You knew this was coming...

The left is noticing that Pres. Obama, having actually seen intelligence that warn of keeping vigilant against terrorists, continues a military presence in the Middle East. One that will inevitably result in military deaths. Many on the left are not happy.

Maddow, a BIG leftie, tries to justify what Obama is doing somewhat, but she puts together the side by side comparison of Obama and Bush justifying bringing our military to the Middle East. It struck me the same way.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

via Gawker who says Michael Moore is NOT HAPPY either. He says Obama is just like Bush.

You gotta laugh. No one is left enough for these people.

Punish the rich, punish the poor

Just a few comments about Pres. Obama's continued attack on the successful. Now he wants to reduce how much one can take off in tax deductions for charity. Dick Morris points out what Obama failed to mention.

Obama claims it will only impact one or two percent of us. The part that he so conveniently left out is that that one or two percent DOES ALMOST HALF THE DONATING to privtate charity in this country.

Obama is just determined to get us coming or going. If we reduce our giving because we don't get to take off as much, then Obama gets more money from us to fund what HE wants to fund. He doesn't care about private charity or church. He never gave even 1% of what he made to those things.

Who will this hurt the most? The poor.

In 2006, the most recent year for which data is available, four million taxpayers had adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more. They comprised 3% of the tax returns, made 31% of the income, but donated 44% of all charitable contributions. Together, they provided charity with $81 billion in that year.

Obama's plan will cost them $10 billion in extra taxes on the income they allocated to charitable donations. How can the president be so glibly certain that they will not curtail their charitable contributions by a like amount or even more?

Imagine all the harm Obama's program will cause. Churches will be hit most hard. They account for the largest share of charitable donations, but universities, disease research, hospitals, soup kitchens, and cultural institutions will also be hard hit. So will international relief efforts that funnel aid abroad through churches or directly.

It is totally dishonest for Obama to pretend that his curtailment of these deductions won't hurt the poor. It will most directly impact them since most of the charities Obama is hurting focus on helping the impoverished.

Here Dick Morris hits the nail on the head:

This proposal is not about saving money. It is about controlling it. By, in effect, transferring at least $11 billion a year from private philanthropy to government spending, Obama empowers the public sector at the expense of the voluntary one.

New Day, New Nightmare

Good grief.

I'm a mutant

I had a lot of fun last night tweeting about my blue eyed status being the cause of all the world's trouble. In case you missed it:

Brazil's President, while meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown Thursday, said the global financial crisis was caused by "white people with blue eyes."

Now I find that I'm a mutant. If only I could be the Halle Barry kind of mutant.

Punishing Conservatives

Last year I quoted a George Will column regarding how conservatives give much more to charity. This is from from that column:

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

Anyone familiar with the charitable giving of say...Al Gore before and when he was Vice President compared to Vice President Dick Cheney can't help but be struck by the difference:

In a 34-page 1997 federal tax return, Vice President Al Gore and wife Tipper reported giving $353 to charity. In 1992, aided by the royalties of Gore's book, "Earth In The Balance," the couple donated $52,558. Most of that -- $50,000 -- went to the University of Tennessee to endow a chair in memory of Gore's late sister.

VP DickCheney on the other hand:

In one of the largest sums ever donated to charity by a U.S. public official, Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne gave away nearly $7 million last year to help the poor and to medical research.

Obama released his tax returns from 2000-2006 when running for President:

..the Obamas gave far less than 1% of their income to charity; in three of the years, they gave around 1% of their income to charity.

John McCain in comparison:

In 2006, Mr. McCain said he had $358414 in total income and donated $64695, or 18 percent of his total income, to charity.

It's an amazing difference, isn't it?

We conservatives believe in "spreading the wealth" as well, we just want to do it ourselves and not let the government waste it or spend our money on things we are morally opposed to.

It's quite clear that conservatives are more generous when it comes to charity.

So.... is it no surprise that Pres. Obama proposal to change tax policy that will reduce the tax deduction on charitable giving is really aimed at conservatives?

Pres. Obama really is ingenious in his 40 different ways of taxing "the rich." But successful people didn't get there by being stupid or foolish with their money.

Successful people are generous with their money. That is clear. But class warfare and punishing the rich has never and will never work.

Let's not re-write history Pres. Obama

Fred Barnes via Ace


I would say it's worse than "pablum." Frequently, it's simply a flat-out lie:
Obama also seems misinformed about America's economic record in recent decades. Prosperity was "fleeting," he said, but "our strategy is to ensure that we do not return to an economic cycle of bubble and bust." Again, this was in his text.

If he's talking about the past quarter-century, most Americans would love to return to that era. From late 1982 well into 2007, we experienced one of the greatest economic booms in the history of the world, interrupted only by two shallow and brief recessions. Prosperity wasn't fleeting. It was practically non-stop--until the housing bust and credit crisis hit last year.

Ever wanted to join the NRA?

You can now join for a year for FREE.

Good grief.

Every day is like a new nightmare. The Senate just passed the "Give" Act.

We have the two usual betrayers, Snowe and Collins.

Atlas Shrugs has our heros (including 3 Democrats!) here.

If you are not familiar with this, I posted on this previously here.

The Fox Is In The Hen House

CNBC's Larry Kudlow recently wrote that "Obama is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds."

Certainly looks like that way with his punitive measures and taxes on these kinds of things.

One thing that Obama said on the Tonight Show the other night struck me though.

Obama said:

"We need young people instead of the, you know, a smart kid coming out of school, instead of wanting to be an investment banker, we need them to decide they want to be an engineer, want to be a scientist, they want to be a doctor or a teacher, and if we're rewarding those kinds of things that actually contribute to making things and -- and making people's lives better, that's going to put our economy on solid footing, we won't have this bubble and bust economy that we've gotten so caught up in for the last several years."

Maybe it's in vogue to be all against investment bankers, but guess who made 16 million dollars in just 3 years as an investment banker? That would be Pres. Obama's right hand man, The White House Chief of Staff......Rahm Emanual. A small part of that fortune was made in 2000 when Rahm was named to the board of Freddie Mac by Clinton. According to the Chicago Tribune:

Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.

It was easy money. The board met no more than 6 times a year. Do you think we can find some retro outrage left over from this AIG thing? Because it really isn't that different.

On Emanuel's watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass.

The accounting scandal wasn't the only one that brewed during Emanuel's tenure.During his brief time on the board, the company hatched a plan to enhance its political muscle. That scheme, also reviewed by the board, led to a record $3.8 million fine from the Federal Election Commission for illegally using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians. Emanuel was the beneficiary of one of those parties after he left the board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from the North Side of Chicago.

We still don't know what's on those phone tapes of Gov. Blago's with Rahm. If you remember, Rahm suddenly found that he had to travel out of the country during the whole Blago fiasco. It was easy to avoid questions that way.

Obama doesn't seem to mind that his own Chief of Staff was once one of those "evil" investment bankers AND was a part of the Freddie Mac greed that started this whole stack of cards to fall.

Rahm has slimeball written all over him. I hope the Chicago Tribune has the guts and the fortitude to keep looking into this scumbag. I can't believe he is our President's right hand man.

The Fox is in the henhouse. It's going to get bloody.

Marriage on the Blogs!

Ann Althouse is getting married to one of her long time commenters. (her blog here)

He had been commenting on her blog for five years.

I get it. There are quite a few of you long time commenters that, if I was single, I would defintely want to meet.

I think it's kind of cool that two people can get to know each other through words only for so many years before meeting.

So, congrats Ann. May God bless your union and you be as happy in life as you were in cyberlife.

;-)

"Let America Work"

HotAir has the video of Sen. DeMint and the full text of his speech against the "Give Act" here.

I told you at CPAC that this guy gets it.

These are not Government decisions. We need to focus on what we were set up to do and do it much better than we are doing, instead of every week coming in here, bringing our good intentions and our compassion and every problem we see across the country we say something needs to be done. Then we say: The Government needs to do it.

That is the fatal flaw of the Congress today, is we forget that sacred oath of office that says: We will protect and defend the Constitution which says this Federal Government has a very limited function. And those functions that are not prescribed in the Constitution are left to individuals and to the States.

Contrary to what many of you believe about Democrats, they are not evil little socialists waiting to take over. Just as DeMint says, they are well intentioned. But we all know where the path paved with good intentions leads to.

Democrats believe that the government can better serve the people by orchestrating programs that help them in all areas of life. It's fine to believe that. But that is not what our founding fathers believed. It is not what our Constitution requires.

We are now at a point where we soon won't recognize the principles upon which our country was founded. As government has creeped into our lives over these many decades, we stood by quietly. We hoped that these programs, laws, intervention, and regulations would make our lives better. We "fought" a war on poverty through our government and clearly lost. We "fought" a war on drugs through our government and clearly lost. Our social ills will never be solved by the government. Never. Stop looking there and look in the mirror. The answer is with us and in us.

As more taxes eat away at our hard earned money, and more and more people become more dependent on the government, we are losing everything that made this country great. Liberty and freedom.

DeMint:

Civil society works because it is everything Government is not. It is small, it is personal, it is responsive, it is accountable. Civil society must be protected from any effort to make it more like Government.

That is what we are doing with this bill today. This bill centralizes control of important functions of our civil society. There is a downside to good intentions here in Government. The Founders created a limited government and our oath to support and defend the Constitution means that is our focus here. Our oath is to a limited government. The Founders wanted the people to be free from our good intentions. Government charity is anathema to what our Founders intended and what our Constitution stands for. Despite our good intentions, where we try to implement those good intentions and our compassion through the force of Government, we are effectively violating our oath of office here.

The key:

Do you see anything in our history as a Federal Government that shows we have the ability to effectively manage something like that without extreme levels of waste and fraud and abuse? Look what we have done recently with the stimulus plan and the bailout plans. As soon as it comes to light what is actually happening with that money, people are outraged at what is going on. Despite the good intentions of this bill, we are creating a huge new government entity that will be unmanageable and violates some of the core principles of our civil society. Every time the Government steps in to solve a problem, it creates three new problems in its place.

I'm just heartsick at what is being done here. Before Obama's 4 yr term is done government's sticky fingers will touch almost everything in our lives from healthcare to charitable giving and volunteerism. From increased taxes to owning banking institutions.

More:

Jefferson called it little democracies, when he saw these little groups all around America voluntarily doing things to solve problems and make communities better. Burke called them little platoons. Most people who understand America know that those voluntary groups are what made our country great and what sustain us even today. Civil society binds communities, not by its fruits, but by its motives–charity, donations, giving without thought of getting anything in return. This is the selfless sacrifice that happens throughout America today. This is what works.

This is what works. Each of us, in our own communities and in our own towns, know what we need. We work through local government if need be. What is good for the people of Texas might not be good for the people of New York. Each place, each person should have a say. It's called State Rights and we seem to have completely forgotten that.

The answer:

...we need to realize this Government needs to stop spending and stop borrowing, stop taxing, and let America work.

We can stop the budget vote!!

From Erik at RedState:

We need to get the Blue Dog Democrats to slow down budget approval in the House of Representatives. The vote in committee is tonight.

STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

PICK UP THE PHONE.

CALL 202-224-3121.

Ask for one of these five Congressmen:

1. Alan Boyd of Florida
2. Bob Etheridge of North Carolina
3. Charlie Melancon of Louisiana
4. Chet Edwards of Texas
5. John Yarmuth of Kentucky

Tell them to vote no on the budget tonight. We can stop the budget if you will pick up your phone right now. The vote is tonight.

AIG

There is always another side to the story.

This a letter of resignation from a man who worked for AIG. One of the men who received the bonuses that we have heard so much about. He had agreed to work for a $1 a year, but was promised a bonus contractually. He had nothing to do with the failure of AIG, but is one of those being asked (and possibly taxed 90% by Congress) to give back his bonus. Please read the link to get his full story, it is very interesting.

He is quitting and who could blame him? He has decided that instead of giving back his bonus (which in reality was his salary for the year), he will give it to charity. Why? "This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need."

What has happened here with this whole AIG bonus mess is pure class warfare. When you read through this man's letter you see that he has worked hard for his success. His background and experience was desperately needed at this company and at this time to prevent a disaster that would affect us all.

And what did we do? What did our govt do? We bought a spin of class warfare. We allowed and even encouraged punishment for a small group of people for nothing more than earning their living.

Despicable. We should all be ashamed of ourselves.

A Catholic Leader WHo Stands For Life

Bishop D'Arcy Will Not Attend Notre Dame Graduation

The Bishop will not attend because Pres. Obama is slated to speak.

His statement in part:

"President Obama has recently reaffirmed, and has now placed in public policy, his long-stated unwillingness to hold human life as sacred. While claiming to separate politics from science, he has in fact separated science from ethics and has brought the American government, for the first time in history, into supporting direct destruction of innocent human life. "

This will be the 25th Notre Dame graduation during my time as bishop. After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation. I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith “in season and out of season,” and he teaches not only by his words — but by his actions. "

My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life. "

I have in mind also the statement of the U.S. Catholic Bishops in 2004. “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” Indeed, the measure of any Catholic institution is not only what it stands for, but also what it will not stand for.

..............................

"Even as I continue to ponder in prayer these events, which many have found shocking, so must Notre Dame. Indeed, as a Catholic University, Notre Dame must ask itself, if by this decision it has chosen prestige over truth.


Thank you Bishop for standing for truth and for the most innocent and vunerable of our society.

Hellooo!!!!!!

From NRO:

Yesterday, Sen. Judd Gregg gave a scary-yet-accurate picture of what America’s fiscal outlook will look like if President Obama gets his budget adopted. The president’s plan means:

Seventeen trillion dollars worth of debt at the end of 10 years, $11 trillion at the end of five years. This translates into a debt-to-GDP ratio which we have not seen in this country since the end of World War II when we were trying to pay off the war debt. Basically, you take national debt up to about 80 percent of gross national product. That's the public debt. Historically, it's been about 40 percent.

Gregg explains the implications: “When you get up to an 80 percent ratio, where your public debt is 80 percent of your gross national product, and you maintain that ratio for years to come, you're basically running your country into the ground.”

Folks, this is from the guy Obama first nominated to be our Treasury Secretary.

Does the end of that sentence, "running your country into the ground," scare anyone??? Helloooo!!! Anyone out there??????

The "Give Act." Not what it seems?

Ok, ok. My buddies in the comments want us to take a good long look at "The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act" that passed the house yesterday. Now it goes to the Senate.

Whenever something is named in such a gobbly gook feel good wordy mess, you know you have something to worry about.

I don't think I'm quite where Gateway Pundit is by calling it "The Hitler Youth Bill," but am I bothered by it? You bet.

You can't get to the actual bill right now because of overload, but here is a summary.

Fox News reported that "“The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 “new service opportunities” under AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create additional “corps” to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation.”

Gateway Pundit reports that Section 120 of the bill also discusses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and states that “service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency”.

Yeah, it's that "mandatory" thing that brings us to the Hitler reference. If that is indeed true, then we should fight this with every ounce of strength we have. You don't MANDATE volunteerism. Yeah, because then it is no longer a volunteer thing.

There is no way on (if you will pardon the term) God's green earth I am going to let my children "serve' this country in some faux named "Clean Energy Corps" that is nothing more than the Al Gore school of global warming and melting icebergs. Obama and the Democrats could call it "the God's Green Earth Corp" and we would still know exactly what they are talking about; expensive energy alternatives that do not include the cleanest and most inexpensive and efficient energy of all......nuclear energy. Nor will it include shedding of our dependency on foreign oil by drilling more of our own oil and gas right here in our back yard.

As you read through the "public service" gobbly gook it's interesting to note that religion shall have no part in it. RB says in the comments that Congressman George Miller (D-CA) has attached Amendment 49 to this bill that includes language that would prohibits participants from:

(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

No Christians or any person of faith need apply unless you leave your faith at the door of "public service." Wow.

This is the dream of Obama. An ever expanding government to "better" our lives. This is truly unprecedented. Having Washington force participating states and organizations to permanently depend on the government for their service activities.

It may not be "Hitler's Youth," but it is almost as disturbing.


Update: Kat says in the comments that the "mandatory" language didn't make it into the Senate bill. Thank goodness. But can't more language be put in at the Senate level? Let's keep a watch on that. It seems with everything else going on, no one seems to be paying much attention to this.

RADIO!

I'll be on live at 10:00 central! Listen here!

"Political Malfeasance"

If you are like me, trying to make sense of Tarp bills, the omnibus bill, AIG bonuses, Mexico, China, inflation, debt, NAFTA, and trying to wrap your mind around how we are spending TRILLIONS freely, then you might want to read George Will here.

He ends with this:

This is but a partial list of recent lawlessness, situational constitutionalism and institutional derangement. Such political malfeasance is pertinent to the financial meltdown as the administration, desperately seeking confidence, tries to stabilize the economy by vastly enlarging government's role in it.

You might need to grab a dictionary to get through his article, but it's good and it's sums things up well.

The simple translation though is that our constitution is under attack. Congress and Obama are using this economic mess to expand government into our lives to a degree not seen before. In doing so they are making things worse.

Scary Update: This is exactly what Will was talking about: (msnbc)

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.

The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.

Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process.


Glenn Beck, call your office.

How's that "reputation" thing going?

Obama insisted during the campaign and has reiterated in his presidency that he would "restore America's reputation."

Let's see how he is doing in just the short time he has been President.

He totally ticked off our greatest ally, the Brits with rudeness and tacky gifts.

The Russians are laughing at us and our "reset" button.

The French are ticked that Obama didn't know who was actually the current President of France.

Poland is more than irritated that Obama may not live up to the our anti missile shield agreement.

The left's hero, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela thinks Obama is an "ignoramus."

Iran takes Obama's friendly gesture of a video taped message, and tells him to go stuff it.

I don't think this is going as Obama had planned. I'd rather be viewed as the bully than the wimp.

Geithner today

If you want an overview of the press briefing with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner today, a CNN reporter has one here.

Although I must say, she spends more time giving us a detailed description of Geithner's appearance than she does in what he actually says.

I'm not business savy, (I think that is obvious!) so I can't comment on the plan going forward that Geithner puts out there. But if you are business savy, tell me what you think.

Afghanistan

I really am amazed that Obama actually did something he said he would do during the campaign. He is sending 17,000 troops to Afghanistan in May.

I can only imagine the intelligence Obama has received since he took office that led him to this decision that he says was the hardest one he has made so far. What truths did Pres. Obama discover that made him see how important it was to continue Predator attacks in Pakistan? Now Pres. Obama will have to put up with the likes of Code Pink as well. They are "heartbroken."

Michael Yon isn't convinced Afghanistan is worth it. It is my hope that we don't let those people down again. Yon says this: (via NRO)

The hints coming out of Washington tend to cause me to believe we will abandon Afghanistan. I’m making no personal comment one way or the other yet, other than Iraq was worth the effort and costs all the way around – so long as we cement that success. Afghanistan seems little more than a tar pit. I want to hear General Petraeus say success is achievable, and to at least set some white lines by what he defines as success. He’s one of the very few people who have both the experience and character that are required to accurately estimate the truth and then deliver the good, bad and the ugly. If General Petraeus puts his word behind it, I’m only one man but I’ll back him. That’s about all there is to say on Afghanistan.

Also, Yon says this is a rumor going around Iraq:

The rumor: In Iraq, "Brigade Combat Teams" might be renamed to "Brigade Support Teams" so that President Obama can say there are no more "combat" troops in Iraq. This would be like calling your Rottweiler a Chihuahua because your condo does not allow Rottweilers. Pulling this off might require a Jedi Mind Trick. Call it what you like, Mr. President, but please don’t pull out the Rottweilers too quickly.

I totally believe it, don't you? It's all about perception with this President.

The Truth

Update! I'm bumping this to the top. Here is a site where you can register your complaint regarding Notre Dame inviting Pres. Obama to be the commencement speaker this year. Sign the petition! Over 21,000 signatures so far!


Archbishop Charles Chaput writes with such clarity regarding the failure of the Catholic Church in teaching it's true faith and Catholics allowing such evil in society, that I have nothing to add to it. It's perfect. (via HotAir)

Having been asked to examine what November 2008 and its aftermath can teach Catholics about American culture, the state of American Catholicism and the kind of Pauline discipleship necessary today, Archbishop Chaput said:

“November showed us that 40 years of American Catholic complacency and poor formation are bearing exactly the fruit we should have expected. Or to put it more discreetly, the November elections confirmed a trend, rather than created a new moment, in American culture.”

Noting that there was no question about President Barack Obama’s views on abortion “rights,” embryonic stem cell research and other “problematic issues,” he commented:

“Some Catholics in both political parties are deeply troubled by these issues. But too many Catholics just don’t really care. That’s the truth of it. If they cared, our political environment environment would be different. If 65 million Catholics really cared about their faith and cared about what it teaches, neither political party could ignore what we believe about justice for the poor, or the homeless, or immigrants, or the unborn child. If 65 million American Catholics really understood their faith, we wouldn’t need to waste each other’s time arguing about whether the legalized killing of an unborn child is somehow ‘balanced out’ or excused by three other good social policies.”

Offering a sober evaluation of the state of American Catholicism, he added:

“We need to stop over-counting our numbers, our influence, our institutions and our resources, because they’re not real. We can’t talk about following St. Paul and converting our culture until we sober up and get honest about what we’ve allowed ourselves to become. We need to stop lying to each other, to ourselves and to God by claiming to ‘personally oppose’ some homicidal evil — but then allowing it to be legal at the same time.”

Commenting on society’s attitude towards Catholic beliefs, Archbishop Chaput said, “we have to make ourselves stupid to believe some of the things American Catholics are now expected to accept.”

“There’s nothing more empty-headed in a pluralist democracy than telling citizens to keep quiet about their beliefs. A healthy democracy requires exactly the opposite.

Update: Add to this the pathetic and deeply disturbing fact that Notre Dame has asked Pres. Obama, the most pro-abortion President ever, to speak at their 2009 commencement, and you have a University who no longer holds what is truly "Catholic" to be true.

More to the point is George Weigel here.

Slate Stupid

Mark Steyn points out how the left can't let Bush go, even when it's obvious that our new President gives them plenty to make fun of:

In turbulent times, it's good to know some things never change. After a week in which President Obama thanked himself for inviting him to the White House, compared AIG executives to suicide bombers, and did the first Presidential retard joke on national TV, I was impressed to find that Slate is bravely keeping up its Bushism Of The Day feature.

Four more years!

Update: Obama wasn't finished with the gaffes this week.

From RedState:

We would like to think that this is a joke. Sadly, the French media is reporting as true that Barack Obama sent a letter to the President of France pledging support and friendship. His actual words were

“I am certain that we will be able to work together, in the coming four years, in a spirit of peace and friendship to build a safer world.”

There’s just one problem: he sent it to the wrong guy. That’s right. Barack Obama sent the letter to the former President of France, not the present President.

And Nicholas Sarkozy is not amused.*

Give credit where credit is due.....

Pres. Obama is getting one thing right in the war on terror (although he isn't calling it that anymore, he's calling it an "enduring struggle" against bad stuff or something like that...;-)

Anyway, Pres. Obama is continuing the Predator attacks in Pakistan against Al Qaeda that Bush began about 6 months ago without Pakistan's permission.

According to the LA Times, The stepped-up Predator campaign has "killed at least nine senior Al Qaeda leaders and dozens of lower-ranking operatives" and "has depleted the organization's operational tier."

Also, "A strike in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province last Sunday was the second in four days, and the ninth this year."

So good on Pres. Obama. When he does get things right, we need to acknowledge it.