Archive for December 16, 2010

The latest in our advertisers of Christmas series

In addition to making great Pizza Mike is one of the nicest guys you will ever meet.

Advertisements

In addition to the other problems that the establishment has with Sarah Palin. She also calls out their religious “personally believes” nonsense. It so rattled Kathleen Kennedy Townsend As Patrick O’Hannigan reports, had to respond:

Washington Post editors gave Townsend 1,500 words to defend her uncle’s attempt to compartmentalize his faith, but the “coulda been a contender” lament that they got for their trouble only exposed Townsend as another palooka in a family full of them.

Townsend asserts that she gave America by Heart a careful reading, from which she came away sure that Palin supports an unconstitutional religious test for public office. Inconveniently, we have to take Townsend’s word for that, because Palin actually says no such thing: the closest she gets is to express disappointment at John F. Kennedy’s failure to reconcile his “private faith and public role,” and his unwillingness to tell fellow countrymen “how his faith had enriched him.”

Well who knows faith better, a non-Catholic like Palin or a member of as far as the media is concerning the Catholic family of America? Let’s ask archbishop Chaput:

Speaking this past spring at Houston Baptist University, Archbishop Chaput noted that “Real Christian faith is always personal, but it’s never private.” That was one of the things about which John F. Kennedy was mistaken. Moreover, said Chaput, Kennedy’s remarks in Houston “profoundly undermined the place not just of Catholics, but of all religious believers, in America’s public life and political conversation.” And “Today, half a century later, we’re paying for the damage.”

In other words, Sarah Palin’s criticism of the Kennedy approach to faith accords substantially with criticisms offered by another Christian of unquestioned acumen. Not only that, but Chaput came loaded for bear, quoting another scholar to buttress the point that John F. Kennedy “secularized the American presidency in order to win it.”

But what does he know? He’s only an Archbishop.

That’s why they fear Palin she and the tea parties that support her, they threaten their entire way of life and force them to face realities beyond it.

Update: Cleaned up the first sentence and added quotes. Let me clarify what “Personally Believes” stuff means. It is when a pols says he “personally believes” something but votes a different way due to a separation between their religious belief and their public life. This is nonsense since we are the sum of our beliefs and if we are willing to turn them off like a light switch then we are hollow.

Am I the only person watching Morning Joe today who notices the massive hypocrisy today?

They spend the whole first segment hitting Jim DeMint for calling Harry Reid’s Christmas move “Sacrilegious” and insist that he should apologize to Reid for “insulting his religion”.

Yet they tease an acrobat act before the pope as “Chippendale” and jokes are made about how “the Pope likes them more than the nuns” and about “ripped men”.

I guess Morning Joe has a flexible definition on what is “insulting” a religion. Calling Harry Reid out for extending the session though Christmas offensive to religion Homoerotic jokes about the leader of one billion Catholics all in good fun. The panel practically couldn’t contain their delight in the 2nd hour.

Why the difference? Because the MSNBC audience likes one but not the other and yes Joe if you want to call for an apology from DeMint how about an on air apology from yourself first, because I guarantee I’m going to call you out on my Christmas Day Radio show if you make one more call for DeMint to apologize without apologizing yourself.

The second piece is even more ridiculous. They are hitting DeMint because of the idea of working through Christmas, they are talking about the troops and bringing up e-mails from nurses etc about how “they work on holidays suck it up” forgetting that the democrats could have brought all of this stuff up BEFORE the lame duck session.

That’s isn’t the double standard, the double standard is the news media. This year Christmas and New Years is on a Saturday so it doesn’t apply so much but how many of these media guys take holidays off? the 4th of July is Monday this year. Let’s see if they have guest hosts. In fact this year I will check CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC, FOX and MSNBC and see how many of the crew who are so self-righteous this morning are hard at work.

Update: They went there again at the top of the hour right after homoerotic pope jokes again. Fine! I formally request an apology over the Pope stuff. I guarantee this will be a top on my Christmas Radio show on the War on The Church and the War on Christmas.

Update 2: Instalanche! Welcome all, come and take a peek. Check out Massachusetts Republicans rearming here. Lets play some word games and find out why Sarah Palin and the tea party are driving the lame duck session. Check out the latest episode of DaTechGuy on DaRadio which featured Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs and Bob Belvedere of Camp of the Saints for the full hour. Make sure you check out this week’s show at 9 p.m. EST on 830 AM WCRN when our guests will be Dan Riehl for the full hour with special guest the Right Wing Gamer! And please patronize our advertisers of Christmas who make the show and me paying my mortgage possible.

…although I think that the opportunity to tweak Mika on this one might actually be too tempting to pass up:

According to Duke-National University of Singapore researchers writing in the Archives of Internal Medicine
, “A tax on sugar-sweetened drinks in the U.S. would generate billions of dollars in federal revenue and have little impact on weight loss.” The researchers concluded that the best plan for reducing consumption of sugary drinks is to end sugar subsidies, not increase taxes.

You mean that a soda tax wont actually make people healthier? How about that! As the daily caller points out there is an interesting omission in the bloomberg news story that reported it. They detail a whole lot of polls who were for these taxes but leave out a particular one.

And perhaps most significant: Not a word about public health pioneer Mayor Bloomberg, owner of Bloomberg news.

Now Bloomberg is a No Labels guy (and the fellow with the bucks) but billionaires don’t like to be teased. Will the need to keep a possible No Labels candidate/fundraiser viable trump all else? We shall see.