Father Peter West Under Fire

Thursday, February 9, AD 2017

I find this absolutely hilarious:


A pro-life activist who previously served as vice president for missions at the group Human Life International, West is an associate pastor at St. John’s Catholic Church in Orange, an ethnically diverse community in Essex County.

He declined to comment on his social media postings when approached by a reporter at the rectory last week, referring questions to Jim Goodness, a spokesman for the archdiocese.

In a statement to NJ Advance Media, Goodness said the archdiocese would move to curtail West’s political pronouncements.

“Certainly, a priest doesn’t give up his civil liberties when he is ordained, and he maintains the same right to freedom of expression as anyone else in the United States,” Goodness said. “That said, we are concerned about Father West’s comments and actions, and will be addressing them according to the protocols of the Church.”

The spokesman declined to elaborate or answer additional questions.

A minority of commenters on West’s Facebook page have denounced him as a “hatemonger” who promotes divisiveness, and at least one person complained about him to the archdiocese in December — a development announced by West himself on Facebook.

His response? A harangue against “leftist apparatchiks” and “Comrade Obama.”

Directly addressing the complainant, whom he did not name, West added: “You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting pro-abortion, anti-family politicians. If I get in trouble for denouncing them, so be it! But I won’t be scared off by a totalitarian jerk like yourself!”

The Rev. John J. Dietrich, the director of spiritual formation at the nation’s second largest seminary, Mount Saint Mary’s in Maryland, called West’s comments about politicians, Muslims and liberals “way over-the-top inappropriate behavior.”

“The thrust of his priesthood is not to be political. The thrust of his priesthood is supposed to be sacramental, preaching the Scripture,” Dietrich said, adding, “There’s a red line you don’t cross.”

“We discuss things like this in the seminary,” he said. “We would never countenance anything like this.”

Catholic leaders in recent decades have navigated the intersection of religious belief and politics carefully, stressing, for instance, the sanctity of life but rarely launching personal attacks against politicians who support abortion rights.

One modern exception to the tread-lightly rule has been Cardinal Raymond Burke, a former St. Louis archbishop who made headlines in 2004 when he said presidential candidate John Kerry, then a U.S. senator, should be denied Communion because of his pro-choice views. Francis demoted Burke, also a vocal Trump supporter who has criticized Islam, to a largely ceremonial Vatican position in 2014 amid several public disagreements.

A handful of other outspoken priests took public political stances in the 20th century, said David Campbell, who has written about religion and politics as chairman of the American Democracy Department at Notre Dame University.

Those priests include the brothers Daniel and Philip Berrigan, who led protests against the Vietnam War, and the Rev. Charles Coughlin, an early radio talk show host who challenged the policies of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s.

But politically hard-charging Catholic priests remain a rarity, said Boston College theology professor Stephen J. Pope, an expert on Catholic social teaching.

“Catholic priests are forbidden from using their office and their priesthood to promote partisan political positions,” Pope said. “A priest’s job is to be a bridge-builder, not a wall-builder.”

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Father Peter West Under Fire

  • Burke was not “demoted,” get your facts right!

  • Sean: Burke is being ostracized.

  • Principles must be judged. Persons must be tolerated as death bed converts. Jesus said: “Test everything.” How can the lay person test everything if he is not apprised of every situation? Father West and I am calling him “FATHER” has not mentioned any names to politicize his comments or sermons. Slaughtering the newly begotten sovereign person after conception, addiction to lust and sodomy, the prohibition against The Supreme Sovereign Being in the public square, enslavement of the human soul to the gulag and now assisted suicide, one murderer and one disabled person being denied the spiritual and corporal works of mercy. Aren’t these issues of Holy Scripture? You bet they are… and If Pope Francis cannot see that, scandalizing the little innocent one, well, I have a great millstone my father used to sharpen his axes….

  • The consecrated soul does not forfeit his citizenship. The Ordained bring their consecration to the lay priesthood through their ministry. To deny this truth will jeopardize every practicing Catholic and destroy Justice and the Truth in the nation. Truth and Justice are the foundation of America. Atheism and secular humanism are antithetical to our First Amendment. The atheist must be tolerated as a death bed convert, but not celebrated. Atheism and secular humanism revoke our unalienable human rights, innate human rights that become our civil rights because unalienable human rights are endowed by “their Creator” from the very first moment of existence. The sovereign person, legally and morally innocent, institutes the state. Without the perfectly innocent soul of the newly conceived, our constitutional Posterity, all future generations, America will cease to exist. Abortion is treason. Sodomy is a lie and perjury in a court of law and the rest are crimes against humanity.
    “The rights the state gives, the state can take away.” Thomas Jefferson.
    Our Founding Principles are ratified by every state. Every person is free to leave and he is free to have his opinion ratified by three fourths of the states to become Law of the Land. NO EXCEPTIONS.

  • Father Jerzy Popieluszko and Saint John Paul II

  • The problem for the pro-life priest, especially the zealous ones, is that so many bishops dewref to the sentiment of rich, liberal Catholics. But this is not only because they are timid but their own attachments, usually though their own families, to the Democratic Party. They cannot get over the fact that after George McGovern was nominated in 1972, traditional Catholics like George Meany, quickly lost their power to influence Democratic politicians. This is my impression but one ratified by Archbishop Chaput.

  • I think his problem might be he descends to name-calling and personal attacks.

  • I can personally guarantee you that the priest quoted against Fr. West’s comments is an exceptionally level-headed and staunchly orthodox man, after having had him as a director myself for some time. FWIW.

  • All our priests are allowed to preach is happy clappy stuff, we must be in prayer. Look where so many of former employees of the USCCB are now, so called Catholic organizations funded by George Soros.

  • That tells you who has had the ear of our bishops. Praise God for the faithful ones.

  • Father West has the message right but the delivery wrong. He would have gotten more support has his use of language been a bit more refined. As for Cdnl Burke, his status speaks for itself.

  • Fr. West’s comments are not controversial at all but speaking the truth of the Gospel. When we start to “nuance” the Gospel for political correctness, that is when we do a disservice to all.

  • He speaks Truth: those who can’t abide it will react according to their instincts. Some ferociously, others with legal manouvers , verbal abuse and slander,…The Lord received this and more… let us not be a part of it… pray and support TRUTH. ( I am the Way, etc )

  • PS what is the name of that Catholic priest in Chicago that spoke often in the church Obama
    went to for 20 years or so..Reverend Wright, as I recall was the preacher against the U. S…and the priest was white with a Black accent to his preaching…against the U. S and various other political topics.. hum..? any push back there?

Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others

Tuesday, February 4, AD 2014





Christopher Johnson at Midwest Conservative Journal, a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels for the Church so frequently that I have named him Defender of the Faith, explains one of the basic rules when it comes to sex crimes in contemporary America:  some animals are more equal than others:



or, “There’s Never A Massive Earthquake Around When You Need One.”

Frisco?  A bunch of us were shooting the breeze the other day and we decided that if you and the rest of Cali ever wanted to secede from the Union and rejoin Mexico, join Canada or form your own basket case of a country, none of us Tea Party wingnuts will stand in your way.  Why?  Larry Brinkin:

Larry Brinkin, who worked at the Human Rights Commission for the City of San Francisco for 22 years and was a prominent homosexual rights activist for more than 40 years, pleaded guilty to felony child pornography possession last week.

Brinkin is expected to serve six months in jail, five years of probation, and register as a sex offender for the rest of his life when he is sentenced on Mar. 5. But he likely will get to keep his city pension because possessing and viewing child porn apparently is not considered a crime of “moral turpitude” under San Francisco’s retirement/pension rules.

More on that last sentence in a few moments.  I’m not posting this to make points at the hands of homosexuals.  You and I both know that gays with a conscience will be horrified at all this, particularly at one of Brinkin’s e-mails reproduced in the story. The language has been cleaned up but I’m not going to copy it here.

It’s that bad.

I mention this only to note that the very people who would be shrieking like banshees if Brinkin were a Catholic priest are closing ranks.

After Brinkin’s initial arrest, Theresa Sparks, executive director of San Francisco’s Human Rights Commission, told the media, “It’s almost incredulous, there’s no way I could believe such a thing. He’s always been one of my heroes, and he’s the epitome of human rights activist – this is the man who coined phrases we use in our daily language. I support Larry 100%. Hopefully, it will all come out in the investigation.”

Bevan Dufty, who served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and now is director of Housing Opportunity, Partnerships and Engagement in the mayor’s office, following Brinkin’s arrest said, “I have admired and respected his work for the LGBT community. I respect and am confident that there will be due process.”

Did you know that in Frisco, possessing and viewing kiddie porn does not constitute “moral turpitude?”

Concerning whether Brinkin will retain his city pension, his attorney Randall Knox said he did not think the felony child porn possession conviction was relevant because it apparently does not fall under “moral turpitude,” as explained in the city rule Proposition C.

“This is not a moral turpitude crime,” Knox told the Bay Area Reporter, and it is “not something that happened when he was working for the city.”

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others

  • Reminds me of the Woody Allen controversy. Anybody else notice that his daughtes claims have been dismissed in the mass media?
    Reminds me of the Roman Polanski case. People wer actually complaining that he had been caught in a sting.
    Finally, I note that in the cable TV series “Shameless”, one of the sympathetic characters is a homosexual surgeon who is having an affair with a 15 year old character.

    The double standard in the media is truly nauseating.

    Are we as Catholic EVER going to start punching these peole in the face?

  • Because some can be connected to a universal institution that opposes the immoral, execrable liberal/progressive/state nightmare . . .

    Because no one in the so-called media has one question for Obama on “Fast and Furious”; his IRS’s war on the right, Obamacare lies and non-compliance by the EXECUTIVE branch; etc.

  • “A more accurate reflection of the attempt to empty sexual acts of morality, that is the norm on the cultural left, is the ongoing effort to “normalize” pedophilia.” ” All animals are equal but Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others”
    These victims, all victims, are prey, soulless prey to be consumed. Obliterate the human soul, the individual substance of a rational nature, the human person, the civil rights, the sovereignty of the human soul and the body becomes a beast of burden; the strong to own the weak, the battle of conquest of enslaving the person. The human being could not invent this. This is straight from Hell. It is demonic. Where is your brother?
    The perpetrator may want to decriminalize child pornography. However, this perpetrator is a public employee and as such he must represent all people, every person including his victim.Therein lies the crime of seeing his victim as a means of self-gratification instead of as a human being, a constituent, a human person. Who is next?

  • Sickening culture.

    #1. Destigmatize. So true.
    In Germany the phrase is “minor
    attracted persons.” Substitute
    for pedophilia.

    Add one more.

    #8. Lower the age of consent.

    This will widen the field of prey.

    I do not wish for calamity on an unprecedented scale, however if it happens in San Fran I could sorrowfully understand. God will not let these injustices go on forever.

  • While I am clearly NOT homosexual (I absolutely love and adore my beautiful Filipino Roman Catholic fiancée who is a mere 5 years my junior and I am 55), I can understand how a man may fall in love with another man, or a woman with another woman. It is weird to me, very strange and abnormal, but I can understand it. Of course sexual acts between same-sex people are intrinsically evil, but I have done so many evil things (other than that particular evil) in my life that I really should not cast the first stone. However, when it comes to pedophilia, child pornography, child abuse, etc., I really think some harsh punishment is in order. Removal of the reproductive organs may be in order for such vicious creatures who prey on the innocent with such abandon. I suppose that this consideration on my part places me to the right of Attila the Hun.

  • San Francisco was not always this way. I wish I could see the San Francisco of the somewhat distant past, before the loonies took it over.

  • Philip: “#8. Lower the age of consent. ” Justice? Ruth Bader Ginsberg advocates lowering the age of informed sexual consent for girls (not boys?) to fourteen years of age in her book. A fourteen year old girl cannot even drive to the grocery store for food, or vote, or enter the armed services, but she goes unprotected into statutory prostitution. The wit and wisdom of our judiciary.

  • Pedophilia fed and nurtured by photos and films of children being physically and spiritually abused. We ought to fight inch harder against those who produce and sell pornography.

  • Mary De Voe.

    A nightmare that seems endless.

    A society that devours it’s young. How can that society prosper?
    Your being very kind in your sarcasm; “the wit and wisdom of our judiciary.”
    I see Rod Sterling and hear the ( do doo do dooo do doo do dooo…) and enter the bizarre…Our Day…the Twilight Zone!

  • Pornography came into the public domain as freedom of speech. Only truth has freedom of speech. The fact that pornography exists is vice not virtue, not the truth. Pornography was induced not the public domain by lobbyists for its dissemination, for the money.
    Pornography is a lie and perjury in a court of law about the human being and the human condition. Pornography debases one of the most beautiful gifts our Creator has endowed to man, the gift of procreation. Does the pornographer have the right to purvey his sickness? No, vice does not have freedom of speech. If pornography were self-abuse the courts would have nothing to say about it. The fact that pornography debases all persons of their civil right to privacy, decency and virtue is not freedom or civil rights.
    There is a victim to pornography, all citizens are victimized.

  • Does God exist? If not, we are mere animals to be managed by the state and whatever we otherwise do is acceptable, as long as we stay within the politically correct corral. We must be disarmed, as if dehorned, declawed and defanged, so as not to injure our handlers. Even if we devour our young, it is of little concern to the Godless State. We are not there yet but this is where we are heading. “It is time to stand athwart history and yell stop”. *Thank you and rest in peace, Mr. Buckley.

  • When one holds that morality can be divorced from sex…one will hold that morality can be divorced from everything.

  • Dead on correct. What started as a fringe part of the male homosexual rights movement (saying that it was normal for men to have sex with underage boys) has almost become mainstream in that movement’s thinking–if it hasn’t become fully mainstream!

    I worked at a high school several years back where the admin actively supported homosexual rights & marriage-& hired accordingly. We had a very aggressive, active gay male member of faculty–who used our faculty meetings as an opportunity to push his political agenda & lecture all of us about our bias against members of the LGBT crowd. His male students were afraid of him-the students we taught were about 95% African American & those young men DID NOT WANT ANYONE QUESTIONING THEIR MASCULINITY! One day in class, this gay teacher just could not leave it alone & started lecturing his class on racial issues & homosexual issues at the same time. As those young black males were livid over his self righteousness, a literal riot ensued in the classroom. School property was damaged; security had to end the violent behavior. This gay teacher then was required by administration to take racial sensitivity training due to the riot he provoked & what his black students had to say about the gay male teacher’s having provoked the riot. I promise–I am not making this up! Not long after that, this same homosexual male teacher had a teenage male aid in his room that the teacher started paying an inordinate amount of attention to–flirting with the student vs. teaching class–buying the student things–including pizza for lunch so the male student would stay with the teacher during lunch time–giving the student neck massages. Yep! You guessed it. The next thing that happened was the male aide’s parents filed charges against the homosexual teacher–saying that the teacher had called their child at home asking the student to come to the teacher’s house for a hot oil massage. I will not bore you with all the political/ legal chenanigans that took place after this. It was a mess that never was resolved correctly IMHO. I do believe that my building administrator did everything within her power to bring about justice in this case–& protect our students from this predator. I can’t recall knowing anything about the sex life of any of the other 200 faculty members–because they never publicly discussed their sex lives.

Hypocritical Prudes

Monday, April 22, AD 2013



Horace Walpole once famously observed that the world is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel.  The times in which we live certainly gives support to the sometime accuracy of that maxim.  My favorite living historian, Victor Davis Hanson, helps buttress the point:

What explains these contradictions in our wide-open but prudish society? Decades after the rise of feminism, popular culture still seems confused by it. If women should be able to approach sexuality like men, does it follow that commentary about sex should follow the same gender-neutral rules? Yet wearing provocative or inappropriate clothing is often considered less offensive than remarking upon it. Calling a near-nude Madonna onstage a “hussy” or “tart” would be considered crude in a way that her mock crucifixion and simulated sex acts are not.

Criminal sexual activity is sometimes not as professionally injurious as politically incorrect thoughts about sex and gender. Former New York governor Eliot Spitzer — found to have hired prostitutes on a number of occasions during his time in office — was given a CNN news show despite the scandal. But when former Miss California Carrie Prejean was asked in the Miss USA pageant whether she endorsed gay marriage, she said no — and thereby earned nearly as much popular condemnation for her candid defense of traditional marriage as Spitzer had for his purchased affairs.

Critics were outraged that talk-show host Rush Limbaugh grossly insulted birth-control activist Sandra Fluke. Amid the attention, Fluke was canonized for her position that federal health-care plans should pay for the contraceptive costs of all women. Yet in comparison to Fluke’s well-publicized victimhood, there has been a veritable news blackout for the trial of the macabre Dr. Kermit Gosnell, charged with killing and mutilating in gruesome fashion seven babies during a long career of conducting sometimes illegal late-term abortions. Had Gosnell’s aborted victims been canines instead of humans — compare the minimal coverage of the Gosnell trial with the widespread media condemnation of dog-killing quarterback Michael Vick — perhaps the doctor’s mayhem likewise would have been front-page news outside of Philadelphia.

Modern society also resorts to empty, symbolic moral action when it cannot deal with real problems. So-called assault weapons account for less than 1 percent of gun deaths in America. But the country whips itself into a frenzy to ban them, apparently to prove that at least it can do something, instead of wading into polarized racial and class controversies by going after illegal urban handguns, the real source of the nation’s high gun-related body count.

Not since the late-19th-century juxtaposition of the Wild West with the Victorian East has popular morality been so unbridled and yet so uptight. In short, we have become a nation of promiscuous prudes.

Continue reading...

30 Responses to Hypocritical Prudes

  • The fact is that private insurance companies deem it less expensive to pay for contraceptive coverage than pay for increased abortions and births. Are we now going to allow religious institutions to decide what is covered and what is not? People who complain about government telling private health insurance companies (Sandra Fluke’s coverage was private, not government paid) now want the government to tell private insurance companies what they should cover. Is there any modicum of consistency here?

    What’s telling is that for many Christians these days morality is only about sins you commit with no pants on. One never hears this outrage about the fact that 10’s of millions of Americans have no health coverage.

  • “What’s telling is that for many Christians these days morality is only about sins you commit with no pants on.”

    No Michael the term of art for those who believe that morality does not apply to sex is “pelvic morality”. In that rubric they include the slaying of innocent kids in abortion.

    You seem to long for Big Government to take care of everything, including requiring others to pay for Sandra Fluke’s contraceptives. That is not only immoral, but foolish to the nth degree. Government can’t do it, something that should be obvious to anyone as the welfare states grumble before our eyes. When Government attempts to it usually destroys the character of those it attempts to reduce to the status of children, dependent upon the government for everything. A good life as a government serf is an illusion.

  • I work a BS in-between job and I get health insurance. Where is this alternate dimension where good folks with plenty of skills and responsibility do not get the same simply because of greedy crony capitalists? If only Big Daddy Government galloped in and saved the day for us!

    No, some people just suck at life and no matter what wealth redistribution scheme someone comes up with, life will never be equal, or fair or anything of the sort.

  • Donald – My argument was the converse of big government taking care of everything. Sandra Fluke’s coverage was not through government. It was through a private insurance company that would rather cover contraception than pay for extra abortions and births and you want government to tell private companies what to do.

    If you were making the point about Medicare or Medicaid you would have a point but this is private health coverage paid for by the students withe their premiums.

  • Michael, an aspect of the ‘Affordable Care Act’ was a legal definition of template plans which required the inclusion of contraception.

    And you are forgetting the stupidity incorporated into all of this. The point of insurance is ‘risk-pooling’, which is to say replacing unpredictable demands on household resources through regular and predictable payments (assessed according to actuarial models) so that one’s expenses are amortized over time by distributing risk over a collectivity. Regular and discretionary expenses for Trojans do not constitute and assumed ‘risk’. Contemporary plans for medical insurance’ are nothing of the sort. They are rococo schemes for contracting for pre-paid medical services. (It is doubtful the President has any conception of the difference). Let that insufferable Ivy-League t**t shell out for the 28 boxes of condoms she is using every month and not socialize the cost over her co-workers and her employer’s shareholders.

  • “Sandra Fluke’s coverage was not through government. It was through a private insurance company that would rather cover contraception than pay for extra abortions and births and you want government to tell private companies what to do.”

    Actually her testimony was in support of the HHS Mandate that would force all employers to provide “free” contraceptive insurance coverage for all employees. There is no meaningful distinction between the government providing a benefit and the government requiring a third party to provide a benefit gratis.

  • Art Deco – Besides your contempt for Ms Fluke and possibly women, or at least educated women in general, I assume then you would not cover pregnancy as normal healthy is a choice and not a risk.

    It’s a good job you’re not a Christian as your attitude and language is deplorable.

  • Donald – Actually the private insurance companies want to cover that cost as it’s cheaper than the alternative. The only other alternative would be to also say the private companies do not have to provide abortion and birth coverage.

  • Then the issurance companies can work that out with purchasers of their product, sans government intervention. The insurance policy I purchase for my family has always covered pregnancy and never covered contraception as a result of the choices I made when I purchased the coverage. Sandra Fluke was not testifying for liberty of contract, but rather for State intervention to compel all employers to be forced to provide such coverage free of charge in any insurance policies they purchased.

  • “It’s a good job you’re not a Christian as your attitude and language is deplorable.”

    MIchael, you are new here so I am going to cut you some slack in this instance. Nothing gets someone banned faster on this site than calling someone else not a Christian.

  • Donald – Well I assumed any one who described a women as ” insufferable Ivy-League t**t ” would not want to admit to being a Christian. Cut me all the slack or not you want because I am an atheist and would not want to sink to your moral level.

    I’m out of here. In the mean time if you’re Catholic (as I once was) go to confession.

  • And there goes Michael proving VDH’s point. It’s ok to be a tart, it’s just not ok to call someone that.

    Stunning catechesis you received there, btw.

  • Former Catholics make the bitterest atheists Michael. Considering your apostacy your fulmination against Art Deco’s Christianity is the stuff of comedy.

  • Mr. McClarey, thank you for your succinct description of what Ms. Fluke and
    her ilk are actually demanding. For all Michael’s sound and fury, he did not
    address those points. He reminded me of an octopus, which when threatened
    will create a distraction with its ink rather than engage.

    I also appreciate your point about the perpetual twists and turns in what passes
    for PC. When I think back over my years in college, I recall constant shifts in
    what was deemed acceptable. I think the eternally moving goalposts of PC
    exist for two main reasons: firstly, to provide a PC enforcer with a cheap frisson
    of moral superiority (“I can’t believe you call that group ‘____s’. Everyone knows
    we say ‘____s’ now. I’m deeply offended”). Second, constant shifting of the PC
    newspeak distinguishes fellow-travelers from the great unwashed. Who else
    but a true believer can flawlessly navigate the Byzantine ways of PC? It’s like
    some of the more labyrinthine etiquette of the Victorian upper class, existing
    mainly to distinguish those that ‘belong’ from the non-U.

    Speaking of Victorians, it’s interesting that in those days, death was freely
    discussed. One had one’s dead photographed, and wore locks of their hair in
    mourning jewelry. Such customs would be deeply taboo today, and might
    invite unwelcome attention from mental health professionals. Yet in those
    days, anything remotely to do with sex was shrouded in euphemism in ‘polite
    company’– sort of a PC of its day. As Ms. Fluke could tell you, that particular
    set of PC goalposts has been moved to the opposite end of the field.
    The prudery and the hypocrisy remain.

  • The real stumper in Michael’s comment was this:

    “What’s telling is that for many Christians these days morality is only about sins you commit with no pants on. One never hears this outrage about the fact that 10′s of millions of Americans have no health coverage.”

    Catholicism invented health care. Catholicism has done more practical work in the life-saving arts than any institution since the beginning of time. Ditto education. Ditto care for the poor. Catholicism is also unmatched in its care for the human spirit, denouncing every kind of sin, including those that are most popular in any particular culture.

    J. Christian is right that Michael does prove VDH’s point. In our society, there are no sins that can be committed with your pants off, only with a suit and tie on.

  • Art Deco – Besides your contempt for Ms Fluke and possibly women, or at least educated women in general, I assume then you would not cover pregnancy as normal healthy is a choice and not a risk. It’s a good job you’re not a Christian as your attitude and language is deplorable.

    I put the Comstockian asterisks in because some people (e.g. the proprietors of the Fellowship of St. James’ fora) object to plain language. If Sandra Fluke wishes to be referred to by some other term, she can order her life differently and pick a different set of causes. She is most notable for the following:

    1. Using the considerable discretion she had in such matters (acquired how I do not know) to choose, at the age of 28, to attend law school at an expensive private institution.

    2. Choosing to attend a residually Catholic school to have a forum and gain legal standing to harass the school’s administration into abandoning one of the components of its residual Catholicism.

    3. Making a public spectacle of herself (in cahoots with elements within the Democratic congressional caucus) at a legislative pseudo-hearing arguing that employers should be coerced into purchasing insurance which covers discretionary expenditures on products vended at pharmacies. The products in question provide a facility for her own decadence and that of others (My old pharmacy sells Heath bars, which I fancy, but which are usually not covered by insurance plans).

    4. Telling cock-and-bull stories of women in her social circle spending on the order of $250 a month on contraceptives. If they do, they are running a Mayflower Madam enterprise. Sidney Biddle Barrows had an appealing sense of humor. Not so “Ms.” Fluke or her public defenders.

    The context of this is Sandra Fluke’s own life. Lot’s of people have personal shortcomings, personal failures, and problems in living, including me. She attended Cornell University, not a school which undercharges its clientele, and spent a third of her time taking courses for a degree in ‘Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies’. She also apparently earned a degree in a program which requires considerable study of statistics, though she never used that degree. It is not clear what she did for a living for six years, but she appears to have been employed by some advocacy group at one point and at a philanthropic agency that ran women’s shelters. That can be decent and thankless and commendable employment, but (I would refer you here to the writings of Stephen Baskerville and Glenn Sacks) those agencies are also shot-through with malicious ideologues (e.g. the sort of people who fritter away their time taking courses in ‘gender studies’). Past 30, she is employed as a college student, has no domestic life bar a ‘boyfriend’ who evidently had the means to send her on a European vacation during the whole controversy, and appears to have eschewed the sort of temporary office work that law students take to begin to learn their trade.

    Everything about this women suggests she has more intelligence than she knows how to put to good use, has devoted her life to activities predicated on a false and deeply jaundiced view of human relations, and desires (for reasons obscure) to punish cultural adversaries. Not to pleasant, and a fitting object for a certain amount of ridicule.

    Equal respect is the abolition of respect. If Sandra Fluke wanted respect from me, she would have lived her life quite differently and be quite differently disposed to others. I have no clue what Sandra Fluke’s activities and blunt commentary therupon have to do with any assessment I might have of the genus ‘women’ or ‘educated women in general’. Evidently, the way your head works, caustic remarks about Fluke mean I despise my grandmother, who certainly counted as an educated woman. There a a mess of people in this world (e.g. the Mary Winkler jury) who cannot abide someone on the distaff side ever being held responsible for anything or subject to plain assessments of their dispositions and conduct. I do not respect that either, coming from you or anyone else.

    Pregnancy is to be expected in the course of conjugal life. Its timing is not predictable and neither are medical complications therein. Paying for a hospital and obstetrician’s services on unpredictable intervals is not analogous to coughing up $14.50 each month so you can go on banging your boyfriend without messy complications.

    Actually the private insurance companies want to cover that cost as it’s cheaper than the alternative.

    Rubbish. No sort of coverage mandate is in the commercial interest of an insurance company unless it prevents a competitor from gaining an advantage. That aside, insurers do not lose from coverage of procedures. They lose from coverage of procedures of a frequency and character not anticipated by their models (and incorporated into their charges) or for which they could not make antecedent adjustments due to regulatory considerations. You expect us to believe that an increase in the frequency of pregnancy (within a given actuarial pool) attributable to the failure to subsidize a $14.50 a month purchase is going to generate unexpected costs to the insurer. (Which they somehow anticipate, accounting for their inclusion of the pills).

  • Donald – Well I assumed any one who described a women as ” insufferable Ivy-League t**t ” would not want to admit to being a Christian. Cut me all the slack or not you want because I am an atheist and would not want to sink to your moral level.

    A personal note: my ‘moral level’, good, bad, or indifferent, is not something about which you know squat.

  • Art, I don’t know about anyone else, but I consider the word t**t to be outside the realm of decency. Michael’s wrong about a lot of things, but I can’t fault him on that.

  • Art, I don’t know about anyone else, but I consider the word t**t to be outside the realm of decency. Michael’s wrong about a lot of things, but I can’t fault him on that.

    And you have both confused being virtuous with being dainty.

  • Well, it appears the troll succeeded in hijacking this thread. All future comments should deal with the substance of the post please.

  • “Not since the late-19th-century juxtaposition of the Wild West with the Victorian East has popular morality been so unbridled and yet so uptight.”

    The area in which I see that contrast most starkly nowadays is with regard to laws/regulations regarding food and tobacco. Certain members of the liberal intelligentsia who would never presume to criticize or condemn women (or men, particularly gay men) for their sexual behavior and who demand that they be allowed (at public expense) to indulge their every appetite in this area without consequence, seem to have no problem whatsoever with condemning smokers and overweight people and demanding that something MUST be done about THEIR appetites because they “harm others” and “drive up the cost of healthcare for everyone.” Yes, smoking and overeating are bad habits with potentially serious health consequences. Anymore, however, it seems (at least based on comments people make on news stories online) that taking up more than one seat on an airplane due to one’s weight is a far greater sin than adultery; and some who would never apply the word “hussy” or “tart” to a promiscuous woman have no qualms about calling an overweight woman a “cow”.

  • Not to mention the fact that some people who want schools to ban soda and candy vending machines, teach healthier food choices, expand physical education and hammer home strong anti-smoking and anti-drug messages (all of which are, IMO, good things) will at the same time insist that teaching sexual abstinence “doesn’t work”.

  • Elaine,

    You’ve hit the nail on the head!

  • Great point Elaine. I made a similar observation in my last Catholic Stand post. http://catholicstand.com/theres-an-app-for-that/

  • Don – Please pull this comment if you wish. I’m not trying to stir up trouble. In fact, I’m trying to resolve it.

    Art, what does “t**t” stand for? In my mind, and maybe in Michaels, it means “twat”. Looking over this thread, I’m wondering if you used it to mean “tart”. If I’m wrong about this, or if I’m reigniting a closed debate, I’m sorry. I’m just hoping that this all has been a misunderstanding.

  • “My favorite living historian, David Victor Hanson…”

    I’m partial to Victor Davis Hanson myself.

  • Corrected, and considering that I own and have read every book he has written I am astonished that I made that error.

  • You can fill in the blanks however you care to. ‘Twit’ works just as well.

    This women spent twenty years of her life in the Pennsylvania countryside about a half hour from a small city, Altoona. Then she spends three years or so in Upstate New York. Then she spends a half-dozen years in or around New York City. At the age of 28 and considering law school, you think she might select a practical option, which is to say one of the five public law schools you can find in New York and Pennsylvania, one of them an hour and twenty minute drive from where she grew up and one of them a train ride out to Queens. If she insists on cachet, there are quite a mess of private law schools proximate to her residence in 2008, including one at Columbia University, one at New York University, and, if these reject her, one at Fordham University (a residually Catholic school to boot). She could also move back Upstate and enroll at her old alma mater, Cornell. These schools have roughly similar admissions standards to the place she did select. While studying law, she could find a summer clerk’s position helping a working lawyer with his daily tasks. What does this 28 year old amateur social worker do? She pulls up stakes and moves to a high rent district where she is a stranger in order to enroll at a school for the added purpose of giving its administration a hard time for not coughing up $14.50 a month for rutting women among its student body (and spends her summers working for the Center for Women’s blah blah blah). Referring to her naughty bits is off center, but the list of insults one could legitimately lob at such a person is as long as your arm (starting with ‘officious jack-wagon’ and ‘fanatic’).

Mary Jo Kopechne Was Unavailable for Comment

Wednesday, September 5, AD 2012

Well, the above tribute video to Ted Kennedy shown last night at the Democrat Convention certainly fit into the War on Women meme that the Democrats have been pushing!  The video failed to mention that Kennedy had a great sense of humor, especially about Chappaquiddick!  What a guy!



Continue reading...

4 Responses to Mary Jo Kopechne Was Unavailable for Comment

  • I am sure Jesus’ sense of what is just, loving and fair will be quite obvious to us in heaven. There is an old story of a Jesuit and Dominican who made a pact to return for a private visit whichever went first. The English translation of the deceased cleric was “Dogma is substantially the same, but the Morality is totally different. JESUS hinted at the same- whores and tax collectors would make it before the self-congratulatory,

  • Well I find his supposed humor callous and clueless. Kind of like Ed Klein. The problem with the Kennedy’s was that no one held them to a higher standard. They actually created the standard, at least for their class, and back in the day the press was already in the bag for the first family.

  • From the “American Glob”:

    “Liberal Logicd 101: It’s OK to falsely accuse Mitt Romney of being responsible for the death of a woman he never met, while celebrating the memory of Ted Kennedy who let a young woman drown.”

  • Awesome insight…I wonder if Ol’ Kennedy can be excommunicated and removed from the K of C posthumously, in absentia? Just asking, Tone!

The Way Freedom of Speech Dies

Thursday, November 3, AD 2011


Time magazine, anyone still reading it?, has a truly despicable piece by Bruce Crumley in which he basically says that “they had it coming” after a French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, was firebombed:


Okay, so can we finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive  efforts by “majority sections” of Western nations to bait Muslim members with  petulant, futile demonstrations that “they” aren’t going to tell “us” what can  and can’t be done in free societies? Because not only are such Islamophobic  antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent  responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of  common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and  by tempting belligerent reaction?

The difficulty in answering that question is also what’s making it hard to  have much sympathy for the French satirical newspaper firebombed this morning, after it  published another stupid and totally unnecessary edition mocking Islam. The  Wednesday morning arson attack destroyed the Paris editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo after the paper published an issue certain to enrage  hard-core Islamists (and offend average Muslims) with articles and “funny” cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed—depictions forbidden in Islam to boot.  Predictably, the strike unleashed a torrent of unqualified condemnation from  French politicians, many of whom called the burning of the notoriously  impertinent paper as “an attack on democracy by its enemies.”

We, by contrast, have another reaction to the firebombing: Sorry for your  loss, Charlie, and there’s no justification of such an illegitimate  response to your current edition. But do you still think the price you  paid for printing an offensive, shameful, and singularly humor-deficient parody  on the logic of “because we can” was so worthwhile? If so, good luck with those  charcoal drawings your pages will now be featuring.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to The Way Freedom of Speech Dies

  • About 95% of the responses to the article were negative, some ferociously so. (And the one’s with explatives appear to have been deleted). Most of the remainder were from a social-work type who fancies that Charlie Hebdo is engaging in a form of school ‘bullying’. That is how much rapport a twenty-year employee of Time has with the magazine’s own readership. It is a wonder that these publications have remained commercially viable for as long as they have.

  • Didn’t read the article (refuse to give TIme hits) but let me get this straight – you mock some group for being so thin skinned that they blow you up simply for mocking them, and when they DO blow you up, thus proving your point, you are somehow wrong or to blame?

  • No, c matt, that’s not what he means. What he means is that if you mock Muslims for being so thin skinned that they firebomb you for mocking them, you’re the one to blame when Muslims firebomb you.

    There’s no other group in his rolodex who gets this infantilizing treatment.

    Sure, he’s a weasel here, but he’s simply making explicit what elite opinionmakers (most recently, pop-biblical scholar Bart Ehrman) have long tacitly conceded.

  • Sure, he’s a weasel here,

    He is not a weasel. He is being an obnoxious scold. If he fancied he would persuade anyone, he is seriously inept at the art of rhetoric. The interesting question is:

    1. Is his social circle so monochromatic that he had no conception he was insulting his readers?; or

    2. Did he fancy his readers needed a tongue-lashing from the principal? (And would sit there and take it?).

    You notice something else? He is the Paris bureau chief. Time used to run one piece of explicit commentary. It ran the full length of the very last page and was commonly penned by a contractor (Barbara Ehrenreich, Charles Krauthammer) rather than someone on the masthead.

  • “Is his social circle so monochromatic that he had no conception he was insulting his readers?”

    “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.” The late Pauline Kael, long time movie review for the New Yorker, after Nixon smashed McGovern 60-40 in 1972. Never underestimate the thickness of the ideological bubble some of these people live in.

  • Well, the weasely aspect for me is two-fold: one, a brief boilerplate condemnation (“no justification”) in what is clearly a justification for a firebombing. The second is implicit in the faux-broad plea for civility–there’s no way he’d write the same piece if, say, the SSPX had vandalized the magazine’s offices.

    That’s a very interesting catch on the backpage column, moving in-house. I invariably scanned it when I read the magazine, especially for Krauthammer. Maybe it’s part of a workplace PIP now…

  • You’re right. Weasel he is.

  • Woe to those who call evil good.

    Time what?

    Crumley: how appropriate is that?

    Those who trade liberty for safety will lose both.

  • I’m with C Matt. I’m not going to click on that article. Controversy = hits = the appearance of interest.

  • More justice for those so unenlightened as to not cave in to the Religion of Paroxysm: “Muslim terrorists in northeastern Nigeria murdered 63 Christians in bomb and gun attacks at police stations and six Christian different churches.”

  • Pingback: FRIDAY EXTRA: PERSECUTION | ThePulp.it