Below is an example of the shameless hypocrisy of Gramsci disciple, Comrade Barack Hussein Obama, who has the unmitigated gall to tall about ‘our common humanity’.  Comrade Obama’s radicalism makes his fellow Gramsci disciples, the Clintons, seem like members of Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood in comparison! -  Gary L. Morella

 

Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:17:47 -0800

From: DrFrank@abortiontruths.net

To: Pro-life-c@lists.abortiontruths.net



Barack Obama is a Monster

by Frank Joseph MD

http://www.abortiontruths.net/

 

In listening to Obama's speech in Berlin which the MSM called great, the following sentence by Obama caught my attention:  "Look at Berlin where the bullet holes in the buildings and the somber stones and pillars near the Brandenburg Gate insist that we never forget our common humanity."


"Our Common humanity?"  This is what Obama considers being humane:  An entire baby is delivered except for the head, which they make sure stays in the birth canal (otherwise it would be murder), then the back of the baby's head is stabbed with scissors, the hole is enlarged, a rube is inserted and the baby's brains are sucked out with a powerful machine. All the while the baby suffers excruciating pain. It's enough to make you cry. How in the world, can a society condone such barbarism?


The above gruesome act is what Obama considers humane.  Certainly, Obama is NOT a humane person.


To top it all off, Barack Obama is so radically pro-abortion that he even wants babies to die if they have survived an abortion. He says, do not give them any treatment -- just let them die.


As a state senator, he personally took it upon himself to defeat the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act.


The 'Federal' Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate and overwhelmingly in the U.S. House. Pro-abortion Senators Kennedy and Boxer even spoke in support on the Senate floor. NARAL expressed neutrality.


When it comes to the killing of unborn children, Senator Obama is to the left of everyone. He is hell bent on destroying little children. The only one that I can think of who is further left than Obama in this matter is the devil, himself.


Obama is even against parental notification if a daughter is going to have her child killed.


Since abortions were made legal in 1973, breast cancer has risen 50% while other cancers remain the same.


In the Dr. Janet Daling (who by the way is pro-choice) study which was funded by the NCI (National Cancer Institute), it was found that abortions increased the risk of breast on an average of 50 percent.
But, the Daling study contained even more frightening results. If a woman had obtained her first abortion before she turned 18, the likelihood of having breast cancer increased by 150 percent.
Most ominous of all were the results for women who had an abortion before age 18 and who also had a family history of breast cancer. Twelve women in the Daling study fit that description. EVERY ONE of them got breast cancer before age 45. Let me repeat that -- every girl in this group, developed breast cancer.

 
If there is a history of breast cancer in the family, a teenager should NOT have an abortion.


And who would know if there's a history of breast cancer in the family (mother, sisters, aunts, grandmother) -- of course, the parents, especially the mother.  But, Obama says -- no parental notification.


The following speech Obama gave before Planned Parenthood, the leading killers of human life the world has ever known, will verify this.

 
He said, "for the first time in Gonzales versus Carhart, the Supreme Court held—upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors. For the first time, the Court’s endorsed an abortion restriction without an exception for women’s health. The decision presumed that the health of women is best protected by the Court—not by doctors and not by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong.

Notice, he doesn't use the words, "Partial-birth Abortion," because just the name is disgusting and probably because 80% of the American people want it banned.



He said, "It is time for a different attitude in the White House. It is time for a different attitude in the Supreme Court. It is time to turn the page and write a new chapter in American history."


The change Obama wants is to keep torturing and killing little children.


He mentioned the swing vote of Justice Kennedy: Without any hard evidence, Justice Kennedy proclaimed, "It is self- evident that a woman would regret her choice.”


Obama ignores the women who have taken to alcohol and drugs after having their child killed. Too bad he hasn't read the reports of women who have killed themselves after having their child killed. One just last week.

He cited medical uncertainty about the need to protect the health of pregnant women. Obama said, "Justice Kennedy knows many things, my understanding is he does not know how to be a doctor."


Ah, but the doctor that Obama speaks of is the doctor who is going to kill the baby, for a fee, of course. When he mentions Obstetricians and Gynecologists finding no uncertainty, he lies. The American College of Christian Obstetricians and Gynecologists found much uncertainty. They say abortion increases the risk of drug and alcoholic abuse as well as suicides. The Catholic OB AND GYN doctors found the same.
But, he ONLY mentions doctors who have no respect for human life.

 
If this inhumanity is not enough for one person, Barack Hussein Obama, as a state senator in Illinois, even voted against giving aid to a baby who survives an abortion.  Just let him/her die.  Even Senator Kennedy voted to give aid.


Obama said, "we’re a country founded on the principle of equality and freedom." This is true, but we're not a country that kills innocent little babies because they are an inconvenience.


He loves to say a women's reproductive freedom. As if pro-lifers are against that. Women can reproduce at will, but once the reproduction is over, then do not kill the child.

 
Obama, even mentioned the name of the founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger, a woman, who if she had her way would have people like Obama killed, just because he's black.

 
On the right of married couples to bear children, she wrote, "Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child." On the rights of racial minorities, the handicapped and the mentally ill, she said, "More children from the fit, less from the unfit - that is the chief aim of birth control."


On the extermination of blacks, she cautioned, "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," Margaret Sanger referred to blacks, immigrants and indigents as "human weeds," and "reckless breeders." She wrote that they were, "spawning... human beings who never should have been born." By virtue of their numerical superiority, she saw poor people and the newly immigrated Slavs, Latins, and Hebrews as a real threat to Anglo-Saxon political and economic power.


Sanger responded to this "threat" by developing her own "Plan for Peace." In it she outlined her strategy for the eradication of those she deemed "feeble minded," including Catholic and Jewish immigrants. In addition to immigration restrictions and the administering of a special IQ test, her evil scheme advocated compulsory sterilization AND segregation to a lifetime of farm work under "competent instructors"...Practically speaking, she envisioned Concentration Camps!


There was little difference between Margaret Sanger and the German Nazi...In fact Hitler and Sanger were both proponents of Eugenics, a social philosophy which advocates the creation of a race of human thoroughbreds.

At the same time, Hitler spread birth control and abortion propaganda in the eastern territories outside Germany. Himmler, carrying out Hitler's orders, directed an intense propaganda campaign to persuade these so-called "inferior" people that having children was harmful.


Margaret Sanger believed that most people were not intelligent enough to share in the right to govern and wanted a totalitarian rule similar to Adolf Hitler's. She constantly attacked the Catholic Church and referred to it as "immoral" for opposing her evil schemes for "social progress."
In 1942, this evil woman, the infamous Margaret Sanger, founded Planned Parenthood!


This is the organization that Obama has a love affair with, an organization founded on the principle that people like Obama should be eliminated and NEVER be given a chance to run for the presidency of the United State.


The fact that Obama heaped praises on Planned Parenthood means he does not do his homework or he is just plain stupid. Either way, besides his penchant for baby killing, stupidity is not a good trait if one wants to be president of the United States, especially during war time.


AND OBAMA HAS THE GALL TO MENTION HIS HUMANITY IN HIS SPEECH IN BERLIN.  GOD HELP US IF HE IS ELECTED PRESIDENT.  THE MAN IS COMPLETELY DEVOID OF ALL HUMANITY.


CAN THERE BE ANY DOUBT THAT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS A MONSTER? 

 



No Catholic Can Support the Twin Antichrists: Obama and Clinton

http://www.personal.psu.edu/glm7/m275.htm

 

No Catholic Can Support the Twin Antichrists: Obama and Clinton

by Gary L. Morella

 

Douay-Rheims Bible

First Epistle Of Saint John

Chapter 2

 

16 For all that is in the world, is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world passeth away, and the concupiscence thereof: but he that doth the will of God, abideth forever. 18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour.

 

There are disturbing reports surfacing that the twin Antichrists: Obama and Clinton, scandalously, have Catholic support!  See the Enclosure.  This is par for the course for apostates who have long since lost the faith! 

 

Speaking as a Catholic living in Central Pennsylvania, there are far bigger concerns regarding the twin Antichrists, Obama and Clinton, than Obama's arrogant, patronizing comment in Sodom and Gomorrah West, no surprise here, about rural Pennsylvanians being backward, i.e., not in tune with the modernist times, because they are God-fearing gun toters!  This has all been heard before with the names changing as new disciples of the devil surface which is a result of the morally bankrupt philosophy of "The Endarkenment" masquerading as being "enlightening." 

 

Obama and Clinton support the entirety of a culture-of-ETERNAL-death that is anathema to Catholic moral teaching.  Obama would not even support a born alive infants act when he was a state senator in Illinois.  Both Obama and Clinton are falling over each other in trying to portray themselves as the sodomite champion of the U.S.  Both are shameless pro-baby killing supporters of the evil that is Planned Parenthood to the extreme of partial birth infanticide.   The list of Catholic teaching against the contraceptive mentality of the age that spawns the world's moral aberrations that this sorry duo flouts is endless!

 

Accordingly, this begs an obvious question.  How in the name of Catholic sanity could people calling themselves Catholic support such disciples of the devil? That's what I want to know!

 

It's not a question of misreading Catholic support for Obama/Clinton as supporting their encouragement of mortal sin just because there might be other issues of concern that would, somehow, insanely, give Catholics an excuse for any support whatsoever for these shameless moral creeps.    What the heck are these issues?  What issues are more important than eternal life for Catholics?

 

Let's cut to the chase here in a Catholic context, which is the only context, since we're Catholic before we're anything else to particularly include our political affiliations.  There are no other social issues without life, PERIOD! The bottom line is that any support for Obama/Clinton cannot be divorced from their basic anti-Catholic platform that is straight from the bowels of hell!

 

I personally find it disgusting beyond belief how anyone calling themselves Catholic can support those who would put this country on a faster track to hell than it already is.  At least, on occasion, I see some evidence to the contrary on the other side, e.g., Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Chris Smith.  Where is it EVER on the Democrat side in terms of the party leadership?  That's what I would like to know. 

 

THE problem in this country is that the Catholic Church has basically been AWOL in getting the Catholic truth out from the pulpit to get Catholics to act as Catholics before anything else, i.e., you don't check your Catholic faith at the door upon entering public life regardless of your vocation, to particularly include political and judicial leaders that have a direct impact on what happens in this country.  Witness the murder of Terry Schindler-Schiavo for proof.

 

So I think there is a heck of a lot more to get upset about regarding individuals like Obama and Clinton, and their ilk in both major political parties for that matter, in regard to their proven track record of slapping Jesus Christ in the face at every opportunity that they get. 

 

For my money, the difference between the Democrat and the Republican leadership is an order-of-magnitude in that there are at least some in the GOP, unlike the Democrats, who will listen to Catholic moral truth, and take action on it.  And that seminal fact should not be lost on Catholic voters who care about the world being left to their children and grandchildren for salvation's sake! THE problem becomes when the GOP starts to be indistinguishable from the Dems, which is the risk being run in the upcoming election with "the establishment" firmly in control, i.e., business as usual!

 

The educational abuse reported in the documentary, Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed, is rapidly becoming the litmus test for presidential candidates where any hint of the "Fear of the Lord being the beginning of Wisdom" automatically disqualifies you for public office in the same manner that it does for scientific research.  There are serious moral consequences for such constraints, as shown in the aforementioned documentary, i.e., anarchy leading to world conflagrations, which matters not to the Godless! 

 

Why should the Godless be allowed to call the shots?  Why should truth be put on the backburner by kowtowing to atheists and apostates?  People of faith and right reason also have rights.  They don't have to stand for being relegated to the political gulags for their belief in God.  Moreover, they can't if the world in which they find themselves is going to be worth living in, per God's Divine Plan for His creation! 

 

God is not going to be mocked indefinitely!  The clock is ticking on the United States of America!

 

 

 

 

[ENCLOSURE]

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200804/POL20080424a.html

 

Catholics Will Vote Democrat, Catholic Congressman Says


By Josiah Ryan


CNSNews.com Staff Writer


April 24, 2008



(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich.), a Catholic congressman who endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) for president, told Cybercast News Service Wednesday that despite Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) failure to capture Catholic voters in the Pennsylvania primary, the majority of Catholics will vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election, whether it's Obama or Clinton.


According to the exit poll of the Pennsylvania primary, church-going Democrats picked Clinton over Obama on Tuesday, with Catholic voters especially lining up behind Clinton.

 
Among all Democratic primary voters who said they attend church weekly, Clinton beat Obama 61 percent to 39 percent. Among Catholics who attend church weekly, she beat him 74 percent to 26 percent.


This represents a dramatic shift from the Feb. 19 Democratic primary in Wisconsin, where Obama defeated Clinton 58 percent to 41 percent. In that state, Obama defeated Clinton 55 percent to 44 percent among Democratic voters who attend church weekly.

 
Clinton did win in Wisconsin among Catholic voters who attend church weekly, but by a much smaller margin (53 percent) than the 74 percent she took in Pennsylvania.


The shift is significant because Catholic Democrats in northern states have been a key swing vote in recent presidential elections.

 
In 2004, President Bush defeated Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) 52 percent to 47 percent among Catholic voters nationwide even though Kerry is a Catholic. In Ohio, widely viewed as the state that tipped the Electoral College to the Republicans, Bush beat Kerry 65 percent to 35 percent among Catholics who attend church weekly.


"I will vote, come November, for the Democratic candidate, whoever that may be," Kildee told Cybercast News Service "I predict the majority of Catholics will choose the Democratic ticket come November.


"The Catholic vote is split," he said. "There is no question about it. There are various issues that split the Catholic vote, but the one thing that does pull it together is what I call the social gospel: treatment of the working people, and treatment of the poor. That tends to pull the Catholic vote together.


"Whichever candidate can show they care about these things will garner the Catholic vote," Kildee added.


Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has also endorsed Clinton, expressed a similar sentiment. "I didn't see any of the numbers," he told Cybercast News Service. "But that shift seems to show the great ability Hillary Clinton has to talk to average folks about their concerns. They came out and voted for her last night."



Kildee said he could not speculate on why church-going voters may have shifted their support from Obama to Clinton.

 

"Pennsylvania is an older state. Its political involvement is different than Wisconsin," he said. "When you get to the Midwest, there are probably other issues. It could be an interesting analysis, but it might also take a PhD. It's more analysis then I can give right now."


Kildee said he stayed up until midnight Tuesday watching the results come in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=47200



 

Antonio Gramsci Is Alive And Well In The Academy And The Fourth Estate In America

 

Friday, July 18, 2008

By Gary L. Morella

 

 

Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), the godfather of Italian Communism, and author of the modern Communist playbook for destroying Christian democracies.

CCI NOTES: Antonio Gramsci is the godfather of Italian Communism. Realizing that Christian culture could not be defeated by a system so obviously oppressive and inferior as Marxism, Gramsci recommended that Communists do whatever they could to gain control of the pillars of society and alter them from the inside out in order to covertly bring about global socialism. These pillars are education, the media, organized religion and government. Looking back over the last 75 years, it is easy to see Gramsci's fingerprints in the US State Dept of the 1940's and 1950's, which was infested with Communist agents and sympathizers. His presence is obvious the universities, newspapers, and even the US Congress of today. As for the Catholic Church, the destruction of the last 40 years since Vatican II as it relates to the Sacraments and the collapse of discipline is an "inside job" right out of Gramsci's playbook. CCI readers are encouraged to better understand Gramsci because of the success of his ideas: socialism and de-Christianization have seeped in and become dominant in Western nations without any shots being fired. Fixing this requires a better understanding of how it happened in the first place.

####

[Note: The term Fourth Estate refers to the press, both in its explicit capacity of advocacy and in its implicit ability to frame political issues.]

In Book V, chapter 11 of the Politics Aristotle describes two ways of preserving tyrannies. One way is the traditional tyrant's policy of repression, which is analogous with the policy of extreme democracy. Its three main goals are to break the spirit of subjects, to sow distrust among them, and to make them incapable of action. The other way is assimilating tyranny to a monarchical form of government - a kingship, by a good administration and the exercise of personal restraint. The wise tyrant must take care to "adorn his city, pay heed to public worship, honor the good, keep his own passions in check, and enlist in his favor as large a measure of social support as he possibly can." Aristotle says that by doing this, the clever tyrant may prolong his days, and attain a state of "half-goodness." We will take a closer look at the goals of tyrannical repression and the actions of contemporary "wise tyrants" by examining in detail the tools that they use to enslave those entrusted to their care in the name of specious reasons of freedom confused with license.

Looking at tyrannical repression, breaking the spirits of subjects is accomplished through fear and terror, humiliation, and the forced dependence of subjects on tyrannical authority to the point of complete submission. Distrust is sowed among the subjects by destroying friendships first and foremost. This is accomplished by isolating them, making them strangers, and ultimately enemies with associations undermined in the process. Finally, the tyrant must make the subjects incapable of action, i.e., they must have no power to initiate action being nothing more than slaves. The tyrant in this case is properly called a despot. Inactivity results when the subjects are ignorant, passive, and lack the means, e.g., private property, to have any hope of influence politically. These three goals are indicative of a policy that rules by silence, coercion, and violence.

What is the relationship among the three goals of tyrannical repression? Simply put, sowing distrust among the subjects has as its natural consequences making the subjects incapable of action, which leads to the total breakdown of their spirit. What better example to see this than Marxist socialism with the disciples of Gramsci today making it their top priority to isolate individuals via wonderfully sounding buzzwords such as multiculturalism where our national motto "out of many, one" is replaced with "out of one, many." America's melting pot has become a witch's brew with the forced isolation of individual ethnic cultures in the name of their supposed glorification. Check out most colleges today and you will see some type of reference to this multicultural isolation as a part of official policy, a policy that by osmosis filters down into our secondary and elementary school systems. Instead of making incoming students feel that they are a part of a unified consensus working toward the common good for society by seeking the truth in an uncompromising fashion, thereby learning in the process to become good citizens, they are marginalized via created multicultural factions that emphasize a disparity that would not exist otherwise via the "celebration of a diversity" that encompasses the most unnatural behavior imaginable. What is happening is the extreme in Aristotle's Politics that is to be avoided at all costs. Class warfare and chaos is the inevitable result in the name of "enlightened" Gramscian thinkers that populate the academy and the Fourth Estate with totalitarianism the panacea. Not the Stalinist version to be sure, but rather a subtler Americanized version whose modern gulags are the public demonization of any who would dare criticize the "political correctness" that is necessary to subvert entire cultures for the greater socialist scheme - let us call it a "new world order."

What is the consequence of these American gulags? The subjects are made incapable of action, i.e., they are left with no power to initiate action because they have been reduced to being nothing more than slaves as a direct result of the ridicule that they receive when they attempt to articulate an opposing point of view. They are branded as ignorant and, as a direct result of intimidation, they become passive "sheople", afraid to do anything that might bring bad publicity to them or their families. Their political influence as a result of conceding the field to the Gramscian intimidators is rendered null and void.

What we're left with is a total breakdown of spirit, the final phase of tyrannical repression where the subjects are paralyzed through a fear, terror, and humiliation induced apathy into complete submission to the will of tyrannical authority.

We now concentrate on the survival of "wise" tyrants by their giving the impression that they are something very different than they really are. Aristotle in his discussion of this second way of preserving tyrannies used tyranny tending to a kingship for his example with the tyrant giving the impression that he was a benevolent protector through the appearances of a good administration and the exercise of personal restraint. Aristotle's requirements for this public perception of a "good tyrant" was that the tyrant must, at least on occasion, go through the motions of honoring the good, keeping his passions in check, and gaining as much social support as possible for his agenda.

How is this portrayal of the "good tyrant" achieved today? It is achieved through a unique class of individuals who are the products of indoctrination masking as education from kindergarten to post-doctoral fellowships - "the spindoctors," who have carried lying to extremes not thought possible. These individuals predominate in "politically correct", pseudo-democratic Gramscian societies; moreover, they are an absolute requirement in order to mollify the masses into believing that by participating in their own destruction, they are gaining a political nirvana. They are found not only in the secular establishment but more importantly in the clergy for it is religion that must be suppressed above everything else if the god of materialism is to be enthroned by the new world order. What do these spindoctors tell us regarding life and death issues? They tell us that killing innocents in what should be their safest place of refuge, their mothers' wombs, is justified because women have something called "reproductive rights," rights that conveniently ignore the right of their babies to existence. Which begs the question of where would the minions of Planned Parenthood be if their mothers felt that they were nothing but a "choice" to be discarded at will? They tell us that being inclined to unnatural sexually perverse acts is a cause for affirmative action in a civil rights sense, celebrating homosexuality as a cause celebre with demanded special rights masked as civil rights that are already enjoyed by those suffering from developmental disorders. They tell us that hate crime legislation is needed to give special punishment to the thought and not only the crime in total ignorance of a founding tenet of America, equal justice under the law. They would have us believe that if our son or daughter wasn't in one of the approved protected hate crime categories, the perpetrators of their deaths somehow deserve lesser punishment than those committed against the protected group. They perpetuate multiculturalism and diversity on a political level by insuring that class conflicts will be given all the oxygen necessary to keep the anarchical flames burning with the totalitarian state being the only fire extinguisher available as a result of society's fatigue with living in constant chaos. And last but not least, in the religious realm to include mainstream Protestantism, liberal Judaism and Catholicism, the clerical spindoctors sadly reinforce all of the above through inter-faith alliances that con the public into believing that they are adhering to the tenets of their faith while concurrently doing everything within their power to subvert the teachings of their faith through its progressive reinvention to be in tune with the times.

In short, what we are seeing in America today is the democratized version of a totalitarian state where Gramsci promoters have learned their lessons well. We no longer have to wait for the barbarians to knock down the gate; they have been in the city for a long time at our invitation because of our apathy to do anything to prevent the confusion of authentic freedom with license. It is this apathy that tyrants depend on, more than anything else, for existence. It is the final consequence of Aristotle's three goals of tyrannical repression.

Tyranny marks the real limit or destruction of the polis and a decent human life. The irony is that modern tyrants give the impression that they abhor slavery in all its forms while concurrently making their subjects slaves to their own passions for specious reasons of unlimited free speech for the autonomous unencumbered self, which has never existed. What we now see, however, is that that the modern tyrants have become so brazen that there is no longer the perceived need for recourse to attempt to give the impression that they are honorable men. Their subjects have been dumbed down through generations of indoctrination masked as education that they can no longer distinguish fantasy from reality. Recall that ignorance is an important condition for the preservation of tyrants. How else can one explain the popularity of demagogues like the Clintons who make no pretext about being honorable?