Go to this site:

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/mb/apologia

and blast him!!!

Account Information Member Title: Vicious Americanist Date Registered: Aug 19, 2006 at 04:38 PM Online Status: Online!   Total Posts: 1,058 (3.03 posts per day) Find Posts: Find all posts by MikeSearson Find all threads started by MikeSearson Last Post: Today at 04:07 PM		General Information Sex: Male   Religion: Traditional Roman Catholic   Birthdate: 10 November 1775 Semper Fi!   Ethnic background: 101% Irish   Location: The Desert, but I'll hop on a plane to get to a fight!   Vocation: Human Pitbull   Politics: Pro Gun, Pro Life, Pro Military, Anti-jihadist   Give 5 words or phrases to describe yourself: United States Marine Corps   Hobbies, Interests, and Loves: Guns (shooting and building them), Knives (Collecting them and making them) Bodybuilding, martial arts   Favorite music: The Chieftains, The Dubliners, Hank Williams, Johnny Cash, Toby Keith   Favorite artists: Geoff Hunt, Frank Frazetta   Favorite books: The Art of War, A Book of Five Rings, The Bible   Favorite movies: Snatch, Fight Club, The Dirty Dozen, Master and Commander   Favorite foods and drinks: Guinness, Sashimi, Thai, Guinness, Kahlua Pork, Guinness, Vietnamese, Guinness, Southern BBQ, Guinness, oh and Guinness   Pet Peeves: Call me a neocon again and see what happens, fatboy   If you had a monkey, what would you name it and what, if anything, would you dress him in? AJAX, Red Cloak and Spear..."Row you whores, Greeks are dying!"
Contact Information Email: Email MikeSearson Private Messaging: Enabled - Private message MikeSearson		Avatar   Vicious Americanist Online! Registered: Aug 19, 2006 Posts: 1,059 Dec 22, 2006 at 11:47 AM   I was Baptized when I was 3 days old. I grew up in a very poor Irish family in a rundown section of New York City.  As a child, the Church was the only bright spot in my life. I was always very Religious and went to Catholic school K-8.  I began serving on the Altar at 9 years of age and became the Sexton of my Church and a Lector when I was 12. When I went to High School, I chose to enter a Prep Seminary, as I was contemplating the Priesthood.  As a teenager I lead a dual life of sorts...had my friends from school and my friends from the neighborhood.  The coursework was rigorous, in addittion to all the courses required by New York State and New York City we had Latin Class 3-5 times a week.  (Which did not meet the foreign language requirement, so there was also Spanish twice a week) and Music and religion Classes.  The best part was a balancing of everything we learned whether it was Science, PE, History, Math, etc with the Gospels and Tradition.  I still strongly considered becoming a Priest and probably would have gone on except the kind of guys going on to College Seminary were, to put it mildly...Wimps. I liked going out with girls, drinking, and getting into fights.  I decided to join the USMC at 17. Serving as a Marine, I became a Lay Leader.  In Bootcamp that meant leading the Platoon in prayers before hitting the rack.  It also meant reading at Mass on Sundays and becoming a Eucharistic Minister.  It was also my first major interaction with Protestants, growing up in NYC everyone was either Catholic or Jewish that I came into contact with.  I was injured several times as a Marine.  The last injury disabled me for life. I felt that God had abandoned me.  The calling to the Marine Corps was as strong, if not stronger than my call to the Priesthood.  It is hard to describe to those that have never felt it...however, I literally felt as if I was robbed of my destiny.  The Marines were the only stability I had really known...my old Unit fought to keep me in, but then they were deployed and I was left...alone. I found the Catholic Chaplain to be worthless.  A man more concerned with his rank as a Navy Commander who was not the least bit interested in a lowly NCO who was broken and about to be thrown away.  Ironically, it was the local Protestant Chaplains who gave considerably more moral support to me at this time in my life. I found myself a civilian, unfortunately, I had forgotten how to act civilized.  I wandered for a few years going from one bad relationship to the next.  One bad job to the next: I worked as a bouncer, construction laborer, mechanic in a tire shop, a bodyguard, a bailbondsman, and as a ballistician.  Eventually I bottomed out again and found my way up through Christ.  I began praying the rosary daily.  It took a while for me to get back to the Church and when I walked in on a Holy Thursday Night I felt the presence of God like I'd never felt before in that Church. Here is where it gets interesting...I was raised Novus Ordo.  However, the Novus Ordo Missae of the 60's-80's celebrated in Conservative Irish Parishes and Military Chapels was miles away from what I was seeing...at first I tried to "go with the flow", and when I encouraged a group of friends to go with me to that same Church one year later on Holy Thursday, I walked out after 15 minutes!  The choir was replaced by a wannabe rockband, liturgical dancers with bowls of incense, and a loud mouthed priest cracking jokes on the altar. However it was a priest's homily on Veteran's Day about how it was abhorrent to glorify the Military and anyone who served in it and how there should be a holiday for people who protest wars, etc...that made me get up and walk out of the Church. I started looking into Protestant churches when I found a more conservative parish 10 miles away.  I became a Lector and Eucharistic Minister once again.  It was durring this time that the disregard for the Sacred Vessels by the other Ministers began to bother me, strongly.  As did the casual NO attitude about the Real Presence and other Traditions I had always held to (Communion Fast, No blessings by Laity, etc). It was durring this time that I began having doubts again and discovered Traditio.com and started reading more and more about the Traditional Movement. I had been to one Traditional Mass that I could remember...it was in the 1980's...I was home on leave from the Corps and a girl I was dating invited me as her guest to a wedding.  It was out on Long Island, NY and was either SSPV or SSPX.  I loved it, but of course was promptly told by everyone I knew who was Catholic that it was "forbidden", "banned", etc. I began attending Mass at Saint Margaret Mary's Church in Oakland, California...run by the FSSP. That was 5 years ago.  Been a Trad ever since! I currently live in another state where there is a dedicated Indult Chapel about 30 miles from my house.  There's a twice a month SSPX mass a little further down the road, but I prefer the Indult.  There's also a very conservative and reverent NO said by the Franciscans close to my job that I attend when I can't make the Indult.  It's my dream to see the TLM said in that Cathederal once again and I will keep pushing for it.

Oh, you got to have friends,
the feeling’s oh so strong.
You got to have friends
to make that day last long.
— From the song “Friends.”

By John Lofton, Editor

Well, amen! We do, indeed, have to have friends. We are social creatures; no man is an island. And our friends reveal a lot about who we are.

Speaking of which, you should know that when Rudy Giuliani was Mayor of New York City, he repeatedly honored and posed for photographs with members of an organization called “STONEWALL Veterans Association” (SVA). For example, in a “Dear Friends” letter to this group dated June 25, 2002, Giuliani extended his “warmest regards” to them on the occasion of the 33rd anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall Rebellion which he called “a triumph at a time when the struggle for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights was beginning.” Hailing the SVA for having “preserved the spirit of the original rebellion” (an allusion to our War For Independence), Giuliani praised this group for its educational program which, he said, helps others to learn about “the cause, the history and to fight prejudice.” To read much more about Giuliani and his relations with the “SVA” click here.

Well, now, dear reader, allow me, please, to help educate you re: what really happened at the “Stonewall Inn” in New York City in 1969. Let’s start with the “Inn” itself and then move on to how some of Giuliani’s “friends” behaved during their “rebellion.”

A story in the liberal “Denver Post” newspaper (6/27/99) says this “Inn” was a place which operated “thanks to payoffs to the police and the Mafia.” A story in the liberal “Los Angeles Times” (6/26/96) refers to “Stonewall” as a place that was “a seedy, Mafia-controlled hangout for drag queens.” And a piece in the liberal “Newsday” newspaper (6/27/94) says it was the scene of “a revolt by people on the fringes of even the gay community…a sleazy Mafia bar [whose] patrons were the queerest, raggediest, grungiest of the gays.”

In his well-documented book “Stonewall” (Dutton, 1993), the pro-homosexual Martin Duberman tells how an epidemic of hepatitis among sodomite men was blamed on “Stonewall” because there was no running water behind the bar and used glasses were simply run through stagnant vats of water, then re-used.

Duberman also reveals how middle-aged men “cruised” in “Stonewall” looking for underage male prostitutes. He quotes one homosexual activist as saying the bar was a haven for so-called “chicken hawks,” adult males who coveted underage boys. Another homosexual activist says “Stonewall” was “a real dive, an awful, sleazy place set up by the Mob for hustlers, ‘chickens’ to be bought by older people.” Duberman tells how the doorman at “Stonewall” was accused of “purveying drugs and young flesh there” and how he was involved in taking payoffs from the Mafia and New York cops.

When the police raided “Stonewall” about 1:20 am on June 28, 1969, the bar was full of male whores and drugged and drunken “drag queens” (men wearing womens’ clothes). A cop shoved one of the patrons telling her (?) to keep moving. She (?) started swinging at the cop. As Duberman tells it:

“By now the crowd had swelled to a mob, and people were picking up and throwing whatever loose objects were at hand —- coins, bottles, cans, bricks from a nearby construction site. Someone even picked up dog s—- from the street and threw it in the cops direction.” Cops had to dodge flying glass. One was hit near the eye with a shard of glass causing blood to spurt out. A beer can bounced off another cop’s head. And a man Duberman describes as “a wild Puerto Rican queen” verbally threatened to rape a male cop he believed to be of Irish ancestry.

When the police retreated inside the bar and barricaded the door, according to Duberman, “an arm reached through a shattered window, squirted more lighter fluid into the room, and then threw in another lit match. This time the match caught, and there was a whoosh of flame.” Just then, police reinforcements arrived and saved their colleagues inside from being burned to death. Four cops were wounded in this riot. Some suffered human bites.

So, there you have it. Those are some “friends,” Mr. Giuliani has, huh? — some “triumph,” as he calls it — some “spirit of rebellion” to preserve,right? No. Rudy Giuliani is morally unfit to be President of the United States. He shouldn’t even be allowed to visit the White House.

A footnote: During the Clinton Administration, the “Stonewall Inn” was added to the official U.S. Government “National Register Of Historic Places.” Announcing this fact, Clinton’s Assistant Secretary Of The Interior John Berry, an open and admitted homosexual, said, standing in front of this “Inn” (6/21/99): “In the course of our history, the tree of liberty has always grown stronger by adding rings of rights….On this spot on June 28, 1969, a new ring of freedom (sic, no sick!) was called into being by proud men and women who said ‘No more!’ —- ‘No’ to prejudice, no to intolerance, no to abuse and hate.

“In doing, so they joined hands through history with those in 1773, who left their taverns and began another revolution by throwing tea in the harbor of Boston. For the bravery of this small group here at Stonewall inspired the nation, and called freedom loving people into action, laying the cornerstone of the gay and lesbian civil rights movement…..Maybe it is the heat of summer that puts fire in the belly for freedom. For it was the heat of Philadelphia that forged the Declaration of Independence….And it was the heat of a summer’s night here at Stonewall that led to the creation of a new civil rights movement for America.”

A footnote to this footnote: I seriously doubt that those who visited taverns in colonial times would identify with the rioters at the “Stonewall Inn” since homosexual sodomy in all 13 original colonies was a capital crime.

By John Lofton, Editor

What to say when there’s nothing to say, when you’re faking it, like President Bush is when he talks about what he’s trying to achieve in his unGodly, unConstitutional, unnecessary war in Iraq? Well, use a buzz-word. Use a buzz-word that at first sounds great, a buzz-word that makes your head nod in approval – a buzz-word such as “stable.” The problem, of course, is, after hearing such a buzz-word, which is never defined, upon reflection, say two seconds later after you’ve heard the buzz-word, if you have a brain, you realize that you have no idea what exactly, or even approximately, the meaning is of the buzz-word “stable.”

When President Bush met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Jordan, they issued a statement pledging to work together for, among other things, “a stable” Iraq. Mr. Bush has numerous times included in his definition of “victory” in Iraq that Iraq must be “stable.”

In a meeting with our top military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, Mr. Bush has said they want “to help this young Iraqi democracy become stable….”

In a background press briefing, “a Senior Administration Official,” with the President on his trip to Jordan, said of Mr. Bush’s meeting with the Prime Minister of Iraq: “They talked [about how to make the case] that, really, if Iraq is stable, the region will be stable, and if Iraq is unstable, the region is going to be unstable, and [they talked] about how democracy is a natural way for Iraq to be a stable country.”

There is, of course, no “stability” in “democracy.” Mob rule is inherently unstable as our Founders in the 1776 period knew which is why they hated and feared “democracy.”

In a CNN interview in June of this year, Mrs. Bush said about Iraq that one of our goals there is “a stable country.” She noted that many countries have lost their “best and brightest” people because of “instability.” She said we need to “stabilize” those countries so these good and smart people can return. And the reason we need to do this is because when these people return to their countries, there will be a “so much better chance” of building – “a stable country.”

In 1987, when it was suggested to President Bush’s Presidential candidate father that he turn his attention from short-term campaign objectives to longer-term issues, he said, dismissively: “Oh, the vision thing.” And now it’s another President Bush and what might be called “The Stability Thing.” What is it? How does it work? What does it mean to seek a “stable” Iraq?

Well, the last dictionary I trust, Noah Webster’s 1828 “American Dictionary Of The English Language,” defines “stable” as “Fixed; firmly established; not to be easily moved, shaken…stable government….not subject to be overthrown or changed.” Then again maybe I’m the problem. Maybe I’ve been thinking about the wrong kind of “stable.” Another definition by Mr. Webster is: “A house or shed for beasts to lodge.” Maybe that’s the kind of “stable” Iraq our President is trying to create.

But, seriously – Iraq, unless it becomes Christian, will never have a government that is fixed; firmly established; not easily moved, shaken, not subject to being overthrown or changed. No way. It’s a seething cauldron of warring tribes in a religious conflict between Islamic factions that have been murdering each other for 1400 years.

But, if you insist on talking “stability,” Mr. President, if you just have to “stabilize” some place, sir, how about Washington DC which is always either the murder capital of the United States or about to become the murder capital of the United States. If ever a place needed to be “stable,” Mr. President, it’s your backyard, fdront yard and side-yard.

The headline on a recent story on the front page of the “Metro” section of “The Washington Post” reads: ” ‘Brazen’ NE Shootings Stun District Officials;

More Police Were Out; 2 of 7 Victims Still Hospitalized.” Here’s some of what is reported:

“It was about 11 p.m., and Raymond Harris and his family were saying goodbye to their relatives in Northeast Washington, about to head for the car and the trip back to Maryland. Harris ducked into his cousin’s apartment to pick up some bags, leaving his wife and children outside, when he heard the chilling sound.

“Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop.

“One or two gunmen on foot had opened fire on a group of chatting adults and game-playing children outside the four-story building, part of the sprawling Edgewood Terrace complex. Four adults and three children were hit, including Harris’s youngest, Jemila.

“My daughter’s 3 years old!” Harris exclaimed yesterday after visiting her at Children’s Hospital, where she was recuperating from the previous night’s attack. Looking weary and dazed, the 35-year-old District Heights resident appeared to be at a loss for words. “I hope they catch whoever did this,” he said. His wife was also one of the shooting victims….

“The shootings stunned city officials, especially because they occurred during a weekend when police presence was high as part of ‘All Hands on Deck,’ a summer crime-fighting plan. All available members of the 3,300-officer D.C. police force were to work two eight-hour shifts this past weekend — many on foot, on bikes, on Segways and in cars….

“Police said they had not established a motive or made any arrests. None of the victims seemed to know the gunmen, they said. “It may be random,” Jennifer Greene, commander of the 5th Police District, said at a news conference.

“Some people at the complex, though, had foreseen trouble. One resident said there was a “beef” between young men living there and another group from Euclid Street NW.

“The gunmen “were supposed to be shooting at some other guys” when they approached the building, in the 600 block of Edgewood Street, Saturday night, the resident said. When the gunmen didn’t see their intended victims, she said, they began “just shooting everywhere.” The resident did not want to be identified for fear of reprisals.

“A security guard at the complex said he had feared more violence after unknown men exchanged gunfire in a parking lot there Friday night, damaging cars but not wounding anyone….

“Edgewood Terrace, a complex of subsidized public and private housing, was nicknamed “Little Beirut” in the mid-1980s for its violence, chaos and dilapidated condition. But after a 10-year, $76 million rehabilitation project was completed in 2003, it was considered a success story. Now, residents say, crime has returned. A year ago, an adult and a 14-year-old boy were shot in a courtyard there. In May, a 15-year-old and three other people were wounded by gunfire on a playground. Last month, police killed a man at the complex after he pointed a gun at them….

“In the latest incident, a group of residents and their visitors were outside the red-brick apartment building late Saturday when two men approached, according to witnesses and police. At least one of the men opened fire, they said.

“Everyone started running. They yelled, ‘Get the kids!’ ” said the resident who did not want to be identified. Adults grabbed children who had been playing on the sidewalk and on a small patch of grass. Harris said his wife, Nikea, threw herself against her 3-year-old. A bullet tore through her thigh and into the girl’s back, Harris said. Malone, the security guard, heard the shooting from a few buildings away. It sounded like a semiautomatic pistol, said the guard, who was a weapons specialist in the Army years ago. He and several other guards raced to the scene.

“It was very chaotic,” he said, with people crying and yelling. “A lot of people were saying, ‘Oh my God!” ….The shooting was so wild that one bullet smashed through the window of a third-story apartment, leaving a hole the size of a dinner plate.”

So, how about it, President Bush? How about a little “stability” in the District of Columbia, sir? How about a “surge” of a few thousand well-armed troops to bring about a “stable” Washington DC? Your neighborhood can be a pilot program. “Stabilize” the District of Columbia and then you can think about resuming your crusade to achieve your “ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world,” as you put it in your second inaugural address. First, today, our nation’s capital; then, tomorrow, the world.

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

August 3, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

I have served the Lord as an evangelical Christian all of my adult life. As a Christian, I believe the Bible is the Word of God. I believe Jesus is the Son of God, that He died for my sins, and that He physically rose from the grave. I believe He ascended to Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father, where He "ever liveth" to make intercession for the saints.

I have had the privilege of winning numerous souls to Christ. As a veteran pastor of more than 30 years, I have had the joy of baptizing many hundreds of converts. I believe in the local church. I believe in missions. I am also an American.

As an American, I revere the history and heritage of this great country. I hold America's Founding Fathers in deepest regard. I believe the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights set forth the greatest political principles and form of government ever devised my man. I believe in individual freedom, national sovereignty, and states' rights. Furthermore, I believe that my devotion to God does not, in any way, contradict or conflict with my devotion to my country. In fact, my devotion to God augments my devotion to my country.

I say all of that to say this: it greatly disturbs me to see many of my Christian brethren using their Christianity as an excuse for apathy in regard to the demise of our constitutional republic--as if the maintenance of liberty and independence is not their concern.

The preservation of liberty and independence should concern every American, whether Christian or not. In fact, it appears that many unbelievers show more discernment and resolve in fighting for liberty and independence than do many professing believers. How can this be?

Christians, of all people, should be the first to fight for America's historic principles, as it was our Christian forebears that carved this land of liberty out of a wilderness of persecution and oppression. Have we become so lazy and indifferent as to be oblivious to what our children and grandchildren will be forced to endure, if we are not willing to preserve this land of freedom? It seems that many of us have become just that.

I often hear Christians, and even my fellow pastors, say things such as, "God has not called us to get involved in politics," or "This President is God's man, and while we should pray for him, we should never oppose him," or "This is all part of prophecy; there is nothing we can do about it." To all of that, I say, Balderdash!

If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night with the intention of raping your wife and daughters and killing you and your family, are you going to say, "This is all part of prophecy; there is nothing we can do about it"? Or, are you going to grab the nearest gun or baseball bat and take his head off?

If George W. Bush's push to merge America into a North American Union is the "fulfillment of prophecy" and should not be resisted, then why should we resist al-Qaida? Who are we to say what is or what is not the "fulfillment of prophecy"? In addition, consider this: if it is true that policies such as NAFTA, the Patriot Act, and efforts to merge the United States into a New World Order are helping to fulfill prophecy, it is equally true that all this is Satan's doing, which places everyone who supports it on the wrong side of prophecy, including many professing Christians.

Yet most of my fellow believers who say we have no Christian duty to oppose President Bush as he strips us of our liberties, defies our Constitution, and makes a mockery of justice, will turn around and shout the loudest in support of a war against a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not even pose a legitimate or imminent threat to our country. Besides, even if it did, using the same logic of many Christians, "It is part of prophecy; there is nothing we can do about it."

Do we not understand that freedom and independence are precious gifts of God and should be considered such? Just as life is valuable and precious and must be defended, so liberty is worth defending, whatever the cost.

To those of my Christian brothers and sisters who piously promote the idea that we should never oppose President Bush because he is "God's man," to those who say that God has not called us to "get involved in politics," to those who say that we should sit back and do nothing while corrupt and evil men steal our heritage, rape our Constitution, and destroy our national sovereignty and independence because it is all "predicted in the Bible," I say, How dare you?

How dare you celebrate Independence Day on the Fourth of July? When you celebrate Independence Day, are you not extolling men who took up arms against their own government? These men were pronounced traitors and terrorists by their government. These were men who fought and killed their fellow countrymen in a savage fight for independence. How dare you celebrate Independence Day, wave the Stars and Stripes, and then turn around and say that we have no right to resist the powers that be?

How dare you say the Pledge of Allegiance in school or in church? How dare you sing the National Anthem at a ball game? How dare you go vote or encourage others to vote? There is absolutely nothing more political than voting. Are we not interfering with God's will when we vote? After all, whatever happens and whoever is elected is all part of prophecy, so how dare we get involved in politics by going to a voting booth?

While we are on the subject of voting, I seldom heard my fellow Christians talk about the President being "God's man," who should only be prayed for, but never resisted, when Bill Clinton was President. And I suspect my fellow Christians will not be using that same mantra if and when Hillary is elected President of these United States. Suddenly, pastors throughout America will be screaming for Christians to "get involved in politics" and resist the evil Hillary. So much for our principles.

Furthermore, how dare you claim your church contributions as a tax deduction? How dare you hire an attorney to represent you in a court of law? How dare you claim the right to own a firearm? How dare you call, write, fax, or email your congressman or senator and voice your opinion about anything? How dare you insist upon any rights that are guaranteed under our Constitution and Bill of Rights?

By doing any of the above, we prove that we do not really believe that we should not get involved in politics. We prove that we do not really believe that we have no obligation to stem the tide of evil in our society. We prove that we really cannot fully comprehend the mind and timing of God in matters of prophecy. (Which means we really do not know when Jesus is coming again, but have a duty toward God and our country until He does.)

What all of this does prove, however, is that we want to pick and choose our obligation. We are willing to do what is expedient, easy, and enjoyable. But we are unwilling to put our backs into the arduous task, engage the powerful adversary, or challenge the popular notion. Our Christian principles have little to do with conviction and much to do with convenience.

Had our Christian forebears acted as we do, we would still be a Crown colony today, without the freedom and independence that America has enjoyed for these past two hundred years. Think about it: there would be no Constitution. No states' rights. No Bill of Rights. No right to keep and bear arms. No right to privacy. No right to be secure in our own homes. No constitutional protections in court. No constitutional protections for speech, religion, or redress of government. No constitutional protection for the freedom of the press. The foundational principles upon which our entire society and way of life rest would be nonexistent.

By refusing to hold our President accountable to the Constitution, by promulgating the idea that Christians should not get involved in politics, by standing idle as political and corporate forces work to steal our national sovereignty and independence, we are surrendering everything that Americans have historically held precious.

It is another thing for people who are born into tyranny and oppression. Not everyone has the opportunity to rid themselves of these monsters. Don't you know that Christians in China would love to live in America? What about the Christians in North Korea and Iran? What about the Christians in Saudi Arabia? Would they not love to live in America? Think of the Christians who endured Stalin's purges and Mao's slaughters. Would they not have given anything to have lived in the United States of America?

It was our forefathers in America that paid the price in suffering, tears, and blood in order to be able to bequeath to us, their posterity, freedom and independence. And ever since, America has been that shining "city upon a hill" for every man and woman who yearns to breathe free.

Dear Christian friend, do you mean to tell me that we are supposed to sit back and let men (even well-intentioned men) destroy our constitutional republic? Do you mean to tell me that we are not to resist the evil machinations of those inside our country as vehemently as we would those who seek our destruction from afar?

If Nathan the prophet dared to confront the great King David, the man after God's own heart, one of the three greatest men of the Old Testament, do you mean to tell me that we should not be willing to resist those within our own government (regardless of party or religious profession) who would play fast and loose with our liberties? I say again: Balderdash!

When I became a Christian, I became a citizen of Heaven; it is true. However, I did not relinquish my citizenship in these United States. And neither did you. As the Apostle Paul used his Roman citizenship for his own advantage, so should you and I, as Americans, relish and preserve the freedoms and independence that God has granted us.

Should this generation of Christians allow America to slip into the abyss of oppression by surrendering our freedom and independence (which we are dangerously close to doing), there will not be enough Scripture verses or personal excuses in this world or the world to come to cover our shame.

My dear fellow Christians, I appeal to your honor, your sense of patriotism, your respect for your fathers, your concern for your children, your love of liberty, and your duty to God: tear away the blinders, look past your own comfort, cast aside the temptation of self-promotion, and fight for your country!

© 2007 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence. 

Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, "Chuck Baldwin Live" This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and newspapers.  

To learn more about his radio talk show please visit his web site at: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. When responding, please include your name, city and state.

E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

Apparently Sungenis has been cowed by do-nothing, Ecumenical preltes and his own traiterous co-religionists.

For the last five years or so, Catholic Apologetics International (CAI) has been in the throes of controversy due to its hard-line positions regarding the Jews. Although during that controversy CAI has been able to educate a lot of people who would normally be ignorant of these pertinent matters, at the same time, when we consider the highly sensitive nature today of issues concerning the Jewish people, the tone in which CAI communicated its ideas was often expressed in an ill-advised manner. That fault, coupled with the partiality many Catholics maintain for the Jews and their ideological causes, led to various animosities and accusations against CAI. It also caused confusion regarding what is and is not the authentic position of the Catholic Church towards the Jewish people. Some of this confusion, no doubt, is due to the difference in emphasis that the Catholic Church herself has taught regarding the Jews, since in more traditional times a more hard-line approach was prevalent whereas today a more conciliatory approach is in vogue. Unfortunately, people tend to fall on one side or the other of this divide, and the result is confusion that often boils over into controversy and animosity.

1

For the time being, although articles on the Jews will not appear on our site for the indefinite future, Catholic Apologetics International maintains certain theological positions about the Jews that we consider neither hard-line nor soft-line but merely what we believe is taught by Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Since we are a teaching institution, we feel obligated to reveal and confirm these beliefs to our patrons who follow and support us. Our bishop and his advisors are allowing us to express our views if they are stated in an inoffensive manner. These stipulations about the Jews will be a

2

As such, it is the qualified opinion of Catholic Apologetics International that:

3

4

5

With the deepest appreciation to my bishop, the Very Reverend Kevin Rhoades, his vicar general, the Very Reverend William King, the Reverend James Massa and the USCCB, the Catholic community to which I am always in service, and especially the patrons of Catholic Apologetics International who have faithfully supported this apostolate through thick and thin, I bid you my fraternal love in Christ our Savior. May the truth of his Gospel penetrate our hearts and minds.

President of Catholic Apologetics International, Inc.

Israel faces no end of threats and challenges, any one of which is capable of fueling endless discussion — not to mention anxiety — among Jews and gentiles around the globe. There is one challenge, however, that’s rarely discussed above a whisper outside Israel, because of its extreme sensitivity. You might call it the hidden Jewish demographic crisis: the population explosion among the Jewish state’s Haredi or ultra-Orthodox Jews, and the implications of that growth for Israel’s long-term survival.

When the exemption was first approved in 1948, it involved barely 400 men. Four decades later, in 1992, the Torah-study exemption was granted to 5% of that year’s conscription-age cohort of 18-year-olds. This year, 2007, the proportion reached 11%. In 2019, the exempted yeshiva students are projected to top 23% of the cohort, which is the proportion of Haredi students among this year’s first graders — the most straightforward predictor.

The figures are contained in reports issued in July by two Israeli government agencies. One, released by the army’s manpower division, simply states the proportions of conscripts and exemptees. According to the report, just under 24% of all 18-year-olds will be exempted from the draft this coming fall. Of those, 11% — close to half — will be excused because of Torah studies. The rest will be divided roughly evenly among Israelis living abroad, those with criminal records, medical deferments and those found “psychologically unfit” — by health or inclination — for military service.

Nonreligious exemptions have declined in recent years, but Torah exemptions have soared. The main reason is fertility: The Haredi community averages 7.6 children per woman, roughly triple the rate for the population as a whole, according to the Israel government’s Central Bureau of Statistics.

The demographic trend is demonstrated plainly in another report, prepared by the statistics bureau for the Ministry of Education. The report shows enrollment figures in Israel’s three separate Jewish school systems, the state-secular, state-religious (Modern Orthodox) and Haredi streams. In the 15 years from 1992 to 2007, the proportion of Jewish children attending state-secular elementary schools dropped to 55% of the total from 67%; in 2012 it is projected to fall to 51%. The percentage attending Haredi schools, meanwhile, went from 12.4% in 1992 to 26.7% in 2007 and a projected 31% in 2012. Modern Orthodox schools (whose graduates do perform military service) remain steady throughout at roughly 18%.

At some point in the late 2020s, if current trends continue, the percentage of Israeli Jews claiming army exemption due to Torah study will pass the 30% mark and continue climbing.

These figures don’t include the schools of Israel’s Arab community, which is almost entirely exempt from military service. The Israeli Arab birthrate is climbing, as well, although nowhere near the pace of Haredi increase.

Factoring in the Arab schools, Israel’s elementary-school population in 2012 will look like this: 41.7% state-secular, 13.5% state-religious, 17.4% Haredi and 27.4% Arab. Unless something changes drastically, Israel’s military draft pool will fall below 50% of draft-age youth by the year 2030 or soon after.

One can only pray that Israel reaches stable peace with its neighbors before it runs out of draftees.

But even peace will not solve the problem of Haredi men removed from the work force by their prolonged yeshiva studies. At present, just 30% of Haredi men participate in the work force. Almost half the Haredi population lives below the official poverty line. As the Haredi share of the population grows, pressure will mount on the tax rolls, the welfare system and inter-communal tolerance and civility.

Attempts have been made to integrate the Haredi community into essential aspects of Israeli society, but with little effect. A special Haredi unit of the army was created, shielded from contact with women soldiers and enriched with Torah study. So far it has drawn only a few hundred men. Most of them, ironically, are not Haredim but settlers, Modern Orthodox Jews who would serve in the army anyway, but prefer the stricter religious milieu of the “Haredi” units.

Efforts have also been made to amend the draft laws so that young Haredi men can hold jobs. The latest was floated in late July by Israel’s Finance Ministry. Past efforts have met fierce resistance from Haredi rabbis, who view Torah study as sublime and employment as a distraction. Ideally, the solution can be found through mutual compromise. Unfortunately, most of the compromising will have to come from the Haredi leadership, a group known for its uncompromising views in matters of faith.

The debate turns familiar categories of Jewish loyalty on their heads. We’re not accustomed, especially in the Diaspora, to the idea that those Jews who are most devoted to Judaism might constitute a threat to the Jewish future. The hidden demographic crisis is a wakeup call to all sides.

by John V. Denson
by John V. Denson

A new book entitled The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable by George Victor and published by Potomac Books Inc. of Washington, D.C. is well researched and gives a very clear picture of how and why the Pearl Harbor myth was created. This "patriotic political myth" states that the attack by the Japanese was unprovoked and was a surprise to the Roosevelt administration, as well as, the key military personnel in Washington; but the commanders of Pearl Harbor were at fault for not being ready. Based on a good summary of the up-to-date research the author, who is an approving admirer of Roosevelt, concludes that Roosevelt deliberately provoked the attack and that he and his key military and administrative advisers clearly knew, well in advance, that the Japanese were going to attack both Pearl Harbor and the Philippines. Roosevelt wanted to get into the European War but he had been unsuccessful in provoking Germany; therefore, he considered the sacrifice of Pearl Harbor and the Philippines as the best way to get into the European War through the back door of Japan. The cover-up of this strategy started immediately after the attack and continues to this day. The author concludes that this information of the coming attack was intentionally withheld from the military commanders because it was known that the Japanese were depending upon the element of surprise and if warnings had been sent to the commanders of Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, their preparation for the attack would have caused the Japanese to cancel their plans.

The losses and damages at Pearl Harbor are described by Victor as follows:

"In the Pearl Harbor attack, the United States lost twenty-four hundred troops along with a quarter of her fleet. Many military leaders and Knox, Hull, and Roosevelt had underestimated the harm Japan could do, even by a surprise attack. And U.S. losses were much increased by two unlikely events. A Japanese bomb penetrated the battleship Arizona’s armor at an odd angle, reaching her magazine and causing her to explode. And the torpedoed battleship Oklahoma capsized. The explosion of the Arizona and the capsizing of the Oklahoma resulted in the drowning of sixteen hundred sailors."

The tremendous losses in the Philippines have been virtually hidden from the American public but they were mostly the native soldiers and civilians. Victor states:

"The Philippines suffered widespread destruction and was captured. Twenty-four hundred troops and seventy civilians were lost in Hawaii. In the Philippines, one hundred forty thousand troops were lost and civilian deaths – still unreported – are estimated to have been as high as three million. Nonetheless, the defeat at Pearl Harbor became a wrenching tragedy, and the administration sacrificed the commanders there to restore public confidence, while the defeat in the Philippines became a noble defense. Despite devastation and loss of the Philippines, a public relations operation turned MacArthur into a hero and he was promoted. The public reaction is not strange, however, when seen in the light of government control of information – a usual wartime practice."

The author states that the most recent Pearl Harbor investigation by Congress in October, 2000 resulted in a resolution by Congress "calling on President William Clinton to restore the reputations of Short and Kimmel. It provoked the flurry of accusations that Congress was usurping the job of historians, revising history, and reviving a long-discredited conspiracy theory. Clinton took no action on the resolution."

The author, Victor, includes a chapter from the viewpoint of the Japanese. They were being pressured strongly by Germany to enter the war by attacking the Soviet Union, thereby creating a two-front war for the Communist nation. This strategy came within the actual interests of Japan since they, like Germany, saw Communism as a great evil and a threat to their respective nations. Furthermore, Japan had substantial claims to parts of Manchuria as a result of defeating Russia in the war of 1905. Both Germany and Japan wanted to avoid a war with America at almost any cost. Roosevelt was well aware of this pressure on Japan by Germany but he felt that it was necessary to protect the Soviet Union as being the best weapon against the Germans, and therefore, he wanted to prevent Japan from attacking Russia. Roosevelt began extensive provocations to cause Japan to abandon its attack on Russia and instead attack America which also served the purpose of giving Roosevelt the reason to enter the war. Roosevelt launched an eight-point provocation plan primarily through the cutting off of oil supplies to Japan so that by the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor Japan was virtually out of oil and on the verge of industrial and military collapse. The attack on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines also would provide Japan with the ability to attack the Dutch interests in the Pacific, thereby giving them a new supply of oil.

Victor sees Roosevelt’s decisions as being based upon the assumption of the truth of the following statement: "Hitler’s plan to conquer and enslave most of the world was hardly a secret." The author cites no authority for this plan of Hitler to conquer the world and you will not find this in the two books that Hitler wrote nor in any of his speeches. His intentions were well known before and during the war. He stated from the beginning, before he took power, as well as thereafter, that he was against the harsh and unfair Versailles Treaty which virtually disarmed Germany and it included the inequities created for Germany in Poland and Czechoslovakia, which he intended to correct either through negotiation or, if necessary, by force. He stated and wrote that the only war he wanted was to fight Communism and to regain some of the living space that Germany had acquired in their treaty with Russia during World War I, which was abrogated by the Versailles Treaty. Nevertheless, the defeat of Hitler, not Germany, appears to be the premise upon which the author states that Roosevelt acted so that the end justified the means. Hitler, the man, must be defeated at all costs and these costs included the sacrifice of Pearl Harbor and the Philippines in order to get into the European War via Japan.

I need to depart from a review of Victor’s book momentarily in order to take issue with his basic assumption that Roosevelt’s main interest was the defeat of Hitler. If his primary end was simply the death of Hitler, Roosevelt had an excellent opportunity of letting the key military officers in the regular German army carry out a plan of assassination.

Allen Dulles was stationed in Switzerland with the OSS (which preceded the CIA) and was assigned the primary duty of seeing if there was a resistance movement in Germany which might overthrow Hitler. Dulles learned of a very substantial plot to kill Hitler early in the war in 1942 after Germany’s defeat at Stalingrad. While Stalin had murdered 35,000 to 50,000 of his senior military officers prior to the war in order to put in his loyal officers, Hitler had resisted this strategy and did not purge the regular German army of its senior officers. Early in the war a large number of these senior officers, including his Chief of Staff, General Ludwig Beck, built up a strong resistance movement with the purpose of assassinating Hitler and then surrendering to the American and British forces. They intended then to continue the war against Communism and the Soviet Union. A new government was to be created with Beck at the head and Dr. Carl Goerdeler, former mayor of Leipzig, to be the two top people. There was originally a large group who helped draw up the plan which included numerous civilians who would serve in the new democratic government, so it was not just to be a military coup. Dulles stated that even after the resistance movement had been discouraged by Roosevelt’s unconditional surrender policy, nevertheless, a small group of officers who remained committed to the assassination of Hitler made an unsuccessful attempt on Hitler’s life on July 20, 1944. Hitler rounded up all of the people who were even suspected of being a part of this plot and this amounted to over 200,000 Germans who were put in concentration camps and many were killed. The two principal high-ranking German officers who took part in the plot met their fate on the next day after the attempt, with one being shot by a firing squad and General Beck was allowed to commit suicide in the presence of the Nazi officers.

When Roosevelt first learned of this significant resistance movement and the plan of the Germans to surrender immediately to America and the British, he unilaterally announced the unconditional surrender policy which caused much of the resistance movement to dissolve and their plans to be abandoned. Roosevelt’s unconditional surrender policy was not well received by either Churchill or Stalin. Dulles, as well as, many key military advisers, were unsuccessful in getting Roosevelt to abandon or substantially revise this policy. They pointed out to Roosevelt that it would discourage the assassination of Hitler. It would make the Germans fight harder, cause the war to last longer and be more costly than necessary. Roosevelt’s policy required unconditional surrender to the British, the Soviets and America simultaneously. No surrender would be accepted unless it was made to all three at the same time. Many of the German officers decided that they would rather fight against all three rather than surrender to the Soviet Union. (See Germany’s Underground: The Anti-Nazi Resistance by Allen Dulles and Unconditional Surrender by Anne Armstrong.)

One of the best writers on World War II was Hanson Baldwin, who covered the war for The New York Times. After the war he wrote a book entitled Great Mistakes of the War, which was published in 1949. Baldwin says the greatest mistake made was the unconditional surrender policy of Roosevelt. He states that the policy "probably discouraged the opposition to Hitler" and adds that it "probably lengthened the war, cost us lives and helped to lead to the present abortive peace." Baldwin then points out that it also had a detrimental effect in the war against Japan. The Japanese had indicated they were willing to surrender if the unconditional surrender policy was changed so as to allow them to keep their Emperor but President Roosevelt ignored the offer in January of 1945. After Roosevelt’s death, President Truman stated he was going to continue the unconditional surrender policy and rejected the offer in July, 1945. The war continued and Truman ordered the atomic bombs to be dropped in August of 1945 and the surrender followed in September. The Japanese were allowed to keep their Emperor after the war, and so in the end, the unconditional surrender policy was dropped as to Japan, but only after they were bombed with two atomic bombs. (See The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb by Dennis D. Wainstock and The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb by Gar Alperovitz.)

My argument is that Roosevelt’s unconditional surrender policy was designed to stop the resistance movement because Roosevelt did not want an early end to the war. He wanted a new chance to create a world organization, which he may have actually believed would end all war for the future. President Wilson had made this promise with the creation of the League of Nations. Roosevelt’s plan was to bring all nations under the cover of the United Nations with America and the Soviet Union as the remaining two super powers who would be virtually in control of this new world organization. Roosevelt had been part of the Woodrow Wilson administration and personally witnessed the worldwide adulation of President Wilson immediately after World War I when he came to Europe. Roosevelt saw the admiring mobs of people who lined the streets in France and Italy to cheer Wilson and the newspaper reports stated that thousands of people lined the railroad tracks at night just to watch Wilson’s train go by. Wilson was considered by millions of people as the greatest man in the world at that time because it was perceived that he brought peace to the world and had saved Europe. His vision for the League of Nations was considered by many as the hope of the future throughout the world to stop all war forever. (See Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World by Margaret MacMillan.) Roosevelt made 800 speeches in his vice presidential campaign in 1920 praising the League of Nations. Roosevelt felt that America’s entry into World War II would give him a chance to succeed where his mentor and idol, Woodrow Wilson, had failed when the American Senate failed to approve the Versailles Treaty which contained the provision creating the League of Nations.

In August of 1941, Roosevelt met with Churchill prior to Pearl Harbor and brought up the United Nations idea to which Churchill objected. Nevertheless, Churchill went along with it because he needed America in the war. Stalin also objected to the United Nations idea and both he and Churchill felt that the postwar settlement should have separate spheres of influence for each victor rather than a world organization to which the countries might lose their sovereignty and also lose control of their special goals.

The best account of Roosevelt and the United Nations is thoroughly covered in the book entitled FDR and the Creation of the U.N. by Townsend Hoopes and Douglas Brinkley published by the Yale University Press in 1997. Both authors are admirers of Roosevelt and of his accomplishment in creating the United Nations. A brief summary of the main points and several excerpts will tell that story.

"On November 10, 1939, Pope Pius XII proclaimed the need to establish ‘a stable international organization’ after the war. In a private response of December 23, President Roosevelt voiced his belief that, while no spiritual or civic leader could now define a specific structure for the future, ‘the time for that will surely come’; meanwhile, the United States would ‘encourage a closer association between those in every part of the world – those in religion and those in government – who have a common purpose.’ "

The authors then point out that extensive planning began to take place by others in regard to the postwar settlement:

"Into this planning vacuum stepped the private Council on Foreign Relations with an offer to study postwar issues secretly and make its deliberations available to the State Department. The council was a Northeastern seaboard phenomenon, an elitist mix of prominent New York bankers and lawyers with European interests and prominent academics and intellectuals, many of whom had served as advisers to Woodrow Wilson at the Paris peace conference. The businessmen provided the money, while the scholars furnished most of the intellectual leadership. The council operated mainly through off-the-record conferences, study groups, and small dinners confined to members, who were addressed by foreign