Archive for March, 2012

While we dance around in a ring and suppose, the secret sits in the middle and knows.

-Robert Frost

In a week that was full of stories for those who could find them, perhaps the biggest was the airing of the tape of President Downgrade with his radical racist mentor and professor from Harvard, Derrick Bell. This was a coup not because it was more evidence of who the President is, but because it underscored the active participation of the Press in NOT reporting to the American people who he was at their time of choosing. But the bigger coup was in revealing this in a manner in which they didn’t even realize that the story being told was an indictment of THEM, not the radical divider currently putting his feet on the furniture at 1800 Pennsylvania Avenue.

And now that the narrative has shifted, and now that the Press tacitly admits the reason it wasn’t reported, the spin has begun. Now we are being told that Bell wasn’t such a bad guy. That he wasn’t really all that radical, and that he didn’t really have very much influence. But this of course epitomizes this administration, which has cloaked so very much in secrecy while claiming the highest level of transparency ever. The only truths of this administration of note are arrogance, failure, and excuses.

The arrogance started early. From the appointment of a tax cheat to the Secretary of the Treasury, to the expansion of czars with little or no Congressional oversight, to a willingness to diminish the Presidency by inserting himself into matters that had nothing to do with him (“I don’t have all the facts, but the police acted stupidly.”) to standing at the podium in foreign countries and offering apologies for America to people who did not deserve any such apology, to appointments without Congressional approval while Congress was still in session, and deigning to suggest to a prominent church leader that he himself did not understand his own churches doctrine, the President has revealed himself as possibly the most arrogant person we have ever had fill the position, which is quite an achievement considering the amount of failure and excuse that he has inflicted on us.

In the office where the buck once stopped with a more capable predecessor, he has offered up a startling amount of excuse and failure, along with empty bluster and bullying. Senator Obama was quick to blame his predecessor for a host of ills, whether it was high gas prices with a Democratic Congress, or a startlingly high unemployment rate that was significantly less than the percentage under his own term, even with his labor department fixing how the number was arrived at. Despite asking us for the job, and now asking for his contract to be renewed, no failure has been his fault. The power and majesty of the dumbest President EVER, George W. Bush has proven to be much stronger than the much-celebrated Obama mojo, as the evil BOOOOOOSH has managed to so screw things up, that no matter how much he can talk about finding someone’s “ass to kick”, and no matter what pressure he has no compunction about bringing from the bully pulpit he possesses, he simply can have no effect on things whatsoever. Every single thing plaguing this Administration, be it unemployment made worse by his own reckless and irresponsible spending, and increased regulations, a stagnant economy straining under oppressive regulations and intrusiveness, healthcare costs that continue to go up thanks to a planned takeover of the industry, and increased burdens imposed by the government, or sky-high gas prices that can be traced back to uncertainty from a foreign policy apparently determined to set the Middle East on fire, and domestic policies designed to all but shut down any domestic energy production on government land or in off shore drilling is the fault of his predecessor.

And now that a silly church that can trace its roots to the time of Christ won’t simply surrender its beliefs in favor of his doctrine, he finally has something to run on instead of his failure and our disappointment: the elevation of a government-granted entitlement to be provided by someone else to the status of a “right”, and the denial of it equated to a “War on Women”.

There are plenty of reasons to elect anyone else this November. And I’m afraid that right now, we’re so busy invoking our fallen and waiving that bloody shirt that we won’t be talking about these reasons every single day.

Read Full Post »

…And all I hear are these guys singing.

NRO’s The Corner, excerpting the New York Times:

On Wednesday, White House officials summoned dozens of leaders of nonprofit organizations that strongly back the health law to help them coordinate plans for a prayer vigil, press conferences and other events outside the court when justices hear arguments for three days beginning March 26.

Yuval Levin gets right to the meat of it:

That is a refusal to exercise even a moderate portion of toleration toward religious believers and institutions. It says, in effect, that the substance of religious convictions merits no regard from the state. And yet it seems that the forms of religious practice can be marshaled in the service of political objectives. The prayer vigil as PR stunt is expected to coexist with rank intolerance as public policy, and the White House itself is encouraging the stunt.

And so soon on the heels of suggesting to Cardinal Dolan that he just didn’t understand Catholic Doctrine, and that he should be listening to “more enlightened voices” on the subject of the HHS contraceptive mandate.

Cake got it right.

Read Full Post »

But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. The commission to Christopher Columbus, prior to his sail westward, is from ‘Ferdinand and Isabella, by the grace of God, king and queen of Castile,’ etc., and recites that ‘it is hoped that by God’s assistance some of the continents and islands in the *466 ocean will be discovered,’ etc. The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584, was from ‘Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, Fraunce and Ireland, queene, defender of the faith,’ etc.; and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes of the government of the proposed colony provided that ‘they be not against the true Christian faith nowe professed in the Church of England.’ The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I. in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words: ‘We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government; DO, by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well-intended Desires.’
Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of that colony, from the same king, in 1609 and 1611; and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant. The celebrated compact made by the pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites: ‘Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid.’
The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-39, commence with this declaration: ‘Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise disposition of his diuyne pruidence *467 so to Order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto adioyneing; And well knowing where a people are gathered togather the word of **515 God requires that to mayntayne the peace and vnion of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Gouerment established according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne our selues to be as one Publike State or Comonwelth; and doe, for our selues and our Successors and such as shall be adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation togather, to mayntayne and presearue the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus wch we now prfesse, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, wch according to the truth of the said gospell is now practised amongst vs.’
In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited: ‘Because no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship; And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits; and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith, and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare,’ etc.
Coming nearer to the present time, the declaration of independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that thet are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.’ ‘We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,’ etc.; ‘And for the *468 support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.’
If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every constitution of every one of the 44 states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the well-being of the community. This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the constitution of Illinois, 1870: ‘We, the people of the state of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations,’ etc.
It may be only in the familiar requisition that all officers shall take an oath closing with the declaration, ‘so help me God.’ It may be in clauses like that of the constitution of Indiana, 1816, art. 11, § 4: ‘The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed the most solemn appeal to God.’ Or in provisions such as are found in articles 36 and 37 of the declaration of rights of the constitution of Maryland, (1867:) ‘That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty: wherefore, no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness or juror on account of his religious belief: provided, he *469 believes in the existence of God, and that, under his dispensation, such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor, either in this world or the world to come. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this state, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this constitution.’ Or like that in articles 2 and 3 of part 1 of the constitution of Massachusetts, (1780:) ‘It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. * * * As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness, and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.’ Or, as in sections 5 and 14 of article 7 of the constitution of Mississippi, (1832:) ‘No person who denies the being of a God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil de partment of this state. * * * Religion **516 morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged in this state.’ Or by article 22 of the constitution of Delaware, (1776,) which required all officers, besides an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe the following declaration: ‘I, A. B., do profess *470 faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.’
Even the constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the first amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ etc.,-and also provides in article 1, § 7, (a provision common to many constitutions,) that the executive shall have 10 days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.
There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Com., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, ‘Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; * * * not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.’ And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor KENT, the great commentator on American law, speaking as chief justice of the supreme court of New York, said: ‘The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. * * * The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious *471 subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to panish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors.’ And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard’s Ex’rs, 2 How. 127, 198, this court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provision for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: ‘It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.’
If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, ‘In the name of God, amen;’ the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?
*472 Suppose, in the congress that passed this act, some member had offered a bill which in terms declared that, if any Roman Catholic church in this country should contract with Cardinal Manning to come to this country, and enter into its service as pastor and priest, or any Episcopal church should enter into a like contract with Canon Farrar, or any Baptist church should make similar arrangements with Rev. Mr. Spurgeon, or any Jewish synagogue with some eminent rabbi, such contract should be adjudged unlawful and void, and the church making it be subject to prosecution and punishment. Can it be believed that it would have received a minute of approving thought or a single vote? Yet it is contended that such was, in effect, the meaning of this statute. The construction invoked cannot be accepted as correct. It is a case where there was presented a definite evil, in view of which the legislature used general terms with the purpose of reaching all phases of that evil; and thereafter, unexpectedly, it is developed that the general language thus employed is broad enough to reach cases and acts which the whole history and life of the country affirm could not have been intentionally legislated against. It is the duty of the courts, under those circumstances, to say that, however **517 broad the language of the statute may be, the act, although within the letter, is not within the intention of the legislature, and therefore cannot be within the statute.
The judgment will be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Rector, Etc., Of The Holy Trinity Church v. U.S., 12 S. Ct. 511 (1892).

Yes, I know the history and Justice Brewer’s later clarification of what he wrote.  However, I also want to make a point to those who read a little bit of a decision, and fancy themselves Louis Brandeis reincarnated, whether or not they slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Read Full Post »

First, the Daily Caller brings us a few reminders for those concerned about the Right’s “War on Women”…

…and then to show that it isn’t yet “another right-wing partisan view”, I offer this piece by Kristen Powers.

Which whine does one serve with heaping helpings of Amnesiac Hypocrisy?

Read Full Post »

…milk it for all it is worth.

Seriously, when Georgetown Law Student whined and lied to a Congressional committee about the injustice being done to female students who willingly and voluntarily applied to and enrolled in the Catholic Church affiliated law school dealing with the prohibitive costs of the contraceptives that the school doesn’t provide, she was lauded as a “hero”, and a spokesperson for the plight of women and the “war” that the right is waging on them everywhere.

However, there are a large amount of people in the country who haven’t yet undergone the brainectomies mandated by Obamacare who immediately set themselves upon the testimony and started to draw reasonable conclusions based on it.

First was the easiest to attack…the funny math. Math is a process where leftists often find themselves at a competitive disadvantage, and this testimony was no exception.

“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.

Now there is a lot in this paragraph, so we should probably break it down.

Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.

Well, no, I know no such thing. And she would know it to not be true as well, if she bothered to look into it herself. The average student goes to law school for a 3 year span, so let’s use her numbers to come to a total of $1000.00 per year. Let’s start the analysis something easy: condoms.

Condoms might not be the favored form of birth control among those who use it, but they do have the advantage of preventing some STDs, which the pill and IUDs will not. Walgreens sells them, many in boxes of 36 at a cost of less than a dollar apiece. Wal Mart sells them at even lower prices. And if you are embarrassed to buy them in person, Amazon sells one brand in a 12 pack for $4. That is pretty economical, and by my reckoning, means that to spend $1000 a year, you have to be having sex at least three times a day, every day for a year. Unless you are a pro, or a REALLY popular “adult” film star, that’s a lot of action.

But let’s say you are in a stable relationship where both partners are disease free, and condoms “aren’t really your thing”. Or you just wanna be able to get your freak on whenever the mood hits you, and you just won’t wait for your partner to get a condom on. No problem. Both Target and Wal Mart offer generic birth control pills at the budget busting price of…$9 A MONTH, which on my planet, means $108 a year. Now even if you have to add an exam on top of that, we are constantly being told that our taxpayer dollar goes to Klanned Parenthood to help provide low-cost exams and birth control to the public. Even if “low-cost” translates to $150, you are still only talking about $258 a year, which isn’t even close to $1000 a year. And if you’re one of these numerous women who would need the pill for “medical” reasons and not as birth control, you aren’t necessarily paying any more.

For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary.

Seriously? A summer associate from Georgetown Law is only going to make $3000 in a summer? Yes, I’m saying that I do not believe it. And you shouldn’t either.

40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.

I’m not really buying this one either. Yes, law school is expensive. Yes, a prestigious law school is MORE expensive. But they are on scholarships…and student loans, which cover at least in part, living expenses. And when birth control doesn’t really cost as much as she just said it does, this becomes more problematic, and I have to think that she and her fellow students have more pressing needs than the cost of keeping a leisure activity consequence-free. But it also begs the question, what are you doing at a school that doesn’t provide birth control as part of its insurance services? I can only conclude that the only “choice” that matters to her and her fellow students is their own.

But it gets better.

“One told us about how embarrassed and just powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance and she had to turn and walk away because she couldn’t afford that prescription.”

This really doesn’t commend this lawyer to be to her future clients. She made a contract and had no idea what benefits it did and did not provide? While I might not mind having someone like that as opposing counsel, I’m afraid that she would diminish the reputation of my profession, and the profession doesn’t need help with this. I’d like to think that she was actually rightfully embarrassed because she never bothered to read the terms of the contract.

“Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.”

Because she couldn’t come up with $9 a month. Again, if you are really that destitute, given the potential consequences of sex even with birth control, you really need to address some other issues in your life before you make sex a priority.

Now there is another element which the media and their loyal following of hand-wringers have overlooked. This woman is a law student at Georgetown. She is the 1% in training. And without any shred of shame, she appears before Congress and offers testimony that implies that the school’s First and Ninth Amendment rights are subject to her sense of entitlement to having it subsidize her sex life. Now if any of her champions have stopped to consider this, they give no indication of having done so.

Enter Rush Limbaugh, a public figure who wields enormous influence and enjoys the envy and jealousy that comes with it. He sizes up her testimony, and states the following:

What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.

Now while I wouldn’t have taken that approach, I can’t fault the analysis. And he correctly nails the aspect that everyone else so conveniently ignores:

Can you imagine if you’re her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she’s having so much sex she can’t afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope.

Exactly. No shame, and the sense of entitlement that ate Cleveland.

But it doesn’t matter. The Left ginned up its selective moral outrage machine, and the Shameless Ms. Fluke is feted as the darling of the cause celebre of the moment, as the media, which must act collectively to have the influence Limbaugh commands individually swung into action against the talk show host, first trumpeting the OUTRAGE!!! of the woman who would violate the rights of others for the sake of funding her sex life (probably for him seeing it for what it is, and having the temerity to do so), and then relaying the denouncements of politicians and a President who will apologize to a foreign country for the proper disposal of a holy book that their citizens desecrated, but think nothing of violating the conscience rights of countless Catholic organizations here which are supposed to enjoy the protections of the First and Ninth Amendments.

This moral indignation is selective, and unpersuausive. Perhaps if this same choir was singing at all, let alone singing as loudly when the world’s unfunniest comedian, Bill Maher, was calling Sarah Palin a “cunt“, and a “twat” maybe, just maybe I might not be so outraged at their OUTRAGE!!!11!!!. At least NOW had the forethought to give themselves some cover for future expressions of outrage by registering a less than enthusiastic protest, but by and large, the women of power in the House and Senate couldn’t have been bothered to condemn Maher’s attack on a fellow female politician, and the power brokers in the Democratic Party didn’t have much to say either. But then Mrs. Palin was married, and had actually given birth to children rather than preventing them or killing them in the womb, so I can see where her family, especially her husband and father needed to hear that, while Ms. Fluke’s family needed to be spared when she went to Washington to demand that the government force someone else to yield their rights to her desires, because that’s the only reason I can see for the disparate results of these two stories.

Read Full Post »

…he makes the poo-flinging hate monkeys of the Left dance, dance, dance.

You are still a strong voice, and you will be missed.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts