Tuesday, April 28, 2009

NRO supports RINO Specter...

When a person votes for a Democrat, they generally know that they're getting a person who is:

1. Pro-abortion
2. Pro-big government
3. Anti-gun
4. Anti-big business (at least in name - plenty of dems are fine being fat cats)
5. Pro-union
6. Pro-"victim" group (illegal immigrants, minorities, homosexuals, women, etc.)
7. Pro-eco-religion.
8. Anti-military
9. Pro-internationalism (global government)
10. Pro-raising taxes to punish "the wealthy"

When a person votes for a Republican, at least nowadays, what could they possibly think they're getting?

Pro-life? No, there are plenty of pro-choice Republicans, and the ones who are pro-life never really make an issue of it.

Pro-small government? Nope. Plenty of Republicans like to spend your money on their pet projects. There were lots of Republicans who mocked the Porkbusters, and the Tea Parties. Plenty of Republicans were hell-bent on voting for Bush's last stimulus, which radically increased the size of the government.

Pro-gun? Nope, there were plenty of Republicans who would've voted in favor of the assault weapons ban renewal.

Pro business? Nope, the Republicans are just as anti-business as the Dems. They are owned by certain sectors of the economy, the Dems are owned by other sectors of the economy. And their vote for the "stimulus" package at the end of Bush's term was a vote AGAINST market freedom.

Anti-union? The Republicans have never took a fight to the unions, notwithstanding that the unions always support the Dems.

Anti-"victims' groups"? Nope, the Republicans always make sure to be politically correct.

Anti-eco-religion? Nope, the Republicans spew the same religionist platitudes about Mother Earth as the Dems.

Pro-military? Maybe, but notwithstanding their bluster, the Republicans are just as likely to equivocate about standing up to the nation's enemies as the Dems are. They also let the Dems portray them as idiots because of Bush's failure to lead the public here.

Anti-internationalism? Maybe, but many Republicans often say "we must go to the United Nations" just as much as the Democrats. And the Republicans are bought and paid for by the Saudis.

Anti-taxes? Many Republican governors have raised taxes, many Republicans in Congress are fine with raising some taxes and fees that are buried in pieces of legislation.

So what's the point in electing a Republican nowadays? They're just Democrat lite politicians.

People like Arlen Specter did a lot to damage the Republican brand. And what do the weenie geniuses at National Review Online have to say about it?

Pur et Dur [Andrew Stuttaford]

These remarks by Jim DeMint are not what I'd describe as grounds for good cheer:
I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs.
He's missing the point.
If it comes to a choice, I'd rather have 60 Republicans in the Senate, however squishy some of the views of some in their ranks, than 60 Democrats who are all certain of theirs. Anyone who truly believes in limited government ought to understand that voting against can be as valid as voting for. If it takes a few Specters to see off a Democratic majority, so be it.
As for the idea that reducing the GOP to a rump of true believers (whatever that might actually mean: there are plenty on the right who interpret the terms "limited government" and "free people" in very different ways) is the essential first step in a Republican restoration, it is, I am afraid, a bad mistake. Wildernesses are, almost always, for losers.
And here's Ramesn Ponnru, always a reliable RINO:

The NRCC: "Good Riddance" to Specter [Ramesh Ponnuru]

That's what the GOP House campaign committee is saying in its press release. I guess it will be truly happy when Snowe and Collins leave too.

Senator Specter does the Republicans no good. He voted for the biggest increase in the size of the federal government in history. Throughout the blogosphere, many are saying "good riddance" to Specter. At NRO, they miss him. And people like Snowe and Collins aren't worth much either. They're pro-abortion, they're pro-big government. They bring nothing to the table. And I'm wondering if NRO does either.

The people at NRO are RINOs.

Senator Specter and the Clinging to Power...

Much have noted that Senator Specter opportunistically switched parties because he was 20 points behind in the Republican primary and seemed assured of a loss. By switching to the Democrats, he assures himself of an easier time retaining power as a Senator, backed by an incumbent President and a majority in Congress who can provide him with generous cash for his re-election.

Senator Specter is 79 years old. He's had cancer. He's been in the Senate since 1980, for about 29 years. He's running for re-election for another 6 years. If he wins in 2010, he'll be 86 years old when his term ends.

A sure sign of civilizational decline is when leaders cling to power. You see it in dictators like Zimbabwe's Mugabae, in North Korea, etc. It was troubling enough for Americans to see FDR cling to power that the 22nd amendment was enacted, limiting the the President to two terms of office.

Has anyone noticed that the halls of Congress are full of people clinging to power? I think New Jersey's Senator Lautenberg is like 247 years old. He's been in office, give or take a corrupt placeholder, since 1982. Ted Kennedy is clinging to his office - he's been there since 1964 - for over 45 years. 45 years? Robert Byrd - been there since 1959, for over 50 years! What the hell!? Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy are basically invalids who can't even dress themselves let alone debate in the Senate. They should do the honorable thing and quit.

Dying in office of old age is a bad thing. Leaders who do that show more about the corruption of their office than the generosity of their public spirit. A better person would retire before his wits elude him, trusting that the time they spent in office was well used. Although it's good to have a long-serving faithful public servant, too often corruption becomes systemic such that many refuse to leave. The only time politicians are apt to quit is when their own power is diminished by a change in majorities (many Democrats quit after 1994, many Republicans quit in 2006). This is why term limits are necessary (but will never happen because Congress will never pass it).

Update: Hope the reference isn't too geeky, but it reminds me of this bit of JRR Tolkien's legendarium:
Tar-Atanamir the Great
He was born in the year 1800, and ruled for 192 years, until 2221, which was the year of his death. Much is said of this King in the Annals, such as now survive the Downfall. For he was like his father proud and greedy of wealth, and the Númenóreans in his service exacted heavy tribute from the men of the coasts of Middle-earth. In his time the Shadow fell upon Númenor; and the King, and those that followed his lore, spoke openly against the ban of Valar, and their hearts were turned against the Valar and the Eldar; but wisdom they still kept, and they feared the Lords of the West, and did not defy them. Atanamir is called also the Unwilling, for he was the first of the Kings to refuse to lay down his life, or to renounce the sceptre; and he lived until death took him perforce in dotage.
The Long Defeat of America continues.

Good Riddance to Arlen Specter...

This guy should've been kicked out of the Republican Party. Instead, the Republicans were idiots and decided to support him. Now he's making big headlines leaving the Republicans for the Democrats.
Specter, a five-term Republican and ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is facing a tough primary challenge next year from former Club for Growth president Pat Toomey. He was one of the three Republicans to support President Obama’s stimulus bill, and his liberal approach to many issues -- from his devoted opposition to the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork to his support for illegal alien amnesty programs -- earned him a low ACU rating of 43 in 2006. This switch will give the Democrats their 60-seat filibuster-proof majority.

The comments at Human Events are priceless.

Left unspoken is how much RINOs like Specter damaged the Republican brand, not only as evidence that they have no backbone, consistent philosophy, or core beliefs. But also for their stupidity in continuing to support someone who always spits in their eye. Good riddance, Specter. You never really counted for much anyway.

Edit: See here for more on the moral implications of Senator Specter's decision.


The last time I saw F-16s in person was after 9/11, when they were flying over my apartment building.

President HopenChange and his pre-9/11 thinking are what led to this.

I don't need to see F-16s buzzing New York City any more.

Update: here's another video that's much better.

Hot Air Blog Post Attacks Catholics as Shallow and Unbiblical...

At Hot Air's "Greenroom," in a post slamming Bill Maher for being a repulsive, amoral, hedonistic jerk, blogger The Other McCain concluded his post with an amazingly ignorant attack on the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation:

"At the beginning, you see Maher mocking the Catholic notion of transubstantiation and, at the end, you see an excerpt of Religulous in which Maher interrogates his mother, who married into the Catholic Church. The refutation of transubstantiation is simple enough: When Jesus spoke to the apostles about bread as symbolic of his body and wine as symbolic of his blood, Jesus was still sitting there among them, alive. Obviously, then, the expression was symbolic in meaning and the famous phrase, “This do in remembrance of me,” captures Jesus’ intention of this as a memorial ritual, not as a miraculous feat whereby the bread and wine literally became his flesh and blood.

That Maher would think it a serious critique of Christianity to mock a clearly unbiblical belief like transubstantion tells you a lot about his shallowness. And the fact that he felt the need to bring his mother into it tells you a lot about the childish resentments that motivate him."

So The Other McCain thinks that this is a clearly shallow, unbiblical belief. What a gratitutous slam on Catholics. I can't understand why this was done. Note, this isn't a blog comment, it's a post at Hot Air's "Greenroom" which is a collection of other bloggers posting at a separate area on Hot Air.

A commentor sets him straight:

“That Maher would think it a serious critique of Christianity to mock a clearly unbiblical belief like transubstantion tells you a lot about his shallowness.”

No. I think I’ve found out something about *your* shallowness via this gratuitous statement of anti-Catholic belief which does nothing to add to the point of your essay. Transubstantiation has far more biblical warrant than the 16th century Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. Please point out for me one lengthy section of Scripture that can back up sola scriptura to the degree that transubstantiation can be backed up by the sixth chapter of John. Which part of “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” don’t you understand?

Do you have some problem with sussing out the meaning of the word “is” in the following passage? “While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Mt 26)

Or is 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 too unscriptural for you? “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

Your statement is without foundation. But the doctrine has always caused trouble. From John 6: “Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me…Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”…As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Look, if God Incarnate could do it (transubstantiation), if God Incarnate said He’d do it, why don’t you believe that He did it? If He could pull off the Incarnation, I’m sure He’d have little trouble with transubstantiation. You believe the former (presumably) but why not the latter? You only thereby cut yourself off from a great source of grace for eternal life. God wnats to be far more one with you than you imagine. He offers you His very flesh, His very substance, and you spurn it as superstition and somehow “unbiblical”. If so, it is your loss.

Matteo on April 26, 2009 at 7:02 PM

Even if The Other McCain doesn't believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, what is the point behind that idiotic attack on Catholics? It does nothing to support his argument that Bill Maher is a shallow person. Instead, he ends up saying that all Catholics are just as shallow as Bill Maher. It is incredibly insulting. Score another one for anti-Catholicism at Hot Air, this time by a sorta-kinda-co-blogger.

What's even more odd is that on his regular blog, The Other McCain has nothing but praise for Catholics:

When you actually examined Sager's book, however, you discovered that his argument was like the Rio Grande, a mile wide and six inches deep. He tended to treat all pro-lifers and social conservatives as if they were evangelicals -- i.e., conservative Protestants.

In fact, Catholics have always been the backbone of the pro-life movement, as anyone familiar with the movement could tell you. And this was especially true with the Terry Schiavo case, which Sager (and many others) cited as evidence of the undue influence exercised by "the Religious Right" within the GOP. But it was Father Frank Pavone and Priests for Life who led the Schiavo crusade. Terry Schiavo was Catholic, her family was Catholic, and end-of-life issues are part of an elaborately developed Catholic doctrine on the sanctity of human life.

As with the Schiavo case, as with opposition to abortion, so also with opposition to the gay-rights agenda -- the Catholic Church has been firmly on the conservative side, and yet Sager (again, like many others) continue to single out evangelicals when they want to slam "the Religious Right." Why?

It is an appeal to prejudice.

Of course, he's noting that Catholics are at the core of the pro-life movement only to protest against an attack by some RINO on sterotypes involving protestant fundamentalists. Still, given this kind of political support that The Other McCain finds valuable to conservativism, you'd think he'd be more circumspect in his comments. He shouldn't be so quick to equate fundamental Catholic doctrine with something "shallow" or "unbiblical," especially when it is not.

It'd be nice if other Christian conservatives didn't merely see Catholics as political allies...

UPDATE: Whattya know, the guy who corrected The Other MccAin has a blog. Hi Matteo! Nice blog you have there. Thanks for the smackdown. I enjoyed it immensely.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Federal Overstep or Hint of More to Come?

By now, I'm sure most people have heard about the Department of Homeland Security report on "right-wing extremists" that it defines as
those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

That broad, sweeping generalization - particularly taking aim at opposition to abortion or immigration, implies that religious beliefs or political opinions could make a person a target for investigation (or worse) by the federal government.

The report is also famous for saying that returning military veterans could become recruits for homegrown terror movements. The American Legion slammed DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano for that anti-military bias.

The best take-down of the report can be found here, at Powerline. Additionally, even the #1 liberal Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee found himself dumbfounded that DHS would issue a report, noting:
"This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans -- including war veterans," Mr. Thompson said in the letter sent Tuesday.

"As I am certain you agree, freedom of association and freedom of speech are guaranteed to all Americans -- whether a person's beliefs, whatever their political orientation, are 'extremist' or not," Mr. Thompson said.

The report "blurred the line," and Mr. Thompson said he is "disappointed and surprised that the department would allow this report to be disseminated" to law enforcement officials nationwide.

"I am particularly struck by the report's conclusion which states that I&A 'will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization,'" Mr. Thompson said, demanding to know what types of activities DHS had planned for "the next several months."

Now Napolitano is doing the rounds trying to apologize for the blow up. I think she should be fired anyway. Here she is on Fox News trying to spin the report. When called on the broad definition of rightwing extremist included in the report, however, all she can do is stumble. I like it how the Fox News guy asks if all Catholics, because of their opposition to abortion, are now considered extremists by the federal government:

Even if this report is just an incredibly stupid, poorly worded, bureacratic SNAFU - I wonder if it is an indication of things to come. The Washington Post did a recent article (safe link to avoid drive-by-media) noting that religious people are increasingly losing in court as conflicts arise between the homosexual activists and their allies in government, and religious groups. Religious freedom, protected by the First Amendment, loses out to homosexual activism. The article notes these examples:

Faith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom.

The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those laws have created a clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion, religious groups said, with faith losing. They point to what they say are ominous recent examples:

-- A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony.

-- A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.

-- Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.

-- A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional

"It really is all about religious liberty for us," said Scott Hoffman, chief administrative officer of a New Jersey Methodist group, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which lost a property tax exemption after it declined to allow its beachside pavilion to be used for a same-sex union ceremony. "The protection to not be forced to do something that is against deeply held religious principles."

The article includes this chilling summary:
Some legal analysts suggest that religious groups that do not support gay rights might lose their tax exemptions because of their politically unpopular views.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who supports same-sex marriage, said the Bob Jones ruling "puts us on a slippery slope that inevitably takes us to the point where we punish religious groups because of their religious views."

Right now, it seems that the Courts are willing to take up the effort of punishing religious groups because of their religious views. But DHS might not be far behind. Hopefully if I have time, I'll post more on what I think are various clues that America is slowly becoming a new unfree police-state like Roman Empire, content to throw Christians once again to the lions, along with other indications showing a general decline. New tag to go with that type of post: the Long Defeat of America.

An ok summary of the term Long Defeat can be found at Wikipedia.

Susan Roesgen is a Liberal Hack...

Stay for the end on this video. I love the righteous indignation of the tea party protestor who asks, "are you trying to play stupid?"

If you're going to talk with the media, that's how to do it.

The drive-by-media are the enemy of all decent people. I have't watched TV news in years, I get all my news from blogs and others on the internet. Haven't read a newspaper or a newsmagazine in years, either. I can't wait for all of them to go bankrupt.

Although not included as a part of this clip, Ms. Liberal Hack was also upset that a protester chose to compare Obama to Hitler (he might've been a liberal plant). However, she wasn't so upset when the left did the same thing to Bush.

Monday, April 13, 2009

Deranged Abortion-Loving Sickos...

Sick, sick sick. This woman should be institutionalized. Her sanity is clearly absent.
We need to create a world where a woman having an abortion is as respected and supported as a woman having a baby. As the movement for abortion pride and the recognition of women's human rights progresses, we will continue to speak out with our voices, our experiences, our bodies - and our lives. YES - ABORTION PRIDE!
What is it that makes people so deranged that they think the disemboweling and murder of babies should be just as celebrated as becoming a mother?

I wonder if this "abortion pride" crap is the start of a new honesty from the murder-lovers of the left. At least they're not cloaking it in some false sense of shame.

I should hope that abortion will never be as respected as having a baby. But never underestimate the depths of cultural suicide that America will succumb to. I give it until the end of Obama's term as president before this woman's rant becomes standard in the Democratic party platform.

Note: Always, always, always use the term "pro-abortion" instead of pro-choice. And then when you're called on the use of that term, you can point to sickos like Marcy Bloom and Katherine Ragsdale who proudly advocate the choice of abortion instead of the choice to have a baby. Abortion should always and everywhere be equated with premeditated murder, because that's exactly what it is.

Thursday, April 02, 2009

Passover Coca-Cola...

I recently learned of the existence of Passover Coca-Cola, which doesn't have high fructose corn syrup, but actual, real sugar.

Passover Coke, otherwise known as Kosher Coke, can be spotted in stores by its yellow bottle-top, which also sports some neato Hebrew words on the cap.

Kosher Coke supposedly tastes great because corn syrup leaves an aftertaste, and sugar is what God intended to use in Coca-cola. It seems that everyone in the world in the know who likes soda stocks up on it during Passover, because it's authentic and a classic. Coke started adding corn syrup to their soda in 1985.

I spotted some Kosher Coke in the supermarket today. I'm not a soda drinker normally, but I had to try it.

Let me tell you, it was frickin' GREAT! If they made it all year long, I'd probably drink it every day. Wow. I'm going to stock up so that on special occasions I can bring out the Kosher Coke like it's a fine bottle of wine.

Now you know: Coke with yellow bottle caps with Hebrew on them = Awesome.

Evil Priestess Worships Abortion...

This sermon by Katherine Ragsdale, a so-called "priest" in the Episcopal Church, is illuminating for several things. Written in 2007, it has come to attention because of her recent election as Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge and has caused a firestorm because she says "abortion is a blessing." No, she doesn't just say it. She chants it:
When a woman finds that the fetus she is carrying has anomalies incompatible with life, that it will not live and that she requires an abortion – often a late-term abortion – to protect her life, her health, or her fertility, it is the shattering of her hopes and dreams for that pregnancy that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing.

When a woman wants a child but can’t afford one because she hasn’t the education necessary for a sustainable job, or access to health care, or day care, or adequate food, it is the abysmal priorities of our nation, the lack of social supports, the absence of justice that are the tragedies; the abortion is a blessing.

And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion – there is not a tragedy in sight -- only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.

These are the two things I want you, please, to remember – abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
The comments in her own blog, if they're not deleted, are illuminating. Of course she has been called out for her evil, wicked prayer. Abortion is her sacrament. But doing a little more digging has shown me several things.

First, take a look at her bio. Here's her wikipedia page. What has she been doing?
Ragsdale has served for 17 years on the national board of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. She is also on the board of NARAL Pro-Choice America, The White House Project, the Progressive Religious Partnership, as well as the bi-national advisory board of The Center for the Prevention of Sexual and Domestic Violence. She presented to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on behalf of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice in 2004.[3]
Aside from being a "priest", her entire life has been devoted to abortion. She's on the board of the National Abortion Rights Action League (now called NARAL). She worked for nearly 20 years for the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion (now called Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice). Her entire purpose and meaning in life revolves around abortion (ever notice how those groups got rid of the word ABORTION from their names?).

This woman puts the lie to the theory that people who are "pro-choice" are not pro-abortion. Of course they are pro-abortion. Because to them, abortion is a blessing. "Pro-choice" fundamentally means pro-abortion. It is ridiculous to be in favor of a choice if one of those choices is inherently evil. You'd might as well say you're pro-choice if the choices were eating applesause or drowning your mother.

But notice anything else?

She's glad that: "The Democrats have removed "safe, legal, and rare" language about abortion from the platform. About time!"

A little digging in her other blogs found me this other sermon, where she said (in 1996):
So, the first question – addressed to us all – is: what are we doing to reduce the need for abortions? None of us, regardless of our position on choice, approves of a world where pregnant women are faced with despair and see no viable options but to abort. But what are we doing, as God’s agents in the world, to change that situation?... No, we cannot eliminate the need for abortion. But we could dramatically reduce it. What are we doing to make our society more supportive of children and families? What are we doing to reduce the need for abortion?
How to square her desire to reduce the need for abortion in 1996, with her sermon in 2007 saying that she's glad the Democrats dropped the "rare" crap from their platform and that abortion is a blessing?

It's because she was lying in 1996. She doesn't want to reduce abortions at all. They do not want abortion to be rare - and not only because NARAL and people like Ragsdale are funded by the abortion mills. The other reason? Ragsdale says: "The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing." Yes, abortion is all about me me ME! She doesn't want people to be "compromised." Just like Obama doesn't want his daughters to be punished with a baby.

So whenever you hear someone say that they're not pro-abortion and they're really pro-choice, know that they're lying, both to you and possibly to themselves. And whenever you hear someone say that they want abortion to be rare, they're probably lying as well. Abortion-lovers don't want abortion to be rare.

(Hat tip to Hot Air's headlines, which brought them to Amy Wellborn's beliefnet post, which devolved into another religious fight, so much that she closed the comment thread.)

UPDATE: Ragsdale deleted her post. Here's a cached version, scroll down to find the sermon. Unfortunately, the comments were lost.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Management at Hot Air...

Others are noticing the problem of anti-Catholicism in Hot Air's comboxes. Donald McClarey, Jay Anderson, and Cranky Conservative all have threads on the subject and there's some interesting discussion in their comboxes.

One question that has been raised is the degree to which management is culpable. As I said in my first post on this subject, bloggers aren't always responsible for the content of their comments. However, when hateful comments are deleted towards one religion and not another, that's a problem. What bothers me the most, however, is the stupidity of creating an environment given over to ranters who drive away Catholic conservtives at an otherwise mainstream conservative blog.

Jay Anderson suggests that the problem of Hot Air's comments begins with Michelle Malkin. He points to this post by Michelle criticizing "Catholic elites" for their statements on immigration policy.

Michelle Malkin has done many posts on the Pope and she seems to have an admiration for Ratzinger and JP2. I've long wondered whether she is Catholic, and I've admired her for a long time. If you look at the history of her posts, I think that her post on immigration policy is the first time she's said anything remotely critical of the Church. However, her comments on that, while aggressive, may not cross the line. In particular, I think she was reacting towards Cardinal Mahoney, and as we all know there's much criticism that can be directed at him.

Additionally, Michelle Malkin has been the subject of many hateful leftist attacks and slurs. She has been blogging for a long time and probably has built up a very thick skin towards hateful attacks in general. It's likely that she may see the anti-Catholic posts as just part of the nature of internet commenting and may think that there's little that can be done about them.

Ed Morrissey is Catholic and as I've noted, tries to police the comments at Hot Air by mistakenly engaging the bigots instead of banning them. He can't be there all the time. Allahpundit is an atheist and he has said that he enjoys "a good religious food fight in the comments" (as seen in this thread from today). Some people think that Allahpundit is setting the tone for the anti-Catholic comments. However, I think it's more likely that, like Michelle Malkin, both he and Ed Morrissey are veteran bloggers who might think that hateful comments are just part of the nature of blogging and cannot be avoided entirely. Additionally, they might think that it's too much effort to police their blog. Although I've been focused on Hot Air's comments, a cursory examination of Michelle Malkin's blog shows that the same problem exists.

However, I have no doubt that Michelle Malkin would not permit hateful posts towards her in her comments. The comments policy in her blog and on Hot Air expressly state that comments can be deleted. And as I've noted, Hot Air has banned people for posting hateful attacks towards Islam. So this is not a situation where there is a resistence to censor and that completely free speech is the policy. Commentors are guests at those blogs. This is a problem that can be solved with effective policing. Over time, the bigots become well known and they can be ejected from the blog. Michelle can hire another blogger to do the dirty work of policing her comments in her various blogs.

In the meantime, like Michelle who posts hateful emails to expose them to the world, I'll continue to provide excerpts of Hot Air's comment problem. It would be nice to be able to contribue to political discussion on a blog without having to constantly defend your religion. It would be nice to have religious discussions where people are respectful towards differences. Ultimately, the problem isn't Hot Air's management, but an anti-Catholic undercurrent that is prevelent in conservativism that needs to be execised. I'll have more on that later. And I'll have more on why it is just stupid to allow a well known conservative blog like Hot Air to be known for this.

However, one question for those who have followed this issue - should I change the label of "Hot Air Bigots" to something else? It's aggressive, but then again, that's what I'm all about.

Monday, March 30, 2009

Hot Air Bigotry - second thread for the day!

Is there a chance that the bloggers at Hot Air are trying to deal with their gigantic anti-Catholic bigot problem? I think so. In this thread, I the first post that caught my eye was this:


As usual, your Catholic-bashing insults are short, limp and unsightly.

SKYFOX on March 28, 2009 at 1:08 PM

But there was no post from a "TheoLogan" yet. Was it deleted? Maybe it was! Ed Morrissey posted comments at 1:49pm. But of course, the bigots showed up eventually (or again), knowing that they'd face no consequences for making a premiere conservative blog a place well known for its hatrid of Catholics:

Often the day-laborers leave a urine stain on a wall and the local priests show up to declare it a vision of their “Queen of Heaven” as proof AMNESTY should be granted to these criminals. What a failed people, culture, religion, and country!!!!!

RealDemocrat on March 28, 2009 at 4:14 PM

RealDemocrat is a very well known anti-Catholic bigot at Hot Air. He's usually found in threads trying to bash the Church. You'll probably see a lot more of him here, as I find other examples of him.

This post sums things up very well:

Sad to see anti-Catholicism alive and well - even here.

I don’t ever remember seeing any Catholic poster attempting to trash any fellow Christian’s religious beliefs on this site.

Why non-Catholics believe it is acceptable to take their lame shots is a mystery to me - and it continues to divide and conquer us as Christians.

Guess Obama might be right after all about “bitter clingers”, because he sure benefits from our disunity.

As for “Catholics” or any “Christians” who voted for Obama,
they will have to take that up on Judgement Day.

tigerlily on March 28, 2009 at 6:55 PM

"right4life" doesn't want to hear any of it:

whatever you’re preaching, it ain’t christianity…in christianity you cannot ‘earn’ a spot in heaven…Jesus earned it for us…and He is the ONLY ONE who could..

right4life on March 28, 2009 at 7:25 PM

What is it with these so-called conservatives who, by their names are pro-life, yet feel content in attacking the Catholic church - which is the biggest pro-life organization on the planet.

Think right4life is merely disagreeing with the theology of the Church? Think again:

then tell me why a good ‘christian’ like you wants to see the jews slaughtered? hmmm?? remember Jesus was a jew.

right4life on March 28, 2009 at 7:26 PM

tigerlily tries to be nice, again:

No, not questioning Catholic doctrine, as in sincere and humble inquiry. What you call “questioning” is really a rude violation of the core beliefs of another human being.
You don’t even respect the faith enough to capitalize the word “Catholic” when you write it. (FYI, the word Catholic means “universal” and was first used to describe the Christian church about 100 years after His Resurrection.)

Also, since the time of Martin Luther, (an ex Augustinian priest), there are now some 26,000 Protestant sects. None of them agreeing with the other on many facets of the faith. Perhaps you should spend some time questioning that can of worms.

I stand by my statements. We could go on ad nauseum - as in now you come up with a statement(you don’t say who wrote it and who published it)which seems to be written in order to inflame prejudices and obscure true understanding.

It would seem that the author is implying that the Church is attempting to insult other faiths. This is America, and we still have Freedom of Speech, so the author can deceive and continue to divide and conquer, and you are free to agree. But I am free to tell you that you and your author are completely and sadly mistaken.

If you or anyone else would like to know what the Catholic Church teaches about herself and others, then I suggest you get it firsthand. Go to http://www.vatican.va There you will find
two thousand years of Catholic teaching to learn and read for yourself.

I have always avoided the anti-Catholic fighting that I have seen on this site, but today I guess it’s my time to defend my Blessed Mother and my Lord. But to answer every crack that is or will be written on this thread - no, no, no.

tigerlily on March 28, 2009 at 7:36 PM

tigerlily makes a good fight, but the bigots have come out of the woodwork now:

Most heathen religions always have their own “Queen of Heaven”. I can’t think of one heathen religion that doesn’t.

RealDemocrat on March 28, 2009 at 7:39 PM

right4life seems to think that Jesus insulted Mary when he called her "woman." He actually believes that Jesus insulted his mother. Really.

Are you really trying to say Jesus would disrespect His own Mother?
You sadly have no true understanding of Catholicism.

clarifides on March 28, 2009 at 7:40 PM

do you consider calling your mother ‘woman’ disrespectful?

would you call your mom that??

right4life on March 28, 2009 at 7:45 PM

When it was evident how insane it is to state that Jesus insulted Mary, unclesmrgol made this self-evident statement:

Are you really trying to say Jesus would disrespect His own Mother?

You sadly have no true understanding of Catholicism.

clarifides on March 28, 2009 at 7:40 PM

I would go further. right4life has no understanding of Jesus.

unclesmrgol on March 28, 2009 at 8:09 PM

Get a load of the response:

this from a piece of anti-semitic trash who hates jews..JESUS WAS A JEW…get a clue.

right4life on March 28, 2009 at 8:10 PM

right4life seems to think that Catholics hate Jews for some reason. I have no idea why:

do you know what your church teaches, and can you post the same sorts of references that I have posted from the Catholic Church, for our increased understanding of your version of the True Faith?

At the present time, all you seem to have for theology is opposition.

unclesmrgol on March 28, 2009 at 8:07 PM

I’ve been posting from the BIBLE..you know its kinda important to christians…

although to hate-filled anti-semites like you, I’m sure its just more zionist propoganda…

oh yeah Mary was a jew…so was Peter, and Paul…

right4life on March 28, 2009 at 8:09 PM

There are plenty of people who have had it with the resident Hot Air Bigots. This post is very enlightening:

You know what? I haven’t attacked anyone’s religion on HA, I haven’t called anyone sick for believing in a faith , well except Islam I will admit, so I’ll say this and be done this crap….. Shut up about Catholicism. You don’t agree or you dislike it? Fine, don’t practice, read about it or follow it. This thread had to do with Clinton not being prepared to visit something of a culture’s value, which any representative of a country should be aware of… so she screwed up. But, no, you folks had to go off on a screed about Catholicism and the Virgin Mary…. to use a troll’s name in vain Get a fricken life.

MNDavenotPC on March 28, 2009 at 9:10 PM

Others try the same thing:

right4life on March 28, 2009 at 10:21 PM

It would be good if you would calm down a bit. You obviously do not understand Catholicism and that is fine. What isn’t fine is using your misconceptions as a platform to attack your won brothers and sisters in Christ. You need to be very careful on this. Remember that you will be judged as you judge others. If you choose to be accusatory and inflammatory in your judgment, then you judgment will be the same in Heaven. There is only one prayer given to us by Jesus, and it asks to “forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive others.”

Please remember that we all share the same Bible. If you are a Christian, then the faith that you practice is the same as ours. Only the window dressing changes. Condemning another Christian over doctrinal differences is a lot like saying you hate somebody because they wear ugly shoes.

You have a right to your beliefs. I applaud you in trying to express them. But you must learn to teach and not condemn. That was the way of Jesus and one of the most important examples that he gave to us.

Hawthorne on March 28, 2009 at 11:35 PM

And here:

I honestly cant believe you guys are arguing catholic doctrine and such here. This is a political blog.

Why dont you evangelical creeps who seem more interested in putting down other people’s religions, which shows your insecurity over your own absurd beliefs, take it to religiousgoons.com or something?

The Wall on March 29, 2009 at 4:06 PM

Shame the management won't listen to them... Those bigots will be back another day to poision another thread.

And just so you don't think that the thread ends on a happy note, who makes an appearance? Why, TTheoLogan!

The Catholic church has a lot invested in people not taking the bible literally because otherwise no one would pay attention to the catholic church and stuff it makes up constantly. The apostles didn’t make up silliness like the catholic church does constantly(the sign of the cross, how a pope is picked, etc). There’s no evidence they did any of that nonsense.

“holy tradition” is nothing more than someone decides to do something new, and someone else repeats it, and after a while it’s considered just as valid as God’s word. That’s insane. How the pope is chosen is a good example of this(the color of the smoke, etc).

But seriously, I don’t blame you guys from the point of view of wanting to have power over people. For a ridiculously long time you forbid people to be able to read the bible themselves and in a language they could understand. The proletariat are far more useful to you if they don’t know any better.

TTheoLogan on March 29, 2009 at 10:05 AM

So we're back to where we started.

More Hot Air Bigotry

It only takes several posts in this thread about Obama speaking at Notre Dame for the bigots to show up.

You are soooo right. The Church protects the unborn while covered up for years the rape of childern by priests. I guess you are procted while the in mother’s womb; but once you leave it: watch out for the priests!!!!!!

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Here, blogger Ed Morrissey tries to deal with the guy when he rants about the Church and the death penalty:

The Catholic Church also opposes the death penalty. Why was it okay to invite Bush and not Obama? More hypocrisy from the Catholic Church.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Not as a matter of doctrine, as it does with abortion. In fact, the church specifically does not reject it entirely, as explained in paragraph 2267 of the Catechism. Maybe if you didn’t get your anti-Catholic talking points from Jack Chick tracts, you’d know that.

Ed Morrissey on March 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM

It obviously doesn't work:

What is hilarious is the that the Catholic hierachy still thinks is has moral authority when it come to “protecting” innocent children. Not even Catholics listen to what the Church has to say. The majority voted for Obama. I just wish the Bishops would spend their time regaining the trust of Catholics instead of these phony controversies. It is a tradition to invite POTUS regardless of the politics. STOP THE HYPOCRISY!!!!!

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM

ThackerAgency is well known resident anti-Catholic bigot at Hot Air. Here's some from him:

Why don’t Catholics believe that abortion is terrible? Ed seems like the only one who does (maybe he shouldn’t be Catholic to avoid being stained with the same hypocritical stereotype that is prevalent among Catholics). The Catholic Church seems to only care when the hierarchy of the Church senses the ability to get some publicity and headlines.

ThackerAgency on March 29, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Thacker loves to bash the Pope. You'd think a pro-lifer would decide to find something in common with the Church? Nope. He's a bigger bigot than he is a pro-lifer.

HAHAHAHAHA! main stream Protestants find ALL ABORTION ABHORRENT. We don’t need a pope or bishop to tell us that. Our shepherd is Jesus, not a person.

Apparently you have been told that only Catholics are pro-life.

ThackerAgency on March 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Chekote pretends that his problem is hypocrisy, but later we learn what his real problem with the Church is.

Someone who facilitates implementation of the death penalty has not committed a mortal sin requiring coonfession - however according to the RCC someone who participates in aborting a baby does.

More hypocrisy on the part of the Church. They oppose both abortion and the death penalty because of the principle of the dignity of human person. The doctrine makes exceptions only in cases when there is no other option available to protect life, i.e. self-defence and the life of the mother. Same principle. Same exceptions. Same thing. The fact that the Church enforces one more than the other just shows how intellectually dishonest the Church is. That’s why they keep losing moral authority among their followers.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Here's the standard "all priests are molesters" argument:

Obama giving the commencement to the graduating class of Notre Dame sends a very strong message from the Church that they don’t care about upholding fundamental moral tenets.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 12:41 PM

They already have done that when they chose to protect molesting priests instead of turning them in to the authorities. Where is Cardinal Law (The enabler-in-chief) these days?

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 12:59 PM


Once you start down that slippery slope of not supporting your core principles,,,,,

The Catholic Church has been down that slippery slope for centuries. Nothing new here.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM

The reason for Chekote's anger? Here it is:

I was raised Catholic but I am non-practicing. See, no hypocrisy on my part.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 5:03 PM

His real reason is that he's pro-choice, though. Liars and slanderers of Catholicism are almost always pro-choice:

Actually, you are very wrong. I am not a Democrat. I am a conservative, very active in local Republican politics. Just ask jeanie, artist and INC. I just happen to be pro-choice because I can see where reasonable, moral people can come to the conclusion that a fertilized egg or an embryo consisting of 1o cells (that’s what we are talking about when we deal with embryonic stem cell research) is not a person. Therefore, in order to allow people to exercise their personal beliefs about life, ensoulment, etc., the best public policy position is to permit abortion on demand in the early stages (1st trimester) and restrict it during the latter stages.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 3:33 PM

As soon as Chekote says he'll leave the thread, ANOTHER bigot shows up. Hot Air never fails!

Given the fact that the Catholic Church has been complicit in covering up the rapes committed by its priests and complicit with the acts of Nazi Germany, (and these are only headline items) I find it highly entertaining that it tries to take moral stands and even more amusing that anyone takes it seriously.

But maybe that is just me.

Doubt it somehow.

Ares on March 29, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Ares really hates the Church:

The notion that abortion, at any stage, has ever been acceptable in the Roman Catholic Church is a barefaced lie.

chunderroad on March 29, 2009 at 4:06 PM

When did schtupping boys and nuns get official sign off? Because I am pretty sure the Church has been complicit in that for at least the last thousand years.

Apples and oranges maybe? Perhaps there are hairs to be split here - abortion vs. homosexual statutory rape.

Catholics are the very last people on earth who should be sounding off on moral issues.

“The mote in your eye” comes to mind.

Ares on March 29, 2009 at 5:10 PM

Chekote then comes back for more lies about "Hitler's pope." He's just spewing the standard anti-Catholic talking points it seems:

I am not posting as Ares. But good point. What about the Catholic Church cooperation with Mussolini and the Nazi? I am sure they did that in the name of the dignity of human life.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Ares has a real problem with the Church teaching people right from wrong:

The Catholic Church and its adherents should clean up their house before trying to force feed their version of morality on the rest of the world. Admittedly they have had a great deal of success, especially in developing nations with under-educated populations, but its claim to any kind of moral authority is at best suspect given its disgraceful history of covering up sexual abuse and of course its collusion with the nazis and other totalitarians in the 20th century.

Personally I don’t care if priests schtup alter boys and nuns regularly. Personally I don’t even care that they colluded with the fascists in WW2. What sticks in my craw is having these craven fools try to ram down their twisted morality down everyone’s throats.


Ares on March 29, 2009 at 5:32 PM

Hot Air often has a lot of Catholics attempting to defend against lies, smears, and other attacks from anti-Catholic bigots or Angry Lapsed Catholics. Even co-blogger Ed Morrissey tried it here, for one post. 4 pages of rants later, Hot Air again shows no inclination of putting an end to these sorts of posts. And these people are REPUBLICANS. Thacker says he's PRO-LIFE.

Am I the only one here who thinks it's a huge problem that so many self-described Republicans are anti-Catholic bigots?

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Hot Air's Religion Problem: What I want...

What I want from Hot Air: a comment policy that, after a warning, would involve the deletion of posts that are clearly designed to troll for religious fights, with eventual banning. If they want to be a mainstream conservative blog, then they're going to learn the hard way that religious bigots cannot be allowed to take control of their comment threads.

It seems as if every comment thread involving the Pope, or religion in general, turns into a Catholic bashing thread by the bigots there. Notwithstanding that Ed Morrissey is a Catholic, and Michelle Malkin might be Catholic but is at least Christian, the bigots run the show at Hot Air. A basic rule of thumb: if the post has anything to do with religion, the Pope, abortion, or sex - it will always eventually turn into a Catholic bashing thread (perhaps with a little anti-Mormonism if Mitt Romney happens to be mentioned).

So the excerpts I'm posting here really aren't out of the ordinary. It's just the stuff I could find in my free time. This sort of stuff happens so often that it's obvious they know of this problem.

They either refuse to acknowledge the problem, or do not care about the problem, or hope that it can be ignored by others who do not read the blog's comments. That is why I am going to expose all of them. If they are not shamed, then they can own these comments. If they think there's nothing wrong with a popular conservative blog hosting these vile comments, let them defend it. One day, someone bigger than me is going to take notice. And by then, I'll have hundreds of these posts in the "Hot Air Bigots" category.

More Hot Air Anti-Catholic Bigotry...

This thread is a goldmine of the examples of bigotry that Hot Air allows in their comments. The thread is 8 pages long. The anti-Catholicism begins on page 1, accelerates on page 2, and it just all goes downhill from there.

From "money2":

Is the Pope going to lecture Catholic Priests to stop raping and molesting boys? Catholics are not even Christians to begin with. Martin Luther agrees with this statement

money2 on February 18, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Here's a run of comments by a guy named "TTheoLogan":

Okay, I’m not Catholic, but I find myself liking this Pope more and more. Sure, he’s not as “glamorous” and rock-starish as John Paul II, but it’s great to see that he has the chutzpah to directly confront & challenge America’s wayward liberal “leaders” (quotes intended).

bluelightbrigade on February 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Did you like him when he said all non-catholic churches are false?

TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 12:16 PM


Thank you, Your Holiness. It’s about time.

coldwarrior on February 18, 2009 at 11:12 AM

How is he more holy than anyone else?

TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 12:21 PM


Catholics didn’t compose the Law.

baldilocks on February 18, 2009 at 12:25 PM

They claim they have a monopoly on scripture, didn’t you know that?

TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Here's where he admits that he'd unapologetically attack Mormonism as well. This is the state of "conservatives" on Hot Air:

You obviously have a problem with the Catholic Church. I hope you work it out somehow.

baldilocks on February 18, 2009 at 12:30 PM

I’d post the same things if they posted mormon stuff on here.

TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 12:31 PM


Sure, it’s not like popes throughout history have called non-catholics and their churches heretical.

TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 12:30 PM

All Christians believe they have the truth. That would mean in the eyes of each and every one, a contradictory teaching is heretical.

The Church teaches that in all faiths there is a kernel of truth. It is only in the Catholic Church that the fullness of truth, as God has revealed it, can be found. Every Protestant Christian accepts or rejects elements of Catholic doctrine. This is not a which came first scenario. The Catholic Church came first, everyone else accepts or rejects her.

Jvette on February 18, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Right, but catholics tend to burn and torture who they consider heretics.

TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 12:50 PM


The Church is not punishing him they are attempting to have him rethink his errors.
Contrary to your thinking the Vatican does not have secret torture chambers

clarifides on February 18, 2009 at 1:12 PM

They certainly have in the past. I have no idea whether or not they do now.

TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 1:13 PM


The catholic church… the biggest religious power grab in history.

1.Hey, let’s claim we put together the bible!
2.Hey, let’s claim that peter was the first pope and he gave us the right to determine future popes!
3.Hey, let’s claim our tradition has precedence over the bible!
4.Hey, let’s claim only we can determine the will of God and this pope guy is the vicar of Christ on earth!

TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Long_cat apparently thinks that it's smart to bash Catholics as the "whore of Babylon" notwithstanding that they're perhaps the strongest anti-abortion force on the planet:

First, the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon as written in the book of Revelations. Second, according to the Bill of Rights, we are granted Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Nowhere does it say life begins after a trimester, after you are born, etc. Once a child is conceived, it is granted these rights, and I consider it murder to abort an innocent human being under any circumstance. Pelosi is an evil crook, the Pope is a figurehead for an “organization”. Does it really surprise anyone that these two are meeting in secret?

long_cat on February 18, 2009 at 1:23 PM


Another ridiculous comment…why do you keep doing this to yourself? God is all, end of discussion. Catholics also pray to the saints to intercede with God on our behalfs. This in no way obviates our ability to pray directly to God-I do it all the time. However, if you choose not to believe that the saints can intercede with God, then don’t ask them to. It doesn’t matter to me in the slightest.

Trafalgar on February 18, 2009 at 1:50 PM

I know this will be hard for you to accept, but catholicism is not monotheistic. You cannot have catholicism with other gods(who you call saints) and the great coredemptrix, mary. It’s really sad you guys are still pushing this after the tearing of the curtain to the holy place after Christ was resurrected.

TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Here's a snarky edit of another person's post by the resident bigot:


your anti-Catholic remarks refusal to assimilate is very tiresome. It is the same old accusations that have honestly no basis in fact. You claim to be a Christian and yet you continually bash refuse to assimilate with many of your fellow Christians and tow the party line just because they are Catholic? That is very sad and doesn’t speak well of you.

rapunzel77 on February 18, 2009 at 1:55 PM

TTheoLogan on February 18, 2009 at 1:57 PM

It basically devolves into another "I'm a Protestant let me quote the TRUE meaning of the Bible to you" verses "I'm Catholic and you're misrepresending me" threads. I don't know why Hot Air thinks this is appropriate. The bigots clearly run the roost over there.

Hot Air has a Religion Problem...

The Hot Air blog has a religion problem. It has hoards of commentors who feel free to spit on religions, including Catholicism and Mormonism. I don't understand why Michelle Malkin's employees (Allapundit especially) think that it is appropriate to run threads that always devolve into Catholic bashing or Mormon bashing. I recall that several commentors were banned when they made posts maligning Islam or all Muslims. Yet similar posts about Catholics or Catholicism go untouched. The bigots run the show there, apparently.

So I've decided to document all of this for posterity, in an attempt to embarass people enough to do something about it. These posts will run until Allahpundit finally wakes up and realizes that it is incredibly stupid for one of the most well-known conservative blogs to be known as a Catholic bashing blog, or a Mormon bashing blog. Or, hopefully Michelle Malkin will give the order to clean house. I hope she does.

Bloggers aren't always responsible for blog comments, but Hot Air had no problem banning people who attack Islam. And Allahpundit has a tendency to deliberately post inflammatory threads about the Pope or Catholicism, in a crass attempt to get readers. I guess he's earned his 30 pieces of silver. Nevertheless, even a single commentor can be ignored. But when it's hoardes of bigots on your blog, bashing Catholics day in and day out, in every thread that has anything to do with the Church or the Pope, then I think the label fits: Hot Air is a Bigoted Blog.

Some choice comments in this thread:

This one's by "RealDemocrat":

Sorry, the Roman Catholic Church was founded in 313 or 396 A.D., not by Jesus Christ. That probably one reson why the catholic church has remained what it is to this day, a church of pedophile priests, idolaters, Illegal Aliens, and drunken buffoon RoastBeefers.

RealDemocrat on March 22, 2009 at 2:02 PM

And this one seems to think he knows everything about Catholic theology:
Explain this… the RCC warned American Catholics that if they voted for Obama (or any pro-Choice candidate), they might be guilty of a mortal sin (they were warned of forfeiting their eternal life)… and if they were pro-Choice they have effectively made themselves unfit for communion…

They were guilty of cooperation with evil.

But they won’t refuse the actual Catholic politicians and judges to partake of the Eucharist.

mankai on March 22, 2009 at 4:07 PM

Here's mankai again claiming that his out of context quotes aren't attacking the Church.
It matters because you must hold to what the Popes said. Period. If quoting your popes and councils makes me a “Catholic basher” or if you’re ashamed of their decrees that is something you’ll need to explain to yourself.

As Ed himself noted last week… how is it bashing to quote someone verbatim?

mankai on March 22, 2009 at 4:29 PM

More examples to follow.

EDIT: More here:

In America, you’ll have a difficult time reconciling the ideas of individual liberty, smaller government, and the Catholic Church. They’re really incompatible, ya know? One just doesn’t fit there.

RealDemocrat on March 22, 2009 at 7:13 PM

Some comments acknowledge the scope of the problem:

I’m starting to confine myself to only Ed’s posts. I’m getting sick and tired of Allah’s snarky, condescending and sneering attitude. I get enough of that everywhere I go. I don’t need to seek it out.

Thanks Ed for this excellent post.

Allah, go . . . . . . oh, never mind.

Charles Martel on March 22, 2009 at 7:02 PM


Allah has a horse in this race, and we just have to put up with it. After all, he’s the one who loves putting up those interesting and mind-expanding posts on the foibles of believers. mankei is obviously not Allah’s sockpuppet, but he is serving Allah’s purpose, just as those idiots trashing Mormons were. Allah loves a fight in which the believers are at each others’ throats, telling each other they aren’t real believers.

That said, all real Americans love the sting of battle.

unclesmrgol on March 22, 2009 at 5:53 PM

One day, I hope Allah realizes that none of this does his blog any favors.