New Look at Obama Care

The Democratic Party has produced a television ad purporting to show Rep Paul Ryan throwing grandma off the cliff, by opposing ObamaCare. A couple of San Antonio doctors have responded with an effective ad to counter this injustice. See the ad produced by Drs. Jane Hughes and Kris Held.

Who will be the our Hero's The people we look up to?

The Summer of '69 "it was the best years of my life", as the song goes. a few months before I met my girlfriend and future wife. A time of war but a time of extraordinary achievements. A time when American exceptionalism that sent American pilots in a tin can, who had nerves of steel, to the Moon. And that pilot said, "it was a small step for a man, a giant leap for mankind." He did not brag about America, just planted a flag, an American flag on the desolate lunar soil. Not just Americans were in awe but all mankind our friends and our enemies. I saw it on TV; I heard his words as he stepped off the LEM all live for the world to see.

We now do not have a JFK to urge Americans to great achievements, but one who dismisses and diminishes American exceptionalism. One who has defunded the NASA program, and in some remarkably backward notion wants to let others nations lead the way.

It is not the economy, or finance, or some other material deficiency that is America's great hurdle. It is spiritual. How many Neil Armstrongs have been aborted via birth control pills or abortion. How much of our future was sacrificed under the banner of "Choice" ? How much longer can America rely on God's grace when we have so many that spit on His laws? From Obama to virtually all Democrats they have codified into the laws of America, every perversion, and every anti God perversity under the banner of tolerance. They are now so tolerant that they do not have the logic that would condemn the actions of their fellow leftists, Stalin and Hitler.

What Americans need to ask themselves is "is it better to live in God's freedom or in Satan's slavery."

"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."
- Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners."
- Charlton Heston (1924-2008)

I never saw fool yet that thought himself other than wise.
— A Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation (1534) St Thomas More

May God rest your soul Neil Armstrong and may your soul and the souls all of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God rest in the peace.

Astronaut Neil Armstrong dies at 82

.

Have We Gone A Bridge Too Far Behind Enemy Lines? An Alternate Garden of Eden

A Bridge Too Far is a 1977 epic war film, which tells the story of the failure of Operation Market Garden, during World War II, an Allied attempt to break through German lines and seize several bridges in the occupied Netherlands. The film takes its' name from an unconfirmed comment attributed to British Lieutenant-General Frederick Browning, who tells Field Marshal Montgomery, "I think we may be going a bridge too far."  Going one bridge too far apparently left them far too deep inside enemy territory, leading to the ultimate failure of their mission.


In the Book of Genesis, we read the story of our first parents being presented with a test - a test which would ultimately decide whether or not mankind would submit themselves to the authority of their Creator God - or whether they would choose to be their own gods - their own arbiters of right and wrong. Adam and Eve's choice to be their own gods, created an alternate garden to the Garden of Eden - one filled with thorns and thistles and death. Mankind becoming his own arbiter of good and evil opened a veritable Pandora's Box upon the world. 



God had not really asked a whole heck of a lot of Adam and Eve - save for one solitary stipulation that they not eat of the "fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". The story is obviously not talking about literal trees and fruit, but the decision between submitting to the authority of God, or thinking that we are our own gods who can choose our own interpretation of right and wrong - good and evil. 


So here we are today in our alternate Garden of Evil, where it would seem that what is evil is called good, and what is good is called evil. Abortion is good - homosexual lifestyles are good - all manner and various forms of what was once considered immoral and depraved have been re-defined as good.  And anyone who seeks to submit themselves to the authority of God and His laws, are considered bad. 

But, just how far have we gone behind enemy lines, by being our own gods? And can we turn back?

Can we turn back when the union of two people of the same-sex can be considered a legalized married state - and two lesbian women can simply create a child through artificial insemination?  After all, once we've allowed these people to marry, adopt and create children through artificial means, how will we be able to turn around and say "you can't do that anymore? These alternative families are already out there - how do we change that?

Those of us in the pro-life movement have been fighting Roe v Wade for almost 40 years now, and yet today we have one of the most pro-abortion presidents to date since that infamous court decision was handed down. A president who will now force even religious institutions to provide for this slaughter through their insurance plans.

We have let so many dogs off the leash, that the dog catchers will never be able to get them all back.  We have given license to so many people's baser instincts, that we will never be able to convince them to simply turn around.  I mean, there really is a 'point of no return' in everything. 


I remember a song from my childhood, which was the title song to a movie about alcoholism, "The Days of Wine and Roses" - the lyrics of which, though only a 10 yr. old child, sent chills through me:  "The days of wine and roses laugh and run away, like a child at play - cross a meadowland and through an open door - a door marked  "NEVER MORE" that wasn't there before."

I believe we've already gone "one bridge too far" and have crossed through that door marked "Never More".    And only God can bring us back to the innocence which our first parents threw away. Till then we fight the good fight, but always remembering that we are NOT GOD - and the only way we can win back that innocence which our first parents lost for us, is to surrender ourselves once again to His Kingship over us.  

Two Women Die Leaving Behind Two Very Different Legacies.

Two very prominent and influential women, have died – leaving behind lasting legacies of their life’s work. Nellie Gray, President and founder of the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., and Helen Gurley Brown, editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan magazine; both born within the same decade, have both passed away within days of each other.   

Let’s take a look at the legacies of each of these women, who though contemporaries with each other, fostered very different perspectives with their life’s work.

Nellie Gray, once described by Cardinal Sean O’Malley as the “Joan of Arc” of the pro-life movement, passed away over the weekend of August 11th & 12^th, at the age of 86.  After the infamous Roe v Wade decision was handed down in 1973, Nellie Gray said there was a “tugging at her heartstrings” to do something about the decision. This led her to retire from her law profession and devote herself entirely to the pro-life cause.  Nellie then founded the March for Life in 1974, where an estimated 20,000 people participated; inspiring similar events in cities across the U.S. and around the world.  Today, almost half a million marchers participate.

The “Cosmo girl”, Helen Gurley Brown, who advocated for glamour, fashion-focus and sexual freedom for women in her Cosmopolitan magazine, also died this past Monday, August 13^th, at the age of 90.  Brown is also the author of “Sex and the Single Girl” a million-selling book of her advice and opinions to women, the biggest piece of advice being, “not to save it for the wedding night”.  Others of Brown’s statements include, “Marriage is insurance for the worst years of your life - save the “best” for when you’re single. And forget about church - spiritual benefits, yes, prospects for bed, unlikely.”

Brown’s legacy of sexual license would seem to obviate itself with the growing numbers of failed marriages, broken families, teen pregnancies, abortions, a huge increase in sexually transmitted diseases, such as AIDs, and an overall moral decline of our culture. By the time she stepped down as editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan in 1997, the magazine ranked first in bookstores on college campuses; the very age group where the highest number of abortions occurs.  

Nellie Gray, on the other hand, served as a contradiction to the “Cosmo girls” in her lifelong determined fight for the most vulnerable members of the human community. Pro-lifers across the nation are mourning the loss of one of their greatest heroes and role models.  As the 2013 March for Life draws near, marking the 40^th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade decision, pro-lifers will once again march to save the lives of the unborn children Nellie dedicated her life to.  At the same time, they will also be marching in her memory, and in her honor.   

What a very different legacy, left by two women born in the same era, who died days apart from each other. Each one gave their lives to what they believed – each one spent their life’s energies for those beliefs – each one left a legacy for the world to remember. But I wonder, down the road in the future, which woman’s legacy will be the more remembered? Which woman’s legacy will have the greatest lasting effect on mankind?  

For I still believe, that though both evil-doers and the good alike, leave their legacies behind, it is the legacy of good people like Nellie Gray, who leave the greatest positive impact for future generations and the progress of mankind.  While Helen Gurley Brown’s legacy left behind a culture of death, with her promotion of sexual license and pleasure-seeking, with no accountability – In contrast, Nellie Gray left behind a legacy of advocating for Life – as one of the most eloquent defenders of the most vulnerable members of our society.

“That though the wicked spring up like grass, and all evil doers flourish, they will be forever destroyed.” Psalm 92:7.

    

"Those Who Trust in Themselves as Just" - ie - "I'm a Good Person"

Have you ever heard someone say, "I'm a good person?"  I have.  I hear it all time.  Someone will be talking to me about themselves, and in describing their character, will first and foremost make a declaration of their goodness, by asserting, "I'm a good person."   Upon attending any funeral these days, you will hear that the deceased is already in heaven. Obviously it's a lot easier to get to heaven these days than it used to be.  But, that aside, I have noted that the particular people who protest their goodness the most, are the very ones who have little to no faith in God, are outright atheists, or if they go to church, one wonders what effect it really has on them - one of the major causes of church goers being called "hypocrites" by non-church goers.

Yesterday, while we were still reeling from the Colorado shootings, we heard of yet another tragic shooting, where another young man opened fire in a Sikh Temple, killing 6 innocent people and wounding several others, before being killed himself by police. This seems to be becoming an American tragedy; and everyone has an opinion on the causes, and the remedies.

But do we really fully understand the nature of evil anymore? I recall a suspense-thriller program on the radio, when I was just a little girl, where the announcer always opened the show with these lines: "What evil lurks in the hearts of men?"  These days, I would suggest the whole concept of evil has been muted to such a degree, where we have modern popular songs such as: "Sympathy for the devil." 

I personally know people who go to church on Sunday, and profess themselves to be Christian, who say they are pro-choice, and believe in gay marriage. And if you asked these people to describe themselves, they would tell you, they are  "good people." We have lowered the bar on just how low you have to go before you reach bottom - or true evil - that I suggest no one knows the difference anymore. And then we wonder why we have these random acts of violence popping up more and more?

What is a "good person, and why do so many people these days see themselves as "good persons?"  If we look up Webster's Dictionary definition of the word "good", we see a plethora of positive and even very flattering synonyms. Words such as "morally good; honorable; worthy; respectable; virtuous; honest; just etc., just to name a few - and who would not want to see themselves that way? Especially in a time when we are taught to appreciate ourselves and err in favor of a positive assessment of our character, rather than have low self esteem.  And I am not encouraging self-hatred of any kind.

I'm simply offering another perspective - which is - there is Webster's definition of "good", and then there is the spiritual definition of "good".   For in the Bible we read, "No one is good except God alone." Luke ch. 18. Does this mean none of us can be respectable, morally good, honest or virtuous?  I'm not saying that either. What I am saying is that these attributes of goodness are what we aspire to - they are not qualities which we as sinners naturally possess in and of ourselves, without the saving grace of God.

Modern 21st century man has come to view himself as the sole arbiter of goodness - he decides what qualifies as good - and he himself personally attains goodness of his own accord - without the need of any higher good.

Now, before you say I'm being judgmental - I will quote Our Lord Himself, in his parable about those who "trust in themselves as just." from Luke 18. I'm sure we are all well acquainted with this story of the pharisee and the publican, where the pharisee standing, (note standing,not kneeling) goes on to make an account of himself and his "goodness" and giving thanks to God - that he is not like the rest of the riff-Raff sinners, such as extortioners, adulterers and the like.  All the while, some poor little publican stands afar off, not even daring to lift his eyes to heaven, beating his breast saying, "O God, be merciful to me a sinner."

Jesus then says,  "I say to you, this man (the publican) went to his house justified rather than the other: because every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."  So, it would seem that Our Lord is giving a warning to all us "good people" out here.

My question today is which one of these characters in this parable would you say you identify with? And do you think that simply making laws against guns is the answer to these random acts of violence?  Or do you think we need better psychiatric care for these unbalanced individuals? Or would you say we need, as a nation, to turn back to our Creator as the sole arbiter of true goodness, so that we are once again, one nation under God. 

Good For Women? We Do Not Think So

News You Need to Hear

The Pill Kills

This is a powerful video. This shows why teens like effect of pill

The Marriage Clash - And Our Different Understandings of Marriage

I would like today, to really examine in greater depth, our understanding of what marriage actually is - where we get our understanding of marriage - even aside from the Bible - and how that understanding of marriage, since ancient Roman times, has played a role in today's controversy over same-sex marriage.

Let's begin by examining some simple roots of today's understanding of marriage. Going all the way back to pagan Rome, marriage was one of several acceptable forms of cohabitation and family life, and was available as a legal status to 'free' citizens.  In pagan Rome - if two 'free' persons (slaves being not free to consent to marry) man and woman, lived together by 'consent' in a regularized fashion, both assuming the roles and responsibilities of husband and wife, then they were considered married under ancient Roman law.  Roman law actually made it quite clear, that marriage was not about merely engaging in intercourse, but rather the 'free consent' of the two individuals entering into it.

Rome's understanding then, was that a marriage could exist even without legal formalization or recognition, only the two people's intent to form a household   (sort of similar to our modern-day common-law marriages. However, formally legalized marriages were available for those who desired the special privileges accorded marriage ... ie ... passing down the family name to any children born of the union, inheritance of a father's estate, titles etc.

So, as you can see, our modern Western culture strongly reflects much of ancient Rome's concept of marriage - particularly with the idea of a legalized state recognition of a couple's union, so that the children of that union may readily inherit the father's name and any other of the father's worldly assets and benefits.  

This 'consensual' view of marriage is even reflected in part of today's Catholic understanding that it is the couple who, through their 'consent', administer the sacrament of marriage to one another - and not the priest who marries them. This differs from the Eastern Orthodox, who believe it is the clerical officer, bishop or priest alone who marries the bride and groom. 

But, both Catholic and Orthodox churches define marriage as a covenant and a sacrament! It is simply that the Catholic Church requires the 'consent' of the couple, similar to ancient Rome's stipulation. A huge reason therefore for a Catholic annulment, is anything which might diminish the 'full and willing consent' of one or both of the parties. One cannot be forced or coerced under any form of duress to enter into marriage - or that there be any diminishing capacity on either of the two parties such as emotional immaturity, mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse -  which could mitigate the full capacity of the person's will to make a full and free 'consent'. Any one or more of these elements then renders the marital vow null and void in the eyes of the Catholic Church. I'm not completely sure what elements are required for annulment in the Orthodox Church.

Now, enter the Protestant Reformation, and Martin Luther is able to take this idea of "consent" one step farther with his own re-defining of marriage to be a mere contract, as opposed to the Catholic and Orthodox's belief that marriage is a covenant and a sacrament.  Martin Luther believed that this marital "contract" could be entered into or dissolved by the 'consent' of the couple, and not by any divine permission whatsoever.  We all know that from there, Henry VIII followed suit. 

For those of you who may not know the difference between a covenant and a contract - a contract may be broken - a covenant can not be broken.  The Catholic and Orthodox understanding of marriage therefore, is that it resembles the covenant between God and His people - God does not break his promises!

To this day, a Catholic - or an Orthodox, may not re-marry in the Church, unless they obtain an annulment on one or more serious grounds, such as those mentioned above.  Whereas Protestants, due to Luther's re-definition of marriage as a mere contract, are free to marry and divorce and re-marry as often as they wish.

Today, many people, who identify themselves as Christians, have adopted Luther's belief, that it is merely the will of a couple which brings a marriage into existence - and the withdrawal of this will is sufficient to terminate it. 

So, enter the gay-marriage movement - and considering all that we've just examined - what would you say has been the greatest component to its' headway into the legislature and the courts? 

Gay marriage advocates have made huge strides in our courts and our legislature, on this principle of 'consent'. They agree that marriage depends upon the will of two consenting people - and that there is no valid argument against persons of a same-sex union also consenting to assume the rights and responsibilities of husband and wife, and to form a household.
   

In an article from Touchstone, an Orthodox magazine, where I was able to glean much of my information, the author proposes that "Orthodox churches in such states as Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut cease to cooperate or collaborate with the government in marrying persons, as has been done in one form or another within Christendom since the fifth and sixth centuries."

Now, from Yahoo News, I read where The Church of England has said it could be forced to stop conducting weddings on behalf of the state if gay marriage is legalized - that the governments' plan to introduce same-sex marriage would lead to a clash between Church law - that marriage is between a man and a woman - and that of Parliament. 

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches in this country may soon find themselves in a similar clash, as last month, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), on the grounds that it was unconstitutional to define marriage exclusively as opposite-sex unions. Gay marriage also now looms on the horizon of Illinois.

There is a definite clash here between Church and State regarding the definition of marriage, and a lot of gaps in our understanding of marriage that has allowed advocates of gay marriage to gain a large foothold into our courts and legislature - and they will not be backing down any time too soon. We have a long road ahead of us. 

Watching the movie "For Greater Glory" based on the story of the persecution of the Church in Mexico in the 1920's, and the amazing heroes who stepped forward and risked everything for their Faith - even their very lives - I asked myself - how many of us will be strong enough to stand against the winds that are coming against our Faith and our Church and our Nation?