Brutally Honest

"She's never seen a Republican before!"

I needed a pick-me-up after last night's news... My Uncle Les came through by sending me this Ronald Reagan classic:

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Ductal carcinoma (UPDATED)

Not the words you want to hear.

Especially not the words you want to hear when the person talking is directing those words at someone who's been the love of your life for more than 30 years.

Today, she and I heard those words and many more, most of them foreign, many of them frightening.

There are lots of things going through my mind tonight and most of them I'll not share, not just yet.  What I will do is ask for two specific prayers from those of you who pray regularly (and hell, even from those who don't).

I ask that you pray for my bride's well being most obviously, physical particularly but also spiritual.  And I ask that you pray I'll be the husband that she needs in the coming days, weeks and months.

We're told that we've caught this early.  We're told that beating it is more than just possible, that it's even likely.  We're also told that there's more to know and that the hope is we'll know more about what we don't know in the next few days, all of which will aid in determining how best to fight it.

And fight it we will, with every fibre of our being.

Thank you for your prayers.

UPDATE: From my youngest son's Facebook page to his mom's heart... and my own:

All i kept thinking was "please say negative, please say negative" as we waited for the doctor to return. We passed the time with nervous laughter, huddled in a small room, together, as a family. Never had 10 minutes felt so long, as each second ticked by with what felt like an eternity. Finally the doctor entered the room, hesitantly, as he noticed the army of supporters waiting to hear the results.

"Let's get right to it," he said, looking Mom in the eye,"The biopsy came back positive for Ductal Carcinoma." Shock, anger, disbelief: all of these words describe the terrible feeling that started in my head and slowly seeped through the rest of my body. I glanced over at my brother. All color had left his face, and it held the same look of disbelief. I couldn't even look at Dad. I didn't have to. I already knew what he was feeling, and i couldn't bear to see the most influential man in my life at his weakest moment.

Mom was stoic through it all, not flinching one time. She maintained the strength that I couldn't. The most important woman in my life was just told she had cancer, and she didn't look scared, not even for a second. You know why? Because she's strong. She's courageous. She's a fighter, and she knows she can beat this. She knows WE can beat this. We WILL beat it, and when all is said and done, it will just strengthen the already unbreakable bond that i call my family.

I love you Mom, we're all right here by your side.

Clint Eastwood 'Half-time in America' ad invites criticism

And so Mark Wiberg obliges:

Would Dirty Harry ask for a handout? Hell no, he wouldn’t. He could build a car made out of his melted Smith and Wesson handgun, all while eating a sandwich and zinging bad guys with one-liners.

So, bringing in the city of Detroit as some city on the ‘comeback’ after being knocked down, and blah blah blah, was a bit disingenuous as it fails to mention they knocked themselves out.  Detroit and the American car industry would not have made it to ‘half-time’ if it wasn’t for the Bail-Out ™.  They were carried by the taxpayer to half-time, beaten and bruised by building inferior products, bloated management and union mismanagement and over-the-rainbow promises to it’s retiring workforce. People will debate for years whether the bail-outs work, and I’m no expert. The point of this post is that having cool music and the coolest American film icon in a commercial about American ‘can do’ is a bad idea when you bring a failure of a company like GM/Chrysler/Chevrolet.

He's got more and it's worth your time.

H/T to Lex Communis who adds:

Jeepers..."half-time"...as in four years out of eight?

Do you think that's what the not-so-hidden subtext was?

Gleischaltung worked for the Nazis; it's bound to work for Team Obama!

Shouldn't the GOP get equal time?

Crossposted at Wizbang.

A reminder as we ponder the Giants win over the Pats in the Super Bowl

The Redskins beat the Giants twice during the regular season.

Carry on.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

"Rescind this unjust decision"

Obama has united the Orthodox Christian Bishops with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America, which is comprised of the 65 canonical Orthodox bishops in the United States, Canada and Mexico, join their voices with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and all those who adamantly protest the recent decision by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and call upon all the Orthodox Christian faithful to contact their elected representatives today to voice their concern in the face of this threat to the sanctity of the Church’s conscience.

In this ruling by HHS, religious hospitals, educational institutions, and other organizations will be required to pay for the full cost of contraceptives (including some abortion-inducing drugs) and sterilizations for their employees, regardless of the religious convictions of the employers.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. This freedom is transgressed when a religious institution is required to pay for “contraceptive services” including abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization services that directly violate their religious convictions. Providing such services should not be regarded as mandated medical care.  We, the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops, call upon HHS Secretary Sebelius and the Obama Administration to rescind this unjust ruling and to respect the religious freedom guaranteed all Americans by the First Amendment.

I believe it's a rare thing for the Orthodox Bishops to speak out against anything involving politics.  It should speak volumes to what Obama has wrought.

And they join other faith groups who've voiced their opposition weeks ago:

... more than 40 non-Catholic religious organizations including Protestant-affiliated colleges, National Association of Evangelicals, Focus on the Family, Assemblies of God, Northwest Nazarene University, and Eastern Mennonite University, sent a letter to the White House demanding religious protection against the newly issued HHS contraceptive mandate.

“We write not in opposition to Catholic leaders and organizations. We write in solidarity.” Says the coalition letter. “Leaders of other faiths are also deeply troubled by and opposed to the mandate and the narrow exemption.”

...

“We are all deeply concerned about the narrow exemption, including proposals made to expand it while still leaving unprotected many faith-based organizations.” The letter continues, “We believe that the Federal government is obligated by the First Amendment to accommodate the religious convictions of faith-based organizations of all kinds, Catholic and non-Catholic.”

Obama, a uniter, not a divider.

H/T to Phineas at Sister Todjah.

And if you're feeling inclined to do something about it, sign Frank Weather's petition.

Army Office of the Chief of Chaplains warns Catholic priests

Michael Brendan Dougherty:

The emerging conflict between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration may have a new front: in the U.S. military itself.

The Catholic Church is fighting mad about an HHS ruling that would have them buy insurance for things they consider sinful–contraception, sterilization and abortion. 

All the bishops in the country sent out a letter to be read in their parishes promising that the Church "cannot-and will not-comply with this unjust law."

Even Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who is in charge of Catholic military chaplains sent out the same letter.  

But after he did, the Army's Office of the Chief of Chaplains sent out another communication forbidding Catholic priests to read the letter, in part because it seemed to encourage civil disobedience, and could be read as seditious against the Commander-in-Chief. 

More than one Catholic chaplain who spoke to us off the record confirmed that many chaplains disobeyed this instruction and read the letter anyway. Others sought further instructions from their Archbishop. 

Now after much behind-the-scenes bureaucratic wrangling, a new version of the letter will be read, one that was edited of the language about "unjust laws." 

A new statement issued this afternoon from Archbishop Broglio's office acknowledged the interference this way:

Archbishop Broglio and the Archdiocese stand firm in the belief, based on legal precedent, that such a directive from the Army constituted a violation of his Constitutionally-protected right of free speech and the free exercise of religion, as well as those same rights of all military chaplains and their congregants. 

Following a discussion between Archbishop Broglio and the Secretary of the Army, The Honorable John McHugh, it was agreed that it was a mistake to stop the reading of the Archbishop's letter.  Additionally, the line: "We cannot-we will not-comply with this unjust law" was removed by Archbishop Broglio at the suggestion of Secretary McHugh over the concern that it could potentially be misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience.

It's an issue that Catholic chaplains are taking very seriously in private. We obtained a confidential letter sent to the chaplains that  prepares priests to contact the Military Archdiocesan lawyer in case of more interference or any punishment. 

The Archdiocese believes that any attempt to keep a chaplain from freely teaching and preaching the Catholic faith, for which you were endorsed, is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.  If any of you are in any way punished or slated for punitive action, I ask that you kindly call our Archdiocesan Attorney, John L. Schlageter, Esq. at 202-719-3635 and he will immediately place you into contact with a Religious Freedom Law Firm that will be most willing to take your case free of charge.

The letter also tries to clarify to priests that the Archbishop's letter "concerns a moral, not a political issue." 

It's going to be so very interesting to see where this ends up, how far this administration will go, to suppress the conscience of faithful Catholics.

Every indication is that they will go far:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) vowed today that she will join with the Obama administration in standing up against the Catholic Church in defending a new regulation that will require Catholic individuals to buy, and Catholic institutions to provide, health insurance plans that cover sterilizations and artificial contraceptives, including those that induce abortions.

...

At her Wednesday press briefing, CNSNews.com asked Pelosi: “The administration has issued a regulation that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilization and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that induce abortions. This would force Catholic individuals and institutions to act against their consciences. All across the nation, Catholic bishops are saying:--

Pelosi responded: "Is this a speech, or do we have a question in disguise as a speech?"

CNSNews.com continued: “‘We cannot--we will not—comply with this law.’ Catholic bishops are saying they will not comply with this law. Will you stand with your fellow Catholics in resisting this law or will you stick by the administration?”

Pelosi: “First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it.”

A showdown looms.

Who will blink?

Return to Makin Island - This is simply powerful

By Locutisprime

Semper Fidelis

Duty, Honor, Country, Corps, Tradition, Valor, Trust...

United States Marine Corps.

Always faithful...

"The New Anti-Catholicism... seeks to employ the coercive power of the state to force the Church’s institutions to violate the Church’s own moral theology"

Francis J. Beckwith is sounding the alarm... who's listening?

Although the days of the old anti-Catholicism are long gone, there is a new Anti-Catholicism, as it has been aptly named by my Baylor colleague, the esteemed historian Philip Jenkins. It finds expression in its hostility and deep loathing of many of the moral positions embraced by the Catholic Church. On abortion, euthanasia, homosexual conduct, same-sex “marriage,” women’s ordination, and contraception, the new Anti-Catholicism stands contra ecclesia. 

But the new anti-Catholicism does not adopt the posture of a humble and teachable critic seeking to engage the Church on matters over which reasonable citizens from differing theological and secular moral traditions disagree. Rather, it seeks to employ the coercive power of the state to force the Church’s institutions to violate the Church’s own moral theology, and thus compromise, and make less accessible, the Church’s mission of charity and hope.

You should read the rest, inwardly digest it and pass it on.

Passionately and with vigor.

What are you waiting on?

H/T to Mark Shea.

Komen CEO defends decision to defund Planned Parenthood (UPDATED)

The pro-aborts are up in arms and are slinging many arrows in the direction of the breast cancer awareness charity.  The following is from SGK Founder and CEO Nancy G. Brinker defending the decision:

Hats of to her and her organization as they find out how committed the baby-killers truly are.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

UPDATE: Komen reverses, and caves to the death culture:

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast-cancer charity said it is reversing its decision to cut breast-screening grants to Planned Parenthood.

"We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives," a Komen statement said.

As reported by the Associated Press on Tuesday, Komen had adopted criteria excluding Planned Parenthood from grants because it was under government investigation, notably a probe launched in Congress at the urging of anti-abortion groups.

Komen said Friday it would change the criteria so it wouldn't apply to such investigations.

"We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants," the statement said.

Sad and frankly, infuriating.  Proof that principle means nothing today to far too many and that would now include the Susan G. Komen foundation.

And it proves how entrenched the death culture really is.

Shameful day.  A most shameful day.

"President Obama has bubble-wrapped himself in the White House"

Don Surber makes note of Obama's lack of prime-time pressers:

The only president to ever need a teleprompter to handle a press conference so his staff could feed him the answers held his last prime-time press conference in July 2009, which ended in disaster when he said the police in Cambridge, Massachusetts, "acted stupidly" in arresting his friend Henry Louis Gates.

The New York Times broke the unwritten code among journalists that you never, ever complain about mistreatment from Barack Obama.

In a blog post, Brian Stetler wrote:

Mr. Obama has been interviewed a total of 408 times in his first three years as president, according to Martha Kumar, a professor at Towson University who works alongside reporters at the White House. President George W. Bush had given 136 interviews at the same period in his presidency, and President Bill Clinton had given 166.

However, Mr. Obama has comparatively avoided Q.&A.s with scrums of reporters, according to Ms. Kumar, answering questions at 94 photo opportunities and other such sessions in his first three years. Mr. Bush had spoken at 307 such sessions after three years in office, and Mr. Clinton, 493.

Those 408 interviews include appearances on Jay Leno, You Tube and Twitter questions from sycophants, and the like.

President Obama has bubble-wrapped himself in the White House. His press staff reflects his attitude of disdain toward the press, as Brian Stetler noted:

Daniel Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, responded in an e-mail, "The idea that interacting with the public through social media is somehow going around the White House press corps is a prehistoric notion."

"The media has become so diffuse that communicating ones' message requires a lot more work than it used to," he wrote. "You have to be willing to go where the viewers are, because they now have so much choice in where they get their information."

Bizarre. The imperial presidency rises. No one in that "prehistoric notion" called the White House Press corps is willing to call Obama out on this. Not even Jake Tapper.

Once again, imagine the gnashing of teeth, the clamoring, the noise that would be generated if a President with an "R" beside his name had not had a prime time press conference in 20 months.

The imperial presidency indeed.

The current war: AC vs. DC

By Locutisprime

The last great battle of AC vs. DC occurred between Nicolas Tesla and Thomas Edison. Known as the war of currents, Americans and the world had to choose between direct current and alternating current when it came to electricity. Thomas Edison, the inventor of the light bulb among other things, seemed to have the name recognition, and he seemed to have the inside track, but the alternative system proposed by Tesla ultimately prevailed. It was simply a better and safer system.

Fast forward a hundred and thirty years and we have another battle being waged between AC and DC. Only this time, the AC is the American Consumer and the DC is Washington. And once again, the issue seems to rest upon electricity. Only this time, it rests upon GM's new Volt. The car of the future if you are to believe all the hype coming out of the Obama administration. The Obama administration has been pushing this car since the day they took over GM, the problem is, the car is too expensive and it doesn't deliver on the promises made. Aside from those obvious shortcomings, much like Edison's DC current, the Volt is dangerous. It's prone to catching fire.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is doing everything in their power to hustle the $60,000 plus innovation from GM that only a few can afford, but a curious thing has happened on the way to America's latest government sponsored dream. Americans aren't buying it:

Volt sales fall in January

General Motors extended-range electric Chevrolet Volt had its worst sales month since August, as negative publicity over fire risks hurt vehicles sales in January.

GM sold just 603 Volts - above its sales in January 2011, but far below GM's best-ever sales month in December, when GM sold 1,529 Volts.

Last week, GM North America President Mark Reuss said sales of the Volt have been hurt by bad publicity.

Reuss said bad publicity from the government's investigation into fire risks of post-crash Volts is "definitely a component" of the decline in sales.

GM sold about 7,700 in 2011, below GM's target of 10,000. GM abandoned its sales target of 45,000 for 2012 last month, saying it would match "supply to demand."

GM was outsold by Nissan Motor Co.'s all-electric Leaf in 2011, as the Japanese automaker sold nearly 9,700 last year. Nissan said it sold 676 Leafs in January, down from 954 in December.

Nissan hopes to double Leaf sales this year.

Reuss said that when GM restarts production in February at its Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly plant, it will build Volts in a "very reasonable" volume. He said there is some pent-up export demand.

Reuss says Volt awareness has gone up over the last two months in the wake of publicity over the government's investigation.

GM is focused on rehabilitating the Volt's reputation. "It's a tough road, but we've got to do it," Reuss said.

"Iran is prepared to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States"

From the WaPo:

An assessment by U.S. spy agencies concludes that Iran is prepared to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States, highlighting new risks as the Obama administration escalates pressure on Tehran to halt its alleged pursuit of an atomic bomb.

In congressional testimony Tuesday, U.S. intelligence officials indicated that Iran has crossed a threshold in its adversarial relationship with the United States. While Iran has long been linked to attacks on American targets overseas, U.S. officials said they see troubling significance in Tehran's alleged role in a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington last year.

U.S. officials said they have seen no intelligence to indicate that Iran is actively plotting attacks on U.S. soil. But Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. said the thwarted plot  shows that some Iranian officials probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.

The warning about Iran's more aggressive stance was included in written testimony that Clapper submitted to Congress on Tuesday as part of the intelligence community's annual assessment of the nation's most serious security threats.

A clash of cultures is coming, sooner or later.  The argument really boils down to whether we deal with it now to minimize casualties or deal with it down the road when casualties may be catastrophic.

I do not envy those charged with making the decision.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

It was a joke... a very sad joke.

by BroKen

Let me tell you about a cartoon I saw in a magazine about thirty years ago. The magazine was The National Lampoon which, while often quite funny, was never very wholesome. So, I have to warn you that the cartoon was about sex. If it were a movie it would probably be rated R. Even so, it wasn't the images that I remember as much as the ideas presented by them.

The whole cartoon was titled, “The First Time”. It had three panels labeled, “How it is fantasized.” then, “How it is remembered.” and the last one, “How it actually happened.”

“How it is fantasized” showed a beautiful woman coming to a young man and she says, “I've been watching you and I've decided that you are the one I am going to give myself to.” The young man responds, “Don't worry, Baby. Once you've been with me, you won't want anyone else.” I was a virgin when I saw this cartoon, but even then I realized that this isn't a fantasy. That cartoon image simply expressed how sex is supposed to be. Now, after twenty years of marriage, I can tell you from experience that this image is not a fantasy. It can be a reality that is very, very good.

“How it is remembered” had the young couple sitting on a park bench, presumably after the first experience with sex. They make comments like. “Well, we have finally arrived.” “Yes, we are no longer children.” I see this panel as the real joke, although it is a cruel one, as if sexual activity can magically make you mature. Maturity is important to sex because without emotional maturity; the willingness to sacrifice your own desires for the good of another, and financial maturity; the ability to care for others beside yourself, sexual activity is devastating. It is children that suffer the most devastation. So, maturity should come before sexual activity, not the other way around.

“How it actually happened” showed the couple in the back seat of a car. She is crying out, “No, no. Stop! Look what you did! I promised my mother and myself that I would wait. Look what you did!” The boy has his face in his hands as he mumbles, “You don't feel pregnant, do you?” Oh, the guilt and fear that arise when sex is managed in this all too common way.

I know sexual revolution was supposed to eliminate the guilt and fear. How has that been working out for us? Sexually transmitted diseases are so common that they advertize cures on primetime TV and seek to mandate that children be vaccinated against them.

Still, the greatest casualty of the sexual revolution is expressed in that first panel. The ideal of a man and woman coming together with life-long commitment has been cynically relegated to an unrealistic pipe-dream.

We sow to the wind, and reap a whirlwind.

Komen sez goodbye to Planned Parenthood

Big tip of the hat to the breast cancer awareness charity:

In what looks to be a break between two organizations dedicated to women's health, a national breast cancerawareness group said it would stop providing funds to Planned Parenthood centers for breast cancer examinations and other breast health services.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a leader in fundraising for breast cancer research and famous worldwide for its iconic pink ribbon, said Tuesday that it was halting all partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates because of recently adopted criteria that forbid it from funding any organization under government investigation.

In September, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) launched an inquiry to determine whether Planned Parenthood uses public money to fund abortions. Planned Parenthood receives federal money but cannot use it to provide abortions.

Komen has a long history of providing funding to various Planned Parenthood affiliates for such services as manual breast exams and referrals for mammograms and biopsies to check suspicious lumps for cancer. Although that money is not used for abortions, the Komen Foundation may have yielded to demands from antiabortion groups to sever its ties to Planned Parenthood.

"We had the sense this was coming and that they were under pressure," said Sue Dunlap, chief executive of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles. "I find this really disappointing. I think when women's health is more of a political conversation than a conversation about healthcare and taking care of people, then we've gone too far."

Actually, going too far is couching an organization purposed in killing the unborn as one that takes care of people.  Death is on the docket for every abortion planned.  50% of patients involved in an abortion are killed.  100% of those under the age of infancy.

Taking care of people my arse.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Michelle Malkin: "Character and honor matter. Santorum has it."

In a compelling and convincing piece, Michelle Malkin has decided that Rick Santorum is her guy:

Rick Santorum opposed TARP.

He didn't cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn't follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich and he didn't have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills.

Santorum opposed individual health care mandates clearly and forcefully as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual health care mandate waters.

He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. He hasn't written any Contracts with the Earth. 

Santorum is strong on border security, national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement.

Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has beensavaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values not just in word, but in deed.

He won Iowa through hard work and competent campaign management. Santorum has improved in every GOP debate and gave his strongest performance last week in Florida, wherein he both dismantled Romneycare and popped the Newt bubble by directly challenging the front-runners character and candor without resorting to their petty tactics.

He rose above the fray by sticking to issues.

Most commendably, he refused to join Gingrich and Perry in indulging in the contemptible Occupier rhetoric against Romney. Character and honor matter. Santorum has it.

As time has passed, my inclinations toward Gingrich have waned.  I'm more and more troubled by Newt and his baggage laden-ness doesn't help.  Michelle's piece makes a strong argument for Santorum and the character and honor of the man is indeed convincing.

His road ahead is daunting to say the least but if Gingrich continues to struggle, if he continues to lose traction, then Santorum will strongly play the role of the anti-Romney quite well and in that role, he'd certainly have my support.

According to George Soros, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are the same

By Locutisprime 

If this doesn't tell you what the deal is with Mitt Romney, I don't know what does. When the biggest anti-American anti-capitalist on the planet tells you that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, the American people had better listen.

Religious Liberty petition

Frank Weathers is looking for some help and I think you (yes you) are just the help he's looking for:

I drafted a petition to the White House regarding the HHS Mandate. Really. There's a first time for everything, you know. If you would be so kind as to sign it, and share it with other like minded folks, that would be great. If you don’t think this applies to you, have a look at why it does here.

Here's what the White House suggests I send folks regarding the petition:

Dear friends,

I wanted to let you know about a new petition I created on We the People, a new feature on WhiteHouse.gov, and ask for your support. Will you add your name to mine? If this petition gets 25,000 signatures by February 27, 2012, the White House will review it and respond.

Until 150 people sign it, however, it won't be visible to folks on the site as a choice to sign. So if you can share it, and link to it through your blogs, social media, etc., to help get the word out, I would be much obliged.

We the People allows anyone (heh!) to create and sign petitions asking the Obama Administration to take action on a range of issues. If a petition gets enough support, the Obama Administration will issue an official response.

You can view and sign the petition here:

http://wh.gov/kl3

Here's the wording of this petition:

We believe the Obama Administration should:

Rescind the HHS Dept. Mandate Requiring Catholic Employers to
Provide Contraceptives/Abortifacients to Their Employees

The present Administration, through the Health and Human Services
Department, is mandating that all employer healthcare insurance plans provide coverage for procedures which violate the beliefs of the Catholic Church, and Catholic institutions.

Basically, the new rules require the Catholic Church, and the institutions"operating faithfully under the aegis of the Church, to provide coverage for contraceptive drugs" and procedures. This requirement violates the beliefs of the Church.

Never before has the United States Government deigned to represent "transcendental truth" on matters of conscience for any religion
within these United States. That in itself is unprecedented, which is also
why it is unconstitutional.

Sign to Let the present Administration know that this mandate cannot stand.

Be advised, it takes some time for the petition to load up when you click on the link, maybe even as long as one minute. Have patience, grasshoppers. Also, if you're concerned about putting your location in, don't be. Just leave that blank empty. And forget about the other scary thoughts that keep you awake at night too.

Now, the faith part. All by myself, see, I don't know 25,000 people. None of us do. But I have faith that by sharing this opportunity with all of you, you will do the same, and we'll blow the doors off that little ol' number long before February 27th. After all, St. Augustine said, "Pray as though everything depended on God and act as if everything depended on you."

Frank's got a video tutorial because apparently the Obama administration doesn't make this easy.  Imagine that.

Sign it.  Pass it on.

It's your duty.

DHS detains/deports British Twitter jokesters

You could probably say that the Homeland Security folks aren't exactly a humor filled bunch:

Two British tourists were barred from entering America after joking on Twitter that they were going to 'destroy America' and 'dig up Marilyn Monroe'.

Leigh Van Bryan, 26, was handcuffed and kept under armed guard in a cell with Mexican drug dealers for 12 hours after landing in Los Angeles with pal Emily Bunting.

The Department of Homeland Security flagged him as a potential threat when he posted an excited tweet to his pals about his forthcoming trip to Hollywood which read: 'Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America'.

After making their way through passport control at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) last Monday afternoon the pair were detained by armed guards.

Despite telling officials the term 'destroy' was British slang for 'party', they were held on suspicion of planning to 'commit crimes' and had their passports confiscated.

Leigh was also quizzed about another tweet which quoted hit US comedy Family Guy which read: '3 weeks today, we're totally in LA p****** people off on Hollywood Blvd and diggin' Marilyn Monroe up!

Federal agents even searched his suitcase looking for spades and shovels, claiming Emily was planning to act as Leigh's 'look out' while he raided Marilyn's tomb.

Bar manager Leigh, from Coventry, and Emily, 24, from Birmingham, were then quizzed for five hours at LAX before they were handcuffed and put into a van with illegal immigrants and locked up overnight.

They spent 12 hours in separate holding cells before being driven back to the airport where they were put on a plane home via Paris.

Welcome to Obama's America... where people who are real threats to the country are likely given a pass because of political correctness and bureaucratic ineptness and people like Leigh and Emily are detained and deported for telling humor-deficient jokes.

Hope and change anyone?

Crossposted at Wizbang.

"The president isn't leading. The president isn't being truthful..."

Paul Ryan is being brutally honest about Obama:

President Obama's claims of wanting to give people a fair shot, make everyone do their fair share and have everyone play by the same set of rules may be the making of a great slogan, but his policies will lead to "debt, doubt and decline," a top Republican said Sunday.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said that Obama uses the rhetoric of the right to make a case about fairness and equality, but produces policies that lead to "crony capitalism" and result in giving the government more power. 

"The outcome of these policies is to consolidate power in Washington where you have crony capitalism, which his rhetoric tries to decry," Ryan told "Fox News Sunday." "The president isn't leading. The president isn't being truthful with the American people about what kind of fiscal train wreck is coming."

...

Ryan said Obama has no plan to tackle the nation's weighty debt and isn't even planning to include his own tax reform proposals in the budget he will submit to Congress next month.

"What we have learned with the president time and again is he is going to put some kind of poll-tested line in the State of the Union address and have no follow-up whatsoever," Ryan said. "We have learned already that the president who's had three years to try and propose real solutions to fix our fiscal crisis is ducking it. He hasn't put a plan on the table yet. He formed commissions and super committees, so he sort of outsourced the leadership only to decry their results."

Will this administration's lack of leadership and dishonesty end in November.

It's hope and change we'll need to make come true.

Bishop in Ireland accused of "incitement to hatred"

How far are those opposed to religious liberty willing to go?

In Ireland, pretty damned far apparently:

A HOMILY delivered at Knock shrine by the Bishop of Raphoe, Philip Boyce, is being investigated by the Director of Public Prosecutions following a formal complaint by a leading humanist who claims the sermon was an incitement to hatred.

The gardai have confirmed to former Fine Gael election candidate John Colgan that they have prepared and forwarded a file to the DPP after he made allegations that the address by Dr Boyce was in breach of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989.

The homily, entitled: "To Trust in God" was delivered to worshippers during a novena at the Marian shrine in Co Mayo last August and subsequently reported in the media, including The Irish Times, under the headline: "'Godless culture' attacking church, says bishop."

Mr Colgan, a retired chartered engineer and economist from Leixlip, Co Kildare, referred in his formal complaint to two key passages in Dr Boyce's homily which he believes broke the law.

One of the passages referred to the Catholic Church in Ireland being "attacked from outside by the arrows of a secular and godless culture".

A second passage, which was included in the complaint, stated: "For the distinguishing mark of Christian believers is the fact they have a future; it is not that they know all the details that await them, but they know in general terms that their life will not end in emptiness."

Mr Colgan, who was a leader in the 'Campaign to Separate Church and State' in the late 1990s, said in his complaint: "I believe statements of this kind are an incitement to hatred of dissidents, outsiders, secularists, within the meaning of the [Incitement to Hatred] Act, who are perfectly good citizens within the meaning of the civil law. The statements exemplify the chronic antipathy towards secularists, humanists etc, which has manifested itself in the ostracising of otherwise perfectly good Irish citizens, who do not share the aims of the Vatican's Irish Mission Church."

...

In his complaint, Mr Colgan said he attributed this prejudice to "hostile propaganda disseminated in school and chapel in the main by or for the institutional churches, for there is no rational or temporal reason". In a statement to the Sunday Independent, Martin Long of the Catholic Communications office said: "Bishop Boyce's homily 'To Trust in God' is available for anyone to read at catholicbishops.ie.

"I advise any person to read it and judge it for themselves. It is clearly a reasonable, balanced, honest -- and indeed self-critical from a church perspective -- analysis of the value of the Catholic faith. Bishop Boyce is a good and holy man and much loved by those who know him."

The entire sermon can be read here and ought to be.  First, because it's a great sermon.  But more importanly, because it'll become quite obvious that it is most absent of anything a rational person would call hatred.

To see an incitement to hatred in anything written in that sermon is to have given oneself over to delusion. John Colgan is someone who is in dire need of prayer.

Then again, I guess that act in and of itself would also be seen by him to be an incitement to hatred.

H/T to Deacon Greg.

Hey man, you knocking the Church?

Then you're knocking Christ.  It's that simple.

But don't take my word for it, take Archbishop Dolan's:

It’s one of my favorite works of art: The Conversion of Saul by Caravaggio. There it is, meekly on display in the corner of the Church of Santa Maria del Popolo in Rome. Saul, the raging persecutor of the followers of Jesus, literally “knocked off his high horse” by the radiance of Jesus, the “light of the world,” transformed into a passionate apostle of Christ and His new Church, whom we now venerate as St. Paul.

And what question does Jesus bellow out to the shocked Saul?

“Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

Parse that very carefully. Saul, of course, has been harassing the Church, killing the followers of Jesus.

Yet, note well: Jesus does not inquire, “Why are you persecuting my Church” or “my people” or “my followers.”

No! The Lord asks, “Why are you persecuting me?”

Get it? The Lord is saying, “You hurt my Church, you hurt me. The Church and I are one.”

That epic lesson came up again yesterday, January 25, the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul. (By the way, today, January 26, is the feast of Paul’s loyal disciple, St. Timothy—just thought I’d mention it!)

Jesus Christ and His Church are one.

Now, that’s a revealed truth that needs repeating today.

What we’ve got now, if the scholarly research is accurate—and I’m afraid it is—is a growing tendency to split Christ from His Church. More and more seem to be claiming such things as:

“Oh, I’ve got faith. I just don’t need the Church.”

“Faith is great; religion stinks.”

“I believe. I just don’t want to belong.”

“I got Jesus. Why bother with the Church?”

“I pray how and when I want. What’s the big deal about the Mass and Church on Sunday?”

St. Paul would take exception. So would Jesus.

When God chose Israel he selected not a person but a people. Faith in God is communal by its very nature.

Like our Jewish neighbors, we Catholics have always believed that God chooses us and gives us the supernatural gift of faith. It’s not that we decide our faith. You bet, we freely decide how firmly and generously we will live out our faith, but we are “born into” a Church. Faith is a gift from God given us on the day of our baptism into His Church.

Just like we’re “born into” a natural family. We are a member of a human family. That family is often flawed and imperfect. In fact, there are times when we’re angry at it and might even drift away from family events. But, family membership is in our blood.

So it is with our spiritual family, the Church. Oh, we may get upset with her to be sure; we may even drift away from her. But, she never leaves us. The Church is in our supernatural DNA.

Jonathan D. Fitzgerald, writing last week in the Wall Street Journal about the viral video “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus,” concludes with this cogent thought:

“Stating that religions build churches at the expense of the poor…turns a blind eye to the single greatest charitable institution on the planet. Blaming religion for wars ignores the fact that the greatest mass murderers in the 20th century—indeed in all of history—killed for nonreligious reasons. And advocating for a kind of Christianity that is free of the ‘bondage’ of religion opens the door to dangerous theological anarchy that is all too common among young evangelicals and absolutely antithetical to biblical Christianity.”

Speaking of Jesus and His Church, the acclaimed French theologian Henri de Lubac exclaimed, “For what would I ever know of Him without Her.”

Never give up on your family.

Never give up on Jesus.

Never quit His Church.

For, as St. Paul learned the hard way, Jesus and His Church are one.

Let him with ears hear.

You got ears?

That was the sound of truth, something sounding more and more foreign these days.

Hope you got ears.

"What are the vegetarian and vegan store business owners to do?"

The Obama administration is now assaulting those whose conscience abhors all things beef:

Shock! Utter shock!!! The Obama Administration has mandated that all food stores in the United States selling refrigerated goods, MUST sell beef!

There is an exemption for vegetarians who only employ, and sell their goods to, vegetarians; and, for vegans who only employ, and sell their goods to, vegans. 

What are the vegetarian and vegan store business owners to do?

How long will it take for these businesses to go bankrupt if the owners refuse to violate their conscience by carrying beef in their stores? How many people from the area, meat eaters included, frequent and buy some of the excellent products sold at vegetarian/vegan owned shops? Are people forced to shop and work at these places, or is it a choice? 

If the food shop owner happens to be a Jain, then this mandate would not only be expecting him to violate his conscience, but also would be an assault on his religious liberty.

Get it? Get it? 

OK, so it's a satire - an example of what you might find in a place like, The Onion.   Well, that has some similarities to what the Obama Administration wants to do to Catholic institutions with the HHS mandate (see combox discussion on this point). But, it doesn't just force Catholics and other people of faith with similar convictions to violate their conscience, it's a violation of religious liberty.

What about the Catholic business owners and other people of faith who don't want to violate their conscience over the HHS mandate?   People are not forced to purchase products or services, or to work for any particular business. Why should those business owners be forced to offer something that is contrary to their religious beliefs? 

Just think of the people - those who are currently defending this mandate, or who are taking a back seat to the assault on liberty of Catholics.  Want to bet that they would fight with vigor if this was about vegetarian and vegan store owners being forced to sell beef! 

That was clever.  

Did you believe it initially?  It's understandable with this administration but hopefully, Diane M. Korzeniewsk's piece will get wide-spread attention after making what I think is an apt, though somewhat flawed, analogy (see Diane's combox).

The bottom line is that if the government can infringe upon Catholic conscience, as it is indeed doing with the HHS mandate, it can infringe upon whatever it chooses to infringe upon and that is a deathknell to liberty as we've known it.

We seriously need to wake up.

H/T to The Anchoress who adds:

I’d been wondering how to come up with a secular example that might help people understand the reality of a government’s assault on the conscience. Diane’s spoof did it brilliantly!

But I wonder if the Catholics can depend on the support of civil libertarians, civil rights activists, constitutional scholars and the, ahem, more honest members of the mainstream press to address this action the Obama administration is taking against the churches — and make no mistake, this is not only about the Catholics. As illustrated with the recently-decided Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School vs EEOC, this administration is attempting to not only chase the churches out of the public square, but to insert itself into their internal concerns and negate those teachings with which it disagrees.

You wouldn’t force a Jewish Deli to stock lobster in reserve for its gentile employees. A reasonable gentile or non-observant Jewish employee would understand who she works for and would not expect it. It would not impact her freedom to buy her own lobster.

You wouldn’t force a Muslim Madrassah to pay for an employee’s pulled-pork sandwich; a reasonable non-Muslim employee would not even think to ask it.

It’s not a difficult concept, really; you don’t have to be that smart to get it.

Read the rest of Diane’s piece and the combox discussion. She’s updated to include a growing list of bishop’s statements!

Read the rest indeed... and more importantly, pass it on.

Freedom is at stake.

Wake the hell up and see it.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

"Computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause"

Don Surber is airing some most inconvenient facts:

16 actual scientists have joined 1973 Nobel-winning physicist Ivar Giaever in calling global warming concerns overblown. In a letter published in the Wall Street Journal today, the scientists called for everyone to remain calm — and mocked the alarmism by UN bureaucrats over global warming and carbon dioxide.

They recommended that the world do nothing about global warming for the next 50 years.

“The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant,” the scientists wrote in their letter, which the Wall Street Journal headlined: “No Need to Panic About Global Warming. There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.”

The letter went on to explain that warming may actually benefit life on Earth: “CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.”

The scientists did not dismiss entirely the idea that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases may be increasing temperatures. The scientists simply said there is no proof that the globe is warming.

“The lack of warming for more than a decade — indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections — suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause,” the scientists wrote. “Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.”

The scientists made many of the same points skeptics such as Anthony Watts and cynics like me have made: Global warming alarmism is an industry that has enriched many, many people.

The 16 scientists made a grand suggestion: Do nothing.

There's more and it's worthy.

Doing nothing however is something I'll disagree with vehemently.  What needs to be done is being done but we need more rigor and vigor.  

What must be done is the continued unmasking of the fakery that is the global warming movement.  May many more scientists have the courage to stand as these 16 have done.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

"Rejecting the reality of sin,we have ended up abandoning the hope of repentance"

As I've shared before, I'm part of our parish's RCIA leadership team and as such, have been asked to prepare a couple of presentations to date, the first being on the Holy Spirit and more recently, on the Sacrament of Reconciliation, more commonly called Confession.

I had originally put something together on this latter presentation I had thought was decent enough and as I've done in the past, shared it with my priest and other members of the team to solicit their feedback.  In doing so, I had received kudos from team members but had been asked by Father Mike to come and pay him a visit to discuss the presentation further.  He liked the content overall and said so but also suggested that I spend more time setting up the need for the Sacrament.  He said that I needed to unpack the reality of sin.  And so with his help and guidance, I rewrote it.  The presentation and accompanying guide to confession prepared can be found here and here respectively (PDF versions) for those interested but they're not the reason for this post.

It's Mark Shea who has put up something expounding on this reality of sin, and how the culture's rejection of same is having an impact:

Lest we moderns gloat over the foolish Pharisees too much, however, we should note that postmodernity has contributed something new but not improved to this ancient evil of spiritual laziness. Postmoderns have added to the ancient tribalism of the Pharisee another very significant reason for the abandonment of admonishment: our rejection of the reality of sin.

Rejecting the reality of sin,we have ended up abandoning the hope of repentance.When you reject the idea of common truth, prattling that “truth is whatever is true for you,” you reject the basis for reason and argument. But you don’t (and can’t) reject the reality of your anger over sin. You can’t ignore it when somebody steals your wallet or beats up your child. But you can pretend that the sinner was an irrational animal acting solely on the influence of genes or environment and not to sin of which he can repent. So we increasingly treat sinners as we treat animals: diagnosing, caging, or killing them like rabid dogs, but never talking about sin or repentance.

The old idea of the penitentiary is almost entirely gone. It is no longer, as the name suggests, a place for penance. It is a state-run warehouse (and slaughterhouse) for human animals who have, as the saying goes, “forfeited their humanity.”

It is, of course, possible to laugh off the notion of repentance as hopelessly Pollyanna and caricature it as the naïve belief that hardened thugs will melt into saints if you talk nice to them. But that’s not my point or my claim. It is, rather, that in abandoning our understanding of the human person to the secular state instead of having the courage of our convictions as Catholics, we are laying the foundation for treating all human beings as animals and potential criminals rather than as citizens of a free society. One need only note the changes in our security state over the past ten years. Big Brother has eyes everywhere. In airports and public facilities across America, Boy Scouts, nuns, and little old ladies from Lake Wobegon are expected to endure invasive searches that, in any other context, should result in an arrest for sexual predation. An eighty-six-year-old bedridden woman is tasered (twice) while the cops stand on her oxygen hose and her protesting grandson is cuffed and frog-marched out of the house. The cops explain that it was all justified because she “took a more aggressive posture in her bed.” The idea that she was a human being never entered their heads.

The curious result of our culture’s growing abandonment of the notion of sin is (as Faustian bargains tend to be) a loss of our humanity. As we become coarser and our belief that humans are made in the image of God fades to a theory of humans as animals shaped by heredity and environment, our faith in the power of moral suasion goes with it. So, for instance, a majority of Americans (including, alas, Catholics) forget our successful use of conventional interrogation with Nazis and Communists and embrace the lie that intelligence can best be gained from enemy combatants via “enhanced interrogation” (a euphemism for torture). This is a complete rejection of the Church’s teaching on human dignity and is founded on the assertion that human beings are, at bottom, beasts. Eventually it occurs to Caesar that if “enhanced interrogation” may be used on perceived foreign threats, then why not on domestic ones too? Enhanced interrogation begins to be deployed to interrogate not merely suspected terrorists abroad but also suspected criminals at home.

In short, as a culture embraces the view that men are brutes, it is not possible to keep that genie in the bottle of a CIA black site. Caesar inevitably starts to treat his subjects that way too. He abandons the language of a ruler maintaining ordered liberty for a free people and speaks more and more like a bureaucrat barking threats at contemptible servants—or cracking whips at beasts. So, for instance, where there used to be public-service announcements saying “Every litter bit hurts,” we now get “Litter and it will hurt.” “Buckle up for safety!” has been replaced with “Click it or ticket!” “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk” is replaced by “Drive hammered. Get nailed.” Threats, not admonishment, are the order of the day.

The apotheosis of such contempt-based social control in media (so far) is the infamous “No Pressure” ad sponsored by 10:10, an organized campaign to reduce carbon emissions. There was no attempt to admonish by saying, “Even if you are skeptical about anthropogenic global warming, it couldn’t hurt if everybody pitched in and cared for the environment as best they can.” That would respect human dignity. Instead the ad (which its makers actually imagined was funny) shows an elementary-school teacher urging her class to reduce their carbon footprint. When two children express reservations, the teacher mildly says, “No pressure,” and then pushes a large red button on her desk, whereupon the nonconforming kids explode in bloody chunks, splattering the other screaming children in the classroom. This revolting gag is repeated a few more times to drive home the message: Submit to the Religion of Anthropogenic Climate Change or be slaughtered like animals.

If Christ is to be believed, all this violent contempt for human dignity is foreign to what we actually are. Why do we prefer to treat people like animals when, in fact, admonishing the sinner and not stampeding the herd is truer to our nature as rational beings? Answer: because admonishing the sinner is hard. Christ did it, and it got him nailed to a cross.

For admonishment means looking somebody in the eye rather than imposing bureaucratic solutions from three thousand miles away. It means addressing a fellow human being as an equal, not a lab rat, sheep, or contagion. It means stating truly unpopular opinions, not to peers who share them but to enemies who don’t. It means the risk of losing friends, family, job, and reputation. It means speaking about things that are awkward and uncomfortable. And in our post-Christian world, it often means doing it in a grammar and terminology that members of our culture know, if at all, only in a sort of pidgin.

That challenging and thought provoking excerpt comes from Mark's book called The Work of Mercy and was in reaction to something that occurred in LA recently, something we should rightly be alarmed about.

Check out Mark's post and see if you agree.

"We'll give you a flack jacket and a helmet. You'll be fine."

This movie is going to be something to see:

Act of Valor - Real Bullets Featurette

With props to BlackFive. who's got an intriguing thing or two to say about the flick.

'The discussion revealed a testy side of the president’s personality that is at odds with his public image as “no-drama Obama,”' (UPDATED)

That from the Washington Post as they cover the recent public exchange between Obama and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer:

President Obama’s raw exchange with the governor of Arizona on an airport tarmac this week did more than overshadow his carefully stage-managed road trip to trumpet his State of the Union goals.

The discussion revealed a testy side of the president’s personality that is at odds with his public image as “no-drama Obama,” reviving criticism that he is unwilling to be second-guessed — or to even entertain another point of view.

Shortly after stepping off Air Force One on Wednesday in Phoenix, Obama challenged Gov. Jan Brewer (R) over characterizations she made of him in a recent book. His reaction, coming one day after he used his State of the Union address to call for a renewed spirit of political bipartisanship amid the nation’s economic woes, has exposed him to accusations that he is not interested in working with Republicans.

Brewer, whose “Scorpions for Breakfast” faults Obama for pandering to Hispanic voters in his immigration policy, said the president mentioned the book, unprompted, after she invited him to meet with her to discuss “Arizona’s comeback.”

“He was somewhat thin-skinned and a little tense to say the least,” Brewer told Phoenix radio station KFYI on Thursday. “I went there with good intentions . . . talking about Arizona and how I could give some assistance to him.”

White House press secretary Jay Carney scoffed at the notion that a deeper meaning was to be gleaned from the brief exchange, calling it “political theater.” And Obama told ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer in an interview that it was a “classic example of things getting blown out of proportion.”

Denying that he was “tense” during the encounter, as Brewer described, Obama said, laughing, that he is “usually accused of not being intense enough.”

“I think it’s always good publicity for a Republican if they’re in an argument with me. But this was really not a big deal,” he said.

According to Carney, the president told Brewer that her description in the book of a meeting they had in 2010 in the Oval Office “was not accurate.”

At the time, Brewer had told reporters that her meeting with Obama was “cordial,” but in the book she described him as “patronizing” and said he lectured her.

Over the past year, as his relations with congressional Republicans have soured, Obama has tried to cast the GOP as rigid ideologues whose allegiance to tea party conservatives has nearly caused financial catastrophe — first when House Speaker John A. Boehner (Ohio) “walked away” from Obama’s “grand bargain” offer during summer debt ceiling negotiations and again when Republicans grudgingly adopted the president’s proposed extension of a payroll tax cut at the 11th hour.

But Republicans have painted a different picture. During the debt-ceiling fight, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.) told reporters that the president snapped at him in a negotiating session, saying “Don’t call my bluff” and abruptly walking out.

Republicans have more recently cast Obama’s “We can’t wait” campaign of taking executive action without congressional approval as evidence that he has chosen to ignore lawmakers. They characterized his appointment of Richard Cordray to head a financial consumer watchdog agency, even though the Senate rejected the nomination, as the act of an imperial president intent on imposing his will.

At the same time, White House officials have pushed back hard against two recent books — one about Obama’s economic advisers and the other about the president and first lady Michelle Obama’s relationship — that portray an insular administration.

On Thursday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama’s 2008 presidential rival, suggested that Obama’s reaction to Brewer revealed a well-known “prickly personality.”

In the mean-time, some can't help but play the only card they seem capable of playing when their beloved President is confronted or criticized:

Despite the President being the person who walked away from Jan Brewer while she was still speaking, she's the disrespecter.

And, obviously, a racist to boot.

Weak.

Seriously freakin' weak.

And when your argument is weak...

UPDATE:  Tom Elia sent along this pic which I think best illustrates the shallowness of those who continue to defend this President. 

Of course, they can at least lay claim to being young, impressionable, starry-eyed idol worshippers.  What the hell is the excuse for everybody else?

"I accuse you, Mr. President"

Michael Sean Winters:

I come at this issue as a liberal and a Democrat and as someone who, until yesterday, generally supported the President, as someone who saw in his vision of America a greater concern for each other, a less mean-spirited culture, someone who could, and did, remind the nation that we are our brothers’ keeper, that liberalism has a long vocation in this country of promoting freedom and protecting the interests of the average person against the combined power of the rich, and that we should learn how to disagree without being disagreeable. I defended the University of Notre Dame for honoring this man, and my heart was warmed when President Obama said at Notre Dame: “we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity -- diversity of thought, diversity of culture, and diversity of belief. In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family.”

To borrow from Emile Zola: J’Accuse!

I accuse you, Mr. President, of dishonoring your own vision by this shameful decision.

I accuse you, Mr. President, of failing to live out the respect for diversity that you so properly and beautifully proclaimed as a cardinal virtue at Notre Dame. Or, are we to believe that diversity is only to be lauded when it advances the interests of those with whom we agree? That’s not diversity. That’s misuse of a noble principle for ignoble ends.

I accuse you, Mr. President, of betraying philosophic liberalism, which began, lest we forget, as a defense of the rights of conscience. As Catholics, we need to be honest and admit that, three hundred years ago, the defense of conscience was not high on the agenda of Holy Mother Church. But, we Catholics learned to embrace the idea that the coercion of conscience is a violation of human dignity. This is a lesson, Mr. President, that you and too many of your fellow liberals have apparently unlearned.

I accuse you, Mr. President, who argued that your experience as a constitutional scholar commended you for the high office you hold, of ignoring the Constitution. Perhaps you were busy last week, but the Supreme Court, on a 9-0 vote, said that the First Amendment still means something and that it trumps even desirable governmental objectives when the two come into conflict. Did you miss the concurring opinion, joined by your own most recent appointment to the court, Justice Kagan, which stated:

“Throughout our Nation's history, religious bodies have been the preeminent example of private associations that have ‘act[ed] as critical buffers between the individual and the power of the State.’ Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 619 (1984). In a case like the one now before us—where the goal of the civil law in question, the elimination of discrimination against persons with disabilities, is so worthy—it is easy to forget that the autonomy of religious groups, both here in the United States and abroad, has often served as a shield against oppressive civil laws. To safeguard this crucial autonomy, we have long recognized that the Religion Clauses protect a private sphere within which religious bodies are free to govern themselves in accordance with their own beliefs. The Constitution guarantees religious bodies ‘independence from secular control or manipulation—in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.’ Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U.S. 94, 116 (1952).”

Pray, do tell, Mr. President, what part of that paragraph did you consider when making this decision? Or, do you like having your Justice Department having its hat handed to it at the Supreme Court?

I accuse you, Mr. President, as leader of the Democratic Party, the primary vehicle for historic political liberalism in this country, of risking all the many achievements of political liberalism, from environmental protection to Social Security to Medicare and Medicaid, by committing a politically stupid act. Do you really think your friends at Planned Parenthood and NARAL were going to support the candidacy of Mr. Romney or Mr. Gingrich? How does this decision affect the prospects of Democrats winning back the House in districts like Pennsylvania’s Third or Ohio’s First or Virginia’s Fifth districts? How do your chances look today among Catholic swing voters in Scranton and the suburbs of Cincinnati and along the I-4 corridor in Florida? I suppose that there are campaign contributions to consider, but really, sacrificing one’s conscience, or the conscience rights of others, was not worth Wales, was it worth a few extra dollars in your campaign coffers?

I accuse you, Mr. President, of failing to know your history. In 1978, the IRS proposed a rule change affecting the tax exempt status of private Christian schools. The rule would change the way school verified their desegregation policies, putting the burden of proof on the school, not the IRS. By 1978, many of those schools were already desegregated, even though they had first been founded as a means to avoid desegregation of the public schools. But evangelical Christians did not look kindly on the government’s interference in schools they had built themselves and, even though the IRS rescinded the rule change, the original decision was the straw the broke the camel’s back for those who wished to separate themselves from mainstream culture. They formed the Moral Majority, entered that mainstream culture, and helped the Republican Party win the next three presidential elections. You, Mr. President, have struck that same nerve. Catholics built their colleges and universities and hospitals. They did so out of religious conviction and, as often as not, because mainstream institutions did not welcome Catholics. It is one thing to support a policy with which the Catholic Church disagrees but it is quite another to start telling Catholics how to run their own institutions.

Mr. Winters, though I appreciate your coming to your senses now, I wonder where you've been.

I accuse you Mr. Winters of never really checking into this candidate in the first place.

I accuse you Mr. Winters of being someone likely focused more on Obama's skin color than the content of his character or his history as a radical.

I accuse you Mr. Winters of being bamboozled by Obama and his willing accomplices in the media.

I accuse you Mr. Winters of coming to the Obama-is-no-where-near-the-man-we were-told-he-was party way too late.

I accuse you Mr. Winters, and those who were (and still are) as gullible, of putting Obama in a position that allows him to step on Catholic conscience.

Perhaps before you vote again Mr. Winters, in any election, you would look beyond the shallowness that led to your past support of Obama and to your own conscience, that which Obama today desires to crush.

You Mr. Winters, and people like you, brought us to this point.

Your accusations Mr. Winters ring hollow.

Crosspsoted at Wizbang.

Dole cuts Gingrich down for CNN

By Locutisprime

I respect Bob Dole for his service to this country during WWII, but I have never liked his politics. I didn't like him in 1996 when the GOP closed ranks much as they are doing presently and decided that Dole was the guy to run against Bill Clinton.

The same thinking that orchestrated Bob Dole's loss to Clinton in 1996 is now steering the Romney bus to the same conclusion. And if you listen closely at the end of the interview, you will hear Doles say. "It's Romney's time." 

That is the way the party machine thinks. Damn the realities, it's this guy's time. That was their thinking in 1996. It was Dole's time. Well we see how that worked out didn't we.

Are Republicans really going to blow this opportunity?

H/T to Mark.

Has Newt's campaign just been derailed... by Newt's own words?

It's a little hard to think otherwise at this juncture.  

These are the links up currently at Drudge:

NEWT FLASHBACK 1983: REAGAN RESPONSIBLE FOR NATIONAL 'DECAY'... 

NEWT 1986: 'The Reagan administration has failed, is failing...

NEWT 1988: 'If Bush runs as continuation of Reaganism he will lose'...

VIDEO...

INSIDER: GINGRICH REPEATEDLY INSULTED REAGAN

And then there's this from Politico:

After nearly a week on the defensive, CNN's John King reports tonight that Newt Gingrich'sclaim about offering witnesses to ABC News in his defense — to rebut the network's interview with his second wife, Marianne Gingrich — was not true.

"Tonight, after persistent questioning by our staff, the Gingrich campaign concedes now Speaker Gingrich was wrong — both in his debate answer, and in our interview yesterday," King said on tonight's edition of John King USA. "Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond says the only people the Gingrich campaign offered to ABC were his two daughters from his first marriage."

Not good people.

Not good at all.

Will Mr. Santorum reap the benefit of Newt's apparent derailment?

God only knows.

God's help is needed.

Because an Obama re-election is beginning to look more and more likely from my corner of the world.

Oh how I hope I'm reading the tea leaves wrongly.

Crossposted at Wizbang.