For The Sake Of The Historical Record: Pope Adored By Left Says That Kim Davis Was RIGHT To Refuse Issuing Gay Marriage Licenses

I truly don’t know what to make of this Pope.  There are some things I like about him; there are some things I really don’t like about him.  He is truly fearless about his personal safety and he truly seems to have a heart of Christlike compassion for the poor, the sick and the downtrodden.  But he also seems to have a profound naiveté about economics and science and doesn’t seem to understand how his words are being hijacked by people and organizations that are Christianity’s very worst enemies.

And therein lies the rub.  Pope Francis issues a statement on global warming and calls it a crisis that we must work to solve.  I don’t think the man understands the science or the genuine and legitimate scientific debate coming from the scientists he dismises, but okay.  But what does he GROUND his statement about fighting global warming on?

●     “Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?”

●     “When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities – to offer just a few examples – it becomes difficult to hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected.”

●     “There is a tendency to justify transgressing all boundaries when experimentation is carried out on living human embryos. We forget that the inalienable worth of a human being transcends his or her degree of development.”

That’s right, liberals: the sanctity of human life, the inalienable worth of all human beings, the transcendent value and dignity of humanity, most especially including the unborn human life in the womb.

But what did the leftist secular humanist media do?  They either completely ignored that part – while stripping from the discussion what they didn’t like and hyping the part they LIKED – or they quibbled with the Pope’s reasoning while insisting on hypocritically clutching to the Pope’s authority after they rejected the very authority of the man whose authority they are clutching to.

And they’ve done the very same thing with every single issue that the Pope has addressed where he has seemingly taken a pro-leftist side.  As another example, what the Pope said about homosexuality – “Who am I to judge?” – had a context that was utterly ignored in most media coverage that hyped the ONLY part they liked.

At this point it is difficult for me to understand how this Pope is so isolated from his own media coverage that he doesn’t understand how his words are being radically stripped from their context and politically demagogued into a weapon against the very Christians he claims to represent.

I listen to the Pope talk about peace as if the United States not going to war against evil would bring about peace.  Does the man truly not realize that we have the LARGEST and most CATASTROPHIC crisis migration in the world today since the very worst of World War II because we have essentially done what this Pope said and not confronted evil with force?  Does he not realize that Iraq and Afghanistan – which were once secure by fighting men who combined force with moral courage – and Syria are going down the toilet bowl into hell because we have withdrawn?  We listen to the Pope’s words on economics.  And yes, they, like many other things the Pope said were so nuanced as to be basically meaningless – to the sense that socialism is a good thing and capitalism is a bad thing.  But how can he not simply have eyes to see and ears to hear and witness the overall wealth that has come to societies that practice capitalism contrasted with the ravaging poverty that has been ENDEMIC to socialist countries and not comprehend that his analysis is far too simplistic?

I speak the above paragraph recognizing that the mainstream media has so dishonestly stripped the meaning of the Pope’s words that convey a support for socialism and allow socialists to literally say they are acting out Jesus’ teaching when they massively expand the power of the very human government system that put Jesus to death on a Roman government cross.  The Catholic News Agency is rushing out to try to quell this ocean of disinformation.  But to what avail?

All that nuance – which I find frankly horrifying in that I would rather people disagree understanding one another’s viewpoints than have facile agreements based on rhetoric and twisting shades of shadowy nuance – aside, let’s get to at least one unequivocal example of the popular Pope Francis IN YO’ FACE, leftist:

Govt workers have right to refuse gay marriage licenses -pope
Reuters
Philip Pullella
September 28, 2015

Pope Francis said on Monday government officials have a “human right” to refuse to discharge a duty, such as issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals, if they feel it violates their conscience.

Speaking to reporters as he returned home from a 10-day trip to the United States and Cuba, Francis also repeated his condemnation of priests who had sexually abused children, saying the victims had been “crushed by evil”.

Although the Argentine-born pontiff delved into some of the United States’ thorniest political debates during his visit, he never specifically referred to a controversy over same-sex marriages, which the Church firmly opposes.

On the flight back to Rome, he was asked if he supported individuals, including government officials, who refuse to abide by some laws, such as issuing marriage licences to gays.

“Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right,” Francis said.

Earlier this month a county official in the state of Kentucky, Kim Davis, went to jail because she refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple following a Supreme Court decision to make homosexual marriage legal.

Davis’s case has taken on national significance in the 2016 presidential campaign, with one Republican contender, Mike Huckabee, holding rallies in favour of Davis, a Apostolic Christian, who has since joined the Republican party.

“I can’t have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection but, yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right,” he said, speaking in Italian.

“And if someone does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right,” he added.

Francis said conscientious objection had to be respected in legal structures. “Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying: ‘This right has merit, this one does not.'”

So we must understand that the people who are citing the Pope as their champion on global warming and a host of other issues were just morally condemned AS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS.

Barack Obama is a HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATOR.  Obama in fact wants to keep pushing farther and farther and forcing people of good conscience to violate their consciences on more and more issues or face the full-weight of totalitarian secular humanist socialist government power.  Hillary Clinton is a HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATOR, according to the Pope that the left most adores.  The Democrat Party is a PARTY of human rights violation.

This mindset that human government is the end of all there is, all there was or all there ever will be, and that people ought to be thralls under its raw power, are EVIL.

I marvel at the left and the incredibly cynical way they exploit Jesus Christ: Jesus was NOT a socialist.  At NO point during His ministry did Jesus EVER claim that government ought to be feeding the poor, taking care of the sick, etcetera.  He said to His disciples, YOU do these things.  He never so much as even remotely SUGGESTED that King Herod’s Jewish government or Pontius Pilate’s Roman government ought to install a welfare system or a socialized medical system.

I read a couple of passages in the Old Testament to people: I read 1 Samuel chapter 8:10-22

¹⁰ Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. ¹¹ He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. ¹² Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. ¹³ He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. ¹⁴ He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. ¹⁵ He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. ¹⁶ Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle^[a] and donkeys he will take for his own use. ¹⁷ He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. ¹⁸ When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

¹⁹ But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. ²⁰ Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”

²¹ When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. ²² The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”

When the people wanted expanded human government, it was NOT a good thing to the LORD God; it was an EVIL thing that God condemned.

Another passage I read to people is Daniel 2:31-35:

³¹ “Your Majesty looked, and there before you stood a large statue—an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. ³² The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, ³³ its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. ³⁴ While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. ³⁵ Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.

Daniel goes on to explain this dream in verses 36-45 that the king of Babylon had and we know understand from history what these successive governments were: the king and Babylon was the head of gold; with successive human governments that would arise after him and after Babylon: the next government characterized by silver would be the Medo-Persians, the third government that was of bronze would be the Greeks following the conquest of Alexander the Great.  The fourth government of iron would be Rome.  And a final government that was partly of iron, and partly of clay (many believe this represents the worst blend of both fascism and democracy) would be a revived Roman empire that continues to exist to this day and will ultimately rise to true power under the government of the coming Antichrist.

We find that human government doesn’t get better, it gets WORSE.  With each successive government, the worst of the preceding government is carried on, with less valuable elements characterizing the whole.  Human government isn’t getting better; it is getting WORSE.  And ultimately a Stone, represented by Jesus Christ, the Messiah, will crash into the government of the Antichrist and destroy it.  And destroy the entire system of human government because human government is FAILURE.

The Stone is cut out of the mountain without hands.  It is NOT an entity of ANY human making.  It is the divine Messiah that Democrats have made it their mission in life to REJECT as they keep pushing for more and more and MORE human government that will be the very thing that Christ will come to war against and to destroy in the coming last days.

If I may project the past and present of the Democrat Party to its future: Democrats have radically chosen the wrong side, the side of human government at WAR with Jesus Christ and His ways and His Kingdom.  They WILL take the side of the Antichrist – the ultimate power of human government – and they WILL take his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads.  They have already been worshiping the power of human government as “savior” for decades.  And Democrats WILL be broken and destroyed by the Stone, Jesus Christ, and they WILL ultimately burn in hell for their wicked choices that we ALREADY see in their pathological drive to murder babies and exalt homosexuality.

I know that I am digressing, but the Word of God is also crystal clear about the notion of entering into a covenant with a nation like Iran – and the subterfuges and outright lies that Obama manifested in order to shove this covenant through every obstacle:

You boast, “We have struck a bargain to cheat death and have made a deal to dodge the grave. The coming destruction can never touch us, for we have built a strong refuge made of lies and deception.”.”  — Isaiah 28:15

Most translations of this passage use the phrase, “a covenant with death.”  But the above provides the most accurate essence of what Isaiah is saying: we have wicked people who will try to make a covenant with death in order to cheat death.  While they themselves have brought that very death upon themselves by their depraved appeasement.  Iran is a nation that has made “a covenant with death” its very FOUNDATION.  During the Iran-Iraq War, Iran sent 100,000 of its minor-age CHILDREN screaming across the front line to be blown to bits in death charge after death charge.  This nation is a DEATH CULT and CONTINUES to be a death cult that screams, “Death to America!  Death to Israel!”  Iran is a death cult to its very CORE.  And Barack Obama is a wicked man who entered into a wicked, unholy agreement with a death cult because he is a coward who lives by lies.  And the Barack Obama presidency is therefore ITSELF “a covenant with death.”

Isaiah 28:25 is “the Obama verse,” as it captures the very essence of the wicked heart of this liar without shame, without honor, without decency, without virtue of any kind, as he exploits lie after lie after lie and the stupidity of sheople to believe those lies, as he imposes all of his covenants with death.

NOTHING that Barack Obama has done, NOTHING that the Democrat Party has done, is anything CLOSE to God’s will.

Democrats have WARRED on the VERY PEOPLE whom Jesus empowered to take care of the poor, the sick and the downtrodden.  They have actively sought to minimize the role of the Church.  That fact was manifested in another of the Pope’s actions while he was here as he visited with the Little Sisters of the Poor – casualties of the hatred toward the Church manifested by Barack Obama and his Democrat Party machine.  Democrats have every day and in every way actively sought to make more and more and more crushingly powerful the very system of human government that the Bible says is DOOMED to failure.

But you’ll never hear the words or teachings of Jesus accurately portrayed.  Any more than you’ll likely ever hear the words or teachings of this Pope accurately depicted by pathologically dishonest secular humanist liberals for that matter, I suppose.

Joe Biden Meets With Pope Francis: The Cynic’s View

I start writing this acknowledging that I don’t know the future and I can’t look within the souls of men.  Which means I could be wrong.

But I DO know how cynical Democrats are.

I also know the following facts: that Joe Biden’s son died.  That as he was dying, he allegedly told his father this:

Joe Biden’s dying son, just before he succumbed to brain cancer two months ago, begged his father to make him a promise — to run for President.

“Dad, it’s who you are,” Beau Biden reportedly told his dad, his face partially paralyzed and his vocabulary slipping.

The dramatic death bed exchange was revealed in a piece published Saturday by New York Times’ columnist Maureen Dowd.

One question being how did Maureen Dowd of the New York Times learn of these words?

I also know Joe Biden has been saying some version of this multiple times:

Ahead of Pope Francis’ visit to the United States this week, Biden told a Jesuit magazine that it remains a family decision. And the family is not there yet.

“I mean, I’ve just got to be certain that if I do this, I’m able to look you in the eye and everyone else and say I’m giving all my passion, all my, all my energy and will not be distracted. And secondly, equally as important, the other piece is: Is this moment, is this the best thing for the family as a unit?” Biden said in the interview with America magazine published Monday.

Biden remarked that he has known “almost every person” who has made a White House bid since he was 29 years old, and the decision always hinges on “personal considerations.”

“Your whole family is implicated. Your whole family is engaged. So for us it’s a family decision, and I just have to be comfortable that this will be good for the family,” he explained.

“We’re just not there yet and may not get there in time to make it feasible to be able to run and succeed because there are certain windows that will close. But if that’s it, that’s it. But it’s not like I can rush it. It’s not like it either happens or it doesn’t happen. I know that’s not satisfying to anybody, but people who have been there, I know they understand,” the vice president said.

And I also know that whether Joe Biden runs is a function of Hillary Clinton’s dwindling poll numbers as any pretense to that woman having any honesty or virtue whatsoever becomes more and more of a pathetic joke:

WASHINGTON — As Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign struggles with sliding poll numbers, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s exploration of a presidential candidacy is taking on a new seriousness.

Mr. Biden has been in contact with donors who could help finance a campaign, eyeing major contributors to President Obama and pillars of his own fund-raising network: trial lawyers, Jewish leaders and Greek-Americans. On Thursday, the vice president, who is not known for aggressively courting donors, spoke to George Tsunis, a Long Island developer and longtime supporter, who raised more than $750,000 for the Obama-Biden ticket in 2012.

“I think he is doing the prudent thing, which is to look at it and lay down some groundwork should he run,” said Mr. Tsunis, saying that Mr. Biden is aware that Mr. Tsunis will help him if he enters the race.

At the same time, some Democrats supporting Mrs. Clinton have quietly signaled that they would re-evaluate their support if Mr. Biden joined the race.

Does Joe Biden circle over Hillary Clinton’s head like the proverbial vulture, waiting for her campaign to reach the death  point when he can swoop in?  Or is America supposed to believe that yesterday Joe Biden didn’t have the fire in his heart to be president, but today he’s had a quiver in his liver that he is now truly ready to face the pressure of being the leader of what little is left of the free world (and the free America, for that matter)???

I mean, how do you say, “Yesterday, I wasn’t ready to be president.  It would be wrong for me to be the leader of the free world.  I’m just not ready.”  But then say, “But that was yesterday.  Now you should trust your children’s lives to me because the quiver in my liver cannot be wrong.”

I mean, what’s the hook that changes a man from not being ready to having the fire in his heart to tirelessly serve his nation with his whole heart and all of his energy?

What can generate such a transformation, such a change of heart?

Well, I think – being incredibly cynical about just how incredibly CYNICAL depraved Democrats truly are – that it would take a private meeting with the pope for a “good” Catholic who has supported murdering more than sixty million innocent babies but doesn’t believe in murdering them on Sundays, to manifest such a change that we can all believe in.

And what a heartwarming story, right?  I mean, overwhelmed by the tragedy of his loss, a devout Catholic man loses his heart.  But then finds it again in the wisdom and love of the Pope.  And in that heart-to-heart he finds his heart again, finds his drive, finds his passion reignited.

It’s like Rocky, only with a politician rather than a boxer.

I’m just telling you that if Joe Biden announces he’s going to run, and announces that his meeting with the Pope influenced his decision, that this was planned from the moment that he first found out the Pope was going to visit and he was going to be able to lead the American delegation at the departure ceremony of the Pope (and get that private meeting that would become his hook):

Emma Green of The Atlantic writes:

And before he took off, he had a private meeting with Joe Biden. We all know what happened last time he met with a political figure at a turning point in his career … Anything you feel moved to share, Mr. Vice President?

I think this has been scripted for months.

We continue to learn damn near every day that pretty much in every way imaginable, Hillary Clinton has lied to us about her emails and her private server that she used to conduct all her business.  We learned just a couple of days ago that her claims that she turned over all of her work-related emails before she tried to wipe her server after it was subpoenaed by Congress, and in particular that she had absolutely, without any question, on her word of honor turned over all of the emails related to the Benghazi attack, were both lies:

However, Clinton has maintained that she delivered all the “work-related” emails to the State Department. The State Department, in turn, has said that it provided all emails related to the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya in 2012, to a House select committee currently investigating the attack and Clinton’s role in the response.

According to news reports Friday, evidence suggests that neither of those claims is necessarily true.

A story by the Associated Press says the Pentagon discovered an exchange of emails between Clinton and General David Petraeus from early in her tenure at State, while he was leading U.S. Central Command. The emails were forwarded by the Defense Department to the State Department and are not among the emails that Clinton turned over to State earlier this year.

Even if the content of the email is innocuous, the revelation that there were work-related emails that Clinton did not turn over to State will raise the question of what other correspondence might have been withheld.

In addition, the State Department admitted Friday that it had not provided the House Select Committee on Benghazi with all of the emails related to the attacks that Clinton had turned over. According to The Daily Beast, the State Department on Friday informed the committee that they would be delivering a “handful” of previously undisclosed emails. The number of emails in that so-called handful? 925.

We learned a couple of days before that that Hillary Clinton had been lying when she told the world that she turned over her emails to the State Department as nothing more than part of a routine request, rather than she being the subject/target of an investigation:

Throughout the controversy over her use of a private e-mail system while she was secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton has described her decision last year to turn over thousands of work-related e-mails as a response to a routine-sounding records request.

“When we were asked to help the State Department make sure they had everything from other secretaries of state, not just me, I’m the one who said, ‘Okay, great, I will go through them again,’ ” Clinton said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “And we provided all of them.”

But State Department officials provided new information Tuesday that undercuts Clinton’s characterization. They said the request was not simply about general rec­ord-keeping but was prompted entirely by the discovery that Clinton had exclusively used a private e-mail system. They also said they first contacted her in the summer of 2014, at least three months before the agency asked Clinton and three of her predecessors to provide their e-mails.

“In the process of responding to congressional document requests pertaining to Benghazi, State Department officials recognized that it had access to relatively few email records from former Secretary Clinton,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement e-mailed to The Washington Post. “State Department officials contacted her representatives during the summer of 2014 to learn more about her email use and the status of emails in that account.”

The American people are only BEGINNING to learn about the incredibly INCOMPETENT and CRIMINAL STUPIDITY of Hillary Clinton.  Consider a story that came out earlier this month:

One of the most serious potential breaches of national security identified so far by the intelligence community inside Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private emails involves the relaying of classified information concerning the movement of North Korean nuclear assets, which was obtained from spy satellites.

Multiple intelligence sources who spoke to The Washington Times, solely on the condition of anonymity, said concerns about the movement of the North Korean information through Mrs. Clinton’s unsecured server are twofold.

First, spy satellite information is frequently classified at the top-secret level and handled within a special compartment called Talent-Keyhole. This means it is one of the most sensitive forms of intelligence gathered by the U.S.

Second, the North Koreans have assembled a massive cyberhacking army under an elite military spy program known as Bureau 121, which is increasingly aggressive in targeting systems for hacking, especially vulnerable private systems. The North Koreans, for instance, have been blamed by the U.S. for the hack of Sony movie studios.

Allowing sensitive U.S. intelligence about North Korea to seep into a more insecure private email server has upset the intelligence community because it threatens to expose its methods and assets for gathering intelligence on the secretive communist nation.

“While everyone talks about the U.S. being aware of the high threat of hacking and foreign spying, there was a certain nonchalance at Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in protecting sensitive data that alarms the intel community,” one source familiar with the email review told The Times. “We’re supposed to be making it harder, not easier, for our enemies to intercept us.”

This woman screwed America in ways we’ll NEVER know given her paranoid secrecy and her worse-than-Nixonian determination to be above the law and above the transparency of petty mortals.

The fact that Hillary Clinton isn’t already in a prison cell charged with treason against the United States of America is all the proof you need that the Obama Administration is THE most rabidly partisan entity that ever existed in the face of the earth.

So the question is whether Joe Biden runs because even though his heart and his head aren’t in the most important job on earth, because it’s better that a Democrat destroy America than that a more fit Republican whose heart and head ARE in the right place to lead get the job.  Or he needs to have a dramatic hook to convince us all that he’s ready to lead and lead for the right reasons.

Enter his meeting with the Pope.  And the Hollywood script written by Hollywood liberals just writes itself.

Don’t forget the way that story was framed:

Ahead of Pope Francis’ visit to the United States this week, Biden told a Jesuit magazine that it remains a family decision. And the family is not there yet

Ah, but what about DURING and BECAUSE OF the Pope’s visit?  “Ahead of” the Pope’s visit, Biden “isn’t there.”  But don’t you worry: because a miraculous healing event will happen and Biden will suddenly be spontaneously healed BY the Pope’s visit.  Because that’s what the cynical Democrat script calls for.  And Biden will somehow find his fire, just when he needs to, just short of too late.  Almost as if it were on cue according to the script.

Is that as cynical as it gets?  Yeah.  But every time I’ve ever thought Democrats couldn’t get more cynical, they’ve surprised me.  These people are liars to the cores of their roach souls.  And the more they talk about God or transcendent things, the more you can know they’re lying in the most cynical, depraved way much the way Obama looked at us all and lied when he told us that as a “Christian” he believed in the sanctity of marriage as the union between one man and one woman when in fact he didn’t.

I mean, let me put it this way: can Democrats develop genuine spiritual convictions?  Maybe.  But just not to anywhere near the extent that pigs can develop genuine wings and fly like falcons.

We’ll see if I’m right in the next few weeks.

 

 

The Pope Vs. Obama: One Of These Men Is A Liar Without Shame (Dishonest Liberal Pseudo-Journalism Completely Ignores Story)

This would be a funny one, if it wasn’t so tragic and so revealing as to the dishonest character of Barack Obama and the dishonesty of liberal “journalism.”

Barack Obama requested a meeting with popular Pope Francis, hoping to ride the coat tails of the popular pope.

But it turns out the two men were never in the same room, in terms of the accounts of the talk.  One of them was in his own head with demons swirling around screaming at him and couldn’t hear a word the other said.

The über-über -liberal Los Angeles Times says Obama is their messiah-pharaoh-god-king and is incapable of deceit.  So here is their account of the story highlighted on the front page of the main section of the paper:

“Sharing hopes for the poor: At the Vatican, Obama’s first-ever meeting with Pope Francis focused on the marginalized”

The subheadline on the story on page A2 reads, “President and Pope Francis meet at the Vatican,  and mostly avoid the subject of U.S. bishops angry about ObamaCare..”

What is interesting about that subheading is that it is nothing more than the official propaganda of Obama and totally ignores the Pope’s own account of the meeting.  If you read the story carefully, you never get any sense or idea that there were two accounts of what happened.  There is only “Obama’s account” because Obama is everything to liberals and the sole arbiter of reality and morality and decency and deity.  And the Pope is merely a human mouthpiece for a false god.

The Washington Times reports (the actual story:

Only God knows for sure: Obama, pope differ on accounts of ‘social schisms’ talk
By Dave Boyer – The Washington Times
Thursday, March 27, 2014

President Obama’s first meeting with Pope Francis produced a little schism of its own.

The Vatican and White House gave starkly different versions Thursday of Mr. Obama’s meeting with Francis.

The president’s account downplayed the Catholic Church’s concerns about religious freedom in the United States and Obamacare’s mandate to pay for contraception.

The pontiff and the president were cordial in the televised portions of their meeting, but a subtle competition to set the agenda played out after the meeting, which went well beyond its scheduled half-hour.

“We actually didn’t talk a whole lot about social schisms in my conversations with His Holiness,” Mr. Obama said at a press conference in Rome. “In fact, that really was not a topic of conversation.”

Mr. Obama deflected a reporter’s question about the extent of his discussion with the pope on the contraceptive mandate by saying that Francis “actually did not touch in detail” on the subject. The administration has been locked in a lengthy legal and political battle with the U.S. Catholic Church hierarchy over Obamacare and issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

The Vatican, however, issued a statement after the meeting saying the president’s discussions with Francis and two other top Vatican officials focused “on questions of particular relevance for the [Catholic] Church in [the United States], such as the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection” — issues that have fueled divisions between Mr. Obama and the church.

Although Mr. Obama wanted to highlight his bond with Francis over questions of economic inequality and helping the poor, Obamacare’s mandate for employers to pay for birth control gained more attention.

The president clearly wanted to benefit from the global popularity of the pope. Their meeting was a highlight of Mr. Obama’s foreign trip that ends Friday in Saudi Arabia, but it was at an awkward time for the president.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act’s mandate requiring for-profit employers of a certain size to offer insurance benefits that cover birth control and other reproductive health services without a co-pay. Some employers object to the mandate on the grounds that it violates their religious beliefs.

On Barack Obama’s account, the Pope couldn’t care less about the fact that Obama is daily pissing in the eye of Catholicism while trying to gouge OUT the eyes of religious freedom altogether.

So who is the moral leader telling the truth and who is the dishonest Antichrist politician????  Hmmmm.  Boy is that one ever a head scratcher.  Until you realize…

One of these men isn’t running for anything; the other one is a pure politician who is desperately trying to save his political party from being held accountable for their evil in an election that is less than eight months away.

It is also worth considering that Barack Obama, with his incessant lie caught on video at LEAST 37 times.  He is THE most documented liar who ever lived on planet earth, bar none.  Adolf Freaking Hitler was not caught in so many lies as Obama has been caught in.

So if you have any decency, you know which of these men is lying.

The problem is that if you have any decency, you have NOTHING to do with the Democrat Party.

The Democrat Party has murdered well over 55 innocent million human beings.  Democrats are now more than five times more murderous than the Nazis – who “only” murdered 11 million in the Holocaust.

The Democrat Party is the Party of the Wrath of God according to Romans Chapter One.  Their worship of homosexual sodomy is the complete destruction of America, plain and simple.

As The New Pope Is Revealed Let’s Ask The Question: Why Does The Catholic Church Have A Man Who Stands Between Christ And Mankind???

I’ll probably find out who the next pope is by the time I finish this.  I am literally writing it close to a television as the news cover the development of “white smoke.”

Why did the Catholic Church go with “popes”?

The “Catholic Church” itself did not exist as an organization in anything close to its modern form until the fourth century, AD.  Yes, they claim that Peter was the first “pope.”  They do so because Jesus says “And I tell you, you are Peter [which means “a rock”], and on this rock I will build My Church” (Matthew 16:19).  Catholics argue that Jesus established Peter as the first pope and that “the rock upon which Christ built His Church” was Peter himself and NOT on Peter’s testimony, which is simply incorrect.  I would submit that God literally did give Peter a unique opportunity to have the Church built on his testimony and even on his preaching as he preached the Gospel that won the first Jewish converts AND the first Gentile converts.  It was Peter who preached the very first Gospel message at Pentecost in Acts chapter 2  It was Peter who preached the gospel to the very first Gentile converts at Caesarea in Acts chapter 10.  And Billy Graham and every single evangelist who has ever lived to this very day preach on that same “rock” upon which Christ built His Church that Peter preached.  Christ fulfilled His prophecy of Peter in Peter’s life.  There is no reason to believe that Christ additionally established a permanent political office through Peter that would be otherwise known as “the Catholic Church.”  And Catholics also claim Jesus appointed Peter as the first pope because of Peter’s authority over the early Church. But it was clearly not Peter alone, but Jesus’ half brother James, who TOGETHER were the leaders of the early Church.  It is impossible to argue that one was clearly superior to the other in authority when you examine the authority of both men – and I point to a Catholic article to document that fact.

I would submit that there is no reason to believe that neither Matchew 16:9 or John 21:15-19 created a temoral political organization that would uniquely represent Christ on earth.  And I would submit that the life of Peter itself bears that out.  Peter was without question AN early leader of the Church.  But he was never “THE” leader of the Church.  Peter allowed James to lead the Church that began in Jerusalem through HIS preaching at Pentecost.  And it wasn’t long before Peter handed off much of the leadership of the early Church in the Gentile world off to Paul even though it had been Peter’s preaching that had started the Gentile Church.  In fact I would submit that Peter’s experience of personal moral collapse in denying Jesus was the reason that he was such a pivotal figure: he had the humility to share leadership with James, and he had the humility to hand over his ministry to the Gentiles to Paul.  Peter was a man who handed power over to others and empowering them; the Catholic Church is the very opposite in that it constantly seeks to aquire more power over all others.  That has been its central failing through the centuries to this day as they covered up the sex scandal of homosexual priests in order to save the organization.

Who was the second pope?  Well, Catholics say it was St. Linus:

Pope St. Linus was the second pope of the Holy Catholic Church from c. 68 – c. 79 AD.  St. Irenaeus says, “After the Holy Apostles founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy [II Tim 4:21]. His successor was Anacletus.”

And I completely agree with the historical facts presented in that paragraph.  What I don’t agree with is the fact that being the bishop of Rome was in any way, shape or form the same thing as being a modern “pope” who rules over all Christendom.

The early Church was centered in JERUSALEM, not in Rome.  That is why James was such an important early figure; it was James who led the Church in Jerusalem.  The half brother of Jesus led the Church in Jerusalem.  And when St. Paul sought to confirm his ministry, he did not see Peter, but JAMES (see Galatians 1:18).  And it was JAMES who confirmed Paul.

There is no historical evidence whatsoever to believe that St. Linus assumed any office in which he assumed the title “the Vicar of Christ on earth.”  The above article clearly states that very little is known about the man (and let me directly quote the Catholic source: “Not much is known as certain concerning his life” in the same boldface type the article says it in) whom Catholics rather strangely claim assumed the full power and station and literal authority over the gates of hell of St. Peter himself.  Do you see how self-refuting that ends up being?  All we really have is a statement by St. Irenaeus, writing in the latter second century, stating that a man named Linus had been the episcopal office over the Christian Church in Rome.  That certainly didn’t make him “pope” except by a later act of historical revisionism on the part of the Catholic Church.  It amounts to an orgnization centuries later asking, “Who was the next bishop of Rome after Peter?  Yeah, THAT GUY nobody otherwise remembers was the next man to hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven.  Apparently he dropped them somewhere and spent the remainder of his life futilely searching for them.  I know the feeling with some of the things I’ve misplaced, so I don’t judge too harshly here.  And apparently the next guy misplaced the keys to the kingdom of heaven soon after he had them in his hands, too, because what was the name of the third pope who was “the Vicar of Christ on earth”?  Yeah, I don’t remember either – and I just looked at the list of names a few minutes ago.

Instead, Peter held the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.  He opened the gates at Pentecost for Jews with the rock of his testimony that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.  And then he opened the gates again for the Gentiles at Caesarea with the rock of the same testimony.  And Jesus declared that once opened, no one on earth would be able to close those gates.  That’s what Jesus declared in John 21, and it is what happened in history.  Peter didn’t hand his set of keys off to anybody else because he’d already opened the gates that could never be closed again.

My point is that if Peter was the first Pope, and these guys actually held the same divine office that Peter held, we’d know who the heck they were, wouldn’t we?  But what we find is that these first men who came to be called “popes” and thus unique bearers of the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the role of Mediator between man and Christ were not those things; they were just bishops over the Church of Rome.  They weren’t popes.  And none of the popes who followed true successors of Peter, either.

I find it fascinating how history shapes the world and how the world in term shapes history.  Events, i.e. “history” shape those who take power, and then those who took power get to write the history.  History certainly shaped the Catholic Church even as the Catholic Church shaped history, I submit.  How did we get to popes and to papal succession and to Rome emerging as the centerpiece of Christianity and ordaining itself as the centerpiece for all time?  I believe that the Catholic Church was a victim of history in that the Roman Empire was beginning to collapse (primarily due to the effects of global cooling that forced massive migrations of wave after wave of barbarians into their realm).  As an example of this history:

The Roman Empire was crumbling into ruins. Invasion succeeded invasion, defeat followed defeat. In 378 the German people known as Visigoths overwhelmed an imperial army at Adrianople; and in 408 they invaded Italy and marched south upon Rome under their leader Alaric, a nobleman by birth who had once commanded the Gothic troops in the Roman army. When  the Visigoths first appeared before the Aurelian walls, which had recently been strengthened and raised to almost twice their original height, they were kept at bay with payments of monies. But in 410 when they reappeared, the gates were opened by traitors within the city, and for the first time in eight hundred years a foreign force occupied Rome.

Rome politically collapsed as the generals constantly schemed to become emperor, weakening the office of emperor to the point that you held the office by killing somebody until somebody else killed you and seized the crown for himself.

And the ONLY other institution in the West capable of stepping in and just running the cities and governing was the Catholic Church.  Herein is the danger of the Catholic practice of elevating “tradition” above the Word of God.  The Catholic Church began to transform from a religious institution to a very political one from which popes ruled like kings in the absence of any other strong leader in the realm.  And flawed understandings of flawed traditions became inflexibly entrenched because the Catholic dogma revered them as beyond question.

The Catholic Church began to reinterpret itself as a political entity accordingly.  And that massively shaped their theology of themselves.  Which is why they looked back in history and interpreted themselves into early Church history that actually had litle to do with what the Catholic Church had become entering the fourth and fifth centuries.

There is no place in Scripture where God tells me that He appointed some human being to stand between myself and Christ.  There is no place in Scripture where a human office is described that has ANYTHING to do with a “Supreme Pontiff” representing “the Vicar of Christ on earth.”  Jesus needs no one to stand between Himself and His people, and neither do His people – as indwelt by the Holy Spirit – need to have any pope stand between them and their Savior.  There is no place in Scripture where God tells me that some infallible human being speaking “ex Cathedra” can literally pronounce the words of Christ and theoretically even supersede the Bible with his own personal authority to declare the will of God.

As the organization of the Catholic Church flows down the organizatonal chart, the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood flies in the face of the priesthood of all believers found repeatedly in the Bible and continues a fundamental error.  That error is basing themselves on being the successors to the authority of St. Peter rather than basing themselves on the testimony OF St. Peter that was at the heart of Jesus’ statement in John 21.  They are thus quintessentially an organization with a human being and an entire human hierarchy at its head when the real Body of Christ is an organism that is sustained and led directly by Christ.  And thus Catholics will go to any lengths to protect the organization.

Do you know how the Catholic priesthood started in terms of the modern theology of celibacy?  It was because in the Middle Ages priests were essentially assuming enormous Church wealth for themselves and passing that wealth on to their children by the nepotistic practice of having their sons succeed them.  The Church ordained that all priests be celibate in order to keep its wealth.

It hasn’t worked out well.  Because now it’s all those “celibate” priests who are costing the Catholic Church BILLIONS in wealth.  The deeply flawed Catholic understanding of the priesthood has borne bad and bitter fruit, indeed.

Because of that doctrine, the Bible itself has historically been deprived from rank and file Catholics.  The Protestant Reformation was born out of Christians reading the Word of God and realizing that many of the traditions that were being presented by the Catholic Church were in direct contradiction of Scripture.  And even to this day, most Catholics have little to do with the Bible.

The concept of prayer to the saints stems from this: it was almost as if Catholics said, “Jesus is GOD!  Wow!  I need somebody I trust to stand between me and Jesus and intercede for me.”  And so they chose Mary, mother of Jesus.  But then it was like, “Mary is the Mother of God!  Wow!  That’s scary!  I need somebody to stand between me and Mary and intercede for me.  And now they have thousands of saints that they can pray to lest they directly pray to Christ – which Scripture tells us that we are able to do.

We don’t need priests to magically transform the elements into the actual body and blood of Christ.  We are each of us priests as true believers in Jesus.  And we don’t need to pray to saints to intercede to us before God.  God hears our prayers as our Father and Jesus hears our prayers as our Savior Redeemer.

And, yes, the Catholic Church seized the ordinances that the Lord commanded – such as baptism and the Lord’s Supper and priesthood – and ritualizing them into things that had power in and of themselves (but only if administered by the Catholic Church).  Tom McMahon explains this (unfortunate) development:

  I was always fascinated by that after I became an evangelical, because I just figured the Catholic Church was all there was and ever was. But as an evangelical, you know, I tried to read some things with regard to the early church and how certain things developed into the Roman Catholic Church, and from my understanding, it really had to do with taking the ordinances that Jesus commanded us to do: baptism, celebration of the Lord’s Table, or the Lord’s Supper, and turning those into something more than He intended—ritualizing them, making them efficacious—and over a period of time, the first couple of centuries, until, what would it be—the fourth century—those things developed to the point where there needed to be a priesthood, there needed to be a certain group of people who could, through their power or through their position, whatever it might be, these would be the only individuals who could preside over these events, but far and away removed from what we find in the Scriptures.

Please note that the usurpation of the ordinances into “Catholic rituals” developed at the same time as the Roman Empire had weakened to the point of complete collapse without the Catholic Church to step in.

What is sad is that tradition is held on the same level as the Word of God.  That’s fine, as long as the traditions COME FROM the Word of God.  But they often haven’t.

The result is a pope who was given more power than ANY other Christian leader of any other Christian sect who has so little real power and influence even over his own flock that 98% of Catholic women use birth control even though pope after pope after pope have declared it to be not only sinful but grounds for excommunication.

I won’t go on.  The Catholic Church has many flaws and has failed many times.  But the same Lord who restored Peter will restore the Catholic Church if it comes to Him in the appropriate spirit of humility.  Ours is a God who rejoices at restoring the broken and blessing the humble.

I’m sure that more than a few Catholics are rather angry at me by now.  But before you go away angry or say something too harsh, I hope you stick around long enough the following:

We just heard the announcement of the next Pope.  His name is Jorge Mario Bergoglio.  From what little I know of him, he is a good man.  He opposed liberation theology just as did Benedict before him.  He seems to be in the conservative tradition rather than the liberal one that is destroying the world like cancer all around us.

I hear that this man, Bergoglio, is a humble and simple man who seeks to meekly bring others together and who once kissed the feet of AIDS patients.  He took the bus to his job as Cardinal and was known to carry his own baggage.  He chose as his papal name the name “Francis” in signification that humility will be the hallmark of his ministry.  He came out without all the vestments and asked the people to bless him as he assumes this duty, rather than thinking that he was a man who had the power to bless others.  And he got on his hands and knees to receive those prayers.  I will pray for such a man who seeks prayer, whether I agree with all of his theological positions or not.  Jesus said we should pray even for our enemies; and we should pray even MORE for my friends.

I think all Christians need to pray for the Catholic Church and for the Pope.  There are 1.2 billion Catholic souls – and they can do a great deal of good if they are properly shepherded.  Pray that the Lord work through the Catholic Church and the Pope in these last days with the same spirit we pray for our own churches.

All who rejoice in the salvation of Jesus Christ can have many things in common, even be we Catholics versus Protestants.

As a Christian, I will join those who pray for this pope and for his ministry in these last days before the beast.