The following is a compilation of bill signings, speeches, appointments and other actions that President Barack Obama has engaged in that have promoted abortion before and during his presidency. While Obama has deliberately lied in his  promise to reduce abortions  this long list proves his only agenda is promoting more abortions.

During the presidential election, Obama selected pro-abortion Sen. Joe Biden as his vice-presidential running mate.

Post-Election / Pre-Inauguration

November 5, 2008 – Obama selects pro-abortion Rep. Rahm Emanuel as his White House Chief of Staff. Emanuel has a 0% pro-life voting record according to National Right to Life.

November 19, 2008 – Obama picks pro-abortion former Sen. Tom Daschle as his Health and Human Services Secretary. Daschle has a long pro-abortion voting record according to National Right to Life.

November 20, 2008 – Obama chooses former NARAL legal director Dawn Johnsen to serve as a member of his Department of Justice Review Team. Later, he finalizes her appointment as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of the Legal Counsel in the Obama administration.

November 24, 2008 – Obama appoints Ellen Moran, the former director of the pro-abortion group Emily’s List as his White House communications director. Emily’s List only supported candidates who favored taxpayer funded abortions and opposed a partial-birth abortion ban.

November 24, 2008 – Obama puts former Emily’s List board member Melody Barnes in place as his director of the Domestic Policy Council.

November 30, 2008 – Obama named pro-abortion Sen. Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State. Clinton has an unblemished pro-abortion voting record and has supported making unlimited abortions an international right.

December 10, 2008 – Obama selects pro-abortion former Clinton administration official Jeanne Lambrew to become the deputy director of the White House Office of Health Reform. Planned Parenthood is “excited” about the selection.

December 10, 2008 – Obama transition team publishes memo from dozens of pro-abortion groups listing their laundry list of pro-abortions actions they want him to take.

Pro-Abortion Presidential Record – 2009

January 5, 2009 – Obama picks pro-abortion Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine as the chairman of the Democratic Party.

January 6, 2009 – Obama chooses Thomas Perrelli, the lawyer who represented Terri Schiavo’s husband Michael in his efforts to kill his disabled wife, as the third highest attorney in the Justice Department.

January 22, 2009 – Releases statement restating support for Roe v. Wade decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions and has resulted in at least 50 million abortions since 1973.

January 23, 2009 – Forces taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. Decison to overturn Mexico City Policy sends part of $457 million to pro-abortion organizations.

January 26, 2009 – Obama nominee for Deputy Secretary of State, James B. Steinberg, tells members of the Senate that taxpayers should be forced to fund abortions. Nominee erroneously says limits on abortion funding are unconstitutional.

January 29, 2009 – President Obama nominates pro-abortion David Ogden as Deputy Attorney General.

February 12, 2009 – Obama nominates pro-abortion Elena Kagan to serve as Solicitor General.

February 27, 2009 – Starts the process of overturning pro-life conscience protections President Bush put in place to make sure medical staff and centers are not forced to do abortions.

February 28, 2009 – Barack Obama nominates pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius to become Secretary of Health and Human Services.

March 5, 2009 – The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit. Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business, made the invitation list as did other pro-abortion groups.

March 9, 2009 – President Barack Obama signed an executive order forcing taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research.

March 10, 2009 – Obama announces the creation of a new foreign policy position to focus on women’s issues. He names Melanne Verveer, an abortion advocate, to occupy the post.

March 10, 2009 – Reverses an executive order to press for more research into ways of obtaining embryonic stem cells without harming human life. The order Obama scrapped would have promoted new forms of stem cell research.

March 11, 2009 – Obama signed an executive order establishing a new agency within his administration known as the White House Council on Women and Girls. Obama’s director of public liaison at the White House, Tina Tchen, an abortion advocate, became director of it.

March 11, 2009 – Obama administration promotes an unlimited right to abortion at a United Nations meeting.

March 11, 2009 – Obama administration officials deny negative effects of abortion at United Nation’s meeting.

March 17, 2009 – President Barack Obama makes his first judicial appointment and names pro-abortion federal Judge David Hamilton to serve on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

March 26 – President Obama announced $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that has been criticized for promoting abortion and working closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations.

April 7 – The Vatican has rejected three Obama ambassador nominees because of their positions in favor of abortions.

April 7 – Obama has named pro-abortion law professor Harold Hongju Koh as the top lawyer for the State Department.

April 7 – Put more abortion advocates on his White House advisory council for faith-based issues.

April 8 – Obama nominee for assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, Ron Weich, is pro-abortion.

April 14 – Obama administration releases document that claims pro-life people may engage in violence or extremism.

April 17 – Obama administration releases the proposed guidelines that implement his decision to allow taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research that involves the destruction of human life.

April 23 – Refused to appeal a ruling requiring the FDA to allow 17-year-old girls to purchase the morning after pill without either a doctor visit or parental involvement beforehand.

April 27 – Obama’s women’s ambassador Melanne Verveer touted Obama’s decision to send $50 million to the United Nation’s Population Fund.

May 5 – Details emerge about a terrorism dictionary the administration of President Barack Obama put together in March. The Domestic Extremism Lexicon calls pro-life advocates violent and claims they employ racist overtones in engaging in criminal actions.

May 8 – President Obama releases a new budget that allows the Legal Services Corporation to use tax dollars to pay for pro-abortion litigation.

May 8 – President Obama’s new budget calls for taxpayer funded abortions in the nation’s capital.

May 8 – President Obama’s budget eliminates all federal funding for abstinence-only education.

May 15 – Appointed pro-abortion New York City health commissioner Thomas Frieden as head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

May 17 – During his commencement speech at Notre Dame, Obama deceived listeners into thinking he wants a conscience clause, promoted embryonic stem cell research and misstated his pro-abortion record.

May 26 – Appoints appeals court judge Sonia Sonotmayor as a Supreme Court nominee. Sotomayor agrees that the courts should make policy, such as the Roe v. Wade case. Sotomayor is later opposed by pro-life groups and supported by pro-abortion groups and those who know her say she will support abortion on the high court.

July 2- Calls for an unlimited right to abortion at a United Nation’s meeting.

July 7- The Obama administration admits it ignored the majority of Americans who opposed the proposed guidelines that would implement Obama’s decision to force taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research.

July 14 – Obama science czar nominee John Holdren is revealed to have written before that he favors forced abortions.

July 30 – Awards several pro-abortion activists with the 2009 Presidential Medal of Freedom.

July 31 – Tells the National Institutes of Health to adopt rules that allow embryonic stem cell research.

August 4 – Information becomes public that Ezekiel Emanuel, an Obama advisor at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, supports rationing health care for disabled Americans that could lead to euthanasia.

August 6 – Obama criticized for asking for people to “snitch” on groups and people who oppose the pro-abortion health care bills in Congress.

August 13 – Obama wrongly said a senator backed the pro-euthanasia components of the health care bill.

August 23 – Said pro-life advocates were making “phony claims” about the health care bills. Also said the claims were false.

August 24 – Releases veterans guide promoting euthanasia.

September 13 – Misleads on the federal conscience clause in a health care speech and misleads on abortion funding.

September 13 – Obama waits two days to comment on shooting of pro-life advocate whereas he commented immediately on shooting of abortion practitioner.

September 15 – Senate confirms Obama’s new regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, who is pro-abortion.

October 5 – Selected pro-abortion lawyer and Georgetown University law professor Chai Feldblum for the EEOC.

October 5 – Anounces he will give the keynote speech for pro-abortion group Human Rights Campaign.

October 19 – Obama’s serve.gov web site promotes the Planned Parenthood abortion business.

October 21 – Obama administration web site promotes pro-abortion health care bills.

November 6 – Endorsed the House version of the health care bill that, at the time, contained massive abortion funding, rationing and assisted suicide promotion.

November 26 – Copies Thanksgiving proclamation of President Bush but leaves out pro-life message.

December 2 – Authorized taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research that kills days-old unborn children.

December 3 – A pro-abortion Obama judicial pick, Louis Butler, is approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

December 7 – Announces his endorsement of the pro-abortion Senate health care bill.

December 16 – Obama administration forces Americans a second time to spend millions more on embryonic stem cell research that destroys human life.

December 17 – Signed a bill that overturned the 13-year-long ban on funding abortions with tax dollars in the nation’s capital.

Now I posted that to show that if anyone believes that what obama signs as far as a health care bill is concerned that will not in some way, some how not have taxpayer-funded abortions attached to it, you are either not in touch with reality or terribly naive or both, I humbly beg your support in doing all you can to fight this bill I thank you for your time and support Abortion is murder pure and simple and our government should not be involved in murder incorporated

*Footnote Sourced From LifeSite News

An Op-Ed By Heather™

The other day obama gave a pathetic speech on receiving his Nobel Peace Prize it was all one canard following another many things he said in the first third of his speech he, in his heart and soul, [assuming he has one] does not believe in. What angers me is that blowhard traitors to the cause Newt and some other conservative pundits took the bait. What he said was only to stop the bleeding of his falling approval among independents.

Now that the speech is over and misguided conservatives who foolishly praised obama’s nutty speech have a new assualt on American Core Christian Values, that being obama’s pick of Chai Feldblum a wacked out whacko feminist anti Christian troglodyte. You may ask why do I have such a vituperative description of her? Well you be the judge.

Georgetown University lesbian law professor Chai Feldblum believes that when same-sex is marriage is legalized, which she argues is both necessary and inevitable, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights. This is the same Chai Feldblum who has been nominated to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

[L]et us postulate, for the moment, that in some number of years an overwhelming majority of jurisdictions in this country will have changed their laws so that LGBT people will have full equality in society, including access to civil marriage. Or, indeed, let us postulate that the entire country is governed–as a matter of federal statutory and constitutional law–on the basis of full equality for LGBT people….
Assume for the moment that these beliefs ultimately translate into the passage of laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and that provide same-sex couples the same societal supports currently available to opposite-sex couples, including access to civil marriage….
[G]ranting this justified liberty and equality to gay people will likely put a burden on those religious people who believe acting on one’s same-sex sexual orientation is a sin and who may feel they are aiding and abetting sin if they rent an apartment to a gay couple, allow a gay couple to eat at their restaurant, or provide health benefits to a same-sex spouse….
That is because I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if “pockets of resistance” to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people…

Not surprisingly, following her nomination to the EEOC, Feldblum requested that her name be removed from the subversive document she signed in 2006 entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families and Relationships,” which begins with this troubling statement:

We, the undersigned–lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers– seek to offer friends and colleagues everywhere a new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships, households, kinship relationships and families. In so doing, we hope to move beyond the narrow confines of marriage politics as they exist in the United States today
The “Beyond Marriage” authors seek to have “Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner” as well as “Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households” be recognized as families and accorded all the benefits of traditional marriages.

Click HERE to watch a short and important video that exposes the radical nature of Feldblum’s vision for America, American jurisprudence, and her assualt on the religious liberty of America.

I hope my conservative colleagues can see that obama’s goal here is the use the American Labor force as a lab experiment to promote and endorse radical social and sexual behavior in the work force and to further erode Judeo Christian Moral Values In America…

IT IS TIME TO WAKE UP AMERICA!

And here are the titles of just three of Feldblum’s scholarly articles:

“ Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion“

“The Right to Define One’s Own Concept of Existence: What Lawrence Can Mean for Intersex and Transgender People”

“ Gay is Good: The Moral Case for Marriage Equality and More” in which she asserts that “even if gay couples succeed in ‘getting marriage,’ the gay rights movement may have missed a critical opportunity — a chance to make a positive moral case for gay sex and gay couples. In other words, it will have missed the opportunity to argue that ‘gay is good,’” and that “changing the public’s perception of the morality of gay sex and of changing one’s gender may ultimately be necessary to achieve true equality for LGBT people.”

One of the authors of “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” Nancy Polikoff, another lesbian law professor, is pleased as punch that her radical compatriot Feldblum is being considered for the EEOC. Polikoff, who teaches about sexuality and the law at American University, has written voluminously on the issue of families headed by homosexuals. Through her many feckless assertions about families, Polikoff provides clear evidence that proves my theory: intelligence is often wholly disconnected from wisdom!

Here are just a few of her statements from an article entitled “The Deliberate Construction of Families Without Fathers: Is it an Option for Lesbian and Heterosexual Mothers?“

“I start this paper with the premise that it is no tragedy, either on a national scale or in an individual family, for children to be raised without fathers.”

“Contrary to the ideology that simultaneously glorifies fathers and vilifies mothers, I want women to have the option to form families in which their children have no fathers.”

“Planned lesbian families exemplify the construction of parenthood as a process distinct from biology…”

“I envision…a method of liberating women and children from the control of men and of recognizing the legitimacy of deliberate childrearing without fathers…”

If conservatives continue to self-censor, if we refuse to courageously and publicly counter the relentless, pervasive, deafening cultural messages that affirm homosexual acts as moral, we will lose speech rights, religious liberty, and we will see the destruction of marriage and the natural family. Moreover as Christians if we fail to act we become complicit conspiritors in these evil acts of heresy against Christianity, My question to you is…Do you want that on your conscience?

On Thursday, Dec. 10, 2009, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions approved Feldblum for the EEOC, which sends her nomination to the full Senate for a vote. Please contact both Senators Durbin and Burris to express your vehement opposition to her confirmation.

TAKE ACTION: CLICK HERE to send a fax to Republican leaders in the U.S. Senate to ask them to oppose the nomination of this radical activist.

I thank you for your time in reading my Op-Ed please unite and fight all obama agendas! This evil must be quarantined

An Op-Ed By Heather™

I wanted to do a re-posting from an excerpt of an op-ed I had written in my old blog site, as well as the comment and reply sections of Washington Post and the New York Times, it received praise from conservative bloggers, although it was trashed by liberals which in and of itself is high praise for a core Christian Conservative and blogger like myself. I am reposting this because I want to wake white America up! It no longer has to wallow in white guilt over slavery! If you do Obama will use it against Christianity.

If you remember back during Obama’s campaign for the presidency he had an overly hyped speech on race that was severely flawed, and lacking in substance. In a hurry to kiss up to African Americans the mainstream media ridiculously had the audacity to compare that speech to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, it was not even close to the quality, honesty or integrity of Lincoln’s speech, the reason I say honesty is because Obama made his speech as a campaign ploy while Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address came from the heart to heal a nation not as a campaign strategy to win over votes

Titled my op-ed Obama’s Other Original Sin [The one of omission] Since in his speech he assailed that Slavery is tantamount to the Original Sin In the Book Of Genesis, well that is the conclusion I got at least. I personally interpret that as mocking God and demeaning the Holy Bible and the the paramount importance of the act of Original Sin as well as the falling from grace of Adam and Eve. God the Father considered the sin so grave and severe that he sent His only begotten Son, Our Lord God And Savior Jesus Christ to sacrifice his life and crucified on a cross to redeem our sins and reconcile ourselves unto God The Father and for obama to compare or use even use the term “Original Sin” in relation to slavery is utter folly.

My main purpose is to point out Obama’s flawed view on racism, race, as well as race relations in America. Once again his speech is long on rhetoric and emotion but acutely lacks any legitimate substance and as a result it reveals to me that this man has little or no understanding of racism throughout American History, furthermore it just reveals it’s true intent which was simply a ploy to win praise from liberal fools in the media as well as winning votes. Here is an excerpt from my post

The Other Original Sin Senator Obama Will Not Speak Of…Senator Obama was graceful in his speech about racism but it was very limited in scope and vision, it focused primarily in Anglo-African American relations while ignoring other minorities, in my opinion if you discuss racism you need to discuss it in its entire genesis.

What Senator Obama failed to mention in his lofty flowery speech on racism was any mention on the subject of other minorities besides African American. Senator Obama’s speech on racism was extremely flawed and limited in scope vision and unity. He predominantly focused on racism on the African American community while practically ignoring other minorities and their struggles of oppression. Ignored were the Chinese, who were basically imported as slave labor for the construction of American railroads. The constitution of California was rewritten in 1879 forbidding any man or woman of “Chinese or Mongolian” ancestry from earning a living by working for a white man. And the legislature delegated “all necessary power” to towns and cities “for the removal of Chinese.” The state constitution declared that the Chinese people were “dangerous to the well-being of the State.

In 1882 the Congress enacted the Chinese Exclusion Act, which decreed that a Chinese man who worked with his “hands,” who was a “manual” laborer, would be prohibited from coming to America. And the people from China who were already residents were barred from becoming citizens. Chinese, like Black people and Indians, were not allowed to testify against whites in court. They were barred from public schools and forbidden to own real estate or get business licenses or government contracts. In San Francisco, laws were passed against the Chinese like a “queue tax,” a “cubic air ordinance” requiring that every residence have so many cubic feet of air per inhabitant, and a “pole law” prohibiting the use of carrying baskets on poles. Laws that specifically targeted Chinese immigration stayed on the books until 1965. The Chinese Exclusion Act was not repealed until 1943–and even then immigration of Chinese was given a quota of only 105 per year!

The white labor movement in California became a major force behind the racist campaigns to drive the Chinese out. Mobs stormed through towns where Chinese immigrants lived, burning homes, and looting shops. Chinese were lynched and scalped. They had their pigtails cut off and were branded with hot irons. In one incident a mob caught a Chinese miner and sliced off his genitals. In one Nevada town a Chinese laundryman was tied to a wagon wheel and the buckboard was driven at high speed through the town until the man’s head fell off. One Chinese crab fisherman who was beaten to death was branded by hot irons, his ears sliced in half with a knife and his tongue cut off. You see Senator Obama it’s not just about what African Americans endured in Selma.

In closing, I just wanted to express my personal opinions on Senator Obama’s ridiculously overvalued speech on racism. You see Senator Obama if you are going to have a speech on racism it has to be inclusive of all races, minorities and women that have suffered. For a man that claims a lineage of all colors of the rainbow and multiple continents your speech was sadly black and white.

An important point I want to make is that Obama has gotten wide latitude that he never should have been given much in part because of white guilt over the slaver issue. Let me preface that I abhor and detest slavery in any form or against any race or creed, having stated that I am not nor will I ever give Obama any latitude whatsoever! I see Obama as an agent of evil… he promotes anything anti Christian and or irreligious or Muslim while devaluing what is Godly and Judeo Christian. Just recently he was debating as to whether or not to celebrate a winter holiday as opposed to Christmas the fact that he relented and Chose Christmas is not the point, the scary part is that it was even an issue!. Please be advised that to this day he has not chosen a Christian denomination since leaving Black Racist Pastor Wright’s Church of “Hate Whitey” Obama has been in my opinion wide latitude because of white guilt over slavery. Well its time to lose the guilt if not you can bet the Obama’s, Jackson’s Sharpton’s will continue to use it and not against White America but against Christianity and the Judeo Christian God we have faith and believe in! It is simple really, the question I pose to you what is worse offending Obama and guilt over racism and slavery, or offending our Judeo Christian God and the sins we committed against God? You cannot shoulder the guilt and sins of your ancestors only your own.

That is an excerpt of what I had posted a few weeks before the Super Tuesday Elections of last year. Please know it was not my intention to in any way minimize the sufferings of African Americans but to merely point out and gave one example that other minorities have suffered as well and if you are going to have a valid speech on race in America it has to focus on all races not just African Americans otherwise it just comes across as a cheap ploy to appeal for votes In any event there are so many terrific Christian Conservative Patriots on Twitter that I felt I would share it with you even though its belated it still shows an important mindset of The Minister of Miracles a.k.a. President Obama.
Well I sincerely thank you so much for your time. God Bless each one of you and God Bless America!

An Op-Ed By Heather™

Obama’s latest gaffe, he told soldiers what he thinks of them. From Fox Nation: “Obama arrived on the base 3:19 p.m. local time (1 a.m. Eastern Standard Time), and received a rousing welcome from 1,500 troops in camouflage uniforms, many holding cameras or pointing cell phones to snap pictures. “You guys make a pretty good photo op,” the president said. Standing on a riser wearing a blue suit and red tie, with a cluster of troops and a large American flag behind him, Obama expressed “the gratitude of the American public” and said his meetings in four countries over eight days in Asia will help deliver a “safer more prosperous world for all of us.” – ConservativeAmerican.org points out Obama says it is HIM who will make the world safer and more prosperous, not the soldiers! They just make for a good photo op!

An Op-Ed By Heather

An atheist extremist group, the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, is fighting to remove the phrases “In God We Trust” and “one nation under God” from the Capitol Visitor Center. Backmann backs “God” in the Capitol Center

The extremist nut jobs are trying to deny the relationship between God and government. The US government draws its moral sense from the religion of the people. The Founders knew that the virtue found in religious morality is essential to a free society, and wrote on that principle at length.

When a government official takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, they are swearing on their faith in God that they will do so. That is what an oath is. It is a swearing on one’s faith in God. It is not just a promise or affirmation. Faith is the foundation of moral government. The oaths in the Constitution are dependent on the swearer’s faith in God. The oaths bind the officials of our government to religious virtue, and at the same time do not bind the government to any one establishment of religion.

These kooks at the Freedom From Religion Foundation are intentionally trying to destroy America’s foundation of virtue. What do you want to bet me that they aren’t a bunch a socialist and avowed communists?

An Op-Ed By Heather™

I would like to touch on an issue not being discussed by the mainstream leftist liberal media, that should be of great importance to every Christian Neoconservative parent, that being the no. 2 man in the Justice Department Deputy Assistant Attorney David Ogden just underneath Eric Holder at Justice. There is definite cause for alarm here, Catholic organizations working to promote religious freedom, human life and family values, Americans should be suspicious of his confirmation conversion.

Pro Porn Lawyer David Ogden Deputy. Atty Gen.

Ogden’s career includes a long record of arguing against child porn laws and in favor of racial preferences and virtually unlimited abortion on behalf of clients including Penthouse, the ACLU and Playboy. Ogden spent his entire life arguing for far left extremist positions, He argued that ‘abortion rarely causes or exacerbates psychological or emotional problems,’ opposed parental notifications for 14-year-olds and called spousal notification a ‘burden’ that cannot be justified. Publisher Hugh Hefner outlined how he operated ‘behind the scenes’ to bring U.S. laws in line with Playboy morality,” he wrote in a 2004 issue. One think tank I enjoy is The Heritage Foundation and according to Deborah O’Malley of the Heritage Foundation, Ogden also has dangerous propensities to cite other nations’ laws instead of U.S. law.

“Specifically, questions have been raised about his work on a recent Supreme Court decision that invoked foreign law to impose a radical change on American death penalty policy. Given the danger that this growing tendency to consult foreign law poses to our ability to self-govern, senators should probe Ogden about his involvement with this case,” she wrote.

I If anyone has seen the annoying NBC show “To Catch a Predator” its those predators that obama’s no2 atty. general wants to protect and give added rights to. If you find those predators disgusting and dehumanizing how can you not find David Ogden in the same venue?Opposed Parental Notification by 14-year olds
In
Hartigan v. Zbaraz
484 U.S. 171 (1987), Ogden co-authored a brief for the American Psychological Association arguing that parental notification was an unconstitutional burden on 14-year old adolescent girls seeking an abortion. Excerpt available online at http://www.psy.jhu.edu/~200.326/pdf/Hartigan%20v.%20Zbaraz%20APA%20brief.pdf
- summary available online at http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/hartigan.html

- summary available online at http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/hartigan.html

“There is no question that the right to secure an abortion is fundamental.”. “By any objective standard, therefore, the decision to abort is one that a reasonable person, including a reasonable adolescent, could make.” “[E]mpirical studies have found few differences between minors aged 14-18 and adults in their understanding of information and their ability to think of options and consequences when asked to consider treatment-related decisions. These unvarying and highly significant findings indicate that with respect to the capacity to understand and reason logically, there is no qualitative or quantitative difference between minors in mid-adolescence, i.e., about 14-15 years of age, and adults.” .
A Virtually Unlimited Abortion License
In
Casey v. Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania
, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), Ogden co-authored an amicus brief in support of Planned Parenthood for the American Psychological Association. Available online at http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/plannedparenthood.pdf
“This compelled spousal notification places a substantial burden on a married woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. . . . This burden cannot be justified [by] the Commonwealth’s interest in promoting the integrity of the marital relationship.”

That is just one of a multitude of cases on record by David Ogden. Every parent should be concerned and do everything politically possible to confront the evil obama agenda. It is no accident obama chose Ogden…my question to you is Why would a president choose a pornography lawyer to be no 2 at Justice behind Eric Holder? It just makes me long for the good old days with my hero Ronald Reagan and Ed Messe and The Meese Commission on Porn, we have gone from a commission on porn with Reagan… to a pornography assistant attorney general under agent of evil obama. Think on that when you vote in 2010 & 2012 moreover think of your chidlren. Well my time is up and I think you for yours God Bless You All and God Bless America

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