Saturday, March 10, 2012
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
When is Birth Control NOT Birth Control? Exposing Barack Obama's Latest Scam in Health Care
Liberals are desperately trying to cling to their lie of a Republican "war on women." That lie is vanishing like the mist before their eyes. Their last gasp is to try to confuse people about the supposed need to take "birth control" for "a medical purpose."
"Birth control" medication used for a medically necessary purpose is not birth control. Such use is covered by health insurance -- even health insurance from Catholic and other religious institutions. Catholic religious doctrine approves of the use of such medication for treating a genuine medical problem, just not with interfering with God's will concerning child-bearing.
The now notorious testimony of Sandra Fluke, Georgetown University Law School Student and head of "Law Students for Reproductive Justice" at Georgetown, claimed that students cannot afford their own birth control because "as you know" it costs "OVER $3,000" for a student to get birth control during the three years of a law school education.
The $3,000 cost is the central lynchpin of the argument, because if it is impossible to get birth control for less than $3,000, within an affordable budget, then students need help paying to continue to have sex instead of studying. On the other hand, if birth control is affordable and easily available, then most Americans will expect men and women alike to pay for their own sex, thank you very much. And all the more Americans would expect a woman's male friend(s) to help with the cost before asking health insurance or the taxpayer to pay for a woman to have sex.
But that liberal lie is unraveling fast. The Weekly Standard did what I thought about doing (but didn't have time):
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dc-target-sells-birth-control-9-month-georgetown-student-tells-congress-friends-are-going-broke-pay-pills_632955.html
The Weekly Standard called a Target pharmacy near to Georgetown and found that birth control pills, without insurance, can cost only $9 per month. Note that the question is how little can you pay, not how much you can pay. The question is do students NEED to have help paying for their own sex lives? If students could pay as little as $500 over 3 years, instead of $3,000, this dramatically changes the case for a supposed "need" to have other people pay for your private sex life.
In her Congressional testimony, Sandra Fluke confessed (Emphasis added):
“A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.
So while spinning her sob story, Sandra Fluke let the cat out of the bag.
Medication used for a non-birth control purpose is not birth control.
For example, Minoxidyl is a medication that was developed to control blood pressure. However, it was discovered that if you spread Minoxidyl on your head, it might grow hair for men with thinning hair (probably won't, but it works just often enough to keep hope alive).
When controlling blood pressure, Minoxidyl is medically necessary, prescribed for a medically necessary purpose. Therefore, it is covered by health insurance. However, when used on the scalp, externally, it is sold under the brand name Rogaine and it is NOT covered by health insurance. Used to control blood pressure, Minoxidyl is medically necessary. When used for male vanity, for mere appearance, Rogaine (Minoxidyl) is not covered by health insurance.
Similarly, aspirin is one of nature's wonder drugs. It can minimize blood clots, and can minimize the risk of heart attacks. It can reduce a fever. And it can reduce your headache. That's only three of its many uses. When used to deter blood clots and heart attacks, it is clearly a drug prescribed for a medical condition, and is covered by health insurance. When used to treat the occasional headache, it would probably not be covered by most health insurance.
In the same way, the medication that produces a birth control effect also has other effects, as well.
So when the same medication is being used to treat a medical condition it is NOT birth control, it is not coded for health insurance purposes as birth control, it is paid and covered by ALL health insurance, even at Catholic institutions, and it is approved of by the Catholic Church.
Even Sandra Fluke admits that Georgetown University's health insurance policy will cover birth control medication when needed for a non-birth control reason.
But Sandra Fluke admits this "inconvenient truth" (for liberals) under her breath and then proceeds to try to explain it away and obscure it. Meanwhile, others taken in by the scam, repeat the bald and naked falsehood that women with a medical need or medical condition would not be able to get the medication covered by health insurance. That is pure unadulterated hogwash and balderdash.
Aware that her argument has a giant hole in it, Sandra Fluke tries to navigate an oil tanker through a shallow creek:
“Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs."
That just isn't true. The same Catholic bishops leading the charge against Obama's war on religion have clarified that Catholic religious doctrine APPROVES OF medication to cure disease or alleviate suffering, even when it is the exact same medication that can also be used for a contraceptive purpose. There is no religious objection to particular drugs. The religious perspective (for those denominations that object to birth control) is focused on using the medication for a contraceptive purpose. (I don't have any personal objection to birth control. My outrage is directed at liars trying to take away people's freedoms.)
But then Sandra Fluke illustrates what you can expect from a highly-paid Georgetown lawyer -- to twist reality into a pretzel of falsehood. Fluke testified:
“In 65% of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescription and whether they were lying about their symptoms."
HUH? Hell, no.
If you don't have any documentation from a doctor, maybe.
LET'S TRANSLATE THE ABOVE: If you are LYING and claiming to have a medical need, without any medical records, without any medical diagnosis from a doctor, then yeah, people are going to scratch their heads and wonder "What are you talking about?"
But if a woman has been diagnosed with a medical condition, all she needs to do is pull out her medical diagnosis from a doctor and say "HERE" and point to the doctor's diagnosis.
I don't just mean that I think Sandra Fluke is lying. I mean that Fluke's statement contains within itself the seeds of its own falsehood.
_________________________________________________________________________
Let's listen in (hypothetically):
Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Could you explain why you are claiming a medical condition or medical need for this medication?"
Georgetown Female Student: "HERE IS MY DOCTOR'S DIAGNOSIS." "ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?"
Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Oh. No. Thank you very much. That's all we need."
_________________________________________________________________________
What kind of "interrogation" is Sandra Fluke talking about? Clearly, she is referring to students who are LYING or perhaps SELF-DIAGNOSING a medical condition.
Let's listen in again (hypothetically):
Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Could you explain why you are claiming a medical condition or medical need for this medication?"
Georgetown Female Student: "I have ovarian cancer."
Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Why do you think that?"
Georgetown Female Student: "I got on the internet and diagnosed myself."
Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Have you seen a doctor about your ovarian cancer?"
Georgetown Female Student: "No"
Insurance Claims Adjuster: "Do you have any documentation of your medical condition?"
Georgetown Female Student: "No"
Insurance Claims Adjuster: "I'm sorry. But we need some kind of documentation that you have been diagnosed with this medical condition. And I strongly urge you to see a doctor immediately. If you really do have ovarian cancer, you cannot treat yourself as your own doctor."
Monday, March 5, 2012
The Hidden Scandal of Sandra Fluke: Behind Rush Limbaugh's Massive Blunder
Last week, Rush Limbaugh enthusiastically and eagerly did a swan dive from the high board into the liberal trap. If anyone should know better, it is Rush. But Rush was thinking mainly about getting publicity for himself, to garner interest in people listening to his show. So Rush Limbaugh threw restraint to the wind, and started to channel Howard Stern. Rush started on a line of tittilating sexual innuendo, and just failed to stop at the border.
Anyone with Rush Limbaugh's experience knows by now that if you use certain words, phrases, or arguments, people will totally lose track of or forget what you were trying to say. No one experienced in politics fails to understand that if you use words like slut, prostitute, pimp, or the like, or Nazi, etc., or mention Hitler in any context, nobody will listen to anything else you have to say. They will be all wrapped around a tree about the word you used, and completely distract from the point you were trying to make.
The tragedy of Rush Limbaugh's inexcusable 'rookie' blunder is that the Sandra Fluke affair is a fiasco-in-waiting for liberals, Democrat candidates, and the Obama Administration.
This is not about Sandra Fluke.
Sandra Fluke exposed (almost) AN ANTI-CATHOLIC ATTACK BY LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS.
What is being missed in Fluke's testimony is that she is only the spokesperson for a project to attack Catholic Georgetown University -- for being Catholic. Notice what Fluke actually testified:
This was unmistakably a PROJECT to attack Catholic Georgetown University -- for being Catholic -- by "Law Students for Reproductive Justice" http://lsrj.org/
Sandra Fluke and "Law Students for Reproductive Justice" deliberately set out to attack and smear Catholics and the Catholic Church. This was a deliberate assualt on the religious beliefs of the Catholic Church.
This was the latest battle in the liberals' war on religion. (However, Limbaugh managed to totally obscure the real issues.)
It was also a complete pack of lies.
Perhaps Sandra Fluke will make a very talented liar, er, sorry LAWYER, one day.
Sandra Fluke may prove skilled at convincing juries of things that just aren't true.
But here, she got caught red-handed.
FAILED ARGUMENT:
The crucial lynchpin of the argument for attacking Georgetown's Catholic religious beliefs is the hypothesis that birth control is too expensive for a student to afford without health insurance paying for it. YET, THAT IS A FLAT-OUT, TOTAL LIE.
Sandra Fluke argued that "AS YOU KNOW" birth control costs a student "OVER $3,000" over the three years of law school.
Note: Some have tried to cover for Fluke by changing this to "UP TO." No. She said "OVER $3,000."
To expose this perjury, we need look no farther than Planned Parenthood's own website.
Of course Sandra Fluke did not identify which type of birth control she had in mind. But it doesn't matter:
COSTS: (1) Birth Control pills, every single day (with placebos often in the plan for 2 or 3 days): $15 per month, says Planned Parenthood. $540 over 3 years. (2) the PATCH: $15 per month says Planned Parenthood. $540 over 3 years. (3) IUD: Good for 12 years, $500 to $1000 up-front, says PP. (4) condoms: 40 cents each in economy packages.
Top name brand, Trojan, condoms cost $13.99 in a 36 count economy pack. That's 40 cents a condom. So the only way that a Georgetown student could be spending $3,000 over three years is to have sex 7,500 times over three years. That's 6.84 times a day, every single day, without any days off, for three years.
Could one spend MORE than $15 per month, which Planned Parenthood says is a likely price? Who cares? The discussion is about a student on a limited budget. So we are talking about how little she might spend, not how much she could go on the up side.
It is Sandra Fluke’s claim that a student *MUST* spend “OVER $3,000″ during 3 years. She is claiming that it is NECESSARY (unavoidable) for a woman at Georgetown Law School to spend “OVER $3,000″ a year for birth control.
So, sure -- you could pay more than $15 per month. But we are talking about students who are short on money. So obviously we are talking about students paying the minimum, because they are on a limited budget. The argument is that these students cannot afford birth control, so we have to look at the minimum price, not the premium price you could pay if you don't care about the cost.
But if Georgetown’s students — who are supposed to be studying some of the time — had sex 3 times a week, taking 2 weeks out being with their families for holidays and taking 2 weeks out for exam weeks, that would be 432 times over three years.
COST FOR CONDOMS: $172.80 plus tax over three years. (432 times 40 cents each.)
With contraceptives, there is NO PROBLEM. They are cheap. Easily available. Nothing to worry about. Anyone who wants contraceptives can get them, often FREE.
To buy condoms 5 days a week, every single week without a break, costs only $104 a year if you buy top-brand quality (Trojans) in 36 count economy packs.
But the liberals have a more fatal problem here:
If you are going to lie, never lie about things that the hearer can SEE to be a LIE.
For the next 8 months, women will be buying their birth control pills every single month, if that is their chosen approach. They can SEE that the liberals are lying.
For the next 8 months, voters will walk through the aisles of grocery stores and then can SEE how little condoms cost. They can see that birth control is all over the place. In every grocery store in America, you can see them right there.
So the lie by the Democrats is obvious for all to see. The looming fiasco for liberals is that anyone can see the facts for themselves that the liberals are lying about.
Democrats and free agent liberals are doubling down on THE LIBERAL WAR ON WOMEN:
LIBERALS ARE PUBLICLY ARGUING THAT (liberals instinctively believe) WOMEN VOTERS ARE DUMB. That is, liberals hope and imagine that women voters aren't smart enough to see through the liberal scams and hogwash.
Republicans are betting that women voters are smart. Liberals are desperately hoping they're not. Obama's re-election strategy is to bet everything on the hope that voters are easily-fooled, gullible, and naive. Republican election hopes rest on believing the best about the American people.
So the only way the liberal scam can work is if women voters are really, really dumb.
Republicans treat women as intelligent. Democrats don't.
Anyone with Rush Limbaugh's experience knows by now that if you use certain words, phrases, or arguments, people will totally lose track of or forget what you were trying to say. No one experienced in politics fails to understand that if you use words like slut, prostitute, pimp, or the like, or Nazi, etc., or mention Hitler in any context, nobody will listen to anything else you have to say. They will be all wrapped around a tree about the word you used, and completely distract from the point you were trying to make.
The tragedy of Rush Limbaugh's inexcusable 'rookie' blunder is that the Sandra Fluke affair is a fiasco-in-waiting for liberals, Democrat candidates, and the Obama Administration.
This is not about Sandra Fluke.
Sandra Fluke exposed (almost) AN ANTI-CATHOLIC ATTACK BY LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS.
What is being missed in Fluke's testimony is that she is only the spokesperson for a project to attack Catholic Georgetown University -- for being Catholic. Notice what Fluke actually testified:
“We, as Georgetown LSRJ, are here today ..."
“One told us about how ..."
“In 65% of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated .."
“For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, ..."
“One woman told us doctors ..."
“One woman told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered ..."
This was unmistakably a PROJECT to attack Catholic Georgetown University -- for being Catholic -- by "Law Students for Reproductive Justice" http://lsrj.org/
Sandra Fluke and "Law Students for Reproductive Justice" deliberately set out to attack and smear Catholics and the Catholic Church. This was a deliberate assualt on the religious beliefs of the Catholic Church.
This was the latest battle in the liberals' war on religion. (However, Limbaugh managed to totally obscure the real issues.)
It was also a complete pack of lies.
Perhaps Sandra Fluke will make a very talented liar, er, sorry LAWYER, one day.
Sandra Fluke may prove skilled at convincing juries of things that just aren't true.
But here, she got caught red-handed.
FAILED ARGUMENT:
The crucial lynchpin of the argument for attacking Georgetown's Catholic religious beliefs is the hypothesis that birth control is too expensive for a student to afford without health insurance paying for it. YET, THAT IS A FLAT-OUT, TOTAL LIE.
Sandra Fluke argued that "AS YOU KNOW" birth control costs a student "OVER $3,000" over the three years of law school.
Note: Some have tried to cover for Fluke by changing this to "UP TO." No. She said "OVER $3,000."
To expose this perjury, we need look no farther than Planned Parenthood's own website.
Of course Sandra Fluke did not identify which type of birth control she had in mind. But it doesn't matter:
COSTS: (1) Birth Control pills, every single day (with placebos often in the plan for 2 or 3 days): $15 per month, says Planned Parenthood. $540 over 3 years. (2) the PATCH: $15 per month says Planned Parenthood. $540 over 3 years. (3) IUD: Good for 12 years, $500 to $1000 up-front, says PP. (4) condoms: 40 cents each in economy packages.
Top name brand, Trojan, condoms cost $13.99 in a 36 count economy pack. That's 40 cents a condom. So the only way that a Georgetown student could be spending $3,000 over three years is to have sex 7,500 times over three years. That's 6.84 times a day, every single day, without any days off, for three years.
Could one spend MORE than $15 per month, which Planned Parenthood says is a likely price? Who cares? The discussion is about a student on a limited budget. So we are talking about how little she might spend, not how much she could go on the up side.
It is Sandra Fluke’s claim that a student *MUST* spend “OVER $3,000″ during 3 years. She is claiming that it is NECESSARY (unavoidable) for a woman at Georgetown Law School to spend “OVER $3,000″ a year for birth control.
So, sure -- you could pay more than $15 per month. But we are talking about students who are short on money. So obviously we are talking about students paying the minimum, because they are on a limited budget. The argument is that these students cannot afford birth control, so we have to look at the minimum price, not the premium price you could pay if you don't care about the cost.
But if Georgetown’s students — who are supposed to be studying some of the time — had sex 3 times a week, taking 2 weeks out being with their families for holidays and taking 2 weeks out for exam weeks, that would be 432 times over three years.
COST FOR CONDOMS: $172.80 plus tax over three years. (432 times 40 cents each.)
With contraceptives, there is NO PROBLEM. They are cheap. Easily available. Nothing to worry about. Anyone who wants contraceptives can get them, often FREE.
To buy condoms 5 days a week, every single week without a break, costs only $104 a year if you buy top-brand quality (Trojans) in 36 count economy packs.
But the liberals have a more fatal problem here:
If you are going to lie, never lie about things that the hearer can SEE to be a LIE.
For the next 8 months, women will be buying their birth control pills every single month, if that is their chosen approach. They can SEE that the liberals are lying.
For the next 8 months, voters will walk through the aisles of grocery stores and then can SEE how little condoms cost. They can see that birth control is all over the place. In every grocery store in America, you can see them right there.
So the lie by the Democrats is obvious for all to see. The looming fiasco for liberals is that anyone can see the facts for themselves that the liberals are lying about.
Democrats and free agent liberals are doubling down on THE LIBERAL WAR ON WOMEN:
LIBERALS ARE PUBLICLY ARGUING THAT (liberals instinctively believe) WOMEN VOTERS ARE DUMB. That is, liberals hope and imagine that women voters aren't smart enough to see through the liberal scams and hogwash.
Republicans are betting that women voters are smart. Liberals are desperately hoping they're not. Obama's re-election strategy is to bet everything on the hope that voters are easily-fooled, gullible, and naive. Republican election hopes rest on believing the best about the American people.
So the only way the liberal scam can work is if women voters are really, really dumb.
Republicans treat women as intelligent. Democrats don't.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Sarah Palin Mocks HBO
SarahPAC mocks HBO's campaign video for Barack Obama "Game Change" -- NOTICE HOW (unlike some of my friends) SARAH PALIN IS NOT SITTING BACK AND WAITING AROUND TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS. SHE IS AGGRESSIVELY TAKING THE LEAD AND FRAMING THE DEBATE. I wish some people would learn that lesson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCo4cnA2Ez&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCo4cnA2Ez&feature=related
Andrew Breitbart, RIP -- Stern Warning to Conservatives On the Eve of his Death at CPAC February 12, 2012
John Popoff posted the following on Facebook
ASK NOT WHAT THE CANDIDATE CAN DO FOR YOU. ASK WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR THE CANDIDATE!
Andrew Breitbart, speaking at CPAC on February 12, 2012:
~ Andrew Breitbart, Conservative Warrior and Game-Changer (1969-2012)
ASK NOT WHAT THE CANDIDATE CAN DO FOR YOU. ASK WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR THE CANDIDATE!
Andrew Breitbart, speaking at CPAC on February 12, 2012:
I don’t care who our candidate is and I haven’t since the beginning of this. I haven’t! Ask not what the candidate can do for you, ask what you can do for the candidate! When I walk through CPAC or I travel the United States to meet people in the Tea Party who care – black, white, gay, and straight – anyone that’s willing to stand next to me to fight the progressive left, I will be in that bunker.
And if you’re not in that bunker because you’re not satisfied with a certain candidate, more than shame on you! You’re on the other side!
~ Andrew Breitbart, Conservative Warrior and Game-Changer (1969-2012)
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Understanding the RINO vs. Conservative Divide in Republican Campaigns
A frequent (if enigmatic) poster on Delaware political blogs, mynym, writes:
mynym takes a giant step forward in analyzing the divide between the conservative wing and the establishment wing of the GOP. Notice that the REAL ISSUE is not really about issues -- but about campaign tactics. Using failed campaign tactics, the establishment types are AFRAID, and don't know why they are losing elections. They are afraid of conservative issues that are proven winners, but are criticized by the mainstream media, because establishment Republicans don't know why they can't win elections.
So they blame conservative issues and social issues -- which usually increase Republican vote totals -- instead of learning from their mistakes and growing and improving their craft.
mynym identifies part of this divide: Moderate voters who, by definition, (a) don't care quite as much about politics or the future of the country and (b) can't make up their minds and (c) are less informed about politics, become the tail that wags the dog for establishment Republicans.
Instead of PERSUADING undecided voters, with sound reasons, establishment gurus propose to figure out what the undecided middle wants -- WHEN THEY DON'T KNOW THEMSELVES -- and present a candidate that reflects what the undecided voters want. But those voters don't know themselves what they want. You have to PERSUADE, EXPLAIN, EDUCATE.
Worse, the establishment types are the self-appointed gurus who have LOST TOUCH with reality, real people, and real life, by congratulating themselves with their "sophisticated" (lacking common sense) political techniques. I know some of these people personally. To walk in to certain conservative organizations I need to bring an oxygen mask.
Romans 1:22 (NASB) "22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,"
These people run the GOP. WHY? Because they have spent so much time dutifully learning what does not work and teaching other failed ideas. While conservatives are out in the real world living real lives, and understanding real people, the self-appointed leaders of the GOP drink wine and eat cheese in anti-septic think tanks, but couldn't run a winning election to save their lives.
It is ironic when Republicans take a static view of the very portion of the electorate most likely to vacillate. It’s actually not good to fit try to fit yourself in their image because there’s not much there.
Ironically, they may be more likely to respond to strong leadership simply because it is strong even when it’s not like them. After all, they don’t necessarily like themselves. And yet here politicians are trying to appeal to them when the best way to appeal to them is probably as simple as: “Just be yourself.”
mynym takes a giant step forward in analyzing the divide between the conservative wing and the establishment wing of the GOP. Notice that the REAL ISSUE is not really about issues -- but about campaign tactics. Using failed campaign tactics, the establishment types are AFRAID, and don't know why they are losing elections. They are afraid of conservative issues that are proven winners, but are criticized by the mainstream media, because establishment Republicans don't know why they can't win elections.
So they blame conservative issues and social issues -- which usually increase Republican vote totals -- instead of learning from their mistakes and growing and improving their craft.
mynym identifies part of this divide: Moderate voters who, by definition, (a) don't care quite as much about politics or the future of the country and (b) can't make up their minds and (c) are less informed about politics, become the tail that wags the dog for establishment Republicans.
Instead of PERSUADING undecided voters, with sound reasons, establishment gurus propose to figure out what the undecided middle wants -- WHEN THEY DON'T KNOW THEMSELVES -- and present a candidate that reflects what the undecided voters want. But those voters don't know themselves what they want. You have to PERSUADE, EXPLAIN, EDUCATE.
Worse, the establishment types are the self-appointed gurus who have LOST TOUCH with reality, real people, and real life, by congratulating themselves with their "sophisticated" (lacking common sense) political techniques. I know some of these people personally. To walk in to certain conservative organizations I need to bring an oxygen mask.
Romans 1:22 (NASB) "22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,"
These people run the GOP. WHY? Because they have spent so much time dutifully learning what does not work and teaching other failed ideas. While conservatives are out in the real world living real lives, and understanding real people, the self-appointed leaders of the GOP drink wine and eat cheese in anti-septic think tanks, but couldn't run a winning election to save their lives.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
RINO vs. Conservative Election Strategies
Many assume that picking a candidate is like launching a rocket. If you aim the rocket in the right direction and launch it with the right energy, that is IF YOU PICK THE PERFECT CANDIDATE, success is automatic.
THE RIGHT CANDIDATE = WE WIN, AUTOMATICALLY.
This is absolutely wrong in my view. Electoral success, especially for the minority party in a State, is not determined by picking the perfect candidate, but by running a (near) perfect campaign, every single day.
If you understand that it is the campaign — not the candidate — that matters MOST, then you work every day to win. Otherwise, you sit back, pop some pop corn and WATCH, and throw insults at the candidate.
Success depends not just on having a great canddiate BUT ALSO ON HAVING A GREAT PARTY — EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU. Everyone counts. All hands on deck. There is no one who won’t be missed. There is no one we can do without. There is no one too “small,” too part time, too unnoticed to spare.
If you understand that it is the quality of the CAMPAIGN that matters, YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, rather than just floating helplessly with the wind. YOU can go get trained. YOU can take charge of your precinct, whether the official leader or just assisting. YOU can make it happen.
If you think it is exclusively about the candidate, then you can sit back, do nothing, be lazy, and moan and groan and criticize, without being in any danger of having to do any work.
Bill Clinton had lots of baggage. Yet he won. A candidate has “baggage” when the opposing camp does a good job of puffing up issues into big deals, the candidate’s camp FAILS to defuse and respond to. A candidate is called a “STRONG CANDIDATE,” not because there is nothing in their life or career to criticize, but because their campaign does a better job of refuting, shouting down, obscuring, distracting from, etc. the criticism of their candidate than the other side does in attacking the candidate.
In hindsight, a candidate had “baggage” because their party did a lousy job of defending them.
In hindsight, a candidate was a “strong” candidate because their party PREVENTED several dozen potential land mines and time bombs from exploding.
IF YOU HAVE FRIENDS WHO HELP YOU CARRY YOUR SUITCASES, THEN “BAGGAGE” IS NEVER A PROBLEM.
In Delaware's 2010 US Senate race, Chris Coons had tons of baggage: PENDING LAWSUITS over political persecution of his rivals, some still in the courts. “Baggage?” No, because Republicans were more interested in attacking each other than in winning.
I walked neighborhoods for the RNC Victory campaign effort in October 2010 and DEMOCRATS told me they were voting for Christine O’Donnell because Chris Coons was their boss AND THEY COULDN’T STAND COONS after working under him. NCC finances collapsing. But because Republicans did not effectively address Coons’ weaknesses, he is considered a “strong” candidate. But it was the Democrat coalition that was strong, while the Republican coalition was weak.
Coons did not have "baggage" because the Republicans were ineffective. O'Donnell is said to have "baggage" because the Democrats were effective in their attacks.
If a football team does not protect its quarterback after the snap, the quarterback will be unable to run or throw a completed pass. Being under instant pressure, the quarterback will be forced to throw the ball away recklessly just before being smashed and squashed by the other team's rush.
NO quarterback can be effective if his team does not block the other team's rush. If you have ever seen a quarterback being rushed, expecting to have a few seconds to find and connect with his chosen receiver, and then suddenly in a panic as the otehr team's players are barrelling toward him, you get the picture. The sudden panic and scramble to get rid of the ball quick, without any effective success, is a perfect picture for the Republican Party.
One self-proclaimed "wiser" moderate independent insists on a political blog that an election is like launching a rocket. He claims you can predict what will happen on eletion day by the quality and NATURE of the candidate (i.e., appealing to moderates in his opinion).
But a campaign is most definitely NOT a ballistic motion. While I abhor the tendency to get all wrapped up in metaphors, and getting lost in the poetic imagery, a political campaign is called a RACE. That is a better model than a ballistic trajectory. In ballistic motion, the energy is imparted at the start (a gun’s internal explosion of gunpowder or a rocket’s engine), then the force STOPS, and the object COASTS — unpowered — along a ballistic trajectory, following only the laws of physics.
A campaign is more like a race, where EVERY STEP of the runner COUNTS. Every time the runner hits the ground and puts one foot in front of the other, each and every step makes a difference, from the starting gun, to cross the finish line tape. Everything that happens every hour of every day, right up until the polls close can change the outcome.
THE RIGHT CANDIDATE = WE WIN, AUTOMATICALLY.
This is absolutely wrong in my view. Electoral success, especially for the minority party in a State, is not determined by picking the perfect candidate, but by running a (near) perfect campaign, every single day.
If you understand that it is the campaign — not the candidate — that matters MOST, then you work every day to win. Otherwise, you sit back, pop some pop corn and WATCH, and throw insults at the candidate.
Success depends not just on having a great canddiate BUT ALSO ON HAVING A GREAT PARTY — EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU. Everyone counts. All hands on deck. There is no one who won’t be missed. There is no one we can do without. There is no one too “small,” too part time, too unnoticed to spare.
If you understand that it is the quality of the CAMPAIGN that matters, YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, rather than just floating helplessly with the wind. YOU can go get trained. YOU can take charge of your precinct, whether the official leader or just assisting. YOU can make it happen.
If you think it is exclusively about the candidate, then you can sit back, do nothing, be lazy, and moan and groan and criticize, without being in any danger of having to do any work.
Bill Clinton had lots of baggage. Yet he won. A candidate has “baggage” when the opposing camp does a good job of puffing up issues into big deals, the candidate’s camp FAILS to defuse and respond to. A candidate is called a “STRONG CANDIDATE,” not because there is nothing in their life or career to criticize, but because their campaign does a better job of refuting, shouting down, obscuring, distracting from, etc. the criticism of their candidate than the other side does in attacking the candidate.
In hindsight, a candidate had “baggage” because their party did a lousy job of defending them.
In hindsight, a candidate was a “strong” candidate because their party PREVENTED several dozen potential land mines and time bombs from exploding.
IF YOU HAVE FRIENDS WHO HELP YOU CARRY YOUR SUITCASES, THEN “BAGGAGE” IS NEVER A PROBLEM.
In Delaware's 2010 US Senate race, Chris Coons had tons of baggage: PENDING LAWSUITS over political persecution of his rivals, some still in the courts. “Baggage?” No, because Republicans were more interested in attacking each other than in winning.
I walked neighborhoods for the RNC Victory campaign effort in October 2010 and DEMOCRATS told me they were voting for Christine O’Donnell because Chris Coons was their boss AND THEY COULDN’T STAND COONS after working under him. NCC finances collapsing. But because Republicans did not effectively address Coons’ weaknesses, he is considered a “strong” candidate. But it was the Democrat coalition that was strong, while the Republican coalition was weak.
Coons did not have "baggage" because the Republicans were ineffective. O'Donnell is said to have "baggage" because the Democrats were effective in their attacks.
If a football team does not protect its quarterback after the snap, the quarterback will be unable to run or throw a completed pass. Being under instant pressure, the quarterback will be forced to throw the ball away recklessly just before being smashed and squashed by the other team's rush.
NO quarterback can be effective if his team does not block the other team's rush. If you have ever seen a quarterback being rushed, expecting to have a few seconds to find and connect with his chosen receiver, and then suddenly in a panic as the otehr team's players are barrelling toward him, you get the picture. The sudden panic and scramble to get rid of the ball quick, without any effective success, is a perfect picture for the Republican Party.
One self-proclaimed "wiser" moderate independent insists on a political blog that an election is like launching a rocket. He claims you can predict what will happen on eletion day by the quality and NATURE of the candidate (i.e., appealing to moderates in his opinion).
But a campaign is most definitely NOT a ballistic motion. While I abhor the tendency to get all wrapped up in metaphors, and getting lost in the poetic imagery, a political campaign is called a RACE. That is a better model than a ballistic trajectory. In ballistic motion, the energy is imparted at the start (a gun’s internal explosion of gunpowder or a rocket’s engine), then the force STOPS, and the object COASTS — unpowered — along a ballistic trajectory, following only the laws of physics.
A campaign is more like a race, where EVERY STEP of the runner COUNTS. Every time the runner hits the ground and puts one foot in front of the other, each and every step makes a difference, from the starting gun, to cross the finish line tape. Everything that happens every hour of every day, right up until the polls close can change the outcome.
Obama campaign co-chair tied to subprime mortgage crisis
Obama campaign co-chair tied to subprime mortgage crisis
Daily Caller
Published: 1:14 AM 02/24/2012
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/24/obama-campaign-co-chair-tied-to-subprime-mortgage-crisis/
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, the Democrat who was named a national co-chair of President Obama’s re-election campaign on Wednesday, served on the board of a company that is widely blamed for helping start the subprime mortgage crisis in 2007.
Beginning in 2004, Patrick served two years on the five-member board of ACC Capital Holdings, the parent company of Ameriquest Mortgage. He was paid a $360,000 annual salary for his efforts, according to “All The Devils Are Here,” a history of the financial crisis by Bethany McClean and Joe Nocera.
Ameriquest had already been the subject of numerous criminal complaints when Patrick joined the board of ACC. But despite its troubles, the mortgage company was the country’s “dominant subprime lender” in the years preceding the housing crisis, according to McClean and Nocera.
The company’s short-term success had much to do with the fact that it would loan money to just about anyone, regardless of income. In an effort to compete, other mortgage companies began issuing loans that were unlikely to be repaid, a practice that would eventually cripple the industry and later the American economy itself.
Daily Caller
Published: 1:14 AM 02/24/2012
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/24/obama-campaign-co-chair-tied-to-subprime-mortgage-crisis/
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, the Democrat who was named a national co-chair of President Obama’s re-election campaign on Wednesday, served on the board of a company that is widely blamed for helping start the subprime mortgage crisis in 2007.
Beginning in 2004, Patrick served two years on the five-member board of ACC Capital Holdings, the parent company of Ameriquest Mortgage. He was paid a $360,000 annual salary for his efforts, according to “All The Devils Are Here,” a history of the financial crisis by Bethany McClean and Joe Nocera.
Ameriquest had already been the subject of numerous criminal complaints when Patrick joined the board of ACC. But despite its troubles, the mortgage company was the country’s “dominant subprime lender” in the years preceding the housing crisis, according to McClean and Nocera.
The company’s short-term success had much to do with the fact that it would loan money to just about anyone, regardless of income. In an effort to compete, other mortgage companies began issuing loans that were unlikely to be repaid, a practice that would eventually cripple the industry and later the American economy itself.
Is Mitt Romney Electable, without Abandoning RINO Election Strategies?
After Mitt Romney’s win in Michigan (despite Democrats voting for Santorum or Paul in an open primary) and Arizona, it does become time to start accepting that we will have to support Mitt Romney over Barack Obama.
Mitt Romney can beat Barack Obama (though I think Newt or Santorum could do a better job of beating Obama in November). And it is up to us to MAKE IT HAPPEN, not to simply sit in the peanut gallery and throw insults. Our job is to “GIT ‘R DONE” not just spout opinions.
But Romney supporters are wrong in their theory that simply by launching the “right” candidate in the direction of November, victory is assured.
Romney WILL LOSE unless RINO’s, moderate Republicans, nameless, faceless establishment apparatchiks, self-appointed experts and gurus, etc. CHANGE THEIR ELECTION STRATEGIES AND THEORIES.
The election theory under which people think Romney is electable is a FAILED political concept under which Romney will lose. If the political analysis that calls Romney most electable is followed during the campaign, Romney’s candidacy will end in disasster.
I CHALLENGE SUCH FOLKS WITH THE FOLLOWING:
WHICH WAS THE BETTER COMPUTER (especially at the start of the desk top computer revolution)?
Apple?
Or Microsoft based IBM type?
Hands down, Apple computers and operating systems were (especially at the beginning) vastly superior to the Microsoft operating system running on IBM clones.
DID THE BEST PRODUCT WIN? HELL, NO.
Superior MARKETING strategies defeated the better product. The inferior product beat the pants off the better product, because of Microsoft’s superior marketing strategies and efforts.
The theory — perfectly expressed by Dave in ballistic rocket terms — that success comes from launching a perfect candidate, and then DOING NOTHING until guaranteed success on election day — is why moderate Republicans fail.
The ballistic analogy offered by a moderate blogger Dave is perfect, because a ballistic trajectory means COASTING TO THE TARGET. A ballistic object (any object following ballistic motion, to be correct) IS COASTING after an initial burst of energy.
Moderate Dave gives us the perfect explanation of moderate Republican / RINO thinking:
They expect to COAST until election day. Choose the “perfect” candidate — who of course DOES NOT EXIST — and then COAST all the way to election day.
This thinking is exactly why RINO candidates end in disaster. Because the Democrats are pursuing an effective electoral strategy and the moderates and RINO’s are fiercely dedicated to a FAILED electoral strategy.
The RINO election strategy is: (1) pick a perfect candidate (who doesn’t exist and never has existed in the history of mankind), (2) expect a majority of Republicans, Democrats, independents, and third party voters to just AUTOMATICALLY vote for this candidate. (3) Do not give voters any REASON to vote for the Republian candidate. (4) Believe whatever the news media says about the Republican (but not the Democrat), and don’t ASK the candidate for his side of the story. (5) As soon as the Democrats find something to criticize about the GOP nominee — which they *ALWAYS* will 100% of the time, DUMP YOUR CANDIDATE OVER BOARD. Make sure you are publicly seen as the *FIRST* to criticize your own party’s nominee to prove how high-minded you are. The Democrats don’t need to campaign against the Republican, because Republicans will do it for them. Republicans want to run out in front of the parade and be seen as the FIRST to criticize the GOP nominee over any real or imagined fault. (6) Wait until two weeks before the election and then run around in a frenzy — way too late to do any good — and then claim you worked hard campaigning. (7) Remind Democrats to vote on election day. (8) Live in self-denial, and repeat the same mistakes election after election.
Because there is no such thing as a perfect candidate, when RINO’s discover a fault in their previously perfect candidate, their entire theory falls apart. Their strategy is based upon something that never has existed and never will. So when a fault is discovered in their candidate, they have no Plan B. They can’t win.
The only thing the Democrats in Delaware have to do is find something wrong with the “perfect” GOP nominee, and the RINO’s and moderate Republicans are toast. They have nowhere to go.
Because their electoral strategy is not based upon running an actual human being for political office, they cannot stand up for their nominee when under attack.
GUARANTEED: Over a billion dollars will be spent smearing Mitt Romney and mischaracterizing him. If you are not ready to RESPOND to these smears on MItt Romney, you may as well make your reservations for the Obama Inaugural Galas of January 2013.
In our elections, we have to vote for a human being, not a robot or demi-god. You can always find something about any candidate, or human being in any role, to find fault with.
Imagine if we went through life treating friends, co-workers or family the way some want to rake candidates over the coals: Constantly looking for every fault we can find and then magnifying it as big as we can. Yes we have to choose between candidates and so we look for differences. But at the end of the day, none of the candidates are THAT bad.
In fact, ironically, our American system was specifically designed with this reality in mind, that elected officials will be imperfect people.
Imagine trying to choose which brand of shampoo to buy. You stare at each bottle and find everything possible wrong with choice. Instead of comparing the brands to quickly make your choice, you become totally paralyzed finding every fault you can see with each choice. Instead of choosing which candidate you prefer, you become obsessed with every thing wrong with each of them, and never do make any choice at all.
Mitt Romney can beat Barack Obama (though I think Newt or Santorum could do a better job of beating Obama in November). And it is up to us to MAKE IT HAPPEN, not to simply sit in the peanut gallery and throw insults. Our job is to “GIT ‘R DONE” not just spout opinions.
But Romney supporters are wrong in their theory that simply by launching the “right” candidate in the direction of November, victory is assured.
Romney WILL LOSE unless RINO’s, moderate Republicans, nameless, faceless establishment apparatchiks, self-appointed experts and gurus, etc. CHANGE THEIR ELECTION STRATEGIES AND THEORIES.
The election theory under which people think Romney is electable is a FAILED political concept under which Romney will lose. If the political analysis that calls Romney most electable is followed during the campaign, Romney’s candidacy will end in disasster.
I CHALLENGE SUCH FOLKS WITH THE FOLLOWING:
WHICH WAS THE BETTER COMPUTER (especially at the start of the desk top computer revolution)?
Apple?
Or Microsoft based IBM type?
Hands down, Apple computers and operating systems were (especially at the beginning) vastly superior to the Microsoft operating system running on IBM clones.
DID THE BEST PRODUCT WIN? HELL, NO.
Superior MARKETING strategies defeated the better product. The inferior product beat the pants off the better product, because of Microsoft’s superior marketing strategies and efforts.
The theory — perfectly expressed by Dave in ballistic rocket terms — that success comes from launching a perfect candidate, and then DOING NOTHING until guaranteed success on election day — is why moderate Republicans fail.
The ballistic analogy offered by a moderate blogger Dave is perfect, because a ballistic trajectory means COASTING TO THE TARGET. A ballistic object (any object following ballistic motion, to be correct) IS COASTING after an initial burst of energy.
Moderate Dave gives us the perfect explanation of moderate Republican / RINO thinking:
They expect to COAST until election day. Choose the “perfect” candidate — who of course DOES NOT EXIST — and then COAST all the way to election day.
This thinking is exactly why RINO candidates end in disaster. Because the Democrats are pursuing an effective electoral strategy and the moderates and RINO’s are fiercely dedicated to a FAILED electoral strategy.
The RINO election strategy is: (1) pick a perfect candidate (who doesn’t exist and never has existed in the history of mankind), (2) expect a majority of Republicans, Democrats, independents, and third party voters to just AUTOMATICALLY vote for this candidate. (3) Do not give voters any REASON to vote for the Republian candidate. (4) Believe whatever the news media says about the Republican (but not the Democrat), and don’t ASK the candidate for his side of the story. (5) As soon as the Democrats find something to criticize about the GOP nominee — which they *ALWAYS* will 100% of the time, DUMP YOUR CANDIDATE OVER BOARD. Make sure you are publicly seen as the *FIRST* to criticize your own party’s nominee to prove how high-minded you are. The Democrats don’t need to campaign against the Republican, because Republicans will do it for them. Republicans want to run out in front of the parade and be seen as the FIRST to criticize the GOP nominee over any real or imagined fault. (6) Wait until two weeks before the election and then run around in a frenzy — way too late to do any good — and then claim you worked hard campaigning. (7) Remind Democrats to vote on election day. (8) Live in self-denial, and repeat the same mistakes election after election.
Because there is no such thing as a perfect candidate, when RINO’s discover a fault in their previously perfect candidate, their entire theory falls apart. Their strategy is based upon something that never has existed and never will. So when a fault is discovered in their candidate, they have no Plan B. They can’t win.
The only thing the Democrats in Delaware have to do is find something wrong with the “perfect” GOP nominee, and the RINO’s and moderate Republicans are toast. They have nowhere to go.
Because their electoral strategy is not based upon running an actual human being for political office, they cannot stand up for their nominee when under attack.
GUARANTEED: Over a billion dollars will be spent smearing Mitt Romney and mischaracterizing him. If you are not ready to RESPOND to these smears on MItt Romney, you may as well make your reservations for the Obama Inaugural Galas of January 2013.
In our elections, we have to vote for a human being, not a robot or demi-god. You can always find something about any candidate, or human being in any role, to find fault with.
Imagine if we went through life treating friends, co-workers or family the way some want to rake candidates over the coals: Constantly looking for every fault we can find and then magnifying it as big as we can. Yes we have to choose between candidates and so we look for differences. But at the end of the day, none of the candidates are THAT bad.
In fact, ironically, our American system was specifically designed with this reality in mind, that elected officials will be imperfect people.
Imagine trying to choose which brand of shampoo to buy. You stare at each bottle and find everything possible wrong with choice. Instead of comparing the brands to quickly make your choice, you become totally paralyzed finding every fault you can see with each choice. Instead of choosing which candidate you prefer, you become obsessed with every thing wrong with each of them, and never do make any choice at all.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Can Republicans beat Obama in 2012?
I have a bad feeling about Republicans (or anyone else) who think that success is automatic if they just pick the right candidate, or who think for any other reason that the whole thing just falls into place.
You can have the best football team in the world show up on the field, but they still have to IMPLEMENT a good game. They still have to come up with a good game strategy and good individual plays. They have to function as a team. They have to be “UP” and have their heads in the game. They have to put the team first, and not their individual feelings or egos. They have to “leave it all on the field.” A great team doesn’t win simply by showing up. Walking out on the field is the beginning, not the end.
However, if gas prices start hitting $5 a gallon in isolated places — I think I saw $4.90 something in some place like Los Angeles on a website — we could be heading for a Republican landslide.
You can have the best football team in the world show up on the field, but they still have to IMPLEMENT a good game. They still have to come up with a good game strategy and good individual plays. They have to function as a team. They have to be “UP” and have their heads in the game. They have to put the team first, and not their individual feelings or egos. They have to “leave it all on the field.” A great team doesn’t win simply by showing up. Walking out on the field is the beginning, not the end.
However, if gas prices start hitting $5 a gallon in isolated places — I think I saw $4.90 something in some place like Los Angeles on a website — we could be heading for a Republican landslide.
Monday, February 13, 2012
“The State Ruling the Church” by Fay Voshell
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/the_state_ruling_the_church.html
The Obama Administration's war on religion, through Obama Care, is explained comprehensively and well in the original article:
What are we talking about here? Are you really going to submit a receipt for $7.99 for a box of Trojans to your health insurance?
Any contraceptive option would be less than the deductible for any health insurance plan I’ve seen, with the exception of surgical sterlization.
This is where many people don’t get it.
First, they argue that government should intrude on people’s lives to the maximum extent, the outer boundary, of any power it can arguably claim to have. So if they can find any argument where government CAN do something, it SHOULD do it, to the extreme.
Second, government here is not prohibiting a practice that is independently in a neutral manner to religion prohibited. For example, Islamic sermons from Imams on Arab television teaching Muslims the correct way to beat their wives can be found all over You Tube. But the law in America prohibits anyone, regardless of their religion, from beating anyone, especially not their wives.
Here, the government is commanding religious institutions to *DO* something that their religion forbids. The government is commanding them to ACT in violation of their beliefs.
An apologist for the Obama regulations - not a supporter of Obama, but an opponent of social conservative issues within the Republican party) debated this with me on a blog:
Where that regulation conflicts with the institution’s core religious beliefs. For example, a business cannot hire people based on their religious beliefs. A religious institution has every right to hire people who share their religious beliefs, otherwise it could not carry out its religious mission.
(And by the way, people don’t understand that: An Italian restaurant is allowed to hire only Italians, in order to create an environment of an authentic Italian experience, probably with everyone speaking Italian. Where laws undermine the church’s ability to function, they must fall to the “free exercise of religion” commandment of the First Amendment.)
The Obama Administration is demanding that the Catholic Church publicly repudiate some of its religious teachings, by declaring (through their actions) as acceptable what their religious teaching proclaims as unacceptable.
If an employment law forbids a requirement for employees to pray during the work day, this cannot and must not be applied to a religious institution.
If they chose to work for a religious institution, they have chosen to conform to those beliefs. You have to accept THEIR choice to submit to those religious beliefs. It is not your choice to undo their choice of where they want to work.
YES. Federal funding is supposed to be to further a purpose — not as a backdoor means of controlling people, beyond the legitimate scope of authority of the Federal government. Where the Congress does not have authority to pass regulations, it should never be using Federal funding to do indirectly what it is not permitted to do directly.
EVERY non-profit organization has the benefit of not being taxed, including the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, the National Organization for Women (do you think I could get a job at N.O.W. as a conservative Republican male?), and even Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington where Melanie Sloan “earns” $230,000 a year for running around slandering people without foundation.
Many hospitals, religious and non-religious, are non-profit institutions.
The Obama Administration's war on religion, through Obama Care, is explained comprehensively and well in the original article:
Everyone knows that anyone who wants contraceptives has easy access to such measures even if he or she does not have a health plan that provides for them. The local friendly drugstore has aisles stacked to the ceiling with condoms and other “family planning” measures, while clinics such as Planned Parenthood hand out birth control pills and abortions with abandon — sometimes even to underage girls, as damning videos taken by James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles have shown.
What are we talking about here? Are you really going to submit a receipt for $7.99 for a box of Trojans to your health insurance?
Any contraceptive option would be less than the deductible for any health insurance plan I’ve seen, with the exception of surgical sterlization.
The central issue is government intimidation of and control over religious institutions. It is government’s overriding of the consciences of Catholics and members of other denominations who oppose abortifacients and sterilization.
The 2013 deadline for Catholic institutions to conform to the health care mandate is the proverbial governmental foot in the door for controlling religious institutions — actually, for controlling all people of faith who disagree with the administration’s stance toward abortion.
This is where many people don’t get it.
First, they argue that government should intrude on people’s lives to the maximum extent, the outer boundary, of any power it can arguably claim to have. So if they can find any argument where government CAN do something, it SHOULD do it, to the extreme.
Second, government here is not prohibiting a practice that is independently in a neutral manner to religion prohibited. For example, Islamic sermons from Imams on Arab television teaching Muslims the correct way to beat their wives can be found all over You Tube. But the law in America prohibits anyone, regardless of their religion, from beating anyone, especially not their wives.
Here, the government is commanding religious institutions to *DO* something that their religion forbids. The government is commanding them to ACT in violation of their beliefs.
But there are even worse consequences if the government continues to try to coerce the church against its conscience and doctrines of faith and practice. If the push to force the churches into positions compromising its rules of faith and practice succeeds, and the church capitulates, there is absolutely no church or church institution the government will not seek to control completely.
An apologist for the Obama regulations - not a supporter of Obama, but an opponent of social conservative issues within the Republican party) debated this with me on a blog:
Is a religious institution bound by any laws, such as labor laws, health and safety regulations, ERISA, etc. etc.? Where does one draw the line in regulation.
Where that regulation conflicts with the institution’s core religious beliefs. For example, a business cannot hire people based on their religious beliefs. A religious institution has every right to hire people who share their religious beliefs, otherwise it could not carry out its religious mission.
(And by the way, people don’t understand that: An Italian restaurant is allowed to hire only Italians, in order to create an environment of an authentic Italian experience, probably with everyone speaking Italian. Where laws undermine the church’s ability to function, they must fall to the “free exercise of religion” commandment of the First Amendment.)
The Obama Administration is demanding that the Catholic Church publicly repudiate some of its religious teachings, by declaring (through their actions) as acceptable what their religious teaching proclaims as unacceptable.
If an employment law forbids a requirement for employees to pray during the work day, this cannot and must not be applied to a religious institution.
Do employees of a religious institution have any rights?
If they chose to work for a religious institution, they have chosen to conform to those beliefs. You have to accept THEIR choice to submit to those religious beliefs. It is not your choice to undo their choice of where they want to work.
If a religious institution accepts federal funding (for any reason) should they be allowed to ignore the conditions under which those funds were accepted?
YES. Federal funding is supposed to be to further a purpose — not as a backdoor means of controlling people, beyond the legitimate scope of authority of the Federal government. Where the Congress does not have authority to pass regulations, it should never be using Federal funding to do indirectly what it is not permitted to do directly.
Religious institutions already have the benefit of not being taxed, what’s next, their workers would not be considered employees?
EVERY non-profit organization has the benefit of not being taxed, including the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, the National Organization for Women (do you think I could get a job at N.O.W. as a conservative Republican male?), and even Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington where Melanie Sloan “earns” $230,000 a year for running around slandering people without foundation.
Many hospitals, religious and non-religious, are non-profit institutions.
Can Mitt Romney truly Win Against Barack Obama?
Whether Mitt Romney can beat Barack Obama or not is *NOT* going to be decided by early opinion polls at this stage (which are mostly just an echo chamber of the media spin that Mitt Romney can win, because we say so).
It will be decided by how well or poorly Mitt Romney EXECUTES on his campaign strategy and tasks ahead.
This is part of the RINO disease. The moderate wing of the Republican party is obsessed with the idea that if you just put up the “perfect” candidate (usually meaning someone who offends no one by standing for nothing), everything just falls into place automatically. They think that if a moderate Republican is simply “nice” then the Independents will — for no good reason whatsoever — all vote for him. Why they assume that Independents will vote Republican without being given any reason to do so, is left unexplained.
Whether Mitt Romney wins or loses will be decided by how well Romney’s team explains his “case” and defends against attacks. NOTHING that Romney supporters point to will decide the November election. Whether Romney can take a lesson (a hundred lessons) from Newt Gingrich — but without Newt’s baggage — will determine Mitt Romney’s vote totals on election night this November.
For example, Mitt Romney’s explanation for how his work at Bain Capital translates into an ability to restore a strong economy has been WEAK at best, certainly VAGUE, allowing others to fill in the canvass with colors to their liking. If Mitt Romney does not nail that down, the Obama propaganda team will have people thinking Romney is Bernie Madoff by November.
The best person I know who could hit that out of the park is Christine O’Donnell. She excels at sharpening the message, boiling it down to a powerful, memorable, easily-grasped, persuasive presentation, and delivering it well. She could be out there explaining Romney’s record, in terms of how things really work in the business world, before Obama’s team gets around to smearing Romney. Romney would be well advised to (but won’t) sit down and take some lessons from Christine on getting his message across. I know I’ve learned some things from her. Not enough, obviously.
But someone is going to have to do a lot better job of selling Mitt Romney’s strong points than Romney has done so far.
It will be decided by how well or poorly Mitt Romney EXECUTES on his campaign strategy and tasks ahead.
This is part of the RINO disease. The moderate wing of the Republican party is obsessed with the idea that if you just put up the “perfect” candidate (usually meaning someone who offends no one by standing for nothing), everything just falls into place automatically. They think that if a moderate Republican is simply “nice” then the Independents will — for no good reason whatsoever — all vote for him. Why they assume that Independents will vote Republican without being given any reason to do so, is left unexplained.
Whether Mitt Romney wins or loses will be decided by how well Romney’s team explains his “case” and defends against attacks. NOTHING that Romney supporters point to will decide the November election. Whether Romney can take a lesson (a hundred lessons) from Newt Gingrich — but without Newt’s baggage — will determine Mitt Romney’s vote totals on election night this November.
For example, Mitt Romney’s explanation for how his work at Bain Capital translates into an ability to restore a strong economy has been WEAK at best, certainly VAGUE, allowing others to fill in the canvass with colors to their liking. If Mitt Romney does not nail that down, the Obama propaganda team will have people thinking Romney is Bernie Madoff by November.
The best person I know who could hit that out of the park is Christine O’Donnell. She excels at sharpening the message, boiling it down to a powerful, memorable, easily-grasped, persuasive presentation, and delivering it well. She could be out there explaining Romney’s record, in terms of how things really work in the business world, before Obama’s team gets around to smearing Romney. Romney would be well advised to (but won’t) sit down and take some lessons from Christine on getting his message across. I know I’ve learned some things from her. Not enough, obviously.
But someone is going to have to do a lot better job of selling Mitt Romney’s strong points than Romney has done so far.
Mitt Romney joins chorus against Obama War on Catholic Religious Liberty
by Jon Moseley
Calling all Mitt Romney supporters:
Your TEAM is on board, too. This is a UNITED FRONT against the Obama arrogance and dictatorial approach to America: Mitt Romney is right in there on this issue 100%. We are all ready to go "full speed ahead" on exposing this left-wing agenda.
Peeling away Catholic votes from Obama, at least if they stay home in November, could be the one greatest action to defeat Barack Obama.
MITT ROMNEY CONDEMNS THE OBAMA ATTACK ON RELIGION on February 12. Mitt Romney calls Obama's Friday, February 11, compromise "DECEPTIVE" -- and does an excellent job of exposing how absurd the Obama fig leaf is: "Do you know any companies that give things out for free..."
"This is an attempt by Obama to put sand over the mess he's made."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ-JBYfUyvk&feature=player_embedded
Mitt Romney explains that he FOUGHT similar efforts in Massachusetts, and repeatedly vetoed such attempts in Massachusetts. Some have pointed to Massachusetts, but Romney clarifies that he vigorously fought against the Massachusetts legislature AND VOWS TO REVERSE OBAMA on such measures now.
NOTE: Obama already promised once not to do this, then broke his word. Why should Catholics and other religious followers BELIEVE that Obama won't break his word again after re-elected in November?
NOTE ALSO: I don't know the price of birth control pills, so I asked my father, a retired doctor. (Anyone can see prices displayed in the supermarket of some birth control.) Dad confirms that the costs of contraceptiives are MINIMAL (other than surgical sterlization). Dad says his heart medication is (loosely, speaking colorfully) 100 times more expensive than typical birth control pills.
So THERE IS NO REASON WHY ANYONE NEEDS HEALTH INSURANCE TO REIMBURSE THEM $7.99 for a box of condoms or maybe $12.99 to $16.99 for the super economy pack. How many people are really going to send in a receipt for $7.99 to their health insurance?
Some of the discussion at CPAC was that THIS IS TO CREATE A PRECEDENT TO EVENTUALLY MANDATE THAT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS PERFORM ABORTIONS.
THIS IS ABOUT ABORTION, NOT CONTRACEPTIVES. Once the Federal government establishes the raw power and precedent that religious hospitals do not have any religious exemption, they will then be required to perform abortions.
And the ultimate goal is to crush religious resistance to the liberal agenda in American life.
Calling all Mitt Romney supporters:
Your TEAM is on board, too. This is a UNITED FRONT against the Obama arrogance and dictatorial approach to America: Mitt Romney is right in there on this issue 100%. We are all ready to go "full speed ahead" on exposing this left-wing agenda.
Peeling away Catholic votes from Obama, at least if they stay home in November, could be the one greatest action to defeat Barack Obama.
MITT ROMNEY CONDEMNS THE OBAMA ATTACK ON RELIGION on February 12. Mitt Romney calls Obama's Friday, February 11, compromise "DECEPTIVE" -- and does an excellent job of exposing how absurd the Obama fig leaf is: "Do you know any companies that give things out for free..."
"This is an attempt by Obama to put sand over the mess he's made."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ-JBYfUyvk&feature=player_embedded
Mitt Romney explains that he FOUGHT similar efforts in Massachusetts, and repeatedly vetoed such attempts in Massachusetts. Some have pointed to Massachusetts, but Romney clarifies that he vigorously fought against the Massachusetts legislature AND VOWS TO REVERSE OBAMA on such measures now.
NOTE: Obama already promised once not to do this, then broke his word. Why should Catholics and other religious followers BELIEVE that Obama won't break his word again after re-elected in November?
NOTE ALSO: I don't know the price of birth control pills, so I asked my father, a retired doctor. (Anyone can see prices displayed in the supermarket of some birth control.) Dad confirms that the costs of contraceptiives are MINIMAL (other than surgical sterlization). Dad says his heart medication is (loosely, speaking colorfully) 100 times more expensive than typical birth control pills.
So THERE IS NO REASON WHY ANYONE NEEDS HEALTH INSURANCE TO REIMBURSE THEM $7.99 for a box of condoms or maybe $12.99 to $16.99 for the super economy pack. How many people are really going to send in a receipt for $7.99 to their health insurance?
Some of the discussion at CPAC was that THIS IS TO CREATE A PRECEDENT TO EVENTUALLY MANDATE THAT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS PERFORM ABORTIONS.
THIS IS ABOUT ABORTION, NOT CONTRACEPTIVES. Once the Federal government establishes the raw power and precedent that religious hospitals do not have any religious exemption, they will then be required to perform abortions.
And the ultimate goal is to crush religious resistance to the liberal agenda in American life.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
The New York Times: Do We Need a New Republican Party?
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Friedman-Few-answers-from-today-s-GOP-3307718.php
Thomas Friedman is completely wrong (as usual), in the post at Chron from the New York Times.
Friedman postulates that because the country has challenges ahead, therefore an old party (not nearly as old as the Democrat Party, however) would be unable to meet them.
Balderdash. Until you can point to a bold new solution or program to meet the challenges of tomorrow that the Republican Party refuses to adopt, other than for being truly stupid or a bad idea, then you have no complaint.
Chances are, if someone comes up with a bold new solution or program for tomorrow's challenges (a) Newt Gingrich already proposed it 20 years ago, taught it extensively through GOPAC and his satellite TV training program, and is ready to pull the trigger on it on January 21, 2013, (b) the entire Republican party would quickly embrace such an idea from whatever source long before the unionized Democrat Party figures out what the idea is all about.
But Friedman then parades a list of issues which clearly belong in the private sector, in which the government should not play any role. Unless Friedman's plan is to convert the USA into the USSR, his list of priorities burnishes his socialist credentials, but does not a convincing argument make.
Case in point: When Bill Gates was creating MICROSOFT in his parent's garage, WHAT GOVERNMENT AGENCY, REGULATION, OR PROGRAM WAS IT that was in the Gates' garage with them?
Hint: If the government had been involved, Microsoft would have gone bankrupt before delivering its first operating system, costing the goverment millions of dollars in bad loans.
The only plausible example Friedman offers is his claim that Republicans would not accept $1 of tax increases for $10 of spending cuts.
But this ignores the obvious reality that Congressional DEMOCRATS LIE -- and we have figured that out by now. We've seen that movie before.... over and over and over. How many times do you think we should believe promises of spending cuts that never happen, before we figure out "You know, those $10 of spending cuts will probably NEVER HAPPEN."
The fact that Republicans would not take that deal shows what is RIGHT about the GOP, not a defect. We've been taken to the cleaners before. We learned not to trust Democrats any more. And the GOP hung together to toe the line. That is a sign of the GOP's strength, not its weakness.
Thomas Friedman is completely wrong (as usual), in the post at Chron from the New York Times.
Friedman postulates that because the country has challenges ahead, therefore an old party (not nearly as old as the Democrat Party, however) would be unable to meet them.
Balderdash. Until you can point to a bold new solution or program to meet the challenges of tomorrow that the Republican Party refuses to adopt, other than for being truly stupid or a bad idea, then you have no complaint.
Chances are, if someone comes up with a bold new solution or program for tomorrow's challenges (a) Newt Gingrich already proposed it 20 years ago, taught it extensively through GOPAC and his satellite TV training program, and is ready to pull the trigger on it on January 21, 2013, (b) the entire Republican party would quickly embrace such an idea from whatever source long before the unionized Democrat Party figures out what the idea is all about.
But Friedman then parades a list of issues which clearly belong in the private sector, in which the government should not play any role. Unless Friedman's plan is to convert the USA into the USSR, his list of priorities burnishes his socialist credentials, but does not a convincing argument make.
Case in point: When Bill Gates was creating MICROSOFT in his parent's garage, WHAT GOVERNMENT AGENCY, REGULATION, OR PROGRAM WAS IT that was in the Gates' garage with them?
Hint: If the government had been involved, Microsoft would have gone bankrupt before delivering its first operating system, costing the goverment millions of dollars in bad loans.
The only plausible example Friedman offers is his claim that Republicans would not accept $1 of tax increases for $10 of spending cuts.
But this ignores the obvious reality that Congressional DEMOCRATS LIE -- and we have figured that out by now. We've seen that movie before.... over and over and over. How many times do you think we should believe promises of spending cuts that never happen, before we figure out "You know, those $10 of spending cuts will probably NEVER HAPPEN."
The fact that Republicans would not take that deal shows what is RIGHT about the GOP, not a defect. We've been taken to the cleaners before. We learned not to trust Democrats any more. And the GOP hung together to toe the line. That is a sign of the GOP's strength, not its weakness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
