"Tears of a Clown"

Please.

She spends four years inciting malice and violence against conservatives and now she's crying about the climate of hostility?


She has concerns about the language being used?


She wants to balance freedom and safety?


That's what we've been saying about the freedom to kill unborn children for decades and it's been falling on her deaf ears.

I have no idea what she's talking about or where she thinks she's going with this...

Is it possible that she's talking about the bogus rhetoric that people who oppose Barack's ideas and say he is lying in the public square are racist?

The freedom to say this is horse manure and when people have ideas we don't think are healthy for the country or our children or the elderly, we have every right to say it in the public square regardless of the color of the skin of the author of the ideas -- this freedom isn't going to be curtailed in this country while we breathe. Take that back into the chambers, put in your crack pipes and smoke it.

In many ways, I share Pelosi's concern about the static in this country. I don't believe there are racial wars brewing. That is completely fabricated. There is and always will be people who are prejudice against other people. Black, white, Catholic, Protestant, Jews, women, men, rich, poor. Pelosi and her gang of thugs are using it to incite and pit people against one another.

Her crockadile tears are as asinine as Alex Rodriguez whining about the destructive culture of steroid use and womanizing in baseball.

The King is in the Alltogether

With the departure of Van Jones, Politico article highlights the shift of venues in political warfare. The grassroots, Fox and Drudge and internet apostolates have the left on the run. Pelosi is a tar baby, Obama's numbers are tanking and they're caught like deer in the headlights.

It confirmed that the real opposition party to Obama right now is the conservative grassroots that draws its energy from Fox News, talk radio and the Drudge Report, and often leaves Republican elected officials scrambling to catch up.

I was speaking to a friend and political colleague yesterday about the 2012 election and said this exact same thing. We worked around the authentic news blackouts/lockouts of the mainstream media and stolen their momentum. As my wise friend pointed out, the GOP is being handed the election on a silver platter but are they smart enough not to muck it up.

We talked about what went awry in the last election (Romney was groomed before the grassroots gave the GOP input).

It's true that Romney has a base in the GOP. But, it's the money people. The money people are not on the ground in hand-to-hand combat. In the trenches, where Romney opposed every prolife effort during his tenure and in fact supported Planned Parenthood, the enthusiasm of his opposition against us when he was here, makes him a candidate that will never get traction. In 2008, the grassroots splintered when the GOP tried to hand us a wolf in sheep's clothing. The money people and the good old boy network are no longer in control.

The only person out there in the political world of the right whom the grassroots can confidently get behind, that has any kind of chance, is Mike Huckabee. Everybody I know across the political spectrum on the right (except of course for a small minority of the good old boy and money people) has agreed they could get on board. Suggesting any other candidate and the cross section splinters.

Let's hope they do their own diligence. The days of cleaning up a half-assed conservative with money are history.

Karl Rove on the No Vote

94 Democrats voted no.


With all the people who owe their job for Nancy Pelosi, many of them voted against her after her moronic leadership today?

Twelve out of thirty-six on Barney Frank's own committee?

Pelosi Agrees to Meet with Bishop

SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, under fire from U.S. bishops for comments she made about abortion, accepted on Friday an invitation from the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco for a private talk.

This is an interesting soundbite:

Pelosi said in a letter to Archbishop George Niederauer that she'd "welcome the opportunity for our personal conversation and to go beyond our earlier most cordial exchange about immigration and needs of the poor to Church teaching on other significant matters."

Did a previous meeting take place and Archbishop Niederauer skirt the issue of abortion? Seems peculiar. The more likely scenario is that it was discussed but she heard what she wanted to hear, not what was actually said?

The souls at stake I should think would require specific instructions that she can follow her conscience with her free will, but misleading others into perdition is forcing the Bishops hand to warn her Catholic constituents that her path that she's outside communion with the Catholic Church.

Making a choice between the Sacraments of the Catholic Church and letting go of misrepresenting her authority to be that of the Catholic Church would seem like an easy decision.

This election may not be Deja vu all over again. The winner of that battlefield is Christ.

Nancy Pelosi kerfuffle with US Bishops

Archbishop Niederauer released a statement today about Nancy Pelosi's "serious conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church about abortion". He asserts his authority to interpret the faith, to publicly correct erroneous, misleading and confusing positions when they are advanced, how it affects communion with the Church and has asked her to meet with him.


Since 2004, the number of Bishops who now put the price of a soul above their own popularity has multiplied like the loaves and fish. He's asked for prayers, God knows they're both going to need them.

What of Catholics who find themselves questioning the teachings of the Church, or experiencing uncertainties and questions about them? The bishops answer, "Some Catholics may not fully understand the Church’s doctrinal and moral teachings on certain issues. They may have certain questions and even uncertainties. In situations of honest doubt and confusion, they are welcome to partake of Holy Communion, as long as they are striving to understand what the Church professes and to resolve confusion and doubt."

Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and my predecessor as Archbishop here in San Francisco, wrote in 2004: "No bishop is eager to forbid members of his flock from receiving the precious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, who invites us into communion with Himself and his Body, the Church, as grace and salvation." In that same year, the U.S. bishops acknowledged that pastoral sensitivity, and they endorsed the following approach to this question of denying Holy Communion: "Given the wide range of circumstances involved in arriving at a prudential judgment on a matter of this seriousness, we recognize that such decisions rest with the individual bishop in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles. Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action. Nevertheless, we all share an unequivocal commitment to protect human life and dignity and to preach the Gospel in difficult times." From that statement I conclude that it is my responsibility as Archbishop to discern and decide, prayerfully, how best to approach this question as it may arise in the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

I regret the necessity of addressing these issues in so public a forum, but the widespread consternation among Catholics made it unavoidable. Speaker Pelosi has often said how highly she values her Catholic faith, and how much it is a source of joy for her. Accordingly, as her pastor, I am writing to invite her into a conversation with me about these matters. It is my obligation to teach forthrightly and to shepherd caringly, and that is my intent. Let us pray together that the Holy Spirit will guide us all toward a more profound understanding and appreciation for human life, and toward a resolution of these differences in truth and charity and peace.

September 5, 2008