Friday, October 31, 2014

Details, schmetails.

So here we are, discussing such things as "Ideological purity versus principled victory", and why small-L libertarians should vote for Republicans.  All good discussions to have.  But we actual conservatives are obviously getting lost in the details, and not thinking about what it means to be a "Big-C" Conservative.  As in what "The" "American" "Conservative" considers to fall within its big tent.

To wit, consider this piece that they published last week (and which I missed until today), entitled "Obama is a Republican".  As "proof" of that characterization, the author offers such things as Obama following through on W's commitment to pull the troops out of Iraq in 2011(!) and initiating the 2014 campaign against ISIS, the awesome budget austerity and deficit reduction on Obama's watch, Obamacare copying Romneycare (and we all know how conservative that was), Obama doing nothing to improve the economic conditions of blacks (IMO, that's as Democrat as it gets), and that Obama had to be pressured into coming out for SSM (like Brer Rabbit, I guess).  Here's the pull quote from that piece, AFAIAC:

I don't expect any conservatives to recognize the truth of Obama's fundamental conservatism for at least a couple of decades -- perhaps only after a real progressive presidency.

Either that guy is writing in NewSpeak, or he's overdrawn his account at Wick Allison's company store and is gunning for a bonus.   I sure hope there aren't many people who are wondering what it is that American Conservatives think, and who think they might find out from a 'zine named The American Conservative.

Then I guess this is like Nixon going to China.

Cardinal Dolan reports on the Synod

Over on his blog, Cardinal Dolan gives a quick summary on the Synod of the Family. Excerpt:

One such revelation is that He intends the gift and beauty of sexual love only for the loving relationship of a man and woman in lifelong, lifegiving (children!), faithful, marriage.

Such a bond is so radiant, He has revealed to us, that it actually hints at the infinite love enjoyed among Father, Son, and Spirit in the Blessed Trinity, and reflects the personal, passionate love God has for each of us.

Anyone who thought this synod could change that has not read Catholicism for Dummies. The Church does not change God’s revelation, but attempts to change us so we can live it.

What was refreshing, though, was a warm, gracious tone, so marvelously personified in Pope Francis, (who would tell us it’s hardly his style, but that of Jesus!), that the Church is at her best when she invites, embraces, understands, welcomes, and affirms, instead of excluding, judging, or condemning.

Family is a challenge, but it is pretty awesome to think of how we mirror the love of the Blessed Trinity. This is what I wrote about the Gift of Fatherhood on Facebook the other day: "I just want to say, pace Tim Cook, that I'm proud to be a virile heterosexual male human with six male offspring, and I consider being a virile heterosexual man with six male offspring among the greatest gifts God has given me."

Ideological purity versus principled victory

I like Ted Cruz, and I'm sure I would vote exactly the same as he does in the Senate. But this article presents facts and many quotes from Reagan to show exactly where his rhetoric is reality-challenged. His blind spot is shared by many in the conservative movement whom I greatly respect and admire, including Rush Limbaugh. Excerpt:

Cruz is fond of contrasting his stance with those of “Washington consultants” who allegedly say that “standing for principle is inconsistent with winning elections.” He says that there are only two approaches available to conservatives, theirs or his. But this is a false dichotomy.

Reagan knew that brazenly drawing a line in the sand for the American people was the worst way to combat the liberal establishment. He explained to the readers of National Review that Goldwater lost in 1964 because Democrats had portrayed conservatives as advocating “a radical departure from the status quo.” “Time now for the soft sell,” he said, “to prove our radicalism was an optical illusion.”

Reagan also knew that ideological purity is the enemy of principled victory. In 1967, speaking to a conservative grassroots group, then-governor Reagan set out his vision for the GOP:

"We cannot offer [to individualists] a narrow sectarian party in which all must swear allegiance to prescribed commandments. Such a party can be highly disciplined, but it does not win elections. This kind of party soon disappears in a blaze of glorious defeat, and it never puts into practice its basic tenets, no matter how noble they may be."

Reagan knew that victory can come only by assembling a coalition of people, not all of whom will agree on every topic.

"Desperate they'd run any cretin"

Yay! 3BP enabled embedding. Read the lyrics here.

"It will come back to you."

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Goofus and Gallant: Statist vs. Laissez-faire

I love Jon Gabriel's stuff, and with his Goofus & Gallant update, he has scored again. Check them all out; this is my favorite:


Huh, huh--he said phallocracy.

Millennials turning away from #OBOLA

Looks like Obama is helping his democrat friends lose the millennial vote.

Released by the Harvard Institute of Politics, the poll shows that 18 to 29-year-olds who say they will "definitetly be voting" next week plan to support Republicans by a margin of 51 to 47 percent.

In September 2010--just two months before the Republican landslides in those midterm elections--Republicans only had "43 percent" support among millennials.

Regarding Obama, only "43 percent" of millennials in general approve of the job he's done--"53 percent" disapprove. But when approval/disapproval questions are asked to millennials who will "definitely be voting" next week, Obama's approval slips down to "42 percent" and his disapproval jumps to "56 percent."

One of the biggest concerns for millennials is terrorism against the US. "61 percent" of millennials said they are "a great deal" or "somewhat" concerned with the prospect of another attack against the US. They also support the plan to "expand the US air campaign against ISIS" by a margin of "39 percent" to "20 percent."

Speaking of Libertarians

Since we are on the topic of libertarians (small 'l', if you please) I should point out an excellent piece on American Thinker by Doug Thorburn about why libertarians should vote for Republicans. Thorburn presents the case well, first highlighting the difficulties he has had with Republicans over the years, but then getting practical and results-oriented about it in the two concluding paragraphs:

Voting for Libertarian Party candidates today serves only to divide the vote between those who would slow (Republicans) or reverse (libertarians) the trend towards increasing statism. Splitting the vote allows those who would accelerate that trend to win by default. We need to support -- dare I say it? -- the lesser of the evils. While most votes require me to hold my nose, I get lucky now and then and truly support a candidate. I would love the opportunity to vote for a Rand Paul, a Ted Cruz, a Marco Rubio -- and suspect I will soon have such an opportunity. But we need to ensure Republicans -- even those we would never vote for in a sane world – win the Senate so that we can hold the line in the interim. We can’t afford to give another seat on the Supreme Court to a pseudo-liberal. The reign of Harry Reid, one of the most despicable statists ever to hold elected office, must end.

My pocketbook is walking the walk today. I am supporting, via monetary donations, libertarian-leaning Republicans and even non-libertarian Republicans in close races against statists/Democrats. This includes those running for Senate in Colorado, Alaska, Iowa, North Carolina and New Hampshire and, for governor, in Wisconsin. (I sent a bit to Mia Love in Utah even though she’s winning handily in her congressional race, only because she should be the face of the Republican Party.) I’m considering sending financial support to Republican senators running in Louisiana and Georgia, but waiting until the expected runoffs. I implore other libertarians to vote for and monetarily support Republicans. If there is any chance to salvage some semblance of constitutional limited government, it must be tried. After 40+ years, it’s obvious the Libertarian Party, while serving as an educational platform, cannot win a major political office. The Republican Party is, faults and all, our only hope.

I wouldn't say the "lesser of the evils", but I know that's a coined phrase. I prefer to say "the better of the imperfect candidates" if I'm talking about, for example, voting for John Kasich rather than Ed FitzGerald. I mean, come on, FitzGerald isn't evil, just horribly misguided in his ideology and displaying awful judgment in his personal life. And I'd say the same about Obama and Sherrod Brown, for that matter.

Politics really is the art of the possible, Moreover primary season is the time to knock out GOP "company men" if you think they need to step aside for more dedicated conservatives or libertarians. No one would have thought to themselves a few years ago "Hey, I'll bet a libertarian-leaning no-name candidate could knock out Eric Cantor in a primary." But that's what happened. Hopefully small-l-libertarian Dave Brat will win the general, but there is a Libertarian Party candidate on the ballot, also. (Big 'L' -- for loser.) Hopefully people voting in that race will take Thorburn's advice and vote for someone with a chance to win.

Blackbird Baking Company

Just thought I'd take a second to give props to a cool place in the Cleveland area to stop and get a cup of coffee and a treat. Blackbird Baking Company is up on the corner of Sloane and Detroit in the west end of Lakewood. Really good stuff and lots of variety; of course I always get the cranberry oatmeal cookie. But that's me. Great ambiance and all that too.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Best Happy Hour Song

Email from Act for America

Here is the contents of an email which I received from Act! for America, an organization which I support wholeheartedly. They are dedicated to getting the truth out about the violent nature of Islam and the current Jihad going on.

How much has our world changed?

It seems that not a week goes by without some news report of Jihadist activity here in the U.S. What was once a very rare occurrence is now all too common. In the past few weeks alone we have seen:

• A Muslim convert behead a co-worker in Oklahoma after performing “dawah” in an attempt to invite his co-workers to Islam;

• Three teen-age Muslim girls from Denver, Colorado, were arrested in Germany while en route to joining the Islamic State jihad in Iraq and Syria;

• Our neighbors and allies to the north have suffered two Jihadi attacks in which three Canadian soldiers were killed—two were run over by a Jihadi in a car and one was shot while standing guard at the country’s war memorial monument in Ottawa, Canada.

• A Jihadi wielding a hatchet launched an unprovoked attack on a group of New York police officers on a busy sidewalk in broad daylight in Queens.

Despite the repeated acts of Jihad and reports of support for Jihad that have become frequent in America and the West, the public is almost constantly bombarded with absurd admonitions that these are not acts of terrorism carried out by Jihadists in the name of Islam and this activity has “nothing to do with Islam.”

Just as happened in the wake of the Fort Hood massacre and the Little Rock, Arkansas, shooting on June 1, 2009, the Obama administration insists that these are simple cases of “workplace violence” and “isolated” incidents.

Is it any wonder why the Obama administration lied and covered up the Benghazi terrorist attack? After all, they won’t even tell the truth about Jihad inside our own country.

The promoters of the poison known as “political correctness” insist that we actively ignore all of the clear evidence of Shariah and Jihad in our midst: pro-ISIS graffiti in our streets; pro-ISIS protest signs in Ferguson, Missouri; violent Facebook postings from right here in America; and the fact that the Islamic State’s social media guru grew up in Boston.

We now have a rendezvous with destiny.

Either we bow down to the lords of political correctness and deny the reality of the threat of Jihad and efforts to promote Shariah inside the US, or we rise up in large numbers and scream the truth across the fruited plain, from sea to shining sea.

This is an urgent appeal to all patriotic Americans to stand up and be counted.

ACT for America’s 290,000 members are fighting back educating elected officials and warning our fellow citizens about the threat we face from Islamic jihad. We need your urgent support with a tax-deductible donation of $10, $25, $50, or $100—any amount you can afford to give—today.

The time to act is now.

It is abundantly clear that the Obama administration has no desire to do what is necessary to defend America from Jihad, either here at home or overseas.

President Obama himself has been completely dishonest about the threat from Jihad, first participating in a cover up of the Benghazi terrorist attack and more recently uttering the biggest lie of all, namely that “ISIS is not Islamic.”

Meanwhile, he has continually embraced American Muslim Brotherhood organizations, such as ISNA, that have a pro-Shariah agenda, despite their status as un-indicted co-conspirators in the largest successful terrorism financing prosecution in US history, the US v. the Holy Land Foundation.

To say the least, it leaves patriotic Americans scratching their heads and wondering if our elected leaders are crazy, stupid, dishonest or all three!

At ACT for America we refuse to submit to the conventional wisdom and ignore the clear evidence of violent Jihad and the just as dangerous civilizational Jihad currently being waged inside America. We throw political correctness into the garbage where it belongs and call a spade a spade.

We will continue to warn America every day—and we will continue to hold our elected officials accountable.

We need your urgent help.

The lifeblood that keeps ACT for America operating is the generous support from you and other American patriots. ACT for America is growing rapidly and we continue to work daily in the media, in the halls of Congress and in state capitols across the U.S. to educate and inform our policymakers and elected officials and provide them with solutions to defend America and defeat Jihad. As a result of our education and your support 35 bills in 17 states have passed to protect our country.

Can I count on your support to help us grow faster, pass more bills, secure our country and communities? Your tax-deductible contribution of $25, $50 or $100 today will make a huge difference.

You can be a one-time donor or stand with us as a monthly contributor. By becoming a monthly donor, you will help us plan our growth and plan events into the future, knowing that the support is there. We are grateful for your help in any way you choose.

Thank you very much for your help. When everyone does a little, together we can accomplish a lot. Together we can save our nation.


Brigitte Gabriel

P.S. It’s hard to believe that 13 years after 9/11 we still have to debate the nature of the threat from Islamic jihad. It’s long past time for America to wake up. Please help me wake America from its slumber, and hold our elected officials’ feet to the fire with your tax-deductible donation today.


Make sure you receive all of your messages from ACT for America. Add to your address book as an approved email sender. If you found this message in your "Bulk" or "Spam" folder, please click the "Not Spam" button to notify your provider that these are emails you want to receive.

ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591

ACT for America is a 501(c)(4) issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure. Donations to ACT for America are not tax deductible.

The news items, blogs, educational materials and other information in our emails and on our website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website.

Send a personalized version of this message to your friends.

Click here to give an online donation.

Parody: "The Wreck of the Edward Fitzgerald"

Third Base Politics has come up with an awesome parody, The Wreck of the Edward Fitzgerald, based on the Gordon Lightfoot song. But they've disabled embedding of the video, which makes me sad. Almost as sad as Fitz gets when you forgot to capitalize the "G" in his last name.

You know, way back when the capital "G" thing came out the Democrats should have wondered about this guy. You don't do it the way he did. Besides, you can set up your name to have multiple spellings be official so there are really no big worries about this like the PD claimed.

New Report: Ed FitzGerald committed a "Breach of the Public Trust"

The skies of November are turning ever gloomier for Ed FitzGerald. It turns out that it's not just crazy right-wingers like me who care about Ed FitzGerald's lack of a valid driver's license for over a decade. Cuyahoga County Inspector General Nailah Byrd nailed Fitz with a 45-page report which is summarized here in the Plain Dealer.

I think props are due to Byrd who a lot of people thought might give Fitz a pass. After all, he did appoint her. And hey, she could have waited another couple weeks until after Election Day to release the report.

Here are some nuggets from the article. The entire 45-page report is embedding there, if you are into reading such things.

Byrd had taken heat for not being sufficiently independent of FitzGerald, who recommended her for the job in 2011. But in the report she levies strong criticism, noting in its conclusion that the county under FitzGerald had disciplined other county employees for driving through the course of county business without a license.

"Based on this alone, it would be disingenuous and an apparent double standard if no discipline is pursued in this instance. Moreover, FitzGerald's disregard of County policies regarding operating personal or County vehicles on or in the course of County business, without a valid driver's license, is a breach of the public trust that sends the wrong message to County employees and taxpayers," the report reads.

Here are some tidbits which someone could write an entire article on:
  • Upon review of FitzGerald's driving record, "it is clear there are over 21 months during his tenure as County Executive when he did not hold a valid driver's license."
  • The absence of the county executive's vehicle logs for the year of 2012 hampered the investigation. Byrd wrote the FitzGerald administration "improperly destroyed them."
  • FitzGerald aides offered spotty recollections of whether they had seen FitzGerald drive himself while county executive. FitzGerald himself conceded he had probably driven himself to county events, but when shown specific events on his official calendar, he could not remember whether he had driven himself or not.
 Are we reduced to trusting the "spotty recollections" of aides who "improperly destroy" documents?
  • FitzGerald told investigators he had never driven without insurance.
Also all you right-wingers should take note that Ed FitzGerald never removed a mattress tag or took more than one newspaper out of those self serve boxes over at Kamm's.

Lauren Hitt, a spokeswoman for FitzGerald's gubernatorial campaign, said in an email that FitzGerald cooperated with the investigation so it could be released in a timely manner -- in contrast to recent state investigations that have involved Republicans.

"[T]imely manner...." Boy, oh boy, is she sore that this came before the election. She knows the man is going to lose, but we are headed into record-setting territory now, and Lauren Hitt's name is going to be immortalized along with Fitz's.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Rod of Arc

In his most recent post donkey punching the GOP, Rod Dreher draws his line in the sand, pokes his finger in the dike, and makes his stand in the pass at Thermopylae:

I am not a libertarian; if anything, I’m a Red Tory, or a Christian Democrat in the European sense. But ours is not a culture where Red Toryism or Christian Democracy makes much sense. It might have at one time, but not anymore. I have been thinking for a couple of years now that if I’m going to protect my religious liberty rights (the most important right, in my view), I’m going to have to figure out how to do so within a libertarian framework.

So here we have Dreher's latest branding: no longer the impossible to sell Crunchy Con, he has now burst forth transcendentally from that crunchy chrysalis to become the Jean D'Arc standing between you and the lime eaters ready to strip you of your religious liberty.

First question(s): How much relief and confidence does Rod's new stance instill in you? Enough to overlook his _______ (fill in the blank)?

Second question(s): Clearly in our current environment this is a gambit with potential. If you yourself wouldn't follow Rod to the barricades, who do you see as his most likely market and followers?

Final question(s): If your individual liberty ends up getting discounted and falling somewhere behind your religious liberty, are you still okay with having your religious options preserved for you by some non-individual-you religious group (the alternative to your own individual choice)? Might be the religious group you belong to now. Might not.

Oh...and where would you look to politics and in particular any of the political parties in all of this?

Newest Amazon book review

Since we're on the weird sex talk topic, I just posted my review of the book Confessions of a Failed Slut by Kathy Shaidle on Amazon. It's a 41-page comic rant which goes heavy on self-deprecation and busts on the Love Boat, Sean Hannity and Alex Jones. So needless to say I loved every page of it. Quick and easy to read. Hey, thanks for the laugh, Kathy!

My "Plan B"

Over at the Midwest Conservative Journal, Bill looks at the whole LGBTXYZ mess and admits he needs to buy a vowel, especially with regard to the construct of "transgender". I very much agree with his assessment that the "average person" needs to take stock and step up to fight the insanity. Excerpt:

We hear all the time that insufficient precautions are taken to prevent harassment against women, and it stands to reason that allowing someone with male sexual organs access to naked girls is tantamount to an invitation to sexual assault. But if denying that same individual free expression of their [1 of 56] sexuality, isn’t that discrimination – at least to the LGBTxyz movement?

If Nick and Justin, a “married” couple with a 15 year old daughter Stacy (by artificial insemination/surrogate mother) are faced with their daughter coming home in tears from school one day and telling them about how she was made to feel trashy by this big, hulking man getting naked in front of her in the locker room and then watching her every move – what do they say to her? Does she have no rights? And, if not, what would it take for her to “get” some rights?

This is all very complex. I’m not trying to brush it off, or dismiss it casually. But the explosion of references to “Transgender” has caught my attention, and I think it’s about time the “average person” took stock of what’s going on around them.

Yes, I quite agree that we must engage this "transgender" issue and do so seriously. Snide ridicule seems to be in order and has worked for some time, but I'm afraid it will no longer. The cultural left has built up enough critical mass using their brainwashed drones on this topic. Face it; if people are willing to let a person break your skull to support a politically correct view of gender, then we have left the path where a simple call to common sense will suffice to correct the disorder.

The goal of "getting some rights" for the real victims like Stacy in the illustration is the problem if you see rights as "positive", entitlements people should be given, as most people on the left do. The concept of rights as negative and protective in nature comports better with the old-fashioned, tried-and-true, "Male and female He created them" method of bathroom assignment. Under the entitlement model, everyone is entitled to pick the bathroom which most matches their boutique sexual orientation. Under the rights as protection/negative rights model, everyone has a right to privacy from the opposite sex when they enter the bathroom.

Of course I've already spoken my mind on what I believe should be the priority on identity in general—including bathrooms—and that is gender. All traditional Christians (as well as Jews and Muslims, I expect) see things this way as well. Orientation can either come first or second in the mind of the pro-LGBT crowd in the way of priority. So a homosexual who is transgendered sees himself as a woman and wants to use the ladies room, whereas a non-transgendered gay man wants to use the men's room. In order to respect their right, they must be allowed to use whichever bathroom they are comfortable with. It doesn't matter if the current occupants of the bathroom are comfortable. Man, that makes as much sense as the "traveling public" remarks on getting Ebola on the bus.

Twenty years ago, a previous co-worker of mine used to joke that men didn't speak to each other in the men's room due to what he called natural homophobia (he was a really funny, insightful guy for a liberal) but now that any sort of homophobia has become one of the only deadly sins a person can commit, it's possible that we'll all be expected to begin chatting about NFL scores or hairstyles as soon as we enter, mixing business with pleasure to show acceptance of all the "56 genders".

I admit I haven't visited that that "56 gender" link. Part of me keeps telling me that even going there is sort of like giving in on the argument. So I'm going to leave that for another time; right now I feel like going on the offensive with something I call my Plan B. The letter B stands for bisexual, and I think that the concept of bisexuals being among the other alternative lifestyles represented in LGBT is a key to showing open-minded people how the whole project is simply an attack on traditional values and traditional notions of rights rather than any type of civil-rights effort to stop bullying.

The method I have used in the past generally involves questions. For example: How do I know I'm not a bisexual? I'm attracted to women and I've only ever had sexual relationships with women, but is it possible that I just never met the right gay man? After all, they're only 1.6 percent of the population. How often do you have to fluctuate between relationships to be officially bisexual? Once a month for women bisexuals, once a week for men? Is Anne Heche, for example, bisexual? and does that explain why she only had one lesbian relationship (albeit a very public one with Ellen DeGeneres) and all the rest of her relationships have been with men? One of the reasons I bring up Heche, who I realize is a very troubled person who was possibly abused as a child, is because many members of the LGBT community were upset that she "went straight" and started dating a guy after breaking up with DeGeneres. Well, what if she didn't go straight—what if she went bi when she went bye-bye?

Bisexual is basically a non-orientation, and this fact can be expressed by asking all these questions along with the big one, "What constitutes being bisexual over and above changing your mind a lot?"

Here are some more: Would a long term, committed relationship for a bisexual require at least three people in a marriage? Would polygamy be required? Or should it be admitted that bisexuals don't really do long term, committed relationships as bisexuals? Is bisexual just a transitional phase that future committed gays go through? Why do some of them appear to end up straight? And how can you explain that orientation is innate if some people are born with a fluctuating orientation?

I'm telling you, the B doesn't really belong in LGBT. It can be used as a sort of symbolic Trojan Horse to expose the sheer chaos inherent in the LGBT agenda and argue for a return to traditional sexual roles and morals. The conundrum for the pro-LGBT folks is that to take it out at this point would be non-inclusive, and they wouldn't want to exclude anybody, would they? Well, other than straight people, I mean.

All of these questions—which I think are great "gotchas" since people don't reason things through very well when their gonads are doing the thinking—ignore a pretty big indoor elephant: what can bisexual possibly mean if there are 56 sexes? Doesn't the concept of a non-orientation orientation, open the doors pretty wide for the need for more letters? Maybe they should look into the Zhonghua Zihai.

I'm sure someone on the traditional side of things has brought this whole thing up before, and I know it is discussed as a problem in gay and lesbian circles due to a recent anecdote I heard. And not being someone who wants to immerse myself in gay press and literature, I have no idea if they have standard responses to my "Plan B" (other than to call be a horrible bigot), only that their responses will not answer my questions satisfactorily. Here's the recent anecdote; my friend's cousin told him that the lesbian community she was part of had arguments about whether bisexuals should be part of the community. She was on the side of being less inclusive because, "well, they really aren't gay", she told him. Ironically, my friend related, she is now in a relationship with a man, and pretty much left the whole LGBT thing behind. So she is now straight. Or maybe bi? Jury's out....

Monday, October 27, 2014

The civic, moral responsibilities of a Catholic voter

I thought this was put really well with regard to our responsibility to vote for the best candidates. It is written by Lauren Ramseyer, the Assistant Editor of The Troubadour which is the Franciscan University of Steubenville's student newspaper. Excerpt:

Whether we like it or not, politics is a very real part of our society and one that affects not only us as individuals, but as we have seen recently, the way we are able to live out our Catholic faith.

We are living in a time that is not friendly to Catholic morality or, it seems, to those who try to live good, Christian lives. We must bring the light of the pro-life, pro-marriage and religious freedom back into our country by choosing upstanding individuals who will uphold our constitution.

If you are unsure of who has the most Catholic-view on the big issues, the best way to decide who to vote for is to find a Catholic or pro-life organization that have interviewed each candidate about moral issues.

Just remember that these elections affect you, your family, your Church in a very real way. If you do not take part in elections by your own choosing, you are neglecting the civic voice with which you have been blessed to have in this country.

People who think there is absolutely no difference between candidates are just lazy and/or not paying very good attention.

Hilarious Political Cartoon

This is hilarious to me, especially the opening lines:

Governor John Kasich arrived for an endorsement interview with the NEOMG Editorial Board more underdressed than Ed FitzGerald.  But more overdressed than David Pepper in his attack ads against Mike DeWine.   Nonetheless,  Kasich ended up leaving with the board's endorsement in his blazer's pocket

Basically this article is an early wrap on the 2014 Ohio Gubernatorial election. I realize that yeah, yeah, anything can happen here and Hang On Sloopy, etc.

The article goes on to moan about how wouldn't it be nice if Strickland was running. Really. You mean the guy who lost last time? I'm no Kasich fan-boy, but the state just isn't in bad enough shape to jump back to an Obama fan-boy.

Nice handshake, by the way. This photo is not doctored. (Background)

"Everything's amazing... nobody's happy."

I made my kids watch this on Friday.

This is medicine which can help people of any ideology. It's best delivered to kids in a comedy routine format with lots of audience cheers for affirmation. The grouchy old dad has a higher chance of being summarily dismissed.

I like how he busts on us Gen-X-ers for complaints about those people with the irritating phone numbers with the high numbers and zeroes. Making the 30-year trip across the country kind of puts the "making sparks" style of dialing into perspective as well.

I remember an old priest, Father Murphy, who was on a pilgrimage to Rome I made in 1998 talking with amazement about our flight. "Isn't technology wonderful to have enabled us to come to this ancient city?" He was talking the way everyone should be thinking (thank you Nicholas Cage.) People need to be more amazed and more content. Or if they aren't content with their devices, go build a better one.