I have never heard of Rachel Campos-Duffy before. Nope. Didn’t even know she existed. But after 90 seconds on television, she is now one of my favorite people in the world.
Mrs. Campos-Duffy filled in for Elizabeth Hasselbeck on the view as the token conservative. Only problem is Mrs. Campos-Duffy is no token anything.
After announcing that she is having her sixth child on the show, she is asked by Whoopi Goldberg what she thinks of Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Her answer is one of the absolute best that I have seen. Witness. (From the wonderful Newsbusters)
Congratulations Rachel on your sixth child and well done!
October 13, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Heathens like me watched MTV's Real World San Diego about 15 years ago ( I was 16). It was then I got to know about Rachel Campos even then, she was a strong conservative and an unabashed Catholic. I found myself not knowing why I was on her side.
Interestingly enough, she met her husband Sean Duffy, who was also a cast member on Real World Boston in 1997 or 1998. Sean, was also a conservative and an orthodox Catholic back then and still is.
Together, Sean and Rachel have 5 kids. One with Downe Syndrome.
Sean Duffy is now running for congress in Wisconsin I believe. If you live there, vote for him.
October 13, 2009 at 7:32 pm
It's interesting how disgusted they look when she says pregnant with her sixth child. Of course, they'd be cheering if she announced she was having her sixth abortion…
October 13, 2009 at 7:33 pm
And I remember watching her on the Real World! Wow, she's come a long way!!
October 13, 2009 at 8:24 pm
"Notice how Rachel is also the only attractive woman at the table, six kids and all '
I did. That's the inner beauty shining through, a soul united with God. And the converse is all true.
October 13, 2009 at 9:32 pm
I LIKED the "personally, for me" approach because she sounds FAR less preachy then the other blowhards surrounding her. She's saying, "this is me, this is my life. It's out there in the open. So, take my opinion for what it's worth." And it is worth a LOT more than the other schmuckettes on that show.
October 13, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Can't watch the clip from here, sounds good though. I'll watch itwhen I get home.
Just a little writing critique:
"After announcing that she is having her sixth child on the show…" That will be quite a show, and really upstage all the other ladies. But is it worth the loss of privacy?
How about
After announcing on the show that she is having her sixth child.."
OK?
Susan Peterson
October 13, 2009 at 10:18 pm
I applaud.
October 14, 2009 at 2:24 pm
She is a much better social conservative voice on The View than Elisabeth Hasselbeck, IMO. Hasselbeck does her best to stand on principle but unfortunately she often comes off as shrill, combative and ill-informed when she speaks about the Catholic faith (I know Hasselbeck is Boston College grad and based on past comments she is not well-catechized).
Anyway, not so with Campos-Duffy. She is poised and confident and delivers her opinions in a forthright yet pleasant manner. It's amazing what a little formation will do! I hope we see more of her on The View and elsewhere.
October 14, 2009 at 5:23 pm
I don't follow the Mother Theresa argument Campos-Duffy cites at all. Regardless of how awful abortion is — and of the president's position on it — it has nothing whatsoever to do with world peace in any meaningful sense.
October 14, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Tom, Mother Theresa's arguement against abortion is something like this:
1. Abortion demeans the human person by treating tiny, vulnerable and (aguably) unproductive persons as waste to be discarded on a private whim.
2. Allowing abortion in society allows the underlying thought of human life as something to be discarded to begin to permeate it.
3. Once you have the legalized killing and discarding of human life in its tiniest (and most vulnerable) stage, it becomes easier to discard human beings in other vulnerable positions (look at the elderly and the proposed death panels in our health care reform…).
4. Once the discarding of vulnerable (read: useless, unproductive, draining) human life becomes common place, much atrocity is possible as human life is no longer valued simply because it is human and living. What is human and what is living then becomes subject to the various opinions of the people currently in power.
5. Once opinion of the powerful is the only defining source of what is human and living and worth keeping alive, you see mass executions (abortions) or death camps (Holocaust) or extreme ostracism (look up plight of India's "untouchables" -people not considered fully human).
The human rights violations, atrocities and killings all lead us away from world peace. Peace is acheived (imho) when human life is valued and protected (and fed and cared for) regardless of their age, condition or social status. Gross injustices and atrocities like those previously mentioned stir discontent, anger and violence among those oppressed and create eventual outbursts of violence in society and the world at large.
This is what I believe Mother Theresa meant when she argued that without peace in the womb, there will be no peace in the world.
I hope that explains it!
October 14, 2009 at 8:22 pm
"I don't follow the Mother Theresa argument Campos-Duffy cites at all. Regardless of how awful abortion is — and of the president's position on it — it has nothing whatsoever to do with world peace in any meaningful sense."
One of Fem. for Life's slogans, "Peace begins in the womb" might shed some light on the Mother Theresa conection. Also, one of her own quotes will.
"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"
(This may repeat Sarah above.)
Abortion itself is the antithesis of peace (war) in the womb. (millions acts of violence a year; no safe abortion for the preborn)
Further, (as Sarah said) she said devaluation of life leads to more violence.
gbm3
October 15, 2009 at 2:14 am
I once read another interesting interpretation of Blessed Mother Teresa's comment on abortion. In some countries and cultures that have a preference for boys (such as India or China), baby girls are aborted at much higher rates. This situation can eventually lead to a society with a shortages of female mates. When all those baby boys grow up and there aren't enough females to go around (and "domesticate" the men), it can potentially lead to higher levels of violence, instability etc. in the future.
I think the explanations of previous commenters are probably closest to Mother Teresa's meaning when she made the link between abortion and peace, but the other possible side effect of aborting high numbers of baby girls makes sense.
October 15, 2009 at 2:58 am
"…but the other possible side effect of aborting high numbers of baby girls makes sense."
I read somewhere that the number of aborted girls over aborted boys in China alone (in no. of abortions) is the population of the UK (GB) now.
-gbm3
October 15, 2009 at 10:28 pm
The Mother Teresa quote is actually part of her acceptance speech for winning the Nobel Prize. I happened upon this incredible gem of a book/cd combo on discount at Borders Express that had the recording and the transcript.
Text of Mother Teresa's Nobel lecture (3 mins audio available)
March 24, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Unfortunately, the world is not as simple as Mrs. Campos-Duffy may think. President Obama has made a multitude of important changes in the world to foster world peace — and in spite of China's strong objections, he DID meet with the Dalai Lama! Of all the people I've ever known, Mr. Obama is the least likely to ever cow-tow to ANYONE…. (See CNN news story here: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/18/obama.dalailama/index.html)
Working towards world peace isn't as easy as many people seem to think — it involves understanding and carefully considering the beliefs of MANY (both majority AND minority), and attempting to OBJECTIVELY structure and implement laws that accommodate, reflect, and serve in a positive way ("positive" being a relative term, here) the ideals that represent the WHOLE. This has been the foundation of our United States of America from its inception. This does NOT mean that we will all agree with all of the laws and beliefs that others deem "fair."
The moral righteousness of US citizens has NEVER been the responsibility of the President; he merely attempts to establish laws which best preserve the rights, freedoms and beliefs of the American people. Within these laws, we are granted the freedom to make decisions for which WE are responsible and accountable.
For the reasons I've mentioned, it is illogical and unreasonable to conclude that President Obama is unworthy of the Nobel Prize because you disagree with his POLITICAL (not PERSONAL, folks!) position on abortion.
It will never cease to amaze me how people like Rachel Campos-Duffy fail to better educate themselves to gain a comprehensive understanding of all of the facts before passionately voicing their opinions to the world. While I believe her heart is in the right place, I think she, like MANY Americans, is quick to draw conclusions on political issues without working to gain a comprehensive understanding of the complex issues at hand.