Saturday, May 31, 2008

A Tough Love Memo for USCCB

A Tough Love Memo for USCCB
cinops be gone Feast of the Visitation Saturday, May 31, 2008

Preface: Pope Benedict XVI has stated that secularism and relativism are two deadly challenges the Church faces. This year we can make some progress.

Yesterday, I read in the National Catholic Register, June 1, 2008 edition a news article titled, “Prayers for Kennedy, Washington - Capitol Hill colleagues praised the fighting spirit of longtime Sen. Edward Kennedy, D- Mass., after learning he was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor.
On the Senate floor May 20, Kennedy’s colleagues stopped deliberations to offer words of encouragement for the 76-year old senator, who was hospitalized in Boston May 17 after he suffered a seizure at his Cap Cod home.
Three days later, Kennedy’s physicians announced that tests showed the seizure was caused by a malignant tumor in the upper left portion of his brain. He was released from the hospital May 21. A course of treatment has not been announced. Kennedy, a Catholic, has worked with Catholic bishops (USCCB) and Catholic Charities officials on a variety of issues, such as immigration, the federal minimum wage and health coverage.
He has also been criticized by Catholic leaders for his support for legalized abortion and embryonic stem-cell research.”

Firstly, I hope the above officials can talk to him about his eternal soul and do whatever is necessary for his conversion back to the Catholic faith. Kennedy’s mother was a saintly person. This is an opportune moment for some serious prayer and religious talk with this Senator. Secondly, I think the above officials are aware that Senator Edward Kennedy is anathema to the pro-life, pro-family and pro-marriage movement in the U.S.A.

Senator Edward Kennedy was silent on the matter of getting the marriage amendment unto the ballot in Massachusetts for this November’s presidential election. Why? As stated by Pelosi it would hurt the Democratic candidate running for the presidency. CINOP Kennedy reminds me of the despicable Catholic-in-name-only politicians in Canada who got away with murder by promoting and passing the same-sex marriage laws in Canada. In this matter, the Catholic Church in Canada is a basket case. Ordinary regular practicing Catholics are trying to avoid this basket case scenario for the U.S.A. Church.

This same-sex marriage law in Canada has caused many serious problems.
There is a duty and obligation by the USCCB that this betrayal by so-called Catholic politicians in Canada will not happen in the U.S.A. Also, the message for this presidential and congressional election this November is: THERE IS NO CATHOLIC REASON TO VOTE FOR ANY CATHOLIC-NAME-ONLY POLITICIAN.
(In my letter dated Thursday May 22, 2008 titled Catholic Excuses – 4 – 22,
one of my readers made the following comment, “The Catholic Church is promoting this liberalism and bi-culturalism which are helping to destroy the American economy.”) At this point, I beg to differ.

Without any hedging, let’s all be on the same wave length. THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT ON THE CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA AND POSSIBLY ARIZONA BALLOT IS A NATIONAL PRESIDENTIAL ISSUE. The assault on marriage by judicial activists must stop. They crossed the line. Absolutely everything must and will be done to pass these ballot measures in November.

Respectfully yours,
George H. Kubeck, P.O. Box 579, Stanton, Ca. 90680 - 9998

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Weep for Mexico

Weep for Mexico
Your access to the blog is: cinops be gone Thursday, May 29, 2008

I am overwhelmed and deeply saddened when I read what is happening in Mexico. Try to imagine this happening in the United States. Does anybody care?
In today’s news – Culiacan, Mexico – Mexico’s federal police need more-powerful weapons to battle heavily armed drug cartels, a senior police official said Wednesday. General Rodolfo Cruz said several federal officers killed Tuesday in a shootout in Culiacan were outgunned by members of the Sinaloa cartel.
There is a news story of yesterday. Seven federal police officers were killed in a shootout at a suspected drug house in Culiacan, home to Sinaloa drug cartel.
I believe a statue should be erected in that town in memory of these seven brave heroes who died for law and order. What the Mexican people are dealing with is fundamentally a community health and drug problem. There are dogs with rabies roaming the streets of Mexico. The citizens of Mexico deserve better.
Another headline dated Sat. May 24th, 2008, the Associated Press in the Orange County Register, “Organized crime deaths up 47 percent, Mexico says.” Attorney General Eduardo Medina told Radio Formula that 1,378 people have been killed so far this year, compared with 940 in the same period last year…. 4,152 people have been killed since President Felipe Calderon took office in December 2006 and declared a war on drug cartels that ran entire regions of Mexico. About 450 of those were police, soldiers, prosecutors or investigators. {Now these 450 are heroes. Let their deaths not be in vain.}
Now there is another news item from Tuesday, May 13th. Mexico City – A police officer and four other people with suspected ties to a drug cartel have been arrested in the assassination of Mexico’s federal police chief, authorities said Monday. Edgar Millan Gomez was gunned down inside his Mexico City home last week. Who cares?
On the one hand, we have California’s Catholic-in-name-only Latino politicians who fundamentally are opportunists and stooges for the Culture of Death a term coined by Pope John Paul II. If you can’t trust them in loyalty to their Catholic faith, how can you trust them in anything else? Yesterday, these CINOPS helped to pass AB 2747 - Assisted Suicide Bill in the Assembly. They are all with the party that promotes the five absolutes evils of abortion on demand, assisted-suicide, euthanasia, same-sex marriage and embryonic stem cell research.
And that is the party that is going to oppose Sarah’s Law and the Constitutional Marriage Amendment that marriage is between a man and a woman on the ballot in November. Sadly, many of their uninformed and duped constituents of the CINOPS will vote against these two measures.
The least these politicians can do is to remove the Catholic label when they are running for office. They have betrayed the faith of their Latino fathers and their family values and beliefs. Have they the guts to change their religious identity?

On the other hand, we have many patriotic Mexican American associations throughout the country that can pass resolutions and proclamations in support of Mexican president Felipe Calderon to bring law and order to the Mexican nation. They may need to set aside monies to train freedom fighters to help straighten out the very serious corruption facing the nation of Mexico. God bless Mexico!

George H. Kubeck, P.O. Box 579, Stanton, Calif. 90680-9998 - Duplicate and or translate into Spanish and Vietnamese. Please e-mail to all Catholic churches in Orange and L.A. County, California and the Nation.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Pat Buchanan on Calif. Same-Sex Marriage # 2 of 2

Pat Buchanan on Calif. Same-Sex Marriage Laws – 2 of 2
cinops be gone Wednesday, May 28, 2008
“With a third of all children born out of wedlock – 50 percent of all Hispanic kids, 70 percent of black kids – and half of all marriages ending in divorce, the social indicators have recorded explosions – in crime, violence, drug and alcohol abuse, dropout rates, gang membership, and jail and prison population.
The correlation between prison inmates and broken homes, or homes never created, is absolute. What armies of social scientists with six-figure salaries today tell us, 12-year-olds knew 50 years ago?

Setting aside the risibility of the court’s conduct, consider what it says about us as democratic republic.
We are supposed to be a self-governing people. “Here, sir, the people rule.” Elected representatives write our laws.

Yet, no Congress or state legislature ever voted to declare homosexual unions a marriage. The idea has everything been rejected. Wherever it has been on the ballot, same-sex marriage has been voted down. In the 13 states where it was on the ballot in 2004, it was defeated by 58 to 85 percent – the last figure rolled up in Mississippi, where black Christian pastors told their flocks to go out and vote down the abomination.

Californians have consistently expressed their opposition and voted against recognizing the idea of homosexual marriages and granting the benefits of married couples to same-sex unions. What is bigotry at the Times is common sense to most Americans.

Homosexual marriage is not in the California Constitution; else someone would have discovered it in 160 years. Where, then, did the State Supreme Court find this was a right?

Four of seven justices unearthed this right by consulting what Orwell called their “smelly little orthodoxies.” They then decided to overturn the expressed will of the voters, declare their opinion and order the state of California to begin to begin recognizing homosexual unions as marriages. And they did it because they know the Times types will hail them as the newest Earl Warrens.

Not long ago, a governor of California would have laughed at the court and told the justices to go surfing, and ordered state officials not to issue the marriage licenses. The voters would have put the names of the four justices on the ballot in November and thrown them off the court, as they did Chief Justice Rose Bird, a generation ago.

We used to have executives and legislators like that.
Thomas Jefferson came into office and declared the Alien and Sedition Acts null and void, released all editors from jail, and refused to prosecute any more or to enforce the law. Andrew Jackson said of the great chief justice: “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.”

In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom handed out marriage licenses to thousands of homosexuals. Today, conservative mayors in California, if there are any, might engage in similar disobedience against this latest judicial usurpation of the legislative power that belongs to elected representatives and the people. What’s sauce for the goose, etc?”

In closing, have your city council pass a resolution for the marriage amendment!
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish and Vietnamese.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Pat Buchanan on Calif. Same-Sex Law - 1 of 2

Pat Buchanan on Calif. Same-Sex Marriage Law- 1 of 2
cinops be gone Tuesday, May 27, 2008
“A Victory for Equality and Justice,” blared the headline above the editorial. “Momentous,” “historic,” “a major victory for civil rights,” “a scrupulously fair ruling based on law, precedents and common sense.”
This was the ecstatic reaction of the New York Times to the California Supreme Court’s declaration that homosexuals have a right to marry and have their unions recognized as marriages.

Now there may be hugging around the newsroom at the Times, where one senior writer said, a few years back, three-fourth of the folks who make up the front page are gay. But this is just another streetlight on America’s darkening path to perdition as a society and republic.
To declare that homosexuals can marry is patently absurd. The very definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman, first and foremost, for the procreation of children.

To say two men who live together and engage in sex can be married renders the idea and ideal of marriage meaningless. The court may declare it, but it cannot redefine an institution that nature and nature’s God have already defined. As they say in Texas, you can put lipstick and earrings on a pig, and call her Peggy Sue, but it’s still a pig.
“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,” Christ taught. Through the Old Testament and into the epistles of St. Paul, homosexual sodomy is an abomination leading to personal destruction and damnation, one of the five sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. How, then, can four judges declare to be integral to the sacrament of marriage.

Well, we don’t believe all that rot, comes the reply.
Fine, but Christianity is the cornerstone of Western Civilization. Since the fall of Rome to our time, nations have believed and acted on the belief that marriage and traditional families are the cinderblocks on which a society must be built. When these cinderblocks crumble, the society’s collapses. The truth has been born out in our own time.”(To be continued tomorrow)

Thanks to Bro Dave – Please take action:
Governor Schwarzenegger will listen to your opinion on the “hot issue” of the California Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage.
Call his office today (916-445-2841) and listen to the automated voice prompts.
You will be asked if you want to voice your opinion on a “current hot issue,” press 5.
Then it asks if you want to voice your opinion on the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, press 1.
Then it asks you if you support the ruling, press l.
If you oppose the ruling press 2. (Please press 2).
I called early this morning and got through. However, at noon the line was busy.
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish and Vietnamese.

Monday, May 26, 2008

Dennis Prager on Same-Sex Marriage - 3 of 3

Dennis Prager on Same-Sex Marriage Laws- 3 of 3 cinops be gone Memorial Day- Monday, May 26, 2008
(Continued) “Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man’s finger – if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.

Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.

Traditional Jews and Christians – i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture – will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it – a man and a woman.

Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.
Indeed- and this the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists – the terms “male” and “female,” “man” and “woman” will gradually lose their significance.

They already are. On the intellectual and cultural left, “male” and “female” are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father – the sexes are interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the sexes, and even they can be switched at will.

And what will happen after divorce – which presumably will occur at the same rates as heterosexual divorce? A boy raised by two lesbian mothers who divorce and remarry will then have four mothers and no father.

We have entered something beyond Huxley’s “Brave New World.” All thanks to the hubris of four individuals. But such hubris never goes unanswered. Our children and their children will pay the price.

Anticipating reactions to this column – as to all defenses of man-woman marriage – that it or its author are “homophobic,” i.e., bigoted and unworthy of respectful rejoinder, it is important to reaffirm that nothing written here is implicitly, let alone explicitly, anti-gay. I take it as axiomatic, that a gay man or woman is created in God’s image and as precious as any other human being. And I readily acknowledge that it is unfair when an adult is not allowed to marry the love of his or her choice. But social policy cannot be made solely on the basis of eradicating all of life’s unfairness. Thus, we must love the gay person – and his and or her partner as well. But we must never change the definition of marriage. The price to society and succeeding generations will be too great.
That is why Californians must amend their state Constitution.”

Prager is a practicing Jewish American orthodox believer. Tomorrow, we will have Pat Buchanan’s article posted 5/23/08 on http://ww.humanevents.com
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish or Vietnamese.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Dennis Prager on Same-Sex Marriage Laws- 2 of 3

Dennis Prager on Same-Sex Marriage Laws – 2 of 3
Cinops be Gone Sunday, May 25th, 2009

We continue with Praeger’s classic column on California’s same-sex marriage law.
“Since the secular age began, the notion that one should look to religion – or to any past wisdom – for one’s values has died. Thus, the modern attempts to undo the Judeo-Christian value system as the basis of America’s values, and to disparage the Founders as essentially morally flawed individuals (They allowed slavery, didn’t they?). The modern secular liberal knows that he is not only morally superior to conservatives; he is morally superior to virtually everyone who ever lived before him.

Which leads to third reason such a sea change could be so cavalierly imposed by four individuals – the modern supplanting of wisdom with compassion as the supreme guide in forming society’s values and laws. Just as for religious fundamentalists, “the Bible says” ends discussion, for liberal fundamentalists, “compassion says” ends discussion.

If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing with fire. And it will eventually burn future generations in ways we can only begin to imagine.
Outside the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying prince charming – to do so would be declared “heterosexist,” morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. School boys will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways only. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman.

The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity – especially females – can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction – until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is “heterosexism,” a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society.” (To be continued tomorrow)

With regard to exclusive homosexuality, I believe that scientific evidence and natural law persuade that homosexuality is a choice with some exceptions.
What is most disturbing is a message from Family Research Council, 5-23-08; Restore Man-Woman Marriage in California. reply@frc.org
“Even though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) had vetoed two legislative attempts to create same-sex “marriage,” he has now capitulated and said he will not support a measure likely to be on the November ballot that will make preserve man-woman marriage. Earlier this week, Schwarzenegger even joked that this abusive ruling will bring a tourist boom to California. He told reporters, “You know, I’m wishing everyone good luck with their marriages and I hope that California’s economy is booming because everyone is going to come here and get married.” Arnold has become a most destructive Catholic-in-name-only politician.
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish and Vietnamese.

Saturday, May 24, 2008

Dennis Prager on Same-Sex Marriage - 1 of 3

Dennis Prager on Same-Sex Marriage Law – 1 of 3
cinops begone Saturday, May 24, 2008
Americans seem mesmerized by the word “change.” And, by golly, they sure got it last week from the California Supreme Court. It is difficult to imagine a single social change greater than redefining marriage from opposite sex to include members of the same sex.

Nothing imaginable – leftward or rightward – would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history. Not another Prohibition, not government taking over all health care, not changing all public education to private schools, not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Nothing.

Unless California amend the California Constitution or Congress amends the U.S. Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison.

And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of those who support this decision – let alone the four compassionate justices- acknowledge this. The mantra of the supporters of this sea change in society is that it’s no big deal. Hey, it doesn’t affect any heterosexuals’ marriage, so what’s the problem.

This lack of acknowledgment – or even awareness – of how-society changing is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made. To the four compassionate ones – and their millions of compassionate supporters – allowing same-sex marriage is nothing more than what courts did to end legal bans on interracial marriage. The justices and their supporters know not what they did. They think that all they did was extend a “right” that had been unfairly denied to gays.

That is one reason the argument that this decision is the same as courts undoing legal bans on marriages between races is false. No major religion – not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism – ever banned interracial marriage. Some religions have banned marriage with members of other religions.
But since these religions allowed anyone of any race to convert, i.e., become a member of that religion, the race or ethnicity of individuals never mattered with regard to marriage. American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other hubris and their notion of compassion on their side. (Continued this Sunday and Monday) www.townhall.com/DennisPrager

The question is, “How can we get the content of what Dennis Prager has written into the minds and hearts of voters in Orange County?” Dennis Prager is on KLAC 870 Talk Radio @ 9 A.M. to 12 Noon from Monday to Friday.

George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish or Vietnamese.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Catholic Excuses - 4 - 22

Catholic Excuses – 4 – 22
cinops be gone Thursday, May 22, 2008
Why do Catholics support the Democratic Party in spite of its strong commitment to the anti-Christian agenda of secularism and moral liberalism?

Answers from David Carlin’s book, Can a Catholic Be a Democrat? - 4-22 from Chapter 5 – Catholic Excuses p. 112-114

37. Don’t trouble me with the facts. Not all pulpits are silent on the topic of homosexuality. Some priests use an occasional homily to remind the faithful that, as Christians, they have a special duty to be kind to gays and lesbians.

38. Mental games played by Catholic Democrats who know in their heart of hearts that their political and religious affiliations are incompatible, but would like to pretend they’re not.
39. I’m personally opposed but … “I have a duty to represent all my constituents, not just the Catholic one.”

40. “I’ve taken a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the U.S. in Roe vs. Wade the US Supreme Court has declared that abortion is a constitutionally protected right. Therefore, it’s my duty to support and defend the right to abortion.” What this last sentence means for them in practice is this: “It’s my solemn duty under the U.S. Constitution to vote against bans on partial-birth abortion, to vote in favor of taxpayer funding of abortion, and to do all I can to block presidential nominations to the Supreme Court of justices who might turn out to be anti-Roe. {That is exactly what has happened. CINOPS Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Jose Serrano, Marty Meehan, Joe Biden, Tom Harkin, Dick Durbin, Ed Kennedy, John Kerry, Pat Leahy, Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray, voted against Catholic and Natural Law Issues. GHK).}

41. What would our pro-choice Catholic politicians have thought of an alibi that ran as follows? “I have a duty to represent all my constituents, not just Negroes. I’m duty-bound to represent my racist constituents too, and they favor a regime of white supremacy. Personally, I’m opposed to racism, but ….”
42. There is a powerful passion of political ambition. It’s often powerful enough to render logical politicians illogical and intellectually honest politicians dishonest.

43. What would our pro-choice Catholic politicians have thought of an alibi that ran as follows? “I have a duty to represent all of my constituents, not just Negroes? I’m duty-bound to represent my racist constituents too, and they favor a regime of white supremacy. Personally, I’m opposed to racism, but …”

The bottom line: there is a historic bias for the Democratic Party by the Church. You become an enabler and try to protect one of your own. If the above politicians were Republicans they would have been put in their place decades ago. However, there are happy changes in the wind and Pope Benedict persuades.
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish and Vietnamese.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

The Whys for Pope Benedict's Visit - 2 of 2

The Whys for Pope Benedict’s Visit - 2 of 2
cinops be gone Wed. May 21, 2008
Ray Kerrison, retired as a NY Post columnist’s classic Commentary concludes:
He (Pope) spoke to victims. He promised never, never again. Maybe you have to be a Catholic to grasp the enormity of the clerical betrayal by the wayward few, to understand the suffering of thousands of good priests caught in the backlash, to salve the wounds inflicted on the faithful. Then, at the end, forgive.

Benedict, had he chosen, could have taken refuge in numerous surveys (The Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor, Penn State University, etc.) that show sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is no greater than in other religious institutions and substantially less than in the public-school system.

But Benedict sought no alibi. He took the hit, head-on. Behind that modest exterior beats a strong, righteous heart. The pope’s visit was a demanding tour de force for an 81-year-old man who has suffered two slight strokes and has a heart condition. His program had him on the run from early morn to nightfall.

For a reluctant pope (“Lord, don’t do this to me,” he said upon his election) he carried if off with energy and verve. If you ask me, he was having a pretty good time.

Some things he did not do. He did not publicly censure his bishops, whose inertia led to his ordeal. He declined to discuss the issue of homosexuality in the church, telling reporters on his plane, “I do not wish to talk at this moment about homosexuality, but about pedophilia, which is another thing.”

He did not address the boiling controversy of high-pro-life Catholic politicians who support and promote abortion in defiance of church teaching, then present themselves for Holy Communion. He did not discuss Iraq, Darfur, Iran. Well, you can’t get everything in life, even from the pope.

One thing struck me. In an election year, when America’s good name and virtue seem to be routinely trashed every day, Pope Benedict, a head of state with more than a billion subjects all over the planet, was positively effusive in his affection and admiration for this great land.

“I come with great respect for this vast pluralistic society,” he said. He spoke of the Founding Fathers, the framers of the Constitution, the American passion for freedom, of its great “intellectual and moral resolve.”

He said, “Americans have always been a people of hope. This is a land of great faith. Your people are remarkable for their religious fervor. They have confidence in God.”
He marveled at America’s vitality, creativity and generosity, all swelling to a great crescendo with a heartfelt cry, “God Bless America.”
Grand slam? Better than that. Benedict hit the ball out of the park.
Dare I suggest: Benedict for president!
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish and Vietnamese.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Why Pope Benedict XVI came to America? 1 of 2

Why Pope Benedict XVI came to America? 1 of 2
cinops be gone Tuesday, May 20, 2008

This is a classic Commentary Column by Ray Kerrison retired as a NY Post columnist in 1998 after 22 years writing about presidential campaigns, championship fights, moon shots and horse racing, among other topics. This appeared in the Post on April 21, 2008, and from Catholic Eye, April 30/08, # 267

When the papal cavalcade rolled out of Yankee Stadium last night, one could only stand back and cry: Grand Slam!

Pope Benedict XVI came here a distant, enigmatic figure, stern and bookish. He left as everyone’s brother, gentle in nature, kind in spirit, benevolent and wise, everything a true shepherd should be.
Somehow, it all came together in Babe Ruth’s Cathedral in the Bronx, a spectacular liturgical send-off with 58,000 cheering worshippers.

The pope’s six-day pilgrimage was a triumph from beginning to end. From the moment he stepped off his plane, he embraced America with an enthusiasm that stirred the heart – and then the crowds, hundred of thousands in the streets, and millions on TV, returned the embrace. A mutual love-in.

The Methodist president, George W. Bush, set the stage and tone for this historic encounter between pope and people by extending to Benedict a White House greeting so gracious in word and ceremony no one will forget it.

But the sheer magic, nothing could compare with his reception in the Park East Synagogue in Manhattan. Rabbi Arthur Schneier received Benedict warmly, looked at him with undisguised affection and said, “The sun is shining. The heavens are rejoicing on this day.”

Unimaginable! I almost choked. Here was a Jewish rabbi whose roots come out of the Holocaust, invoking heavenly blessings on a German pope. How tender. How utterly fraternal. And how spendidly true. When men of good will meet, anything is possible.

Some say Benedict’s odyssey lacked the champagne sparkle of the late Pope John Paul II’s journeys. No wonder. No pope before Benedict ever had to visit Ground Zero with all its painful sorrows. And no modern pope ever had an assignment so humiliating in its origins.

Benedict came to America specifically to apologize for the priestly sex-abuse scandal, unprecedented in the history of the American church. The infamy of it, the embarrassment of it, was crushing.

His bishops should have done it years ago. They defaulted, so it was left to Benedict to come here and face the music. He went before 300 million Americans and, from the depth of his soul spoke of his shame and pain. He did it not once, twice or three times, but four times. (part 2 tomorrow)
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish and Vietnamese.

Monday, May 19, 2008

Wise Words about Life - Proverbs 4:4-27

Wise Words about Life- Proverbs 4:4-27
cinops be gone Monday, May 19, 2008
The following is the entry for the 19th of May, The Best of the Bible – 365 Must-Read Bible Passages, 1996, Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton, Illinois

My father told me, “Take my words to heart. Follow my instructions and you will live. Learn to be wise, and develop good judgment. Don’t forget or turn away from my words. Don’t turn you back on wisdom, for she will protect you. Love her, and she will guard you. Getting wisdom is the most important thing you can do! And whatever you do, get good judgment. If you prize wisdom, she will exalt you. Embrace her and she will honor you. She will place a lovely wreath on your head; she will present you with a beautiful crown.

My child, listen to me and do as I say, and you will have a long, good life. I will teach you wisdom’s ways and lead you in straight paths. If you live a life guided by wisdom, you won’t limp or stumble as you run. Carry out my instructions; don’t forsake them. Guard them, for they will lead you to a fulfilled life.
Do not do as the wicked do or follow the path evildoers. Avoid their haunts. Turn away and go somewhere else, for evil people cannot sleep until they have done their evil deed for the day. They cannot rest unless they have caused someone to stumble. They eat wickedness and drink violence.

The way of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, which shines ever brighter until the full light of day. But the way of the wicked is like complete darkness. Those who follow it have no idea what they are stumbling over.

Pay attention, my child, to what I say. Listen carefully. Don’t lose sight of my words. Let them penetrate deep within your heart, for they bring life and radiant health to anyone who discovers their meaning.

Above all else, guard your heart, for it affects everything you do.

Avoid all perverse talk; stay far from corrupt speech.

Look straight ahead, and fix you eyes on what lies before you. Mark out a straight path for your feet; stick to the path and stay safe. Don’t get sidetracked; keep your feet from following evil.”

What priority does finding wisdom have in your life?

If you want wisdom, you must decide to go after it. It takes resolve – a determination not to abandon the search once you begin no matter how difficult the road may become. This is not a once-in-a-lifetime step but a daily process of choosing between two paths – the wicked (vv. 14-17, 19) and the just (v. 18). Nothing is more important or more valuable. Choose your path wisely today.
*************************************************************************************
George H. Kubeck

Sunday, May 18, 2008

The Cinop - Obama - Same-Sex Marriage

The Cinop – Obama – Same-Sex Marriage
cinops be gone Sunday, May 18, 2008
America will never accept same-sex marriage. If it does, it will not be America anymore. It has been quite a year for this blog - cinops be gone. This blog is dedicated to the exposure and removal of Catholic-in-name-only politicians and all of their evil addictions. I am sorry for bombarding you almost daily with articles. Since Monday, May 14, 2007, there are been over 365 letters.

What we feared has come to pass? Same-sex marriage was passed by judicial fiat of one man who is on the Supreme Court of California in a 4-3 decision. In Canada it was enacted by Catholic-in-name only politicians called Liberals in July of 2006 via the legislature. The Cinop is a dangerous person.

Barbarians like the San Francisco Values of various kinds have always been at the gates of our Nation. Too often we have voted them in or failed to vote intelligently. It is not only the matter of the five absolute evils that the Cinop (Catholic-in-only-politician) directly and indirectly support. (Abortion, assisted-suicide, euthanasia, same-sex marriage and embryonic stem cell research) There is the distribution of condoms (fornication) in public schools; the culture of death undermines the family with adultery on television and movies and pornography.

Did you notice during this past week, who came out publicly and viciously in defense of Obama on this matter of negotiating with terrorists and the issue of appeasement? They are Cinops Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Joe Biden.
Also, during the Pennsylvania’s primary election, we had so-called pro-life and pro-gun Catholic Cinop Senator Bill Casey supporting Obama. Thankfully, 70% of the Catholic voters in Pennsylvania did not vote for Obama. They did not listen to the misguided Senator Casey. All of this is good sign for November. Catholic voters throughout the country have become more sophisticated and knowledgeable. They are almost to a point where they will realize that there is no Catholic reason to vote for any Catholic-in-name-only politician in their area and that includes the two politicians in Orange County.

This past week we had Obama in Missouri. Cinop Senator Claire McCaskill is endorsing him. She won the Senate seat by endorsing the evil of embryonic stem-cell research. She is an albatross around the culture of life in Missouri.

The most pathetic CINOP is Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He supports the court’s decision even though his personal view is that “marriage is between a man and woman.” Does not this remind you of I am for the public abortion laws even though I am personally opposed to abortion? I like the Governor personally but I understand that his close personal association with the Kennedy Clan has corrupted his Catholic religious beliefs even from his Austrian heritage as a person. This is tough love.

It is definitely providential that in this presidential election cycle the culture of death forces are divided into two equal camps. This will help pro-life candidates this November. Particularly against Catholic-in-name-only politicians and obtain 55 to 60% of the Catholic vote needed for their defeat.
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and translate into Spanish and Vietnamese.

Saturday, May 17, 2008

The Sanctity of Marriage and the Family

The Sanctity of Marriage and the Family
cinops be gone Saturday, May 17, 2008

In today’s Liturgy of the Hours, we have a most appropriate reading for this weekend. The above title is taken from the Second Reading and from the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the modern world of the Second Vatican Council. (Gaudium et Spes, n. 48)

“Husband and wife by the covenant of marriage, are no longer two, but one flesh. By their intimate union of persons and of actions they give mutual help and service to each other, experience the meaning of their unity, and gain an ever deeper understanding of it day by day.
This intimate union in the mutual self-giving of two persons, as well as the good of the children, demands full fidelity from both, and an indissoluble unity between them.
Christ the Lord has abundantly blessed this richly complex love, which springs from the divine source of love and is founded on the model of his union with the Church.
In earlier times God met his people in a covenant of love and fidelity. So now the Savior of mankind, the bridegroom of the Church, meets Christian husbands and wives in the sacrament of matrimony. Further, he remains with them in order that, as he love the Church and gave himself up for her, so husband and wife may, in mutual self-giving, love each other with perpetual fidelity.
True married love is caught up in God’s love; it is guided and enriched by the redeeming power of Christ and saving action of the Church, in order that the partners may be effectively led to God, and receive help and strength in the sublime responsibility of parenthood.
Christian partners are therefore strengthened, as it were consecrated, by a special sacrament for the duties and the dignity of their state. By the power of this sacrament they fulfill their obligations to each other and to their family, and are filled with the spirit of Christ. This spirit pervades their whole lives with faith, hope and love. Thus they promote their own perfection and each other’s sanctification, and so contribute together the greater glory of God.
Hence, with parents leading the way by example and family prayer, their children – indeed, all within the family circle – will find it easier to make progress in natural virtues, in salvation and holiness. Husband and wife, raised to the dignity and responsibility of parenthood, will be zealous in fulfilling their task as educators, especially in the sphere of religious education, a task that is primarily their own.
Children, as active members of the family, contribute in their own way to the holiness of their parents. With the love of grateful hearts, with loving respect and trust, they will return the generosity of their parents, and will stand by them as true sons and daughters when their parents meet with hardship and the loneliness of old age.”

In closing, all of us are shocked and angered with the California Supreme Court decision that approved same-sex marriage. It is so inhuman and unnatural to compare same-sex arrangements with the marriage of a man and a woman. Listen to the words of Pope John Paul II. “Do Not Be Afraid.” We turn a negative into a positive. We pass in November a New California Constitutional Amendment Ballot Initiative to codify marriage between a man and a woman. It will be a great victory. It will be your victory. If you can; follow the daily briefings on this blog.
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish or Vietnamese.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

The Church Militant

The Church Militant
cinops be gone Thursday, May 15, 2008

The following are poignant excerpts on the last section of the book by Philip F. Lawler, “The Faithful Departed” The Collapse of Boston’s Catholic Culture, Encounter Books, 2008. It begins with the last page to the front page of that chapter. Within the Church there is religious correctness. It is time to set it aside for the whole truth. Hope springs eternal. Tough love will bring a revival.
Catholic leaders will be required to make personal sacrifices and unpopular decisions – and to ask their followers to do the same. That is the mark of Christian leadership: the willingness to imitate the Sacrifice of Christ…. 257

“I am counting on you.” (This includes the laity.) In 2007, during a visit a visit to the Roman academy that trains clerics for service in the Vatican diplomatic corps, the Pope made the same point about how a readiness for personal sacrifice defines the nature of leadership in the Church…. 257
Faithful Christians should “recognize themselves as a creative minority.”… “The future of a society depends upon creative minorities.” 257

When Church agencies begin to serve earthly aims, they become truly cancerous… Loving the Church means denouncing the corruption… The same corruption that produced the sex-abuse scandal, the greatest crisis in the history of American Catholicism, remains widespread in the Church today. Indeed the corruption is more firmly entrenched now than it was in 2002 because the hierarchy has refused to acknowledge the most serious aspect of the scandal: the treason of the bishops… 255

American bishops of recent vintage have shown little interest in the use of their legitimate teaching authority. When they teach, loyal Catholics obey. But when do not teach – when they remain silent in the face of grave abuses – how should a loyal Catholic layman react? Our faith teaches respect for the office, not the individual. If the bishop neglects the duties of his office, then deference toward him is misplaced. A loyal Catholic should protect the bishop’s office by demanding that the bishop fulfills it…. Eventually, as the Holy Spirit guides the Church, a worthy successor will arrive to lead the reform… 256

If the Catholic Church is nothing more than a human institution, if will not survive beyond the next generation or two. But then, if the Catholic Church is only a human institution, it does not deserve to survive. If, however, the Church is an institution founded by God – if it is the living Body of Christ – then she will certainly survive and flourish in spite of all earthly handicaps … 255
Up and down the streets that surround the church, (This is the Boston area.)

Catholic families live immune to the influence of their parish. On any given Sunday, less than one-fifth of the Church adults will attend Mass…. Even in matters on which the Church has a clear public teaching – matters such as birth control, abortion, and divorce – Catholics behave no differently from the American public as a whole. For the great majority of even those who could be termed practicing Catholics, the Church can command one hour of grudging, passive attendance in church each week – if that – nothing more… 254
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish and Vietnamese.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

The Cinop's American Deadly Influence - Pelosi

The CINOP’s American Deadly Influence - Pelosi
cinops be gone Wednesday, May 14, 2008

The other day, I finished reading the last three chapter of Philip F. Lawler,’s book “The Faithful Departed.” Chapter 17, The Wrong Explanations, Chapter 18, The Dash-2 Bishops, and Chapter 19, The Church Militant. Homosexuality has devastated the Church but I am looking at those Catholic leaders in the political arena who did not have the guts and backbone to be authentic Catholics. The whole book will shock the daylights out of you.

My comments will be on the Catholic-sub-culture politicians in the Boston and the New England area.

1.) CINOP Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to Massachusetts last year and threatened and bought off with “gay” campaign money so-called Catholic politicians. The marriage amendment must not be on the ballot in Nov. 08. Why? It would hurt the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008. The measure did not get on the ballot.

2.) Pelosi and Senator Kerry went to the “Washington Post” newspaper and told them that they are going to attend Mass at Yankee Stadium of Pope Benedict XVI and will receive Holy Communion. This is a sacrilegious political stunt and scandal. They were in defiance of the Cannon Law 915 and 916. They have no shame or character. These are the most dangerous qualities in any politician.

3.) Read the following story you will realize the evil influences of Speaker Pelosi and the mind-set that brought same-sex marriage to Canada in June 2006.

Boston, May 6, 2008 (CWNews.com/LifeSiteNews.com) – The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts has criticized state leaders of the Knights of Columbus for refusing to allow a vote at their annual convention on a measure that would required suspension of the membership of politicians who support abortion or same-sex marriage.

A resolution proposed at the state of K of C convention would have directed the state deputy “to summarily suspend those members of the Knight of Columbus who are public officials, present or former, or candidates for public office, who through their votes, campaign literature, web sites or public statements openly support abortion or homosexual marriage.” Joseph Craven, who introduced the resolution, cited the rules of the K of C, which require suspension or expulsion for members “giving scandal, scandalous conduct or practice unbecoming a member of this Order.”

Two-thirds of K of C members who serve in the Massachusetts legislature recently voted in favor or a proposal to expand “buffer zones” outside clinics, while more than three-quarters voted against a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Supreme Advocate Paul Devin, who was attending the Massachusetts convention, ruled the measure “unconstitutional.” The Catholic Action League called the ruling “a disgraceful example of the disconnect between rhetoric and policy when it comes to the Knights of Columbus and Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life and the integrity of marriage.”
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish or Vietnamese.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Liberal Theology - Personal Comments

Liberation Theology – Personal Comments
cinops be gone Tuesday, May 13, 2008
The new liberation theology repudiates almost all that the old liberationist stood for. This new liberation theology is the subject of this book. Beyond Liberation Theology, by Humberto Belli & Ronald Nash, Baker Book House, 1992.

The search for a definition: According to George Weigel, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., liberation theology claims “that it is meet and proper for the Roman Catholic church to combat the ‘sin’ of suffering in poor nations by encouraging the establishment of socialist regimes, even through revolution.” Weigel, a Roman Catholic, can be excused for focusing on his own church despite liberation theology’s many adherents among Latin American Protestants … and Protestant denominations and institutions in North America are active in spreading the liberation gospel. 16

Liberation theology is a movement among Latin American Catholics and Protestants that has sought radical changes in the political and economic institutions of that region along what appear to be a socialist or even Marxist lines. As Weigel explains, “They have taught that revolutionary violence is of less moral concern than the “first violence” of “sinful social structures.” And they have claimed that politics takes priority over doctrine in identifying the truth or falseness of religious teaching.” 17

Liberation theology has appeared in several different packages…. One can find ethnic packages that have produced black and Hispanic versions of liberation theology. Radical liberationists insist that the Church should be at the center of revolutionary activity… Richard John Neuhaus refers to the radicals as “hard utopians” by which he means hard-core Marxists… The radical liberationists insist that the church should be at the center of revolutionary activity. 17-18
Christian opponents of liberation thought have never disputed the Christian’s obligation to care for the poor and to seek means to alleviate poverty and oppression. But they have always disputed the agenda by which liberationists insisted on fulfilling this duty. Among the most extreme representatives of old liberationism, so-called revolutionary Christians of Nicaragua under the Sandinistas, support for the Sandinista revolution was not simply permissible, it was a duty. For them, it was impossible to be a Christian in Nicaragua without supporting the Sandinistas’ revolution. 19

I recall bad memories. How all of these Catholic-in-name-only politicians in Boston and New England area were directly and indirectly supporting liberation theology Sandinistas? The Sandinistas are communists. The CINOPS were duped and they have never acknowledged it. Pope John Paul II strongly condemned the errors of liberation theology. The idea of working with Marxists or communist to bring about social change is idiocy and a disaster for any country

President Reagan was trying to save democracy in Central America. The CINOP Democrats wanted to use the war conflict as a cheap election issue. At that time the Catholic Church was also misguided by these irresponsible CINOPS. They were shocked when the Sandinistas were defeated in a free election.

The CINOPS also ignore and provide cover for the most disgusting- ruthless-cancerous-communist tyrant alive in the Western Hemisphere ex-Catholic Fidel Castro. Like the communists in Myanmar there is nothing lower.
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and translate in Spanish and Vietnamese.

Monday, May 12, 2008

Christian Personalism - Catholic Identity

Christian Personalism – Catholic Identity
cinops be gone Monday, May 12, 2008
The following are significant excerpts from a book by Carl Anderson. Carl is a lay disciple of Pope John Paul II, and also the Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus in America. The book’s title is, “A Civilization of Love, What Every Catholic Can Do to Transform the World” HarperOne, 2008.

“I think, therefore I am,” And with this simple sentence, Descartes changed the history of philosophy and human knowledge. 37

Today, in a similar way, we confront a problem like the one that challenged Descartes. We are challenged by the assertion of moral relativism – that there are no longer any universal principles that can guide the world with so many diverse cultures, religions, and philosophies. And we have moved beyond Descartes’ simple trust in the power of the intellect. Yet, Pope John Paul II has proposed a principle that is both universal and certain in the hope of overcoming this global challenge, a principle that, if we rely on Descartes’ formula, provides us with an even more profound insight: “I love, there for I am.” Or perhaps even more profoundly: “I have first been loved, therefore I am.” 37

As we unfortunately know, however, love does not characterize all human relationships. Its opposite is hatred. In Christian terms, we may think of love’s opposite as sin. Although God has granted us the free will to accept or reject his love, it is part of the nature of the universe that rejection of love will lead to pain. We are free to reject love, but we don’t have the power to reject it and be happy. We see this in ordinary life, when individuals, for whatever reasons, refuse human companionship and grow more hostile and embittered. 37
The same is true in spiritual life. Christianity stresses that it is we who reject God, not God who rejects us. Many have been puzzled by Christ’s statement about the “blasphemy against the {Holy} Spirit” that “will not be forgiven.” John Paul II points out that this “blasphemy” consists precisely in rejecting God’s love… Each of us, as a child of God, does not have absolute significance and worth, The problem, as Solovyov goes on to say, is not that we overvalue ourselves but that we undervalue everyone else… Love carries with it the responsibility to respect the freedom and dignity of each individual. As the Swiss theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar wrote, “Only a philosophy of freedom and love can account for our existence.”… 38

At the center of Christian personalism is a moral view that human dignity that is inalienable because it has been established by God. While his perspective has many roots, its greatest contemporary foundation in Catholic thought is the Second Vatican Council, especially Gaudium et Spes, with its statement that it is “only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear.” This proclamation anchors the dignity and freedom of the human person squarely within the even of the Incarnation: God has placed his final seal upon our dignity and worth by becoming one of us. 39

Throughout his tenure as pope, John Paul II developed the Christian personalism of the Second Vatican Council II through numerous encyclicals, which are addressed by the pope to all the bishops of the church, beginning with his first, Redemptor Homini. These encyclicals constitute a substantial body of magisterial teaching on the nature and dignity of the person that is indispensable to fostering Catholic identity. 39
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish or Vietnamese.

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Political Correctness & the Homophobe- 2 of 2 -V.I.

Political Correctness and the Homophobe # 2 of 2 - V.I.
cinops be gone Sunday, May 11, 2008
Scott Lively: Is Hating ‘Haters” Hateful? Can You Oppose Homosexuality without Being a ‘Homophobe’? www.defendthefamily.com “Behold! Scott is a true pro-life hero and icon.”

Hate has a pretty bad name in the world today. No one wants to be called a hater, especially Christians, which is probably why we get accused of it all the time by our opponents, Homosexuals are especially fond of calling people haters. They even invented the word homophobia, which means hate and fear of homosexuals, envisaged as a mental illness (a phobia is an anxiety disorder).

I hate being called a homophobe. It has an ugly connotation. It’s especially unpleasant because, as a Christian, I’m supposed to have a reputation of loving people, not hating them. So I’ve worked really hard over the years to try to get homosexuals to stop calling me a homophobe.

I’ve pointed out the difference between hating people and hating their behavior (loving the sinner but hating the sin). They hated that. Then I tried ‘walking my talk’ by taking an ex-“gay” man who was dying of AIDS into my family. My wife and I and our children loved and cared for him during the last year of his life. They hated that even more.

Then I began asking for guidance from homosexual themselves: “Tell me, where is the line between homophobia and acceptable opposition to homosexuality?” I asked. “What if I just agree with the Bible that homosexuality is a sin no worse than any other sex out of marriage.”

“No, that’s homophobic,” they replied. “Suppose I talk only about proven medical hazards of gay sex and try to discourage people from hurting themselves?” No, you can’t do that,” they said. “How about if I say that homosexuals have the option to change if they choose?” “Ridiculous” they answered. “Maybe I could just be completely positive, say nothing about homosexuality, and focus only on promoting the natural family and traditional marriage?” “That’s really hateful,” they replied.

After awhile, I realized that the only way I could get them to stop calling me a homophobe was to start agreeing with them about everything. But here’s my dilemma: I honestly believe the Bible which says that homosexuality is wrong and harmful and that all sex belongs within marriage. I’ve also read the professional studies and know that “gay” sex hurts people because it goes against the design of their bodies.

And I’m friends with a number of former homosexuals who are now married and living heterosexual lives. Do I have to give up my religion? Ignore scientific facts? Betray my friends? Is that the only way to avoid being called a hater and a homophobe?

There’s no escape. A homophobe is anyone who, for any reason, disapproves of homosexuality in any way, shape, manner, form or degree. This leaves me with just two choices: agree that everything about homosexuality is natural, normal, healthy, moral and worthy to be celebrated OR be labeled as a mentally ill, hate-filled bigot.

Am I wrong? Is there any way to openly disapprove of homosexuality without being a homophobe? “Gay” leaders, please set me straight on this.
Because if I’m right, that means the “gay agenda” is to stop everyone from following the Bible regarding sexual matters. It is, after all, their stated goal to “stamp out homophobia.” No more religious liberty.

It’s also to suppress scientific research that has reached conclusions they don’t like especially if it helps people to change their homosexuality orientation back to a heterosexual one (ask doctors and scientists at narth.com what they have had to endure. If it discourages homosexuality, even by implication, it’s homophobic and can’t be used.

There’s a queer reasoning behind all this. Homosexuals call me names like bigot and homophobe, condemn my religion, mock my rational conclusions about social issues, impugn my motives, display intense hostility toward my actions, and curse my very existence, all under the justification that I’m a “hater.” But if I’m a “hater” for civilly opposing what they do, why aren’t they haters for uncivilly opposing what I do? Such a double standard, in the context of a public debate on “civil rights,” is not just hypocritical, it is surreal…. George H. Kubeck, Please study the above and e-mail to everyone.

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Political Correctness & the Homophobe # 1 of 2 V.I.

Political Correctness and the Homophobe # 1 of 2 - V.I.
Your access to the blog is: cinops be gone Saturday, May 10, 2008

Preface: Homophobe is a word coined by the gays. I learned sadly the other day that in the gay agenda for America in order not to be called a homophobe you will have to deny your Christian values on sex matters. This is wrong. This is diabolical. This is evil. If you are opposed to same-sex marriage, you are a homophobe. This will not stand.

“Silenced by Tolerance” Josh McDowell with Bob Hosteller, Focus on the Family, Mar. 08
Tolerance traditionally means simply to recognize and respect other’s beliefs, practices and so on, without necessarily agreeing or sympathizing.
But today’s definition is vastly different. Based on the assumption that all truth is relative ( a view held by 66 percent of the American public, according to the Barna Group), this new tolerance means to consider every individual’s beliefs, values, lifestyle and truth claims as equally valid. So not only does everyone have an equal rights to his beliefs, but all beliefs are also equal right to his beliefs, but all beliefs are also equal, demanding praise and endorsement of that person beliefs, values and lifestyle.
(From the above, if a person is a pervert or pedophile we must be tolerant of his practices. There are no absolutes. Everything is relative This will be our nation’s suicide.)

The new tolerance gets complicated.
1.) In a belief system where the sole virtue is tolerance, the cardinal sin is, of course, is intolerance.
2.) Since tolerance is based on the assumption that all truth is relative, it becomes not only permissible but also imperative to be intolerant of those who do not agree that truth is relative.
3.) To the relativist, then, it is not inconsistent to be intolerant of Christ followers who insist that absolute moral standards do exist, which is considered inherently “intolerant.” That is why many institutions can endorse all sorts of views and behavior while simultaneously condemning or silencing biblical Christianity…

The other day, I received an e-mail from American Family Association. It is an AFA ActionAlert Donald E. Wildmon, ctri@sbcglobal.net

McDonald’s CEO: Company will put full resources behind gay agenda:
McDonald has signed on to a nationwide effort to promote “gay” and “lesbian” business ventures.
According to McDonald’s CEO Jim Skinner, McDonald’s CEO Jim Skinner, McDonald will aggressively promote the homosexual agenda. In remarks on McDonald’s Web site concerning the company becoming a member of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC), Skinner wrote: Being a socially responsible organization is a fundamental part of who we are. We have an obligation to use our size and resources to make a difference in the world… and we do. (No corporation can promote this.)
(I talked to a manager of a McDonald’s. She read the page and gave a brilliant politically correct answer. “I am Catholic and human.” It is obvious that the company is training their employees on how to respond. What need to be done?)

“We boycott gently and love the company into bankruptcy. Pull your money out of the corporation.” Please read tomorrow’s V.I. article by respected Scott Lively: “Can You Oppose Homosexuality without Being a “Homophobe.” “Scott Is A True Pro-Life Family Hero and Icon.”
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and translate into Spanish and Vietnamese.

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Barack Obama # 2 of 2

Barack Obama # 2 of 2
cinops be gone Thursday, May 8, 2008

Thank you Mark Steyn, syndicated columnist for the Orange County Register, Orange County, California for your article in the Sunday paper, May 4, 2008.

“Funny how tinny and generic the sonorous uplift rings when it’s suddenly juxtaposed against something real and messy and human: As he chugged on, the senator couldn’t find his groove and couldn’t prevent himself from returning to pick at the same old bone: “If what somebody says contradicts what you believe so fundamentally, and then he questions whether or not you believe it in front of the National Press Club, then that’s enough. That’s – that’s a show of disrespect to me.” And we can’t have that, can we?

In a shrewd analysis of Obama’s peculiarly petty objections to the Rev. Wright, Scott Johnson of the Powerline Web site remarked on the senator’s “adolescent grandiosity.” There’s always been a whiff of that. When he tells his doting fans, “We are the change we’ve been waiting for,” he means, of course, he is the change we’ve been waiting for. “Do you personally feel that the reverend betrayed your husband?” asked Meredith Vieira on “The Today Show.”
“You know what I think, Meredith?” replied Michelle Obama. “We’ve got to move forward. You know, this conversation doesn’t help my kids.”
Hang on. “My” kids? You’re supposed to say “It’s about the future of all our children,” not “It’s about the future of my children” – whose parents happen to have a base salary of half a million buck a year. But even this bungled cliché nicely captures the campaign’s self-absorption: Talking about Obama’s pastor is a distraction from talking about Obama’s kids.
By the way, the best response to Michelle’s “this conversation doesn’t help my kids” would be: “But entrusting their religious upbringing to Jeremiah Wright does?” Ah, but, happily, Meredith Vieira isn’t that kind of interviewer. Mrs. O is becoming a challenge for satirists. May radio pal Hugh Hewitt played a clip on his show of the putative first lady identifying the real problem facing America:
“Like many young people coming out of college, with their MA’s and BA’s and PhD’s and MPh’s coming out so mired in debt that they have to forego their dreams, so mired in debt, you can’t afford to be a teacher or a nurse or social worker, or a pastor of a church, or to run a small nonprofit organization, or to do research for a small community group, or to be a community organizer because the salaries that you’ll earn in those jobs won’t cover the cost of the degree that it took to get the job.” I’m not sure why Michelle would stick “pastor of a church” in that list of downscale occupations: Her pastor drives a Mercedes and lives in a gated community. But, insofar as I understand Mrs. O, she feels that many Harvard and Princeton graduates have to give a minimum-wage “community organizer” (whatever that is) and are forced to become corporate lawyers, investment bankers and multinational CEOs just to pay off their college loans. I’m sure the waitresses and checkout clerks nodded sympathetically.
Michelle Obama is a bizarre mix of condescension and grievance – like Teresa Heinz Kerry with a chip on her shoulder. But the common thread to her rhetoric is its antipathy to what she calls “corporate America.” Perhaps for his next Gettysburg Address the senator will be saying, “I could no more disown my wife than I could disown my own pastor. Oh, wait ….”
Whatever one thinks of Sens. Clinton and McCain, they’re as familiar as any public figure can be. Obama, on the other hand, is running explicitly on a transcendent “magic.”… George H. Kubeck

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Barack Obama # 1 of 2

Barack Obama # 1
cinops be gone Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Thank you Mark Steyn, syndicated columnist for the Orange County Register, Orange County, California for your article in the Sunday paper, May 4, 2008 “To Obama ‘we’ means ‘me.’”

Four score and seven years ago … No, wait, my mistake. Two score and seven or eight days ago, Barack Obama gave the greatest speech since the Gettysburg Address, or FDR’s First Inaugural, or JFK’s religion speech, or (if, like Garry Wills in The New York Review of Books, you will find those comparisons drearily obvious) Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech of 1860.

And, of course, the senator’s speech does share one quality with Cooper Union, Gettysburg, the FDR Inaugural, Henry V at Agincourt, Socrates’ Apology, etc.: It’s history. He said, apropos the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that “I could no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother.” But last week Obama did disown him. So, great-speech-wise, it’s a bit like Churchill promising to fight them on the beaches and never surrender, and then surrendering a month and a half later, and on a beach he decided not to fight on.
It was never a great speech. It was a simulacrum of a great speech written to flatter gullible pundits into hailing it as the real deal. It should be “required reading in classrooms,” said Bob Herbert in the New York Times; it was “extraordinary” and “rhetorical magic,” said Joe Klein in Time – which gets closer to the truth: As with most “magic,” it was merely a trick of redirection.

Obama appeared to have made Jeremiah Wright vanish into thin air, but it turned out he was just under the heavily draped table waiting to pop up again. The speech was designed to take a very specific problem – the fact that Barack Obama, the Great Uniter, had sat in the pews of neo-segregationist huckster for 20 years – and generalize it into some grand meditation on race in America. Sen. Obama looked America in the face and said: Who ya gonna believe? My “rhetorical magic” or your lyin’ eyes?
That’s an easy choice for the swooming bobbysoxers of the media. With less impressionable types, such as voters, Sen. Obama is having a tougher time. The Philly speech is emblematic of his most pressing problem: the gap – indeed, full sized canyon – that’s opening up between the rhetorical magic and the reality. That’s the difference between simulacrum and genuinely great speech. The gaseous platitudes of hope and change and unity no longer seem to fit the choices of Obama’s adult life. Oddly enough, the shrewdest appraisal of the senator’s speechifying “magic” came from Jeremiah Wright himself. “He says what he has to say as a politician…. He does what politicians do.”

The notion that the Amazing Obama might be just another politician do seems to have affronted the senator more than any stuff about America being no different from al-Quaida and the government inventing AIDS to kill black people. In his belated “disowning” of Wright, Obama said, “What I think particular angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows that – that I am about trying to bridge gaps and that I see the commonality in all people.” (Continued tomorrow)
George H. Kubeck

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Catholic-sub-culture - Michael Moore

Catholic-sub-culture - Michael Moore
cinops be gone Tuesday, May 06, 2008
On Sunday night from a hospital bed, l saw CNN’s Larry King’s interview of Michael Moore. He is pro-Obama. But let’s start from the beginning. I mistakenly took medication that I was allergic too and which almost killed me in Feb. 1992. So I turned a negative into a positive. I finished reading Carl Anderson’s book, “A Civilization of Love: What Every Catholic Can Do To Transform the World” (Harper One). This book along with Pope Benedict’s visit to America will be my roadway to the presidential elections in November. Prayerfully, if we can follow God’s will with perseverance, discernment and the wisdom the Holy Spirit gives us, we will have a victory for pro-life. We will focus in the Way, the Truth and the Light.
Michael Moore is a Catholic-in-name-politician and a most powerful member of the Catholic-sub-culture belief system which is mix of the 1960 crazy ideas and liberation theology religion. We have Rev, Jeremiah Wright’s black liberation theology and in Latin America Hispanic liberation theology. (Simply stated you can help the poor people with bible believers working with Marxists.)
Moore has a deep hatred of President Bush and indirectly all the stupid people that voted him. He believes in taxing the rich. During World War II, Frank Sinatra was taxed 90 cents on each dollar. He wasn’t angry and did very well on the ten cents that he got back. The rich shouldn’t complain.
Our country was founded on the genocide of the native Indians and on the backs
of enslaved Black Americans. Our Founding Fathers were old wise white guys. First interview for Obama, did you know that Julie Nixon is for Obama?
Did you know that that there are big, bad and evil corporations? Both Hillary and Obama get most of their money from the lobbyist of health care and pharmacy. 81% of the people believe we are on the wrong track in America.
Remember that profit is the motive of the Health and Pharmacy industry. Profit is evil and government takeover or socialistic control is good.
You have to be black person to understand the rage as spoken by Rev. Wright. I, Michael Moore am a white guy. Hate as with love can be a strong motive.
Moore is coming out with a movie title, “The 2004 Elections” Michael was so cocksure of winning the Florida for the Culture of Death Party that he will relate to us what he did. He was in 62 cities in 45 days on the campuses of Florida and did you know that in the student’s voting age of the 20’s it was the only one that voted for Kerry? (Thankfully, 52% of the Catholics throughout the country and in particularly more in Florida voted for Bush.) For Michael this movie will be like an ego trip for the year 2008 campaign. Do what you can to defeat evil Bush!
Unbelievable but this is the mindset of many Catholic-in-name-only politicians.
Moore strongly opposes Market-Based Health Care System and believes that France’s taxes are lower than ours. Michael is a very good half-truths propaganda artist. He believes he is a practicing Catholic. He disagrees with the Church on birth control and women priests etc. but will not walk out of the church is the priests talks about it. The Rev. Wright matter will not matter for Obama.
What is happening today in the Democratic Primary is providential. If the democratic candidate is Barack Obama, I must share a masterpiece of analysis by Mark Steyn, syndicated columnist, appearing in the May 4th edition of the Orange County Register. I will post the whole article the next two days. It is excellent.
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate in Spanish and Vietnamese.