Rick Santorum strides forward as the latest Non-Romney Non-Newt:
His candidacy all but dismissed just days ago, Rick Santorum won the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses and a nonbinding primary in Missouri on Tuesday, an unexpected trifecta that raised fresh questions about Mitt Romney’s ability to corral conservative support.
Mitt Romney is the bowl of cold oatmeal placed in front of the Republican electorate. They know it's the sort of breakfast of which their doctor might approve, but they are in no hurry to dig in. The good news? That oatmeal isn't getting any colder.
With his triumphs, Mr. Santorum was also suddenly presenting new competition to Newt Gingrich as the chief alternative to Mr. Romney, the front-runner. Where Mr. Gingrich has won one state, South Carolina, Mr. Santorum has now won four, including Iowa.
Newt was supposed to show his grass-roots support by winning these caucus states. Oops.
Apparently Romney is now turning his (metaphorical) guns toward Santorum. That may (or may not!) reduce the likelihood of an eventual Romney-Santorum ticket.
I think her 5:15 was from my family album, Barbara. Or maybe Mel's. Or maybe Porch when she was in KY.
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 08, 2012 at 05:30 PM
OK- who broke into my family album? My northern Georgia forebears were carrying on family tradition.
Posted by: Frau Eigensinn | February 08, 2012 at 05:31 PM
Found them.
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 08, 2012 at 05:31 PM
Ye haw, Porch! LOLOLOL!
Posted by: Barbara | February 08, 2012 at 05:31 PM
TK's been workin' hard the last couple days.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 08, 2012 at 05:34 PM
I'm just typing "beer labels" or "monk beer labels" into google images. As a carry over from the last thread I tried Tiddlywinks Beer, but there was nothing! (gonna give sbw a hard time)
Here are 2 JOM ladies that are with you guys in spirit...
Janet - a bit of a teetotaler & Frau - guzzling away!
Posted by: Janet | February 08, 2012 at 05:35 PM
Thanks!
Posted by: Stephanie | February 08, 2012 at 05:35 PM
Oklahoma state Sen. Constance Johnson (D) was so enraged at a “personhood” bill that she sought an amendment ...
"… any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child.”
They always said that Bill Clinton didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky, but now we find out he was probably a child abuser.
Posted by: Neo | February 08, 2012 at 05:36 PM
TK-
No criticizing hit and my weekend activities until you've been there.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | February 08, 2012 at 05:37 PM
In a fair and just world, Constance Johnson would be too ashamed to show her mug in public after that idiocy.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 08, 2012 at 05:40 PM
The Ram Pub has had to replenish its supplies since The Boys arrived.
Posted by: Frau Wirtschaft | February 08, 2012 at 05:40 PM
How long till Squaredance comes to tell us to sober up? This election cycle is, however, enough to drive a person to drink. Janet may join me with a larger mug.
Posted by: Frau Wirtschaft | February 08, 2012 at 05:42 PM
Is salt peter considered a legal food additive that is required to be disclosed on packaging?
Problem solved for that bint of a legislator. So much for the Folsom Street Fair for Bwaney's honeymoon.
Posted by: Stephanie | February 08, 2012 at 05:47 PM
the dumbest person ever to post here
If you're talking about a comment I made a few days ago - and I think you are since I haven't seen anyone else use such language lately - it wasn't directed at you, and I find it odd if you thought it was, since I've never come close to addressing you that way or giving any indication that I think that of you. I was referring to a relatively new poster, who posts over different names due to having made a fool of herself only days after beginning to post, and I stand by the comment.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 08, 2012 at 05:52 PM
I guess Jim M took off his bright blue parka!
LOL
Is Mrs M/T there,too?
Posted by: caro | February 08, 2012 at 05:54 PM
The Ram Pub has had to replenish its supplies since The Boys arrived.
Hah!
Posted by: Janet | February 08, 2012 at 06:00 PM
May I suggest a more fitting Rams Pub beverage for Mrs. M/T?
Posted by: Frau Wirtschaft | February 08, 2012 at 06:01 PM
For someone who professes experience in PR, working for a congresscritter and a presidential campaign you seem to disregard the optics of Romney's campaign as uneffectual. All these candidates are flawed and make bone-head statements and most of them are taken out of context. But that is what a professional campaign has to deal with and do it timely and correctly. Perspective is reality in politics and right now Mitt Romney's optic is quite blurred and uninspiring to the majority of caucus and primary voters.
JiB:
Of course I see the PR nightmares, and I just don't understand why Newt supporters in particular, but Santorum somewhat too, play right into the hands of those hellbent on making it a catastrophic disaster.
I think it was CH who made the point that conservatives care about the poor and they are not supportive of the safety-net mentality. That may be true, but so what, Mitt wasn't touting the safety nets, he was explaining that his main focus is on helping the middle class. To play along with the lefty view that Romney doesn't care about the poor is a bad thing, IMO. Common sense says a man who gives millions to charity every year does care about the less fortunate. Even if you don't support Romney, you do not have to agree with the left when you know it isn't true.
It was "Dianne" who said Romney gave Colorado away to Santorum.
If you look at the vote totals, it is clear that the majority of primary voters stayed home. My theory is that they didn't see the point of wasting time for something that didn't have delegates to award. Last night, CNN was saying the weather was horrible. But for whatever reason, the total vote for all 4 candidates, in some counties, was less than the total Romney got alone in 2008. That is not just low turnout, that is extraordinarily low turnout. So, what we got was a caucus of the activists.
But last night in answer to one of DOT's gloats, I said that if Romney lost in Colorado, it would be a disaster PR-wise. And I believe it was close to a month ago that I was saying that Santorum would be the biggest stumbling block for Romney. Last night's sweep will provide Santorum a big boost of money, momentum, and best of all, being taken seriously finally and getting on all the shows.
Posted by: Sara | February 08, 2012 at 06:05 PM
I think it was CH who made the point that conservatives care about the poor and they are not supportive of the safety-net mentality.
I think that was somebody else; not that I disagree with it.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 08, 2012 at 06:13 PM
Ext:
No, I wasn't referring to you, nor anything within the last couple of weeks. You have never struck me as one who uses ad hom attacks as a substitute for addressing an issue. Nor have I seen you try to be clever at the expense of another poster.
Posted by: Sara | February 08, 2012 at 06:17 PM
The case listed by Drudge is exceptional. LUN.
In it, a Wayne County prosecutor seems to be trying to compel a pastor to testify against a penitent.
There really is an assault on religion taking place.
Posted by: Maximus Severus Mattimus | February 08, 2012 at 06:20 PM
Poll: 30 percent of South Carolinians can’t identify Biden as vice president
Posted by: Sara | February 08, 2012 at 06:26 PM
KNO4
Posted by: MarkO | February 08, 2012 at 06:27 PM
Well, Sara, Mitt did say he would raise the minimum wage--something that most conservatives do not want.
Posted by: Not Sara | February 08, 2012 at 06:31 PM
Children, please. I've got a headache.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | February 08, 2012 at 06:31 PM
Maximus.facts matter at law ..There are restrictions on privilege. Among the restrictions are that the penitent and priest must be the only two involved. Here the defendant had his mom along. Don't go nuts over this case. It isn't what it seems--that is to say it is well within accepted boundaries of the case law.
Posted by: Clarice | February 08, 2012 at 06:31 PM
Shirley they can't be pulling this same trick again,
http://cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-02-08/Small_Donors_in_2011_Obama_s_Were_Big_Romney_s_Not.aspx
Posted by: narciso | February 08, 2012 at 06:33 PM
ChaCo,
Did you say children?
Me and Dad after he got back from WW2 and returned to the Southampton Volunteer Fire Department driving Agwan Engine Co. 1's white Mack pumper.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | February 08, 2012 at 06:36 PM
Someone tell me how to size these darn photos correctly. But full disclosure I only use iPhoto.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | February 08, 2012 at 06:37 PM
Is there a libertarian case for Rick Santorum?
Posted by: Sara | February 08, 2012 at 06:38 PM
Oatmeal is good for you. But I recommend redwood bark as a fiber substitute, if your intent is to clean the pipes.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | February 08, 2012 at 06:40 PM
They really ask us to forget about the 9/1 disparity last time around, about the million dollar contribution from Goldman
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/51177
Posted by: narciso | February 08, 2012 at 06:43 PM
What a great pic, Jack.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 08, 2012 at 06:50 PM
The links between the Catholic Church in Chicago/Saul Alinsky and Obama..verry interesting..
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2012/01/27/obama-alinksy-and-the-bishops/
Posted by: Clarice | February 08, 2012 at 06:50 PM
Really. 'Peter Griffen' was clueless, but generally not vicious, Eric Stoltz not so much;
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/the-white-house-has-no-opinion-about-whether-the-senate-should-pass-a-budget-todays-qs-for-os-wh-2812/
Posted by: narciso | February 08, 2012 at 06:51 PM
Great picture JiB.
Posted by: MarkO | February 08, 2012 at 06:51 PM
Eric Bolling just suggested that the administration really really wants this election to be about social issues, which is why they are attacking the Catholic Church.
Well, it is how the Dem in Illinois was able to get re-elected as governor, despite having run on Blago's tocket (and giving Blago an air of "integrity" by doing so) twice in a row. Quinn managed to convince just enough suburban Chicago moderates that a down state Republican was too dangerous on social issues to be allowed to be governor. Now those saps are paying 67% higher income taxes, Illinois is one of three states in the entire US where unemployment is actually going up right now, and the state still $8 billioin behind on paying its bills.
Posted by: Ranger | February 08, 2012 at 06:52 PM
BTW, breaking news:
Greece bailout: Coalition fail to agree cuts
Greek Prime Minister Lucas Papademos has failed to secure the support of his coalition for a raft of new austerity measures, reports say.
He was meeting officials from three parties to try to secure a deal leading to a fresh bailout package.
The main stumbling block in the crunch talks were proposed cuts to supplementary pensions, reports said.
I am sure they will work something out, right? I mean, just look at how they were able to patch things up in Yugoslavia at the last minute.
Posted by: Ranger | February 08, 2012 at 06:55 PM
Well Greece is predominantly ethnically and relgiously homogenous, unlike the previous example;
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/51166#comment-520144
Posted by: narciso | February 08, 2012 at 07:04 PM
JiB, in iPhoto,select the photo or photos. The under FILE, go to EXPORT. You will be able to change the size and quality there. Under SIZE, choose CUSTOM and choose Max WIDTH of 450 px. When you click EXPORT you can specify where to save the new size.
Hope this helps.
Posted by: Caro | February 08, 2012 at 07:05 PM
Narc,
I was refering more to the propensity of national elites for self destruction.
In both cases the national elites put themselves in a situation where if they do what must be done to save the system, they will be removed from office. While if they just let the system collapse, they can blame it on others, and still rule in the ruble (at least that is their hope).
Posted by: Ranger | February 08, 2012 at 07:11 PM
What a great photo, JIB! You look so proud of your dad. (Love your shoes, too.)
Posted by: Barbara | February 08, 2012 at 07:11 PM
If Mitt Romney is cold oatmeal, Ron Paul is clearly Fruit Loops.
Posted by: Soylent Red | February 08, 2012 at 07:12 PM
So I don't see the cross tabs, here, of course
'Jazz' is all verklempt, so there is that to look forward to, Sarc
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/08/q-poll-obama-rebounding-in-virginia/
Posted by: narciso | February 08, 2012 at 07:13 PM
yes, that's true as far as it goes, the Serbs
much like the Sunni tribesman in Anbar, never
imagined they were anything but the rightful
ruler,
Posted by: narciso | February 08, 2012 at 07:15 PM
Soylent-
Was there an on-line poll for that? I must have missed it.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | February 08, 2012 at 07:20 PM
What does one need to do, to earn the BBC's reproach, It's on the tip of my tongue
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/08/who-the-bbc-calls-extremist
Posted by: narciso | February 08, 2012 at 07:21 PM
This kind of ignorance or knavery is literally
toxic to our future
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/02/despite-record-gas-prices-democrats-kill-another-arctic-drilling-project/
Posted by: narciso | February 08, 2012 at 07:26 PM
Eric Bolling just suggested that the administration really really wants this election to be about social issues, which is why they are attacking the Catholic Church.
I had an interesting convo with a Mitt supporter today regarding Santorum and Zero's assault on religious freedom.
The abridged version is that Axelrod as much as admitted that the Zero Campaign will abandon the center. Attacking religion is a gambit to draw out fundies so that the old reliable pin the tail on the zealot game can commence. We both decided that Zero/Axelrod now realize that while they might not campaign to the center, they can just abandon it. Painting Republicans as religious nuts causes just enough doubt with the Muddle and the libertarian fringe to potentially keep them voting for the devil they know. This works against Santorum and Romney, both identified with being religious men.
But...
What the Big Fat Braintrust may not have calculated is that every Kennedy Catholic in the northeast is now put in the position of choosing between religion and politics. A fair proportion of them may just decide to avoid the decision altogether and not vote.
What we could not agree on is whether the Muddle's aversion to religious politicians is more powerful than the pull of Catholicism on those who see voting Democrat as a similarly religious obligation.
My guess is that this further galvanizes the left and right, but has no net effect on the muddle.
Posted by: Soylent Red | February 08, 2012 at 07:28 PM
Great photo, JiB!
Posted by: Porchlight | February 08, 2012 at 07:31 PM
Get real. The majority of Catholics have been eating from their own menu for decades. I should think if you believe this nonsense about ACA and the 'terribly' controversial issue of (yikes and egads !)
con-tra-cep-tion....you should welcome it as good news because all those Catholics who voted for Obama are suddenly going to repent (God save the Pope !) and start using the rhythm method before they vote for a Mormon.......
Holy Moly.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | February 08, 2012 at 07:33 PM
"What do Rush, Hannity and Levin have to do with the immediate spin by Ashley Banfield and the rest of the CNN crew?"
What does Ashley Banfield have to do with those of us who haven't seen her in at least five years? If Romney and his stumblebums think the reason Republican voters are turning away from him in droves is that they are pawns of MSM opinion, they are dumber even than they appear to be.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 08, 2012 at 07:35 PM
What didn't he get the memo, my Rinoish drive time Clear Channel guy didn't either;
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/209471-gingrich-i-liked-the-clint-eastwood-halftime-ad?utm_campaign=briefingroom&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitterfeed
Posted by: narciso | February 08, 2012 at 07:35 PM
Soylent,
I can't get over the fact that the entire country isn't standing up and screaming about the separation of church and state.
This has absolutely nothing to do with contraception (and why on earth should contraception be free?) and everything to do with abandoning the constitution. That is nothing but scary, and at the very least should guarantee that Obamacare is deemed unconstitutional on principle alone.
Posted by: Jane | February 08, 2012 at 07:45 PM
SR,
It's the muddle in the battleground states which counts. If you use the Independent category as a surrogate for the muddle and note that it's already 2/1 against BOzo in the battleground, then it's difficult to see any benefit at all in issuing the regulation.
I agree with you that it's probably a null factor with the muddle - is Team BOzo actually slower on the uptake than Team Romney? The risk/reward ratio is just terrible.
I lean towards Clarice's assessment that it's just progfodder.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 08, 2012 at 07:52 PM
"This has absolutely nothing to do with contraception"
I smell the odor of specious muleshit. It has everything to do with
contraception. Next they'll be insisting all hospital employees accept the Eucharist when they get their paycheck.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | February 08, 2012 at 07:54 PM
Marvelous pic, JiB.
TK, I wonder if Mr, Abruzzo shed any light on just why Madison's concerns about the closeness of an Elector to a president in office should trouble us now. He could start by listing all those instances in which an Elector has cast his vote contrary to the outcome of the vote in his state. And if Mr. jablonski was an elector in 2008 (I doubt that a new set has been selected since then), we know for a fact that he voted for McCain in that election. So please tell us the problem.
Who on earth can find something sinister in the fact that a lawyer active in party politics is married to a federal judge? Do the activities of Justice Thomas's wife concern you at all? Not me.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 08, 2012 at 07:54 PM
I predict Sebelius will back down.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 08, 2012 at 07:56 PM
Soylent,
Interesting. I think they can make some hay with that approach but last time they really needed the center to win. A lot of those people are hurting in the Zero economy and they really might not care what freaky so-con BS Axelplouffe wants to pull.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 08, 2012 at 07:58 PM
Jane, it is another example of the two countries you spoke of the other night. Nearly half (there's that number again) of the country basically never goes the church. Those who do are much more likely to be republicans than democrat (about 60:35 IIRC).
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 08, 2012 at 07:58 PM
"Do the activities of Justice Thomas's wife concern you at all? Not me."
Why would they concern you? Especially when it is your interests to be disinterested.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | February 08, 2012 at 08:00 PM
This has absolutely nothing to do with contraception (and why on earth should contraception be free?) and everything to do with abandoning the constitution.
Specifically, getting the RCC to knuckle under. It's the thin edge of the wedge. Successfully subvert the First Amendment here, and they can eventually do it anywhere. What's to stop them? Only the ballot box, and this stuff is totally arcane to the average Muddler.
With help from Providence the average Muddler will be fed up with this crowd for other reasons if not this one.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 08, 2012 at 08:01 PM
Enough about oatmeal.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 08, 2012 at 08:04 PM
This has absolutely nothing to do with contraception (and why on earth should contraception be free?) and everything to do with abandoning the constitution.
That is a nuanced argument, and one which the Left will attempt to drown out with, "Look! Look! Republican religious nuts hate contraception! Why, they might even try to make contraception illegal!"
And yes, the whole country should be up in arms about the separation of church and state, but most people who aren't both religious and paying attention won't be bothered to care. Even some religious denominations won't care, because it doesn't involve the separation of the state from their church.
First they came for the Catholics, and I did nothing...
Posted by: Soylent Red | February 08, 2012 at 08:04 PM
The Anchoress has an interesting post questioning whether Daley left the White House because of the HHS mandate. LUN
Posted by: C.R. | February 08, 2012 at 08:04 PM
Per Gallup, the conservative:liberal church going split is 2:1 (55:27).
No wonder they are surprised.
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 08, 2012 at 08:05 PM
Why would they concern you?
Why indeed. Why would they concern anyone, now that Anthony Weiner has stilled his tongue? Either the activities of a jurist's spouse should be of concern, or they should not. My strongly-held view, in all cases, is that they should not.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 08, 2012 at 08:07 PM
But we will eat the oatmeal in November.
I find it interesting that one party is apparently playing to its base, the other triangulating to the muddle.
So who's it working for?
Looks to me like the numbers are good, but the trend sucks.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 08, 2012 at 08:09 PM
What does Ashley Banfield have to do with those of us who haven't seen her in at least five years?
Yikes! A brain fart, I thought I typed Soledad Obrien. Ashley Banfield? Exactly!
Posted by: Sara | February 08, 2012 at 08:11 PM
Me and Dad. Resized thanks to Caro.
Ladies, I do not have those beautiful blonde locks anymore nor the shoes:)
Now we have an old letter typed from his hand written letter home by the local Episcopal church he belonged to since my grandmother probably would have hard time reading his hand writing. In it he discusses how in England they found out the local village had 3 orphans from the localized bombings by the Nazis. The men in his command took up a collection of 170 Quid and gave it to the local Anglican vicar who cried when he received it. Evidently it all got sorted out a the local pub that the padre frequented.
We have to find the village and pub and see if the orphans are still alive. Any help from all you great search engine mavens. He was with the 9th Air Force Command Depot in England up to May 1944 when he went to the company that would land on Normandy. His letter was written in February of 44, so its the Command Depot location which I believe is in Essex near Mark's Hall.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | February 08, 2012 at 08:13 PM
Nope, he is new to the Elector gig.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_electors,_2008
And just in time.
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 08, 2012 at 08:15 PM
Now I can see JiB's curly blonde hair in the pic,,Cute.
Posted by: Clarice | February 08, 2012 at 08:19 PM
OL,
I never go to church and I'm not Catholic. But I believe in the constitution.
BTW some unitarian minister just said 98% of women use birth control. That would assume that 98% of women are of child bearing age. What a joke.
Posted by: Jane | February 08, 2012 at 08:20 PM
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 08, 2012 at 08:23 PM
Jane, of course, when you include abstinence and rythmn I suspect it is even more than that:)
Posted by: Jack is Back! | February 08, 2012 at 08:23 PM
First they came for the Catholics, and I did nothing...
I really am stunned. I shouldn't be, but I am.
Posted by: Jane | February 08, 2012 at 08:24 PM
JiB,
I would recognize you anywhere!
Posted by: Jane | February 08, 2012 at 08:26 PM
Surely "daddy" can be of help here.
Posted by: Barbara | February 08, 2012 at 08:26 PM
For those of you who doubt my qualifications, my imaginary son who served in Iraq has just confirmed to me that I am indeed an expert on specious muleshit.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | February 08, 2012 at 08:28 PM
JiB, that might make a great public interest story. Why not contact Toby Harnden who's the Daily Mail's US editor and ask if the Mail is interested in checking out what happe ed?
Posted by: Clarice | February 08, 2012 at 08:31 PM
"Nope, he is new to the Elector gig."
If he votes for Obama after the state's voters go for the Republican, I will eat my hat in the Coronado Firehouse.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 08, 2012 at 08:32 PM
First they came for the Catholics, and I did nothing...
The Catholic vote is a little better than a quarter of the electorate, disproportionately represented in battleground states, and generally splits fairly evenly (e.g., it went 54-44 for the GOP in 2010 54-45 for Obama in 2008, and 52-47 for Bush in 2004. If this in fact biases the Catholic vote against Dems (which historically has not been the case for most religious issues), then it's a political disaster.
This is a bit different than most past issues, both in the unified response from the various bishops and the promise of civil disobedience. That keeps it in the news (and as a subject touched on in sermons) and can't help the Dems. Looks like a self-inflicted wound of light to moderate severity, but getting worse the longer it lasts. I'd bet on a rowback, and that fairly soon.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 08, 2012 at 08:32 PM
This gives you a flavor of what they are about,
http://www.religiousinstitute.org/seminary
Posted by: narciso | February 08, 2012 at 08:33 PM
Jane:
Did you hear O'R say that only 29% of adults are paying any attention to the election and only 22% of the 18=49 year olds?
And I agree that Obama vs RCC is a Constitutional issue. Religious liberty.
Posted by: Sara | February 08, 2012 at 08:33 PM
This has absolutely nothing to do with contraception (and why on earth should contraception be free?) and everything to do with abandoning the constitution.
Actually, I would say it is really about the left's War on Charity, along with eliminating tax deductions for charitable giving. The goal is to eliminate any conduit for social welfare that does not go through the state.
In Illinois they have essentially barred Catholic institutions from participation in the adoption process because they "forgot" to put a religious exception in the new "civil partnership" law. Even theough they claim they never intended to bar Catholic institutions via the law, they refuse to submit a religious exception change to the law for a vote.
Posted by: Ranger | February 08, 2012 at 08:34 PM
I am trying to see where the gospel fits into her view, but it's a bit of a poser;
http://www.religiousinstitute.org/staff/the-rev-debra-w-haffner
Posted by: narciso | February 08, 2012 at 08:36 PM
Good point, Porch. Obama has indicated in the past that he intends to go around the Congress to implement what he wants. It seems this includes going around the Constitution as well. EPA and HHS regulations, ignoring the law to persist in his military activities in Libya, making appointments without the approval of the Senate - all are evidence of this. If he feels so confident before the election, I wonder what he has planned next.
Posted by: Barbara | February 08, 2012 at 08:39 PM
JiB-
">Walter's Ash, Buckinghamshire, UK
RAF's High Wycombe Airdrome was located there, as was the 9th, which was formed on Feb. 22, 1944.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | February 08, 2012 at 08:40 PM
"For those of you who doubt my qualifications, my imaginary son who served in Iraq has just confirmed to me that I am indeed an expert on specious muleshit."
High praise from Ranger. lol
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | February 08, 2012 at 08:44 PM
Ben-Dana,
Why do you keep thinking it is me who does that?
Posted by: Ranger | February 08, 2012 at 08:47 PM
There may be some nefarious plot behind this HHS regulations flap but my guess is that's just ValJar and her tone deafness about the US. Maybe Obama will run on a second historic theme--that he's the first woman president in US history.
Posted by: Clarice | February 08, 2012 at 08:48 PM
The links between the Catholic Church in Chicago/Saul Alinsky and Obama..verry interesting..
Clarice's 6:50 link is really interesting. Here is an old bookmark I had to an organization called So We Might See.
An interfaith leftist organization including the one mentioned at The Anchoress (USCCB) but also The Islamic Society of North America, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, United Church of Christ, Presbyterian Church USA,....
The protestant denominations involved are the really liberal branches that pretty much are about social justice more than a relationship with Almighty God.
Their new campaigns seem to be hate speech & childhood obesity.
A bit more on them -
"Washington, DC—A campaign effectively to censor conservative voices on the airwaves and sponsored by a Religious Left coalition has been suddenly dropped. Sponsored by George Soros’ Open Society Institute and the ACORN-supporting Wallace Global Fund, the “So We Might See” campaign called for advertisers to stop supporting the Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs programs, as well as the firing of Dobbs. The "Color of Change" campaign targeting Beck has been removed from the “So We Might See” website, as has the “Drop Dobbs” campaign."
Posted by: Janet | February 08, 2012 at 08:49 PM
Yes, this strikes as the same 'strategic intelligence' that led to the Rio olympics
and Qatar World Cup selections, also attackwatch.
Posted by: narciso | February 08, 2012 at 08:50 PM
Ranger,
Actually, I would say it is really about the left's War on Charity, along with eliminating tax deductions for charitable giving. The goal is to eliminate any conduit for social welfare that does not go through the state.
Yep, Dependency Index surges 23% under Obama
http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=600452&ibdbot=1&p=2
Posted by: SWarren | February 08, 2012 at 08:58 PM
I am trying to see where the gospel fits into her view,
Exactly, narciso. These are just political leftist organizations in religious disguise. They use some religious language...but they aren't about God at all.
Posted by: Janet | February 08, 2012 at 08:58 PM
"Actually, I would say it is really about the left's War on Charity, along with eliminating tax deductions for charitable giving. The goal is to eliminate any conduit for social welfare that does not go through the state."
Have you any idea of the wealth of the VATICAN?
Neither do I. Nor does anyone else. Let them eat cake.
If they ply their trade in Politics, the forfeit their 501(c) 3 status.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | February 08, 2012 at 09:02 PM
Mel,
Those are bases not Command Depots but will check it out. He was HQ so most likely Marks Hall and the church in Fordham near Cochester.
Will take Clarice's advice and pass on to Toby. My cousin in Herts is also working her magic. She is a family history expert.
But daddy, do not be discourared we sill need boots on the ground to cover all the pubs. Please, I beg you.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | February 08, 2012 at 09:03 PM
I mean they could call themselves the Pagan Institute, but as of now it's as real as the Human Fund,
Posted by: narciso | February 08, 2012 at 09:06 PM
Test
Posted by: daddy | February 08, 2012 at 09:06 PM
BF,
Us Catholics forgive you and will pray for your soul while it either lingers in limbo or burns in hell. Take your pick and I'll put in a good word for you.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | February 08, 2012 at 09:07 PM