education is not “what” to teach our kids, bur rather “how”.

You mean teaching our kids about which flavoured condoms to try on? Sorry. Can’t agree with you on that one. The problem in public education is the rot in its foundation and that is more a question of “what” than “how”.

How do we inspire to want to learn?

Why don’t we start teaching them something which actually does inspire and stop pushing sexual propaganda? That’s an idea for you. Start teaching them that education is ultimately of value because it strives for the pursuit of truth and the fostering virtue. You have to admit that even kids get a little sick and tired of learning how to avoid STDs. There is, after all, only a finite number of ways you can put on a condom.

That’s why afterschool programs are so important – they answer the “how”.

Ah yes. The vaulted afterschool program. That’s it! More time away from parents and siblings. Yup. That’s exactly what this dysfunctional and disconnected culture needs more of: another
government program.

Comments No Comments »

Comments 2 Comments »

A couple of days ago, I happened to read this report from LifeSite News on Sean Hannity’s little meltdown when he was confronted with the truth that indeed he was being a hypocrite in claiming to be a Catholic while endorsing contraception.

I also happened to see the YouTube clip of the video before it was yanked because FOX News likely blew some legal hot air about owning the rights to the interview.

I was simply amazed at how quickly Sean Hannity began to employ the typical liberal tactics in diversion. Here is the text of my letter to both Sean Hannity and Fr. Tom Euteneuer, who, incidentally, I was corresponding with only a few days before the interview. HLI was good enough to allow me to use one of their 10 minute videos for my upcoming little venture, SoCon TV.


Dear Sean,

I am a big supporter of FOX News. I live in Canada so you can understand why FOX News and conservative commentators such as yourself are like manna from heaven to us Canucks who so desperately need another viewpoint. After all, there is only so much state-sponsored propaganda we can try to ignore.

A few days ago, I happened to come across this report from LifeSite News
which described your interview with Fr. Tom Euteneuer. I was also able to see the interview on YouTube before it was yanked.

Frankly, Sean, I was appalled. I was appalled at your blatant disregard for the perennial Catholic teaching on the transmission of human life, but I was even more appalled at your descent into liberal tactics in trying to defend your position.

Here are 8 observations for you to prayerfully consider:

1. Catechism of the Catholic Church - Just so that we are clear, Sean, and to clear up any misunderstanding that you may have. The official teaching of the Church is thus:

2370 … “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil…2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

Furthermore, Sean, this has been the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church since Our Lord walked this earth and indeed throughout all of Judeo-Christian history, right back to Onan and the book of Genesis. In fact, until 1930 all Christians – Catholic or not – had condemned contraception in the strongest language.

You cannot “opt out” of this teaching any more than you can “opt out” of a whole host of moral teachings that the Church witnesses to. These are not the Church’s rules and regulations but derive from both the natural and divine laws. You can no more opt out of this moral law than you could do so with abortion. The Church looks at both acts as heinous crimes against human life. Ergo, you cannot call yourself a Catholic and engage or promote contraception. Period.

2. Personal life - “Reverend. Let me, let me just say… You call me a hypocrite. You question the depth of my faith. Do you know anything about me and my religious beliefs? And my background religion? do you know anything about me?”

Who cares? Knowing the most intimate details of your background, however impressive, does not affect the morality of contraception one little holy jot, Sean. If you are Catholic, your situation is scandalous and you are causing public scandal. If you are not, then you are simply in error and ignorant of the truth about the morality surrounding the transmission of human life. Knowing an abortionist’s background or religious beliefs affects the morality of abortion exactly how, Sean? Likewise with you and contraception.

3. Sex Abuse - “Maybe you ought to spend a little more time that our Church covered up one of the worst sex scandals and I wasn’t involved in it. And the fact that public people after that are willing to still be Catholic is something you should be applauding. Considering the levels of corruption at the highest levels of the Church was frankly embarrassing to every person.”

Oh Please. This rebuttal is below contempt.

First of all, we are not arguing about the sex scandals in the Church, Sean. We are talking about contraception and your incompatible view of it with Catholic teaching which you are supposed to submit to. Stick to the issue and stop trying to worm out of it. You’re supposed to be a conservative who takes his hits like a man, not a liberal snake, trying to wiggle himself out of the issue at hand.

Secondly, the Church does not condone sex abuse or the bad management by negligent bishops, Sean. The Church does not teach that this was a good thing, does it? Of course not. And that is what we are really talking about here, Sean: THE TEACHING. Weak men and women come and go. We do not judge a Church by its fallen members but by the veracity and purity of its teaching. That’s the bottom line.

By diverting the issue and concentrating on the conduct of sinful members instead of the substance of the teaching is something you would hear from a silly liberal who is pandering to the popular dementia of his audience. I would not expect to see this spectacle from a respectable conservative commentator like you. Very disappointing and beneath your talent and integrity, Sean.

3. Latin / Seminary Days - “Do you know that I went to a seminary? Do you know that I studied Latin? Do you know that I studied theology?

That’s great, Sean. Is the Catholic Church to reverse its position on contraception because you know some Latin or spent some time in the seminary? I know some Popes who spent some time in the Seminary too. And their Latin is somewhat good as well. Pope Benedict is said to be an above average theologian. But, of course, I doubt even he knew that you studied theology.

4. “Contraception leads to less abortion” - Sean, you need to do some research on this score. Contraception does not decrease abortion but increases it. The stats bear this out amply.

“No to life” within the sexual act does not miraculously become “yes to life” when a woman conceives a child. The “No” within the sexual act simply continues to its logical conclusion in many cases which is, of course, abortion. Without contraception, there is less illicit sex. With less illicit sex, there is less abortion. Common sense, Sean.

7. Denying Communion - “Wait, would you deny me communion?” Fr. Euteneuer replied, “I would.” Hannity, visibly moved, replied, “Wow, wow.”

Why are you surprised here? This is what is supposed to happen, Sean. You are not in Communion with the Church. Ergo, you should not be participating in a public and liturgical act which says that you are. That’s what we call “hypocrisy”.

8. Repent it’s Lent.

I hope you come to your senses, Sean, and stop this “pick and choose” style religion that you practice. Fr. Tom did you a big favour in pointing out your scandal. For the good of your own immortal soul, take his advice and dump the rubbers.

Yours truly,
John Pacheco

Social Conservatives United

Comments 2 Comments »

This Lent has been very productive for me so far – more so than in years past. Been able to focus on the spiritual aspect of my life which has been too long neglected. Time with God just didn’t fit in as prominently as I would have liked in the past. I’m sure He would understand – you know, with me trying to save the world and all that. :)

It’s much better when you have a balanced prayer-family-work-rest-activism life and in that order!

That being said, I will start to post a couple of times a week until Easter and then start to blog regularly again. I have a hum-dinger of a video to show all of you after Easter with the launch of SoCon TV. Stay Tuned.

Comments No Comments »

Hey, that’s me in that picture with Father Van Hee!

Check out the video referred in the article!

Fr. Van Hee is awesome.

Comments No Comments »

UK: Religious Schools May Not Teach Christian Sexual Morals “As if They Were Objectively True”By Hilary White

LONDON, March 5, 2007 ( – After this April’s implementation of the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SOR’s), British religious schools may no longer be allowed to teach school children that the Christian viewpoint on sexual morality is “objectively true,” a government report says.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, made up of members from Parliament and the House of Lords, has issued a report on the implementation of the Regulations recommending that religious schools be required to modify their religious instruction to comply with the government-approved doctrine of “non-discrimination”.

Although religious schools will be allowed to remain open and may continue to give instruction in various religious beliefs, instruction must be modified “so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of the religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong.”

The report says the Regulations will not “prevent pupils from being taught as part of their religious education the fact that certain religions view homosexuality as sinful,” but they may not teach “a particular religion’s doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true”.

Published February 26, the report says, “We do not consider that the right to freedom of conscience and religion requires the school curriculum to be exempted from the scope of the sexual orientation regulations.”

With the Equality Act 2006, the government empowered itself to create regulations making it illegal for anyone providing goods, services, facilities, premises, education or public functions, to discriminate against that person on the grounds of “sexual orientation”. The SOR’s are scheduled to come into effect in England and Wales and Scotland in April this year after a ratifying vote in Parliament. They came into effect in Northern Ireland January 1.

Fr. Tim Finigan, founder of the Association of Priests for the Gospel of Life and pastor of Our Lady of the Rosary Catholic parish in Blackfen, wrote an ominous warning on his weblog that the government’s interpretation of the SOR’s may represent the end of freedom of religious expression in Britain’s schools.

“Make no mistake – this proposal will make it illegal for Catholic schools to teach that the Catholic faith is true,” Fr. Finigan wrote Friday. “If the recommendations of the Committee are accepted, it is difficult to see how Catholic schools could continue in Britain.”

Fr. Finigan, who teaches sacramental theology at St John’s Seminary, Wonersh and is a trustee of Britain’s Faith Movement, said the wording of the report was “deliberately muddied”. “Our faith does not teach that ‘homosexuality’ itself is necessarily sinful, it teaches that it is disordered. It is homosexual acts that are sinful.”

He points out, however, that the distinction is moot in government circles. “The people who framed this guidance will not accept our teaching that homosexuality is a disorder nor that homosexual acts are sinful.”

The homosexual political doctrine, accepted by the British as well as other governments, requires that no distinction be made between the person, the act and the condition or “orientation”, making any criticism of the movement’s political goals an offence against persons.

British legislators have fully incorporated this doctrine in the law. “They have the bit between their teeth,” Fr. Finigan writes. “Although the direction in which public policy has been moving is obvious enough, I am a little surprised at the pace it has now picked up.”

The bishop of the Scottish Catholic diocese of Paisley warned his flock last month in blunt terms to become spiritually prepared for open persecution with the implementation of the SOR’s. Speaking on the problem of Catholic adoption agencies, Bishop Philip Tartaglia wrote, “This unfortunate episode may well herald the beginning of a new and uncertain time for the Catholic Church in the United Kingdom.”


I sometimes wonder just how bad things have to get for Catholics and other Christians to fight for their right for freedom. I look around me today and all I see is an empty shell of a church.
Lukewarm losers who care nothing for the gospel and even less for the persecution of future Christians. Beer, popcorn, TV and my vacations. That’s it.

Our ancestors faught and DIED for something they believed in. Can anyone seriously suggest that we have the guts to stand up and sacrifice our lives for the Gospel? My goodness, we have a hard enough time missing “Canadian Idol” on Prime Time.

The sacrifice needed to restore our freedoms will come in blood, folks, because this perverse and wicked generation will not lift a finger to uphold the truth of God’s righteousness.

“Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” (Matthew 15:7-9)

Comments No Comments »

Back in the Summer last year, I commented to a few friends that this whole global warming crap was a way to make some liberal socialites very rich, very quick. I told them that this was simply another Iraqi “oil for food program”. The story below seems to confirm what I long suspected.

You see, folks, the leftists are always into saving the planet and being good “citizens of the world” all the while padding their big fat wallets.

Here’s some free advice for all of the naive and gullible out there: next time you hear of the next “crisis” the world is undergoing, just follow the greenback. That will show you where their true motives lie.

Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a “carbon neutral” lifestyle by buying “carbon offsets,” but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself.Gore has built a “green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can’t afford to play on Gore’s terms,” writes blogger Dan Riehl.

Gore has described the lifestyle he and his wife Tipper live as “carbon neutral,” meaning he tries to offset any energy usage, including plane flights and car trips, by “purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere.”

But it turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. The company was established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating “global warming,” reports blogger Bill Hobbs.


Comments No Comments »

I know, I know. It’s Lent and I said I would be laying off the blogging. But I just couldn’t resist this one:

Although this is hosted by that odious and wicked organization, the American Civil Liberties Union, it captures perfectly the socialist clamour for power and control.

Comments No Comments »