Building Codes

 You didn't build that!

Muslims built it!

Read More

First Ladies Meet High School Boys

Laura Bush meets high school boy

Michelle Obama meets high school boy

Now, even putting aside the dignity that the position deserves (pun intended), consider what would have happened if a teacher had done this, or (heaven forbid) a religious. Does anyone else think Child Protective Services would have been called? Does anyone else thing Child Protective Services should have been called?

Read More

The First Day

So people are crowing about how successful Obamacare is, since 2.8 million people visited health care exchange web sites on the first day. Let's think about that a minute. We have a product that at least 50 million Americans are required to buy or face penalties (according to the numbers used to justify passing the bill in the first place). A product that American supposedly really really really want, and it got 2.8 million hits (not sales, mind you, hits - unclear if those are unique visitors to the site or just page hits).

Let's compare that to the iPhone 5c/5s, which is a minor tweak on the iPhone 5, and which many have said is not worth the upgrade, had 9 million people actually buy it the first weekend. That should tell us something.

Read More

Monday Joke

This one's borrowed from Dr. Ben Carson:

A wealthy man liked to give his mother expensive gifts, but was running out of ideas. One day he heard about these trained birds. They could walk and talk and sing and dance. They were spectacular, and he knew he had to get one for his mother.

They were $5000 each, but the man bought two and had them sent to his mother. He couldn't wait to call her up and ask what she thought.

When enough time had passed for her to receive them, he called and said "What did you think of the birds?"

His mother replied "Mmmm they were good!"

In shock he said "You weren't supposed to eat them. Those birds were special. They cost $5000 each! They could sing and dance, they could walk and talk."

His mother replied "Well, you think they'd have said something."

Perhaps you'd rather hear him tell it. In fact, I recommend watching the entire video. A great speech by a great man.

Read More

Statement of dis-belief

It's opposite day once again!

Not OK to require employees to believe what they are hired to do.

OK to require employees to believe what you want them to.

Read More

God bless Planned Parenthood

I've been reading story after story about Obama's invoking God's blessing upon Planned Parenthood. Most of the authors seem very angry that Obama could be so audacious, or the hypocrisy involved. Until last night I was thinking along the same lines. Then last night I was chatting with a friend who reminded me that God cannot go against His nature. So what kind of blessings could He bring to Planned Parenthood, should He heed Obama's prayer? Not likely what Obama intended when he made it.

It reminded me of the story of Joseph in Genesis 50, specifically verse 20, where Joseph remarks on his brothers' act in selling him into slavery "Even though you meant harm to me, God meant it for good, to achieve this present end, the survival of many people." And so I join our president sincerely in saying "God bless Planned Parenthood."

Read More

Where will you be?

On January 25th 2013? Why don't you join us?

Read More

HHS analogies part 2

This is a continuation of my earlier post, HHS analogies part 1. In this series I am refuting arguments supporting the HHS mandate via a set of analogies (hence the name).

A common argument in support of the HHS mandate is "the mandate helps poor women who need health care." There are numerous fallacies here. First off, abortion, sterilization and contraception are not health care. Secondly, they are completely elective - nobody needs contraception to live. In fact, to the extent that any aspect of these is actual health care, they are already covered by insurance, and not considered immoral. For instance, use of the birth control pill to control hormonal conditions is not immoral, and is covered by insurance.

But let's compare this to something which is unarguably necessary for life - food. Does anybody feel that contraception is more important to life than food? No? I didn't think so. So what is the Obama administration's position on access to food versus access to contraception?

Well, if you are below a certain income level you can apply for food stamps. Here's a summary of some of the requirements for receiving food stamps (this link has the full list).

Gross income limits are established by the federal government and adjusted annually.
A family may have liquid resources (cash, checking accounts, stocks, bonds, etc.) of up to $2,000.

If eligible, the amount of benefits received is determined by household size and adjusted gross income after deductions.

The SNAP Employment and Training program requires those applicants who are able to register for work and cooperate in seeking and keeping employment.

All SNAP recipients must report anytime their monthly gross income is over the maximum allowed for their household size.

All SNAP recipients are also required to complete a recertification (review) process once every 12 months.

In terms of what you get:

You can buy foods such as plants and seeds that will be used to grow food for the family to eat. You can also buy dairy products, meats, vegetables and fruits, and cereals and breads. Foods that are not allowed include hot foods already made, foods that are eaten in-store, medicines and vitamins, any paper goods, pet foods, cigarettes and alcohol. If you pay sales tax on an item, chances are that item is not an allowed food item. 

So, there are very strict limits on who can get free food. You have to be at or near the poverty level, have little to no money or assets, be actively seeking work, and the government monitors your income and other aspects of your life monthly and yearly. Only certain basic foods can be purchased. Fast food, restaurant food, etc. are not allowed.

In other words, in only the hardest cases can people get food stamps, and they will only provide basic nourishment. In fact, the current federal rules will be cutting the amount of food stamps starting January 1. This in a nation where one in six people are experiencing "food insecurity" (are in danger of not getting enough food to stay alive).

Now consider abortion, sterilization and contraceptives. Under Obamacare's HHS mandate they are totally free, in unlimited amounts, to everybody, regardless of income. And not just cheap contraception like condoms, everything up to and including the most expensive stuff is all free. Rather than making millionaires pay for a poor homeless person's contraception, middle class citizens are paying for millionaires' contraception.

If the administration was really concerned about the nutritional of citizens to the same extent it cares about putting money in the coffers of big pharma and big abortion, it would make all foods completely free for everybody. Homeless people could eat lobster and caviar on the public dime every night. Or conversely, it would only provide basic contraception coverage to the poorest of the poor, and the rest of the country would have to pay for theirs.

So in other words, the HHS mandate is not about "helping" the poor.

Read More

HHS analogies, Part 1

I had a recent "discussion" with a friend about the HHS mandate, and in formulating my case I came up with some analogies that I feel might be helpful in explaining some aspect to people. So here goes. Comments welcome.

One objection I keep hearing is "your tax dollars already pay for abortion, this is no different." It is. First off, according to president Obama no tax dollars pay for abortions, so right of the bat you are calling your president a liar. But truth be told, he is a liar, because on day 1 of his presidency in 2009 he abolished the Mexico City Policy, which forbade US tax dollars funding abortions in foreign lands.

But paying for these things remotely via tax dollars is very different from paying for them directly, and I think an analogy can illustrate why.

Let's say I buy groceries at the local grocery store. Now, the owner of that store is a psychopath, and takes the money from the register after I leave, buys ammo, and goes on a shooting spree at a nearby school. I might feel shocked, but I am not morally nor legally responsible.

Now let's say instead, the grocery store owner tells me he needs money to buy ammo to go on a shooting spree, and I hand him a $20 saying "this one's on me." I will be doing time as an accessory to murder. The law is pretty clear on when I am responsible for the evil committed and when I am not.

And so no - paying taxes, even if some of that tax money will be used against my wishes to pay for abortions, is very different in terms of moral responsibility from specifically paying for abortion through the HHS mandate. There is a fundamental difference in the degree of cooperation with evil.

Read More

What this election means

I'm hoping someone will look back on this post in a few years and say "boy, what a pessimist!" That said, I have a few thoughts and reflections on the election. Several people have posted things along the line of "God is punishing the US" or "His will was done." I can't agree with either sentiment.

First off, I don't think God needs to punish us. Sin brings its own punishment. When you swing the hammer at your own thumb and it hurts, there's no need to look to God to have brought the punishment upon you. The voters have shown that entitlements are more important than the freedoms written in our Constitution. We (collectively) will get what we deserve. Yes, bad things will happen to good people, and good things will happen to bad people. Read Job for a good theological basis for it all. Or for something more upbeat, read Genesis 37-50, especially noting Genesis 50:19-21:

But Joseph replied to them: "Do not fear. Can I take the place of God? Even though you meant harm to me, God meant it for good, to achieve this present end, the survival of many people. So now, do not fear. I will provide for you and for your children." By thus speaking kindly to them, he reassured them.

So, if God will ultimately bring good out of the situation does that mean "His will was done?" No more than it was done to Joseph when his brothers plotted his murder. God does not wish us to do evil. Just because something happens doesn't mean God wills it, especially when the intentions of us sinners are involved.

These two phrases are used by some to justify anything they want to do (not that I think the people who posted this had this in mind, but in other situations I have seen this behavior). Abortion? Must be God's will, since it happens, therefore it is not evil. It's up to God to punish those who do such things. House burned down? He must be a sinner.

If we think of God as father, consider a similar situation with your own child. Little Johnny played with matches and burnt his finger. He blames you for it. Were you responsible? You might have been responsible if Johnny were 3 and you gave him the matches, but at some point you expect Johnny to take responsibility for his own mistakes.

So my reflection on the election is what the prophets have always said "Repent and turn to God." The death toll from this election will be in the tens of millions, but ultimately His will will be done. It is up to us to accept martyrdom, red or white. I know this doesn't sound very upbeat, but it is.

Mary, virgin most immaculate, patroness of the United States, pray for us.

Read More

Bedding Big Business

Since we're dealing with hypothetical situations, I have another one (with apologies to Exxon). Let's say that a particular state was given a federal grant to provide relief on energy costs, and that money went to Exxon every year. One year, the state discovered Exxon wasn't really doing anything for the money, and decided to give the money to promote alternative energies (solar, co-gen, whatever) that would be of more benefit to the people of that state.

Now let's say the President of the United States personally says that the money must go to Exxon, and if it doesn't his administration will sue. Furthermore, he cuts off the grant money completely, leaving the state without energy aid, until and unless the money goes to the Exxon, the company the president likes.

Let's say that president campaign specifically mentions Exxon as being vital to the nation, and his budget doubles the amount of money Exxon will get. Exxon forms a sister company, Exxon Action, specifically to support the president, and the president of Exxon takes a sabbatical to campaign full time for the president.

Do you think:

A) That's right. The president should support big business, and the most profitable companies in various industries should be best pals with him.

B) No conclusion can be drawn - it's all coincidence.

C) The president is in bed with the company. It is unethical, and should be stopped. Better yet, it's an election year, throw the bum out!

Well, change Exxon to Planned Parenthood. The president has supported Planned Parenthood, which is the largest and most profitable abortion provider in the US. He has lied knowingly to get them funding. When Texas decided to take their federal money and give it to providers who actually performed mammograms (Planned Parenthood does not perform mammograms, and never has), the president cut off all federal funding for all women's health programs in Texas. The lawsuits to force Texas to give money to Planned Parenthood are continuing to this day. In other words, Planned Parenthood the company, is more important than women's health.

The Obama administration is also suing Arizona to fund Planned Parenthood, and overrode the state of New Hampshire to force taxpayers there to fund Planned Parenthood. In fact, he literally threatened to shut down the entire United States if Planned Parenthood did not receive the funding he wanted. In other words, Planned Parenthood, the company, is more important than the United States.

And Now, Cecile RIchards, president of Planned Parenthood has announced she will campaign full time for President Obama. Why is it that the media isn't raking him over the coals for this blatant unethical ties to a single company?

Read More

Scott Adams makes sense

If you're a geek like me you enjoy reading Scott Adams' popular Dilbert cartoon. And if you've been following the news you've probably read about what Scott Adams said about the upcoming election. Here's a piece of it (actually most of it - I wanted to give enough context to make my point - I encourage you to read the whole thing).

Let's say a CEO does a great job for stockholders; he increases profits five-fold, treats the employees well, and causes the stock price to skyrocket. He's a superstar. One day the public learns that the CEO killed a guy to get ahead in his career, but the CEO doesn't get convicted because his clever attorney gets him off on a technicality. Assume in this hypothetical situation that the public correctly believes the CEO killed a guy to advance his career. Should the board of directors allow the superstar CEO to keep his job? Or is killing a guy to advance your career always a firing offense?

Okay, keep your answer in mind.

The next question is for supporters of President Obama. Let's say your political views map closely to the President's positions. He's your guy. But suppose you found out he once killed an American citizen in the United States to help his reelection. And assume, as with the CEO example, that the facts of the killing are undisputed and the President found a legal means to avoid prosecution. In that hypothetical case, would you still vote for President Obama? Or would you say it is a firing offense for a President to kill a citizen to advance his career?

I predict that every one of you favored firing the hypothetical CEO for killing a guy to get ahead. My second prediction is that every Republican reader of this blog favored firing President Obama in the hypothetical and imaginary case of him murdering a citizen to get elected. My third prediction is that supporters of President Obama will quibble with the hypothetical example, or my comparison to the CEO, or say President Obama is still a better option than Romney. In other words, for most supporters of President Obama, I don't think there is such a thing as a "firing offense."

For the record, President Obama did not technically kill anyone to get elected. That was just a hypothetical example. But he is putting an American citizen in jail for 10 years to life for operating medical marijuana dispensaries in California where it is legal under state law. And I assume the President - who has a well-documented history of extensive marijuana use in his youth - is clamping down on California dispensaries for political reasons, i.e. to get reelected. What other reason could there be?

Mr. Adams is speaking about unjustly trumping state law and trampling the rights of American citizens rather than killing someone. And as he points out later in the post, while there is no guarantee Romney won't do the same, but he does claim to support about states' rights and it is likely that he will have a different policy in this area.

Now, I disagree with the state of California's legalization of marijuana, but I see parallels with the way federal law is trampling states' rights in the case of drugs, and the way federal law is trampling states' rights in the case of abortion.

But that isn't my purpose for this post. Mr. Adams points out something that Catholics and pro-lifers have been pointing out for a long time. There is such thing as a "firing offense." From a pro-life perspective, while President Obama hasn't killed with his own two hands and innocent human being, he has aggressively pursued policies and laws to increase the number of abortions in the US, and made abortin the most important point of his presidency. And so a pro-life analogy might be (with apologies to Mr. Adams for paraphrasing his point):

Let's say a CEO does a great job for stockholders; he increases profits five-fold, treats the employees well, and causes the stock price to skyrocket. He's a superstar. One day the public learns that the CEO supports KKK lynchings to get ahead in his career, but the CEO is a clever attorney who says clever sound bites like "that's above my pay grade" when asked if it's OK to kill black human beings. Assume in this hypothetical situation that the public correctly believes the CEO supports lynchings to advance his career. Should the board of directors allow the superstar CEO to keep his job? Or is promoting lynching to advance your career always a firing offense?

As some pro-lifers point out (as an excuse for support President Obama), Governor Romney doesn't have a coherent pro-life strategy, and undermines his platform by the exceptions he keeps talking about, but it is that he will at least not pursue the aggressive funding of Planned Parenthood (under the lie that it provides mammograms)? It is also likely that he will remove the laws supporting the HHS mandate that makes abortifacients free. He has pledged to reinstate the Mexico City policy.

Read More

Voting and sin Part 3

This is part 3, of my series on voting and sin. In part 1 I spoke about whether it is a sin to vote for Governor Romney (as some Obama supporters have told me). In part 2 I covered whether voting third party is a sin, as many many people on both sides have told me. In this part I wanted to cover whether voting for President Obama is a sin. I've been putting off writing this, because I don't want what I'm writing to be true. However, I can't change facts, so here goes. But first, a disclaimer.

Read More

What matters

Under Obamacare, penalty per employee per year for employers who offer NO healthcare coverage whatsoever: $2,000

Under Obamacare, penalty per employee per year for religious employers who offer excellent healthcare coverage, but omit abortion, sterilization and contraception: $36,500

Read More

An Open Letter

Well, I know this is lazy of me, but I can't come up with anything more clever or cogent than what Marc has written at the Bad Catholic blog. Some excerpts (although please read the whole thing here - it is well worth a few minutes:

Catholicism, an antiquated, dying religion without many members — oh, snap, wait, I meant the largest form of Christianity in America and the largest religion in the world — teaches that the use of artificial contraception and sterilization is wrong, and thus does not allow its institutions to provide it. Here’s where everyone flips out and loses sight of the argument, so let me be absolutely clear: I am not arguing that the use of artificial contraception is wrong. I do believe this, and firmly, but this is neither the time nor place to argue the point.

In fact, it would be best for all of us — Catholics included — to think of this particular Catholic teaching as silly, overbearing, and unfit for the modern mind to contain. Think of this teaching as you might think of the Jewish prohibition on pork, or the Hindu’s holding of the cow as sacred. Why? Because prohibiting the free exercise of religion does not become allowed in cases in which you happen to disagree with the religion, no matter how vehemently, unless that religion is directly violating an individual’s rights.

Marc then goes on (with big steaming chunks of wit and wisdom) to demolish the "reasoning" that is usually used to defend the indefensible.

Really, read it. What are you still looking at this for?

Read More

Making a list, checking it twice...

If you're coming to town this Christmas (or whenever), you'd better be nice to the TSA, because president Obama's taking names. According to an article in Canada Free Press (of course the American media wouldn't carry this). [italics are from the article, bold emphasis mine]

I was contacted by a source within the DHS who is troubled by the terminology and content of an internal memo reportedly issued yesterday at the hand of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. Indeed, both the terminology and content contained in the document are troubling. The dissemination of the document itself is restricted by virtue of its classification, which prohibits any manner of public release. While the document cannot be posted or published, the more salient points are revealed here

The terminology contained within the reported memo is indeed troubling. It labels any person who “interferes” with TSA airport security screening procedure protocol and operations by actively objecting to the established screening process, “including but not limited to the anticipated national opt-out day” as a “domestic extremist.” The label is then broadened to include “any person, group or alternative media source” that actively objects to, causes others to object to, supports and/or elicits support for anyone who engages in such travel disruptions at U.S. airports in response to the enhanced security procedures.

For individuals who engaged in such activity at screening points, it instructs TSA operations to obtain the identities of those individuals and other applicable information and submit the same electronically to the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division, the Extremism and Radicalization branch of the Office of Intelligence & Analysis (IA) division of the Department of Homeland Security.

So, for expressing an opinion about TSA policy in this blog post, I can be reported to the extremism and radicalism branch of Homeland Security to be tracked and analyzed. A wonderful use of my tax dollars. Of course I am already on president Obama's "extremist" list for being pro-life and for publicly opposing some of Obama's policies. And since Obama has given himself the right to assassinate Americans whom he accuses of being terrorists, with no trial or other process, perhaps I should be afraid.

But shouldn't we submit to a TSA scan to keep us safe? According to physics professor Peter Rez of Arizona State University in an MSNBC story (I guess he and MSNBC are on the extremist list with me), the probability of dying of cancer as a result of  TSA scan is about the same as that of dying in a terrorist attack on a plane. His research results are outlined here and available in full here. In other words, the scanners are as physically dangerous to the American public as the terrorists.

So we have a failed government policy instituting unconstitutional searches of American citizens, and the response of our president is to target Americans who point this out. I've in general been a skeptic of the "police state" alarmists, but this is troubling.

Read More

Science Fair

I can add little to what is written in Forbes' article "Saving NASA from the Obama Science Fair." According to the article Obama's legacy will be his rearrangement of NASA's priorities. Says the article:

The reason why, unfortunately, is that it may signal the end of the road for one of the greatest technological achievements of modern times, the U.S. human spaceflight program. In place of a plan crafted by his predecessor which might have one day carried astronauts to Mars, Mr. Obama has proposed a science fair that literally goes nowhere. The thousands of workers in NASA’s human spaceflight program now in danger of losing their jobs should have seen this coming.

I've written before about the cancellation of the manned space program in "No Americans in Space Anymore". That included NASA's new mission, ordered by president Obama to "reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."

The Forbes article does not mention the Muslim thing, but does critique his proposed schedule for "researching" lifting vehicles (like the vehicles that were being built by the Constellation program he just canceled). The author refers to it as

a stretched-out schedule that would likely produce little new technology but deprive engineering teams and production workers of anything to do for the better part of a decade. Since I’m not a conspiracy theorist I won’t suggest that this element of the plan seems well-crafted to eliminate any political constituency for future deep space missions, but it sure takes a long time to make key decisions.

And perhaps that's the key to this decision. Or perhaps it's just the misguided notion that it is more important to fund entitlements and special interests than to promote economic growth and technological advancement. The same can be said of Obama's stem cell research policies. He took money away from adult stem cell programs that were already producing cures for diseases and spent the money on embryonic stem cell research that is not likely to work, but favors industries that heavily supported his candidacy.


Of course, there are other players in the space game. DARPA is looking into a "100 year starship". If you're curious, that's 100 years to design it, not 100 years for it to get to a star. The Tau Zero Foundation thinks it'll take more like 200 years. Of course, most of what's being proposed in this area today as "new ideas" are actually based on research done in the 1960s as offshoot of the Apollo program. Frankly, I can't get excited about the project. Not because it will be after I am dead, but because it is becoming yet another excuse for a eugenics program. I remember reading a good science fiction story about this in high school, but the title eludes me. If humans are "modified" to go to another star, have "humans" colonized space, or have we created aliens?

Read More

What is it with Obama and Embryonic Stem Cells?

As you may recall, back in August a federal judge blocked president Obama's expansion of Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR). Which got me to thinking "why does Obama love embryonic stem cells?" Contrary to garbage "news" stories like "Science, not Politics" ESCR is 100% politics. If we look at the science, there is no reason to perform ESCR.

First off, ESCR does not work, for a very simple reason. In 1901 Karl Landsteiner discovered blood types, which was an important step in our understanding of the human immune system and tissue rejection. Today we can transplant major organs. But organ transplants are not "natural". The body naturally attacks tissue that does not belong there. Organ receivers have to take powerful drugs to suppress their immune systems. These drugs make the person susceptible to infections and have all sorts of other nasty effects. It's worth it, if you need a heart, though.

While not an entire organ, embryonic stem cells are similar in that they are tissue from another human's body, and the immune system reacts to it. Because of this, people treated with embryonic stem cells develop cancers and immune system problems.

Secondly, even if one solved the immune system problems, there is no need to use embryonic stem cells. Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (IpSC) have been proven to be identical in function to embryonic stem cells. The difference is that IpSCs are created without the destruction of human life.

Thirdly, why pour money into research that is decades away from solving a problem, when we have other avenues of research that are solving those problems today? Adult stem cell research has produced cures for over 70 diseases/conditions.

The current administration has done its best to confuse the issue in the public eye, and has reduced funding of adult stem cell research in order to put the money into ESCR. Quite frankly, I'm angry that my money is being thrown away and used to kill humans. Or to put it another way:

I have been told that I need to respect the opinion that human embryos are just a mere clump of cells and full of promise for cures.  Well, respect is a two way street.  If you want embryonic stem cell research, then you pay for it.

Don't make me, and millions of people like me who find research that relies on the destruction of human embryos morally reprehensible, support it with our tax dollars.   When you do, you are forcing your belief that a human embryo has no value on me.

But why? Why not fund adult stem cell research? IpSC research? Why must it e ESCR? I didn't have a good answer, until I read an interview with a former ESCR scientist, Theresa Deisher. Ms. Deisher says:

Embryonic stem cells have never been used in a viable treatment, despite research on animals going back to the late 1970s. On the other hand, research on adult stem cells began a decade later and has already led to many viable treatments.

Nonetheless, she says, human embryonic stem-cell research is more attractive commercially because the cells are patentable. A patent-owning drug company will be able to charge $50,000 to $500,000 per patient for individual treatments. “Adult stem-cell treatments are much more affordable, around $10,000, and without side effects.”

And it all makes sense. So perhaps, in addition to the ethical and scientific objections, we should ask why our president, who claims to want to reduce health care costs, uses federal dollars to fund research whose only goal is to allow drug companies to charge more for the same patient benefits.

Read More

When You're Holding a Hammer

No doubt many of you have heard of the high school football coach who was fired for sending an email with a link to this video:



I'm not going to comment on the song or the firing. There are so many stories of overreactions to thing in the news these days that it all sort of gets lost in the shuffle.

What it did make me think about was how the culture of death looks at every problem as having the same solution, for which I am coining the term CEASE (Contraception, Euthanasia, Abortion, Sterilization and Eugenics). Global warming climate change? CEASE will fix it. Bad economy? CEASE. Word hunger? CEASE. AIDS? CEASE. War? CEASE. Crime? CEASE. It sounds silly here, but you can find it proposed to every problem you can find in the news today. It is the cornerstone of the United Nations' mission, and the Obama administration.

That's my cynical thought for the day.

Read More

invading the president's "spiritual privacy"

A recent survey shows nearly 1 in 5 Americans think president Obama is Muslim. No surprise there. The White House issued the following statement:

President Obama is a committed Christian, and his faith is an important part of his daily life," the statement read. "He prays every day, he seeks a small circle of Christian pastors to give him spiritual advice and counseling, he even receives a daily devotional that he uses each morning. The president's Christian faith is a part of who he is, but not a part of what the public or the media is focused on everyday.

But the president's faith is what the public and media are focused on, as the poll demonstrates. It simply isn't what the president would like the public or the media to focus on. I wonder why we have to rely on a press release to know anything about what the president believes, anyway? Other presidents have shown, or at least talked about, their beliefs.

Even better is this statement, by Dr. Clyde Wilcox of GWU:

It's a troubling thing," Wilcox said. "I think it would be good for all of us to stop invading the president's spiritual privacy. We don't know what anyone's true faith is. It doesn't tell us about what their true core values are.

Say WHAT!? Religion has nothing to do with their values? That statement is as laughable as "what a person eats has nothing to do with their diet."

A non-sequitur, but this talk about religion and the president got me to thinking... President Obama has been criticized for bowing to foreign heads of state. Rather than keeping the tradition of US president never to show subservience to a foreign power, he has taken the tack of bowing to other heads of state. So did he kiss the Pope's ring, or at least bow to the Pope? Given the pictures and lack or notice from the press it would appear no, yet the Pope is a head of state, and one which has diplomatic relations with the US.

Read More