The Catholic god does not want Obama to speak at Notre Dame!

That's right. How do I know? Because the Catholic god's papal pontificators, those MEN who don't have sex and wear dresses, are screaming bloody murder. Yup, a good Catholic school like Notre Dame, they say, should not, indeed must not, allow the President of the United States to deliver the commencement address this year!

Absolutely not! He is pro-choice, for god's sake. And he has not condemned condoms. He obviously does not respect Pope Ratzy!

Several bishops have said so. Catholic pundits have said so. Newt Gingrich has said so.

What? Why the hell does Gingrich care? I mean, I know he's an asshat, but what possible reason could this disgraced politico with a peanut brain and no morals have for wanting Obama punted off Notre Dame's commencement agenda?


Heh. Heh. Old Newt, serial adulterer, facile liar, famous asshat, either became a Roman Catholic over this past weekend or will become a Roman Catolic on Easter Sunday (There seems to be some confusion about the time). Yup. Now his allegiance is or will be to the Pope and not the devil. Hmmm.... No, I'm not gonna say it!

Anyway, old Newt, the ignorant former perfessor of history, said that "It is sad to see Notre Dame invite President Obama to give the commencement address since his policies are so anti-Catholic values."

Heh, heh, again! This from a thrice-married bum who got tossed out of Congress on his butt, who wouldn't know an ethic from a enema.

Not only so, but the Political Machine has a bit as to how, back in 2005, Gingrich spoke at Catholic University. Some righteous Catholics got their skirts in a bunch because they said Gingrich supported the death penalty and was noted for his infidelities and thus "violated the school's prohibition against speakers with positions contrary to Vatican teachings."

[This has nothing to do with the subject, but I wonder how an institution can call itself a "university" when it cannot teach anything contradictory to "Vatican teachings," or have a speaker on campus who might be construed as having values contradictory to "Vatican teachings." That's not a university, that's a incubator designed to pump out mental midgets from a Catholic mold.




Thanks to Daniel Florien at Unreasonable Faith.

George W. Bush and Press Conferences

Media Matters reports on a Wall Street Journal editorial claiming (falsely) that "unlike President Obama, former President Bush never used a 'list of reporters preselected to ask questions' when deciding who would be called on at presidential press conferences."

Heh. Heh.

The numbnuts who wrote the editorial also made this hilariously ridiculous statement: "We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors."

Sheesh!


First of all, as Media Matters points out, "... Bush also used a list, as then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters in a March 7, 2003, press briefing."

This is all so silly. The WSJ, typically more concerned with ideology than facts these days, failed in its elemental responsibility of checking their information. I've done the same thing, of course, but hell, I'm just a blogger, not the wusses at the WSJ!

Secondly, who gives a rat's ass? This piddly little editorial is simply an excuse to bitch at Obama, to try to show him in a bad light.

Thirdly, Bush didn't ever allow anyone to question him with a real question. In public appearances, every single person in his presence was prescreened to make sure they were Republicans, and secondly, would not ask him a difficult question, like "Where is Iraq?"


Bush's press conferences were few, thankfully, for they were an exercise in futility and boredom! On those few occasions when someone did actually ask him a question that required a minimal amount of brain power to answer, the results became fodder for our late-night comics.

Finally, why would anyone read the Wall Street Journal anymore? It's merely FAUX News in print!

Read the Media Matters entire article here.

Faith-based disappointment

Even as I knew there would be issues on which I and other progressives would disagree with President Obama, I really didn't think that disagreement would revolve around doling out tax money to faith-based groups.

While I think his heart is in the right place, I also think that creating a White House "faith" office is a mistake.

Obama believes that faith-based organizations working in their communities are a precious resource. At the National Prayer Breakfast yesterday, he said "People trust them. Communities rely on them. And we will help them."

And Obama's faith-based czar, Joshua DuBois, said "The government can't do everything. We have to work with the groups that are in the communities."



According to a McClatchy article, Obama's aides "stressed that he wouldn't allow government money to be used in programs that preach one religion or that refuse to hire people who don't share their religion.

That, however, is precisely where the rubber hits the road. Again, from McClatchy: "...Obama left in place five executive orders signed by Bush that allow the groups receiving government funds to proselytize or refuse to hire non-believers. One, signed on Dec. 12, 2002, specifically decreed that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech meant that any group should be able to receive federal taxpayer money 'without impairing their independence, autonomy, expression or religious character.'"

In other words, what Obama's aides said is not true.


Obama learned first-hand that some religiously-based community groups can do good work on behalf of the communities in which they exist. No argument there.

Problems remain, however. First of all, it is certainly questionable whether or not the federal government should use your tax dollars and mine to fund the work of a religious institution. The determining factor is not whether they do good work; it is whether we should abide by the Constitution of the land which forbids the recognition of any religion.

Furthermore, religious institutions are voluntary organizations and are funded by the contibutions or tithes of their members. If they wish to engage in activity that is social in nature and beneficial to the community, more power to them, but it isn't the responsibility of the government to pay for these "sincere" efforts. Religious institutions, no matter how worthy their cause, are not to be adjuncts of the United States government!

Finally, it is the case that the great majority of religious organizations that received federal monies under the Bush administration were of the Christian fundamentalist persuasion. It is also the case that many of these religious organizations that engage in "service" to the community do so under false pretenses. There is not one single, fundamentalist/evangelical organization that operates on a purely social basis. Not one. These groups all are evangelistic in nature and exclusionary in fact. The purpose of their existence is to bring people to a "born again" relationship with Jesus Christ. Everything flows from that. Secondly, most of them require that their employees be born again believers; they are exclusionary.

How Obama is going to deal with that problem is unclear, if he plans to tackle it at all.


My proposal would be to dump the faith-based office. It is nothing more than the wet-dream of fundamentalist/evangelical Christians to siphon money from the government teat anyway.

Let's put our money into secular organizations that exist for the purpose of giving aid and comfort to the physical and mental needs of our under-classes. The churches and their related organizations can provide soul soap and other spiritual necessities, paid for by their members.

The entire McClatchy article is here.


In the video below, Keith Olbermann visits the issue in July 2008, as it arose on the campaign trail. What he said then remains operative today.

Rush Limbaugh wants Obama to fail

Rush Limbaugh, is a big, fat, ugly, white guy with no heart and no brain. So, whatever he says is not surprising. It is usually mean-spirited, false, untrue, nasty, idiotic, stupid, cruel, etc., but it is not surprising.

Limbaugh thinks the inauguration of President Barack Obama was a miserable failure, a flop, a joke, nothing more than another campaign event. Heh, heh.

He has a right to his opinion, of course, in spite of the fact that millions of people around the world would heartily disagree, but that's only the beginning.

Limbaugh wants President Obama to fail as president. Here's what he said on his radio show last Friday:

"I disagree fervently with the people on our [Republican] side of the aisle who have caved and who say, ‘Well, I hope he succeeds.’”

Then he mentioned he had been asked by “a major American print publication” to offer a 400-word statement explaining his “hope for the Obama presidency.” He responded:

"So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, 'Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four. I hope he fails. What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, 'Oh, you can't do that.' Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipe here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: 'Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.' Somebody's gotta say it."

What the fat, ugly white man is really promoting, of course, is the failure of the country. And, he knows very well that "liberalism" isn't the problem, but the cure. The problems of our nation are not the result of liberalism, but are the spawn of the "conservative" politics Limbaugh showcases.

And what he doesn't realize is that his day is over. The country has moved in another direction. The population is changing rapidly and dramatically. Limbaugh, a sad and pathetic excuse for a human being, will find his audience made up of more and more of the marginalized, the mentally ill, the dumb and dumber, and the world will pass him by like roadkill on an Interstate.

President Obama - We wish you well!

Mr. President

From the bottom of our hearts
With every fiber of our being
We wish you well

From north and west
From south and east
We wish you well

From black and white
From rich and poor
We wish you well

From young and old
From strong and weak
We wish you well

From red state and from blue state
From every state between
We wish you well

From Mayflowered descendants
From proud and happy immigrants
We wish you well


Mr. President

We the people stand as one
From sea to shining sea
We walk together, hand in hand
For we are strong and free

On this inauguration
A day of hope renewed
We dare once more believe

Yes, we can, and
Yes, we will, and
Yes, we wish you well!