The Truth About “Fire & Fury”editor
Given the above commentary, would it be sinful for Catholics to purchase/read this anti-Trump book?
Note… quite some time later…
The video which originally featured on this page, a hard-hitting commentary from Ben Shapiro about the book savaging President Donald Trump, has been removed by YouTube.
Another book like Kitty Kelly’s “expose” of the Reagan White House? We don’t need more fantasy in politics, thanks!
What is just amazing, is to learn that this book is falling off the shelf and already a best seller. Underlines that fact that we have a truly minimally educated population both over there in the USA and here in the UK, where they will talk this book to death next week, if the news broadcasts I’ve seen over the weekend are typical of what is to come. Crackers.
Crackers? I occasionally have crackers and tea, but don’t quite understand your meaning here.
It’s just another way of saying “crazy”.
LOL thAt guy talks to fast !
I Can Fly,
Ben does speak very fast and I used not to like that but now I think it sharpens us to listen closely to what he’s saying, LOL! He’s very good, and most of the time I agree with him.
Yes, he does talk fast but he nails the key issues, and knows how to demolish the PC brigade – brilliantly! As something of a fast-talker myself, I don’t mind that. I prefer it to certain personalities doing interviews who stumble over every second word, user fillers all the time (um….um…) repetition of words “in, in, in, obv… obv… obviously ….) Gosh! Wake me up when it’s over!
Last night, for the first time in a couple of weeks or so, I tuned in to watch the Sky press review, when they look at the headline stories in the next day’s paper and last night it was Dan Hodges taking ten times longer than necessary to give his opinion on the headlines, which generally amounted to nothing more than a repetition of the headlines with the fillers and repetition thrown in for good measure! I checked YouTube but it’s not online yet, although I found an earlier episode – which I doubt is as painful as last night’s performance, when he took ages to say what should have taken him a few seconds.
Here’s that earlier episode, just to underline what I mean… Watch at least the first couple of reviews to see what I’m getting at and then… defend him if you must! Just don’t say he’s a nice man – I can see that! That’s not the issue….
The issue is, would Ben Shapiro have said the same thing in a quarter of the time or do you prefer the slow and stilted talkers!
That was interesting listening to Ben Shapiro as we are getting hammered on the news with reports about this book as if it’s gospel truth.
However, today in the news there are reports of Donald Trump tweeting about how clever he is and mentally stable. Somebody should tell him the old saying that “self praise is no honour”. He should keep quiet about this book and let people like Shapiro reveal the lies in it.
I must say, although I was glad he was elected over the pro-abortion Clinton, I have often wished he would close down his Twitter account and stay in the background more, as he is not helping himself by the things he says, IMHO.
To answer the question in the introduction, I don’t think it would be sinful for a Catholic to read or buy the book, although it would be good to make sure you read the critics and also not spread any proven lies in it.
The leftist/globalist swamp’s coordinated efforts to remove President Trump from office have taken full advantage of the gossip sewer and mentality into which the American public square has fallen. It’s become an echo chamber of “Oh my, he said this” and “How terrible, she said that,” with no substance to anything, unless you want to call malice a substance.
It would be sinful, in my opinion, for any Catholic to participate in this sleazy environment in any way, unless to forcefully denounce it, and that would include reading this idiotic book.
As for President Trump, I think he is fully aware of the nature of the beast, and uses it to his advantage again and again….which, of course, infuriates the professional liars all the more.
But don’t you think he is feeding the frenzy by praising himself, like today’s news says he has called himself a genius. If he really was a genius, wouldn’t he keep his mouth shut?
I think he is toying with them.
If that’s the case, I think he’s wrong to do that.
I read somewhere that Obama hardly ever dealt directly with the media. Didn’t have daily press conferences. When there WAS a press conference, the journalists were handed a piece of paper with the key points – no personal visit from the President except occasionally.
If Trump did that, and stopped tweeting so much, the focus would be on what he is actually achieving and not on his gaffes, real or perceived. I find it irritating that he claims “genius” (even tongue in cheek) while apparently lacking common sense.
I second the motion. All in favor, post “Aye!”
Maybe he’s just a big-mouthed genius!
I agree with RCA Victor, I think he’s toying with the press. I also agree with everyone else that it would probably be better if he didn’t do that. The one thing I think we will all agree on is that Trump is no wilting flower!
On the subject of President Trump’s domestic enemies, I just came across this: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/oberndorf/180101
A very interesting article, indeed.
Whether you like Trump or not, given that the Church has ditched the Index of Forbidden Books, the answer to Editor’s question is no, it would not be sinful for a Catholic to read/purchase this anti-Trump book. This applies to all other books and publications Catholic Truth Scotland takes issue with. We can now read whatever we want no matter how anti-Catholic or absurd it might be.
That doesn’t mean that I am going to read it. I’ve got far much more to do than waste my time on reading it. At the end of the day, people who love Trump will hate the book, while people who hate Trump will love the book and nothing will change. Personally, I don’t care enough to read it. Trump might have been marginally preferable to the alternative candidate but just because she’s worse doesn’t have to mean that Trump is good. He is certainly not a moral man, and is a world away from what a Catholic ruler should be.
You make some very good points. As people of our times, we are probably instinctively against the idea of an Index of Forbidden Books but I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t a bad thing, and I wouldn’t be leading protests if a future pope reinstated it.
Having spent some time in recent weeks clearing my bookshelves, I came across a copy of one of the classic scripture books by one of the best known of the “scripture scholars” (modernist/dissenter, in other words) and noted that, having had it for a long time now, merely for the purpose of knowing what the enemy is saying, I wouldn’t waste my time quoting from it. It’s now safely binned. I only hope I put it in the correct bin – have you noticed, it’s a real science now (excuse the pun) – that is to say, we have to make a truly professional decision when allocating rubbish to the respective and very ugly receptacles provided by the local Council. Improving the environment? Don’t make me laugh that hollow laugh again!
It cannot be any surprise that Trump is “a world away from what a Catholic ruler should be” since he’s not a Catholic, but it’s no small thing that he has defunded the evil Planned Parenthood and spoken up for the unborn.
And he wasn’t simply “marginally preferable” to the “alternative candidate” – he was beyond measure preferable to the pro-abortion (i.e. murder) up to and including birth, AWFUL candidate, one Hillary Clinton. As well as being pro-abortion, she has been shown to have held racist views in her time, and boasted about her part, as defence lawyer, in suppressing evidence that would have convicted a man accused of raping a 12 year old girl. No, Alex, Donald Trump wasn’t merely “marginally preferable” – he was immeasurably preferable to that woman with her diabolical agenda.
Don’t be fooled by the media coverage of his crude attitude to women. Hillary Clinton is no friend of women, believe me. I’d sooner know that the President is something of a bad boy (to put it mildly) in the way that too many men down the centuries HAVE been “bad boys” that vote for a woman intent to sexualising the youngest children in the land, indoctrinating them with the LGBT philosophy of life – that is, those of them who survive life in the first nine months.
Still, you made some good points – especially your recommendation not to read the book. I agree. Wouldn’t give them the money. And not just because I’m a mean Scot who will stick with the reviews 😀
I agree completely with Editor’s assessment of Hilary Clinton, but I’m afraid I’ve always been slightly suspicious of Donald Trump’s alleged pro-life stance. He used to be pro-choice when it suited his business interests, but happened to have a convenient change of opinion just in time for standing as the presidential candidate for the American Republican Party. If I were American, I would probably have just held my nose and voted for Trump, but not because I like or trust him, but for much the same reasons why I vote the way I do in this country. However, our society really is in a bad state and scraping the barrel indeed, when we judge a politician as worth voting for simply because they say they don’t approve of the murder of innocent babies. Is that the standard we aim for!
I certainly would not object to the reintroduction of the Index either. However, given that the Church is currently overrun with ardent Modernists we’d probably see anything remotely orthodox banned. Additionally, it’s reintroduction today might present more complications and would have to include electronic media. For instance, lay people who run blogs and websites might find themselves being refused permission to operate from the diocesan censor. Personally, I can think of one website in particular that the local bishops would love to get rid of! 😎
Donald Trump’s “alleged” pro-life stance has already saved countless babies’ lives, so if that were an election ruse, let’s have more of it. However, since he has been under savage attack for his pro-life stance, especially from Planned Parenthood, with feminist marches on the streets if you recall, I prefer to give him the benefit of any doubt and presume that the several Traditional Mass-going Catholics around him managed to educate him in the matter, and, thus, he became honestly convinced of the need to speak out for the unborn child. Whatever, he’s kept his word and it works in favour of the child in the womb, so let’s give credit where it’s due, please and thank you!
It’s different here – we can’t just vote for a “pro-life” candidate as many of us have done in the past, because it’s now very clear that there will only be change, a repeal of the murderous 1967 Abortion Act, if there is a political party led by a pro-lifer, pushing that policy.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, for example, Catholic MP and pro-lifer, ardently against abortion at all stages and in all circumstances, has assured the public that, were he to become Prime Minister, he would not endeavour to change the law on abortion. Now, THERE’s an honest politician whose “honesty” would lead me NEVER to vote for him – not in a million years.
I must say, though, that I was taken aback at your concluding paragraph. Are you a cynic or what? As if the Scottish hierarchy would ban Catholic Truth… You serious?
I jest, because only those who have never read George Bernard Shaw would label you a cynic over this: “The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.”
Game, set and match to you, Alex! Well, spotted!
A traditional priest of my acquaintance knows a lawyer on the President Trump team. Father worked through the lawyer to send Trump a Miraculous Medal. Trump responded with a hand-written letter thanking them for the gift – a letter I’ve seen with these bespectacled eyes.
Trump looks at pro-life matters from a natural and pragmatic perspective, not supernatural. Though incomplete and unsystematic, it is a serviceable foundation, and much evil and mischief are being avoided because of it.
“since he has been under savage attack for his pro-life stance, especially from Planned Parenthood, with feminist marches on the streets if you recall.”
Indeed! He is managing to defund Planned Parenthood, and many of the people in his staff are pro-life. Mike Pence for instance, is genuinely pro-life and clearly believes in, and tries to live up to, the natural law. For that reason alone, I would vote for Trump, even if he has few other redeeming characteristics.
Agreed. Well said.
Could you supply the name of a present day Catholic leader who is as a Catholic leader should be, far less Donald Trump? I would certainly struggle to find one.
You are allowed to mention Pope Francis if you so wish.
Of course I can’t. There isn’t one. There is no Gabriel Garcia Moreno or even (at a push) Éamon de Valera seeking election in any country that I know of today. And the less I say about Pope Francis the better.
In terms of who is the least bad option out of a selection of horrific options, then Trump might just tip the balance because he at least says he wants to stop the murder of innocent babies.
But many of my Catholic friends seem to be getting carried away with themselves on Trump. He is not the saviour of western civilisation. There is nothing mercurial or presidential about him. His brand of conservatism is not mine. He bullies anyone who tries to disagree with him. He doesn’t know basic facts about other countries the USA is supposed to be friends with. He doesn’t understand basic decency in how to interact with women or which parts of a woman’s body he is allowed to grab her by. In short, the man is a buffoon. Just because Hilary Clinton is a disgraceful human being doesn’t mean that Trump isn’t a buffoon.
Like I say, given the awful choice Catholics in all countries have today when we look at the our politicians, Trump might be the least bad option for Americans. But that doesn’t mean that he is a good option. Just because the leftist Guardianistas hate someone doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to like him. How far down the barrel do we have to scrape? My enemy’s enemy is not necessarily my friend.
Donald Trump is certainly no angel – he’s not even a choirboy – but he does love his country, which is a lot more than I can say for the “mainstream” politicians who are all serving the satanist hidden money masters instead of serving America….the Clintons, at the gutter level of corruption, and Bushes, at the white collar Skull & Bones level of corruption, most notably.
Neither is he a “conservative,” and never claimed to be. He is a populist, an America-first populist, and that is a rare event in the White House. As for his use of Twitter, that really doesn’t bother me, especially if it further inflames his enemies, who are our enemies, and makes them froth at the mouth even more. The more froth, I say, the more likely they are to expose and make fools of themselves in the public eye.
That said, Mr. Trump is certainly one cocky son-of-a-biscuit, but if I managed to assemble a billion-dollar fortune, I’d probably be pretty cocky as well. And for those who are suspicious of him, here is a little grist for your mill:
In other words, Mr. Trump has turned on the hand that fed him….
Trump is a quintessentially New York City style of cocky. He is a hardened and uncouth pragmatist with the stereotypical American failing of worshiping success, a pit bull showboater who mauls his opponents out of concern for his homeland. Whether he’s praising an ally or savaging an enemy, he speaks and acts in extremes.
This isn’t someone Catholics can support –
Trump called the black people who #TakeAKnee to protest injustice, “sons of bitches.” Hate crimes against people of colour have gone up significantly since he’s been president and NEVER in modern history has a president EVER called Nazis and white supremacists, “very fine people!”
Have you forgotten his disgusting just “grab them by the pussy” comments? These are his own words not the words of his enemies.
First of all black and white are not colours, they’re shades. Blue is a colour, red is a colour, yellow is a colour, etc., but black and white are shades. So this “people of colour” nonsense is just that – nonsense! Why are people today so afraid to admit to being black or white? What is this “people of colour” insanity? Give us a break!
As regards Trump’s rather angry outburst against those who kneel during the nation’s anthem, I don’t know how you reach the conclusion that his comment is racist. Honesty demands that we admit that he would have said the same of white footballers disrespecting the American anthem. I have never heard Trump direct a racist remark against black people, so please do not come on here pushing that lie.
Furthermore, the so-called “hate crimes” you speak of have been planned and carried out by the liberals in the U.S. to make Trump look bad. Have you not researched the financial and organisational origins of “Black Lives Matter”? You really need to take the blinkers off and do some seriously objective investigation beyond the propaganda of the liberal media. Remember, only dead fish flow with the current!
I am not aware of a single remark Trump has ever made that would make anyone want to carry our a racial attack on another person. What I do know is that the truth he speaks about illegal immigration, a blight on many nations, is twisted into racism by the liberals in order to subvert the facts that people need to know.
It is said that when Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas his wife Hilary was overheard making a disgraceful remark about some mentally handicapped children. These had been invited for the traditional Easter egg hunt on the grounds of the Governor’s mansion and, children being children, they made a lot of noise. Being utterly exasperated by their presence, Hilary is reported to have said “When are those f***ing retards going”.
You can read all about this and other scandals alleged against the Clintons here:
Trump is not in the same league as these people, he is much more honest, upright and forthright. That’s why the liberals hate him, lie about him and will do whatever it takes to end his Presidency.
Marcus, open your eyes!
Forgot to say, Trumps rather flithy remark of many years ago about how to grab women is something, sadly, I have heard many times in my life during conversation with other men. It’s men trying to prove their manhood to other men, not in the least sexist, just stupid.
Imagine dragging something like that up from decades ago in an effort to discredit your own President when you know full well that Bill Clinton is accused of being a serial rapist, some say also a child abuser, while Hilary is co-accused as threatening his victims into silence.
I detect some hypocrisy in your motives!
I’m really struggling to understand why your reply is a diatribe about another man’s sins?
The fact that Bill Clinton is a bad man is relevant why? “Some say Clinton was a child abuser”. Yes, some also say dozens of women have also accused Trump of sexual assult, something which he actually admitted in saying he ‘just grabs them by the pussy’. Which, bizarrely you do not consider to be a sexist remark.
To recap, you also think that – “The race “crimes” you speak of have been planned and carried out by the liberals”. Really?
Ok, there’s really not much else to say after that if you truly think liberals are arranging attacks on black people to make Trump look bad. I’m sure the parents of the young women murdered by a neo-nazi at Charlottesville do not feel the same.
And this is the man Catholics are supposed support. God help us
And which candidate for the Presidency did you support?
Forgot to say, you have a bit of a cheek accusing me of numbering Clinton’s sins when that is precisely what you did initially with your post on Trump. At least there is evidence to support the public crimes of Clinton. The only thing you have on Trump is that he once made a stupid remark in private about women to impress his male friends. You cannot provide a single shred of solid evidence to demonstrate that Trump is a racist, just hearsay and media lies. Donald Trump is about as racist as Martin Luther King.
At any rate, I think the fact that Trump appointed a Catholic as his Vice President and had a Traditional Catholic as his campaign manager is good enough grounds for Catholics to support him. On that basis, as well as on the basis of his very public pro-life stance (he has kept his word and cut funding to the abortion industry) should be enough for any Catholic to want to back him as at least a lesser of moral evils to run America today. Instead of thinking about all the little babies who will now be born, thanks to Donald Trump, all the liberals do is increase the volume on their lies that Trump is a racist and a degrader of women, a terrible hurter of people’s feelings.
It’s quite interesting that the many women who have worked for Trump over many decades have a different story to tell about the man. They say he was always the kindest and most gentlemanly of bosses to them. Odd that, eh?
Athanasius (& Marcus)
Here’s Tucker Carlson discussing the way Trump is labelled a racist by the (insert adjective) mainstream media…
Unfortunately, there’s nobody in our part of the world challenging the Trump-Haters – we need to keep an eye on the YouTube snippets from the likes of Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro if we wish to be truly informed. The UK media is the last place to look for authentic reporting let alone researching and challenging the “received [from the liberals] wisdom”.
As I think I’ve made clear, I am not in love with the Donald, but unfortunately, Catholics have often been in a position where we have had to choose between two evils. The liberals are the enemy of the Catholic Church, but so is the Alt-right movement, among which Trump has so much support. The question is which is the lesser evil? And I have to agree with Athanasius, albeit through gritted teeth. Additionally, it is very difficult to find anything from a British news source that is even neutral about Donald Trump, so we do have to try to find the truth beyond the media hysteria.
A similar dilemma faced Catholics during the Spanish Civil War. My support would have been firmly with the Carlists, who didn’t have a choice but to support Franco even though he was no friend to them, and even betrayed them by forcing them to amalgamate with the Falange (Spanish Fascists). Fascism is no friend to Catholicism, and although he restored the Spanish monarchy, it was the wrong one.
However, bad as Franco was, the Carlists didn’t have much of a choice, because they knew that whatever murderous puppet Stalin put in charge would be a million times worse.
During WW2 the Allies had to team up with Stalin to defeat what was considered the greater evil, Nazism. Of course, it turned out that Stalin was just as much of a monster as Hitler, but the principle is the same.
The Irish nationalists who fought to end British occupation in Ireland were also a bizarre mixed bag. You had people like James Connolly, Pádraig Pearse, Michael Collins, Eoghan O’Duffy and Éamon de Valera who all had wildly different opinions on what they wanted an Independent Ireland to look like.
Awkward as it, sometimes we just have to make uneasy alliances with people whom we ordinarily wouldn’t give the time of day to. We are not living in normal times.
I agree with everything you say, except on Franco. General Franco stood side by side with the Spanish Catholic hierarchy in a public ceremony consecrating Spain to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Millions took to the streets for that ceremnoy and miracles abounded. That’s all I need to know about Franco to know that he was a good and godly man.
Hmm! I don’t know if I would describe Franco in those terms. He shouldn’t have forced the Carlists to merge with the Falange and it could be argued that he failed to restore the true Spanish monarchy. It’s not the first time a ruler has used the Church for his own political ends.
But anyway! I’d take a hundred Francos over one Stalin.
Thanks for that, I agree entirely.
Would you have preferred the Hilary? The baby murderer? Please have the courage of your apparent convictions, and answer the question. Otherwise, we will know who you are.
After the American presidential election, at my chapel the pastor invited the faithful to raise a glass of champagne with him because candidate Trump had promised to appoint pro-life judges. So far, Trump has carried through on that campaign promise, Deo gratias.
Is Trump a crude and foul-mouthed man? He sure is; I wouldn’t want him in my house. Is he more vulgar than the other candidate, Hillary Clinton? Hardly. Are his crude remark about women more egregious than Clinton’s behavior of using legal proceedings and credible threats of financial ruin to silence the women her husband raped? Hardly. The two presidential candidates were not equal and opposite in their awfulness.
If you have an alternate candidate who could have beaten Clinton, I’d love to hear about him. The rest of us voted for the candidate who we thought would do the least harm, and who might even do some good. Of course, we’re still waiting for the much-promised border wall. And the indications of getting involved in another conflict in the Middle East are troubling. Plenty can go wrong and still might. For now, I’m still relieved at the election results.
These are probably gossip to push Donald Trump to resign, it is screaming!
As others have said, Trump can be crude and brash – he is a mixed bag however and there are positives to his character.
He is about 1,000,000 times better than Clinton would have been.
In particular I am hopeful that Trump will get to nominate a further 2-3 Judges to the Supreme Court, following his nomination of Neil Gorsuch last year. If this comes to pass, as expected, he will certainly leave his mark on both America and the west.
They’re talking about Oprah Winfrey for President at the next election! She would be a disaster IMHO but I bet she’ll get elected if she stands. The public these days seem to like celebrities who can talk a good talk, LOL!
Here’s a very sarcastic appraisal of the non-impact (on Pres. Trump) of this non-book: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455312/michael-wolff-trump-book-harms-anti-trumpism-reputation
I found Tucker Carlson challenging the hoo-ha today over the President’s allegedly racist comments about Haiti etc. Here is the short clip.
Thank you for posting that clip from Tucker Carlson. He’s always on the ball and clear thinking.
Love that video clip! Common sense at last over this.
Some pro-Trump supporters heckled the London Mayor today as we was about to give a speech, police called and they were flung out. Reading the comments on this report is a lesson in the “tolerance” we’re all supposed to have for people we disagree with, LOL!
Comments are closed.