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
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
"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
If this inhumanity is not enough for one person, Barack Hussein Obama, as a
state senator in
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
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
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
AND OBAMA HAS THE GALL TO MENTION HIS HUMANITY IN HIS SPEECH IN
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
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
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
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
[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
Among all Democratic primary voters who said they attend church weekly,
This represents a dramatic shift from the Feb. 19 Democratic primary in
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
"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
Kildee said he could not speculate on why church-going voters may have shifted
their support from Obama to
"
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 Friday,
July 18, 2008 By Gary L.
Morella
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." 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 In short, what we are
seeing in 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 |
