Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Well, yesterday's election results were disappointing to me. It's incredible that Santorum came as close as he did considering that he was outspent 6 to 1. Romney absolutely bombarded Michigan with very misleading, even dishonest, attack ads against Santorum. I''m still hopeful that Santorum can win the nomination.....we'll see.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Don't forget to vote!!! Blue sky, dry excuses.

Think Rick Santorum can't beat Obama? You know what I think?

You may be underestimating the number of people who want to vote for a candidate who believes there is such a thing as right and wrong.....and has the courage to express it.

There are a lot of people who want to vote for a conservative who respects the dignity of the poor and the working class....

Monday, February 27, 2012

The Heritage Foundation has posted a great article on their blog "The Foundry" entitled "Pay No Attention to Mandate Behind Curtain of Spin." It discusses the legal response the Obama administration made in court this past week to the challenge initiated by Belmont Abbey College to the HHS mandate.

The administration is asking that the case be dismissed because the president has promised to resolve the issue. Seriously.

"The Obama Administration is not petitioning the court to consider the merits of the final regulation as published. Rather, the Justice Department is asking the court to make a legal determination based on promises made at a press conference.

“Apparently, the administration has decided that the mandate, as written and finalized, is constitutionally indefensible,” said Hannah Smith, senior counsel at the Becket Fund. “Its only hope is to ask the court to look the other way based on an empty promise to possibly change the rules in the future.

“Since when does ‘Trust me, I’m from the government’ suspend the laws of the land?” Smith continued."

Say what? Dismiss it on the basis of a promise made by the benevolent dictator? What? I am not an attorney but this move strikes me as extremely odd. Troubling. It seems to suggest (should I be surprised?) that the administration believes not only that they are above the law but that there is a consensus among the public that they are so.

Read the entire article here.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Rick Santorum Unelectable?

I think those who believe that Rick Santorum is unelectable may be underestimating two things:

1. The power of God

2. The desire of the people for a leader who believes in right and wrong.

Remember, there are a lot of people who vote more from feeling than fact. Many of those people are longing for goodness.....

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Santorum DID have ashes on his forehead....

'But, with ashes still visible on his forehead after attending Catholic Mass on the first day of Lent, Santorum did seem to quell fears about the role his deep like held religious convictions might play in governing. " So reported First Read on msnbc. com.

I'm watching the president talking about gas prices. The mean spiritedness with which he talks about republicans is disgusting. Sarcasm, the assigning of motives, belittling his's all so nauseating.

Now he tells us of all the drilling he's doing.....starting to sound like a republican. I wonder why. (OK. Now I'm being sarcastic. But then, I'm not the president.)

Now the condescending lecture....

Oh. We need more alternative sources of energy. Like Solyndra? That was not a good idea, Mr. President. Five hundred twenty-eight million dollars down the drain. Yes, million!!! Was that a good investment? Does this man know what he is talking about? I think not!!

Please, the president's record speaks for itself. He does not know what to do about gas prices. The man is in over his head.

Elect a republican!!!

I watched most of last night's republican presidential debate. I would have watched the entire thing, believe me, but I'm fighting a cold and was watching in bed. Inadvertently fell asleep. I saw most of it, though.

I thought Romney looked desperate. I thought there was a bit of the cornered dog look-- kind of mean, kind of he knew he just might lose this nomination and couldn't quite summon up the confidence of previous debates. The look made me trust him even less. Still, he's a good debater and he came up with the answers.

Santorum was his usual honest self. Sometimes he should have said less. But the fact that the man courageously speaks the truth even when it is not to his political advantage makes him even more appealing to me as a candidate. I'm sick of Romney twisting the facts and attacking Santorum. Sure makes Romney look small. In fact I just got a recorded phone call from the Romney campaign with this sort of attack message. I called them back and told them to take me off their calling list, that calls like that just make me question the integrity of Romney as a candidate.

When asked how each candidate would describe themselves in one word, I was surprised that none of them said "conservative." Seemed like it would have been a great line for Romney.

Loved when Gingrich pointed out Obama had voted for infanticide. That needs to be repeated a whole lot.

Well, I'm still supporting Santorum. I have a few yard signs left if anyone wants one.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Michigan is being bombarded with Romney ads-- mostly in the form of attack-Santorum ads.

It's disgusting. I'm getting several recorded messages a day on my phone. I can't wait for a real person to be there so I can tell them to stop calling me.

Don't get me wrong. If Romney gets the nomination I will support him wholeheartedly. He could be a good president....I think.

But my preference is for a man who doesn't demonstrate leadership by putting others down and distorting the record of his opponents. No. I prefer a nominee whose leadership is demonstrated by the core values that make up his being. My choice is Rick Santorum.

If you want to see a great Santorum ad check out this link to I love it. I just heard a portion of it on Catholic Radio. It was in stark contrast to the attack ad against Santorum I heard on Catholic radio just a few days ago. An attack ad!!

Oh Lord, in your mercy, please give us the president you want us to have. And please protect Rick Santorum and his family.

(BTW, I have a couple Santorum yard signs if anyone is interested.

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Do I know longer see/read as a human being? It just took me four tries to read those "verify-you're-a-human" words you need to write in order to comment on a blog. I looked at them and thought What? What the heck does that say? (I know they're not usually real words) But I could not decipher the letters!! Are the computers getting so smart that we have to not just use our eyes but additionally do some analysis in order to figure out the letters? I got out my reading glasses and that helped a little. Do I need to be able to guess what half letter that little line is supposed to indicate? Or maybe I just need better glasses. LOL

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Women's Rights? Come on!

There is no "right to contraception." OK. There is no such right. We have to challenge people who say that there is. How can they say there is such a right? Because Obama says there is? There is not. Obama does not confer rights. Freedom of religion, however, is a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

Show me where in the Constitution it says that women have a right to contraception. It's not there. The left is inventing this "right" and all who believe in the bill of rights need to point this out. Requiring Catholics to pay for sterilization and contraception is not an issue of women's rights.

Pregnancy is not a disease. Contraception is not health care. And no one, NO ONE, has a responsibility to pay for someone else's contraception. Period. If necessary, we must shout this.

Friday, February 10, 2012

Can we make one thing perfectly clear? Pregnancy is not a disease and contraception is not health care. OK? I am so sick of hearing liberals say that it is. In fact, contraception increases your chances of developing some diseases and carrying a baby to term protects against some diseases, including breast cancer. It's not health care.

What does our president have against life? What does he have against religion? And why is he so concerned about keeping Planned Parenthood happy, as though they were some kind of respectable organization? He needs to be voted out of office.
What is up with the new "accommodation" to Catholics in regard to the HHS mandate?? I listened to the news clip and thought I don't get it. I don't see any difference from the original mandate. Apparently there is a fine-line difference but, frankly, I don't see how any layer of paperwork absolves Catholic organizations from cooperating with evil. If this is a genuine compromise perhaps someone can explain it to me. My first reaction? "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...." Looks like smoke and mirrors to me.

SBrinkmann at Women of Grace has summed up the reactions of some key people. I found the quotes very helpful. Here is how it starts...(picture is theirs too. I couldn't copy the quote without the picture, for some reason.)

Anyone who believes President Obama just compromised on the government’s plan to coerce religious employers to provide free contraception to employees is either “naive or gullible” says the Co-Chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus.

According to, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) said the “accommodation” announced by President Barack Obama today is nothing more than “the discredited old policy, dressed up to look like something else. It remains a serious violation of religious freedom. Only the most na├»ve or gullible would accept this as a change in policy.”

Read the entire article here. (And I recommend you do.)

It looks like smoke and mirrors to me. I don't like it. And I don't trust our President for a minute. I think he's looking for a way to get himself out of hot water while still keeping happy his beloved Planned Parenthood.

We have to VOTE THIS GUY OUT OF OFFICE!! I'm sorry. I have had enough.

Since when does the president of the United States have the authority to make laws? Congress makes laws and this mandate in either form would not have passed Congress. In fact, the entire health care bill itself would not have been law if Obama had not deceived Bart Stupak into believing that he would prevent abortion funding in the new law. The President cannot be trusted. I don't know how else to say it.

But presenting as law something that an unelected official (Kathleen Sebelius) simply wrote in as a regulation is a violation of the Constitution. READ THE CONSTITUTION!!! Only Congress can make laws.

But this president does not respect the Constitution nor does he abide by it. And, needless to say, he does not respect life!!!!!

Thursday, February 09, 2012

For intelligent, faithful commentary on the HHS mandate check out Father Charlie's new blog at:

Father Charlie is a good Catholic priest, an intelligent and informed writer, who was once my pastor. Check out his new blog.

Have you signed the Stop HHS Mandate online petition yet? You can sign it here.

I urge everyone to sign this petition. It couldn't be easier. They have over 34,000 signatures as of right now. It's an initiative of Ave Maria Radio, a station that is rock solid Catholic.

If you value the U.S. Constitution, you should sign it. If you think that checks and balances are important to prevent corruption in the power of government, you should sign it. If you support the founding principles of this country, please sign it.

If you've read the Constitution and understand that the First Amendment protects not only freedom of speech but also freedom of religion, you ought to sign it. (I find it incredible that I would write the above sentence, but it seems that some liberals do not understand that freedom of religion is equally protected with freedom of speech. If you value freedom of speech you should sign it-- because when any right in the Constitution is taken away, all rights are in jeopardy.

The text of the First Amendment....
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Yeah. It's that simple. Those who would claim that the HHS mandate does not violate the Constitution are really saying that they don't believe that the Constitution needs to be followed. Enough is enough. The camel's nose is under the tent. We need to act now.

Oh, and might I make another suggestion? Let's get the adorable Bella Santorum in the White House. The last shall be first and the first shall be last. The White House needs more kids living in it.....

Monday, February 06, 2012

Peggy Noonan wrote about the HHS Mandate in Sunday's Wall Street Journal. She believes that this action by Obama will spell his failure to get reelected. I pray she is right. We cannot let this issue fade away. It is critical, not just for Catholics, but for all who believe in religious freedom, the very reason this country was founded.

"If they stay strong and fight, they will win. This is in fact a potentially unifying moment for American Catholics, long split left, right and center. Catholic conservatives will immediately and fully oppose the administration's decision. But Catholic liberals, who feel embarrassed and undercut, have also come out in opposition.

The church is split on many things. But do Catholics in the pews want the government telling their church to contravene its beliefs? A president affronting the leadership of the church, and blithely threatening its great institutions? No, they don't want that. They will unite against that."

Read more here. She writes about Romney and the Republican establishment first. You have to scroll down to the final section.

And if you want to read a really scathing article about this mandate check out Michelle Malkin's "First they came for the Catholics." here. Again, scroll down till you get to the article.

Friday, February 03, 2012

National Review Online has posted a great article by Daniel Foster on the backlash Susan G. Komen received and apparently caved to after withdrawing their support from Planned Parenthood.
Look, the beauty of free speech is that, if you’re inclined to do so, you can write a check to PP in an act of solidarity, or write a check to Komen as an expression of moral approval. That’s all fine. But there’s something quite a bit different, something creepy and not a little despicable, about the Planned Parenthood set’s besmirching Komen’s good name across a thousand platforms for having the audacity to stop giving them free money. And I don’t care why that decision was made, frankly.
Read more here.

I'll say it's creepy. The whole thing just so smacks of spiritual warfare. Why should anyone ardently defend Planned Parenthood? I don't get it. But I'll tell you one thing. Now that the entire pro-life community knows about this people will not hesitate to abandon those pink ribbons and decline to contribute to Komen.