Newsletter



Monday, April 16, 2018

Municipalities Take Aim At Basic Liberties

Municipalities Take Aim At Basic Liberties

The town of Deerfield, Illinois has enacted a regulation banning assault weapons.

Those violating the ban could face fines of up to $1000 per day.

Will progressives that tossed a fit over Sheriff Joe Arpaio taking it upon himself to enforce the national immigration laws that the federal government refused to get as worked up over mere town ordinances contradicting what might be allowed under state and federal law?

What other products otherwise perfectly legal in a state might municipal aldermen take upon themselves to ban?

For motorist safety, what if a town decided to forbid residents from owning compact automobiles that rolled off the assembly line after a given year since in traffic accidents such vehicles often have about as much structural integrity as the average soda can?

What, if in order to protect pedestrians, a town passed legislation insisting that smartphones present such a threat of distraction that it is not enough to restrict when these devices can be used but that these gadgets must be banned altogether within the boundaries of a specified jurisdiction?

While we are at it, if local authorities possess the power to ban products deemed legal by the state granting the municipality the right to exist in the first place, why not certain behaviors or even relationships?

 For example, if the representatives of Deefield, Illinois insist that if those electing them to office want to live in a town without firearms it is their right to do so irrespective of how neighboring jurisdictions might decide to order their own affairs, on what grounds then should some backwoods enclave be forbidden from retaining laws against sodomy or promulgating a decree refusing to accept the validity of gay marriage?

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them Faith in Christ Lives JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Ingraham Insufficiently Deviant For Leftists To Defend Her Speech

The world has about come unhinged over Fox News pundit Laura Ingraham for daring to poke a little fun at a petulant youth known to excoriate with the vilest of profanities those reluctant to embrace his policy proposals demanding the abandonment of centuries of constitutional theory deemed fouler than his acute potty mouth.

The font of deliberative political contemplation, GQ Magazine, has posted a column in support of the Ingraham boycott titled “Boycotting Ingraham Is Patriotic”.

Yet those assenting to this sentiment are the very sorts of thinkers that would condemn the Census for tabulating how many within the boundaries of the United States are actually citizens.

But if it is inappropriate to classify who is and is not of a particular jurisdiction --- the most basic of functions in establishing the foundations of a nation/state --- isn't the concept of patriotism --- the idea that a set of principles in large part derived from a particular geography inhabited by a specific sort of people is superior to all others --- even more verboten?

GQ is celebrating the decentralized justice inherent to a boycott as about the purest form of free expression imaginable.

After all, consumers are not obligated to bestow their funds upon someone advocating a set of values that they find abhorrent.

Likewise, Ingraham is not entitled to be lavished with these funds.

Interesting, though, how amongst postmodernist hordes this realization is a one way street.

For would the editorial staff of GQ Magazine as eagerly applaud a boycott organized by a Christian cabal seeking to impose their particular ethical idiosyncrasies in a way that would implement comprehensive revolutionary change across the entire culture even if a significant percentage was still not amenable to such a fundamental alteration of the social compact.

After all, those now threatening social upheaval are the children of many who denounced Pat Buchanan's culture war oration at the 1992 Republican convention.

At the time, opponents of the pious populist insisted that absolute objective values did not exist and, even if they did, it was not the place of cultural institutions to advocate on behalf of or to enforce a hegemony of values.

Of Lady Ingraham's status within the ongoing civic discussion, the enlightened archons of GQ assure the unsettled of weak mind, “Laura Ingraham remains as empowered as ever to impart her bad takes, whether to viewers on Fox News or to passer-bys on the street, without fear of being arrested by agents of the state.” But for how long?

Already the right of free expression --- deliberately enshrined among the first protections of the Bill of Rights --- is restricted in the presence of those seeking an abortion --- a procedure that honest jurists are compelled to admit cannot be found clearly delineated anywhere in this charter document but rather only in interpretative penumbras of it.

In the case of Lara Ingraham still enjoying her innate liberties as a free citizen despite being economically inconvenienced, how is that less of an outrage than the gay couple denied the wedding cake by the Christian baker?

In the transaction dragged before the judicial system, no one prevented the couple from the state granting its official recognition of their unnatural liaison.

The only thing they would have had to have endured was the search for a baker willing to provide it, which would have cost considerably less that the advertising revenue rescinded from Fox News.

So why are some forms of speech worthy of protection and some not the part of the most vociferously insistent that the most egregious imposition imaginable is to somehow insist that someone else's truth might not be quite as true as initially suspected?

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them Faith in Christ Lives JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Wednesday, April 4, 2018

No Hell for Pope Francis

Once again, Pope Francis the False Prophet is at it again. Frankie the Fakesymbolizes the betrayal of Christendom and the sacred teachings of Jesus Christ. He is the perfect disciple of Satan as this wicked world rapidly achieves an evil Zion that stretches across the planet. Ever since Cain killed Able the depraved nature of a fallen species has flourished over the righteous choices of free will. Billions of deaths have occurred as murder became the universal instrument of human destruction by all barbarians, from every era of history. Now this deceptive Pharisee Judas announces that "Bad souls “are not punished,” Pope Francis is quoted, “those who do not repent and cannot therefore be forgiven disappear. There is no hell, there is the disappearance of sinful souls.”

Well, if there was ever a Pontiff that rejected repentance, Francis is the embodiment of this new age of hedonism. The popular Debunking the myth of hell is expressed by Carol Meyer in The National Catholic Reporter.

"I don’t care if scripture mentions hell or Jesus talked about it, if saints had visions of it, or if it’s a time-honored Catholic teaching. It simply can’t be justified on any level. We have no proof of its existence. It doesn’t work as a preventative for wrong. Fear is the lowest form of motivation in moral development, and has probably been more the cause of the terrible crimes of humanity than any deterrent. People laugh and joke about burning in hell and draw cartoons about it, but almost no one takes it seriously."

One can easily see Pope Francis agreeing that hell is a caricature of fear, no matter what Jesus Christ aforementioned on the condemnation for sin. Why be surprised, since the Socialist Pope rejects our Savior for the teaching of the Marxist secularists.

By disavowing the nature of an immoral soul, the entire purpose of divine creation is denied by this heretic. The consequence from the reputation in the Gospels of Jesus, results in a rejection in the entire New Testament message.

For the self absorbed and narcissistic indulgent, such a refutation offers only empty gratification and ultimate social relativism. The state of world affairs is beyond salvation when the gift of redemption is rejected.

The Catholic Church has always been preoccupied with its own political power. Such a departure from intellectual scholarship and tenets founded upon spiritual canons of the Gospels has harmed the spreading of the testaments and the covenant, between God and man.

Papal doctrines and dogmas have fallen short of the literal word of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Apostolic church has maintained traditional precepts formally adopted in the Nicene Creed. Accepting Jesus Christ as the Messiah as the complete fulfillment of the prophecies in the Old Testament is fundamental to the faith.

Such historic basic recognitions within the Eastern Church and most Protestant Dominations share this belief with the Latin Church. However, variances about the character of our created spiritual being, illustrates that reason alone is unable to achieve pure perfection in the knowledge of the metaphysical composition and immortality of the soul.      

Pope Francis admissions are most disturbing on a cardinal level. In order to counter these charges against sacrilege, the Vatican issued a denial. Don’t trust report that Pope Francis denied reality of hell.

“What is reported by the author in today’s article is the result of his reconstruction, in which the literal words pronounced by the Pope are not quoted. No quotation of the aforementioned article must therefore be considered as a faithful transcription of the words of the Holy Father.”

Scalfari, a self-proclaimed atheist, is the founder and former editor of Italian leftist newspaper La Repubblica. In an article published on the site March 29, Scalfari claims that Pope Francis told him, “hell doesn’t exist, the disappearance of the souls of sinners exists.”

Scalfari’s fifth meeting with Pope Francis, it is not the first time he has misrepresented the Pope’s words following a private audience."

If the remarks attributed to Francis by Scalfari are so misleading, why has he been granted all these interviews? Let's not distract from the essential reality, that the sympathies and alliance between Pope Francis and the worshipers of Baal who make up the New World Order are the embodiment of demons in the service of Beelzebub.

Christians of every denomination share a basic belief in the salvation from the crucifixion of the Lamb of God. For those who do not accept HIS sacrifice, what would be the point of accepting the grace of redemption? If one rejects the promise of eternal life, it would be much easier to deny the punishment of hell.

For a list of reasons for scorning the torture of hell, read Why is the idea of eternal damnation so repulsive to many people? Pope Francis in not a spiritual Pontiff. He is an apparatchik of his fellow travelers. His pronouncements deny The Theology Of Hell And Damnation. For A Defense Of The Traditional Christian Doctrine Of Hell, listen to the presentation by Dr. Scott M. Sullivan.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has committed more damage to Christianity and especially to the Catholic Church than any other Bishop of Rome. The Heresy Charges Against Pope Francis are an unprecedented condemnation in modern times.

A list of Heresy charges follows:

"Last September, a group of 62 clergy and lay scholars took the rare step of presenting Pope Francis with a “Filial Correction,” charging him with permitting the spread of seven heresies, at least by omission, about marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments.

The filial correction, in the form of a 25-page letter, was delivered to the Pope at his Santa Marta residence on August 11, 2017. No similar action has taken place within the Catholic Church since the Middle Ages, when Pope John XXII was admonished for errors which he later recanted on his deathbed.

Expressing “profound grief” and “filial devotion,” the group of clergy and lay scholars “respectfully insist[ed]” that Pope Francis condemn the heresies that, in their view, he has directly or indirectly upheld, and that he teach the truth of the Catholic faith in its integrity.

The initiative provoked admiration and consternation among Catholics and drew considerable attention in secular media outlets — including the AP, BBC, CNN, Fox News, Drudge Report, Huffington Post, and Daily Mail.

The number of signatories quickly grew to 250 scholars, some from prominent institutions around the world. Pope Francis has issued no response. (Ibid.)"

Whatever the accuracy or lack thereof, the sentiments of Pope Francis are consistently erratic. If this is the reputation of the hellfire method of Papal Infallibility, the Church needs to bring back Pope Benedict XVI and relegate Francis to a retreat. Since Hades does not exist for this heretic, his sinful soul will just disappear.


"During a visit to Bolivia in 2015, he described unbridled capitalism as the “dung of the devil,” condemned the impoverishment of developing countries by the world economic order and apologized for the church’s treatment of native Americans. His departure from some Church precepts on family and social issues has roiled the mainly conservative Catholic hierarchy. In Sep 2016 four cardinals issued a formal correction of views the pope had expressed in his Amoris Laetitia. In Sep 2017, more than 60 Catholic scholars signed a document that alleged that Pope Francis had committed seven heresies regarding his teachings on divorce and remarriage and moral relativism. For conservatives, the pontiff’s announcement in 2015 that priests around the world would be allowed to forgive the “sin of abortion” during a “year of mercy” from Dec 8, 2015, ranked as virtually unforgivable. The pope did hew to Catholic dictates when he described birth control as a sin, but stepped back from it with the view that Catholics need not reproduce “like rabbits.” The liberation theology movement gained strength in Latin America during the 1970s, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. Because of their insistence that ministry should include involvement in the political struggle of the poor against wealthy elites, liberation theologians were often criticized inside and outside the Catholic Church as naive purveyors of Marxism and advocates of leftist social activism. By the 1990s the Vatican, under Pope John Paul II, had begun to curb the movement’s influence through the appointment of conservative prelates in Brazil and elsewhere in Latin America. Prior to the 2013 papal conclave, Pope Francis had served as both archbishop and cardinal in Argentina for more than 12 years. He was the first citizen from the Americas, the first non-European and first Jesuit priest to be named pope."

As they say for the rest of the story, the souls of his leftist followers are already condemned. Remember what J.P. Sartre said "Hell is -- other people!"


SARTRE - April 3, 2018

Read the entire article on the Solitary Purdah archives

There are answers if you know where to look for them Faith in Christ Lives JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network