6 Responses to Shameless

  • I wish it wasn’t a sin to hate certain people.

  • The protesters stormed the compound at Benghazi due to a tragic video tape and did what? Embarrassed the President and Secretary of State?

    It’s not good to hate.
    I believe that, but it sure is difficult to love your enemies when they sit in positions of leadership and have a fiduciary responsibility then deliberately lie to Protect Themselves!

    Hate? Yes. I do hate Hillary and Obama.
    Pray for me to love them enough to stop hating them, and start loving them more.
    I will try.
    I promise.

  • Speaking of Commander-in-Chief and embarrassing experiments with more of your money, enter obamacare; http://www.judicial watch.org/blog/2016/03/12-obamacare-insurance-co-ops-fold-after-getting-1-2-bil-from-govt/?utm_source=silverpopmailing&utm_medium=email&utm_content=

    Embarrassing our Country is a speciality that the Obama administration and the Clinton family thrive on. Can you imagine the trillions of dollars Hillary will suck out of your pockets to embarrass our country even more?

    Send Hillary to jail.
    It will save lives.
    (#clintonlivesdontmatter)
    don’t try it. like obamacare, it doesn’t work.

  • Of course she’s shameless. How else could she do almost everything she’s chosen to do over the course of her entire adult life?

  • Her hypocrisy really does know no bounds. That is true of all modern liberals, who are able to hold fast to two conflicting ideas at the same time. Apparently, Hillary really does believe that all women who accuse men of sex abuse/crimes should be both heard and believed. She certainly believes those abusers are not fit for the public trust. And yet, she really doesn’t mean any of it.

  • We must all pray hard that this women doesn’t become our next president she and her husband are evil and shameless.

17 Responses to Is Bill Clinton Still Bloviating?

  • Michelle’ touting of Barach’s unconditional love as a child Sister Campbell using her time to drive the wedge between herself and her version of Catholic sister, and Jesus’ Body, the Church, and William Jefferson Clinton’s oratorical extravaganza were a strange trinitarian combo.

  • I remember that vividly. The best part of the speech came at the end when he said, “And in closing . . .” and the delegates went wild with applause.

  • And to think Clinton’s speech was far from the worst last night. Here is Boston Mayor Tom Menino’s speech. The guy barely speaks English and loses the audience after about 2 sentences. I mean, Martha Luther King Jr?

  • I saw a few fragments of it. I have never really seen any of his speeches stem to stern. Very fluid delivery. Bogus arguments which would go down well with that particular audience. The most striking this is the number of years the man has put on without adding any weight. If you have a moment, compare recent photographs of him with those of Mitt Romney, Albert Gore, J.D. Quayle, or even Michael Dukakis (13 years his senior). Compare him to Ronald Reagan in 1977, Gerald Ford in 1979, or George Bush the Elder in 1990.

  • A friend commented on his appearance and noted that he had actually put on weight. If you recall he had heart surgery several years back, and was in fact looking rather gaunt.

  • There is a certain type of mob orator, who can catch the mood of his audience and express what they feel, in a way that they know that they could not, but which they immediately recognise to be exact.

    That, I am sure, is why so many historical speeches, unendurable to us, produced prodigious effects on their immediate hearers.

  • Excellent commentary on Bill Clinton is contained in a recent Voris You Tube video:

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=plcp&v=SpISLxavV6M

    (hope that’s the rite link)

    Adulterer, philanderer, consummate liar, impechment, intern harasser, bimbo squad, and so on were the terms used. And yet he’s held up as the paragon of the woman’s rights movement? Willian Jefferson “I did not have sex with that woman” Clinton? Can anyone remember Monica Lewinsky? One wonders if Sandra Fluke is an aspirant wannabe. Anybody taking bets?

    I am not saying Republicans don’t have their fair share of sex scandals. After all, we are talking about politics, whether 2000 years ago when Caligula made his horse a Senator or today when Obama has Biden as his VP (what exactly has change? But I digress in insulting horses everywhere.) But my goodness! Has there been such magnificent blovification, er, I mean oratory since the days of the Roman Senate?

  • this speech was a living, breathing organism. the crowd, the hall, the speech, one.

  • Dale Price,

    And, the eniurety is largely counter-factual.

    Bush didn’t build that financial crisis of 2008, alone.

    Slick Willie’s and Dom Cuomo’s decisions inflated the housing bubble that devastated the world economy in 2008: derivative trading unregulated, allow deposit-taking institutions to engage in proprietary trading, pressure on banks to relax mortgage lending standards, let Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac grow enormously large based on implicit government guarantee.

    When Bush Admin. personnel tried to slow it, they were RACISTS!!

    And, Obama’s role: The Daily Caller: “President Barack Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and roughly half of the 186 African-American clients in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices.

    “As few as 19 of those 186 clients still own homes with clean credit ratings, following a decade in which Obama and other progressives pushed banks to provide mortgages to poor African Americans.

    “The startling failure rate among Obama’s private sector clients was discovered during The Daily Caller’s review of previously unpublished court information from the lawsuit that a young Obama helmed as the lead plaintiff’s attorney. [RELATED: Learn about the 186 class action plaintiffs]”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/03/with-landmark-lawsuit-barack-obama-pushed-banks-to-give-subprime-loans-to-chicagos-african-americans/#ixzz25RFSA6or

    N.B., O recieved $104,000 in graft payments from FNMA.

    There’s the matter of NY Gov wannabe Cuomo’s role in promoting policies that fed the housing mania and set the stage for the meltdown.

    NY Governor Cuomo was Secretary of HUD during Bill Clinton’s second term. HUD Web site has an instructive item in the Archives section.

    Entitled, “Highlights of HUD Accomplishments 1997-1999,” the document chronicles the “accomplishments under the leadership of Secretary Andrew Cuomo, who took office in January 1997.”

    In 1999 “Cuomo established new Affordable Housing Goals requiring FNM and FRE — two GSE’s involved in housing finance — to buy $2.4 trillion in mortgages in 10 years. This would mean new affordable housing for about 28.1 million low- and moderate-income families. The historic action raised the required percentage of mortgage loans for low- and moderate-income families that the companies(FNMA/FHLMC) MUST BUY from 42% of total purchases to 50% in 2001.”

    One thing: unike Ted Kennedy, Clinton only sexually abused women. He never drowned any.

  • PWP

    you have to understand that feminism today is almost entirely about free abortion/birth control. they’re not concerned about how amoral/immoral someone is. i remember one feminist site proving this point in the whole Weiner debacle more recently

  • I agree, JDP, which is why we have to emphasize that women’s rights are human rights: the right to life and liberty, to be responsible and accountable, to be authentically and completely a woman in the case of women, and a man in the case of men. To be a feminist in today’s society is to oppose the liberation of a woman to be authentically and completely a woman, and to be treated and respected as such.

    The prime example of true and liberated womanhood is always and everywhere the Blessed Virgin Mary.

    And the prime example of true and liberated manhood is always and everywhere our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

    It is in obedience to God the Father that we become liberated and realize our potential in attaining true and authentic womanhood for women and manhood for men. But those are old fashion ideas now discarded as society teeters at the edge of a cliff.

  • T Shaw:

    I was goofing on the speech. My comment was a direct quote from an allegedly objective ABC reporter who tweeted that bit of inanity.

    http://twitchy.com/2012/09/06/lapdog-poetry-rick-klein-gushes-over-bill-clinton-with-junior-high-worthy-verse/

  • “this speech was a living, breathing organism. the crowd, the hall, the speech, one.”

    That one is a keeper Dale. I swear that the mainstream press in this country has less objectivity towards Bill Clinton than Monica Lewinsky did during her intern days.

  • I think the current Clinton fetishists are reflecting their own anxiety. After all most of the media turned on Hill and Bill in 2008 and kicked them to the curb. Now with the Dems under Obama sinking in public approval as well as losing ground in many states they are worried. Worried about themselves. If the Dems are diminished then their media will really suffer. Where are they going to get jobs paying anything remotely like what they are paid? After all the media was declining even as the Dems surged in 2006 and 2008. Clinton is like a life preserver to them or so they hope.

  • Breaking at Drudge: “Honey Boo Boo” TV audience share tops the dope from Hope.

  • Paul W. Primavera: “The prime example of true and liberated womanhood is always and everywhere the Blessed Virgin Mary.

    And the prime example of true and liberated manhood is always and everywhere our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

    It is in obedience to God the Father that we become liberated and realize our potential in attaining true and authentic womanhood for women and manhood for men.”

    Well said.

  • “I didn’t think Foghorn Leghorn Bill Clinton”

    Sorry I couldn’t copy the strikethrough…. Foghorn Leghorn was, in fact, modeled after Senator Beauregard Claghorn, a blustery Southern politician character (played by Kenny Delmar) who appeared in comedy sketches on the Fred Allen radio show in the late 1940s.

Rank and File Conservatives & The Conservative Intelligentsia United In Outrage Over Mosque Near Ground Zero, Not So With Same-Sex Marriage

Sunday, August 15, AD 2010

The proposed mosque set to be built near Ground Zero, site of the September 11, 2001 attacks has brought a sweeping condemnation from both rank and file conservatives and the Conservative Intelligentsia. Now that President Barack Obama has weighed in the matter, seemingly supporting the effort, one can only imagine how this will be used in the fall elections. However, a rift has appeared to have been opened concerning the views of the rank and file conservatives and the Conservative Intelligentsia following the ruling of Judge Vaughn Walker over same-sex marriage. Many of the conservative intelligentsia, along with the establishment wing of the Republican Party has either been silent or voiced the view that the wished the whole gay marriage issue would simply go away. This has led to bewilderment from some conservative voices.

The best Catholic tie in with the efforts to build a mosque on Ground Zero came from the famed conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, who is Jewish. In his opposition to the mosque being built near Ground Zero, he correctly pointed out that Pope John Paul II ordered Carmelite nuns, who were living right next to Auschwitz, to move closer to a nearby town, since the site had become a rallying point for Jewish identity. Krauthammer correctly pointed out that Christians had been murdered there too and the nuns were doing the heroic deed of praying for the souls of those who were viciously murdered. However, Krauthammer pointed out that the late Polish pontiff felt that it created the wrong perception.

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Rank and File Conservatives & The Conservative Intelligentsia United In Outrage Over Mosque Near Ground Zero, Not So With Same-Sex Marriage

  • Which members of the conservative intelligentsia who aren’t also rank and file Republicans, have expressed opposition to the mosque?

  • There are plenty of natural law and non-religious arguments against homosexuality. It is not a natural co-equal with heterosexuality. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Men and woman are complementary, not only physically, but emotionally and psychologically.

    Homosexuals have significantly higher levels of: mental health problems, psychological disorders such as suicide and depression, sexual addiction and coercion, promiscuity, STDs, violence, and addictions of all kinds including alcoholism and drug abuse.

    Almost every society, primitive and complex, has had laws and taboos against homosexuality. This isn’t just a Christian thing. There will always be a visceral reaction to homosexuality because it goes to the very heart of the survival of our species.

    Where homosexuality occurs in the animal world, it is primarily a temporary condition, and when the opportunity presents itself, animals will copulate heterosexually.

    Two-parent heterosexual families, despite the exceptions, are proven over history, across cultures, as the better way for healthy child development. Healthy children produce healthy societies.

    It’s time, in my opinion, for a Constitutional amendment that establishes once and for all that marriage is between one man and one woman. Then we can put this issue to bed.

  • I was rather hoping you would offer some analysis as to WHY so many self-described conservatives are backing away from the defense of traditional marriage. I suppose it is because Americans of all stripes have internalized the notion that it is “mean” to express “intolerance” toward homosexuality. Genuine intolerance, however, including intolerance toward Catholics, remains quite socially acceptable.

  • discarding Western Civilization’s definition of marriage (2,000+ years) is simply a non starter.

    As pointed out above, it’s not just Western Civ’s definition, it has been humanity’s definition since recorded history, and likely pre-dates that as well. try more like 5,000+ years.

  • From what I can tell, those members of the conservative “intelligencia” who aren’t members of Fox & Friends or proprieters of talk radio shows have mostly remained in favor of religious freedom — as they should.

  • Try on this one, Bunky:

    “Rank and file liberal catholics and the liberal catholic intelligentsia united in outrage over tax cuts for the rich, not so with abortion.”

  • I was rather hoping you would offer some analysis as to WHY so many self-described conservatives are backing away from the defense of traditional marriage.

    I suspect you usually could not do this without making evaluations of their personal disposition and conduct, as in noting that some folk appear other-directed by default (Ross Douthat, Rod Dreher) or have been married four times (Theodore Olson), or make use of the self-description ‘conservative’ to obfuscate (Conor Friedersdorf).

    Someone on the payroll of The American Conservative or the Rockford Institute can likely also supply a dismissive commentary to the effect that those resisting this burlesque have neglected some deeper cultural deficiency which these resisters are too shallow to detect and about which we can do nothing in any case.

  • “Rank and file liberal catholics and the liberal catholic intelligentsia united in outrage over tax cuts for the rich, not so with abortion.”

    Fits alright.

  • Homosexuals have significantly higher levels of: mental health problems, psychological disorders such as suicide and depression, sexual addiction and coercion, promiscuity, STDs, violence, and addictions of all kinds including alcoholism and drug abuse.

    Same can be said of blacks. I don’t find that a convincing argument. If you’re going to oppose gay marriage on secular grounds, I think you have to rest on the procreation argument.

  • I’d postulate that people don’t feel as threatened by gay marriage as they are by Islam. Homosexuals never killed 3000 people in my backyard.

  • Tide turning towards Catholicism? Just today I read a credible report saying that in the last 10+ Catholic marriages have decreased. One point of view is that the religion is too strict and another is that it is not needed with modern thinking. I just had a conversation with a liberal who said life is a pendulum goes from one extreme to the other finding it’s way in the middle. I do not believe this that societies do go by the wayside, that they undo themselves, with no virtue to survive pop trends.

  • I don’t find that a convincing argument. If you’re going to oppose gay marriage on secular grounds, I think you have to rest on the procreation argument.

    Why don’t you try making the case FOR it? Start with an explanation of why male friendships which do not incorporate sodomy as part of their daily practice should received less recognition than those which do.

  • Art Deco, I don’t know why you want me to make the case for it but you asked so I’ll try.

    The closer the relationship, the greater the rights and responsibilities between them are. If we want to legally protect expectation interests, we will want to recognize intimately committed couples in ways that we don’t recognize mere friendships. We may also want to legally recognize friendships but that’s not at issue here.

  • RR,

    We have an association that is sterile and undertaken in a social matrix where sexual activity is treated as fun-n-games. Why should this be honored? Why is it deemed ‘closer’ than the fraternity that bound my father to the man who was his dearest friend for 48 of his 51 years? What are ‘expectation interests’? Why do you want to protect them?

    My question was rhetorical. The gay lobby wants this as a gesture of deference. The only reason to give it to them is that they will be put out by refusal. Lots of people do not get their way, and public policy is enough of a zero sum game that that is inevitable. For some, it is incorporated into their amour-propre to regard some clamoring constituencies as composed of those who are So Very Special. Then there’s the rest of thus, who are not so well represented in the appellate judiciary.

  • AD,

    We have an association that is sterile and undertaken in a social matrix where sexual activity is treated as fun-n-games. Why should this be honored?

    It shouldn’t.

    Why is it deemed ‘closer’ than the fraternity that bound my father to the man who was his dearest friend for 48 of his 51 years? What are ‘expectation interests’? Why do you want to protect them?

    I assume your father and his friend didn’t rely on each other for financial support. When people form an association with the mutual expectation that they take on certain duties, it would be unjust to allow one party to escape their duties at the expense of the other(s). It’s why we enforce contracts. If your father and his friend did have such an arrangement, it should be enforced.

  • I’d postulate that people don’t feel as threatened by gay marriage as they are by Islam. Homosexuals never killed 3000 people in my backyard.

    Neither have illegal immigrants, but that hasn’t stopped an upsurge in hostility and resentment towards them as a group.

  • Pope John Paul II ordered Carmelite nuns, who were living right next to Auschwitz, to move closer to a nearby town, since the site had become a rallying point for Jewish identity. Krauthammer correctly pointed out that Christians had been murdered there too and the nuns were doing the heroic deed of praying for the souls of those who were viciously murdered. However, Krauthammer pointed out that the late Polish pontiff felt that it created the wrong perception.

    Nobody would object if those wanting to building the mosque volunteered to build it elsewhere. But who is the more honorable person? The Jew who welcomed the Carmelites or the Jew who told them to go somewhere else?

  • Neither have illegal immigrants, but that hasn’t stopped an upsurge in hostility and resentment towards them as a group.

    They ignored the law and act to frustrate lawfully constituted immigration policy. Can we have a wee bit o’ antagonism, pretty please?

  • I assume your father and his friend didn’t rely on each other for financial support.

    I cannot say if they borrowed money from each other or not. Ordinarily, working aged men are expected to be self-supporting if not disabled.

    When people form an association with the mutual expectation that they take on certain duties,

    Human relations are not commercial transactions and the law does not ordinarily enforce amorphous and unwritten ‘expectations’ that someone else is going to pay your rent.

    Right now, RR, I am pricing insurance policies. I was offered (unbidden) discount rates by the agent if I was in some sort of ‘committed relationship’ with some other dude. Uh, no, nothing like that Chez Deco, ever. I inquired about purchases for my sister. No discount offers there.

    Maybe sis and I can manufacture an ‘expectations interest’ and get you and Judge Walker to work on our problem.

  • And if it is written?

    Are you opposed to insurance discounts for spouses or for discounts for siblings?

  • Pingback: If Liberals Lose Big In This Fall’s Election, The Professiona Left Will Mock The Religious Faithful « The American Catholic
  • This article has a lot of interesting points. However, it rambles all over the place. The essay would have been easier to understand if it was broken up into three mini essays.

    There’s no intrinsic connection between the Cordoba Mosque, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage. Why lament that some conservatives have an opinion on one topic but not the other? You might (rightfully) argue that the establishment of a mosque near Ground Zero does not carry even a tenth of the socio-moral import of same sex marriage. But the logical independence of the two questions renders party lockstep on the two issues irrelevant. Let the GOP/right/conservative rank and file make up their own minds about the relationship between these two variables.

    Gratuitous aside: I know that you and other faithful/orthodox Catholic bloggers must boost reparative therapy. To not do so would negatively impact one’s orthodox Catholic street cred. Still, one can be a faithful Catholic, live morally, and not support COURAGE. Indeed, I found the meetings emotionally intrusive and psychologically manipulative. I wish that the Catholic orthodox/conservative/right would think twice before lavishing praise on an organization and therapeutic model that at the very least has emotionally troubled some participants. Sing your praises only after attending a meeting or two.

  • Sorta Catholic, the beauty of writing an article for a blog or newspaper column is that you have the freedom to write it as you see fit. Perhaps, some would like shorter columns, while others may favor longer columns, the choice is up to the writer.

    As for Courage, the group’s spiritual mentor is Father Benedict Groeschel, his credentials are certainly good enough for me. Perhaps, the meeting you attended was not run properly. I can only tell you that the group is trying to impart the Church’s teachings in a world that has become enamored with self, and not with faith.

    As for orthodox-minded street cred, we aren’t trying to impress anyone only help spread the message of Christ through His Church. We have divergent opinions on a variety of topics, but yet we fall under the same umbrella of supporting the Church’s teachings. The longer you submit to the will of God, the more you realize the wisdom of the 2,000 year old Catholic Church. It really does make you a more content indiviudal, free from the whims of the modern world. Take care!

  • It is a shame that the likes of Beck, Coulter and Limbaugh would let their libertarian views get the best of them when it comes to SSM. Divorcing that from their preaching for conservative values is not the charitable thing to do when the eternal salvation of those who engage in homosexual acts is at stake. Frankly, by doing so, they are committing the grievous sin of omission. A priest in Texas recently made that point clear when he said that Catholics have a moral duty to oppose abortion and SSM.

  • By the way, one of my favorite journalists, WorldNetDaily’s founder Joseph Farah, hits the nail on the head of this issue in offering his take on why some conservatives are “capitulating” to the gay agenda pushers: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=192761

  • Hi Dave,

    A person that bases his or her judgement of an organization on the perceived reputation of a founder/leader/mentor in that organization commits the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority”. Now, Fr. Groschel is an upstanding authority. I respect him as a religious leader even if I do not agree with many of his points. Even so, the absolute metric for any organization is its ideology/methodology. Perhaps you’ve provided a rigorous defense of reparative therapy elsewhere on your website. If so, point me there. Otherwise, an appeal to authority without prior analysis of an institution’s ideology or methodology is rather insubstantial.

    Appeals to authority or subjective statements such as “X is trying to impart the Church’s teachings […]” sometimes hide insufficient research. Also, “orthodoxy” (i.e. strict adherence to a religion’s dogma/doctrine) does not guarantee the success or failure of a particular therapy.

  • Hi SortaCatholic, I hope your day is going well. I must say that I find these sorts of exchanges very interesting. I don’t believe my “Appeal to Authority,” is some sort of man made or earthly authority. You see I have worked for the Church in a number of capacities. I have seen the good, bad and the ugly. There is some great people who work for the Church and some really inept ones. I have always felt with all of these inept folks, the Church would have to be who she says she is to have survived 2,000 years!

    Perhaps someone at Courage might come across this and answer some of your questions. I do know that God does help us and prayer does work, but rarely in the sort of miraculous way in which we would like it to happen. God sorts and sifts us. We all have our own sets of problems, blessings, gifts, talents and struggles. I have always found Christ’s words of seek and you shall find, knock and you will be heard to be very true (Matthew 7:7-11.) In addition, I have always found this Scripture reading from Hebrews about God showing us the way through trial and struggle very revealing in my own life (Hebrews 12:5-12.) Take care!