Donald R. McClarey
Not an Eye of the Tiber story:
Roman Catholic cardinals have hit out over plans for the Vatican to rent out a property next to St Peter’s Basilica in Rome to US fast food chain McDonald’s.
The Catholic Church would recieve 30,000 euros (£27,000) a month if they allowed the company to use part of a building in a square adjacent to the Vatican as the site for the new restaurant.
(Language advisory as to the tape: lots of swearing Democrats.) James O’Keefe at Project Veritas gives us further evidence that the Democrat Party is an organized criminal conspiracy:
The goal of “bird-dogging”: to create a sense of “anarchy” around Donald Trump that would undermine his political support. Often, the tactic uses the most vulnerable people — including the elderly and disabled — to maximize shock value.
O’Keefe’s extensive video investigation reveals that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are involved in “bird-dogging” and other provocative tactics through a web of consultants led by Robert Creamer, a veteran Chicago activist and convicted felon who is thought to have planned Democrats’ political strategy during the push for Obamacare in 2009 and 2010.
Creamer is also the co-founder of Democracy Partners, a consulting group that, according to Project Veritas videos, apparently contracts directly with the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC, and that works with an array of super PACs and consultants to organize, film and publicize their provocations.
Creamer affirms on one video that Clinton is aware of “all” of his work, and that Democracy Partners has a daily telephone call with the Clinton campaign to coordinate efforts.
O’Keefe and his team also obtained hidden camera videos showing one of Creamer’s consultants, Scott Foval, describing “bird-dogging,” among other tactics, and taking credit for having instigated violence at several Republican events during the 2016 election cycle.
Foval — who praises Creamer as “diabolical” — explains how “bird-dogging” works: how they plan confrontations in advance, choose particular individuals to provoke, and maximize media coverage.
FOVAL: So one of the things we do is we stage very authentic grassroots protests right in their faces at their own events. Like, we infiltrate. And then we get it on tape. And then, when our guys get beat up —
Project Veritas: You mean authentic-seeming grassroots?
FOVAL: No, authentic.
PV: You mean —
PV: So like — progressive, what we saw in Madison.
FOVAL: We train up our people, wherever they are, to — and I work with a network of groups, we train them up on how to get themselves into a situation on tape, on camera, that we can use later.
PV: So some of this, so I probably know your work.
FOVAL: I know you do. Everybody does. But —
PV: You mean like a situation where it’s sort of like a —
FOVAL: You remember the Iowa State Fair thing where Scott Walker grabbed the sign out of the dude’s hand and then the dude gets kind of roughed up right in front of the stage right there on camera?
FOVAL: That was all us. The guy that got roughed up is my counterpart, who works for Bob [Creamer].
PV: And that was like, storyboarded? Him getting roughed up like that?
FOVAL: We scenarioed it.
PV: And so you, like leant yourselves to that situation and it happened. A self-fulfilling prophecy.
FOVAL: We not only leant ourselves, we planted multiple people in that front area around him and in the back to make sure there wasn’t just a action that happened up front, there was also a reaction that happened out back. So the cameras, when they saw it, saw double angles of stuff like, they saw what happened up front, and they saw the reaction of people out back.
PV: That’s fucking brilliant. That’s brilliant.
FOVAL: And then the reporters had people to talk to.
Foval also tells Project Veritas’s undercover journalist that Republicans are less adept at such tactics because they obey rules: “They have fewer guys willing to step out on the line for what they believe in. … There is a level of adherence to rules on the other side that only when you’re at the very highest level, do you get over.”
In another video, Foval admits that his organization is responsible for an incident in Asheville, North Carolina in September, where an elderly woman was allegedly assaulted outside a Trump rally.
In that incident, the 69-year-old woman, wearing an oxygen tank, heckled a visually impaired 73-year-old Trump supporter, then pursued him. She claimed he then punched her in the jaw, though she had no visible injury; his attorney claims she touched him on the shoulder first, and then fell to the ground as he turned around. The national media covered her claims widely, while largely ignoring his. Foval explains that the woman had been “trained” as a part of his operation.
Foval also explains how the operation is set up to allow the DNC and the Clinton campaign “plausible deniability” in the event that the true nature of the deliberate violence is discovered: “The thing that we have to watch is making sure there’s a double-blind between the actual campaign and the actual DNC and what we’re doing. There’s a double-blind there, so that they can plausibly deny that they heard anything about it.”
He explains the flow of money in “rapid response” operations: “The campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, the Foval Group goes and executes the shit on the ground.”
And Foval emphasizes that the goal of “bird-dogging” is to create a sense of “anarchy” around Trump: ”The bird-dogging. The aggressive bird-dogging. What I call it is ‘conflict engagement.’ … Conflict engagement in the lines at Trump rallies? We’re starting anarchy. And he needs to understand that we’re starting anarchy.” Continue reading
Best ad of the campaign thus far.
My friend Jay Anderson comes out temporarily from blogging retirement to note the recent history of Democrats atttempting to control the Catholic Church:
In case you’re wondering, the “middle ages dictatorship” that is the Catholic Church and her Bishops is right there in the middle of Hillary Clinton’s so-called “basket of deplorables”. And the Clinton team had a plan to rid themselves of these troublesome priests by “plant[ing] the seeds of the revolution” against the Catholic hierarchy and its teachings via infiltration and subversion.
Some of us caught on to this plan a decade ago…
Vindication. Yes, an opportunity to gloat. To say “I told you so.”
Not a very pretty sentiment, but that’s about the only thing that could bring me out of blogging retirement (but only for this one post) in the electoral Annus Horribilis that is 2016.
So it turns out that what we knew ALL ALONG about the Soros-funded DemoCatholic front groups Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and its sister organization Catholics United was, in fact, 100% on the money. We have an admission right out of the horse’s mouth (or, rather, out of the horse’s leaked emails). I haven’t the time nor the inclination to get into a long retrospective detailing the war of words that I and other like-minded bloggers waged over several years — beginning a decade ago — against Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United. Instead, I will direct you to the links below, which will more than fill you in and give you a taste of what was being said and what was at stake.
In short, my part in this drama began a decade ago during the 2006 elections, when Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good published a Catholic voter guide that played down the priority given by the Church to traditional life issues in favor of a hodge-podge of issues straight out of the Democrat Party platform. At first, I began by just blogging about and linking to what others were saying about this mysterious group who had suddenly appeared on the scene in the midst of a mid-term election. As the evidence poured in, especially evidence that linked the group to funding provided by none other than George Soros, it soon became clear that Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good was little more than a front group for the Democrat Party and its efforts to blur the lines on life issues with Catholic voters.
And then, the week before the November 2006 elections, our own Catholic Chronicle — the usually fairly orthodox newspaper of the Diocese of Toledo, Ohio — published a front-page puff piece on the efforts of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good in our own diocese to promote their vision and their voter guide (the story reported the efforts in a straightforward manner, without questioning the problematic aspects of the group and its voter guide).. The proverbial you-know-what must’ve hit the fan in the Chancery offices once the very orthodox then-Toledo Bishop Leonard Blair (now Archbishop of Hartford, CT) caught wind of it, because the article was gone from the Chronicle’s website within a matter of hours after it was published. Alas, it was too late to remove the article from the print editions, which went out the weekend before the elections on the following Tuesday to parishes Diocese-wide. So, in response to the Chronicle’s article, I penned a letter to the editor taking the Chronicle and the main protagonist of the article, Prof. Richard Gaillardetz, to task for the misrepresentation and manipulation of Catholic teaching. The Chronicle eventually published my letter, along with a few others disagreeing with the article and its timing, a couple of months later. Following the letter’s publication, the response from the Catholics in Alliance crowd was swift and predictably unpleasant. You can read the comments here for a taste. This war of words against Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United (and various offshoots like Catholic Democrats, etc.) went on for several years and took many twists and turns, which you can read about in the links at the bottom of this post.
In the end, it is my belief that, ultimately, those of us leading the charge against these groups lost that war (at least in the short term covering 2006, 2008, and 2012). Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United accomplished their aims of convincing Catholics that voting for a party that views government-funded abortion on demand as a sacrament, and that views the destruction of the traditional family as a prerequisite to achieving its policy goals and destroying the institutions — such as the Church and other religious people and organizations — that might stand in that party’s way of achieving said policy goals, was not only morally acceptable, but was, in fact, the MOST Catholic way to vote. See, e.g., Doug Kmiec. “These groups are merely drawing attention to long-ignored issues of importance to Catholics,” some said. “These groups are doing the Church a service by focusing on the need for a ‘consistent ethic of life’,” they said (never mind that these groups NEVER talked about such life issues as abortion, euthanasia, or the sanctity of the family). Entire blogs were established for the purpose of propagandizing the issues that the DemoCath groups argued were being ignored because of Catholic voters’ allegedly “obsessive” focus on “a narrow spectrum of issues regarding family and sexuality” (i.e. the sanctity of life and the family). Sometimes, these blogs had well-meaning founders who definitely raised important issues for Catholics to consider when they were deciding how to vote, but these blogs often quickly devolved into DemoCath propaganda organs as certain bloggers and frequent combox commentators used those fora to press forward the agitprop that ultimately undermined the good of the Catholic Church and her teachings in favor of the pursuit of Democrat Party policy goals. Far too many Catholics who should have known better allowed themselves to be swayed by the arguments of those whose only purpose was to weaken the resolve of Catholic voters to stand for the Catholic Church’s teachings on the primacy of life and family issues, and instead were duped by these malefactors to trade that birthright for a mess of feel-good leftist policy pottage. And that party repaid them by, among many other things, suing nuns to force them to provide birth control in their medical policies. And, in response, Catholic voters had so weakened their resolve to stand for traditional life issues, that they re-elected the guy who has consistently attacked their Church. Which was the goal of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United all along. Today, there is no identifiable “Catholic Vote” left to speak of thanks to the likes of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United.
So, it turns out to be a rather bittersweet bit of gloating, at best, when I read the latest WikiLeaks email dump, which includes a 2012 email exchange in which HilLIARy Clinton’s current campaign chairman, John Podesta, openly brags about being involved in efforts to infiltrate the Catholic Church and foment a “Catholic Spring” (i.e. a bottom-up rebellion against the Church hierarchy and its teaching authority akin to the “Arab Spring” — albeit without the violence, one hopes — that led to revolutions in Egypt, Libya, and Syria). The means of fomenting this takeover of the Church? Why, none other than Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United:
This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage even though 98% of Catholic women (and their conjugal partners) have used contraception has me thinking . . . There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church. Is contraceptive coverage an issue around which that could happen. The Bishops will undoubtedly continue the fight. Does the Catholic Hospital Association support of the Administration’s new policy, together with “the 98%” create an opportunity?
Of course, this idea may just reveal my total lack of understanding of the Catholic church, the economic power it can bring to bear against nuns and priests who count on it for their maintenance, etc. Even if the idea isn’t crazy, I don’t qualify to be involved and I have not thought at all about how one would “plant the seeds of the revolution,” or who would plant them.
Just wondering . . .
Hoping you’re well, and getting to focus your time in the ways you want.
Sandy Newman, President
Voices for Progress
Date: 2012-02-11 11:45
Subject: Re: opening for a Catholic Spring? just musing . . .
We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up. I’ll discuss with Tara. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the other person to consult. (emphasis added)
It is, of course, true that wars never do half the good which the leaders of the belligerents say they are going to do. Nothing ever does half the good — perhaps nothing ever does half the evil — which is expected of it. And that may be a sound argument for not pitching one’s propaganda too high. But it is no argument against war. If a Germanised Europe in 1914 would have been an evil, then the war which would have prevented that evil would have been, so far, justified. To call it useless because it did not also cure slums and unemployment is like coming up to a man who has just succeeded in defending himself from a man-eating tiger and saying, “It’s no good, old chap. This hasn’t really cured your rheumatism!”
Dave Griffey at his blog Daffy Thoughts wrote this about the recent comments by Rush Limbaugh regarding sexual morality:
What Rush Limbaugh said is here. What Rush Limbaugh didn’t appear to say in the least was that rape is defensible. I’m no fan of Rush, and you’ll notice I seldom reference him. Not that he isn’t right sometimes. Sure he is. My favorite reference is the time he observed that the Baby Boomers are the first generation in history that didn’t have to grow up. Good observation there.
Nonetheless, he’s problematic enough for me to look to other sources for opinion. Still, with that said, he doesn’t deserve to be falsely accused of something as horrific as defending rape unless it can be demonstrated that he unequivocally said rape is defensible. What he appears to be saying is what many have said over the years, and what we are witnessing today.
Assume, just for a minute, that Donald Trump is innocent of the accusations being made against him. And assume, just for a minute, as opposed to what Major Garrett on CBS said yesterday morning, that he doesn’t have to provide evidence to show he is innocent, but that the accusers have to show evidence that he is guilty. Assuming this basic ‘innocent until proven guilty’ standard that was so crucial in the late 90s, we can say that what Trump has said about and to women is vulgar, despicable, deplorable, wrong, bad, horrific, and anything else to drive home the point. If, that is, we say there is such as thing as objective morality.
The problem Rush has is that those who are saying this are some of the same who stood idly by 4 years ago when similar things were said about Michelle Bachmann, 8 years ago when worse was said about Sarah Palin, her daughter, her children, and almost 20 years ago when more than one accuser of Bill Clinton was called a liar, a whore for the Republicans, and trailer park trash. All while we were told that when it comes to sex, nobody cares, there are no real objective morals, it’s up in the air, it isn’t important, and it doesn’t even matter if we lie or commit perjury. As long as you have consent – and even that seemed to depend on who was saying there wasn’t consent involved – everything was fair game.
It’s a fair statement and a fair observation. Perhaps he didn’t do the best job conveying that view. But nothing in the complete statement suggests he was defending rape or in any way suggesting rape is not wrong or that there is a problem with being upset about rape.
Mark Shea showed up in the combox and, as usual, was the quiet voice of reason:
What he did was sneer that critics of non-consensual sex are “rape police”. Normal people just call them “police”. Because non-consensual sex is rape. And you defend it. Because you guys are twisting yourselves into pretzels defending the sex predator you have made your Dear Leader. Good job. Continue reading
If we had a real media in this country instead of shills for the Democrat party, Hillary would be getting about 20% of the vote.
From the only reliable source of Catholic news on the net, Eye of the Tiber:
A new series of emails released yesterday by WikiLeaks connected to its dump of John Podesta’s server show that ancestors to presidential nominee Hillary Clinton attempted to sabotage the Catholic Church by creating the Society of Jesus hundreds of years prior to her nomination.
The emails in question discuss Clinton’s and Podesta’s lineage back to the 1540’s when family ancestors schemed to undermine the Church by beginning the famed Society of Jesus that they hoped would, centuries later, incite disunity within the Church during “some sort of a Church council, and hopefully, help secure a possible future nomination of an heir.”
“[Catholics] are attracted to reason, to Thomistic thought and, God forbid one day, even to the belief that matters ought to be handled by the lowest centralized competent authority possible, meaning, not our heir. Could you even imagine if, say in a few hundred years a new country was begun, built upon the basic rights of citizens and the separation of Church and State, whereby no one, including political candidates, could discriminate against any particular religion? Screwtape forbid,” wrote John Podesta’s ancestor Robert Podesta in a leaked letter written in 1539, in reference to conservative Catholics.
“I imagine they think the Church is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion,” Robert Podesta continued. “But imagine if we began a ‘society’ so strong and faithful to the Magisterium in the beginning of their formation, and perhaps a little longer, that Catholics would feel so guilty and maybe even blasphemous if they ever disagreed with one of its members or said anything ill of the order? Then hundreds of years down the road many of the members of this ‘society’ would all of a sudden no longer be attracted to Thomistic thought and, well come to think of it, any thought at all.”
“Excellent point,” Hillary Clinton descendant Jonathan Rodham responded. “They can throw around ‘wisdom’ and ‘discernment’ and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they’re talking about.”
Another letter from Rodham called the Church a medieval dictatorship, calling for a “Catholic spring,” against the teachings of the Bible and virtually everything that is written by any news source unless they are called the National Catholic Reporter. Continue reading
Something for the weekend. A nice mild October Saturday after a not uneventful week in the law mines Time to celebrate with Pachelbel’s Canon in D. Perhaps the greatest of the middle Baroque composers, Johann Pachelbel enjoyed enormous popularity in his lifetime. After his death in 1706, with changing fashions in music, he was largely forgotten. This changed dramatically in 1968 with a recording of Canon D by Jean-Francois Paillard. Great Art never really ceases to be great Art, it merely slumbers until new audiences appear to appreciate it.
Nine hundred and fifty years since the Norman Conquest and it may be all the fault of my bride’s family! She is a descendant of Norwegian King Harold Hardrada (Hard Ruler), a true swashbuckler whose exploits ranged from Constantinople to the Arctic Circle. He lived as a Viking although after he became King he was sympathetic to Christianity. The golden age of Hollywood missed a great movie on his life with Errol Flynn in the starring role. The Norman victory at Hastings may not have been possible but for his invasion of England in alliance with Tostig, the brother of English King Harold Godwinson. Harold Hardrada was defeated by Harold Godwinson at Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire, losing the battle and his life. The battle was fought on September 25, 1066. Harold Godwinson left much of his forces in the north to guard against any further Norwegian raids. By the time of the Battle of Hastings on October 14, 1066, Harold’s force was weary from fighting and forced marching and much smaller than it would have been but for Harold Hardrada’s intervention. If Harold had won, who knows, perhaps my bride would now be part of British royalty! However, in that reality she almost certainly would never have married me. I selfishly prefer this reality!
I always like it when Pope Francis departs from his prepared texts because it is then that we get true insight into the man. Such insight was gained this week:
Breaking away from his prepared remarks, the Pope said told the ecumenical group that he is appalled by “the contradiction of those who want to defend Christianity in the West, and, on the other hand, are against refugees and other religions.” He also spoke of his distaste for proselytism.
“It’s not right to convince someone of your faith,” the Pope said. “Proselytism is the strongest venom against the path of ecumenism.”
The visiting German group was composed of Catholics and Lutherans, making a pilgrimage together to visit the Pope. In his prepared remarks the Holy Father described their visit as “a beautiful initative,” and remarked that Lutherans and Catholics “are journeying together on the way from conflict to communion.”
What really gets the Pope’s juices going is the thought of Catholics who wish to convert the world to Catholicism and Catholics who believe that dumping millions of muslims into Western nations is idiocy. In short, the Pope hates Catholics as that term was understood prior to the onset of his kidney stone of a Papacy. He is leader of the Faith, God help us, but he will never be a Pope (father) to us.
Theodore Roosevelt was President of the United States when the Cubs last won the World Series on October 14, 1908, defeating the Detroit Tigers 2-0. Just barely within human memory, about one hundred Americans are still alive now who were alive then. It was the second World Series win for the Cubs, their first being the year before in 1907. Why the Cubs have had this championship drought, other than bad ball playing, has been a matter of much speculation. The most popular explanation is the Curse of the Billy Goat.
In 1945 Billy Sianis, owner of the Billy Goat Tavern, was attending game four of the World Series being held in Wrigley Field, once again the Chicago Cubs facing the Detroit Tigers. This being Chicago where odd characters are as common as blustery politicians, he brought his pet goat Murphy with him to the game. Other patrons complained that the goat stank. Sianis was thrown out. As he was leaving Sianis was heard to say,“Them Cubs, they ain’t gonna win no more!”.
When the Cubs lost the series, Sianis sent a telegram to P.K. Wrigley, the owner of the Cubs: “Who stinks now?” Continue reading
The Vatican gave its opinion about the root causes of terrorism at 2016 OSCE Mediterranean Conference on Youth North and South of the Mediterranean: Facing Security Challenges and Enhancing Opportunities. (We live in the golden age of worthless international conferences.):
Root causes that promote violent extremism, radicalization and terrorism among the young must be faced: dissatisfaction, a failure of integration policies, unemployment, a sense of loss, including the feeling of not having a future, a vacuum of values and fractures within families. Moreover, violent extremism, radicalization and terrorism finds a fertile ground in growing intolerance, discrimination, racism and xenophobia, including as a result of certain counter-terrorism policies. For all these reasons, we have to bear in mind once again that global economic inequalities, marginalization and exclusion are not only a grave social and economic concern, but can also become a threat to international peace and security, including in the OSCE area and in the Mediterranean region. Thus, achieving social justice and inclusion is pivotal to countering the recruitment and radicalization of young people. Continue reading
Mark Shea, in his full throated conversion to the Left, puts on display his current lack of intellectual honesty:
Today’s “Conservatism”: where there’s something weird and silly about having a problem with non-consensual sex. Mr. Limbaugh: the term for that is “rape”. And yes, for rape we do, in fact, call the police, you dolt. I’m sure that your moronic remark has nothing to do with the ongoing struggle of the freak show that is right wing media to defend their Sex Predator candidate.
Trump is gonna lose. And it will be so satisfying to watch him and his team of professional liars and mob of misogynist racist followers trying to claim that he was robbed and blame everybody but themselves for the catastrophe for which they and they alone are totally and completely responsible. It’s about damned time the Party of Personal Responsibility was forced to take some responsibility.
Go here to read the comments.
Notice that Mark did not link to Limbaugh’s site. Here is what Limbaugh actually wrote:
Standards, you stand up for moral standards, you’re gonna be mocked and laughed out of the room. They’re gonna call you a prude. They’re gonna call you a Victorian. They’re gonna call you an old fuddy-duddy, an old fogy, and they’re gonna claim you want to deny people having a good time. So a culture which rejects moral standards. In other words, anything goes. You know what the magic word is? The only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is one thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is?
If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it’s perfectly fine, whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left. “How ironic, then, that a culture which rejects moral standards has suddenly become so pure and pristine, sitting in judgment of someone they deem too immoral to become president because of something he said in private. As a logical person, I have to ask these paragons of newly found virtue where this standard by which they’ve judged Trump is found.”
If morality is relative to each individual — and believe me, it is today. You try to define morality, and they’re gonna come for you and mock you and make fun of you, and, worse than that, it’s like you don’t have any right to define morality. One of the Undeniable Truths of Life that I wrote back in 1987 is that morality has become an individual choice. And, of course, it isn’t.
Morality is what it is. Virtue is what it is. And you either are or you aren’t. And the left doesn’t like that so they’ve obscured the lines and the definitions. And the definition now is moral is whatever you can get somebody to do with you, consent. You can do anything. If you could get the dog to consent with you, if you can get the horse to consent, we got no problem with it. And they don’t! So morality has been boiled down to consent, is my point, and it’s true.
So it’s said here, “If morality is relative to each individual — a purely subjective experience — by what standard are they judging Trump? Obviously, in such a secular climate, there can’t even be a ‘standard.’ Why should anyone listen to people who out of one side of their mouths declare the death of objective moral standards yet out of the other condemn someone for violating objective moral standards?”
Because, you see, morality is not subjective. “Human beings possess the capacity for rationality and objectivity. We’re able to distinguish what’s good and what’s bad,” and we know it. We know right from wrong. We know good from bad. We know what we should do and what we shouldn’t do and the left wants to not feel guilt when they engage in what you shouldn’t do. And the way to get there is to simply erase the concept of objective morality. There isn’t any. You don’t get to define it. Nobody else does. You get to define your own. And therefore you can’t criticize.
Well, in this atmosphere, how does anybody dare preach to Donald Trump? When we have spent the last 25 or 30 years obliterating the moral code, when we have blown virtue to smithereens, who are you phony baloney, plastic banana, good-time rock ‘n’ rollers all of a sudden now sitting in judgment of Donald Trump?
“Trump’s trashy comments do not uphold sex and romance as a beautiful and fulfilling, uplifting activity. But neither do Bill Clinton’s actions over the years, particularly with respect to his many, many dalliances with women. Bill Clinton is not running for president. His wife is. But his wife built her whole career off the springboard of his presidency. Without his presidency, she would not have become a U.S. Senator and later Secretary of State — a bad one,” but she wouldn’t have become either if it weren’t for her husband and her using that as her springboard.
Go here to read the rest. I guess winning political battles by any means, fair or foul, possible is important in some quarters. For myself, I like being able to look at my face in the mirror when I shave.
Dave Griffey at Daffy Thoughts views the Clinton campaign e-mails about the Church as not anti-Catholic, but rather a demonstration of the Borg quality of contemporary liberalism:
There’s quite a buzz about some of the emails dumped from Hillary’s camp. Admittedly you have to sift through the news hours to find mention of these. It isn’t necessarily 24/7 coverage. Don’t know why, but except for FOX, nobody is really talking about this. In any event, allow me to point out that these emails are not anti-Catholic. They’re basic, modern progressive 101. They’re not trashing Catholics or Catholicism. They’re trashing that which isn’t liberal. They’re not saying the Catholic Church sucks. They’re saying the Catholic Church that doesn’t conform to liberalism sucks. They’re not saying Catholics are stupid or wicked. They’re saying Catholics who don’t convert to the liberal gospel are stupid and wicked. There’s a difference.
The strength of liberalism is that it invites all people into its fold. Everyone, from all walks of life, all beliefs, all backgrounds. It merely insists that certain non-negotiables be accepted. Do that, and you’re accepted. Steven Colbert is a fine example. No Catholic is more lauded in our popular culture for his Catholic faith than Colbert. That’s because everyone assumes he is also quite liberal, and accepts liberalism on the key, important issues.
I realize the double standard. I get that if this email said the same things about Muslims and was passed along between GOP workers, then this would be 24/7 outrage. It would be the Fluke Revolution all over again. I get that. It is what it is. If you don’t realize where most of the press is at this point, then there’s not much sense discussing anything else. But keep the outrage in perspective and keep it accurate. In the end, it’s all about that progressive model of reality. These emails are not trashing Catholicism. They are reminding us of the Romification of liberalism. Just as Rome said all you needed to do was pay your taxes, keep the peace and bow to Caesar, and then you can keep what gods you want, so the modern Left says the same. And based on the number of Christians beginning to see the progressive light, I’d say it’s turned out to be an effective bargain.
Go here to read the comments. Perhaps the Borg is not the proper reference. I am sure that Geek liberals think of themselves as building a benevolent, all encompassing Federation that will take all of humanity and place them at the service of noble leftist causes. To them, my response will ever be that of Commander Eddington: