"Here she [Hillary Clinton] is tonight, in public, pretending not to hate Catholics."

Donald Trump blasted Hillary Clinton last night at the Al Smith Memorial Dinner. The last time the two candidates meet on the campaign trail before the election in November.

At one point in his speech, Trump said the following:

We’ve learned so much from WikiLeaks. For example, Hillary believes that it’s vital to deceive the people by having one public policy and a totally different policy in private. That’s okay. I don’t know who they’re angry at Hillary, you or I. For example, here she is tonight, in public, pretending not to hate Catholics.

What is Trump referring to?

Wikileaks revealed a string of emails from the chairman of Hillary Clinton's Chairman John Podesta to John Halpin, former Democratic Strategist and Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary Clinton's Director of Communications. In them, they bash Catholics.

Here are some transcripts:

From: Halpin, To: Jennifer Palmieri and John Podesta:Excellent point. They can throw around "Thomistic" thought and "subsidiarity" and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they're talking about.
Jennifer Palmieri wrote:I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn't understand if they became evangelicals.
John Halpin:Ken Auletta's latest piece on Murdoch in the New Yorker starts off with the aside that both Murdoch and Robert Thompson, managing editor of the WSJ, are raising their kids Catholic. Friggin' Murdoch baptized his kids in Jordan where John the Baptist baptized Jesus.
Many of the most powerful elements of the conservative movement are all Catholic (many converts) from the SC and think tanks to the media and social groups.
It's an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.

You can just see the vitriol being spewed by these people, the highest officials in the Clinton presidential campaign.

Pretty much any Democrat, especially party officials who claims to be Catholic is so in name only. They are ardent defenders of abortion right up to moments before birth. Plus, it seems fine at Democratic gatherings to openly mock Catholics.

Later, one of the emailers stood by his comments and refused to apologize. Somehow his explanation is that he was just reacting to news that Rupert Murdoch had baptized his children in the Jordan river. Yes, I can see why he was so triggered by this! Makes perfect sense! He wants people to believe that the Clinton staffers involved in the email chain really respect Catholics. Give me a break!

Question #6: But I want to pick my best friend as godparent in Catholic ceremony!

This is Question and Answer #6 in a series on Godparents. Each day I will answer a question. If you have your own question, please post it as a comment to this post. Thank you.

Question #6: But I want to pick my best friend as godparent in Catholic ceremony!

Baptism is not some kind of personal statement to showcase your friends. It’s a solemn occasion where a person is being spiritually cleansed of original sin. You are choosing a godparent or sponsor to keep your child on the right spiritual path. If the whole thing is just a naming ceremony and you don’t really believe in a spiritual reality or in this sacrament, then you should consider whether or not to even baptize your child, as Canon Law states baptism should only be given to children who have a reasonable hope of being raised in a Christian fashion.

Question #5: When did godparenthood begin in the history of Catholicism?

This is Question and Answer #5 in a series on Godparents. Each day I will answer a question. If you have your own question, please post it as a comment to this post. Thank you.

Question #5: When did godparenthood begin in the history of Catholicism?

Most believe it started in the 4th century, once Christianity became legal to prevent pagan infiltration of the sacrament and to bolster it.

Question 4: Can you forgo the requirement of having a godparent in Catholicism?

This is Question and Answer #4 in a series on Godparents. Each day I will answer a question. If you have your own question, please post it as a comment to this post. Thank you.

Question 4: Can you forgo the requirement of having a godparent in Catholicism?

No. At least one godparent is required. You can have up to 2. The only case where no godparent is required is if the child or adult being baptized is in danger of death. Baptism is so important that this requirement will be waived in these cases.

This is Question and Answer #3 in a series on Godparents. Each day I will answer a question. If you have your own question, please post it as a comment to this post. Thank you.

Question 3: What are the restrictions on WHO can be a Godparent in Catholicism?

Well, as mentioned, at least one of the two people must be a Catholic, and should be one in good standing. That person can be either male or female and must be at least 16 years old. The other has to be a Christian at least with same restriction about age.

Question #2: What is the Role of Godparents in Catholicism?

This is Question and Answer #2 in a series on Godparents. Each day I will answer a question. If you have your own question, please post it as a comment to this post. Thank you.

Question 2: What is the role of Godparents in Catholicism

Contrary to popular opinion, the main role of a godparent isn’t just to take over for the care of the child in case the parents die. They could fulfill this role, but that’s not the point. Godparents are meant to be witnesses to the faith, to show good example and instruct the baptized in the faith. That’s why it’s good to select a practicing Catholic who believes in the faith. Otherwise, what’s the point?

Godparents: Part 1: How many Godparents can someone have at a Catholic Baptism?

This is Question and Answer #1 in a series on Godparents. Each day I will answer a question. If you have your own question, please post it as a comment to this post. Thank you.

Question 1: How many Godparents can someone have at a Catholic Baptism?

The person being baptized can have up to 2 sponsors. At least one of the two has to be a Catholic in good standing, meaning they strive to attend Mass at least once a week and are living according to the Church’s teachings. The other can also be a Catholic, but it is permitted to have a non-Catholic Christian “witness”. Technically this person is not a godparent or sponsor, but is rather a Christian witness.

Too much emphasis on "Green"? Part I: Food

In the first of a multi-part series, I will discuss whether we place the wrong emphasis on moral issues and whether our Catholic leadership may be somewhat to blame.

I think a lot of Catholics are confused by rhetoric we hear from our leaders recently. There is a key element to the confusion and that is order of importance. As you know, our current pope has made many comments regarding climate change, food shortages, capitalism, being more inclusive, etc. But what he usually fails to emphasize is context. Take food for instance. He says we shouldn’t waste food. I don’t think this is a forgone conclusion by any means. Obviously people shouldn’t purposely try to waste food but no one does that on purpose anyway. People at least intend to eat whatever they buy. So is it a sin to throw out rotten or expired food? In my opinion it’s not.

For whatever reason, people seem obsessed about food more so than other goods. This makes sense since food directly feeds us, so it seems bad when someone else is starving but we throw out food, in some cases things starving people would be willing to eat. Yet we have no problem with people throwing out clothing, furniture, electronics, or any other goods for the most part. No one says “Hey! Someone in Africa doesn’t have furniture, how can you just throw it out!” We can see this is not even logical. Whether or not you keep a couch will not determine whether the person in Africa will get one. Likewise with food. Whether or not I consume a rotten banana will not feed an African or Indian or anyone else. But the visceral reaction to food waste remains.

In reality, we can only help people eat by increasing economic prosperity for those people. The reason people cannot eat is because they have no money. Obviously the first thing you’ll spend money on is food. Our consumption or non-consumption is irrelevant. The Earth can easily produce more than enough food for everyone. So it’s not as if us wasting food leaves less for everyone else. In fact, according to basic supply and demand theory in economics, if we buy MORE food, the price will go down. Ironically, wasting food is therefore probably beneficial to people who don’t have enough.

Another option we have for providing food to the needy is simply giving them food or money to pay for food. I feel this is a short term solution, because ultimately we all know the saying about teaching a man to fish versus just giving him a fish.

My main point is I have never heard of anyone who purposely throws out good food for no reason except to destroy the planet or for lack of concern for the poor. It’s usually done because the food is gone bad. I do not see any moral issues here with this situation. Plus, if you make the argument that throwing out food means you could have given it to the poor, you could equally make the argument that spending money on too much house or too much clothing or too many movies could have instead been spent on buying food for the poor. I don’t see throwing out food as an important moral issue of our time. Maybe once we are morally perfect, this issue could be addressed. I don’t think the pope should be spending valuable time discussing this topic. There are far more important and immediate sins that must be addressed. Another reason to not discuss this so much is the ongoing confusion people have with real spirituality and a sort of pagan worship of mother earth. If you pay attention, you’ll notice that often people openly involved in manifest sin will emphasize saving the planet or saving animals and will pay little attention to moral sins such as lust, anger, pride, etc. They say as long as you are saving mother earth, all is good, because the “higher power” doesn’t really care about your personal life. With the pope talking about saving the planet all the time, this only lends credence to this pagan view.

I can’t blame the pope entirely for this state of affairs. He has spoken definitively on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. but the media doesn’t like reporting this. They have branded him this new avant-garde hip pope who is “with it” and therefore doesn’t talk about those things as much. He’s the cool green pope. Or so they want to believe. Look, I, like a lot of devout Catholics, have an issue with how Pope Francis gives off-the-cuff remarks on a variety of topics, usually in an airplane which leaves the faithful confused. So I think he has to be extremely careful about the messages he purveys. People will always take the path of least resistance. If they believe they can be good people by recycling and posting pro-environmental messages on Facebook rather than actually being a morally good people, they will, and they will use any excuse they can to avoid the actually challenging stuff. That’s why I think it’s so important to have moral clarity in a time of confusion.

Tune in soon for the next installment of this series.

Trump's Audio Tape: Progressives' Hypocrisy

Progressives are out in force bashing Trump's latest audio tape where he makes lewd remarks about women. The level of moralizing coming from these leftist is astounding. It's just sheer moral outrage, as if an unspeakable crime has transpired.

In the meantime, this group of shocked progressives is the same group that actively promotes every and all forms of sexual expression, perversion and depravity. Nothing is off limits for these people adn their ilk, yet they feign disgust when Trump makes some locker room banter.

On the one hand, they promote every form of sexual depravity, telling us it's totally fine to have sex with as many people as you want, whenever you want, however you want. Republicans and conservatives are routinely bashed as being prudish and moralistic because they want to place restrictions on sexuality.

These progressives say there should be no youngest age to be sexual, nothing wrong with any number of partners, they condone all forms of sexuality including violent and degrading ones as long as there is "consent". Then of course when something inevitably goes wrong (or right because sex is actually designed for reproduction), they are the first group to advocate abortion.

So this group condones and encourages every form of sexual perversion and when this leads to pregnancy, they just as strongly encourage the killing of a small child.

If anyone complains that certain pornographic material is offensive or that sexual education in schools shouldn't include all kinds of weird and perverse things, the progressives are always the first to jump down their throats demanding they accept it all and teach it to their kids.

But then when Trump, the epitome of what they want for society in terms of sexual views, actually expresses his views from ten years ago, these fraudsters pretend they are all shocked and we've insulted and harassed their innocent ears.

It's all hypocrisy!

Martha Raddatz: "Sometimes there are good reasons for that"

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? During the debate tonight, moderator Martha Raddatz literally treid to debate Donald Trump. He was asked about what he woudl do in Aleppo, a city in Syria. While answering, he said it was a bad idea to tell the enemy the plans before they take place. He was INTERRUPTED by the moderator who insisted multiple tiems in a row that sometimes the military has good reasons for doing this including psychological warfare etc.

It was one of the most blatant examples of the moderators trying to help Hillary Clinton. Under absolutely no circumstances is it the responsibility of the media or moderators to debate Trump when he is supposed to be debating his opponent. I don't recall them helping Trump against Hillary. This reminds me of when Candy Crowley was trying to help Obama when he was debating Mitt Romney by taking it upon herself to debate Romney.

I can't find the exact clip, but here's a small sample of this moderator interrupting and trying to debate Trump: