FUN WITH CHEESEHEADS

Big fun today!  The chaotic disarray of the democratic machine is quite a sight to see, isn't it?  In case you've been living under a rock, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker won his recall election last night.  Handily.  I'm not quite sure what's sweeter - the fact that he won, or that he won by a larger margin that when he was initially elected governor in 2010.  Mmmm, sweet like candy!

It looks like the taxpayers finally have a seat at the bargaining table in Wisconsin.  It's about time.

My favorite quote of the night comes courtesy of Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch:

"This is what democracy looks like!"

Running a close second is Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal with this little gem:

“A lot of people thought it would be a late night in Wisconsin. I think it’s going to be a late night in Chicago.”

To quote the vernacular: Tru'dat!

How disconcerted are democrats?  Well, David Axelrod had a rather puzzling tweet on the subject:

"Bad night in Boston....WI raises big questions for Mitt"

In case you're confused, he isn't talking about Walkers reelection, he's talking about exit polling that shows President Obama over Mitt Romney, 51-45%.  A six-point lead is nice, right?  Perhaps Mr. Axelrod missed this from the Chicago Tribune article he referenced in his tweet (emphasis mine):

Wisconsin voters in Tuesday’s recall election seem ideologically fairly similar to those in 2010 – more heavily conservative than in the 2008 presidential election, but inclined to reelect President Obama nonetheless, according to early, partial exit poll results.

It's that "more heavily conservative" bit that is the sticking point.  Heavily, huh?  Ouch.  While a six-point lead sure is nifty, it isn't nearly as nice as the extra-spiffy fourteen point spread he enjoyed against McCain in 2008.  An eight point drop isn't anything to brag about, Dave.  Especially in ultra-blue Wisconsin.  He might have missed that bit about 'more heavily conservative', though. It was waaaay down in the...first sentence of the article.  I'd hazard a guess that the Romney camp was pretty happy with last night's outcome, and that his perfectly coiffed head slept soundly on its luxury 1000 thread count Egyptian cotton sheets, most likely dreaming up ways to make Wisconsin even more competitive in the future.

The defeat has hit union supporters hard, to say the least.  Last night Mayor Barrett was meeting and greeting supporters after he had called Gov. Walker to concede and found out just how hard - literally - when he was soundly slapped by a distraught...er, supporter (via Mediaite):



Well, at least she asked first, right?

President Obama has piped in as well.  He's sincerely hoping that Gov. Walker got the strong message the unions sent with the recall. 

Oy.

Hopefully President Obama will eventually get the strong messages the American taxpayers have been sending him for the past three years, starting with Scott Brown.  The attempt at getting the message received really hit its stride with the historic 2010 democratic defeats - not to mention loss after democratic loss in Wisconsin alone over the past year of recall mania.  And all of it (at least for now) culminating with Scott Walker's enthusiastic reconfirmation.  I'm not going to hold my breath on a presidential epiphany.  In fact, I'm rather hoping he won't have one until he receives one more message on Nov. 6th.

There will be a lot of moaning - crying, even - over the "stealing" of the election by the eeeevil corporations and their dirty, nasty millions.  Perhaps the unions would have had more in their war chest if the DNC had had more faith in their cause and candidate and had actually given money instead of moral support to help the election as the RNC did.  

On a side note, funny how blockbuster campaign  contributions - including out of state money - are a sign of universal support when its for Obama and democrats, but a sign of the coming zombie apocalypse for anyone with an 'R' after their name.

The big question now is whether the bitterness can be shed and relationships repaired.  As a parent, whenever I have to strongly rebuke one of my children, I know that sometimes there will be a certain amount of anger, resentment, and maybe even a temper tantrum or two.  But I also know that eventually they will get over it and life returns to a well-behaved, amiable normal.  Unfortunately some children are either not that bright, self destructive, or a combination of the two and fight on far longer than is wise, not caring that they are damaging themselves and others along the way. Let's hope the union hierarchy, whose fifteen month tantrum has cost the state of Wisconsin somewhere in the neighborhood of $16 million, will wise up soon.  Continuing the bad behavior of the past year will only damage the image of the unions further.  Considering they have already lost in excess of half their dues-paying membership since the reforms were put in place, they certainly can't afford to alienate anyone else.

It's time to concede and move on.  I would counsel conservatives to not spike the ball on this too much (never mind that I've written a whole post that is pure ball spiking!), as we don't want to give cause to extend the epic pout we are in for over the next few days.  But considering some of these people are fine with slapping their own candidates, I see no reason why we can't slap each other on the back a bit for a job well done (happy dances optional)!

Read more...

FUN WITH CHEESEHEADS

WHAT'S NEXT, THE WAR ON APPLE PIE? Updated

As a stay at home mom, I have occasionally noticed a certain level of patronization and derision aimed my way by the more left-leaning, feminist career women sector.  There seems to be a perception that stay at home moms are rich women who are not pulling their weight in society and have taken the easy way out or, even sillier, that those women are victims of male hegemony who have been brainwashed and, poor creatures, simply don't know any better.  The reality is far different, but more on that in a minute.

Wednesday night Hilary Rosen, democrat strategist extraordinaire, came out with this little doozy:



The White House is scrambling to get some distance from her comments, not even waiting until morning to chastise her.  The bus she went under was chock full of top administration officials, including the President and First Lady personally.  Good for them. 

Ann Romney has said that her chosen career was being a mother. I couldn't agree more. For women like us, raising our children is the most important job we can have. For me, being the subject of my daughter's essay on role models is better than any bonus. Seeing my children using the life lessons I have tried to instill in them to raise themselves up and strive for more is better than any promotion. And contrary to Ms. Rosen's bungled talking points, staying home isn't a 'luxury' for most women, it just makes sense. I take nothing from working moms - I was raised by two and used to be one myself. I have enormous respect for women who pursue a career and manage to juggle it all. But because our priorities are different from Ms. Rosen's doesn't make them any less legitimate


It's pretty obvious that what Rosen was trying to do was go after Romney for being rich.  Thus the "never worked a day in her life" quip. The implication is that Romney spent her days eating bonbons and lounging around in a peignoir admiring her diamonds while her staff did all the work.  Too bad democrat strategist extraordinaire Rosen screwed it up so spectacularly.  Ultimately, she feels Romney shouldn't advise her husband because as a rich woman, she didn't have to deal with the financial  struggles many women are dealing with today while raising her children and thus can't really identify with the 'common people'.  Which, ironically, could have been a legit class warfare argument (if you go for that sort of thing), if only it hadn't been delivered by ol' Hamhands Rosen.

Non plussed by the negative blowback, Rosen doubled down:




Wow.  Talk about respectful and sincere!  Mind boggling, isn't it?  There were several more "clarifications" in the same vein.  Again, she is stretching to make the 'Mrs. Moneybags' argument and fails spectacularly. She apparently didn't realize that her statement sounds a lot more like sour grapes than reaching out a hand of reconciliation.  She has since offered a more traditional apology - via public statement.  I guess there's no phone call for Ann, either.

The really interesting part of all of this is that this wasn't just a case of momentary foot-in-mouthitis.  This might well have been a trial balloon for a line of attack against the likable Mrs. Romney.  We all know how necessary it is for Team Obama to shut down any threats quickly and thoroughly.  Rosen's clumsy, tone deaf attempt at marginalizing Ann has been an unqualified disaster, without a doubt.  But was it a fluke, or was it part of a greater plan?

With that thought in mind, I'd like to show you a little snippet of a speech President Obama made last week at the White House Forum on Women and the Economy that slipped under the radar (emphasis mine):

And once Michelle and I had our girls, she gave it her all to balance raising a family and pursuing a career. And something that, could be very difficult on her, because I was gone a lot. Once I was in the state legislature, I was teaching, I was practicing law, I’d be traveling. And we didn’t have the luxury for her not to work. And I know when she was with the girls she’d feel guilty that she wasn’t giving enough time to her work, and when she was at work, she was feeling guilty she wasn’t giving enough time for the girls. And like many of you, we both wish there were machines that could let us be in two places at once.”

You decide.  The setup for a line of attack against wealthy Ann Romney as an out of touch slacker lolling in the lap of luxury in contrast to hard working, guilt riddled working mom Michelle, or a simple attempt to appeal to middle class working women?  Remember, it's not just about "getting a fair shot" it's also about doing your fair share.  It's pretty safe to say that if this was a trial balloon, they probably won't follow up on it after the swift and damning reaction Rosen got, although they'll probably try coming at it from a different direction (do I see a Gloria Allred presser with a disgruntled nanny in our future?).  They really can't drop it.  "Hey, she's rich!" is about all they've got.

What I would really like to know is, who better than a stay at home mother would know about the economic impact of legislation and the economy on the family budget?  Sure, Ann Romney had more in the kitty than many stay at homes, but I fail to see how that disqualifies her from the discussion.

One more thing: I love to find the silver linings in things, and I've found one in this: Ms. Rosen's day job happens to be democrat strategist with access to the top echelons of the Obama administration.  Why is this a good thing, you ask?  Well, if this is the caliber of strategist they have working for them, this election is a shoo-in. 

For Romney.

UPDATE:  Before I start the update, I have a little question I'd like to pose:  If making a paycheck is as important as it seems to be to legitimizing who can have a say and who can't, why is volunteerism so revered on the left?
It seems Bill Maher might be having some money troubles, because he seems bound and determined to shame the Obama SuperPac into returning his million dollar donation. 
Left-wing pundits tried to move on quickly from the whole thing, calling it a non-issue and a waste of time.
As I predicted, they keep (clumsily) trying the "Hey, she's rich" line of attack, but could someone explain to me how Princeton and Harvard educated, multi-millionaire Michelle Obama is a legit voice for financially strapped women but Ann Romney isn't?   Officially, Mrs. Obama went back to work to pay off school loans, but what fails to get mentioned is her million-dollar house and expensive private schools for the kids  - luxuries many stay at home moms either scarifice or never have a chance to achieve.  At worst, they're both out of touch, but that doesn't mean they can't advise their husbands.  Besides, I'm pretty sure that no matter how dead-on Ann Romney's advice might be, neither Hilary Rosen nor the president of NOW would ever support either her or her husband.
And in conclusion, here is some food for thought on the deeper reason for why the left disdains stay at home moms. 

Read more...

WHAT'S NEXT, THE WAR ON APPLE PIE? Updated

WHAT NOW?

Now that the arguments both for and against ObamaCare have been made, it is in the Supreme Court's hands.  Going into the fight, the law's supporters were cocky and arrogant.  Coming out the other side, it's a different story, to say the least (actually, the term "panic" seems to be the go-to phrase).  While we wait for the Court to make it's decision, I'd like to see some ideas from Republicans about what to replace the law with in the event it is struck down.

It is important to note that while oral arguments went badly for ObamaCare, oral arguments are only a small part of the overall process.  It may seem that the law went down in flames, but we won't really know for sure until the Court's session ends in June and they issue their verdict.  They vote today on the issue and will spend the next few months writing their opinions.   Keep in mind, too, that their vote today might not be the final verdict we see this summer.  Justices have been known to change their vote upon reading a particularly persuasive opposing argument.  So we really won't know for sure until the published opinions are released over the summer.  Anything released before then is mere speculation and should be regarded as such.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli is taking the brunt of the blame from the left for the judicial beating the law took over the last few days.  Poor guy.  His inability to defend the mandate's alleged constitutionality wasn't due to incompetence, it was due to the indefensible unconstitutionality of the mandate.  Simply dismissing talk of constitutionality out of hand as the left has consistently done is just not a convincing argument outside of the echo chamber. His stumbling over whether it was a tax or a penalty wasn't because he is too inept to figure out the difference, it's because he has been put in the difficult position of trying to, at times, make it not just both, but also neither.  I'd say he did a pretty damn good job, considering. 

The law, as conservatives have been saying for two years now, is fatally flawed.  That has now been made quite clear by the probing questions of the Justices that cut through to the constitutionality (or lack thereof) at the heart of the matter.  The question now is severability.  How do you strike down the mandate without causing an insurance industry "death spiral"?  How do they decide what stays and what goes (my favorite comment on it was Scalia's invocation of eighth amendment protections from cruel and unusual punishment in regards to having to read the bill)?

While we wait for the verdict of the court, due sometime this summer, Congressional Republicans need to take the opportunity to talk about their free market solutions in the event the law is struck down.  Having a series of small bills that would implement those solutions at the ready would be a wise decision as well, particularly since the White House has decided to forgo a contingency plan, preferring to keep all of their eggs in the ObamaCare basket. 

Any talk of a "comprehensive" republican approach should be shunned.  If we didn't want a 2,700 page monstrosity from the left, why in heaven's name would we want the same from the right?  Small, targeted bills that address health insurance issues point by point are the way to go, not colossal, byzantine laws that will require judicial intervention to interpret. 

The "goodies" former Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised us have already been rolled out, and lots of people have felt the benefits of them, particularly those with pre-existing conditions (like myself).  Many liberal pundits have  argued in support of the law by talking about the pain that would be felt if it was struck down.  But keeping the whole confusing, cumbersome, ever-more-expensive law because of a few perks is not a good idea. 

What we need to keep in mind is that striking down the law in toto won't create a vacuum, it will return us to the pre-obamacare system.  A system that was cheaper, and covered more people, by the way.  This doesn't mean republicans shouldn't have a game plan ready, though, because while ObamaCare made things worse, they weren't that great to begin with.  It should be obvious that among the solutions republicans need to offer is a continuation of the two most popular "goodies" - abolition of pre-existing conditions and an option for parents to keep their 26 year-old adult children on their insurance.  The costs for these perks will be passed on to the consumers who opt for them, of course - but then, you're only fooling yourself if you thought they weren't going to under ObamaCare. 

Republicans also need to start making the argument for severing the ties between health insurance and employment, as well as relaxing the regulations governing interstate commerce that keeps the more than one thousand insurance companies in this country from practicing in all fifty states.  Toss in a little torte reform and and a few other free market ideas, and the disastrously lumbering behemoth that was ObamaCare can be replaced with a consumer-oriented free market that can be tailored to each individual customer according to their needs, not government diktat.

Isn't it amazing that Congress wasn't allowed to read the bill before they voted for it, the president didn't bother to read it before he signed it, and now some members of the Supreme Court are calling reading it an eighth amendment violation?  Considering the way it was written, it seems even those who were tasked with writing it didn't bother read it.  But we're all supposed to be overjoyed and filled with gratitude for having to living under it.  Yeah, right.

 For all we know, the Court could decide to uphold the law. God forbid. But in the meantime, doesn't it make sense to be prepared if they don't?


Oh, and that lame spin from the left about the law's repeal being good for democrats and bad for republicans?  Wow.  Proof positive of democratic over reach and the downfall of Obama's signature achievement due to it's being unconstitutional is going to be bad for republicans, eh?  Boy, they really are freaking out over on the left, aren't they?  They must be tied up in knots to come up with such ridiculously twisted logic.  It's almost a little sad, isn't it? 

Read more...

WHAT NOW?

A LITTLE RETURN FIRE

The so-called Republican War on Women™ that the press and various liberals have been ginning up was starting to die down a bit (although Sen. Chuck Schumer is determined to milk every drop out of it first).  Expect it to heat up again, though - provided the neo-pravda media decide to run this latest wrinkle.

Bristol Palin is now stepping up to the plate with an open letter to President Obama on the issue.  And boy, does she knock it out of the park:

"If Maher talked about Malia and Sasha that way, you’d return his dirty money and the Secret Service would probably have to restrain you. After all, I’ve always felt you understood my plight more than most because your mom was a teenager. That’s why you stood up for me when you were campaigning against Sen. McCain and my mom — you said vicious attacks on me should be off limits.

Yet I wonder if the Presidency has changed you. Now that you’re in office, it seems you’re only willing to defend certain women. You’re only willing to take a moral stand when you know your liberal supporters will stand behind you.

But…

What if you did something radical and wildly unpopular with your base and took a stand against the denigration of all women… even if they’re just single moms? Even if they’re Republicans?

I’m not expecting your SuperPAC to return the money. You’re going to need every dime to hang on to your presidency. I’m not even really expecting a call. But would it be too much to expect a little consistency? After all, you’re President of all Americans, not just the liberals."

Over to you, Mr, President!
PS - it seems to be getting a lot of attention, because in the time it took me to read her blog and post my own about it, her site has shut down.  Be sure to check back and read the whole thing!

Read more...

A LITTLE RETURN FIRE

OCCUPYING THE HUNGER GAMES

As the mom of a teenaged daughter, I find myself reading many books I normally might not, such as the less than exciting Twilight series (although kudos to author Stephanie Meyer for keeping it clean and having Bella wait 'til her wedding night - a rare and refreshing thing in young adult literature these days).  But I like to know what my kids are reading, as there are so many questionable books out there.  And so I found myself reading the much-hyped Hunger Games.  I absolutely loved them.  In fact, I read all three books in four days.

For those unfamiliar with the series, it follows the events of heroine Katniss Everdeen and the two young men who love her, Peeta and Gale.  But this is no love story, not by a long shot.  No, this book is bloodsport and survival.  A David and Goliath story, in which Goliath isn't some rich banker or CEO; Goliath is a vicious, ends-justify-the-means, oppressive totalitarian governmental regime.   Unfortunately, one of the stars of The Hunger Games, Donald Sutherland, (perhaps lead there a bit by the interviewer) said this at a recent interview:

Q: It's interesting that you could really connect it to the Occupy moment. The underdog speech is something you might hear on conservative radio.


Sutherland: Exactly, yeah. Yeah. Except for Rush [Limbaugh] [laughs]. I bet Lionsgate doesn't want us to dwell too much on Occupy Wall Street. But you're right. I went there. I went to Occupy Vancouver. It felt so good. Somewhere around '74, whatever we were doing was co-opted. It was commercialized. It became a brand and everybody lost heart. I have here [reaches for his briefcase], I have it here I don't want to take it out, The Port Huron Statement, that the SDS made in 1962... Oh god, read it. Read it! Read it! It's so -- it's just brilliant. It's really brilliant. It's brilliant today and I can't read it because I can't see properly, but it ends with something to the effect of 'You might think that what we are proposing is unattainable. But we're proposing that because otherwise what is going to happen is unimaginable.' And that's what happened.

Uh, okaaaay....  By the way, for those not in the know, the SDS is the Students for a Democratic Society - a radical '60's group that eventially spawned the Weather Underground, the radical group of bombers headed by William Ayers.  So, what Sutherland expects us to believe then is that Occupy's main target isn't bankers, hedge fund managers or CEO's, it's the over reaching federal government?  Interesting.  And here I though that was the Tea Party.  Silly me.

Anyhoo, back to the book.  Learning a little about the story is all you need to see how wrong Sutherland is in his socialistic rapture.  His interpretation is so off the mark that it's difficult to imagine he even read the script, let alone the books. 

The setting is a post-apocolyptic America, now called Panem, which has been broken down into thirteen Districts, all ruled by the iron fist of the Capital's President Snow (Sutherland's character).  Each district is known for the product it produces:  District Four, being near the ocean, produced fish and seafood; District Seven produced lumber; District Twelve, Katniss' home, produced coal.  Travel between districts was only allowed to Capital officials, military, and lesser officials stationed in the various districts, not the general population.  If you were born in District Three, you died in District Three. 

Many years before Katniss' time, District Thirteen rebelled against the Capital.  Reprisal was swift and merciless - no less than the total destruction of the district - and the legacy of that rebellion was the Hunger Games.

The Games are a yearly event where two candidates, or 'tributes', were sent from each District to the Capital.  The tributes, children between the ages of 12-18, were selected at the annual "Reaping", where one male and one female tribute would be randomly chosen from each district.  Of those twenty-four chosen, only one would survive.  The Games were a major event, broadcast to every District.  Viewing was required. 

The point of the Reaping and the Games themselves was psychological warfare, meant to keep the remaining districts docile and in line.   The yearly reminder of the ruthlessness with which the Capital put down Thirteen's rebellion is the harshest imaginable: Defy us, and we will kill all of your children.

The prize for the winner?  Fame and riches beyond measure courtesy of the Capital, plus additional bonuses of food and other necessities to the winner's home district for that year.  This was an important incentive for Katniss, whose home district was the poorest of them all and starvation was something barely kept at bay.  In fact, the spectre of starvation was so strong that, upon the loss of her father at a young age, Katniss took it upon herself to learn to hunt with a bow, sneaking out of the district into the fertile hunting grounds of the surrounding wilderness to keep her mother and sister alive. 

Katniss' culture shock upon arriving at the wealthy Capital is much like the culture shock citizens of communist block countries endured after the fall of the Iron Curtain.   As with totalitarian states in the real world, Panem's Capital sucked up all the resources of it's satellite districts, concentrating the wealth in the elite political classes and those who leech off of them. 

The pomp and propaganda of the Games is reminiscent of both the Roman Circus and the propaganda films of the Nazi party.  The blood quells the masses and every moment is spun politically to favor the State.

Katniss rebels against this system, not out of noble intent or a revived American spirit.  America is something she knows nothing about, becasue her history was stolen from her long ago by the Capital.  But self preservation and a desire for freedom cannot be quashed, not even by the most ruthless regimes.  We see parallels today in Syria, where the people refuse to back down, even though their leader, Assad, has now resorted to bombing their cities. 

Katniss eventually (in subsequent books) comes across an underground network whose sole mission is to depose Snow and bring down the Capital.  She joins forces with them, only to discover later that the system they would impose is no better (and possibly a bit worse) than that of the Capital. 

The point is, at every turn, Katniss chooses freedom over the totalitarian state.  The enemy isn't the people who make the goods, the enemy is the government that unfairly prospers while the people they profess to be loving caretakers of languish and die from starvation and disease.

Perhaps Sutherland misunderstood his character.  Perhaps he thought the character's name, President Snow, denoted some other title, such as CEO.  Now granted, this first movie only covers the first book, which doesn't include the later information involving the possible overthrow of the Capital.  So perhaps he thinks that Snow wins out in the end, and the nanny state, which Sutherland apparently believes knows best, continues on unaltered. 

Unfortunately for President Snow, author Suzanne Collins ends the rule of the Capital the way many totalitarian regimes end - with rebellion and bloodshed.  If the Occupy movement were a part of the story, they would be fighting on the side of their beloved nanny state, not the side of the rebels, who want to take away their "free" stuff and replace it with true liberty.

Long story short, my daughter and I can't wait to see the movie (opening nationwide March 23rd).  And I can't wait for the sequels to start production, too, so that Mr. Sutherland can get a fuller picture of just what, exactly, the whole thing is all about.

Read more...

OCCUPYING THE HUNGER GAMES

THE COLLISION OF CHURCH AND STATE Updated

A firestorm has erupted over the Obama administration's enforcement of yet another of those little goodies Nancy Pelosi promised we'd find out about eventually.  In one more in a laundry list of examples of the contempt in which they hold the Constitution, the administration is subjugating the first amendment to birth control.  Pelosi has dismissed claims of unprecedented violations of constitutionally protected religious liberty as merely an "excuse". The way they talk, you'd think women who worked for Catholic institutions were physically restrained from purchasing birth control.  Well, except for the 98% of catholic women who use birth control, of course.  

That's right, they are attempting to use opposing straw men (straw women?) to support their attack.  On the one hand, the women are being victimized, unable to be truly healthy because they don't have employer-paid access to IUDs and the abortion pill.  The way they talk, birth control pills are a cross between super vitamin and miracle cure.  On the other, all catholic women are on birth control and owe their lives and fortunes to their ability to be parasite baby free.  But ultimately, if you oppose this measure, you are a troglodyte who wants to take women back to the stone age just because you are a mean old meany head.  And paranoid.

Push back to these bogus arguments has been quick and vehement, and completely dismissed or misunderstood.  What is being forgotten is that trying to explain the impact it will have on people of faith is a wasted argument, because it would require politicians and media ideologues to understand morals, principles and answering to a higher power.  Please note the high level of derision on the left in regards to the issue of the violation of our religious freedoms.  Attempting to make people feel silly for believing something might work in politics, but it is much less effective in matters of faith. 

They can muddy the waters all they want, but it's pretty evident that this is all about placing the diktats of the state over the church's fundamental tenets.  Under this administration, the much-vaunted separation of church and state is apparently a one-way street. 

I could spend time arguing about the war on Christianity in this country, but this is far more cut and dried, and it is something every American, regardless of religion, should think deeply about.  This is a full frontal assault on our religious freedom, no matter what that religion is.  Demanding that the catholic church ignore a fundamental article of faith - the sanctity of life - in order to comply with the requirements of the state is exactly why our founders created the first amendment.  It wasn't to protect the State from the Church as we have been led to believe over the past few decades as much as it was to protect the Church from the State.  According to Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 in an effort to clarify the issue (emphasis mine):

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

The phrases I emphasized, "that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions" and "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" are key to this argument because the Obama administration is demanding that the Church change its long-held belief and opinion that contraception and especially abortion are against the will of God.  This has been a teaching of the church for centuries; it is a matter of conscience, not convenience, to be tossed aside on a whim - or mandate.  By forcing religious entities to fund such things, they are unable to freely exercise their religious conscience.  It is a clear violation of our founding document.

The Constitution is being tested as never before under this regime (yes, regime). While most of the other power grabs under this president have been swept under the carpet, this is an affront on an epic scale.  The attempts by the media and various administration personnel to argue that this is about "right-wing radicals" trying to take away women's right to birth control or don't want them "healthy" has done nothing to blur the issue.  People don't buy the argument that women can't get birth control if they want it.  We all know it can be gotten at any pharmacy in this country.  As for the poor, well, isn't that what left-wing darling Planned Parenthood is all about?  The argument that the Pill saves women from ovarian cancer is an interesting argument, if you want to totally disregard the fact that the pill also increases your chances of getting breast, cervical and liver cancer.  Please note, too, that those who are championing this abomination studiously avoid the topic of abortifacients such as the 'morning after' pill.  Making the topic only about contraception is a deceptive little ploy to cloud the issue and attempt to get concessions.  Oh, its just contraception we're talking about, what's the big deal about that?

We the People may be a little lethargic, a little pre-occupied, maybe even a little numbed by all that has happened to us in the past decade, but we're not blithering idiots.

If there's one thing We the People know, it's our rights, and we don't like having them taken away.  Spin it however you want, we know when our rights are being stripped from us. 

No doubt there will be a rash of polls from such unbiased bastions of propaganda information as the Washington Post (who no longer publishes poll data) and the New York Times in the next few days that will support the administration's actions in an attempt to legitimize this assault on our liberty.  There usually is these days.  But the thing is, on the subject of faith, people are going to believe their lying hearts before they allow a political poll to dictate their conscience.

The argument I'm hearing most often is whether the administration's many missteps, over-reaches,  and overall disregard for the rights and freedoms of the American people is a product of incompetence or design.  The refusal of the President to back down on this points to design, particularly when combined with his protestations of dissatisfaction over the years with the "negative" structure of the Constitution.  But even still, the best-case scenario - the argument for incompetence-  is being used far too frequently in this administration and brings up a plethora of other issues in it's wake, most rightly involving suitability for reelection.

In an attempt at "compromise", the administration offered to grant a one-year waiver to come into compliance.  How generous of them, to offer an extra twelve months to come to terms with betraying a belief system that has stood for thousands of years.

On a side note, am I the only one who has noticed that "compromise" under this administration has meant bowing fully to their demands?  These people need not only a copy of the Constitution, but a dictionary.

And now the administration has come out with a new "compromise".  Apparently the insurance companies are expected to pony up the funds to offer free contraception and abortifacients to all religious organizations without passing on the cost to the employer.  Riiiiiight.  There's no chance in the world that they will pad their premiums to offset the cost, ultimately passing the cost on to the protesting employer anyway, is there?  Things like that just never happen.  Obama's compromise is his ironclad bond, right Bart Stupak?  And, in typical fashion, this 'compromise' is not negotiable.   Take what they give us and be happy, right?

He seems to have grossly underestimated the intelligence of the American catholic with this one, 'cause they're not buying it. 

Americans across the board should be outraged by this trampling of our first amendment rights.  And everyone, regardless of party, should consider this action when they are considering Obama's reelection.  If he is willing to hold the line on a blatantly unconstitutional action like this in an election year, what will he be willing to do over the next four years, when reelection is no longer an issue?

UPDATE:  An interesting development in the question of the legality of the mandate.  Ed Whelan and David Rivkin of the Wall Street Journal argue that the mandate is in violation of existing law, namely the Clinton-era Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The ways in which the new mandate violates the RFRA are far too numerous to cover in an update, so get the whole story here. 

Read more...

THE COLLISION OF CHURCH AND STATE Updated

8.3-ISH

The latest unemployment numbers are out today, and the unemployment rate has dropped to a heartening 8.3%.  No doubt there are lots of happy dances in the White House today.  But, as with most things in this administration, things are not as they appear.  While the administration touts the more than two hundred and fifty thousand jobs created in January, a deeper look at the numbers tells a different story.

Here are some other numbers to consider before breaking out into a happy dance of your own:

1.2 million is our first number.  That is the number of people who dropped out of the work force entirely last month.  That's a record, by the way.

63.7% is the rate of participation in the job sector - also a record.  And not in a good way - which brings us to....

30, which represents the thirty-year low we have reached in work force participation.  We haven't had this few people in the work force since 1982, when the US population was a hundred million people fewer. 
In reality, counting all the people who have dropped out of the work force, unemployment is at about eleven percent.  Add in all the people who are working part-time jobs because they can't find anything else, and you're looking at an unemployment/underemployment rate north of fifteen percent.  But hey, Mr. President, happy dance it up!

Just for fun, let's see where those people who dropped out of the workforce have gone over the past three years.  Well, it seems a lot of them have managed to make their way to the food stamp line, where we have a record 46.3 million Americans.  That's up significantly from the 28.2 million Americans who were on food stamps when President Obama took office.  One in seven Americans are now enrolled in the program.

How about Welfare?  Well, since Obama repealed the major welfare reforms of the 1990's, it's on the rise.  This isn't going to change anytime soon, either, as states are once again being paid to add recipients to the welfare rolls. 

Oh, and almost half of the jobs gained were "low wage" jobs.  Which is better than nothing, to be sure, but when we're losing high-paying jobs and replacing them with low wage jobs, that doesn't bode well for the economy.

False numbers, false hope, false change.  That's all we have here.  Still in the mood for a happy dance?

Read more...

8.3-ISH