8 Responses to The Consequence of Irresponsible Choices …

Who Left American Heroes Tyrone Woods and Greg Doherty to Die?

Saturday, October 27, AD 2012

Tyrone Woods and Greg Doherty were authentic American heroes.  Both former Navy Seals, they fought to the last in defense of the Benghazi consulate, manning a machine gun at the CIA annex.  Despite three separate orders telling them not to do so, Woods and Doherty went to the consulate after the attack began, and saved the lives of 20 embassy personnel, bringing them to the CIA annex.  They  defended the CIA annex, holding it while the 20 people they rescued were evacuated.   They were in constant contact with higher-ups at the CIA, requesting military aid.  They fought heroically for six hours and twenty minutes against an estimated 200 heavily armed attackers from the time of the beginning of the attack on the consulate, killing an estimated sixty of their foes.

They were both killed by a mortar round at the six-hour and twenty-minute mark.  General David Petraeus, head of the CIA, has denied that it was the CIA that vetoed an attempted military rescue of Woods and Doherty.


CIA spokesperson Jennifer Youngblood said, “We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”

Investors Business Daily, in a blistering editorial asks the question:  who was responsible?

More than six hours after terrorists attacked our consulate, former Navy  SEALs manned a blood-soaked machine gun to defend U.S. territory. Meanwhile  Apache helicopters sat on the ground in Italy.

At 4 a.m. local time on Sept. 11 — six hours and 20 minutes after the initial  attack began — former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed at  the CIA annex not far from the consulate by a mortar shell. The machine gun they  were firing was encrusted with blood, an indication they continued to fight  after being wounded.

During that eternity, Woods and Doherty might have wondered between gunfire  and explosions where the military, with bases strewn across Europe, was. U.S.  forces were indeed being moved like chess pieces as the attack unfolded, but  none came to their aid because no one gave the order.

President Obama, perhaps preoccupied with his upcoming Las Vegas fundraiser,  met with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Vice President Joe Biden in the Oval  Office at 5 p.m. ET, a little more than an hour after the onset of the  attack.

He could have given the order but did not, even after an email, in which the  al-Qaida-tied group Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility, arrived at 6:07 p.m.  ET to a distribution list that included the White House Situation Room.

A Special Operations force went from central Europe to Naval Air Station  Sigonella in southern Italy, just 480 miles from Benghazi. F-16s and Apache  helicopters remained parked and unused at Aviano Air Base in northern Italy. Two  Navy destroyers already in the Mediterranean Sea were moved off the coast of  Libya on the day of the attack but were never used.

The question is: Why not?

Continue reading...

21 Responses to Who Left American Heroes Tyrone Woods and Greg Doherty to Die?

  • Yesterday, Instapundit posted that, reportedly, an AC-130U gunship was on station and had its computerized aim system locked one each jihadi mortar (a gift of the United States of America?). USAF and Navy fast movers could have “brought the goods” in less than an hour.

    In short, Obama bin Laden could have punished the perpetrators that day.

    No one gave the order to shoot . . .


    Then, Barry flew off to Vegas.

    Who had the authority to giver the order and why was it not given?

    Where does the “buck stop”?


    Lying, Obama-worshiping media: crickets chirping.

  • Addendum: Since Obama bin Laden took over in early 2009, more than 100 US marines and soldiers have been murdered by Afghan jihadis infiltrated in the Army/National Police.


    Four more years of this and we are toast. You can “take that to the bank.”

  • There may be a good reason ‘why not’, but Gen. Petraeus is the only one of them who could credibly articulate it to a general audience and he has been stone silent for six weeks.

  • What will happen to General Petraeus now that he has spoken? Can the traitor in the Oval Office stand being called what he is?

    These are dangerous times. Obama does not have the fortitude of character necessary to accept either criticism or losing. I think that he will do – or try to do – something very bad.

  • Thanks Donald! I saw that statement last night at the Weekly Standard from William Kristol. (Paraphrasing) No one could have made that decision (to stand down) except the President. If the CIA didn’t do it, then the Secretary of Defense wouldn’t be able to make such a decision on his own. It would have been a presidential decision.

    And they had a meeting…

    Some have suggested that maybe the President didn’t do anything nefarious, but that maybe it was just incompetence. Perhaps. But both are criminal.

  • Gross incompetence Stacy or criminal neglect. Either one should be a clear indication that Obama has no business being commander in chief.

  • “I think that he will do – or try to do – something very bad.”

    I do not expect that Paul. However, if he were foolish enough to do so, the consequences would be very bad indeed for him.

  • The truth meter dial has moved to treasonous terrorist from (media-induced guise of) careless incompetent. Team of insidious functionaries stirring events, while intimidating voters with diversions of base and basic concerns in the morality morass, it seems.

  • Isn’t it revealing who was in that room allegedly at 5 PM? All three. Obama, Biden, Panetta are partisan hacks. Not one has any operational experience. (It may turn out others were consulted but time was short so they probably had no more than a basic report to look at.)

    I also think Mr McCleary should include Amb. Stevens and Smith in the article. Stevens had made repeated ignored calls for help in securing the embassy facilities in the weeks prior to the attack. Weren’t they proactively left to die too? What went through Stevens’ and Smith’s minds as they were being attacked?

  • Obama, Biden, Panetta are partisan hacks. Not one has any operational experience.

    Obama and Biden are fairly useless. Panetta is a curious choice for Secretary of Defense, but he is a policy wonk and a reasonable occupant of some sort of senior position.

  • Recall what we learned after the Osama bin Laden raid. It wasn’t going to happen because Obama was indecisive and Rasputin, I mean Valerie Jarrett, had counseled him to not do it. Apparently Panetta is the one who set it in motion.

    I can imagine a similar scenario here. Obama, lacking character and the stuff of an informed and strong executive, was incapable of making a decision or even knowing what sort of decision should be made. The only advice he can make sense of is that from his political campaign handlers, which doesn’t make for appropriate directives.

  • What the Obama administration did to those men is disgraceful. Those men put themselves in harms way for our country, and the administration threw them to the wolves so they could hang on to the political fiction that there was no terrorist attack on Obama’s watch. In effect, they were a human sacrifice to the idol of political deception. I was a soldier, and now I have a son who is a soldier. Would that rat bastard in the White House throw my son’s life away if he thought it might get a few votes?

  • “Would that rat bastard in the White House throw my son’s life away if he thought it might get a few votes?”

    I so want to make a snarky comment about respect for human life, other than your own.

    It’s not that I’m single issue, it’s that it all ties together in principle. I keep thinking, “These people are pro-choice.” We all know what that means.

  • Adding to the outrage: Obama, Rodham, and Pannetta; and their media lackeys used the return of the heroes’ (whom they deserted to doom) earthly remains for a photo op.

    Then, Obama bin Laden went to the media and apologized that the jihadis had to get blood on their hands over a YouTube video that 16 people saw.

    And, the producer of the video is still in jail awaiting a court date.

  • When folks hector me to give Obama “due credit” for the OSB take-out, this is pretty much what I had in mind when I said “He didn’t screw up the biggest no-brainier possible as badly as he could have.”

  • Obama is all about obama.
    Proof positive.
    The appropriate thing for Barry to do is apologize for his inability to carry out his duties as commander and chief and resign his post.

  • Pingback: Who Left American Heroes Tyrone Woods and Greg Doherty to Die? - Military News | Military News
  • Oh my gosh! They may have relieved a general who issued orders that would have resulted in forces being deployed to protect the people in Benghazi before those orders could be carried out.


    It just keeps getting worse and worse.

  • Pingback: Pat Cadell: These People Have No Honor | The American Catholic
  • >Tyrone Woods and Greg Doherty were authentic American heroes. Both former Navy Seals, they fought to the last in defense of the Benghazi consulate…

    Too bad the mainstream news doesn’t have the time for these heroes:

    Obama’s Benghazi Gate and the Blood Encrusted Gun


Grant, Grant, Grant

Saturday, October 27, AD 2012

Something for the weekend.  Grant, Grant, Grant the campaign song for Ulysses S. Grant when he ran for President in 1868.  Unsurprisingly Civil War themes were hit hard, along with Republican rage against what they perceived as the soft Reconstruction that Andrew Johnson attempted to give to the South.  The song is sung to the tune of Tramp, Tramp, Tramp, the Boys are Marching!, (Originially entitled Tramp, Tramp, Tramp (The Prisoner’s Hope) which would have had huge emotional connotations in the North as that song was written in 1864 to give hope in ultimate liberation to Union POWs.

Continue reading...

Michael Barone Predicts Romney Win

Saturday, October 27, AD 2012


Absolutely no one has a better nuts and bolts knowledge, down to the precinct level, than Michael Barone.  He is not a partisan but a technical analyst.  I was somewhat surprised therefore when last night on Hannity he unhesistatingly predicted a Romney win.  Go here to Ed Driscoll to view the video.  This will have an impact on the political professionals viewing the race.

Continue reading...

Lone Star State v. the UN

Friday, October 26, AD 2012

Observers  from the UN, allied with Leftist groups in the US, are planning to send observers to monitor our elections to ensure that there is no “voter suppression”:

United Nations-affiliated election monitors from Europe and central Asia will be at polling places around the U.S. looking for voter suppression activities by conservative groups, a concern raised by civil rights groups during a meeting this week. The intervention has drawn criticism from a prominent conservative-leaning group combating election fraud.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a United Nations partner on democratization and human rights projects, will deploy 44 observers from its human rights office around the country on Election Day to monitor an array of activities, including potential disputes at polling places. It’s part of a broader observation mission that will send out an additional 80 to 90 members of parliament from nearly 30 countries.

The Lone Star State is having none of it:

Ambassador Daan Everts

Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

UI. Miodowa 10 00-251 Warsaw, Poland
Dear Ambassador Everts:
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) will reportedly dispatch election observers to the State of Texas to monitor the November 2012 general election. While it remains unclear exactly what your monitoring is intended to achieve, or precisely what tactics you will use to achieve the proposed monitoring, OSCE has stated publicly that it will visit polling stations on Election Day as part of its monitoring plan.
In April, you reportedly met with a group of organizations that have filed lawsuits challenging election integrity laws enacted by the Texas Legislature. One of those organizations, Project Vote, is closely affiliated with ACORN, which collapsed in disgrace after its role in a widespread voter-registration fraud scheme was uncovered. In September, a federal appeals court rejected Project Vote’s challenge to the State’s voter-registration regulations and allowed Texas to continue enforcing laws that were enacted to protect the integrity of the voter-registration process.
According to a letter that Project Vote and other organizations sent to you, OSCE has identified Voter ID laws as a barrier to the right to vote. That letter urged OSCE to monitor states that have taken steps to protect ballot integrity by enacting Voter ID laws. The OSCE may be entitled to its opinions about Voter ID laws, but your opinion is legally irrelevant in the United States, where the Supreme Court has already determined that Voter ID laws are constitutional.
If OSCE members want to learn more about our election processes so they can improve their own democratic systems, we welcome the opportunity to discuss the measures Texas has implemented to protect the integrity of elections. However, groups and individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas. This State has robust election laws that were carefully crafted to protect the integrity of our election system. All persons—including persons connected with OSCE—are required to comply with these laws.
Elections and election observation are regulated by state law. The Texas Election Code governs anyone who participates in Texas elections—including representatives of the OSCE. The OSCE’s representatives are not authorized by Texas law to enter a polling place. It may be a criminal offense for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance. Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the OSCE’s representatives to criminal prosecution for violating state law.

Greg Abbott

Attorney General of Texas

Continue reading...

18 Responses to Lone Star State v. the UN

Kipling and Brown Bess

Friday, October 26, AD 2012

The fourteenth in my ongoing series examining the poetry of Rudyard Kipling. The other posts in the series may be read here, here , here , herehere , here, here, here, here , here, here, here and hereCertain themes recurred in many of Kipling’s poems:  a fascination with mechanical devices, strong British patriotism and a puckish sense of humor.  All three of these themes were on display in the poem Brown Bess written in 1911 and which was part of the School History of England authored by Kipling and C.R.L. Fletcher .  The poem was a paean to the British Land Pattern Musket, affectionately know by the Redcoats as Brown Bess.  Brown Bess was the standard English long gun from 1722-1838, an astounding length of service for those who live in a time of ceaseless and rapid technological change.

The video at the beginning of this post is taken from Sharpe’s Eagle and depicts the battle of Talavera.  It illustrates the impact of massed British volleys of Brown Bess  musket fire on French columns.  (The redcoats are armed with muskets;  Sharpe and his green jacketed men are armed with rifles.)  The British Army was a curious thing during the period of Brown Bess.  The men were almost entirely desperately poor, poverty being the main inducement to don the Red Coat, service in the Army with its low pay, harsh discipline and danger being highly unpopular.  The officers tended to be aristocratic wastrels who purchased their commissions and were often regarded by their families as dunderheads fit only for gunpowder.  However, from this unpromising material was created the finest army in the world.  This was largely a function of ferocious discipline, constant training in drill and volley firing, good career noncoms, a few brilliant generals like Amherst and Wellington, and extreme combativeness and courage, amply displayed both by the common soldiers and the aristocrats who led them.

Kipling’s poem was based upon the device of treating the Brown Bess musket as if she was a fashionable belle of society.  Kipling told his father,  ‘A conceit somewhat elaborately beaten out but it amused me in the doing – sign that may be t’will amuse other folks to read.’    Here is the text of the poem:

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Kipling and Brown Bess

30 Responses to Obama Won’t Call You In the Morning

  • I’ll repeat what I wrote in the previous post:

    This is what the desperate throes of a losing campaign looks like.

    When you have to make such base appeals (pun intended) this late in the game just to get a modicum of the turnout from your true believers that you got 4 years ago, you’re in BIG trouble. His opponent is out there making a play for the middle by talking about the economy and jobs, while Obama has spent the entire campaign talking about sex. (After where Obama has placed his focus throughout his presidency and during this campaign, I don’t EVER again want to hear how conservatives are obsessed with “bedroom issues”.)

  • I was alerted to this video by Dana Perino of The Five, watched it and shared it, seems almost everyone is picking it up on facebook, especially Catholic and pro-life pages.
    As I mentioned when I shared it, it makes him sound like a male prost – to have him be a women’s (or maybe even fellow’s) first time be with him for the price of a vote. These ads are getting lower and sleeezer as we get closer to election day.

  • Every thing about the Democrats is just vile.

  • Is the Obama ad a knockoff of this Putin ad?
    Any Russophones?


    Even w/o understanding the dialog I must say the Putin ad looks cleverer.

  • My feelings are split between amusement at the Obama campaign falling apart so abysmally and thoroughly that it sponsors an ad like this, and sadness that a President of the United States’s campaign is sponsoring an ad like this.

  • Ace’s reaction is particularly on point.

    It underlines the essential triviality of Obama and his Government Client & Upper Upper Class White Voter agenda. There is nothing to his campaign except very small social-progressive appeals to people who are simply not affected by the economy, whether they are too poor to notice a bad economy, immunized from the economy by being a government worker, or so rich they have nothing at all to fear from a bad economy.

  • Our commentator, the 25ish Lena Dunham, is guilty of farting out the HBO miniseries “Girls” which showed that young college graduates in Manhattan are fully ‘broken in’ and thus can handle anything that comes along. This is accepted as true even if they can’t handle it.

    “Girls” is an alleged comedy that makes a virgin an object of universal ridicule. We also learn that an intercontinental slut is just as likely as anybody to catch a rich Manhattan executive type. There is more, but I’ll stop there — who cares what a 25ish farter farts out into the culture?

    In case you care, NBC’s Brian Williams’ daughter demeans herself in this trash.

  • Wipe your lip, honey. You missed a bit of spucatum tauri.

  • What Siobhan said, “Every thing about the Democrats is just vile.”

  • The “first time” for many young voters was obviously a mistake. But, we can turn this around. The Lena Dunham apple didn’t fall far from the tree. Her father’s vulgar and disgusting “art” is crude and demeaning to woman. I don’t think Lilly would ever find her self within 100 miles of the Dunhams.

  • Exhibit “A” why no one under 30 should be allowed to vote.

    I tremble to think that she is the future of America (and the world). God help us.

    The sheer infantility of the ad is astounding. Hopefully, most of her colleagues will grow up.

  • Degrading! Despicable. Downright dungbama!
    this is
    to be worthy enough
    to air on public airwaves.

  • The lady in the Putin video is much, much more fetching.

  • Thought the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal degenerated innocent youth, but four years of this administration has obliterated any development of virtue for them.

  • If you did not realize our country has among its female population a bred of sexoholics so possessed of distain for virtue and motherhood willing to reduce their gender to the mere lusts of fornication when they openly said during the Clinton saga they would be glad to duplicate Monica’s performance anytime for Bill just to thank him for supporting abortion, you surely have to know it now. And this proves Obama and the liberal democrats are trying to increase their numbers.

  • I am ashamed to be in this woman’s age group. 2008 was also my first presidential election. I voted for Obama in ’08, but after knowing what I know now (I was raised in a non/anti-religious home and only began learning about Catholicism in 2010), I will not be voting for any Democrats any time soon. What was once a great party is now an anti-life, anti-religious freedom, anti-academic freedom party. Honestly, the Democratic party is so radically different from what it used to be, I think it should be renamed to the New Democratic Party or something else to avoid confusing people who have been supporting the Democratic Party for decades. I support Romney/Ryan this election. Although my state, CA, is a “blue state” that always votes either Democrat or celebrity (Reagan, Schwarzenegger), I will be voting Republican this election. Very sad that the most popular “news” source among young Americans is Jon Stewart; a comedian and a very liberal Democrat who distorts facts against the Republican party. His show is full of red herrings, non-sequiturs, and straw man attacks. Critical thinking is lost on many Americans.

  • Just watched the Putin video – change the women and put it in English and it seems to be the same minus the crystal ball. The video is a good parrallel to the posted saying vote with your body parts. it will be a sad day if he gets back in.

  • “What was once a great party is now an anti-life, anti-religious freedom, anti-academic freedom party”

    Bravo Stephanie!

  • Well it is his most honest add. Voting for obama is like getting scr*w*d.

  • I am not a particular party. I vote for the lessor of 2 evils. Obama is evil.
    First of all he did not bail out the auto industry like he leads the public to believe. Romney did not say let the auto industry fall. In Romneys speeches he keeps explaining how he would have handled it yet Obama keeps lying about it. I work with dealerships across 12 states (General Mgrs, Service Directors, Parts Directors, Owners etc) & alot of dealerships are still closing especially the way GM is handling their GM/Chevrolet Dealerships. They will tell you Obama did nothing to help. Obama has the highest position in the states and he gets up there and lies, and calls Romney names. What type of dad,husband,friend, and president does he look like? A loser someone who is desperate. He has played the race card and has so many with big money supporting and covering up his lies, and mistakes. They will do anything for him to win, because if he gets caught they all go down with him. Ask yourself why would he fight showing his birth certificate among other important documents? What about the Libya coverup? Everything he does wrong he tries to lie & cheat his way out. This is not a hero to look to for our young people. Do not vote him in or you will have guilt in your heart when the country completly falls apart.

  • Stephanie:

    I also live in CA and as such don’t really have a good impression of how Democrats think in middle America — I generally get the impression that the Democratic rank-and-file are more conservative than the party leadership, although perhaps this has changed since the ’80s. If Obama wins Ohio for instance, will it be because of younger, more liberal voters, or older working-class Democrats who don’t share the national party’s cultural liberalism? if it’s the latter that will be especially unfortunate.

    about the ad, more than the faux-edginess and overall insult to my intelligence, what was most annoying was the reference to “healthcare, ESPECIALLY birth control.” This is where the blog quoted above was especially right: it’s targeted toward affluent Democratic voters who are fine on their healthcare, but see having to budget extra for birth control if they work for a Catholic institution as a Terrible Oppression. it’s simultaneously unsurprising and bizarre that it has become the focus of Obama’s defense of his health plan. I pointed this out while talking to my father, a Democrat, and he found it equally weird.

  • PM:

    this is a tangent but that is a big reason why i don’t like the mainstream conservative revisionism (not by all mind) that Clinton wasn’t that bad because of the booming economy. Regardless of whether he did anything that helped that along (and I incline toward the view that it was mostly independent, though I realize there were arguments that deficit reduction prevented the government from borrowing as much money that could’ve gone toward private investment,) the man is still a punchline. The whole “everybody does it,” “Europe’s laughing at us” or “privacy!” arguments offered in defense were and will always be idiotic.

  • one last thing, there was something today about how Reagan made a double entendre of this nature when campaigning for (future Reagan Democrat) votes in a working-class New Jersey bar in ’80, talking about how he used to be a Democrat and voting GOP “hurts at first but then it feels just great.”

    I’m sure there’s been a bunch of Hypocritically Hypocritical online charges from lefties already, but if people can’t tell the difference between a one-off crack and the extended weirdness of this as a part of the overall Obama campaign strategy, I dunno what to tell ’em

  • JDP-
    A New Jersy bar vs. TV ad.
    Not exactly the same venue.

  • ….in agreement with you. The level of decorum has sunk so low since Barry played chief.
    Hope & pray its a one term “stand.”

  • “if people can’t tell the difference between a one-off crack and the extended weirdness of this as a part of the overall Obama campaign strategy, I dunno what to tell ‘em.”

    I had never heard about the Reagan remark before, or that it was ever an issue. That said, I agree with JDP, there’s a big difference between saying it in a BAR where the audience are, presumably, all mature adults with a certain level of tolerance for bawdy humor vs. placing it in a nationally broadcast political advertisement that can be seen by anyone. Also, the Obama campaign has had a lot of other “extended weirdness” moments, going all the way back to the “Obama Girl” videos in 2008.

  • Here’s a hilarious parody of the “first time” video by comedian Steven Crowder:


    “I was a girl, and now I was a woman — a woman who can stay on my parents’ insurance until 26, burden countless generations to come with my debt and not even have to pay for my own birth control.”

  • i doubt it was ever an issue at the time. It’s mostly that libs are obsessed with pointing out supposed hypocrisy (the worst sin ever clearly,) even if they have to really reach to try and make that connection.

    if I had to guess I’d say they realize the difference, but can’t pass up an attempted cheapshot against supposed Republican puritanism

  • What’s especially bizarre about this video is that Lena Dunham has made a directorial career of portraying herself as the last person to approach for relationship advice of any kind.

    What’s next, Woody Allen or Roman Polanski informing us about which candidate to rely on when it comes to appropriate child care?

Obama, Bovine Droppings and Defeat

Thursday, October 25, AD 2012


Most losing political campaigns tend to give off a reek of desperation as election day approaches.  We see this in a Rolling Stones interview given by Obama on October 11, and published today where he refers to Romney as a bullsh—-r.    One of the advantages of being an incumbent President in a race for the Presidency is the dignity that high office tends to bestow upon even the most unworthy of occupants.  Obama has decided to eschew this advantage in a desperate, pathetic (?), attempt to drive up the youth vote.

Rick Wilson at Richochet has some thoughts on the Obma campaign as a losing and increasingly desperate campaign:

The aura of a losing campaign is unique, and Ross Douthat pegged it today:

Losing campaigns have a certain feel to them: They go negative hard, try out new messaging very late in the game, hype issues that only their core supporters are focused on, and try to turn non-gaffes and minor slip-ups by their opponents into massive, election-turning scandals.

Sound familiar?

Obama senses it, but can’t quite believe it. He seems confused by how easily Romney started punching over his weight class on October 3rd. He seems surprised that the last two debates didn’t drop Governor Romney’s numbers like a rock. He’s frustrated that Romney is a happy warrior now, and it shows. He’s visibly irritable because all the press hits and ads and field work … and so, so much money … haven’t reduced Mitt Romney to dust.

After spending nearly a billion dollars last cycle, and what will be more than a billion this time, Obama must sense the palpably declining political utility of his most familiar tools.

For months, according to Team Obama, there was no path for a Romney victory. The Blue Wall states were immutable, the swing states were susceptible to his women-and-seniors-and-immigrants-and-students mojo. Everything that worked in 2008 would work now. Everything in the hard-hitting Chicago political tool box would be deployed, and by the end Mitt Romney would want to be in the Witness Protection Program.

But now, as the President’s options have narrowed and as the weight of Obama’s failures from the economy to the Libya fiasco come crashing down on his campaign, I’m feeling increasingly optimistic that we’ve passed an inflection point in the campaign where Obama’s familiar tools can’t help him pull off a miracle.

Obama was the candidate of the inevitable, unbeatable wave, not of the grind-it-out, cut-and-thrust of a motivated, funded, and determined GOP and conservative base. Unlike McCain, Mitt Romney’s team won’t get hit and stand there with their jaws hanging down at the ungentlemanly conduct of the other side.

The daily polling — beyond just the head-to-head numbers — shows GOP intensity solidifying, Romney’s favorables growing, and the battleground states becoming smaller in number. There aren’t any swing states showing significant movement away from Romney, but a number are moving to him. Yes, we still need to pick the electoral lock by driving wins in some combination of Ohio, Colorado, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Virginia, but I’d rather be in our shoes than Obama’s.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Obama, Bovine Droppings and Defeat

  • Wasn’t it Obama who self admiringly said he believed his own BS? Leftists would have nothing to say if you took away all their (psychological) projections.

  • I swing between being cautiously optimistic and thinking that some way, they will steal this, like Putin in Russia and Chavez in Venezuela. Hoping and praying that this tragedy does not happen. (Sorry, I’m just a Irish born pessimist!)

  • And I am an Irish optimist Siobhan! Looking at this race as a cold analyst however, I would much rather be in Romney’s position in this race than in Obama’s.

  • Here’s what the stench of desperation from a losing campaign looks like:


    When you have to make such base appeals (pun intended) this late in the game just to get a modicum of the turnout from your true believers that you got 4 years ago, you’re in BIG trouble. Romney is out there making a play for the middle by talking about the economy and jobs, while Obama has spent the entire campaign talking about sex. (I don’t EVER want to hear again how conservatives are obsessed with “bedroom issues”.)

  • Great minds think alike Jay! As you were posting this comment I was posting a post on that piece of tripe!


  • It appears they’re not “buying” the obamessiah’s spucatum tauri this time.

    They can’t steal it if it isn’t close.

    Get out and vote.

  • In one way the appeal to infantilism is amusing. But it is chilling as well since it reveals the Left’s real attitude about the citizens. They do believe they are little babies or feral children to be treated as such.

  • Don, the Irish on my side of the tracks tend to be manic depressives! I guess it’s been built into our genes because of our history. I enjoy your site because it gives me hope measured with realism, and today this is so needed for those of us who haven’t lost our common sense and wish to maintain our sanity. May our Good Lord hear our prayers and Obama is dismissed on November 6th, though I have a feeling that if he is defeated, he’s going to continue in some other capacity – perhaps head of the UN? He won’t be out of our lives. (There I go again!)

  • What is the effect of this ‘early voting’ whatever it is and for whom?
    A neighbor asked, having heard a 5:00 news blurb. Who is doing the counting etc. and how does it differ from absentee ballots, were the questions.
    (Mom called for an absentee ballot due to manuevering problems, and was sent two applications.)

    Is the D party trying to do its worst? Obama supporters may begin to wonder whether he takes them and their children for nothing more than cheap votes rather than humans with minds and hearts during this next long week. It would be so good for them to hear about the care for them in Paul Ryan’s speech posted here today.

  • By contrast, from a campaign email that speaks more respectfully of we-the- people than, well … the incumbent wrecker does. The words, national movement, are heartening, Siobhan.

    ” With less than two weeks to go, we’re feeling the momentum.

    The debates have supercharged our campaign. We’re seeing more and more enthusiasm — and more and more support.

    This has become more than just a campaign. It’s become a national movement. Americans recognize we can do better as a nation than we’ve done over these last four years.

    Paul and I have a plan to produce a real recovery for America. We’re going to take back this country with good jobs, rising take-home pay, a strong military, and better opportunities for all Americans.

    This is a time to call on America’s greatness. We need your help — because it matters. It matters for your kids and their kids. It matters for 23 million Americans struggling for work. And it matters for the future of our nation to have a strong economy.
    . . .

    Mitt Romney “

  • Of course O’Bummer wants people to vote early – so that he can get votes that he won’t get in a week’s time when his ratings go sub-terranean, and some negatives against him become public knowlege.

  • There’s a reason my eldest can say “bull pucky.”

Intolerant tolerance…

Thursday, October 25, AD 2012


While on this side of the pond the nation’s bishops are waging battle against the government’s incursions upon religious freedom, an interesting battle is unfolding on the other side of the pond in Great Britain.

It seems that Susanne and Mike Wilkinson who own Uf Dorf Wilkinson—a Swiss country B&B located in Cookham, Berkshire, which also serves as the couple’s home—believe the precepts of their Christian faith trump the law of the land.  In this instance, that precept concerns the sanctity of marriage and the law is the Britain’s Equality Act Regulations of 2007, which outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation when providing goods, facilities, services, education, and other public functions.

The Swiss Bed & Breakfast property in Cookham, owned by Mr & Mrs Wilkinson, caught up in the discrimination row


According to the UK Daily Mail, Mrs. Wilkinson told Michael Black and his partner John Morgan in March 2010 that they couldn’t sleep in a double bed at Uf Dorf.  That allegedly “discriminatory” judgment led to a lawsuit that Black and Morgan have won, with the judge requiring Mrs. Wilkinson to pay Black and Morgan £3,600 in compensatory damages on the grounds of “hurt feelings.”

Responding to the judgment, Mrs. Wilkinson to the Daily Mail:

Naturally, my husband and I are disappointed to have lost the case and to have been ordered to pay £3,600 in damages for injury to feelings. We have the option to appeal, and we will give that serious consideration.

We believe a person should be free to act upon their sincere beliefs about marriage under their own roof without living in fear of the law. Equality laws have gone too far when they start to intrude into a family home.

People’s beliefs about marriage are coming under increasing attack, and I am concerned about people’s freedom to speak and act upon these beliefs. I am a Christian, not just on a Sunday in church, but in every area of my life – as Jesus expects from his followers.

That’s all I was trying to do and I think it’s quite wrong to punish me for that, especially after enduring over two years of vile abuse and threats.


In court, Mrs. Wilkinson explained to the judge that she was serious about her Christian beliefs regarding the sanctity of marriage and wasn’t discriminating because Black and Morgan are homosexual.  Mrs. Wilkinson explained that she also doesn’t allow unmarried heterosexual couples to share a double bed at Uf Dorf.

That would make Mrs. Wilkinson consistent in her intolerance or, put in another way, consistent in bringing her faith into her workplace.

Mrs. Wilkinson put her finger squarely on the truth when she observed: “We find this a strange justice in a society that aspires to be increasingly tolerant.”

In the UK, it may very well be the case that the principle of “tolerance” doesn’t extent to being tolerant of traditional Christian teaching about the sanctity of marriage.

Is this a “coming attraction” of what’s soon to transpire in the United States?




To read the UK Daily Mail article, click on the following link:


Continue reading...

10 Responses to Intolerant tolerance…

  • “Is this a ‘coming attraction’ of what’s soon to transpire in the United States?”


    There is no one more intolerant vice tolerant, more inconsiderate vice considerate, more divisive vice uniting, more exclusive vice inclusive, more close-minded vice open-minded, more unfair vice fair, more discriminating vice indiscriminate, than the liberal progressive leftist.

    It is only a strong Second Amendment that protects the First Amendment, and that is exactly what liberal progressive leftists fear. “And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one.” Luke 22:36b

  • I’m with you, PWP.

    We don’t force vegetarians to eat meat.

    We don’t require atheists to read the Bible.

    We don’t get upset when they eat meat on Fridays.

    We don’t get angry when they insult our God and Redeemer.

    I don’t need to sell my coat.

    I have credit cards.

  • It’s not a sign of things to come; they have already arrived on your side of the Atlantic, qv the deaf black female diversity officer in Maryland who was suspended because she signed a petition on SSM.
    One of our Counselling bodies has now banned its accredited counsellors from undertaking sessions with anyone who wants to change their sexual orientation away from gay.
    The gay lobby are gaining a strangle hold in both our countries (and elsewhere, such as Canada and France).

  • It is ominous that a country such as England which has a far less absolutist history than the rest of Europe (excepting Switzerland) is headlong going down the path of totalitarianism. Canada and Australia are also showing similar tendencies. The state wants no competition from religion since it is the substitute for religion. But one shouldn’t think it stems from an exclusive preoccupation with religious beliefs. The next to go will be the family. Then anything which interferes with its daily convenience or more precisely the convenience of the bureaucrats and pols running the govt. This may include behavior which it endorsed the day before.

  • It already has. I recall a court case back there about a refusal to rent to an unmarried couple. Either way, it is inevitable with the cultural swing to honor the “rights” of the Christian-Orthodox Jewish believer. interesting the judge fined the owners of the home for “hurt” but missed the injustice done to their feelings. I agree with the expression of anger toward Leftists and glad we can vote one out of the US White House November 6.

  • Pingback: Hypocritical, one-sided, biased, mendacious, “tolerance” is on the horizon | Fr. Z's Blog – What Does The Prayer Really Say?
  • Pingback: Sexualization of Girls Pro-Life and Social Justice Catholics | Big Pulpit
  • This is sickening.
    The justice is unjust.
    Soon pedophiles will be held secure by these same judges and parents will be packing concealed weapons to protect their children.
    A nightmare on main street.

  • What is really at stake here is any claim to knowing and practicing the truth in public as one understands it. As Western societies become less and less Christian while more and more liberal, everything becomes tolerated except truth claims. Anyone claiming to know anything in the realm of morals or ethics is now automatically a fundamentalist. In fact, the US Supreme Court already proclaimed this new dispensation in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

    The new truth is that there is no truth.

  • We have been lied to all our lives by the media, by comedians, my talk show hosts, by magazines, professors, movies etc. etc.. We have been told that ‘intolerant bigots’ and ‘religious fanatics’ are out to stop anyone else from having fun. The truth is that true Christians have always been shy of ‘casting the first stone’. It is vice that in the end is intolerant of virtue and can’t bear to live in the same world with it.

Paul Ryan’s Civil Society Speech

Thursday, October 25, AD 2012



Paul Ryan gave a major address yesterday in Cleveland.  Go here to watch it on C-Span.  In this speech he argues that the Government efforts to alleviate poverty have been a flat failure, destructive to the family and increasing government dependcy.  He points to welfare reform of the 1990s as a model of how Government can truly help to alleviate poverty by encouraging work and independence.


He notes that Government often abuses power as it expands its scope:

Nothing undermines the essential and honorable work these groups do quite like the abuse of government power.  Take what happened this past January, when the Department of Health and Human Services issued new rules requiring Catholic hospitals, charities and universities to violate their deepest principles. Never mind your own conscience, they were basically told – from now on you’re going to do things the government’s way.

This mandate isn’t just a threat to religious charities. It’s a threat to all those who turn to them in times of need. In the name of strengthening our safety net, this mandate and others will weaken it.

The good news? When Mitt Romney is president, this mandate will be gone, and these groups will be able to continue the good work they do.

It is a fascinating speech and indicates that Ryan has thought deeply about the role of Government in helping people escape poverty and  is willing to lead the fight to implement the reforms necessary to alter the path we are on to national bankruptcy and ever increasing poverty.  Here is the text of the speech:

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Paul Ryan’s Civil Society Speech

  • Wow, that is great. It’s amazing how well he mixed in general, overarching principles with policy wonkishness. It’s also noteworthy that he draws the connection between social and economic policy, albeit in a subtle way.

  • When Mitt Romney is president the mandate will be gone….

    So many issues at stake. The HHS mandate hits below the belt. Two thousand years of Christian charity, hospitals, schools, orphanages, safe houses for women, missions and outreaches. Suddenly we must bend to the whim of a pro-death administration.
    Please God the Father protect us from all evil, visible and invisible.

597 Years Since Agincourt

Thursday, October 25, AD 2012

We are in God’s hand, brother, not in theirs.

King Henry V

The anniversary of the long ago battle of Saint Crispin’s Day gives us yet another opportunity to recall the immortal “Band of Borthers Speech” that Shakespeare put into the mouth of Henry V, a speech that could put fight into a dog dead three days, or, mirabile dictu, even a live Congress Critter:

WESTMORELAND. O that we now had here

    But one ten thousand of those men in England      

That do no work to-day!

  KING. What’s he that wishes so?

    My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;      

If we are mark’d to die, we are enow

    To do our country loss; and if to live,

    The fewer men, the greater share of honour.

    God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.

    By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,      

 Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;

    It yearns me not if men my garments wear;

    Such outward things dwell not in my desires.      

 But if it be a sin to covet honour,      

I am the most offending soul alive.

    No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.      

God’s peace! I would not lose so great an honour

    As one man more methinks would share from me

    For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!     

  Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,     

  That he which hath no stomach to this fight,      

Let him depart; his passport shall be made,

    And crowns for convoy put into his purse;

    We would not die in that man’s company

    That fears his fellowship to die with us.      

This day is call’d the feast of Crispian.

    He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,

    Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam’d,

    And rouse him at the name of Crispian.

    He that shall live this day, and see old age,

    Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,

    And say ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian.’

    Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,      

And say ‘These wounds I had on Crispian’s day.’

    Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,

    But he’ll remember, with advantages,

    What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,

    Familiar in his mouth as household words-      

 Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,

    Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-

    Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb’red.

    This story shall the good man teach his son;      

And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,

    From this day to the ending of the world,      

 But we in it shall be remembered-      

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

    For he to-day that sheds his blood with me

    Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,      

This day shall gentle his condition;     

  And gentlemen in England now-a-bed

    Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,

    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks

    That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to 597 Years Since Agincourt

  • St Crispin was the patron saint of souters or shoe-makers (from Latin suere = to sew) In Glasgow, up until the Reformation, he was the patron saint of the Incorporation of Cordiners (the Scots equivalent of English cordwainers), which included tanners (who had their own patron saint – St Bartholomew), curriers, barkers, as well as souters. The name derives from Cordoba, the source of the best Spanish shoe-leather.

    The Incorporation still survives and sends six member to the Trades House of Glasgow.

  • Great timing Donald.
    Thank you for the lift.
    In the very end the brotherhood of righteousness will unite in an endless Kingdom, a lasting city that St. Paul searched for within his being.
    Lord give us the grace to excell at servitude. To not count the cost nor attribute
    self worthiness to our works, remembering that your works are great.
    In twelve days the blizzard of ballots will fall from the sky to push back a defeated army.

  • I remember John Keegans’s, The Face of Battle, covering Agincourt.

    The English received Absolution and Holy Eucharist; and knelt down and took soil in their mouths in anticipation of burial, if memory serves.

    Then, the field flowed with blood, mostly French and etc. mercenaries.

    Courage and Christian humility ruled that day.

  • And far away, in a little village in Lorraine called Domrémy, Jeanne d’Arc was three years old…

  • Yes, it took God to save the French from the English.

  • Donald R McClarey

    After the raising the siege of Orléans, the Dauphin refused to keep paying the Scottish Free Companies. The Maid told them the bad news. Sir Hugh Kennedy turned to his fellow-commanders and demanded, “Since when did we need paying to fight the English?” Now that was a miracle, if you like.

    Sir Hugh never did get paid, but, after the Loire campaign and the coronation at Reims, Charles VII granted him an augmentation of his arms


    Several branches of the Kennedy family bear them to this day, including my neighbours, the Ferguson Kennedies of Bennane

  • “Since when did we need paying to fight the English?” Now that was a miracle, if you like. 🙂

One Response to Eastwooding

  • “Clint Eastwood reminds us that a second Obama administration would be a rerun of the first, and I suspect that would be a best case analysis. ”

    Bingo. Even the best Presidents have a worse second term than the first. One can only imagine what would happen in an Obama second term. I assume it would be a unilateral government until the implosion.

    I am a bit confused about the empty chair though. I thought Eastwood was “talking” to an invisible President sitting in the chair rather in the manner of Jimmy Stewart and Harvey. Was he talking to the chair itself and the chair was responding??

Richard Mourdock and the Illogic of the Rape Exception

Wednesday, October 24, AD 2012

Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock is in trouble. When talking about his opposition to abortion and whether he believes that there should be an exception in the case of rape, he had this to say:

“I know there are some who disagree, and I respect their point of view, but I believe that life begins at conception,” the tea party-backed Mourdock said. “The only exception I have, to have an abortion, is in that case of the life of the mother.

“I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God,” Mourdock said, appearing to choke back tears. “And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

There have been hysterics from the usual quarters, and Mitt Romney has even had to distance himself from the remarks. Pro-life candidate for governor, Mike Pence, even called on Mourdock to apologize.

Apologize for what?

Mourdock’s phrasing was awkward in that it he could be interpreted as saying that the rape itself was God’s will. Clearly Mourdock is referring to the pregnancy. Therefore what Mourdock is relating here is the true pro-life position. It’s nowhere near as bad as Todd Akin’s legitimate rape comments, and therefore those trying to make hay out of these comments are simply being disingenuous.

I was irked by something that Drew M at Ace of Spades said on this topic. Even though Drew thinks the backlash is unwarranted, he had this to say about Mourdock’s position:

I think Mourdock’s position is appalling (not his thoughts on God’s unknowable plans but the idea a rape victim should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term)

Normally I agree with Drew, but how can one find Mourdock’s position appalling, especially if one is otherwise generally pro-life? I can understand why people take the pro-life with exceptions position, and I would definitely accept a political compromise that prohibited abortion in all cases except rape, incest and where the life of the mother is at risk (though I think the practical application of such a law would be fraught with difficulties, but that’s for another discussion). And while I certainly don’t want to distance myself from people who are with me 99% of the way on an issue that is of the utmost importance, the pro-life with exceptions stance is logically untenable.

If you are pro-life it is because you presumably believe that life begins at conception. So if you advocate for the prohibition of abortion while simultaneously allowing exceptions, are you saying that the lives of those conceived via rape are somehow not fully human? Does the means of conception somehow instill greater value in certain forms of human life than others? If you are pro-life “except for rape,” what you’re basically saying is that abortion is murder and unacceptable, but murdering a child conceived in rape is somehow permissible. Well why should the method of conception matter?

In truth I understand why people are reluctant to commit to a 100 percent pro-life position. It is uncomfortable arguing that a woman who has experienced a brutal crime should then be forced to keep her child – a child that is a result of no choice of her own, and which could compound the trauma of what she has gone through. But by doing so, you are allowing sentiment to override reason.

The “with exceptions” pro lifers concern me because I wonder if they have fully thought through their positions. It is why polls that show a majority of Americans now turning towards a pro-life position are not necessarily cause for rejoicing quite yet. Again, I do not want to look a gift horse in the mouth, so to speak, and in no way would I want to turn these people away from the pro-life movement completely. Yet I think the instant revulsion to the sentiments expressed by Mourdock on the part of even some pro-lifers is worrisome.

Continue reading...

31 Responses to Richard Mourdock and the Illogic of the Rape Exception

  • “And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

    This statement is so fraught with theological difficulties and potential misinterpretations that, were this Pope Benedict himself, I would hesitate to recommend that he make it absent an audience of theologians.

  • Judging from his response to the controversy Mourdock is a class act:

  • Paul. I agree with your concern and position.
    What is the victim of rape doing if she inflicts her pain on another victim, her fetus. Healing never starts at the onset of violence to another. You are right to be concerned about the exception mentality. Drews position on this is appalling. The rape victim now has two huge wounds to heal. The violence she was subject to and the violence she inflicted upon another. In no way does two wrongs make it right. Time heals and rape victims that have given their babies a chance at life through adoption are victims no longer. They have deepened their faith in God, not cursed God for their misfortune. Rachaels Vineyard has some resources to back up my claims.

  • Donald,

    I agree. I rarely decide not to vote for a candidate based on theological ineptitude.


  • What I find hilarious about this is that the very same people who are in hysterics that a candidate proposes not inflicting a death penalty on a child conceived in rape, is that these very same people would likely oppose inflicting a death sentence upon the rapist.

  • “I rarely decide not to vote for a candidate based on theological ineptitude.”

    Agreed, especially when we encounter the deep fathoms of predestination and divine foreknowledge!

  • Yes! And not to mention (except that I will, just now) active versus passive will, potentially blaming God for evil, and all sorts of fun things.

    Donald, have you ever read Tsunami and Theodicy (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2008/05/tsunami-and-theodicy) or Doors of the Sea (http://www.amazon.com/Doors-Sea-Where-Was-Tsunami/dp/0802866867)?

    The book grew out of the article. Both are worth reading.


  • My objection to Mourdock and Akin has nothing to do with their position on abortion. All I say is that when you know for a certainty that you will get a question on something controversial, you think carefully how to express your position clearly and accurately or go the other route and dodge it. if you can’t manage that then you ensure that you have a compliant media that will cover up every gaffe, misstatement and tortured phrase. Unfortunately, both candidates by their laziness have vindicated the Establishment Repubs big time and helped the Leftists.

  • Donald, have you ever read Tsunami and Theodicy (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2008/05/tsunami-and-theodicy) or Doors of the Sea (http://www.amazon.com/Doors-Sea-Where-Was-Tsunami/dp/0802866867)?

    Yes as to Tsunami and Theodicy and no as to Doors of the Sea.

  • About the only honorable thing to do here is get right back in the faces of these people and declare that what is truly appalling is that an innocent child ought to be gruesomely butchered and thrown in the garbage because its father is a rapist.

    Yes, all people, men and women, should be “forced” not to murder innocent human beings, regardless of the circumstances in which they come into this world. They don’t have to raise them, but they cannot be permitted to kill them.

    If we can’t say this clearly and forcefully, then we are not pro-life, but frauds and impostors.

  • If Mourdock had simply ended his remarks with “I came to realize that life is a gift from God,” he would have made his point without giving the other side quite so much ammunition.

  • To those who believe in the rape exception, I would ask three questions:

    1) If abortion is the deliberate taking of a human life, how does the horrible circumstance, which rape is, to put it lightly, make the unborn child any less human or any less innocent?

    2) How does an abortion to bring any healing to the terrible violence of the rape? IN fact, post abortion syndrome (which is a fact, not just anti-abortion speculation) is likely to compounfd the trauma.

    3) Although the rape victim is indeed a victim, what right does that give her to make other victims?

    I have found that the rape, incest, life of the mother exceptions are often thrown out as dicersionary debating tactics to avoid dealing with the fundamental issue of abortion.

    I think this is where solid pro-life Catholic politicians like Paul Ryan get put in a bad position having to carry the water for people like Romney on this issue.

  • I was unaware of this story, but have recently met a ‘child of rape’. Perhaps Mourdock (and others) should use it, or other stories like it. I’m sure there are plently of children of rape, now grown, who can attest to the courage of mothers, and the value of their lives. http://rantingcatholicmom.blogspot.com

  • Ever since John Chancellor asked Michael Dukakis the famous “Kitty Dukakis is raped and murdreed” question that gave G. H. W. Bush the 1988 election, I have imagined what I would answer to any such ambush. I imagine Wolfie Blitzer or some such intellectual asking, “Your daughter is raped. Would you seek an abortion?” To which my answer would be “And put murder on top of rape? How much do you want the poor child to endure, Mr. Blitzer?”

    This is the essence of a practiced response, and anybody running for Senate, or any other office, from a non-Liberal standpoint had getter have principled and practiced responses to any question in any field. Who’s running his campaign? The Carmel Dad’s Club? I could do better.

  • His response was heartfelt and sincere. If they continue to bring it up I would change the reply to something like, “Look, clearly we both think rape is heinous and demands justice, we can differ as to whether we think it demands someone pay blood, but even if I were to cede that spilling more blood would be just, I cannot agree with you that it should be an innocent person’s blood.”

  • Of course Mourdock’s response was heartfelt and sincere. It was also poorly worded in a politically damaging way as evidenced by RL’s and other’s proposed rewrites. And Mourdock won’t be given the chance to change the reply because the Dems and media will endlessly replay his first comment for the next 2 weeks. At least Akin had the better sense to get his brain spasm at the start of the campaign rather than at the end. And BTW Elaine Krewer’s phrase is all the answer he needed to give. One can only hope voters have matured to the point that sincerity trumps amateurishness.

  • I agree with Donald R McClarey that “predestination and divine foreknowledge” raise very deep and subtle questions.

    That said, If we believe, with Aristotle and all the Scholastics that God is the First Cause and Prime Mover, then even the rape is the result of His (permissive) will. As Bañez says “God, respecting the nature of things, moves necessary agents to necessary, and free agents to free, activity – including sin, except that God is the originator only of its physical entity, not of its formal malice.” For “every act and every movement of the thoroughly contingent secondary causes or creatures must emanate from the First Cause, and that by the application of their potentiality to the act.”

    And, of course, they held that “In this premotion or predetermination is also found the medium of the Divine knowledge by which God’s omniscience foresees infallibly all the future acts, whether absolute or conditional, of intelligent creatures… For just as certainly as God in His predetermined decrees knows His own will, so certainly does He know all the necessarily included determinations of the free will of creatures, be they of absolute or conditional futurity.”

  • I agree that Mourdock’s original statement wasn’t perfect, but I think people are being a tad harsh. It was nowhere near being the sort of cringeworthy gaffe that have sunk other candidates. His meaning was fairly obvious to anyone who doesn’t have an agenda. Certainly candidates for political office need to be especially careful with their language and word choice, but even the best candidates are not going to be machinely efficient robots who make every utterance with precision. I think what he says barely rates a 2 on the gaffe-o-meter.

  • The Democrats nationally are desperate, and well they might be, and therefore they are engaging in the usual ploy of those facing defeat at the polls: busily attempting to build mountains out of molehills.

  • As usual, this site shows how anti-woman it really is. It’s not about love for unborn life, but callousness towards women who suffer brutal sexual crimes. Not too long ago, this site was gloating over the P*ssy Riot members who are now being sent to Soviet-era labor camps. Now, they show heartlessness towards rape victims. There was an article not too long ago in a Catholic magazine that said that consensual s*d*my was somehow WORSE than rape&incest. It’s this dismissive, self-righteous attitude towards women who are victims of horrific crimes that makes pro-lifers look idiotic and shows them incapable of dealing with REAL pain&REAL victims. This is just business as usual- callousness&disregard for real suffering, in the name of love and life.

  • “As usual, this site shows how anti-woman it really is.”

    More than half of all the humans slain in abortion Susan are female. If that isn’t anti-woman what is? The idea that the other innocent victim in a rape, the child conceived as a result, must die for the father’s crime demonstrates how far from any concept of justice the pro-abort mentality you embrace is.

  • I’d like to see Romney distance himself from this: http://youtu.be/jXQL9WLKXMo

  • I will simply note that nowhere does Susan actually make an argument as to why abortion should be permitted in these cases. Rather, she simply emotes and rants about anti-female attitudes (while conveniently disregarding the female commenters on this thread who oppose abortion in these circumstances). Further, her only attempt to bring facts into her rant was a off the mark, as she also conveniently ignores the fact that a majority of the bloggers here actually opposed the actions of the Russian government. Of course that’s a non sequiter anyway, meaning that the entire comment left by Susan is basically full of fail.

  • If I were a politician asked this question I would answer, “The value of your life does not come from the manner of your conception. If you are conceived in a loving marriage that does not mean your life is more valuble than someone else conceived in a one night stand, an adulterous affair, or, God forbid, violent rape. Rape victims need love and healing, not more violence through abortion.”

    Susa, I don’t hate women or rape victims. I don’t think you help a woman heal from rape by adding the added injury (physical, emotional, and spiritual) of abortion.

  • I find few things more annoying, even exasperating, as people – especially pro-life people- saying “they believe life begins at conception.” There is no belief involved but the scientific fact that human life does begin at conception. We need to stop using the ill-suited vocabulary “believe” which fits with the real argument. We believe that human life is sacred, valuable and etc. at all stages.

  • “More than half of all the humans slain in abortion Susan are female. If that isn’t anti-woman what is? ”

    As former abrtionist (who performed late term abortions) truned pro-life advocate Anthony Levantino says “Women’s rights my butt, what about the 750,000 little girls who get ground up in suction machines every year? “

  • Poor Susan. Anti-woman are we?
    Margret Sanger is your enemy Susan, not the people opposed to Sangers eugenics practices.
    How many more lives need be extinguished before the pro-woman camp has their shift in paradigm?
    Hope it happens soon for all of our sake.

  • Susan, the ‘child of rape’ I met is actually helping his mother to resolve nd forgive. He’s doing it now, he’s 44, she’s in her 60’s. I can’t imagine anything less anti-woman than the gentle gratitude he is showing her. I can’t imagine anything more profoundly pro-woman than overcoming the victimization of rape to bring a single good life into the world. I’m not canonizing this mother and son. I simply find their virtuous choices to be heroic. How is that anto-woman. Nothing in this article, Mourdock’s words, or the comments here are anything but pro-woman, and pro-child.

  • His error was in a single word. God “permits” a bad outcome. I don’t ever believe he “intends” it. Furthermore man allows it by sinning and thereby distorting God’s otherwise perfect plan. We’ve been distorting that plan ever since Cain.
    Wonder what the Dems would say about that, or even the Republicans.

The Clever Economics Behind Romney’s Tax Plan

Wednesday, October 24, AD 2012

One of the things which the candidates sparred over repeatedly in the debates was Romney’s tax plan, on which Obama has repeatedly charged “the math doesn’t work”.

Romney’s plan, as it has been presented, is to reduce tax rates by 20%. Thus, for example, the top rate would go down from the current 35% to 28%. Deductions and credits would then be reduced such that while the middle class would experience a net tax decrease, those at the top would continue to pay the same amount in taxes as they do now. Romney suggested how this might be done in the first debate:

[W]hat are the various ways we could bring down deductions, for instance? One way, for instance, would be to have a single number. Make up a number, $25,000, $50,000. Anybody can have deductions up to that amount. And then that number disappears for high-income people. That’s one way one could do it.

The idea here would be that for a family making, say 60k/yr that currently takes a total of $15k in deductions, the deductions would remain untouched while their rate would go down, resulting in lower net taxes. For a family making $400k/yr that currently takes $70k in deductions, their deductions would be capped at $25k but their tax rate would be lower, so they would pay about the same as they do now.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to The Clever Economics Behind Romney’s Tax Plan

  • Sound article. What we never talk about, ever, is the effective marginal tax rate for the poor. That first $1000 of income results in zero change in taxes, but a big drop in aid. I haven’t looked at the numbers in a long time, but as income increases, at times the effective marginal tax rate was greater than 100%. I believe that rate has dropped, but mainly because we’ve been extending the benefits of, say, food stamps to a higher income level.

  • N.B. The alternative minimum tax already takes away many (except charitable and home loan interest) of the evil, rich dastards’ tax deductions.

    All the democrats have is class hate: tax the rich!

    The essential problem with US taxes is that they are not used for their purpose: fund necessary government activities. They are used for societal engineering and political theater.

    Still: I will vote for Romney as the alternative will make the zombie apocalypse seem like a Summer picnic.

  • Excellent post, Darwin. I have tried to explain exactly this to the plan’s critics but have not had success. Your presenting it in writing, and so lucidly, should help. I hope you won’t mind if I cut and paste with attribution.

  • Thanks. Do feel free to copy.

    I was struck by the neatness of the economics behind the plan when I finally found the linked analysis, and I was kind of shocked that virtually no one is talking about this. I would have thought that Ryan would have taken a shot at it in the VP debate, if nothing else, but the thinking must be that ordinary voters just don’t or can’t understand these things.

  • Dulce axestay inexpertis.

  • The only decent democratic solution is to scrap the present debate format. Let the two candidates and their VP/hopefuls describe their financial plans and show how they would reform the tax code, spend the taxes, for military, education and social programmes which as we know are mostly savings and caring for each other and the vulnerable. Explain them and question each other. This waste of time, energy and grand-standing in the debates and the mindless commercials dumbs down an already dumbed down electorate. 2012 will not fix it regardless of who wins the White House or Congress.
    Hoping for genuine concern for the Common Good and the security of the Republic seems too much to hope for at present but it would go a long way toward backing away from the 16 trillion cliff and counting.

  • I would have thought that Ryan would have taken a shot at it in the VP debate, if nothing else, but the thinking must be that ordinary voters just don’t or can’t understand these things.

    Maybe, but more likely it was because his opponent was incapable of understanding these things. Kind of like when having to explain a joke – no matter how brilliant and accessible – it just never ends well.

    Good post though. 🙂

  • This is logic which connects most of the tax ideas Mitt has been espousing, but I think has been missing from both Republican candidates’ speeches. I’ve rather assumed that they deem it too complex for the average voter to absorb under the circumstances they would be forced to voice the idea. Alternately, the Dems would simply call it trickle down economics and everyone would dismiss it. Let’s face it it doesn’t make a good sound byte. Nonetheless I agree with it. Unfortunately for conveying the idea, but fortunately for tax revenue, I believe there is a next step.

    You’ve heard Mitt say repeatedly that it would also help small businesses, which are not mentioned in the discourse above. I’ve owned lots of real estate, but never owned a “business” I had to report taxes on. So speculating, my guess is that those businesses Mitt refers to, file on schedule C?, D?, ?, on individuals returns. They, I believe would be proprietorships, partnerships, subchapter S corporations, and perhaps LLCs and LLPs. Should they retain more of their earnings, they would be better predisposed to invest more thereby growing job markets resulting in more taxable income reported by newly hired people.

    A recognized impact on economic expenditures, and therefore growth, is outlook or expectations, especially on the part of business. But I won’t go there as it is also exceptionally hard to measure or predict. Still imagine what this would do to business expectations, excepting of course such things as bankruptcy practices – Sorry Donald R. McClarey.

    The logical next step is ahh, ahh, well, perhaps there are too many to even speculate, and perhaps in 8 years when president Ryan takes office . . .

    I always hate to pray that my will be done, but perhaps if this time God could just agree with me . . .

Religious Bigotry and the Left

Wednesday, October 24, AD 2012


One of the tools that some Obama supporters have been utilizing in their quest to give Obama another four years to transform the country in his image is the raw sewage of religious bigotry.  Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels so frequently in defense of Mother Church that I have designated him Defender of the Faith, has their number:


If the desperation of the left is any indication, the 2012 election of Mitt Romney to the US presidency has the same air of inevitability that Barack Obama’s election had four years ago:

I was on a conference call yesterday regarding intelligence gathered from a highly placed source that liberal Obama surrogates are planning to target Evangelical mega-church parking lots with bigoted anti-Mormon flyers the final weekend before the election in key battleground states like Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin.

Mega-church pastors are being notified to have parking lot attendants be on the lookout for such a lit drop. But please forward this post to all pastors of both Protestant and Catholic churches, particularly in battleground states.

The GOP’s all-important social conservatives may be getting more comfortable with Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith – but liberals are increasingly wary about the candidate’s religion in the run-up to November, according to a new study.

The study found anti-Mormon attitudes have increased since Romney’s 2008 presidential bid and are highest among liberal and non-religious voters….

The study found attitudes about Mormonism among Evangelicals has largely remained unchanged since 2007 – when 37% said they were “less likely to vote for a Mormon candidate for president,” compared with 33% this year.

However, that sentiment among non-religious voters increased from 21% to 41% over roughly the same period.

Among liberal voters, 43% said they were less likely to vote for a Mormon presidential candidate in 2012, compared with 28% in 2007.

Then there’s Andrew Sullivan who takes shrieking hysteria to a whole new level.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Religious Bigotry and the Left

  • Silver-Lining Department: That display of dishonest, ignorant bigotry is preferable to their tweets calling for assassinating President Romney.

  • Can any one in the ranks of the democrat party call for sanity?

    It’s a chance for their leaders, like Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, John Kerry, Caroline Kennedy, et al touting their Catholicism to redeem themselves! Or what about Harry Reid? It would be a proud moment for them and the country to caution these wayward citizens they are being paid to serve.

    It’s time now. They melting pot is boiling.

    Are they laughing at what is happening after all? They let the travesty at the DNC convention publicly shame themselves about whether or not their Creator should be ‘on the platform’.

  • D demonic
    N narcissist
    C culture

    To wide a brush, sorry about that. The clip is pathetic. The only goats are those that belong to Obama and his warlocks.

  • PM,

    Good comment. You have listed the crew that is going into retirement. If the Dem Party is to be saved, these worthies will be swept aside while another generation comes in to do the work.

    You also pushed my thinking button — it might be good to be a young Dem over the next few years. As the party beheads itself, there will be opportunities to climb the ladder quickly.

    Of course, you run the risk of rising in influence while the ladder falls to pieces. Still, there might be opportunity here for a new collection of conservative Dems.

    All that is down the road. None of it matters November 6.

    Good comment, thanks.

Give Me Liberty, Or Give Me Death

Wednesday, October 24, AD 2012

In the political season we are engaging in currently, with its frequently petty back and forth, it is easy, all too easy, to lose sight of the great principles on which this country was founded.  As a reminder we turn to a speech by Patrick Henry.

A fine video is at the beginning of this post on the great “Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death Speech” of Patrick Henry delivered in the Virginia House of Burgesses on March 23, 1775.  It is a remarkable speech, made even more remarkable when we consider that Patrick Henry was in deep mourning for his beloved wife Sarah who, after years of fighting a losing battle with mental illness, had died in February of 1775. ( Henry refused to have her committed, against the advice of his physician, to the appalling insane asylums of his day, one he inspected would have had his wife chained to a wall, and cared for her at home, bathing her, dressing her and keeping her from harming herself.)

Henry was perhaps the greatest American orator in a time of great American oratory.  It was said of him that cold print did not do justice to the passions he roused in his listeners with his speeches.  American school children used to memorize passages from this speech, a custom I hope is revived, because his speech goes to the core of what it means to be an American.  Here is the text of his speech, as it has been reconstructed, as no manuscript of it survives and our text is based on the recollections of men who heard it:

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Give Me Liberty, Or Give Me Death

  • As for me, give me Romney or give me Canada which is not descending toward fiscal, moral, and political Armageddon.

  • Who were those men snort laughing, sneering, putting on dead eye stares, and twisting truth at the debates?

    “The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.” This time it’s spiritual.

    It would be so easy for the voices on the left to use their media to begin a trend toward reason.

So I Am Voting for Kodos After All

Tuesday, October 23, AD 2012

Jeff Goldstein left this comment on his own blog.

The wife and I reversed course and did in fact pull the trigger for Romney. But only as a stop gap to get Obama out.

Having voted for him, I now own part of him, should he win. And I’m going to be a very very very strict owner.

Beyond that, though, I think whatever the outcome of this election, the GOP establishment and the conservative / classical liberal / TEA Party base are going to engage in a huge existential battle. And I think the GOP is either going to have to get in line with us or head over to the Democrat side. Which won’t be terrible, because it’ll dilute the hard left with a lot of moderate mushiness and move it more toward the Democratic party of, say, JFK.

I agree with those of you who say enough is enough, and no more lesser of two evils. And I don’t begrudge you voting libertarian or writing someone else in. I really don’t. I just feel like we can not afford 4 more years of this guy without bringing the whole thing crashing down. And with two small kids, that literally terrifies me. In my state, every vote counts.

But it will be moot if we don’t also take the Senate and the House, and not with establicans, either. Any GOP office holder who has pimped for a Democrat instead of a TEA Party challenger should be primaried and cast out, whatever his or her voting record. There cannot be a permanent ruling class. And it’s time these entitled suited monkeys learned that.

We also need to change leadership — at least in the House. I think McConnell will, confronted with the reality of a bunch of new conservative / TEA Party Senators (should we get them; the GOP isn’t too terribly concerned with helping most of the serious ones, many of whom are in tight races), act in the interests of that particular trend. Boehner, on the other hand, needs to go. As does Cantor. Period. Full stop.

To me, it’s completely unacceptable that the GOP is allowing the Dems to beat up on Bachmann, King, and West — along with a number of very good constitutional conservative Senate candidates.

And that needs to be made clear as well, forcefully, once this election is over.


As I type this I am watching the third party debate on CSPAN. Yes, I am watching more of this than I did the debate that took place between Obama and Romney last night. Here’s the thing. While it’s nice to say that you are going to vote third party in protest, the people who are actually running for president on third party tickets are, shall we say, less than serious. Jay Anderson’s friend Virgil Goode seems like a decent man and the one third party candidate who is tethered to reality. On the other hand, the rest of the people on the stage seem more interested in vital issues like ending drug prohibition and combating climate change. Gary Johnson is under the impression that when he’s inaugurated he will wipe out the income tax and balance the budget, evidently as unicorns and mermaids dance around the maypole. The candidate of the Justice Party, Rocky Anderson, seems like he has gotten a head start on the end of prohibition. And then there’s Jill Stein of the Green Party, who makes one long for the seriousness of the Nader campaign.

All of the candidates for president – those polling in the 40s and those polling in the .40s alike – are simply not attractive. As is almost always the case we have to choose the least bad candidate. The least bad candidate of this election cycle happens to be Mitt Romney. It is unfortunate that it has come to this, but when the available protest candidates are even more revolting than the primary candidates (and my only options in this state are Johnson and Stein), then there is little choice.

That being said, I think that Goldstein’s points are going to be worth keeping in mind. Assuming that Mitt Romney is elected as the next president of the United States – and I believe he will be – that is but the first stage in what is going to be a long battle not just between Republicans and Democrats, but between Republicans and Republicans as well. (And presumably there will be the same serious soul searching internally for the Democrats.)  But that’s a post for another time.

As for now, I’m going to watch Larry King do a better job moderating the clown debate than anyone who moderated the “real” debates.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to So I Am Voting for Kodos After All

  • I’m in total agreement with Jeff. We have to get Obama and his Administration out of here, and Reed out of Leader of the Senate. Having done that, we have to get real leadership in the House. That done, then we can go to town and really turn our country into the greatness we inherited from our founding fathers.

  • Mr Zummo says ” [Romney’s election] is but the first stage in what is going to be a long battle not just between Republicans and Democrats, but between Republicans and Republicans as well.” If the word “long” is capitalized I agree entirely. We need to think in terms of several decades. But I see no hope in soul searching by Leftists who think the soul is a gift from the government.

    However, I’m afraid Mr Goldstein’s statements strike me as bravado. Unless he can show that the people currently running (and likely to win) form a conservative majority in both the House and Senate caucus I fail to see how his statements about leadership differ from bluster. The election of Romney, which I also support for the sake of the country, would make changes at the Congressional level Less likely though. He did not win the nomination beholden to the Tea Party which foolishly did not coalesce around a single candidate. Similarly the time to “primary” RINO Repubs was in 2010 and 2012 unless again Romney loses. A Repub WH can throttle most “insurgencies” and with Obama and Obamacare gone there would be less energy behind the Tea party movement. Just being realistic. Mr Goldstein sort of realizes that his scenario can evaporate because Repubs are willing to jeopardize their majorities by providing little to no support for more conservative candidates. The fewer that win the more secure the leadership. (They would rather have a one vote majority or even a close minority than be tossed out with a six vote majority.) The airy confidence that RINOs would somehow join the Dems but serve as a diluting agent also defies current reality. So Mike Castle and Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski and Jon Huntsman etc forced to join the Dems are going to dilute Leftist programs like Obamacare and cap and trade? If the Left wins a few more elections they won’t need such “help”. The only real force that conservatives have in the near to medium term is the negative one of withdrawing electoral support to the Repubs. Unfortunately this strategy has only limited utility at the national level given the menacing nature of the current Dem party.

  • aside from the main point, but Gary Johnson is basically exactly the reason why I’m not a libertarian. I’ve read libertarians referred to as “Communists turned inside out” and that pretty much nails it for me. Liberals exalt Equality as the end-all-be-all, libertarians exalt Personal Liberty, both are wrong.

    actually when you think about it modern libertarians share much more philosophically in common with liberals. sure, they’re “anti-government,” but more core to their ideology is that everything is about the self. Liberals think in these terms too, they just differ in the means, i.e. it’s the state’s job to liberate people (however defined)

  • also i didn’t watch the debate last night either, mostly cuz it sounded like a big agreeing-fest

    Unless the GOP critiques the “democracy is always good in the Middle East” mentality there doesn’t seem to be a massive difference on foreign policy, except that Romney will hopefully be less deferential and favor-currying with the M.E. than Obama has, culminating in his apparent misplaced confidence in Libya

  • I had assumed that I will spend the next four years rousing opposition to what Romney will be attempting to do. Now I am not so sure. Some conservatives have been elected and then are revealed to be RINOs. Now I am beginning to wonder if Romney has been a conservative pretending to be a RINO in Massachusetts? We will all find out soon enough.

  • I don’t know if it is bravado so much as a rallying cry, Rozin. Jeff realizes that whatever happens on November 6 is just the beginning of what will be a very long political battle.

    actually when you think about it modern libertarians share much more philosophically in common with liberals. sure, they’re “anti-government,” but more core to their ideology is that everything is about the self.

    I largely agree, though libertarian ends are generally more palatable than leftist ends.

    I had assumed that I will spend the next four years rousing opposition to what Romney will be attempting to do. Now I am not so sure.

    Yes, his behavior during the campaign has given me slight hope. I had assumed he would have moved right to the middle after securing the nomination, but that hasn’t exactly been the case. His selection of Ryan as a running mate gives me some hope that he is serious about fiscal reform.

  • Additionally I was struck by the rumors about Gloria Allred and her “October Surpise” with some postulating that the big scandal is that Romney as a Mormon leader counseled individual women against having abortions, including helping one woman pay her bills.

  • That would actually be a rather welcome October surprise.

  • that is but the first stage in what is going to be a long battle…between Republicans and Republicans

    More like the 117th stage. I made the comment on an earlier thread that if there are two competing gas stations being built on a length of road, it makes sense to put them as close to the middle as possible, with enough room between them so that people will be able to distinguish which one’s closer. A guy who lives on mile 1 of a four-mile stretch of road wants a gas station to be put up on mile 1, but it’s better for the gas station to go up at mile marker 1.95, ensuring it’ll get all the business from the first two miles of road. If you put up a gas station at marker 1 and the other one’s at marker 2, you lose half the people between the two stations to your opponent. So each party’s going to be neutral-to-exteme (on one side or another) on abortion, taxes, defense, whatever, because that ensures they get the most of the wishy-washy and all of the passionate.

  • Pinky,

    If the two parties are merely fighting over how to spend a balanced budget (ie setting priorities) and operating within the Constitution then there is life after losing and your analogy holds. I also assume that the judiciary is operating within its Constitutional charter. The problem is that the modern Democrats know no such boundaries and will happily wreck the entire country if they think they can be around to run the pieces. If this sounds extreme, look at Europe. Despite the PIGS/F economic catastrophes the same political parties seem to survive. The only difference is that the public riots in favor of more debt and benefits. Why would the Dems be afraid to wreck the country seeing that? It’s obvious that even Establishment Repubs aren’t duly worried.

    Mr Zummo,

    I understand Mr Goldstein was trying to set a marker down. My problem is that the situation needs to be defined accurately before a strategy to win can be devised. I don’t think Mr Goldstein made any effort to think through the statements he was making. He should have just said what you said in that case.

  • DMcC says “Now I am beginning to wonder if Romney has been a conservative pretending to be a RINO in Massachusetts?”

    I visited relatives in Mass for many years and saw every Gov from King to Romney in action so to speak. Romney was the least popular of the 4 Repub Governors starting with Weld. Perhaps part of that was due to Bush43’s unpopularity in the state. He did not strike me as a conservative masked as a RINO. The one area he was consistently conservative on was the budget. As President I would see him acting fairly strictly on spending. On other things he is more Big government oriented or center left than not. He was no fan of Reagan. Without a fairly conservative Congress, I would not expect too much except for budget and debt restraint. He is only going to repeal Obamacare because he and the other Establishment Repubs know it would be political suicide if they didn’t.

  • Pingback: It’s Not Cooperation with Evil If One Side is Not Evil | The American Catholic