Clearly This is Worth Blessing Trump Performing Abortions in the White House

Clearly This is Worth Blessing Trump Performing Abortions in the White House September 3, 2015

This is what Ann Coulter, Limbaugh, Breitbart are “standing up and cheering” for.

"Fine with me, if you add the word "also" to the role of reliability. And ..."

Some Reflections on the Crucifixion for ..."
"No. My point is that the Bible is errant nonsense from beginning to end, and ..."

Some Reflections on the Crucifixion for ..."
"The debate about the Fourth Gospel has to do with its reliability as a portrait ..."

Some Reflections on the Crucifixion for ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Chipsie

    Clearly This is Worth Blessing Trump Performing Abortions in the White House

    What does that “title” even mean?

    • Ken

      Ann Coulter said she didn’t care if Donald Trump performed an abortion in the White House because all she cares about is his immigration policy. I suppose it was a joke but it’s hard to find any humor in it.

      • jaybird1951

        I assume she was alluding to the prominent feminist who said during the Monica Lewinsky scandal in the late 1990s that she would perform the same service for Bill Clinton in thanks for his support for abortion.

        • Timothy J. Williams

          Yes, Shea’s title here is another out-of-context quote to smear someone he doesn’t like. He continues to perfect his craft.

          • UAWildcatx2

            What’s the context, then?

            • Timothy J. Williams

              The “context” is the prolific, extensive, blunt, graphic writing about the evil of abortion that has made Coulter a target of feminists everywhere. Her “tweet” is clearly an ill-advised, feeble attempt at humor – yes, from someone who like to be provocative and who certainly has her faults – but it is not an example of hypocrisy, as Shea claims.

              • UAWildcatx2

                Then maybe she should stop trying to tell jokes. She’s very clearly bad at it.

                • Timothy J. Williams

                  Not any worse than Mr. Shea is at reporting on the beliefs, statements, and actions of others. He is every bit the provocateur and distorter that Miss Coulter is. And he’s a thousand times more sanctimonious than she.

                  • Newp Ort

                    Mark actually believes in the church he defends. Ann Coulter’s doing a bit; it’s a pose to keep milking conservatives that slaver for that kind of talk.

                    I admire her for it in a way, beating them at their own game in the incredibly male-dominated field of conservative punditry. I’ve heard her in interviews and she seems like a pretty nice person. Probably a fun date, and I bet she goes all the way, which I also grudgingly respect.

                    • Timothy J. Williams

                      Mr. Shea believes in himself. His gargantuan ego permeates everything he pens. As for your comments, they begin in the adult world, but end in Jr. High.

                    • Newp Ort

                      You’re a real ray of sunshine.

                    • Ken

                      If only people would defend the church this aggressively.

                    • Newp Ort

                      He is. But the SSPX. So he’s not. Except when it’s convenient.

                    • chezami

                      God bless you, Timothy.

                  • UAWildcatx2

                    ” He is every bit the provocateur and distorter that Miss Coulter is” You’re actually much funnier than Ann Coulter is.

      • Chipsie

        “This is what Ann Coulter, Limbaugh, Breitbart are “standing up and cheering” for.”

        Ann Coulter is a provocateur. However, Breitbart and Limbaugh (and I believe even Coulter) are on record for consistently denouncing the barbaric of Planned Parenthood. To me this verbiage only bolsters the liberal Left who protect the crimes against the unborn as if abortion were their ‘sacrament.” That is my issue with the headline.

        • Ken

          The church teaches that the dignity of life extends outside the womb and that all people, immigrants included, should be treated as such. Just because they go after Planned Parenthood doesn’t excuse some of the things they say and write about immigrants.

          • Timothy J. Williams

            What they say and write about immigrants does not need to be excused. A nation has a right to defend closed borders. Period.

            • Ken

              Saying you are ambivalent about abortion is never okay. To some people, Catholics, this should be offensive but I understand that some people are more loyal to their favorite radio host then the church. A country can defend it’s borders and it can justly have policies that limit immigration but to say that it is more important then abortion shouldn’t be tolerated and defended by Catholics.

              • Mike Petrik

                Agreed Ken, but you and TJW are talking past each other. TJW is not defending Coulter’s single stupid (and indefensible) remark re abortion but is instead defending the general position of Coulter, Breitbart and Limbaugh re immigration.

                • Ken

                  He specifically said “What they say and write about immigrants does not need to be excused.” Coulter’s quote was about immigration. Either way, we can have a debate about just immigration policies without referring to the people involved as “lazy.” and that they are only here to take gov benefits. Somehow they’re stealing middle class jobs and also not working. Seems to be a contradiction. The ability for a country to be able to have laws that govern it, including it’s immigration laws, can be an objective conversation that doesn’t have to demean the immigrants. A lot of what Rush and the others say are mean spirited and unnecessary. As Catholics I don’t think we should tolerate that kind of rhetoric even if it is on our side of the argument.

                  • Mike Petrik

                    I agree on all counts, Ken, but disclaim any knowledge about what what Rush et al might have said. I do know that he has often been accused of saying things he never said, and at least historically was never mean-spirited in the way Coulter can often be.

                    • Ken

                      It seems to me that at one point, and maybe he still considers himself this, but Rush was taken as an entertainer and he made a lot of jokes and skits about liberals. At some point, he became accepted by conservatives as not really entertaining anymore but really more of an editorialist. I think it’s become blurred about what he really is now. If he says something that upsets people he blows it off by saying he’s an entertainer but his views are taken seriously by conservatives. At one point it was irrelevant because the GOP leadership could appease the base but do so in a more civil manner. Now, we have Trump who seems to be voicing not necessarily Rush’s own words but some of the frustrated listeners and he’s doing well so far. The problem is this doesn’t win elections. GOP has to bring in other voters and it’s not really the type of party I want to be a part of. The conservative movement was founded in the Ivy league and was based on intelligent ideas. It seems to have dissolved into name calling and when it fails it’s blames the media for all it’s problems.

                    • Cypressclimber

                      Limbaugh says he’s just a harmless entertainer, but in reality he is also an influential dispenser of news and opinion.

                      Interestingly, John Stewart tried the same line.

                      The difference, however, is that Limbaugh never tried to pretend he wasn’t ideological.

                    • Newp Ort

                      And that John Stewart is actually entertaining.

              • Timothy J. Williams

                And just who are the people who are “ambivalent” about abortion, or who have said that illegal immigration is more important than abortion? Limbaugh? (I never to listen to him.) Ann Coulter? (I would need a citation, because she has written constantly and eloquently about the evil of abortion.)

                • Ken
                  • Timothy J. Williams

                    Read my comment below. A stupid tweet (and all tweets are, by definition, stupid) does not constitute a policy, a philosophy, a change of heart, or a hypocritical stance. (I believe Coulter’s remark was a lame attempt at humor, and a rather obscure swipe at Bill Clinton, whom Coulter once suggested would support abortions even in the White House.)

                    • wineinthewater

                      A remark that no one serious about stopping abortion would even contemplate.

            • wineinthewater

              A nation has the duty to ensure the public good, and that might require controlling borders. But that can come into tension with the Catholic teaching about the universal destination goods. Nations therefore have an obligation to God to only hinder immigration as much as is absolutely necessary to ensure the common good. Our deeply flawed system (that lets in Playboy models and keeps out refugees) does not meet that obligation.

        • wineinthewater

          To me this verbiage reveals that abortion is only a useful political tool and not a real priority.

  • Pete the Greek

    So…. They will deport people who are law abiding and wish to serve their new country, but they WON’T deport murderers or other felons….

    Yes, this makes sense to me.

  • jaybird1951

    I thought that non-citizens who volunteer for military service are promised citizenship.

    • ManyMoreSpices

      At present they shouldn’t be promised that. Recruiters may imply that, because some will say a lot of things to meet their quotas, but the military doesn’t help you become a citizen.

      I say that if you get deployed to a war zone or get a combat MOS, you deserve citizenship. But that’s not how it works.

      • Rebecca Fuentes

        I always thought someone had to be a citizen to volunteer, actually. I guess I don’t see how someone who isn’t a legal resident could serve in the military–possibly for years, and then, oops, we find out they just weren’t supposed to be here.

        • Evelyn

          I wonder how much depends on the time and place. I have a friend whose dad assumed he was a citizen when he signed up, and only discovered on his way home from being deployed that he wasn’t. He was naturalized the next day so that he could re-enter the country. Apparently all he had needed to enlist was proof of residency, not proof of citizenship. He was not born in the US, but is white and a native speaker of English, so somebody gave him the benefit of the doubt, I guess.

          • Rebecca Fuentes

            It seems a little lax, standards-wise. I mean, I have to give more proofs of citizenship and being who I say I am to get my driver’s license renewed.
            I don’t begrudge them the opportunity, just that I’m surprised something like entering the Armed Forces isn’t better monitored.

            • Raymond

              In Kentucky and Ohio, you dont have to provide proof of citizenship to get a driver’s license renewed. You just have to present your driver’s license.

    • wineinthewater

      If you are a non-citizen *legal* resident, service in the military makes getting citizenship pretty much a slam dunk. If you are an *illegal* immigrant, service can help you normalize your residency and get citizenship, but it is no guarantee, and depends a lot on your particular circumstances.

  • Cypressclimber

    This post says Coulter, Limbaugh and Trump have all endorsed deporting illegal immigrants who are U.S. veterans. I did not see that in the Breitbart story you linked, but I admit I did not read every line (I searched for “veterans”). Does it actually say that Trump, Coulter and Limbaugh have endorsed this proposal? Do you have anything else that says this?

    That said, as shocking as it sounds, I don’t know that it’s necessarily terrible that a “veteran” would be deported. It depends on the circumstances. If someone lies or misrepresents him- or herself when enlisting, that alone can give rise to a discharge; and any other consequences would follow, as for anyone else. Many people, including combat veterans, get dishonorably discharged for a variety of reasons. Their laudatory service in combat — even being injured in combat — doesn’t become a free pass for violating the code of military justice.

    On the other hand, I think a lot of us would we willing to handle the matter differently. Which is why I asked if you actually have something showing Trump et al. have specifically endorsed deporting veterans who were illegal immigrants.

    • jaybird1951

      I suspect you will never find a quote or citation that supports Mark’s headline assertion. A vet who was here illegally was deported to Mexico. Trump, Limbaugh and Coulter oppose illegal immigration. Ergo, all three must support the deportation of vets. That is the genesis of another of Mark’s smears.

      • Cypressclimber

        If there are no actual…facts to support that claim, then yes — it is a smear.

      • Stu

        I suppose the smear applies to all of us given it is the law of the land. Or alternatively, is Mark therefore in favor of illegal immigration?

        • wineinthewater

          Fallacy of the false dilemma. Another alternative is favoring reforming our unjust immigration policies so that they would generally not result in vets being deported.

          • Cypressclimber

            To make Stu’s point more…pointed: Mr. Shea’s attack on the troika above is the equivalent of saying that anyone who opposes, say, the Gang of 8 bill is likewise “cheering” for deporting veterans — because their position isn’t “nuanced” enough to account for all the particular wrinkles and oddities of existing law that they don’t know anything about. Do we even know that Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Trump, and Ms. Coulter even know that veterans are being deported? How can they “cheer” for something they don’t know is happening?

            • chezami

              Bunk. It’s saying that supporters of Trump are de facto supporting his proposals for cruel and draconian nativist policies (one of them obscenely praising such policies with her “yay for abortion!” tweet) while remaining dead silent on the obscene treatment of these vets.

            • wineinthewater

              “Mr. Shea’s attack on the troika above is the equivalent of saying that anyone who opposes, say, the Gang of 8 bill is likewise “cheering” for deporting veterans”

              Only if they actually cheer efforts to defeat the bill. Tentative support is one thing. Expressing an affinity for an idea is one thing. Thinking something is “the right approach” is one thing. Cheering it, enthusiastically supporting it, lauding it, hagiographing it, that is something else.

              “How can they “cheer” for something they don’t know is happening?”

              If they are going to cheer for it, or “enthusiastically support” it, they better have thought of things like that. It is idiotic to think that a rigorous deportation regime is not going to result in the deportation of people that many or most people would otherwise like to stay in the country (like vets, or people who were brought here as children and have no connection to their legal country, or people who did not even know they were here illegally, or refugees who chose illegal immigration over dying in their home country because our unjust system wouldn’t let them in, etc.). So, if they didn’t realize that something like this could happen because of the policy they are “cheering,” well it follows that they were being idiotic.

              • Cypressclimber

                If they are going to cheer for it, or “enthusiastically support” it, they better have thought of things like that. It is idiotic to think that a rigorous deportation regime is not going to result in the deportation of people that many or most people would otherwise like to stay in the country (like vets, or people who were brought here as children and have no connection to their legal country, or people who did not even know they were here illegally, or refugees who chose illegal immigration over dying in their home country because our unjust system wouldn’t let them in, etc.). So, if they didn’t realize that something like this could happen because of the policy they are “cheering,” well it follows that they were being idiotic.

                Well, again, had Mr. Shea accused them of being “idiotic,” we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

                But I don’t agree with your premise. Lots of people have said they want our immigration policies to be stricter. A sentiment is not a policy position. You are accusing, by implication, all those people of wishing veterans to be deported, or else being idiots for not having thought through every “nuance” before saying, as any ordinary person might say, that they think such-and-such a law should be stricter…

                …Or looser. Would you say that all those people who favor looser, or “more generous” immigration policies, are in favor of letting in terrorists? Because that is a rather obvious pitfall on the other side. We all know it; and we all hope it won’t be true. But that seems to be sauce for the gander, in this case.

                • wineinthewater

                  ” Lots of people have said they want our immigration policies to be stricter. A sentiment is not a policy position. You are accusing, by implication, all those people”

                  I said explicitly the opposite: ” Tentative support is one thing. Expressing an affinity for an idea is one thing. Thinking something is “the right approach” is one thing.
                  Cheering it, enthusiastically supporting it, lauding it, hagiographing it, that is something else.”

                  You can favor stricter immigration policies without cheering the policy structure put forward by Trump. That is the issue here, not just that we might support something, but the way in which we support it. And keep in mind, Trump favors an immigration regime that is particularly strict, not just a philosophy of generaly stricter immigration control.

                  “Would you say that all those people who favor looser, or “more generous” immigration policies, are in favor of letting in terrorists?”

                  If they cheer for “open borders” then yes. If they generally support more liberal immigration policies, then no. There’s a substantive difference in both what is supported and how it is supported.

      • Cypressclimber

        You’re right. Mark appears to have nothing to back up his attack. Very disappointing.

        • chezami

          All three are thrilled for Trump’s racist nativism, one of them so much so that she jokes about blessing abortions if Trump’s dream of cruelty to millions can be enacted. Meanwhile, when we see what that cruelty looks like played out in real life, what do we hear from them? Crickets.

          But the *real* victims here are the nativist racists. Poor, poor Coulter, Limbaugh, Trump, and the Breitbartistas.

          • Cypressclimber

            I’m sorry, but that doesn’t answer my comment and question, posted 5 days ago: “This post says Coulter, Limbaugh and Trump have all endorsed deporting illegal immigrants who are U.S. veterans.” What evidence do you have that Coulter, Limbaugh and Trump have endorsed deporting illegal immigrants who are U.S. veterans?

            • chezami

              They have been cheering for Trump, whose primary policy proposals have been to deport American citizens for the sin of being born brown. They have been utterly silent about this evil, which fits perfectly with with Trump’s cruelty.

              • Cypressclimber

                The argument from silence is usually pretty weak, especially in this case. Silence does not equal endorsement of this situation.

                • chezami

                  Silence is the sin of omission, when you have said the crap these people have said in their orgasmic love for Trump’s cruel racism.

                  • Cypressclimber

                    Criticizing Limbaugh and Coulter for endorsing Trump’s plan is one thing. I am not taking issue with that. But you went much farther. You said they endorsed the deportation of military veterans. Your only “evidence” of that is that they haven’t condemned the practice.

                    • chezami

                      No. I say they back a reckless demagogue whose cruel plans to take a dump on American citizens guilty of being born brown gives no indication whatsoever that any distinctions or exceptions will be made for guys like this. And their utter silence on this travesty of justice indicates that they do not give a rip about these guys. Why are you defending them?

                    • Cypressclimber

                      No. I say they back a reckless demagogue whose cruel plans to take a dump on American citizens guilty of being born brown gives no indication whatsoever that any distinctions or exceptions will be made for guys like this. And their utter silence on this travesty of justice indicates that they do not give a rip about these guys.

                      If THAT’S what you’d written above the video, I wouldn’t be pursuing this. But it isn’t.

                      Why are you defending them?

                      You introduced the video thus:

                      This is what Ann Coulter, Limbaugh, Breitbart are “standing up and cheering” for.

                      That is a false statement. However detestable Ms. Coulter, Mr. Limbaugh and Breitbart may be, they deserve to be “defended” against false accusations.

                      Their “silence” about the deportation of veterans does not mean they are “cheering for” deportation of veterans. In fact, the assertions that they are “silent” about this practice, and they are “cheering for it” are logically contradictory, even allowing for metaphor. Either they endorsed this practice, or they fail to condemn it. Which is it?

                      For that matter, how can you be so sure they haven’t actually taken a position on the question of deporting veterans? That seems a dicey claim. I don’t listen to Mr. Limbaugh, but even if I did, even every day, I’d be reluctant to assert he never said anything about this problem. I sure wouldn’t trust my memory. Can you really establish, by Internet search, no such statement was ever made by any of these? That seems dubious. So how, exactly, do you know none of them have said they oppose deporting veterans such as the man in the video?

                      I think you overreached in your rhetoric.

                    • wineinthewater

                      “That is a false statement. However detestable Ms. Coulter, Mr. Limbaugh and Breitbart may be, they deserve to be “defended” against false accusations.”

                      Though Mark’s tone may be an issue, this is not a false statement. It might be rhetorically hyperbolic (and personally I don’t like hyperbole as a rhetorical device, I find it sloppy), but it is true. They are cheering for policy priority that includes a rigorous program of deportation of illegal immigrants. Well, some of those illegal immigrants are also vets, therefore they are cheering for a policy that includes the deportation of vets, even if they are not cheering specifically for that case. But that is the danger of taking such a hard-lined, non-nuanced position, the reality of its consequences can be undesirable.

                      The argument from silence is valid because they have cheered the deportation of all illegal immigrants, so we must assume that actually includes all illegal immigrants, including vets, until and unless they tell us otherwise.

                    • Cypressclimber

                      I don’t think that follows.

                      For one, the deportation of veterans isn’t something new that Mr. Trump is calling for. It’s already happening. It’s part of Obama’s alleged non-enforcement, or slack-enforcement, of immigration law.

                      It’s true that, so far as I know, or you, or Mr. Shea knows, none of the three have called for changing existing law to prevent deportation of veterans.

                      It’s also true, and fair, to say that this troika has been rather loose with its rhetoric, and have overlooked some uncomfortable outcomes — such as this.

                      This sort of argumentation is like saying that anyone who cheered for going to war in Iraq in 2003 (which I did not, by the way) was cheering for every friendly-fire incident, every civilian casualty, every human rights abuse, that our side was responsible for. It doesn’t follow.

                    • wineinthewater

                      “For one, the deportation of veterans isn’t something new that Mr. Trump is calling for.”

                      No, but something that we can reasonably conclude will become more common under the kind of intensified deportation regime Trump favors. And the fact that he also disfavors anything that looks like amnesty, there will be no recourse for these vets.

                      So I do think it follows. This situation is the natural consequence of the kind of policy structure Trump proposes and the others “cheer.” That they may not have thought about this consequence is damning, not excusing. To be an enthusiastic supporter of a policy stance without understanding its consequences is one of the principal things wrong with our national politic.

                      “This sort of argumentation is like saying that anyone who cheered for going to war in Iraq in 2003 (which I did not, by the way) was cheering for every friendly-fire incident, every civilian casualty, every human
                      rights abuse, that our side was responsible for.”

                      Actually, they were. War is not something that you cheer for for exactly these reasons. Cheer for soldiers. Cheer for leaders who make wise decisions about war (which incidentally, rarely include actually going to war). Support the decision to go to war as the least bad option. But to cheer for war is to cheer for war in all its ugly details.

                      And so it follows. We are a society all too willing to cheer for horrendous things. So, that we cheer for something without thinking of the consequences is damning, not excusing.

                    • Cypressclimber

                      No, but something that we can reasonably conclude will become more common under the kind of intensified deportation regime Trump favors. And the fact that he also disfavors anything that looks like amnesty, there will be no recourse for these vets.

                      Well, I will simply reiterate that I think that is not something you can “reasonably conclude.”

                      I said: “This sort of argumentation is like saying that anyone who cheered for going to war in Iraq in 2003 (which I did not, by the way) was cheering for every friendly-fire incident, every civilian casualty, every human rights abuse, that our side was responsible for.”

                      You replied:

                      Actually, they were. War is not something that you cheer for for exactly these reasons. Cheer for soldiers. Cheer for leaders who make wise decisions about war (which incidentally, rarely include actually going to war). Support the decision to go to war as the least bad option. But to cheer for war is to cheer for war in all its ugly details.

                      And so it follows. We are a society all too willing to cheer for horrendous things. So, that we cheer for something without thinking of the consequences is damning, not excusing.

                      There is an Ignatian principle of charitable interpretation that goes something like this: always impute to your opponent the more generous interpretation of his remarks that reason will allow. I think it applies here.

                      I don’t see how you arrive at the accusation you just leveled against everyone who thought that war was good idea, if you are applying the rule I just attributed to St. Ignatius.

                    • wineinthewater

                      “Well, I will simply reiterate that I think that is not something you can “reasonably conclude.””

                      How can you not? It takes only a passing familiarity with the realities of legal immigration in this country to know that there are lots of fringe cases. And anyone who is going to form an opinion on immigration policy better have at least a passing familiarity with the realities of legal immigration.

                      “I don’t see how you arrive at the accusation you just leveled against everyone who thought that war was good idea, if you are applying the rule I just attributed to St. Ignatius.”

                      I don’t. I level it only against those who cheered for it, who were gleeful for it, who longed for it. And there were a disturbing number of those people. Those who supported it as our best course of action or least bad course of action did not have that level of enthusiasm.

                    • Cypressclimber

                      How can you not?

                      Lots of people favor higher taxes in general, while allowing for some tax breaks, and vice-versa. I don’t think it’s reasonable to infer that someone who wants tougher immigration laws and thumps it on the stump, actually wants veterans to be deported.

                    • wineinthewater

                      It is reasonable to infer it when they specifically thump for a very strict regime of deportation for all illegal immigrants and condemn anything that stinks of at “amnesty.” Not everyone who thumps on the stump for tougher immigration laws does that. Trump does. And some people cheer him for it.

                      That they may not want or have not envisioned the specific consequence of the deportation of veterans is only indicative that they are willing to vociferously support a policy that they don’t understand. Again, damning, not excusing.

                    • Cypressclimber

                      I’ve read your thoughts, well expressed. I don’t agree with you entirely, but I understand your ideas better. I can’t really see that I can add anything more. So I’ll just thank you for sharing your thoughts.

                    • wineinthewater

                      And thank you. Civil exchanges are distressingly rare. 🙂

  • Becky

    Mark, I think that you are not at your best when you are deliberately sarcastic. I think that you could make this point more thoughtfully and clearly, and truly be more persuasive, by being direct about what you mean. The reason I think this is because I have read some posts by you which are clear, direct, persuasive and good writing. I for one would like to see you re-write this, include the same link, but say what you really mean, and don’t exaggerate any else’s misdeeds in order to grab attention, which I think you would see as a fault if you thought about it.

    I may be guilty here of trying to take a splinter out of your eye rather than the log out of my own, but I am not trying so much to blame you as to ask you to write more columns that I like reading.