Happy President's Day, Donald Trump. This is Bigly.
What can be said about the POTUS, Donald Trump, besides the fact he reminds one of a Maine Russet * Potato - a thin-skinned vegetable riven with internal rot.
Well, one can say he is better than both George Washington, who was a traitor (oncet a lieutenant colonel for the Brits) and Abe Lincoln ** who was a committed anti-negroist who wanted the lot of them to be freely deported and who did not free one slave.
O, and Donald Trump is not a traitor who served in the military of a foreign nation, he does not own any negroes, he does not steal their teeth, and he has no known plans to deport negroes or to chop down Palm Trees and use the wood to BBQ Manatees.
But on to former Presidents whose precedents are not taught to American children because City-On-A-Hill-Beacon-Of-Liberty-Jacobin-Messianic-Bully-Pulpit-Bull Shit.
Below is a painting of the fabulist, George Washington, who claimed that as a six year old, he cut down a Cherry Tree to sell Cherry wood to his slaves so they could BBQ pigeons and woodchucks.
But everyone knew that at that age George was out on the lawn playing pretend afternoon tea with the Monarch, George the third, and a major queen in his own right.
It was as America's first POTUS - a military failure, negro-owning, tooth stealing, childless (ahem) egg-shaped loser who went to war with scores of the sons of liberty who only wanted to make their own hooch - that he established the moral standard that all of his subsequent successors have never failed to meet and exceed.
The First POTUS (many consider him the Bruce Jenner of his day) was, aptly enough, a traitor, and a failed military man who stole the teeth of his negro slaves every time he lost a tooth (The English have always had trouble with teeth and masculinity).
And just as soon as he was selected POTUS, he went to war against innocent patriots who wanted to make their own hooch without paying a protection fee to the F N government and we now call those hideous days the Birth of Liberty.
http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-case-of-george-washington.html
Honest Abe Lincoln got his nickname for the same reason a 400 lb. mobster gets the nickname, Tiny.
There is a huge idolatrous statue of this insane war criminal in Washington and that is the place chosen by Cuck Face, Glenn Beck, to hold some rally and whine about America's Baby Daddy.
Abe didn't free one slave and he wasn't too keen on the negroes; he wanted to send them to Honduras to be coal miners.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/06/thomas-dilorenzo/the-real-lincoln-2/
* The Maine Russet is as dead to me as the former gabmeister of, Meet the Press, TimRusset, Russert, for Florida produces the best potato in America and its Red, White, and Gold potato varities are delicious and spotless.
**
Well, one can say he is better than both George Washington, who was a traitor (oncet a lieutenant colonel for the Brits) and Abe Lincoln ** who was a committed anti-negroist who wanted the lot of them to be freely deported and who did not free one slave.
O, and Donald Trump is not a traitor who served in the military of a foreign nation, he does not own any negroes, he does not steal their teeth, and he has no known plans to deport negroes or to chop down Palm Trees and use the wood to BBQ Manatees.
But on to former Presidents whose precedents are not taught to American children because City-On-A-Hill-Beacon-Of-Liberty-Jacobin-Messianic-Bully-Pulpit-Bull Shit.
Below is a painting of the fabulist, George Washington, who claimed that as a six year old, he cut down a Cherry Tree to sell Cherry wood to his slaves so they could BBQ pigeons and woodchucks.
But everyone knew that at that age George was out on the lawn playing pretend afternoon tea with the Monarch, George the third, and a major queen in his own right.
It was as America's first POTUS - a military failure, negro-owning, tooth stealing, childless (ahem) egg-shaped loser who went to war with scores of the sons of liberty who only wanted to make their own hooch - that he established the moral standard that all of his subsequent successors have never failed to meet and exceed.
The First POTUS (many consider him the Bruce Jenner of his day) was, aptly enough, a traitor, and a failed military man who stole the teeth of his negro slaves every time he lost a tooth (The English have always had trouble with teeth and masculinity).
And just as soon as he was selected POTUS, he went to war against innocent patriots who wanted to make their own hooch without paying a protection fee to the F N government and we now call those hideous days the Birth of Liberty.
http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-case-of-george-washington.html
Honest Abe Lincoln got his nickname for the same reason a 400 lb. mobster gets the nickname, Tiny.
There is a huge idolatrous statue of this insane war criminal in Washington and that is the place chosen by Cuck Face, Glenn Beck, to hold some rally and whine about America's Baby Daddy.
Abe didn't free one slave and he wasn't too keen on the negroes; he wanted to send them to Honduras to be coal miners.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/06/thomas-dilorenzo/the-real-lincoln-2/
* The Maine Russet is as dead to me as the former gabmeister of, Meet the Press, Tim
**
Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes [1]
August 14, 1862
This afternoon the President of the United States (Lincoln) gave audience to a Committee of colored men at the White House. They were introduced by the Rev. J. Mitchell,
Commissioner of Emigration.
E. M. Thomas, the
Chairman, remarked that they were there by
invitation to hear what the Executive had to say
to them. Having all been seated, the President,
after a few preliminary observations informed them
that a sum of money had been appropriated by
Congress, and placed at his disposition for the
purpose of aiding the colonization in some country
of the people, or a portion of them, of African
descent, thereby making it his duty, as it had
for a long time been his inclination, to favor that
cause; and why, he asked, should the people
of your race be colonized, and where?
Why should they leave this country? This is,
perhaps, the first question for proper
consideration. You and we are different races. We
have between us a broader difference
than exists between almost any other two races.
Whether it is right or wrong I need
not discuss, but this physical difference is
a great disadvantage to us both, as
I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them
by living among us, while ours suffer from your
presence.
In a word we suffer on each side. If this is
admitted, it affords a reason at least why we
should be separated. You here are freemen
I suppose.
A VOICE: Yes, sir.
The President---Perhaps you have long been free, or all your lives. Your race are suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when
you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed
from being placed on an equality with the
white race. You are cut off from many of
the advantages which the other race enjoy.
The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality
with the best when free, but on this broad
continent, not a single man of your race is
made the equal of a single man of ours. Go
where you are treated the best, and the
ban is still upon you.
I do not propose to discuss this, but to present it as a fact with which we have to deal. I cannot alter it if I would. It is a fact, about which we all think and feel alike, I and you. We look to our condition, owing to the existence of the two races on this continent. I need not recount to you the effects upon white men, growing out of the institution of Slavery. I believe in its general evil effects on the white race. See our present condition---the country engaged in war!---our white men cutting one another's throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of Slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence.
It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated. I know that there are free men among you, who even if they could better their condition are not as much inclined to go out of the country as those, who being slaves could obtain their freedom on this condition.
I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it. You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life [as easily], perhaps more so than you can in any foreign country, and hence you may come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country. This is (I speak in no unkind sense) an extremely selfish view of the case.
I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it. You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life [as easily], perhaps more so than you can in any foreign country, and hence you may come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country. This is (I speak in no unkind sense) an extremely selfish view of the case.
But you ought to do something to help those who are not so fortunate as yourselves. There is an unwillingness on the part of our people, harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us. Now, if you could give a start to white people, you would open a wide door for many to be made free. If we deal with those who are not free at the beginning, and whose intellects are clouded by Slavery, we have very poor materials to start with. If intelligent colored men, such as are before me, would move in this matter, much might be accomplished. It is exceedingly important that we have men at the beginning capable of thinking
as white men, and not those who have
been systematically oppressed.
There is much to encourage you. For the sake of your race you should sacrifice something of your present comfort for the purpose of being as grand in that respect as the white people. It is a cheering thought throughout life that something can be done to ameliorate the condition of those who have been subject to the hard usage of the world. It is difficult to make a man miserable while he feels he is worthy of himself, and claims kindred to the great God who made him. In the American Revolutionary war sacrifices were made by men engaged in it; but they were cheered by the future. Gen. Washington himself endured greater physical hardships than if he had remained a British subject. Yet he was a happy man, because he was engaged in benefiting his race---something for the children of his neighbors, having none of his own.
The colony of Liberia has been in existence a long time. In a certain sense it is a success. The old President of Liberia, Roberts, has just been with me---the first time I ever saw him. He says they have within the bounds of that colony between 300,000 and 400,000 people, or more than in some of our old States, such as Rhode Island or Delaware, or in some of our newer States, and less than in some of our larger ones. They are not all American colonists, or their descendants. Something less than 12,000 have been sent thither from this country. Many of the original settlers have died, yet, like people elsewhere, their offspring outnumber those deceased.
The question is if the colored people are persuaded to go anywhere, why not there? One reason for an unwillingness to do so is that some of you would rather remain within reach of the country of your nativity. I do not know how much attachment you may have toward our race. It does not strike me that you have the greatest reason to love them. But still you are attached to them at all events.
The place I am thinking about having for a colony is in Central America. It is nearer to us than Liberia---not much more than one-fourth as far as Liberia, and within seven days' run by steamers. Unlike Liberia it is on a great line of travel---it is a highway. The country is a very excellent one for any people, and with great natural resources and advantages, and especially because of the similarity of climate with your native land---thus being suited to your physical condition.
The particular place I have in view is to be a great highway from the Atlantic or Caribbean Sea to the Pacific Ocean, and this particular place has all the advantages for a
colony. On both sides there are harbors among
the finest in the world. Again, there is evidence
of very rich coal mines. A certain amount of coal
is valuable in any country, and there may be more
than enough for the wants of the country. Why I
attach so much importance to coal is, it will afford
an opportunity to the inhabitants for immediate
employment till they get ready to settle
permanently in their homes.
If you take colonists where there is no good landing, there is a bad show; and so where there is nothing to cultivate, and of which to make a farm. But if something is started so that you can get your daily bread as soon as you reach there, it is a great advantage. Coal land is the best thing I know of with which to commence an enterprise.
To return, you have been talked to upon this subject, and told that a speculation is intended by gentlemen, who have an interest in the country, including the coal mines. We have been mistaken all our lives if we do not know whites as well as blacks look to their self-interest. Unless among those deficient of intellect everybody you trade with makes something. You meet with these things here as elsewhere.
If such persons have what will be an advantage to them, the question is whether it cannot be made of advantage to you. You are intelligent, and know that success does not as much depend on external help as on self-reliance. Much, therefore, depends upon yourselves. As to the coal mines, I think I see the means available for your self-reliance.
I shall, if I get a sufficient number of you engaged, have provisions made that you shall not be wronged. If you will engage in the enterprise I will spend some of the money intrusted to me. I am not sure you will succeed. The Government may lose the money, but we cannot succeed unless we try; but we think, with care, we can succeed.
The political affairs in Central America are not in quite as satisfactory condition as I wish. There are contending factions in that quarter; but it is true all the factions are agreed alike on the subject of colonization, and want it, and are more generous than we are here. To your colored race they have no objection. Besides, I would endeavor to have you made equals, and have the best assurance that you should be the equals of the best.
The practical thing I want to ascertain is whether I can get a number of able-bodied men, with their wives and children, who are willing to go, when I present evidence of encouragement and protection. Could I get a hundred tolerably
intelligent men, with their wives and children,
to ``cut their own fodder,'' so to speak? Can I
have fifty? If I could find twenty-five able-bodied
men, with a mixture of women and children, good
things in the family relation, I think I could make
a successful commencement.
I want you to let me know whether this can be done or not. This is the practical part of my wish to see you. These are subjects of very great importance, worthy of a month's study, [instead] of a speech delivered in an hour. I ask you then to consider seriously not pertaining to yourselves merely, nor for your race, and ours, for the present time, but as one of the things, if successfully managed, for the good of mankind---not confined to the present generation, but as
``From age to age descends the lay,
To millions yet to be,
Till far its echoes roll away,
Into eternity.''
The above is merely given as the substance of the President's remarks.
The Chairman of the delegation briefly replied that ``they would hold a consultation and in a short time give an answer.'' The President said: ``Take your full time---no hurry at all.''
The delegation then withdrew.
Annotation
[1] New York Tribune, August 15, 1862. An act ``releasing certain persons held to labor in the District of Columbia'' and providing $100,000 for colonization, became law on April 16, 1862, and an act approved on July 16, freed slaves in the hands of the army and granted $500,000 for colonization. Since October, 1861, the Chiriqui Project for colonization had been under cabinet consideration (see Lincoln to Smith October 23 and 24, 1861, supra). The appointment of Reverend James Mitchell of Indiana as agent of emigration is not listed in the Official Register, but contemporary records indicate that he operated in the Department of Interior as early as May 28, 1862, when he sent Lincoln his long letter on colonization printed by the Government Printing Office. His activity in July and August brought the matter of colonization to a head with the arrangement for an interview between Lincoln and the committee of Negroes headed by Edward M. Thomas on August 14. Thomas was president of the Anglo-African Institute for the Encouragement of Industry and Art. The committee's reception of Lincoln's views is indicated by a letter from Thomas written on August 16:
``We would respectfully suggest that it is necessary that we should confer with leading colored men in Phila New York and Boston upon the movement of emigration to the point recommended in your address.
``We were entirely hostile to the movement until all the advantages were so ably brought to our view by you and we believe that our friends and colaborers for our race in those cities will when the subject is explained by us to them join heartily in sustaining such a movement. . . .'' (DLC-RTL).
Subsequent developments, however, indicated that Negroes in the District of Columbia received the colonization proposal with hostility. A Negro meeting held at Union Bethel Church was reported in the Baltimore Sun on August 23 as protesting against the plan: ``Such dissatisfaction had been manifested in regard to the course of the committee who lately waited on the president . . . that they did not attend. It was hinted that they had exceeded their instructions.''
Plans were fully matured in August, however, to send Senator Samuel C. Pomeroy with ``500 able-bodied negroes as the first colony'' to be settled on a site on the Isthmus of Chiriqui to be selected by Pomeroy (New York Tribune, September 15, 1862). A letter of authority from Lincoln to Pomeroy was prepared for Lincoln's signature, probably by the State Department, under date of September 10, 1862, but remains unsigned in duplicate copies in the Lincoln Papers. The project was abandoned when first Honduras and later Nicaragua and Costa Rica protested the scheme and hinted that force might be used to prevent the settlement.
Who's in deeper water? Franciscus or Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke?
VATICAN | NOV. 15, 2016
Cardinal Burke on Amoris Laetitia Dubia: ‘Tremendous Division’ Warrants Action
In an exclusive Register interview, he elaborates about why four cardinals were impelled to seek clarity about the papal exhortation’s controversial elements.
If the Pope were to teach grave error or heresy, which lawful authority can declare this and what would be the consequences?
It is the duty in such cases, and historically it has happened, of cardinals and bishops to make clear that the Pope is teaching error and to ask him to correct it.
The Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has this judgment of A.L.;
Cardinal Müller says,
Amoris Laetitia is very clear in its doctrine and we can interpret the whole doctrine of Jesus on marriage, the whole doctrine of the Church in 2000 years of history.” Pope Francis, the cardinal concluded, “asks us to discern the situation of these people who live in an irregular union, one not according to the Church’s teaching on marriage, and asks us to help these people find a way towards reintegration into the Church according to the conditions of the sacraments, the Christian message of marriage. But I do not see any opposition: on the one hand we have the clear teaching on marriage, on the other hand the obligation of the Church to care for these people in need.”
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-mueller-theres-no-problem-with-doctrine-in-amoris-laetitia-99386/
Vatican I
Chapter 2.
On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs
1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].
2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].
3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].
4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].
5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.
All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].
4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
ABS begins his brief commentary by confessing that his Catholic knowledge is as substantially lacking as it is obviously deficient but even he can see these Dogmatic Truths place Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke in very deep water.
In A.L. Franciscus publicly professes the truth of Catholic Dogma and so he can in no way be labeled a heretic.
There can be disagreement over what he has actualised vis a vis sacramental discipline but he has the authority to do that and we must obey.
Sure, there does seem to be disagreement over what A.L. means precisely within the discipline but that ought not to have caused certain Cardinals to sound the tocsin with a Dubia and then to make the Dubia public for Franciscus has made it clear he wants authority to devolve back to the Bishoprics when it comes to discipline, among other matters.
Now agree or disagree with that but to make war over discipline is to invite internecine war into an already divided Church.
The ABS ecclesiastical book is laying 4- 1 odds that Burke and his friends sink bigly in their war of choice.
Vatican I
Chapter 2.
On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs
1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].
2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].
3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].
4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].
5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.
All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].
4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
ABS begins his brief commentary by confessing that his Catholic knowledge is as substantially lacking as it is obviously deficient but even he can see these Dogmatic Truths place Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke in very deep water.
In A.L. Franciscus publicly professes the truth of Catholic Dogma and so he can in no way be labeled a heretic.
There can be disagreement over what he has actualised vis a vis sacramental discipline but he has the authority to do that and we must obey.
Sure, there does seem to be disagreement over what A.L. means precisely within the discipline but that ought not to have caused certain Cardinals to sound the tocsin with a Dubia and then to make the Dubia public for Franciscus has made it clear he wants authority to devolve back to the Bishoprics when it comes to discipline, among other matters.
Now agree or disagree with that but to make war over discipline is to invite internecine war into an already divided Church.
The ABS ecclesiastical book is laying 4- 1 odds that Burke and his friends sink bigly in their war of choice.
By what authority would Cardinal Burke judge the Pope a heretic?
Whatever he imagines his authority to be, it would be an authority in opposition to Catholic Dogma:
The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Denzinger
1830 [Recourse to the Roman Pontiff as the supreme judge]. And since the Roman Pontiff is at the head of the universal Church by the divine right of apostolic primacy, We teach and declare also that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [cf. n.1500 ], and that in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination recourse can be had to his judgment [cf. n. 466 ]; moreover, that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not surpassed, is to be disclaimed by no one, nor is anyone permitted to pass judgment on its judgment [cf. n.330 ff.]. Therefore, they stray from the straight path of truth who affirm that it is permitted to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an ecumenical Council, as to an authority higher than the Roman Pontiff.
One sure sign of Diabolical Disorientation is when soi disant Trads begin to introduce novelties to deal with noxious and venomous problems.
The problems of Franciscus will not be solved by any men and the novelty of anyone judging a Pope a heretic is an action that is being too rapidly swallowed by those who are supposed to be horrified by any and all novelty but we have seen that in the last score of years or so, the soi disant trads have not only approvingly swallowed a schism but savored its taste and declared it delectable.
Lord have mercy.
One can not judge a Pope a heretic anymore than one can depose him; however, one can call on the Lord and then wait on Him.
It is HIS Catholic Church, not yours.
The desire to call Franciscus a heretic and then to depose him is an infallible sign of failing Faith (not to say ABS has not been there, done that) and recognising that as a grave failure and repudiating it is to put one's faithful feet back on the narrow path to Salvation.
Why the rest of the world hates us
Royal Palm Beach is about a twenty five minute drive away from the ocean and yet this town next to Wellington dares call itself a beach.
When one hears the name, Royal Palm Beach, one prolly thinks of a town where one could drive through it and see huge ocean liners tied-up at one of her long piers; a place where one might slowly drive along the oceanside, on Coquina Drive , the Causeway, or Sand Beach Blvd, where one might see a Buxom Blonde Babe in a Bikini striding seductively along, but, no.
Royal Palm Beach is just as phony and believable and trustworthy as everything else in America.
Why does gov't issue fake weather stats? To support UN Lies.
America's government just makes-up
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/nasa-noaa-climate-data-is-fake-data/
Why does our government do that?
To support the UN lies about Anthropogenic Global Warming;
Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man's stewardship of the environment. But we know that's not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
Christian looks more like an Elf than The Keebler Kids
If you don't hate the Lincoln Myth you don't know Lincoln
Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes [1]
August 14, 1862
This afternoon the President of the United States gave audience to a Committee of colored men at the White House. They were introduced by the Rev. J. Mitchell,
Commissioner of Emigration.
E. M. Thomas, the
Chairman, remarked that they were there by
invitation to hear what the Executive had to say
to them. Having all been seated, the President,
after a few preliminary observations informed them
that a sum of money had been appropriated by
Congress, and placed at his disposition for the
purpose of aiding the colonization in some country
of the people, or a portion of them, of African
descent, thereby making it his duty, as it had
for a long time been his inclination, to favor that
cause; and why, he asked, should the people
of your race be colonized, and where?
Why should they leave this country? This is,
perhaps, the first question for proper
consideration. You and we are different races. We
have between us a broader difference
than exists between almost any other two races.
Whether it is right or wrong I need
not discuss, but this physical difference is
a great disadvantage to us both, as
I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them
by living among us, while ours suffer from your
presence.
In a word we suffer on each side. If this is
admitted, it affords a reason at least why we
should be separated. You here are freemen
I suppose.
A VOICE: Yes, sir.
The President---Perhaps you have long been free, or all your lives. Your race are suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when
you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed
from being placed on an equality with the
white race. You are cut off from many of
the advantages which the other race enjoy.
The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality
with the best when free, but on this broad
continent, not a single man of your race is
made the equal of a single man of ours. Go
where you are treated the best, and the
ban is still upon you.
I do not propose to discuss this, but to present it as a fact with which we have to deal. I cannot alter it if I would. It is a fact, about which we all think and feel alike, I and you. We look to our condition, owing to the existence of the two races on this continent. I need not recount to you the effects upon white men, growing out of the institution of Slavery. I believe in its general evil effects on the white race. See our present condition---the country engaged in war!---our white men cutting one another's throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of Slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence.
It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated. I know that there are free men among you, who even if they could better their condition are not as much inclined to go out of the country as those, who being slaves could obtain their freedom on this condition. I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it. You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life [as easily], perhaps more so than you can in any foreign country, and hence you may come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country. This is (I speak in no unkind sense) an extremely selfish view of the case.
But you ought to do something to help those who are not so fortunate as yourselves. There is an unwillingness on the part of our people, harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us. Now, if you could give a start to white people, you would open a wide door for many to be made free. If we deal with those who are not free at the beginning, and whose intellects are clouded by Slavery, we have very poor materials to start with. If intelligent colored men, such as are before me, would move in this matter, much might be accomplished. It is exceedingly important that we have men at the beginning capable of thinking
as white men, and not those who have
been systematically oppressed.
There is much to encourage you. For the sake of your race you should sacrifice something of your present comfort for the purpose of being as grand in that respect as the white people. It is a cheering thought throughout life that something can be done to ameliorate the condition of those who have been subject to the hard usage of the world. It is difficult to make a man miserable while he feels he is worthy of himself, and claims kindred to the great God who made him. In the American Revolutionary war sacrifices were made by men engaged in it; but they were cheered by the future. Gen. Washington himself endured greater physical hardships than if he had remained a British subject. Yet he was a happy man, because he was engaged in benefiting his race---something for the children of his neighbors, having none of his own.
The colony of Liberia has been in existence a long time. In a certain sense it is a success. The old President of Liberia, Roberts, has just been with me---the first time I ever saw him. He says they have within the bounds of that colony between 300,000 and 400,000 people, or more than in some of our old States, such as Rhode Island or Delaware, or in some of our newer States, and less than in some of our larger ones. They are not all American colonists, or their descendants. Something less than 12,000 have been sent thither from this country. Many of the original settlers have died, yet, like people elsewhere, their offspring outnumber those deceased.
The question is if the colored people are persuaded to go anywhere, why not there? One reason for an unwillingness to do so is that some of you would rather remain within reach of the country of your nativity. I do not know how much attachment you may have toward our race. It does not strike me that you have the greatest reason to love them. But still you are attached to them at all events.
The place I am thinking about having for a colony is in Central America. It is nearer to us than Liberia---not much more than one-fourth as far as Liberia, and within seven days' run by steamers. Unlike Liberia it is on a great line of travel---it is a highway. The country is a very excellent one for any people, and with great natural resources and advantages, and especially because of the similarity of climate with your native land---thus being suited to your physical condition.
The particular place I have in view is to be a great highway from the Atlantic or Caribbean Sea to the Pacific Ocean, and this particular place has all the advantages for a
colony. On both sides there are harbors among
the finest in the world. Again, there is evidence
of very rich coal mines. A certain amount of coal
is valuable in any country, and there may be more
than enough for the wants of the country. Why I
attach so much importance to coal is, it will afford
an opportunity to the inhabitants for immediate
employment till they get ready to settle
permanently in their homes.
If you take colonists where there is no good landing, there is a bad show; and so where there is nothing to cultivate, and of which to make a farm. But if something is started so that you can get your daily bread as soon as you reach there, it is a great advantage. Coal land is the best thing I know of with which to commence an enterprise.
To return, you have been talked to upon this subject, and told that a speculation is intended by gentlemen, who have an interest in the country, including the coal mines. We have been mistaken all our lives if we do not know whites as well as blacks look to their self-interest. Unless among those deficient of intellect everybody you trade with makes something. You meet with these things here as elsewhere.
If such persons have what will be an advantage to them, the question is whether it cannot be made of advantage to you. You are intelligent, and know that success does not as much depend on external help as on self-reliance. Much, therefore, depends upon yourselves. As to the coal mines, I think I see the means available for your self-reliance.
I shall, if I get a sufficient number of you engaged, have provisions made that you shall not be wronged. If you will engage in the enterprise I will spend some of the money intrusted to me. I am not sure you will succeed. The Government may lose the money, but we cannot succeed unless we try; but we think, with care, we can succeed.
The political affairs in Central America are not in quite as satisfactory condition as I wish. There are contending factions in that quarter; but it is true all the factions are agreed alike on the subject of colonization, and want it, and are more generous than we are here. To your colored race they have no objection. Besides, I would endeavor to have you made equals, and have the best assurance that you should be the equals of the best.
The practical thing I want to ascertain is whether I can get a number of able-bodied men, with their wives and children, who are willing to go, when I present evidence of encouragement andprotection. Could I get a hundred tolerably
intelligent men, with their wives and children,
to ``cut their own fodder,'' so to speak? Can I
have fifty? If I could find twenty-five able-bodied
men, with a mixture of women and children, good
things in the family relation, I think I could make
a successful commencement.
I want you to let me know whether this can be done or not. This is the practical part of my wish to see you. These are subjects of very great importance, worthy of a month's study, [instead] of a speech delivered in an hour. I ask you then to consider seriously not pertaining to yourselves merely, nor for your race, and ours, for the present time, but as one of the things, if successfully managed, for the good of mankind---not confined to the present generation, but as
``From age to age descends the lay,
To millions yet to be,
Till far its echoes roll away,
Into eternity.''
The above is merely given as the substance of the President's remarks.
The Chairman of the delegation briefly replied that ``they would hold a consultation and in a short time give an answer.'' The President said: ``Take your full time---no hurry at all.''
The delegation then withdrew.
Annotation
[1] New York Tribune, August 15, 1862. An act ``releasing certain persons held to labor in the District of Columbia'' and providing $100,000 for colonization, became law on April 16, 1862, and an act approved on July 16, freed slaves in the hands of the army and granted $500,000 for colonization. Since October, 1861, the Chiriqui Project for colonization had been under cabinet consideration (see Lincoln to Smith October 23 and 24, 1861, supra). The appointment of Reverend James Mitchell of Indiana as agent of emigration is not listed in the Official Register, but contemporary records indicate that he operated in the Department of Interior as early as May 28, 1862, when he sent Lincoln his long letter on colonization printed by the Government Printing Office. His activity in July and August brought the matter of colonization to a head with the arrangement for an interview between Lincoln and the committee of Negroes headed by Edward M. Thomas on August 14. Thomas was president of the Anglo-African Institute for the Encouragement of Industry and Art. The committee's reception of Lincoln's views is indicated by a letter from Thomas written on August 16:
``We would respectfully suggest that it is necessary that we should confer with leading colored men in Phila New York and Boston upon the movement of emigration to the point recommended in your address.
``We were entirely hostile to the movement until all the advantages were so ably brought to our view by you and we believe that our friends and colaborers for our race in those cities will when the subject is explained by us to them join heartily in sustaining such a movement. . . .'' (DLC-RTL).
Subsequent developments, however, indicated that Negroes in the District of Columbia received the colonization proposal with hostility. A Negro meeting held at Union Bethel Church was reported in the Baltimore Sun on August 23 as protesting against the plan: ``Such dissatisfaction had been manifested in regard to the course of the committee who lately waited on the president . . . that they did not attend. It was hinted that they had exceeded their instructions.''
Plans were fully matured in August, however, to send Senator Samuel C. Pomeroy with ``500 able-bodied negroes as the first colony'' to be settled on a site on the Isthmus of Chiriqui to be selected by Pomeroy (New York Tribune, September 15, 1862). A letter of authority from Lincoln to Pomeroy was prepared for Lincoln's signature, probably by the State Department, under date of September 10, 1862, but remains unsigned in duplicate copies in the Lincoln Papers. The project was abandoned when first Honduras and later Nicaragua and Costa Rica protested the scheme and hinted that force might be used to prevent the settlement.