- Bishop Lori Highlights Obama's Overreach

Testifying yesterday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Bishop Lori shared the following remarks:

For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let’s call it, “The Parable of the Kosher Deli.”

Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork. There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.

The Orthodox Jewish community—whose members run kosher delis and many other restaurants and grocers besides—expresses its outrage at the new government mandate. And they are joined by others who have no problem eating pork—not just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths—because these others recognize the threat to the principle of religious liberty. They recognize as well the practical impact of the damage to that principle. They know that, if the mandate stands, they might be the next ones forced—under threat of severe government sanction—to violate their most deeply held beliefs, especially their unpopular beliefs.

Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond, “But pork is good for you. It is, after all, the other white meat.” Other supporters add, “So many Jews eat pork, and those who don’t should just get with the times.”

Still others say, “Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.”

But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public debate, because people widely recognize the following.

First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is good for you, that’s not the question posed by the nationwide pork mandate. Instead, the mandate generates the question whether people who believe—even if they believe in error—that pork is not good for you, should be forced by government to serve pork within their very own institutions. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

Second, the fact that some (or even most) Jews eat pork is simply irrelevant. The fact remains that some Jews do not—and they do not out of their most deeply held religious convictions.

Does the fact that large majorities in society—even large majorities within the protesting religious community—reject a particular religious belief make it permissible for the government to weigh in on one side of that dispute? Does it allow government to punish that minority belief with its coercive power? In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

Third, the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their beliefs on others has it exactly backwards. Again, the question generated by a government mandate is whether the government will impose its belief that eating pork is good on objecting Orthodox Jews.

Undiscovered Country

The Rick Santorum rise has brought a great deal of interest in the man's choices, choices for life, choices to accept certain suffering if suffering was what life had dealt him. Though baffling to some, they are life affirming choices, and choices that encourage many others, April Gavaza among them:

When my oldest was diagnosed with her numerous congenital heart defects, we were told that many of the kids with her kind of heart don’t always make it very far. It was a long, stressful, heartrending road, but we walked it with her. I’d have carried her to the gates of Heaven itself, if I could have. But I wasn’t able to do that, and she went on without me. I didn’t know about her heart before she was born, but if I had, I can’t help wondering if I’d have been advised to terminate the pregnancy. Her outlook was bleak, and I could have “saved” myself heartache and pain if I’d decided to scrap the defective and try again. But I’d not have traded those 2 years and 9 months for anything. Anything.

April is a pleasure to know. Read the whole thing. Oh, and then hit the tip jar. She's a gem!

'Adam Bede' at Movie Club

Now Showing: Adam Bede

- Boo Hoo

Kate Gosselin has once again gone onto national television. Not for fame and fortune over birthing eight children, not to fight with her ex-husband and major dork Jon Gosselin, and not to dance away the evenings in ridiculously low cut gowns.

Nope, she was there to say she is sad over the fact that she's... not dating right now.

It's a hardship for her, sure. She spoke about her personal life with Dr. Drew (who else?) on his "Lifechangers" program.

When asked about her love life, the one-time reality star got teary-eyed and said she is "so lonely."

Give me a break. I saw Don Rickles do that routine once.

"I think a lot of my friends who are being constructive say, 'Gosh, who are you going to meet that is going to be able to deal with eight kids?'"

What friend could she have that would tell her that? That would be like telling someone in a wheelchair 'Gosh, who are you going to meet that is going to want to date someone in a wheelchair?' Most people have enough tact not to blurt out such ill considered, short sighted statements.

For that matter, what were these same friends saying when she took all that time away for her stint on Dancing with the Stars? "Gee, Kate, you can't dance worth beans. And you're driving your partner crazy with all those questions and incessant whining. He's the professional dancer, for heaven's sake. You need to trust him." Well yes, he was the professional dancer, but he was not that well versed in Kate Gosselin, which of course was the main thing for him to be focusing his energies upon.

"The odds are so against me, one mom and eight kids..."

Maybe the kids aren't the issue.

I clean up the house, put kids to bed and there I sit. Ideally I would find that person... I don't know if I feel ready for that."

So she is really lonely and wants to meet a nice man, but she doesn't know if she feels ready for meeting a nice man. This is the kind of stuff that drives guys crazy. She is so focused on how she feels, and at the same time she is all over the map. I can't keep up.

Gosselin knows that such a man could be hard to find. She remarked, "I mean, I don't expect someone to come in and financially provide for my kids. I mean, they're mine, that's my job. So, just to have somebody there."

Yeah, I don't think it's the kids, Kate.

Please, sir, they demand examples...

The recent George Jonas article on the growth of the state and the shrinking freedoms of the west brought a challenge to Mr. Jonas from his readers, resulting in another bit of excellence:

The world had a one-night stand with freedom. She came in the late 19th century and went in the early 20th. Even the citizens of semi-constitutional monarchies, such as Kaiser Wilhelm's Germany, were freer in the pre-World War I era than the income-and consumption-taxed inhabitants of the European Union are today. They were certainly freer in terms of individual expression, enterprise, and mobility than the photoID'd, hate-crime-muzzled, gun-registered, dog-tail-length-regulated, smoke-freed, and body-searched citizens of the interventionist democracies are in our times, Canada included.

Examples? How many do you want? In the narcosis of "progress," the liberal state clings to its dogmas, sacrileges, holy things, and taboos. It guards them as jealously and enforces them as rigidly as the Taliban guards and enforces its version of Islam. Maybe it doesn't enforce them as cruelly -- maybe.

Exaggeration? You decide. In the year 1300, a period we call the Dark Ages, a pig was tried for blasphemy in France. In the year 2000, 200 years into the Age of Enlightenment, on the threshold of the 21st century, in the United States of America, the authorities charged a six-year-old boy with sexual harassment for kissing a six-year-old girl.

True, in the Dark Ages few were scandalized; in the Age of Enlightenment, there were many. The pig faced the death penalty if convicted, while the six-year-old didn't -- perhaps I should say "probably didn't" because who'd predict what people who charge six-year-olds with sexual harassment may do. Nor was this a unique event. Some years later in Brockton, Mass., another six-year-old was suspended for touching a classmate's skin in violation of the school's sexual harassment policy. No charges were laid, but the school principal notified the police, the Department of Social Services, and the District Attorney's office. No, he didn't contact the United Nations for some reason. Later the boy's parents sued and the school district settled for an undisclosed sum.

While this is a happier ending than registering six-year-olds as dangerous sex offenders, it illustrates the neo-medieval ambiance of the liberal-fascist state. No doubt the expression will offend some who have no trouble practicing liberal-fascism, but are too sensitive for the word. In democracy-exporting countries there's usually a berth for them in the sheltered workshops of human rights commissions that continue to offer safe environments for the fragile psyches of liberalism's Gestapo.

Who-woo, hulla-balloo! That Jonas guy is getting a little exercised over this one, and well he should. It's excellent. Read the whole thing here.

The Rise of the Right

As the primary process has moved along, momentum has been building for the Rick Santorum campaign. Long time front runner Mitt Romney, who has not actively wooed the Republican base, has failed to excite broad support. Most proponents supporting his candidacy defend their support on the basis that they think he has the "best chance" to unseat President Obama, but such support has not proven adequate for Romney to move much past 30% amongst Republicans. In the latest CNSnews piece, a recent Gallup Poll was quoted suggesting a movement being generated behind conservative Rick Santorum:

Over the past five days, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania has surged into a 35 percent to 29 percent lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in Gallup's nationwide tracking poll of registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.

Each day, Gallup publishes the average results from its past five days of polling in the Republican presidential primary race. In the five days that ended on Monday, Feb. 13, according to Gallup, Romney led Santorum, 32 percent to 30 percent, with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in third place at 16 percent and Rep. Ron Paul in fourth place at 8 percent.

Between Monday and Friday this week, Santorum gained support each day. In Gallup's five-day tracking poll that ended on Tuesday, Santorum had 31 percent; on Wednesday, he had 32 percent; on Thursday, he had 34 percent; and on Friday, he had 35 percent.

Meanwhile, Romney peaked at 33 percent on Tuesday and dropped to 29 percent by Friday.

Now Romney has taken to claiming that Rick Santorum is not electable and not a conservative, based on Santorum's last Senate campaign, and some of the votes he made in support of his president, George W. Bush. Romney trying to make hay with this kind of charge underscores the most basic reason people have not followed him: we don't trust him nor his claims of conservative values, and we don't like the character of a man that runs a campaign in this manner. As far as advancing conservative principles, it's a day late and a dollar short for Mr. Romney. Time will tell if Romney will be able to fool enough people to gain the nomination.

Snooper Drone Crashes, Brought Down By Gunfire Claims Animal Rights Pilot

In the latest nonsense of animal rights activists, who allege rights that do not exist while ignoring rights that do, a Mikrocopter Drone lost altitude shortly after take off near the Broxton Bridge Plantation, a private gaming range.

Steve Hindi, president of SHARK (SHowing Animals Respect and Kindness), said his group was preparing to launch its Mikrokopter drone to video what he called a live pigeon shoot on Sunday when law enforcement officers and an attorney claiming to represent the privately-owned plantation near Ehrhardt tried to stop the aircraft from flying.

So the Sharks wanted to video what was going on at the Broxton Bridge Plantation, no doubt with the intent of disrupting whatever it was that the people there wanted to do. And what do people go there to do?

Broxton Bridge Plantation offers a wide variety of hunting opportunities on over 7,000 acres of land---deer hunting, wild hog hunting, duck hunting over decoys, in addition to pheasants and bobwhite quail.

So these people own a private reserve, where people can shoot targets and game, and the Sharks thought people should not be allowed to do that, so they brought their snooper drone to video tape and disrupt things. By the looks of the thing it might scare the heck out of the birds, but hey, these guys are the animal lovers, so what do I know?

"Once they knew nothing was going to stop us, the shooting stopped and the cars lined up to leave."

Oh, happy ending then? The Sharks packed up and called it a day?
Nope.

He said the animal rights group decided to send the drone up anyway.

Why not, send up the video spy drone. Who could object to that?

"Seconds after it hit the air, numerous shots rang out,"

Uh oh.

"the helicopter lost lift and crash landed on the roadway of U.S. 601."

Yep, that's a real-fire shame. Mechanical failure do you suppose? Well, accidents happen. Say, what kind of shooting do those Broxton Bridge boys like to do?

A favorite is the European style Tower Shoot. After a sporting clays warm up, pheasants take flight from a 65 foot high tower. You can really blow the dust out of the barrel on this one!

Sounds like they blew the dust out of the barrel as it was. This guy Hindi was lucky to get out of there without getting his britches peppered.

Hindi said in the release. "As an act of revenge for us shutting down the pigeon slaughter, they had shot down our copter."

Come on Hindi, think of it as a copter slaughter. It's fun! Maybe the Sharks could send up a few more, or launch 'em off that tower till the boys get the windage and deflection down.

Could be a real hootenanny.