Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Master Class
The people no longer have elected representatives. The enslavement of the American people has been orchestrated by a pernicious Master Class that has taken the United States by the throat. This Master Class is now choking the nation to death as it accelerates its master plan to plunder the people’s dwindling remaining assets. The Master Class comprises politicians, the Wall Street money elite, the Federal Reserve, high-end government officials, government lobbyists and their paymasters, military suppliers and media oligarchs. The interests and mindset of the Master Class are so totally divorced from those of the average American citizen that it is utterly tone deaf and blind to the justifiable rage sweeping the nation. Its guiding ethics of greed, plunder, power, control and violence are so alien to mainstream American culture and thought that the Master Class might as well be an enemy invader from Mars. But the Master Class here, it is real and it is laying waste to America. To the members of the Master Class, the people are not fellow-citizens; they are instruments of labor, servitude and profit. At first, the Master Class viewed the citizens as serfs; now that they have raped and destroyed the national economy, while in the process amassing unprecedented wealth and power for themselves, they see the people as nothing more than slaves. (http://logisticsmonster.com/2010/01/26/tea-party-patriots-vs-the-master-class/)
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Political Structure
Seminars and talks are essential in preparing yourself for knowing your role in privatizing political structure and controlling the nomination process.
To be totally clear on this, it is not about party lines. If you are a democrat or republican, it doesn’t matter. The only thing that people should identify with is how you view government and the role of government in our lives. Again, the party has nothing to do with it.
Some fun Facts:
The Greek origin of the work UTOPIA is “No Where” thus never will sustain never will succeed!!
6 out of 10 Americans believe Government is detrimental to our freedoms- CNN
Progressives- Utopian statest
Founders- Optimistic Realists
Places to visit or join:
American Majority
Smart Girl Politics
RedState
The John Hancock Committee
To be totally clear on this, it is not about party lines. If you are a democrat or republican, it doesn’t matter. The only thing that people should identify with is how you view government and the role of government in our lives. Again, the party has nothing to do with it.
Some fun Facts:
The Greek origin of the work UTOPIA is “No Where” thus never will sustain never will succeed!!
6 out of 10 Americans believe Government is detrimental to our freedoms- CNN
Progressives- Utopian statest
Founders- Optimistic Realists
Places to visit or join:
American Majority
Smart Girl Politics
RedState
The John Hancock Committee
Friday, February 5, 2010
Which one will you watch?!?!
“Capitalism: A love Story” by Michael Moore http://www.michaelmoore.com/
Vs.” Letters to God” by Possibly Pictures http://letterstogodthemovie.com/
Michael Moore’s new Documentary will be distributed worldwide spreading anti-American propaganda. Ronald Reagan, the Catholic Church, and even Jesus Christ are all under secular attack in this film which is full of lies to distort the image of America!
Please watch the trailer for both movies and decide which one you will promote and then decided to do everything you can so Americans will have access to watch decent films instead of Hollywood elitist/anti American films.
Michael Moore should burn his passport and move to Cuba!- Ann McElhinny-Ireland
Vs.” Letters to God” by Possibly Pictures http://letterstogodthemovie.com/
Michael Moore’s new Documentary will be distributed worldwide spreading anti-American propaganda. Ronald Reagan, the Catholic Church, and even Jesus Christ are all under secular attack in this film which is full of lies to distort the image of America!
Please watch the trailer for both movies and decide which one you will promote and then decided to do everything you can so Americans will have access to watch decent films instead of Hollywood elitist/anti American films.
Michael Moore should burn his passport and move to Cuba!- Ann McElhinny-Ireland
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Nuclear Politics- Israel
When a country decides to become a nuclear power, it is taking on an enormous responsibility; one that will be examined with very close scrutiny by the rest of the world. Their motives are questioned and they become victim to criticism and international sanctions. However, a slippery slope emerges when we attempt to keep countries from becoming nuclear powers. Many feel that it is unfair for countries who posses nuclear weapons to keep other countries from acquiring them as well. Who gets to say who can have what on an international scale? It should not be up to any one country to dictate to another, but in the case of nuclear warheads, it is a matter of possible planetary destruction and the same rules do not apply, especially when you consider that one of the countries who are attempting to gain this power. Iran, has been at odds with Israel, who for three decades has possessed nuclear capabilities themselves. This begs the question: are nuclear weapons Israel’s safeguard from foreign threat, or has it created a situation in the middle east that has pressured other countries into obtaining these weapons to keep themselves safe? We must realize however, that once one nuclear weapon is used, a level of devastation will ensue unequal to anything man has ever seen, and in order to keep this from happening, we must keep as many people from obtaining nuclear weapons as possible.
Israel was the first Middle Eastern country to possess nuclear weapons. Their nuclear programs began in 1948, when Israel was reestablished after WWII, and with the help of French and Jewish Scientists including Ernst David Bergmann, Israel created the “Atomic Energy Commission” which was responsible for the development of Israel’s nuclear technology programs. By 1967 Israel reportedly possessed around ten to fifteen nuclear bombs, officially joining the elite group of nuclear states throughout the world. This was an accepted turn of events, especially in Israel. People believed that being that a Nuclear power “could compensate for Israel's poor natural resources and small pool of military manpower.” There were several reasons that Israel did not delay in creating a nuclear weapons program. As a newly formed country, Israel needed a way to protect itself from foreign threats while it was establishing itself as a country. In addition, Israel was at this time full of survivors of Hitler’s holocaust and people still felt like targets. Nuclear weapons would assure Israel of a formidable deterrent for any attempt at attack or invasion.
Since the British establishment of Palestine, a split occurred within the territory. The Jewish population quickly established themselves as a nation state separate from that of the rest of the region. Considering a majority of that region is comprised of mostly Muslims, an enormous amount of religiously based tension was created which turned the area into a dangerous and unstable region. To aid themselves in their establishment, Israel made it known very early that they were not going to take lightly any threats from neighboring countries and decided that all were to be considered enemies to the state of Israel.
Middle Eastern politics have perplexed the West for decades. Since Israel established itself as a nuclear power, other Middle Eastern countries began working toward nuclear capability as well. Historically, no nuclear power has ever been overthrown by any other country and this, Israelis hope, would keep them safe from attack or invasion. However, this created a localized arms race and set off military build up throughout the Middle East, only adding to tensions between Israel and the rest of the Arab nations.
Knowing the reasoning behind the creation of Israel’s nuclear program then begs the question: has the possession of nuclear bombs worked as a deterrent in preventing wars between Israel and its neighbors? And will it keep holding a strong deterrence at the present and in the future?
Israel was the first Middle Eastern country to possess nuclear weapons. Their nuclear programs began in 1948, when Israel was reestablished after WWII, and with the help of French and Jewish Scientists including Ernst David Bergmann, Israel created the “Atomic Energy Commission” which was responsible for the development of Israel’s nuclear technology programs. By 1967 Israel reportedly possessed around ten to fifteen nuclear bombs, officially joining the elite group of nuclear states throughout the world. This was an accepted turn of events, especially in Israel. People believed that being that a Nuclear power “could compensate for Israel's poor natural resources and small pool of military manpower.” There were several reasons that Israel did not delay in creating a nuclear weapons program. As a newly formed country, Israel needed a way to protect itself from foreign threats while it was establishing itself as a country. In addition, Israel was at this time full of survivors of Hitler’s holocaust and people still felt like targets. Nuclear weapons would assure Israel of a formidable deterrent for any attempt at attack or invasion.
Since the British establishment of Palestine, a split occurred within the territory. The Jewish population quickly established themselves as a nation state separate from that of the rest of the region. Considering a majority of that region is comprised of mostly Muslims, an enormous amount of religiously based tension was created which turned the area into a dangerous and unstable region. To aid themselves in their establishment, Israel made it known very early that they were not going to take lightly any threats from neighboring countries and decided that all were to be considered enemies to the state of Israel.
Middle Eastern politics have perplexed the West for decades. Since Israel established itself as a nuclear power, other Middle Eastern countries began working toward nuclear capability as well. Historically, no nuclear power has ever been overthrown by any other country and this, Israelis hope, would keep them safe from attack or invasion. However, this created a localized arms race and set off military build up throughout the Middle East, only adding to tensions between Israel and the rest of the Arab nations.
Knowing the reasoning behind the creation of Israel’s nuclear program then begs the question: has the possession of nuclear bombs worked as a deterrent in preventing wars between Israel and its neighbors? And will it keep holding a strong deterrence at the present and in the future?
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
LT COL ALLEN WEST
LT COL ALLEN WEST, CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=VP2p91dvm6M
This video is a breath of fresh air. It seems like he truly loves America and gives great hope as a strategist and tactician. In God We Trust when times are near that try men's souls!
This video is a breath of fresh air. It seems like he truly loves America and gives great hope as a strategist and tactician. In God We Trust when times are near that try men's souls!
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Anti-Catholicism
October 29th, 2009
The following article was submitted in a slightly shorter form to the New York Times as an op-ed article. The Times declined to publish it. I thought you might be interested in reading it.
FOUL BALL!
By Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan
Archbishop of New York
October is the month we relish the highpoint of our national pastime, especially when one of our own New York teams is in the World Series!
Sadly, America has another national pastime, this one not pleasant at all: anti-catholicism.
It is not hyperbole to call prejudice against the Catholic Church a national pastime. Scholars such as Arthur Schlesinger Sr. referred to it as “the deepest bias in the history of the American people,” while John Higham described it as “the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history.” “The anti-semitism of the left,” is how Paul Viereck reads it, and Professor Philip Jenkins sub-titles his book on the topic “the last acceptable prejudice.”
If you want recent evidence of this unfairness against the Catholic Church, look no further than a few of these following examples of occurrences over the last couple weeks:
On October 14, in the pages of the New York Times, reporter Paul Vitello exposed the sad extent of child sexual abuse in Brooklyn’s Orthodox Jewish community. According to the article, there were forty cases of such abuse in this tiny community last year alone. Yet the Times did not demand what it has called for incessantly when addressing the same kind of abuse by a tiny minority of priests: release of names of abusers, rollback of statute of limitations, external investigations, release of all records, and total transparency. Instead, an attorney is quoted urging law enforcement officials to recognize “religious sensitivities,” and no criticism was offered of the DA’s office for allowing Orthodox rabbis to settle these cases “internally.” Given the Catholic Church’s own recent horrible experience, I am hardly in any position to criticize our Orthodox Jewish neighbors, and have no wish to do so . . . but I can criticize this kind of “selective outrage.”
Of course, this selective outrage probably should not surprise us at all, as we have seen many other examples of the phenomenon in recent years when it comes to the issue of sexual abuse. To cite but two: In 2004, Professor Carol Shakeshaft documented the wide-spread problem of sexual abuse of minors in our nation’s public schools (the study can be found here). In 2007, the Associated Press issued a series of investigative reports that also showed the numerous examples of sexual abuse by educators against public school students. Both the Shakeshaft study and the AP reports were essentially ignored, as papers such as the New York Times only seem to have priests in their crosshairs.
On October 16, Laurie Goodstein of the Times offered a front page, above-the-fold story on the sad episode of a Franciscan priest who had fathered a child. Even taking into account that the relationship with the mother was consensual and between two adults, and that the Franciscans have attempted to deal justly with the errant priest’s responsibilities to his son, this action is still sinful, scandalous, and indefensible. However, one still has to wonder why a quarter-century old story of a sin by a priest is now suddenly more pressing and newsworthy than the war in Afghanistan, health care, and starvation–genocide in Sudan. No other cleric from religions other than Catholic ever seems to merit such attention.
Five days later, October 21, the Times gave its major headline to the decision by the Vatican to welcome Anglicans who had requested union with Rome. Fair enough. Unfair, though, was the article’s observation that the Holy See lured and bid for the Anglicans. Of course, the reality is simply that for years thousands of Anglicans have been asking Rome to be accepted into the Catholic Church with a special sensitivity for their own tradition. As Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican’s chief ecumenist, observed, “We are not fishing in the Anglican pond.” Not enough for the Times; for them, this was another case of the conniving Vatican luring and bidding unsuspecting, good people, greedily capitalizing on the current internal tensions in Anglicanism.
Finally, the most combustible example of all came Sunday with an intemperate and scurrilous piece by Maureen Dowd on the opinion pages of the Times. In a diatribe that rightly never would have passed muster with the editors had it so criticized an Islamic, Jewish, or African-American religious issue, she digs deep into the nativist handbook to use every anti-Catholic caricature possible, from the Inquisition to the Holocaust, condoms, obsession with sex, pedophile priests, and oppression of women, all the while slashing Pope Benedict XVI for his shoes, his forced conscription — along with every other German teenage boy — into the German army, his outreach to former Catholics, and his recent welcome to Anglicans.
True enough, the matter that triggered her spasm — the current visitation of women religious by Vatican representatives — is well-worth discussing, and hardly exempt from legitimate questioning. But her prejudice, while maybe appropriate for the Know-Nothing newspaper of the 1850’s, the Menace, has no place in a major publication today.
I do not mean to suggest that anti-catholicism is confined to the pages New York Times. Unfortunately, abundant examples can be found in many different venues. I will not even begin to try and list the many cases of anti-catholicism in the so-called entertainment media, as they are so prevalent they sometimes seem almost routine and obligatory. Elsewhere, last week, Representative Patrick Kennedy made some incredibly inaccurate and uncalled-for remarks concerning the Catholic bishops, as mentioned in this blog on Monday. Also, the New York State Legislature has levied a special payroll tax to help the Metropolitan Transportation Authority fund its deficit. This legislation calls for the public schools to be reimbursed the cost of the tax; Catholic schools, and other private schools, will not receive the reimbursement, costing each of the schools thousands – in some cases tens of thousands – of dollars, money that the parents and schools can hardly afford. (Nor can the archdiocese, which already underwrites the schools by $30 million annually.) Is it not an issue of basic fairness for ALL school-children and their parents to be treated equally?
The Catholic Church is not above criticism. We Catholics do a fair amount of it ourselves. We welcome and expect it. All we ask is that such critique be fair, rational, and accurate, what we would expect for anybody. The suspicion and bias against the Church is a national pastime that should be “rained out” for good.
I guess my own background in American history should caution me not to hold my breath.
Then again, yesterday was the Feast of Saint Jude, the patron saint of impossible causes.
The following article was submitted in a slightly shorter form to the New York Times as an op-ed article. The Times declined to publish it. I thought you might be interested in reading it.
FOUL BALL!
By Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan
Archbishop of New York
October is the month we relish the highpoint of our national pastime, especially when one of our own New York teams is in the World Series!
Sadly, America has another national pastime, this one not pleasant at all: anti-catholicism.
It is not hyperbole to call prejudice against the Catholic Church a national pastime. Scholars such as Arthur Schlesinger Sr. referred to it as “the deepest bias in the history of the American people,” while John Higham described it as “the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history.” “The anti-semitism of the left,” is how Paul Viereck reads it, and Professor Philip Jenkins sub-titles his book on the topic “the last acceptable prejudice.”
If you want recent evidence of this unfairness against the Catholic Church, look no further than a few of these following examples of occurrences over the last couple weeks:
On October 14, in the pages of the New York Times, reporter Paul Vitello exposed the sad extent of child sexual abuse in Brooklyn’s Orthodox Jewish community. According to the article, there were forty cases of such abuse in this tiny community last year alone. Yet the Times did not demand what it has called for incessantly when addressing the same kind of abuse by a tiny minority of priests: release of names of abusers, rollback of statute of limitations, external investigations, release of all records, and total transparency. Instead, an attorney is quoted urging law enforcement officials to recognize “religious sensitivities,” and no criticism was offered of the DA’s office for allowing Orthodox rabbis to settle these cases “internally.” Given the Catholic Church’s own recent horrible experience, I am hardly in any position to criticize our Orthodox Jewish neighbors, and have no wish to do so . . . but I can criticize this kind of “selective outrage.”
Of course, this selective outrage probably should not surprise us at all, as we have seen many other examples of the phenomenon in recent years when it comes to the issue of sexual abuse. To cite but two: In 2004, Professor Carol Shakeshaft documented the wide-spread problem of sexual abuse of minors in our nation’s public schools (the study can be found here). In 2007, the Associated Press issued a series of investigative reports that also showed the numerous examples of sexual abuse by educators against public school students. Both the Shakeshaft study and the AP reports were essentially ignored, as papers such as the New York Times only seem to have priests in their crosshairs.
On October 16, Laurie Goodstein of the Times offered a front page, above-the-fold story on the sad episode of a Franciscan priest who had fathered a child. Even taking into account that the relationship with the mother was consensual and between two adults, and that the Franciscans have attempted to deal justly with the errant priest’s responsibilities to his son, this action is still sinful, scandalous, and indefensible. However, one still has to wonder why a quarter-century old story of a sin by a priest is now suddenly more pressing and newsworthy than the war in Afghanistan, health care, and starvation–genocide in Sudan. No other cleric from religions other than Catholic ever seems to merit such attention.
Five days later, October 21, the Times gave its major headline to the decision by the Vatican to welcome Anglicans who had requested union with Rome. Fair enough. Unfair, though, was the article’s observation that the Holy See lured and bid for the Anglicans. Of course, the reality is simply that for years thousands of Anglicans have been asking Rome to be accepted into the Catholic Church with a special sensitivity for their own tradition. As Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican’s chief ecumenist, observed, “We are not fishing in the Anglican pond.” Not enough for the Times; for them, this was another case of the conniving Vatican luring and bidding unsuspecting, good people, greedily capitalizing on the current internal tensions in Anglicanism.
Finally, the most combustible example of all came Sunday with an intemperate and scurrilous piece by Maureen Dowd on the opinion pages of the Times. In a diatribe that rightly never would have passed muster with the editors had it so criticized an Islamic, Jewish, or African-American religious issue, she digs deep into the nativist handbook to use every anti-Catholic caricature possible, from the Inquisition to the Holocaust, condoms, obsession with sex, pedophile priests, and oppression of women, all the while slashing Pope Benedict XVI for his shoes, his forced conscription — along with every other German teenage boy — into the German army, his outreach to former Catholics, and his recent welcome to Anglicans.
True enough, the matter that triggered her spasm — the current visitation of women religious by Vatican representatives — is well-worth discussing, and hardly exempt from legitimate questioning. But her prejudice, while maybe appropriate for the Know-Nothing newspaper of the 1850’s, the Menace, has no place in a major publication today.
I do not mean to suggest that anti-catholicism is confined to the pages New York Times. Unfortunately, abundant examples can be found in many different venues. I will not even begin to try and list the many cases of anti-catholicism in the so-called entertainment media, as they are so prevalent they sometimes seem almost routine and obligatory. Elsewhere, last week, Representative Patrick Kennedy made some incredibly inaccurate and uncalled-for remarks concerning the Catholic bishops, as mentioned in this blog on Monday. Also, the New York State Legislature has levied a special payroll tax to help the Metropolitan Transportation Authority fund its deficit. This legislation calls for the public schools to be reimbursed the cost of the tax; Catholic schools, and other private schools, will not receive the reimbursement, costing each of the schools thousands – in some cases tens of thousands – of dollars, money that the parents and schools can hardly afford. (Nor can the archdiocese, which already underwrites the schools by $30 million annually.) Is it not an issue of basic fairness for ALL school-children and their parents to be treated equally?
The Catholic Church is not above criticism. We Catholics do a fair amount of it ourselves. We welcome and expect it. All we ask is that such critique be fair, rational, and accurate, what we would expect for anybody. The suspicion and bias against the Church is a national pastime that should be “rained out” for good.
I guess my own background in American history should caution me not to hold my breath.
Then again, yesterday was the Feast of Saint Jude, the patron saint of impossible causes.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
What America needs for a successful Revolution.
If you compare the generations of our country’s past to the generation of today and those of the future, you start to long for a chance to go back in time. One longs to know how life was and how people acted. You could learn what it was that made them so successful at creating our new, free country that has since become the most powerful in the world. We look at those men and women responsible for what we have today, and the sacrifice and sense of duty those people possessed, and wonder what has happened to today’s generations. I wonder why people don’t act that way any more. What happened to Patriotism, Purity, and Loyalty? It all seems to have totally disappeared from minds of the American people. It gives a feeling of despair and leads to a more important issue: How do we defeat this glooming monster that is digesting the country we all cherish?
Chuck Norris came out with an article recently that is titled “The Secret Weapon in American’s Revolution.” This article gave me a bittersweet feeling of both hope and anxiety at the same time. His secret weapon is the youth of our country. My father always told me that it will be my generation that saves or destroys the United States of America. I was young and didn’t quite understand what he meant at the time, but now that I have grown older, I have begun to understand. It is the apathy of the previous generations that formed the ignorance of my generation. Going back to Chuck Norris’s article, he is exactly right. The youth in the United States are the ones who will undoubtedly bring America back her core values and beliefs that she was built on. But in order to instill those values in our children, we need their parents to start educating their children and beginning to diverge from the beliefs and thoughts of generations past. We need to stop worrying about what movie star slept with who, or what stupid new stunts the guys from Jackass are pulling. We need to start emphasizing to today’s children that God and country over self is not just a good way to live, it’s the only way to live. If we can do that, and divert ourselves off of our current course of a continuous digression of family, social and religious morals, we may just give tomorrow’s generations a chance to once again hold their heads high and be proud that they are citizens of a truly great, and truly free United States of America.
1 Timothy 4:12 (New International Version)
12Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity.
Chuck Norris came out with an article recently that is titled “The Secret Weapon in American’s Revolution.” This article gave me a bittersweet feeling of both hope and anxiety at the same time. His secret weapon is the youth of our country. My father always told me that it will be my generation that saves or destroys the United States of America. I was young and didn’t quite understand what he meant at the time, but now that I have grown older, I have begun to understand. It is the apathy of the previous generations that formed the ignorance of my generation. Going back to Chuck Norris’s article, he is exactly right. The youth in the United States are the ones who will undoubtedly bring America back her core values and beliefs that she was built on. But in order to instill those values in our children, we need their parents to start educating their children and beginning to diverge from the beliefs and thoughts of generations past. We need to stop worrying about what movie star slept with who, or what stupid new stunts the guys from Jackass are pulling. We need to start emphasizing to today’s children that God and country over self is not just a good way to live, it’s the only way to live. If we can do that, and divert ourselves off of our current course of a continuous digression of family, social and religious morals, we may just give tomorrow’s generations a chance to once again hold their heads high and be proud that they are citizens of a truly great, and truly free United States of America.
1 Timothy 4:12 (New International Version)
12Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)