Be careful insulting the United States - things change with time!

I do not think Putin has any grand scheme to confront America. I believe Putin’s policies have been aimed at boosting his personal image at home and Russia’s international standing abroad to deflect attention from the country’s grave and growing economic woes. In my humble opinion there is no ‘Cold War’ with the United States looming in the back of Putin’s mind. Third World leaders that think they can get even or insult the United States by playing up to Russia/Putin or even China are going to find themselves in a quandary.

Russian President Putin has criticized western nations for straying from their Christian roots. Putin’s statement, made during his state of the nation address this past December, contends that America has become a “Godless” nation.  What Putin actually said was: “Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values.  Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan.  This is the path to degradation.”  This is quite a statement coming from a former KGB officer who faithfully served a nation that executed more than 200,000 clergy in the years between 1917 and 1937. But, what if he really believes what he is said to be true? My mother always told me even a broken clock is right two times a day. Many of Putin’s policies are more in line with Christian conservatives than with the liberal Democrat Party ideology or our adopted political correctness.

When Putin claims that religious conservatism represents the only way to prevent the world from slipping into “chaotic darkness” he is echoing the messages of thousands of pastors in American churches every Sunday morning, pastors who are concerned about our country doing precisely what Putin said it is doing: slipping into “chaotic darkness.”

Christians in the United States should ask themselves have liberals conspired with left wing academics to rewrite American history so that the Christian principals upon which the United States of America was founded have been expunged from the record and replaced by anti-Christian, anti-American tripe that focuses solely on our nation’s warts and blemishes?  American students today spend 12 years learning why they should be embarrassed by and ashamed of our country?

Christians in the United States should ask themselves have liberals become more tolerant of every religion in America except Christianity?  Is it not true that government and media tend to give Islam, Hinduism, moral relativism, and other religions a pass while they would like Christianity not to be mentioned and some would prefer it not to be tolerated?

Christians in the United States should ask themselves have we allowed liberals to conspire to transform public education in America into 12 years of left wing indoctrination that belittles and scorns Christians as Puritanical bigots while praising secular humanism?

Liberals have been successful in bringing about exactly what President Putin said has happened in the United States.  I don’t like the messenger, but I must admit the message is accurate.

I stated earlier that  Third World Leaders that find it amusing to bash the United States may find themselves in a quandary is a direct reference to this remark made by President Duterte, “"America has lost now. I've realigned myself in your ideological flow," he told business leaders in Beijing on Thursday. "And maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world: China, Philippines and Russia. It's the only way." China, Russia and the United States do not want to be at odds with each other when it might lead to war. I believe President Duterte will find himself and the Philippines standing alone against the world. These three major powers China, Russia and the United States know there is nothing for any of them to gain if they go to war against one another. It would be suicide.

The outlook in the Philippines is murky; lots of Filipino officials are as appalled by their president’s remarks as anybody. But what isn’t murky at all is that President Obama’s faltering foreign policy has taken another serious hit. It is hard to think of another American president whose foreign policy initiatives failed as badly or as widely as Obama’s. The reconciliation with the Sunni world? The reset with Russia? Stabilizing the Middle East by tilting toward Iran? The Libya invasion? The Syria abstention? The ‘pivot to Asia’ was supposed to be the centerpiece of Obama’s global strategy; instead the waning months of the Obama administration have seen an important U.S. ally pivot toward China in the most public and humiliating way possible.

Obama’s efforts to balance a commitment to human rights and the niceties of American liberal ideology have made the world less safe for both human rights and for American security. As Russia, China, and Iran gain ground, foreign leaders feel less and less need to pay attention to American sermons about human rights and the rule of law.

Death squads and extra-judicial executions on a large scale: the Americans will lecture you but China will say nothing and still be your friend. The Russians will not only supply you the weapons they will help you bomb weaker nations if it will advance Russia. They will even help you bomb your own people if they disagree with the leader as they did in Syria.  Obama’s foreign policy is making the world safer for people who despise and trample on the very values that the United States once stood for. His lack of strategic insight and his inability to grasp the dynamics of world power politics have opened the door to a new generation of authoritarian figures in alliance with hostile powers.

Now in the final days of Obama’s presidency, Russia, Iran, and China are all stepping up their game. Putin has been humiliating and outfoxing Obama at one end of Eurasia; Iran has gone from routing Obama at the bargaining table to enabling its proxies in Yemen to fire on American ships. Xi now has a triumph of his own, with one of America’s oldest Asian allies insulting Obama at official events. Clearly, America’s opponents (and some of our allies) have reached the conclusion that this particular American administration is unable or unwilling to respond forcefully to provocations. But, Obama’s Administration is coming to an end and if not the next President soon a President will take office that will not allow the United States to be pushed around and that is when many Third World Countries will find themselves in a quandary.

I am a staunch Republican, I do not like Hillary Clinton regardless of the party she belongs to, but I sincerely believe Secretary Clinton is well aware of just how damaging the Filipino defection is in Asia; she helped develop the Obama administration’s Asia strategy and she knows that China’s challenge has just grown much more dangerous. She knows what a wreck the Middle East has become, and she is well aware that Obama will hand her a region that is in much worse shape than it was when Obama took office. She knows how Putin made a patsy and a laughingstock of Obama around the world, and she knows that Obama’s efforts to stabilize the Middle East by conciliating Iran have had just the opposite effect. She knows that even as Donald Trump’s poorly led, poorly conceived electoral campaign weakens, America’s enemies abroad are using every day of Obama’s tenure in office to weaken the foundations of America’s power around the world.

Should Secretary Clinton make it to the White House, her first and biggest job will be to stop and then reverse the deterioration in America’s global position that her predecessor permitted. She will have to convince both friends and foes that the President of the United States is no longer a punching bag, and that the United States of America is back on the stage. She will need, and she will deserve, the support of patriotic Americans in both political parties as she undertakes this necessary mission. President Obama’s mismanagement of foreign affairs is creating a genuine international emergency; the White House and Congress will have to work together to restore American prestige and stop the slide toward chaos and war.

The goal of all American’s now must be restore America’s prestige after eight embarrassing years!

I feel like a foreigner in my own country

I am reading “We the People” by Juan Williams.  I agree with his facts, but disagree with some of his conclusions.  That is only natural since he is liberal and I am conservative. I really do not know if I can define myself as a conservative any longer, since I believe it is time for a change in the Republican Party. I still believe in conservative ideas, but I also believe in moving forward and adapting to cultural changes, technological changes and scientific changes as new knowledge comes available. It appears to me that today’s right ring conservative Republican Party wants to go back to the days of the Founding Fathers. They have their heads buried in the sand.  I wonder if they realize that would include slavery, no rights for women, no social safety nets, etc.

A 2015 poll conducted by Reuters found that 62% of Republicans, 53% of Independents and 37% of Democrats feel like a stranger in their own country. I have not been back to the United States since 2005 and I do not think I would recognize the United States of today.  It is a strange feeling for I feel as if I no longer have a country. I am a foreigner in the Philippines and I think I would feel like a foreigner in the United States. The Right Wing of my party has gone too far. They are no longer open to new ideas, they think like most fundamentalist religious folks - their way is the only way, the party has become the party of bigot’s, hypocrites and judgmental Pharisees.  I support Donald Trump, but I do not like a lot of his rhetoric. I support him because I think he is the only one that can bring change to the Republican Party. Good or bad I am willing to gamble because what we have done for decades is not working.

I have no trust in any part of the government. Politicians (Republican and Democrat) think the solution to every problem is to throw more tax dollars into failed programs. You would think that by now they could see that the school system continues to fail regardless of the money invested in public schools. The welfare programs not only have failed, but poverty continues to increase. Obamacare may have helped some people, but hurt more people than it helped – especially the middle class.

This campaign cycle has proven to us we the people do not control the primary outcome the party bosses do. Hillary will become the nominee regardless of what the people want and ONLY Donald Trump saved us Republicans from Cruz or Bush. The Obama’s Iran deal definitely proved elected politicians will lie to the people in order to get what they want regardless of how dangerous it is to future generations. I guess what upsets me the most they all think they know better what is good for us than we know. They treat us like children.

There is a new America that the Republican Party had better begin to recognize or they will find it more difficult to win national elections in the future. It consist of young people, white women and Asian, black and Latino voters.  That new America is interested in universal healthcare, contraception, school reform, immigration reform, lower taxes and yes climate control. It might surprise most conservative Republicans that there are people among those in the new America that hold a more conservative viewpoint than the Democrat Party and liberals in general, but not as conservative as right wing conservatives. The Republican Party bosses have allowed the right wing of our party to make it known to those people they are not welcome in our Party.

The millennial generation of Americans, those born after 1980 is made up of 40% people of color. They have little to no problem with gays, gay marriage, interracial dating and marriage.  They grew up with women in leadership roles. The Democrats are catering to these voters while the Republicans act as if they do not exist or that they will die off due to some horrendous disease that God will send upon them as punishment.

The vote this week where dozens of House Republicans switched their votes and defeated a measure to protect gay rights is once again a perfect example that the conservative right wing of the Republican Party does not understand the millennials and are out of touch with the majority of American and 2016 culture. President Barack Obama immediately issued an executive order that bars discrimination against LGBT employees by federal contractors his actions sends a message to moderate conservatives that bigotry is alive and well in the Republican Party.

Our Founding Fathers were great men, but they were mortal and they made mistakes/sinned in both their public and private lives.  I have grown tired of hearing the right wing of our party act as if our Founding Fathers were infallible.

The Founding Fathers did not eliminate slavery. They did not give blacks and women equal rights -  not even the right to vote – racial and gender equality was something they did not understand. Most of them owned slaves. They did not provide any type of safety net for the poor, orphans or widows. Our Founding Fathers forbid people from forming labor unions. Our Founding Fathers did not include God, Jesus and other deities in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution or the Bill of Rights – that was not an oversight. They struggle with religion in politics as we do today. In fact Franklin, Jefferson, Madison Washington and Adams did not even believe in Jesus as the Son of God. The Founding Fathers favored morality over dogma. Ethan Allen a Founding Father said, “I am no Christian.” John Adams signed a treaty that stated, “The United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Thomas Paine said, “… all churches accuse other churches of unbelief.” Thomas Jefferson wanted to make sure their was a wall of division between government and religion. He did not want any religion dictating public policy.

Thomas Jefferson said, “… no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law … the dead should not be a weight on future generations, but that is exactly what the right wing of the Republican Party do with their strict interpretations of the Constitution and trying to apply what the Founding Fathers thought then with their limited knowledge and apply it to to us in 2016. We need to always remember what the Founding Fathers wanted then would not necessarily be what they would want in 2016.

Uncle Bill O'Reilly is wrong!

Barney and Uncle Bill were talking on Fox about Hispanics waving the Mexican flag in California at a political protest. Uncle Bill said that it is now acceptable and is no longer offensive to most Americans.  That may be true in the U.S.A., but not the rest of the world. I live in the Philippines if I put a U.S. flag out on my balcony the neighbors would raise all kind of H???.  In fact it would be against the law in the Philippines and I would be deported if I participated in a political rally or waved an American flag. A lot of Americans and a lot of our politicians no longer have U.S. pride. Yet, we allowed Reid to use Manny the famous Filipino boxer to influence the election in Nevada and no American politician or American media or American citizen said a word that I know about.

It appears to me we just have lost all our patriotism, religious values and morals and we are about to lose our country to foreigners. I may not like a lot of things in the Philippines, but I adapt and that is what minorities should do when moving to the U.S.

+++ At the Republican Convention a middle age woman was arrested for trying to burn the U.S. Flag so some people must still care Uncle Bill! Her husband was burned in the incident KARMA!

What do I think of Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz tries to appear as an uncompromising politician, but he is deal maker just like all other politicians.  His father has said over and over again his son, "Ted will not compromise." But, I think Ted Cruz will compromise on matters that do not matter to him regardless if they matter to others within the party or the Republican voters.

It depends on what audience Cruz is talking to if he is willing to compromise or not. In front of some audiences Cruz has said, "If they offer you half a loaf, you take it - and then come back for more."

Some students who were in college with him complained that Ted didn't have an off switch and that he lectured them all the time. Some claimed he was overbearing.  The Ted Cruz I see today affects me in much the same way as he did his college friends.  I have never felt he was talking to the American people it always seems to me he is lecturing us and prior to Donald Trump he was the most overbearing and smug politicians I had listened to.

Like Obama he knows what he wants and he wants everyone else to want the same thing.  In other words Ted Cruz like Obama thinks he knows what is best for us!  I get the impression if we do not agree with him he believes we must be stupid.

Rob Marks, a fellow student at Princeton, said this about Cruz, "There was no emotion. It was pure logic. In Ted's mind, he was never wrong. He viewed himself as ideologically pure."  I do not think Rob Marks would have a difficult time recognizing the Ted Cruz of today because it appears to me he has not changed.

Edward Bergman, a New Jersey lawyer who taught Cruz in a course on alternative dispute resolution, said Cruz's classroom manner and written work displayed a smugness that made him unpopular. I am glad I had an opportunity to read that article because that is the same feeling I get when Cruz addresses the Senate or in the recent debates. It's a smug, know-it-all attitude like he demonstrated on Greta Van Susteren show on 12/18/15 on Fox News. I now know I am not the only one that feels that way about him.

When Cruz filibustered in 2013 against Obamacare for 21 hours and 19 minutes, many conservative thought they saw a man standing up for their principles. I was and still am against Obamacare, but what I saw during the filibuster was an arrogant, uncompromising, hardheaded, stubborn man who thought his ideas were the only correct ideas. What did he accomplish with the filibuster theatrics, except get some television exposure? We still got Obamacare. If Cruz had been willing to work with others and compromise a little maybe he could have gotten some amendments to Obamacare that would have made the plan better.

To be in politics you must be willing to compromise. Politics is all about give and take in order to accomplish goals. Obama is a failure in politics because he does not understand the art of compromise.  Even though Cruz claims “half a loaf is better than none” his actions do not reflect that.  Like Obama Cruz loves intellectual arguments for the sake of arguing. Like Obama Cruz would perhaps make a better professor than politician. Like Obama Cruz could care less who criticizes him and he is not interested in finding out why they criticize him because he has already concluded he is right.

How tough will Cruz be on Wall Street since his wife Heidi Cruz is a managing director of Goldman Sachs in Houston? I know what Cruz says now, but if elected and he has real power over the economy what will he do then. 

His wife claims Ted has learned, “…not to preach at people. People don't want to be judged." She sees a different Ted Cruz than I do or he was so much worse than he is now the change has overwhelmed her.

I have noticed when he is in Iowa, a farm state, he skirts over the fact that he is against farm subsidies and feeds them bushels of political propaganda on, "Abolish the IRS"; the “EPA is completely lawless" and “over the past 17 years, the planet has seen "no warming whatsoever."

 Cruz likes to tell the story about a 6-foot-6 African American guard walking up to him and saying, “I didn't vote for you, but I'll say this: You've done what you said you'd do", if elected president the farmers of Iowa will be able to say, I did vote for you and you’ve done what you said you would do you took our subsidies away – we didn’t hear you say it, but we now know you said it to others.

Cruz still has excellent debate skills and he knows what to say and what not to say at the appropriate times. Cruz is to public speaking what Michael Phelps was to swimming. Cruz is the Republican Barack Obama. He is a Huckabee Christian Conservative. He can demonstrate he is a bit of Ron Paul when it serves him well. He is the Tea Partiers candidate because his goal is to push the Republican Party as far right as possible.

Ted Cruz truly believes the Declaration of Independence's promises people certain unalienable Rights. He believes certain freedoms are every human's birthright and that governments must protect those rights. Ted Cruz has always demonstrated that he is for the underdog. Cruz stands for many things I stand for, but what frightens me about Cruz is he is not flexible in his thinking, once he has decided he is right he seems to close his mind to further discussion.

I know Cruz is against abortion, but I am not clear why he is against abortion. Does he oppose abortion because it is murder (moral) or that terminating a pregnancy violates natural order and natural law is the basis of the Constitution (intellectual) — is it an intellectual or moral issue for Cruz? The difference speaks to his real evangelical roots. Evangelicals are against abortion for moral reasons regardless of any intellectual argument. Pro- right groups can argue for abortion based solely on intellectual reasoning. I know Cruz loves intellectual debates, but what about moral debates.

Cruz would be for a Constitutional Amendment limiting the Federal Governments power. At a 2010 Federalist Society panel he stated, "If one embraces the views of Madison...which is that men are not angels and that elected politicians will almost always seek to expand their power, then the single most effective way to restrain government power is to provide a constraint they can't change."  If elected and he pursued the Amendment change it would be divisive and it would take up valuable time an administration needs to deal with more relevant crisis.

As Solicitor General for Texas Cruz went before the Supreme Court eight times, five involved the death penalty, with Cruz arguing that Texas should be allowed to execute the mentally ill.  Was the argument a moral issue or an intellectual issue for him? You may ask what difference it makes. Again, I think it speaks to his conservative religious views he constantly touts.

 No one's is a bigger promoter of Ted Cruz than Ted Cruz. The Austin American-Statesman pointed out that he took credit for a case that was actually argued and won by Gregg Abbott, then Texas Attorney General, now Governor of Texas. He actually claimed the victory as one of his own high-court victories. Journalists who have interviewed him have commented “Ted Cruz loves to talk about Ted Cruz”.

Cruz should give credit to the super-PAC’s, and a flurry of barnstorming by national conservatives, including Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, and Sarah Palin for his runoff win for the Senate. Cruz dishonestly ran as an outsider even though his credentials—Harvard Law Review, Rehnquist court, Bush campaign, Perry administration did not truly fit that billing. Cruz can speak the language of established Republicans and Tea Party Republicans and that is one of his greatest assets – he can live in both worlds as needed.

Cruz can and will break out in a few lines of Spanish when he thinks it will benefit him even though he cannot carry on a conversation in Spanish.  Cruz is the typical educated politician, use car salesman, door to door vacuum cleaner salesman. He will say and does what he thinks will help him win. The argument he is having with Rubio at the moment over immigration/citizenship is an example of that.

Cruz touts the 10th Amendment theories most prominent during the civil rights clashes of the 1950s and '60s, when Southern governors touted their (nonexistent) right to invalidate federal laws. His social conservatism takes us back to the '90s, when the gay rights agenda (which Cruz has pledged to combat in DC) was seen lurking around every corner. His fear of international treaties as a gateway to the dissolution of American sovereignty might have fit right in during the Eisenhower era. Many of Cruz’s ideas are not new.

Cruz supports a Constitutional amendment mandating that Congress pass a balanced budget. He argues that this is the best way to cut down deficits and the debt. I agree that we must have a balanced budget. I think that politicians are so dishonest we can never have a balance budget unless the Constitution demands it. If politicians are going to seek an amendment change on the budget now may be the time to do it.  But, Cruz would most likely want to tie the 10^th Amendment argument to it and it would all be a waste of time and money.

Cruz wants to reduce corporate tax rates to 15 percent and cut federal subsidies for renewable fuels. I definitely could support lowering corporate tax rates because I believe it would improve the economy and create jobs. I am for stopping subsidies of all kinds to private for profit corporations. No one ever financed one of my business ventures and I do not want to finance someone else’s. Business ventures are always a risk and those who stand to profit from them should take the risk and not the taxpayers.

Cruz is a proponent of a simpler tax code. Politicians have been saying we need a simpler tax code for thirty years, but they take no action to accomplish it when in office. I do not think Cruz is any different.  Although he does claim he is for a ‘flat tax’ which I would support.

Cruz is for each individual states defining “marriage”. I am not a supporter of that. All Americans should be guaranteed the same equal rights in all States regardless of where they live in the United States. This could prohibit gay couples from seeking advancement in employment in other states. It could prevent gay couples from living where they want to live. It could prevent gay couples from living near their families. It could create problems for couples when traveling and sickness occurred. There are all sorts of problems with States defining marriage. I once supported what Cruz stands for, but now I see the problems it can and would create. I am not against a national vote to decide the legal definition of marriage, but I would oppose not offering gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples in committed relationships. I understand that the term ‘marriage’ has traditional meaning to many Americans.

Cruz stand on gays is confusing because in April, he sounded more open-minded at a New York reception hosted by two gay businessmen. Cruz, an attendee told the New York Times reporter, "He would have no problem if one of his daughters was gay." It could be Cruz just trying to say the right thing at the right time to win once again demonstrating his ‘debate and public speaking skills’.

Like Cruz I am for requiring all judges to stand for election at least every four years, but I would exempt Supreme Court Judges from the law.  I still favor lifetime terms for Supreme Court Judges because I feel it brings more continuity to the legal system and American way of life. I do not want Supreme Court Judges making decisions based on the current whims of Americans because they have to stand for reelection.

Ted Cruz supports building the Keystone XL pipeline. I support Keystone XL pipeline and believe that any politicians that values the interest of the American people would support it. Obama allowed tree huggers to keep him from doing what was best for employment and the economy. Obama is responsible for many American families’ suffering needlessly for non-existent environmental concerns.

Ted Cruz favors deportation of unauthorized immigrants. It is not clear to me or to Greta on Fox News how he would accomplish the deportation. He wants those that want immediate round up and deportation to believe he would do that, while those, like me, who want illegal aliens deported as they are caught he wants us to believe he would proceed in that manner.

In 1999 Cruz urged Mr. Bush, to state his opposition to illegal immigration and to urge enforcement of border restrictions. At the same time, he reminded Mr. Bush we need to remember that many of those coming here are coming to feed their families, to have a chance at a better life. It is not quite the same as calling illegal immigration “an act of love,” as Jeb Bush did last year, but Mr. Cruz’s advice to Mr. Bush in 1999 was sharply different than in 2015 as he seeks to create distance between him and Mr. Rubio.

Cruz supports expanding foreign trade and voted to give President Obama fast-track authority for getting the Trans-Pacific Partnership through Congress. I did not like the typical Washington backroom deals that allowed the bill to get to the floor, but I to would support a bill that would create jobs, growth, and opportunity for struggling American families.

Latest polls put the candidates standing at: Donald Trump 34%, Ted Cruz 18%, Marco Rubio 13%, Jeb Bush 7% , Ben Carson 6% , Chris Christie 5%, 4% each for Carly Fiorina and Mike Huckabee, 2% each for John Kasich and Rand Paul, 1% each for Lindsey Graham and Rick Santorum, and less than 1% each for Jim Gilmore and George Pataki.

Can Cruz win in 2016?  The Tea Party supporters believe Cruz can win in the general election. I do not think ‘purest’ do well in the Republican Party in the end. Republicans tend to support more moderate candidates when it comes to the final vote. I do not think just nominating a ‘purest’ conservative is going to win the general election for the Republicans. 

Now that the field of candidates appears to be down to Trump, Cruz and Rubio I believe voters will start taking a more critical look at all the candidate and they will find Cruz is not all he claims to be. Cruz to me is just a more polished politician than Trump. Both are egotistical maniacs – in love with themselves. 

If I were to support either I would choose Trump because I see Cruz as a snake hiding in the grass waiting to attack.  I cannot get past my feeling that Rubio seems too young and too immature to be President of the United States. I was optimistic when the primary campaigns began, but not so optimistic now. Who is going to win I honestly do not know.

++Did Cruz not prove Cruz is for Cruz at the Republican Convention and is the snake that I always claimed he was.

Do women not have the ability to be priest - church hierarchy think not.

The Catholic Church (my church) declared Mary the most important human being of all time. The Catholic Church has put more attention on Mary than any other denomination. I think they have put too much emphasis on Mary and it has caused confusion among Catholics. Instead of revering Mary some Catholics, especially in third and second world countries worship and some even want to put her on the same level as Jesus Christ. But, the same church refuses to ordain women.

God has given women many important roles in history, but man continues to deny her the right to be a priest. The men of the church hierarchy claim they have in the past and continue to deal with the question of ordination of women the same way they approach every other important decision; with prayer, the Bible, Church Tradition and the wisdom of theologians. They claim, “The Church wants to know what God has to say about this, and we believe God does not want women ordained priest.” The words they use seem to tell me they really see themselves as “the church”. PRIDE!

John Paul II, whom I love and respect, said: "Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren, I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

I have no problem with Pope John Paul II decision not to ordain women that was his right to do so. I disagree with his believing that all Catholics must agree with him and not question what he said.

There are many people in the Catholic Church that pray and read the Bible as much as the hierarchy of the church. I also believe God speaks to everyone’s heart. In fact, I know many priests that the only time they read the Bible is during the Mass. I know many priests that do not have any personal prayer time. I know many priests that do not consult God on personal or professional decisions.

The thought that theologians know more about what God wants than devoted Christians is arrogant to me. One of the problems within our church is that many of the theologians think that seminary training makes them experts in all things pertaining to God. It certainly does not make all of them good preachers. It seems some priest think wearing the right vestments and clerical clothes make them more important than the laity in the church. They think because they are the only ones that can administer the sacraments the church cannot function without them. This alone is a good reason for ordaining women.

I do not think Pope John Paul II was a chauvinist, but I do think he relied too much on church traditions, that were established by men, and considered the personal feelings of Cardinals and Bishops too much when making his decisions.

Relying on church traditions have value, but they can also be abused and prevent needed reform. One of the main differences between Protestants and Catholics is Protestants rely more on the Bible than traditions and it seems Catholics often rely more on traditions.

Many traditionalist Catholics disliked Pope John Paul II because they felt he was "too liberal". Many of us who loved Pope John Paul II thought he would bring more needed changes to the church, but he did not because he was too conservative in many areas and unlike Pope Francis did not have the personality to stand up to those who opposed his ideas.

 I do not think his position on ordination of women was about discriminating against women or that women did not have the abilities needed to be a priest, but rather he thought he was following God's desire for the Church and feared it would cause too much division in the Catholic Church. Some in the church will argue he was proven right because Methodist, Anglican and Episcopal ordained women and it caused their attendance to decrease and caused divisions in their denominations.

Change regardless if it is good or bad always brings division and causes some to leave that cannot adapt. All denominations, including Catholic, have suffered losses in attendance. This is due more to changes in society than anything else. We would suffer more loss in attendance if not for Second and Third World countries where “OBLIGATED ATTENDANCE” is still taken seriously. In addition our membership grows every time we baptize an infant.  

There are less conservative people who will argue that Pope John Paul II did not declare for the church to not ordain women from the 'Chair of Peter', therefore the statement was not "infallibly" made. I am one of them. He left the door open for change someday.

The ultra-conservatives in the Catholic Church will argue that those of us who make the “infallibly” claim are the same ones who want same sex marriage and contraception use approved by the pope. They are correct when they accuse me of wanting to broaden contraceptive rights. I am for non-abortive artificial contraception. I think God is more pleased with people who use contraception, instead of bringing children into the world they cannot properly educate, clothe, feed and provide medical care for. I believe each denomination has the right to decide if they will perform or not perform same sex marriages. I believe the government should provide some type of protection for those in same sex relationships that want to commit to one another and have the same protection as those in opposite sex relationships have. I do not want to call it “marriage” because I do respect the tradition of “marriage”.

I think Jesus Christ allowed Himself to be influenced by traditions when it came to some issues pertaining to male and female. One cannot deny that Jesus Christ gave power to women that at the time were unheard of. I know that Jesus Christ broke many Jewish traditions, but that does not mean He did not choose a female to be one of the twelve disciples because He did not believe women were qualified to have the title disciple or that He was sending us a message in 2015 that women should not be ordained. I think He did not bestow the title of Disciple on a female follower because it was a tradition that He knew would make His ministry and the ministry of His follower even more difficult than it was.

Those that argue Jesus was a tradition breaker and would have given the title of Disciple to a female if it was acceptable to His Father will say He broke other traditions pertaining to women such as healing a woman on the Sabbath; speaking with the Samaritan woman and freeing the woman caught in adultery from being stoned. They will argue that Jesus was clearly not afraid to break the traditions of His time; therefore if it was okay to ordain women today He would have designated a female disciple. It is true that Jesus was not afraid to break Jewish traditions, but He also honored many Jewish traditions in order not to offend the Jewish leaders unnecessarily. He knew to pick and choose the battles He wanted to encounter.

Ultra-conservatives within the Catholic Church will argue we have to consider that there were women performing similar roles to a priest in other religions at the time of Jesus, therefore it is inaccurate to say there was no historical precedence for women being priest. There were not women performing priestly duties in the JEWISH religion. The women performing priestly duties were priestesses in PAGAN religions. The Jewish leaders bitterly opposed the priestesses and I am sure they would have accused Jesus of starting a pagan religion if He would have suggested women priest or women disciples. It would have created an unnecessary battle for Jesus and His followers to fight.

Ultra-conservatives will say scripture refers to the Bride and Bridegroom when speaking of the relationship between Christ and the church. I certainly agree with that, but scripture is talking about JESUS CHRIST relationship with the CHURCH not a pope, cardinal, bishop or priest relationship with the church. Are they trying to say that a pope, cardinal, bishop or priest has the SAME relationship with the church as Jesus Christ?

Their argument is the priest represents Christ "In persona Christi" when administering the Sacraments, and as such is the groom of the church and must be male. In persona Christi is a Latin phrase meaning "in the person of Christ" a man-made theological concept, not a Biblical concept and refers to the action of a bishop or priest while celebrating a sacrament.

The priest acts in the person of Christ in the pronouncing of the words of the sacramental rite. There are essential moments in the rites where the priest's words and gestures confect the sacrament, change bread/wine to body/blood. I guess it really comes down to they believe men have certain mystical powers women do not have when it comes to saying ‘certain words’.

Ultra-conservatives will argue that Pope St. Gelasius (494 AD) wrote a letter of discipline to an area that was allowing women to serve at the altar. They will say it does not prove there was a historical precedent for female priest it only proves that some in the church were violating the rules of the church and they were wrong and just as Saint Paul did Pope St. Gelasius stepped in to correct mistakes in the administration of the Eucharist.

Ultra-conservatives put total faith in the magisterium which gives the pope, cardinals and bishops the authority to lay down what is the authentic teaching of the Church. I believe unity is not only important, but is essential, but unity dictated by a few in the hierarchy of the church without the opportunity for the laity to offer opposing views can also be dangerous. In essences it requires Catholics to turn their brains off when it comes to matters of the church, religion, teachings, etc., and accept the words of the hierarchy to be the only truth.

It could be interpreted by non-Catholics or Catholics who are not willing to turn their God given brain off that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is trying to say God only speaks to them. According to the church hierarchy if they say God does not want women to be ordained the matter is not open for discussion. I think it also says volumes about the hierarchy of the church wanting to guarantee that males control the church.

I would say most Catholics do not know that women with theology degrees are now "Chaplains" in most Catholic high schools and universities. Ultra- conservatives argue the term "chaplain" can only be used for a priest, Canon Law 564-572. They also claim that some of these women are not being made to be extra careful to uphold the teachings of the Church the way the priest are.

Here are some of the arguments the ultra-conservatives use to try and get women chaplains removed from schools and universities – THEY TEACH: Scripture is not inerrant, and only parts of it are the true Words of God, it should be read with a critical eye; Many of the miracles can be explained in natural ways, like the miracle of the loaves came from people sharing what they already had; Purgatory is an invention of the Middle Ages to keep control of the masses and keep them obedient to the Church and make money; Contraception is good if sex outside of marriage is going to be practiced and total dependency on chastity among youth, due to peer pressure and hormones, is unrealistic in society today; The Magisterium is an "old boys club", not the institution put in place by Jesus to guard and direct the Church; Same sex attraction is very complicated and the Church should not make an absolute pronouncement that it is disordered to act on it; Confession is a good psychological cleansing, but that's about all it is. A priest isn't necessary to reconcile with God and Baptizing is a good tradition that fosters belonging, but it is not the means of salvation.

I have found male chaplains that teach and believe the same way the female chaplains do. There does not seem to be the same outcry against the male chaplains as it is against the female chaplains. Is it possibly a sexist thing? I have found many priest believe as the female and male chaplains do.

One ultra-conservative said this, “… my prayer is that one day the majority of women with theology degrees who work in high school chaplaincy offices will focus on teaching the Word of God, rather than challenging it. All the faithful women I know have absolutely no interest in challenging the Church teaching on a male priesthood.” Of course they don’t, because they are comfortable with being where they are in the church structure and have no desire to advance to a higher position within the church. I do not think these women chaplains are challenging the Word of God they are challenging the Word of Catholic men in authority.

Ultra-conservatives use the fact that the Catholic Church included in our Bible the book of "Judith", book of “Esther” and the book of “Ruth” as proof we do not discriminate against women. I really do not see the connection, but I suppose they do. They get really excited over the fact that Ruth wasn't even a Jew, yet she plays a key role in salvation history.

They even claim if the Catholic Church discriminated against women they would have rewritten the story of Mary – do they really believe we didn’t when most Catholics turn to Mary more than they do the Holy Spirit. I think we gave Mother Mary a role that God never intended her to have.

They think they have a real argument supporting the Catholic Churches refusal to ordain women by pointing out that the Catholic Church recognizes Martha, Mary Magdalene, Anna, Elizabeth and a dozen more women as a prophet. It would be hard not to recognize these women as prophets. I honestly do not see how recognizing a few women as prophets have anything to do with ordaining women.

Most ultra-conservatives put their hopes in Pope Benedict the XVI. They believed he would close all the doors that Pope John Paul II cracked open. I had one tell me that he bet I prayed every day that Benedict would die. I never hoped that and certainly never prayed that, but Benedict took care of the problem himself or divine province did when he retired.

I prefer to see qualified women ordained rather than see parishes closing because we do not have men to staff them and for some strange reason I think God prefers the same. The harvest potential is great, but there are not enough harvesters.