Debt Ceiling Reality Checks

The current debt ceiling mess cries out for some reality checks. Two come immediately to mind.

1. Where’s your plan, Obama?

Again and again, Obama has appeared before the cameras and microphones to take pot shots at Republicans and play class warfare. But where is his plan? Speaker Boehner has a plan. Harry Reid (finally) has a plan. The Gang of Six had their plan. Where is Obama’s plan? He pontificates about leadership. Where is his leadership?

And why doesn’t the news media ask where his plan is? For a while there it seemed Obama had a press conference a day. But I cannot recall a single time the press asked Obama, “Where’s your plan?” (And I freely admit that there is only so much Obama I can stomach. So perhaps the question has been asked. If so, I’ve missed it.)

So Obama has the “audacity” to pontificate but not offer his own plan. And the press is letting him get away with it.

2. It is time for the declare victory and move on to future battles.

Given, that the Democrats have the White House and the Senate, there is only so much that can be done now. And (another reality check), the debt ceiling has to be raised for now. I do not think a default is likely if it is not raised. But U. S. debt downgrades and chaos in the financial markets would be likely.

And you know who would get blamed for it. Yes, I know. It is Obama and the Democrats who are most responsible for this debt situation. And it is Obama who killed a debt deal this past weekend. But it is all the Republicans’ fault anyway. At least that is how it will be perceived with help from the “Mainstream” news media.

Now, a part of me wants to say #$%& the Feds! Shut ‘er down! But the resulting financial chaos would harm the economy and play right into Obama’s hands for 2012.

Charles Krauthammer, as usual, is right. The Tea Party needs to declare victory and move on to future battles, particularly the 2012 election. And the Tea Party is winning. The issue now is how much in spending cuts, and tax hikes are off the table. And that is a big turnaround in the direction of our politics in a short time.

We need to keep that turnaround going and not engage in a self-defeating refusal to accept what progress we can make now. We need to pick our battles, not give it all away in a foolish one. Remember, Democrats still have the White House and the Senate. We have to deal with that reality now and change that reality in 2012.

Norway and the Scapegoating of “Right-wing Christians UPDATED”

With great haste, the “Mainstream” News Media and others of the Left have sought to pin the Norway massacre on “Right-wingers” and Christians and especially “Right-wing Christians.”

Yet the killer’s own words make it clear he is no Christian:

“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.”

Uh, huh. Sorry. He is no more a Christian than a lover of English cathedrals is a Medieval Catholic. Or than someone who thinks Jesus was “a good teacher” is a Christian.

Not to mention that his lifestyle was hardly that of a Christian, much less a fundamentalist one, complete with prostitutes.

But the facts do not get in the way of those engaging in the demonization of Christians and in the demonisation of the Right. Even so-called Christians like Susan Brooks Thislethwaite (Yes. Her again.) join in piling on as she pompously lectures, “Christians should . . . try to come to terms with the temptations to violence in the theologies of right-wing Christianity.”

Yup. “Right-wing Christianity” is to blame.

MORE: The Reformed Pastor dissects Thislethwaite’s column.

Reports: Obama Nixed Bi-partisan Debt Deal

Now remember, don’t be confused by the facts. The debt limit crisis is the Republicans’ fault. Got it?

Now that we got that out of the way, there are reports that Obama has killed a possible debt limit deal between Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republicans.

And why?

The GOP bill to cut spending and raise the debt ceiling, which would avert the coming default crisis, would also require at least one more debt increase before the 2012 election, and the president, working hard for re-election, does not want to deal with the issue again before November 2012. After consulting with Obama Sunday evening, Reid's willingness to work with the GOP disappeared.


The re-election of The One is so much more important than a trivial default of the United States of America, don’t you know.

If these reports end up being confirmed true, it will be interesting to see how even the “Mainstream” News Media can successfully spin any failure to raise the debt limit in time as the Republicans’ fault.

But Lord knows they will try anyway.

Great Whore of Babylon Lusts for Crystal Cathedral

Sorry. I just could not resist that headline. But the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange is among the bidders for the bankrupt Crystal Cathedral.

And given the sordid state of church architecture today, buying a cathedral may be a better move than building a new one.

---

Housekeeping: Yes, I haven’t posted much lately. I’ve been busy. A good busy, though.

The President Who Will Say Anything

I thought Bill Clinton had a surpassing talent for saying just about anything with a straight face (if with that smirk of his). But he has nothing on Obama.

I nearly fell off my chair laughing when I heard this during yesterday’s press conference (And I am surprised this hasn’t received much attention.):

That’s what the revenue debate is about. It’s not because I want to raise revenues for the sake of raising revenues, or I’ve got some grand ambition to create a bigger government.

Uh, then what the heck was Obamacare about? And the massive increase in spending? And increased regulation? The Obama Regime since Day One has been all about a “grand ambition to create a bigger government.”

And Obama has put that ambition over common sense economic policy, which is why we are in the fix we are in now.

Illinois Severs Foster/Adoption Ties with Catholic Charities

I nearly did not post on this, because it has become the same old depressing story, state to state, country to country. But the State of Illinois will not renew foster care and adoption contracts with Catholic Charities because CC refuses to bow down to the gay agenda and adopt to gay couples.

Again, those who push gay agendas will never be satisfied. Being able to adopt is not enough. All agencies must be required to adopt to gays or else, the children be damned. “Gay rights” is more important than . . . just about anything after all, including the welfare of children, religious freedom, etc. etc.

Hat tip to Gateway Pundit.

Obama’s Helpful Stimulus

Well, Obama’s Stimulus, all $1 trillion of it, :Anglican understatement alert: does not seem to be helping the economy much.

But, hey, the Stimulus did get guns to our Mexican drug gang friends!

The Bishop of Brooklyn and Libchurcher Arrogance

If one wonders why I am so hard on libchurchers, i.e. liberal/left Protestants (and liberal/left faux Catholics), this column by Libchurch Priestess Susan Brooks Thislethwaite will give you more than a taste.

Now her so-called United Church of Christ has pushed for any number of Leftist enormities, with her support no doubt. But when the RC Bishop of Brooklyn suggests (and rightly so) that Catholics not give a platform to those politicians who support gay “marriage,” then it’s A VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!! THE HORROR!!!

I do not know what is more amazing, Thistlethwaite’s arrogance or her hypocrisy. For while she and her church pushes the whole fetid rainbow of Leftism, she writes that bigots real Christians should be quiet and also forget about church discipline lest they cross “over the line” of Holy Separation of Church and State.

I thought that advocating for one’s views was protected by Freedom of Speech, and that church discipline was protected by Freedom of Religion. Silly me. Only liberal speech and liberal religion is protected.

I could rant and carry on about her column. I really could. But Christopher Johnson and David Fischler both dissect it so well, I will defer to them and urge readers to get thee hence.

But, first, I must mention that Mr. Fischler wonderfully fisks the conclusion of Thistlethwaite’s piece:

[Thistlethwaite:] “There are many wonderful things about living in a religiously pluralistic democracy, and one really great one is that people of faith start to think for themselves and make their own judgments. And that’s allowed in this country. In fact, it’s often encouraged.”

Unless, of course, the judgment you come to is a conservative, traditional one founded on Scripture and two thousand years of Christian orthodoxy. In which case, YOU’RE A BIGOT!

I myself will conclude where Mr. Johnson begins:

Nobody, and I mean nobody, does pompous, arrogant self-righteousness better than liberal Protestants.

Priorities

The State of California is sinking into a financial hole dug by decades of big spending. So the legislature . . . passes a gay history mandate:

A bill to require California public schools to teach the historical accomplishments of gay men and lesbians passed the state Legislature on Tuesday in what supporters call a first for the nation. . . .

California already requires public schools to teach the contributions made to society by women and by racial and ethnic groups that were historically discriminated against, such as blacks, Latinos and Native Americans.

Supporters of the latest bill said it would simply include gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals in that existing requirement, making it part of the curriculum in history and other social studies classes.

Which begs the question – with all the requirements to set aside time to teach on all those oppressed “minorities,” do California public schools manage to teach adequately on dead straight white men . . . such as the Founding Fathers?

I think we know the answer to that question.

NY State Senator Asleazy Alesi, Republican Libchurcher

Even a sympathetic N.Y. Times article has trouble putting lipstick on this pig, namely State Senator James Alesi, one of the RINOs who voted to legalize same-sex marriage in New York.

First, he either lied or went back on his word. You pick.

Mr. Grisanti had vowed in 2008 that he was “inalterably” opposed to same-sex marriage.

Second, he sued for a stumble that was his own stinking fault.

In January, Mr. Alesi shocked his supporters by suing a couple in his district. He claimed they had maintained an unsafe workplace in a house under construction where he had broken his leg trying to climb a ladder, even though he had entered without permission. He dropped the suit after heavy criticism.

And he calls himself a Republican? But those two items are really just piling on. All you really need to know about Senator Alesi is his oh-so-inclusive “church”:

. . . Spiritus Christi Church, a Catholic congregation that broke with Rome in order to support gay men and lesbians, as well as women in the clergy.

Details of that history in their own words may be found here, martyr complex included. What we have here is what was a Roman Catholic parish that split from Rome so it could be a libchurch, complete with same sex unions, tossing around communion to everyone, etc. And Senator Alesi is fine with that.

Yet he was “inalterably” opposed to same sex marriage? Hmmmm.

One of his constituents sums up my thoughts about the state senator quite well:

“He’s not honest,” said Ray Akey, 66, a retired sales engineer and a Republican who had voted for Mr. Alesi in the past. He said he would not again — “Not after what he did to those people,” he said, referring to the lawsuit — but also because of the same-sex marriage vote.

Asked to sum up his feelings about his senator, Mr. Akey said: “It’s not real pretty. I’d have to put some cuss words in there.”

And so would I. So I best conclude this post forthwith.

Hat tip to Hot Air, where some comments may be found.

A Lesson from the Dominique Strauss-Kahn Debacle

I should disclaim right off that I am not a fan of Dominque Strauss-Kahn. I detest both his morals and his politics.

Nevertheless, it is clear that the case against him is falling apart given that his accuser is a documented liar and worse.

The French have been very upset over how this case has been handled. And, as much as it pains me to say so, the French are right, at least about how the U. S. press has handled this.

Something that has long provoked me is how the press can drag the name of the accused in sexual assault cases through the mud while the name of the victim is protected and withheld. This double standard is wrong. It is past time that the press be required to protect the names of both the accused (until conviction) and the victim. That is done is Australia and in other countries. And given that the press has time and time again demonstrated that it cannot be trusted with the reputations of those wrongly accused, it is a necessity.

A local case particularly raises my blood pressure every time I think of it. A football coach was accused of sexually assaulting a 16 year old boy. One TV station, KRIS 6, as its usual custom, had a field day with this. But when a mistrial occurred, KRIS made it sound like it was on a technically when actually roughly half (a majority if my memory is correct) of the jury voted to acquit. It was a mistrial because the case against him was too weak to convince the jury. But KRIS suppressed this after trashing the man’s name for months on end. I guess trashing reputations is better for ratings than restoring them.

Sexual assault cases are especially prone to false accusations, destroyed reputations, and shameless news media that cannot be trusted to act with a minimum of decency and responsibility. The names of the accused should be and must be protected from the media wolves in this environment (not to mention prosecutors who exploit the news media).

No, this would not violate freedom of the press. If it does not violate press freedom to protect the names of the victims, it would not violate press freedom to protect the names of the accused in sexual assault cases until conviction. In addition it would make it much easier to get fair trials of the accused.

Yes, in practice, it would be difficult to protect the names of politicians and celebrities, as in the DSK case. But at least most names can be effectively protected. Now when someone is convicted, then yes, that is the time to reveal the name of the perpetrator. I in no way wish to protect those who really do commit sexual crimes from justice and appropriate publicity.

Nevertheless, we Americans should be ashamed of the media circuses preying on the reputations of those merely accused of sexual assaults. It is high time we tell the news media, “Enough!”