The quote is innocuous enough:

“I am puzzled by intelligent people who stand by and allow their country to be taken over and run by extreme radical types,” Payne said. “I’m still somewhat puzzled by that. And I am fully aware that it could happen and has almost happened in this country. You know, I lived through the McCarthy era in the 1950s, when it was getting dangerously close to that sort of thing.”

Yes, this quote is only tangentially tied to my headline , the thrust of the article is another interesting topic altogether

Yes, he was talking about the German people allowing the Nazi’s into power and the holocaust and tying this into the McCarthy era and so on.

Yes, he’s a Democrat and not referring (or even considering) the current administration.

The Irony?

He’s Obama’s Great Uncle:

Obama’s Uncle: He’s Using Buchenwald for Political Purpose

I like to think of this as a geriatric twist on the old adage: “From the mouth of babes…”

Below is the body of a recent letter from my Pastor.

This year we have the privilege of shaping our government through the exercise of our right to vote.

We respect the separation of church and state. Both have their rightful autonomy as they pursue their distinct functions. The mission of the Church is the salvation of souls and the Kingdom of God. The mission of the state is to pursue the common good by establishing just laws.

There is a separation of church and state.(ed:see my note below) BUT THERE CAN BE NO SEPARATION OF LAW AND MORALITY; there can be no separation of law and truth, or of law and justice. All human beings are required ethically to pursue Good and to avoid Evil.

The Catholic Church does not seek to impose her religion on anyone. We do not wish to pass civil laws that require praying the Rosary or eating fish on Fridays.

But Catholics have just as many rights as anyone else, and no fewer rights than anyone else, to be guided by our values. If something is true on Sunday, it does not cease to be true on Monday.

We propose those values though reason, logic and philosophy, so that people of any faith or of no faith can discover the wisdom and truth of those values. They do not have to accept our doctrine to accept the validity of our reasoning.

Secular Humanists have been clever to propose to our culture a “Heads I win - Tails you lose” argument. They claim that the separation of church and state means a separation of God and State, or of God and citizenship. That is a false argument!

men and Women of faith built this country. Now atheists seek to take it away or least silence people of faith.

Do not leave your faith outside the voting booth. Truth is truth. People of faith have much to contribute to our nation, as they always have. From its founding, its civil way over slavery and the pursuit of Civil Rights, people of faith have led the way.

Attached is a brief booklet prepared by the bishops of the USA. Please consider it carefully before voting. More information can be found at their website: www.faithfulcitizenship.org

For the record, our Pastor does not tell us how to vote. He does, however, make very clear that we are responsible for our votes and for making choices in accordance with Christian moral values.

For those who are fallen away Catholics, or of other denominations which still bear animosity towards Catholics, let me say that the Church is in transition. As the population of Liberal priests of the last 40 years shuffle on into retirement and final respose, more and more Bishops/Pastors are taking a hard stance on good/evil and encouraging parishioners to become active in conservative social causes.

For example, we have the (several) recent public corrections of leading Catholic Politicians by their Bishops and then just this Friday, ArchBishop Chaput of Denver (speaking as a private citizen) called Obama the “most committed” abortion-rights candidate from a major party in 35 years and also “To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year’s ‘real’ pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse,”

Its a long time coming, but the Catholic Church is beginning to wake back up.

Churches are becoming places where members are still uplifted, sure, but also challenged and, when appropriate, rebuked for both their overt behaviors and also their lack of action. Parishioners are being encouraged to directly seek guidance in scripture during the week and not just on Sunday as well as in prayer.

Note (from above): I disagree with this statement and recently wrote on actions to end this artificial division here: Ending the Separation of Church and State

The last few days were stomach churning for me as multiple diaries began echoing the doom and gloom meme and ‘all is lost, run for the hills’. One even front paged our guaranteed defeat.

Without going through all the “it aint over ’til it’s over” pap, let me just say: Keep your chin up and read this: The Left’s Big Blunder all the way through to the end. It is long and detailed but very educational. Read it twice to really grasp what Zombietime is saying. No, it doesn’t mean McCain will win or that we will keep or increase our seats in Congress.

However, what it does mean is that we need to take polling results with extra salt and then buckle up and get back to work. This election is not over by a long shot. If we want to moan and weep, let’s hold that for the day after the election. Okay?

For the record, I’m with GameCock. I think McCain will win and further think the Congress will be about the same as it is today. I reserve the right to believe this and not quit until shown otherwise.

For those who can’t take the time to read it all, here’s a summary and key quotes:

1. The Media tells us that “facts and events in and of themselves are no longer important; what’s important is how everyone reacts to them” and “the media’s representation of most people’s purported thoughts is supposed to influence everyone else’s thoughts.”

2. The media is assumed by all (and relied upon by the left) to be advocates for Obama/Dem candidates and to spin reality in their favor; hence their rush to comment/twist/spin everything that happens, even in the face of substantial, objective evidence to the contrary.

3. The left believes that continued reporting of one-sided data, skewed polls (even post-debate online insta polls, overwhelmed by multiple voting-stuffing lefties), will shape public perception and demoralize potential opposition voters and keep them home on election day.

4. The left believes, based on psychological studies done in the past, that people’s desire to conform will lead them to go with the crowd in order to avoid conflict/embarrassment, even if doing so conflicts with their inner moral compass.

5. The author contends that the Polling process itself, even when objectively administered and controlled, may well be skewed leftward by 5% or more due to unconscious psychological forces that neither the Poll questioner nor responder can control.

6. The author contends that enough poll respondents conform to the questioner’s expectations and desires to skew final results. They conform for a variety of reasons, but avoiding criticism and conflict is a key element. However, when allowed to vote in the voting booth, with no witness to the contrary, they become non-conformist and vote their conscience.

7. The more non-conformists surrounding an individual, the more likely he/she was to vote their conscience rather than go with the crowd. If even one person in a group goes against the group-think, others are overwhelmingly more likely to also dissent and go their own way.

There’s much, much, more and I’ve not done it justice by any means. Go read it and then get active.

However, the last point (#7) above is perhaps the most important of all. It means that everyone who reads this and believes Obama and the left are a bad choice for the country: you need to speak up and let your fellow citizens know they are not alone.

The following needs to happen in the swing states and key precincts of other states.

• Write up your opinions in a personal missive and distribute them door to door

• Start/Keep writing letters to the editors of local papers.

• Express your opinions in public gatherings in simple, non-confrontational ways

• Get a bunch of yard signs and put them out. Even if they get stolen/vandalized whatever, keep putting out new ones and keep the faith for the benefit of your undecided or fearful neighbors.

• Do whatever you can to let normal people know they are not alone out there.

• Keep giving $, but the other steps above are even more important in my book.

Best wishes,

Tom

From Drudge, I picked up this article:

Ban on Political Endorsements Targeted

This is significant in that the Alliance Defense Fund(ADF - think of them as the ‘Anti-ACLU’) believes that current law is unconstitutional and in that they are willing to provoke a Court Battle over it.

Firstly, ADF does not take on a case unless they feel they are absolutely in the right. If they feel the current law is unconstitutional, then it almost certainly is.

Second, they would not take on the case unless they felt they could win, or use the case to successfully establish precedent leading to a future win.

Many of you here are surely experts on the Church/State separation issue, so I will not even try to fully document it except for this brief (admittedly amateur) summary:

Prior to 1954 churches were tax exempt, independent from government control and fully free to express political opinion in the course of sermons and ministry. Most importantly, perhaps, they able to instruct and direct their congregations in the morality of their respective voting decisions.

Liberal politicians saw this unrestricted power as an impediment to their expansionist socialist agenda and worked to restrict this power. The leader in this effort was Senator Lyndon Johnson.

In 1954, LBJ was facing tremendous opposition from two non-profit anti-communist groups that were fighting against his Liberal socialist agenda. Johnson retaliated by having restrictions on non-profits (including churches) included in IRS code. The changes prohibited non-profits from engaging in political activities (such as endorsements), lest they lose their non-profit status and be subject to taxation and penalties.

This change has had staggering ramifications and almost completely removed the Church from the political arena. You could make a reasonable case that the progression of every social ill proceeds from this change in the law. The chilling effect on the church has been enormous.

For example: The recent admonishment of Nancy Pelosi by Bishops and Cardinals is remarkable primarily for how infrequent something like this actually occurs today. I guarantee all the rebukes were legally screened to ensure they could not be construed as political.

Today, the bolder churches dance around political issues and might venture to say: “Under our Christian beliefs, having an abortion is a sin and enabling an abortion is a sin. You have a responsibility to take this into account when you make your voting decisions. Please research the issue and choose prayerfully who you will support”.

However, in the early 50s, a pastor was free to say “Mrs. Pelosi votes for abortion. This position is inconsistent with Christian theology and places her on the wrong side of God’s law and into grave sin. If you vote for her, you are also committing grave sin and placing yourself against God and His law. You should not vote for Mrs. Pelosi.”

I’ve been a supporter of ADF for a very long time. You can do the research if you choose, but they have been diligently training a cadre of Conservative/Christian Attorneys to fight religious free speech restrictions, freedom to worship, parental rights cases.

They have been remarkably effective in doing this and provide a significant (and growing) check to the ACLU and other anti-Christian forces. They do tremendous good for our Conservative causes. Visit their site and look at the long record of successes both at the Supreme Court and in multiple lower courts.

Once the election is over – please make a decision to financially support their work. (OK, end of shameless plug.) Our beliefs (both conservative and Christian) are based on good law. The ACLU and other forces have been successful in the past based on bad law and a general lack of opposition.

The tide is turning.

Erick’s Red Hot said No, John, Kay is not Acceptable.

As a Texas voter, I agree.

I think she’s a good (not great) Senator and may/may not be an improvement in the Governor’s mansion over Rick Perry, but her selection as VP will hurt the McCain campaign:

1. She is Pro-choice. That will deflate the buzz in the social conservative ranks. We (many, not all) are lining up behind McCain knowing that America needs him to win as an Obama victory will be disastrous to social conservative goals. Choosing KBH as VP will make the choice between the two camps much less distinct for Social Conservative.

2. We need a solid win in November to quash the ’stolen election’ meme. If you see a squeaker I’m predicting riots in urban America. This election campaign is increasingly looking like a solid McCain win over the incredible lightness of the empty (Communist leaning, Terrorist supporting) suit. KBH on the ticket will move this back towards a very close win or possible loss.

3. She’s been my Senator and has been competent, but not reliable on Conservative issues. Unlike Cornyn, I constantly get the impression that she votes on the Right side of issues reluctantly and only after sampling the air for direction and even then has to be nudged to take action. She is not a take charge leader in my book. Should McCain win - even after 2 terms - Hillary will shred KBH in any future campaign.

4. I argued in a comment a few days ago Did I just step into “Bizarro” RedStatethat “slipping into” identity politics and choosing a woman -for this win only- would be ok, but only if the woman in question was prepared to run the ship. Sorry, I don’t see Kay as ready to lead this country.

Bzzzzzt. Next Contestant Please!

Given the non-stop barrage of Obama/McCain leading into the conventions the topic of Anthropogenic Global Warming has slipped off the radar screen for pretty much everyone.

This is certainly true for the MSM; caught in the throes of a leg tingling big “O”, they can barely stop their panting long enough to remind the public that we are all going to die –soon- from man caused global warming.

It is useful to remember that regardless of the election outcome, both candidates have signed on to the premise that the Earth is warming rapidly, we are to blame and something must quickly be done.

The media distraction from the Greatest Crises of our Time (can I trademark that?) shows plainly as the public has quickly shifted from fear and loathing to, at the least, a measured indifference.

From National Journal:

• 47% (down 5% since last April) of Americans consider global warming an important issue to them personally.
• 80% still think the planet is warming (down 4% since last year).
• Only 25% (down 8% since last year) think global warming the biggest environmental challenge facing the world.

Key Quote: “but despite the overwhelming consensus that global warming is indeed occurring, doubt over the science behind the issue is still lingers strongly in people’s minds.” (bias emphasis mine)

• 30% of respondents said they trust what scientists have to say about the environment “completely” or “a lot,”
• 39% saying they trust them “a moderate amount”
• 30% saying they do not trust them.

This is Good News for deniers and for citizens who still wish to steer the debate back towards good science and away from hyperbole and fear mongering on the part of the environmental left. It tells me that most citizens are not yet ready to drink the Kool Aid without at least asking what else is in the cup.

Now if we could just get Senator McCain on board with this line of thinking - after he swears into office, of course. We have an election to win first.