Barr, Baldwin, Keyes to speak at immigration rally

RightMarch.com announces that Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, and Alan Keyes will all be speaking at a rally against illegal immigration that will take place in Denver on the first day of the Democratic convention.

The Democratic convention is August 25-28. In addition to the rally, RightMarch’s Bill Greene promises “more protests, pickets, counter-protests, media blitzes, and more the rest of the week.”

52 Responses to “Barr, Baldwin, Keyes to speak at immigration rally”

  1. svf Says:

    I don’t see how Barr has anything to gain by sharing the stage with these guys…....

  2. Taft Says:

    Umm, maybe, like, press, and stuff?

  3. Impeach Bush Says:

    I guess we could see a third party presidential debate result from this.

  4. Comment on RM's ineffectiveness Says:

    I comment on how RM will probably be ineffective - and how they could be much more effective - at my name’s link. If Barr is going to be there they might get a little more attention, however. Barr has been able to fool a lot of people about his position on this issue, and that will probably continue.

  5. John Lowell Says:

    Just checking, but will Barr be speaking on his views concerning abortion?

  6. Raymond Says:

    Bladwin- Right-wing nut job
    Keyes- Right-wing nut job
    Barr- Right-wing nut job who stole the libertarian party and is trying to make it into the new republican party so him and his friends Alan and Chuck can all be in the same party.

    The only real libertarian running is Charles Jay. If you surport liberty, freedom and smaller goverment vote Jay in 2008.

    www.CJ08.com www.BostonTea.us

  7. Adam Says:

    Hey, Raymond, STFU.

  8. Joseph Marzullo Says:

    Ray, you’re a moron.

  9. Bill Wood Says:

    John Lowell, with your interest in abortion I thought you might enjoy this website. It talks about what the Bible says about abortion. Eh….

    http://ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php

  10. John Lowell Says:

    Now there I’ve gone and made you feel uncomfortable about abortion, haven’t I, Bill. Have one in your past? Paid for one perhaps? Was it one that you “struggled” over. They’re the only one’s that have merit, as I understand it, the ones that you “struggle” over.

    So you know, Bill, my views on abortion are the product of the 2000 year intellectual history of the Catholic Church, its understanding of the moral questions involved and what it means to be a human being. The questions go to a level

  11. Red Phillips Says:

    The ffrf screed is even called a non-tract. How cute and clever.

    Will the anti-religious fetishists never grow tired of their blasphemy?

  12. John Lowell Says:

    Continued ….

    that are quite beyond the imaginings of some scurrilous cut and paste hate-site like the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Is this all you have to bring in the teeth of the literally thousands of scholarly articles on the subject by some of the finest minds the Western world has ever produced? You name the discipline, son, philosophy, theology, anthropology, psychology, biology, and you’ll just be embarrassing yourself if you want to get into a tangle with these folks. Let me suggest something to you: Grow past this religion hating coming of age ritual in which you seem so suspended, spend 30 years or so in genuine scholarship on the questions involved and maybe we’ll talk.

  13. GoNolzOhio Says:

    John,

    Your incessant carping on abortion has to stop. How am I supposed to bang hot divorced women every friday if I am constantly worried about whether or not they are going to get pregnant and thus put me on the hook for child support payments? I need my fail-safe or else sex will become totally meaningless to me.

  14. timothy west Says:

    I don’t want freedom from religion - I want freedom from everyone elses religion.

  15. D Kennedy Says:

    I want freedom from hearing/watching Keyes run in every damned election he can fit into.

  16. Don X Says:

    Raymond is exactly right, Barr should be ashamed of himself for participating in this and the LP should be ashamed to have him.

  17. Stefan Says:

    Aaron Russo campaigned on the same platform re. immigration as Bob Barr, and possibly Gary Nolan as well. You can find a youtube interview with Russo as LP candidate with fox in 1994 in which he says both Bush and Kerry are the same with regard to their immigration policies (amnesty).

  18. Stefan Says:

    Hey Raymond, so any candidate you do not agree with stole his/her election, while those you agree with would won their nomination fairly and squarely by the majority of the delegates. WOW somehow that sounds very classic liberal, e.g. allow for different opinions… not. You just exposed yourself as highly inconsistent and undemocratic, or democratic only when it fits your views.

  19. Stefan Says:

    Interesting find on the website.
    http://www.rightmarch.com/pac
    They are proposing Ron Paul as VP candidate.

  20. Clark Says:

    LOWELL SPEAKETH: “You name the discipline, son, philosophy, theology, anthropology, psychology, biology, and you’ll just be embarrassing yourself if you want to get into a tangle with these folks.” (end)

    ...yes lowell, catholics have always been some real fucking geniuses…(btw, when/if you find even one who can honestly explain the origin, nature etc. of ‘a dollar’..you will alert me?..)

    (..oh and btw, if/when you money dummie$ think about it, you may conclude that what is at the root$ of “the immigration issue” are worries over ‘money’—lower wage$, higher taxation, etc…and seeing’s how most/all you republicrat bonehead$ are worse than clueless as to ‘money’—your fucking opinions about ‘immigration’ are worse than worthless..at the root$..but do continue to work the gobs..what amu$ement!) ;o)

    http://evolution.mbdojo.com/conflict.html

    “The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved.”
    -Psalms 104:5

    The bible verse shackled the minds of men for thousands of years, and held back the advance of science. It was this verse that was used as evidence against Galileo, who argued for the theory of Copernicus, that the earth is not immovable, but rotates around the sun. It was for teaching this that he was called to Rome in 1633, and tried for the crime of heresy. The aged Galileo, in his 70’s, was taken down into the dungeons of the church and shown the instruments of torture that were going to be used on him if he did not recant. Fearing the torture, and fearing that he might share the fate of Giordano Bruno, whom the church burned at the stake a generation earlier for the same crime, Galileo recanted the truth. He was confined to his home under house arrest, neither allowed to leave or to receive visitors, for the last seven years of his life.

    “But to affirm that the Sun is really fixed in the center of the heavens and that the Earth revolves very swiftly around the Sun is a dangerous thing, not only irritating the theologians and philosophers, but injuring our holy faith and making the sacred scriptures false.” (Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church and the foremost Vatican theologian of the seventeeth century.)

    “Facts which at first sight seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which had hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty.” (Galileo)

    “Freedom of belief is pernicious. It is nothing but the freedom to be wrong.” (Cardinal Bellarmine)

    “The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both psychologically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith.” (Formal Church declaration in its indictment of Galileo)

    To which Galileo replied:

    “The doctrine of the movements of the earth and the fixity of the sun is condemned on the ground that the Scriptures speak in many places of the sun moving and the earth standing still… I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and demonstrations.”

    “To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.” (Cardinal Bellarmine, during the trial of Galileo, 1615)

    “One Galileo in two thousand years is enough.” (Pope Pius XII)

    “Because I have been enjoined, by this Holy Office, to abandon the false opinion that the Sun is the center and immovable, ...I abjure, curse, and detest the said errors and heresies…contrary to the said Holy Church.” (Galileo Galilei, recanting under threat of torture and death by the Holy Church, June 22, 1633)

    It wasn’t until 1832 that Galileo’s work was removed from the list of banned books that Catholics were forbidden to read. 200 years after the trial… and well after Sir Isaac Newton established the truth of the theory!

    Pope Pius IX wrote, in the 1864 Syllabus of Errors, that “Divine revelation is perfect and, therefore, it is not subject to continual and indefinite progress in order to correspond with the progress of human reason…. No man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he believes to be true, guided by the light of reason… The church has the power to define dogmatically the religion of the Catholic Church to be the only true religion…It is necessary even in the present day that the Catholic religion shall be held as the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship… The civil liberty of every mode of worship, and full power given to all of openly and publically manifesting their opinions and their ideas conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people… The Roman Pontiff cannot and ought not to reconcile himself or agree with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.”

    In 1992, Pope John Paul II (reluctantly) formally apologized for the persucution of Galileo. I for one think that we should not let the church forget their crimes, lest they be repeated. If the Church still had the power of sword and firebrand, and the power to cross national borders at will, I believe that they would even now return to their policy of world conquest through threat, torture and murder.

  21. John Lowell Says:

    Clark,

    Exactly what purpose does raising this bromide have for you anyway, Clark? Does it permit you to avoid having to come to terms with some moral question you’d otherwise confront. That’s how its usually employed in the imagined sophistication of the college dorm room atheism. You know, the “I-can’t-believe-in-God-and-be-a-better-human-being-because-of-what-the-Church-did-1000-years-ago” horse padukus. I mean if you’re looking for some way to avoid spiritual development and you’re shielding yourself behind the imagined superiority of unaided reason, please consider what purely reason-based processes have brought us - Nagasaki, Hiroshima and Cyclon-B to name just a few. They make the Galileo business look like a walk in the park. We’ve taken secular power from the Church alright and we’ve given it to reptiles like Hitler, Stalin, Obama and McCain. I mean, please, can we recover the older injustices in some kind of trade? I’m game.

  22. Red Phillips Says:

    The Bible nowhere says that the Sun revolves around the Earth. That is a canard. By the relative standard of those on the earth, it is entirely true that the Earth can not be moved. That verse you refer to in Psalms does not say what you imply.

  23. Impeach Bush Says:

    Lowell, this rally is about immigration. Why would you ask so stupid of a question as if Barr would be addressing his views on abortion at this event?

  24. Stefan Says:

    Clark: The Bible is not a scientific handbook and should not be read as such. If you look at Pascal, who played a fundamental role in logic and mathematics and logical reasoning, Leibnitz and many many others, you will find they are were all Christian, some perhaps not in the orthodox way, but still believers. Religion constitutute your value system, and you make decisions according to values.

    Lowell: Is it not time to adress your issue to Barr himself, instead of asking every time, whether in context or not about what must be a very personal issue to Barr.
    When one want to explain Barr’s position, you quickly react by trying to debunk the reason (e.g. his ex-wife very sick, feared for her life etc.). What makes you such an expert on his personal life in the past, that you would know better than all of us? Barr has various times stated that he is still pro-life, e.g. has not changed his view on the issue.

  25. John Lowell Says:

    Impeach Bush,

    “Lowell, this rally is about immigration. Why would you ask so stupid of a question as if Barr would be addressing his views on abortion at this event?”

    There are three answer’s to this query:

    1. If the question is so “stupid”, one is compelled to ask why is it that are you inquiring about it? You’ve somehow come to enjoy striking up conversations with people that ask “stupid” questions? What does that say about how you’re managing your life, young man?

    Striking the “stupid” part, then, we move on:

    2. Well, we were just “checking” on Bob, actually, Impeach Bush. There’s are a lot of homeless pro-life voters out there at the moment and they’re looking for a place to come to rest. Bob is a possibility for them, he claims he’s pro-life, but there are some unanswered questions about whether Bob signed a check paying for an abortion his ex-wife had several years ago. They wondered if Bob was pro-life only when it came to other people or whether he was pro-life for everybody, so I though Bob might be in a position at the rally to tells us precisely whose abortions he opposed.

    3. Because I’m good-looking.

  26. Citizens For A Better Veterans Home[s] Says:

    Don X IS NOT Donald Raymond Lake, altho he might be Donald Duck!

    Hey John Lowell and Ohio Guy, how did the Copernicius and Gallileo thing work out for the Bishop of Roma?

    Divorcee chaser, if you are serious bout Birf Control, try a Vasectomy. My PRE MARITIAL in office visit is still holding up [HOLDING IN ????] after three decades. If men are serious bout birth control…...

  27. John Lowell Says:

    My friend, Stefan,

    “Lowell: Is it not time to adress your issue to Barr himself, instead of asking every time, whether in context or not about what must be a very personal issue to Barr.”

    Haven’t we covered this ground already and just recently, Stefan? Didn’t I just tell you that I tried to raise this question with Bob at his blog but when I did the liberty enthusuiasts running the site censored me out. The whole thing had the feeling of one’s being on Tiananmen Square in 1989. Funny how that nasty totalitarian impulse knows no single ideology, huh?

    “When one want to explain Barr’s position, you quickly react by trying to debunk the reason”

    When “reasons” are offered that amount to nothing more than rank speculation and have no factual basis in the former Mrs. Barr’s sworn statements, they deserve to be debunked, Stefan. You may want to think of that before offering them again.

    “Barr has various times stated that he is still pro-life, e.g. has not changed his view on the issue.”

    The question would more seem to be for whom is Barr pro-life, Stefan, everyone but Bob Barr, or simply everyone?

  28. Impeach Bush Says:

    Lowell, this isn’t the proper conversation to bring up abortion. Your response didn’t even address what I had to say. I was simply stating that the rally is about immigration, so he obviously will not be addressing any other issues, let alone abortion. Who cares if he paid for his wife’s abortion, or if he even performed it himself? He should be able to do with his money as he pleases, without anyone else knowing and caring for that matter. The pro life/pro choice debate should not be brought up in politics. It should come down to personal decision and morals.

  29. Susan Hogarth Says:

    I want to see our candidates speak to every audience that will listen. And these right-wing nutjobs (sorry, ‘good conservatives’) sure need to hear the Libertarian message more than most folks.

    Unfortunately, I suspect our candidate will be carrying coals to Newcastle with this group, rather than sharing any enlightenment with them.

    I think it’s interesting that Shane Cory’s boss is attending an anti-immigration event given by a group called ‘RightMarch’, but Cory refused to even consider having an LP speaker at an ANSWER anti-war rally when he was in a position to send one.

  30. Red Phillips Says:

    “The pro life/pro choice debate should not be brought up in politics. It should come down to personal decision and morals.”

    Well Impeach Bush, that would be the crux of the debate, would it not?

  31. John Lowell Says:

    Impeach Bush,

    Its the “proper conversation” to bring up if I say it is, young man. And as to who cares whether Bob Barr paid for his former wife’s abortion, I care, be absolutely clear on that. Try considering me the Simon Weisenthal of the pro-life movement and you’ll have something of the right flavor to things. I don’t consider even one of these murders as lacking in significance; every one of them is just frought with meaning. And as to what should or should not be brought up in politics, I typically don’t seek out the viewpoint of those like you with little more than a sociopath’s grip on right and wrong. No murder is someone’s private affair, it effects us all. You really need to wipe all of that “should” off your tie, chief. You’re carrying a bad odor.

  32. Impeach Bush Says:

    I hope you are doing this as a comical act, because I actually laughed when I read your post. After reading your comment about being the Simon Weisenthal of the pro life movement, I am starting to think you are just fucking with people.

  33. Impeach Bush Says:

    Oh, and Red, my entire point is the fact that abortion should not be brought up in these types of situations, and left as a personal/moral issue.

  34. G.E. Says:

    I agree that the Bible and Christianity condones/endorses abortion just like it condones/endorses slavery.

    Here is a secular and logical argument against the barbaric practice:

    http://files.meetup.com/504095/Ron%20Paul-Abortion%20and%20Liberty.pdf

  35. Red Phillips Says:

    “I agree that the Bible and Christianity condones/endorses abortion”

    The Bible does not condone or endorse abortion. That is absurd. The verse regarding a miscarriage reflects that it happened as an accident. The lower punishment was to match the intent of the perpetrator.

    The Bible arguably condemns sex without the possibility of procreation. (Onan.) It is silly to say that it endorses or condones the killing of the natural outcome of that act. So per the Bible, it is OK to kill the unwanted product of sex so we can all have recreational consequence free sex, but it wasn’t OK for Onan to pull out? How on earth do you figure that?

  36. Red Phillips Says:

    Impeach Bush, that it shouldn’t be brought up in threads on immigration is one matter, but whether it should be left as a purely personal issue is the sum total of the debate. You are simply asserting one side of that debate, the “pro-choice” side.

  37. John Lowell Says:

    Impeach Bush,

    Yeah, considering the history of the last hour or so, after typing my most recent post, I simply couldn’t shake the preoccupation with how you might react to what I’d said. I just kept repeating over and over to myself, almost ritually, “What will Impeach Bush’s reaction to these remarks be, principally the one about Simon Weisenthal? Will he laugh?” This latter seemed of particularly moment, since I’d so awfully wanted your approval and was just petrified of being mocked. But now look at what’s happened.

  38. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    Simon Weisenthal was personally involved. He lost his entire family to the horrors of the holocaust.

    And you, John Lowell, have the gall to compare yourself to him?

    What did you lose? Did a former girlfriend have an abortion because you weren’t up to her standards of fatherhood? Or maybe your daughter had one? Or more than one?

    Come back to earth, Mr. Lowell. You ain’t Simon Weisenthal. You ain’t even close.

    Shalom
    Steve

  39. Bill Wood Says:

    So John Lowell, I thought you would find interest in the website I directed you to, instead you would preferr to turn your attention away from passages in the Bible and preferr to question rather I have had an abortion. I guess you use something other than the Bible for your beliefs. Yes the “Church” has a long and interesting history and I am happy for you that you have such a devoted belief in your church. I hope you are careful that your faith in your Church does not over shadow your faith in God.

  40. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    Susan Hogarth Says:
    August 7th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

    I want to see our candidates speak to every audience that will listen. And these right-wing nutjobs (sorry, ‘good conservatives’) sure need to hear the Libertarian message more than most folks.

    Unfortunately, I suspect our candidate will be carrying coals to Newcastle with this group, rather than sharing any enlightenment with them.

    Undoubtedly you are correct.

    How does a Libertarian get invited to an anti-immigrant rally? IMHO, only by repudiating the LP platform and the LP principles.

    We can only hope that Mr. Barr does enlighten the right-wing nutjobs (lots of left wingers are anti-immigrant, too). I won’t hold my breath that he’ll do that.

    I’d hate to see the down ticket candidates distancing themselves from Mr. Barr.

    PEACE
    Steve

  41. John Lowell Says:

    Linnabary,

    Oh, aren’t I just absolutely outrageous, Linnabary? Why I’ll bet it makes you so mad you could just spit, huh? I mean here I am, never forgetting the justice claim of every single child ever murdered by some abortuary assassin, and there was Weisenthal never forgetting the similar claim of every Jew murdered by the Nazis. He was dogged in that respect and so am I, even if that shared trait makes you feel uneasy. Do I give you a clear enough picture now of what I think of your contrived standard? Not much.

  42. John Lowell Says:

    Bill Wood,

    Tettering on the edge of distortion to characterize what I said to you above as making the Church into an object of faith, are you Bill? I think so. Here’s the comment I made:

    “So you know, Bill, my views on abortion are the product of the 2000 year intellectual history of the Catholic Church, its understanding of the moral questions involved and what it means to be a human being.”

    Anything here about making the Church a faith object in the way one might God? Or have I spoken only about my views and what produced them. That is not to say that, as a Catholic, I’d want to downplay in any way the importance I place on the theological and interpretive traditions of the Church, both the product of Her very considerable reflection over the ages. I regard them, together with Holy Scripture, as absolutely essential to my faith.

  43. K D Tunstall Says:

    Please, please you anarchist nut jobs…...the Boston tea party awaits.

  44. Larry Breazeale,Msgt.(ret.)USAF Says:

    On the issue of “illegal immigration”.....Chuck Baldwin will shut down any and all else, who will be there, including the clowns Keyes, and “potato-head” Barr None. When you actually hear what Chuck will do about the borders, if elected president, it makes you feel proud to be an American even MORE! Keep on, keep it on Chuck!

    -Larry Breazeale, Msgt.(ret.) USAF
    NAtional Veterans Coalition…www.nvets.org

  45. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” GoNolzOhio Says:

    August 6th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
    John,

    Your incessant carping on abortion has to stop. How am I supposed to bang hot divorced women every friday if I am constantly worried about whether or not they are going to get pregnant and thus put me on the hook for child support payments? I need my fail-safe or else sex will become totally meaningless to me.”

    Response : Meaningless sex for a meaningless person.

  46. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” Clark,

    Exactly what purpose does raising this bromide have for you anyway, Clark? Does it permit you to avoid having to come to terms with some moral question you’d otherwise confront. That’s how its usually employed in the imagined sophistication of the college dorm room atheism.”

    Response : The ” college dorm room atheist ” will rattle on about the glories of evolution and the mistakes of the church while being totally unable ( as with all of his fellow religious believers ) to admit the impossibility of how even one self-replicating cell with nucleus, DNA, and cell membrane could have come into existence via the typical atheist insanity of adding water, dirt, and time and letting it all sit to produce something out of nothing. Unfortunately this same thought process leads to the daily excrement produced by blue pill lovers like Clark, etc. and to the typical political dialogue of our day which is based upon the fantasy that the religion of evolution is true.

  47. Stefan Says:

    John Lowell: you seem to have already formed an opinion on Barr on the abortion issue, so why ask him a question where you profess to already have the answer?
    Also: you have to look at the heading of the thread. I have seen you raising the abortion question on Barr’s site on a thread item totally unrelated to the issue timelessly, just like you are doing here tirelessly. Does it make sense to post on issue B where the issue/topic is something else (topic A)?

  48. Stefan Says:

    I think the themes of the site and rally is not anti-immigration, but anti illegal immigration. There is a HUGE difference between the two. Whether they are for restriction in legal immigration, I am not sure. One can be for open borders and against illegal immigration at the same time, depending on how you define open borders.

  49. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    The LP position USED to be that we would legalize it (immigration).

    The LP has never wavered in the belief that people and ideas should be allowed to traverse arbitrary lines without impediment.

    No, I don’t see a huge difference between the two, except that one has received a “special right” from a corrupt regime.

    PEACE
    Steve

  50. John Lowell Says:

    Stefan,

    Au contraire, Stefan, my friend. It is quite the point that we are unsure of the truth here. We don’t know with certainty if Barr signed a check paying for his wife’s abortion, although one is alleged to exist, and we have made that clear from the outset. Our difficulty - and Larry King’s it would seem - is that Barr refuses to deny having signed such a check when the opportunity to do so has presented itself to him. He’s quite prepared to insist that he never “encouraged” his wife to have this abortion, he did that in his sworn statement, but he’s never denied having signed a check paying for it. The whole thing comes off as rather weaselly, much like Clinton’s, “it all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”. Given the fact that he is now and has been in the past a candidate for public office and, as a candidate, has held himself out as “pro-life”, the public has a right to know whether he signed such a check. If he has, he’s formally complicit morally in his ex-wife act and, in a word, is a 24 carat phony. And as to whether it makes sense to post this question, ask yourself, did it make sense for you to inquire if it made sense for me to post this question.

  51. Clark Says:

    lowell and grungman,

    ...firstly, i profess no ‘atheism’..’my philosophy’ is truly unique…as are yours, btw..and this is/could be a beautiful thing..(btw, if forced, i would identify as ‘agnostic’..maybe ‘it’ is not for you to ‘know’..ever think about that, geniuses?) ;o)

    ..yes, you two ?wannabee jesuit ‘scholars’ may be more versed in ‘the fraud of the books of judas and magdalene,’ etceterot ad goddamned nauseam..

    ...but somehow methinks if ‘it’ is for me to ‘know,’ ‘it’ will be revealed to me…in other words, i won’t get ‘it’ from, for example, a couple of ?catholic ‘christian’ know-it-alls who can’t even remember what they stuffed down their chutes for lunch last wednesday yet somehow ‘know’ what happened thousands of years before their births!..

    ...and similarly btw, whom i STRONGLY suspect organize their lives around the acquisition, management, etc. of $ome ‘thing’ about which they ‘know’ much less than even what happened thousands of years ago and/or what they scarfed for wednesday’s lunch!..

    ...but do have a good day… ;o)

  52. John Lowell Says:

    Clark,

    “...but somehow methinks if ‘it’ is for me to ‘know,’ ‘it’ will be revealed to me…in other words, i won’t get ‘it’ from, for example, a couple of ?catholic ‘christian’ know-it-alls …”

    Just for openers, Clark, lets get the adjective right. It a couple of good-looking ?catholic ‘christian’ know it alls. I mean, really.

    “...but somehow methinks if ‘it’ is for me to ‘know,’ ‘it’ will be revealed to me.”

    You are absolutely right about this, Clark. One is not to be convinced of these things as to his mind alone but as to his person. And that requires revelation. God, Himself, would need to disclose these things to you. And nothing unusual here, believe me, it happens all the time. But it does require a certain openness on the part of the recipient. God’s not likely to force Himself on you. Best way to manifest that openness is prayer, in your case a simple request to whomever it might be out there to explain the meaning of this or that. Stay alert and in, say, thirty days, see if your prayer hasn’t been answered.

    Just don’t forget that its “good-looking” Catholic next time. :-)

Leave a Reply