Thursday, November 18, 2010

It’s been forevers…

Hello from forevers.

Monday, October 05, 2009

This guy is supposed to make our schools safe?

His own book:

WASHINGTON, D.C. ( - He is known to the United States as the "Safe Schools Czar:" a special advisor in the White House responsible for helping formulate policies designed to keep US public schools "safe and drug free."

But US pro-family leaders know Kevin Jennings as something more: a highly influential homosexual activist, who admitted in a book on his childhood that a deep-seated hatred of God and religious believers began when he fully embraced a homosexual lifestyle and bid God farewell with the words, "Screw you, buddy."

Jennings's official position within the Obama Administration is the Assistant Deputy Secretary, who directs the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools under US Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Duncan is a veteran of Chicago's public school system, who proposed and approved controversial plans for a special public high school designed for homosexuals.

Jennings brings to the Education Department his experience as the cofounder and executive director of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), where in keeping with that organization's mission, he concentrated his energies on developing and advocating classroom curricula for public schools that would re-educate school-children to embrace homosexuality.

As a key part of their strategy to advance their agenda and change the culture, GLSEN leaders say they specifically target children as young as kindergarten in order to begin a "saturation process," that forms the imagination with positive impressions of the homosexual lifestyle, and so pre-cognitively influences the way a child perceives the world and makes judgments on right and wrong. Bill Donohue, a civil rights leader and President of the Catholic League, stated that Kevin Jennings "has a history of bashing Christians" which appears deeply rooted in his decision at 17 years-old that he was a homosexual and God was to blame for his feelings of guilt and shame.

Donohue draws the conclusion from Jennings's own book called "Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son: A Memoir," published in 2006 by Beacon Press, which deals with his upbringing by his father, the Baptist minister, and his mother, the non-believer and anti-Catholic. Jennings writes that he came to this "new attitude toward God" following a masturbatory experience that was prompted by fantasies of two "hot guys" taking off their shirts in his home.

"Before, I was the one who was failing God; now I decided He was the one who had failed me," wrote Jennings. "I decided I had done nothing wrong: He had, by promising to 'set you free' and never delivering on His promise. What had He done for me, other than make me feel shame and guilt? Squat. Screw you, buddy - I don't need you around anymore, I decided."

Jennings concludes by saying that for years afterwards he "reacted violently to anyone who professed any kind of religion" and it would be decades later before he opened a Bible again.

But Jennings still retains contempt for observant believers on what he calls "the religious right." In fact, Jennings told a gathering of fellow activists in 2000 that conservative-minded Christians were "hard-core bigots" who should "drop dead." But the GLSEN founder had the group laughing by telling them he really wanted to just say to them: "f*** you!"

Jennings was also on the board of advisers for a 2001 PBS documentary-style film that slammed the Boy Scouts of America for their policy of excluding homosexuals from their membership and was promoted at "gay pride" festivals to mobilize homosexuals against the Scouts.

Further concern has arisen about Jennings concerning his history as a former drug abuser, and as a school counselor back in 1988, who failed to report a sexually active homosexual relationship between an adult and a boy, then a sophomore high school student. Instead Jennings counseled the boy named "Brewster" on maintaining the relationship with the adult, which began in a bus stop bathroom.

During his tenure as GLSEN's executive director, Jennings also promoted homosexual conferences that featured GLSEN presenters hosting extremely graphic and detailed workshops to teenagers about all the mechanics and variations of homosexual intercourse.

Call me crazy here, but some how I have trouble believing this guy is at all interested in keeping our schools safe. Based on what I read here, I have a crazy idea that he more will be about just “killing god” by trying to unteach Christianity  and replace it with his own agenda. Personally I’d rather have my (future) kids learn the teachings of the Catholic Church, which can be summed up as “love everyone, especially people like homosexuals who through no fault of their own are up against a difficult life style.  However at the same time do understand the concepts of mortal sin and in particular morality and that there is a clear right and wrong”.

This guy? I’d love to see him out.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Well I’m surprised….

I guess not all protestants think Catholics are non-Christians destine for hell.

United methodists host 'Theology of the Body: An Ecumenical Introduction to John Paul II's Teaching.'

WASHINGTON (Christian Newswire) - United Methodist renewal groups Lifewatch and Transforming Congregations will host an educational seminar on May 21 in New Bern, NC entitled Paul J. Griffiths, Warren Professor of Catholic Theology at Duke Divinity School, will deliver the keynote address.

He will explore the late Pope's key concepts and discuss such questions as: What is the real dignity of the created human person? Why were we created male and female, and what does that teach us about God? What is the deepest meaning of human sexuality, and how does spousal love reflect divine love?

"United Methodists and other Mainline believers have been arguing over abortion and homosexuality for decades," said Rev. Karen Booth, Executive Director of Transforming Congregations, "but we haven't done a very good job of explaining why the arguments even matter. John Paul II's Theology of the Body has a profound message for all Christians about God's created intent for men and women. It gives us the tools we need to reexamine and challenge our post-modern cultural assumptions about human life and sex."

Delivered from 1979-1984 in a series of Wednesday audiences, Theology of the Body was the first major teaching of John Paul's pontificate. Papal biographer George Weigel described it as a "kind of theological time bomb set to go off with dramatic consequences, sometime in the third millennium of the Church."

The Lifewatch/Transforming Congregations seminar will be held at the New Bern Riverfront Hilton (formerly Sheraton) Hotel and Marina, 100 Middle Street, New Bern NC. Visit the Lifewatch web site at or contact Rev. Paul Stallsworth at 252-726-2175 for more information.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Sky Angel IPTV

Just found out about this not long ago, ordered it and just finished hooking it up. For those not in the know, it's faith based IPTV. I got them because they have CatholicTV, which from what I've seen of it is pretty good. I'm watching it right now, honestly the quality is pretty darn good, very much equivalent to SD analog or digital cable. For $25/mo, can't complain... And I'm only paying that much b/c I wanted NFL network which is on their "family package", you can get it for as little as $15/mo for faith only.

Monday, September 14, 2009

Some politics free faith:

So I’ve been very political on my blog, and a little religious here and there. I think this time I’m just going to share something that’s more faith oriented than anything else. This is regarding a scenario I hardly understand to be perfectly honest. What is that exactly? How my very Christian friends, could be among those saying “I never give money to “hobo’s”, they’re just going to spend it on booze!”

This mystifies me because Christ does teach, quite clearly that Christ can be found in every homeless person looking for shelter, or a little money for food. Basically in a very real sense, that homeless person is Christ, how? Because what you do, or don’t do for him you effectively do or do or do not do for Christ. Of course this isn’t to say the homeless person is Christ in the physical real sense, after all it is quite possible that that particular person might well go spend that money on vice, something I’m sure Christ would not do.

But just the same, it’s quite powerful to consider that what we do or don’t do for that homeless person, equates to how we are treating Christ directly. I write all this, because I happened to be watching some CatholicTV video clips and Father Jeff Bayhi reminded me of this very important reality when he discusses the same issue. I’d certainly invite anyone to watch it and ponder. Oh, and for those of you whom might be wondering about everything I wrote above, about what we do or don’t do for the homeless person. Below the video I’ll quote (and link to) Matthew 25 31- 46, a passage which speaks directly to this.


Biblical Reference:


14 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne,


and all the nations 15 will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.


He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.


Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.


For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,


naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'


Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?


When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?


When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'


And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'


17 Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.


For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,


a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'


18 Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?'


He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.'


And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 & Healthcare

In the last few months I found in my bing (& google) searches a nice little website called It’s a terrific website which combines a fairly large “catholic encyclopedia” which serves as a terrific reference for us all when we have questions about certain procedural aspects of our faith, as well as provides a host of great opinion pieces ranging from a review of Michael Bay’s latest disaster Transformers 2 to this little gem regarding a Catholic approach to considering the issue of Health Care reform.

What is rather unique is that this opinion piece, rather than offering us a conclusion and then trying to convince us why it’s right, rather serves as a frame work for beginning the process of forming a good well guided opinion on this very important topic. Anyone who knows me and particularly those who follow my blog (at all, if anyone still does lol I haven’t written about me much lately directly) knows where I stand on this issue. But for the sake of attempting to preserve the author’s original intent I’ll go ahead and post it below (linked as always) with out interjecting any of my personal thoughts about the subject save one, I pretty much agree with everything Deacon Keith Fournier has to say.

Our identity as Catholics grounds us in a vision for a new and true humanism rooted in the recognition of the dignity of every human person.

CHESAPEAKE, Va. (Catholic Online) - Catholic Christians never fit in with the “the religious right.” I maintain it is because some of the otherwise conservative or “neo-conservative” political positions which came along with the package did not comport with Catholic Social thought. Too often there was a failure to focus on the foundation of the entire Catholic Social vision, the dignity of every human life, and then operate in accordance with a hierarchy of values. However, what is becoming clear is that what is called “liberal” or “progressive” in contemporary political parlance is repugnant. It embraces the culture of death in its acceptance of intrinsic evils such as abortion and euthanasia while claiming to be compassionate!

Our identity as Catholics grounds us in a vision for a new and true humanism rooted in the recognition of the dignity of every human person. It also marries us to defending real marriage, as between a man and a woman, open to love and life, and the family built upon that lifelong relationship. These are non-negotiables to Catholics, at least if they understand the teaching of the Church. Our positions on life and marriage are not simply based upon our “religious” convictions or because we embrace what the Magisterium (teaching office) of our Church teaches, but because they are objectively true, revealed in the Natural Law, and promote the common good.

Catholics proclaim a vision of human freedom at odds with much of what is posing as freedom today. It affirms our obligation to choose responsibly, with reference to what is right and what is true. As to that important word “true”, Catholics reject moral relativism. We insist upon the existence of an objective morality which should guide all human behavior. We also stand in a social justice tradition which is not “left” or “right”, one which is pro-life, pro-family, pro-freedom, pro-poor and pro-peace. That is why we will never be captured by any political party. Catholic Social Doctrine is prophetic. In this age of political confusion and cultural collapse, Catholics must put the Catholic back in Catholic Action.

The dignity of every human person must be the lens through which we consider every public policy issue. Without the right to life there are no other rights. Human rights are goods of the person given to us by the Creator. When there is no person there can be no rights to be received or exercised. Our insistence upon this is not based solely upon our belief in Revelation, though it is certainly found in both Sacred Scripture and the Christian Tradition. Rather, this truth is written on every human heart and knowable by reason. This Natural Law claim is essential if we hope to overcome the false assignment of our position to our “religious conviction.”

This tactic has allowed the opponents of the fundamental right to life to minimize our influence by relegating our claim to the sphere of “private religious belief”. This effort to censor truth escalates as the contemporary secularist agenda advances. The truth concerning the dignity of every human person is not true because it is Catholic; it is Catholic because it is true. It must never be compromised. It is never a “private” conviction. Children are intentionally killed in every procured abortion.

Marriage as a lifelong union between one man and one woman, open to life, constituted for the good of the spouses and the good of children, is not our idea. It is also revealed by the Natural Law and has been recognized as such throughout our history. Marriage and family must be the lens through which we review governance because the proper application of the principle of subsidiarity demands nothing less. That is why so many Catholics (this writer among them) prefer small government solutions to public needs. However, we must be careful.

Some “conservatives” present the notion that any governance is some kind of concession, detracting from freedom. The fact is that God governs. So do all of us in our families. The question we must ask is where the governing occurs and whether it is truly “good”. We must articulate our convictions concerning the goods of marriage and its proper ends in a language which communicates to an age deluded by ideologies of self- centeredness. We are by nature and grace made for the other. Only in the giving away of ourselves to the other will we ever find the human fulfillment and flourishing which we all long for. The stability of marriage based families is integral to a just social order and furthers the real common good.

In the words of the late Servant of God John Paul, Freedom must be set free. We suffer from the aftermath of a counterfeit notion of freedom as a perceived “right” to do whatever one pleases. That is not freedom, it is license. True freedom brings with it an obligation to choose in accordance with what is right and what is true. ...

Only in choosing the good will men or women - or the societies which they form - ever flourish.

This assertion concerning freedom is fatal to the hedonism and materialism running rampant in the West. Our efforts to set freedom free will require a wrestling match in the field of ideas for the definition of freedom. It will further require our capturing the hearts and minds of the culture by reasserting that not only is there such a thing as morality but that it liberates us to flourish as human persons and become a truly good society.

Finally, solidarity is not an option; we are our brother’s (and sister’s) keeper. We must work for a public policy, economic policy and governing philosophy which rejects both atomist individualism and statist approaches in efforts to care for the poor. The Catholic vision of the human person, the family and society is true, we were created to love and to live our lives with and for one another. The Catholic teaching that we have an obligation to the poor lies at the core of true social and economic justice. While we can, and we will, disagree on how to best implement this obligation of social solidarity, we must begin by acknowledging that it IS an obligation.

The debate over health care reform in the U.S.A. is an opportunity for us to sort through how much of our public policy vision is rooted in our understanding what it means to be a Catholic first. There is plenty of room for disagreement on how to structure such a reform among good Catholics. This is evident in the running debate between people like Dr. Deal Hudson and others, including some Bishops, who have a different view. They all agree on the absolute unacceptability of public funding of abortion or euthanasia, passive or active. They agree on the obligation to extend care to the poor in our midst. They disagree on the application of the principle of subsidiarity. This is a good debate between good Catholics.

This dialogue, and the healthy debate it has brought about, is a good example of what it means to put the Catholic back in Catholic Action. It is focused on attempting to apply the principles of Catholic Social Thought to a very real social need and not to simply parrot the charged political rhetoric which has surrounded the public conversation surrounding health care reform.

Monday, August 17, 2009

Another great health care reform news item

Editor's note: Wendell Potter has served since May 2009 as senior fellow on health care at the Center for Media and Democracy, a nonprofit organization that says it seeks to expose "corporate spin and government propaganda." After a 20-year career as a corporate public relations executive, Potter left his job last year as head of communications for one of the nation's largest health insurers, CIGNA Corporation.

(CNN) -- Having grown up in one of the most conservative and Republican places in the country -- East Tennessee -- I understand why many of the people who are showing up at town hall meetings this month are reacting, sometimes violently, when members of Congress try to explain the need for an expanded government role in our health care system.

I also have a lot of conservative friends, including one former co-worker who was laid off by CIGNA several years ago but who nonetheless worries about a "government takeover" of health care.

The most vocal folks at the town hall meetings seem to share the same ideology as my kinfolks in East Tennessee and my former CIGNA buddy: the less government involvement in our lives, the better.

That point couldn't have been made clearer than by the man standing in line to get free care at Remote Area Medical's recent health care "expedition" at the Wise County, Virginia, fairgrounds, who told a reporter he was dead set against President Obama's reform proposal.

Even though he didn't have health insurance, and could see the desperation in the faces of thousands of others all around him who were in similar straits, he was more worried about the possibility of having to pay more taxes than he was eager to make sure he and his neighbors wouldn't have to wait in line to get care provided by volunteer doctors in animal stalls.

Friday morning my former CIGNA buddy sent me an e-mail challenging something he said his wife heard me say in a radio report about my press conference in the Capitol on Wednesday with Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-New York, chairwoman of the House Rules Committee.

"She heard you say that these protestors are funded by the insurance companies. Frankly, nothing would surprise me, but certainly not each and every person," he wrote. "If there was a meeting near me, I certainly would tell my local representative how I feel about this entire subject (and it wouldn't be pretty), and I certainly am not funded by anyone. So I am ultimately wondering what proof there is that seemingly ordinary Americans are finally protesting what is going in Washington and there are all of these suggestions of a greater conspiracy."

If the radio report had carried more of my remarks, he might have a better understanding of how the health insurance and its army of PR people are influencing his opinions and actions without his even knowing it.

Until I quit my job last year, I was one of the leaders of that army. I had a very successful career and was my company's voice to the media and the public for several years.

It was my job to "promote and defend" the company's reputation and to try to persuade reporters to write positive stories about the industry's ideas on reform. During the last couple of years of my career, however, I became increasingly worried that the high-deductible plans insurers were beginning to push Americans into would force more and more of us into bankruptcy.

The higher I rose in the company, the more I learned about the tactics insurers use to dump policyholders when they get sick, in order to increase profits and to reward their Wall Street investors. I could not in good conscience continue serving as an industry mouthpiece. And I did not want to be part of yet another industry effort to kill meaningful reform.

I explained during the press conference with Rep. Slaughter how the industry funnels millions of its policyholders' premiums to big public relations firms that provide talking points to conservative talk show hosts, business groups and politicians. I also described how the PR firms set up front groups, again using your premium dollars and mine, to scare people away from reform.

What I'm trying to do as I write and speak out against the insurance industry I was a part of for nearly two decades is to inform Americans that when they hear isolated stories of long waiting times to see doctors in Canada and allegations that care in other systems is rationed by "government bureaucrats," someone associated with the insurance industry wrote the original script.

The industry has been engaging in these kinds of tactics for many years, going back to its successful behind-the-scenes campaign to kill the Clinton reform plan.

A story in Friday's New York Times about the origin of the absurdly false rumor that President Obama's health care proposal would create government-sponsored "death panels" bears out what I have been saying.

The story notes that the rumor emanated "from many of the same pundits and conservative media outlets that were central in defeating Bill Clinton's health care proposal 16 years ago, including the editorial board of The Washington Times, the American Spectator magazine and Betsy McCaughey, whose 1994 health care critique made her a star of the conservative movement (and ultimately, the lieutenant governor of New York)."

The big PR firms that work for the industry have close connections with those media outlets and stars in the conservative movement. One of their PR firms, which created and staffed a front group in the late '90s to kill the proposed "Patients' Bill of Rights," launched a PR and advertising campaign in conservative media outlets to drum up opposition to the bill.

The message: President Clinton "owed a debt to the liberal base of the Democrat Party and would try to pay back that debt by advancing the type of big government agenda on health care that he failed to get in 1994."

The industry goes to great lengths to keep its involvement in these campaigns hidden from public view. I know from having served on numerous trade group committees and industry-funded front groups, however, that industry leaders are always full partners in developing strategies to derail any reform that might interfere with insurers' ability to increase profits.

So the next time you hear someone warning against a "government takeover" of our health care system, or that the creation of a public health insurance option would send us down the "slippery slope toward socialism," know that someone like I used to be wrote those terms, knowing it might turn many of the very people who would benefit most from meaningful reform into unwitting spokespeople for the industry.