The New First Amendment

Monday, March 12, AD 2012

Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan, and Gloria Steinem have written an op-ed in which they call upon the FCC to revoke the licences of radio stations that carry the Rush Limbaugh show.

That makes this a fitting time to inquire of his syndicator, Clear Channel Communications, whether it intends to continue supporting someone who addicts his audience to regular doses of hate speech. Clear Channel’s Premiere Radio Networks Inc., which hosts Limbaugh’s program, has defended his recent comments.

If Clear Channel won’t clean up its airways, then surely it’s time for the public to ask the FCC a basic question: Are the stations carrying Limbaugh’s show in fact using their licenses “in the public interest?”

Spectrum is a scarce government resource. Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh’s radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.

In the course of an op-ed calling upon the government to restrict free speech rights, the authors compare Rush Limbaugh to Joseph Goebbels.

I know that Wikipedia is not the greatest source of information, but it usually gets the basics correct.  From the article on Goebbels:

Goebbels rose to power in 1933 along with Hitler and the Nazi Party and he was appointed Propaganda Minister. One of his first acts was the burning of books rejected by the Nazis. He exerted totalitarian control over the media, arts and information in Germany.

From Webster’s dictionary:

Irony : 3 (1): incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2): an event or result marked by such incongruity

Fonda, Morgan, and Steinem might want to have a look at this book before taking to the keyboard again.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to The New First Amendment

  • So Jane Fonda’s input is to deny Limbaugh’s first amendment right to say unstudied, shoot from the hip, stupid things but let’s protect her right to compared him Goebbels. Ms. Fonda needs to study debate and learn what ad hominem argument is.

  • So… they think that one of the biggest radio shows in the USA isn’t in the public interest….

    (Yes, I know it’s the “for your own good” sense, but by that measure there shouldn’t be any music stations.)

  • Fonda, Morgan and Steinem would have received an understanding nod from Goebbels:

    “It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion.”

  • It’s only fair. Same way they serially resuscitate the “fairness doctrine.”

    The evil, unjust free market censors imbecilic, vile liberal talk by no one listening and not buying the advertisers.

    The government must censor the free market side, or the left can’t destroy freedom.

    Free speech for me; not for thee.

  • Limbaugh’s radio show is absolutely hate speech. He hasn’t claimed any of his hatred to be religious so that it’s justified (which is the method by which most hate groups get their hate speech legitimized). You really think Jesus would like him?

    Maybe you should spend a couple hours listening to flatulent idiocy and distortion of facts. It’s not a Christian radio show, and Limbaugh isn’t much of a Christian given that he’s been married 4 times.

    And maybe you should do a search for Limbaugh’s trip to the Dominican Republic where he was found with unprescribed viagra for sex with prostitutes. His voice is a taint on society and it needs to be silenced.

  • “Limbaugh’s radio show is absolutely hate speech.”

    Hate lifewrecker is not defined by what you oppose.

    “You really think Jesus would like him?”

    No lifewrecker, He would love him. That goes for you too actually in regard to Jesus, as hard as you might find that to believe.

    “Maybe you should spend a couple hours listening to flatulent idiocy and distortion of facts.”

    Spend three months listening to his show lifewrecker and then report back.

    “His voice is a taint on society and it needs to be silenced.”

    You truly do not subscribe to this freedom of speech concept do you?

  • Three has-beens wanting to see their names in print. Jane Fonda betrayed American GIs at the Hanoi Hilton. Jane Fonda and Tokyo Rose both ought to be begging for their citizenship. Gloria Steinem, the heroine of feminism, did not ever believe she would get old and arthritic. I do not know Robin Morgan and I am glad. The first two shadows darkened our nation like a cloud of locusts. They must want jobs with the Obama administration, but Cass Sunstein has got it. Cass Sunstein is Obama’s Information Czar. He has written 35 books to give animals personhood. No comment.

  • The left does not believe in the 1st Amendment, or in free speech, or in the free exercise of religion. It never has. And it never will. But its President desires to reign supreme. I hope on November 6th this changes. Imagine the howling when they will have to actually contend with people who differ from them.

  • 13,055 comments on CNN.com for the article. The comments section has been closed. Don’t go there if you still believe in the general intelligence of the average American.

    I Love this: “Spectrum is a scarce government resource.” Since when? Did Al Gore invent the Electromagnetic Spectrum, too? The only reason it’s monopolized by the government is because early broadcasters wanted their monopoly to be locked down by Federal dictate. And, guess what? Within 15 years it’ll all be silent anyway, as digital podcasts and niche web sources become more and more attractive.

    So, The Three Stoogettes may believe that dictatorial censorship would block Limbaugh’s ability to be heard. But in fact it only proves how vapid they and their Weltanschauung really are.

  • WK Aiken, the average American does not comment at CNN.com. CNN watchers are libs – which accounts for the high level of ignorance displayed in the comments.

    I agree with Mary De Voe: these are 3 long-in-the-tooth harpies who are desperately trying to remain relevant. Ironically, if this country was as intolerant of free speech as Fonda is,she would have faced a firing squad 40 years ago.

  • Donna V. Thank you. You said it better than I. I especially like “3 long-in-the-tooth harpies.”

  • Thank you Donald McClarey for taking their argument apart and supplying us with the truth. I especially like: “You truly do not subscribe to this freedom of speech concept do you?”

  • You would think that Jane Fonda, of all people, would appreciate the benefits of not using the government to punish people for doing highly unpopular things in the media — given that plenty of people would have liked to see her locked up for posing on an anti-aircraft gun that was being used to shoot down US planes during wartime.

  • The National Organization for Women has a very sophisticated decades-old media project that involves FCC committee lobbying, getting its favored candidates appointed to the FCC board, and increasing women (read:feminist) ownership of media stations. I believe this is why a *breast cancer foundation* was cast as the bad guy oppressing poor little Planned Parenthood. The press is almost entirely feminist-controlled.

    If you want to see a similar act of government censorship and intimidation, look up the EEOC commissioner’s response to Don Imus’ remarks a few years ago.

  • You would think that Jane Fonda, of all people, would appreciate the benefits of not using the government to punish people for doing highly unpopular things in the media — given that plenty of people would have liked to see her locked up for posing on an anti-aircraft gun that was being used to shoot down US planes during wartime.

    You would think that an editor at CNN might have returned the submitted text to them with a bland remark that were it published the reputations of the authors would be injured. Maybe the newsroom at CNN is as shot through with egocentric people as the editorial staff at Ms..

  • A few Vietnam veterans exercising their First Amendment rights in regard to Ms. Fonda:

  • Pingback: MONDAY EXTRA: H.H.S. MANDATE | ThePulp.it

The Obama Record: Of Obama and Syphilitic Camels

Monday, March 12, AD 2012

 

 

Roger Kimball has a post today which sums up my views of the presidential contest this year:

I was disappointed, though, with today’s featured headline:

SHOCK POLL: ROMNEY 48% OBAMA 43%

The link is to a Rasmussen poll,  and the implication, I believe,  is that readers will be shocked at the news that  Mitt Romney is ahead. (In fact, Rasmussen reports that Rick Santorum also leads Obama, though he trails Romney.)

What is really shocking, though, is that the difference is so small. By any rational metric, Obama has presided over a national disaster. Consider how he has mishandled

* the economy (real unemployment north of 9%)

* the deficit ($1.6 trillion annually)

* the prestige of the United States abroad

* our national security

Consider also

* the looming train wreck that is ObamaCare

* Solyndra and kindred adventures in crony capitalism, emetic utopianism, and fiscal irresponsibility

* The GM “bailout,” coming to a tax bill near you (buy a Volt, get a taxpayer-subsidized break of $7000)

* the regulatory nightmare that Obama’s EPA has foisted upon American business

* the malevolent joke that is the Obama Department of Justice (Fast and Furious, the Black Panther case, etc.)

And this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. What’s shocking is not that Mitt Romney is ahead. A syphilitic camel should be ahead. What’s shocking is that the distance is only 5 points.

Assuming Mitt can hold it together, his advantage should widen. He is, after all, running against one of the most vulnerable presidents with one of the worst records in American history.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to The Obama Record: Of Obama and Syphilitic Camels

  • You know, if you want to live in a country where there’s no separation between church and state, why don’t you go live in Iran and see how much you like it.

    Furthermore, why the hell would you want a Mormon to be president? He’s not even a Christian, the entire religion is made up. Mitt Romney’s grandfather left for Mexico to practice polygamy, even his ancestors are sinners.

    It’s people like you who remind me that there is no “heaven”, only “hell”, and it’s nickname is “life”.

  • “You know, if you want to live in a country where there’s no separation between church and state, ”

    You really do not understand the concept of irony do you? The government telling the Catholic Church what to do in regard to the provisions of health insurance for its employees is the epitome of a violation of separation of Church and State.

    “Furthermore, why the hell would you want a Mormon to be president?”

    Because, unlike you we aren’t bigots and we do not judge candidates by their religious affiliation, although I do believe that Romney has few fans on this website for reasons that have nothing to do with his religion.

    “no “heaven”, only “hell”, and it’s nickname is “life”.”

    I have no doubt that you perceive your life as hell and I do pity you for that.

  • All the perfume in the world can only sweeten a skunk so much………”

    😆 😆

    Very true.

  • Pingback: TUESDAY EXTRA: U.S. POLITICS | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: The Obama Record: The Debt | The American Catholic
  • “Obama has presided over a national disaster.” Obama does not share our pain. I believe, in fact, that if Obama has not created this disaster, Obama is wallowing in it and using the disaster to impose communism. “Do not let any crisis go to waste.” “…one of the most vulnerable presidents.” If Obama had a shred of humanity the word “vulnerable” might be used. Is there any reason to treat Obama any better than the aborted babies he left to die alone? Obama is as vulnerable as was Hitler and Stalin. WE WANT GOD

2012: An Elijah on Mount Carmel Year

Monday, March 12, AD 2012

And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? If the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

First Kings 18:21

 

When the Supreme Court begins oral argument on ObamaCare on March 26, the White House is unveiling a new secret weapon:  Prayer.

On Wednesday, White House officials summoned dozens of leaders of nonprofit organizations that strongly back the health law to help them coordinate plans for a prayer vigil, press conferences and other events outside the court when justices hear arguments for three days beginning March 26.   

The acolytes of the South Side Messiah have long known that their strongest adversaries are among Christians who take their faith seriously.  That is why they are promoting a de facto schism in the Catholic Church, and why they have attempted to promote Sandra Fluke, that summary of all that is wrong with Jesuit run Georgetown,  as the White House sponsored symbol of an alternate magisterium for American Catholics.   Religion in this country is to be transformed into a useful auxiliary for the President, spearheaded by astroturf pro-Obama “religious” groups like the George Soros funded Catholics United and the interdenominational Faith in Public Life, and dissenters will be silenced through mockery by the mainstream media which is overwhelmingly on the side of Obama, and propaganda campaigns led by the Obama administration and its allies to undermine leaders of any denomination who do not toe the line.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to 2012: An Elijah on Mount Carmel Year

  • The analogy with the 450 prophets of Baal is most appropriate. BTW, their fate did not end well.

  • Also this:

    Numbers 16
    Korah, Dathan and Abiram
    1 Korah son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and certain Reubenites—Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth—became insolent[a] 2 and rose up against Moses. With them were 250 Israelite men, well-known community leaders who had been appointed members of the council. 3 They came as a group to oppose Moses and Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the LORD’s assembly?”
    4 When Moses heard this, he fell facedown. 5 Then he said to Korah and all his followers: “In the morning the LORD will show who belongs to him and who is holy, and he will have that person come near him. The man he chooses he will cause to come near him. 6 You, Korah, and all your followers are to do this: Take censers 7 and tomorrow put burning coals and incense in them before the LORD. The man the LORD chooses will be the one who is holy. You Levites have gone too far!”

    8 Moses also said to Korah, “Now listen, you Levites! 9 Isn’t it enough for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the rest of the Israelite community and brought you near himself to do the work at the LORD’s tabernacle and to stand before the community and minister to them? 10 He has brought you and all your fellow Levites near himself, but now you are trying to get the priesthood too. 11 It is against the LORD that you and all your followers have banded together. Who is Aaron that you should grumble against him?”

    12 Then Moses summoned Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab. But they said, “We will not come! 13 Isn’t it enough that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the wilderness? And now you also want to lord it over us! 14 Moreover, you haven’t brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey or given us an inheritance of fields and vineyards. Do you want to treat these men like slaves[b]? No, we will not come!”

    15 Then Moses became very angry and said to the LORD, “Do not accept their offering. I have not taken so much as a donkey from them, nor have I wronged any of them.”

    16 Moses said to Korah, “You and all your followers are to appear before the LORD tomorrow—you and they and Aaron. 17 Each man is to take his censer and put incense in it—250 censers in all—and present it before the LORD. You and Aaron are to present your censers also.” 18 So each of them took his censer, put burning coals and incense in it, and stood with Moses and Aaron at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 19 When Korah had gathered all his followers in opposition to them at the entrance to the tent of meeting, the glory of the LORD appeared to the entire assembly. 20 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 21 “Separate yourselves from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once.”

    22 But Moses and Aaron fell facedown and cried out, “O God, the God who gives breath to all living things, will you be angry with the entire assembly when only one man sins?”

    23 Then the LORD said to Moses, 24 “Say to the assembly, ‘Move away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram.’”

    25 Moses got up and went to Dathan and Abiram, and the elders of Israel followed him. 26 He warned the assembly, “Move back from the tents of these wicked men! Do not touch anything belonging to them, or you will be swept away because of all their sins.” 27 So they moved away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. Dathan and Abiram had come out and were standing with their wives, children and little ones at the entrances to their tents.

    28 Then Moses said, “This is how you will know that the LORD has sent me to do all these things and that it was not my idea: 29 If these men die a natural death and suffer the fate of all mankind, then the LORD has not sent me. 30 But if the LORD brings about something totally new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them, with everything that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the realm of the dead, then you will know that these men have treated the LORD with contempt.”

    31 As soon as he finished saying all this, the ground under them split apart 32 and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their households, and all those associated with Korah, together with their possessions. 33 They went down alive into the realm of the dead, with everything they owned; the earth closed over them, and they perished and were gone from the community. 34 At their cries, all the Israelites around them fled, shouting, “The earth is going to swallow us too!”

    35 And fire came out from the LORD and consumed the 250 men who were offering the incense.

    36 The LORD said to Moses, 37 “Tell Eleazar son of Aaron, the priest, to remove the censers from the charred remains and scatter the coals some distance away, for the censers are holy— 38 the censers of the men who sinned at the cost of their lives. Hammer the censers into sheets to overlay the altar, for they were presented before the LORD and have become holy. Let them be a sign to the Israelites.”

    39 So Eleazar the priest collected the bronze censers brought by those who had been burned to death, and he had them hammered out to overlay the altar, 40 as the LORD directed him through Moses. This was to remind the Israelites that no one except a descendant of Aaron should come to burn incense before the LORD, or he would become like Korah and his followers.

  • Pingback: MONDAY EXTRA: U.S. POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • AS for me and mine, I will serve God.

  • Yes, the devil can pray also to mislead people…truly the evil one is prowling very hard.

  • Pingback: Bishops? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Bishops! | The American Catholic
  • So the new secret weapon of the White House is prayer! Oh, the absolute irony of it!!!!

  • “So the new secret weapon of the White House is prayer! Oh, the absolute irony of it!!!!”

    But its okay because it is under the guidance of our god-Pharoah. Perhaps he will send Jannes and Jambres to help.

  • Pingback: An American Issue | The American Catholic
  • Fluke : “All that’s wrong with Jesuit run Georgetown” ?????
    How can that be given that she’s running a campaign against Georgetown’s faith-based refusal to fund her contraceptive appetite? She’s an example of how Georgetown is challenged as it tows the line, not the opposite.

  • Not at all Tim. The administration and faculty of Georgetown quickly rallied around Sandra Fluke:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/03/05/jesuitical-13-rush-and-the-jesuits/

  • Pingback: The Church in America: Low Grade Civil War | The American Catholic
  • Excellent: I see I’m not alone in thinking of Elijah lately. John the Baptist is another prophet who comes to mind—as the priests who worshipped Baal (and those that rebelled against Moses) are analogous to modern-day libertine Catholics, so the Pharisees and Sadducees are to the heretical “theologians” who thrive in American schools, even ones that are nominally Catholic.

Was that a fluke with a capital “F”?

Sunday, March 11, AD 2012

 

In the wake of Sandra Fluke’s testimony before several Democrat members of Congress, Mark Steyn has written what The Motley Monk believes is a superb analysis.  It’s close to being one of those “come from behind, two outs, 1-and-2 count, bottom of the ninth inning, grand-slam homeruns” that wins the ballgame for the home team.

 

Sandra Fluke
Georgetown University Law Student

 

Steyn’s article is well worth the read.  He’s articulate, witty, and forcible, demonstrating the product of a truly liberal education: Conversancy with intellectual culture and taking no prisoners when engaging in the battle of the intellect.

Concerning Fluke’s testimony and the ensuing brouhaha, Steyn writes:

…the most basic issue here is not religious morality, individual liberty, or fiscal responsibility. It’s that a society in which middle-aged children of privilege testify before the most powerful figures in the land to demand state-enforced funding for their sex lives at a time when their government owes more money than anyone has ever owed in the history of the planet is quite simply nuts.

As good as Steyn’s analysis and economic judgment is, The Motley Monk disagrees with one point Steyn makes:

Where was I? Oh, yes. The brave middle-aged schoolgirl had the courage to stand up in public and demand that someone else pay for her sex life.

No, sorry.  Ms. Fluke didn’t demand that someone else pay for her sex life…and that’s where Rush erred egregiously.  The Motley Monk believes Ms. Fluke was demanding something much more than simplistic “economic redistributionism.”

Ms. Fluke wants taxpayers to foot the bill so that she won’t have to deal with the consequences of satiating her sexual appetite.

The Motley Monk thinks this a very big “difference with a distinction,” one to the heart of the anti-life agenda that many of those on the political left wholeheartedly embrace as dogma.

As adherents of that agenda would have it, there should be absolutely no consequences for satiating one’s sexual appetite.  And that goes so far as to include murdering an innocent human life that has been conceived but has not yet been brought to term while satiating one’s sexual appetite.

And that, The Motley Monk believes, is the significance of this flukey Congressional “hearing” and its ensuing fallout.

The Democrats who invited and hosted Ms. Fluke—especially U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi—have given a name and a face to an agenda that is not primarily about religious morality, individual liberty, or fiscal responsibility.

Important as those issues may be, the real agenda concerns Nature’s law and personal responsibility.

Left or right.  Liberal or conservative.  It matters not.  Human beings are not free to violate Nature’s laws and, then, to expect that there will be no consequences.  To quote the late-19th century American botanist Luther Burbank:

If you violate Nature’s laws you are your own prosecuting attorney, judge, jury, and       hangman.

 

 

To read Mark Steyn’s article, click on the following link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/293094/fluke-charade-mark-steyn

To read The Motley Monk’s daily blog, click on the following link:
http://themotleymonk.blogspot.com/

Continue reading...

20 Responses to Was that a fluke with a capital “F”?

  • The President of the United States has held up a self-identified fornicator as a role model. The news media all glorifies in this. And to speak against this defines one in this post-modern, neo-pagan society as intolerant, indecisive, judgmental, prejudiced and closed-minded.

  • PS, forgot to add – good commentary by the Montley Monk.

  • Neo-pagan? That’s an insult to pagans. At least pagans had a rudimentary understanding of natural law. I don’t even know how to begin to describe the debased culture we live in.

  • Thanks for the correction, C. Matt!

    😀

  • C matt-
    As I understand it, “Neopagan” just applies to the folks who go at it from a post-Christan POV without much care for what being pagan would actually entail; that said, by chance to you read Mr. Wright’s blog? (John C Wright, the author and entertaining Catholic.)

  • (and I forgot to subscribe….)

  • Sandra Fluke wasn’t asking for someone to pay for her to have sex. Stop distorting things. She was asking that the government ensure that health insurance companies insure daily contraceptive pills. And how the hell would you know what her sex life consists of? Perhaps she’s abstinent and you’re judgmental?

    Do you realize that there are women (and little girls) who have serious menstrual problems? The only treatment is hormonal, and they only come in “birth control” form. THAT specific example has NOTHING to do with sex. And furthermore, this what EXACTLY the example she gave during her testimony.

    Hitting your head with your bible isn’t making you smarter.

  • Steyn is always excellent.

    May I vent?

    I went to the 4:30 p.m. Saturday vigil mass this weekend. The priest was a visiting Jesuit priest from my alma mater – not a good sign. The Jesuit began his homily by saying he got the idea for it from a NY Times story. For a split second, I thought he might be talking about the hateful anti-Catholic ad the “Freedom From Religion” folks ran a couple of days ago – an ad so ugly that even agnostic WSJ writer James Taranto felt the need to come to the defense of the Church.

    But no, we are talking about a Jesuit – so of course, he did not talk about that nasty ad, but about a story about “evil” bankers who are so awful they foreclose on people who cannot make their mortgage payments. A 10 minute “social justice” lecture ensued.

    The letter from the bishops opposing the HHS mandate was included in our mass bulletins, but I did not hear it read from the pulput nor did I hear any priest even reference it. No, my priests (priests in an urban, liberal area) behave like the HHS mandate doesn’t exist and keep talking about how dreadful we are for not wanting our taxes raised.

    At the same NY Time website, commenters salivate over the thought of Holder “investigating” the Church right out of American existence during a second Obama term. They don’t know or care about useful idiots like the Jesuits or other “social justice” clergy.

  • “Hitting your head with your bible isn’t making you smarter.”

    Reading it certainly makes someone much better informed, something I rather expect you have never done.

    “Sandra Fluke wasn’t asking for someone to pay for her to have sex. ”

    No, she was merely asking Big Daddy Government to coerce all employers in this country, including the Catholic Church, to provide insurance coverage so she and the others who think like her can strive to have sex without consequences. She did so while lying about the cost of contraceptive coverage. She decided to go to Jesuit run Georgetown in order to have a platform to wage a campaign to coerce Georgetown to provide contraceptive coverage in student insurance. To her, this has always been a battle against the Catholic Church, no surprise since she is a pro-abort activist.

    “Do you realize that there are women (and little girls) who have serious menstrual problems?”

    Yep, and I know a mendacious smoke screen when I see one. This has nothing to do with providing birth control pills to women for non-contraceptive purposes, and everything to do with compelling the Catholic Church, and everyone else who has moral objections to contraception, to provide insurance coverage that covers contraception. Obama thought he would have a cheap victory here in the Culture War, and such is not going to be the case.

  • Do you realize that there are women (and little girls) who have serious menstrual problems?

    This has become to the birth control debate what “rape and incest” are to the abortion debate.

  • I read Wright’s blog on occasion, but not nearly as often as I would like to.

  • Do you realize that there are women (and little girls) who have serious menstrual problems? The only treatment is hormonal, and they only come in “birth control” form.

    My understanding is that prescription of the pill for non-contraceptive purposes (i.e., real medical issues) is not prohibited or contested. So what’s your point?

  • Do you realize that there are women (and little girls) who have serious menstrual problems? The only treatment is hormonal, and they only come in “birth control” form.

    My understanding is that prescription of the pill for non-contraceptive purposes (i.e., real medical issues) is not prohibited or contested. So what’s your point?

    If it’s a recognized off-label use it’s treated like any other drug’s recognized off-label use.
    (Gotta clarify that it must be a RECOGNIZED use, there are some quacks who have rather odd personal theories.)

    At some point, someone decided to lie and claim that those uses were banned, and people have taken it up. Kinda like people claiming the Catholic Church wants to force women to die rather than allow the killing of their child as a secondary effect of saving them. (ectopic pregnancies, etc)

  • Lifewrecker: You sheople need to rant on about contraception and how them mean bishops will not let Miss Fluke have enough sex to be popular with men.

    Here’s why you need to talk about condoms.

    Post-ABC poll shows 46% approved Obama job performance; 50% disapproved. That’s a flip from his 50% to 46% in early February. The swing is especially severe with independents: 57% disapprove — and racist whites no college degrees: 66% hate him and 28% are so stupid they support him. The genius has problems among racist independents too. They go for Mitt 50 – 42. Santorum beats him 48 to 45.

    PS: If she’s not giving sex, no one talks to her.

  • “lifewrecker”

    The irony is palpable.

  • Heh, using little green footballs as a source is laughable. Who on earth (besides his much diminished little band of bootlickers) pays any attention to Charles Johnson these days? CJ turned on his old readers (and on associates like Zombie and Roger Simon) because he thought he’d be rewarded for his treachery in the same way David Brock was. Alas, all Johnson did was make himself completely irrelevant – the HuffPo and Daily Kos crowd doesn’t need him and nobody on the right cares about anything he says any more.

  • Pingback: MONDAY EXTRA: H.H.S. MANDATE | ThePulp.it
  • Lifewrecker, you said “Do you realize that there are women (and little girls) who have serious menstrual problems? The only treatment is hormonal, and they only come in “birth control” form.”

    That is patently untrue. This is what the pharmaceutical industry and most mainstream doctors want us to believe, because it is easy and available. I should know since I have serious menstrual problems myself, and have been supplemented hormonally without resorting to the use of “birth control” pills, implants, etc. Oral contraceptives are taken through the entire cycle (with a week of placebo pills to give the appearance of menstruation). Through the use of NaPro Technology (http://www.naprotechnology.com/) — charting the symptoms of the menstrual cycle and supplementing specific hormones when they are needed the cycle can still be fertile, and extra unnecessary hormones aren’t dumped into the body.

Harvard and Andrew Jackson

Sunday, March 11, AD 2012

In 1833 the administration of Harvard decided to bestow an honorary doctorate of laws on the President of the United States, Andrew Jackson.  Many Harvard alums, looking down their noses at the rough, uncouth and ill-educated Jackson, were outraged.  None was more angry than Harvard alum John Quincy Adams who had been ousted from the presidency in the election of 1828.  Adams gave his cousin the President of Harvard an earful stating “as myself an affectionate child of our alma mater, I would not be present to witness her disgrace in conferring her highest literary honors upon a barbarian who could not write a sentence of grammar and hardly could spell his own name.”

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Harvard and Andrew Jackson

  • Donald McClarey: This is a gem, a veritable diamond.

  • Thank you Mary. History is filled with such amusing gems and it is a shame that History is so poorly taught these days that most people never hear of them.

  • “The Harvard administration responded to critics by noting that it had bestowed such degrees on other presidents and it could not fail to do so on the grounds of simple partisanship.”

    If I remember correctly that was also the reasoning behind Notre Dame’s invitation to Obama for the 2009 commencement.

  • Exactly, Elaine. And in neither instance was it a sufficient explanation for honoring such unworthy individuals.

  • I’m pretty sure the Harvard alumni of the day weren’t too upset with Jackson’s brutal performance at Horseshoe Bend.

  • Andrew Jackson was a patriot fighting for American principles. Barack Obama is a traitor to American principles

  • ” . . . a barbarian that could not write a sentence of grammar . . . ”

    Absolutely! Harvard, etc. have since awarded both academic and honorary degrees to innumerable semi-literate barbarians, including Kennedys and Obamas.

  • In those days both the lettered and unlettered had moral character which is far more important than any academic achievement when judging a man’s worth. It is no longer the case now, where depending on the need of the day the Harvard types will enthuse over illiterate rap artists, while at the same time sneer at someone like Sarah Palin for studying in a degree mill. For a decade or more the weight of the mandarin classes in the UK and US is slanted towards destroying all that is good in those in countries. They should be treated like the enemy they are.

  • It may be considered a stretch by modern historians to describe the Battle of Horseshoe Bend as anything other than clearing Alabama for white settlement. Jackson’s role in the Florida Wars against Seminole Indians and fugitive slaves is likewise cast now-a-days as bespeaking a moral character we tend not to celebrate today.

  • Agreed, Bruce. There can be no argument that Andrew Jackson’s Indian policies as both a militia leader and as President could only be described as ethnic cleansing.

    Jackson’s Cherokee ally at Horseshoe Bend, Chief Junaluska, later regretted that he had co-operated with Jackson (and had even saved Jackson’s life) during the Red Stick War:

    “If I had known that Jackson would drive us from our homes, I would have killed him that day at the Horseshoe.”

    A lack of foresight that many (including myself) no doubt lament. It would not be an overstatement for me to say that I hold Andrew Jackson in lower esteem than any other U.S. President.

  • Jackson’s action at Horseshow Bend was nothing short of disgraceful. However, he is reponsible for saving the city of New Orleans being ravished by the British red coats in at the Battle of New Orleans. How much poorer a country we would be without the Crescent City, Queen of the South! I am proud that his statue occupies a space that is now instantly recognizable as a symbol of the city he saved.

    A proud member of the Who Dat Nation.

Memoriae Positum

Sunday, March 11, AD 2012

He leads for aye the advance,

Hope’s forlorn-hopes that plant the desperate good

For nobler Earths and days of manlier mood;

James Russell Lowell

Memoriae Positum, memory laid down.  The Latin phrase is a good short hand description of  what History accomplishes.  In 1864 the poet James Russell Lowell wrote a poem entitled Memoriae Positum in tribute to Colonel Robert Gould Shaw who died heroically at age 25  leading the unsuccessful assault of the 54th Massachusetts, one of the first black Union regiments, on the Confederate stronghold of Fort Wagner at Charleston, South Carolina on July 18th, 1863.  The poem predicts that Shaw’s memory will live forever and feels sorrow only for those, unlike Shaw, who are unwilling or unable to risk all for their beliefs.  It is a poem completely out of step with the pre-dominant sentiments of our day which seem to value physical survival and enjoyment above everything else.  Here is the text of the poem:

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Memoriae Positum

  • Good post. We owe men like Shaw a debt we can hardly understand, much less repay. Ideals higher than one’s personal appetite are foreign to many modern minds. I had a discussion recently about how different the characters from the movies “Casa Blanca” and “The English Patient” placed their personal passions in relation to the sacrifice required for higher ideals. Worth pointing out.

  • Lisa couldn’t have said, God Bless you, to Rick if she didn’t get on the plane.
    Both the Hunters of Kentucky standing up with Jackson for New Orleans and the determination to help free fellow man seen in Shaw’s 54th are reminders of what noble means – from history and art as opposed to from deeds forming the history of 2012.
    Hoping for some as yet unknowns, probably never to be known in the same way, to stand in the unnamed war with present day evil. The field is open to us all.

33 Responses to Santorum Wins Kansas

  • None of your Grouchy Penguin music criticisms Art! 🙂 Campaign music is supposed to be terrible. The only one I can think of that I like is:

  • Actually Art, the song wasn’t that bad – catchy tune and all.

    But it was worth watching all through for the youthful enthusiasm, and of course, the pretty girls 😉

  • Don, what a completely sexist and completely true thing to say!

  • Hi Don.

    You may have gathered, PC is not one of my strong points 🙂

  • I am shocked, Don, shocked I say:

  • Delaying the inevitable. A Romney win and a basting by Obama, who will win in a near-landslide. forcing me to update my passport so I can go to South America.

  • Actually Joe the Rasmussen tracking poll today shows Romney beating Obama by 5 and Santorum beating Obama by 1. Of course such polls this far out are largely meaningless, but Obama is in terrible shape for re-election and I expect him to lose the electoral college around 316-222.

  • The girls put this together without coordinating with the Santorum organization, Though I think he would approve it.

    If you click through they have some other non-poliical music which is pretty good for a group starintg in that genre.

  • Check out this interesting analysis by Nate Silver of Five Thirty Eight (be warned, it’s lengthy):

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/how-daunting-is-santorums-delegate-math/#more-28081

    “Mr. Santorum’s path to the nomination probably involves generating some real momentum by sweeping just about everything in March — other than perhaps Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the territorial caucuses. If he won Illinois on March 20, for instance, and then followed it up with an April 3 result in which he won Wisconsin clearly and if Maryland was close, that’s about the point in which Mr. Romney would be in extreme danger. It’s not impossible, but Mr. Santorum has a very high bar to clear.”

  • I think the only thing that would help Obama’s re-election is if Hillary becomes his running mate (God forbid)!

  • Joe,

    Hopefully you and I won’t need to emigrate. Although, I am looking into Chilean immigration laws.

    I saw the Rasmussen tracking poll, too. Romney 48 – 43; Santorum 46 – 45. The O’zero’s approval rating is 25%.

    Anyone see this racist chart on Don Surber? It’s the ones wherein Obama’s statisticians showed the projected unemployment rate trend lines with and without the $800 billion stimulus boondoggle. The current propaganda unemployment is 8.3% (with 6,000,000 people dropping off the face of the Earth, er, out of the labor force = denominator). This is above both scenarios.

    In fact, O’zero promised unemployment would never go over 8%. Once Obamacare kicks in the unemployment rate will never go lower than 10%, unless 15,000,000 more working class Americans fall of the face of the Earth.

    Racist Charts!!!

  • Rick’s biggest problems these days are the media of every stripe. When you win Kansas by 30% with 20K votes cast and lose Wyoming by a TOTAL VOTE COUNT of 650 to 425 and the headlines are “Romney splits Caucuses in Kansas and Wyoming” it’s pretty clear they’re trying to diminish anything good that Santorum pulls off.

    “Romney is projected to win the Wyoming Caucus, splitting the day’s events with Santorum who won the Kansas Caucus with over 50% of the vote there. “

  • Oh, yeah, Kansas!

    I’ve been to Kansas, down in the south by Medicine Lodge and Kiowa in Summer 1986.

    Being a Custer buff, I was interested in actually being in that part of the Plains Wars geography.

    Anyhow, I am seriously confused by Frank Baum’s, The Wizard of Oz. The most unfathomable part is:

    Why would Dorothy want to go back to Kansas?

  • “I am seriously confused by Frank Baum’s The Wizard of Oz.”

    You’re not the only one. Some literary critics, believe it or not, think the story is an allegory or parable of the American Populist movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with the Wizard representing the federal government; Dorothy a sort of Every Man/Woman; the Scarecrow, farmers: the Tin Man, industrial workers; and the Cowardly Lion, politicians (especially Populist presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan). Dorothy’s silver shoes (in the book; they became ruby slippers only in the movie) allegedly represent “free silver” coinage, a favorite Populist cause:

    http://www.amphigory.com/oz.htm

  • I have noticed on FOX at least more and more voices are starting to come out about the dangers of a prolonged primary.

    I don’t think it’s ending soon and I really think Gingrich needs to drop out for Santorum to beat Romney. Otherwise they will keep splitting the vote.

    For example, I voted Santorum and my wife voted Gingrich. She would have voted Santorum had he been the only one besides Romney. I am sure this is happening hundreds of times over….

  • Delaying the inevitable. A Romney win and a basting by Obama, who will win in a near-landslide. forcing me to update my passport so I can go to South America.

    I find this confidence in the President’s prospects (by supporters and opponents alike) very curious. Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan were returned to office in the midst of vigorous economic expansions; Dwight Eisenhower was a national icon; and Richard Nixon had managed to wind down a war 10x as bloody as that in Iraq while facing an unreconstructed Henry Wallace Democrat as an opponent. Can some of the President’s boosters tell me which precedent they think applies here?

  • Art: Hope and Change!

    From personal experience (I’m 61 going on 16): pessimism comes with the “territory” when one becomes superannuated. Then, second childhood . . .

    That and wasting campaign air time calling extremist liberal tools names.

    The notorious arch-racist, Professor Thomas Sowell, recently stated that America faces another great depression if Obama gets a “mulligan.”

    Perhaps, we are being too hard on the President. After all, it is his first job.

  • Mr. Shaw & Mr. McClarey: The polls you cite with Mitt and Rick beating Obama are offset by others that showed the Bamster with big leads. My hypothesis is that whoever emerges as the Republican nominee will be so bloodied by the GOP infighting and MSM assaults that he will be badly weakened. Imagine the Dems, flush with cash, running a slew of negative ads showing Mitt trashing Rick and vice versa and a variety of “gaffes” taken out of context that will make either look unfit to be President of “all the people.”

    BTW, off-topic a bit but perhaps a thread maker: Pat Buchanan’s new book, “Suicide of a Superpower,” subtitled “Will America Survive to 2025?” has two chapters, “The Death of Christian America” and “The Crisis of Catholicism” and the bitter fruit of Vatican II that would supply much grist for TAC contributors. October will mark the 50th anniversary of VII and no doubt critical retrospectives are very much in order.

    God bless, everyone, from a lapsed Catholic who is making his way back into the fold notwithstanding lingering doubts. I also thank all of your for your forgiveness and forebearance.

  • Welcome back Joe to the Faith!

    Polls, as I stated earlier, are largely meaningless today. The underlying reality is that Obama has been a miserable president with a bad economy, and that is going to lead to his defeat in the Fall. In 1980 Reagan was shown behind in most polls until the Republican convention. John Anderson, a Republican Congressman, bolted the party and ran on a third party ticket. Moderate Republicans were constantly proclaiming their dissatisfaction with Reagan and predicting a Carter victory. Polls at the end of October showed Carter ahead of Reagan. Reagan received a savagely bad press. None of that mattered in the end, because none of it could alter the fact that Carter had been a miserably bad President with a miserably bad economy.

  • Don, I would like to share your confidence and wholeheartedly agree Obama has been the worst president ever, but there are too many variables yet to predict a winner regardless of who the GOP nominates. I have a feeling that Iran, gas prices, social issues and unforeseen but impactful events will shape the mood of the nation in October. Polls are ephemeral anyway, reflecting the whims of the day. BTW, would appreciate any feedback on Buchanan’s jeremiads, which I must say seem quite justified in light of the deep divisions in the body politic.

  • Will keep you in my prayers, Joe. Keep walking back home, and the Father will run out to meet you and throw His arms around you.

  • Boy, everybody is forgetting the 2010 elections. Do you think those people who gave Obama a “shellacking” are going to stay home and sit on their hands?

  • “That song is godawful.”

    Yeah, well I don’t see anyone rushing out to make music of any kind – good or bad – for Dullard. He just doesn’t insire anyone to do anything apart from utter the words “electable” .But I don’t think that word means what they think it means.

  • The song is kinda catchy. Good tune, goofy lyrics, pretty girls… Looks like half the country music I listen to and love these days.

    As for the pessimism and optimism, I reject both because they are too narrowly focussed on the election. Both suggest that our system of government sinks or swims on election cycles. Thish ship of state turns slowly and eighht years isn’t enough to remold it. It is that fact that has frustrated self-styled “progressives” from Wilson to Obama.

    Will Obama’s political career survive this contest? Maybe. If so, it will be greatly weakened. Will Romney or Santorum win? Maybe. If so, their mandate will be Weak, and their influence subtle.

    Every day, I am amazed by the inspired choices of our Framers.

  • “Do you think those people who gave Obama a “shellacking” are going to stay home and sit on their hands?”

    If the nominee is Romney? Yes. Either that or they’ll vote for a 3rd party candidate that shares their views and priorities.

  • I respect your views on the Weathervane Jay, and if he is the nominee I will have no enthusiasm for him. However, I will have much enthusiasm for sending Obama packing, and I think most Republicans and conservatives will agree with with me, certainly enough to get that job done.

  • Oh, and to buck up those inclined to pessimism, the electoral map has shifted significantly for the Republicans. Assuming they can win New Hampshire, the Republicans no longer need to win Ohio, although I do think they will win the Buckeye State and Pennsylvania:

    http://www.270towin.com/

  • I don’t like Romney either. Some say he is Obama-lite and he may be but I would rather take my chances with Mitt because I KNOW what a disaster Obama is.

  • Joe,

    Today, I fret less about who wins in November.

    There will be great rejoicing in Heaven.

    You inspire me.

    T

  • Read this—an insider is saying Hillary is going to be on the ticket. This makes sense coupled with the contraceptive story and the fact that Bill Clinton is out there doing fundraisers for Obama.. All bets are off, this may put Obama back in play considering Hillary’s popularity. Can he fool voters again??

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/03/election-news-and-blue.php

  • There needs to be an ‘attraction’ on the D ballot. The new Kennedy glam of the Clinton’s (he who wiped innocence and dignity from the political face for the people of this country) will outdo a VP like J. Biden.
    The bloodied and slandered Republican on the ballot will need the hand of God.

The Great Shea-Hippolito Grudge Match

Saturday, March 10, AD 2012

Saint Blogs can be an entertaining place, and one of the more amusing grudge matches for the past decade has been the ongoing feud between Joseph D’Hippolito and Mark Shea.  This fight has been waged on every Catholic blog imaginable.  Go here for a google search of a few of their combats.  Neither of the verbal gladiators is a stranger to bombastic language, over the top characterizations and the unending construction of straw men.  On the other hand, both are pretty good writers and have some talent at argument when they deign to do so rather than to simply vent.

Joe started the latest conflict with a post at Front Page magazine in which he mildly compares Shea and his comments on Iran to the mad poet and traitor Ezra Pound who broadcast pro-Fascist propaganda from Mussolini’s Italy during World War II.  Go here to read it.  Mark responds here  by patiently calling Joe a cold-blooded advocate for mass murder.

Continue reading...

34 Responses to The Great Shea-Hippolito Grudge Match

  • So who is Rocky Balboa and who is Mr. T?

  • I will leave that to each reader to decide Phillip, although the thought of either Mark or Joe in a mohawk is enough to cause the stoutest of hearts to quiver with fear!

  • I am not familiar with Joseph D’Hippolito but I know of Mark Shea and he is the reason I discontinued my subscription to “This Rock” magazine (now Catholic Answers). Nor will I support the parent organization of that magazine in any way.

    His over the top rhetoric is unnecessary. It’s not a matter of “taste” either, it’s just unnecessary and adds nothing to what he tries to say. The one or two well written articles on Catholic doctrine he writes are overshadowed by his many bellicose postings. In particular the vicious attacks on John Corpai come to mind. Regardless of what Corapi may or may not have done, his “writings” on that situation was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me.

    I find that avoiding Mark Shea all together has been an excellent choice. My time is better spent reading sites like this one. I will take my time and money anywhere Mark Shea is not.

  • I find that avoiding Mark Shea all together has been an excellent choice. My time is better spent reading sites like this one. I will take my time and money anywhere Mark Shea is not.

    That doubles for me. Mark should stick to apologetics – at which he does a very fine job – and his articles at NCRegister and OSV, where he has an editor to check the reins as needed.

  • “although the thought of either Mark or Joe in a mohawk is enough to cause the stoutest of hearts to quiver with fear!”

    That made me crack up in laughter!

  • That article by Joe D’Hippolito over at Front Page was so hysterically critical of Mark in such a blatantly ignorant, dishonest and hate-filled way, that only Joe or Mark himself could have written it.

    Two sides of the same coin, those two.

  • Pingback: SATURDAY MID-DAY EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Given that one of the people whose murder Joe has not-so-subtly advocated is me, I do think that Joe’s rhetoric is a problem–and a documentable one. However, I have not actually feuded with Joe for roughly five years, when I wrote him and said I thought it was bad for both our souls to continue the squabble. Joe agreed (I have the correspondence), promised to stop invading my comboxes, and then promptly broke his promise. I banned him and killfiled him and, since then, the “feud” has, for the past five years, consisted entirely of Joe endlessly complaining about me in comboxes all over St. Blogs (all while complaining of being “stalked”) and me almost never engaging or discussing him (check Google and my blog if you don’t believe me). I responded to *this* piece because what Joe (and Pewsitter) wrote is libel. I will be happy to return to avoiding the man.

    As to mohawks, I have a chin mohawk.

  • Mark—I had the same reaction to Shea and he now writes for the Register I believe. I will not bother to voyage into the debate as I am not familiar with Mr. D’Hippolito. I found Mr. Shea to be not just intellectually dishonest and ridiculously misinformed on subjects ranging from conservative politics to international relations, but I consider him to be stylistically sanctimonious, passive aggressive, and snarky. I have better things to do and better things to read. …but to each his own.

  • Ditto what Chris and thelarryd said.

  • Mr. d’Hippolito’s remarks were reasonable.

  • I too have ceased to support Catholic Answers due to their looking the other way at Shea’s calumnious screeds. Same goes for the rest of Catholic writers and apologists establishment who have also continued to fete Shea despite their clear knowledge of his despicable behavior. This brings unspeakable shame upon the Church.

  • This post was meant to be fairly light hearted. I do not want it to degenerate into a “I hate Shea-athon.” Mark has people who like the way he blogs and others who hate the way he blogs, but an examination of that is not the purpose of this post.

  • Donald:

    I caught your light-hearted tone. As to the comments: they are a suitable Lenten penance for me.

    Also: “Rocky” was way better than any of its sequels. I’m just sayin’.

  • I tend to agree with you on Rocky Mark, although I have always treasured the final fight with Clubber Lane in RocKy III and the line: “He’s not getting killed, he’s getting mad!”:

  • The last Rocky movie actually wasn’t bad at all.

  • I think some of you guys are far too precious WRT Mark Shea’s writing style, which is hyperbolic and confrontational and designed to get us uncomfortable. He expresses his views clearly and unambiguously, and Greg saying his writing brings “unspeakable shame on the Church” is, frankly, ludicrous.

    I actually like his style, and he doesn’t mind one disagreeing with him provided its not abusive – which is fair enough, I say. I have several of his books, and use his material in my RCIA and apologetics.

    And if you don’t like it, get over it and move on, but don’t bleat like sheep. 🙂

  • Don, what do you think would happen? Light hearted? You post something about Joe D’Hippolito writing a piece making very serious accusations (which actually have some merit) against Shea and you were just being light hearted? Please!!!!!

    I find it peculiar that you seem to want to protect Shea despite the fact that he engages in some to the worst behavior imaginable for a prominent Catholic apologist and writer. Furthermore, you have the entire prominent Catholic apologetics and writers establishment who refuse to do their, I think grave, Christian duty to fraternally correct him and publicly distance themselves from him should he refuse to act according to that correction. Pointing that out is not a hate-a-thon.

  • You have had you say now twice Greg, and I have explained what I intended this post to to be, and since this is my post my wishes will be respected.

  • More seriously, though I’m no fan of either writer, Joe’s post (though hyperbolic) contains actual facts and links to credible sources. Mark might think snark and strawmen are convincing, but only if one views these exchanges as a sort of performance art.

  • Paul:

    Slightly off topic, did you ever see “Son of Rambow”? Charming movie, though I do get tired of Evil Repressed White Male Christian Dude as the stock villain.

  • One can easily write a post with “facts” in it and draw conclusion from these “facts” that are libelous. This Joe has done. He strings together a few quotes and links and tries to claim I am a writing propaganda on behalf of the regime in Iran. Being opposed to the drums being pounded for war against Iran is not propaganda on behalf of their brutal regime. It is opposition to yet another foolish war against that regime. Meanwhile, Joe has advocated the use of nuclear weapons against multiple targets in the mideast, as well as the indiscriminate slaughter of Muslims in New Jersey. I don’t see that it is either snark or strawman to point out these facts, nor to draw actual valid conclusions from them, such as “Joe D’Hippolito is not a particularly reliable credible source on our Iran policy.”

    That said, I like talking about “Son of Rambow” better.

  • Don the Kiwi:

    Thankee kindly!

  • This post was nothing of what I expected when I followed it from http://thepulp.it , but since I’m here I must say I enjoy Mark’s blog as it is a reminder to me that to be Catholic is to be neither Republican nor Democrat.

    On another note, I think some of the remarks here are unnecessary and would fall under the sin of detraction.
    http://blog.adw.org/2011/09/but-i-tell-you-that-men-will-have-to-give-account-on-the-day-of-judgment-for-every-careless-word-they-have-spoken%E2%80%A6-%E2%80%9D-a-reflection-on-the-sin-of-gossip/

  • Interesting fact from Ezra Pound’s life.

  • I think some of you guys are far too precious WRT Mark Shea’s writing style, which is hyperbolic and confrontational and designed to get us uncomfortable.

    Difference between confrontational and distasteful. I won’t post examples of his writings to point this out because of respect for Donald’s wishes.

    And if you don’t like it, get over it and move on

    Well I cannot speak for everyone, but I have stopped reading from sources associated with him and have in fact “moved on”. I think most of us posting about our dislike of Marks’s writing style (he very well is probably a wonderful person to chat with over a cup of coffee face to face) did so because of the topic of this post. Not because we could not move on.

  • I actually liked Rocky II and then Rocky IV… how can you not like Rocky IV? It was the 80s and we beat the Soviets… ah, those were the days… when I was proud of my country and we beat the Commies…. now we are the commies… so sad 🙁

  • BRET! Nice! What I wondering when the Mr. T v. Rocky Balboa comment was made is who would be Rocky and who would be the Soviet. 🙂

  • Betsy,

    Sometimes humor doesn’t translate well online in a single line.

    It wasn’t meant to be a “National Enquirer” type of link.

    As for Rocky, I agree with Paul, the last one was kind of good.

  • The first Rocky was the best, it was also a very good year for American movies – Network comes to mind. Hollywood is nothing but cheap propaganda for liberals now. I’ll be rooting for the Russians in any rematch. How times have changed.

  • Shea is pretty much a dolt, in my view, trying to stake out a pious “pox upon both your houses” view of presidential politics, which, while very smug, is very dangerous. his disdain for McCain, while understandable, was reckless when it resulted in advocating voting for whatever quixotic candidate he voted for. Result: Obama. Now we see the same thing again, where no candidate is ritually pure enough for Papa Shea. Result may yet again be: Obama if enough Catholics follow his mutton-headed view of matters.

    That, plus his ill-informed pontificating on moral theology, waters too deep for him to be dabbling in, result in his frequent ham-handed pronunciamentos on particular issues like enhanced interrogation and the death penalty, about which he is educationally unqualified to offer more than a purely private opinion. Yet he thunders condemnations as if his positions are the sole one acceptable for a Catholic, and many times in the process ignores, dismissively minimizes, or belittles any Catholic teaching prior to 1965 in conflict with his conclusions.

    He is exhibit #1 in why no one should rely on the internet magisterium for reliable information on Catholic moral theology.

  • Paul Zummo writes: Mark might think snark and strawmen are convincing, but only if one views these exchanges as a sort of performance art.

    Bingo.

    Hold your cards.

  • I have a great respect for Mark Shea’s work in at least one sense: He is willing to take on even his audience of mostly conservative readers when he thinks they are advocating evil. Whatever one thinks, he does stick to his guns, even when they may cost him in the pocketbook.

One Response to The Hunters of Kentucky

Surprise! Sandra Fluke Being Run From White House

Friday, March 9, AD 2012

29 Responses to Surprise! Sandra Fluke Being Run From White House

  • It’s working . . . [gasp]

    The Catholic War and BC kerfluffle are distracting you the people from skyrocketing gasoline prices and no jobs.

    So much so that in the OK primary Obamessiah lost 15 counties and won the state-wide primary with 57% of the Democrud vote.

    Also, it’s working for Hewo of the Wevowution Ewizabeth Wawwen who is polling 10 points behind Senator Scott Brown.

    Re: Mao and Mother Teresa: Mao would say, “Let’s kill 50,000,000 people to change society.” Mother Teresa would tell you, “You won’t be going to Heaven if you vote Democrat.” “

  • “Anita Dunn is a political strategist who served as White House Communications Director from April through November 2009. She is a senior partner at SKDKnickerbocker Consulting in Washington, D.C. and has recently become a contributor for NBC News / MSNBC / CNBC.”

    The Main Stream News Media – why am I unsurprised!

    He spouse is Robert Bauer who in turn “…is an American attorney who previously served as White House Counsel under President of the United States Barack Obama…Bauer was President Obama’s personal attorney and the general counsel of the Obama for America presidential campaign prior to his appointment as White House Counsel. He has also previously served as the general counsel to the Democratic National Committee, and had advised President Obama since Mr. Obama came to Washington, D.C. in 2005 as U. S. Senator.”

    The tentacles of the Comité de Salut Public grows. Any day now we will hear the cries of Liberté, égalité, fraternité as we are shown the guillotine.

  • Instead of us being shown the guillotine Paul, the country is going to show these bizarre characters the door in November.

  • Regarding Ms. Fluke, I feel compelled to say this, which is something I feel I should have posted about earlier when the story first broke…..she did not ask for Congress to subsidize students having sex. That I would be morally offended by. What she seemed to me to be saying is that even when students had doctor’s notes saying they were using the contraceptives for help with things like cancer, they were denied coverage. From my understanding of Catholic teaching, If a person was using contraceptives for medical reasons only, AND was abstaining from sex while using said contraceptives, that would be different from using contraceptives to prevent pregnancy.

    It seems to me that the best way to counter taking her testimony as a reason to cover contraception in all cases would be to try and ensure that when a person brings a doctor’s note saying they are using the contraceptive for a limited period of time for medical reasons, they are covered.

  • Can someone explain why a 30 year old private citizen with no wage or salaried employment has any need of a public relations firm or would be inclined to fork over for one? Is she being forwarded Beyonce’s fan mail?

  • “What she seemed to me to be saying is that even when students had doctor’s notes saying they were using the contraceptives for help with things like cancer, they were denied coverage. ”

    That was thrown in as a smokescreen. She is a hard core pro-abort activist who attended Georgetown precisely to get that Jesuit school to change its policy on student health insurance not covering contraceptives.

  • “Can someone explain why a 30 year old private citizen with no wage or salaried employment has any need of a public relations firm or would be inclined to fork over for one?”

    Or how she can afford to be jetting around the nation making speeches. Additionally her law school appears to be mighty accomodating on her missing classes, although it is her third year and I do have to admit that most law students in their third year are concerned with finding employment and preparing for the bar exam with class work taking a back seat.

  • Lord Jesus, please make Donald’s prediction a reality! In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen!

  • Isn’t this Saul Alinsky’s strategy, to place an enemy in the midst of a peaceable assembly to disrupt that peaceable assembly? Isn’t this the abrogation of free speech? Isn’t Sandra Fluke bearing false witness, which, in a court of law is perjury? Perjury from the White House is treason. Obama took an oath to uphold the constitution, especially that part that says: “or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” And that part of the Obamas being community organizers for the poor with Alinsky’s philosophy of : “Take as much as you can as fast as you can” is that called working for the poor? Alinsky asked God to send him to hell and from hell Alinsky has been orchestrating our desent into hell. Mao Tse Tung said: Mind your own business. Mother Teresa said: “Give what you have to the poor and come follow me.” That woman could not keep her tongue in her mouth.

  • So if the White House is pimping her, Rush needs to take back his apology. Sure she didn’t sell her body but it’s clear she has sold her soul.

  • Limbaugh is sitting pretty. Advertisers who bailed on him are begging him to take them back:
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/03/rush-limbaugh-advertiser.html

    Liberal Kirsten Powers has attacked the rampant misogyny on the Left:

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/van-susteren-and-kirsten-powers-on-media-misogyny-obama-and-super-pac-will-look-other-way-if-you-pony-up/

    Exhibit A of this misogyny is Bill Maher who routinely attacks conservative women in the vilest imaginable terms, and who recently contributed a million bucks for Obama’s reelection. Here Maher is taken to task by ShePacTv:

  • If WH organization is using her for a schill, she’s on an all expenses paid (by taxpayers or PAC’s) whirl. Her law degree will be awarded in the same way ND did for the leader of the disgrace.

  • I was watching Sean Hannity on Fox News yesterday at a friends place where this very topic was being discussed, and showed a clip of Bill Maher pouring out his vitriol.

    I simply cannot understand how 1. An audience would find his abuse amusing and laughable.
    and 2. Why the network channel allows that sort debased language and deliberate insult to go to air.
    I go to my local bar once or twice a week for a beer with a bunch of mates; a couple of them are pretty hard cases – but they would not use that sort of abusive language about women.
    Its really quite shocking, and is not what I would view to be the America, and Americans,
    that I have come to know over the years,( looking from the outside).
    But what really staggered me was that Obama seems to accept it against his opponents.
    That guy is looking increasingly shifty when he speaks publicly – doesn’t seem to have quite the self assurance of a couple of years ago. Eye contact seems to be avoided – or is that just imagination?

  • Too many Leftists Don view their opponents as evil and deserving of no shred of respect. Common decency is becoming increasingly uncommon on the port side of the political spectrum. Fun times ahead.

  • Don,

    It’s all out war and there are no rules: “no holds barred.”

    Obam is organzing prayer vigils for the SC steps when the socialized medicine case is heard. Maybe he’ll send Malia and sasha to “occupy” the SC. Somebody’s got to pay for their condoms!

    Maybe Rev. Wright is available to lead some “Goddamn Americas.”

    Today NYT published an ad calling for on Catholics to leave the Catholic Church.

    The far left hate group, Freedom from Religion, calls liberal (de facto excommunicatos) Catholics “enablers” and says it’s time to choose between the “woman-hating, sex-perverting, old boy’s club” and reproductive rights.

    May as well, commies. Either way, you’re going to hell.

  • They must be laughing up their sleeves at this new idea to defy Truth. Mind control and another excuse for getting the mob primed. Coincidentally, the sun is sending some plasma to earth tomorrow night.

  • Obama is organizing prayer vigils? remember that word “co-opt”?

  • I Hope we DO show them the door in November. There is apparently a lot of work to be done and we seem to be at a disadvantage.
    I am thinking of this consideration: had Gandhi or M L KIng not been able to appeal to a public formed by Christian conscience, they prob would not have been successful.
    Could it be now that we no longer have a nation with with a Christian conscience?
    The other side seems to have the weight of the culture, of ingrained popular opinion, constantly shaped and formed by the media/movies, music…(sigh)

  • As 2010 indicated Anzlyne, none of that trumps reality. The reality is that Obama has been an appallingly bad President, and I am confident that a majority of the American people will register their rejection of him and all his works come election day.

  • yes you are right —
    the ephemeral “hope and change” promises lose appeal with people when they are faced with reality– makes us become, ah, realists !
    keeping and building that momentum (the midterm elections) will be key

  • by the way Mr. McClarey, I like your characterization: “reject him and all his works” -it has that familiar ring– “pomps” would be nice added in there! : )

  • I am against abortion but if Fluke’s mother had one it wouldn’t have bothered me.

  • Donald McClarey: “The reality is that Obama has been an appallingly bad President,” Obama has not been a president at all. Obama has been our legislative branch of government, the Congress, writing executive orders: Rural Councils, NationaL Defense Authorization Act, Obamacare, none of which, when put to the ballot would pass. While Obama is being Congress, who is being president? Nobody.

  • If she wasn’t being run from the WH, I would have considered that a fluke.

  • You know, as crude as Limbaugh’s remarks may seem, he was actually right. What else do you call an unmarried woman who openly demands someone else to pay for her contraception? This sure strikes me as slutty. Act like one, get called one I say. I’m beginning to think Limbaugh made a huge mistake in apologizing. I think it is about time conservatives stop allowing themselves to be intimidated whenever there is backlash over pointedly stated truths. It’s time we start demonizing the demons.

    If I had a daughter who did what Ms. Fluke did, I would be so ashamed, I would probably have an emotional breakdown.

    Given Georgetown being a CINO (Catholic in Name Only) college for decades, I’m actually surprised they don’t pay for contraceptives already.

  • Obama the Apostate:

    http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/09/obama-the-apostate

    The Church’s charitable work has been seen as a threat to the power of the state as far back as the reign of Julian the Apostate.

  • IronHammerStew-
    if that’s what she claimed, then she was flatly lying. PJTV did this crazy thing where they actually called up the college to see if such a situation was covered……

Sen. Landrieu’s Justification of the vote against the Blunt amendment

Thursday, March 8, AD 2012

I sent an email urging Sen. Mary Landrieu (who says she is Catholic) to support the Blunt Amendment. Today, I got an email in response (which apparently was sent to others)

Thank you for your letter in support of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. The recent decision by the administration to require contraception coverage as a health insurance benefit has raised a number of questions and brought some difficult issues to the surface. I value your input on this important issue.
I strongly support the values and teachings of the Catholic Church, and I was one of the voices who expressed concerns about the Obama administration’s initial, ill-advised policy on this issue. On February 10th the administration modified the policy, and the revised rule, in my view, protects religious freedom and respects the rights of churches and Catholic hospitals and institutions. The compromise requires health insurance companies to provide free preventive contraceptive services if a religiously-based employer chooses not to. This compromise is supported by the Catholic Health Association, and has no effect on the conscience clause protections that currently exist for providers, which allow a Catholic doctor, for example, to refuse to write a prescription for contraception.
However, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (also known as the “Blunt amendment” after its sponsor, Senator Blunt) goes too far. It would allow any employer or insurance provider to block any service, preventive or otherwise, that is “contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan.” This not only includes preventive birth control medication, which millions of American women rely on, but could also include transfusions, organ transplants or hospice care, which some “sponsors” may find objectionable.
I understand how sensitive this issue is, and I am very grateful for your input. There are no easy answers to these difficult questions and I appreciate you taking the time to write to me.

Continue reading...

26 Responses to Sen. Landrieu’s Justification of the vote against the Blunt amendment

  • Her actual argument in opposition to the Blunt Amendment is that she does not have to face the good citizens of the Pelican state until 2014.

  • and since the employer is paying for the health insurance doesn’t he get to choose what he is buying? I really feel like property of the state in this matter.

  • Sooo, let those other entities challenge their restrictions in court. Voting for the Blunt legislation would have given the Catholic Church the right to retain its rights under the Constitution. Her explanations for voting against it is BS.

  • “You do nothing with all your profusion of words but fight a fire with dry straw.” – ML
    From three posts down the line… for the Justification here.

  • I know this ain’t gonna happen, but wouldn’t it be nice if Notre Dame took its honorary degree away from Obama and gave it to Sen. Blunt instead, even though he’s not Catholic? This isn’t the first time, by the way, I’ve seen a Baptist legislator turn out to be a better Catholic than many of the Catholics!

  • True Elaine, and isn’t that fact a sad commentary on the state of catechesis in the Church today?

  • “This isn’t the first time, by the way, I’ve seen a Baptist legislator turn out to be a better Catholic than many of the Catholics!”

    “…do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.” Matthew 3:9

  • I completely agree that the RCC should not be forced to provide contraceptive coverage, and that the HHS mandate and “accomodation” ar total BS. Her buying in to the “accomodation” in my view shows she is full of BS. But, there is some legitimacy it would seem to the argument that the Blunt amendment goes little too far. What about things like blood transfusions or other true treatments that some particular sect may object to? Where do you draw the line, or do you not draw one at all? Personally, I would have simply offered a counter amendment, or requested Blunt to be modified, to simply drop contraceptives, sterilization, etc. from mandatory coverage unless medically indicated to treat a disease, the state of pregnancy not counting as such.

  • Is that so terrible? We had a far greater mish-mash of coverages before; I think this lesser degree of variancy won’t destroy the system.

    The answer to the question was yes. That is why we had health insurance reform. While your opinion of social policy alternatives is valuable, you chose not to be a party to the reform. You instead chose to oppose chimerical abortion coverage. We all have to live with the consequences of our choices. You and people like yourself were given the opportunity to offer proposals and marshal support for those proposals as part of the comprehensive reform.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:
    “Her actual argument in opposition to the Blunt Amendment is that she does not have to face the good citizens of the Pelican state until 2014.” What you write is the truth. My concern is that if Obama wins this battle, there might not be any elections in 2014.
    http://www.rosaryvictory.blogspot.com

  • c matt –

    “But, there is some legitimacy it would seem to the argument that the Blunt amendment goes little too far. What about things like blood transfusions or other true treatments that some particular sect may object to?”

    “Blood transfusions” is settle law via court cases. It is legitimate and correct medical care to protect a patient’s life. The fact that she doesn’t know that is troublesome. I’m sick ‘n tired of being played by these liberal Democrats who lie without hesitation. And if they are not lying, then they are too stupid to be in the position they’re in. Thanks, Catholics, for putting so many of them in power to RULE over our us

  • MZ:

    The answer to the question was yes. That is why we had health insurance reform.

    Healthcare reform was not justified due to too much variance; it was justified under the guise of expanding coverage to the poor & those with pre-existing conditions in order to counter perceived abuses & greed by the insurance companies. I never heard anything to the sound of: we need a uniform national policy in order to streamline things.

    While your opinion of social policy alternatives is valuable, you chose not to be a party to the reform. You instead chose to oppose chimerical abortion coverage. We all have to live with the consequences of our choices. You and people like yourself were given the opportunity to offer proposals and marshal support for those proposals as part of the comprehensive reform.

    This is laughable, A) b/c at the time I supported Obamacare as long as it had the Stupak amendment (a decision I now regret; it’s simply too much power to be in anyone’s hand as the Obama’s administrations actions have made perfectly clear) and B) the reason the USCCB and others opposed the final version was that it lacked proper conscience provisions. So b/c we ended up opposing a particular version of healthcare reform due to its inadequate conscience protections we shouldn’t complain about the egregious violations of religious liberty? The USCCB with its storied history of support for healthcare reform no longer even gets a seat at the table b/c it didn’t endorse the final product? Are you joking or are you that much more of a Democrat than a Catholic?

  • As a proud Louisiana native I am continually embarassed by our esteemed senior senator and more embarassed that we have continued to re-elect her to office. Maybe my fellow citizens will have awoke by 2014 and remember what this CINO has done to us and to our state. She is a typical politician, she does not understand the concept of being a public servant.

  • Let me re-write MZ’s entire comment in one sentence.

    “You are a bad catholic if you oppose Obamacare because social justice justifies sin.”

    I’m MZ’s bad Catholic. I would reform health care by providing poor people with needs-based vouchers (e.g., “food stamps) not by seizing people’s health care and warring on the Roman Catholic Church.

    That was not considered because the people would retain discretion and freedom.

  • “You and people like yourself were given the opportunity to offer proposals and marshal support for those proposals as part of the comprehensive reform.”

    Here’s God’s proposal:

    “If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” 2nd Chronicles 7:14

    No righteousness and no holiness means no healthcare and no prosperity. Conversion and repentance must precede every other thing. Liberals refuse to comprehend this because they think that they can by their own efforts create a Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Such pride, such arrogance, such hubris God hates. They have learned not one thing from the account of the Tower of Babel.

    Liberal. Progressive. Democrat. The three dirtiest words in the English language.

  • The ‘care’ word has to go. On November 6th, a lot of politicians, too.
    This HHS opus, that some exempt-from-it brain said had to be passed to be read, will offer coverage that will later be eliminated. Preventive, such as teeth cleaning, will stay. Problems to be fixed by anything but extraction will not be covered.
    Health and Human Servants care about the citizens they serve to the extent that the citizens take HHS medicine and shut up about after effects.

  • You and people like yourself were given the opportunity to offer proposals and marshal support for those proposals as part of the comprehensive reform.

    I have to call you on that falsehood MZ. As I recall, the debate went something along the lines of

    Obama: “I won. LIve with it”. Not much opportunity there. Or did you conveniently forget that the Dems forged the monstrosity of Obamacare on their own behind closed doors?

  • Or did you conveniently forget that the Dems forged the monstrosity of Obamacare on their own behind closed doors?

    You can’t cure stupid.

  • Indeed M.Z., but if you keep reading TAC perhaps we can put you into remission.

  • Her actual argument in opposition to the Blunt Amendment is that she does not have to face the good citizens of the Pelican state until 2014.

    Donald, I’m not sure that she will run again in 2014.

    In any event, I’ve already sent her an email telling her that I’ve never gotten involved in politicking for an election before, but I will walk the streets of my town to campaign against her if she runs for office again. And, I meant it.

    So, if she doesn’t run for re-election, I can always say I get the credit. 🙂

  • If Ms. Louisiana Purchase does not enter the lists in 2014 Nicholas, I know it will be because she is quailing in fear from you and a lot of your fellow voters!

  • I see MZ had the opportunity to empty his spleen *and* up his smug quotient for the week.

    Good for him.

  • “You can’t cure stupid.”

    Ah, our intellectual superiors from VN.

  • I suppose I could have just linked to a timeline of the health care reform bill. I could have linked to the numerous hearings with insurers, providers, and beneficiaries. I could have pointed to the numerous efforts to get Republican cosponsors that started in the House and ended with overtures to Susan Collins in the Senate. But I figured anyone who made the statement, “Or did you conveniently forget that the Dems forged the monstrosity of Obamacare on their own behind closed doors?” wasn’t particularly interested in an argument and was just being stupid. Much to my chagrin, other people in this combox decided to place their tribe before a trivial and easily verifiable truth. Please go back to feigning to offer intelligent commentary and throw a few more rips at me for my offenses.

  • But I figured anyone who made the statement, “Or did you conveniently forget that the Dems forged the monstrosity of Obamacare on their own behind closed doors?” wasn’t particularly interested in an argument and was just being stupid.

    Yes, I think everyone was impressed by how you showed that you, on the contrary, were interested in argument.

  • But, there is some legitimacy it would seem to the argument that the Blunt amendment goes little too far. What about things like blood transfusions or other true treatments that some particular sect may object to?
    c matt

    My responses to that are threefold: “so what?”, “what is it about the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment you don’t like?” and “when has an employer ever hidden their religion as it affects their business’s practices from a job prospect?”

    To amplify the latter, if I had a health plan at a job provided by a practicing Jehovah’s Witness I’d be grateful to have a job. And if I had an acute life-threatening injury and the only reachable-in-time medical help was the Jehovah’s Witness clinic (they operate no hospitals to my knowledge), I’d be grateful for whatever help they offer.

    Also, none of this should matter anyway because the federal government is not permitted the power to meddle in our lives and livelihoods this way by the U.S. Constitution.

They Said If I Voted for John McCain the U.S. Would Engage in Endless Middle East Conflict with No Concern for Congressional Approval

Thursday, March 8, AD 2012

And they were right.

For those who didn’t watch the video, skip to about the 3:35 mark where Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta responds to a question about creating a no-fly zone over Syria.  He states that the administration would seek international approval and then inform Congress about its actions.

That’s right – international sanction for military action would take precedence over Congressional authority.  And that makes complete sense, because in the United States Constitution it clearly states right there in Article I, Section 8 that international bodies shall have the power to declare war and therefore bring the United States into armed conflict.

Oh.  Wait.  It’s Congress that has the power to declare war.  Silly me.  But we live in an international age, and if the Supreme Court can rely on international law in order to decide cases, then by golly the President of the United States should be able to commit American troops to armed conflict with a nice note from the U.N. or some other international body.

And at least he’ll be nice enough to let Congress know.  Maybe he’ll text Speaker Boehner about it, but only after he gets off the phone with Sandra Fluke.  Priorities.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to They Said If I Voted for John McCain the U.S. Would Engage in Endless Middle East Conflict with No Concern for Congressional Approval

  • I think this might become a major issue:

    “WASHINGTON — The US offered to give Israel advanced weaponry — including bunker-busting bombs and refueling planes — in exchange for Israel’s agreement not to attack Iranian nuclear sites, Israeli newspaper Maariv reported Thursday.

    President Obama reportedly made the offer during Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington this week.

    Under the proposed deal, Israel would not attack Iran until 2013, after US elections in November this year. The newspaper cited unnamed Western diplomatic and intelligence sources.

    Netanyahu said Monday that sanctions against Iran had not worked, adding that “none of us can afford to wait much longer” in taking action against Iran’s controversial nuclear program.”

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/attack_offered_israel_advanced_weaponry_vJzadL8Qw5XoQ7akSRO9yK

  • Paul and Donald, et. al.,

    If the attacks on Libya without congressional approval did not become a major issue, and Solyndra did not become a major issue, I would not hold my breath.

    –Jonathan

  • No one cared about Libya Jonathan because it was a no casualty war, and most members of Congress thought that it was a good idea to take out Khaddafi. I think that this story is quite a bit different. It is all over the conservative blogosphere already and Fox is running with it. Let us see what happens.

  • Ahh, Donald. That’s just my “Federalism and separation of powers” idealist showing up again.

  • Well, as a side note to all of this. I think it’s an awful idea to insert ourselves into Syria.

    From all the reporting I have seen Christians generally support Assad only because what comes after him would be much worse. I think the Christians on the ground understand as bad as Assad and the Alawites have been they can only look forward to an even worse oppressive Islamic government taking hold. They see what is happening in Egypt and the Coptic Christians.

    Syria: bishop says government must crush uprising
    http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=18424

    Maronite Patriarch: Violence turning Arab Spring into winter
    http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/03/04/198548.html

I Guess it is Easier to Stack Internet Polls

Thursday, March 8, AD 2012

Hmmm, Doctor Delusional’s campaign is wondering why they aren’t winning any caucuses or primaries:

BOISE, Idaho — Ron Paul’s top strategists are confused and frustrated that the wild enthusiasm they see at their campaign rallies and events is not translating into votes.

Thousands turned out to see the Texas congressman at events in Alaska, Idaho and North Dakota in the days before Super Tuesday. Paul said publicly and believed privately that he could win all three states outright. When the votes were counted, though, he finished third in Alaska and Idaho and second in North Dakota.

Paul may still emerge with a big chunk of delegates in the GOP nominating race, but the candidate’s much-hyped focus on caucus states has yet to yield an outright victory in any state.

This gap between dreams and reality came to a head during a Wednesday morning conference call for senior staff when the discussion turned to why the campaign keeps underperforming its own forecasts.

“They count the numbers and then they count the votes,” said Doug Wead, a Paul senior adviser who was on the call. “Did they get overconfident? … We’re digesting that.”

Continue reading...

37 Responses to I Guess it is Easier to Stack Internet Polls

  • “Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many” (Hebrews 12:14,15).

    Does Dr. Paul owe you money?

    It sounds a bit personal here. I believe that his, and our, common enemy is President Caiaphas and the Peoples’ Democratic Pharisee Party. Regardless of how offbeat he might be, if he is not winning, then what’s the issue? He’s not taking delegates from Sen. Santorum in any large volume.

    We’ll need every vote we can get in November. Keeping that fringe in the numbers count is essential. Elitism and dismissive derision never generate the desired outcomes. Most of all, remember the Reagan Rule.

    Thanks.

    “Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you” (Ephesians 4:31,32).

  • “Does Dr. Paul owe you money?”

    Only for his wasting of the time of the conservative movement for the past few decades. Loons like Paul have always been the bane of the conservative cause. He was the featured speaker a few years ago at the Fiftieth Anniversary celebration of the John Birch Society. Fools like Doctor Delusional have always walked arm in arm with the Left in efforts to make conservatism seem ridiculous. You cite Reagan. Ron Paul thought that Reagan was such a poor president that he resigned from the Republican party during his term in office. Would that Ron Paul would do so again.

  • It’s interesting in how you framed his rallies, a freak show. Each and every time I see him on television I picture him with a clown suit on and makeup.

  • I think the best way to explain the disconnect is that the Idea of Paul is very, very intriguing–and energizing–to a lot of young people, but the actual candidate falls short. It’s silly to discount his ability to fill a decent-sized arena wherever he goes.

    Insert qualifier….now.

    But the man himself is not the horse to draw his own cart. I do think his baggage is a more serious problem than they want to admit, and the perceived/actual alliance with Romney does not help.

    The messenger is inadequate to advance the message to the next stage. Whereas his senatorial son just might be able to do so.

  • I think Rand Paul has a bright future ahead of him Dale, once his father is safely in retirement.

  • Yes trying to solve OUR domestic problems first is WACKO!! Putting OUR border security first is INSANE! Borrowing more money from China , continuing to expand government and sending off even more young Americans to die for more failed foreign policies, now THAT’S pure genius. I guess I havent read you enough as I thought this was a conservative blog, but if yours is the republican mindset we’re in big , big trouble. I had almost convinced myself to vote for ANYONE that runs against the current Totalitarian in the oval office. Your comments have me thinking for the first time , “why bother”?

  • Pammie, Ron Paul is an isolationist, conspiracy believing, crank who has no legislation of note to his credit after more than two decades of keeping a seat warm in Congress. His Paulbot followers are given to chant “Ron Paul Revolution, Give Us Back Our Constitution”! That is risible because all that can be shown for Ron Paul’s political career is nothing. He never led any effective movement in Congress. He has been a total lone wolf. He has done zero to effectively reduce the size and scope of government. His specialty has been to give a platform for every wacked out conspiracy theory imaginable from the fringe right. He has as much to do with conservatism as Bill Clinton has with chastity.

    I go into greater detail in regard to Doctor Delusional at the link below:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/12/29/yep-ron-paul-r-pluto-is-pretty-much-of-a-wackdoodle-isolationist/

  • Having read your comments on Dr. Paul, let me tell you a few reasons why I find him appealing: 1) he hasnt been purchased by any lobby (to my knowledge) unlike ALL the other candidates bought and paid for , including the POTUS. 2) He is for limited governmental interference in the day to day life of Americans citizens. 3) He understands and abides by the Just War teachings of the RC Church. 4) He understands the importance of the Constitution as a deterrent to governmental power and protection of the citizenry 5) He is more concerned with protecting the borders of the USA than the borders of Israel or Pakistan. 6) He understands how fearmongering has been used to undermine basic American freedoms. These are all concerns that speak loudly to me. If caring about these issues designate me in your opinion as a “Paulbot” then so be it. I’m not trying to change your mind regarding Dr. Paul. But I am telling you what attracts me to him. Which one, in your opinion, would NOT be a traditional conservative position? Perhaps your candidate would be happy to lose RP voters and are contemptuous of these issues, and maybe you find them valueless, fringe right wing or just plain nutty…surely a judgement call every one must make. But invective such as yours and a refusal to speak to these issues in other candidates’ platforms doenst give us who share them much incentive to vote for them. Politics is all about compromise, but when legitimate voter issues are summarily dismissed, there isnt any room for compromise be it republican or democrat, for they are all candidates on the same disasterous course.

  • Pammie-
    the part where we “limit” the gov’t interference when it comes to defining who is a legally protected human?
    The part where he wants to abandon those we’ve made promises to– like Japan? (Oops, sorry you don’t have a military– sucks to be you! Hope you manage something before China eats your lunch!)

    #1 would be hard to prove, #3 is generally short for “he doesn’t like Iraq, and I personally don’t believe the case for that being a just war,” #4 I’m not so sure about since he won’t argue for it to apply to all Americans, #5 implies that isn’t so for others– which is simply laughable, and #6 can mean just about anything.

    Ron Paul lost my respect when I noticed that he claims to believe the unborn are persons, but wants to let the states decide if they can be slaughtered at will. There are a couple of options for why he’d make that argument– three that come to mind: he doesn’t actually believe the unborn are persons; he doesn’t believe all persons have a right to not be killed; he’s not willing to argue for that whole shall not be deprived of life or liberty thing when it will hurt him politically– and none of those options are very respectable, especially when his whole shtick is how he’s the brave defender of American idealism.

  • “Ron Paul lost my respect when I noticed that he claims to believe the unborn are persons, but wants to let the states decide if they can be slaughtered at will.”

    Yet trying to elect national politicians who claim to be prolife hasnt worked either has it? My state would at once put into laws restricting abortion, as most of the citizens are against it, were it not for the behemoth federal government . There is more than one way to accomplish a goal, is there not? Particularly when the old method hasnt worked in 40 years. All of your other comments are based on perception more so than RP’s statements and public record. I personally dont believe we need to finance the world’s defenses, particularly as we are in the middle of a financial crisis ourselves and borrowing money from our biggest creditor to stay afloat. That is pure madness ….like falling behind on your own living expenses but borrowing money to help out a stranger to pay for his security system so he can have more disposable income to spend on other things. What sane person would do that? How has Europe managed to fund its widespread socialism since WWII ? Those missles cost lots of American taxpayer dollars and many manhours of American labour. Makes sense to you folks one supposes , but not me.

  • Pammie-
    why are you trying to change the subject?

    He has stated that the states should decide what humans are not really people, which is not “the best way to protect the unborn is on a state-by-state level,” nor “the people of the states should be able to defend human life without being prevented from doing so by the Feds.”

    All of your other comments are based on perception more so than RP’s statements and public record.

    Of course they are, I was responding to your claims that did not have RP’s statements or public record specifics.

  • Nevermind Mr Foxfier. I wasnt aware I was changing the subject about the best way to implement a favorable prolife outcome by mentioning an approach that was different than the one you espouse …one that has proven to be a failure so far. But we can give it another 40 years and hope for a different outcome instead of trying a different approach.

    “Of course they are, I was responding to your claims that did not have RP’s statements or public record specifics.”

    Really? Your response for my #3 was “…is generally short for “he doesn’t like Iraq, and I personally don’t believe the case for that being a just war,” That’s an opinion based solely on your perception, not a rebuttal or statement of another candidate’s similar view or knowledge of me. RP’s stand on war in Iraq ( whether or not he “likes” Iraq would not be relevent) is a matter of public record and was essentially the same as the Pope’s . My personal view is that it was a stupid, pointless war, wasteful of human lives and resources and frankly has nothing to do with “Just War” theology. Our interests there are in worse shape now than before. Not to mention the plight of Iraqi Christians , which Republicans & Democrats are both strangely silent about.

    Like I said at the beginning, my intention in bringing up these issues is not to convince you or anyone . But these are what draws me to RP as he is the only one who is willing to bring them up in debate. We are sinking as a society and our attentions are on nonexistent enemies a world away. That “crazy RP” and all the rest of us “Paulbots”–we just keep wringing our hands on how to pay for it all and watching our personal freedoms decline as the massive federal bureacracy grows by leaps and bounds. Meanwhile yall keep your attentions glued on Iran and Syria et al and continue to congratulate yourselves that you are not as foolish as we.

  • Nevermind Mr Foxfier. I wasnt aware I was changing the subject about the best way to implement a favorable prolife outcome

    Mrs (thus the fox-girl in a sailor girl outfit in my icon… *squints* although that might be a bit small to see at a glance) and it’s changing the topic because we weren’t talking about the best way to implement a favorable prolife outcome. We were either talking about Ron Paul in relation to the unborn, or my newish lack of respect for him based on his rhetoric while trying to get elected.

  • My sincere apologies MRS. Foxfier. I guess it matters more to me now that the unborn be protected than it does in how it’s accomplished. I’m willing to settle. RP’s idea offers an alternative to the unsuccessful thinking of the past and a hope of a little faster change and at least a few more lives snatched from a certain and brutal death. Havent heard anything forthcoming from any of the other candidates on how this can be accomplished in a more timely way. Have a great evening.

  • I guess it matters more to me now that the unborn be protected than it does in how it’s accomplished.

    And… again… changing the subject….

  • Quibbling over semantics. How many babies will die before the Supreme Court can be stacked to overturn RoevWade or an amendment can be worded just right and passed by a two thirds majority ? What is Santorum’s, Gingrich or Mitt’s plan to accomplish this? Taking the power FROM the federal government in this and other issues (like many states are doing with Same Sex “Marriage”) might have a shot. But I guess I understand your point: RP didnt say he was prolife in the way you wanted him to express it. OK . Got your point. My point is : Saving some babies is better than saving no babies.

  • I am seriously dense.

    Can someone explain to me how Ron Paul differs from Lyndon Larouche?

    How can RP get the abortion thing down to the States where it can be outlawed? It’s been ruled as a “right” by the SC. How is RP not delusional for this impossible stance?

    RP opposes nearly all Federal powers. That’s not the same as pro-life.

  • Who is Lyndon Larouche ? Does he also serve as pebble in your shoe or a splinter in your index finger?

  • Ron Paul’s “Sanctity of Life Act” is purported to remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the courts. I’m not well-versed in law etc…, so I am curious how that is supposed to work.

    The bill (introduced many times over his tenure) basically states that the fetus is human or a person. It says that states have the authority to protect life. If we have a human person in utero, why then is this person not granted equal protection under the 14th amendment?

    Even though the bill is unique in its approach, it is fundamentally flawed. A self-proclaimed champion of the Constitution should do better.

  • “I’m not well-versed in law etc…, so I am curious how that is supposed to work”
    It wouldn’t. The Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional in a nano-second, as the Court simply would not allow Congress to reverse it by stripping it of jurisdiction in an area as this bill seeks to do.

    “Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, 1257, and 1258, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof–
    `(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
    `(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates–
    `(A) the performance of abortions; or
    `(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.’.”

    There are only two ways to get rid of Roe: have the Supreme Court reverse itself, or a constitutional amendment. There are no short cuts

  • Thanks, Donald. Now if this had been dealing with Ohm’s Law and Kirchhoff’s Laws, I could easily understand. 🙂 But that’s just the electrical engineer in me…

  • Thank God the mysteries of your field do not come up on this blog Big Tex, or I would have to stand ingloriously mute! 🙂

  • Quibbling over semantics.

    Dang straight I point out when a claim doesn’t match what the words actually mean. Part of the reason Ronulans are so disliked is because of the gap between what they want and what is. That gap isn’t bridged by yelling that it doesn’t exist.

    And no, Pammie or pammie or pamelanak or whoever, I did not say “RP didn’t say he’s pro-life the way I wanted.”
    I pointed out that there are three possible conclusions from his stated desire to push definition of what humans are people whose lives are protected under law down to a state level, and none of them got any respect from me.

  • PM-
    Lyndon Larouche is the guy who’s like Ron Paul, but more popular to the left. They’re outside of post offices and stuff doing Truther outreach a lot in the Seattle area around Christmas. (not sure what the rest of their stuff is– I was kind of in a hurry, and Trutherism makes me sputter a lot*; lots of Infowars bumper stickers, though, and they seemed to dislike the UN, so not all bad….)

    *statements like “fire can’t melt steel!” do have that effect on me, especially if screamed in my face.

  • During the run up to Obamacare, they would come to townhall meetings hosted by legislators and hold up their posters with a picture of Obama with Hitler mustaches. Fringe nut-jobs, as Foxfier has indicated.

  • Foxfier, Thank you. (Should have looked it up, and all, but computer seems to dislike the internet connection lately and gets testy when I move places and click & I’m not tech-y)
    They sound big city – or college. Anyway, stay strong.

  • PM-
    part of why the info I offered is so sketchy is because when I tried to look him up, I got a really wide range of stuff, the only one of which I recognized has, as its entire point, being nasty with a mainline liberal edge. (Think “The Daily Show” amateurs.)
    The only things I know about him is the stuff I passed on. (In defense of the folks that I saw, they seemed very earnest and polite…but I didn’t stop and disagree with them, so who’ll know.)

  • Gee whiz Foxfier, Foxlier or whoever. Do you have anger issues or something? It never hurts one’s cause to be civil, even in disagreement. Your candidate might need the support of the people with whom you have been so snarky and dismissive . All these nasty, snotty attitudes from Republicans (minus the “Paulbots”) makes me want to stay home on election day anyway….and just when I had almost convinced myself to vote for ANYONE who opposes Obama. Good job convincing me otherwise and good luck getting your candidate elected without the help of the “disliked Ronulans” and all the other people you also despise.

  • It never hurts one’s cause to be civil, even in disagreement.

    Great idea– have you considered trying it?

    Failing that, make arguments in support of your statements, with facts and logic, without having to misrepresent others involved. I can handle being called names, no problem, but not much I can do if you can’t be bothered to make an argument.

    Part of the reason the term “Ronulan” came about is to differentiate between folks who support Ron Paul and people who show up, post under multiple handles, make claims they’re not willing to support, attack everyone who disagrees and then do things like announce how they’ll take their ball and go home, all in the name of Ron Paul. With allies like that, he really doesn’t need enemies.

  • Donald McClarey, Thank you. I appreciate your givng me the clarity on Ron Paul’s bill: “Their are only two ways to get rid of Roe: have the Supreme Court reverse itself, or a constitutional amendment. There are no short cuts” Since all men are created equal and We hold these truth to be self-evident, then the newly begotten human being is no less equal a person than the person on the Supreme Court for the United States of America. So, you are correct, Donald. Perhaps when the human being’s personhood is acknowleged as being preeminent, the Person of our Creator will be no longer be prohibited in the public square, and our plagues and problems will be placed in the hands of Divine Providence, as was first inscribed in our founding principles. My son, Nelson and myself were discussing Ron Paul, and he compared Ron Paul’s candidacy with Ross Perot’s. It is believed that our culture would not be atheistic (read homicidal, Obama wants no more snowflake babies standing up and or abortion survivors. Obama has ordered all frozen embryos to be destroyed) had Perot been elected. I do not know, but at least now, I understand where Paul is coming from. For myself I am looking at Santorum and Chris Smith of NJ as VP. The American Catholic is human.

  • Me: “It never hurts one’s cause to be civil, even in disagreement.”
    Foxfier: “Great idea– have you considered trying it?”

    The juvenile, snarky comeback rather proves my point dont you think?

    “Part of the reason the term “Ronulan” came about is to differentiate between folks who support Ron Paul and people who show up, post under multiple handles, make claims they’re not willing to support, attack everyone who disagrees and then do things like announce how they’ll take their ball and go home, all in the name of Ron Paul. With allies like that, he really doesn’t need enemies.”

    I expect this makes sense to you but what it has to do with me I’m not quite sure. If it is a concern of yours, my reason for posting here was to get feedback and maybe some info about other candidates’ views on the things that concern me from people who are supporting them . Didnt attack you or anyone else and I really wasnt looking to incite a hissy fit , get a critique of my mental skills or a judgement as to my poor value to RP from a total stranger with a rancourous attitude .

    Thank you Mr. McClarey for the explanation regarding RP’s strategy for ending abortion. I can see now where the flaw in that is now, so this hasnt been a total waste of time.
    Announcement: I am now taking my ball and going home.

  • I sometimes wonder if the reason so many are annoyed by Ronulans is because of the huge amounts of apparently unintentional irony….

  • “to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our (constitutional) posterity.” …from The Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America, the stated purpose and intent of the Constitution. Before the Amendments to protect the human person as being created equal and endowed with unalienable rights by our CREATOR, the words “our” (not theirs, but our) “posterity” all future generations to come, each and every newly begotten sovereign person endowed with unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (a man’s destiny) is accounted for and provided for in our Constitution. In Roe, one woman and eight men sworn to uphold the Constitution for the United States of America 1) could not read 2) did not comprehend what our Constitution intended. 3) were prejudiced against the unborn because of their lack of faith in and reliance on Divine Providence of The Declaration of Independence, the same Divine Providence Who delivered the colonist from the hands of the British and established the United States as a bastion of Freedom, the FREEDOM endowed by our CREATOR. 4) Lusted for power and worshipped at the feet of mammon and Moleck and kissed the devil’s face, the face the devil wears and speaks through on his butt. I prefer to think it is the forth option, that the utilitarianism and LUST for power and greed collapsed any reason of their rational soul into the garbage of Roe v. Wade. Before the babies were thrown into the garbage, the Supreme Court of Roe v. Wade threw reason , Justice and our America into the garbage. IT IS A REVERSAL OF ROE BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT NEEDS TO BE. In addition, an amendment to the fact, so it never happens again.

  • “one woman and eight men sworn to uphold the Constitution for the United States of America 1) could not read”

    It was nine men on the Roe court in 1973. Two justices dissented: William Rehnquist and Byron White. From a legal standpoint the problem with Roe was that the court majority simply created a right out of thin air. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents any government from banning it. Even many pro-abortion legal scholars have admitted that it was a decision without legal basis. As Justice White wrote in his famous dissent in Roe:

    “With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”

  • Donald McClarey: A senior moment on my part. My respect for Byron White, and William Rehnquist has never failed. May God bless you for this beautiful work. The freedom of one person ends where the freedom of another person begins. Mother and child are persons first, citizens second. The Constitution can only judge citizens, as is verifiable by the lack of authority to judge foreigners and those with diplomatic immunity, citizens of other countries. The unborn are citizens of “nature and nature’s God”. “My kingdom is not of this world” God bless.

  • At what point does a person become a citizen? When the person is born into the world or is naturalized. The unborn sovereign person cannot be tried in any court of law, because the unborn sovereign person is not yet a citizen of the United States of America, until after he comes into the world and breathes his first breath and is given a birth certificate. At this point, the born person becomes a citizen. Roe v. Wade tried a person who was not a citizen of the United States. ..and ordered his death before he could become a citizen. The Supreme Court for the United States of America can only try citizens.
    Given that the Supreme Court for the United States of American may only interpret the Constitution for the United States of America for American citizens, not for foreign dignitaries and sovereign persons with sovereign immunity, the citizen of the world and universe, Jesus Christ in His human nature, in His innocent citizenship cannot be banned from the public square unless it is proved that Jesus Christ, as a citizen, violated the law and became criminal. Then and only then, will the human nature of Jesus Christ, as a man, become “persona non grata.” The Person of Jesus Christ WHO is God , Who is perfectly, immutably innocent and Love, cannot be proved, in a court of law, to be criminal.
    The Supreme Court for the United States of America can only try citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court cannot try citizens of another kingdom, “not of this world”, the sovereign citizens of heaven, the King of Kings, Jesus Christ, and His Father and His Holy Spirit of Love. Nor can the U.S. Supreme Court try the Person of Jesus Christ, WHO is God. The Supreme Court has found Jesus Christ guilty by association with criminals on Golgatha.
    Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the self-proclaimed atheist sued to have all mankind’s First Amendment rights to FREEDOM subjugated to her lawsuit through her complaint that prayer to God, through Jesus Christ offended her son. An imperfect human nature, who is offended by perfection.
    If Madalyn Murray O’Hair was truly an atheist, she would have annihilated her own being. God, our Creator, made all things and KEEPS THEM IN EXISTENCE, therefore, Madalyn Murray O’Hair at some underlying level of consciousness, accepted God’s love for her and for her son. Madalyn Murray O’Hair spoke perjury in The United States Supreme Court, when, as an atheist she said: “I AM an atheist.” The atheist used God’s name: “I AM”, in vain and contradicted herself. Madalyn Murray O’Hair did not prove her case as perjurers never do.
    Madalyn Murray O’Hair did not have two witnesses to establish a judicial fact. Two atheists cannot bear the Truth into a court of law. Perjury does not count.

  • more threadbare clarification:
    The Supreme Court for the United States of America has no jurisdiction over the sovereign persons in the womb, who are citizens of nature and nature’s God, until they become, at birth, citizens of the United States of America.
    The Supreme Court for the United States of America is the personification of JUSTICE, the interpreter of The Constitution for the United States of America and the dispenser of JUSTICE to the common man, each and every American citizen. The JUSTICES are given compensation. JUSTICE is priceless. The Court has no jurisdiction over foreign sovereigns, ambassadors with diplomatic immunity and sovereign persons who are citizens of other sovereign nations.
    A human being comes into existence at the will of God (and man when two become one at procreation) through the laws of nature and nature’s God. Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights. The newly begotten sovereign person endowed by our Creator with life is granted citizenship in America upon being brought to birth and breathing his first breath in the world, until then, this sovereign person is a citizen of nature and nature’s God. Before becoming an American citizen at birth, this sovereign person’s endowed rights are held in trust for him by God, our CREATOR, by his parents and by the state, in this order. Upon becoming an American citizen, this sovereign person’s civil rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, the pursuit of his destiny, are held in trust for him by God, our CREATOR, by his parents and by the state, in this order.
    Roe v. Wade had no jurisdiction over the sovereign person existing in the woman’s womb, a citizen of nature and nature’s God. One person’s freedom ends where another person’s freedom begins. The Supreme Court for the United States of America has no jurisdiction over the sovereign person existing in the womb and who has not been born into the country and is not yet a citizen.
    The Supreme Court denied existence to the sovereign person in the womb, which is perjury by the JUSTICES and miscarriage of JUSTICE by Roe v. Wade. If there were no human existence in the womb there would be no abortion. Blobs of cells, tumors do not have sovereign personhood from conception and can never be born into citizenship.
    Why, then, one might ask, can the court order surgery to protect the life of the newly begotten in the womb or charge homicide in the death of the unborn, if the court has no jurisdiction over the newly begotten? It is because the legal and moral innocence of the unborn is the standard of JUSTICE for the state and the unborn constitute the state by their very existence. It is because any law can be broken to save the life of a human being.”You shall not stand idly by while your neighbor’s life is in jeopardy.”
    Damage that has not yet happened cannot be proved in a court of law. Destruction of the sovereign person of the unborn is a crime against the laws of nature and nature’s God.
    The absolute stupidity of Thomas Malthus in his demographics for his not factoring in Divine Providence, our CREATOR, into his numbers, and the abject ignorance of John Mills in his utilitarianism for his not factoring Divine Providence into his philosophy, and the criminal negligence of Paul Erlich for his not factoring in Divine Providence into his book: “Population Bomb” render their unsubstantiated conclusions invalid. Thomas Malthus and John Mills are facing the wrath of God as I write and Divine Justice will find Paul Erlich for the half-truths he is propagating.
    Charles Darwin did not factor in Divine Providence into his theory of evolution rendering his work lacking in integrity.
    The Supreme Court for the United States of America has no jurisdiction over the sovereign persons in the womb, who are citizens of nature and nature’s God, until they become at birth citizens of the United States of America.

Here I Stand And Insult, I Can Do No Other

Thursday, March 8, AD 2012

 

The 16th Century was the golden age of the insult.  Shakespeare is replete with eloquent examples of villification including my personal favorite:

The devil damn thee black, thou cream-faced loon! Where got’st thou that goose look? 

One of the grandmasters of the art of the insult was Martin Luther, Doctor of Theology and heresiarch of heresiarchs.   In the age of miracles we live in, someone has at last invented the Martin Luther Insult Generator.  Now you, at your fingertips, can see the vituperation that flowed freely from the pen of the “pope” of Wittenberg.  Go here to view it.  Some sample insults:

In lying fashion you ignore what even children know!  (Somebody bring in a kid, quick!)

You reek of nothing but Lucian, and you breathe out on me the vast drunken folly of Epicurus!  (Ah for the halcyon days when first-rate insults required knowledge of ancient philosophy!)

You are worthy only to be mocked by the words of error!  (Oh, I think that words of miscommunication could also mock me on some blog days.)

You should rightly be called lawyers for asses!  (Ouch!)

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Here I Stand And Insult, I Can Do No Other

  • I always think that the Shakespeare insult generator is worth a visit – http://www.mainstrike.com/mstservices/handy/insult.html (among others) – a few samples:

    Thou warped dread-bolted baggage!
    Thou unmuzzled half-faced barnacle!
    Thou beslubbering rough-hewn mammet!
    Thou warped ill-nurtured clack-dish!

    etc.

    –Jonathan Watson

  • More and Erasmus have some pretty choice insults, too. This is More on an Englishman with French affectations:

    He pays the servant nothing — like a Frenchman.
    He clothes him in worn rags–in the French way.
    He feeds him little, that little poor–as the French do.
    He works him hard–like the French.
    He beats him often–like a Frenchman.
    At gatherings, on the street, in the market, in public, he quarrels with him and abuses him in the French manner.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • OK, here are three that could be HHS cost free bp regulators:

    If you who are assembled in a council are so frivolous and irresponsible as to waste time and money on unnecessary questions, when it is the business of a council to deal only with the important and necessary matters, we should not only refuse to obey you, but consider you insane or criminals. – council could be read as a certain fed. gov. branch

    We leave you to your own devices, for nothing properly suits you except hypocrisy, flattery, and lies. – testifier subj. of Jesuitical 13 post

    The reward of such flattery is what your crass stupidity deserves. Therefore, we shall turn from you, a sevenfold stupid and blasphemous wise person. – or, for the above, and also, for e. branch HHS promoters (cino’s)

Rick Santorum & the Data Behind the Catholic, Evangelical, Youth & Women’s Vote

Wednesday, March 7, AD 2012

The divide between the truth of the election results and the punditry of the mainstream media is seemingly growing every major primary election night. Perhaps none more than the recent Super Tuesday results, especially those of Ohio. How could it possibly be that Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania Senator won the youth vote, all voters under 44, and the married women vote? If one listens to the mainstream media, especially that of NBC, MSNBC and the New York Times one would think the only people voting for Rick Santorum would be rust belt pre-Vatican II ordained Catholic priests, and an amalgamation of southern characters such as Jed Clampett, Mr. Haney, as well as some assorted extras from the set of Deliverance. However, the true exit poll results tell us something quite different.

The mainstream media seemed shocked that Rick Santorum didn’t win the Catholic vote and won the Evangelical Vote as well as the others I indicated earlier; young people and married women. I want to delve into the nitty grtty of the statistics and demographics in a few paragraphs but first let me give you some background on those in the heartland who became liberals even though they grew up in GOP circles and folks like myself who became conservative after growing up in a Democratic household.

I grew up in a working class steel and railroad town in Ohio. My family, like many around us was Democrat in party affiliation and social conservative in our mindset. I was educated in Catholic schools (during the 1970s & 80s) and though it was the warm fuzzy era of Catholic education, our nuns and lay teachers never completely bought into the liberal model that was so the rage in cool, upscale areas.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Rick Santorum & the Data Behind the Catholic, Evangelical, Youth & Women’s Vote

  • “The area west of I-75 in western Ohio might simply be some of the most conservative political real estate in America.”

    The same could be said of the area south of I-80 in Illinois, with a few exceptions such as East St. Louis and university communities like Champaign-Urbana. Our primary is less than 2 weeks away and it will be interesting to see whether the results reflect yours.

    Perhaps it ought to be emphasized here that — in my estimation — while it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for an observant Catholic at this point to vote in good conscience to reelect Obama, I don’t think we should assume that a “good” Catholic MUST or will always vote for Santorum over Romney or Gingrich or Paul. A faithful Catholic could vote for any one of them for a number of reasons and we should not presume Santorum is the one and only “true Catholic” candidate.

  • I love this:

    “Ohio voters who think Paul is too conservative went 45% for Romney. Voters who think Paul is not conservative enough went 39% for Romney.”

    Even The Weathervane’s supporters blow with the predominant breeze.

  • It’s a shame R.Paul is not more eloquent in speech and better looking. He is the better candidate because he is better for America overall than anyone else running on either side. When we focus on “wedge” issues, we lose sight of the bigger picture. He fully supports the constitution, wants to get rid of the FED and his ideas of foriegn policy make much more sense than what we’ve been doing for many decades. I would rather lose a fight that is important to me now (say abortion), but to continue to focus and educate on it locally and get someone in the white house (or senate/congress) that is a true statemen and patriot. Everyone else are simply politicians…

  • Excellent article, David, which I hope the Democratic strategists never read.
    At a pro-life pancake breakfast on Long Island, former friend of Rev Jackson and frequent guest on EWTN, Delores Bernadette Grier, told how Jesse who was himself nearly aborted as a baby, was a pro-life activist with the Archdiocese of New York,and convinced her to become active in the pro-life movement. She said he was told he had to be pro-abortion in order to run for the presidency and gave in.
    So many Catholics followed suit, in order to be accepted by the wider culture, and have the luxuries they craved, they used birth control and voted pro-abortion. They are the Cathoiics who voted for Obama and like, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, are cultural Catholics from the Coast.
    They have no clue that there is a large, vibrant John Paul II generation just now coming of age to vote. Its been said that home-schoolers are Rick’s secret army, and even here in Eastern CT we are organizing for him, and praying for him. Rick knows, I think he intentionally chose Steubenville, OH for his speech on Super Tuesday, since it is the home of JPII Catholic bastion, Franciscan University. I bet he has a lot of support there.

    John Kerry, another cultural Catholic found this out the hard way in 2004 during a campaign rally there. Catholic Evangelist Scott Hahn’s son led half of t he student body to the rally carrying signs reading, “You can’t be Catholic and Pro-abortion!”.
    I pray that such a surprise awaits our president on a November evening when the new wave of Catholics deliver a Santorum victory.

  • Very interesting analysis. Dave Hartline and many other “socially conservative” Catholics were Democrats back in the day. Same could be said for countless others–Abp Chaput, for instance, wrote about working on the Carter campaign. Obviously back in the day the parties were not clearly defined on abortion and, in fact, the Democratic party was actually more socially conservative than the “country club / wasp” dominated GOP prior to Reagan. GW Bush’s whole “compassionate conservative” campaign was specifically designed to win these largely Catholic socially-conservative, economically moderate voters.
    Which brings me to Santorum, whom I find interesting b/c on the one hand he appeals to the same folks as the compassionate conservatives (think Huckabee in ’08, Chris Smith, Norm Coleman in MN, et al). Yet on the other hand he has won the support of many “tea party conservatives” whose anti-government liberterian-laced rhetoric does not jive very well with the Catholic communal ethos. In this light, it makes sense that Romney wins with Catholics b/c he is perceived as more “moderate” and less draconian. Note I am not talking about actual policy differences so much as perceptions, taste and culture.
    Santorum has more appeal with these voters, but as Thomas Sowell pointed out, it is not clear that he is the best candidate to take on Obama. Running for President is ultimately an audition for a job, and the successful business doesn’t hire someone b/c they like them best or b/c they have the same sympathies, but b/c they have the best skills and will do the best job. On the other hand Romney has failed to convince many that he is the one best qualified to knock off Obama and address the nation’s pressing economic and social issues.
    I will continue to follow the votes of Catholics in this election with interest.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY EXTRA: U.S. POLITICS | ThePulp.it
  • “Younger Catholics who attend Mass regularly are more pro-life and adhere to the Church’s teachings more than their baby boomer parents.”

    This may be true. However what percent of the population are these younger Catholics?

  • First of all, I’ve never liked the “compassionate conservative” schtick of GW Bush. It unwittingly implied that conservatism, in and of itself, was lacking in compassion. Likewise, I find Santorum’s “supply side economics for the working man” suffers from the same type of false dichotomy, albeit unwittingly. I think what made Reagan’s approach so effective is that he saw the natural win-win in his conservatism.

    I also think Santorum being an orthodox Catholic and assuming he is knowledgable enough about the faith, I think he needs to start presenting his economic policy in the context of the principle of subsidiarity, which is in line with mainstream conservatism, especially when he speaks to Catholic audiences. He would also do well to show its consistency with mainline conservatism to non-Catholic audiences, particularly in light of the HHS Mandate viz. Obamacare.

    To my knowledge, Santorum has yet to do so.

    Believe it or not, that would be well received by most of the Tea Party. Given their cohesiveness (which smacks of a “communial ethos) and political effectiveness, they are not like Libertarians in that sense who are, to quote Michael Medved, “Losertarians”.

Blood Boil Story of the Day

Wednesday, March 7, AD 2012

In like manner, the other pains and hardships of life will have no end or cessation on earth; for the consequences of sin are bitter and hard to bear, and they must accompany man so long as life lasts. To suffer and to endure, therefore, is the lot of humanity; let them strive as they may, no strength and no artifice will ever succeed in banishing from human life the ills and troubles which beset it. If any there are who pretend differently – who hold out to a hard-pressed people the boon of freedom from pain and trouble, an undisturbed repose, and constant enjoyment – they delude the people and impose upon them, and their lying promises will only one day bring forth evils worse than the present. Nothing is more useful than to look upon the world as it really is, and at the same time to seek elsewhere, as We have said, for the solace to its troubles.

Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum

Continue reading...

32 Responses to Blood Boil Story of the Day

  • … or blood pressure spike of the day.
    Well, it’s the bills and there’s only little over half, so yeah.
    Two things:The ethicks of me and how dismal the information age is in government databases.

  • This is the conequence of the liberal mindset.

  • Arrggh! Consequence – can’t spell this morning!

  • This should not surprise anyone.

  • It certainly would not have surprised Pope Leo XIII Mike or one of his contemporaries:

    “In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
    By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
    But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.””

  • Maybe that attitude explains why we have the “Hate and Chains” regime running the country into the mud.

  • 1. It is a very odd contingency for which the eligibility standards did not take account. I am not sure why that would make your blood boil.

    2. Conjoined to that, you have a women who has been granted a lump sum which could generate for her north of $20,000 in interest and dividends per annum after taxes have been paid but who is under the impression she has no income. I can see chuckling and shaking my head over that, not getting angry.

    3. Conjoined to that, you have someone who fancies that her elevated and freely assumed housing and transportation expenses justify drawing on federal grocery subsidies. A mixture of dismay and amusement at that, I can feel. The thing is, obtuse and self-centered people are everywhere, and the damage they do (see the divorce courts) usually exceeds the $600 or $1,200 this woman was unjustly awarded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

  • “It is a very odd contingency for which the eligibility standards did not take account. I am not sure why that would make your blood boil”.

    Ha! You have got to be kidding Art! I see this type of gaming of the system all the time in my practice. This is merely an egregious example of something that occurs constantly in our society.

    “I can see chuckling and shaking my head over that, not getting angry.”

    You miss the point entirely Art. Her entitlement mentality is the problem not her ignorance (and I have little doubt that ignorance was not what caused her to continue taking food stamps after winning a million bucks). Ignorance can usually be corrected, while the idea that someone has a right to be supported by others is perhaps incurable after enough able-bodied people in a society believe it.

  • Donald, you’ve hit the nail on the head. What I immediately thought of was the fact that this obviously able bodied person (judging by the fact that she is able to go to the grocery store on her own and carry her own groceries in and out of the house) had no job and had been living on the government’s tab for who knows how long. Now that she has money laying around and some financial freedom to pay off any debts she might have, she didn’t go looking for a job or get a new wardrobe to help herself get a job when the money runs out.

    She seems to have no skills in this regard and that is one of the major problems of the welfare system. No job training, no cutoffs, no demands on the individual to help themselves while the government helps them get through a rough patch in their lives. It’s easy to get into the mindset that I can’t do this by myself when the government continually tells you can’t.

  • Ha! You have got to be kidding Art! I see this type of gaming of the system all the time in my practice. This is merely an egregious example of something that occurs constantly in our society.

    You represent trustafarians applying for food stamps?

  • I sue people who owe debts, represent people who owe debts and have always had a criminal defense practice. I would see more of it if I didn’t refer out my worker’s compensation cases to other attorneys. The number of people skimming from Uncle Sucker, and his state equivalents, is hard to exaggerate.

  • This is just one person…it’s human nature to take advantage of any system.
    The issue is, can we prevent most of it or even more important, do we stop essential programs for the people who really need and deserve them because people take advantage?
    As Catholics, it should be in our nature to help people, to donate, to support those that require it. Instead of focusing in on one bonehead woman, let’s work TOGETHER with government to make the systems more effective and efficient.

    I have a wonderful uncle who worked for 35 years and then was laid off middle of last year. He tried to find a job in his field of work, could not. He tried to find any job that could cover the bills, he could not. If not for unemployment during that 6 month period, he could have lost his house. Instead, he is still in his house and now has a job that he can work for the next 5 years with dignity.
    Programs are designed to help those who deserve and need them. They are flawed because we as humans are flawed, but instead of putting out negative because of this young woman, let’s figure a way to put out postive while still aiding those who require our assistance, love and prayers.

  • “They are flawed because we as humans are flawed, but instead of putting out negative because of this young woman, let’s figure a way to put out postive while still aiding those who require our assistance, love and prayers.”

    Indeed, and a swift kick in the hind end to those who are simply milking the system, something which is sometimes of assistance for those who wish to go through life as everybody else’s guest. I do not blame them conpletely of course, because the modern welfare state teachs people to be moochers, to game the system and to embrace petty larcency from the State as a way of life.

    Oh well, these things tend to be self-correcting, although not in a pleasant manner:

    “And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
    When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
    As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
    The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return! “

  • Anecdotal:

    A long-time friend is retired from a NY PD (decent pension) and is collecting early Social Security. His wife has a full-time job with excellent benefits. He held a job but was laid off. Now, he receives a third (unemployment) government check. He says he is, “Unemployed and Overjoyed!”

    This week he is going to SS and get another $1,000 a month disability until he hits full SS age. “I got my rights!” Seriously . . .

    The execrable, vile Repugs won’t force the evil rich pay their “fair share” in taxes and want to starve the unemployed after 29 months!

  • Another unemployed and overjoyed: Wife of a Partner in a Wall Street Law Firm. I advised her not to wear her minks to the unemployment office.

    Cardinal Dolan refuses to pay for my condoms!

  • A long-time friend is retired from a NY PD (decent pension) and is collecting early Social Security.

    Are you sure you have not confounded disability benefits from his employer with disability benefits from the Social Security Administration? Disability benefits derived from employment as a police officer have been notorious for decades (tho’, if I understand correctly, they are less egregious than used to be the case). Social Security Disability is a program difficult to administer consistently as it requires discretionary decisions by hearing examiners, but the program has a considerable buy-in requirement and recipients are generally on it for a limited term of years before returning to the work force or reaching the age where they are eligible for old age and retirement benefits. I believe there are severe and perhaps absolute earned income limits if one is drawing benefits, but we can check. The disability beneficiary I know best retired at 59 (due to the effects of lupus) after nearly forty years of continuous employment.

  • AD: 100% sure. One may collect reduced-benefit SS at 62, depending, and there is the earned income reduction. Given the same “expiration date” assumption the present value of the reduced payments at 62 is not materially less than at 67 years.

    My man had 25 years and retired straight on longevity. In fact, he busted a bone on the job and was on full pay for years while he worked off the books, cash. When they retire they get one month paid terminal leave for each ten years service.

    You and i have too much time on our hands.

  • If he is collecting the old age and retirement benefits payable at age 62, I do not believe he is eligible for Social Security Disability, and he cannot be eligible for unemployement compensation unless he was let go from an on-the-books job and met a number of subsidiary requirements. Again, if he is at full salary due to an on-the-job injury, that would be derived from the union contract, not the Social Security law.

  • AD: May pal is on a PD pension.

    He is on SS.

    And, being that he was laid off from a full time on the books job: he is collecting unemployment benefits.

    He said he was going to apply for SS disbaility. I agree he probably won’t get it.

    I like his style and he is a friend.

    You and I have way too much time on our hands.

  • 1. His pension is deferred compensation. Public sector pensions in New York are fully funded as a rule, so retirees like your bud are generally not on a dole. As he is a municipal employee and a veteran of the police department, it is quite conceivable his pension is not fully funded. The thing is, total compensation for public sector employees is inflated by the deference New York politicians grant to public sector unions. That is not precisely ‘mooching’, more like ‘rent seeking’.

    2. You are right. It appears that you can draw disability benefits between the ages of 62 and the full retirement age (currently 66 and change). However, if he has not been for some years a working cop and was recently employed in some other occupation without injury, he categorically fails to qualify if his wages exceeded $1,000 a month. Tell him to break his leg again.

    3. Noodling around the New York State Department of Labor’s site, I see you are correct about that too. It is very explicit that unemployment compensation is intended only for those who are work-ready. That your friend may be, but such a contention would be rather in contrast to those he is making to the Social Security Administration in order to qualify for disability benefits.

    4. Drawing unemployment compensation is not in all cases ‘mooching’ either. You paid the taxes which support the benefits over the course of your work life. It is an income transfer program rather than an insurance or pension program, but if you draw benefits for no more than four months in a 15 year period, you might still be paying in more than you received.

  • We gotta get a life, AD!

  • According to the reporter (at the very end of the segment), it was completely legal for the person to continue to collect the food stamps. Assuming this is true, how is she ‘gaming the system’? Do we say that those who inherit millions from their parents and pay only 15% on investment gains and dividends are ‘gaming the system.’ Of course not, we say that they are simply paying as little as they are legally required to. This lottery winner paid her taxes during the year (certainly more in taxes than she ever will recieve in benefits) on what she won. In the year she won, she paid, say, $200,000 in taxes. $200,000 less $2,400 in benefits equals net tax of $197,600. She did everything she was legally entitled to do to reduce her taxes just like everyone else. When Bush sent out those $300 or $600 checks a few years back, did you return yours and say, “No, I cant take this?”

  • “This lottery winner paid her taxes during the year (certainly more in taxes than she ever will recieve in benefits) on what she won.”

    She had no choice since lottery winners have no option on that score, the taxes being taken out before they get a check for the remainder.

    “According to the reporter (at the very end of the segment), it was completely legal for the person to continue to collect the food stamps.”

    I doubt if the reporter was correct, since the Michigan food stamp program has an asset limit:
    “Asset Limit
    Effective October 1, 2011 there is an asset limit for FAP groups. Certain assets such as checking accounts, savings accounts, certificates of deposits are considered when determining eligibility for FAP.”

    http://www.michigan.gov/dhs/0,4562,7-124-5453_5527-13176–,00.html

    “Do we say that those who inherit millions from their parents and pay only 15% on investment gains and dividends are ‘gaming the system.’ ”

    No, we call it the government not double taxing income that their parents already paid tax on. That does not even rise to red herring status in attempting to justify the bald faced theft of this welfare cheat.

    If you truly cannot see what is wrong about someone with several hundred thousand dollars getting food stamps, I feel sorry for you.

  • For such as the hapless who aren’t lottery winners, even if only lottery customers, who are recipients of state and federal benefits, why aren’t the budget mavens coordinating fed and state benefits to each social security number including the IRS EIC credits. Department cooperation via ss# input could help deficit spending and waste.

  • Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t the welfare system recoup its outlays from lottery winners?

  • Pingback: THURSDAY EXTRA: U.S. CULTURE WARS II | ThePulp.it
  • “She seems to have no skills in this regard and that is one of the major problems of the welfare system. No job training, no cutoffs, no demands on the individual to help themselves while the government helps them get through a rough patch in their lives.”

    The Clinton-era welfare reforms place a 5-year lifetime limit on what used to be called Aid to Families with Dependent Children and is now called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). However, there are various ways to stop the 5-year “clock” and extend benefits longer, such as by being enrolled in postsecondary education or job training programs. Other benefits such as the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (formerly known as “food stamps”) have no time limit as far as I know.

  • “She had no choice since lottery winners have no option on that score, the taxes being taken out before they get a check for the remainder.”

    Oh but she did have a choice. Had she gone to slick CPA firm in Any-Mid-Size-Town USA they would have been glad to set her up with a few trusts, or a horse farm, or any or the type of tax shelter or scheme (from relatively benign to downright fraudulent) to reduce her windfall. What the government took out as withholding could have come right back to her with the filing of her tax return.

    “I doubt if the reporter was correct, since the Michigan food stamp program has an asset limit:”

    That of course, would change my argument/opinion completely.

    “No, we call it the government not double taxing income that their parents already paid tax on.”

    If I had been referring to the Estate Tax, yes. Income tax is a different story. Example, I inherit $1 million. I invest the $1 million and earn dividends/capital gains of $60,000. My parents never paid tax on the $60,000 (yeah, I know, the corporation already paid its tax on the dividends I received…).

    Your blood boils when an inner city black woman who probably has no father, no sense of family, no proper upbringing regarding work/education/etc, no self-worth, and no clue on how to succeed financially (other than to buy lottery tickets!!), continues to recieve her $2,400 of reverse taxes after the big win. My blood boils when I read articles like this:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — About 12,000 tax cheats have come clean under a program that offered reduced penalties and no jail time to people who voluntarily disclosed assets they were hiding overseas, the Internal Revenue Service announced Thursday.

    Those people have so far paid $500 million in back taxes and interest. IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman said he expects the cases to yield substantially more money from penalties that have yet to be paid.

    The voluntary disclosure program, which ran from February to last week, is part of a larger effort by the IRS to crack down on tax dodgers who hide assets in overseas accounts. The agency stepped up its efforts in 2009, when Swiss banking giant UBS AG agreed to pay a $780 million fine and turn over details on thousands of accounts suspected of holding undeclared assets from American customers.

    Since then, the IRS has opened new enforcement offices overseas, beefed up staffing and expanded cooperation with foreign governments. A similar disclosure program in 2009 has so far netted $2.2 billion in back taxes, penalties and fines, from people with accounts in 140 countries, Shulman said.

    I guess my point is that this welfare queen is really just a petty theif. Really, $2,400? Even with the number of tax returns understating tax by $20,000 or $200,000 or more based on grey areas in the law, black areas that the CPAs call grey areas, and outright fraud?

  • Obama needs more of my children’s and grandchildren’s money!

    He just spent $10,000,000 to develop a $50 light bulb. The evil rich ain’t payin’ their fair share!

    The income tax is un-American and un-Christian. They had to subvert, er, amend the Constitution to impose it. Since 1913, the government owns you.

    Commie assassins like Bernardine Dorhn have more rights than alleged tax evaders. Under the Internal Revenue Code and tax crime practice you have no rights, e.g., the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

    The IRS makes the Spanish Inquisition look like a bunch of cub scouts.

  • “Oh but she did have a choice. Had she gone to slick CPA firm in Any-Mid-Size-Town USA they would have been glad to set her up with a few trusts, or a horse farm, or any or the type of tax shelter or scheme (from relatively benign to downright fraudulent) to reduce her windfall.”

    Yep, if you lose a lot of money in foolish business ventures you can save something on tax. Likewise if you set up a charitable trust where you have no access to the money for personal use, you can save on taxes. I doubt if either option would have been enticing to the welfare cheat million dollar lottery winner.

    “Your blood boils when an inner city black woman ”

    What a truly despicable attempt to bring race into the discusion, especially since the welfare cheat in question is white. No, my ire is directed at those, regardless of race, who pilfer public funds for private gain. As to the tax system, that monument to political chicanery piled upon byzantine complexity, I am in favor of root and branch reform, although that was not the subject of this post, although I have touched upon it in previous posts.

  • Oh but she did have a choice. Had she gone to slick CPA firm in Any-Mid-Size-Town USA they would have been glad to set her up with a few trusts, or a horse farm, or any or the type of tax shelter or scheme (from relatively benign to downright fraudulent) to reduce her windfall. What the government took out as withholding could have come right back to her with the filing of her tax return.

    I will leave it to Mr. Petrik to educate us all, but if I am not mistaken discoverable personal income in this country amounts to about $10 tn. About 25% of that is placed outside the boundaries of the tax base by a mass of deductions, exemptions, and credits. This woman was not antecedently engaged in investment or business, so I would tend to suspect her opportunities between the lottery award and the present day (a few months in time) were pretty minimal as to reducing the tax man’s share of her winnings.

    Let us posit for a moment she actually received $720,000. If she put 60% in equities and 40% in bonds, she might get $24,000 in nominal interest and dividends per year ‘ere income taxes. However, if you conceived of her income as a compound of real interest, real capital gains, and dividends, her imputed investment income might be something more along the lines of $14,000. Eligibility standards for certain means-tested programs (Medicaid, food stamps, and housing subsidies) are a multiple (1x to 1.75x) of the poverty line. The poverty line for a single individual is currently about $11,000. Depending on how you define her investment income, she might just qualify for some of these programs.

  • Had she gone to slick CPA firm

    I can think of adjectives for the accountants with whom I have crossed paths. ‘Slick’ would never be one.

The History of Presidential Primaries

Wednesday, March 7, AD 2012

This is a fairly interesting document.  It takes a look back at each of the primary battles since 1972, as well as the delegate strength score after each primary date.  The delegate strength score is an indication of the likelihood that the leading candidate is going to secure the nomination.  It’s a formula based on the number of delegates won, the number of delegates needed to win the nomination, and the number of remaining delegates.

Right now Mitt Romney’s delegate strength score is 15, which is fairly weak for this point in the process.  In the previous four seriously contested Republican presidential primaries, things were all wrapped up after Super Tuesday – technically McCain needed another week, but it was basically over after Super Tuesday.  We’re nowhere close to wrapping this thing up.

It’s also interesting to look at some of those vote totals.  Bob Dole was basically a juggernaut.  That’s right, Bob Dole. He rolled over his competition, winning almost every single contest by double digits, securing majorities or near-majorities in most states and in a fairly crowded field (albeit a field of mediocre candidates).  Even John McCain’s victory totals were fairly impressive.  While Romney’s had a few substantial wins, his pattern looks nothing like previous Republican nominees.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to The History of Presidential Primaries

  • The main thing that strikes me looking at the document is that it’s hard to do an apples to apples because of the timing of the primaries. Over half the states haven’t even voted yet this year, whereas in 2008 29 had by March 6. The RNC in it’s remarkably finite wisdom decided to drag the process out as long as possible this year with lots of spaced primaries and proportional voting; the result is that it was always going to be hard for anyone to win early. If the current set up had been in place in 2008, there is almost no way John McCain would have had the nomination wrapped up by this point – and Romney wouldn’t have dropped out.

  • That crossed my mind as well, John, but if you look at the total number of contests held by the Super Tuesday date, the number of total primaries and caucuses held thus far is about on par – in fact it’s a little more – than in 1996 and 2008 (and 2008 was atypical as to how early Super Tuesday was and generally how front-loaded the schedule was). So far a little more than a third of all delegates have been awarded, as compared to 1996 when about 40% had been awarded through Super Tuesday, and a little more than half in 2008. So I think we’re at a fairly comparable point in the process.

    On the other hand, Democratic primaries have been not as definitive except for 2000 and 2004. McGovern, Carter (1976), Dukakis and even Obama (and to a slightly lesser extent, Clinton) didn’t have things nailed down until about May or even June. It’s mainly the GOP that hasn’t had a truly competitive primary season that lasted much past mid-March, at least since Ford-Reagan.

  • The reason McCain and Dole were about done by Super Tuesday is that we conservatives were used to falling into line. Remember, the saying goes, “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.” Then Obama pushed us over our last line in the sand, we organized the Tea Party and in the 2010 election, gave him a good shellacking.
    Now, we want a true conservative, not the establishment cadidate Romney.
    WE WANT RICK SANTORUM!!

  • Also, at this point, someone other than Romney has won nine of the 23 contests. These are the total number of primaries/caucuses the previous GOP nominees have lost since Ford in 1976-
    Reagan: 5
    GHW Bush: 2
    Dole: 3
    G W Bush: 7
    McCain: 10

    Romney will very possibly lose several of the upcoming primaries, so he’ll have been the most battered Republican nominee, if nothing else.

    Edit: Actually, I think this report misses some caucuses, so the numbers above are probably a tad higher (though not Dole – I’m pretty sure that’s dead on).

  • That crossed my mind as well, John, but if you look at the total number of contests held by the Super Tuesday date, the number of total primaries and caucuses held thus far is about on par – in fact it’s a little more – than in 1996 and 2008 (and 2008 was atypical as to how early Super Tuesday was and generally how front-loaded the schedule was)

    I don't know. I look at 2008 and there were only 548 remaining delegates out of 2300 left at this point in the cycle. This year, there are about 1500 left out of 2300. That makes an enormous difference in creating plausible scenarios for Santorum or even Newt to claim they are still in it that would not have been possible at this point in 2008.

  • I’ve thought for years (and actually wrote an essay in college on this topic) that presidential primaries ought to be grouped by region (New England/Northeast, South, Midwest, West) and held about 3-4 weeks apart from February through May or March through June. A different region could vote first each election cycle. Perhaps the regions could be defined in such a way that each election day determines roughly the same number of delegates. That way, candidates can concentrate on campaigning by region and vast swaths of the country are not ignored simply because their primary is “too late.”