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.

The Good Old Days

Thursday, October 27, AD 2016

“People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors.”

Edmund Burke


Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts muses as to how conservatives and leftists view the past and the present:


Or not, depending on your point of view.  A basic difference between a more progressive spin on America and a more traditional spin is that progressives tend to believe America can be a great nation despite the evils of its past, while traditionalists tend to believe that America has been a great nation despite the evils in its past. Likewise, those who swing to the Left tend to see the changes happening as positive, while those who are more conservative will obviously see many changes as negative, especially if they’ve changed important characteristics of their society.  That Americans are divided along political lines over wanting America the way it used to be or not shouldn’t be surprising.  Nor should we assume that when people say they want the past, that they necessarily want the evils of the past.  An interesting, but hardly surprising, survey.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to The Good Old Days

  • I believe that is much of life. You don’t have to forget the bad, but dwelling on it leads only to despair. Best to dwell on the good memories and moments. Then…

    “The good man’s past begins to change so that his forgiven sins and remembered sorrows take on the quality of Heaven: the bad man’s past already conforms to his badness and is filled only with dreariness. And that is why…the Blessed will say “We have never lived anywhere except in Heaven, : and the Lost, “We were always in Hell.” And both will speak truly.”

  • “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
    The American Flag belongs to each and every sovereign person, each and every citizen, in joint and common tenancy as the standard of the United States of America; as the symbol of the freedom and independence of each and every sovereign person who institutes government and establishes our nation, from the Founding Fathers to all “We, the people” a community of sovereign persons who are the ancestors of all future generations, our constitutional Posterity.
    In their myopic tunnel vision squandered in prejudice and partisanship The Supreme Court at one time decided that burning the American Flag was “freedom of speech” guarded by the First Amendment. Like “Heil Hitler”, it was free speech. Only TRUTH has free speech. TRUTH is that the American Flag belongs to each and every citizen in joint and common tenancy. And burning the American Flag is and was an assault on our freedom, on our private and common property. Burning an auditorium filled with people then can be considered free speech and peaceable assembly.
    Those individuals who cannot express themselves without injuring the whole nation must be deported to anyplace but American soil. Their free will choice, not ours.

  • A very frustrating poll. “Mostly changed for the better” versus “mostly changed for the worse”. The question isn’t designed to elicit an intellectual response. To give it an intellectual answer, you’d need to define culture, lay out a list of the major changes to it in the last 60 years, and assign them weights. A person could spend a lifetime making that calculation. What the pollsters are really after is an instinctive response. Such a response can have value in understanding groups, but it’s got tremendous limitations. You could use it to develop an ad campaign, for example, but you couldn’t use it for policy analysis. The HuffPo headlines is a complete misuse of the poll: “Half Of Americans Want To Take The Country Back To The 1950s”. That doesn’t describe the results, or presumably the thinking of those polled. It’s written to make those who would have answered one way feel themselves better than those who would have answered the other way.

  • I was born in 1934 and grew up in Detroit. Hope and opportunity abounded. And then things changed. Democrats took over the administration and the slope to total devastation began in the culture and the Catholic Church with Vatican II where extreme left wing thinking was standard. Peak year in America was 1955. Just my opinion, of course. Nothing good comes from the left wing. They are all about taking and not giving. They are all about control and not freedom. Liberalism is purely evil.

Prepare to Be Assimilated

Thursday, October 13, AD 2016


Dave Griffey at Daffy Thoughts views the Clinton campaign e-mails about the Church as not anti-Catholic, but rather a demonstration of the Borg quality of contemporary liberalism:


There’s quite a buzz about some of the emails dumped from Hillary’s camp.  Admittedly you have to sift through the news hours to find mention of these.  It isn’t necessarily 24/7 coverage.  Don’t know why, but except for FOX, nobody is really talking about this.  In any event, allow me to point out that these emails are not anti-Catholic.  They’re basic, modern progressive 101.   They’re not trashing Catholics or Catholicism.  They’re trashing that which isn’t liberal.  They’re not saying the Catholic Church sucks.  They’re saying the Catholic Church that doesn’t conform to liberalism sucks.  They’re not saying Catholics are stupid or wicked.  They’re saying Catholics who don’t convert to the liberal gospel are stupid and wicked.  There’s a difference.

The strength of liberalism is that it invites all people into its fold.  Everyone, from all walks of life, all beliefs, all backgrounds.  It merely insists that certain non-negotiables be accepted.   Do that, and you’re accepted.  Steven Colbert is a fine example.  No Catholic is more lauded in our popular culture for his Catholic faith than Colbert.  That’s because everyone assumes he is also quite liberal, and accepts liberalism on the key, important issues.

I realize the double standard.  I get that if this email said the same things about Muslims and was passed along between GOP workers, then this would be 24/7 outrage.  It would be the Fluke Revolution all over again.   I get that.  It is what it is.  If you don’t realize where most of the press is at this point, then there’s not much sense discussing anything else.  But keep the outrage in perspective and keep it accurate.  In the end, it’s all about that progressive model of reality.  These emails are not trashing Catholicism.  They are reminding us of the Romification of liberalism.  Just as Rome said all you needed to do was pay your taxes, keep the peace and bow to Caesar, and then you can keep what gods you want, so the modern Left says the same.  And based on the number of Christians beginning to see the progressive light, I’d say it’s turned out to be an effective bargain.


Go here to read the comments.  Perhaps the Borg is not the proper reference.  I am sure that Geek liberals think of themselves as building a benevolent, all encompassing Federation that will take all of humanity and place them at the service of noble leftist causes.  To them, my response will ever be that of Commander Eddington:

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Prepare to Be Assimilated

  • I couldn’t disagree more. Liberalism is the antithesis of Catholicism. Progressives want to be their own God. Catholicism recognizes the one true God. Liberalism only accepts Catholics who are actually not Catholic. Colbert is the perfect example of this. He’s already excommunicated himself from the Catholic faith. So, it may be a small point, but one that is worth making. There is no intersection between Progressives and Catholics who are actually Catholic, not just self-identified.

  • I don’t think you quite got F of S the sarcasm of Mr. Griffey.

  • Seen on Instapundit:
    “To repeat, the head of Clinton’s campaign has been organizing to fracture a major religion. Clinton claims to be for all Americans… what if Podesta had created organizations to foment ‘Revolution’ among the American Muslim community? Would that be worthy of dismissal?… how much of his plans to fracture Catholics did Podesta share with Hillary as a campaign strategy? Does she agree with his strategy now?”
    “Thou shalt have no other gods before Progressivism.”

  • Funny how Progressive (there’s nothing liberal about modern Liberalism) non-negotiables are antithetical to Catholic ones.

  • I refuse to be assimilated.
    1st Maccabees chapter 2.
    Leonidas to Xerxes at Thermopylae:
    μολὼν λαβέ !

  • LQC translated: “Hell no, I will not go.” Into what? Plagiarism of the Word of God. by secular humanists, better known as atheists? Usurping of the infinite power of God to subjugate the human being’s innate, unalienable human rights enumeration and protected in the Ninth Amendment of our Constitution, the absence of humanness is a sign of devil possession. Progression to hell is not freedom, but the subservience to perfect evil. Do not let Hillary damn us into hell, unless we, the PEOPLE choose. FREEDOM

  • Someone with photoshop skills needs to take that obnoxious “H” logo of hers and make it into “Hell”.

  • Same with “I’m with Hell” bumper stickers.

  • It’s not like the “go in and subvert everything” tactic was unknown from them, it’s just startling to see it openly and consciously discussed.

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.

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.]

Ideas and Words Have Consequences

Sunday, October 4, AD 2015


Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts takes a look at the prompt denial by some atheists of hatred of Christians as possibly being a factor in the murderer at Umpqua College singling out Christians:



So after over a decade of the radical anti-religious New Atheists spouting rhetoric against religion that would make a party in the 1930s Reichstag look Kosher by comparison, atheists are dealing with the ugly notion that evidence suggests the killer of nine people at Umpqua College purposefully targeted Christians.  Of course for most atheists, like most liberals and secularists, Christianity is the prime enemy.  So most contempt, disgust, hatred, spite, demagoguery and lies are aimed at Christians and Christianity.  And of course we know that such rhetoric is always behind things like racist hate crimes, and anti-gay hate crimes, and anti-Muslim hate crimes.  

But as Western Liberalism tends to do, once again we have a case where the zealousness of its righteous crusaders turns on itself and seems to expose the movement’s hypocrisy and agendas.  So Lauren Nelson, penning for the always ironically titled Friendly Atheist, steps in to say ‘not so fast, it may not have anything to do with it after all!’  
That, of course, is a favorite tactic of the leftist propaganda machine.  If a person kills blacks or gays or another minority group adopted by the Left, then hatred is the only motive.  The only focus.  If someone breaks from that, or a member of the approved minority community commits the crime, or a victim is from a non-accepted group, then it’s all about anything but the hatred.  Once again, reminding us that we are dealing with a movement that hates us; one that likely doesn’t care for the various groups it claims to support, but one that certainly hates certain groups – like Christians.  

Continue reading...

41 Responses to Ideas and Words Have Consequences

  • By definition Christians cannot be victims, white people cannot be victims, police cannot be victims. According to the prevailing model, Christians and white people have the power, and the powerful cannot be victims. Only members of approved victim classes can be victims. Possession of victim status is extremely important in our culture, something to be fought for and protected at all cost. Victim status is so powerful, homosexuals seized it and through careful manipulation of whatever faculty recognizes rainbow symbols — the Bear hesitates to use the word “intellect” — pushed through gay marriage practically overnight. The “powerful” were powerless to stop them. It was a rollover, not even a speed bump. That’s the power of victim status, and why we can’t have it. (Bears possibly, but there are so few talking bears to carry the message!)

  • “(Bears possibly, but there are so few talking bears to carry the message!)”

    And so many of them cannot speak because their mouths are stuffed with honey, fish, picnic lunches, etc. Face it, you are a rarity my bruin friend.

  • What will become of these atheists when Patriots who are Christians have had enough and implement the Maccabean solution? 🙁 It will be worse than 1860 to 1865. 🙁 God have mercy.

  • What comes around, goes around. The New Atheism is childish hatred. For the most part, they talk a lot but are really cowards.
    I was once afraid of a fight. At that time I did not know that my mother is a descendant of Clan Lamont, who fought against Protestant clans rather than submit. Nor did I know of the Winged Hussars, Pulaski, Sobieski, Kosciuszko, Pilsudski, the Greater Poland Uprising, the Polish Soviet War, Gaby Grabeski or General Anders.
    Bring it on, New Atheists. I am no member of the Church of Nice.

  • Interesting that guns and bible thumpers were castigated (can we still say targeted) together by a certain top politician a few years back.

  • Brother #1: “Give it to Mikey!”
    Brother #2: “Mikey won’t eat it – he hates everything!”
    How ironic that a cereal called “Life” would have such distant and unwitting prescience. Signal graces indeed.

  • You know, it really saddens me that a certain kind of intolerant person would look to take advantage of this awful, inexplicable tragedy by cultivating a climate of fear and hatred against other Americans in order to advance a political agenda that would deny those different from themselves their basic, fundamental rights.

  • I’m a writer at The Friendly Atheist. Please remove the threat above by your reader T Shaw (“Somebody needs to make them pay”) that appears to be a call for violence against my colleague.

    And there is absolutely, unequivocally, nothing in her post that could remotely be considered “hate speech” or a “call to violence” — it’s precisely the opposite. The only call to violence here is by Shaw.

  • “Somebody needs to make them pay”

    Considering that T.Shaw is a sixty something accountant I suspect that he was referring to payment in coin and not making a threat. However, to make sure that atheist bloggers sleep well at night, free from fear from attacks from aging bookkeepers, I have taken down his comment.

  • Mr. McClarey, his comment was a call to action to all readers to “make us pay.” Do you genuinely believe most readers will take that to mean money?

    An ironic response from the author of a post entitled “Ideas and Words Have Consequences.”

  • Yes actually, considering the readership of this blog. Lawsuits alleging damages for hate speech are not uncommon in other nations, Canada comes to mind as an example. Fortunately they have found no footing in American jurisprudence, at least in civil actions, due to the fact that one man’s hate speech is another man’s freedom of speech.

  • Bo Gardiner, it is you atheists who have been making us Christians pay for almost 100 years now, starting with Vladimir Lenin. Your kind murdered 20 million Ukrainians in the 1930s in the Great Holodomor. Your kind murdered 60 or more million Chinese in atheist Mao Tse Tung’s Great leap Forward. Your kind starves the people of North Korea to death under an atheist regime. Your kind persecutes the Church in atheist, communist Vietnam. Your kind murdered Christian men, women and children in Mexico in the 1910s and 20s under atheist President Plutarco Elias Calles. Your kind have always been and always will be murderers. Will you pay? Not at my hand. Nor at the hand of any other authentic Christian. But we will all give an account of ourselves at the Judgment Seat of Jesus Christ. I include myself in that. God help us if we fail to repent.

  • Mr. Primavera, that’s precisely the kind of bigoted hate speech that sends unbalanced people over the edge and into violence. Words have consequences.

  • Bo Gardiner, it is a historical fact that you atheists murdered countless tens of millions of people in the 20th century. It is equally a fact that every single one of us will stand before the Judgment Seat of Jesus Christ and unless we repent – myself most of all – we go to hell for our sins, having sent ourselves there. I am not going to mince words into political correctness to staisfy some mentally deranged nut case, who more often than not is an atheist or a Muslim. Witness the recent murderous anti-Christian rampage in Oregon. Authentic Christians do NOT murder. You atheist do murder.

  • I can’t believe an atheist comes around and starts bullying people by accusing them of inciting violence because they maintain something anathema to godless atheism. These people will not stop. They force Christian bakeries out of business for not supporting sodomy. They force Catholic adoption agencies out of business for not adopting out to sodomites. They shoot Christian kids in college. They know no bounds and they demand that we be nice to them or else? Or else what? Are you going to sue people on this blog for disagreeing with you? Are you going to write letters to police, courts, politicians, employers, demanding these people be ostracized? It started that way in Plutarco Elias Calles’ Mexico. Then began the open bloody persecution – little children tortured and killed for daring to utter the phrase Viva Cristo Rey! It was offensive to say, Long Live Christ the King, because it was a call to arms – spiritual arms and the devil who authors and incites atheism hates that. No, I do NOT advocate violence against anyone, Muslim or atheist. But I will defend my family against their violence. That is my 2nd Amendment Right, and it has Biblical precedence in 1st Maccabees chapter 2. No, I do not want to do that, and yes, hurting anyone physically would make me violently ill. But it used to be American – patriotic – to uphold such values: God, Family and Country. Now it’s offensive. Well, St Paul said the Cross has always been offensive. But every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that He is Lord.

  • If nothing else, Mr. Gardiner has usefully proven two things: (1) rare honorable exceptions aside, atheists refuse to be responsible for their anti-religious rhetoric, and (2) calls for civility are just cynical implements in the left’s culture war toolkit.

  • Bo Gardiner wrote “And there is absolutely, unequivocally, nothing in her post that could remotely be considered “hate speech” or a “call to violence” — it’s precisely the opposite.”
    This is a dissimulation. No one claimed that Lauren Nelson wrote any such thing. The claim is that she denied and excused the hate speech of others.

  • Tom D:

    First, there was absolutely no denial of or excuse for any hate speech.
    Secondly, I have a screencap of the comment, which absolutely makes that claim.

    Paul Primavera:

    I’m sorry you feel persecuted by someone civilly asking on an Internet forum to delete a violent threat. I’d suggest you look to countries where dissent is illegal and both Christians and atheists are imprisoned, tortured or killed to learn what persecution genuinely looks like.

    I’m not a “Mr.” I and my colleague are women. If men posting and defending a violent threat toward us is not “bullying,” but you feel bullied by us for asking that it be deleted, I recommend you visit some anti-bullying websites to learn more about the problem.

  • Any thoughts about Mr. Weinstein’s rhetoric as quoted at the top of this thread, Miss Gardiner? Oh, and is your colleague still agnostic about whether Christians were targeted for execution in Oregon?

    I await your deflections.

  • Folks,
    You can’t make this stuff up:
    Jesuit educated! Who would have thought! “…she went into this weird cocoon-like state and emerged a metamorphised humanist, feminist, environmentalist…” Again, who would have thought! “There she geeks out on botanizing and birds…” This ain’t fiction, folks!
    Meanwhile, Christians who were real scientists (Father Georges LeMaitre, Dr Louis Pasteur, the contemporary Dr Stephen Barr and Dr Hugh Ross, etc.) are to be derided and ridiculed for their religion.

  • Dale, our feminist eco-enviro-humanist atheist has an opinion about the massacre of Christians in Oregon:
    But it doesn’t agree with reeality.

  • You’re welcome to discuss my own analysis of the Oregon shooting at

    It pulls together comprehensively what’s known factually about its religious aspects, with links to all primary sources.

  • Bo Gardiner, the only place where atheists are persecuted in exactly where Christians are persecuted: in Muslim countries. Everywhere else you atheists gain control, you end up doing exactly what President Plutarco Elias Calles of Mexico did in the early 20th century. You are the persecuters. You do it now by sending Christians to be sued in court for not baking cakes for sodomites. That is but one of many examples. You marginalize. Then you ostracize. Then you incarcerate. Then you torture and execute. You did it in Russia. You did it in China. You did it in Mexico. You did it in North Korea. You did it in Cuba. Everywhere you go, that is what you do.

  • Ah. Well, I can certainly understand why you’d take that tack, favoring the evidence that downplays the Christian hater angle.

    I mean, having to think about possible downsides to an irreligious future could be unpleasant. Better to handwave it away, like was done with the executions of Deah Shaddy Barakat, Yusor Mohammad snf Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha in North Carolina.

    Whew–just a parking dispute! No way anything else could have played into it–certainly not enlightened progressive secular thinking! No ma’am–blame the gun, because marinating in anti-religious rhetoric is good for the soul. Well, it would be, if people had them.

    And anyway: soul-searching is only for those who believe in souls, amirite?

  • Oh, and nice avoid on the Weinstein quote. Your silence is most eloquent.

  • I recall seeing a video of the atheist Daniel Dennett at a conference in China where he advocated the state taking children away from religious believers so that they can be raised properly. Ah, yes, building the great future on a foundation of human rights violations.

  • Why should anyone be surprised that an atheist has problems recognizing facts, when he can’t even get the first and most fundamental one right?

  • I am also curious – how does an atheist determine something is “hate” speech? To classify something as “hate”, there must be some meaning to this word/standard of “hate” that is beyond merely the eye of the beholder (i.e., not merely subjective). Otherwise, it is just random molecules bouncing around and interacting for no particular purpose, with no particular meaning. Hence, no such thing as “hate.” It is all just a matter of personal opinion, and therefore Bo’s definition of “hate” is no more binding on anyone than mine would be.

  • C Matt, in this case, the person in question – Bo Gardiner – claims to be female, so the proper pronoun would be she. However, in today’s genderless society of atheism, humanism and secularism, one wonders.

  • Any thoughts about Mr. Weinstein’s rhetoric as quoted at the top of this thread

    I am sure the SPLC, ADL and ACLU are jumping right on it. You know how vigilant they are about stopping hate speech.

  • “….how does an atheist determine something is “hate” speech? ”

    As we all know, hate speech is merely a political form of censorship of the truth that makes the untruthful angry.

  • Actually, the proper pronoun is “he.” The sentence was a universal reference to atheists, not to a particular person, so the universal pronoun “he” was utilized. I refuse to bend over to grammatical sodomy.

  • In other words, I did not intend to limit the observation to Bo. But I can see how it could be interpreted that way in the context of this thread.

  • I think the speech Nazis want to substitute “he” and “she” with something like “zhe”. All I know is that once we get used to “zhe” someone will find offense with it and a new pronoun will need to be invented. Social engineers never rest.

  • Social engineers never rest. the thrill of the will to power is too great.

  • C Matt, we are in violent agreement on the proper use of pronouns. May I say that without being accused of inciteful hate speech: “violent agreement”?

  • I have a screencap of the comment,

    Gotta love this. No doubt Bo can later throw up a pity party post about “dem mean Christians,” because some commenter on some website said something less than nice. The world awaits in breathless anticipation this coming manifesto.

  • Yep. She’s the *real* victim here, a brave freethinking truth-teller womyn beset by vicious male theocrats. Meanwhile, she’s working obsessively to make sure no one thinks Christians can ever be targeted for murder by those who share her mindset (cough*Holodomor*cough). I’m sure the epistemic closure is comforting for her, which is nice.

  • Donald, as a sixty something accountant I take offense at you using that definition in a derogatory way to describe T.Shaw. Policing speech is so much fun!!
    On the other hand you have to give Bo points for courage, I haven’t laughed so much in a while. She walked into a den of lions and got mauled (I was going to say eaten but I controlled myself)

  • As a 58 year old attorney Gustavo, I suspect that the only bodily danger I could pose to anyone is if I suddenly fell asleep and toppled over on them!

  • Careful Dale, she probably just screenshotted you. And based on her post linked to by Paul Primavera, she’s no doubt also cyberstalking checking out all other online profiles to get a glimpse of just who the real Dale Price is. Right after she googles the meaning of “epistemic closure.”