HOME PAGE COMMENTSVic Biorseth, http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.comThis page reserved for HOME PAGE COMMENTS.
Comments
Date: Mon Oct 26 20:00:48 2009
I find your site very compelling and thought provoking. Thus far, I have read your points on the home page and that of health care. I agree - profoundly agree. I am a repentant Catholic fully returned to the Church as of 2004. I currently run our RCIA program (the appalling lack of catechesis in the American Church is a spiritual holocaust). You see what I see (though more articulately): a nation increasingly and diametrically opposed to its founding documents, founding father and founding principle (what you have termed), Judeo-Christian Ethos. Not one Founding Fathers nor one single state of the original 13 colonies would have ratified the Constitution if they had seen the Leviathan that the federal government has become. The 10th Amendment seems to be an ornament between the 9th and 11th and nothing else - and yet is a part of the document staring us in the face. Personally, I believe that everyone is directly or indirectly bought of with federal funds. People are more willing and states less willing to contest intrusion into their jurisdiction when they're paid off. I'm still recoiling from the 2008 election. Four years ago, Obama would not have been a serious candidate. Aided and abetted by a press with a canine devotion that Joseph Stalin would have coveted, and who learned well the lessons of John Kerry's defeat - swore to themselves they would not let it happen again. Vetting was left for marginalized right-wing former mayors of Wasilla. Obama is virtually a ghost with a vague yet suspicious past who sat in a anti-white, anti-American, Black Liberation Church. All his writings and grades are sealed. There is a supernatural incuriosity about this man. I believe he is diabolically protected - perhaps I don't really have a clue how much. McCain was no barrel of laughs but I knew he loved the country. I am equally convinced that Obama does not love the country and perhaps despises it...... I apologize; I went too long for a comment. I thank you for the site and look forward to reading more. PRO DEO ET PATRIA. DOMINUS VOBISCUM. Date: Tue Oct 27 04:34:42 2009
Stan: Thank you, sir. You might like to look at Deliverance from Evil next. Et cum spiritu tuo. Regards, Vic Date: Tue Oct 27 05:46:50 2009
Note, for those (like me) who don’t speak Latin; I had to look this up. ”Pro Deo Et Patria” translates to “For God and Country,” and is the motto of the US Army Chaplain Corps. I wrote the For God and Country page without knowing that. Regards, Vic Date: Tue Jun 29 15:07:43 2010
Good day I am trying very hard to find my way back to the Church, and I am walking through this difficult and tiring process day by day. I know that I will need sites like this to educate me one way or the other. While the process continue, may I ask you in all kindness and as constructive criticism, to please clean up the spelling on the first page / introduction? It is rather irritating and even off-putting to read some absolute clangers on a site that purports to be an intellectual resource. I will be following the site with some interest. Thank you so far. Date: Tue Jun 29 17:56:06 2010
Andre: Welcome; the destination is well worth the journey, and it should get easier the farther you walk. If you read Scripture with an open heart you will be moving in the right direction; if you love history, all the better, for it makes the journey that much more enjoyable. Thank you, but I am no intellectual or any great scholar; just a simple working man. However, I will have you know, my grammar school teacher learned me good talking. Maybe my spell-checker needs updating or something; you will have to point out all the “clangers” for me. I assume you are talking about this HOME PAGE. I just looked at it and nothing jumped out at me. It may be a cultural thing. I have noticed that Brits and Canadians and Ausies and South Africans all have a funny way of abusing the English language, which probably is only properly spoken here in America. Even here, the Southerners and the Westerners and the Easterners all have funny accents. We are originally from Michigan, the only place without any accent and where the language is spoken most properly. Of course, the Ohioans around here may disagree, but what do they know? Regards, Vic Date: Tue Mar 29 01:47:01 2011
What are these people at Commonweal thinking? Have you seen this Vic?: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=12690 Have at it... Jim Evans Date: Tue Mar 29 06:09:24 2011
Jim: There is no real thinking here. Or at least there is no Critical Thinking. Eagleton (and, I suspect, Boudway) is traveling under several gross misconceptions, reinforced if not introduced into Western thought by Marx’s great, masterful hoax. Chief among these misconceptions is the rather silly notion that depicts “wealth” as a fixed pie in need of “fair” division. In this conception, designed to invite envy, class warfare, and to promote violation of Thou shalt not steal, and violation of Thou shalt not covet, each billionaire becomes a billionaire only at the expense of others who are not billionaires. Hence, each billionaire “owes” something “back” to the larger community. Exactly as if he took it or stole it from someone, or from everyone. Of course, wealth is not a fixed pie in the first place. Wealth is created, multiplied, expended, wasted and destroyed, in a never ending process. Marxists, whether of the treacherous revolutionary variety or the useful idiot variety, oppose the true nature of wealth. The treacherous revolutionary hides the truth about the nature of wealth and the useful idiot isn’t smart enough to figure it out. Another gross misconception is revealed in the projected vision of “probable future of nuclear-armed states warring over a scarcity of resources; … ” indicating the silly belief that the world is running out of “resources”, whether food, fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal, or whatever. At this point in time, this notion is just plain stupid. Proven reserves of everything go up, not down, over time. That includes food. More of it is discovered and/or produced every year, not less. Again, treacherous revolutionaries will hide these facts, and useful idiots are not smart enough to even seek the truth. Few educated people today have read about the famous Ehrlich – Simon bet, and who won and who lost. We talked about it in the Population Problem page, and again in the Eco-Nazi page. There are none so blind as they who will not see. If Eagleton (and Boudway) was smart enough to objectively investigate Marx, then he should have learned about Marx’s love of Machiavelli and subsequent adoption of The Ends Justify the Means; and of his adoption of the Hegelian Dialectic, which was a well thought out method by which to achieve Machiavellian dictatorship. The whole goal is to work toward two things: chaos and anarchy so that a strong ruler will be welcomed by the masses, and the centralization of political power, so that it might be more easily seized by someone ruthless enough to seize it. If he was either honest enough, or smart enough, he would have known and reported that the true hidden purpose behind everything Marx wrote, including his Communist Manifesto, was to get someone who was not the ruler into the position of being absolute ruler. That’s it. All the rest is just so much cover story, embellishment, camouflage and window-dressing. The whole, sole purpose behind all of Marxism is the transfer of political power, and the final achievement of absolute power. The last line of his Communist Manifesto, “WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!” was a work of diabolical genius. That line lit the first fire of Marx’s class warfare, by alienating the employee from his own employer, and placing a socio-political wedge of open enmity and animosity between them. That one line forever made “Community Organizing” very easy for all future Marxist agent-provocateurs. I’ve covered it all here in the Marxism page, and in the Definition of Marxism page, and in the Refuting Marxism page, chief among a host of others. It just gets tiresome going over the same old ground so many times. Obviously Marxist-dominated formal education has me radically out-gunned, for my viewpoint seemingly represents the minority viewpoint everywhere. But here’s the open “secret” that will cause Marxism to ultimately fail: There ain’t no such thing as any fixed pie of wealth to be fairly re-distributed by anyone. Regards, Vic Date: Sun Apr 03 21:13:22 2011
You are implying that unions are always bad and always wrong and that no workers are or ever were exploited by their employers and that is just not true. There were and are all sorts of oppressive practices in the job market and there is nothing a worker can do about it without a union. I don’t know and I don’t care who started any particular union the important thing is that collective bargaining levels the playing field and gives the worker some say. Date: Mon Apr 04 07:26:04 2011
Gwen: So does a free job market level the playing field and give the worker some say. A free job market means, of course, lots of employers and limited monopoly, so that lots of employers are forced to compete with each other for good employees, and employees have lots of free choices for jobs between employers. Laws and regulations should (and in most cases do) restrict such things as monopoly and secret collusion among employers, re price fixing, wage fixing, etc. I have yet to see a union that was a one-shop union or one-store union or one employer union. I have yet to see a union that was not national or international, or not somehow affiliated and organizationally aligned with a national or international organization of unions. This is movement toward and into monopoly and secret collusion among employee union members, re wage fixing, benefit fixing, etc. It is precisely and exactly what unions accuse employers of doing. It is exploitation, on a grand scale. While I agree that some of that has happened and may be happening on both sides of the argument, I submit that it has become a one-sided argument, with the unions holding the upper hand, supported as they are by the American Marxocrat political Party that is almost totally dependent upon union support for its very existence. In the open job market, the potential employer offers a job, and offers a description of the work, expected production of the work, the work place, the time the employee is to arrive, the number of hours he is to work, the time for lunch, the time work ends, how much the employee is to be paid, arrangements for overtime, benefits, vacation time and so forth. The potential employee takes it, or leaves it, and continues his job search. In the union shop, the union tells the employer specifics about the description of the work, what time the employee will show up to work, the time for breaks and lunch, how many hours the employee is to work, how much and what quality is involved in the production of the employee, how much the employee is to be paid, limitations and pay for overtime, vacation, paid time off, medical leave, medical benefits, retirement benefits, and so forth. What’s wrong with this picture? The purpose of the employer going into business was to produce a product or a service in the competitive free market for a profit. The purpose of the union is to secure a job for an employee for specified pay and benefits, and specific deducted union dues, and to hell with the product or service. There is, of course, a third player: the Marxocrat Party political office holder. The politician wants his ever increasing share of the payroll deducted union dues, while he works from his high office to further the goals of Marxism. So the first clause in your first sentence is quite correct. I am implying that unions are always bad. In fact, I’m stating it. Regards, Vic Date: Thu Apr 07 06:12:19 2011
Do you not see a close philosophical relationship between the goals of the burgeoning Right wing political movement in France and the Tea Party in the US? Is there a possibility of linking up here, as a beginning point to linking other such movements in other nations, so that the Right would have a movement of global scope too, to counter the global movement of the Left? Date: Thu Apr 07 07:18:48 2011
Jacques: No, not really. While I’m not really familiar with any such “Right wing” movements in any other countries, I know that even the terms Right and Left do not mean the same things in other lands that they mean here in the US. The American Tea Party movement is absolutely unique in the entire world, and in world history. It is a movement to restore America to government by constitution, and, I submit, the American Constitution itself is absolutely unique in the entire world, and in all of world history. There is and can be no other quite like it. So the Tea Party cannot be called a movement of the Right, in the usual sense of that term, even as applied in America. Neither France, nor any other country, can ever hope to have a Constitution that is the same as the American Constitution, and so neither France, nor any other country can ever hope to be the same as America. The Tea Party does not seek to change the world; the Tea Party seeks to restore American government to be run, guided and constrained by the American Constitution, and that is a very distinct and very specific political goal, which is, again, absolutely unique in the world today, and unique in world history. Any foreign movements that seek to restore or strengthen citizen liberty and/or representative government and/or national sovereignty and/or Judao-Christian morality and/or national security are to be applauded and supported, wherever they occur, but there is no movement anywhere to equal the Tea Party awakening in America today. Other nations may try to emulate us, but no nation may ever hope to successfully develop the same Constitution, and so no nation can ever be quite the same as us. Unless the Tea Party movement fails, of course; then – sooner or later – we will all be the same, and all peoples will be made equal in suffering. Regards, Vic Date: Thu Apr 07 14:44:53 2011
If the Tea Party does not seek to change the world then why did Bush seek to establish Democracy in Iraq? Other places in your site you talk about spreading Democracy so how can you say that the Tea Party is not a global movement of the Right? Date: Fri Apr 08 08:25:31 2011
Jacques: First of all, the Tea Party movement did not exist until after Bush left office. In defense of the Bush – Democracy policy, he was right, in that Democracies historically do not make war on each other. To seek to allow, support and strengthen a new Democratic government somewhere is not the same thing as trying to establish some sort of proxy USA somewhere. It is doing the next best thing, which is, to establish citizen liberty to the extent that it can be established, under representative government. The next best thing to the American Constitutional form of government is probably the form of Constitutional Parliamentary Democracy after the model of the UK, before she descended into a Marxist-inspired mommy-state with a population of dependent little thumb-suckers directed by a huge and growing army of petty bureaucrats. The American Tea Party movement is a purely American phenomenon with no foreign aspirations or intentions. The only people on earth today who want to establish any sort of global system of world government are Marxists, Moslems and lunatics. -- And, unfortunately, useful idiots. Unfortunately, since the news media is predominantly Marxist, the primary education system is predominantly Marxist, academia is predominantly Marxist, show-biz and celebritwittery are predominantly Marxist, whole political Parties are predominantly Marxist, multiple generations of citizens everywhere have been schmoozed into believing the Marxist falsehood that government knows best, and the best solution to any problem is a government solution, and the world is “inevitably” moving (evolving?) into a global community, which will somehow be wonderful. Even though it is undefined, and thus not even comparable to what we have now or had in the past. What the Tea Party points out is that government is the problem. The Tea Party seeks to reduce government; everyone else seeks to increase it. Regards, Vic Date: Fri Apr 08 08:57:21 2011
Only the Tea Party seeks to reduce government, and everyone outside the Tea Party seeks to increase government? Date: Fri Apr 08 09:34:08 2011
Jacques: That is certainly what it looks like to me. Regards, Vic Date: Wed Apr 13 10:22:31 2011
Vic – I recently became a follower of Rush Limbaugh, and he made me see much of the world in a new light. My views have now been modified, and changed against much of what I thought I knew all my life, and I almost feel like an actual another person. I see the reasoned approach to all that he says. Then I found your site, and you have rocked my world. I thought you were too apocalyptic and conspiratorial, and even frightening. Now, I have started following Glenn Beck – do you know he is even more apocalyptic than you? And he backs it up with solid evidences. I have now come back to your site after some time away, and I am re-reading some of the things you wrote in light of other things I have learned. You and Glenn are scaring me to death. I know I’ve got a lot more reading and learning to do, but right now there are two questions I would like answered. One, why did your gloomy prediction regarding Obama’s big expensive trip abroad not come true, and two, what do you think of Donald Trump as a candidate for President? Thank you for your great volume of information. Sandra Date: Wed Apr 13 14:08:38 2011
Sandra: Thank you, and welcome. Now that you have had your Tea Party awakening, you need to find your nearest local liberty group and join it. You have not really recognized truly apocalyptic writing until you have looked at the Marxocrat speeches, editorials and opinion pieces that preceded every single false emergency government spending program since TARP. Stimulus I, Stumulus II, Health Care, etc., etc., etc. With every single one of them, if it didn’t pass, the world would end in absolute calamity. Every one of them was a lie. Marxist frighten the people into herds by crying wolf. That’s what they do. Re your reference to my gloomy prediction – I think you might be talking about what I said on the Obamadinejad In Exile? webpage. If that’s not it, let me know. In that page, I didn’t really make any precise prediction, something I rarely if ever do, but what I did was express alarm and point to possibilities. It worried me, and I said so. The fact of the matter is that Obama is a creator of chaos and instability, as are many of his contemporaries, both in this country and elsewhere, some of them uneasy colleagues of Obama, some of them uneasy enemies of Obama. Whatever course they may be on, all of them, including Obama, are ready to turn on a dime. That fact alone should cause unease in all of us. The one thing about chaos and instability is that it is unpredictable in itself, and what comes after it is unpredictable. That is the nature of chaos and instability. Even Obama cannot predict what particular previously planted social, economic, international or military time bomb might go off first. I would bet that Obama and his kind are generally more prepared to deal with chaos and instability at any point in time than you or me. They are causing it, and hope to exploit it in some way, or to later expropriate the ones who first exploit it. Re The Donald, as a candidate for President – what can I say? Donald Trump may be among the worst examples of American entrepreneurs, not because of lack of business success, but because of the method used to achieve it. Trump gives every appearance of being a big time Capitalist who has adopted the Machiavellian-Marxian edict, The Ends Justify The Means. Once upon a time, everyone would have recognized that as evil; unfortunately, today is almost a commonplace, accepted maxim. Look at the typical Trump approach to becoming filthy rich, one step at a time.
It’s the basic immorality I have a problem with. Where is his moral foundation? I don’t have to ask that question about Sarah Palin. Regards, Vic Date: Wed Jul 20 21:24:52 2011
Vic, I agree with almost everything I have read here so far, except for the notion of “Thinking Catholic.” It seems to me that “Thinking Catholic” is restricted thinking, or thinking with tunnel-vision, as the restricted vision of a horse with blinders on. If you are restricted by Catholic Church authority from thinking in certain (or any) directions, then you are not open to correctly reading Holy Scripture and to allowing the Holy Ghost to fully enter into your life. If Thinking Catholic means restricting your thought to Catholic “Tradition” and the confines of the Catholic Magisterium then you are not truly free to think. It is not free-thinking. That means, it is controlled thinking. Do you agree or disagree? Date: Thu Jul 21 06:44:18 2011
Thinking Evangelical: I both agree and disagree. Catholicism is more than a religion or a Church; it is an ethos; it is a family; it is a way of life; it is a tradition; it is a norm. Thinking Catholic is, therefore, a way of thinking within a family. It involves a bending of the personal will to the good of the family as well as to the good of the soul. The good Christian subordinates his desires to the will of God. The Catholic Thinker subordinates his desires to the teaching of the Church, which actually is the best representation, in black-and-white, of the will of God that is available to man. It is collected and preserved in the Depositum Fide laid down by Christ and His Apostles, protected by the Catholic Magisterium. If man does not subordinate his desires to the will of God, his desires will eventually subordinate his thinking to the will of Satan. It is not impossible for one man alone to subordinate his desires to the will of God; Abraham did it. But, it is much, much easier to subordinate ones desires to the will of God from within a strong family that strongly supports that effort. Thinking Catholic does not mean “controlled” thinking in so much as it means “correct” thinking, when correct thinking means subordinating it to the will of God. All you have to do is look at the historical Marxists, at the atheists, or at the Democrats, to see where absolutely free-thinking leads man. (See the Sole Authority? page for my take on “Scripture Alone.”) Regards, Vic Date: Sun Nov 13 06:40:25 2011
To Dick McManus for Congress, Democrat, Everett WA: Your submission was one, long, nonsensical and ridiculous screed, containing, point by point, positions that are opposed and refuted all over this site. Why you would seek support here is beyond reason. Your core beliefs defy credulity. You are, in a word, nuts, sir. This site is vehemently opposed to every single thing that you hold dear. You can read, one would assume; the only remaining possibility for why you would seek support here is that you might be nuttier than a fruitcake. Sorry, but I will not publish your wild rant bordering on lunacy, or any of your supplied links. This site stands for truth, faith, family, tradition, property and American liberty. It’s nice to know that you have an alternative, but – no thanks. Regards, Vic Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.
|
Like this page on FaceBook.
Free E-Zine subscription - each time anything new is published in this site, recieve it in your e-mail.
or you can email him at
llindsay@woh.rr.com.
What kind of man are you?
What kind of family is yours?
What kind of people are we?
What kind of nation is this?
Decide.
is looking for
A Few Good Men
who are Catholic Priests, retired, about to retire or available for reasignment.
CLICK HERE
Note that all Tea Party / Patriot groups do not have a Website. Look around your neighborhood.
We are EVERYWHERE.
Atheist Genesis:
In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing.And then nothing accidentally exploded and created everything.
And then some bits of everything accidentally encountered other bits of everything and formed some new kinds of everything.
And then some bits of everything accidentally arranged themselves into self-replicating bits of everything.
And then some self-replicating bits of everything accidentally arranged themselves into dinosaurs.
See?
(See Argument Refuting Darwinism)
Are you a gatherer or a scatterer?
You alone must choose.
You are all out of time.
The time to choose is right now.
