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
Catholic Agenda
Catholic Agenda
Thursday, March 19, 2009
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
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Betrayal
It was October 6, 1978, and the New York Yankees were trailing the Kansas City Royals 5-4 in the bottom of the eighth inning in Game Three of the American League Championship Series. I sat in front of the television set angry at the world, muttering about how the Yankees were going to lose on my 10th birthday. With a runner on base catcher Thurman Munson stepped up to the plate and hit a monstrous home run over “Death Valley” in left field to put the Yankees ahead. The blast was estimated to have sailed 475 feet before landing in Monument Park. It was the greatest birthday gift a young boy could receive. I thank the Lord for wonderful childhood memories like this because thanks to what I have seen since the collapse of our economy, I can no longer look at a Yankees uniform the same.
Unemployment rates rise each month as greater numbers of companies crash and burn. Jobless workers who cannot afford healthcare are forced to avoid doctors whenever possible. Credit card debt increasingly strangles Americans. Food prices haven’t dropped; yet according to a recent announcement Americans net-worth has declined 20%. Nevertheless, as the national economy continued to nosedive over the past year, the Yankees created their own stimulus package by handing over a total of $243.5 million to free-agent pitchers C.C. Sabathia and A.J. Burnett. Although, the only people stimulated by these obscene payroll figures are the pitchers’ agents. Yes, I know the argument about players’ salaries: “Someone has to make the money. Wouldn’t you rather see the players make it than the owners?”
With our nation suffering as it is, it seems almost criminal for those glutinous amounts of money to be tossed around as a reward for tossing a baseball.
But my disgust does not end there. No, perhaps an even a greater insult to those of us affected by the economic crisis is the financing of the new stadiums for the Yankees and the Mets. Although both teams are paying for the building of the stadiums, according to a November 4, 2008, New York Times article, “the cost to the city for infrastructure — parks, garages and transportation improvements — has jumped to about $458 million, from $281 million in 2005.” The Times also adds that the state is contributing an additional $201 million. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/nyregion/05stadiums.html) If that does not boil your blood, then consider that the same article reports the two teams will receive “an estimated $480 million in city, state and federal tax breaks”.
Oh yes, and they also will not have to pay rent or property taxes even though the city owns the stadium grounds.
Just a week ago Mayor Bloomberg informed NY-ers that there would be layoffs of police officers, firemen, and teachers. Luckily for the mayor President Obama’s stimulus package will negate the need for the layoffs he warned of. But are we to believe that the mayor had no idea of the city’s looming financial problems when he cut these sweetheart deals with our NY baseball teams? That seems unlikely.
The final kick in the stomach to NY-ers is that ticket prices and parking will be so expensive that the average New Yorker should forget about spending a Sunday afternoon with his family at the new “House That City Hall Built”. Field Level Box Seats bought on game day will cost $400 per ticket, meaning that a family of four will pay more to watch a bunch of spoiled millionaires play one baseball game than I pay for rent in one month.
Let’s face it. These stadiums are not for us. They are for the corporate elite and they reveal a total lack of empathy for the average American’s plight. What I feel today toward the Yankees organization is not anger but betrayal. And for that the organization cannot be excused.
They have thumbed their noses at this long-time Yankees fan for the last time.
But at least I will always have my childhood memories.
Donald Tremblay
Unemployment rates rise each month as greater numbers of companies crash and burn. Jobless workers who cannot afford healthcare are forced to avoid doctors whenever possible. Credit card debt increasingly strangles Americans. Food prices haven’t dropped; yet according to a recent announcement Americans net-worth has declined 20%. Nevertheless, as the national economy continued to nosedive over the past year, the Yankees created their own stimulus package by handing over a total of $243.5 million to free-agent pitchers C.C. Sabathia and A.J. Burnett. Although, the only people stimulated by these obscene payroll figures are the pitchers’ agents. Yes, I know the argument about players’ salaries: “Someone has to make the money. Wouldn’t you rather see the players make it than the owners?”
With our nation suffering as it is, it seems almost criminal for those glutinous amounts of money to be tossed around as a reward for tossing a baseball.
But my disgust does not end there. No, perhaps an even a greater insult to those of us affected by the economic crisis is the financing of the new stadiums for the Yankees and the Mets. Although both teams are paying for the building of the stadiums, according to a November 4, 2008, New York Times article, “the cost to the city for infrastructure — parks, garages and transportation improvements — has jumped to about $458 million, from $281 million in 2005.” The Times also adds that the state is contributing an additional $201 million. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/nyregion/05stadiums.html) If that does not boil your blood, then consider that the same article reports the two teams will receive “an estimated $480 million in city, state and federal tax breaks”.
Oh yes, and they also will not have to pay rent or property taxes even though the city owns the stadium grounds.
Just a week ago Mayor Bloomberg informed NY-ers that there would be layoffs of police officers, firemen, and teachers. Luckily for the mayor President Obama’s stimulus package will negate the need for the layoffs he warned of. But are we to believe that the mayor had no idea of the city’s looming financial problems when he cut these sweetheart deals with our NY baseball teams? That seems unlikely.
The final kick in the stomach to NY-ers is that ticket prices and parking will be so expensive that the average New Yorker should forget about spending a Sunday afternoon with his family at the new “House That City Hall Built”. Field Level Box Seats bought on game day will cost $400 per ticket, meaning that a family of four will pay more to watch a bunch of spoiled millionaires play one baseball game than I pay for rent in one month.
Let’s face it. These stadiums are not for us. They are for the corporate elite and they reveal a total lack of empathy for the average American’s plight. What I feel today toward the Yankees organization is not anger but betrayal. And for that the organization cannot be excused.
They have thumbed their noses at this long-time Yankees fan for the last time.
But at least I will always have my childhood memories.
Donald Tremblay
Monday, February 9, 2009
Off Limits
For those Americans who still doubt that secularism is at war with religion, specifically Christianity, I suggest they review the section of the Pres Obama/Democratic Party “stimulus” package addressing federal financial support and colleges. One provision in this section earmarks federal money for the renovation of existing colleges and universities. However, according to Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law & Justice, “when you read a little bit further into this legislation, there's a specific prohibition on two things. One, if the university itself is a religiously based or faith-based institution, it does not qualify. And if the facility that is being renovated allows religious worship to take place, it also does not qualify." (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=409082)
Any question as to whether this provision is just the latest attempt to remove religion from the public sector was answered when the Senate rejected South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint’s amendment requesting that the religious worship ban be removed from the provision.
Americans are learning quickly that our new president speaks with a forked-tongue. He has already backtracked on his pledge that officials will be barred from working on issues for which they have served as lobbyists. Now it appears that he is doing the same when it comes to his “openness” to faith. Or as Mat Staver, founder of the nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization Liberty Counsel tells OneNewsNow.com, “President Obama's idea of faith-based initiatives apparently is to remove faith from all initiatives."
Donald Tremblay
Any question as to whether this provision is just the latest attempt to remove religion from the public sector was answered when the Senate rejected South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint’s amendment requesting that the religious worship ban be removed from the provision.
Americans are learning quickly that our new president speaks with a forked-tongue. He has already backtracked on his pledge that officials will be barred from working on issues for which they have served as lobbyists. Now it appears that he is doing the same when it comes to his “openness” to faith. Or as Mat Staver, founder of the nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization Liberty Counsel tells OneNewsNow.com, “President Obama's idea of faith-based initiatives apparently is to remove faith from all initiatives."
Donald Tremblay
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Papal Disgrace
Disgrace.
No other word does justice to Pope Benedict XVI’s inexplicable decision to lift the excommunication against Holocaust-denying Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson. Among the more disgusting comments made by Williamson is that historical evidence is “hugely against six million having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler. I believe there were no gas chambers. I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, but none of them by gas chambers.”(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5585738.ece) Williamson has also said that “the Vatican is controlled by Satan and that the Jews are bent on world domination”.
Williamson was welcomed back into the fold along with three other bishops from the Society of St. Pius X–a schismatic group led by former French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre that rejects the changes installed by Vatican II. In 1988 Pope John Paul II excommunicated the society. An Associated Press article reports that the Vatican refers to Williamson as “a recently rehabilitated bishop.” (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gpbkisgs-EZ40shoCodJd4rfBNwAD95V35RO0) There is nothing rehabilitated about this man. According to the Times of London, the comments cited above were made just one week ago on a Swedish television station.
Word is that Pope Benedict XVI lifted the banishment as a way to heal the separation in the Church. But no desire to heal rifts within the Church can justify accepting a member of the clergy who espouses these antisemitic views. This is a man who claims to have devoted his life to the Lord Jesus Christ? If his views weren’t so evil, the irony of him recognizing a Jew as God-incarnate while believing this filth would be laughable.
You would think this Pope more than any other would understand the implication of accepting Williamson back into the clergy. As a German who knows first-hand the atrocities committed by the Nazis, it is inexcusable for him to ignore the hurt his actions have caused. Pope Benedict XVI’s actions are an insult not only to Jews everywhere today, but also to the memory of Holocaust victims and even to those who liberated the concentration camps and personally witnessed the inhumanity inflicted on much of European Jewry.
The Church has been accused of antisemitism for centuries. How can it deny this charge when actions like these are taken? Pope Benedict XVI could have easily lifted the excommunication against the Society of St. Pius X while leaving Williamson exiled. It would have sent the dual message that the Church wants to reconcile with its own but will not accept those who are unrepentant.
Shame on you, Pope Benedict XVI..
Donald Tremblay
No other word does justice to Pope Benedict XVI’s inexplicable decision to lift the excommunication against Holocaust-denying Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson. Among the more disgusting comments made by Williamson is that historical evidence is “hugely against six million having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler. I believe there were no gas chambers. I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, but none of them by gas chambers.”(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5585738.ece) Williamson has also said that “the Vatican is controlled by Satan and that the Jews are bent on world domination”.
Williamson was welcomed back into the fold along with three other bishops from the Society of St. Pius X–a schismatic group led by former French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre that rejects the changes installed by Vatican II. In 1988 Pope John Paul II excommunicated the society. An Associated Press article reports that the Vatican refers to Williamson as “a recently rehabilitated bishop.” (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gpbkisgs-EZ40shoCodJd4rfBNwAD95V35RO0) There is nothing rehabilitated about this man. According to the Times of London, the comments cited above were made just one week ago on a Swedish television station.
Word is that Pope Benedict XVI lifted the banishment as a way to heal the separation in the Church. But no desire to heal rifts within the Church can justify accepting a member of the clergy who espouses these antisemitic views. This is a man who claims to have devoted his life to the Lord Jesus Christ? If his views weren’t so evil, the irony of him recognizing a Jew as God-incarnate while believing this filth would be laughable.
You would think this Pope more than any other would understand the implication of accepting Williamson back into the clergy. As a German who knows first-hand the atrocities committed by the Nazis, it is inexcusable for him to ignore the hurt his actions have caused. Pope Benedict XVI’s actions are an insult not only to Jews everywhere today, but also to the memory of Holocaust victims and even to those who liberated the concentration camps and personally witnessed the inhumanity inflicted on much of European Jewry.
The Church has been accused of antisemitism for centuries. How can it deny this charge when actions like these are taken? Pope Benedict XVI could have easily lifted the excommunication against the Society of St. Pius X while leaving Williamson exiled. It would have sent the dual message that the Church wants to reconcile with its own but will not accept those who are unrepentant.
Shame on you, Pope Benedict XVI..
Donald Tremblay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
