Gettysburg the Film

Wednesday, July 5, AD 2017


At Daffey Thoughts Dave Griffey celebrates the film Gettysburg, the only film that  my bride and I ever hired a babysitter for in order to see, all the way back in 1993, which is now almost a quarter of a century ago, unbelievably enough to me.  Time does run in a rapid stream:


An annual viewing tradition around July 4th.  From a time before the dark days of Multiculturalism taught us to ignore the myriad sins of the world while refusing to forgive the sins of the West.

Adapted from Michael Shaara’s The Killer Angels, it marked that last point where the Civil War was popularly understood as driven by the issue of slavery, but also about many complex issues, as history always is.

But that was then.  Today history,  like so many things, has been whittled down to a soundbite.  Hence the end of the Confederate memorials; hence raising new bigotries and racisms to replace the old.  Those hellbent on ignoring the past are, after all, doomed to repeat it.  Or – good news for the post-war generations – our posterity will be doomed to repeat it.

Sometimes I think the reason we spend so much time focused on the sins of the past is because, deep down, we can’t help but think they were better than we are (exceptions noted).  As a generation, our greatest accomplishment is watching the civilization we inherited crumble under our feet.  And in the end, that’s not much to endear us to future memory.  A generation that has concluded “we can climb higher by kicking down the ladder by which we have come thus far” has shown why the”progressive habit of thinking we can make the world better for our children by murdering the memory of our grandparents is folly.”

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.  Just some whimsy on this Independence Day celebration.  Now off to the fireworks!


Continue reading...

9 Responses to Gettysburg the Film

  • I was in habit of watching “Gettysburg” on VCR. Don’t have it set up any more. Steven Sears’ book is good, especially his depiction of Pickett’s Charge and the effective Union defenses, especially the arty. Gettysburg, whether or not intentionally on both sides, was Fredericksburg in reverse, only the Confederates made it a much closer affair.

    We, by advancing the worst political classes in History, pretty well screwed the pooch. Mostly, by allowing ourselves to be gulled by the smart kids/pencil-necked liars that we used to slap around in high school.

  • ” Hence the end of the Confederate memorials; hence raising new bigotries and racisms to replace the old. Those hellbent on ignoring the past are, after all, doomed to repeat it.”
    My father, born, raised and living all his 72 years in south Mississippi, once said to me after my grade school trip to see Jeff Davis’s final home at Beauvoir, ” I don’t mind if they remember the lost cause, as long as they remember that they lost.” That always gave me–a proud, black, southern, American, Catholic– a philosophical view of the battle flag, the UDC Johnny Reb column in front of the courthouse, statues of Lee and other reb heros. White southerners remember a proud but sad history. I can rejoice in how far we’ve come from that particular point in our history. But the history IS ours–all of ours. Some of those people are even our blood.
    My great-grandfather was one of N.B. Forrest’s troopers who lost his lower leg near Shiloh. In his fifties, he married a 15 year old girl of black, French, and Choctaw ancestry at the Catholic Church in DeLisle, MS. Not sure what her attraction to him was exactly, but he had a wounded soldiers pension and some land. My father said of his grandpa, “He didn’t like black folks generally, but loved [his wife] and her family.”
    That’s why I love the south…..

  • “My great-grandfather was one of N.B. Forrest’s troopers who lost his lower leg near Shiloh. In his fifties, he married a 15 year old girl of black, French, and Choctaw ancestry at the Catholic Church in DeLisle, MS. Not sure what her attraction to him was exactly, but he had a wounded soldiers pension and some land. My father said of his grandpa, “He didn’t like black folks generally, but loved [his wife] and her family.”
    That’s why I love the south…..”

    BPS your story is symbolic of just how complex the South is, and why it has always fascinated this Yankee!

  • BPS, awesome story… yes, it’s amazing how many counter-intuitive stories there are like this. We’re programmed to accept a very simplistic, merely racial explanation for the war. But the truth is more complex, as in the case of this all-black confederate regiment, the 1st Louisiana:

  • Tom McKenna, not sure what you mean by “simplistic, merely racial explanation for the war”, especially since the article you link to was about a group of mixed black-French southerner who whose offer of service to their community in defending their property in black slaves was eventually rejected due to the groups black (not French) ancestry. This is the community I come from, they consider themselves ‘creole’ and, until very recently, they were as prejudiced against their more obviously black neighbors as their white neighbors. Before the Civil War, some owned slaves, and wanted to continue owning them, and were willing to fight to do continue to do so, much like their white neighbors.
    The fact they were willing to do so, in defiance of the natural law, and what their Catholic Christian faith called them to do (see Declaration of Independence and Paul’s Letter to Philemon), is, of course, a sin. But one doesn’t turn his back on family or community because they’re sinners, because we’re all sinners.

  • BPS, out of curiosity, where do you stand on the eradication of the Civil War memorials?

  • “But one doesn’t turn his back on family or community because they’re sinners, because we’re all sinners.”

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

  • Dave Griffey asked: “where do you stand on the eradication of the Civil War memorials?”
    I’m against it Dave. See my first post in this thread.

  • BPS, thanks. That’s how I read it, but I wanted to verify. Thanks, also, for the perspective that we don’t always hear.

Caesar Signals Thumbs Down on Charlie Gard

Thursday, June 29, AD 2017



For deluded Catholics who believe that Moses carried down an eleventh commandment stating “Caesar picks up the tab for Healthcare!”, Dave Griffey gives some food for thought at Daffey Thoughts:


God bless these parents and this beautiful child.  Already facing a fatal genetic condition, the child has struggled to live during his short life.  The parents had hoped to bring the child to the US to try an experimental procedure in a last hope of saving the baby.

In a turn of events that explains the general hesitation about turning such matters over to the State, the UK courts have said the parents can’t do this.  The hospital will remove the child from life support.  The parents appealed and took the matter to the European court.  But the court refused to overturn the lower court decision.  The child will die.

Not because the child was left to die, or because the child was removed from life support.  But because the parents were forbidden to bring their child to the US for the experimental treatment.  Therefore, after hearing the case brought by the hospital and the parents as prescribed by UK law, the courts and the state have dictated that the child will die.  Perhaps he would have died anyway.  But it doesn’t take much to see why people are bothered by the fact that it was the courts, and not the parents, that had the final say.

I can’t imagine what those parents are feeling right now, and that precious child who knows nothing of this.  God grant peace and strength to all involved in the coming weeks, and bless young Charlie Gard with all your love.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Caesar Signals Thumbs Down on Charlie Gard

  • This is the world pope Francis has repeatedly advocated in his writings. He believes we need to turn more and more of our lives over to the state. Totalitarianism always ends the same. God Bless little Charlie.

  • For an extra angle of horror– they already have the funds for it, too. They just need the hospital to LET GO of the kid.
    But no.

  • The medical profession is untrustworthy in these types of situations. As for the judiciary, it’s impossible to think of an occupational sliver who are worse at what they do . Just repulsive.

  • “SINGLE PAYER: Devastated parents of Charlie Gard spend their last night with their baby and blast ‘heartless’ doctors for refusing to let them take him home to die before they turn off his life support later today.

    Robert Bidinotto posted on Facebook yesterday:

    They have already declared him, explicitly or tacitly, “brain dead” or vegetative. If they are correct — and I have no reason to doubt their medical judgment — then no issue of protecting the child’s rights or “interests” exists any longer — by their own premises.

    What the parents are proposing is thus no threat to the child, his rights, or his interests. It is simply to exercise THEIR right to conduct an experiment of sheer desperation, in order to see whether they can salvage their child. If that child is already medically irretrievable, then please define for me whose “interest” would be threatened by allowing the parents to exercise that right.

    There is no rational or moral reason to deny them this right. The only conceivable “interests” involved are those of the denizens of the socialized-medicine regime, who do perceive a threat — not to a child they have already written off, but to their power to make and enforce life-or-death decisions over the disposition of healthcare. No, sorry: This case is not about science; it is not about the child’s rights or interests; it is about exerting state power against a perceived popular menace to the socialized medicine system, which would come from allowing individuals the freedom to exercise their rights to make their own personal medical choices.

    What is happening to the Gards is just “necessary” reminder of the individual’s place in the socialized scheme of things.

    Posted at 8:25 am by Stephen Green”

    The inhuman bastards who did this, unless they repent, may find out why Love Incarnate found it necessary to have a Hell.

  • Another case of the courts usurping an individual’s right to life and the rights of the parents to protect and care for their child. Yet the courts continue to protect the “reproductive rights of women” aka abortion. (Apparently men have no reproductive rights).
    I first saw the story about Charlie and his parents on this evening and immediately looked on TAC. Thank you for posting the interview with his parents.
    To deny this child a chance of positive medical treatment is evil. To prohibit the parents from taking baby Charlie to their family home where he can die naturally in the warmth and love of his parents’ arms is beyond cruel.
    Perhaps the hospital and the court is afraid that Charlie in his parents’ care may not die after all?

    Even a family pet being put down at the vet is allowed to feel its owner’s touch and hear the comforting voice of its beloved master.
    I am praying for Divine intervention for Charlie and his parents.

    Weak. You’d think the Pontifical Academy For Life would live up to its name. Wrong.

  • Foxfier: The hospital does not own Charlie. This is kidnapping.

  • Pingback: Caesar Signals Thumbs Down on Charlie Gard | Truth Alert
  • Charlie deserves EVERY opportunity to live, not to be ‘euthanized’ by removing his breathing apparatus. This is not a natural death, it is an intentional death. God has brought Charlie to the world’s attention for the world to wake up to these cases. People are being euthanized without their consent and hopefully the world will start to take notice of the realities going on without our knowledge.

History and Leftist Inconoclasm

Monday, May 8, AD 2017

He was a foe without hate; a friend without treachery; a soldier without cruelty; a victor without oppression; and a victim without murmuring. He was a public officer without vices; a private citizen without wrong; a neighbor without reproach; a Christian without hypocrisy and a man without guile. He was a Caesar without his ambition; Frederick without his tyranny; Napoleon without his selfishness; and Washington without his reward.

Benjamin Hill on Robert E. Lee


Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts notes that Mark Shea has embraced the leftist crusade of purging the nation of all things Confederate:



Why should we have a monument in our capital named for a hypocritical racist slave owner?  Or for that matter, why should our capital be named for one?  Mark Shea explains.  Mark isn’t advocating the eradication of Washington’s name from his home state, or the destruction of the Jefferson Memorial, or the closing down of Independence Hall, or moving the presidential residency from a building built on the backs of slaves.

Nothing in his post, however, could be used to condemn such actions.  In fact, the post could be used to defend such actions.   As a Believer, I’m a little bothered by the sudden emergence of the ‘erase the Confederacy and everyone in it’ movement that has gained steam since the Charleston Shooting.  Mark himself decried the sudden removal of Confederate symbols from museums and other historic locations.

Nonetheless, he seems fine with the removal of monuments for even such luminaries as Robert E. Lee, who often was compared to Erwin Rommel, a brave and noble man on the wrong side of the debate.   Sure, you could argue there is a dearth of high schools or statues celebrating Rommel, but that is because for the longest time, people actually believed that the American South, if not America, and Nazi Germany were different animals.  Now, of course, those differences are eroding.  Since there is typically good and bad in most people, places, and things, deciding to weigh all equally on the Nazi Comparison scale seems a dangerous trend.

In fact some could argue, as Mark appears to, that there was little moral difference between the North and South.  Perhaps the rest of the US was every bit as bad.  And if so, then why keep anything honoring it or those who fought for it?  No more God bless America?  Just God damn America?  Perhaps.  Given that in my lifetime I watched a concerted effort to stop seeing such historical luminaries as Attila the Hun, or such civilizations as the Vikings or the Mongols in purely negative ways, I have a hard time seeing the reverse trend when it comes to America.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to History and Leftist Inconoclasm

  • By erasing the memory of history we are condemned to repeat it. Paraphrase of George Santayana: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

  • I think its time Mark should team up with Bill Nye as a new comedic duo. Kind of like Laurel and Hardy

  • This hysteria is a neo-Talibanic effort to enforce a vision of social purity on the part of zealots. There is no logical end to it that would exclude eradicating any street, town, city, or monument named after Washington.

  • Agreed. The Confederacy is merely a momentary stand in for the true leftist target: the United States of America.

  • I’m in favor of leaving most Confederate memorials intact for this simple reason: the men that Mark hates with an incandescent rage did something for which all Americans should be grateful: with almost no exceptions, they encouraged the South to accept the verdict of the battlefield and reconcile with the nation. If they had not–especially Robert E. Lee, who rejected guerilla warfare at the end–America would be a weakened garrison state. A few statues is a small price to pay for freedom.

  • Mark hates with an incandescent rage did something for which all Americans should be grateful: with almost no exceptions

    Good point.

    One problem is that some political figures have virtues expressed only in private life. That statue of Pitchfork Ben Tillman might properly be moved to a museum.

    Agreed. The Confederacy is merely a momentary stand in for the true leftist target: the United States of America.

    Half of it is black politicians (or passing-for-black politicians like Ben Jealous) who are bereft of ideas and have nothing better to do but mark territory. The other half is academic types like Wm. Chafe who wish to set themselves up as arbiters of value in American history and life. I’m inclined to tell both sorts to take a hike.

  • The only thing that really annoys me about The American Catholic, is the time it wastes complaining about nonentities like Mark Shea. Who cares?

  • Mark is not a non-entity. He is taken by many Catholics as a Catholic apologist and regularly appears before Church groups.

  • “One problem is that some political figures have virtues expressed only in private life. That statue of Pitchfork Ben Tillman might properly be moved to a museum.”

    That point is well-taken. I’m much more amenable to removing the statues of Confederate politicians as opposed to their soldiery and combat commanders.

  • The only thing that really annoys me about The American Catholic, is the time it wastes complaining about nonentities like Mark Shea. Who cares?

    About 15 years ago, he was one of the more widely circulated Catholic (non-fiction) writers in the country. By and large, magazine journalism has fallen on hard times in the intervening years and (I suspect if you examined the question carefully), the audience for that sort of thing is demoralized to a degree it was not at that time. Shea himself has been suffering from some sort of middle-age decay of occult origin, so has likely lost his audience (though gained an audience among a modest corps of cranky palaeos). I suspect he gets bookings from people who are familiar with some of the monographs he’s published in the past and just have not reviewed his online writings.

    One problem is (and you can see this looking at Ignatius Press catalogues) is that Catholic writers who are accessible to general audiences with work in print tend to be deceased (Regine Pernoud, John Senior, and, more recently, Ralph McInerney), very old (Peter Kreeft), retired and silent (Sandra Miesel), or on the cusp of retirement (Robert George). There does not seem to be anyone younger coming down the pipeline.

  • It galled me that students at Washington and Lee University in Virginia, where Lee presided after the war, campaigned and succeeded in removing Confederate symbols on campus. I never understand why, with all the colleges in the United States, why students attend a school and attempt to change their culture. Why not just attend another university?

  • I never understand why, with all the colleges in the United States, why students attend a school and attempt to change their culture. Why not just attend another university?

    You recall Sandra Fluke, against her economic interest, elected to attend Georgetown in order to pester the school administration.

    It’s doubtful the youths who engage in this sort of tripe (or the faculty and administration who are their collaborators) are the sort to attempt to appreciate the world around them as is.

    One thing I’ve noticed, now that Nat Hantoff has died, is that the progressive dispensation is occupied almost entirely by people who trade in sentiment (on the one hand) and people who are forever making accusations (on the other). Be nice if the vanguard of 50% of the population weren’t given to self-aggrandizement morning, noon, and night, but we do not live in that world.

  • Checking some data online, it would appear that about 50% of their matriculating freshman are not Southerners. The place is a swank and selective private college. They recruit from the professional-managerial bourgeoisie with a leavening of patrician types. To some extent, these are now status markers in that set.

  • I live3 and hour away from New Orleans. One of the most well-known landmarks is Lee Circle, with the statue of Gen. Robt. E. Lee atop a tall column, the column’s foundation an island that operates as a traffic circle for St. Charles Sreet and the iconic St. Charles streetcar line. It amazes me how the powers that be namely politically correct liberals have successfully garnered enough support for the dismantling of this and other monuments. In the case of Lee, who as the article correctly noted, was not a racist and along with his wife did what they could to help black Americans every way they could. It’s apparent those who advocate the removal of Lee’s statue are victims of their own ignorance and also the dishonesty of the mayor and others who are most certainly aware of the General and Mrs. Lee’s charitable work. This situation is also an indication of the failure of both our educational institutions for spending more time indoctrinating their student rather than teaching real history.

Just in Time for Easter

Monday, April 10, AD 2017




Like clockwork Copts are slaughtered by Jihadists as we approach Easter.  Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts prays for the victims:


As I’ve discovered, for some Christians in Islamic countries, Palm Sunday is the main celebration day.  That’s because of generations of regulations aimed at restricting their primary holy day of Easter.  I don’t know if that’s the case with Coptic Christians.  But it’s a reminder that as horrible as this is, it’s not unique, nor is it new.

I had the pleasure of speaking to several Syrian immigrants today.  Apparently they’ve not been able to tell their side of the story because they told it all to me.  Not sure what to do with their accounts, which included request for prayers for churches they attended that are gone, loved ones and friends who died horribly, or simply the ages and ages that their communities have lived under the specter of similar periods of oppression and persecution.

All I can say is that my thoughts and prayers go out to them.  In all due respect to Walt Disney, it’s actually a large world after all.  And nothing they told me today sounded at all like what I hear in our media or from our pols or designated ‘experts.’  I fear someday we Americans are going to be in for a rude awakening.    In the meantime, we can at least pray for and remember those whose celebrations were marred by death, and pray that today, those killed will be with Christ in paradise.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Just in Time for Easter

  • But, but, but… It is a religion of peace! The Pope says so. Nothing to fear. Nothing to see.

    Really, sarcasm is inappropriate and the observations that “Muslim dominated” usually means “despised minority” for Christians, is spot on. It is just hard to take the new found adoration for Islam, by our Church, seriously. I am tired of hearing that Yahweh is just Allah by another name. Jehovah is God, Allah is, at best, a fiction.

    The ahoristicity of the claim that Islam is peaceful is really offensive. Without the sword, Islam would have been a bizarre footnote to history. 400 years of violence expanded the belief, NOT the rightness of its thinking. One might as well say that the Romans embraced the Visigoths… that would be about as right.

    I am sorry for the loss and fearful of the future and I have a hard time taking the claim that Islam is peaceful, seriously.

  • About the “Is Allah the same as God the Father question”
    from the First little letter of St John verse 23
    “No one who denies the Son has the Father; everyone who confesses the Son has the Father also.”

  • Islam is a seventh century heresy that may well have been relegated to the septic tank of history if not for Middle East oil.
    Who wants to move to an Islamic country? What can you do there to enjoy yourself? Those people are miserable and unproductive..

    Christianity in Europe successfully repelled Islam, only to embrace the lunatics of the Reformation and the DisEnlightenment.

  • About the “Is Allah the same as God the Father question”
    from the First little letter of St John verse 23
    “No one who denies the Son has the Father; everyone who confesses the Son has the Father also.”
    Allah has no son to love and no son to love him. Muslims are not the adopted children of Allah. Only the Blessed Trinity is a family of LOVE.

  • Thank you, Anzlyne. Islam is an evil, pagan cult. The Pope and much of the hierarchy are culpable for the lies they tell about it. Nothing will change until we speak the truth. The future does not belong to those fail to tell the truth about Islam.

Pence Drives the Left Bonkers

Friday, March 31, AD 2017



Vice President Mike Pence has a talent for bringing out the crazy, admittedly never far beneath the surface, on the left in this nation.  They are trying to make hay out of Pence’s statement in 2002 that he never dines alone with a non-related woman not his wife.  Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts gives us the details:

Who in the world would have a problem with this? Apparently a few hellbent on looking stupid.  This is Washington, and this is Pence, a man who tries to live by his faith and thus his reputation will be target number one for those who wish to destroy him. That’s the common sense in politics part.

On the common sense in life part, neither do I. I know of few if any married men who do go out to dinner with other women one on one. Business or otherwise.  Not a single man I’ve worked for, and not a single woman I’ve worked with for that matter, does that I’m aware of.   At least ones in good marriages. That’s just common freaking sense marriage 101. It’s not really a ‘Billy Graham rule.’  Graham made it famous for pastors back in the day when clergy held a certain star status, but he didn’t pioneer the advice.  It goes back long before Graham, and generally has been followed by most men and women I know who had happy marriages.

If people do go out together with others one on one, when they’re otherwise married, that’s up to them. I wouldn’t judge one way or another.  But to make this basic common sense advice, since forever, into some scandal? I thought it was an Onion piece or SNL skit when I first heard about it. I’ll count this as almost the most stupid thing I’ve heard in a year. An actual year of stupid, and this is near the top.  And reading what the “critics” were actually saying made it worse.

Kudos to Slate for the most ‘out the arse asinine stupid’ take on this non-story.    Because the only place I can learn how much a woman has to offer is alone at dinner, not in any other setting at all.

And the “Make Walter Sobchak seem like Einstein”award goes to Philip Sherburn for comparing this principle to Sharia Law in his tweet about Pence’s choice.

I mean, the dumb has taken over the extreme left on this day in March, 2017.  Mourn or apologize or rejoice as you see fit.

Continue reading...

20 Responses to Pence Drives the Left Bonkers

  • The left are incredibly stupid and shallow, not to mention forgetful of their hero slut Bill Clinton. Cigar connoisseur wee Willie wanker.

    I do not wish for Trumps demise.
    That said, VP Pence would make an excellent replacement if ever our President was incapable of holding office.

  • I asked someone over there who was blaming Mike, “What if his wife asked it of him?”

    Their answer: “Then his wife is a suspicious fool.”

    That’s where we are now. Common sense and knowledge about human nature is now called foolish.

    They mock wisdom, and wonder how in the world they keep looking stupid.

  • When I first saw this, I thought “Oh, he’s kind of strict, like Mrs Jones at school.” And then I thought nothing more of it until today when I got an email regarding this so-called scandal.
    If this is the worst the Left can throw, they are truly scrapping the bottom to find an issue, any issue, to stir up trouble. Total non issue.
    My husband and I don’t follow this policy, but I must confess I don’t know the details of this policy either. Are we talking fancy restaurant (with suitable menu/prices), dim lighting, semi private booths/tables? Or the Wednesday lunch Pizza Bro’s day, when the usual posse (and the rest of the local financial district ) is almost always there, but only Peter and Helen make it, because Paul, Catherine, Luke, and Mary are trapped at work? Peter and Helen deciding to dine at Cafe Chez Vous is definitely sketchy, but sitting apart from each other at Pizza Bro’s seems odd. They are no longer following a predictable, established pattern.
    I’ve had lunch with other men in public places (and my husband knows about it). And my husband has been seen eating lunch with other women. On the other hand, my husband and I have a table at a local establishment (where there is zero privacy-less than Pizza Bro’s at Wednesday noon hour) I wouldn’t dream of having a drink with anybody but him. And I’d be hurt if he took a female friend/co-worker there.
    (Apologies to any establishment named Cafe Chez Vous or Pizza Bro’s-I meant them as pseudonyms)

  • I cannot recall even once in the past 40 years of my nuclear power career when I have ever had to go out to lunch or dinner alone with a woman not my wife.

    Now I have had woman bosses and we have had closed office door discussions at work about work related issues. And I have had closed door discussions with woman inspectors from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, again all about work.

    But not once have I had to go to lunch or dinner alone with anyone that was a woman. Not once.

  • About my Karen [going on 43 plus years now]:

    Rockport Pilot Newspaper; Rockport, Texas
    Letters to Editor: published March 7, 2012

    I’m here, she’s dear, get used to us- Out of the monogamy closet.
    Dear Editor:
    As the dark ages of heterophobia are waning, our society is evolving, for the good, to the point where it can now accept me and my ilk. I cannot deny it any longer-I am coming out of the monogamy closet. Yes! I am faithful to my wife and I always have been since the day we were married over 38 years ago. I have always felt different around those who, with absolutist certainty, preached: self-fulfillment, freedom, liberty, self-worth, if-it-feels-good-do-it, I-gotta-be-me, do-it-my-way, grab-for-all-the-gusto-you-can, grab [another partner]-now, do-not-judge, my-morality-is-good-as-yours, and I-choose-my-morality. Why they want to impose this on me I do not know.
    I knew deep in my heart and in my soul I was different. This is something I can turn on and off, it is a matter of my choice, my free will. It is innate in me. This is the way I was made by God and so I have come to believe it cannot be bad. I knew I was free to choose, it felt so natural. And I chose – over and over, again and again – to love my wife, and only my wife.
    I know many will heap opprobrium on me, and some will even condemn me. So, I would like to begin a dialogue with those who are not like me, even though the grip of monagaphobia for some is overwhelming and the response from some monogaphobes is often shrill, scary, and even violent. Hopefully such a dialogue will spawn a movement to have the right to monogamy recognized legally and, if necessary, enforced by the government with concomitant retroactive compensation for past injustice, with future preferential treatment.
    If it comes to legal action, no doubt many judges, fine judicial legislators, on courts at all levels and on the U.S. Supreme Court, will easily discover the Right to Monogamy hidden in the interstices of the Commerce Clause and in the penumbras of the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, buried there long ago by our Founding Parents. I anticipate City Councils across our land will pass hate speech legislation so I and those like me will no longer be assaulted with “one-wifer!”
    I look forward to Monogamy History Month – surprisingly there were monogamists who played major roles in our nation’s storied birth and growth, although this included relatively few politicians and journalists. Monogamy Challenged parking places will facilitate my visits to Wal-Mart. I relish the thought of the educational materials to be produced by organizations funded with my tax money for kindergartners that will portray monogamy in a tender, welcoming, accepting light and provide instruction, in graphic detail, about the mechanics of monogamy. I cannot wait for “Tommy Has One Mother and One Father,” “See How Happy Sally Is With Her [One] Mommy and [One] Daddy,” and “The Illustrated Joy of Monogamous Sex.”
    Monogamy has become the love that dare not be mentioned, for some a stifling, dirty thing. But, in private, I have quietly reveled in it, glorying in the love of my one wife while keeping my mouth shut for fear of reprisal. I can no longer be silent. Now I dare … I’m here, she’s dear, get used to us.
    Guy McClung

  • In my parents circle of friends, some husbands and some wives were congenial about husband from couple A having lunch or a drink with wife from couple B, but it was atypical. Succeeding generations simply do not have the social graces that one did, so it’s inadvisable for anyone else. In my old office, there was a pair who generally had lunch together (man born in 1955, woman in 1966). It always looked odd, but the reputation of the man was such and the proximity of the husband of the woman was such that I think people figured there was nothing going on there.

  • Driving to distraction the left is an extremely short drive, as in backing out of the drive-way. The dogs bark while the caravan moves on.

  • When I was in grad school and still fairly newly married, and I knew that I would be spending an inordinate amount of time with another grad student (same advisor, same interests, same seminars etc.), I made sure she and my wife got to be friends first.

  • Pingback: Canon212 Update: Francis and His Friends Run Like Gleeful, Thrilled Rats Through the Halls of Our Vatican – The Stumbling Block
  • The odd thing is, I imagined this would be a freebie for my more liberal visitors. Sort of a ‘we’re with you on this crazy thing Dave’ opportunity. Nope. It can only be misogyny, Sharia Law, and who knows, Nazis? I heard Mark Shea and Deacon Steve Graydanus discuss this. While they said some of the reactions were overblown, they also said they could understand women saying it’s not fair to them if the man would also have dinner one on one with another man. Did I miss something? Is this Church position now? When I entered the work force c. 1990 it was basic, secular advice to beware getting into compromising situations with female coworkers. Furthermore, a situation where I insisted the only way to my company’s top tier was by a one on one dinner with me would have been attacked by my liberal counterparts back in the day. What happened? I admit I’m not high up in the corporate world today, but is this common now that the only path to success is through one on one dinner meetings?

  • I saw that podcast, Dave and was wondering if you listened to it.

    Did Mark or Steve at least say something positive about Pence or express understanding from his point of view? I mean, ok, some of the secular folks I can understand but the Christians? Those whom should know the verse, “if your right arm causes you to sin…”? What did Mark used to say…

    What would you think of a friend (let’s call him “Bill Clinton”) who is constantly e-mailing you to ask just how far he can go with the hot secretary without it actually crossing the line into, you know, “adultery” (he always puts the word in scare quotes, as though there isn’t really such a thing, and he’s certainly not guilty of it).

    I guess nowadays it’s wrong to try and flee from sin?

  • It is nice to see this sound piece of advice getting some play. It is one I have followed throughout my adult life. Even when dating, maybe especially when dating, I have done so. It seems wise and good and proper and it is nice to hear other married people asserating the value of the policy.

  • And, thank you, Guy McClung, for that thoroughly enjoyable Letter to the Editor.

  • Nate, I noticed that. I mean, like my wife said, she remembers when if it was discovered that a woman had to have a one on one dinner with a man to get ahead, that would be the cause for outrage. Now it’s not only apparently OK, but anyone who chooses not to go out with women other than his wife is suspect? Mark and Steve suggested it was a case of misplaced scrupulousness. Which was odd, because Mark admitted that it would be wrong to share a hotel room with a woman if on a business trip. So clearly there is *something* there regarding common sense. I wonder why the sudden difference? I mean, it was the secularists and women’s groups who would have screamed at the idea that a woman had to dine with a man to get ahead. But should representatives of the Church even budge on such obvious politicizing of a situation? Not to mention the notion of avoiding the near occasion of sin. That is supposed to be somewhere in basic Christian teaching. I don’t think they trashed Pence or anything, I just was taken by the fact that they were clearly trying to walk that line of saying there’s really no reason to call this Sharia Law redux, while clearly not wanting to give Pence the obvious support any believer should give him in this case.

  • Leftists getting into a twist something that is none of their damned business. What else is new?

  • Good stuff, GREG M. All indicators point to the next eight years will be nauseatingly repetitive. The Einstein definition of insanity is on display. our perpetually outraged left (apparently including Mark-who?) is patently stupid or simply insane. You decide.

    Its’ all sound and fury akin to a wind chime in a hurricane.

  • Here I think is good support for Pence. This is from one of the blog sites I visit. I like the man’s writings on marriage and family. He isn’t Catholic, so there are things that probably won’t sit too well with the learned orthodox of our faith, but surely this is the support that Mark Shea and Deacon Steve should have given Pence?

  • So the same folks that have made it so that I cannot be alone with an single other individual are having fits about…normal manners?

    How often do you have restaurant meals with only one person, anyways? If it’s a group of friends, or of co-workers, and it’s a group.

    Reminds me of that mini-outrage about that football player for San Diego– Mr. Rivers hit the news about three years ago because he had “so many” kids…with his WIFE. ***AFTER*** they were married! (Just checked– now at 8. Just welcomed a new little girl.)

    DJH- If I remember right, one of the angles of attack on Pence is that he left the Church.
    While I’m not a big fan of the guy, I remember getting the impression that he got the same kind of post-Vatican-II religious education that I got… ie, he was taught that the Church wasn’t the Church anymore, by those who were supposed to officially teach him. I might be confusing him with one of the others in the pack, though.

  • Boy, the libs are really digging deep. Before my husband’s first deployment after we were married he said to me that we should never put ourselves in any situation that would give cause for scandal and I agreed. The squadron detted out in fours aboard destroyers so there were always a few “sea wives” at squadron parties. Everyone behaved. However there was a group of young sea wives who went to the BOQ bar for dancing on DJ night. Bad idea. Two divorces ensued from that. Regarding work: I was a Flag Secretary at the time and on a couple of occasions had to travel with the admiral as a sub for the male Flag Lieutenant. For overnights the admiral had a suite and I had a room elsewhere in the BOQ. If the Flag LT were along he probably would have stayed in the suite’s second bedroom. If the admiral and I went to dinner we usually wore our uniforms. On one occasional we were in civvies and the hostess seated us side by side. We were both uncomfortable. The admiral immediately explained that this was a business dinner and asked her to change the place settings. Good rule is how would my spouse feel about this situation? If one lives in a fish bowl one has to be aware that there are always malicious gossips who have nothing better to do than spread lies no matter that the situation is innocent.

  • “If one lives in a fish bowl one has to be aware that there are always malicious gossips who have nothing better to do than spread lies no matter that the situation is innocent.”

    You can underline that CAM!

Free Speech for Me, but not for Thee

Wednesday, March 8, AD 2017


Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts notes the hostility that much of the contemporary left has to freedom of speech for those who have the temerity to disagree with them:


Is illustrated here:

Yep.  My older boys have already run into this.  The idea that ‘you don’t have a right to offend me.’  Uh, yes I do.  That’s freedom of speech.  Or let’s just whittle it down to mere ‘freedom.’  Sure, I can not listen, disagree, argue the point, or even show you to the door if I deem you rude or obnoxious.  But violence or, worse, calling for officials and institutions to punish wrong speak?

Growing up, Voltaire’s famous quip was the John 3:16 of American liberalism:

I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.

If I heard that once, I heard that a billion times. It might be worth digging it back up and using it again.  Or more of us you might end up getting caught up in the storm, as professor Allison Stranger discovered all too well.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Free Speech for Me, but not for Thee

  • Fruits of the Dictatorship of Relativism: Our right to speak depends on truth, a thing higher than opinions, but there is there is no truth, and therefore no commonality or reason to allow speech.

  • The funny thing is, I posted that as a throw away. Things are busy right now, and I’ve been backing down on ‘hot button’ posts. I assumed this would be a ‘yeah Dave, duh’ post. And yet we have a bold defender of the dream of censorship and intolerance we’re seeing from the modern Left.

  • I believe the notion of “repressive tolerance” can be traced back to Herbert Marcuse in the 1960s.

    “Withdrawal of tolerance from regressive movements before they can become active; intolerance even toward thought, opinion, and word, and finally, intolerance in the opposite direction, that is, toward the self-styled conservatives, to the political Right–these anti-democratic notions respond to the actual development of the democratic society which has destroyed the basis for universal tolerance. The conditions under which tolerance can again become a liberating and humanizing force have still to be created. When tolerance mainly serves the protection and preservation of a repressive society, when it serves to neutralize opposition and to render men immune against other and better forms of life, then tolerance has been perverted. And when this perversion starts in the mind of the individual, in his consciousness, his needs, when heteronomous interests occupy him before he can experience his servitude, then the efforts to counteract his dehumanization must begin at the place of entrance, there where the false consciousness takes form (or rather: is systematically formed)–it must begin with stopping the words and images which feed this consciousness. To be sure, this is censorship, even precensorship, but openly directed against the more or less hidden censorship that permeates the free media. Where the false consciousness has become prevalent in national and popular behaviour, it translates itself almost immediately into practice: the safe distance between ideology and reality, repressive thought and repressive action, between the word of destruction and the deed of destruction is dangerously shortened.”

  • It’s easy to be a liberal. One doesn’t need to think. All one needs do is memorize a number of false assumptions/axioms/equivalencies/calumnies/non sequiturs/slogans and have the lungs to scream them.

    ‘Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” William F. Buckley, Jr.

    I avoid interaction with liberals. However, the simple formula of how to deal (from Ann coulter) with a liberal, if you must. One, ask the numbskull to provide data, evidence, facts. Two, ask the idiot to compare the lie to rational alternatives (Compared to what?). Three, ask how much it will cost; not only fiscally, also morally, demographically, etc.

  • T.Shaw and MPS…… Thanks for the quotes. I’m actively involved in public square testimony. Our gathering last Saturday was 150 for the national Trump rally. The opposition can’t look in the mirror. William F. Buckley “they are the other views.” Spot on.
    And “word of destruction and deed of destruction.” Being played out before our very eyes. Thank you both.

  • We live in a world where much of political discourse is a species of self-congratulation and where you have an accumulation of bourbons with privileges enforced by law or guild rules. Both sorts of people tend to resent it when you present them with questions to which they cannot respond. Note, this is happening at academic institutions. The progressist conception of public life is derived from secondary school social relations.

  • I believe the notion of “repressive tolerance” can be traced back to Herbert Marcuse in the 1960s.

    What the ‘notion’ amounts to is a complaint by Marcuse that the man in the street doesn’t give a rip about Herbert Marcuse’s social fantasies.

  • Thank you all for these very important insights giving voice (giving a name) to our cultural condition. Only TRUTH has freedom of speech. Lies, half truths and perjury must be identified and countered to maintain a balanced society and freedom itself.
    “Voltaire’s famous quip was the John 3:16 of American liberalism:
    “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.” “They will stand up to be condemned.”

  • Atheistic communism denies God and God’s image in man: free will. Atheistic communism denies freedom. Slavery denies freedom but not necessarily God and God-given free will.
    LBGT denies freedom of conscience and free will. LBGT guilts God for creating the sexual orientation of same sex attraction. LBGT guilts God for the free will choice and freedom to act out the same sex attraction through sodomy, the addiction to sex through lust and the addiction to sodomy and lesbianism. LBGT guilts God for God-given free will and the freedom to exercise free will into addiction to sodomy and lesbianism. Who can prevail in a court of law with God as his witness; with God as his judge, when the prevailing sentiment has indicted and guilted God as the cause of every evil in the world?
    Who can prevail in a court of law when God given free will and freedom are found to be the cause of addiction to sodomy and lesbianism?
    LBGT are gnostic communism. Gnostic communists are worse than atheistic communists because they take subterfuge in civil law without regard for anyone’s civil rights. Gnostic communists guilt God for their civil rights and tyrannize the people by imposing atheism on the people.

  • ‘Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” William F. Buckley, Jr.
    Love that one, T. Shaw.

    I’m quite intolerant to bad ideas…but that doesn’t mean I try to silence them, it means that I try to destroy them, and for that to happen they’ve got to be exposed and torn to bits. You shove’m down, all you do is make ’em stronger.

  • I’m thinking about starting a line of Aaron Burr Slapping Gloves for folks what don’t take kindly to other folks what take offense at what folks have to say.

  • Ernst Schreiber……

    The gloves will lead to dueling pistols.

    The problem with the pistols is that the swine whom you just challenged can’t be trusted to walk away fifteen paces before turning around to fire.

    Back then there were gentlemen.
    Today it’s uncertain if you’re challenging a gentleman, woman trapped in a man’s body or a man who was a woman but decided to change into a man.

    Better leave the white gloves in the dresser.

  • That’s what seconds are for Philip. .Although, I suppose we could always just rough and tumble with Arkansas toothpicks

  • Or use broadswords, the weapon the long armed Lincoln chose when he was challenged for a duel. In some of his “duels” Old Hickory grabbed anything that was within reach.

  • I like the “talk softly and carry a large stick,” approach. Buford Pusser had the right stuff. Sometimes a 4×4 speaks louder than words.

  • Foxfier: Principles must be judged. People must be tolerated. A two way street.

Daffey Thoughts on 2016

Monday, January 2, AD 2017

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts has some observations about 2016, the year in which the improbable frequently became probable:



  • Never, ever underestimate Donald Trump
  • Arrogance is a bad strategy
  • Insulting millions of registered voters is not the best response to a candidate who insults millions of non-voters
  • Bipartisanship is not accomplished by blaming everyone else
  • There is a fine line between journalism and propaganda
  • Pretending that problems don’t exist won’t convince those who are suffering as a result of those problems
  • If you pop champagne corks because experts assure you that no matter what, your side will win by the Electoral College, then don’t cry about how unfair it is when your side loses by the Electoral College. It’s unbecoming.
  • Surrounding yourself with yes-men doesn’t help
  • A nation has a right to demand higher standards from its president, it has no right to demand different standards
  • If the latest scientific conclusions are always what I want to hear, someone’s doing something wrong
  • ‘Do unto others as long as you don’t do unto me’ is not the Golden Rule
  • Expediency does not lend itself to moral outrage
  • Truth is not based on a majority
  • Working with people involves working with people, not saying you’re working with people
  • When everything is going for you, it’s still not wise to overplay your hand
  • If you cry wolf too many times for too many years, people won’t listen even when they admit they see a wolf
  • People don’t always align with partisan assumptions
  • People pay attention, even when you don’t want them to
  • If education is just a means to an end, it’s probably not the best education
  • The problem with saying ‘That idiot’s mean because he called me stupid’ should be obvious
  • It’s pointless to ignore the past in the Internet age

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Daffey Thoughts on 2016

  • That was amazing!. In all of the coverage, he was the most incorrect. 180° from reality. BTW, I thought he was no longer on the air. I’m glad he was still on for that “expose”.

  • Yes 2016 was a ‘very good year’, a year in which the “smart” guys got it wrong and the “dumb” ones got it right. The year where we realized political advertising was largely a waste of money. And a year that showed why the Electoral College is a good idea, etc. etc.

Fall the Wonderful

Friday, September 23, AD 2016


I heartily concur with Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts celebration of our current season:


Anyone who has followed my blog for more than a year or so knows one thing for sure: I love the Fall.  I enjoy Spring and there’s still enough kid in me to enjoy Winter, especially leading up to Christmas.  Summer is my hibernation time.  But Fall?  It’s to me what Spring is supposed to be to most people.

Today is a day off.  The boys are off of school, owing to a local holiday that can only happen in small town America.  And with it, I have the day off as well.  Don’t know what we’ll do today.  Maybe nothing, though I always hate to let a day go by without something to do.   I often start reading The Lord of the Rings in September, but thought this year I’d try something different.  This year I’m going to read through the Appendices.  Truth be told, I’ve glanced at them over the years, but never read through them.  As for the other fun parts of Fall, those are just beginning.

Here are some links to previous posts over the years in which I muse over, in my own amateurish way, just why I love this season.   Enjoy.  TTFN

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Fall the Wonderful

  • Fall hasn’t started here just yet. Temps are still in the 80s even with less daylight. A few of the trees have leaves that are starting to turn.

    A drive through the Laurel Highlands and an excursion train ride ( the nearest one is between Cumberland and Frosrburg, Maryland), as well as South Fayette, Pitt and Steelers football, as well as fall ball (youth baseball) and the start of hockey are other welcome pastimes.

    Now for the drawbacks:
    I have five maple trees. I’m lucky to get the leaves cleaned up by mid November.

    Maybe some of you have advice for me. My eight year old constantly fights with us over doing his homework. I take his privileges away for doing this, but he persists. Not everyone likes school.

    As I advance further into middle age, I still have a sense of sadness when summer leaves. To me, the real start of the New Year is spring. The birds return, flowers and fields are planted, coats are put away and baseball returns. Summer means the end of school (and homework), long sunny days, vacations, bike riding on the numerous local trails and the return of local cantaloupes, watermelons, strawberries as well as fireworks and cookouts. Fall is the end of this, and a reminder that all life comes to an end. I’m 53 next week and I’ve seen most of the springs, summers, etc. that I will get to see. Not a cheerful thought, but it is reality.

    One thing I will not miss from this summer are the electric bills. It’s been too hot and humid to open the windows at night.

  • Happy Birthday PF–You have at the least 35 years left to see springs,summers,ect

  • PF: Ah, homework and boys. In Catholic school there was and is always plenty of homework. Finally with the younger one who dislikes school, in the evening after dinner my husband sat reading the newspaper next to the chart desk where our son did his homework. No TV or computer or any electronic device on, though sometimes some soft classical music. Always no one else but dad in the room with him. At first there were breaks for the bathroom or water, or snack…the usual stalling tactics. Dad reviewed the status every so often checking the math answers or whatever. After completing an assignment there was a reward. I think my husband at the end would read aloud an interesting feature article from WSJ, a light snack, maybe a little TV – all with dad. Now this same son comes down on the weekends and sits at the same chart desk in the farm office and works on college level calculus while my husband works at his desk. He has a goal of majoring in petroleum engineering. He transfers in Jan to a school which offers it.
    Suggest you have your son checked out by a developmental pediatrician. We learned our intelligent son had dysgraphia. I chaperoned every 4th grade school field trip and discovered that the teacher had little control over her class, 2/3 of which were active boys. She was also in the process of giving up smoking and was nervous and unpleasant at times with the children. A Betty Davis sort, no wonder he disliked school.
    The older son who loved school completed his assignments but often would leave them on the kitchen table with his lunch or leave them in his homeroom locker. He had wonderful teachers in 7th who would have him empty his locker periodically so there were no zeros. As an adult he and a college classmate formed a company and he’s very organized.
    Good luck with your son.

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.

David Griffey Nails It

Sunday, March 13, AD 2016

14 Responses to David Griffey Nails It

  • We are not rapist, but neither are we fit to participate in a democracy.

  • This series of developments (re. the most recent one, the Univ Illinois Chicago attempted Trump counter-rally 3/11/16) is not over. The venom and the incipient violence at UIC was followed up at Kansas City yesterday of course, and more physical confrontations occurred. The precursor, the Dayton rally incident, was where Thomas DiMassimo, a known ISIS-sympathizer (he had pictures of himself long before the incident posted of himself with an Uzi-look-alike weapon and an ISIS flag), tried to rush the podium.

    Now, except for the most ingenuous, we know this is all coordinated. Ilya Sheyman, a chief organizer with the Chicago area admitted (in a way Hillary and Bernie probably wish he hadn’t) that he/they had coordinated the anti-Trump violence at UIC. The Bernie Sanders placards were originals from the Bern’s campaign offices, too many of them to be “an unauthorized act”.

    Regardless of your candidate preference, from here on out, we knew that the “all-opposition-is-racist” Red Front would be on the move. After all, 4 years ago, at election time 2012, it was Trayvon Martin. 2 years ago, another election year, it was “the Gentle Giant of Ferguson,” Michael Brown. I personally saw the Red Front on the move with the next potential cause celebre for 2016 election year here in San Francisco, with the Dec. 2nd (2015) “police shooting” of Mario Woods. It didn’t matter that Woods was armed with a knife which he had just violently knifed a civilian minutes previously, or that Woods was affected by a mixture of controlled substances he had taken, or that he refused to stop even when surrounded by several police and tried to flee. The Red Brigade was out in force: the basics (a black man, murderous cops, police oppression, white privilege) fit their needed narrative. They aren’t done: this story (Mario Woods’) was hard to sell, given all the known facts about Mario Woods: the Red Brigade will find one, like Trayvon and the Gentle Giant, to whip the marijuana-addled and drug-hazed youth (certainly here in CA) into emotional fury and thoughtless rage.
    So, the ease with which they have thrown the white hood of the KKK over Trump is just the same ease they would have done so or will do so with Ted Cruz, or John Kasich, or even Bambi. It is going to be a violent

  • Many people on the right are getting sick and tired of being marginalized and demonized. And many on the right also avail themselves of their 2nd Amendment right which predictably enough the left is trying to emasculate. So the left had better beware the sleeping giant whom it arouses from slumber.
    Lord have mercy
    Christ have mercy
    Lord have mercy

  • Leftist rioting should be a selling point for the conservative message. Progressive-ism implies destruction and instability; conservatism connotes conservation and stability. The blame needs to be placed clearly on the Democrat party and the actions it inspires.

  • The conservative movement needs to capitalize on this behavior quickly before they go eye for an eye. I could see the words from Ted Nugent spurring the Trump troopers to protest future Sanders and Clinton rallies.
    I mentioned Ted because violent actions easily are ignited when the embers are fanned, and Ted’s rants might provide that wind.
    Nugent loves the idea of Trump in control.
    In a recent interview he boast’s of having 35 million Facebook followers.

    I agree with Michael Dowd’s comment.
    The Republicans need to seize this opportunity post haste.

  • If Trump isn’t being targeted by the Democrats, then why is it that his supporters
    aren’t causing disturbances at Hillary and Sanders events? If Trump voters are
    the low-info, racist, violent goons the left declares they are, why aren’t they
    bringing violence to Democrat rallies? Somehow the left’s events continue

    That said, I recall late last year Pamela Geller staged her “Draw Muhammad”
    cartoon event in Texas– and the event was the target of a terrorist attempt.
    Donald Trump went on national TV to berate Mrs. Geller, saying he had no
    respect for her, that she was putting people in danger with her provocative
    use of free speech. Mr. Trump went on to say that “free speech is important,
    but you want to be smart about it. You don’t want to provoke people.”
    (YouTube “Donald Trump Slams Pamela Geller”).

    I’d be interested to hear if Mr. Trump’s view has changed in light of the recent
    events surrounding his own use of his freedom of speech…

  • In a not-unrelated development, a Prince George County (Maryland) police officer was shot ambush-style yesterday as he exited the police station in Landover. Some of you will remember that two Harcourt Co. (outside Baltimore) sheriff’s deputies were shot Feb 10th in a similar “unprovoked” (that is the media’s interesting term) shooting (as though the police “provoke shootings,” ed. note).

    Bernie Sanders’ own campaign site states “It is an outrage that in these early years of the 21st century we are seeing intolerable acts of violence being perpetrated by police and racist acts of terrorism by white supremacists.” (Interesting: police associated specifically with white racists.) He specifically references Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, y other “murders” and (indirectly) Trayvon Martin, with similar inflammatory rhetoric: “This violence fills us with outrage, disgust and a deep, deep sadness. These hateful acts of violence amount to acts of terror. They are perpetrated by extremists who want to intimidate and terrorize black, brown and indigenous people in this country.” He has several times, on the campaign stump, spoken similarly, and Hillary has breathlessly chimed in.
    No incitation to violence here? No “shouting fire in a crowded theater”? No “smoking gun”?
    I don’t know which of the opposition candidates have called police intolerably “violent”, “racist”, and “white terrorists” (think of the beleaguered Ferguson, MO P.D.). C’mon, help me out, fellow TAC’ers! Perhaps all of them have.

  • These tactics “will be” used against conservatives?

    Have been for…well…my entire adult life.

    Part of why I dislike Trump is because he encourages exactly the same behavior. He is just like the blankers that have been doing this for at least a decade– why on earth would I go any easier on him because he claims to be supporting good causes? “I’m on your side– so my bad behavior is OK!”
    He does standard leftist tactics. Unsurprisingly, this makes for fireworks. Happens on college campuses, too, when two different flavors of lefty collide. Search for posts about “leftists eat their own” and similar memes.

  • Steve Phoenix credibly connects the various dots outlining a “Red Front” which includes George Soros funded Perhaps the Left was initially delighted to see Trump causing disarray in Republican ranks but now they see Trump’s campaign threatening to damage the Democrats as well. Enter George Soros from stage left?

  • The left is chaoic at the root, Trump = progressive modernist megalomaniac in a bad mood and contagious.
    The progressives have grown more and more bold over the last half century. Conservatives can continue to point out failures of liberalism but it is going to take more than being right and word-bombing them.
    Just ruminating…
    Evil likes to smirk at Good and dare Good to gets its hands dirty
    The left has the weapons of disarray and fear- conservatives have the option to cajole.
    … So far conservatives have no real weapons on the media front.
    Obama, with apparent attempted neutering of the justice department, has tried playing a few moves ahead.
    It is too bad the Church is not in good health for leading society now.
    I hope the people of Florida vote for a real Catholic leader tomorrow. Join me in praying that that happens.

  • Now, another aspect of the Red Front is their limitless capacity to dissemble and rewrite history. Apparently even Yahoo News finds this too much, however: “Hillary Clinton: ‘ We didn’t lose a single person in Libya'”:

    Really. I wonder why Tyrone Woods, the ex-Navy Seal, was buried at Ft. Rosecrans Natl Cemetery, San Diego in 2012? I visited the grave site:

    Or, fellow Catholic, Glen Doherty, the other of the two ex-Navy Seals, that kept about 20 Americans from being annihilated that night in Benghazi. Here is his gravesite @ Arlington (along with that great patriot, Ted Kennedy, of course):

  • @Steve Phoenix.

    It’s a family trait; “I did have sex with Monica.” -Billy Clinton.

  • Or on “not-unrelated-story” #2, of all places, even the Washington Post’s Tom Jackman is concerned about the increase in ambush-attacks and murders of police:
    “Also a bad portent for 2016: firearms-related fatalities for law enforcement are up 225 percent through today, from four at this point last year to 13 so far this year, according to the Natl Law Enforcement Officers Fund.”

    Do “Black Lives Matter”? Then please, nota bene, Bernie and Hill: Officer Jacai Colson, murdered in an ambush attack on Sunday as he exited the Landover, MD police station, was “African-American”: give credit to Jackman for including a photo of him in his Washington Post story. Kind of an “Uhhh”-moment for happy socialists.

Only Four Billion and a Bad Toupee Separate Them

Monday, March 7, AD 2016




David Griffey at his blog Daffey Thoughts, notes the similarity between Mark Shea and Donald Trump:


By that, I don’t mean Mark supports or likes Donald Trump. Quite the contrary.  Mark routinely takes on Trump and Trump’s supporters the way Mark does most things: in the same manner as Donald Trump.  In fact, that’s my point.  If you want to be brutally honest, you’ll admit that Mark Shea is simply a Catholic Internet version of Donald Trump.  If you visit Facebook or similar Social Media sites, you’ll see that Mark is far from the glaring exception.  Go onto most Internet sites, including major media outlets, read the comments and you’ll see Donald Trump all over.  And in some cases, such as Daily Kos or or even such esteemed sites as the Huffington Post, you might find published editorials that aren’t much different.

I hate to say it, but my boys are correct.  Donald Trump is the candidate that the Facebook generation deserves.  And it isn’t because of a few radical exceptions to the rule.  It is the rule.  We are the generation that liberal society has been striving for over the decades.  From the 50s through the 60s and 70s and beyond, Trump is what we’ve been aiming at.

Just look at Mark Shea as an obvious example. Mark is familiar to most Catholics on the Internet and is highly regarded by many. And yet, not only does he resemble Trump in his approach to topics and interaction on his various sites, he does so as a representative of the Catholic Church.  At least Trump just represents politics.  And yet Mark is quite the hero for many Catholics.  For many non-Catholics, too.  Including those who are quick to attack and bemoan the Trump phenomenon.

How can I be so heartless and judgmental to compare Mark to Trump?  Or compare others on Social Media to Trump?  Easy.  I read.  I listen to Trump and what people criticize him for, and then visit various Facebook pages, including Mark’s, and I see no difference.   Trump, beyond the policies he advocates – when we can figure them out – is brash, crude, rude, vulgar, sinful, mean spirited, ill-informed and simply a lousy person because of how he interacts with others and treats others who dare disagree with him.

So how is that different than Mark, or even Mark’s own followers?  Or the followers on any one of a million sites?  For instance, Mark’s own lack of substance and knowledge of topics he comments on outside of Catholicism is legendary.  Even those who support him and agree with him have hung their heads over his approach to such topics as the Death Penalty or Gun Control.  The same is a common complaint about Trump.  Mark thinks nothing of using the same language Trump is condemned for using.  Mark attacks through name calling and condescension and scorn any who dare disagree, unless Mark happens to be friends with the violators.  Mark isn’t even above making false and slanderous accusations against people, even to the point of libel.

But Trump says horrible things!  He mocks people for things they can’t help.  He made fun of Carly Fiorina’s looks.  He talks about killing people.  He talks about destroying other countries.  So does Mark.  One of his Facebook followers recently said that things would be better off if America was burned to ashes.  Mark only disagreed because he said Americans, being the murderous barbarians that we are, would take millions of innocent lives with us.  Mark justified his view of America by reminding us of the millions of Indians and Slaves who fell to our murderous, barbaric ancestors.  Imagine if Trump or a Trump supporter produced the same dialogue about another country, like Mexico or China.  Imagine the outrage and anger.

And Mark not only uses death and suffering to advance his opinions, he even has begun to mock people murdered by guns – if those same people were hard right wing activists.  That might seem understandable to some.  But remember, Mark and many others were shocked at how many celebrated the death of Osama bin Ladin or Hugo Chavez, saying that the only appropriate Christian response was to pray for their souls.  Yet many of those same Catholics are rightly shocked when Trump appears so callous and cruel to other people in the world.  Notice a trend?   What about making fun of others like Trump does?  Last election cycle Mark was forced by his own readers to remove a post he had submitted that made fun of Michelle Bachmann’s eyes and facial features.  Sound familiar?

If you want to be objective, there is little difference between how Mark Shea approaches the modern debate and the way Trump does.  Unless you blindly follow and agree with Mark, you see some glaring problems in his approach and his stances that are not unlike Trump’s.  Ah, but that’s the rub.  How can people honestly follow Trump despite his views and behavior?  I give you Mark Shea.  More than one Catholic on the Internet has railed against Donald Trump for multiple reasons, while at the same time endorsing and loving Mark Shea and similar individuals who approach.

Continue reading...

42 Responses to Only Four Billion and a Bad Toupee Separate Them

  • Mark Shea is catholycism’s low rent Trump.

  • I don’t know what’s a greater endorsement of DaDonald, the attack speech from Mitt Romney or a fatwa from OSheama Bin Libel?

  • We are the generation that liberal society has been striving for over the decades. From the 50s through the 60s and 70s and beyond, Trump is what we’ve been aiming at.


    The decent folks get brow-beaten down or– if they won’t be beaten and are too persuasive– ignored.
    The loud, angry, nasty ones get attention.
    I think that may be why I use to like reading Shea– and then I noticed that he was actually doing some of the things that had driven me over to read him. I’m not cool with someone doing a bad thing just because they say they’re on my side, so I left. (and that was before the various big, obvious lies got out)

  • A really brilliant satirist could get a lot of mileage out of a Jerry Springer-Bachelor/Bachelorette-American Idol mash-up of a Presidntial Election reality TV show

  • I’d be willing to wager that the number of people who like both Donald Trump and Mark Shea is not zero.

  • Devil’s Advocate – It’s possible to expect a president to be better than we are. It’s possible to even regret one’s own occasional sinking into the muck and still expect a presidential candidate to appeal to our better angels. It’s not even unreasonable to look for the best among us to be our leaders, and to be discouraged when we don’t choose among our best.

    Less Devil’s Advocate – We are responsible to the extent that we elevate or degrade our culture. It’s hard to be like the person I described above if you’re in other respects making things worse. Maybe you just don’t see yourself that way.

  • It occurs to me that a fella might could blow Shea’s mind by pointing out the ways in which his own activities prove Judge Bork’s thesis from Slouching Towards Gammorah.

  • I’m not really a Trump supporter, but this attack piece on The Donald is below the belt. By the way, that’s not a bad toupee it’s his own hair.

  • “By the way, that’s not a bad toupee it’s his own hair.”

    So I have seen it claimed Father. If it is, its the fakest looking head of real hair I have ever seen.

  • Mark Shea = Donald Trump
    Hmmmmm…….I would still vote for Donald Trump over Mark Shea any day of the week.

  • Me too Cincinnatus and then I’d exit the voting booth running & flailing my arms like a lunatic.

  • *looks at the facebook screenshot* So has anyone tallied how much of Shea’s complaints there do NOT apply to Bernie Sanders? So far I’ve… not found one.

  • Our world has descended into a range of personality cults. Some of those who have not fallen for the extremism and invective do their best to look for the good in people, while acknowledging their faults .
    The “personalty cult” that I follow has a leader who says has a Leader who says, forgive one another.
    Some advice all can follow, particularly in an election year:
    “Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.
    As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant, they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.

    If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.

    Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism. Be yourself. Especially, do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love, for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is perennial as the grass.

    Take kindly to the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.

    Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

    Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul.

    With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.

    Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.”

  • Don the Kiwi.


  • I think that comparison is an insult to Donald Trump.
    I applauded Trumps comments on ‘water boarding’ which I don’t consider torture.
    P.S. Mark Shea wears a toupee?

  • I am staying out of politics here for a while, at least as far as it concerns the GOP candidates. Reason being that (my opinion) the worst of Donald Trump is better than the should-be convict Clinton or the communist.

    Should Trump end up destroying the GOP, then so be it. The most he can destroy is the Washington Establishment, the quislings who talk tough on the Sunday morning political shows almost nobody watches and then cave to the Democrats.

    I am sick and tired of the Republican Party. For decades, they have sent out junk mail asking for donations while pledging support for lower spending, less regulations, lower taxes and greater economic opportunity. We have seen none of this. This nation would be in almost complete economic collapse due to the obscene regulations banning coal fired power plants and choking the nuclear power industry, had it not been for the Marcellus Shale natural gas.

    The GOP allowed Obumblercare to proceed. The GOP did not put an end to the mortgage mess that the Democrats started under Carter and accelerated under Clinton and that should be convict Barney Frank. Bush Senior gave us Souter. Dubya gave us the nincompoop John Roberts.

    Dubya left the Iraqi Christians twist in the wind.

    Mittens spent more time trashing Trump than he spent smacking around that putrid, pathetic race-baiting little snot in the White House.

    That’s just a sample. So, if Trump wrecks them, trashes them, destroys them (the McConnells, the McCains, the Mitten Romneys and their syncophants), more power to Trump. When they are finished, I’ll be happy to bring a shovel to help bury them.

  • “I’ll be happy to bring a shovel to help bury them.”

    The Democrats will be happy to help you PF. By the way, how did the Republicans “allow” Obamacare to proceed, when not a Republican voted for it.

  • Penguins Fan,
    Thank you for that comment! FWIW, I agree with you.

  • Spot on analysis, and Shea’s facebook post highlights his bone dry ignorance. National Review dedicated an entire issue to opposing Trump. Virtually all of its regular writers have consistently written against Trump, so much so they are subject to constant scorn on social media from Trump acolytes. And yet the Archie Bunker of the Catholic blogosphere rips into National Review as “whoring” for Trump because it posts one op-ed that speaks non-negatively of him.

    The tragedy of Shea is this is someone who supposedly dedicated his career to preaching the Gospel of Christ and yet he has devoted most of his public time writing virulent political screeds.Christianity would have died 2000 years ago if St. Paul eschewed epistle writing for writing treatises on the Roman Empire.

  • Mr. McClarey, the GOP controlled Congress passed that sickening funding bill led by Paul Ryan that did nothing to stop ObumblerCare, or Planned Parenthood for that matter.

    True, not a single GOP member of Congress voted for it, but the House controls the purse strings. Yet, they are so scared of being called racist and having Obumbler label them as obstructionists that they have done nothing to stop it. Crybaby Boehner and Paul Ryan did what the Establishment wanted them to do and to hell with the voters.

    The Democrat Party is in no shape to end the GOP establishment. Their presidential candidates are a convict in waiting and a socialist and both are two years older than dirt.

    Shea is, to put it charitably, a twit. Shea is not worth a fraction of the effort that so many have taken to write about him, his views and those he disagrees with.

    For years, the GOP has had an opportunity to identify a successful governor (Scott Walker? Rick Perry?) who has cut taxes and spending and grown his state’s economy. Instead we got Jeb.

    I repeat, with a little more clarity. If Cruz cannot pull ahead of Trump – and he should never have been behind Trump – then I hope Trump destroys the GOP establishment in Washington right to its foundations. The State GOPs, who have sought out, nominated and elected conservative candidates, can bulldoze the wreckage left behind. I am just as sick of Romney, McCain, Graham, Thad Cochran, Boehner, Ryan and the entire K Street bunch who enables them – no, more, than I am of Obumbler, the Clintons and their organized crime syndicate known as the Democrat Party.

  • Referring to Shea as the Archie Bunker of the blogosphere is an insult to Archie Bunker. Bigoted, but at least honest, and an invention by lib TV producer Norman Lear to smear the working class. Lear is the same twit who had the Maude character get an abortion.

    Shea has no excuse.

  • “Mr. McClarey, the GOP controlled Congress passed that sickening funding bill led by Paul Ryan that did nothing to stop ObumblerCare, or Planned Parenthood for that matter.”

    We tried shutting down the government before, it didn’t work. The only way to get what you want is for the GOP to have both the Congress and the White House.

    “For years, the GOP has had an opportunity to identify a successful governor (Scott Walker? Rick Perry?”

    Both ran and both dropped out.

    “– then I hope Trump destroys the GOP establishment in Washington right to its foundations.”

    Of course that would not happen. Trump would merely disgrace everyone who supports him, either by being defeated or being elected. I do not like no win scenarios, just as much as I do not like an ignorant blowhard Democrat in Republican clothing like Trump.

  • Have you thought through the whole “hope he destroys the GOP” thing?
    Your complaint with the GOP is that they weren’t sufficiently successful in stopping the Democrats, so you’re hoping…that only the Democrats will exist?

  • I’m sympathetic to Penguins Fan’s desire that the GOP stop playing the part of the Washington Generals. As a long suffering Minnesota Vikings fan, the GOP brain trust, whomever they are, remind me of Denny Green: they play so as not to lose, and that’s not the same thing as playing to win.
    So I get the attraction of Trump. And if the GOP’s base sells the party down the river for a mess of pottage, it’s really no more than the GOPe deserves. After all, they’ve been in the pottage selling business for most of this century.
    If I seem sanguine about the fate of the GOP, it’s because I am. I’m a conservative, not a Republican, and I’ve come to feel about the GOP the same way Reagan felt about the Democrats –they’ve left me.

  • I have $10 that says Mark-who will never write anything ne-er so vile about Hillary or Joe Biden (please God, Hillary is in prison). Because social justice and 53 million aborted babies are “chopped liver.”

    BTW: Read a “The Nation,” February 15, 2016 article on the Clinton’s (how she commands $625,000 fees for Wall Street speeches) first, eight-year regime, which was great for stock market wealth/fat cats, but not so good (lost ground on most measures) for working class Americans.

    PS – that bet is a win-win for me. I’m happy if Mark-who goes “straight” (someone will have to post it here) and happy if I win $10 Bitburger bier!.

  • After all this time, what I’m greatly shocked about is that Patrick Madrid does not correct Mark Shea. Patrick seems to be oblivious to Mark’s rantings and support of socialism. I keep waiting for fraternal correction, but it never comes.

  • Well, Missy, some of us have tried to get prominent apologists like Madrid and others to fraternally correct Shea for about a decade now with no avail. When push really comes to shove, the Catholic Media Complex is no better than the left-wing secular MSM.

  • I will repeat it again. The GOP establishment needs to go. They have failed us.

    Leave us with only Democrats? Well, to me it feels like that is the case now and has been for a long time. Look at the bang up job Boehner did as Speaker. Look at the miserable results of the 2012 Presidential and Senate races. Need I go on? I see NO hope for reform of the GOP due to the Washington establishment.

    The GOP has left me. Voters have embraced the pompous Trump because Trump has dared to say that the illegal aliens should be deported…something our Catholic bishops want no part of. Trump has talked about jobs and lowering taxes and gone after the should be convict Shrillary.

    I am not endorsing Trump. It is that I despise the GOP establishment. We need a new conservative political party, not a bunch of Democrat Lite weenies. The GOPe has foistered losers and they couldn’t even stop Trump.

  • “Look at the bang up job Boehner did as Speaker.”

    Yes, let’s look at the job that he did. Since 2010 has anything like ObamaCare passed, anything like the billion dollar stimulus package? Imagine what Obama would have pushed through if the Democrats had Congress since the 2010 elections.

    “Trump because Trump has dared to say that the illegal aliens should be deported…something our Catholic bishops want no part of.”

    Trump is already backpedaling on this, heading back to his old pro-amnesty position. He is simply lying and only a fool would believe anything this conman says.

    “We need a new conservative political party”

    No, conservatives need to stop moaning and crying, grow up and take back the Republican Party.

  • When was the last time Congress fulfilled its duty to pass a budget and how much culpability is on Boehner for the tripling of the national debt?
    I’ll grant Boehner gets some credit for arresting the rate of growth of the debt, but that “one-time” “don’t let a crisis go to waste” stimulus is part of the baseline now and it’s been re-spent every damn year since 2009 which, if memory serves, was the last year we passed an actual budget instead of a continuing resolution.

  • [C]onservatives need to stop moaning and crying, grow up and take back the Republican Party.
    What makes you think the Republican half of the new elite/ruling class/establishment would let them? After all, it’s not the Democrats threatening their rice bowls.
    The proof is in all the anybody but Trump (except Cruz) maneuverings.

  • When was the last time Congress fulfilled its duty to pass a budget and how much culpability is on Boehner for the tripling of the national debt?

    How on earth are the Republicans both responsible for Reid refusing to allow a vote on the bills they passed, and responsible for not moving stuff even further away from what the Democrats want? The only way he would have allowed a vote would be if they’d done even more of what he wanted.

  • “What makes you think the Republican half of the new elite/ruling class/establishment would let them?”

    Yes because the Republican establishment is omnipotent. Just ask Trump or Cruz!

  • It’s not Trump or Cruz’s people talking about rewriting the rules Romney’s people rewrote four years ago, is it?

    Or hanging out with Tech Billionaires.

  • Hey guys…Trump is winning.

  • How on earth are the Republicans both responsible for Reid refusing to allow a vote on the bills they passed, and responsible for not moving stuff even further away from what the Democrats want?
    I’m not saying the Republicans are responsible, just that they were complicit. Boehner’s House was never under any obligation to save Reid’s bacon by signing up for the whole continuing resolution charade. But then, explaining why the government is “shut down” and Christmas is cancelled until further notice because the Senate can’t fulfill it’s Constitutional duty on the Sunday shows is hard work when you’re a peter-principaled drunk I guess.
    All this anger and mistrust that Trump is channeling is neither irrational nor misplaced; just misdirected in the sense that Trump isn’t suited to redressing the grievances that the GOP has over promised and under delivered on for the last three election cycles.

  • “All this anger and mistrust that Trump is channeling is neither irrational nor misplaced…”

    Yes a lot of it is, and a good writer named Ernst Schreiber said so a few days ago on this site when he wrote that people were looking for a Deliverer. At least that’s how I understood that comment (Deliverer Donald, along with Deliverer Hilary and Deliverer Bernie).

  • Hence the “misdirected” part.

  • But then, explaining why the government is “shut down” and Christmas is cancelled until further notice because the Senate can’t fulfill it’s Constitutional duty on the Sunday shows is hard work when you’re a peter-principaled drunk I guess.
    Forcing people to listen to something they don’t want to hear is quite hard. Especially when you don’t have any power to make “the Sunday shows” air what you say, and when you do give the detailed explanation it’s either ignored, misquoted or the objection changes.

  • I’m going to attempt to stick to my original goal and stay out of presidential politics here. Mr. McClarey is a gracious host and I am a guest here. We disagree on the GOP and I would rather not get in arguments about it.

    The current Roman Pontiff always provides lots to discuss.

  • Sorry Ernst, anyone looking for a Deliverer in American politics is more than misdirected. Their faith is misplaced, they are immature, many if not most are to at least some degree irrational.

  • I see Shea more as having the less pleasing aspects of Pope Francis: loving to shock us via harsh scoldings based only erratically on facts.

A Studied Indifference to Evil

Friday, March 4, AD 2016



This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world,—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites; causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty,—criticising the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.

Abraham Lincoln, 1854



David Griffey at his blog Daffey Thoughts, shines a light on one of the more disgusting developments this election year:  the attempt by some Catholic and conservative bloggers to gin up support for avowed socialist Bernie Sanders, a 100% pro-abort:


I read this opinion piece at The Imaginative Conservative, I had to ask myself: When did abortion go from being the only sin that matters to a sin that doesn’t seem to matter at all?  I mean, we’re not talking about a pro-choice politician who has been sort of pro-choice.  We’re talking about someone who has tried to open the gates for any and all abortions, up to and including partial birth abortion even without the mother’s life on the line.  Something so heinous, that it has been called one of the worst murderous crimes in our country today.  And yet, so what if Sanders supports it?  Big deal, right? 

I understand – and have always maintained – that there are more than one or two issues to think about in an election.  But I also understood that there were certain issues that were off the table.  They certainly were when it came to Romney or McCain.  Certain sins that were non-negotiable.  Not because they were all that mattered.  But because there was no way to support them and do so in a sinless way.  There was no ‘right interpretation of abortion.’  There might be different opinions on how to limit it or eliminate it.  But at no point could you say ‘I support unrestricted abortion rights’ and be in the running.

Now it doesn’t just look like abortion isn’t the only big deal.  As more and more Conservatives and Catholics flock to Bernie, it looks like abortion is now no big deal at all.  And by my lights, that is something that will swim around and bite Conservatives, Christians and Catholics in the ass when all is said and done.  Especially if all of the things that have been said about the horrors and evils of abortion through the years are still, you know, true.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to A Studied Indifference to Evil


    Check out this site to see what the last ten popes say about socialism – they all condemn it.And believe it or not, our good Pope Francis also came out a while back and condemned socialism.
    Churchill’s quote is a doozy, and the great Margaret Thatcher stated that – “Socialism is fine until they run out of other peoples money”.
    It stuns me that so many apparently normal intelligent people – particularly Catholics – think its wonderful. I even had an argument with our previous PP, who stated that he quite liked socialsim; I gave him the above list of popes who condemned it – he never raised the subject again. 🙂

  • Wow. In what sense is the imaginative conservative conservative? Not about economic system, not about social issues…
    I can say that the term “imaginative” seems apropo.

  • There’s a conservative case for socialism? Paternalism, sure. Nationalism, okay, maybe. Seignorialism/manorialism/feudalism, why not? –every group has its romantic cranks.
    But socialism?

  • From what I’ve heard, America is even MORE liberal on abortion than most of Europe and the so-called blessed socialist nations (I am given to understand that they only allow it in the first two trimesters I think – if I’m misinformed, let me know).

    Shea once put up a stupid post about trading the 2nd amendment away for eliminating abortion. While I would trade the death penalty away, I wonder why so few ask about trading abortion (even the just to the limit of Europe) for socialism.

    So what do you say, socialist? After all, to pay for everything we’re going to need a constant influx of new people to replace the old and dying. Shall we open negotiations? The more socialism you want, the more time we knock off the window for legal abortion?

  • It seems to me that a socialist must, in the interests of coherence, be in favor of abortion, euthanasia and contraception as socialism is inherently selfish and pessimistic. Doesn’t it make sense that if wealth is going to be spread around every one could get more if there were less people, i.e., If supply is assumed to be fixed demand must necessarily be reduced.

    It is high time the Catholic Church came out four-square against socialism and it many evil implications including repression of the Catholic Church itself.

  • Speaking of Lincoln, Don, any recommendations as to a good Lincoln biography?

  • 1. Carl Sandburg-Poor scholarship even when it was written back in the forties, it is a magnificent oil painting of a biography that gets to the essence of Lincoln, while lacking the accurate detail of a photograph.
    2. Michael Burlingame’s recent massive two volume bio is great for looking at the more recent Lincoln scholarship.
    3. T. Harry Williams’ Lincoln and His Generals still remains, after more than six decades, the best look at Lincoln as commander in chief.
    4. James G. Randall’s Lincoln the President is an exhaustive look at Lincoln as President, from an interesting standpoint: an admirer of Lincoln who also thought the Civil War was unnecessary. Scholarship was superb, albeit dated after six decades.
    5. Allen Guelzo’s Redeemer President views Lincoln as a thinker, a surprisingly overlooked aspect of Lincoln as he first and foremost was a man of ideas. Lincoln had the ability of taking abstract and complicated concepts, stripping them down, and presenting them in his writing and speaking in a straightforward manner. He makes it all look easy, which perhaps detracts from what a powerful mind he possessed.
    6. Stephen Mansfield’s Lincoln’s Battle With God is the best book on Lincoln in years. First rate scholarship directed at Lincoln’s religious views, a perennial subject of vitriolic debate in Lincoln Studies. Mansfield details the difficulties of making iron clad assertions about Lincoln on many topics because Lincoln often kept his cards tucked against his vest, and contemporary accounts by people who knew Lincoln often disagree about the most basic items.
    7. Stephen B. Oates’ With Malice Towards None, stands out as perhaps the best one volume bio of Lincoln.

  • Yesterday I saw several news stories noting that the “Bernie Baby” — a 3-month old baby boy whose parents had taken him to a Sanders rally wearing a wig and glasses to make him look like Sanders, and whose pictures posing with Sanders had been all over social media — had died, apparently of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. The Sanders campaign had expressed its condolences to the family, along with many condolences being expressed on social media, comment boards, etc. by people of all political persuasions.

    The boy’s pictures were undeniably cute, and his death is a tragedy by any measure. I would not post this comment on a thread meant primarily to express sympathy for the child’s loss since I would not feel it was appropriate to sidetrack or politicize the topic (even though some did). But in this discussion, I feel quite free to point out the irony of the fact that Bernie himself would have had no issue at all with his mother killing him, if she had chosen to do so, just a few months earlier.

  • The indifference of a socialist to abortion is more understandable than the indifference of evangelicals. Some one has said that the evangelical support of Trump is from not very religious evangelicals ? ?
    So one begins to wonder what the meaning of terms is anymore. What is a progressive evangelical. Evangelical about what? .
    People can be indifferent to abortion only because of the terms they explain it to themselves with.

  • Elaine Krewer.

    I’ll pray for the family.
    Your spot on in your insight.
    What a few months will do for the blinded to regain sight.
    Sad commentary on our freedom shores.

  • I can’t get around Catholics who think supporting a guy who identifies with the only political group in this election that’s specifically condemned by the Catechism.
    You can argue that he won’t have the power to do anything about abortion; you can’t really argue he won’t have the power to try to get us to socialism.
    (CCC 2425; amusingly, I’ve seen it pulled out with claims that thus-and-such person is a Capitalist, even though the condemnation of that is qualified and sorry, no, nobody is going for a totally unregulated market. Maybe a few hard-core Libertarians are arguing for it, but not one of the top ten for prez.)
    .Anzlyne –
    from what I hear, there’s some folks who are the Evangelical version of C&E Catholics– or maybe “wedding and funeral” Catholics. They went up to an altar call, they might wear a cross and even think Jesus is kinda cool, but they’re not going to be at church most months.

  • Donald,

    I ruminated a bit (a lot…) on the Rieth piece at Imaginative Conservative on my blog, here: if you’re interested.

  • “What I often find lacking in Catholic documents, especially the guides such as discussed herein, is any sense of concrete political situation, and how far a countries’ political structures must be respected in light of any otherwise laudable goal. The same seems to hold true for many Catholics. Some people, discussing a political question, look solely (so to speak) at whether a stated political goal is acceptable and laudable to the Faith, and then whether a certain candidate or politician supports it. If so, then other conditions seem secondary.”

    This passage you wrote Jonathan reminds me of this passage from the beginning of Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France:

    “But I cannot stand forward, and give praise or blame to anything which relates to human actions, and human concerns, on a simple view of the object, as it stands stripped of every relation, in all the nakedness and solitude of metaphysical abstraction. Circumstances (which with some gentlemen pass for nothing) give in reality to every political principle its distinguishing colour and discriminating effect. The circumstances are what render every civil and political scheme beneficial or noxious to mankind. Abstractedly speaking, government, as well as liberty, is good; yet could I, in common sense, ten years ago, have felicitated France on her enjoyment of a government (for she then had a government) without inquiry what the nature of that government was, or how it was administered? Can I now congratulate the same nation upon its freedom? Is it because liberty in the abstract may be classed amongst the blessings of mankind, that I am seriously to felicitate a mad-man, who has escaped from the protecting restraint and wholesome darkness of his cell, on his restoration to the enjoyment of light and liberty? Am I to congratulate a highwayman and murderer, who has broke prison, upon the recovery of his natural rights? This would be to act over again the scene of the criminals condemned to the galleys, and their heroic deliverer, the metaphysic knight of the sorrowful countenance.”

  • Donald,

    If I have to channel anyone, let it be Aquinas or Burke…or preferably, both. Thank you for the link!


  • There’s been cars with Obama bumper stickers in the parish parking lot but today before this morning’s mass I saw my first Re-elect Gov. Jerry Brown bumper sticker in the lot.
    I pray the car with the Brown bumper sticker wasn’t a parishoner’s. And I do wish our bishop’s silence on abortion, socialism, rendering the poor unto the State, and coveting thy neighbors goods wasn’t so loud. There are a significant number of Catholics who regularly attend mass who take the silence of the bishops about these matters as tacit consent.

  • Tacit consent! leaving the door open for “forming your own conscience”
    Sometimes tho the priest is just unwilling to teach the hard teachings or even to come out strong when other friend priest are not
    Contra Blaise cup inch etal. . pro lifers aren’t confrontational. Many of us can talk with like minded people but don’t want to be caught in a ruckus. ( we know they are meaner than we are )
    They don’t fear man or God. I have had people respond negatively to my “choosy mothers choose life”

  • Pius IX rightly condemned socialism as a materialistic heresy unconcerned about anything spiritual and rooted in self. Bernie Sanders is a worthy exemplary of the Poe’s judgement.

Daffey Thoughts: Granite State

Thursday, February 11, AD 2016


Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts gives us his take on New Hampshire:


While for some inexplicable reason Conservatives and Christians still support Trump, much of his support comes from moderate to non-Republican primary voters.  Not enough.  But his appeal to the non-conservative, non-religious vote is noteworthy. Despite that, he continues to wobble around the 1/3 mark in the GOP.  It’s unlikely he will get much higher.  Most Republicans and Conservatives, desperate for change and honesty and promises kept aren’t willing to drop that low.  Just the fact that he picked as his national spokesperson an outspoken hater of Conservatives and Christians should speak volumes.  That’s not counting his stances on various issues that are supposed to be near and dear to conservative hearts.

As a disclaimer, I very much like John Kasich.  I’m not sold on the idea of him being presidential material, but I like and respect the man very much.  He would be a formidable obstacle for Democrats and liberals in a general election.  Kasich was one of the Republicans in the 90s that liberals trotted out against the Gingrich Republicans to say ‘Why can’t you be awesome like Mr. Kasich?’.  That alone is tough to overcome if you’re a Democrat.

Rubio is a good man, and I think down the road presidential material.  But I’m a little gun-shy about electing a young senator with no real executive experience.  Look what happened last time we did that.  Sure, that’s a tough attack for the Democrats, who would have to concede that things didn’t work too well under Obama.  But it is a valid complaint.

Cruz, as I said here, is that guy who seems able to piss everyone off for all the wrong reasons.   He’s abrasive.  He’s that guy who starts a war with our own allies because of the way he is.  Unless he can change on a dime, he is far from the type of person we need in our divided and struggling nation.  He would be divisive in a way that shames Obama.  And just because he might be divisive for issues I care about, doesn’t mean it would end up any better.  In fact, it would likely set up a 2020 Democrat who would then have sympathy for any causes Cruz was against.

Bush?  I’ve never seen a man who seems less interested in running for President than Bush.  I’m still not sure what he stands for except to make it clear he would be better for the pro-choice crowd than staunch anti-abortion Marco Rubio.  I don’t even know if he wants to be there.  I think of that scene in Citizen Kane where Susan pleads with Kane to let her quit singing.  She’s no good, and she knows it.  But Kane has the billions, and he’s able to build whatever opera house she needs to perform in, no matter what the critics say and how much they laugh.  Despite her pleading, he forces her to go on.  I see Bush in a back room with his establishment, billionaire donors doing the same thing.

The rest of the GOP is done and should drop out ASAP.  Christie did the right thing and dropped out, but mainly because of his dismal showing in New Hampshire, where the press had treated him like a major contender.  He torpedoed Rubio fine and good, but pretty much shot himself in the process; a political murder suicide.  And that’s Christie, the bully who holds low income earners to a standard he tries to avoid himself, who supports Obama when convenient, and is willing to jump on board with the radical left at his choosing.  He couldn’t have left the race fast enough.   All that’s left now that Christie and Fiorina have dropped out is the good Dr. Carson. 

The two Democrats aren’t worth discussing.  I certainly would consider a Blue Dog (that’s socially conservative, pro-life) if that person was capable and not off the scale loony.  But I will not vote for candidates who enthusiastically support abortion unfettered and look to Dying socialist, secular, culture-of-death, heretical Europe as their end goal.  If it came to nothing better than that, I wouldn’t vote. 

So there you go.  My disclaimer and opinions.  We’ll wait and see what happens.


Continue reading...

25 Responses to Daffey Thoughts: Granite State

  • Please, Dear Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy and prevent the election of:
    The philandering playboy gambler
    The murderous pathological liar
    The commie pinko geriatric

  • Absent a first or strong second place in South Carolina, Rubio’s toast, which leaves the race really a two-man showdown between Trump and Cruz. The primary field strongly favors Cruz immediately after South Carolina, and polling consistently shows Cruz handily defeats Trump in a head-to-head race. Trump could theoretically emerge victorious from a three-man race, but it’s doubtful. Hopefully Carson and Bush wake up and realize they’re going nowhere. Kasich can stay in but he’s not gonna make a dent in the SEC primaries.

    A Trump-Cruz showdown would be fascinating, pitting two ostensibly anti-Establishment candidates. The choice would then come down to one candidate (Trump) whose historical (and even most current) stances indicate he is in fact at one with the more moderate wing of the party, and a candidate who truly represents change.

    Griffey makes a rather silly argument in denouncing Cruz. We must dispense with this fiction that Barack Obama’s main problem is that he is “divisive” – the main problem with Barack Obama is that he has enacted policies that are disastrous for this country and has acted in a unilateral fashion undermining the core of our republican form of government. Cruz is the only candidate remaining who would actively work to reverse this.

    It’s curious that Cruz’s supposed lack of likability keeps being discussed. Mr. Unlikable has managed to poll ahead of the boy wonder, Marco Rubio, in two successive state elections, and he’s almost certainly going to do so for the next dozen or so. I guess some people like him well enough.

    Matt Walsh has more on why Cruz’s supposed charisma defect is actually a positive sign:

  • From a purely speculate point of view, I wonder something. If, despite all the media coverage, polling, Iowa, and New Hampshire, somehow Hillary and Bush do well enough during Super Tuesday and at the conventions behind the scenes that they limp to the top of their tickets, I wonder whose side would revolt the most.

  • Cruz has consistently represented his constituents which has had him in the position of going against the entrenched republican leadership in Congress. Our country is bankrupt and we can’t admit it. This President has, with the consent of Congress, led us to the cliff and many Americans are not willing to go for the rest of the ride. The republicans in power have not done what they said they would do, they have not done what we have asked them to do. Cruz has done so and he is one of the few that has had the courage to continue the fight. Trump has a history and it’s liberal. He has not been consistent with his positions. I don’t care if some say Cruz is abrasive, it’s time for some sand paper in Washington.

  • Dave Griffey’s analysis is flawed in many places. Kasich anti-traditional marriage, anti-family, and anti-life. He also has no problem using Scripture to advance liberal causes, which I’m sure is one reason why the NY Times endorsed him. People keep saying Rubio is too young. He’s only 6 months younger than Cruz. If the party and press could not forgive Perry’s “Oops” moment, I do not see Rubio surviving his robotic moment unfortunately. (Yet, Joe Biden is VP.) Cruz is not abrasive. He is principled. Comparing him to Obama is silly because Obama is not abrasive to the GOP. The GOP loves to get along with him. Don’t want to be called “abrasive.”

  • Paul,
    I’d support Cruz in a heart beat over Trump or the “other” Democratic candidates. He is fortunate, however, that his is likability-deficit is pretty much limited to people who have actually met him, which of course does not include the vast majority of the electorate.

  • Well Mike, I certainly know people who have met Cruz and like the man, but I can see how he is not as superficially appealing as Rubio. It’s worth keeping in mind that Hillary Clinton might be the least charismatic, and most ethically challenged nominee we’ve ever seen. And if she is not the nominee, then we get a socialist. So I’m not too concerned about Cruz’s electability (or Rubio’s) quite yet.

  • Paul, I agree with you re the bottom line. I don’t know either Rubio or Cruz personally, but I do know people who worked closely with Cruz at Justice. He is without question bright, but he is also over-the-top ambitious even by politician standards and caustic as a matter of default. Getting things done in DC (or anywhere for that matter) almost always requires some ability to persuade, and if Cruz is elected (and certainly I hope he’d prevail over either Dem) he will have to further develop that skill to be successful. For the record, the men I know who worked with him, while they don’t support him as the nominee, will vote for him without hesitation should he be the nominee.
    Finally, I think Rubio’s record demonstrates that he is hardly a superficial man. Those of us who have not been TR’s “man in the ring” can find it all too easy to be unfairly dismissive.

  • He is without question bright, but he is also over-the-top ambitious even by politician standards and caustic as a matter of default.

    How well do you know them?
    I ask because my husband sometimes gets complaints that he is caustic (welly, they usually say “mean” or “too harsh”), and has been told he needs to be less “enthusiastic,” because he followed (and enforced) the rules in letter and spirit when people didn’t expect him to, because it wasn’t in his interest, it was just right.
    Some of the people who complain are friends, they’re just…better to have as a friend than as a co-worker.

  • Foxfier,
    I don’t know Cruz at all, just lawyers who worked with him. These lawyers have a pretty high threshold for caustic, and their experience comports with his general reputation. Of course their experience could have been idiosyncratic and the reputation unfair and false, but that would seem pretty unlikely. My pro-life friends in DC tell me that basically Cruz has a hard time avoiding making enemies out of those who should be his friends. If that is true, it is not an attribute of leadership. In contradistinction, RWR was successful precisely because he made friends of his opponents, not enemies of his friends.
    Now don’t get me wrong. I’d vote for Cruz without reservation if he is the GOP nominee. As I’ve said many times on this very forum, Jesus isn’t running and we always must choose between imperfect candidates. But even I have my limits. If Trump is the nominee, I’ll stay home and say a rosary or two.

  • I meant how well do you know those lawyers?
    Clearly if you trust their judgement, they’re not bad people, but if they’re of the “get things done” perspective and he’s on the “follow the required process” one, they’re going to clash. (And it will burn all the more because he’ll be unlikely to trust them without checking in the future, and it’s not really something a body can complain about.)

  • I know these lawyers very well. They are very meticulous, and I don’t think that their assessment can be attributed to a clash of perspectives. Please understand — I’m not saying that Cruz is a bad person or would be a lousy president, but he apparently has a nack for making enemies unnecessarily. His supporters say that is because he won’t go along with the established status quo. Perhaps, but my friends are not exactly status quo guys. An effective leader leads by achieving the consensus he prefers, and this normally requires avoiding artificial acrimony.

  • I like Trump and when all is said and done he will be our next President. We are now in the age of the anti-politician, the age of the independent. Trump will pull a lot of Democrat votes. Trump is non-ideological and this is good. As a business guy he knows how to work with folks to get the job done. We need actions, not words. Besides that Trump is a charming guy. He he a winner. We need a winner after Obama. The country is desperate for it. Even if it means electing Donald Trump whose gifts some conservative folks fail to appreciate.

  • “Trump will pull a lot of Democrat votes.”

    He should. Trump is a pro-abort liberal Democrat. Let him run for President if he wishes, but in his party not in mine.

  • If Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee, I will do the following: I will deregister from the Republican party, because it signifies that the party has been fully taken over by people who completely reject everything I stand for. I will then not only not vote for Donald in November, I will do everything in my power to make sure neither he, nor Hillary, nor Bernie, nor Bloomberg ever occupies the Oval Office. It would be an uphill climb, I know, but I’m not going to just sit by and see some version of a leftist authoritarian take over.

    We need actions, not words

    What a load of crap coming from the backer of someone who is all talk, and has offered absolutely no concrete specifics on how he will get things done. I mean look at your comment – it’s a string of cliches backed with zero evidence. It’s the same meaningless talking points repeated by every Trump fan.

    He he a winner.

    Except for Iowa, after which he was just a whiner.

  • More and more I am becoming inclined to agree with Paul Zummo’s last comment.

  • <We are now in the age of the anti-politician, the age of the independent.

    You know Trump has admitted greasing a lot of palms. He’s not a politician, but he does play politics.

    Trump is non-ideological and this is good.

    Trump’s ideology is himself and “winning!” And by winning, I mean when he wins.

    People talk about electability. Trump has the highest negative of any candidate by far. He has a history of foot in mouth disease, so much they gave it a name, “Trumpisms.”

    This stuff is an entertaining read, but do we really want the Rodney Dangerfield character from Caddy Shack in the Oval Office.

  • Agreed, Kyle.
    Such an odd election.
    The GOP is threatening to nominate the one candidate who cannot beat Hillary (Trump). And the Dems are threatening to nominate the one candidate who cannot beat Trump (Sanders).

  • Just for fun:
    Cruz had to pull an ad because it turned out that one of the actresses in it had done porn, he stated she hadn’t been vetted. I take this to mean his staff never heard of IMDB.

    Also, how many votes did Bernie Sanders steal? In this video a campaign worker says all the out of state staff and volunteers voted:

  • In defense of Cruz, folks familiar with these campaigns appreciate how fast-paced they can be. Balls are dropped, tasks overlooked, and mistakes are made. But non-residents voting is a bit harder to explain away.

  • IMDB has porn listings? I must’ve not run into any of them, I know some of the folks I talk to who are big fans of a specific artist (for the stuff she did that isn’t porn) have complained that her listings are quite incomplete.
    *looks around*
    Oh, not porn. “Erotica.” That is on IMDB, but looking at the covers and the listings…the titles in connection with her being a reporter that minored in drama would suggest more supposed to be deep than lookie, softcore!

    Unless, of course, someone recognized the titles. Are we supposed to be upset that they didn’t have any fans of her work on that project?
    Here’s the “about” on her facebook:

    Born a Buckeye but raised a Longhorn, Amy Lindsay burst onto the Hollywood scene shortly after arriving in LA when she was cast opposite Luke Perry in the biographical drama “8 Seconds”, where she was directed by Academy Award winner John Avildsen. Guest turns soon followed in episodes of “Silk Stalkings”, “Pacific Blue” and “Star Trek”, which launched Amy into starring roles in more than 50 feature films over the next decade. Amy co-starred in the hit series “Black Tie Nights” for HBO, and in 2010 played the title role in the teen comedy “MILF”, one of Netflix most downloaded films of that year.

    One of the most sought-after voiceover artists by casting directors in the business, Amy is also an Emmy-nominated associate producer; having overseen 9 documentaries for the National Endowment for the Arts and collaborations with such stars as Tom Hanks, Kevin Costner, Christina Applegate, and Bill Pullman. Amy is a proud graduate of the University of Texas with a degree in Journalism and a minor in Drama.

  • Perhaps Trump’s winning New Hampshire is a cloud having a silver lining. Absent Trump, Cruz would still be the bête noire of the GOP Establishment. Now, he may come to be their savior.

  • The unfortunate sad truth is that many in the GOP establishment would prefer to lose with Trump than win with Cruz.

  • Perhaps, but they should re-think it. They might thereby hasten the death of the GOP. If they were to so demonstrably place their notion of party above country, I’d send back my plastic card in one hundred slivers and join the Constitution Party with Alan Keyes.

When a Mass Shooting is Politically Inconvenient

Saturday, December 5, AD 2015

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts predicts the reaction of the usual suspects to the jihadist attack in San Bernardino:
Of course, it looks like terrorism.  But since 9/11, we’ve learned that terrorism is tough to pin in America.  When Muslims attacked Paris it was terrorism.  It was also thoughts and prayers.  But here, where Liberalism is fighting on  the front lines of global domination, there can be no such niceties or common sense appraisals.  
Now, I’m no soothsayer or prophet.  But here’s a guess.  The liberal advocates will do any or all of the following in the days to come:
  • Focus on gun control
  • Focus on Islamaphobia
  • Focus on parsing terrorism. Remember when any terrorism that wasn’t Al Qaeda wasn’t considered a big deal and we couldn’t focus on that since it wasn’t connected to 9/11?  Expect the same now with Isis.  
  • Focus on the fact that the shooters were not Syrian refugees
  • Appeal to rambling interviews in which we ask things like ‘does it even matter why it happened?’ (as opposed to things like the Charleston shooting or the Tuscon shooting), or just rambled about saying incoherent things about stuff and things
  • And in all things, blame conservatives.  
  • But if it can’t be used to advance the gospel of the Left, expect the whole story to be gone within a week or so.  If it lasts that long.
That’s just a hunch,. 
BTW, it’s two days and counting over at CAEI.  No prayer post or request for prayers.  No mention.  Nothing.  I can’t begin to fathom why.  Perhaps he just wants to focus on the positives of what the Faith teaches.  I just hope the first post addressing it isn’t about the evils of the NRA, conservatives, gun nuts, or racist America.  In short, I hope conservative blogger Mark doesn’t once again echo with almost stunning efficiency the biases and perspectives of the worst elements of the Left. 

Continue reading...

21 Responses to When a Mass Shooting is Politically Inconvenient

  • The junior varsity team is kicking the hell out of the arrogant left.
    Pathetic bastards…. Isis and liberal mutants.

  • Having lived 1300 years, the Bear has learned that there are many problems without a solution. This is one of them. It would be impossible to elect a leadership capable of effectively addressing this threat. So just add terrorism to the list of brute, capricious ways in which you can wind up dead in this country, like being hit head-on by a drunk driver or having your mobile home exploded by a tornado.

  • Fooey, Philip, it was my turn to observe “the JV team” — that it is going to be one helluva varsity some day. However, likely Bathhouse Barry wont have to deal with them, but will be defending them in the US court system.
    Much-vilified Robert Spencer (a Maronite Catholic by the way) links to how the NY Times putridly portrays “home-grown terrorism” vs. jihadi-terrorism in an utterly mis-representative graph of attacks “since 9/11”, saying “more Americans have been killed in domestic-mass-shootings” since then:

    …But the dearly beloved Old Grey Lady left out that over 3000 Americans were killed on 9/11 alone.

    I think that, as ex-Muslim Brotherhood member Walid Shoebat observed trenchantly in an interview yesterday on Michael Savage’s show, “many more Americans will have to be killed before the country wakes up.” Shoebat notes that the “JV Team” (ISIS) has a goal of killing 10 million Americans, to cow the US into submission. The NY Times will help the JV Team out mightily toward that goal.

  • @Steve Phoenix.

    Ssso sorry for jumping out of turn.
    The badrock o’bummer has been helping the JV team from the start. Your right about his continued support long after his infamous presidency is over. The stench will remain for many a year. 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. will need a good douche.

  • Do not believe anything spewing from academia, the government or the media, including FOXNEWS.

    Islamic terrorists are their natural allies: they hate America’s Christian faith, liberty, and the uses most of us make of our freedoms. The idiot in the WH, useless academics and rump liberals know their enemy: us. They need to disarm us to defeat America.
    Early in the Leninist USSR, the party propaganda organ was Pravda (Truth). The editor was asked what is truth? He answered, “That which advances the revolution. Same for these liberal rats: the news and truth are repeated distortions, exaggerations, fabrications, false equivalencies, non sequiturs, omissions that advance the destruction of our country and our way of life.

  • One more thing Steve…
    “Isis has a goal of killing over 10 million Americans, to cow the US into submission.”

    Planned Parenthood. oops, Worse than Murder Inc., is far more destructive than these piss ant’s. 10 million…that’s all? Losers.
    When they set their goal properly, say 60 or 70 million, then maybe….but 10 million? Humph!

  • Robert Spencer’s a Melkite.

  • 4. That gun control can do anything to stop mass shootings, as the weapons used were not modified to be illegal under California’s stringent assault weapon ban.

    Amendations for clarity. It also needs to emphasised that all weapons were legally purchased.

  • We face the twin threats of radical Islamic terrorism and tyrannical atheistic liberal progressivism. Pray that it is not time for the Maccabean response, for sadly that is the only response which these two demonic forces of darkness respect.

  • Also “Mass Shooting” is useless term.

  • I briefly ran down the list of mass shootings YTD in 2015. It’s mostly unknowns shooting four or five. The KIA ratio isn’t so high. I assume it’s largely gang or drug war related.

    In general, the gun control and the assault rifle memes are deceit with a large dose of hysterics. In fact, the US murder rate has declined most years since 1992 and the dreaded assault rifle annually kills fewer Americans than the death-dealing blunt object (think hammer). The lies advance the agenda, but the truth i’s readily available in FBI statistics.

    I do not accept subordinating The US Constitution to liberal bullshit.

    These lies give the calumnious media something to spew because the news is Obama’s/Hillary’s/Kerry’s massive failures in the world-wide terror war against America. The day of the liberals is over.

    John Gabriel, End the Islamist epidemic in America! “It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that Islamists can commit acts designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are acts of war, barely concealed and deliberately promoted as tools of religious intolerance and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for jihad’s victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on radical Islam, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about gun control.


  • Bizarre even by Mark’s increasingly erratic standard of discourse on the issues of the day.

  • I briefly ran down the list of mass shootings YTD in 2015. It’s mostly unknowns shooting four or five. The KIA ratio isn’t so high. I assume it’s largely gang or drug war related.

    A friend paged through some of the more recent ones– she found that it’s all initial report articles, and some of them even mention there were no serious injuries.

    It’s annoying, because it ignores that part of why a “mass murder” is set fairly high is to avoid somewhat normal reasons for murder– love triangles, or murder/suicides.

    They “mass shooting” folks further exposed their bias by including injuries to the shooters; so if three guys go in to rob a jewelry store, shoot the guy at the counter, and he hits them with a shotgun– it’s a “mass shooting.”
    Because it’d just be sooooo much better if his head had been caved in with a bat, or something? *shrug* Not my monkeys.

  • “Having lived 1300 years”

    You have a few years on me my bruin friend.

    I was born in 1796, taught that whippersnapper Abe Lincoln how to prepare writs, saved the Union by not enlisting in the Union army, taught Theodore Roosevelt dirty fighting, slept through both of Wilson’s inaugural addresses, ended a brilliant political career when I challenged the wheel chair bound FDR to a footrace, served in World War II as fifth assistant briefcase holder to Douglas MacArthur, forgot to vote for Wendell Wilkie in 48, didn’t like Ike, thought that Nixon was more photogenic than Kennedy, got into a fist fight with Barry Goldwater over a parking space, ran the White House “Carpenters” under Nixon, voted for Billy Carter, instead of Jimmy, appointed Secretary of Historical Oddities under Reagan, got George Bush senior to wear a Ross Perot mask to a Skull and Bones reunion, lost a fortune in Whitewater, and then got into blogging.


  • Only the few remaining fever swamp liberal idiots believe “gun show loop hole” garbage. Those dolts and the mendacious media and pokey professors are hyperbolically bought into Obama and the progressive agenda so that they need to push this dopey distraction from Obama’s massive failures in the war, the economy, etc.
    Remember in November. The day of the liberal is over.

  • T Shaw,
    There are so many stupid voters out there that the day of the liberal may not be over.

  • Here is an other shooting the media has ignored:

    BLM isn’t saying a peep. Geez, I wonder why.

  • Bizarre even by Mark’s increasingly erratic standard of discourse on the issues of the day.

    I guess we see what happens when the memes don’t line up and his brain breaks trying to process it.

  • Latest from the WSJ suggests I may have been wrong about the ARs being unmodified (and thus illegal to possess in CA), but legally obtained CA legal ARs that were later modified (and thus illegal to possess in CA).

    Mr. Farook and Ms. Malik were armed with four guns purchased more than three years ago, according to one law-enforcement official. All four guns were purchased legally. But alterations were made to two of the weapons—the guns authorities say were originally bought by Mr. Marquez [i.e. the 2 AR-15s]—which made them unlawful in California.
    One of the semiautomatic rifles—made by DPMS Panther Arms—had been changed to more easily accommodate a large-capacity magazine, [What does that mean?] according to Meredith Davis, a special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
    There was also an attempt to alter the other weapon—a Smith & Wesson M&P model—so it would fire automatically, according to the ATF, a process that takes some expertise to get right, according to gun experts.[and another ant-gun meme takes a hit.]

Daffey Thoughts

Saturday, June 13, AD 2015


A blog I have been reading lately is Daffey Thoughts, run by David Griffey, a Baptist minister who converted to Catholicism.  The video above is from 2006.  He is a graceful writer as demonstrated by this recent post:

This year has been a struggle, as I work things out relative to the shifts that have happened in Catholicism since I’ve been Catholic.  The last vestiges of pre-progressive culture have been swept behind us, except for those sexual issues that would likely not impact celibate men.  Everything else is increasingly along the lines of modern, Western, progressive and even secular social and political theory.

That is enough right there.  Add to it the slammed doors on any hope that I will be able to act in the capacity of a minister of the Gospel, and it’s been tough.  What to give up?  What to sacrifice?  What to commit to?

Well, I decided, a few weeks into Lent I admit, that my penance will be a daily visit to Catholic and Enjoying It.  That may sound strange.  But here is why.

In my early days of looking at non-Protestant Christianity, I stumbled on CAEI largely by accident.  I was searching for some free downloadable articles by Scott Hahn, without success.  Then I found an article by someone named Mark Shea.  It dealt with the strange aversion many Protestants have regarding Mary.  It was direct, but nice.  Even respectful.  There were some clever zingers, making the point without offending.  But the point was solid, fair, and truthful.

I went back, found his website, and gobbled up the articles.  They were almost all wonderful.  Here was a conservative American Catholic, not afraid to point out when Conservatism wasn’t following the path of Christ.  He was also fair when liberalism was correct.  His blog was a little more raucous.  But those were usually the readers.  Mark himself was often the goalie, stepping in and stopping things before they went too far.  Even telling his friends to back off.  No personal attacks or accusations were allowed.  Those would get you the door.

There you had it.  You could be conservative and Catholic.  The stereotype of Catholicism and Liberal Socialism voting Democrats as the sacramental calling of modern Catholicism was not universal.  You could love America, admit it sins, but not emphasize them (which Mark pointed out was often a very un-Christian thing to do).  You could respect the heritage of Western Civilization. You could evenly boldly declare “Why We Must Fight” following 9/11.  He even liked Tolkien, and the books I liked.  And his humor and mine were not too far off each other.

Perhaps it was my own fault that I saw in Mark’s rather balanced approach as what Catholicism was, rather than looking further.  But that was well over ten years ago.

Today, the Church has changed in just the time since we came into it.  The generation that had welcomed Protestant Clergy Converts into the fold have passed to retirement.  With some exceptions in the priesthood, most now in charge (Boomer age) seem to want little to do with us, unless we can design webpages or raise money.  And it isn’t hard to see that Oprah style liberalism and the growing pronouncements about reality from Church leaders sound increasingly the same.  The Bishops’ willingness to almost in one voice support the Democrats in all things, as long as they don’t screw the Church, and the shift toward accepting the Secular narrative are hard to miss.

True, Pope Francis is a horse of a different color.  But those who have studied liberation theology and the Marxist influences in South American Christianity will recognize at least some influences there, even if what he is willing to take a stand against other forms of radical leftist morality (again, usually where sex is concerned).

On CAEI, the change is even more pronounced.  It’s almost an entirely different world.  An entirely different blogger.  Most regulars of old have long since moved on.  The readers are either post-modern non-conformists cheering on their own superiority over all those loser “tribal Catholics”, or clearly hard to the Left progressives, with varying degrees of anti-abortion and non-gay marriage support.  In fact, opposing gay “marriage” is about the only thing that separates much modern talk about homosexuality in the Church from your average LGBT rally. And CAEI echoes this.

CAEI is a strange mixture now of Jack Chick, Glenn Beck, Huffington Post progressive thought, and a reminder that Catholics are, whether we want to admit it or not, heirs of the Inquisition.  For a couple years, many regulars tried to warn that there was little to do with enjoying anything on CAEI, and a growing discrepancy between a man who claims to be conservative, and a man who increasingly seems to love liberalism but hate conservatism.  One by one, those readers have apparently given up and moved on.  Only a handful remain.  God love them.

For me, who has been accused of horrible things by the stock readers and by Mark himself – including not caring about murdered children at Sandy Hook and desiring to increase human slaughter – there is little joy or happiness now.  The anti-Western, anti-American, anti-Traditional and anti-Conservative narrative fully embraced has made me more of an outcast there than I was at the Huffington Post.  And to be honest, I’ve been called far worse on CAEI than I was at the Huffington Post.  And it was leaving HP (as well as being banned for not being liberal) that was one of the reasons I started my blog!  Which is always a possibility at CAEI, since the thing that gets you banned now is pretty much defending traditional and conservative viewpoints, with rare exception.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Daffey Thoughts

  • Mark Shea follows the man who is Pope instead of the Man Whom the Pope is to follow.

  • As a convert since 2008, I too was initially drawn to Mark Shea but, upon reflection, he now seems to be too acerbic and too willing to blast those who disagree with him. Boy, is he hare line and hard nosed. I, too, join you in being puzzled as to why a Episcopalian or Lutheran convert can become a Catholic priest but a Baptist convert cannot. On the other hand, the Catholic Church is still the True Church of Jesus Christ and I am heartened by the witness of Catholics like Fr. Neuhaus, Thomas Howard, Scott Hahn and many other Catholics I encounter in our parish and on our Catholic journey. The happiness, joy and peace of being Catholic far exceeds any concern about the Bishops and the Pope, of which there is a good deal, on certain issues.

  • Pingback: TUESDAY EDITION: – Big Pulpit