FEMINISTS, if they were true to their stated goal of obtaining recognition and compensation for women based on merit, should be deeply offended by anyone — man or woman — who says he will vote for Hillary Clinton simply because she is a woman. This idea should outrage feminists.

For being a woman in itself is not something with which a woman can be credited. She had nothing to do with the simple fact that she is a woman. Her character is something she creates, not her sex. There are all kinds of women. If they were true to their stated goal, feminists would be hyper-vigilant and discriminating when it comes to electing any woman. “No, we don’t want just a woman,” they would say. “We want the best.”

But they don’t say that. I realize that many, probably most, feminists believe Hillary is the best, but they typically don’t object to those who want Hillary to be president purely because she is a woman. And therefore, their alleged goal is cheapened by a tendency to assign virtue to the mere physical fact of being a woman, which perhaps explains why Hillary’s character, formed under this halo, is so poor.

Diana Johnstone, the liberal author of Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton, responded to the notion of voting for Hillary purely because she is a woman. She was speaking to a liberal audience: Read More »

TK writes:

I remember not believing the polls in the last presidential election. I actually thought Romney would win in a landslide. I remember my disbelief when state after state started falling into the blue column. I couldn’t believe that this country would re-elect Obama, knowing so much more about him this time around than was known about him the last time. It made no sense to me. But it was what it was.

Here we are again. Polls, polls polls, almost all oversampling Democrats, some by a pretty decent margin. If we’re to believe them this time, we have to believe that the country wants more Democrat policies. Read More »

Boston Globe/ Jim Davis

A RHODE ISLAND man criticized the pervasiveness of yoga pants on women last week in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper. As a result, his home in Barrington was reportedly sieged this weekend, with hundreds of women walking past his house with bullhorns, flags, signs and an arsenal of feminist platitudes, in a flash mob generated on social media.

Alan Sorrentino, the letter writer, said he has also received death threats. Well, of course, he deserves a death sentence. He’s an enemy of women.  Apparently, Mr. Sorrentino, 63, has been living in a cave. How else could he not know that it is all but a capital crime to criticize the ugly, sexually aggressive clothing offered by a decadent, corporate fashion industry that doesn’t care if women look like slabs of meat and purveys everything feminists have ever decried as the “objectification” of women?

The Boston Globe quotes from the letter:

‘‘Yoga pants belong in the yoga studio,’’ he wrote. ‘‘What’s next? Wearing a ‘‘Speedo’’ to the supermarket? Imagine if men did that. Yuck!’’

Sorrentino wrote that it’s ‘‘bizarre and disturbing’’ to see the outfits on ‘‘mature, adult women,’’ noting that it’s ‘‘usually paired with a blousy top and a pony tail hairdo.’’ He said it’s the worst thing to happen in women’s fashion since the miniskirt. He said women should wear a ‘‘nice pair of tailored slacks’’ or jeans instead.

[…]

He told women who wear yoga pants that he’s struggling with his own physicality as he ages and said, ‘‘I don’t want to struggle with yours.’’

Mr. Sorrentino later defended himself by saying he was just joking and that only a “tormented, uptight individual” would criticize what women wear. He is scared. Men are understandably scared of yoga-practicing, peace-loving feminist bullies who have the multi-billion dollar corporate media, the American government and the entire political establishment behind them. Sorrentino probably is a “tormented, uptight individual,” and he certainly didn’t go far enough. He should have totally condemned the public wearing of yoga pants, not just on older women. Though most women don’t intend it, the clingy and revealing synthetic pants, which would have been considered not all that long ago no more acceptable in public than underwear, are a form of sexual aggression. They draw excessive attention toward their bodies — and thus away from their personalities. (Mr. Sorrentino might have also done the world a service by criticizing yoga itself, a practice which encourages resignation, a practice which, though connected to a noble contemplative tradition, presents the divine as an impersonal force, no more interesting than a rock, and is partly response for the Closing of the American Mind.)

Attendees of the march said they would not endure “policing” of women’s bodies — as if criticism was coercion, as if words constituted a jail sentence.

We need more tormented, uptight individuals to stand up to these bullies who don’t realize that what they wear affects other people and is a social statement. Yoga pants worn in public undermine the dignity of women. They make a statement: women are hunks of meat, rather than potentially elevated beings with a noble mission in this world. They are anti-feminine and cruel to women who don’t have the slim and sleek bodies idolized by our culture. Furthermore, they are depressing — black uniforms devoid of decorative interest — and thus they further undermine the dignity of women everywhere and contribute to the pervasive ugliness of our environment.

THE VOTE, writes Thomas Droleskey, has long been rigged:

Actual election fraud has been a common phenomenon in the history of this nation. The stuffing of ballot boxes was common in the nineteenth century when paper ballots were used. Voters were intimidated by means of physical threats. People voted two or three times. Ballots cast for some candidates were thrown out or burned. Dead people voted, a phenomenon still to be found in certain precincts in the country. Most of the popular vote totals of the nineteenth century are merely advisory. They do not truly reflect the actual votes cast by voters. Read More »

HILLARY CLINTON has flouted the law so brazenly that if she wins the election, her presidency will be of questionable legitimacy. Mike Adams writes:

Every element of this election is so rigged, so illegal and so fraudulent that if Hillary Clinton “wins” this vote, the Presidency of the United States will be null and void.

From Zero Hedge:

“That an establishment democratic candidate could endure an extended FBI investigation, in which multiple federal laws were clearly and intentionally broken, and clear evidence of corruption and collusion between the FBI and State Department is mind boggling. Throw in evidence from WikiLeaks clearly linking the DNC to criminal efforts to incite violence at rallies, numerous examples of pay-to-play activities at the Clinton Foundation, blatant media collusion, etc, etc, and it actually becomes quite frightening.” Read More »

WAYNE MADSEN contends there is no evidence that the Russian government hacked e-mails of Hillary Clinton and her staffers. Most likely, it was done by those attempting to gain entry to files pertaining to UFOs:

[C]entral Intelligence Agency director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and National Security Agency director Admiral Mike Rogers provided not one iota of evidence that it was Russian state players who hacked into the computers of the Democrats or the personal email accounts of Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta and other staffers.

Podesta has a long track record of interest in extraterrestrial visitations of our planet and unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and the files the U.S. government possesses on these subjects. Consequently, Podesta, who has served as White House chief of staff for Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, has drawn the interest of the most dedicated contingent among the computer hacker community: those who hope to discover the “mother lode” of secret files allegedly held by the U.S. government on alien visitations and UFOs.

Clinton’s unsupported and provocative claim that Russia is interfering in the election is a form of treason. Read More »

THE LGBT agenda is not kind. In fact, it is intolerant, hateful, narrow-minded and un-supported by science.

See more here. As Peter LaBarbera writes:

Is it not cruel to tell a man who was raped as a boy by an adult pervert – or seduced into incestuous sex by an older brother – that he is now destined to be stuck with a deviant and immoral sexual identity for the rest of his life? With so many ex-“gays” like Dennis Jernigan proclaiming freedom from past homosexuality, how can anyone – journalist, gay activist or scholar – claim that adults cannot change their “sexual orientation?” Read More »

IF you have any doubt about whether you should vote for Donald Trump, as opposed to not voting at all, I recommend this round up of editorial commentary from The New York Times on Wednesday’s debate. Anyone who inspires such adolescent rage on the part of the mental midgets at the Times deserves your support.

HILLARY Clinton’s sentimental distortions in Wednesday’s debate about women who make the “heartbreaking” decision to terminate the life of their late-term child because their own life is in danger is just the kind of thing hailed by these ghouls outside Trump Tower (above) protesting “hatred” of women. In the decadent United States of America, valuing the most important thing women do — bringing life into the world — is “hating” women. Hillary is a master at flattering women and presenting evil as good.

It is tragic when a woman becomes ill during pregnancy and needs treatment that may injure her unborn baby. If Hillary truly cared about families and children, as she so often maintains, she would argue for helping those in this situation to cope with the results and she would valorize their struggles. It is never necessary to abort a child to save a woman’s life. According to the Association of Pro-Life Physicians:

When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim.  If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic.  But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary. Read More »

LESLIE L. writes:

I have enjoyed your blog for quite some time. I am a housewife myself and thoroughly enjoy what I do. Yet I am facing a huge problem that I am hoping I can get some advice about.

My oldest daughter, who is a teenager, doesn’t want children. I don’t believe she is 100 percent adamant about it, because I think she gains some satisfaction at my dislike at the thought (maybe a control issue for her), yet I am worried I am just not setting a good example for her.

She is not the “average” teenager in that she participates in bible study nightly, doesn’t support the LGBT community (which she says is common at her high school), she doesn’t swear or dress immodestly, and wants to save herself for marriage. All of that in itself sets her apart from the average American teenager in my opinion. Read More »

GALLIWATCH reports on Sunday’s rally in Paris on behalf of marriage:

“Destroying the Family, the primary place of fraternity, is to make fraternity impossible.”

See more here. Read More »

KATHLENE M. writes:

I’ve been reading some of Wikileaks’ Podesta emails recently, and I urge your readers to do so too.  While many Americans have long known that the Washington establishment is corrupted by money, Wikileaks reveals many of the influencers behind the scenes.  Here are a few names showing up in Wikileaks.  These people have deep pockets and are supporting Hillary: Read More »

COMPASSION and Choices is the doublespeak name for the former Hemlock Society. The organization is a major player in spreading the cult of physician-assisted suicide in America and the mounting movement to devalue the lives of the sick. Things are proceeding quickly. The American Medical Association is considering next month revoking its disapproval of physician-assisted suicide.

In response to all this, the Center for Bioethics and Culture Network has released a new short film “Compassion and Choice — Denied:”

Compassion and Choice DENIED explores the effects efforts to legalize physician assisted suicide have on those who are living with terminal illness but who do not want “aid in dying.” The film features Stephanie, a wife and mother living with a terminal diagnosis. She has experienced first-hand the dangerous effects of California’s recent legalization of physician assisted suicide.

As she deals with insurance denials of treatment her doctor ordered and changes in the tone of conversations in various support groups, her story highlights the ways in which the difficulty of living with a terminal diagnosis is compounded by the growing cultural acceptance of the notion of assisted suicide. This negatively changes the ways in which people with terminal illnesses are thought of, and the ways in which they think about themselves. Source

“‘Compassion and Choices’ — they’ve challenged me a lot,” Stephanie says. “They’re trying to change definitions of words to make it sound sweet and pretty and tempting…. They’re talking about how this isn’t suicide.”

When physician-assisted suicide laws are passed, more terminally ill patients are denied treatment by their insurance carriers because suicide, she says, “will always be the cheapest option.” Furthermore, these laws demoralize those who are terminally ill and yet struggling to stay alive, making them feel their days have no meaning. “Assisted suicide” leads to compulsory suicide.

You can sign a petition here, urging the AMA to stick with the Hippocratic Oath, curing the sick and alleving their pain, not killing them. But don’t get your hopes up. You can say all you want how precious the dying are, but that won’t change the fact that big, big bucks are behind the anti-Christian death cult. In one year, contributions to Compassion and Choices almost doubled. And guess who is one of the biggest players in the assisted suicide movement, funding Compassion and Choices, the Project on Death in America (now there’s an honest name) and other suicide organizations? No surprise here. Does he have to make it any plainer?

George Soros wants us to die.

The assisted suicide movement is not a grass roots development. It’s one more “revolution from above.” They’ve opened our borders, killed our souls — and now they want us to romanticize suicide. The death movement is one more weapon of the anti-Christian conspiracy. It is connected to many other things going on in our world.

George Soros

FROM The Daily Mail:

An anonymous Frenchman wearing a hidden camera recorded the aftermath of a raid on a migrant camp on Avenue de Flandre in the north of the French capital.

After the migrants had been forced on to buses by police officers in full riot gear, all that was left was sidewalks blocked with trash, junk and mattresses.

The video also captures the scene before the hundreds of young Africans, mainly Sudanese and Eritreans, were confronted by riot shields and tear gas.

The men are shown forced to live and sleep on flat pieces of cardboard, with all their worldly belongings stuffed into plastic bags.

BISHOP Daniel Dolan writes today to his parishioners in his weekly bulletin at St. Gertrude the Great in West Chester, Ohio:

The other day several of you asked whether you could vote in good conscience for Trump, given all the character accusations against him. He certainly is a character. The answer is yes. As a matter of fact, our leaders have always been deeply flawed characters. Only the media used to hide it. Now, selective revelation is used to get those selected for attack. But I feel sorry for those only exposed to the selective propaganda from deep state….

Trump is no worse than many a politician, president or national leader of the past, now “canonized” perhaps or with his own holiday. The curious thing is the more he is attacked, the more he blurts out bits of the truth. Bring it on! Were he elected he might actually appoint some good Supreme Court justices, and more.

In any event, Trump seems uniquely qualified to destroy at least some of the now-entrenched one world, leftist deep state, with its open borders, unceasing propaganda and perpetual wars. This includes war against Catholicism, we now know, as well as against babies and so much more. How curious that perhaps a pagan could be the man of the hour.

Finally, you must consider those unspeakable characters of proven immorality who are so bitterly waging war against this man. We know their agenda. They are worried. We should be, too! They are working hard to win. Does truth still stand a chance? Personally, I doubt we will ever have another chance. I have never seen such brazen propaganda. Who can resist its pull?

The death mask of Martin Luther/ “Pope” Francis at a gathering of 1,000 Lutheran visitors to Rome

IT’S not surprising that “Pope” Francis is seeking close ties with Lutherans. He and Martin Luther have a great deal in common.

“I really like good Lutherans, Lutherans who really practice their faith in Jesus Christ. What I don’t like are lukewarm Catholics and lukewarm Lutherans”.  –— Jorge Bergoglio, Oct. 13, 2016

“Certainly God is great and almighty, good and merciful and all that one can imagine in this sense, but He is stupid.”         — Martin Luther

AT Christ of Chaos, Dr. Thomas Droleskey strongly condemns the indecent language of Donald Trump and those who dismiss it as mere “locker room talk:”

No matter Donald John Trump’s remarkable thrashing of the Republican political establishment, committed as it has long been to conserving the welfare state, plundering the national treasury, refusing to protect the innocent preborn or to secure our borders, and to engaging in one needless, immoral, unjust and unconstitutional war after another, none of this will matter to him at the moment of his Particular Judgment as he is accountable for the example that he sets for others. A presidential candidate whose throat is an open sepulcher in public helps to reinforce the acceptability of profanity and indecency that is so widespread today in every aspect of what is called “popular culture.” The innocence of children is thus further undermined and reinforced.

No one can “make America great again” by speaking profanely.

Sure, there is a lot of hypocrisy from those who adhere to the false opposite of the naturalist “left” about Donald John Trump’s vulgarity and indecency.

So what?

There is also a lot of hypocrisy from those who adhere to the false opposite of the naturalist “right” as thy seek to excuse Trump for saying things that they would never tolerate in a William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.

Also, see Dr. Droleskey, in the post “Jorge’s Kind of Catholics,” on the scandal of the “anti-Catholic” e-mails released by Wikileaks.

Update: While I also condemn Trump’s vulgarity, I do not share Dr. Droleskey’s view that we must not vote for him. Read More »

FATHER William Jenkins, of the Society of St. Pius V, argues that it is morally permissible — and may even be obligatory — for Catholics to vote for a candidate such as Donald Trump. Stick with this lecture; it is a compelling examination of the presidential election.