The Luck of the Irish

You gotta hand it to The Trumpster. Fate continues to toss him softballs. I don’t know how long this string of luck is going to last but he is especially gifted in his choice of enemies. My dear, sainted mother used to call this “the luck of the Irish”.

In this case, it was an Irish-American, Gen John Kelly (Ret-USMC) who caused liberal heads to explode.

Exhibit A (this week at least) is the dust-up about the Gold Star widow. As everybody knows by now, Rep Fredericka Wilson (D-FL) inserted herself in the most buffoonish way possible into (what was supposed to be) private conversation between the President and the grieving family of a fallen US soldier.

She then made matters worse by politicizing the conversation. This of course was a huge mistake. Trump, unlike previous cuckservative presidents, doesn’t take things lying down. Sure, it’s unpleasant and unbecoming a gentleman but Trump isn’t concerned about being looked down by the Old Money types at the country club. Hell, he owns the country club. And besides, the left has been given a free ride for too long on too many things. One thing they don’t have is moral authority.

As for Trump’s fortunate enemy du jour, one needs only to look at any random photograph of Wilson to know that she’s not playing with a full deck. Whenever I’ve seen an elderly woman dressed like this come into my pharmacy I know it’s going to be a long day. Either she’s off her meds and the doctor didn’t put any refills on them or she’s going to hand me some pamphlet about who really build the pyramids or do I want to know the Grand Secret which will revitalize my life. Sometimes she’s got some cheesy merchandise in a brown bag that she’ll offer at a “special price”. Things like that. She’ll stick around til closing time, pestering me and my help about this, that or the other thing while we try to go about our business. “Uh huh, yes Ma’am. Phone’s ringing! Oh, look at the time! Gotta stock the shelves.” Whatever; regardless, they never take the hint.

Seriously though, Wilson is the end-result of the GOP’s brilliant gerrymandering strategies coupled with the Democrats’ fervent belief in the religion of Civil Rights. As for the Republicans, they decided long ago to concentrate as many African-Americans as possible into one or two Congressional districts; the Democrats went along with it because the resulting Congressional Black Caucus is a reliable leftist voting bloc. The result are called “majority-minority” districts. Though several of these districts are ably served by competent black Congressmen there are quite a few that are not. Poltroons such as Wilson, Alcee Hastings and Sheila Jackson Lee spring instantly to mind. And of course, they can’t be dislodged. That would be racist.

So now, the Democrats are stuck with the likes of Fredericka Wilson, who like the surly NFL players who don’t know when shut up and declare victory, is continuing her holy crusade against Trump. She of course will be immunized from any party discipline and the Corporate Media will continue to coddle her and proclaim her the second coming of Harriet Tubman but for the great majority of people, all this will do is solidify in their minds that the Democrat Party sure has some “colorful” people in it. (That’s a euphemism for crazy.)

And of course the Useful Idiots in the media will do whatever they can to try and redirect attention to Trump, hoping that normal people ignore Wilson’s antics. Lawrence O’Donnell in particular deserves a slap in the face for his odious slanders of both Kelly and Irish-Americans in Boston. Watching him last night blowing a gasket trying to muster up dudgeon against Kelly led me to conclude that he knows that the jig is up. We ain’t buying it any more.

To clear the mind from the buffoonery of Wilson and the hateful mendacity of O’Donnell, one needs only watch the emotional press conference given by Gen Kelly on the matter. You would not be wrong to shed a tear or too or to even get down on your knees and say a prayer, thanking the Lord that there are still a few real men left in America.

Comments

  1. No doubt the leftist Femi-Nazis heads exploded when he called woman sacred or that at least they used to be. At least within Orthodoxy and our Theotokos woman/motherhood will always be held sacred.

  2. George, What we are witnessing with Trump is our Baby Boomer’s last HooRaah. The old baby boomers with it’s traditional American values, brought upon from the previous, and most likely greatest generation, The World War 2 generation, is clashing with younger generations that never knew America was actually a great place to live in. Instead all our youth are fed is black/woman inequality protest, Vietnam protests, MLK, X, Fidel, Che’ good, and President Nixon, and those evil Republicans, BAD!

    Reagan tried to change course, but between New World Order/Read My Lips Bush, Little Head, Big Head Syndrome, always in the right place at the right time Bubba Clinton, Revenge My Daddy Bush JR , and Obama The Great Lead From Behind Liberator of absolutely nothing= You get Trump. Trump is of the baby boom generation, East coast in your face. Old rules? Hell no, NO RULES! Come at me with you tired old school bullshit and expect the same, and more, in return. MSM, and leftist progs have never seen anything like him, and have never been counter punched! OHHH THE HUMANITY!!!!

    Enjoy it while it lasts, with the baby boomer’s demise, so will our countries demise begin. Slowly all that was sacred including the ultimate sacrifice one gives to one’s country will be gone as well. Tear it all down baby, will be the new battle cry.

  3. Tim R. Mortiss says:

    I do wish that Kelly had gotten his facts straight on the congresswoman, though. Took a lot of steam out of it….

    Sorry to see the “cuck..” stuff back, George. You should deep-six that one forever.

  4. M. Stankovich says:

    Wow, Mr. Michalopulos, judging by a first-glance impression, I thought I was reading your description of a chance encounter of the highly decorated retired Marine General John Kelley, who now serves as the White House Chief of Staff for the current President, and Moms Mabley. You remember “Moms,” that stereotypical old colored woman buffoon who shuffled out onto the stage in an old house dress and bed room slippers, no teeth, half-intelligent, frequently smoking a cigarette & hinting at a hangover, right? She complained about her drunk husband, undependable men, rotten children, thieving landlords, and lascivious preachers.

    But much to my surprise, you were, in fact, referring to the Honorable Congresswoman Frederika Wilson, who has personally sponsored 71 acts of legislation in the US Congress and co-sponsored (and from the Congressional Record, it would seem equally in a bi-partisan effort) 1,569 more as diverse as the Youth Corps Act, Catastrophic Home Insurance, high school educational technology, employers tax credit for apprenticeship programs, numerous small business tax incentives, and the list goes on.

    Apparently, Mr. Michalopulos, all you did was take a quick look at this enemy de jour and nailed her hard with the most insulting, degrading, and superficial labels your house here hands out like big, fat Cuban cigars for the male faithful: woman, black, mentally ill and/or stupid, not in office by right or fitness, but by the fluke of “gerrymandering.” Oorah, bros’, what white woman would be caught dead in that hat! She must be crazy.” But they also said that about Bella Abzug, whom her colleagues voted as the 3rd most influential person in the Congress through the Nixon years, and was at the top on Nixon’s “Enemy List.”

    Kill the messenger with misogyny, racism, and prejudice for disability. Luck of the Irish, my ass. Shall we sing along with Shirley?

    • Now if M. Stankovich walked into my church wearing a red cowboy hat, red cowboy boots, flamboyant pants, and a furry vest, I might think to myself now there is a man who knows all about the church fathers, the Bible inside, and out, and many well respected members of the Orthodox Church. That or a true Forty Niner Faithful. I suppose we should never judge a book by it’s cover.

      • George Michalopulos says:

        LOL. Seriously, Wilson’s a joke. If the CBC had any self-respect they’d blackball her.

      • Michael Bauman says:

        Michael S. I lost your contact info. I have something I’d like to pick your brain about not related to this place. If you still have mine please drop me a line.

        There is a country and western song there somewhere.

      • Estonian Slovak says:

        I hope the above remark won’t offend M. Stankovich. I had pushed the delete button, but unsuccessfully.

  5. Peter Ray Millman says:

    This is a mendacious, convoluted, slanderous, disgusting post by Michael Stankovich. ” Kill the messenger with misogyny, racism, and prejudice for disability.” Bella Abzug?! Are you hallucinating, son?

    Who gave you the lordly right to smear those with whom you disagree? By the way, son, what do you have against the male hormone testosterone? I can’t believe you are in the mental health field because your paranoia is transparent and apparent. Hamlet said, ” Get thee to a nunnery.” I say to you, Michael Stankovich, ” Get thee to a shrink.” I will keep you in my prayers.

    • Kettle meet pot.

      • Peter Ray Millman says:

        Anon,
        As I roll my eyes at the profundity of your silly statement. I hope your fingers weren’t trembling too much when you posted that jive. Courage, son, courage!

        • The simple fact is I found both posts to be very much the same tone Peter.

          And no trembling.

          Sorry.

  6. Ronda Wintheiser says:

    Well, Mr. Stankovich, I guess it doesn’t surprise me that you would take that tack.

    Regardless of how he chose to describe the Congresswoman, the salient point of George’s point was the calibre of the man who objected to her incredibly objectionable, disrespectful actions.

    Interesting that you couldn’t bring yourself to agree with George — or more importantly, General Kelly — even about that.

    In spite of Congresswoman Wilson’s claim that she wasn’t “listening in” but merely overheard a private conversation because it was on a speaker phone, IT WAS NONE OF HER BUSINESS.

    And instead of respecting that it was indeed a private conversation, and instead of protecting the privacy of the grieving widow herself rather than exposing her to public scrutiny, the Congresswoman cynically exploited the fact that she was privy to it and used it for her own self-aggrandizing purposes.

    “Kill the messenger” you say? What possible value was there to her “message”? Why did anyone need to know what happened in that conversation?

    Had President Obama made a call to a grieving family member and some member of Congress had done what Wilson did, you would be apopleptic.

    Instead of acknowledging George’s point that there are still a few real men left in America, you choose to trot out Congresswoman Wilson’s alleged accomplishments.

    As if her accomplishments are in the same league with General Kelly’s. They don’t belong even in the same paragraph, much less any comparison of her character with his.

    No, there is nothing sacred any more.

    • George Michalopulos says:

      Rhonda, indeed. That Mad Hatter is a disgrace to the Congress (and that’s saying a lot!)

    • The reality, Rhonda, is Trump talks too much.

      The fool doth think he is wise.

      Even if we defend his callous remark; it is still something not needed said.

      • Ronda Wintheiser says:

        Dear Anon:

        I don’t believe anyone here is defending President Trump’s remark(s).

        Whatever President Trump said to that grieving widow — whether it was callous or not — is unknown. We didn’t hear the conversation.

        That is as it should be. It isn’t any of our business any more than it was Congresswoman Wilson’s.

        The reality, in point of fact, is that Congresswoman Wilson talked too much.

        • George Michalopulos says:

          Very well put, Ronda. What that gasbag did was reprehensible. But no matter. Yet another incident in which the left’s supposed moral authority and criticism of Trump blows up in their faces. Couldn’t happen to a better bunch of bozos.

    • Peter Ray Millman says:

      What a fantastic post Rhonda! Just excellent! You speak truth to foolishness. Thank you!

    • M. Stankovich says:

      It appears that my attempt to point out the stereotypy – which refers to a disorder of “habit” – was lost on you, Ms. Wintheiser. But then again, judging by your own definition, your accomplishments undoubtedly are not in the same “league” as mine, and your misguided interpretation of my “tack” do not belong in the same paragraph as mine, such is your pretension, and I should be directing you to promptly stand down. But thanks be to our merciful, timid, meek, and even self-deprecating Lord and Savior that I do not think or posture anything like that.

      The fact of the matter is that this Congresswoman was a personal friend of this family, present in an automobile by invitation when the call was taken. That she was affected by what transpired was unavoidable, and I defy you to suggest that, given the identical circumstance, you would not have reacted identically as she did; not in the role of a governmental official, but as a family friend responding to the reaction of a young widow in her immediate presence. Explain to me factually and realistically how it is not General Kelly who was the intruder into this personal matter? And worse, having done so in a publicly broadcast press conference, despite the fact that he shared his own intimate experience? How was it his business? And for heaven’s sake of what bearing does his personal accomplishments as a military officer have on any of these matters? The Congresswoman wasn’t Al Sharpton, representative for the family, she was a friend who just happened to be there when when the President called.

      Did you even know anything about Congresswoman Fredericka Wilson before this matter, Ms. Wintheiser, that you would not be surprised I would take this “tack?” Did you know her to be as “surly as an NFL player?” After you have since examined the more than 1,600 bills she has sponsored and/or co-sponsored in the House of Representatives, are you reasonably convinced that she is more than an alleged poltroon (defined in the OED as a “rascal, dastard, sluggard, lazie-backe, base-idle, lout, lolling in sloth and idleness” – best described as a “house nigger,” Mr. Michalopulos?)? That she somehow got elected into the United States Congress on a whim? Or does that hat sum it all up in the seemingly endless, empty expressions of pitiful, God-forsaken, hopeless patients who have sat across the desk from me with a persistent, horrifying form of mental illness that will never, ever resolve? And somehow it’s “amusing” to tag her with that living hell.

      I was attempting to make a simple point about superficial judgment, Ms. Wintheiser. I don’t give a rat’s ass about the rest.

      • Peter Ray Millman says:

        The author of this insouciant, foolish post doesn’t have the faintest idea what he is babbling and haranguing about. First of all, the illustrious General Kelly is the chief of staff for the President of the United States, not some intruder. President Trump asked his advice about protocol on condolences for bereaved gold star families; he should know, he is the highest ranking military officer to suffer the loss of his son in service to our country.
        Somehow, in the poster’s benighted, dimwitted view the mark of a successful, esteemed Congress person is in the amount of legislation they have sponsored. Does the poster not know we already have waaay too many laws on the books already?

        Frederica Wilson has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood, 100% rating from the gay advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, 94% rating from the ACLU, and a 5% rating from Americans For Prosperity. In other words, she is completely out of touch. To favorably compare the far leftist Wilson with the noble, dignified General Kelly is mind numbingly stupid.

        • George Michalopulos says:

          Peter, I must agree with you here. African-Americans are ill-served by caricatures like Frederica Wilson who is a buffoon of the first water. Her Moms Mabley schtick validates the worst beliefs of white supremacists. The Civil Rights movement would have never gotten off the ground with characters like her serving in the Congress.

          Let us try however to stop personalizing our criticisms of each other. Though I cannot agree with Dr S’s response to Ronda, it was measured and civil.

          • Peter Ray Millman says:

            Okay George. You’re the boss; I respect your opinion.

            • George Michalopulos says:

              Thank you, Peter. I very much respect your opinions as well.

              To all: I apologize if I seem touchy. I just returned from a mini-vacation in the Ozarks. Part of the trip was quite primitive and all of it was very beautiful. Hiking, horseback riding, staring at the stars at night while smoking my pipe. I saw nature in its autumnal beauty and was reminded how truly insignificant I am in the great scheme of things. I came in contact at the Museum of the Ozarks (Ridgeville, Mo) with some of the artifacts and sayings of men like Black Elk, Geronimo and others and realized what a more Orthodox phronema they had. In retrospect, I felt lacking and resentful to a degree about my own spiritual maturity. Also, I acted selfishly in another arena which only added to my feelings of inadequacy.

              Coming back to the “real world”, I resolved to see things in a more Christ-like fashion only here too I failed, I’m ashamed to say. Hence my hyper-criticism which in retrospect was wholly unwarranted. Now, I’m on the mend. I decided to take what was beautiful and worthwhile about that excursion and try to make changes in my life accordingly. Like fish more, hike more, get out of the city, go to the monastery, etc.

              From now on: comment as you will, just try as much as possible to keep it general and not personal. It’s one thing to say that “X, you’re opinion on this matter is nonsense” but quite another to say “Y, you’re a raving idiot”.

              Try, that’s all I ask. You all –every one of you–have made a significant difference in American Orthodoxy. You’ve certainly made a positive difference in my life. I can’t be thankful enough.

              • Peter Ray Millman says:

                George,
                You show real humility and a Christ like attitude in unnecessarily apologizing for things you have not done. I wish all of us had the humility to ask forgiveness of our brothers and sisters in Christ. I too wish to ask forgiveness from all that I have needlessly offended. Through Dino’s kindness, I always feel the pangs of my own sinfulness. Kindness has a way of doing that.

                As far as cranky goes, I’m always cranky. I’m not moody at all. I’m always in a bad mood. It never changes. Grouchy and cranky- that’s me.

                • George Michalopulos says:

                  I like your attitude. Here’s my take: “I’m always in trouble! That’s how I know where I’m at!”

          • Peter Ray Millman says:

            George,
            I have been trying to refrain from posting, but certain things make it exceedingly difficult. I will stop reading your blog, and cease posting.

          • Nate Trost says:

            George Michalopulos wrote
            African-Americans are ill-served by caricatures like Frederica Wilson who is a buffoon of the first water. Her Moms Mabley schtick validates the worst beliefs of white supremacists.

            George Michalopulos opinion on Rep.Wilson appears to have been shaped by the rantings of offended white supremacists. His substance free attacks on her character are tired, tedious and entirely predictable.

            • George Michalopulos says:

              Not at all, Nate. I guess I’m older than you but I remember the Civil Rights movement ca the death of MLK. Whenever they made a stand, they made sure that the people who were victimized were squeaky clean. Rosa Parks was not the first black woman who was told to sit in the back of the bus, there was another woman who’d been sent to the back. I can’t remember her name but when it was found out that she had been a part-time prostitute Dr King and his people told her “sorry”. They searched high and low for a presentable woman like Mrs Parks to make their case.

              I don’t think you realize how many things were going behind the scenes during the 50s to present Civil Rights to the broader public. A lot of this was executed as kabuki theater. For example, I remember watching Billy Graham being interviewed about MLK. He told the interlocutor that he had met privately with “Mike” (as MLK was known) and told him, “Mike, I’ll go to the white church and you go to the black church and together we’ll get this thing done”. (I paraphrase.)

              • Nate Trost says:

                Having read this blog and the writings of George Michalopulos for years I will leave it at this:

                If George Michalopulos were writing Monomakhos in the Civil Rights Act era, I wholeheartedly believe he would be writing the exact same things about Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. as he does about Rep.Wilson.

                As George Michalopulos has demonstrated in his own writings, the truth is no obstacle to prejudice. Rosa Parks ‘squeaky clean’ image is kind of irrelevant: in his recent essays and comments, George Michalopulos has shown he has no qualms with unrepentedly speaking easily debunked falsehoods about John McCain and Barack Obama, to name two. How much lower of a bar would there be for the likes of a Rosa Parks?

                Seriously, one can picture the Monomakhos essay after the Selma march, with John Lewis being called out as one of the “thugs”.

                This is the legacy you’ve made for yourself George Michalopulos, and you get to live with it.

                • George Michalopulos says:

                  I take great umbrage with you there Nate. How dare you. You know nothing about me and how I felt about Civil Rights. Although I was too young at the time to form an opinion, by the time I was a teen and knew enough, I knew that Jim Crow and forced segregation was evil. I still believe that.

                  • Nate Trost says:

                    My dude, last month you were publicly endorsing the idea of physically beating Colin Kaepernick in retaliation for his silent personal protest. Your umbrage rings utterly hollow.

                    I can only assess Monomakhos-era George Michalopulos, not teenage George Michalopulos. Although how you describe teenage George Michalopulos makes me think he would perhaps spit in the face of Monomakhos-era George Michalopulos? There’s a screenplay in there somewhere.

                    • George Michalopulos says:

                      Nate, you know and I know that we don’t take troublemakers behind the alleyway and give them the brass knuckles treatment. That’s a metaphor. Like “a come to Jesus moment” or “taking someone to the woodshed”.

                      You need to get out more.

                    • Peter Ray Millman says:

                      As the late economist Warren Brookes said, ” liberals were 100% right on civil rights- and wrong as rain on economics. This was during the 1980 election when Ronald Reagan was a strong supporter of Arthur Laffer’s economic model, and the Kemp- Roth tax bill. By the way, no President raised taxes more than Ronald Reagan did in his second term. Also, I couldn’t stand George H.W. Walker and his sons George W. and Jeb. In my opinion, George W. was the worst President in US history- even worse than Obama.

                    • George Michalopulos says:

                      As much as I hate to admit it, W did give us Obama.

                    • Nate Trost says:

                      LOL. Revisit. Your. Own. Words.

                      George Michalopulos wrote
                      the smart thing would have been to get to Kaepernick back when he first started this nonsense and “have a little talk with him”. Like in the back of an alley with brass knuckles doing most of the talking.

                      You are using “have a little talk with him” as a non-physical metaphor for physical violence, which you then explicitly spell out. Which is the reverse of what you now claim you were doing. So your defense would then be…you were engaging in a triple dog metaphor in which a non-violent metaphor meant a violent metaphor which actually meant an unspecified non-violent action?

                      In other words, your innocent defense is you are a colossally inept writer and suffer from a supreme lack of introspection. No apparent thought of the implications of how, as a white guy who proudly wears a stars and bars hat, intimating physical violence against a black man who you feel is out of line, might have racial connotations?

                      Or, you know, the mask just slipped a bit, as it does now and again.

                    • George Michalopulos says:

                      That’s ok Nate. When the newly unemployed ex-NFL players who will be standing in the unemployment line next year get a hold of Kaepernik, they’ll find a way to thank him for his antics that will make brass knuckles seem mild in comparison.

      • Ronda Wintheiser says:

        Doctor Stankovich, of course I knew who Congresswoman Wilson is before she chose to turn the death of an American soldier into her own personal political platform. As a pro-life activist, I pay attention to national politics and I am acquainted with her pro-abortion political position. Besides, who could miss her?

        And as a matter of fact, I am acquainted with some of her other positions. For example, she has opposed measures to reform the embattled Department of Veterans Affairs. She opposed a measure that would have given the families of four soldiers who were killed in Afghanistan in 2013 death and burial benefits. She voted against measures a number of times that would ensure that veterans and their families would receive benefits in the midst of government shutdowns.

        And yes, since I listened to what she herself had to say about overhearing the phone call, I also knew that she is a personal friend of the family of the grieving widow.

        To my mind, that’s what made her actions even more egregious. A graceful person would commiserate with her friend, but she wouldn’t run to the nearest microphone and camera and turn the situation into a circus (in more ways than one) for her own personal aggrandizement and political agenda.

        She had no good reason to do that. There was nothing good about it. The only reason she did it was political, and the proof in that pudding is the fact that she wouldn’t have done it had Trump run as a Democrat.

        The obvious fact is that she doesn’t have any more grace than the President does.

        The only good that came of this debacle came from General Kelly. Even though he was wrong about one thing he said, his grace, dignity and honor deserves — commands — admiration and respect.

        The fact that you still can’t bring yourself to give it to him speaks volumes.

        By the way, George, I don’t quite follow your sense that Peter Ray Millman’s criticisms of to Dr. Stankovich’s post were “personalizing” — at least, not any more than Dr. Stankovich’s — or than yours for that matter. I think that is what Dr. Stankovich was responding to in the first place, wasn’t he? He felt you were attacking the Congresswoman with a very personal ad hominem.

        I do agree with you that Dr. Stankovich’s response was measured. VEEEERRY carefully considered, VERY deliberate and … restrained. Well, not so much restrained.

        As for it being civil? Being civil is being respectful and considerate. Did anyone read respect and consideration — courtesy — in his response?

        Of course not. Don’t insult him. He didn’t intend to be respectful, considerate, or courteous. He intended to express contempt, and he was spectacularly successful.

        • Ronda, unfortunately you are correct, he’s had a couple opportunities lately to take the highroad, but instead doubles down. He brings a lot to Monomakhos and thus George gives him a lot of space. Mr. Stankovich doesn’t really care if he offends, and will let one know if he believes they are beneath him, or out of his league.

          This I say not in disrespect , but just the opposite, with respect. His social filters are thin, as with most intellectuals, especially those thick in the tooth(older). I have accepted that in my thirst for knowledge he provides at least half the time he posts here. I never expect a conversation with him as he is the spiritual Kung fu master and I’m just a grasshopper. I get his short bro this and bro that, and never let it offend me, Mr. Stankovich is cool by me. I not looking to impress, just contribute by my own experiences. I wish I had more time to study, research, link, and contribute more, but I just don’t have the time in my busy life. Take him or leave him, he does have a lot to offer, and I thank God what I can get out of not only Mr. Stankovich but all those who contribute on Monomakhos, in a relative short amount of time. Including those who I disagree with. In disagreement there is so much to be learned! God bless to you all!

          • M. Stankovich says:

            Let me say this in response to these comments: I make a clear distinction as to what is my opinion and what is clearly defined by the empirical research data; by reasonable and respected sources; and by the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Fathers, the Sacred Canons, the Liturgical texts, and our Holy Tradition. Rarely do I offer my opinion, and since 2011 when I stumbled upon this site, I have openly invited correction as to substance by empirical research data; by reasonable and respected sources; and by the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Fathers, the Sacred Canons, the Liturgical texts, and our Holy Tradition, because in my estimation, it is much more important that the truth prevail, rather than a personality. If my writings lack “apology” and correction, it is because of the scrutiny and effort I exert into determining the veracity of what I post before I post it; nevertheless, on those occasions when error has been pointed out to me, I have corrected it immediately. This is all to say likewise that I do not enter into conversations where I am ignorant and incapable of making a reasonable contribution.

            I cannot recall a single person on this site who has undergone the scrutiny and been subject to the interrogations and examinations – credentials, history, beliefs, positions, associations, affiliations, cross-examinations, accusations – than me. Why? Too laughable in the real world, other than to say it follows this site’s swirling path downward. And so it will end with one bombastic declaration: “I don’t believe the Sorbonne grants a medical degree.” Nice touch (er, touché) J”ACCUSE! “Retire,” the man told me, as he handed me my dashed honesty and integrity; “Who does he think he is? Our Lord Jesus Christ?” thus empowering a piggy-backed $.99 store psychoanalysis: “VEEEERRY carefully considered, VERY deliberate and … restrained. He didn’t intend to be respectful, considerate, or courteous. He intended to express contempt, and he was spectacularly successful.” Such profound insight over someone never seen, never met, never having heard in person.

            When the proprietor of this joint explains to me the entertaining of blasphemy against the Holy Fathers (“for a time”) as “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” it is to say, “you be the judge.” Perhaps this relativistic stance “works” in regard to all this political trash that I don’t read, but when it comes to the Dogmatic Theology of the Orthodox Church, it seems to me that we are obligated to distinguish ourselves from those who would “divide the seamless garment of the Master.”

            “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot: I would [wish] you were cold or hot. So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spit you out of my mouth.” (Rev. 3:16)

            It is neither moral or righteous, philosophically or theologically, and stands, prima facie, as the sign of where this site has fallen. And I would suggest that will be measured most accurately by those kind, thoughtful, pious, and faithful Orthodox Christians who have abandoned this site. Me among them.

            • Ronda Wintheiser says:

              Well, Dr. Stankovich, stating that someone you have never seen, never met, never heard in person “is undoubtedly not in the same ‘league'” as yours and then claiming, piously, that you “do not think or posture anything like that” is the same sort of profound insight you accuse me of.

              I rarely recall reading any comment from you where you don’t make it abundantly clear that you believe yourself to be far superior to any of us; or in the alternative how persecuted you are.

            • M. Stankovich,

              You should accept the scrutiny as a honor. False accusations as a blessing. Men of high value and power are always under attack, and under the microscope. Your last post held my sympathy and agreement until you quoted scripture. As wise as your are, and you are. You are wrong to suggest, “all kind, pious, and faithful Christians have abandoned this site.” All but you, M. Stankovich, are left? George, and most of those of us still left here, neither cold or hot? Quite the assumption, have we met?

              You have been given a great opportunity, perhaps even a God given responsibility, to reach millions of people with your great knowledge and insight. Don’t squander it because a few here offend you. In fact, if it helps or matters, I give you my word never to comment on any subject you might comment on, or anyone else who comments on your comment. You are one of the main reasons I frequent Monomakhos, and your absence would be sorely missed! Please reconsider brother in Christ.

              • Sorry misquoted M.Stankovich, quote should have read:”…those kind, thoughtful, pious, and faithful Orthodox Christians who have abandoned this site.”

                Not to waste a perfectly good post on my error might I add:

                “But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.”-Romans 6:17

            • Peter Ray Millman says:

              Michael,
              Your post is essentially meaningless because even the devil can recite scripture. You have been wrong many times as you are right now. Stop patting yourself on the back. It gets old and very tiresome.

          • Ronda Wintheiser says:

            Dino, for what it’s worth, I agree with you. Dr. Stankovich is a wealth of knowledge about any number of things and I have benefited from reading some of the things he has written.

            And like you, I am not easily offended. I enjoy discussions with people with whom I disagree. I’ve actually had to change my opinion and my position due to conversations with people with whom I disagreed. I found out they were right and I was wrong.

            • Peter Ray Millman says:

              Ronda,
              I thought his post to you was a disgrace. It was arrogant and condescending. His language was embarrassing. He even used the n word. He ended his post by saying he doesn’t give a rats bleep. His latest post reeked of self pity. Not very manly to say the least. Of course, he had to add what a pious Orthodox Christian he is. I pray that God will give him humility. If he wants to see a Godly example, he need look no further than Michael Bauman. Whether Michael Bauman agrees or disagrees with other posters he is always kind and humble. Now, that’s my idea of an Orthodox Christian worth emulating as there are many others on this site. George, Dino, Gail, you, Michael Bauman are all good Christians that have helped me in my walk with Christ. God have mercy on me a sinner.

              • Michael Bauman says:

                Peter, I tried arguing with Stankovich found out it just isn’t worth it. Plus when my wife was in the hospital with severe salmonella, Stankovich made the effort to contact me directly and pray for us both for which I will always be grateful.

                Do not react.

                • Peter Ray Millman says:

                  Michael,
                  Whether I agree or disagree with you, I always respect your opinion. I take your advice very seriously. Please feel free to correct me at any time.

                  When it comes to me, I am reminded of the wise words of my four year old niece Elisabeth. When she and her twin sister were leaving after visiting us from Texas this summer, I said to her sister Madelyn,” Make sure you take good care of mommy and daddy.” Elisabeth responded, ” You’re talking silly.” Out of the mouth of babes.

  7. Developments are picking up now!

    Proof the Dems – and the FBI – are responsible for anti-Russian narratives while influencing elections within THIS country, as well as conjure war drums against many sovereign nations.

    See: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-24/bombshell-nsa-memo-saudi-arabia-ordered-attack-damascus-international-airport-us-kno.

    And this: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-24/wapo-dnc-clinton-campaign-financed-infamous-trump-dossier

    Lord have mercy!

    • Anonymous says:

      About 2 months ago, I said both sides dig dirt on the other side and nothing would come of the Russian matter, except Manafort might be convicted of money laundering.

      The trouble is, none of it is Christianity. So, to be excited or glad about the matter is also not.

  8. Michael Bauman says:

    Nate, literal are we? No wonder the congnitive disonence you demostrate.

    • Nate Trost says:

      If you’re going to charge me with succumbing to cognitive dissonance, you might want to point out where and how.

      • George Michalopulos says:

        Cognitive dissonance is pretty much an occupational hazard of most liberals this day.

        Regardless, I’ll bite: I’ve asked you many times if you believed in Darwinism. Clever fellow that you are, you’ve always avoided answering me.

        But ill take it a bit further: do you regularly castigate all gop candidates by calling them ignoarmuses when they reply in the affirmative (or like you, choose to evade the question)?

        • Nate Trost says:

          George Michalopulos wrote
          Regardless, I’ll bite: I’ve asked you many times if you believed in Darwinism. Clever fellow that you are, you’ve always avoided answering me.

          I’ll answer, even though you aren’t listing examples of cognitive dissonance either, and instead bringing up one of your pointless escape trap gotcha questions.

          Darwinism? Please. I seem to recall that being a canard of yours serving as a “Look Goodyear Blimp!” ploy to try and distract from you getting your head handed to you from your usual lack of diligence or fact checking.

          But since you are bringing it up, “Darwinism” is an unspecific nebulous term in the 21st century. Unless you can define specifically and in detail what you construe as “Darwinism”, I couldn’t possibly answer. As a rule, if someone talks about Darwinism, I generally assume they are a racist religious person looking for some secular (junk) scientific ‘support’ for their racism.

          I can’t help but notice that you are really keen on “Darwinism”, whatever it might be, and not asking say, whether I believe in evolutionary biology on a macro or micro scale, the theory of gravity, or general relativity, etc. etc. Why is that?

          • George Michalopulos says:

            You define it then.

            • Nate Trost says:

              That you are unable to give a definition of “Darwinism” does not defuse a suspicion that you have ulterior motives. Which variation with which collection of additional baggage should I use for the particular definition you are looking for?

              “Are you a Christian?”
              “Uh, sure?”
              “Oh, so you believe in the Book of Mormon then!”

              I repeat, you do not appear to be asking something straightforward, like say: “What is your stance on the theory of evolution?” To which I would happily answer. Although I don’t think it ever has had any bearing to any discussion on this site that I’ve entered into. For the record, the answer to that question is I accept the current state of modern evolutionary biology as the best working theory with the most supporting evidence as an understanding of the development of biological life on this planet.

            • Michael Bauman says:

              Darwinism: a political and social ideology having it’s genesis in Darwin’s work that promulgates both a false anthropology and a false eschatology. It is the spine of the nihilistic doctrine of progress that laid waste during the 20th and 21st centuries.

              Darwin himself was rascist, mysogynistic, and misotheistic so too is Darwinism despite claims to the contrary.

              One cannot be a Darwinist and a Christian.

              • Tim R. Mortiss says:

                There are lions and tigers, cougars, jaguars and house cats. They are related– it’s plain to see: that’s why they are all called cats.

                What does “related” mean in the case of mortal, sexually reproducing animals? It means: by descent; i.e., they have a common ancestor.

                It does seem, at least, a viable hypothesis, worthy of discussion, not so? Or do we need to find out first whether or not he who posits it is a misogynist, or other bad thing?

                • Michael Bauman says:

                  Timor, one of the primary goals for Darwin and his comrades was to create a replacement for a Christian world view. He went looking for “facts” to fit his thesis. Not exactly the epitome of science.

                  Also know I was not commenting in any way on biology. I really do not think that Darwin’s work has much to do with biology either. Certainly Darwinism has nothing at all to do with biology except in the most tangential way. The title shows that:. “The Origin of Species”. It is a competing origin story.

                  A person who is corrupt is much more likely to produce corrupt work than one who is not. At the very least it speaks to bias and the interpretive matrix within which facts are chosen and considered. That matrix is far more important in evaluating what is true and what is not than any facts that are presented. Of even more importance are the facts excluded and the reason they were excluded.

      • Michael Bauman says:

        Nate, actually it is the cognitive dissonance your posts tend to create. You have a very different set of assumptions than do I. Your arguments do not connect with me in any way. They don’t even upset me. I stopped trying to figure them out and mostly ignore your posts now.

        • Nate Trost says:

          This is pretty much how Michael Bauman’s post comes across:

          George Michalopulos: Some argue A could have happened, some argue A was not what happened. There is ambiguity!

          Nate Trost: Uh, here’s direct video evidence that A couldn’t have happened. There is no ambiguity.

          George Michalopulos: I’m going to use an obvious metaphor for physical violence and then make it explicit that I meant physical violence!

          Nate Trost: Points this out.

          Michael Bauman: Nate, your posts fill me with cognitive dissonance, I can’t figure them out! I shall ignore you.

          If you’re going to ignore me, then do so and don’t jump in to claim I am succumbing to things you can’t substantiate.

          • Michael Bauman says:

            OK. But you make my point nonetheless. I was not talking about specific facts. An argument can be factually correct and substantially untrue. The reverse is also true.

            It depends on the facts available, how they are selected, prioritized and the context in which they are interpreted. The last three factors are subject to one’s assumptions.

            Such assumptions even influence what one considers to be a “fact”. Facts have no independent substance. Ever see the movie Rashomon? Facts are relentlessly pliable.

            It is a fact that I will die. But even that is not a fact in the light of the Christian revelation of the Resurection a reality that I know is true beyond all doubt.

            Many, many times so-called incontrovertible facts are used falaciously to bolster ideologies and cons.

            The assumptions someone uses and lives by are far more important to me than the so-called facts.

            • Nate Trost says:

              Michael Bauman wrote
              But you make my point nonetheless.

              I disagree. At this juncture I can’t even agree that you have a coherent point. Wherever you’re going, it’s drifting far from the concept of cognitive dissonance.

  9. Michael Bauman says:

    Peter, George W was a bad President but was he really worse than Warren Harding, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce or Martin Van Buren?

    • George Michalopulos says:

      No, not as bad but certainly more consequential. A mixed bag, a few good things on the judicial and social fronts took place (like banning stem cell research, rolling back abortion-on-demand and protecting gun rights.

      But his belief in Christian Zionism/Neoconservatism did lead to the destabilization of the Middle East and the near-extinction of the indigenous Christian populations. In retrospect, his administration so demoralized the American people that Obama became inevitable.

      In retrospect, was he better than Obama? Well that’s a spectactularly low bar. Yes, the deficits were never as large; Obama never had an annual GDP greater than 2% but both he and Obama (as well as the rest of the Establishment) were cut from the same, post-American, borderless cloth. I believe that Obama was God’s judgment on us so that we can see how truly awful the Bush-Clinton/Republican-Democrat duopoly really was and how one was Tweedledee and the other Tweedledum.

    • George Michalopulos says:

      P.S., Michael, you seem to buy into the paradigm of the progressive historians that Millard Fillmore, etc were “bad presidents”. This prejudice is steeped in the idea that POTUS is supposed to be an action-figure a la Teddy Roosevelt going hither and yon doing this or that.

      The reality of America as a constitutional Republic is that for the most part, our Presidents are to serve as elected kings –reigning but not ruling. Glorified ribbon-cutters. Only rarely are they too act in Jacksonian terms and then only when there is grave danger.

      There’s a reason that Jackson was so popular in his day and after but it’s the same reason that between him and Lincoln, the only decisive President was James Polk (and he only served one term).

      Thanks to Teddy Roosevelt, we’ve now had more activist Presidents in a row than not. I would put Harding-Coolidge-Hoover in the “not” category. Now, I’m not gonna complain (and can’t do anything about it anyway) but the Progressives (who love the “activist” Presidents) are now hoist upon their own petard by the most Jacksonian of all Presidents so far.

    • Peter Ray Millman says:

      Michael,
      Thank you for your kind reply. Let’s just put it this way; I don’t think he was a very good president.

  10. Michael Bauman says:

    I might give you Millard Fillmore, Buchanan was worse, but Pierce was a raging alcoholic. Harding a total non-entity controlled by corrupt men. First President of which I am aware that used the secret service to sneak his mistress in the White House. At least he confined his shenanigans to closets rather than the oval office.

    Mostly I was pointing out that which President was worse is a never ending game. Depends on the meaning of worse and the standard used.

    • George Michalopulos says:

      For what it’s worth re Harding, he was all those things you say. He also stopped a major depression from taking place after the demobilization from the Great War and in doing so inaugurated the Roaring Twenties.

      Curious fellow: he lived his entire life with the stigma of believing he had black ancestry but was the first and only president to be initiated into the Ku Klux Klan in the White House.

      • Estonian Slovak says:

        What???? Well, J. Edgar reputedly had black ancestry yet he was against MLK.

        • George Michalopulos says:

          Yes, with J Edgar you can clearly spot black ancestry from many photographs. Maybe that’s why went so hard after the Klan and pretty much left the Mafia alone? Speculation but it kind of makes sense.

  11. Michael Bauman says:

    Again, George, back to my main point. Almost every President does something “good”. In the end it does not matter because the trajectory of all civilizations is downward.