Wednesday, November 28, 2007

ChastisingThe Salvation Army

The following stores are inconvenient by the Salvation Army: Target, Best Buys, Barnes & Noble, Circuit City

This holiday season's retail conundrum: to silence the bells, or let them ring. As the Salvation Army kicks off its annual red-kettle program today, a growing number of retailers, from Best Buy to Target, are banning Salvation Army bell ringers from their doors -- to avoid having to choose between competing charities and out of concern for customers, they say.

That's created a schism in the retail world, with rival chains banking on kettle-carrying volunteers to set them apart as more civic-minded.

''The Salvation Army has a remarkable history of providing year-round service to families, and Big Lots is proud to continue our tradition of helping with their fundraising goals," said the Columbus, Ohio, discounter in a statement issued last month after Target Corp. said it was banning the bell ringers.

Upon hearing of the Salvation Army's woes -- Target kettles brought in about $9 million last year -- BJ's Wholesale Club Inc. decided to put the nonprofit group's signature red donation kettles in its stores during the holiday season. Auto parts chain AutoZone Inc. and Books-A-Million Inc., the nation's number three-book retailer, also opened their doors to the Salvation Army.

The bell ringers are ''very welcome" in front of Wal-Mart stores, said a company spokesman. Even so, the world's largest retailer imposes restrictions: Salvation Army volunteers can stand outside its stores and solicit for only a total of 14 calendar days, and for no more than three days in a row.

Other retailers say no to bell ringers and other charities out of courtesy for shoppers. ''They are coming here for a reason, and the reason is not for solicitation of any kind by a third party," said Steve Mullen, a Circuit City spokesman.

Some shoppers disagree. ''It's a disgrace," said South Boston resident Phyllis McElaney about the ban. ''The bell ringers remind you of the meaning of Christmas, that it's about love, caring, and giving."

To others, the bells are just more Christmas clutter. ''The bell ringing is annoying," said Stephani Gray as she headed into a Target store in Dorchester.

The bans are a sign of the nation's changing retail landscape. Over the past two decades, national chains like Home Depot Inc., Barnes & Noble Inc., and Circuit City Stores Inc. have replaced regional and independent players like Bradlees Inc. and Caldor Corp. With the national chains have come national corporate policies, including a no-solicitation rule.

Target, however, has made an exception for the Salvation Army, a Christian charity that provides food, clothing, and shelter. Until this year: With more requests coming from nonprofits that wanted to station fund-raisers at Target stores, a spokeswoman for the Minneapolis chain has said, ''It's becoming increasingly difficult to have an exception to our policy, so we decided we would have no exceptions."

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Salva el Planeta con Aborto Save Planet with Abortion



Esta historia me dejo mascando pajas; pensar que existen personas con este nivel de preocupacion e ignorancia es sumamente abrumante. La joven, Toni Vernelli aborto y se esterelizo por que un bebe causa contaminacion ambiental osea que consume oxigeno y exhala bioxido de carbono. Que diria Al Gore? Siga leyendo

Toni Vernelli, 35, hopes her actions would ensure her carbon footprint would be kept to a minimum, the Mail reported. The environmental advocate also sees having children as an egotistical act. Other ignorant victims of this irrational thinking are Sarah Irving and Mark Hudson.Most young girls dream of marriage and babies. But Sarah dreamed of helping the environment - and as she agonized over the perils of climate change, the loss of animal species and destruction of wilderness, she came to the extraordinary decision never to have a child. "I realized then that a baby would pollute the planet - and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do." Sarah's boyfriends have been less understanding than Toni's, with the breakdown of several relationships. "I've had boyfriends who wanted children, so I knew I couldn't be with them long term,' says Sarah.

"I've had to break up with a couple of boyfriends because I didn't think it was fair to waste their time. "In my early 20s I had a boyfriend who I really liked, but he wanted to start a family as soon as possible. "I was tempted to stay with him and hope he would change his mind, but I knew I couldn't provide him with what he wanted so I walked away." Sarah started work for the Ethical Consumer magazine, and seven years ago she met her fiancé Mark Hudson, a 37-year- old health- care worker.

When they started dating in 2003, they immediately discussed their views on children. "To my relief, Mark was as adamant as me that he didn't want a family. After a year of dating, we started talking about sterilization," says Sarah. "I didn't want to have an 'accident' if contraception didn't work - we would be faced with the dilemma of whether to keep the baby."

While other young couples sit down and discuss mortgages, Sarah and Mark discussed the medical options for one or the other to be sterilized. "We realised it was a much more straightforward procedure, safer and easier, for a man to be sterilised through a vasectomy than a woman to be sterilised," says Sarah. "In January 2005, Mark had a vasectomy and we both felt incredibly relieved there was no chance of us having a baby."

Ironically, the couple who have decided to deny themselves children for the sake of the planet, actively enjoy the company of young children. Sarah says: "We both have nieces who we love dearly and I consider myself a caring, nurturing person.

"My sister recently had a little girl, and that has taken the pressure off me because my parents wanted to be grandparents. "At first, they were surprised by my decision, but they have never criticized us. "I'd never dream of preaching to others about having a family. It's a very personal choice. What I do like to do is make people aware of the facts.

"When I see a mother with a large family, I don't resent her, but I do hope she's thought through the implications." Mark adds: "Sarah and I live as green a life a possible. We don't have a car, cycle everywhere instead, and we never fly.

"We recycle, use low-energy light bulbs and eat only organic, locally produced food. "In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child. "That's why I had a vasectomy. It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth.

"Sarah and I don't need children to feel complete. What makes us happy is knowing that we are doing our bit to save our precious planet."
By NATASHA COURTENAY-SMITH and MORAG TURNER - More by this author » Last updated at 22:05pm on 21st November 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Suspended Over Candy Cane Distribution

Estudiantes de una escuela en Massachusetts fueron suspendidos pro distribuir "Candy Cane" con un mensaje religioso. Pero lo mas peligroso e inmoral es que estas escuelas distrubuyen condones y anticonceptivos.

A group of Christian high school students in Massachusetts who were suspended for distributing candy canes with a religious message attached filed a lawsuit in federal district court on Monday, January 13, claiming school administrators violated their right to free speech.
According to Liberty Counsel, the legal defense organization representing the students, just before Christmas break in December 2002, students of the L.I.F.E. Bible Club passed out approximately 450 candy canes to their fellow students during non-class time. A folded card that contained information about the Bible Club meetings, a Scripture verse, and the story of the candy maker who wanted to invent a candy to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ was attached to each candy cane.
Prior to distributing the candy, some of the members of the Bible club sought permission to distribute the candy during non-class time from Westfield High School Principal Thomas Daley. Daley refused, saying the Christian message may offend some of the other students and so denied their request. He then consulted with Superintendent Thomas McDowell, who agreed with Daley that the message might offend some students and thus denied the students’ request, too. The students were warned that if they went ahead with distributing the candy canes they would face disciplinary action. Nevertheless, the students forged ahead with the distribution, “believing that God called them to share the Gospel message.”
After the group returned from Christmas break, they were suspended for distributing the candy canes. Six of the seven members then sought legal recourse.
“This case underscores the blatant hostility by some government officials toward the Christian message and the ignorance of school officials regarding the constitutional rights of students,” said Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel.
School officials said their policy prohibits students from distributing any material unrelated to the curriculum. So far, they have declined any interviews.
“As far back as 1969, the United States Supreme Court declared that students do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse gate,” Staver continued. “Students are citizens under the Constitution and are protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.”
Staver is asking the court to declare the school district’s policy and actions unconstitutional and to immediately remove the suspensions from his clients’ files.
“The students as the recipients of the educational system will now become the educators, teaching the Westfield Public School officials the meaning of the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech,” he said.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/3085/CWA/freedom/index.htm
1/16/2003 By Tanya L. Green, J.D.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Judios Musulmanes y Liberales Atacan Valores Cristianos

McCain's Controversial Comments Deserve Better than Ignorant Indignation

La intenciones de los fundadores de este pais fueron sin ninguna equivocacion cristianas. Sobre este asunto hay mucha evidencia, la cual ha sido editada, operada, y extirpada de nuestros libros de historia. Los recipients principales de este crimen son nuestros hijos que asisten a las aulas (escuelas) publicas que han sido asaltadas con crimenes que escuchamos a diaro. Maestras violando adolescents sin ninguna consecuencia. Que le parece?

Sobre el asunto de la fundacion de este bendito pais, curiosamente un Judio llamo Micheal Medved defendio al Republicano John McCain que confeso que las raices de este pais son Cristianas.

Ataques sin Fundamento

Torpedo numero uno, truenos y centellas le han caido al Republicano que se atrevio a confesar una realidad historica. El Concilio National Democrata Judio dijo que su comentario fue repugnante.

Torpedo numero dos, el Concilio Americano de Relaciones Islamicas condena al Sr. McCain diciendo que sus comentarios estan encontra de las tradiciones Americanas del pluralismo en inclusion.

Torpedo numero tres, el Comite Judio Americano asota con el siguiente comentario,“ argumentar que America es una nacion Cristiana pone esta nacion en peligro.

Torpedo numero cuatro, el Sr. Charles Haynes, intellectual mayor del “Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center” dijo lo mas absolutamente absurdo e anti historico; que la gran majoria han mal interpretado nuestra Constitucion. Los arquitectos de la Constitucion claramente querian una nacion secular.

Verdad Historica (M. Medved)
In order to put today's church-state controversies into proper perspective, we must first clear-away some of the ubiquitous misinformation that pollutes are present public discourse. Honest historians and fair-minded observers will acknowledge eight undeniable and sometimes uncomfortable truths: 1. THE FOUNDERS NEVER "WANTED TO ESTABLISH A SECULAR NATION." In fact, they repeatedly and insistently averred that the survival of liberty and the prosperity of the United States required a deeply religious society and a populace passionately committed to organized faith. In his Farewell Address of 1797, President Washington (who had also served as presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention) unequivocally declared that "reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle...Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." His successor as president, John Adams (also known as "The Atlas of Independence") wrote to his wife Abigail in 1775: "Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. A patriot must be a religious man." Thomas Jefferson, who disagreed with Adams on so many points of policy, clearly concurred with him on this essential principle. "God who gave us life gave us liberty," he wrote in 1781. "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?" Jefferson's friend and colleague, James Madison (acclaimed as "The Father of the Constitution") declared that "religion is the basis and Foundation of Government," and later (1825, after retiring from the Presidency) wrote that "the belief in a God All Powerful, wise and good.... is essential to the moral order of the World and the happiness of men." Far from insisting on a "secular nation," the founders clearly believed that any reduction in the public's fervent and near universal Christian commitment would bring disastrous results to the experiment in self-government they had sacrificed so much to launch. Elias Boudinot of New Jersey, who served as President of the Continental Congress in the last stages of the Revolution (1782-83 wrote: "Our country should be preserved from the dreadful evil of becoming enemies of the religion of the Gospel, which I have no doubt, but would be the introduction of the dissolution of government and the bonds of civil society." 2. THE FOUNDERS DIDN'T EVEN WANT A SECULAR GOVERNMENT, AS WE UNDERSTAND THAT PHRASE TODAY. John Marshall, the father of American Jurisprudence and for 34 epochal years (1801-35) the Chief Justice of the United States, wrote: "The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it." His colleague on the court (1796-1811), Justice Samuel Chase, delivered an opinion (Runkel v. Winemill) in 1799 declaring: "Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion, and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty." These judicial opinions make clear that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment never constrained early judges from classifying the United States as an enthusiastically Christian society. In fact, the same Congress that approved the First Amendment gave a clear indication of the way they understood its language when, less than 24 hours after adopting the fateful wording, they passed the following Resolution: "Resolved, that a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceable to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness." It never occurred to this first Congress in 1789 that their call for a government sponsored day of "thanksgiving and prayer" would conflict with the prohibition they had just adopted prohibiting "an establishment of religion." Not until the infamous Everson decision of 1947 did the Supreme Court create the doctrine of a "wall of separation between church and state," quoting (out of context) from an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. President Jefferson created the image of the wall in order to reassure the Baptists that government would never interfere with their religious life, but he never suggested that religion would have no role in government. In 1803, in fact, Jefferson recommended to Congress the approval of a treaty that provided government funds to support a Catholic priest in ministering to the Kaskaskia Indians. Three times he signed extensions of another measure described as "An Act regulating the grants of land appropriated for Military services and for the Society of the United Brethren for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen." Jefferson also participated every week in Christian church services in the Capitol Building in Washington DC; until 1866, in fact, the Capitol hosted worship every Sunday and, intermittently, conducted a Sunday school. No one challenged these 71 years of Christian prayer at the very seat of federal power: given the founders' endorsement of the positive role of organized faith, it hardly inspired controversy to convene worship at the Capitol. In fact, at the time of the first Continental Congress, nine of the thirteen original colonies had "established churches" - meaning that they each supported an official denomination, even to the point of using public money for church construction and maintenance. These religious establishments - clearly in contradiction to the idea of a "secular government" - continued in three states long after the adoption of the First Amendment. Connecticut disestablished its favored Congregational Church only in 1818, New Hampshire in 1819, and Massachusetts in 1833. Amazingly enough, these established churches flourished for nearly fifty years under the constitution despite the First Amendment's famous insistence that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Their existence reflected the fact that the founders never wanted to secularize all of government, but intended rather to allow the states to handle religious issues in their own way while avoiding the imposition of any single federal denomination on the diverse, often quarreling regions of the young nation. Joseph Story, a Supreme Court Justice from 1811 to 1845 (appointed by President Madison) and, as a long-time Harvard professor the leading early commentator on the Constitution, explained the First Amendment with the observation that "the general if not universal sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation. The real object of the First Amendment....was to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government." As Stephen Mansfield comments in his invaluable book on the Establishment Clause, "Ten Tortured Words," Justice Story's "understanding of the meaning of the First Amendment should be taken as definitive." 3. EARLY SETTLERS DID NOT FLEE ENGLAND AND BUILD NEW WORLD COLONIES IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH "FREEDOM OF RELIGION." For the most part, those Colonists motivated by religious conviction more than a desire for financial gain wanted to establish faith-based utopias that would be more rigorous and restrictive, not less zealous, than the Mother Country. The Puritans behind the original New England colonies (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire) and two later states (Vermont and Maine) wanted strict enforcement of Sabbath rules, mandatory attendance at worship services, tax money to support religious seminaries (prominently including Harvard and Yale), and other rules befitting a "Christian Commonwealth." If anything, they distrusted the Church of England for its backsliding, corruption and compromises rather than its vigorous imposition of religious standards. Other denominations (Quakers in Pennsylvania, Catholics in Maryland) founded their colonies not to create secular or diverse religious environments, but to provide their own versions of model communities and denominational havens. Among the original colonies, only Roger Williams' Rhode Island made a consistent priority of religious tolerance and pluralism. 4. THE REVOLUTIONARY GENERATION DID NOT FIGHT TO ESTABLISH "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM" OR A SECULAR SOCIETY. The favored marching tune of the Continental Army wasn't "Yankee Doodle" (which achieved its wider popularity only after the Revolution) but "Chester," adapted from a beloved church hymn by Boston composer William Billings. Its words proclaimed: "Let tyrants shake their iron rods/And slaver clank her galling chains/We fear them not, we trust in God/New England's God forever reigns." The army's Commander in Chief felt no discomfort at all with this explicitly religious rhetoric. In 1776, for instance, General George Washington issued the following message to his troops: "The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary, but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The general hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country." Two years later, Washington proclaimed: "The commander in chief directs that Divine service be performed every Sunday at 11 o'clock, in each brigade which has a Chaplain....While we are duly performing the duty of good soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of a patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of a Christian." The war emphasized a long standing difference between America and Europe noted by the leaders of the Patriot faction, future visitors like Alexis de Tocqueville, and even contemporary pollsters and demographers; the United States has always displayed greater religious intensity and fervor than Great Britain or the other nations of Western Europe. 5. THE FOUNDERS WEREN'T ATHEISTS, AGNOSTICS OR SECULARISTS; THEY WERE, ALMOST WITHOUT EXCEPTION, DEEPLY SERIOUS CHRISTIANS. The comments of John Adams might count as typical of the Revolutionary generation. In a July, 1796 diary entry, the then-Vice President of the United States declared: "The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity...." He strongly supported the use of tax money in Massachusetts to support church construction and religious instruction. Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence and leading Colonial physician, in 1800 wrote sketches of his colleagues in the Continental Congress in which he evaluated them based on their personal religiosity. About Sam Adams of Massachusetts he wrote: "He considered national happiness and the public patronage of religion as inseparably connected; and so great was his regard for public worship, and the means of promoting religion, that he constantly attended divine service in the German church in York town while Congress sat there, when there was no service in their chapel, although he was ignorant of the German language." About Sam's cousin John Adams, Rush wrote: "He was strictly moral, and at all times respectful to Religion." Of Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Rush observed: He was not less distinguished for his piety than his patriotism. He once objected to a motion for Congress sitting on a Sunday upon an occasion which he thought did not require it, and gave as a reason for his objection a regard of the commands of his Maker." Rush praised his Pennsylvania colleague James Wilson who "had been educated for a clergyman in Scotland and was a profound and accurate scholar," and Charles Thompson as "a man of great learning and general knowledge, at all times a genuine Republican, and in the evening of his life a sincere Christian." Of course, many of the Founding Fathers held religious beliefs that challenged the Orthodoxy of their day, but they continued the assiduous study of the Bible (as a lifelong passion in the case of Jefferson and Franklin) and showed little sympathy for the excesses of the French Revolution with its denunciation of Christianity of proclamation of a new "Age of Reason." Even the most radical of the Founders, pamphleteer Thomas Paine, would fit more comfortably with today's religious conservatives than with the secular militants who seek to claim his as one of their own. This restless Revolutionary traveled to France to take part in their Revolution and wrote a scandalous book "The Age of Reason," which proclaimed his "Deism" while attacking traditional Christian doctrine-a position that alienated and offended virtually all of his former American comrades (including many who have been mistakenly identified as "Deists" themselves). Nevertheless, in 1797 he delivered a speech to a learned French society insisting that schools must concentrate on the study of God, presenting his arguments with an eloquent insistence on recognizing the Almighty that would delight James Dobson of Focus on the Family, but mortally offend the secular militants of the ACLU. "It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin," Thomas Paine declaimed. "Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author. When we examine an extraordinary piece of machinery, an astonishing pile of architecture, a well executed statue or a highly finished painting where life and action are imitated, and habit only prevents our mistaking a surface of light and shade for cubical solidity, our ideas are naturally led to think of the extensive genius and talents of the artist. When we study the elements of geometry, we think of Euclid. When we speak of gravitation, we think of Newton. How then is it, that when we study the works of God in the creation, we stop short, and do not think of God? It is from the error of the schools in having taught those subjects as accomplishments only, and thereby separated the study of them from the Being who is the author of them." In short, even the least religiously committed of the founders wanted to approach public education in a manner that would deeply offend today's uncompromising separationists, and those who ludicrously claim that the designers of our Constitution intended a "secular nation." The ludicrous indignation about Senator McCain's recent remarks remains an expression of both ignorance and intolerance, and a mean-spirited refusal to recognize the simple truth in his statements. The framers may not have mentioned Christianity in the Constitution, but they clearly intended that charter of liberty to govern a society of fervent faith, freely encouraged by government for the benefit of all. Their noble and unprecedented experiment never involved a religion-free or faithless state but did indeed presuppose America's unequivocal identity as a Christian nation.
https://www.michaelmedved.com/agnosticchart?charttype=minichart&chartID=21&size=300&formatID=1&useMiniChartID=true&position=1&destinationpage=/pg/jsp/newscommentary/beyondthenewsarticle.jsp

Friday, October 12, 2007

Desacrando Nuestras Imagenes/Sadomasochistic Last Supper

Una vez mas, homosexuales a la carga humillando nuestras imagenes religiosas pero la Porta Voz del nuevo Congreso Demacrata dice que esto no daña la Cristianidad. Estas son las personas que se ofenden cuando Rush Limbaugh defiende nuestras tropas y los valores morales de este pais. Esa actitud en torno a asuntos sagradas cristianos se permea en todo el congreso democrata. Se acuerdan de la calumnia que le levantaron a nuestras tropas de que habian tomado el Koran y lo desecharon en el toilet. Eso parecia un circo Romano. Comenzaron ha investigar y la prensa se revolvio con fureza para defender el Islam. Pero a nosotros los Cristianos nos pasan por la piedra a tal grado que han desacrado la sagrada communion. A donde estan los defensores de nuestra fe? Enterese de resto.


By Nathan BurchfielCNSNews.com Staff WriterSeptember 28, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - A controversial advertisement for a San Francisco festival that depicts the Last Supper as a sadomasochism party falls within the First Amendment and is not harmful to Christianity, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday.The ad for the Folsom Street Fair - to be held in Pelosi's district on Sunday and which is partly funded by San Francisco's Grants for the Arts program, which is funded by the city's hotel tax - sparked outrage from Christian groups because it mirrors Leonardo Da Vinci's famous painting of "The Last Supper" but replaces Jesus and his apostles with scantily leather-clad men and women sitting at a table adorned with sex toys. A spokesman for Pelosi told a San Francisco publication yesterday that the ad would not harm Christianity. Cybercast News Service put Pelosi herself on the spot at a news conference in the U.S. Capitol Friday. Here's the exchange between the reporter and Pelosi.CNSNews.com:"I'd like to get local for a second and talk about what's going on in San Francisco. Your spokesman told the Bay Area Reporter that the Folsom Street Fair advertisement mocking the last supper would not harm Christianity. I'm wondering if you find the advertisement personally offensive.""And as a follow up, the city's Grants for the Arts program, funded by the city's hotel tax, subsidizes the fair. Do you think that it's fair to tax everyone who visits San Francisco and stays in a hotel to support the fair?"Pelosi: "Well that's not really a local question. That's a constitutional question. That's a religious question. That's as big a global question as you can ask. I'm a big believer in First Amendment and therefore, as I said in my statement, I do not believe that Christianity has been harmed by the Folsom Street Fair advertising."

Homosexuales Mofandose de la Sagrada Communion

"No los habia notado"
El moderador Bill O Reilly televiso unas escenas que provocan coraje y total repulsion. Lo triste de este caso es que la prensa no le hizo caso. Pero comenta Bill que si algo similar le hubiese pasado a una madrasa Musulmana la cubierta seria algo de pelicula. El otro asunto es que tenemos lideres religiosos que no tiene el celo de defender nuestra Iglesia y han caido bajo las garras del Liberalismo. Lo que ha pasado en San Francisco Capital Homoxual de America es un ejemplo clasico de sacerdotes que seden y comprometen la santidad y seriedad de los sacramentos.

El reportero John Henry dice que le tomo casi una semana para escuchar una excusa del Arzobispo George H. Niederauer. El dice que no se dio cuenta pero yo te digo que eso es pura mierda y es un mentiroso. Como es posible que no se diera cuenta de dos individuos vestidos con tanta extravaganza. En el resume del Arsobispo esta lo siguiente:

En el 2004 se opuso publicamente a una iniciativa constitucional que protegeria la definicion de matrimonio entre un hombre y una mujer. En 1996 cuando era Obispo ayudo a formar una coalicion de lideres religiosos que se opusieron a la eliminacion de un grupo llamado gay straigth alliance en las escuelas superiores de Salt Lake City. Por todo esto y mucho mas digo que miente. Que te parece! Quieres saber mas? Siga lejendo.

SAN FRANCISCO, October 12, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Nearly a week after being filmed giving communion to two gay activists dressed as 'nuns' Archbishop George H. Niederauer has apologized in a column for the diocesan Catholic San Francisco newspaper. In his column, the San Francisco Archbishop repeats statements previously given to LifeSiteNews.com about not being aware of any disruption, nor recognizing any "mock religious garb." (see coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/oct/07101004.html )However, the column adds that he was not aware during the Mass that those "strangely dressed persons" were members of the 'Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence' a group which the Archbishop says was denounced by his predecessor. "Although I had often seen photographs of members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, I had never encountered them in person until October 7th. I did not recognize who these people were when they approached me," he writes.Coverage of the video spectacle of the Archbishop handing the two communion and reaction by Catholic and pro-family organizations was intense, with many communicating their concerns to both the Archbishop and Vatican authorities.Apologizing, the Archbishop says, "After the event, I realized that they were members of this particular organization and that giving them Holy Communion had been a mistake. I apologize to the Catholics of the Archdiocese of San Francisco and to Catholics at large for doing so.""Someone who dresses in a mock religious habit to attend Mass does so to make a point. If people dress in a manner clearly intended to mock what we hold sacred, they place themselves in an objective situation in which it is not appropriate for them to receive Holy Communion, much less for a minister of the Church to give the Sacrament to them," says the Archbishop."Therefore I conclude that the presence of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence at the Mass on October 7th was intended as a provocative gesture. In that moment I failed to recognize it as such, and for that, as I have said, I must apologize."Catholic World News editor, Phil Lawler, in a column today, writes that Archbishop Niederauer's apology is one "that no discerning Catholic could accept" given the bishops knowledge of what has been going on at the homosexual activist parish prior to his visit. Lawler states, "When he visited the parish...the archbishop must have been keenly aware of the likelihood that he would encounter homosexual activists in general, and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in particular. When these two demonstrators approached him in their bizarre attire, he should have known-- must have known-- what he was facing".Anthony Gonzales of St. Joseph's Men Society, one of the groups which filmed the Archbishop giving the 'sisters' Communion, told LifeSiteNews.com that he was pleased with the apology. Gonzales, who will be discussing the matter on Fox's O'Reilly Factor tonight, added, however, that "The Archbishop has a history of "mistakes" especially where homosexuality is concerned." In 1986, Niederauer wrote a letter to an Orange County judge asking that a priest convicted of 26 counts of felony child sexual abuse be spared prison time - the priest received no jail time for the offences. Niederauer wrote that the boys involved might have mistaken "horsing around" for molestation. Niederauer later admitted that the letter had been a "mistake." (a copy of the letter is available here: http://www.bishop-accountability.org/docs/orange/andersen/or... )In 2004, Archbishop Niederauer publicly opposed a Utah ballot initiative that constitutionally banned same-sex marriage because it included a ban on civil unions.In 1996, as bishop of Salt Lake City, he helped form a coalition of religious leaders opposing the ban on high-school "gay-straight alliances" proposed by the Utah legislature. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle last year the then-incoming Archbishop praised the film Brokeback Mountain which had been condemned by pro-family groups as a dangerous homosexual propaganda film. Niederauer admitted to seeing the film and called it "very powerful". He added that "one of the lessons (of the film) is the destructiveness of not being honest with yourself and not honest with other people and not being faithful, trying to live a double life." (see coverage http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06021306.html )When the Vatican proposed that homosexual men, practicing or not, should not be ordained to the priesthood, Archbishop Niederauer's spin on the document incorrectly took it only to mean that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, must be able to "be able and willing to subordinate all relationships and conduct all relationships with others in a way that's compatible with a celibate lifestyle.""I hope he apologizes for some of his other lapses from authentic Catholic teaching," concluded Gonzales.Brian Burch, President of Fidelis, a national Catholic-based advocacy group, reacted to the Archbishop's apology saying, "This is a welcome decision on the part of the San Fransico Archibhop to stand up for the consistent and authentic teaching of the Church and to publicly resist those who make a mockery of the Church."Burch told LifeSiteNews.com, "The city of San Francisco continues to be a source of growing hostility and public scandal when it comes to marriage and the Catholic Church. Catholic leaders like Archbishop Niederauer deserve our prayerful support especially knowing that this incident likely will not be the last time he will be required to act publicly in defense of the Church.See the Archbishop's full column here:http://www.catholic-sf.org/FPArticle08.htm

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Senador Democrata Demanda a Dios/Democratic Senator Sues God


Este Senador demando formalmente a Dios en la corte del Condado Douglas en Nebraska. Este letrado culpa a Dios de los males tales como el terrorismo, terremotos, disturbios atmosfericos y pestilencias. Obviamente el reconoce a Dios como ser supreme y que su poder puede intervenir en estas calamidades.

Lo que Mr. Chambers ha ignorado es que nosotros no estamos en el paraiso y que la tierra sufrira dolores de parto. Nuestra estadia aqui es temporera y que Dios nuestro Padre Supremo tiene algo mejor “cielo y tierra nueva” una ‘gloria eterna que no se compara con la estadia terrenal. Claro esta que nos afligimos por estas catastrofes pero tenemos que alegrarnos de que nosotros los creyentes compartiremos una alegria eterna en la presencia del Dios amoroso e omnipotente. Pienso que su accion esta contamida de egoismo, ignorancia con mucha soberbia, quienes somos nosotros para reclamarl o reprochar a Dios? Y usted que piensa?
Historia Original
Nebraska Democratic State Senator Ernie Chambers has decided to go straight to the top in an effort to stop natural disasters from befalling the world.
Chambers filed a lawsuit against God in Douglas County Court Friday afternoon, KPTM Fox 42 reported. Click here for more from KPTM Fox 42 in Omaha.
The suit asks for a "permanent injunction ordering Defendant to cease certain harmful activities and the making of terroristic threats."
The lawsuit identifies the plaintiff as, "the duly elected and serving State Senator from the 11th Legislative District in Omaha, Nebraska." Chambers also cites that the, "defendant directly and proximately has caused, inter alia, fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornados, pestilential plagues..."
Chambers says he isn't suing God because he has any kind of beef with the deity. He says the suit is to fight possible laws restricting the filing of frivolous lawsuits. Chambers tells KPTM FOX 42 News that his lawsuit is in response to bills brought forth by other state senators to try and stop lawsuits from being filed.

"The Constitution requires that the courthouse doors be open, so you cannot prohibit the filing of suits," Chambers says. "Anyone can sue anyone they choose, even God."
Chambers bases his ability to sue God, as, "that defendant, being omnipresent, is personally present in Douglas County." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297121,00.html

Monday, October 8, 2007

Another Corrupted Democrat: Allan B. Mollohan/Corrupcion Democrata


Y Nancy Pelosi que esta haciendo? A donde esta la prensa reportando la corrupcion dentro del Partido Democrata. Señoras y señores ABC, CNN, CBS y NBC no le daran seguimiento a nada de esto. Este escandalo comenzo el 1990. La investigacion señalo que entre el año 2000-04 sus ingresos aumentaron de $565,000 a $6.3 millones. Quieres saber mas siga leyendo?

West Virginia Democrat is Scrutinized
Mollohan Has Close Ties to Groups Handling His District's Appropriations
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, May 15, 2006; Page A01
Starting in the 1990s, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.) chose an unusual way to funnel federal funds into his poverty-ridden district. He set up a network of nonprofit organizations to administer the millions of dollars he directed to such public endeavors as high-tech research and historic preservation.
Over the same period, Mollohan's personal fortunes soared. From 2000 to 2004, his assets grew from no more than $565,000 to at least $6.3 million. The partners in his rapidly expanding real estate empire included the head of one of these nonprofit groups and the owner of a local company for which he arranged substantial federal aid.

Mollohan used his seat on the House Appropriations Committee to secure more than $150 million for five nonprofit groups. One of the groups is headed by a former aide with whom Mollohan bought $2 million worth of property on Bald Head Island, N.C.
Controversy over this blending of commerce and legislation has triggered a federal probe, cost Mollohan his position on the House ethics committee and undermined the Democrats' effort to portray the GOP as the party of corruption because of the Jack Abramoff scandal. As early as today, the 12-term congressman will admit that he misstated some transactions in his congressional filings, according to Mollohan staffers."Mollohan has earmarked tens of millions of dollars to groups associated with his own business partners. That immediately raises the question whether these funds were allocated to promote the public good or to promote his interests and the interests of his partners," said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative watchdog group. "He also got very rich very quick, and that suggests a relationship that is suspect if not corrupt."http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/14/AR2006051401032.html

Democrats Investigate Corruption in Iraq/Investigando Corrupcion en Iraq


Este hombre y nuestro nuevo congreso con la nueva y baja aprobacion de acuerdo con la encuesta AP de 22% investiga corruption en Iraq. Me rasco la cabeza por que con que fuerza moral se lanzan a gastar nuestro dinero en investigaciones estupidas cuando ellos sepultaron la promesa que nos hiso Nancy Pelosi. La promesa de acabar con la corrupcion. Que nos digan que han hecho con el acto criminal de Sandy Burger el cual destruyo secretos nacionales para proteger a Clinton y William Jefferson (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/06/04/congressman-headed-for-the-cooler/) que escondio miles de dolares en su refrigerador? Nancy Pelosi y Harry Reed tienen la cara de acero y es evidente que la corrupcion democratica nunca sera investigada.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Rep. William Jefferson, Democrat-La., was indicted Monday on federal charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes and money-laundering in a long-running bribery investigation into business deals he tried to broker in Africa.
The indictment handed up in federal court in Alexandria., Va., Monday is 94 pages long and lists 16 alleged violations of federal law that could keep Jefferson in prison for up to 235 years.

Communists, Liberals, Socialist or Progressives

A transcript from the Rush Limbaugh Show
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: James in Manhattan, glad you waited. Welcome to the EIB Network, sir. Hello.CALLER: Hello. Why don't we call a spade a spade and say that the Democrats are trying to re-create the Soviet Union? You know, you mentioned Waxman, socialized medicine, polluting young minds -- à la, you know, George Orwell -- and I think it was on Friday you were talking about how pediatricians in Massachusetts were interviewing children about the social habits of their parents.RUSH: Yeah.CALLER: Income redistribution, creating mediocrity and then total dependence.RUSH: Well, the answer to the question -- Why don't we just say that they're trying to re-create the old Soviet Union? -- I don't know that it would sell. You know, you want to persuade people.CALLER: Okay.RUSH: You have to understand that my perception is that a vast majority of the people of the United States of America will just never believe that there's a political party that wants to establish a set of circumstances like Khrushchev and Brezhnev and the boys had in the Soviet Union, or that Erich Honecker had in East Germany. They just won't want to believe it. That's why all during the eighties and sixties and seventies, it was really not productive to call communists "communists," because people didn't believe it was possible for communists to exist in this country. People don't believe it's possible. They don't want to believe it, so they'll tune it out. But I gotta tell you, there's a bunch of communist parties in this country. They're relatively small, but they're all endorsing the Democrats.CALLER: Right.RUSH: That's one way of doing it, is to point out the communist parties in this country -- the Communist Workers Party, the Socialist Workers Party, all these communist parties -- guess who they're endorsing? Hillary Clinton, or, in some cases, John Edwards. It doesn't matter. But it's always Democrats that they endorse.CALLER: Well, that's my point.RUSH: Take a look at our enemies. Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad endorse Democrats. They use their talking points. Mind-boggling, is it not? Are the Democrats embarrassed by any of it? Hell no! They think half the country or more wants this kind of socialism. CALLER: Well...RUSH: You know, I got some Democrats upset. I put a picture of Josef Stalin up on my website on Friday, because I've been calling these people neo-Stalinists in the way that they want to control everybody's lives. "How dare you? How dare you!" Somebody ought to say it. Somebody has to say it! Bob Beckel went nuts on television. "You gotta be careful about saying Stalinists out there. They killed 20 million people." No, the Stalinists didn't kill anybody! Walter Duranty of the New York Times said they didn't, and he got a Pulitzer Prize for it, which still stands. So according to some people, it never happened anyway. There are ways of accomplishing this without using a single word or two words like the "Soviet Union" which would just repel people. It's all about convincing and persuading, and let me tell you... How should I say this? Let me call 'em "acquaintances" so you people don't beat me up. I have several liberal acquaintances who over the past week witnessed this. They know me personally, and they've known me for a long, long time and they've known full well who I am. They saw this smear campaign. They saw the media surrounding it. They also saw the mainstream media.
You know, this is a key element here. People said, "How come the mainstream media didn't pile on to this, Rush?" You didn't get NBC or ABC or CBS on it. You didn't get the New York Times 'til the week after. You didn't get the Washington Post on it. Why?" Because they know it was BS. That's why they didn't jump. But that's not the question. The question is, "Knowing that it was BS, why didn't they write that?" Where was the story, "Senate majority leader falsely accuses radio talk show host from floor of Senate"? Where was that story? It's not there because the mainstream press is just waiting for the next little kerfuffle to come up here that they can jump on and get away with being credible on. Anyway, the story I was going to tell you is, a number of these liberals have seen what has happened in the past week, and it's shaking their foundations. They didn't think their people were capable of this kind of lying and character assassination. They thought that's what we did, and they have told me they are questioning everything they have believed. It's only three or four people, but they are questioning it. They started out, like liberals do, trying to equivocate it. "Well, you know, you have said some un..." Wait a minute! Forget that. This is a lie. Forget this equivocation, will you? It's the one thing about you libs that drives me nuts. We properly identify something you do, and you have to say, "Well, you did this and that." It's not the point. This was an abject smear. Anyway, by the end of the week, these people all said, "You are making me question this. Knowing you is making me question everything I've believed," and the only reason they knew about it was because they know me. If they didn't know me, they would have bought -- hook, line, and sinker -- everything that the left put out yesterday. Now, this, folks, is why, in an additional way, I am such a target, because now there are liberals who are seeing what their side does and how they do it. You gotta understand: Proud liberals really do buy all of the PR. They think they are better, they're smarter, they're nicer, they're more compassionate, that they're not bigoted, that they're not racist. They're none of those things. Now they see the people on their side of the aisle and the way they're misreporting, misrepresenting, lying, even after getting the facts. I don't know that they're going to stop being liberals, but it has caused them to see something that they've never seen before, that they just accepted, which I was talking about at the beginning of the program. They just accept this stuff. They're the mind-numbed robots. They don't think about it. They're so caught up in hating us and thinking we're rotten to the core, while they are God's gift to Creation, that none of this stuff permeates -- 'til these people saw it firsthand. One of them even said, "I'm beginning to wonder about all this stuff they've told me about Bush." These are just anecdotal little stories. But don't think that that's not happening across a wider spectrum than just the people who know me personally.

Hitchens's Distortion of Christian History


Christopher Hitchens's new book, God Is Not Great, is subtitled How Religion Poisons Everything. Everything is a big word, but I guess Hitchens means it. According to him, "religion makes people do wicked things they wouldn't ordinarily do . . . the licenses for genocide, slavery, racism, are all right there in the holy text."
By "holy text" he means the Bible, which raises a difficult question for people like Hitchens: If Christianity "licenses" slavery, then why was the abolition of slavery, both in antiquity and in modern times, driven by Christians?
As I write in my new book, The Faith, about to be published early next year, in the first-century Roman Empire, slavery was a fact of life—one which the writings of the New Testament reflect. But acknowledging social reality is not the same thing as "licensing" it.
When the Apostle Paul declared that "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus," he planted the seeds that would, one day, lead to the demise of the institution of slavery. Likewise, Paul's inclusion of "slave traders" among those he identified as "lawbreakers" made it clear what he thought about slavery.
Historian Rodney Stark writes about the Church's embrace around about the third century of what he calls "a universalistic conception of humanity." This conception "[liberated] social relations between the sexes and within the family" and "greatly modulated class differences . . . " As Stark puts it, "more than rhetoric was involved when slave and noble greeted one another as brothers in Christ."
Given this liberating ideal, it was only a matter of time before Christians sought to remove slavery from the Christian culture entirely. By the Middle Ages, it was agreed that "no man, no real Christian at any rate . . . could thereafter legitimately be held as the property of another."
It is true that Christians have not always lived up to these teachings: The record of the Church is not without blemish. But it is also true that when Christians kept and traded slaves, they were going against the teachings of their own religion. The theological question had long been settled.
Thus, when Spanish and Portuguese traders brought slavery to the New World, successive popes condemned the practice and even threatened to excommunicate slave traders and slave holders. The fact that they could not force European monarchs to obey them should not be held against Christianity—especially not by those who complain about Christians trying to impose their religion on others.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, the fight against slavery and the slave trade was led by Christians like William Wilberforce in Britain and William Garrison in America. Like their early Church counterparts, they were motivated by Christian teaching on human dignity and equality.
Hitchens's assertion that economic factors and not Christian abolitionists did away with slavery is, to put it mildly, absurd. Wilberforce and company succeeded despite the economic interests, not because of them.
True, there are shameful episodes in Christian history. But what makes them shameful is the failure of Christians to live up to what Christianity requires—not what Hitchens imagines as its "licenses."
How odd, then, that Hitchens and other militant atheists feel they have license to distort the facts when arguing against religion.




Author: Charles Colson October 7/07


Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Decendientes de la Mona con Pulgas


Hace varios anos me preguntaba, por que todavia en las escuelas publicas de Puerto Rico y Estados Unidos tienen en los libros de ciencia la sucesion progresiva de un mono hasta lo que conocemos hoy, el hombre. La constestacion a la pregunta me dejo atonito; la enseñaza de la evolucion o Darwinismo esta protegida por las leyes de nuestro gobierno, especificamente el Departamento de Education. No le esta permitido a ningun maestro enseñar que hay evidencia cientifica (Creacion o Diseño Inteligente) que contradice la doctrina Darwiniana. Que te parece? Aqui tienes un ejemplo clasico de que el primer articulo de la Constitucion de este pais solo aplica para defender y propagar una religion o filosofia que disemina ideas que actualmente llevan al mundo a una decadencia moral y caos social. Pero todo esto tiene un proposito funesto y hasta ahora han tenido exito.

Nosotros los Cristianos creemos firmemente que Dios creo a la raza humana, directamente (Genesis 1:20-27), y por lo tanto que la hipotesis (fantasia) de que procedemos de los monos es ilogico o plenamente una erejia. Y aqui se termino el argumento! Eso es lo que yo me creia. El argumento o la creencia de que procedemos de los monos ha tenido consequencias desastrosas en la historia de la humanidad. Por ejemplo en su hipotesis el postula:

Argumento

De acuerdo con la filosofia de Darwin la vida en el planeta provino de una masa de gelatinosa y esta dio paso atravez de millones de años en seres mas complicados. O sea Darwin postulo que no hay originalidad en ninguna especie. Que la vida no aparecio espontaneamente. Sin embargo toda la evidencia de los fosiles cuentan lo contrario; en los millones de fosiles catalogados ninguno muestra que procedio de otra especie, la vida en el planeta comenzo toda al momento. Pero aun estos cientificos estan esperando que un mono se convierta en un humano o todavia esperan encontrar el eslabon perdido. No hay peor sordo que el no quiere oir y no importa cuantas veces tires los dados para conseguir el numero trece, nunca va a suceder!


Quienes promueven esta filosofia y porque?

Les mencione que nuestro sistema educativo enseña evolucion de manera compulsoria, nuestros medios noticiosos, Hollywood con sus peliculas (i.e. Planet of the Apes, dicho sea de paso todavia estamos esperando que estos monos salgan hablando, que tal 6000 años mas) y otros movimientos seculares ateos. Bill Maher un conocido miembro celebrado en la elite de Hollywood dijo lo siguiente: “Evolucion es respaldada por toda la comunidad cientifica, Diseño Inteligente (Intelligent Design) es respaldado por los televidentes de Duke of Hazard”. [Real Time with Bill Maher, HBO August 19, 2005]

Las personas que se afanan con este tipo de propanda tienen como agenda la eliminacion de todo lo que este relacionado con un ser supremo’ “Dios”. He aqui una de las razones, esa negacion perniciosa les permite hacer cosas que van encontra de valores morales. Ian Taylor, autor del libro, In the Mind of Men, dice que los creyentes de la evolucion estan convencidos de que los ceres humanos son el producto de un accidente al azar, o sea que no hubo ningun proposito que por consiguiente no hubo ningun proceso inteligente envuelto. Stephen J. Gould professor de Harvard dice: “ Somos una añadidura, somos un garabato accidental” Que barbaridad!

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Mother Teresa 60 Years Ago by C. Colson


For the first time in more than 30 years, Mother Teresa graces the cover of Time magazine. But unlike the 1975 cover that hailed her as a living saint, this week’s cover titillatingly trumpets, “The Secret Life of Mother Teresa.” The subtitle declares, “Newly published letters reveal a beloved icon’s 50-year crisis of faith.” NBC led the TV pack with serious questions about her faith.
Those letters, written by Mother Teresa over more than 60 years, form a new book called Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light. So what do these letters really reveal? Newsflash: One of the great saints of the 20th century had doubts. At times, she even doubted the existence of God. Imagine that!
Now, to put this in perspective, imagine that for 60 years you waded knee-deep in the gutters of Calcutta to tend to the outcast and the dying. In the midst of unspeakable squalor and human suffering, might you at times not doubt God?
Here’s more news: Mother Teresa struggled with depression. When you wrestle with the devil surrounded by human misery, you might have good cause to be depressed! I know from the years I have spent ministering in prisons. There are many times that you question, “Where’s God?” To be depressed in such situations simply makes you human. To carry on through the depression reveals the hand of God.
Not surprisingly, Mother Teresa’s letters are red meat for the media. And atheists like Christopher Hitchens could not resist ridiculing her dark night of the soul. “She was no more exempt from the realization that religion is a human fabrication than any other person,” Hitchens told Time. “Her attempted cure was more and more professions of faith [which] could only have deepened the pit that she had dug for herself.” Hitchens even compared her to the old communists who realized their lives were meaningless after the Soviet Union collapsed. What rubbish!
And meaningless is the last word you would think of to describe Mother Teresa. To help the poorest of the poor die with dignity was the greatest example of faith, particularly while you are suffering yourself, with doubts and with pain and with depression.
She continued to do the toughest job anyone could possibly do. And she did it to her dying day. Why? As she wrote to her spiritual advisor, she submitted to God. “I accept,” she wrote, “not in my feelings—but with my will, the Will of God—I accept His will.” I came to that realization in my own dark night of the soul a couple of years ago when two of my three kids had cancer.
The very essence of faith, you see, is believing even in the absence of evidence. And it is the only way we can know Christ. We can conclude rationally that God exists, that His Word is true, and that He has revealed Himself. But without that leap of faith, we will never know God personally or accept His will in Christ.
So what do the letters of Mother Teresa reveal? For one, they reveal the true cost of discipleship. To follow Christ is to embrace suffering and the Cross. And, at times, to say with Jesus, “My God, my God, why did you abandon me?”
Certainly Mother Teresa took on the suffering of the world just as her Lord had done. And she demonstrated a kind of faith that few ever experience. But hers is a faith that will be a lasting witness to the world—when Christopher Hitchens and the media critics are long forgotten.

Renzo


Five years of combine experience in performing inspections and audits, under FDA and DEP regulations, including the following areas: QC analyses, documentation review and reports. I have supervised and managed the academic progress of 130 students. Positions I’ve held include QC Analyst, QA Auditor and Teacher. I was responsible for overseeing environmental enforcement and regulatory investigations for DEP. I was in charge of performing audit inspections with the Department of Environmental Protection’s various branches including EPA. I bring the following skill to this position: auditing, analyzing and inspecting, teaching and supervisory. My academic background includes Business Administration and Bachelor in Science. Isn't he cute?

Global Warming Hypocrisy by Chuck Colson

September 5, 2007
It is good to be back to work this week, refreshed from our summer breaks. Patty and I took our time in August to visit our son and daughter-in-law and their two children at their beach cottage on the lovely island of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts—yes, that Martha's Vineyard, made famous by the Kennedys, the Clintons, and scores of other politicians and media figures who take refuge on this lovely wooded island, covered with charming cedar-shingled cottages, rocky wind-swept coastlines, and surrounded by yachts.
During the high season this summer, the island's wealthy gentry held a succession of elegant fundraisers for the likes of Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and—with a bipartisan touch—Mitt Romney. It is a watering hole for the likes of Walter Cronkite, Mike Wallace, Carly Simon, all kinds of movie stars. John Kerry is nearby in Nantucket, and the Kennedys—including environmentalist Robert Kennedy, Jr.—look over from Cape Cod.
Clearly, Cape Cod and the islands are the places to go if you want to watch celebrities. It is also the place to be if you want to see liberal hypocrisy in action. Liberal hypocrisy, you ask?
Most liberal politicians ardently support proposals intended to save the environment. They fly around the country in private jets, urging Americans to give up their SUVs, drive hybrid cars, and leave a smaller carbon footprint. When it comes to reducing their own carbon footprints—well, that's another story.
For years, the wealthy elite of Martha's Vineyard and Cape Cod have lobbied hard against a proposed wind farm in Nantucket Sound. The proposed complex of 130 wind turbines, 400 feet high, would sit eight miles out in the Sound and be confined to 24 square miles. On a clear day, they would barely be visible from the island's waterfront homes.
The wind farm would generate enough energy to take care of most of the electrical needs of Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket. And by replacing oil, it would greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental groups like Greenpeace love the wind farm proposal.
But apparently, to paraphrase the late Leona Helmsley, only little people should sacrifice to save the environment. As for the rich and privileged—why, what's the point of spending the summer in an ocean-front home if there is a chance they might glimpse a wind turbine in the distance? What a thing to ask!
That is why the elite of the islands have hired high-powered lobbyists to make the wind farm go away—or at least, into somebody else's backyard.
Almost all of Massachusetts's politicians are against it, except Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), who voted against killing it but will not say he is for it.
These people say they want to save the environment. But they also want their beautiful little enclave to stay just the way it has always been: a place where they can retreat from the world and contemplate great things—like how to prevent global warming.
This story ought to serve as a warning to us all—not only of how hypocritical politicians can be (sadly, we're used to that), but also of how easy it is for people to justify their own behavior. I am grateful that, as Christians, we are held to a higher standard—or at least ought to be—that we obey gladly God's commands to be responsible stewards of the environment, even when it costs us. Well, now I am back in Washington—away, that is, from all that liberal hypocrisy.

Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Lying to Power/Mienta y Obtenga Poder


The quickest and the cheapest scheme is to target the ignorant, the poorest, then forge alliances with minority groups like the Femenazis, Homonazis, Hispanics, Black, labor unions; and make them believe that their demises and misfortunes are the government’s fault. The idea of personal responsibility is completely aloof and the feeble minded falls for that kind of doctrine. They make you hate the rich, the Christians or anything that is remotely conservative. It is all white man faults that you are in misery! Vote for me, I will make them pay!

Una manera de obtener poder es enfocar la filosofia de justicia social a personas ignorantes y pobres. Tambien otra estrategia es la de formar alianzas con grupos de renombre como: Femenazis, Homonazis, Hispanos, Negros, uniones obreras, etc. Para ganar nuestro voto se visten y hablan como nosotros al punto de creereles que nuestros problemas, pobresa, hasta la mala suerte es culpa del gobierno. Nos endoctrinan para que odiemos al rico, cristiano, blanco y negro. Vota por mi y yo traire la venganza!

Their favorite mantra is raise taxes, human rights/civil liberties for all Americans. Yes more rights and less accountability! Abortion, gay, lesbians and minority rights to name a few. They promote the new benevolent buzz called diversity with the sole purpose of dividing this country and set themselves in congress for live or the White House for few terms. They work fervently to dilute our national identity as Americans. Yes, let us celebrate diversity without forgetting that we are Americans first. Who needs the Islamic terrorists when you have this kind of politicians? How is it that the agenda of these politicos not being expose and questioned? The answer is simple yet frightening, the reporters, the news anchors, the news papers are going around this politicos to protect them, exactly how Mr. Rush Limbaugh describe them; they encircled their wagons for protection. The politicos and the news media platforms of this country share the same hatred and disdain for America, the country where they made their wealth. Is this a mental illness or a genetic disorder? May be the elites of Harvard, University of California, New York state's Hamilton College and Ivy League should study this self-hatred phenomena.

Dentro de su filosofia encontramos el aumento de taxes, derechos humanos y libertades civiles para todos los Americanos. Si, danos mas derechos y menos responsabilidades, mas abortos, mas derechos para las minorias gays e hispanas. Acaso no somos todos Americanos? Ellos promueven la diversidad de razas con la nocion de que no es importante integrarse a los valores de nuestra Constitucion y mas controversial aun es que aprender el idioma ingles es irrelevante.

Como es posible que sus propositos no sean fiscalizados e investigados por los medios noticiosos del pais? Es muy sencillo y a su vez peligroso. Los reporteros se han hecho parte de su filosofia antiamerican y destrucitiva. Ellos no se molestan en preguntar sobre asuntos cruciales, simplemente le prestan la camara y el microfono para que hablen sin interrupcion. Cuando dicen algo que los contradice no le hace caso y nosotros nos quedamos con un mentira o media verdad.


To cement their power they need to spread their doctrine for this task they have powerful media outlets, and faithful follower rooted in all levels of the government. To formalize the indoctrination they have cease the public and private educational system. Our schools have become American Madrasas where they teach America the evil and reverse morality.

Para fortalecer su poder estos politicos necesitan diseminar su doctrina, para esto tienen a CNN, CBS, Univision y seguidores fieles en varias ramas del gobierno (CIA/FBI/NU). Para formalizar su doctrina se han apoderado de nuestra education publica y privada. Nuestras escuelas se han convertido en Madrasas Americanas donde se enseña que America un mal y valores antimorales.

A crass characteristic of these politicos is selective amnesia if not clear signs of a mendacious pathology. When president George W. Bush commuted Scooter Libby’s sentence, the beloved Hillary Clinton said this “Today’s decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. …This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.”( Hillary Attacks Bush Clemency For Libby by Fulton Lewis) If do not know history you would believe her deceiving lips. We can find a laundry list of Bill Clinton’s pardons, many of them highly objectionable. Mr. Clinton pardons the convicted leftist terrorist Susan Rosenberg. She was serving 16th years of a 58 years sentence for the possession of more 700 pounds of explosives and a stockpile of illicit weapon. Terrorist Teacher By Jacob Laksin FrontPageMagazine.com 12/2/2004

Una de las caracteristica mas brutales de estos politicos es la amnesia selective o la osadia de mentir. Cuando el presidente George W. Bush commuto la sentecia de Scooter Libby, Hillary Clinton dijo esto: “la decision de hoy es otro ejemplo de que esta administracion se considera por encima de la ley…” Si usted no se acuerda de la administracion de su esposo entonces le creeria. Clinton perdono a una terrorista, Susan Rosenberg. Ella estaba sirviendo una sentencia de 58 años por la posesion de 700 libras de explosivos y una caterva de armas. La Señora Clinton se acuerda pero se atrevio a mentirnos. Oremos por ella.

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Defeating Terrorism: Consequences


Yes war is ugly yet unavoidable, if you are horrified Christian perhaps you skipped the readings of the New Testament. The consequences of abandoning the centers where pure evil is trying to succeed means more persecution towards Christianity in the Middle East and a possible nuclear 911 in American soil.

It also means that we as a country can not be trusted to finish what we started, countries around the world will not believe nor trust us in the future. America will be what Bin Laden said about us “paper tiger”. As long as we have Islam Fascist, we cannot afford to sleep in the laurels. But some politicians and the antiwar movement will have you believe that all we have to do is be nice and talk to them to find out what they want.

That is truly and insult to our intelligence. How could they ignore history? Or let alone what the terrorists are professing? “Death to America”, “Convert to Islam or die”
Imagine this kind of mentality to fight crime infested cities, it would be total chaos.

Out of Harry Reid's mouth came this “the war is lost”, from J. Edward’s mouth “the war is a bumper sticker”. Another leading Dem. the Hon. Jack Murtha wants to pull the troops in September 2007 and the list goes on. The point is: they do not care about winning, even though they know what happened when our military pull out of Vietnam, more than 2 millions ended dead. The only task they are doing admirably is the strengthening of the enemy with their rhetoric. If this is not enough leaving Iraq to the terrorists means that, they will have control of an oil rich region becoming far more powerful. This is not so difficult to understand but the new congress is utterly devoted in gaining power at any cost, even at the defeat and humiliation of their own country. Unbelievable!

Monday, July 30, 2007

El Partido Democrata de Hoy

Por años me habia preguntado, como es muchos Catolicos han y siguen respaldando a lideres que atentan abiertamente en contra de los valores de la familia. Dice en la Biblia “mi pueblo sufre por falta de conocimiento” he aqui la causa. Yo mismo vote a favor de Clinton por dos ocaciones por que en mi juventud nunca tome mis valores cristianos como mi plataforma para tomar deciciones politicas. Me deje llevar por una lista de promesas con musica y joopla, por ejemplo: aumento del salario minimo, plan medico universal, mas oportunidades para los pobres, etc.

Hay otras cosas mas importantes para mi como cristiano que estos lideres tratan de esconder estrategicamente y la prensa que piensa como ellos no denuncian, ni educan al electorado. Por lo tanto nosotros tenemos que escarbar y encontrar la verdad. Por ejemplo, quienes estan detras del holocausto de 45 millones de niños, cuales son las consequencias del aumento del salario minimo, como van a pagar por un plan medico universal y cual seria la calidad, que medicos van a darnos ese servicio, americanos o extranjeros. Esta pregunta sale a relucir por que unos medicos en Inglaterra planearon un atentado terrorista, Si señor medicos Musulmanes de la India. Que le parece!

Quienes Cambiaron los Valores del Partido

La base de ambos partidos todavia contienen electores que son conservadores y quieren fortalecer valores familiars. Pero me doy cuenta de que no nos hacen caso y no hacemos fuerza para cambiar el sistema de valores que nos estan empujando. Sabe usted cuales son las coaliciones y personas que apoyan la agenda de valores anticristinos? He aqui un breve lista: ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), su nombre suena muy benevolente, pero esta asociacion de abogados protegen y respaldan movimientos tales como NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) Este grupo de individuos quieren tener relaciones sexuales con niños y luchan por legalizarlo como hicieron en un pais Europeo.

El ACLU ha sido un instrumento de perscusion cristiana, demandando a diestra y a siniestra alcadias, ciudades y estados por tener los expuestos los Diez Mandamientos o por tener una cruz o cualquier simbolo cristiano. Tambien han demando a organizaciones como los Boys Scout of America por no aceptar dentro de sus capitulos lideres homosexuales.

Otra organizacion de mucho influencia alojada dentro de la elite democratica es la GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) Este grupo tiene tentaculos poderosos en Washington y estan detras de una peligrosa legislacion en la que el Senador Kennedy ha sido su benefactor. Esa legislacion propone criminalizar y catalogar como Crimen de Odio la libertad de expression. La definicion de la ofensa incluye un consejo, o la lectura de un texto biblico. Aqui vemos que el derecho a la libre expression de los ciudadanos son triviales comparados con los derechos de la super clase GLAAD. Que le parece? Lea mas sobre el asunto en este link: http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/62000Kennedy.pdf

Lideres cristianos evangelicos lucharon para que en la definicion del Crime de Odio se incluyeran crimenes en contra a la mujer, niños y envejecientes pero los democratas rechazaron estos ultimos. Dicho sea de paso, se ha dado cuenta que los crimenes en contra de los niños y la mujeres sigue en auge? Y que ha hecho nuestro nuevo congresso democrata? NADA!

Otro contribuyente a causas ultra liberales y al partido democrata es el billonario George Soros, su fortuna esta estimada en $7.2 billiones. Este señor fue convicto en Francia por “insider trading” la misma ofensa por la cual Martha Stewart fue a la carcel. Mr. Soros colapso el banco de Inglaterra. Cliff Kincaid (Editor of the AIM cliff.kincaid@aim.org) comenta en su articulo que este hombre estan poderos que con solo hablar provoca que el sistema monetario de un pais suba o baje. Dice Mr. Kincaid que Soros se especializa en el debilitamiento del valor del dinero en naciones enteras para sus propios intereses.

He aqui otra de sus lugubres operaciones (legalizacion de drogas ilicitas). Soros se opone fuertemente a los esfuerzos de la administracion del presidente George W. Bush de atacar el negocio de la droga usando recursos nacionales y globales. Este funesto mercader propone que el gobierno tome control del mercadeo de drogas y productos relacionados como agujas y facilitarlo a los adictos. Si este hombre amenaza mundial ignorado por la prensa tomara control Washington atravez de los democratas podriamos esperar que su influencia provoque una actitud pasiva en torno a la persecucion de las drogas. (http://www.aim.org/aim_report/4969_0_4_0_C/)
Soros respalda/mantiene el “Drug Policy Alliance” clubes de marijuana que actualmente distribuyen la droga bajo la mentira de uso medicinal. La administracion de Bush ha ido cerrarando estos clubs pero si el logra la casa blanca esto cambiaria totalmente. Varios estados han aprobado el uso de marijuana para uso “medicinal” una vez mas Soros proveyo el dinero.
El dinero anestesia conciencias, he aqui su plan: el subsidia organizaciones liberales anti cristianas bajo las organizaciones clasificadas 527. Candidatos que aceptaron dinero: John Kerry, Wesly Clark, Bob Graham y Howard Dean. Geoge Soros fue elogiado por Hillary Clinton y tambien contribuyo a su campaña. El tambien le dio dinero a Tom Daschle, Carl Levin, John Corzine, Mary Landrieu, Debbie Stabenow, Charles Shummer, Joseph Biden, Patrick Leahy, Paul Sarbarnes, Thomas Harkin, and Barbara Boxer. Mi pregunta como es que esto no se le ha dado mas cubierta? A donde esta la nueva decencia politica prometida por Nancy Pelosi? Oremos por sus conversiones!







Thursday, July 26, 2007

Medicina Preventiva Rx

Prevenir enfermedades es casi imposible pero podemos disminuir el impacto como tambien evitar aquellas enfermedades que llamamos hereditarias como artritis, Tenemos que despertar y tomar las reindas de nuestra salud, no podemos dejarnos llevar por la actitud reactiva o sea cuando estamos enfermos vamos al medico y nos recetan un droga virtualmente para cada miembro de nuestro cuerpo.

Nuestro sistema educativo cuyo guardian es el gobierno que esta manipulado por intereses especiales, no nos educan sobre como prevenir. Llevo muchos años tomando suplementos vitaminicos y recibiendo tratamiento quiropractico ‘preventivo y obviamente le recomiendo que comience a tomar vitaminas y que visite a un quiropractico.

Hay tantos suplementos que se queda uno confudido tratando de elegir. Mi experiencia el la siguiente; como quimico de calidad de control he trabajo en varias farmaceuticas y estuve envuelto con las minuciosas pruebas de laboratorio requeridas por la FDA (Administracion de Drogas y Alimentos). Por esta razon solo recomiendo manufacturadores que han implementado pruebas de calidad de control a cada frasco que sale de la produccion. El precio de estos suplementos tambien es un asunto importante, las formulas baratas ni las toco seria perder el tiempo. Hay muy buenas compañia pero lamentablemente no te ofrecen todo lo que necesitas, cada cual tiene su doctrina o su nicho economico. Yo obtengo parte de mis suplementos con http://www.usa.makelifebetter.com/ de la cual soy socio para asi economizer dinero a la misma vez que recibo calidad. Recomendaciones: complejo de multivitaminas, minerales, omega oil (fish oil), complejo B, MSM para los musculos, etc.
Mi quiropractico es la Dr. Cooper (Sunshine Chiropractic Center) localizada en 3436 N Andrew Ave en Oakland Park 954-390-0818. Dr. Cooper ha incorporado technologia laser conocida como MEDX PHOTOTHERAPY la cual acelera la reparacion de tejido cellular 40 porciento mas rapido. Mas informacion en el http://www.medxhealth.com/