I, following the black conservative, David Carroll, disagreed as to the "responsibility" of blacks for their own INDIVIDUAL life decisions. The liberal policies, pushed by Pres. Johnson, to make permanent voters of the Dem Party, by introducing in the 1960s massive welfare-ism, did certainly destroy the family structure of blacks (and is damaging whites today). Said policies can indeed be seen as a productive "cause" or significant influence rendering the black community dysfunctional. This dysfunctionality constitutes the social environment that favors asocial behavior by blacks, BUT it does not relieve each and every black from "self-responsibility". The doctrine of "victimization" (as Carroll repeatedly complains) justifies blacks in believing that they cannot help themselves, and that makes them "dependent" (exactly what is what Liberals want). Mr. Matt is VERY correct about the nefarious, unsocial and often immoral policies of the Democrats (and enough Republicans too). He overshoots, alas, the situation by removing, at least verbally, "SELF-responsibilitys" from blacks qua individuals. What is politically needed is that laws and policies are enacted that make "self-responsibility" once again viable, functional and effective for the daily life of the members of the black community. And blacks responding with prideful responsibility.

For every Syrian killed by ISIS, Assad kills 7 persons. The estimates are that Assad has killed between 150,000 and 300,000++ Sunnis and has cause 4.8 million refugees. I can see the Christians clinging to Assad, but to push all blame on the West, asserting that the West is getting what it deserves, strikes me as morally reprehensible. It was certainly better to be a Jew under Russian control in WW II than under German control. That does not make Stalin the least bit less a mass murderer. It is perhaps "invincible ignorance" that is at the cause of my reservations about Archbishop Hindo's glib assertions. Assad is allied with the Iranians who have repeatedly announced their intention to wipe out Israel --- and that means possibly another 6 million dead Jews. Hurrah for the ally of Assad! (sic) I am waiting for the Archbishop to direct his barbs at Iran for aiding Assad. -- One final note: Without doubt the Treaty of Versailles was an enormous and unfair burden upon the Germans after WWI. That Treaty so angered Germans that Hitler was able to use them. In no way does Germany's reaction to that Treaty justify in any shape or form the atrocities of WW Il. Assad is guilty of mass murder! He is no hero. The Archbishop has overshot the legitimate boundaries of moral judgment suggesting that the massacres at Paris, Brüssel or San Beradino, USA are somehow a logical consequence of Western policy towards the murderer Assad.

Islam does not need the secularism of the West re Christianity in order to attack the West. Indeed, it can be argued that Islam historically has killed more Hindus than Westerners. Cardinal Sara does correctly identify the loss of faith in the West, but is DEAD wrong that such a loss is THE reason for the fact that "true believers", called Muslims, are attacking the West. The reason for Islamic expansionism goes back to the times of Mohammed (assuming he ever lived). Islam means, as the linguistic radical -slm- suggests, "subjugation/submission"; and this central doctrine, cognitively and motivationally, is what drives many believers in iSLaM to enter into permanent (not just WW III) war if subjugation with the West or any other part of the world. What Cardinal Sara has (for me) scandalously done is to effectively provided an excuse for Islamic atrocities, as if Muslim fanatics were just reacting to Western "sin" instead of following Islam's own fundamental doctrine. (In this context look up in YouTube the 44 minutes long presentation "Why we are afraid, A 1400 hundred year secret" by Dr. Bill Warner, tracing in outline form, among other things, the 548 major attacks by Islam upon the West up to the end of the Ottoman Caliphate/Empire and presenting the thesis that Islam has killed over 270 million people in its history. Historically Cardinal Sara is "dead" wrong about Islamic expansionism.)

Question: What does Gloria.tv want the West to do re Islam? Let Islam be Islam and, well, that is it? Just try converting Muslims to Christianity in a Muslim controlled country and that provokes deadly reaction. What is irritating Islam, is that there are parts of the world that are not YET islamic -> war on those parts. The only time in Islam' history of expansionism when Islam has acted non-aggressively is the time that Europeans exported their culture, i.e., colonialization. Is Gloria.tv against "democracy" per se? Is Gloria.tv against stopping the innate expansionism of Islam?

Donohoe is associated with Cardinal Dolan, whom Voris has critized as a prime of example of "the Church of Nice". I admit I have never seen a photo or clip of the man when he is not grinning, e.g., when Voris tried to interview him when he was leading a parade with a homosexual contingent. Donohue has a tendency to slip into verbal insults. In a debate decades ago with Hitchens (a brilliant atheist and debater) Donahue ended up shouting personal insults -- even after having got the best of the debate. Alas, he is the media man for American Catholicism.

The Pope is wrong! One specific "religion of peace" (so designated by the Pope himself) has, in the Name of Allah (alias God), decided to carry out the demands of the message from Allah to his Prophet Mohammed (whose mass killings of opponents are part of Koranic and secular history), and that means "war" on the non-Islamic world so as to establish the "true" peace of Islam. I note that -slm- in iSLaM means: Subjugation (to subjugate/submission); and this means that the so-called acts of war by ISIS are necessary acts leading to the "peace" of Allah, once the iSLaMic "ummah" (community) has been established.

The Pope is a religious analogue to the secular/political peace seeker, Chaimberlain, who in 1938 made a treaty for "peace in our time" (Chaimberlain's very words) with Hitler. Chaimberlain was certainly motivated by the desire to avoid the horrors of war as exemplified in WW I. The effects of Chaimberlain's "way of peace" was to enable the followers of the Nazi version of an "ummah", i.e., the Nazi "Volk's community", to better war for their ideal causing many more deaths than iin WW I. Chaimberlain disarmed the opposition to the aggressive nature of Nazism with his way of "peace in our time". Correlatively, Pope Francis with his "abstraction" called "the way of peace" ignores the "real" nature of iSLaMic supremacy (not only ISIS, but the Saudis or Iranians). I have taken the terms "abstraction" and "real" from the Pope's own vocabulary that he uses to crititze traditionalists who want to uphold and apply the teachings of the Church, the so-called non-merciful postion of the "doctors of the law" (sic). I fear that, just as Chaimberlains "abstraction" got untold numbers of people killed, so too will that Pope's "abractionn" disarm "real" resistance to the iSLaMic "religion of peace" (sic), resulting in the death of untold numbers of people. There is a possible difference between Chaimberlain's "way of peace" and that of the Pope. When Nazi Germany attacked Poland in 1939 Chaimberlain, repesenting England, declared WAR on Germany. Today I find little to convince me that the current Pope could become a rellgious analogue to Chaimberlain, i.e., end his vocierfous disarming of resistance to evil, such resistance in belleristic form being contrary to the Pope's own "way of peace" in our time. The last word of the Pope's "way of pace" might well be R.I.P., alas.

Möglichkeit. Der Papst hat keinen Fehler gemacht. Wieso? Das Ausgesagte ist vielleicht genau das, was er glaubt. Die Analyse oben ist nichts mehr als die Worte, die nur ein Pelagianer (?) aus seinem unbarmherzinen Bedürfnis nach der Sicherheit der "Doktoren des Gesetztes" schreiben würde -- so ein dem Papst treuer Gedankengang. "Gültig (???) getauft" klingt so legalistisch, nicht wahr? Und wir wissen, daß dieser Papst voll von göttllchen "Überrachungen" ist. Und Überraschungen schließen "abstrakte" Begriffe aus zugunsten von "realen" Zeichen der Zeit. Und so weiter ... Eine Frage drängt sich mir dringend auf: Wie steht es mit der Orthodoxie dieses päpstlichen Theologen der "Überrachungen"? Antworten?

Gloria.tv is missing the point in the Madhouse comment. And that would be? The gov. powers to be simply do not recognize that the boys claiming to be girls are, indeed, "mentally ill" (or just faking it for kicks). The U.S. Gov. is not alone. Here in Germany the German Gov. is pushing Gender Mainstream, an attempt to re-socialize children into unisex (= pansex) where psychological identity is opposed to biological identity. The real madhouse effect is that the madhouse is now the new normal. Just wait until governments decide that their welfare duties entail the mental health of citizens and apply the new normal to Gloria.tv or to any of us dissenters.

Abramo, another point. I consult Gloria.tv for "news" and opinions centered on religious matters, particularly concerning the corrupt (= opinion) and decadent (opinion) status of today's Church of the leadership of materially heretical (opinion) Pope Francis. If politics is related to religious matters, e.g., Planned Parenthood/abortion and morals, that is fine, though lines must be drawn. If Gloria.tv wants to turn itself into political reporting, than I will go elsewhere as other online offerings, e.g., PJ Media, FrontPageMagazin or Fox News specialize in such matters and havethe necessary infrastructure to report politically. In fact Gloria.tv ventures only on occasions into the strictly political realm. I have no desire for such deviations, partiularly as I find the most to be extremely ill formed. I do not want to waste my time. For religious matter I find Gloria.tv to be excellent and I praise it.

Abramo, I do not give a d**m what the people at Gloria.tv think about Obama. You might not like to hear what I think about him. However, Gloria.tv is presenting news and as such should maintain "objectivity". To report something about Obama or the Pope or anyone and then qualify the identifation of the person to be reported on as a "traitor", "sex criminal", "economic ciriminal" or "WAR criminall" is to communicate to the readers or listeners that we have a "news" fact. If the narrator had said. "Obama, whom I hold to be a war criminal, said ....", that would be fine. Louie Verrecchio of "Harvesting the Fruits of Vat 2" has more than once accused Pope Francis of being a "material heretic". Fine, I believe so too. But Verrecchio has a opinion blog, not news casting. Would you accept?: "The material heretic Pope Francis, appearing before the UN, said ..." Now Verrecchio can well be right and it is his right to say his views on an OPINION blog. Gloria.tv entitles itself "Gloria.TV NEWS on the 30th of September 2015". The ascription to Obama of the designation as "war criminal" is not a news item, rather an opinion blog item. To designate Obama as a Nobel Peace Prize winner is fact (though my opinion is that it is a joke at best). Here in Germany and at home in the US we of my political srripe continually complain about the "Lügenpresse" or the "Liberal press", i.e., about a one-sided, slanted, and opinionated presentaton of so-called "news" item, when in fact an agenda is being pawn off. If Gloria.tv inserts its opinion into its news reporting it is but another "Lügenpresse". If Gloria.tv takes clear distance from news reporting and makes it clear that an opinion is now forthcoming, fine, nothing to object to. Today, that was not what was done. Or?

I protest strongly and angerly to the blatant assertion that Pres. Obama is a "war criminal". I am an absolute opponent to Obama and often feel (not know) that he is an evil person. To be an "evil person" does not belong to the category of of "criminality". "War criminal" does belong to such. So, Gloria.tv: When was Obama convicted and by whom. He did win an internationally esteemed Nobel Prize. What Gloria.tv has done, as it all to often does, is to inject biased, prejudicial and outright calumnous assertions. That is is CHEAP propaganda and belittles the otherwise objectivity (even in disagreement with, say, a Cardinal) typical of Gloria.tv, turning it into another mainstream leftist press -- at least for me. Such cheap shots make it difficult for me to continue on with Gloria.tv, indeed, it even leads me to suspect its objectivity per se. Knock it off or I will knock my viewing habits off.

Signed: Prof. Dr. Dr. Dr. Leonard Wessell

Why have our prelates not spoken for us? Why does the Pope talk about extremism in all religions, instead of really focusing upon the religion of extremists? Why are there such lack of care among the elite? At least the Americans possess privately guns, Europeans do not, Germans do not. The feeling of helplessness is overwhelmed with feelings of "more importance", e.g., FIFA scandals, not to speak who is Germany's next start. In short the trivia of life vs possible threats to life and limb.

Und die Lebensform (sic) des Hochstaplers Felix Krull (Thomas Mann) auch? Aus der Sicht dieses Romans ist es ersichtlich, daß "Hochstapler -Sein" sicherlich als Lebenstil aufgefasst und ausgelebt werden kann. Was habe ich getan? Aus dem angeblichen universellen Prinzip von dem Bishof habe ich einen lächerlichen Schluß hervorgezaubert --- aber ganz logisch. Was sagt das über den wahren Zweck des Bishofs? Es geht nicht ums Prinzip, sondern um eine ganz spezifische Lebenform, die er ganz persönlich bejaht. Er versteckt die von ihm bejahte moralische Abweichung wie, sagen wir, Homo-Ehe oder was auch immer, hinter eine angebliche allgemeine Regel, die nur zu lächerlichen und nicht-erünschenten Konsequenzen führen kann. Felix Krull formte das Leben, das er lebte, nach einer "Lebensform"! Oder wir haben meine Lebensberufung, die darin besteht, alle andere Lebensformen zu kritizieren. Wie die Amerikaner sagen: "That turns me on, baby!". Nein, es geht nicht ums Prinzip, sondern um einen unehrlichen Versuch, seine bevorzugte Abweichung zu verteidigen und alle Gegener zum Stillsschweigen zu bringen oder als Heuchler zu entlarven. In Wirklichkeit ist der Herr Bishof der morlische "Hochstapler".

A dictionary definition of "patrimony" is "the inheretence from one's father or ancestors. In both cases, the content of the "partrimony" is from someone or someones (e.g., previous Church goers of the ages) that is or are DEAD!!!! DEAD!!! One can see the architecture of "dead" Roman culture in many civil buildngs of the US or of Europe, the patrimony of a culture gone for eternity. Roman columes arises today from the common cultural ancestory of Rome, gone, passé, away and no more or, in short, DEAD!

Catholics of a traditional (= forming the present as a continuation of the past) orientation call the content of the patrimony (sic!) "the Latin Mass" (there are other designatins too). Note the difference to Russian Orthodoxy or Orthodoxy per se. The liturgy of the Mass is called "The Liturgy of St. John Chrisostem". The tying of liturgy to the Saint sets a limits to "new" experiments. There is, of course, a historical evolution of said liturgy. Compare, Rachmonanivov's beautifuly redention with versions of the 16th Century (no problem if one uses YouTube). Indeed, today, Old Slavonic is not used so much, but the liturgy remains the same (and most Russians cannot dechipher the chanting even in modern Russian, though they know what is meant). By attaching their liturgical expresion to a specific type of liturgy in the name of St. Chrisostem, the Russian Orthodox are not faced with the con-job (from my point of view) of "new" and never heard of forms of the mass, nicely called the regular and extraordinary mass -- exemplifying often enough the difference between the rediculous and the sublime. Look up in YouTube "A Comparision of Catholic and Orthodox Liturgy" (if I have remembered the title) and one will encounter the Orthodox expression of the Holy and a Catholic depression of the Holy -- at best a jovial encounter of sociality where man, rather than Christ resurrected, is at the heart of the matter. Such a distortion is not possible for Orthodoxy.

Cardinal Pell can well get pleasure from preforming a form of a "dead" liturgy (i.e., no longer the living and ENlivening expression of Catholic worship), and I am pleased that he does as he enables a quaint journey for the curious into the liturgical life of the patres of the past, now deceased, who have left a "beautiful and essential part of our patrimimony", not, however, of "our" ongoing living liturgical life. If some people still want (oh, how democratic can one get) "this form of worship", ok.,, the good Cardinal finds it appropiate to satiate such a "want" by "offering" it for "our" current interest in the dead (i.e., no longer relevant) past, the patrimony of the prisci theologi. At least Cardinal Pell learned Latin and how to say the Mas of the Vetus Ordo. And the non-Latinist, liturgically impoverished priests of the future? Will Catholics of the future look back one day at the "Latin Mass" as they do to Roman columes of City Hall?

A polite and friendly con-job!

Recently Weigel published in National Review an article trying to play down the problematic unorthodoxy that IS Pope Francis. I wrote a contra-comment longer than the article ripping apart the orthodxy of Francis. Weigel is a "neo-Catholic", i.e., a believer still trying to convincing himself that Francis is a continuation and not an abberation of the papacy. I suspect my counter comment caused the article to be removed sooner than normal. So, conflict exists between us. Weigel is, however, a part of that (now all too) vague thing called American Conservatism. I am part of that thing called American Conservatism. Unfortunately, against my now and then advice, Gloria.tv submerges itself into matters it knows little about and evinces a all too common Anti-Americanism (even found in the Neue Rechte here in Germany). Gloria.tv's estimate of US military is false, takes no account of its neglect by Obama and the plans to reduce it to a size in total smaller than before WW II. I will not enter into details. There are things about Putin's Russia that I admire (e.g., his anti-abortionism and his friendly stance towards the Orthodox Church. But Putin is a Russian doll within a doll within a doll and Gloria.tv has only grasped the outer doll even overlooking the fact that "free speech" is a dangerous commodity in Russia (while there I hush up). I doubt that Gloria knows who are those advising Putin, such as Alexandr Dugin -- a fanatic panslavic ideologist, now professor at a Russian university. So that you innnocents at Gloria.tv can grasp an inside into the glorious Christian (sic) ideas behind Putin I suggest perchasing from Amazon James D. Heiser, "The American Empire Should Be Destroyed". Alexander Dugin and the Perils of Immanentized Eschatology (2014). That does make Putin's Russia into an anti-American danger. (I am thinking about coming out of retirement and arranging to teach at a Russian uni. If so, I would hope to meet the man.) You will discover in Dugin the not too pleasant "immanentized eschatology" behind Putin's thinking, a thinking that once led him to proclaim that Russian Orthodoxy is more like Islam than Western Christianity (and he meant Catholicism). A Christianity on the model of Islam (no separation between Mosque/Church and state) is indeed in opposition to my Americanism. Dugin's "The American Empire should be destroyed" reflects Putin's views on America and does, indeed, make him into, at best, an antagonist against America (of which I, to repeat, am a conservative part). Enough, oh friend Gloria.tv, remain where you are competent.

There is a battle for the soul of America going on now, a cultural war (which is slowly taking shape in European, though Europeans are always a bit weak re resisting centralizing power, EU tyranny -- were I British I would be part of UKIP.. Alas, our American PROGRESSIVE president, Wilson, dragged America into WW I and had to save Europe in WW II and has protected Europe since at great cost. Europeanism has since then inflected my Americanism. But, back to American and the cultural war. The current dismemberment of the unborn is focalizing the tension, it goes deeper than Republican vs Democrat opposition. I am not sure where it will end and I now refuse to say the famous "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and for that which it stands ..." because today it stands for that which was not the America out of which I come. Spiritually I am without a state. (Germany's Gender Mainstreaming is a horror story.) Obama is not an American in spirit, rather a European socialist or Social Democrat, say of the Swedish model. So, you see, I have different views.The superficiality of Gloria.tv's knowledge here freigthens me. I might add that Catholics, from lay to prelates have overwhelmingly supported the Democrat Party and its "progressivism". Cardinal Dolan's silence on such Democrat pusing and realizing abortion through Planned Parenthood is a sign of current Catholicism in America. Part of the disease in America flourishes in the Catholic Church, just as it does in Europe.

I repeat as a friend of Gloria.tv, stay within you competence and take it easy on your all too European anti-Americanism.

Added note: I recommend highly watching the film October Baby. It has to do with a young lady who discovers that her parents are not her real parents. It seems that she had been aborted and than adopted. Being aborted forces upon the young lady the question as to "Why?". She starts a trip in search of her biological mother (who still rejects her) and ends in an act of forgiveness. Seldom have I found a film so impressive. At least that young lady was not killed post partem and dismantled for sale to medical companies. Things have advanced (sic) since then and today, under the Obama supported abortion industry, the young lady would never have become a lady. And, in bitterness, without massive Catholic support, open and more secretly, including from Bishops, Obama would not be president. However, Obama is not THE cause of it all. WE Americans, part of the decadent West, have collectively gotten what we voted for. And Catholic Bishops, to use a term of Michael Voris, have become the Church of Nice --- a mind set furthering the realization of the abortion industry.

The prelates of the Catholic Church should first and foremost ask publicly for forgiveness from God for supporting the leftism of the Democrat Party and particularly the election of President Barrack Abort-them Obama, whose HHS enacts health laws using tax payer monies to support Planned Parenthood to the tune of $500,000,000 / year and forces all Americans to buy insurance which by law includes buy abortion coverage (even if the buyer is a man or a child or nuns). I listen and I hear no such calls for pardon. Shhhh! Listen, listen and listen. Silence!!!

The US Bishops as a collectivity (and there are exceptions) are sinfully complicit in the construction of the publicly financed big business operation of groups like Planned Parenthood, founded by the eugenicist Margret Sanger. Not since the Nazis (in opposition to the torturous malorganization of Stalin's gulags) have humans of a nation organized mass murder on a technologica/ industrial/medical basis, supporting it with the advantages of a market economy and government welfare subventions.

I beg that the reader to view in internet the 2+ hour doctumentary < Maafa 21 > on the genocidal aspect of Planned Parenthood -- and I do mean a genocide directed first and foremost at American blacks, but also part of US foreign policy (i.e., US aid demands favoring homosexuality and abortion if foreign aid is to be extended). "Maafa" is an African word equivalent to "holocaust". Or turn to Pastor C. Childress' blackgenocide.org for information.

No, I give no pass to the American Bishops. They share in complicity in the establishment of this system of mass murder of the unborn and marketing of body parts. The Bishops certainly (I hope) are against what is going on, only they have materially contributed to the erection of a modern industrial system of murdering innocent unborn babies. Simply put (and imitating Zola): J'accuse!!!

P.S.: Watching last night a doctor touching and probing an aborted fetus still alive, watching that fetus withdraw limbs from said probing (and knowing that said fetus will bring Planned Parenthood a lot of money for so many intact parts), I literally balanced upon the thin edge of insanity, so trying to my soul was it all!!! You see my son was born a couple of months too early and, though more developed than that human fetus, could too have been legally aborted, dismantled and sold part for part to the med. business. My son was so sick that I, on the suggestion of the doctors, made arrangement to have him buried. Today that son is a man who in my experience is the most upright person I have ever met. If I did something right in this world, my son is it. I am personally involved in the matter. Add to the fact I know quite well the history of nazi-ism, I am horrified to find that we Americans are adopting the techniques of the industrial/medical complex of National SOCIALISM, only in a more practically efficacious manner. For the first time in my life I am ashamed to be an American. I can no longer utter the "Pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States and for which it stands", as now it stands for murdering the unborn so as to harvest their parts. In my soul, I am now stateless!

My friend, David Goldman, an adherent to Modern Orthodox Judaism and brilliant essayist, once wrote that Pope Francis is more interested in saving the world than saving souls. Given that I do not see on first reading where Francis even mentions the word "soul", let alone talks about the religious dimensions of life and DEATH, sin and SALVATION, sacrifice and Jesus the Christ, rather just effuses the languare of left-wing, marxist oriented popaganda, along with a touch of socialistic fascism, and utters other remarks for "movements" to change this world (not to save the souls of this world for even "the poor and marginalized" have souls to be saved), given the barren absent of Christian religiosity, I think that this clarion call to action by Pope Francis can be seen, at least on a prima facie basis, to have confirmed the correctness of David Goldman' thesis. I do not encounter a religion of transcendence in the words of the Pope, only popularistic and socialistic propaganda.

I will repeat my tentative thesis borrowed from Goldman: Pope Francis is more, verbally much more, interested in saving the worldthan soul and that his preferred method of "saving" evinces a mixture of leftism, marxism and fascism (which is not surprising for an Argentinian).

Finally note: Year ago Iused to read statements from representatives or plants of the USSR at left-wing meetings, etc. Change a word or two here or there, words lending a slight religious overtone and I cannot ascertain any significant difference between the speech of Pope Francis and a USSR operative, other than the Leninist ideology of the operative is internally more coherent.