Great photo! He looks like an Angelic being. Maybe God has answered our prayers Rose? Finally a righteous man, and a man obviously graced by the hand of God.
He's a good man!
Do you really want a Jesuit trained Papist as a District Attorney? Have you read your Bible or Sacred history?
Here's some sacred History from not that long ago: http://www.reformedreader.org/history/wylie/toc.htm On the 31st of January, 1686, the following edict was promulgated in the Piedmont Valleys:1. the Vaudois shall henceforth and for ever cease and discontinue all the exercises of their religion.2. They are forbidden to have religious meetings, under pain of death, and penalty of confiscation of all their goods.3. All their ancient privileges are abolished.4. All the churches, prayer-houses, and other edifices consecrated to their worship shall be razed to the ground.5. All the pastors and schoolmasters of the Valleys are required either to embrace Romanism or to quit the country within fifteen days, under pain of death and confiscation of goods.6. All the children born, or to be born, of Protestant parents shall be compulsorily trained up as Roman Catholics. Every such child yet unborn shall, within a week after its birth, be brought to the cure of its parish, and admitted of the Roman Catholic Church, under pain, on the part of the mother, of being publicly whipped with rods, and on the part of the father of labouring five years in the galleys.7. The Vaudois pastors shall abjure the doctrine they have hitherto publicly preached; shall receive a salary, greater by one-third than that which they previously enjoyed; and one-half thereof shall go in reversion to their widows.8. All Protestant foreigners settled in Piedmont are ordered either to become Roman Catholics, or to quit the country within fifteen days.9. By a special act of his great and paternal clemency, the sovereign will permit persons to sell, in this interval, the property they may have acquired in Piedmont, provided the sale be made to Roman Catholic purchasers."
Thank you, Mr/Ms anti-Catholic bigot.
bigot - a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.The word rather applies to yourself. Papists are bigots. Freedom loving Protestants are the exact opposite and are the reason our country was founded on the constitution that it has. (True there are bigot protestants, but that is beside this fact). Which even allows you to be a bigot papist as long as you do it peaceably. When Papist are on a continual path to change the meaning of our laws and to restrict civil and religious liberty we are hear to repeat the warning that the Pope, the head of your church is the Antichrist himself, and that he exactly fulfills more than sixty identifying marks from the Bible. And is responsible for sheading more innocent blood than any single institution in the history of mankind.Someday you can ask Jean Louis Paschale who the bigots are."Entering the court-yard of the old castle, an imposing sight meets the eye. What a confluence of ranks, dignities, and grandeurs! In the centre is placed a chair, the emblazonry of which tells us that it claims to rise in authority and dignity over the throne of kings. The Pontiff, Pius IV., has already taken his seat upon it, for he has determined to be present at the tragedy of to-day. Behind his chair, in scarlet robes, are his cardinals and counsellors, with many dignitaries besides in mitres and cowls, ranged in circles, according to their place in the Papal body. Behind the ecclesiastics are seated, row on row, the nobility and beauty of Rome. Plumes wave, stars gleam, and seem to mock the frocks and cowls gathered near them, whose wearers, however, would not exchange these mystic garments for all the bravery that blazes around them. The vast sweep of the Court of St. Angelo is densely occupied. Its ample floor is covered from end to end with a closely-wedged mass of citizens, who have come to see the spectacle. In the centre of the throng, rising a little way over the sea of human heads, is seen a scaffold, with an iron stake, and beside it a bundle of faggots.A slight movement begins to be perceptible in the crowd beside the gate. Some one is entering. The next moment a storm of hissing and execration salutes the ear. It is plain that the person who has just made his entrance is the object of universal dislike. The clank of irons on the stone floor of the court, as he comes forward, tells how heavily his limbs are loaded with fetters. He is still young; but his face is pale and haggard with suffering. He lifts his eyes, and with countenance undismayed surveys the vast assembly, and the dismal apparatus that stands in the midst of it, waiting its victim. There sits a calm courage on his brow; the serene light of deep, untroubled peace beams in his eye. He mounts the scaffold, and stands beside the stake. Every eye is now turned, not on the wearer of the tiara, but on the man who is clad in the sanbenito. "Good people," says the martyr—and the whole assembly keep silence—"I am come here to die for confessing the doctrine of my Divine Master and Saviour, Jesus Christ." Then turning to Pius IV. he arraigned him as the enemy of Christ, the persecutor of his people, and the Anti-Christ of Scripture, and concluded by summoning him and all his cardinals to answer for their cruelties and murders before the throne of the Lamb. "At his words," says the historian Crespin, "the people were deeply moved, and the Pope and the cardinals gnashed their teeth."**Crespin, Hist. des Martyrs, pp. 506-16. Leger, part i., p. 204, and part ii., p. 335.The inquisitors hastily gave the signal. The executioners came round him, and having strangled him, they kindled the faggots, and the flames blazing up speedily reduced his body to ashes. For once the Pope had performed his function. With his key of fire, which he may truly claim to carry, he had opened the celestial doors, and had sent his poor prisoner from the dark dungeons of the Inquisition, to dwell in the palace of the sky."
What kind of insanity is this? is this what we are to expect from Gallegos' defenders? Are you flippin' kidding me?I've already seen the dirty tricks dept. setting up over in heraldo's and Eric's comments thread - really anonymous, you need help.
Do you really want a Jesuit trained Papist as a District Attorney? Have you read your Bible or Sacred history?The Jesuits were the counter-reformation, or intended so. Their job was to become intellectual warriors of sorts in order to study up on heretical ideas in order to defeat them in argument. The problem is that some of them became affected by the heretical ideas they studied, and became advocates against slavery, even taking up guns to help the Guanari Indians resist Portuguese slave traders in the 1700s. Following this, and Jesuit support for French Revolutionaries, the Church actually tried to wipe out the order.They also cited Aquinas and supported socialism in a number of different forms, and the Jesuit order has since become associated with Liberation Theology - most of the philosophical authors being Jesuits, including Gustavo Gutierrez. A Theology for Artisans of a New Humanity and Arthur F. McGovern’s Marxism: an American Perspective are both works of Jesuits.The Berrigan Brothers are/were Jesuits. Robert McSorley, a Jesuit pacifist who wrote the seminal "New Testament Basis for Peace Making" was a Jesuit. The Priest Poet of the Nicaraguan Revolution, can't remember his name, was a Jesuit. Just saying.
And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?What does religion have to do with this race?Is this an attempted back door smear? Seriously, Salzman can do better than this. He and someone who appears like Sterling-Nichols are setting up the little digs they hope become big chasms. With Farmer is t was his 'disability.'With Worth it was setting the murderer's parents up on the courthouse steps claiming 'racism.' And bringing up out of area prosecutors as an issue - including promoting lies by Kay Rauckaukus.
Rose, relax. I was defending Jesuits. I mean, you might not like the tradition, but progressives should.As for your larger concern, I haven't taken a position on the race yet. I like Hagen and I may support him. I also really like Gallegos personally and I like his philosophy of justice. He's been DA for the better part of a decade and the sky hasn't fallen. But I've heard complaints about his effectiveness from unlikely critics, and I wonder of Hagen might be better for the job. The jury's still out.Also Rose, Richard Salzman will probably back Gallegos, but my understanding is that Local Solutions may be backing Hagen. You've been skeptical that the rift was real. Would that convince you?
Eric, I know YOU were defending Hagan. My question is to the person who is bringing up these bizarre and ridiculous points.You've only just NOW begun to hear complaints about his effectiveness? Ok. Whatever.
Local Solutions may be backing HagenThat's a shame.
You've only just NOW begun to hear complaints about his effectiveness? From unlikely sources. Before it was from likely sources.
Wow, Eric, so you discount the likely sources and only listen to the unlikely ones? Such self censorship shows a closed mind. That is a shame. I hope you listen now to the unlikely sources and say "I'm sorry" to the likely ones. It matters. It matters a lot.
Well, unlikely sources tend to have more credibility than likely sources. Likely sources are predictable. That's what makes them likely. Unlikely sources are also generally predictable, but acting unpredictably. So they draw my attention.Of course, an unlikely source can be just as wrong as a likely source, for likely or unlikely reasons. And that's not to say that likely sources can't be right. They can be right for unlikely reasons. But more often than not, the unlikely sources with likely reasons are right.
So is Hagen a Jesuit papist? Is that confirmed? Erik, are you saying you overlook murder, torture, and government revolution (jesuit style) to suit a progressive ideology? And Rose, religion is an ideology, that if adopted by a government, or government servant, affects every persons ability to receive justice in society. Including ours. We have over 1000 years of history of what happens when Papal Rome rules the world. It (discussion) has nothing to do with Gallegos.
5:43: Can't you understand that we are all IN ON IT? The Jesuit Papists have long tentacles indeed and one of them is reaching for you, now that we've got your ISP address.
Ok, you've had your fun 5:43 and 3:03.I'm not sure what your game is, or where you re coming up with this idiocy, or why - but know this - Paul Hagen is a good man.People who run for office are willing to put themselves on the line in order to serve the community. They have to take alot of crap, but you're way out of line.I don't delete much, buy yours will henceforth be deleted.
Eric, re: "usual" sources and unusual sources...You may not realize this, but I did not start out against Paul Gallegos.I didn't know much about him, I saw the early ads, they were pretty weak. I saw the controversy erupt in the paper, where his campaign used Terry Farmer's "illness" as an issue. In retrospect, I realized that was probably where Salzman entered the scene.I knew Terry Farmer, sort of. He came into the agency on occasion because he and Bonnie were close friends with Rick Brazeau. So I knew a little bit about him, and a little bit about things he was doing that were considered innovative - his dead-beat Dad program was something he was working on about the time I retired from the ad business.I knew enough to know that when all the people in the office stood behind him in an ad that they meant it - and I also knew it didn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that they were slavishly loyal.Gallegos' ads changed under Salzman's influence, suddenly they were actually literate and clear, and he laid down his promises. He looked young and promising. There was no hint of the problems that were to come.
Gallegos beat Farmer in the Primary. That night, instead of being at Gallegos' victory party, Salzman came to Jill's. He became a new volunteer. He was calling the elections office, checking the progress, he was fun and dynamic. And he went on to work with us for the rest of the campaign. He didn't talk much about his past, where he was from or anything, and we didn't ask beyond the polite cursory questions - any siblings? Where were you from? We knew about Salzman International, and I knew about it specifically because I remembered the SI ads from The Workbook.I've written about that before - what I haven't written about was - Jill and Paul were peers of sorts, about the same age, winning, taking office - there was a minimal but natural camaraderie (Salzman had forced Gallegos to endorse Jill, and he showed up for one of her press conferences and delivered one of his bizarre speeches, which we put down to him just being green and nervous.) They had a joint 'victory party' at Avalon, costs were supposed to be shared, equally.They had a few conversations off and on in the early days.When the whole bruhaha about Gallegos' lawsuit began, Salzman came to ask me if I had heard anything about a threatened Recall. I hadn't. And I called Judy, who also had not. But Salzman was in full battle gear, and that was our first clue that something was seriously wrong. With Salzman.I still thought Paul was innocent in this. I didn't know him well, but it was my opinion that what Salzman as doing was going to damage the young DA - who did not need people causing him to be labeled, and who had no right making him file a lawsuit.I've written about what transpired there before, too - but you have either forgotten or never knew.I had occasion to catch Paul aside one day in Sacred Grounds, after Salzman had kicked the "Alliance for Ethical Business" into full gear - and I told Paul to tell Salzman to stop running those ads, because they were going to be damaging to him. It was awkward enough, he didn't know me and I didn't know him. He knew that I knew people, that was all. I had not real opinion about him one way or the other.He looked me straight in the eye and said, "What ads?" Yet the agency that was producing the ads believed PAUL was their client. He knew. And he lied. Without blinking. Without batting an eyelash.
In the meantime, I was learning things about what Salzman was involved in - and it was obvious Gallegos also was.So you see - if you paid attention, you would know - I was not what you refer to as "usual" sources.But I have no respect for liars. I have no respect for a man who would file a lawsuit for his backers. I have no respect for a man who would use his office that way.What unfolded was an epic battle, with an unknown PR firm "controlling the debate" and hiding their involvement. And the media didn't look at it or dig at all.But what was stated in Terry Farmer's ad, that Gallegos was unfit to run the office, what his soon to be vocal critics also pointed out, and a subsequent Grand Jury report pointed out, what anyone who worked in the courthouse would tell you is still true today.He lacks the ability to run that office. He has failed because he doesn't know what to do. he's managed to cover it up, at first because Salzman fought vociferously to keep any criticism of him at bay, even acting as a defacto spokesman for the office at times, and later because he makes statements about the office as if it is running perfectly well. But over the years people who worked in the courthouse tried quietly to tell reporters what was really going on. Some of these attempts were reported in the Journal. Some went into the Grand Jury report itself.The facts remain. And almost 8 years later, after the Times Standard opined that despite his shortcomings, he should be given one last chance, he has proven that giving him that chance has not helped.You can count me as a rabid "usual source." At this point, I suppose I am. But it didn't start out that way.Think about it, Eric.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Comments are open. Play nice.