I (Too) Am Tired of All This

This comes, respectfully borrowed, from the personal blog of Robert A. Hall, a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts State Senate.

I'm sorry I didn't write it myself; and I agree with everything he says. Except my age.

I'm 63. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.

I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.

I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their own money.

I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood Entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China, the crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for Christian people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela.

I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.

I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of U.S. Senators from Illinois.

I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less arrogantly of an all-knowing government.

I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's, at triple the cost, were wonderful; that thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress; that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his; that slammed Palin, with two years as governor, for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever. Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.

I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and mandrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.

I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.

I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.

I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic, and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person, who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military.... Those are the citizens we need.

I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement- handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people than themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years and still are? Not even close. So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims, who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.

I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers; bums are bipartisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bipartisanship. I live in Illinois , where the "Illinois Combine" of Democrats has worked to loot the public for years. Not to mention the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet.

I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.

I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.

Yes, I'm damn tired. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter.

Beannachtaí na Fáile Pádraig duit!

A happy and blessed St. Patrick's Day to you, one and all. I offer a tribute to a great man in one of the best known of his prayers:

Christ beside me, Christ before me;

Christ behind me, Christ within me;

Christ beneath me, Christ above me;

Christ to right of me, Christ to left of me;

Christ in my lying, my sitting, my rising;

Christ in heart of all who know me,

Christ on tongue of all who meet me,

Christ in eye of all who see me,

Christ in ear of all who hear me.

For my shield this day I call:

a mighty power:

the Holy Trinity!

affirming threeness,

confessing oneness

in the making of all - through love...

In great courage, sacrifice, and forgiveness, Patrick returned to the land that had enslaved him as a child and returned their slavery for liberty in Christ. Although facing danger, harm, and potential death every day, Patrick went across the whole of Ireland teaching and preaching about the sacrifice and gift of Christ, offering himself as an example of Christian charity and intent.

May the living Trinity of Patrick be beside, before, behind, and within you today and always.

Go mbeannaí Dia duit

Obama Admin Encourages Moms to Kill Babies

Catholic League president Bill Donohue speaks to the Omnibus Spending Bill just passed by the Senate:

The Congress is now officially on record approving a bill that tells mothers in Washington, D.C. that if they decide to take their baby to term, and elect to send their child to a private school—just like the one that President Obama and his wife have chosen for their own children—they can do it on their own dime: the successful voucher scholarship program that 1,700 poor kids were enrolled in is now dead. But if these same mothers decide to abort their babies, the same government will rush to pay their bills.

Most of those affected are black. The bill will soon be signed into law by America’s first black president. Is there anyone so stupid not to understand what is going on?

Susan A. Fani
Director of Communications
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
catalyst@catholicleague.org

Obamas UnAmerican - Again!

Duly elected by the lunatic fringe left, declared friend to Islamic nations, proclaimer that America is no longer a Christian nation -in his opinion, President B. Hussein Obama has once again stepped forward to deny the traditions that define America. In his march to change America from the greatest nation on Earth, Hussein is now messing with America's favorite holiday. From the Catholic League, comes the announcement that:

OBAMAS WOULD LIKE TO NEUTER CHRISTMAS

In yesterday’s New York Times, there was an article about White House social secretary Desirée Rogers. In it, reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote: “When former social secretaries gave a luncheon to welcome Ms. Rogers earlier this year, one participant said, she surprised them by suggesting the Obamas were planning a ‘non-religious Christmas….’”

This same participant said that “the Obamas did not intend to put the manger scene on display” (this was confirmed by the White House). Indeed, as Stolberg wrote, “there had been internal discussions about making Christmas more inclusive and whether to display the crèche.”

Catholic League president Bill Donohue addressed this issue today:

Unlike almost all Americans—including atheists—the Obamas do not give their children Christmas gifts. We know this because Barack bragged about this last year to People magazine. So it should come as no big surprise that he and his wife would like to neuter Christmas in the White House. That’s their natural step—to ban the public display of Christian symbols. Have any doubts? Last April, Georgetown University was ordered to put a drape over the name of Jesus as a condition of the president speaking there.

If the Obamas want to deprive their children of celebrating Christmas, that is their business. It is the business of the public to hold them accountable for the way they celebrate Christmas in the White House. We know one thing for sure: no other administration ever entertained internal discussions on whether to display a nativity scene in the White House.

Susan A. Fani
Director of Communications
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
--------------

Remember, vote Republican in 2010.
Impeach, repeal, or somehow oust Obama - he's NOT one of us!

Expert Expat

What About CHRISTmas???

As soon as it starts turning cooler weather, some people start trying to take over Christmas, saying that we need to change it and change the words used to describe it and change the symbols and traditions of it, just so it will fit their ideas and opinions. Some want Christmas to reflect a modern American frame of mind. Like Americans own Christmas!

Christmas, as a spiritual holiday (that's short for Holy Day, BTW), has been celebrated to commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ since the 1200s throughout Europe, the Middle East, and northern Africa (Murray, Alexander, "Medieval Christmas", History Today, December 1986). It is celebrated today in almost every culture in the world, and in those who don't celebrate it, it is acknowledged as a Christian Holy Day.

The only official connection America has to the Christmas Holy Day is through governmental establishment for a federal holiday. Most other connections are through religious organizations. This isn't the only time in history there have been conflicts over the celebration of Christmas. The butcher and murder, Oliver Cromwell, was instrumental in getting Christmas celebrations banned in England. And even more recently in America opposing sides have favored or eschewed the holiday, calling it both a tribute to Christ's birth and an insult to a sacred event which had become an excuse for debauchery and rioting. This was during the earliest days of Pilgrim-led America.

Then there was Christmas's contribution to the Civil War.

The North and South were divided on the issue of Christmas, as well as on the question of slavery. Many Northerners saw sin in the celebration of Christmas; to these people the celebration of Thanksgiving was more appropriate. But in the South, Christmas was an important part of the social season. Not surprisingly, the first three states to make Christmas a legal holiday were in the South: Alabama in 1836, Louisiana and Arkansas in 1838. (http://www.thehistoryofchristmas.com/ch/in_america.htm)

With Christmas celebrations having such a spotted history, perhaps it's time to stop fighting over what to call a particular tree - Christmas or holiday - or whether to show the Christ child or Santa Clause at school, or even whether or not the annual end-of-year sales events should be called Christmas sales. Perhaps we should step back to the original intent of the founders of America and our earliest Founding Fathers who preferred a quiet, family oriented time of peaceful reflection and prayer.

Let the heathens throw their holiday parties and fight over the last of the latest fad gift. Let's, as Christians who are supposed to be celebrating the birth of our Lord of Peace, refocus on praising God for His blessings as we enter a season of cold and bleakness. Let's demonstrate to the world what Christmas should look like.

God bless us, every one!

Thanksgiving Day Proclamation

This proclamation was made by our first president. Wonder if our latest president would be willing to make the same appeal to God for His blessing.

This is the text of George Washington's October 3, 1789 national Thanksgiving Proclamation; as printed in The Providence Gazette and Country Journal, on October 17, 1789.

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us. And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him:

• to pardon our national and other transgressions;
• to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually;
• to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed;
• to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord;
• to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us;
• and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

G. Washington.
(list of prayer subjects, mine)

It's hard for me to imagine Barack Hussein Obama making a public proposal such as this. He has already declared that our nation, in his opinion, is not a Christian nation.

Of course, the vast majority of this country believes otherwise, that we were ordained into existence by a benevolent Jewish-Christian God, Jehovah, and that the men and women who were instrumental in forming this union were God-fearing, honorable, noble people who were intent on creating a safe haven for good people who wanted to flee oppression and find freedom from more of what they had rejected.

May God bless America and may He keep us within His will, following the precepts and hopes of the founders.

THE WAR COMMENCES

Here we go, folks!

Remember, the exact wording of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states:

"Congress shall make no law

respecting an establishment of religion,

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

or abridging the freedom of speech"

--------------

WAR ON CHRISTMAS COMMENCES

Catholic League president Bill Donohue notes that the 2009 war on Christmas has begun:

For almost three decades, there has been a Christmas parade in Amelia, Ohio, a village outside Cincinnati. But this year there will be none. That's because one person complained, village solicitor Laura Abrams. Her complaint: the word "Christmas."

In response, the village changed the name to the "Holiday Parade," though it did not say what holiday was being celebrated. Understandably, this dishonest scheme created a furor, the result being—just to play it safe—there will be no parade.

There will be no Christmas tree this year on the Capitol lawn in Frankfort, Kentucky. The word "Christmas" was deemed offensive. Instead, there will be a "Holiday Tree." The official line is that the "Holiday Tree" is inclusive of Thanksgiving, Christmas, Hanukkah and New Year's, though no one has ever heard of a "Thanksgiving Tree," "Hanukkah Tree" or "New Year's Tree."

When World War II ended, a local resident from Warren, Michigan decided to erect a nativity scene on a public median; the same family has privately maintained this tradition ever since. But there won't be one this year because a lawsuit argues it is discriminatory.

In Olympia, Washington, religious displays have been banned inside municipal buildings. But outside the buildings, it is okay. Well, not really—atheists are already protesting that decision.

Arizona is supplying this year's Christmas Tree in the nation's Capitol. Attempts to bar students from making religious ornaments were defeated, but only because of a threatened lawsuit.

Make no mistake about it: The declared enemy of these cultural fascists is religious speech, and they will stop at nothing to censor it.

Stay tuned—we're only in early November.

Susan A. Fani

Director of Communications

Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

catalyst@catholicleague.org

New York, NY 10123

212-371-3191

212-371-3394 (fax)

http://catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1706

Prayer in School Survives

I just received this - you've probably seen it before. I checked it out and it's true. If you want an additional laugh, go to Snopes and read their take on it. See my notes at the bottom.
---------------

Guess our national leaders didn't expect this, hmm? On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado , was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.

They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness. The following is a portion of the transcript:

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women.. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.

"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun.. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe
that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent.

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs, Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage, You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms, And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere, And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws, Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand, That God is what we need!

" Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational
systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To
those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge..... Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!

My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"

-------------

Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/scott.asp) has this to say about Mr. Scott's speech: They grudgingly admit it's true ("mixture of true and false information"), but state, "Moreover, unlike other persons who testified before the Congressional subcommittee that day, Mr. Scott presented no facts or statistics relating to the issues of gun control and gun law enforcement; he merely gave a rambling opinion that gun control laws wouldn't have stopped the Columbine High School shootings and that those shootings were somehow related to a lack of religion in schools." (emphasis mine own)

How is it that a liberal organization like Snopes can publish something like this and just not get it? This is patently NOT about religion in schools. It is about a federal decision to attempt to ban any recognition of God from our public schools. (and, yes, they'd get all confused about that, too .. "B...b...but isnt' talking about God the same thing as religion?") It's almost funny how they can read a clear statement and fail to be able to understand what he's talking about. Talk about being in the dark!

---------------
Bobby C.
"Ticked Off Conservative News" because everyone should know!

Basic Math Re: Government Giving ...

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

The late Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 to 2005
Former Pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, TN, USA

OBAMA TO FUND U.N. PRO-ABORTION AGENCY

On January 24, President Obama said, “I look forward to working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund.” He pledged to do this “in the coming weeks,” maintaining that “It is time that we end the politicization of this [abortion] issue.”

Bill Donohue explains the Catholic League’s response:

“The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) claims that it is not pro-abortion. It says that it merely supports ‘reproductive rights.’ Not quite. Starting in 1979, in the first five years of China’s draconian one-child policy, UNFPA gave the program $50 million. To accomplish this goal over the years, which is still ongoing, IUDs have been forced into the wombs of hundreds of millions of women against their will. Indeed, no coercive method is considered taboo, including forced abortion. It was for reasons like these that in 2002 the U.S. State Department blasted China for its affront to human rights. Indeed, Secretary Colin Powell backed the Bush administration’s denial of funds to UNFPA.

“The one-child policy has abetted female infanticide, so much so that there has been a massive decrease in the female population—there are now an estimated 350 million girls missing from China. Other non-white areas of the world where UNFPA concentrates its efforts include Vietnam, Nigeria and Peru. But it can be multicultural: When the genocidal maniac from Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic, wanted to tame his people, he invited UNFPA to help reduce the population of Kosovo; he wasn’t unhappy with the results, nor, of course, the means.

“So here we have it. In the name of women’s rights, UNFPA undercuts women. In the name of eradicating poverty, it eradicates the poor. Moreover, it works closely with anti-Catholic groups. And now Obama wants us to bankroll UNFPA. During a recession, no less. To top things off, he is doing all of this in the name of ending the politicization of issues that he says marked previous administrations. The ironies are as endless as they are priceless.”

Susan A. Fani
Director of Communications
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
catalyst@catholicleague.org

Relate fires Christian counselor

If you've not been following the story, here's a brief recap:
In brittain, Gary McFarlane worked for Relate as a counselor, then later as a psychosexual therapist. When the question came up regarding giving sexual therapy advice to homosexual couples, MaFarlane said that he could not do so due to his Christian convictions. Relate fired him. McFarlane filed a grievance for unlawful dismissal and lost (although he sort of won since Relate had not followed proper paperwork procedures.)

Now, the question is, was his firing justified? Let's see:
* McFarlane had faithfully served his employer since 2003;
* he did not refuse to serve his clients, just refused to offer advice to homosexual couples to help them perform sex acts on each other, which is against his personal convictions;
* No cases had been assigned to him, Relate fired him because of what he said he was uncomfortable doing;
* Relate was asking an established employee to act in a manner which would have made him personally uncomfortable and would have resulted in less than exemplairary service to their clients;
* McFarlane did not refuse to see other clients, only those with whom he was uncomfortable.

Since then, bloggists and "journalists" have said:
* "who lost his job with Relate because his homophobia – er, religious convictions – came into conflict with his duties. "
* Christian convictions do not equal homophobia. Christian convictions include trying to follow the precepts of Christianity, which direct followers to not judge or condemn, but to not lead others into what is considered wrong. McFarlane was not attacking homosexuals (as many have attacked him since), he was refusing to go against his convictions by guiding others into what he considered wrong

* "They are seeking to place Christian dogma over the rights of people to fair treatment. They must not succeed."

Why would Relate want to force a counselor to work with clients he could not give his best efforts to? As I understand their program they are not strictly a gay marriage service. Why wouldn't they assign gay couples to a therapist who was most qualified - in skills, experience, and attitude - to serve their needs? Why force a competent therapist to address cases outside his expertise? Just point him to the majority of their clients - straight couples - and let all the other counselors take turns serving the few gay couples.

There was no need to fire a qualified therapist, just use him to his best ability.

Because of my father's destruction by alcoholism, I am not well qualified to serve alcoholics. I don't hate them or wish them ill, I am just not the best counselor for them. When alcoholics ask for my help, I refer them to other counselors who are more able to serve their needs. Period. I hope I will not be fired for refusing to serve someone I could not offer top rate service to.

Convictions are convictions. They alter our ability to deal at peak with some. Just move on.

Welcommen to the real EU!

HA! The Daily Telegraph posted a story yesterday that demonstrates the real mindset inside the European unUnion. The story, titled "British children banned from German only playground in Crete resort" tells that a Greek resort which restricts its children's facilities to only German visitors.

"British families spent thousands of pounds each to book into the family friendly Meltemi Village, an all inclusive resort on the island of Crete. But when they arrived at the so-called family friendly resort they were told that the children's club was out of bounds because it was for German youngsters only," goes the story.

Well, of course, because the Germans are, remember, the master race, so why shouldn't their kindern receive special privileges?

But who is really surprised? This idea to blend such historically divided cultures into one happy family is as goofy as it sounds on the surface. Yes, individuals can get along. Yes, some cultures can even manage to cooperate for a profit. But face it, you can only go so far into making the Irish act like the French, or the brits act like the Czechs, or the Germans act like ... well, like anything but Germans!

The only ones to profit from the solidification of the EU compact will be the highhanded cliques such as the Germans and the French. This attempt to replay WWII again by taking over Europe is a blatant power grab. Have the Irish benefited from the union? A little. But so does the mouse when he accepts the first bite of cheese in the trap. Or the child who receives a free drug from a kindly pusher.

Der Herrenmensch are just part of the problematic mindset of this unnatural union. Our culture developed as a slave race to the brits (who thought themselves the master race), not as a partner of the broader Europe peoples. Yes, our contributions to those folk helped them develop their cultures and civilization, but how much did they help us overall? How much did they contribute to the Irish character (rape aside)? How much did they help us out of our servitude to our tormentors for 700 years? Not at all. They just looked on as we were trampled and misused by a stronger group. And, because that stronger group used our resources to buy the Europeans' loyalty, they refused to even see our slavery as wrong. They were, in fact, partners to our subjugation.

So why should we join them in their mass hysteria? This whole European Union farce is an attempt to build, not only an unnatural, but an unholy alliance. Doesn't this sound a little familiar? Doesn't this ring of a rebuilding of the old Roman Empire, as foretold in the Bible? Ezekiel 38 and 39, as well as references in Daniel and Revelation tell that in the last days the Roman Empire will be rebuilt from a union of her neighbors.

My dear Irish brothers and sisters, do we really want to become part of that? Not if we read the whole story and see where that group proceeds.

For more on the development of the EU into a 2,500 year old prophecy, read Joel Rosenberg's blog at joelrosenberg.blogspot.com.

Don't go blindly into another damaging relationship with the same folk who have scorned us for so long. Their disdain is apparent in their disregard for our recent vote on Lisbon. We have more strength of character than they ever have had. We've earned it in our chains. Push them away.

Iran kicking up more dust at Israel

It's both amazing and alarming to see the world headlines borrowing from a "fiction" novel so closely as today's Independent did. In the story headed, "Iran turns the screw on Israel with firing of missiles," Tom Baldwin tells that the Middle East is moving closer to following the plot outlined in Joel Rosenberg's popular suspense novels.

In case you're one of the roughly two dozen people in the world who haven't read the books yet, let me clue you in. Rosenberg wrote his first novel, "The Last Jihad," in 2000 and early 2001. It opens with Islamic terrorists using a plane to kamikaze attack the US. Now, remember, this was a year before 9/11, right? His novel and the following series, "The Last Days,"The Ezekiel Option," and "The Copper Scroll," proceed to describe, with what hundreds of news reviewers have described as "eerie prophetic accuracy," the unfolding events of the march to and through Armageddon. The Washington Times' Mark Kellner said of Rosenberg, "He has been called a 'modern-day Nostradamus' for his novels, which seem to be ripped from the headlines -- next year's headlines.."

Enough said about Rosenberg's novels. You've read them (if not ... DO IT! - go to his web site to find out more about these must reads) so I won't bore you with another recap.

Back to Iran and Israel ... as Ahmadinejad and his military commander, General Salami, (I kid you not, the man in charge of Iran's military is named after a pork sausage! Would that make the two of them the team of "salami and baloney"?) where was I? Oh yes, General Balon ... Salami said that the missile firings were in response to "harsh language" from Israel and the US. So apparently, Salami and Baloney were so offended by our saying they should mind their manners they threw a hissy fit and threatened - again - to annihilate Israel.

Whine, whine, whine. Ever since Abraham gave Ishmael the boot in favor of Isaac (at God's direction, BTW), these guys have been whining. Only problem is, now they're developing nuclear weapons. That means the next time they get their burkas in a wad they could be tossing nukes around.

Not to worry, I read the back of the book. (and parts of the middle, which is to say Ezekiel and Revelations) And I'm happy to report that they lose, we win.

BUT ... now is the time to choose sides: Islam and their hate filled rhetoric of "kill everyone who doesn't believe the same way we do," or Christianity and Jesus' teachings of "love your enemies and bless those who curse you." Seems like a no-brainer, right? Apparently, because the ones choosing the wrong sides seem to be "no-brainers."

Ireland: NO to EU Referendum = Hooray!

GOOD JOB IRELAND!!!

I am proudly bragging on my homeland today about the victory over the EU (pronounced "eeew") in the only democratic referendum in the whole of Europe. Of course, most Americans just stare at me blankly and ask what I'm talking about since it has nothing to do with Barak Osama, Hillary, or other Desperate Housewives on TV. I don't bother to try to explain - they wouldn't understand.

But I am glowing with pride in my brothers and sisters back home! I have commented in several of the newspaper and blog comment sections. But I've not seen it said much better than this, by a fellow freedom lover:

Don't forget that Ireland was once a shining beacon of light in the Atlantic -a land of saint & scholars- when the rest of Europe was plunged into the Dark Ages upon the collapse of the Roman Empire.

The Irish people survived brilliantly once, they will survive once again. Ireland may not have Roman continental uber sophistication but during the Dark Ages in Europe, she was free.

As a new Dark Age begins to fall all over Europe under the yolk of the EU where the voice of it's ordinary inhabitants are denied and held in contempt by the elite ruling class, Ireland has once again shone forth a promising beam of that ancient light. Many will try to snuff it out but I believe the Irish will once again show the world how much she values Truth & Freedom.

Posted by Ming Ye

Now isn't that interesting. Ming Ye isn't your common Irish name, is it? Yet he (she?) is right on target - we are the shining light. Is another Dark Age coming on us? Could well be. The previous one only lasted around 1,000 years, so we can make it through another one! ("Come Lord Jesus!")

Stand strong, Ireland! Shine on!

GOD BLESS IRELAND FOREVER!

Why I Don't Eat Meat

I have a few reasons for being a "strict vegetarian", meaning that I don't eat any animal products. First, as I've described above, is my health needs. Diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol are serious enough to change a person's diet!

Those were the alerts I got from my doctor in August of 2007.
I read Dr. Barnard's book, accepted the sound logic of the diet advice (no animal products or oil, and low glycemic index foods) and three months later my diabetes was cured and my other numbers were on the happy decline.

So why not quit the diet and reintroduce meats, etc? Well, first of all I have brought back some oil (extra virgin olive oil, or EVOO), Promise Light Buttery Spread with Flax Oil, and occasional - occasional cheese. But I'll not go back to meat. For one thing, animal products are the only source of cholesterol. No animals = no cholesterol overload. Period.

In my research about my health, I began looking into reports of contamination in the meat industry. What I found is so disturbing that I cannot stomach the thought of eating a dead cow, chicken, or pig, much less the animal itself. Our meat processing industry is so very much removed from what it was just 100 years ago that the stuff in the meat market is poison to a human body. Literally. Pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, and other "additives" turn a good piece of steak into a cesspool of poisons. I can't afford to do that to me any more.

Then there's the issue of eating animals at all. WAIT. Stay with me here. Yes, the Bible tells how to kill and eat certain kinds of animals. But the Bible also tells how to properly handle divorce, slavery, and warfare, none of which were in God's original plan for us. When you look back to God's original design, you see that He engineered us for a plant-based diet. Look at the original story:

Genesis 1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

Not until after the flood, from 1 to 3 thousand years later, did God allow for animal eating. Yes, He allowed it. No, it is not a sin. BUT it is contrary to His original plan. And contrary to our bodies' needs. In the early Christian church, one way Christians were singled out in society was that they were vegans. They honored God's creation by not taking life for their own carnal desires. (They thought like this: If I gave my grandson a puppy out of love for him so he could enjoy playing with it, and found out later that he killed it and ate it, I wouldn't stop loving him, but I sure would be disappointed. And I'd be careful about what gifts I would give him later on!) It wasn't until after the middle of the first Christian century, when they Roman church began adopting so many worldly traditions into itself, that blood and flesh consumption became accepted into Christian society.

So, health, common sense, and respect for God's carefully designed animals are reasons I don't eat the pets God gave me. It's not my place to condemn you for what you choose to put into your body or your children's bodies - unless you're a dear one to me. Then I'll try to help you see the danger. And offer alternatives.

I Just Don't Understand Carnivores!

Honestly! I just can't follow some people's thinking.

A few weeks ago, I was sitting in a class with some friends discussing health. We had just watched a video about how important it is to guard your physical health for various reasons, including our spiritual responsibility to care for God's creation (our bodies). I and another member talked about our experiences with vegan/vegetarianism and how it had improved our health both generally and in specific areas such as blood pressure, choesterol, diabetes, energy, etc.

All agreed that this was a wise move and that taking care of ourselves is vital. They all took in the info and seemed to digest it. Discussion then moved on to our next meeting and the question was asked, so what shall we eat next time?
(Now, remember, this was mere moments after the aforementioned health discussion.)
One member chimed in: "Oh! Let's have hamburgers! I'll break out the grill!"
Choruses of agreement and sounds of hunger (groans, mmmmmms, etc) followed.

I looked at my wife and we both just shook our heads in amazement and consternation.

What is it that causes normally clear-thinking, rational, mature adults to act so ... blindly? Are they not able to withstand their blood lust, or their addiction to flesh, or their hunger for grease ... or what??? These are not bad people, Jo Donna pointed out later on the way home. In 'most all other areas they exhibit good judgment and logical reasoning skills. So how come when it comes to a clear way to both improve their health and deal more rationally with the creation of the God they all serve, they can't see past their unwise choices?

None of these folks would consider smoking because they are too smart to tempt lung cancer with tobacco. They are not heavy drinkers who risk liver disease and other physical dangers. They are monogamous in their marriages, loyal in their faith and politics, and conscientious in their community responsibilities. So why - why - why are they unable to consider for even 10 minutes giving up the ofttimes-proven-unhealthy habit of eating dead animals, especially poisonous dead animals as are found in pieces in the local markets?

I'm working on a theory that there is more behind this than many would suspect. Consider this: eating animals serves two obvious purposes: first, it is a continuous method of torture and destruction of God's carefully designed, beloved animals; second, it is a slow-but-sure method of destroying God's jewel of His creation, mankind, both physically and spiritually through the continued practice of animalistic killing plus the consumption of fear-hormone-infected animal flesh and blood.

What's the common factor? Attacking the Creator.
Now, who is hell-bent on attacking the Creator? The devil.
And, who would most delight in tricking one of God's beloved creatures into torturing and destroying others of God's design?
See where I'm going?

In the beginning, God designed a beautiful home where all His creation could live in peace together. Adam was placed in direct responsibility for the animals. His first job was to care for them and the garden. In Genesis 1:29 we were directed to eat plants, nuts, and seeds, which were designed to fill all our nutritional and pleasurable requirements. Enter satan and the deception and fall from grace.
We lost the garden, and a few generations later we were turned loose on the animals.

I honestly believe, my friends and brothers sisters, that this lust which is upon so many of us, including God's elect, is a trick and trap of God's enemy onto us, God's beloved. As long as the enemy can keep us dulled with blood lust and our bodies poisoned with animal flesh, he can flaunt our brutish and bratish behavior in God's face.

How much it must grieve our loving Creator and Father when he witnesses the wholesale torture and murder of gentle animals who He designed for His own and our pleasure. Jesus said that the Father is aware of a sparrow's fall - what must it do to Him when a beautiful cow, an intelligent and clever pig, or a trusting and frightened chicken is ripped to death just so we - God's other creation - can suck down their blood and gulp down their flesh. How it must break God's heart!

I wonder, can God even bear to look down into a slaughterhouse? Can God, in all His power and strength, stand to hear the screams of terror and pain? What does He think of us, His children, when we carelessly and blithely rip His gentle pets to shreds for our blood lust?

What will we have to answer for when we stand before our Father?

The Bible talks about animals in Heaven, around the throne. Will we carry our selfish lusts into His presence and think how we'd like to rip a leg off one of the oxen near Him? God forbid it! But what will we think? Based on recent observations, I guess we'll just laugh it off and say to Heavenly God, "Aw, Who cares if You made them, anyway? They're just stupid animals; just meat for my belly!"

Do Animals Have Souls?

SOURCE: http://www.all-creatures.org/ca/ark-186soul.html

'Only humans matter: they have souls. Animals don't.' This has been said, millions of times. People often use it as a mantra, not because they are necessarily helping to alleviate human suffering, but to justify their lack of concern and compassion for the suffering of animals. Of course humans matter - but so do animals: and animals have souls too.

Catholic teaching has never actually denied this, following St Thomas Aquinas in this as in most things, although it has not yet developed a fully positive understanding of the place of animals within the order of salvation. This is a subject being grasped by some of the best theologians of our time, as they realise that this lack of understanding results in an untypically muddled response from the Catholic Church over an important contemporary issue - that of animal welfare.

The first thing to unravel from the various strands of tradition is the meaning of the word 'soul'. It is not really helpful to talk of people or animals 'having' souls - as you might 'have' a wristwatch or brown eyes or curly hair. Body and soul are not simply two factors existing alongside or in each other, but form an indivisible whole. A person, or an animal, is wholly body and wholly soul and both are at all times the whole being. In other words we do not only 'have' a body, or 'have' a soul - we are both body and soul. The Hebrew language does not talk of the two as separate entities, as we shall see in the Scriptures. Pagan Greek and Roman philosophers, whose thinking played such a leading role in influencing Christian theologians through the ages, did make the separation between spirit and matter, placing reason and soul in the higher, spiritual sphere, and according body and matter a much lower status. We shall see how this came to effect the way in which animals, and the rest of the nonhuman creation, came to be viewed.

Living souls

In the beginning of our Scriptures, we see God creating 'every living creature' (Genesis 1:21, 24). The Hebrew words (transliterated) are 'chay' (living) and 'nephesh' (soul). 'Nephesh' is mentioned over 400 times in the Old Testament signifying soul. The words 'chay nephesh' are used from chapter one, verse 20, when the waters are filled with living creatures. The close translation from Hebrew is: 'And God said: Let the waters swarm [with] the swarmers [having] a soul of life …' and in the next verse: 'And God created the great sea animals, and all that creeps, [having] a living soul …' (The words in square brackets are not used in Hebrew, but are understood.) In verse 30, God provides food - purely vegetarian - to every living thing, in which, the Hebrew adds, '[is] a living soul'. There is a definite separation here between 'every green plant', which of course are living things, and every creature possessed of a 'living soul'. In chapter two, the second, and older Creation account, the first human being was created from dust, then God 'blew into his nostrils [the] breath of life and man became a living soul', a 'chay nephesh'. Here we have the real sense of 'nephesh', or soul, as a being animated by the breath of life. This reminds us of the glorious invocation of psalm 150, where 'everything that breathes' is to praise the Lord.

Pope John Paul II: 'animals possess a soul'

When Pope John Paul II declared in a public audience in 1990 that 'also the animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren' some people must have thought this was a new teaching, unaware of the Holy Father's scholarly familiarity with the authentic Hebrew texts. When he went on to state that all animals are 'fruit of the creative action of the Holy Spirit and merit respect' and that they are 'as near to God as men are', animal lovers in the audience were ecstatic! The Pope mentions the special relationship of mankind with God as being created in His image and likeness. 'However,' he goes on 'other texts state that animals have the breath of life and were given it by God. In this respect, man, created by the hand of God, is identical with all other living creatures. And so in Psalm 104 there is no distinction between man and beasts when it reads, addressing God: " … Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth." The existence therefore,' the Holy Father reminds us, 'of all living creatures depends on the living spirit/breath of God that not only creates but also sustains and renews the face of the earth.'

This discourse caused a stir around the world, and was especially encouraging to Catholic animal welfare groups which had begun to despair that anything 'animal friendly' would ever be heard in Rome. The then professor of theology and dogma at the University of Urbino, Carlo Molari, called it 'very important and significant. It is a "sign of the times" because it demonstrates the Church's desire and deep concern to clarify present confused thinking and attitudes towards the animal kingdom. There should be no need, but the Pontiff, in reiterating that animals came into being because of the direct action of the "breath" of God, wanted to say that also these creatures, as well as man, are possessed of the divine spark of life and that living quality that is the soul. And are therefore not inferior beings or only of a purely material reality.'

The image of God

In the ten years that have passed, not a great deal has changed in church-goers' understanding of the souls of animals. Could that be because so little is ever taught or preached or prayed about them and their undoubted suffering at human hands? More is known about mankind being 'made in the image of God' and about having 'dominion' over the natural world. That is too often used as justification for treating the world as one great natural resource for human benefit, and all the other creatures in it as designed for mankind alone.

But what did 'image' really mean? Statues, or images, were and are used to represent kings and rulers. Think of the number of statues of Queen Victoria there are scattered around the former Empire. Human beings are living statues, living representatives - in much the same way as ambassadors represent the head of state of the country they come from. We human beings are to represent the rule of God in the created world, using delegated powers to see that the world continues to function and flourish in the way the Creator intended. To be shepherd-kings, not 'as those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them', but as 'slave of all' (Mark 10: 42-45). St Francis came close to this model in treating all other created beings as 'brothers and sisters', rather than as most people do today, as disposable things whose only value is in their usefulness to us.

We have elevated the human being beyond all other creatures until he has even taken the place of God. Secular rationalism would do away with the concept of soul altogether. The French philosopher, Descartes (1596-1650), divided the human person into the 'thinking part' res cogitans and the body res extensa. He saw the body as a machine, which had to be governed by the self-awareness of human rational thought. He dropped the word for soul 'anima' and replaced it with the word for mind 'mens' What animals lacked, so he said, was the human rational thought, therefore their status was purely that of machines - and machines cannot feel. The screams emitted by tortured animals were no more, he said, than the squeaking of mechanical parts and of no consequence. That attitude to some extent still exists, even though scientists are now discovering that even relatively simple life forms are capable of feeling pain and stress.

The Age of Reason was typified by Descartes and by Kant, who wrote that 'So far as animals are concerned we have no direct moral duties; animals are not self-conscious and are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man.' For them might have been written those chapters in Job in which God asks: 'Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?' (chapters 38 and 39). However, they had been influenced more by Aristotle and the Stoics than by Scripture. These ancients held that animals, while possessing 'animal souls' (as distinct from 'vegetable souls') lacked reason, and demonstrated their lack of reason by lack of speech. They were not to know of the complex communication abilities of many of the primates, dolphins, whales, etc. What is worse is that they considered that lack of speech gives us the right to exploit them! Stoics also thought that animals cannot learn by experience - but then, they never watched 'One Man and his Dog'!

What is definitive in Christian understanding of animals in the order of salvation, is that, with the incarnation of Christ, with God taking flesh, there is a new connection between all that shares the matter of flesh, of bodies: as the Holy Father said, a 'solidarity' between us and our brothers and sisters, the other 'living souls', the animals.