Pages

Our Motto:

The Connecticut Catholic Corner Motto: Romans 14:16 "Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil."

All articles owned by Connecticut Catholic Corner

© 2007-2024 All articles owned by Connecticut Catholic Corner *except EWTN press releases(see sidebar)*

***FYI: Comments***

Due to continued problems with Disqus I have removed them from this blog- in doing so comments from 2018-2020 have disappeared from my blog posts.
Showing posts with label Fox News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fox News. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Gretchen Carlson is a sandwich short of a picnic



Gotta say something about Fox News firing Gretchen Carlson and her suing the network over a variety of complaints targeting the network and specifically her former co-host Steve Doocy. 

Quote from Politico: The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey and claims Ailes made “sexually-charged comments” to Carlson, "ranging from lewd innuendo, ogling and remarks about Ms. Carlson’s body to demands for sex as a way for her to improve her job standing."
“[D]uring a meeting last September in which Ms. Carlson complained about ongoing discriminatory and retaliatory treatment, Mr. Ailes stated, "I think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago and then you’d be good and better and I’d be good and better," adding that "sometimes problems are easier to solve' that way,” according to Carlson’s lawyers.
On other occasions, the complaint alleges Ailes asked Carlson to "turn around so he could view her posterior, commented repeatedly about her legs, and instructed her to wear certain outfits that he claimed enhanced her figure.” Ailes also allegedly “directed sexist comments” about Carlson in public and announced to others at a industry event that “he had slept with three former Miss Americas, but not with her.”
The complaint goes on to allege that Carlson was fired from “Fox & Friends” in 2013 because she complained about co-host Steve Doocy’s actions. Ailes, the complaint alleges, mocked Carlson and told her to stop being offended “so God damned easy.” Though she was moved to host her own show in the afternoon hour, the complaint alleges that the move was a demotion and that Ailes “reduced her compensation and withheld network support and promotion for her show.”

Before I get to all that, I need to share my own views of Fox News.  I was a Fox News watcher from their very first day on the air- this was before I had a computer in the 1990's when I would hand write and "snail-mail" comments to the show! I loved this news network.

When 'Fox & Friends' first came on the scene I was hooked.  That was when it was an actual morning news show, as to what it is now- a variety show with bits of news clips scattered between the grilling on the sidewalk segments, the concerts and the 'Fox & Friends' home shopping network of products to buy and which ones to avoid. (I weep at what has been lost at this network). So my comments are in light of the Fox & Friends show, not about the alleged Mr. Ailes complaints.

The lowest point of 'Fox & Friends' in my opinion came the day Gretchen Carlson joined the cast after E.D. Hill left. I personally, did not like this woman from day one and saw clearly she could not fill the void left by Hill.  The chemistry that Doocy, Kilmeade and Hill had was not found with the introduction of Carlson. 

And I hate to say it, but Carlson just came across as dumb on television. Where Hill looked professional and intelligent, Carlson just looked...well, dumb and out of place. 

Carlson's "Jihad Monkey" breaking news story will go down in my mind as her finest moment proving my point.  ;)



I still cringe remembering that one! Seriously, HOW could she do that segment and seem to actually believe what she was saying? Where was her journalistic integrity when she reported on Jihad monkey's being trained by the Taliban? 

How could ANYONE take her seriously or even bother to tune in any more? I couldn't. I gave up on a show I had enjoyed since its creation all thanks to Gretchen Carlson.

When I further read from Politico, Carlson's complaint about former co-host Steve Doocy had supposedly "mocked" her - well...[flashback to Jihad monkey report] 
quote: "Doocy engaged in a pattern and practice of severe and pervasive sexual harassment of Carlson, including, but no limited to, mocking her during commercial breaks, shunning her off air, refusing to engage with her on air, belittling her contributions to the show, and generally attempting to put her in her place by refusing to accept and treat her as an intelligent and insightful journalist rather than a blond (sic) female prop," the complaint alleges." [end quote]

My impression of Steve Doocy is he is a fine upstanding guy.  He speaks well of others, often shares with viewers his Catholic faith in comments during the show (especially during holidays or Catholic news stories) and appears to have a happy decent family.  I don't know Doocy, but I like what I see.

I can't imagine him guilty of "severe and pervasive sexual harassment of Carlson" or mocking her during commercial breaks.  The "shunning her off air", perhaps if she's as dumb in real life as she seems on television, who could blame Doocy for not wanting to further subject himself to her outside of work? 

I gotta ask, how is "shunning" a person sexual harassment? Refusing to engage with her on air is sexual harassment?  If Doocy was sexually harassing Carlson, why is she complaining he shunned her and refused to engage with her? Again, she's complaining he didn't spend more time with her and at the same time saying he sexually harassed her?  By ignoring her? Huh? 

Liar, liar pants on fire Gretchen! I'm just not buying what she's trying to sell.  

I think she's a sandwich short of a picnic.

I won't even get into the complaint of "belittling her contributions to the show" (see Jihad Monkey video again to answer that complaint) or "refusing to accept and treat her as an intelligent and insightful journalist" (again, see Jihad Monkey video). 

She complains of sexual harassment yet shows no example of sexual harassment, instead whines about being ignored. Boo-freaking-hoo! Gretchen Carlson is doing nothing but slandering a former co-host.

All that said, I am THRILLED Fox News canned retched Gretchen Carlson! 

Things are finally looking up at Fox News!  

Just my 2 cents. ;) 


Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner 









Saturday, August 8, 2015

Erick Erickson has drawn a decency line...

...I just don't know where that decency line actually is.


I noticed Erick Erickson was trending on Twitter and decided to see why. 

I was shocked at what I found. 

Seems he's quickly run out of Trump love, though I am not sure I really understand considering Erickson's favorable tweets about Trump during the Fox News GOP debate on Thursday night. 

For example...



Notice that all of these tweets are well into the debate... long after Megyn Kelly started the debate with a list of insults Trump has tossed out at women over the years (Trump claimed it was only directed at Rosie O'Donnell).  *Erickson's opinion of Trump never wavered over the insults directed at assorted women from Trump.  Erickson even tweeted that Trump was "hilarious".

*This is my confusion.

Now today, Erickson has dis-invited Trump to his RedState Gathering... 


...because Trump's remark about Megyn Kelly was a  bridge too far?  

Really? 

What remark?  I looked around the Internet first finding an article by the Washington Post that saw insults everywhere from Trump against Kelly.

Here are some supposed terrible, horrible, unforgivable insults from Trump about Megyn Kelly according to the Washington Post...


Now, I don't see an insult in saying he believed Megyn Kelly's "behaviour at the #GOPDebate was astonishingly biased"...or that he believed Kelly "bombed" (I think she did too) or that he thinks she was the "biggest loser" coming out of the debate (I said the same thing the night of the debate- hours before Trump did). 


But apparently those tweets weren't the ones that changed Erickson's mind about having Trump attend his RedState Gathering.  It was a comment made by Trump on CNN. 

Here is Erickson's explanation: 
"He [Trump] is not a professional politician and is known for being a blunt talker. He connects with so much of the anger in the Republican base and is not afraid to be outspoken on a lot of issues. But there are even lines blunt talkers and unprofessional politicians should not cross.Decency is one of those lines.As much as I do personally like Donald Trump, his comment about Megyn Kelly on CNN is a bridge too far for me.In a CNN interview, Mr. Trump said of Megyn Kelly, “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever.”It was not the “blood coming out of her eyes” part that was the problem."
Ok. I am good with a person drawing a line in the sand and saying "Decency is one of those lines" you don't cross.  My problem is Erickson didn't care when the insults were directed at other women.  He only took exception when the (crude) insult was directed at Megyn Kelly.  What's with that?  Some women are OK to insult and others aren't?

Why the hypocrisy?  

Is it because the insult said on CNN by Trump mentioned "blood"?  Was that the line of "decency" not to be crossed while calling other women "fat pigs, dogs, disgusting animals and slobs" is perfectly fine with Erickson? "Hilarious" even?  

Was Trump making a crude reference to Kelly possibly suffering a bout of PMS?  I really have no idea, and its not the point.  

I am no Rosie O'Donnell fan, but why was it OK with Erickson when Trump was insulting O'Donnell and other women calling them slobs, pigs etc, but suddenly there is a "line of decency" you don't cross when an insult is tossed at Megyn Kelly? 

That's the part I don't get. 

Be consistent.  

If you're a man and you're going to be outraged over women being insulted then stick up for all women being insulted.  That would be the decent thing to do.  




In Christ,

Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner 


CORRECTION: I had previously posted an image from Daily Currant about Erick Erickson saying 'women are dumb' and other things. It has been pointed out to me that The Daily Currant is SATIRE.  I apologize for my error and for believing Erick Erickson said those things.  The rest above still stands. 



Sources: 










Friday, August 7, 2015

Thoughts on the GOP Debate


First thought...what debate? 

I guess it was because there were so many people, but I didn't really see a "debate" tonight.

In the first round of the candidates who didn't make the top ten for the prime time slot, I really liked Carly Fiorina - she impressed me with her intelligence on the topics mentioned, she came across as strong and determined and I liked the strength of her convictions -notably her pro-life beliefs and her desire to defund Planned Parenthood (something others also mentioned).  I also got the impression she could make Hillary Clinton squirm.  I'd love to see Fiorina debate against Hillary Clinton - I'd pay to see that! ;) 

I think she won the first round of 'debates' hands down and from reading Twitter I am not alone in my opinion. 

In the prime time slot, most eyes were on Trump and I have to say he held his own without going off on anyone- came close with Megyn Kelly who was (in my opinion) looking to tick people off.  The wording of the questions was bizarre... so contrived to be hard and tough because they know the rest of the media goes soft on Hillary and other Democrats that it left me with a bad taste for Fox New's idea of a debate.  

On that Fox News gets a "complete failure" award for the "debate" tonight with Megyn Kelly at the top. 


Source: http://www.trbimg.com/img-55c4075c/turbine/la-na-gop-debate-20150806



Speaking of failures... 

Rand Paul... there no other words but "GO AWAY YOU'RE BOTHERING ME" - and he can take Chris Christie with him on his way out.  I really dislike these two politicians. 

Huckabee had a lot of good things to say- most will never happen, but at least the guy has a dream and a plan (which is more than I can say about some of the others). 

Nothing new from Rubio (who bores me) or Cruz (who I like but know will never get elected).   

While I like Santorum, I think he's a great guy...he's also a snooze fest I am sorry to say.  He never does anything to stand out or get the attention he needs to win.

I still like Walker...he just goes up and up in my opinion. 

Ben Carson... never.  He's not presidential material.  He'd be great as Secretary of Health and Human Services...but not president. 

Trump...let's face it he will never be president, because the establishment GOP will never allow that to happen-they'd rather let him run as an independent, divide voters and lose the election than get behind Trump, but I love the guy for speaking his mind and not being PC.  He's refreshing even if he's rude. I hope he sticks around...just to stir things up. ;) 

Perry...nothing new.  I am tired of him fighting in the sandbox with Trump.  If he spent half as much of his time tossing barbs at Hillary and the Democratic party instead of Trump I might pay some attention to him...but right now, he's off my radar completely. 

Kasich... what a mixed bag.  If he would actually be the Catholic he claims he could be great...instead he's just another cafeteria Catholic no better than Pelosi or Biden.  He's not to be trusted. 

That leaves Jeb Bush... who I think we will all be left with whether we want him or not - and I don't.  Not because he's another Bush, I don't give a crap about how many family members run for anything I look at each person as the individual they are.  I can't get passed this Catholic supporting Common Core- that's a big problem for me.  Also, I don't think Jeb would undo most of the damage Obama has created...I think Jeb would look forward at what he wants to do, without first cleaning up the mess Obama has/is creating.  That would be a major mistake and I think set his entire first term off on the wrong foot.  So, it's a 'no way to Jeb' for me.  

Gotta say... at this early date, I am liking a Walker/Fiorina team. Having a strong woman will deflate the Democrat's delusional 'war on women' attacks and Walker being a governor is a huge plus for me- I think governors always make better presidents than senators. 

So those are my early thoughts based on tonight's Fox News Channel GOP debate. 



In Christ,


Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner 




Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Bill O'Reilly's dumb Jesus

...that is how Bill O'Reilly portrays God Incarnate in his movie "Killing Jesus".

I recorded "Killing Jesus" and tried to watch it the next day, but it was so awful- truly the most horrible "bible" story I have seen in years.  So horrible that I couldn't make it through the first hour, let alone watch the entire three hour debacle.

Besides all the fiction, O'Reilly rewrites the scriptures and changes the order of things and worst of all depicts our Lord as some clueless mere mortal stumbling through life not knowing anything until his cousin John the Baptist attempts to fill him in.

It was pathetic right from the beginning.

-Mary has amnesia and doesn't recall the Angel Gabriel's words to her (Luke 1:28-38).   Nor does she remember the angels, shepherds or the three Kings who came to pay homage to the new born king - you'd think something like that would leave a lasting impression but not in O'Reilly's version.  Nope, Mary is depicted as clueless and dull-witted as Jesus in this movie.

-Jesus is not shown presented at the Temple where Simeon takes Jesus in his arms and proclaims that salvation has come or his prophecy to Mary about the suffering she will endure because of who she gave birth to. (Luke 2)

-The escape to Egypt happened because Joseph was worried and antsy to get out of there, no angel of the Lord telling them to go and not return until they were told by God (Matt.2:13 and Matt.2:19).  The return is based on a chat worry-wart Joseph had with some traveling Jews after Herod's death.  Pure fiction.

-The worst is poor dumb Jesus...clueless about who he is.  No one remembers the amazing facts surrounding his birth, the prophecy fulfilled, the angels, the wise men...nothing.  It's all a blur as he works hard to be a carpenter like his step dad Joseph- only he's so clueless he doesn't know Joseph wasn't his real father.  Mary with her amnesia forgot to mention the miraculous virginal conception of God Incarnate by the Holy Spirit.  Just slipped her mind!

I gotta give it to the actor playing Jesus, he does a perfect job of looking confused, baffled and just plain old dumb as O'Reilly seems to believe Jesus was.

But I just couldn't take Jesus being depicted as dumb as a pile of rocks.

In all my life, I have never imagined Jesus as walking around confused not knowing who he was/is.  I never imagined Mary forgetting everything that happened to her!  Who could forget an angel telling you you've been chosen by God to carry God Incarnate in your womb?  O'Reilly's Mary manages to forget it all and more.

The movie is insulting and I felt disgusted watching it- especially during Holy Week.

The movie is like an anti-Christian depiction of what an anti-Christian might portray as THEIR VERSION of the story of Jesus minus Christ's Divinity and lots of Sacred Scripture re-writes.  I have to wonder if O'Reilly used a Bible at all or if he wrote this fiction from some pagan anti-Christian source.  This movie is NOT in any way, shape or form something a Christian who knows the Bible and story of Jesus could ever enjoy or recommend.

It's deplorable.  Even worse than the book O'Reilly's publisher asked me to review for him (HERE).

I turned it off and deleted it before I shoved my foot threw my new flat screen.

My time was better spent watching reruns of The Rockford Files on MeTV (I save Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" movie for Good Friday).

Practicing Catholics know its bad when The National Catholic Reporter likes it and declares it "remarkable"!

Remarkably bad maybe!

In my opinion, O'Reilly needs to stick with shouting at his Fox news guests and stay away from a religion he clearly knows little about.



In Christ,


Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner




Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Review: Bill O'Reilly's "The Last Days of Jesus" book

A few weeks ago Allison Verost, Director of Publicity at Macmillan Children’s Publishing Group contacted me  to ask if I would review Bill O’Reilly’s soon to be released book “The Last Days of Jesus: His Life and Times”.  This is an adaptation of O’Reilly’s “Killing Jesus” book and is written for children 10 years and up.  I agreed to read and review the book. 

I should mention here that I  have never read any books by Mr. O’Reilly and don’t watch his Fox News programs (though I did many years ago so I am familiar with who he is), so I had no idea what to expect.

**According to O’Reilly’s Bibliography he used the Protestant NIV Bible, so I will quote that Bible in this review**

*********WARNING SPOILERS*********

I am no theologian but I am pretty well studied in the Scriptures and because of that fact found I had several "issues" with the book. Some people will probably disagree with me, but here is my take on the book...

First up, the book tells a completely fictional story of Jesus as a young boy who along with Mary and Joseph run for their lives from Roman soldiers who are slaughtering Jews in the market place.  I don’t know where exactly O’Reilly got this story from, but its not in any Bible I can find. 



Some people might like a fictional Jesus story, I don’t so right of the bat I was offended.

Next up an example of one of many times O’Reilly CHANGES Sacred Scripture to tell a different story (he does this often in the book and if you don’t know the scriptures you will not know it is altered).

In this example O’Reilly says that the disciples John and James were “jockeying for position” in Jesus’ “new regime” and requested that they each get to sit to Jesus’ left and right in positions of power.  


The Bible tells the story a bit differently…the NIV titles the passage “A Mother’s Request” yet O’Reilly makes no mention of a mother at all.

Matthew 20 [NIV Bible]- A Mother’s Request  20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.21 “What is it you want?” he asked. She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.”22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?”“We can,” they answered.23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”

[source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2020&version=NIV]

No big deal?

OK, lets move on.

Catholics (like me) might take exception to O’Reilly’s version of Simon Peter and Jesus.  The Bible shows in Matthew 16 that Jesus gives Peter the keys to the Church (authority) and tells the disciples he (Jesus) was creating a real Church on earth – O’Reilly ignores most of this in his own chapter circling these events without mentioning the focal points to talk about other things.
The NIV Bible: Peter Declares That Jesus Is the Messiah
 13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.


Now O’Reilly’s version:



No keys, no Church, no authority, no papacy…its been gutted. If you are going to write a chapter about this exchange between Jesus and Peter then why leave out the most important parts?  O’Reilly rips out the 18th and 19th verses which his own faith (I believe he claims to be Catholic) highlights as the foundation of Jesus Christ building His Church on earth.  Hardly a trivial matter to Christianity.

Next he guts the Last Supper – no Eucharist.  The focus of this chapter for O’Reilly is that Jesus washed someone’s feet.  For O’Reilly this is the most important part of the Last Supper, yet in the Scriptures the foot washing is not mentioned in Matthew, Mark or Luke, only in the Gospel of John and the reason it is mentioned is to show that Jesus knew Judas was going to betray him (verse 11). Judas was the "unclean" one among the disciples. The significance of the Last Supper- the Eucharist being instituted is simply not shown in this book at all.   

Here is O’Reilly’s version…



Now here is what the Sacred Scriptures says about the foot washing…
Jesus Washes His Disciples’ Feet  13 It was just before the Passover Festival. Jesus knew that the hour had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.2 The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already prompted Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus. 3 Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; 4 so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. 5 After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?”7 Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”8 “No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.”Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”9 “Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!”10 Jesus answered, “Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” 11 For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.12 When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13 “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them. –end-



And here is what Scripture says about the Last Supper…
Luke 22 (NIV Bible) - Judas Agrees to Betray Jesus 1 Now the Festival of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, 2 and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. 3 Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. 4 And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5 They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6 He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.The Last Supper7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.”9 “Where do you want us to prepare for it?” they asked.10 He replied, “As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters, 11 and say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 12 He will show you a large room upstairs, all furnished. Make preparations there.”13 They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. 21 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22 The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!” 23 They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this.-end-


Other issues I had… in chapter one, O’Reilly claims Joseph only had a bad dream that terrified him so much he woke up Mary and Jesus and bolted out of Bethlehem.  No mention of the “angel of the Lord” telling Joseph to take his family and leave (Matthew 2:13). 

In chapter two, O’Reilly talks about Jesus sleeping on roof tops and how rare red meat and fish are to Jesus’ diet as a child.  Could he have slept on roof tops and rarely eaten red meat or fish, sure, but that’s not in the Bible. According to Isaiah 7, Jesus ate curds and honey as a child.
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

In chapter five, O’Reilly portrays Mary and Joseph as “shocked” by Jesus’ knowledge of God because never before has Jesus nor anything else in their life given them the impression that their son was anyone special. Yet the Bible clearly shows both Mary and Joseph were well informed by God that this was no ordinary son. Luke 1:31-35
31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

In chapter seven, O’Reilly has John the Baptist proclaim he [John the Baptist alone] “saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him” before Jesus even got to the water to be baptized.  According to the Bible, Jesus was baptized THEN Heaven opened up and dove came down… (Matthew 3:16).

O’Reilly goes on to write that “John the Baptist says “I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One” in chapter seven, but later in chapter thirty O’Reilly claims that John the Baptist “is beginning to doubt his initial faith in Jesus as the Messiah”. 

In chapter twenty-eight (the Crucifixion scene) O’Reilly doesn’t mention the Disciple John being with Mary at the cross or Jesus giving Mary to John to care for (John 19:25-27) now that Jesus is going to die on the cross and soon ascend into Heaven (after he comes out of the tomb and walks the earth for 40 days).  Also left out of this chapter is Christ's words: “Into your hands Father I commend my Spirit” (Luke 23:46), the earthquake when Christ dies on the cross (Matthew 27:51), the temple curtain torn at the moment of Christ's death on the cross (Matthew 27:51) and the people raised from the dead (Matthew 27:52-53).  No mention of any of those major events.

Most chapters (in my opinion) show Mary, Joseph, the disciples and others as completely clueless about who Jesus is and what he is doing most of the time. I didn't care for O'Reilly's view or depiction of these Saints. 

And the final BIG issue for me… the very last sentence in the last chapter of the book… "To this day, the body of Jesus of Nazareth has never been found.”  No mention that Jesus was seen after the Crucifixion for 40 days (Acts 1:3) or that people watched him ascend into Heaven (Acts 1:9).

The book ends with an “Afterword” that includes assorted religion’s varying views of Jesus (Muslims, Jews, Pagans, Hindus etc).  This also includes what some writings and history say happened to the Apostles and other biblical characters (Pontius Pilate, Mary Magadalene etc).

Because I found too many alterations of Sacred Scripture and missing key Scriptural points I could not recommend this book to ANY parent to give to their child. Better they learn about Jesus from a child's Bible than this fictional portrayal of Jesus.

I am sure this is not the review Bill O’Reilly or his publisher were hoping for, but I have to be honest. I am sorry to say I simply did not like this book and cannot recommend it.


In Christ,


Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner



Thursday, March 28, 2013

Signs of the times

By Connecticut Catholic Corner Contributor Tim Siggia

"These are the times that try men's souls." -- Thomas Paine

A most disturbing incident occurred this week at Florida Atlantic University, when students were given an exercise by their professor, Diandre Poole, which consisted of a physical act of blasphemy toward our Lord and Savior.  The students were instructed to write the name Jesus in large letters on sheets of paper.  They were then told to place those sheets on the floor by their desks, with the name facing up, and then stand up.  The professor then ordered his students to stomp on those sheets.

One student refused.  Rather than do as he was directed, Ryan Rotela, a devout Mormon, picked his sheet up off the floor and placed it on his desk.  He later reported the incident to Poole's superior at the university.  For this act of courage, Rotela was suspended from the university.  The story was picked up by Fox News, and broadcast on several of their programs.  In response to the negative publicity, Florida Atlantic University issued a public apology to Rotela, and ordered him to be reinstated and allowed to retake the course in question -- but without Poole, an activist for the Democratic Party, as his instructor.

Though Ryan Rotela is certainly to be commended for having acted courageously and in keeping with the tenets of his faith, the incident raises a number of questions.  First, why was Rotela the only student to protest this professor's actions?  Could he truly have been the only professed Christian in the class?  Was the name of Jesus merely one more name to the other students?  Second, why was no disciplinary action taken against Poole, who is still teaching at Florida Atlantic?  Rotela rightly called his actions unprofessional, and his criticism apparently was ignored by the university staff.  And third, why was Fox the only broadcast news network to report this story?  The "mainstream" news media -- ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and PBS, as well as the far-left network MSNBC -- have all conspicuously ignored it.

This is just one instance of a rise of secularism not only in academia, where all but "progressive" thinking has for generations been suppressed, but within our society as well.  For nearly 50 years now, atheist groups have been working to get the motto, "In God We Trust," expunged from our currency.  Efforts to replace the traditional greeting of "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays" have lessened in recent years in reaction to public protests, though in Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee refused to call the state Capitol's Christmas tree a Christmas tree, calling it instead a "Holiday Tree."  Now, in some parts of the country, similar efforts are being made to eradicate Easter, giving rise to such absurdities as "Spring Egg Hunts" and the "Spring Bunny."  It would be comical were it not so tragic.

The issue of same-sex marriage now has found its way to the Supreme Court, where justices are currently deliberating over whether Proposition Eight, which bans same-sex marriage and was passed by the California legislature in accordance with the wishes of the people there, is constitutional.  It is also considering, again on constitutional grounds, an overruling of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by President Bill Clinton with popular support.  The secular "progressive" line here is that opposition to so-called gay rights is bigotry and comparable to racism.  Our Catholic teaching in this as in other matters is to hate the sin but love the sinner.  Most of us do not hate those whose sexual orientation is toward those of their own gender.  We do not, however, want to see the institution of marriage, known to us as the holy sacrament of matrimony, redefined in the name of political correctness.

Unfortunately, here in Connecticut that has already happened.  By judicial fiat, same-sex marriage is now the law of the land in the Constitution State, where liberalism has taken on the force of a state religion.  For over 40 years now abortion has been legal in the United States.  As if that weren't enough, our legislature is now considering legalizing physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients.  It is one thing to allow those whose time has come to die naturally, and quite another for physicians to assume the role of God in deciding who is fit to let live, and whose life must be ended.  The moral teaching in such matters actually predates Christianity.  It was first formulated by a Greek physician named Hippocrates, whose oath to make every effort to preserve life is still taken by doctors to this day.

Unfortunately, in today's Connecticut, the doctrine of liberalism seems to trump all other considerations in this and other matters.  I have written to my state representative on the subject of physician-assisted suicide, and I have yet to hear a response from him.  I'm not holding my breath.

Most practicing Catholics I am sure will agree with me that it isn't easy to live in a Blue state such as Connecticut and remain faithful to the teachings of the Church.  Consider, for instance, how many of our legislators identify themselves as Catholic in the face of what they profess politically.  As Thomas Paine so eloquently put it back in the days of our country's beginnings, these are indeed the times that try men's souls.  It is also the time to choose sides:  shall we be Catholics, or shall we be Progressives?  It is becoming increasingly clear that in today's society one cannot be both.

-by Contributor Tim Siggia -

Thursday, October 4, 2012

NBC dumps Debate for Russian smugglers

I don't usually get political on my blog... nor do I usually call out media bias, but this was too much even for me to hold back.  I watched the Presidential Debate last night, as did millions of other Americans.  This morning I was very interested to see how others felt after mulling things over.  What I was not expecting was one news source to be SO biased they couldn't even bring themselves to make the Debate the "Top Story" this morning.  I looked at CNN, Fox News and NBC news... guess which one thinks Russian smugglers tops the United States Presidential Debate?
CNN news put the United States Presidential Debate as "Top News" on their website.

Fox News also found the United States Presidential Debate worthy of "Top Story" on their website.
Now lets look at where NBC puts the United States Presidential Debate in importance on their website...
President Obama's lap dog  AKA NBC News is doing all they can to pretend last night's Presidential Debate never happened.  NBC has declared the "Top Story" this morning is Russian spies smuggling electronics above the first United States Presidential Debate of this election year. 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...