Comments on: Bogus War Party Propaganda

By: Ron

Ron — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:33:36 +0000

Fighting for freedom is one thing, but the Iraq war is not about freedom. Oil, greed and profit at the expense of thousands of lives on both sides. Our troops are being cheated by bush and his evil cronies. Anyone can see this.

By: arabic music

arabic music — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:19:53 +0000

arabic music…

I’m not sure if I understand it completely. Thank you anyway….

By: the legendary Bill

the legendary Bill — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:45:28 +0000

Russia must be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary because it was requested by Our Lady at Fatima…that means Heaven itself wants it..so it doesn’t matter what you or anyone else thinks..The Orthodox Church has a lovely Mass and a valid priesthood but there must be “one flock and one shephard”..The only unity is with Rome and Russia must be consecrated by the Pope on one holy day in union with all the bishops of the world…then Russia will be converted whether or not YOU think it needs to be..

By: M. Woerl

M. Woerl — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 05:30:21 +0000

“Things” wont get “better” just because the Pope “consecrates” a country-Russia-that has been a bulwark of Christianity for more than 1,000 years (even during the Soviet period, the Catacomb Church strengthened th Russian people with the Holy Orthodox Faith!) Keep catholic piety an U.S> politics where it belongs-out of countries that have been Christian for hundreds of years longer than the U.S. has even existed!

By: Ty Harris

Ty Harris — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:22:50 +0000

Mr. Federkiel- I posted a response to some of your comments over at my blog ( comment section of “The Most Worthless Generation” ).

http://tyharris.wordpress.com

I find the wordpress comment sections to be preferable, because apparently there are charachter-limits on these comments here, but they dont tell you when you have reached those limits. Being something of a windbag, I would hate for any of my comments to be cut short or lost again.

- sincerely, Ty

By: Bill Federkiel

Bill Federkiel — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:09:31 +0000

Perhaps you’re right MOT..Still, I believe the First Crusade was a just and gallant war to protect Christian pilgrims..And I will always think that the IDEAL is for the land where Christ walked to be ruled by his modern day apostles..And, for the life of me, I can never look upon the route of the Way of the Cross where Christ dripped His most prescious Blood on the way to Golgotha as just a piece of real estate…Or the hill where He was crucified..Or the manger ( actually a cave according to Blessed Anne Catherine Emerich in her mystical visions-a nun who bore the stigmata ) where he was born…Or the town where he grew up…No, not just property….
When the Ottoman Turks controlled the Holy Land the women were always modest ( but look at women’s fashions just 100 yrs ago with the loose flowing styles and they could have been recognized by the Blessed Mother or Pilates wife and now? )and the Turks did not allow any prostitution…Now with the Zionists in control of the Holy Land there is prostitution in Nazareth, in Bethlehem and in Jerusalem..So perhaps it does matter who controls the Holy Land ( IDEALLY )…
I feel the First Crusade was a blessed undertaking and if the Christians had behaved more like Christians-after their initial victories-many of the Muslims would have converted..But things went downhill and the Fourth Crusade ( which was re-directed towards Constantinople ) was an abomination…They disobeyed the Pope and those responsible for the sack of Constantinople were excommunicated…
But we’ll agree to disagree….Pax Christi be unto our country as soon as possible…….

By: MOT

MOT — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 17:37:34 +0000

Bill, any “true” Christian wouldn’t care at all who was in control of a piece of property. They had Romans controlling the territories at the time and never called for revolution or acts of violence. Purely a message of love and reconciliation. Something so simple and powerful that it turned the world upside down. It was only later, through the passage of time and mans own innate evil ability to “F” things up, that a corrupt politicized church began bellowing about holy lands etc. The land is irrelevant, the message is everything. So either we focus on the essential basic message or get caught up in historically twisted arguments that lead nowhere. And you are absolutely correct in pointing out the supposed “freedoms” people bellow about. Just what freedoms are we defending? The freedom to produce more degenerate “entertainment”? The freedom to sell more death dealing devices to corrupt and evil governments abroad? The freedom to twist any nations arm and do as we say even though we don’t abide by the same? Is that what life in these States is all about? Hypocrisy is Americas middle name.

By: Bill Federkiel

Bill Federkiel — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:38:58 +0000

And please stop using the disingenuous and propagandistic phrase ” Islamo-Fascism”..They’re not fascists…Some leftists and statists became fascists when they saw the threat of international communism and came up with a really, really bad cure…Fascists and communists are of the same ideoogical ilk.
It must be said, to their credit, at least the Muslims reject the worst of modernity; bad fashion, bad music, porno, birth control…At least they have children..At least they’re anti-Zionist unlike the “Christians” who view the Talmudic, Pharasaical Zionists as allies…Give a true Christian an army and he’ll drive the Muslims and the Pharisees out of the Holy Land and allow them back whenever he saw fit to do so..The Holy Land should be controlled ( ideally ) by those who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ…Anything less is not the ideal…If you’re really a Christian..And if you’re not then what exactly are you so eager to die for: you’re materialist, naturalist, souless Ayn Randian concept of ” freedom”….

By: Bill Federkiel

Bill Federkiel — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 03:50:51 +0000

” take care ” not take take “tare “..

By: Bill Federkiel

Bill Federkiel — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 03:48:39 +0000

Of course I meant Czar ” Nicholas “, not Nichols..