About Me
I am a devout Catholic and a Ronald Reagan conservative or a libertarian conservative (if that makes sense). I am also an Aggie.
This blog defends and advances the ideas and values of both Catholicism and conservatism. This is also a forum for passionate but civil discussion and debate on religion, politics, and both simultaneously. I encourage those of you who disagree to comment. Be advised that I reserve the right to prevent or delete comments that are off-topic or obscene (or spam).
Conservative Colloquium 
jequidam said
Please read the 15 Questions & Answers on Thirty-Thousand.org’s home page:
http://www.Thirty-Thousand.org
And this article:
http://enlargethehouse.blogtownhall.com
John said
Devout Catholic here too! Just went to cofession today so i feel GREAT!
Anyway
You have an AMAZING BLOG! My name is John DeChiaro and I have created a web-thank-you note to GWB on 9/11/08.
If you can, could write something on your blog/website or promote it to your email lists so that I can get others to sign it. I currently have over 350 signatures.
Thanks for your consideration,
John
http://www.thankyoupresidentgeorgewbush.com
Audrey said
Hi Tony,
Just wanted to say “Fantastic! Keep up the good work!”
I was getting rather lost in the genetic-basis-of-homosexuality argument and then stumbled on the entry on Ryan Sorba’s “Born Gay Hoax”.
There have been many articles written that have mentioned there is no genetic basis but haven’t gone into the reasons – until now. Will be spreading it around!
Cheers, and thanks!
The_Conservative_Lie said
Hey audrey,
Based on your post, I’d like to ask you, at what point in your life did you make the choice to be straight. I’m so glad you chose the correct path. It must have been a difficult decision for you, considering how much you like both men and women, but you did the right thing in the end. It’s too bad that when so many others are faced with the same difficult decision they can’t muster the strength that you did to resist homosexuality. Good for you. But, do the urges ever completely go away, or is it a temptation you have to deal with for the rest of your life?
Bird said
I’m tired of this non sequitur argument. People can choose to die, doesn’t mean they had the choice to be alive in the first place. You choose to be straight or gay when confronted with the question of one’s own sexuality. One is, however, not born gay. There are many urges and temptations that we as humans choose not to act on thought they are inherent. I’m not a killer though I have experienced fits of rage and flash desires. I am not lazy though there are times I’d like to do nothing. Behavior is always a choice.
MIKE CALLAHAN said
Symposium of the National Disposition
January 28, 2010
ESSAY
Beware of a second market crash and major terrorist attack. The original establishment of a free Republic has never been so endangered in the history of this nation. The rule of government has shifted from a management platform of an administrator, to that of authority to “fix” and control. Never before has the Republic allowed government to super exceed it’s boundaries into private sector industries. This is the first step, starting with 9-11, now with a cyclic recession, the fixes will involve the loss of liberty and freedom for arbitrary security and reform where government saturates every aspect of our life. We will no longer be free to chose our healthcare, run or start business, have personal freedoms, without government involvement or intervention. Once we gave government authority to decide on our behalf, we no longer have power over government, for government becomes the only legitimate authority. This generation lacks the knowledge to understand freedom and liberty, (the history that evolved this concept), for it is not taught in schools no longer, but we are taught to depend on a system then to be the system. The warning: The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now. They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty, John Adams.
Notice Obama’s interview below starts out as the successes and failures of the civil rights movement and improved race relations in the courts for equal rights but then he shifts from racial equality into economic redistribution of the productive societal class to the unproductive. This has nothing to do with rights of equality between race and gender of a free republic, but a deceptive way to mix forms of government (as justice) that the US Constitution was written to defend against. This form of distribution and authoritative rule conflicts with the US Constitution and, of course, would be negative (meaning wrong). For a former US Senator, who is a constitutional scholar, would be vary unlikely candidate to express redistribution and “government must do on your behalf” (authoritarian) especially if his oath of office was to defend and protect the US Constitution. Obama’s comment basically says to just ignore the charter completely, just use the power of coalitions to force wealth redistribution. Spoken in 2001 but is the exact playbook of his current policies in 2010.
Samuel Adams stated: “The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.
2001 Obama chicago public interview wbez.fm
“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.” Barack Obama
The 2010 Playbook:
1-Everyone has a right to health care.
Free Market: Health care is not free and not a single entity to own. Health based industries consist of private practices, private sector manufactures, private sector hospitals, and information services where these entities started by individuals for profit; for profit requires efficiency or will fail. Companies who provide capital for risk offer a service for those who want to protect assets to cover cost.. “insurance”. Like all freedoms and liberties we have, we have the right to start any legitimate business we want, in any market, to profit from the work we put into it, or losses if we under-perform: free market, capitalism… liberty and freedom. Cost of services reduction can only occur by de-regulation, liability reform, and competition to shop competitors. Outside of the market, to force further reduction, would bankrupt or require tax revenues from the Federal Government that in-turn, pulls capital back out of the private sector.
True Government health: The only true right to government healthcare are state funded (by us) emergency services, State and Fed. Medicare, Medicaid, federal subsidized retirement,VA, and health benefit programs, VA clinics and army medical hospitals where government “owns” (controls) and operates staff and equipment. Resources are limited, waste and abuse abounds and would bankrupt in only months if subject to a market economy; just showing how poorly managed and wasteful debt creating government management really is without the objective to create profit for efficiency. Government frowns on private sector profit for it is the engine to achieve and excel, something the government is not driven to accomplish. Government needs this goldmine, the private sector, to control and claim ownership of.
Government is not a producer or a manufacture: Government is not competition to industry for it has no risk of loss or bankruptcy to regulate or value set; private sector is subject to supply and demand or will fall into bankruptcy where government is immune. Government cannot offer affordable healthcare to anyone unless it pulls revenues from the tax base or create debt for future generations. Government cannot create wealth, it only spends the wealth of the base. Government controlled healthcare in the private sector requires authoritative rule for redistribution of private industries profits and tax revenues from the base. One form of infrastructure for distribution is called Marxism.
2-Share the wealth from the rich and corporate greed and give to the poor. Capitalism, free markets (freedom and liberty) failed due to excessive greed and caused the recession. Excessive taxes levied on selected banks and corporate entities. Government ownership of private sector industry for redistributive change.
Like with the right to healthcare in the private sector so too in all markets the argument of the right of government control to distribute. In the United States, some of the founding fathers and several subsequent leaders expressed opposition to redistribution of wealth. “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Benjamin Franklin
3. Green jobs, the world is dying because of corporate exploitation and pollution, need government run or assisted business to save it and make a new “green” economy.
Another masterful technique into private industry “It may be a crisis that is too good to waste but we have to move fast to define and win support for a progressive response to the failures of the market. But a new (“green”) socialism can only be built on the politics of sustainability.” Neal Lawson guardian.co.uk
4. All illegal immigrants living in poverty must have equal rights like the legal Americans and must be nationalized. They too will have instant access to free health care, at the cost of all legal Americans.
Instantly add millions to nationalized health care and welfare and increases voter base and intrusion into private industry. In free market economics, one must work for benefits to fund system, most all illegal immigrants are poor and require instant welfare without paying into the system (free services paid by legal citizens).
5. Labor Unions affiliated with government hold the statue of ethics in the work place, we should be a nation of a Union workers party and volunteerism.
Government united with labor unions (united labor organizations) are a conduit for government policy to control private sector industry, redistribution of wealth. Labor Unions contribute heavy to progressive policies and are involved in Washington for all anit-capital, Stimulus, and government expansion policies into the private sector. Unions are so powerful that in 1930’s, Germany used the NSDAP with trade unions to eventually attain authoritarian rule.
The 1787 Playbook:
There is no question that Obama is a progressive. But on top of progressivism, he is also a scholar in the mechanics of the US Constitution and knows first hand the power of civil rights. Armed with this knowledge, he either vested his study to admire the doctrine, or saw it as a hindrance to an opposing view of governing. In light of his reflections on the US constitution in the wbez interview, it is clear that he is the analytical chess player out to undermine and find ways around the doctrine by the guise of “civil rights” to a convergence of an authoritative form of government that removes the restrictive powers of the Republic charter to forward power back to government. The authoritative ideology is simple, someone with power knows what’s best for “social justice” of those under them “government must do on your behalf”. No one who is lower in power has the right to tell authority what they should or should not do.
The founders who wrote the constitution wrote it to protect the Republic from someone who tries to side step the law. They are, according to Obama himself, Obama’s adversaries and the founders knew there will be those in power who will try to breach the restrictions to shift power back to government. The Federalist papers are our warnings, ignorance will be our own failure, and the chess game is being played now between the Republic and her despotic apprentices. Obama’s oath of office was either allegiance to or the aversive of to get into office.
The game continues, your next move Mr. president…..? The electorate asks: Why rush healthcare, where is the fire, jobs or health? Why deal with unions behind closed doors? Why legislated with only one party? Why are we going into un-reversible debt? The questions are not asked to be answered, they are asked to express a warning…. we are the Republic with the only legitimate authority for we hold your oath of office.
This US government of running trillion in debt, corruption, partisan government. public healthcare, constitution bashing, Marxist and Communist intrusion is so 21 century? It all happened before back in 1934 when FDR was in office. The same arguments we hear today was said 76 years ago.
To be clear the “new” government argument is not about modern, “change”, revolution, share the wealth, etc…. It is all the same forms of government regardless of the year: (1), government controls the populous, and (2), the populous controls (tells what to admin.) the government. In 1776-1787 something unique happened. A new society of mixed religions and nationalities managed to form a new government where they set in writing, a rule book. A written establishment cementing power to remain with the Republic. This form of government existed in the past but never succeeded because it had no concrete by-laws to uphold. Rome came close, but power remain with government so emperors ruled. Obama thinks he can re-write American history to modernize her form of government, all he is simply doing is to re-establish power back to government; this is socialism, the most archaic form of government, the most corruptible, the most oppressive, and the most un-successful (if you exclude human rights, tyranny is vary successful). He is simply re-inventing the same old political wheel. The firewall of freedom was never built of stone, it is just a piece of paper… an idea, a concept. If the concept of liberty is not renewed, it will simply fade away (the founders knew this). The Republic, the individual, is the only sentry to protect it, not politicians for they are corruptible and the rule book is for them not us. The founders all passed away… but they did warn us of those lovers of large government would come and just side-step that firewall because the children of the federation fell asleep… we did not even know what was happening to us until all of our freedoms were quickly and simply, taken away.
We are at a crossroads with this current generation on who is responsible for the success of this nation. We do not look to one person to solve our resolve, we look to our Union, our Republic, the individual, not one person with a authority to proclaim “what government must do on your behalf”, For it was George Washington and J. F. Kennedy that had to remind us who we are … We The People…. what we can do not what government can do for us.
MARE said
Hi Tony (aka foospro86)
Found your site quite by accident – albeit there are no coincidences.
Very Informative and intelligent writing! I have already passed your site
to have others read. I will continue to be enlightened as I will be back
frequently. Thanks so much!
James Ware said
Hi Tony,
Thank you for the incredable amount of information on your site. I was searching for something I had read years ago about our founding father’s view on welfair and was directed here. What a find. Thanks again, I’ll help spread the word about you.
Lee said
Tony,
I am a conservative Christian family man. And while I agree with much of your writing here, I think you incorrectly (or incompletely) label yourself a “Catholic”. I believe in the “Catholic” church in the sense that catholic simply means “universal”. What you appear to be is devoutly “Roman Catholic” or a Romanist. I noted that in your “about me” write up, you never once wrote anything about being a Christian or anything about the author and finisher of the Christian faith, Jesus Christ.
Very telling…
foospro86 said
That’s because you are prejudiced against or ignorant of Catholicism obviously. Leave the smug “very telling” behind. As if Jesus Christ could be divorced from His Bride, the one true Church! When heresies abound, it becomes necessary not merely to appeal to Jesus but to His true intentions: membership in the one Church founded upon the Rock of Cephas.
Lee said
Tony, looks like I struck a cord there. Heresies abound indeed. From selling indulgences to praying to dead people instead of God to worshipping Mary and declaring her, what was it again, in the the Third Ecumenical Council in 431? Oh yea, the mother of God, which is absolutely ludicrous and not from scripture. Not to mention the Immaculate Conception theory which, again is totally fabricated… scripture tells us that Jesus had brothers born to Mary after him, and that reminds me of the verse “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.(Proverbs 14:12)
You Romanist are responsible for dividing the Body of Christ. Just like the Pharisees of the first century that my Lord Jesus rebuked, you love your religion more than the Truth of God.
Read the third chapter of John and wake up before its too late!
foospro86 said
I wish you Protestants would actually have the humility and sincerity to actually find out what we really believe before you start bashing us. For the love of God, is that too much to ask?!
Selling indulgences have never been Church doctrine, ever. Indulgences themselves have though. I have a blog post all about it: https://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/12/19/biblical-evidence-for-indulgences-and-the-history-surrounding-their-abuse/
It’s called the communion of saints for a reason. It’s not my fault you don’t want to commune with your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ in heaven. There are more people in God’s family than just Jesus. http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/saints-purgatory-penance-index-page.html
We don’t worship Mary. We venerate her like the early saints and martyrs did, like Americans venerate the founding fathers.
The words for “brothers and sisters” included cousins and other relatives. St. Jerome explains this in detail: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm
Our religion is the truth of God. It’s not my fault you idolize Scripture beyond its true purpose within the life and mission of the Church.
Craig said
Lee. All Truth comes from God. The truth that Protestants espouse (e.g. Christ is God and part of the Trinity (most protestants agree on that) is only Truth in so far as it agrees with The Truth, God’s Truth, Catholic Truth.
All truth is Catholic Truth, because all Truth is God’s truth, and the truth of God is universal. So when we say we are Catholic, we are saying we assent to the fullness of Christ’s Truth as revealed directly in the OT, NT, by Christ’s own words, and the divinely inspired words of scripture, and the dogmatic and infallible teachings of Sacred Tradition.
BTW, I was unaware that Protestants had a problem with the title Mother of God. Christ is God. Mary is his mother. So she is the Mother of God. His natures of God and Man are not separate, they are unified, just as our immortal soul and mortal bodies are unified. Just as His Divine Body is in heaven unified with his Divine Spirit and our sacred bodies are destined to be unified after our resurrection in the final judgement.
I’m a convert, and never seemed to have any problem with this doctrine at all.
Thanks Tony. I really appreciate that you are able (and willing!) to explain Catholic doctrine on these issues. As a man that spends a lot of time on apologetics with Protestants, I know what you go through. Always be aware of pride though, because it can debase our ability to express the Truth of the faith (I say that to all the people (especially men) in our camp because I believe we are most susceptible to pride).
Lee said
Tony,
Don’t call me a protestant. I am not, so don’t put your labals on me. You call yourself a catholic and that is what I call you. I am protesting nothing. I will speak the truth though. Idolize scripture, you say. Read the book of John. In the beginning was the Word. The Word became flesh. His Word is Jesus Christ, so you are accusing me of idolizing Jesus Christ. If Jesus is God the Son then how can he be an idol. There must be an idol if one is to idolize. That’s just for starters until I have more time.
Craig,
if the bible is “divinely inspired words of scripture”, then you should follow them and not man’s traditions (where they clearly conflict with God’s Word… some traditions are fine but others are designed to lead you away from being born again and having a true relationship with the Savior) and better be careful there, you might just get accused of idolizing scripture.
foospro86 said
I’m calling you what you are. Your beliefs follow the man-made traditions of Luther and his spiritual progeny, particularly the tradition of sola Scriptura, which is contrary to Scripture itself.
You’re idolizing man-made interpretations of Scripture that have been passed down to you (i.e. traditional) since the 16th c. These interpretations are false and were never believed by any early Church leaders. The twelve apostles and their immediate successors did not hold your interpretations. Sola Scriptura was the belief of heretics who believed Jesus was not the Son of God (Arianism); sola Scriptura is ALWAYS the belief of heretics because Scripture can always be twisted to suit one’s ego; traditions cannot because they have historical existence. Arians twisted Scripture to suit their heresies just as you and your spiritual ancestors have. And the Church denounced them by appealing to the TRADITIONAL interpretations that could be traced back through bishops (particularly the one at Rome) to the apostles.
Lee said
Solo Scriptura is contrary to Scripture itself? Wow, you are so far gone! Read what you wrote: Scripture (God’s Word) can always be twisted to suit one’s ego; traditions (Man’s) cannot because they have historical existence! Again, wow! You are lost! Please repent and seek out Jesus Christ as your Saviour! Become Born Again or you will not see the Kingdom of heaven (Jesus said that; do your traditions over rule that… or did I twist that verse in some way?)… at the end of your life, your traditions, good works, libertarian conservatism, Mary, nor any of the so called saints, none of these things will save you from the fires of hell! Only being born again into the family of God through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ will do that.
Craig said
Yes Lee, sola scriptura is contrary to scripture itself. This is true for a number of reasons. First (though it is rather legalistic a reason) is that scripture itself does not say sola scriptura, sola fide, or solum gratia. The Latin Vulgate was translated originally by St Jerome. EVEN IF it was some kind of ridiculous Catholic conspiracy to demean scripture, Jerome would not have translated sola scriptura, as that would not make sense. But the greek does not say that either, and nothing in the Old Testament implies that level of legalism either.
2. Christianity, as well as Judaism are founded on Tradition. There is only one part of the entire bible you can say was written down before the tradition was established: the Ten Commandments. The traditions of Christianity existed for at least DECADES before the scriptures were ever written, which is why St Paul praises the Thessalonians and exhorts them to “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2:15)
Protestants don’t talk about that, and protest that Catholics only care about “what men say.” No, we care about what men whom God has chosen say. This is the meaning of the priesthood which started with the Apostles. The letters of Paul and Peter and James and John were not known as the Bible when they were received, though they were always the inspired word of God. But the written word is part of the Tradition, not the other way around.
The scripture says what it says. But without the TRADITION of understanding and interpreting properly, I as well as you am capable of getting things wrong. Scripture alone would have been a rather merciless abandonment of his people, but God did not do that. He established the Traditions of the Sacraments and of the Priesthood to lead us. He gave Popes from Peter on down the charism of Truth when speaking on faith and morals.
“The Word” as spoken by John does not mean just any word. It also does not mean the Bible. How easy is this to conclude? Very. If “The Word” is the same as “The Bible” which we are saying you are raising to too high a dignity (a difficult but possible feat) then that would mean that John is saying that “The Bible” is the same thing as Jesus. This is clearly not so. When Anthony said you are idolizing the Bible (a little inflammatory, but not entirely inaccurate) you can not say that we are accusing you of idolizing Jesus. Worshiping the Bible is NOT worshiping Jesus.
“The Word” as spoken by John is giving a name to God that describes God, not the Bible. Like Truth (capital T) or (The Way). The Bible is true, but it is not the sum total and source of all Truth. These are different things. All truths (if understood) lead to The Truth (God). And the word of God (if understood) leads you to The Word (God).
Anthony is still very right that this 16th century misunderstanding is to this day leading people to worship words (as they define them personally of course) instead of the God that these words teach and through the Church whose establishment that these words *chronicled*.
Tony Listi said
I’m already born again in baptism “of water and the Spirit” (Jn 3:5), as Jesus said. Are you?
No, there are traditions which are of apostolic and thus divine origin and authority, unlike your man-made Protestant traditions which cannot be traced back historically to the apostles, despite your misinterpretations of Scripture. Are you not aware that, as a matter of historical record, the successors of the apostles were Catholic? Have you not read the writings of the early Church fathers?
Oosray1 said
What I want to know, is if catholics believe that Jesus died on the cross, and was raised from the dead? Does catholics believe in the new testament? Does Catholics read the same bible ( Amplified or King James version) as Christians?
foospro86 said
Um, Catholics ARE the original Christians. The rest of you are heretics to one degree or another. So yes, yes, and Luther subtracted seven books from the Bible.
Ron Sr. said
I know I’m late to the discussion, but I do want Oosray1 to understand that the Catholic Church was established on the Day of Pentacost in A.D. 33 built upon the foundation of the Apostles and with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone.
Protestantism was established by a man named Martin Luther who possessed no Apostolic Authority from Jesus Christ (Mark 16:16-19), had no authority to Bind and Loose, had no authority to forgive sins and had NO APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY TO RE-OPEN THE HOLY SPIRIT INSPIRED WORD OF GOD AND either to add, to subtract or RE-WRITE Sacred Scripture. In a Nut Shell, Martin Luther, Zwingli or Calvin had no guidence from the Holy Spirit to establish Doctrines of any kind.
Heretics always think orthodoxy is heresy. The Catholic Church did what is was supposed to do and that was investigate Luthers, Zwingli’s and Calvins doctrines and what they found was heretical. And what do they do? They leave the Catholic Church and then claim Apostolic Authority for themselves. They rest of them pick up on this and have tried their very Satanic best to destroy the Church Christ established and prays for.
If Luther didn’t believe that the Catholic Church had Apostolic Authority, why does he debate the Catholic Church?
Luther hated the Epistle of James because it speaks against sola fida. James 2:24 – You see that a man is justified by works and not by sola fida (faith alone). So what must Protestants do about this rebuke of sola fida? They must redefine it so as to say something else. Like it refers to a dead faith. Well, a faith alone without the works we as Christians are to do to be worthy of the Grace we have received, they claim James is talking about a dead faith. In a sense this is true, but we still have those Holy Spirit inspired words of James that a man is justified by works and not by sola fida.
Blessings,
Ron Sr.
Craig said
Fortunately, Catholics are not subject to the erroneous compilation that is the *current* King James bible. (The oldest versions of the KJV (like the 1611 version) is about as close to a true Bible as you can get, pity protestants don’t use it, thanks to the likes of Luther.)
Most new bibles are heinous, and the “popular translations” of recent years put out by protestant groups from baptists, methodists, and american episcopalians are scary bad. Scary because they are often leading people away from God.
Any bible that does not have 77 books, including the deuterocanonicals, is in error. The Catholic Church and her synods defined the dogmas you listed, wrote the Apostle’s, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds to fight heresies, and are THE Tradition which is the sacred revelation of God.
Don’t believe me? You know Santa Claus? St. Nicholas? He was a bishop, who with St. Athanasius, fought the Arian heresy against those who claimed (stating “sola scriptura!” that Christ was not God.) This is why we still honor him, although everyone sadly forgets. And all this was in 325, long after the Church fully accepted ALL 77 books of the bible.
Tina Cook said
The one thing that’s not on your list of reasons not to vote for Obama, is that he is just another puppet, just like the last several puppets that were known as the Presidents of The US of America. Do you honestly believe that any of them are any better or less sold-out than the rest? The same bankers/ big business and corporate elite bankroll the left just as much as they bankroll the right. So when you vote you are not voting for change at all, just a different puppet, a different cover to the book. The same folks are still there that were there a million years ago, they are still there making decisions for the so-called elected officials. But the important part is that they have you believing that your vote actually makes a difference. You voted, it supposedly counts. Yeah right! The one thing in the world that these corrupt corporate elitist don’t want is for all the Dems and Reps to get together and compare notes, we might join forces, we might actually put someone in charge for a change instead of the 4 year changing or the guard, oh, puppet, i meant to say covergirl. The politicians are going to dance with the person that brought them to the dance, remember that. Both parties are backed by the same people and it keeps the masses busy at each others throats arguing over stupid things like religion, race, money, abortion and all sorts of meaningless drivel. What really matters is that the government is sticking it to all of us, black, white, young, old, gay, straight, single, married, old immigrant, new immigrant, native, everybody gets screwed regardless of who they vote for. The important part is that you believe the programming they have fed you with since the day you were born. Believe in the differences between the parties. I tell ya what, you would be stupid to believe there is much of a difference between the right and the left. So please stop being gullible and wake up America, please, the whole world is waiting on Americans to wake up and smell the corruption, see for yourselves who is really behind your so-called leaders. The same bankers/ big businessmen and corporate elite are still in charge of this country today, as yesterday, and will be tomorrow.
Ron Sr. said
Hi Tony,
Excellent blog. The commentaries are superb and right on the money.
God Bless,
Ron Sr.
sam said
Tony,
Absolutely love your site. I frequent here when I am searching for commentary to fight anti catholic rhetoric. I have noticed that you do not cover commentary on all books of the bible. Do you know how I can access this? I think I saw two other sites linked to this one but am at a loss to find. I want to say they might be clergy related titles? I dunno.
thanks
sam
Tony Listi said
You can’t access commentary on all books because I have not written a commentary on all books, haha. That project has fallen by the wayside for now. But since you have expressed interest, perhaps I will re-start it. Is there a particular book or two you’d prefer I do the next commentaries on?
Trevor said
I was writing my Sermon I am Calvinistic Anglican Minister and the comments on plausibility of Protestantism were excellent. I dont agree with Catholic interpretation but its nice to know Martin Luther still has its influence and we are far from extinction. my thanks again.
Tony Listi said
I can assure you that the arguments exposing the errors of Protestantism are more excellent than any comments on its plausibility. That’s what should be noted.
Protestantism is not extinct only because it has fractured into tens of thousands of different sects, but that’s a kind of “extinction” in itself. Not at all what Scripture tells us Jesus established and prayed for.