Not to detract from previous posts, BUT, I will be a guest on Dr. Monteith's radio program tonight, April 26, 2013 from 11 p.m. to midnight, Eastern Time, 2 a.m. to 3 a.m. Pacific time. Tomorrow morning, 8 a.m. Pacific time, 11 a.m. Eastern time, Dr. Stanley Monteith will be a reciprocal guest on my radio program at www.themicroeffect.com or TMERadio.com.
Tune in and stay tuned!
CONSTANCE
56 comments:
Why not have Christine on your show. If she's good enough by your standards to take over the blog almost completely, then she should be good enough for your show.
It's always a thrill for me to hear you and Doctor Stan talking together - my only complaint is that the hour goes by far too fast.
We were talking about the bona fides of the late Father Malachi Martin a week or so ago, and I came across a potent testimony in his favour, from a personal friend of Father Martin, Christopher Story:
"Since some have expressed
interest in the Author's opinion as to whether Malachi was a True Christian or not, the
Author can say with certainty that he loved the Lord Jesus Christ." (The New Underworld Order, P359)
The whole book is a remarkable work which can be read on line here:
http://www.thinkorbeeaten.com/theknoll/rr/The_New_Underworld_Order%20-%20Christopher_Story.pdf
http://www.thinkorbeeaten.com/theknoll/read.html
more interesting stuff where that link came from.
Here is an interesting article about one "Liberation Theologian's" possitive statements about Pope Francis 1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/28/liberation-theology-pope-francis_n_3174469.html?utm_hp_ref=world&ir=World
good article, but there is a difference between the liberation theology that drags in marxism, and the social improvement and help the poor and oppose evil in govt. and military angle, which got a lot of priests and others murdered. Right now a lot of patriot types worried about a creeping totalitarian takeover are saying essentially the same thing Abp. Romero was saying to the military.
marxism is a specific dialectical materialism usually atheist officially and if not so atheist in lifestyle and a hegelian view of history as god, an all powerful force on the march through time with a goal and directing things to that goal via conflict.
you don't need any such nonsense to see and act about existing problems, and land redistribution when that land's power is being abused to harm the people whose ancestors it was taken from is hardly an evil thing in itself.
God repeatedly warned us that no one OWNS the land (or anything else) but we are all sojourners (translate: transients, bums, squatters) from His perspective.
Again Christine you are showing your true New Age/Maxist colors. People who claim to own the land have done more for the downtrodden as you call them than any of the New Age Marxists have done. You set up a strawman of supposed powerful people, knock it down in your head and say follow me. Some of us have had your number for a long time.
You pretend to be this sweet individual, just doing her thing, when in reality you are a change agent come to this blog to get followers for the Marxist leaders.
Don't bother with your doubletalk. You can fool Constance, but you can't fool everyone.
just go take a look at the realities in some of those south and central american countries.
And take note of some curses God put on people who are too acquisitive, its in The Prophets.
someone once said that cults are the unpaid bills of the church. And one of the reasons Kennedy got killed was because he said in some speech that we should get in there and support legitimate freedom seeking people in dictatorships, before the communists could exploit their problems. Of course major elements in our govt. have always preferred to deal with dictators.
Dear 12.46pm,
If it's Marxist to support land ownership for the many rather than the few then God is a Marxist - his system for ancient Israel in Mosaic Law was that every family would own its own land in perpetuity.
"People who claim to own the land have done more for the downtrodden as you call them than any of the New Age Marxists have done."
Utter nonsense. The medieval Catholic aristocracy lived high on the rent from peasants who were so desperately poor that they often starved. The protestant landowners of Britain forced the highland clearances of Scotland and the Irish famine of the mid-19th century.
I am not, of course, advocating genocide of landlords in analogy with the massacre of the disgusting Canaanites, which made the Mosaic system possible. But laws should encourage wide ownership of land and, sice the industrial revolution, of the means of production.
To John Rupp:
Dear John,
It is not surprising that creatures like Leonardo Boff, one of the best known supporters of the early Liberation Theologians, would be already poisoning the well of Pope Francis' papacy by making statements that seem to portray Pope Francis as sympathetic to Liberation Theology.
I suspect it might be an attempt on the part of Boff and his Marxist-oriented confreres to disguise the way in which their fellow "progressives" tried to use Cardinal Bergoglio in order to block the election of Cardinal Ratzinger to the papacy? They did this by atttempting to make Cardinal Bergoglio the "Ross Perot" of the 2005 Conclave!!!
After being silenced - again - in 1992 by the Vatican, this time to prevent him from participating in the Eco-9 Earth-Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Boff finally left the Franciscan religious order and the priestly ministry. But this doesn't stop Boff from continuing to offer commentaries as if he were still a priest in good standing.
Liberation Theology - for those who do not understand what it is - was the Marxist attempt to hijack Christianity, empty it of its traditional meaning and give it a new Marxist meaning. When all is said and done however, Liberation Theology has as little to do with "liberation" as it has to do with "theology." It is nothing more than Marxism tricked out in "Christian" wraps according to the infiltration strategy cooked up by Italian communist Antonio Gramsci.
Additionally, as the late great C.S. Lewis would have agreed, it was precisely the good that Liberation Theology contained and/or imitated that made it potent as well as dangerous.
When Pope Francis was a Jesuit provincial in Argentina, he strictly prohibited the Jesuits under his authority from peddling Liberation Theology. Instead, Father Bergoglio insisted on a Jesuit adherence to the traditional reading of Ignatian spirituality, which mandated that Jesuits continue to staff parishes and act as chaplains rather than as "politicking priests" / "social workers" and moving into "base communities" whose "religion" was more redolent of political activism - including violence - than it was of the Christian worship of God.
After his term as Jesuit provincial in Argentina, Father Bergoglio was persecuted by his theologically and politically left-leaning Jesuit brethren, who "evened up the score" by exiling him to northern Argentina where he taught high-school chemistry until he was rescued by John Paul II and elevated to the rank of archbishop of Buenos Aires.
Check out the following article.
Weigel: Progressives “Used” Bergoglio in 2005 Conclave
Thursday, March 14, 2013
http://www.firstthings.com/blo...
__________________________________
When Pope Francis was Cardinal Bergoglio, he was a bulwark against the spread of Liberation Theology in Argentina at the same time he made it his special personal mission to care for the poor among his flock without making them "toe any party line."
April 15, 2013
Subject: LIST OF TRAITORS
Over the weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The Statement of Purpose from the bill read:
To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S., and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Hello All, here is the list of all the TRAITORS in the U. S. Senate- Thank God there was none listed for OK, AR, TX
People this needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take our guns. They need to lose the election. We have been betrayed.
46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.
--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing
And this list of Democrats has what to do with the New Age movement? As Constance has written, New Age is on both the right and the left. I can understand the New Age connection, but please spell it out for those who don't have a clue.
this list is obviously about those who voted to get rid of our guns, which would make us a disarmed population that like the Jews and others in Nazi Germany could be later more easily herded into concentration camps.
The Not-So Hidden-Anymore Dangers of the Rainbow!
http://www.ifm-sei.org/
Christine, what a very stupid answer to my question. I would hope whoever posted the information would answer.
It's pretty clear Constance stopped doing serious research on the New Age movement maybe eight to ten years ago. All of her old research is still very valid and is new to many people
Let's be honest Christine. You are free filler that allows her to keep her name in as someone seriously interested in the topic. In general your information is junk and most of us know it. Constance never has commented on any of it, pro or con. Unfortunately those checking in here might think that all New Age researchers are goofballs like you. Constance is destroying her reputation but she doesn't realize it.
I, like many others, keep coming by hoping some of the older researchers show up.
Dear Susanna,
Thank you for your response on Boff and Liberation Theology. That answers any questions I had about that. That was a good article you left the link for.
To John Rupp:
Dear John,
I am very happy that you found the article helpful. Sorry the actual link got chopped off. Here is the link again in its entirety, but as you probably figured out for yourself, the First Things article can be accessed by entering the title of the article into your browser.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/14/weigel-bergoglio-was-used-in-2005/
______________________________
I would just like to add here that what many people are not aware of is that Jesuits, who take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, in addition to a special vow of loyalty to the Pope, do not ordinarily serve the Catholic Church as bishops. If Father Beregoglio did so, it would have been strictly out of obedience to Pope John Paul II.
Now that former Jesuit provincial Father Bergoglio who became Archbishop Bergoglio, and then Cardinal Bergoglio is Pope Francis, it will be very interesting to see all the "carefully nuanced" weasel-wording of Liberation Theology and other dissenting themes on the part of certain "progressives" in the Catholic Church who may now be collectively< shaking in their shoes waiting for the hammer to drop.......especially now that Pope Francis has reaffirmed the critique and the program of reform of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) whose latest keynote speaker Sr. Laurie Brink spoke of "moving beyond Jesus" in her most "carefully nuanced" Teilhardian twaddle.
Pope Francis reaffirms the CDF’s assessment of the LCWR
April 15, 2013
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2184/pope_francis_reaffirms_the_cdfs_assessment_of_the_lcwr.aspx#.UYA__jbD_q4
________________________________
Then there is this humorous gem of an article from conservative "Da Tech Guy" blog. Be sure to click onto the hyperlinks.
Pope Francis Outs himself as Catholic: LCWR Hardest Hit
by Datechguy | April 21st, 2013
http://datechguyblog.com/2013/04/21/pope-francis-outs-himself-as-catholic-lcwr-hardest-hit/
_________________________________
One more thing....The liberal/progressive National Catholic Reporter - cited in the article - is not to be confused with the National Catholic Register which is a service of EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) and a reliable Catholic news source - as is the Catholic World Report.
http://www.globalgovernancewatch.org/
Thanks for the Malachi Martin reference, Ruth!
Constance
Regarding Christine's debate. I've known Christine long enough to know she's a complex personality with, like the rest of us, issues of her own. I have not endorsed her nor have I endorsed the attacks against her. My Bible gave a profile of the way we should walk in these ways which as that done by the godly King Josiah: NEITHER TO THE RIGHT HAND NOR TO THE LEFT, BUT STRICTLY IN THE PATHS OF THE LORD.
Constance
And where do Christine's posts fit in this description of the blog? "News and views of Constance Cumbey concerning "Radical Middle", New Age Movement, Communitarianism, "planetary humanism," "global governance," European Union, Javier Solana, Jeremy Rifkin, "New Age Politics," law in the USA, combined with life in general -- sometimes humorous, sometimes not!"
Maybe under "life in general, sometimes humorous, sometimes not."
A more important question for you to answer honestly is why you no longer the New Age movement important and are willing to throw 30 years of research, yours and others, down the drain. You are obviously doing this.
It's not that you are too busy, told old, too ill, too tired out. You were all of those things in the first 20 years and yet your seriousness about the issue was there. Now it's obvious you no longer care about your research and the research of others.
If you think Christine is a complex person, someone worth throwing away the blog for, then perhaps you shouldn't be tackling something as serious as the New Age movement any more. Your personal relationship with Christine is not everyone's concern. As a public blog, this is.
Why not stop pretending. Just skip the heading, delete the history of the blog and move on to esoteric discussions of Christianity under Christine's guidance with occasional distorted commentary about other religions.
Put your last quotation in the heading of the blog. Then start by writing what you mean by "My Bible gave a profile of the way we should walk in these ways which as that done by the godly King Josiah: NEITHER TO THE RIGHT HAND NOR TO THE LEFT, BUT STRICTLY IN THE PATHS OF THE LORD." Please describe, as a lawyer would, what you mean by the terms "right hand" and "to the left" and what you mean by "strictly in the paths of the Lord." At least the blog will be relevant. You do it Constance and do not let Christine do it for you.
Something is going on and you are no longer honest with your followers.
Here's an idea for everyone. Even better than hearing endlessly from Christine or that complainer, it would be good to fill up the blog with hundreds of positive posts such as "Thank you Constance for all of your wonderful work." "Constance you are wonderful." "Constance thank you for teaching us what Christianity is and what it isn't." "Constance,you are right to keep the blog open for everyone." "Constance, get healthy." "Constance, I'm so sorry to hear about your troubles." "Stop picking on Constance." "Constance, it isn't your fault that no one has anything to post about the New Age movement." "Constance tell us again that story about Golden Lake, or the one about the Moonies. Can't get enough of those two stories." "Constance, I can't wait to hear your definitions of left, right and the middle and to know which Bible you use. I need to learn more from you about Christianity." "Constance, thanks to you I left the New Age movement 25 years ago." "Constance, you were attacked by Google and the witches in the past. That nasty poster must be a leftist on the left hand path." "No, that stupid person must be coming from the fundamentalist right." "Ha ha ha..I have a funny joke to share about the funny side of life." "I have something sad to share. It has something to do with the fact that I can't find a place to post information against the New Age movement, and I feel so sad about that." "Constance, you tell them. Christine is a complex, wonderful person with ideas we all can learn from, even if some sound New Agey." "Tell that person to go away. It's your blog and you can do anything you want with it." "Is Lee Penn one of the anonymous posters. Gee, we don't know who any of them are in real life." "Oops! I almost quoted something from Alice Bailey. I realize that's a no no." "Constance, where does pre-trib fit in. The left, the right, the middle?"
Dear 3.02pm,
While I agree with what you say about this blog's distortion by one individual, it is Constance's blog and we have to put up with her decisions. I fear that you let your frustration run away with you when you wrote that Constance is "no longer honest with [her] followers". I do not agree - in what way?
In what way? Not telling us what really is going on as if we could not be trusted with the truth about why the blog has gone so far downhill. In what way? Using the excuse that Christine is a complex person to justify why the blog is no longer about the New Age movement and instead has become a vehicle for Christine to plop down all kinds of strange links with false information. That does not show any respect for those of us who have followed her work and have contributed to it for many, many years.
Constance positioned herself to be the leader of those who exposed the New Age movement. It worked. To junk it all with weak excuses is not happening by chance. She is far too intelligent for it to be happening that way. Is that how good Christians are supposed to act toward their fellowman? I don't think so.
Christine,
Thank you for sharing the link from Global Governance.
http://www.globalgovernancewatch.org/
There are some very interesting news stories on politics going on all around the world there; especially with the UN and European Union.
Dear 4.03pm,
An alternative explanation is that Constance is simply too kind-hearted to throw Christine off. How would you distinguish between your view and that possibility?
"Constance positioned herself to be the leader of those who exposed the New Age movement."
Did she? I thought she simply did a lot of good research. Where did she claim leadership?
John Rupp said...
Christine,
Thank you for sharing the link from Global Governance.
you're welcome.
4:19 - If you know someone who lives in your house is leading others astray with misleading and false information, what is your responsibility? Would you let an adult thief who is not related to you live in your house out of a spirit of kindness, particularly if that person has another place to live? That is an interesting moral question.
There is no doubt that Constance did excellent research for many years. As for your question about that, you may not know the answer, but Constance does.
Dear 5.20pm,
I think that most people here regard Christine as part of the noise component in this blog's signal-to-noise ratio - she is not taken seriously. You and I might throw her off our blogs but we are not Constance and I am sorry that you impute malign motives to Constance without decisive evidence.
Agreed 5:31. Constance is gracious--maybe to a fault? Don't know or care since this is her blog. And Christine has zero manners on top of not helpful with the too much %&#*$^%&*@ too much she brings-only sometimes bringing good useable info-mostly not-lacking the largess for real consideration of others. She is a lousy house guest by anyone's reasonable standard...............(sorry Christine, but true)
5:31 wrote "sorry that you impute malign motives to Constance without decisive evidence" Asking serious questions is not imputing malign motives, no matter how legalistic that phrase sounds. I don't know what her motives are. I am trying to find out. Leaving people unprotected from New Age control after taking leadership for decades is not a responsible thing to do. Just maybe you know her motives where I don't. Is it just possible you don't want to know her motives publicly?
I know hat this is off topic, but you guys just have to check this out!!!!!
Boogie Woogie Twins / Dr. John - YouTube
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age
a really good overview totally in accord with Constance's writings, but the sort of thing the complainer here likes to complain as disinformation, but is never willing to present his or her view of what is good information.
an interesting example is his or her denunciation of the list of democrats who voted for the small arms treaty as traitors and to my explanation.
The fact is, that many who oppose the New World Order (which is the political goal of the NAM) and worry about Christians getting "cleansed" from the earth, fear disarming individuals as leaving us defenseless against such a move.
are you sure when you got that TCM that it didn't incl. some laying on of hands and manipulating your energy fields maybe some reiki to boot? this could have confused your judgement. Ever get a peaceful blurry feeling as part of your freedom from depression?
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_nwo06.htm
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_sociopol_nwo.htm#inicio
a lot of stuff, some good some dubious, the site archives all kinds of things.
http://ufohunterorguk.com/what-is-the-new-world-order-agenda-21-what-are-its-origins-who-controls-it/
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/750-the-new-world-order-paranoia-or-reality
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/watsonrptbilderberg1.html
Christine, I don't respect you. I don't like you. I don't respect that you know anything important about the New Age movement. I won't answer your questions just because you ask them. Your trash material is simplistic and junk no matter how valuable you think it is. I do not like the way you jump on things I've posted and try to link to them as if you found them and believed them all along. I do not need your support for anything I've posted about New Age. In no way can you fool all of the people all of the time though heaven knows you try to do it. Now for the tenth time at least, is that clear.
Christine, Constance knows who I am. I have been researching New Age as seriously as she has for maybe a few months less at the beginning of that time period but for may many years longer than she has at this end of the time period. During most of those years we worked together, sharing information. I know things she doesn't know and vice versa. That is how I know you are full of it.
http://ufohunterorguk.com/what-is-the-new-world-order-agenda-21-what-are-its-origins-who-controls-it/
This particular link incl. some of the tiresome blaming of everything on zionists, but for the most part the information on history and connections looks good.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lisbon+treaty+new+world+order&oq=lisbon+treaty+new+world+order&gs_l=youtube.3..33i21.1070.10885.0.10987.29.29.0.0.0.0.264.2863.15j9j4.28.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.i461H_4pSqI
this will give you a bunch of videos on the Lisbon Treaty, since the Lisbon Treaty videos on the site have been deleted.
anybody know what if any globalist aka NWO connections Penny Pritzker or her family have?
Billionaire Bankster
Breaks into Obama's Cabinet
By Greg Palast
Thursday, 2. May 2013
You made fun of me when I suggested that President Barack Obama would nominate a confessed bank scammer, a loan-sharking mortgage predator, to his cabinet. But thar she blows!
Today, Obama has named Penny Pritzker Secretary of Commerce. ...
We never heard of this guy Barack Obama until 2004. Less than three years before taking the presidency, he was in the Illinois state senate, a swamp of scammers, backhanders, and party machine tools - not a stellar launch pad for the White House. And then, one day, state Sen. Barack Obama was visited by his fairy godmother. Her name is Penny Pritzker.
Pritzker's net worth is listed in Forbes as $1.8 billion, which is one hell of a heavy magic wand in the world of politics. Her wand would have been heavier, and her net worth higher, except that in 2001, the federal government fined her and her family $460 million for the predatory, deceitful, racist tactics and practices of Superior, the bank-and-loan-shark operation she ran on the South Side of Chicago.
Superior was the first of the deregulated go-go banks to go bust - at the time, the costliest failure ever. US taxpayers lost nearly half a billion dollars. Superior's depositors lost millions and poor folk in Sen. Obama's South Side district lost their homes.
Penny did not like paying $460 million. No, not one bit. What she needed was someone to give her Hope and Change. She hoped someone would change the banking regulators and the Commerce Department so she could get away with this crap.
Pritzker introduced Obama, the neophyte state senator, to the Ladies Who Lunch (that's really what they call themselves) on Chicago's Gold Coast. Obama got lunch, gold and better - an introduction to Robert Rubin. Rubin is a former Secretary of the Treasury, former chairman of Goldman Sachs and former co-chairman of Citibank. Even atheists recognized Rubin as the Supreme Deity of Wall Street.
Rubin opened the doors to finance industry vaults for Obama. Extraordinarily for a Democrat, Obama in 2008 raised three times as much from bankers as his Republican opponent.
So what did Citibank's Rubin get for showering Obama with gold? Obama agreed to take care of Rubin's poodles, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner. They became Obama's first cabinet picks: Summers as Economics Czar and Geithner as his czarina, Secretary of the Treasury.
Geithner and Summers were the gents who, under Treasury Secretary Rubin, designed the deregulation of banking. In effect, they had decriminalized the kind of financial flim-flammery that brought the planet to its knees while bringing Rubin, Pritzker and the banksters loads of lucre.
So, in 2008, Summers and Geithner were put back in the saddle - Obama's horse but Rubin's saddle.
Rubin received more than $100 million from Citigroup, the gargantuan commercial bank/investment bank/casino created by deregulation. It is worth a mention that Rubin's centi-million-dollar payoff went unchallenged by Citi's new owner, the US Treasury, which had put up more than a trillion dollars in loans and guarantees to pull Rubin's creature out of bankruptcy.
Rubin rocked, but Penny was pissed off. Pritzker had taken this state senator/community organizer from the ghetto, made him a US Senator, then, as Obama's campaign finance chairwoman, raised a mind-blowing three-quarters of a billion dollars to make him president.
In return, in 2008, Obama decided to make his patron Penny the Secretary of Commerce. But then, in November 2008, just as Obama was about to submit her nomination to Congress, a bunch of Pritzker's victims marched on Washington. They were not from her busted bank, but unhappy workers from the lucrative nursing homes that her family owns through a string of complex offshore trusts. Obama slammed the door on Penny pronto.
continued.
The Pritzker family made its billions mostly from Hyatt Hotels and Hyatt nursing homes. Penny, on the Hyatt board of directors, is an infamously combative anti-union apostle. UNITE HERE, the union that represents Hyatt workers, has called for an international boycott of Hyatt hotels. In 2012, UNITE HERE and its parent, the AFL-CIO, were crucial to Obama's winning Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. So, in this last campaign, Obama had to keep his billionairess heiress on the down-low.
Obama appeared to keep the door shut on Pritzker throughout the 2012 campaign, reducing her to hosting an election fundraiser at her Gold Coast digs, which she had to bill as a Goldman Sachs PAC event. This marks possibly the first time and last time anyone used Goldman Sachs as a PR cover.
But today, with the unions' money and votes already pocketed and counted, Obama can give working folks The Finger and give Penny her pound of flesh: the Commerce post.
The New York Times says that, "At Commerce, Ms. Pritzker could provide the president with a new way to reach out to the business community." The last time Pritzker reached out to the business community was to sell them sub-prime mortgage securities, worthless bags of financial feces manufactured by Superior Bank.
By giving Penny, the Piggy Banker, Commerce, we have to change Obama's rating to sub-prime.
I do note that some woman’s organizations are applauding the appointment of the first female to the Commerce post. But I prefer to honor the victims of the Chicago femme fatale. Most of Penny’s victims, busted bank borrowers and underpaid health care workers, are women, too. But, unlike those wounded and destroyed by Pritzker, she worked hard for her money: it was not easy inheriting her first billion from her daddy.
Incoming!!! Even more of the serial posting from the queen of denial! Christine cares nothing for what you think or post 7:57 p.m. Too bad she won't listen you, us, or even Constance and sadly delights that she is a topic on this blog. Talk about getting in the way of the message........is she complex? I think she is not hard to figure out at all---she is a very serious narcissist (to the bone).
11:09 - With her conspiracy sites she reminds me of a certain stereotype - the man with the long black coat who whispers "I sell feelthy picture" as he looks around and opens his coat. Only she wants everybody to get excited as she opens her coat to sell ......
in case you hadn't noticed, THIS IS A CONSPIRACY SITE. Constance is listed among "conspiracy theorists" by some. this is about New Age and New World Order conspiracy.
Constance took great offense at people who denigrated her very serious, documented research on New Age as merely conspiracy theory.
http://www.ccel.us/newage.ch24.html
I do not consider her a purveyor of paranoid deranged conspiracy ideas. neither are the articles I have linked to. That's the individual articles, not everything on the sites.
but this whole subject IS in the category of "conspiracy theory" whether you like it or not.
" I do not consider her a purveyor of paranoid deranged conspiracy ideas"
We don't either Christine. Apparently that is your job here (self-appointed)...........
Donna Garner is a retired educator who does tremendous research in the field of education. She wrote, "I fought the New Age junk for so many years back when it first
began to flood into the classroom. I evaluated textbooks, gave the page numbers and exact quotes found in textbooks that had New Age bias, etc. We were able to keep some of it out of our textbooks back then; but now with the textbook adoption process in Texas being almost destroyed because of SB 6, instructional materials can be purchased by the locals without the materials having to pass through the SBOE public adoption process. Now New Age, pro-Islam/anti-Christian/anti-Judeo/anti-American content is flooding
students' curriculum. That is why we are seeing students such as the ones who did the Boston Marathon bombings.
The ANTI-CHRISTines are getting more and more foaming at the mouth, you must be doing something right Christine.
And now the New Agers come out in support of Christine. They know their own.
Susanna,
It turns out that not everybody at the National Catholic Reporter is happy with the LCWR.
Michael Sean Winters, blasted, "moving beyond Jesus".
As Fr. Z reported,
Something curious is happening at the National Schismatic Reporter (aka Fishwrap).
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/04/schism-at-nsr/
Savvy
Constance, as you have often said, the New Age movement is both on the right and on the left, so your commentary regarding the way of Josoah is apt regarding New Age. It is misusing the Bible to try to put those words into the context of disagreements on this blog. Here, from Proverbs http://bibleapps.com/proverbs/4-27.htm
stumble. 14Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. 15Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away. 16For they sleep not, except they have done mischief; and their sleep is taken away, unless they cause some to fall. 17For they eat the bread of wickedness, and drink the wine of violence. 18But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shines more and more to the perfect day. 19The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble. 20My son, attend to my words; incline your ear to my sayings. 21Let them not depart from your eyes; keep them in the middle of your heart. 22For they are life to those that find them, and health to all their flesh. 23Keep your heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life. 24Put away from you a fraudulent mouth, and perverse lips put far from you. 25Let your eyes look right on, and let your eyelids look straight before you. 26Ponder the path of your feet, and let all your ways be established. 27Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove your foot from evil.
"The ANTI-CHRISTines are getting more and more foaming at the mouth, you must be doing something right Christine."
Your poorly-worded response exactly proves the point I made smallfarm. Christine has successfully made this blog about her & for her.
Sad to see it go off message through her continuing distractions.
(and perhaps loving it too huh Christine?)
Savvy,
Thanks for the link.
Did you know that "Fishwrap" has been asked by more than one bishop not to call itself "Catholic?"
Bishop Finn: National Catholic Reporter should not call itself Catholic
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-finn-national-catholic-reporter-should-not-call-itself-catholic/
________________________________
Bp. Sheridan: the Fishwrap is “an embarrassment to the Catholic Church”
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/02/bp-sheridan-the-fishwrap-is-an-embarrassment-to-the-catholic-church/
_______________________________
Canon lawyer: Bishop has warned National Catholic Reporter
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/canon-lawyer-bishop-has-warned-national-catholic-reporter/
To 2:40 p.m.
I believe I know who you are. I NEVER stopped doing serious research on the New Age Movement which is ongoing and continuous. YOU VERY WELL KNOW THIS! Your actions unfortunately sometimes remind me of school bullies who get up gangs against less popular classmates. I was terribly bullied in school as a youngster. It probably toughened me for what was to come, but also let me know when it is ongoing for others. For that reason, if for no others, I dislike passionately the attempts to chase people such as Joyce, Christine, and others off the blog. At least Christine uses her name so the COLLAPSE COMMENTS feature can be used for those so determined to avoid her. No, I certainly do not agree with many of Christine's perspectives. But I don't agree with yours either which appears to get internet gangs and cliques up against those not saying what you feel they should say.
If you are really opposed to the New Age, you should avoid these ugly tactics which frankly are much of what drives others into the seemingly friendly arms of New Agers.
Constance
Susanna,
Who is the Reporter run by? The commenters argue that they are secular and protected under law, so the church cannot do anything.
The point here is that they call their views Catholic doctrine and dogma.
In the secular world you call this fraud.
Savvy
Dear Savvy,
I am not a lawyer, but I am aware that there are a lot of groups that have broken away from the Catholic Church that still go by the name of "Catholic" but are not officially recognized as such by the Roman Catholic Church.
From a religious point of view, this may be fraudulent, but from a secular point of view, it is not illegal.
I would say that the best any Roman Catholic bishop can do is pretty much what they already have done - namely, to publicly announce that such so-called "Catholic" groups and news publications do not in any way represent the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
Here is the lowdown on the National Catholic Reporter and its founder:
NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER
The National Catholic Reporter (NCR) is a newspaper in the United States, which covers topics on the Catholic Church; its circulation reaches ninety-seven countries on six continents.[citation needed] Based in midtown Kansas City, Missouri, NCR was founded by Robert Hoyt in 1964 as an independent newspaper focusing on the Catholic Church. Hoyt wanted to bring the professional standards of secular news reporting to the Catholic press, maintaining that "if the mayor of a city owned its only newspaper, its citizens will not learn what they need and deserve to know about its affairs".[1] It has won the "General Excellence" award from the Catholic Press Association in the category of national news publications each year from 2000 through 2011.
The publication is not connected to the Church itself and is independent. Promoting a progressive position, the NCR presents itself "as one of the few, if not the only truly independent, journalistic outlet for Catholics and others who struggle with the complex moral and societal issues of the day."
Position of the Church
In 1968, NCR's ordinary, Bishop Charles Herman Helmsing "issue a public reprimand for their policy of crusading against the Church's teachings," condemning its "poisonous character" and "disregard and denial of the most sacred values of our Catholic faith." Helmsing warned that NCR's writers were likely guilty of heresy, had likely incurred latae sententiae excommunications, and because the publication "does not reflect the teaching of the Church, but on the contrary, has openly and deliberately opposed this teaching," he "asked the editors in all honesty to drop the term 'Catholic' from their masthead," because "by retaining it they deceive their Catholic readers and do a great disservice to ecumenism by being responsible for the false irenicism of watering down Catholic teachings."
cont...
cont...
NCR refused to comply with its ordinary, and 66 Catholic journalists signed a statement disagreeing with the condemnation based on its "underlying definition of the legitimate boundaries of religious journalism in service to the church." The Catholic Press Association reported that the dispute arose from a difference of opinion regarding the function of the press."
In 2013 Bishop Robert Finn wrote a public letter on the NCR recalling that Bishop Helmsing had asked the publisher "to remove the name 'Catholic' from their title -- to no avail. From my perspective, NCR's positions against authentic Church teaching and leadership have not changed trajectory in the intervening decades." He relayed that early in his tenure the paper refused to "submit their bona fides as a Catholic media outlet in accord with the expectations of Church law" and held that they were an "'independent newspaper which commented on "things Catholic."'" In January 2013, The paper responded denying the implication that there was a decades long animosity between the bishopric and themselves, especially noting that "Bishop John Sullivan and Bishop Raymond Boland -- had cordial relations with NCR." They pointed out that NCR is a member of the Catholic Press Association of the United States and Canada whose honorary president is Bishop John Wester who also serves as the U.S. Catholic bishops' conference as its chairman of the Committee of Communications. NCR's response closed by recalling that they had published an article calling on Finn to resign or be removed from his position "After a local judge found Finn guilty last year of failing to report suspected child abuse involving a local priest".
....read more....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Catholic_Reporter
________________________________
Naturally, when these critters come under scrutiny, they, like LCWR, hypocritically trot out the sex abuse scandal in order to shift the focus of attention away from their own apostasy and moral failures.....much like the Nazis used to do in the 1930's in order to prepare public opinion for whatever moves they were planning to make against the Catholic Church.
Here is information on one of NCR's co-founders.
ROBERT HOYT
Robert G. Hoyt (born 1922 in Clinton, Iowa, died 2003) was an American journalist, and the founder and first editor of the National Catholic Reporter, an independent newspaper focusing on the Catholic Church.
In 1964, he founded the National Catholic Reporter, because he wanted to bring the professional standards of secular news reporting to the Catholic press. Its circulation went to 100,000 in just a few years, leading other Catholic newspapers to adopt its probing standards of journalism as well. However, Hoyt left the newspaper in 1970.
His opposition to the Vietnam War led him to work for the presidential bids of Senator Eugene McCarthy in 1968 and Senator George McGovern in 1972. From 1977 to 1985, he was executive editor and subsequently editor in chief of Christianity & Crisis, a liberal ecumenical journal. He was also senior writer at Commonweal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hoyt_(journalist)
______________________________
A little over a year ago, Mr. Hoyt was called to answer to a Higher Authority when he died last April, 2012.
Post a Comment