Monday, August 31, 2009

For Too Long You Have Interfered With Our Country, American!

There are sometimes when no foolish or silly pop-culture joke seems enough, or even warranted, or wanted, or appropriate.

Fortunately, this is not one of those times! Hey, as I always say - if you can't laugh .... you probably aren't very happy.

I am not very happy right now, but I feel laughter of the hysterical "This is a joke, righ? Right? Right? Please for the love of little green apples, tell me this is a joke!" school is called for.

Obama's website calls us "terrorists". No seriously, I mean that. It really does.

I was informed of this by a friend of mine whose name I shall not give out - because those of us in the terror business like to go by code names, you see. So, in honor and homage to a recent blockbuster movie, I shall refer to her only as The Baroness.

Now, the website linked above (and now, linked here) has quotations and screen captures from Barack Obama's website. When his website is visited, the content is not the same. This could be down to the content having been changed from the rhetoric which called those opposed to Obamacare "the heirs of Bin Laden" and contained references to "superhero karate chops" (no, seriously, I am not making this stuff up) or it could have been because Gateway Pundit doctored the screengrabs for sensationalism points.

In any case the actual, current content of the website is not much better. Unless Obama and his Obamaites have changed their website again, this webpage right here beyond the click refers to those opposed to Obamacare as "domestic terrorists" and likens supporting the healthcare plan to fighting back against the 9/11 attacks.

Alright, gloves off you little piece of slime. Gloves off.

We campaign to stop a healthcare plan which includes abortions, and you liken us to terrorists? You mention that 3000 died in the terrorist attacks on 9/11, but neglect to mention more than that die every single day from abortion? You call me a terrorist?

This is simply flatly insulting to those who have died in terrorist attacks. I have buried more friends than I care to mention because of brutal, barbaric attacks from the IRA (I am from England, in case people were unaware of that). I know what terrorism is - you have no idea, you jumped-up, grinning snake-oil salesman.

As a matter of interest, it is interesting to note that Ted Kennedy of unhappy memory supported both abortion and the goals of the IRA. So, that's several people I care about you supported the slaughter of, Senator. As I said earlier, I really hope you begged for forgiveness from God before you died.

But this is what we face - we face an enemy who calls those making peaceful demonstrations "terrorists", who accuses those expressing their democratic rights of subverting democracy, and likens those who try to defend the lives of the unborn to those who slaughter thousands.

This is the enemy we face. Never let any of their lies fool you - they are not for a woman's choice, or the rights of mothers, or "personally opposed" or any of that garbage. They are straight up, flat-out, monsters. I am incensed, and have possibly lost my temper.

Obama calls me a terrorist? No, Mister President - you don't need to be terrified of me. You need to be terrified of God - because He will have something to say to you concerning your lies and support of genocide.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

We have to make some kind of comment

Sen. Edward ("Ted") Kennedy (D-MA) is dead. He died last night from brain cancer.

Ooookay - where do we begin?

Or, rather, where do we not begin? Because I have seen many people (some of them my friends) begin in completely the wrong way;

"Well, I don't agree with everything that he did or stood for, but he did some wonderful things for his State, and he was always positive towards the military, and he supported a lot of good causes. And his family has had such tragedy."

That begins at the wrong place.

So, to be fair, does the other sort of obituary;

"Sen. Kennedy burns in Hell! Hahahahahaha!"

Neither of these begin, or end, at the right place. And they tend to go off a bit in the middle as well.

So, how should I begin?

Firstly, it is a simple fact that Sen. Kennedy spent most of his professional career in a state of unrepentant mortal sin. His support for abortion, the homosexual agenda and a whole host of other issues make that clear. There is no case to be made that he might have supported these things and then confessed his sins so he was, actually, alright with God. His constant support of these matters show that, even if he did confesses his support for abortion (which is highly unlikely) his confession lacked the required contrition. If he asked for forgiveness, it was clear he was not asking for it with genuine contrition (if you are sorry, why do you never say so publicly, Senator?)

Secondly, it is a simple fact that if he died in this state of unrepentant mortal sin, tonight his soul basks in Hell. That is something my Church teaches me. It is something simple logic teaches me. This is justice - those who die shaking their fists at God will burn forever. Kennedy lived shaking his fist at God.

Thirdly, it is not certain Kennedy died in a state of unrepentant mortal sin. He might have sought forgiveness (with the correct sort of contrition) before he died. I hope and I pray he did. Frankly, I find it very unlikely - he never said he was sorry during his life, so why would he say so at the very end? But, we can hope and pray for him - and I urge you to do so.

Fourthly, and most importantly ....

(this is so important it gets its own paragraph)

.... there is no way we can say "Well, I might not have agreed with everything he did, but ..." or, as a friend of mine said, "I don't think he can be reduced to a couple of issues [abortion and the gay agenda]".

Really? Really? You know what, here is my rebuttal;

Hitler made the trains run on time.

There is no defence for what Kennedy did. Lest we have all forgotten, he conspired with heretical Jesuits in the 1960s to come up with a method of supporting abortion while seeming to stay aligned with Catholic teaching (this was, in fact, the method which eventually became "Personally Opposed But ....") Lest we forget, he consistently supported pro-abortion laws. He wrote the health-care plan which includes tax-payer funding for abortions. He left a woman to drown in the back of his car because he didn't want a DUI!

He never said sorry for any of these things. He never retracted them, or said they were wrong. In the case of the drowning in the back of his Oldsmobile, he explained his running away and hiding for the time it would take him to sober up as an unaccountable lapse. We often forget his victim was alive in the back of the car and, had he gone to the police earlier, she would have been saved.

Kennedy was an architect of the culture of death. He was one of the most significant supporters of it. It is possible he may have repented and received forgiveness - and I hope he did. I truly pray for this, because I don't want to see anyone in Hell.

But we cannot ever say something as idiotic as "Well, I might not have agreed with everything he stood for, but he was a good man ...." You can say that sort of this about a guy who has an economic policy you don't agree with, but whose foreign policy is good. You can say that about a man who argues for nationalization but was a staunch defender of human rights.

What in the name of God can you put against the calculated rejection of sacred oaths and the deliberate murder of over 50 million innocent children in their mothers' wombs? What in the universe is equivalent to that?

And, seriously, just what DID Ted Kennedy do that was so good? Anyone? I can't think of a single thing he did which was really worthy of praise. He lied and cheated to support himself and his dynasty and his causes - and his "causes" were ones which are utterly opposed to western civilization, right-thinking human beings and the Catholic Church. He supported abortion - the main cause of the utter decline and destruction of everything we hold dear. He supported the slaughter of the next generation!

And now he is dead. And I will not mourn his passing. I hope and I pray he repented - oh, God, please, don't let him have died denying Your truth! Please! But the fact of the matter remains that he was a great champion of the enemy army, and he is no longer fighting for them and their dreadful agenda. I can only hope that whoever takes his place in the Senate is less effective or less monstrous.

Because the fight against people like Sen. Kennedy is not over with his death. Because all those whose concern has been the murder of babies; their work goes on, their cause endures, the horror still lives, and the nightmare will not die easily.

I pray you rest in peace, Sen. Kennedy - I just don't think it likely.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Take Care, Agent DiNozzo . . .

It is not news to anyone that I am a fan of N.C.I.S. Nor is it a great reveal that my favorite character is Special Agent Tony DiNozzo, the Italian-American ex-Baltimore homicide 'tec who is Senior Field Agent on the Major Crimes Squad. He is played by Michael Weatherly, and is pretty awesome.

Why is this relevant? It's not - but N.C.I.S. returns to our screens in September! And I have been in communication with an Italian-American gentleman today and I want to talk about him, but not use his real name. So, in honor of Agent DiNozz0, I am going to call him "Tony".

Tony wrote to us here at with some information about why Barack Obama is a bad man. This is, if you will forgive the analogy, like Agent DiNozzo giving Agent Gibbs tips on sniping.

Okay - no more N.C.I.S. inside-jokes. I promise.

Anyway, in this email exhange he maintained Obama was a Muslim etc. etc. I called him on this, and pointed out it is not okay to tell lies about someone even if they are a baby-killing freak! Seriously, people.

The conversation continued - and ultimately got into the realm where I asked him what his views on contraception were because he had complained the Catholic Church did not do enough to stop abortion. I pointed out we support ALL aspects of the culture of life, not MERELY the obvious and easy ones.

Basically, it came down to this - Tony supports contraception. In case you (and Tony) didn't know, contraception causes abortions. Yes, that is right - the Pill kills babies. It works in a number of ways to prevent "conception" - and one of those ways is to actually kill the fetus after conception but before anyone notices it.

Hint, Tony - killing someone and having no-one notice is still murder. You should have learned this in Baltimore!

I pointed this out to him, telling him that his fight against the culture of death was laudible, but that his approach was wrong.

Firstly, it is inconsistent. Assuming he is in a marriage and his having sex at the usual rate for Americans and his wife is on the Pill .... he is abortion 1.8 children a year. He is killing nearly 37 of his children over a 25 year marriage on the Pill (allowing for the normal length of time off the Pill to have three children). That is pretty scary - and makes a mockery of his rejection of abortion. That would be like Agent DiNozzo saying "I will investigate the murder of Navy personel, but not Marines. Because Marines don't count." It simply renders what you are doing ludicrous - you condemn abortion performed with a scalpel and suction device, but not chemicals? Whiskey-Tango-Delta? (What The Deuce?)

Secondly, it is self-defeating. Tony's view was that we can do pretty much anything provided it beats Obama! So, we can lie, slander, spread falsehoods, exagerate, supress the truth, whatever we please and we get a pass on this because we are doing it for the greater good!

This is "the ends justify the means". It is a faulty moral principle. Closer to the truth would be "the means justify the ends". That is; if you fight a good and fair and honest fight it does not matter if you lose.

This is not something Tony seems to get (or Agent DiNozzi, who killed a Mossad agent while said Israeli was drunk . . .) Why are we fighting Barack Obama?

We are not fighting him to "preserve the American way of life". We are not fighting him to protect our taxes. We are not fighting him to defend our rights under any Amendment to the Constitution.

As Catholics, we fight him because he is opposed to the Church and if we do not fight the enemies of the Church we go to Hell! "Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!" as Saint Paul said.

Our goal here is the salvation of souls - starting with ours! We do not get a pass on doing the right thing simply because our end goal is laudible.

He who fights with monsters must take care, lest he becomes a monster.

Aw, heck - let me be totally honest here; people - if you oppose abortion but support contraception you are a hypocrite, an idiot and are most likely going to Hell. If you think it is okay to lie and cheat to achieve a good end you were asleep during morality class, and are risking going to Hell.

Seriously, people - stand up and fight fair! Fight clean and nobly and decently! And fight the whole fight! Contraception does not just LEAD to abortion - IT IS ABORTION!

Think on that, Tony.

Monday, August 3, 2009

I don't want to make a blonde joke . . .

. . . and so I won't. But, seriously Debbie; is this your war-face?

"We've Lost"?

The US Census Bureau starts counting gay marriage as "married" on the census and we've "lost"? How does this work?

You know what, Debbie - I want to play chess with you. We can do it for money. I'm sure I could capture at least one of your pawns and, based on this evidence, you would consider the game "lost", regardless of what other victories you might have achieved!

We've lost because the US Census Bureau decides to recognise unions defined in law as marriage as marriage? How is this the complete loss your headline implies it is? Certainly, it is a disappointing (although unsurprising) setback. The fact so-called gay "marriage" is allowed and legally recognized at all is a problem and a bad thing, but it's not a "loss". At best, it is a minor kink in our plans.

So, what is my motivation in posting this? Well, it is multiple - and is partially informed by a discussion I had with a YouTuber today. So, allow me to summarize my views;

i) I am reporting this news which is (according to Debbie's article) not very widely publicised so you know about it. It is of particular interest because it is another example of the Federal Government not doing what Barack Obama said he would do; a branch of the Federal Government is now giving legal recognition to gay "marriage" while Barack Obama said he would not (he wanted "civil unions"). This is a minor issue, a minor difference between his views and Federal policy (and it is not clear if the census bureau really comes under his direct control, or if he had any input into this at all) but it might be worth watching. Now you know and, remember, knowing is half the battle.

ii) And that is a great segue to the next point; Debbie Schlussel's comments concerning words recently said by the director of G.I. Joe (remember? We were always told "knowing was half the battle" at the end of the G.I.Joe cartoons?

Okay, Debbie says that the director of G.I.Joe calls Vietnam vets "steroid users" and "disses" them. She says this in the headline, and also in the body of the article. She also quotes the director himself, which may have been a mistake.

See, I would have believed you, Debbie, were it not for the pernicious facts of the case which point out you are a liar. The director says no such thing. Here are his words;

"Right from the writing stage we said to ourselves, this can’t be about beefy guys on steroids who all met each other in the Vietnam War, but an elite organization that’s made up of the best of the best from around the world."

At no point does the director say people who served in Vietnam are steroid abusers, nor does he "dis" these loyal warriors (some of whom made the ultimate sacrifice, and all of whom suffered greatly). What he says is that his movie is not an exclusively American piece of work; it is a movie which focuses on an elite international force. He makes the statement the heroes are not steroid-using Vietnam veterans. This is a very specific denial - he could have said the movie is also not about tap-dancing elephants who form a string-quartet. However, I suppose it is an important point to make - many movies have been about warriors who met during Vietnam and who certainly look like they might have abused steroids. The director is saying this movie is not the typical, gung-ho, brainless action movie which is totally American. It is a more international brainless action movie, I guess.

In any case, at no point does the director say anything about Vietnam veterans as a group. The phrase "all Vietnam veterans are drug abusers and are not elite or the best" is missing from his statement.

It is a logical jump, Debbie, to claim he does. It is a logical jump which weakens our position.

Why am I pointing this out? I am pointing this out for many reasons - one of which is related to YouTube. We post some of our videos on YouTube and this one attracts a lot of attention. It points out that Barack Obama is anti-Catholic. Many commentators on this video have pointed out (incorrectly) that because we are opposed to Obama and say that he is anti-Catholic, we must be saying we love Republicans, agree with everything they stand for, and think they are the poster-children for Catholicism.

This is a failure in logic - just as thinking a man which points out his movie is not about drug-abusing Vietnam vets hates America.

Why am I pointing this out? Because it is a problem we can all - conservative and liberal - fall into. We must be careful we do not make logical jumps, state things which aren't true, or say things which do not necessarily follow. Republicans are very far from being perfect - they are not poster-children for Catholicism, and there are several things on the Republican platform which are anti-Catholic. This does not, however, mean the Democratic platform is not anti-Catholic.

The director of G.I.Joe has created a movie which Debbie slams before it is released - because she is the kind of person, I guess, who just wants to slam stuff. Perhaps she is right - perhaps he is violently anti-American and really does think Vietnam vets all did steroids. Perhaps he hates his country.

But, Debbie, if this is the case, we need some evidence. Can we at least do that?