Things could be worse. We could live in England.
Although our nation’s zeitgeist is growing more anti-Christian, we have yet to embrace the apostasy of our British brethren. So blasphemous are recent trends in England that Britons better pray that God saves more than just the Queen.
Not long ago posters appeared on London buses claiming, “There’s probably no God. So stop worrying and enjoy your life”. Now the National Secular Society (NSS) is issuing online certificates for Christians who want to de-baptize themselves.
(http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ae71a038e9b3b47af4f0e9eac9598fd8.2b1&show_article=1) More than 100,000 people have reportedly downloaded the certificate, and according to NSS President Terry Sanderson the organization has already sold 1,500 of the documents at $4.35 apiece.
Some disavow their Christian baptism to protest a perceived increase in Roman Catholic political activism. Others argue that baptism was forced on them as young children and, thus, was not of their own choice. One individual even went so far as to label baptism a form of child abuse. NSS President Sanderson believes this push to de-baptize is a reaction to the “hostility” emanating from the 72% of Brits who define themselves as Christians–an odd accusation considering the rabid political correctness dominating British culture.
Similar de-baptizing efforts have emerged in Spain and Italy. According to a report in the International Herald Tribune, the Spanish high court ruled “in favor of a man from Valencia, Manuel Blat, saying that under data protection laws he could have the record of his baptism erased.” In Italy, “the Italian Union of Rationalists and Agnostics (UAAR) won a legal battle over the right to file for de-baptism in 2002". UAAR secretary Raffaele Carcano asserts that “more than 60,000 of these forms have been downloaded in the past four years and continue to be downloaded at a rate of about 2,000 per month.”
There is little doubt this de-baptizing crusade will find its way to our shores. Let’s just hope that when it arrives Americans remember Christ’s warning:
“But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 10:33)
Donald Tremblay
Catholic Agenda
Catholic Agenda
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Obama Deception (Updated)
This video will expose who Barack Obama really is and who he is really working for!
Please send this video to all the Catholic brothers and sisters you know!
Please send this video to all the Catholic brothers and sisters you know!
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Right under our nose!!!
If you need more information about this New World Order and One World Currency...Watch these videos!
Here are the links if videos do not play
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH9VwxIPD6k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98
Here are the links if videos do not play
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH9VwxIPD6k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98
Marionettes?
I am not a conspiracy theorist.
I believe two commercial airliners, and not detonated explosives, destroyed the World Trade Center. UFOs, in my view, are not alien ships. Most are military aircraft; others are natural phenomena, such as solar light reflecting off the ice crystals in the earth’s upper atmosphere. I can accept that Oswald was the lone gunman just as easily as I can accept that there were others behind JFK’s assassination. Yet, despite my distrust of conspiracy theories, I confess that there are aspects of our current economic mess that leave me wondering whether we are marionettes at the mercy of global puppeteers.
$ On Thursday, March 5 Citigroup’s stock value dropped below the cost of a Lotto ticket. Just eight days later on Friday, March 13, Citigroup Chairman Richard Parsons announced that “the bank does not need any more capital injections from the government” because “it was profitable in the first two months of 2009.” (http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-finance/20090121/BUSINESS-US-CITIGROUP-PARSONS/) How exactly does a corporation earn profits while simultaneously watching its stock value drop below a dollar? How does a company go from owning a virtually worthless stock to no longer needing federal financial support in just eight days?
$ General Motors made a similar miraculous about-face in the span of a week. On March 6 GM’s auditor, Deloitte and Touche, announced that the car maker might not survive as a going concern because of “recurring losses from operations, stockholders' deficit and inability to generate sufficient cash flow to meet its obligations and sustain its operations." (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25146445-5017997,00.html) Yet, only six days later GM announced “that it will not need $2 billion in government funding that it previously requested for March.” (http://wot.motortrend.com/6484623/industry-news/gm-tells-presidential-task-force-to-keep-its-2-billion-cost-cutting-working/index.html) Imagine that. Going from near bankruptcy to no longer needing two billion dollars in less than a week. Remarkable.
Similar unusual recoveries have been reported for the retail sales and new home sales industries, recoveries that are so neat and convenient that they almost appear planned . . . And there are those who believe that they were.
The term New World Order (NWO) has surfaced often during the past few weeks, even among politicians. Conspiracy theorists assert that the New World Order is merely a euphemism for One World Government–a political system in which Americans would relinquish self-government, and many civil rights and liberties, to merge with the world community. One World Government opponents believe the U.S. government creates disasters and stokes public fears as a way to dupe Americans into voluntarily relinquishing their liberties. The Patriot Act is cited as an example. Fears of another 9-11 manipulated Americans into surrendering privacy rights. In other words freedoms are sacrificed for security. These same conspiracy theorists believe that this current global economic collapse is just the latest government orchestrated scheme to bring America closer to that One World Government.
Are these doomsayers crackpots? Do they have overactive imaginations?
Before you answer remember that just two days ago The Moscow Times announced the Kremlin’s plan to pitch world leaders on the creation of a global currency. Could a unified currency be the next stage in the formation of that One World Government?
For now I am willing to accept that this global collapse is solely the result of greed run amok; yet I cannot help but feel that there is a string tugging at my back.
Donald Tremblay
I believe two commercial airliners, and not detonated explosives, destroyed the World Trade Center. UFOs, in my view, are not alien ships. Most are military aircraft; others are natural phenomena, such as solar light reflecting off the ice crystals in the earth’s upper atmosphere. I can accept that Oswald was the lone gunman just as easily as I can accept that there were others behind JFK’s assassination. Yet, despite my distrust of conspiracy theories, I confess that there are aspects of our current economic mess that leave me wondering whether we are marionettes at the mercy of global puppeteers.
$ On Thursday, March 5 Citigroup’s stock value dropped below the cost of a Lotto ticket. Just eight days later on Friday, March 13, Citigroup Chairman Richard Parsons announced that “the bank does not need any more capital injections from the government” because “it was profitable in the first two months of 2009.” (http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-finance/20090121/BUSINESS-US-CITIGROUP-PARSONS/) How exactly does a corporation earn profits while simultaneously watching its stock value drop below a dollar? How does a company go from owning a virtually worthless stock to no longer needing federal financial support in just eight days?
$ General Motors made a similar miraculous about-face in the span of a week. On March 6 GM’s auditor, Deloitte and Touche, announced that the car maker might not survive as a going concern because of “recurring losses from operations, stockholders' deficit and inability to generate sufficient cash flow to meet its obligations and sustain its operations." (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25146445-5017997,00.html) Yet, only six days later GM announced “that it will not need $2 billion in government funding that it previously requested for March.” (http://wot.motortrend.com/6484623/industry-news/gm-tells-presidential-task-force-to-keep-its-2-billion-cost-cutting-working/index.html) Imagine that. Going from near bankruptcy to no longer needing two billion dollars in less than a week. Remarkable.
Similar unusual recoveries have been reported for the retail sales and new home sales industries, recoveries that are so neat and convenient that they almost appear planned . . . And there are those who believe that they were.
The term New World Order (NWO) has surfaced often during the past few weeks, even among politicians. Conspiracy theorists assert that the New World Order is merely a euphemism for One World Government–a political system in which Americans would relinquish self-government, and many civil rights and liberties, to merge with the world community. One World Government opponents believe the U.S. government creates disasters and stokes public fears as a way to dupe Americans into voluntarily relinquishing their liberties. The Patriot Act is cited as an example. Fears of another 9-11 manipulated Americans into surrendering privacy rights. In other words freedoms are sacrificed for security. These same conspiracy theorists believe that this current global economic collapse is just the latest government orchestrated scheme to bring America closer to that One World Government.
Are these doomsayers crackpots? Do they have overactive imaginations?
Before you answer remember that just two days ago The Moscow Times announced the Kremlin’s plan to pitch world leaders on the creation of a global currency. Could a unified currency be the next stage in the formation of that One World Government?
For now I am willing to accept that this global collapse is solely the result of greed run amok; yet I cannot help but feel that there is a string tugging at my back.
Donald Tremblay
Friday, March 13, 2009
Stem Cell Scam
Pro-life supporters know Pres Obama is no friend of the unborn. Whether it is his support for a Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) or his rejection of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) while Illinois senator, our president’s lack of concern for those still in the womb is clear. So it was no surprise when on Monday, March 9, 2009, he signed an executive order lifting the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Yet, as upsetting as the lifting of the ban was, the president’s disingenuous claim that he wanted to separate science and politics was just as frustrating.
Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars already spent on embryonic stem cell research, it has proven to be a dead end. In fact, according to the Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, “Up to now, no human being has ever been cured of a disease using embryonic stem cells.” http://www.ncbcenter.org/10Myths.pdf (Pacholczyk holds a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from Yale University and he did post-doctoral research at Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School. He is now the Director of Education for the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia). In comparison, adult stem cell research has proven very successful, so much so that Pacholczyk asserts that it “ha[s] already cured thousands.” Instead of wasting money financing a branch of medicine that may NEVER produce a single cure, why not spend more money funding the research that has a proven track record of success?
Robert George (professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton) and Eric Cohen (editor-at-large, The New Atlantis) raise an interesting point in their March 9 Wall Street Journal Op-Ed: “The President Politicizes Stem Cell Research”. The two assert that Obama’s executive order “pays no more than lip service to recent scientific breakthroughs that make possible the production of cells that are biologically equivalent to embryonic stem cells without the need to create or kill human embryos.” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123664280083277765.html) Good point. If our president truly wants to de-politicize science, would he not instead be pushing for further research of those cells that are “biologically equivalent to embryonic stem cells”?
Finally, despite the many arguments for and against embryonic stem cell research, I have yet to hear more than a few people question why researchers are in such desperate need of federal financing. After all, if this research holds the boundless potential that its supporters claim, why haven’t private investors jumped at the opportunity to get in on the ground floor? Cures for diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and diabetes would provide revenue bonanzas for investors. Yet, just a few years ago when venture capital was virtually limitless, financiers by-and-large shied away from embryonic stem cell investment opportunities. Why? Because they knew it would be like dumping their money into an abyss. “Potential” means little when the money is coming out of your own pocket.
It is bad enough that we are desecrating human life and offending God by allowing the destruction of embryos. Now we are compounding our sin by giving the sick false hope that a cure may be imminent now that the federal government is funding a branch of research that has accomplished little to date.
Donald Tremblay
Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars already spent on embryonic stem cell research, it has proven to be a dead end. In fact, according to the Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, “Up to now, no human being has ever been cured of a disease using embryonic stem cells.” http://www.ncbcenter.org/10Myths.pdf (Pacholczyk holds a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from Yale University and he did post-doctoral research at Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School. He is now the Director of Education for the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia). In comparison, adult stem cell research has proven very successful, so much so that Pacholczyk asserts that it “ha[s] already cured thousands.” Instead of wasting money financing a branch of medicine that may NEVER produce a single cure, why not spend more money funding the research that has a proven track record of success?
Robert George (professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton) and Eric Cohen (editor-at-large, The New Atlantis) raise an interesting point in their March 9 Wall Street Journal Op-Ed: “The President Politicizes Stem Cell Research”. The two assert that Obama’s executive order “pays no more than lip service to recent scientific breakthroughs that make possible the production of cells that are biologically equivalent to embryonic stem cells without the need to create or kill human embryos.” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123664280083277765.html) Good point. If our president truly wants to de-politicize science, would he not instead be pushing for further research of those cells that are “biologically equivalent to embryonic stem cells”?
Finally, despite the many arguments for and against embryonic stem cell research, I have yet to hear more than a few people question why researchers are in such desperate need of federal financing. After all, if this research holds the boundless potential that its supporters claim, why haven’t private investors jumped at the opportunity to get in on the ground floor? Cures for diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and diabetes would provide revenue bonanzas for investors. Yet, just a few years ago when venture capital was virtually limitless, financiers by-and-large shied away from embryonic stem cell investment opportunities. Why? Because they knew it would be like dumping their money into an abyss. “Potential” means little when the money is coming out of your own pocket.
It is bad enough that we are desecrating human life and offending God by allowing the destruction of embryos. Now we are compounding our sin by giving the sick false hope that a cure may be imminent now that the federal government is funding a branch of research that has accomplished little to date.
Donald Tremblay
Monday, March 2, 2009
Somewhere, Hitler is Smiling
Life is treated like a commodity in western society. Thanks to the legalization of abortion, human life at conception is minimized with euphemisms like blastocyte, zygote, and embryo. Pro-abortion supporters learned years ago that dehumanizing an unborn baby in the eyes of the public is easier if you can label the child in neutral medical terms. Well, after 30 years of being tenderized by the relentless government and media supported pro-abortion agenda, Americans are ready to proceed to the next logical step in the desecration of Life: designer children.
According to the BBC, Dr. Jeff Steinberg of the LA Fertility Institutes is offering “would-be parents the chance to select traits like the eye and hair color of their offspring.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7918296.stm) Gender selection is also an option. Surprised? Why? If you can choose whether or not a child should live, why should you not also be able to choose what characteristics he/she should possess?
And you thought eugenics ended with Joseph Mengele and Nazi Germany.
Dr. Steinberg, described by the BBC as a pioneer of In Vitro Fertilization, defends the ethics of his procedures by declaring that it can be used for medical reasons as well as cosmetic: “For example, a couple might want to have a baby with a darker complexion to help guard against a skin cancer if they already had a child who had developed a melanoma.” How altruistic of the good doctor!
But despite his philanthropic claims to the contrary, Steinberg reveals his true motives when he argues that medicine has been able to offer these services for years and that “it’s time for everyone to pull their heads out of the sand.” In other words, What can be done, Should be done. Anything short of this is handcuffing science, preventing the evolutionary progress of man toward perfection, toward godhood.
It is this desire for perfection that motivates parents to design their children. Implicit in their motives is the belief that some children are worth more than others. Ultimately, if all children were equally precious it would not matter the sex or hair color of a baby–nor would it matter whether he/she is in perfect health. Sure some parents will argue that out of love they want to protect their child from suffering through life with handicaps, but in reality any parent who would go to the lengths of designing their child is clearly incapable of accepting an imperfect son or daughter.
It will be interesting to see how the liberal feminist community responds to Dr. Steinberg and to designer children in general. Their pro-abortion agenda has boxed them into a corner without a rational means of escape. Since the 1970s feminists have demanded unrestricted access to abortion and have defended a woman’s right to choose as inviolable. “Nobody has the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body” is the rallying cry of the movement. Well, what happens when this designer option is offered to those in nations like China and India where sons are prized over daughters because of the need for manual labor in the countryside? The very same “Freedom of Choice” argument used by feminists to defend abortion will be used to eliminate the birthing of girls around the world. Disgustingly ironic, isn’t it?
Also, supporters of designer children fail to realize, or fail to care, that should developing nations use this option to select sons, the entire gender balance of the human community will be upset. Within a century or two men will outnumber women by millions, drastically reducing the number of child-bearing women on the planet. There is no shortage of sci-fi, horror-film scenarios that could result from this, such as the following:
! Perhaps the gender disparity will reach a critical mass where the authorities will be forced to create life in test tubes in order to compensate for the lack of women. Imagine the number of embryos discarded in the process. Visualize the millions of unparented children being reared by the state.
! Or perhaps the government will respond to the gender disparity by forcing parents to reproduce under harsh restrictions. Couples will be told the number of children they must give birth to and the genders of those children. (China already has a one-child policy, so reproductive restrictions are more than fantasy)
! Perhaps forced reproduction will extend beyond married couples to single men and women as well. Humans will be treated like cattle, with the producing of life given no greater sanctity than pedestrian medical activities like removing tonsils or donating blood.
Think it is unrealistic? Just a century ago the idea of designer children would have sounded ridiculous also.
Paging Dr. Mengele.
Donald Tremblay
According to the BBC, Dr. Jeff Steinberg of the LA Fertility Institutes is offering “would-be parents the chance to select traits like the eye and hair color of their offspring.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7918296.stm) Gender selection is also an option. Surprised? Why? If you can choose whether or not a child should live, why should you not also be able to choose what characteristics he/she should possess?
And you thought eugenics ended with Joseph Mengele and Nazi Germany.
Dr. Steinberg, described by the BBC as a pioneer of In Vitro Fertilization, defends the ethics of his procedures by declaring that it can be used for medical reasons as well as cosmetic: “For example, a couple might want to have a baby with a darker complexion to help guard against a skin cancer if they already had a child who had developed a melanoma.” How altruistic of the good doctor!
But despite his philanthropic claims to the contrary, Steinberg reveals his true motives when he argues that medicine has been able to offer these services for years and that “it’s time for everyone to pull their heads out of the sand.” In other words, What can be done, Should be done. Anything short of this is handcuffing science, preventing the evolutionary progress of man toward perfection, toward godhood.
It is this desire for perfection that motivates parents to design their children. Implicit in their motives is the belief that some children are worth more than others. Ultimately, if all children were equally precious it would not matter the sex or hair color of a baby–nor would it matter whether he/she is in perfect health. Sure some parents will argue that out of love they want to protect their child from suffering through life with handicaps, but in reality any parent who would go to the lengths of designing their child is clearly incapable of accepting an imperfect son or daughter.
It will be interesting to see how the liberal feminist community responds to Dr. Steinberg and to designer children in general. Their pro-abortion agenda has boxed them into a corner without a rational means of escape. Since the 1970s feminists have demanded unrestricted access to abortion and have defended a woman’s right to choose as inviolable. “Nobody has the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body” is the rallying cry of the movement. Well, what happens when this designer option is offered to those in nations like China and India where sons are prized over daughters because of the need for manual labor in the countryside? The very same “Freedom of Choice” argument used by feminists to defend abortion will be used to eliminate the birthing of girls around the world. Disgustingly ironic, isn’t it?
Also, supporters of designer children fail to realize, or fail to care, that should developing nations use this option to select sons, the entire gender balance of the human community will be upset. Within a century or two men will outnumber women by millions, drastically reducing the number of child-bearing women on the planet. There is no shortage of sci-fi, horror-film scenarios that could result from this, such as the following:
! Perhaps the gender disparity will reach a critical mass where the authorities will be forced to create life in test tubes in order to compensate for the lack of women. Imagine the number of embryos discarded in the process. Visualize the millions of unparented children being reared by the state.
! Or perhaps the government will respond to the gender disparity by forcing parents to reproduce under harsh restrictions. Couples will be told the number of children they must give birth to and the genders of those children. (China already has a one-child policy, so reproductive restrictions are more than fantasy)
! Perhaps forced reproduction will extend beyond married couples to single men and women as well. Humans will be treated like cattle, with the producing of life given no greater sanctity than pedestrian medical activities like removing tonsils or donating blood.
Think it is unrealistic? Just a century ago the idea of designer children would have sounded ridiculous also.
Paging Dr. Mengele.
Donald Tremblay
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
