This Is How Its Done

Wednesday, April 8, AD 2015

14 Responses to This Is How Its Done

  • Dear Mr. McCleary, It frustrates me at the dismissive tone of your blog post. It’s not surprise that you tend more to neo-conservative candidates. You probably want a pro-Israel lobby candidate, someone who is tied to fake conservatism like a Bush or a Walker. You will take no risk in a fresh person who clearly points out the ways in which Homeland Security and the Military Industrial complex are ruining the country, or that our policemen are being turned into Judge Dredds. You take delight in some personality who is friends with Bill Kristol and Zbigniew Brzezinski and has a vision of world dominance by force. Personally, I see no difference in Clinton, McCain, Romney, Obama, Bush 1, Bush 2 and now Bush 3. Each of these candidates have asked, “How do you like the dismantling of your country–quick and dirty, or slow and steady. None of them have been for building up. Not even Michelle Bachmann whom I admire on some issues can see 50 feet ahead of her without spotting a country to send missiles. All these conservative men and women want war. None of these is a Catholic world view by the way, but in the time of confusion such as we are in, they say we are allowed to differ–I differ with that opinion. Sure I would love for my country to be a super power, but we cannot be at present because our sins far mire our aspirations. We are bogged down in homosexuality, in abortion, in usury, in gross injustices and other violations. god will simply not let us take the lead in anything. If we ignore our own injustices, then His justice will be visited upon us. Every “conservative” who promises to end abortion and other vices really knows they are not going to be held accountable by Catholics and Protestants, so they just use rhetoric and pathos to no end. Catholics ought to say, “been there”, ‘tried that”. Where are our own candidates? Santorum? No way! He is the number one phoney. I have met him–totally principled on paper, but in reality–what a joke. Who else stands a chance to appease the lovers of morals and peace based on common sense and natural principles?

  • James I have little tolerance for anti-Semites or pacifists. Keep that in mind if you wish to give rah, rah support for Mr. Rand on this blog. I find it amusing that your tiresome screed is made on a post where I celebrate Rand Paul for what he said. Did you bother to read my post before making this factually challenged comment?

  • That is a good answer! I do like that combative spirit – because we want to win this time. Ted Cruz quoted Margaret Thatcher saying, “…first you win the argument, then you win the election.”
    I had a chance to tell him my thoughts on that – that part of the reason Democrats win the argument is because they have no diversity in their “big tent”- they all beat the same drum. The only differences in democrats is in degree not in kind.
    of course they have the complicity of the media
    So I like that feistiness shown in R Paul’s answer- and I hope all Republicans will get that same competitive spirit

  • “So I like that feistiness shown in R Paul’s answer- and I hope all Republicans will get that same competitive spirit”

    Agreed Anzlyne!

  • No way! He is the number one phoney. I have met him–totally principled on paper, but in reality–what a joke.

    Ah yes, Paulbots, how I’ve missed thee.

    http://www.lifenews.com/2015/02/11/rick-santorums-new-book-features-miracle-daughter-bella-who-has-trisomy-18/

    I mean it’s not as impressive as ranting on a blog site, but we can’t all be as valiant witnesses to the pro-life cause as Jimmy.

  • Amen to Ron.
    E. Schreiber commented on an earlier thread regarding how people in general process reality. The conclusions from the study indicate a decline in structural family and community norms, and an increase in “productivity based” realities.
    Fast forward to abortion debates.
    Will the babies have a chance at life in the shifting paradigm?
    A drag or encumbrance upon productivity, nothing more?
    Sacred for many are resources vs. Life.

  • Rand…not Ron. Coffee anyone?

  • I may be biased given that Rand’s a hometown boy but what can I say, I’d take him over a lot of choices. Heck I’d vote for him just to send a message that being forthright and honest about your views and the cost of things is what I want in a candidate.

    Though in all honesty I’d prefer him to remain in the senate or be a vice president to tug the prez right (and better prep for a presidential run) than president at the moment.

  • James: “god will simply not let us take the lead in anything. ” God with a small “g” is not to be trusted.

  • Good job by Rand in further response to DWS.

    Wasserman Schultz hit back — highlighting Paul’s testy interviews with female television anchors, too, by saying she hopes he can “respond without ‘shushing’ me.” But Paul, the Kentucky Republican senator who launched his 2016 presidential campaign this week, said her answer made it sound like she is indeed okay “killing a seven-pound baby.”

  • Not even Michelle Bachmann whom I admire on some issues can see 50 feet ahead of her without spotting a country to send missiles.

    When you’ve decided to assess something other than caricatures, maybe you can get back to all of us. While were at it, formulations like ‘neocon’ and ‘Israel lobby’ go down well on alt-right boards. About the alt-right in general, recall what a department store executive once said to Rupert Murdoch: “we have your readers in our stores, as shoplifters”.

  • It is so simple-Rand and Ted and whoever else nails it when they come right back at the media who support the Democrats with questions that for the Democrasts are the equivalent of “When will you stop killing your potential voters?”. Someone please teach all non-democrat candidates how to do this. Right back atcha liberal media: “Why are the Dems called the “Party Of Death” – which “death” is it? death of a seven pound baby? death of the family? death of the elderly? death of the victims of black on black crime? death of those in their mothers’ wombs? death of our soliders? death of an American ambassador? death of the home? death of America? Guy McClung, San Antonio

  • Marvelous:

    “”Here’s an answer,” she said in an emailed statement. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Senator Paul.”

    Then, she posed some questions of her own, saying: “We know you want to allow government officials like yourself to make this decision for women — but do you stand by your opposition to any exceptions, even when it comes to rape, incest, or life of the mother? Or do we just have different definitions of ‘personal liberty’? And I’d appreciate it if you could respond without ‘shushing’ me.”

    But Paul wasn’t fazed — or impressed — by Wasserman Schultz’s answer. In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, the senator said it seemed to him like she wasn’t opposed to late-term abortions.

    “Sounds like her answer is yes, that she’s okay with killing a seven-pound baby,” he said.

    Paul went on to say that “even most of my friends who are pro-choice” are opposed to such abortions, but acknowledged that “there’s a bit of doubt and discussion [about abortions] earlier in the pregnancy.”

    “But Debbie’s position, which I guess is the Democrat Party’s position, that an abortion all the way up until the day of birth would be fine, I think most pro-choice people would be really uncomfortable with that,” he added. “So I don’t know — I really think she’s got some explaining to do.””


    Make the Democrats own their advocacy of what pro-abortion Senate Daniel Patrick Moynihan called “barely disguised infanticide”. Then we can get their opinions about sex selection abortions, Planned Parenthood aborting minors and not reporting suspected sex crimes against the very same minors, whether they favor the lack of regulation of abortion clinics that allowed Gosnell to run his abortion chamber of horrors for decades, etc. Democrats have lots of questions to answer about their abortion uber alles stance, and Senator Paul Rand has shown the way for Republicans to do it.

  • Paul was a little too peremptorily feisty with Savannah Guthrie— he was swinging for a target that wasn’t there.. great to be a fighter at the appropriate time and when the matter weighs enough- not to just be petulant

Cause the Media Tells Me So

Saturday, January 17, AD 2015

 

Strong advisory in regard to the above video which shows the Jihadi murderers of ISIS publically executing an accused adulteress as she begs to see her children one last time.  Why does not the West treat the Jihadists around the globe with the only argument that seems to make any impression upon them:  superior fire power?  A commenter at Father Z’s blog gives us an answer:

Because I stay informed through the modern media and keep up on political commentary, I recognize that Muslims killing people for religious reasons is an extreme rarity, committed by isolated individuals or small extremist cells. I refuse to let this single incident cloud my impression of Islam.

The man in the picture no doubt fired the shot and then fled, as those around him must have been planning to apprehend him. Since Islam is the religion of peace, I know they were not supporters of his. Or perhaps he was merely defending himself from western oil profiteering, and he’s being unfairly portrayed as a terrorist.

In contrast, Catholics are constantly bombing abortion clinics, assassinating doctor’s, and forcing themselves into private citizens’ bedrooms to sabotage their contraception. Then again, is this any surprise in an organization who’s charitable contributions are less than $200 billion in most years?

In fact, over the last 30 years alone, more Catholic priests have been credibly accused of child sexual abuse in a country of merely 300 million people than the number of Muslims who have killed people northern Iraq and southern Syria combined going all the way back to last Thursday.

Similar statistics help re-assure us not to apply the self-righteous generalizations we direct at Catholics at Boko Haram in Nigeria; Hezbollah in Lebanon; Hamas in Palestine; Al Shabaab in Somalia, Etheopia, and Kenya; Abu Sayyaf, MILF, and others in the Philippines; the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan; Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, and others in India, the Arab Mujahideen in Chechnya, and all the other peaceful groups I’m forgetting at the moment.

I apologize that my digression does not respect the gravity of the picture. It’s just that when I see the contrast between how the media treats Islam in the face of Islamist terrorism on one hand, and acts like excerpting casual remarks by the Pope about how it’s unwise to provoke crazy people in a way that makes it sound like he made an official declaration that the recent attacks in France were justified on the other hand, I get a bit touchy.

May this woman rest in peace, and God provide for her family.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Cause the Media Tells Me So

  • The commentator on Fr. Z’s blog and the practicing Islamist in the clip share a commonality. Barbarity.

    Each one professes truth however each one couldn’t be further from the truth.
    They, the commenter and the assassin, turn my stomach.

  • The commenter was being ironic Philip.

  • I needed a list of recognizable Islamists. God is love and mercy.

  • Different lighting….thanks Mr. McClarey.

  • For this woman accused of adultery, where is the man who laid with her and why is he too not executed?

  • Possibly because she was innocent, and there was no man who laid with her. That would be my first guess.

  • Paul W Primavera asked, “For this woman accused of adultery, where is the man who laid with her and why is he too not executed?”
    I do not find it puzzling in the least.
    In a leading textbook, Lord Fraser’s Husband and Wife (vol. ii., pp. 1173-4), the learned author explains that “The confessions of the wife, defender, may warrant the Court in finding that adultery is proved against her, while, not being evidence against the co-defender, he escapes; and thus divorce may be granted against the wife for adultery committed by her with him, while he himself is assoilzied from the action.” After all, as against the co-defender, her confessions are mere hearsay.
    In Rutherford v Richardson [1923] AC 1, 5, Viscount Birkenhead defended the logical consistency of such findings: “Applying these considerations to the kind of difficulty which has often presented itself in the Divorce Court, we find that a case which has sometimes been ignorantly derided is in fact both logical and defensible: for instance A, a husband, brings against his wife, B, a petition for divorce on the ground of her adultery with a named co-respondent, C. There is some independent evidence against both B and C, but not sufficient to justify a positive adverse conclusion. B, however, makes a full confession. Here the court may very reasonably pronounce a decree against B, while concluding that the matter is not established as against C. Indeed, to hold otherwise would be to lay it down that the admission or confession of B – which may be quite untrue and which may be induced by hidden and private motives – is to be treated as good evidence against C. And so it happens that the court may quite reasonably conclude that it is proved that B has committed adultery with C, but not that C has committed adultery with B.”

  • Thank you so much for the second clip. The alternative solution. Love.
    Jesus is all the difference

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour: “B, however, makes a full confession. Here the court may very reasonably pronounce a decree against B,”
    .
    Anyone turning states’ evidence is spared the death penalty in the civilized world.

  • Mary de Voe wrote, “Anyone turning states’ evidence is spared the death penalty in the civilized world.”

    That is a totally different question. In Creasy v Creasy (1931 S.C. 9.) the wife’s admissions consisted of diary entries. In that case, the wife defender did not give evidence at all, but, of course, the diary entries were not evidence against the co-defender, who was duly assoilzied from the action, the only evidence against him being that of clandestine association, spoken to by a single witness and so uncorroborated.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour: “Mary de Voe wrote, “Anyone turning states’ evidence is spared the death penalty in the civilized world.”
    That is a totally different question. In Creasy v Creasy (1931 S.C. 9.) the wife’s admissions consisted of diary entries. In that case, the wife defender did not give evidence at all, but, of course, the diary entries were not evidence against the co-defender, who was duly assoilzied from the action, the only evidence against him being that of clandestine association, spoken to by a single witness and so uncorroborated.”
    .
    I thought that the Fifth Amendment, invoked, prevented the accused from testifying against himself. Evidently, this defendant was not properly represented. What I read is that you are saying that the diary was not considered evidence that was to have been given freely by the defendant, causing her to be turning state’s evidence and freeing her from penalty, or without her consent, not to be used in court at all.
    .
    Of course, the Fifth Amendment can only be invoked for criminal cases and not in civil court for purposes of divorce.but…but…
    This ought not happen in a society where the individual sovereign person is respected. Here, the woman’s right to privacy is compromised and without her assent, her own privacy is used as evidence against her. If the defendant brought the diary to court, willingly, she is turning state’s evidence. Common sense tells us that it takes two to tango. Now, alienation of affection may be charged against the other fellow, but without “corroboration”, what is there to charge the woman? The woman might have been having flights of fancy or writing a book. The woman would be well done to shake the dust off her feet against that nation.
    .
    Secular judges are the personification of divine Justice, notwithstanding unconstitutional atheism. Is there a human being on the face of the earth who wishes to have imperfect Justice imposed on him? (we got imperfect Justice with atheism. Let us be done with atheism)

  • Then there’s Bill Clinton telling Gennifer Flowers, “If they don’t have pictures, it won’t stick.” I am paraphrasing here.

  • Anzlyne, Thank you for your comment. The executed woman did not have the love and mercy of Jesus, at least in this world.

  • Mary de Voe wrote, “Common sense tells us that it takes two to tango. Now, alienation of affection may be charged against the other fellow, but without “corroboration”, what is there to charge the woman? The woman might have been having flights of fancy or writing a book.”
    She might have been “having flights of fancy or writing a book,” but there was also the evidence of clandestine association, hence two independent sources of evidence against her, which is what we mean by corroboration.
    In the case of the co-defender, the defender’s diary entries were not evidence against him, for he had neither authorised nor adopted them. That left the evidence of clandestine association, which was (1) insufficient evidence, of itself, to infer adultery and (2) in any event, uncorroborated, for it was spoken to by a single witness.
    “Common sense tells us that it takes two to tango.” Indeed, but as often happens, there may be proof beyond reasonable doubt and on corroborated evidence sufficient to convict D of adultery with C, but insufficient evidence to convict C of adultery with D, for evidence admissible against one may be inadmissible against the other. That is precisely what happened in Creasy v Creasy.

The One Thing the World Will Never Run Short Of

Wednesday, July 9, AD 2014

 

A lady once asked him how he came to define ‘pastern’, the knee of a horse: instead of making an elaborate defence, as might be expected, he at once answered, “Ignorance, Madam, pure ignorance.”

James Boswell, Life of Johnson

 

 

Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist looks at the contemporary media and concludes that the main problem with it,is the arrogant ignorance that abounds among the younger members of the Fourth Estate:

 

The real problem is the arrogance that goes with the ignorance. Take Kate Zernike’s 2010 attempt at an expose of the ideas that motivate tea party activists that ran in the New York Times. She wrote:

But when it comes to ideology, it has reached back to dusty bookshelves for long-dormant ideas. It has resurrected once-obscure texts by dead writers — in some cases elevating them to best-seller status — to form a kind of Tea Party canon.

Who are these obscure authors of long-dormant ideas? She points to Friedrich Hayek, for one. Yes, the same Hayek who won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974 and died way, way back in … 1992. Whose Road To Serfdom was so obscure that it has never been out of print and was excerpted in Reader’s Digest, that obscure publication with only 17 million readers. The article doesn’t get around to actually providing any insight into these activists’ philosophy and it’s probably a good thing considering that this is what she has to say about “the rule of law”:

Ron Johnson, who entered politics through a Tea Party meeting and is now the Republican nominee for Senate in Wisconsin, asserted that the $20 billion escrow fund that the Obama administration forced BP to set up to pay damages from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill circumvented “the rule of law,” Hayek’s term for the unwritten code that prohibits the government from interfering with the pursuit of “personal ends and desires.”

Oh dear. Where to begin? How about with the fact that “rule of law” is not Hayek’s term. The concept goes back to, well, the beginning of Western Civilization and the term was popularized by a 19th century British jurist and constitutional theorist named A.V. Dicey. It’s not an unwritten code, by definition. The idea that this would be an obscure concept to someone says everything about Zernike and the team at the New York Times and precisely nothing about Ron Johnson or Hayek or that sector of citizens of the United States who retain support for the rule of law.

A few weeks ago, David Brat beat House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a stunning upset. The media didn’t handle it well. You might say they freaked out. Among other things, reporters sounded the alarm about a phrase Brat used in his writings that, they said, suggested he was a dangerous extremist: “The government holds a monopoly on violence. Any law that we vote for is ultimately backed by the full force of our government and military.” As National Review‘s Charles C.W. Cooke noted:

“Unusual” and “eye-opening” was the New York Daily News’s petty verdict. In the Wall Street Journal, Reid Epstein insinuated darkly that the claim cast Brat as a modern-day fascist. And, for his part, Politico’s Ben White suggested that the candidate’s remarks “on Neitzsche and the government monopoly on violence don’t make a whole lot of sense.”

Unusual, eye-opening, and non-sensical, perhaps, to people who had never studied what government is. But that group shouldn’t include political reporters, who could reasonably be expected to have passing familiarity with German sociologist Max Weber’s claim that “the modern state is a compulsory association which organizes domination. It has been successful in seeking to monopolize the legitimate use of physical force as a means of domination within a territory.”

 

Continue reading...

2 Responses to The One Thing the World Will Never Run Short Of

  • The “Rule of Law” is a very ancient idea. “The Greeks had a word for it,” Ίσονομία, Isonomia from the Greek ἴσος isos, “equal,” and νόμος nomos, “usage, custom, law,” is used by both Herodotus and Thucydides

    It finds expression in the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789, which requires that “Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law… It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes” which is pretty much the Greek notion.

    As for the proposition that “The government holds a monopoly on violence. Any law that we vote for is ultimately backed by the full force of our government and military,” on the Continent, universal suffrage and universal conscription were long seen as two sides of the same coin. Its proponents pointed out that, under the ancien régime, the same principle applied; it was the military aristocracy which had the principle voice in the making of the laws and the sword was everywhere the badge of the gentleman.

  • The sorry surplus of resentful/wrathful and ignorant/unintelligent people among the lying media continues to increase.

New Republic as State Organ

Thursday, February 14, AD 2013

34 Responses to New Republic as State Organ

  • I have a feeling you don’t think Fox News qualified as an “organ of the state” when George W. Bush was in office…

  • That’s what’s called a non sequiter, JL. FWIW, despite the mindlessness of the charge, you actually wouldn’t get much love for Fox News in these parts.

  • Just trying to get a more complete picture of the ethos around here. And while it’s perhaps not directly relevant to the charge that the NYT, etc are state organs under the Obama Administration, I think consistency should be striven for. Furthermore, if “organ of the state” tendencies of major media outlets are wrong and to be avoided, I think a website like this would do better to call out offenders within its own camp- that is, if the point of this blog is to attempt to actually engage a willing audience and perhaps admonish them for missteps instead of offering itself self-congratulatory pats on the back.

  • I have a feeling you don’t think Fox News qualified as an “organ of the state” when George W. Bush was in office…

    Fox News hosts have included

    Bob Beckel
    Kimberly Guilfoyle
    Mort Kondracke
    Geraldo Rivera
    Shepard Smith
    Chris Wallace

    So, no.

  • I think a website like this would do better to call out offenders within its own camp- that is, if the point of this blog is to attempt to actually engage a willing audience and perhaps admonish them for missteps instead of offering itself self-congratulatory pats on the back.

    Literally none of what you said is even remotely germane to this post.

  • “Fox News hosts have included…”

    Douhat and Brooks write for NYT so…?

  • “Literally none of what you said is even remotely germane to this post.”

    OK, I’ll save my suggestions that I feel are relevant to this blog’s self-claimed mission for when there’s a post where TAC writers specifically talk about how they don’t criticize errancies on the right.

  • Brooks could only be considered a conservative by someone very unclear on the concept.

    “That first encounter is still vivid in Brooks’s mind. “I remember distinctly an image of–we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,” Brooks says, “and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.” In the fall of 2006, two days after Obama’s The Audacity of Hope hit bookstores, Brooks published a glowing Times column. The headline was “Run, Barack, Run.”…

    “Obama sees himself as a Burkean,” Brooks says. “He sees his view of the world as a view that understands complexity and the organic nature of change.” Moreover, after the Bush years, Brooks seems relieved to have an intellectual in the White House again. “I divide people into people who talk like us and who don’t talk like us,” he explains. “Of recent presidents, Clinton could sort of talk like us, but Obama is definitely–you could see him as a New Republic writer. He can do the jurisprudence, he can do the political philosophy, and he can do the politics. I think he’s more talented than anyone in my lifetime. I mean, he is pretty dazzling when he walks into a room. So, that’s why it’s important he doesn’t f–k this up.”

    Ross Douthat is a figure of hate for most of the New York Times’ readers of his posts, judging from his posts and reactions to them in the comment boxes. Comparing them to the list set forth by Art Deco of dissenting voices at Fox is weak tea indeed.

  • “No need to get pissy, JL. You attempted to change the subject by offering a weak comparison.”

    Haha. I love the attempt egg me into pissy territory by saying I’m being pissy. I’ll pass.

    I don’t think it’s a weak comparison. I think one’s deluded if they don’t think WSJ and Fox are more or less the ideological counters to NYT and MSNBC. The logic would therefore follow that if one set consists of “organs of the state,” and that’s a bad thing, then the other side should be equally criticized.

    What does one hope to accomplish by making the bold move of calling out the NYT in front of an audience of people that almost entirely already agrees with you? Such posts usually result in a stream of self-satisfied banalities about how them darn libturds are satan’s spawn and the sh*t of the GOP don’t stank.

    I’ve raised this point before, and it was met with the same unwillingness to actually engage it. I’ll probably drop it for a couple of months. Maybe it will have some resonance then.

  • @Don

    “Ottawa Citizen commentator David Warren has identified Brooks as the sort of conservative pundit that liberals like, someone who is “sophisticated” and “engages with” the liberal agenda, in contrast to a “real conservative” like Charles Krauthammer.[20] When asked what he thinks of charges that he’s “not a real conservative” or “squishy,” Brooks has said that “if you define conservative by support for the Republican candidate or the belief that tax cuts are the correct answer to all problems, I guess I don’t fit that agenda. But I do think that I’m part of a longstanding conservative tradition that has to do with Edmund Burke, which is be cautious, don’t think you can do all things by government planning, and Alexander Hamilton, who wanted to use government to help people compete in the capitalist economy.” In the same interview with Howard Kurtz in September 2012 Brooks talked about being criticized from the conservative side, saying “if it’s from a loon, I don’t mind it. I get a kick out of it. If it’s Michelle Malkin attacking, I don’t mind it.” With respect to whether he was “the liberals’ favorite conservative” Brooks said he “didn’t care,” stating that “I don’t mind liberals praising me, but when it’s the really partisan liberals, you get an avalanche of love, it’s like uhhh, I gotta rethink this.”

    Brooks is a mixed-bag. I’ll still maintain that he’s center-right, especially if people like Shep Shepard (when does he actually contribute opinionated commentary?) and Gerlaldo Rivera are trotted out as legitimate liberal mouthpieces. Aside from Wallace, the rest of the people I haven’t heard of, which gives somewhat of an indication of how prominent a position they’re given.

  • “Brooks is a mixed-bag. I’ll still maintain that he’s center-right, especially if people like Shep Shepard (when does he actually contribute opinionated commentary?)”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/shep-smith-fox-news-thin-ice_n_1755454.html

    As for Brooks he is a perfect “conservative” for liberals: He bashes conservatives and votes for Obama. Brooks is a smarmy elitist and there is absolutely nothing conservative about him. His support for Obama makes his citation of Burke and Hamilton a mere sick joke.

  • I think one’s deluded if they don’t think WSJ and Fox are more or less the ideological counters to NYT and MSNBC.

    Art already explained why you’re off, at least as it relates to Fox. The WSJ’s editorial board is as libertarian as the NYT’s is left, but the main news content is hardly comparable as the Journal’s straight reporting is hardly as biased as some of the “newsitorials” offered by the Times. Additionally, it would be fair to say that anyone who thinks that right-wing representation in mainstream news outlets is comparable to those in left-wing outlets is the one being delusional.

    What does one hope to accomplish by making the bold move of calling out the NYT in front of an audience of people that almost entirely already agrees with you? Such posts usually result in a stream of self-satisfied banalities about how them darn libturds are satan’s spawn and the sh*t of the GOP don’t stank.

    Honestly, when I read screeds like this I can only assume you’re just doing schtick. Don’s point is that many left-wing outlets are going out of there way to protect this administration and the left in general. As a tweet I just read so eloquently put it, there’s more media furor over one Latino Senator taking a sip of water than there is for another Latino Senator having sex with an underage prostitute. If you can’t see the inherent bias being demonstrated there, then again, you’re the one who is deluded.

    Furthermore, instead of engaging in Don’s argument you change the subject. That is the sign of someone who is intellectually weak. Why don’t you address the points instead of offering up the equivalent of “Oh! Look over there!”

  • Sorry, I don’t equate an “independent streak” with being a harbinger for the radical left.

    Also, if you want to play tit-for-tat, I guess you win. Here’s what I’m willing to concede: NYT is MORE of a left-wing organ of the state than Fox is a right-wing organ of the state.

  • “Art already explained why you’re off, at least as it relates to Fox.”

    OK, I disagree with Art. As I imparted to Donald, I don’t think counting up the number of token liberals/conservatives and comparing is necessarily conclusive evidence that one side is the clear “organ of the state” and the other isn’t. I don’t see why these things can’t vary by degrees.

    “Additionally, it would be fair to say that anyone who thinks that right-wing representation in mainstream news outlets is comparable to those in left-wing outlets is the one being delusional.”

    I never made that claim, so moving on…

    What does one hope to accomplish by making the bold move of calling out the NYT in front of an audience of people that almost entirely already agrees with you? Such posts usually result in a stream of self-satisfied banalities about how them darn libturds are satan’s spawn and the sh*t of the GOP don’t stank.

    “Honestly, when I read screeds like this I can only assume you’re just doing schtick.”

    I’m not. I imagine mine a perspective shared by anyone who comes on this site who already hasn’t declared there unending fealty to the GOP.

    “Don’s point is that many left-wing outlets are going out of there way to protect this administration and the left in general.”

    And I think the same happened when Bush was in office.

    “As a tweet I just read so eloquently put it, there’s more media furor over one Latino Senator taking a sip of water than there is for another Latino Senator having sex with an underage prostitute. If you can’t see the inherent bias being demonstrated there, then again, you’re the one who is deluded.”

    OK? And that somehow ties up nicely your argument that Fox has not been an apologist for the GOP?

    “Furthermore, instead of engaging in Don’s argument you change the subject. That is the sign of someone who is intellectually weak. Why don’t you address the points instead of offering up the equivalent of “Oh! Look over there!” ”

    Yawn. Don copied and pasted a chunk from Wikipedia to engage my original comment, so I returned the favor.

  • I’m not. I imagine mine a perspective shared by anyone who comes on this site who already hasn’t declared there unending fealty to the GOP.

    Yep, just schtick. Nice knowing you JL.

  • “What does one hope to accomplish by making the bold move of calling out the NYT in front of an audience of people that almost entirely already agrees with you? Such posts usually result in a stream of self-satisfied banalities about how them darn libturds are satan’s spawn and the sh*t of the GOP don’t stank.”

    Also, calling this a screed and then ignoring it doesn’t really speak too highly of your intellectual heft.

  • “Yawn. Don copied and pasted a chunk from Wikipedia to engage my original comment, so I returned the favor.”

    No I did not.

  • @ Don

    ““That first encounter is still vivid in Brooks’s mind. “I remember distinctly an image of–we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,” Brooks says, “and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.” ……..

    This story is quoted almost in its entirety on Brooks’ wiki page. I assumed that’s where you got it from. My B.

  • OK, my comment got deleted. Which is fine and probably justified. It’d be nice if that was applied uniformly though, so when someone preemptively accuses me of being “pissy” in an effort to actually make my behavior conform to said accusation, or infers that I am characterized by intellectual weakness and mindlessness, they were held accountable as well.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY GOD & CAESAR EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • JL,

    The New York Times and its sister publication the Boston Globe were reluctant and resistant to do what was commonplace among newspapers by 1975 – set up an op-ed page. In contradistinction to the Washington Post, the Times was never able to develop talented practitioners of topical commentary (of any hue) in its own dugout. The Globe hired its first conservative columnist in 1994 – a local attorney, and later publicly humiliated the man with trumped-up ethics charges. The Times, half a generation earlier, hired someone from Richard Nixon’s pr apparat. The man was a haphazard libertarian who preferred to write columns on English usage. Then they hire David Brooks, who is not politically aligned. Then they hire Ross Douthat, who improves with age but has always had the disconcerting habit of seeming to apologize for what he advocates.

    Major newspapers in that era also hired ombudsmen. The Washington Post‘s system – hire someone from the outside, put them on a multi-year contract, and give them dedicated and guaranteed space – was the model. The Boston Globe elected to appoint a pseudo-ombudsman – an inside man and appointed at least one bigot not adverse to functioning as an ideological enforcer. The New York Times was a very late adopter and after initial efforts took to hiring capons.

    The list I gave you had six names from a list of three-dozen program hosts (and not all the remaining 30 are clones of Sean Hannity either). You are not going to find that 15% of the New York Times editorial staff consists of identifiable Republicans. You find one rather pallid and polite fellow in the designated slot on the op-ed page, there to be beat up by the publication’s readers in the comment boxes.

    Opinion research on the social attitudes of reporters and editors of major media (notably by the sociologist Stanley Rothman) goes back 30 years or more and demonstrates that the dispositions of journalists in the national press corps are dramatically different from corporation executives, various other occupational groups, and the general public. Among other differences, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans exceeds that of the national mean by a margin of around 11 to 1.

    A content analysis of stories on economic topics in major newspapers was done some years ago, cataloguing the sources cited as authorities in those stories. Also done was a study of the speeches of Democratic and Republican members of Congress, again remarking who was cited as an authority. Think tanks (Brookings, AEI, Center on Budget an Policy Priorities) have their staff ideologies. The publication whose news articles had citation patterns most resemblant to Democratic members of Congress was the Wall Street Journal. Its editorial page has long been quite distinct from its news pages. Rupert Murdoch used to own the Village Voice. Its content was still pitched to its historic readership. He’s a businessman serving market niches.

    Television news prior to 1996 offered little commentary; if you survey the whole period from 1948 to 1995, I think you will find George Will was the only identifiable Republican employed by network news. Fox News may be of very uneven quality, but honestly, is Scott Pelley any serious person’s idea of quality? The complaints about Fox (which does have wretched production values) are a function of liberals being indignant that there actually are other viewpoints to consider (an indignation with which Mr. Jacoby at the Boston Globe came to be familiar).

    A generation ago, none of the prominent opinion magazines were extensions of the Democratic Party. Human Events, and, during Mr. Reagan’s term of office, National Review, were party organs. Not so their portside counterparts, who tended to regard the Democratic Congressional caucus as a conclave of clowns.

  • JL – I don’t defend Fox News. I don’t watch them.

    I would rather see objective reporting. A second choice is ideological reporting. Partisan reporting is dead last. If The New Republic is moving from loyalty to a point of view to loyalty to a party, that’s the loss of an adult voice.

    I think Don underestimates the complaints about drone strikes from the ideological left. The middle-left is either being fanboys of the administration, or being realistic about foreign policy (you can argue for either side). The partisan left is unable to criticize its people under any conditions at all. If Peretz sees partisanship so clearly that he felt compelled to rip his old publication in public after, I think, two issues, then there probably really is something wrong with The New Republic.

  • Pinky.

    I think your tri-chotomy is very helpful. Objective, ideological, partisan. The distinctions, however, can be a little blurry. I think any principled conservative can say with some certainty that Fox has definitely, at times, crossed from ideological to partisan, or at least gotten itself into the no man’s land where it’s hard to tell. Is it a stretch to say that, if it were Bush in the White House, they’d have no problem with current drone policy and the DOJ’s related argumentation?

    My favorite website is The American Conservative. Dreher, in particular, is fantastic. What are the feelings around here about the other TAC?

  • Jeff Goldstein, bouncing off of Matthew Continenti, has a good take on our feckless media.

  • My opinion is that it has almost nothing to do with American conservatism, at least American conservatism since the American Firsters of 1941 went down the drain. That their writers support the anti-Semite and idiot Hagel for Secretary of Defense says all that one needs to know about them.

    As for Dreher I think he changes his politics almost as frequently as he changes his religion.

  • I used to visit The American Conservative occasionally. I generally stop reading an article when I run across something anti-Semitic. I realized that on that site I had subconsciously started playing a game, where I’d pick an article at random and read it until the evil Israelis made an appearance. It didn’t seem to matter what the topic was. Then I’d start keying in on “gimme” articles (something like “The Truth about the Middle East”) and see how bad they got. It was an unhealthy game.

  • My favorite website is The American Conservative. Dreher, in particular, is fantastic. What are the feelings around here about the other TAC?

    Mr. Dreher can be mildly entertaining on occasion and provoke a discussion. One cannot credit him with an abiding political or religious viewpoint, more a portfolio of impulses, anxieties, and tastes which generates a series of alternating episodes of affiliation and alienation. (R.S. McCain called him “an insecure fad chaser”, which oversimplifies but is not wrong). He is also given to fallacious reasoning when he is invested in a subject (the late Gerard Serafin used to make sport of him during these episodes).

    The American Conservative is not a serious enterprise. It is more a collection of misfits and professional complainers, not an exponent of a line of policy and program. One curio is that the current proprietor has a history as an advocate of a liberal immigration regime, rather odd when you consider the place immigration restriction has in palaeo discourse normally. One of the points well taken about palaeo complaints ca 1987 was for the tendency of teaching and research to be displaced by advocacy and publicity in the conservative world, rendering the ‘career conservative’ a modal type. Waal, the current editor, Daniel McCarthy, pretty much qualifies as a career conservative (to the extent he can be called anything), but one with a bizarre over-estimate of the heft of his stable of contributors (as against the competition, the vulgar ‘movement conservatives’). (For an account of the modus operandi of the previous editorial regime at The American Conservative , see here)

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0705.konetzki.html

    Consider this piece by Daniel Larison:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/senate-republicans-make-a-spectacle-of-themselves/

    Allowing as how groups can get rather psychologically in-bred, opinions from people outside a certain circle can have considerable value. Now consider the source. Her is a man, now 33 years of age, who spent 12 years on college campuses studying hopelessly impractical subjects; who has no employment history to which he admits; appears to have had no vocational or avocational involvement in workaday politics; no involvement in advertising, public relations, marketing, or promotion; knows next-to-nothing of economics, statistics, business, or finance; and has never served in the military. This professional mouth cum-failed academic is going to tell Mr. Boehner and Mr. Ryan and Mr. McCain how to do their jobs. You think he might just have an outsize concept of his actual abilities?

    Him aside, you have Noah Millman, whose presence is a reminder that the editorial purpose of the publication is to offer complaints about prevailing currents of thought in the Republican Party, and never mind the details (those who frequent the comment boxes make this plain as well). Then you have Philip Giraldi, lapsed scholar of renaissance Italy, purported retired CIA agent, and anti-semite. Then you have Andrew Bacevich, cashiered Army colonel whose shtick is that the military can accomplish nothing of value.

  • Yeah, I read that Larison piece. He seems to think (a) that a lot of non-political people are closely watching the GOP’s handling of the Hagel nomination, and (b) a Senator should only vote against a nominee if there’s something in it for his party.

  • I wasn’t aware of their overwhelming anti-Semitism. I am occasionally put-off by what I consider their unreasonably hardline approach to immigration.

    I guess I don’t entirely care too much about what Dreher thought 5 years ago. What he writes now resonates pretty well. Additionally, I think more favorably of those who leave Catholicism for the Eastern Orthodoxy than I do for people who go the other direction and embrace evangelical Protestantism.

  • And why, setting aside for the moment charges that he’s an anti-semite, is Hegel such a horrible option? What specifically about his foreign policy views are bad?

  • Besides his disastrous lack of knowledge that was evident to all who witnessed his testimony?

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/02/is-the-white-house-more-worried-that-hagel-wont-be-confirmed-or-that-he-will-be.php

    He is a head-in-the-sand-ostrich when it comes to Iran:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/13/chuck-hagels-ambiguous-stance-on-dealing-with-iran/
    He has a long history of animosity towards Israel.
    He has refused to turn over to the Senate documents relating to funds from foreign donors that he has received over the years.

    To put it concisely Hagel is not competent for the job of Secretary of Defense and he has a history of not knowing who our friends and enemies are in the Middle East.

  • Hey! Why not?

    The worst president in history merits the worst Secy of Defense.

  • i dunno that Hagel will be awful. i _do_ think he subscribes too much to an Israel-centric view of U.S. foreign policy, i.e. if the U.S. does something he considers ill-judged, it must be from undue Israeli influence. it’s a single-cause view of foreign policy that isn’t accurate — for instance it’s been pointed out that Israel was wary about the potential shakeup in the M.E. balance of power in the region if Saddam was overthrown, and only supported the U.S. invasion when it became clear it was gonna happen.

    also along this line is Hagel (allegedly to be fair, but from a source sympathetic to him) referring to the State Department as an “adjunct of the Israeli foreign ministry” when institutionally it’s the federal department least sympathetic to Israel. i make a distinction between legit criticism of certain Israeli actions and this sort of talk that is vaguely conspiratorial and assumes mala fides.

    beyond that, the guy is referred to as a “realist” but never has supported any form of tough diplomacy and never criticizes one side in a conflict even when it’s clearly in the wrong. the choice is presented as though Hagel represents a common-sense diplomatic mind vs. the Nuke Iran caucus but it’s a false dichotomy.

    on TAC their only clear principle is America Firstism (still remember pre-election when their editor Dan McCarthy praised Russell Kirk voting for Socialist candidate Norman Thomas as a “vote against Empire,” a completely moronic statement that demonstrates the magazine’s reflexive non-interventionism) and imputing the worst motives onto anything Israel does. it’s like the original writers/editors there extracted the foreign policy views of Pat Buchanan (one of their founders) and absolutely nothing else.

    their newer writers just blather on about Burkean conservatism/how Obama’s really kinda conservative as though conservatism defined by Burke is solely a vague, amorphous attitude regarding change (this is similar to what David Brooks does.) i am for ideological flexibility, but in these cases old conservative thinkers are typically simplified to be compatible with a liberalism lite. even with Russell Kirk’s “conservatism as negation of ideology,” it’s obvious the man was pretty ideological to his core — he just argued his ideology as based in natural truths, as opposed to revolutionary fervor.

  • beyond that, the guy is referred to as a “realist” but never has supported any form of tough diplomacy and never criticizes one side in a conflict even when it’s clearly in the wrong. the choice is presented as though Hagel represents a common-sense diplomatic mind vs. the Nuke Iran caucus but it’s a false dichotomy.

    I think ‘realist’ is being used here to refer to a specific interpretation of the dynamics of international politics associated with Hans Morgenthau (among others). Schools of thought in international political theory do not map precisely to the general run of partisan or ideological disputes. You have ‘realists’ v. ‘liberals’ v. ‘radicals’ as a primary taxonomy and then you have species of realists, liberals, and radicals, and then you have policy differences among the species derived from interpretation of the facts on the ground. Both Henry Kissinger and Andrew Bacevich would be classified as ‘realists’, though their policy prescriptions would likely differ quite a bit.

    I think it would be wrong to attribute to Daniel McCarthy or Ron Paul a perspective on international politics derived from academic literature. Someone once called Dr. Paul ‘a parody of an early 20th century politician’. Parodies of inter-war political discourse about sums up much of The American Conservative‘s stock-in-trade.

Some In Mainstream Media In Full Anti-Catholic Meltdown Mode

Thursday, February 23, AD 2012

Some in the mainstream media are so angry about the existence of faithful Catholics that they can’t help themselves in becoming unhinged. I will reference the main points, but suffice to say that I could write a book on the subject. These latest quotes have caused me to scramble to get information to my editor so as to include at least some of this in my upcoming book; The Tide Continues To Turn Toward Catholicism, a follow up to my first book.  For starters it seems some in mainstream media are so ignorant of religion that even though 90% of Americans belong to some form of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which all believe that evil is manifested through a figure known as Satan, the media still finds it in their power to mock anyone who thinks evil exists. Some in the media seemed to take glee in pouncing on Catholic and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. He was called a kook, a nut, deranged, a mullah and an ayatollah, not by nameless posters on leftwing blogs but named writers in serious newspapers.

Leading the charge was that maven of militant secularism and angry people everywhere Maureen Dowd. Here are some of the spoiled nuggets from her dung heap. She calls Santorum a “mullah” who wants to take, “women back to the caves.” She goes on to deride anyone who actually believes in the teachings of the Catholicism that she once practiced.

Never one to miss a chance at apostasy and heresy; Chris Matthews entered the fray with both of his tingling legs.   Matthews claimed the reason the Catholic Church is growing is because homophobic converts are coming into the Church. It would appear that Mr. Matthews is off his meds. Has anyone ever informed mister leg tingler that groups like Courage; the Apostolate run by those who are same sex attracted, is a rapidly growing organization with men and women from all walks of life? They feel the comfort and assurance of living in God’s chaste plan for their lives. The New York Times of all papers did a favorable story on Eve Tushnet, a popular Catholic writer who has ties to the group. She is a successful woman and an Ivy League grad. Are these militant secularists going to claim that she is homophobic?

David Gergen and Donna Brazile (who is Catholic) didn’t take any pot shots at Catholics per see but did point out that liberal feminist organizations didn’t seem smitten with any of the GOP candidates, because they kept talking about religious liberty instead of the rights of birth control? David Gergen even said it with a straight face, which should really frost Rush Limbaugh who has dubbed the Washington establishmentarian; David Rodham Gergen. As much as they refer to the New York Times, they somehow missed Ross Douthat’s op-ed piece on the growth of Natural Family Planning and the number of women who help teach this non birth control view of family planning across the country and world.

The coup de grace of hate came from David Waldman who writes for a number of publications. This little nugget would make the Know Nothing Party of the 1840s smile. I would rather not give him the pleasure of repeating such delusional hatred; if you want to read his screed click here.   UPDATE In a Lisa Miller Washington Post article just out; Ms. Miller not only mocks Catholics but calls bishops “zealots” three times in her article.

If the Catholic Church is so irrelevant why would the likes of Dowd, Matthews and Waldman froth at the mouth at her beliefs? The simple answer is the Catholic Church is growing while their favorite liberal religious bodies are not only dying on the vine, but shriveling in a complete statistical freefall. Catholics and Evangelicals continue to increase in numbers which drive these mouthpieces of militant secularism nuts.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Some In Mainstream Media In Full Anti-Catholic Meltdown Mode

  • “22 Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. 23 Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets.” St. Luke

    Love them with Christian charity. Instruct them. Admonish them. Counsel them. For as long as they live, and we pray and set good examples through good works and prayer, they may come to a better “mind.”

    They are infallibly ignorant. We will annoy them!

  • I think this might be more ignorance of the culpable variety. Though their consciences are so scarred by their support for abortion and their reduction of Catholic social teaching to the perverse “social justice” variety that their culpability is likely lessened.

    Though culpable they remain. Their souls are at risk and we should weep for them.

    Fast and pray.

  • Iam one of the faithful but I also am becoming a Militant Catholic tired of the Bidens Pelosi,, Sebilius, Mathews,Kerry, and any other that publicly denounces the teachings of our faith.Heres a thought find another Religion one moe to your liking if you dont like the churches teachings LEAVE by the way why are they not EXCOMMUNICATED!

  • No, no, no, you’re not going to get me this time, Dave! I’ve fallen for the “link to a Maureen Dowd column” virus before. One click, and it fills your computer screen with gibberish.

  • Phillip,

    I think you are correct.

    They may be like the seeds that fell among thorn bushes. They hear the Gospel, but love of power, riches and/or the state chokes the Word. They do not bear fruit. Also, they may like be weeds the enemy sowed among wheat. (Matthew 13: 18 – 30; Mark 4: 13 – 20; Luke 8: 11 – 15)

    Their appropriate Bishops need to ex-communicate such persons out of charity to try to save their souls.

    I looked it up. Ex-communication is a reproach more than a punishment. The rite concludes with, “We exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church.” The priest: Closes the book. Rings a bell – symbolizes the toll of death. Extinguishes the candle – symbolizes the removal from the sight of God.

    OTOH, interdict is a punishment.

    They need prayers. Sadly, I have many more needful of prayers.

    Pinky, I stopped following links after having to replace a lap top and a flat-screen TV.

  • Ann Coulter’s latest column, entitled “What’s Their Problem With Romney?”, disparages the other candidates including the “crusading Catholic who can’t seem to move the conversation past contraception”.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • “mainstream media” (sic)

    The DLEMM – Dominant Liberal Establishment Mass Media – does not reflect mainstream thought. Referring to the DLEMM as “mainstream” is inaccurate and a mistake. Liberals are not mainstream.

  • Here’ a bit from Nancy Pelosi talking about how the Church should not complain about the mandate as there has been no enforcement by the Church of the ban on contraception. There is a logic to her heresy. Let this awaken the bishops from their long slumber.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-catholic-church-has-not-enforced-its-teaching-contraception

  • May I add my voice: I too am tired of Catholic bashing! I heard that some time ago in Canada there was a porn shop that neighbors objected to. Many of them put religious medals inside the cracks of the brick walls, and after some time the building burnt down by no apparent reason. My tought would be to send green scapulers and/or miraculous medals to all who hate the Catholic Faith with praying on our part to change their ways. I have done something simular to that in leaving such materials on job sites. May our Great Nation be filled with coversions to our Great Faith…..

  • Grandpa Dave, I like your ideas. Also Dave Hartline, great post! You are always so on target.

  • T. Shaw,
    “22 Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. 23 Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets.” St. Luke
    “…and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.” I believe Jesus bent down and wrote the name of the Pharisees trying to stone Magdalene. A person’s name is the BEST thing and the WORST thing anybody can say about a person. Congress tried to “BORK” Clarence Thomas. Obamacare. It may be that Obamacare is the best thing anybody can say about Obama’s presidency and that Obama’s constitutency has to go to hell because of the way Obama practices the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. It has occurred to me that the reason that the Media oppresses the Catholic Church with such vitriol, slander and lies, is simply because the administration, our culture, Obama and Pelosi and the like, have done and are doing nothing good to speak of. “infallible ignorance” is not an oxymoron, but the path of Obama’s adminstration. The picture of Dorian Gray is hanging in the White House, and the Emporer’s New Clothes are being advertized in the Media.

  • My friends prayer is most needed after reading other sites (and the comments left) who linked to this story. Those sites are hardly in our corner and though they mock us, if you read between the lines the anger is really vented at God Himself. Why you might ask? Sadly, arrogance, vanity, and pride makes some think they know better than God. We must never back down from them, but we must also never stop praying for them!

  • Dave, you are bang-on, as always.

    But this awkward fact remains — many Catholics and other Christians voted for the present administration, despite their then-obvious hatred of the faith, of this nation, and of civilized discourse. Why, why, why?

  • “many Catholics and other Christians voted for the present administration, despite their then-obvious hatred of the faith, of this nation, and of civilized discourse. Why, why, why?”

    Well, in 2008 the current administration-to-be’s “obvious” hatred of all things good may have been obvious to committed Catholics, evangelicals, and conservatives who frequent blogs like this and make it a point to judge all candidates by their record on moral issues. However, it was NOT so obvious to people outside of our traditional/conservative circles who had to rely upon the mainstream media for most of what they knew. We cannot assume that what is obvious to us is obvious to everyone else.

    That said, I think THIS time around the situation is much more obvious to everyone. When EVERY single U.S. bishop speaks out against the HHS mandate and a long procession of noted evangelical Protestants joins the effort, it’s pretty hard to ignore that. Plus there is an actual record of what Obama has done as an executive (rather than a legislator) to point to.

    I will concede that it MIGHT have been possible for a sincere (but not conservative) Catholic who wasn’t involved in the pro-life movement to persuade themselves in 2008 that voting for Obama (with McCain as the alternative) wouldn’t be so bad. I DO NOT think they have that excuse this time around.

  • Mack thanks for the kind words, and yes too many of the faithful voted and are still smitten with the Left’s agenda. It is as old as time itself, the belief that you can outsmart God and common sense and somehow everything will turn out just fine. It kinda reminds of two drunks at a party upset that anyone thinks they are drunk. By their strong and slurring protestations they think they can prove their sobriety. However, everyone knows the truth. Sadly, we have a lot of drunks at the party right now. However, the dawn is fast approaching and so is the hangover!

  • Elaine, just saw your post. Good point!

  • If something similar to the Q’ran burning fiasco aand concomitant murders of four US service members had occurred in 2004, it would have been 24/7 MSM shrieking “Bush must go!”

    In 2012, it’s crickets . . .

  • I see by the comments here that mutual masturbation is not considered a sin among the faithful.

  • You know I find this rather fascinating that we have so many non believers who read this site. It reminds me of all those converted atheists and agnostics who said there was a strange pull that kept them coming to religious sites. Unbeknownst to them, it was their conscience which they had tried to erase but God kept bringing up. I believe it was Mark Shea who said something to the effect that; if these atheists thought we believed in nothing why would they care? They don’t make fun of pagans worshipping Thor or Isis; yet they have to mock us with little juvenile comments that they learned in 8th grade. Very telling.

  • It is hard to spell atheist Dave without l-o-s-e-r. Most atheists are very angry people and troll atheists tend to be among the angriest of a very bitter group. A truly pathetic way to live.