"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts

Creative Minority Reader
Today on CMR —

ACLU Hypocrisy on Abortion

This is priceless and highlights the hypocrisy of the ACLU. The ACLU supports requiring crisis pregnancy center to post signs that they do not provide abortion or birth control services. Archbishop Edwin O'Brien said the ordinance is a free speech violation as well as a violation of the free exercise of religion. But it doesn't seem the ACLU cares all that much about free speech or freedom of religion.

ACLU Michigan writes in support of similar laws in Michigan:

: The Michigan House of Representatives voted last week to support most of the bills in the Prevention First Package to protect women's health. It's time to ask the Senate to do the same. Senate Bills 167, 658-664 and 666-668 offer important protections for women while saving already scarce public health dollars. The Prevention First Package will...Require crisis pregnancy centers to truthfully and accurately identify themselves to women seeking services.
So requiring businesses to place signage against their will is OK with the ACLU...except when it's on the other side.

The ACLU opposes a measure that would require abortion clinics in Tennessee to post signs saying its illegal to coerce a woman to procure an abortion and that law enforcement can be contacted.

ProLife in TN has an ACLU report that states:
ACLU-TN opposes this bill because it stigmatizes abortion by applying a different set of standards to it from other medical procedures; it demonizes certain health care providers; and it patronizes women by implying that they are incapable of making their own medical decisions regarding what is best for themselves and their families.
You know, I'm starting to think that the ACLU isn't all that concerned with freedom.

Tea Partier Tries to Handcuff Fmr. WH Official

Some right wing nutjobs tried to handcuff a former White House official and perform a citizen's arrest, showing once again that the right wing has lost control and is all about violence. Oh wait. It was just some left wing Code Pinkers trying to handcuff Karl Rove and tell him he was going to Hell.

Never mind. But remember, the right wing are made up of Nazis.

Hot Air Pundit

I Still Hate the Cowboys But...

Almost every week there's a story about some pro athlete doing some either really stupid or really illegal or both. But this story about Tony Romo meeting a 60 year old fan with Downs Syndrome is pretty awesome and almost makes me like Tony Romo. Almost.

The Post and Courier reports:

(Robbie) Assey, who is 60 years old and has Down syndrome, lives at Sandpiper Assisted Living in Mount Pleasant. He has a brother, Tim, and sister, Jane, who both live in Mount Pleasant. Another brother, Jim, lives in Columbia. The three siblings rotate weekends "having fun with Robbie." Tim said Robbie is a sports nut who enjoys the Dallas Cowboys, the South Carolina Gamecocks and playing golf.

Dallas Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo, who was in Charleston last week, spent some time with one of his biggest fans, Robbie Assey.

The genesis of his meeting with Romo goes back several months when Tim took Robbie to Bulls Bay Golf Club for an afternoon of golf that included Bill Smunk, a past winner of both the S.C. Amateur and S.C. Senior Amateur.

"When I met Robbie, he had a Dallas Cowboys hat on, so I asked if he was a Cowboys fan," Smunk recalled. "His answer was 'Tony Romo, No. 9, 318 yards.' He knew exactly what Tony Romo had done the weekend before. I asked if he liked Tony Romo and he said, 'I love Tony Romo.' I put that in the back of my mind, and thought if Tony played in the Azalea this year, maybe we could get an autographed hat or something."

On Saturday morning, Smunk handed a hat to tournament chairman David Humphreys and asked if he could secure an autograph. Later that day as Smunk prepared to leave the course, he saw Robbie and Jim walking across the parking lot and handed the hat to Robbie, who proudly popped it onto his head. Romo had already finished his round, but Smunk told them if they waited near the outside staircase at the Country Club of Charleston, Romo might come by on his way out.

Minutes later, Humphreys walked up and spotted Robbie with his new hat.

"I asked, 'Is your name Robbie?' Then I told him to come with me. I opened the door to the card room and said, 'Why don't you go in there and say hello to Tony Romo?' He goes in there and grabs Tony around the legs and starts hugging him and won't turn loose. I think he was crying. I know the room got misty-eyed," Humphreys said. "It was one of the most heartwarming things I've ever been through. There wasn't a dry eye in there as far as I could tell. It was just a happy time."

Tony, who was having lunch with his father and some friends, invited Robbie and Jim to sit down and join them while they had lunch. For the next 30 minutes, Tony and Robbie talked football and golf, with Robbie offering Tony a few football tips and recounting some Cowboys history.

"He tells Robbie that the Cowboys are going to have a better year next year," Jim said, "And Rob jumps up and shows him how you throw the ball. Tony is a very young man, but he's a super human being because he took time with Robbie. He is a gracious gentleman. They were finishing up and he told Rob, 'I've got to have another hug.' He got up and gave him another hug and then Tony asked him to give his dad a hug, too. So he had hugs all around. It's really hard to imagine how it could have been any better, particularly from our side. It was a once-in-a-lifetime deal."
That's pretty cool.

Krugman: Death Panels Will Save Money

In the aftermath of the passage of Obamacare we have witnessed an onslaught of accidental truth telling by Democrats. We have heard from some that the EO does nothing. Duh. We have heard that Obamacare is really about distributing the wealth. Duh. But I found this particular but of truth telling to be most fascinating.

Liberals have derided the concept of 'death panels' for months ever since Sarah Palin coined the term. Nonsense, they shouted. President Obama laughingly and condescendingly dismissed the the notion. But now that it is passed, there is no problem admitting it now. Yes, there are death panels.

Paul Krugman of the NY Times appearing on This Week laughs at the notion of death panel and then goes on to explain in startling detail how the death panels will save money.

Krugman says...

The advisory panel which has the ability to make more or less binding judgments on saying this particular expensive treatment actually doesn't do any good medically and so we are not going to pay for it. That is actually going to save quite a lot of money. We don't know how much yet. The CBO gives it very little credit but, but most, most of the health care economists I talk to think that's going be a really, uh a really major cost savings.
First off, I loathe dis-ingenuousness. How can you say a panel is merely 'advisory' when it gets to make 'binding decisions?' But Gramma wants to live but an impersonal panel says no because 'it won't do any good' and that is binding. So Gramma dies. But that is ok because "health care economists I talk to think that's going be a really, uh a really major cost savings."

A lot of people owe Sarah Palin an apology.

Wacko Lesbian Georgetown Prof. To EEOC

Get to know Chai Feldblum, a radical homosexual activist, who was just placed by President Obama onto the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) while the Senate was out for the Easter recess.

Check out this video. It's scary.

CMR wrote a story about her a few months back. In the piece linked here I quote Feldblum saying:

I, for one, am not sure whether marriage is a normatively good institution. I have moved away from the belief that marriage is clearly the best normative way to structure intimate relationships, such that government should be actively supporting this social arrangement above all others.
Fitting that she comes from Georgetown, huh?

This is a woman who sees herself "at war" with traditional values and I'm sure that she's not going to waste this opportunity to go on the attack. Brace yourselves.

HT Pewsitter

Video: Off-Duty Cop Hoses Down Pro-Lifers

I'm not sure putting graphic and bloody pro-life signs in front of a church was the greatest idea but the off duty cop who confronts them acts like a real jerk and a bully.

Warning: The video contains some pretty graphic images from the signs the guys are holding.

Jill Stanek has more details. She's saying the officer was suspended and faces misdemeanor charges.

MSNBC Libels the Pope!!!

The media has been unfair to say the least to Pope Benedict the past week. But MSNBC crossed a line today. Big time. The liberal news network had a headline up that reads "Pope Describes Touching Boys: I Went Too Far." This is crass libel. Awful stuff. No explanation can explain this away and they haven't offered anything up yet.

The The Catholic League writes:

Catholic League president Bill Donohue accuses MSNBC of libeling Pope Benedict XVI:

Go to the home page of MSNBC and click on "World News." From there click on "Americas." Next click on the article, "Losing Their Religion? Catholicism in Turmoil." Scroll down and in the "Click for Related Content" section there is an article entitled, "Pope Describes Touching Boys: I Went Too Far." Clicking on this piece takes the reader to an article about a homosexual German priest who had sex with males in the 1980s. It says absolutely nothing about the pope. Yet MSNBC paints Pope Benedict XVI as a child molester in the tease to the article.
And check out Father Z for more. He's really ticked off and calling for action. Even though MSNBC has since removed the headline Father Z has the screenshot.

Hell Is Not Hot

I have heard it said that when a baby closes its eyes, it perceives the entire world has gone away rather than just their ability to perceive it. I have often wondered how scientists can know such a thing, but I think that now I know. They must have witnessed this same behavior in adults and merely extrapolated backwards.

Case in point, Newsweek’s religion editor Lisa Miller has a new book out on Heaven and the various different notions of it. In an interview with Sally Quinn, Miller is asked whether she believes in Hell, to which she replies with an emphatic “no.” Asked why, she cites the dwindling polls numbers for hell. Hell is not hot right now.

Of course, we know that reality is not altered by poll numbers. President Obama’s poll numbers have likely fallen faster than hell’s, but he is no less real than when most believed in him back in November 2008.

It seems that some people believe that if enough people ditch belief in Hell, that perhaps Hell will be closed for lack of interest. No such luck...Continue reading at the National Catholic Register>>>

Iowa Town Renames "Good Friday"

I know one city administrator who should be fired. Not just for changing the name of "Good Friday" to "Spring Holiday" but because he clearly has no actual responsibilities to fill his day so he's making up things to do.

ABC reports:

One week before the most solemn day in the Christian year, the city of Davenport, Iowa removed Good Friday from its municipal calendar, setting off a storm of complaints from Christians and union members whose contracts give them that day off.

Taking a recommendation by the Davenport Civil Rights Commission to change the holiday's name to something more ecumenical, City Administrator Craig Malin sent a memo to municipal employees announcing Good Friday would officially be known as "Spring Holiday."

"My phone has been ringing off the hook since Saturday," said city council alderman Bill Edmond. "People are genuinely upset because this is nothing but political correctness run amok."

Edmond said the city administrator made the change unilaterally and did not bring it to the council for a vote, a requirement for a change in policy.

"The city council didn't know anything about the change. We were blind sided and now we've got to clean this mess up. How do you tell people the city renamed a 2,000 year old holiday?" said Edmond.
You ever notice that diversity to these people always means that nobody can be different? But we all know what's going on here. What is called political correctness is often just anti-Christian.

Think of the idiocy of this. You're giving the day off to your workers for a reason so to deny why you're actually giving them off is just brainless.

Make no mistake that this is where the country is heading. This guy just got a little ahead of schedule. Give it a decade pal. The rest of the secular progressives will be pushing for your brainless idea to become law soon enough.

Archdiocese Sues Baltimore

You know how in commercials for medicine they say in a really fast voice "thisproductwillmakeyoureyesbleedandyourhairfallout."

Warnings such as those usually mean that you're telling someone to avoid something dangerous. But our country is so backwards at this point that crisis pregnancy centers in some places have to "warn" women that entering into a crisis pregnancy center will NOT harm your baby or you in any way.

Why? Because the people who actually kill babies want them to. Make sense? Didn't think so. But thankfully the Archdiocese of Baltimore is suing the city over the constitutionality of a law forcing crisis pregnancy centers to post signs saying they don't kill babies.

Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien said the law is "a clear violation of these centers' constitutional rights to free speech and their free exercise of religion."

WJZ reports:

"Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake introduced the legislation when she was City Council president after meeting with abortion rights advocates, who complained that some clinics were providing inaccurate information, such as claiming that abortions are connected to breast cancer and other problems. Abortion opponents said the bill unfairly targets centers that provide good information and much-needed help for poor women. Violators could face a $150 fine.
I'm not sure I understand the argument from the mayor because if the center was telling people that there's a link between abortion and breast cancer (which studies have actually shown to be the case) what does that have to do with them posting a sign saying they don't kill babies there? Nothing. It's not like the city passed a law saying that the center can't talk about the abortion/breast cancer link. So it's a complete non-sequitir.

The mayor doesn't say that the centers are lying by telling women they perform abortions so her defense already looks pretty bad.

O'Brien announced the suit at a news conference at St. Brigid's Catholic Church, which hosts one of three centers operated by the Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns.
The archdiocese said its complaint argues that the ordinance that went into effect in January "targets for speech regulation only one side of a contentious public, political debate," which the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled violates the First Amendment. The archdiocese said the complaint also argues the ordinance also wrongly requires centers to state that they do not provide birth-control services when they provide "education about abstinence and natural family planning."
I'm glad that the Archdiocese of Baltimore is challenging this clearly unconstitutional and unfair law. Good luck to them.

Judge Stands Against Abortion Law

Are we not a Republic? I was pretty bad in school but I seem to remember some kind of talk by my second grade teacher right before recess. It went something like..."blah blah blah...we have three co-equal branches of government....blah blah blah."

But I'm starting to think my second grade teacher was lying. Not about the blah blah blah part but the coequal branches thing. I've learned that it's a judge's world and we're just breathing their air.

Get this. The Illinois legislature passed a parental notification law for girls under 18 seeking an abortion but it's never been enforced due to all sorts and manner of legal shenanigans. Guess when they passed it? 1995. That's fifteen years ago for those who didn't pay attention in math.

And now this week some lunatic wacko judge in Cook County decided to postpone the law's enforcement even further by tossing out a lawsuit aimed at stopping the madness surrounding this law. Why? He doesn't like the law.

Sun Times reports:

A Cook County judge today tossed out a lawsuit that aimed to, once and for all, kill the state's long-mothballed law requiring parents to be notified before a teenage girl can get an abortion.

But in his complicated ruling, Cook County Judge Daniel A. Riley kept in place a ban on enforcing the new law, arguing that while the lawsuit is flawed — so, too, is the law itself.

"The law in question is a rather unfortunate piece of legislation," Riley said in a brief, noon-hour hearing. "It's likely to cause more harm than good."
Uh dude. On the list of people who care what you think about the bill is you...and that's about it. Seriously, who cares what this idiot thinks of the bill? The legislature passed it fifteen years ago. Something like 40 other states have similar laws but Illinois' judges keep finding reasons to postpone enforcement.

But the judge knew that he couldn't just say that he didn't like the law and he had to make up some lawyery sounding reason for not liking it. But what he said as the reason is so backwards and crazy that I had to read it twice to believe I was reading it right.

He argues that the law wouldn't treat pregnant girls equally:
Riley explained the law discriminates against a class of minors who are pregnant, in that those who are seeking an abortion must get parental notification but those who choose to have a child or even to adopt don't have the same requirement.
What? So he's saying that teenage girls would need parental notification in order to keep the baby - just to make it fair. So to this clown there's no difference between keeping the child, adopting the child, and having some doctor with a medical degree from Tijuana tear the baby apart limb from limb.

Are those all equal decisions? Really?

These pro-aborts will do whatever they can to ensure that Big Abortion keeps taking in the big bucks. They don't care about laws. They don't care about our system of government. They are zealots. Fanatics. And they are destroying this country.

First Recording of a Pope circa 1903

This is kinda' cool. The first ever recording of a Pope. Pope Leo XIII recites the Ave Maria.

Pope Leo was also the first Pope to be filmed on a motion picture camera.

Palm and Nails

I can be a real jerk sometimes. Arrogant. Proud. Judgmental. That probably doesn’t shock you. Case in point, I found myself looking around Mass yesterday thinking snidely that the crowds were much larger on Palm Sunday than typical Sundays. I wondered if it was because the Church was giving something away, the palm being the equivalent of the big foam finger at a baseball game to some. A memento.

And then I scolded myself for thinking such things during Mass. I’ve always fought the urge to see things in terms on black and white...Continue reading at the National Catholic Register>>>

I Just Don't Get Charismatics...

I know the Charismatic movement has many things to commend it, I am sure. Many more things than say, the religious education conference in LA. But unfortunately, they have too much in common.

Here is the thing. If I wanted to be a Pentecostal, I would be a Pentecostal. The Holy Spirit gives many gifts, no doubt about it. I just wish that one of those gifts was taste, or any other gift that would prevent stuff like this...

Like I said, I am sure the movement has much to commend it. But I just don't get it. Somebody help me. What is good about bad art and bad music? The tongues and being 'slain in the Spirit,' I just don't get.

I have no doubt that one can be so overwhelmed with the Holy Spirit as to feel faint. But every overweight white person in Ohio at the same time? That's more like Swine Flu or somebody should be checking the fish buffet -- stat!

The tongues thing, the tongues thing. I get the concept. Really. But I mean, really? Really?

I also get the attraction of praise and worship music, but why can't it be kept outside of the liturgy? And why does it have to be so bad? And I don't wish to be mean, but are most charismatics just former Baptists who got kicked out for having no rhythm? I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'...

Somebody help me, please? What am I missing here?

Georgetown Students Learn Blackmail Works

What does the Georgetown University administration think they're teaching their students? A group of pro-choice, pro-birth control Georgetown University students demanded a meeting with the President of the school John J. DeGioia, about two months ago. After receiving no response the students mailed a box of condoms to the school President, put tape on their mouths, chained themselves to a statue to protest the lack of available birth control on campus, and issued a deadline to the school President.

And guess what, it seems that acting like spoiled children may just win the day.

The Hoya reports:

At 3:20 p.m., H*yas for Choice, in solidarity with Plan A, issued a statement via e-mail announcing that “We are giving President DeGioia a deadline of 8:00 TONIGHT to take the tape off our mouths and the chains off our bodies!”

The protesters received a letter from the administration at 7:15 p.m. stating that they will open up dialogue with Plan A. The letter was delivered by Assistant Director of Student Programs Tanesha Stewart. Cory, one of the leaders of Plan A, said that the coalition hopes for a meeting within the next week.

According to NBC:
Georgetown University officials say they are now willing to talk about sex health issues after a dozen student protesters got their attention during a rally Saturday.
You have got to be kidding me, right?

These students act like prima donnas and they are granted a meeting? What message does the President of the school thinks this move sends to every other student group? Blackmail works?

And one has to wonder how much the school is willing to "negotiate" on the issues of birth control and abortion?

In fact, it seems that this may be the second major capitulation to the group this month. The Philadelphia Bulletin is reporting that The Student Activities Commission (SAC) of Georgetown voted in favor of funding an abortion “rights” panel on campus run by H*yas for Choice.

The Bulletin reports:
According to the blog of the Georgetown Voice, Plan A started its events on March 21 with the panel discussion, which was the first event in Georgetown history to not include the pro-life argument in an open discussion of abortion. Members of the panel included representatives of the National Abortion Federation, Choice USA and GU Men Creating Change. They “spoke about the importance of male involvement in the pro-choice movement, why male involvement is especially important to the pro-choice movement now, and how Georgetown students can lobby the school to fund more similar events.”

A member of Plan A reportedly said that Sunday’s panel discussion was the only event funded by Georgetown University in the overall Choice Week which is now taking place, also according to the Georgetown Voice blog.

I wonder what would happen if pro-life faithful Catholic students chained themselves to a statue in the middle of campus. Something tells me they'd be there for quite some time.

It's A Media Witch Hunt

Andrew M. Brown at the Telegraph.co.uk says it all in his opening paragraphs.

I read the coverage of the Pope every day in the newspapers and listen to the BBC news and as a Catholic and a journalist I feel like crying out pathetically: “This is not fair!” And it isn’t fair, or reasonable. Intelligent journalists who are normally capable of mental subtlety and of coping with complexities have abandoned their critical faculties. There is an atmosphere of unreason.

I cannot help feeling that a lot of it is down to sheer, blind hatred. It amounts to the demonisation of a whole institution and its leader. We have come to a stage where nothing good whatever, no good faith can be assumed of anybody involved in the Church – however senior, however greatly respected, loved, admired, including the Pope.
Damian Thompson says its liberal payback time!
It is also clear that many prominent liberal Catholics are turning a blind eye to this media vendetta because they don’t like Pope Benedict. They are happy for him to take the rap for diocesan cover-ups initiated, in some cases, by liberal prelates. Those relates are grateful for the opportunity to pass the buck to the one man who, though his record on this matter is certainly not beyond criticism, has done more than any other to rectify the Church’s lax procedures – Joseph Ratzinger.
If I was Benedict XVI, I’d be asking myself if I even wanted to visit Britain this autumn. For, when he does, he will meet English bishops, Catholic journalists and self-appointed spokesmen for the Catholic community who did not dare offend liberal opinion by defending him properly, or whose judgment was clouded by personal dislike of the Pope and his agenda.

Some Catholics – not many, but they are prominent – are actually thinking: it’s payback time, Ratzinger. If we can make this mud stick, then we can continue to sabotage your liturgical reforms. In other words, they are using the victims of clerical child abuse to fight internal political battles. Why am I not surprised?
The Pope, for his part, say he won't be intimidated by the gossip mongers.
Pope Benedict today risked inflaming opinion as he appeared to round on critics of the Catholic church over the widening sexual abuse scandal, saying he would not "be intimidated by ... petty gossip".

The 82-year-old pontiff led tens of thousands of people in a Palm Sunday service in St Peter's square. He did not mention the scandal engulfing the church directly, but parts of his sermon alluded to it.

The pope said that faith in God helped lead one "towards the courage of not allowing oneself to be intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinion".

Liturgesy: Closing Ceremonies 'Mass' in L.A.

Liturgesy: Heresy expressed in the form of Liturgy

Witness the closing ceremonies (aka liturgy) from Los Angeles Religious Education Congress 2010.

I kept expecting a giant Stonehenge to come down from the ceiling.

ht Rorate Caeli

Worst Headline Ever

ABC News has this headline up on a news story:

Only God Can Fire Pope Benedict After Scandals

Irish Singer Sinead O'Connor and Journalist Christopher Hitchens Call for Investigation
While stories should be written concerning the sex abuse scandal there are responsible and irresponsible ways to do so. This is the most irresponsible way to handle the story. (So far)

We've got an atheist who hates the Pope and a washed up singer who hates the Pope calling for an investigation into the Pope whom they both hate. Seriously? That's news. Give me a break. This has got to be the stupidest headline I've ever seen and the stupidest story.

I read the headline to Patrick and he asked if I was reading "The Onion."

So when ABC wonders why its ratings are declining, I hope they think of this story.

For some responsible coverage of the story, read Kathryn Lopez.

You Don't Wanna' Get Too Fit

This made me laugh out loud.

HT Friends of Irony

My Irresponsible Pep Talk for GOP

Democrats and their p.r. arm, the mainstream media, are screaming about how the violent political rhetoric from the right is "aiding and abetting" violence. Nancy Pelosi even said "I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw, I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric was, is very frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place."

So here's my speech:

Conservatives have been dealt a harsh defeat. We must reload. Battle back. Fight on. And if our aim is true we have a good shot at taking back the reins of government come November.

As conservatives we must tighten the noose around unruly government and cut out of control spending.

We must aim true at those targeted districts, shoot straight, and keep gunning for them for them until they fall.

As this monstrous healthcare bill destroys our healthcare system, we must kill the bill or at least choke off the funds, and make sure this healthcare bill blows up in their face. We must make sure this bill is their Waterloo after all.

We must put a stranglehold on bureaucracies before they detonate the dreams of millions, crippling the generations to come with debt.

We must bombard the airwaves with our message, hammer away at their assumptions. So much hangs in the balance. Stand strong conservatives and be sure to storm the voting booths in November. Thank you.

Mr. Bipartisan Mocks You

I really don't like this guy. I can't wait until November.

Just in Time for Holy Week...Gay Jesus

Every Holy Week, we get the same ol' thing. First you take a great heaping spoonful of stupid publicity seeking artist, add in a dose of outraged Christian, spice it up with some feigned surprise from the artist that anyone could possibly be offended, and finish it off with some smarmy calls for tolerance.

Fox News reports:

A college student's production of a play in which Jesus is portrayed as the "King of Queers" has outraged residents in a Texas town that fancies itself the Cowboy Capital of the World.

Just in time for Easter, Tarleton State University is playing host to a student performance of Terrence McNally's 1998 play, "Corpus Christi," which depicts a gay Jesus performing a same-sex wedding for two of his apostles.

And though Jesus washed the feet of his disciples in the traditional biblical narrative, his character (called Joshua) in the play shows Judas the full extent of his love, kissing the son of perdition at Pontius Pilate High School's senior prom.

It's all too much for some residents of Stephenville, Texas, who say there's far too much passion in this Passion play. They are pressuring the university to call off the Saturday performance, which has already been moved ahead eight hours to an 8 a.m. start time to help head off protests.
Look, the only reason to put on this play is to get publicity and have your friends call you "brave" or "edgy."

But dude, being the edgiest guy in the Cowboy Capitol of the world isn't all that great? OK? So there might be some wasted effort here.

Here's the artist throwing in his shock that anyone could possibly be offended by Jesus hanging on a cross with the sign "King of Queers" above his head:
The production is a class project for student-director John Jordan Otte, who said in a written statement that he chose the play to "bring people together" and help gain acceptance for gay Christians, who he said often feel alienated from their churches.

"It is being said often that this play is a direct attack on Christians — their faith and their deity. It simply is not true," wrote Otte, 26, who said he is a devout Christian.

"I am not attacking anyone in choosing this play. I want people to see and understand another side to faith. I want us all to know that unconditional love means just that -- unconditional -- and I believe tolerance is a key message in this play.
Give me a break. "The Music Man" brings people together. This play ticks people off. You know what? Just admit that you didn't do it for some "We are the World" sentiment, just say that you're job prospects as a dramatist coming out of Tarleton State didn't look so great and your life looks pretty much downhill from here so why the heck not throw a little temper tantrum and make people notice you. Well congratulations. Print out the story. Frame it. And keep boring everyone you know for years to come with how edgy you were in college. And you know what, after a few years all those people who've heard the story from you like twenty times are going to start feeling sorry for you...like we already do.

10 Days of D Mac and Architecture: Day 4 The Temple Mount

I was lucky enough to have been asked by my good friend Fr. Barron at Word on Fire to try to enrich his pilgrimage web site with some short video clips on some of the places he's been while making his really excellent Catholicism series. So he sent some folks from his crew to my office here at the Liturgical Institute and the result is a series of ten short videos on great artistic and architectural landmarks of the Church.

See Also:

Time for Obama's Civilian Security Force?

The headlines are all warning about right wing violence that hasn't actually happened but journalists seem to feel is imminent. Here's a few of today's headlines:

Lawmakers concerned as health-care overhaul foes resort to violence
Coffin placed on Carnahan's lawn
Spitting and Slurs Directed at Lawmakers‎
Markey Received Threats Over Health Care Vote

If you listened to the media as much of our country still sadly does, it would be clear that right wing violence is a burgeoning crisis. And as we know, this White House doesn't like to see a good crisis go to waste.

So I'm thinking hey, wouldn't this be the perfect time for some kind of...I don't know...national civilian security force that...you know...answers to the President...for our own protection of course...or something.

It's not like Obama's not thinking about it. Remember. He actually said, "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."

And he spelled it out a little clearer by saying: "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."

I wonder how many more stories the media will have to write about right wing violence (that hasn't actually happened yet) before Obama starts chatting up the security force idea again. You know, for our own protection.

HT Director Blue.

The Easter Bunny Must Die

Among the peeves I keep as pets, chief is my loathing of the Easter Bunny. There are many reasons to hate the Bunny. I will get into why in particular the Bunny, but first to some other pressing business.

Why is it that religious holidays require mascots to make them palatable to secularists who otherwise wouldn't give a fig about the celebration? While some mascots are cool in their own right, most add nothing and typically detract from the holiday's expressed purpose.

Take the leprechaun. Actually, don't take the leprechaun. I am pretty sure that taking a leprechaun is bad luck. But the leprechaun as a symbol of St. Paddy's Day? A hard-drinking short guy consumed with greed is not a good mascot for a celebration of a great saint's feast day. A good mascot for Christopher Hitchens' Day perhaps, but not for St. Patrick's Day.

Another egregious example of the trend is that stupid cupid. St. Valentine, priest and martyr, gets a pagan symbol of lust...Continue Reading @ National Catholic Register

Islam & Comedy

When you think of Islam, the first thing that pops into your head is probably comedy, right? No you say? Well watch the following video. Islam and comedy, two great tastes that go great together!

Hey, you have to start somewhere!

Video via ViralFootage

Obamacare Will Harm Catholic Colleges

It's understandable that the legislative debacle known as Obamacare dominated the headlines recently. But something important has gone largely unremarked on though I believe it will have a disastrous impact on the country, especially Catholic and Christian colleges.

Obamacare essentially eliminated the private lending channel for college loans and, I fear, will end up being anti-Christian. For those keeping score at home, the government's original stated intent into the college loan industry was a “government option.” They argued that it wasn't a government takeover at all. How'd that work out?

So now that the federal government has taken over the student loan industry, let's go over what, I believe, will inevitably happen now. I really don't see anyway around it.

Look into my crystal ball and peer into the foreboding future with me:

At some point some administrator at some religious university will say something that will be construed as outrageously offensive by liberals or anti-gay or even racist. Let's say some place like Liberty University or Bob Jones University.

It's an inevitable as the tides that someone from a religious university will say something that liberals will freak out about. They're professional freak-outers. It's what they do.

Around the clock coverage will incite some congressman to flank himself with the twin pillars of demagoguery Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and propose that because of the terrible racist or anti-gay demagoguery coming from that university they propose that no federal money should go towards funding colleges like this one.

The Republicans, too scared of being seen as defending racism or homophobia, will grumble but eventually acquiesce. And the aforementioned college will be seriously harmed as students will find it difficult to procure loans for that school.

Colleges will then be deathly afraid of offending the government. They'll start donating money hand over fist to elected officials in order to stay in their good graces. You know, protection money.

And then somewhere down the line some genius in the Senate will say that because of the separation of church and state no loans can go to religious colleges at all.

The Supreme Court already ruled that states can withhold state scholarship money if the student pursues a theology degree so this shouldn't really be a jump at all.

When the government controls the funding of universities it controls the universities and that is never a good thing. As you know some Catholic colleges have already seemed to be more concerned with pleasing government officials rather than defending their faith but it will only become worse when these schools depend on those officials for their livelihood.

Exit question: How Catholic will Catholic universities be allowed to be when the government controls the funding?

The 1948 Educational Film: "Capitalism!"

I heard Michele Bachmann state today in an interview that since the President signed the health care bill into law, the federal government now owns or controls, for the first time ever, 51% of the US GDP. Car makers, insurance companies, home mortgages, student loans, and now the health care system. If Ms. Bachmann is correct, the word "socialism" is no longer simply an alarmist word to throw at political opponents . It is simply the truth.

Just in case we need a reminder, here's the type of movie my parents watched as kids. Which ideas do you think Nancy Pelosi and Barak Obama most need to hear? Post your favorite phrases from the video in the comments.

Sr. Carol Keehan is the New Lloyd Dobler

Sister Carol Keehan now knows exactly how Lloyd Dobler felt in "Say Anything."

In the movie, Lloyd's dream girl breaks up with him and as a consolation she hands him a pen. He famously says to his compatriots hanging out at the Gas & Sip on a Friday night: "I gave her my heart, she gave me a pen."

Now, I don't know if Sister Keehan hangs out at the Gas & Sip but she's gotta be right there with poor ol' Lloyd.

CNA reports:

Sister Carol Keehan, President of the Catholic Health Association, has been awarded with one of the 21 pens used by President Barack Obama on Tuesday to sign the health care bill.
Next Sr. Carol's going to show up in the Malibu, park it on the White House lawn, and hold her phonograph above her head playing Obama's speeches back to him.

And she can complain to the 59 other nuns who supported Obamacare, "I gave up my soul, he gave me a pen."

Dingell: Obamacare Will "Control The People"

Come on. Tell me you're surprised. Even a little.

Article V: Light At The End Of The Tunnel?

Frustrated by Obamacare and seeming helplessness of the people to stop this affront to life and liberty?

Well, helplessness is a reasonable feeling. Even if conservatives win the day in November and take the House, little could be done to repeal most of Obamacare. Even if conservatives won BIG in November and took back the Senate, the filibuster and its 60 Senate rule would doom repeal and two thirds in both houses would be required to override a presidential veto. So by 2012, conservatives would have to take back the House, the Presidency, AND 60 seat in the Senate to repeal. Not likely.

Like I said, helpless.

But are we? What about Article V of the Constitution? This is a long shot as well but may be, just may be, more plausible than the scenario outlined above. Article V states:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
RealQuiet from Redstate says...
"I LOVE this last option. The power is solely with the people and the states. This is the people’s and the states’ strongest weapon and will likely terrify Democrats as their folly in hoisting the freedom and liberty robbing legislation upon the American people becomes apparent to them. "
The expressed purpose of this Article of the Constitution is to give the power of redress to the States when faced with a tyrannical federal legislature. I think this time qualifies and I am not alone. In fact Rep Louie Gohmert of Texas (I love Texas) took to the floor of the House to discuss just such a response.

Again, its a long shot. But at least its a shot. What do you think?

Love Obamacare? Thank a Catholic

The new healthcare plan has been brought to us by...Catholics?

I was sickened to see Catholic Joe Biden standing next to the most pro-abortion President in the history of the country signing the biggest expansion of abortion since Roe.

We'd all fought the bill for so long but when Catholic Bart Stupak relented to Catholic Nancy Pelosi I knew that the healthcare bill was going through. I couldn't imagine how Stupak could not know that the healthcare plan funded abortion, especially after the Catholic HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius acknowledged it in an interview.

The bill had gained some extra momentum after 60 Catholic nuns endorsed the plan.

And then here's the list of Catholic congressman who voted "yes" on Obamacare, according to Catholic Advocate.

■Representative Ann Kirkpatrick (D, AZ-01) YES
■Representative Ed Pastor (D, AZ-04) YES
■Representative Harry E. Mitchell (D, AZ-05) YES
■Representative Raul M. Grijalva (D, AZ-07) YES

■Representative Mike Thompson (D, CA-01) YES
■Representative George Miller (D, CA-07) YES
■Representative Nancy Pelosi (D, CA-08) YES
■Representative Jerry McNerney (D, CA-11) YES
■Representative Anna Eshoo (D, CA-14) YES
■Representative Dennis A. Cardoza (D, CA-18) YES
■Representative Jim Costa (D, CA-20) YES
■Representative Xavier Becerra (D, CA-31) YES
■Representative Diane E. Watson (D, CA-33) YES
■Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard (D, CA-34) YES
■Representative Grace F. Napolitano (D, CA-38) YES
■Representative Linda T. Sanchez (D, CA-39) YES
■Representative Joe Baca (D, CA-43) YES
■Representative Loretta Sanchez (D, CA-47) YES
■Representative John T. Salazar (D, CO-03) YES
■Representative Betsy Markey (D, CO-04) YES
■Representative John B. Larson (D, CT-01) YES
■Representative Joe Courtney (D, CT-02) YES
■Representative Rosa L. DeLauro (D, CT-03) YES
■Representative Luis V. Gutierrez (D, IL-04) YES
■Representative Jerry F. Costello (D, IL-12) YES
■Representative Phil Hare (D, IL-17) YES
■Representative Peter J. Visclosky (D, IN-01) YES
■Representative Joe Donnelly (D, IN-02) YES
■Representative Brad Ellsworth (D, IN-08) YES
■Representative Michael H. Michaud (D, ME-02) YES
■Representative Richard E. Neal (D, MA-02) YES
■Representative James P. McGovern (D, MA-03) YES
■Representative Ed Markey (D, MA-07) YES
■Representative Michael E. Capuano (D, MA-08) YES
■Representative William D. Delahunt (D, MA-10) YES
■Representative Bart Stupak (D, MI-01) YES
■Representative Dale E. Kildee (D, MI-05) YES
■Representative John D. Dingell (D, MI-15) YES
■Representative Betty McCollum (D, MN-04) YES
■Representative James L. Oberstar (D, MN-08) YES
■Representative William Lacy Clay (D, MO-01) YES
■Representative Carol Shea-Porter (D, NH-01) YES
■Representative Frank Pallone (D, NJ-06) YES
■Representative Bill Pascrell (D, NJ-08) YES
■Representative Albio Sires (D, NJ-13) YES
■Representative Ben Ray Lujan (D, NM-03) YES
■Representative Tim Bishop (D, NY-01) YES
■Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D, NY-04) YES
■Representative Joseph Crowley (D, NY-07) YES
■Representative Nydia M. Velazquez (D, NY-12) YES
■Representative Charles B. Rangel (D, NY-15) YES
■Representative Jose E. Serrano (D, NY-16) YES
■Representative John J. Hall (D, NY-19) YES
■Representative Paul Tonko (D, NY-21) YES
■Representative Maurice D. Hinchey (D, NY-22) YES
■Representative Dan Maffei (D, NY-25) YES
■Representative Brian Higgins (D, NY-27) YES
■Representative Steve Driehaus (D, OH-01) YES
■Representative Charles A. Wilson (D, OH-06) YES
■Representative Marcy Kaptur (D, OH-09) YES
■Representative Dennis J. Kucinich (D, OH-10) YES
■Representative Mary Jo Kilroy (D, OH-15) YES
■Representative John Boccieri (D, OH-16) YES
■Representative Tim Ryan (D, OH-17) YES
■Representative Peter DeFazio (D, OR-04) YES
■Representative Robert Brady (D, PA-01) YES
■Representative Kathy Dahlkemper (D, PA-03) YES
■Representative Joe Sestak (D, PA-07) YES
■Representative Patrick J. Murphy (D, PA-8) YES
■Representative Chris Carney (D, PA-10) YES
■Representative Paul Kanjorski (D, PA-11) YES
■Representative Michael F. Doyle (D, PA-14) YES
■Representative Patrick J. Kennedy (D, RI-01) YES
■Representative James R. Langevin (D, RI-02) YES
■Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D, TX-15) YES
■Representative Silvestre Reyes (D, TX-16) YES
■Representative Charlie Gonzalez (D, TX-20) YES
■Representative Ciro D. Rodriguez (D, TX-23) YES
■Representative Henry Cuellar (D, TX-28) YES
■Representative Peter Welch (D, VT-At-Large) YES
■Representative Tom Perriello (D, VA-05) YES
■Representative James P. Moran (D, VA-08) YES
■Representative Gerald E. Connolly (D, VA-11) YES
■Representative David R. Obey (D, WI-07) YES

There is something very wrong with Catholicism in America when Catholics play such a large role in passing anti-life and anti-conscience legislation. Catholic politicians need to be reminded that you don't leave Christ at the Capitol steps. They need to be reminded that the issue of life is not negotiable. And Catholic voters need to elect politicians who understand that evil exists and fight with all they have against enshrining evil into law. They must remember that the terms public servant and Catholic are not mutually exclusive.

Catholic voters need to take their responsibility seriously and stop electing politicians who say one thing and do another.

Update: Lipinski and Lynch, both of whom voted NO, have been removed from the list. I was looking at a different vote so thanks to the commenters for the heads up.

Biden Drops F-Bomb At Signing Ceremony

Joe Biden -- Keeping It Classy.

Vice President Joe Biden drops the f-bomb at today's signing ceremony for Obamacare saying "This is a big f---ing deal!"

You will find out just how big a deal this was in November Joe!

Will The Executive Order Be Thrown Out?

Everyone knows that the Executive Order that bought off Bart Stupak and his faux-life friends isn't worth the paper its written on. But did you know that that paper its written on might even be thrown out by the courts?

Miriel at "seeking Solomon" writes...

Unfortunately for the Congressman, and for unborn babies all over America, the impermanence of executive orders pales in comparison to the other problem with Stupak’s executive order compromise: under current precedent, it is quite possibly unconstitutional.

This is a little more complicated than the first problem, and I have seen almost no discussion of it in news coverage of the trade, but here’s the basic idea: according to the Supreme Court’s current interpretation of Roe v. Wade, abortion (falling under “privacy,” cf. Griswold) is a very highly protected right. In the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court downgraded abortion from a fundamental right (which would trigger a test called "strict scrutiny"), to a right upon which the government can place no "undue burden." To the best of my knowledge, there was no precedent for an "undue burden" test, and its parameters but are unclear; for example, informed consent and parental notification requirements for abortion are not undue burdens, while spousal notification laws are. In any case, the "undue burden" means that the state must provide a pretty strong justification for placing limits on access to abortion, or the courts will strike it down.

In the case of abortion, the Court has also ruled that, while the right to have an abortion is fundamental, there is no corresponding fundamental right to have your abortion funded by the government. So the state is bound not to place an undue burden on women’s access to the procedure, but it is not bound to provide or fund the procedure. Which means we’re talking about a flex zone, right? The federal legislature is prohibited from outlawing abortion, but it is perfectly free to establish funding programs for health care—including obstetric and gynecological care—that specifically exclude abortion.

Great, right? Except that, since the parameters of the undue burden test are unclear, it's possible that an after-the-fact exclusion of abortion from coverage under the bill would be construed as unacceptable by the Court, and wouldn't fall under the exemption applied to legislative action in Rust v. Sullivan (1991). In other words, if the bill says, “fund all ob/gyn care except abortion,” the Court says: “No problem. The right to abortion does not imply a corresponding right to a taxpayer funded abortion.” If, on the other hand, the legislature passes a bill that says “fund all ob/gyn care, full stop,” and the President issues an executive order saying “none of that money allotted for ob/gyn care can be used for abortions,” the Court could potentially say—and under current precedent might find itself required to say—“This executive order places an undue burden on access to abortion, there is no compelling state interest for the exclusion of abortion from standard ob/gyn care, strike it down,” and bam. The floodgates are opened.
If she is right, this may very well explain why there was little or no protest from pro-abortion groups. We all know that they understood that the Senate language does not stop federally funded abortions. But perhaps they also knew that the Executive Order would be thrown out in short order. Look to see if they challenge it right after President Obama issues it.

Stupak et al may have sold their souls for 30 pieces of nothing.

Note @ 3:46 PM EDT 3/23/10
At Miriel's request I have updated the quote as it had some errors in it.

By way of supporting evidence, take a look at this letter written by Robert A. Destro
Professor of Law at Catholic University Law School.

Here is a relevant section:
Without the Hyde Amendment, abortions not only may be covered, abortions must be covered. This has been the law for over thirty years. In Beal v. Doe, 432 U.S. 438, 443 (1977), Pennsylvania women denied coverage for elective abortions under state law sued in federal court, arguing that “Title XIX Medicaid] requires Pennsylvania to fund under its Medicaid program the cost of all abortions that are permissible under state law.” In Beal, the argument was that Congress’ failure to exclude abortion from the definition of “family planning services” in the 1972 amendments to Title XIX required the states to cover abortion. The courts have always assumed that, without the Hyde Amendment, federal law requires that the federal government must pay for abortions.

Neither the argument and nor the precedents have changed.

Read together with the case law and Section 1303 of the Senate Bill (which assumes that abortions are a part of a “comprehensive” health care insurance program), we can be virtually certain that the first lawsuit arguing that the Senate Bill requires funding for abortions under the CHC appropriation will be filed before the ink is dry on President Obama’s signature.

Caption Contest

What is Keith Richards doing at the signing of Obamacare? Is that supposed to make us feel more confident?

You Do Know What Causes That, Right?

OK. I’m sending up a flare. This is me asking for help. I’m looking for some good comebacks to the age old questions that people from big families get asked all the time.

Here’s how it started. I brought my five children to the movies, aged ten down to two this past weekend. And the guy standing there taking tickets pointed to the children and asked, “Are these all yours?”

I typically make a joke and say that two of them were hitchhikers I found on the expressway but he didn’t seem like a happy fellow so I simply admitted they were all mine.

“What?! Really?” he said, his eyes widening. “You ever hear of overpopulation, man?”

And there was me. Gobsmacked. And I’m not easily gobsmackable. If I could’ve typed out... Continue Reading @ National Catholic Register

All You Need To Know About The Stupak Deal

Unsure about whether the Stupak deal for an Executive Order was a good one or just meaningless political cover? Here is all you need to know. Senators Ben Nelson and Bob Casey think it was a splendid idea.

National Review

Sen. Robert Casey (D., Pa.), an abortion critic, tells NRO that President Obama’s decision to issue an executive order on abortion in order to win the vote of pro-life House Democrats was “a dramatic development” that “strengthens” Obamacare’s support for life. “We can debate whether it was necessary, in light of what we did in the Senate bill (on abortion), which I thought was very strong, but if this helps to clarify things, then all the better.” The Democratic party, he adds, “always will, and should be strong enough” to welcome pro-life politicians into its ranks.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.), the last holdout over the Senate health-care bill’s abortion language, tells NRO that he sees Stupak’s executive order as something “made in good faith, at the very least” but “unnecessary.” He adds that he would “absolutely” be comfortable if it was never issued, since he believes the Senate’s language is enough. “It is a good faith showing by the administration that it doesn’t plan to change. That’s helpful.”
Snakes of a feather and all that. Yes, the Senate language was strong enough even though every abortion organization in the country is thrilled with it and have even been caught on video acknowledging that it merely an accounting scheme that does not to stop federally funded abortions.

The Executive Order is an Execution Order cosigned by Stupak, Nelson, and Casey.

We will remember.

In No Particular Order

This is interesting in a really stupid way.

Two black conservatives on Twitter are in a heap of trouble for threatening President Obama. One said:

The amazing thing about this story is about TWO crazy black conservatives and neither one of them was Alan Keyes. Amazing.

Acorn is shutting its doors.

The community organizing group Acorn announced Monday that it would close all its remaining state affiliates and field offices by April 1.

The organization is “developing a plan to resolve all outstanding debts, obligations and other issues,” said a statement released by the group.
Women, children, and pimps hit hardest.

During much of the early part of the day yesterday, the search was on for who shouted "baby killer" to Bart Stupak after his shameful capitulation to party at the expense of the unborn.

Of course, as is now known, it was Texas Republican Rep. Randy Neugebauer who shouted "It's a baby killer" about the bill, not the congressman.

But while the whole search was going on I had visions of an "I am Sparticus" moment in which each real pro-life congressman would stand up successively on the floor of the house and proudly declare "I said baby killer", "No, I said baby killer!" and so on. Now that would have been a moment.

In other news, the Susan B. Anthony List is revoking a "defender of life" award to Bart Stupak. Stupak responded by saying "Babies, we don't need no stinkin' babies. Umm... I mean awards, we don't need no stinkin' awards."

And Lastly
You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger
And you don't provoke Ann Coulter!!

What could those Canucks possibly be thinking? Even if they managed to provoke her into saying something that libertyless appartchiks could charge her for, that would be exactly what she would want. I mean, lets face it, why would Ann Coulter go to Canada for any reason other than getting arrested by the polite police. It is what she lives for.

Update: See? I told you.
London, Ont. — Inflammatory right-wing pundit Ann Coulter took aim at a University of Ottawa administrator Monday night, saying an e-mail from the school warning her to use “restraint, respect and consideration” when addressing Ontario students during a speaking tour this week made her a victim of a “hate crime.”
Exit Question.
Do you think that on Sunday 50,000 sick Canadians let out a collective cry of "Oh, Merde!"???

10 Days of D mac and Architecture: Number 3

Tired of health care? Let's talk architecture!
Number Three: Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem
. Enjoy!

I was lucky enough to have been asked by my good friend Fr. Barron at Word on Fire to try to enrich his pilgrimage web site with some short video clips on some of the places he's been while making his really excellent Catholicism series. So he sent some folks from his crew to my office and the result is a series of ten short videos on great artistic and architectural landmarks of the Church.

See Also:

Bishops Share The Blame

Well, it is done. The Government takeover of health-care is now the law of the land complete with the federal funding of abortion.

At this horrific moment we must make an honest assessment of how we arrived at this point. The responsibility for this terrible moment in history is spread far and wide. The Democrat party, committed to the Siamese causes of increasing government control of lives and desire to have less lives, is the obvious culprit but far from the only one.

A truly honest assessment of the situation should hold the Republican party to account. Truth be told, the Republican party has acquitted themselves well in the past year. They managed to hold off this bill as long as they could facing an opposition with a huge majority. But why did the Democrats have such a huge majority? Because when the reigns of government were entrusted to Republicans, they woefully failed in their duty. They failed to live up to their own creed in both a fiscal and moral sense. No need to go into detail here, everyone knows their failings. Those failings opened the door to a virulently pro-death Democrat Congress and a virulently pro-death Democrat president.

Had the Republicans been good stewards of the authority entrusted them, we would likely not be in this situation now.

There is another group that should also take a hard look at their stewardship and and acknowledge their failures, the US Bishops...Continue reading at the National Catholic Register>>>

On Behalf Of An Ungrateful Nation...

Another great president once asked whether a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal can long endure?

We have our answer.

Government of the people, by the people, for the people, has perished from the earth.

Republicans Will Suffer for This

The conventional wisdom seems to be that the Democrats will suffer for this healthcare bill. And I believe they will...to a point.

In the short term I believe Democrats are about to be trounced in the November elections. And I think they've accepted that as well.

But in the long term I'd bet Democrats see this as a long term win. I've heard it said in a few places that Democrats now "own" healthcare much like Bush "owned" the war, meaning that every medical mix-up, every complaint, every long line will be blamed on the Democrats. Forever and forever.

But that's where I'm not in agreement.

Once this thing gets rolling and problems start arising (and there will be many problems) the Democrats will then hold press conferences saying that a fix is needed that will require some money and a wee bit more government oversight. The Republicans will likely stand against the fix and then we'll be subject to media marathons about horror stories where people are working seven jobs just to keep their children alive while they're on dialysis and only have one leg so they can't get on the bus. You know, the kind of stories the media specializes in. Then you'll have the Democrat come on and say he's introduced a bill that will help that person but the Republicans are blocking it. And Republicans will look like the bad guys.

Look, every time Republicans simply tried to slow the rate of growth of programs they've gotten blasted for it as taking "draconian cuts."

Democrats know the playing field is not level and that's why they're perfectly willing to take the short term hit for a long term gain that will keep on giving every time there's a problem with our healthcare system.

Its Over: Stupak Caves

Well, that's it. Stupak and the other fictional pro-life Democrats, using the cover of a worthless Executive Order, are voting for Health-care and federally funded abortion.

I am heartbroken. Heartbroken for the lives of children that will be lost. Heartbroken that my generation was unable to bequeath to our children the liberty we inherited. I am sorry. I am heartbroken and ashamed that I ever believed in Bart Stupak and the others.

May God have mercy on the United States.

Know these things.

There is no such thing as a pro-life Democrat. I don't ever want to hear such nonsense again. They are the Party of Death, no exceptions.

This fight is not over.

You Shall Not Pass!!!!

I fear that ominous signs indicate a likely terrible defeat for us today. The Politico reports some disturbing news:

THE ATMOSPHERE: The difference between today and November’s vote is stark. On the night before the House vote last fall, the Speaker's office was a beehive of activity. Last night, the speaker was gone by 9 p.m. and most of her staff seemed to filter out within the hour. And the Capitol itself was surprisingly quiet. Even most reporters had gone home...

ABORTION: Anti-abortion Democrats met with White House officials last night on how to word an executive order by Obama that will satisfy their concerns. Leadership needs to peel off some of those lawmakers to get to 216.
I'm pretty sure we're losing today but let it be known that anybody who votes for this bill is NOT pro-life. They're pro-Democrat. They're pro-themselves. But they are not pro-life.

The major pro-life organizations have all made it clear that an Executive Order can't negate the bill, as pointed out by Kathryn Lopez. Anyone who supports this bill CANNOT be supported by pro-lifers in coming elections.

And, finally this little video sums up my feelings about the healthcare bill. This is what anyone who cares about the culture of life should be saying to the bill.

Sweatshirt Of The Future

If the H-Bomb goes off later today, one can make a case that this sweatshirt is accurate.

We are all Canucks now.

Photo from Failblog

Live Blogging The Apocalypse

11:39 PM EDT
What does this mean???
Roll Call is reporting that presumed Yes vote
Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) is now a NO.

As their whip efforts narrow to just a handful of Members, House Democratic leaders are facing an unlikely problem vote: Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.).

Sanchez was nowhere to be found on Saturday — she was in Florida on a fundraising jaunt, two Democratic sources said — and while leaders expected her to return for the Sunday vote on final passage, they weren’t assured. What’s more, leaders now list the Orange County Democrat as a “no” vote.

Sanchez is from a D+5 district. Hmmmmm.........

8:55 PM
: It looks like the whole Executive Order thing might be even more of a sham than I even thought before. The USCCB as well as other pro-life orgs are coming out against it mainly because it holds no water. Check this out from Critical Condition blog:
Boehner's office is pointing out that pro-life Dems are going to have a hard time finding cover from major pro-life groups:

US Conference of Catholic Bishops: “No regulation, policy letter from HRSA, or other executive action can withstand a statutory mandate, construed by federal courts applying a constitutional decision on abortion.”

National Right to Life Committee: “If the [Senate] bill is signed into law, these statutory requirements and defects are not subject to correction or nullification by the chief executive or his appointees, whether by Executive Order, regulation, or otherwise.”
Check out the rest here.

8:44 PM: Kathryn Lopez says of the idea that Obama would write an Executive Order prohibiting abortion funding:
"I hear Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) has signed off on the idea. That's an iron-clad guarantee it's no real alternative for any member who calls himself "pro-life."
Mind you, executive orders can be removed at the drop of a hat. I don't trust this. At all.

7 PM EDT: Ace is reporting that Zack Space (D-OH) Goes From A November Yes To No Tomorrow. Jim Matheson (D-UT)-No Stays No. (Matheson is the guy whose brother Obama nominated for a federal judgeship after meeting with him to flip his vote. You can imagine that nomination will die a quick death now. How'd you like to be sitting at that Thanksgiving table between those two brothers.) But back to the point, some of the guys at Ace of Spades have been as pessimistic as me but they're saying right now it's not time to give up.

6:03 PM EDT: John Hawkins who typically has a good read on all things political says: "Despite what you may be hearing from Fox, which has strangely had a more optimistic count for Democrats than even liberal websites, Pelosi DOES NOT have the votes yet." Check out his piece here. I really really want to believe him...then I read that Stupak's group of 12 has now been whittled down to six.

4:26 PM EDT: The Politico reports that Rep. Chris Carney says he'll vote yes. That may or may not be news as many believed him to be going that way for a while now. But what is noteworthy is that in his statement he said "[t]his bill also continues the longstanding ban on public funding for abortion." Come on. Stop with the lies. Just for a while. You can have your victory but please just for one moment just admit that this bill funds abortion. It does. That's it. Anyone who does even a little research understands this. It's amazing to watch the obfuscation from everyone from Obama to Bob Casey Jr. to the liberal nuns, and now Carney. And the media carries their water.

3:47 PM EDT: Fox News reporter Major Garrett tweeted that he believes Pelosi has the votes. I hope he's wrong. But I believe he's right mainly because the Dems have shown they're willing to do anything...and I mean anything to make this happen.

2:38 PM EDT

Washington Post is reporting that the Dems are dropping "Deem and Pass"

House Democratic leaders say they will take a separate vote on the Senate health care bill, rejecting an earlier, much-criticized strategy that would have permitted them to "deem" the measure passed without an explicit vote.
12:28 PM EDT
Say What?!?!?!
at NRO
Will Stupak Be Silenced by Executive Order?

"There are whispers that the Majority are working on an executive order with Stupak-like language in an attempt to pacify pro-life Democrats."

Is this even possible?

11:15 AM EDT

Lots happening this morning -- unfortunately I don't have any idea what it all means.

First, the Stupak presser has been cancelled/postponed as rumors that any deal to insert the Stupak language has fallen through. Rumor has it that pro-choice women revolted but let's face it, there was never any real chance of getting the Senate to go along.

NRO confirms that Stupak has had it.
Two pro-life GOP members close to Stupak tell NRO that any Stupak deals are off. They just spoke with him and they said he's finished with Pelosi. They rejected his enrollment corrections proposal.
What is clear is that Pelosi would not have been trying to cut a deal with Stupak if she had the votes. What is unclear is if now that the deal is over, does that leave Pelosi short or does it mean she has enough and doesn't need Stupak anymore? Lots of questions, very few answers. Stay tuned....

Bishops Letter to Congress

The Bishops just released a letter to members of the House of Representatives. The headline? "Fix Flaws or Vote No on Health Reform Bill."

Snarky thought? I wonder if they sent the letter to any nuns. But here's the letter in full from the USCCB website.

WASHINGTON—The U.S. bishops urged the House of Representatives to fix flaws in health care legislation or vote against its passage in a March 20 letter to House members. The letter was signed by Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, chair of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities, Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York, chair of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, and Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City, chair on the Committee on Migration. The letter follows.

Dear Representative:

For decades, the United States Catholic bishops have supported universal health care. The Catholic Church teaches that health care is a basic human right, essential for human life and dignity. Our community of faith provides health care to millions, purchases health care for tens of thousands and addresses the failings of our health care system in our parishes, emergency rooms and shelters. This is why we as bishops continue to insist that health care reform which truly protects the life, dignity, consciences and health of all is a moral imperative and urgent national priority.

We are convinced that the Senate legislation now presented to the House of Representatives on a “take it or leave it” basis sadly fails this test and ought to be opposed. Why do we take this position, when we have a long record of support for health care reform? Our fundamental objections can be summarized in two points:

Health care reform must protect life and conscience, not threaten them. The Senate bill extends abortion coverage, allows federal funds to pay for elective abortions (for example, through a new appropriation for services at Community Health Centers that bypasses the Hyde amendment), and denies adequate conscience protection to individuals and institutions. Needed health care reform must keep in place the longstanding and widely supported federal policy that neither elective abortion nor plans which include elective abortion can be paid for with federal funds. Simply put, health care reform ought to continue to apply both parts of the Hyde amendment, no more and no less. The House adopted this policy by a large bipartisan majority, establishing the same protections that govern Medicaid, SCHIP, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program and other federal health programs.

Despite claims to the contrary, the status quo prohibits the federal government from funding or facilitating plans that include elective abortion. The Senate bill clearly violates this prohibition by providing subsidies to purchase such plans. The House bill provided that no one has to pay for other people’s abortions, while this Senate bill does not. While the Senate provides for one plan without abortion coverage in each exchange, those who select another plan in an exchange to better meet the special needs of their families will be required to pay a separate mandatory abortion fee into a fund exclusively for abortions. This new federal requirement is a far more direct imposition on the consciences of those who do not wish to pay for the destruction of unborn human life than anything currently in federal law.

It is not those who require that the Hyde Amendment be fully applied who are obstructing reform, since this is the law of the land and the will of the American people. Rather, those who insist on expanding federal participation in abortion, require people to pay for other people’s abortions, and refuse to incorporate essential conscience protections (both within and beyond the abortion context) are threatening genuine reform. With conscience protection as with abortion funding, our goal is simply to preserve the status quo.

Universal coverage should be truly universal. People should never be denied coverage because they can’t afford it, because of where they live or work, or because of where they come from and when they got here. The Senate bill would not only continue current law that denies legal immigrants access to Medicaid for five years, but also prohibit undocumented immigrants from buying insurance for their families in the exchanges using their own money. These provisions could leave immigrants and their families worse off, and also hurt the public health of our nation.
Now, after a year of divisive political combat, members of the House are told that they can advance health care reform only by adopting the Senate legislation as is, including these fundamental flaws. The House leadership is ignoring the pleas of pro-life members for essential changes in the legislation. Apparently they will not even try to address the serious problems on abortion funding, conscience protection and fair treatment of immigrants.

We are bishops, not politicians, policy experts or legislative tacticians. We are also pastors, teachers, and citizens. At this point of decision, we cannot compromise on basic moral principles. We can only urge -- and hope and pray -- that the House of Representatives will still find the will and the means to adopt health care reform that protects the life, dignity, conscience and health of all. The legislation the House adopted, while not perfect, came closer to meeting these criteria. The Senate legislation simply does not meet them.

With deep regret, but clear in our moral judgment, we are compelled to continue to urge House members to oppose the Senate bill unless these fundamental flaws are remedied. At this critical moment, we urge Representatives to take the steps necessary to ensure that health care reform respects the life and dignity of all, from conception to natural death.
For updates on this legislative debacle we're "Liveblogging the Apocalypse" right here.

Uh-Oh!!! Stupak Calls Presser

It's become quite clear to everyone that I've grown a little pessimistic the past few days about our chances of defeating Obamacare. I honestly believe that Pelosi has all the votes she needs and all the undecideds are just waiting to see if their vote is needed.

But then once in a while I read something that gives me a little hope like Rep. Altmire will vote no.

But then comes this from the Weekly Standard to flush all my hopes down the toilet:

Update: Stupak's office sent out an email saying he will hold a press conference with "other pro-life" members at 11:00a.m. to discuss the health care bill. Maybe all the pro-life Democrats cut a deal?
Now you can argue that he could just be calling a press conference to express his consistent intransigence to the funding of abortion before the vote.

But there are some disturbing signs swirling around including Brad Ellsworth, one of the Stupak 12, announcing he'd vote yes on Sunday.

On the eve of the eve of this disastrous and anti-life legislative debacle, I must say that if Bart Stupak stays true until the end he will have earned a place of deep respsect in the hearts and minds of pro-lifers everywhere. His courage in standing up to his own party has been downright heroic.

Call me pessimistic but I'm holding off on the parade for Stupak until I hear what he says at the press conference tomorrow.

Update: Call me flitty but this post at The Corner gives me a little hope. This healthcare thing is making me downright bipolar.

For updates on the healthcare debacle click here because we're liveblogging this legislative apocalypse.