Olga from Greece Has a Lithuanian Soulmate Mooching in the United Kingdom

Reblogged from International Liberty:

• 

The welfare state creates some amazingly pathetic and disgusting individuals.

• In the battle of the bums, we've had the spectacle of "Diaper Man" vs "Footless Hans."
• In the contest for most despicable moocher, we have the "Florida Pedophiles" vs the "Gimme Babymaker."
• And the fight for most pathetic victim of dependency features the "

Read more… 937 more words

And if you don't believe it can happen here, click the link, read, and get angry.

Another reason to like Tim Scott

Aside from the fact that the current representative and senator-designate from South Carolina has a good character, the right politics, and a clear-eyed view of our real problem, he worries all the right people:

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People isn’t too excited about the appointment of Rep. Tim Scott to South Carolina’s soon-to-be-vacated U.S. Senate seat.

(…)

Hilary Shelton, senior vice president for advocacy and policy at the NAACP, told The Daily Caller Monday afternoon that the group welcomed diversity in the Senate, but expects the new senator to work against the NAACP’s agenda.

“It is important that we have more integration in the U.S. Senate,” said Shelton in a phone interview. “It’s good to see that diversity.”

“Mr. Scott certainly comes from a modest background, experience, and so forth, and should be sensitive to those issues,” he said, referring to Scott’s impoverished single-parent upbringing in Charleston, SC.

“Unfortunately, his voting record in the U.S. House of Representatives raises major concerns,” Shelton said.

Shelton explained that the NAACP platform is crafted through an annual voting process which engages grassroots-level delegates who vote on the group’s national agenda. That agenda calls for an expansive role for federal government spending in black communities.

Because federal intervention has done such a bang-up job for Blacks. Just ask any beneficiary of the Great Society’s urban policies. And that War on Poverty? We fought it, and poverty won.

While Ms. Shelton does have some nice things to say about Congressman Scott, it’s clear her views are trapped within the statist, dependent, and identity-group paradigm that dominates the Democratic party. And yet Blacks are far worse off under Obama, who is pursuing those very policies the way an alcoholic chases a beer wagon.  But, to be honest, the NAACP stopped being an organization seeking the best interests of African Americans at the same time they entered into a monogamous relationship with the Democratic party. (Helpful tip: if you’re an interest group and you give yourself wholly and forever to one political party — they no longer have to take you seriously, because they know they have your votes no matter what they do.)

Meanwhile, here’s hoping that Mr. Scott has a long and fruitful career in the Senate and that, rather than coming round to the NAACP line, he encourages NAACP members to realize there’s another, better way to help Black Americans prosper.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

In Obama’s America, you’re better off on welfare

Oh, I know. I know. I’m RAAAAACIST!!! for even suggesting that. But numbers, while subject to interpretation, don’t lie. And in this case, they’re pretty hard to read any other way. From Zero Hedge:

Exactly two years ago, some of the more politically biased progressive media outlets (who are quite adept at creating and taking down their own strawmen arguments, if not quite as adept at using an abacus, let alone a calculator) took offense at our article “In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year.” In it we merely explained what has become the painful reality in America: for increasingly more it is now more lucrative – in the form of actual disposable income – to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work. This is graphically, and very painfully confirmed, in the below chart from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a state best known for its broke capital Harrisburg). As quantitied, and explained by Alexander, “the single mom is better off earnings gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045.“

And here’s the chart that illustrates the point:

(Click for a larger view)

Talk about perverse incentives. As structured now, a rational individual would look at this and conclude that he’s better off collecting rents from the rest of us, than working to better himself.

Be sure to read the rest. There’s much more — and it’s scary.

Not that we’ll have to worry for long, though, since the economy will simply shut down in 2027.

via Power Line

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Dissolve Detroit?

The city that’s been the butt of “urban wasteland” jokes for as long as I can recall may finally be reaching the end, as a state senator proposes disincorporation:

It would no doubt be controversial, but the idea of dissolving the fiscally struggling city of Detroit and absorbing it into Wayne County is being tossed around in Lansing.

WWJ Lansing Bureau Chief Tim Skubick reports some state Republicans are talking about giving the city the option to vote itself into bankruptcy. And mid-Michigan Senator Rick Jones said all options should be considered — including dissolving the city.

Thus we see the fruits of 50-60 years of unrestrained liberal governance –Walter Mead’s “Blue Model”– and the failure to adapt to changing economic environments: collapsing essential services and abandonment.

One wonders if, on hearing the news, someone in the Wayne County government asked “What did we ever do to you??”

via Moe Lane

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

And if that last chart didn’t convince you…

Here’s another, this time of the growth in food-stamp recipients under Barack Obama:

(Click the image for a larger version)

There are now nearly 20 million more Americans on food stamps now that there were when Obama took office. Gee, do you think it could have anything to do with the fact that, since Obama’s inauguration, ten times as many people gave up looking for work as those who found jobs?

This is disgraceful, and yet the Obama administration’s Department of Agriculture celebrates and encourages people to get on food stamps, and rewards states for signing up more. I have no problem with a small welfare state that helps the truly needy; it’s a mark of our compassion as a society. But I have a big problem with government policies that a) have the net effect of encouraging people not to look for work; b) encourages them to become long term dependents on welfare (no matter how they brand it, the dole is what it is); and c) acts as if this is a good thing.

It isn’t. In fact, it’s a record the Democrats should be ashamed of (rather than suggesting people hold parties), and it is an outstanding reason to vote Obama out of office. Depending on welfare is nothing that should ever be praised — it should be a mark of shame and embarrassment for those on it; shame is a healthy emotion that pushes us to correct what’s wrong, such as by looking for work as much as one is able to do, trying to be productive and a net contributor.

But the biggest shame is the government’s, for encouraging freeborn, productive citizens to become infantilized, dependent clients — and then acting as if that’s a good thing.

Come to think of it, to the Progressives it is a good thing.

This chart, and the one in the preceding post, represent an assault and danger to the character of the American people by Leftists obsessed with redistribution. On Election Day, we need to redistribute them out of power.

via Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Video proof: What really happened yesterday at Chick-fil-A

Yesterday was a “national day of appreciation”  for Chick-fil-A, a national chicken sandwich (and other stuff) chain, which had come under fire from the reactionary, ignorant, and nigh-Fascist Left, which had called for boycotts and even threatened to deny business licenses, all because President and COO Dan Cathy said in an interview that he held to the Biblical definition of marriage, that it is between one man and one woman. The company in no way discriminates in their service or employment, but, well, that wasn’t good enough for the Defenders of True Tolerance. Chick-fil-A had to be punished for one man’s Wrong Thought.

Boy did they get a surprise, yesterday.

But pictures don’t tell the whole story, so intrepid reporters Ben Howe and Bruce Carroll made a videolog of their trip to a local Chick-fil-A.

What they found was shocking:

Now, that’s what I call “Gaydar!”

Seriously, the reaction of the Left and of Liberal Fascists such as Mayors Rahm Emanuel, Tom Menino, and Ed Lee has been beyond all reason. Don’t like the owner’s personal opinion? Don’t shop at his store. Tell your friends. But don’t invoke the power of the State to destroy his business, his employee’s jobs, and the businesses of his franchisees, who may not even share his opinion. If guys like Dan Cathy get punished for a private opinion, if they don’t have freedom of conscience, none of us do.

And the proper way to deal with the reactionary Left is what we saw yesterday and in the above video: support and mockery. Show your support by buying some of the attacked person’s products and make fun of the Left. They can’t handle being mocked, and their reactions are amusing.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

And speaking of “freedom of conscience”

ObamaCare’s contraceptive and abortifacient mandates took effect today:

As of July 31, 2012 a business owner who objects to abortion had the freedom of conscience to make sure that her company’s insurance policies did not pay to facilitate the practice. But as of today, August 1, she no longer has that freedom. The ObamaCare contraceptive and abortifacient mandates take effect today, hailed by the Obama regime as a great and wonderful thing.

According to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, “President Obama is moving our country forward by giving women control over their health care. This law puts women and their doctors, not insurance companies or the government, in charge of health care decisions.”

What about pro-life women? Do they not exist?

Not in the eyes of Barack Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, or the Left, they don’t.

Be sure to read the rest.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

A Picture of How Redistribution Programs Trap the Less Fortunate in Lives of Dependency

Reblogged from International Liberty:

I wrote last year about the way in which welfare programs lead to very high implicit marginal tax rates on low-income people. More specifically, they lose handouts when they earn income. As such, it is not very advantageous for them to climb the economic ladder because hard work is comparatively unrewarding.

Thanks to the American Enterprise Institute, we now have a much more detailed picture showing the impact of redistribution programs on the incentive to earn more money.

Read more… 146 more words

And, in fact, just today we learn the Obama Admin. has gutted the Clinton-era welfare reform, giving people even more incentive to stay dependent.

#PPact issues ridiculous statement in response sex selective abortion exposé video

**** Written by Sister Toldjah ****

First, in case you haven’t heard:

Live Action says Planned Parenthood and other U.S. abortion providers are willing to assist in the termination of baby girls for pregnant women who choose abortion because they want to have baby boys. And the pro-life abortion watchdog says its video series and a new website will expose it all.

“This was a multi-state, national investigation demonstrating that this is a widespread problem across our country,” Live Action president Lila Rose told The Daily Caller in an interview Monday.

“First of all, the statistics and studies indicate that we are adding to the growing problem across the world of sex-selective targeting of unborn girls for abortion. We are going to be demonstrating — starting with this video from Texas — that the abortion industry in the United States is aiding and abetting this horrific problem.”

The first in what Live Action says is a series of videotaped incidents exposing American abortion facilities’  willingness to assist in sex-selection abortions took place at a South Austin, Texas Planned Parenthood clinic. In the footage, a Planned Parenthood counselor appears to readily assist and advise a Live Action actor who said she was trying to obtain an abortion if her baby is female.

Here’s the video:

In case you don’t have time to watch the full video, here’s the YouTube description (bolded emphasis added by me):

AUSTIN, May 29 — Today, Live Action released a new undercover video showing a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Austin, TX encouraging a woman to obtain a late-term abortion because she was purportedly carrying a girl and wanted to have a boy. The video is first in a new series titled “Gendercide: Sex-Selection in America,” exposing the practice of sex-selective abortion in the United States and how Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry facilitate the selective elimination of baby girls in the womb.

“I see that you’re saying that you want to terminate if it’s a girl, so are you just wanting to continue the pregnancy in the meantime?” a counselor named “Rebecca” offers the woman, who is purportedly still in her first trimester and cannot be certain about the gender. “The abortion covers you up until 23 weeks,” explains Rebecca, “and usually at 5 months is usually (sic) when they detect, you know, whether or not it’s a boy or a girl.” Doctors agree that the later in term a doctor performs an abortion, the greater the risk of complications.

The Planned Parenthood staffer suggests that the woman get on Medicaid in order to pay for an ultrasound to determine the gender of her baby, even though she plans to use the knowledge for an elective abortion. She also tells the woman to “just continue and try again” for the desired gender after aborting a girl, and adds, “Good luck, and I hope that you do get your boy.”

Life News’ Steven Ertelt has excerpts of the two Planned Parenthood statements released today. The second one will result in a commencing of eyerolls, my dear readers:

“Six weeks ago a former staff member serving in an entry-level position did not follow our protocol for providing information and guidance when presented with a highly unusual patient scenario. Planned Parenthood insists on the highest quality patient care, and if we ever become aware of a staff member not meeting these high standards, we take swift action. Within three days of this patient interaction, the staff member’s employment was ended and all staff members at this affiliate were immediately scheduled for retraining in managing unusual patient encounters. Today opponents of Planned Parenthood are promoting an edited video of that hoax patient encounter.”

“Recently, opponents of Planned Parenthood conducted hoax patient visits with hidden video cameras and are now using edited videotapes to promote false claims about our organization and patient services. In highly unusual and scripted scenarios, hoax patients sought services related to sex selection.”

[...]

Planned Parenthood condemns gender bias but refuses to condemn sex-selection abortions or say their centers will deny them.

“Gender bias is contrary to everything our organization works for daily in communities across the country. Planned Parenthood opposes racism and sexism in all forms, and we work to advance equity and human rights in the delivery of health care. Planned Parenthood condemns sex selection motivated by gender bias, and urges leaders to challenge the underlying conditions that lead to these beliefs and practices, including addressing the social, legal, economic, and political conditions that promote gender bias and lead some to value one gender over the other.”

[...]

“The world’s leading women’s health and rights organizations, including the World Health Organization, do not believe that curtailing access to abortion services is a legitimate means of addressing sex selection, and have made clear that gender bias can only be resolved by addressing the underlying conditions that lead to it. And we agree. We support efforts that ensure girls and women have access to economic opportunity, including fair wages, basic health care, political participation, education, and a life free of violence and discrimination. Planned Parenthood works to ensure women and their families have access to high-quality nonjudgmental health services free of coercion, supported by information and counseling.”

In other words, sex-selection abortions are fine as long as other efforts are undertaken to try to stamp out gender bias.

Yep. Isn’t it disgusting the way so-called “pro-women” forces on the left engage in dangerous, warped pretzel logic in order to “condemn” sex-selective abortions on the basis that they “discriminate against women” yet in the same breath they’ll tell you a woman shouldn’t be prevented from having elective abortions for any reason whatsoever?

I have written many times on the deeply disturbing practice of sex-selective abortions and the “feminist” movement’s disgusting hypocrisy/immorality on the matter. My comments in this June 11 post are fitting in response to today’s Live Action reveal:

As I’ve asked before, what’s the big deal to pro-aborts when it comes to aborting a baby on the basis of its sex? If it shouldn’t be an issue to abort an unborn child because it will “interfere” with your social life or college education, why should we be concerned about the boy baby bias in countries like China and India? Sure, it equates to blatant discrimination against women, but what’s the more important “right”? The right to not be discriminated against on the basis of your sex, or the “right” to choose whether or not you want to terminate your unborn child?

The pro-abortion group Center for Reproductive Rights came out years ago in support of China’s ban on sex-selective abortions, on the basis of being against discrimination of women. I guess their rationale is the more women we have in the world, the more opportunities we have for indoctrinating them to support … a woman’s right to choose, for whatever reason she sees fit. While the writer of the above piece does not support anti-sex-selective abortion legislation, the “we need more women in the world” mindset is one she appears to take. In a nutshell, she supports changing the pro-boy “cultures” in China and India so as to get them to “respect” women more so they won’t interfere in any “private” decision relating to having an abortion – even if it means having an abortion for whatever reason she wants to give, including on the basis of the baby’s sex.

I swear, you simply cannot make this stuff up.

Oh, and yes – sex-selective abortions do happen here in the US. Read more on that here.

But, shhhh! Don’t tell the likes of the feministas at “progressive feminist” blogs like Jezebel, etc. We wouldn’t want them to get hurt straddling that “pro-choice/pro-woman/anti-sex-selective abortion” fence or anything.

Cross-posted from the Sister Toldjah blog.

Behold! Our first Gay president!

Well, I guess he couldn’t be our first Black president, since Billy Jeff already has that title. So Obama will have to settle for being our first Gay president (1), as annointed by Newsweek:

And do note the required religious symbolism (gag!), proclaiming our Lightworker (2) chief executive as not just our first Gay president, but some sort of rainbow saint. This, of course, comes from the news magazine Obama marketing rag whose editor once proclaimed Obama “like a god.”

Funny, that god-like saint apparently tried back in 2008 to bribe his racist ex-pastor, in whose church he sat for over 20 years without ever noticing he was a flaming bigot, to shut up. Through intermediaries and with full deniability, of course.

Hardly what one would expected from such an enlightened, sensitive being. Except one from Chicago.

LINKS: More from Politico.

Footnotes:
(1) Does this mean he’ll finally speak out for all the gays tortured and murdered under Islamic regimes? Nah. They don’t vote here.
(2) I’m never going to let you live this down Morford. It’s fawning toadies like you who feed cults of personality.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

(Video) Chuck Woolery solves the illegal immigration crisis

And, the Occupy movement, too:

I tell you, the man is a genius. Woolery 2012!

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

One picture is worth a thousand words on Critical Race Theory

This is the fruit of the intellectual handiwork done  by President Obama’s Harvard mentor, Derrick Bell:

And here’s the explanation:

The nation’s premiere voting rights museum—the National Voting Rights Museum—now sits at the foot of the bridge [in Selma, Alabama]. The museum is an inadvertent monument to the civil rights movement’s degeneration. Its outlook is neatly captured in ten words that begin its timeline display of the civil rights movement. There, we find a replica of John Trumball’s iconic depiction of the signing of the Declaration of Independence with the caption, “1776. The Declaration of Independence signed by wealthy white men.”

The original civil rights giants would never have tolerated this historically false assertion. They were patriots, driven by love for their fellow countrymen and a burning desire to make America a better place for all its citizens. They repeatedly and vehemently rejected hatred. But the nasty caption captures the bitter spirit of much of the civil rights movement today and of numerous race-based activist groups around the country.

According to Bell’s Critical Race Theory, which not only the president, but several members of his administration and the Supreme Court and the media admire, the structure and philosophy of the United States is inherently, irrevocably racist. Hence, the caption to Trumball’s famous painting.

It’s hard for me to describe how offensive I find that, let alone dead wrong.

So I’ll let you discuss it.

RELATED: What is the Pacific Educational Group?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

The ethics of infanticide: not just vile, but evil

In a recent issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics, two former Oxford ethicists argue that killing a newborn babe is no different from aborting a fetus, because the infant isn’t really a person yet:

[The authors] argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

Hey, if the infant isn’t a person because they can’t attribute value to their own existence and feel loss if that existence is deprived, why stop there? How about the elderly suffering from senile dementia or Alzheimer’s? Surely they’ve lost the capability of attributing value to their existence, so they’re not people by these standards, right? Might as well let their relatives (or the State) snuff them when they become an “unbearable burden.” And what about severely disabled adults, too? I mean, gee, we’d save society all that money in Medicaid support for group homes. After all, they’re not really people.

Anyone else getting a “Wannsee Conference” vibe (1), or wonder if the authors’ offices didn’t contain idols to Moloch?

Call me “old-fashioned” and “unenlightened,” ignorant of sophisticated ethics, but I have this crazy belief that the right to live is a natural right preexisting Human laws and ethics. It is only to be taken away under the most restricted circumstances, such as in a “just war” or by law after a fair trial as the only way to enact justice after a horrible crime.

Not simply because you might regard the baby as a “burden.”

And what kind of sociopathic lack of empathy does it imply to go through such intellectual gymnastics to arrive at the conclusion that the infant is no longer a person? When does it become a person? When it first smiles? Its first steps? Its first words, when it finally has a chance to say “please don’t kill me?”

“Ethics.” Yeah, these really are some ethics, aren’t they? They’re the fascist ethics of a state that denies the inherent worth of the individual and, when that individual becomes a “burden,” can decide he or she is no longer “really a person” and can thus be disposed of at will.

Like rubbish.

I’m with Walter Russell Mead: while I firmly believe as a federalist that the abortion question in America should be decided on a state-by-state basis until a consensus is reached, if this idea ever gains currency in the US, sign me up for a right-to-life amendment to the US Constitution.

RELATED: This isn’t the first time the ugly idea of “post-natal abortion” has arisen. Read about the Groningen Protocol, which was a recent proposal to allow doctors in the Netherlands to “terminate” the life of a severely disabled child up to the age of 12, with the final decision resting with the doctors, not the parents. And killing your non-person infant after birth is really just one step past aborting fetuses on the basis of gender. Both Hot Air and Power Line were outraged at the JME article. I’m surprised it didn’t get more coverage in the blogosphere.

PS: The linked Telegraph article mentioned that the authors of the JME piece had received death threats for their article. This is as wrong and as vile as their argument itself, as well as being criminal. It is an affront to free speech and academic liberty. The way to fight evil ideas is with counter-argument, not with intimidation and threats of physical harm.

Footnote:
(1) Yeah, at the risk of being accused of “Godwinning,” I went there. These kind of depersonalizing ethics aren’t all that far from the Final Solution.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Dear Rick Santorum: Get your hands off my slot machine

Sigh. There are just no limited-government conservatives left in this race, are there? We all know about Mitt Romney and the indefensible individual mandate in RomneyCare. So, fine, we’ll just vote for the true conservative in the race, the man who savagely and effectively attacked Romney’s legacy, Rick Santorum, right? Right?

Ehh… Not so fast.

From an interview with Nevada journalist Jon Ralston, per Jim Geraghty:

I’m someone who takes the opinion that gaming is not something that is beneficial, particularly having that access on the Internet. Just as we’ve seen from a lot of other things that are vices on the Internet, they end to grow exponentially as a result of that. It’s one thing to come to Las Vegas and do gaming and participate in the shows and that kind of thing as entertainment, it’s another thing to sit in your home and have access to that it. I think it would be dangerous to our country to have that type of access to gaming on the Internet.

Freedom’s not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations. You might want to say the same thing about a whole variety of other things that are on the Internet — “let everybody have it, let everybody do it.” No. There are certain things that actually do cost people a lot of money, cost them their lives, cost them their fortunes that we shouldn’t have and make available, to make it that easy to do. That’s why we regulate gambling. You have a big commission here that regulates gambling, for a reason.

I opposed gaming in Pennsylvania . . . A lot of people obviously don’t responsibly gamble and lose a lot and end up in not so great economic straits as a result of that. I believe there should be limitations.

Now, in one sense, Nanny Senator Santorum is right: freedom isn’t absolute. We have freedom of speech, but we cannot yell “fire!” in a crowded theater. We have freedom of religious practice, but no one advocates allowing human sacrifice as part of the service. (I hope.) Individual liberty generally meets its bounds where it endangers public safety or impinges on the rights of another. (1)

There are indeed limits.

But that’s not what Santorum is talking about here. He’s speaking in terms of a more moderate social cost (e.g., the damage done to a family by a gambling addiction) or simply the harm it might do to the individual person. And there’s the problem. As Allahpundit puts it:

You could swap in “drinking” for “gambling” there and have a rough argument for banning alcohol consumption in homes. (If you’re free to indulge in private, who’ll stop you from going overboard?) If you nominate Santorum, you’re getting a guy who’s more willing to try to save people from themselves than the average “personal responsibility” conservative, which means you’d better prepare for occasional moral tutelage from the presidential podium and maybe some new morals regulations if he can cobble together a congressional majority for it.

And for gambling or drinking, one could substitute all sorts private activities. Like to smoke? Want to order pipe tobacco or cigars from that great shop across the country? Hey, that stuff’s bad for you, bud! Want to watch an “adult” movie on late-night cable? President Santorum doesn’t think that’s “beneficial,” so he’s going to push Congress to regulate it.

Or what about credit card debt? Yes, there’s a real problem with people who wreck their finances abusing credit, but is it the government’s responsibility to protect us from ourselves? Would a President Santorum seek to limit us all to certain debt-to-income ratios? Do we get a “conservative” version of Dodd-Frank?

I’ll confess, it’s getting harder and harder to see much of an effective difference between the progressive liberal, Obama, and Rick Santorum, the self-proclaimed progressive conservative. Nannying is nannying, and statism is statism.

So, what does this mean for the election and how I’ll vote? I’ve said before that I’ll vote for any of the three serious potential Republican nominees over Obama, because I think any of them would be better than a second Obama term. But Santorum is making it much harder for me to be comfortable voting for him. If it is none of government’s business what health insurance I carry, neither is it their business if I choose to play some online poker — or a lot of online poker.

I’ve said before that I’ve decided to concentrate more on electing as conservative a Congress as possible (2) to rein in the big-government urges of whichever person is elected president. But this latest from Santorum has me thinking Romney would be the best choice for limited government conservatives.

Wait! I can explain! Put down the baseball bat!

Look at it this way: I’m convinced Mitt Romney has few set-in-stone principles and is more of a pragmatic problem-solver,willing to do what it takes to get the job done. In electoral races, that means he… “adjusts” his positions to fit what his target audience wants. In office, it means he works with whatever faction dominates the legislature to produce an accomplishment. In the end, this is a guy whose overriding urge is to be seen as successful. He is a tree that bends whichever way the prevailing wind blows.

Thus I’ve come to think that a President Romney would be open to the goals of limited government conservatism if he were faced with a Congress dominated by strong limited government, Tea Party factions in both chambers pressuring him from the Right. And he would be open to this influence in a way that a strongly principled social nanny-stater like Rick Santorum would never be.

Yep. It’s a “lesser of two evils” choice. Fun, eh?

Footnotes:
(1) Another illustration of why I’ll never be a “Big L” libertarian; the ones I’ve met tend to take annoyingly absolutist positions.
(2) Want to help California “right” it’s ship of state? Check out Elizabeth Emken, who’s running for the nomination to face Senator Feinstein in November.

PS: When you think about it, Rick Santorum has something in common with Melinda Henneberger.

RELATED: More from Bruce McQuain at The Conservatory. A rebuttal at Protein Wisdom.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

#Occupy — They’re not very bright, are they?

If you’re going to protest a minion of the Evil One-Percent(tm) –in this case, a state government official concerned about the integrity of the elections he supervises– you might try protesting in the right room…

I saw a very funny example of the ineptness of the Occupy protesters today. I was at CPAC to speak on a panel on voter fraud and the 2012 election with John Fund, Catherine Engelbrecht, and David Norcross. We got to our ballroom as the prior session was winding up. It was being hosted by David Keene of the NRA and the panelists were talking about criminal-justice reform and the Second Amendment.

As the panelists were speaking, two Occupy protesters walked up to the stage and unrolled a big banner attacking Kris Kobach, the secretary of state of Kansas. Kobach is a very smart lawyer who worked at the Bush Justice Department and was elected secretary of state in 2010. He has raised the ire of liberals because of his support for common-sense election reforms like voter-ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements for individuals registering to vote, both of which were passed by the Kansas legislature.

(…)

There was only one problem for the protesters — they were in the wrong room (LOL!). Kobach’s panel was going on elsewhere in the hotel and he was not on the panel that David Keene was moderating or the one that was about to start. When Keene told the protesters that, everyone in the room started laughing at them and they sheepishly folded up their banner and left. They apparently never made it to the actual room where Kobach was speaking.

Kobach, it turns out, was speaking in a different room, on an immigration panel. (He did crucial work on Arizona’s SB 1070, for example.)

And they want us to let them lead us to a better world? As the great Homer Simpson would say, “D’oh!”

via Christian Adams

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Religious unity against HHS decision

I wrote earlier that Catholic bishops across America had come out strongly against the Obama administration decision requiring religious organizations to pay for the cost of providing contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees. Jewish and Protestant groups aligned themselves with the bishops.

Now Orthodox Christian bishops have joined in:

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. This freedom is transgressed when a religious institution is required to pay for “contraceptive services” including abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization services that directly violate their religious convictions. Providing such services should not be regarded as mandated medical care.  We, the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops, call upon HHS Secretary Sebelius and the Obama Administration to rescind this unjust ruling and to respect the religious freedom guaranteed all Americans by the First Amendment.

As Joshua Treviño describes it, it is very unusual for Orthodox bishops to make an overtly political declaration. (Also h/t)

I really don’t think Team Obama quite knows what they’ve unleashed on themselves. But they’ll find out on Election Day.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

(Video) Self-delusion and hypocrisy: the Left’s unearned sense of moral superiority

Bill Whittle returns in Afterburner to skewer Our Betters on the Left (all bow) for on the one hand publicly proclaiming the evils of America and the free market while, on the other hand, making big profits from it.

Or maybe that should be two faces instead of two hands.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Obama won’t be expecting the Spanish Inquisition

It isn’t bad enough that the majority of Americans oppose ObamaCare and want it repealed. No, the administration had to go and tick off the Catholic Church, too.

Background: As part of the implementation of ObamaCare, Secretary Sebelius of the Department of Health and Human Services issued regulations requiring religious groups to provide health insurance that would cover practices and procedures, such as abortion,  diametrically opposed to their beliefs. The groups were given a year to comply. (Or else?)

This was too much for Catholic bishops to take, and a letter denouncing this move as an assault on religious liberty was read in thousands of  parishes across the land this last Sunday. Here’s an excerpt from one:

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.

Each bishop sent out his own letter, so there’s some variation. Bishop Zubik of Pittsburgh said the HHS ruling amount to telling Catholics “to Hell with you:”

Kathleen Sebelius announced that the mandate would not be withdrawn and the religious exemption would not be expanded. Instead, she stated that nonprofit groups – which include the Catholic Church – will get a year “to adapt to this new rule.” She simply dismissed Catholic concerns as standing in the way of allegedly respecting the health concerns and choices of women.

Could Catholics be insulted any more, suggesting that we have no concern for women’s health issues? The Catholic Church and the Catholic people have erected health care facilities that are recognized worldwide for their compassionate care for everyone regardless of their creed, their economic circumstances and, most certainly, their gender. In so many parts of the globe – the United States included – the Church is health care.

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.

Want to know how seriously the Church in America takes this? One bishop directed that the Prayer to St. Michael be read at services within his diocese (h/t PJM):

Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle;
be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray:
and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host,
by the power of God,
thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits
who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen

Why is that significant? Between 1930 and 1965, when it was last included in regular services, the prayer was recited for the benefit of believers trapped behind the Iron Curtain.

This isn’t just opposition; this is a declaration of war.

It’s also incredibly risky (to put it nicely) for a president who badly wants reelection. Catholics amount to about 25% of the electorate and constitute significant voting blocs in several keys states. Naturally not all would agree with the bishops or think this as serious a matter as they claim. But I’m willing to bet that large numbers will, and that, combined with the already existing ire over ObamaCare and the economy, the President may well come to regret Secretary Sebelius’ highhandedness.

Especially on Election Day.

PS: About that subject line.

LINKS: Yuval Levin, Religious Liberty and Civil Society.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Some day, I hope, this won’t be a big deal

Two US Navy sailors shared a kiss at the docks the other day, celebrating the return of one from overseas duty. As you look at the picture, you might notice something unusual:

Yes, they’re both women. They met and started dating while at training school, where they kept their relationship quiet under the then-current “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Now that it’s been repealed, they can openly share their joy at reunion.

And I’m glad for them. Some people, to be sure, have problems with homosexuals serving openly in the military, or problems with homosexuality in the first place. As I said in a comment at Pirate’s Cove, where I first learned of this story,

…I couldn’t give a rat’s rear end whether a couple is gay or straight. In a world in which love and kindness are in such short supply, what I applaud is the happiness they’ve found with each other. What matters far more than their sexual preferences is the fact that both are in the military and both are willing to risk their lives for their country. I hope they have many wonderful years together.

And let me emphasize the point about their military service:

• Both are non-commissioned officers in the United States Navy;
• Both have sworn an oath to obey the lawful orders of their superiors;
• Both have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States;
• Both are fire-control officers, meaning they’re trained for combat;
• And both are willing to risk injury and even death in their nation’s service.

So, if they want to share a kiss to rejoice in a safe return, more power to them.

Petty Officers Gaeta and Snell, carry on.

PS: Some folks wondered if this was staged. Nope, Gaeta and Snell each bought raffle tickets for the privilege of having the official first kiss. The money goes to throw a Christmas party for Navy kids.

PPS: And just to get the obvious locker-room stuff out of the way, yes, they’re both very cute. NCO Gaeta, to be honest, is hot. But I would say the same things I wrote above about any gay couple in this situation; it’s their service, their dedication, and their character that counts, not their plumbing.

RELATED: More from Ace.

Up-twinkles for Dear Leader: an Occupier eulogizes Kim Jong-Il’s North Korea

Ah, Dear Leader, Sun of Socialism, Great Man Who Descended From Heaven!! (1) How it must warm the cockles of your Stalinist heart to see how your juche message of “more brandy,” kidnapping filmmakers to make movies for you, drug smuggling, and counterfeiting resonates with the followers you left behind… especially in Occupy Wall Street.

While the following video was taken last October, it’s yet a fitting tribute to the memory of the sociopathic midget visionary leader whose objectives meshed so well with those of the Occupiers… so far as they can articulate them or even figure out what they are.

In it, a man who lived a large part of his life in Soviet Russia asks a couple of Occu-dolts what the difference between North and South Korea is. Their answer? There’s no unemployment and everyone is paid a fair wage in the North! Income equality! Yes!

These, my friends, are the fighters for the ninety-nine percent:

Of course, it’s easy to have full employment when everyone is a slave of the state given a job by the government, and there’s no doubt that those “fair wages” enabled everyone in the DPRK to knock down $700,000 of cognac per year. Such is the nature of the worker’s paradise. Pay no attention to the narrator’s mention of cannibalism, or the vicious imperialist rumors of mass starvation (which may be happening again). A vast gulag of prison camps that hold multiple generations of whole families? LIES!!

Because, like, you know… Dude! Socialism is just fairer. Okay?

Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised at these useful idiots; the phenomenon isn’t new. Many progressives in 1920s and 1930s America thought Bolshevism and Italian Fascism offered useful lessons that could be applied in America to make a better society (2). Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer for his fawning coverage of Stalin’s Russia. The 1960s anti-war movement and the 1980s “nuclear freeze” campaign were nurtured and used by the KGB and allied intelligence agencies. And in the current war with jihadist Islam, way too many people think they’re serving a noble cause by siding with the enemy.

So, don’t be surprised; stupid often covers for evil.

via Will Heaven

Footnotes:
(1) Really, you have to look at the list of titles bestowed on Kim Jong-Il. What it says about Kim’s egomania is both  screamingly funny and pathetic. I’m sure our fourth-greatest president has it bookmarked for future reference. (h/t J.S. Treviño)
(2) And not just low-level flunkies. General Hugh S. Johnson, a member of FDR’s “brain trust” and the head of the National Recovery Administration, so admired Mussolini and Italian fascism that he asked that copies of a tract by Benito’s favorite economist be distributed to the Cabinet.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)