Monthly Archives: October 2012

Michael Moore Does His Best to Aid Romney

YouTube Preview Image

Tactical nuclear language and intelligence advisory to the above video from Michael Moore and MoveOn.Org.  Are these people trying to sabotage Obama?  Yeah, the country is going to be swayed by foul mouthed geezers threatening violence in the event of a Romney win.  The video is an excellent demonstration of how exhausted humor on the Left in this country has become.  Michael Moore:  I’ve got a great idea! We’ll have a group of sweet oldsters who are supporting Obama and then we’ll have them use the F-Bomb and threaten mayhem against Romney.  Brilliant!  If I wasn’t shaped like Jabba the Pizza Hut, I’d break my arm slapping my back!  With friends like Moore, Obama really does not need enemies like me.

Xavier University’s “moderate” approach to healthcare coverage: A breach in the firewall?

 

In this election cycle, much has been made about the importance of establishing a “firewall” in certain states so that a candidate’s electoral college numbers don’t collapse.

When it comes to defending the faith against insurgents, one might hope the nation’s Catholic universities and colleges would provide the Church a “firewall of firewalls.”  After all, haven’t they proclaimed themselves to be the places “where the Church does its thinking”?  Where better to turn for a reasoned defense of the Church and its teaching than through its institutions of higher education?

Of course, as the pundits have been opining, it takes only one breach of the firewall to accelerate the process of potentially losing that firewall and, hence, increasing the probability of losing the election…or, in this instance, weakening one institution’s Catholic identity and providing “cover” for others to do the same.

Has that firewall wall been breached?

According to Inside Higher Education, the President of Xavier University in Cincinnati, the Reverend Michael J. Graham, SJ, has reversed himself.  This “Catholic university in the Jesuit tradition” will now continue to provide employees artificial contraception coverage as part of the institution’s healthcare coverage.

 

The Reverend Michael J. Graham, SJ
President, Xavier University (Cincinnati, OH)

 

Last April, Fr. Graham announced that Xavier had been covering contraception but no longer would, effective July 1, 2012.  In a letter to employees, Graham wrote that offering such coverage was “inconsistent” for a Roman Catholic institution.

Correct!  That’s defending the firewall.

However, that was then and this is now.

Between then and now, Fr. Graham’s decision and letter provoked an outcry.  A number of Xavier University faculty and staff wanted to know who Fr. Graham or the institution were to dictate so-called “healthcare options” to married couples, to non-Catholics, and to those who don’t agree with Church teaching concerning artificial means of birth control.  After all, that’s not being inclusive, is it?  Then, too, they wanted Fr. Graham to explain why he made the decision and issued his letter without consulting Xavier employees first.  That’s not very collegial, is it?

In the face of this tide of opposition, Fr. Graham agreed to postpone implementing the change until December.  Perhaps Fr. Graham was biding his time while waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule.

But, once again, that was then and this is now.

Between then and now, the Supreme Court ruled in June, upholding Obamacare.  The opinion was written by the Chief Justice, himself a Catholic.  Talk about being provided intellectual and legal cover to allow the firewall to be breached!

Fr. Graham subsequently decided that since Xavier University would be required to provide contraceptive coverage as part of the institution’s healthcare coverage beginning August 1, 2013 anyway, the University would continue providing it to employees.

No doubt about it.  The firewall has been breached!

In an interview with the Cincinnati Enquirer, Fr. Graham blamed himself for how he handled this issue. But, he went even further.  While strongly disagreeing with the Obamacare mandate, Fr. Graham said he “believes universities should set a moderate example for the nation.”

The president of one of those institutions where the Church is supposed to do her thinking has decided his institution should “set a moderate example for the nation”?

Why so?

Could the rationale be that Church teaching tramples upon the religious freedom of those who freely choose to work at Catholic institutions, like Xavier University, yet don’t believe what those institutions represent?  Then, too, borrowing from the example of St. Isaac Jogues, SJ, and his companions, why alienate all of those people when, simply by leaving the door open to them, they can be evangelized?  And what will it matter anyway?  After all, providing artificial means of contraception as part of nationalized healthcare coverage is going to be required of those institutions come August 1, 2013.

The rationale is problematic and the firewall has been breached.  How long will it be before presidents of the other U.S. Catholic universities and colleges seize upon Fr. Graham’s reasoning and follow Xavier University’s lead?

This battle is not about “healthcare options.”  It’s all about the much larger war to delegitimize Church teaching.

Where’s the reasoned defense to come from, now that this firewall has been breached?

 

 

To read the Inside Higher Education article, click on the following link: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/29/catholic-college-reverses-course-covering-contraception#ixzz2AhJ4Ca00

Romney’s Paths to Victory

YouTube Preview Image

 

 

Barring a disputed count in a decisive state, by this time next week we will know who is going to be President of these United States for the next four years.  I believe Romney is ahead, probably between 3-5 points, with Republican enthusiasm greater than Democrat enthusiasm giving him an additional edge.  In this post we will look at the several paths to victory for Romney.

I take it as a given that Romney starts with a base of 257 electoral votes.  This includes Colorado where the Republicans have the advantage in early voting, and in party affiliation.  The other states are all of the West except Nevada and New Mexico, all of the Great Plains states, all of the Old Confederacy, Kentucky, West Virginia, Missouri, Indiana and Alaska.  Romney is only 13 electoral votes shy from a 270 majority, or 12 votes shy of an electoral vote tie, which would have him almost certainly voted in by the new House, with control of the Senate determining who the Senate would choose as Veep.

Here are the potential paths to victory for Romney which I see:

1. Ohio-18 electoral votes.

2. Pennsylvania-20 electoral votes.

3. Michigan -16 electoral votes

4. Wisconsin-10 electoral votes with New Hampshire -4 electoral votes

5. Minnesota-10 electoral votes with New Hampshire-4 electoral votes

6. Iowa-6 electoral votes-New Hampshire-4 electoral votes-Nevada-6 electoral votes

7. Iowa-6 electoral votes-Nevada-6 electoral votes-Maine Second Congressional District-1 electoral vote

8.  Oregon-7 electoral votes-New Hampshire 4 electoral votes

9.  Oregon-7 electoral votes-Iowa 6 electoral votes

10. Oregon-7 electoral votes-Nevada 6 electoral votes

New Hampshire I think is close to being a given for Romney.  If Romney wins Ohio, Pennsylvania or Michigan he wins with no further states needed.  With New Hampshire, Wisconsin or Minnesota can be Kingmaker states.  If Romney loses all of the above states except New Hampshire, he still has a path to victory with Iowa and Nevada or Oregon.

A look at the individual states: Continue reading

Lincoln’s Premontions of Death

YouTube Preview Image

According to Ward Lamon, Marshal of Washington and a former law partner of Abraham Lincoln, three days before his assassination, Lincoln spoke about a strange dream that he had:

“About ten days ago, I retired very late. I had been up waiting for important dispatches from the front. I could not have been long in bed when I fell into a slumber, for I was weary. I soon began to dream. There seemed to be a death-like stillness about me. Then I heard subdued sobs, as if a number of people were weeping. I thought I left my bed and wandered downstairs. There the silence was broken by the same pitiful sobbing, but the mourners were invisible. I went from room to room; no living person was in sight, but the same mournful sounds of distress met me as I passed along. I saw light in all the rooms; every object was familiar to me; but where were all the people who were grieving as if their hearts would break? I was puzzled and alarmed. What could be the meaning of all this? Determined to find the cause of a state of things so mysterious and so shocking, I kept on until I arrived at the East Room, which I entered. There I met with a sickening surprise. Before me was a catafalque, on which rested a corpse wrapped in funeral vestments. Around it were stationed soldiers who were acting as guards; and there was a throng of people, gazing mournfully upon the corpse, whose face was covered, others weeping pitifully. ‘Who is dead in the White House?’ I demanded of one of the soldiers, ‘The President,’ was his answer; ‘he was killed by an assassin.’ Then came a loud burst of grief from the crowd, which woke me from my dream. I slept no more that night; and although it was only a dream, I have been strangely annoyed by it ever since.”
 
It is a striking account if true, and appropriate for a Halloween Day.  However, there are problems with it.  First, there was no contemporary mention of it in the aftermath of the assassination.  Surely Lamon would have mentioned such a prophetic statement by Lincoln at the time.  Second, during the time period in question when the dream purportedly occurred, the latter part of March, Lincoln was not at the White House but with the Army of the Potomac.  Third, the story didn’t appear in print until 1895, two years after Lamon’s death, in a book of reminiscences compiled by Lamon’s daughter.
However, I am inclined to believe it based upon this incident involving a Lincoln dream which is well authenticated.  Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy, made this notation in his diary regarding the cabinet meeting that occurred at noon on the day of  the assassination of Lincoln: Continue reading

Hey Democrats…Get Your Minds Outta My Pants

*** Do you really need a content warning for this?  It starts off with walking vaginas.  In case that’s not obvious enough for you……Content Warning!!!***

 

 

Walking vaginas

Who makes these things?

 

Demands for free contraception

Will spend tens of thousands of dollars on a law degree.  Won’t spend $10 for her own pills.

 

 

Acting like a slut is a fine thing to be

Yes…we know you say yes…believe it or not, that’s what makes you a slut.

 

 

Turning voting into a sexual experience

 YouTube Preview Image

 

 

Telling me to “Vote with my Lady Parts”

 

Stayin’ classy

 

 

If I didn’t know better, I’d think this was all a little bit misogynistic, but I do know better.  I learned it from the feminists I met in college.  They taught me that as long as a man was in favor of abortion he could say anything he wanted about women and he was okay.  That’s how I knew that the art professor who said that the perfect woman only needed “two tits, a hole, and a heartbeat” was funny.  (He wore a Vote for Clinton t-shirt — so he was pro-woman just funny.)  It’s how I knew that the polite guy in history class, who always held the door open for me because my hands were usually full of books, hated women.  He voted for Bush.  (The first one.  It was 1992.)

 

When I was young and unmarried, the creepy guys were the ones who talked about nothing but sex while, usually, staring at your boobs.  Things seem to have changed since the “dark ages” of the early ’90s.  Now the guys who talk about sex non-stop and can’t get their minds away from our “lady parts” are hailed as the champions of womyn-kind!

 

I’m sure that he has nothing but respect for the woman he’s treating like a piece of meat.

 

Well, I have a message for these “Champions of Womyn!”


Dear Democrats,

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the women in this country are nothing more than a bunch of vaginas walking around looking for a “good time” to happen. You have reduced us to nothing more than the sum total of the “lady parts” we’re sitting on.  

 

You tell us “Free pills for everyone and religious liberty be damned!” and expect us to break into cheers.

 

We ask about the economy and you reply “Those abortions will be much more affordable now.”


You talk about equality for women, and that sounds like a wonderful thing!  Then the President pays his own female staff $9,000 per year less than their male counterparts.


Top it all off with a creepy campaign ad comparing voting for your candidate with losing my virginity to “a great guy”, and all I can say to you people is:


Ick!  When did you become so gross?

 

I keep hoping to see some representative of your campaign or administration come out and apologize for treating women as if we’re nothing more than “two tits, a hole, a heartbeat… and a voting hand.”

 

But you never do.  

 

By portraying women as slutty snatches looking only to get laid, this campaign and administration have set women back decades in our quest for respect and equal anything.  Thanks for that.

 

Can you do me a favor?  Can you stop?

 

There’s a week left to go until the election, and I’m hoping that for the rest of that time you can get your minds outta my pants and talk about the things that really matter to the women of America.  We want to hear about the economy, taxes, that out of control deficit (seriously, you think birth control pills are more important to me than the deficit?), or what the hell actually happened in Benghazi?    


So stop treating us like vaginas which happen to be attached to bodies, and speak to the part of us that really matters — our brains.  Quit thinking only of my girly bits (your fixation is a bit disturbing) and start talking to me as a voter.

 

Thank you.

 

 


Why I Wrote The Catholic Tide Continues To Turn

Some six years ago my first book; The Tide is Turning Toward Catholicism came out, which detailed the Good news happening in the Catholic Church.  Since then and especially this year, I am often asked is the tide still turning? Rest assured I am not looking at the world and the Catholic Church through rose colored glasses, the book not only gives positive spin on what is going on through stories and anecdotal evidence, but I outline a lot of statistical and demographic data to prove my point.

Honestly writing a book requires a great deal of time and patience, and though I had enough material for about half a book, I was waiting for the right time to finish it. However last summer, I felt God really pushing me to get this out. Providentially many events within the Church and the political realm helped to convince me that now was the time. I am glad I listened and finished the book this spring because recently my wife and I welcomed another baby into our home, and with two small children, writing a book would have been very difficult.

The Catholic Tide Continues to Turn (Aquinas and More publishing) picks up where my previous book left off detailing the Good News occurring in the Church, but also, and this is very important, I address why the Catholic Church and religion in general is coming under attack in our modern world.  Readers of my articles and first book continually asked my why we are facing these attacks? This is nothing new. Ever since the French Revolution in 1793 the Catholic Church and religion in general in the Western world has come under attack from powerful forces that for some demented reason have a problem with God.

In the book, I take a look at timelines in World History and examine revolutions like the American Revolution where religion was embraced compared to those like the French Revolution where it was attacked. This helps us in 2012 figure out why some in government and academia don’t like the Catholic Church and for that matter most religious institutions. The book also looks at the HHS Mandate and the political upheaval that unjust mandate has brought. Continue reading

Numbers Look Grim for President Obama

Superstorm Sandy has largely passed my area by, and Pepco has been spared another round of calamitous outages. Luckily for you that means I get to write a post digging deep into presidential election statistics.

Though the election polls have produced differing results, a general consensus has seemingly emerged. Mitt Romney is, at worst, tied with President Obama, and has upwards of a five-point lead. The Real Clear average of polls puts Romney up by less than a point. On the other hand, RCP has Obama up 201-191 in the electoral college, with a 290-248 edge in the “no toss-up” scenario. Obama has held a consistent edge in the battleground state of Ohio, though Rasmussen’s most recent poll now has Romney up by two.

In general, I agree with Jim Geraghty that it appears almost certain that Mitt Romney will win the popular vote. It takes polls with rather generous Democrat advantages (in the range of D+7 and up) to even get Obama tied. I trust Gallup’s likely voter screen more than other polls, and Gallup has had Romney with a steady advantage of three-to-five points.

It’s certainly possible that Mitt Romney could win the popular vote and lose the electoral college. It has happened to several presidential candidates in our history, and we are all familiar with what took place in 2000. What is fairly unlikely, however, is for Mitt Romney to win the popular vote by a substantial margin and still lose the electoral college. If Mitt Romney wins the popular vote by more than even just a percentage point, than he will be the next President of the United States. Of course we can never be certain in politics, but it seems like a safe bet that the electoral and popular vote winner will the the same person.

One of the reasons that an Obama electoral college victory in the face of a popular vote defeat is unlikely is that massive swings in national vote totals are reflected in all states. President Obama won the popular vote by seven percent over John McCain in 2008. Assume for the moment that Mitt Romney wins by just one percent – that would signify an eight point swing in favor of the Republicans. Such a huge shift in the electorate is not going to be limited to a small number of states. And as history has shown, when the incumbent party loses support, it loses support everywhere.

I have taken a look at each presidential election since 1976. Since that election, the incumbent has lost twice, the incumbent party has lost two additional times, the incumbent has won three times, and one time the incumbent party has won once. In all but two of the elections since 1980 there has been a net shift of at least eight percent. Let’s take a closer look: Continue reading

Election Schadenfreude

YouTube Preview Image

 

No national polls today because of the disruption caused by Hurricane Sandy, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t see any more until last-minute weekend ones.  To tide over political junkies, there is a fun story in SFGate about California liberals petrified over the prospect that the Southside Messiah may not be reelected:

 

Uncomfortable 1st debate

Edelman hosted a bunch of friends to watch the debate over dinner. But after  the first five minutes unfolded, nobody ate. Few spoke. “And right after it  ended, everybody just got up and left,” she said.

Berkeley resident Jim  Blume yelled at the television while he watched the debate with family  and friends.

“C’mon! Say something! That’s wrong what he (Romney) is saying,” Blume  recalls telling the leader of the free world.

Alas, Obama didn’t respond to Blume’s pleas. And for the next two nights,  Blume didn’t sleep. A man who has voted for only one Republican in his life -  when the  Beatles were touring – found himself questioning Obama and the state of  the campaign.

“What was happening? Who was this guy?” Blume asked.

Zuzana Ikels knows the pain. Since the first debate, the Albany resident has  done a lot of poll checks at 3 a.m. And rechecks.

She tried to convince herself that the first debate wasn’t as bad as it  looked. Maybe, she said, it was like how you thought you bombed a test but you  really didn’t do that badly. Continue reading

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .