This is Why We Have a Constitution, and Why the Alternative is Tyranny

Wednesday, January 16, AD 2013

New York’s Trespass Act of 1783  offered relief for Patriots who had fled New York City during the time of the Revolutionary “by permitting them to recover damages from persons who had occupied or used their premises during the war.” Common law had typically required  “that actions for trespass must be tried where the property was located, but the act allowed Patriots to sue in any court where the defendant could be found.” It also denied the laws of war by prohibiting the accused of arguing that they had been acting “under orders of the occupying British army, and the act also prohibited the defendants from appealing to a higher court.” (Citations from Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum.)

The New York Trespass Act was but one of many factors that led to the creation of the written United States Constitution. Under the Articles of Confederation government, the states had almost unlimited authority to pass any laws they pleased. The only check on the state governments were the citizens of the several states. Unfortunately, the people themselves were often the impetus behind the enactment of unjust laws.

The Constitution was a reaction to life under the Articles of Confederation. Though conservatives like to point out that the government created under the Constitution is one of limited powers – a fact which is undeniably true – the Constitution actually enhanced the powers of the federal government and was meant, in part, to curb some of the excesses of unlimited state authority.
In truth the Constitution was a perfect balancing act. The Federalists hoped to strengthen the federal government while simultaneously placing significant limits on the powers of said government. They wanted to mitigate the excesses of democratic government in the states while continuing to leave most of the day-to-day governing authority in the hands of local government. The Constitution is a document designed to prevent the outbreak of democratic despotism, but which also aimed at limiting the reach of government. These are not contradictory aims. As much as it may surprise political philosophers such as Piers Morgan to hear, purely democratic governments can become tyrannical – ask Plato and Aristotle about that.
If we understand the genesis of our Constitution then we can better understand why we revere it and strive to live as much as we can by the letter of said Constitution. It’s not because it’s some old, musty document and we just have a blind devotion to old things. There was a wisdom and a theory behind the Constitution that made as much sense in 1787 as it does in 2013.
And now, due to the gun control debate, we have proof of why the Federalists were right, and why we are inching closer to tyranny.
Continue reading...

27 Responses to This is Why We Have a Constitution, and Why the Alternative is Tyranny

  • Excellentem progymnasmam scripsis, Paule. Tibi gratias!

  • “Reasonable” has become, for me, an hated word.

    It is the word used to characterize every proposal one favors and to describe my comming around to the thinking of others. And so, reducing abortions while keeping the practice legal is a “reasonable” position and taking money from the “wealthy” to buy frivolous things for others is “reasonable.” if one holds to a view that a practice is inherently wrong, one is “unreasonable,” an “extremist.”

    So it is with the firearms debate. Requiring citizens to register their firearms is simply “reasonable” we are told. To oppose this is “unreasonable” and fears of tyranny and Constitutional Rights, are viewed as unreasonable fears. So too with concerns about unilateral executive action. Since the legislature isn’t doing what the public clamors for quickly enough, it is “reasonable” for the President to act without authority to cater to the whim of the majority.

    I fear, old friend, that you are right. Having forgotten lessons so painfully learned over 2000 years of Western history that liberty is hard won and easily and incrementally lost, we are wresting power from all authorities to resist tyranny.

  • Kipling said it well:

    “Ancient Right unnoticed as the breath we draw– Leave to live by no man’s leave, underneath the Law–

    Lance and torch and tumult, steel and grey-goose wing, Wrenched it, inch and ell and all, slowly from the King.

    Till our fathers ‘stablished, after bloody years, How our King is one with us, first among his peers.

    So they bought us freedom–not at little cost– Wherefore must we watch the King, lest our gain be lost.”

    The fight for freedom is never finally won or lost, but must be fought for again when dangers to it arise.

  • Jan.16th Religious Freedom Day! What a great President! We cares about us so much and our Constitution that he proclaimed the 16th of Jan. to forever be Religious Freedom Day.

    LIAR! I find it hard to share Christian love with tyrants.

  • Kiplig,

    “Freedom for ourselves
    And, Freedom for our sons.
    And failing freedom – War!”

  • In truth the Constitution was a perfect balancing act.

    No. It is a balancing act.

    If we understand the genesis of our Constitution then we can better understand why we revere it and strive to live as much as we can by the letter of said Constitution. It’s not because it’s some old, musty document and we just have a blind devotion to old things. There was a wisdom and a theory behind the Constitution that made as much sense in 1787 as it does in 2013.

    Ach. It is an organic law, not a piece of canonical literature. The utility or disutility of a set of institutional arrangements is going to be quite sensitive to local circumstances. ‘Local’ can be understood spatially or temporally. Our constitution has been (for the most part) a failure in containing the sturm und drang of our political life for more than 80 years. Some serious adjustments are in order (though adjustments in institutional arrangements cannot in any direct and transparent way correct the toxic culture of the legal profession or official Washington).

  • Our constitution has been (for the most part) a failure in containing the sturm und drang of our political life for more than 80 years. S

    Precisely because a certain subset of our political class has ignored it. That is not a failure of the Constitution, but of both leadership and citizenship.

  • Additionally, I shudder to think what the country would now look like without the Constitution. Imagine Obama issuing an executive order banning “dangerous and unnecessary” firearms, or one banning “seditious speech”. No, the Constitution is not merely an organic law but the concrete manifestation of the dream of the Founding Fathers of a Federal Union that would preserve the liberty that they fought for in the Revolution. In my eyes it is as “sacred” as any piece of secular writing can be composed by fallible men.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY GOD & CAESAR EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • In the hands of the current crop of supreme court justices, the constitution has become a blank piece of paper on which 5 of 9 justices get to write anything they chose. Remember that it was just a few years ago that five justices decided that the second amendment was an actually individual right (DC vs Heller). If Kennedy had woken up that day and decided to play the liberal justice instead of the conservative one, we would effectively not have a second amendment and all this talk of gun rights would be irrelevant.
    Think about that for a moment; the vote of one man has decided whether or not you have a basic freedom. I shudder when I think of what this nation has become.
    The great experiment of the federalists has failed. The fears of the anti-federalists that a large central government would become a tyranny have materialized.

  • “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”

    Abraham Lincoln

  • Precisely because a certain subset of our political class has ignored it. That is not a failure of the Constitution, but of both leadership and citizenship.

    Oh yes it is a failure of our Constitution. Paul, Israel has functioned for more than 90 years with a body of constitutional law but not discrete charter with entrenched clauses and supermajority requirements. If your political elite is satisfactory, you can get along without a charter. The point of a charter is that it contains the discretion of elected officials and others invested with authority, and erects a mechanism which can function passably in spite of a rancid political culture. Ours doesn’t.

    There are certain architectural features of our constitution which have been respected (as Robert Bork put it, “the stuff about elections every two years”), but the enumerated and limited delegations of discretion to Congress, the distinction between executive and legislative action, and the autonomy of provincial authorities have all been trashed. In addition, the immunities of particular communities and of households against federal or state authorities have been subject to judicial whimsies.

    In the years immediately after 1929, there developed immense social pressure due to the economic crisis which was not properly contained by the existing political architecture. The pressure simply blew the existing structure down. What replaced it was a de facto constitution running on stare decisis and judicial misfeasance. A secondary shock was delivered during the years running from 1953 to 1971. The Constitution you are referring to really does not exist anymore. It is going to require some sort of national reformation to restore it even in part.

    Added to all that is a phenomenon you see all over the western world: the efflorescence of a self-aggrandizing, pretentious, and antinomian culture among the professional-managerial class. This is most destructive as it develops in the bar. Students of Israel’s appellate judiciary contend that this body would clearly like to pull an Earl Warren but are constrained by the plenary discretion of the Knesset; what happened to Canadian jurisprudence after the enactment of the Trudeaupian Charter of Rights is well known. So, institutions matter, to a degree.

    Our institutions prevented a set of principled and adaptive changes to the political economy in 1933-39 and did so again in 1954-71. Instead, we had open-ended aggrandizement of the central government. Those institutions continue to prevent effective remedial action against an appellate judiciary for whom misbehavior is the order of the day. They also prevent us from containing the erection and maintenance of a permanent Washington political class (remember what happened to U.S. Term Limits?). We also have an incredible problem of collective action with regard to public sector borrowing. It is hard to imagine a set of institutions less equipped to address that problem than the ones we have.

    There is not much point in turning James Madison into the fictional Hari Seldon. The political culture stinks, but it does not stink so bad that our state legislators, working within political institutions which have some salient differences with federal institutions, cannot pass budgets. Madison and his contemporaries were making do in the matrix in which they were working and their handiwork sufficed in certain circumstances. However, the machine is broke and it is time to stop pretending and fix it.

  • Civil war scares me. However blatant lies from our Govt. leaders ( so-called ) and the abuses of our rights leaves one to wonder. What next?

    Maybe obama (small o ) will declare Jan. 22nd as Freedom for unborn children day. mentioned the absurdity of yesterdays presidential proclamation; “Religious Freedom day.”

  • Obama gives us Freedom From Religious Freedom Day without God.
    Pilate to Christ: “What is TRUTH?” Pilate imposes his definition of TRUTH: “TRUTH is what I say it is. The human being is who I say he is” The despot tells Christ WHO Christ is. Christ responds: “You would have not authority except that it is given from above.” Obama’s proclamation of Religious Freedom Day, January 16, is the usurpation of authentic authority to redefine the Supreme Sovereign Being, the human being, freedom, religion, and the unborn sovereign person. Obama says:”Look, I give you freedom.” and who can argue with a plagiarist? Obama gives us Freedom From Religious Freedom Day without God.

    In proclamation of Freedom of Religion Day, Obama says: Religious Freedom is what I say it is, and only what I say it is. This is the means that Obama uses to dictate to his constituents what their civil rights are. And some fools celebrate it as such. There can be no authentic freedom without the acknowledgment of God, Creator of man’s soul, Endower of unalienable rights. Freedom of Religion Day ought to dissolve the HHS Mandate and reinstate our founding principles.

    !) Man is created equal, not born equal, a self-evident truth we hold.

    2) Man is endowed by “their Creator” with unalienable rights.

    3) Man is endowed by “their Creator” with an unalienable Right to Life.

    4) Man is endowed by “their Creator” with an unalienable Right to Liberty

    5) Man is endowed by “their Creator” with an unalienable right to pursue his Happiness.

    6) Man is free to relate, to speak, to write and peaceably assemble with and for the Supreme Sovereign Being.

    7) These, our founding principles were inscribed 225 years ago and cannot be vacated, redefined or plagiarized by Obama.

    8) The unalienable right to the pursuit of Happiness vacates the HHS Mandate that is violating so many sovereign citizens’ conscience. The unalienable Right to Life vacates the HHS Mandate and abortion. The unalienable Right to Liberty vacates the redefinition of atheism as a religion.

    9) Obama cannot give us a Freedom of Religion Day without God, for that is usurpation.

    10) The Second Amendment cannot be changed without two/thirds of the states ratifying the change. Obama says that he has some Executive authority to change some of the Second Amendment, but Obama is mistaken. Eminent domain is no longer for public use and has been redefined for public purposes, such as the politicians’ new pay raise and vacation or maybe their health insurance. Only with two/thirds of the states ratifying such a change can the change be made. This is our Constitution.

    11) We, the people, have failed “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity”

    The Constitution is written for the sovereign person, who has come into existence by the creative power of God. It is the sovereign person’s choice how he will worship and acknowledge God. I do not think that it is through aborting others.

  • Mary De Voe,
    Congressmen / women are career-“minded & hearted” as they occupy a seat that is to be honorable and mission based. Serve the public…right?

    Is this, the current abuses and what seems like run-a-muck hypocrisy the beginning of the end of our freedoms?
    Executive orders and edicts leading to the “powder keg” that will soon feel the heat of a short lit fuse?

    I believe your thread. You have aptly hit it!…the sovereign person.
    I will continue to pray, protest and plead the case of Christ. For in him is our Hope, our Freedom and our Future.

  • Art, I’m not sure I disagree with much of what you wrote. Again, though, it actually affirms what the Framers believed. That society has crumbled as the constitutional safeguards they installed were ignored and done away with only confirms that what they feared about government and democracies was accurate. If there is fault with them and the Constitution is that there is no adequate means of addressing the issue of who has the final say on constitutional interpretation. If Hamilton was naive it was in writing things like the Judiciary would be the least dangerous branch of government. They did not foresee the rise of an imperial judiciary. And while they thought that the Supreme Court should be an arbiter of the Constitutional, they never believed it should be the final arbiter.

    Is the design flawed? No.

  • All designs are flawed, and the utility of designs is perishable.

  • “Though conservatives like to point out that the government created under the Constitution is one of limited powers – a fact which is undeniably true – the Constitution actually enhanced the powers of the federal government and was meant, in part, to curb some of the excesses of unlimited state authority.”
    This conservative in NY would appreciate a little curbing aimed at Cuomo&Co.

  • “Government without justice is mass brigandage.” St. Augustine

    If a gang of fascists or imbeciles in legislatures (none campaigned on gun control) and courts are illegally amending or to repealing parts of the Constituion.

    The political/social “contract” that bind us as a people is being torn asunder.

    These tired, effete “people control” exec orders and gun confiscation laws would not have saved one Sandy Hook school child nor will they make one US pupil safer.

    Criminals and madmen (by nature) don’t obey laws.

    It is a special kind of stupid of which these people suffer. It’s the reason every trillion-dollar liberal wet dream has been a waste of those trillions of dollars and a waste time and effort, with the “beneficiaries” of the liberal wet dreams worse off ever after.

    And, this idiocy explains the re-election (51% of voters) of the worst president in history and, concomitantly, the destruction of American peace and prosperity.

    The deficits, money printing, regulations, and presidential hate-mongering cannot go on forever. And, it will not. Soon, the “fat lady” will have sung her last note.

  • Could she expedite that song? Say yesterday. That would work for me.

  • Those stating that one of the purposes of the constition was to prevent state governments from trampling our freedoms should be aware that this was not true of the original constitution. The limits the original constitution placed on states were how states were to interact with each other and with foreign powers. For the first hundred years the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, their constitutions had their own BOR’s. it was not till 1897 that SCOTUS decided that wasn’t good enough and started holding the states to selective amendments.

  • Those stating that one of the purposes of the constition was to prevent state governments from trampling our freedoms should be aware that this was not true of the original constitution.

    Well the original Constitution didn’t go as far in this regard as some of the Framers would have liked. Madison’s original plan called for a national veto over state laws, and this was actually a major concern for him. But that got shot down at the convention. That said, the Constitution did pull back from the states some of the unbounded powers it enjoyed previously. But you’re absolutely right about the Bill of Rights not applying to the states until the Supreme Court discovered the magical jujitsu power of the 14th Amendment.

  • This conservative in NY would appreciate a little curbing aimed at Cuomo&Co.

    The text of the 2d Amendment is as follows:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

    The plain meaning a) recognizes a personal right and b) specifies that what is referred to would be military arms. It does not specify the authority which may not so infringe. On the face of it, the people are immune from the actions of any public authority, not merely Congress and the agencies which act at its direction.

    The thing is, ascertaining what the boundary conditions of this right are is a perplexing task. Clayton Cramer has been building a case that Saul Cornell (an obnoxious advocate of the view that the Amendment protects the franchise of the states to set up militias) has been defrauding his readers by systematically ignoring 19th century case law which recognized this as a personal right. That aside, there is a question of whether it applies against state governments or not. Aside from that, there is the question of how literally to interpret this formulation. As a rule, people do not conceive of a right of free speech to encompass a right to run up and down residential streets at three o’clock in the morning bare assed and screaming obscenities. What would be the analogous situation with regard to 2d Amendment rights?

    (Personally, I would be pleased if Gov. Cuomo would propose amendments and legislation to scrape the barnacles off the state’s hull. Our political architecture is a mess, but no element of the political class seems to care, including the journalists who cover the legislature. At least Mr. Zummo will likely not tell me that the Unified Court System or the Town Law have no design flaws).

  • “As a rule, people do not conceive of a right of free speech to encompass a right to run up and down residential streets at three o’clock in the morning bare assed and screaming obscenities. What would be the analogous situation with regard to 2d Amendment rights?”
    @Art Deco
    1) Only truth is allowed freedom in the public and private spheres. Obscenities are out and a person must be arrested, that is stopped, by peace keeping officers and officials.
    2) Curfew laws are in place even if not widely acknowledged. No noise after ten o’clock.
    3) When I stop laughing I will write. The exposure of the human body must be respected and have an important reason. Take Lady Godiva. Lady Godiva was protesting the heavy taxes. Her husband was the tax collector. She gave him back her clothes, as did St. Francis, informed the town of her protest and asked for indulgence.
    4) Rightfully so. If the government disarms the person and injury is inflicted, the government becomes an accessory after the fact, not only for disarming the citizen, but for not protecting the citizen. The state then becomes liable to restitution for its failure to safeguard the citizen, and also complicit in disarming the citizen. Double jeopardy for the citizen, none for the culprit and his accomplice, the state. Endangerment is against the law, even for Cuomo.

  • @4) Government becomes an accessory before (before) the fact of injury inflicted. Sorry about that.

  • @Philip: The sovereign person constitutes the state. As you have probably read me before, the sovereign person loses his sovereignty when he consents to crime and sin, murder and lying. Criminals do not constitute the state. The sovereign person who constitutes the state and the state, itself must be protected from such and the Department of Justice is called into being by such a need. Any individual human being who presumes to deprive another sovereign person of his sovereignty, civil rights and Creator endowed unalienable rights forfeits his own unalienable rights. The atheist forfeits his own Creator endowed unalienable rights by despising, rejecting and repudiating, actually plagiarizing and impersonating the Creator, the Supreme Sovereign Being and Endower of sovereignty. The proof of this fact is that the atheist does not endow LIFE, nor does the atheist bless LIFE. Life, for the atheist, must be snuffed out by the atheist because HUMAN LIFE gives testament to the Supreme Sovereign Being, creator of LIFE. The Right to LIFE inscribed in the Declaration of Independence is from “their Creator”, and not from the community as the Declaration on Human Rights of the United Nations declares. One nation under the world bank would impose these godless human rights that might be disposed of by the state, by the “community” that plagiarizes these rights from God.
    In an act of free will, the atheist rejects the Creator of his free will, thereby making of himself, a beast of burden to the state, making of himself a human being devoid of his rational, immortal soul. The atheist then imposes his dehumanizing decision on sovereign and free people to make himself “somebody”.
    A real somebody praises God every second of every day for his being.

It’s Not Cooperation with Evil If One Side is Not Evil

Sunday, November 4, AD 2012

Mark Gordon at Vox Nova explains why he is voting for neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney.

For my part, I won’t be voting for either Obama or Romney because both promise to pursue policies that violate my understanding of fundamental Catholic teaching. To invest my democratic franchise in either would, in my opinion, be an abrogation of my first responsibility, which is to to witness to the Gospel in all its dimensions. For me, there can be no disjunction between the two. To permit any other allegiance, identity, issue or ideology to trump the Gospel – even temporarily or provisionally – is, again in my opinion – a form of idolatry. Christian discipleship must be marked first of all by an unyielding evangelical integrity: “But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness …” (Matthew 6:6). And just as I would hope not to choose a “lesser” evil in my personal or business life, neither can I do so as a citizen. As I’ve often written here, when you choose the lesser of two evils, you still get evil. Christians shouldn’t be in the business of choosing evil.

Such is his right, and if he genuinely believes that voting for either candidate would involve cooperation with evil, then the choice is understandable and perhaps commendable. The problem with Mark’s analysis is that only one candidate affirms positions that are clearly in opposition to dogmatic Church teaching.

Continue reading...

25 Responses to It’s Not Cooperation with Evil If One Side is Not Evil

  • “3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

    Cardinal Ratzinger

  • Thanks Don. I just put that in the main post – meant to originally then somehow managed to overlook it.

  • Thomas Kempis says always vote for the lesser of two evils in his Imitation of Christ.

  • Gordon essentially argues that “If the Pope insists that access to health care is a universal right than it logically follows that a complicated legislative initiative mandating that companies provide certain levels of insurance is something that all Catholics are morally obliged to support. ”

    The flagrant sleight of hand between universal insurance and universal healthcare really gets me mad and particularly because Repubs and even conservatives so seldom call it out. Obamacare and in fact any socialized medical system as in the Soviet Union or the Uk etc etc explicitly state that Health CARE will not be equally available. Ironically It is most true in the US which doesn’t mandate universal health insurance but does make every effort to provide Health Care even in the absence of insurance. Just read Ezekiel Emanuel or Tom Daschle (Obama’s medical gurus) about how millions of people are going to be denied health care because of age or cost or current medical condition unless euthanasia is now defined as “medical care”. Anyone who uses Insurance as a synonym for care as Mr Gordon does is not worth reading. Any insurance program is merely that “horror of horrors” to such individuals, a voucher system. If I buy insurance I merely have a promissory note and expectation that I can use my insurance voucher when I need it. If the govt is broke or feels it wants to fund something else they will start creating ex post facto conditions which will effectively negate the insurance. They will delay health care indefinitely without formally denying it. I don’t see any sentence in Mr Gordon’s specious arguments which even touches upon these health care issues which currently exist in other countries. (If he does mention it somewhere else then it doesn’t seem to bother him unduly since he doesn’t emphasize it here.)

  • Yes, I don’t really see the problem here. I believe there are other statements by Ratzinger indicating that one’s motives for voting are really what are most morally relevant.

    I think if you prioritize the issues correctly and vote rationally as a Catholic, Mitt Romney is an obvious choice:

    Obama is assaulting the Church.

    Nothing can be more important to a Catholic than the structural integrity of the Church.

    Stopping Obama’s assault ought to therefore be the number one priority.

    Electing Mitt Romney stops Obama’s assault.

    Ergo, vote for Mitt.

    A vote for some other candidate is fine if you live in a state where your presidential vote doesn’t matter. Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Socialist, whatever (some of those aren’t options for “serious” Catholics, by the way). I live in CA, so I can do that if I want and it makes no difference.

    If you live in a battleground state, though, you really do have more of a moral obligation upon you. A vote for Obama is a vote not only for taxpayer-funded abortion on demand, among other moral atrocities, but also for a continued direct assault on the Catholic Church. A vote for a third party candidate or no vote at all is sheer petulance, in my opinion, at least under those circumstances. And a vote for Romney is not necessarily an endorsement of Romney – it can be a vote of no confidence in the current regime, which I think it will be for most people anyway.

    So consider that even if you believe some of Romney’s positions are “evil”, and on foreign policy they may be in my opinion at least objectively (but NOT on economics, where I think he’s just what the country needs), consider that your reasons for voting as you do also matter.

  • Pingback: Theresa Caputo Long Island Medium Padre Pio | Big Pulpit
  • I have a question regarding which I don’t see much discussions although I remember reading this in an article by the Holy Father.

    Isn’t there a difference in voting for a candidate who has taken a position, say intrinsically evil, but voting for that person not for that cause but for other causes which are critical? In this case it is not a directly being ‘complicit’ but rather a different degree, if you will. Please explain.

  • “Now it’s interesting that Gordon uses the term “serious Catholic” because it echoes something my pastor said this morning in his homily, and it’s what inspired me to bother writing this refutation of Gordon’s post. I am paraphrasing, but he said that no morally serious Catholic would claim that any party or politician perfectly represents Church teaching. On the other hand, a morally serious Catholic should notice when one party or candidate repeatedly takes positions at odds with Church teaching.”

    Thank you for this post. When I read something that objects to a practical approach to voting in this imperfect world with veiled innuendo about what Mitt Romney may do, a little of one or the other of the seven capital sins pops out through the stated effort to be so loyal to the Gospel. Anger, pride, or envy? Unknown, but there is something that brings to mind the Beatitude:

    Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

  • Pingback: It's Not Cooperation with Evil If One Side is Not Evil | The American … | Church News from Christian Web Watch
  • Because his vote does less than it could to prevent the largest portion of votes from possibly ending up with the candidate championing the gravest evils with the most vigor, is Mark Gordon at Vox Nova commiting a sin of omission?

  • May I recall some words of Cardinal Ratzinger, as he then was, addressed to the Catholic members of the Bundestag on 26 November 1981

    “It is of course always difficult to adopt the sober approach that does what is possible and does not cry enthusiastically after the impossible; the voice of reason is not as loud as the cry of unreason. The cry for the large-scale has the whiff of morality; in contrast limiting oneself to what is possible seems to be renouncing the passion of morality and adopting the pragmatism of the faint-hearted. But, in truth, political morality consists precisely of resisting the seductive temptation of the big words by which humanity and its opportunities are gambled away. It is not the adventurous moralism that wants itself to do God’s work that is moral, but the honesty that accepts the standards of man and in them does the work of man. It is not refusal to compromise but compromise that, in political things, is the true morality.”

  • Good Lord, the Obama administration is attacking the Catholic church & he won’t vote for Romney. Do some research on Romney as I did, a very good & moral man.

  • Henry,

    From the letter Don linked to above:

    [N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

    In other words you can vote for a pro-choice candidate despite their position so long as there are proportionate reasons. I don’t think advocacy for single payer, for example, would be a proportionate reason.

  • “If you live in a battleground state, though, you really do have more of a moral obligation upon you… A vote for a third party candidate or no vote at all is sheer petulance, in my opinion, at least under those circumstances.”

    If you say so.

  • “Isn’t there a difference in voting for a candidate who has taken a position, say intrinsically evil, but voting for that person not for that cause but for other causes which are critical? In this case it is not a directly being ‘complicit’ but rather a different degree, if you will. Please explain.”

    As Paul point out above, this relates to the problem of cooperation. Quickly, we live in a world where it is unlikely that we would be able to do anything if we were stopped by possible evil outcomes. Moral theologians have long recognized that under many (?most) circumstances, it would be impossible for someone to do good without being involved to some extent in evil. Along with the principles of double effect, the principles of cooperation were developed in the Catholic moral tradition as a way of helping those in the world to discern how to properly avoid, limit, or distance themselves from evil (especially intrinsically evil actions) in order to avoid a worse evil or to achieve an important good.

    For example, one works in a hospital as a nurse. Abortions occur in the hospital. Does the nurse working there make her involved in evil? It depends. If she agrees with abortion and works there either to support the hospital’s mission in providing abortions (even if she is not directly invovled in abortion procedures) then she is involved in formal cooperation. This is necessarily cooperation in evil and makes here complicit in the evil.

    But what if she does not agree with the abortions. This will change the analysis from formal cooperation to what is called material cooperation. However, just because she does not agree with abortion does not get her off the hook. What if she is an OR nurse and assists with the abortion procedure. Then this is immediate material cooperation. Her assistance is directly necessary to performing the procedure and, even if she does not agree with the procedure, her actions are necessary to the procedure being performed. Immediate material cooperation is also always illicit.

    Now we get a little more complicated. What if her actions are not directly necessary to the procedure taking place. Say she is a recovery room nurse and does not agree with abortion but is called upon to take care of women after abortions. The procedure did not require her help to take place but she is indirectly helping in that if there were no post-op care the procedure could not take place. This gets to what is called mediate material cooperation – the situation where one does not agree with the intention of what was done (in this case abortion) but still assists indirectly.

    This is mediate material cooperation and the licitness of this depends on three factors (tired yet?) Mediate material cooperation is morally licit according to a proper proportionality between the goods to be protected or the evils avoided, on one hand, and the evil of the principal agent’s act, on the other. The graver the evil to which the cooperator contributes, the graver the good sought or the evil avoided must be. Second, The reason for cooperation must be proportionate to the causal proximity of the cooperator’s action and the principal agent’s action. That is, is there sufficient reason to be invovled given the evil involved.

    Mediate moral cooperation is further distinguished between proximate and remote. The distinction between proximate and remote refers respectively to mediate material cooperation that has a direct causal influence on the act of the principal agent (proximate) and that which has an indirect causal influence (remote). So in the case of the recovery room nurse she is involved in proximate mediate cooperation. The care of the woman however may justify her being involved and such care would be licit (some may disagree). An example of remote mediate cooperation would be a janitor who cleans the hospital. Clearly he is invovled in the hospital’s mission but is so far removed from the abortion acts as to have no significant complicity.

    The third criteria is he danger of scandal (i.e., leading others into doing evil, leading others into error, or spreading confusion) must be avoided. Even if one can licitly cooperate, if there is a significant risk of scandal, one should avoid cooperation.

    So I’m tired now. If you have questions, I’ll try to get to them later.

  • One last thing.

    “Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. ”

    This also from John Paul II regarding illegal immigration in his letter on Migration Day, 1995:

    “4. When no solution is foreseen, these same institutions should direct those they are helping, perhaps also providing them with material assistance, either to seek acceptance in other countries, or to return to their own country.”

    As the first quote shows, the state may limit immigration. As the latter quote shows, those here illegally can be compelled to leave.

  • It would probably have irked Gordon to hear my pastor explain that the only issues that truly matter in this election relate to abortion, marriage, and religious liberty.

    Your pastor is simply wrong. War, torture, assassinations are also important issues. The difficulty is that the two leading candidates are not that different on these issues. I suppose O is slightly less likely to go to war with Iran (slightly, or maybe just not as quickly).

    Also, according to the logic employed here before, isn’t Gordon really voting for Romney by voting third party? He would have likely voted for Obama, but now that he is voting 3P rather than O, he is therefore voting for Romney. Or does that logic only work when you are tagged a “likely Romney voter going 3P”?

  • I probably erred or over-stated what my pastor said (I should have asked for a written copy of the homily). But those issues are the most important, and the ones that impact us as Catholics the most.

    I’ve actually never liked the “a vote for a third party is as good as a vote for Obama” line. No, only a vote for Obama is a vote for Obama. So it doesn’t work in either direction. Now, I’ve reached the conclusion that it is unwise to vote for a third party in this election considering the stakes, but that I still think that cliche is wrong.

  • For example, one works in a hospital as a nurse. Abortions occur in the hospital. Does the nurse working there make her involved in evil? It depends.

    Something a bit closer to my heart– finding an OBGYN that doesn’t do abortion, push sterilization, and throw a fit when you won’t take a subscription for birth-control post birth. I think I’ve finally found one that at least remembers I want to have kids….

    I find that one focuses the mind wonderfully on what levels of cooperation with evil are like.

  • I think the issue of abortion, marriage and religious freedom vs war, torture and assassinations gets to what Pope Bennedict said (as cardinal) about proportionality.

    In the US, there have been 53 million abortions. The US gov’t has done far less in the last 40 years in terms of war, assassinations and torture.

    It is worth noting that NEITHER canidate or canidates party has forsworn war, assassination and torture, but one party and canidate have sworn for 100% abortion.

    With that said, we must each vote our concious.

    Foxfier – don’t know if you will be back or not, but my sister is in NC and has a Doctor practice she goes to that has a Catholic take on fertility (ie no Abortions and won’t prescrib BC pills). In fact they have said to potential new doctors at the practice ‘if you want to do these things, don’t join us here.’ I wish you luck in finding the same

  • *grin * I’m always back, though I’ve been quiet of late….

    Sadly, I live in Washington. As best I can tell, everyone has to offer at least referrals for these things, if they’re a doctor.

    Made the mistake of trying the Franciscan health group, assuming it would be Catholic friendly… first doctor kept urging me to get sterilized, and when I told him I had religious objections, he wanted to know what religion. Claimed he’d never heard of a Catholic objection to tube-tying in over 20 years…..

  • War, torture, assassinations are also important issues.

    Not in this election or in any in the last twelve years.

  • Phillip –
    Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.

    Would that I had your education and eloquence – but now I am one step further down that road – Thanks so very much for your enlightening responses to Henry Peters’ question. I had the same ignorance but not enough smarts to formulate the question… so my thanks to Henry too!

  • But the Republican platform does countenance abortion in the cases of rape and incest.

  • There are No Words!

Ten Reasons to Vote Against Obama

Sunday, November 4, AD 2012



Regular readers of TAC can probably recite most of the reasons, given in no particular order below, by heart, but I think this recapitulation prior to Tuesday is a useful exercise for casual or new readers of the blog:

1.  Most Pro-abortion President in our Nation’s History-Obama opposes any restriction on the sacred rite  right to abortion.  That alone is enough to make him unacceptable to anyone who cherishes the protection of innocent human life.

2.  Debt-Obama, in four short years, has run up almost a third of our national debt.  He is careening us to national bankruptcy.

3.  Lousy Economy-Obama has given us the worst economic recovery in the post World War history of America, a recovery where 23,000,000 Americans are unable to find work.

4.  Obamacare-The major initiative of the Obama administration, Obama has given us a national healthcare plan which will drive up costs, vastly increase the control of the government over our daily lives and add to the “entitlement” spending which is the main factor in our out of control Federal spending.

5.  HHS Mandate-For the crassest of short-term political gain, Obama decided to give “free” contraception to women, religious liberties of those who oppose it be damned.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Ten Reasons to Vote Against Obama

  • Many of these were true for years ago. The fact that some “Catholics” had a hand in God’s election is a sad commentary on the state of the Roman Catholic Church in America.

  • I agree Sister! I don’t know how Catholics could vote for a man who believed that babies who survived abortions should be left to die. People were blinded by the glitz and glamour of the Obama campaign in 2008. The media failed to do its job in vetting the man. They ignored his connections to radicals like Bill Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah Wright as well as to Communist Frank Marshall Davis.

    We’ve had four years of his failed presidency. I pray that Americans wake up to reality and vote him out before our country is transformed to something our Founding Fathers would decry.

  • Another reasons:

    1) Obama promissed to close Guatanamo. He did not close it and now he kills innocents with drones to avoid bring terrorists to Guatanamo.

    2) Obama did not miss an opportunity to glorify Islam;

    3) Fast and furious;

    4) Sandra Bluke;

    5) Defense of Planned Parenthood;

    6) Protection of Iran instead of Israel;

    7) Leading from behind (trust in the UN);

  • Reasons LIBERALS should vote against Pres Obama (or at least stay home):

    1.) Obamacare: he was ready to drop any health-care from his agenda until forced to by Pelosi et al., leaving them to do the heavy lifting.

    2.) the “most transparent administration in history” has set new records for denied FOIA requests and over-classifying documents.
    We’ll leave aside the Nixonian claim of executive privilege in the Holder case.

    3.) Special interests — lobbyists have easier access to the President than his cabinet, not to mention more influence.

    4.) He has FAR outdone Pres. Bush in shredding the ill of Rights in the name of the War on Terror.

    5.) Illeg — I mean undocumented workers. Deportations have soared under this administration.

    Your first (or 3rd, or 8th) time shouldn’t be with someone who won’t respect you in the morning.

  • 10. “Adoration is the daughter of ignorance.” Benjamin Franklin

    They proved they aren’t racists in 2008. They’re going to prove they have no functioning gray matter in 2012.

  • T. Shaw, I hope you and yours are all fine. I don’t know where you are in NY, but the pictures from Staten Island and lower Manhattan are terrible.

  • Many people who will continue to vote for Obama are those who attached their egos to this guy and are enslaved to their political ideology. Because of their pride, they won’t admit that they were taken it. Believe me, I work with people like this. Over-educated liberals with many degrees after their names who think they are the best and the brightest the world has to offer, and turn their noses down on conservatives who can’t possibly be right.

  • “Because of their pride, they won’t admit they were taken in.”

    Pride, lust, envy, anger, sloth, greed (for other people’s money) – the Dems have the 7 deadlies just about covered, don’t they?

  • Pingback: Ten Reasons to Vote Against Obama | The American Catholic | Church News from Christian Web Watch
  • Speaking of reason #10:

  • As to Obama’s war with the Catholic Church, Obama is an Alinsyite par excellence. And the fact that Saul Alinsky’s influence on the Church in the U.S. is significant, albeit little known, makes Obama a much more dangerous enemy than many think.

  • Donna V., Thank you for your concern. Our friends in the Rockaways and Staten Island, and some other NYC areas are still in the cold and dark and cold.

    Our most excellent host, Mac also, from another comment, yesterday.

    “Thanks for the concern, Mac.

    “By the Grace of God and the constant intercessions of the Blessed Virgin Mary, our home was not materially damaged and the electricity was back by Thursday night.

    “Ma and Pa Shaw missed this one.

    “Our US Army son was TDY at Fort Leavenworth, KS for a week (!) from Japan. We needed to see him there, or wait another year-plus. We flew to KC, MO at 0600 hours on Sunday last. Blew back in last night with minimal adventure, except the NYC yellow taxi ride . . .

    “Our youngest son rode out the storm in the dark in the basement. We spoke to him Monday evening. He said it was gruesome.

    “Mama needed to see her boy.”

    We heard 7:30 AM Mass in Our Lady of Victory Church, with no heat or light.

    May the Divine Assistance be always with us.

  • I’ll say Amen to your prayer for us, T. Shaw. Was relieved that you sort of dodged another bullet. Hope the Thursday NorEaster storm finds people who are able to keep warm and dry with some food and water.

    Reason #~?: In addition to all of the above, the oppressive-ness of living through the four year insidious thing between the media and the administration blurring and twisting facts, figures, and events. Downfall of journalism and civility.

  • More:
    The Turtle and the Hare version of a cartoon at American Thinker, and some writing on the character of incumbent.

    One way or the other after tomorrow, I’ll visit the bookstore to find something for doing more than edit, copy and paste in comments starting with the below HTML’s.

  • Good Night …

    I’m from Brazil. I wrote in my blog a long two-part article on the American Elections. Here in Brazil, Obama is like a “fever” I made a translation into english. I hope you have been good …

    Link below:

    São Paulo – Brazil

3 Responses to Compare and Contrast

  • Pingback: Compare and Contrast | Wordpress news and updates
  • Once again, Obama appeals to the worst instincts of people – vengefulness, envy, resentment. Revenge for what? Revenge because Romney dared to run against him? Revenge because Romney is rich and successful? Or are we – the people who fail to bow before the greatness that is Obama – the ones that comment is directed against?

    In the annuals of history, powerful leaders have often sought revenge against their enemies. “Kill the kulaks!” To hear a president of the United States use such language is chilling.

  • Wow what a powerful video, I hadn’t seen it… I offered up my two favorite primetime news shows for a week up till thursday… :s

Election 2012: One Last Argument for Mitt

Thursday, November 1, AD 2012

The election is almost upon us, and many of us have made up our minds as to whom we are going to vote for, or whether we will even bother to vote at all. On the slight chance that someone from the ever-shrinking pool of undecided voters in a critical county in a vital swing state stumbles upon this blog post, the even less likely chance that they are Catholic, and the even less likely chance that their Catholic faith informs their political conscience, I’ll make one last appeal for a GOP vote.

I say a GOP vote, and not a Romney vote, because a) the most important issue at stake in this election really only depends upon which party, not individual man, is in power, and b) many people on the fence probably aren’t very enthused about Romney the man. I’ll admit that even as someone who has made up his mind, I am still not enthused. Granted, Romney isn’t as awful as many of us imagined him to be before he took Obama to the woodshed in the first presidential debate, it still isn’t easy to joyfully rally to his banner. He lacks the consistency and commitment to principle of the enigmatic Ron Paul, a pretty old guy who manages to get thousands of  modern American 20-somethings to care about things other than themselves, which is nothing short of miraculous in its own right. Still, he has emerged as a capable enough candidate for the highest office in the land. But let’s return to the issues.

Continue reading...

18 Responses to Election 2012: One Last Argument for Mitt

  • Permit me to say:

    Contrary to what Muslim apologist Obama, the progressive liberal agenda, and their adoring media want you to believe America is still a Christian nation in spite of all their ill begotten and somewhat successful efforts to lead us away from the God we proclaimed in our founding documents and in whom we have placed our trust for two hundred and fifty years making us the most generous defender of freedom and champion of peace in the history of the world.

    It has taken an electorate, deceived by media hype and the slick talk of a community organizer with a snake oil political platform built on the sand of Marxist social justice and constructed with inverted racism packaged as hope and change for a better future, four years to realize their tragic mistake but we are there now and the curtain of corruption has been lifted revealing the true and obvious nature of the beast of bureaucratic socialism set to use the next four years to finish the destruction of our country by virtual dictatorship of the most anti-Christian regime ever to occupy the White House. It must not happen.

    Over the years we have gone to every corner of the globe giving every ounce of blood sweat and tears it took to rid the world of tyrants in the name of freedom. Many of those were by all means monsters of madness which sprang up on distant shores but the one we face today has had the audacity to raise its ugly head from within our own house by cleverly deceiving the trust and compassion of, yes¸ the Christian majority of the nation wanting to show the world how tolerant and unbiased we had become. We were foolishly betrayed. That will not happen again this November, we have learned our lesson Christians.

    Bill Sr.

  • Watching the movie “The Hope and the Change” last night gives me some comfort in knowing that those who thought they were voting for a messiah have taken off their rose-colored glasses and faced reality. Let it be Lord, that with the wake up call of Sandy and Benghazi we may vote our consciences, informed and conformed, by the Truth.

  • Bill Sr.

    You Are Permitted!
    Awaken the sleepers.
    Blow a trumpet.
    Defend our freedoms.
    By God let the poles resound with a cry; “In this Nation we serve God by living the ten commandments and giving testimony that Jesus Christ is King!”
    It is and will always be…Our Father who art in Heaven / Not our father who art in Washington.
    We have reached the precipice.
    We will change direction and repent. Or we will fall.
    Lord have Mercy.

  • I disagree about the missile shield comment. We have a right to defend ourselves. That being said, I have no objection to sharing missile defense technology with the Russians. After all, it’s not an offensive weapon system. Why can’t we work together to defend our individual countries against rouge states like Iran? Hey, if we’re not supposed to engage in wars of adventurism in lands of Islamic fascism for access to mineral slime (otherwise known as oil), then why can’t we defend ourselves from the weapons that these mad men will eventually and inevitably get?

    BTW, want to stop wars in the Mid-East? Go nuclear and stop buying their accursed oil! Stop financing them! We can generate plenty of our own liquid fuels from our own American coal using the heat of nuclear energy from our own uranium and thorium, or alternatively switch over to cleaner hydrogen from nuclear energy. Stop the corporate socialism! Stop financing Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Gulf and all the rest! Treat all energy companies the same: just like nuclear, you don’t get to dump your trash into the environment, and just like nuclear, you get to finance your own self in the free market. This is simple: no more govt loans for anything. No more govt protection for anything. Just common sense regulation applied equally to everyone to protect the public. OK – enough of my diatribe. I am waaaayyyyy off track.

    Overall, good post, Bonchamps, even though I disagree about a few things.

  • “We have a right to defend ourselves”

    The missile shield doesn’t defend us. It eliminates Russia’s first strike capability, which puts it in a weaker geopolitical position and increases the potential for a conflict with NATO. Really it is time to dismantle NATO.

    Even with oil out of the equation, there are still self-righteous imperials who believe that the majority of Muslims harbor a secret wish to live in a Western-style democracy and eat at McDonalds, and that it is our duty to ensure that they are able to do so.

    “Go nuclear and stop buying their accursed oil!”

    After Fukushima, the after-effects of which still threaten all life on Earth, I’m a little less enthusiastic about the prospect of building more nuclear power plants. However, I think Palin had it right when she said “drill baby drill.” Drill it all up, as far as I’m concerned.

  • Fukushima happened because the plants were built next to the shore line without sea wall protection for the air intakes to the emergency diesel generators. So after the tsunami struck, the diesel intakes were flooded and AC electricity was lost. The plants were on the batteries that last only 8 hours. When the batteries died, the power to the governor controls for the steam inlet valves to the High Pressure Coolant Injection was lost. Those valves went shut. The HPCI steam turbines stopped, making their pumps stop. That resulted in a loss of core cooling. Eventually core heatup resulted in a zinc water reaction that produced the hydrogen gas which subsequently detonated. In spite of ALL of this, only SIX people died outright from Fukushima, and they were plant employee volunteers. NO MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC DIED FROM FUKUSHIMA. But a nearby town of 17000 people was completed flooded by a failure of the hydro-electric dam that cracked and crumbled from the Sendai Earthquake that caused the tsunami. And the natural gas and oil refinery tanks in the Chiba Prefecture burned for TEN DAYS, spewing their never ever to decay away toxic carcinogens into the environment. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of people died, but NOT from nuclear. Additionally, the NEW Westinghouse AP1000 and GE ESBWR passive safety designs obviate this ENTIRE failure scenario. These designs have 72 hour submarine type batteries and do NOT require electricity for emergency core cooling. Additionally, their spent fuel pools are located BELOW grade unlike the Mark 1 BWR containments at the Fukushima plants. I personally KNOW this because I worked on ESBWR and at a BWR and at a PWR for 30 plus years. One last thing: the safety upgrades that US plants did in the 1980s were offered to the Japanese, but they decided not to implement them. Now they got Fukushima, and your suggestion is no nukes, making them MORE reliable on dangerous fossil fuel failures like one that happened in the Chiba Prefecture. Kindly stick to Ron Paulism. it’s what you’re good at. I am a nuclear engineer and know what I am talking about. The Japenese screwed up – period. God help them. And donate to the nuclear workers at Fukushima instead of complaining.

  • Sorry for the spelling / grammar errors. Hate this I- Pad. Neverthless, I know what I am talking about. 30 years of training and experience. I am not lying. I am not misrepresenting the facts. I am a nuclear professional. AndI will defend the safest and cleanest form of energy God gave man with the same vigor that Inapply to other topics here at TAC or anywhere else for that matter.

  • Folks,

    Now that I have calmed down – there is very good information on the response of the US commercial nuclear industry to Fukushima here:

    Please click on the various daughter links to learn more.

    For the passive safety features of the new GE-Hitachi ESBWR design, please go here and use the media gallery to view an interactive video:

    For the passive safety features of the new Westinghouse AP-1000 design, please go here and use the on-screen instructions to view the various animations:

    A Fukushima event in the US is very, very, very unlikely, but failures from hydro-electric dams that can threaten millions are likely, as are explosions of natural gas pipelines. We should also note that 30,000 people die annually in the US from fossil fuel pollution due to particulate emissions from coal-fired power plant plants and other fossil fuel emitters.

    I can provide more information on spent fuel if need be, but the answer is the same: it’s safe – use spent fuel in fast neutron burner reactors like the GE-Hitachi PRISM or the Carlo Rubbia Energy Amplifier to consume the long lived actinides and leave only short lived ash residue. But waste from fossil fuel – including oil and natural gas – kills.

  • One last thing, Folks:

    Ash and other residue from coal fired power plants that supply 50% of US electricity releases more radioactivity into the environment in the form of naturally occurring uranium, thorium and radium than any US nuclear power plant does.

    But in spite of that, the amount of radiation released to the public does NOT constitute a danger. What does constitute a danger are the carginogens that burning coal, natural gas and oil release, but Bonchamps motto is, “Drill, baby, drill.” My motto is: “Recycle the spent nuclear fuel and stop dumping your fossil fuel excrement in the air that I breath.”

  • You don’t have the right to insult me on my own blog, so your offensive comment was deleted.

    Look, I’ve read what I’ve read about Fukushima. I’m sure your expertise is extensive and your opinions educated and valid. There are others who are equally if not more experienced and educated who disagree. My positions on energy aren’t set in stone and final – its not really a moral issue like abortion – and I am able and willing to change my views as new information comes to my attention.

    Now that you know this, kindly refrain from insults, hysterical CAPITAL LETTERS, and multiple postings on posts of mind that mention energy in passing.

  • Fine, Bonchamps, but when something is said wrong about Fukushima or the US nuclear industry, I will correct it. Kindly read the link to NEI that I provided. One goes to a brain surgeon for brain surgery and to a rocket scientist for a rocket. One should go to the nuclear engineers at NEI and the NRC for Fukushima and not the news media or the anti-nuke kooks (didn’t say you did). To get back to the topic of this post, Mitt Romney is a viable candidate in part because he does support a sane energy policy that includes nuclear as well as fossil energy. Nuclear is best. Fossil is better than no energy, but not nearly as good as nuclear. Mitt Romney is sane about these things. Obama and his support for useless wind and solar energy is not. And yes, energy policy can be a moral issue when tens of thousands die from fossil fuel pollution every year and those deaths can be prevented or minimized by increasing the percentage of nuclear used in the energy mix, which Romney will do. It is one of many reasons why I support Romney, which is the topic of this post. But wheverever nuclear is mentioned, people cite Fukushima, Chernobyl and TMI, and the explanations on these are complex and involved and difficult to understand to a person who knows nothing about radiation, nuclear engineering and related sciences. Too often the people making the initial comments don’t know anything about what they are commenting on – not their fault, they just haven’t been trained in science properly, thanks to our school system (a different topic for a different day). That said, Romney for President!

  • PS, I should not have used the word ignorant in a previous comment, Bonchamps. I apologize sincerely. It would have been better to have said misinformed instead of using emotionally charged terminology that is now regretted.

  • I’d say anything that can defensively eliminate Russia’s first strike capability, or any other nation’s with which we do not have aligned interests, is in the best interest of the US and its citizens.

    But as to the thrust of the post, Amen.

  • As a former nuclear submarine reactor operator, I agree with Paul D. Defense against aggression is always moral. I recommend Dr. Jerry Pournelle’s “The Strategy of Technology.” He was Ronald Reagan’s science advisor on the Strategic Defense Initiative. And Romney’s support for SDI is another reason to vote for Romney. He won’t sell out to the Russians.

  • One thing that can be said about Mitt Romney is that he will almost certainly and hopefully immediately eradicate these policies.

    Almost and hopefully. How reassuring. That said, I suppose it’s better than the persecution full steam ahead by the O.

    I am almost as PaulBot as one can be, but I agree w/ Paul on the nukes. France is what, 70-80% nuke, and I don’t recall hearing anything about them. Why look to Japan rather than France as the model, particularly given that the US has far more geographical choice about placing the plants than Japan does?

  • and by the second Paul, I meant Paul Primavera, obviously.

  • Thank you, C Matt. The new French socialist President is against nukes – no surprise there. He wants to de-nuke France to 50%. Foolish. I will write about this whole thing on my blog and post the link here to that discussion, but that’s not the topic of Bonchamps post and we should respect that. However, the statement Bonchamps made – “After Fukushima, the after-effects of which still threaten all life on Earth…” – is an example of anti-nuclear propaganda (no offense against Bonchamps intended) and unsubstantiated by web links to reputable nuclear engineering resources. As a nuclear engineerof 30+ years and a former submarine reactor operator, I know the statement to be demonstrably incorrect. I posted web links to reputable sources. Science is science and not open to public opinion. Not Bonchamps fault. He isn’t a nuclear engineer. We can’t expect an expert in one area to be an expert in all. And I should respect him and not use terms like “ignorant.” Confession time for me. But I can’t discuss more here since it’s not on topic. Romney for President and a sane energy policy that embraces nuclear power! OK, gotta go to Neutrons ‘R Us and keep your lights on and your refridgerators running!

Numbers Look Grim for President Obama

Tuesday, October 30, AD 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading...

46 Responses to Numbers Look Grim for President Obama

  • The University of Colorado electoral model that came out in August is looking very very prescient at the moment.

  • It seems like one of the big problems with just about all models is that presidential elections are fairly infrequent and so for any given comparison there are very few like situations.

    Right now, what I’m moderately confident in is that short of some big surprise in the near future Romney should manage a popular vote win, though possibly a narrow one. The big question is how this plays out in the electoral college. The general rule is that the two don’t split. But on the other hand, there also aren’t a whole lot of really close modern elections to go from.

    I fear that the basic structure of the map and votes are better for Obama than for Romney, since Romney needs to win Ohio plus one other state that isn’t already a moderately clear win for him (I’m counting FL, VA and NC as fairly clear wins, though it’s possible I’m being over-optimistic about VA.) There are several solid possibilities, but it means that Obama just has to play defense and hope that Romney doesn’t break through, while Romney needs enough of a wave of support that several states fall his way. Romney does indeed seem to be riding a wave, but at this rate it seems like we won’t know till election night if it’s big enough.

  • I disagree with one aspect of your comment, Darwin. There seems to be the perception that Romney must win Ohio while Obama can afford to lose it and still win. I think that the reality is quite the opposite. The president is playing defense, and Ohio is his last line of defense. If that goes, he is done. While it would be difficult for Romney to lose Ohio and win the 270+ he needs, it is actually plausible that he can pick off enough states like Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire in lieu of Ohio (assuming other states like Florida, Virginia and Colorado come home).

  • That’s because in American history it’s only happened twice (excluding FDR’s third and fourth terms): James Madison in 1812

    Umm. I do not think there was any popular balloting for electors prior to 1824.

    Re a disjunction between the popular vote and the electoral vote. It has happened 4x and in a fifth case (1960) the Democratic vote in two states was cast for an “uncommitted” slate rather than one bearing the Democratic candidate’s name, so there is some opacity about how to tabulate the popular vote.

    1. In one case you had a multiparty contest and six states held no popular balloting, having the state legislatures select the electors.

    2. In another case you had jagged state-to-state variations in the relative dimensions of the electorate and widespread fraud and (down South) intimidation (topped off with a finicky legal dispute over the decisive electoral vote, an elector having been disqualified because a federal employee).

    3. In a third case, you had some of the above and a popular vote margin under 1%.

    4. In the other two cases, the popular vote plurality was under 0.6%.

    If Obama wins the electoral college while losing by two or three million popular votes in a clean contest, it will be something without precedent (but, then again, a great many weird things have happened in recent years).

  • is it assumed that Mitt has CO in the bag? If he wins OH but only takes back the South + IN (that one isn’t in doubt obviously,) he’d still narrowly lose.

  • Colorado had looked pretty good for Romney for a while, although now I think it is back in the toss-up column.

    Umm. I do not think there was any popular balloting for electors prior to 1824.

    The system was complicated, and I’ll have to look back at my books, but I don’t believe that is totally correct. IIRC, most states allotted their electoral votes based on popular votes by this time, though not exactly through the winner-take-all allotment practiced in 48 states.

  • * Since Republican states were traditionally designated with the color blue prior to 2000, technically Vermont has always been a blue state.

    And I thought I was the only one to remember that!

  • Why’d it switch?

  • G-Veg,
    It was never official, but blue for GOP had been the more predominant practice on TV network maps until Bush v Gore. I don’t recall what the networks did that evening, but the next day USA Today published a national map color-coded by county, which captivated American attention since it showed how how pockets of Dem support had overwhelmed a sea of GOP, and that map happened to use red for GOP and blue for Dem. After that, the colors became part of our national consciousness. Unfortunate if you ask me. Red is more appropriate for the Dems. That at least is my recollection.

  • Darwin,

    My comment was simply that the Colorado model stated in August what many people at the time said was fanciful – Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin would all go for Romney. Minnesota and PA were viewed as solid Obama. Yet here we are a week before and both campaigns have moved to those states. I don’t know any pollster or analyst who made a similar call.

  • JDP,

    If Romney takes Ohio (assuming the South plus IN), then all he needs is any one of NV, CO, IA, WI, PA, or NH. While Obama could lose Ohio and still run the table in those states, it is not very likely.

    On the other hand, if Obama takes Ohio, Romney could still win if he takes (i) PA and any other state, (ii) WI and CO and any other state, (iii) WI and NV and any other state (except NH unless it brings along a single vote from ME), or (iv) various other combinations. While not easy, it is a better route than Obama’s.

    It is easy to see why both sides have to regard OH as key, but at the margin it is even more essential for Obama than Romney.

  • I guess the reason I’d see Obama as having the easier time at the moment is that if he just wins all the states that he’s currently ahead in the polling in, he wins.

    I’d say that Romney has a fairly good path to 248 and Obama only has a fairly good path to 237, but of the remaining states (NV, CO, IA, WI, OH, NH) they’re all ties or moderately good “leans Obama” cases.

    My big hope is that the national polling (which is much more frequent and statistically rigorous) actually gives a far better impression of where the states are trending, and that VA is thus a lock and OH is tipping into Romney’s column right now (as the last couple state polls do actually suggest). If that’s the case, with one week’s runway left we could be popping corks early on election night. But right now I’m still worried.

  • Back in the day, when broadcast networks were A) the only game in town and B) still more-or-less journalistically reliable, the colors actually were designed to switch every election. The incumbent was red and the challenger was blue one cycle, then vice-versa. This was originated in 1976 when NBC used a back-lit big board. But the scheme wasn;t close to nailed down yet – Republicans were usually blue because of the incumbancy-challenger cycle between 1980 and 1996. In 1980, the country looked, in the words of David Brinkley “like a suburban swimming pool.” CBS was reversed from the other two major nets, so even at that there was no real conformity.

    Eventually it settled into what it is now, for no real discernable reason, probably with the advent of CNN as a major player (GOP = red always) and because in 2000 the map was up for more than just election night as folks waited for the SCOTUS call. The two largest speculations are that Red and Republican both start with “R,” and that, in the eyes of liberal media types, blue is a peaceful and sophisticated color while red is angry and violent. Neither theory has been proven and both remain popular in various circles, depending.

  • Darwin,
    I certainly agree that cork popping is very premature. But the most recent reports from the best poll unpackers in the business (Barone and Cost) are very favorable to Romney. Assuming nothing, I’m going to be content with my optimism till proven otherwise next week.
    More specifically, I think Romney will take the southeast, and he is ahead in OH and CO once the polls and their imbedded assumptions are understood. If he takes Ohio, we win. But if he falls short in OH, I think he has still has a decent shot given the other combinations.
    But you are right, the race is tight, and optimism is not money in the bank.

  • Everyone, you might remember my post (linked below) earlier this month that stated why I believe the demographics point to a Romney victory in Ohio. I kept hearing from people in the know that everything was looking good and then the other day on CBS, the Ohio GOP chairman talked about the Ohio Groundgame being superior to the President’s, and the Democrats know it. As a matter of fact even Mark Halperin, no friend of the GOP, made a statement that his Democratic sources had never seen the Ohio Conservatives so organized.

    The Gallup early voting sample points to this as well. I believe Rush Limbaugh said something to the effect that this is what scares the Left the most. Below is also a link to a story of mine featured in the National Review, in which I talk about seven Ohio swing counties to watch on Election Night.

  • WK,
    Thank you for your clarification of pre-1980 practices. Seems spot on right to me. I still think the USA Today map is the explanation post-1980.

  • In terms of an electoral college/popular vote split, it’s worth noting that as of now several million people lack power due to the effects of Hurricane Sandy, and it’s not clear how far recovery efforts will progress before next Tuesday. Since the damage seems to be concentrated in blue states like New York and New Jersey, it’s possible that depressed voter turnout in these states due to the storms could help Romney secure a popular vote majority even if he fails in the electoral college (at the very least, I expect this to be cited as an explanation for the Romney popular vote win if the split does occur).

  • Blackladder,
    That may be right, but unless there is some difficulty with the NOVA vote, do you agree that there would be no electoral college effect? If delayed metro-Philly returns are key to determining PA, it seems to me Romney has won.

  • Disenfranchisement!M!

    Damn Neocons! Hurricane Sandy is a conspiracy I tell ya! We should delay the vote by a month so everyone has a chance to vote.

  • BA says “It’s possible that depressed voter turnout in these states due to the storms could help Romney secure a popular vote majority even if he fails in the electoral college ”

    The only practical argument would be if Romney Won NY or NJ because of low turnout hurting the Dems And one or both of the states were critical to an Electoral College victory. That is not possible.

    Mike P There is no problem from Sandy in North or South VA affecting turnout. I don’t think it will have any significant impact in PA either. We are still a week away from the vote so I would only see parts of NYC and the Jersey coast being definitely impacted next week. I don’t think Obama will carry VA anyway.

  • I think BA’s point is simply that lingering storm effects could impact vote turnout in New Jersey and New York so that while neither state will turn into Romney states, the overall impact would be to push the popular vote towards Romney even as the electoral college goes to Obama. I don’t think that the storm’s aftermath is likely to impact the vote that significantly – assuming 40% of that vote is going for Romney, there would have to be well over a million people who can’t get to vote in order to ignite that much of a shift.

  • The loss of thousands of military absentee ballots doesn’t seem to bother the MSM a whit. However, the disenfranchisement of active duty military is deeply troubling, both because it seems immoral that we can’t seem to guarantee that privilege to those guaranteeing the privilege to us and because this could significantly affect states in play like PA.

  • I believe the polls unless I have a reason not to.

    I don’t trust Gallup – Their screen is too tight. They had Obama +11 in 2008, which was farther off than anyone. Currently, their Romney +5 is an outlier and I believe for the same reason.

    The reason for the “skewed polls” is Republican leaning Independents. Polls that treat them as Independents show Romney crushing Obama among independents, but a D+8 electorate. Polls that treat them as Republicans show an even race among independents with even turnout from each party. Either way, this leads to a narrow Romney win in the popular vote. The “unskewed polls” are probably double-counting Republicans.

    I believe Rasmussen tracking is bouncing between R+3 and R+1. I would put it at R+2. His national polls are dead on, but his state polls are less accurate.

    R+2 is slightly less than Bush’s margin in 2004. Although Bush easily won the popular vote the second time around, the election was in doubt until the next morning because of the close race in Ohio.

    Right now, the polls show exactly that happening. Romney wins the popular vote by slightly less than Bush, but barely loses Ohio and the election.

    The difference is that Obama is focusing all his efforts on the swing states (like Kerry in 2004) and ignoring the safe states. Expect Romney to close the gap in the blue states and run up the score in the red states, due to GOP enthusiasm, but he’s still not polling at over 270EV.

    An Obama win without a majority vote would arguably be a “worst case scenario”.

  • G Veg “However, the disenfranchisement of active duty military is deeply troubling, both because it seems immoral that we can’t seem to guarantee that privilege to those guaranteeing the privilege to us and because this could significantly affect states in play like PA.”

    Since the Repubs can’t be bothered to fight for it very much, I guess it’s not important to either party however immoral it is. This has been going on for many months and even goes back in some sense to Florida in 2000. Hardly a peep from Boehner McConnell and Romney.

  • Thanks, Rozin. I figured Sandy would have no effect, but good to know.

    Paul, Blackladder, and Jim,
    I don’t see why the popular vote matters. It is not the system we have or the way the campaign is conducted. If Romney falls short, he falls short. I don’t think he will, but if he does his winning the popular vote would be irrelevant except to the extent it deprives Obama of any claim to a mandate.

  • I take it as a given that Romney starts with a base of 257 electoral votes. This includes Colorado where the Republicans have the advantage in early voting.

    With that as a given Romney has the following paths to 270:

    1. Ohio-18 electoral votes.
    2. Pennsylvania-20 electoral votes.
    3. Michigan -16 electoral votes
    4. Wisconsin-10 electoral votes with New Hampshire -4 electoral votes
    5. Minnesota-10 electoral votes with New Hampshire-4 electoral votes
    6. Iowa-6 electoral votes-New Hampshire-4 electoral votes-Nevada-6-electoral votes

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

  • Oh, and if there is any doubt as to who has the upper hand in this race, I doubt if the Obama campaign strategists, in their wildest nightmares, imagined they would be buying TV ad space in Detroit a week before the election:

  • Another reason for the reversal of red and blue in political symbolism could be that red lost its association with communism and leftism in general after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, while the wealthy, well-educated elites or “blue bloods” that used to be the backbone of the GOP became much more liberal in their leanings.


    CBS used blue for GOP and red for Dem in 1980 even though Reagan ws the challenger.

  • Don is exactly right. Both candidates really need Ohio, but at least Romney has options if he loses Ohio. I don’t think Obama does.

  • Mike, I agree that the popular vote doesn’t matter in the end. My point is simply that I don’t expect Romney to win the popular vote by more than a scant margin AND lose the electoral college. So the national polls do provide meaningful insight.

  • NBC also had the blue = Reagan and red = Carter color scheme in 1980 as well (with Carter’s Georgia the only “red” state in the bunch shown here):

    Notice John Chancellor calling Reagan the winner at 8:15 p.m. Eastern Time (7:15 Central Time), which was somewhat controversial at the time since polls in some Western states hadn’t closed yet.

    Although I think Romney will ultimately win and by a larger margin than the media have led us to believe, I doubt the suspense will end quite as fast as it did that year.

  • Mike P: [Romney] winning the popular vote would be irrelevant except to the extent it deprives Obama of any claim to a mandate.

    Wishful thinking I’m afraid. The media will talk endlessly of all the vote suppression by those evil Republicans that silenced the voices of so many.

  • Paul, understood and agreed.

    Rozin, yeah they might try that but no one will take it seriously outside their echo chamber.

  • “With New Hampshire, Wisconsin or Minnesota can be Kingmaker states.”

    Wisconsin maybe, but Minnesota? Really? As Paul said a couple of weeks ago, it’s like the flip side or mirror image of Arizona — a state that “should” be red but remains stubbornly blue/liberal. I know there are some polls showing it could be in play but I’m not getting my hopes up. And, wasn’t the unexpected Romney TV ad buy in Minnesota really intended to target western Wisconsin voters?

  • The most recent poll we have from Minnesota Elaine shows it 47-44.

    Two things about this poll. First it is a Star-Tribune poll and they have a notorious history of greatly exaggerating Democrat numbers in their polls.

    Second, for an incumbent Democrat President to be at 47 a week out from the election in Minnesota is a definite warning sign that Obama is in trouble in this state. Minnesota hasn’t gone Republican at the Presidential level since Nixon in 1972. The Minnesota ad buy could do double duty. I doubt that the Romney campaign thought that Minnesota was really in play until they saw this poll.

  • D McC I doubt that the Romney campaign thought that Minnesota was really in play until they saw this poll.

    Then they didn’t take the University of Colorado model seriously either. I have trouble believing that they would do this based simply on some media poll, no matter the results, when they have been notoriously inaccurate and volatile this cycle. I’m inclined to view it as following the same logic that Obama had in advertising in VA late in 2008.

    Mike P: I hope so but an Obama win would mean that their echo chamber is pretty large. Although at bottom Obama doesn’t care whether he has a mandate or not to do what he wants.

  • A bit to my point, here’s a Rasmussen poll in Massachusetts that has Obama up by 19. He defeated McCain there by 26. There might be a bit of a home-state bias for Romney, but considering where his favorables were when he left office, maybe not so much. So there’s obviously no way Obama is losing, but if those numbers are accurate it shows how the overall tide is shifting. Those numbers are basically in line with what you’d expect from a 7-8 point swing in the electorate.

  • Okay, trivia time. We’ve already covered Minnesota being the one state that has voted Democrat every election since 1976. Can anyone name the nine states that voted Republican in each of those elections? No cheating.

  • Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, South Carolina, Alaska?

  • You got 6/9 Don. South Carolina went for Carter in 1976, Montana for Clinton in 1992 and Arizona for Clinton in 1996.

  • Let’s try Nebraska, Oklahoma and Arkansas.

  • Almost there. Arkansas went for Carter in 1976 and then for Clinton both times. Think states sharing an initial with yours.

  • Of course, Idaho, probably the most Republican state in the Union! I am surprised I overlooked it.

  • Good ol’ Idaho.

Enough is Enough: Rape Babies Don’t Deserve Death

Sunday, October 28, AD 2012

Thank the Good Lord I am not a politician. If I were running for office, what I am about to write would undoubtedly cause me to plummet in the polls and induce a heart attack for my campaign manager. It is up to us – bloggers, polemicists, wags, editorialists, etc. – to say plainly and boldly what politicians cannot say. By now hundreds if not thousands of us on the pro-life side of the spectrum have weighed in on the mountain that the Obama campaign and the leftist media have made out of the molehill of the “rape exception” that many self-identified pro-lifers hold. FYI: it is a molehill not because rape is no big deal, but because less than 1% of abortions are performed on rape babies. I don’t know if what I have to say will be different from what you have read, but I’m about to douse this issue in gasoline and light a match, so check yourselves now.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Enough is Enough: Rape Babies Don’t Deserve Death

  • ” … I believe penalties for rape should be severe enough to serve as a real deterrent, which they never will as long as left-wing lawyers and judges dominate the judicial system. I believe radical pro-choice outfits should stop harassing pro-life pregnancy centers and other organizations that are out there providing millions of women with financial, social and emotional support. …”

    Add on severe penalties for life-threatening criminal activity in general, and watch them think before acting.

    Harassment is becoming something dangerous, as this election season is revealing it. We have leaders so irresponsible as to incite their base, rather than to caution about right and wrong or to give them credit for brains.

    The Richter Scale has numbers that apply exponentially to damage potential. The law does not. Killing children, and using Roe v. Wade for political gain and division of citizens, is not high-minded or related to peace.

  • Ditto, Bonchamps! – “Well, how about this: I support the second amendment rights of women, so that they can obtain weapons and defend themselves. I support laws that allow them to do so with lethal force and without fear of juridical reprisal. I believe penalties for rape should be severe enough to serve as a real deterrent, which they never will as long as left-wing lawyers and judges dominate the judicial system. I believe radical pro-choice outfits should stop harassing pro-life pregnancy centers and other organizations that are out there providing millions of women with financial, social and emotional support. And at the end of the day, I don’t believe that women who actually go through with an abortion under such circumstances should be thrown in prison, but I do believe that the medical frauds who kill babies for a living should be tossed into a dungeon and the keys jettisoned into outer space.”

  • Pingback: Enough is Enough: Rape Babies Don’t Deserve Death
  • I’ve got a rather scathing response about my knowledge of basic biology meaning that I recognize an embryo is human from conception, and likewise is alive, and that if I were going to kill someone involved in a rape it would be the rapist, not someone who has the horrible luck to be genetically related to him.

  • Not doubting your 1% statistic but wondering where it comes from? I have heard it often but have never seen a source.

  • The less than 1% result keeps showing up, even in pro-abortion studies.

    Victims suggest that 1) a lot of rapes resulting in pregnancy aren’t reported, and 2) abortion makes it worse for the victim. (Shocker, women aren’t stupid just because they were raped.)

  • Great post. I agree with your statement that the vast majority of people are morally inconsistent. You’re also correct that people who make policy statements in public don’t have the excuse of not having thought the matter through.
    For this reason, I believe that politicians who claim to be pro-life, yet condone killing babies conceived during rape (like Mourdoch’s opponent) are not sincerely pro-life.
    The logical distance between acknowledging that life begins at conception and its protection no matter how it came to be is so short that the smallest amount of contemplation should be sufficient to make the jump. I think the pro-life movement would be well served by an information campaign to push this.
    Inconsistent politicians have no logical excuse. I believe that politicians who hold “semi” pro-life positions do so for purely political reasons (coughRomneycough).

  • What is to be said to those who have bought into the entire lie that pro-abortion advocates claim is the reason for safe and legal abortion? Those who have been decieved and brain washed are so misguided by those they believe that the words of those who wish to give them the correct information and guidance are regarded as extremist who are waging a war against women. The information that is presented to them shows them the truth but they do not recognize the truth. All they see is what there are told. I have relatives who are very close to me who I have had “discussions” with about abortion who listen and at that moment hear the truth and recognize it and agree with what they are being shown yet afterwards they still vote for the party that continues to lie to them. So once again.
    What is to be said to those who have bought into the entire lie that pro-abortion advocates claim is the reason for safe and legal abortion?

  • Richard,

    If the people you are speaking to “hear the truth and recognize it and agree with what they are being shown”, as you put it, and yet remain obstinate in their pro-abortion beliefs, there is nothing more you can say. Such people believe that ignoring the truth has no consequences and so they wallow in their indifference.

    But I believe God will punish indifference with more severity than outright evil.

  • First Person Account: A devout Catholic young woman was raped by a hired hand on her father’s farm in the 1930’s. Imagine the disgrace. A devout Catholic man met her and realized the severity of the situation and that he also had loved this young woman for some time. He asked her to marry him! He told her he would adopt the child as his own. Imagine the disgrace for him. Stories flew for years and years with the gossips of the small community. Many people thought they “had to get married”. You know you just did not talk about such things in those days. “They” had a baby girl which they named after the woman who “wiped” the face of Jesus. This couple went on to have 12 more children. This couple was married for 60 years. They both died the most beautiful deaths I have ever witnessed. On his deathbed his last words were, “eye has not seen, ear has not heard what God has ready for those who love Him”. “Their” little girl went on to have a wonderful family of 9 children and her husband has been a champion for the Right to Life”. She has passed now, and her husband is dying of cancer. They have 30 grandchildren many of whom are adopted. Most of who are practising Catholic or members of fundamental churches. Her life was inportant just as the woman who “wiped” the face of Jesus. And we have always thought we had our “own” St. Joseph example in our lives. Pity the world.

  • Very moving Jeanne. No rapes in my family history that I am aware of, but my mother was born out of wedlock in 1936. My grandmother rolled up her sleeves, went to work, and my mom was raised by her grandmother while her mom worked during the day. Money was often tight, the big treat each week was on Saturday night when my mom and my grandmother would each have a cookie and a glass of milk, but love was in abundance. Love usually finds a way to triumph over all adversities.

  • People make mistakes, and sometimes those mistakes are sexual ones (anyone here not make a sexual mistake?), and sometimes those sexual mistakes have consequences, like an unintended pregnancy. The liberal left doesn’t want consequences, either sexual ones or economic ones. The liberal left wants complete license to do what it wants whenever it wants regardless of circumstance or consequence, and someone else is supposed to pay the price, whether that be the tax payer for free health care or an unborn baby who will be sacrificed for mere covenience’s sake. Therefore, I like what Donald wrote: ” No rapes in my family history that I am aware of, but my mother was born out of wedlock in 1936.  My grandmother rolled up her sleeves, went to work, and my mom was raised by her grandmother while her mom worked during the day.  Money was often tight, but love was in abundance.  Love usually finds a way to triumph over all adversities.”

    Love covers a multitude of sins. Isn’t that somewhere in the Bible? 😉

  • Has anyone else noticed the Planned Parenthood ad on this site?

  • Wow, Jeanne. Thanks for posting that.

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.”

Obama 2016 Out on DVD

Sunday, October 21, AD 2012

Dinesh D’Souza’a Obama 2016 is out on DVD.  It has no special features, but I would recommend purchasing it if you didn’t see the movie.  During its theatrical release earlier this year it earned a stunning 33,000,000 which is fantastic box office for a documentary.  Here is my review which I originally posted on September 2 after seeing the film in a theater:

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Obama 2016 Out on DVD

  • Saw it yesterday. I disagree with D’Souza’s contention that it is anti-colonilism that motivates Obama – unless this implies the anti-colonialism of Marxism. Ultimately, I believe Obama is a Marxist.

    I dread the possibility of an second Obama term. I think the long-term consequences (including a completely radicalized Supreme Court) will result in a fundamental change in America.

    I still do not like Romney. But he is to be tolerated in the face of far, far, greater evil.

  • “I still do not like Romney. But he is to be tolerated in the face of far, far, greater evil.”

    Amen to that Phillip! What D’Souza’s documentary illustrates is how little attention the Mainstream Media has deliberately paid to the background of Obama because they assume that such attention would hurt him. I think the documentary has been such a success because, astonishingly after four years in office, most Americans do no have a clue about Obama’s history prior to his emergence on the national scene in 2004. This studied indifference to informing the public is the ultimate betrayal by most of the Fourth Estate.

  • At the conclusion of the documentary a handful of observers at our showing broke into applause and requests to “tell your family” about this work.
    In 07′ Rush L., Glenn B. and a few others tried to convey to the public of Obama’s past acquaintances. Deaf ears syndrome in 08′.
    Please Lord, not again.

  • It will be interesting to see the extent to which it is even mentioned in the Oscar contentions next spring.

  • I have seen the film twice and even though it is very disturbing, I fear that the American people are so ignorant, and yes I mean ignorant that they won’t even get half of it. Those of us who are old enough to remember the aftermath of WWII and praying non stop for the conversion of Russia and being terrified of the Russian threat have no idea of the horrors of the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin and their ilk. 50 years ago today my husband was sitting on the Czech border on red alert, prepared for war. I don’t think most people realize how close we were to a real WWIII. They were TOTALLY prepared for it and he was prepared to die. There was a Catholic priest with his unit and they were all allowed to go to confession. I truly believe that we are at that precipice again with this president. The only difference is that this president is so arrogant and so pompous and does not love our country and all it stands for as did President Kennedy. This situation we are in has been written about for years and years. This has not just been sprung on the American people, all of these warnings have been poo pooed as “conspiracy theories”. They were not, they are not and now we are left to reap the reward of an illiterate population whose main goal is to let someone else do it. Welfare for all. Lock step zombies waiting for the check from the government to come in. They have been trying to conquer us from within and the time is upon us. They think their plans are coming to frutation over this last 100 years or so. I blame both parties for allowing this to happen, I blame the leadership of our Church for their wishy washy handling of the truths of the faith, but mostly I blame us for falling for what surely has been as plain as the noses are our face. Right is wrong and wrong is right. “If i get told one more time that I am “more Catholic than the Catholic Church”, I swear I am going to fall off the face the earth. Please God Help Us. Really, what were the Crusades about?

  • Jeanne-
    I do feel your angst.
    As far as falling off the face of the earth…
    Don’t go!
    We need you. Just keep smiling and know that your not alone in this upside-down culture.
    AA-1025 (anti-apostle 1,025) comes to mind.
    It’s a story of infiltration of the Catholic church with the intent to destroy her.
    Short read, however it is interesting.
    Whats Obama’s intent?
    The documentary helps us to answer that question.

Obama Waves the Dead Fetus

Saturday, October 20, AD 2012

In the movie Patton, there is a somewhat eerie scene where Patton indicates why he knows that the Third Reich is on the ropes:

“I had a dream last night. In my dream it came to me…that right now the whole Nazi Reich is mine for the taking.” “You know how I’m sure they’re finished out there? The carts. They’re using carts to move their wounded and the supplies. The carts came to me in my dream. I couldn’t figure it out. Then I remembered. . . . .that nightmare in the snow. The agonizing retreat from Moscow. How cold it was. They threw the wounded and what was left of the supplies in the carts. Napoleon was finished. Not any color left. Not even the red of blood. Only the snow.”

You know that a Democrat campaign is on the ropes when the focus is placed on abortion.  Democrats, at least most of them, aren’t idiots.  They understand that focusing on abortion is going to hurt them as much as it helps them, and, in most states, probably hurt them more.  However, when a Democrat campaign is headed south abortion is often invoked in an attempt to rally the true believers in the right to slay their offspring.  It is a sign of desperation.  Yesterday, Obama had the head of Worse Than Murder, Inc, aka Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards introduce him at a rally in Virginia.

She also cut this video for Obama that was released yesterday:

Continue reading...

31 Responses to Obama Waves the Dead Fetus

  • Win or lose this election, one day Obama and the Democrats will truly regret this advocacy of the infanticide of the unborn. Lord have mercy!

  • The drum beat at their Convention was more about abortion than their other agenda. When Mr Obama mentioned the de-funding of Pl P’hood four times in the Hofstra Uni. debate we knew for sure they are grabbing for a lifeline. This latest report proves that their Titanic has hit the iceberg. Hope the sincere Catholics who are in their thrall, some dear friends and family are on a lifeboat that saves their hearts and heads and souls.

  • “Win or lose this election, one day Obama and the Democrats will truly regret this advocacy of the infanticide of the unborn.”

    We shall do our best to make them regret it this year!

  • And, they booed God at their convention.

    You will not be going to Heaven if you vote for mass-murderers.

  • How many more days? Romney is right; O is at the end of his term. After staring down this evil for four years, I can’t even bear to look it in the face as it whimpers out of relativity. May the healing begin, and may the faithful show compassion to those who are obstinate in their war against the innocent in their mother’s wombs and against Holy Mother Church. The more Romney exposes himself, the more his soul is also exposed. And I like what I see.

  • This is surreal.
    Our great grandparents along with the fifty million aborted souls pleading God for a change in the hearts of earthbound men.
    Surreal because who would of ever thought that RU 486 could be classified as preventive Medicine. Medicine?
    Change we can believe in…..still echoing from Oct. 20th of 2008.
    God have mercy.

  • Planned Parenthood stands to lose money if Obama is not reelected. They are teaching health classes in local high schools using federal grant money, under the guise of “reducing teen pregnancy” and “increasing graduation rates.” Of course, that’s laughable. But not really.

  • How could any Church going Catholic be a Democrat, especially clergy??? Don’t you know you are the reason babies are still being murdered?

  • “How could any Church going Catholic be a Democrat, especially clergy???”

    I have met many Roman Catholic clergy who are proudly Democrat.

    I have met many Orthodox Anglican clergymen and not one is Democrat.

    Go to an Assemblies of God or Church of God parking lot and you’ll find no Obama bumper stickers as you inevitably will find in the parking lot of a Roman Catholic parish.

    Just sayin……………….the branches grafted into the Olive Tree had better beware lest they, smug in their arrogance, find themselves cut off one day and those whom they derided as not having the fulness of grace welcomed into the Kingdom of Heaven in their stead.

  • It should not be too much of a surprise that many Catholics belong to the Democratic Party and see nothing wrong with it. The NC Register quotes Bishop Dolan thusly: (at the Al Smith dinner)

    “Our two candidates claim that both your parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, are ‘big tents,’ containing extraordinarily diverse, even contrary, opposite people and groups,” Cardinal Timothy Dolan noted Oct. 18 at the Al Smith Dinner. “Well, you don’t have a thing over the Catholic Church. We got both Biden and Ryan!” Dolan continued.

    Read more:

    I realize the Al Smith Dinner is a light hearted affair, but these are anything but light hearted times. Ryan may be out of step to some degree with the mind of the Church on her “social teachings.” Maybe even quite a bit out of step. But I don’t think his errors would directly lead to the death of an innocent person. Surely Biden is way out of step on contraception and abortion. And millions have died because some people didn’t want to “force their religion” on others. And yet, we do it all the time, don’t we? Think that little bit about not killing people is in the Ten Commandments.

  • “Ryan may be out of step to some degree with the mind of the Church on her ‘social teachings.’ Maybe even quite a bit out of step.”

    There is a difference between being out of step with the liberal Democrat operatives in the USCCB, and being out of step with what Jesus said to Judas Iscariot when Judas complained that costly oil was being used to annoint Jesus’ feet instead of being sold to feed the poor. Paul Ryan is right. The USCCB is wrong. It is time to jettison the false gospel of social justice, the common good and peace at any price. Jesus told the crowd who followed him after being fed the loaves and fishes to seek the Bread of eternal life instead of the meat that perishes. And He did NOT feed them a second time – no free handouts.

    I am sick and tired of people wanting Caesar to do for the poor what we as Christians should be doing voluntarily as our penance. It is NOT Caesar’s job to feed the poor, clothe the naked, and care for the sick, and every time we abdicate our responsibility and evade our accountability to Caesar to do that, then we place on the altar of political expediency our freedom and adoption as sons and daughters of God, and replace it with submission to mere mortal man. That is called idolatry and God hates idolatry.

    A nation which murders the unborn by the tens of millions and sanctifies the filth of homosexual sodomy deserves no social justice, but one day we will get justice and it will NOT be social – it will be Divine.

  • Planned parenthood being invoked to rally the troops is akin to human sacrifice for a good crop yeild…

  • Paul:

    Okay, mea culpa. I shouldn’t have put in the bit about Ryan may be out of step, etc, and certainly not in the way it was worded. I was trying to be “balanced” and “non-partisan” and I obviously botched it.

    I don’t agree with the bail outs and the hand outs, Medicare, Social Sec, the so-called “living wage,” and frankly, public education. (I’m very iffy on such “public goods” as highway construction as well.) But my libertarian economic views seem to not jive with the other pro-life Catholic around me who are somewhat concerned Ryan is going to throw Granny under the bus with his suggested Medicare reforms.

  • That’s ok, DJH. I have often written much worse. No harm done. BTW, when I registered to vote in NC, I registered in the Constitution Party because its platform is closest to Church teaching. But since that party isn’t yet “officlal” in the state, it turns out that I am “other” in political affiliation. As for the election, I will vote Romney rather than Goode because defeating Obama is too important and Goode (as much as I like his program and policies) is unelectable.

    As for social justice, I am all for taking care of the poor. I just do not think that is the job of the Federal govt. Now if States and local municipalities elect to enact safety net measures, then I am fine with that. But I really think that if we as members of the Body of Christ did our sacred duty as the sheep in Matthew 25:31-46, then we wouldn’t need Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and all the New Deal / Great Society failed programs of FDR and LBJ. All Christians – Protestants, Orthodox Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox – need to start being real Christians. We have this social justice mess because we as members of the Body of Christ have NOT behaved in a Christ-like manner. We have NOT put righteousness, holiness, purity, virtue, honor and integrity first. We have become complacent in our religious freedom and our material prosperity, and now we whine when suddenly both are in jeopardy from that godless man of sin and depravity in the Whitehouse [ see, I can use worse invective than you. 😉 ]. But I digress from the topic of this post. Suffice it to say (at the risk of repeating myself) that we will never prosper, we will never enjoy social justice as long as we murder the unborn.

  • On the other side of the nightmare by contrast, the waving of the budget by a capable candidate. This following is a copy/paste from a campaign email which I hope is allowable, to take off the edge of the gruesome.

    ‘It’s clear — Barack Obama has no second term agenda.

    Although President Obama won’t lay out his plan for a second term, we already know what it will be — a repeat of the last four years. We can’t afford four more years of crushing debt and wasteful spending.

    We know what President Obama will do on taxes. He’s already raised taxes 21 times — and he’ll raise taxes by $2 trillion more. Middle-class families will face a $4,000-a-year tax increase just to service his debt and spending proposals.

    As Governor of Massachusetts, I cut taxes 19 times. As president, I won’t raise taxes on anyone; I will deliver tax cuts to the middle class; and I will simplify the tax code to make it simpler, flatter, and fairer.

    We know what President Obama will do on spending. President Obama’s already increased our debt by $5.5 trillion — and he’ll let our national debt climb to $20 trillion by 2016. He’s promised a second stimulus, yet we don’t even know where the first one went.

    As Governor of Massachusetts, I balanced the budget every year without raising taxes and led our state to a credit upgrade. As president, I will cut and cap spending, restore our AAA credit rating, and set us on a path to a balanced budget.

    I have a clear plan to put America on a path to prosperity. Contribute now to help promote my clear vision for America.


    Mitt Romney’

  • Paul,
    So many professed catholics are in great danger of losing their place at the Lord’s table and being replaced by Baptists, Pentecostals, Mormons, Muslims, Jews, etc. We catholics have enormous accountability because we’ve been given the fullness of the truth from the cradle. It’s so disturbing to see the continuing blindness to Obama and the democratic party in general. In 2008, I can almost understand that people got caught up in the excitement of voting for Obama and put on blinders, but this time around, there is ABSOLUTLY no excuse. God have mercy on them.

  • PM:

    You lost liberals and the social justice crowd at the fifth word . . .

    Next time, stay monosyllabic and don’t cite any fact or number.

  • Dear T. Shaw,
    Tough order but how about … ?

    Unborn babies can cry out and be heard,
    in your human hearts and,
    in Heaven where the Almighty can hear all that do.
    Stop the music and think about millions of babies used for winning and getting money to waste on fooling you.
    If feeding your children depends on gov. assistance money,
    then it’s urgent to vote the man who cares to have the money there to feed them.

    I think Mitt Romney will fix the budget for the security of us all.

  • Mother Teresa said, that the killing of the unborn would distroy the fabric of all life. All of us would be in jeopardy. She was right! Look at our divided country.
    Look at God being removed and replaced by hedonism. Lies are told to the people to enslave them.
    God be with us, and touch the hearts and minds of americans on Nov 6th.
    Amen! Viva Cristo Rey!

  • No election will ever solve the destruction done to the social fabric of the USA or the West. There is a long-haul conversion needed to undo the damage done and to look at the good neglected and ignored.

  • Paul w. wrote: “I am sick and tired of people wanting Caesar to do for the poor what we as Christians should be doing voluntarily as our penance.” This work has been done by Christians and Catholic organizations for years but when government started stepping in and telling us to do it their way then it became harder to do charitable work. Look at the states that made Catholic Charities chose doing their work or stopping it due to the mandates they placed on them – adoption aspect to place children in same sex homes – many have chosen to stop their charitable work because of it, one in Ill seperated itself from the Church to bow to the wishes of the state.

  • PM: Excellent.

    I can’t remember the last time somebody called me, “dear.”


  • I agree, Richard E., and I still oppose government redistributing the fruits of one’s labor from he who works to him who refuses to work under the false guise of charity. Over and over again this has resulted in one thing: ever more power to the godless State at the expense of the freedom of the individual to his life, liberty and property. The solution is repentance, holiness and righteousness. That is how the most evil Roman emperors were overcome, it is how the Empire finally became Christian, and it is the only means of reversing the sad decline of these United States and obtaining true justice for everyone, rich and poor alike. No amount of government welfare programs can ever do that.

    I always go back to the example of the Church at Thessalonika. Some people there thought, after having receiving St. Paul’s first epistle about the last days, that since Jesus was going to soon return, they were entitled to give up working for their food and just sit in ecstatic expectation while others supported them. 2nd Thessalonians 3:10 is very clear: “…if anyone would not work, neither should he eat.” We in these United States will soon find as the economy crashes that we won’t even be able to do that because there will be neither food nor work. We will get all the social justice we deserve for having murdered 53 million unborn babies, and for having sanctified the filth of homosexual sodomy. Lord have mercy!

  • As a life long Democrat, now turned Republican, I say “I didn’t leave the
    Democrats, they left me”. They turned their back on GOD, that the founders
    turned to, knowing that without GOD’S blessings & A moral citizenship,
    government of the people, by the people, and for the people could not work.
    GOD must be looking down on us, as we pray & say “What you’re doing
    speaks so loud, I can’t hear what you’re saying!!’. WE CAN TURN THIS AROUND.
    Think about what happened when Richard Nixon fired the special prosecutor
    on a Saturday night. The white house was buried in telegrams & Nixon had to
    reinstate him. That was citizens just fulfilling their role in government of & by
    the people. The Supreme Court has still not corrected their ruling on the Dred
    Scott case making the negros less than a full person. The current state of
    Biology 101, confirms that abortion at any stage is truly murder, making
    the Supreme Courts previous rulings on abortion untenable. Society is founded
    on marriage between a man & a women. Homosexuals are chipping away at
    the foundation. What are we going to do, or not do about it??

  • Emily Post.
    Greeting = Dear …, and Closing = Yours Truly,
    also, you’re welcome, T. Shaw!

  • It was many years ago I was a young man that stood in line in New York City and waiting for the Holicost Museum to open. There was a long line of people in front of me, and as I waited there, I saw on the opposite side of the street there stood a lone individual holding a very large sign that criticised abortion. I don’t recall exactly the total writing upon the sign he carried, but it condemned the abortion clinics and what was happening to those so helpless and inocent in the womb that were scheduled for execution. The police came, and they took the lone individual’s sign, and also arrested him. How strange I thought that I would stand there and await entering the museum so to see the pictures of the suffering individuals that died at the hands of Nazi beasts. I turned and gazed at the individual standing behind me, then asked if his having already purchased an entry ticket, and he replied, “no, but I will purchase a ticket at the entry.” I gazed at the man, then gave to him my ticket, and I left with the thought in mine, “are we no better than those that murdered multi millions and cremated them in the ovens.” The number of the helpless one’s in the wombs has grown far more in number than those tortured, murdered and cremated and reduced to ashes by the Nazi Germans. How do we answer G-d when we stand before Him and plead forgivinness for our sins? I am now in my eighties, and we raised three wonderful boys, for which I thank G-d. Yet still, I remember that lone individual standing there and asking “why are we murdering the most innocent of all, those being torn from the womb and made to suffer such pain.” Remember, this is America, but what mercy still is given to those most helpless, innocent and forgotten. Can we simply look the other way? Indeed I tremble. G-d provides nations the type of government most deserved, and I believe that writing is again again upon the wall.

  • R.S’Chevalier-
    A very moving and stirring testimony.
    In twenty five years, if there’s a civilization left standing, will souls be in line in New York city to view the story of Americas Holocaust?
    The Abortion Holocaust.
    That the lone man across the street was taken away for [ disturbing the peace? ]
    Witness. His witness has moved you, as well as me.

    Thank you for sharing. I will be standing outside P.P. praying the rosary and thinking of the many who have paved the way with prayers since 73′

  • powerful thoughts expressed here in these responses; thank you very much. words that especially stood out to me: “Unborn babies can cry out and be heard,
    in your human hearts and,in Heaven”
    “No election will ever solve . …conversion needed..”
    “what are we going to do or not do about it?” and
    “the writing is again again on the wall”

  • How US citizens who are blindly pro-Mr O. and those who support his policies about the unborn
    , and equating same-gender sterile unions with marriage
    and the heavy-handed HHS Mandate cannot see the parallel with slavery.
    including using blacks to “breed” slaves and the declining populations in the USA and in much of Europe
    and can recall efforts by Nazis to “breed” desired citizens with Government controlled policies,
    and the same to some extent under Stalin
    and not see the writing on the wall as noted in quotes above
    is a shock to me.

  • Lonethinker-

    Many do have eyes yet cannot see, and ears for hearing yet cannot hear. History repeating itself.

    For those who do see the writing on the wall a great responsibility. We must be in the public sphere regardless of ridicule, scorn and profiling. St. Paul knew this way perfectly.
    Nothing can separate us from the Love of Christ. To walk the walk is a privilege and honor.

    Please consider it if you haven’t already taken a risk for Christ.
    Give the very best this YEAR OF FAITH. Give Jesus.

Barbed Laughs

Thursday, October 18, AD 2012

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney appeared tonight at the Al Smith Dinner and gave the usual humorous speeches.  A few observations:

1.  Romney the Standup Comic-I was surprised at how well Romney did.  Comedy and Mitt Romney would seem to be mutually exclusive concepts, but he had good timing and delivered an effective series of jokes.  Funniest joke:  A reference to the Cardinal, because of Obama’s troubles with the Church, turning Obama’s wine into water.

2.  Flat Obama-Four years ago I praised Obama’s speech at the Al Smith dinner as being hilarious.  Not this year.  Most of his jokes fell flat and he seemed to be going through the motions.  Funniest joke:  He said at one point that for the third debate he was going to train as he did for the first debate.  Pause.  He then said that he was just kidding, that he only wanted to make Axelrod sweat.

3.  These Guys Really Hate Each Other-Both Romney and Obama at the end of their speeches gave unfelt praise to the other.  Their other comments dripped venom for their opponent, especially Romney’s comments.  No love lost here at all.

4.  Romney on the Attack-The usual humor at an Al Smith dinner is self-depracatory.  Romney had a bit of this but most of his humorous comments were fairly hard hitting attacks against Obama.

5.  The War on the Church-Romney was not shy in mentioning Obama’s attacks on the Church.  He joked that Obama has found a way to soften the attitude of the Church to the HHS Mandate:  the rules will be in Latin.

Continue reading...

59 Responses to Barbed Laughs

  • my pick for funniest joke was about O looking around at the dinner guests and thinking — “so little time so much to redistribute”

    my husband liked :”better off than you were 4 weeks ago”
    no I think my favorite was advice to B16 if he has troubles to blame it on JP2

  • Governor Romney had me laughing out loud through most of his speech. He was REALLY good. Someone wrote him an excellent speech and he delivered it just perfectly. I wonder how Obama felt sitting through all that. I confess that I didn’t watch Obama’s. I really can’t stomach watching/hearing him at all. I’m sure I didn’t miss anything.

  • Thanks for the update. I feel good about what I read so far.

  • The President’s remarks are brought to you by the letter O and the number 16,000,000,000,000.

    Priceless. 🙂

  • I feel even better, now, having listen to both of their speeches.

  • Great post Don, I particularly liked the Romney line about St. Peter facing an early doubter who kept saying, “You didn’t build that Church.”

    You know in each campaign there are moments that same to have no relevancy to the campaign, but later end up being some sort of indicator. In 2008 in an awkward moment John McCain was labeled as being old because he was fumbling around with his cell phone (which we many of us who are over 40 probably do on a regular basis.) Tonight it seemed President Obama didn’t want to be there (now in his defense I am sure a lot of candidates would rather be out on the trail 19 days before the election. ) However, as Don pointed out it seemed then Senator Obama really enjoyed himself in 2008.

  • ” … Rules of fairness have to be enforced, and what other safeguard do we have besides the press … My job is to lay out a positive vision for the country, and their job is to make sure no one finds out about it. ”

    ” Let’s just say that some in the media have a certain way of looking at things.
    … I’ve already seen early headlines about tonight … Obama embraced by Catholics, Romney dies with rich people. “

  • From day one Obama always sounded angry to me. He sounded angry here too. I’m confounded how more people cannot recognize this.

  • Watched the speaches on Hannity. I think Romney was better than Barry O’Bummer, even though his jokes were more pointed politically ( may have generated a little sympathy for Barry)
    I score it Romney 7 – “Hussein” 3 🙂

  • Pingback: Barbed Laughs | The American Catholic | Church News from Christian Web Watch
  • “3.  These Guys Really Hate Each Other-Both Romney and Obama at the end of their speeches gave unfelt praise to the other.  Their other comments dripped venom for their opponent, especially Romney’s comments.  No love lost here at all.”

    Maybe that’s good. Romney (unlike McCain in 2008) really wants to win. He is motivated as McCain never was. Obama, needs to face an opponent who won’t back down in front of him. He needs to sweat as does every liberal progressive Democrat.

  • So maybe Cdl. Dolan’s decision to go ahead and invite both candidates to the dinner wasn’t such a bad one after all? Just a couple of months ago there was all kinds of hand wringing and despair on the St. Blogs about how Obama was going to use this event as “proof” that he was “Catholic friendly” and win back the Catholic vote. Sounds to me like Romney was the one who benefited.

  • I never joined in the handwringing Elaine because I thought that shrewd fox Cardinal Dolan expected something like this to occur.

  • It might have been hard for O to be required to party with rich people, Catholics, and a rep of the Hierarchy– He did look angry. he obviously did not think his “joke ” about his middle name was funny. It is ok with me if he uses his middle name. I thought that him even saying that was a bid for sympathy pointing out the anti-multi-cultural bullies.

    he might have liked it better if Cardinal Dolan had not invited him– then he could appear morally superior to the church

  • I just watched both links above. I though BO was funny. I didn’t see too much anger in his humor… I thought Romney should have kept in the spirit of the 4th point listed above and not been on the attack in this forum. But it wasn’t over the top either. I just would ave felt better if the focus was more off BO for a bit.

  • Romney was definitely more barbed. As for Crdinal Dolan’s invite, I still think he gave Obama the impression that he has nothing to fear from the bishops…and he doesn’t!

  • And until Cardinal Dolan apologizes to the state of Arizona and begs forgiveness for the his libelous attack on SB 1070, he will still be a disgrace and and embarassment.I also believe he owes the same to Catholics in America that he would sully the Church by using his position in such a disgraceful manner.

  • PM

    isn’t that suppose to be “dines with rich people?”

  • Stilbelieve, yes. The missing ‘n’ is another reason I should avoid the below ‘post comment’ button.

  • I watched both speeches. Romney was terrific. On a side note, I don’t see how you can make a statement like this “these guys really hate each other”. Hate is a very strong word and I don’t think it’s something we as Christians should toss around lightly.

  • there has been plenty of Romney deprecating humor in the air–

  • “and I don’t think it’s something we as Christians should toss around lightly.”

    I call ’em like I see “em Mary.

  • Rallies against the HHS mandate will take place in more than 140 cities around the country tomorrow, Saturday, October 20.

    Let’s all make our voices heard!

  • That Mitt Romney was able to bring up the subject of Fairness, with no interruption, reminds me of David and Goliath story.

    “Obamateurism of the Day
    posted at 8:01 am on October 19, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

    There is almost nothing worse in politics than the zinger that ends up as backfire. Barack Obama thought he’d scored a big point on Mitt Romney Tuesday night by attacking his wealth, and specifically his investments and pensions:

    Ha ha! That’s great — Obama got to tell Romney that his pension isn’t as big as Romney’s, reminding everyone that Romney’s rich. Unfortunately for Obama, not only did Romney turn out to be right about Obama’s investments in China and the Caymans, for which Obama has hammered Romney for months, Obama has far more lucrative pensions than Romney does (via Carol Platt Liebau):

    As president, he will receive $191,300 annually for life — win or lose in next month’s election — and receives a travel allotment as well as mailing privileges. Should Obama lose, his presidential pension kicks in immediately after leaving office.

    Given that the president enjoys a normal life span, the pension allotment would be worth upwards of $6 million.

    The federal budget spends about $3 million annually for the four living ex-presidents. Obama also will get Secret Service protection.

    In addition, Obama may be due a nice pension for the eight years he served in the Illinois Legislature as a state senator.

    Illinois is infamous for its lavish pension plan for former lawmakers. A Freedom of Information Act request for Obama’s pension amount submitted Wednesday to the General Assembly Retirement System of Illinois was not immediately answered, nor was a call to the Obama campaign.

    But what about Romney? He must be getting some fat-cat pensions based on golden parachutes made out of the skin of workers sacrificed to the gods of Bain and Capitalism, right? Nope. In fact, Romney has no pensions at all, and only has the money he’s saved on his own (worth a considerable amount, of course):

    His Individual Retirement Account could be worth in the neighborhood of $87 million, as documented in an extensive report from the Washington Post.

    But as for a strictly public pension? Zip, zero.

    Romney only served one term as governor of the Bay State and did not take a salary, so he is eligible for nothing.

    So while Romney appears headed for a happier retirement financially, he’ll be footing his own bill — unless, of course, he wins next month. In that case, his nest egg will be even that much bigger than Obama’s.

    You think that a man who runs the most powerful nation on Earth might know something about his own portfolio before trying out that attack. Then again, Obama has rung up four straight trillion-dollar deficits, so clearly fiscal management isn’t one of his strong suits.”

  • I agree with Greg Mockeridge. I thought that Cardinal Dolan should never have given public recognition at a Catholic event to an abortionist and advocate of sodomy. The Cardinal, like most Roman clerics, is too enamored with the false gospel of social justice and the common good. But having Obama at a public forum hear with his own ears the disdain he has inspired in his opponent is something he needs. I am happy that his liberal, sanctimoniously open-minded, tolerate and diversity-supporting nose has been rubbed in that disdain. All liberals need to understand exactly how close-minded, intolerant and divisive they really are. Romney was barbed? Good! I hope some of those barbs went beneath the skin of Barack Hussein Obama and causes him to realize what a wreck he has made of this country both economically and morally, and how he just may fall in defeat on November 6th after all.

  • “Let’s all make our voices heard!”


  • Sorry, it was still a very bad idea despite Romney “winning” it. When all the analysis is over and done with most people will see Obama, Romney and Cardinal Dolan laughing it up together.

    Michael Voris says it best:

  • Nope, it was a very good idea. Too many Catholics are clear about the innocence of doves in Christ’s admonition and forget about the wiliness of serpents. I would hate to play chess against Cardinal Dolan.

  • Donald,

    Maybe you are correct. After all, Cardinal Dolan is a consecrated successor to the Apostles, having received the seal of Holy Orders (is that the right term?). As such, maybe it is the Holy Spirit who has inspired him to invite both candidates to the Al Smith dinner. I never thought inviting Obama to any Catholic function was right, but I am not in Apostolic succession as Cardinal Dolan is. Maybe I should trust that the Holy Spirit knows what He is doing.

  • Dolan probably depended mainly upon his native shrewdness Paul, but perhaps the Holy Spirit gave a nudge or two. I think the night turned out badly for Obama and I think Dolan expected it to. He had met both Romney and Obama on several prior occasions and I think he had the measure of each man.

  • Cardinal Dolan, in my very humble opinion, has out classed, out smarted and allowed humility to trump the arrogance of Chicago city organizer. Much of the public is aware of the violation of 1st Amendment rights to freedom of religion in relationship to the HHS mandate, despite the MSM blackouts.
    My hope is that tomorrow’s national rally for freedom of conscience will in some miraculous way help the undecided to vote for protecting our right to support the unborn.
    Cardinal Dolan took the high road, not the easier predictable road of “eye for an eye.”

    I pray it works.

  • “Illinois is infamous for its lavish pension plan for former lawmakers.”

    After the last election, one newly elected Republican lawmaker chose not to enroll in the General Assembly Retirement System — the first legislator that anyone can remember declining the pension. He only got one chance to enroll so his decision will stick. Now there are a growing number of Republican and even a few Democratic candidates for legislative seats promising voters that they won’t take the GARS pension, and it seems to be a popular move with voters. Giving up the GARS pension (which kicks in after only 8 years of service) is probably the easiest, most popular and most relatively painless form of Illinois pension reform out there right now since most legislators have other employment to fall back on. I would not be surprised to see the GARS system closed to further enrollment within the next few years.

  • Thank you for the video Jasper

    I think immediately of John the Baptist and King Herod

  • So Michael Voris would have us to believe that the Master would so no mercy. Better to bring on the persecution huh.
    I can’t buy it.
    The money changers and Dolan hobnobbing together for WHAT gain Darth Vortex?
    I see it now. So he is popular with the Catholic Dems. What next Mike? Having us to believe that Dolan is on the take. I see it now….the jet, the private estate, the scandal of it all.

    Thank God that He, God is our Judge, and not man.

    Please give Dolan the benefit of the doubt, and pray more…slander less.

  • I believe we are at minute 16 and counting with Mr. Voris.

  • “I believe we are at minute 16 and counting with Mr. Voris.”


  • To Paul Z and Donald M,

    What does the reference to minute 16 mean? Sorry. I really don’t know.

    To Jasper and Chris P.,

    I did not agree with Cardinal Dolan’s invitation for Obama to attend the Al Smith dinner. I thought it was like John the Baptist acquiescing to King Herod. But Cardinal Dolan is a successor of the Apostles, having been consecrated as a Bishop in Holy Orders. I do not therefore believe that Obama’s embarrassment and discomfort at the Al Smith dinner occurred without influence of the Holy Spirit on Cardinal Dolan’s decision to invite him (though Donald says that that is more likely attributed to Cardinal Dolan’s own craftiness). Indeed, while I am a big fan of Michael Voris, I think here in this video he comes dangerously close to laying his hands on the Lord’s servant, and even David would not do that to his enemy, King Saul. Of course, that means I have been guilty of the same,

    The other issue Michael Voris raised of all those rich people who fund the Al Smith dinner and are also contributors to pro-abortion, pro-homosexual politicians should be dealt with. but surely there are ways of communicating this to Cardinal Dolan without the kind of criticism we see here in Voris’s video. Again, my own similar sins come to mind.

    All this being said, the best thing that came out of the Al Smith dinner is Obama having to sit in the hot seat and publicly display facial signs of discomfort or anger. His real side is showing more and more this election season and the voters are seeing that. So while I had thought that Cardinal Dolan erred in the invitation, maybe I am the one who is in error. God’s will will be done. I hope that does not involve persecution of the Church as Voris advocated in his video, but Romans chapter 11 comes to mind. Would Voris himself remain true to his bravado in the actual face of such persecution, or would it be Cardinal Dolan who remains true?

  • Paul, it’s a reference to “15 minutes of fame.” I believe it was Warhol who suggested that all people are famous for 15 minutes. The implication is that Mr. Voris has reached the zenith of his popularity.

  • Thank you, Paul Z.

    Cardinal Dolan, in having valid Apostolic succession, does not need the 15 minutes of fame as those without such succession apparently crave when they speak with the authority reserved for someone in such valid succession.

    My sins of self-righteous criticism come to mind.

  • A problem other people named Paul struggle with sometime as well. 😉

  • Paul P,
    I agree with much of your post, especially this:

    I am a big fan of Michael Voris, I think here in this video he comes dangerously close to laying his hands on the Lord’s servant

    All I can say is this, I spent 45 minutes in Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, then brought my young daughter with me for 5-10 minutes (about as much as she will behave) to spend with our Lord. As I reflect on this my time spent in Adoration, as her father I cannot imagine doing anything that would give the possibility of scandal to her.

    This whole affair just doesn’t sit right with me.

    Also, regarding John the Baptist and King Herrod, I was implying he did not acquiesce; He did not dialogue, he condemed Herrod.

  • I too have enjoyed the vortex, and I have been hard on Mike in this post. I lived near Milwaukee when Bishop Dolan, appointed by JP II, flew in to a post Wakeland Catholicism.
    I met Dolan at Holy Hill at an ordination mass on July 16th for a Carmelite deacon. To many, Bishop Dolan was and is the warm Spring breeze during a very long and cold winter.
    I’m biased, yes.
    I feel that Mike was unfair with his assault on our Cardinal.
    Please accept my apology for my harsh rebuttal to Mikes video.

  • While I have my share of problems with Voris, his video on this is pretty measured compared to other things he has said on other subjects. I don’t think it was a good idea that Dolan invited Obama. I think Mr. McClarey’s wishful thinking about the leadership of our bishops vis-a-vis the HHS mandate is in overdrive. I don’t see the shwredness in this decision at all. Obama didn’t come away from this looking any worse. In fact, he may have looked a little better. After the two debates he cames away looking like the thinskinned Messiah complexed ideologue that he is. His presentation at the dinner made him look like someone who could at least have a sense of self-deprecating humor. Whereas it was Romney looked like more of the attack dog at the dinner. Of course, I don’t have a problem with that. But Obama looked no worse for the wear.

    But I think reasonable people can disagree as to whether or not it was a good idea. Even though I have a very low opinion of Cardinal Dolan for the very serious reasons I state in a previous post on this thread, I think some of the King Herod comparisons regarding the invite were over the top. I just think he just reaffirmed in Obama’s mind that he has nothing to fear from the Catholic bishops in this country. Voris does raise a valid point about how he is going to deal with the self-professed legally married to her lesbian lover who is likely to be the next mayor (at least according to Voris I haven’t followed NYC politics close enough to know of her electoral chances). I’m not quite I embrace Voris’ view on that, but, like I said, it’s a valid point.

  • Greg.
    ..nothing to fear from the Catholic bishops…

    Let Obama think that. I hope he does. It should be the sheep that Obama fears.
    We will see if the Sheppards united effort this past year will be fruitful. I read that 52% eligible Catholics voted for Obama in 08.

    With the help of our Bishops this could be 20% or less come the 6th. Okay….I can dream.

  • Letting a bully think the object of bullying is weak will only increase the bullying. Tell me how do you figure any shift in the Catholic vote will be due to the efforts of the USCCB?

    I would suspect that if a Republican president had tried something like this HHS madate, the invective from the bishops would be signiifcantly more fierce than it has been toward Obama. The same USCCB joined forces with the Obama Admistration against AZ’s SB 1070, a just law that is clearly consistent with Catholic morality, in thier Amicus brief to the Supreme Court. They had the nerve to (get this) say it was aviolation of religious liberty. Did the USCCB file an Amicus against Obamacare when it went up to the Supreme Court, even though it had funding for abortion? Nooooo!!!

    As I point out in an above post, Cardinal himself launched what I believe is clearly a libelous attack against SB 1070

    Look up the text of SB 1070 and explain to me how an honest reading of the law warrants anything that remotely justifies Cardinal Dolan’s equating it the the KKK.

    Cardinal Dolan never dared levelling anything near that kind of invective at Obama.
    What kind of moral cerdibility does a Prince of the Church have when he engages in such behavior? Quite frankly, how anyone who calls himself an orthodox Catholic can read what Cardinal Dolan said about SB 1070 and not be outrage is itself an outrage.

  • ” I don’t see the shwredness in this decision at all. Obama didn’t come away from this looking any worse. In fact, he may have looked a little better.”

    That is a funnier comment than anything Obama said at the Al Smith Dinner Greg. I defy anyone to compare and contrast Obama and Romney at the Dinner and think that Obama came off looking the better for it. You have an axe to grind against Dolan because he does not share your support for the Arizona law and it colors your perception of what I think was a clear defeat for the South Side Messiah.

  • Donald I have “an axe to grind” against Dolan BECUASE HE SLANDERED THAT LAW, NOT MERELY BECAUSE HE OPPOSED IT!!!!!AND YOU KNOW IT!!!!!! I have provided clear divdence of it. It is a serious scandal!!! THis is something all poeple of goodwill, especially Catholics, ought to be outraged about, whether they agree with the law or not. Llike I said, the fact that anyone who calls himself an orthodox Cathoilic and not be outraged by Dolan’s conduct is itslef an outrage. Donald, tell me how an honest reading of the Arizona Law (you can find it online, it’s only 15 or 16 pages) justifies Dolan’s equating it with the what KKK did in the South.

  • Chill out Greg. Typing in caps makes your tirade against Dolan no more convincing to me. I think Dolan is wrong on the Arizona law and dead right on inviting Obama to the Al Smith Dinner.

  • Okay, chilled. But Dolan was not just wrong, but scandalously so. You do not find it to be a serious problem when the most influential bishop, with a huge reputation for orthodoxy, engages in the same kind of calumnious race baiting Obama and the rest of the left does?

    As far as the Al Smith Dinner goes, I think it was a bad idea on Dolan’s part yes. But I also pointed out that reasonable can disagree. I thought Romney looked a little oetty in his obvious attack mode, although I liked the digs and Obama looked less like the thinnedskinned ideologue he really is. I even said I thought, despite my utter contempt for Cdl. Dolan, I thought the Herod comparisons were over the top.

    Donald, for bishops moral credibility is everything, particularly now. You may not want to come to terms with this, but the bishops don’t have any, all the fawning notwithstanding. They are a big reason why Obama thought he could get away with the this HHS Mandate. And they have supported policies that enabled this. And until they acknowledge their responsibility in helping cause this, all their posturing will amount to nothing bu a dog and pony show.

    Chill enough for you?

  • P.S. Donald I used caps in the previous post, to make my indignation over your mischaracterization of my problem with Dolan as being merely his not sharing my view on the AZ when you know that was not the case. A retraction on your part is in order I think.

  • I personally think Greg that bishops should rarely speak out on any political issue, with the exceptions being where there is a clear violation of Catholic teaching of the magnitude of abortion. In regard to immigration my preference would be for the bishops not to take any side at all on the issue, since it doesn’t rise to the level of abortion, and reasonable people can disagree, as opposed to abortion. I have actually been quite heartened by the reaction of the bishops to the HHS Mandate led by Cardinal Dolan. Dolan’s benediction at the Democrat convention was of a piece with inviting Obama to the AL Smith Dinner. I believe he is playing a very clever game in regard to Obama, and I think it will show when one of the factors leading to Obama being defeated is his losing the Catholic vote decisively in the swing states.

  • “A retraction on your part is in order I think.”

    NO! 🙂

  • Greg-
    Letting a bully…

    Read the accounts of St. Maximilian Kolbe, and the conversions that followed. St. Steven. Gondi. Countless heroic acts of Faith in the face of bullies have brought about deep and lasting change. It has a soul piercing effect that moves mountains and this is why I believe it works, even in this case with the naked emperor.

    As I mentioned before, my HOPE and prayer is that a miracle takes place. Today the third stand up rally takes to our public streets. The third this year. More priests are openly speaking from the ambo to Catholics everywhere of the fight that the administration brought to us. We did not pick the fight, however we will not walk away from it. This message from our Bishops has permeated to local churches, and my prayer and hope is for a miraculous catch. Say 32% swing.
    Let down your nets for a catch.

    I’m trusting, hoping, praying and physically on the street to bring attention that this current emperor is naked. That we Shall Never submit to Laws that trample our consciences regarding the protection of the unborn
    If Christ is with us who can be against us? The bully is toast.

  • Well, Donald, that you have no problem with mischaracterizing the positions of another, and allowing it to stand,s speaks a very unflattering truth about you. But that’s my problem it’s yours.

  • I think I will put you on moderation Greg until you grow a sense of humor and perspective.

  • I also disagree with Dolan on the Arizona law. However, I am startled by people who seem to expect that Dolan should refuse to have anything to do with the President of the United States, and the leading NY pols. I’ve always enjoyed my visits to NYC. However, it’s a deep blue, very liberal city with a very high abortion rate and its’ elected officals reflect that. So…what is the Cardinal supposed to do? Hole up in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, shunning all the terrible sinners out there? Or does he go break bread with the sinners and engage with the world? The Cardinal of NY, the most high profile Catholic in the nation, cannot be a monk, turning his back on the sinful world. He has to go out there and engage people, powerful, worldy people, including those who hate the Church and all that it stands for.

    Believe me, secular leftists would like nothing more than for Dolan to do what purer-than-pure Catholics seem to want him to do – disengage from politics and refuse to meet with or entertain politicans who are less than pure (by definition, that’s just about every pol out there).

  • While I disagree with Cardinal Dolan’s position on illegal immigration, he is NOT the enemy. We should remember that Satan is the enemy and the Democratic Party operatives his foot-soldiers. Yes, the words Cardinal Dolan used in criticizing the politicians in Arizona who enacted the immigration reform laws that he does not like were harsh, but certainly no harsher than words which I have used to criticize Democratic Party operatives among the clergy. There is a world of difference between Cardinal Dolan who clearly has his heart in the right place, and Bishop Hubbard of the Diocese of Albany who authorized the distribution of needles to heroin addicts in his city, and who gave Holy Communion to pro-abortion, pro-sodomy Andy Cuomo and his live-in mistress Sandra Dee at the Gubernatorial Inaugural Mass, praising Cuomo for ushering in a new age of the gospel of social justice in NY State. Ezekiel 34:1-10 clearly applies in the case of the latter, whereas in Cardinal Dolan’s case, what we should do is write him letters, explaining with reason and dispassionate analysis why his position on illegal immigration is wrong. I get the impression that unlike clerics such as Bishop Hubbard, Cardinal Dolan is amenable to logic and not beholden to partisan politics. True, he has a streak of social justice in him, but I attribute that to the indoctrination which most Catholic clerics received in Seminary in the post-Vatican II environment. And no, there is nothing wrong with Vatican II per se, but rather its interpretation and implementation in liberal Western societies, but that is a topic for a different discussion.

    Suffice it to say that I can disagree with Cardinal Dolan on issues like illegal immigration, but I do think he is a hero when it comes to making Obama feel the discomfort of the influence of the Holy Spirit convicting his soul. I think that has something to do with why Obama launches into Planned Parenthod advertisements right after the Al Smith dinner. He doesn’t like a prince of the Church putting him on the hot seat, so he ups the support for what the Church opposes as though to say, to use a Battlestar Galatica term, “Frack all you Catholics.” I say praise the Lord for Cardinal Dolan (but I still will oppose all that social justice nonsense tooth and nail).

  • I think some of the King Herod comparisons regarding the invite were over the top.

    In hindsight I shouldn’t have said that. My passions get the best of me quiet often. I think the best thing to say is I think it was a bad decision to invite Obama and leave it at that. Bad analogy, I apologize.

  • The comments have been an interesting conversation.

    I watched both videos more than once–this was a national broadcast that matters alot, I think! I watched it from my home in South Puget Sound, WA state, which assuredly will go to Obama thanks to the People’s Republic of Seattle. I loved loved LOVED Romney’s remarks; he may have benefited from a low bar–he is not known for being a great wit. I loved the attacks on Obama, thought they were all wickedly funny; Obama had some funny lines too, but he was not warm and graceful like Romney. Maybe he is dealing with his upcoming election loss, but he has also oft been described as having a “cool” temperament and maybe this has served him poorly. He might have been a better president had he been lampooned this effectively more often in public and the MSM. Finally, I have thought for a while that he has crummy speechwriters; who remembers anything great from his speeches? I sure don’t; what he will be remembered for is that silly line about the oceans rising, etc at the time of his nomination, and his gaffes.

Scoring the Debate

Wednesday, October 17, AD 2012

I was a little disappointed to see some mainstream conservative pundits declare Obama the victory of the debate “on points.”

Obama, to his credit, performed much better this time around. He kept pace with Romney and landed a number of critical blows. He came out ahead on the Benghazi exchange, though as other pundits noted, the story tomorrow may not look so good for him. But I don’t think Obama can be declared the winner of the debate.

Each issue ranks differently on the list of importance for voters. I think many of us would agree that the economy is by far the most important issue for most voters, including the undecided voters who were present at the debate and in the post-debate focus groups. Given this, it follows that winning an exchange during the debate on the economy ought to be weighted more heavily than winning an exchange over other issues. Of course almost all issues can be related back to the economy, but some are more “purely” economic than others.

On those issues, I thought Romney emerged the clear victor. I think he presented himself as someone with a superior working knowledge of business and economics, and probably inspired more confidence in his ability to handle the nation’s economic problems than the President.  Double Romney’s points for every answer that created the impression that he knows more about economics than Obama, and he becomes the clear winner of the debate.

I may just sleep through the foreign policy debate, though. My regular readers know why. I’m a Paulbot anti-American isolationist! No one represents my views. Oh well.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Scoring the Debate

  • Last time Romney won because Obama didn’t show up, this time Obama lost it, with his PP rant. After the Komen debacle everyone knows they don’t do mammograms, but Obama’s been shilling for them so long he couldn’t help himself. I sensed a shift in the political ether the moment he told the lie and lying about the Libya attack didn’t help him either.

  • about “Paulbots…” i don’t have a problem with an alternative to the neoconservative mentality that dominated the Bush term, and Obama’s current soft-power strategy that seems to give democratically-elected Islamic parties the benefit of the doubt. my probably with Paul/the paleoconosphere in general, and i have no idea if this is true of you, is that they seem defined much more by what they’re against than what they’re for.

    for example, obviously no one wants to invade Iran. does that mean a nuclear Iran’s acceptable though, in terms of the amount of leverage they’d gain? i suspect if you pressed Paul on this he’d say that it would be manageable, which is not a foreign policy view i’m inclined to support. now granted i’m not knowledgeable enough about military actions that could be taken to destroy their nuclear facilities that wouldn’t involve a land war…but it just seems to me that people like Ron Paul start off at this immovable anti-interventionist assumption, even in the case of severe threats to international stability, and occasionally veering into the ridiculous, i.e. his position on the OBL raid.

  • my last sentence wasn’t clear…my point was basically that Ron Paul has a convenient foreign-policy ideology that he defers to no matter what’s happening in the world, one that i don’t think is sufficient for certain international matters. just cuz neoconservatives were wrong on Iraq doesn’t discredit all forms of intervention.

  • It was Paul-bots like Tom Woods who helped me towards the Catholic church (and your blog). Keep it up.

  • From a strategic perspective, in my view Obama comes out the winner in this debate on Benghazi alone. It doesn’t matter that he was lying. It doesn’t matter that the moderator was incorrect, if not lying through her teeth (not to mention out of line to insert herself into the exchange to begin with). All that matters is that the audience got a real-time “fact check” entirely in Obama’s favor…and for most casual viewers, they’ll never bother to look into it any further than that.

    It doesn’t matter what Romney does on that front from here on out. Obama has effectively neutralized the issue for the remainder of the campaign–that’s a major vulnerability off the table.

  • Bonchamps, I have never seen you as “anti-American”. Isolationist, yes, but not anti-American.

  • Bon,

    You know you’re not anti-American. You have strong opinions. Me, too, the difference is I’m borderline [fill-in-the-blank].

    Another thing: Obama actually is anti-American.


  • I don’t see it the way LV sees it although Romney wasn’t particularly slashing. Crowley’s overt attempt to help Obama has made her and her comment an issue, thus keeping Benghazi going. Keeping Benghazi going is doing Obama no favors especially with the 3rd debate on foreign policy. I expect Obama to initiate some diversionary military operation because the issue is still haunting him.

  • Rozin, my point was that the people who follow the controversy as it plays out are the people who would have gotten the truth anyway. It’s the casual viewers, who aren’t that invested in following the day-to-day politics of the race and just tuned in to watch the debate, who won’t watch any of the follow-up and see who was actually right–and my hunch is that those casual viewers include a large portion of the undecided voters who will determine this election.

    And as far as those viewers are concerned, based on what they saw last night, Romney got caught red-handed in a “lie,” and Benghazi is done.

  • What kills me about Obama is that they, meaning the media, must constantly run interference for him so he get away with his lies, or he gets to hide behind women’s skirts – his wife, Jarrett, Rice, Clinton, Crowley. One on one with Romney or any conservative, he would be squashed like a bug. It’s very frustrating to watch. My heart tells me that if this is an honest election, Romney will win, but increasingly, my head is telling me that he will pull a “Chavez” and steal it. I hope and pray I’m wrong.

  • Great news for the Obama re-election campaign: Honey Boo Boo endorses the Won!

  • The saddest thing is how this administration has beaten down America and society. Through the media support of its bias and un-diversity, these useless schemers are draining the economy for themselves and damning their voting block. Even his wife told a group to nicely tap anyone who may not vote to support her husband then say what they want about the tapped after they go away. Nice talk for a character model of the people. Gangbangers is what Mr. and Mrs. call people when they aren’t talking to them. on & on & on with phony two-faced talk for votes. Some local reaction of their voting block to a visit by the flotus was that she did wave or get out of the car for the people lined up on the route to fundraising lunch, where they had been standing for hours.

    Obamas don’t like this country and are acting like pirates of infamy and getting away with it.

    The Romneys, if they replace the administration, will have an almost healing effect – on society and the media sickness. There will be no repercussions because working to repair damaged America is more important to them.

  • JDP,

    ” just cuz neoconservatives were wrong on Iraq doesn’t discredit all forms of intervention.”

    No, but America’s lack of financial resources and frayed credibility make it unwise. Can the Fed print money fast enough, can the government borrow money fast enough from China, can the IRS collect taxes fast enough to finance another war?

    There are many good reasons to pursue a non-interventionist foreign policy, beginning with financial limitations.

    As for the rest, yes, I think Romney looked bad on Benghazi. But I still believe, and I think the polling data will reflect it in the coming days, that he won on the economy and that this is significant.

  • that’s all true. i would just be interested in if there is a way to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities without invasion if we get to that point. like i said i’m unfortunately not really knowledgeable on the specifics, because it’s not a “new normal” in the M.E. i find acceptable. i am not for another regime change war in the region though.

  • I also was disappointed to hear pundits giving O points that I don’t think he earned. And I have a question about how they measure the time:

    When it is Romney’s time clock and Obama or moderator talks and fogs over his answer, do they still count that as time that he had?

    I was disappointed with CNN too- We were watching it because the person we watched with thinks FOX is right and MSNBC is left and CNN is right down the middle…
    For the first half of the debate they always split the screen when Romney was talking– so that the visage of O was a constant distraction from what Mitt was trying to say. When O talked he got the full screen and all the attention focused on him. Part way through the debate CNN corrected that so I wondered if people had complained to them and forced them to change camera work

  • LV argues his case well, although I think the main problem is the Repub acceptance of moderators who are colluding with the Dem candidate. Without that intruding moderator, Romney would have the obvious rejoinder that if Obama claimed terror in the Rose Garden why did he and the others run around for more than a week saying the video done it? The test will be what kind of audience shows up for the third debate on foreign policy where this gets rehashed. I was surprised that the viewership for the second debate was that close to the first. If the third is high also then the issue of out of touch voters going off with a wrong impression would be mitigated. But again a well argued position.

The Subtle Art of Political Advertising

Tuesday, October 9, AD 2012

Back in graduate school a professor of mine discussed the 1984 campaign. One of the national nightly news telecasts (I believe it was ABC) ran a segment basically running down the Reagan economy. It was one of those voiceover features that had a lot of stock footage of Reagan in various places: the Rockies, Mount Rushmore, and other locations featuring Reagan speaking. It was meant to be a devastating piece, but one of the members of Reagan’s campaign team called ABC afterwards and thanked them for the feature. Why? Because the visuals were all of Reagan in these fabulous settings, and in a visual world what appears on screen often trumps the content of the spoken word behind it.

That all crossed my mind when I saw this Barack Obama ad attacking Mitt Romney. Watch this video with the sound down first:

The content of course is absurd. “Partisan experts on our payroll say that Mitt Romney will raise taxes on the middle class to pay for the tax cut for the rich he’s not proposing.” Whatever. It’s par for the course for the Obama administration, and it’s an attack that is resonating less and less each day.

What struck me were the visuals. It shows an authoritative Mitt Romney at the debate. He’s talking in what appears to be a very passionate and confident manner. Meanwhile, President Obama is nodding along with his head down. It just seems like such a bizarre image to portray to the electorate. It’s an almost submissive, timid looking Obama being lectured by Mitt Romney. Considering how people drown out the content of these ads, it’s a visual that essentially reaffirms the post-debate sentiment that Mitt Romney took Barack Obama to school. No matter what was actually said in the ad, the voter is left with a visual image of a beaten-looking president being shown up by an energetic challenger.

Obama may have had a very successful fundraising month, but he might want to reconsider how is money is being used.

Update: Just saw this from Aaron Goldstein where he also ponders why Obama keeps running ads that seem to help Romney.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to The Subtle Art of Political Advertising

  • The same sort of thought crossed my mind when I saw the ad last night. If I were Obama I’d do whatever I could to pretend last week didn’t happen. I sure wouldn’t keep reminding people about it.

  • Because Obama-worshiping imbeciles are sold on Big Bird and Elmo not employment (But, can they spell it?), skyrocketing gasoline prices, murdered diplomats in Libya, murdered GI’s in Afghanistan, . . . [sigh]

  • Then there’s the visual of the empty chair in the White House…

  • A classic example of the Obama campaign running an ad that helps Mitt Romney:

    The Emperor not only has no clothes, he has no good ad men apparently.

  • I am wondering when it will occur to the public: if the Democrats respond to every idea with ‘Well, the only way WE could think of to deal with this involves a huge tax increase’, that might not be an argument for keeping them in charge?

  • September – before the debate – was a good fundraising month for BO. October’s numbers will speak boatloads.

  • It seems surprisingly fair of Obama to run that ad since some of Romney’s ads were rather supportive of Obama (as noted here and elsewhere). As for fundraising what’s a billion dollars between the Chinese Army, Russia, and assorted worldwide leftists and maybe some Mideast oil countries not eager for energy independence to come to the US? We saw this tape in 1996 (and maybe in 2008) but the Repubs and the country apparently see no big deal in it.

Klavan: Obama Fantasy Ending

Saturday, October 6, AD 2012

Andrew Klavan at City Journal explains how the media creation Obama ended with the debate this week:

The Obama of the imagination is the media’s Obama. Out of their fascination with the color of his skin and their mindless awe at his windy teleprompted rhetoric, they constructed a man of stature and accomplishment. Now, with the White House on the line, they’re waging an ongoing battle against the undeniable evidence that he has never been, in fact, that man. The result in these quadrennial autumn days has been media coverage of a fantasy election, an election in the news that may bear no relation whatsoever to the election as it is. Polls consistently skewed to favor Democrats in percentages beyond any reasonable construct of reality have left us virtually ignorant of the state of the race. Orchestrated frenzies over alleged gaffes by Mitt Romney have camouflaged an imploding Obama foreign policy, an Obama economy threatened by a new recession, and an Obama campaign filled with vicious personal attacks and lies.

Governor Romney’s unprecedented dismantling of the president in their first debate—an encounter so one-sided it reminded me of the famous cartoon in which Godzilla meets Bambi, with predictable results—was surprising only for Romney’s warmth and clarity. Obama’s hapless fumbling, bad temper, and inarticulate inability to defend his record were actually thoroughly predictable. They were simply facets of the man as he truly is, unfiltered by the imagination of his media supporters: a man who has succeeded, really, at almost nothing but the winning of elections; a man who cannot distinguish between his ideology and life; a man who does not seem to know how the machinery of the world actually works.

Fantasy is a powerful thing, but reality will out. Perhaps by Election Day, the public will have awakened from the media’s dream.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Klavan: Obama Fantasy Ending

  • Today’s local copybook front page: “Jobs Report Boosts Obama”

    – and the dyed in the wool D’s kids have moved out of the area to find their fortunes
    – or are in government employ
    – and many more remain paid for existing
    – many not looking for employment

  • Excellent article, many very valid points. I can’t help but wonder how much a Romney resurgence can be derailed by good job numbers. Hope that someone with some media “bandwidth” can point out the significant decline in jobless, 8.1 to 7.8 if I remember correctly, with only a moderate growth in jobs, 114,000, means many people have exited the job market. Wonder why? (uttered sarcastically). Seems that perhaps they should also note that 16,000 manufacturing jobs disappeared. My understanding of that is that we remain one (on a macro level) global economy and our manufacturing workforce is not competitive, and not being politically correct doesn’t change the facts. Just ask Boeing why they are in SC. US policy, current and past continues to force jobs offshore and Obama’s policies continue to exacerbate that problem.

    PS – Thanks for the blue type. It is, for me, a huge improvement.

  • Obama it seems to me is completely deflated and in his mind has come to realise that he is under qualified for the job. The Administration is going through the motions now, which accounts for the daft decision to send an Islamic supremacist to the OSCE, I do not think there will be any kind of October surprise. Whether this is enough for Romney to win is another matter, but the spectacle of Obama looking sad and downcast for a couple of minutes with his chin set grimly is indicative of a person who realises that he is out of depth and that harsh reality beckons. I’ve been there before, such a pose cannot be simulated.

  • Phenomenal. I just read this at City Journal. The stars are aligning.

Obama Video: Typical Hack Politician

Wednesday, October 3, AD 2012



The Daily Caller has a video of Obama speaking before an audience of black ministers at Hampton College in June of 2007.  In that speech Obama acts as if the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is his best bud, tries to speak in the stereotypical cadences of a black preacher at a revival meeting, and attempts to inflame the racial paranoia of his audience:

In a video obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, then-presidential  candidate Barack Obama tells an audience of black ministers, including the Rev.  Jeremiah Wright, that the U.S. government shortchanged Hurricane Katrina victims  because of racism.

“The people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!” Obama shouts  in the video, which was shot in June of 2007 at Hampton University in Virginia.  By contrast, survivors of Sept. 11 and Hurricane Andrew received generous  amounts of aid, Obama explains. The reason? Unlike residents of majority-black  New Orleans, the federal government considers those victims “part of the  American family.”

The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama’s  carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic  groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public,  Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits  by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement. The  effect is closer to an Al Sharpton rally than a conventional campaign event.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Obama Video: Typical Hack Politician

  • The pandering is strong with this one.

  • As amazing a weapon as this video is, it probably will do little harm to Obama’s campaign because the only people who will view it already will not be voting for him as the MSM will sweep it under the rug, just as they have everything else.

    I truly hope that Romney can find a way to bring this video of Obama’s rant up in the debates, but I imagine he probably will not.

  • “What we should take from this video is what we already know:  Obama is not a leader, not a conviction politician with core beliefs he is dedicated to.  He is a careerist who has only one aim:  the success of Barack Hussein Obama.”

    Exactly what Nebuchadnezzer’s aim was. No principles. No convictions. Just ISM – I, Self and Me. Pride, arrogance, hubris, narcissism. Daniel chapter 4 is God’s response.

  • We need more opportunitah for the communitah in this … (extremely dramatic pause)… countrah.

  • Daledog:
    We need more opportunitah for the communitah in this … (extremely dramatic pause)… countrah.
    If Romney parroted this, he could intorduce Obama’s speech without mentioning it.

  • Just because he has no original thoughts and wants the same thing as the majority of Congressional Dems these days (after the demise of the Blue Dogs) doesn’t mean Obama has no convictions other than himself. That would be a better description of Bill Clinton. Obama himself said that he eagerly sought out the Marxist professors. Like many current Democrats he believes in a watered down or even lazy Marxism without Marx. They extol Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and the Chinese Politburo. They do not even extol Denmark, France or England. Not autocratic enough. They certainly don’t extol Germany or Switzerland. Too budget conscious and hard working. If the political class approves of what he is doing he is happy. They figure they can control things all the way down. If you look at how people love them in the cities and states they control the tightest who can gainsay them?

  • This video is both remarkable and unremarkable. It’s unremarkable in a sense because it doesn’t reveal anything about Obama that people who have been paying attention didn’t really know. The man has been an open book – quite literally. The man wrote a book dedicated to his Communist father. What’s remarkable is that this has been out in the open for anyone to see, yet so few (comparatively) even notice.

  • It’s unremarkable in a sense because it doesn’t reveal anything about Obama that people who have been paying attention didn’t really know. The man has been an open book –

    Or maybe the man’s just Zelig.

  • Saw this on Hannity yesterday.

    And what is this about Obama telling industry and military to not announce any lay-offs before the election – leave it till after the election, even though ……”you will be in breach of the law, we (the taxpayer) will pay your fine”.
    That sounds awfully like bribery and corruption to me, let alone blatant breach of the law of the land.

    Roll on Chicago Politics.

  • Art,

    Are you saying Obama/Zelig is Jewish or Lutheran? Just kidding . . .

  • T SHAW “Are you saying Obama/Zelig is Jewish or Lutheran? Just kidding . ”

    Doesn’t he claim he’s Irish when the mood suits him??

  • Hack politician or not, he knows what appeals to his audience and that is enough to get him elected. All the hyphenated Americans are behind him and he will work behind the scenes to assure the Big Men of each of those communities that they’ll be paid off.

  • as I am watching Romney beat O right now I am feeling pretty good – people are easily able to see, if they want to see, the double talking, circuitous thinking, the attacks on the consumer seller economy in each response– the oil companies make a profit every time they sell their product he says, the insurance companies jerk you around he says- the common sense and straightforward plain talk of Romney is great– esp since people have been seeing that old video for the last 24 hours– and are already wondering how they are to know if Obama means what he says

  • Romney is dominating the debate. Obama has been on the defensive all night. Obama had the mistaken reputation of being a policy wonk. He has had the misfortune tonight of debating a true policy wonk. Mirabile Dictu, this is a real debate instead of a joint press conference!

3 Responses to Obama Today: You Can’t Change Washington From the Inside

  • Romney hit it on the head the other day when he commented: ‘there are times when the president doesn’t tell the truth’ but today he told the truth – he cannot fix it from the inside but from the inside is the way to fix it. Everytime I see the pres laugh or smile he reminds me of The Joke from Batman movies.

  • For a guy who can’t push back on almost anything the Dems fling at him, Romney is getting pretty good at snappy one liners ( that 80% of the population came up with at the same moment). At least he speaks the one liners out loud.

  • Maybe Romney will win. If so, then I can’t wait to see the look on the Occupier’s face and hear the wailing of the only liberal we have at work! And yes, I will descend to my hands and knees in praise and thanksgiving to God Almighty. There is hope – can’t believe I just wrote that, and haven’t even taken morning meds yet! 😉

Who is Obama?

Thursday, September 20, AD 2012

When it comes to Obama and most of the Mainstream Media there are two salient facts:

1.  Most members of the Mainstream Media have a crush on Obama that would embarrass many a teen-age girl with its intensity and its studied indifference to facts.

2.  Most of the Mainstream Media have been reluctant\hostile to doing elementary investigative reporting into Obama’s past.

The Washington Examiner is now doing the job that other members of the Mainstream Media simply will not do.  Go here to read their series The Obama You Don’t Know.  The series is a tribute to what reporting, the gathering of facts, can be at its best.  I consider myself reasonably well-informed as to Obama’s biography, and I found out things I didn’t know.  This is a must read series.  It would have been nice to have this information before the election of 2008, but we at least have it now before the election of 2012.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Who is Obama?

  • I’m not worried about whatever Soetoro did years ago, it’s what he’s doing to me now.


    3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . . RACISTS!

  • Well, beloved Americans….. better late than never. Now you can see what you elected as your President. A shameless fraud. May the Holy Spirit speak to your hearts before the Voting Day so that you can save your country from total ruin.

  • Mary, we also need to remember America at the 3.00 O’Clock Hour of Great Mercy and pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet specifically for your beloved country. If a country ever needed Divine Mercy it is America just now with the defining Elections around the corner.

  • [email protected]: “for the sake of His sorrowful passion have mercy on us, and on our country and on the whole world.” Yes. [email protected]

  • [email protected]: Truth: Four more years it will be “total ruin.”

    May God bless you and keep you.

  • Interesting information, but I fear it won’t sway true believers. Hopefully, it will convince enough fence sitters if not to vote for Romney, at least to not vote for Obama.

  • Thank you, Mary and T. Shaw. We, the Eucharistic Apostles of the Divine Mercy, Kenyan Chapter are praying for your country daily. Obama mocked God and God is going to dethrone him through your Votes. Don’t let Him down. I just heard Obama saying “you cannot change Washington from the inside, you can only do it from the outside”. Well, if that is not an admission of defeat, then I am not Mary Moll of Nairobi Kenya!!!!! Anyone else you elect will definitely “Change Washington from Within”….that is the only way to save your country. If you believe the man Romney can do it – as I do from where I live thousands of miles away – get into that Voting Booth and vote him in, overwhelmingly. God bless you, God bless your beloved Country.