GABRIEL'S CLARION (dec10gab.htm)
December 10, 2005
vol 16, no. 314
The Tip of the Viceberg
Part Seven

The New Roe

Godless courts and the devil's courtesans and court-jesters are creating a new society that shies away from standing up for Christ and His little ones, selling out in order not to offend the offenders!

    In a follow-up of the first installment of this series, Gabriel exposes the real agenda of satan's minions. It is a fact there has been a backlash against the evil one, but not enough. Even though Roe v. Wade is showing signs of breaking the dam and spilling into oblivion, the enemy is desperately countering to fill up the dikes by using the courts to sue for any reason. What price justice? Who cares, tie 'em up in the legal system and drive them insane. We may say it's only a matter of time, but the more we wait, the more we must keep an eye out for their modus operandi because there definitely is an "I" in "DEVIL." For This is imminent in internally infiltrating institutions to increase insurrection and incite the index of indecency, self-indulgence, and independence from God, and then indict the God-fearing through the inquisition of insidious insinuations by incompetent idiots who instill and increase the integration of indifferentism on those inundated by the innuendo of inequality and intolerance. This only induces iniquity and inoculates it in the inanity of irrationality inciting the incubus into more illusions that are very real in hell!

      "More and more, these vermin are entering through holes carved by their own cohorts already inside groups previously committed to some degree of ethics, integrity, and conscience. They insidiously plan and concoct SINister plans and then sob like innocent victims of cosmic injustice. Their stories and absurd tales are no more believable than if I told you that Hillary Clinton was taking a job at low pay for a traditional Catholic organization and would be shocked if they fired her for the twenty or more reasons they would have to do so. The devil's stories would not be accepted by any responsible fiction writer, for their believability is only reasonable in the depths of hell. The devil's fiction is bad fiction, but the perdition it promotes is all too real!"

    It is a well documented fact that Roe v. Wade was an orchestrated concoction of pro-abortion forces to create federal protection of abortion. The original plaintiff Jane Roe (as in 'John Doe' for a male) was, in fact, Norma McCorvey and was a puppet for the pro-abortion forces. Realizing this, she has since become strongly pro-life and discussed in detail how she was manipulated and used by pro-abortion attorneys and others to bring this issue to The Supreme Court. Sadly, we have seen the cost in millions of innocent lives of this SINister strategy but, perhaps more tragically, this kind of despicable strategy is far from over.

The New Fertile Ground

    Having orchestrated and triggered the entire Roe affair, the forces of evil have now set their sights on a related but much more extensive ground. It is clear that the plan now is to infiltrate as many Catholic and quasi-Christian institutions as possible and then wait for the certain firings and other labor issues that will arise simply to turn around and sue on discrimination and other grounds. Of course, this attack will often require that its agents lie about their past at times or twist truth, but such deception should not be too difficult for people such as Planned Murderhood who have been known to send agents into pregnancy crisis centers armed with false complaints designed to sue such places into extinction. Little by little, the plan is to weaken and dismember Catholic and Christian institutions from within, painting them as intolerant havens of injustice and restraint of rights and the supposedly innocent, sobbing, and often female victims as martyrs of that intolerance. The most recent and clearest examples of this strategy can be found in the Catholic school firings of teachers in Sacramento and New York, where one was terminated for past volunteer work escorting women to have abortions and the other was fired for being pregnant and single. Although I never saw the Sacramento teacher's act for the liberal California press, the New York teacher sobbed until her head fell off and nearly collapsed in shock and confusion. After all, how could a Catholic school fire someone for being unmarried and pregnant??? Certainly either an Academy Award or The Idiot of The Year Award is in order!

Sacramento Case...Connect the Dots

    The teacher fired in California for her past Planned Parenthood volunteer work, as described in my column The House of Loretto is a House of Cards is a Marie Bain, who has been an active and militant Pro-abortion defender. She has even written an article defending abortion and attacking those who criticize it. This is not some innocent saint who one day decided to escort a poor woman into the biggest mistake of her life. It is clear that Bain was very strongly and publicly in support of abortion. Many of her defending students claim that they did not even know she supported abortion, but it is foolish or na´ve to believe that her advocacy of abortion did not taint her contact with students in some way. After all, don't all of these pro-choice fools argue over and over that Pro-life judges will usually allow their personal views to taint their work? If this is so, why is the same rationale not applicable to pro-abortion teachers? Do pro-abortion types have some super-human ability to keep their private views out of their work? These liberals cannot have it both ways. Either one's personal views impact on one's work or they don't. If they do, then Bain's pro-abortion stance must have impacted on her teaching in a Catholic school. If they don't, then why accuse pro-life jurists of precisely that? The thinking here is that Bain sought employment in precisely this school and precisely this area because the school is run by already liberal, dissident nuns as described in my earlier piece on this situation, and the area is part of California and the Ninth Circuit...enough said on that issue. She lied to the administrators regarding her past and/or they did not care, so getting in was easier than it should have been. Since the moral cowardice of many 'Catholic' leaders has already resulted in weak, lukewarm, blurred documents including employment contracts, the legal ground was left vulnerable for such suits and fertile for sinister efforts.

    John M. Poswall, Bain's attorney, is a famous and successful personal injury attorney and author who has volunteered and participated in many women's rights forums, discussions, and organizations. He has served as President of The Board of Directors of WEAVE, or Women Escaping a Violent Environment, has been rumored to be a contributor to Planned Parenthood, has defended a lesbian professor's right to present a graphic lecture on female masturbation, and often defends and advocates teachers and academic freedom cases. Lastly, there is a photo of him both on the internet and in one of his books showing him shirtless, wearing a hippie wig, a three-point American flag bandana, Howard Stern-glasses, wearing an actual American flag as a cape and sporting a curse phrase against then President Nixon. Again, this is not some neutral soldier of truth without an agenda! Most ironically, he has fought for some women to obtain breast cancer treatments from a reluctant HMO despite the fact that in this case he is fighting for a woman promoting abortion which leads to breast cancer!

    It does not take a genius to see Roe-like ingredients in this whole case. The simple question is why would an ardent supporter of abortion rights want to work in a school run by a doctrine that is completely against her beliefs? The last time I checked public school teachers make more than Catholic school teachers, unless the Catholic school teacher can get a nice lawsuit and promote her views to boot!

The Lawyer's Foolish Arguments

    In Bain's complaint, Poswall makes some idiotic arguments in support of his client.

       First, he claims that the school is creating a "Taliban-style institution of thought control and repression" through its policies that contradict academic freedom. Under Poswall's line of reasoning, the NEA and The Democratic Party are also Taliban-style institutions since they regularly repress opposition and practice thought control! He calls the family who originally complained about Bain's activities "noisy fundamentalists". Given his own personal protest photo and likely activities, I am sure Mr. Poswall has been a lot more "noisy" in his own protest past than this family ever was. At least the family never walked around shirtless with a curse phrase against the school administrators!

       Second, he argues that Bain has been the target of sexual discrimination because her beliefs and actions related to women's reproductive rights and the school sought to make "an example of her as a woman to other young women". The stupidity of this claim belies the prominence of this lawyer. The school did not fire Bain because she was a woman or because what she was doing involved women, but because what she did contradicted Catholic doctrine. Had she been a man volunteering at a clinic helping men father children out of wedlock she would have been fired just the same, so her sex or sex of the clients of her place of volunteering is completely irrelevant! This is like saying that if an older person is fired for helping an organization of elderly Marxists he can sue for age discrimination given his age and the age of the members of the organization! Last time I checked, one must be fired due to one's gender to have such a claim.

       Third, Poswall argues that the school knew Bain was not Catholic and has her own"personal beliefs" and yet still hired her. This does not answer the question of whether or not Bain lied about such past activities or beliefs when seeking employment. It also does not answer the question if just because one has personal beliefs, does that allow one to openly and publicly express those views if they defy and contradict the principles of the private organization one works for. Many courts have ruled that private organizations have the right to retain as leaders only those people who either promote or at least respect the organization's principles. Openly supporting abortion and helping people obtain abortions hardly seems very private to me.

       Fourth, Bain has accused the complaining family of turning personal issues into public and political issues yet that is precisely what she is doing by her actions. Every indication is that turning this whole affair into a public forum for personal political and social agendas is exactly what Bain and her attorney are doing.

Logical Absurdity

    Suppose that I told you that someone who had publicly supported and even written in favor of racism on his own time sought employment in The NAACP and was shocked upon being fired when that public support was discovered. Would The NAACP be accused of being intolerant, unfair, insensitive, or overstepping their rights for firing someone who contradicted their philosophy on his own private time in the past?

    Now suppose that someone openly and publicly supported protests against sodomite rights in writing and actions. Now further suppose that this person sought employment for lower pay in a sodomite rights organization. Finally suppose that this person's past so-called private/public beliefs become known by the sodomite advocacy group. How long would it take said group to fire the individual and the individual to be demonized by the media?

    Does so-called private belief become public when one openly supports such belief and even writes in favor of it? One would reasonably think so. If an employee openly defies and contradicts an employer, does not that employer have the right to fire the employee or risk completely losing its credibility? Also, suppose a white person or heterosexual person seeks employment with an African-American or sodomite advocacy group. Does the fact that said person is white or heterosexual therefore mean that the group cannot expect that person to either respect or at least not openly defy and attack the group's views? Imagine a white or heterosexual person defending his racist or anti-sodomite actions by stating that the African-American or sodomite advocacy employer should have known that, since he was not black or sodomite, he therefore had the right to openly and publicly bash the principles of the group!

    Is this not the exact same idiotic claim being made by Bain and her attorney? Are they not saying that, since she is not Catholic, the Catholic school had no right to expect her to at least not publicly defy Catholic principles? Are they not also saying that it is wrong for a private group to fire someone who openly and publicly defies and mocks that group's principles? Are they not themselves violating the so-called principles of separation of church and state by applying public, state standards to private, religious organizations?

    Finally, who in this world is going to buy the notion that a racist would seek employment in a racial equality organization for lower pay, that a war supporter would ever seek employment in a pacifist group for lower pay, that someone disgusted by disabled people would ever seek employment in an organization defending and promoting the rights of the disabled, all for lower pay? What is the motivation? Is it some profound desire to see the light or become more open-minded? Let us get real and call the devil's work for what it is when we see it right under our noses!


    If we have learned anything about the minions of the devil of late, it is their ability and strategy to first infiltrate an organization, then defy and mock its principles, then seek to distort, deform, and ultimately deface that organization into some morphed mutant of the original. They have done this through employment, the courts, and even social forces. They did this in Roe, the public schools, the public arena, the media, forms of entertainment, and, over the past 40 years in The Catholic Church by rationalizing doctrines into ambiguous pick-and-choose what you like, and don't sweat the rest. Believe me, one had better start sweating the rest for God has to be pretty fed up by now what they have done not only to His Church, but what has been allowed to visit the millions upon millions of innocent victims both born in their formative years of education, and unborn before they ever had a chance to even breathe fresh air. Somebody has to account for that and they can better believe God will call in His marks and He will not be lenient with those who were not lenient to His lesser ones.

    More and more, these vermin are entering through holes carved by their own cohorts already inside groups previously committed to some degree of ethics, integrity, and conscience. They insidiously plan and concoct SINister plans and then sob like innocent victims of cosmic injustice. Their stories and absurd tales are no more believable than if I told you that Hillary Clinton was taking a job at low pay for a traditional Catholic organization and would be shocked if they fired her for the twenty or more reasons they would have to do so. The devil's stories would not be accepted by any responsible fiction writer, for their believability is only reasonable in the depths of hell. The devil's fiction is bad fiction, but the perdition it promotes is all too real!

Gabriel Garnica

Editor's Note: Heaven is once again under attack by those who would seek to ignore and overthrow God's majesty and authority. Gabriel Garnica, educator and attorney, submits regular insights and commentaries to remind and help guide readers toward a deeper and more assertive faith. Touching on topics and issues ranging from personal faith, doctrine, education, scripture, the media, family life, morality, and values, Gabriel's notes are music to traditional ears but unpleasant tones to those who have bought into the misguided notions so prevalent and spreading in today's Catholic world.

    Gabriel's Clarion
    December 10, 2005
    Volume 16, no. 314