An Op-Ed By Heather™

With the election of the False Prophet Obama as president what has become perspicuously obvious is that False Prophet Obama is trying to engineer the most radical centralization of government policies since FDR and the “New Deal” Moreover the Dalai Bama envisions himself as sort of a new generation FDR . I would like to expose the liberal canards about the so called “New Deal” sanctimonious psychobabble nonsense

The Great Depression of the 1930s was in many ways the defining economic event of the 20th century. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt used the atmosphere of crisis created by the Depression to implement a series of government programs known as the New Deal, which caused radical centralization of federal power, I ask you does this sound familiar? Is False Prophet Obama taking on the example out of the FDR playbook by using a recession to centralize government power and policies? For decades historians mistakenly romanticized the New Deal, and only recently have scholars begun to finally wake up and peel away the layers of the false mythology surrounding that era. Three of those canards seem the most pervasive and damaging.

Canard Number One:

• The New Deal helped get us out of the Great Depression. In fact, the New Deal was an inevitable economic failure. Roosevelt’s formula of substituting government programs for a normal business recovery had no chance of relieving the high unemployment. FDR relied on extracting tax dollars from individuals and corporations to fund government programs, such as the Works Progress Administration (WPA), which hired workers to pick up trash, cut down trees, and build roads, bridges, and schools. The jobs Roosevelt thought he was creating were a mirage. They merely transferred jobs from the productive private sector to the inefficient public oneHenry Hazlitt, a free-market writer and journalist, pointed out in his 1946 classic, Economics in One Lesson: “For every public job created by [a] bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else. We can see the men employed on the bridge. We can watch them at work. . . . But there are other things that we do not see, because, alas, they have never been permitted to come into existence. They are the jobs destroyed by the $10 million taken from the taxpayers.”With the dramatic rise in government spending on public works, farm subsidies, and various relief programs, the top income tax rate skyrocketed from 24 percent in 1929 to 79 percent in 1935. In 1941 FDR even proposed raising the top rate to 99.5 percent on all income over $100,000 (but ended up settling for 90 percent). Not surprisingly, entrepreneurs were stifled and refused to invest and have their capital confiscated. Unemployment under the New Deal never dropped below 14 percent and averaged over 17 percent.

  As the Great Depression persisted, even Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau admitted that the New Deal had been a failure. On May 6, 1939, he confessed, “We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!”

  Canard Number Two:

• The New Deal was a political success as well as an economic success. To the contrary, the New Deal was a grand economic failure and only a qualified political success. This may surprise some because it seems counterintuitive in two ways. First, since FDR was elected to four terms and always with Democratic congresses, his economic programs seem to have had wide support. Second, if the New Deal was as damaging to the economy as I suggest, why did he achieve such clear political success over a long period of time?
  In 1936, Roosevelt was up for re-election and he carried all but two states against his Republican challenger, Alf Landon. This amazing result is often emphasized by historians. What is less well known is the fact that in early 1936 Roosevelt was behind in the Gallup polls and even trailed in his own private polls. In February 1936, Emil Hurja, Roosevelt’s personal pollster, concluded that if nominated Landon could beat Roosevelt were the election held that month. High unemployment was plaguing the president and the Supreme Court had recently struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) and the National Recovery Administration (NRA), two linchpins of the New Deal. Also, the Republicans had recently captured two congressional seats in open elections in Rhode Island and Michigan. In addition, the New York state legislature—where Roosevelt began his political career—had just swung over to the Republicans. This should not be surprising—the New Deal had not ended the Great Depression and voters were responding accordingly.

   

  However in 1936 the president developed a strategy that swamped the Republicans. It can be described in three words: subsidies for votes. He would spend record amounts of tax dollars on programs that would give people a vested interest in voting for his re-election. Gary Dean Best, in his excellent book Pride, Prejudice, and Politics, outlines Roosevelt’s tactic of blitzing key election districts with federal funds. For example, he met with Henry Wallace, the agriculture secretary, and gave the following order, “Henry, through July, August, September, October and up to the 5th of November I want cotton to sell at 12 cents [a pound]. I do not care how you do it. That is your problem. It can’t go below 12 cents.”

  When the WPA had spent all its money, and was faced with throwing people out of work on October 1, Roosevelt ordered Henry Morgenthau not to let anyone be laid off. As Morgenthau recalled Roosevelt’s words, “he doesn’t give a _______ where they get the money.” With a Gallup poll showing relief workers going 5-1 for Roosevelt over Landon, the president had strong incentives to transfer as much wealth as possible from the private to the public sector.

  Landon and fellow Republicans all over the country were perplexed over how to combat the “subsidies for votes” strategy. If they attacked Roosevelt’s programs, he would ask what they would do differently. If they said, “End the programs,” then the many Americans who were becoming addicted to the programs would protest and call the Republicans heartless, uncaring, and selfish. If Landon said he would continue the programs in different ways, then why should they switch over to his side? With Roosevelt they had government jobs. Why take chances with the Republicans? The subsidy-for-votes strategy helps explain the paradox of how the New Deal could be such an economic calamity for the nation and such a political triumph for Roosevelt.

  Canard Number Three:

• Roosevelt was widely respected. This is only partly true. Roosevelt received thousands of fan letters each week and his picture was on the wall in perhaps millions of American homes. He had widespread adulation, especially from those who received his federal subsidies. But among reporters, policymakers, fellow politicians, and even his own friends Roosevelt was widely disrespected. His popularity was often superficial, and seemed to decline as people close to him came to know him better
  One thing that bothered his friends was FDR’s ego. Hugh Johnson, the head of the NRA, said of his boss, “He seeks complete subservience. He thrives on adulation and submission.” Hiram Johnson, the Republican Senator who bolted his party in 1932 and 1936 and publicly supported Roosevelt, said of the president, “He is drunk with power.” Frances Perkins, the secretary of labor, listened to her boss almost every week and concluded, “Roosevelt never understood the point of view of the business community.” That does not surprise me in the least, especially as a political science major, do you see an interesting parallel here between FDR and false prophet Obama?One can make a serious and iintellectual argument that Obama has no comprehension of how the business community functions or any economic principles of the free market system, that is true of 99% of most extreme far left liberals.

   

  Many of Roosevelt’s friends seemed to fear reprisals if they told anyone what they really thought of him, and confided their true feelings in private diaries. Harold Ickes, the secretary of the interior, confided in his diary, “It is distressing to hear from so many quarters expressions that the President’s word cannot be relied upon. The number of people in the country who believe this seems to be growing. Unfortunately, based on my own experience, I regret to say that there are occasions when he does seem to regard his word lightly. I regret to say this about my Chief, the President of the United States, but unfortunately it is true.”

  Roosevelt picked Raymond Moley, a Columbia professor, to be a Brain Truster and to write speeches, which Moley did during the president’s first term. After one lengthy discussion with FDR, Moley wrote in his diary how Roosevelt had “launched into a denunciation of bankers and businessmen and said that every time they made an attack on him, . . . he gained votes and that the result of carrying on this sort of warfare was to bring the people to his support. . . . I was impressed as never before by the utter lack of logic of the man, the scantiness of his precise knowledge of things that he was talking about, by the gross inaccuracies in his statement, by the almost pathological lack of sequence in his discussion. . . . In other words, the political habits of his mind were working full steam with the added influence of a swollen ego. My deliberate impression is that he is dangerous in the extreme. . . .”TI find it stunning that his own speechwriter would say that, again another parallel key words here that can be applied to the false prophet Obama “inaccuracies” “scantiness of precise knowledge of things” “pathological lack of sequence in his discussion” [is that why the false messiah always uses a teleprompter?] “ego” all those terms can be accurately applied to our false prophet president Obama.

  Finally, Henry Morgenthau, perhaps FDR’s best friend, kept a diary in which he recorded his regular visits and conversations with the president. In many entries, Morgenthau expresses concern with the president’s ego and his desire to centralize power in his own hands. After one such visit, Morgenthau wrote, “He pictures himself as being called in as a consultant of the various nations of the world. He said, “Maybe I can prescribe for their ailments. . . . For example, I would tell England that she had too many people and she should move out ten million of her population. I would take a look at each country and, of course, when we made them disarm we would have to find new work for the munition workers in each country and that is where this international cartel would come in and your job would be to handle the finances.” again make a mental note of the phrase “ego and a desire to centralize power in his own hands” how relative is that to our current president, I’ll leave that for you to decide as you know full well where I stand on that issue

  Only when we begin to strip away these three myths will we be able to see the New Deal and the rise of the imperial presidency as a dark period in American history. In fact during the 1930s, the American economy would have been far better off if there had not been the New Deal. Lets all pray and work hard and get active in preventing false prophet Obama from repeating this peccanted economic policy and putting it into law.

  What Obama is just too plain stupid to understand is that high wages and high prices in an economic recession as we have now run contrary to everything I have learned about free market forces in economic downturns. As we’ve seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market’s self-correcting forces and extended the depression by at least 7 years, similar will happen if obama keeps expanding government with his death care and tax and trade policies that will lead to a depression perhaps even greater than 1929.

  My time is up and I thank each and every one of you for yours. May God Bless You and God Bless America

  Sincerely,

  

An Op-Ed By Heather™

Recently I received an interesting email from John, a friend relating on my discussion Dr. Lyle Rossiter’s proper analysis that liberalism is a flawed concept and a mental defect and I would love to further expand on my personal views on that. I have learned through the years, both by personal experience and from what I see on the news.

I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to have an intelligent rational debate on issues of policy with liberals, it does not matter whether it is governmental, religious or or social. Liberals when debating policy issue originate from a state of solipsism, that is to say a philosophical theory of any view outside of what their own mind’s belief does not exist. They come from an epistemological or ontological position that anything outside the liberal views inside their mind is unjustified, and that is the point that Dr. Rossiter tries to make when he correctly asserts that liberalism is a mental disorder. Solipsism syndrome is a dissociative mental state, the psychiatric condition of detachment from reality. The feeling of detachment from reality is unaffected by the answer to the question of whether the common-sense logic exists or not, especially in conservative matters of policy. In my personal opinion, that in essence, is what makes debating liberals so difficult, it also explains very well why so many liberals lie and distort the facts during a verbal or written discourse, this also explains why liberals love to create revisionist history

I could get very technical but I will avoid doing so because it would make for a boring op-ed. I personally feel the basic fundamental Reagan Principles should be carried out by our GOP once we regain political clout, they are as follows:

1. The idea that an individual is and should always be the master of his or her own destiny in conjunction with our Judeo Christian God.

2. The belief in the unique character and powers of every human being and their personal opinions.

3. A belief in freedom under law, as opposed to the concept of modern liberalism that power and government is everything.

4. A belief that collectivism and the centralizing of power in Washington threatened Americans with a loss of freedom in their own communities and daily lives.

5. A belief in the individual over bureaucracy.

6. That modern liberalism has, in the words of Whittaker Chambers, a “vindictiveness…of temper.”

7. That, as Reagan wrote, “we cannot diminish the value of an entire category of human life — the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life.”

8. That we will all die, but what makes the difference, as Reagan once said, is what we die for. That there are things worth dying for, and peace, alas, can never be purchased at any price but strength.

9. That freedom belongs to every individual by divine right.

10. That freedom is better than control.

My favorite statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke said of the free market system:

One may conjecture, moreover, that Burke would be as disturbed by the contemporary politics of redistribution as was social Philosopher F.A. Hayek; “compulsory equalization,” to Burke’s mind, could only mean “equal want, equal wretchedness, equal beggary.” And he would surely join Hayek in resisting the “officious universal interference” of modern government: “It is better to cherish virtue and humanity,” he believed, “leaving much to free will, even with some loss to the object, than to attempt to make men machines and instruments of a political benevolence. The world on the whole will gain by a liberty without which virtue cannot exist.” By that what Burke means is when you give out of free will, that is more precious and virtuous and beneficial to society than government applying it by law.

Curiously, in light of the often qualified if not begrudging respect some contemporary ‘conservatives’ grant to the market process, Burke, the “father of conservatism,” adopted a far more “laissez-faire” attitude toward the role of government in economic affairs, Burke more than Hayek, often caricatured as a strong advocate of the free-market system. Burke, for instance, believed efforts to ameliorate poverty should be undertaken exclusively by private charity—the Christian’s second duty behind the “payment of debts.” That in my opinion is absolutely correct and the backbone of Reaganomics.

My opinion [says Burke] is against any overdoing of any sort of administration and, more especially, against this most monstrous of all meddling on the part of authority: the meddling with the subsistence of its people. . . . [One must] manfully . . . resist the very first idea, speculative or practical, that it is within the competence of government . . . to supply the poor with necessaries. . . . To provide for us in our necessities is not in the power of government. It would be a vain presumption in statesmen to think they can do it. The people maintain them and not they the people. It is in the power of government to prevent much evil; it can do very little positive good in this, or perhaps in anything else. False prophet and agent of evil Obama is doing the exact opposite, what agent of evil Obama is doing is tantamount to building an evil governmental empire, my question to you is this…If you are an agent of evil doing the bidding of satan, would you want the masses to become dependent on you and the evil empire you have built so you can maintain the ultimate power over the masses and control them their wealth how they will earn it at the same time corrupting them and turning them away from our Judeo Christian God?

The false prophet Obama has completely obliterated that fundamental concept of what we core Christian Conservatives believe in so powerfully.

Should government become liberal or tyrannical and deviate from this Compact with the people, which the false prophet obama and his administration certainly has in it’s move towards socialism, then the people have not only a the right, but a moral obligation of revolution to overthrow the government which had broken the compact, and you certainly see the seeds of this starting with organized “Tea Parties” throughout the USA.

The irrationality of liberalism constitutes a flawed cornerstone of liberal philosophy. Liberal emphasis on calling for the use of government to solve social, political and economic problems. Government is viewed by false prophet Dalai Bama and his liberal trolls as the only agent of people capable of bringing to bear rational problem solving techniques and the authority to carry such policies out at the societal level. Social development ought not to be left to chance but planning and governmental power must be brought to bear on problems that are too large, too intractable, or too complex for the private or non-public sector to deal with effectively and/or equitably, that defies logic in my personal opinion and further adds ammunition to Dr. Rossiter’s concept that liberals suffer a mental defect.

Capitalism or the free market economy runs counter to this modern version of liberalism. A free market, by definition, is uncontrolled by human will and is, therefore, in opposition to the modern liberal emphasis on rational social planning and engineering. The original liberal orientation toward freedom from social, economic, religious and governmental institutions fit much more comfortably with capitalism than does the modernist failed version of liberalism. My question is how can GNP grow and expand properly if you muzzle the free market system?

In general, the modern false prophet Obama liberal view has been to stress the need for governmental restraints in the “political” realm such as freedoms of expression especially with Christianity and any criticism of any liberal policy, and also to seek expansive governmental powers in “economic” and “social” arenas in the name of protecting the “so called” disadvantaged and powerless groups who otherwise find themselves at the mercies of entrenched in government institutions criticized for running roughshod over hapless and helpless adversaries. Corporations must be controlled. The economy must be regulated. Moneyed interests must be tightly restricted. Private discrimination against individual members of minority groups that have been traditionally borne the brunt of societal bigotry must be outlawed and vigorously pursued by you guessed it… governmental agents. Thus, governments must be selectively limited in the extremist modern liberal view, examples being the war on terror the the adverse reaction of “tea Parties” and their obsession on so called “right wing militia groups”.

As liberalism began to espouse the false need for increased governmental regulation of business enterprises conservatives, particularly during the depression years to the present in the United States, adopted increasingly anti-regulatory positions. Cries of “creeping socialism” were raised against liberal efforts to increase governmental control over the economy. Aside from questions of economics conservatism has retained, and in recent years emphasized, its original emphasis on maintaining traditional values and institutions. Social maladies that seem to accompany Twentieth Century intensive urbanization (family disintegration, drug and alcohol abuse, soaring street crime rates, and a general loss of a sense of safety) are seen by us conservatives as clear evidence of a need to return to basics: faith in our Judeo Christian God, hope for a better future, love of country and family, instillation of self-discipline in the young, willingness to sacrifice immediate gratification for future goals, industriousness, and a sense of belonging, liberals tend to defy this concept just further strengthening the concept that liberalism is a flawed defective ideology and its about time we say so loudly, boldly and unapologetically! Well my time is up and I sincerely thank you for yours spent in reading my op-ed May God Bless You and Family and God Bless America!

Sincerely

An Op-Ed By Heather™

This is information that EVERY devout Roman Catholic within the United States must soon learn: The recent nomination by President Obama to the office of Ambassador to the Holy See is a major heretic. He is “well-educated”, but never-the-less, he ascribes to not one, not two, but many heresies which as a result, EXCOMMUNICATES himself from the Body of Christ ipso facto.

The office of the US Ambassador to the Holy See is important to the lives of American Catholics because it helps to ensure promote and ensure our rights within the nation. Certainly we shouldn’t have MORE rights as Catholics, but we should neither have less. Also, it is an error to believe that the government should not make among its priorities those same societal values that are held by Catholics. If you believe that our religion is no greater than any other religion, then you are already misled. The fundamentals of human rights are revealed and fostered by those expressed in the traditional teachings of the doctrines in the first, and one true, holy Christian Church. While there have been many who have gone astray within the Church, they have fallen only by the very fact that they have allowed themselves to be led away from Her teachings.Does Miguel Diaz not know that our current Pontiff and last Pope advidly CONDEMNED Liberation Theology? Yes, they did and for good reason! It starts off on an evil footing by idolizing society over God’s laws and leads to other errors (i.e., communism). This “theology” can only be support by those who already believe in relativism, whether or not they admit it. They disavow the unchangeability of dogma and doctrines of the Church, yet they believe in an absolute when it comes to the society so much that they will turn their backs on the Kingship of Christ in order to benefit who they want, and in the process gradually turn government into a type of tyrannical leadership in order to achieve their end.

Recently The agent of evil obama has nominated Miguel H. Diaz to be Ambassador to the Vatican, described as a “pro-life democrat” by the liberal biased media just like obama there is not much known about him, that alone causes me great distresss. One has to wonder why a pro-life democrat would support and work on the campaign of obama who an extremist on abortion to the point of late term abortions which in my opinion is murder; how does one reconcile the two? My reply to that is simple does the phrase “social justice” ring a bell? That is the battle cry of those that support and promote liberal theology, that in essence is what Mr. Diaz is, a liberal theologist trying to promote a liberal theology within the structure of the Vatican and recodify Catholic Canon Law either by stealth, proxy or both.

Let’s first go through some of the beliefs and teachings of Dr. Miguel Diaz, and compare them to what the Catholic Church teaches:

Liberation Theology – Believe-it-or-not, Diaz has written in support of Hispanic and Black Liberation Theology. This “theology” is based not on the teachings of Christ, but focuses rather on communist/marxist ideas supported by Karl Marx. The choices of Christ during his life become and obstacle to these so-called theologians, who will say that we are not, as Christians, called to walk in his footsteps, but to develop our OWN IDEAS of what Christ would/might teach if he were “alive today”. The trouble with that is obvious and fundamental: It says first off, that Christ’s teachings were only relavent to his time, which consequentially distorts the importance of all Christian teaching. The idea of “I accept Christ as my Lord and Savior, but I do not have to follow his teachings to be saved, and I deny his teachings as fully relevant to today. ” The next step from there is to reprioritize Christian principals, and even discard ones that do not have within their first glance the promotion of material distribution to the minorities. (Do you see why the Communists love this?) Any person or persons then holding on to the traditional teachings of the Church (holding them as precisely “catholic” — true always, for every people and every place) are then seen as traitor to the goals of the new society, intolerant of the needs of the oppressed, and to be taken out of society, either through repression of one’s ability to practice their faith, or through other means which help to enforce the new order.

Does Miguel Diaz not know that our current Pontiff and last Pope advidly CONDEMNED Liberation Theology? Yes, they did and for good reason! It starts off on an evil footing by idolizing society over God’s laws and leads to other errors (i.e., communism). This “theology” can only be support by those who already believe in relativism, whether or not they admit it. They disavow the unchangeability of dogma and doctrines of the Church, yet they believe in an absolute when it comes to the society so much that they will turn their backs on the Kingship of Christ in order to benefit who they want, and in the process gradually turn government into a type of tyrannical leadership in order to achieve their end.

“If confirmed by the U.S. Senate,” said Diaz in a statement. “I will continue the work of my predecessors and build upon 25 years of formal diplomatic relations with the Holy See. I wish to be a bridge between our nation and the Holy See.”

A bridge between our nation and the Holy See. That’s just the problem with U.S.-Vatican diplomatic relations, isn’t it?

Here is something that should worry you…Miguel H. Diaz and his wife, Dr. Marian K. Diaz, are the founders of “Companions on a Journey” at the College of Saint Benedict, an organization aimed at promoting the involvement of young Catholics in public life and social justice activities. <<<<<~~~~~< There is that pesky phrase again “social justice” Another cause for alarm is despite Mr Diaz’s crys of pro-life he also supported another abortionist’s rights politician, that being Kathleen Sebelius, a staunch pro-choice politician who was opposed by many Catholics, as nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary, are you begining to see a trend here as I connect the dots?

Mr. Diaz has been trained in the Karl Rahner mode of theology Karl Rahner was a German Catholic Theologian that had some radical crackpot ideologies relating to catholicism an example being Rahner was a critic of substance theory and was concerned about the finality of liturgy. He proposed instead to re-name transsubstantiation into transfinalization. However, this theory was rejected by Pope Paul VI in the encyclical Mysterium Fidei. Many of Rahner’s theories are contrary of the teachings of St Thomas Aqunias and Summa Theologica, I could go into great detail but people may find it boring and it would make for an extremely long op-ed, however I will say this much in a way that is simple and to the point… Rahner stated the following in one of his writings…

“This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to the decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.”

Karl Rahner, however, stated that this teaching in No. 25 of Lumen Gentium ” . . . is not to be propounded in such a way that in practice an absolute assent is still demanded or that there were no instance in which one might withhold assent.”3 When applying this teaching to a case in which a person had conscientiously decided to use contraception, against the decision of Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, Rahner commented: “Such a Catholic need not fear that he has incurred any subjective guilt or regard himself as in a state of formal disobedience to the Church’s authority.”Moral theologians, Ronald Modras and William May, have pointed out that Karl Rahner meant that one could “dissent” from the ordinary decisions of the pope on matters of faith and morals.

So, Karl Rahner believed that one could licitly dissent from the faith and moral decisions of the ordinary magisterium of the popes. Rahner’s belief, that the popes had made errors when teaching from their ordinary magisterium, was the most likely basis for his thinking. After all, how could the Church require people to give a submission of will and intellect (assent) to the ordinary decisions of the popes on faith and morals if the popes could err in these matters?

Karl Rahner implied (among other allegations of papal error) that the altered judgments of the Pontifical Biblical Commission over the past years were proof that the papal magisterium had made errors in doctrinal matters. Rahner thought that the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s ” . . . exegetical decisions had the same authority as other Roman doctrinal pronouncements

Karl Rahner’s big ideas on the Trinity – HERETICAL
Karl Rahner didn’t ascribe to the traditional interpretation of the Holy Trinity because he felt it didn’t explain enough. Basically, it didn’t fit his agenda to become a basis in which he would demonstrate that our Lord’s words and actions were largely only relative to that time in history.

Before I go any further with this, I want to first mention that not only is Miguel Diaz a past member of the steering committee of the Karl Rahner Society, but his writings consistently espouse the heresies of Karl Rahner.

Rahner’s argument was that the distinction between each Person of the Holy Trinity was not, in traditional teachings, distinctive enough, that he says it creates a type of monotheism. He goes so far to say that “The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity.” It is a type of trinitarian agnosticism, and NOT at all by accident. Rahner advocated “a theoloqy of knowledqe” instead of the traditional theology that recognizes its limitation and much mystery still unknown to the Church.

This “theology” is the means which leads to another heresy that Rahner professed, which is that heresy of immantism, which brings God to man’s level as if God is another member of the world, and that man can be at the level of God. (Think: “We are Church” mentality.) This is why he supported “evolutionistic Christology” — just as all his followers (i.e., Diaz). There are no, therefore, absolutes in Christ’s teachings (at least in the confused minds of these heretics).

Employees the phrase “Systemic Theology” in order to undermine the teachings of the Church, that are in the modernists’ minds, not a good fit for today’s society – HERETICAL
This one is very popular today. In a nutshell, this tremendously popular ‘theology’ is taught in many of our (non)Catholic universities. “Systemic Theology” is a term that began with the Protestants to break down the dogmas and doctrines of the one, true, holy and Apostolic Faith. They arrogantly put down the teachings of the Church Fathers and especially the Church Doctors by saying that they did not have as Spiritual understanding of the Bible, and therefore relied on a method of understanding which the Protestants who are honest enough to admit their Protestants and the catholics who are truly protestants. The modernist understanding of the what the Church SHOULD be teachings is by a new understanding of the Bible — a type of sola scriptura methodology, which winks at tradition only when it suits it’s social agenda. (If you want to hear a modernist in action describing this in further detail I recommend you listen to the 2nd and 3rd tapes of the 3-tape set of a talk given by Scott Hahn in 1993, “The Bodily Resurrection of Christ”. In it Hahn compares “Traditionalist” Catholics (those who cling to the Dogmas and Doctrines of the Church in the same way that the Church Father, Doctors and the rest of the saints did) to Protestants, inferring that they are in schism, and starts showing his cards by showing his anger towards tradition, especially towards the Doctors of the Church.

False Ecumenism – HERETICAL
Diaz’s mentality is that the Church’s teachings are relative to today’s society, and of course, his false presentation of ecumenism is only a means to promoting liberation theology.

Denies the Kingship of Christ – BLASPHEMOUS HERESY! *(I will write more this weekend)
Anyone who supports liberation theology, by the very essence of this heresy, profess that the society is greater than the Kingship of Christ. Don’t be fooled by the word-smything; the Kingship of Christ is never defended by those that believe that what Christ did and said in the time of the Apostles is not all fully relevant throughout the ends of the earth and until the end of time, and for all peoples. (See definition of “Catholic”.)

I think now you may understand the point I am trying to make, that being that Mr. Diaz who accepts and employs the ideology of Rahner in his beliefs and teachings and Rahner who believed that the catholic laity can dissent from the Pope from matters of faith and morals to put it in it’s most simplistic form is code for “cafeteria catholic” simply to accept and reject tenets of the Catholic Faith you accept or reject i.e. abortion, homosexuality etc. The agent of evil is too clever and witty by half. I am blessed by God that He allows me to see through the cunning of obama, I speak these things from my heart and my Faith in Jesus Christ. Well my time is up and I thank you for yours, please feel free to share your opinions and what you think. May God Bless each and everyone of you. And May God Bless America!

An Op-Ed By Heather™

For all true Necoconservative Christian Constitutionalists like me, please mark Tuesday, November 3, 2009 8.30 pm on your calendars. Americans are finally waking up the the fact that the dalai bama is an evil socialist president and his aim is to undermine the the free market system in America and to create a marxist state. The American people have proudly started to rebel, in the form of tea parties, town halls and a march on Washington.

On Tuesday, November 3, 2009 — exactly 52 weeks before the 2010 mid-term elections — conservatives across the country will come together for this national strategy call to discuss concrete steps to take back our country. U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), chairman of the Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF), and Erick Erickson, editor of RedState.com, will lead the discussion.

Participants will get to learn which candidates are the true conservatives, ask questions about specific races, and find out what actions they can take to defeat the liberal politicians who are destroying our country. I, along with my husband and daughter usually do part time volunteer work at our local chapter of the RNC and trust me its not easy. My mission is to get and support true core conservatives to run, and if they are running then the rank and file support of the GOP party apparatus, this is not always an easy taks as many of the big brass in the hierarchy of the RNC choose to support moderate appeasers. In any event participants will also get to vote for the candidates they like best using their telephone, and Senator DeMint will announce at least one major SCF endorsement at the end of the call.

This event will launch the formation of a committed conservative community that will work together win several critical 2010 Senate races. It will mark the beginning of a year-long movement to take back our country and save freedom in America.

Note* The Senate conservatives Fund is an independent political action committee dedicated to electing true conservatives to the U.S. Senate. SCF is not affiliated with the Republican Party or any of its campaign committees.

The SCF should be the “blue book” and or guide for all true core conservatives Click Here

An Op-Ed By Heather™

I live in New York State and recently, sadly, there has been a proliferation of ads on public transportation and anywhere in general advocating atheism especially in the context that you can be atheist not believe in God yet simultaneously be a “good” law abiding citizen. Well I take issue with this. I am qualified enough having two degrees, A Masters in Political Science and the other a Bachelors in Divinity at a University I was once proud of but now have a deep and abiding shame for… in my defense it was radically different when I attended to the way it has now become. Being of Irish ancestry it was Every Irish Mom and Dad’s dream their child[ren] attend and graduate that university, suffice to say I will leave it at that.

First, I feel compelled as a practicing devout conservative Roman Catholic to speak out, also as a Neoconservative wife and mother who with her heart and mind believes passionately that our great founding fathers were Christians, not as liberals and atheists say “deists” By that liberals are being too clever by half, because they know they cannot argue that they collectively as a group were atheists, because the written record is too extensive that they were not  atheists.

Rather they choose get around that by employing “deists” so they can argue that our founding father’s belief in a Judeo Christian God was based on reason and practicality rather than faith and revelation, which in my opinion is flawed and not factual, simply a canard advanced by liberals and or atheists to advance an anti Christian agenda.

Since the Dalai Bama has become president he has taken and supported policies that are vehemently anti Christian, pro atheist and pro Muslim. Never in my life have I seen such anti Christian fervor in America as I have seen since the Dalai Bama unfortunately has become president of our great nation. I implore people that are of a Christian Denomination to wake up and get active before it is too late. We can as good Christians, moreover we have a duty and obligation as good God Fearing Christians fight Government we it becomes oppressive and abusive. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government’s laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation. Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience.” This may actually come to pass an Obama administration that is increasingly hostile to Christianity and Christian values.

The Bible therefore requires that Christians resist imposition of martial law based upon false pretenses or upon an abuse of power Romans 13

“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” – United States Supreme Court, 1892.

While making certain not to endorse any denomination of religion over another, the founders of this nation made it emphatically clear that the principles upon which this Nation was built are based squarely upon the Bible.
Virtually every one of the 55 writers and signers of the United States Constitution were members of various Christian denominations: 29 were Anglicans, 16 to 18 were Calvinists, 2 were Methodists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Roman Catholic, 1 lapsed Quaker and sometimes Anglican, and 1 open deist–Benjamin Franklin who attended every kind of Christian worship, called for public prayer, and contributed to all denominations.

George Mason is called the father of the Bill of Rights, for he insisted that the first ten amendments be added to the Constitution. The purpose for such an addition? “The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth,” Mason said.
James McHenry was a member of the Continental Congress, a state legislator, a soldier, and a signer of the Constitution…as well as the president of the first Bible Society in Baltimore. McHenry stated:
Neither…let it be overlooked, that public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures.
The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness.

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney also signed the Constitution, and served as a delegate to the national Constitutional Convention and an author of the Constitution of South Carolina. Pinckney was a statesman, soldier, planter, a brigadier general and a candidate for President and Vice-President. Like the rest of the signers of the Constitution, he too recognized the Sovereignty of God:
“Blasphemy against the Almighty is denying his being or providence, or uttering contumelious reproaches on our Savior Christ. It is punished, at common law by fine and imprisonment, for Christianity is part of the laws of the land.”

Moreover, for those who fear this sort of Law breeds intolerance or disrespect for others, Patrick Henry boldly declared:
It cannot be emphasized too strongly that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
Likewise, the Constitution of the United States was drafted so as to be in accordance with the Scriptures, to be the legal foundation of a republican form of government based on that model which God had ordained for the children of Israel. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson even suggested that the national seal be a portrayal of “the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night.” Much of the Constitution and our American common law and organic law is also derived from the principles of the Magna Carta, which expressly forbade monarchical tyranny.

Now having proven my point that we are no matter what anyone including our anti Christian president may say we are a Christian Nation founded under the principles and beliefs of a Judeo Christian God!

Now my second point is that moral law has its genesis from a Judeo Christian God, for good only exists in God and without God good does not exist only evil. In Luke 18 we find a conversation between Jesus and a young influential and wealthy man, Mark 10: 17-18 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good-except my Heavenly Father.

That right there disproves the liberal atheist theory that you can be moral and decent without God, for what Jesus is clearly saying is that good can only exist with God!

I humbly urge all my Christian Conservative Brothers and Sisters in Christ Jesus is to stay the course fight the good fight, be active and fight our anti Christian president and all his minions, be outspoken advocates in the name of Our Lord God And Savior Jesus Christ without exception, without apology! I know as a Christian and a mother I want my daughter to inherit an America that reveres, loves, appreciates and respects Judeo Christian values, I also know that many good and decent conservatives want the same for their children, but that will only happen if we fight for it and stand on our faith and principles without compromise.

Without our faith in our Judeo Christian God we cannot be true Conservatives so please let us fight the good fight! You know my motto I have borrowed from Braveheart the movie with poetic license:

My Name Is Heather! We have bled With Our Hero Ronald Reagan! Now Bleed With Me!
“In the Year of Our Lord 2012, Christian Conservative Patriots of America, Hopelessly Outnumbered, Charged the Polls of America. They Fought Like Warrior Poets. They Fought like Brave Americans. And Won Their Freedom from Liberal Tyranny!
This we must do For God, For Family, For Country and For Ourselves.
My Time is up and I sincerely thank each one of you for yours, please feel free to add your comments agree or disagree. May God Bless You All And God Bless America!

An Op-Ed By Heather™

American Thinker asks, “If Obama were a Marxist, What Would He Believe?”

Marxist theories sadly now dominate Western universities. Sickning movements like Race Theory, Feminism, Gay Rights, Modern Art, Critical Theory, Animal Rights, Gender Studies, abortion advocacy, Deconstruction, penal reform, Hate Crimes legislation, etc are all informed by Frankfurt scholarship. Redefined Marxism has produced spectacularly disruptive results. Radical liberals argue Dalai Bama’s election is a direct result of cultural Marxism’s success. Universal Health Care is another Marxist unholy grail. The USSR had free medical treatment, notable for a staggering lack of basic supplies, horribly outdated methods, and horrifically filthy conditions.

Cloward-Piven Scheme for Planned Catastrophe: Ominously, in 1966, Columbia University scholars Richard Cloward and Frances Piven published a theory outlining methods to destroy a healthy capitalist economy and force communist revolution. This eliminates capitalism by making impossible state budgetary demands, thereby bringing government insolvency.

Critics claim Obama’s budget is an example of the Cloward-Pivin model of planned economic destruction of a functioning capitalist economy via sabotage. Outlays are so gigantic, and so dreadfully misspent, that our financial infrastructure will soon collapse. A trillion dollar tax increase and spending rising by $10 trillion dollars over the next decade is probable. If so, government default will occur, only offset by mass currency printing, which will then bankrupt the general populace. The middle class will fall. Chronic inflation will result, causing America to lose its sterling credit rating. Global financial players must dump the dollar as it swan-dives. Then, hyperinflation will accelerate, and the era of superpower America will end.

Would the above plan be Marxist? Consider the following statement regarding USSR dictator Vladimir Lenin’s opinion on the topic, from famed economist John Maynard Keynes’ book “The Economic Consequences of the Peace”:

“Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

Read it all to understand what Marxism is all about.

Obama and his Democratic cohorts certainly seem intent on “debauching the currency” of this country. Marx himself believed that the quickest way to bring about a communist paradise was to jump-start the destruction of capitalism by destroying wealth.

As to Obama himself, when questions about his Marxism arose during the campaign he responded by asserting that he should be judged by the people with whom he surrounded himself.

In order to understand Barack Obama one must look beyond the official, Congressional-approved Cabinet choices to the truckload of unofficial ‘czars,’ ’special advisor’s,’ and ‘officers’ he has chosen to come to the White House to have direct access to him.

If one uses the criterion Obama laid out by which to judge his character, political ideology, and plans for the country, we can only conclude that the President is a far-Left extremist who disdains capitalism and free commerce, free speech in the open marketplace of ideas, Caucasian people who have accumulated wealth, and any dissent from the concepts propounded by his ‘regime.’

Again, read it all; and then add the latest information we have about Anita Dunn, a close personal friend and communications director for Obama, who told a group of high school students that one of her favorite philosophers was Mao. As Victor Davis Hanson notes:

I am not a big fan of saying that officials should resign for stupid remarks. But interim White House communications director Anita Dunn’s praise of Mao Tse Tung as a “political philosopher” is so unhinged and morally repugnant, that she should hang it up, pronto.

Mao killed anywhere from 50 million to 70 million innocents in the initial cleansing of Nationalists, the scouring of the countryside, the failed Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, Tibet, and the internal Chinese gulag. Dunn’s praise of a genocidal monster was no inadvertent slip: She was reading from a written text and went into great detail to give the full context of the remark. Moreover, her comments were not some student outburst from 30 years ago; they were delivered on June 5, 2009. Her praise of Mao’s insight and courage in defeating the Nationalists was offered long after the full extent of Mao’s mass-murdering had been well documented. Mao killed more people than any other single mass killer in the history of civilization.

She is just the latest in a long line of Marxists, communists, and socialists that Obama has surrounded himself with to help him “mop up” America.

If we follow the old adage, then I think we can say with some confidence that, “If it walks like a Marxist, talks like a Marxist (and surrounds itself with a crapload of Marxists/communists/socialists), then it must be a Marxist.”

And Marxists are always hopeful…

(image: h/t The Corner)

An Op-Ed By Heather™

The other day Pope Benedict XVI made a stunning move that has me slightly disappointed and puzzled, that being, Pope Benedict has approved a document that would allow Anglicans who are disaffected with the direction the Anglican Communion is taking… to enter the Catholic Church

While I approve of the welcoming of Anglicans to our more conservative true faith, I am rather uncomfortable in how it it being done

The part that has me deeply upset is the following…In this Apostolic Constitution the Holy Father has introduced a canonical structure that provides for such corporate reunion by establishing Personal Ordinariates, which will allow former Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony. Under the terms of the Apostolic Constitution, pastoral oversight and guidance will be provided for groups of former Anglicans through a Personal Ordinariate, whose Ordinary will usually be appointed from among former Anglican clergy.

Many may not understand what that means so I will try to explain to the best of my ability… I a theological “Ordinates” in this context means that they will be responsible to the hierachy of their own faith rather than the catholic hierarchy… “patrimony” here refers to the birthright of their faith

To conservative catholic traditionialists like me for lack of a better term this is like ethnic cleansing of My Catholic faith and I am deeply perplexed why Pope Benedict XVI added what is basically an amendment to Catholic Canon Law

Since the sixteenth century, when King Henry VIII declared the Church in England independent of Papal Authority, the Church of England has created its own doctrinal confessions, liturgical books, and pastoral practices, often incorporating ideas from the Reformation on the European continent. The expansion of the British Empire, together with Anglican missionary work, eventually gave rise to a world-wide Anglican Communion. Also they have women serving as priests, could this be a stealth way to bring women into the Catholic Priesthood? All this has me deeply concerned. Just how will this reconcile itself to the Catholic Faith? So far there are no answers from the Vatican to the inquiries that I have made, nor from my local archdiocese

I encourage all catholics of good faith especially traditionalist conservative catholics like me to please call your local parishes and archdiocese and the Holy See itself to see to it that the Catholic Faith remains the one true faith and religion, I thank you for your time and comments. May God Bless our Catholic Faith, our clergy and God bless America

Posted in My Catholic Page ]]>