Home > General, Religion, US Politics > Democrats and Fimian Spar over Legatus

Democrats and Fimian Spar over Legatus

July 10th, 2010

Today’s News and Messenger reports that the local Democrats have called out Keith Fimian over his membership in Legatus, which Democrats believe is an extreme right wing group. According to News and Messenger:

Prince William County, Va. – Democrats are again calling out Keith Fimian for his affiliation with the Catholic group Legatus, which they consider a radical right-wing organization.

Democrats initially brought up the issue in 2008 when Fimian, a Republican, first ran against Gerald E. “Gerry” Connolly, a Democrat serving his first term in the 11th Congressional District.

The Fimian campaign says it’s all nonsense.

Legatus describes itself on its website as an organization for top-ranking Catholic business leaders.

“The organization offers a unique support network of like-minded Catholics who influence the world marketplace and have the ability to practice and infuse their faith in the daily lives and workplaces of their family, friends, colleagues and employees,” the website stated.

Democrats say Fimian’s comments during the 2008 campaign for the 11th Congressional District describing the group as a “social club” were off the mark.

“For two years, Keith Fimian has tried to claim that he wasn’t involved in a radical political organization but rather was just a member of a social club in order to deny his right-wing extremist anti-choice views,” said Pete Frisbie, chairman of the Prince William County Democratic Committee. “But now it turns out that his involvement in this radical group was entirely political and proves that Keith Fimian not only has radical extremist views, but he can’t even tell the truth about them.”

According to the Federal Election Commission, Fimian used congressional campaign funds in 2008 to pay a Legatus conference fee. Democrats say that implies that he was conducting official business with the organization.

Fimian’s campaign manager, Tim Edson, said paying a fee didn’t constitute conducting business with a given group.

Did I read that correctly? Fimian used campaign funds to pay Legatus conference fees? That sure doesn’t seem right. What exactly is Legatus? How does it differ from Opus Dei? I know Legatus was founded by Tom Monaghan, former owner and founder of Domino Pizza. He gave huge amounts of money to organizations I disapproved of like Operation Rescue. I also got the impression that unless you are very wealthy, you don’t get in to Legatus.  Check out membership requirements below.  So much for the eye of the needle concept.  The eye of the needle must have grown.

 

Let’s hear what they have to say about themselves.

Perhaps our readers will enlighten us as to what Legatus really is. Why is membership in this organization important enough to warrant attention from the Democrats as well as a first page story? Inquiring minds want to know….

Additional Sources:

D. C. Examiner

Legatus

NeilJConway.com

  1. July 11th, 2010 at 01:20 | #1

    Why would you disapprove of Operation Rescue? Is abortion supposed to be a good thing? Should we not protest violence against the unborn or try and convince others that life is sacred? Isn’t that giving people a choice? You decry Angle’s take that abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape and incest. You say that no one should be forced to make a determination like that for someone else. In other places, you show concern for the innocent children of illegal aliens having hard choices being place upon them. Well, shouldn’t we try to convince women that making a choice for life, of making a determination like that for an innocent, is a good idea? I know women that have had abortions. They have felt guilty ever since. I also know women that have given up children for adoption. And I’ve seen that those women, while they too feel guilt, rightly or wrongly, also know that their children are alive.

  2. July 11th, 2010 at 01:38 | #2

    Operation Rescue is comprised of many thugs. How dare they attempt to interfer with with a woman having a legal medical procedure. Ever seen them in action? I have. I have seen them lie and I have seen them cause automobile accidents. I have seen them injure people in their zealotry.

    Should we try to convince others? Absolutely not, not at clinics. People need to mind their own freaking business. Let churches minister to their own flock.

    I know women who have had abortions and first off, it’s a private matter. In the second place, the women I know well enough to discuss it on a personal level are quite ok with their decision. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion. Before 1973 women and girls were often forced to not only have children but also to give them away. Ever talk to any of those people?

  3. kelly3406
    July 11th, 2010 at 11:17 | #3

    Ah, once again …. that famous abortion litmus test. Pro-life= right-wing extremist, closed minded, judgmental; pro-abortion=supportive of women, open-minded, strong intellect.

    I am often struck that pseudo-intellectuals claim that we should protect the most innocent among us, yet overlook that abortion takes human life. Society invades into many matters which might be considered private (how we care for children, what we eat, what drugs we take), yet the taking of unborn human life is somehow considered more private?!?!

  4. July 11th, 2010 at 11:27 | #4

    No, shutting down a clinic is right wing extremist and thuggery–a clinic that is performing legal medical procedures and other services related to women’s health. Ever seen those thugs in action, Kelly?

    People may feel anyway they want about abortion. What they may not do is make personal decisions for me. And yes, it is a private decision.

    How very typical….to try to equate extremist behavior like Operation Rescue to people who are simply opposed to abortion. There is no comparison. Many people who I know who would describe themselves as ‘pro-life’ vehemently oppose the practices of Operation Rescue.

  5. July 11th, 2010 at 11:30 | #5

    How about Legatus? What is that organization all about and why do Democrats question Fimian’s membership?

  6. July 11th, 2010 at 11:36 | #6

    In a related way then, are you against the new health care law? Once the government is running health care, no medical decision will be private? Every decision will be based on how much it costs the taxpayer.

    Oh, and yes, I’ve talked to some women that did not have abortion on demand available, that gave birth in 1972. They told me that they felt better knowing that the children, though adopted out, were alive. What made them seek possible abortions at first was the stigma of being unmarried and pregnant. That stigma is gone, now. So, the question still remains, how do you reconcile the concern for innocents that are having hard choices made for them with no concern for innocent life being aborted?

  7. marinm
    July 11th, 2010 at 13:06 | #7

    Wait. Fimian is Catholic?? Not only will I vote for him but now I need to give him money. :)

  8. Lafayette
    July 11th, 2010 at 13:18 | #8

    @kelly3406

    Pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion. What part of Pro-choice do you NOT understand, Kelly.? Pro-choice is just that. You believe a woman has the right to choose what she wishes to do with her own body. I know many pro-choice people that are opposed to abortion. Luckily, they have the good sense to know it’s NOT their place to inflict their religious beliefs on others.

    I worked in the attendance office at a local high school, back in the day as a student. I know of a dozen girls that had abortions. Guess what? Each every one of them was Catholic! I’m friends to this very day with a couple of them and they do NOT regret the choice they made to have an abortion. They were able to finish high school and graduate from college. They are still practicing Catholics and very productive/active members of our society. Yet, I see those stupid ass bumperstickers reading..You can’t be Catholic and pro-abortion. What a freaking lie if there ever was one.

  9. kelly3406
    July 11th, 2010 at 13:39 | #9

    Moon-howler :
    No, shutting down a clinic is right wing extremist and thuggery–a clinic that is performing legal medical procedures and other services related to women’s health. Ever seen those thugs in action, Kelly?

    You will have to provide some links to back your statement. I am against violence and thuggery, but the term extremist is bandied about too freely. Separating fact from myth is getting to be more and more difficult.

  10. kelly3406
    July 11th, 2010 at 13:55 | #10

    @Lafayette

    I do not necessarily accept parsing between pro-choice and pro-abortion. If someone opposes violence but does nothing about it when encountered, what is the difference between being pro-choice and pro-violence? The violent act is still perpetrated.

    Please explain the moral difference between taking a life 12 weeks before birth vs taking a life right after birth. Someone who dumps a baby in a trash can after giving birth can be prosecuted, but the person who does so 12 weeks prior gets to finish high school.

    As you stated above, your friends chose abortion for convenience so as to avoid postponing high school/college.

  11. July 11th, 2010 at 14:14 | #11

    Kelly, what is it that you are asking? What links? You know the history of Operation Rescue. Jumping on people, knocking down clinic escorts, throwing paint on people, gluing doors shut, chaining one’s self to cars are all destructive or violent to me.

    I don’t argue abortion. It is a personal decision, it is a legal procedure. In fact, I don’t even discuss abortion with men. Regardless of how you men feel about abortion, that has nothing to do with Operation Rescue. Check out the archives for the records of the US Marshalls that had to be put at clinics just to protect women and clinic employees.

    If you dislike abortion so much, work to make sure that birth control is accessible to everyone who needs it.

  12. July 11th, 2010 at 14:16 | #12

    Again, the topic is the Democrats and Fimian sparing over Legatus……

    If people want to debate abortion, a more appropriate place for it would be the Sharron Angle thread. The thread is at least related to the topic.

  13. Elena
    July 11th, 2010 at 14:30 | #13

    Point one, I HATE abortion, but I have DOMINION over my freakin’ body…GET IT! I have had two children, it isn’t easy to be pregnant and it sure aint easy to give birth. For those NEVER faced with that choice, you really have no idea what it entails. Even Sarah Palin admitted to making a “choice” to have her special needs child.

    Point two, back on topic, I am really tired of “needing” people to save those who don’t believe in Jesus Christ. Yes, I take it personally. I don’t shove my faith down your throat, don’t presume that I NEED to be saved and that your belief is the only way to salvation. I have no problem with people in business caring, not just about profits but the community, that is great.

  14. Lafayette
    July 11th, 2010 at 14:33 | #14

    @kelly3406
    I don’t believe my friends did this for convience, as you do. I know that my friends were from families that would’ve have kicked their daughters to the curb for getting pregnant. They would’ve been outcasts of their own families, and didn’t want to cause their families shame. A medical procedure such as this is a private matter and not one a young woman would even discuss with their parents. They were brought up in the Catholic church when a fearful God was taught.

    Morality issues are not for me to decide.Personally, I think to stand on the side of the road with graffic signs on a busy road such as Sudley Rd on Saturday mornings and cause accidents with rubberneckers. I saw an accident right in front of the right to lifers prancing and praying the Rosary. Not a single person could take themselves away from their “cause” long enough to check on their fellow living man. What a shame….and these are supposed to be good Christians. Right!!

  15. Lafayette
    July 11th, 2010 at 14:36 | #15

    Forgot the last part to this thought
    Personally, I think to stand on the side of the road with graffic signs on a busy road such as Sudley Rd on Saturday mornings and cause accidents with rubberneckers is nuts. But it doesn’t stop the zealots.

  16. July 11th, 2010 at 14:43 | #16

    Sharron Angle thread is third down. I just moved it up. That is where this discussion needs to go.

    Meanwhile, I still want to know about Legatus. My own personal alter boy doesn’t know much about them. He probably doesn’t make enough money to be let into the club.

  17. July 11th, 2010 at 17:12 | #17

    Legatus is not a Catholic organization. It is an organization of Catholics. Its not a Church originated organization. And its comprised of Catholic business people. Other than that, I don’t know anything. If Fimian used money improperly, get him. If not, if it was related to his office….fine.

  18. July 11th, 2010 at 18:11 | #18

    It is hard to tell the difference sometimes. Do they let in anyone other than Catholics? I suppose it would matter to me what their influence is and what their objectives as an organization are.

    A \group praying for peace or praying for victory seems harmless enough. A group who organizes to influence change in government policy needs careful watching.

  19. Elena
    July 11th, 2010 at 18:13 | #19

    Cargo,
    Talk to any women that had back alley abortions or had to suffer through humiliating abortion rights panel ALL headed by men?

  20. Posting as Pinko
    July 11th, 2010 at 19:05 | #20

    Why have a Catholic business organization? How does Catholicism fit in? Does the church recognize this organization and approve of its agenda? I’m curious.

  21. Elena
    July 11th, 2010 at 19:10 | #21

    Cargo,
    what are you feelings about the “pry my gun from my cold dead hands” mantra?

  22. July 11th, 2010 at 19:44 | #22

    Yes, I believe the organization was sanctioned by John Paul II. (as per the very boring video which I don’t blame you for not watching.)

  23. Posting as Pinko
    July 11th, 2010 at 21:18 | #23

    @Moon-howler
    Hee hee. Caught red handed (so to speak).

  24. Morris Davis
    July 11th, 2010 at 23:26 | #24

    I took a look at the Legatus website. It says they formed the group after “An encounter between the world’s most influential spiritual leader and a successful entrepreneur ignited the spark that was to be the beginning of Legatus.” The entrepreneur proved to be the Domino’s pizza guy. And who holds the Most Influential Spiritual Leader belt?; I never knew, so kudos to Legatus for setting me straight. All this time I was think Jesus or the Prophet Mohammed were the contenders, maybe Pat Robertson or Bennny Hinn if it went to a second or third ballot, but no, it turns out the “World’s Most Influential Spiritual Leader Title” goes to the darkhorse contender, Pope John Paul II. I like PJPII, and said “count me in!” When I clicked on the “Join Us” link like it said I was thinking that I just minutes away from membership in this most august group, but then it said “Note, only Catholic laypersons are eligible.” Apparently me and my kind are not welcome. I said … that’s b@lls&%t because they are discriminating against me because of my religion. In February they rounded up a group of Legatuses to honor the tremendous achievements of former President George M. Bush who is a Methodist but apparently more Catholic in nature than men (a mere Southern Baptist) and to hear from former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich who is Catholic. Catholics may only account for about 1 in 5 of all PWC residents, but they fill 6 of 8 seats on the board. They also fill 6 of 9 seats on the US Supreme Court, the seat in the Virginia Governor’s Mansion and the Attorney General’s office. Fimian should fit right in with all those Catholics running our goverment and voting on important issue based upon the views of their non-Legatasian consistuents. I suppose us non-Catholics need not apply as we don’t clear the benchmark to be public servants. Plain on protestants aren’t fit for governing … thank God for the Legatuses that dwell among us.

  25. July 12th, 2010 at 02:20 | #25

    Moe, they must take converts because Newt is a convert. So is Randall Terry. Is Newt a Legatus?

    Thanks for the info. I don’t think they are going to let a Baptist boy into the club.

  26. Morris Davis
    July 12th, 2010 at 07:32 | #26

    I have friends and professional colleagues that are Catholic and I’ve joked with them about why they seem to be so much more virtuous and civic minded than me. They’ve noted that if I’m the benchmark for virtue then they have an unfair advantage as virtue is not my strongsuit. I really can’t argue that point.

    Seriously, it does concern me when a select and influential group like Legatus that is based on a core moral ideology and that is closed to others exercises an inordinate amount of policy making and policy shaping power that effects all of society. As history has shown, the Church will discipline its members in public office who stray from strict adherence to the Church’s tenets. As a constituent, I have a right to know if my elected representatives believe they have a higher duty to the tenets of their faith or the consensus of their constituents when the two are in conflict.

    Another way to look at what statistically seems to be an inordinate concentration of power in the hands of a minority is this: the percentage of the population that is Catholic is about equal to the percentage of the population that is not white (in the 21-24% range). Would the majority of the population (whites) go hmmh if they looked around and saw that 75% of the county supervisors were not white, 2/3 of the Supreme Court were not white (in fact no whites on the Court at all), the Governor and Attorney General were not white, and both candidates who want to represent them in Congress were not white? If you substituted race for religion that’s the picture you’d get.

    I’m old enough to remember (just barely) when people questioned whether JFK being Catholic made him unelectable. It seems now, a half-century later (I guess I am getting old), when it comes to significant elected offices in our area the question is the exact opposite; is someone who is not Catholic electable? I absolutely do not believe in any litmus test based on race, religion, gender, political party, etc. to hold office, but I do believe as a citizen there is a right to wonder why when power concentrates disproportionately. We seem to be losing the plural part of pluralism.

    • July 12th, 2010 at 08:08 | #27

      Moe, sounds like some reasonable questions are being asked and you are right. Many people would rise up and start asking questions if conditions were as you described them. Religion is a little more subtle than race but it is still significant.

  27. July 12th, 2010 at 07:55 | #28

    @Elena

    Um,….what does that have to do with Legatus, or abortion? My idea behind that is that if one wants to confiscate my guns, one would have to find all of them……Second, if its time to bury them, it’s probably time to dig them up and use them. So, let the “cold dead hands” be the ones trying to violate my civil rights.

    • July 12th, 2010 at 08:00 | #29

      I think her point was that your cling tightly to your beliefs about your 2nd amendment rights and she and I cling to reproductive rights perhaps just as tightly, if not more so, than you do yours.

  28. Posting as Pinko
    July 12th, 2010 at 08:17 | #30

    @Morris Davis
    Don’t even get me started on our all-white BOCS with only one women (and a cranky one, at that).

    Conversely, I wouldn’t want to see an all-black, all-Hispanic, all-Asian, all-ANYTHING.

    Our country is a salad. And I want the full bar.

  29. July 12th, 2010 at 08:54 | #31

    In all of the responses, did any of you see anywhere if I said that abortion must be outlawed? Or did I state that those seeking abortions should be urged to reconsider or convinced to change their minds? I, myself, am ambivalent, on the subject of banning it. I can see both sides of the argument. One of my objections to the way abortion is presented is that its talks about choice and not about the ending of life. Its very “clinical.” If one is going to make a hard decision about having an abortion, then look at it squarely, present it openly, and let women make a choice. When people (not here) state that partial birth abortion is “ok”, I think that society has lost a valuable piece of its collective soul.

    Moon, I know that the thread is at the Angle thread, but…..

    I ask you…..Should there be time limits on abortion? 3 weeks? 6 weeks? 39 weeks? When does aborting a fetus become killing a baby?

    However, because this subject doesn’t belong here, and the ‘discussion’ can go on forever, there is no need to reply, consider my questions rhetorical.

  30. Elena
    July 12th, 2010 at 09:03 | #32

    Moe,
    You have such a wonderful way of stating the logical!

  31. Elena
    July 12th, 2010 at 09:04 | #33

    Cargo,

    There is a limit on abortion and I am fine with that, it is already law.

  32. Elena
    July 12th, 2010 at 09:04 | #34

    Moon-howler :I think her point was that your cling tightly to your beliefs about your 2nd amendment rights and she and I cling to reproductive rights perhaps just as tightly, if not more so, than you do yours.

    Thanks Moon, EXACTLY my point.

  33. July 12th, 2010 at 11:36 | #35

    How about a random drawing from the phone book for choosing county supervisors? From what I’ve seen, couldn’t hurt.

  34. kelly3406
    July 12th, 2010 at 11:40 | #36

    @Elena

    Where exactly are those reproductive rights defined in the constitution? I cannot seem to find “reproductive rights” or “DOMINION over freakin’ bodies” mentioned anywhere in those pesky amendments or clauses. Is there a stealth 28th amendment that nobody knows about?

  35. PWC Taxpayer
    July 12th, 2010 at 15:29 | #37

    @Elena

    Now that is an interesting argument – arguing that abortion and the definion of the line between a woman’s right and murder is settled law – law that was, in fact, won through the Courts and not through a societal consensus. And it seems to me that the definition of murder might also change now, as the Court is fully authorized to re-derfine it – under that precedent – as technology and viability moves forward. Clearly the right to abortion has never been absolute – nor should it ever be. We once hung horse thieves too.

  36. July 12th, 2010 at 16:09 | #38

    Repeating…this thread is not about abortion. It is about Legatus. Take it to the Sharron Angle thread.

Comments are closed.