Wednesday, July 1, 2020

Are You Busy Doing the Right Things?



Are You Busy Doing the Right Things?

594 views
Jul 1, 2020
387K subscribers
SUBSCRIBED
In the spiritual life, it’s difficult to know whether striving to do God’s will or just abiding in him is better. But why can’t we do both?

Fr. Mike tells the story of a perpetually active student athlete. His inability to disengage in doing things and just abide in God was a problem, and he knew it.

Fr. Mike advised him, it’s not that abiding is right and striving is wrong. It’s important to do, but it’s important to also know what not to do in order to acquire the goal you're living for.

There are many reasons why we choose to commit to activities, whether it’s for fear of missing out, liking being needed, needing to be liked. The list goes on. But if I find myself unable to rest, do I have a clear vision of what I really want out of life?

Being slightly engaged and not knowing what you’re striving for can be more exhausting than being fully engaged while knowing what you’re striving for.

It’s important to know when, where, and how I need rest, to know when to just abide in God, like Mary and not Martha (see Luke
10:38-42).

In any given hour, you can be called to strive like Martha in one moment and abide like Mary in the next; to do something one moment and just be in the next. The best thing is when you know you’re doing the right thing and you get to abide in God as well because you know you’re doing his will.

Check out the Abiding Together podcast for more discussions on this topic.

MORE FROM ASCENSION

Ascension’s main website:
http://ascensionpress.com
Ascension Media:
https://media.ascensionpress.com
The Great Adventure Bible:
https://ascensionpress.com/collection...

SOCIAL MEDIA
Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/AscensionPress/
Twitter:
http://twitter.com/AscensionPress
LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/asce...
Instagram:
http://www.instagram.com/catholicfait...
Subscribe:
https://www.youtube.com/c/ascensionpr...

July 1, 2020 The Fatal Flaw in the Electoral Victory Plan of Democrat Elites By Steve McCann

American Thinker

The Fatal Flaw in the Electoral Victory Plan of Democrat Elites

Since its founding in the 1820’s, the Democrat party has been the most pernicious and most schizophrenic entity in American politics.  Today, the two dominant factions within the party are the ultra-wealthy beneficiaries of capitalism plus college educated sanctimonious elites (collectively the vast bulk of the ruling class) on the one hand, and Marxist indoctrinated self-described democratic socialists on the other.
The elites, in the personage of Barack Obama, chose to enter into this marriage of convenience with the socialists in 2008 in order to have another, albeit at the time numerically small, ally in their unrequited need to retain power.  However, the primary targets of the now-dominant radical left has always been their fellow bedmates, the Democrat establishment and the ruling class.  This marriage is about to end, not in an amicable divorce, but a palace revolution which could ultimately and deleteriously impact the future of the nation if Joe Biden wins in November.
History is replete with examples of the inevitable demise of alliances of convenience.  Stories and fables throughout the ages chronicle the disaster that inevitably befalls those that ally themselves with avowed aggressors or natural predators, such as Aesop’s fable of the Scorpion and the Frog
Yet, the establishment within the party and their financial and media benefactors believe they will be able to maintain control of the party by buying off their incongruent bedfellows with symbolism and minor compromises.  Yet, these so-called best and brightest cannot help but be aware, as is much of the nation, that this active and dominant wing of the party are true-believers and, as the riots, violence and attempted destruction of the symbols of the nation’s heritage confirms, they are very impatient and determined to fundamentally transform America -- regardless of who is president.
The party hierarchy may not openly admit it, but they do know who is their dominant ally, and what is their end game.  Nonetheless, they are helpless in preventing the ultimate takeover of the party by the radical left.  This is confirmed by the fact that everyone in the party knows Joe Biden is a closet segregationist and mendacious, as well as physically and mentally incapable of being president.  Yet, the establishment dares not replace Biden, as their erstwhile ally would insist on Bernie Sanders or a clone as a replacement, precipitating an unwanted but potential internal feud before the election.  However, the decision about who will run with Biden is fraught with the same pitfalls as whoever is chosen will be the de facto president were Biden to win in November.  In short, the radical left is in the driver’s seat.

A historical analogue less than a century ago reflects the predicament the establishment of the Democrat party has created for itself and why elitist naïveté always creates enormously consequential and at times fatal outcomes.  
It is 1929 and the global Depression has hit Germany.  The National Socialist Workers Party (Nazis) is still a relatively small fringe party but one that had garnered a lot of attention in Bavaria over the previous five years, as its militant arm, the Sturmabteilung, SA or Brown Shirts, intimidated and often fomented violence throughout the state.  In 1930, Hitler and the Nazis allied themselves with the German National People’s Party (DNVP) and through a sympathetic media was able for the first time to reach a national audience.  This alliance also allowed Hitler to seek and receive support from many magnates of business and industry who controlled political funds and were anxious to use them to establish stability and peace on the streets.
Over the next two years the strength of the party grew, as chaos, often fomented by the Brown Shirts, and frustration ran rampant throughout the country.  In the 1932 national election, the Nazis garnered 36.8% of the vote, and while a significant minority in the Reichstag, they were still overwhelmingly outnumbered by other more conventional parties. 
Nonetheless, Hitler was greeted with open arms by the nation’s more sophisticated, erudite, wealthy and well-spoken political leadership as someone, they naïvely believed, they could work with.  These elites then approached the President of Germany, Paul Von Hindenburg, (84 years old and in declining health) to appoint Hitler as Chancellor, proclaiming unequivocally that they could work Hitler and keep the Nazi party under control.  One of Hitler’s demands for assuming the office would be for Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag so the Nazis in alliance with the DNVP could win an outright majority.  Hindenburg acquiesced.
After the appointment and a newly configured Reichstag, Hitler unleashed the Brown Shirts on all his opponents, passed legislation enabling him to rule by decree, and suspended all civil liberties after the Nazis deliberately set fire to the Reichstag building.  The rest of the story ends in 1945 with the near total destruction of the continent of Europe and the slaughter of nearly 40 million men, women and children.
Just as the naïve fools in Germany did not realize that once they accepted Hitler into the political hierarchy the die was cast, neither have the naïve fools among the Democrats’ establishment realized that once they allied themselves with the Marxists masquerading as democratic socialists and became willing apologists for their twin militant arms, Antifa and Black Lives Matter, that the die is cast.  Whether the Democrat party succeeds or fails to win the White House in November, the elites have lost control of the party in perpetuity. 
Thus, the only issue at hand is the reality that if Biden were to win the presidency, these credulous buffoons will be responsible for the nation descending into chaos and potential nationwide civil unrest, as well as obliterating the future for their progeny.  The current Democrat party hierarchy, the media, and the elites in the party are incapable of thwarting the inevitable ultimatums of the radical left.  Further, the left knows that these self-absorbed elitists will cower and surrender in the face of the inevitable violence and aggression fomented by Antifa and Black Lives Matter if they do not get their way.  An unthinkable civil war will no longer be a hypothetical thesis but an escalating reality.
Is pulling out all the stops and working tirelessly to defeat Donald Trump in November, because he is supposedly uncouth and lacking in civility, worth the price all the people of this nation will ultimately pay?  This is a question that this nation’s clueless ruling elites need to answer.
Graphic credit: Curzon



American Thinker

The Source of BLM's Super-power

Americans are not afraid of the cowardly mob of domestic terrorists known as Black Lives Matter. Thank God we hung tough in not allowing Democrats and fake news media to repeal our Second Amendment right to bear arms. Everyday Americans are scratching their heads, terrified, and livid over BLM's extraordinary political power.
Who has gifted this anti-American racial hate group the power to destroy monuments with impunity -- the power to intimidate politicians to swiftly remove monuments BLM deem offensive -- the power to silence any opposition by getting people fired – the power to demand that airports, colleges and etc. be renamed – the power to demand that politicians grovel while kneeling in worship to BLM? The short answer to the source of BLM's super-power is fake news media.
Fake news medias' bogus reporting has corporations and politicians believing a majority of Americans are filled with white guilt and therefore support BLM and their absurd demands. Consequently, whatever BLM wants, BLM gets. Supportive and fearful corporations have given BLM $400 million to bludgeon mainstream America into surrendering to BLM's mission to transform America into a socialist/communist nation.
Everywhere I turn, I hear extremely angry and frustrated Americans screaming for someone to begin telling BLM, “Hell No!”
I salute Mayor Ben Rozier of Bloomingdale, Georgia for kicking off the pushback by refusing the city council and BLM's demand that he resign for his truthful post on Facebook. Mayor Rozier's post is titled “Privilege.”

“What is privilege? ... Privilege is wearing $200 sneakers when you’ve never had a job. Privilege is wearing $300 Beats headphones while living on public assistance. Privilege is having a Smartphone with a Data plan which you receive no bill for.
“Privilege is living in public subsidized housing where you don’t have a water bill, where rising property taxes and rents and energy costs have absolutely no effect on the amount of food you can put on your table.
“Privilege is the ability to go march against, and protest against anything that triggers you, without worry about calling out of work and the consequences that accompany such behavior.
“Privilege is having as many children as you want, regardless of your employment status, and be able to send them off to daycare or school you don’t pay for.
“Privilege is sending your kids to school early for the before school programs and breakfast, and then keeping them there for the after school program... all at no cost to you... paid for by the people who DO HAVE TO DEAL WITH RISING TAXES AND COSTS! ...you know, us so called ‘PRIVILEGED’ the ones who pay while you TAKE TAKE TAKE!”
BLM protesters' and the Bloomingdale city council's heads exploded over Mayor Rozier daring to state the truth. Anarchists deem speaking the truth unacceptable.
I have witnessed at first hand the truthfulness of Mayor Rozier's post. In 1993, I resigned from my position as art department supervisor at WJZ-TV in Baltimore to pursue a career as a singer/songwriter. Shockingly, the IRS immediately hit me with a huge self-employment tax.
My cousin Tom was a lifelong drug addict and serial impregnator, causing numerous out-of-wedlock births. Tom invited me to see his new free government-funded townhouse. He also received free drugs for his addiction, along with healthcare and food stamps. I thought, “The government is actually funding this guy's irresponsible lifestyle choices.” Tom was a black man living a privileged life. Meanwhile, the government was financially penalizing me for branching out on my own.
BLM protesters are all over media absurdly claiming that all whites enjoy unfair white privilege and attacking them for it.
I thought about a wonderful kindly elderly white gentleman whom I will call “Pop.” With all the wicked BLM craziness going on, I will not mention his name. I learned that Pop is a beloved legend in the tiny town Mary and I moved to a few years ago.
Several months ago, when I first met ever-smiling Pop, we were outside a local store. He said, “At nine years old, I milked nine cows every morning before school and nine cows after school. My pay was $5 a week.” I thought, “I guess this guy never got the memo about his white privilege.”
Recently, I bumped into Pop at the post office. He grabbed my hand giving me a hearty handshake, “How you doin', young man?” Pop walks in tiny baby steps. He said, “I cut four lawns this morning.” I asked, “How in the world did you find energy to do that? Pop chuckled, “I'm only 89 years old.” This is a man who has worked hard his entire life and simply does not know any other way to live.
BLM claiming that Pop owes them and must kneel to them because of his white privilege is absurd. But most of all, BLM's demands are evil. Everyday Americans must say, “No!” putting an end to BLM's takeover of America immediately.
Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American



American Thinker

Get Ready to Be Canceled

The speech police are knocking at your door, and there is a new standard in town.  It's called white privilege.  The left has already taken control of speech on college campuses, where college administrators determine what can be said by whom and where (and where not, ergo safe spaces).  But now they can cancel alumni at social events in their living rooms.  If you thought you could evade the tentacles of political correctness by avoiding a campus or classroom, steering clear of political protests, or self-censoring your Facebook posts, think again.
Recently, a college friend was asked if she would share her experiences living abroad at an upcoming alumni gathering.  These gatherings are friendly and relaxed, involve only alumni and their guests, and are meant to put local members in touch with each other.  Of course, they fall under the umbrella of encouraging generous donations to the beloved alma mater.  This seemingly innocent invitation turned into a nightmare battle of censure and censorship and the drawing of lines by an elite institution of what it will tolerate from its graduates.  My friend, by no means a conservative, never thought her life abroad could be canceled.  She was told that before sharing her experiences, a native from the country she had lived in had to review her book about her experience to ensure there was nothing culturally insensitive or offensive.  In her honesty, my friend replied that there were in fact negative but true experiences discussed that probably would offend some people.  She complained to the club organizers as well as college administrators about the censorship.  Aren’t graduates of our institution equipped and educated enough to engage in the free exchange of ideas and experiences? she asked.  Apparently not.  An official from the college actually wrote the following words (emphasis mine): 
[T]his has less to do with the censorship of ideas and more to do with the risk of appropriation or insult present in any talk where someone who is white presents their thoughts and opinions on a culture that is not their native one.  Because of the inherent power imbalance white people are afforded over people of color, there is the possibility that someone speaking on their expat experiences could unintentionally make statements or generalizations that are hurtful to members of [that country’s] descent, resulting in a club atmosphere that alienates people of color.
So let me get this right.  According to this administrator, no white person can comment on another culture.  White people, merely by the color of their skin, have innate power over those of color, throughout the world.  And people are unable to separate themselves from their innate prejudices.  It means we cannot judge other cultures for any bad actions at all, even those generally recognized as evil.  Imaginary victims and hypothetical hurt feelings now determine what is appropriate, not actual thinking people who choose to attend the event, knowing the topic in advance.  The cynical might defend this as the college’s way of not upsetting any alumni who might not donate if offended at an event.  More disturbingly, it may be avoiding any large foreign institutions or governments that richly endow the school.  But finances explain only so much.  At its most benign, it makes the college officials look as though they don’t trust their graduates to share experiences and exchange points of view with each other.  More insidiously, it means that cultural courses can be taught only by members of that culture.  Taken to its logical conclusion, it could result in downsizing most anthropology, sociology, and religious and ethnic studies departments.  But absurdly, a promoter of higher learning is willing to disregard the spirit of the American experience and an intellectual tradition that is accepting and protective of other cultures.  The metaphors for this country, that it is both a “melting pot” and “marketplace of ideas,” are as American as baseball and apple pie.  But don’t forget to write your check to the college. 
So why does this matter to the rest of us?  We express ourselves (our thoughts and being) in the way we communicate with each other.  It should startle all of us that there is no longer a common easily recognized standard to judge what is acceptable among civilized, respectful people.  We will always have to worry lest we offend.  The only standard for offense is that a statement might hurt some feelings.  Accepted community and historical norms (sometimes offending) no longer matter.  Would the corollary be true?  Are certain traditionally offensive words okay if no one in the room is hurt on hearing them?  Of course not. 

The term “white privilege” is as vague and confusing as its history and attempts to define it.  This reminds me of the colloquialism regarding pornography: I can’t define it; I just know it when I see it.  Its usage as a standard is just as capricious, confusing, and condescending.  Its meaning changes depending on how and when it is used and who uses it.
A well ordered society cannot depend on standards with amorphous definitions.  It arbitrarily orders a hierarchy of citizens based on perceived power, experiences and traits.  Who decides who is white?  Does this include those of Latin, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Arab, and bi-racial heritage?  And who defines what is meant by privilege?  From what is privilege derived?  Hard work, inheritance, luck?  Are descendants of Holocaust-era Jews, and any fleeing religious or economic persecution, privileged?  By this standard, your skin color determines how much social power you have regardless of your personal struggles and circumstances.  And it presumes that all non-white people are not freely granted the glories and successes of society.  Unless they are protected from white privilege, they are merely victims waiting to be taken advantage of.  What about the hardworking people of virtually every immigrant or underprivileged community who are proud of their well earned success and who do not feel like victims?  There are many non-whites who would find this insulting, since they believe that their culture is not inferior to American values.
Where will this standard lead us?  The label of “white privilege” is currently used by leftists and progressives to discount or deny speech and data that contradict the narrative of whatever movement they seek to justify.  Recently, it has been used to dispel the criticism of the violent looting and riots that followed peaceful protests decrying the murder of George Floyd.  One Minneapolis councilwoman used it to justify dismantling the police, even when private homes are broken into.  It is now a basis for dismantling statues and desecrating historical monuments.  Whether seeking to silence whites or even hurt successful communities as a means to balance or make reparations for perceived injustices, this social weapon is gaining strength and credibility.  Many would argue that it is becoming a means to upheave the current social order and redefine traditional values derived from education, hard work, faith, and family.
What should matter right now is that none of us is immune from the speech police, no matter how safe you feel in your neighborhood, among your friends, or at work.  As with my college friend, they will surprise you when they come, and they will already have the backing and support of whatever institution you appeal to for fairness.  Let your moral and financial support speak for you.
Image: Tom Hilton via Flickr.


Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *