Romney Supporters Take down Santorum Signs.

Here's an interesting video...........

What War on Religion?

Regarding the recent attacks on the Catholic Church, Francis Cardinal George, the Archbishop of Chicago, made this observation;

"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square."

One supporter of so-called, same sex marriage wrote than the Archbishop's remarks were a pompous prediction and "gaseous, inflated rhetoric".

However, if blogger Erika Christakis had her druthers, Catholic Bishops would be sitting in jail today. Writing in Time, Christakis says the Bishops should "......be willing to spend some time in jail in protest..." over Obama's birth control mandate.

Christakis also writes,

"Our social contract requires that we must occasionally stomach government policies that offend and outrage us.

Later in the hit piece, she praises Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela for having been willing to pay the price for their convictions. Oddly, she didn't expect MLK to stomach government policies that offended and outraged him. When one of her heroes fights against an injustice, she's offering praise and adulation. Let a Catholic Bishop stand up for what he believes and Christakis wants him jailed.

Seriously?

If one wants to see landslide Republican victories this fall, I'd say having the current administration locking up Catholic bishops would pretty much do the trick.

In spite of the fact that one Time writer looks forward to the imprisonment of Catholic leaders, fellow Time writer, Jon Meacham says there is no 'war on religion'.

Writer Philip Jenkins would beg to differ. I recently purchased his book The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice. Amazon.com gives this description of Jenkin's book;

"Anti-Catholicism has a long history in America. And as Philip Jenkins argues in The New Anti-Catholicism, this virulent strain of hatred--once thought dead--is alive and well in our nation, but few people seem to notice, or care.

A statement that is seen as racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, or homophobic can haunt a speaker for years, writes Jenkins, but it is still possible to make hostile and vituperative public statements about Roman Catholicism without fear of serious repercussions. Jenkins shines a light on anti-Catholic sentiment in American society and illuminates its causes, looking closely at gay and feminist anti-Catholicism, anti-Catholic rhetoric and imagery in the media, and the anti-Catholicism of the academic world. For newspapers and newsmagazines, for television news and in movies, for major book publishers, the Catholic Church has come to provide a grossly stereotyped public villain.

Catholic opinions, doctrines, and individual leaders are frequently the butt of harsh satire. Indeed, the notion that the church is a deadly enemy of women, the idea of Catholic misogyny, is commonly accepted in the news media and in popular culture, says Jenkins. And the recent pedophile priest scandal, he shows, has revived many ancient anti-Catholic stereotypes.
It was said that with the election of John F. Kennedy, anti-Catholicism in America was dead. This provocative new book corrects that illusion, drawing attention to this important issue."

Blog Ratings.

At the bottom of each post for this blog, there is a widget (or whatever it's called) to something called LinkWithin, which gives my readers reader suggestions for similar posts. Occasionally, I'll click one the links myself, just to review something I posted ages ago.

I did that yesterday - re-reading a post from April 11,2008 -Feeding Cannibals. After reading the post, I redid the test, only to discover that, four years later, my body would still feed the same number of cannibals. Ten.

There are other quizzes on the site; one in particular grabbed my attention - What's My Blog Rated. You put in the url, and you get a rating similar to the film ratings, G, PG, R etc.

I was surprised to see my humble blog given a PG-13 rating because of my use of the words abortion and death . Wow.


Out of curiosity, I wanted to see how some others rated. Two blogs I checked where given PG ratings; Puff's Blog about Stuff for the words gun,hell and death and Creative Minority Report for using the words hell and abortion.




Obviously, the folks behind the quiz don't like any discussion of abortion.

I was really surprised to find the pro-life blog, Les Femmes - The Truth given a very serious looking R rating.



Finally, I wanted to get the rating for LarryD's blog.

First, I put in the url for the old blog actsoftheapostasy.blogspot.com . Like Puff and the guys at CMR, his old blog drew a PG rating. (for the words pain and dick )


His new blog, actsoftheapostasy.wordpress.com, was rated G. I guess now that he's gone over to Wordpress, he's become all Mr. Goody Two Shoes.

Monica Lewinsky Today.

As my regular readers reader can attest, I've been a bit of a slacker this past week, vis-à-vis the blogosphere; I haven't posted anything since last Monday when I announced that I had - thanks to early voting in Georgia - cast my vote in the Republican primary for Rick Santorum.

In spite of this serious lack of blogging, I've still managed to get a few thousand hits, mainly from folks doing Internet searches on "Monica Lewinsky today". These folks were led to one of my posts from 2008 because of a photo I had posted of Ms. Lewinsky , way back when.

I find that a little bit odd. The main sources were the Yahoo and Bing search engines (under Images); the photo from my post wasn't anywhere near the front - it comes up a little closer to the front when one filters out the "adult" images. Why they'd chosen that one is a mystery.

I have no clue as to why some many people are now, seemingly out of the blue, interested in Ms. Lewinsky. According to Google Analytics, the visits came from thirty of the fifty (not 57) United States as well as D.C and Ontario.

It would be nice if people were being drawn to my blog because of something I'd written; instead, they're coming to my blog, reading a post with little written content, because of a picture of Monica Lewinsky that I had found on the web over four years ago.

Funny thing; back then I thought Mitt Romney would be the Republican Presidential candidate.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Update - 2/20/2012:
OK, know I understand the renewed interest in Lewinsky. A PBS documentary on Bill Clinton .

Update - 5/1/2016:
I regret my having written anything negative about Ms Lewinsky - read Apologies to Monica Lewinsky.

Early Voting - February, 2012.

It shouldn't come to a surprise to anyone who knows me, but I decided quite some time ago that, come this November, I'll vote for which ever Republican candidate is on the ballot to run against Barack Obama.

The difficulty for me has been the decision on who I should vote for in the Ga. Republican primary. Is it best to vote for who I think is the better candidate - policy wise - or should I vote for the candidate I feel has the best chance of beating Obama. They're not necessarily one and the same.

The date for the primary is March 6, but we have early voting in Georgia. I'll be voting today.

I've been giving the matter a lot of thought; after the recent attack on the Catholic Church by the Obama administration, I've decided to vote for Rick Santorum.

Why are Birth Control Pills and Abortifacients so Important to Obama?

After even Liberal Catholics objected to Obama's recent attempt to force religious-affiliated employers to provide free birth control coverage even if it runs counter to their beliefs, Obama has announced what he feels is a workable compromise. According to the spin, the "religious-affiliated employer" will no longer be required to pay for the contraceptives and abortifacients, but will be provided, free of charge by the insurance company.

Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said it was a "first step". Dolan isn't going to be fooled by the President's shenanigans.

A caller on a radio talk show brought up an interesting point; namely, if this is simply a health issue as Obama claims, why then not free access to all life saving medications? As far as I know, most women will not die if they are not taking birth control, but millions can die without blood pressure medication, medicines to treat high cholesterol and/or high triglycerides to name just three.

The President's pals at NARAL claim that free birth control is "critical to protecting women’s health". Evidently, cardiac medications and insulin for diabetics aren't critical enough in protecting anyone's health to be given away free.

The pro-abortionists in the Obama administration want to provide drugs that will prevent something natural (pregnancy) but medications that actually save human life aren't important.

Mr. X Speaks His, huh.....Mind.

In the original Dragnet television series, we were told that the stories were true, but the names had been changed to protect the innocent.

In this little story, I won't be identifying the other person because I really don't want the hassle that naming names would produce. Fortunately, it isn't very likely that he's going to be reading this post, so I'm safe, as far as that goes. Let's just call him Mr. X , for the sake of convenience.

Yesterday, Mr. X attempted to engage me in a political conversation. I really was in no mood for that. When he asked which Republican candidate I preferred, I told him I had not decided. He went on to explain to me why he couldn't vote for any of the three. ( there was no mention of Ron Paul - perhaps he's never heard of him ).

Mr. X told me he could not support Mitt Romney because Romney had too much money. He said he didn't care if Romney inherited the money or if he made it himself; someone that rich, Mr. X told me, would be unaware of the problems we common folk experience.

He reasoning for not liking Gingrich or Santorum was based on the fact that he didn't want to have a President name Newt.....he just didn't like the name; and he thinks Santorum sounds too much like sanatorium.

Fortunately for us, he doesn't vote all that often. He's certainly not going to vote in the upcoming Republican primary in Georgia. There's also a even money possibility that he won't be voting in the Presidential election this fall.

Thank Heaven for small favors.

3 1/2 Time-Outs Tuesday - Part 3 or 4 , I Forget.

Tuesday is nearly over - yet, I'll try to get a 3½ Time-Outs Tuesday out today.(Third shift really bites)



1) I came across a blog with a link to the White House website that gives "We the People" an opportunity to petition the White House. This link was to a petition to "Rescind the HHS Dept. Mandate Requiring Catholic Employers to Provide Contraceptives/Abortifacients to Their Employees" (this isn't the same petion as the one linked to on the right).

It was very difficult signing in....I very nearly gave up. Coincidence?



2) Visiting the White House website, I was greeted with a photo of Obama in all his smugness ...... not only is he the lamest POTUS evah, he's a pretty sorry excuse for a human being in general.



3) I was listening to Sean Hannity's radio program while picking up my son at school today. Naturally, Hannity is upset over Obama's recent decision on employers' birth control coverage. This must be difficult for Hannity, as someone who objects to the Catholic Church's teaching on birth control. I'm sure Obama is depending on CINOs who want birth control covered by everyone's health insurance to cover his butt, politically.



3 1/2) I'm considering making some minor changes in my blog's template. If and when I decide to do this, it'll cause a few problems with my blog links on the right. I apologize for this, in advance.

Adios, Mr.Shea.

Not that he would even care if he knew, but Mark Shea's blog has been on the "un-link-to- list" for quite some time.

For starters, I'm amazed at his dislike.....might I even say, hatred ...... for Michael Voris and RealCatholicTV. Shea is, of course, entitled to his opinion of Voris, but most of what he's written about Voris seems a bit petty.

Shea's comments to some folks leaving comments on his blog can come across as petty as well. In a recent post [Question] Shea put forth an argument which quite a few of his readers had, what I'd say were legitimate reservations with his proposition; Shea's responses could be called snotty.

He posted a jpg -which I've included below - which has the following stats:
1 in 7 American Houses are Empty -
1 in 402 Americans are Homeless -
24 Houses are available for each Homeless American.

Shea's post:
What would a civilization do about something like this if it really and truly believed, rather than reluctantly and tepidly grunts at the fact, that “Inasmuch as you did it to the least of these, you did it to me”? What would a civilization look like if it marshalled as much energy and creativity to deal with this as it does to prepare for war and amass mammon? What if it was as afraid of hell and as eager for heaven as it is afraid of discomfort and eager for power?

When many of his readers pointed out that the idea of giving the vacant house to the homeless was simplistic and/or impractical, Shea could not answer their concerns; he could only give a simplistic and/or impractical comment - such as;

"Yes. Always look first for reason why it *can’t* be done. Counsels of defeat are the best initial prophylactic against any incipient works of mercy.
Your affectionate Uncle,
Screwtape."
or
"Yes. Something could go wrong. So it’s pointless to even try. Don’t even attempt safeguards against such obvious possibilities. instead, just ignore the entire problem because it’s hopeless and besides, it’s just worthless homeless people we are talking about. So no big deal. Give up. There’s no point in even trying."

and
"Yes. And if I am not personally prepared to drop everything and adopt a dozen children, I have absolutely no right to express the view that abortion is wrong or to suggest any changes to the system. Any discussion of change to an inhuman system is just foolish talk and we should give up now because it will never work so there’s no point. Give up. Don’t try. Don’t even think about it. Abandon hope.
It’s amazing how much I’ve heard that today. On this thread."

Readers had pointed out to Mr. Shea that the vacant homes, obviously, were owned by someone.
How could we give vacant houses to the homeless without violating someone's property rights?
The vacant homes might be located in Location A while the homeless were in Location B; how do you give a house in, say, San Francisco to a homeless person in Atlanta?
The house in Location A might be empty because there are no jobs there; how would the recipient survive without income?

I'm OK with Mr.Shea and I having different opinions. I'm a bit turned off by his "superior" attitude towards readers who disagree. I'm not saying I'll never return to his blog, but I am removing the link from my "Places of Interest" on the right.

Atlanta Archbishop asks Catholics to Speak Out Against Birth Control Regulations.

Atlanta archbishop asks Catholics to speak out against birth control regulations -

Two news videos of interviews with Atlanta archbishop Wilton Gregory concerning the new federal rule requiring faith-based employers to include birth control in their health care plans.

Richard Cohen's Science Class.

Not surprisingly, Richard Cohen slams the Republican Party in his recent piece in the Washington Post. A party of nitwits (in Cohen's estimation) the party has "turned hostile to thought, reason and the two most important words in the English language: It depends."

In Cohen's world, the Republicans are anti-intellectuals par excellence because the dolts in the party cannot appreciate nuance, subtlety and relativism.

Regarding abortion, Cohen writes, 
"If you ask me what I think of abortion, I’d say, 'It depends.' It depends on whether you’re talking about the ninth month of pregnancy, the first, the health of the mother, the fetus — or, even, the morning-after pill. But in the Republican contest, the answer to the question is always the same: no, no and no again. Thanks for giving the matter such careful thought."

Evidently, Cohen hasn't given the matter such careful thought either.

I've addressed Cohen's lack of understanding of basic biology before regarding so called, same sex marriage [It's the Biology, Stupid.]. I suppose Cohen was asleep during whatever science classes he was required to take in school. The human fetus is human "whether you’re talking about the ninth month of pregnancy, the first, the health of the mother, the fetus — or, even, the morning-after pill." Cohen doesn't grasp this basic, scientifically verified fact.

Cohen goes on to claim the Republican's opposition to his view on global warming isn't based on their having studied the science.....you know, the way he's studied the science regarding human reproduction. (Cohen might want to read this from the Wall Street Journal).

I'm looking forward to Cohen's column this coming November, when he calls the United States a country of nitwits for having thrown Barack Obama out of office.