Just another Catholic mom

Nine Forms of Participation in Sin – ‘Gay’ Identity Version

by Lisa Graas on April 23, 2014


Daniel Mattson encourages us to shout from the mountaintops about sexual identity. I thought it a good idea to write about the nine forms of participation in sin, “gay” identity version. A lot of folks arguing for “gay rights” have said to me that they do not believe their movement is requiring Christians to sin. Clearly, they do not understand that participation in sin is itself sinful, and that there are many forms of participation in sin. Below are examples of sin in the context of sexual identity (CCC 2333) and Catholic blogging because so many continue to slip in this area. As you read this, remember that although you may not agree with this, it is something I am bound to by conscience as a Catholic who obeys the catechism to the best of her ability.

Source: Modern Catholic Dictionary: Sharing in Guilt.

1. Counsel: Advising someone to do something, particularly if you are in any position of authority over them.

Example: Encouraging a person experiencing same-sex attraction to embrace that as a sexual identity is a sin. A Catholic blogger, whom we can assume is not invincibly ignorant, who suggests that “gay” is a valid sexual identity in his writings on his blog is committing this sin.

(Note: Pope Francis has used “gay” as an identity frequently, but since he has only spoken the word, and not written it, we don’t know if he is using it as I do, in quotes. He also asks us to pray for him. I suggest we add this intention.)

2. Command: Ordering someone to do something, particularly if you are in any position of authority over them.

Example: An editor of a Catholic team blog who commands his writers to accept “gay” as a valid sexual identity is committing a sin.

3. Consent: Agreeing to do something as an act of free will.

Example: The writers on the blog given in the example in #2 above who agree to fulfill the command commit sin.

4. Provocation: Doing anything at all (including choosing to be silent) that would stir another to commit sin.

Example: Nodding in approval at someone who is arguing that “gay” is a valid sexual identity is a sin.

5. Praise or flattery: False praise.

Example: To compliment a Catholic blogger for writing that “gay” is a valid sexual identity, even if you don’t really mean it, is a sin. (UPDATE: I did this once, but it was in the middle of a Bipolar episode and I was not thinking clearly.)

6. Concealment: Hiding something that should not be hidden.

Example: To intentionally fail to point out to a fellow Catholic, who is inquiring specifically about sexual identity that “gay” is not considered by the Church to be a valid identity is a sin. This applies only, of course, if you are aware of Church teaching on this.

7. Active partnership: Committing an action, transient or otherwise, in support of something.

Example: To speak in support of the use of “gay” as a sexual identity, even if you only do it once, is a sin.

8. Silence: A choice not to communicate something.

Example: To consciously and resolutely decide never to defend Church teaching on sexual identity is a sin.

9. Defense: Defending evil as though it is a good.

Example: Defending a person’s choice to use “gay” as an identity is a sin.

As you have probably figured out by now, a lot of people are sinning already. That doesn’t mean it’s okay, and it doesn’t mean I will. It’s really easy to find out what the Church teaches about things. Because it is so easy, it is also easy for people to see Catholics failing to follow the catechism and thereby not understanding why they should care in the slightest about what the Church says. If you think you are impressing them with your nods of approval, remember how easy it is for them to simply look in the catechism online and know that you’re not following the program. We live in the internet age. We can use it to spread truth or let it become more and more like the Tower of Babel. I made my choice about that long ago. I do hope my fellow Catholic bloggers catch up to this soon. One can’t be “pastoral” on a great many things when it’s so easy to just look up what the Church says in the catechism. If it’s optional for you, then they have no reason to believe it is not also optional for them.

Daniel Mattson: ‘Shout from the Mountaintops’ Church Teaching on Sexual Identity

by Lisa Graas on April 23, 2014


Daniel Mattson at Letters to Christopher, a member and speaker for the Vatican-approved Courage apostolate, asks us to “shout it from the mountaintops.” My blog is but a wee hill, but I frequently shout it from here. In time, word will get out.

As Christians, we must reject the fashions of this passing age and instead grasp the truth of who man is, and communicate that to a world turned upside down. We need to be transformed by the renewing of our mind to embrace the form, not the unreality of the alphabet soup of sexual identities–and then share that liberation with the world.

When we choose a sexual identity other than being male or female, we have become cultural lemmings, jumping off the cliff of a passing fashion. St. Paul’s writes in 1 Corinthians 7:31, “the fashion of the world is soon to pass away.” Chrysostom adds that “all these things, even before they come to light, are dissolving.” The cliff the world is standing on is already crumbling under our feet. Who will point the way to safety, if not the Church?

Amen. No one is “gay.”  Read the whole thing.


‘Gay Rights’ Attorneys Make Public Statement Asking For What They Shall Never Have

by Lisa Graas on April 23, 2014

These people have law degrees?

These people have law degrees?

At Real Clear Politics, “gay rights” attorneys have issued what they call “A Public Statement” wherein they ask for something they can never have: a country that is “free” enough that everyone has the “right” to be convinced to abandon their religion and accept “gay marriage.” That’s right.

Primarily, they mention the forced resignation of Brendan Eich from Mozilla. They ask, in regard to Eich:

Is opposition to same-sex marriage by itself, expressed in a political campaign, beyond the pale of tolerable discourse in a free society?

They go on to state what is obvious to me, a faithful Catholic.

We cannot wish away the objections of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faith traditions, or browbeat them into submission. 

I’m glad you acknowledge this! But wait. Though they acknowledge that they cannot “wish away” religious objections, or “browbeat” us into “submission,” they engage in a ridiculous level of wishful thinking in pretending that they can persuade us all to abandon our faith.

Even in our constitutional system, persuasion is a minority’s first and best strategy. It has served us well and we should not be done with it.

What happens when persuasion fails? What is your plan if you cannot convince every Christian, every Jew, and every Muslim to reject his religion? What is your game plan for this? Oh, I know. You only want to persuade a majority of us and throw the rest of us in jail, right? What a plan.

They are, at least, beginning to see the reality that they peddle a recipe for intolerance.

Much of the rhetoric that emerged in the wake of the Eich incident showed a worrisome turn toward intolerance and puritanism among some supporters of gay equality—not in terms of formal legal sanction, to be sure, but in terms of abandonment of the core liberal values of debate and diversity.

Here in Kentucky, we might say that these activists referred to above “showed their butts,” but we don’t mean that like a “gay rights” activist might mean it. To “show your butt” in Kentucky is to let evil thoughts that you are usually able to suppress come spewing out of you, as in “Grandma caught Johnny eating out of the butter bowl and she really showed her butt!”

Gay rights” activists show their butts frequently, in the Kentucky sense. This is why I know that if they don’t lose, America will be in the sewer. They are not about “diversity.” They are about getting their way. That these attorneys continue to believe that they can persuade people like me to reject my Lord and Savior and even to commit sin, just to stop them from harassing people is testimony to their cluelessness. I don’t play that.

They pretend to be about “tolerance” and “diversity” but they really do not know how tolerance and diversity are supposed to work in America. They threw that out when they threw out our Natural Law foundation.

Sustaining a liberal society demands a culture that welcomes robust debate, vigorous political advocacy, and a decent respect for differing opinions. People must be allowed to be wrong in order to continually test what is right. We should criticize opposing views, not punish or suppress them.

There is no “respect for differing opinions” in pretending that people like me will give up our religion “some day” if you just speak to us politely. Duh. These people have law degrees?

I grow weary of people trying to sell unicorns. “Gay marriage” is a CONTRADICTION of core Catholic teaching. Even the “gay” identity is a contradiction of core Catholic teaching. I will not go to hell for you. Period. I don’t need a law degree to know that these attorneys are sorely mistaken about actual Constitutional protection for the freedom of religion. I paid attention in my eighth grade civics class. That was enough for me to know that in America, we have the freedom to be Catholic outside the Church walls.

I recommend these attorneys read “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” particularly the part about what a just law is.




Rick Santorum and Patriot Voices PAC Announce Endorsements in Four Key U.S. Senate Races

by Lisa Graas on April 22, 2014


Verona, PA – Former Republican presidential candidate, former U.S. Senator and current Chairman of Patriot Voices Rick Santorum announced today that Patriot Voices PAC has endorsed candidates in four key U.S. Senate races. The endorsements are:

  • Arkansas: Congressman Tom Cotton
  • Colorado: Congressman Cory Gardner
  • Michigan: Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land
  • Montana: Congressman Steve Daines

“I am pleased to announce our support of these fine conservatives. In 2014, we have an historic opportunity to win back the Senate, and these four candidates put us on the right path for that achievement. I look forward to supporting them in the weeks and months ahead,” said Rick Santorum.

Below Senator Santorum issues support for each individual candidate.

On Congressman Tom Cotton (Arkansas):
Senator Santorum said, “I am pleased to announce our endorsement of Tom Cotton for U.S. Senate in Arkansas. Tom’s service to our country both in the military and in the U.S. House is exemplary, and his leadership is much needed in the U.S. Senate. His commitment to fighting ObamaCare and getting our economy back on track gives him the edge in this race, and he gives Republicans a real shot at winning this seat.”

On Congressman Cory Gardner (Colorado):
Senator Santorum said, “Congressman Cory Gardner is in a tough but winnable fight for U.S. Senate. Patriot Voices PAC and I are glad to do our part to help him get over the top in this critical election to win back this U.S. Senate seat. Cory has shown a solid, conservative backbone in both the Colorado House and U.S. House, and he will bring that same fortitude to the U.S. Senate.”

On Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land (Michigan):
Senator Santorum said, “I am pleased to support a proven conservative like Terri Lynn Land for the U.S. Senate. Secretary Land has an illustrious history of public service in local and statewide elected positions. Her record as Secretary of State has been exceptional — setting new election victory records, breaking ground in taxpayer awareness, charting new frontiers in service technology and receiving large margins of victory in her statewide elections. Committed to repealing ObamaCare and strengthening manufacturing in Michigan, Terri Lynn Land is the right choice in the Republican primary.”

On Congressman Steve Daines (Montana):
Senator Santorum said, “Patriot Voices PAC and I are excited about the prospect of having Steve Daines in the Senate as part of a freshman class that has the potential to completely change the chamber’s political balance of power. A businessman with deep Montana roots, Steve Daines was elected to serve in Congress in 2012, and he gives Republicans an excellent opportunity at picking up a Democrat seat.”

Visit Patriot Voices.

WaPo Editors Acknowledge Slippery Slope No Fallacy, But Say It Doesn’t Matter

by Lisa Graas on April 22, 2014


Washington Post editors have published a curious article about adult stem cell research. For the record, I agree with the editors that there is nothing wrong, in principle, with replacing the nucleus of a human egg with the nucleus of an adult cell in order to generate tissue that will help to heal people. What I find baffling is that they see a “slippery slope” in that “rogue scientists” might use this procedure for cloning people, and further that they believe we can live with human cloning if that happens, for the sake of the healing potential.

That is where they lose me.

It’s not often that you hear people who are okay with certain frontal attacks on human dignity to admit that there even is such a thing as a “slippery slope.” One wonders where they find the reasoning to admit this. We Catholics know it best from the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church.

Here’s a typical example of an explanation that “slippery slope” is a fallacy, from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The form of a slippery slope fallacy looks like this:

A leads to B.

B leads to C.

C leads to D.

Z leads to HELL.

We don’t want to go to HELL.

So, don’t take that first step A.

This is not actually the “slippery slope” argument at all. The true “slippery slope” argument is more along the lines of this:

A is a sin that brings negative consequences either here or when you are judged.

Sin changes your attitude about things. If you will accept A, then you will be more likely to also accept the similar, but even worse sin “B” which brings even harsher consequences.

An example is that if you commit to never telling any lie, you will develop a habit of honesty. If you tell one lie, you are more likely to tell a second, even bigger, lie.

If you are going to employ someone to guard your gold, you would be less likely to hire someone who has just been released from jail for stealing a television set, unless he has spent some time proving that he has reformed his life, right? Well, maybe not if you’re a liberal since they were taught in college that “slippery slope” is a fallacy.

It’s refreshing to see a liberal newspaper acknowledge that there is such a thing as “slippery slope.” It’s disturbing to see they’re fine with accepting the negative consequences of such a thing, provided that some good is done.

There actually is not a slippery slope, as far as I can tell, in the type of procedure described by the editors because it is not a sin to replace the nucleus of an egg with the nucleus of an adult cell. How the eggs are harvested may be a different matter. For instance, if they are harvested from the remains of aborted female babies, that is not okay.

Zac Alstin of the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute in South Australia, explains the slippery slope in the context of “gay marriage” and attacks on Rick Santorum in this regard.

There is nothing, in principle, to stop us from arbitrarily allowing same-sex marriage but rejecting polygamy. There is nothing to stop us from arbitrarily restricting euthanasia to very narrow circumstances, if we so choose. The problem is that as our sense of ‘normal’ shifts over time, we may find ourselves wanting to shift those arbitrary boundaries. The only solution is to calibrate our sense of ‘normal’ by non-arbitrary principles, reasons that will not shift.

And so it is that only an objective truth can stop the shift toward things that we may find unacceptable today. Sooner or later, an objective truth has to be defended against what godless liberals like to call “progress.” Unfortunately, this usually does not occur unless a lot of good people stand up and object based on belief in that objective truth. As a people, we can slide into the abyss, or put a stop to it. The only thing that will stop it is clinging to principle.

Pro-Life Action League Protests Abortion Party at Illinois’ Top Family Venue

by Lisa Graas on April 21, 2014


CHICAGO, April 21, 2014 /On Wednesday, April 23, 2014, the entrance to Navy Pier will be the site of a protest of those who use their civic and business stature to promote abortion. Meanwhile, the Grand Ballroom at Illinois’ top family attraction will host a fundraiser for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion chain. The Pro-Life Action League’s protest will confront Billionaire Susan Pritzker, former NBC Chicago reporter Renee Ferguson, Saturday Night Live cast member Cecily Strong and all Planned Parenthood’s guests with the truth about abortion.

Eric Scheidler, Executive Director of the Pro-Life Action League, explained the focus of the gathering outside of the abortion party. “As pro-life advocates we are here to ask one question of the honorary co-chair of Planned Parenthood’s gala, Susan Pritzker, and all those giving money to the abortion giant,” he said. “Why not put your money to work offering real help to families in need, rather than supporting an organization that will charge them $500 each to abort their children?”

What: A Pro-Life protest of Planned Parenthood’s Generations Gala

When: Wednesday, April 23, 2014, at 5 p.m. (Central)

Where: Chicago’s Navy Pier, beginning at Illinois Street, one block east of Lake Shore Drive, Chicago Map:

Who: Pro-Life Action League and concerned citizens

What: Protest to bring attention to the profit-driven abortion industry’s disregard for the well-being and safety of women and children

Why: Americans who value the sanctity of human life wish to confront Planned Parenthood’s well-heeled donors with the grisly reality of exactly what they’re supporting. The protest message will point to the truth about abortion.

“It’s ironic that Planned Parenthood, which aborts more than 900 children every single day, is coming to Navy Pier right between the ‘Pictures with the Bunny’ and a Radio Disney event,” offered Scheidler. “As one of Chicago’s premier family entertainment venues, Navy Pier might wish to rethink scheduling this shameful organization for future events.”

Mitch McConnell: Obamacare Is No Success Story

by Lisa Graas on April 21, 2014

mcconnellThe following is an op-ed from Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky). I whole-heartedly endorse Mitch McConnell for re-election to the United States Senate here in Kentucky.

April 21, 2014 - President Obama and his liberal allies in Washington and in the media are patting themselves on the back for a so-called “successful” implementation of Obamacare. But many Kentucky families and small business owners I’ve heard from know better.

The truth is that tens of thousands of Kentuckians from Paducah to Pikeville received cancellation letters for the health care plans they had—despite the president’s promise that they could keep them. Many are being forced to pay higher premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs often for a plan that offers less access to hospitals and their favorite doctor.

And now we learn that, under Obamacare, a large number of prisoners are being enrolled in Medicaid as they leave jails and prisons—potentially taking resources away from the women, children, and disabled for whom the Medicaid program was created in the first place.

One small-business owner from Paducah contacted me to say that the small group health care plan she offers her employees will not be renewed because it does not meet the requirements of Obamacare. She goes on to say, “I was also informed that all of my employees will be notified of the cancellation, [which] will affect morale and productivity of our workers…this reform is and will continue to be the downfall of our economy.”

Another constituent of mine from Pikeville wrote: “I received a letter a few days ago from my insurance company. The letter said that my employer plan did not meet the standards set by the Affordable Care Act, which I took as meaning it doesn’t contain a lot of the…add-ons set by that ridiculous piece of legislation.”

Finally, I heard from another woman in central Kentucky about the costs associated with her Obamacare plan. She said, “I am on three medications. Two years ago the copay was $60 for each one. Now, my medications are costing me a little over $700 a month…our health insurance was $92 every two weeks, and now it is $160 every two weeks. These so-called ‘free’ services aren’t free—somebody has to pay for them!”

She is absolutely right. A recent analysis by the financial services company Morgan Stanley found that premium rates in Kentucky have increased by 29 percent on the individual market and 30 percent on the small group market this year relative to 2013. These rate increases put Kentucky in the top 10 for highest increases amongst all 50 states—increases due to Obamacare.

These findings are consistent with other estimates conducted across the country and in Kentucky, showing that Obamacare is forcing Americans and Kentuckians to pay more for health care out of their own pockets.

Finally, there is the shocking news that jails across America, including here in Kentucky, recently began signing up exiting inmates for Medicaid thanks to Obamacare. It’s estimated that about one-third of people going in or out of prisons and jails will qualify for expanded Medicaid under Obamacare.

This is yet another disturbing aspect of the disastrous law that is Obamacare. Kentucky’s Medicaid program is stretched thin already. Even before Obamacare, the state auditor’s office reported Kentucky faced a shortage of 3,700 doctors needed to treat the low-income women, children, and disabled the program was originally created to help. Given this shortage, it is hard to imagine how adding thousands of released prisoners to the Medicaid rolls won’t further exacerbate the challenges Kentuckians have in finding doctors they need.

And when federal support inevitably shrinks in the future, Kentucky taxpayers will be forced to continue this expanded Medicaid coverage for those who have cycled in and out of the criminal justice system, diverting taxpayer resources away from schools, roads, and public safety services that citizens want and need.

All of these troubling aspects of Obamacare—the canceled plans, the higher premiums, and the added burden on Medicaid—are proof that the law is far from a success. In fact, Obamacare has proved to be a failure for the millions of Americans who are seeing rising costs, reduced access, and lower quality of care. It’s not too late for both parties in Washington to come together, repeal Obamacare, and replace it with common-sense reforms that will actually help the thousands of Kentuckians who contact my office about this outrageous law.

Are Christians in America Persecuted?

by Lisa Graas on April 21, 2014

Can barbarians be lovable?

Can barbarians be lovable?

Are Christians in America persecuted? People have various definitions of what “persecution” is. Some people argue that because Christians are not being murdered outright, they are not being persecuted, but persecution is not limited to murder. Persecution comes in stages. Other, lesser forms of persecution always precede persecution by murder. It’s important to recognize these stages, and all levels of persecution should be called out for what they are.

At the Archdiocese of Washington blog by Msgr. Charles Pope, we find an article on the five stages of persecution which Msgr. Pope acknowledges he was reminded of in a speech by Johnette Benkovic of EWTN’s Women of Grace.

The first stage of persecution is stereotyping or, as the protestant minister Maynard James calls it, “finger-pointing.” I would guess that at least 50% or more of conversations I have with proponents of Obama’s HHS mandate eventually, often quickly, claim that all Catholic priests are pedophiles. I’ve also been subjected to the other claims mentioned by Msgr. Pope. That is persecution, so I have personally been subjected to persecution there.

The second stage of persecution is vilifying. Maynard James places this is the third stage. Vilifying occurs when a Christian is referred to as “homophobic” or accused of hatred of children, or hatred of sex, or is accused of “judging” people simply by professing Christian belief. That is persecution that I have personally been subjected to countless times.

The third stage of persecution is marginalizing. Maynard James places this as the second stage. Marginalizing occurs when Christians are told they have no business being involved in social institutions. An example of this is when the Ten Commandments are removed from schools and are replaced by the passing out of condoms and the offering of abortion referrals.  When Christian school teachers are not allowed to pray in front of students and when parents are not allowed to object to liberal sex education programs, that is persecution. I have personally been subjected to this as a parent. That is marginalization which is persecution.

The fourth stage of persecution is criminalization. Maynard James agrees that this is the fourth stage. Criminalization occurs when it becomes a crime to seek to do God’s will. The HHS mandate is an example of the criminalization of Christianity. Though some may disagree that it is against God’s will to provide abortion and contraception, it is clear that those who object to this are objecting because they seek to act in accordance with their understanding of God’s will. Hence, the HHS mandate criminalizes seeking God’s will.

The fifth stage of persecution is referred to by Msgr. Pope as “persecuting the targeted group outright.” Maynard James calls this, I think rightly, “terrorizing.” Some of our bishops in America have been subjected to this. The attacks on Archbishop Nienstedt, which I have blogged about here, are an example. This form of persecution is even more egregious in Canada and Europe, as Msgr. Pope points out.

If a majority of people approve of the first four stages, then the final stage becomes easy to carry out. Many, it seems, make the mistake of believing that Americans today are somehow better people than the German people who stood by as the Holocaust was perpetrated, or that they are better people than the Canadians and Europeans who are more openly hostile to Christianity. A barbarian doesn’t realize that he is a barbarian, and he will likely take offense at being called a barbarian. We are entering the fifth stage of persecution in America. Have we become barbarians? If only a minority stand up and object, then yes, Americans have become barbarians. The jury is still out. I pray Americans prove they are not barbarians.


Does a Child Have a Right to a Mom and Dad?

by Lisa Graas on April 21, 2014


Jesus with His Mother Mary and adoptive father, St. Joseph.

It is really sad to see conversations in our public discourse, like this one between Ralph Reed and Cokie Roberts, where it is not assumed as a given that children have a right to a mom and a dad. It is not assumed as a given that it is a tragedy when children do not have a mom and a dad. We have stooped very low in America when this right of children to a mom and a dad is not only denied, but is argued as being non-existent.

There are several problems in leftist thinking that run against the recognition of basic human rights. One is a failure to recognize that the existence of tragedy in someone’s life is not evidence that a basic right does not exist. For example, that rape occurs does not negate the right of a child conceived in that rape to not be ripped from the womb. That wife-beating occurs does not negate the right of women to submit to their husbands in a marriage. That some parents fail to treat their children well does not negate the right of the child to a mom and a dad. The child conceived in rape has an inalienable right to life. A wife has an inalienable right to submit to her husband’s decisions. A child has an inalienable right to a mom and a dad.

Another problem is that there is a broad lack of understanding in where our rights come from. Our rights do not come from the state. They come from God. Because they do not come from the state, and because our government is limited, there are many rights that are not listed in the Constitution. Anyone who disputes that our rights come from God is disputing the basis for freedom that America was founded on. “They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” is a phrase in our Declaration of Independence which expresses where our rights actually come from.  God has decided what our rights are. Most rights are not listed in the Constitution.

The 10th amendment says that any rights not listed in the Constitution are left to the states or to the people, so the Constitution itself recognizes that not all rights are listed in it. The right of a child to a mom and a dad is among those rights not listed in the Constitution. Catholics would say that a child has a right to be reared in the Catholic Faith. This is not something we believe should be forced by government upon every child, but because we recognize it as a right, it is tyranny for the government to force us to put our children in the public school of the government’s choice. In like manner, it is tyranny for the government to force our adoption agencies to place children with same-sex couples.

A government made up of people who do not believe that our rights are inalienable and are defined by God, and who believe that our rights come from government, is a government that has set itself up as God over us. How often it is that I hear people demand that I justify my religion in political discourse. An Amish man does not have to convince me that his religion is true in order for me to respect his right to use the state highway in his buggy. A Mormon does not have to convince me that his religion is true in order for me to be okay with the Mormon church owning shopping centers. A Jew does not have to convince me that his religion is true in order for me to respect his support for the State of Israel as a Jewish state. Any movement that does not respect freedom of religion is a bigoted movement.

If we cannot do what we believe God wants us to do, because the government has ordered otherwise, we live in tyranny. On the subject of children having a right to a mom and a dad, I would invite anyone to spend one week in family court and think about what life would be like for children if judges do not assume that they are better off having a relationship with both parents. If a judge assumes a child is better off being in foster care with “parents” who agree with the state which has set itself up as a godless majority, than to be with his/her own parents who disagree with that godless majority, it is a tragedy beyond measure.


REVIEW – Dreams From My Real Father: A Story of Reds and Deception

by Lisa Graas on April 21, 2014

dreams_from_my_real_fatherTonight, I watched Dreams From My Real Father: A Story of Reds and Deception, a documentary by Joel Gilbert on the life of Barack Obama based on both facts and speculation. Of course, all documentaries include at least some speculation, but this one relies heavily enough on speculation that it is doubtful that many fans of the president will be convinced. Still, I think it could serve as entertainment for anyone who is convinced that the facts known about Barack Obama indicate that he and his wife Michelle Obama are radical Marxists.

The film gives reasonable, though not undeniable, evidence that Frank Marshall Davis is both the biological and ideological father of President Obama. Fans of the president will be offended by speculation about Barack Obama’s mother’s relationship with Frank Marshall Davis, as well as evidence that she allowed him to take pornographic pictures of her and that she intentionally got pregnant as an act of revenge against her father, a CIA agent who was tracking Davis as part of his job to monitor Communist activity in Hawaii.

Barack Obama’s relationships with the Weather Underground, the Saudi Government, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and others are discussed in details that are partly known fact and partly speculation. Unfortunately, Gilbert does not specify which parts are speculation and which parts have been credibly established. The audience is left to sort that out for themselves.

I would give the film one star if you are a fan of Barack Obama. I give it three stars if you believe he is a Marxist, already have a basic understanding of known facts, and are interested in the entertainment value. I give it five stars if you’re a conspiracy theorist who will believe anything negative that is reported about the president.