Monday, June 29, 2015

6 Catholics, 3 Jews

Blogger's statement:
In the light of the paradigm shifting nature of the Supreme Court's recent decisions, I wanted to re-post this article on my blog. 

Does it matter that there might soon be no Protestants on the Supreme Court?

Elesha Coffman/ MAY 11, 2010

If Elena Kagan, President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, is confirmed, the nation's high court will be, for the first time in its history, devoid of Protestants. Kagan is Jewish, as are Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. All of the other justices—Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Sonia Sotomayor—are Catholic. How did this situation come about in a historically Protestant-dominated country? And should evangelicals be concerned?

It's important to note that the composition of the Supreme Court has never reflected the composition of the country. All justices were white until the appointment of Thurgood Marshall in 1967, and all justices were male until the appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981. When President Andrew Jackson appointed the court's first Catholic member, Roger Taney, in 1836, the Roman Catholic Church was already well on its way to becoming the country's largest single Christian body. Most justices have also shared connections to a small group of elite schools. Harvard Law School trained the highest number, 14 justices, including five members of the current court. (Justice Ginsburg attended HLS but graduated from Columbia.) Kagan, a graduate and former dean of HLS, would make a sixth.

Throughout the court's history, some groups—notably Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Unitarians, and Jews—have been significantly overrepresented in comparison to their prevalence in the American population, while other groups have been significantly underrepresented. Though Baptists constitute the country's largest Protestant group, there have been just three Baptist justices. The second-largest Protestant group, Methodists, have supplied only five. There has never been a Pentecostal justice, despite that movement's explosive growth since the Azusa Street Revival of 1906.

The mismatch between Supreme Court members and average Americans is in part an example of the generally non-representational nature of elites, even in the supposedly egalitarian United States. From the late eighteenth to the middle of the twentieth century, a white Protestant establishment held sway, as Congregationalists (the heirs of the New England Puritans), Episcopalians, and Presbyterians pretty much ran the country and the rest of America's Christians pretty much let them. Unitarians, who controlled Harvard, got to participate heavily in governance as well, despite the fact that most Americans considered them heretics. The revivalist traditions that caught fire in the nineteenth century, including Baptists, Methodists, and Disciples of Christ, rapidly outstripped the establishment churches in membership but never overtook them in terms of cultural power. Evangelicals, for the most part descendents of the revivalists, have enjoyed even less access to the country's most exclusive halls of power, including the Supreme Court, the Senate, and the presidential offices at Ivy League universities.

The makeup of the current Supreme Court also reflects trends peculiar to jurisprudence. Judaism and Catholicism have extremely long and rich legal traditions, while Protestantism generally, and evangelicalism specifically, does not. American Jewish legal thinking has aligned well with liberal politics, which helps explain why all but one of the seven (soon, potentially, eight) Jewish Supreme Court justices have been nominated by Democratic presidents. American Catholic legal thinking has not aligned so closely with either political party, but Catholic teachings on Natural Law and the sanctity of life have made conservative Catholic nominees particularly attractive to Republican presidents who oppose abortion. As Robert Wuthnow argued in The Restructuring of American Religion, conservative Protestants have consistently made common cause with conservative Catholics on the subject of abortion in recent decades, nearly to the point of erasing centuries-old antipathies between these two branches of Christianity. The evangelical electorate might prefer to see one of their own on the high court, but they have had no problem supporting the current crop of conservative Catholic justices.

The jury is out on whether evangelicals are poised for greater influence in elite arenas like the Supreme Court. Sociologist D. Michael Lindsay, author of Faith in the Halls of Power, based on interviews with 360 evangelical leaders, suggests that they are. Sociologist John Schmalzbauer, in People of Faith: Religious Conviction in Journalism and Higher Education, agrees, though he, significantly, looks at both evangelicals and Catholics, assuming a significant overlap in interests between the two groups. But James Davidson Hunter sounds an emphatic no in his recent bookTo Change the World. According to Andy Crouch's review in Books & Culture,

Christianity in America, as Hunter sees it, is very much on the periphery, for all its numerical strength. Its institutions, such as they are, are weak, they tend to not be in culturally central locations, and they tend to address the "lower and peripheral areas" of culture—secondary education rather than university research, popular culture rather than high art, ministries of mercy rather than public policy. At their worst they glory in their marginal status, feeding a subculture that churns out substandard cultural products for consumption by other Christians, simultaneously the most energetic and the least effective culture-makers you could imagine.

Whether or not Hunter is correct in this bleak assessment, given the current occupant of the White House and the slow rate of turnover on the Supreme Court, evangelicals should not expect to see a member of their own ranks on the bench anytime soon. Instead, they must ask whether the likely roster of six Catholics and three Jews on the court represents their interests and worldview. Regarding Elena Kagan, the answer is, probably not. There has never been a consistently conservative female justice on the Supreme Court (O'Connor, though nominated by Ronald Reagan, turned out to be a moderate who voted to uphold Roe v. Wade), nor a socially conservative Jewish justice. There is almost nothing with which American evangelicals can identify in either Kagan's personal or professional life, and the same is likely to be true of her legal philosophy as it emerges. Fortunately for evangelicals, in replacing liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, Kagan would not markedly alter the balance of power on the court. At the same time, unfortunately for evangelicals, that balance of power will leave them in the position of highly engaged outsiders looking in.
Elesha Coffman is assistant professor of history at Waynesburg University in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania.


Justice Sotomayor compares the death penalty drug to 'being burned at the stake'


11:24 a.m. ET

Allison Shelley/Getty Images

In a dissent from Monday's Supreme Court ruling that upheld the use of a death penalty drug, Justice Sonia Sotomayor likened the drug to methods of medieval torture, including the burning of heretics at the stake and the slow torturing of people to death. The lethal injection drug that Sotomayor railed against has been used in previous botched executions, including the 2014 execution of Oklahoma death-row inmate Clayton Lockett, which took 43 minutes and saw him writhing in pain. Sotomayor argued that the drug violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment."

"Under the court's new rule, it would not matter whether the state intended to use midazolam, or instead to have petitioners drawn and quartered, slowly tortured to death, or actually burned at the stake," Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. Becca Stanek


Saturday, June 27, 2015

Pope Francis Calls For A New Global Political Authority To Save Humanity

By Michael Snyder, on June 16th, 2015

Pope Francis says that global warming is a fact and that a new global political authority is necessary in order to save humanity from utter disaster. The new encyclical that was scheduled to be released on Thursday has been leaked, and it is being reported that this new global political authority that Pope Francis envisions would be in charge of “the reduction of pollution and the development of poor countries and regions”. The funny thing is that this sounds very much in line with the new sustainable development agenda that is going to be launched at the United Nations in September. This radical new agenda is already being called “Agenda 21 on steroids” because it goes so much farther than Agenda 21 ever did. The new UN agenda does not just address the environment – it also addresses issues such as poverty, agriculture, education and gender equality. It is essentially a blueprint for governing the entire planet, and that sounds very much like what Pope Francis also wants. In fact, Pope Francis is going to give the speech that kicks off the UN conference in September where this new sustainable agenda will be launched. For some reason, this Pope has decided to make the fight against climate change the central pillar of his papacy, and he is working very hard to unite as much of humanity as possible to get behind that effort.

It is not an accident that this new encyclical is coming out now. An article from the Guardian even states that the release was intended “to have maximum public impact” prior to the Pope’s major speech at the UN in September…

The rare encyclical, called “Laudato Sii”, or “Praised Be”, has been timed to have maximum public impact ahead of the pope’s meeting with Barack Obama and his address to the US Congress and the UN general assembly in September.

It is also intended to improve the prospect of a strong new UN global agreement to cut climate emissions. By adding a moral dimension to the well-rehearsed scientific arguments, Francis hopes to raise the ambition of countries above their own self-interest to secure a strong deal in a crucial climate summit in Paris in November.

Much of the encyclical is not that surprising. But what is raising eyebrows is the Pope’s call for a new global political authority. Here is more from the Guardian

Pope Francis will this week call for changes in lifestyles and energy consumption to avert the “unprecedented destruction of the ecosystem” before the end of this century, according to a leaked draft of a papal encyclical. In a document released by an Italian magazine on Monday, the pontiff will warn that failure to act would have “grave consequences for all of us”.

Francis also called for a new global political authority tasked with “tackling … the reduction of pollution and the development of poor countries and regions”. His appeal echoed that of his predecessor, pope Benedict XVI, who in a 2009 encyclical proposed a kind of super-UN to deal with the world’s economic problems and injustices.

What is even more alarming is who will be on the stage with the Pope when this encyclical is formally released. John Schellnhuber is a German professor that has some very radical views on climate change. For instance, he believes that our planet is overpopulated by at least six billion people

Professor John Schellnhuber has been chosen as a speaker for the Vatican’s rolling out of a Papal document on climate change. He’s the professor who previously said the planet is overpopulated by at least six billion people. Now, the Vatican is giving him a platform which many expect will result in an official Church declaration in support of radical depopulation in the name of “climate science.”

And Schellnhuber also happens to believe that we need a new global political authority. If he had his way, there would be an “Earth Constitution”, a “Global Council” directly elected by the people of the planet, and a “Planetary Court” that would be above all other courts on the globe. The following is an excerpt from a very disturbing piece that he authored

Let me conclude this short contribution with a daydream about those key institutions that could bring about a sophisticated — and therefore more appropriate — version of the conventional “world government” notion. Global democracy might be organized around three core activities, namely (i) an Earth Constitution; (ii) a Global Council; and (iii) a Planetary Court. I cannot discuss these institutions in any detail here, but I would like to indicate at least that:

– the Earth Constitution would transcend the UN Charter and identify those first principles guiding humanity in its quest for freedom, dignity, security and sustainability;

– the Global Council would be an assembly of individuals elected directly by all people on Earth, where eligibility should be not constrained by geographical, religious, or cultural quotas; and

– the Planetary Court would be a transnational legal body open to appeals from everybody, especially with respect to violations of the Earth Constitution.

Does the Pope want something similar?

It is quite telling that Schellnhuber was invited to stand with the Pope as this major encyclical is released to the world. Did Schellnhuber play a role in drafting it? Has he been advising the Pope on these matters? Does the Pope share his vision of the future?

And does the Pope share Schellnhuber’s belief that our planet is currently overpopulated by six billion people? If so, how would the Pope solve that “problem”?

Without a doubt, most of those that make up the “global elite” would love to see the number of people on earth decline precipitously. This is something that I covered in my previous article entitled “46 Population Control Quotes That Show How Badly The Elite Want To Wipe Us All Out“. Of course the Pope is not going to publicly advocate for getting rid of six billion people, but clearly he is extremely concerned about the impact that all of us are having on this planet.

The funny thing is that the earth is not even warming. In fact, there has been no sign of global warming at all for the past ten years

Over the years the government and the scientific community have largely stood their ground when it comes to climate change. They’ve been adamant in their assertion that the planet is gradually warming due to human activity, and that we all need to do our part to stop climate change. However, the data provided by the scientific community doesn’t always jibe with their claims.

At least, that seems to be the case with the data coming out of NOAA’s climate monitoring stations. They have a series of 114 stations across all 50 states, which is known as the US Climate Reference Network. For the past 10 years they’ve shown no sign of global warming. In fact, there’s been a very slight cooling in temperatures across the US.

But at this point, most of the world has bought into the propaganda. In most industrialized nations, a solid majority of the population actually believes that climate change is the greatest threat that humanity currently faces.

And since just about all forms of human activity produce “carbon emissions” or affect the environment in some way, it gives control freaks that dream of global government a good excuse to grab more power. They will always say that it is about “saving humanity” or “saving the planet”, but ultimately everything that they are trying to accomplish would mean more power in their hands.

So what do you think that the Pope is up to? And do you think that it is a good thing or a bad thing?


'Pope Francis' Teachings on Wealth' - Paul Flynn Interviews Former Roman Catholic Priest Richard Bennett

Worse than Marx - The Pope Francis’ Dogma on Economics

Adam 1984

Published on May 10, 2015

“Restore to the poor what belongs to them...It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs.” Pope Francis's 'Joy of the Gospel.

Pope Francis published a document called, “Joy of the Gospel.” Among many other topics, he wrote about Economics. One of his statements concerning wealth declared that, “Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs.” In fact, Pope Francis flagrantly refutes private property and western economic principles. Applied economic principles give stability and well-being to societies. And factually Francis’ economics is worse than Marx.

Video from ChristianVoice08

Friday, June 26, 2015


Adventist leader calls for greater focus on those jailed for their faith: Adventist News Network

Europe migrant crisis: How are countries coping?

By Laurence Peter

BBC News

2 hours ago
From the section Europe

Many migrants were blocked earlier in June at the French-Italian border

Europe's migration crisis affects EU member states in different ways - so it is proving difficult to agree on common rules.
The influx of migrants into southern Europe has escalated, driven by the wars in Syria and Iraq, as well as conflict in many parts of Africa. More than 150,000 have arrived this year - far more than in the first half of last year.

The EU is struggling with shifting migration patterns, creating particular problems for individual countries. How are they coping?

Move Over Evangelicals, the Roman Catholic Church Has Risen to the Top

St. Peter's Basilica, Vatican City

St. Peter’s Basilica, Vatican City

The June 30, 2014 Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision, a decision legalizing religious discrimination, signals a new reality in American religious life: the Roman Catholic Church, long the single largest religious group in America but less influential than Protestantism, has supplanted Protestant evangelicalism as the nation’s dominant expression of faith.

American evangelical Protestant Christianity, largely shunned by the millennial generation, is rapidly fading. Even the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in America, has now experienced an unprecedented seven straight years of decline. While the traditionally conservative, evangelical Christian Right remains powerful and visible by virtue of its alliance with the Republican Party, the movement’s Christian nationalist agenda has not staunched the attendance decline in evangelical churches.

Meanwhile, amidst a decade of Protestant evangelical struggles, the Roman Catholic Church slowly, persistently and strategically has grown in stature and importance in American religious life.

The rise of the Catholic Church has not been without friction. As late as 2000, Southern Baptist’s Al Mohler proclaimed on CNN’s Larry King Live that the Roman Catholic Church and the office of the pope are false and unbiblical. The same year, the Vatican reaffirmed that non-Roman Catholic churches are not true churches.

Despite mutually animosity, however, Protestant evangelicals and Roman Catholics shared a common enemy: an increasingly sexually-lenient American culture and society. Evangelicals and the Roman Catholic Church were in virtual lockstep in their opposition to divorce, abortion, sex outside of marriage, and homosexuality–issues of which sexuality was front and center. As the 2000’s progressed, evangelicals found it hard to ignore the sex-related commonalities they shared with the Roman Catholic Church. Meanwhile, both evangelicals and the RCC looked to the Republican Party as the vehicle for defeating Democrats and forcing their sexual theology upon American culture and society.

Gradually admitting that working together would yield better results, evangelicals and the Roman Catholic Church began putting aside theological differences in order to influence sex in America. The working relationship that developed resulted in a 2009 document entitled, The Manhattan Declaration. Although the 150 authors were primarily prominent evangelicals (ministers and politicians), 50 sitting Roman Catholic bishops, archbishops and cardinals also signed the document.

The 2009 Manhattan Declaration was sexually saturated: billed as a pro-family, pro-life statement, the document declared opposition to abortion, divorce, sex apart from marriage, homosexuality and other sexually-related themes. Finally, the declaration served notice that the newly-expanded Christian Right community would fight for their sexual agenda under the monikor of “freedom of religion”–freedom for themselves, that is, against views they deemed heretical. The statement’s website even now quotes from Pope John Paul II, a conservative pope who followed Vatican teaching in not allowing Catholic individuals freedom of religion in terms of sexuality, including the use of contraceptives.

By the time of the Manhattan Declaration, the essential ingredients were in place to allow the beginning of a shifting of religious influence in America from evangelicals to the Roman Catholic Church, with opposition to contraception serving as a foundational element in the war against sex.

One significant constituency, however, was strangely missing from this alliance: Roman Catholic women. Not only were women missing from the signatories of the Manhattan Declaration–due to the fact that the Roman Catholic Church forbids women from serving as clerics–but surveys had repeatedly shown that as many as 95-98% of Roman Catholic women of child-bearing age use contraceptives. Roman Catholic women, in short (apart from nuns), soundly rejected the Vatican’s teaching on sexuality, paying little to no attention to the edicts of the male leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. In the oddest of ironies, evangelical women were more receptive of the Vatican’s sex edicts that were Roman Catholic women.

Lay opposition to Roman Catholic teachings on sexuality was publicly recognized by the Vatican in 2013. The Vatican concededthat “a vast majority” of Catholics “reject” church teaching on sex and contraception, viewing church dogma as “an encroachment on the autonomy of conscience.”
The acknowledged lack of support from Catholic laity notwithstanding, the Roman Catholic Church, now allied with conservative evangelical Protestants, remains committed to forcing the Vatican’s sexual agenda upon seemingly all of America. Five men have enabled them to do so. Their names are Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas–all conservative Roman Catholics, and all serving on the United States Supreme Court. Appointed by Republican presidents, the five men provide the Roman Catholic Church–and by extension America’s Christian Right–a majority on the nation’s highest court.

On June 30, 2014 the Supreme Court’s conservative, male, Roman Catholic majority did exactly what the Vatican wanted by legalizing religious discrimination against those who disagree with Roman Catholic sexual dogma, while moving contraception front and center in the cultural, social and political debate over sexuality. In the Hobby Lobby decision, the new and radical doctrine of corporate personhood proved to be the vehicle for establishing judicial favoritism and privilege for Roman Catholic contraceptive doctrine.

Standing up in defense of the triumph of Vatican sexuality were Southern Baptist leaders who, forsaking their own faith heritage of church state separation and religious liberty for all and twisting religious liberty to mean religious privilege and favoritism for conservative Protestants and Catholics, celebrated the advent of formal religious discrimination in America.

The Christian Right, now led by Roman Catholics and their evangelical Protestant allies, is jubilant over having circumvented the Baptist-inspired church state separation enshrined in the First Amendment, and in having cracked open the door for business owners to religiously discriminate against their employees in any number of ways.

America has now entered a new era in which Vatican sexuality trumps freedom of conscience, civil rights and religious liberties of those who disagree. Business owners, the powerful and privileged, now have a license to force their religion upon workers, and are eagerly queuing up to do so. The First Amendment is in shambles. Roman Catholic women are left out in the cold. And shamefully, many Baptists, no longer remembering their heritage, are gleeful.

Fortunately, future Supreme Court decisions could undue this travesty. And faithful Baptists can serve as light and leaven during these troubling times by calling for America to return to her founding principles of church state separation and religious liberty equally for all.


WE can not forget to mention Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, which increases the number of Roman Catholics on SCOTUS, to 6 judges, out of 9.  The other 3 judges are Jewish.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Same-Sex Marriage Bans

By AUDREY TAYLOR and MIKE LEVINE (@mlevinereports)
Jun 26, 2015, 10:17 AM

Washington, DC — In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that gay and lesbian couples across the country have a constitutional right to marry.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo

Carlos McKnight holds up a flag in support of gay marriage outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, June 26, 2015.

The 5-4 decision caps a long and often contentious battle over what many have called the “defining civil rights challenge of our time."

The decision caps a long, and often contentious, battle over what many have called the “defining civil rights challenge of our time".

While the ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, recognizes a centuries-old “understanding” of marriage as “a union between two persons of the opposite sex,” it says “the history of marriage is one of both continuity and change.”

“That institution -- even as confined to opposite-sex relations -- has evolved over time,” the Supreme Court’s ruling says.
The ruling concludes: “As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. ... Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."
At least 36 states plus the District of Columbia currently recognize gay marriage in some form. The other states, meanwhile, passed state laws banning same-sex marriage.

So two questions in particular were facingthe Supreme Court ahead of its decision: Does any part of the Fourteenth Amendment, with its guarantees of equal protection and due process, compel states to perform same-sex marriages? And -- if not -- are states required to at least recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state?

Public support for gay marriage has reached a new high, with 61 percent of respondents in an ABC News/Washington Post poll two months ago saying gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to legally marry.

The case behind today’s decision began in 2013, after the Supreme Court ruled in a separate matter that same-sex spouses must be afforded the same federal benefits as other married couples. That ruling, though, did not tackle the question of whether gay marriage is a Constitutional right.

Kevin Wolf/Human Rights Campaign/AP Photo

PHOTO: Supporters of marriage equality gather outside the Supreme Court to demonstrate support for LGBT couples, April 28, 2015 in Washington.

In the wake of the United States v. Windsor decision in 2013, Ohio real estate broker Jim Obergefell and his dying partner of 20 years were married in Maryland. But the state of Ohio, which has passed a ban on same-sex marriages, refused to recognize Obergefell as a “surviving spouse.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit backed the state of Ohio, ruling Ohio didn’t have to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

Soon enough, the matter landed before the Supreme Court, consolidated with cases fighting over similar issues in Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on April 28. As with many cases before the high court, many had expected moderate Kennedy to provide the deciding vote in Obergefell vs. Hodges.

During the arguments, Kennedy noted the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman “has been with us for millennia.”

“And it’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh well, we know better,’” he said.
In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex marriage. In the years since, as other states followed suit, the U.S. government extended certain benefits to same-sex couples.

And four years ago, the Defense Department ended its policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” allowing gay and bisexual soldiers to openly serve in the military.
“After decades of untold struggle, unyielding advocacy and unfathomable bravery, it is clear that we are in the midst of a national awakening,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch told an advocacy group this past week. “Of course, even as we celebrate remarkable advances, it is clear that we still have more work to do.”

ABC News’ Nancy Gabriner, Kate Shaw and Adam Teicholz contributed to this report



Thursday, June 25, 2015

Obama Heckled at White House LGBT Pride Event, Tells Heckler: ‘You’re in My House!’ 'Shame on You!'


Published on Jun 24, 2015

Obama: "Shame on you" to White House heckler. President Obama is heckled at a White House event honoring the LGBT community with Obama saying, "Shame on you," as he called for heckler to be removed. Heckler at White House LGBT pride reception was undocumented transgender woman Jennicet Gutiérrez with @GetEQUAL. Undocumented Transgender Woman Who Interrupted President at White House Pride Event Calls to End Deportation

President Obama was heckled today during a special LGBT Pride reception at The White House, prompting the President to ask that the person be removed.
The heckler repeatedly said the President’s name, interrupting him as he started his address to the crowd.

President Obama faced off with a heckler during a reception celebrating LGBT Pride Month at the White House, telling the person “you’re in my house.”

Obama was interrupted shortly after beginning his speech to the crowd by a person who repeatedly shouted the president’s name.

“No, no, no , no. Listen, you’re in my house,” Obama told the person.
“You’re not going to get a good response from me by interrupting me like this,” Obama said.
But the heckler would not let up, despite Obama’s pleas, boos from the crowd and chants of “Obama! Obama!” The president became visibly irritated, and the woman was escorted from the room at his request.

“Shame on you, you shouldn’t be doing this,” he said.

The protester was identified as Jennicet Gutiérrez by the Not One More Campaign, which opposes the Obama administration’s deportation policies.

Gutiérrez, an undocumented transgender woman, could be heard shouting “not one more” and “stop all deportations.”

“As a general rule, I am just fine with a few hecklers,” Obama said. “But not when I am up in the house. My attitude is if you’re eating the hors d'oeuvres, you know what I’m saying? And drinking the booze? I know that’s right.”

Turning back to his speech, Obama touted the gains made for gays and lesbians under his administration and addressed an imminent Supreme Court ruling on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

"There are a few decisions coming down in the next few days that I'm paying close attention to,” he said. “However the decision comes down on the marriage issue, one thing is undeniable: there has been an incredible shift in attitudes across the country.”

He noted there were two states where gay marriage was legal when he took office, but now there are 37.

Obama said transgender people are increasingly accepted by mainstream America, noting high-profile individuals who have come out and TV shows that "transgender individuals and families," an apparent nod to Caitlyn Jenner.

“The power of example is slowly changing people’s hearts,” Obama said.

There is no Pride as long as LGBTQ Immigrants are being imprisoned, she says.

WASHINGTON, DC — Just moments ago, Jennicet Gutiérrez interrupted the President during the White House pride celebration shouting “President Obama, release all LGBTQ immigrants from detention and stop all deportations.” As a transgender woman who is undocumented, Gutiérrez said she could not celebrate while some 75 transgender detainees were still being exposed to assault and abuse in ICE custody at this very moment.

“The White House gets to make the decision whether it keeps us safe, “explains Gutiérrez “There is no pride in how LGBTQ and transgender immigrants are treated in this country. If the President wants to celebrate with us, he should release the LGBTQ immigrants locked up in detention centers immediately.”

Gutiérrez came to the US from Mexico, seeking safety and economic opportunity. Gutiérrez has become one of many voices advocating for LGBTQ immigrants: upon arrival, she found community among other transgender immigrants, many of whom had been detained in ICE custody. Gutiérrez was a founding member of FAMILIA TQLM, established to advocate for LGBTQ immigrants often excluded in the immigration debate. The work of the organizations she represents, Familia QTLM and GetEQUAL, was echoed yesterday when 35 Congresspeople signed a letter sent to ICE demanding the agency release LGBTQ immigrants out of concern for their safety.

Update: Jennicet Gutiérrez, protester at White House LGBT event, releases statement; says President Obama has 'no concern for the way that LGBTQ detainees are suffering'

Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction

Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction

The following is the Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction given to high ranking Jesuits only. This oath is taken from the book Subterranean Rome by Carlos Didier, translated from the French, and published in New York in 1843.

"When a Jesuit of the minor rank is to be elevated to command, he is conducted into the Chapel of the Convent of the Order, where there are only three others present, the principal or Superior standing in front of the altar. On either side stands a monk, one of whom holds a banner of yellow and white, which are the Papal colors, and the other a black banner with a dagger and red cross above a skull and crossbones, with the word INRI, and below them the words IUSTUM, NECAR, REGES, IMPIOUS. The meaning of which is: It is just to exterminate or annihilate impious or heretical Kings, Governments, or Rulers. Upon the floor is a red cross at which the postulant or candidate kneels. The Superior hands him a small black crucifix, which he takes in his left hand and presses to his heart, and the Superior at the same time presents to him a dagger, which he grasps by the blade and holds the point against his heart, the Superior still holding it by the hilt, and thus addresses the postulant:"


My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among Roman Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to be a spy even among your own brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be a reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the Calvinists, to be a Calvinist; among other Protestants, generally to be a Protestant, and obtaining their confidence, to seek even to preach from their pulpits, and to denounce with all the vehemence in your nature our Holy Religion and the Pope; and even to descend so low as to become a Jew among Jews, that you might be enabled to gather together all information for the benefit of your Order as a faithful soldier of the Pope.

You have been taught to insidiously plant the seeds of jealousy and hatred between communities, provinces, states that were at peace, and incite them to deeds of blood, involving them in war with each other, and to create revolutions and civil wars in countries that were independent and prosperous, cultivating the arts and the sciences and enjoying the blessings of peace. To take sides with the combatants and to act secretly with your brother Jesuit, who might be engaged on the other side, but openly opposed to that with which you might be connected, only that the Church might be the gainer in the end, in the conditions fixed in the treaties for peace and that the end justifies the means.

You have been taught your duty as a spy, to gather all statistics, facts and information in your power from every source; to ingratiate yourself into the confidence of the family circle of Protestants and heretics of every class and character, as well as that of the merchant, the banker, the lawyer, among the schools and universities, in parliaments and legislatures, and the judiciaries and councils of state, and to be all things to all men, for the Pope's sake, whose servants we are unto death.

You have received all your instructions heretofore as a novice, a neophyte, and have served as co-adjurer, confessor and priest, but you have not yet been invested with all that is necessary to command in the Army of Loyola in the service of the Pope. You must serve the proper time as the instrument and executioner as directed by your superiors; for none can command here who has not consecrated his labors with the blood of the heretic; for "without the shedding of blood no man can be saved." Therefore, to fit yourself for your work and make your own salvation sure, you will, in addition to your former oath of obedience to your order and allegiance to the Pope, repeat after me---

The Extreme Oath of the Jesuits:

"I, _ now, in the presence of Almighty God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the blessed Michael the Archangel, the blessed St. John the Baptist, the holy Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul and all the saints and sacred hosts of heaven, and to you, my ghostly father, the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, founded by St. Ignatius Loyola in the Pontificate of Paul the Third, and continued to the present, do by the womb of the virgin, the matrix of God, and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare and swear, that his holiness the Pope is Christ's Vice-regent and is the true and only head of the Catholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; and that by virtue of the keys of binding and loosing, given to his Holiness by my Savior, Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical kings, princes, states, commonwealths and governments, all being illegal without his sacred confirmation and that they may safely be destroyed. Therefore, to the utmost of my power I shall and will defend this doctrine of his Holiness' right and custom against all usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority whatever, especially the Lutheran of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the now pretended authority and churches of England and Scotland, and branches of the same now established in Ireland and on the Continent of America and elsewhere; and all adherents in regard that they be usurped and heretical, opposing the sacred Mother Church of Rome. I do now renounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or state named Protestants or Liberals, or obedience to any of the laws, magistrates or officers.

I do further declare that the doctrine of the churches of England and Scotland, of the Calvinists, Huguenots and others of the name Protestants or Liberals to be damnable and they themselves damned who will not forsake the same.
I do further declare, that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of his Holiness' agents in any place wherever I shall be, in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, England, Ireland or America, or in any other Kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my uttermost to extirpate the heretical Protestants or Liberals' doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, regal or otherwise.

I do further promise and declare, that notwithstanding I am dispensed with, to assume my religion heretical, for the propaganda of the Mother Church's interest, to keep secret and private all her agents' counsels from time to time, as they may entrust me and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing or circumstance whatever; but to execute all that shall be proposed, given in charge or discovered unto me, by you, my ghostly father, or any of this sacred covenant.
I do further promise and declare, that I will have no opinion or will of my own, or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac cadaver), but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the Militia of the Pope and of Jesus Christ.
That I may go to any part of the world withersoever I may be sent, to the frozen regions of the North, the burning sands of the desert of Africa, or the jungles of India, to the centers of civilization of Europe, or to the wild haunts of the barbarous savages of America, without murmuring or repining, and will be submissive in all things whatsoever communicated to me.

I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants' heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus.

In confirmation of which, I hereby dedicate my life, my soul and all my corporal powers, and with this dagger which I now receive, I will subscribe my name written in my own blood, in testimony thereof; and should I prove false or weaken in my determination, may my brethren and fellow soldiers of the Militia of the Pope cut off my hands and my feet, and my throat from ear to ear, my belly opened and sulphur burned therein, with all the punishment that can be inflicted upon me on earth and my soul be tortured by demons in an eternal hell forever!
All of which, I, _, do swear by the Blessed Trinity and blessed Sacraments, which I am now to receive, to perform and on my part to keep inviolable; and do call all the heavenly and glorious host of heaven to witness the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, and witness the same further with my name written and with the point of this dagger dipped in my own blood and sealed in the face of this holy covenant."

(He receives the wafer from the Superior and writes his name with the point of his dagger dipped in his own blood taken from over his heart.)

"You will now rise to your feet and I will instruct you in the Catechism necessary to make yourself known to any member of the Society of Jesus belonging to this rank.

In the first place, you, as a Brother Jesuit, will with another mutually make the ordinary sign of the cross as any ordinary Roman Catholic would; then one cross his wrists, the palms of his hands open, and the other in answer crosses his feet, one above the other; the first points with forefinger of the right hand to the center of the palm of the left, the other with the forefinger of the left hand points to the center of the palm of the right; the first then with his right hand makes a circle around his head, touching it; the other then with the forefinger of his left hand touches the left side of his body just below his heart; the first then with his right hand draws it across the throat of the other, and the latter then with a dagger down the stomach and abdomen of the first. The first then says Iustum; and the other answers Necar; the first Reges. The other answers Impious." (The meaning of which has already been explained.) "The first will then present a small piece of paper folded in a peculiar manner, four times, which the other will cut longitudinally and on opening the name Jesu will be found written upon the head and arms of a cross three times. You will then give and receive with him the following questions and answers:

Question From whither do you come? Answer  The Holy faith.

Q. Whom do you serve?

A. The Holy Father at Rome, the Pope, and the Roman Catholic Church Universal throughout the world.

Q. Who commands you?

A. The Successor of St. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Society of Jesus or the Soldiers of Jesus Christ.

Q. Who received you? A. A venerable man in white hair.

Q. How?

A. With a naked dagger, I kneeling upon the cross beneath the banners of the Pope and of our sacred order.

Q. Did you take an oath?

A. I did, to destroy heretics and their governments and rulers, and to spare neither age, sex nor condition. To be as a corpse without any opinion or will of my own, but to implicitly obey my Superiors in all things without hesitation of murmuring.

Q. Will you do that? A. I will.

Q. How do you travel? A. In the bark of Peter the fisherman.

Q. Whither do you travel? A. To the four quarters of the globe. Q. For what purpose?

A. To obey the orders of my general and Superiors and execute the will of the Pope and faithfully fulfill the conditions of my oaths.

Q. Go ye, then, into all the world and take possession of all lands in the name of the Pope. He who will not accept him as the Vicar of Jesus and his Vice-regent on earth, let him be accursed and exterminated."


Supreme Court rules 6-3 to save Obamacare subsidies


Published: June 25, 2015 10:17 a.m. ET



The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday to save subsidies for as many as 8 million people under the Affordable Care Act. In the case of King v. Burwell, justices determined that the subsidies should be available in states that don't have their own exchanges. The court determined that the broader context of the ACA allows subsidies to all those under the Obamacare program. Justices voted 6-3 in favor of upholding the subsidies with Chief Justice John Roberts and swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the majority.

Read the full story: Full text of Supreme Court’s ruling on King vs. Burwell

Monday, June 22, 2015

Obama hosts annual iftar dinner for Muslims at White House

Obama hosts annual iftar dinner for Muslims at White House - Politics - Waco Tribune


Pope Francis begs forgiveness for medieval persecution of Waldensians

Pope Francis begs forgiveness for medieval persecution of Waldensians

Last Updated: Monday, June 22, 2015 - 23:55

Pope Francis begs forgiveness for medieval persecution of Waldensians

Rome: Pope Francis on Monday asked forgiveness for the Catholic Church's "un-Christian and even inhuman attitudes and behaviour" towards the evangelical Waldensian church in Italy during the Middle Ages.

On behalf of the Catholic Church I ask forgiveness for the un-Christian, and even inhuman, attitudes and behaviour we have had against you," he said during the first-ever papal visit to the Waldensian temple in Turin city, an important business and cultural centre in northern Italy.

"In the name of Lord Jesus Christ, forgive us," he added.
The small Waldensian church's founder and leader, a 12th-century French merchant Peter Waldo, was excommunicated and his followers branded as heretics during the Middle Ages.
Waldo, a clothier from Lyon, gave up his wealth to spread a Gospel of simplicity and poverty, strongly condemning of Papal excesses and Catholic dogmas.

There are around 45,000 Waldensians worldwide today, most of whom are in Italy, Argentina and Uruguay.


First Published: Monday, June 22, 2015 - 21:25


IT’S REAL: The War on Cash Enters Final Phase

JUNE 21, 2015 BY 21WIRE

21st Century Wire says…

Forcing everyone to spend only by electronic means from an account held at a (government-linked) bank gives technocrats far better tools of social, political and economic control over individuals and communities. This is the war against cash.

“Governments, at least modern western governments, have always hated cash transactions. Cash is private, and cash is hard to tax. So politicians trump up phony reasons like drug trafficking and money laundering to win support for bad laws like the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, which makes even small cash transactions potentially reportable to the Feds.”“Today cash is under attack like never before. Ultra low interest rates are the norm for commercial bank accounts. In Europe, as the ECB ventures into negative nominal interest rates, certain banks threaten to charge customers for depositing cash. Meanwhile, certain European bonds now pay negative yields, effectively turning them into insurance products rather than financial assets. And some economists now call for the outright abolition of cash, which shows just how far some will go in their crazed belief that economic prosperity can be commanded by forcing us to spend rather than save.”

The War on Cash is real, and it will only intensify from here on out. Dr. Joe Salerno delivers a powerful and comprehensive breakdown of how it’s happening


Fighting the Beast - Bob Trefz

John Wycliffe

Published on Oct 20, 2014