This pathetic attempt at rebuttal by Obama is quite simple. The first submarine commissioned by the United States Navy was “USS Holland (SS-1)” on October 12, 1900.

The first Aircraft Carrier commissioned by the United States Navy was the USS Langley (CV-1) on March 20, 1922.

Exactly how does the existence of Aircraft Carriers and submarines in a Modern American Navy nullify Mitt Romney’s just concerns about the size of the Navy? Obama spoke about both as if they were some new fangled advances in naval warfare. The existence of carriers in our fleet justifies its reduction even though they have been an integral part of our navy for 112 and 87 years respectively? I guess in Obama’s world Jimmy Doolittle was bombing Tokyo with ELECTRONIC b-25 Mitchell bombers. How can he defend shrinking a navy whose history he is wholly ignorant?

Barack Obama in defending the mandate has suggested that it has no impact on “Freedom of Worship”. So, exactly where does “Freedom of Worship” appear in the Constitution? It doesn’t. The First Amendment provides for “Freedom of Religion”. No one to my knowledge has called him out on this significant distinction.

Freedom of Religion of course provides for living one’s life in concert with the principles of your faith. It unambiguously asserts the rights of Americans not to be coerced beyond the limits of their faith and conscience.

What about Freedom of Worship? This “nuance” effectively seeks to diminish the boundaries of faith in our individual lives by compelling actions in violation of firmly held moral convictions. Simply put, when Barack Obama and his closest allies speak of “free worship”, they mean to segregate the services of devotion from its application in our daily lives. Obama’s position essentially is that our faith has no value in society beyond the front door of the respective houses of worship and fidelity to the precepts of our faith is invalid if determined to be in conflict with our “enlightened” federal government.

In Barack Obama’s America we must leave our prayers in the pew. In Barack Obama’s America we must leave our faith at the front door. In Barack Obama’s America our faith must submit to the new moral authority, or as Mark Steyn calls it: “The Church of Big Government”.

Barack Obama has been let off the hook when he speaks of “Free Worship”. Some might suggest this is just an example of political nuance to take the edge off the issue. This is an absurd defense. Look at the President’s resume’. Are we supposed to believe that a man who graduated from Harvard Law School, the most prestigious law school in the country is unaware of the distinction between worship and religion? Are we to extend him the benefit of the doubt that as the editor of the “Harvard Law Review” that he is ignorant of the constitutional distinction? Are we to ignore his years as a Law Professor and conclude that he doesn’t understand the clarity of the First Amendment?

Barack Obama has taken a position that undermines the first right in the United States, freedom of religion. Not worship, but RELIGION. Barack Obama’s education belies his rhetoric. His record and motives are clear. WE can devote our lives to God, just as long as we keep our faith in the closet.

“In his talk to Protestant ministers,” Sebelius said, “Kennedy talked about his vision of religion and the public square, and he said he believed in an America, and I quote, ‘where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against us all.’”

George Orwell would be impressed by this brand of double speak. Let’s see if I have this right. The federal government is trying to force the Catholic Church and other faith based institutions to violate the most principled tenets of their faith or face sanctions for failure to comply and it’s the church that’s trying to impose its values?

The most telling part of the quote is her failure to comprehend its double meaning. When JFK, as she quotes said: “and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against us all.’”, JFK was defending the core principle of “Freedom of Religion” as stated in the First Amendment. JFK was alleviating historic sensibilities that held that to elect a Catholic would subject the United States to Papal governance, thereby undoing the first amendment. He expressed himself in such a way as to be true to himself while reassuring all to his commitment to defend people of all faiths. Kathleen Sebelius, Barack Obama and the rest would have us believe that compelling Americans to violate their faith is an effort on our part to impose our faith on everyone else. In truth those who object to this unlawful compulsion are evoking the true spirit of Kennedy’s speech.

Kathleen Sebelius has taken it to another level. With her at Obama’s right hand they are engaged in an insidious campaign, the worst effort to undo the First Amendment since the “Alien” and “Sedition” Acts. The HHS Mandate as a critical component of Obamacare and advanced by the HHS Secretary is the most despicable action taken by a President since Woodrow Wilson endorsed D.W. Griffith’s “The Birth Of A Nation”.

I am a  child of Irish Catholic parents and an alumni of twelve years of Catholic schools I was fed a steady diet of JFK, the one and only Catholic President. Both of my parents turned twenty one in 1960 and proudly voted for JFK. My mother told me the story of my great grandmother,at the age of 70 staying up to watch election returns until 3AM, because having lived through Al Smith’s 1928 campaign she was convinced that a Catholic could never be elected President. My mother also tells of my grandmother who was often required to list her religion on job applications. Then of course there’s the infamous “No Irish Need Apply”. What would my grandmother and great grandmother have to say if they were compelled to violate their faith? Whatever, they might have said just doesn’t matter because Kathleen Sebelius just doesn’t care.

The American People are always focused on the economy, but in our current state of economic stagnation (at best) the amount of publicity on the matter must be annoying if not infuriating to the public at large.

Why won’t it work? Why won’t we fall for the slight of hand? Consider this. If you’re one of the millions of Americans out of work,underemployed or on food stamps are you thrilled to turn on the news and see all the gushing over his “evolution”?

Looking for a job? Don’t worry, Our President has evolved!
Struggling to pay the rent or mortgage? Gay marriage will save you!
Struggling with rising gas and food prices? Hey, at least you can marry anyone you want!
Concerned about the quality of your child’s education? Don’t worry their teachers will enlighten them on the wisdom of Obama’s “evolution” even if they can’t read at their grade level and are destined to a future of crippling student loan debt for a college education that no longer pays dividends.

Sooner or later Obama will be forced to defend the economy and nothing can save him from that fate. Sooner or later he’ll have to make the case to millions of Americans why his economy is worthy of a repeat performance. The American People will not accept an “I support gay marriage” answer to a question about creating jobs. There are too many people who are searching for real hope for a better tomorrow. They will ask: What does it matter who we can marry if I have no job and struggle to keep a roof over my head and food on the table?

Barack Obama is going to find out the hard way that it really is the economy stupid.

At the start of his 3pm show he reported President Obama’s flip flop on gay marriage. As he went into the commercial break he said this: “The President Is Now In the 21st Century”. Of course one could interpret the decision as tossing thousands of years of human civilization under the bus, but that might be considered a commentary lacking in journalistic objectivity. Of course Shep Smith lacks objectivity especially if history seems to contradict his personal sensibilities.

It is his latter comments the are annoying as provided in the link at Mediaite.com. In a back and forth with Bret Baier at least the latter remained objective and balanced. It was his allusion to gay rights and marriage being at a place similar to that of the Civil Rights Movement. He also commented  on  “States Rights” derisively, of course. I’m tired of this ignorant parallel. It’s time for Shep Smith’s “teachable moment”.

Let’s start with States Rights. The rights of the states are clearly stated in the 10th Amendment. In layman’s terms whatever powers are not provided to the Federal Government is the province of the states. Throughout the annals of human history, laws have always been abused. States Rights was a claim used to deprive African Americans of their freedom,then their rights and often their lives. It is the darkest chapter in American history precisely because law was used to perpetuate real hatred and bigotry. But, and there is a but, this chapter in our nation’s history does not invalidate the legitimate function of the 10th Amendment in its application to American life,culture and society.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal Government empowered to oversee marriage as a function of its powers. Therefore, it falls to the states. The history of the struggle for Civil Rights does not strip the proper function of the 10th Amendment regardless of its unjust application by precedent. One of the lessons we learn from the Civil Rights Movement is a respect for the original intentions of the Constitution.

For Shep Smith, a native Mississippian, a state that has come a long way in half a century to make a comparison with the plight of African Americans and that of Gay Marriage demonstrates an ignorance of American History in context. There are no shortage of race hustlers preaching victimization in the African American Community, but the history is appalling and Gay Marriage as an issue and Gay Rights as a movement cannot remotely begin to approach their struggle to realize Constitutional principles as a positive force in their daily lives.

There is a tragic history to gays and lesbians in this country. Has there been hatred?, bigotry?,violence and discrimination? Yes there has. I have never understood why anyone would express hatred towards anyone much less be driven to physical violence, but the struggles of gay and lesbian American men and women do not equal slavery. It does not equal Jim Crow. Matthew Shephard was murdered brutally for being gay, but his murderers were brought to justice. Those who lynched black men and women? You know the answer.
Don’t like that gay men and lesbians can’t get married? Well, how about being kidnapped from your home,shipped across an ocean into servitude? How about your marriage if you could get married could be annulled by your master by selling your spouse?

Shep Smith should know better than to make this false analogy. As we are all human,we are all imperfect, we are all sinners. I do not presume to understand all the mysteries of life and a little humility in such matters I believe is essential. We all have struggles no matter who we share our lives with, but the true story of America is that no living American is suffering in a manner consistent with the ugliest chapters in our nations history. Whatever the struggle gay and lesbian Americans face today, it cannot be measured against that of the Civil Rights Era.

Shep Smith may think he knows his history,but he does not understand its application in providing perspective to the contentious issues of the day like Gay Marriage. The Tenth Amendment is not invalidly asserted and States Rights is not a dog whistle. It is the pretentiousness of the Shep Smiths of this country that deter a functional and civil discourse on the subject at hand. So much for the “journalist” at FOX NEWS.

Firstly, supporters of the mandate defend the proposition because as they say most Catholics do not agree with the Church on the matter of artificial birth control. Jehmu Green, on Fox News no less cited polling that 98% of Catholics oppose the Church and have used contraception. Juan Williams, also on FOX, cited a FOX NEWS poll that showed 61% of all Americans agreed with the Presidents’ mandate.The Green and Williams position is that if a majority of the faithful do not adhere to the precepts of their faith, then the government is justly empowered to enforce that majority opinion upon the entire faith.

Let us suppose that these polling numbers are accurate and not skewed by faulty inquiry. If it really is 98% that oppose the Church and a mere 2% that abide by its teaching I am compelled to ask: SO WHAT? This argument in defense of the mandate is pathetic precisely because it seeks to delegitimize faith if it does not conform to majority will. If I am part of the 98% am I justified in marginalizing the 2%? Are those 2% who comply with the Church’s teachings to be denied protection under the First Amendment? Are we now to extend the protections of that First Amendment exclusively to those whose lives are in contravention to the tenets of their faith? That is the logical conclusion to draw by those who cite polls to justify intruding upon religious liberty. It is however the citation of the outcome of public polling to defend this unconscionable act that is more profoundly disturbing because it undermines the heart of the First Amendment. Freedom to Worship and by extension the conscience of one’s faith as outlined in the First Amendment does not exist to serve the will or conscience of a 98% majority, it is there expressly to serve and protect the minority from the will of the majority. This historic reality is absent among those who recite polls to defend the President and is therefore wholly invalid in its construction. Catholics and only Catholics are free to debate and seek to alter the precepts of their faith. Many liberal Catholics have pleaded with the Church to change its policy. It is an example of Dialogue among the faithful and in the United States of America the government is not justly empowered to take up the cause of a faction in an internal debate amongst the flock. Catholics make the rules for Catholicism and no one else. It is true of all faiths and the faithful in America.

The second defense of the mandate goes like this: Because Catholic affiliated schools and hospitals hire non Catholics, those non Catholics are not bound to the teachings of the Catholic Church and therefore any affiliated institutions depriving them of health care plans without contraception are effectively coercing them to compromise their health and principles. It is therefore held by this defense that government is justified in compelling those institutions to compromise its faith and provide such services. This is absurd.

First of all if you are a person of one or no faith working at an institution run by a contrary faith it then stands as common sense that your faith as the employee does not dictate itself to your employer. If your values are so offended by the tenets of the Catholic Institution that employs you then you are free to pursue employment with any alternative enterprise that meets your values. For that matter, as an American Catholic if you are so profoundly dissented with the faith, you are free to find peace amidst a new flock that matches your values. Simply put: The Door is open and you are free to leave.

As to the issue of coercion of non Catholic employees. Let us imagine for the moment that I am the President of the University of Notre Dame, the most prestigious Catholic University in America. In that capacity I publicly declare that we will only consider Catholic applicants for employment and furthermore be discharging all present non Catholic employees and shall only take applications from Catholics and thereby exclude non Catholics from employment in this new hiring practice. If such an action were taken the Justice Department would seek to prosecute the University for violation of federal anti discrimination laws. I use this example to illustrate how this defense is a “Catch-22″. On the one hand Catholic institutions like Notre Dame are obligated by law to consider all qualified applicants and cannot prohibit by practice the employment of non Catholics. This legal reality undoes the “coercion” defense. Because the Church abides the law regarding employment, they are now compelled to violate its conscience as a result of its compliance? On the one hand the institution cannot discriminate and because it cannot by law discriminate, they are now compelled by the mandate as the employer to conform to the values of the non Catholic employee as defined by Kathleen Sebellius, that Quisling residing at Health and Human Services. What a fine legal mechanism that erodes religious liberty.

The third defense is worthless but needs mentioning. They argue “it’s about women’s health,not religious liberty”. This is just plain dishonest. First of all, health care as a whole, women’s needs or otherwise is not a right as defined by the Constitution. Freedom of Worship is. How can something that is not a right, trump the very first amendment ratified by the thirteen original states? This defense is merely a facade, given the abundance of evidence however anecdotal that Rick Perry was right when he said there was a “war on religion”. There is a clear and definable segment of American society represented in this crisis of faith that are intent upon subordinating all people of faith to what they deem to be the greater moral authority, that of course being an all knowing, all powerful, wiser and beneficent federal government. They seek as evidenced in this matter, however subtle and incremental to compel people of ancient faiths to worship their newly constructed Golden Calf, an altar to honor their secular God as they seek to consign the Faith of Our Fathers with an eye towards oblivion.

I am by temperament inclined to believe that people are well intentioned in their dissent on issues of substance. On this matter I cannot bear as the evidence mounts to extend such a presumption. The assault on religious liberty in this mandate is unprecedented. It is just the beginning and the most notable chapter in a litany of lesser known efforts to diminish individual fidelity to faith. Whatever one’s faith or values, this mandate is a direct assault on faith, but indirectly its greatest victim is the “Spirit of America” itself, a spirit that cherishes individuality and the freedom to define our lives on our terms as dictated by our conscience whether inspired by the divine or a choice to ignore his voice in the conducting of our life.

DEFEND YOUR FAITH
FIGHT FOR THE CONSTITUTION
PRESERVE THE “SPIRIT OF AMERICA

I respect Rick Perry defending his position on illegal immigration. He stuck to his guns despite its being a liability in Republican primaries. Most voters disagree with him, but he defended it. Ok. That’s why we have debates after all.

It was his concluding statement that has infuriated me. He defended his position by stating that those who oppose his position “have no heart”. Really? No heart? Rick Santorum jumped on this to his credit.

Rick Perry is free to defend his position as he sees it on the merits, but to suggest his critics are heartless is right out of the liberal textbook. As conservatives it is bad enough that we must endure such assaults from liberals and their acolytes in the mainstream media, but we’ve come to expect that and have effectively rebutted this view. But from Rick Perry? A conservative Republican Governor of Texas to criticize a dissenting view to label his conservative critics “heartless”?  I would expect that from Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or Michael Moore, but from the front runner in a contest for President?

When it comes to politics, I can be as jaded and as cynical as they come in spite of an overall sense that we can overcome every obstacle. What Rick Perry said was an affront, an insult to every conservative who has ever had the indignity of being called “heartless”. I don’t agree with Rick Perry on the policy in question, so in his world I have no heart. That’s not politics, that’s personal to me. If Governor Perry insists upon employing liberal talking points to further his agenda, then maybe he should’ve remained a registered Democrat and stopped wasting my time in a Republican primary.

As we all know,the part considered controversial is Governor Perry’s “Doubling Down” on his labeling Social Security a “Ponzi Scheme”. Rick Perry is substantively correct about the soundness regarding the financing of Social Security. He deserves credit for bringing the issue to public attention. It is a genuine profile in courage, given the historic demagoguery of liberals whenever the subject is raised. Members in both parties and across the ideological divide acknowledge the numbers don’t add up for Social Security and it needs to be corrected. Reforming Social Security will be complex and require extraordinary political skills to get it done.

Rick Perry’s insistence on describing it as a “Ponzi Scheme” is a near fatal if not fatal error in judgement both politically and as a matter of public policy. Rick Perry is not off base in his analogy. The current fiscal structure of Social Security has a parallel with a Ponzi Scheme. There is however a fundamental distinction. First and foremost a Ponzi Scheme is a criminal endeavor intent on defrauding its investors. By contrast Social Security is a fully transparent public program freely supported by the American people with their tax dollars for over seventy years. And it has been repeatedly endorsed with results at the ballot box. A free choice by definition is not the same as being victimized by a fraudulent scheme.

The other issue I have is the politics and policy implications of his statement. In the aftermath of the debate are we discussing the long term viability of Social Security as currently structured? NO! Instead, we are debating whether or not it’s a Ponzi Scheme. Issues are often reduced to cliches or hyperbole by politicians and on most issues it is acceptable because most issues are transitory and have no long term relevance except in the moment. But Social Security is not the flavor of the week as issues go, it is a perennial issue that has been debated for generations and any modifications have long term ramifications for American society. On matters of such consequence Rick Perry was ill advised to use hyperbole to illustrate his point. Furthermore, it emboldens left wing demagogues who believe that  raising taxes on everyone else is the proper remedy. If we are going to have a vast public debate on Social Security it must be on the merits.

The other portion of the exchange that bothers me is the one that can be fixed. On the morning of the debate, Karl Rove stated that it was “TOXIC” to call Social Security a Ponzi Scheme. Dick Cheney also declared it to be inaccurate. As conservatives we have had many issues with big government policies and excess spending during the Bush years, a fact that is all too often ignored. We tend to view the Karl Rove’s of the GOP as “establishment”, and therefore not purely conservative, more interested in power than governing on principle. This is a valid criticism on many occasions, but I must point this out. Whatever one thinks of Rove or the “Bushies”, we must have everybody on board in the effort to defeat Barack Obama. Don’t let the numbers give you false hope. He can still win.

Rick Perry chose to “slap down” Rove and by inference could be accused of calling Cheney a liar in his response. Political junkies might find it entertaining but it must be said that if Rick Perry is our nominee, he as is true of all such nominees is confronted with the William Wallace moment from “Braveheart”. Near the end of the movie, Wallace has been beaten, he’s on the run and he agrees to a meeting, a meeting that leads to his betrayal and execution. He turns to his friends and says “We need the nobles”. He was right. Fortunately this is 21st Century America and not 14th Century Scotland, but my point is that we will need the Karl Rove’s committed in this fight, otherwise he’ll spend the money elsewhere and we’re going to NEED THE MONEY.

When Karl Rove said it was “Toxic” prior to the debate, he was giving Perry political advice disguised as analysis. Perry misinterpreted the remarks and was critical in kind. Rove is correct on the politics. Perry is wrong. Perry could have used his ill advised remarks in his book as an impetus to debate the genuine flaws in Social Security and walked back his talk of “Ponzi Scheme” at the same time. He could have suggested his remarks were intended to shine a spotlight on the the present state of the entitlement. Had he said anything to that effect we would be debating the formula for Social Security as opposed to the politics of Ponzi Scheme labeling.

In taking a shot at Rove he perpetuated another underlying narrative. It is quite evident that talk of a feud between the Perry and Bush people is very real. And in this respect Perry again dropped the ball. Prior to the debate, anyone affiliated with the Bush Administration have repeatedly been quizzed about this “feud”. Dana Perino was pressed hard by Megyn Kelly, but only had nice things to say about Perry. JEB BUSH on “HANNITY”, also debunked the notion of a feud. Dick Cheney and Karl Rove have both denied there was a rift. The Bush supporters, recognizing the real possibility of Perry as GOP standard bearer were clearly not being forthright, but towed the line rather than undermine Perry publicly as the potential nominee. Did Perry or his people not notice this? Do you think contributors to Bush didn’t notice? The Bush supporters and the former President himself understand the politics of the nominee distancing themselves from Bush. They won’t take it personally. In fact they have been extending olive branches. If Rick Perry is the nominee, he’s going to want the former Bush contributors on his side. Whatever his problems with the “Bushies”, this is the big leagues man, swallow your pride and play ball, because we all need to get with the program. The title of the program reads: “WE MUST DEFEAT BARACK OBAMA”. Anything else is unacceptable.

I want to support Governor Perry and I would be quite annoyed if Romney is the nominee, but how can we defeat  Barack Obama if we insist on alienating important people necessary to the cause of victory? The next debate is on CNN on Monday. I hope Perry is better prepared, because I WANT to support him because he is correct on the substance and in concert with my core beliefs and principles. But political skill and temperment are essential qualities in a candidate and as President. For quite a while it has been suggested that Perry is the perfect nominee because he unites every faction of the party. His debate performance has put the lie to that expectation. He has the correct principles, but his presentation is hurting the cause.

I’ve also been perusing websites and that includes Drudge Report. I’ve had other concerns of late with Mr. Drudge’s site recently, but I am alarmed with links that are downplaying expectations. There are a wide variety of links,but this link to Dr. Simon Atkins reads on Drudge like this: Forecaster: ‘Hype over Hurricane Irene overblown’…

Additionally, another link to Real Science reads like this: Scientist Mocks: Phony ‘Hurricane’ Coming On Shore With 33 MPH Winds. The rest of the links deal with the preparation for the storm, but do not contradict directly the absurdity of these two links.

Storms like Irene always draw out the idiots who are intrigued by its power. These people put their lives, the lives of family and friends at risk. It also risks first responders who feel a sense of responsibility even among these conditions to provide assistance.

If Matt Drudge wants to be a skeptic that’s his prerogative, but as well trafficked as his site is he should feel a greater sense of responsibility at the very least. There are plenty of fools under these conditions, Matt Drudge must stop encouraging them.

We all remember George H.W. Bush’s “no new tax” pledge. We all remember him breaking the promise. Most objective observers on all sides concede his re election had he not broken that pledge. Why did he break it? Because of our debt and annual deficits. He was conned by the Democrats into believing they would cut spending if he agreed to the tax increases. He agreed and broke his pledge. The tax increases were on the front end of the five year budget he signed off on and the bulk of the proposed spending cuts were on the back end of the five year budget outlay.

The Democrats subsequent to this agreement used Bush’s broken pledge to defeat him and elect Bill Clinton. They succeeded and then promptly reneged on the spending cuts. Game.Set.Match.SUCKER!!!!!!!!

The prospect of some kind of tax increase in any agreement has been looming for a while. Personally, I’m of the belief that every budget approved is littered however marginally with tax increases or fees so in the end most members have voted for increases even if nominal in size. The statement today by Max Baucus that there must be a one to one ratio on cuts and tax increases is blatantly political at the expense of potential fiscal insolvency. It’s dramatically less than the unappealing “Deficit Commission” that proposed a 3-1 cut to increase ratio.

I am absolutely confident that Congressional Republicans will not vote for this absurd proposition. Boehner is correct that they don’t have the votes. Even if I thought Boehner was sympathetic to the proposal it would be his end politically. Moreover, Democrats would do to any tax increasing Republicans what they did to Bush 41 and use it to defeat them in 2012 as a wedge to get back the majority. Does anyone think they would follow through on the promised spending cuts if they reemerged in the majority after running against pledge breaking Republicans? No cuts and more spending. One more giant step into oblivion.

The stakes are too high to get weak kneed in the wake of partisan Presidential politics. Obama is betting he get enough squishy Repubs who don’t want to be blamed for a “default” will cave as the pressure mounts. Wait and see, but I’ve got a feeling they all know they’re being played for sucker. Obama is playing with fire and we must keep our guys’ feet to the fire. We can win this on the merits and achieve a public relations victory if we have the courage now as George Bush did not over twenty years ago. No new taxes.Not now.Not in a recession.Not when investors are afraid to invest.Not when the American people are willing to scale back Big Brother. To Congressional Republicans: Read our Lips, No New Taxes.