- 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.

Saddleback Comments Shroud Brokeback Presidency

President Barrack Obama, the chief executive of the United States, is once again at it, picking and choosing, and making it up as he goes, this time in relationship to "gay couples" in the military. In the past, the DoD ignored claims for spousal support if the "spouse" was of the same sex as the person serving in the military. A recent challenge filed in Massachusettes will not be responded to, by fiat as announced by the grand vizier himself:

The Obama administration is extending its decision to stop defending an anti-gay marriage law to provisions affecting same-sex couples in the military.

The 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act requires the Pentagon to ignore same-sex marriages even if they were legally obtained in a state that allows them. A group of married gay service members and veterans sued in U.S. District Court in Boston last fall arguing the law is unconstitutional and they are entitled to spousal benefits.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced a year ago that President Barack Obama determined DOMA is legally indefensible, reversing a policy of defending the law in litigation. On Friday he wrote to congressional leaders saying the administration reached the same conclusion for lawsuits like the one in Boston involving military personnel.

The president is obliged to defend the government's position, whether he is enamored of it or not. For one who touts himself as a constitutional scholar, Mr. Obama shows little regard for the constitution and the duties he as president is obliged to perform.

Jonas: 'A country we no longer recognize'

It sometimes saddens me to read the fine descriptions of George Jonas. A survivor of the Nazi persecution of the Jews, he fled communist Hungary, arriving in Canada in 1956. Here he describes the changes that have followed him these past fifty years:

Fifty years ago, when Canadians didn't approve of something, they used one of two expressions. They would say: "Well, it's a free country," or they would say: "There ought to be a law."

It's rare to hear the first saying anymore. It no longer applies, and most people realize it. Canada is still free compared to countries like Saudi Arabia or China, of course, but not compared to itself.

The second expression has simply become superfluous.

Chances are, by now there is a law, whether there ought to be one or not.

It's a great piece. Read the whole thing here.

'Threshold' at Movie Club

Now showing: Threshold

- Hey fellas, check this out!

Speaking with blog ace April Gavaza of one abusive institution or another, it immediately brought to my mind everybody's favorite, the TSA. Now here is a civil institution freely and repeatedly abusing its given authority.

Adding to the TSA saga, here is the latest of TSA missteps:

Ellen Terrell was asked by a female TSA screener “Do you play tennis?” When Terrell asked why, the screener responded, “You just have such a cute figure.”

Terrell was then told to go through the naked body scanner not once but a second time. She then heard the TSA screener talking into her microphone saying, “Come on guys, alright, alright, one more time.”

After Terrell was forced to undergo a third blast of radiation from the body scanner, the male TSA agents in the back room who were obviously enjoying the show tried to send her through yet again to see more images of her naked body.

“Guys, it is not blurry, I’m letting her go. Come on out,” the female TSA screener said, finally ending the ordeal.

It's not blurry - wow, there's a relief.

They are considering adding a person that could act as a passenger advocate, but as the advocate would also be a TSA employee, they are not sure that would fix the problem.

My guess is 'no'.

What, me worry?

The TSA's purpose is not to catch terrorists. It is not to make air travel safe. The purpose of the TSA is to screen passengers. And screening is what they do, day after day, over and over. To which end they have policies and guidelines, and it is to these they are committed heart and soul.

Given the exceptionally tedious aspects of screening ordinary Americans, one can hardly blame them for doing what they must to brighten their days. It's all just a part of the price we must pay.

I just love the TSA.

Obama: The Church MUST Yield

Not a guy big on liberty.

In the latest edict from the powers at the seat of our Federal government, the supreme leader has offered to leave six and instead shall be taking a half dozen:

President Obama did not budge today in insisting that his government will order all insurance companies in America to provide all women with free sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients—and that everyone other than a religiously based organization will be forced to pay for it, whether it violates their religious beliefs or not.

Obama did not announce any change at all to the administrations’ sterilization-contraceptive-abortifacient mandate insofar as it applies to individuals and private-sector business owners who will still be forced by the government to buy and/or provide health insurance plans that cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients even if those things directly violate the teachings of their religion and their conscience.

For a man who prides himself on being steeped in religious traditions, who has made a point of projecting his deepest respect for all faiths, and all beliefs... this seems to be coming at it rather high.

In recent days, leaders of other religious denominations have joined their voices to those of the Catholic bishops, decrying the regulation as an attack on the religious liberty of individuals as well as institutions.

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics Religious Liberty Commission made a forceful appeal for Baptists to resist the regulation.

“Does the government have the right to intrude on the consciences of people to force them to pay for that which they find unconscionable?” said Land. “This goes contrary to our tradition in this country and contrary to our understanding of the First Amendment's religious freedom protections.”

"In my opinion, a Baptist needs to take a stand on this issue,” said Land. “Our Baptist forefathers went to prison and died for the freedoms that we have, and now it's our responsibility in the providence of God to defend these freedoms lest they be taken away by government fiat.’

Yes it is, and you are going to have to steel yourself for challenging a man who has no regard for our traditions or for the constitution he has sworn to defend.

“Today, we've reached a decision on how to move forward,” said Obama. “Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services--no matter where they work. So that core principle remains.

“But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company--not the hospital, not the charity--will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles,” said Obama.

What the hell? Why try to pass off this pap as some sort of compromise. This clown is pissing in our ear. To offer a considered response to this rubbish is to treat his position with more respect than is warranted.

The State of Political Discourse Explained

Early placard pointing to the presumed superiority of the Democrat view.

Must of us have learned by now that responding to the left can be a tiresome exercise. We still do it, but are at times perplexed at the difficulty of getting through. This may come down to the left simply holding a markedly different world view, which results in their taking up strategies that are not always exactly cricket:

The giveaway in the Left's attitude to party politics is its refusal to accept that alternative points of view to its own are precisely that: alternative points of view.
Because there is only right and wrong, their opponents are not different, they are wrong. And because they cannot be that wrong innocently, they must be malevolent. So it ceases even to be a matter of right and wrong, but rather of good and evil. Hence the unmistakably evangelical flavour of so much Leftist dogma, even as it pours righteous scorn on what it considers the unreasoning scriptural ethics of the Right.

In truth it is Leftism that is based on doctrine, faith and revelation, whereas Conservatism is founded in practice, experience, and compromise. As I never tire of saying, to the comprehension of just about nobody and the willing endorsement of fewer still, it is Leftism that is religious, and Conservatism that is Darwinian.

Most conservatives do not view the Left as evil, merely misguided. They do not hate them. (I do, but I am anomalous.) The Left, however, passionately hate their opposition and - while constantly accusing them of divisiveness and aggression, a tactic known and loved by millions (at least six million, anyway) as 'the old Hitler one-two' - would like nothing better than to have them permanently out of the way. Then they can get on with the serious business of turning the free world into an Orwellian hellhole sewer, without having to stop every so often to make sure all the news outlets are singing in tune whenever an inconvenient Sarah Palin or Ann Coulter put their head up over the barbed wire.

The Venereable Bede is famous for his piercing observations on our cultural confusion. The supporting of the leftist view point by "scientific" research whose conclusions come first and whose data comes second has become a daily event, commonly practiced in the global warming argument and now moving mainstream to a broad realm of leftist positions. Read Bedes whole piece on the matter here.

White House Hides in Ambiguity

In a statement as incredulous as it was disingenuous, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney offered that the White House has no opinion on whether the Senate passes a budget for the nation. The Senate, controlled by the Democrat party, has not passed a budget in over three years.

ABC News’ Jake Tapper asked Carney whether President Obama agreed with comments by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke at a hearing Tuesday to the effect that the Senate’s failure to pass a budget creates uncertainty for business firms; or with a recent assertion by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that the Senate does not need to bring a budget to the floor this year.

“The White House has no opinion on Chairman Bernanke’s assessment of how the Senate ought to do its business,” Carney replied.

With no budget there is nothing to be accountable for, no grounds on which to argue what should be spent and what should have reduced spending, no hard and fast details to campaign upon.

Though the Democrats may feel this a clever ploy politically, the actions are not in accordance with the responsibilities accorded to the Senate by the Congressional Budget Act, enacted in 1974 to secure congressional authority over the nation's spending:

The way Congress develops tax and spending legislation is guided by a set of specific procedures laid out in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The centerpiece of the Budget Act is the requirement that Congress each year develop a "budget resolution" setting aggregate limits on spending and targets for federal revenue.

Yes, but Jay 'Chili-Con' Carney and the White House have no opinion on whether or not the Senate should trouble itself to meet these obligations. This is the very same White House committed to improving the nation's economy.

Though unnamed, a Republican aide was a little more forthright on the issue:

“When the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is telling us the lack of a budget — a long-term fiscal plan to get off our current path to a debt crisis — is harming the economy right now, one would think that would cause the White House concern. But apparently it doesn’t have an opinion,” said the aide.

The fact is, the White House has an opinion, and the opinion is that not passing a budget is in their political favor, and they are in support of anything that will strengthen their hand, politically.

BAM!

GOP elites and the media intelligentsia were flabbergasted to see conservative Rick Santorum score massive primary victories in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado on Tuesday.

"Conservatism is alive and well in Missouri and Minnesota," Santorum said when he took the stage at his victory party in St. Charles, Mo., calling his wins "a victory for the voices of our party, conservatives and tea party people, who are out there every day in the vineyards. I don't stand here to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama."
Romney, who was talked about as the Republican Party's inevitable nominee after his wins in Florida and Nevada last week, had his worst night of the 2012 presidential campaign. For the first time, he did not finish in first or second place in a Republican primary or caucus. In Minnesota, ABC News projects that Ron Paul will take second place, while Romney and Newt Gingrich battle for third.

Meanwhile Mitt Romney's feet of clay became ever more apparent as he took broad criticism from conservatives for his inane comments on the minimum wage.

Mitt Romney's position on the minimum wage has some on the right sounding the alarm about his candidacy--and it could expose a dangerous fault line between Romney and some of the Republican Party's most reliable backers.

Romney said last week that he supports regular increases in the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation, a position he took as a candidate for president in 2008. Six years before that, as a candidate for Massachusetts governor, Romney supported linking automatic increases in the state's minimum wage to inflation. "I haven't changed my thoughts on that," he told reporters.

Well, Mitt, as Walter E. Williams showed in his seminal 1984 work, The State Against Blacks, as you increase the costs to employ people it becomes harder and harder for potential employers to employ them. It simply costs more than what it is worth. The people that end up most adversely affected by increasing the costs of unskilled labor are the unskilled laborers themselves. The problem is, it's 2012, twenty-eight years after Williams' book came out, and we still have to explain this stuff to the man who wants to lead the conservative party.

Meanwhile, Romney appeared to be solid for second place in Colorado, but was fighting for his life to hang on to third in the Minnesota primary.

Said NBCs David Gregory: "It's inconceivable!"

Romney Shocker: Nevada Turnout Low, Fails to Clear 50%

Voter turn out for Romney was surprisingly low.

As Presidential candidate Mitt Romney attempts to gather the republican party behind him, it is clear again that the difficulties we face have not caused the nation to turn to Romney. In fact, Mr. Romney is unable to garner enthusiastic support from his own party. With only 32,000 people turning out to vote in Nevada (down 12,000 from Romney's last much ballyhooed victory here in the 2008 presidential primary) he was able to garner more votes than his rivals but not much energy or enthusiasm from the conservatives that make up the back bone of the Republican party. The man touted by the party establishment as the person who can beat Barrack Obama can barely generate a pulse.

There are 310 million people in the United States, yet the David Gregory's of the world are pronouncing the nomination process over, and claiming the Nevada primary is a huge momentum generator for Mr. Romney. Sorry boys, but 32,000 people do not speak for the majority of Americans. That barely is enough to make up a small town. And Romney got about half of those? 16,000 votes does not exactly stop the presses, unless the presses are looking to be stopped. Let me give it to you straight. The media doesn't want a strong Republican nominee. Furthermore, the campaign tactics Romney has chosen are those that suit the Rahm Emanules and James Carvilles of the world, but they don't suit us.

Romney and his PAC spent $561,000 on 550 negative ads and 163 positive ads. Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich received 21% of the vote, and this after he spent ... nothing.

The campaign's not over. And it won't be over until we the people have been allowed our say.

Pelosi Presses On

Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic in the Democrat party, has vowed to support the Obama Adminsistration as it forces her and her fellow Catholics to pay for abortifactants and birth control measures that are against Cathholic teachings and that many find morally repugnant.

At her press briefing Wednesday, a CNSNews reporter had this exchange with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

“The administration has issued a regulation that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilization and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that induce abortions. This would force Catholic individuals and institutions to act against their consciences. All across the nation, Catholic bishops are saying..

"Is this a speech, or do we have a question in disguise as a speech?"

“..'We cannot--we will not—comply with this law.’ Catholic bishops are saying they will not comply with this law. Will you stand with your fellow Catholics in resisting this law or will you stick by the administration?”

Pelosi responded:

“First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it.”

If your head is spinning do not be alarmed. That is the response normal people feel when listening to this woman. She is more than just rude, she's an idiot. Earlier in an attempt to minimize the controversy she dismissed the Catholic Bishops as "lobbyists". It's insanity. This is such obvious political pap it is hard to take the woman seriously, and yet she remains the minority leader for the Democrats in the House of Representatives. This is the kind of leadership the Democrats have. No concern for stepping all over the rights of the individual, and no care for the Constitution they pledged to uphold. Their interest lies solely with the advancement of their party. Out they must go.

We must remain a free people.

This Won't Do

Governor Romney has been running as the front runner and presumptive Republican nominee since as long as one can remember, ever ootsed along by the Republican establishment as the electable candidate. Meanwhile, most of the conservatives have been wondering electable to do what?

Mr. Romney may be a very nice fellow, I can hardly say (except to note that his style of below the belt campaigning leads me to feel otherwise). But the real question with Mr. Romney is what is he all about? My sinking suspicion is that he wants to be elected president so that he can be the president. He has no vision beyond that, no real conservative goals to drive the country towards. He is not the man to lead us out of the hole the Democrats and more than a few Republicans have led us into. He claims he is a conservative because he believes that will sell, but he is no more committed to releasing the people to live freely and returning the government to a limited power presence than was Bill Clinton.

As if to confirm that assessment Mr. Romney followed his Florida primary win with an off the cuff remark that is more than a gaffe. Remarking on anticipated future Democrat criticisms, he said the following:

"We will hear from the Democrat party, “the plight of the poor,” and there’s no question, it’s not good being poor. . . . We have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it, but we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor."

This won't do. It is not a question of whether there are safety nets a plenty. The question is whether or not there is opportunity. This government is choking out the people, and as it grows and grows we become less and less free. Life as a cog in the matrix, with basic needs met by benevolent overseers is not the America I want my children to inherit.

With hat tips to Pundette and Terrance.

Warren on the Troubles of the Republican Primary Process

David Warren has been harder for me to follow as of late, largely because he does not release his articles to his website as he writes them, but releases a whole gaggle of them together. His latest string contain several interesting pieces, not the least of which were these observations on our own Republican primary process:

The conventional view, from inside such media centres as New York and Washington, is that Romney must win for the good of the Republican party, because he is the "moderate" who can appeal to "independents." His very lack of deep conviction on anything at all - even his Mormonism, which he shrugs off - makes him the most reliable politician. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and Romney swings left or right, as required.

Indeed, "they" - the seaboard Republican managerial class - take the need for this kind of "moderation" to be so self-evident, that disagreement must expose some mental deficiency.

I disagree.

Read the whole thing here.