Obama Care Explained

Obamacare_3

They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard the young man exclaim, “Isn’t Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick.” The young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, “Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market would work for health care. Another said, ‘The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate.” At this, I had had enough.

Read more

Submitted by Francis V.

Progressive Inhumanity, Part One: The State against the Family

The family, then, is that natural society where individual liberty and the common good are most nearly reconciled.  To deprive it of its rights is to rob people of a great part of what it is to be human.  It is repressive.  The judgment of Pope Leo could hardly be more sternly expressed: “The Socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and break into pieces the stability of all family life.”

Read more

President Barack Hussein Obama, what is it about “The Bill of Rights” you don’t understand?


by Doug Lawrence

The people who founded the United States of America were intimately familiar with tyrants, along with all their petty, self-serving and unjust edicts. They also knew that the only answer to such edicts and the people who made them was a firm and resounding  “NO”!

The Revolutionary War was fought in order to give a permanent and  particular kind of life to that “no” … and as a warning to petty despots … anywhere and everywhere … that there is now a “free people” on the earth who will accept nothing less than liberty, and who will also be quite happy to give their lives in defense of the God-given rights of all.

But many of our contemporaries seem to think the founding fathers were wrong, that the God-given rights that they so painstakingly enumerated, defined, and enshrined were somehow inadequate, that those rights lacked a divine origin, in fact … and that what we Americans know as “The Bill of Rights” and “The U.S. Constitution” should somehow be reformed or replaced with something more to their liking.

They even go so far as to label those who choose to uphold and defend the traditional rights of all Americans as “mean-spirited bigots” … while at the same time, attempting to rewrite the very history of our great country.

In an attempt to besmirch the reputations of the founding fathers … while trumpeting the cause of “diversity” … these shameless anarchists happily point out that all of the founding fathers … without exception … were men!

In an attempt to undermine the divine basis of the God-given rights that we Americans, and by extension … all human beings possess … they love to trot out (and have been quietly working for generations to codify) an imaginary, totally non-existent  “wall of separation between church and state”.

In an attempt to “sneak” all of this by the American people, they have succeeded in “dumbing down” the younger generations through their successful infiltration of the teachers unions and their subversion of the primary and secondary school systems.

Our great universities have become havens for an outspoken “protected class” of “secular theologians” … godless professors … many of whom are avowed Marxists and blatant, outright haters of the American way … who, at great expense … and with considerable pomp and circumstance … churn out mindless hordes, formed in their own image and likeness, lacking any sense of who they really are, where they actually came from, or what their actual rights, responsibilities and potential as “free people” … might truly be!

Hollywood and the mainstream media grow fat by feeding this massive group of clueless sycophants a steady diet of mental “pap” and “pablum”, while corporate America grows rich … keeping them busy and quite off balance … by “stoking the fires” of their mindless personal quest for money, approval, and influence (as opposed to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.)

Fortunately, recent events have served to bring all these things to light, in the presidency and the particularly corrupt regime of one Barack Hussein Obama, who in his notorious speaking engagement at the formerly Catholic, Notre Dame University, unwittingly became the national “poster boy” for all of the abuses mentioned above (and unfortunately, many, many more.)

The only answer to tyrants like Barack Obama, to all those of his political party, and to all his political operatives, no matter under which rock they might presently be be hiding … is a firm, unyielding “NO”. And the best place to firmly register that “NO” is at the ballot box, come November.

As for the specific “whys” … have a look at “The Bill of Rights”!

It comes down to one word: R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

…It comes down to one word: R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

Respect for God, our Creator. That’s the fountain of American wisdom from which all else flows.

From respect for God, our Creator, comes respect for each individual that God has made. The foundational principle of American government is that human souls come in only one color, in one type, and at one value. In God’s sight, we are all created equal. And since our very founding, good Americans of all stripes have worked to further this principle.

As if to highlight this fundamental loss of respect for our Creator as the source of citizens’ unalienable rights, our big-government elitist in chief feels perfectly free to simply remove God from the American equal-rights paradigm, as he did when speaking to the Hispanic Caucus last month.

From respect for each individual flows the idea that liberty is a fundamental — unalienable by government — human right. Just as God has given free will to each person, in perfectly equitable manner, respecting man’s ability to choose his own path, so a government made in the image of God’s plan must permit the freedom to succeed or to fail, to prosper or to flounder, and to account for his own life when he faces God at the end of his earthly journey.

If the majority of American citizens want to change our Constitution, if they wish to banish the word “Creator” from our public display of the Declaration of Independence, they have legal ways in which to do this. The states can call a Constitutional Convention to take such steps democratically. Or our elected representatives can propose legal amendments to our Constitution which transform America into a socialist democracy. This is respect for the people’s will.

But Democrats have decided to transform America from the top-down position of tyrants, boldly challenging the people to resist. Our founders were brilliant men who put into our Constitution the legal means to transform this country by purely democratic means. But Barack Obama is not legally empowered to make America into what he thinks it ought to be.

What we have in America today isn’t just a feckless bunch of big spenders running our economy off a cliff. We have a cadre of power-mad folks who have no respect for the rule of law or the Constitution they are sworn to protect.

Respect for the will of the people is the very soul of democracy. Without it, liberty is nothing but a sham.

Link

Introduction to Catholic social teaching, Rev. Raymond de Souza

by Chris Armstrong

…After the war, there was a human rights revolution in the thinking of the church. Facing the horrors of totalitarianism, there was a shift in emphasis: defense of human person, dignity, rights was essential. Universal declaration of human rights made after war. State no longer as in Aquinas’s time, a sacral actor: a thing thought of as exercising benign influence, but the source of evil, malign forces. Emphasized in documents of the 1960s: Pope John XXIII, Mater et Magistra, Vat II emphasized religious liberty—a contested concept! Right to worship God freely! 1965 Dignitatis Humanae Personae.

Then toward end of 60s, shift to another problem that emerged: world that seemed to have prosperous, advancing societies, and those left behind with nothing. 1967, Paul VI, looked at question of income and equality. Not everyone sharing in fruits and goods of earth: focus on development, redistribution of wealth.

Then key figure, JP II, in social teaching of Catholicism: 27 year papacy. And lived in totalitarian world—came out of that. Three encyclicals: first: defense of right of workers, similar to that of Leo XIII. More deeply into anthropology of work: man’s work shapes him. Attacked communism not so much on loss of liberties, but mistakes about work: work is to be controlled by state to liberate man. NO man liberates through work, broadly speaking. Fundamental part of man’s liberty is exercised in his work, understood in broadest sense. Work is an expression of liberty. We use our intelligence in our work, gift of God. Our creativity is being applied, which is in the image of God.

Then a few  years later, the “Concern for the things of the social order” encyclical: Right to economic initiative. Sollicitudo rei socialis, 1987. Liberty not just in political, cultural, religious spheres. Also right to economic initiative—a liberty proper to man in his economic work, which should not be stifled by state. That expression is new. The idea goes back a long time. And the idea of entrepreneurship (Acton involved in this) affirmed for the first time here too.

Then Centesimus Annus, 1991, defense of free economy, as he calls it. Economic liberty exercised with others: if you mean this by capitalism, then that is good. But if you separate economic liberty from all other liberties—freedom to exploit—then that is not a Christian vision.

Wrapping up: that’s where things stood. Enter Benedict XVI, 2005. Not a lawyer like Pius XI, Leo XIII, not a historian like ____, not a diplomat like _____, not a philosopher like JPII, but a gifted theologian. That’s the exception. That’s unusual. Maybe never in history of church is the successor of Peter also the most accomplished theologian alive. He starts with a theological point on social teaching: the basic reality that ought to characterize our social relations is charity. Usually Catholic social teaching had started with justice. Ubi caritas, not ubi justitio. Where there is charity, there is God. Not where there is justice.

This is a challenge, therefore. For Christians, he says, we must start with charity. We wouldn’t disagree, but it’s a challenge to the way things has been done….

Read more

Christopher Ferraro gives us a modern world history lesson – Free Masonry vs. The Catholic Church

Coming on September 1 is Liberty: the God that Failed, which examines “the long chain of frauds and usurpations” by which the common man was subjected to the power of secularized central governments founded on the very principles radical libertarians defend (even as they complain about the resulting abuses of state power and call for an “anarcho-capitalist” utopia).

One cannot understand the perilous situation in which our Pope finds himself today without recognizing that he is struggling against a social order whose anti-Catholic and Masonic foundations have long since been forgotten. In the following excerpt from Liberty: the God that Failed, Mr. Ferrara provides a sketch of Pope Leo XIII’s own struggle against the forces that were constructing political modernity during his pontificate by the violent overthrow of Catholic social order in country after country. By reviewing this history we can learn not only how the Church arrived at her present state of crisis but also what we can expect in the future if she is not completely reformed according to her own sacred Tradition. MJM

Pope Leo XIII and the New Zeitgeist

The pontificate of Leo XIII (1878-1903) spanned the historical transition between the Church’s militant opposition to emerging political modernity, as summed up in the Syllabus, and a conditional truce with the new order of Liberty for lack of any practical possibility of overturning it, especially in France. Leo’s pontificate also spanned the Progressive Era in America (1890 to the early 1900s) and the rise of what has been called “the Americanist heresy” among liberal American Catholics who, like their European counterparts, opposed the “ultramontanes,” slighted the Syllabus, and sought not merely a prudential accommodation to the new order, but the Church’s embrace of Liberty as a positive good and indeed the divinely ordained future of the human race. Leo charted a course through these developments that left the Church’s opposition to the new order intact in principle and rejected “Americanism,” but recognized the insuperable practical realities that had come into play after a century of revolution and social upheaval had all but destroyed Christendom.

By the time Pope Leo ascended to the papacy in 1878, the post-Christian state was already a reality in America, France, and Italy, where the Pope’s temporal sovereignty now extended no further than a Vatican city state surrounded by a republic that Masonic heroes had imposed by the usual means: force of arms, followed by token plebiscites and the passive popular acceptance of a fait accompli. As the turn of the century approached no one was more aware than Leo that, as the mid-20th century liberal Catholic luminary, John Courtney Murray, S.J. put it, “a new Zeitgeist was on its conquering march, [and] a new climate of opinion and feeling had rolled in from many quarters upon the world, especially upon the European world which was closest to him.” [i]

In his inaugural encyclical, Inscrutabili (1878), on “the evils of society,” Leo offered this withering assessment of what the new Zeitgeist had produced after a century of violent revolution, war and devastation:

… widespread subversion of the primary truths on which, as on its foundations, human society is based;… obstinacy of mind that will not brook any authority however lawful;… endless sources of disagreement… civil strife, and ruthless war and bloodshed;… contempt of law which molds characters and is the shield of righteousness;… insatiable craving for things perishable, with complete forgetfulness of things eternal, leading up to the desperate madness whereby so many wretched beings [] scruple not to lay violent hands upon themselves;… the shamelessness of those who, full of treachery, make semblance of being champions of country, of freedom, and every kind of right; in fine, the deadly kind of plague which infects in its inmost recesses, allowing it no respite and foreboding ever fresh disturbances and final disaster.[ii]

In his next encyclical, Quod apostolici, issued in the same year, Leo repeated the theme of a “deadly plague that is creeping into the very fibres of human society and leading it on to the verge of destruction…”[iii] A line of subsequent Popes, including Pope Pius XII, would track the progress of the “plague” in their own pronouncements, offering a series of increasingly grim prognoses culminating in Pius XII’s observations after World War II that “We are overwhelmed with sadness and anguish, seeing that the wickedness of perverse men has reached a degree of impiety that is unbelievable and absolutely unknown in other times,”[iv] and that “[t]he human race is involved today in a supreme crisis, which will issue in its salvation by Christ, or in its destruction.” [v]

Read more

What the Founding Fathers knew about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

foundingfathers

From the Declaration of Independence:

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The right to life and liberty are universal human rights granted by God … not man … and certainly not by ANY earthly government.

The right to the pursuit of happiness is also God bestowed … not for the purpose of fostering  immoral and lascivious conduct … but so that … over the course of his life … with the help of the Church … man might come to know, love, and serve  God … so that he might one day finally be admitted to Heaven … to dwell forever with God … finally achieving the end for which the first two rights were divinely granted. 

The “happiness” we are to pursue is fellowship with God in Heaven. Nothing less.

You wanted CHANGE … you got CHANGE!

lifelibertyhapy

Submitted by Ken K. courtesy of Robert K.