Eat More Chikin

Uncle Ben writes:

The anti-gay views openly espoused by the president of a fast food chain specializing in chicken sandwiches have run afoul of Mayor Rahm Emanuel and a local alderman, who are determined to block Chick-fil-A from expanding in Chicago.

“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values,” Emanuel said Wednesday.

###

Chicago values? What would those be? Corruption, violence, inept government, voter fraud, bad baseball teams? The list practically writes itself.

Illinois blogger Marathon Pundit ruminates along similar lines.

Curiously Juxtaposed Obamacare Headlines o' the Day

Coincidental, I'm sure.

Exhibit A: Obama Loses 14 Points with Catholic Voters Over HHS Mandate

As more than 40 Catholic groups file suit against the Obama administration over its HHS mandate forcing them to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs for employees, new poling data shows President Barack Obama is tanking with Catholic voters... [Recent Pew Surveys show a] huge 14-point loss the pro-abortion president has had with Catholics in recent months...

Exhibit B: Obama Admin Signs $20M Contract for Obamacare Public Relations

Not only are Americans forced to fund abortions, and potentially rationing, in the Obamacare health care scheme, but new reports reveal they are spending $20 million on an election-year public relations plan to promote it.

The Health and Human Services Department signed a $20 million contract with a public-relations firm to promote Obamacare in a new multimedia ad campaign designed to educate the public about its supposed benefits. The Hill indicates the ad campaign was a mandate included in the final health care law.

As Mark Levin noted last night, if we had any House leadership at all, Kathleen Sebelius would be called in front of Congress and the responsible HHS managers charged with illegal campaign contributions to Obama's reelection effort.

But John Boehner is an intellectual and leadership lightweight. We've all had enough with the Repubicans, the wimps and the weaklings, who are more worried about consolidating their own power than saving America.

If we can get a couple o' dozen more Constitutional conservatives elected in November, I truly believe we can get Michele Bachmann or Allen West installed as Speaker of the House. Just think of it.


Hat tip: BadBlue.com.

What an Obama second term means to Bishop Jenky: a Hitlerian end to Catholic institutions and the means to accomplish it

Last week, an Illinois Bishop compared President Obama's virulently secular policies to those of Hitler and Stalin:

Angrily condemning President Obama for his “radical pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda,” an Illinois bishop likened his leadership to Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin last weekend and urged Catholics to vote against him.

“This fall, every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences, or by the following fall our Catholic schools, our Catholic hospitals, our Catholic Newman Centers, all our public ministries—only excepting our church buildings – could easily be shut down,” said Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria at a gathering of Catholic men on Saturday... "...no Catholic institution, under any circumstance, can ever cooperate with the intrinsic evil of killing innocent human life in the womb,” he said...

The bishop warned that because of the president’s mandate for forcing religious employers to fund contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs, America is on a path leading to the state of past dictatorships when Christians were forced to “huddle and hide,” such as Bismarck’s Kulturkampf, Hitler’s Nazis, and Stalin’s Communists.

“Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care,” he said.

“In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path,” he added.

Think Bishop Glenn is overstating things?

I'd like to remind you of a pair of bizarre Obama statements, one just prior to his election and one just after.

But first, let's set the stage by recalling a 2011 missive from John Podesta, one of Barack Obama's key 2008 campaign advisers. In a position paper, Podesta laid the "D" card on the table for all to see.

No, not "depression". We've already got that.

I'm talking about a de facto "dictatorship". Bypassing the will of the people -- as if that hasn't happened enough in the last three-and-a-half years -- through a set of unconstitutional Czars, Executive Orders, unilateral declarations, and the massive administrative state.

And armed force, if necessary, according to Podesta.

Oh, Doug -- that's so controversial.

Fine. If it's not a dictatorship, please tell me what you would call the form of government that Podesta calls for?

Because it's certainly not a representative republic nor Constitutional in any way.

The U.S. Constitution and the laws of our nation grant the president significant authority to make and implement policy... The ability of President Obama to accomplish important change through these powers [including executive orders and armed forces] should not be underestimated [in] continuing to make progress.

Now back to Obama's pair of statements, which got very little publicity despite their highly inflammatory and un-American nature.

In March of 2009, at the dedication ceremony of the National Defense University's Abraham Lincoln Hall, President Obama expressed his need for a civilian national security force (MP3, 74:00 mark; DOD press release, transcript):

America must balance and integrate all elements of our national power. We can not continue to push the burden onto our military alone, or leave dormant any aspect of the arsenal of American capability. That's why my administration is committed to renewing diplomacy as a tool of American power and developing our civilian national security capabilities.

"Our civilian national security capabilities?"

In July of 2008, Jim Lindren noted a couple of peculiar sentences in a Barack Obama speech.

In Barack Obama’s July 2, 2008 speech calling America to national service, Obama proposed “a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our military... This has prompted some in the blogosphere to raise the specter of a huge new domestic paramilitary organization...

[Obama said] "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Curiously, the official transcript of the speech omitted those last two sentences.

After the last three-and-a-half years, can there be any real doubt as to what Obama meant?

And what George Soros John Podesta is after?

The Left used to enjoy calling Bush a fascist, but the closest thing this country has ever had to a dictator -- from the iconography to the vicious language to the unconstitutional power-grabs -- is Barack Obama.

Old media did its level best to suppress these bizarre sentences. And the Soros tools at Media Matters claimed, in their usual Riefenstahl-esque way, that Obama didn't mean what he meant.

Without an election hanging over his head, and given his swelling list of outrageous, extra-Constitutional activities, can there be any doubt what lies ahead should this man serve a second term?

I will vote for a soup can over Barack Obama in 2012. Because this country -- and the Constitution -- simply cannot survive his reelection.

Women: please don't be a victim like Ann Romney

Via the precocious People's Cube comes this helpful public service message:

What a cluster-fluke.


Hat tip: iOwnTheWorld.

Top 15 Signs at the #RallyForReligiousFreedom You'll Never See in Legacy Media

Crowds across the United States -- from San Diego to Washington, D.C. -- participated in the Rally For Religious Freedom.

In San Diego, one of the more impressive displays included...

...an "Impeach Obama -- Lawless Prez" sign dragged behind an airplane over San Diego.

The crowd roared.

Shhh... no one tell Sandra Fluke (pronounced "Fluck").

Uh oh, this must be a religious extremist. Someone tell Homeland Security.

Oh no: college students who oppose Obamacare. Say it ain't so!

Yes, all ages, races, creeds and colors participated in these rallies. Because religious freedom doesn't discriminate. But Obamacare does.

Even the White House saw protesters.

Curious how we didn't hear about any of these rallies in legacy media.

Nor see any of these signs.

Maybe they're hoping we'll go away. Along with the Constitution.

Fat chance.

Even kids know better.

It's time to Stand Up For Religious Freedom.


Hat tips: Western Journalism, Catholic News Agency, Jason W. Hoyt, Kathryn Jean Lopez.

Sandra Fluke scores first product endorsement! [The Looking Spoon]

From The Looking Spoon:

So she's got that goin' for her.

Hilarious Stock Chart o' the Day ( $CARB )

Business. Strategery. At. Its. Finest.

Cake, meet icing: "Announcing The Carbonite Accountability Project."

Exclusive Photo: Lost Jonas Brother Wants Free Contraceptives

The entire handling of this affair is deserving of severe mockery.

As an aside, Newt Gingrich obliterated David Gregory on Meet the Depressed this morning.

Government is their god

President Obama's recent attacks on the Catholic Church, which ignited a firestorm of controversy over First Amendment issues, are simply part of a bigger picture. Consider:

• In the words of Robert Bernal Aguirre, Obama's move to assuage the controversy that forces religious institutions to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients, is "nothing more than a shell game":

On February 10 Obama moved the immoral pea from one shell to another when he stood before the nation to announce a “compromise” and an “accommodation” -- one that he discussed with none of the offended parties. .. The great irony is that the very groups that put him in office – Catholics and Hispanics – have consistently been among those most offended by this administration...

...President Obama demeans our belief in life and he obliterates our constitutional protection of religious freedom. He is telling not just Hispanics and not just Catholics – but all people of faith – that our faith-formed opinions have no place in the public square. Such is the state of democracy in America in this election year of 2012.

• As the Heritage Foundation observes, President Obama has made five attempts to slash the charitable tax deduction, a critical source of funds for religious institutions.

...the President’s plan would likely dampen charitable giving at a time when nonprofits have been forced to do more with less. The greatest impact would probably hit organizations like hospitals and educational institutions... Sadly, many of these nonprofit organizations are the same charities whose religious liberty is under attack by Obamacare’s anti-conscience mandate... [He] has engaged in a pattern of weakening the status and identity of civil society institutions.

• Obama has, on multiple occasions, omitted references to God that are foundational to the Declaration of Independence.

• He has also routinely skipped thanks to the Lord during the President's traditional Thanksgiving address.

• And these omissions are entirely consistent with the secular, anti-American message promoted by the Democrat media complex, which routinely removes phrases like "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Why would liberals remove God from its rightful role in America's founding?

Because, in their view, government grants rights. Your God-given, individual rights mean nothing to them.

Government is their god. Government is all-powerful. Government comes first. And that is why they promote secularism. It's not about "separation of church and state". It's about power.

The power of government to dominate the individual.

Fact Checking National Journal's "Fact Check": Yes, Obama Voted to Legalize Infanticide. Not Once, But Twice.

"National Journal" (if that is its real name) is a political analysis website that appears to get its content from the deepest crevices of the far left Beltway machine. Its latest hilarious missive is entitled "FACT CHECK: Gingrich Claim on Obama Infanticide Vote A Stretch":

Obama did not vote to legalize infanticide, and the media did not ignore the issue.

In answering a CNN debate question about birth control, Newt Gingrich lashed out at the media for giving President Obama a free pass during his 2008 bid.
“Not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich was presumably referencing Obama’s opposition to Illinois’ proposed version of a “born alive” law, intended to require doctors to administer immediate medical care to any infant that survived an intended abortion.

According to Politifact [Ed: Politifact, far from the unbiased arbiter it pretends to be, is a provably left-wing outfit] ... Obama voiced his opposition to the new legislation as a state senator because it would have given legal status to fetuses and would thus have been struck down by the courts, and because Illinois already had laws to ensure infants who survived abortions would be given medical attention.

This is, to put it in terms progressives can understand, horsecrap.

Physical evidence (the actual IL General Assembly vote tally [below]) shows that on March 13, 2003, Barack Obama voted for an amendment making the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act identical to the federal Born Alive bill.

Obama then voted against the amended bill, making him more pro-abortion that any other U.S. senator, who all voted unanimously for Born Alive. It makes Obama more pro-abortion than [even] NARAL... which went neutral on the federal Bill.

Yet after the Saddleback Showdown on August 16, 2008, Obama stood by his lie when asked about it by CBN's David Brody, as shown on CNN.

David Freddoso at the National Review puts it in stark terms.

Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked “neutrality” language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in.

Want to see the actual differences between the federal and state laws? Non-existent other than the stylistic changes for Illinois wording. The identical neutrality clause as added by Obama is present.

On March 12-13, 2003, the Illinois state senate committee chaired by Senator Barack Obama amended the proposed state Born-Alive Infants Protection bill (SB 1082) to exactly track the language of the already-enacted federal BAIPA, by adopting Senate Amendment No. 1, 10-0.  The committee then voted to kill the amended bill, 6-4, with Obama and the other Democrats on the committee voting against it.  The bill that Obama and his colleges voted to kill, as amended, was virtually identical to the federal law.  The entirely non-substantive points at which the state bill language still differed from the federal law are shown in brackets below (except we have ignored differences in capitalizing).

 ---------------------------------------------------------Public Law 107–207 [Illinois SB 1082]
107th Congress
An Act
To protect [Illinois: concerning] infants who are
born alive.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, [Illinois: Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:  Section 5.  The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding Section 1.36 as follows:]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Born-Alive Infants Protection
Act of 2002’’. [Illinois: no formal title]
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT. [Illinois: Section 1.36.  Born-alive infant.]
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘§ 8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as
including born-alive infant  [Illinois: lacks this section heading]
‘‘(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, [Illinois: statute] or
of any ruling [Illinois: rule], regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States [Illinois: this State], the words ‘person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’, shall include
[Illinois: include] every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
‘‘(b) As used in this section, the term ‘born alive’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her  [Illinois: its] mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such
[Illinois: that] expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut,,   Illinois: no comma] and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
‘‘(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny,
expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ [Illinois: no quotes] as defined in this section.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning
of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new item:
‘‘8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as including born-alive infant.’’.  [Illinois: Section 99.  Effective date.  This Act takes effect upon becoming law.] 

Obama's bald-faced fabrication is shocking. Perhaps that's the "Audacity of Hope": he hopes no one will call him on this audacious lie.

Barack Obama opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois. The law was pushed after State Senator Patrick O'Malley heard the horrific story about an infant born alive after an abortion from Jill Stanek, a nurse... David Brody can play it as straight as he wants to play it. But, Barack Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. He said it was because the state statute lacked federal protections for abortion. Once the National Right to Life Committee proved that excuse a lie, Obama called NRLC liars until the campaign admitted that, regardless of the facts, abortion laws would have still been hindered by the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

And during the 2008 debate over Obama's votes, the media was in full spin mode to protect their beloved candidate:

All the spin will make you dizzy... After the media ignored the Obama campaign admitting that he lied about a vote he made in 2003... now Obama is accusing others of “attacking” him with “outrageous lies”! ....Don’t count on the media to do any fact checking. If they were interested in doing that, the documents and facts are easily available. I can see why Obama thinks he can get away with this. The media ignored his lies once, they’ll most likely continue to eat them up. Meanwhile, Obama’s arrogance and audacity will continue to reach uncharted levels.

In summary: the National Journal's "FACT CHECK" (capitalized to make it extra believable!) is just as legitimate as Politifact. Which is to say, it's just a skosh to the left of Sean Penn.

Not hypocritical in the least: Planned Parenthood says that prenatal ultrasounds are "invasive"

No, really.

Virginia’s recently passed “personhood” bill that requires some women seeking abortions to have a transvaginal ultrasound has received strong opposition for being “invasive” and has even been called “state-sanctioned rape”.

(Related: Joy Behar decries VA abortion law requiring ultrasound: ‘Is this the Taliban? Are we in Afghanistan?’)

...Many are taking issue with this proposed law because it requires women to have an ultrasound — of any kind — which may not be wanted by the patient. But opposition is focusing on the invasiveness of this specific type of ultrasound.

This just in: abortions are really, really, really invasive.

* * * * * * * * *
How malformed do your thought processes have to be in order to qualify as a liberal?

That's a rhetorical question, drones.


Image: The Looking Spoon.

In defense of Rick Santorum: no matter what Obama and the media say, this election is going to be about freedom, not contraception

This election will be about the future of America.

Do Americans want a nation flooded with food-stamps and welfare payments, a European-style decline, and an out-of-control president who flouts the very Constitution upon which he took an oath to uphold?

Or do they want a return to founding principles, fiscal discipline and respect for the rule of law?

Tonight on Fox News, Brit Hume asserted that Santorum's social conservatism would be "poison" in a general election. The media, willing accomplices to the Democrat Party, will be more than happy to paint the former Pennsylvania senator in that light.

But this is a false premise.

Faith, Family and Freedom

This election will be about founding principles, the most important of which are faith, family, private property rights and individual liberty. Those tenets were foundational to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Our rights are God-given, not offered in a bill by some bureaucrat in Washington. How can someone articulate the nature of American exceptionalism without a grounding in our founding document and our highest law?

The "Great Society" proved the defective nature of the Democrats' philosophy. Even if they were inspired by altruistic desires, Democrats have utterly destroyed the two-parent family, especially in the urban core.

Dozens of studies have proven that easy access to food stamps and welfare payments inflate the percentage of single-parent families. And single-parent families are linked directly to violent crime: in fact, no matter what race you are, you have the same chance of going to prison if you are raised in a single-parent household.

As for private property rights and the rule of law: the Constitution means what it says. To the extent that temporary politicians dismiss the genius of the Framers; strip away the bonds on the federal government placed explicitly upon it; and confiscate more and more private property in pursuit of a Utopian, benificent state that can't be and never was; they are corrupt and lawless. A government that takes your private property for purposes other than those specifically enunciated in the Constitution is operating outside of the law.

These lines are crystal clear and it will take an articulate conservative grounded in the founding principles to draw the sharpest contrast between the European nanny state that Obama seeks and the kind of government our Framers created.

Social Issues and the Media

In a debate, when some left-wing hack like George Stephanapolous kicks off the proceedings by asking about contraceptives, Rick Santorum should respond as follows:

"Are you having problems getting contraceptives, George? Is someone proposing to ban them? I reject your question. This country faces existential threats economically and from nuclear-armed terror states. I respectfully request that you prioritize your questions in terms of importance to all Americans and not just your personal issues in getting access to contraceptives. So let's start off the debate with a question about something truly important to all Americans."

Legacy media is doubly irrelevant. Not only do most Americans dismiss the notion that journalists are "unbiased arbiters", but they also realize that journalists have a dog in the hunt. Newt Gingrich used this approach effectively to shred several left-wing debate moderators and that template still applies.

The Duplicity of Karl Rove

The "big-government Republican" label is a meme promulgated by the same folks who twisted the arms of GOP senators to support President Bush. For Karl Rove to criticize Santorum for anything is laughable.

So Rick Santorum's really a 'Big Government' guy?

Santorum has a legislative record. Check it out.

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

Rated 25% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
Rated 27% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 81% by NTU, indicating a “Taxpayer’s Friend” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

--Source: Issues 2000 Legislation Tracker

I'll say this:

So the man who led the only successful reform of an entitlement program -- the 1996 Welfare Reform Act -- is in favor of "big government"?

Rick Santorum is a true, God-fearing, Constitutional conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. If we are to begin repairing this country, we need him or someone like him as President.

What this election will be about

Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin -- all of whom have praised Santorum effusively -- can't all be wrong.

This election won't be about access to condoms. It's going to be about freedom. What it means to be an American. And Rick Santorum would be an outstanding choice as president.


Related: Rick Santorum for President Website

So much for the Democrats' vaunted "separation of church and state" [Cagle Cartoons]

I heard that the vaunted 'hands-off President' -- Obama himself -- came off the links long enough to make a decision. No more leading from behind for Barack, not when it comes to mandating that Catholics, Orthodox Jews and other religious groups provide abortion pills for free... whether they like it or not!

According to The New York Times (no link, Google it if you need to):

In the end, it was Mr. Obama himself who made the decision, aides say, calculating that at the end of the day, the issue of public health access outweighed the concerns of the religious institutions.

If, as some contend, that Obama truly is a narcissist, it may be difficult for the president to reverse course.

Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include:

• Believing that you're better than others
• Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
• Exaggerating your achievements or talents
• Expecting constant praise and admiration
• Believing that you're special and acting accordingly
• Failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings
• Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
• Taking advantage of others
• Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
• Being jealous of others
• Believing that others are jealous of you
• Trouble keeping healthy relationships
• Setting unrealistic goals
• Being easily hurt and rejected
• Having a fragile self-esteem
• Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional

When you have narcissistic personality disorder, you may come across as conceited, boastful or pretentious. You often monopolize conversations. You may belittle or look down on people you perceive as inferior. You may have a sense of entitlement. And when you don't receive the special treatment to which you feel entitled, you may become very impatient or angry. (Source: Narcissistic Personality Disorder - The Mayo Clinic)

Please note: any relationships you may see between these symptoms and Mr. Obama are solely the responsibility of the reader.

CBS New York: "Catholic League Poised To Go To War With Obama Over Mandatory Birth Control Payments"

Hey, David Gregory: can you hear me now, you pencil-necked geek?

Catholic League Poised To Go To War With Obama Over Mandatory Birth Control Payments

Donohue Says 70 Million Of His Voters Ready To Alter Presidential Election

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Catholic leaders upped the ante Monday, threatening to challenge the Obama administration over a provision of the new health care law that would require all employers, including religious institutions, to pay for birth control.

...Catholic leaders are furious and determined to harness the voting power of the nation’s 70 million Catholic voters to stop a provision of President Barack Obama’s new heath car reform bill that will force Catholic schools, hospitals and charities to buy birth control pills, abortion-producing drugs and sterilization coverage for their employees.

“Never before, unprecedented in American history, for the federal government to line up against the Roman Catholic Church,” said Catholic League head Bill Donohue.

Already Archbishop Timothy Dolan has spoken out against the law and priests around the country have mobilized, reading letters from the pulpit. Donohue said Catholic officials will stop at nothing to put a stop to it.

“This is going to be fought out with lawsuits, with court decisions, and, dare I say it, maybe even in the streets,” Donohue said.

Maybe a real miracle will occur and David Gregory of Meet the Depressed will read something besides The New York Times. Because, based upon Sunday's show, he's either an embarrassing moron or a DNC hack. Actually, I forgot a third option: perhaps he's both.

NEWT GINGRICH: Furthermore, you know, he's--he has declared what--it's not just an economic election, you know, he's basically declared war on the Catholic Church, and that's the language of Archbishop Dolan of New York. And I think you're going to see a very severe reaction to the idea of a radical Obama administration...

DAVID GREGORY, HOST: Well, let's--explain what you're talking about.

GINGRICH: ...imposing secular rules on religion.

GREGORY: This is for insurance to be provided, including contraception, for employees around the country.

GINGRICH: Right.

GREGORY: And--but religious institutions would be exempted. How is this a war against religion...

GINGRICH: No.

GREGORY: Well, religious institutions, churches and the like, would be exempted, and there are states that have very similar rules to ensure the health and safety of, of women that they get covered in their workplace, whether it be a Catholic hospital or other kind of institution.

GINGRICH: Well, I mean, you, you just managed to precisely repeat the Obama administration's line, which is also the American Civil Liberties Union line...

I love how these liberal hacks always argue with their Republican guests as they try to toe the Axelrod talking points. Curiously, we never see them act contentiously with, say, Obama, Wasserman-Manhands, Schmuck Schumer, and the like.

It's times like these that I really miss Tim Russert.

Shock: People of All Religions Abandoning Democrat Party in Droves

But Pew Research didn't poll Militant Quakers, so maybe they're the exception:

As the 2012 presidential election approaches, the partisan affiliations of the electorate have shifted significantly since 2008. In surveys conducted in 2011..., 34% of registered voters described themselves as Democrats, down four points compared with 2008 (38%). Over the same period, the percentage of voters describing themselves as Republicans has held steady at 28%, while the total saying they are politically independent or have no partisan preference has risen four points (from 34% in 2008 to 38% in 2011).

...A new analysis shows that the share of voters identifying with or leaning toward the GOP has either grown or held steady in every major religious group. This includes both religious groups that are part of the GOP’s traditional constituency as well as some groups that have tended to be more aligned with the Democratic Party, including Jewish voters...

Among white evangelical Protestants (a traditionally Republican group), support for the GOP has grown from 65% in 2008 to 70% today. The GOP has also posted gains among Mormons, with 80% now saying they identify with or lean toward the Republican Party. Republican gains are also apparent among white mainline Protestants (who were evenly divided between the parties in 2008 but who now favor the GOP by a 12-point margin) and white non-Hispanic Catholics (among whom an eight-point Democratic advantage in 2008 has become a seven-point Republican advantage at the end of 2011). Even Jewish voters, who have traditionally been and remain one of the strongest Democratic constituencies, have moved noticeably in the Republican direction; Jewish voters favored the Democrats by a 52-point margin in 2008 but now prefer the Democratic Party by a significantly smaller 36-point margin. There has been less change in the partisanship of black Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated, two other strongly Democratic groups.

The analysis shows that across several religious groups, the move toward the GOP has been at least as large – if not more pronounced – among those under age 30 as among those 30 and older. White evangelicals under 30, for instance, are now more heavily Republican than those over 30 (82% vs. 69%); in 2008, by contrast, the partisan preferences of younger evangelicals closely matched those of evangelicals over age 30. And among white non-Hispanic Catholics under age 30, support for the GOP has increased from 41% in 2008 to 54% in 2011.

Jesse Jerkson and Al "No So" Sharpton hardest hit.

'Progressives' Believe Strongly in the Separation of Church and State. Except, Of Course, When It Comes to Abortion.

If the ramifications weren't so diabolical, the hypocrisy exhibited by Democrats would be laughable.

It has not even been two years since Obamacare was enacted, and already the President’s health care law has taken another victim — the religious freedoms Americans hold dear, as reflected by the First Amendment.

The Obama Administration recently reaffirmed a rule under Obamacare that requires many religious employers to provide health care coverage for all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and related education and counseling. On the grounds that certain FDA-approved contraceptive methods can sometimes “cause the demise of embryos both after and before uterine implantation,” many groups also believe that the rule forces them to cover abortion.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is calling the contraception mandate an “unprecedented” attack on religious freedom. And in statement after statement issued in diocese after diocese, many bishops are publicly declaring that they “cannot” and “will not” comply with “this unjust law.” As Cleveland Bishop Richard Lennon explained, “Unless this rule is overturned, Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences or to drop health care coverage for our employees.”

It’s not just Catholics affected by the rule, however. Leaders from other faith traditions have expressed their concern, and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has already filed a lawsuit on behalf of an interdenominational Christian college that objects to providing abortion and related education and counseling in its health care insurance. “The mandate is un-American, unprecedented, and flagrantly unconstitutional,” says an attorney for the college.

As shocking as the Obama Administration’s action is, it should not come as a surprise. Heritage experts explained years ago that freedom of conscience in health care is closely linked to greater personal freedom over health care decisions. Health care expert James Capretta says that “it was inevitable — only a matter of time,” now that the government is calling the shots and making health care choices for the American people. “Just the sight of Catholic leaders’ being forced to go begging before federal officials ought to be enough to convince most Americans that handing over so much power over such sensitive matters to the federal government was a terrible, terrible mistake,” he writes.

Pathetic Democrat dupes like Bart Stupak and Steve Driehaus hardest hit.

The leaders of the Catholic Church could begin their fight by excommunicating Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, and any other Catholic members of the Democrat Party who support this outrage.

County Approves Display of Crucifixion of Santa Claus; Ten Commandments, However, Still Off Limits

I guess this is the kind of cultural shift that President Obama was talking about when he spoke about 'fundamentally transforming America'.

A skeleton, dressed as Santa Claus and nailed to a cross, was torn down by an enraged woman outside of the Loudoun County Courthouse.

The display was legally there, with the consent of the county, officials said.

Mary Zenecki, a county resident, wasn't having it. Piece by piece and bone by bone Zenecki took Skele-Claus off the cross and laid him on the courthouse's lawn. "You don't think this is offensive?" she asked.

The display was put there by Jeff Heflin. He applied for approval with the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors to put up his anti-Christmas Season display.

"It depicts how society's materialistic obsessions and addictions are killing the season's peace, love, joy and kindness," Heflin said.

How about we strive for separation of stupidity and state?


Hat tip: The Quinton Report.

Ruh Roh: Senator Joe Lieberman Unsure Whether He Will Support Barack Obama in 2012

Senator Joe Lieberman, ostensibly a political independent but who caucuses with the Democrats, is wavering on the President.

Senator Joe Lieberman ... told host John McCaslin on America's Morning News radio show on Tuesday morning that he had not decided if he would endorse President Obama in 2012:

MCCASLIN: Will you be supporting Barack Obama in 2012 or are you going to be putting your money on a Republican candidate?

LIEBERMAN: Well I haven't decided and I'm just waiting to see who the Republican candidate is and what President Obama's positions are at that point, so I got a little time as an independent not to feel rushed, because this is an important position. And I'm only one person but for every one of us who we support next year is going to say a lot about how our kids and grandkids are going to grow up in America, so I'm watching.

Senator Lieberman appears to be losing confidence that President Obama could actually win in 2012. The Connecticut Senator also told WLS 890 am radio's Don Wade on Tuesday, whether President Obama will be re-elected is, “an open question.”

And who can blame him?



Furthermore, Lieberman is defending the GOP presidential candidates over their strong religious convictions.

Senator Joe Lieberman ... defended Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn), Texas Governor Rick Perry, and former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney against attacks they have received for speaking about their religious beliefs. Senator Lieberman says, " To me there's no good reason for it. If a person's faith matters, first its their right to say whatever they want. This is the history of our country. This country was founded on religious belief..."



[He was then asked], "Do you have a problem with Congresswoman Bachman, Governor Perry or former Governor Romney for their religious statements?" Senator Lieberman: "Oh God no, of course not. That's their faith. I give them all the credit. These kind of media attacks may backfire. Many Americans are turned off by that kind of sniping attacks."

Gee, but the Declaration of Independence only mentions God about six times, so I'm sure America's founders were intending to separate church and state.




Hat tip: Drudge Report.

The Dreams That Fly Away

All mankind will pass before You

like members of the flock.

Like a shepherd pasturing his flock,

making sheep pass under his staff,

so shall You cause to pass, count, calculate, and consider the soul of all the living;

and You shall apportion the fixed needs of all Your creatures

and inscribe their verdict.

For Your Name signifies Your praise:

hard to anger and easy to appease,

for You do not wish the death of one deserving death,

but that he repent from his way and live.

Until the day of his death You await him;

if he repents You will accept him immediately.

It is true that You are their Creator and

You know their inclination,

for they are flesh and blood.

Our origin is dust and our end is dust.

At the hazard of our life we earn our bread.

We are like a fragile vessel,

like the grass that withers

the flower that fades,

the shadow that passes,

the cloud that vanishes,

the wind that blows,

the dust that floats,

the dreams that fly away

Verily.

The dreams that fly away.

Your kingship is an eternal kingship.

Your dominion is for all generations.