How old am I?

I'm old enough to remember watching The West Wing back in the early 2000s.  A sort of hour long liberal version of Rush Limbaugh in dramatic form.  Shocking nobody, the Republicans were almost always the bad guys, and the Democrats, barring the odd personality quirk or emotional troubles, did walk in moral and intellectual perfection.  That was why the character of Sam Seaborn, played by Rob Lowe, was so essential, and his departure hurt so badly.  Because while hardly an evil bad guy, he was the show's token "Liberals are only 98% perfect" character, who often put his foot in his mouth while the rest of the West Wing walked on clouds and water.

Anyway, in addressing the big topic of the day, driving home how horrible it is when political parties attack opponents over their personal lives and values and moral failings - things that had been called upon to cease forever during the Lewinsky Scandal - there was a storyline about the character Leo McGarry, the president's Chief of Staff, being an alcoholic.  He just couldn't stop at one drink.  He couldn't imagine how anyone could.  They deftly avoided an affair or sexual assault, but rather something you might call a 'clean' problem, even one beyond his control.  He was the show's Nice Guy character who had kept his little addiction under wraps.  Until those mean, nasty, hypocritical, puritan, rightwing busybodies found out about it and threatened him.  There were several episodes devoted to that storyline, but since he wasn't forced off the show at that point, I'll assume they worked it out and defeated such inquisitorial injustices in the name of political expedience.  

I say all that because: 

Yep.  I've learned the modern Left is a lot like Ohio Weather: If you don't like what they stand for, just wait a minute.  It will change. 

I've also learned that the only thing worse than a group with bad values is a group with no values.  One can be dealt with, resisted, and perhaps even reasoned with. The other?  I think we've seen the obvious over the years.  And yes, Republicans and conservatives can play such 'here today, gone later today' games with standards as well, and it isn't good then either.  Though like so many things, what can happen to the right of center seems almost universal SOP to the left.  

Yes it is good news

AKA Hitler, at least to the left of center

Apparently President Trump has brought back Columbus Day, much to the chagrin of the Left.  I've written about the assault on Columbus Day many times.  It represents the rampant presentism that defines the Left's approach to history.  It often rests heavily on our modern pick and choose approach to facts and reality.  Its replacement rests on that multi-cultural deifying of any civilization not west of the Urals.  And it certainly shows that side of out country that wants our country burned to the ground.  Since obviously, as President Trump said a decade ago, it didn't stop with Columbus or Robert E. Lee.  

Nonetheless, it will be a short-lived victory.  The minute - the second - the Democrats get a president in the Oval Office it will be stricken just the same.  As will many things President Trump has done in such a manner.  The problems are deeply rooted.  It's been said we're in a Cold Civil War.  That is likely true, though it has been getting hot in recent years.  

Of course take the win while we can.  We've never stopped referring to Columbus Day in our home, and despite having a significant line of American Indian in us, never bought into the indigenous people worship endorsed by the Left (and, sadly, no small part of the modern Church). We even still give the day off from school to our youngest. But again, a short lived victory no doubt, unless things take a radical turn from where the Left would have them go. 

This and Harrison Butker too

We all recall the Left/Media's attack against Kansas City kicker Harrison Butker when he dared to challenge the Left's calls for more hedonism and narcissism.  Yet despite some points where those to the Left could have come together and really trounced the guy, the far-left radicals overplayed their hand. By signing petitions and trying to ruin his career, more old time liberals - like Bill Maher - balked.  

Even those who disagreed with him point by point still said they respected his right to speak in a private setting among those who shared his beliefs.  Though the press tried to fish out students at the graduation who would experience PTSD for life because of what he said, they simply found nothing worth exploiting.  

By the end, it was his fellow Catholics and the most extreme left of Lenin 'abortion and group sex' leftists who kept the outrage going.  And among Catholics not just your typical Shea/Greydanus types.  Nice guy Mark Brumley zeroed in on the criticisms.  Even Amy Welborn, whose writings I have admired for years, trounced.  Her piece was filled with so much contempt and condescension toward Butker, I would have believed Shea ghost wrote it for her.  

Oddly, the only thing the MSM went after was his statements on the worth of motherhood and the worth of fathers and masculinity.  Those do cut to the heart of the Left, I will admit.  Almost ignored was his dig at pride Month.  And it was mostly Catholics who got hung up on his statement about who killed Jesus. I suppose they forgot The Passion of the Christ firestorm when Jewish scholars and rabbis repeatedly appeared on the news to remind us that Jewish people never heard of Jesus.  All that Sanhedrin Council and Judas Iscariot rubbish was made up by the antisemitic and racist church generations later.  

But the good news is, despite extreme leftists' and his fellow Catholics' efforts to the contrary, many felt the fanatical zealots overstepped the mark.  They overplayed their hand.  In the end, most Americans, Christians, liberals and even those who disagreed with his beliefs, still upheld his right to express them. 

Now we have a journalist who went undercover with SCOTUS justices Alito and Roberts.  Posing as a conservative Christian, she interviewed them and then quickly released a 'heavily edited' (the words of the initial ABC report) version of the interviews.

First, the Liars for Jesus inquisition won't be able to say a thing.  Remember, led by Dawn Eden they made it clear that whatever evils and slaughter may happen, if someone lies to stop it, that becomes the only thing worth focusing on.  So they're out.  Heck, the interviews were so heavily edited that ABC announced it would not repeat the quotes.  

The amazing thing is that already there is pushback - and from the media as well as sane people.  In the discussion with Dan Abrams, George Stephanopoulos admitted that the questions were extremely leading.  That is, she didn't say 'what do you think about the divisions in our country', or 'what do you think would help our country?'  She actually based the premise of her question on the idea that the divisions were beyond repair, and asked Alito if it was obvious that only one side could win because there was no hope for reconciliation.

At that Alito said he wished there could be some way to live together, but it looked like there isn't much to hope for because there are strong opinions on both sides.  In other words, his answer was more balanced and open than her bating question.

Same with Justice Roberts.  She basically stated to him that we are clearly a Christian country, ain't we?  To which Justice Roberts responded that he had Jewish and Muslim friends who might disagree.  Again, she was more of a caricature of a rightwing Christian theocrat than most rightwing Christian theocrats.  And she acted a million times worse than the two justices she was trying to ensnare. 

It appears that is what bothers the press.  They don't care about undercover reporting.  Of course not.   But the fact that she was asking such leading questions moved the line beyond even entrapment.  And then, armed with the justices' moderate and understated answers, she rushed to social media with massively redacted recordings to suggest these men are compromising their roles as SCOTUS justices!  At first, some media outlets ran with it, asking if they should recuse themselves from the practice of law henceforth. 

But I've noticed over the last week or so, that has gone the way of the dodo.  More stories began to express concern.  Like this follow up report from NPR.  Not only could this have the effect of causing the Supreme Court to become more hush-hush, but there is also a growing creepy factor in all this. 

And that creepy factor is beginning to spread.  Somewhere, when added to going after the spouses of various individuals (like Alito's wife), Harrison Butker's personal beliefs in a private setting, and now the personal views of these justices, it does look like there are some leftists saying you will have no rights or freedoms at all in this country - even at your own home.  Your one freedom is to bow and grovel before the Political Left. And if you say something around the dinner table or at a private setting that dares challenge leftwing dogma, we will get you. 

Never admit you want a communist flavored totalitarian terror state until you have absolute control.  That is the lesson from the sum of the mistakes we have been seeing these last few weeks. 

Though this was brought to my attention as I finish this post.  There will come a time when I stop supporting the NAACP.  I never had an issue with them. They do their thing.  But if they push this 'white ancestors must be erased' movement, without going back to Africa and erasing its rather robust trading in slavery - including at times white slaves - then I'll happily kiss them goodbye.  I will not continue milquetoasting it with groups or individuals who want to attack my 1) Faith, 2) People (Anglo-European/Native American), 3) Country, and 4) cherished values.  The time for wimpy sissy-groveling is past if anyone cares about protecting such things. 

Leftwing tolerance is like kosher ham

This is actually a story.  Set aside the stupid Quidditch sport existing in the first place.  I often wonder if those hipsters who do such things know they are doing just what the corporatism they despise loves to see happen:  People obsessing and immersing themselves in a culture of corporate driven fanboy products. 

Anyway, it exists.  A game based on that sport played in the Harry Potter novels.  Well, it did exist.  They'll still play it, but now they are changing the name.  Why?   Because author J.K.Rowling has failed to conform 100% to leftwing same-think. 

Did she come out and oppose transgenderism?  Perhaps by now, but not initially.  Initially, all she did was defend a high profile Brit scientist - a woman - who was fired for saying scientists shouldn't be fired when they fail to see the science behind the transgender movement.  Like most who initially grovel before the Left, she made her statement wrapped in endless praise and adoration of feminism, the LGTBQ movement, transgender rights and any other leftwing cause.

But it did no good.  Despite her assurances of leftwing conformity, she nonetheless challenged a crucial veil for the latest attack on reality.  That is, the science isn't there behind the whole post-gender movement. Some scientists say it is, but a surprising number of scientists admit the science just doesn't add up with gender being nothing to do with anatomy.  That is why Rowling spoke out against that high profile woman being fired for saying scientists shouldn't be fired when they don't see the science behind transgender normality. 

And now it's this.  And this is only one of many pogroms against Rowling since the whole thing erupted.  Calls to ban her books, sever ties with her brand, ostracize her have become quite common.  According to my boys, there are entire movements dedicated to bringing her down.  Not because she disagreed with transgenderism or the Left.  But because she dared even think of questioning one of its main tactics: conformity at gun point. 

The real reason orthodox believers got behind Donald Trump

As well as conservatives and not a few non-conservatives who aren't sold on the whole leftwing package.  I mean, Trump was far, far from conservatism and conservatives on many levels.  Why the appeal?

The answer is easy.  Because they're all sexist and racist Nazi, that's why.  Or hypocrites.  Or all three.  Or not. Seriously, I think the reason is quite different.   I don't think that Trump was a slam at those rascally liberals, or a middle finger to the Left and its media outlets.  

At the end of the day, I think Trump was an indictment on all of those in the 'professional resistance professions' who had let believers and conservatives down for decades.  I mean the token conservatives on Sunday morning talk shows.  Or high profile religious leaders who seemed to have one foot in the Left's camp through much of the work week.  Or the Republicans who seemed to promise sun and moon and stars, only to go silent the day after elections. 

It was a growing suspicion that a sizeable number of individuals they imagined were prepared to stand on the hill and resist the barbarian hordes were, in fact, priming themselves for leaping down the slopes and joining the barbarian hordes.  Some had, for years, made it clear their loyalty to traditional Judeo-Christian, Western values and traditions was only in the 'token non-liberal' job description.

Others seemed to be strangely drifting as the years went  along.  Some of these were religious leaders and other similar figures.  They still talked the talk: abortion bad, gay sex culture bad, assaults on religious liberty really bad, Marxism and anti-Westernism bad, Christian Gospel good - but there were these hints.  There were subtle little developments that seemed to suggest more and more of these people were looking for an out as well.  

Like Saruman in The Lord of the Rings, these supposed faithful saw the power rising in the East, and they darn well knew it was time to show that power who its friends and enemies were.  As the Left began to shed all premises of tolerance, diversity, inclusion and respect for dissent, and as that same Left was making strides monopolizing more and more of our nation's social and cultural pillars, and as a new generation of power players, billionaires and corporate bosses aligned with this Left, it was clear that holding to that old time religion and apple pie Americana was going to be like waving the Hammer and Sickle in Washington in the early 1950s. 

Trump did little more than confirm their suspicions.  While some "Never-Trumpers" seem to remain committed to the cause, even if they sometimes join with the Power for the really important business of defeating Trump, most have simply jumped ship.  The majority of such religious, political, media and other figures who declared Trump the new Satan and his followers Nazis all, have more or less signed up for the very forces they once claimed to oppose, and have happily ditched many, if not all, of those cherished values they once seemed to embrace. 

In some cases, it must be stated that many who are swinging to the Left of center and aligning with this new power in the world are not ones who were part of this cadre of ideological mimes.  For instance:

Didn't see that one coming. Not from Dawn Eden. That's harsh, and borderline libel.  The others I don't know, but Rod Dreher?  I disagree with Rod over many things, and he can yield as many misses as hits.  But to suggest he's part of some clandestine ultra-right club dedicated to the service of Putin, simply because an international abortion activist says so, is not anything I would have expected from Ms. Eden a decade ago.   That she makes the dig about Carlson is just boilerplate partisan rhetoric - Rod has railed against Carlson as often as he's praised him.  It's simply the same partisan bilge that Shea would do: damnation by association. Leftwing partisan hackery 101.  

Whether Ms. Eden, or someone like Beth Moore, or even Deacon Stephen Greydanus, have only gone this way because they can't believe Trump was elected, or they're caving and getting with the Power in the East, is hard to say.  But they confirmed, I think, what many who fell behind Trump had already begun to suspect.

That is, for many generations, a growing swath of the faithful, those in the West, Americans, and conservatives were, in fact, abandoning the Faith and heritage of our Fathers.  Some made it obvious, others were a bit more tricksy.  But the orthodox faithful were seeing that many who they had trusted to stand with them to carry the banner had, in fact, been bilking them all along. Or, at best, they were losing heart and caving.  And what's more, many might have been ready to throw the white flag and join the opposition, they just didn't know it yet. 

If Trump did nothing else, like drawing puss from a wound, he drew out those who had long been shafting the ones they were supposed to defend.  He also, I'm afraid, became a slick excuse for multitudes of others who had no stomach for the upcoming fight, and gave them an all important out. He gave them an excuse that will allow them to be faithful on any given Sunday, while making sure they report to court with the rest of the prophets to keep their reservation in the next big party in Manhattan, Harvard or Hollywood.  You know, all the places where that Power in the East can be found. 

Please find me the racist

As in, what he said that was racist.  McDonald's CEO Chris Kempczinksi commented on two of the many murders among young people in Chicago:

"With both, the parents failed those kids which I know is something you can’t say. Even harder to fix," Kempczinski texted Lightfoot.

"Thanks, Chris. Great to see you in person. Such a great work space, and your folks were terrific. I said to Joe I would be happy reach out to the operator to offer support. He and his team members have got to be traumatized. Terrible tragedy. Thanks again, Chris," Lightfoot responded. 

So, what was racist?  The assumption that parents, who have recently been told they could be terrorists or that they in fact can't have say in their kids' educations, are therefore responsible for something?  I'm not seeing it.  Perhaps he shouldn't have spoken to these two particular cases without knowing the details.  But racist?  By the way, clearly he was right in saying this is something you're not allowed to do, however many thousands of America's youth die in the meantime. 

Though I think it's safe to say that as a society, we've been grooming parents to fail their kids for many generations.  Ever since we decided Dr. Benjamin Spock was right to tell us everything we ever knew about raising kids was wrong.

Seventy years later, and suicide is now one of the leading causes of death for children as young as ten years old.  We have debates about arming teachers because of the penchant for mass murdering fellow students that has arisen in the last several decades.  Drug use and dependency among young Americans is at all time highs, along with suicide rates.

It's almost like we shouldn't have listened to a sawdust for brains ideologue and should have trusted in some ages old wisdom when it comes to things like parenting, morality, personal responsibility and being mature adults.  Heck, it might even be that we abandoned God and his revealed wisdom for how to act as human beings.  

Nah, that would be like saying we've been wrong all these years.  And there's no end to the youth of America we're willing to let die rather than admit to such a thing. 

Gloria Purvis and Dawn Eden bravely discuss the sins of others

Dawn Eden has learned that - horrors! - one of her Catholic heroes held and shared! ... I can't bring myself to say it .... anti-Semitic views! (more on this later).

Sigh.  I'm beginning to think condemning the sins of our forebears has become the eighth sacrament of the Church.  A generation that defines its righteousness by round the clock dredging up the sinful thoughts and attitudes of past sinners is in a boat load of trouble.  It's an appealing narcotic to be sure, to know that it's the sins of others long gone that you're accountable for.  Not that it's without biblical precedent.  But it isn't hard to see that what is going on now is hell and gone from a biblical approach to national repentance. 

After all, a generation whose stellar accomplishment is watching the civilization it inherited crumble under its watch should clean its own house first.  A generation that has to discuss arming teachers because of  our children mass killing each other in our schools should not be throwing rocks at old time glass houses.  A generation that can boast aborted pregnancies in the hundreds of millions, a debauched and hedonistic culture while tens of millions have died of AIDS and drugs, unprecedented levels of depression, drug addiction and even suicide among children as young as ten years old, out to be slow on the judgment.  And a generation of believers watching unprecedented numbers of believers abandon the Faith for good, or remain and not give a damn about those tired old fairy tales that nobody believes anyway, is not one that should crow too loudly about the sins of yesterday's prophets.  

Yet our continual response to the dumpster fire we've made our generation into is to dig through the records of the past to find out how utterly sinful those who came before us really were.  Sins, by the way, that were often sins of thought or attitude that were all too common then - and just as common today when applied to new demographic groups. May God not judge us as we so brazenly judge those who have come before. 

As a bonus, the always Jesuit America magazine throws its two rubles in with Ms. Purvis and asks just how we  can approach the clear and obvious sins of all those saints we kick around.  As if people didn't realize that the sinfulness of saints is part of what makes the saints so darn inspiring.  If sinners like those can be saints, there's hope for me!  Or do they mean the unforgivable sins of the saints, such as racist thinking, as defined by the Leftist State today?  

For my part, I grow weary of the obsession with sins like racism and sexism, accusations easily thrown out but also easily denied or covered up.  How do we know the whites who scream racism the loudest aren't the racists?  Especially when racism today is more or less defined as failure to adhere to certain politically charged dogmas, based on one's skin color of course, rather than actions and how one lives one's life?  Something you'd think a proud Jewish convert to Catholicism would be more careful about. But then, you'd think an African American Catholic would be careful, too. 

Also, a bonus observation.  Ever notice that liberalism never admits failure?  When we embrace the latest, and the latest ends in disaster, it appeals to group guilt.  So instead of standing beside the Texas attempt to curtail the slaughter of modern abortion, the always Jesuit America magazine instead appeals to the horrors of our patriarchal (read: the men made us do it) guilt and problems and fault and all that group identity guilt that's all the rage in 21st Century Leftwing discourse.  After all, it couldn't have been yesterday's liberals with their promise of consequence free debauchery that is the main problem.  

Again, it's increasingly clear that the focus on past sins is the only antidote for a modern generation with so little to show for its time on Earth.  

Prolife is no heresy

Even if you add scare quotes to the term as if you are the only one who can validate a prolife perspective.  This needs to be said, because:

The falsehoods and calumny upon which he routinely rests his arguments is bad enough.  That he suggests prolife is a heresy while demanding all people of good will align with the party that supports a variety of ungodly positions including, but not limited to, ESR (that's embryonic stem cell research), assisted suicide and the right to die, the modern drugs and sex culture despite the era of AIDS, as well as unchecked abortion rights  from conception to birth, is appalling.  

Worse, however, is the idea that someone stumbling around looking for some voice about Catholicism might find this and think it's true.  After all, that's how I found Mark ages ago.  

I had seen Scott Hahn talking about Confession on EWTN in a hotel room as I was traveling to Florida.  I wasn't able to discover who Hahn was, so when I cam home I went looking to find him.  That's when I stumbled across Mark who, at the time, had recently written a glowing review of the actor John Rhys Davies because Davies had just made an impassioned defense for Christian West demographics against the encroachment of Islamic influence. 

That seemed sane to me, and it countered the impression many of us non-Catholics had that the Catholic Church had long ago rolled over and surrendered to the forces of the day.  Seeing other pieces by Mark, such as a stirring call to arms after the 9/11 attacks, or his observation that the LGBTQ movement embodied a clear and obvious threat not only to the dignity of human relations, but also a threat to religious liberty, suggested he was one to read.  Plus, as my wife said, he wrote the way I talked.  That he was a Tolkien fan sealed the deal.

Granted, I didn't agree with everything I saw Mark write at that time.  Nonetheless, the better seemed to outshine the bad, and his writings, among others, became a help for us getting our heads around Catholicism from an American Evangelical perspective.  

Because of that and the fear that others might stumble upon him now and confuse his political zealotry with the actual Catholic Faith, I find it necessary to point out, again, that being prolife in ways Mark's support for the political Left does not agree with is not a heresy.  Some might call it Christian virtue.  

UPDATE: File under Wolf in Sheep's Clothing.  Apparently his follow up to 'Murderous suicidal prolife heresy' is an article for Catholic Weekly in which he emphasizes the need for Christian unity and hot it is Satan who would have us turn on one another. 

Geeesh.  Again, so that those stumbling about looking for what Catholicism is all about can be warned, especially since there are still those who point to Mark as a valid outlet for learning about Catholicism and Catholic social teaching. 

EWTN is under attack

FWIW, I don't get EWTN in our viewing area. We've never had access to it. That always bothered Marcus when I worked at CHNI.  Though I don't know why.  It isn't as if I had anything to do about it.  But nonetheless, I have never had access to ETWN on a regular basis.

So there might be things about it I don't like or agree with.  There might be people I don't care for.  I'm sure it's probably changed over the years as most things change.  But I know one thing.  In an age where I find out that war games - of which I'm fond - are starting to be attacked and banned when they simulate anything to do with Europe or America in the last 400 years because Racism!(TM), I'm going to be mighty sensitive about a sudden uprising of Catholics saying EWTN must be attacked and brought low because Racism!(TM).

I have no clue about the details.  It seems focus on an EWTN contributor named Gloria Pervis, who threw her lot in with the BLM and subsequent backlash.  Given that BLM's approach to justice reminds me of Mussolini's approach to making railroads run on time, I have no problem with a backlash.  Given how she's responded, on the other hand, she appears a reasonable person, and if she was pulled only for opening up a debate that sounds wrong on EWTN.  

If, however, she fully endorsed BLM and all its glorious manifold evils, I can also sympathize with the network.  After all, BLM has been a major player in the post-human agenda whereby we return to a world of discrimination, privilege and condemnation based on, among other things, skin color.  Consider that black Americans can, apparently, say All Lives Matter while non-blacks or non-leftists say All Lives Matter and reveal their racism as a result.  Just like the N-Word for rappers vs. white college girls. 

I'm still looking for more information on this.  It's really not something I'm altogether invested in, other than opposing the growing McCarthy-like Orwellian '30s Germany dream world of the modern Left and its joys in destroying, banning, oppressing, attacking, or any other assault on those who dare challenge the dogmas of the leftist state and its own brand of ethnic cleansing, race hate and totalitarianism. 

That Catholics, including those who once came out against such tactics, are behind this just goes to show you.  If I find out more, I may adjust my initial thoughts accordingly.  Meanwhile, only one of a group of Catholics going after EWTN at this point:

Good for him

Jack Denton, who was a member of Florida State University's student senate, was thrown out because of his Catholic Faith.   He was caught expressing his Faith's beliefs as they relate to BLM and other issues, such as sexuality.   Because he expressed those in a private chat, it was discovered and he was ousted. 

I have no idea about the details or the legalities.  I don't know if the student senate can secret police its members and dismiss them because of their religious beliefs or not.  I just know this is helpful in exposing the death of American liberalism.   

Remember, "the Left" is still associated with liberalism, and the two are often mentioned in the same breath.  I know I've done it.  Most I know who are on the Left prefer 'liberal' to describe their positions.  And yet, this sort of inquisition Mccarthyism is hell and gone from what liberalism has insisted it was all about since the early 20th century.  In fact, liberalism was the antithesis of this. 

Everything we're seeing that is being promoted by 'the Left' in the 21st Century is what liberalism once condemned and fought against.  Consider how my whole life I heard 'it's wrong to judge, It's Wrong to Judge, IT'S WRONG TO JUDGE!'   Now look at what we're doing to anyone who doesn't conform to the Left's dogmas.   Look at the judgmentalism needed to destroy them memorials, statues and tributes to Americans from generations gone by.  The same thing with the all important concepts of tolerance, diversity and respecting diverse opinions and beliefs we heard liberals talks so much about for all those years. 

Warning flags should go up when a movement that spent nigh on a hundreds years insisting it only wants a nation where all animals are equal suddenly insists we must begin acknowledging that some animals are more equal than others.  Whatever happens with this lawsuit is beyond me.  But it should be one more in a growing pile of warning signs about the country we're becoming; a country this 'Left' wants to be. 

J.K. Rowling continues to get schooled

On the foolish danger of aligning with the Marxist Left.  The Left is a jealous and unforgiving god.  It will demand you embrace X today, and then next year declare X evil and retroactively punish all who listened to it today.  It will settle for nothing less than 100% obedience to whatever it decides is true today.  If something you imagined is true, even if because the Left says it's true, is declared false tomorrow, you had best follow suit or face the Leftist machine. 

That is what Rowling, the left's darling fantasy author of the 21st Century, is learning the hard way.  For years, Rowling's Harry Potter series was lionized and celebrated by the Left in all its establishments: schools, publishing (naturally), the media, Hollywood.  She was the toast of the town, her books elevated to almost Gospel level, and the phenomenon and its marketing by way of a sympathetic news media was the stuff of advertisers' dreams. 

It didn't hurt that she was, herself, far to the left of center.  She knew how to market herself and avoid many pitfalls of other fantasy genre authors.  She figured out how to appeal to Christian fans, Wiccan fans, atheist fans, and even ostensibly conservative fans.  And she, quite alive and visible in the Internet age, managed to convince various groups that her books were for them, no matter how radically opposed those different groups were. 

Because we were entering a phase in which racism and bigotry became the only sins, the unforgivable, all defining sins, her heavy handed themes of inclusion and equality and anti-bigotry fit like a glove.  That she dabled her toes in various liberal darlings like gay sex, feminism, even transgender equality was just icing on the cake.  If she had to go back and insist characters were really gay, or that what appeared friendship was actually more, in our age of credulity, that was just fine.

And yet, because she dared to drop from 100% obedient to only 99.99% faithful to the Leftist gospel, she is now under the full wrath of the Left's inquisition.  She dared to say women have periods, or babies, and that a scientist shouldn't be fired for suggesting there is such a thing as boys and girls. That's been enough. 

She's now a pariah.  She has been hounded by former fans, demanding publishers pull her books.  She's been eviercated on social media.  And you can see the press is only so-so about defending her.  If the press was on her side, it would be running top of the hour stories about the unfair treatment she is receiving, and make a big stink about her views, others who hold her views, and how horrible this movement is that's trying to silence her.  As it is, you see very little of this being covered, and if covered at all, done so on the back page near the grocery sections. 

One way the Left keeps people on the reservation is this 100% lack of tolerance for the slightest divergence from progressive same think.  Oh, they'll insist they're completely open to all points of view.  But that's laughable.  They may not care if you prefer the color orange or if you think man buns are a gastly sight.  But when it comes to the primary dogmas, there is only one way to be, and that's entirely obedient and subservient.  The slightest digression will end with you being cast into the outer darkness with the rest of the irredeemable deplorables. 

Liberals attack black doctor

Wow, it is easy:

Just like people who criticize George Soros only because he is Jewish - and therefore they expose their vile antisemitism.  Or people who criticize Colin Kaepernick only because he's black and they're obviously racist.

So clearly the fact that an entire cadre of doctors appears at an impromptu press conference, and the only one that most have attacked is black, I think we can draw some obvious conclusions!  Not only have they attacked the substance of what she said, they have attacked her.  They have mocked her religious beliefs, they have twisted statements and assaulted her credibility as a person beyond merely a doctor.  I mean, they have skinned her.

And she's about the only one being attacked in such manner.  And she is black.  Nigerian no less.  It's worth noting I've learned first hand that good, white liberals have little tolerance for all those black Africans who don't accept the leftist narrative of America as racist Nazi state giving black Americans no choice but to live down to the lowest of expectations.  So it might be the African part more than the black part that has drawn the fire.

Or there could be  a substantive issue at hand.  Maybe there are facts involved and she was the most prominent individual there, and the backlash is based on a disagreement over facts and details.  But who are we kidding.  If this was everything the same except conservatives and a black liberal doctor, what would those same liberals and left wing outlets be accusing conservatives of doing?

The Left cheats and has cheated for years.  It's time to call them out. Either back off the slick accusation of bigotry anytime someone disagrees with a liberal, or accept that  all those trashing this woman have exposed their obvious racial biases.  One set of rules here.  Not two separate ones.

Buffalo airport bans Chick fil A because of ties to Salvation Army

Really.  Of course it's not just because of ties to the Salvation Army.  And it's not for anything other than the issue which became the death knell of American freedom and liberty: homosexuality.   This is how the Left does it. 

Notice that it's happening now in airports.  What are you going to do?  Boycott the airport? Not fly?  Cancel all business trips?  Just banning Chick fil A from towns or cities could cause mischief.  And if a shopping center did so, that could result in financial backlash.  But colleges, or airports?  What can be done? 

Make no mistake, we're dealing with the final fruits of the old Communists from bygone days.  Like Don Corleone setting up the traitor for after he dies, so those old Soviet operatives set up the victory over our nation, if not the entire West, even after the Soviet Union collapsed.

We let this go at our posterity's peril.  It's time to call them out for what they are: Communists wanting a nation more like the Soviets than America, and all so people can have gay sex in marriage.  If that's the sacrifice we're willing to make, then hopefully it will be us who pays the price, and not those who come later.

J.K.Rowling and the leftist Wizard hunts

J.K. Rowling is nothing if not goofy.  As my sons - my resident Potter fans - once said, you could tell when she went from writing delightful children's stories to attempting to produce the epic of the ages.  Largely because she wrote within the fishbowl of Pottermania and the growing HP Inc. Corporation, her novels quickly became 'How to have a series end as bad as it looked like it would when Harry died to save humanity without killing our Brand Icon.'  As a result, the later novels are often bloated, tiring, convoluted and, quite frankly, dull.   The Goblet of Fire, per my sons, is the turning point where you can see the works pander more to the Corporate and fan base interests than the original story line.  My second oldest said it best when he said she ended up building a fantasy universe too large for her skills and talents to fill.

Anyhoo, as a fair children's book author, she nonetheless showed herself to be rather keen at tapping into the fanboy fan base culture at the dawn of the global Internet market.  Thanks to the GIM, even the most worthless piece of crap produced can rake in a hundred million dollars.  A little better than crap and you can have hundreds of millions in global revenues.  Get a name for yourself, and even your limpest efforts can produce sales that would have made The Beatles blush.

You must be careful, however.  Seeds planted in firm liberal soil today can choke you with leftist thorns tomorrow.  In those ancient of days, for example, before the ascension of the radical Left to global prominence, she had to contend with the possibility of backlash from the Conservative Christian front.  How did she handle this?  Easy.  She insisted, in addition to there ever and only being seven books about Harry Potter, that she was a down home Christian girl herself, and the final book was going to be awash in Christian themes.  She couldn't say how - that was secret.  If she spoke too much of her religion, it would give away the ending.

When the day of reckoning came, and Deathly Hallows was released, it was easy to see the rather blatant Christian imagery she utilized, from grave markers to the obvious death and resurrection motif.  That made all those Christian Potter fans say, "See!  Told ya!".  Mark Shea declared the Potter series a complete unpacking of the Passion Narratives.  Any criticism or curiosity about things like the series' consequentialist tendencies was met which charges of being an idiot or not spiritual enough.  This was, remember, the fantasy fan-boy fan base - Christian or otherwise - which Rowling seemed to understand so well.

Nonetheless, to avoid alienating the non-Christian/leftist fans who picked up on her more liberal themes of individualism, down with authority, and diversity based on liberal principles, she blurted out, a day or so after the book's release, that Dumbledore was, in fact, gay.  What?  Where was that ever said?  Did anyone reading the books ever conclude that?  But before those important Christian fans (of which there were many) lost faith in the gospel of Potter, she turned on her heals and insisted that Dumbledore never actually did anything physical about it.  Huh?  What does this even mean?

It meant nothing of course.  She was merely throwing out whatever to keep the sales going and the rather diverse global fan base happy.  She was finding ways to talk out of all sides of her mouth.  In those days, many of the Christians who were Potter fans (who would eventually become full-blown leftists) were not leftists yet.  And the thought of injecting homosexuality into kids' books would have caused problems.  But in the face of the growing anti-Christian sentiments of the leftist fan base, her constant appeals to this or that Christian theme or imagery was also bothersome.  She did what she had to do.

But over the years, her talents for just about anything - including writing - have come into serious question.  Her wading into the issues of the day shows that she spends about as much time thinking on the issues of the day as Lewis or Tolkien (the ones she was constantly compared to) likely did about whale gutting in the arctic.  But whereas Tolkien and Lewis were geniuses in their fields, as well as profound thinkers about other subjects such as mythology, religion and ethics and the field of fantasy literature, Rowling comes across as a rank amateur at best.

So now, in the wake of the Left's growing anti-"cis" White witch hunts, despite all attempts to be as diverse as possible, Rowling has been charged with not being diverse enough.  By that, the leftist lynch mob means Harry and the main characters were white and not having sweaty gay sex, and that's all they need to know.  To counter this juggernaut, Rowling has done what her meager abilities and insights on such topics allow, and that's come out with more incoherent ramblings.  She's tried to insist that in her world, all things gay and diversity dominate the Hogwarts universe - it's just a small microcosm of nasty cis-white people happened to be in the middle of the stories.

Ten years ago that would have flown, no matter how lame. The Left (and Christian fans) would have felt compelled to accept such dribble, even though they knew it was dribble.  But not now.  The leftist mob is now comfortable in its power and belief that, after a few more election cycles in America and abroad, it will finally have the power it wants to exterminate all who fail to conform to its demands.  Simply rolling out some weird 'trust me (wink, wink) it's there' won't cut it.  If you don't openly and loudly denounce Christians, Conservatives, Whites, Men, Heterosexuals, non-conforming Minorities, Americans and anyone else deemed an enemy of the Leftist State, while celebrating the latest leftist dogmas, you're in for it.  No amount of BS or wiggle room with stupid and transparent bilge will do.

I must admit, there's a bit of guilty pleasure I feel in watching the growing number of old and older liberals being consumed by the raging flames of the Millennial socialist and leftist wildfires.  These Frankenstein monsters the Left created are pure ideologues.  They will not put up with old word drool and politics as usual and talking points that score a few runs here or down the road.  They are armed with torches and swords, and have every intention of destroying anything and anyone that doesn't live up to their latest daily standards.  And that might even include each other.

The old Boomer liberals, or even leftists of my generation, might have been content with obvious BS that could advance the leftist agenda, but not these  youngsters.  They are pure dog soldiers for the Left.  You either brazenly fall into line with the Left 100% of the time, or it's the torch.  That will not only include any books, movies, shows or art deemed retroactively unacceptable, but it will also include those individuals and groups deemed past their sell by date and no longer of any use to the leftist Cause.

My answer to Rebecca Hamilton

No.  I will not vote for lies, race hatred, and fear.  Which is why I'll never vote Democrat.  It always amazes me when the side that consistently screams 'we're all going to die!' if the other side accomplishes anything can ever accuse anyone else of stoking fear.  Race?  I'm against racism, including the idea that you can always know someone is an evil racist by their white skin color.  Lies?  That's hardly confined to one party or politician.  Furthermore, I'll not support the party that demands I have a lobotomy and embrace outright moronic idiocy and stupidity in order to support its continued failures and hypocrisy.

Finally, I will not support the modern Left, a hodgepodge of lazy Marxism, Communist wannabeism, Bolshevism, and pining to take on a form of Leninism and Stalinism as it almost proudly declares an end to the right to not be a Leftist.  Literally.  What is her piece but one giant 'we don't care if he's guilty, we hate him and want him gone'?  Why wait to find out if Trump did anything wrong, just send him to the gulags!  We saw the same with the Brett Kavanaugh debacle.  It wasn't people who were stupid enough (or liars enough) who insisted that the joke of a case had any merit.  It was those who said they didn't care if he was innocent or guilty.  Because he was a threat to people that matter, that was enough to destroy him.  They were the ones sounding the alarms and warning bells that freedom in America will be a thing of the past if they have their way.  It will be a new day where the Left can simply destroy your life, reputation, career, or family - because. 

Jeremy Kappell and life in the American Soviet

Jeremy Kappell, a meteorologist, has learned about life in the Left's dream of an American Soviet state.  He's been fired because he's white.  Plain and simple.  Ostensibly he substituted the word 'coon' for 'King' when saying MLK's name in a newscast.  But he was fired because he is  white.  That is, it was assume he meant it because he's white, it was interpreted as deliberate because he's white.

Think on it.  Why else would anyone assume the worst in this case?  If he was Black or Muslim, would we assume racism and move to terminate without question?  Nope.  He's white.  Thus the Social Media Inquisition was convened, local politicians demanded the appropriate lynching, and he was fired because he was white.

If you're against racism, you're against this.  If you don't want to see a rise in white supremacy, you're against this.  If you have a modicum of decency or - ironically - if you value the teachings of Martin Luther King, Jr., you're against this.

If, however, you are a member of the emergent Left, this might be just what you crave.  And if you support this racism, there's no reason to think that a hundred years ago in the South, or eighty years ago in Germany, you wouldn't have supported the bigotry and racism that was all the rage back then.

New Prolife Catholics lament the failure to destroy an innocent man

Here.  Yep.  I'll be wrapping up soon and reinstating my Fantastic Patheos Boycott.  I broke it when news came of Zippy Catholic's tragic death.  I then continued because of Mark linking to Deacon Steven Greydanus who, apparently, joined the Left in trying to destroy Brett Kavanaugh by citing Urban Dictionary interpretations of thirty-five year old notes in a high school yearbook.  Apparently a woman with no evidence, facts, details, or witnesses says she was assaulted, so Kavanaugh must have been a drunken bum.  History as rapist men assaulting women everywhere but bathrooms after all.

Stunned to see the good deacon join with the Left in destroying an innocent man so that abortion may continue to empower women, I realized the predictable zeal of Mark Shea in slavishly following the evil of the Left wasn't confined to Mark, or even Patheos Catholics.  As other Catholics, Catholic publications and Catholic institutions joined in the elevation of racism, sexism, and a police state mentality so that abortion could remain unchallenged, I continued to follow Mark as a sort of pulse for the move toward the Left among Catholics in general.

Now that Kavanaugh is confirmed, I expect Mark will continue to trickle out a few posts here or there, but that's all.  Still, I'm really tired of the whole move toward madness.  Clearly America is teetering on becoming the very type of totalitarian regime that it resisted during the last century.   And it will have plenty of help from Christians, including Catholics, who will grab the pitchforks and torches and help lead the way.  After all, without Catholics, we wouldn't have majority support for things like gay marriage and abortion in the first place.

As if to reinforce this, Mark also posts that he is once again invited to a Catholic parish as honorable speaker.  The problem with Mark isn't that he is some freakish exception to the Catholic rule.  The problem is, no matter how radical and extreme and even sinful are his devotions to the Left, he appears merely to be going with the mainstream.  A mainstream that has no qualms with heaping praise and adoration on Mark for the very thing Mark once would have condemned as ungodly and unchristian.

Oh, and one final post.  Here, in an almost surreal coda to the whole 'Kavanaugh as rapist because a woman says so' embarrassment that Mark so zealously embraced, Mark regales us of a story that just happened in his life.  Apparently while walking with his wife, they were attacked by dogs.  Thankfully nobody was hurt.  He was able to fend off the canines, and he and his wife made it home.  He then called to report the incident and demand that the pooches be exterminated for the safety of nearby children, even going so far as to say that if he owned a gun, he would have gladly shot the dogs on sight.

In what can only be seen as an almost parody of old time thinking, Mark celebrates his manliness, his ability to protect his helpless woman, and his pride in demanding the termination of the dogs in question.  In short, he lives out what the Left would insist was stereotypical toxic masculinity, sexist gender roles, and  anthropocentric disdain for the planet and its creatures.

That's what happens when you get out in the world.  You suddenly realize just how wrong and stupid the modern narratives are, and how in real life, the old time paradigms and teachings about reality actually fit with what happens on a day to day basis.  Given the comments, you actually begin to wonder if they even believe all the rubbish they impose on others.

If this incident will start Mark to thinking, or rethinking what he has come to, I can only guess.  But for now, I'll leave it to him.  Back to my planned hiatus from Patheos, and much of the crazy in our modern times.

To all the good Christians and Catholics pushing for the destruction of Judge Kavanaugh and his family

Here:

As the Left becomes almost ecstatic at having destroyed the concept of due process and presumption of innocence, it's worth pondering.  Do not be too eager to deal out death and judgement.  Especially when the entire purpose of the judgement is to keep the sacred right to abort babies in our law books.

Of course the same SJW leftists pushing to eliminate our rule of law also know Tolkien was an antisemitic, racist, misogynist, Ethnocentric, xenophobe whose entire body of work was imperialist, racist bilge.  So there you go.  Thus is the 21st century.  Thus is the alliance of the progressive and liberal Christians with the emergent Left, including the vaunted New Prolife Catholics.

Stephen Colbert does the Left's bidding

Here.  After yesterday's hearing, even the most stalwart leftist journalists conceded both witnesses were credible.  Even the most rank partisan commentators I saw and read tipped their hat to both witnesses, as well as the obvious pain this has caused them and their families.  I saw none who did other than say the hurt that the families had been through, and the pain of the witnesses, was moving.

But not Colbert.  He wades in, being more hyper partisan than even some of the Democrats on committee.  He openly mocks Kavanaugh and his pain, deriding his 'well-coiffed head of steam'.  He, good Catholic that he is, ignores any pain of his family's, or his daughters.  What are they to him?  Obstacles to the political Left's power lust I suppose.

Of course he declares Kavanaugh all but guilty, and dutifully repeats the Democrat dodge of FBI!, while not mentioning the Democrats' own complicity in sitting on the information for weeks before releasing it.  Colbert is so doggedly devoted to all, including the worst of the Left's designs, I have no doubt that if the Left started calling for swastika armbands, he'd be first in line to buy one.

Comedian?  Bah.  There is no evil of the Left he doesn't defend or champion; there are no innocent lives hurt by the Left that he doesn't ignore, or mock, or gladly attack himself.  Again, if you ever ponder why we have Donald Trump, you need only watch such a slavish thrall to the worst of the Left do his best to attack any who blaspheme the Left's true gospel.

Also,if anyone ever wondered how Catholics throughout history could do some of the horrendous things they did, one need only watch defender of lynch mob, bigotry, hurting innocent people Colbert.  The only thing missing is the rack and thumb screws, but that's only because they've gone out of style.

UPDATE: I have changed the post title since, in fairness, Colbert is not disgracing the Catholic faith any more than all of the other Catholic leftists who are defecating on Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh's family, the rule of law and the prospect of freedom in order to help the party dedicated to the sacrament of abortion keep control in the courts.  Why single Colbert out?  He's merely one of many.

Was she out of her cotton picking mind!

So I was watching CBS this morning while getting ready for the day.  It has a segment dedicated to 'what unites is more important than what divides us.'  So it picked this story.  Fair enough.  I'll just cut to the chase.  During the interview, one of the twins (sorry, couldn't keep track of which) said that when she told her Dad she would run - presumably as a Republican, though I missed that detail - he said "Are you out of your cotton picking mind?!"  That was according to her.  Her words.  An African American.  I assume her father is as well.

Why do I waste time on such a trivial thing?  Because of this.  Oddly enough, I saw this story in the second link on CBS, in which the hosts lamented the clear insensitivity of the individual in question.  CBS wasn't alone.  It's enough that it made the rounds, screams of outrage, charges of racism, and the requisite groveling in the dirt and begging for forgiveness.  And what is the difference?  The young women in the first link are not white, the fellow in the story of outrage was white.  I could be wrong.  Perhaps there will be some outcry against her use of such a racist and thoughtless phrase.  But I'm not holding my breath.  I'll leave you to figure out why.