THE HEART OF DIXIE

DIXIE HISTORICAL SOCIETY

http://dixiehistoricalsociety.blogspot.com/

AN OVERVIEW OF CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHINGS AND ITS ISSUES WITH LIBERATION THEOLOGY

            Modern Catholic Social teaching begins with Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum (The Condition of Labour) written in 1891. This letter speaks out against the inhuman conditions of workers during the industrial revolution. Recognizing that three key factors underlie economic life, workers, productive property and the state, Leo indicated that a just and equitable interrelationship between the three was the crucial issue for Catholic Social Teaching.

            On the 40^th anniversary of Rerum Novarum (1931) Pope Pius XI composed the next major social encyclical called The Reconstruction of the Social Order (Quadragesimo Anno). Written during a world wide economic depression Pope Pius addresses the issue of social injustice and calls for the reconstruction of the social order along the lines set forth by Pope Leo in Rerum Novarum. He affirms the right of the Church to address social issues while condemning capitalism and unregulated competition He also condemns communism for its promotion of class warfare and a narrow reliance for leadership on the working class. Stressing the social responsibility of private property, he continues Pope Leo’s promotion of the rights of the people to a job and a just wage while pointing out the positive role of governments in promoting the economic good.

            Thirty years later Pope John XXIII wrote two major social encyclicals. Mater et Magistra (1961, Christianity and Social Progress) and Pacem in Terris (1963, Peace on Earth), set down principles to guide Christians and policy makers in addressing the gap between rich and poor nations along with threats to world peace. He calls on Christians as well as “all people of good will” to work together to create institutions which would respect human dignity and promote justice and peace. He emphasizes that the growing interdependence of the world community calls for effective government which would safeguard the rights of the individual as well as promoting the common good. Following the tradition of Popes Leo and Pius XI he stresses economic rights (right to work, just wage).

            Vatican council II produced Gaudium et Spes (1965, The church in the Modern World). This document affirmed that the Church’s religious mission gave it a “function” which can structure the community according to divine law when circumstances create this need.

            After Vatican council II, statements by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II have clarified the role of the Church in meeting the responsibilities of contemporary times. The Church has no universal solution to all of the complex issues faced by society. Pope Paul’s Populorum Progresssio (1967, The Development of Peoples), responds to the problem of world hunger and addresses the structural dimensions of global injustice. He appeals to a solidarity between rich and poor nations to work for a just order. In Octogesima Adveniens (1971, A Call to Action), Pope Paul acknowledges the difficulties in establishing a just social order and outlines the role of Christian communities in meeting this need. Christians must be hearers as well as doers of the word, pray, discern and reflect and fight injustice while laboring to bring in the reign of God. Basically, Pope Paul links the Gospel, the mission of the Church and social justice repeatedly in his writings.

            Finally in Laborem Exercens (1981,On Human Work), the central theme is labour over capital. Here Pope John Paul II, criticizes an “economism” which would reduce humans to mere instruments of production. He continues his predecessors warnings against liberal capitalism and collectivist socialism. John Paul’s Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1988, The Social Concerns of the Church) pushes the link between peace and justice further by emphasizing the plight of the third world. He calls the thirst for power and profit a “structure of sin.” In Centesimus Annus (1991,One Hundred Years) Pope John Paul II states that all have the right to acquire the skills and technology which will enable them to participate in the contemporary economy. Stronger nations have a duty to allow the weaker nations to assume their rightful place in the world. The primary role of the Church is forming minds and hearts to the gospel values.

Liberation Theology VS. Catholic Social Teaching.

            The main thrust of liberation theology is a critique of structures that create oppression. In the case of justice, Liberation theology would focus more on the question of economic freedom and political oppression. Narrowing this down to economics only, I believe that Liberation theology in the extreme would be very critical of Catholic social teaching’s lack of collectivist leanings. Although Catholic Social tradition stresses the “common good” it also tends to support political as well as economic structures that continue to manifest economic oppression. At least this is the way I think Liberation theology would view this issue. Pope’s Leo and Pius XI attempted to find a mid point between the extremes of liberal capitalism and Communism. Liberation theology’s economic views tend to focus more on collectivism than on free markets. Hence in my view Liberation theology would find Catholic Social teaching part of the structure that props up an unjust economic order. In my opinion some Liberation theologians such as Jon Sobrino would accuse the Vatican of silence in the face of world hunger and political oppression. Liberation theologians would most likely focus on the following main points in their critique of Catholic Social Teachings.

1. A lack of critique of capitalistic economic structures.

2. Maintaining a silence in the face of world hunger/poverty.

3. Of supporting and fostering established political and economic structures that create poverty and oppression.

4. Not using the Church’s political power to promote a just social order.

5. Promoting a dualism or dichotomy between the gospel/church and the political order

6. Of not breaking relationships with states that foster oppression (South America).

7. Pressuring the laity for change and not the institutional structures that rule (governments).

8. Of being insensitive to cultural diversities (developmentalism).

Catholic Social Teachings VS. feminist, mujerista, and womanist theologies

            Feminist theologies would critique Catholic Social Teachings for its lack of attention to feminist issues. The vast majority of Catholic Social Teachings see women in a subordinate role to men. Women are not seen as economic beings or bread winners. Their role is to be mothers sisters and wives. In other words to support (help-mate) men who rule, run, foster, and supply the economy.

            In my view, Catholic Social teachings address women in terms of morality only and neglects the fact that women are a major part of the world economy. Issues of motherhood, sexual immorality and children are addressed of course but usually in the vein of morality and not economics. Feminist theology would also (in a liberationist style) attack Catholic Social teachings as a structure that fosters the oppression, not only morally but economically, of women. The cultural critique would be heavily used against Catholic Social Teachings to argue against a universalist view of motherhood and women in general. All cultures do not hold Western European values that Catholic Social Teachings tend to emphasize. Therefore the Feminist critique would see this as further patriarchy which results in the moral as well as economic oppression of women as well as men.             

            In closing, Feminist theology would hammer away on the point of “common good” and “just wage” in regards to the inclusion of women. It would demand a more inclusive view of human kind that would gather in cultural as well as feminist needs. The gospel values and the preferential option for the poor which Catholic Social Teachings propound would have to be re-structured to shed light on feminist issues or suffer further critique from Feminist theology as an unjust structure.

FEMINIST THEOLOGY

Method:

            Feminist theology uses a liberationalist method. It begins in the context of women’s experience, reflects on tradition and scripture and then provides an implication for a new perspective on Christian theology and living.

            Beginning with the experience of women, feminist theology first listens. In other words it hears the voices of women from all aspects of their own contexts and experiences. From that starting point it then proceeds to seek out the particular viewpoints, experiences, thoughts, and theological reflections of women in tradition and scripture. It uses a historical-critical methodology to examine and critique the traditional portrayal of roles that women have played inside the church, scripture and general Christian history. It realizes or applies a hermeneutic of suspicion in these examinations understanding that history and theology have been recorded and written first from the viewpoint of men.

            After a critical examination of history, tradition and scripture, feminist theology then promotes, designs, and enlivens a new perspective. It displays new ways and means to use, view and understand tradition, scripture, history and Christian symbolism (The Trinity, Mary, The Cross) in a new light.

Central Question:

             Feminist theology is concerned first with the viewpoint of women. It is not a universal theology. It does not seek to find dogma or doctrines that will be applied to all aspects of Christian living. It is not scholasticism. It shuns and rejects top-down theologies that deny the historical and contextual experiences of women. In beginning with the experience of women, its central question is: “How can our Christian tradition be reinterpreted to display a feminist perspective”?

Audience:

            Feminist theology seeks to speak to and enliven the experiences of women from a contextual standpoint. In doing so it addresses particular audiences. These can include but are not limited to, African American women, Latin women, women in academia, religious ordered women, particular Christian traditions, and those interested in new perspectives on theology at large.

Sources:

            The first source of Feminist theology is experience-women’s experience. From experience feminist theology then begins to seek out other sources. The range is vast. Most begin with the Judeo-Christian scriptures, and then branch out into church history, traditional symbolism, poetry written by women, diaries, speeches, and even the lives of saints which includes Mystics, religious ordered women as well as social workers. Some have even looked beyond these sources to other texts outside of traditional Christianity. Basically any source that can be used to reinterpret Christian experience and tradition in a feminist perspective is a valid source.

The use of traditional Christian symbols:   

            Feminist theology does not look to find Christian symbolism that has been lost, nor does it attempt to contribute to the already male centered view of women throughout Christian history. It is radical. In applying the hermeneutic of suspicion to all forms of traditional Christian symbolism, it challenges and then transforms ancient symbols into new mediators of God’s presence that have bearing on the contemporary experiences of women. Mary is no longer the wounded mother figure sobbing at the cross. She is now a women who took charge of a situation, rallied other women to assist her and defied the andropocentric society in which she lived. Martha is no longer the poor downtrodden figure that begs the Christ to raise her brother from the dead. Now she insists that he do so and vehemently complains of his tardiness. Eve is no longer the temptress identified with the pleasures of the flesh but a woman capable of making a decision and then living with the consequences. The Magdalene is no longer a prostitute that plays a secondary role to the male apostles. She is now a self sustained business women who had the courage (which the men did not have) to believe in the Christ, proclaim his gospel, face down the fear of death from the Romans by staying at the cross and daring to follow his body to the tomb. As the Magdalene was the first witness to the resurrection, Feminist theology seeks to resurrect and restore the dignity of women’s experience in the tradition as well as in contemporary experience.

            Feminist theology does not just stop at the male centered way that women have been portrayed in history and tradition. The major Christian symbols are also subject to feminist critique. The Trinity is portrayed as a divine relationship centered in love. With personhood enhanced, it becomes a communion of equals, not a hierarchy or monarchy. There is not one without the other.

The wisdom tradition is brought out to the forefront. Lady wisdom is God. She is what is sought out. What controls world events. She is personified in all aspects of the tradition as well as contemporary women’s experience. Feminist scripture scholars, highlight her power and abilities as the true nature of God.

Even traditional philosophical views of the nature of God are challenged. Panentheism is enlisted to view God as a mother who holds the world inside of its womb.

Evaluation:

Feminist theology is real theology. It is dynamic. Any theology that seeks to remove the scales from the eyes of the faithful is doing exactly what Christ himself did. Any theology that calls into question the structures that enslave, demean, put in the background, or marginalize any group or individual is real theology. It is the gospel.

What feminist theology does for women it also does for men. It enlightens experience. It allows one to see how the sexes are not two different essences that have two different histories. It shows all humanity that what makes up who we are is our relationship. Women are no longer the “helpmate” of men but our partner. Equal in every aspect.

In bringing forth the viewpoint and experience of women, feminist theology takes on issues that directly effect Christian living. From issues such as the environment to contemporary occurrences of sexism, racism and marginalization along with traditional philosophical ideas of the nature of God, Feminist theology forces the Christian to “discern the spirits” and “signs of the times” in order to create a new praxis, a new interpretation that finds, as well as mediates, God’s will.

From the perspective of this writer, feminist theology as a theology of liberation has challenged me to take a new look at women, as well as scripture, tradition and my own philosophical notions concerning the deity. Even the Christ cannot be seen as the heroic figure that fights for justice, truth and the American way any longer. Thanks to feminist critiques, I now am forced to see others including the women, as heroic, but more than that—as human and not defined by the role as secondary to man.. The contextual and  relationary aspects of feminist theology has allowed me to understand the historical nature of structures that promote the sins of sexism, racism and marginalization. Without these critiques, I would have continued to hold a scholastic and thoroughly stoic conception of existence.

Finally, I would like to say that the liberationist methodology and in particular the feminist use of it have contributed in two major ways to my own theological understandings, 1. It has show me that all theology is liberation theology and 2. Any theology that does not bring forth questions from experience is not theology and can not mediate God to anyone.

SPINOZA: ON THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURES

Spinoza

On the Interpretation of Scriptures

            This brief work will outline Spinoza’s method of biblical interpretation, in his Theological-Political Treatise,  and then make a pronouncement upon the practicality of such. Some comparison with the method of St. Augustine will be supplied.

            For Spinoza:

1. The methods of interpreting nature and scripture are the same.

• Detailed study on fixed data
• Deduce by logical inference the meaning of the authors
• Knowledge of scripture must be sought from scripture, no other knowledge of scripture will apply

2. Scripture teaches moral doctrine

• Only through this moral doctrine alone can divinity be proved
• This divinity must be established from the fact that scripture teaches “true virtue”.

3. Studies must include

• Knowledge of the biblical languages
• Categorization must be used for each book in regards to subject.
• Context of writer
• Original meaning of author is more important than a truth of reason.
• Literal meanings should be retained as much as possible
• If all fails, then pronouncements should be regarded as irreconcilable.
• Relevant circumstances of supposed writer: character of the author, who they were, what occasion for writing, what time, for whom, and what language.
• How many different books, how they were received and by whom, how many variant versions, and by whose decision they were canonized. Also how the books were united as a whole.

4. Make no assertions that claim to be the doctrine of the Holy Spirit

5. If any passages contradict, consider the time, place, occasion and for whom they were written.

6. In regards to revelations, certainty cannot be inferred.

7. Authority, such as Rabbis, Popes and Church doctrines on scriptures should be questioned. Tradition should be scrutinized.

8. Texts may have been altered by the learned.

9. Since the method that  knowledge of scripture can only be based on scripture, anything that cannot be achieved by this method must be considered “unattainable”.

Difficulties with the method according to Spinoza:

1. It demands a thorough knowledge of Hebrew

·        Many nouns and verbs are completely unknown or subject to dispute

·        Idiom and modes of speech have been lost

2. Further problems with composition and nature of Hebrew

• Letters are substituted for each other
• Multiple meanings of conjunctions and adverbs
• Verbs in the indicative mood lack the present, the past imperfect, the pluperfect, and the future perfect, along with other tenses.
• Imperative and Infinitive moods of verbs lack all the tenses except the present and in the subjunctive there are no tenses at all.
• Hebrew does not have vowels
• Hebrew has no punctuation.
• Punctuation that has been supplied is questionable.

3. No method can solve all the ambiguities.

4. The method requires an account of the history of all biblical books and this cannot be provided.

Conclusion of Spinoza:

1. We cannot always know true meaning of scripture, (author’s intentions and meanings in regards to revelation). What is beyond our comprehension, can only be imagined.

2. We can know matters open to intellectual perception. Matters open to reason.

3. Through this method of historical study we can grasp the meanings of moral doctrines and “be certain of their true sense.”

4. Scripture can be understood in confidence in “matters relating to salvation and necessary to blessedness.”

5. Method demands only the light of reason.

6. “By a process of logical deduction that which is hidden is inferred and concluded from what is known, or given as known.”

Summary:

            From a reading of Spinoza’s method of biblical interpretation, it is my opinion,  practical. It involves education and the “light of reason” which begs the question of practicality. But, Spinoza also violates logic when he infers that one can deduce morality from divinity and vice versa.  Especially in regards to scripture, this may not be the case.  It also presupposes a sense of morality. Not only on man but on the deity. Also the terms “blessedness” and “salvation” are abstracts that may or may not be inferred from reason since they also belong in the realm of the whims of the deity. To deny miracles due to reason and grant salvation in the same process can perhaps also be considered contradictory. Then again these are abstracts and can be considered as presupposed definitions, even on my part.

            As far as any comparison with Augustine’s methodology, the two are similar, although Spinoza would not allow for any literary critical methods. They both share the maxim on morality but define it differently. Augustine does not deny the supernatural, of course. Personally since I myself are somewhat infused with Thomism, I like both of these methods but tend more towards the Augustinian in order to hold on to my neo-platonic overtones. Basically the methodologies are the same. Reason. 

            One note more on the problems of Spinoza’s method: 1. It only uses deduction. Apparently it presupposes one text to work from. I assume the MS. 2. Since authority is in question, there are no means of finalizing any interpretation, even if Spinoza sees some things as “clear” 3. Since scripture can be interpreted only through comparisons with other scripture, isn’t this like saying, “the bible is the word of God because the bible says it is” ? 4. The assumption of “virtue” and morality, as common teachings of scripture may not be or can not always be deduced from literal meanings, at least in my opinion. And cannot be known without other sources. 

            

      

GAZELLE (PRIESTLY VESTMENTS)

http://home.comcast.net/~momdio/gazelle/gazelleweb.htm

ISLAM IN BRIEF

ISLAM: GOD AS ONE   

            In Islam, the assertion that God is one (Tawid), is the “bedrock of all life and truth.” For Muslims the confession of faith is brief and to the point: “There is no God but God, and Muhammad is the messenger of God.” This is called the “Shahadah” (confession), the basic Muslim confession of faith. Reciting this with faith is what makes one a Muslim.

            When Muslims say the “shahadah” the emphasis is on the exclusion of other divine beings. The word “Allah” means “the God”. God completely fills the divine realm to the total exclusion of any other. God cannot be divided into parts. God has no competitors, no associates, no enemies, no helpers. Although Muslims do believe in the existence of angels and messengers who carry out the will of Allah. All of these creatures belong to the created realm. Only God is God.

            God is transcendent, far beyond the created realm and separate from the created world. Muslims insist on the separation between the two realms of divine and created. To mix God with the created realm would be to compromise God’s oneness. According to the Koran/Quran, associating something else with God is Shirk, the greatest sin.

            This oneness of power therefore means that there is no other source of power. Everything results from the will of God. Although God does allow a certain measure of freedom to creatures, giving them moral responsibility for their actions, the fact that God is almighty means that no other divine power rules or directs an individual’s life.

God has given self-revelation to humans –the Koran. Thus knowledge encompassed in the sciences and humanities, that are not contaminated by human error, lead to the same truth about God found in the Koran. No other divine power is to be discovered with human reason, all knowledge leads to God. “The unity of God thus means the unity of human knowledge.

Since sin is not of the essence of humans, it is possible to live in total submission to God’s law. In other words it is possible for humans to be perfect Muslims. For Islam, the prophets through whom God has sent revelation have all been perfect humans, completely doing God’s will. In the Muslim view failing to follow God’s commands are sin, but there are some sins more serious than others. Major sins include:

1. To believe that there are partners of God

2. To disbelieve in God, God’s prophets, or God’s books, or to deny any of the fundamental principles of Islam

3. To Lie

4. To commit adultery or other illegal sex.

5. To Steal

6. To cheat or deceive anyone

7. To bear false witness

8. To bring false charge against anyone

9. To backbite

10. To do damage to anybody or injure anyone’s feelings.

            How can one start to live a real life? Each of us has the capacity to realize God’s design. The path is active, or being in harmony with God’s “felicity” (falah). This is fundamentally a path of knowledge. Although the central concept is that of submission this is not where the path begins. Knowledge of God will bring about submission. What brings about this knowledge? Simply “iman” or faith. It is not irrational faith such as what Christianity seems to confess at times, but a faith based on rational certainty arrived at through the use of our intelligence. This is the highest form of knowledge. This ‘iman” leads one to “certain knowledge” which then leads one freely to Islam or submission.

            How do we arrive at this knowledge? It is true that God’s whole creation is full of signs that speak to us but because humans are forgetful (sin for Muslims), these signs alone are not enough. Therefore starting with Adam, God has sent reminders through the prophets for guidance on the path toward “certain knowledge and submission.” This is the role of revelations that God has sent to all peoples in all times and places. These revelations have included the Torah brought by Moses, the Gospel brought through Jesus and culminating in the Quran as the final perfect reminder. The Quran is the eternal, uncreated book, authored by God and sent down through the Prophet Mohammed. It contains the complete truth for all peoples of all times. God’s revelation challenges us to arouse our intellects from its dreaming state and to use our reason to ascertain the truth about existence. No one is compelled to accept or follow the Koran, rather they are to hear the revelation, study, examine, test, and inquire of it, until finally their reason leads them to iman (faith). If we truly follow our intellect we will arrive at the “certain knowledge” that the truth presented in the Koran is the ultimate and highest truth. For everything in the universe is of one piece in God’s design. We can be certain that “there is no God but God.”

            Knowledge achieved by intelligence on the basis of God’s guidance, then submission chosen by free will is the path of Islam.

THE NEXT CRUSADE

     According to The Florida Catholic, 65 year old Chaldean Arch bishop Paulos Faraj Rahho of Mosul was kidnapped Feb. 29 after leading the Way of the Cross service at the Church of the Holy Spirit in an attack that left his driver and two bodyguards dead. The kidnappers then demanded 1 million dollars in ranson. Later, on March 13th the Arch Bishop's body was found in an unmarked grave, but it is not apparent wheather he was killed or died of a heart condition.

    Mosul is an Al Quieda strong hold and according to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki the group is responsible for the Arch Bishop's death.

     Chaldean Bishop Rabban al Qas of Arbil stated: “It is a heavy cross for our church ahead of Easter.”

     Chaldean Christians have had a long history of persecution in areas under Islamic control and especially under Sadaam Hussien. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Chaldean Christians have suffered more attacks. Although in this writers opinion many American Christians are too critical of Islam and its followers, no one can deny that Islamics in the U.S. are treated far better than Christians in the middle east. If Islamic leaders knew that Western leaders would use these attacks to buttress the war effort, I am sure they would stop. With a U.S. gentry already under the mass media impression that Islam is the mortal enemy of the country, attacks on Christians only supply fuel to the fire. American service people fight wars and often war means death. America is no stranger to this fact, but when the followers of Christ are killed for their beliefs, those who do such crimes are asking for a response from America that I assure you they does not want. Ex-presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has already used the analogy of "the gates of hell" in regards to attacks on American ships, do Islamic leaders really believe that American leaders are not capable of using the same jihadist propaganda that they are? If Islamic leaders in the U.S., as well as in the middle East, do not condemn such actions and make every effort to stop the murder of Christians, then I fear that no one in the West will be waiting for the Pope to declare the next Crusade. You can rest assured that the next U.S. president will make that declaration . 

LET OBAMA SPEAK FOR HIMSELF

SHOW ME SOUTH

http://www.geocities.com/clintlacy1/index.html

JAY CROSS SPEAKS OUT!

Time to stop all this historical cleansing

To the Editor:
Cumberland Times--News

I consider anyone that “considers” any part of American history as a symbol of hatred un-American and a racist.

If we give in on this what other segment of American history will be up for grabs.

The American flag? It flew over legalized slavery, the KKK flies it every day. George Washington owned slaves. Think he should be removed from our history books? General U.S. Grant owned a slave and so did General Sherman. Erase their history too?

If Americans don’t get a handle on all this historical cleansing that is going on today our great nation will be toast. Good or bad history is history. Study it, that what’s it’s all about. Confederate history is American history.

Confederate veterans are American veterans. And if they were not, then why is the Veterans Administration Supplying FREE grave markers to replace damaged (vandalized) or unreadable Confederate markers?

I’m sure only American vets can take advantage of this program. Look up grave markers on the VA Web page. You will find that Confederate Veterans are considered American vets.

As covered by U.S. Code 38 enacted in 1957,” The definition of a civil war veteran will include those who served in the military and naval forces of the Confederate States of America.”

I have personally ordered three markers myself for Confederate American Veterans.

Jay Cross

Pierson Fla.

GERMAN JEWISH LEADER ADMONISHES POPE BENEDICT

    Charlotte Knobloch  the president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany has admonished Pope Benedict for his approval of "a new version of a Good Friday prayer for the conversion of Jews." This is a continuation of the complaints about the Vatican allowing the use of the old Latin style mass which contained a prayer referencing "Jewish blindness" and asked God to "remove the veil from their hearts". Although the Vatican deleted those phrases from the prayer it held to the request that "all Israel may be saved" In other words, convert to Christianity.

     Ms. Knobloch also stated that she, "could not envision a continuation of the inter-religious dialogue as long as the old prayer stands," and "As long as the Catholic Church, that is to say Pope Benedict, does not return to the previous wording, I assume that there will not be any further dialogue in the form that we were able to have in the past."

     Although I have some sympathy with Ms. Knobloch, I am not surprised by the Pope's actions nor hers. Supersessionalism or Replacement theology (Christianity has replaced Judaism) has been around as long as Christianity has. Ms. Knobloch would do well to blame one of her own for this issue, namely the Apostle Paul. If Ms. Knobloch thinks that the Roman Catholic Church has not been the leader in dialogue between Jews and Christians she is mistaken, and threatening to stop the discussion is utter nonsense. For one, Ms. Knobloch does not speak for all of Jewry. For two, what does she expect from the leader of the largest Christian Church in the world? Does she expect him to relinquish two thousand years of theology and hope? Even if the Pope were able to strike the phrases from the prayers she refers to, does she seriously believe that supersessionalism will go away? Lastly, the fact that Ms. Knobloch and all those of Jewish faith can have a dialogue at all with Christians is due to the instigation of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps she should take ear to what is being said in Protestant circles and especially fundamentalist, evangelican and dispensationalist thought. If she would do so, I am sure that she would welcome more dialogue with the Pope. She will get no where with the Protestants. 

VETERANS FOR RON PAUL

http://veteransforpaul.org/

"THE CRUMBLING U.S. EMPIRE" BY DR. RON PAUL

House Democrats recently adopted a budget with massive tax hikes, many of which are directed at those Americans who can least afford them.

By allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, this budget will raise income taxes not only on those in the highest income brackets, but raises the lowest bracket from 10 percent to 15 percent as well. Estates would again be taxed at 55 percent. The child tax credit would drop from $1,000 to $500. Senior citizens relying on investment income would be hurt by increases in dividend and capital gains taxes. It's not just that the Democrats want to raises taxes on the rich; they want to raises taxes on everybody.

The problem is, policing the world is expensive, and if elected officials insist upon continuing to fund our current foreign policy, the money has to come from somewhere. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost us more than $1 trillion.

The Democrats' budget gives the president all the funding he needs for his foreign policy, so one wonders how serious they ever were about ending the war. While Democrats propose to tax and spend, many Republicans aim to borrow and spend, which hurts the taxpayer just as much in the long run.

Supporting a welfare state is expensive as well. More than half of our budget goes to mandatory entitlements. The total cost of government now eats up more than half of our national income, as calculated by Americans for Tax Reform, and government is growing at an unprecedented rate. Our current financial situation is completely untenable, and the worst part is, as government is becoming more and more voracious, the economy is shrinking.

The bottom line is that Washington has a serious spending addiction. While both parties debate how to raise the revenue, both parties seem happy to spend more than $3 trillion of your money in various ways.

While some in Washington criticize the war in Iraq, very few are criticizing the interventionist mindset that got us into the war in the first place. Many so-called "Iraq war critics" criticize this administration rather than truly oppose the decades-old policies that led to war. They claim they will eventually get the troops out of Iraq, but the danger is that they simply plan to move them around to other countries, not bring them home. The American people want peace. Minding our own business is the best way to achieve it. Not only is it also a whole lot cheaper, but free trade and friendship with other countries benefits all involved.

This spending spree is exactly the wrong policy for an economy on the brink of recession. History has shown that all empires eventually crumble under a worthless currency and with an exhausted military.

Since too many of our nation's leaders haven't taken the time to learn from history, we are seeing mistakes repeated through recently enacted policies such as the new House budget.

This article can originally be found on World Net Daily in Dr. Paul's weekly writings called "Texas Straight Talk."

PREACHER BLASTS OBAMA

SENATE SELL OUTS FROM FLORIDA

United States Senate roll call votes regarding an amendment to the 2007 Fisa act which would strike the provisions "providing immunity from civil liability to electronic communication service providers for certain assistance provided to the Government", show that Florida Senators Mel Martinez and Bill Nelson believe it is fine for private firms that the public has hired to protect them to be able to supply the government your personal information and not suffer any liability. Florida voters, and especially Florida's Cuban community should know that Castro would be very proud of Mr. Martinez and Mr. Nelson. On a side note, Mr. McCain who Mr. Martinez endorsed in the presidential election just before the Florida primary also held the same line. Therefore, let it be known, that Mel Martinez is another big government, big brother, big corporation, big eye in the sky socialist just like his comrade on the island he fled from. His vote displays that he will sell out the American people, the Florida voters and those brave men and women from Cuba who risked their lives escaping the same things that Mel Martinez is now voting for. Perhaps Mr. Martinez is in line for the presidency of Cuba since he cannot get elected here.

SHAME ON BILL GATES

     Microsoft founder Bill Gates has stated that U.S. immigration policy "makes attracting and retaining high-skilled immigrants exceptionally challenging for US firms."

     What Mr. Gates is complaining about is something called a H-1B Visa which allows U.S. corporations to hire skilled labor from outside the country. "Last year, for example, Microsoft was unable to obtain H-1B visas for one-third of the highly qualified foreign-born job candidates that we wanted to hire."

     Now are you hearing what Mr. Gates is saying, there is not enough skilled labor in the U.S. to suit his needs, and our immigration policy needs to be revised so that he can hire more foreign nationals. Mr. Gates goes on to say that, if these needs are not met, he will be forced to "locate staff in countries that welcome skilled foreign workers."

     Lastly, Mr. Gates tells us that "the United States needs to improve science and math education to train a new generation of tech leaders, reversing a move away from these fields. If we don't reverse these trends, our competitive advantage will continue to erode. Our ability to create new high-paying jobs will suffer."

     Basically the raw truth is put forth here. Americans do not have the skill required to work in the software industry due to the fact our education levels are too low. Therefore in order to maintain Microsoft's as well as Mr. Gate's domination in the field we need to allow him and his corporation to hire foreigners, and if we don't, he will pack up and leave.

     We cannot deny that Mr. Gates is correct about our education system, nor can we deny that he has the right to move his operations elsewhere. What we can deny is that our immigration system is stopping him from hiring the quality foreign help he needs. Has he not noticed that the border with Mexico is wide open. Why does he not just bring truckloads of his skilled workers across it. I mean, whose going to question Microsoft and Bill Gates, least he, "locate staff in countries that welcome skilled foreign workers." 

    By now you must see my point. Mr. Gates is in Washington threatening the corporate whores in  congress that he will leave if he doesn't get his way. He uses the term "we" when it comes to money, and "the United States" when it comes to education. If Gates were more loyal to the U.S. than to his corporate empire he would lobby to open his own university and train the professionals he needs as well as push congress to fix the education system instead of issuing threats. With these remarks, Gates shows that he is not an American. He is another corporate elitist who cares only for himself and his corporation and the U.S. be damned.  Shame on you Bill Gates.

Dr. Steve Parent

I would like to thank Dr. Steve Parent for his post of February 6th on this web site. I found Dr. Parent's writing on our Ron Paul meet up site here in Broward County Florida and used it. As was proper I contributed it to the source (although I personally do not know the good Doctor). That particular post receives many hits through Google searches and the like. I am not aware if Dr. Parent is a popular writer or someone who is at the higher levels of the Ron Paul campaign, but obviously he has knowledge of the delegate selection process. Therefore I am grateful for the publicity he is supplying this blog. I would like to offer Dr. Parent an opportunity to write something here if he happens to find this post and chooses to do so.  Good luck Dr. Parent where ever and whomever you are.

Ron Paul Blasts Federal Reserve Chairman

HILLARY'S MISSISSIPPI DANCE ROUTINE

     With the Great State of Mississippi holding its primary soon, Hillary Rodman Clinton is doing all she can to retract her remarks she made earlier this year during the Iowa Caucus.

"How can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi? That's not what I see. That's not the quality. That's not the communitarianism; that's not the openness I see in Iowa,"

     Any Southerner can see what Mrs. Clinton is implying with these remarks. That the South does not have equality or "communitarianism" or "openness." In other words, the South does not have the "quality" of the North and should not be "ranked" in the same category.  Now Mrs. Clinton wishes to explain.

"What I said is what I learned is that neither Iowa or Mississippi had ever elected a woman statewide and I referenced the fact that I was the first woman elected statewide in New York and I told the Iowans that they had a chance to try to change that and now in Mississippi giving Mississippi voters a chance to change that."

     Apparently Mrs. Clinton is not aware that Mississippi voters have elected women "statewide" including two Lt. Governors. Therefore the dancing around isn't very convincing. Lets face it, Hillary is just another pandering politician (Carpetbagger) coming to the South looking for votes when she could care less about the people of Mississippi. Her past displays a clear pattern of lies, deceit and power grabs. I believe many have noticed how vile and underhanded the Clintons can be (NAFTAGATE) when their propaganda machine isn't producing the results they want. This blog has lambasted the Obama Campaign from top to bottom and will continue to do so, but one thing is for sure, I for one will shed no tears when the Clinton machine is buried under a Gulf state's sands. 

THE FARC AND OBAMA

     According to Frank Bajak of the Associated Press,  the lap top siezed from the terrorist group FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces Of Columbia) by the Columbian military disclose conversations between FARC Leaders and President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela as well as President Rafael Correa of Ecuador. If this is not enough,  Raul Reyes, "the FARC's foreign minister and public face", is said to have stated, before he was killed,  that:

"the gringos, working through Ecuador's government, are interested in talking to us on various issues. They say the new president of their country will be (Barack) Obama... Obama rejects both the Bush administration's free trade agreement with Columbia and the current military aid program [to Columbia]."

     So isn't this interesting. Americans working with the leftist government of Ecuador and talking to terrorists about who our next president will be. One should wonder who these "gringos" are and if they are affiliated, employed by, or representatives of the U.S. government, as well as how they would know who the next President is going to be. I have previously displayed to you Obama's ties to left wing terror groups. Could this be another part of the puzzle. You tell me, but one thing is for sure, Barack Obama has friends in some very left places.