It’s Sunday, February 5th, 2012….and is there anything better than seeing the Pats (Cheaters!) go down at the hands of a team that was one game away from missing the playoffs?!?

Now, here’s the Gouge!

First up, courtesy of George Lawlor, the Chicago Tribune‘s John Kass analyzes The Obamao’s incredibly patent attempt to kiss and make-up with Christians after his blatant betrayal of America’s Roman Catholics:

Praise the Lord and pass the taxes

 

Remember when some 18 percent of Americans thought President Barack Obama was a follower of Islam? It wasn’t true, but it really aggravated Obama’s defenders in the media, particularly those militant secularists, and then they cried racism and began pointing their angry fingers.

But now we can put all that to rest because last week, while speaking to some 3,000 pastors at a breakfast, President Obama performed yet another miracle. He’s not only a Christian, but he’s been transformed into a Christian fundamentalist.

Obama told the clergy that Jesus Christ would support his policy to increase taxes on those mean philistines who don’t suffer unto the poor as the president does. And I ask you: Who else but a true holy man would ever dare use the Son of God as a rhetorical device to leverage his political opponents? (We don’t know….unless….maybe….

….?!?)

“I wake up each morning, and I say a brief prayer, and I spend a little time in Scripture and devotion,” Obama told the annual gathering of the clergy at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, noting that pastors often stop by or phone him or send him messages so they can pray together. 

Right then, if I’d been there, I would have backed away and looked up for darkening clouds and wondered about lightning and ark-building. But they were in a hotel ballroom, and the president was really feeling the spirit. “I don’t stop there. I’d be remiss if I stopped there, if my values were limited to personal moments of prayer or private conversations with pastors or friends,” he said. “I must try to make sure that those values motivate me as one leader of this great nation.”

See how the presidency transforms a man? Only a few years ago, he had much different views, saying Americans frustrated with the bad economy were religious and “bitter.” “They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” reasoned Obama. (Not to mention just having completed over 20 years of tutelage under THIS….

….particular pastor!)

You could just hear the old secular Obama thinking about those superstitious fools, making excuses for them, those clodhoppers holding on to their shotguns, then putting on clean clothes Sunday to enter those special buildings. You know, those special buildings with the crosses on them. Where the clodhoppers gather and kneel and pray to their deity. So sad, how these frightened peasants are compelled to cleave to such comforting rituals, eh?

But that was the Old Obama at a fundraiser, and cameras weren’t invited. The Obama last week was a new man, telling pastors how he prayed each morning, inviting clergy to come on down to the Oval Office. Do you have any idea what the transformed Obama was doing?

Obama the fundamentalist was giving the Republicans some H-E-double-hockey-sticks. The president knows he can’t satisfy everyone. Some will think him cynical. But I remember the light in the eyes of many of my colleagues when he campaigned, how bright and shiny their faces were as they gazed upon him, tingly and full of hope, writing their stories about the transcendent figure before them.

In Washington last week, surely there was that same light in the room, though it would have been really cool if David Axelrod had released a flock of white doves to alight on the president’s fingertips, just to close the deal. Bright light, particularly the TV kind in the hands of masters, erases shadow and doubt. Who wants to hear that his administration told churches what ministers they could hire and fire — a policy recently struck down by a unanimous vote of the Supreme Court.

Or that recent business of Obama’s administration telling Roman Catholic hospitals they must provide birth control to their employees — including abortion-inducing drugs called abortifacients. If they refuse, they’ll face Obamanations and fines and the wrath of White House lawyers.

It’s probably nasty of me to think in such terms. Especially when there’s such a great image on TV, the president embracing the Gospels and using them to increase taxes. “I actually think that’s going to make economic sense,” said Obama. “But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’ teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.'”

Tell it now.

Then he talked about the “biblical call” to help the poor and used that as support of his foreign aid policies. In his public and devout Christian charity, I bet he never once thought that Republican Mitt Romney was vulnerable there, given Romney’s stupid gaffe that he cared about the middle class and less about the poor.

Not everyone was thrilled with the president. Republican Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch became upset. “Someone needs to remind the president that there was only one person who walked on water and he did not occupy the Oval Office,” said Hatch from the Senate floor. “I think most Americans would agree that the Gospels are concerned with weightier matters than effective tax rates.”

Really? I’m no theologian, so I can’t say. But Obama has already performed miracles. The earnest but inexperienced back-bencher from the Illinois Legislature came out of Chicago politics, washed himself of Tony Rezko, proclaimed himself a reformer and was elected president of the United States.

Higher taxes are a miracle well within his grasp.

In a related item with a slightly different perspective, courtesy of David Drucker, as Scott Johnson writing in Powerlineblog.com details, even forgetting the deliberately deceptive doctrine (remember, Satan quoted Scripture to Christ when tempting Him!), the rest of Tick-Tock’s philosophy is just as fabricated:

What would Plato do?

 

It wasn’t enough for President Obama to claim the endorsement of Judaism, Christianity and Islam for his policies of class warfare in his National Prayer Breakfast speech this past week. Obama also cited Plato as stating a version of the Golden Rule supporting his policies. Where’d he get that Idea? Apparently from a statement made by Socrates in The Republic, but no version of the Golden Rule lends support to the vast expansion of government powers that Obama claims are derived from it. (Nor does any section of Scripture!)

Except in letters of questionable authenticity, Plato’s writings never speak in Plato’s own voice. His writings are dialogic plays that require close analysis and interpretation. Citing a statement from Plato’s writings for a particular proposition is like citing Shakespeare’s writings for the proposition that life is meaningless. Watching the fate of Socrates in the Athenian democracy, however, Plato was witness to the injustice to which democracy is prone. See Plato’s Apology of Socrates.

Classical political philosophy has guidance to offer even if it doesn’t have the bearing Obama imputes to it. The classic political philosophers were of course aware of Obama’s type; one variation of his type appears in Plato’s dialogues in the personage of Alicibiades. His is a type that thrives in a democracy, but the classic political philosophers thought that the type made democracy unworkable.

The classic political philosophers found democracy to be a threat to property as well as to life. Given that citizens of lesser means always outnumber the rich, they held that government based on majority rule was untenable if not absurd. They were of the view that it would lead to organized theft from the wealthy by the democratic masses. Aristotle observed in The Politics, for example: “If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city.”

The Founders of the United States were deep students of politics and history, and they shared Aristotle’s concern. Up through their time, history had shown all known democracies to be “incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.” James Madison and his colleagues held that the “first object of government” was to protect the rights of property.

They understood the protection of property rights to be bound up with freedom itself. “In a word,” Madison explained, “as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights….” The Founders thus incorporated numerous provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect the property rights of citizens from the power of the government. They meant to prove that democracy could be made compatible with freedom and the rights of property if the powers of the government were distributed among competing branches of government acting as checks upon each other and if those powers were limited by the Constitution.

Let us pray. Let us pray that we don’t prove them wrong.

Here’s the juice: no one other than God has a window into a man’s soul, and it’s not our intention to judge Barack Obama.  That being said, we also sympathize with the philosophy espoused by Fletcher in The Outlaw Josey Wales:

 

We also believe it’s appropriate to point out the glaring inconsistencies in Tick-Tock’s walk versus his talk; not as a Christian (the highly suspect nature of his claim to be notwithstanding), but as a politician and President.

First, both the Old and New Testament require tithing, which constitutes 10% of one’s gross income TO THE CHURCH.  In Old Testament times, this meant the Levites, which constituted the Israelites priesthood (Deut 14:22-23; Lev 27:30-32).  In the New Testament, this meant the body of Believers, i.e., fellow Christians, NOT the population at large.

Prior to his decision to run for the Presidency, aka the 20+ years he spent learning at the feet of the Reverend Wrong, The Obamao never gave 1% of his income to charity.  In fact, it wasn’t until post their anointment that the Obamao’s gave more than 10% to charity, and THEN not to any church.

Next, Tick-Tock’s Liberation Theology notwithstanding, II Thessalonians 3:10 states, “For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘If a man will not work, he shall not eat.'”  As for rewarding unmarried women for bearing children out of wedlock, do we really need to go there?  The early Christian church had very specific rules for repeated misconduct; and cash for kids wasn’t one of the benefits.

The bottom line remains this: B. Hussein more accurately quotes the Koran better than the Bible.  He’s better off staying with what he knows best, as any attempt to claim any connection with Christianity is mere politicking!

Meanwhile, back at the ranch with The Gang That Still Can’t Shoot Straight, Jonah Goldberg makes….

The Case For Romney

 

Years ago a friend told me a story from her days living in South America. The movie “Wayne’s World” had come out, and she went to see it. She spoke English, but it was interesting to read the Spanish subtitles.

For instance, early in the film, Wayne says: “Shyeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt!” The Spanish subtitles read: “Yes, when judgment day comes.” Needless to say, something was lost in translation.

This, in a nutshell, is Mitt Romney’s biggest problem. A late immigrant to conservatism, Romney doesn’t speak the language naturally. He shares traits with both Al Gore, whose stiffness bordered on the animatronic, and George H.W. Bush, whose contempt for the song-and-dance of elections was transparent. Gore tried to compensate for his inadequacies by shouting, like an ugly American who thinks a foreigner will understand him if he only talks louder. Bush fell back on recitations of patriotic slogans and the generosity of providence that delivered Michael Dukakis as an opponent.

Romney hasn’t cracked the problem yet. He speaks conservatism as a second language, and his mastery of the basic grammar of politics is often spotty as well.

The examples at this point are beyond numerous enough to establish that most toxic of media fixations: a narrative. Journalists like typecasting politicians. Sarah Palin could announce she’s solved pi to the last digit and reconciled all of the inconsistencies in the TV show “Lost,” and the New York Times would still call her an idiot. Gore could kill a man in a bar fight with a broken pool cue, and he’d still be a cold fish.

Many conservatives argue that Romney’s stiffness is a superficial objection, and that he’s a solid conservative who can appeal to moderates and independents. Other conservatives think Romney’s lack of fluency is a real problem, not because it proves he’s faking his conservatism but because it would put him at a severe disadvantage in the general election in the same way authentic but stiff liberals like Gore and John Kerry suffered from their inability to comfortably interface with carbon-based life.

And others simply think Romney’s a big faker.

It’s this last group of anti-Romney holdouts I’d like to address. First, let me say: I feel your pain. The Tea Party arose in no small part out of a delayed allergic reaction to the rhetorical and, to a lesser extent, policy problems of George W. Bush’s presidency and the deep resentment that came with having to vote for John McCain in 2008. These disappointments were visited upon the conservative base by something the naysayers (often problematically) call “the Republican establishment.”

After what seems like an eternity under Obama, and with the raised expectations from the Tea Party’s earlier successes, conservatives are extremely reluctant to settle or compromise simply on the say-so of the establishment. For good reasons and bad, Romney seems like a compromise. And no matter how begrudgingly a conservative comes to accept the reality of Romney’s nomination, the diehards immediately proclaim any support for Romney to be proof of membership in the establishment. In fact, it seems like the best definition of a Republican establishment member these days is simply someone who has made peace with his disappointment prematurely.

Let me try to offer some solace. Even if Romney is a Potemkin conservative (a claim I think has merit but is also exaggerated), there is an instrumental case to be made for him: It is better to have a president who owes you than to have one who claims to own you.

A President Romney would be on a very short leash. A President Gingrich would probably chew through his leash in the first 10 minutes of his presidency and wander off into trouble. If elected, Romney must follow through for conservatives and honor his vows to repeal ObamaCare, implement Rep. Paul Ryan’s agenda, and stay true to his pro-life commitments. (Or he’s out after four years and Vice President Rubio is in.)

Moreover, Romney is not a man of vision. He is a man of duty and purpose. He was told to “fix” health care in ways Massachusetts would like. He was told to fix the 2002 Olympics. He was told to create Bain Capital. He did it all. The man does his assignments.

In this light, voting for Romney isn’t a betrayal, it’s a transaction. No, that’s not very exciting or reassuring for those who’d sooner see monkeys fly out their nethers than compromise again. But such a bargain may just be necessary before judgment day comes.

Next up, a rather thoughtful bit of analysis by James Taranto on the Komen Kerfuffle:

Big Sister Is Watching You

Totalitarian feminism and the smearing of Susan G. Komen.

 

The smear campaign against the breast cancer charity Susan G. Komen for the Cure appears to have had its desired effect, although this may turn out to be a case in which appearances are deceiving. LifeNews.com, an antiabortion site, quotes the statement by Komen founder Nancy Brinker:

We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

But Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, parses the statement for LifeNews and finds it actually reflects no change in policy: “We have known and have reported that they are continuing five grants [to Planned Parenthood] through 2012. This is a reference to that. The second clause about eligibility is certainly true. Any group can apply for anything. It does not mean they are going to get anything.”

Of course, it also doesn’t mean they’re not going to get anything. The Daily Caller reports that Komen’s donations doubled in the two days after the Planned Parenthood assault began, presumably because lots of people wanted to support its apolitical work against breast cancer but did not want to give money to a group that was subsidizing a group that both performs and advocates for abortion.

If that describes you, you might consider following the advice of our friend Susan Carusi: Give to a local breast cancer support group, “which provides counseling and assistance to women diagnosed with breast cancer. At least this way you know exactly what the money is being spent on.”

While our sympathies are with Komen in this whole kerfuffle, we must say that the group has displayed an appalling naiveté in its approach to the matter. It’s reminiscent of the last big controversy the group was involved in, which we wrote about in 2009. In that instance, Komen hosted a conference in Alexandria, Egypt, for “international advocates.” Komen was sandbagged when Israeli doctors who’d been invited to the event received disinvitations from the Egyptian health minister. The Egyptians backpedaled, but by then it was too late for the Israelis to attend.

In breaking ties with Planned Parenthood, Komen made the same mistake: It failed to understand it was dealing with intolerant fanatics. Planned Parenthood’s attitude toward abortion opponents is not unlike that of Egyptian officials in the old regime toward Israelis.

Further, Komen offered a rationale for its decision–a new policy denying grants to groups under governmental investigation–that seemed disingenuous and provided a point of attack for Planned Parenthood and its allies. “I’m reminded of the McCarthy era, where somebody said: ‘Oh,’ a congressman stands up, a senator, ‘I’m investigating this organization and therefore people should stop funding them,’ ” Politico quotes Sen. Barbara Boxer as saying on MSNBC.

In truth, Komen was under no obligation to fund Planned Parenthood. Its decision not to do so was not punitive and did not even appear to be. The episode is reminiscent of George Orwell far more than Joe McCarthy. Komen’s actual aim was to extricate itself from the divisive national battle over abortion by severing its connection with a leading combatant.

The conservative Media Research Center notes that CNN “aired a pretty one-sided piece including statements from Planned Parenthood’s president Cecile Richards, evidence supporting her claims of right-wing ‘bullying,’ and even vitriolic Facebook posts decrying the de-funding.” No supporter of Komen’s position or critic of Planned Parenthood was included. Even more appalling than that lack of balance, though, was CNN’s echoing the charge of “right-wing ‘bullying,’ ” while the network was participating in Planned Parenthood’s effort to bully Komen.

The Ministry of Information–sorry, the New York Times–editorializes:

With its roster of corporate sponsors and the pink ribbons that lend a halo to almost any kind of product you can think of, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation has a longstanding reputation as a staunch protector of women’s health. That reputation suffered a grievous, perhaps mortal, wound this week from the news that Komen, the world’s largest breast cancer organization, decided to betray that mission. It threw itself into the middle of one of America’s nastiest political battles, on the side of hard-right forces working to demonize Planned Parenthood and undermine women’s health and freedom.

The truth is that Komen blundered into a political battle by supporting Planned Parenthood in the first place and was attempting to back out of it quietly.

The Times’s view exemplifies feminism’s gradual transformation into a totalitarian ideology. Totalitarianism politicizes everything, so that neutrality is betrayal–in this case, neutrality on abortion is portrayed as opposition to “women’s health.” As we wrote last year, this is also why purportedly pro-choice feminists can hate Sarah Palin and her daughter for choosing not to abort their children.

Komen would have been better off approaching the matter straightforwardly, by announcing that it wished to opt out of the abortion debate and would not support groups that take a position on either side of the issue, including Planned Parenthood. This would not have averted the smear campaign that followed, for Planned Parenthood and its supporters have internalized the notion that abortion is health, and are determined that everyone else internalize it too. But an honest position would have been easier to defend. No one would have been able to dent Komen’s integrity.

We said all we have to say on the issue in today’s Cover Story, available for your perusal at www.thedailygouge.com.

And since we’re on the subject of radical Feminazis….

Clinton calls U.N. Syria vote a “travesty”

 

No….just the predictable result of years of ineffective U.S. foreign policy….and an equally incompetent Administration.

Then there’s John Lott’s observations on….

The bad news behind the January jobs report

 

Three years after Obama became president, even the official unemployment rate still remains high. The newly released 8.3 percent unemployment rate is still a half a percentage point higher than when he took office.

But that still might be looking at the bright side. If we include those who have given up looking for work and those who could only find part time work, the unemployment rate stands at almost an entire percentage point higher than when Obama entered office.

In January 2009, 11.6 million Americans were out of work and 23 percent of them had been unemployed for more than six months. Today there are 12.8 million unemployed and 43 percent have been out of a job for more than six months. The average length of unemployment has increased dramatically since even the recovery started. Back in June 2009, “only” 29 percent of the unemployed had been unemployed longer than six months.

The number of unemployed Americans last month fell by 339,000, the fifth largest drop since January 2009. But there was an even much more shockingly large number — almost 1.2 million additional Americans were classified in January as not being in the labor force. Unfortunately, that has been the consistent story that has made this “recovery” unique as more and more Americans have just given up looking for work.

This last number not only means that the official unemployment number is misleading, but it will also likely determine where the unemployment rate ultimately goes. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office just last week released its projected unemployment rate for the next couple of years. They predicted that the unemployment rate will be at 8.9 percent during the last quarter of 2012 and rise to 9.2 percent for the last quarter of 2013.

The Congressional Budget Office was so concerned about these people leaving the labor force that they warned that the current unemployment rate that reporters so breathlessly await at the beginning of each month is quite misleading. 

At the end of last year, the CBO cautioned that the official unemployment rate was about 1.25 percentage points lower than the real rate. In January, that gap was about 1.6 percentage points.

Let’s not forget the millions of Americans who have given up looking for work or been forced to take part time jobs.

On the Lighter Side….

And in the “Life Imitates Art” segment….

From Washington With Love? How Hillary Clinton is styling herself like a Bond villain

 

Less like the infamous and sinister Rosa Klebb….

….and far more akin to the farcical Frau Farbissina!

Finally, we’ll call it a wrap with the “Just When You Thought You’d Heard It All” segment….

Florida woman blames her ‘big breasts’ for failing sobriety test

 

A Florida woman facing DUI charges told arresting officers that her “big breasts” were responsible for her failing a sobriety test, according to a police report cited Friday by WTVJ-TV. Maureen Jane Raymond, from Port St. Lucie, about 110 miles north of Miami, was arrested in Jensen Beach on Jan. 29 after she was noticed traveling at speed and crossing the yellow double line before parking in two spots outside a drug store.

According to the report, a deputy smelled alcohol on the 49-year-old and noticed she had slurred speech, glassy eyes and staggered when she walked. “When I told her we were going to do some roadside tasks she told me that I needed to understand that she is big-chested and if I asked her to close her eyes and balance she is not going to balance well,” the deputy wrote. “She told me ‘big breast you don’t balance well.'” (BBOOBS “Behemothic Breasts Out Of Balance Syndrome”….yet another female ailment men just can’t appreciate!)

When asked to walk in the straight line, the accused began to dance, the report noted. After again blaming her breasts for being unable to complete the test, the deputy noted in his report that Raymond then “began to take her clothes off to show me her breast and I stopped her.”

Taken to the police station for a breath test, Raymond, who WEPC-TV reported was 5-foot-6 and 216lb, was not able to provide a valid breath sample, and was booked into jail. She was released on $750 bond the next day after being charged with driving under the influence.

“5-foot-6 and 216 lb”….no wonder the deputy discouraged her disrobing!

😉

Magoo