Trump Visit: Is Khan Guilty of Inciting Hatred? Think Baby Balloon & Name-calling -“Fascist” Is NOT Funny…

Comment

The above video interview dates from President Trump’s previous visit to the UK when the same ugly baby balloon image of him was permitted that will be flown in London during this week’s visit.  It’s a disgrace.  It’s insulting, as is his description of the President as a “fascist“.  One thought which crosses my mind is whether a Christian Mayor would have been so unkind, whatever his political views.  Now, before I’m arrested for “hate speech” let me make my position clear;  just try it – if anyone is guilty of hate speech and inciting to hatred, it is, in my considered view, Sadiq Khan.  And let me add, by way of emphasising that thought which crossed my mind, I sincerely hope that no Christian Mayor of London (or anywhere else for that matter) would be so cruelly unkind in his remarks and in permitting such an insulting image to be publicly displayed during such an important state visit.  I know it’s completely unfashionable to even hint at anything negative in any non-Christian religion but that’s too  bad.  I’m hinting.  In Christianity, we are taught to love even our enemies, to “do good to those who persecute you” – I’m wondering if there is anything similar is Islamic teaching that should have prevented Khan from being so nasty to Donald Trump?  Obviously, as a public figure, the President is not above criticism, but nasty personal remarks and caricatures?  

Headlines today scream that it is Trump who is insulting Khan!  Laughable.  As it is laughable that Trump is intervening in UK elections by suggesting Boris Johnson for PM.  Having watched the interview, I am appalled at the dishonesty.  The political editor of The Sun ASKED Donald Trump for his opinion on various people including Boris, so it is entirely disingenuous to give the impression that the President pushed for any particular candidate in the leadership race.  He simply answered a question.  End of. 

No wonder Donald Trump despises the mainstream media.  Me, too.  What about you?  IS Sadiq Khan guilty of inciting hatred against the President of the United States of  America?  

“Pro-Choice” Women Hard as Nails…

Comment: 

The wild reactions to the news that in the USA there are States which criminalise abortion (as they criminalise every other murder) has been really telling.  In TV discussions, including here in the UK, what stands out starkly is the way women who describe themselves as “pro-choice” (i.e. in favour of having the choice to kill their unborn child) have reacted to the very idea that there may be a return to protecting the unborn child in law.   Hard as nails, is the phrase which kept coming to my mind, watching and listening to them.  They speak about having had an abortion the way the rest of us would speak about having bought the wrong flavour of… let’s see… milkshake, perhaps?

This thread, then, isn’t really about abortion per se – we have a pro-life thread for that (and a segment in the above video to remind us, if any of us need reminding about the sheer barbarism involved in an abortion) and we’ve had many discussions on the subject in dedicated threads.  The purpose of this thread is to examine the extent to which the “right” to kill their unborn child has coarsened women and made them hard as nails.  I can see it plain as daylight in any conversation on the subject, whether on TV or in person.  And I see absolutely NO “agonising”.  Watching the delighted victors in the Irish abortion referendum literally dancing in the streets of Dublin put paid to that lie, once and for all. 

Personally, as a woman myself, I think the “pro-choice” females  are utterly self-centred women who – by the way – do not allow the fathers of their unborn child any say in the matter.  And that on the grounds that it’s the women’s body, her choice. 

Let’s hope they keep their mouths shut, then, in any conversation about men’s bodies – such as the current scandal of the high rate of male suicides.  Whether it’s their son (you know, the one who made it through the womb) or their “partner”/husband, or father, the message, in my world,  is clear;  it’s NOT your body so mind your own business.   

“Pro-choice” women are self-centred, coarse, and hard as nails.  That’s my view – what about you?   

The Delusion of Diversity And The Victim Culture… Playing With Fire?

 Comment:

American author, Heather MacDonald, interviewed in the above clip, speaks a lot of sense, mostly applied to university education but it could all, every word, be applied more generally to society – including UK society.  She quotes a music student from Colombia University who says (incredibly): “Why did I have to listen to this Mozart? Who is this Mozart, this Haydn, these superior white men? There are no women, no people of color.” (sic)

The author goes on to make the point that this student (and her ilk) will take this hate which is being instilled into young people in their colleges, and take it out in the world.  Imagine being one of those females who goes through life perpetually believing that she is a victim, that all men are bad, out to persecute women. And that’s what the majority of the women in the public eye (not to mention students!) appear to believe.  Gimme strength.  

Previously in the interview, Heather had said she is sick of hearing sentences which begin: “As a female… as a black female… as a  black trans-female…” dubbing these “trivial categories.”  And she adds something that should ring true in the heads of all right-thinking people:  “Being female is not an accomplishment and it tells you nothing about me, which is what I know, what I have accomplished, and what my beliefs are.”

Ms MacDonald touches on many key areas of contemporary life, in relation to the diversity agenda and the sexual revolution. It’s well worth listening/viewing right through – takes just over half and hour. 

I couldn’t agree more with just about everything she says  – I’m thoroughly sick of the whole diversity and equality baloney.  What about you? And what, in your opinion,  will be the long-term effects of this “diversity delusion”? 

Mueller Report: Trump Vindicated?

 

From The Daily Caller

CNN pundits are admitting that Mueller’s final report vindicates President Donald Trump, undercutting the frenzied coverage the network has given the Russia investigation since its inception.

Special counsel Robert Mueller submitted his report on Russian collusion to Attorney General Bill Barr on Friday, finally wrapping up a 22-month investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.  Click here to read entire report including clips from CNN news broadcasts. 

Comment: 

It really is laugh-a-minute stuff.  It’s hilarious watching the huge efforts of his enemies to try to bring about the downfall of President Trump. The news reporters here in the UK can barely conceal their disappointment that Mueller has, it seems obvious, vindicated the President of the core claim that he colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 election.  His enemies are unlikely to give up, however.  They are still very much on his case.  Will they – thinkest thou – succeed?  Or is he, as indicated here enjoying some level of divine protection, not least as a result of his respect for Our Lady of Fatima?   

America: Cardinal McCarrick Laicised

Pope Defrocks Theodore McCarrick, Ex-Cardinal Accused of Sexual Abuse

Theodore E. McCarrick, a former cardinal and archbishop of Washington, was expelled from the priesthood after he was found guilty of sexual abuse.

Pope Francis has expelled Theodore E. McCarrick, a former cardinal and archbishop of Washington, from the priesthood, after an expedited canonical process that found him guilty of sexually abusing minors and adult seminarians over decades, the Vatican said on Saturday.

It appears to be the first time that a cardinal or bishop in the United States has been defrocked, or laicized, from the Catholic Church, and the first time any cardinal has been laicized for sexual abuse. Laicization, which strips a person of all priestly identity, also revokes church-sponsored resources like housing and financial benefits.

While the Vatican has laicized hundreds of priests for sexual abuse of minors, few of the church’s leaders have faced severe discipline. The move to defrock Mr. McCarrick is “almost revolutionary,” said Kurt Martens, a professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America.

“Now you will see that bishops are also treated like their priests,” Mr. Martens said in a phone interview. “Bishops and former cardinals are no longer immune to punishment. The reverence that was shown in the past to bishops no longer applies.” 

Mr. McCarrick, now 88, was accused of sexually abusing three minors and harassing adult seminarians and priests. A New York Times investigation last summer detailed settlements paid to men who had complained of abuse when Mr. McCarrick was a bishop in New Jersey in the 1980s, and revealed that some church leaders had long known of the accusations.

Francis accepted Mr. McCarrick’s resignation from the College of Cardinals in July and suspended him from all priestly duties. He was first removed from ministry in June, after a church panel substantiated a claim that he had abused an altar boy almost 50 years ago.

Mr. McCarrick was long a prominent Catholic voice on international and public policy issues, and a champion for progressive Catholics active in social justice causes.

The move is the most serious sign to date that Pope Francis is addressing the clerical sex abuse crisis in the United States. In October, the pope laicized two retired Chilean bishops accused of sexually abusing minors. In December, Pope Francis removed two top cardinals from his powerful advisory council after they were implicated in sexual abuse cases.

In the statement on Saturday, the Vatican said that the prelate had been dismissed from a clerical state after he was tried and found guilty of several crimes: “solicitation in the Sacrament of Confession, and sins against the Sixth Commandment with minors and with adults, with the aggravating factor of the abuse of power.”   Read original New York Times report here

Comment: 

Is this laicisation of a “Prince of the Church” a sign of things to come?  Is the tide turning?  Is this an indication that the liberal stranglehold on the Church is coming to an end?  Will it help to rein in dissenters and abusers? Share your thoughts… 

Honduras Exodus: Christian Charity Or Firm Political Solution Required?

From Zenit…

The Bishops of Honduras are concerned about the serious migration crisis of thousands of Hondurans who are leaving the country. The caravan now has arrived in Mexico, and the US government has announced retaliation and forbidden their entry.

In a statement also sent to Fides News Agency, the Episcopal Conference of Honduras defines the mobilization of so many people a “human tragedy” and expresses pain and concern for the delicate situation created.

“It is a shocking reality, caused by the current situation in our country, which forces a multitude to leave what little it has, venturing without any certainty for the migration route to the United States, with the desire to reach the promised land, the ‘American dream’, which allows them to solve their economic problems and improve their living conditions, for them and their families and, in many cases, to ensure the long-awaited physical security”, reads the document.

The Bishops, therefore, ask the Honduran government to intervene as soon as possible and stop the country’s crisis, a crisis never seen in the history of the Central American nation. “It is the duty of the Honduran State to provide its citizens with the means to satisfy their basic needs, such as decent, stable and well-paid work, health, education and housing, and when these conditions do not exist, people are forced to live in tragedy and many of them hope to undertake a path that leads to development and improvement, finding themselves in the shameful and painful need to leave their families, their friends, their community, their culture, their environment, and their land”, emphasizes the declaration.

“We were deaf to the cries of their rights and blind to see that reality. The news of this caravan is the massive form of thousands of people, mostly young people, who go with the hope of obtaining sufficient resources to transform Honduras”, the text continues.

Pope Francis: ““welcome, protect, promote and integrate migrants”.

In conclusion, the Bishops thank the neighboring countries for the reception and the aid provided towards Hondurans, reminding everyone of the Pope’s request: “welcome, protect, promote and integrate migrants”.

In the last hours, according to local information, the group of the caravan increases, now there are more than 7 thousand, but also the tension on the border with the United States increases, after the insistent warnings of the American President himself. The caravan of the migrants has also created some social tension in Mexico: a group of Mexicans, in fact, welcomed them by providing them with help, while other Mexicans do not agree with the so-called “arrogance” with which they want to enter the United States.  Source – Zenit…

Comment: 

Are the bishops correct in placing the responsibility for the material well-being of its citizens on the Honduran State? And what next, now that these economic migrants are heading for the American border in their thousands: should they be welcomed with open arms (and all those who are likely to follow) – is that Christian charity? Or is the American President right to warn against illegal entry into the U.S.A?  Is it uncharitable to enforce immigration laws against poor people seeking a better deal in this world? How do we, as Catholics, know what is right in this situation?