https://stream.org/government-italy-ban-corrupt-cardinals-country/
I just heard the founding of stream.org being interviewed on The Dennis Prager Show this afternoon and what he was factually sharing is certainly going to impact the Church as we know it if something or someone doesn’t challenge the Vatican/Pope soon.
Anyway, very interesting read and, looking back since the pope came into office, there were a lot of clues that things might not be all right.
I just ran across a percentage point from the Presidential 2016 election which I actually found worrisome and, in another view, horrifying. The article, based on voter participation (which was higher than usual in 2016) reflected that only around 19 percent voted for Donald J. Trump for president in our city. No matter, right, as Trump got into office even without the votes from California. In fact, it would have been somewhat of a shock if California had actually whole heartedly decided to vote for real principles than global warming leftover agendas and such.
Yes, that’s the way it goes in an election BUT, if only 19 percent voted for President Trump in our city and the Catholic/Christian population is obviously more than 19 percent of the population here, can you see the problem?
Last I heard, there are certain aspects of a candidate that can’t be ignored when we go to cast our vote. The right to life is one of them and that means the right to a live birth for unborn babies. The competitor to President Trump in the election was very much for Planned Parenthood and their number-one profit item – abortion. Comparing the two candidates, it shouldn’t have been difficult to make a voting decision. Seemingly, many Catholics either bought the fabricated news that Hillary was the superior intelligence, and supported the rights of women.
However, Hillary’s support of women didn’t include the unborn which when making a vote as a Catholic would cross her right off the list. Sadly, however, it seems that Catholics found some justifiable (in their own uninformed minds) reason to vote for the woman who would advocate abortion long and loud as a freedom for women. To see election time bumper stickers in a church parking lot proclaiming a vote for Hillary was disgraceful. I, personally, have Catholic relatives that stopped communication with us as of November 2016. I even have some local Catholics who denounced and then ignored me when they discovered that I didn’t take the opportunity to vote for the first woman president.
It can be a tad distracting at times when there is a church event or service as you wonder which of the congregation in session is one of the minority when it came to voting as a Catholic. The overall percentage of votes for President Trump in the State of California as a whole was just a bit over 31% Scary to think that the huge win for Hillary in California could have included votes from bishops, priests, seminarians, nuns, deacons . . . Just another fall in the slippery slope of moral values in the world today.
A last thought is that a vote for an adamant abortion advocate is a vote for continued and expanded abortion. Fortunately, Hillary didn’t win and neither did her expansion plans for abortion. BUT, there still might need to be some explanations to God on one’s personal judgement day when he asks such voters why they thought their support of a candidate’s proposed laws, if elected, were more important than His laws? Every baby is made in the image and likeness of God and everyone but 19% of our little city’s population were okay with their vote encouraging that horrific murder.
The liberals seem to have an interesting take on which children should live and which should die. There is ongoing protests about the children at the border. The United States didn’t bring those children over the border and, seemingly, are doing a good job of protecting them. The left seems to forget that the parents broke the law coming over and have to provide some kind of identification that they should be allowed in the country. Already, the border patrol has found MS-13 trying to get in with children that are not theirs. People with multiple deportations for crimes committed are discovered and children showing up at very young ages have to be protected.
The battle cry from the left is that all children need to be protected and cared for and we shouldn’t send anyone back because, as they like to repeat and repeat, “That’s not who we are . . .”
Yet, while they care so much about children sent here alone by their parents, entrusted to coyotes for the trip, and being used by other people, not many of them have a single concern about American unborn babies that die by the thousands a week. For me, you can’t have it both ways. ALL children should be safe. I guess you could say, “That’s not who we should be . . .”
The real contradiction in this recent event is that they proposed it to give every woman a place to represent . . . except if you disagreed with them. Students for Life were in attendance and verbally abused and one, pregnant woman was actually shoved into the street by three of the ‘peaceful’ demonstrators for the Women’s March. Tolerance is a one-way street for these women.
We had a very learned pastor, years ago, who said that a woman who abuses her child is not a mother. How can a woman abort one child then give birth to another when it is convenient to her?
Bob: “Hey Jim, did you hear about the Obama administration scandal?,
Jim: “You mean the one about Obama emasculating the military, and firing anyone who disagrees with him?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean about Obama wanting to grant citizenship to millions of illegals in order to lock in future Democrat election wins?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean the Mexican gun running?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean SEAL Team 6?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Obama saying the average family would save $2,500 on their health insurance premiums?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Forcing businesses to violate their religious beliefs by paying for abortion drugs?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Violating the rights and sanctity of our Churches?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Spending $634 million on a website that doesn’t work?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Obama calling for an increase in our debt when he lambasted Bush for the very same thing?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean the one about Obama spending more than all previous presidents combined?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean the State Dept. lying about Benghazi?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Intentionally trying to hurt Americans during the sequester?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Blocking veterans who secured our freedoms from their monuments, but giving the green light for Illegals to use Monument Mall?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Denying school kids the ability to tour the White House but still spending lavishly on his parties?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean Obama saying we can keep our insurance and doctors if we wanted to?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean the military not getting their votes counted?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The NSA monitoring foreign diplomats?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean the use of drones in our own country without legal authorization?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean the president arming the Muslim Brotherhood?”
Bob: “No the other one:.
Jim: “The IRS targeting conservatives?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The DOJ spying on the press?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Sebelius shaking down health insurance executives?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Giving Solyndra 500 million taxpayer dollars, and 3 months later siting idly by as they declared bankruptcy?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails, text messages, and everything else?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Millions of Americans losing their health care coverage?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Forcing Americans to pay sky high premiums for health insurance coverage that they don’t want, and will never use?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Ordering the release of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants from jails and prisons, and falsely blaming the sequester?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Denying Arizona the right to protect its own borders?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Providing weapons to Syrian rebels, many of whom are Al Queda?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The president’s repeated violation of the law requiring him to submit a budget no later than the first Monday in February?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The 2012 vote where 115% of all registered voters in some counties voted 100% for Obama?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The president’s unconstitutional recess appointments in an attempt to circumvent the Senate’s advise-and-consent role?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The State Department interfering with an Inspector General investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Clinton, the IRS, Rice, Sebelius, and Holder all lying to Congress?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The President using nearly 1 trillion dollars of stimulus money to fund his cronies and the unions?”
Bob: “No, the other one”
Jim: “I give up! … Oh wait, I think I got it! You mean that scandal about the 65 million low-information voters who don’t pay taxes and get free stuff from taxpayers…….and how they stuck us again with the most pandering and corrupt administration in American history?”
Bob: “THAT’S THE ONE!”
