Orwell With a Laugh Track

Saturday, June 18, AD 2016

George Orwell Meme

 

 

I am beginning to think that the easiest way to understand this Pontificate is to imagine a screenplay about a papacy written by George Orwell that is also a black comedy.  With furor among Catholics around the globe over the Pope’s remark that the great majority of sacramental marriages are invalid  the Vatican has attempted to send the comment down the Memory Hole:

Editor’s note: This article was updated June 17 to include a clarification by the Vatican: Pope Francis approved a revision to the official transcript to say that “a portion” of sacramental marriages are null, instead of “the great majority.”

So everything now is hunky, dory!

 

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Orwell With a Laugh Track

  • Pope Francis and his repeated gaffs was permitted by God for reasons plural I’m sure. The one I notice revolves around the clergy and author careerism that prevented any well positioned Catholic from dissenting on the death penalty change of St. JPII and dissenting to the world press. Just as we had no well positioned Catholic who broke ranks and who was heroic against Church lethergy on sex abuse, so also we had no hero against the death penalty 180 degree turn which SCOTUS research from 1972 to 1976 showed deters murders of a premeditated sort….the type that is decimating the two largest Catholic countries, Brazil and Mexico. The other strong fans of St. JPII and of Benedict were often pan infallibilists…..loving them so much that they saw their every word as probably infallible. Francis is an ongoing correction of pan infallibility partly brought on by Lumen Gentium 25 and its lack of caveats. Just as Osee and his wayward wife was a sign of God loving the sinful people of God, Pope Francis and his loquacious imprudent mouth are a sign that infallibility
    is rare….just as Pope Saint John XXIII inferred it was to a group of Greek seminarians.

  • I think that this Pope is mentally defective in some way. he says stupid things. he doesn;t remember what he says. He retracts and revises as needed to keep up a good face. But leave him to himself in a public setting and he is a bathering idiot. And his writings are so illogical that they can’t be followed.

  • I had a very good friend who is now resting with the Lord, I am sure. He thought that Pope John XXIII was a nut, a view I disputed. Now, I agree that Pope Francis cherry-picks from the deposit of faith, and that means that I will carefully and respectfully cherry-pick from his remarks.

Pastoral: What Crimes Are Committed In Thy Name

Tuesday, April 12, AD 2016

11 Responses to Pastoral: What Crimes Are Committed In Thy Name

  • Remember when the Rorate Caeli combox went into meltdown after the election of Pope Francis?

    Christianity has faded in Western Europe and North America for a bunch of reasons, but it has not entirely been self inflicted. Latin American Catholicism has faded almost entirely because of the bishops of the Catholic Church in Latin America. There it has been self inflicted.

    So, where do we get our Pontiff from? A failed order from a failed nation. Nobody forced errors upon the Jesuits or Argentina. They were not infiltrated by the KGB in Latin America. Argentina wasn’t invaded by nations hostile to the Catholic Church. They shot themselves in the foot.

    The late Mother Angelica put it best. “I am tired of you, Liberal Church.” I’ve been tired of it. Cardinal Kingmaker Wuerl has softpedaled the Georgetown controversy of having the Worse than Murder leader speak on the campus.

  • Penguins Fan.
    We’re all tired of it, however we are missing the opportunity. View this time as a shared persecution going on two thousand and some years ago. Remove the centuries and share the rejection, betrayal and beating of Christ.
    Share it as best you can with patience, love for neighbor and love for God the Father… then ask Our Father to accept this offering of a Church scourged, ridiculed and undermined by the very ones HE made and loved.

    This is my poor perspective.

    Trying to offer redemptive suffering because it’s the only lemonade I can see profitable from an orchard of lemons. It’s a value for souls unseen and if accepted by Almighty God, it’s a work that will not perish in the final fire. It very well could be a lasting and profitable gift…not because of us…but because of the original sufferings by Christ on Calvary. If Christ accepts our offering than we are participants in the work of renewing the face of the earth. Agian. Not us. As St. Paul said; We make up what is lacking… not that God lacks anything… but rejoices in our participation. That is the sweet lemonade that comes from a grove of lemons… be it Rome, Washington or Main Street.

    Peace and may our weariness be turned into enthusiasm for with God all things are possible.

  • Philip. Aren’t we supposed to fight the good fight as best we can by resistance, by speaking out as well as by prayer and suffering?

  • Michael, not to presume to speak for Philip, but it does seem that he offers but a way of fighting–the same way Christ chose that brought about the largest victory in history–that of salvation.
    it is not so much ignoring doctrine that has brought our church to this sorry state, but it is that it has ignored embracing the most important weapon of all–the cross. I also remind myself that it was Christ’s errant church leaders that he fought–just as many of us are doing today.
    We now have much more than a micro-opportunity to join with Him daily.
    “If you wish to follow me, pick up your cross daily…..

  • Philip. Aren’t we supposed to fight the good fight as best we can by resistance, by speaking out as well as by prayer and suffering? – Michael Dowd

    As an active sidewalk prayer protester and rally captain for public square rosaries stepping up in the face of injustices is at my core. Be it so-called same sex marriage – blasphemous plays- HHS mandate and The Right to Life for the unborn I’m in.

    Pope Francis is an enigma. Hence I’m suffering in this conundrum. When I take this to Jesus in the Holy Hour it is “PRAY for my Francis”…. so I pray for him. Conversion? Well I pray that the Holy Spirit will guide him to do exactly what God wants him to do.

    My answer then Micheal is Prayer and sacrifice. I can’t fathom standing in protest in front of St. Peter’s……. but with the dome being used for green propaganda and other twisting I can’t rule it out.

    The golden act of redemptive suffering is a practice I engage in and teach the elderly at the nursing home. It is valuable in ways that only God can correctly identify since it is so personal….an intimate joining of deep suffering with the ultimate sufferer, Christ.

    I believe this is what is needed at the moment concerning our Holy Church and it’s head.

  • Thanks Phillip. I well understand. My wife and I have been suffering with the Church since Vatican II. Trying to raise 11 kids in the Catholic faith in the feverishly left wing diocese of Detroit was a difficult challenge beginning in the mid sixties. Basically the Church did more harm than good to the kids. And, I think it helped cause her early death at age 62.

  • Dear Michael.. my sincere condolences.
    If the Church was a part of her sufferings and played a role in her premature departure then please know what a jewel she is in Christ’s Crown. Together, She and Christ will see to your children and their safety, their souls well-being. Please know I will pray for your family today. Each of them.

  • Thanks Phillip I appreciate that and agree. It was 20 years ago that she died. In some other era she would probably be considered a saint for raising 11 kids, setting up her own orthodox Catholic catechetical program for 100 kids and years of work on counseling girls against abortion.

  • You did just describe a Saint….in our era.
    Now I know why Jesus wanted her home early… He couldn’t wait to have her enjoy the rewards she has helped to garner. Love wanted her home even though it would break hearts on earth.
    Your very blessed to call her wife, friend and mate. She IS beautiful.

  • I take my son to Mass and catechism myself. The wife sleeps.
    I will not raise my sons in the same banal atmosphere that drove away my dad and brothers.

  • Penguins Fan.
    Respectively understood.
    I don’t have a clue as to the availability of an orthodox priest that may or may not reside near your family.. but I will mention that it was a pleasure to move close to one in my community. We moved in ’13 to a beautiful parish. One that offers TLM every week. Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration. Men’s Holy League. Legion of Mary and a few others.

    The parish in in a rural area. Prior to the move I painstakingly put up with liberal theology including a homosexual music director who’s Facebook page is scandalous, however the “possibility of conversion,” is never extinguished and the big question; Did I do enough to plant seeds to help them?

    I finally made the move out of the front lines to be a parishioner at this oasis of living water.
    Yes, it is an additional 17 miles each way to employment now, but so worth it.

    The boys are plentiful for serving at the Mass and Benedictions. I’m feeling refreshed and able to serve my residence and neighbors with a gentler heart……however sometimes I vent here which is not always charitable. Girls are not recruited to be alter servers. They sing the choir and when they sing the hymns in Latin it’s tears of joy for us, the parishioners.

    Please consider your options in PA.
    I’m sure you already have. Your a sensible contributor.
    Peace PF.

    Your a good father for many reasons, but your investment in their catechism is stellar.
    Prayers to you for a new assignment of a orthodox priest in your diocese that feeds the sheep with Holy conviction.

Quotes Suitable for Framing: George Orwell

Saturday, November 7, AD 2015

quote-many-years-ago-rudyard-kipling-gave-an-address-at-mcgill-university-in-montreal-he-said-one-halford-e-luccock-347002

 

 

A humanitarian is always a hypocrite, and Kipling’s understanding of this is perhaps the central secret of his power to create telling phrases. It would be difficult to hit off the one-eyed pacifism of the English in fewer words than in the phrase, “making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep.”

George Orwell, from a review of A Choice of Kipling’s Verse

Continue reading...

Wendy Davis is Pro-life and War is Peace

Thursday, November 7, AD 2013

 

Laura Ingraham

 

 

Hattip to Mary Katharine Ham at Hot Air.  Wendy Davis, Texas State Senator, who won her Senate seat running as a pro-abort with the help of the man who was and is the head of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, and who is campaigning for governor of the Lone Star State on the strength of her ultimately futile filibuster against restrictions on abortion passed by the Texas legislature, has proclaimed herself pro-life.

Emily at Naked DC gives us the gruesome details:

She’s lagging because of a few key features of her campaign. First, it makes gun control a key issue in a state where not only are the people heavily armed, but the livestock as well. Second, she’s allied her communications with Organizing for Action’s Texas arm, which promptly ran an ad making a joke about Greg Abbott walking into the legislature, when it is abundantly clear to everyone who has ever seen Greg Abbott that he cannot walk. She had yet to talk about the cornerstone of her political career, her filibuster of a Texas law that prevents abortions after 20 weeks, which rolled the Texas abortion deadline back from 24 weeks.

She’s since corrected that oversight. Today, Wendy Davis, says she’s “pro-life.

Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis (D-Fort Worth), best known for her 11-hour filibusteragainst a controversial bill aimed at severely cutting access to abortion services across the Lone Star State, said her views on abortion make her “pro-life.”

“I am pro-life,” Davis said during a campaign stop at the University of Texas at Brownsville, according to the Valley Morning Star.

“I care about the life of every child: every child that goes to bed hungry, every child that goes to bed without a proper education, every child that goes to bed without being able to be a part of the Texas dream, every woman and man who worry about their children’s future and their ability to provide for that future,” Davis said. “I care about life and I have a record of fighting for people above all else.”

B—h, please.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Wendy Davis is Pro-life and War is Peace

  • A number of years ago, a pro-abortion colleague of mine tried convincing me that he was pro-life because he was anti-war, anti-poverty, anti-gun, and anti-death-row. I was shocked then that he was trying to twist the meaning of the word; I am not shocked now when I see politicians stating it.

  • “Wordsmiths.”
    Another description….”liars.”
    Many mill stones being gathered for the bottom of the lake. Maybe as they tie the stones neatly around their neck they’ll reassure themselves by saying it’s fashionable ballast for the “enlightened.”

  • Isaiah 5:20

    Ah, you who call evil good
    and good evil,
    who put darkness for light
    and light for darkness,
    who put bitter for sweet
    and sweet for bitter!

  • Pingback: The Fortunate Faith of Audrey Assad - BigPulpit.com
  • Much of the problem consists in the denial of the human being composed of body and soul; the denial of the human soul. Acknowledgement of the human soul is the basis for freedom, for it is in the human soul that all endowed unalienable human rights are vested.The devil’s strategy is divide and conquer. Having darkened the mind of man to the reality of the human soul, the devil proceeds to gain control, ownership of the human soul, to the detriment of man knowing God as our Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier.

    Wendy Davis is a good example of an individual already sold into slavery by the devil. ““I care about the life of every child: every child that (WHO, not that, as WHO denotes sovereign personhood as the beneficiary of all unalienable human rights by virtue of the human being’s existence as a child of God, made in the image of God with free will from God and freedom from the state.) goes to bed hungry, every child that -(WHO)- goes to bed without a proper education, every child that -(WHO)- goes to bed without being able to be a part of the Texas dream, every woman and man who (finally; -WHO- as acknowledging the rational, immortal soul of the adult member of society, the voter, while downgrading the child to a thing, a chattel, owned by the state. Yet the innocence and virginity, the sovereign personhood of the newly begotten child constitutes the state, our government, even before the unborn are certified as citizens, for the innocent soul establishes JUSTICE for the state and is the standard of JUSTICE.) worry about their children’s future and their ability to provide for that future,”

    Acknowledgment of the innocent, virginal soul of the newly begotten person in the womb will assure that our constitutional posterity will have a decent future, steeped in unalienable human rights, the freedom to reason and acknowledge almighty God as the Endower of human rights.

    Davis said. “I care about life and I have a record of fighting for people above all else.”

    Speaking to God is a human right of the First Amendment. The will to live is an act of the free will of the sovereign person. If the unborn is alive, he is thinking about God.

  • The right to life is the most fundamental right. On this right all others rest. Without it, all others are threatened and ultimately meaningless. Being “pro-life” is respecting and promoting human life from the moment of conception until natural death.

    In various periods of Church history,, the Church has had to grapple with doctrinal crises and arrive at a formula that would best express the saving truth under threat. Thus we brought. Forth such dogmas as: ” begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father”, “One God in three Persons”, “Jesus Christ, true God and true Man”, and many others.

    In today’s Church, the crisis is ultimately the “anthropological crisis”. While the actual phrase did not arise within a Council (Vatican II was not faced with the full anthropological crisis) the new phrase is based on its teaching and further developed bt Blessed John Paul II ‘s Evangelium Vitae ( theGospel of Life). That ‘doctrinal’ statement is: ” from the moment of conception until natural death”.

    With it, we confess and further the Gospel of Life; without it we are lost.

  • Check this out “Texas Democrat Wendy Davis claimed mental health issues in court” and see why it all makes sense to her.

  • “from the moment of conception until natural death”. When the sperm fertilizes the egg, God creates an immortal soul for that individual. “Ensoulment of the soul in the newly begotten, single celled (as the soul is begotten) human being enjoying his existence is aptly named “conception” as in Immaculate Conception.

  • “from the moment of conception until natural death”. I might mention here that life begins when the soul enters the single celled individual human being and life ends when the soul can no longer abide in the human body (when decomposition sets in )several days after cessation of all symptoms of life

  • Pingback: Forward Progressives — Wendy Davis Is More Pro-Life than the Pro-Life Movement

Devils’ Bargain

Friday, August 23, AD 2013

Polite Devils

The 74th anniversary of the Nazi-Soviet agreement.  Two of the three great mass murderers of the last century, Mao would complete the trio, the marriage of convenience of Hitler and Stalin signaled the onset of World War II.  Communists who had been calling for a common front with democrats to oppose Hitler immediately turned on a dime and denounced any involvement in an “imperialist war” against Hitler.  When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in June of 1941, communists around the globe turned on a dime again and called for all out war of all free peoples against the Hitlerian  threat.

Orwell had the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and the quick double flips that Communists did in response to it, and the later invasion by Germany of the Soviet Union, when he wrote this passage in 1984:

At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.

The frightening thing, he reflected for the ten thousandth time as he forced his shoulders painfully backward (with hands on hips, they were gyrating their bodies from the waist, an exercise that was supposed to be good for the back muscles) — the frightening thing was that it might all be true. If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened — that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death?

The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed -if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’ And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control’, they called it: in Newspeak, ‘doublethink’.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Devils’ Bargain

  • Reality control.
    Perfect.

    The evil of our day will be crushed.
    The liar does not win the final battle.
    Those Spin Doctors of the past, present and future will be enjoying themselves in everlasting torment, a world they created. A hell on Earth they forged, yet eternal hell is their reward.

    Yes. Rant 101 and counting.

  • Compared to Uncle Joe, Hitler was an amateur. Koba had been in business far longer from 1905 or thereabouts and outlasted Hitler by nearly a decade. By every measure he can claim to be the mightiest dictator the world has ever seen, whose crimes are as monumental as they are unbelievable. Hitler was as Gen Manstein – who served the devil faithfully – wrote merely a gifted amateur, someone who is good when everything works well. Hitler could rant about world conquest as he had the best Army, and the technical genius of the Germans behind him. Short of that he would have been only another rabble-rouser. Stalin on the other hand had to contend with an army that largely hated him, which he kept under ruthless control with SMERSH. In the depths of defeat he could still direct Mao an overall strategy. It is now very clear, contrary to the Lattimores and Edgar Snows that Mao was effectively directed from Moscow (as the book Mao the Untold Story, based on Soviet archives affirms). What the anticommunists in the US had always suspected – that agents of influence continued to undermine Chiang Kai-Shek and thereby lose China, is more or less confirmed. But we’ll have to wait for hell to freeze over before we get any kind of apology from the fellow-travelers. If anyone answers the description of the Devil’s lieutenant, one Joseph D. may well be the genuine article.

  • “What the anticommunists in the US had always suspected – that agents of influence continued to undermine Chiang Kai-Shek and thereby lose China, is more or less confirmed.”

    There were Communists in the State Department and they had zero to do with Chiang losing. He lost because of his own gross incompetence and the corruption of the Kuomintang which often operated as a gigantic, and incompetent, criminal conspiracy. Chiang and his party received immense aid from the US during the War and it all went down an immense rat hole. By the end of the War, as demonstrated by their huge Operation Ichi-Go offensive of April to December 1944, the Japanese could still advance at will against Chiang’s armies that usually specialized in retreating in terror.

    As for Mao and Stalin they hated each other, and Stalin would not have wept a tear if Chiang had destroyed Mao.

  • Stalin may have hated Mao and used one faction against the other, as that was his default position with anyone. Mao on the other hand worshipped the Vodzh. He sent off a few millions to fight the Americans in Korea at the behest of Stalin and against the advice of many. The story of Chiang Kai-Shek’s incompetence and corruption has been seriously exaggerated by those who had to cover their tails. This is the same man who had to fight against Japanese collaborators, warlords and Communists for well on twenty years. True, the Nationalist could have given a better account in their fight against the Japanese, but they did fight. As opposed to the communists, who followed the Stalin line of letting the imperialists duke it out. The bad conscience of the communists stinks to this day. Whenever the Chicoms need to whip a little distraction by picking on the Japanese, they are caught in dilemma as all the newsreels from that era show fighting only between the Nationalists and Imperial Japan.

    We all know about the advanced weaponry the Americans supplied Chiang through the Tigers, little of which could match what the Japanese had. But what about the great transfer of weapons to Stalin for his firework display against the Kwangtung Army, (needless after the atom bombs), all of which found their way to Mao.

    It was the same story when South Vietnam fell, then it was all about their corruption and incompetence, nothing at all to do with the duplicity of the American left who did all they could to freeze out the ARVN of much needed supplies and air and moral support. No doubt the massive transfer of T-72s and Mig-23s by the Soviets to the NVA had no impact on the outcome. The bare-footed North won only by their grit and the genius of Giap.

  • Mao and Stalin never got along. Whatever cooperation they engaged in was a marriage of convenience only:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/10/world/stalin-mao-alliance-was-uneasy-newly-released-papers-show.html

    “He sent off a few millions to fight the Americans in Korea at the behest of Stalin and against the advice of many.”
    Most of Mao’s Generals would eventually come to view the Korean War as a mistake, but Mao did not get involved because of Stalin but rather because he feared an American controlled Korea on his doorstep. He assumed that the US, sooner or later, would back Chiang on an attempted return to the mainland. A mistake on his part, but that was why he went into Korea and not because Stalin asked him.

    “The story of Chiang Kai-Shek’s incompetence and corruption has been seriously exaggerated by those who had to cover their tails.”

    Nope, the corruption was absolutely stunning without any exaggeration. When General Wedemeyer was sent out to replace General Stillwell in later 44 he initially did not believe that the corruption was as bad as painted by Vinegar Joe. Within a few months he was sounding just like Stillwell on the issue of corruption.

    “This is the same man who had to fight against Japanese collaborators, warlords and Communists for well on twenty years.”

    And doing a miserable job at it. Against the Communists he held all the aces and he blew it. The Japanese were always a secondary consideration for Chiang since they got him immense supplies from America and they posed no threat to his rule. In regard to the warlords, he “solved” that problem by bribing them so they would pay lip service to his government.

    “but they did fight.”

    Barely. The war was always low on Chiang’s list of priorities. After Pearl Harbor he knew the Japanese were doomed, and his policy was to use American aid to solidify his reign.

    “Weall know about the advanced weaponry the Americans supplied Chiang through the Tigers, little of which could match what the Japanese had. But what about the great transfer of weapons to Stalin for his firework display against the Kwangtung Army, (needless after the atom bombs), all of which found their way to Mao.”

    The Flying Tigers and the American air effort in China was merely the tip of a huge iceberg of aid given to Chiang, all of it wasted. Most of Mao’s advance weaponry came from the US, courtesy of what he seized after Nationalist units surrendered which they did with appalling regularity during the Chinese Civil War. Thus was lost the 4.43 billion in aid, most of it military, supplied by the US to Chiang after World War II. The only way that the US could have saved Chiang would have been with five million US troops in China, a price which the US people were not going to pay.

  • Donald, Mao’s deference to Stalin is obvious in all the pictures. He went into a snit over Khrushchev’s Secret Speech as he had worshipped Stalin. The book I mentioned, based on newly available archives makes this clear. The overall impression is one of subservience to Moscow. This is no surprise to me as I usually put the worst constructions on the actions of communists. The positions long maintained by the anticommunists (of the 40s and 50s) to the ridicule of the Left, are substantiated when checked against the archives. I have to defer to you on Chiang’s military ineptitude, as I do not know much about it.

  • Mao hated Stalin at least from the time of the Chinese Civil War when Stalin attempted to oversee a peace which would leave Chiang in control of China. Mao’s disastrous trip to Moscow in 1949 underlined his hatred for Stalin and the Soviet Union.

    http://faroutliers.blogspot.com/2008/11/maos-humiliation-in-moscow-1949.html
    In public he still would mouth friendly platitudes, but when he was strong enough he seized upon the de-Stalinization policy of Khrushchev as a pretext to break with the Soviet Union.

Tolerance and the American Left

Friday, May 31, AD 2013

From Reason TV.  It is funny until one ponders that we live in a time where a broad swathe of Americans are able to be simultaneously unremittingly hostile to people who have the temerity to hold views differing from theirs on political and cultural matters, while also supposedly celebrating tolerance as a key part of their worldview.  George Orwell, a man of the Left, would not have been surprised by this:

In a Society in which there is no law, and in theory no compulsion, the only arbiter of behaviour is public opinion. But public opinion, because of the tremendous urge to conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant than any system of law. When human beings are governed by “thou shalt not”, the individual can practise a certain amount of eccentricity: when they are supposedly governed by “love” or “reason”, he is under continuous pressure to make him behave and think in exactly the same way as everyone else.

Liberal Tolerance

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Tolerance and the American Left

  • The theme of the anti-Koch outbreak was, “Save Our News.”

    Those people’s self-awareness is severely deficient.

    Apparently, they are not so moronic as to be unaware that the truth could stop the push for economic and societal regression.

    Note to the Koch’s: you can’t fix envy and stupidity.

  • “while also supposedly celebrating tolerance as a key part of their worldview”

    well the “tolerance” here is referring to innate characteristics (generally,) which political opinions aren’t. So it’s not inconsistent, it just comes to down to agreeing or disagreeing on different arguments.

  • Pingback: Cardinal DiNardo on Fallen Houston Firefighters - BigPulpit.com
  • “well the “tolerance” here is referring to innate characteristics”

    Actually that is totally incorrect. Most Leftists preen themselves on being tolerant in general. Think the Coexist bumper stickers for example.

  • true to an extent. When people talk about “Islamophobia” for instance though they aren’t defending specifics of Islam, they’re talking in terms of prejudice against Arabs/others, real or not.

    I think (hope) most people would agree that tolerance in the most generic sense isn’t something to aspire to.

  • Not for most Leftists who appear to believe in toleration only in the abstract, unless it applies to people who agree with them or who belong to groups they have bestowed official victim status upon. Thus the Israelis, who by far run the most tolerant state in the Middle East are “intolerant” in the eyes of most Leftists while their PLO adversaries, noted for their ruthlessness against any individuals or groups who oppose them, enjoy victim status on the Left and thus can do no wrong.

  • that’s just a difference in how people view the conflict. When people think one side is in the right they’re gonna give them more latitude even if they commit horrible acts. That’s human nature.

    no one believes in tolerance in the abstract cuz it’d be incoherent. You’d have to tolerate whatever you define as intolerance which kinda defeats the purpose. Really it’s just a political term — everyone has their view of what their ideal society would be like, what it’d accept and reject, and that word’s a nicer-sounding way of putting things.

  • The Political left, in whatever form it takes, be it the dimwits who followed Robespierre, the Communists/Marxists, the Republicans of Spain, the socialist parties of Europe, the Nazi Party and our own Organized Crime Party (the Democrats) tolerate no dissent, no disagreement, no argument from their viewpoint.

  • “When people think one side is in the right they’re gonna give them more latitude even if they commit horrible acts.”

    The Left has a long, long history of tolerating monsters as long as they proclaimed the right slogans, and they do so while calling for tolerance.

    This risible site from The Southern Poverty Law Center underlines this adherence to tolerance as a prime political slogan of the Left:

    http://www.tolerance.org/

  • no one believes in tolerance in the abstract cuz it’d be incoherent.

    Now that really is incoherent.

  • “The Left has a long, long history of tolerating monsters as long as they proclaimed the right slogans, and they do so while calling for tolerance”

    but isn’t this true across the political spectrum. People defended Franco, people defended Pinochet, a lot of Cold War politics was “enemy of my enemy” stuff. Which isn’t to say all examples are perfectly analogous. Just that people tend to be more about “understanding the context” when the politics being discussed match up more with their own.

    Bottom line is you’re right that liberals aren’t tolerant of dissenting viewpoints. Claiming hypocrisy is a dead end though because that’s not what they’re referring to.

  • “People defended Franco, people defended Pinochet, a lot of Cold War politics was “enemy of my enemy” stuff.”

    The analogy fails. For example imagine the horror of any college or university hiring a self-proclaimed fascist, while Marxists are plentiful in these institutions. When is the last time you saw young Conservatives sporting a T-shirt with the image of Franco or Pinochet, while Leftists arrayed in garb with Che Guevara’s image on it have become so common as to be trite.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQcUkd1w_TY

    There is nothing on the Right like this in this country.

    Leftist adoration of murderous totalitarians has been an ever present feature in this country since the creation of the USSR, while at the same time Leftists ceaselessly preach tolerance.

  • but isn’t this true across the political spectrum. People defended Franco, people defended Pinochet, a lot of Cold War politics was “enemy of my enemy” stuff. Which isn’t to say all examples are perfectly analogous. Just that people tend to be more about “understanding the context” when the politics being discussed match up more with their own.

    I do not know if you noticed this, but in the lapse of time between 1945 and 1990 authoritarian government was the norm in every corner of the world outside the British Isles, Scandinavia, northwesterly continental Europe, North America, and the Antipodes. Just doing business meant you dealt with various and sundry unsavoury characters. These exercises in reasons of state are completely irrelevant to the internal dynamics of a working political society.

    Re: Franco and Pinochet. There were a selection of countries where electoral institutions and such and the political class attending them proved unable to govern or unable to govern more justly than would an authoritarian regime. The catastrophic breakdown of order in the southern cone of South America after 1964 is an example of this, but Spain in the interval between 1930 and 1936 provides another one. Pinochet was regarded respectfully by William Rusher and S.H. Hanke because he was successful Chilean political economy on a sound footing, not because their ‘politics matched up’ with military rule. (The ugliest discrete violations of customary privileges and immunities in this country’s history would be the Trail of Tears and Executive Order 9066; with whose politics do those ‘match up’???)

    Seconding the moderator: the Communist Party in 1947 had 100,000 members and had insinuated itself into gatekeeper positions in at least a dozen trade unions, in the publishing business, and in film studios well. It was also a recruiting ground for espionage. A considerable fraction of the elite collegian population ca. 1968 consisted of reds and watermelons (“Ho, Ho, Ho Chih Minh, the NLF is going to win”) and much of our chatterati went over to the other side during the Cold War. Read Paul Hollander’s Political Pilgrims for a history or sort through the public utterances of characters like I. F. Stone, David Dellinger, Susan Sontag, and Victor Navasky.

    The closest thing to a starboard analogue to any of this might be the 2d incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan. The 2d Klan was a fad organization that had imploded almost completely within 15 years of its foundation and was never anywhere near the country’s cultural control centers. You could offer the Silver Shirts or the German American Bund; they only existed between 1933 and 1942, had about 40,000 members, and drew largely from marginal immigrant subcultures. The Abraham Lincoln Brigade had 2,800 members; the list volunteers for the Nationalist cause in the United States could be counted on your fingers.

  • JDP,

    FYI: Were it not for ubiquitous leftist lies, there would be no need to defend them. Franco and Pinochet saved their countries from enslavement, massacre, and sovietization.

Kermit Gosnell: Symbol of our Times

Wednesday, March 20, AD 2013

 

The trial of Kermit Gosnell, the symbol of our age of abortion, is proceeding:

 

 

A medical assistant told a jury Tuesday that she snipped the spines of at least 10 babies during unorthodox late-term abortions at a West Philadelphia clinic.

Adrienne Moton’s testimony as part of her guilty plea to third-degree murder, came in the capital murder trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the clinic owner, who is on trial in the deaths of a patient and seven babies.

Prosecutors accuse him of killing late-term, viable babies after they were delivered alive, in violation of state abortion laws.

Gosnell’s lawyer denies the murder charge and disputes that any babies were born alive. He also challenges the gestational age of the aborted fetuses, calling them inexact estimates.

Moton, the first employee to testify, sobbed as she recalled taking a cell phone photograph of one baby left in her work area. She thought he could have survived, given his size and pinkish color. She had measured him at nearly 30 weeks.

‘The aunt felt it was just best for her [the mother’s] future,’ Moton testified.

Gosnell later joked that the baby was so big he could have walked to the bus stop, she said.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Kermit Gosnell: Symbol of our Times

We Didn’t Mean Intellectual Diversity!

Monday, October 15, AD 2012

 

Don’t you see the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the language of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible because there will be no words in which to express it.

George Orwell, 1984

You know that you are living in topsy-turvy times when the most close-minded institutions are colleges and universities which are purportedly dedicated to free inquiry.  A hilarious example of the type of brain-dead ideological conformity enforced at most laughably described “institutions of higher learning occurred last week:

 

Angela McCaskill was the first African-American woman to earn a Ph.D. at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C., a school for the deaf and hard of hearing. She has now worked at Gallaudet for over 20 years, and in January 2011 she was named its chief diversity officer. Last year, she helped open a resource center for sexual minorities on campus. But she has now been placed on leave because of pressure from some students and faculty. Her job is on the line.

McCaskill’s sin? She was one of 200,000 people to sign a petition demanding a referendum on a law recognizing gay marriage, which was signed by Maryland’s Democratic governor, Martin O’Malley, in March. The referendum will be on the ballot next month, and the vote is expected to be close.

 

McCaskill’s signature became public when the Washington Blade posted a database online “outing” all those who had signed the petition. Even though her signature indicated only that she wanted the decision on gay marriage to be made by the people and not by the legislature and the governor, her critics declared that it demonstrated “bias.”

 

Gallaudet University’s president, T. Alan Hurwitz, announced that he was putting McCaskill on paid leave because “some feel it is inappropriate for an individual serving as chief diversity officer” to have signed such a petition. “I will use the extended time while she is on administrative leave to determine the appropriate next steps,” said Hurwitz, “taking into consideration the duties of this position at the university.” Just last year, Hurwitz had praised McCaskill as “a longtime devoted advocate of social justice and equity causes.” But she is apparently not allowed to have private political views.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to We Didn’t Mean Intellectual Diversity!

  • Those people make Medieval Inquisitors look like cub scouts.

    It seems they oppose the “consent of the governed.” Some of them call democracy the “dictatorship of the majority.” Thing is they aren’t content with disenfranchising (using the courts to enforce their unpopular agenda) but they those so evil as to disagree with them. Che, Lenin, Stalin, et al murdered them.

    By their actions they demonstrate their world-view that we the people are either too evil or too stupid to govern ourselves.

  • And folks laugh at me when I refuse to do phone surveys….

  • Direct quotes From the Catholic Catechism

    2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.[206] Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.”[207] Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

    2446 St. John Chrysostom vigorously recalls this: “Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours, but theirs.”[238] “The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity”:[239]
    When we attend to the needs of those in want, we give them what is theirs, not ours. More than performing works of mercy, we are paying a debt of justice.[240]

    2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.[190]

A Baby by any Other Name

Friday, January 27, AD 2012

Hattip to Pat Archbold at Creative Minority Report for the video gently lampooning the twisted language employed by pro-aborts to attempt to deny the humanity of the unborn.

George Orwell, who literally wrote the book on how totalitarian regimes use language to serve evil ends, would have loved the video.  Although an agnostic and an opponent of the Catholic Church, Orwell was also not only an enemy of the dishonest use of euphemisms, but also an ardent foe of abortion.  This section of his novel Keep the Aspidistra Flying (1936) indicates how deeply he hated abortion:

Continue reading...

4 Responses to A Baby by any Other Name

  • “The strong emotional reaction of Orwell’s character, Gordon Comstock, is precisely the way in which any decent human being should view abortion.”

    Abortionists are not decent human beings.

  • Ah, but through conversion and repentance they can become decent human beings Paul. The late Bernard Nathanson was an example of that and I could name others. We will win this fight through many means, and the conversion of some of our opponents is not the least of them.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY PRO-LIFE EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Donald, this sentence, to me is the core of our Catholic Teaching against abortion…” “Whatever happens we’re not going to do that. It’s disgusting.”…Though I agree with you and believe that there is no hardened soul that the Holy Spirit cannot melt, we need tons of prayers before the Merchants of Death hear the cry of the unborn whom they dismember in their safest first home – their mothers’wombs and be converted into respecters of God’s Gift of Life for all…..Yet, I fear we are still far way off before the tide turns. There is a lot of money being made in this Infanticide Industry and the secular media is another collaborator in this Murder Most Foul Crime. And until you change the current Government and swipe the slate clean of Obama, Biden, that Clinton Woman and the Planned Parenthood, I see very hard and cruel times ahead. I call this bunch and the pseudo Catholics in your Government High Priests of Satan

Attack Watch!!!!!

Thursday, September 15, AD 2011

You know, sometimes I suspect there are forces within the Obama administration attempting to throw the upcoming presidential election race.  The most recent evidence of this is a truly Orwellian website, Attack Watch, at which Obama supporters can report unfair attacks on Fearless Empty Suit.  Go here to view the Attack Watch webite.  Sheesh, I hope the Obama campaign didn’t waste much money on the design of this snitch site.  I guess they aimed for foreboding and hit silly.  I practically expect to hear the Imperial March theme from Star Wars.  Actually, I will supply that for your listening pleasure as you are perusing the site:

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Attack Watch!!!!!

  • The twitter responses to this are hysterical:
    http://twitter.com/#%21/search?q=%23attackwatch

    Some of my faves:
    Hey #attackwatch, I saw 6 ATM’s in an alley, killing a Job. It looked like a hate crime!

    Obama campaign announces new site AttackWatchAttackWatch.com to stop attacks aimed at discrediting #attackwatch.

    RT @AtackWatch See a new attack on the President or his record? Use #gestapo to report it and discuss attacks as they happen.

  • This whole AttackWatch program would be really funny if I was watching it on the Colbert Report, but unfortunately it is true and the President of the United States of America is behind it. That makes is scarey, bazaar, unsettling, etc…
    If there is anyone out there who still believes that Obama is playing with a full deck they should be evaluated by a shrink also.

  • I’m still considering getting a picture of our youngest daughter with a copy of my Right Wing Conspiracy Handbook and sending it in…

    She drinks raw, uninspected whole milk! And has gained over ten percent of her body weight in two weeks! And is associated with guns, alcohol and tobacco! (…OK, so the first two consist of “living in a house where it is,” and the second one is because cigar boxes are incredibly handy….)

  • “I guess the campaign assumes that anyone supporting the Empty Suit Helmsman is too stupid to think up pro-Obama arguments on their own.”

    -and, by featuring pictures of the fearsome three at the top of the page, inform supporters upon whom to initiate counterattack due to the kneejerk action verb terminology of the watch site, the black background and red lettering giving emphasis to the serious outrage of it all.

  • now, back to twitter …

  • Pingback: Internet Hitler Mourns Attack Watch | The American Catholic

George Orwell the Obama Administration is On the Phone

Tuesday, June 21, AD 2011

Hattip to Christopher Johnson at the Midwest Conservative Journal. I would note at the outset that this is not one of The Onion parodies I like to play from time to time on this blog.  With the Obama administration however, the nation each day resembles more a Onion parody.  The United States Department of Agriculture, yes, you read that correctly, is pressing for mandatory gay rights training:

U.S. Department of Agriculture activists want to impose their intense brand of homosexual sensitivity training governmentwide, including a discussion that compares “heterosexism” – believing marriage can be between only one man and one woman – to racism.

If accepted by the Obama administration, that move could mean more sessions for military service members already undergoing gay-sensitivity indoctrination. Critics fear additional gay-oriented training would add an unnecessary burden for combat troops and encourage some to leave.

USDA officials have asked the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which oversees all federal employee policies, to impose its gay-awareness programs on all federal departments, according to an internal newsletter. The training includes a discussion of “heterosexism” and compares it to racism. It says people who view marriage as being between only one man and one woman are guilty of “heterosexism.”

The push for the training is coming from Agriculture Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack, former governor of Iowa. The Democrat has launched a departmentwide “cultural transformation” that includes a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) Special Emphasis Program.

The USDA’s senior training coordinator, Bill Scaggs, has developed a sensitivity program far more extensive than the Pentagon’s training for the anticipated lifting of the ban on open ho[JUMP]mosexuals in the ranks. His training program, which OPM calls “groundbreaking [and a] model for other agencies,” delves more into gay issues and terminology. It also justifies pro-homosexual political positions.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to George Orwell the Obama Administration is On the Phone

  • Gee, thanks for ruining my breakfast. 🙁

  • Isaiah 5:20
    Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
    Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
    Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

    Wisdom 2
    “But let our strength be our norm of justice; for weakness proves itself useless.

    “Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training.

    “He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD.

    “To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us,

    “Because his life is not like other men’s, and different are his ways.

    “He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.

    “Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him.

    “For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.

    “With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience.

    “Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”

    “These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them,

    “And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls’ reward.

    “For God formed man to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made him.

    “But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it.”

    This is about gay privileges and brainwashing/group think.

    Spirtual Works of Mercy:
    “Admonish the sinner.” For this, and many additional, reasons it is a mortal sin to vote democrat.

  • Pingback: TUESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Yah right, Letting the homosexual agenda out of the closet will not affect anyone else….right!!! I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn that I’d like to sell.

2 Responses to Life Imitates Art