Happy New Year?

Is anyone else as overwhelmed by the bad news in this world as I am?  Here in the United States our government is playing with our financial future, fighting and squabbling with each other while the US economy hangs in the balance.  We have been warned for months about the "fiscal cliff", but here it is only a few hours before it happens, and Washington is still fighting about it.

And that is actually some of the least of the bad news.  There is the ongoing persecution of Christian beliefs by our government in which we are being told that we must abide by the law no matter how it goes against our religious doctrines.  Hobby Lobby, which is valiantly standing up to the federal government and refusing to pay for birth control for its employees, will now be fined over $1 million a day for choosing to obey God rather than man.  Same sex marriage and homosexual rights are making vast inroad into our culture, and now even catholic politicians like Newt Gingrich are telling us we have to get with the program.  From gingpac.org:

According to Gingrich, the GOP and conservatives are just going to have to accept same-sex marriage as a political reality in America.

Gingrich, who is currently on his third wife, after having committed adultery against the previous two, says that we must accept gay marriage because it “is in every family, it is in every community.”

He continues: “The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to… accommodate and deal with reality. And the reality is going to be that in a number of American states — and it will be more after 2014 — gay relationships will be legal, period.”

And speaking of catholic politicians caving, Bobby Jindal, catholic governor of Louisiana, recently wrote an Op Ed for the Wall Street Journal saying that, for the good of the party, the GOP needs to get on the birth control bandwagon as well.  From the New York Daily News:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is recommending that the GOP endorse over-the-counter birth control as a prescription for the Republican Party’s political health.

In an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal, the Republican governor argued that allowing birth control pills to be sold without a prescription — as recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists — “would take contraception out of the political arena.”

“As a conservative Republican, I believe that we have been stupid to let the Democrats demagogue the contraceptives issue and pretend, during debates about health-care insurance, that Republicans are somehow against birth control,” Jindal said. “It's a disingenuous political argument they make.”  [So what else are Republicans "pretending" to be against??] 

He said requiring a prescription for birth control only drives up health care costs and boosts pharmaceutical company profits.  [Gov. Jindal, the fact that you're Catholic and your church teaches that birth control is intrinsically evil has no bearing on anything?  "Cost" is the only thing that matters?] 

Things are much worse in other parts of the world.  A judge in England just ruled that "Christians have no right to decline working on Sunday as it is not a 'core component' of their beliefs."  From The Telegraph:

A new ruling by a High Court judge - the first on the issue in nearly a decade - says that Christians have no right to decline working on Sunday as it is not a “core component” of their beliefs.

The judgment - which upholds an earlier decision - means that individual Christians do not have any protection from being fired for not working on Sundays.

Campaigners said the decision puts Christians at a disadvantage to other religions and means the judiciary are deciding what the core beliefs of Christians can be, which they say is an interference in the right to practise religion.

The really sad part about this is that most Christians really aren't even going to notice because Sunday is just another day to them anyway.  Only about 2% of Anglicans go to Church on Sunday, and about 25% of Catholics attend.  Nonetheless, this ruling definitely represents an attack against Christianity and as stated in the article, the UK government is now deciding the validity of Christian beliefs, just as they are doing here in the United States.

Persecution of Christians has gone much further in other parts of the world.  From cnn.com:

At least 22 people have been killed in three separate attacks in northeastern Nigeria since Friday, including 15 Christians shot Sunday inside a church, according to officials.

In Sunday's attack, gunmen entered a church in Chibok, also in Borno state, and killed at least 15 worshipers, said Mohammed Kana, a regional official for the National Emergency Management Agency.

"Some of the people had their throats slit," Kana said, citing NEMA staff who responded to the scene.

Sunday's violence comes six days after attackers raided two churches during Christmas Eve services, killing 12 people.

And of course, the legal, systematic killing of our children continues unabated in abortion clinics throughout the United States and the entire world.  Here in New York City, 41% of all pregnancies end in abortion, with some parts of the city having a 60% abortion rate.

A dark, dark veil has descended upon this world, and it grows darker with each day.  I don't know specifically what our immediate future holds, but it sure don't look good.

Happy New Year?  I don't think so.

Litmus Test

It was pretty amazing watching all of the Republicans trying to circle the wagons around Newt Gingrich after his ex-wife gave an interview describing the hell the former speaker had put her through in their marriage.  I watched Laura Ingraham on the O'Reilly factor defending the Newt against ABC for daring to show the interview with the Newt's ex-wife.  Why, Laura argued, this is just old news and all they are trying to do is hurt Gingrich.  ABC has terrible, immoral programs (which is absolutely true and why I don't watch that network or any other) and they're all just a bunch of hyprocrites for bringing this up.  But Ms. Ingraham, a professed Catholic, did not utter one word about the immorality of Newt Gingrich and that just maybe this does disqualify him to be president.  Rush Limbaugh, of course, is out in full force, trying to somehow project it all onto Obama:

I don't understand why the media's pretending to be so upset about these charges coming from Marianne.  I mean, it's all about sex [this is sure not what he said about Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy] and how many times are we told that somebody's sex life, even if they're president, doesn't matter. It's nobody's business as long as it doesn't affect the job.  And how about all the sex stories from Obama's former girlfriends?  That's right: What stories? What former girlfriends?  In fact, have we ever found out anything about any of his students when he supposedly taught law at the University of Chicago or buddies at Harvard Law Review?  I mean, we still don't know anything. "Mr. Limbaugh, this is very clever of you trying to disguise the fact that Mr. Gingrich is..."  No, I'm just reacting here.  [Just reacting?  How do we go from the adulterer Gingrich to Obama's college records?  I think that is called "deflecting."]

Limbaugh doesn't stop there, trying to make light of the entire sordid Gingrich story:

I got a great [???????] note from a friend of mine.  "So Newt wanted an open marriage.  BFD.  At least he asked his wife for permission instead of cheating on her.  That's a mark of character, in my book.  Newt's a victim [Now I think I'm getting seriously sick].  We all are.  Ours is the horniest generation.  We were soldiers in the sex revolution.  We were tempted by everything from Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice to Plato's Retreat, Deep Throat to no-fault divorce.  Many of us paid the ultimate price, AIDS, abortion, or alimony for the cultural marching orders we got.  Hell, for all I know we should be getting disability from the government." That's from a good friend of mine [gotta wonder about Rush's friends], "Newt's slogan ought to be, 'Hell, yes, I wanted it.'"  (laughing)  I'm sharing with you how some people are reacting to this. 

Now, I'm certainly not saying that the MSM doesn't have a motive in putting out this story about Newt.  The timing is interesting, to say the least.  But gimme a break.  This still doesn't take away from the fact that Newt Gingrich completely betrayed not only his first wife, but his second wife as well.  He had a 6-year affair behind her back, and then when she is sick with MS, and the doctor has specifically said that she should not be put under stress, he tells her he wants a divorce.  And even has the gall to ask for an "open marriage" (which he denies and we are expected to believe), telling his wife she has to "share" him.  And people like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham are defending him?   

Later in Limbaugh's monologue, he even tries to blame Marianne Gingrich:

I also know that Marianne Gingrich... I've seen places shortly after Newt was made Speaker with Mary, social weekends and so forth, and she was never comfortable with the public eye -- and that bothered him. He thought it limited his future. She didn't like the media, she didn't like the focus on her life, so she just wasn't comfortable with the public eye -- and I know that he said, "Well, you knew what you were marrying." So there's two sides  to all this [I can't stand it!!!!  Marianne wasn't all that comfortable in the spotlight, so that makes it okay that Newt was a lying, cheating adulterer]

Rush later makes another reference to that "great note" he read:

And don't downplay this note I got from my buddy who's in his fifties, and I'll read it to you again here sometime during the program.

Limbaugh does correctly point out the hypocrisy of the media, but Limbaugh claims that the media hypocrisy means we should just ignore Gingrich's behavior:

Here's a headline from the New York Times: "Former Gingrich Wife Says He Asked for Open Marriage." Now, folks, this is the same New York Times that never ran one article about John Edwards cheating on his cancer-stricken wife. Do you remember ABC, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, New York Times would get nowhere near the John Edwards story? That was a National Enquirer exclusive, and the mainstream media was dragged kicking and screaming to it.

All I can say to this, is so what? Just because, like Rush, the MSM are hypocrites, that does not justify Gingrich's behavior and Limbaugh's defense of it.

Then there's the final kicker from Limbaugh, who himself has been married four times:

Hell, Newt was married to Marianne for 18 years. Do you realize that's a lifelong commitment in Hollywood terms? That's a lifetime marriage, in Hollywood.

So because Newt was married longer than most people in Hollywood, anyone who dares to criticize him is a hypocrite.  As far as I'm concerned, anyone who defends this behavior has lost all credibility.

I also watched the Republican debate in South Carolina last night, and the first question was to Gingrich about his ex-wife's intereview.  He castigated the moderator and attacked the MSM for bringing this up.  The most alarming part of this is the fact that the audience supported Gringrich, applauding him for standing up to the media!!!  Gimme a break, people.  Do you realize you are supporting a serial adulterer here, a seriously flawed individual?  Oh yea, we're suppose to be forgiving, and that's fine.  But does that mean we have to support him for president?  He has been married 3 times.  As far as I'm concerned, that alone completely disqualifies him to be president.  He shows a serious lack of character and morals.  Maybe he is truly repentant and wants to live a different life, and I actually hope for his sake that this is the case.  But please!!  How can anyone with any sense of right or wrong support this man for president?  He needs major help.  When Clinton was caught doing the nasty with Monica Lewinsky, all of his political opponents attacked him because they said it made him vulnerable to blackmail.  So why isn't this the case with Gingrich?

I guess we get the leaders we deserve.

Who'd Have Thought?

I posted a couple of weeks ago that Father John Zuhlsdorf seemed to be actively supporting Newt Gingrich.  When I had posted negatively about the Newtster, Father Z called me a "Donatist"  because I dared to bring up past political actions of the former Speaker.  Well, it seems that even Father Z can't convince his loyal readers.  Below is a screen shot of a poll from Father Z's blog. Thumbs up to Father Z's readers for thinking for themselves, although I guess Father Z would call all of them Donatists. 

 

Father Z tried to explain away the Ron Paul vote thusly:

UPDATE: 19 Dec 1527 GMT:
I watched late yesterday as there was a sharp flood of several hundred votes for Ron Paul in a narrow time frame. Then the sharp spike stopped.

Is Newt Really Pro Life?

From Redstate.com

Is Newt Pro-life?

Posted by Paula (Diary)

Newt Gingrich caused a stir this week by departing from the orthodox pro-life reservation. In an interview with Jake Tapper, Gingrich said that he believed that life does not begin at conception:

TAPPER: Abortion is a big issue here in Iowa among conservative Republican voters and Rick Santorum has said you are inconsistent. The big argument here is that you have supported in the past embryonic stem cell research and you made a comment about how these fertilized eggs, these embryos are not yet “pre-human” because they have not been implanted. This has upset conservatives in this state who worry you don’t see these fertilized eggs as human life. When do you think human life begins?
GINGRICH: Well, I think the question of being implanted is a very big question. My friends who have ideological positions that sound good don’t then follow through the logic of: ‘So how many additional potential lives are they talking about? What are they going to do as a practical matter to make this real?’ I think that if you take a position when a woman has fertilized egg and that’s been successfully implanted that now you’re dealing with life. because otherwise you’re going to open up an extraordinary range of very difficult questions
TAPPER: So implantation is the moment for you.
GINGRICH: Implantation and successful implantation. In addition I would say that I’ve never been for embryonic stem cell research per se. I have been for, there are a lot of different ways to get embryonic stem cells. I think if you can get embryonic stem cells for example from placental blood if you can get it in ways that do not involve the loss of a life that’s a perfectly legitimate avenue of approach [emphasis added].

Another Take on Gingrich

Trouble: Gingrich Talk of Life Begins at Implantation With Tapper

By Jill Stanek | December 05, 2011 | 13:36

I’m sorry to say the good people at CatholicVote.org are apparently starstruck. Blogged Josh Mercer yesterday: "The Gingrich campaign contacted me directly last night about the comments that he made to ABC News. The campaign sent me the following statement from Newt Gingrich. (Which is also on their website). I am very glad that the Gingrich campaign was quick to respond to the fallout from the ABC News interview and that they came out with a strong pro-life statement which reaffirms the scientific fact that life begins at conception."

Really? A personal note is all it takes to move past Newt Gingrich’s unequivocal statement to ABC’s Jake Tapper on December 2, that “when a woman has [a] fertilized egg and that’s been successfully implanted that now you’re dealing with life”?

Gingrich actually went further than that. When Tapper asked for clarification, “So implantation is the moment for you,” Gingrich more than reiterated, “Implantation and successful implantation.”

So Gingrich added he believes an embryo that does not successfully implant is not a human life either. This can only mean that Gingrich believes an embryo that may initially implant but later miscarries is not a life. What other explanation can there possibly be?

Father Z - What gives??!!

One of the great things about living in Brooklyn, the most populous borough of New York City (about 3 million of us live in this borough), is easy access to Manhattan. Even though Brooklyn is part of New York City, no one outside of New York (and not many in New York), is much interested in us, but everyone is interested in Manhattan. And many, who would never want to live there, are very interested in visiting Manhattan.

That includes Father John Zuhlsdorf, who has, if not the most popular Catholic blog on the internet, certainly among the most popular. Father Zuholsdorf comes to Manhattan several times a year, and one of the places he always visits is Holy Innocents Church, in the heart of Manhattan, only a few blocks away from Macy's Department Store. Holy Innocents has a daily Traditional Latin Mass (the only daily TLM in this area). In my mind, Holy Innocents is the most important place in all of New York. But that's for another time.

I am a fairly regular reader of Father Z's blog, and I always look forward to his visits to Manhattan because he says the TLM in a beautiful and reverent manner. His blog promotes traditional Catholicism and is very supportive of all things truly Catholic. I don't think it would be out of line to say that Father Z is a "conservative" when it comes to his religious beliefs, and one would think that his political leanings would also be conservative.

So why the heck is Father Z so supportive of Newt Gingrich???? Father Z recently blogged about Newt Gingrich's recent statement that life begins at implantation as opposed to conception, which is in direct contradiction to Catholic Church teaching. Father Z starts out his post by praising Gingrich:

How many times have we heard that presidential candidate and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is smart? I would pay money to watch a debate between Mr. Gingrich and Pres. Obama.

Then, in an attempt to ward off all criticism of Gingrich, Father Z then goes on to warn his readers not to judge and not to be "Donatists."

People can convert, grow, change, mature, etc. We should not be Donatists when it comes to other people’s mistakes in life, as if they are perpetually and irremediably damned to hell forever in the court of public opinion. We pray, after all, that people will sincerely convert. We should be pleased when they do.

Father Z is saying that since the Newtster converted to Catholicism two years ago, we must, without question, accept that this conversion is genuine and complete, and we are obligated to forget about all of the baggage in Gingrich's past. Now, Donatists were an early sect that believed no sinner could ever be forgiven and go to heaven. I think there is a bit of a difference when we are talking about whether someone is qualified for heaven or qualified to be the president of the the United States, but Father Z seems to think they are one and the same.

Father Z admits that there is no way Gingrich could not know church teaching in regard to life beginning at conception, but at this point Father Z injects that the most important issue in the presidential election is the appointment of judges.

Before I add anything else, let me add one of my major points of consideration for my vote in November 2012: judges.

The overriding point about judges is not “Whom would Mr. Gingrich appoint to the bench?”. The overriding point is “Pres. Obama must be defeated so that he cannot appoint another judge.” If the President’s opponent is, as Mark Levin puts it, a frozen orange juice can, the judges the can would appoint would be better.

I’m just sayin’…

I'm not really sure what this has to do with the issue at hand, which is Gingrich's apparent rejection of Church teaching. Is Father Z saying that we should forget about Gingrich's faults because he says he won't appoint the same judges as Obama (and do we really know that for sure)? Are the "right" judges the answer to the problems in the United States, or does it go much deeper than that? I'm just sayin'...

Father Z ends this post by pleading with Gingrich to clarify:

Mr. Speaker, you are obviously a great fan of Pope John Paul II. In a conversation with him, how do you think the late Pope would respond to your statement about implantation? Would you need to clarify what you really meant to say?

My question is, how do we know that Gingrich didn't say exactly what he meant?  Three days later Father Z got his clarification from Mr. Gingrich, who completely changed his position (who would ever think a politician could ever do that?) and said that he now believes that life begins at conception. Father Z did not post any comments of his own, but highlighted the quotes from Mr. Gingrich saying the things that Father Z wanted to hear, and which presumably gave Father Z the clarification and peace of mind he wanted. The bolded comments were originally bolded in Father Z's post. 

In a new statement the Gingrich campaign sent to LifeNews.com over the weekend, the former House Speaker says repeatedly that he believes life begins at conception, that he is pro-life and that he would implement a pro-life agenda immediately after being sown in as president if he becomes the GOP nominee and defeats pro-abortion President Barack Obama.

“As I have stated many times throughout the course of my public life, I believe that human life begins at conception,” Gingrich said in the statement. “I believe that every unborn life is precious, no matter how conceived. I also believe that we should work for the day when there will be no abortions for any reason, and that every unborn child will be welcomed into life and protected by law.”

So Father Z is now satisfied, and thinks all the rest of us should be as well, and if we aren't, well, we're all just Donatists. This is the comment that I posted along with his comments (in red) to it:

Brooklyn says:5 December 2011 at 1:21 pm

I have a very hard time believing anything from a person who cheated on his first two wives, had 84 ethics charges against him and sanctioned $300,000 when he was in the House, and is a 33rd degree Mason. [?!? Proof?] I know he is a recent convert to Catholicism, but I have never heard him renounce masonry. I will always picture him sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi and telling us we have to fight climate change. [You sound rather like a Donatist.]
As far as being pro life, I don’t ever remember him trying to do anything about this during his political career. [I guess you didn't actually use any of the links in the top entry.]Buyer beware.

So I'm a Donatist because I don't like the fact that Gingrich agreed with Nancy Pelosi about climate change? And the links Father Z alludes to are all about what Gingrich says he will do if elected, nothing about what he has actually done.

Another poster answered Father Z:

BT says:5 December 2011 at 7:53 pm

[You sound rather like a Donatist.]

To be fair, Fr. Z, I think a kind of “Donatism” is a perfectly healthy attitude concerning politicians, since they don’t possess any state such that their works will be successful ex opere operato. Indeed, a politician needs the moral virtues in order to govern well. I don’t think it’s imprudent, on the one hand, to be quite hopeful as regards the sincerity and depth of Mr. Gingrich’s conversion, while on the other hand to be less than enthusiastic about giving a man with such a history the power associated with the office of the Presidency.

I also tried to answer Father Z, but he had put me on his spam list and when I posted my comment, it was labeled "awaiting moderation", and as I suspected, was completely deleted. But I saved it before Father Z deleted it, and so I'm going to post it here:

Brooklyn says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
6 December 2011 at 12:02 pm

Father Z – I have learned never to trust the words of any politician, but to look at what they actually do. Newt Gingrich has actually worked against pro life causes in his past. In 1989, he sponsored a bill with Nancy Pelosi called The Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989. Here is the link to an article about it:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/2012-election/questioning-newt-gingrichs-pro-life-credentials

Here are some excerpts from that article:

The Global Warming Prevention Act was introduced on February 22, 1989. Pelosi signed on immediately, but Gingrich didn’t add his name until June 15. So he and his staff had plenty of time to read it. At the time Gingrich was House Minority Whip.

Aside from Pelosi, other radical abortion proponents co-sponsoring the Act included Barbara Boxer, John Conyers, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Chris Shays, Louise Slaughter, and Olympia Snowe.

Only one other notable Republican pro-lifer, Duncan Hunter, was on the list. (Bob Smith withdrew his support.)

The relevant portion of the Act is Title XI. World Population Growth, Sections 1101-1103. As TPM synopsized, this bill “would have made controlling the growth of the world population a goal of the U.S. government and given the UN a chance to do something about it.”

Mexico City policy overturned

The Global Warming Act gutted the Mexico City policy, which President Reagan had enacted in 1984 to block U.S. funding from going to international groups that refer for or commit abortions (and still in force at this time with GHW Bush at the helm). This, of course, included Planned Parenthood International. Section 1102(c)(2) of the Act states: 

No restrictions may be placed on the use of these funds which would be inconsistent with the United States constitutional rights of privacy, regardless of whether such funds are used to provide such services abroad, to support international efforts, or any other use. 

Billions given to Planned Parenthood and UNFPA

With the Mexico City policy out of the way, the Act appropriated $2.7 billion over five years to family planning groups like Planned Parenthood, of which $300 million went to the United Nations Population Fund, an organization the Bush administration defunded in 2005 after concluding UNFPA helps China with coercive abortions and sterilizations.

International abortions funded

It also appears the Global Warming Act overturned the Helms amendment, which bans U.S. foreign assistance funds from being used to pay for abortions. Section 1102(a) and (c)(1) state: 

POLICY- It is the policy of the United States that family planning services should be made available to all persons requesting them….

LIMITATIONS- None of the funds authorized by this section may be used to pay for the performance of involuntary sterilization or abortion or to coerce any person to accept family planning. 

I guess we can thank Newt that Obama has been able to fund abortion throughout the world.

As far as accusations of Newt’s ties to freemasonry, none of the “proofs” I can give you would be from websites that you would consider credible, I am sure. So I won’t go there. But there does seem to be a tremendous amount of smoke in regard to this issue. Here is the article alluded to in someone’s earlier post about Newt having to deny his association with Freemasonry and the Bohemian Grove. He does admit to being a being a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which many people believe is a Masonic organization. And as you will see, he denies his association with the Bohemian Grove, even though his name is listed with them.

http://www.examiner.com/la-county-libertarian-in-los-angeles/newt-gingrich-claims-he-is-not-a-member-of-bohemian-grove-a-freemason-or-for-world-government-vid

Someone also posted here that there is no such thing as a 33rd degree Mason. Here is an excerpt from a book written by a former 33rd Degree Mason.

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/33rd_Initiation.htm

As far as calling me a Donatist, is it wrong to question lapses in moral judgment in people? Newt Gingrich is married to his third wife, a women with whom he had an affair of several years before leaving his second wife. He has shown many lapses in moral judgment both in his private life and public life. I wanted to be sure what you mean by this term, so I looked it up. From Wikipedia: “Like the Novatianist schism of the previous century,[3] the Donatists were rigorists, holding that the church must be a church of “saints,” not “sinners,” and that sacraments, such as baptism, administered by traditores were invalid.”

Do you think that by questioning someone’s checkered background when he wants to be the leader of America that I am guilty of Donatism? I’m certainly not saying he can’t be a Catholic, but I don’t like the idea of someone who could not be trusted in marriage to not one but two women, to be my president. How does that make me a Donatist?

I have the highest respect for you Father Z, and I love your blog. But I think you’re making a big mistake by overlooking such important issues. In my opinion, which admittedly counts for nothing, I don’t think Gingrich is any better than Obama.

I have posted a video below that goes into Gingrich's background and record. I'm sure many people will denounce this video because it is from the John Birch Society. But I would challenge anyone to denounce the facts that are given in these videos. I personally find Newt Gingrich to be a very scary person. I hope his conversion to Catholicism is for real, but so far, he has done far too many things that would seem to belie that fact.