Monday, October 6, 2008

Another Opinion

After sending out an anti-abortion ad to my entire list, which included non-Christians and some very politically and religiously liberal Christians, I have received back some amazing flack, and more "unsubscribes" than usual, even from good friends who don't want me to send them a political opinion but have no hesitation from sharing theirs with me.

One person did engage in a very healthy dialogue with me, and while we didn't agree we were able to agree on the problems of communicating such issues.

In times like these, I discover who my true compatriots are in our fight for moral values, and who claim to be reading entirely different history books, written perhaps by Keith Olbermann. Here's one I received today. The writer is referring not only to my anti-abortion ad, which I asked people to pass around, but to my claim that the Democrats where principally responsible for the financial crisis for their refusal to back Bush and McCain regulations requested in 2001 and 2004. I'm unsure why the McCain camp is not capitalizing on this well documented history; perhaps there's a dark lining for McCain. But that McCain, Bush and numerous Republicans led the effort for new and tougher regulations at Fannie Mae, and that the Democrats beat them back, seems to be well-documented thanks to CSpan and YouTube. The greed factor is another huge issue... that frankly, the regulations may have helped contain. Anyhow, here's a recent rant on me, with some comment.
Dear Stan,

I am so very sorry that you feel this way, as I am very much a kindred spirit of the late, great Tim Russert, who said that "I was born a Democrat; I was only baptized Catholic".
And therein lies a horrifying moral problem, on two levels. (1) Democrats have dramatically changed their moral values over the decades, from a party that supports the poor to a party that endorses killing the unborn. There's also a more subtle difference, whether intended or not. But Democrats are more socialistic and willing to give out unrestricted welfare, whereas Republicans tend to be more captialisitic and ask people to work for the money. Both positions are valid, as long as we avoid extremes. As the saying goes, "Keep them poor so they will vote for us next time. If they get rich, they'll vote Republican."

(2) It is morally irresponsible and morally relativistic, and thus eternally dangerous to attach your identity to a moving target (any political entity) and not with something infallible which is irrevocably tied to God's history of salvation—Catholicism.
You are an overly simplistic idiot to think that these "neo-fascist, reactionary, running dog lackeys of U. S. imperialism, and their war-mongering hordes", aka the Republican Party, care one damn hoot about anything other that the aggrandizement of their own personal wealth, to the exclusion of all other concerns. Period.
There you go again. Did the schools you attended teach you that name calling was a valid way to convince others of your position? You should look up several of those words in the dictionary. "U.S. imperialism?" Unless you're going to change the definition, about the only imperialism we've committed was during he Civil War when we insisted that the South do away with slaves and we forced them to stick around. "War-mongering hordes?" I know many think Bush is a war-monger but the other prevailing opinion is that he's fulfilling his constitutional obligation to defend us against aggressors, that have attacked us numerous times. I'm of that camp. Although you may be one of those that think 9/11 was an "inside" job. You never served in the military, did you? It would help your argument if you could cite evidence rather than just name calling. The name calling is easy, and thus makes you look overly simplistic, and that other stuff you said.

While I am technically an independent, I have voted Republican recently because they agree closest to my moral values. That is, I care about others and I see the economic principles upon which the R.P. is based as helping the poor the most, by creating jobs and getting them off welfare. The staunch Republicans I know are sacrificing a great deal for others. Bush's record is one that has sacrificed much, especially politically for the poor in Afghanistan and Iraq. As a nation we have sacrificed a lot of money hoping to turn their lives around and give them hope, at much cost to us. None of that is related to your claim of engrandizement or personal wealth. To pull back from these battles is being selfish. Cindy Sheehan was one of the most selfish women ever to hit the media. She didn't care what her son thought or why he went to war, all she could think about was how she felt. She never realized that the death of our soldiers guaranteed her right to act like a selfish twit.

We fight for others as well as for ourselves. It is honorable, and I am glad to be associated with that effort. War is horrible. But when you fight evil, and people who think nothing of lying to kill you, what's the point of negotiation? The devil doesn't negotiate, unless you're stupid enough to do it, and then he loves it. One of the big examples of such "negotiation" with the devil was Neville Chamberlain, whose "legacy is marked by his appeasement policy regarding his signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, conceding part of Czechoslovakia to German dictator Adolf Hitler." (Wikipedia)
They couldn't care less about starving kids, impoverished families, the undermining of the American economy, true National security, or anything other than their own wealth. Not one Christian virtue or goal is any concern of these hypocrites. Just look at their true track record. They've been railing against abortion for nearly 40 years now, but only every fourth one of those years, and only near election times. Yes, that's right, and accurate. Hypocrites, I say.
There you go again, opining but with no evidence. You listen to MSNBC's sound bytes too much -- just because it sounds cool, gains a laugh, or a nod, doesn't mean it is true. If you act this way around your employees, I wonder how many agree with you simply to keep their job. Over generalization doesn't help either.

Wealthy Republicans make good philanthropists, (but I will quickly leave out the greedy rich Republicans (and all others), who are part of the problem). A lot of Republicans give generously to institutions that give back a hundred fold. The rich Republicans I know (and granted I know only a few) are sacrificial, compassionate Christians who overflow with virtue and kindness.

On the abortion front, we not only have been railing against abortion but years, but have made wonderful progress. Where do you live, that you are totally unaware of the progress that Pro Life efforts have made at both the state and national level? Look at the abortion numbers, and the reduction in abortion clinics. Let Obama into office and he'll wipe away all that progress in less than a year with his Freedom of Choice act. He's promised to do away with the Pro Life progress as one of his first acts in office. Do you know anything about the FOC act? Do you think it came from Republicans? Are you drunk sir? Call them what you may, but thanks goodness you have no vote on sainthood. The Republicans I know are the opposite of your claims, and I am one of them, proudly.
They've been calling for their complete control of the Congress to do it first, though. Well, o.k. we gave it to them. Then they said that they needed the Senate also to do the job. O.K. then, we gave that to them. Then in the next election they said that they needed the White House also to get it done. O.K., we gave them that, too. Then they said that they also needed the Supreme Court to get the job done. O.K., we gave them that too. And what did they do with all of this power? End abortion?
My dear sir, what have you done to end abortion? Vote Democrat? If you know anything about our legal system, you must know that the efforts to stop abortion with laws have been very successful in states like Michigan, where I live. You must also know that unlike Democrats, Republicans believe the Supreme Court should rest on the constitution, not on the floor of the legislature. That means the right cases, with the right causes, have to be brought before the court. You act as if you expect a conservative court to act like a liberal court, and make up the laws, based on any case it hears. Sorry, you misunderstand how our country is suppose to work. A much larger majority in congress is needed to overturn a Supreme Court ruling like Roe vs. Wade. A simple majority won't do it, and you need a lot of populous support, which does not exist.
... And what did they do with all of this power? End abortion? HELL NO, they just pursued more and more tax cuts and tax breaks for the super rich and the mega millionaires. Period.
Did it ever occur to you what happens to the money that responsible rich people get? (I'm not talking about the greedy, evil ones, who probably send it to an off-shore bank.) Do you think they hide it in their mattress and take it out of circulation? Not at all. The rich are rich for a very good and logical reason. They are entrepreneurs who try to generate "capital" which is a requirement for productivity and which pays the laborer for "work." You need both, labor and capital (see the Catechism 2432). Although in the extreme the Church condemns both capitalism and socialism, which seek to solve all problems purely through one model. A balance is required (see the Catechism 2426-2436). And the richest folks know that the only way to help the world (and their own pocket) is to invest that money in productive projects that will earn a return. Capitalism, when done benevolently, allows that to happen -- it works wonders for helping the poor and the lives of everyone. The money the rich get they invest, which pays the salaries of their workers, and buys parts and construction, and new plants, all which gets into the paychecks of the part inventors, and the steel workers, and the guy who makes their lunches, and sells amusement ride tickets on the weekends. Rich guys that do nothing with their money are not rich for long. But giving tax breaks to entrepreneurs, whether rich or poor, does stimulate the economy and creates jobs.

I'm doing that now. I get a lot of tax breaks because I'm in business. And by some measures I am financially rich. But I haven't taken a paycheck in nearly 10 years, choosing instead to "pour" my money back into building a couple of businesses, which pays for inventory and salaries, and such. And thus, every dollar this "rich Republican" gets for the past decades has gone into the pockets of others... for their good, and the good of us all. Oh sure, I expect to profit some day. But, even then, the profit will go right back into other investments, while spending a portion of my income to live on. So, all this hooey about the rich getting tax breaks as an evil thing.... well, it better be true, or you'd be out of a job. Even as a fireman and EMT, the money you get comes from the rich families that pay 80% of the taxes in this country. You should be glad.
All they ever do is keep pulling out the old anti-abortion banner like a dirty old handkerchief from their back pocket, wave it around once every 4 years, and count on fools like you to do their dirty work and bidding.
I'm glad to be a fool for God's good will, and the life of the unborn. But I don't do this only every 4 years. I am thinking about it, praying about it, nearly everyday of my life. And you should be too. And it's not a "dirty old handkerchief" but "a bloody sacred handkerchief" with the red sustenance of the innocent soaked through and through.
Wise up and read a little history first, pal, before you go on any further with this drivel.
I wonder what the last history book you read,... perhaps it was a diatribe against the evil doings of the U.S.. Who wrote it? Drivel? Hmmm?
What's going on here is the perennial old battle between capital and labor. It goes back thousands of years, and will continue to go on until the Second Comming, with the same ole groups of victims all along- the poor and powerless.
You really need an education. As I said before, capital and labor are both necessary for progress. If you think otherwise, I'd like an example. Oh, I suppose you'd like to quote Marx - a tyranical socialism. Well, that is one solution. But it's been tried with pretty bad results. Do you want to try Marxism again? We're close to it, and in some ways beyond it. Vote for Obama. He's already got middle school teachers training his storm troopers. (See YouTube.) complete with the Nazi typed posters opening up the video. And his programs will cost more than the bailout.
Fetuses are just the most helpless of all the victims, but certainly not those that suffer the most, though. It's the children and young parents who do, along with the elderly poor of our country. As a neighborhood career fire captain and paramedic in the poorest parts of the city for the majority of my career, I've seen them; tried to confort them; tried to support them, tried to encourage them onward and upward against staggering personal and economic odds; tried to feed them when I could afford to do so; and indeed also tried to comfort the inconsolable young ones at their parent's funerals, when their parents died prematurely from their impoverished state of existance.
Well, hats off to you, seriously. But the poor are poor for a host of reasons, and my bet is many of those reasons lie at the doorsteps of the ideologues who would give the poor money and never teach them to fish. The poor will always be with us, if for no other reason than the poor are made up of people who for whatever unfortunate reason have little initiative, discipline or intelligence. Not all, of course, are poor for that reason, and some do need help. We are commanded by Christ to care for the poor. But "care" has different meanings. Giving out money to the capable, without requiring of them labor, has never been a very good solution. Look at the tragic cases of many unprincipled, greedy lottery winners a year later. Dirt poor and often in debt.

I have given people jobs just to see them, after a short time, incapable of just getting up and coming to work. Or they do not like a boss telling them what to do. Or, they don't like taking baths, or showing others respect. I know teens today that I'm sure will be poor tomorrow, in spite of my sacrifice to help and teach them employability skills. Christ said the poor will always be with us. But don't blame the Republicans. It's part of natural law, a law that should teach all of us, as you have learned, to care for those who cannot care for themselves. I do it. You do it, evidently. And the Republicans do it through jobs. But don't claim that the poor are poor because of the men who create the majority of the jobs in this country made them poor. That is backwards reasoning.
Talk about the carnal, secular, whores of mammon... these Republicans are them! I Could go on and on, and try to explain it more pointedly to you, citing historical references and such throughout the last 4,00 years of history, but if you can't figure it out by now in the Old and New Testiments, and especially through the hypocrites of the Gospels, then you likely never will.
Can you cite one historical reference? Without the rich, unemployment would be sky high, for the reasons I just explained to you. And what does the Old and New Testaments have to do with any of this? The Gospels are hypocritical? You must mean something else, perhaps that there are hypocrites spoken of IN the Gospels. But where in the Gospels is owning capital exposed as wrong? The rich young ruler? Ah! His problem was that he LOVED his money and his belongings. It wasn't that he was rich, it was that he loved it more than he loved Christ or others. Just whom do you suppose the vineyard owners were that were paying salaries. Or the rich man who gave money to his servants to invest. Were they sinful? Were they hypocrites? Who pays for salaries, the man who gives his wealth away, or the man who wisely manages his wealth so he can meet payroll? Every laborer needs a rich capitalist to invest in business ventures. (And please don't confuse tyranny with riches. They are not related, anymore than the poor mob boss who beats up on this neighbor for not paying for protection. Greed and Tyranny may go hand in hand, but they can be found among the rich and the poor equally, although the rich will get more press exposure.)
So, I will end this reply with the simple wish that God Bless you, that he keep you even closer to his Mind and Will, and that you have a deeper re-examining of just what kind of Christianity it is that you are trying to sell here. It ain't one that I've ever seen in 8 years of Dominican parochial schooling, 4 years of Marianist High Schooling, 4 years of Jesuit college education, or even 2 more years of Jesuit graduate school education after that. But sell it somewhere else, not here.

Yours Truely,
C.M.
Well, perhaps you better revisit some of what you were taught. If that truly was your education, you were very badly formed, and know very little about how this great country has been able to help the poor around the world more than any other nation in history. We are rich, and we are generous. Perhaps you should visit India or the Dominican Republic and see true poverty. I have been to India. By comparison the poor in this country have it well off, especially when you show up as an EMT or with your fire trucks. People that help, like you, just don't exist in third world countries. Here we have hospitals that will help the homeless, or should. We have running water. We have many non-profits that give them clothing and churches that give them food. We have an incredible infrastructure, that does not exist most other places in the world. Your EMT inner city experiences and presence, are examples of the greatness of this country and the use of our tax dollars to help those that need it most, along with so many other programs. And the last time I checked, Republicans supported the work you do among the poor.

By the way, it's just a guess, but Republican entrepreneurs probably invented most of the gear you use. It seems to me that Democrat entrepreneur is an oxymoron, although I'm sure I'm wrong in some instances, it might be a true generalization. That would make an interesting study.

Another thing you should realize is that because Republicans like to see their money go further, and they realize that government is one of the most inefficient enterprises around when it comes to spending money, Republicans tend to fund social welfare through non-government sources, like faith and neighborhood groups. I have always given generously to such programs because I know some bureaucrat won't steal or mishandle it.

Sincerely,
Stan Williams

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Baby Got Book



This sort of stuff may be the key to returning to some hope. For all my ranting and prayer about the culture of death that so many people I know embrace, and my lack of hope for our society... (hey, they all have to disintegrate sometime or other)... I have kept thinking that the only solution is just good-old-fashion Gospel preaching. Here's a good modern day example. It's a hit on YouTube and GodTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTYr3JuueF4

As a Catholic I love the line in it, "...and if you're Catholic there's even more."

I Feel Like Jeremiah

Jeremiah Chapter 9

1 Would that I had in the desert a travelers' lodge! That I might leave my people and depart from them. They are all adulterers, a faithless band. 2 They ready their tongues like a drawn bow; with lying, and not with truth, they hold forth in the land. They go from evil to evil, but me they know not, says the LORD. 3 1 Be on your guard, everyone against his neighbor; put no trust in any brother. Every brother apes Jacob, the supplanter, every friend is guilty of slander. 4 Each one deceives the other, no one speaks the truth. They have accustomed their tongues to lying, and are perverse, and cannot repent. 5 Violence upon violence, deceit upon deceit: They refuse to recognize me, says the LORD. 6 Therefore, thus says the LORD of hosts: I will smelt them and test them; how else should I deal with their wickedness? 7 A murderous arrow is his tongue, his mouth utters deceit; He speaks cordially with his friends, but in his heart he lays an ambush! 8 For these things, says the LORD, shall I not punish them? On a nation such as this shall I not take vengeance? 9 Over the mountains, break out in cries of lamentation, over the pasture lands, intone a dirge: They are scorched, and no man crosses them, unheard is the bleat of the flock; Birds of the air as well as beasts, all have fled, and are gone. 10 I will turn Jerusalem into a heap of ruins, a haunt of jackals; The cities of Judah I will make into a waste, where no one dwells. 11 Who is so wise that he can understand this? Let him to whom the mouth of the LORD has spoken make it known: Why is the land ravaged, scorched like a wasteland untraversed? 12 The LORD answered: Because they have abandoned my law, which I set before them, and have not followed it or listened to my voice, 13 but followed rather the hardness of their hearts and the Baals, as their fathers had taught them; 14 therefore, thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: See now, I will give them wormwood to eat and poison to drink. 15 I will scatter them among nations whom neither they nor their fathers have known; I will send the sword to pursue them until I have completely destroyed them. 16 Thus says the LORD of hosts: Attention! tell the wailing women to come, summon the best of them; 17 Let them come quickly and intone a dirge for us, That our eyes may be wet with weeping, our cheeks run with tears. 18 The dirge is heard from Zion: Ruined we are, and greatly ashamed; We must leave the land, give up our homes! 19 Hear, you women, the word of the LORD, let your ears receive his message. Teach your daughters this dirge, and each other this lament. 20 Death has come up through our windows, has entered our palaces; It cuts down the children in the street, young people in the squares. 21 The corpses of the slain lie like dung on a field, Like sheaves behind the harvester, with no one to gather them. 22 Thus says the LORD: Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, nor the strong man glory in his strength, nor the rich man glory in his riches; 23 But rather, let him who glories, glory in this, that in his prudence he knows me, Knows that I, the LORD, bring about kindness, justice and uprightness on the earth; For with such am I pleased, says the LORD.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Matthew 25 or Numbers 22?

Got word today of Obama's Matthew 25 effort.

Their effort should be called Numbers 22. There they will find the story of Balaam riding his Democratic (I want it both ways) ass. Obama reminds me of Balaam... he can't hear God clearly, and he wants mothers to kill their babies if they want to, just like Balaam wanted to work for God AND Balak. God didn't like the duplicitous thinking.

The line from Matthew 25 that comes to mind, here paraphrased, is "When did you see an abortion about to take place and stop it? Or did you defend the killing of babies against all efforts by others to stop it?"

The line from Obama's mouth that spits in the face of everything in Matthew 25 is his thanks to Planned Parenthood "I thank you for all you do for our neighborhoods...." like helping our black mothers kill their babies. He might have well said, "We outlawed segregationist policies of the South and the lynchings, but there is more than one way to kill off African Americans." (See Roland S. Martin's Shameful Action.)

Obama believes he can perform evil acts but tell you they are righteous. A most dangerous person.

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Infallible Bible Translations

Over on my YouTube Page, where I have posted a short infomercial for the Librosario Bibles, I received this question from XIPEO2:
Greetings, doctor Stan:
I liked your infomercial, but I rather prefer the DOUAY-RHEIMS Bible, taken from the vulgate. It seems more accurate to me. I´d appreciate your input. Pax et Bonum.

For some reason I can't post comments on my own YouTube page, so here's my answer to XIPEO2.

Dear XIPEO2: Is that your real name? Just wondering. I can't for the life of me figure out why everyone on the web is afraid to use their own name, or at least a pronounceable alias. Alas. Hmmm, about how one translation "seems more accurate to me."

I'm not the one to ask about what translation is more accurate. I know the rules many Bible scholars use to determine such things... remember I was raised as a Bible thumping, Sola Scriptura, Evangelical. But for all that I was taught about how translators did their work, the Evangelical theologians, who supposedly used such translator's efforts as a basis, sure did get some fundamental things wrong, and continue to this day to disagree with EACH OTHER.

Nonetheless, being in love with my own pontifications, here's what I do know (or think I do). First, none of the translations of the Bible any of us use, or any theologians have access to, in any language is infallible, and therefore, as some level inaccurate.

Now before you pull the HERESY ALARM recognize that the term infallibility applies to the original manuscripts, not to translations. A good (accurate) translation will reflect as accurately as possible the original, and there are many techniques available to scholars to determine VERY closely what the original read like. Bible scholars suggest that we truly do know, with 99+% accuracy what those originals said in the original language. But that knowledge is not perfect, and there is still a fair amount of debate on how many passages should be translated. The reasons are many, and some I discuss below.

Second, is this lovely tidbit. Translations are DIFFERENT from the originals by "virtue" of different culture, different time, different language, different translation method, different literary style decisions, and the different life experiences and knowledge of the translator and editors. WHOA! That is a lot of stuff.

As a result of this very significant "problem" with translations and their "accuracy" to the original, you have a host of different Bibles to choose from... even versions approved by the Church with an Imprimatur. And remember we're not just talking about a few different approved translations into English, or Latin. You also have to count the translations into hundreds of different languages for cultures all over the world -- and then there are Bibles for teens.

But just in English you have translations that are based on a different set of older translations. Some like the King James Version (KJV) were based on the Vulgate and not the more recent discoveries of older manuscripts. Also the KJV was translated so that it would sound good and lyrical when read aloud. Remember back in the 1600's most people could not read, and even if they could their income did not allow the ownership of Bibles which were expensive to produce, so "hearing" the word on Sunday was all they had. John Wesley and his Bible studies hadn't been invented yet. Then there are those translations that are based on the literal translations of words, or others on the phrases, or even longer language structures like sentences. Each striving for accuracy, but each different form the original in myriad of ways. Then you have versions that were "translated" as "paraphrases" so that they are EASY to understand (like Kenneth Taylor's
The Living Bible, the Good News for Modern Man, Peterson's The Message, or Walter Wangerin, Jr.'s attempt to make a novel out of the Bible with The Book of God.)

My preference for the Bible as literature is
The Jerusalem Bible. My choice for a Bible to hold in my hand and use daily for devotions is the Librosario Bibles from Fireside (New American Bible translation), not just because of the binding, but because it's the English translation approved for Mass by the bishops...I guess they should have a say in all this. Although, it should be noted, that the Catechism uses the RSV and the NEW RSV. (I guess there's a difference.) Many of my apologist friends use the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE) as opposed to the RSV. (This is getting confusing.)

And finally, or THIRD I should say, there are copyright issues. Ah, yes, money rears its ugly head. Did you ever notice what translation the Gideon Bibles in most hotel rooms are? My guess is you've never heard of it. It's the
Berkley translation. The reason I was told by my long time Gideon father, was that the copyright was cheap. You see, in addition to printing costs, the Gideon organization has to pay the copyright owners their mechanical license for every copy printed. This isn't a matter of greed, it's a matter of paying the bills. Translators, editors, publishers, truck drivers, and bookstore owners have to eat, too.

But, to be fair, the Gideons were not just concerned with the cost of the Bibles they distributed. Doctrine was also an issue, at least doctrine as the various Board of Directors understood it. Consequently, as the board changed, so did the translations of the Bibles which the Gideon's purchased and distributed. They switched often. Originally there was the KJV, then the Berkley, then the NEW Berkley, then the NEW KJV, then the New International Version (NIV -- owned by Zondervan Publishing), each being accepted and then rejected for a variety of emphasis of doctrine issues. Whew! (I even read where if you were Catholic or Morman you can't be a Gideon.)

In the end of all this, when someone claims one version seems to be more accurate than the next, all I can assume is that God, in his soverginity uses all of these different Bibles to speak his Word to the particular person in their time, place, and culture. If having an infallible translation was important, God would have provided for it. Obviously, it wasn't. What was important to God seems to be an infallible Church. Because with all these Bibles, who knows what to believe.

Thank God.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Proposal 2 Lies

The Michigan ballot Proposal 2 (Nov 2008) that claims it will

...ensure that Michigan citizens have access to stem cell therapies and cures, and to ensure that physicians and researchers can conduct the MOST PROMISING FORMS of medical research in this state, and that all such research is CONDUCTED SAFELY AND ETHICALLY, any research permitted under federal law on human embryos may be conducted in Michigan, subject to the requirements of federal law and only the following additional limitations and requirements:
This proposal lies in two ways (see HIGHLIGHTS):

a. The most promising forms of stem cell research involve ADULT stem cells. Such research is legal everywhere, and has produced over 100 beneficial therapies. This proposal, however, asks for the right to use EMBRYONIC stems cells, for which there are NO beneficial therapies, and it is considered by many, including the Catholic Church to be a moral eveil to kill a human being (an embyo) for any reason.

b. It's not safe or ethical (unless your evil) to kill human beings or unborn children.

VOTE NOTE ON PROPOSAL 2

Child Protective Services With Too Much Autonomy

I've been on the fringe of a Gestapo-styled Child Protective Services (CPS) case for the past year, and I've been told by someone who should know that my name is probably listed on a "Child Abuse" list somewhere. I've been advised to sue the state over it, if I can discover the list.

[An aside: Jon Stewart makes a good case for NOT calling people Hitler-like, or Gestapo-ish, or invoking Nazis in this very good piece. Hitler's References. But what does that leave us - "Marxist Tendencies?" I do think, as good a piece as Jon's is, that he's probably never seen police detectives or CPS workers harass citizens like I have, even to the point that a very good friend of mine felt the need to commit suicide last summer to escape the horror of seeing his livihood and family destroyed. I pray that his widow and kids see the authorities sued, put out of their jobs and hopefully put in prison for a spell, and be reimbursed financially for the wreckless abuse they suffered. When I see the incessive lies on court petitions put their by over zealous CPS investigators and prosecutors, and the autonomy they have to destroy families, and even indirectly cause of deaths of children and parents -- Gestapo-like and Nazi-like is appropriate. And the judges that sign these petitions are guilty, too.]

What concerns me more (than my name being on the SS's list) is the rampant abuse that CPS inflicts on families under the color of law, without a court hearing. And when there are hearings the judge usually only hears from the CPS workers, who's job appears to be the prosecution of easy marks—poor persons and the uneducated.

I am quickly coming to a point of hating how my country works because of the evil that is done in name of justice and protection. Good families are destroyed, and the unborn are killed. This morning I discovered I am far from being alone. There are thousands out there fighting CPS. Google "CPS ABUSE". Here are a few of the top links, which include frighting videos of Kidnapping by the government.

National Coalition for Child Protection Reform
http://www.nccpr.org/

Over 100 links to CPS Abuse pages:
http://www.geocities.com/robbi01/cps-abuse.html

Kidjacked - check out the T-shirts
http://kidjacked.com/

Reform CPS Now
http://www.reformcpsnow.com/

Fight CPS (contains videos)
http://www.fightcps.com/

Fight CPS Packet Info
http://www.fightcpspackets.info/allstatespacket.html

And these books:
WHORES OF THE COURT
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060391979/fightcps-20

MEMORIES OF A BABY STEALER
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0972598308/fightcps-20

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Eduardo Verastegui's Dura Realidad (Hard Truth)

Movie star Eduardo Verástegui has recorded a message in Spanish for Latinos about how they are being targeted for minimizing their numbers through abortion. This is the same argument I use about African Americans. Eduardo has a version of his message on YouTube without the gruesome abortion motion footage. If you have the guts and want to see a real abortion click on the title above.

The YouTube version has English Subtitles, the Dura Realidad site has no subtitles.

An article about the video is on the Catholic News Agency HERE.

The Bible Catholic

I read where the Synod of Bishops is meeting in October 2008 to discuss the Bible, and try to come up with some ideas on how to get more Catholics to read and study it. I've made some suggestions along this line before and received a bit of flack from some well meaning Catholics over it. One such post, which I also sent out as an e-blast to my Nineveh's Crossing list, was not appreciated by all -- although many loved the idea. The objections I received back from my OPEN YOUR BIBLES PLEASE post were amazing. Not one objection made any real sense, nor did the objections agree with any teaching of the Church. Some of the objections were from minor Catholic leaders and one from a nun. At some point I knew I had to answer these objections, which in my mind were right from the heart of Satan --- he would hate to see more Catholics reading their Bibles.

So, when I heard about this Synod I decided I was arrogant enough to write a white paper, and share the many successful ideas for inculcating Bible use in Evangelicalism.

If you know how to get this paper to the Bishops, please do. I'm trying to go through some contacts and the Archdiocese of Detroit, but who knows if anything but going to the Vatican next month and leafleting the Bishops' mopeds will work.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Roland S. Martin's Shameful Action

I will be the first white person to cast a vote for an African American politician who supports their race and doesn't try to kill it off.

Roland S. Martin, the black, Christian CNN communist is voting for Obama. Or so says the introductory note to his on-line CNN column. See it HERE.

In the article referenced he calls it shameful that Christian bookstores in the South are moving off the shelf the recent edition of GospelToday magazine because it features an article about women pastors.

Roland, how can you call that shameful when you support a political policy that kills black babies in the tens of thousands, by "virtue" of your vote for Obama? You are the one engaging in a shameful action.

It is amazing to me, as I've stated many times before, that American blacks would vote for any candidate for any elected office that supports a policy that supports the genocide of their race, especially when race has been and continues to be such a big factor in society. Abortion and contraception are slowly eliminating blacks in America. Abortion kills more black life than anything else, and more than any other ethnic segment. Yet blacks want to vote for Obama, who is one of the most prolific supporters of abortion on the political landscape, and thanks Planned Parenthood "for all you do for our communities" (like helping us kill our babies).

See http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/06/billboard_will.html

See http://www.blackgenocide.org/
From this last website comes this:

Although black women constitute only 6% of the population, they comprise 36% of the abortion industry’s clientele. The leading abortion providers have chosen to exploit blacks by locating 94% of their abortuaries in urban neighborhoods with high black populations.
This high rate of abortion has decimated the black family and destroyed black neighborhoods to the detriment of society at large.

Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 Blacks were lynched in the U.S. That number is surpassed in less than 3 days by abortion.

1,452 African-American children are killed each day by the heinous act of abortion.

What that can only mean is that blacks for Obama are voting primary for reasons of race. Now that makes perfect sense to me, and I think they should, except that his policies support the killing of Americans, and significantly black Americans. How can I fight for the rights of African Americans, when they support policies that decimate their race?

Roland Martin's support of Obama is also stupefying because Roland claims to be a Christian. Am I some kind of nut that believes that supporting a policy that allows parents to murder children is not something a Christian can support and still be called a Christian? As a conscious, informed position, supporting abortion and calling yourself a Christian is indefensible. Roland Martin, if this is what he supports, because he is supporting Obama, is not a Christian. He is a liar and a hypocrite. And so is Obama, who also, laughably calls himself a Christian.

Race should not be an issue. But blacks who vote in favor of killing off their race by voting for politicians who support abortion, are voting purely on race, and little else. As one black woman (who also claims to be a Christian) wrote to me, "I trust Obama implicitly." In other words, I'm voting purely here on race... or else, I just love to see my race lose votes, lose influence and lose it's life.

Please send Roland an email and challenge him at this address: roland@rolandsmartin.com

I wrote Roland the following.

Roland,

I was surprised to read you're voting for Obama.

Now, as a black man, that makes sense, if everything else was morally equal. I look forward to the day when we have a black president.

But there are two issues about abortion that I can't understand why a black Christian would vote for Obama.

a. Abortion was conceived, along with Planned Parenthood and the contraception pill, to slowly eliminate "weeds" as Margaret Sanger called African Americans, from society. Abortion and contraception continue to keep the black population at bay. By a huge margin more black babies are killed through abortion than any other segment of American society. So, a vote for Obama marginalizes and minimizes the black population. It's called by some blacks the Black Genocide.

b. As a Christian, life is more important than any other political issue, because all the other policy-issues require a LIFE to benefit. Without life nothing else matters. So, how can you, as supposedly a Christian, vote for a candidate who supports murder?

These are two issues that totally befuddle me. Except they can only be explained that you're voting for Obama for one primary reason. He is black.

Is that true? Is the color of your skin what determines your values? Or is it Christian teaching?

Stan Williams