If anyone is interest in the onslaught against black unborn, please view the 2 hour+ documentary entitled: < Maafa 21 >. I guarantee a shock. The origins and function of Planned Parenthood (set up for the black problem), the organization praised by Obama and Hillary, have an unsavory origins. The documentary is weak in one point. The use of abortion came to be designated "population control" and ceased in its radicality in post 1965 to be aimed solely at aborting blacks and other undesireales. Why? President Johnson, a Democrate, introduced a massive welfare system that had the effect of destroying the black family. Today less than 30% of black kids have a mother and a father (let alone a married one). The purpose of not ridding the US of blacks was for the Democrat Party to bind them and their vote to the Democrats for hand-outs. Until the 1960s and the welfare "fundametal deformation" of society, blacks had as a relatively healthy community, been improving their lot since WW 2, children lived to 80% in families. And families are an object of leftist destruction. After the introduction of massive welfare (which US Church leaders did not oppose), the black society has become dysfunctional, but ca. a constant 90%+ vote for the Democrats and thereby gov. hand-outs. Abortion is still high among blacks, i.e., some 70%. of black pregnancies end in abortion and 70%+ of the born do not live in a two parent family. There is more rot than the good Father was indicating with his demand for an apology for aborting black children -- indeed disproportionally to the population. Alas, the black Protestant clergy will not be behind the drive for such an apology unless it can be politically used to attack "white supremacy".

The Prelate is not quite right, historically speaking. Traditional marxists thought that the proletarian class would of economic necessity bring about the change to a fully socialized society, i.e., socialism/communism. WW I ended such fantasies because the workers of different nations did not join together, rather supported their own nations. In retrospect, a group of marxist who formd the Frankfurt School concluded, following Gramsci, that a different instrument of revolution must be found, i.e.,befor changing capitalism to socialism first one must go through the culture and fundamentally change it. What blocks the development of the proletarian mind? The family, i.e., a man/woman unit that socializes the "poymophorous" baby into a structured human being with built in values. So, the prime target became the destruction of the traditional family and correlatively the socialiation or re-socialization of children into genderless or pan-gendered persons. Correlative to the degenderization of humans is the commitment to pansexualism (i.e., any form of sexual behavior is "normal"). Within the terms of the Frankfurt School, "gender ideology" is but one means, an effective means, to reaize the marxist dream of a collectivistic socialism, viz., communism.

The few words above are not adequate to the whole breadth of tactics used and promoted by the Frankfurt School. If the reader is interested I would like to suggest the short 22 minute video "The History of Political Correctnes" put out by a Prof. Lind (I believe). Since there is another video with almost the same title, please be sure to get the right one. The video offers an excellent overview of the ongoing attack of traditional culture, relative to which "gender ideology" is but the lates strategy.

@Abamo: I wish you would read a content and if you disagree argue against THE content, not go astray ending in insult that reveal your anti-American prejudices (and I would surmise ignorance). A comment or two about th killing a lot of people. On the battle field between armies such killing is NOT an act of "slaughter".

1.Both the German Wehrmacht and the US armies did non-slaughter killings in battle (indeed, the Wehrmacht always killed more opponents then they lost, even if thy lost the battle). However, when the Americans took Aachen, Köln and hundreds of other cities and villages, the American soldiers following orders did not round of Germans and shoot them wholesale. The Wehrmacht did do such killing and that illicit killing is "slaughter". In fact the illicit killing contributed to the opposition to Hitler ending in Stauffenberg's attempt on Hitler's life, such attempt could have killd a lot of people, but it would not have been slaughter. The nation that "slaughtered" Russians was Germany, i.e., estimated 25+ million Russians (perhaps 6+ million of whom were soldiers) were killed by German armies. German armies, after taking villages, rounded up Slaves and Jews and shot them dead. The Germans "slaughtered" 6 million Jews and up to 10 million other peoples in the camps. So, from the stand point of slaughter-"killing", the Germans outdid all, Russians, Americans and Japanese combined. You are factually off base re your accusation against Americans in WW II and neck-deep in calumny with your evaluation of Americans during WWII. You changed subject and that switch allows you to slip out of the contentious discussion by changing it.

2. Here we have the shifting-gears of your argument. My argument was aimed at what I call underreporting plus prejudicial language the Gloria.tv puts forth on occasions e political matters. Then the attack upon America, and there I find myself offended and provoked. In reality, I basically agree with the Bishop in Syria and recognize that he must seek protection from a man who has had a vicious dictatorship for decades, an Alawite minoirity tryannizing a Sunni majority. The revolt was first started by plain citizens, not by radical groups. Assad turned his military loose on his "own" people, using gas and still using barrel bombs -- and not just at fighters, rather aimed at unarmed people, men, women and children. From this point on organized and, alas, radical resistance developed. The massive attack upon helpless citizens justifies the designation of "slaughter". It is immaterial to the case of Assad if other acts of slaughter elsewhere have taken place (such as Putin's massive and murderous attacks upon Chechenians). What I would like from Gloria and anyone else is a larger contextualization and the cessation of underhanded anti-Americanisms. Most importantly, I see no point in getting all too political for a website interested primarily in religous matters. Alas, at any rate, you did not address the specifics of my complaints. If I were a young man and militarily trained I would do what some ex-American soldiers are doing, i.e., fighting withe Kurds or trying to organize Christian resistance. And you? (That was an ad hominem on my part directed at you.)

@Abramo, there is nothing wrong reporting what anyone has to say. What I object to is jingle-istic underreportings, something that Gloria.tv is prone to do at times. I have no doubt that at the moment Assad is the best protection of Christians in Syria and, alas I have no doubt that Obama will not adequately defend the Christians. (Out of the almost 500k refugess from the mideast the the Obama administration has allowed into the US, 95% are Muslim -- I hold that Obama is pro-Islamic in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian Mullahs and earlier Morsi in Egypt, for which I condemn him.) I understand the US support of Stalin's Russia in WWII, but condemn the leftists in the US who stood by and allowed for the take over of Eastern Europe. I understand that Bishop Hindo feels protected by Assad, the slaughterer of Syrian opponents including civilians, but I miss any criticism of Assad, a War Criminal from the Bishope. (I think of my Kurdish friends who adore George W. Bush for stopping Saddam's attacks upon the Kurds and await the good Bishop's condmning words for similar deeds.) Gloria.tv takes up the criticism and slips in a put-down of the CIA (which is only doing what it is ordered to do) without balancing matters. Putin is NO friend of the West, he is ideologically an enemy of the US and the West and I find it unbelievable that anyone thinks that Putin is going to engage ISIS in a serious manner, as that would bring Russia into another Afghanistan. Indeed, Putin does not have the military hardware to do more than pin-prick ISIS. Only the US with massive military power (a carrier off shore has more firepower than whole armies) can do that. Alas, Obama will not use the power. Some of the candidates for the Republic Party nomination for the presidency are talking tough in my line of thinking. In summary: I am an opponent to Obama, and when it comes to Obama's pushing of abortion and homosexuality I would like him arrested, given a trial and then .... (use your imagination). Alas, the man is in power and responsible for American interests. I find that Gloria.tv (and not only Gloria) is too glib about "America" or "the Americans" and thereby overlooks the complexity of the situation, but drives home a value judgment tinged with put down terms --- allowed for sure, but bound to provoke me.

So that the reader may obtain a better insight into "American" viewings of Putin's activities in a light apparently favorable to Putin, turn to FrontPageMagazine - Online, Oct. , 2015 for the article by the American Raymond Ibrahim called "Russia Declares 'Holy War' on the Islamic State. While Obama stays with Christian muderers, 'Freedom Fighters'". Ibrahim is a Coptic Chritian and expert on Islam (who is aghast at Pope Francis' thesis that Islam "is a religion of peace", a statement on par with Obama's opinion) takes up the theme. In my comment below I noted that one must understand internal American politics and commentaries. I hold that basically Ibrahim is correct, though overlooking some points. In the beginning of the resistance to Assad there were no radical groups involved, that involvement being a later development. Various Americans, including McCain, do hold that there are "moderate Syrians" figthing Assad (and McCain knows personally some--if any are still alive). McCain is no political friend of Obama. Intrernally to America we have a glimpse here of tensions that Gloria.tv does not seem to understand. Conservative criticism, both of McCain and Obama, has never accepted the "moderate" nature of the parties today involved, neither Assad nor his armed opponents. From my point of view the situation is so confusing and Obama is so dead wrong, that any suggestion I would make (and that would be the American military taking out both Assad and ISIS) is just dreaming.

I have suggested Ibrahim so as the complexity of the problem might become a bit clearer. I do not doubt the "Holy War" cry of the Russian Orthodox Church. I do hold that Putin is not so concerned, rather interested in the power politics of keeping his bases safe in Syria and displacing the US from the mideast. The American military, particularly those generals in retirement who are not under Obama's control, unanimously agree that Putin is not now attacking ISIS, rather wiping out Assad's internal opposition. In other words, Putin is doing a con job on all. The opinion is also expressed that Putin will never really attack ISIS, after having solidified Assad (and advanced Iranian interests, yes, the Iran that says "Death to America", which I presume hopefully Gloria.tv is not for), Putin will purposely let ISIS go on as ISIS is not a direct threat to Assad and has the advantage of causing mass immigration to the West, thereby weakening the West (and allowing him more adventure such as the Urkainian take over) and bottling up the Americans.

Gloria-tv, your disdain for the CIA and your atitude toward the complexity of American politics is as admirably consistent as it is woefullly ignorant. McCain is only one voice and the CIA is charged with realizing tasked put to it by the US administration (here Obama). Both proper parts of the body politic of a democratically organized country. The American interest in Assad stems from: Years ago, peaceful protests began against a "vile" dictator who THEN began bombing his own people and using poison gas -- a habit that reminds me of Saddam's gas attacks upon the Kurds in Irak (and taken personally by me as I have Kurdish friends). That bombing is a crime against humanity and should bring the man to a court (and should be roundly condemned by Bishop Hindo). Alas, Obama hestitated, as is his wont, though CORRECTLY stating that Assad must go (not that the Alawites must loose control). (Here is where knowledge of internal American politics becomes very complicated). In the meantime, after Obama's bungling, the war has intensified and the radical groups have formed, and here, Gloria.tv and Bishop Hindo, Assad is THE cause. The pitiful fact is that at times radical Sunnies happen to be on the side of America < Obama's incompetency (American retired Generals by the hundreds are critical). <-> I note that the US fought with Stalin's Russia against the Nazis as no other choice was possible,. Putin is now backing a war criminal on the level of Saddam because it is necessary for his expansionist interests -- and not a peep out of Gloria.tv and Bishop Hindo (for whom Assad's protection of Christians makes a vile Assad a necessity). <-> I will end here as the problematic facing American interests consists of a situation badly if not disasterously managed by Obama, whom I, as so many other Americans, condemn (though my opposition to Assad remains). Alas, instead of viewing the situation with objectivity, particularly in the comments, Gloria.tv rushes in with snide, propagandistic remarks.

I suspect that Gloria.tv's penchant for Putin derives in part because of his resistance to EU policies including the homosexual pursuits. I too appreciate that. (I do not appreciate his dictatorship, a part of his ideology, sensed when I am in Russia, the lack of a critical press, the persecution unto murdering of opposition. Putin is a dictator that happens to represents some values of worth. So that Gloria.tv and any of its readers might learn something about Tzar Putin's grand view of things I suggest reading the "objectively" and not polemically written article by Leon Aron, "Putinology" in The American Interest, Vol. XI, Sept./Oct 2015. Putin, influenced by Ivan Ilyn (and I fear also by Euroasianism or even the Neo-euroasianism of A. Dugin) has developed a view consisting of five points: emotional nationalism, authoritarianism at home, Russian ethnicity as the backbone of national identity, Russian Orthodox Church as arbiter and enforcer of national mores and THE reviving of the Soviet mythology of Russia surrounded by major enemies (the US and the West replacing Nazi Germany) -- i.e., America is a hostile enemy that must be fought. In addition (and here the influence of Putin's favorite writer out of the past, Ilyn) Russia is viewed as a "unique civilization", superior to others, particularly to the West with America as enemy #1. (This is a left-over from the "Third Rome" ideology of Tzarist Russia.) America is not at "war" with Russia, rather Russia under Putinology is at "war" with America.
.

Vorsichtig!!! Organizationen aus den USA sind nicht die USA (die Regierung?). Wenn man behaupten will, daß die amerikanische Regierung selber für Schleper bezahlt, möge man, bitte, bitte, den Beweis bzw. die Informationsquellen offenlegen. Ich würde gerne wissen, welche amerikanische Organizationen, privat oder öffentlich, daran beteiligt sind. So eine Offenbarung wäre Zündstoff im Rahmen der jetztigen Politik in Amerika. Bitte, konkrete Informationen!

Gloria.tv misses the really feigthening nature of Kim Davis' incarceration. The judge argued that she must go to jail until she accepts that she carries out legally mandated governmental duties,i AND in full consciousness against her conscience -- and that is the decisive point, namely: jail or violation of conscience. This is far worse than death threats (all illegal), because the judge is supposedly enforcing legitimate law. Davis could, if one takes literally the judge's words, remain in jail until she dies of old age (or is legally retired from gov. work). The implications are enormous. What happens when a Catholic doctor refuses to abort a child while working at a publically subvented clinic that formally accepts abortion. Will s/he too be jailed until s/he agrees to carry out an abortion? Eventually, the trend could effectively remove all Christians (not of the type of Biden, Cuomo or Pelosi) from governmental jobs. The state, now in hands of secularized Leftists (and marginally opposed by the American Church prelates), is repeating fundamentally what the Roman pagan emperors did, i.e., Christians must publically acknowledge emperorial divinity or face persecution. Today its is unlimited jail time vs violation of conscience.

I have a slight objection to the terminology, particularly in the more headline part of the ANALISIS. There is, for example, no such thing as the "US" that blocks or supports anything. There is within the "real functioning" democratic political nature of the US, the gaining of power by LEFTISTS, be they secular or Catholic (Biden, Pelosi or Cuomo and at times bishops). Inside of America there is both a cultural war (and I mean "war" culturally as there was a Civil War militarily after 1860) and a political struggle of a mean sort (not normal politics). I find it offensive to me as an American to read that the "US" blocks family values at the UN (which I view as leftist dominated with a large amount of Islamism too >> I would like to see the demise of the UN). In reality,the bearer of offense is the American Left (and for that matter the EU Left), occupying the institutional offices determining formally the activity of those working, say, in the State Department (and Hillary Clinton is of the left, supports publically financed abortion and represents leftish Christianity). The same is true for the EU.

My stylistic critique is aimed at the generaliations that all to often Gloria.tv falls into, particularly with the (for my feelings) boarder-line anti-Americanism that I experience. The entry above this one in German (?) represents a venture into politics that is exceptionally distasteful to me and stupidly supportive of Russia (without noting the influence of thinkers such as Alexander Dugin and others of this type on Putin) and is irrelevant for the religious domain of prime interest to Gloria.tv.

I condemn uniquivocably the pansexualism of the "US" or the "EU", i.e., of those on the Left that carry out such policies in the frame work of the ongoing political structure. I do not appreciate the over generalizations in the areas of politics that Gloria.tv and some of its contributors are inclined to make, particularly when I sense a generalized anti-Americanism

Pope Francis is not the first "Catholic" to embrace pan-salvation. (Can hardly wait to get to the NEW "earth" and dine with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and other mass murders who as part of the "tutti" will be winging away in "good times are rolling" Paradise.) I will leave this odd Francis-statement for others to comment. I would like to point out a couple of other implications contained it the Pope's words, relative to which I can understand the Pope's pan-salvationism.

The Pope has totally immantized God qua being actually infinite. Is the "face to face with Him" to be taken literally. Given the Pope literalistic interpretations of about heaven being a "place" in which mankind will be in a permanent "state" of whooping-it-up (my expresion for the pope's "joy"), I am inclined to tale the Pope literally. At that "place" we humans will encounter God "face to face"! If God in his eternal infinity can be at a "place", then I ask if God too will have eyes and ears and a nose and a chin (hopefully without beard). I am not talking here of God incarnated, but of God Himself as infinite. If God Himself can fit into a "place" (localizeable by point coordinates), then, well God can, indeed, in Himself literally have a "face" (I am dying to know what color God's in Himself "skin" will be).

The above paragraph may sound silly. However, the sillyness follows from Pope F's exclusion of the transcendent and, hence, hetero-geneity to all finite realities. The Pope has treated God in homogenous terms, i.e., as a SUPERFACE, but a face with point coordinates of a "place". This type of thinking transforms the visio mystica as a profounder expression for a "face-to-face" into quite finite terms and so heaven is presented as a utopian (= the "new" of the new world) "place". Note that the Pope does not say that the world we are living on now will pass away (e.g., thermic death of the universe), but only its "shape". The Pope does not means by "shape" that the new earth will be square like dice, rather that it will profer "superabunance" (we can all hog down on parties feasting on all those killed animals). All will have suberabunance for a superconsumption (and I add without a electricity bill at the end of the month, not to mention no constipation after hogging down a big "Thanks-Giving" meal with a superabundance of beer) No work, all play! I am not just poking fun at the Pope's primiticity of thinking, rather noting some features that even a heavenly RE-shaped world of justice must face.

My comment is already too long. I reduce my opposition to the Pope's words by noting that I accept an infinite God as implying heterogeneity and the Pope speaks in terms of homogeneity. If heaven is but the re-shaped earth upon which ALL (think of all the billions of humans throughout time) have to fit in and to pass their days in superabundant joy, then it would be a downer if if one human, not to speak of millions, were running around in the heavenly "place" where ALL will be and yet, those not haveing been saved, experiencr it as "hell of a place". Such hellish people would ruin the "having a good time" day for us less-than-all saved, even if we would be singing like a papal Pentecostal. So it should be obvious that Francis-logic must have "tutti" saved for a world not free of sin, but of injustice.

@On Guard: Why? Pope Francis is seeking"unity" where diversity does not count, called A. Traditionalists want "unity" where "diversity" does count, called B. So, we have a A >< B contradiction. Francis cannot make use of traditionalist B without endangering A. If I want to drive south, it is frustrated by driving north. Once one understands that Francis-ism excludes on principle tradtional-ism, then the "why" is answered with full intelligibility and full sorrow.

The Prophet of Oregon, me, would like to thank Fr. Carota for spelling out my prophecy. What am I talking about? As a graduate student just after Vat II, but before the fateful enactments were imposed, I attended a Summer language school at a Woman's Catholic College in Oregon. It got around that the church services were in Latin and, before one knew it, many non-Catholic students wanted the "Latin"-experience. The nuns got wind of it all and had the mass carried out, but not in Latin, rather in a direct translation into English. A disappointment for the students, though for me a traumatic event. (I am sure that Pope Francis has just the right derogatory appellation for my psychology.) Why? I sensed that something radical and very alien was happening, something that portended deep, profound changes of the Holiness in Catholicism as mediated liturgically through the traditional Latin Mass. Something destructive was loose. Away from the old, onward to the new!

As the "fruits of Vat II" became evident, my ominous feeling in Oregon seemed to cristalize as an unwelcome and disturbing foreboding of a plethora of things coming to be. So in a moment of narcissistic humor I appointed myself to the rank of "the Prophet of Oregon". Voilà, c'est moi, le prophète! For a long time my "prophecy" consisted of a vague "feeling of coming losses", losses foreshadowing, though not detailing all the 18 points (and more) made by Fr. Carota. Fr. Carota has evinced a marvelous conceptual grasp of the overall picture and has separated out and listed various concretizations for consideration. I am very grateful for the organized overview. Alas, I feel my self-calling to Oregonian prophecy to be confirmed.

Fr. Carota offers various theories of explanation and allows us to choose. Well, I take them all, i.e., as manifestations of a shift from a vertical to a horizontal orientation in Catholicism. David P. Goldman, a Modern Orthodox Jew, asserted, after Pope Francis' visit of the Holy Lands, that Pope Francis seems more interested in saving the world than saving souls. This thesis stikes me as plausible. At any rate, in shifting to the horizontal from the vertical the post-Vat II Church seems to have pushed to the sidelines a sense of the Holy, the mysterium tremendum, so well manifested by the Latin Mass. (And it was this "pushing away" that I sensed as an inkling that Summer in Oregon.) I suggest taking a glance at Rudolf Otto's The Holy, a best seller in 1917. Otto was a Lutheran scholar who has written effectively a phemenology of the Holy and its traits -- traits now evaporating by prelate command, e.g., the surpression of the Franciscan Friars. If the horizontal is the goal, all which communicates the vertical, viz., transcendent becomes an intolerable danger, even in the form of a successful order's project. Thus the dissolution of the Friars becomes a plus and is logically derivative from the horizontal orientation. No surprises, just sorrow! If time and energy permit, I might try latter today to outline some fundamentals that enable an acceptance of all of Fr. Carota's suggestios as manifestation of a central telos now stalking the Church with fateful damage.

If the German Church sets the Kasper's views into reality, what is the believer to do? Continue attending churches under the formal auspices of said bishops? The hiring of "sinners" will have the effect of filing the "sin-" from "sin-ners" until they become just part of the crowd. In other words, the polite, friendly and affirming treatment of those actually at acting variance with Church doctrine will have the effect of changing evaluations of rejection of their variance. By a slow absorbing social interaction between deviants and faithful, the deviation will be experienced as normalcy. Certainly the Church will protect the "sinners" from any "unkind", although truthful, assertions directed at them with the result that the faithful will become shamed as non loving. Result, silence will reign and heaven will rain down tears. What should the Church going Catholic do when the churches to attend become accepting to defilement on orders of the bishops? Does not attendance lend implicit acceptance of the sin now not so sinful? Can some one offer an answer or is it indifferent?

@Romanus: Wir sind wie "two peas in a pod"! Es verblüfft mich total, bis zum "Ich glaube es nicht, doch es ist so". Europäer, Deutsche wissen wohl, daß Europa demographisch Suizid begeht, und mit allen Konsequenzen. Egal! Dieses Wissen scheint den Politikern belanglos zu sein. Deutsche sind bekannt als "gründlich". Gut, wir haben hier gründliche Idiotie!!! Ich verstehe es einfach nicht! @Josephus: Sie haben recht bezüglich "Toleranz", obgleich dieses Zauberwort noch nicht den Zauberer identifiziert hat. Die Jenzeitkigkeit der Erlöslung durch das Opfer Christi ist ersetzt worden durch eine Jetztseitigkeit von Pansexualismus (alle sexuelle Style sind gleich akkeztierbare und zu bejahen). Es geht eigentliche nicht um echte Toleranz, sondern um eine neue Art Imperativ. Sexualismus und Leistungsdrang sind zur Füllung des Lebens in der Dieszeitigkeit geworden. Die Vertikale ist durch einen sexuellen Horizont ersetzt worden, wo die Zukunkft jenseits des Rausches an Interesse verliert. Was kann man mit nur ein paar Worten sagen? Vielleicht kann ich nur "na und ?" lautflüstern!

Washington ist auf der 1$ Note wegen der Dienste, die er seinem entstehenden Land leistete. Ob er Humanist war, spielte keine Rolle. Der größte Dienst bestand darin, daß er den Vorschlag ablehnte, "König" von Amerika zu werden and daß er sich weigerte, mehr als 2 Amtszeiten zu dienen. Der Vergleiich mit Washington bezüglich Pp Francis klappt nicht. Oder vielleicht kann man sagen, daß der Papst eine Art Washington im religiösen Bereich für die neue Weltordenung sein sollte?

Weder "na" noch "?" ist relevant. Der demographische Trend nährt sich mit jetztigen Geburtsrate "O". Einmal erreicht, wird es keine "na und ?" im Munde von Deutschen geben, weil es keine mehr gibt! Die nationale Geburtenrate schließt katholische Deutsche ein. Vielleicht kann man sage n, daß Kirchen zu Moscheen geworden sind, angenommen, daß die europäizierten (?) Muslime nicht auch "deutsch" geworden sein werden. Vielleicht!? Na und ?!