Janjan of WithIssue has found an interesting piece from Front Page on Sami Al-Arian.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Friday, December 09, 2005
Narnia, Good, but not LOTR
My granddaughter sat hugging her Mom til near the end, glued to the screen, and finished the movie standing, hugging the chair ahead of her (empty) and GLUED to the screen. My grandson, 9, sat hugging me, talking, being shushed, trying to figure things out ahead of time, and was WOWED by the movie.
My daughter and I were remembering years ago, when she read the books, and before that, when I read them to them....
We enjoyed the movie. We will get the DVD. We will wait to see if they make the others... but though we liked it, it was no Lord of the Rings....
I had been busy enough that I really did not 'catch' the Wisconsin school that has been in the news recently about Christmas. It has been on my list of things to look into. Today, I did.
And I am not happy. For those who say that there is 'no attack' on Christians... wake up!
First, nothing Christian is allowed, but anything else goes, including one I have never heard of, Labafana--a mythical witch.
Second, they had the gall to change the words of Silent Night!
Email from Stephen Safranek today
I have been following his website for awhile, and regret that I honestly had not put it on here as yet, with the others (found in the archives) . If I could get the Links to work, he would have one placed here along with several others.
TrueMarriage is looking for good attorneys to work with, so if you know of any good attorneys who are frustrated with the destruction of marriages via no fault forced, unilateral divorce, you can contact him through his website. I am sure that this would include any Canon Lawyers who may be interested in helping those described by JPII :
The gift of the sacrament is at the same time a vocation and commandment for the Christian spouses, that they may remain faithful to each other forever, beyond every trial and difficulty, in generous obedience to the holy will of the Lord: "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." To bear witness to the inestimable value of the indissolubility and fidelity of marriage is one of the most precious and most urgent tasks of Christian couples in our time. So, with all my brothers who participated in the Synod of Bishops, I praise and encourage those numerous couples who, though encountering no small difficulty, preserve and develop the value of indissolubility: Thus in a humble and courageous manner they perform the role committed to them of being in the world a "sign"--a small and precious sign, sometimes also subjected to temptation, but always renewed--of the unfailing fidelity with which God and Jesus Christ love each and every human being. But it is also proper to recognize the value of the witness of those spouses who, even when abandoned by their partner, with the strength of faith and of Christian hope have not entered a new union: These spouses too give an authentic witness to fidelity, of which the world today has a great need. For this reason they must be encouraged and helped by the pastors and the faithful of the church.
~~FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO Pope John Paul II 12/15/1981 (Sec 20)
Rest assured that his request for prayers is highly honored here, and is a long held heart felt issue very dear to this heart.
Tonight, my oldest, my grandson, my granddaughter and I are going to see The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. A story I read to my children when they were little. Cartoons that they watched, and BBC movies that they watched. We loved them, as well as The Hobbit.
I just got the tickets so that we don't have to wait. I am sure it is not because the theatre will be sold out, but I do hope that there are many who come. I love the story, and hope that the movie will awaken many to the books, as the Lord of the Rings Trilogy did to Tolkien's books.
It has been so long since I read them, that occasionally I have to think hard about the story in order to remember details. I am sure that I will be reminded of many as the movie progresses. I am equally certain that I will be one of those who will buy a DVD when they are released. And just as LOTR opened the reading doors for my nine year old grandson this past summer as he struggled to get through one of the books, it may easily turn him to reading C S Lewis.
Sometimes, I find myself feeling just a tad like a kid again when I find movies like these coming out, and can honestly say... "I can't WAIT!"
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Unbelievable.... and his website is... here where he has the audacity to speak of the 'sanctity of marriage' on this page. He, who under oath admitted to 'intimate relationships' with at least two women before Jodi, WHILE married to Terri, and who, with Jodi, had two children while Terri still lived, now uses her name to advance his cause.... Thanks, Cheryl Ford, RN, for the head's up!
Schiavo's widower has political mission
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Michael Schiavo, whose effort to end life support for his brain-damaged wife divided a nation, is starting a political action committee that will challenge candidates based on where they stand on government's reach in private lives.
Nine months after a fierce political and legal fight over Terri Schiavo, Michael Schiavo said his experience with political leaders "has opened my eyes to just how easily the private wishes of normal Americans like me and Terri can be cast aside in a destructive game of political pandering."
Schiavo described himself as a lifelong Republican "before Republicans pushed the power of government into my private family decisions."
The political action committee, TerriPAC, will raise and spend money on Florida candidates as well as those running for Congress.
Terri Schiavo suffered a brain injury in 1990 that left her in what some doctors called a "persistent vegetative state." Her parents sought to keep her feeding tube in place while her husband pushed to have it removed, citing her wishes and setting off a bitter court battle.
Congress, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and President Bush all tried to have the feeding tube reinserted. Schiavo died March 31.
Copyright 2005 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
| Links referenced within this article |
| Find this article at: |
This article came in my email this morning. It is excellent, not because of who it is about, but because he clearly explains no fault forced, unilateral divorce. I am NOT going to get into a discussion of the individuals named, but will entertain discussion of the Canon Law Codes, and Civil 'no fault divorce' and the need to change this.
I have also asked the author, Matt C Abbott for permission to post the entire article here.
Dec 8, 2005
I had not noticed the first paragraph that gave credit to Jay McNally on Matt Abbott's column, as the author of the article, and I have gotten permission from both to place the article here.
I hope that Jay McNally will not mind my quoting him here regarding Mr Safranek. "Steve Safranek's effort is to be able to provide legal assistance to those being victimized, as well as to roll back the no-fault laws." Someone may need to know that fact. God bless to all three, Mr Safranek, Mr Abbott, and Mr McNally.
Here is the article:
Catholics and 'no-fault' divorce
Matt C. Abbott
December 7, 2005
The following article, written by veteran Catholic journalist Jay McNally, is reprinted (with permission) from the Dec. 8, 2005 issue of The Wanderer. For subscription information, please call 651-224-5733.
ANN ARBOR, Mich. — The role of the "Catholic" in a Catholic family will play out in Ohio courts this winter in the controversial divorce case of MacFarlane v. MacFarlane, which seeks to challenge the state's right to interfere in a Catholic marriage.
The Catholic marriage bond between Maria Christine "Bai" MacFarlane, and her husband, William "Bud" MacFarlane, in a civil divorce court is on appeal. Two religious freedom and marriage issues are at stake in this appeal. First, should the civil court stay its hand (stay neutral in the case) pending the canonical decision of the Catholic Church?
This case is concurrently being considered by the tribunal in the Diocese of Cleveland.
Second, if the civil court will not stay its hand, should the faithful spouse at least be able to introduce religious beliefs to determine custody issues and other matters? The appeal is being handled pro bono by Stephen J. Safranek, a professor at Ave Maria School of Law and founder and director of the TrueMarriage Project, a 501(c)(3) entity.
This case and cases like it across the country will determine whether Catholics and other religious people will be swallowed by the no-fault system.
The case of MacFarlane v. MacFarlane has special significance to Catholics throughout America. Bud MacFarlane is the executive director of the Mary Foundation, and the author of three apocalyptic novels. He is well known in certain Catholic circles.
In July 2003 he left his wife and four boys and shortly thereafter filed for a civil divorce. Despite breaking up the family by requiring his children to spend half their time in his house and half with his wife, and even though he is seeking to declare that he has no obligations to the woman who bore, raised, and educated these children, Bud has taken the position that he is in full communion with the Catholic Church and is living the life of a Catholic.
Having rejected repeated attempts by his wife for reconciliation, Bud left the home and allegedly drained $23,000 from the family's savings account — thereby forcing his wife to beg him and/or her family to support herself and the four children. Moreover, since he was the working spouse, Bai was left completely dependent on Bud for continued support. As is to be expected, the money was doled out in humiliating dribs and drabs until a support order was put in place by a court.
This case is all the more tragic because Bud sued to force his wife to stop home-schooling their four children. When he succeeded, Bai MacFarlane refused to comply with the court order. All the children were then given, by the court, over to Bud's custody, three were put into the local Catholic schools, the fourth — a child who was a mere two years old — was placed in day care.
The devastating results in this case were predictable. The no-fault divorce culture has no affection for home-schooling. The default position of no-fault is that the family structure is broken after divorce proceedings begin, and each party is left to fend for himself or herself as an autonomous entity — the children being split before these modern-day Solomons.
Since home-schooling is dependent upon a father who works, the default is to end home-schooling. Since home-schooling allows the home-schooling parent a great degree of time with the children, it must be rejected for institutional schools. And, since home-schooling usually involves a religious perspective contrary to no-fault divorce, the children must be taken to a place where no judgments are made about divorce.
Indeed, the home-schooling culture is so alien to the no-fault divorce culture that in any modern divorce, only one can survive.
In the MacFarlane case, the attorney for the father noted in opening remarks that this case was about "rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." His words accurately describe the fact that the no-fault divorce system is Caesar allowing judges to determine what is best for children — since no-fault divorce exists — children must be made to accommodate that legal fact. Children are just one of the things rendered to Caesar by no-fault divorce.
No-fault divorce reaches beyond home-schooling and attempts to control the religious free speech of the non-breaching party. In this case, the psychologist assigned to the case commented negatively on the wife who had allegedly told one of the children about divorce, leading to the child saying, "Daddy broke the family."
Of course, such a statement is an absolute no-no in no-fault divorce, which maintains the strife is nobody's fault. Since one of the key aspects of no-fault divorce is to ensure that nobody is blamed, any shadow of casting blame labels one party as the "judgmental" one. Consequently, that party is likely to lose parenting time and parenting control. Bai was punished severely.
Because there are so many divorce cases, if one single party has the audacity to fight the divorce, the system is put under a tremendous strain. In MacFarlane v. MacFarlane, judges who make the findings of fact in such cases are not enamored of a party who takes two weeks of time in court. "Render unto Caesar" means render your marriage to the state.
Among the critical situations in the MacFarlane case was one wherein the parties were to "consent" to sending the boys to school. The wife in this case was told by her attorney at that time, "consent or you may lose custody of your children." The attorney did not advise his client that such a decision had to be made after a full hearing, that she had the right to appeal that decision, and a whole host of remedies were available.
Indeed, the client did not even have the opportunity to speak to the judge — all was carried out in shuttle diplomacy from judge to lawyers to clients. Having consented to this situation, and having then breached her consent, the wife was stripped of being the primary residential parent.
Crafting An Alternative
Most Catholics see this situation for the tragedy that it is. But most of us think that such a tragic scenario cannot happen to us. Bai MacFarlane could not believe it either.
These events and ones similar to them are happening around America today — thousands and thousands of times. TrueMarriage seeks to craft an alternative for faithful Americans and those who simply want out of this mess.
Today, Bai MacFarlane is fighting for her right to ensure that her boys will grow up to be faithful Catholics. Although she is on trial, so to are the courts of Ohio.
For more information about this case and about TrueMarriage, visit the web site www.truemarriage.net.
© Copyright 2005 by Matt C. Abbott
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
In a comment to this piece, I was given a message that Walid Shoebat's cancellation at Princeton is 'explosive' and given a url to go to for more coverage. From checking my email until I got to my website, he removed his comment. I am not sure why, but that is his perogative.
However, the url he left was included in the email that automatically comes to me, and he is correct, it is being covered very well! In fact, he said that "the excellent IRIS blog was all over it." (The url will be used here, and the residual comment at the other piece will stay as well.)
Thank you, "comment maker-taker"... for the tip! And God bless!
Related Tags: Walid, Walid Shoebat, Former terrorist, Christian, Hitler's Mufti, Princeton
Holiday Advisory Alert System
Read this on Janjan's With Issue the other day, and liked it, but forgot to go back and 'swipe it' from her... lol. Thanks, Janjan... who got it from ZIB, I guess.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
I recently mentioned Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his call to wipe Israel off the map. Yesterday I was listening to one of the radio talk shows, and it was mentioned that Iran, while denying that they are trying to build nuclear weapons, is also out of reach of any Israeli attempt to do as it had done previously with Iraq. I have found the news story that was being discussed.
This is not good news, IMHO, with the combination of the new President of Iran's statements, and the possibility of their getting nuclear weapons.
After having written on the Mufti of Jerusalem twice ( here and here ), I picked up my mail yesterday on the way to my daughter's and found the latest Crisis Magazine with the cover photo being that of Haj Amin al-Husseini reviewing Bosnia Muslim recruits to the Waffen-SS, and the cover headline of Hitler's Mufti. The story itself is now online.
The story on page 10 is written by Ronald J Rychlak with the full title being Hitler's Mufti
The Dark Legacy of Haj Amin al-Husseini. Another photo, a full two pages in size, shows him "in the company of Geman SS and Bosnian members of the Waffen-SS during an official visit to Bosnia".
The description of the article is as follows:
Hitler’s Mufti: The Dark Legacy of Haj Amin Al-Husseini
Ronald J. Rychlak argues that while Pius XII wasn’t the Nazi collaborator recent books have claimed him to have been, Hitler did have a strong religious ally—the grand mufti of Jerusalem.
Something that I have known from studying over the years is that this Mufti was appointed by the British. This is also stated in this article.
The author goes on to trace his actions, including several periods of exile, to Lebanon, to Iraq, to Iran, to Italy as a guest of Mussolini, and then finally to Germany where he was given lodging and "a generous monthly stipend" where he used radio and pamphlets to broadcast calls for Jihad against the Allies on Axiz stations that broadcast his speeches into countries with 'significant' Muslim populations, telling them, among other things, that 'they could save their souls by massacring Jewish infidels in their midst' (quoting author of Mufti of Jerusalem, Maurice Pearlman).
It seems, perhaps, that this topic may be getting more publicity than it has for a very long time. In my estimation, it is LONG overdue.
The relationship with Arafat, and the actions of the militant Islamic terrorists is more understandable, and perhaps more threatening, when one knows the roots and history of where it began. Without knowing this, many today believe that Arafat and others may truly have been interested in peace.... something that I personally have found to be hard to believe.
When one knows this part of history, and then also reads/hears Walid Shoebat, one gets a very different perspective of things than that which we are often spoon fed on much of today's main stream media.
Speaking of Walid Shoebat, just at his site to get his url, and learned that Princeton University has cancelled the planned speaking engagement of three former 'terrorists' that was to be held on Dec 8 (the announcement made on Dec 5). According to the press release issued by Walid's website,
Princeton University has cancelled a speaking event by three former Middle East terrorists because it says that the use of the word "terrorist" in the promotion for the event is “too inflammatory.”
The three speakers are listed on his site as follows:
The speakers will discuss the terrorist mindset. A question and answer session will follow.
Walid Shoebat is from a prominent family in Bethlehem. After joining the PLO, he took part in numerous acts of violence against Israel including the bombing of a bank. He was also involved in the attempted lynching of an Israeli soldier. Feature stories on Mr. Shoebat have aired on the BBC, FOX News, MSNBC, CBS and have been published in the Telegraph and Calgary Sun.
Zak Anani was a leader of the most notorious Arab gangs prior to Lebanese civil war. Before he age 16, he killed numerous Arabs in gang warfare and hated the West.
Ibrahim Abadallah was born and raised in Dearborn Michigan to a Jordanian father. At 17 he emigrated to Israel, where he joined the PLO. He injured many Israelis while rioting and throwing Molotov cocktails at them.
I am wondering, seriously, if there is any way, in present day America, when anyone can ever be tried for Treason any more? With the 'twisting' of 'rights' to include child pornography, etc can anything ever be found to be out of line again?
With the 'anything goes' thinking of today, is anything ever to be considered 'giving aid and comfort to the enemy'?
What does it take today to be labeled AND ultimately convicted to be Treason?
Thinking of this as I heard so many things said today about the war in Iraq, and then hear that the jury found Sami Al-Arian not guilty of many charges..and hung on others, not able to reach any verdict.
I don't know if he is guilty or not, because I have not heard the evidence nor arguments. But... it still makes me wonder... would anyone truly guilty even be found to BE guilty anymore today?
I had heard bits and pieces about a 13 yr old marrying a 14 yr old in Georgia, but did not really pay attention. I just thought what mother in her right mind would drive her child to another state to marry at the age of 13?
Tonight, I heard the girl's father speaking. And tonight, I have my suspicions as to why, and it is not a pretty picture at all, if what I suspect happened is what truly DID happen.
Brandon Balch said that the last thing the mother of his child said to him was something to the effect that this would be the last time she would have to speak to him, just before she hung up on him. They were supposed to appear in court in just a few days about his petition for custody of his daughter, after several other hearings about interference with his visitation and relationship with his daughter.
Suddenly, the girl is married at age 13 (YES, THIRTEEN) to a 14 year old boy, and is an emancipated child, no longer subject to any parental authority. No longer covered on parent's insurance, though she was pregnant (or as he said, they had a slip of paper that SAID she was pregnant, but she never had the baby... Bill O'Reilly said that she had 'miscarried' shortly after the wedding..... And Dad had no idea it was a done deal. At no time did this young couple live together as man and wife, apparently.
This happened awhile ago, as he has been fighting to change the laws. I commend him, and wish him luck, and will be praying.
As to my thoughts on this, not casting any aspersions, and reminding you that this is speculation only:
To me, it sounds like mother had been playing games of 'keep the child away from Dad' for a long time, and that this was the ultimate get-even dirty trick of any that I have ever heard.
Parents do this kind of thing in divorce more often than you would ever like to think. The children are pawns, possessions, something to use to hurt the spouse with, all the while claiming that they love the child. It is cruel and inhuman, and that is NOT love. Sorry, it is not love. It is selfishness.
False allegations of sexual abuse are also a frequent form of this. A man's reputation is forever ruined by the allegations, even if disproved. People think... 'there had to be a reason that it was brought up'... and children are HURT by the one claiming to 'protect them' from the evil person.
I am NOT speaking of those honest cases that really happened. I am speaking of those that are not true, as happened to someone I know.
Another recent story was sent to me via Stephen Baskerville that had appeared in the Washington Times, and if it is true, it is another sad case. You see, some attorneys automatically get a restraining order to go with the divorce papers when they are served. In Louisiana, it is routine to have this done. There, a six month waiting period is all that is required, and a "NO CONTACT" restraining order prevents any possible reconciliation. You cannot reconcile if you cannot talk to each other!
When that no contact also includes your children, it can really cause a lot of anger, hurt, frustration. Enough violence happens after papers are served to begin with, but when the children are also suddenly gone, too, it sets things in motion, and sometimes, results in horrific things happening.
If what the author of this article says is true, this is all the more tragic.
It is called "FORUM: Death by protective order".
Monday, December 05, 2005
Fictional.....based on recent news stories/past experiences and events that really happened.....
"I just wanted to be a 'cool Mom'..." (or substitute Cool Teacher....)
So I bought tons of alcoholic beverages for my kids and their friends to have parties at my home in spite of their being underage.... :
So what if at that party one kid got so drunk that he ended up dead from an overdose of alcohol... (that one was a 'Cool Brother'.... and my second daughter lost a friend this way)
So what if someone ended up drunk enough to 'consent' to having sex, and ultimately became pregnant as a result of the night of your COOL party...and now have opted to have an abortion... ( this one used to mean the girl left school, the baby placed for adoption when I was in high school... but has now happened MANY times, with the result being an unwed mother keeping her child or... a dead baby and post abortion trauma for both parents to live with)
So what if some teen boys got so drunk that they molested an equally drunk teen girl.... (this one has happened several times over the years, both published and not published)
So what if they drove themselves home and had an accident that wiped out a car load of kids...or a family... or just one... ( personally know some kids who died, one permanently crippled, and a family who was wiped out by a drunk teen driver...)
So what if other parents were angry with me...the KIDS LIKED ME...they thought I was a COOL MOM.... or DAD...
And I was SO COOL that I danced, and drank, and even had sex with some of them... cool, man... ( recently arrested/charged 'cool mom' )
Hey, I don't even NEED alcohol to be a 'COOL MOM' anymore... now, when I am driving, my kids 'ask' to be put into the trunk of my car, and instead of insisting that they be quiet, stay belted into their seats.... I pull over and open the trunk so that they can all three climb in and ride where they wanted to... and am shocked when an officer had observed that ...and pulled me over to ticket and charge me! It was the KIDS' wishes! It was what THEY WANTED....
( Just heard about this, complete with video on the news!)
End of fiction....
I am tired of "COOL MOMS" and "COOL DADS".
We were NOT blessed with our kids to be their buddies/friends/'COOL'...we are to be their PARENT.
That means putting limits on what they do. That means teaching them to obey the laws. That means saying NO to illegal things, and to many non-illegal things that are not safe or healthy for them, until they are old enough to take care of themselves. It means sometimes not being liked by our kids. It means postponing the day of being 'friend' and taking the reins of responsibility as PARENT.
Your kids have LOTS OF FRIENDS. And they have lots of friend's parents who are not their parents. They only have TWO PARENTS.... their MOM and their DAD. PERIOD. And they NEED those two to BE PARENTS.
Does that mean abuse those kids? Nope. But it does mean being mature and being in charge, and often, being unpopular with your own children for a short time. Eventually, they GROW UP and begin to like you again....
Kids do not need COOL parents. They need PARENTS. PERIOD.
They need someone to say NO.. why? Because I said so. They need someone to say I DON'T CARE if 'everybody' is doing it... I AM NOT EVERYBODY'S MOTHER... I am YOUR mother... They need someone to point out that if EVERYBODY jumped off the Empire State Building...would YOU?
They don't NEED $80 for a pair of designer jeans promptly handed over to them just so you can learn the name of the designer and buy stock (a commercial)..they need you to say, here's $25 bucks, YOU get the rest if you want the expensive ones.... or... go look at Good Will, St Vincent's etc to see if someone donated a pair in your size....
Cool parents are making me sick. Cool parents are hurting their kids, and as a result, are hurting MINE.
Stop being a Cool Parent. Become their MOTHER or their FATHER.
The really 'cool parent' is one who "Parents"....and raises good kids who know right and wrong.
But it does mean setting limits and sticking to them in all matters of health and safety and morals.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Blog hopping again tonight, and I stopped, as I often do, at Curt Jester's where he has an interesting conversation going on in the comments section on a topic dear to my heart, and many, many others'.