To a European, articles like this appear entirely surreal.
I understand from it that the following applies:
1. Abortions clinic were free to operate with standards that are below those generally required in the medical profession.
2. This was challenged by pro-life group because of the desire to protect the women’s health, actually one of the stated aims of the feminazis promoting abortion.
3. The Court of Appeal decided that yeah, abortion mills must be run with the same standards as “other” “medical” facilities. Duh?
4. The desire to protect the women’s health is a great scandal for abortionist, and the matter is now expected to land in front of the Supreme Court.
5. The mere requirement to meet the minimum standards observed by all other doctors was sufficient to force four fifths of the structures to close.
I am glad such small steps are made, and welcome every event that makes abortion mills shut down. But honestly, I cannot imagine that in time the number of abortion mills in Texas will not go back to (un)normal even if the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the Court of Appeal, and the standard of medical decency are required everywhere in the US. In the end, the end of abortion goes through its ban, not through its becoming more expensive.
Still, this is good news not only because it shows a good battle fought with intelligence and the very weapon of the enemy, but also the hypocrisy and cynicism of the “reproductive health” bull.
Texas is, I am told, also the State now planning to re-introduce open carry.
They get better and better.
If there was a Turncoat World Championship, I think Michael Coren would be a prime candidate for the win, several times in a row. I now begin breakfast wondering whether Coren will still have the same religious affiliation when I finish it. As to his statements, they can slowly be read with a chronometer at hand, measuring the time until he states the exact opposite.
Coren has long joined the long list of Judases of the Catholic faith, but this one has an uncommon satanic energy. The man is sheer unbelievable. He writes a book about Catholics being right, and then leaves the Catholic faith. But he doesn’t say it out loud around, because it’s professionally more lucrative to shut up for a while.
Interestingly, the same man who had defended the Catholic church as the bearer of a Truth that goes beyond individual opinion then proceeds to leave the Church because – says his newly found god, called Michael Coren – the Church is now suddenly wrong. Not, mind, wrong on whether vanilla is better than chocolate. No. Wrong on something the Church has always believed, which is unquestionably part of the Deposit of Faith: sexual perversion.
What kind of man is this? A circus attraction?
Coren now even manages to be kicked out of a wannabe Catholic publication because … he is in favour of abortion!
I am sorry for you, my dear baby. Your father was a rapist, so you (not your father, no; I mean you; yes, you heard me right; I know, I know…; though luck, uh?) will now have to die. Pre-breakfast Michael Coren was, as a Catholic, resolutely opposed to your legalised killing. But that was before breakfast, you see. Post-breakfast Michael Coren thinks you will have to go. Mind, though: your killing is what Michael Coren’s newfound god (called, in case you don’t know, Michael Coren) thinks “compassionate”.
Can you believe this guy? Is he on cocaine? How could he allow himself to be same-sex loved by Satan in such a way, after certainly having been able to fully understand the Catholic message? I know journalism and prostitution are related professions, but this here is extreme. It is first class turn coat excellence. Coren doesn’t contradict himself simply. He must do so in the loudest of ways, and he must still say he is right!
Right… when, exactly? At 10:22 am as a pro-life, pro-sexual sanity Catholic, or at 4:55 pm as a fag-loving, pro-abortion Anglican?
Boy, this one is confused.
If one thing should become clear to our inept hierarchy in the dramatic times we are living, it is that “cultural Catholicism” has a limited shelf life of one generation, one and a half at most.
Grandma, born in 1920, was deeply rooted in Catholicism. Catholicism shaped her entire life. Daughter, born in 1950, was much different, but you might not seen very much of it in daily life. There were big differences on several issues, but even Grandma would have called Daughter a Christian, albeit a bad one.
Granddaughter was born in 1980. The values her mother shared never meant much to her. Her mother had a vague feeling that they were good, but she could never really articulate why. She was, herself, not entirely in agreement with her mother on a number of issues; therefore, the granddaughter thought it perfectly legitimate that she also does the same.
Daughter's “cultural Catholicism” consisted in receiving what is comfortable and understood and rejecting what is seriously inconvenient; but granddaughter does not understand why she should accept positions her mother cannot defend herself, and to her everything that causes the slightest riff with her girlfriends is highly inconvenient. The mini m common denomitor is her religion, a vague “goodness” that murders children, but feels very holy.
Grandmothher managed to get to Purgatory. Daughter's fate is far more uncertain. Granddaughter's cards are frankly – unless there is radical change – horrible.
Cultural Catholicism survives for some decades as a fallout of saner times. For one generation or so you will have an army of people who still share much of the building of Catholic values, but do not understand why the building stands in the first place. The following generation will find it more practical, or even moral, to tear the whole building down. It can be as fast as that.
Old people die, young people reach voting age. Your bishop may think the fundamental fabric of Catholicism will remain, but he is a fool. As the old people die, the “why” of things get lost, because the priest prefers to speak like a politician or a social worker, rather than a priest. One generation will do a lot of what was traditionally done without really knowing why; the following one will refuse the doing altogether.
An astonishingly inept (or worse!) clergy thought, all over Southern Europe, that cultural traditions would do for them the work they never had the guts to do. But cultural traditions die in the end, if no one can articulate why they are cherished. The funerals of the old people bury them too, slowly but irresistibly. Unless things change radically, it is only a matter of time before Italy goes to way of Ireland.
In this utter squalor, and in this climate of bankruptcy in many European Countries, we are waiting for the next encyclical of the Evil Clown.
Dedicated to… the environment.
Every now and then, the Unholy Father says a word or two about abortion. It never is a real frontal attack, because apparently we all know he is a son of the Church so why talk like a Pope; but at least it is something.
The problem with that is that the radical Neopagan ideology of the man makes his words sound hollow – or rather, appear hypocritical and no more than a fig leaf – even when he happens to say something which, in itself, is right.
Francis has been aggressively promoting the new “religion of mercy” for months now, and more aggressively so since the slap he got in October. This new, continuously promoted alternative religion has no place for God's justice, at least for the almost totality of people of whatever faith and none. If God cannot be imagined as doing more than slapping us on the wrist, every kind of crime will ultimately be unpunished. If atheists are saved if they follow their conscience, faith as a necessary ordinary requirement – together with work – for salvation is completely forgotten. If God is “in love with us”, the relationship between the Creator and His creatures that is so emotionally evoked is not the one of a loving, but when necessary severe father, but the one of a sixteen years old girl upon beholding the young man of her dreams.
Besides being profoundly heathenish, this thinking kills babies.
In this kind of New Age, “We Are All So Wonderful And Unconditionaly Loved” pretend religion there is no sanction whatever for being Stalin, much less for the murder of an unborn child. Everything is wonderfully aimed at a wonderful final destination upon reaching which we will know in what wonderful ways God wonderfully provided for all the people we have aborted, or gassed, whilst following our conscience or, more simply, whilst being a tad naughty and getting a slap on the wrist. God, who is so madly in love with us, will always forgive us everything, so why worry? And actually, who is everyone to judge?
This is what kills unborn babies. This refusal to put a woman in front of the atrocity of what she is about to commit, and to the terrible pain of hell that following one's “conscience” can easily lead to, is all Satan needs in order to whisper to the mother that there is nothing to be worried about, her murdered baby “will be fine” because “God is Lurv”, and she will obviously be fine because she follows her wonderful conscience where the Spirit leads her.
In the age of mercy, an holocaust of unborn children produces nothing but… mercy. If Hitler had been a woman he could have imagined all those millions Jews happily basking in the grace of God, and would have died believing himself a saint. On a smaller scale, many feminist and dissenting nuns do exactly the same; only, they do not dispose of their own Vernichtungsmaschine and must be content with accompanying – morally or physically – young mothers to the slaughterhouse of their own babies.
Francis does, in a slightly subtler way, exactly the same. His blabbering about a mercy deprived of justice is an open invitation to every kind of selfish cruelty, an “all you can sin” buffet without even the digestion problems, a new religion that makes a mockery not only of God, but of the very concept of religion.
Next time Francis says a line or two about abortion, use it to be reminded which side's work he is making.
Watch here a video I found on my newly re-found Facebook page. I had seen footage of the latest march in Washington, but some parts of this throw, I think, an entirely different light on the entire matter.
Please also note the banners with the Blessed Virgin.
Imagine the embarrassment of the mainstream media at this footage. Huge crowds, Blessed Virgin banners, lots of families with young children. Tell the world of such a massive event? No! No! No!
Every damn “gay” parade would obviously get coverage, but not this, not this!
Heck, this is an embarrassment for the Bishop of Rome himself! All these people obsessed with abortion! Why did they not adopt an illegal immigrant instead?
Still: this is very, very encouraging. The more so, because it happens notwithstanding the neglect of the media and against the current “climate” in the Vatican, where even perverts are welcome.
And those banners of the Blessed Virgin, in Washington, in the middle of a very big march, they truly made my day.
In a very small whiff of fresh air in the stench in which we are living, Pope Francis has said two or three things which really sound Catholic. Look at the Patheos crowd delighting in being able to tell themselves the Pope is orthodox, after having waited 12 hours for the broken clock to show the right time.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it’s as bad as that: Francis must only say a couple of words vaguely resembling Catholicism every couple of months, and the enthusiastic following of the blind is assured to him.
The words aren’t even so strong, not by any standard of even V II Popes. From what I could read he does not give strong warnings, merely some words of encouragement on abortion, and some very veiled words against so-called “same sex marriage”. There is no mention of murder of the unborn, no mention of dangers for the soul. And it’s clear this Pope mentions dangers for the soul anytime this is convenient to his agenda (mafiosi, capitalists, or even honest churchgoers who are “dead inside”).
I have read no mention of “culture of death”; no mention of hell, Satan, punishment. He praises a very weak Pope, and shows even in his “strongest” moments he can’t manage to be stronger than Pope Paul VI in his lack of decisiveness and incisiveness, basically having one encyclical to show for 13 years of disastrous Pontificate.
The mention of so-called same-sex marriage is so veiled it can’t even be safely attributed to the topic, in another show of blatant Jesuitism. Even those rare words of Catholic sanity (requested, I think, from the local clergy because of the recent confrontation about contraception) are a very poor show. But hey, the Pollyannas happily eat excrements every day. Give them tofu once, they’ ll think it’s tiramisu’.
Lastly, let me measure this Pope with his own, very famous words: if the contracepting and faggot-marrying Philipinos are in good faith, and seek the Lord, and follow their conscience, who is he to judge?
The man destroys the very basis of Catholicism. Then people praise him when he happens to say something resembling it. Which, for heaven’s sake, even Satan himself could and would do.
The Duchess of Cambridge has been diagnosed with another clump of cells.
It is thought the clump will not be removed, albeit it is making the Duchess sick rather often.
If the removal of the clump does not take place, it is widely believed this clump of cells will gradually grow inside the host. At some point next Spring, the clump of cells will expel itself from the host. The process generally goes under the popular name of “birth”. After the self-expulsion, the clump of cells will, if its heart beats, legally become a human being and be entitled to various rights; like, for example, the one not to be thrown in the bin with other clumps of cells, who were removed from the host in order the prevent the self-expulsion process from taking place. .
Now, let us see if this is the way the generally oh so liberal BBC looks at it. Let me look…
yes… it’s here…
hhhmmm…what is this?
“Expecting a second child”
“Yet unborn girl or boy”
Look, it appears even the satanic buggers at the Buggers Broadcasting Communism get it: a baby in the womb is… a baby. Entitled to be considered a human being, a human life, one of us, even if not yet born. He is, already, a child. He is, in fact, an “unborn girl or boy”.
Is it so difficult, you satanic buggers? What is in this that needs an effort of understanding?
It’s a baby. It’s a baby. It’s a baby. You say it yourselves, several times. You find it utterly natural to say so, exactly as everyone else. You employ the same language of common sense that has always been used, and corresponds to a most obvious reality.
Why, then, do you forget this obvious reality when the victim of your abominable thinking is not the baby of a Duchess, but a poor baby in the womb of an unknown young woman? Why the first is considered, to all intents and purposes, a human being, and the other not?
It’s because you are satanic buggers.
Apparently, Pope Francis has made a “strong”, “silent statement” against abortion because he… stopped in front of a monument to aborted children in Korea. He even – we are told – “bowed his head in prayer” before the monument; which is rather big news because, as far as I know, it is more than he does in front of the Blessed Sacrament.
Again, it turns out this Pope is never weary of doing what is comfortable on the moment, provided he does not land in an uncomfortable position himself. Short of speaking sternly against abortion and become a clear target of the liberal masses from which he wants to be adored, he will do whatever it takes whenever it is convenient.
Hhmm…let us see…
Today is Saturday.
I wonder if I should not gather one or two buddies and go to Stringfellow’s, or to another such establishment where rather fetching professional strippers exercise their trade.
After which I could always “bow my head” before, say, the statue of Thomas More in Chelsea.
It would clearly be a “strong, silent statement” against strip clubs, wouldn’t it now?
Read on Rorate Bishop Galantino’s passive-aggressive interview, in which he says he was oh so hurt at how “aggressive” some Catholics were (“people who say they pray they rosary”, the cretin goes on to say) , and then proceeds to take the usual emergency exit of the whiny secular bishop: it was not my fault, it’s the press’ fault.
Now, what is that I find so disgusting in this man’s behaviour?
1. The interview could have been corrected immediately. Actually, even before the uproar, which always take some time to develop. Little coward did nothing. As always, the first headlines were those of the world, praising him for his approach truly worth of Francis. He did nothing. He discovers now, around one month after the fact and after having been ridiculed the world over, that the interview does not reflect his thinking.
2. It is typical of the coward – and also, by the way, of the effeminate man – to react with a whiny, passive-aggressive attitude. He calls the reaction to his interview “an aggression which, in reality, hurt me a bit”. The bishop may rest assured: if he had been made the victim of the same aggression an unborn baby receives in those clinic in front of which the “expressionless people” pray, he would be a bit more “hurt” than from some headlines in newspapers and blogs. He should thank the Lord that he is – unworthily – a bishop, and cannot have his ass kicked all the way to the next train station among the, ahem, very expressive laughter of the present, as he would undoubtedly deserve if he were, say, a priest. Instead, Bishop Girlie goes on record with saying to us how hurt he is from a couple of headlines. Go figure.
3. The bishop now pretends to have said exactly the contrary of what he has said. Astonishingly hypocritical. Not a word of apology, then, for furthering a massacre by which more than 100,000 babies every here are not “hurt a bit”, but murdered in his own Country.
No. He simply tries – in pure Francis style – to have his very words of yesterday forgotten today. Very aptly, Marco Tosatti makes him notice that enough is enough. Verba volant, scripta manent.
Let us reflect, though, why all this happens.
It all happens because going to the newspapers with revolutionary, fully unCatholic or positively antiCatholic slogans has now become the favourite summer fashion, and every little nincompoop like Galantino feels he has something to earn – in notoriety, which all these people crave, and in brownie points with the Unholy Father – by showing himself oh so progressive.
It is Francis who caused all this. It is Francis who keeps giving the bad example. It is Francis who is every bit a hypocrite as this Galantino; ultimately, it is Francis who has to answer for the climate of stupidity and demolition that is now everywhere.
I am glad to see that resistance to the madness is now gradually becoming more spread, but I am under no illusion that the vast majority of the oxen will continue to be led by the nose by Francis and his little minions, like this despicable little caricature of a bishop. Which is why Francis will, for the time being, continue to sow confusion and revolt (Lio, I think he calls it); and why there will be no shortage of little faggots trying to get their moment of popularity, though throwing the toys out of the pram whenever they discover the reaction is not entirely what they had hoped for.
Francis says 2% of the priests are pedophiles. His “guesstimate” is vastly exaggerated, but it probably reflects the quality of the people he has around him.
The percentage of faggots must be astonishing.
The, ahem, “lady” clearly works at Burger King. Probably to finance her addiction to Burger King.
You can, though, admire an unexpectedly strong sprint as she flees from the camera.
The language is the usual feminist one.
It is a deep mystery who, no matter how drunk, would ever want to have sex with such a rhino. Therefore, one suspects the young, ahem, lady is fighting for the battle of other women to have all the sex they want without fear of consequences, whilst she gets in trouble for them.
If I had had children at the event, I would have said to them: “see, children? If you eat too much and do not exercise, one day you will become as fat and as stupid as that woman there!”.
They would obviously have started to cry in terror.
A very salutary reaction.
Yesterday was the day of the Palio di Siena again. There are two of them every year (2 July and 16 August), though the 2 July one is the most ancient. There is at least another such event, though by far less famous, in Ferrara.There might be, I suspect, several other ones on a local scale.
In the last years, the controversies about the horses have become more and more vocal. If I remember correctly, the EU has now ordered the horses cannot be drugged anymore (a pity, say I; it’ a no-holds-barred race, not a girls’ cake competition; the jockeys can whip each other, but the horses can’t be drugged? Really?), but the “animal rights” activists also criticise the terrain, because a horse has a human right to only race on a perfect surface lest he should harm itself; and we all know when they were employed in battle the battlefield was always accurately paved beforehand, and the holes levelled, and the stones taken away, lest the poor beasts suffer damage…
It is with a very sad amusement that one notices that a country (and a European Union) who consider utterly normal to kill a baby in the womb should get so excited for a couple of horses.
A baby has a soul, and therefore he has more worth than the entire universe. A horse is born, and is destined to die, for human use. The old Christian societies knew this difference very well, and could give to both the baby in the womb and the horse their proper place in the economy of Creation, and make correspondent decision concerning their protection; in case, also deciding that particular occasions would allow for particular treatment of the horses.
The new de-Christianised societies cannot understand the value of a soul, and do not care for a baby in the womb whom they cannot see; but they like horses and other animals, and humanise them accordingly. Which would make sense, because if there is no God and no soul, a horse should have the same worth as a baby. But it still doesn;t, because it is clear a horse is, for many people, actually worth a lot more. A country killing more than 100,000 babies a year will, therefore, have a lot of people calling for a ban on the Palio di Siena and similar competitions.I am sure they deem themselves such good
We live in a stupid world populated by morons who deem themselves smart because their phones can do a lot of things. Thinking, on the other hand, can neither of them.
The President of a feminist/abortionist organisation has given us another example of the utterly evil, hallucinated “logic” of XXI Century Nazis.
Abortion has, as she puts it, two positive effects:
1) It avoids the pain for the death of a child, and
2) It prevents mothers from dying of childbirth.
One truly wonders at what must go on in the brains of these people. At the same time, one becomes chillingly aware of how all the atrocities of the Nazi regime could happen. Dr Mengele could have said the same things, and in reading his words people would have been chilled at the cold-blooded murderous intent. But put on Nazism a thin varnish of feminism, and everything will be fine.
I will only touch in passing the huge elephant in the room: the obvious observation that for most of Christianity the difference between dying baptised or unbaptised is so huge, that only a dyed-in-the-wool atheist can even think of ignoring it.
No, let us see this from the perspective of an atheist.
If the reasoning of Mrs Mengele makes sense, only complete eradication of child birth will eliminate the problem of the bereavement whenever the child dies. Because you see, every child who is born is already condemned to both die and cause severe pain in those who love him. The only thing that may change is that the mother might not be there when this happens; because she has, in turn, caused a huge feeling of loss to other people. Oh, the cruelty of all that! If a birth is bound to cause pain, than it is better that there is no pain… for the living. The unborn clearly do not count.
Similarly, maximum security for women could be achieved simply by forbidding them to undergo such a dangerous and disruptive, ahem, unnatural process like… pregnancy. Maximum security for the living and, pretty please, no disruption at all in their serene, godless life. Humanity will be wiped out, of course, but who cares…
The unborn, as we have already seen, don’t count.