Thursday, November 8, 2007
AN APPEAL TO MY FELLOW PASTORS
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
November 6, 2007
Recently, Iowa pastors gathered to hear my presentation in Des Moines on behalf of Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. After listening to me, they then heard ten-term Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul himself.
Consider how Congressman Paul's message impacted Pastor Jim Hartman of the Assembly of God church in Conrad, Iowa. "I've been supporting Mike Huckabee, but I would say I'm leaning real strong toward Ron Paul." Hartman supported President Bush four years ago and explained, "Up until the last six months I had not allowed myself to imagine that we'd been let down by Bush." As for Iraq, he said, "I don't think we were prepared to understand that culture and to work with that culture." He said he now feels "humble and I feel kind of bad that I haven't done a better job of being faithful to Ron Paul's kind of integrity." [Source: MSNBC, Oct. 30, 2007]
Integrity: that is the issue drawing millions to Ron Paul, including young people. The night before I spoke, nearly 700 students gathered at Iowa State University in Ames to hear Dr. Paul. One of those students wrote me recently. His name is Nathan Rockman. He wrote, "As a columnist for the Iowa State Daily here on campus, I have seen first hand what can be described as Ron Paul fever. Since Dr. Paul visited this past Friday, his message of freedom and liberty has been spreading through campus like wildfire . . ."
Ron Paul doesn't recruit artisan spin writers and bloggers to wear down those who might question his past dealings. He doesn't need to. There are no missing hard-drives, ethics violations, and taxpayer funds used for personal use that need to be spun away. He still refuses to participate in the lucrative Congressional pension fund and returns a portion of his Congressional office budget back to the U.S. Treasury each year.
This kind of integrity moved Pastor Hartman, the students at Iowa State University, and many more like them.
Ron Paul has been fighting for the right to life from the beginning of his public career. Dr. Paul is rock-solid on pro-life. After all, he has helped over 4,000 women deliver their babies into the world in his obstetrics practice in Lake Jackson, Texas. He proposed the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005" (and 2007), which would require that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency." Has he recently discovered these pro-life convictions? Not at all. Congressman Paul introduced the Human Life Amendment in Congress in his very first term of Congress, a couple of years after Roe v. Wade was first handed down.
Is Ron Paul a libertarian, as some use in a throw-away line, often intended to move the listener to discard him without thought? Yes, on areas of fiscal, economic and judicial liberty, he is. But, he is also a social conservative and a Constitutionalist.
Ron Paul's priorities are right with marriage. He and his wife, Carol, have been married for more than fifty years. He believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and defends that principle with his vote, where and when he has the Constitutional authority to do so. For example, Dr. Paul strongly supports the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Candidly, though, Ron Paul does not believe (and neither do I) that the U.S. Government needs to be defining that which God has already defined in His Word.
Where pastors often become confused about Ron Paul is that when he is resisting the unconstitutional centralization of our federal government, he is often perceived as being anti-family. Many in these pro-family movements themselves have been co-opted into believing that the solutions to our family problems come in the form of more unconstitutional federal legislation and programs. And when one does not agree with these unconstitutional remedies, they conclude that he or she is "anti-family." Such people mean well but are confused.
America would be much better off if we Christian pastors taught the need for Christ-honoring resistance--at the local level--to anti-family federal intrusions. We should call on our congregations to vote out of office any judge who passes rulings designed to pervert the Biblical family. That doesn't take a Constitutional amendment. It just takes courageous pastors and people who understand that judges, too, must respect the Constitution and our Christian heritage.
In fact, adherence to the Constitution protects our freedom of speech and assembly; our freedom of worship; our right to keep and bear arms; our right to a trial by jury; the right to be secure in our own homes against police overreach; our right to witness for Christ in public, as a Christian; the right to own property; the right to not be deprived of life or property without due process of law; the right to face our accusers, and the right to keep government local and limited.
Keeping government local and limited is the cornerstone doctrine of American government. Ron Paul understands this more than any other candidate running today.
Most of the problems that we are now dealing with socially, culturally, financially, etc., stem from America abandoning the basic founding principle that "the government that governs least governs best."
Accordingly, America's commitment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has been (and is being) systematically stripped from us--not by State legislatures, but mostly by agencies of the federal government.
Consider how it has been federal courts that have banned prayer in school, and legalized abortion and homosexual marriage. Even in the liberal State of Massachusetts it was the courts (along with a compliant liberal governor, Mitt Romney), that forced acceptance of homosexual marriage upon the people.
The solutions to these problems do not reside in more federal legislation. All that does is strengthen the scope and power of the federal judiciary.
The only ones who have anything to fear from Ron Paul are those who believe in Big Government.
You see, Ron Paul is actually calling on us pastors and Christians to stop seeing the federal government as one "in whom we live and move and have our being." Jesus Christ is our Savior and Lord, not the federal government. Have we not, in a material way, set up the federal government as our functional Lord and Savior? When we look to the federal government to solve our moral and spiritual problems, that is exactly what we are doing.
When it comes to the war in Iraq, I firmly believe that Christian conservatives have been duped by the neocons. Dr. Paul--an Air Force veteran and proponent of a strong national defense--opposed the unprovoked and pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, and rightly so. Time has certainly vindicated Dr. Paul's principled position. There was a much better way to deal with al-Qaeda.
Soon after 9/11, Congressman Paul introduced H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. According to Paul, "A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage war against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation."
This is precisely what President Thomas Jefferson did when America's ships were confronted with Barbary pirates on the high seas.
If the United States government had listened to Ron Paul, we would not have lost nearly 4,000 American soldiers and Marines, spent over $1 trillion, and gotten bogged down in an endless civil war from which there is no equitable extraction. Furthermore, had we listened to Dr. Paul, Osama bin Laden would no doubt be dead, as would most of his al-Qaeda operatives, and we would be less vulnerable to future terrorist attacks, instead of being more vulnerable, which is the case today.
One thing that Pastor Hartman brought up in our meeting in Iowa was the sentiment of many Christians and pastors to defend Israel. Dr. Paul stated that he did not believe that we do Israel any favors and we actually weaken Israel by our constant meddling and intervention. I agree.
Ron Paul is not Israel's enemy. And neither is he the enemy to Christian liberty and constitutional government.
Ron Paul's non-interventionist and constitutional foreign policy approach would help, not hurt, Israel to resolve tensions with their neighbors. Remember, Israel has more nuclear missiles to defend themselves than all of the Middle East nations combined. Believe me, Israel knows how to defend itself. And know this: America's constant meddling curses Israel more than it blesses.
Also consider this: according to published reports such as this one in the Houston Chronicle, Ron Paul is receiving more donations from military personnel than any other Presidential candidate in either party. Think seriously about this. Our active duty and retired military personnel clearly endorse with their own contributions Ron Paul's non-interventionist position above all others.
In the end, if the candidate is a sincere Christian, he will all the more readily obey his or her oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. After all, does not our Lord tell us that our yea is to be yea and our nay is to be nay? In other words, genuine believers are to be true to their word. How, then, could a true Christian make a promise before God and the American people to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution and then turn around and ignore that promise?
Ron Paul lives his Christian faith and takes his oath to the Constitution seriously. What more could we ask for in a Presidential candidate? Every Christian pastor should seriously consider Congressman Ron Paul. Here is his website:
© 2007 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Robertson was willing to overlook the liberal positions of the 3-times divorced lapsed Catholic from New York because of Rudy's "ability" to lead the Nation in the "War on Terror." Again, I must ask the question- exactly what is it in Giuliani's past that makes one think he would be effective in fighting terrorism? His horrible decision to move the Emergency Command Center into the World Trade Center after the first bombing? or was it his refusal to supply emergency personnel with communications gear that actually worked like it was supposed to? or maybe it was his backing of a corrupt womanizing Police Commissioner to head the Department of Homeland Security- whose kids of whom Rudy just happened to be their godfather?
These morons all seem to think that somehow, being mayor of a city during a terrorist attack qualifies Giuliani to lead the "War on Terror" and make America "safe." (Note: I'm not taking a position here as to whether 9/11 was an actual terrorist attack or not- I am simply putting the conventional view out there, since that view is central to Giuliani's campaign)
Robertson invoked the Reagan doctrine- my 80% friend is not my 20% enemy. If Rudy is only Pat's "20%" enemy, then Pat isn't much of a conservative- or a Christian, for that matter. But then again, we already knew this about Pat.
In the grand scheme of things, this endorsement means very little. Robertson's influence has been fading for years, and may give Giuliani a 1 or 2 point bump- but I doubt it will have even that effect.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Their choice as the most influential conservative? Rudy Giuliani. That's right, a pro-gay, pro-abortion, and pro-gun control liberal is the most influential American conservative.
The failure to distinguish notwithstanding, the ratings themselves are laughable. I don't like Bill O'Reilly, but having him at #82 and Glenn Beck at #18 is patently absurd. Ron Paul made the list at #96, with Chuck Norris checking in 25 spots ahead of the Congressman.
The liberal list is a little more feasible, but George Soros at 15 is insane. Through his MoveOn.org and other progressive/socialist organizations, Soros basically controls the Democratic Party. At least they put Ah-nold on this list- although I'm not sure why Lieberman is listed among the Conservatives.
For a good laugh, you can see both lists in full here.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
All dorm students are required to attend the brainwashing sessions, and "treatment" is available for those wishing to be further brainwashed, so that they may hate the white race as much as the multiculturalists do.
Apparently Sistah Souljah rides again.
University to students: 'All whites are racist'
Mandatory program 'treats' politically incorrect attitudes
Posted: October 30, 2007
9:35 p.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
A mandatory University of Delaware program requires residence hall students to acknowledge that "all whites are racist" and offers them "treatment" for any incorrect attitudes regarding class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality they might hold upon entering the school, according to a civil rights group.
"Somehow, the University of Delaware seems terrifyingly unaware that a state-sponsored institution of higher education in the United States does not have the legal right to engage in a program of systematic thought reform. The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of conscience – the right to keep our innermost thoughts free from governmental intrusion. It also protects the right to be free from compelled speech," said a letter from Samantha Harris, director of legal and public advocacy for The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education to university President Patrick Harker.
The organization cited excerpts from the university's Office of Residence Life Diversity Education Training documents, including the statement:
"A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination….'"
The education program also notes that "reverse racism" is "a term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege." And "a non-racist" is called "a non-term," because, the program explains, "The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift the responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called 'blaming the victim')."
The "education" regarding racism is just one of the subjects that students are required to adopt as part of their University of Delaware experience, too, FIRE noted.
The "shocking program of ideological reeducation," which the school itself defines as a "treatment" for students' incorrect attitudes and beliefs, is nothing less than "Orwellian," FIRE said.
The school requires its approximately 7,000 residence hall students "to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy and environmentalism."
"FIRE is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students' rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech," the organization said.
On a foundation blog, a student noted that one residence assistant told students, "Not to scare anyone or anything, but these are MANDATORY!!" And the training program for those who indoctrinate students includes the order: "A researcher must document that the treatment/intervention was faithfully applied (ex: specific lesson plans were delivered to every student, etc.)."
Further, the school requires "a systemic change" as a result of the program, FIRE noted. As one RA told students: "Like it or not, you all are the future Leaders, and the world is Diverse, so learning to Embrace and Appreciate that diversity is ESSENTIAL."
"The University of Delaware's residence life education program is a grave intrusion into students' private beliefs," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "The university has decided that it is not enough to expose its students to the values it considers important; instead, it must coerce its students into accepting those values as their own. At a public university like Delaware, this is both unconscionable and unconstitutional."
According to university materials, RAs are instructed to ask students during one-on-one sessions questions such as: "When did you discover your sexual identity?" "When were you first made aware of your race?" and "Who taught you a lesson in regard to some sort of diversity awarness? What was the lesson?"
"Students who express discomfort with this type of questioning often meet with disapproval from their RAs, who write reports on these one-on-one sessions and deliver these reports to their superiors. One student identified in a write-up as an RA's 'worst' one-on-one session was a young woman who stated that she was tired of having 'diversity shoved down her throat,'" FIRE said.
This particular student responded to the question, "When did you discover your sexual identity?" with the terse: "That is none of your damn business," FIRE said.
Requirements for students include: "Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society," "Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression," and "Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality," FIRE said.
The foundation said students even are "pressured or even required" to make social statements that meet with the school's approval.
"The fact that the university views its students as patients in need of treatment for some sort of moral sickness betrays a total lack of respect not only for students' basic rights, but for students themselves," Lukianoff said. "The University of Delaware has both a legal and a moral obligation to immediately dismantle this program, and FIRE will not rest until it has."
A spokesman for the school, contacted by WND, said he was not ready to make a statement about the situation right away.
But the foundation's letter to Harker noted, "we have never encountered a more systematic assault upon the individual liberty, dignity, privacy, and autonomy of university students than this program," which "requires students to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues."
"Such utter contempt for the autonomy and free agency of others is the hallmark of totalitarianism and has no place in any free society, let alone at a public university in the state of Delaware," the letter said.
Especially alarming, Harris told WND, is that the school defines learning specifically as "attitudinal or behavioral changes," not acquiring any sort of knowledge and ability.
Such thinking "represents a distorted idea of 'education' that one would more easily associate with a Soviet prison camp than with an American institution of higher education," FIRE said. "As another example, after an investigation showed that males demonstrated 'a higher degree of resistance to educational efforts,' the Rodney complex chose to hire 'strong male RAs.' Each such RA 'combats male residents' concepts of traditional male identity,' in order to 'ensure the delivery of the curriculum at the same level as in the female floors.' This language is disturbingly reminiscent of a pivotal scene from George Orwell's '1984,' in which the protagonist's captors tell him that 'The Party is not interested in the overt act: the thought is all we care about. We do not merely destroy our enemies, we change them.'"
No small danger, FIRE noted, is being presented to the university through such apparent constitutional violations. "Simply put, the residence life education program is a legal minefield," the group said.
One student reacted to the indoctrination with rebellion. On the FIRE blog, he wrote:
"Take the issue of homosexuality, and the rights that should or should not be associated with it. As a Christian, I believe that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, and is a sin against God. As such, I cannot accept it as a legitimate lifestyle. While I accept homosexuals as people, I do not accept their choice as right, and subsequently I do not think that homosexual couples should be given marital rights. I accept that others do not hold the same views as me. But it is wrong that under the Residence Life curriculum and school mandated curriculum that I should made to feel guilty for my views. … It is not the school's right to try to convince me to embrace the values that Residence Life has chosen. Essentially, if I do not change my views, I will be labeled by my RA as not embracing diversity, and not accepting of certain groups, and thus my RA will try all the harder to change me. This is not the school's job, or right."
Saturday, October 27, 2007
In advance of her Middle East peace conference, Secretary of the Reichstag (oops, I mean State) Rice is seeking advice from globalists like Clinton and Kissinger, UN wonks Carter and Albright, and a host of other career dips- oops, I meant diplomats.
You can bet anything Condi says to Bubba goes right to Hillary... Bush has to keep her in the loop, since he's counting on the continuation of the Bush/Clinton monarchy after the 2008 elections.
This all makes perfect sense- whether Neocon or Progressive, the goal is the same- the elimination of national sovereignty, replaced by global government under the control of the elite.
The NWO of Bush I is alive and well.
You can read the story at Yahoo News.
People- especially Americans- want things quick. We drink instant coffee, we eat instant rice, we take our film to one-hour processing centers. Now the Vatican II Catholic Church is offering us instant saints.
The road to canonization used to be a long and arduous one. It also used to be a very selective process. Now, not so much- on either count.
Case in point- "Mother" Theresa. Long celebrated as a great human being and all around good egg, she was "fast tracked" to sainthood by John Paul II, who apparently never met a person who wasn't a saint. The universalist JP II canonized more saints (470+) than his predecessors combined.
The problem is, Mother Theresa was a fraud. That's right- she was not the "saint" she portrayed herself to be in public, and she had no business rising to the level of "Saint." As the following articles illustrate, she fudged (lied about) the number of people she was helping, adopted many hindu traditions into her catholicism, and lived high off the hog while surrounded by those suffering in the worst poverty and squalor. All that's needed now are allegations of sexual misconduct and she would be a perfect candidate for being a Bishop in the post-Vatican II new age cult masquerading as a Church.
I'm posting two articles here- the first, by Michael Parenti (this may well be the only issue we are in substantive agreement on), and the second by the Fathers at Traditio, a traditional Roman Catholic site which (rightly) denounces everything associated with the 2nd Vatican Council.
From Global Research:
Mother Teresa, John Paul II, and the Fast-Track Saints
by Michael Parenti
Global Research, October 24, 2007
During his 26-year papacy, John Paul II elevated 483 individuals to sainthood, more saints than all previous popes combined, it is reported. One personage he beatified but did not live long enough to canonize was Mother Teresa, the Roman Catholic nun of Albanian origin who had been wined and dined by the world’s rich and famous while hailed as a champion of the poor. The darling of the corporate media and western officialdom, and an object of celebrity adoration, Teresa was for many years the most revered woman on earth, showered with kudos and awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 for her “humanitarian work” and “spiritual inspiration.”
What usually went unreported were the vast sums she received from wealthy contributors, including a million dollars from convicted savings & loan swindler Charles Keating, on whose behalf she sent a personal plea for clemency to the presiding judge. She was asked by the prosecutor in that case to return Keating’s gift because it was money he had stolen. She never did. She also accepted substantial sums given by the brutal Duvalier dictatorship that regularly stole from the Haitian public treasury.
Mother Teresa’s “hospitals” for the indigent in India and elsewhere turned out to be hardly more than human warehouses in which seriously ill persons lay on mats, sometimes fifty to sixty in a room without benefit of adequate medical attention. Their ailments usually went undiagnosed. The food was nutritionally lacking and sanitary conditions were deplorable. There were few medical personnel on the premises, mostly untrained nuns and brothers.
When tending to her own ailments, however, Teresa checked into some of the costliest hospitals and recovery care units in the world for state-of-the-art treatment.
Teresa journeyed the globe to wage campaigns against divorce, abortion, and birth control. At her Nobel award ceremony, she announced that “the greatest destroyer of peace is abortion.” And she once suggested that AIDS might be a just retribution for improper sexual conduct.
Teresa emitted a continual flow of promotional misinformation about herself. She claimed that her mission in Calcutta fed over a thousand people daily. On other occasions she jumped the number to 4000, 7000, and 9000. Actually her soup kitchens fed not more than 150 people (six days a week), and this included her retinue of nuns, novices, and brothers. She claimed that her school in the Calcutta slum contained five thousand children when it actually enrolled less than one hundred.
Teresa claimed to have 102 family assistance centers in Calcutta, but longtime Calcutta resident, Aroup Chatterjee, who did an extensive on-the-scene investigation of her mission, could not find a single such center.
As one of her devotees explained, “Mother Teresa is among those who least worry about statistics. She has repeatedly expressed that what matters is not how much work is accomplished but how much love is put into the work.” Was Teresa really unconcerned about statistics? Quite the contrary, her numerical inaccuracies went consistently and self-servingly in only one direction, greatly exaggerating her accomplishments.
Over the many years that her mission was in Calcutta, there were about a dozen floods and numerous cholera epidemics in or near the city, with thousands perishing. Various relief agencies responded to each disaster, but Teresa and her crew were nowhere in sight, except briefly on one occasion.
When someone asked Teresa how people without money or power can make the world a better place, she replied, “They should smile more,” a response that charmed some listeners. During a press conference in Washington DC, when asked “Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?” she said “I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.”
But she herself lived lavishly well, enjoying luxurious accommodations in her travels abroad. It seems to have gone unnoticed that as a world celebrity she spent most of her time away from Calcutta, with protracted stays at opulent residences in Europe and the United States, jetting from Rome to London to New York in private planes.
Mother Teresa is a paramount example of the kind of acceptably conservative icon propagated by an elite-dominated culture, a “saint” who uttered not a critical word against social injustice, and maintained cozy relations with the rich, corrupt, and powerful.
She claimed to be above politics when in fact she was pronouncedly hostile toward any kind of progressive reform. Teresa was a friend of Ronald Reagan, and a close friend of rightwing British media tycoon Malcolm Muggerridge. She was an admiring guest of the Haitian dictator “Baby Doc” Duvalier, and had the support and admiration of a number of Central and South American dictators.
Teresa was Pope John Paul II’s kind of saint. After her death in 1997, he waved the five-year waiting period usually observed before beginning the beatification process that leads to sainthood. In 2003, in record time Mother Teresa was beatified, the final step before canonization.
But in 2007 her canonization confronted a bump in the road, it having been disclosed that along with her various other contradictions Teresa was not a citadel of spiritual joy and unswerving faith. Her diaries, investigated by Catholic authorities in Calcutta, revealed that she had been racked with doubts: “I feel that God does not want me, that God is not God and that he does not really exist.” People think “my faith, my hope and my love are overflowing and that my intimacy with God and union with his will fill my heart. If only they knew,” she wrote, “Heaven means nothing.”
Through many tormented sleepless nights she shed thoughts like this: “I am told God loves me-and yet the reality of darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul.” Il Messeggero, Rome’s popular daily newspaper, commented: “The real Mother Teresa was one who for one year had visions and who for the next 50 had doubts—up until her death.”
Another example of fast-track sainthood, pushed by Pope John Paul II, occurred in 1992 when he swiftly beatified the reactionary Msgr. José María Escrivá de Balaguer, supporter of fascist regimes in Spain and elsewhere, and founder of Opus Dei, a powerful secretive ultra-conservative movement “feared by many as a sinister sect within the Catholic Church.” Escrivá’s beatification came only seventeen years after his death, a record run until Mother Teresa came along.
In accordance with his own political agenda, John Paul used a church institution, sainthood, to bestow special sanctity upon ultra-conservatives such as Escrivá and Teresa—and implicitly on all that they represented. Another of the ultra-conservatives whom John Paul made into a saint, bizarrely enough, was the last of the Hapsburg rulers of the Austro-Hungarian empire, Emperor Karl, who reigned during World War I.
John Paul also beatified Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac, the leading Croatian cleric who welcomed the Nazi and fascist Ustashi takeover of Croatia during World War II. Stepinac sat in the Ustashi parliament, appeared at numerous public events with top ranking Nazis and Ustashi, and openly supported the Croatian fascist regime.
In John Paul’s celestial pantheon, reactionaries had a better chance at canonization than reformers. Consider his treatment of Archbishop Oscar Romero who spoke against the injustices and oppressions suffered by the impoverished populace of El Salvador and for this was assassinated by a right-wing death squad. John Paul never denounced the killing or its perpetrators, calling it only “tragic.” In fact, just weeks before Romero was murdered, high-ranking officials of the Arena party, the legal arm of the death squads, sent a well-received delegation to the Vatican to complain of Romero’s public statements on behalf of the poor.
Romero was thought by many poor Salvadorans to be something of a saint, but John Paul attempted to ban any discussion of his beatification for fifty years. Popular pressure from El Salvador caused the Vatican to cut the delay to twenty-five years. In either case, Romero was consigned to the slow track.
John Paul’s successor, Benedict XVI, waved the five-year waiting period in order to put John Paul II himself instantly on a super-fast track to canonization, running neck and neck with Teresa. As of 2005 there already were reports of possible miracles attributed to the recently departed Polish pontiff.
One such account was offered by Cardinal Francesco Marchisano. When lunching with John Paul, the cardinal indicated that because of an ailment he could not use his voice. The pope “caressed my throat, like a brother, like the father that he was. After that I did seven months of therapy, and I was able to speak again.” Marchisano thinks that the pontiff might have had a hand in his cure: “It could be,” he said. Un miracolo! Viva il papa!
© Copyright Michael Parenti, commondreams.org, 2007
A New Book Reveals that Teresa of Calcutta Had a Crisis of Faith for Over Fifty Years
Her Troubling Correspondence with a Traditional Priest
Arguing against the Catholic and Apostolic Church Has Also Been Revealed
The Canonization Process Has Been Corrupted in Newchurch into Conanization
According to a report in the August 24, 2007, Daily Telegraph, Newvatican is rushing to destruction in the Newchurch "conanization" of Teresa of Calcutta later this year. So much troubling information about this woman is already surfacing, within just ten years after her death in 1997, that any thought of conanization should be postponed indefinitely while a complete and honest investigation is conducted over a period of centuries. Just some of the troubling information that has come to light in just the last ten years:
Teresa injected Hindu "inculturation" into her teaching of supposedly Roman Catholic Faith
Teresa's "miracle" is denied by the subject's own doctors, who were barred by Newvatican from testifying that the supposed "cure" was a completely ordinary remission of cancer produced by anticarcinogenic drugs
Teresa had a crisis of faith for over fifty years
A new publication of her letters over 66 years, entitled Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, has revealed that for the last fifty years of her life, she had a deep crisis of faith in God. It is not yet clear whether this collection of letters includes her revealing correspondence with the late Fr. Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy. In this correspondence, Teresa takes the traditional priest to task for insisting on celebrating only the true Mass and confirms that Teresa, far from being traditional, was a rapid defender of the Novus Ordo.
Such serious doubts cannot morally be rushed through by Newchurch to create a phony papier-mache "saint" to make the post-Vatican II crowd happy. Newchurch will simply end up with more egg on its face that it has now. The traditional process of canonization, steeped in caution and careful investigation over centuries, was trashed in 1983 by JPII, himself under suspicion for rushed conanization, who vitiated practically every one of the traditional checks and balances put in place by the Church.
As a result of the corruption of the traditional canonization process and the now-rampant factual errors being made, all Newchurch conanizations must be rejected until a traditional pope or council can sort each case out at some point in the future, when the Church is returned to Tradition. St. Thomas Aquinas, the Universal Doctor of the Church, a most wise and foresightful theologian, indicates that in such cases of gross factual errors, one can doubt the authenticity of canonizations. And Teresa of Calcutta is certainly a case in point.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Of course, FEMA is claiming it was simply a lapse in judgment- but they had ample time to stage the conference and brief the "reporters" as to what to ask, and how to ask it.
Not only can we not believe anything this government tells us, we can't believe anything it shows us, either. And of course, now that the story has broke, the media is screaming about it. But it was covered on the major news channels- and none of them noticed that they didn't know any of the reporters at the press conference?
Suspicious? Of course. Surprising? Hardly. Disturbing? Very.
From Fox News:
FEMA Employees' Role at News Conference on California Fires
Raises Newspeople's Eyebrows
Friday , October 26, 2007
The White House scolded the Federal Emergency Management Agency on Friday for staging a phony news conference about assistance to victims of wildfires in southern California.
The agency — much maligned for its sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina over two years ago — arranged to have FEMA employees play the part of independent reporters Tuesday and ask questions of Vice Adm. Harvey E. Johnson, the agency's deputy director.
The questions were predictably soft and gratuitous.
"I'm very happy with FEMA's response," Johnson said in reply to one query from an agency employee.
White House press secretary Dana Perino said it was not appropriate that the questions were posed by agency staffers instead of reporters. FEMA was responsible for the "error in judgment," she said, adding that the White House did not know about it beforehand and did not condone it.
"FEMA has issued an apology, saying that they had an error in judgment when they were attempting to get out a lot of information to reporters, who were asking for answers to a variety of questions in regard to the wildfires in California," Perino said. "It's not something I would have condoned. And they — I'm sure — will not do it again."
She said the agency was just trying to provide information to the public, through the press, because there were so many questions.
"I don't think that there was any mal-intent," Perino said "It was just a bad way to handle it, and they know that."
FEMA gave real reporters only 15 minutes notice about Tuesday's news conference . But because there was so little advance notice, the agency made available an 800 number so reporters could call in. And many did, although it was a listen-only arrangement.
On Tuesday, FEMA employees had played the part of reporters. Johnson issued a statement Friday, saying that FEMA's goal was "to get information out as soon as possible, and in trying to do so we made an error in judgment."
"Our intent was to provide useful information and be responsive to the many questions we have received," he said. "We can and must do better."
Officials at the Homeland Security Department, which includes FEMA, expressed their concern.
"This is simply inexcusable and offensive to the secretary that such a mistake could be made," Homeland Security spokeswoman Laura Keehner said Friday, referring to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff. "Stunts such as this will not be tolerated or repeated."
Keehner said senior leadership is considering whether a punishment is necessary.
As I've said- and many others as well- Bill has granted absolution to the Archbishop when absolution was not warranted. The Diocese (and the Archbishop) have been "gay friendly" for quite a while now- something O'Reilly would have known if he had bothered to do even cursory research.
If you're going to fight in the culture war, Bill, you'll need to recognize the wolf in sheep's clothing. Do your homework next time.
Catholics want Vatican to clean church
Holy Redeemer members tired of drag queen bingo, sexfests
Posted: October 25, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
The recent highly publicized photos and video of San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer serving Communion to two flamboyantly dressed members of the anti-Catholic "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" was no happenstance.
And soon the shocking images will be on their way to the Vatican for any Catholic leaders who have not yet seen them.
"I am the gentleman responsible for the filming of the whole thing," Anthony Gonzales, chief of the St. Joseph's Men Society, told WND shortly after the first round of publicity over the photos and video. "I sent one of my men to film this."
Gonzales said he knew the archbishop was going to the parish in the heart of the homosexual street fair to "be part of the celebration of their lifestyle, and we were waiting to see what he was going to do and how he was going to do it."
And the reason?
"We can't even take our children to Mass anymore. We can't even go to our churches," he said. "We finally got to the point, and said, 'Hey, look, we can't take this anymore.'
"We want the Roman Catholic faithful to return, and are sick and tired of having to deal with men who are faithless, who are our leaders," Gonzales said. "They come into positions of power because of other homosexuals, or at least are promoting them into positions of power.
"We want to keep the fires burning. This guy has to know he can't continue to get away with his actions. He's played dumb before," he said. "He says, 'I guess I made a mistake.' So he always makes these mistakes!
"He says he didn't recognize two gay men dressed in drag coming up to receive Communion in clown makeup!" Gonzales exclaimed.
The incident was publicized with the men's group video on the Catholic blogsite Quamdiu Domine.
The archbishop, in a diocese newspaper editorial, apologized for serving the two "Sisters," explaining he didn't recognize who they were.
He described the Oct. 7 event as routine.
"The congregation was devout, and the liturgy was celebrated with reverence. I noticed no demonstration, no protest, no disruption of the Eucharist," he wrote.
"At Communion time, toward the end of the line, two strangely dressed persons came to receive Communion. As I recall one of them wore a large flowered hat or garland. I did not recognize either of them as wearing mock religious garb," he said.
"Afterward it was made clear to me that these two people were members of the organization 'Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence,' who have long made a practice of mocking the Catholic Church in general and religious women in particular," he said.
"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. 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," he said.
But Gonzales and several other activists who contacted WND said such "incidents" long have been occurring at the church, and it's likely that the archbishop knew about them. So now is time for action, they told WND.
"We are going to be submitting all of this information to Rome, getting it into the right hands," Gonzales said. "I believe that he is constantly a proponent of homosexuals."
Archdiocese spokesman Maurice Healy told WND that Niederauer does not know the membership of that particular church.
"There's a lot of people who are upset. I think we're equally upset," he said. But the archbishop has a policy of reaching out to "those people."
"They don't reach out to that community to call for repentance and healing and their reconciliation with Christ. They say, 'This is your lifestyle and we are here to give you approbation.'"
Gonzales, a theologian, said a compilation of documentation will be forwarded to Rome within the next few days.
"We're also composing a letter to Neiderauer asking him to excommunicate the group, Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, so that this mistake cannot happen again. And we're asking him to excommunicate (San Francisco Mayor)Gavin Newsom and (U.S. House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi for not adhering to Catholic doctrine on same-sex relationships and abortion."
The incident with the "Sisters" was just the final straw, Gonzales said. He said just last fall the pastor of Holy Redeemer gave the "Sisters" permission to run a bingo operation at the church hall. Healy said the archdiocese wasn't aware of what was going on, and when it found out, it ordered it stopped.
But other activists told WND they have been notifying the church archdiocese of their objections to such issues regularly. One such case was a recent "Drag Queen Calendar Nite" at the church. Those who objected notified the church office of their concerns before the event but apparently were ignored since it was held anyway.
"I had hoped that after the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence's obscene and perverted monthly bingo nights (supplying male sex toys for prizes) had been stopped that this type of activity was no longer going to be a problem there. Obviously not," one wrote in an e-mail to the church.
On the Catholic Blog, participants listed some of the documentation being prepared for Rome's attention.
The information includes a video advertisement for the "Sisters' Revival Bingo," where one winner boasts of getting "more gay porn than most young boys have" and organizers boast of "spanking" participants.
Also assembled was documentation from Americans for Truth about the church's repeated sponsorship of booths and other entries in the various San Francisco "gay" festivals, such as the recent Folsom Street Fair, on which WND reported.
Niederauer also said he's pleased the activists cited his opinion that the "gay"-themed "Brokeback Mountain" is "very powerful" and his endorsement of a plan to have Catholic adoption agencies refer babies for adoption by homosexuals.
The activists also cite X-rated YouTube videos that feature the same "Sisters" who organized the drag queen event. One of the less offensive has one of the bingo organizers, named "Heklina," singing about "taking a young handsome boy out for luncheon…"
One activist who requested anonymity wrote: "The [archbishop] issued an apology, but, if he's sincere about it, he'll issue a press release to publicly excommunicate the organization and the members, so that no priest or pastor in his diocese has any trouble deciding what to do."
Allyson Smith, an analyst for Americans for Truth, noted the Catholic Church believes Communion involves the actual "body and blood of Jesus Christ," and such participation by the "twisted 'sisters'" is offensive to many.
Her opinions were echoed abundantly on a response section to the California Catholic News story about the situation:
"May God have mercy on his soul."
"We need to bulldoze to the ground every Catholic Church in S.F. and send these left handed Catholics to the Masonic lodge where they truly belong. Let Satan put up with them."
"You could say the Archbishop has a 'wide stance' toward perversion-enthusiasts in the church."
But this post has little to do with the show, save to say that the actor who portrayed ADA Stone- Michael Moriarty- has a lot more political insight than does Arthur Branch, aka the GOP Presidential wannabe Fred Thompson.
Moriarty has authored a very insightful piece concerning the direction of the United States, including indictments of the Bush/Clinton dynasty, George Soros, Putin, and others. It's a great read and quite informative.
To read the article, go to NewsWithViews.com.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
The New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College Issues Poll: Romney, Clinton Leading Among Likely Voters
October 25, 2007
If the New Hampshire Primary were held today, Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton would win. That is the finding of a poll being presented today by the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College. Sponsored by the Institute, the poll surveyed 1,514 likely primary voters in New Hampshire.
The poll shows Romney with a nearly 11-point lead over the second place candidate, Rudy Giuliani, among Republicans. Fred Thompson showed only 5 percent support.
Hillary Clinton commanded a 21-point lead over her nearest rival, Barack Obama, who polled at 22 percent. The third-place candidate was John Edwards, with 14 percent.
Clinton polled strongly across genders, religions and age groups. She made a greater showing among 18-to-29-year-olds than Obama, who has been portrayed as the candidate of young people.
Romney also polled well across religious groups, indicating that in New Hampshire the former Massachusetts governor’s Mormon religion is not an issue. Romney showed strong support among women, with 37 percent saying they would vote for him, compared to 29 percent of men.
While Romney and Clinton pulled a majority among voters of their respective parties, the picture is mixed among undeclared voters. More than 40 percent of voters who identify themselves as undeclared said they were still not sure if they would vote in the Democratic or Republican primary. At the same time, 41 percent of undeclared voters said they would vote in the Democratic primary and 19 percent in the Republican contest.
“While the patterns remain consistent, the data suggests there is still indecisiveness among likely voters in New Hampshire,” said Dr. Michael Dupre, senior fellow at Saint Anselm’s Institute of Politics.
Dupre designed and coordinated the poll, which was executed by SRBI Research in New York City.
Source: St. Anselm College, New Hampshire Institute of Politics
The truth makes a powerful torpedo.
October 24, 2007 edition
Media myths about the Jena 6
A local journalist tells the story you haven't heard.
By Craig Franklin
By now, almost everyone in America has heard of Jena, La., because they've all heard the story of the "Jena 6." White students hanging nooses barely punished, a schoolyard fight, excessive punishment for the six black attackers, racist local officials, public outrage and protests – the outside media made sure everyone knew the basics.
There's just one problem: The media got most of the basics wrong. In fact, I have never before witnessed such a disgrace in professional journalism. Myths replaced facts, and journalists abdicated their solemn duty to investigate every claim because they were seduced by a powerfully appealing but false narrative of racial injustice.
I should know. I live in Jena. My wife has taught at Jena High School for many years. And most important, I am probably the only reporter who has covered these events from the very beginning.
The reason the Jena cases have been propelled into the world spotlight is two-fold: First, because local officials did not speak publicly early on about the true events of the past year, the media simply formed their stories based on one-side's statements – the Jena 6. Second, the media were downright lazy in their efforts to find the truth. Often, they simply reported what they'd read on blogs, which expressed only one side of the issue.
The real story of Jena and the Jena 6 is quite different from what the national media presented.
It's time to set the record straight.
Myth 1: The Whites-Only Tree. There has never been a "whites-only" tree at Jena High School. Students of all races sat underneath this tree. When a student asked during an assembly at the start of school last year if anyone could sit under the tree, it evoked laughter from everyone present – blacks and whites. As reported by students in the assembly, the question was asked to make a joke and to drag out the assembly and avoid class.
Myth 2: Nooses a Signal to Black Students. An investigation by school officials, police, and an FBI agent revealed the true motivation behind the placing of two nooses in the tree the day after the assembly. According to the expulsion committee, the crudely constructed nooses were not aimed at black students. Instead, they were understood to be a prank by three white students aimed at their fellow white friends, members of the school rodeo team. (The students apparently got the idea from watching episodes of "Lonesome Dove.") The committee further concluded that the three young teens had no knowledge that nooses symbolize the terrible legacy of the lynchings of countless blacks in American history. When informed of this history by school officials, they became visibly remorseful because they had many black friends. Another myth concerns their punishment, which was not a three-day suspension, but rather nine days at an alternative facility followed by two weeks of in-school suspension, Saturday detentions, attendance at Discipline Court, and evaluation by licensed mental-health professionals. The students who hung the nooses have not publicly come forward to give their version of events.
Myth 3: Nooses Were a Hate Crime. Although many believe the three white students should have been prosecuted for a hate crime for hanging the nooses, the incident did not meet the legal criteria for a federal hate crime. It also did not meet the standard for Louisiana's hate-crime statute, and though widely condemned by all officials, there was no crime to charge the youths with.
Myth 4: DA's Threat to Black Students. When District Attorney Reed Walters spoke to Jena High students at an assembly in September, he did not tell black students that he could make their life miserable with "the stroke of a pen." Instead, according to Walters, "two or three girls, white girls, were chit-chatting on their cellphones or playing with their cellphones right in the middle of my dissertation. I got a little irritated at them and said, 'Pay attention to me. I am right now having to deal with an aggravated rape case where I've got to decide whether the death penalty applies or not.' I said, 'Look, I can be your best friend or your worst enemy. With the stroke of a pen I can make your life miserable so I want you to call me before you do something stupid.'"
Mr. Walters had been called to the assembly by police, who had been at the school earlier that day dealing with some students who were causing disturbances. Teachers and students have confirmed Walters's version of events.
Myth 5: The Fair Barn Party Incident. On Dec. 1, 2006, a private party – not an all-white party as reported – was held at the local community center called the Fair Barn. Robert Bailey Jr., soon to be one of the Jena 6, came to the party with others seeking admittance.
When they were denied entrance by the renter of the facility, a white male named Justin Sloan (not a Jena High student) at the party attacked Bailey and hit him in the face with his fist. This is reported in witness statements to police, including the victim, Robert Bailey, Jr.
Months later, Bailey contended he was hit in the head with a beer bottle and required stitches.
No medical records show this ever occurred. Mr. Sloan was prosecuted for simple battery, which according to Louisiana law, is the proper charge for hitting someone with a fist.
Myth 6: The "Gotta-Go" Grocery Incident. On Dec. 2, 2006, Bailey and two other black Jena High students were involved in an altercation at this local convenience store, stemming from the incident that occurred the night before. The three were accused by police of jumping a white man as he entered the store and stealing a shotgun from him. The two parties gave conflicting statements to police. However, two unrelated eye witnesses of the event gave statements that corresponded with that of the white male.
Myth 7: The Schoolyard Fight. The event on Dec. 4, 2006 was consistently labeled a "schoolyard fight." But witnesses described something much more horrific. Several black students, including those now known as the Jena 6, barricaded an exit to the school's gym as they lay in wait for Justin Barker to exit. (It remains unclear why Mr. Barker was specifically targeted.)
When Barker tried to leave through another exit, court testimony indicates, he was hit from behind by Mychal Bell. Multiple witnesses confirmed that Barker was immediately knocked unconscious and lay on the floor defenseless as several other black students joined together to kick and stomp him, with most of the blows striking his head. Police speculate that the motivation for the attack was related to the racially charged fights that had occurred during the previous weekend.
Myth 8: The Attack Is Linked to the Nooses. Nowhere in any of the evidence, including statements by witnesses and defendants, is there any reference to the noose incident that occurred three months prior. This was confirmed by the United States attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, Donald Washington, on numerous occasions.
Myth 9: Mychal Bell's All-White Jury. While it is true that Mychal Bell was convicted as an adult by an all-white jury in June (a conviction that was later overturned with his case sent to juvenile court), the jury selection process was completely legal and withstood an investigation by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Court officials insist that several black residents were summoned for jury duty, but did not appear.
Myth 10: Jena 6 as Model Youth. While some members were simply caught up in the moment, others had criminal records. Bell had at least four prior violent-crime arrests before the December attack, and was on probation during most of this year.
Myth 11: Jena Is One of the Most Racist Towns in America. Actually, Jena is a wonderful place to live for both whites and blacks. The media's distortion and outright lies concerning the case have given this rural Louisiana town a label it doesn't deserve.
Myth 12: Two Levels of Justice. Outside protesters were convinced that the prosecution of the Jena 6 was proof of a racially biased system of justice. But the US Justice Department's investigation found no evidence to support such a claim. In fact, the percentage of blacks and whites prosecuted matches the parish's population statistics.
These are just 12 of many myths that are portrayed as fact in the media concerning the Jena cases. (A more thorough review of all events can be found at http://www.thejenatimes.net/ – click on Chronological Order of Events.)
As with the Duke Lacrosse case, the truth about Jena will eventually be known. But the town of Jena isn't expecting any apologies from the media. They will probably never admit their error and have already moved on to the next "big" story. Meanwhile in Jena, residents are getting back to their regular routines, where friends are friends regardless of race. Just as it has been all along.
Craig Franklin is assistant editor of The Jena Times.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Anyone who is not here legally needs to get out of the United States, and those who are trying to force the American people to swallow their shamnesty plans need to either be impeached or tried for treason.
Readers, be vigilant. Those wishing to sell our sovereignty and security for a burrito aren't going to give up- this bill (or some form of it) will rear it's ugly head again and again and again.
Gutless Republicans voting for Cloture:
Brownback (thank God this idiot dropped out of the Presidential race)
Craig (Guess he wasn't in the bathroom when the vote was taken)
Hutchinson (not surprised a neocon from Bush's home state voted for Cloture)
Martinez (don't blame me, I didn't vote for this idiot)
Hat's Off to the following Democrats for siding with the American people:
And of course the gutless Presidential wannabe from Arizona- John MCain- did not vote, nor did Tequila Ted Kennedy.
And of course, now all the pro-illegal Senators are on TV whining about how mean-spirited we are. But I say, score another one for the good guys.
I'm sure there's great sadness in the campaigns of the GOP's pro-shamnesty Presidential candidates- McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee. Ain't that a shame.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Congressman Tancredo, my hat's off to you.
Tancredo Asks Immigration Authorities to Detain Illegal Aliens
Attending Durbin Event in U.S. Capitol
( WASHINGTON, D.C. ) – Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton) today released a statement regarding an event Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) reportedly plans to hold in conjunction with discussion of the DREAM ACT – an event that will be attended by several illegal aliens.
“I call on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency to detain any illegal aliens at this press conference. Just because these illegal aliens are being used for political gain doesn’t mean they get immunity from the law.”
“If we can’t enforce our laws inside the building where American laws are made, where can we enforce them?”
Tancredo alerted the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency earlier today regarding Durbin’s 3:00 PM meeting.
Congressman Tom Tancredo
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Friday, October 19, 2007
That's right, Black Entertainment Television (BET) rewarded two of the infamous Jena 6 for the beatdown they administered to a white teenager by bringing them onstage at the BET Hip Hop Awards last night. How did the audience respond? With a standing ovation, of course!
This would never happen on White Entertainment Television... oh wait, there is no White Entertainment Television. That would be racist to have a network aimed at one particular ethnicity- of couse, that only applies to White folks.
Two of 'Jena Six' defendants present BET award
By Abbey Brown
Two of the teens enmeshed in the nationally known "Jena Six" case helped present the most anticipated award during Black Entertainment Television's Hip Hop Awards show broadcast Thursday night.
Carwin Jones and Bryant Purvis were introduced by Katt Williams, a comedian and the awards show's host, as two of the students involved in a case of "systematic racism."
"By no means are we condoning a six-on-one beat-down," Williams said during his introduction of the teens, one of whom is still facing attempted murder charges in connection with the attack on white student Justin Barker. "... But the injustice perpetrated on these young men is straight criminal."
As Jones and Purvis walked onto the stage at the Atlanta Civic Center, where the awards show was filmed on Saturday, they were greeted by a standing ovation.
"They don't look so tough, do they?" Williams joked as the teens stepped up to the podium.
Both Jones and Purvis thanked a number of people, including family, friends, the "Hip-Hop Nation" and the thousands who came to their small hometown to rally behind their case.
Purvis said the Sept. 20 rally proved "our generation can unite and rally around a cause."
The teens assisted Williams in presenting the Video of the Year honor to Kanye West for "Stronger." Purvis handed the award to West, who in turn shook hands with both teens.
The rest of the article can be read at TheTownTalk.com.
The royal house of the Bush-Clinton dynasty is corrupt. If this were any other candidate, RICO proceedings would have commenced decades ago.
Also, in keeping with the celebrity tradition of combining names (Brangelina, Bennifer... those two examples will have to suffice, otherwise I'd hurl), Hillary and Bill Clinton will hereafter be known as "HillBilly."
An unlikely treasure-trove of donors for Clinton
The candidate's unparalleled fundraising success relies largely on the least-affluent residents of New York's Chinatown -- some of whom can't be tracked down.
By Peter Nicholas and Tom Hamburger
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
October 19, 2007
NEW YORK — Something remarkable happened at 44 Henry St., a grimy Chinatown tenement with peeling walls. It also happened nearby at a dimly lighted apartment building with trash bins clustered by the front door.
And again not too far away, at 88 E. Broadway beneath the Manhattan bridge, where vendors chatter in Mandarin and Fujianese as they hawk rubber sandals and bargain-basement clothes.
All three locations, along with scores of others scattered throughout some of the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx, have been swept by an extraordinary impulse to shower money on one particular presidential candidate -- Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown.
At this point in the presidential campaign cycle, Clinton has raised more money than any candidate in history. Those dishwashers, waiters and street stall hawkers are part of the reason. And Clinton's success in gathering money from Chinatown's least-affluent residents stems from a two-pronged strategy: mutually beneficial alliances with powerful groups, and appeals to the hopes and dreams of people now consigned to the margins.
Clinton has enlisted the aid of Chinese neighborhood associations, especially those representing recent immigrants from Fujian province. The organizations, at least one of which is a descendant of Chinatown criminal enterprises that engaged in gambling and human trafficking, exert enormous influence over immigrants. The associations help them with everything from protection against crime to obtaining green cards.
Many of Clinton's Chinatown donors said they had contributed because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to. In some cases, donors said they felt pressure to give.
The rest of the article can be read at the
Los Angeles Times.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
I've been harping on the issue of screener competency since December of 2002. You see, I was part of the logistics team that worked on the government takeover of screening and security at the Nation's airports. I worked at several airports over a 7-month period, and one of the things I did was track how the perspective screeners did on their training and testing. When the project first started, if you failed the screening test once, you were gone. It didn't take long to discover that, if they kept that as the standard, they'd never hire enough screeners, so they started letting them take the test over. Lowering the standards didn't help, so they lowered it to 3 times- to no avail. They kept lowering and lowering it, until they finally decided it would be up to the airports onsite Federal Security Director. I know for a fact that some ended up with screener positions who failed the test at least 10 times. That's right- 10 times.
How hard was the test? Well, let me put it this way. They let some of us logistics people take the same test the screeners had to pass, and despite the fact that I had no screener training or experience with an x-ray machine, I passed it the first time- as did many others of my colleagues.
When the project ended in December of 2002, I flew back home to Florida- and haven't flown since.
I'll stop there, since I could go on for hours on this topic. Sometime in the near future, I'll explain why I believe this situation hasn't been resolved.
Following is the above-referenced (and linked) article...
Most fake bombs missed by screeners
75% not detected at LAX; 60% at O'Hare
By Thomas Frank
WASHINGTON — Security screeners at two of the nation's busiest airports failed to find fake bombs hidden on undercover agents posing as passengers in more than 60% of tests last year, according to a classified report obtained by USA TODAY.
Screeners at Los Angeles International Airport missed about 75% of simulated explosives and bomb parts that Transportation Security Administration testers hid under their clothes or in carry-on bags at checkpoints, the TSA report shows.
At Chicago O'Hare International Airport, screeners missed about 60% of hidden bomb materials that were packed in everyday carry-ons — including toiletry kits, briefcases and CD players. San Francisco International Airport screeners, who work for a private company instead of the TSA, missed about 20% of the bombs, the report shows. The TSA ran about 70 tests at Los Angeles, 75 at Chicago and 145 at San Francisco.
The report looks only at those three airports, using them as case studies to understand how well the rest of the U.S. screening system is working to stop terrorists from carrying bombs through checkpoints.
The failure rates at Los Angeles and Chicago stunned security experts.
"That's a huge cause for concern," said Clark Kent Ervin, the Homeland Security Department's former inspector general. Screeners' inability to find bombs could encourage terrorists to try to bring them on airplanes, Ervin said, and points to the need for more screener training and more powerful checkpoint scanning machines.
In the past year, the TSA has adopted a more aggressive approach in its attempt to keep screeners attentive — the agency runs covert tests every day at every U.S. airport, TSA spokeswoman Ellen Howe said. Screeners who miss detonators, timers, batteries and blocks that resemble plastic explosives get remedial training.
The failure rates at Los Angeles and Chicago are "somewhat misleading" because they don't reflect screeners' improved ability to find bombs, Howe said.
TSA chief Kip Hawley, responding to previous reports about screeners missing hidden weapons, told a House hearing Tuesday that high failure rates stem from increasingly difficult covert tests that require screeners to find bomb parts the size of a pen cap. "We moved from testing of completely assembled bombs … to the small component parts," he said.
Terrorists bringing a homemade bomb on an airplane, or bringing on bomb parts and assembling them in the cabin, is the top threat against aviation. "Their focus is on using items easily available off grocery and hardware store shelves," Hawley said.
A report on covert tests in 2002 found screeners failed to find fake bombs, dynamite and guns 24% of the time. The TSA ran those tests shortly after it took over checkpoint screening from security companies.
Tests earlier in 2002 showed screeners missing 60% of fake bombs. In the late 1990s, tests showed that screeners missed about 40% of fake bombs, according to a separate report by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.
The recent TSA report says San Francisco screeners face constant covert tests and are "more suspicious."
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Mexican military in U.S. border standoff
Police say they aided drug smugglers with Humvees, machine guns
Posted: October 17, 2007
3:47 p.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Mexican soldiers and civilian smugglers engaged in an armed standoff with nearly 30 American law enforcement officials on the southern U.S. border, according to Texas police and the FBI.
At a spot more than 200 yards inside the U.S., Mexican Army troops set up several mounted machine guns when U.S. Border Patrol agents called for backup Monday, the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin of Ontario, Calif., reported.
The paper said Mexican military Humvees were towing what appeared to be thousands of pounds of marijuana across the border into the U.S., according to Chief Deputy Mike Doyal of the Hudspeth County Sheriff's Department.
The incident took place on the Rio Grande near Neely's Crossing, about 50 miles east of El Paso.
"It's been so bred into everyone not to start an international incident with Mexico that it's been going on for years," Doyal told the Daily Bulletin. "When you're up against mounted machine guns, what can you do? Who wants to pull the trigger first? Certainly not us."
Confirming the afternoon encounter, FBI spokeswoman Andrea Simmons told the paper, "Bad guys in three vehicles ended up on the border. People with Humvees, who appeared to be with the Mexican Army, were involved with the three vehicles in getting them back across."
Deputies captured one vehicle and found 1,477 pounds of marijuana inside, according to Doyal, who added Mexican soldiers set fire to one of the Humvees stuck in the river.
Such incidents are common, Doyal told the Daily Bulletin. Last November, his deputies were called on to back up agents from the Fort Hancock border patrol station in Texas after confronting more than six fully armed men dressed in Mexican military uniforms.
Armed with machine guns, the men were trying to bring more than three tons of marijuana across the border in military vehicles.
Doyal insisted the federal government must do something about the incursions, pointing out the deputies and border agents are not equipped for combat.
But Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff today played down the reports of Mexican military incursions, suggesting many could have been mistakes or criminals dressed in military garb. Last week, Mexican officials denied their military made any incursions.
The Daily Bulletin reported, however, border agents interviewed over the past year believe the confrontations were with Mexican military personnel.
A story by the paper last year highlighted a Department of Homeland Security document reporting 216 incursions by Mexican soldiers during the previous 10 years.
Chertoff downplayed the reports at that time, as well, calling them "overblown."
But border agents contend otherwise.
"We're sitting ducks," said one who spoke to the Daily Bulletin on condition of anonymity. "The government has our hands tied."
As WND reported in February 2006, an American law enforcement officer and news crew in Hudspeth County, Texas, witnessed an armed incursion into the U.S. by men dressed in Mexican army attire, the second such incident in two weeks.
Mexican officials have said their military is forbidden from traveling within three miles of the border, though U.S. border residents repeatedly have spotted mobile patrols of Mexican military units traversing roads that run directly parallel to the international boundary. Mexico says the armed men crossing into the U.S. are paramilitary forces loyal to drug-smuggling cartels.
Republican Reps. Duncan Hunter and David Drier of California last week asked Chertoff, the House Judiciary Committee, the House Homeland Security Committee and the House International Relations Committee to investigate the incursions.
I've italicized the pertinent portions below, but posted the entire article because it shows that many in the Catholic laity have drank the poison of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church. Apparently, they don't know their Archbishop very well, do they?
From this morning's San Francisco Chronicle:
Archbishop apologizes for giving Communion to gays dressed as nuns
Julian Guthrie, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
(10-16) 21:58 PDT San Francisco -- It was a typical Sunday Mass until two men in heavy makeup and nuns' habits received Holy Communion from San Francisco's top Catholic official.
On Oct. 7, Archbishop George Niederauer delivered the Eucharist to members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence - an activist group whose motto is "go forth and sin some more" - prompting cries of outrage from conservatives across the country and Catholics in San Francisco.
In response to a request for comment, Niederauer released a letter of apology addressed to "Catholics of the Archdiocese of San Francisco and to Catholics at large" in which he said he did not realize his mistake until after the Mass at Most Holy Redeemer Church in the Castro district.
"At Communion time, toward the end of the line, two strangely dressed persons came to receive Communion," Niederauer wrote. "As I recall, one of them wore a large flowered hat or garland."
Niederauer said that although he was familiar with the group because its actions had been condemned by his predecessors, he had never encountered any of the group's members until that Sunday.
"These two people have long made a practice of mocking the Catholic Church in general and religious women in particular. Someone who dresses in a mock religious habit to attend Mass does so to make a point (that) was intended as a provocative gesture," he said in the letter, which will be published in this Friday's issue of Catholic San Francisco, a diocesan newspaper.
The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, founded in San Francisco in 1979, are known for their white face paint, outrageous costumes, theatrics and support of the gay community. They adopt names such as Sister Chastity Boner and Sister Constance Craving of the Holey Desire and have mottos such as, "It is not wise to say no to free drinks, cheap jewelry, discount cosmetics or pretty boys."
Sister Barbi Mitzvah, who serves as "Board Chairnun" and "Sexytary," said Tuesday that the group is "not offering a comment.
"These people are always after us," Sister Mitzvah said, referring to conservative pundits and Catholic leaders.
The group did not identify the two members who took the wafers. One of the men, however, sent an e-mail to the church after the Mass and gave the name "Sister Delta Goodhand."
Conservative Fox news commentator Bill O'Reilly, who has disparaged "San Francisco values," called the latest flap another example of how the city is run by "far-left secular progressives who despise the military, traditional values and religion."
On his Friday news show, O'Reilly called San Francisco "a disgrace on every level."
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom dismissed O'Reilly's comments.
"This debate really is about San Francisco values. The Bill O'Reillys of the world are threatened by San Francisco because we value diversity, universal health care and civil rights for all. They will exploit any controversy to attack our values."
Some local Catholics, however, said they were hurt by what they said was a mockery of their most holy ritual.
"It's been all the news in Catholic circles," said Bill May, chairman of the San Francisco-based Catholics for the Common Good. "Catholics are hurt, frustrated and a bit angry because nobody is standing up and saying this is not right. This is a desecration of the Eucharist. They were there to make a statement and embarrass the archbishop and, in doing so, they desecrated what is most sacred and dear to every Catholic in the world."
Holy Communion is a centuries-old tradition in which the celebrant receives from a priest the consecrated bread and wine representing the "Body of Christ" and the "Blood of Christ." It is to be taken reverentially, as it is considered the source of Christian life.
"The general sacramental principle is that you don't deny the sacrament to someone who requests it," said the Rev. Jim Bretzke, professor of moral theology at University of San Francisco, a Jesuit Catholic university. "The second principle is that you cannot give communion to someone who has been excommunicated."
He said such people are designated "manifest public sinners" in canon law.
"This is someone who violates in a serious way one of the Ten Commandments or one of the important laws of the Church," he said. "While I can see Bill O'Reilly and others might be offended, the sisters do not meet the criteria the church has for denying Communion. Over-accessorizing and poor taste in makeup is not an excommunicable offense."
Bretzke added, "Even if these people were bizarrely dressed, the archbishop was following clear pastoral and canonical principles in giving them Communion. The default is, you give Holy Communion to one who presents himself."
Matt Dorsey, who works in the city attorney's office and is a parishioner at Most Holy Redeemer, attended the Oct. 7 Mass. He said the service was held on the day of the Castro Street Fair, so many parishioners were casually dressed.
"The Sisters have done a lot of great work for social justice," Dorsey said. "I think it's deeply offensive to see this incident politicized this way. It's not about religion. It's about the culture war."
On a lighter note, he said he couldn't help but notice the Sisters as soon as they entered the sanctuary.
"I was there in jeans and T-shirt," he said. "I have to give the Sisters credit for taking far more time getting ready than I did."
Dorsey said he was impressed by an e-mail sent to the general mailbox of Most Holy Redeemer after the Mass.
Sister Delta Goodhand, one of the two who received communion from Niederauer, wrote: "Just a quick note to recognize the wonderful mass yesterday at your Church. Your entire congregation was so welcoming and it was great to be able to participate. You are a wonderfully inclusive Church."
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Shamnesty proponent and floundering GOP Presidential wanna-be Sam Brownback is trotting out dead horse- he and an "unnamed" Democrat will be offering a resolution in the Senate this week calling for the United States to apologize for slavery and segregation.
Brownback was never going to generate any interest with the base because of his support for the Kennedy/McCain immigration travesty, so now he's pandering to another racial minority group and those suffering from "white guilt." This is nothing but the death rattle of a comatose campaign, a pathetic attempt to jump start a campaign that was dead before it ever started.
Thanks for playing, Sam. Now get yourself ready for life after politics, when the good voters of Kansas toss your butt out of office for pandering to special interest and trying to cede our Country to illegal invaders from south of the border.
From The Boston Globe:
Brownback to pitch proposal apologizing for slavery
Says he expects a fight, won't call for reparations
By Jenn Abelson, Globe Staff | October 16, 2007
Senator Sam Brownback, a Republican trying to inject new life into his beleaguered presidential campaign, plans to offer a resolution this week for Congress to apologize for slavery and segregation.
Brownback, of Kansas, told The Boston Globe's editorial board yesterday he will join an unnamed Democrat in sponsoring the proposal. He said he expects a tough fight on the resolution, even though it will not include any call for reparations.
"They were federal policies," he said. "They were wrong. The only way for us to move forward . . . is at the end of day acknowledging those, taking ownership for it, and asking for forgiveness."
Brownback, in a wide-ranging interview yesterday, conceded that his campaign has languished since finishing a disappointing third in August in the Ames straw poll in Iowa. The 51-year-old Kansas senator remains in the trailing group of Republicans in the polls and in fund-raising, and says he will drop out of the race unless he places in the top four in the first-in-the-nation caucuses in Iowa.
"We're trying some different plays," Brownback said.
He divulged his plan for a bipartisan slavery apology just days after reaching across the political aisle to join a Democratic presidential hopeful, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, in pushing a proposal for a federal system in Iraq - with strong Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia regional governments - as a way to end the bloodshed and allow US troops to withdraw from combat patrols.
"This is a system that can work," Brownback said. "You devolve power out in order to keep the country together. I fundamentally believe this will be the final status politically of Iraq."
Brownback, an outspoken opponent of abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, and same-sex marriage, has tried to court the social conservative base of the Republican Party. But conservatives have yet to unite behind a candidate, and some evangelical leaders have suggested supporting a third-party candidate.
Brownback's bipartisan gambit may be a way to attract some Democrats and independents, said Blease Graham, a political science professor at the University of South Carolina.
"This softer approach may make a Republican candidate more attractive," Graham said. "But in a partisan political world, I'm not sure how much resonance these issues are going to have among a Republican constituency."
In Iowa, people can register as a member of the party whose caucus they plan to vote in on the day of the vote. In New Hampshire, independents can vote in the first-in-the-nation Republican primary.
Mychal Massie, chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21, a think tank in Washington D.C., criticized Brownback's plans for a slavery apology resolution as "absurd and ridiculous." Project 21 does not endorse presidential candidates, but Massie said he personally is backing Republican presidential hopeful Duncan Hunter.
"Brownback finds himself in a failing campaign with no hope under the sun of being elected and he is reaching out and exploiting blacks and using them to try and get a few votes," Massie said. "It's not going to work."
Brownback's visit to Boston included a speech Sunday to members of the Catholic Lawyers Guild on abortion and the need for a more expansive view of life. Last night, he addressed Boston University students on US-Africa relations and its effect on America's security interests. The United States needs to do more to stop the spread of Islamic governments friendly to Al Qaeda that could provide havens for terrorists, he said.
Brownback also praised Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, for helping lead the push for the immigration bill.
"It's been very hard," he said. "I have never been beat on so much in my entire life as during this immigration debate."
Jenn Abelson can be reached at email@example.com.
© Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
You can watch the dialogue between O'Reilly and the former head of the Christian Coalition at Christian Crisis on the Fox News website.
Monday, October 15, 2007
That disclosure being out of the way, Bill O'Reilly's defense of Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco is one of the most ridiculous spin jobs I have ever come across. The apparently blind Archbishop served the Eucharist to two outlandishly attired transvestites, and Pope Bill granted him absolution, placing all the blame for the communion fiasco on the crossdressers.
I'm going to insert O'Reilly's "Talking Points" memo from Friday, October 12th, here- in it's entirety, so that I can't be accused of taking anything out of context. More of my diatribe will continue afterwards.
From Fox News:
Another Unbelievable Outrage in San Francisco
Monday , October 15, 2007
By Bill O'Reilly
Another outrage in San Francisco and this one is very hard to believe. As you may know, San Francisco is run by far left secular-progressives who despise the military, traditional values and religion. Not everybody in San Francisco feels that way, but certainly the power structure does. Time and again, we have brought you stories of outrageous behavior on the part of militant people living in that city.
Now, things have reached critical mass, no pun intended. Last Sunday, at the Catholic Church of the Most Holy Redeemer, Archbishop George Niederauer was celebrating mass. As part of that ritual, holy communion is given to Catholics by the celebrants. Two gay militants in bizarre dress took communion from the archbishop in an attempt to mock the mass and the man. — The people who did this are members of a militant homosexual group that runs around San Francisco dressed as nuns.
All city officials are aware of the group because in the past they have publicly demeaned Christianity. The Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, has refused to comment.
The District Attorney, Kamala Harris, says she is waiting for a complaint to be filed.
The Catholic Church says it will do its own investigation and doesn't want the police involved at this point. The archbishop has apologized, saying he's embarrassed and sorry he gave communion to people committing sacrilege.
But it really is not the archbishop's fault. — He is an elderly man who was taken by surprise. The fault here lies with the leadership of San Francisco. Mayor Newsom has consistently avoided criticizing behavior that is harmful. He hides under his desk and attacks messengers like me:
VOICE OF GAVIN NEWSOM (D), MAYOR, SAN FRANCISCO: Guys like Bill O'Reilly attack this city and use it as a way to attack Nancy Pelosi and "San Francisco values", it makes me sick to my stomach. How dare you attack this city because of a few exceptions, not the rule, in terms of where our elected officials are with relationship to the military.
Now that comment came after I criticized Newsom for refusing to allow the Marines to film a commercial on city streets. By the way, the comment had nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi.
Again, we've invited Mayor Newsom on the program, we've asked for a statement about the Catholic situation but the mayor is consistent. He condones terrible behavior by refusing to confront it.
Incredibly, the San Francisco media has blacked out the story, refused to report it; with the exception of KNEW Radio. If a mosque had been attacked like this, if a synagogue had been defiled, this would have been page one not only in the San Francisco Chronicle but in every liberal newspaper in the country. Instead, there is no reporting on a violation of a church service by those militants.
"Talking Points" believes all Americans should take a very hard look at what is happening in San Francisco. Certainly the 65 million American Catholics should be deeply offended by the city's behavior.
Enough is enough. Desecrating a Catholic Mass or any other religious service is unacceptable in the United States of America.
And that's "The Memo."
Ok, back to me again. There you have O'Reilly's insane defense- it's all the fault of the gays and secular progressives in San Francisco... the poor Archbishop was hoodwinked- Bill flat-out states it was "not the Archbishop's fault."
What the Archbishop did was no accident, and O'Reilly should certainly have done his homework before opening his mouth to defend him. For proof I offer the following article which clearly demonstrates Niederauer tolerance and acceptance of gays- even gays in the clergy.
O'Reilly, if you're going to masquerade as a "culture warrior," you better realize that the Catholic leadership in San Francisco is every bit as "socially progressive" as Newsom and the other political leaders.
From The San Francisco Chronicle, December 16, 2005:
A NEW ARCHBISHOP FOR S.F.: VIEWS
Tolerant statements toward gays
Homosexuals can minister as priests, Niederauer says
Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, December 16, 2005
San Francisco's incoming Catholic archbishop, George Niederauer, has spoken boldly in support of gay priests and has praised gay parishioners, leaders of gay Catholic organizations said Thursday.
Many in the church hierarchy have blamed the international clergy sex abuse scandal on gay priests, and the Vatican's recent instruction on gays in the priesthood stated new rules on gay clergy were "made more urgent by the current situation."
Niederauer disputed those ideas in an interview with his diocesan newspaper in Utah.
"Some who are seriously mistaken have named sexual orientation as the cause of the recent scandal regarding the sexual abuse of minors by priests," Niederauer said in the interview with the Intermountain Catholic News, which was published Monday.
His reference to "sexual orientation" stands in contrast to the Vatican instruction's description of "persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies."
Niederauer said gay men committed to Christ and the church can effectively minister as priests, and he said sexual orientation was "a structure of human personality." In contrast, the Vatican instruction states that men "who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture' " are unfit for priesthood.
"I don't think there are any ifs, ands or buts that the Vatican is trying to blame the sex abuse crisis on gay priests, and this man says that is 'seriously mistaken,' " said Sam Sinnett, national president of DignityUSA, an organization in Washington, D.C., of gay and lesbian Catholics.
"Very few bishops have come out and said clearly that this is not about sexual orientation," Sinnett said. He added that, if the statements reflected the bishop's thinking, his appointment in San Francisco would be "more than a small step forward for gay and lesbian Catholics."
As archbishop, Niederauer will have a central role in determining who is ordained in San Francisco, Marin and San Mateo, the counties included in the San Francisco diocese.
In 10 years as bishop of the Diocese of Salt Lake City, Niederauer rarely had to address gay and lesbian issues in the church. DignityUSA, which has chapters in 24 states, isn't active in Utah.
In 2004, however, Niederauer publicly opposed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage that appeared on the Utah state ballot, even though he opposed same-sex marriage.
Many Protestant leaders and the powerful Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supported the ban. But Niederauer said he was troubled that the amendment banned any union beside marriage. He also saw the ban as unnecessary because same-sex marriages already were prohibited by Utah law.
Niederauer also helped form the "Coalition of Concerned Religious Leaders," a group of Utah clergy who urged tolerance for gays and lesbians after the state legislature in 1996 banned gay student clubs when students at one school expressed interest in starting such a club.
Before he was assigned to Utah, Niederauer spent his career in Southern California, including a stint at a parish in West Hollywood, which has a large gay population. In a 2003 interview with the (Salt Lake City) Deseret News about his work in West Hollywood, he was enthusiastic.
"I don't have to take a back seat to anyone in the church in my admiration for the people I met," Niederauer said. He added, "They were as wonderful and gifted and generous and compassionate as any you meet."
Francis DeBernardo, who leads New Ways Ministry, a national advocacy group for gay and lesbian Catholics, and met with Niederauer in Salt Lake City, said the bishop was genuinely interested in reaching out to the gay and lesbian community.
"With his pastoral experience in an overwhelmingly gay Catholic parish in West Hollywood, and his political experience dealing with extremism from anti-gay forces in Utah, I think that Bishop Niederauer is one of the best candidates to lead the heavily gay-populated Catholic community of San Francisco," DeBernardo said.
Niederauer's predecessor, Archbishop William Levada, received mixed reviews from gay and lesbian Catholics. Levada spoke several times at the Most Holy Redeemer Church, a largely gay parish in San Francisco's Castro neighborhood, and appointed gays and lesbians to important positions in the diocese.
But on Levada's watch, the diocese stopped its ministry specifically for gay and lesbian Catholics and left that work to local parishes, said the Rev. Jim Schexnayder, who founded the Berkeley-based National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries. Schexnayder said he hoped Niederauer would revive that ministry.
"There's a great need obviously in San Francisco, with so many gay and lesbian Catholics who would greatly benefit from a public pastoral outreach," Schexnayder said.
There you have it. The gay community in SF was thrilled when Niederauer was appointed to replace Levada, and now you know why.
So much for the "no spin" zone, eh, Bill? Guess the spin started with you- but the spin stops here.