What do you do if you’re a Catholic priest and a gaggle of insane topless women start to assault you? If you’re Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard, you close your eyes and quietly pray, which only highlights the hatred in the hearts of those on the attack:

A group of naked women bum-rushed Belgian Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard while he was speaking in Brussels and doused him with water from bottles shaped like the Virgin Mary on Tuesday.

The women were reportedly feminist protesters from the Ukranian-based FEMEN group, which is known for organizing topless protests against the Catholic Church and others.

According to AFP, the four protesters charged the archbishop during “a debate on blasphemy and freedom of expression held at the Brussels’ Free University (ULB) campus Tuesday evening, baring their breasts and squirting water at Archbishop Andre Leonard as they accused him of homophobia.”

Photos of the event show Leonard patiently sitting quietly with his eyes closed and hands folded in prayer as the women empty bottles of water on his head and clothes.

At a forum geared towards honest and open dialogue, FEMEN decided to act like screeching harpies. Telling.

What is perhaps more entertaining about this episode is the liberal fascination with getting naked and defiling oneself as a form of protest. They seem to believe there is a positive correlation between how little they have on and the validity of their arguments.

Here we have a PETA ad. Like pork? It's somehow the equivalent of shoving a pregnant lady in a cage and putting her on display for your children to blankly stare at.
Here we have a PETA ad. Like pork? It’s somehow the equivalent of shoving a pregnant lady in a cage and putting her on display for your children to blankly stare at.
Here we have an undated anti-war picture. Anyone who has lived around a large city over the past decade has probably seen one of these. I did in Los Angeles, although when I lived in DC it was usually fully clothed (but obese) members of Code Pink who were out and about. They have gone into hibernation since President Obama was elected in 2008.
Here we have an undated anti-war event. Anyone who has lived around a large city over the past decade has probably seen one of these. I did in Los Angeles, although when I lived in DC it was usually fully clothed (but obese) members of Code Pink who were out and about. They have gone into hibernation since President Obama was elected in 2008.
Here we have a video by Campus Progress, which protested health care. These kids wanted to be on their parent's health care plan until at least 26. To do otherwise would cut into their pre-game alcohol budget and Starbucks breakfast.
Here we have a video still by Campus Progress, which protested health care reform that would put the onus on recent college graduates to get coverage. These kids wanted to be on their parent’s health care plan until at least 26. To do otherwise would cut into their pre-game alcohol budget and Starbucks breakfast.
Here we have a still from the "unfair campaign." Apparently, white people have "unearned privileges," which can only be addressed by scribbling on your face and saying you're really, really sorry for being white.
Here we have a still from the “Unfair Campaign.” Apparently, white people have “unearned privileges,” which can only be addressed by scribbling on your face and saying you’re really, really sorry for being white. It is unclear what symbolism lies in cutting the nose hairs out of one nostril, but leaving them to grow untamed in the other.

Even more fascinating about the liberal who protests naked is that you never seem to see one without clothes who could get paid to do it for a living. They are hairy, angry, sloppy, floppy men and women full of rage and excess adipose tissue. They will tell you that they are about “love” and “tolerance,” but it is always apparent that they are seething with hate and anger and sadness.

To the conservative, it seems readily apparent that if you have to get naked or scribble on your face to draw attention to your argument, then you probably don’t have a persuasive one. The only thing that getting naked indicates is the desire to influence those who are primarily moved by arousal — raw emotions. People who are tasked with crafting public policy that affects hundreds of millions of people should probably not be primarily guided by raw emotions.

Many people think that Hell is a place that God sends sinners. I believe that Hell is a place that one chooses to enter by his or her own volition. Every day we have a choice to walk closer to God or away from Him. Do we hate or do we love? Do we act rashly or prudently? Are we humble or full of pride? Do we look for truth, or do we live with lies? Do we search for wisdom, or do we wallow in ignorance?

Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard’s stance on gay people would likely be that he loves them, even while disapproving of their behavior. He chose to attend an academic forum to discuss his views like a rational adult, which one could agree or disagree with. Meanwhile, his feminist protesters decided that not only were they incapable of having a discussion on the subject, but they had to act like raving naked loons in his presence. Their behavior interestingly conjures up any number of movies, where the demons writhe and convulse before a man of the cloth. I can’t imagine that sane advocates in the gay community are very happy with FEMEN at the moment.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have some other work to get to. I will be fully clothed while doing so.


    1. Sometimes, even the cold does not stop them! My favorite is when it’s freezing out in DC and they have Global Warming petitions for you to sign.

    1. To some extent, I’m immune. Between LA and DC, and my sister living in NYC, I’ve seen some strange things. And while Lizard19 might not like me pointing it out, I have yet to see a topless Tea Party rally. I’ve seen strange guys dressed as George Washington … but I’d rather see that than overweight women covered in body paint.

  1. when I think of rational adults having discussions, I think of Douglas Ernst. another lovely worthless partisan attack, Doug #fantastic.

  2. Side note: I will eagerly await the link to the comments section of a Colbert or Jon Stewart page, where Lizard19 calls their show a collection of “worthless partisan attacks.”

    I doubt it will come, because when you mercilessly mock conservatives five days a week on a popular TV show, it’s brilliant satire. When you successfully mock liberalism on a blog, it’s defined as worthless partisan attacks.

    Got it.

    1. successful mockery? maybe in your mind, but I don’t see how a few pictures of chicks showing tits in their protests (half of ’em not even Americans) translates into successful mockery of liberalism.

      both political extremes have their issues when protesting, and if you weren’t a partisan you would be able to acknowledge that there are Tea Party protestors who use racist images and violent secessionist rhetoric in their protests.

    2. News Alert: Conservative guy is conservative! Read all about it on his conservative blog … that’s conservative.

      Note to new readers: It’s a weekly thing for Lizard19 to accuse me of being “partisan.” See you next week — same Lizard Time, same Lizard channel.

    3. Doug, as a reporter for the Washington Times, are you ever concerned your liberal-bashing partisan blogging has confined your career opportunities to conservative media outlets?

    4. You should look at my job title. It’s not “reporter.” I do quite a few things for TWT. I’m a jack of all trades.

      And no, I’m not concerned about my blog’s effect on my career opportunities. I had the blog before I worked for TWT, and I worked for Heritage before that. With a clear head and God’s hand I have lived a happy life. No regrets, as it should be.

    5. and if you weren’t a partisan you would be able to acknowledge that there are Tea Party protestors who use racist images and violent secessionist rhetoric in their protests.

      Why should he? The MSM already does that. Doug is just doing his little part to even the score.

    6. And sometimes, liberal media outlets even make up their own racist imagery! Remember the video used on a story on white racist gun-wielding Tea Party guys that turned out to be of a black guy? I do.

      Thanks, Hube. You actually get it (no shocker, obviously). I’m mystified by questions about why I select story “x” and not story “y,” even after I’ve explained it quite clearly.

    7. I like how conservatives still try to play the victim card when it comes to media. talk radio, Fox, the Washington Times, etc.

    8. Clearly you don’t watch Stewart.

      Granted, he leans left more often than not, but he does mock Democrats and liberals more often than you probably know. Comedy is comedy. And, let’s be honest, the right has been a veritable goldmine of material lately. Just too easy. I can’t imagine Reagan’s GOP being such a circus of buffoons. Before you protest, the left isn’t any better–though their lunacy tends to be less sound bite-friendly.

    9. MeAgain, really? First of all, I saw that clip ages ago. If you’d like me to link to a number of clips where Stewart knocks Obama, I can do that. Yes, every so often he’ll do that because he has a shred of credibility left and wants to keep it. Maher does, too. I particularly liked his take down of that loser last weekend who seemed to think “The Book of Islam” could actually be made into a musical without someone having to go into the witness protection program. But 95% of Stewart’s and Maher’s time is spent making fun of conservatives. Are you really going to try and argue otherwise?

      Would you like me to link to the stories about the distraught comedians who just can’t find anything to make fun of Obama about because he’s just so darn good? Give me a break.

      Lizard has shown that he can’t pick up on a joke when it’s aimed at his side of the fence. I said he was in a death metal band called “Right to Infanticide” and he thought I was trying to lie to discredit him. Please. He discredits himself. I don’t need to lie to do that to him (e.g., he doesn’t want to “do away” with the Catholic Church; he just thinks it’s cool if women assault priests.)

      [C]onsidering the long, sordid history of the Catholic Church, I’d say this priest is getting off easy (Lizard19).

    10. Whoa now. I’m not defending anyone but Stewart in my comment.

      You seem to have stopped reading after “Comedy is comedy.” I think your view is that Maher and Stewart’s jokes and jibs at liberal stupidity are just merely attempts at maintaining a “shred of credibility” is rather myopic. Credibility with whom? The right? The right despises them. The Daily Show isn’t on Fox.

      Does their comedy lean left, sure. Do they walk lockstep with liberals, no. Do fellow comedians Hannity, Limbaugh, and Coulter make fun of conservatives (aside from not being conservative enough)?

    11. Stewart and Maher ARE comedians. They want credibility with their peers because comedians are supposed to go after everyone. Both of them are smart guys, and I think deep down even they see how dangerous unchecked liberalism is (just as right wingers in power often allow themselves to be corrupted).

      Hannity is not a comedian. Coulter is not a comedian. They might think they’re funny, but they’re not comedians. Rush Limbaugh uses humor in his show daily, but he is also not a comedian. He is a conservative pundit and openly states that.

      Dennis Miller is a comedian, who happens to be on the right side of the fence. If we’re going to talk about comedians, then let’s stick to guys who actually did stand up.

    12. I couldn’t tell one way or the other because people have lumped Limbaugh in with Bill Maher, etc. on countless occasions. And his show has all sorts of parodies, written by Paul Shanklin.

    13. Ann Coulter and Bill Maher have been rumored to be buddy-buddy (at least enough to go out to dinner together for years). She’s been on his show multiple times. The only one that made me scratch my head was Hannity. Hannity is not funny. He tries to make jokes on his show, and it’s usually forced or cheesy or just plain bad. And sometimes he thinks something is funny and then will harp on it for hours. Urg.

      When I drive down to see my wife I get to listen to hours of talk radio. I almost feel as though I should do a blog post breakdown of which conservatives are best at what they do and why there are where they are.

    14. Limbaugh is funny. You just don’t like his humor. You don’t do what Rush has done for talk radio — for decades — without being funny.

      You’re like the conservatives I’ve met who say Colbert isn’t funny. Actually, he is. You just don’t like what he does.

      And if you think that Obama jokes are “well represented” on late night … I’ll just shake my head and laugh. Now that is funny.

    15. Side note: Do you know who used to write for Limbaugh? My sister. Dude, you have no idea what you’re talking about on Rush. Anyone who listens to him regularly for a few weeks will concede that his is smart, quick on his feet and rather funny. Again, you might not like his style, but the guy has talent (“on loan from God”).

    16. Might take awhile. I’d probably do Rush, Hannity, Levin and maybe Chris Plante. There are others I’d like to write on (Larry Elder), but I haven’t listened to him in years, so it wouldn’t be fair.

    17. I see you skipped the link to dozens of Obama jokes I provided.

      And how do I like Miller right-wing comedy and not like Rush’s? How do I laugh at Leno’s many barbs? Talent. A pundit’s occasional joke does not a comedian make. His show is base on opinion with a joke tossed in. Not a career of comedy. Two very different things.

    18. What does it say about you that you can look at a man like Limbaugh — whose success is clearly the result of hard work, honed talent and persistence — and insinuate that it is primarily due to good fortune or the hard work of someone else? What is going on in your heart and your mind that would blind you to something that is so obvious?

      Whatever it is, I suspect it’s the same thing that goes on inside the hearts and minds of people who look at their own failures in life and manage to blame others.

    19. And… you would be assuming incorrectly. Let’s stick to the topic of comedy and not broaden it by equating Rush’s popularity as some bellwether of comedic talent. Number one reason his listeners tune in? Not comedy.

      I don’t know what “others” you speak of, but I ain’t that. I do admire the strategy of positing a question to drive a natrative, though. Rhetorical questions that characterize me as some cry baby who simultaneously can’t understand how hard work can rqual success and hates successful people, well… surely that must be it.

      By all means, please continue to postulate on the true nature of my feelings about wealth and talent based off my opinion that Rush is not funny.

    20. Sounds more like “on loan for writers like your sister,” (MeAgain).

      Nope. Not denigrating his talent at all.

      “It was sarcasm. None of them are funny. Limbaugh has a joke writer,” (Me again, emphasis added)

      Wrong. Paul Shanklin writes his musical parodies. You know nothing — I repeat, nothing — about Limbaugh or his staff or how it operates. The jokes he makes during the show are his. Again, you don’t think he’s funny. Fine. But don’t just make up things like “he has a joke writer.”

    21. I don’t care to know or listen. I don’t care your sister wrote for him. He’s a hypocritical piece of offal. Talks about a war on traditional marriage, had four wives. Talks about FLOTUS being fat, is morbidly obese. Makes fun of Michael J. Fox for faking Parkinsons symptoms, got withdrawal shakes from his perscription med addiction. The list goes on.

      Denigrate? That’s rich.


    22. Exactly. You don’t listen. You’re like all the others who do not listen and “don’t care” to, and yet they take him out of context and pretend like they know what they’re talking about. And you “don’t care” that my sister worked for him because I’m able to demonstrate that you have no idea what you’re talking about (e.g., Limbaugh “has a joke writer.”). I normally don’t mention stuff like that, but I couldn’t resist because you were clueless.


      Exactly. I’ll see you next time you read some CNN report on what “Limbaugh said…” and complain about it.

      I’ll try to pass on a note: “Dear Rush, next time the entire media landscape is talking about marriage, you’re not allowed to because you’ve had multiple marriages. I know that the vast majority of your show is on debt and deficits and national security and whatever happens to be driving the news cycle, but MeAgain doesn’t want you talking about social issues. True, he doesn’t listen … it’s just that he doesn’t want you talking about that sort of thing.”

    23. Why would I listen to his show? Seriously. I find him repugnant. I do consume conservative media and literature. I do not choose to get my information from him. He is not news. He’s opinion, and i don’t like his.

      I refuse to adhere to some straw man you prop up for me. I don’t watch CNN. Try again.

      I don’t have a single minute of my life to spare to consume Limbaugh’s brand of vitriol. If he wants to speak on the assault on marriage by homosexuals, and claims some moral high ground, then he, like most Republicans, ought to read up on divorce in the bible.

      He is a hypocrite in every sense of the word, yet he is widely considered a champion of the right. That says a lot about the right. What’s that word you like to much, telling? Yes, telling.

    24. Zzzzz. My name is MeAgain, and I’m going to tell people to “read the Bible” … but if a conservative ever used that as some sort of line in an argument I’d freak out.

      Are you a hypocrite, MeAgain? I’ll take a “yes” or “no”.

    25. No.

      I welcome religious viewpoints of conservatives, liberals, tea partiers, occupiers, socialists, marxist, anarchists, whigs, or whomever. If their preferred religious texts adds some context to their political views or their worldview in general, great. Helps me understand where they are coming from. Just don’t wield it as a weapon against others. Then I vehemently disagree (or “freak out” in your parlance).

      Limbaugh’s utter disregard for the sanctity of the Judeo-Christian concept of marrriage to which he claims to adhere should give his listeners pause when he weighs in on the topic. Would you take diet advice from him?

      A yes and no for you: How many times does one have to be divorced before they lose the right to speak authoritatively about the “sanctity of marriage.”

      Nevermind, it’s rhetorical.

      If you disagree that, he’s a hypocrite, I’m okay with that. We don’t have to like each others opinion. Or me, Rush’s.

      See you on another topic.

    26. I was talking about being a hypocrite in general. And the answer is that we’re all hypocrites on some level. If you think you’re not, excuse me while I laugh.

      I notice that you keep talking about Limbaugh and his so-called mission to defend the “sanctity of marriage,” etc. Just because you say it, it doesn’t make it true. Instead of giving me one random quote, how about you provide an opening monologue filled with hate towards gay people or about the sanctity of marriage?

      Nevermind. I’ll just embarrass you myself.

      Rush has been on the air for over 20 years, and people still don’t know his position on gay marriage. And even when he does explain his position, he essentially admits that he’s for civil unions, but really just talks about the language surrounding the debate.

      I suppose if you actually listened to the show (you admitted you don’t), you’d know how often he talks about marriage (not much, unless it’s at the top of the news cycle and he doesn’t really have a choice) and when he does it’s usually framed around how the GOP is a bunch of feckless clowns when it comes to talking about the issue. It’s usually about “language” or how the left goes to the courts when they can’t get what they want at the ballot box. Or it’s about how the left demonizes white people, but doesn’t say a peep about how there are a whole heck of a lot of black people who aren’t for gay marriage. That sort of thing.

      You admitted you didn’t listen to the show. I don’t know why you just didn’t keep quiet at that point because all you have is “Rush was married four times, so if he talks about marriage on his show — the one where he needs to talk for 15 hours a week on the politics of the day — then I’ll get mad and throw a fit.”

    27. I show Rush being a hypocrite. You retort with we are all hypocrites. Uh… between that gem and your classic “congratulations, men are fallible” retort, the scepter of reason has been indisputably claimed by you on this blog

      Rush hasn’t made his stance known? Zzzzzz. Nevermind; I’ll just embarrass you myself.

      Pick a quote.

      Rush mentioned gay marriage 30 times so far this month and 80 (!) in March.

      Read the first couple and his stance is clear if you are paying attention. Not sure?

      “And remember, I proffered the theorem last week that the gay marriage issue was lost the moment we surrendered the language.”

      “We… lost the issue.” Do I really need to explain his stance to you if he explicitly views it as a zero-sum equation?

      I don’t need to listen every day to figure that out. You clearly listen more than me, but maybe your in the bathroom when he talks about it.

    28. You’re right: A guy who has essentially waved the white flag on the issue (i.e.,”We lost.”) is totally a culture warrior for the Christian right.

      It’s so obvious it’s not even close to a driving issue for him. I’m sorry you can’t see that — or that he’d support civil unions.

      Here’s an idea, MeAgain: Why don’t you have a political talk show for two decades, speaking 15 hours a week to 20 million people and not have someone accuse you of being a hypocrite. And when Supreme Court cases that involve gay marriage are driving the news cycle, maybe you’ll be able to discuss the issue in a way that prevents online losers from successfully Google-searching you while saying, “See! See! He’s a hypocrite! He talks about gay marriage!”

      I thought you were “Peace”-ing out of here? I thought you were going to see me in another topic? I guess not.

    29. Why use a straw man there? I did not say he was a Christian culture warrior. Only a hypocrite.

      And I’m disappointed that I’m a “loser” because I refuted your assertion Rush doesn’t talk about gay marriage much by using numbers of mentions from his own website. While we disagree and our sparring can sometimes become heated, I didn’t expect that from you.

      If I’m wasting my time here or your ego is such that you can’t be persuaded to see another side or even flaws in your own arguments, then let me know and I’ll wish you well and forgo returning.

    30. He doesn’t talk about gay marriage much. Sorry. He doesn’t — unless it’s driving the news cycle, which it has been as of late. If you actually listened to his show you’d know that it isn’t an issue that drives him. You didn’t refute anything.

      Are you an online loser? I don’t know, nor do I care. It’s your life. You’re the one who has to live with yourself.

      Are you wasting your time here? I don’t know. That’s for you to decide.

      Come here, or don’t come here. I don’t write for you, and I don’t take much stock in your analysis of my ego.

  3. great blog. don’t stop shedding light on and sharing the truth. we live in a sad world. acts and attitudes like those evident in the first photo just make me sad. you are spot on in this article. i truly don’t understand the cynical hearts of so many of these liberals. i always find myself wondering if they actually passionately believe what they say they do, or if they just have so much bitterness that they act out. surely, if others believe deep down what they stand for, there is a calm, sensible and reasonable way to make it known and persuade others. if someone is actually right in their views, there should be no reason to throw such nasty fanfare to prove it… and i think these attention seekers know that, which makes them foolishly rant all the more… a vicious cycle. i totally agree with you… other liberals must cringe that those kind of people make them look so crazy and desperate. i have liberal friends… some of which i respect even though i completely disagree with them on most things… because they would never in a million years act out like some of these people do. not that there aren’t some extreme conservatives that act without discretion and sort of taint the conservative name. but i don’t think i’ve ever seen anything like these examples, nor do i think i ever will… at least i hope not.

    it’s nice to know there are people like you standing up and eloquently saying things that make sense… to know they exist at all. i don’t even remember how i recently found your site, but you’ve gained a faithful reader in me.

    1. Speaking of eloquent, thank you for the compliments, Georgia. I appreciate it.

      One of the reasons I started this blog was precisely so people like yourself would come across my words and realize that you aren’t alone. Given that, your words mean a lot to me. Feel free to comment at any time. Let me know when I’m on point, when I’m off the mark, and what I can do to improve the site.

      Again, thanks for reading and taking the time to give feedback.

    2. it is a sad world, Georgia, a world the Catholic Church has terrorized for centuries. when powerful institutions oppress and traumatize entire groups of people, sometimes they fight back, and it’s not always pretty and polite. considering the long, sordid history of the Catholic Church, I’d say this priest is getting off easy.

    3. have you ever known anyone who was sexually abused as a child by a person in a position of trust and authority?

    4. then I would hope you would agree that part of what makes this such a sad world is how multiple priests took advantage of their positions of trust and authority by sexually abusing hundreds of children, and instead of ensuring future children were protected from these criminal monsters, the Church decided to try and cover it all up.

    5. Congratulations: You just figured out that man is fallible, and by extension so are the institutions he creates.

      Using Lizard logic,Los Angeles public schools should be done away with. And let’s also get rid of Penn State while we’re at it. Should we discuss the endless cover-ups of our elected officials as well?

      Indeed, there is sadness in the world. That’s because this world isn’t heaven. And if you want to delude yourself into thinking it would be better off without the Catholic Church and its hospitals and schools and charity work … well, that’s your prerogative.

    6. I said nothing about “doing away with”.

      also, you appear incapable of realizing your liberal-bashing all liberals based on your selective examples is precisely what you are trying to pin on me.

    7. Again, you’re “incapable” of seeing that I was using humor to make a point. As I said, humor apparently only exists when Bill Maher, Colbert and Jon Stewart mock conservatives.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s