Just sit still
let your worries
in this moment
Just sit back
just listen …
The Resurrection of Jesus
But at daybreak on the first day of the week they took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.
They found the stone rolled away from the tomb;
but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.
While they were puzzling over this, behold, two men in dazzling garments appeared to them.
They were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground. They said to them, “Why do you seek the living one among the dead?
He is not here, but he has been raised. Remember what he said to you while he was still in Galilee,
that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners and be crucified, and rise on the third day.”
And they remembered his words.
Luke 24: 1-9
|“The Lord Is Risen and Was Seen Alive”
ROME, 7 APRIL 2007 (ZENIT)
Here is a translation of a commentary by the Pontifical Household preacher, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, on the readings for Easter Sunday’s liturgy.
* * *
He is Risen!
There are men — we see this in the phenomenon of suicide bombers — who die for a misguided or even evil cause, mistakenly retaining, but in good faith, that the cause is a worthy one.
Even Christ’s death does not testify to the truth of his cause, but only the fact that he believed in its truth. Christ’s death is the supreme witness of his charity, but not of his truth. This truth is adequately testified to only by the Resurrection. “The faith of Christians,” says St. Augustine, “is the resurrection of Christ. It is no great thing to believe that Jesus died; even the pagans believe this, everyone believes it. The truly great thing is to believe that he is risen.”
Keeping to the purpose that has guided us up to this point, we must leave faith aside for the moment and attend to history. We would like to try to respond to the following question: Can Christ’s resurrection be defined as a historical event, in the common sense of the term, that is, did it “really happen”?
There are two facts that offer themselves for the historian’s consideration and permit him to speak of the Resurrection: First, the sudden and inexplicable faith of the disciples, a faith so tenacious as to withstand even the trial of martyrdom; second, the explanation of this faith that has been left by those who had it, that is, the disciples. In the decisive moment, when Jesus was captured and executed, the disciples did not entertain any thoughts about the resurrection. They fled and took Jesus’ case to be closed.
In the meantime something had to intervene that in a short time not only provoked a radical change of their state of soul, but that led them to an entirely different activity and to the founding of the Church. This “something” is the historical nucleus of Easter faith.
The oldest testimony to the Resurrection is Paul’s: “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: That Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again according to the Scriptures; and that he was seen by Cephas, and after that by the eleven.
“Then he was seen by more than 500 brethren at once, of whom many are still with us and some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. And last of all, he was seen also by me, as by one born out of due time” (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).
These words were written around A.D. 56 or 57. But the core of the text is constituted by an anterior faith that Paul himself says he received from others. Keeping in mind that Paul learned of these things immediately after his conversion, we can date them to about A.D. 35, that is, five or six years after the death of Christ. It is thus a testimony of rare historical value.
The accounts of the Evangelists were written some decades later and reflect a later phase in the Church’s reflection. But the core of the testimony remains unchanged: The Lord is risen and was seen alive. To this a new element is added, perhaps determined by an apologetic preoccupation, and so of minor historical value: The insistence on the fact of the empty tomb. Even for the Gospels, the appearances of the Risen Christ are the decisive facts.
The appearances, nevertheless, testify to a new dimension of the Risen Christ, his mode of being “according to the Spirit,” which is new and different with respect to his previous mode of existing, “according to the flesh.” For example, he cannot be recognized by whoever sees him, but only by those to whom he gives the ability to know him. His corporeality is different from what it was before. It is free from physical laws: It enters and exits through closed doors; it appears and disappears.
According to a different explanation of the Resurrection, one advanced by Rudolf Bultmann and still proposed today, what we have here are psychogenetic visions, that is, subjective phenomena similar to hallucinations. But this, if it were true, would constitute in the end a greater miracle than the one that such explanations wish to deny. It supposes that in fact different people, in different situations and locations, had the same impression, the same hallucination.
The disciples could not have deceived themselves: They were specific people — fishermen — not at all given to visions. They did not believe the first ones; Jesus almost has to overpower their resistance: “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe!” They could not even want to deceive others. All of their interests opposed this; they would have been the first to feel themselves deceived by Jesus. If he were not risen, to what purpose would it have been to face persecution and death for him? What material benefit would they have drawn from it?
If the historical character of the Resurrection — that is, its objective, and not only subjective, character — is denied, the birth of the Church and of the faith become an even more inexplicable mystery than the Resurrection itself. It has been justly observed that “the idea that the imposing edifice of the history of Christianity is like an enormous pyramid balanced upon an insignificant fact is certainly less credible than the assertion that the entire event — and that also means the most significant fact within this — really did occupy a place in history comparable to the one that the New Testament attributes to it.”
Where does the historical research on the Resurrection arrive? We can see it in the words of the disciples of Emmaus: Some disciples went to Jesus’ tomb Easter morning and they found that things were as the women had said who had gone their before them, “but they did not see him.” History too must take itself to Jesus’ tomb and see that things are as the witnesses have said. But it does not see the Risen One. It is not enough to observe matters historically. It is necessary to see the Risen Christ, and this is something history cannot do; only faith can.
The angel who appeared to the women Easter morning said to them: “Why do you seek the living among the dead?” (Luke 24:5). I must confess that at the end of these reflections I feel that this rebuke is also directed at me. It is as if the angel were to say to me: “Why do you waste time seeking among dead human and historical arguments, the one who is alive and at work in the Church and in the world? Go instead and tell his brothers that he is risen.”
If it were up to me, that is the only thing I would do. I quit teaching the history of Christian origins 30 years ago to dedicate myself to proclaming the Kingdom of God, but now when I am faced with radical and unfounded denials of the truth of the Gospels, I have felt obliged to take up the tools of my trade again.
This is why I have decided to use these commentaries on the Sunday Gospels to oppose a tendency often motivated by commercial interests and help those who may read my observations to form an opinion about Jesus that is less influenced by the clamor of the advertising world.
I’m homeschooling right now.
My youngest, she’s 13, she’s being homeschooled. I’ve decided on using the Elizabeth Seton curriculum.
Also, my 16 year old goes to catholic school. He plays football, season’s over and he’s in wrestling at the moment.
My 22 year old is in college. She loves it. She wants to be a zoologist. 🙂
sooo, Life can get a bit hectic. Family comes first.
I thank you so much for reading me and for your lovely comments.
A PLEA FOR INTOLERANCE
by Venerable Fulton J. Sheen
America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so much overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded.
The man who can make up his mind in an orderly way, as a man might make up his bed, is called a bigot; but a man who cannot make up his mind, any more than he can make up for lost time, is called tolerant and broadminded.
A bigoted man is one who refuses to accept a reason for anything; a broadminded man is one who will accept anything for a reason—providing it is not a good reason. It is true that there is a demand for precision, exactness, and definiteness, but it is only for precision in scientific measurement, not in logic.
The breakdown that has produced this unnatural broadmindedness is mental, not moral.
The evidence for this statement is threefold:
the tendency to settle issues not by arguments but by words,
the unqualified willingness to accept the authority of anyone on the subject of religion, and,
lastly, the love of novelty.
Voltaire boasted that if he could find but ten wicked words a day he could crush the “infamy” of Christianity. He found the ten words daily, and even a daily dozen, but he never found an argument, and so the words went the way of all words and the thing, Christianity, survived. Today, no one advances even a poor argument to prove that there is no God, but they are legion who think they have sealed up the heavens when they used the word “anthropomorphism.” This word is just a sample of the catalogue of names which serve as the excuse for those who are too lazy to think. One moment’s reflection would tell them that one can no more get rid of God by calling Him “anthropomorphic” than he can get rid of a sore throat by calling it “streptococci.” As regards the use of the term “anthropomorphism,” I cannot see that its use in theology is less justified than the use in physics of the term “organism,” which the new physicists are so fond of employing.
Not only does the substitution of words for argument betray the existence of this false tolerance, but also the readiness of many minds to accept as an authority in any field an individual who becomes a famous authority in one particular field.
Another evidence of the breakdown of reason that has produced this weird fungus of broad‐mindedness is the passion for novelty, as opposed to the love of truth.
Belief in the moral law are considered passing fashions. The latest thing in this new tolerance is considered the true thing, as if truth were a fashion, like the hat, instead of an institution, like a head.
At the present moment, in psychology the fashion runs towards Behaviorism, as in philosophy it runs towards Temporalism. And that it is not objective validity which dictates the success of a modern philosophical theory, is borne out by the statement a celebrated space‐time philosopher of England made to the writer a few years ago, when he was asked where he got his system. ʺFrom my imagination,ʺ he answered. Upon being challenged that the imagination was not the proper faculty for a philosopher to use, he retorted: ʺIt is, if the success of your philosophical system depends not on the truth that is in it, but on its novelty.ʺ
In that statement is the final argument for modern broad‐mindedness: truth is novelty, and hence ʺtruthʺ changes with the passing fancies of the moment.
Truth does grow, but it grows homogeneously, like an acorn into an oak; it does not swing in the breeze, like a weathercock.
The nature of certain things is fixed, and none more so than the nature of truth. Truth maybe contradicted a thousand times, but that only proves that it is strong enough to survive a thousand assaults.
But for any one to say, ʺSome say this, some say that, therefore there is no truth,ʺ is about as logical as it would have been for Columbus, who heard some say, ʺThe earth is round,ʺ and other say, ʺThe earth is flat,ʺ to conclude: ʺTherefore there is no earth at all.ʺ
The giggling giddiness of novelty, the sentimental restlessness of a mind unhinged, and the unnatural fear of a good dose of hard thinking, all conjoin to produce a group of sophomoric latitudinarians who think there is no difference between God as Cause and God as a ʺmental projectionʺ; who equate Christ and Buddha, St. Paul and John Dewey, and then enlarge their broad‐mindedness into a sweeping synthesis that says not only that one Christian sect is just as good as another, but even that one world‐religion is just as good as another.
The great god ʺProgressʺ is then enthroned on the altars of fashion, and as the hectic worshipers are asked, ʺProgress towards what?ʺ The tolerant answer comes back, ʺMore progress.ʺ
All the while sane men are wondering how there can be progress without direction and how there can be direction without a fixed point. And because they speak of a ʺfixed point,ʺ they are said to be behind the times, when really they are beyond the times mentally and spiritually.
In the face of this false broad‐mindedness, what the world needs is intolerance. The mass of people have kept up hard and fast distinctions between dollars and cents, battleships and cruisers, ʺYou owe meʺ and ʺI owe you,ʺ but they seem to have lost entirely the faculty of distinguishing between the good and the bad, the right and the wrong.
The best indication of this is the frequent misuse of the terms ʺtoleranceʺ and ʺintolerance.ʺ
There are some minds that believe that intolerance is always wrong, because they make ʺintoleranceʺ mean hate, narrow‐ mindedness, and bigotry. These same minds believe that tolerance is always right because, for them, it means charity, broad‐mindedness, American good nature. ‐‐‐
What is tolerance?
Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience towards evil, and a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. But what is more important than the definition is the field of its application.
The important point here is this: Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons. Tolerance applies to the erring; intolerance to the error.
What has just been said here will clarify that which was said at the beginning of this chapter, namely, that America is suffering not so much from intolerance, which is bigotry, as it is from tolerance, which is indifference to truth and error, and a philosophical nonchalance that has been interpreted as broad‐mindedness.
Greater tolerance, of course, is desirable, for there can never be too much charity shown to persons who differ with us.
Charity, then, must be shown to persons, and particularly to those outside the fold who by charity must be led back, that there may be one fold and one Shepherd. Thus far tolerance, but no farther. Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush,
I make a plea.
Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability. The government must be intolerant about malicious propaganda, and during the World War it made an index of forbidden books to defend national stability, as the Church, who is in constant warfare with error, made her index of forbidden books to defend the permanency of Christʹs life in the souls of men.
The government during the war was intolerant about the national heretics who refused to accept her principles concerning the necessity of democratic institutions, and took physical means to enforce such principles.
The soldiers who went to war were intolerant about the principles they were fighting for, in the same way that a gardener must be intolerant about the weeds that grow in his garden.
The Supreme Court of the United States is intolerant about any private interpretation of the first principle of the Constitution that every man is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the particular citizen who would interpret ʺlibertyʺ in even such a small way as meaning the privilege to ʺgoʺ on a red traffic‐light, would find himself very soon in a cell where there were no lights, not even the yellow — the color of the timid souls who know not whether to stop or go.
And if we admit intolerance about the foundations of a government that at best looks after manʹs body, why not admit intolerance about the foundations of a government that looks after the eternal destiny of the spirit of man?
On all sides we hear it said today, ʺThe modern world wants a religion without dogmas,ʺ which betrays how little thinking goes with that label, for he who says he wants a religion without dogmas is stating a dogma, and a dogma that is harder to justify than many dogmas of faith.
A dogma is a true thought, and a religion without dogmas is a religion without thought, or a back without a backbone.
All sciences have dogmas. ʺWashington is the capital of the United Statesʺ is a dogma of geography. ʺWater is composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygenʺ is a dogma of chemistry. Should we be broad‐minded and say that Washington is a sea in Switzerland? Should we be broad‐minded and say that H2O is a symbol for sulfuric acid?
We cannot verify all the dogmas of science, history, and literature, and therefore we are to take many of them on the testimony of others. I believe Professor Eddington, for example, when he tells me that ʺEinsteinʹs law of gravitation asserts that ten principal coefficients of curvature are zero in empty space,ʺ just as I do not believe Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes when he tells me that ʺthe cockroach has lived substantially unchanged on the earth for fifty million years.ʺ I accept Dr. Eddingtonʹs testimony because, by his learning and his published works, he has proved that he knows something about Einstein. I do not accept Dr. Barnesʹs testimony about cockroaches because he has never qualified in the eyes of the modern world as a cockroach specialist. In other words, I sift testimony and accept it on reason.
I then accept these truths — truths which I cannot prove, as was Professor Eddingtonʹs statement about Einstein — and these truths become dogmas. There can thus be dogmas of religion as well as dogmas of science, and both of them can be revealed, the one by God, the other by man. Not only that — these fundamental dogmas, like the first principles [elements] of Euclid, can be used as raw material for thinking, and just as one scientific fact can be used as the basis of another, so one dogma can be used as the basis for another. But in order to begin thinking on a first dogma, one must be identified with it either in time or in principle.
The truth is divine; the heretic is human.
Right is right if nobody is right, and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong.
*All I can say is as a woman and an American, I am disgusted and embarrassed to see and read what these vile women ranted at this ‘March for Women’.
Which women was this march meant to empower and defend?
Certainly NOT THIS woman. IMHO, they were a disgrace to women everywhere.
They claimed to be speaking for ALL women?
In fact, any and ALL Pro-Life women were EXCLUDED from this so-called all-inclusive march for women.
And for what reason exactly were they marching??? the Unfair treatment of women?
Perhaps they would have been better served protesting at the Saudi embassy?
or Bill Clinton’s doorstep?
Also, from what I’ve read, over 50 of the groups associated with this ‘protest’ were affiliated and funded by George Soros.
I consider myself a true feminist and a free-thinker.
I refuse to be brainwashed by the media or follow the PC crowd like some mindless puppet.
I have respect for those who disagree with me. I know I’m not 100% right about everything. I value the opposing opinions of others and am open to learning, always.
I have many close friendships with some amazing women who strongly disagree with me politically. They are as passionate as I in their beliefs and I love that they are. I adore and respect them even more because they choose to see beyond what separates us and instead see what connects us. THAT’S true friendship.
I have ZERO respect for those women, those hypocrites who preach morality and wail and moan like screeching, self-righteous sirens calling Donald Trump a vile human being on Twitter while skulking around committing adultery and writing/posting photos of porn as poetry. Disgusting.
Yes, I’m judging you.
Put your money where your mouth, practice what you preach, or SHUT yer PieHole, Mata Horny.
Yes, I get upset too, just like you.
No, I don’t hate you, I just hate your hypocrisy.
To all women, EDUCATE yourself, as women, as human beings.
EDUCATE yourself and THINK for yourself. My mantra for myself and my daughters and my son.
I want to make certain that my children are able to live in a world where stupidity and fascism are not considered the norm.
I cannot sit idly by and not speak out when I see so much garbage being spewed.
It was all going so well.
Millions of women around the world proudly marching to protest about President Donald Trump.
‘End the hate!’ screamed the signs. ‘Love Trumps hate!’
They wore pink pussy hats, and the mood was one of celebration; a joyous gathering of the female gender to make a stand against a hateful man.
This, the March organizers constantly reminded us, was a PEACEFUL protest to prove that women don’t need VIOLENCE to make their point.
Then came Madonna, in her black pussy hat. And she just kept going lower
Then came Madonna, once the fresh, exciting Material Girl, now the bitter, cynical, ageing Vinegar Girl who can always be relied upon to sour anything she touches.
‘Welcome to the revolution of love!’ she shrieked as she took the stage in Washington.
She wore a black pussy hat and a top saying, ‘Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.’ (A quote first coined 30 years ago by feminist writer Marie Shear.)
‘Good did not win this election, but good will win in the end!’ she bellowed. ‘And to our detractors that insist this March will never add up to anything, F**K YOU.’
The crowd whooped, she smirked delightedly, and then repeated her audience-thrilling line: ‘F**K YOU!’
As they whooped even louder, she went even lower.
‘Yes, I’m angry. Yes, I’m outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot of blowing up the White House.’
Let me get this absolutely straight: Madonna, a multi-millionaire pop star with the means to finance any of her many warped desires, has thought ‘an awful lot’ about bombing the home of the President of the United States?
It’s a very serious criminal offence to make a bomb threat, let alone one to the life of the President.
If you, or I, were to say that in a public forum, then we would be almost certainly be arrested, charged and jailed.
Don’t believe me? Try tweeting a bomb threat or saying it as you board a plane. Even if you’re ‘joking’, you’ll be prosecuted.
The FBI is investigating the incident, but Madonna will get away with it. She always does.
How, though, does this disgusting comment sit with the theme of the Women’s March?
How does threatening to assassinate Donald Trump, and all his White House staff for that matter, play into the narrative of ‘End the hate!’ or ‘Love Trumps hate!’
In fact, it’s the complete opposite message. One that tells the world’s women the only way to stop a man you don’t agree with is by killing them.
In one short, disgraceful sentence, Madonna wrecked the Women’s March because she lifted the lid on the more repellent side of feminism: the vile, crude, man-hating, violent, nasty side.
Before I go further, let me self-identity as a feminist.
I love women and believe passionately in gender equality.
I support all women’s rights and have proven this point many times as an employer and promoter of women in the workplace.
But I can’t abide the feminazis, the radical, extreme feminists like Madonna.
Nor can I abide the likes of Kim Kardashian and Emily Ratajkowski when they hijack feminism to justify posting stupid, offensive bird-flipping topless selfies.
It’s about striving to be so good at what you do that your gender is irrelevant, then making sure you are rewarded in the same way as a man. That, surely, is true equality?
As new British Prime Minister Theresa May said yesterday when she was asked what anti-sexism message she would have for President Trump when they meet on Friday: ‘When I sit down, I think the biggest statement that will be made about the role of women is that I will be there as a female prime minister, talking directly to him about the interests we share.’
THAT is a strong, empowered woman.
Theresa May didn’t need to march for her rights as a woman; she let her ability do the talking by marching up the ladder of her profession so capably that she’s now the most powerful person in Britain.
As a result, she has put herself in a position to make the very decisions that will protect and further women’s rights.
Compare and contrast with what’s just happened in America.
Hillary Clinton lost the election because she wasn’t a very good candidate. Trump fought a more successful campaign.
There are many reasons why Hillary was so inept but one of them came from the mouth of one of her biggest supporters, Madeleine Albright.
Albright, too, had been Secretary of State.
During a speech to a group of young women in the primary stage of the US election two years ago, she urged them to vote Hillary by saying: ‘Just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.’
All Albright had to say, and should have said, was this: ‘I became secretary of state because I was the best candidate, not because I’m a woman. Hillary Clinton should be president because she’s the best candidate, not because she’s a woman.’
Instead, she confirmed many people’s suspicions that the main reason to vote Hillary was because she was a woman and would therefore be the first female president. A sentiment Hillary enthusiastically played up to by appearing on stage at the Democratic Convention to the backdrop of a glass ceiling breaking.
This didn’t just annoy men, it annoyed women.
Trump got 53% of the white female vote. In other words, significantly more white women in America voted for a man instead of the white woman candidate.
I wonder how many of the women marching in America yesterday actually bothered to even vote for Hillary?
It’s a bit late to stop Trump now he’s won. The time to protest was at the ballot box.
No, this March wasn’t about women’s rights.
At its core, it was about Trump-hating and resentment that he won and Hillary lost.
It’s perfectly democratic to march and protest. But it’s not so perfectly democratic to march and protest against the result of a free, democratic election just because the man won.
There’s also blatant hypocrisy at play too. If the sexual morals of a president are so important, where were the marches over Bill Clinton’s treatment of a young intern Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office?
And when it comes to the high moral bar, why was Madonna allowed to offer ‘free blowjobs to anyone who votes Hillary’ without censure from the sisterhood?
Or, if coarse sexual language is so taboo, to tell President Trump to ‘suck a d**k’ on Saturday?
Madonna wasn’t the only celebrity to embarrass herself –
Actress Ashley Judd read out a young poet’s attack on Trump, branding him the Devil and Hitler, mocking his hair and complexion, and cracking a crude ‘wet dreams infused with your own dreams’ incest joke about him and his daughter Ivanka.
Trump may deserve such ridicule for his inappropriate remarks about women.
But where’s the feminism in mocking a hard-working, talented young mother-of-three in this way, just because her father became President?
‘I’m a nasty woman,’ chanted Judd at the end of her address.
Yep, you can say that again.
Madonna wasn’t the only celebrity to embarrass herself during the March.
This March turned from a defense of Women’s Rights into a celebration of Women’s Wrongs – a procession of high profile female celebrities just spewing bile.
When I tweeted my criticism of it, I myself was promptly bombarded by with the most appalling foul-mouthed abuse and death threats by women from all over the world.
I’m big enough, and as they gleefully pointed out, ugly enough, to handle it.
But this wasn’t feminism.
This was nasty women being nasty, whipped into a man-hating frenzy by some very nasty women on a stage.
Love was Trumped by hate and bomb threats.
Ladies, I love you. But if you let the nasty women win, you lose.
(concerning the ‘pu$$y’ comment and the reason for their Pink Pu$$y Hats and the Pu$$y HYSTERIA… )
…All, of course, as their pink-hatted heads attested, were offended that Trump is an old-fashioned guy who is open (and, indeed, vulgar) about his sexual passion for women. I mean, it’s bad enough that he’s unapologetically cis-gendered. It’s worse that he actually talks about sex in a “guy” way.
I should note here that I am in complete accord with the Canadian vlogger who, having watched the entire Billy Bush videotape, concluded that Trump did not boast about mauling women but, instead, made an admittedly vulgar, but otherwise non-specific, and probably completely accurate, wisecrack about what rich men can theoretically can away with. Aside from getting baited into somewhat vulgar badinage in a guys’ locker room kind of way, his behavior was impeccable.
*Do I find that kind of talk/banter offensive?
Yes! Very much so, it’s appalling and disrespectful,
but do I believe it makes someone
a rapist or a misogynistic monster?
No, that’s ridiculous.
ACTIONS speak LOUDER than WORDS… remember that catchy little phrase?
I would point to someone like Joe Biden. This is a career politician, butter melts in his mouth and, in countless videos he is GROPING CHILDREN and women.
This PERVERT gropes and tries to fondle and kiss ANY female he can get his grubby, sleazy lips and hands on.
I have seen ZERO women’s marches protesting him or protesting Bill Clinton’s deplorable treatment of women.
Because the majority of these women’s marchers are puppets brainwashed by the MSM.
They HATE Donald Trump and Conservatism, bottom line
and their ‘Women’s March’ doesn’t give a DAMN about women mistreated by LIBERAL politicians
THAT is the ULTIMATE in hypocrisy.
End of Story
A Spiritual and Artistic Pilgrimage Around the Globe
This is the only time I feel alive
You can't break up with a soul mate
Take chances, make mistakes. That's how you grow. Pain nourishes your courage. You have to fail in order to practice being brave. - Mary Tyler Moore
novel (n.): 1. a fictitious prose narrative of considerable length and complexity, portraying characters and usually presenting a sequential organization of action and scenes. 2. (adj.) of a new kind; different from anything seen or known before
Its not what you look like or whom you like but who you are and what you do that makes you beautiful in another persons eyes ...
Remnants from the Realm of Dissociation
a girl living in the wrong century who loves reading, writing and all things book-ish
Dating from a gentleman's point of view in Philadelphia. Stories from his life and those around him.
Simple made easy! psychology love feeling emotion thought behaviour success strategy
If you want to impress me, undress your heart.
My thoughts are my solace.
by: John Feaster
Otherwise the night is too dark
Lols, Urban Art, Clothes & Accessories
helpful writer ramblings from a disturbed mind just like yours
A blog by author S. A. Healey ~ For readers, writers, and notorious romantics
Journeys from the fax
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=from%3A%40Beezknez%20exclude%3Amentions Poetry Thoughts Stories Photo's Art (copyright by MyFreeCopyright.com
Just my thoughts, Just my opinions in conversationalTone @WordPress.com weblog
Catholicism without compromise
Writings from mind and heart