When a man's ways please the LORD, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him

Proverbs 16:7

The Scripture of the day..

This verse has always stood out as very profound to me. Have you ever clearly seen this come to pass in your life? I just have and it was amazing.

This verse came to mind today as I was thinking about an ex member of Alamo Ministries who I kind of think of as a second mother now. Someone who I definitely considered my enemy before hand

It's obvious to me that it pleased the Lord for me to utterly forsake Alamo Ministries. For many reasons.

To the remaining Alamo Ministry members: What enemies are you at peace with? Or what "enemies" are at peace with you?

Alamo compared himself to Christ when Alamo was arrested. Alamo stated, "I'm just another prophet who was arrested for preaching the Gospel". He also at other times made reference to him being arrested 'like Jesus was arrested'.

But contrary to Alamo's claims, all the testimonies against Alamo DID line up one with another. But in regards to Jesus, the Bible states: "For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. " Mark 14:56

Even Alamo's own defense Attorney stated, "This is a brutal case and testimony...." LINK "...We're going to have to focus on the intent of the cross-country trips and let the jury decide." In other words. He was hoping to get out of the obvious crime that happened with a technicality. The "brutal testimony" was the testimony of Alamo's accusers who's witness DID agree together.

This was simply not the case with JESUS.

"And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:" Luke 23:13

So really, how can Alamo even compare himself with Jesus the way he did?

Not that Tony Alamo is in trouble for polygamy. But Tony Alamo stated that the Bible doesn't forbid polygamy. But the Bible doesn't command polygamy either. In a land where it's against the law do you think your enemies would be at peace with you if you ignored their laws? Obviously in this case (at least), Tony's ways haven't pleased the Lord. In this case it would have pleased the Lord for Tony to have ONE wife. This way Tony's enemies would have been at peace with him. When Tony forsook the law and married multiple women that did NOT please the Lord. And the people weren't angry at Tony because Tony was "preaching the Gospel" like Tony continuously states. Being a polygamist doesn't save your soul. But believing the Gospel WILL save your soul. But Alamo then states, "well Jesus IS the whole Bible and Jesus, the Bible doesn't forbid polygamy and even promotes the marriage of very young women.." (paraphrasing) but then Tony now states additional books are ALSO the Bible, including the "book of Jasher". So this is where everything gets even more complicated. It is no longer the simplistic gospel.

Paul stated, "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." 2 Cor 11:3

"Simplicity" remaining Alamo members. Simplicity. There is no simplicity in the gospel according to Alamo. He had to tell you how to do everything. Funny how I made it on my own outside the "church" and have stayed Christ-minded.

I pray for those of you who still believe this utter fraud.

You should be furious at Alamo. Not only for his crimes. But for also damaging the reputation of many. Including Christ Himself!

Because think of the heinous crimes Tony Alamo has committed. Then think of him comparing himself to Jesus Christ. It would make one suspicious of Christ Himself! Christ! the spotless Lamb of God!

That is the truth!



God bless!


Just some things to think about...



I was going to only post the Scripture but decided to add some of my thoughts with that.. Enjoy!! or don't enjoy.. whatever....! :-)

Venezuela's Chavez says he wants an 'exorcism'

by Martin Barillas


President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela asked the newly installed Vatican diplomatic representative to undertake an “exorcism” of the nunciature, the office occupied by a predecessor who the Venezuelan described as a “sadist and rapist.”

Even so, Chavez welcomed papal nuncio Pietro Parolin during an official meeting with political leaders and diplomats on January 15 . Describing himself as a “Catholic”, Chavez said it was “very lamentable” that the Vatican embassy had sheltered Nixon Moreno – a 34-year-old political opponent who was given political asylum there from March 2007 until March 2009.

Moreno is charged with homicide and sexual assault in Venezuela and is currently taking refuge in Peru. Moreno has denied the charged and has said that he is the victim of political persecution.

Chavez said that his “’revolution’ is profoundly Christian,” and that is “Bolivarian revolution” is ready for “good relations” with the Catholic Church even while it will not stand pat in the face of criticism on the part of local church hierarchs. “Believe me, we are hoping to have good relations with the Vatican,” averred Chavez, “but we are not prepared to be quiet in the face of the intromission on the part of a group of bishops which has submitted to Venezuela bourgeois bastards.”

Chavez made these remarks in reference to the Catholic Church and the Vatican’s ambassador during a formal meeting with Venezuela’s political leaders and foreign ambassadors wherein he he gave an accounting of his government's activities in 2009. Among the other recent acts by Chavez was to devalue Venezuela’s currency and send soldiers to seize businesses engaged in price gouging.

Bush said he saw "God" when he looked in the eyes of the Pope...

He also said "God" told him to attack Iraq... Also, George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'

after reading this below read the article "A Catholic Wind in the White House" which appeared in the Washington Post.

"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth." -
Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous".

"...the Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power." -

Lucius Ferraris, in "Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica", Volume V, article on "Papa, Article II", titled "Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility", #1, 5, 13-15, 18, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.

These words are written in the Roman Canon Law 1685: "To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical."

Writers on the Canon Law say, "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth."-
Barclay Cap. XXVII, p. 218. Cities Petrus Bertrandus, Pius V. - Cardinal Cusa supports his statement.

Pope Nicholas I declared: "the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man." - Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para.

"The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man .... he is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power." - Lucius Ferraris, «Prompta Bibliotheca», 1763, Volume VI, 'Papa II', pp.25-29

"The supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires... complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself." - Leo VIII, «On the Chief Duties of Christians as Citizens», Encyclical letter, 1890

"Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions (infernorum)." - Lucius Ferraris, «Prompta Bibliotheca», 1763, Volume VI, 'Papa II', p.26)

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty" - Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894


"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh." - Catholic National July 1895

"The pope is the supreme judge of the law of the land... He is the vicegerent (replacement) of Christ, who is not only a Priest forever, but also King of kings and Lord of lords." - La Civilia Cattolica, March 18, 1871, quoted in Leonard Woosely Bacaon, An inside view of the Vatican Council (American Tract Society ed.), p.229


"The pope is the supreme judge of the law of the land . . . He is the vicegerent of Christ, and is not only a priest forever, but also King of kings and Lord of lords" - La Civilta Cattolica, March 18, 1871.

"All the faithful must believe that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff [the Pope] possesses the primacy over the whole world, and the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is true vicar of Christ, and heed of the whole church, and father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter to rule, feed, and govern the universal Church by Jesus Christ our Lord." -First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, "Eternal Pastor," - published in the fourth session of the Vatican Council, 1870, chap. 3, in Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom. vol. 2, p. 262.

"We define that the Holy Apostolic See (the Vatican) and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over the whole world." - A Decree of the Council of Trent, quoted in Philippe Labbe and Gabriel Cossart, "The Most Holy Councils," col. 1167.

Catholic Church welcomes "legitimate diversity", says Vatican official

Rome, Italy, Jan 13, 2010 / 07:32 pm (CNA).- The prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, Cardinal Claudio Hummes, explained that the Church welcomes all expressions of “legitimate diversity” in reference to ministries. He also called on priests to always fulfill their commitments and for those in irregular situations to bring them to a resolution.

In an interview with L’Osservatore Romano, the cardinal said the Catholic Church “is quick to receive in her bosom all legitimate diversity. She is not concerned with human categories that focus on right, left, progressive, conservative. Ours is not a sectarian Church. She is Catholic, one, holy, apostolic, and quick to embrace all, like a great mother.”

The Church “offers to all the possibility to take diverse paths in the common witness of the Gospel. If one thinks of the history of religious orders, of their different spiritualities, one sees they are all diverse but capable of carrying the riches of the charisms in the one Church of Christ. Naturally, they should all walk in unity. But unity does not mean uniformity,” the cardinal said.

Openness to Anglicans

Asked if it was in this spirit that the Pope issued the apostolic constitution, “Anglicanorum coetibus,” which lays out the manner in which Anglicans can return to full communion with the Church, Cardinal Hummes replied, “Yes, without a doubt. Becoming a part of our ecclesial community was their request. The Catholic Church has done nothing more than open her doors, as is her welcoming style.”

“To the Anglicans who have come among us,” he said, “she offers them the chance to live the faith, maintaining some of the characteristics of their rite, their spirituality, their liturgy, that is, of everything that makes it possible to live their faith without compromising the unity of ecclesial community. This means that they enter fully into ecclesial communion.”

Cardinal Hummes went on to refer to priests who are living in irregular situations, exhorting them to normalize their situations. “The Church does not abandon anyone, nobody is excluded from love and from fraternity. Not even those who have not yet decided to ask for a dispensation, which is always the best thing to do in certain cases.”

“Those who have de facto abandoned the ministry or who in some way are not in the necessary condition to continue ahead, are called to regularize their situations, as priests, before God, before the Church and before their own consciences.”

Cardinal Hummes said that “by officially requesting to be dispensed from their obligations, such individuals return to living correctly before God. In the end, all are always offered the possibility of recovering their state of grace.”

After being asked if “one can repent and come back,” the cardinal said, “Yes, keeping in mind that certain conditions and a true conversion are necessary for returning to the exercise of the ministry.”

Ed Brown gets 37-year sentence

By Margot Sanger-Katz
for the Monitor

Ed Brown was sentenced to 37 years in federal prison yesterday for his role in orchestrating the nearly nine-month standoff at his Plainfield home that attracted national attention, drew hundreds of supporters and ended when undercover U.S. marshals arrested Brown and his wife, finding the house stuffed with guns and homemade explosive devices.

The judge, George Singal, chose a sentence lower than that recommended by the federal sentencing guidelines but long enough to mean that Brown, 67, will likely die in prison. His wife, Elaine Brown, 68, who was convicted of similar crimes, was sentenced last year to 35 years in prison. Four key supporters who lived with the Browns and helped bring them guns, food and bomb-making supplies, have already been sentenced to prison terms - one for 36 years.

"It's a sad case in many ways," Singal said, before announcing the sentence. "It is sad that Mr. Brown and his beliefs have caused others to be entrapped in his web."

Brown, a retired cockroach exterminator and onetime militia leader, was unrepentant to the end. Dressed in a khaki Strafford County jail uniform, Brown refused to stand for the judge, repeatedly interrupted the proceedings with complaints and mocking laughter, and used his final opportunity to address the court to deliver a long rant about the U.S. attorney's involvement in a worldwide conspiracy to undermine the Constitution and rob individuals of their legal rights.

"I didn't hurt those men - they destroyed us," Brown said. "The Freemasons, Zionists, Jesuits, Knights Templar, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Moose Lodge. Hey, they're everywhere."

When Singal began to explain his sentencing rationale, Brown asked to leave the courtroom, and he was not present when his sentence was announced.

Prosecutors had sought a stiffer sentence, in line with federal sentencing guidelines. Brown faced a 30-year mandatory minimum sentence for one charge alone, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Arnold Huftalen asked for a total term between 47½ years and 51 years 8 months for Brown, arguing that such a sentence would deter Brown's supporters and reflected the seriousness of Brown's actions, which he said could have resulted in the deaths of many U.S. marshals if Brown had been able to use his arsenal in a "violent confrontation" with law enforcement.

"It is not an overstatement to say that no more dangerous man has been sentenced in this courthouse," Huftalen said. "Nor is it an overstatement to say, in all likelihood, no more dangerous man is likely to be sentenced in this courthouse in the coming years."

Brown's lawyer, Michael Iacopino, requested the shortest sentence possible under the law - 30 years and 1 month - arguing that Brown's age and the fact that no one was harmed during the standoff mitigated against a longer term.

"It puts him right up there with people who have killed people," Iacopino said.

Singal chose a middle ground, saying that 37 years was enough to reflect the seriousness of Brown's crimes. He expressed disappointment that Brown had shown no remorse and had failed to acknowledge his negative influence on the lives of his wife and supporters.

"I have no doubt in my mind that Mr. Brown would have killed multiple marshals had they not dealt with him so effectively," Singal said.

The federal Bureau of Prisons will determine where Brown will serve his sentence. Elaine Brown is currently incarcerated at the Federal Medical Center Carswell, a prison in Fort Worth, Texas.

The standoff

Brown and his wife were first arrested in 2006 for tax evasion, after the pair refused to pay federal income taxes on more than $1.2 million that Elaine Brown had earned as a dentist. The couple represented themselves at trial in January 2007, arguing that they were not subject to federal taxes or the court's jurisdiction.

When they became convinced the trial was stacked against them, they retreated to their concrete, castle-like home, located on 110 acres and equipped with an observation tower, a years-long supply of dehydrated food and independent water and electric sources. From the start, Ed Brown promised a showdown, telling his friends that he expected "another Waco" and issuing repeated threats against federal agents, prosecutors and the judge in his tax case.

The standoff continued for months, with a rotating cast of anti-government allies visiting the house and helping the couple prepare for an armed confrontation. The Browns invited reporters for interviews and used blogs, internet radio shows and social networking websites to spread news about the standoff and request needed supplies - later delivered - including a German shepherd puppy, night vision goggles and roofing nails, "bigger better."

U.S. Marshals attempted to arrest Brown in June 2007, but their planned ruse to capture him at the foot of his driveway was foiled when a supporter stumbled upon hidden agents in the woods. It was not until October that the marshals tried again and succeeded in arresting both Browns without firing a single gunshot.

At the time of the Browns' arrest, federal agents found the house filled with guns, bombs and ammunition strategically placed around the property. Ed Brown's bedroom closet featured a rack filled with 22 operational pipe bombs, and dozens of other improvised explosive devices and rifles were scattered throughout the house, most near windows with sight lines around the property. Exploding rifle targets were found nailed to trees around the property line, and boxes of homemade guns were found, some partially assembled, in the basement. One veteran agent from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives described the stash as the largest he'd ever seen.

The trial

Last year, a jury found Brown guilty of two counts of conspiracy, using a destructive device in furtherance of a crime of violence, obstruction of justice, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and failure to appear for trial and sentencing hearings.

The sentencing hearing yesterday came after a proceeding to determine Brown's competency. Iacopino had not questioned his client's mental state before the trial, but he asked the court to order a mental health evaluation afterward, when Brown stopped communicating with him and began exhibiting behavior that his lawyer described as "delusional."

As they did during their tax trial, the Browns insisted on representing themselves for much of the period leading up to their trial, and they filed numerous pleadings - most dismissed as frivolous - questioning the jurisdiction of the court, the legitimacy of the charges and the constitutional basis of many of the judge's actions.

At times, they argued that their case could be resolved through bonds, though they were not charged with any financial crimes. At others, they asserted that the court was invalid because the U.S. flag inside the courtroom bore a gold fringe.

The forensic psychologist who examined Brown told the court that Brown's conduct was influenced by a narcissistic personality disorder, marked by "grandiosity, need for attention and lack of empathy." But he said Brown's unusual behavior was ultimately the product of ideology, not mental illness.

"The beliefs held by Mr. Brown are also held by a broad subculture," wrote Dr. Shawn Channell, who compared Brown's views with the "unrealistic" beliefs held by members of organized religions.

Iacopino told the judge that he planned to file a notice of appeal after the hearing but said he did not expect Brown to discuss the case with him or cooperate on any appeal.

U.S. Attorney John Kacavas said after the hearing that he was satisfied by the sentence and hoped it would send a strong message to likeminded extremists about the consequences of taking similar actions. But he acknowledged that even a life sentence might not dissuade those as ideologically committed as Brown.

"People who are fundamentalist in their beliefs are often not dissuaded by reason or long incarceration," he said.

Few such sympathizers were visible yesterday. Elaine Brown's sentencing was attended by both family members and anti-government supporters. Yesterday, only one longtime friend of the Browns', Marie Miller of Farmington, sat in the courtroom.

Infowars.com spreading disinfo for the cause of conditioning and fearmongering

Yesterday I saw that infowars was spreading disinformation and they were using the disinfo to fearmonger. The article was by Kurt Nimmo. This is the second time that infowars has spread this same disinfo. It was in regards to homeschooling. It was when the lower courts did rule against homeschooling in California and it was bad. BUT it was all turned over by the higher courts. Why would infowars then keep spreading the lower court's oppressive ruling? I would say there are several reasons. As I said before, to fearmonger. But also to get people used to the fact and conditioned to accept that this is happening. I believe it is a psy-op.

Here is the infowars.com article:
http://www.infowars.com/homeschoolers-arrested-in-new-york-slavery-returns-to-amerika/

And here is the article which tells of the higher court overturning the lower court: http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/ca/200808080.asp

I don't believe that "infowars" did not know this. This is just more disinformation by Jones' camp.

Regarding the content of the infowars article, in NY it is required by law to register and tell the school district that you intend to homeschool. There is also additional requirements that are more strict than any other state in the US. I do not agree with some of these oppresive type laws regarding homeschooling BUT it is recommended by HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Assoc) that you comply with all local laws if you intend to homeschool.

Alito troubled by concerns about court's Catholics

Alito troubled by concerns about court's Catholics

Posted on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:00:34 AM by markomalley

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is voicing frustration over what he calls persistent questions about the court's Roman Catholic majority.

Alito aired his concerns in a speech Tuesday to an Italian-American law group in Philadelphia. He said respectable people in serious publications have questioned whether the Catholic-raised judges could be trusted to do their jobs. He said he thought the Constitution settled the question long ago with its guarantee of religious freedom.

Alito is one of six justices on the nine-member court who were raised Catholic, including new Justice Sonia Sotomayor. A dozen of the 111 jurists in the court's history have been Catholic.

Words of Charles Chiniquy (Former Roman Catholic Priest)

"I can say with John:

"And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me: 'Come hither: I will show unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters; with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.' So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness; and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: and upon her forehead was a name written: 'Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations Of The Earth.' And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus; and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration' (Rev. xvii. 1 6).

And after the Lord had shown me all these abominations, He took me out as the eagle takes his own young ones on his wings. He brought me into His beautiful and beloved Zion, and He set my feet on the rock of my salvation. There, He quenched my thirst with the pure waters which flow from the fountains of eternal life, and He gave me to eat the true bread which comes from heaven.

Oh! that I might go all over the world, through this book, and say with the Psalmist: "Come, all ye that fear God, and I will declare what He hath done for my soul."

Let all the children of God who will read this book lend me their tongues to praise the Lord. Let him lend me their hearts, to love Him. For, alone, I cannot praise Him, I cannot love Him as He deserves. When look upon the seventy-six years which have passed over me, my heart leaps for joy, for I find myself at the end of trials. I have nearly crossed the desert.

Only the narrow stream of Jordan is between me and the new Jerusalem. I already hear the great voice out of heaven saying: "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and be their God, and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things have passed away....He that overcometh shall inherit all things" (Rev. xxi. 3, 4, 7).

Rich with the unspeakable gift which has been given me, and pressing my dear Bible to my heart, as the richest treasure, I hasten my steps with an unspeakable joy toward the Land of Promise. I already hear the angel's voice telling me: "Come: the Master calls thee."

A few days more and the bridegroom will say to my soul: "Surely I come quickly." And I will answer: "Even so, come Lord Jesus." Amen."

23% of Americans are Catholic yet 6 of 9 Supreme Court Justices are Roman Catholic

Judge Sonia Sotomayor has much to distinguish her, but one element of her biography stands out in the world of those interested in religion and the public square: she is Catholic, and, if approved as a Supreme Court justice, she will be the sixth Catholic on the nine-member court. That is a remarkable accomplishment for American Catholics, who make up 23 percent of the nation's population, and will now potentially hold 67 percent of the high court's seats. Two of the justices are Jewish; the resignation of Justice David Souter, who is an Episcopalian, will leave, amazingly given the history of this nation, just one Protestant on the Supreme Court, 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens. (How can they say he's a "Protestant"? True "Protestants" were called "Protestants" because they were protesting against Catholic Power and doctrine.)



Undoubtedly, Sotomayor's Catholic-ness will be the subject of some debate. Just how Catholic is she? Steven Waldman, blogging at Beliefnet, quotes a White House official saying, "Judge Sotomayor was raised as a Catholic and attends church for family celebrations and other important events."
David Gibson, also at Beliefnet, suggests there may be a strategic reason for Sotomayor to downplay her faith affiliation:

"The (awful) question will now be, what KIND of Catholic is she? She is divorced, without kids. Heck, she may want to downplay her practice of the faith as that will be a huge target--and it's easy to guess who'll be lobbing most of the heavy ordinance."

And Cathy Lynn Grossman, blogging for USA Today, makes a similar prediction:
"Next up: Expect her nomination to re-ignite the ongoing Catholic blogosphere wars over who is Catholic enough. If confirmed, Sotomayor, who grew up in Catholic schools in the Bronx, would be the sixth Catholic on the high court. It may be that her life experiences will align her with the social justice issues pushed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on race, poverty, immigration and economic issues. But for some outspoken Catholics, the 'life' issues -- abortion, family planning, so-called 'conscience clauses' for health workers, embryonic stem cell research and end-of-life choices -- are the litmus test."

Over at GetReligion, Terry Mattingly wonders why the word "Catholic" is not more a part of the early press coverage, and asks if that would be different if Sotomayor were a known opponent of abortion rights:
"Her life story will be a big part of the upcoming mini-debates about her appointment. Here is my question: If she was a pro-life woman, from a Hispanic background, do you think that the word 'Catholic' would be appearing higher in these early (I repeat, EARLY) reports about her life and work? Just saying."

What does it matter if Sotomayor is Catholic? Jacqui Salmon, blogging for the Washington Post, suggests perhaps not much, at least as far as judicial decisionmaking is concerned:
"Experts have been split on what the Catholic majority has meant so far. They point out that Catholics on the bench historically have spanned the spectrum from liberal to conservative. Dennis J. Hutchinson, a court historian at the University of Chicago, noted in 2005 that one of the most liberal Supreme Court justices of the 20th century, William J. Brennan, was a Catholic, and so is one of the most conservative, Scalia."

Manya Brachear, blogging for the Chicago Tribune, tackles the same question, and comes to the same conclusion, although also pointing out the symbolic significance:

"Cathleen Kaveny, law professor at the University of Notre Dame, said a sixth Catholic in the High Court would illustrate how entrenched the church has become in the U.S. A sixth Catholic with views like Sotomayor's also would put the American church’s diversity on display. 'My guess is she’s very much operating in accordance with the commitments of the Catholic social justice tradition which is emphasizing … inclusion, solidarity, justice to those least among us,' Kaveny said. 'It’s strand of American Catholic teaching that is somewhat distinct from other Catholic teaching but not incompatible. People emphasize different aspects.'"

Catholic groups are just now beginning to react to the nomination. Catholics United, a liberal group, reacted positively, and said, "We call on other leaders within the Catholic community to join us in welcoming Judge Sotomayor's nomination and to approach her confirmation hearings with civility and reason." I haven't heard yet from conservative Catholic groups, but in general the reaction from the right has been critical. Ted Olsen, blogging at Christianity Today, reviews the early statements and headlines his post, "Pro-Life Group Consensus on Sotomayor: 'Activist'."
Meanwhile, one thing that struck me in President Obama's remarks about Sotomayor this morning was the language he used to describe the role of Catholic schools in offering children a path out of poverty. This is what he said:
"When Sonia was nine, her father passed away. And her mother worked six days a week as a nurse to provide for Sonia and her brother...But Sonia's mom bought the only set of encyclopedias in the neighborhood, sent her children to a Catholic school called Cardinal Spellman out of the belief that with a good education here in America all things are possible."

(Photo, by Jim Young/Reuters, shows Judge Sonia Sotomayor talking with President Obama at the White House this morning, May 26, 2009.)

"Right to move about freely; at home and abroad..." ?

I was amazed to hear my daughter repeating these words. I looked at what she was reading from and it was right out of her school text book and was a list of freedoms supposedly covered by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Why or how could she actually be taught this right now? We cannot move about freely at all. I am sick over what these incompetant people are having done at the airports. I will never fly under these conditions and I wish others wouldn't fly anymore either. How can you let people touch you or look under your clothes and search your personal belongings without batting an eye?

Recently a friend of mine travelled to Florida for vacation. She verbally protested the embarrassing search of her personal belongings. The airport "security" then began to make a public example of her. Cordening her off with her child as they both were violated by the hands of strangers on their bodies. This is nothing less than sexual assault. Yet America will not speak up. So why not think that Nazi Germany is upon us again? They "dusted" my friends child's hair for explosives. And it wasn't because they suspected them of being a terrorist. It was because they spoke up. Truly evil and wicked individuals. I pray all these people that oppress others in the name of "freedom" have all peace of mind (if they have any) removed from them by God Almighty.

I am almost too disgusted to write this because I can feel the injustice of having to go through this if I wanted to travel. Of course I wouldn't keep quiet either. This would then cause me to be blocked from getting on my flight. People actually do not even want to fly with someone like me. They think you're dangerous or even perhaps a terrorist yourself if you protest the assault on your privacy we must endure. Or maybe I would  end up like like the Carol Ann Gotbaum who was murdered by airport security by being choked to death and left for dead in a small cell.

While these people are saying they are protecting me from "terrorists", who will protect me from them? I haven't seen a terrorist except the ones who are wearing badges eyeballing me and asking to look through my bags at any given time. To me these are the true terrorists. Can I help being offended at this intrusion? No I can't. I am just verbally expressing how I feel. I have the right to do that. Don't I? Only here though right? Only in this little forum I have here. But what happens if you go out and verbally protest? You become  a target of harrassment and intimidation.

So this leads me again to the focus and cause of my work. Being that Religious Roman Catholics are in power in this government, who can I blame?

Don't forget the article from the Washington Post which spoke of President Bush's guidance of Roman Catholic thinkers under who's watch much of this oppressive legislation was passed. The article is called, "A Catholic Wind in the White House". This "Catholic wind" has blown away ALL of our precious civil liberties.

What's very strange is that when all this oppressive legislation like the Patriot Act was being passed I heard SOME voices protesting that it was dangerous legislation. But right now, in the face of 24 hour a day News coverage of all this crazy intrusive security I don't hear any public outcry of concern of the violation of our inherited rights to move about freely at home or abroad.

So while one child is learning about Freedoms under our constitution, another child is being "dusted" for explosives and held back, seperated from their mother and having bags checked by THUGS and being taught there is no US Consitution at all and that you have no freedom to move about or any privacy.

Maybe the answer lies in my above statement, "I pray all these people that oppress others in the name of "freedom" have all peace of mind (if they have any) removed from them by God Almighty." Maybe none of them have any peace and are terrified at nothing. Here's a few verses which describe this feeling they have and WHY. "The wicked flee when no man pursueth:" (Proverbs 28:1) and "There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked." (Isaiah 48:22) Important verses to mediatate on. Do you line up?

It's all about GROWTH

I would just like to say hello to everyone and share some thoughts.

What I want to do is continue some work here. I almost want to start from scratch because I don't want people to be confused about my work and why I do what I do. I started doing this work strictly out of CONCERN for my fellow man, in all sincerity. What I didn't want to do is look like someone who likes to repeat untruths and errors. And I didn't want to be someone who ATTACKS people. I may have allowed myself to give off this kind of impression. I also may have allowed myself to fall into disputes over topics that I care about greatly and has caused me to lash out at certain people. Even people I consider to by my enemy. Well, the bible says if my enemy thirst to give them drink. These words of Jesus are how I want to live my life. When the centurion came upon Jesus a follower of Jesus cut off his ear. Jesus healed his ear. If there was ever a cause to fight, even since the conception of this world, it was when soldiers were coming for our dear Lord. BUT Jesus said that was not right to hurt or fight the Centurion. I want to discuss this further in the future but not right now.

The honest and sincere concerns I have had and still have are legitimate and simple to understand. It has to do with the mix of religion and politics. This is the issue I would like to focus on. I don't want to get diverted by attacks on people I have cited. Like Alberto Rivera, Jack Chick, Eric Phelps or anyone. I want to stay focused on my concerns and verbalize them through the Internet.

Here's the concern. In times past in this world, the Catholic church have been behind tyranny. This is verified and admitted by the Roman Catholic Empire. They say that they have changed. I don't believe they have. Call it whatever you want. But I am concerned about Roman Catholics being in powerful positions in our government.

Stop right there and listen to what I said. Is that so wrong? This question is asked to the most ardent Roman Catholic that exists. Is it wrong for me to be concerned and to voice my concerns? You will probably say "no, but it's how you come across and the type of sources you cite" OK then. This is a great concern of mine. To be taken seriously. I want to reach as many people as possible. And being a former Roman Catholic myself who was proud to have "RC" on my dog tags I can see how my work can make people angry and turn them off from trying to understand my position. But what I will not do is entertain people who blindly and in a robotic fashion carry out their agendas by attempting to continuously twist my words and find fault against me. That work is over. I have addressed some of these people in the past but will no longer do that.

Now we see that there are SIX out of nine supreme court justices who are religious Roman Catholics. Yes, that is a concern of mine. It is along these lines that I have created my work. (I think it would be good to really study the reasons why Catholics were not able to hold political offices in England and America for so long. Was it because the Catholics were being persecuted because of righteousness? Absolutely not. I will cover this in a future blog.)

Somewhere along the line I felt it important to come to the defense of people who are being attacked. People who I thought were honest and sincere like myself. That has only weakened me. This lesson I have learned.

What I say is this. IF we live our lives truly according to the Word of God, no one will be able to successfully speak against us. "When a man's ways please the LORD, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him." Proverbs 16:7

This is my most important desire and goal. To live this way. If I fail I am ignorant to the failure and thus not held accountable by God Almighty.

1Ti 1:13 "Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy , because I did [it] ignorantly in unbelief."

This even shows further WHY Paul received forgiveness. He has he "obtained mercy, because" he did it in ignorance.

I believe this is a very important lesson for Christians. And this all coincides with the next blog below. More to come!! God bless!! and WATCH how you judge.

"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment" (John 7:24)

Thomas