Title :
link :
http://ift.tt/2onj0IO
Wednesday, June 7, 2017
Big Mamie, Fall River, MA
Michelle Obama Could Not Believe Who Delivered The Biggest Insult Of Her Life
Michelle Obama is used to being treated like royalty.
For eight years she acted like she was the queen of America.
But one surprising individual delivered a massive insult.
Hillary Clinton – of all people – gave Michelle Obama the biggest snub of her life.
Clinton had refused to share a plane with the then First Lady.
This bombshell revelation came courtesy of Judicial Watch releasing a new batch of Clinton emails.
The Washington Free Beacon reports:
THIS WASN’T THE FIRST POINT OF FRICTION BETWEEN THE OBAMA’S AND THE CLINTONS.
THE TWO FAMILIES DID NOT GET ALONG AFTER THE 2008 CAMPAIGN WHEN OBAMA DEFEATED HILLARY, AND
BILL CLINTON WAS ACCUSED OF MAKING RACIALLY INSENSITIVE REMARKS.
HACKED EMAILS FROM COLIN POWELL’S PERSONAL ACCOUNT WERE RELEASED DURING THE 2016 CAMPAIGN
AND THEY REVEALED JUST HOW DEEP THE BAD FEELINGS RAN.
The New York Post reports:
CORPORATE FINANCIER JEFFREY LEEDS DEPICTED CLINTON AS A SORE LOSER SET ON REVENGE IN THE EMAILS, WHICH WERE OBTAINED BY THE INTERCEPT, AND CLAIMED CLINTON IS TERRIFIED SHE MIGHT LOSE AGAIN.
“I THINK HILLARY CAN’T BELIEVE SHE MIGHT NOT MAKE IT,” LEEDS WROTE TO POWELL IN MARCH 2015. “IT’S
THE ONE PRIZE SHE WANTS. SHE HAS EVERYTHING ELSE.
LEEDS WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE 2008 DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY LEFT CLINTON AND OBAMA BITTER RIVALS.
“AND SHE HATES THAT THE PRESIDENT (‘THAT MAN,’ AS THE CLINTONS CALL HIM) KICKED HER ASS IN 2008,” HE WROTE. “SHE CAN’T BELIEVE IT OR ACCEPT IT.”
LEEDS ALSO WROTE THAT HILLARY’S STATE DEPARTMENT EMAIL SCANDAL MIGHT WRECK HER CAMPAIGN — AND THAT OBAMA WOULDN’T MIND WATCHING HER BURN FOR IT.
“NO ONE LIKES HER AND THE CRIMINAL THING AIN’T OVER,” LEEDS WROTE IN ANOTHER EMAIL.
“I DON’T THINK THE PRESIDENT WOULD WEEP IF SHE FOUND HERSELF IN REAL LEGAL TROUBLE. SHE’LL PUMMEL HIS LEGACY IF SHE GETS A CHANCE AND HE KNOWS IT.”
Republicans Unlocked The Secret To Ending Elizabeth Warren’s Career
Elizabeth Warren is looking to roll up the score in her 2018 re-election campaign.
Her scheme is to use a massive victory as a launching pad for a 2020 Presidential campaign.
Republicans know this and now they have unlocked the secret to ending her career.
The GOP is going to dust off the anti-Clinton playbook and update it for Warren.
Hillary Clinton was such a toxic and polarizing figure before she ran for the Presidency that she was a far weaker figure than fawning members of the media realized.
McClatchy reports:
“Republicans are getting a jump on Elizabeth Warren’s 2020 presidential campaign.
The Massachusetts Democrat is preparing to run for re-election to the Senate in 2018 and hasn’t said yet whether she’ll challenge President Donald Trump for the White House. But in-state and national Republican officials have decided to target the liberal icon anyway, saying they will try to inflict enough damage during the Senate race to harm any future presidential effort — and perhaps dissuade her from running altogether.
Already, one national Republican group has begun a comprehensive effort to track Warren’s every public appearance and add to a dossier of unflattering research on her. Other GOP officials predict that even in deep-blue Massachusetts, the senator’s opponents could raise gobs of money from conservatives nationwide and even benefit from the attention of Trump.
The goal is more about weakening Warren than defeating her: Republicans doubt that any of their party’s likely candidates could topple her next year. But even with the next presidential election more than three years away, they say exposing her weaknesses now — or making sure her race is closer than expected — could do lasting damage.
“We learned from our experience with Secretary (Hillary) Clinton that when you start earlier, the narratives have more time to sink in and resonate with the electorate,” said Colin Reed, executive director at the Republican outside group America Rising.“
While it is highly unlikely Warren would lose re-election in deep blue Massachusetts, Presidential hopefuls have been tripped up before in contests which were expected to be dress rehearsals for their Presidential bids.
In 2006, Virginia Senator George Allen was considered safe in his re-election and one of the front runners for the 2008 GOP nomination.
But after he was caught on tape making a racially insensitive remark, he was narrowly defeated and it completely derailed his White House plans.
Warren will likely avoid that fate.
However, the GOP proved that you can cripple a candidate without defeating them by tagging them with negative stories and narratives.
And with Warren there are plenty to choose from.
She lied about having Native American ancestry so she could obtain a teaching job.
Her far left economic politics are nothing more than Venezuelan style socialism and redistribution of wealth.
If the GOP can tag her as a lying socialist, they could poison the water for her upcoming Presidential campaign.
Trump has begun to pick at these scabs by repeatedly mocking Warren as “Pocahontas”.
Will this strategy knock Warren off stride?
Kellyanne Conway Says “Most Of Washington” Hated James Comey
BY MARTIN LIOLL
As White House advisers go, Kellyanne Conway is about as kick-butt as we’ve seen at 1600 Pennsylvania in quite some time. This is someone who reportedly broke up a fight at an inaugural ball by punching one of the participants and also confronted a liberal heckler at the airport. She’s definitely not business as usual.
So, it wasn’t any surprise when President Donald Trump’s pugnacious adviser went after former FBI Director James Comey during a Monday morning interview on NBC, where she said that “most of Washington… detested this man” before he was fired.
Conway’s remarks dealt with Comey’s scheduled testimony before Congress this Thursday. She didn’t rule out that the president would use executive privilege to block Comey’s testimony due to the private nature of their conversations. (According to Fox News, the White House later ruled out the use of executive privilege, saying Comey would be allowed to testify.)
“The president will make that final decision but if Mr. Comey does testify we’ll be watching with everyone else,” Conway said about the issue of executive privilege.
“I would point out two things: most of Washington, of course many of the Democrats, detested this man until Donald Trump fired him, which Jim Comey said in his own goodbye letter was the right of the president to do.
“Secondly, Jim Comey, the last time he testified under oath, the FBI had to scurry and correct his testimony almost immediately because what he said was false. He was off by hundreds of thousands in terms of the emails between Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner, and there were only two classified in there, apparently, and he was off by many, many in terms of the classification.”
“But the fact is, if he testifies, we’ll all be watching, but I think people should also look at the Rod Rosenstein memo again to see what the problem was in the department with FBI Director Jim Comey,” she continued.
“But the fact is, if he testifies, we’ll all be watching, but I think people should also look at the Rod Rosenstein memo again to see what the problem was in the department with FBI Director Jim Comey,” she continued.
“Rosenstein clearly points out that the integrity and the morale were down, and he clearly points out that Comey had tried to usurp the power of the attorney general, Loretta Lynch, and that he did ‘textbook’ what you’re not supposed to do by holding a press availability and announcing why they decided not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.”
Conway is right; Comey was loathed by the left until Trump fired him. Then, once he was fired, he became a martyr on which their vague hopes for impeachment could be pinned upon.
NSA Contractor Accused Of Leaking Information Is A Trump Critic
"I'm losing my mind."
By Jack Davis
The National Security Agency contractor charged with leaking a classified document has been fiercely opposed to President Donald Trump, according to some of the comments she made on social media.
Reality Leigh Winner, 25, was charged Monday with removing classified material from a government facility and mailing it to a news outlet. The document, which she sent to The Intercept, claimed Russian government hackers attempted to hack more than 100 local election officials before the November election.
Reality Leigh Winner, 25, was charged Monday with removing classified material from a government facility and mailing it to a news outlet. The document, which she sent to The Intercept, claimed Russian government hackers attempted to hack more than 100 local election officials before the November election.
NSA Leaker, Reality Winner, Is A Bernie Supporter Who ‘Resists’ Trump http://ift.tt/2qZE0H7 …#MAGA#Trump#Resistance
11:21 PM - 5 Jun 2017
One social media post from earlier this year shows Winner’s frustration with Trump’s position to allow the Dakota Access Pipeline project to move forward.
“I’m losing my mind. If you voted for this piece of s–t, explain this. He’s lying. He’s blatantly lying and the second largest supply of freshwater in the country is now at risk,” she posted on Facebook earlier this year.
One social media post from earlier this year shows Winner’s frustration with Trump’s position to allow the Dakota Access Pipeline project to move forward.
“I’m losing my mind. If you voted for this piece of s–t, explain this. He’s lying. He’s blatantly lying and the second largest supply of freshwater in the country is now at risk,” she posted on Facebook earlier this year.
She used the hashtag “NeverMyPresident” and “Resist” in a Facebook post about the project.
Other posts indicate her support for avowed socialist Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the Women’s March and the Islamic Society of North America.
She also posted on Feb. 14 a comment about a meeting she had with Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., in which they discussed “my concerns regarding climate change and what the state of Georgia is doing to reduce dependency on fossil fuels.”
“Meanwhile, my plea that our senators not be afraid to directly state when our president or his cabinet tell outright lies was well heard. I was able to draw the parallel between the 2011 interview of (Syrian) President Bashar al-Assad claiming utter ignorance of the human rights violations his citizens were protesting to Trump’s statement last week that the White House hadn’t received any calls about the (Dakota Access Pipeline), nor were there any protests before last week. They got the message,” she wrote.
Winner’s court-appointed attorney, Titus Nichols, said his client has “just been caught in the middle of something bigger than her.”
Billie Winner, the suspect’s mother, said her daughter was ” trying to be brave for me. I don’t think she’s seeing a light at the end of the tunnel.”
She said her daughter was not especially political.
Nichols said Winner spent six years in the military and speaks Farsi and Pashto.
Other posts indicate her support for avowed socialist Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the Women’s March and the Islamic Society of North America.
She also posted on Feb. 14 a comment about a meeting she had with Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., in which they discussed “my concerns regarding climate change and what the state of Georgia is doing to reduce dependency on fossil fuels.”
“Meanwhile, my plea that our senators not be afraid to directly state when our president or his cabinet tell outright lies was well heard. I was able to draw the parallel between the 2011 interview of (Syrian) President Bashar al-Assad claiming utter ignorance of the human rights violations his citizens were protesting to Trump’s statement last week that the White House hadn’t received any calls about the (Dakota Access Pipeline), nor were there any protests before last week. They got the message,” she wrote.
Winner’s court-appointed attorney, Titus Nichols, said his client has “just been caught in the middle of something bigger than her.”
Billie Winner, the suspect’s mother, said her daughter was ” trying to be brave for me. I don’t think she’s seeing a light at the end of the tunnel.”
She said her daughter was not especially political.
Nichols said Winner spent six years in the military and speaks Farsi and Pashto.
CNN’s Sally Kohn Wants to Fight Terrorism With “Tolerance” And “Political Correctness”
CNN contributor Sally Kohn posted several tweets over the weekend that encapsulate the failure of liberal thinking when it comes to Islamic terrorism.
Responding to the terror attack in London, Kohn’s proposed political correctness as the solution.
“It’s not cause of terrorism. It’s antidote,” she tweeted.
She said that when we make political correctness the scapegoat, “we undermine values of tolerance and equality that are ALWAYS our best weapon against hate.”
“Our values of pluralism and inclusion and equality are under attack. The answer to terrorism CANNOT be to throw away our values,” she said.
See below:
Responding to the terror attack in London, Kohn’s proposed political correctness as the solution.
“It’s not cause of terrorism. It’s antidote,” she tweeted.
She said that when we make political correctness the scapegoat, “we undermine values of tolerance and equality that are ALWAYS our best weapon against hate.”
“Our values of pluralism and inclusion and equality are under attack. The answer to terrorism CANNOT be to throw away our values,” she said.
See below:
Political correctness is simple idea everyone should be treated with equal dignity & respect. It's not cause of terrorism. It's antidote.
Of course we can't snap our fingers make all current terrorists just become more tolerant and respectful....
When we make political correctness the scapegoat, we undermine values of tolerance and equality that are ALWAYS our best weapon against hate
Of course we can't snap our fingers make all current terrorists just become more tolerant and respectful....
But long term, do we help future would-be terrorists turn toward respect, tolerance, away from hate? Or do we become more hateful ourselves?
10:14 AM - 4 Jun 2017
It’s easy to pontificate on Twitter. Kohn is one of many liberals who chooses to preach to the rest of America without ever actually doing anything.
The truth of the matter is that defending ourselves against terrorism is not hateful. It’s common sense.
Terrorists have done nothing to deserve any respect. Moreover, these animals do not want our respect. They prey on dupes like Kohn, as the infiltrate society and commit these horrible atrocities.
It’s exactly this brand of “tolerance” that got Europe into this mess. Unfortunately, that’s a mess that could soon make its way to the United
States if we do not stay proactive and fight terrorism, not with tolerance, but with military force.
Share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about Sally Kohn’s suggestion that political correctness is an antidote for terrorism.
The truth of the matter is that defending ourselves against terrorism is not hateful. It’s common sense.
Terrorists have done nothing to deserve any respect. Moreover, these animals do not want our respect. They prey on dupes like Kohn, as the infiltrate society and commit these horrible atrocities.
It’s exactly this brand of “tolerance” that got Europe into this mess. Unfortunately, that’s a mess that could soon make its way to the United
States if we do not stay proactive and fight terrorism, not with tolerance, but with military force.
Share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about Sally Kohn’s suggestion that political correctness is an antidote for terrorism.
BREAKING: Pro-Trump Group ATTACKS Comey
by: Alex Pappas
A pro-Trump organization has announced plans to run an ad on national television attacking former FBI Director James Comey while he testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday.
The Great America Alliance, an organization that supports the president but is not affiliated with him, is running an ad reminiscent of a campaign attack spot, accusing Comey of putting "politics over protecting America."
"As head of the FBI, James Comey put politics over protecting America," the ad's narrator says. "After the FBI banned terms like radical Islam for political correctness, Comey allowed the dangerous practice to continue. When terror attacks were on the rise last year, Comey was consumed with election meddling, and after he testified before the US Senate, Comey's own staff admitted some of his answers were flat out wrong."
It ends with: "James Comey, just another DC insider only in it for himself."
The Great America Alliance, an organization that supports the president but is not affiliated with him, is running an ad reminiscent of a campaign attack spot, accusing Comey of putting "politics over protecting America."
"As head of the FBI, James Comey put politics over protecting America," the ad's narrator says. "After the FBI banned terms like radical Islam for political correctness, Comey allowed the dangerous practice to continue. When terror attacks were on the rise last year, Comey was consumed with election meddling, and after he testified before the US Senate, Comey's own staff admitted some of his answers were flat out wrong."
It ends with: "James Comey, just another DC insider only in it for himself."
Remembering D-Day
By Newt Gingrich
Seventy-three years ago, Americans, British, Canadians, Free French Forces, and their allies launched the most complex operation ever implemented by human beings: The invasion of Normandy.
So much planning, training, coordination, equipment, and courage had to come together for success that it is still hard to believe the Allies achieved it. If you have not seen The Longest Day, it is a good introduction to the complexity of the invasion. And the first 25 minutes of Saving Private Ryan is perhaps the most authentic representation of the horrors of Omaha Beach on film.
Amphibious landings, like the ones conducted by Allies on the beaches of Normandy, are the most complex undertakings in warfare. Normandy was especially difficult because the Germans had had four years to prepare for an invasion. Both the Nazis and the Allies recognized that this was the crisis of the war in Europe.
If the Allies failed, they might never have had the nerve to try it again – and even if they did, it would have taken at least a year, possibly two, to rebuild the forces needed for another invasion. The human cost of failure would have been appalling – with tens of thousands of American and Allied forces losing their lives.
In the end, D-Day was remarkably successful. The three paratrooper divisions landed well behind the beaches and did their job of blocking German reinforcements. All five beaches were captured. By the end of the day, the Allies were ashore in such large numbers that the Germans could not force them back into the sea. The gamble was won and the Allies were on the way to victory 337 days of hard fighting later.
There are four courageous moments that made the D-Day success possible.
First, in January 1944, British General Bernard Montgomery insisted on dramatically increasing the size of the operation to ensure that it was so large that it would probably succeed despite everything the Germans could do to try and stop it. Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was then Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe, agreed, and together they forced the development of a much larger campaign.
Second, Eisenhower had concluded that the Allied strategic bombers had to be used to cut off the French railroads. This would make it much more difficult (and much slower) for the Germans to move forces to the point of invasion. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, however, was concerned about the number of French civilian casualties that would result from this decision (strategic bombers were very inaccurate in that era) and feared the negative impact this would have on the British-French relationship following the war. General Charles de Gaulle, the leader of the Free French movement, reassured him that France would pay any price to get rid of the Nazi occupiers. Eisenhower warned that they would agree to the bombing campaign or he would resign. He reasoned that he was the person responsible for success, and if they did not trust his judgment, they needed a new commander. Churchill ultimately agreed, and the railroads were bombed, slowing the Germans dramatically in their effort to rush troops to Normandy.
Third, the invasion was originally planned for June 5, 1944, but the weather was so bad that it had to be postponed. Seven thousand ships and more than two hundred thousand troops were at sea. Three divisions of paratroopers and their planes and gliders were leaning forward, ready to go.
The Germans, however, decided to relax. They thought the strong storms, high winds, and dark skies made an invasion impossible.
But the winds were coming from the west, and the Allies, who had a weather station in Greenland, received advanced warning that the weather was about to improve rapidly. The most the meteorologist could promise Eisenhower was a two-day window of fairly decent weather.
At this point, the burden of the biggest decision of World War II fell solely on Ike's shoulders: Wait for better weather and keep all those soldiers, sailors, and airmen waiting – which risked the invasion’s discovery by the Germans – or take the gamble and move forward with the attack in the early hours of June 6th.
Eisenhower said go. He then kept in his pocket a message stating that he took full responsibility if the invasion failed. But Eisenhower was right to gamble on the improving weather. Had he waited until later in June, the invasion would have been shattered by one of the greatest storms to hit Normandy in years.
Finally, the courage of the fighting men cannot be overstated. Callista and I have spent the past week visiting Normandy with the City of Fairfax Band, of which Callista is a member. The band has performed at ceremonies at the Brittany American Cemetery in Saint James, the Normandy American Cemetery at Omaha Beach, and at a commemoration event at Sainte-Mère-Église.
Sainte-Mère-Église was the first place American paratroopers arrived at the very beginning of the invasion. One paratrooper, John Steele, had his parachute caught by the church steeple and hung there for ten hours with the church bells hammering in his ears. Red Buttons played him in The Longest Day. For the observance, the people of Sainte-Mère-Église have a parachute with a model of an American paratrooper hanging from the church. This town goes back to at least 1080, and it is a wonderful combination of past and present. It may be the most pro-American place in all of France.
At Omaha Beach, we confronted the raw courage of the Americans who faced an almost hopeless task. As S.L.A. Marshall recounted in a superb article for The Atlantic in 1960, “only six rifle companies were relatively effective as units,” because “three times that number were shattered or foundered before they could start to fight.” The deep courage of the men who were watching a massacre and forced themselves onto the beach and then up the hill against entrenched and well sited German machine guns and mortars should inspire all of us.
In the end, courage is necessary for freedom to survive. There was a poignancy of touring Normandy while terrorists were killing people in London. As I cited in remarks at the cemeteries, evil exists.
In World War II, evil was embodied in Hitler and the Nazis. Today, evil is embodied in the terrorists who kill civilians and seek to impose their religion on the rest of us.
It took courage to defeat evil on D-Day in 1944. It will take courage to defeat evil today.
Your Friend,
Newt
U.S. bishops’ report reaffirms link between clerical abuse scandals and homosexuality
Lisa Bourne
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 6, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – A new report from the U.S. Bishops on the clergy sex abuse scandal highlights the importance of Vatican guidelines barring men with "deep-seated homosexual intendencies" from the priesthood.
While the clerical sex abuse has often been described as pedophilia to denote prevalence of prepubescent victims, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' 2016 annual report, released last week, shows the clear link with the problem of homosexuality in the priesthood.
According to the report, 78 percent of the victims are male. And when the age of the victim was determined, only 15 percent were under age 10.
The report confirmed as well that this year’s findings were "similar to those reported for year 2015," where 81 percent of the victims were male. The 2013 report showed the number of male sex abuse victims at 80 percent.
The numbers support direction from the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI and other high-ranking prelates that the admission of homosexual men to the priesthood conflicts with Church principles.
The USCCB Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection and its National Review Board issue the report each year after completion of an audit of U.S. dioceses and eparchies. The audit assesses compliance with the USCCB Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, developed by the Bishops at their first meeting after the scandal first broke in 2002.
The U.S. Bishops had also commissioned the John Jay College of Criminal Justice to study the clergy sex abuse crisis.
The first John Jay study was released in 2004. Titled The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States 1950-2002, it stated that “overall, 81 percent of victims were male … ”
This statistic was reaffirmed in the 2011 John Judy report, The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010. That report said as well: “A very small percentage of the priests who had allegations of abuse were motivated by pathological disorders such as pedophilia.”
The 2011 report also refuted the popular assertion that the clerical sex abuse crisis could be attributed to the all-male priesthood and priestly celibacy. Among its data were statistics pointing to adult male sexual predators gravitating toward institutional roles providing them access to victims.
The USCCB initially acknowledged the issue of homosexuality in the priesthood, as ChurchMilitant reported.
In 2004, its National Review Board had stated that although the sex abuse crisis had no single cause, “an understanding of the crisis is not possible” without reference to “the presence of homosexually oriented priests.” The board had cited the data that “eighty percent of the abuse at issue was of a homosexual nature.”
Further, Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital and a member of the National Review Board, also clearly spelled it out.
McHugh said in an August 2006 National Catholic Register editorial that the John Jay study had revealed a crisis of “homosexual predation on American Catholic youth.”
But even as its John Jay studies indicated a clear prevalence of homosexual behavior in the abuse priest sex abuse crisis, the findings have been otherwise interpreted and the homosexual element unstated by the USCCB after the initial report.
“No single ‘cause’ of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests is identified as a result of our research,” the 2011 John Jay report summarized. “Social and cultural changes in the 1960s and 1970s manifested in increased levels of deviant behavior in the general society and also among priests of the Catholic Church in the United States.”
Despite the absence of any clear statement of such, the high percentage of male victims of the clerical sex abuse crisis shown statistically in the USCCB’s annual reports directly concur with a series of Vatican documents and statements by senior prelates regarding admission of homosexual males to Catholic seminaries.
A December 2016 document from the Vatican Congregation for Clergy reaffirmed that men with homosexual tendencies should not be considered for the priesthood.
“Those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture'" are not to be admitted to seminaries or be ordained as priests, according to The Gift of the Priestly Vocation.
In reaffirming this prohibition, the Congregation for Clergy also cites the 2005 Congregation for Catholic Education’s document Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders.
The 2005 document reaffirmed Church teaching that homosexual tendencies are objectively disordered and that individuals who experience them are to be accepted with respect and sensitivity.
However, the document states, the Dicastery “believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture."
A 1961 document produced by the Sacred Congregation for Religious stated: “Those affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty should be excluded from religious vows and ordination,” because priestly ministry would place such persons in “grave danger.”
The late Cardinal George of Chicago had told the bishops conference in 2005 that per the teaching of the Church, homosexuals are not to be ordained into the priesthood.
The late Bishop John D’Arcy, then of the Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese in Indiana, spoke in 2004 against admitting homosexual men to the seminary, pointing out the impracticality of placing men with same-sex inclinations in seminary with other men.
In 2002, Cardinal Jorge Estevez of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments stated, “Ordination to the deaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.”
Pope Benedict had approved the 2005 Congregation for Education document on admitting men to the priesthood.
In 2010, the Holy Father emeritus had told Peter Seewald in the book “Light of the World” that even if homosexuality were innate, it would not make the behavior morally acceptable.
To the question of the existence of homosexuality in monasteries and among priests, the Holy Father said, “Well, that is just one of the miseries of the church. And the persons who are affected must at least try not to express this inclination actively.”
“This is a point we need to hold firm,” stated Pope Benedict, “even if it is not pleasing to our age.”
This approach was sharply contrasted when in 2013 Pope Francis infamously stated regarding a Vatican Curia priest accused of homosexual activity, “Who am I to judge?”
The remark continues to embolden homosexual activists worldwide.
Ted Lepcio wants teammate Jimmy Piersall to be remembered as 'hell of a ballplayer'
Former Red Sox player Ted Lepcio, 87, holds a photo of his 1952 Red Sox teammates including Jimmy Piersall who recently passed away. Monday, June 5, 2017
He’ll be 88 next month and remains up on the news, especially the comings and goings of the Red Sox, whose colors he once wore.
Sox fans from the ’50s will need no introduction to Ted Lepcio.
But if you came aboard later, there’s something Ted wants you to know, especially if you saw yesterday’s headlines.
They told of Jimmy Piersall’s death at 87, with emphasis on his battle with a mental illness that would probably be described now as bipolar disorder. Back then, the less genteel diagnosis was that Jimmy had suffered a nervous breakdown.
As he read of his friend’s passing, Lepcio didn’t dispute those stories, but felt compelled to make them more complete, “because this kid deserved to be remembered as the outstanding player he was.”
If he sounded like a protective friend, it’s because that’s what he became after joining the Sox in 1952 as Piersall’s roommate.
“He was as good as any center fielder I ever saw,” Lepcio, an infielder, remembered. “Jimmy took a backseat to no one. But he was wound so tight. We’d go down for breakfast and he’d start barking at a waitress. I’d say, ‘Damn it, Jim, just order another pancake if that’s what you want.’
“Really, he was a good kid, but, oh, he could be a pain. ... That’s why a lot of the guys in the locker room didn’t warm up to him.
“I remember the time Satchel Paige walked him and Jimmy ran backwards to first. Who knows what he was thinking? Or the time he got into that brawl with Billy Martin. I helped break it up and still have no idea how it started.”
Piersall was eventually admitted for a short stay at a mental health facility.
“When he came back,” Lepcio said, laughing, “sportswriters asked, ‘Do you see any difference?’ I said, ‘No, he’s the same pain ... he’s always been.’ ”
But Jimmy did seem to quiet down, and never dodged the stigma of his illness.
Years later, teamed with White Sox broadcaster Harry Caray, he could still kick up a fuss, like the time he implied baseball wives were fortune hunters.
“Harry would often say, ‘You’re crazy, Jimmy,’ ” Chicago columnist Barry Rozner remembers, “and Jimmy would say, ‘Yes, and I have the papers to prove it!’ ”
The stories can even be amusing.
But speaking like the loyal roomie he was, Lepcio just hopes no one forgets, “Jimmy was a hell of a ballplayer, and a real good kid, too.”
‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017
“Global warming” is a myth — so say 80 graphs from 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2017.
In other words, the so-called “Consensus” on global warming is a massive lie. And Donald Trump was quite right to quit the Paris agreement which pretended that the massive lie was true.
By “global warming” these papers don’t, of course, mean the mild warming of around 0.8 degrees Celsius that the planet has experienced since the middle of the 19th century as the world crawled out of the Little Ice Age. Pretty much everyone, alarmists and skeptics alike, is agreed on that.
Rather, they mean “global warming” in the sense that is most commonly used today by grant-troughing scientists, and huxter politicians, and scaremongering green activists, and brainwashed mainstream media (MSM) environmental correspondents. “Global warming” as in the scary, historically unprecedented, primarily man-made phenomenon which we must address urgently before the ice caps melt and the Pacific islands disappear beneath the waves and all the baby polar bears drown.
What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.
That is, all these different experts from around the world — China, Russia, Canada, the U.S., Italy, etc. — have been looking closely at different aspects of the global warming puzzle in various regions and on different timescales and come to the conclusion in irreproachable, peer-reviewed scientific ways that there is no evidence to support the global warming scare story.
Late 20th century and early 21st century global warming, they show, is neither dramatic, nor unusual, nor scary.
Büntgen et al, below, shows that temperatures in the northern hemisphere were warmer in the early 1400s than they are today
Abrantes et al (below) confirms the traditional view — which Michael Mann tried to dismiss with his discredited Hockey Stick chart — that the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than anything we have experienced in our own era.
Here’s one from Li et al showing that China was much warmer 8,000 years ago
Here’s an unusual one from Guillet et al suggesting that there’s nothing new about wildly early or late grape harvests through the centuries:
And on and on it goes — there are 80 graphs in all, each showing in its different way why the scare about global warming has been horribly overdone because the evidence just doesn’t support its being unusual or a problem. Several of the papers note that the primary influence on warming appears to be solar activity. Few, if any, entertain the notion that carbon dioxide levels have much to do with it.
The intellectually corrupt and mendacious alarmist science establishment — I’m thinking, for example, of my personal bete noir, the left-wing political activist and Nobel-prizewinning geneticist Sir Paul Nurse, former president of the Royal Society — would have us believe that climate skepticism is a minority activity, the preserve of a few cranks, championed only by people who don’t do the science. But this is just ugly propaganda.
Here are dozens of reputable scientists from around the world with no axe to grind collaborating on studies which all corroborate, independently and rigorously, the increasingly respectable view that “man-made global warming” just isn’t a thing.
Not that it ever was a thing, really. This debate — as I argue at some length in Watermelons — was always about left-wing ideology, quasi-religious hysteria, and “follow the money” corruption, never about “science.”
Still, it’s always a comfort to know that “the science” is on our side too.
They do so hate that fact, the Greenies.
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2017/06/httpift_7.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment