A Shocking Claim About Kim Davis Is Coming From The Vatican After Her Meeting With Pope Francis

One can only imagine the look of surprise on Kim Davis’ face when she discovered she had been asked to meet with Pope Francis when he came to the U.S. last week. Now, she may have a perplexed look on her face as reports are coming from Rome that the pope was “blindsided” by their meeting.

The facts are that the meeting between the pope and Mrs. Davis did take place, but it is now being reported that the Vatican wants to “clarify” the details of Kim Davis’ situation in Kentucky “in order to contribute to an objective understanding of what transpired.” These comments from Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi are seen as a measure to distance the Vatican from the controversy surrounding Rowan County, KY Clerk Kim Davis’ refusal to issue marriage certificates to same sex couples on the basis of her religious beliefs. Archbishop Blase Cupich added to the comments by saying, “The Pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects.”

Carlo Maria Vigano, the pope’s representative in the Vatican embassy in Washington is reported to be who put the meeting together between the pope and Mrs. Davis.

Now, unnamed sources are saying it was a “meeting that never should have taken place.”

Concluding comments on the matter come from Cupich, further clarifying the pope’s position, “It is his way of saying that walls of communication need to come down. Meeting with someone is not an endorsement of that person’s position.”

The apparent backtracking may be confusing for Davis who clearly indicated the pope was supportive of her position and stance. In a recent interview, Davis provided first-hand details of the meeting and left no doubt as to the pope’s purpose in meeting with her.

“Who am I to have this rare opportunity? I am just a county clerk who loves Jesus and desires with all my heart to serve him…Pope Francis was kind, genuinely caring, and very personable. He even asked me to pray for him. Pope Francis thanked me for my courage and told me to ‘stay strong’…That was a great encouragement, just knowing that the pope is on track with what we’re doing,”

Why do you think that the Vatican is apparently trying to do damage control after meeting with Kim Davis? Share and comment below.

Whoopi Goldberg Hears This News About ‘The View,’ Goes On Bizarre N-Word Filled Rant

Anonymous whistle-blower comments should be taken with a grain of salt, but when these comments report that Whoopi Goldberg went on an angry rant, it’s not hard to believe.

Goldberg’s contract guarantees her 5 million dollars a year whether she’s fired or not. That contract likely emboldens the comedian and talk show host to speak her mind anytime, and anywhere she chooses.

This time, if the reports are true, she might be watching The View from her living room.

In a closed-door session with senior leadership of The View, Goldberg allegedly was upset over not being given more decision making authority. Goldberg reportedly went into a tirade.

“I’s a work for ABC who is my master. I’s a slave to ABC. It’s 12 Years a Whoopi at ABC.”

“I’s just a n***er following orders around here, master!”

The self-deprecating humor was not well received, allegedly, with ABC executives asking Goldberg to stop, but Goldberg then addressed Candi Carter, The View’s new producer. Goldberg let her know just exactly how she felt about the new chain of command.

“She told Candi: ‘I don’t take orders from your a**. Stay in your lane like you did when you worked on The Oprah Winfrey Show.’”

Only those who were there know what was really said, but if the comments were coming from Goldberg, it may not surprise anyone.

Goldberg does have a soft side for celebrities in trouble for their words. Goldberg defended Mel Gibson and Justin Bieber when it was reported that they used the n-word. We will find out if her co-workers will be as understanding with Goldberg as she was with Gibson and Bieber.

More Political Correctness Censorship: This Time From NY Gilbert And Sullivan Players

The New York Gilbert and Sullivan Players (NYGASP) were going to perform The Mikado in December. But, according to WQXR, because of complaints of “perpetrating Japanese caricatures,” and because of not including actual Asian performers, the group has canceled their performances of The Mikado, and will instead perform The Pirates of Penzance.

C’mon, you ultra-sensitive nudniks out there; it’s only a show, it’s only a comic opera, a dramatization, for crying out loud. As Joan Rivers would say, Grow up!

In their announcement of this most recent caving to the extremists of the political correctness industry, NYGASP writes that they “never intended to give offense and the company regrets the missed opportunity to adapt its production of Gilbert & Sullivan’s 130-year-old satire of Victorian society to respond to contemporary criticism of some elements of traditional performance practice.”

Talk about nuts. You see, these are performances with actors. The actors don’t have to be of the same ethnic origin as their characters, as long as the actors are talented in portraying the characters they are supposed to portray. And also, some artistic works do “perpetrate ethnic caricatures” in one way or another. It’s only a play, or comedy. And Mikado is from 1885.

I can’t believe that so many people are so offended by this that they would write a letter or call this group to complain. There are so many thin-skinned people in America now, and in Europe as well, as we can see from the Europeans’ own idiotic “hate crimes” laws now. What a bunch of morons. (Ooops, I hope they don’t sue me for “hate.”)

And it’s one thing for NYGASP to apologize for possibly offending someone (or presenting a show which someone perceived to be “offensive”), but it’s another thing to actually cancel the whole thing.

Even the Metropolitan Opera went on with the show, with their performances of The Death of Klinghoffer (which one could argue has much more potential to elicit hurt or offense than The Mikado). The Met went on with the show despite complaints, the massive letter-writing campaign, the push for censorship, the push to have that production closed down, and the protesters with signs outside the opera house. (And those protesters and calls for censorship tend to be from the conservative side of things. After they constantly criticize college campuses for intolerant speech codes, and criticize the whole political correctness industry, the conservatives — and “liberals,” too — then go on to try to suppress any criticism or negative portrayal of Israel as possible. Hypocrites. But I digress.)

So the Met courageously goes on with the show, but New York Gilbert and Sullivan Players cave to the thought police and they self-censor. That’s life in the 21st Century, the Era of Ultra-Thin-Skinnedness.

This commentary originally appeared at Scott’s blog.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Ben Carson Didn’t Cave, But Confusion Remains

Has political correctness become a serious threat in the land of the free?

I am going out on a limb to say that most informed Americans agree with Dr. Ben Carson and oppose the idea of a practicing Muslim running for president of the United States. When the media backlash began, I’m glad he doubled down.

There are, however, several angles to this debate; on one side, there are already Muslims working for our government, while on the other side, the sociopolitical and economic system of Islam is directly opposed to the Constitution.

As we dig a bit deeper, many of us would simply ask for honesty as well as an acknowledgement of key facts. Consider Dr. Ben Carson’s recent comments and his explanation of them in context.

Ben Carson simply said whoever is elected president of the United States should be “sworn in on a stack of Bibles, not a Koran.” He also stated:

I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that… I do not believe Sharia law is consistent with the Constitution of this country.

The nation’s largest Muslim advocacy group went so far as to demand Ben Carson drop out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said lawmakers from across the political spectrum should repudiate Carson’s comments.

To provide balance, Carson said he would also oppose a Christian for president who wanted to establish a theocracy, knowing this would be impossible in a secular-progressive country run by a godless government.

Sadly, it is also important to address his faulty assumption that President Obama is a Christian. We just cannot take people at their word when it comes to their professed faith, especially when their actions don’t line up.

Carson explained further on Monday why he would not advocate electing a Muslim to the White House or to the U.S. Congress who did not renounce Sharia law. This is a key point: Islamic law calls for homosexual men and women – as well as people from other religions – to be put to death. Women must also be subservient and are treated as property.

Yes, decent, law-abiding, non-practicing Muslims (those who do not abide by the Quran and Sharia law) can and have become American citizens. Similar to other immigrants, they are welcome in American society. The fact, however, is that a majority of terrorists worldwide are Muslim. A conundrum for a free country with open borders, no?

Every single person in any false religion, system, or sect who does not know the truth about Jesus Christ must hear the gospel (Romans 10:8-10) and have an opportunity to choose life.

“Know this, I meant exactly what I said,” Carson wrote on his Facebook page.

I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law.

What did he mean by this? If a person’s political ideology or religion would prevent him or her from carrying out the duties under the Constitution, they should not be in office. Some may argue President Obama has not obeyed all our laws, and has even signed unlawful executive orders.

This is a pivotal time in our country our Founders labored to prevent in which power is being abused by the executive and judicial branches of government. This is why Ben Carson’s comments are relevant and the subject should be debated honestly.

Carson brought up another important point on several occasions, mentioning “Taqiyya,” a practice in the Shia Islam denomination in which a Muslim can and should mislead (lie to) nonbelievers about the nature of their faith to avoid religious persecution. The goal is conquest at any cost; Islam actually means “submission.”

Quran 8:39 states:

And fight them until there is no fitnah [tumult, disorder, trial, test, unbelief] and until the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease – then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.

Islam is completely incompatible with the Bible and a society such as America that values religious freedom. Islam will accept no other religions, no competing economic or political views and no legal system except Sharia Law, which would outlaw Christianity!

Teachings in the Quran and Hadith should also raise some red flags. In the Muslim world, beating wives and daughters is acceptable and quite routine. Pakistani men are notorious for abusing their wives – including sexually. The legal age for marriage in Iran is nine years old! (In one Afghan refugee camp, virtually all the girls over second grade were married.)

Women who are raped in Muslim countries often end up being punished while the rapist gets off free, and many young Muslim girls have their genitals cut — without anesthesia — in order to destroy their sexuality and make them ‘pure.’ This information is readily available for those willing to research with an open mind.

Talk about a real war on women! If Democrats, feminists, and liberals in the west have any objections to this, why are they virtually silent?

Where doctrine is concerned, Islam rejects the deity of Jesus Christ, the resurrection, the virgin birth, the Holy Spirit, and the fact that Jesus is the Son of the only living God.

Pastor John MacArthur summed it up well when he stated:

Islam today is the most powerful system on earth for the destruction of biblical truth and Christianity – thousands of Christians are dying under Islamic persecution, especially in the Middle East, Africa, Indonesia, and other parts of Asia. Clearly, Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive. Both claim to be the only true way to God, but both cannot be right. There is no atonement in Islam, no forgiveness, no savior, and no assurance of eternal life.

Sharia law rejects every unalienable right in the First Amendment and would destroy our freedoms if implemented. It is ignorant or irresponsible to say it could never happen in America. Too many citizens are willing to believe media spin, give their opinion or even go to the polls and cast their vote without knowing the whole truth.

Though Ben Carson did not bow to political correctness, there is plenty of moral and spiritual confusion to go around, particularly in a culture becoming more open to moral relativism and hostile toward Jesus Christ.

David Fiorazo is the author of The Cost of Our Silence

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Prominent Muslim Says The LAST Thing Anyone Expected About Ben Carson’s Muslim Comments

Ben Carson is a man who speaks the truth, according to a Muslim who now devotes his life to speaking out against radical Islam.

“As a Muslim — and particularly as a former member of a radical Islamist group — I can state unequivocally that Dr. Carson is correct,” Dr. Tawfik Hamid, author of Inside Jihad: Understanding and Confronting Radical Islam, wrote on Newsmax.

“Without a single exception, the approved Islamic literature teaches violent principles such as killing apostates, beating women, killing gays, and enslaving female war prisoners for sexual purposes,” he said.

Carson, when asked Sunday whether Islam is consistent with the Constitution, replied, “No, I don’t. I do not. I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.”

The comments touched off objections.

“Unfortunately for the critics, ridicule, derision, and condemnation are not arguments,” Hamid wrote. “They are the last refuge of a defeated thought.”

After citing ways Sharia law involves brutalizing women and dening others basic rights, Hamid suggested that Carson’s critics look for Islamic texts that contradict the Republican presidential candidate’s position.

“Such a text does not exist,” he wrote.

“Ben Carson is correct. These Sharia values and principles, which are so hostile to the American Constitution, are still an integral part of mainstream Islam,” Hamid wrote. “In other words, any Muslim who rejects killing gays and apostates, or beating and raping women is no longer considered a Muslim under Sharia. Such rules fly in the face of the Constitution.”

Hamid was not the only prominent Muslim to support Carson.

“Carson’s comments underscore a political reality in which Muslim communities, not only in far-flung theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran, but also in the United States, still struggle with existential questions about whether Islam is compatible with democracy and secularism,” wrote Asra Q. Nomani, saying the struggle between mosque and state is very real for modern, secular Muslims.

In too many instances, we are seeing an erosion of those boundaries, in part led by some Muslims, increasingly using America’s spirit of religious accommodation and cultural pluralism to challenge rules that most of the rest of America accepts. Many of those incursions have been led by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a controversial self-described advocacy group for Muslims that, not surprisingly, called for Carson to step down this week.

“The presidential candidate is talking against a backdrop of 9/11 and a reality in which political Islam expresses itself violently in the West and in Muslim countries from Iraq to Indonesia,” she wrote, arguing that it is not time to silence Carson, but rather “to continue the politically incorrect but critical conversation that he started.”

h/t: Weasel Zippers