Gingrich vs. the Abortion Extremists

Tuesday, September 4, AD 2012



Newt Gingrich was a very flawed candidate in the Republican primary race, but no one is better than he is at pointing out blatant media bias.  He did so on Sunday on Meet the Press, pointing out the extreme media bias on abortion.  Tom Friedman, who amazingly gets good money to write columns for the New York Times, then, hilariously, underlined by his pro-abort response that Gingrich’s criticism was completely on target:

DAVID GREGORY: Understanding, Mr. Speaker, the difference between Todd Akin talking about rape versus the abortion plank of the platform, I understand there is that distinction. Nevertheless, the question, social issues versus economic issues as being a big motivator for women, is a question.
NEWT GINGRICH: Let me just take a second to disagree with Carly [Fiorina]. I think Todd Akin was the choice of the people of Missouri. I think Todd Akin has publicly apologized, and the last poll shows he’s beating the Democratic senator. I think that we ought to go on from that. Karl Rove said some terrible things on Friday for which he has apologized, which should remind us, people make mistakes.
GREGORY: He was joking about if he shows up murdered somewhere–
GINGRICH: In the age of Gabby Giffords, it is not a joke to say that a member of Congress ought to get murdered. And I’m frankly fed up with the one-sided bias, OK? Let me give you two examples. Vice president of the United States goes to a black audience and says, ‘If the Republicans win, you will be in chains.’ How can Biden remain as vice president? Where’s the outrage over overt, deliberate racism? We talk about people saying things, they ought to get off tickets. How come Biden shouldn’t get off the ticket?
Second example: The Democratic Party plank on abortion is the most extreme plank in the United States. The president of the United States voted three times to protect the right of doctors to kill babies who came out of an abortion still alive. That plank says tax-paid abortion at any moment, meaning partial-birth abortion. That’s a 20 percent issue. The vast majority of women do not believe that taxpayers should pay to abort a child in the eighth or ninth month. Now why isn’t it shocking that the Democrats on the social issue of abortion have taken the most extreme position in this country, and they couldn’t defend that position for a day if it was made clear and vivid, as vivid as all the effort is made to paint Republicans.
THOMAS FRIEDMAN: I’m a Planned Parenthood Democrat on the issue of choice, and I think that that is where the country should be, that is where many, many women in this country are, and I am glad there are people running for the presidency who will defend that position. Period, paragraph, end it.
GREGORY: Newt, I guess the question too is whether you’re seeking, even in the Akin example, to seek an equivalency between that and, say, Biden, who was using language that Republicans have used about the regulatory shackles as opposed to making an overt racial–
GINGRICH: Biden was not talking to a black audience about regulatory shackles, OK? Let me go back to Tom’s point. So, you think it’s acceptable to have a party committed to tax-paid abortion in the eighth and ninth month? And you think that’s a sustainable position in the United States? If the news media spent as much time on the extremism of the Democrats as they spend trying to attack us, they would not be able to adopt that plank this week.
FRIEDMAN: I do believe that’s a defensible position, but I also believe I’m here as a journalist. I’ll let the Democratic Party defend it.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Gingrich vs. the Abortion Extremists

  • These people are pure evil.

    There is no talking with them.

    I keep saying, “You will not be going to Heaven if you vote Democrat.”

  • “Friedman’s last statement is beyond parody.”

    -Amen to that Brother Don.

  • I watched a few minutes of that Meet the Press episode. Here’s the part I caught:

    MR. FRIEDMAN: I would have a lot more, you know, willingness to listen to some of the critiques if one speaker that was there in Tampa stood up said you know, we had a hand in this deficit.

    MR. BROKAW: Yeah.

    MR. FRIEDMAN: We had a president who for eight years, launched two wars, which is the first time in our history we did not pay for it with a tax increase but with a tax cut, passed a Medicare, you know, Drug Benefit Bill that we could not afford. We are in this situation, ladies and gentlemen, because we Republicans, and Democrats, okay, have– there was not an iota, history started the day Obama was elected.

    And here’s some quotes from the Ryan convention speech:

    President Barack Obama came to office during an economic crisis, as he has reminded us a time or two. Those were very tough days, and any fair measure of his record has to take that into account.

    [This presidency] began with a housing crisis they alone didn’t cause; it ends with a housing crisis they didn’t correct.

    In a clean break from the Obama years, and frankly from the years before this president, we will keep federal spending at 20 percent of GDP, or less.

    My conclusion: either Friedman is a deliberate liar, or he’s passing himself off as an expert on TV when he doesn’t know anything about the subject matter.

  • I cannot watch Sunday morning lib-lie extraganzas.

    I’d need to buy a new TV every week, and I’d need to go to Confession every Monday.

  • I like how Friedman starts out bold “I’m a Planned Parenthood Democrat… Period. Paragraph. End it” but when challenged he retreats to a “I’m here as a journalist” defense.

  • “I like how Friedman starts out bold “I’m a Planned Parenthood Democrat… Period. Paragraph. End it” but when challenged he retreats to a “I’m here as a journalist” defense.”

    But this is the closest thing you get to honest journalism from the New York Times.

  • Pingback: NBC News David Gregory Edict of Milan Holy Hour of Adoration | Big Pulpit
  • Has no one noticed how they literally took God out of their platform? Literally!

The New York Times and the Hive Mind

Monday, August 27, AD 2012

8 Responses to The New York Times and the Hive Mind

  • The man possesses a minuscule grasp of the obvious.

    The so-called media is in the tank for the destructive liberal agenda and the leader of the choom gang.

  • This reminds me of panel that featured the PBS director and the head honcho of HBO among others. At one point they talked about the failure of Air America, the leftist version of right-wing radio. The HBO guy remarked that it failed because there was already left-wing media that was completely free: PBS and NPR. The PBS director promptly bleated out: “But we aren’t biased!” and the HBO director just said, “Yeah, keep telling yourself that.”

  • I am sure that in the hive mind of the New York Slimes, they consider themselves to be objective. Walter Duranty (no famine in Ukraine in the 1930s) and Herbert Mathews (late 1950s Fidel Castro apologist) are more than enough evidence that the Slimes has been biased for decades.

  • “… I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so…”

    -What planet is this boy on?

  • Don’t sell this story short. It’s a big deal. For a critique of the Times’ bias to be printed by the Times, that’s unusual. It also can become a point of reference for anyone arguing about media bias in general. But most importantly, I think the description of the dynamis of establishment bias was perfect. This article spells out exactly how it happens and exactly why it remains undiagnosable to those who do it. Good for Brisbane.

  • Well, duh! Sorry for the silly response, but the media in general have their causes and pet issues. Whichever side one falls on,politically, may drive whether they cease to view the media outlet or think its unbiased..that’s read, my bias is unbiased.

  • Ms. Abramson doth protest too much. The New York Times has endorsed the Democratic nominee for President 13 straight times. This November it will be 14.
    In 2006, the New York Times endorsed every single Democratic candidate for Congress in the tri-state area; no Republicans. That’s not “keeping the paper straight”.
    Abe Rosenthal did indeed, despite his progressive leanings, have some form of journalistic inegrity – so much that some thought he might have personally favored Ronald Reagan (maybe he just liked peace and prosperity). But nobody confuses A.M. Rosenthal with his late father. The paper – especially it’s opinion page – is becoming a predictible yawn that echoes what its base wants to hear. To those seeking actual intellectual enlightenment, look elsewhere. The Washington Post, while still a bit left of center, does a far better job of reflecting a range of public opinion.

  • It’s been thus since the 1920’s. the NYT motto is “All the news that’s fit to print with a pinkish tint.”

“Kids” Living With Their Parents Forever Thanks to Obama

Thursday, May 31, AD 2012

Just how far in the tank is the Mainstream Media for Obama this election year?  Time gives us an example:

Just how much of a bummer is it to be well past the age of adulthood and  still living under your parent’s roof? As this living arrangement grows  increasingly common, the perception is that it’s not so bad after all. In fact,  living with mom and dad can be pretty sweet. According to a new survey, young  adults who live with their parents are nearly as likely to say they are  satisfied with their housing situation as those who live on their own.

Last fall, a study revealed that the number of young adults living with  their parents had soared. Prior to the recession, 4.7 million Americans ages 25  to 34 lived with their folks. As of last year, though, the number had increased  to 5.9 million, thanks largely to years of widespread high unemployment and  underemployment for young workers—who often simply did not have the money to  move out of their own.

Continue reading...

39 Responses to “Kids” Living With Their Parents Forever Thanks to Obama

  • We can check available statistics from the Census Bureau and other sources, but I think the increase in frequency with which adult children live with their parents antedates this recession by two decades.

    And if the families in question can make it work, why the objection to 3 generation households? There are quite a mass of mutually beneficial exchanges to be had between three generations which are forgone when you have only two.

  • “There are quite a mass of mutually beneficial exchanges to be had between three generations which are forgone when you have only two.”

    Don’t buy it Art. In the overwhelming majority of cases adult “kids” living with their parents is due to a lousy economy rather than some desire to recreate a multigenerational commune circa Ireland 1890. People can live as they choose as far as I am concerned, but rest assured that few parents are all that pleased when the fledlings are fully grown and permanent house guests, although there are always exceptions.

  • In the overwhelming majority of cases adult “kids” living with their parents is due to a lousy economy

    That may be true, but just where did you discover that datum?

    And what of it? It is one thing done to adjust to problems in both labor and housing markets in our time. Do you have a better idea for these families?

    than some desire to recreate a multigenerational commune circa Ireland 1890.

    Well, how about the desire to be 1.) hands on grandparents, 2.) minimize the use of commercial day care, and 3.) provide for infirm parents something which can only be purchased at a severe premium: time and attention.

  • “Do you have a better idea for these families?”

    Yes, don’t vote for idiots like Obama who are death to an economy. (It might also help to consider whether that anthropology degree/women’s studies degree/art history degree was really necessary for asking “Would you like fries with that?”)

    “Well, how about the desire to be 1.) hands on grandparents, 2.) minimize the use of commercial day care, and 3.) provide for infirm parents something which can only be purchased at a severe premium: time and attention.”

    I rather suspect Art that for one of those situations we have five where the daily routine is Mom or Dad going down to the basement to yell at adult offspring to stop playing videogames, get dressed and hit the bricks to look for work.

  • AHAHAHAH! YES! It’s Obama’s fault that the thing that has been happening for the last 20 years is happening.

    Liars or idiots, which are you?

  • “Liars or idiots, which are you?”

    Thank you salvage for giving us a demonstration as to how Obama got elected in 2008. Keep your hope and spare change.

  • Ah, now Salvage has an ip address up in Toronto where the banned Catholic Anarchist is a grad student. I would wager that “Salvage” is yet another pathetic attempt, there have been many others, by the Catholic Anarchist to leave banal acidic comments here. I would suggest that he get a life, but I never suggest that people do the seemingly impossible. Ah well, at least he reads us faithfully, and drives up our hits.

  • Salvage is a frequent commenter at the Curt Jester, where he trolls most of the comment threads with his evangelical atheism. Not sure if it’s the same person as the famed Anarchist. Either way, not worth the time responding to.

  • As for the topic at hand, I unfortunately lived at home for 2 years post college and before graduate school. At first it was to save up to get my own apartment, and then, after realizing I was going to grad school, I just gutted it out until I moved down to DC.

    The typical young adult living at home isn’t doing it for the reasons Art outlined above. Now that might be the case in special circumstances, and I know of people who have had to move back home to take care of a sick parent. But that’s the exception, and not the rule.

  • Art raises some good reasons for families to consider multi-generational living arrangements. I do think that there are many advantages, often under-appreciated. But Paul and Don are right (no I don’t have data, but I do have eyes) that most young adults who live at home are doing so out of perceived financial necessity (i.e., not enough job creation). To what extent it is fair to lay the blame for that on Obama is another question.

  • From the same lickspittles who brought you “Funemployment.”

    I sorta understand it, though. They have little choice but to go all-in with their guy.

  • Living with parents after college can help a catholic young adult live a chaste life, marry well, and have a solid start. It shouldn’t necessarily be demonized. Money wasted on ‘bachelor pad’ rent, is money that never comes back. On the other hand, money spent on household bills builds credit and helps the parents, money that would be spent in addition to rent if the young adult were living on their own.

  • While I was going to college and law school, I lived with my parents during the summers, but I think all of us would have shuddered at the idea that I would have been living with them indefinitely after I graduated. I was ready to be on my own, and my parents were always there to lend a helping hand if needed, although fortunately it was never needed. I don’t fault adult kids who simply can’t find work no matter how hard they try, but I think attempting to put a smiley face on this situation in the vast majority of cases is completely wrongheaded.

  • It’s Obama’s fault.

    He is both ignorant and incompetent.

    The economy is slagging based on his incompetent and hatred of the private sector.

  • Salvage lives with his parents. That’s all you need to know, Art.

  • Yes, don’t vote for idiots like Obama who are death to an economy.

    That is an evasion. Domestic financial dilemmas are a constant. They are worse in economic recessions, but recall that in even the most disagreeable recession that 90% of the workforce remains employed. Obama is not ‘death’ to an economy, merely an advocate of policies which promote deadweight loss through rent-seeking and hedging. That costs you some, but not everything.

    I rather suspect Art that for one of those situations we have five where the daily routine is Mom or Dad going down to the basement to yell at adult offspring to stop playing videogames, get dressed and hit the bricks to look for work.

    We can look it up. I think what you suspect is a function of personal experience, and in my circle of acquaintances, concerns about elder care are king.

    . (It might also help to consider whether that anthropology degree/women’s studies degree/art history degree was really necessary for asking “Would you like fries with that?”)

    About 61% of those enrolled in tertiary studies in this country are pursuing vocational degrees. Some of those studying arts and sciences are following programs in economics or in chemistry. At the liberal arts college down the road from here, my inside man tells me that about 4% are studying art and art history, 6% sociology and anthropology, and <1% women's studies. About 12% get degrees in economics.

    so out of perceived financial necessity

    Cannot help but recall that my mother went to college, and graduated without debts. That was in 1952. My grandfather was not a wealthy man.

  • “That is an evasion. Domestic financial dilemmas are a constant. They are worse in economic recessions, but recall that in even the most disagreeable recession that 90% of the workforce remains employed. ”

    Half of recent college grads Art are unemployed or working in jobs, (Do you want whipped cream on your Cappuccino?), that do not require a college degree, and that is why so many of them are returning to the nest.

    “a function of personal experience”

    No, considering that none of my kids are out of college yet.

    “About 61% of those enrolled in tertiary studies in this country are pursuing vocational degrees”

    We have 8.5 liberal arts students for every engineering major Art. Now I received my undergrad degree in the teaching of social studies so I could take lots of history and political science classes, and I enjoyed them quite a bit, but if I had to rely upon them in the job market, other than to teach, I rather suspect that I would have had a stint in the food service industry myself.

  • We have 8.5 liberal arts students for every engineering major Art

    Engineers are a small minority in just about any economy. Arts and sciences is a catch-all for any subject not preparatory for a specific trade or profession. The country is not lacking for bookkeepers, salesmen, mechanics, and school teachers, most of each do have tertiary degrees or certificates of one sort or another nowadays.

    Half of recent college grads Art are unemployed or working in jobs, (Do you want whipped cream on your Cappuccino?), that do not require a college degree, and that is why so many of them are returning to the nest.

    I think that is more an indicator of bloat in the higher education sector (a problem which well antedates recent macroeconomic problems).

  • I don’t think it particularly Obama’s fault, although there is some fun in saying that.
    ( Not just talking about college grads who live at home, but also all those who can’t find or hold a job, who can’t take care of their children, who need the government to buy them birth control etc etc.)

    I think Obama is not a cause but a result, just as our hapless generation is. A result of all the things that went wrong in the century when the devil prowled throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls. May God rebuke him.
    And let’s think what we can do to get back on our feet.

  • It is the economy. It is the curse of taxation too, that children no longer take pride in home ownership and independence. There is safety in numbers. Burglaries are down when there are many people, and lacking siblings, several generations suffice. There is much to share and much to grow. I enjoy solitude and I enjoy my many children. When my children are with me they make sure I behave. They are smarter, more beautiful and more generous…to be continued

  • What ioannes says. I have plenty of friends who are moved out–and plenty who are living at home post-college, including at least one who moved back home after having sharing an apartment with friends for a year or two. Most of the young people I know who are still living with their parents (full disclosure: self included!) are (1) employed full time, (2) paying off student loans or saving up for a car and/or an apartment, (3) paying rent to their parents or paying some of the utility bills, AND (4) helping out with household chores or babysitting their younger siblings. Hardly freeloaders, thank you very much.

    (I might add that, as a young single girl, I find it a very good thing that guys I’ve gone out with have had to drive me HOME to where they see and speak with my brothers and my parents, even if it’s just for a quick hi-and-goodby.)

    There’s nothing (inherently) wrong with a person in their twenties living on his/her own or with friends, and nothing inherently wrong with their living at home either. It’s what you make of the situation that matters.

  • Anzlyne says:
    “I think Obama is not a cause but a result, just as our hapless generation is. A result of all the things that went wrong in the century when the devil prowled throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls. May God rebuke him.”

  • Thank you Mary. I have to say that TGWWS is also right in that there is nothing inherently wrong with that– and there are silver linings. Our grown children are all graduates of college and some have needed to come home temp. Fine and dandy, probably because they are capable, they just needed interim help. If they were not capable or motivated then I would wonder!
    Are the economic problems (world-wide) and the general cultural malaise at least in some part a spiritual/sin problem that can’t be hung on any one administration, but on a long term trend?

  • I am 67 and, here in the West of Scotland, I cannot remember a time when about three-quarters of the neighbouring farms did not have three generations on them

    As I was sent to boarding school from the age of eight, I actually spent more time living with my parents after university than I did before.

    My family have lived in the same house since at least 1617, when the Register of Sasines was established and six of our nine maillings or tenandries have been in the same families for the same length of time. The sheiling or shepherd’s house on the common grazings has a carving of the Seymour crest on the lintel, dating from the 14th century.

    It just never entered my mind that I would ever leave.

  • “I don’t think it particularly Obama’s fault,”

    I do. He has been the most feckless steward of the American economy in my lifetime.

    “Arts and sciences is a catch-all”
    for people graduating with degrees that few are interested in hiring in this economy.

    “I think that is more an indicator of bloat in the higher education sector”

    We definitely have too many people getting degrees in subjects that have little economic value, but the current unemployment rate among new college grads is something that we have not witnessed since the Great Depression.

    “And let’s think what we can do to get back on our feet.”

    Vote out Obama and as many members of his party as possible from Congress. Slash governmental spending to balance the budget. Tell people the old hard truth that there is no free lunch and that govenment is not going to take care of people any longer who are quite capable of caring for themselves.

  • Vote out Obama and as many members of his party as possible from Congress. Slash governmental spending to balance the budget. Tell people the old hard truth that there is no free lunch and that govenment is not going to take care of people any longer who are quite capable of caring for themselves.
    and return the Person of God to the Public square.

  • “He has been the most feckless steward of the American economy in my lifetime”

    all too true! He is not blameless. There is plenty more blame to go around too, I say.

    I will vote against Obama and encourage everyone I know to do the same, I guess my vote won’t be as much FOR Romney, as it will be Against Obama.

  • I’m going to turn 30 in a month. I wouldn’t be able to make it without the financial support of parents and in-laws. That’s what seven years of university and a post-graduate degree buy you.

    At least I don’t have to live WITH them. But that’s only been the case for the last two years, and it could well happen again.

  • The author of the article would undoubtably also find cause to celebrate the record number of food stamp recipients.

  • Well, I take my hat off to those of you who live with your parents and seem to enjoy it.

    When I got out of the military I lived with my mother for about 6 months to get adjusted to civilian life and begin college. I love her dearly but I just couldn’t take it. Being a grown adult (all of 22 years) and living with my mother wasn’t working…..

    I transfered school quickly and went off to another area, lived in a crummy 1 bedroom apartment, meet my future wife in that new location and the rest is history…..

    Being much older, wiser and married with some little ones I am glad I made the decision I made. I guess it wasn’t the best move financially but as a person I developed and grew up in ways not possible if I was at home. Plus I met my future wife after moving and we have some wonderful memories of that crummy one bedroom.

    Just my 2 cents.

  • My father died in the room and in the very bed, in which he had been born.

  • Pingback: Expert Advice on “Breastfeeding” Without Controversy | The American Catholic
  • I left home at 17 and so did my brother. We joined the Navy and Army, respectively. Back then military service was almost de riguer if you didn’t go to college. When I got out, at 21, I lived with my mother briefly and then my dad, who had divorced while I was away but only for a few months. By 22 I was back on my own. I suppose if you can’t support yourself and your parents can provide a safety net there’s nothing wrong with living with them until you can find a place of your own. In China and third-world countries, parents and children often lived together for a lifetime. It’s more cultural than political.
    When I had children of my own, I was glad to see them gone in their late teens because I had a sense of pride that they were able to live free and independent lives.

  • Similar story to Joe’s, here, for all three of my siblings. We’ve spent more time since we graduated high school visiting than we have living with my folks.

    With the number of empty rental places, it means something much different than it does in Scotland. I’m actually heading down in a few weeks to meet up with the other descendants of a family that left Scotland 100 years ago– we did not keep some idea that living in the same house after adulthood was OK. Those who are living with parents– or adult children– want a separate house that is very near-by for ease of help. Heck, the house I’m living in now has a different family living in the “mother in law cabin” out back. The only case I can think of where adult children and parents lived together long-term without a protection aspect is where my grandparent-in-laws remodeled their basement into an apartment (with its own entry/exit and parking area) for a mother in law.

    Joe’s hit it on the head– it’s a matter of independence.

    Odd that this happens shortly after a lot of parents mention how their kids don’t want driver’s licenses.

  • Being a grown adult (all of 22 years) and living with my mother wasn’t working…..

    That is going to be a function of what your habits are and how overbearing your mother is. People born prior to about 1938 faced a cultural chasm between themselves and their children. I think that if you looked at it with care, you would find that the chasm was much smaller for subsequent cohorts.

  • My folks are quite a bit younger than that, and I’m 45 years younger than that, and it still didn’t work.

    It’s not a matter of being overbearing, it’s about the changes that happen when you move out and then move back– if you never left, it’s different, but the changes that happen when you do leave don’t translate very well into moving back in.

    There’s the culture problem, the power problem, the personality problem (at least in my case– both my mother and myself have very strong personalities; similar personalities often grind against each other) and…shoot, everything involved in the change between your baby being a grown-up with the added problem of them being back in the situation where they were kids, which will change how both act. I’m just visiting my folks and I still notice I act differently than at home.

  • I am not sure where the idea comes from that it is somehow the right thing to get away from your parents no matter. It seems to me that it makes sense to take care of your parents when they get old. I do think that there are reasons for getting out of the house but leaving your parents in the dirt seems like a bad thing to do.

  • If you say so, Foxfier. Your situation just sounds like…family life.

  • Art- the difference between a 19 year old adult that never moved out and a 19 year old that moved back in is big enough that I notice it. Unless the definition of “family life” is circular, it ain’t the same.

    Valentin -there’s a difference between staying with your parents until you form your own household, moving back in with your parents while both are active adults, and a family member moving in to take care of someone that’s in poor health. The rule of thumb I hear most often is “do you do your own laundry?”

The Ballad of Jennifer Rubin

Tuesday, March 20, AD 2012

Jennifer Rubin sent a strong message today.  She wants Mitt Romney to know that she’s got his back every bit as much as Ann Coulter.

Rubin makes a lot of hay over the fact that Rick Santorum never visited Afghanistan, and has not said that he would go to Afghanistan were he the nominee, a promise that Mitt Romney made a few days ago.  Santorum made a pretty compelling case as to why:

And I’m not too sure making the trip Afghanistan is necessarily anything other than what it looks like: a show. And what I’m looking at is trying to, you know, make sure that we successfully win this nomination

Sounds right to me.  There is nothing to be gained for anyone by the candidates flying to Afghanistan for some pr stunt.  But that’s not how Rubin sees it.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to The Ballad of Jennifer Rubin

  • Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post’s tame conservative, is precisely the ideal conservative for the Post. She spends most of her time attacking real conservatives like Santorum on behalf of fake conservative Romney, and her columns are often vacuous and fact allergic. The powers that be at the Washington Post got a real bargain when they hired her: a token conservative who attacks conservatives!

  • She certainly fills the David Brooks role at the Post rather nicely – albeit with about 1/4 of Brooks’ wit.

  • Who is this Jessica Rubin of whom you speak?

    Is this Washington Post something to which to tie your horse and buggie?

  • a token conservative who attacks conservatives!

    You’ve confounded her with Kathleen Parker.

    I believe her principal employment is with Commentary, who are a fairly trenchant crew. I think the problem here is not the striking of poses but an excess of intramural factionalism and the stupidities you find in commentary about the day’s political ephemera (which is why one should not comment much about what one reads in the newspapers).

  • Nah Art, I am very clear on who she is, and she isn’t a conservative:

    “As for his comments on prosecuting abortion doctors, this would, I assume, concern the death penalty in states that impose capital punishment for murder. After all, it would be contrary to his views (that unborn children are people under the Constitution) to decide for criminal law purposes that an unborn child is any less a person, and deserving of less protection, than any other person.

    Moreover, if Santorum is going to prosecute doctors for murder there is no logical reason to exempt women from prosecution for conspiracy to murder, right? If she conspired with a doctor to kill a live child, she would not be spared (“otherwise if there’s a law when there’s not an enforcement of the law”). So what exactly is the rationale — that it would be too outrageous to articulate this legal predicament? Well, that’s where his reasoning leads us.”

  • She is part of the Commentary crew. For the most part, they are concerned with questions of foreign affairs, aspects of the eduction system, and the doings of the media. Some of the folks from that stable are very uncongenial to social conservatives, and some are not.

    Of course, she is not discussing issues abstracted from political competition. Which is to say she expects the red-headed step-children to vote for her boy in November while submitting to serial displays of disrespect from her (among others). You’re right. Flip her the bird.

  • “if Santorum is going to prosecute doctors for murder there is no logical reason to exempt women from prosecution for conspiracy to murder, right?”

    If I’m not mistaken that WAS the common practice when abortion was illegal prior to Roe — it was the doctor, not the woman, who was prosecuted, and who was subject to losing his license to practice medicine. The woman was seen more or less as a second victim of the crime and the doctor as someone willing to exploit her desperation for his own gain.

    But, it’s also my understanding — and someone with more knowledge can correct me if I’m wrong — that abortionists in the pre-Roe era were NOT prosecuted for murder. An illegal abortionist might be prosecuted for manslaughter or negligent homicide or something similar if the WOMAN died as a result of a botched procedure, but performing an illegal abortion was a stand-alone crime in a class by itself. It was not legally a form of murder or homicide.

  • Pingback: The Value of Well-Paid Advisers | The American Catholic

The Courage of the New York Times

Wednesday, March 14, AD 2012


Recently the New York Times ran a Catholic bashing ad calling for Liberal Catholics to desert the Faith.  The ad was sponsored by the virulently anti-Catholic atheist group Freedom From Religion.  Go here to read a superb evisceration of the ad by Charles Lewis.

Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugged decided to submit an ad which made similar accusations, but against Islam instead of the Church.  The New York Times rejected the ad.

Bob Christie, Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications for the New York Times, just called me to advise me that they would be accepting my ad, but considering the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, now would not be a good time, as they did not want to enflame an already hot situation. They will be reconsidering it for publication in “a few months.” So I said to Mr. Christie, “Isn’t this the very point of the ad? If you feared the Catholics were going to attack the New York Times building, would you have run that ad?” Mr. Christie said, “I’m not here to discuss the anti-Catholic ad.” I said, “But I am, it’s the exact same ad.” He said, “No, it’s not.” I said, “I can’t believe you’re bowing to this Islamic barbarity and thuggery. I can’t believe this is the narrative. You’re not accepting my ad. You’re rejecting my ad. You can’t even say it.”

We used the same language as the anti-Catholic ad. The only difference is, ours was true and what we describe is true. The anti-Catholic ad was written by fallacious feminazis.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to The Courage of the New York Times

  • All the news that’s fit to print … er … spin … uh … omit.

  • What liberal, pray tell, actually DOES support free speech and actually HAS courage?

  • This is getting scary. Where is this going?

    When the Church faced these kinds of bigoted attacks in the 1920s, Catholics took to the streets. Do we have the courage to do more than talk?

  • I have my qualms about Pam Geller, but this was pure, unadulterated brilliance.

    Starting with the fawning treatment of the “mostly peaceful” Occupiers, the President’s embrace of Bill Maher’s sweet, sweet cash and now this, 2012 is shaping up to be the Year of the Double Standard.

    Good to have it out in the open.

  • “Catholics took to the streets. Do we have the courage to do more than talk?”

    The first step is to give the forces of anti-Catholic bigotry a thrashing this year at the polls that they, and the nation, will long remember.

  • They are so easily played.

    It’s censorship, too. They do not tolerate dissent.

    All the news that’s fit to print with a pinko yellow tint.

  • The Imam in the back said everyone attack and it turned into a ballroom blitz.
    ~The Sweet

  • Ugh. Just read the original. Isn’t the “owner” of the blog here a lawyer? What are the definitions of libel? Is the original ad libelous? If not, it sure comes awfully darned close.

    That said, though, I must (while holding my nose) agree with one thing it says. At the end, it asks all liberal, lukewarm and “cafeteria” Catholics to exit. Fine with me. Vaya con Dios, and please, do come back if you want to actually observe the faith. Remember the Prodigal.

    I forget where I read it, but somebody of some import said that those who do not stand with Cardinal Dolan, et al., against this onslaught have already left the Church. They just don’t know it. It all comes down to actions vs. words. I could stand in the garage, go “vroom vroom” and expel smelly fumes but that does not make me a car.

    If you want to work on Saturdays and eat a McRib, help yourself. Just don’t call yourself an Orthodox Jew.

    If you want to throw back a shot or two of Jack Daniel’s and your wife & daughters can wear things other than a body-length shower curtain, fine. Just don’t call yourself a Muslim.

    If you want to artificially interrupt God’s gift of the creation of life for your own carnal needs, hey, more power to ya. Just don’t call yourself a Catholic.

    And, if you want to lie, twist, propagandize, oppress, attack, persecute, threaten and tyrannize, take your best shot. Just don’t call yourself an American, because that’s the last thing in the world you are. I’d suggest, too, that you go someplace else to do it – Americans are pretty patient but we do have our limits. Remember, there’s a Second Amendment right behind the First.

  • It is a group blog WK although I, for my sins no doubt, am an attorney. Nothing in the original ad would constitute libel in the legal sense, since it is basically a long rant based upon opinion. Additionally since the Church most definitely is a “public figure” it would be virtually impossible to prevail in a libel suit under current case law.

  • What liberal, pray tell, actually DOES support free speech and actually HAS courage?

    Prof. Robert David Johnson (a.k.a. “KC Johnson”).

    Prof. Harold Pollack is a fairly resonable fellow.

  • Never pick an argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel. There was a story the other day about a toilet paper shortage in New Jersey. Seems to me that The New York Times could very well fill the gap.

  • “When the Church faced these kinds of bigoted attacks in the 1920s, Catholics took to the streets.”

    Unfortunately there would be a fair number taking to the streets to attack the Church:

  • It is a group blog WK although I, for my sins no doubt, am an attorney.

    Thanks for the chuckle and explanation. To my discredit I am not up to snuff on the basics of such things, and should probably reinforce my fundamental knowledge.

    Maybe when the next teenager departs for academia and I get half my house back . . .

  • What liberal, pray tell, actually DOES support free speech and actually HAS courage?

    Nat Hentoff.

  • DP:

    I’m not sure Nat H. is a real liberal.

    Can you cite any writing or statement where he either called a conservative woman a dirty name or defended those that did?

    AD: Clueless college professors don’t count.

  • eat a McRib

    I’m not so sure that counts as pork. In fact, I’m not sure what it is.

  • I wonder whether those dissing the ‘lack of courage’ of the NYT have considered that their response – not wanting to inflame an already tense situation – – most likely had to do with our young men and women who are “in harm’s way” in Afghanistan and, in smaller numbers, in some other countries overseas. There’s nothing whatever in their response that indicates that the concern was for themselves.

  • The New York Times Tade has never been shy about reporting alleged misdeeds by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan in banner head lines. The fact that this might have inflamed jihadis in those country and lead to the death of American servicemen never bothered them in the slightest. The rejection of the ad was all about the cowardice of the New York Times personnel fearing for their own safety if they printed the ad, and also because it is not politically correct to give vent to anti-Islamic sentiment while anti-Catholic bigotry is virulent on the ever so tolerant Left.

  • Nat Hentoff is my favorite pro-life atheist, a contradiction in realities. Pro-life persons are conservative. It was lovely meeting him here again.

  • Yeah, the Times is desperately concerned about the safety of our servicemen overseas. That must be it. It doesn’t jibe with how they reported Abu Ghraib, but charity believeth all things, I suppose.

  • It’s our own fault. When are Catholics going to stop voting for Democrats? Yes, there is a connection between seeing this kind of anti-catholic bullying and politics. Do you think it’s coincidental this ad runs so closely following the contraception coverage controversy in the Obamacare law?
    No, it’s no coincidence…..and it will continue…. Wake up and stop voting for Democrats!

Newt Refuses to Play By Mainstream Media Rules on HHS Mandate

Sunday, March 4, AD 2012

Hattip to commenter Chris for pointing this out to me.  Newt Gingrich is a flawed candidate, but when it comes to standing up to the Mainstream Media, and refusing to allow them to set the terms of the debate over issues, he is in a class by himself.  In the video above, he takes David Gregory apart on Meet the Press today, refusing to allow Gregory to frame the debate, dishonestly, as access to contraception rather than as an assault on religious liberty.  Newt recognizes that the Mainstream Media is almost entirely an unpaid arm of the Democrat party.  He knows that they are adversaries and he treats them accordingly.  All Republicans and conservatives:  look and learn!

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Newt Refuses to Play By Mainstream Media Rules on HHS Mandate

  • It’s very obvious the new media is Democrat. Women (and men) have the right to reproductive health. It’s called, “Say NO!” No one ever died from lack of sex.

  • My hero.

    MM ‘rules’ are not for fair game or discourse, defaming their profession as journalists,
    as mouthpieces for any agenda of the democrats. Mostly, MM has forsaken objective reporting for vilifying and actually bullying (great role models) those outside the D party line. Maybe, the A list is more important than truth, liberty and life for MM people.

  • That.was.masterful.

    Newt brought it to Gregory. The most interesting part of the whole thing to me was Newt’s claim that Pres. Obama voted to kill babies. And Gregory didn’t even question it.

    Think about that: Newt said that Barack Obama was in favor of infanticide. Infanticide. If that doesn’t get a reporter’s attention, then nothing will. Yet, David Gregory doesn’t even ask Newt to defend the idea that Obama voted to allow babies to be killed. The conversation just moves on.

    The media doesn’t want a close examination of that particular item because of the details. If that story were truly aired to the general public, I don’t know how Barack Obama could stay in office. So, for the media, the strategy becomes: let the Republican “crazies” say it; ignore it; move on.

  • Yes, the other GOP candidates need to take a page from Newt’s book – challenge the assumptions of the left! When I see Romney trying to explain that, really, Republicans aren’t so very men, I want to start crying.

    The late Andrew Breitbart also refused to play by the MSM’s rules – which is the reason he will be so missed by many of us and why he was so hated by the Left..

  • Heh. That should be “mean,” not “men.”

    Although “Republicans aren’t so very men” works too – paging Dr. Freud…

  • Newt is exactly right. This false notion of denial of “woman’s reproductive healthcare” propaganda is a smoke screen and diverts the actual discussion of Obama’s disgusting record. This IS about religious liberty, period. There never was any problem with getting contraception.

    Rush Limbaugh’s words to describe Ms Fluke may not have been the best, but they were accurate. Her moral character is shameful and any decent woman would not be discussing their sexual history in front of Congress and the world. Why is she at a Catholic College in the first place?

  • Thanks for posting this Don. I just posted it to my Facebook page. Newt is definitely providing the template for how conservatives should deal with the left wing media.

  • Gingrich has a gift for that Greg, and I just hope that other conservatives learn what he is teaching in regard to the media. Too many conservatives attempt futilely to make friends with members of the media, while the wisest understand that they are simply political adversaries to be used as foils while speaking directly to the audience.

  • Mr.David Gregory of Meet the Press on Sunday morning was taken to the woodshed. While using only his tunnelvision he obviously wanted to dictate a Rush Limbaugh smear
    Caught blindsided he was unable to defend the medias position in this so called laughable interview with the former Speaker Gingrich.

  • Newt Gingrich is a flawed candidate…

    Sigh. Aren’t they all.

    If God called someone with Speaker Gingrich’s insights and Sen. Santorum’s image to be a candidate for president this election year, that someone didn’t answer the call.

    Moses was a flawed man and he led God’s people to freedom despite an oppressive regime.

  • As a former Democrat who voted for Kennedy and Carter, the way the media is trying to skew this issue makes me glad I left that party. All of the main stream media think and act the same way. Their Freedom of Speech is just as threatened as Freedom of Religion.

Ross Douthat’s Readers Prove his Point

Sunday, February 5, AD 2012

I can easily imagine from their comments how much it galls the typical readers of the New York Times to read opinion pieces by Ross Douthat.  Today he explains to his reader the extreme media bias on the issue of abortion.

Conservative complaints about media bias are sometimes overdrawn. But on the abortion issue, the press’s prejudices are often absolute, its biases blatant and its blinders impenetrable. In many newsrooms and television studios across the country, Planned Parenthood is regarded as the equivalent of, well, the Komen foundation: an apolitical, high-minded and humanitarian institution whose work no rational person — and certainly no self-respecting woman — could possibly question or oppose.  

Go here to read the rest.    To pro-lifers this is very old news.  It is hysterically funny however to read the comments to his piece:

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Ross Douthat’s Readers Prove his Point

Bias? What Bias?

Sunday, January 29, AD 2012


The bias of most of the main stream media is well known, but a current example by CBS is beyond parody:

Over the years, pro-life activists have come to accept that the media isn’t interested in their annual March for Life in Washington D.C. protesting abortion, even though it routinely attracts hundreds of thousands of people. But this year’s photo slideshow hosted on a local Washington CBS website has activists scratching their heads in disbelief.
 Currently the March for Life slideshow of seven photos features protesters who actually support abortion; none of the photos actually feature pro-life marchers.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Bias? What Bias?

  • What is this “CBS” of which you speak?

  • For the hollow sound of a little empty laughter.
    C ensorship B y S atan.

  • Wow, PM!!! You sure have got it right CBS is the Voice of Satan. But, hey, nothing to worry about. The Truth is never killed……it always triumphs in the end. They can censor and distort the desire of Americans to do away with Infanticide and respect the sanctity of Life from Conception to Natural Death, but eventually we shall win because we are fighting for God.


Gingrich, Media Bias and the Mainstream Media as Morality Police

Friday, January 20, AD 2012

Gingrich turned the tables effectively on John King of CNN last night at the final debate prior to the South Carolina primary on Saturday.  Here is the transcript:

JOHN KING: And just as speaker Gingrich surged into contention here in South Carolina, a direct fresh character attack on the Speaker.

And Mr Speaker, I want to start with that this evening.

As you know, your ex-wife gave an interview to ABC News and another interview with The Washington Post. And this story has now gone viral on the internet.

In it, she says that you came to her in 1999, at a time when you were having an affair. She says you asked her, sir, to enter into an open marriage.

Would you like to take some time to respond to that?

GINGRICH: No, but I will.


GINGRICH: I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.


KING: Is that all you want to say, sir?

GINGRICH: Let me finish.

KING: Please.

GINGRICH: Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.


My – my two daughters – my two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate.


KING: As you noted, Mr Speaker, this story did not come from our network. As you also know, it is a subject of conversation on the campaign. I’m not – I get your point. I take your point.

GINGRICH: John, John, it was repeated by your network. You chose to start the debate with it. Don’t try to blame somebody else. You and your staff chose to start this debate with it.


Let me be quite clear. Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period said the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren’t interested because they would like to attack any Republican. They’re attacking the governor. They’re attacking me. I’m sure they’ll presently get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul.

I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.


Continue reading...

84 Responses to Gingrich, Media Bias and the Mainstream Media as Morality Police

  • I must be honest. I despise and loathe Barack Hussein Obama and the liberal elite media. They use Gingrich’s second wife to accuse Gingrich of something that they in their diabolical sexual perversion of adultery want legalized and sanctified themselves. Godless satanic hypocrites!

  • It surprises me that the people have not claimed back their aairwaves which are rented to the media to provide a public service. It has seemed to me and noted here that most are extremely biased leaning Left, anti- organised religion, particularly Catholicicism and conservative mainline Christians and anti the GOP. One is offered only the extremes of the self-proclaimed Left and Right while the so-called mainstream media are so off center in their coverage. My suggestion repeated now here is to work toward a system whereby the primetime hours are devoted in some sort of organised way to allow free, fair and unbiased chair-persons to handle debates. Not examples like Mr King who was forced to admit that the blame was not with ABC but his representing CNN to lob this hand-grenade at Mr Gingrich. He showed his presence and character under fire by lobbing it back, to provide a reasonable and thorough answer, including his daughters’ testimony to ABC. That kind of grace under fire is what leaders are made of. The audience reaction shows they were on the side of fairness. Good for the Republic and efforts to use the First Amendent to swing elections.

  • My understanding of the Catholic faith is that you do not enter heaven by being a “nice person”. You need to be sanctified and in the grace of our Lord. Even with this knowledge Our Lord can do what he pleases and His name is “Mercy”. Newt deserves mercy as Our Lord has given us. He deserves respect because he is very knowledgable, experienced and will have to take on Obama, Washington elites and our enemies here in the USA and in the world. He is not afraid to fight. If he were a coward like many politicians, he would never have entered this race. His sins of the past are not relevant anymore and certainly not our business because he has said he repented. We as
    Catholics need to remember that. If you do not agree with his policies, fine then don’t vote for him. But remember who We really are. Jesus told the people regarding stoning a woman, “You who are without sin cast the first stone.” St. Paul killed Christian women and children and Jesus chose him to bring the gentiles into the fold. Just a reminder as I have to do daily with my own sins. God Bless.

  • Some more thoughts on the PACs (ABC, NBC, CNN etc.) providing tens of millions of dollars of free attack ads on Republicans:

  • Whatever the media bias may be, I was far more concerned with his response than his “original” sin–Speaker Gingrich admitting his fault instead of blaming CNN and the Democrats and then moving on would have served his cause much better. We know his former wife was doing this to attempt to destroy him, and as you stated, Donald, it was a good story for ABC and CNN to push forward, but he knew it was coming in any case and “no excuses” would have been far more humble and easier to hear for many of us.

    The sheer amount of anger he showed caused me to wonder about his repentance, frankly. And character does count. And I say that simply as an opinion, I leave the judging to God of course. I hope he truly has repented and had embraced his Catholicism as he seems to have.

    What I believe he needed to do was look and sound sorry that he hurt her, clearly say so, which he has in the past at less “unhinged” moments, and then let the debate go on from there.

    So why do so many people think that was his “finest moment?” To me it was one of his weakest. I would contend that people think so because we have a whole generation raised on reality shows and Jerry Springer. Very sadly people love this stuff. Media, public, Democrats, and Republicans. We have always enjoyed scandal.

  • Stipulated:

    1. Bracketing out Fox News and some radio networks, about 85% of the national press corps favors the Democratic Party (and from that it is a reasonable wager that about 70% are strongly oriented thereto and 35% or so have a nexus of political views which resemble those of Victor Navasky).

    2. Some of these are unscrupulous and some have no talent whatsoever for impartial judgement.


    Now can we please get hold of the vaudvillian’s cane and get Dr. Gingrich off the stage? He is poisonous.

  • God….to head the Jewish people and lead them out of Egypt….picked an ex-murderer, Moses
    who you’ll remember killed an Egyptian for assaulting an Israelite. God punished that murderer, Moses, with 40 years of shepherding sheep. Then God made that murderer a leader. God did a similar thing with the new people of God. He chose the violent Peter of the Gethsemane ear incident and made him a leader after mortifying Peter much quicker than He did with Moses.
    I feel that Peter was trying to split the man’s head at Gethsemane, the man moved in the nick of time and only lost an ear. Within hours Peter would be mortified by his denying Christ despite his rash courage at Gethsemane. Moses was punished for 40 years….Peter in moments. We all wonder. Is Newt like Peter? Has he been mortified deeply but quickly by God….or did he go through the motions. His anger at John King last night helps us trust him a bit more that he might be Peter because Newt is angry at the mega theme of media timing embarassments prior
    to a republican debate
    Mitt gained points in how, unlike Santorum,.he did not make it easy for the moderator to continue to legitimize the question in a follow up moment…Mitt just said no….ask me aboutthe issues. Santorum got suckered immediately. Paul helped Ginrich’s point but then ended with saying how long he was married. Mitt and Ginrich won as being those who perfectly resisted John King who increased by his perseverance his negative image as huckster. CNN has become news-entertainment-celebrity culture. CBS, ABC etc. have become news entertainment-recipes-celebrity culture. CNN will stay out of recipes and cooking spots….to maintain faux gravitas.

  • I would agree with you Art if the alternative were not Romney. Although Santorum is my candidate he just has not caught fire yet, and I am beginning to doubt that he will unless Gingrich drops out, and after last night’s performance by Newt I do not see that happening soon.

  • We have a couple of generations of broken marriages. With the state of marriage in this country, do we really need a leader who has broken his vows 2 times? Gingrich is well spoken and knows his stuff, but his history says he doesn’t know much about commitment. We need someone who can lead by consistency and persistence; I know, our present leader does this to the detriment of the country, but how about having someone who plays by the Constitution and doesn’t play by Saul Alinsky? Having Newt fight for the solidity of marriage is like having the fox in the hen house.

  • “Having Newt fight for the solidity of marriage is like having the fox in the hen house.”

    I doubt if that would be one of his Presidential duties elm, and considering some of the prior occupants of the White House I can understand why.

  • Art, it’s not that 85% of the media favors Obama and the left-wing agitprop.

    It’s that eighty-five percent of the lap dog media swears to Obama’s lies.

    So exactly what do Gingrich’s private, decades old sins have to do with the sky-rocketing prices of gasoline and Big Macs, and no jobs?

  • Newt has acknowledged his wrong. He does not have to “grovel” before the public. Only before God. We do not know what transpired between him and his ex-wives.
    I question more Marianne’s motive after all these years. This was an opportunity for vengeance. That seems more apparent. I do sympathize with her, as that happened to me. But I learned a long time ago, I had to let the resentment go. This was not a show of her good sense and her “character” to tear him apart at this time. My opinion only.
    With the stupidity of many of our politicians we have had in office, plus President’s who openly committed adultery, I hardly think that Newt’s conduct 20 yrs ago, should be a problem. He has much to offer. Some people cannot forgive. We as Catholics better. I am just saying that if this is the only reason to not vote him in, a self-examination may be in order. I can’t see another candidate up there that has a “chance” of beating Obama. That is the real goal. The other candidates are “nice”, but not strong enough in my opinion. Not experienced enough. Remember, he was not Catholic at that time. When you convert to Catholicism, your past life is remembered no more. In God’s eyes this marriage is their first. Just saying…………….

  • By the way, if the measure of a man’s committment to marriage would make a better President…..Ron Paul stated he has been married 54 years. Would you want him to be President??? We would be speaking in middle east “tongues”. Just saying again…….

  • 430 – A person exits the confessional pure, not flawless. I forgive Newt, and rejoice at the prospect of his attaining Heaven, but that’s not the same thing as trusting him.

  • Pinky – What exactly do you think he did that was so detrimental to our country that you would not trust him? Just because his marriages? That does not make sense. He did many good things during his years as Speaker. If he made mistakes, so what. Remember, the country’s well being did not hinge on “Newt Gingrich” only. There has been corruption all through our politically history by many. Well, we have to trust somebody. If past mistakes of humans is the only measure for some, then I guess life is going to be very hard for many to trust anyone. You certainly are entitled to make your choice. Just my thoughts. I was told by a Priest that when I walk out of the confessional those sins are gone and remembered no more. I have to let them go too or else I would not be trusting the Lord. We get a new lease on life every time we go to confession. Everyone is flawed including the other candidates and neighbors and family. We do have to trust someone. I do understand sometimes caution is in order in life with people, but we are talking very difficult times and a very important election. To me perfect character with these candidates won’t go far with Obama. I could be wrong, but I would not trust Santorum or Romney to beat Obama. Newt knows about his marriages better than anyone else what he did. I don’t think many can handle his intelligence. Of course he will need a congress as every President can’t do it all alone. Well……Obama has at times. Oh well.

  • Pinky: What did Newt do to you?

    Media Bias: Adultery, fornication, infidelity, promiscuity were not newsworthy in 1992 and 2008. For those people, sodomy is a basic human right.

    Professor Jacobson: “On the two key inflammatory statements made against Newt, ABC News presented the statements without challenging his accuser based on readily available public information casting doubt on her version of events. We can debate the propriety of running an interview with a bitter ex-spouse at a critical juncture in a campaign. What is not open to debate is that ABC News used Marianne Gingrich for its own purpose of trying to damage one of the top contenders for the Republican nomination.” Instapundit: “It’s as if they’re just dutiful apparatchiks or something.”

    Work the curse of the drinking class!

  • 430 – Praise God, we are all cleansed by Jesus through the sacraments of Baptism and Confession. No argument there. And really, not much of an argument about the rest, either. We each can judge the candidates by our own prudential criteria. And I’m not saying that we shouldn’t trust Gingrich. I’m saying only that we aren’t required to trust him.

  • Pinky – Well taken, but we all need to think about this election and who can beat Obama. With all the problems we face here and abroad, including the loss of family values and morals, we better pay real good attention and try to elect a candidate with our intelligence rather than emotions. I also believe Newt would fight to end Roe Vs. Wade, Gay Marriage, repeal Obamacare and stop the persecution of our Christian faith in USA and maybe abroad. Santorum and Romney (maybe) would too. But they can’t beat Obama as far as I see now. Again I may be wrong. Time will tell. God Bless.

  • Some seemon here (1) to forget that a condition for forgiveness as Matthew tells us “when you go to the altar and remember (a hurt done to you) go seek reconciliation with that person, then come back with your worhip offering. IF Mr Gingrich get an annulment as one would presume, there is a process for both parties to exchange views, and each may respond if each wishes. One cannot either way presume that he made some form of apology or offer to do so, especially since he was becoming Catholic. (2) I remind all on here again that Mr Gingrich continued to explain that – not only was the allegation against his conduct out publicly already but he said his daughters and others who knew the circumstances could have added balance or even repudiated his ex-wife’s ABC story so soon before the SC causus. Reminded me of the accuser of S Court Justice Clarence Thomas to ignore all his precious court appointments but came forward at the Supreme Court. The People for the “American” (?) Way spent a lot of money- I seem to recall four million dollars- to “Bork” Mr Bork whose too many opinions sank him along with the Leftists, lled by the TV producer Norman Lear founder of PFTAW who usedde sit-oms to promote the anti- moral sexula agenda of those simpler days. The abortion question seemed to be their fear. I listened until 2-3 AM the last night of the trestimony and was very impressed to hear the testimony of a professor who rode with them to the airport when he had delivered a lecture at the accuser’s university and they were very animated. Get them with cash or sex if you cannot assassinate them with a rifle. Thank God they lost second time around. i anxiously await the next POTUS to see if 44’s two “pro-abort choosers” get a third added to tip the scales 5-4 IF he wins.

  • Newt has acknowledged his wrong. He does not have to “grovel” before the public.

    Who the heck are you supposed to be quoting, here, CATHOLIC430? That goes past red herring and well into the Wookie defense….

  • (amusingly, on a post that is defending Newt from unequal targeting)

  • If the Republicans nominate Gingrich, there will be a “gender gap” of at least 25 points. As I said on someone else’s site today, I know otherwise impeccably conservative women who cannot stand the man, or at a minimum trust him as far as he can be spat.

    Though I enjoy seeing him rochambeau the media as much as the next person who despises the MSM, that’s not an argument for electability.

  • Dale, It didn’t matter in 1992 or 2008.

    You ain’t seen nothing. This vale of tears can be a lot worse.

  • Foxfire -I don’t understand what you mean by my post. You sound insulting here. You may disagree with what I say, but you seem to have an edge to your tone. What is red herring and wookie defense? I am trying to give my opinion as everyone else. I do not think Newt Gingrich should have to “grovel” before the public debates on TV regarding his personal past (20 years?). This is an election that is important. He owned up to his past. That should be enough for Catholics to understand. But you don’t have to vote for him if you don’t want to. This is between him, his wife and God. They have been at him about this, which he knew they would. I am not defending his past life, but it’s not relevant now. I don’t know what you did not understand. There is no quote, it’s my own opinion.

  • You sound insulting here.

    And more good, red herring….

    What is red herring and wookie defense?

    It means that you are trying to distract attention and turn a discussion to a subject that you prefer. Donald mentioned one before, and the other is the internet cousin.

    The topic of the post is “Media bias and the morality police.” I’d imagine it took a while to write and format, not counting any time thinking about it and polishing some reasoning.

    You respond by implying that it is about how Newt needs to abase himself to overcome the weight of his past– quotes in that context imply that you are quoting someone, generally in the same stream of conversation that the statement is made– and imply that anyone caring about Newt cheating on multiple wives is defying Jesus.

    This is a topic that you should be able to jump right on board with– the topic of people actually singling out Newt for attacks on his personal history— and you can’t even keep close to it, or avoid the same accusation you’ve made several times already that taking Newt’s weaknesses into account is stepping into God’s area? (With a side implication that those who don’t agree might not “understand” the way they should as Catholics.)

    And you think that I sound insulting….

  • Foxfier – You are too smart for me. You got me!!! 😉 But I will say what I think and feel. Who made you the editor of how posts should be? I have no idea what you mean. I was putting in an opinion and maybe persuade others to look at it in a different way. So what? We are allowed to try to influence each other. This topic is about the Presidency. We as Catholics have to make judgements certainly, but not be judgemental. There have been a lot of judgement on Newt for his marriages. I am talking about using our Catholic Teachings as a guide if this is the only barrier to considering him. I don’t need to use red herrings as you put it. I say what I think and feel and try not to harm anyone or insult anyone. That does not mean that one cannot disagree with me. This is definitely in God’s area when we start using people’s mistakes in life after they have repented. Do we know he did? That’s not my call. He has very good ideas on how to change the way Washington is run. And he is strong enough. This is not written in stone. We don’t know, but it’s all we have. I want Obama out like many others. I think he would be able to do it. By the way, with all due respect, there are so many Catholics that don’t understand the teachings of the church and Christ. I only know what I know and can respond to it. I will always try to bring our faith into areas in a discussion if I feel it appropriate. God Bless.

  • It’s interesting that a lot of the people who are trusting in Newt’s conversion of heart are the same people who most vociferously distrust Romney’s conversion on abortion.

  • I was putting in an opinion and maybe persuade others to look at it in a different way.

    By hijacking posts to say the same thing you’ve said elsewhere on this blog, making the same accusations against those who disagree with you and follow it up with accusations? By arguing against things that aren’t said? (which would be strawman, from Donald’s lovely list.)

    We know what Churchill said about those who can’t change their minds and won’t change their subjects– what is there to say about someone who changes everything to the same subject just to say the same thing over and over?

    But I will say what I think and feel. Who made you the editor of how posts should be?

    I’m someone who is interested in the original topic of the post, rather than reading what you “think and feel” for the umpteenth time.

    Media bias is important and insidious, since it warps the way that reality is portrayed. Examining, evaluating and making arguments for and against aspects of how media bias touches on elections and “politics” (which, sadly, includes things like all humans are human) in general is a very important topic.

    Incidentally, one of the great strengths of the Church is that it is rational, not impulse/emotion based, and it teaches that we can reason out a great deal– one of my favorite gifts from God, really.

  • Paul Z.,

    “It’s interesting that a lot of the people who are trusting in Newt’s conversion of heart are the same people who most vociferously distrust Romney’s conversion on abortion.”

    Newt converted to Catholicism. Romney remains a pagan LDS adherent. That being said, I would not be surprised that the percentage of Mormons who lead moral lives might exceed the percentage of Catholics. Nevertheless, Romney has not converted, and Newt did. Romney simply changed his mind on a subject that he knows he must win in the hearts and minds of conservative Christians which he is demonstrably not.

  • “Pinky: What did Newt do to you?”

    T – I thought that was a well-delivered response and I took it as such, but I’ve been thinking about that question more and more, and I need to answer it seriously.

    He embarrassed me. As a conservative, as a Republican, and as an American, he embarrassed me. He walked out on his first wife, then walked out on his second wife. And that does offend me more than I ever realized. And then – and this may the worst part – he acts huffy when he gets called out on it. And that grates on me. I cheered when he criticized the press for their stupid, liberally-biased questions, and then he uses the same tone to criticize the press for talking about something he doesn’t wanna, just because he doesn’t wanna. And that discredits the entire conservative critique of the media. And that makes me feel like he still doesn’t recognize the difference between the message and himself.

    He reminds me of a problem drinker who’s fallen off the wagon a couple of times, and now gets upset when I check his breath before tossing him my car keys. That’s the same kind of self-importance that derailed a political movement that I believed in. So yes, I expect a little less Pharisee and a little more tax collector from him when the subject of infidelity comes up.

  • Well, well, well…
    If Jesus were here to read all of the hateful comments directed at The President of The USA, and at followers of the Mormon faith, and other, ….as a defense of this Newt Gingrich, he would be astonished to see how his Words have been interpreted.

    As a member of the Roman Catholic Church I have to say it’s really quite perverse, how people that claim to follow the teachings of Christ are so willing to foster hatred and refuse to see the hypocrisy of their actions.

  • Doctor,

    If you voted for that nothing, thank you for ruining my country.

    All that justice and peace stuff is cynical political posturing.

    The government is wrecking the people.

    Today, in St. Louis, your president bragged about forcing religious employers to pay for contraceptive and soon abortions.

  • Pinky,

    “Forgive all injuries.” For our MD obama worshiper: that is one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy.

    I forgive those who harm me.

    Did Newt harm you or is it pride?

    Here’s the drill: repentance, Confession, penance, amendment of life and good works for the greater glory of God Almighty through Jesus Christ in the unity of the Holy Spirit. I Hope (this is one of the Theological virtues) that Newt is on that road, as I hope I am.

    PS: I know the devastation of alcoholism. My brother killed himself with drink, and ruined his family; that killed my father, too. Don’t equate what Newt did with that.

  • The President of the United States is a murderer of unborn babies and a sanctifier of the filth of homosexual sodomy.

    The former governor of Massachusetts is a pagan who believes that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, God the Father had sexual intercourse with the Virgin Mary, and if he tithes enough to a Mormon Temple, then he himself will be elevated to godhead and put in charge of his own planet after death.

    In earlier times the Church dealt with apostates, heretics and pagans more forcefully than it does today. We’ve gotten better. But remember how St. Peter dealt with Ananias and Sapphira, how St. Paul dealt with the adulterer at the Church in Corinth, and how St. John dealt with Jezebel at Thyatira- what they did would each be classified as that unforgiveable crime of “not nice.”

    Was God “not nice” when He had Sennecharib drag evil King Manasseh by a ring through his nose to a dungeon in Assyria because he murdered babies the way that godless man of sin Obama does? You bet He wasn’t nice. And being God, God does not change one iota. If Obama doesn’t repent, then sadly the same is possible for him. Do we want that? NO! But might it become necessary? YES! So get on your knees and pray for repentance!

    But to today’s liberals who call themselves Catholic, telling such truth in public is hatred but love is giving assent to intrinsic evil. Do you want souls to go to hell? St. Paul handed that incestuous adulterer at Corinth over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh so that his soul would be saved on the last day. 2nd Corinthians chapter 2 records that St. Paul’s efforts were successul – the pervert repented! Better that that happens to Romney and Obama than that they go to hell. How is that unloving? Or do you prefer we love them into hell?

    I despise and loathe liberalism and the doctrine of “be nice and tolerant.” The Saints were anything but nice and tolerant. And so was Jesus.

    PS, Gingrich repented. Period.

  • I will answer to any blog I want unless the owner of this website tells me different. I have not attacked anyone. I have responded to one post personally and that was Pinky. This is my first time on this website. If there is anyone that I have insulted I certainly did not intend to do so. I responded to the ideas in several posts. I can answer the same if I want to. If there are any rules that I am breaking I would appreciate someone else telling me this. It seems only one person is irate with me. If this continues I will call the site myself and complain. This is any open forum. I can repeat certain ideas if I want to. This is America and I have Free Speech. If I don’t like something I read, I will not attack them. I will ignore them. I appreciate feedback, but not condescending posts telling me off.
    God Bless.

  • OK, that is quite enough on this thread about Mormonism. There are any number of grounds to oppose Romney, but Mormonism is not going to be one of them on this blog. Any further comments attacking Romney for his inherited religion will be deleted.

  • Sorry, Donald – that was me. If Romney is the nominee, then I will definitely vote for him. I was trying to make a point with Leon and went too far.


    -10 pts for me.

  • … but not condescending posts telling me off.

    Can dish it out, but not take it?

    If you think I’m irate, I’m afraid you’re very sheltered.

    There are rules.
    They’re linked up top, under comments policy. If you can find a number to “call” the site at, I’d be surprised, but I have no fear of you contacting the editors of TAC “to complain” when– horrors!– someone else says what they “think and feel” about you constantly dragging the topic to how sinful it is for anyone to even considers serial adultery to be worthy of consideration.

  • This is typical of most the mainstream media. If a story can damage a Republican they will spare no effort to get it, even if it is essentially an old story from 14 years ago with little new news in it. A Democrat scandal however, will usually be greeted with indifference by most of the mainstream media until such time as it gets big enough that they have to cover it.

    It’s not just a R/D divide– last fall a little boy (IIRC he’s autistic) went missing, and after several days of searching, a guy came forward and asked the police if they’d looked in an area. They had, so he asked if he could do it again, and walked out with the child in no time– the little boy was fine. He checked out as not involved in the kid’s disappearance, but requested that his name be kept private because it wasn’t his doing, the Holy Spirit had come to him and told him where the boy was. I vaguely remember the story, but hadn’t heard anything about the Holy Spirit being involved; a friend from the area mentioned it, because she gets both the “local” paper and reads the national papers. It was mentioned locally, but gradually got dropped the further you got from the town.

    The worldview of the reporters is probably very important– there’s a theory about history that boils down to, well, history gets boiled down so it fits into stories. If stuff shows up already boiled down, you’d better at least know how the cook tends to be so you know how much salt to add!

  • HA!! Now I figured out what the problem is. I linked to this blog and read some posts and was putting in my opinions not realizing that Donald Mcclarey put a topic that we were supposed to reply to. Again this is my first day on this blog. I did not know there was a format to follow. No wonder some may be confused by my posts. I was replying to some posts regarding Newts candidacy and the attacks because of his past marriages and was trying to relate my Catholic faith to certain responses. DONALD MCCLARY I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE FORMAT. Are you the person who leads the topics for people to respond? I am sorry if I caused any upset here.

  • If you’re that new to blogs, email me– foxfier “at” gmail “dot” com — and I’ll try to explain how it works. Think more like a news paper (this is the ‘front page’) where you can comment on the articles than, say, a bulletin board. (which sounds like what you’re talking about)

  • at 7:50pm
    “Well, well, well…
    If Jesus were here…”
    “As a member of the Roman Catholic Church I have to say it’s really quite perverse, how people that claim to follow the teachings of Christ are so willing to foster hatred and refuse to see the hypocrisy of their actions.”

    Is that comment an example of reverse psychology?
    Also, no “ifs” about the fact that Jesus is here, and not just for “members” only.

    When He commissioned His disciples, Jesus said “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, … , teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Matthew 28:20
    See also Mark Ch. 16
    Faith, Hope, and Love for God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

  • Gingrich’s self-righteous indignation doesn’t play well with me. Let me count the ways . . .

    GINGRICH: I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.

    I know something more destructive, more vicious, and more appalling: serial adultery.

    GINGRICH: Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things.

    So that’s what his wife went through: personal pain. Like some kind of disease or accident. Just one of those things that happens, you know? Divorce happens. Adultery happens.And sometimes adultery happens three times.

    To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.

    I know something more despicable: unrepentant adultery combined with self-righteous indignation. The pretense of penitence gave way to the only kind of response that could save Gingrich’s “open” minded libido: deny, deny, counter-accuse.

    Forgiveness is entirely applicable in this situation, whether or not Gingrich really has reformed. He is to be loved with compassion. But love doesn’t refuse to judge character. And Gingrich’s uber-narcissistic character revealed itself with all its grandiose glory last night.

    The only person Gingrich has the right to be appalled at is himself.

  • I know something more despicable: unrepentant adultery combined with self-righteous indignation.

    As has been pointed out, he did repent.

    As much as it may not bother you, I am greatly bothered by rules or standards being selectively applied. As much as Newt’s background makes me slow to trust him– a debt forgiven is made even, not made to have never existed– I wish that he could give the other candidates lessons in how to respond to these gotcha type questions.

  • Bah, “may not bother you relative to everything else,” gotta watch my implications.

  • PS, Gingrich repented. Period.

    I will say this: when I saw Gingrich at the end of mass at the National Shrine in Washington, D.C., he was texting, not singing. But you know, here’s his idea of repentance:

    There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.

    Not appropriate? He loved his country too much to love his wives? He worked too hard not to commit adultery over and over again?

    But you know, there is this quote:

    I’ve spent many nights in agonizing tears, Bill, knowing how much my two girls have suffered because of my addiction to lust. I look back on those years, and the only thing that keeps me from giving into despair is my love for God, and my trust in his mercy.

    Now, this quote almost convinces me, except that I just made it up.

  • On the merits of King’s question: it deserved to be asked, and deserved to be asked up front. Why? Because the man is an unquestioned liar, hypocrite, and two-time vow-breaker. It is entirely with his puffed-up ego to request an “open” marriage: especially since it would be far more politically expedient to have a mistress rather than another public scandal. So what if liberals give liberals a pass on sexual ethics: the liberals don’t claim to have repented, and the liberal constituents don’t claim to care. Of course liberals are going to hold conservatives feet to the flames when it comes to perceived hypocrisy. Except in this case, it isn’t perceived.

  • Newt’s repentance is after the scandals, Nate.

    Also, if you listened to his ex-wife, it sounds more like he was complaining she was too clingy. (Probably with good reason, since she was “the other woman” at one point, but it still doesn’t sound like ‘I want to sleep with other people while still married to you’.)

    and the liberal constituents don’t claim to care

    Not true. Those constituents who are publicly catered to care when it’s useful– when it’s not, they don’t.
    Liberals don’t claim to be sexually pure, but they do claim respect for women.

    On the merits of King’s question: it deserved to be asked, and deserved to be asked up front.

    So, accusations– which cannot be proven one way or the other– about a topic that is widely known should be brought up at every excuse, but ONLY if the target is a conservative?

  • “Personally, I find Newt’s behavior in his first two marriages to be despicable, and I still find him preferable to Romney and light years better than Obama.”

    OK, no arguing about tastes, but how exactly do you find a serial adulterer better than Obama, character-wise?

    I mean, why confine yourself to Newt’s marriages while ignoring his affairs?

    And why on earth would you find a treacherous bastard like Gingrich to be more moral than Romney, who at least has stayed with the mother of his children?

    Not to mention Obama, who is also still happily married to the mother of his children?

  • “OK, no arguing about tastes, but how exactly do you find a serial adulterer better than Obama, character-wise?”

    I said that I found him preferable as President. The reasons for that would include:
    1. That Gingrich does not view unborn children as disposable property that can be slain at the whim of the mother, as does Obama.

    2. That Gingrich understands that government spending must be slashed if we are not going to end up in national bankruptcy, unlike Obama.

    3. Gingrich is pledged to repeal ObamaCare.

    4. Gingrich would appoint judges and justices that understand that the Constitution is not a license for them to act as Platonic Guardians and legislate from the bench, unlike Obama.

    The list could go at considerable length, but suffice it to say that I cannot think of any aspect of Obama as President where I would prefer him to Gingrich.

    As to Obama’s character, considering that he has had a lap dog media running interference for him every step of his career, I believe that there are quite a few lacunae in his life that the media has never been eager to fill in. However we do know a few things.

    He and his family for decades attended a Church run by Reverend Wright that seemed to specialize in racial hatred rather than Christianity.

    Obama has been a political associate of William Ayres, an unrepentant member of the Weather underground, and a domestic terrorist responsible for deaths in bombings in the early seventies, including the daughter of a late friend of mine, James Oughten.

    He won his US Senate seat by behind the scenes engineering of the release of damaging divorce information about two of his opponents: Blair Hull in the Democrat primary who was the odds on favorite to win, and Jack Ryan in the general election. Politics is a low business at best, but using information in sealed divorce cases, where none of the parties involved wanted the information released, struck me as bringing politics to an all time low.

    Obama throughout his career has been an outspoken ally of Planned Parenthood, an organization I lovingly refer to as Worse Than Murder, Inc, and I think that is a sign of very bad character indeed.

    Obama’s administration has shown, through its policies, a complete disdain for Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. I would direct you to these posts on this blog:

    If Obama is a man of good character, it is a trait very well concealed.

  • I wonder how many of us have been addicted or still are. The conventional wisdom is Freduian and attributes the root evil to being hurt emtionally in the first five years of life. From that alienation comes addictions to cover for it, medicate for it, and we get Power, which is rooted in the first deadly sin of hubris, excessive pride which is from the dark side of insecurity- then one or two more manifetations such as alcohol, gambling, and various sexual activities. Seeing the various attempts to dismiss, denouce, criticise Newt’s past on here reminds me that not all have dealt with our own demons. IF we have faced, named and dealt with our own demon(s) acknowledged that my sin has been forgiven and Jesus is merciful, we could never say your sin is worse or i cannot forgive you for doing that. Jesus was rather blunt about it, the public sinners of His day would make it to the Kingdom before the tu-tut tut -ers who were sick but did not humbly go to the Hospital where He is the physician. Sexual sins are not in and of themselves the worst kind.

  • In my post the other day I said that Newt has used people in his life as if he viewed them as nothing more than pawns. I would submit that though there is no evidence of adultery in Obama’s life, he has a similar vice, and it is a vice that continues to manifest to this very day. Those unfortunate sad sacks that he trots out at press conferences and State of the Union addresses are nothing more to him than pieces he can use to advance a political agenda.

    An ability keep one’s pants zipped is not the only marker of one’s character.

  • At this point even before the SC caucus, my view of this very long thread is we have said everthing , and repeated it, about all the candidates, repeated all their faults and continued to compare “Evils.” Tennis anyone?

  • Fair enough, Paul. I don’t think anyone is saying that Newt’s errors make Obama virtuous, or even preferable. I think that 430 and especially the MD are getting beaten up not for what they said, but for what a lot of people who say the same things also say. Or, to put that a little more coherently, for sounding like people we might disagree with.

    We all agree on the facts. We all share the same faith (as far as I know). We agree that abortion in America is a great evil, and that three wives doesn’t make you a Mormon.

  • I think that 430 and especially the MD are getting beaten up not for what they said, but for what a lot of people who say the same things also say.

    Where did this happen, specifically? There has been a lot of replying to what people haven’t said, but mostly 430 (accidentally) did it, while Leon dropped one post that was specifically responded to then ignored.

  • Also– cowalker implied that O both more virtuous and preferable to Newt.

  • Foxfier, cowalker didn’t say anything about Obama being preferable to Newt, if you mean preferable as a potential president. T. Shaw called the MD an Obama-worshipper. And I probably said a few obnoxious things, myself. And as to Paul Primavera’s comment about the saints, they weren’t “nice and tolerant”, but they were nice. Nicer than we tend to be on the internet, once a debate gets heated.

  • Pinky- yes, he did imply that O was clearly morally better than Newt, and as he was replying to the statement: Personally, I find Newt’s behavior in his first two marriages to be despicable, and I still find him preferable to Romney and light years better than Obama, that means that he was implying that he was also better president material.

    Yes, Shaw called the MD an Obama-worshiper, probably on the basis of his one comment being a rather out-of-the-blue defense that seemed more like a scan-and-respond than a read-and-respond; perhaps T. Shaw googled Leon’s name and found that he’s got a cottage industry of denouncing conservatives.
    Foonman is a rather unusual name, but he’s on facebook. Doesn’t show up as a doctor anywhere, though, isn’t in the AT&T phone number database, etc, but if you can get google to work for you you’ll get LOTS of “I denounce you” type statements. (Amusing: search for ‘foonman “As a lifelong Republican”‘. Less than a week since he left the party, though there’s years of attacks….)

    And as to Paul Primavera’s comment about the saints, they weren’t “nice and tolerant”, but they were nice.

    Punching people is nice?! (old Saint Nick) Jerome was, as I remember, a really cranky old man, and I seem to remember a lot of saints just wanted to be left the heck alone. St. de Paul, by his own description? I seem to remember that some groups of monks came about because the head holy man wanted to be left alone, and the more harsh hurdles they put in place, the more men came to follow them.

    The saints are to be loving— and frequently, that is ANYTHING but nice!

  • Professor Joseph Campbell on Media Bias: “ABC News offered yesterday a risible lineup of two-timing politicians that omitted Bill Clinton, the philandering 42nd president, but included Thomas Jefferson, about whom the evidence of sexual dalliance is thin at best.”

    Sorry, I just learned Obama gave the Church a year of grace before it must pay for abortions and contraception.

    I now realize it is forbidden to say bad things about President Obama or his virtuous acolytes. I keep forgetting all this is punishment for 400 years of racism.

    I will forthwith STFU.

    There is no evident of Obama being or doing anything. We don’t know the name of his dope dealer. We don’t know the name of the blond he slept with for 18 months. That’s adultery, too.

    Somewhere some Birther found evidence our scourge received college student loans in connection with a program intended for foreign students.

    The whip won’t air his birth certificate because “what the eff does that have to do with punishing you for being racists?”

  • “And as to Paul Primavera’s comment about the saints, they weren’t ‘nice and tolerant’, but they were nice.”

    Saint Paul wrote that he hope that the Judaizers at the Church in Galatia would cut it all off – Galatians 5:12. St. John the Baptist called the Pharisees a brood of vipers – “who warned you to flee the wrath to come?” – Matthew 3:7-12. Say comments like that here at TAC and you could get banned!

  • Buyers’ Remorse Department?: “Almost every employer and insurer in the country forced to provide sterilization and contraceptives, including some abortion-inducing drugs, in their health plans… Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience. This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights.” designate-Cardinal Tim Dolan, NYC.

    Not altogether true: Obamacare forces US citizens to buy health insurance.

    The Scourge must think we’re stupid: He says he’ll prohibit the Canada oil pipeline; impose life/death-crisis-solving Obamacare; and force the Church to pay for abortion drugs, etc. after they re-elect punishment for 400 years of racism. Four more years!

  • See, I used to think this way too. You can always find selected quotes that make the saints look combative. But I recently read a biography of St. Joan of Arc – I was expecting her to be an angry, violent anti-Brit. It turns out that she was a compassionate person who prayed for her opponents and begged them to leave the field of battle and go to Confession. Then I read a biography of St. Dominic – surely, he’s got to be a tough one, right? A crusader, the proto-Inquisitor? He won people over by his preaching and simplicity of life. The trait that struck people most about him was his kindness. St. Frances de Sales, a leader of the Counter-Reformation who converted the French Calvinists, of all people, did so by being the warmest guy you’d ever want to meet and never giving up on anyone. And the more I’m reading, the more I find that these great figures of the Church were not heavy-handed.

    We live in a screwed-up time, when polite people won’t stand up for anything. In response to the wishy-washiness of our age, we’ve become convinced that we have to be hard. We (I) want our saints to be tough guys who are right but not good, because that’s something that I know I can be. Well, guess what – we’re supposed to be both. I don’t have the right to be nasty to people online simply because what I’m saying is true. We’re supposed to be right and good, have truth and love. And sometimes love *is* saying the difficult thing, but that doesn’t mean that being a difficult person is a sign of charity.

    And this is something I’ve really been struggling with. I want Father Kolbe to be shooting Nazis with a high-powered rifle. I prefer the ornery Latin Mass crowd to the feel-good Novus Ordo gang. But truth be told, I know that we’re supposed to be as nice as the dippiest liberal and as correct as the most bitter orthodox person. That path is so narrow that I don’t think I can make it sometimes, but it’s the right path.

  • Pinky, for what it’s worth, I found that in teaching inner city high school seniors that a happy intolerance always worked wonders in dealing with misbehavior. If I gave them an inch, they’d take a mile. If I showed the the slightest negativity, they’d escalate.

    A ruthless intolerance of evil, combined with a joyfulness of spirit, is about the hardest thing I’ve ever had to do. Especially when I didn’t feel very joyful, or I didn’t feel like confronting some small infraction. But it kind of sounds a lot like what you’re describing in the saints.

  • We are called to love God with our whole beings and with all our might. Second, we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves.

    That love does not always mean we should be nice.

    One translation of the Old Testament saying is, “Spare the rod, hate the child.”

    The humanists with their blinders on human dignity seem too often to discard the concept of evil and that evil must with charity be resisted.

    Our ardor/zeal must be for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls, our’s and our sisters’ and brothers’. “What has a man gained if he wins the entire World, but has lost his immortal soul.” St. Paul, I think.

    From the Spiritual Works of mercy:

    Admonish the sinner.

    Counsel the doubtful.

    Instruct the ignorant.

    These may require us to be other than “nice.”

    Then, more Spiritual Works:

    Forgive all injuries.

    Pray for the living and the dead.

    Did I miss any?

  • You can always find selected quotes that make the saints look combative.

    When did we go from “nice” to “not combative”?

    And how does being able to find a few saints who don’t strike you as “combative” show that none of them are, in the face of the testimony of the saints themselves?

    Congratulations, you proved that some saints aren’t combative in your view, even when they are famous for leading soldiers into battle— taken with the other evidence offered, there are a wide range of saints. I’ll take saint Maximilian Kolbe and raise you St. Gabriel Possenti, Michael the Archangel and Jesus himself in the Temple.

    Possibly, the root of this entire issue is one of definition– what on earth do you mean when you say “nice”? Generally, it’s used to mean pleasant or agreeable— neither of which describe a saint when faced with the wrong situation; on the other hand, from the way you’re using it, you’re using “nice” to mean “not a total donkey,” part of the time, and the rest of the time it’s not clear what on earth you mean.

    Paul P. clearly used it in the “non-confrontational” sense.

  • These days just plainly call for a return to objective reality.
    The media and Oval Office people are serving. The baffled by b.s. voting public is: either being good so no one shuts them up with insults and name tags or worse; or on to the rules of acquiring public funds for support and care. Hear no, see no, speak no (don’t even say the word…). The rest of the voting public has 75% of 2012 left to not stfu about good and evil, truth and hypocrisy, oaths of office and accountability, budgets and accounting, bailouts and accounting, debt and accounting, money trails and accounting, humor and aspersion, virtues and values, or propaganda and facts.

  • Pingback: South Carolina Surprise | The American Catholic
  • Foxfier – I guess I’m thinking mostly of the virtue of gentleness. And yes, I know that there are times when anger is appropriate.

  • Pinky-
    so, you scolded Paul P. for saying the saints weren’t nice when you meant they sometimes express gentleness?

    You then defend your claim that the saints were (implied, all) nice by pointing out, basically, that they were not the idiot bulls in a china shop that you had imagined them to be? Rather than caricatures, they were… well… holy people? Perhaps ones that express the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity? What made you think that Paul P. did not know that?

    Incidentally, gentleness isn’t a virtue. It’s one of the fruits of the Spirit.

    Here’s from a bit below the one mention of gentleness, the “in brief” explanation of the cardinal virtues:
    1833 Virtue is a habitual and firm disposition to do good.
    1834 The human virtues are stable dispositions of the intellect and the will that govern our acts, order our passions, and guide our conduct in accordance with reason and faith. They can be grouped around the four cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance.
    1835 Prudence disposes the practical reason to discern, in every circumstance, our true good and to choose the right means for achieving it.
    1836 Justice consists in the firm and constant will to give God and neighbor their due.
    1837 Fortitude ensures firmness in difficulties and constancy in the pursuit of the good.
    1838 Temperance moderates the attraction of the pleasures of the senses and provides balance in the use of created goods.

    (Whole big huge quote because I couldn’t find a good spot to make it any more brief. It’s like it was written by experts or something. /joke)

  • I wish to thank and concur with Dr LF. I have quoted St Aaugustine often, we love the sinner but hate the sin. And we have absolutely no business judging the sinner, EXTERNALLY, without knowing the facts or circumstances of the sin- we certainly cannot rely on the media for “truth” and “facts” As to judging the person’s heart – that is always off limits, Jesus has that brief. Now as to saints having faults. Being a saint does not mean the person was faultless. Some had bad tempers, St Jerome who translated the Bible had a notorious temper. Augustine was a sex addict in today’s terms before his conversion, then lived a chaste life and became a bishop. As long as each of us is in this flawed world of sin and grace, we can move forward- Newt can be a faithful husband and it is possible that the very young Mr Obama could eventually become a pro-life citizen. No one of us can guess, Ask St Paul about his striking conversion on the road to Damascus; or the woman in the Roe v Wade case in 1973 who is now for unborn life and a Catholic.

  • Foxfier – Gentleness is a virtue, but not a cardinal virtue.

  • HT-
    We’re not judging the state of the sinner’s soul, we’re trying to figure out if someone is up to a difficult job when he’s got a huge, known weakness that he publicly has admitted to
    . And nobody was talking about if the saints were perfect– Pinky just claimed they were always nice, and we’re trying to get to the bottom of what he(?) means.

    Again, you’re not being very clear. Are you speaking of “virtue” in the secular sense of “a trait showing good morals,” or in the Catholic sense of “a habitual and firm disposition to do the good”? In the former way, you’re right, in the latter, you’re mistaken, since gentleness is a possible result rather than a cause. (Which is rather cool, when you think of it– our language has been so influenced by the Church that the natural drift of common use is theologically important! That’s even bigger than when I first realized as a little kid that holidays were “holy-days” and that it’s “Christ’s Mass”– not just Christian, but Catholic.)
    Either way, the problem stands– there is a long list of examples of saints not being gentle in the least, following in the footsteps of Jesus in the Temple.

  • The Theological virtues: Faith, Hope and Love. The greatest is Love

    The human virtues: fortitude, justice, prudence, and temperance. Sometimes patience listed as a virtue.

    Moral courage (fortitude) is generally missing but is the most vital human virtue. I think General Patton said that.

  • I was referring to earlier comments about the saints’ foibles and faults.
    AS FOR YOU: What accurate knowledge does any of us have about Newt’s marriages, his former wives’ personaliities, their dynamic together, how emotionally mature he was when married to them- much younger and had a tough role in Congress.
    I am not making excuses but pointing out possible factors one considers when we have not “Walked a mile in the other person’s mocassins.”

  • Get the theology and biblical data straight. there are three theological vrtues; four cardinal virtues, produence justice temperance and forrtitude- cardinal from the Latin for hinge; patience is one of the several fruits of the Holy Spirit listed by St Paul; the gifts of the Holy Spirit are listed in Isaiah, applied to Christ in prophecy and to the confirmed person.

  • HT: Does this mean I don’t get a gold star?

    My little Rosary booklet says for the Fourth Sorrowful Mystery, The Carrying of the Cross, we should desire the Virtue of Patience. That’s where I got that.

  • TShaw, I’ll add this copied from the back page of the St. Gregory Society calendar, with which I was gifted:

    Three Theological Virtues:
    Faith, Hope, Charity (Like you said, Love for God and neighbor)

    Four Cardinal Virtues:
    Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance

    Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit:
    Wisdom, Counsel, Knowledge, Understanding, Fortitude, Piety, Fear of the Lord

    Twelve Fruits of the Holy Spirit:
    Charity, Understanding, Peace, Patience, Benignity, Goodness
    Long-suffering, Mildness, Faith, Modesty, Continence, Chastity

    Three Evangelical Counsels:
    Poverty, Chastity, Obedience

    Four Last Things:
    Death, Judgment, Heaven, Hell

    Seven Capital Sins:
    Pride, Lust, Gluttony, Covetousness, Anger, Envy, Sloth

    Four Marks of The Church:
    One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic

    Four Truths Necessary to believe for Salvation:
    1. That God exists.
    2. That there are three Persons in One God.
    3. That the Son of God became man and died for our salvation.
    4. That God rewards the good and punishes the wicked.

    The Spiritual Works of Mercy:
    1. To admonish the sinner
    2. To instruct the ignorant
    3. To counsel the doubtful
    4. To comfort the sorrowful
    5. To bear wrongs patiently
    6. To forgive all injuries
    7. To pray for the living and the dead

    The Corporal Works of Mercy:
    1. To feed the hungry
    2. To give drink to the thirsty
    3. To clothe the naked
    4. To visit the imprisoned
    5. To shelter the homeless
    6. To visit the sick
    7. To bury the dead

    There’s also the Ten Commandments, Eight Beatitudes, Mysteries of the Rosary, and the Precepts of the Church….
    It’s like a syllabus and I wish everyone had this one page reference for the coming 2012 discourse.

  • Patience=Fortitude=Moral Courage=virtuous ways
    Tomayto, tomahto

  • Thanks for putting them all in one convenient list. The Beatutudes from Mt 5 and Luke 4 would fill it out. Commandments for those who are stuck back there without working on the more demanding Beatitudes !

  • Of course you get a gold star for praying the rosary and an added bonus for associating patience with the Crowning with Thorns. Offer the next rosary for the post-ers on several topics who cannot make a point on many blogs without attacking and judging matters of which they do not have all the facts.

  • AS FOR YOU: What accurate knowledge does any of us have about Newt’s marriages, his former wives’ personaliities, their dynamic together, how emotionally mature he was when married to them- much younger and had a tough role in Congress.
    I am not making excuses but pointing out possible factors one considers when we have not “Walked a mile in the other person’s mocassins.”

    Aaaaannndd…. your point is….?
    That has nothing to do with either the conversation up to now, nor with what I actually said.
    Incidentally, while 38 might be considered “much younger” than sixty something, he was only a newbie rep the first time; 50-something isn’t that much younger than sixty-something, though he was a big man in the party for the second breakdown a decade back.

    Kind of ironic that you talk about folks judging without knowing all the facts when you can’t get the known facts right– even as simple as what was said right here!

  • CMR has a good post on the topic of “forgiveness.”

  • Chronological age has little to do with emotional and moral maturity for men ( more SO than women) as I review the world to date. Male menopause can be very devastating to men and their wives and families; human sexuality ” only dies in men three hours after men die ” as the old saw has it. judgment applies to deciding with all the facts available, if we only heard it, read it or saw it on TV from someone else it is hearsay as the Civil Courts rule.

Archbishop Chaput and the Media

Friday, August 26, AD 2011

One of the most irritating aspects of life for faithful American Catholics over the past several decades has been how quiet most of our bishops have been in the face of outrageous attacks on the Church.  Too many of our bishops have acted as if they had their spines surgically removed upon consecration.  Fortunately there have always been a handful who have been willing to speak out and suffer the media attacks that then ensue, along with the ambushes of heterodox Catholics frequently eager to lend a hand to anti-Catholics in their ceaseless war against the Church.  One of the more outspoken bishops is Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, who has never been afraid to proclaim the truth, and to do so eloquently.  He is at it again over at First Things.

Continue reading...

32 Responses to Archbishop Chaput and the Media

  • “Some of the usual suspects on the Catholic Left are upset at the Archbishop for naming some of their cherished propaganda organs…”

    I think that’s true for some. I also think that for some on the Catholic Left the NY Times reflects their view of the Church or, perhaps more accurately, what they want the Church to become.

  • Well Phillip, over the years certainly some members of the Catholic Left have been far more faithful to the magisterium of the New York Times than they ever have to the magisterium of the Church!

  • “Some of the usual suspects on the Catholic Left are upset at the Archbishop for naming some of their cherished propaganda organs…”

    They’re also upset that the Archbishop didn’t call out their own fave Catholic publications – Commonweal, America, National Catholic Distorter – as good sources for Catholic commentary. Thing is, they’re not good sources for Catholic commentary, and the Archbishop knows this. The Distorter especially – a vanguard for all that is opposed to Catholic teaching.

  • An excellent resource on this subject is the Get Religion blog, which examines coverage of all religions and religious traditions in the media and points out gaps or inaccuracies. In many stories, Get Religion says religion is present only as a “ghost” — an unnamed reference to people doing works of charity or attending rallies or “vigils” without mention of the fact that a religious motivation was behind it.

    From reading the mainstream media, you would think that thousands of people feed the hungry, travel to disaster zones, spend long hours at a sick or injured person’s bedside (doing what? PRAYING, maybe?), devote themselves to improving their communities, etc. for no apparent reason, other than, perhaps, some vague reference to their “values.”

  • “We make a very serious mistake if we rely on media like the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, or MSNBC for reliable news about religion. These news media simply don’t provide trustworthy information about religious faith”

    and CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, Wash. Post, Boston Globe, etc, etc, etc

  • We make a very serious mistake if we rely on media like the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, or MSNBC, NPR, Washington Post, Boston Globe, for reliable news about ANYTHING.

  • I would include as unreliable the Catholic News Service, which if I mistake me not, is a service of the USCCB. It gave a favorable review to the homosexual movie Heartbreak Mountain. Another disservice of the bureaucracy of the USCCB.

  • “It gave a favorable review to the homosexual movie Heartbreak Mountain”

    I take it you are referring to BROKEBACK Mountain?

    Aside from the movie reviews, whose suitability can and often will be disputed, whether or not Catholic News Service is a “reliable” source of Church news depends on how you define “reliable.”

    In the Catholic press, there is always going to be a tension between the need to promote and adhere to Church teaching and the need to realistically report what is going on in the Catholic world whether or not it is agreeable to Church teaching. I have to admit that I am somewhat biased in favor of CNS due to the fact that I once worked for a diocesan newspaper that relied heavily on CNS news, and some of whose personnel personally knew people from CNS.

    If you rely solely on traditional/conservative leaning publications, you may get the impression that conservative/orthodox/traditional Catholicism is a lot more popular and widespread than it actually is. On the other hand, if you rely on left-leaning sites like National Catholic Reporter, you get the impression that the “spirit of Vatican II” crowd still reigns supreme, which is also not the case. There still needs to be a reasonably middle of the road source of Catholic news which doesn’t actively promote dissent but doesn’t ignore its real-world impact, or ignore the fact that the Church still has a long way to go in getting most of its members fully on board with its teachings.

    While I understand the disillusionment many people have with the mainstream media, and yes they do often get things wrong, still, I think it is VERY dangerous to dismiss them completely and insist on getting ALL your news only from sources that agree 100% with your political or religious leanings. Balance is the key here.

  • Wow Elaine,
    It almost sounds like you should be writing for Vox Nova. 😉
    Well put.

  • Nah, Brett, if Elaine were writing for Vox Nova she would have to say something truly absurd like mentioning Chaput in mouth disease, and I doubt if Elaine would ever say anything like that. Finally, I doubt if Elaine could make it past the Vox Nova entrance interview:

  • You’re right Don, I would not get past Rule #2. I certainly would flunk out by Rule #5 (“Paul Krugman is the living embodiment of Catholic social teaching.”)

  • Don’t worry Elaine. They let me write whatever I want and I don’t even know who Paul Krugman is!

    Also Don, no one at VN has ever forced me to say anything “truly absurd.” Elaine wouldn’t HAVE to say anything of the sort.

    All peace and good,

  • “Also Don, no one at VN has ever forced me to say anything “truly absurd.” ”

    That is good to know Brett. Judging from Minion’s posts I assumed there was some sort of requirement.

  • I’ve got to agree with Elaine — the Catholic News Service (and even the movie reviews, though I certainly don’t always agree with them) serves a useful purpose, and I’ve never found it to be an organ used for questioning or undercutting the faith.


    To not even know who Paul Krugman is, you’d have to be skimming MM’s posts pretty thinly. After all, in the very post linked to here MM chides Archbishop Chaput for not listening to Krugman more:

    Why does Chaput not mention any of this? Is he so insecure that he cannot handle criticism of the Church in the New York Times, and must instead run to those who use the Church for their political aims? Does he see no nuance and complexity? Is he not aware that he can learn far more about the economic mess from Paul Krugman in the New York Times than anybody on any alternative media source?

    I mean, I agree with those who knock people like Voris for bishop-bashing at the drop of a hat, but this is, if anything, worse.

    I will say, though, that I’ve always enjoyed reading your posts, which are both fair and intellectually curious. (I just wish that you’d keep a separate blog like Kyle does, so that it isn’t necessary for those of us bullies who might be divisive pamphleteers of the verge of kicking off a new Reformation to wade through the main site to read your stuff.)

  • “Judging from Minion’s posts I assumed there was some sort of requirement.”

    “…I don’t even know who Paul Krugman is!”

    Brett is clearly not reading Minion’s paeans to Krugman.

  • The quoted bit from MM on Krugman hardly tells me anything beyond the fact that he writes about economics for the New York Times and that MM thinks he has some insight. Surely that is not enough for me to know whether he is “the living embodiment of Catholic social teaching,” or even if MM considers him to be such.

    Perhaps the very favorable recent posts linking to the Distributist Review should give certain people pause before they announce exactly whom the Vox Novans think accurately represents CST (or is Krugman a Distributist?) or that all Vox Novans must be of the same opinion on such matters.

  • Brett,

    VN is well known for being disobedient to the Magisterium and for attacking orthodox Catholics.

  • Tito,

    I don’t believe I’ve ever seen any of the current frequent posters on Vox Nova dissent from Catholic doctrine.

    That many of them do specialize in “friendly fire” towards other orthodox Catholics is arguably true, though.


    Well, unless the Distributist Review is not an alternative news source, it would seem that MM does believe Chaput could derive more benefit from reading Krugman than from reading the Distributist Review. (Actually, this is probably not surprising, as MM is probably too educated in regards to economics to be terribly impressed with the Distributists.)

    But to be fair, that hilarious parody dates back to when Henry, MM, MZ and Iafrate were the mainlines of Vox Nova. The place has, somewhat diluted its craziness since then.

  • Tito,

    I don’t believe I’ve ever seen any of the current frequent posters on Vox Nova dissent from Catholic doctrine.

    That many of them do specialize in “friendly fire” towards other orthodox Catholics is arguably true, though.


    Well, unless the Distributist Review is not an alternative news source, it would seem that MM does believe Chaput could derive more benefit from reading Krugman than from reading the Distributist Review. (Actually, this is probably not surprising, as MM is probably too educated in regards to economics to be terribly impressed with the Distributism, at least where economics is involved. Chesterton and Belloc were admirable in lots of ways, but their economic analysis was not necessarily great. MM is probably right to rely more on Keynes and Krugman than on Chesterton and Belloc when it comes to actual economic theory.)

    To be fair, though, that hilarious parody dates back to when Henry, MM, MZ and Iafrate were the mainlines of Vox Nova. The place has, somewhat diluted its craziness since then — in regards to contributors at least. (Oddly, the comboxes seem to have gone even further off the deep end — though perhaps that’s just a matter of the “other side” not bothering to show up much anymore. I suppose in some ways we’ve had an equal and opposite history here. Given the natural affinities of belief, it may be that political sites natural sort themselves into either right or left with few dissenting voices bothering to show up.)

  • Darwin,

    I wasn’t aware that killing children in the womb was part of Catholic teaching.

  • I’m not either, but I was giving them credit for the fact that Gerald L. Campbell hasn’t posted there in a very long time. (Though I agree it was disgraceful that everyone at the time defended his claim that being pro-choice was a legitimate exercise of subsidiarity.)

    People like MM and MZ do everything possible to support pro-abortion candidates, because those candidates happen to also be leftists, but they insist that they are not in fact pro-abortion themselves (and would vote for anti-abortion leftists if they existed) so I figure it’s fair to categorize them as unwise rather than dissenting.

    Ditto on the tendency to attack pro-lifers far more often than pro-aborts while at the same time claiming to be pro-life.

    Don’t get me wrong. I have no desire to defend them. I just want to be precise in my attacks. 🙂

  • OK, I’ll back track.

    Certain bloggers are disobedient.

    The rest of the bunch are essentially good guys and it would be nice to share a beer with them because it would make for interesting conversation(s)!


  • Precision is always appreciated. As is beer.

  • As for a personal blog, here you go:

    I’m only tempted to set up something a little more formal because I think “Ein Brett Vorm Kopf” would be a great name.

  • Can’t let a name like that go to waste!

    I guess I should just bookmark the category link. For some reason, it’s not possible to put the category links into an RSS reader.

  • It would be helpful though if those bloggers on Vox Nova who are not in dissent do correct those who post comments who are. That would make it appear less likely that they are dissenting.

  • “MM is probably too educated in regards to economics to be terribly impressed with the Distributism, at least where economics is involved. Chesterton and Belloc were admirable in lots of ways, but their economic analysis was not necessarily great. MM is probably right to rely more on Keynes and Krugman than on Chesterton and Belloc when it comes to actual economic theory.)”.

    Yes, as regards “economic theory”. But economics in practice? A good antidote to Keynes [Krugman is not worth the effort] is J.K. Galbraith’s ALMOST EVERYONE’S GUIDE TO ECONOMICS. He makes the point that economics is not that difficult to understand. Thus, in the controversy about raising the debt limit, it is not difficult to understand that you cannot keep writing checks on an account without money. Belloc understood this; GKC understood this. Even B. Obama as a senator understood this.

    In May 1939, shortly after learning that unemployment stood at 20.7%, Henry Morgenthau, the secretary of the Treasury, exploded: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.” Morgenthau concluded, “I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!”

  • From the other side of the pond, I rate the orthodoxy of your bishops according to extent that they are excoriated by the liberal media – Burke, Olmsted, Chaput et al. The fact that none of ours has yet to be targeted by the Tablet, the English equivalent of the National Catholic Reporter, is cause for concern.

Newsweek and the Demonization of Michele Bachmann

Tuesday, August 9, AD 2011

Newsweek, the newsmagazine worth every cent of the dollar it was recently sold for, is running a hit piece against Congresswoman Michele Bachmann this week.  They aren’t especially subtle about what they are doing as the cover indicates:



Here is a photograph of Michele Bachmann by a photographer not employed by Newsweek:

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Newsweek and the Demonization of Michele Bachmann

Some Gaffes Are More Equal Than Others

Monday, July 18, AD 2011

I don’t know Klavan on the Culture.  I had always assumed that the media downplays gaffes by Obama because he is obviously a genius and that therefore when he makes a gaffe it is simply a mistake, and no big deal.  Republicans on the other hand are self-evidently idiots, or they would be Democrats, and therefore when they make a gaffe it is revealing of their essential idiocy, and thus newsworthy because it alerts the public to the fact that Republicans are idiots.  No media bias here!

Continue reading...

One Response to Some Gaffes Are More Equal Than Others

  • This is driven by the progressive agenda.

    Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann don’t have Ivy credentials and once or twice misquote arcane facts in history and the dem/prog propaganda organ (a.k.a. the main stream media) call them idiots.

    Obama, Bernanke, Frank, Geithner, Pelosi, Reid, etc. devalue the dollar by printing $3 trillion in Federal reserve Note and no jobs are created; kill the coal and oil sectors – $4 a gallon gas and heating oil; take over the best health care system on Earth; slashed economic growth with 15,000 regulations and uncertainty; pass laws so they can learn what’s in them, etc. and the Obama-worshipping imbeciles repetitively claim that Bachmann and Palin are morons.

    Makes sense to them, I guess.

    We are screwed.

The Vast JournoList Conspiracy

Tuesday, July 27, AD 2010


The vast JournoList conspiracy can be called over-heated rhetoric.

But then again, facts get in the way.

The liberal staff writer for the Washington Post, Howard Kurtz, agrees with me on the left-leaning JournoList:

To conservatives, it is a pulling back of the curtain to expose the media’s mendacity.

To liberals, it is a selective sliming based on e-mails that were supposed to remain private.

But there is no getting around the fact that some of these messages, culled from the members-only discussion group Journolist, are embarrassing. They show liberal commentators appearing to cooperate in an effort to hammer out the shrewdest talking points against the Republicans — including, in one case, a suggestion for accusing random conservatives of being racist.

Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller site, which has been dribbling out the e-mails, drew fresh reaction Thursday with a piece about Journolist members savaging Sarah Palin. The former Alaska governor responded with a slam at the media’s “sick puppies,” saying she was confronted during the 2008 campaign by “hordes of Obama’s opposition researchers-slash-‘reporters.’ ” But the people making the most stridently partisan comments in the invitation-only group weren’t reporters at all — they were out-of-the-closet liberals acting like, well, liberals.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to The Vast JournoList Conspiracy

  • William Tecumseh Sherman:
    “I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast.”

  • “To liberals, it is a selective sliming based on e-mails that were supposed to remain private.”

    Well, all the participants need to do is to release the archive, something they have been unwilling to do. Of course to conservatives none of this comes as a surprise: the mainstream media, by and large, is made up of men and women who tilt left and despise conservatives. None of this of course affects their coverage of news. 🙂

  • No, not at all. Their views never affect how they report it.

    Thank beelzebub for MSNBC and CNN!

  • Iowahawk has his own special take on the controversy:

    “Welcome to the Journolist Top Secret Progressive He-Man Wingnut Haters Club and L33t H4xoR Chat Room. Disclaimer: this is a private discussion forum intended solely for the benefit of JournoList members. Reproduction, transmission, redistribution, or description, in whole or in part, of any content (including, but not limited to, private insults, insider innuendo, political manifestos, hair styling tips and/or gossip) without the expressed written consent of the commissioner is strictly prohibited. Please read and agree to the User Consent Form. And, as always, remember the first rule of JournoList: there is no JournoList.”

  • Mickey Kaus:

    “”Shut up” seems to be a favorite talking point of Journolist defenders. But I don’t think non-members need to accept their message discipline.

    Journolist was a terrible idea from the start, not so much because it enabled the promotion of “lock-steppedness” and a progressive party line across media organizations (though Salam more or less concedes that it did), or because it fostered an “us vs. them” mentality (which it also obviously did). It was a bad idea, mainly because it took a process that could have been public, democratic and transparent and gratuitously made it private, stratified and opaque. This was an odd move for “progressives” to make when confronted with the revolutionary openness of the Web. It’s as if they’d looked at our great national parks and said hey, what we really need is to carve out a private walled enclave for the well connected. Invited to a terrific party, they immediately set up a VIP room.”

  • Invited to a terrific party, they immediately set up a VIP room.”

    That seems to define many, if not most, liberals, including his Liberalness Obama, peace be upon him.

  • I wouldn’t have problems with these sorts of revelations if they were just honest in their work.

    I make no secrets about my biases and points of view, why should they? Oh yeah, to be “objective.” Well, that was their first mistake. There’s no such thing as objective journalism.

  • One feature of modern journalists is a shameless tendency to overestimate themselves. Some of them truly believe that they can reshape people’s minds, many more pretend to believe it. Or they start barking when the Vatican issues a statement in a way they wouldn’t have done, because PR is oohhh soooo important, don’t you know……
    This is simply not the case.

    I am Italian and I can tell you that even after 17 years of shameless linkage between media, politics and business the impressive media apparatus of the most famous thief in the land could never move more than a couple of percentage points of the electorate; and this not without an immense effort and expense and losing two elections in the process.

    In the UK where I now live the amazingly leftist BBC is omnipresent and utterly ignored by the electorate in its voting decisions.
    In May the “Guardian” (and old-style socialist newspaper) tried to separate themselves from the sure loser, the Labour party and supported the Liberal Democrates; the LibDems promptly went on to lose votes and seats.

    Another big newspaper, the Sun, only support the probable winner in order to be able to say that they are the kingmaker; they are rather the king’s jester, methinks

    There are notable exceptions of course, but you get my drift.

  • Has anyone really taken the MSM seriously for the past two decades? I mean, besides themselves and fellow travelers, of course.

  • Thanks to a diversity of media options and the rise of new media, liberals have lost their choke-hold on the “message” and are now complaining like a flopping fish on the beach.

  • And they’re asking for govt. money to keep them going.

  • Well, why not? everyone else is asking.

Three Cheers for a Partisan Media

Sunday, July 25, AD 2010

Americans often complain about how dirty and mudslinging politics have become.  This complaint demonstrates the lack of knowledge of their own history that many Americans today display.  As the imaginary attack ad by Adams at the beginning of this post illustrates, politics tended to be much less restrained in political attacks in the early days of our Republic.  During the campaign of 1800, Jefferson and Adams, two of the primary Founding Fathers, were called every name imaginable.   Jefferson was called, among many other things, an atheist, a weakling, a coward, a libertine, mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, and the son of a half-breed Indian squaw sired by a Virginia mulatto.    A few of the insults hurled at  Adams included  fool, hypocrite, criminal, tyrant, and that he was possessed of a hermaphroditical character which had neither the force or firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of  a woman.  The passions that were roused in that campaign are shown by gentle Martha Washington, the widow of George, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was one of the most detestable of mankind.  The press were at the forefront of this battle, with the papers of the day wearing their political affiliations emblazoned in their headlines.

And so it remained in America until after World War ii.  Up until that time, most  papers adhered to a set of political beliefs determined by the owners of the papers, and they were very upfront about it.  It was only in the postwar era, with the attempt to instill professionalism into the always somewhat disreputable ink-stained wretches, that the concept of objective journalism came to be prized as a goal and embraced by most organs of the media.  Papers that wore their ideological hearts on their sleeves, the prime example being the New Hampshire Union Leader, were viewed as survivors of an earlier stage of journalism that the press had outgrown.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Three Cheers for a Partisan Media

  • One area not discussed though is the Associate Press’ impact.

    Applying the Marketplace of Ideas theory at the core of Free Speech jurisprudence, so long as there is a robust dispute between ideas and the freedom to express them, liberty is preserved. While the Framers of the Constitution knew a thing or two about partisan politics and, while President Washington warned about the dangers, he appears to have accepted and used his party to affect policy.

    As noted above, the great variety of traditional media outlets that were aligned with particular socio-political movements balanced one another. As importantly though, most media outlets understood that “getting the scoop” was an important part of their business model. While a particular paper may have been aligned with the GOP, for example, it understood that having been “scooped” on story by a Democratic rival was bad for business. There was an intense contest for stories with reporters traveling all over the place to get or follow-up on stories.

    What we no longer seem to have is this sort of “investigative journalism.” We have the AP to thank for that.

    It is cheeper and more efficient to pick stories from the hourly AP list. Find a story on-line that you think is important? Click on any other story on the same subject and you will see that it is the same story. Thus, the readers now HAVE to rely upon the objectivity and competence of the original writer since there will be no other reporter out there writing about that particular subject or taking other photographs of the particular event.

    Case in Point:

    Last year, there was an immigration story that ran internationally about a couple, the husband of which had obtained his immigration status as the “Unmarried Son of an United States Citizen.” That classification requires that the Beneficiary be “unmarried” at the time that they obtained their Lawful Permanent Residence. (Let us set aside whether this statute is the best rule or not. It is the law, whether or not it is the best law imaginable.)

    When the US Consulate interviewed the Beneficiary, he testified under oath that he was unmarried and had never been married. He obtained his visa and the couple came to the US. Six years later, he applied for citizenship and an Examiner with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services discovered that he had obtained his status in the US through fraud. Apparently, the Examiner did not accept the claim that the Beneficiary had not understood what “unmarried and never married” meant and, whether or not intentional, the fact remained that the Beneficiary had never been eligible for the visa that he came to the US on. His citizenship application was denied. He appealed and that was denied. He was placed into immigration removal proceedings to be deported from the United States and an immigration judge found him removable. He appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals and the BIA found him removable. He appealed that decision to the District Court what found him removable and obtained an en banc review by the Circuit Court of Appeals which also found him removable. The US Supreme Court denied him certiori.

    Now, those are the undisputed facts. (I know both their attorney and several of the immigration officers that worked the case.) However, the reporter who picked up the story for the AP stated that the Beneficiary was only asking for his “day in court” – that he had not had a chance to present his case before a judge. Further, he repeated his claim that he had not understood what the Consular Officer he was originally interviewed by meant by “unmarried” or “never before married.” The immigration matters and law were utterly muttered, at one point, the reporter stated that the Beneficiary had gotten his citizenship when he came to the US and the government was now taking it away – a patently false statement and wrong as a matter of law.

    I did some digging and figured out that the “reporter” was a college Journalism major who had been published in his school paper and had had two articles about his college football team published in a local newspaper. Stated differently, the “reporter” was not a professional at all, had no experience in writing legitimate news stories of this type, and had not interviewed anyone other than the Beneficiary himself. Even the facts obtained from the Beneficiary were muddled and the legal issues could have been determined with a few very simple internet searches. And yet, the Associated Press purchased this guy’s article and then sold it to media outlets such as the Philadelphia Inquirer (where I read it). On-Line searches showed that it was picked up by overseas outlets as well.

    My point is just this… At an earlier time, there were lots of legitimate reporters out there trying to beat one another to stories and make the other outlets look foolish. This competition forced the outlets to be “professional” and to make at least a reasonable effort to get stories right or correct them later. This is no longer the case and the AP is to blame.

  • “At an earlier time, there were lots of legitimate reporters out there trying to beat one another to stories and make the other outlets look foolish… This is no longer the case and the AP is to blame.”

    Actually, I think the decline of family-owned and locally-owned newspapers in favor of corporate chains that believe the fastest way to making a profit is to drive their papers into debt and then cut (and cut and cut) staff in order to pay that debt off is far more to blame. The AP has been around in some form since the 19th Century and was around long before the age of competitive and “objective” journalism.

    The main reason you see newspapers and TV stations relying more on AP these days is because they’ve cut their staffs to the point where no one has either the time, skill, or experience to do serious investigative reporting — they can barely keep up with fires, accidents, crime reports, city council meetings, etc. Many major newspapers have also dumped their Washington D.C. bureaus and their state capital bureaus, again, forcing them to rely on AP.

  • You know, our presidents used to kill people in duels.

    Not that I’m defending dueling morally of course. I just think we were made out of tougher stuff in generations past.

  • Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri, a true larger than life character, became a fast friend of Andrew Jackson after their duel. Late in his life he was asked by a young man if he had known President Jackson. “Knew him sir? I shot him sir!”

  • Pingback: The Vast Journolist Conspiracy « The American Catholic

I am Shocked, Shocked!

Friday, June 25, AD 2010

Hattip to Ed Morrissy at Hot Air.  The Washington Post hired David Weigel, who has previously come to the attention of this blog here,  to report to their readership on that strange group called American conservatives.  This small and obscure group, only 42% of the adult population of the US according to the latest Gallup poll released today and twice the number of self-identified liberals, was the focus of the reporting of David Weigel.  To my non-surprise, Weigel is now revealed in his own words to be a bitter Democrat partisan and uber-liberal:

Weigel was hired this spring by the Post to cover the conservative movement. Almost from the beginning there have been complaints that his coverage betrays a personal animus toward conservatives.  Emails obtained by the Daily Caller suggest those complaints have merit.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to I am Shocked, Shocked!

  • I am certain that the Washington Post will now find someone to cover conservatives who does not despise conservatives.

    Hey, Donald, as you know I am originally from New York. I have a hot tip on a bridge that might be for sale. 🙂

  • I had a client once Paul who claimed to have purchased the Brooklyn Bridge, so I know it can’t be that one! 🙂

  • Must dissent. What has happened would be unsurprising at the Boston Globe or the post-Rosenthal New York Times, but the Washington Post once made a point of developing an engaging editorial page which published commentary from a variety of perspectives. They could also breed their own talent, which the Times never could. George Will, Henry Mitchell, Richard Cohen, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Kinsley, Edwin Yoder, Joseph Kraft, and Emmett Tyrell all had space at the Post when the Times was trafficking in the likes of Anthony Lewis. The Post seems to have fallen on hard times if they are hiring utter cretins.

  • Art Deco,

    Good point.

    In addition, they remove their faux conservatives to.

  • “The Post seems to have fallen on hard times if they are hiring utter cretins.”

    A dog walking on its hind legs Art always deserves applause for attempting the feat, but inevitably the dog will be walking on four legs again soon enough.

  • I did not sign up for an avatar, so what’s that doing there? That appears by my handle at Front Porch Republic as well. Hmmm….


    In all seriousness, this man’s employment is very odd. There are all manner of things about the kultursmog around the chatterati one might criticize, and I suspect it is true that there has been a general decay in the quality of thought and argument from the political opposition. (Robert Bork, who was a public figure before and after, has said there was a large and discrete change in the quality of public discourse around about 1981; 2001 also seems a year of consequence). That having been said, they have on their staff a man who is apparently not minimally curious about the terms of political conflict; also, his sensiblities are so peculiar he thought it ‘despicable’ for Gov. Palin to tweak the nose of an ‘investigative reporer’ who rented a house next door to her. This guy is not normal. Why did he apply for the position? If not, why was he assigned to it? Do his editors not know what his views are? That he resigned toute-de-suite suggests someone in the Post‘s apparat understands this as inappropriate.

  • Art Deco,

    In my near fruitless crusade to encourage our readers to sign up for gravatar, I changed the default setting for users without a custom avatar of their own, to display a generated logo from “Identicon” to “MonsterID”.

    Identicon generates those abstract random patterns you normally saw.

    MonsterID generates ‘monster’ pics.

    Since I’m no fan of abstract/pattern art, I went with MonsterID in hopes of encouraging those to sign up for (free) gravatar.


    Like Identicon, MonsterID assigns a random monster pic particular to each individuals email address.

    Hence why you recognize your MonsterID.

  • “That having been said, they have on their staff a man who is apparently not minimally curious about the terms of political conflict; also, his sensiblities are so peculiar he thought it ‘despicable’ for Gov. Palin to tweak the nose of an ‘investigative reporer’ who rented a house next door to her. This guy is not normal.”

    Quite right Art. What struck me was the jejune nature of his comments which basically amounted to grunts of “Conservatives very bad!!!”. Political movements can sometimes benefit from insightful critiques from adversaries. I have admired some of the articles by John Judis on conservatives. This fellow however had nothing to offer except a deep dislike of the movement he was supposed to cover.

    As for your avatar, God only knows what WordPress is doing. Time for you to get a more appropriate avatar:

  • Thank you for your article.I agree with Alehouses and Dan Riehl over the Dave Weigel resignation from the Washington Post. It is no surprise to me that Ben Smith is on Journolist too. Hope you will continuo your informative post.

  • Pingback: Last Weeks Top-Ten Catholic Posts « The American Catholic

Hearst Stands Behind Anti-Semite Helen Thomas

Sunday, June 6, AD 2010

Breaking News: The USA Today is reporting that Helen Thomas has retired following her anti-Semitic comments from last week (Biretta tip to TAC reader Phillip)

The Hearst Corporation, which owns Hearst Newspapers, continues to stand behind their ‘news reporter’ the anti-Semite Helen Thomas despite video evidence of her anti-Semitic remarks.

In her anti-Semitic remarks she called on Jews in the Middle-East to ‘get the hell out of Palestine’ and go back home to ‘Germany’ and ‘Poland’.  Apparently forgetting that they have been inhabiting the Holy Land for several thousands of years.

The Hearst Corporation, Helen Thomas’ employer, continues to stand behind her, but are saying her comments do not represent the values of the Hearst Corporation.

Continue reading...

49 Responses to Hearst Stands Behind Anti-Semite Helen Thomas

  • Fire the bigot. She has shamed herself, her profession and any organization she represents. Her apology rings hollow. She has revealed her true face and no mealymouthed apology can take that away.

  • The bigot should be fired. I am so sick of there being a double standard in our society. Liberals can get away with pretty much anything, while conservatives have to walk around treating every situation, every person, and everything with kid gloves for fear of being taken out of context or being falsely accused of something. She has violated journalistic integrity, ethics, and needs to go.

  • A bigot is a bigot, whether liberal or conservative! While I am personally left of center on political and social issues, I have no tolerance for racism. With respect to this issue, Hearst Corporation needs to fire Helen Thomas for her ignorant and inflammatory words and quickly distance themselves from this pitiful person.

  • GaryS,

    I tweaked my post just a bit to be more balanced.

    Bigots come from all parts of the political spectrum.

    It’s our duty as New Media journalists to call for fairness in reporting and even our columns.

    Helen Thomas may be a liberal, but that’s not the reason why she’s a bigot.

    She’s a bigot because she’s ignorant.


  • What Helen said is true,then why that much hullabaloo..
    It seems even “The American Catholic” is sleeping over the hubris of total silence which prevails here,so much so that speaking about zionist barbarism and holocaust is taboo.Lets break this shield and make this country free from the grip of zionist menace.

  • The Jew haters are crawling out from beneath their rocks Tito, which is completely unsurprising. Anti-Semitism is an interesting example of how fools project their own failings in life upon some “devil” group. Similar headcases can be seen among the ranks of Catholic haters and among those who today fear that the Masons are behind all things evil. For these type of loons, evil is personified in the group they hate and fear and reasoned debate with such idiots is as futile as attempting to debate a forest fire.

  • Liberalism is a pathology.

    God bless freedom loving-people everywhere. God bless the gallant Israel people courageously building their nation under constant rocket attacks from Gaza and south Lebanon.

    ATG: Who were the other two great POTUSes? Carter and Clinton?

    If nothing else (and there are other reasons to support Israel, including it’s our ally in the global terror war on us), Isreal is the only democracy in the entire Mid East. Seems you rats hate Jooooos more than you love freedom.

    Get out of the way. There is a war on, morons.

  • I agree, Donald. How about like debating a robot or a brick wall?

  • It’s amazing that people would come out defending such bigotry Don.

    I agree on projecting. If they would only turn to God and pray they will find relief from the grip of hate they are in.

  • Not to defend Helen Thomas in ANY way (she’s always been an overrated gasbag in my opinion), but perhaps Hearst Corp. fears that they will get MORE flak from the MSM if they throw the almost 90-year-old “dean of the White House press corps” under the bus. Perhaps a bit of reverse sexism is at work here also… they can’t bring themselves to treat a woman, especially an elderly woman, with the same harshness that would certainly be meted out to a young or middle-aged man who said the same thing?

  • Elaine,

    Playing devil’s advocate is tough.

    But in that case, then it would be reverse ageism.

  • For what its worth,

    The recent ‘go back to Poland’ remarks of Helen Thomas did not come out of the blue. She has made literally hundreds of remarks over the past 30 years that come from the same mind set.

    Anybody who considers themselves shocked at her latest remarks hasn’t been paying attention.

  • I apologize in advance.

    Jim Treacher, “Remember: You’re a Nazi for saying we should enforce our own immigration laws… But not for telling the Jews to beat it.”

  • Beat you to the punch by seconds Phillip!

    That’s an interesting crowd.

  • I support Helen Thomas.

    Helen, keep speaking your mind. You are an inspiration.

  • Though Mike gives needed perspective. Like pro-abort nuns show that some Catholics voted for Obama because he is pro-abortion, Mike shows that some who oppose any and all Israeli actions do so because they want Jews to abandon Israel.

  • WOW, I see Hamas has their media commenting here on politico, how about let’s try this. I say, “All Muslims should leave America and go back home to the middle east, I guess Mecca” put on your burkes, take off your socks, put on your crocks, and start doing some pushups to the black stone” let’s try something else, Muhammad was a evil devil, and the Muslim religion runs on blood, like a car runs on gas, Muslims survive on blood, you kill, you slaughter, even your own children if they dear take off the burke, you choke them with your own hands, and then you go to mecca, take these big iron chains and you bang yourself up until you see yourself standing in a blood bath. My point is, get out of America and do some more of that iron chain bloody banging thing.

  • Thanks Phillip for that update.

    Need/want a job that doesn’t pay anything?

  • Always looking for non-paying jobs.

  • My message is of support for Helen Thomas. Helen Thomas spoke a truth and she should be thank for her frankness. She is right – Israel should get out of Palestine. After WW II, Germany should have been required to provide the land for the Jewish home state – not the Palestinians.

    The pressure of a few Zionists changed the course of Middle East history. According to President Truman, “The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders — actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats — disturbed and annoyed me.”

    AIPAC continues that pressure and propaganda today and the White House continues to do their bidding. It’s irrational and unbalanced.

  • Germany should have been required to provide the land for the Jewish home state

    Germany, home of the Jews. Not like, say, Judea or any place near there.

  • She had de facto tenure like Strom Thurmond in the Senate and the old man who changes the toner at work. They shouldn’t be there anymore but nobody has the heart to throw them out.

    Question: When was the last time you read her column? I honestly never have.

  • RR,

    I don’t disagree, but I’d point out that the old man changing the toner is not mean and even Strom mellowed a lot with age, but HT was famous for her wicked tongue, acid pen, and unabashed anti-Semitic views. Most companies would not tolerate a toner-changer who lapses into chronic bigoted commentary.

    Also agree that no one read her though.

  • RR,

    Thurmond is elected.

    Helen Thomas is employed.

    Big difference.

  • Helen is right to tell the right-wing killer state of Isreal to get out of Palenstine!

  • “Isreal to get out of Palenstine”

    Isreal and Palenstine? If you are going to spew hate at least adjust the tin foil hat to spell check mode.

  • “The archeological record indicates that the Jewish people evolved out of native Cana’anite peoples and invading tribes. Some time between about 1800 and 1500 B.C., it is thought that a Semitic people called Hebrews (hapiru) left Mesopotamia and settled in Canaan.”

    So, why should the Jews be forced to leave Israel?

  • I don’t really care what the reason is, I’m glad she isn’t propagandizing, er, ah, I mean reporting from the White House.

    As for her being a bigot – It is an odd thing since she is of Lebanese descent that makes her as Semitic as Sephardic Jews. Of course, Karl Marx hated Jews too and he was born Jewish – go figure. She isn’t necessarily wrong that Ashkanazi Jews are of European stock (for the most part). Nevertheless, lefties tend to take a small kernel of truth and arrive at a severely erroneous conclusion. Perhaps she forgot what happened to Jews in Germany and Poland.

    She’s anti-Jewish for the same reasons most people who hate Jews are – Jews represent the spoken Word of God. Jesus was a Jew. Usually when it is unfashionable to attack Christians because they represent a political majority then it is better to attack Jews. Hitler attacked Jews because most Germans were Christian (nominally in most cases in the decadent Wiemar Republic – huh – seems familiar). He didn’t want the Christians to feel threatened – yet. Of course, Hitler, like all lefties was a pagan and wanted a racist-nationalistic-pagan (probably homosexual) ethos to rule. Christ had to be evicted without upsetting the Christians. So evict his origins – Salvation comes from the Jews. Once the Jews were demonized and paganism unleashed – Catholic priests were next in line and then more and more Christians of all stripes.

    I don’t know who is surprised by her statements – they are nothing new, nor are they unique. Most ‘Arabs’ feel that way. Sadly, I have to state that I share a common heritage with Thomas – I am of Levantine descent born in Lebanon with roots from Jerusalem, Palestine. Incidentally, Palestine has never been a country so I am not sure how Israel can occupy it. Palestine is an ancient Roman province and has been occupied as such by various regimes most notably the Ottomans and the British. Most other Arabs, Muslims and liberal opportunists use the Palestinians (many of whom are truly suffering) as tool to beat Israel with. They don’t care about the people who live in Gaza and the West Bank anymore than liberal opportunists (racists) cared about the plight of American Negros in the 60s – blacks were just a convenient tool with which they beat the Man, the establishment. Liberals have done nothing to help blacks – in fact, liberals are responsible for the holocaust of 15 million blacks in this country. As usual when your scheme is based on a victim class – you cannot allow that class to ever stop being victims.

    If the Palestinians had welcomed the Holocaust survivors things may be very different today. Nevertheless, Israel played a hand in the animosity – many atrocities were committed (then again I love America and we slaughtered Indians and enslaved Africans so we can’t all be proud of everything our nation does/did). Additionally as inhospitable as Muslims are to Christians, Israel hasn’t been much of a friend either. The true victims of this Palestinian/Israeli conflict are the minority of Christians whose roots go back to the time of Christ in His land and most notably in the city He conquered with His own Blood. Don’t confuse Jews with Israel and don’t confuse the modern-nation state with ancient Israel and certainly not with the inheritors of the promise as most of our Protestant brothers do.

    Nothing good ever comes from anti-Jewish expressions because once the demon of bigotry is unleashed he attacks the source and we all know the source is God.

    Since liberals (lefties) are godless, it goes to follow that they will hate Jews and by extension the Church. Nothing new under the sun.

  • Many Americans feel the same way! She was an easy target to push away! I remember when I attended a lecture at USC by President George H W Bush with my ex girlfriend who was a USC Student and Jewish. She was upset by the comments by the former president when he said that “one of the problems in America is that that Jews have too much power and influence in Washington”. I could not believe my ears, all the board of trustees were there, the university president, and the notable members of the Jewish community of Los Angeles, President Bush knew that they were present because we had attended a diner and got photographed. Yet he did not care to upset them and the event when without further incident. The tapes released about president Nixon and many other presidents show that they all have issues with Israel and Jewish people.

  • I suspect Mr. Paterson that you are lying not only about what former President Bush said, but also about ever having a girlfriend who was Jewish. As to the comments by Bush, link to a news account of them.

  • In reply to Tito – Ignorance is a lack of education not understanding. Thomas is a bigot not out of ignorance, for she is certainly what society would call an educated person; she is an anti-semetic loon whose bigotry and hatred of President Bush finally emerged. There are few things worse than closet bigotry. I can’t agree with Obama’s racism but at least he is out in the open about it. (Read his book.)
    Thomas on the other hand hid hers and probably effected many aspiring Jewish writers before she fortunately lost her control and spouted forth her true feelings.
    Remember this absolute truth about the Middle East: When the Arabs lay down their arms there will be peace; when the Israelis lay down their arms there will be a slaughter that will make the Holocaust pale in comparison.

  • Well stated American Knight ! I was thinking of composing the same message until I read your post 🙂

  • Donald & Erik,

    I doubt that even Mr. George “NWO” Bush (41) would have been stupid enough to make comments like that, even if he believed them. Of course, his anti-Jewish feelings could have been inherited from his Nazi-supporting father – but I don’t know of any evidence that indicts George H. W. of this directly.

    As for Jews having too much power and influence in the U.S. I totally agree that they do. Of course that can only be true if by Jews we mean liberals of Jewish origin that hardly practice a tenet of the Hebrew faith and are represented in larger percentages than the Jewish population at large in Hollywierd, the press (so-called), and academe. Of course, if one were to really ask these ‘Jews’ about their Jewishness – it would be a cultural identity and not a religious conviction. I’d suspect a properly catechized Catholic knows more about the Hebrew religion than the average, secular, lefty-loony ‘Jew”. These people can hardly be Jewish – even just culturally – after surviving the extermination of as much as 85% (Germany and Poland – Ms. Thomas) of your population, how can you abort babies at such high percentages – something is very, very wrong and sadly most Hebrews are making sacrifices to Moloch and not following Moses and the Prophets.

  • “from his Nazi-supporting father”

    Prescott Bush was not a support of the Nazis AK. That is simply another meme of the tinfoil hat brigade. He served in WWI as an artillery officer and participated in the Meuse-Argonne offensive.

    The Anti-Defamation League years ago addressed the vile conspiracy allegations against Prescott Bush:

    “Rumors about the alleged Nazi ‘ties’ of the late Prescott Bush … have circulated widely through the internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated. Despite some early financial dealings between Prescott Bush and a Nazi industrialist named Fritz Thyssen (who was arrested by the Nazi regime in 1938 and imprisoned during the war), Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathizer.”

    Prescott Bush did have close ties with Planned Parenthood which of course makes him persona non grata for me. However, fair is fair, and conspiracy nuttiness is conspiracy nuttiness.

  • Perhaps ‘Nazi-sympathizer’ is a bit extreme; however, he was indifferent to the evils of Nazism. He made a fortune and continued to work with the Nazi financiers after the war started and after the nature of Nazism and the atrocities committed by them was known.

    Perhaps Nazism isn’t what Sen. Bush wanted, but it is pretty clear that he desired some form of totalitarianish society and he most certainly was a Eugenicist. Fellow-travelers are just as guilty as those they travel with.

    This is not conspiracy nuttiness (although there is much of that out there). This is conspiracy fact, although it would be foolish not to admit that since conspiracies are secret it is often difficult, but not impossible, to discern the proper context.

    Republicans are not infallible and the party has been controlled by those not loyal to orthodox conservatism far more often than it has not. Not every attack on a ‘Republican’ is from the left and many of the attackers are legitimate conservatives. Perhaps if more Republicans were orthodox conservatives, America would not be in the state she’s in and people like Helen Thomas would not have voices to spread propaganda and maybe even BHO would not be the chief executive – of course, neither would John McCain.

    Ignore conspiracies at your own peril Mr. McClarey – King Louis certainly did and so did the residents of the Wiemar Republic.

  • “He made a fortune and continued to work with the Nazi financiers after the war started and after the nature of Nazism and the atrocities committed by them was known.”

    Complete baloney AK.,2933,100474,00.html

  • Fox News isn’t exactly the source I would go to for this. The declassified (with some redaction) papers indicate that many American capitalist/industrialists were involved with the Nazis and also the Bolsheviks – including Sen. Bush. Profiting from war is not a new activity and it hasn’t gone away. The Soviets, the Nazis, the Chi-Comms and many others would not have ever been able to come to the level of power they achieved without the financial help of trans-national financiers – many of them ‘Americans’. For that matter Saddam and the opium warlords couldn’t survive for long either and when they get taken down who profits again?

    Some of these men were perhaps just interested in making money, some may have been misled, but at some point they knew what they were involved in and either didn’t care, chose to ignore or were complicit in the atrocities committed by the regimes they were supporting and profiting from.

    Just to be clear – I don’t transfer Prescott’s guilt to his son, although I suspect that G.H.W. had a sinister agenda and was placed in the Reagan camp to undermine orthodox conservatism – I don’t ascribe Nazi sympathies to him – and certainly not to W. But, I also don’t accuse J.F.K of the guilt of his father either.

    Believe what you want, but I would strongly suggest a little more skepticism toward the duo-opoly propaganda that is designed to manage the way we think. By creating an us vs. them, we are right they are wrong paradigm – there are powers that seek to manage outcomes while giving us the false impression of choice. We are fools if we confuse the GOP with authentic conservatism. If one is a Republican party member with a my party right or wrong attitude, one is hard-pressed to call themselves a conservative.

    John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Nelson Rockefeller are all Republicans – non of them are conservatives – at least one of them is an honorable man who loves his country – but that doesn’t change the fact that he isn’t conservative. Wake up – the time to play party games has passed. Blindly defending everything Republican is almost, but not quite, as foolish as Thomas blaming Israel and Jews for all the world’s evils. This is not a personal attack – it is a fraternal correction. I believe that all orthodox Catholics are conservative by nature – but we shouldn’t be Republicans and we can’t be Democrats.

  • ATG insists that Israel disrespects America and the Catholic “Religion”. This borders on paranoid delusion. It is true that many actions and policies taken by the modern state of Israel were not enacted in order to better adhere to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The same could be said about many of the actions and policies of our own bishops- particularly here in the good ol’ US of A.

    As for Israel and the Catholic religion, what came first, the chicken or the egg? Catholic shrines and orders in the Holy Land have taken a bit of abeating recently at the hands of the Israeli government in matters relating to immigration and visas. Given the absolute trash spewed out by some who were authorized (or at least allowed) to speak from Peter’s See, had I been in charge of Israeli INS operations and policy, I would have zeroed out visa requests from the Vatican not tied to diplomatic necessity.

    I would have to say that a fair measure of the maltreatment of Church officials and interests in Israel was richly earned; not by Church teaching, but often by those expected to teach it.

    There are many seemingly even handed statements that can have no other political effect than to morally equate attempted mass murder (burka bombers, rocket attacks) with any reasonably effective steps available to prevent it. When church mouthpieces have uttered these statements, they have done willful violence to the truth and have brought shame on the Body of Christ.

  • Fox News isn’t exactly the source I would go to for this. T

    AK, though your intentions are honorable, you have this nasty habit of simply dismissing any piece of evidence that contradicts your worldview. Donald has now provided a couple of links to discredit your position, and yet you just charge ahead based on nothing more than supposition. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims that Prescott Bush was a Nazi sympathizer.

    If one is a Republican party member with a my party right or wrong attitude, one is hard-pressed to call themselves a conservative.

    Talk about a non sequiter, the only person making a partisan point is you. I don’t think Donald or anyone else here is defending Prescott Bush because he was a Republican – indeed Donald indicated disliking him because of his associations with Planned Parenthood. I couldn’t care less about salvaging the reputation of anyone with the last name Bush. But what’s fair is fair, and accusing someone – even a person long dead – of being a Nazi sympathizer is a pretty serious charge that should be backed up with something resembling real evidence.

  • What Paul said.

  • Paul I accept the criticism fairly – I will admit that I take the com boxes to be more a casual conversation than a master’s thesis and my inflection, etc. doesn’t translate into writing – I don’t think I am particularly good writer. I am also aware that I tend to be a velvet hammer in debating – please accept my apologies for the nasty habit – I meant no harm – I like y’all. Please also accept my apologies for not listing all the source documents. I can list one or two – only due to lack of time; however, my technological capability isn’t any better than my writing so the link probably won’t work.

    As for my world view, I try to make sure it is a Catholic world view – I am sure I fail often. I will admit that I am extremely skeptical of government power and see numerous conspiracies in history – I assume that there are numerous conspiracies now – although, I am sure I don’t know about them all and may have some incorrect information about some of them, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t occurring. I am not referring to aliens, Area 51, and other nutty ideas; rather, things like Jacobins, Masons, Nazis, Bolsheviks, etc.

    Here is a facsimile of the Federal Register listing Prescott Bush as one of seven owners of Union Banking Corp, which handled financial interests for Fritz Thyssen – an early supporter of the Nazis. Assets seized by the US government for supporting enemies of the USA.

    Also, see an article by John Buchanan in the New Hampshire Gazette – I think it was October 2003.

    There is no question that there are some in power who wish to manage the whole globe and the lives of every human – although not every human currently living because they want to reduce our numbers – they are eugenicists after all. It is also clear that they are using psychological warfare to manipulate our thinking because they prefer to set up totalitarianism on the Brave New World – happy slavery model; rather than the 1984 forced slavery models used in the past. It seems that Sen. Bush was one of those men, or at least willing to go along with their designs even if he didn’t agree or couldn’t see the whole conspiracy.

    This is not a reflection on both presidents Bush – although H.W. was certainly leaning in the new world order direction.

  • Here is an unbiased article on the accusation that Senator Prescott Bush was a Nazi sympathizer.

  • Here is a good overview of why the accusations against Prescott Bush are firmly in the realm of the deranged:

  • Deranged?

    “So, did Bush and his firm finance the Nazis and enable Germany to rearm? Indirectly, yes.”

    That last word is YES – indirect? So what – it was still done. If he is such a good banker how could he not have seen it?

    “But they had a lot of company. Some of the most distinguished names in American business had investments or subsidiaries in prewar Germany, including Standard Oil and General Motors. Critics have argued for years that without U.S. money, the Nazis could never have waged war. But American business has always invested in totalitarian regimes–witness our dealings with mainland China.”

    So that makes it OK, because most of the other American big wigs have been and continue to invest in totalitarian regimes. This sounds more like a support for my ‘theory’ than a refutation.

    “Loftus tells me there’s more to it than that. He says that the value of German industrial assets in which Bush and friends invested increased during World War II, in part due to slave labor, and that Bush benefited from this increase when the assets were returned–supposedly he got $1.5 million when UBC was liquidated in 1951. I’ll buy the claim that Bush got his share of UBC back–it was an American bank, after all–but the idea that his German holdings increased in value despite being obliterated by Allied bombs is ridiculous.”

    Actually most ‘American’ assets in Germany, especially Rockefeller/IG Farben structures were specifically not bombed. Much like all the targets that our Naval aviators were not allowed to bomb during Vietnam. Does anyone think that we couldn’t have won in Vietnam and for that matter Iraq in less than a decade – how about a couple of months? That is unless our military is specifically not allowed to bomb certain things because certain politicos backers have interests in prolonged wars.

    Read Ephesians 6 and tell me that St. Paul is a conspiracy theorist.

If You Repeat a Lie a Thousand Times…

Friday, April 9, AD 2010

Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul-Minneapolis has defended Pope Benedict in his column in the archdiocesan weekly newspaper.

In reporting on the column, the Associated Press closed their story with this:

Critics of the church’s handling of abuse cases are citing Benedict’s tenure as head of the Vatican office charged with disciplining clergy. The office halted a mid-1990s investigation into a Wisconsin priest accused of molesting some 200 deaf boys.

Dear Associated Press: the CDF did not stop the investigation. If you’d actually do some journalism you’d know that.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to If You Repeat a Lie a Thousand Times…

  • The communists succeeded in branding His Holiness Pius XII as a virtual agent of Hitler because of his alleged silence in the face of Nazi atrocities. The facts suggest otherwise, but they have been buried over time, and the mud sticks. Now, secularists (and others, including some in the Church herself) are trying to do the same to His Holiness Benedict XVI with regard to the priest sex scandal. The facts tend to exonerate him, but I fear the mud will stick. It will take a persistent and forceful defense if there is to be any hope for his legacy.

  • So, did you try to contact MPR to address their error?

  • I tried to contact the AP, but there’s no writer in that or other bylines, so I have little idea who to reach. And given that it’s been picked up elsewhere, merely trying to communicate with MPR seemed pointless.

  • You ask,

    “If they [AP] can botch this story this poorly, how can I trust their reporting on other issues?”

    So far as I can see, you can’t.

    All you can do is trace the facts about any given story that AP presents in a broad-brush kind of way, compare those to the facts presented from other sources, find the commonalities, then go seeking criticism from bloggers who specialize in the relevant topics to get a sense of which commonly-reported facts are open to debate or alternative interpretation, and which are thought by the bloggers to be missing.

    Rinse, repeat, for several days.

    Then you ruminate, allowing that picture simmer and stew until you come to some kind of conclusions about what actually happened.

    That’s how one “checks the news” these days. AP is just mono-sourced data. If you want information, even minimalist “satisficing” (let alone detailed knowledge) will require individual collation of data from multiple inputs.

    The darkly amusing thing to ponder is this: Were the MSM always this bad, and we just didn’t have enough sources of alternative opinion to know about it? Or has the failure of intellectual and moral standards brought us gradually to this point from some earlier state of being in which media organs were moderately trustworthy?

  • “Were the MSM always this bad, and we just didn’t have enough sources of alternative opinion to know about it? Or has the failure of intellectual and moral standards brought us gradually to this point from some earlier state of being in which media organs were moderately trustworthy?”

    Bad reporting there has ever been, and the access of the internet to multiple sources displays such reporting in bold relief. However, I doubt if there has been a time before when the ink stained wretches were so ideologically committed in one direction and so uncaring about their professionalism.