Monthly Archives: March 2010

Has Vanity Fair’s A. A. Gill *ever* read a book?

Danielle Bean reports about how A. A. Gill, a food critic at Vanity Fair, has taken a stab at typical atheist writing (at the level of, “Ha, ha, Christians are stupid”), specifically targetiing the “Creation Museum” (whatever). Then, in an interview with Megan “I want to kill all Christiains” Fox, Gill takes on an upcoming appearance by Fr. John Corapi, CPA, STD, SOLT, in the Cincinnati area (even though the topic is the Church’s social teachings, not evolution). Again, his level of discourse amounts to calling our generation’s St. Augustine “Fr. Crappy.”

Here are the quotes from the most original source I can find:

“All this theoretical religious rubbish, it baffles me the amount of money and time invested in a conference with a priest ranting about an age old message that carries no basis or fact. Have these people opened a book in the past decade!? Who cares what message this man pretends to have, while he makes money off if (sic) it.”

So, charity for the poor is “theoretical religious rubbish”? Again, liberal secularists show their true colors.
I think it’s safer to say that Fr. Corapi’s listeners are far more likely to have “opened a book in the last decade” than most of Gill’s audience, especially the types who spend all their time watching Comedy Central or MTV.

“Surely there is nothing “Fr. Crappy” (referencing Fr. John Corapi) could possibly say that would affect me or the rest of humanity who, like me, have more than half a brain”

Since anti-Catholic bigotry usually coincides with ethnic bigotry against Irish, Italians and Slavs, it is notworthy that this dignified representative of secular atheist pseudo-intellectualism (aka he thinks like a thirteen year old) is not just insulting Fr. Corapi as a Catholic priest; he’s also making fun of Father’s Italian last name.

The obvious response to Mr. Gill is exactly what degrees *he* has, since Fr. Corapi is a CPA, served on the Nevada Gaming Commission, ran a multimillion dollar real estate business in Hollywood and has a doctorate from one of the most respected universities in Europe.

Advertisements

All liberals are terrorists

Our “friend” and resident demonaic pest “Operation CounterStrike” promotes the idea that all right to life advocates are terrorists because of a few isolated acts of violence in nearly 40 years (i.e., Salvi, Roeder, Hill)–even though most of the murderers in those cases were a) certifiably nuts and b) not even primarily pro-life activists but were primarily anti-government radical libertarians.

Now, I don’t know of cases where pro-lifers have assembled en masse to not only protest but actively shout-out pro-abortion presenters, but it regularly happens on college campuses that pro-life speakers have their speeches interrupted by violent and abusive protests by campus Commies.

Last night, Ann Coulter was surprisingly scheduled to speak at the University of Ottawa, and had been “warned” to “be polite” by a university administrator. As it ended up, the speech had to be cancelled because of loud and violent protests.

This is just the kind of dignified behavior we can expect from young people in a country that has socialized medicine, legalized marijuana and prostitution, and laws banning so-called “hate speech.” Even though “hate speech” is supposedly “speech that incites violence,” liberals are allowed to engage in all the violence they want.

I’m no fan of Coulter. I don’t like her pro-Bush Derangement Syndrome. She is definitely in the class of talk show types who encourage the worst stereotypes of conservatism.

But such behavior is outrageous, especially when she has herself been warned to “be respectful.”

“Since I’ve arrived in Canada, I’ve been denounced on the floor of Parliament — which, by the way, is on my bucket list — my posters have been banned, I’ve been accused of committing a crime in a speech that I have not yet given, I was banned by the student council, so welcome to Canada!” said Coulter.

There is no secret that our own Democratic Party has a huge admiration for Canada and wants to turn the US into Canada.

Incidents like this just prove once again what the Democrats really are: Stalinists.

If there is a Democrat who is not a eugenicist, please stand up?

OK, for all the so-called “pro-life” Democrats out there. If this past weekend hasn’t disproven that lie, can you tell me?

Is there any Democrat out there who does *not* think it’s perfectly acceptable to kill “defective” babies in the womb?

Is there any Democrat out there who does *not* think it’s perfectly acceptable to use artificial contraception to prevent conception of “defective” babies?

One of the several reasons I started this blog in 2004 is that I got sick of message boards. A friend had asked me to join in on a political message board where people were under some confused misconceptions about Catholic teaching because of pro-choice Catholic politicians and pro-choice Catholic voters.

When I got down to the point that all the liberals on the board, and some of the conservatives, proved themselves to be eugenicists, I saw no further reason in dialoguing with them.

There’s not much point in dialoguing with someone who wants you dead.

Of course, that was also when the Terri Schiavo case climaxed, and we’re now approaching the fifth anniversary of her murder–a murder that Democrats around the country salivated over as much as they’ve salivated over the slaughtered babies over the past 37 years.

Indeed, the Schiavo case, like abortion, embodies all the Democrats’ goals: elimination of disabled people; promotion of sexual license; killing of anyone who’s inconvenient to their materialistic agenda. And let’s not forget the Democrats’ #1 goal: tyranny.

Pat Buchanan, at the time, said it should have been the key turning point in the culture wars. Sadly, it wasn’t. Sadly, most people just went back to their lives. The liberals were up in arms that anyone would resist an adulterer’s efforts to starve his disabled wife to death, while most conservatives said, “ho-hum, we lost; go home.”

When will this country wake up?

Why do we want to ‘reduce’ abortions

We hear a lot from the Left about “reducing” abortions. As Bill Donohue pointed out during the 2008 election, since when is there a “constitutional right” that we want to “reduce”?

If abortion is bad, it’s bad. If it’s not bad, then why “reduce” it?

Indeed, the radical abortion lobby is annoyed by Obama’s talk of “reducing” abortions for that very reason (besides that it cuts into their profits).

Should rape be “safe, legal and rare” because it’s necessary for some men to vent their frustrations?
Should terrorism be “safe, legal and rare” because it’s necessary for some Muslims to fulfill their religious obligations?
Should embezzlement and bank robbing be “safe, legal and rare” because they’re necessary for some desperate people to pay their bills?

I don’t know what to think

I really don’t know what to think about what happened last night.

I can’t get upset, because I feel like we need time to tell.

Anytime Planned Parenthood claims victory, we know it’s a bad thing. But I’ve seen too much evidence that pro-lifers confuse issues to take the anger of the pro-life movement as a sign this is a loss for the unborn.

It so easily switches from “this is a victory for abortion” to “this is a loss of our freedoms,” and “our freedoms” in context meaning the “freedom to be greedy.”

I am not crazy about this health care bill at all. I am not crazy that the pro-life movement and the bishops have focused on abortion only, when they should have talked about contraception, conscience rights, euthanasia.

I hate that Sarah Palin is ridiculed for the “death panels” comment, but the Democrats themselves said they want abortion to reduce costs.

Obama is a cypher. I’m never 100% certain whether he’s more centrist than we give him credit for, or he’s the most effective liar Satan has ever produced. It’s been clear in this debate that there are differences between Obama and Pelosi on what this bill should do. Obama has always insisted “abortion isn’t paid for,” while Pelosi has always insisted abortion should be paid for.

Techniaclly, an executive order can’t override congressional law, and all it takes is another executive order for Obama to rescind it, if he wants. So the executive order is in itself a loss because it’s another victory for presidential tyranny.

I’ve been “defriended” on Facebook by one major figure in the pro-life movement, not for my pro-life views but for challenging Republican worship of money as unChristian. This person posted a quote from Proverbs about borrowing being a state of slavery, and applied it to health care, and I said, “That’s also why capitalism is evil,” and she defriended me.

Is the pro-life movement about advancing capitalism or helping the unborn?

Because for people for whom abortion is supposedly the #1 issue, the war and “economic freedom” sure seem to take precedence.

There should have been a way to make real bipartisan compromise on this issue.

There should have been a way to regulate the insurance and health care industries, end pre-existing condition restrictions, and, yes, require people who can afford it to buy health insurance, without too much federal funding, and without conscience rights.

As for abortion, if your insurance pays for birth control pills, you’re paying for abortions, and most major insurance companies pay for abortions as it is. And this does not create federal funding of abortions. The government has been paying for abortions on military bases since Clinton signed that executive order in 1993–an executive order George W. Bush conveniently did not reverse. Medicaid pays for abortions in many states, including South Carolina.

Unless pro-lifers are going to fight legalized contraception, we’re hypocrites, and we’re fightnig a losing battle.

For once, I find myself agreeing with a post at Vox Nova–the Republicans were their own worst enemies, as usual, on this issue. They could have offered an alternative plan. They could have agreed to support the bill if there were clear limits in regard to abortion, contraceptoin, euthanasia/”end of life care” and permitting conscience rights for medical professionals. They could have agreed to support a bill that was largely regulatory and didn’t involve a “public option” or too much taxpayer funding.

But they didn’t. They opted to let the Democrats win the whole thing rather than reach a compromise that would have saved the unborn, showing that Republicans are themselves more concerned about what’s in their pockets than they are about saving babies’ lives.

And if anyone can show me one passage in the Bible (other than the “Parable of the Talents”) that favors investing at interest, I’d be glad to see it.

What do atheists, child molestors, abortion supporters and wall street investors have in common?

If they don’t repent, they’re all going to end up in the same place.

And that’s true on either end of Pascal’s Wager.

After all, if the atheists are right, the final destiny of all these people is to be food for bugs, so why does anything in this life matter? Why do they pretend that it matters? Why do atheists conveniently claim moral indignance over one select matter while proclaiming freedom of lifestyle choice in regard to others?

St. Teresa of Avila on the evils of this world, particularly disrespect for the Eucharist

Don’t we all feel this way?

Why is this, my Lord and my God? Do Thou bring the world to an end or give us a remedy for such grievous wrongs, which even our wicked hearts cannot endure. I beseech Thee, Eternal Father, endure it no longer: quench this fire, Lord, for Thou canst do so if Thou wilt. Remember that Thy Son is still in the world; may these dreadful things be stopped out of respect for Him, horrible and abominable and foul as they are. With His beauty and purity He does not deserve to be in a house where such things happen. Do this, Lord, not for our sake, for we do not deserve it, but for the sake of Thy Son. We dare not entreat Thee that He should no longer stay with us, for Thou hast granted His prayer to Thee to leave Him with us for to-day — that is, until the end of the world. If He were to go, what would become of us? It would be the end of everything. If anything can placate Thee it is to have on earth such a pledge as this. Since some remedy must be found for this, then, my Lord, I beg Thy Majesty to apply it. For if Thou wilt, Thou art able.”