Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Contrasting Responses to Obama’s Attack on Religious Freedom

Following up yesterday’s post on Obama putting birth control and Holy Obamacare above freedom of religion, two responses are notable and contrasting.

First, Roman Catholic bishops had letters on the subject read during masses this past Sunday. Here’s one example:

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just been dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people — the Catholic population — and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.

In so ruling, the Obama Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Obama Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting www.usccb.org/conscience,to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Obama Administration’s decision.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

+Alexander K. Sample

Most Reverend Alexander K. Sample 
Bishop of Marquette

By the way, I think Obama shot himself in the foot with this decision. With parishes across the nation having it spelled out to them during Mass what he has done, I suspect he lost a lot of Catholic votes this past Sunday. Psalm 7:15 comes to mind.

In sharp contrast is the response from the bootlickers at the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice which “applauds” Obama and Sebelius.

Because you just know “reproductive choice” is soooo much more important than freedom of religion.


MORE: You think I’m being hard on the Obama regime on this? Then read Bishop David Zubik.

The money quote:

Kathleen Sebelius, and through her the Obama administration, have said “To hell with you” to the Catholic faithful of the United States.
• To hell with your religious beliefs,
• To hell with your religious liberty,
• To hell with your freedom of conscience.

Monday, January 30, 2012

Obama’s “Freedom of Worship” in Action

Back in July 2010, I warned that the Obama regime’s use of “freedom of worship” rather than freedom of religion in its rhetoric was reason for concern.

Why was I so alarmed?

…genuine freedom of religion includes much more than the freedom to worship in one’s church, synagogue or home. It includes the freedom to live according to one’s religion (without unduly impinging on someone else’s freedom). For real freedom of religion, mere “freedom of worship” will not do.

And I feared that “freedom of worship” signaled that genuine freedom of religion would come under attack.

No, I am not a prophet.

The regime’s proposed Obamacare rules on birth control prove that Obama’s “freedom of worship” indeed does attack and violate freedom of religion. Church health insurance plans will have to provide birth control even if in direct contradiction of said church’s teaching. As my readers know, this is a particularly serious issue for the Roman Catholic Church. But all churches should be alarmed. The secularist attack on freedom of religion will not stop here as European Christians can tell you.

Wesley Smith also gets that we are now seeing Obama’s freedom of worship in action.

Friday, January 27, 2012

Obama in the Book of Daniel!

Back in the 70’s in my Christian radio listening days, I remember one huckster - I mean - preacher of the word who would, show after show, tease his listeners by telling them he was about to talk about the United States of America in Old Testament prophesy.

Well, it turns out the U. S. of A. really is in the Bible!

This past Wednesday night at my church as we studied Daniel, we came to the following passage:

Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom . . . Daniel 11:20 KJV

Filled with the Holy Ghost, I immediately blurted out, “Obama!”

And there was much holy laughter.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

School Superintendant Threatens 15-year-old for Opposing Gay Adoption

We’ve read numerous stories about the state attacking the free speech and religious freedoms of Christians in Canada and the U. K. But now there seems to be more and more stories like this here in the U. S. A. It makes me wonder how long before the whole West is one big anti-Christian gulag.

Some details can be found here, including links to the offending column written by the 15-year-old boy and a statement from the superintendant. The column is hard to read due to small print, and I can certainly quibble with it. Heck, I can quibble with my book God Knows What It’s Like to be a Teenager of just over ten years ago. But the column is certainly not bigoted except to those who have a chip on their shoulder. (Here’s a better quality pdf of the student’s column.)

As for the superintendant’s letter, I am not buying it. But then I wasn’t there.

Whatever the exact facts of this case, I agree with Christopher Johnson that it has gotten to the point that “when it comes to The Issue, there is only one right answer.”

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Conflict of Interest? Nahhhh!

Richard Griffin was not only “recess” appointed by Obama to the National Labor Relations Board when there was no recess in violation of the law and the Constitution, but he will continue to be paid by the International Union of Operating Engineers while on the NLRB.

But Mitt Romney’s tax returns and Newt’s past infidelities are much more important to the “mainstream” news media, don’t you know.

No scandal here. No conflict of interest. Nothing to see here. Move along.


Until now, I have never put restrictions on anonymous comments.

But last night, I received a completely anonymous comment, and I could not tell if it came from a genuinely interested reader or from a political operative playing the internet. And I did not find it edifying, so I deleted it.

With various political campaigns frolicking around and spinning blogs, I think I will now be more selective with anonymous comments. If an anonymous comment is edifying and passes the smell test, I will gladly post it as in the past. But if not . . . .

Perhaps this seems somewhat arbitrary. But either posting all anonymous comments or deleting all anonymous comments is a choice I find unpalatable. So I choose to pick and choose.

As in the past, I will post almost all named comments. Those really have to cross a line or two for me to delete. (But I would not advise testing me.)

Obama’s Illegal Immigration Willie Horton?

This ought to be Obama’s Willie Horton.

Immigration officials released felon Kesler Dufrene instead of deporting him. He went on to murder three, including a 15-year-old girl.

So why was he released?

So, what was the deal? Why was Dufrene never deported? Because of the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti, the Obama administration issued a temporary moratorium on all deportations to the island nation. . . .

The more troubling issue here is that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officials couldn’t detain Dufrene until deportations to Haiti resumed. A pair of Supreme Court rulings in 2001 and 2005 specify that foreign nationals who cannot be deported may not be detained for more than six months.

Obama putting the “rights” of illegals over the protection of citizens now has a casualty count.

Monday, January 23, 2012

Gingrich, South Carolina give Romney a good ol’ fashion Southern spanking. (Or what the heck happened?)

Back in the old days, before the hand-wringers took over our society, if a boy acted up in the South, he got spanked . . . hard.

Mitt Romney and his supporters got a good dose of that on Saturday. I told you his electability is overrated. Outside of Yankeeland, the man cannot get more than 30%. He is, no, was the weakest frontrunner in history.

Hot Air has posted a number of links to cogent analysis of what the heck happened. But a piece from the obscure C. Edmund Wright stands out to me. He states that the reason Gingrich surged is that he proven himself the man willing to fight back and stick it to the liberals. He points to the big South Carolina debate:

And where did the crowd roar? They roared when some premise of liberalism or some particular liberal was taken apart. No Republican on Republican crime was rewarded. Even Mitt, no favorite of the red meat crowd, got his loudest moments when he finally decided to support capitalism with some fervor.

. . . what the voters are craving in the debates and on the stump is someone who can look liberals squarely in the eye and tell them why we are right and they are wrong. The American conservative base has had to put up with being called stupid, racist, greedy and unfair for decades by not only the Democrats but the vast majority of the media. The pent up frustration of these decades is magnified by the fact that George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush and John McCain would not or perhaps could not confront this.

In fact, rare is the Republican candidate at any level who refuses to put up with this and fights back. When they do, they become sensations. Even Chris Christie and Donald Trump -- neither one a real conservative -- earned the love of the Republican base by simply deigning to fight back.

. . .

The roar is passion. The roar is intensity. The roar is pent up frustration. The roar, put another way, is the national mood of conservatives. It is a roar that will demand a fighter. It will demand that those who want our votes must not cower in the face of the liberal template. If fact, it is a roar that demands that we do not accept any liberal templates.

That's why Newt has gotten all the roars, and why he has vaulted into serious contention only days after being written off. Anyone else who wants the roar should heed the lesson. The roar comes only at the expense of liberals and liberalism. You won't get the roar attacking others on the stage. Tell your consultants to take a hike if they tell you otherwise.

That roar was an easy predictor of what would happen Saturday night in South Carolina. I knew it and everyone I know knew it late Thursday night. And it was. Seems like no one inside the beltway got it. Until Saturday evening.

Exactly. And in my eyes, Gingrich went yard when he took on anti-Christian bigotry. I, too, want a candidate with the guts to do that.

And on a more practical level, the Obama campaign will be a dirty lying $1 billion affair. The Republican nominee had dang well better be able to take it and fight back . . . hard. Gingrich is doing a much better job than Romney of proving able and willing to do that.

And now Gingrich is suddenly ahead in polls in Florida where we’ve been told again and again that it was just inevitable Romney would win.

Don’t wet your pants, establishment RINOs.

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Pew Poll Shows Paul 3rd Party Run Means Doom

I wish the title to this post were a joke. It is not. A Pew poll shows that whereas a Obama-Romney match up polls Obama 50 – Romney 45, if Ron Paul is thrown in, it’s Obama 47 – Romney 32 – Paul 18.

There are vital lessons in this poll for both Ron Paul and his detractors in the Republican Party. And for this country’s sake, both sides had better get it.

For Ron Paul, he must face up to the fact that about all a 3rd party run can accomplish is re-elect Obama. He needs to ask himself if that is what he really wants for this country. I hope he already gets it and will not run 3rd party.

For his detractors in the Republican Party (of which I am one), forget the downright stupid advice of Bill Kristol. Driving Paul and his supporters out of the Republican Party is a death wish.

My advice to Republican leaders is to tell Paul that we have to agree to disagree on foreign policy. But that on shrinking the size and reach of the federal government, Paul is right and we very much want to work with him on that.

Many Paulistas will be impossible to please, yes. But better have most of them on our side, if reluctantly, than voting third party for Paul and helping re-elect Obama.

There is an additional lesson. Romney’s electability is overrated. A strong Republican candidate should be thrashing Obama at this point.

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

BREAKING: Obama to kill Keystone Pipeline

If any of you ever doubted that we have a job-killing, anti-energy-independence President in the White House, doubt no more.

And don’t take the invitation to submit a new pipeline route at face value. To find a new route and get it through all the regulatory hoops will take years.

Our economy and hopes for energy independence have taken yet another big hit from Obama.

More on Obama’s “Recess” Appointments

The mainstream snooze media may have little interest in following up on Obama’s willful violation of the Constitution with his non-recess “recess” appointments. But he crossed the line into lawless unconstitutional tyranny. He run roughshod over the Constitution and over Congress. And this must not be allowed to stand.

So follow up is indeed in order.

In a brief but excellent article, Brian Bolduc buttresses the case against Obama’s appointments. He looks at some interesting history and finds that making recess appointments when there was no recess is not the only way Obama violated the Constitution; but that, even if there had been a recess, the appointments are constitutionally questionable.

To raise the temperature a bit, I’ve come across a radio interview of Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY).

The interview and Sen. Barrasso himself has not gotten much notice, and it escaped my attention until this morning. But he goes yard on Obama, calling the appointments clearly unconstitutional and “Chicago-style” politics.

Expect to see more of Sen. Barrasso in the future. He seems unafraid of telling it like it is and acting upon it.

Speaking of action, the lawsuits against Obama’s unconstitutional NRLB appointments have already begun.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012


My first reaction when I read the news that Jeffrey John is considering suing over not being appointed bishop, I doubted the story. Like Peter Ould , I thought The Very Rev. John had more class than this.

But apparently not. The story is now very much confirmed.

For the record, before this story came out, my main issue with Jeffrey John being made bishop was his teaching. Someone could have an impeccable moral life, but if he taught what John teaches, I would oppose him as bishop.

But now, with this display of hubris, I think he has all the more disqualified himself. In my Reformed Episcopal Church, it is well known that if a man lets it be known that he thinks he should be a bishop, that makes it unlikely he will ever be one. Such a lack of humility and sense of entitlement virtually disqualifies a man.

And to have such a sense of entitlement as to sue the church over not being enthroned . . . . May Jeffrey John never be made bishop.

Friday, January 13, 2012

Proverbs 30:20 Illustrated

The sheer shamelessness of Democrat National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz never ceases to appall and amaze. On the first anniversary of the Tucson shooting, she used the occasion to blame the Tea Party:

“We need to make sure that we tone things down, particularly in light of the Tucson tragedy from a year ago, where my very good friend, Gabby Giffords — who is doing really well, by the way, — [was shot],” Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee chair said during a “Politics and Eggs” forum this morning. “The discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular . . . has really changed, I’ll tell you. I hesitate to place blame, but I have noticed it take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement.”

Having brought up the Giffords attack as a political cudgel, Wasserman Schultz doubled down on that attack. “You had town hall meetings that they tried to take over, and you saw some their conduct at those tea party meetings,” Wasserman Schultz said today. “When they come and disagree with you, you’re not just wrong, you’re the enemy.”

To his credit, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus called her out on this, tweeting that she “should apologize immediately for her reckless comments blaming the Tea Party for the horrific Tuscon shooting.”

(By the way, I am not a fan of the RNC. In fact, I’ve twice told them in the past week that I don’t give to RINOs and that they are not to call me. So if you think I’m a sycophant for the RNC, think again.)

Wasserman Schultz’s response? Why, “I’d NEVER politicize Tucson!”

Yeah, right. As Priebus tweeted back, check the transcript.

When I read all this, Proverbs 30:20 came to mind.

So is the way of an adulterous woman; She eateth, and wipeth her mouth, And saith, I have done no wickedness.

Substitute “lying Leftist harpy” for “adulterous woman” and you’ve got Debbie Wasserman Schultz right there.

Thursday, January 12, 2012


Some things just make you say, “What the heck?!” This news story is one of them:

The Anglican Church of Mexico stands with the country’s political left in opposing amendment of Article 24 of the country’s constitution, Archbishop Carlos Touche-Porter tells The Church of England Newspaper.
Reforming the constitution to lift restrictions on religious groups holding services in public without first receiving government permission is a “very dangerous move that would only benefit the majority [Catholic] church and the growing ultraconservative Neo-Evangelicals and Neo-Pentecostals. Both groups are equally right wing and eager to impose their “values” on the entire population,” Archbishop Touche-Porter said.

“Most Mexicans support a total separation of Church and State,” the Anglican archbishop said, adding that “we are not used and do not wish to have uncontrolled open air religious services or to see the President of Mexico and other politicians making a public display of their religious beliefs.”

Yes, we must have total separation of Church and State. We want the State to restrict the religious speech of those predatory extremist right-wing ultraconservative rival churches who somehow are much more popular than we are.


How can someone with half a brain advocate “total separation of Church and State” and the State restricting the freedom of speech of churches?

For that matter, how can one be a Christian and wish the State to muzzle the Gospel?

I guess one has to be a Leftist or an Episcopalian to get that kind of logic.


A big hat tip to Christopher Johnson.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

An Appalling Ruling in Virginia

I am not familiar with all the arcane details of the legal dispute between The Episcopal “Church” and the seven Anglican CANA/ACNA parishes in Virginia. So I hesitate to get into legal commentary on this. I’m sure the Anglican Curmudgeon will dive into that in due time.

But I must say am appalled by yesterday’s ruling. I know at least Falls Church and Truro Church predate The Episcopal Church. And I seriously doubt they in any way have ever signed over their property to that organization.

My prayers are with those congregations. Their foundation is Christ, and they will long outlast Schori and her lawyers. But the loss of these properties cannot be an easy thing.

And what does the Episcopal “Church” gain? Properties they can hardly hope to use adequately with the bills that come with them. And some of the properties are difficult to sell due to historic graveyards and no telling what other use restrictions.

And that after TEC could have benefitted from generous settlements.

This lawsuit was almost pure vindictiveness. Anathemas are in order.

Thursday, January 05, 2012


After Obama’s illegal and anticonstitutional appointments yesterday, there is no question that we have a tyrant in the White House. It’s practically official now. For Obama has gone “full-rogue unconstitutional” and made key appointments brazenly against the law and the Constitution.

Yes, I just repeated myself. It is that important, and too many are ignoring it. We have a president who just willfully broke the law and violated the Constitution to make appointments a Congress not in recess opposed.

And this is not just a procedural dispute. It is a willful violation of the Constitution. The governor of Texas can no more declare Texas has five U. S. senators now than can a president ignore the law and the Constitution like this.

If we let Obama get away with it, I fear for this country.

By the way, I warned you again and again that this man has a totalitarian impulse. And I am getting tired of being right. This complete disregard of the rule of law is yet one more spasm of Obama’s totalitarian streak.



Even Obama’s own lawyers have recognized he cannot do what he just did:

Obama’s own lawyers publicly stated in a 2010 exchange with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts that the president doesn’t consider a congressional recess official — meaning he can’t legally exercise his recess appointment power — until Congress has been gone for three full days. ‘The recess appointment power can work in — in a recess,’ Obama’s Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal said. ‘I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than three days [to make an appointment].’ The Senate entered a recess on Tuesday, after having held a pro forma session to keep Obama from making any recess appointments. Another was planned for Friday. By making the appointments just one day after the Senate went into a recess, Obama appears to breaking his own administration’s rules and, as scores of Republicans are quick to point out, decades of executive precedent.

Wednesday, January 04, 2012

More Poormouthing of Santorum

Moving beyond the outrageous, the attempts to put down Rick Santorum after his amazing showing in Iowa are already getting silly.

There is much complaining that he really isn’t conservative. Well, gosh, everyone who does not believe exactly as I do is not orthodox and will be excommunicated from my cathedral apartment.

Is Santorum the perfect conservative? No. I particularly disagree with him on national service. But he (and Newt Gingrich for that matter, who is the recipient of similar whinging) is a heck lot more conservative than Mitt Romney. This conservative, for one, trusts Santorum much more than Romney. No perfect conservative is in the running for the Republican nomination. Deal with it, and not by enabling Romney or Obama.

Even sillier are those opining that Santorum’s showing in Iowa is no big accomplishment and doesn’t really matter. Here is one example:

Of course he can challenge Romney in Iowa: It’s tailor-made for him with its heavy evangelical presence and he’s spent months there doing retail politics. Like Ben Smith says, the deeper lesson is that if Santorum can’t even beat a weak frontrunner like Mitt here, where can he beat him?

Well, after months of retail politics, Santorum was still in Huntsman and Bachman territory in the polls nationwide and in Iowa. That he so caught fire the past two weeks is quite a phenomenon and accomplishment . . . and shows how earnestly most Republicans do not want Romney. To write it all off as just those Iowa yokels is ignorant at best. With indications that Bachmann and perhaps Perry are dropping out soon, expect conservatives now to flock to Santorum to stop Romney.

The real lesson is the establishment Romney machine can be beat . . . and Santorum may be the man to pull it off.

Tuesday, January 03, 2012

News Media Scum Attack Rick Santorum

The “Mainstream” News Media liberals (Sorry for the repetition.) seem determined to pick our president and even the Republican nominee. As soon as a conservative rises up in polls, he gets shot down.

The problem is that the latest conservative to rise up is Rick Santorum, one of the good guys, a highly ethical and honest man. So the news media has to really dig deep to come up with mud to throw at him. So they try to paint him as “crazy” for how his family chose to grieve the death of their new born son. And, of course, they try to smear him as a RAAAACIST!


Thankfully, both attacks are already thoroughly discredited.

The contrast with the kid glove treatment the “news” media gives Obama and Romney could hardly be greater.