The Holocaust was Caused by the Church, not Just Hitler

February 25, 2013

The Holocaust was Caused by the Church, not Just Hitler

The Christians were against the practise of Judaism and tried to convert the Jews. In secular Europe, the Jews themselves were rejected as a race. Hitler’s foundations were laid in the 4th century, and still stand.

Ted Belman, Israpundit

The Holocaust didn’t occur because of Hitler but because of the Church. Hitler merely built upon the policies of the Church and drove them to their logical conclusion.

Of course I am familiar with the idea that but for Christianity, the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened, but wasn’t fully aware of the debt owed by Hitler to precedents set by the Church for the details of his policies, including the final solution.

R. Hilberg’s classic The Destruction of European Jews provides the link. Hiberg begins his introduction with these words:

1) The German destruction of the European Jews was a tour de force; the Jewish collapse under the German assault was a manifestation of failure. Both of these phenomena were the final product of an earlier age.

2) Anti-Jewish policies and anti-Jewish actions did not have their beginning in 1933. For many centuries, and in many countries, the Jews have been victims of destructive action. What was the object of these activities? What were the aims of those who persisted in anti-Jewish deeds? Throughout Western history, three consecutive policies have been applied against Jewry in its dispersion.

The policies referred to included 1) conversion, 2) expulsion and 3) extermination. The first and second were often accompanied by the threat of execution; all of which were sanctioned by the Church.

Hilberg explains:

1) The first anti-Jewish policy started in the fourth century after Christ in Rome. In the early 300’s, during the reign of Constantine, the Christian Church gained power in Rome, and Christianity became the state religion. From this period, the state carried out Church policy. For the next twelve centuries, the Catholic Church prescribed the measures that were to be taken with respect to the Jews. Unlike the pre-Christian Romans, who claimed no monopoly on religion and faith, the Christian Church insisted upon acceptance of Christian doctrine.

2) For an understanding of Christian policy toward Jewry, it is essential to realize that the Church pursued conversion not so much for the sake of aggrandizing its power (the Jews have always been few in number), but because of the conviction that it was the duty of true believers to save unbelievers from the doom of eternal hellfire. Zealousness in the pursuit of conversion was an indication of the depth of faith. The Christian religion was not one of many religions, like other religions. It was the true religion, the only religion. Those who were not in its fold were either ignorant or in error.
The Jews could not accept Christianity.

The same might be said of Islam, though it allowed Jews and Christians, “peoples of the book”, to be dhimmis and pay a tax, Jizya”, for the privilege. The Church also imposed a similar tax on Jews.

1) In the very early stages of the Christian faith, many Jews regarded Christians as members of a Jewish sect. The first Christians, after all, still observed the Jewish law. They had merely added a few non-essential practices, such as baptism, to their religious life. But this view was changed abruptly when Christ was elevated to godhood. The Jews have only one G-d. That G-d is indivisible. He is a jealous G-d and admits of no other G-ds. He is not Christ, and Christ is not He. Christianity and Judaism have since been irreconcilable. An acceptance of Christianity has since signified an abandonment of Judaism.

2) With patience and persistence, the Church attempted to convert obstinate Jewry, and for twelve hundred years, the theological argument was fought without interruption. The Jews were not convinced. Gradually the Church began to back its words with force. The Papacy did not permit pressure to be put on individual Jews; Rome never permitted forceful conversions.

3) However, the clergy did use pressure on the whole. Step by step, but with ever widening effect, the Church adopted “defensive” measures against its passive victims. Christians were “protected” from the “harmful” consequences of intercourse with Jews by rigid laws against intermarriage, by prohibitions of discussions about religious issues, by laws against domicile in common abodes. The Church “protected” its Christians from the “harmful” Jewish teachings by burning the Talmud and by barring Jews from public office.

And yet it is the Jews who are always attacked for their separateness.

1) The clergy was not sure of its success – hence the widespread practice, in the Middle Ages, of identifying proselytes as former Jews, hence the inquisition of new Christians suspected of heresy, hence the issuance in Spain of certificates of “purity” (limpieza) signifying purely Christian ancestry, and the specification of half new Christians, quarter new Christians, one-eighth new Christians, etc.

Hitler’s racial purity laws found their antecedent and precedent in these laws. And so did his order that Jews identify themselves by wearing a yellow Star of David.

Efforts to convert the Jews were spectacularly unsucessful, even aided by all the restrictions placed on the Jews.

1) Too much had been invested in twelve hundred years of conversion policy. Too little had been gained. From the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries, the Jews of England, France, Germany, Spain, Bohemia and Italy were presented with ultimatums which gave them no choice but one: conversion or expulsion.
In 1542 Martin Luther rejected the authority of Rome and started the Lutheran Church. He, too, hated the Jews. He and others who broke away from Rome became known as Protestants. There followed hundreds of years of war between Catholics and Protestants.

At the end of the Eighteenth Century, the French Revolution took place, a by-product of which was the liberation of the French Jews, who thereafter enjoyed equal rights. The armies of the revolution, headed by Napoleon, spread the values of “liberte, fraternite and egalite” to the east, including in Germany and Italy. With the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, the Bourbons in France kept the liberating legislation, but the monarchs in Germany and Italy cancelled it. Nevertheless, Jews embraced the belief, after a taste of liberation, that full equality was the inevitable corollary of the emerging secular-political order throughout Europe. In Germany, Reform Judaism was founded and in Russia and Poland, Jews flocked to the Communist banner.

But many segments of society remained deeply anti-Semitic, leaving many Jews to conclude that the promise of “liberte, fraternite and egalite” was a pipe dream even though the society was now secular. And so was born the the movement for the Auto-Emancipation of the Jews, which became known as Zionism. Jews had to reconstitute themselves as a nation in their own land.

In Christian Europe, the Jews had only to convert to be accepted. The Christians were against the practise of Judaism. In secular Europe, the Jews themselves were rejected as a race. Thus, conversion was not open to them. But expulsion or emigration was still available. Thus millions of Jews the Pale of Settlement beginning in 1880 emigrated well into the nineteen thirties. Hitler searched in vain for a country to which to expel Germany’s Jews, but no one wanted them. In 1942 he instituted the final solution, extermination.

R. Hiberg in his masterful study, argues:

1) If we analyze that singular massive upheaval, we discover that most of what happened in those 12 years, 1933 to 1945, had already happened before. The Nazi destruction process did not come out of a void, it was the culmination of a cyclical trend beginning in the Fourth Century in Rome.

During the conversion era, the Church said, “you have no right to live among us as Jews”. Then in the segregation/expulsion process, “you have no right to live among us” and finally in the extermination process, “you have no right to live”.

1) These progressively more drastic goals brought in their wake a slow and steady growth of anti Jewish action and anti-Jewish thinking…. The German Nazis then, did not discard the past, they built upon it. They did not begin a development, they completed it. In the deep recesses of anti-Jewish history we shall find many of the administrative and psychological tools with which the Nazis implemented their destruction process. In the hollows of the past we shall also discover the roots of the characteristic Jewish response to an outside attack.

To better understand this statement, Hilberg presents a table of Canonical Law restricting the Jews beginning in the Fourth Century opposite which he places similar Nazi measures.

Then writes:

1) No summation of Canonical Law can be as revealing as a description of the Rome ghetto, maintained by the Papal State until the occupation of the city by the Royal Italian Army in 1870. A German journalist who visited the city in its closing days, published such an account:

2) “To rent any house or business establishment outside the ghetto boundaries, the Jews needed the permission of Cardinal Vicar. Acquisition of real estate outside the ghetto was prohibited. Trade or industrial products or goods were prohibited. Higher schooling was prohibited.. The professions of lawyer, druggist, notary, painter and architect were prohibited. A Jew could be a doctor provided he confined his practice to Jewish patients. No Jew could hold office. Jews were required to pay taxes like everyone else and, in addition, the following: 1) A yearly stipend for the upkeep of the Catholic officials who supervised the Ghetto Finance Administration and the Jewish Community Organization, 

2) A yearly sum of 5250 lira for Casa Pia for missionary work among Jews, 3) A yearly sum of 5250 lira to the Cloister of the Converted for the same purpose. In return the Papal State expended a yearly sum of 1500 lira for welfare work. But no state money was paid for education or the care of the sick.”
Hiberg also provided a table of Pre-Nazi and Nazi Anti-Jewish Measures. As can be seen, the destructive process was at work in Germany long before the Nazis came to power.

But all this in no way is meant to excuse Hitler.

After the Holocaust, the manifestations of anti-Semitism became very subdued. It was not “cool” to express such feelings in any way. Unfortunately, the haters began expressing the anti-Semitism as anti-Zionism. These expression are now commonplace and the hatred of Israel is growing exponentially. As a result, the movement to exterminate Israel has become very strong.

But we Jews will survive that too.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12905#.USbX8FrwLbw


Vatican denies deal with Israel on security barrier

October 24, 2012

Local church leaders deny report IDF planning to build fence on its land in Cremisan Valley so that it could remain on Israeli territory.

Local church leaders on Tuesday denied reports that the Vatican has allowed the IDF to build the security fence on its land in the Cremisan Valley, so that the property could remain on the Israeli side of the barrier.
The valley is situated between the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo and the West Bank settlement of Har Gilo in the Gush Etzion region.

It borders the Walaja village which is battling Israeli plans to build additional sections of the barrier there.
The Assembly of Catholic Ordinaries of the Holy Land on Tuesday issued a statement to the press in which it condemned construction of the barrier in the valley.
The statement was signed by 22 church leaders region including Waldemar Sommertag, the charge d’Affairs of the Apostolic Delegation in Jerusalem and Palestine.
“The Catholic Ordinaries deny the existence of any explicit or implicit agreement between the Vatican, the local church and Israeli authorities regarding the construction of this illegal wall,” the Assembly of Catholic Ordinaries of the Holy Land wrote in a statement to the press.
A spokesman for the group said it issued its statement in response to a fact sheet for the non-governmental group The Israel Project on the barrier.
The Israel Project stated, “The barrier in the Beit Jala area was constructed on Church lands, based on an explicit agreement reached between Israel and the Vatican.
“The route of the barrier in this segment was constructed at the request of the Vatican, and with consent (at that time) with local priests, in a way that leaves the Cremisan Monastery, along with most of its lands, on the Israeli side of the fence,” it said.
This statement is not true, a spokesman for the Catholic Ordinaries said.
The Foreign Ministry and the Defense Ministry have yet to comment on the issue.
The Israel Project said it received its information from a former colonel in the IDF’s Central Command, Danny Tirza, who was in charge of designing the route of the entire barrier in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Israel is building the barrier to prevent suicide bombings.
Tirza said that he had personally gone to the Vatican to negotiate the details of the agreement while he was in the IDF.
Israel cannot use church land without its agreement unless there are security issues involved, Tirza said.
In this case, the church allowed Israel to use its land in places where it wanted the property to remain on the Israeli side of the barrier. This included in the Cremisan Valley and a monastery for the Emmanuel sisters near Bethlehem.
The only way to honor that request was to use church land for the barrier, Tirza said.
“So we tried to put all their land on one side and to take the minimum land that is needed,” he said.
“I met with the deputy of the secretary of state of the Vatican. I showed him all the planes and he signed on some of the planes,” said Tirza.
Most of the fence in that area is inside the municipal area of Jerusalem, Tirza said.
Once the route leaves Jerusalem, it enters the Cremisan Valley, he added.
The church leaders said in their press statement that plans for further building of the barrier affect the Al-Walaja village and 58 Christian families from Beit Jala, whose depend on that land for their livelihood. It also impacts two local Salesian congregations located there as well as a school with 450 children.
If the barrier is construction the church leaders said, “the local community will lose one of its last big agricultural and recreational areas as well as a crucial water sources for farmers.
The Tel Aviv Magistrates Court is in the midst of hearing a case against the barrier in that area that was filed by the St. Yves Society, the Catholic Center for Human Rights.

…and now the truth trickles out. The church is scared of the Muslims, but not officially


Corpus Separandum is Latin – The Catholic Church demanded Jerusalem not be part of Israel in 1947?

December 18, 2011
His Blood Be Upon Us

Pious XII personally intervened after 1945 to commute the sentences of convicted German war criminals. This solicitude for Nazi criminals contrasts sharply with Pius XII ignoring all entreaties to make a public statement against anti-Semitism even after the full horrors of the death camps had been revealed in 1945. “A provisional conclusion, drawn from the study of thousands of documents, is that the mass murder of Jews was fairly low on his list of priorities. Of course, much the same could be said of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin, but they did not claim to be the “Vicar of Christ” or to represent the Christian conscience.”… “The million or so unpublished documents from the pontificate of Pius XII (1939-1958) according to the Vatican’s most recent estimate, will only be available in about four year’s time.”…

The_United_Nations ran “Durban II” and on the first day of the conference, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the only head of state to attend, made a speech condemning Israel as “totally racist” and referred to the Holocaust as an “ambiguous and dubious question.” When Ahmadinejad began to speak against the Jews, all European Union delegates left the conference room. The Vatican delegation didn’t say a word. Pope Benedict visited Bethlehem, where the Christian population has dropped from a majority to less than 20%. Benedict delivered a message of solidarity to the 1.4 million Palestinians isolated in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. He said nothing of the suffering of Gaza’s 3,000 Christians since Hamas took over that territory in 2007. Benedict could have decried the bombings, shootings and other Islamist attacks against Gaza Christian establishments, the brutal murder of the only Bible-store owner of Gaza, or the regular intimidation and persecution of Christians there. Instead, the Pope stood beside Mahmoud Abbas as the Palestinian leader deceptively pointed to a concrete separation barrier in Bethlehem and blamed that barrier, as well as Israeli “occupation,” for the plight of Christians.


Carroll a lapsed Catholic priest is a prolific writer on Church-related subjects, such as Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews — A History, and he writes thoughtful and intelligent books. Here’s what Carroll has to say about the UN intention in 1947 to preserve Jerusalem outside either a Palestinian or a Jewish state: Arabs, both Christian and Muslim, wanted control of the sacred centers, but they were not alone in being unable to abide the thought of Jewish control. Yes, the city was the most disputed real estate in Palestine, but mere political turf was not really the issue. The clue to the significance of the Corpus Separandum proposal for the city lay in its being offered in a Latin phrase – the language of Rome, which had initiated Jerusalem’s condition as an apocalyptic nerve center (see the Arch of Titus, near the Colosseum, with its bas-relief celebration of the first century destruction), and of Catholicism, which had kept the condition current. Greeks, too, were part of this, as Byzantium had carried forward assumptions about Jewish expulsion from the land that Constantine and his mother, Helena, had made holy. But by now the Vatican was the chief custodian of exile theology, and it was universally expected to be a party to any internationalizing arrangement. Rome’s unfulfilled desire for Jerusalem was the very genesis of the mimesis – The mimetic rivalry. The Holy See has previously expressed support for the status of corpus separatum. Pope Pius XII was the among the first to make such a proposal in the 1949 encyclical Redemptoris Nostri Cruciatus. This idea was later re-proposed during the papacies of John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II. Corpus separatum is Latin for “separated body”. The term refers to a city or region which is given a special legal and political status different from its environment, but which falls short of being an independent city state.

Jews Expelled from Jerusalem in 1948

Tuesday, February 15, 2000 – In a historic meeting at the Vatican, Pope John Paul II and the leader of the PLO terrorist organisation, Yasser Arafat, signed a covenant. “According to this agreement, Jerusalem should be an international city based on international resolutions and an international guarantee. (The UN decided on more than one occasion that Jerusalem should be an international city.)”“They also decided that any step or activity taken by Israel to change this position of Jerusalem is against the law. The agreement also recognises a “Palestinian” state in the land of Israel and agrees on cooperation between the Vatican and the PLO and the Vatican committed itself to assist the so-called “Palestinians”. Authorities in the Vatican explained: “the agreement paves the way for establishment of full diplomatic relations with a Palestinian state when it is founded”. The PLO representative in the Vatican stated: “This is an historical covenant”.

the NT curses Jews. some xians translate that curse differently then other xians, but in the end I don’t feel very comfortable with a faith that is based on a document that confused people for 2000 years (supposedly)… and frankly I don’t …think they were confused. I take people at their word that they are peaceful, but history is not interpreting that curse well… and Jews are aware of this. I’m not orthodox… I’d like to be, but my life is cushioned in secularism. I live next door to a minister who lends me his lawn mower in the summer despite the fact that he is a Ron Paul fan and thinks the Rothschilds control the banks. I understand that there are people who do not understand their own texts and therefor act on their own human nature. I’ve had a nice conversation with a guy from New Guinea… eating people was just part of his culture. I get it. I also understand that we can not survive if we point out the truth all the time and have to get along. I would like to clarify… I don’t fear Christians. I will tell you why. The Holocaust proved to be the absolute worst thing that ever happened to the church. If another Holocaust happened it would be exponentially bad for Christians. The reason is that if every last Jew were killed off (1) it would not deny the messianic prophesy… because our messiah could be the child of gentiles who were from the line of David. (2) many moral Christians would be angered and would convert to Judaism after every last Jew was killed. Judaism is an inherent Western position. As long as there are Christians there will be Jews… till the end of time. If I were a church leader it would make sense on a pure level of benefit to protect ‘Israel. To not support Judaism from a Christian position is suicide. It is true that we Jews now depend on you for our protection. Our planes will not fly without your technology. We Jews might contribute, but our relationship is symbiotic. So do not fear any hate from me. On the other hand… as much as our relationship is dependent on one another… there is also an inherent character of the Christians to kill Jews that comes directly from your doctrine. it is like a death wish however. it might be seen as a misinterpretation… but it appears to be a misinterpretation that won’t ever go away because replacement theology can be argued axiomatically.

Thousands Abused in Dutch Catholic Institutions

December 16, 2011
Media_httpaabcnewscom_dfbmk(abcnews) (h/t @Jewess) Thousands of children suffered sexual abuse in Dutch Catholic institutions over the past 65 years, and church officials knew about the abuse but failed to adequately address it or help the victims, a long-awaited report said Friday. The release of the report was followed by an apology to victims by the archbishop of Utrecht, who said the revelation “fills us with shame and sorrow.”

The Dutch investigation uncovered some of the most widespread abuse yet from a slew of inquiries around the world into sex abuse in the Catholic church. It echoes reports in Ireland that detailed how tens of thousands of children suffered wide-ranging abuses in workhouse-style residential schools.
The Dutch report said Catholic officials failed to tackle the widespread abuse, which ranged from “unwanted sexual advances” to rape, in an attempt to prevent scandals. Abusers included priests, brothers, pastors and lay people who worked in religious orders and congregations, it said. The investigation followed allegations of repeated incidents of abuse at one cloister that quickly spread to claims from Catholic institutions across the country.
The suspected number of abuse victims who spent some of their youth in church institutions likely lies somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000, according to a summary of the report investigating allegations of abuse dating back to 1945.

The commission behind the report received some 1,800 complaints of abuse at Catholic schools, seminaries and orphanages and said that the institutions suffered from “a failure of oversight.” It then conducted the broader survey of the general population for a more comprehensive analysis of the scale and nature of sexual abuse of minors — both in the church and elsewhere.
Based on a survey among more than 34,000 people, the commission estimated that one in 10 Dutch children suffered some form of abuse broadly in society. The number doubled to 20 percent of children who spent part of their youth in an institution like an orphanage or boarding school — whether Catholic or not.
The commission was set up last year under the leadership of former government minister Wim Deetman, who said there could be no doubt church leaders knew of the problem.
“The idea that people did not know there was a risk … is untenable,” he said.
Deetman said abuse continued in part because the Catholic church in the Netherlands was splintered, so bishops and religious orders sometimes worked autonomously to deal with abuse and “did not hang out their dirty laundry.”
However, he said the commission concluded that “it is wrong to talk of a culture of silence” by the church as a whole.
Bert Smeets, an abuse victim who attended the presentation of the report, said it did not go far enough in investigating and outlining in precise detail exactly what happened.
“What was happening was sexual abuse, violence, spiritual terror, and that should have been investigated,” Smeets told The Associated Press. “It remains vague. All sorts of things happened, but nobody knows exactly what or by whom. This way they avoid responsibility.”
Archbishop Wim Eijk said victims would be compensated by a commission the Dutch church set up last month and which has a scale starting at euro5,000 ($6,500) and rising to a maximum of euro100,000 ($130,000) depending on the nature of the abuse.
He said he felt personally ashamed of the abuse. “It is terrible,” he said.


Learning From the Murder of a Pedophile

November 27, 2011

"Jews Care About Their Own!" Is Not An Indictment

November 15, 2011
Edward Gilbert, the leader of the Catholic Church in Port of Spain…
EXERCISING THE EMPATHY MUSCLE (h/t Daled Amos) by Rabbi Avi Shafran


Politicians are often subject to derision, often for good reason. Recently, though, a Catholic cleric hurled an unusual and creative insult at local politicos: They are like Jews.
Edward Gilbert, the leader of the Catholic Church in Port of Spain, the capital of the southern Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago, made the comparison between elected officials and “the original Jewish people,” explaining that Jews, at least in ancient times, cared only about their own.
“The Jews were compassionate and caring to the people of their nation, to the people of their race…,” Archbishop Gilbert reportedly said during an October 24 religious ceremony commemorating the 225th anniversary of the Roman Catholic presence on Trinidad. Christianity, he proudly asserted, “universalized the concept of love.”
Predictably, the Anti-Defamation League protested the sermon, calling Mr. Gilbert’s statements “a disturbing repackaging of ancient anti-Jewish canards and supersessionist beliefs.” The American Jewish Committee chimed in with chiding of its own, contending that “such prejudicial comments not only reflect personal ignorance, but also ignorance of the teaching of the Catholic Church since Nostra Aetate.” That was a reference to the Vatican II declaration repudiating the centuries-old “deicide” charge against all Jews, stressing the religious bond shared by Jews and Catholics, and reaffirming the eternal covenant between G-d and the People of Israel (though it does not, of course, renounce the essential beliefs of Christianity).
Personally, I wasn’t insulted by the Archbishop’s characterization, even if he meant to include contemporary Jews.

Because caring for one’s own is eminently defensible. In fact, it’s the only way to truly care for anyone.
Not much effort is needed to profess true love for all the world; but to actually feel such love just isn’t possible. Gushing good will at everyone is offering it to no one.
That is because, by definition, care grows within boundaries; our empathy for those closest to us, to be real, must be of a different nature than our concern for others with whom we don’t share our personal lives. Boundaries are what make those beloved to us… beloved to us.
Every person lives at the center of a series of concentric circles, the smallest one (in a healthy dynamic) encompassing parents, spouses, and children; the next circle out, other family members and friends; the one beyond that, members of their ethnic or religious groups. At a distance removed from that is a larger circle of human beings with similar values. And further out still, the circle containing the rest of humanity.
It is perfectly proper that we feel, and demonstrate, our deepest concern for the circle closest to us. More: it is the only way to achieve genuine care, providing us the ability to bestow it, if in a less intense form, upon those in the next circle out, and, in turn, on those beyond it.
Nothing demonstrates the danger of “universalizing the concept of love” better than the religion Mr. Gilbert represents. For all Christianity’s claim to have expanded its affection to all of humanity, early Church history was characterized by the vicious intolerance demonstrated by early “fathers” and emperors; the Middle Ages’ Crusades left swollen rivers of blood; and, a few centuries later, Reformation battles between Catholics and Protestants added millions of corpses to the body count.
Perceptive Jews and non-Jews alike understand how essential it is that ethnic or religious groups show special concern for other members of their “tribes.” They sense what to some may seem counterintuitive: it is precisely the intense empathy we feel and express for our “inner circles” alone that enables us to feel genuine, if somewhat less acute, concern for those in more distant ones. People who focus their deepest feelings on those close to them are those most likely to truly care about their fellow citizens or wider circles still. Exercising the “empathy muscle,” so to speak, provides the ability to feel—less intensely but more genuinely—concern for people who are not close to us.
So while the Trinidadian cleric may have been attempting an insult, he inadvertently provided his listeners—and all who were reached by media reports of his words—something else: a valuable opportunity to ponder how caring works.

this post gets to the heart of why liberal universalism (also meaning Catholicism) is the heart of what is wrong with the world today and how true love does not come from abstract ideas like “the world”, but rather true love comes from loving within boundaries. That means NATIONALISM, and your FAMILY. The real haters think they are in love with Gaia or some material everything. The real lovers have walls. The real haters want to tear down borders. The real haters want to push standards that are not compatible with FAMILY. The real haters want to create universal equivalencies. They want to take away difference. The real haters don’t want to recognize gender. The real haters don’t want to recognize borders. The real haters are what today we consider social liberals… and they have so much in common with the liberals of yesteryear… yes the liberals called Christians.


Vatican Backs Obama’s Global Agenda

October 18, 2011
March 2: Pope Benedict XVI delivers his blessing during a general audience in the Pope Paul VI  hall at the Vatican.
“His blood be on us and on our children”

It’s an old story… but I think some Conservatives need to be reminded:

Pope Benedict, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, had endorsed a “World Political Authority,” a form of world government, in his recent encyclical “Caritas in Veritate.” This world political authority, in the Vatican view, is supposed to “manage the economy,” bring about “timely disarmament,” and ensure “food, security and peace