John Wayne Films For the Fourth of July

Thursday, June 30, AD 2016


This Fourth of July long weekend is made for a trip down American history courtesy of John Wayne films.  Wayne was an American original.  Thirty seven years after his death, in the annual Harris poll of favorite actors, he ranks number four overall, and number one among men voting.  In his day he was never shy about declaring his love of country, and he did so when patriotism was fashionable and when it was unfashionable.  An American icon, the deathbed convert to the Catholic Church is a symbol of this nation, instantly recognizable around the globe.  Here are some of his films set in the history of this land.





  1. Allegheny Uprising (1939)-The film tells the true story of the Black Boys Rebellion against the British in 1765, with Wayne portraying James Smith the leader of this proto-American Revolution.




2.  The Fighting Kentuckian (1949)-John Wayne costars with Oliver Hardy, yeah, that Oliver Hardy, in a tale of veterans of the War of 1812 helping French settlers battle land swindlers in Alabama.   Very loosely based on actual events.  In one scene Wayne explains that his family never had money due to his father’s health being ruined after he spent a winter at a place called Valley Forge.






3.  The Alamo (1960)-The epic story of the battle for Texan Independence.  Wayne’s love note to America and freedom.








4.  The Barbarian and the Geisha (1958)-One of the more successful American diplomats of the Nineteenth Century, Townsend Harris, a native of New York City, became wealthy in the China trade in the early part of the century.  He then turned to public service, serving as the President of the New York City Board of Education from 1846-1848.  He founded the Free Academy of the City of New York, later renamed as the City College of New York, in order to provide college educations to low income people in New York.

In July 1856, Franklin Pierce named him the first American consul general to the Empire of Japan.  He opened the first American consulate in Japan in the city of Shimoda.  Overcoming enormous difficulties, in two years he negotiated what has become known as the Harris Treaty, which established full diplomatic and trade relations between Japan and the US.

On the hundredth anniversary of the treaty in 1958, John Wayne, in one of the oddest films of his career, starred as Townsend Harris in the film The Barbarian and the Geisha.  Few men could have been more unlike John Wayne than Harris, and Wayne appears uncomfortable in the role of the diplomat to me.  The film played up an alleged romance between Harris and Okichi, a 17 year old housekeeper, which has long been a tale told in Japan.  Unfortunately, this aspect of the story is untrue.  Harris fired Okichi after she worked for him for three days due to the fact that he considered her to be an incompetent housekeeper.  However, the look of the film is splendid, even if the film is the usual Hollywood mix of lies and half-truths.




5.  The Horse Soldiers (1959)-In 1959 John Ford and John Wayne, in the last of their “cavalry collaborations”, made The Horse Soldiers, a film based on Harold Sinclair’s novel of the same name published in 1956, which is a wonderful fictionalized account of Grierson’s Raid.

Perhaps the most daring and successful Union cavaly raid of the war, Colonel Benjamin Grierson, a former music teacher and band leader from Jacksonville, Illinois, who, after being bitten by a horse at a young age, hated horses, led from April 17-May 2, 1863 1700 Illinois and Iowa troopers through 600 miles of Confederate territory from southern Tennessee to the Union held Baton Rouge in Louisiana.  Grierson and his men ripped up railroads, burned Confederate supplies and tied down many times their number of Confederate troops and succeeded in giving Grant a valuable diversion as he began his movement against Vicksburg.

John Wayne gives a fine, if surly, performance as Colonel Marlowe, the leader of the Union cavalry brigade.  William Holden as a Union surgeon serves as a foil for Wayne.  Constance Towers, as a captured Southern belle, supplies the obligatory Hollywood love interest.

Overall the film isn’t a bad treatment of the raid, and the period.  I especially appreciated two scenes.  John Wayne refers to his pre-war activities as “Before this present insanity” and Constance Towers gives the following impassioned speech:

Well, you Yankees and your holy principle about savin’ the Union. You’re plunderin’ pirates that’s what. Well, you think there’s no Confederate army where you’re goin’. You think our boys are asleep down here. Well, they’ll catch up to you and they’ll cut you to pieces you, you nameless, fatherless scum. I wish I could be there to see it.

Both scenes ring home with authenticity.  Not a bad effort from the usual history manglers of Hollywood.(Although there are still errors enough, including Union soldiers worrying about being captured and sent to Andersonville prior to the POW camp being constructed by the Confederates in 1864.)




6.  The Searchers (1956)-Set in Reconstruction Texas, John Wayne gives the performance of his career as embittered Confederate veteran Ethan Edwards and his vengeance ride against Comanches who slaughtered his family.








7.  True Grit (1969)-Set in Reconstruction Arkansas, True Grit is the only film for which Wayne won an Oscar.  An accomplished actor, Wayne throughout his career made it all look so easy that he was always badly underestimated.  In this film, a skillful mixture of comedy and drama, Wayne was able to give life to Rooster Cogburn, one of the great literary creations of the last century.







8.  Rio Grande (1950)-The final installment in Ford and Wayne’s cavalry trilogy was picked for inclusion due to the above rendition of Down by the Glenside.  The song of course would not be written until 1916, but any viewer with a drop of Irish blood will forgive the historical anachronism.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to John Wayne Films For the Fourth of July

  • The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is one of my all time favorites…..nuanced and full of symbolism….a true work of art.

  • I would also like to cite ‘Fort Apache’ and ‘She Wore a Yellow Ribbon,’ both spectacular films about the American cavalry in which Wayne gives home run performances, especially in the latter. The scene where he says good-bye to his men is a standing rebuke to anyone who doubts his acting chops.

    One of my favorite bits in ‘Yellow Ribbon’ comes when one of the cavalry officers is killed in an Indian raid and Wayne has one of the camp ladies sew a Confederate Flag for the ex-rebel to be buried under; a glorious moment of honor among soldiers.

  • The actor who portrayed Trooper “Smith”, erstwhile Confederate general, Rudy Bowman, was a friend of Director Ford. He had a throat injury from a shrapnel wound during World War I which made speaking very difficult for him and which made this scene a major achievement for the actor:

  • I was unaware of the Allegheny Uprising movie or the story it is loosely based on. It turns out that much of the original story took place in central Pennsylvania. Western Pennsylvania was, in the mid 18th century, claimed by Virginia. Colonel Bouquet led his troops on the Forbes Road, the predecessor of today’s US 30, to take Fort Duquesne, as the previous attempts led by Generals Braddock and Washington were unsuccessful. There were no significant settlements in the Allegheny Valley at that time. George Washington owned land very close to my house.

    Another movie that is an entertaining period piece is Unconquered, with Gary Cooper and Paulette Goddard. See for more.

  • Unconquered is one of my favorites PF!

  • Mr. McClarey, it’s one of my favorite old movies, too. It is entirely fictional, and Gary Cooper’s character covers more territory on foot than a dozen UPS truck drivers would today. I love the part of the film where Ben Franklin argues with the Virginia contingent over who owns Pittsburgh. Still, it’s a better movie than what Hollywood usually produces today.

Clinton E-Mail Depositions: Bryan Pagliano

Thursday, June 30, AD 2016


When it comes to the Clintons the normal rules that apply to the rest of us apparently do not apply to them.  For example, in a FOIA act lawsuit brought over the Clinton e-mails by Judicial Watch, a conservative group, Hillary Clinton’s chief of state Cheryl Mills was deposed and her deposition was videotaped.  Prior to Mills’ deposition, her lawyers requested that it not be released to the public, so it could not be used against Clinton for partisan political purposes.  In a bizarre ruling, Judge Emmet Sullivan agreed that the video of the depositions could not be released to the public, but that transcripts of the depositions could be released.  He then, sua sponte ( by the court’s unilateral action) made this decision applicable to all depositions taken in the case.

Legal suits, in most cases, are public matters.  The public normally has a right to access to the materials of such a lawsuit, absent matters that a court finds to be subject to some sort of legal privilege.  There is no legal privilege protecting materials in a lawsuit from being used for political purposes.

Fortunately Phelim McAleer, an independent filmmaker, is dramatizing the depositions.  Only the text of the depositions is used in the films.  McAleer is used to telling the stories the news media tries to ignore for political reasons.  He has just finished filming on a movie about abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who he describes as the most prolific serial killer in American history.  He is kickstarting his project to dramatize the Clinton e-mail depositons.  Go here if you wish to contribute.  I did.

The above video is the deposition of Bryan Pagliano, Clinton’s tech guru at the State Department who set up Clinton’s private e-mail server.  During his 80 minute deposition he took the Fifth Amendment 312 times. Go here to view the video of the deposition of Chery Mills. Go here to view the deposition of Stephen Mull.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Clinton E-Mail Depositions: Bryan Pagliano

PopeWatch: One Pope

Thursday, June 30, AD 2016



The Pope gave another inflight interview on his flight back from Armenia, and it is a doozy.  We will be examining it piece by piece this week.  Go here to read the text of the interview.


Today we look at the Pope’s response to the question of whether there is two popes:




Elisbetta Piqué, La Nacion: Congratulations for the trip, first of all. We wanted to ask you: we know that you are the Pope and Pope Benedict, the Pope Emeritus, is also there, but lately some statements from the prefect of the pontifical household, Monsignor Georg Gaenswein, have come down, who suggested that there is a shared Petrine ministry, if I’m not mistaken, with one active Pope and one contemplative Pope. Are there two Popes?

Pope Francis: There was a time in the Church when there were three! (laughs) I didn’t read those declarations because I didn’t have time to see those things. Benedict is a Pope Emeritus, he said it clearly that February 11th when he was giving his resignation as of February 28th when he would retire and help the Church with prayer.

And, Benedict is in the monastery praying. I went to see him so many times… or by telephone. The other day he wrote me a little little letter. He still signs with his signature, wishing me well for this trip, and once, not once but many times, I’ve said that it’s a grace to have a wise grandfather at home. I’ve also told him to his face and he laughs, but for me he is the Pope Emeritus. He is the wise grandfather. He is the man that protects my shoulders and back with his prayer.

I never forget that speech he made to us cardinals on February 28th, “among you I’m sure that there is my successor. I promise obedience.” And he’s done it. But, then I’ve heard, but I don’t know if it’s true, this, eh – I underscore, I heard this, maybe they’re just rumors but they fit with his character – that some have gone there (to him) to complain because of this new Pope… and he chased them away, eh, with the best Bavarian style, educated, but he chased them away. I don’t know if it’s true. It’s welcome because this man is like that. He’s a man of his word, an upstanding, upstanding, upstanding man.

He is the Pope Emeritus. Then, I don’t know if you remember that I thanked him publicly. I don’t know when but I think it was on a flight, Benedict, for having opened the door to Popes emeriti. But, 70 years ago bishops emeriti didn’t exist. Today, we have them… but with this lengthening of life, but can you run a Church at this age, with aches and pains or not? And he, courageously, and with prayer and with science, with theology decided to open this door and I believe that this is good for the Church.

But there is one single Pope, and the other… maybe they will be like the bishops emeriti, I’m not saying many but possibly there could be two or three. They will be emeriti… They are emeriti.

The day after tomorrow, the 65th anniversary of his episcopal (Fr. Lombardi says something to the Pope), sorry, priestly ordination will be celebrated. His brother Georg will be there because they were both ordained together. There will be a little event with the dicastery heads and few people because he prefers a … he accepted, but very modestly, and also I will be there and I will say something to this great man of prayer, of courage that is the Pope Emeritus, not the second Pope, who is faithful to his word and a great man of God, is very intelligent, and for me he is the wise grandfather at home.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to PopeWatch: One Pope

  • I don’t admire Benedict’s calculated tip toeing ( Francis has “goodness”…silently…prudence and wisdom…not so much)…and it reminds me of post Regensburg when Benedict distanced himself from the Islam critical remarks he himself cited from an historical figure. I’d admire Benedict if he privately not publicly rebuked Francis on clergy cooperating with the internal forum of objective adulterers and the reception of the Eucharist. As in Paul versus Peter in Galatians, courage trumps obedience. Instead we seem to have the safety of obedience trumping courage which means we can expect no fraternal correction of Francis by Benedict. Obedience trumping courage was why Ratzinger did nothing about Fr. Maciel Degollardo until St.JPII was dead. Paul would have resisted Peter to his face.
    I drew joy and strength yesterday when a New Jersey judge gave a home invader life plus four years for beating a small mother endlessly before her child….and in light of his long criminal history prior to that. The judge was more connected to the justice and severity of God (Rom.13:4) than our Church leadership for several decades now.

  • I agree with Bill Bannon above. And as for Jorge Bergoglio, may God forgive me……I should not continue. You all know how I feel.

  • It would be a much more congenial Church if our Shepherds were men of God, amply endowed with the Holy Spirit; brave, holy men who led their flock into all Truth. Protectors against evil days.

    This Church, we do not have.

    We are required by circumstances to choose. I chose, a number of years ago to leave family and friends and my familial patrimony in the Evangelical Protestant church to follow the One Faith in the Holy Bride of Christ. I did this because I judged one to be false and the other to be true. When that judgement was made, it was no longer just theory. It required action. I had to leave, physically and spiritually, the false and, with my wife and children and their souls at stake, I had to follow what I judged to be true. Against all the naysayers who were close to me that said I was wrong, and from whom there were consequences, I left false for True

    We Catholics must now CHOOSE. We cannot ignore these events. We cannot wait for the Shepherds to “do something”; to tell us what to do. They will not be judged in our place at our own Particular Judgement. We will be on our own for what we did in the times and circumstances given to us.

    There are now two men who claim the title of Pope. There is no such thing as a Pope Emeritus. There is only one living successor of Peter until death. It has always been so. A successor can abandon his Lord, but then he is no longer Christ’s Vicar. He is something much, much worse. There can not be a spiritual Vicar of Christ and an active, administrative Vicar of Christ; a retired Vicar who can’t cut it any more and an active Vicar who can. Man cannot improve on what Jesus gave to mankind directly as the Cornerstone. Man cannot expand the Petrine ministry. There is no such thing as one (or more!) “emeritus” POPES! Jesus did not grant it. Jesus did not make a mistake. Every Pope must walk with Jesus, carrying the Cross with Jesus, until his natural end. This new invention is of Man, not God!

    So now we must choose, as I chose. Comfortable? No! Required? Yes! And there will be consequences for either choice. But judge we must. To ignore this is to choose.

  • Brian,
    You are seeing the papacy like marriage…” until death”. But what if a Pope has a massive stroke and goes into a coma for years. He cannot feed the sheep. There must be another chosen to do his vocation. The papacy is not like marriage and is not until death intrinsically.
    Try not to increase your dilemnas. Since you are strong willed, the devil will throw dilemnas at you that falsely increase your obligations. He, like the scribes, likes to add commandments to your shoulders.

  • Bill, I’m not quite sure I understand you.

    In regards to the See of Peter, if you are referring to that, it can only become vacant if the occupant dies or resigns. It is not vacant while a Pope is in a coma for years. It becomes vacant when he dies.

  • Brian,
    I misunderstand you then. I thought you believed he could not resign but right above you say, ” it can only become vacant if the occupant dies or resigns.”
    This professor of canon law says we are not adequately prepared for the coma situation in terms of canon law…

  • Bill, I referred to both; death or shameful resignation. Obviously, death is the normal path off of the August Chair of St. Peter. Popes are called to walk with Christ, like Christ, faithful to Christ to the end.

    I ALSO referred to a Pope “who chooses to abandon his Lord, but then he is no longer Christ’s Vicar, but something much less”. That is why it has happened only a handful of times in 2,000 years and 266 Popes. It s a betrayal to resign. It is like the Quo Vadis moment when Peter is leaving Rome to avoid persecution and has a vision of Christ going the opposite way. “Where are you going Lord?” Peter asks. “To be crucified again, since you will not”, He replies. Peter repents. Returns. Takes up his yoke to the end. Dies on the Cross upside down. And the Church was truly born. Peter was faithful, and upon THAT Rock the Bride of Christ stands.

    Pope “Emeritus” is impossible. Only in a false Church can there be an “Emeritus”. Christ did not ordain such a thing. Man came up with that one. I do not accept it.


  • Brian,
    I think you’re underestimating what old age does to SOME men. Talk to elders in your family about Benedict and his resignation and listen to what they say. I don’t admire deeply any of the last three Popes because they all had a cafeteria approach to the Bible but I understand that Benedict reached his nervous system limit. Some men at 80 can run a hedge fund and others can’t handle their schedule for a week. With modern medicine, a Pope could be vegetative and comatose for a decade but fed through his veins which didn’t occur in the past centuries. Christ said nothing about being Pope til death while He did so speak about marriage. The permanency of marriage is because Christ loves the Church, His Bride, forever. The papacy does not have that symbolic role.

  • Bill, sorry. You are wrong. The Pope has always had that role. Always. To accompany Christ no matter what. The Pope is bound to Christ until death (or he abandons Him).

Fortnight For Freedom: Archbishop John Ireland on Patriotism

Thursday, June 30, AD 2016


fortnight for freedom 2016





Like most veterans of the Civil War, go here to read about his service, Archbishop John Ireland had a deep love of this nation.  The following is a speech on patriotism that he delivered to the New York Commandery of the Loyal League on April 4, 1894.  His speech is completely out of step with the popular sentiments of our day that tend to view patriotism, at best, with suspicion and that take for granted freedom hard won by the blood of prior generations.  I find myself much closer to agreement with the Archbishop than I do with the zeitgeist in which we find ourselves.



Patriotism is love of country, and loyalty to its life and weal—love tender and strong, tender as the love of son for mother, strong as the pillars of death; loyalty generous and disinterested, shrinking from no sacrifice, seeking no reward save country’s honor and country’s triumph.

  Patriotism! There is magic in the word. It is bliss to repeat it. Through ages the human race burnt the incense of admiration and reverence at the shrines of patriotism. The most beautiful pages of history are those which recount its deeds. Fireside tales, the outpourings of the memories of peoples, borrow from it their warmest glow.
Poets are sweetest when they re-echo its whisperings; orators are most potent when they thrill its chords to music.

Pagan nations were wrong when they made gods of their noblest patriots. But the error was the excess of a great truth, that heaven unites with earth in approving and blessing patriotism; that patriotism is one of earth’s highest virtues, worthy to have come down from the atmosphere of the skies.

  The exalted patriotism of the exiled Hebrew exhaled itself in a canticle of religion which Jehovah inspired, and which has been transmitted, as the inheritance of God’s people to the Christian Church:

“Upon the rivers of Babylon there we sat and wept, when we remembered Sion.—If I forget thee, 0 Jerusalem, let my right hand be forgotten. Let my tongue cleave to my jaws, if I do not remember thee, if I do not make Jerusalem the beginning of my joy.”

The human race pays homage to patriotism because of its supreme value. The value of patriotism to a people is above gold and precious stones, above commerce and industry, above citadels and warships. Patriotism is the vital spark of national honor; it is the fount of the nation’s prosperity, the shield of the nation’s safety. Take patriotism away, the nation’s soul has fled, bloom and beauty have vanished from the nation’s countenance.

The human race pays homage to patriotism because of its supreme loveliness. Patriotism goes out to what is among earth’s possessions the most precious, the first and best and dearest—country—and its effusion is the fragrant flowering of the purest and noblest sentiments of the heart.

Patriotism is innate in all men; the absence of it betokens a perversion of human nature; but it grows its full growth only where thoughts are elevated and heart-beatings are generous.

Next to God is country, and next to religion is patriotism. No praise goes beyond its deserts. It is sublime in its heroic oblation upon the field of battle. “Oh glorious is he,” exclaims in Homer the Trojan warrior, “who for his country falls!” It is sublime in the oft-repeated toil of dutiful citizenship. “Of all human doings,” writes Cicero, “none is more honorable and more estimable than to merit well of the commonwealth.”

Countries are of divine appointment. The Most High “divided the nations, separated the sons of Adam, and appointed the bounds of peoples.” The physical and moral necessities of God’s creatures are revelations of his will and laws. Man is born a social being. A condition of his existence and of his growth of mature age is the family. Nor does the family suffice to itself. A larger social organism is needed, into which families gather, so as to obtain from one another security to life and property and aid in the development of the faculties and powers with which nature has endowed the children of men.

The whole human race is too extensive and too diversified in interests to serve those ends: hence its subdivisions into countries or peoples. Countries have their providential limits—the waters of a sea, a mountain range, the lines of similarity of requirements or of methods of living. The limits widen in space according to the measure of the destinies which the great Ruler allots to peoples, and the importance of their parts in the mighty work of the cycles of years, the ever-advancing tide of humanity’s evolution.

The Lord is the God of nations because he is the God of men. No nation is born into life or vanishes back into nothingness without his bidding. I believe in the providence of God over countries as I believe in his wisdom and his love, and my patriotism to my country rises within my soul invested with the halo of my religion to my God.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Fortnight For Freedom: Archbishop John Ireland on Patriotism

  • Breathtaking and inspiring in its wisdom. I will share with my children on Independence Day. The last two paragraphs put love of country in historical and moral perspective. I marvel at the contrast between this view of liberty to the political positions of the USCCB and far too many of our bishops.

  • Maybe had he been a little less nationalistic and a bit more Catholic, Archbishop John Ireland wouldn’t be known as the founder of the Orthodox Church in America.

  • Maybe if Father Alexis Toth hadn’t been so concerned with his ruffled pride he wouldn’t have died a schismatic. Or, here is an idea, maybe if the Vatican had assigned Eastern Rite bishops to America in the nineteenth century, instead of ignoring a manifest problem, the issue wouldn’t have come up at all. It would also have helped if Eastern Rite Bishops in Europe hadn’t ignored their priests in America leaving them without any instructions.

    As for Archbishop Ireland, he was a patriot, and anyone who calls him anything else better have been exposed to enemy fire as he was.

Bill Clinton Meets the Attorney General in Private Meeting

Thursday, June 30, AD 2016



Well isn’t this sweet?


A source tipped off the local ABC affiliate about the brief meeting, which reportedly lasted about 30 minutes, at the Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport.

President Clinton reportedly learned Lynch was arriving soon and waited to meet with her.

According to ABC 15, the meeting occurred hours before the House Select Committee on Benghazi released its final report to the public.

The private meeting comes as Lynch’s Justice Department is investigating presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal, private email server during her time as Secretary of State.

“Lynch said the private meeting on the tarmac did not involve these topics,” ABC 15 reports.

“I did see President Clinton at the Phoenix airport as he was leaving and spoke to myself and my husband on the plane,” Lynch stated, confirming the meeting. “Our conversation was a great deal about grandchildren, it was primarily social about our travels and he mentioned golf he played in Phoenix.”

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Bill Clinton Meets the Attorney General in Private Meeting

  • COI used to mean conflict of interest, but that was years ago when integrity and honor was common place. Today? COI could mean Clinton Owns Investigation.

    Who to believe? Lynch?

    My sense of smell isn’t the best, but this sure smells fishy to me. Is the fix in?

  • Loretta Lynch takes time out of her very busy schedule to chat pleasantries about grandchildren with a rich, white rapist. Sounds entirely plausible.

  • I rarely listen to Rush Limbaugh, but maybe he is right:

  • It is nearly unavoidable to conclude that Obama is complicit in Hillary’s criminality. He should be impeached.

  • Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.

    The theory’s are as thick as a caddisfly hatch.
    Caddisfly’s are good bait for sizable trout.
    The news affiliate may have landed a whopper with this timely piece. Rush Limbaugh is dialed in. The beasties are scrambling.
    More salt for the popcorn please.

  • LQC, Thanks for the link. What I think Bill told Loretta could become a new parlor game.
    I’m waiting for Snake Head aka Carville to weigh in with his lies.
    The private plane that they met in which neither of them had used or was to use is a very intriguing fact.

Trump v. Clinton: Pass the Popcorn

Wednesday, June 29, AD 2016



My favorite living historian Victor Davis Hanson has some predictions about what is to come in the presidential election campaign this summer.  As I do, he understands that the normal political rules simply do not apply this year:


Continue reading...

17 Responses to Trump v. Clinton: Pass the Popcorn

  • Lock both of them in a darkened room armed with straight razors… whichever walks out alive is the Prez. Sell tickets and wipe out the national debt. At this point all we can do is sit back and enjoy the carnage,

  • Trump is a Democrat? Then so are John McCain, Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney. Social views have NO impact in this election season. Pro lifers have been dumped on by the GOP, which has long held a pro abortion stance among its elite. How much does the USCCB care?

  • “Pro lifers have been dumped on by the GOP”

    Completely false as attested by all the pro-life legislation that the Republicans have gotten through at the state level. But for the Democrats, legalized abortion would now be a bad memory. As for Trump, he is merely a liberal Democrat who has donned a Republican disguise for this election. Compared to the orange haired fraudster, McCain, McConnell and Romney are Reagan Incarnate. Support Trump if you will to be beat Hillary PF. I can understand that. Do not for a moment deceive yourself as to what he is.

  • I want Trump to win not because I like Yrump but because I want to hear the Democrats howl in disbelief that they lost.

  • “Completely false as attested by all the pro-life legislation that the Republicans have gotten through at the state level. But for the Democrats, legalized abortion would now be a bad memory. As for Trump, he is merely a liberal Democrat who has donned a Republican disguise for this election. Compared to the orange haired fraudster, McCain, McConnell and Romney are Reagan Incarnate.”

    When I look at the current Washington GOP Establishment, I disagree completely with you. I include in that the current House Speaker who agreed to fund Planned Parenthood. There is a gulf between the state GOP (in almost every state) and the DC GOP Establishment.

    I have no illusions about Trump being a great conservative. On social issues, there is little difference between him and the Hildebeast.

    The situation is that the Hildebeast is a criminal…and so is her husband IMHO. Nothing Trump has done measures up to them. Los Alamos, criminal perjury, the beginnings of the subprime mortgage mess, the rise of Al Qaeda, the USS Cole and the bombings of the embassies in Africa….on Bill Clinton’s watch. Hilary….classified emails, Benghazi…..the Clintons are rotten to the core, backed by a supporting media and entertainment establishment, and a GOP establishment (especially the Bush family) unwilling to say a peep about them.

  • “I include in that the current House Speaker who agreed to fund Planned Parenthood.”

    That’s humorous that you would mention that since the Republicans in Congress are making yet another effort to end funding for Planned Parenthood.

    Now, as in the past, the Democrats in Congress make passing such a bill almost impossible because we do not have 60 votes in the Senate. Since they have the Presidency such a bill would be vetoed in any case. All the while the media will be spinning this feverishly against the Republicans, Finally, when they can’t do the impossible without being blamed for another government shut down, the Republicans will be attacked by pro-lifers. It astonishes me that they are even willing to try this again and again with those odds stacked against them.

    If the orange haired fraudster gets in, I guarantee you he will insist upon funding Planned Parenthood that he praised during the primaries.

  • “I want Trump to win not because I like Yrump but because I want to hear the Democrats howl in disbelief that they lost.”

    If Trump wins, the howls of liberal despondency would be music to my ears!

  • Do we all agree there is nothing worse than a Hillary presidency? Accordingly, a vote for Trump is permissible.

  • I hope we can all agree with you Michael.
    Sitting this one out because Trump is not, kosher, is not enough reason to bury a vote.
    I will vote Trump in the high hope Helliry finds herself in the gutter. That’s an insult to gutter dwellers everywhere, but I never did get the “political correctness” thing, so tough up and make room for your new arrival.

  • I hope we can all agree with you Michael. Sitting this one out because Trump is not, kosher, is not enough reason to bury a vote.

    I will, with a very clear and easy conscience, not vote for either of the egotistical, sociopathic, leftist authoritarians from New York.

  • Defects in character?
    Trump comes in second.
    Professional political sociopath vs. Professional business sociopath?

    Taking the vote out doesn’t change which sociopath wins, but voting for the one ( out on a limb here ) that would do less harm seems to be a reasonable option.

    Hillary I’m sure about.
    The duck?
    Uncertain future at best.
    I will not support Hillary, and not voting for her challenger seems like a vote for her.

    Write in’s?

  • and not voting for her challenger seems like a vote for her.

    This is both logically and mathematically incorrect. As for which is worse, there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference. They are foul and effusive in different ways. Neither of them is a constitutionalist, and both of them represent an authoritarian, statist strain of thought that threatens our freedoms. That there is an infinitesimal chance Trump is superior to Clinton is not enough to justify a vote for the clown, especially when there’s a chance that, somehow, he will be worse.

  • Is it just illogical to see a threat that wishes to harm your family and Country and sit on your hands while the threat gains control?

    Is it mathematics or brazen hatred for liberty that one of the presidential candidates has made a statement that Religions need to change their views on abortion.

    Come on Paul.
    I detest Trump, but Hillary is a threat that is known and respected by a class of people that have adhered to Saul Alinski’s playbook..and they are participating in it as they support Hillary. Worse yet, they will adopt this methodology, rules for radicals, for their success. The Trump threat is nebulous compared to the history or track record of Hillary Clinton.

    A thread of hope is better than giving up.

  • Is it just illogical to see a threat that wishes to harm your family and Country and sit on your hands while the threat gains control?

    No, it is illogical to dismiss one person as an equally malignant threat because that individual happens to have an -R next to his name. You can use all the buzzwords you want, Philip, but it is simply wishcasting to pretend Trump represents anything resembling hope when it comes to choosing presidential candidates.

    A thread of hope is better than giving up.

    I’m not the one giving up – quite the opposite. I merely refuse to support one authoritarian over the other.

  • Thank you Paul for your explanation.

    I’m cringing when I contemplate November and the baby killing machines gloating over their goddess.

    Sitting out a vote is difficult for me to consider, however I can appreciate your views.

  • Paul–
    “I’m not the one giving up – quite the opposite. I merely refuse to support one authoritarian over the other.”

    St Thomas Aquinas would suggest, in a case like this, that distinctions must be made. While you are correct about both being authoritarian shouldn’t we try to determine which of these seemingly inevitable choices would be the best for orthodox Catholics.

  • I’ll let Joe Cunningham of Red State have my final word on the matter.

13 Responses to Trump Comments on Supreme Court Striking Down Key Parts of Texas Abortion Law

  • But . . . but . . . but we have to vote for Donald, because there’s like a 2% chance he might nominate one originalist justice (by accident) to the courts out of the dozens and dozens of judicial appointments he will have to make, and that totally makes up for his complete lack of commitment to the pro life cause.

    If only he were so reticent speaking his mind on all the good works Planned Parenthood does.

  • Anyone expecting Trump to stop abortion is delusional. Then again, how much help has the GOP establishment been in reaching that goal?

  • Well, it was the Texas GOP that passed the Texas statutes that were struck down on Monday. The only Republican Supreme Court Justice to joint the Democrats in striking them down was Anthony Kennedy. He would never been appointed but for the outrageous character assassination of Judge Bork led by Ted Kennedy in 1987. If Bork had made it to the Court, Roe would now be a bad memory. The Republican party does not get enough credit from pro-lifers for the fight it has waged on this issue, not only against the Dems, but a hostile media, entertainment industry and academia.

  • My Cruz bumper sticker notwithstanding, if voting for Trump is all I can do to keep Hillary out of the White House, I will vote for him. Think of Trump as a bull in a corrupt china shop.

  • But . . . but . . . but we have to vote for Donald, because there’s like a 2% chance he might nominate one originalist justice.

    Insert Romney or McCain, and it is the same argument from the last 2 election cycles.

  • How come that same GOP couldn’t seem to “Bork” Soda Mayor? What is so hard about Nancy’s advice to “just say no”?

  • Insert Romney or McCain, and it is the same argument from the last 2 election cycles.

    As bad as both were, they had a lot more redeeming qualities than Trump.

  • “How come that same GOP couldn’t seem to “Bork” Soda Mayor? What is so hard about Nancy’s advice to “just say no”?”

    Too many Republicans are terrified of the power of a biased media. The time that the government was shut down due to Democrat intransigence and the Republicans got the blame is instructive. The solution is to go to war against the Democrats and their lackies in the media, which means almost all of the mainstream media. Republicans are still playing by rules that the Democrats long ago discarded. Note that this normally doesn’t happen on the state level where the Republicans tend to outfight the Democrats in most states.

  • There’s also the issue that Republicans tend to be a little more burdened when it comes to a reluctance to tell bald-faced lies, for whatever reason.

  • It’s probably better that he hasn’t responded, because you, me, and Trump have no idea what he’d actually say. And it wouldn’t have any bearing on what he’d say tomorrow.

  • “Too many Republicans are terrified of the power of a biased media.”
    Too many Republicans are terrified period!

  • “It’s probably better that he hasn’t responded, because you, me, and Trump have no idea what he’d actually say. And it wouldn’t have any bearing on what he’d say tomorrow.”

    Comment of the week Pinky! Take ‘er away Sam!

3 Responses to Lying Hillary

PopeWatch: Lying About Luther

Wednesday, June 29, AD 2016



The Pope gave another inflight interview on his flight back from Armenia, and it is a doozy.  We will be examining it piece by piece this week.  Go here to read the text of the interview.

Today we are looking at the comments of the Pope about Martin Luther:

I think that the intentions of Martin Luther were not mistaken. He was a reformer. Perhaps some methods were not correct. But in that time, if we read the story of the Pastor, a German Lutheran who then converted when he saw reality – he became Catholic – in that time, the Church was not exactly a model to imitate. There was corruption in the Church, there was worldliness, attachment to money, to power…and this he protested. Then he was intelligent and took some steps forward justifying, and because he did this. And today Lutherans and Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the doctrine of justification. On this point, which is very important, he did not err. He made a medicine for the Church, but then this medicine consolidated into a state of things, into a state of a discipline, into a way of believing, into a way of doing, into a liturgical way and he wasn’t alone; there was Zwingli, there was Calvin, each one of them different, and behind them were who? Principals! We must put ourselves in the story of that time. It’s a story that’s not easy to understand, not easy. Then things went forward, and today the dialogue is very good.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to PopeWatch: Lying About Luther

  • If all things be known, then I much prefer the Lutherans to this Pope. At least they know on what side of the Catholic-Protestant divide they sit.

  • As a former Lutheran, I’m appalled at this Pope’s statements about Luther. Luther was a extremely disturbed individual, who, judging by the remarks he made, and the statements made by friends and foes, suffered from some form of mental illness, that caused him to have delusions of grandeur and hallucinations. Yet, this Pope thinks this man was a great Christian! His Holiness needs to brush up on his Protestant history!

  • Being an Argentine and a VII guy, he knows nothing about Protestantism.
    Lutheran Swedes trashed Poland in the mid 17th century…it was called the Deluge.

  • One of the things that brought me out of Protestantism was reading the writings of one of its Founding Fathers, Martin Luther. He was always held up to us evangelicals as a model of Protest against Big Religion in favor of a private relationship with Jesus.

    During my days of serious inquiry, I went back and attempted to read some of his works. I didn’t get far. The man was foul. I discovered that early on. Before I had any sense of leaving Protestantism, I made the judgement that Luther was an evil man. Evil, as in possessed by the devil kind of evil. A fount of obnoxious hate, was he.

    And that was before you get to the questionable theology that includes the bedrock assertion, “Justified by Faith Alone”, with “Alone” penciled in by pope Luther into his personal version of Scripture, upon which his sola scriptura film-flam was based.

    To say Catholics and Lutherans agree on Justification, (“This is important” says the Pope for emphasis), is as bedrock a heresy as you can get, I would think. Does that not require correction by anyone in authority?

  • Pope Francis is always extending his mercy and love to all but orthodox Catholics. By the way there is no other kind of Catholic, as to not be orthodox is to be Protestant.

  • I would like the Pope, and everyone else, to know that Seton Home Study School has a great history series. I’d suggest he start with the 6th grade book. If reading 7 years of history books is too much, then the 10th grade history book is excellent for learning the truth of the Protestant Revolt. I’ve heard that Catholic Textbook Project is even better. The sad thing is you can google “the truth about martin luther” and find out basic information from people who’ve already done all the research and summarized it.

  • “Then he was intelligent and took some steps forward justifying, and because he did this. ”

    What am I supposed to make of that sentence fragment? You can’t fisk something that doesn’t make sense. I could do one of those readings of this statement that would grant considerable leeway, and make it into something that a Catholic could say without triggering a lie detector, except there’s no way to salvage that particular passage.

    I think Pope Francis realized it, too. He was making a broad point about what came before Luther’s break being bad, and then got to the part where he had to address that Luther’s break was bad too, and his sentence exploded. Then he ended with a bit about how Luther wasn’t completely wrong about everything, and ecumenism is promising. It’s like if you asked me to say something positive about Benedict Arnold. It’s a lot like that, actually. I’d say that he was a good young military officer, then I’d say something incoherent, and end with him being a successful businessman.

  • “if you asked me to say something positive about Benedict Arnold.”

    Well, Judas Iscariot appreciates the company.

    The fragmentary phrases in which the Pope communicates probably is a sign of the chaos of his thoughts. I could live with that, not everyone is neat and orderly either in their speech or their thoughts, but what is most distressing is how the Pope’s thoughts tend to be in clichés, usually left wing or heterodox in orientation. The Pope is far from being an original thinker and seems dependent on a very limited spectrum of opinion for his views.

  • This is the question asked by the German reporter, Kleinjung, “Holy Father, I wanted to ask you a question. Today you spoke of the gifts of the shared Churches, of the gifts shared by the Churches together. Seeing that you will go in I believe four months to Lund for the commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the reformation, I think perhaps this is also the right moment for us not only to remember the wounds on both sides but also to recognize the gifts of the reformation. Perhaps also – this is a heretical question – perhaps to annul or withdraw the excommunication of Martin Luther or of some sort of rehabilitation. Thank you.” The pope’s lengthy non answer is printed is printed above. Perhaps we should be grateful that the question regarding anullment or withdrawal of Luther’s excommunication was not answered.

  • “I think that the intentions of Martin Luther were not mistaken. He was a reformer. Perhaps some methods were not correct. But in that time, if we read the story of the Pastor, a German Lutheran who then converted when he saw reality – he became Catholic – in that time, the Church was not exactly a model to imitate.”

    Pastor>German Lutheran>became Catholic, I cannot follow PF’s train of thought.

Benghazi Report Released

Tuesday, June 28, AD 2016



The House Select Committee on Benghazi have released their 800 page report.  Go here to links for the sections of the report.  Working in the law mines all day, I have not yet had an opportunity to read the report.  Here are the key findings from people who have read it:

  1.  The State Department under Hillary Clinton continually ignored requests for beefed up security for our diplomats in Libya.
  2.  There was no attempt, no attempt, to send any military assets to our men fighting in Benghazi.  They were left on their own.  This, at best, was criminal negligence.
  3. In the four years since the attack, only one of the hundreds of terrorists involved has been brought to justice.  Obama’s pledge that he would seek out and punish the terrorists was empty hot air.
  4. Subsequent to the attack the administration engaged in a conspiracy to mislead the American public by portraying this carefully coordinated terrorist attack as a riot over some anti-Islamic film by an obscure filmmaker.
  5. The Administration has stonewalled the investigation since it commenced.

Continue reading...

One Response to Benghazi Report Released

  • Clinton, and by extension Obama, who appointed her, and the Democrats who confirmed her, are guilty of criminal negligence in the Benghazi atrocity and the email mess.
    The people, not the political class nor the mass of stupidity known as the Democrat electorate, must hold these criminals responsible.

Man Isn’t Meat

Tuesday, June 28, AD 2016




Kevin Williamson, who was adopted as a newborn just prior to Roe being decided in 1973, has the best commentary I have seen yet on the Supreme Court decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt striking down the key portions of the Texas abortion law:


There is a great deal of dishonesty in the abortion debate, which is necessary: Otherwise, we’d be obliged to think about the horror of what we perpetrate and what we endure, and that would be very difficult. Instead, we hear a great deal about extraordinarily rare catastrophes of pregnancy, which are heart-hurting but which also are, in the vast majority of cases, entirely beside the point: These cases are as a statistical matter nearly nonexistent. Even the usual hedge offered by office-seeking pro-life Republicans — the exemption for children conceived through rape or incest — approaches statistical insignificance. (Never mind the moral insignificance, as though we could murder a four-year-old, or a 38-year-old, because he was conceived via rape.) We hear dark warnings about a new Torquemada and a rising theocracy, as though an atheist such as my good friend Charles C. W. Cooke doesn’t know a baby when he sees one, as though the world were not full of agnostics and outright heathens who still have enough civilization in them to know better than to accept butchering unborn children as normal.


A culture that treats pregnancy as a horrible disease and classifies its children as liabilities rather than assets is a culture that is, strangely enough, childish. For most of our history, we marked adulthood from the moment of sexual maturity, i.e., from the age of fertility in women and the roughly corresponding age of men. Granted, these were young, inexperienced, ignorant adults — but we knew that they were at the age of responsibility, if only barely. We eventually learned to tell ourselves a different set of stories about that, and in anno Domini 2016 we have men in their late 20s, perhaps with a grey hair or two in their beards, perhaps with their hair showing the first signs of starting to thin, worried about being kicked off Mommy’s insurance policy. “I didn’t think I was ready,” I’ve heard any number of women say, sometimes with regret that could absolutely waylay you. No doubt there are men thinking the same thing, though you don’t hear them talk about it very often. The women always say the same thing: “They lied to us.”

Of course they lied. You cannot foist a philosophy of man-as-meat on civilized people without a great quantity of lies, some of which will be published in the form of Supreme Court opinions. That is why those who oppose the philosophy of man-as-meat are denied political recourse, and why the authorities in backward places such as Ohio have tried to quash their First Amendment rights, too. Man isn’t meat, and the political model built on insisting that man is meat cannot withstand much scrutiny or debate. It must rely on brute force, which sometimes comes disguised as a Supreme Court ruling. How many people throughout the ages have been convinced of the most indefensible nonsense by similar figures in black ceremonial robes? Think on that the next time you feel inclined to snigger at Iran’s Guardian Council. But when the hysteria subsides and the blood dries up, reality is still there, and we’re still putting millions of unborn children to death because Caitlyn doesn’t want her prom ruined and because Rachel is living out some third-rate HBO fantasy in Brooklyn, or some place she wishes were Brooklyn. Harry Blackmun didn’t imagine that, but it is his legacy — and our indictment.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Man Isn’t Meat

  • Yes, yes let us please hear a word from Pope Francis who, some of us believe, is supposed to reflect the thinking of Christ. It is the very Liberal folks he admires most that are the greatest advocates of abortion and other methods of suppressing life and freedom.

  • I can’t think offhand of anyone who’s more of a “must-read” right now than Williamson. Range, depth, originality of thought, he’s got it all. He’s the kind of person who rightfully deserves the name intellectual, back when the term had meaning and hadn’t become a pejorative.

  • “Over the past half century life has become ever more enmeshed in a pernicious game of make believe.”
    And now we believe that Iranians are not building nuclear weapons nor that they mean it when they chant “Death to America”.
    What goes around might just come around, thanks to such a pernicious common denominator.

  • Amazing that there still are bishops who fail to preach monthly jeremiads against the sin of voting for the Abortion Party and all her candidates.

    A hired man, who is not a shepherd and whose sheep are not his own, sees a wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away, and the wolf catches and scatters them.–John 10:12 NAB

Richard Posner: Ignore the Constitution

Tuesday, June 28, AD 2016

15 Responses to Richard Posner: Ignore the Constitution

  • Oh, it’s just about here now. The Supreme Court is a majority of idiots.

  • No, they won’t see it. They think they will lead the revolution like Robespierre. They don’t care that in the end, it killed him too. They are smarter than all of us.

  • And Posner was at one time a highly regarded and disciplined jurist. I wonder when the wheels fell off.

  • Sad, Posner was a guy with so much potential, but for years has been getting more and more “progressive.”

    So now, instead of ignoring the constitution, we’ll just ignore Posner.

  • I have lost all respect for our court system. Period.

  • Pray tell, what should lawyers study?

    In one of Heinlein’s novels (The Cat Who Walked thru Walls?) the hero lives on a habitat called Golden Rule where the only law is the golden rule, thus there are no statutes, no common law, no precedent. We may be heading for the day when the only law is “justice” as defined by SJWs.

  • Whoever defines law in the absence of the Constitution Thomas, I am confident it will not be the SJWs. The special snow flakes have not shown an interest in wielding weapons, and without true law, rather than the whims of those in power, that is where real power always resides.

  • He took an oath when he became a Judge to enforce the Constitution…He needs to resign !!

  • Pingback: Gird Your Loins… | The Next Right Step
  • I think he just informed Ms Clinton and Mr Sanders he would be happy to accept an appointment to the Supreme Court.

  • Ha! At 77, unless he is now senile, Posner realizes he will never sit on the Court. Note how he never said anything about these views as long as we had a Republican president in office and Posner still had hopes of ending up on the Court. Never think that the average judge is not as motivated just as much by ambition as the typical politician. Posner in the past few years took quite a few swipes at Scalia who, I am sure, he hated because Scalia, who was of Posner’s generation, was sitting in “his” seat on the Court. “What fools these mortals be!”

  • Without respect for the US Constitution, there is no meaning or authority in the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Or in any other federal court. Or in federal anything. Posner just explained himself into irrelevance by wishing that all the laws be made flat.

  • the constitution contains a mechanism for keeping it relevant to the changes the country has endured and the changes it faces.

    it is not the constitution that is outdated. it is the totalitarianism that relies on the use of force to control people with unjust laws.

    judges do not have the authority to determine what human behaviors a society must allow. when they try to force a community to accept behaviors the community considers harmful, unethical or immoral, judges are overstepping their authority. deciding on what behaviors are unacceptable is the responsibility of the legislative branch of a government.

    the only reason that judges are being allowed to legislate is because those responsible for legislating are allowing judges to overstep their authority. the same can be said of those responsible for administering our laws and governments. they do not have the moral courage to do their jobs.

  • “the only reason that judges are being allowed to legislate is because those responsible for legislating are allowing judges to overstep their authority.”

    Because the Democrat party is in favor of judges legislating from the bench, since the results almost always advance a leftist agenda, and Democrats in Congress block any attempt to reign the judges in.

  • Don, in one of the post 9/11 “War on Terror” cases, the Supreme court ruled among other things that war crimes trials at Guantanamo (and presumably anywhere else in the future) required that the U.S. military MUST practice civilian police rules as to the collection and documentation of evidence on the battlefield. President George W. Bush should have publicly stated that this ruling was an usurpation of presidential authority as commander-in-chief of the military and was therefore unconstitutional. He did no such thing. So, this problem is much more pervasive than just Congress.

A Pope For The Lavender Mafia

Tuesday, June 28, AD 2016



Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts ponders the Pope’s call for Catholics to apologize to gays.


And it is us.  Not that there is anything wrong with the occasional sermon that looks out on the congregation and proclaims ‘thou art the man!’  You can’t spend your life pointing out the window and condemning all those sinners out there.  The problem is, again, you have Pope Francis echoing that modern Catholic tendency of wanting to embrace almost everything to do with the modern, post-Christian secular progressive world view … but with Jesus.

The idea that Christians are the mischief when it comes to homosexuals is well known, and almost universally embraced, by the modern Left.  Just look at Orlando and who our popular culture ended up blaming.  And once again, Pope Francis steps in and echoes that same narrative, despite the fact that ten years after becoming Catholic, I have yet to hear a homily that even mentioned homosexuality.  He doesn’t seem to differentiate.  He simply says we Catholics must apologize.

True, he doesn’t condone homosexuality.  He already has made it clear that technically the Church still teaches that homosexuality is at least not compatible with God’s vision for marriage.  But apart from that, his take on the subject and the take I hear from Dr. Drew are about the same.  It’s certainly nothing I won’t hear on MSNBC, CNN, or the Huffington Post; several of which were cheering and celebrating the Pope’s words this morning.  I also understand that he included other groups in there as well.  But let’s face it, what will the modern world focus on, thanks to his choice of words? 

I realize that Jesus reached out to prostitutes and sinners.  I realize that he went after the Pharisees and Scribes.  I get that.  I understand that Christians are never perfect and can do with the occasional kick in the pants.  But Pope Francis is not Jesus.  The Catholic Church is not the Sanhedrin and Catholics are not just a bunch of Scribes and Pharisees.  And the forces arrayed against the Church today, using all powers and abilities to assault the Church, lead astray its followers, and assail the fundamental truths of the Gospel, are not the woman caught in adultery.  

If Jesus praised the Roman Centurion’s faith, at no point did he stand alongside the Roman legions, look out among his imperfect disciples, and say to the Romans, “Let’s get’em!”  Perhaps the reason was that to do so might have given the Romans a flawed understanding of the Kingdom.  It might have presented an idea that, as long as I’m not like those sinful Jew disciples over there, I must be pretty awesome where I stand, in the pagan empire, venerating Caesar, indulging in the Roman lust for conquest.  I don’t know.  Just speculation on my part.  I simply know there’s something off kilter about Pope Francis’ continued railing against the Church in a manner almost in lockstep with perhaps the greatest heresy to challenge the Faith since Arianism, even if technically there’s nothing wrong with what he’s saying.

As an aside.  My boys asked, when they heard this, if Pope Francis was calling on Gays to forgive Catholics.  I don’t know.  I’ve not heard.  Perhaps he has.  If so, the press hasn’t reported it.  If not, then I wonder why.  

Continue reading...

2 Responses to A Pope For The Lavender Mafia

  • This pontiff is to Catholicism as ripple is to Chilean sauvignon.

  • ” It doesn’t help that the Vatican lavender mafia, a group whose existence the Pope conceded early in his pontificate, go here to read about it, is an important factor in this papacy. At the time that he mentioned the gay lobby in the Vatican, the Pope said he would have to see what he could do about it. ”

    I recall that as well which is one of many pieces of evidence informing us of the Pope’s ideological preference over the theological.

PopeWatch: Yet Another In Flight Interview

Tuesday, June 28, AD 2016




The Pope gave another inflight interview on his flight back from Armenia, and it is a doozy.  We will be examining it piece by piece this week.  Go here to read the text of the interview.  First up apologizing to gays:

Cindy Wooden, CNS: Holiness, within the past few days Cardinal Marx, the German, speaking at a large conference in Dublin which is very important on the Church in the modern world, said that the Catholic Church must ask forgiveness to the gay community for having marginalized these people. In the days following the shooting in Orlando, many have said that the Christian community had something to do with this hate toward these people. What do you think?

Pope Francis: I will repeat what I said on my first trip. I repeat what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: that they must not be discriminated against, that they must be respected and accompanied pastorally. One can condemn, but not for theological reasons, but for reasons of political behavior…Certain manifestations are a bit too offensive for others, no? … But these are things that have nothing to do with the problem. The problem is a person that has a condition, that has good will and who seeks God, who are we to judge? And we must accompany them well…this is what the catechism says, a clear catechism. Then there are traditions in some countries, in some cultures that have a different mentality on this problem. I think that the Church must not only ask forgiveness – like that “Marxist Cardinal” said (laughs) – must not only ask forgiveness to the gay person who is offended. But she must ask forgiveness to the poor too, to women who are exploited, to children who are exploited for labor. She must ask forgiveness for having blessed so many weapons.

Continue reading...

18 Responses to PopeWatch: Yet Another In Flight Interview

  • Jorge Bergoglio is not my Pope just as Barack Obama is not my President.

  • Lucius,
    If he were to say something ex cathedra, we both must heed him or perish. But …I suspect he’ll never write something ex cathedra. He has the most confused unscriptural mind I’ve seen in years in a famous public Catholic.
    Most of the Bible is about the goodness of God but a substantial portion is about the severity of God. There is no way he believes in what the Holy Spirit breathed through the human author of Romans 11:22….
    ” See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.”
    Not that his two predecessors loved the entire Bible when it drifted into severe themes, but he takes their very late life soft imbalance and multiplies it and is an oracle of it…..from “life sentences are a death penalty”… having children recite without qualification “immigrants are not a danger… they are in danger”….like that one who shot the girl in California while she walked with her dad…or near me in the early 2000’s, the Central American who who came to clean a family’s porch deck but decided on the spot to rape and kill the mother of two little ones.
    Pope Francis’ mind is chaos. I read nothing long he writes. He will not pollute my life any further with his gibberish which is the only word for his endless series of mistakes. He may convert many non readers of the world. He’ll repulse and deconvert potentially anyone who knows what Paul called ” the whole counsel of God”…..” I have not shrunk from declaring to you the whole counsel of God” Acts 20:27. Francis only talks about mercy. No one shrinks from talking about that. They shrink from declaring the severe things of God….like Romans 1:26 ” For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.” It’s Francis’ job title to declare that if you push God too far, He gives you up to shameful affections. Francis can’t utter the whole counsel of God…it looks bad in the media.

  • Screwed up country, screwed up order, screwed up Council…..Screwed up papacy.
    Bishop Fellay should be Pope.

  • Note the question which was being asked and then, if someone could do so, explain to me how his answer is substantively different from Bishop Lynch. PF appears to be blaming Catholics for the Orlando Islamic terrorist attack –which can only explain why he believes we need to seek forgiveness. Very sad.

  • What irks me is that he criticizes the world powers for not intervening against genocide, and in the same breath condemns guns and war.

    As for his comments about gays, they follow what Marx said, that the Church has to apologize for marginalizing gay people. It’s a classic Pope Francis statement: unbinding, poorly-phrased, likely to lead the unbeliever into confident sin and the believer into despair and schism. Don’t let it, fellow commenters.

  • Crap, and another dose of “who are we to judge” just to rub it in.

  • Purgatory scene; A man is asked why he didn’t do anything to speak up for the lives of the unborn while he was on earth. The man shrugged his shoulders. ” I spoke up for social justice on many occasions.” was his reply.

    “Now, you must meet and ask forgiveness from each aborted child and after completing this task come back to see me.” a guardian angel instructs.

  • “that Marxist Cardinal” said with a laugh. What a joker….the brain tumor is spreading or else PF is auditioning for a guest spot on late night Italian TV. BHO is getting ahead of him on late night appearances.

  • I’m having less problem with this latest blurtation. The reason? I’m seriously beginning to think he’s in the early stages of dementia.

  • Mr. Price, a dementia diagnosis would not surprise me at all. Nor would some other mental disorder like Captain Queeg.

  • I am discouraged beyond words. I don’t even want to go to Mass because I am so discouraged by this Pope. This is the 3rd year after my conversion to Catholicism. I seriously don’t know how much more of this I can take.

  • Dear Christian Teacher, Focus on why you converted to Catholicism. Many of us are discouraged and frustrated by the pronouncements of this pope and even feel that he on occasion gives scandal to the Church when he lets himself be used by the media. Keep in mind that Pope Francis has not written nor spoken infallibly.
    Please do not give up on Mass. Receiving the Body of Christ and the Precious Blood is a source of abundant grace. So are First Friday and First Saturday devotions and attendance at Holy Hour. You can include him in your Morning Offering prayer.
    I’d also suggest subscribing to a publication online or in paper form such as Magnificat which has daily devotional readings and the lives of the saints.
    Lastly the old man appears unwell. Pope Francis needs our prayers. -CAM

  • Why is it that few Catholics ‘get’ this Pope? Is it because he is reflecting what most Catholics already believe? We need to be reminded that our God is the God of the Old as well as the New Testament, that He is quite capable of giving chastisements as we are in need of receiving them. A chastisement is an act of Mercy as it anticipates reform.

  • Michael Dowd.

    Excellent point.
    I’m in total agreement.

  • Christian Teacher – If your hand is leading you to sin, cut it off. If the message boards depress you too much, you shouldn’t be on them. Mass is Mass. It’s the heart of the Church. It’s perfect unity with God. You can be a good Catholic without message boards.

    I keep thinking about Urban VI, an utterly unlikable pope whose personality, along with the geopolitics of the era, initiated the Great Schism. A true jerk, and a true pope. Everyone who didn’t support his claim to the Chair of Peter was wrong.

  • “his claim to the Chair of Peter was wrong.”

    True, but they might well have been right in opposing his policies otherwise.

  • Yes, Don. There’s a world of difference there, though.

  • Thank u CAM & Pinky. There is wisdom in both of your admonitions.

    I was just overcome at the moment I wrote that.

Fortnight For Freedom: Abraham Lincoln on the Supreme Court

Tuesday, June 28, AD 2016






fortnight for freedom 2016


(This is a repeat from last year.  In light of the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday, go here to read about it, in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt striking down two key sections in the Texas abortion law, it seemed more relevant than ever.  The Supreme Court is growing ever more high handed in its rulings, and what it is engaged in when it comes to favored made up court created rights like “abortion” and “gay marriage” has nothing to do with the law or the constitution.  In his blistering dissent in Hellerstedt, Justice Clarence Thomas nailed it:


Some quotes from Abraham Lincoln in how to react to illegitimate Supreme Court decisions.  An illegitimate decision is one in which the Court arrogates to itself the power of a legislature under the mendacious guise of merely interpreting the Constitution:

1.  I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit; as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government.

2.  Judicial decisions have two uses-first, to absolutely determine the case decided, and secondly, to indicate to the public how other similar cases will be decided when they arise. For the latter use, they are called “precedents” and “authorities.”

3.  We think its (the Supreme Court) decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution.

4.  At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

5.  Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal profession.

Continue reading...

Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provisions of Texas Abortion Law

Monday, June 27, AD 2016



The Supreme Court remains guardians  of the right of women to slay their offspring:

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 27, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – The Supreme Court has reversed a landmark Texas pro-life law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges and abortion facilities to meet more stringent health standards.

An eight-justice Supreme Court has reversed the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (formerly Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole), 5-3.

The case was brought by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of independent abortion facilities in Texas.

The case involves Texas’ H.B. 2, a pro-life law that, aside from restricting abortion to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, required abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their offices and abortion facilities to meet the same health standards as other ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs).

Those regulations caused the number of abortion facilities to drop from 41 to eight according to Planned Parenthood, closing 13 abortion facilities in one day.

The decision, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, says that both requirement place a substantial burden on women’s right to exercise their reproductive rights, including the right to obtain an abortion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote her own concurring opinion, writing that “complications from an abortion are both rare and rarely dangerous.”

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provisions of Texas Abortion Law

  • Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Emily’s List and their fellow travelers on the
    current Supreme Court all believe that having abortion facilities meet the
    same health standards as other ambulatory surgical centers constitutes
    an unreasonable burden on a woman’s right to an abortion– even if it’s
    an unsafe one, evidently.
    Kermit Gosnell’s infamous “clinic” was where born babies were murdered and
    displayed in jars, where conditions were filthy and basic health regulations
    were flouted. His abortion “clinic” operated like that for 17 years because
    in that time the state of Pennsylvania, under pressure from groups like Planned
    Parenthood, opted to cease all inspections of all of Pennsylvania’s 22
    abortion facilities.
    Kermit Gosnell happened as a direct result of Planned
    Parenthood’s policy against ‘undue burdens’ on access to abortion, and
    now that policy is enshrined in a Supreme Court decision.
    An abortion is not the removal of a hangnail– it’s a serious surgical procedure
    and a lot can go wrong. It’s a strange society that chooses to have more
    rigorous health inspections for its nail salons and restaurants than it does for
    its abortion facilities. As of today, the Supreme Court has made another
    Kermit Gosnell butcher shop much, much more likely.

  • Planned Parenthood’s expert witness admitted the following:

    During these proceedings, Planned Parenthood conceded that at least 210 women in Texas annually must be hospitalized after seeking an abortion. Witnesses for both sides further testified that some of the women who are hospitalized after an abortion have complications that require an Ob/Gyn specialist’s treatment.

    That is almost certainly a low ball estimate:
    However, expert witness Dr. John Thorp told the court that the 0.3% hospitalization estimate “is based on data that is thirty-eight years old.” He also indicated that abortion complications are notoriously underreported and that only one-third to one-half of all abortion patients return for follow-up visits where complications could be reported to clinic staff.

    In addition, in many states, abortionists are simply not required to report abortion complications. The underreporting means that the percentage of women actually suffering surgical abortion complications is much higher.

    The number suggested by Planned Parenthood of “at least 210 women” who were hospitalized due to abortion complications was not based on any actual reporting. Instead, it appears to have been calculated using 2011 state abortion numbers with Fine’s 0.3% hospitalization rate, and assumes that all of the 70,003 abortions done on Texas residents in 2011 were first trimester surgical procedures, an assumption that is completely inaccurate.

    Medication Abortions

    Numbers obtained from the DSHS indicate that in 2011, 26 percent of all abortions on Texas women were done using the abortion pill. The court documents reveal testimony indicating that a full six percent of women who obtain medication abortions using the abortion pill require surgical abortions due to failure of the abortion pill process.

    Based on those numbers, there would actually have been approximately 1,089 cases where women required surgical intervention following medication abortions.

  • Even using the underreported, outdated statistics, the complication rate is comparable to the overall rate of accidental lacerations and punctures for surgery in general.

  • Texas needs to tell the Supreme Court to go to hell, and take Planned Parenthood with ’em. If I were Greg Abbot, I would tell Breyer and Ginsburg to enforce their damned decision themselves…..and have them arrested for vagrancy the second they stepped in the state of Texas.

  • “When the time comes, as it surely will, when we face that awesome moment, the final judgment, I’ve often thought, as Fulton Sheen wrote, that it is a terrible moment of loneliness. You have no advocates, you are there alone standing before God — and a terror will rip your soul like nothing you can imagine. But I really think that those in the pro-life movement will not be alone. I think there’ll be a chorus of voices that have never been heard in this world but are heard beautifully and clearly in the next world — and they will plead for everyone who has been in this movement. They will say to God, ‘Spare him, because he loved us!'”

    Congressman Henry Hyde

  • The Supreme Court has found baby killing, sodomy and homosexual marriage to be protected by the Constitution, though none are mentioned in the Constitution. The Ten Commandments, nativity scenes and crosses on government land are unconstitutional. To hell with the Supreme Court. It is past time for an uprising against this crap.

  • Here are the presumptive Republican nominee’s comments on the case:

  • @cthemfly25.

    Thanks for the Henry Hyde quote.
    I haven’t heard of it before.

    That we, as a Nation, haven’t been brought to our knees by catastrophic events is evidence of God’s mercy. The millions of aborted souls who Henry Hyde imagined, are real. Do they count? Not on earth, especially in America, but in heaven they count. They are an active part of the celestial court. They will give testimony on behalf of the righteous as well as the damned.

    To equate Woman’s Reproductive Health with the slaughter of the innocent child isn’t just absurd, it’s callous. To think our Highest Court on our soil would disregard the right to LIFE in favor of Planned murder is alone the single most revealing evidence that we are in the new dark age. Dog’s that are suffering the consequences of their owners stupidity by dieing in automobiles due to excessive heat are held in higher sympathy than the human baby who is ripped apart.

    God help us.

  • Pingback: Fortnight For Freedom: Abraham Lincoln on the Supreme Court – The American Catholic
  • The Pope came to the Mexican border to give comfort to those who violate another country’s laws , and while there he criticized a candidate for President of the United States who is not a Catholic! I’ll wait to read about the Pope’s ex communication of the Catholic US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy who… with his single vote, keeps more abortion clinics in business and prevents reasonable restrictions to the taking of that innocent life. Pope Francis…. I’m waiting!!!

  • Being ignorant of the entire legal process I can’t help but wonder if the pro-lifers in Texas can go back and write a series of laws instead of one broad law with many facets?


Monday, June 27, AD 2016



Christopher Johnson at Midwest Conservative Journal brings us this sad Brexit tale:


Tom Whyman, a lecturer in philosophy at the University of Essex, explains the British departure from the European Union in The New York Times.  It was all those Neanderthals with whom he’s forced to live:

Alresford is my personal hell.

We are not used to thinking that a place like this — a pleasant town with a pretty center — might actually be hell. There is almost no poverty and only the occasional act of violence. There are good schools, a range of shops, a heritage railway. In fact, it’s somewhere that a lot of people, apparently, actively want to live: Houses in the center easily sell for upward of a million pounds. (What they will cost once the vote to leave the European Union makes the economy crater remains to be seen.)

But dig below the surface, and you will find the demons crawling. You can see them in the looks that residents give you when they pass; sneering snobs glaring down their noses with entitlement; small-minded townies, bullying you with eyes that you recognize from the primary school lunchroom; the old people, 80 and above, wearing blank stares. You can hear it in their bothered tutting at the bus stop (especially if they ever hear a visitor mispronouncing the name of the town), the shots that constantly ring out from across the countryside as they set about murdering as many of the local pheasants as they can.

Since my late teens, every effort I have ever exerted has been with the intention of escaping Alresford. And yet, I am an early-career academic and so I am forced to move back, every summer, to live with my parents because I cannot afford to pay rent elsewhere after my temporary teaching contract ends. Then, sometimes, I think: What if I’m actually secretly comfortable here? What if I have chosen the security of death in Alresford over the risks of life elsewhere? What if I am in fact fully in the clutches of Alresfordism?

Even if I’d managed to cast my vote, it would have been pointless. The Remain campaign didn’t just lose by my vote, we lost by more than a million. Britons wanted to make our world smaller. They wanted to make it more like Alresford. As far as I can tell, they are going to get exactly what they wanted.

All I can do is look out at the nature from the window of my room in Alresford. I’m from here, so I can’t be sure whether or not this is just another type of nihilism, but I think: Well, if all this nature is bigger than us, then I want it be get even bigger. I want it to become so big that it will consume all of our smallnesses, invalidate them, smother them out. Not just Alresford. I want a demented, throbbing, fecund nature to overrun this whole country, to overturn the wretched consequences of the laws that we have, in our stupidity, set for ourselves.

And there it is.  People who love their country, despite its faults and sins, and respect and revere its national traditions are xenophobic, exclusionary racists.

Or whatever the next invented leftist epithet turns out to be.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Twit

  • A philosophy lecturer who believes shooting a pheasant is murder; yeah, living next to this idiot would be hell.

  • When visiting Mott North Dakota I succumbed to…yes, murdering a pheasant. Not one mind you..but a mass shooting. I wasn’t even using an assault weapon. I went mad with bloodlust.

    After eating the birds I wasn’t the bit remorseful.

    Yeah Ken…. living next to that guy would be hell. ?

  • *squirms uncomfortably* I can remember being that… oblivious.
    I think I was fourteen, I fear it lasted until at least sixteen, but….does this guy have zero idea that he should do some self-examination?
    He lectures on philosophy, for heaven’s sake– can’t he apply a little of it?

  • Uh. I teach. And I have never moved in with family for the summer. The fact that this guy lets his parents support him every summer & is content with that says all we need to know about his need to be coddled and provided for. Seems like he is the type of guy who is perfectly happy with someone else making decisions from him from afar. What self hatred he expresses. Maybe if he would take a 2nd job or a summer job, it would impower him to the point that he wouldn’t hate his own heritage nor himself quite so much.

  • “When visiting Mott North Dakota I succumbed to…yes, murdering a pheasant. Not one mind you..but a mass shooting. I wasn’t even using an assault weapon. I went mad with bloodlust.

    After eating the birds I wasn’t the bit remorseful.”



    Murdered pheasants make some of the most gloriously beautiful stuffed trophies I have ever seen in my life. Maybe we could send him a couple for his enjoyment–one for his home where he teaches & one for his summer “room” at his parents’ home. ???

  • “A philosophy lecturer who believes shooting a pheasant is murder; yeah, living next to this idiot would be hell.”

    Indoctrination by the animal rights extremists who truly believe that to kill a pig is to kill a human. If I walked around seeing humans eating “murdered” creatures everywhere, I might be as miserable as this guy is, too.

  • The comments on the article are truly entertaining. BBBAAAHHHAAA

  • It would be better if those guys, suffering from the comfort of unearned provision, could realize that they are Not Suffering, the comfort of their parents home and environs is Not Hell. Their liberal conscience makes them want to identify with the real suffering in the world, but they can’t think how to apply that angst and make it bring about solutions. So they carry on, pull up their socks and fret over the racism and stinginess of those who do provide.

  • Economically prosperous and virtually crime free, but the locals occasionally look at him funny?

    Yep, sounds like Hell-on-Earth to me: God forbid the rest of Britain or the rest of the world become like that.

    Leftists, I find, tend to consider subjective, shadowy problems like “I feel unfulfilled” or “I feel marginalized” as far outweighing objective, substantive advantages like “I don’t have to worry about being mugged coming home from work” or “I can afford a nice house and an expensive education for my ungrateful brat of a son.”

  • “What I did for my summer vacation”: Go teach at a village school (if there is one) in a central African country with those wide open nature spaces. Then come back to Alresford and write a comparison and contrast paper on Alresford and Little Bwogadoudou.
    I bet bangers and mash with even mushy peas beats out cows blood, grubs, and local cheese curdled with cow urine…..and the intestinal parasite you brought home with you is just a little souvenir of the good life below the Equator.

  • Yup. A collateral miracle here is that the mask is slipping …

  • If little Tom Wyman thought the looks his fellow villagers were giving him before
    were bad, just imagine what they’re like now.

    I just feel bad for the fool’s parents– they still have to live with all of the people
    their son so publicly insulted. All of the village now knows what a smug little
    twit they raised. How embarrassing.

  • I live in Brooklyn ( but NOT ultra-liberal Park Slope , Williamsburgh or Brooklyn Heights ) . With that effete self indulgent attitude we’d have him for lunch and spit out the pits. Big surprise, the ” compassionate” left hates the human race and wants us to be replaced with dumb animals that they can control .

  • Greg Gutfeld went on a Twitter rant about how the elites are reacting to the Brexit compared to the collapse of Venezuela. It’s very good. Maybe Tom Whyman could summer there? Find out whether hell really is other Britons?

  • the shots that constantly ring out from across the countryside as they set about murdering as many of the local pheasants as they can.

    Shooting pheasants is murder to him; shooting peasants is probably OK with him if they voted Brexit.