Should We Pay For College Gals Sluttiness?

OK, that headline grabs you, doesn't it? And since, unlike www.espn.com, I write my own headlines. So I won't be firing myself.
Why such a headline?
Today in an actual congressional hearing, one Sandra Fluke, who fancies herself a "reproductive rights advocate" and law student at Georgetown University, Miss Fluke essentially said that it is so damned expensive for gals in college to buy their own contraceptives that it is nessesary for the the government to compel insurance companies to provide them. Whether they want to or not.
OK, I want to go on record as writing I am certainly no prude. I really do not care what young people do in college per se. Well, I do hope that they are getting an actual education. But that is another post. But if one takes Miss Fluke at her word, then when do the young gals have the time to actually, you know, study?
According to Craig Bannister at CNS News, if one takes Miss Fluke's testimony at face value, I am going to suggest that our young people today really are not doing all that much in study hall. Or at least not what they are supposed to be doing.
According to Miss Fluke, the average cost of birth control for gals in college is a staggering $3,000 over the course of say three years in law school.
Mr. Bannister painstakingly breaks down what that cost means. And once it is broken down, it appears that gals are having unprotected sex about three times a day.
Three fricking times a day over the course of three fricking years!
Amazing!
So, one assumes that dudes are also doing it about the same. And a dude can pretty much stop by the local drug emporium and pick up some condoms and get busy. Heck, one can even buy condoms at a 99c Store. So I do suppose that there is a really large price difference between dudes and gals for protection.
But why should we, the people, have to pay for young people to frolic when they should be actually, oh I do not know, going to class? Trying to get a worthwhile degree? Actually thinking of others and not themselves?
Well, I guess that some gals are, I can not believe this if they are getting it three times a day, embaressed because there little pill or what ever is not covered under some insurances.
In the HotAir link above, Tina Korbe makes a good point. That maybe said gal should keep her panties on. And I will add the dude keep his junk in his pants too.
But I think the sense of entitlement Miss Fluke seems to have means that her university, Georgetown University, a Roman Catholic university, should ignore their religious teachings and just give the gals their rights to slut around. Read the following:

At the end of her testimony, Fluke spoke in strong language of her resentment of university administrators and others who suggest she should have chosen to attend a different university that would have offered student insurance that does cover contraception — even if that other university wasn’t quite as prestigious as Georgetown.

“We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health and we resent that, in the 21st Century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make that choice simply because we are women,” Fluke said.

Hey, Fluke (a rather appropriate name, doncha think?), no one forced you to attend the prestigious ROMAN CATHOLIC Georgetown U!
Yes, if you don't like what the school administrators believe, don't frickin attend the school.
Look, I do recognize that there is a huge difference in the way men can use birth control and women. And because of that, it is costlier for women to purchase said birth contol. But doing it all the time and having other people pay for it is not something debatable. Or so I thought.
This is what is fundamentally wrong about the government being so involved in medicine. That somehow, it is now an absolute right that women wanting birth control should have it such a right that other people have to pay for it.
I do not get it. Part of being a free society is the freedom to just say no. If I can't afford the birth control and I do not want to be so sexually active, then I need to be a respobsible person. Female or male.
What Miss Fluke wants us to do is pay for others to make bad choices. And to make about $3,000 worth of bad choices.
I say sorry college gals and dudes but we do not need to pay to make it easier to do the nasty. That is an empowering decision you should make and pay for it.

Big Night For Romney

It appears that Mitt Romney will have won both the Arizona and Michigan Republican primaries tonight setting the stage for a possible Super Tuesday blowout next week.
In Michigan, which is the home state of Mr. Romney, he had to fight for his political life against former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum.
Mr. Romney appears to have won that race by the slim margin of 41% to 38%. And the odd thing is that Mr. Santorum could end up with the majority of delegates. This is due to the fact that the Michigan Republican party is awarding delegates proportionately based on congressional districts. And if one looks at the map linked here, going over the counties, Mr. Romney essentially won Detroit and the suburbs and Mr. Santorum almost everywhere else. It is because of that Mr. Santorum could possibly end up ahead in delegates. And that makes it possible for him to claim a victory. It looked like Mr. Romney would carry Michigan by a huge margin only to have it slip away and almost lose totally to Mr. Santorum.
In Arizona, it is not even close as Mr. Romney swept the state. Not a county went for anyone but Mr. Romney. Mr Santorum appears to have been second place everywhere in the state. Mr. Romney has 47% of the vote and Mr. Santorum has 27% in 'Zona.
While Mr. Romney has every right and should celebrate his wins, especially Michigan, there are still some bad signs for the now back in the front runner status.
For one, there is no doubt that Mr. Santorum is now the anti-Romney. If you average out the votes in the two contests, essentially Mr. Romney had about 44% of votes and Mr. Santorum about 33%. The race is for sure between these two candidates.
Secondly, Mr. Romney once again did not break the psychological number 50% in these contests. Arizona did edge him closer with 47%, but no overwhelming win means that there is still a lot of doubts among Republican primary voters.
Republicans are not paying attention to the pundit and conservative elite classes telling them they have to end it now and coronate Mr. Romney.
And we should keep this fight going.
To simply listen to those that do not want to actually have this debate about what the Republican party stands for is a recipe for eventual electoral disaster in November.
If it is Mitt Romney, his retorical skills are only increased. And having him stand clearly on the issues will only be to his benefit.
If is is Mr. Santorum, we will see whether or not a strong conservative can use a blue collar background to talk the language of one Ronald Reagan and bring the wavering Reagan Democrats back in the Republican fold.
Tonight's results are exciting and a big night for Mr. Romney and probably puts him closer to the GOP nomination. But it is going to be a fight to the finish and that is the way that it should be.

Arizona And Michigan For The GOP Will Be A Split Decision

Tomorrow Republican voters in Arizona and Michigan will go to the polls and vote in their respective primaries.
And your humble blogger sees a split decision in tomorrow's results.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney will win in Arizona. And probably with ease.
But, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum will pull off the upset in Michigan and that will be a lot closer.
In fact if we look at the Real Clear Politics average for Michigan, it appears that Mr. Romney has about a 1.5 percent average lead in polls. That is well within the margin of error and I think Michigan's results could go on a long time tomorrow night. Think of Iowa earlier this year. And the same result will probably occur and that is a Rick Santorum win.
The odds are with Mr. Santorum for one reason. His appeal to blue collar voters. And maybe Team Romney can think that is not all that important, but come general election time, he will need to convince those voters to stay in the R column if he is the nominee.
And yes, in another lifetime, Mr. Romney's dad, George Romney, was governor, but that was a different time and a lifetime ago. I am afraid it will not help Mr. Romney this time.
In Arizona, it looks like clear sailing. Again, according to the Real Clear Politics polling average, Mr. Romney has a 13-point lead.
And I do think that the endorsement of Arizona governor Jan Brewer is a plus that will help Mr. Romney on this border state.
So at the end of the evening, it will be a wash. But, if Mr. Romney does win Arizona, it is a winner-take-all state. And that is 46 delegates. If Mr. Santorum wins Michigan, he has to win big and all over because it is not a winner-take-all state. In fact, a close result could end up still being a sort of win for Mr. Romney because of the allocation of delegates.
So what is going to happen is look for this race to continue at least until next Tuesday. And that is Super Tuesday.
A split decision will insure that this does not end anytime soon.

How To Bring Down A Political Opponent-Use The Gay Card

Arizona is ground zero in the debate over illegal immigration and there is no one stronger against the federal government and the lack of enforcement than Pinal County sheriff Paul Babeu.
Ahh, but a couple of things have happened to the good sheriff now that he announced his run for congress in Arizona's fourth congressional district.
First this expose in the leftywhore "alternative" Phoenix New Times in which they got a twofer.
First, that the unmarried Sheriff Babeu was having a sexual relationship with a man. And that said man was supposedly and illegal alien.
What better way to bring down some one the left does not like than to expose such a thing as one's sexual orientation?
And because he is a staunch opponent of illegal immigration, oh the hypocrisy if he knew that his lover was an illegal alien.
Oh, yeah, and Sheriff Babeu is not only a Republican but a darned conservative one at that!
So of course those with a hate on figured that they would derail his shot at his rising star in the Arizona Republican party. And we all know that Republicans HATE homosexuals.
Here is the thing.
In this article in the Left Angeles Times, even they have to admit that Sheriff Babeu's sexual orientation was not an issue when he ran for sheriff in the first place. He certainly was not one that was a firebrand opponent of homosexual rights. And really, when he ran for sheriff in Pinal county, I doubt that was a hot-button issue.
Maybe a sheriff in a suburban county between Phoenix and Tucson, but as a member of congress? Well, we better put a stop to this!
When the original allegations were published, the good sheriff did not run and hide. Yes, he resigned as a co-chair of the Mitt Romney for President campaign (which I do not believe he should have done but understand why). But the very Monday after the revelation, he denied the most serious of charges. All but one. The one that he was gay. He said he was.
So what?
Again, he was not married with children and trying to live in two worlds. Was it smart to hook-up online as the article in the Phoenix New Times alleges? I do not think that it was. But by all accounts it was before he was elected sheriff. Again, first rule is not to have something embarrassing come out, so to speak. Being gay is not what is embarrassing. But having a self-portrait of one's self without a shirt and using that for the online hook-up, hmm, that might be embarrassing.
If Sheriff Babeu was having a sexual relationship knowingly with an illegal alien, is that a disqualifier?
You becha!
In fact, that should be the only issue.
And the Left Angeles Times article indicates that as this goes on, it does not appear to be all that cut and dry. In fact the word "deportation" may have never been used.
What appears to have happened is simple.
Two lovers had a falling out and one is seeking revenge against the other.
Surprisingly, that happens a lot. Yeah, I know. You never hear about such things in the heterosexual world, do you?
I have more confidence in Sheriff Babeu than he does in himself.
If the charges are proven false, then those asserting them should be prosecuted. For again, he probably did nothing wrong than have a few marginally racy photos with other men and got into what turned out to be a bad relationship.
Knowing all this, would I vote for Sheriff Babeu for office?
Yeah, why not?
He is right on the issues, that is what counts. Maybe we would disagree on the same-sex stuff, but that is not a game-changer in terms of looking for my vote.
And that is what I believe a lot of, if not the majority of Republican voters would think.
I have nothing against a gay and or lesbian conservative. We are on the same side more than not. We need to gain more of them. Those that respect individual freedom of the tyranny of the group. And to me Paul Babeu represents that and we should support him rather than turn against him for unproven charges.
For the left, if they can not defeat a candidate on the issues, make the voters think about something else to defeat an opponent. Like being openly gay in the Republican party.

An Update On Salvation Mountain

Back in May of 2012, there was an article in the Left Angeles Times about a man named Leonard Knight and his masterpiece called Salvation Mountain.
I wrote a post about it here.
It appears that now 80 years old, Mr Knight is no longer doing his labor of love according to this update in today's Left Angeles Times.
Now Salvation Mountain is beginning to show signs of slippage because the one man that kept it up and fresh, Mr. Knight, is no longer able to because of declining health. Mr. Knight is now in a convalescent home near San Diego, the victim of aging.
Yet according to the article, there are people willing to take the baton and keep up the mountain in some form.
It is a true testament to the message that Mr. Knight was saying all along.
God is love.
And the love is being shown by many that want to keep the unique art and important message alive.
In my post from 2010, I had hoped to see Salvation Mountain and meet Mr. Knight. Meeting Mr. Knight may not happen. But I believe that the mountain will survive long after Mr. Knight goes off to the Glory.
And at the end of the day, that message of love is what it is all about. And a new generation will show the same love and care that Mr. Knight showed for this amazing place, Salvation Mountain.

One Of The Most Dreaded Days Of The Year-Academy Awards Sunday

That's right!
Academy Awards Sunday is one of the most dreaded days in the calendar year.
And regrettably, we are having the 84th annual Academy Awards show sometime this evening in Hollyweird, California.
It is so weird this year that it is not being held at The Kodak Theatre.
Because of Kodak's filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, one of the things they got out of is slapping it's name on the auditorium in which the elite snobs of Hollyweird get to have their annual love-fest.
Now the former Kodak Theatre is known as the Hollywood and Highland Center.
I know what you must be thinking. Who really cares? I know that I don't. But since this event is but miles from the RVFTLC headquarters, I will at least give a little background.
If I must endure this crap, you must share it with me fair readers.
I believe that it has already started to see the snobbish elite gals walking down the Red Carpet and showing off their multi-thousand dollar outfits. And the guys, wanting to be oh so cool forgetting to shave a couple of days and wearing tuxes with no bow tie. So frickin cool. NOT!
What always amazes me is that an industry that has the nerve to constantly knock about us 46 percenters as being selfish and haters celebrates naval-gazing at such a pathetic level.
All it is for about 4,500 members of the Academy of Arts and Motion Pictures to vote on a bunch of categories on movies most people have never seen.
Oh, even the Left Angeles Times seemed to notice that this group is pretty old, pretty male and pretty White.
But hey, let them lecture us knuckledraggers on what is wrong with the United States.
No, I will be safely in The Bunker as this dreck goes on, and on, and on, and on.
I will be in The Bunker with Scout the Wonder Dog and Cashew the Little Guy. We will have our own little party. HA!
Oh, for all disclosure, Mrs. RVFTLC is having a gathering of gal pals and is watching this dreck from about 3pm local time on.
But, I, your humble blogger will be here on the computer rather than watch such garbage.
Thank God that this is only once a year.

I Would Like To Apologize For Our Dear Leader, President Barack Hussein Obama

Since the United States army made the act of burning Islamic holy books, the Koran, recently, our Dear Leader, President Obama, felt the need to apologize for the action.
The thanks for such an action is that so far four United States soldiers have been killed by Islamic fanatics in Afghanistan.
But that is another post.
Because the leader of this nation felt the need to apologize before all the facts were in, once again, I must offer my apology.
And so, here it is.
I, on behalf of the 46 percent of Americans that did not vote for the Democrat presidential candidate in 2008, do apologize to the American people. No, check that.
The world for the 53 percent of my fellow countrymen, and women, who did vote for the President of the United States, the Dear Leader, Barack Hussein Obama.
I feel the need to apologize because I am rather embarrassed for our Great Land.
That the highest elected representative claims to speak for me and yet, he rarely does.
The fact is that some of those 53 percenters are having doubt of what their vote has wrought on the Great Land is a good thing. Hopefully they will remember their angst come November.
But this apology is not complete without a list. A list of what the President of the United States, the Dear Leader, President Obama, hath wrought on our nation.
The list is very large so I will just hit the highlights.
I am sorry, on behalf of the 46 percent and our new friends and allies for the following actions of the Dear Leader, President Barack Hussein Obama.
First, I am sorry that the president has ran up $4,000,000,000,000 in the national debt in this, his first and God willing only term as president. I am really sorry to those that I will never know that will have the burden of paying off this abomination.
And that is not counting the record deficit that this president has run since becoming president in 2009.
I am sorry that under the Dear Leader, President Obama, unemployment rose to staggering numbers. That it was as high as 9.3% and only now is beginning some signs of improvement at 8.5%. Yet it was our Dear Leader, President Obama, that promised if congress passed his $700,000,000,000 so-called "stimulus" bill that unemployment at this time would be below six percent.
I call that fuzzy math.
I am sorry that Obamacare has passed and that we are now finding out what is in it to quote that wretched former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. I am sorry that it will not do what we were told. But I will not say "I told you so."
I am sorry that our president still has a hate for us 46 percenters.
You do not think so?
Well, he still has a hard time dealing with us bitter clingers. You know those of us that cling to our guns (not that much for your humble blogger) and our Holy Bibles (yes, I do!). Every so often, a condescending comment is made as if we are just kidding.
To illustrate the point I reference this article about our Dear Leader, President Obama, doubting a woman's story about the difficulties of her husband attaining a new job.
Nothing like talking down to the people, I always say!
Those are some domestic highlights.
On foreign affairs, I just want to apologize for our Dear Leader, President Obama, actually doing the right thing in ordering the killing of Osama bin-Laden. I know that many are just grief-stricken by that. And I am sorry for all the other killings of terrorists that he has ordered be done. I am sorry that he was actually protecting our country above all else.
While I am being tongue-and-cheek above, I am really sorry that because of inept people, we may end of being on the wrong side of the so-called "Arab spring". I am sorry that we may have tossed aside one bad set of players for an even worse set of players in the Islamic Arab world.
I am sorry that we have left the Iraqi people high and dry and on their own.
I am sorry that we see, to be interested in, well apologizing an awful lot in our foreign dealings under this president.
The good news is that this apology can be a meaningful one soon.
The full effect of this apology should be us 46 percenters convincing some of those we know, and we all know someone, who voted for the Dear Leader, President Obama, last time to vote for the Republican candidate this time around. Hence, these are our new friends and allies.
Defeating the Dear Leader, President Obama, is the only way to have this heartfelt apology mean anything.

Discussing Satan. . .Well, Isn't THAT Special?!

Well, thanks to Rick Santorum discussing the subject of Satan in 2008, the Devil is entering his way into the Republican race for president.
And I am all in on writing about the Devil, Satan, Beelzebub, whatever one wants to call the harnesser of evil.
Let me stipulate that Mr. Santorum was a private citizen speaking to a traditionalist Roman Catholic school, Ave Maria University. He was not at this point a sitting senator.
What is amazing is that Mr. Santorum was using language that I would not expect at an RC setting. It is more Evangelical and even fundamentalist Christian than what I am familiar about the RC view of Satan.
Here is a bit of what Mr. Santorum said at this speech:

"This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country - the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age?"

The language Mr. Santorum used is amazing but one that I totally agree with.
Satan, whether one believes is an actual being or a force, is a great deceiver. That much any Christian believes.
But the question is should the potential next president of the United States have been saying such things?
As a Christian believer, yes.
As potential president, no.
No matter what, whoever is running for president is not running for Christian Theologian-in-chief.
But they do not and should not leave their values at the door either.
It is a fine line any candidate walks.
Keep in mind that Mr. Santorum made the above speech in 2008. And it is I presume what he believes.
Mr. Santorum is a devout Roman Catholic. I for one find it refreshing that someone of faith speaks with such conviction.
Right now, the current occupier of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama says that he is a Christian. But does he speak about a struggle between good and evil? Does he, as a Christian not president, speak about the role of faith in his life?
Before you answer about his speech before the National Prayer Breakfast which I commented on here, that was not what I had in mind.
That whether one likes it or not, there is a struggle between good and evil. Right and wrong.
I have no problem with a candidate or sitting president speaking on this kind of very personal and deep issues of faith.
So we should applaud that Mr. Santorum would speak boldly and with conviction. And if he is the nominee and eventually president we would know that he stands by his convictions.

You Know Who Was A Crazy Social Conservative? How About Ronald Reagan?!

Yep, that is correct my friends.
Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Ronaldus Maximus as Rush Limbaugh refers to the man that was our 40th president.
Ahh, but you would not know that Mr. Reagan was indeed a social conservative. I mean, he was the full-spectrum conservative before the term was cool.
Ronald Reagan was a fiscal conservative, national defense/foreign policy conservative and yes, a social conservative.
Today, many of the same members of the leftywhore media establishment that spent eight years trying desperately to bring down the Great Man are yearning for the Reagan Years.
And they are revising the history to make their case.
One of the charges is that Mr. Reagan did not do enough to advance the social conservative cause.
Maybe on the surface that is true. I suppose in hindsight Mr. Reagan could have done more.
Yet just discussing issues that no one else would was a start that in many ways continues with the actuality of changing people minds on given issues.
Take abortion.
When Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980, the dreaded Roe v. Wade decision that took abortion laws away from the states and uniformally made allowing unfettered access to abortion the law of the land was seven years old. By all accounts, the people of the United States did not seem to think that it was a bad thing. After all, it is not that abortions were not done before the decision. But in most states it was illegal or so heavily regulated that it was hard for a woman to attain one.
Yet in the 1980 Republican party platform, it began an unended streak that the GOP is the party committed to ending abortion on demand. That the party would seek a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade. And who wanted that part of the party manifesto?
That crazy so con, RWR, that's who.
And so funny how because of that, Mr. Reagan lost the election.
NO, hold the phone!
I'm sorry, despite that as the official policy of the GOP, Mr. Reagan won a 44-state landslide.
Another thing that the crazy so con, Reagan did would baffle most today.
In 1983, the economy barely showing signs of life, unemployment still high and the tax cuts that Mr. Reagan won in 1981 in jeopardy, Mr. Reagan submitted this essay on abortion that appeared in the Human Life Review. This amazing essay was written entirely by Mr. Reagan.
But please, rest assured that it was all lip-service according to leftywhore media clowns that covered Mr. Reagan back in the day.
In this article by Penny Starr she cites such luminaries as Walter Shapiro saying such things as this:

RAZ: "[Reagan] wasn't really a culture warrior, was he?"

SHAPIRO: "I mean, he -- it is telling that every year he addressed the National Right to Life anti-abortion march in Washington by telephone, even though they were half-a-mile from the White House, because he didn't want the visuals of being perceived as that much of a cultural warrior. And abortion was as legal when Ronald Reagan left office as it was when he came into office."

Yeah see, Mr. Reagan should have been front and center at the March For Life. Yessir.
No. Because Mr. Reagan did not want the issue to be about him but the focus of what people were there for. To end the abomination known as Roe v Wade.
That, my friends, is the sign of a smart, savvy politician.
And here is by just speaking on the issue the nation is moving in a direction that the majority of Americans want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.
Somewhere in the high 70 to low 80% of Americans in any given poll were for the Roe v. Wade decision during Mr. Reagan's two terms in office. Yes, it was still the law of the land before, during and when Mr. Reagan left Washington, D. C. in 1989.
Yet today support has dropped in poll after poll to the low to mid 50% range. Some polls have actually shown a majority want to see Roe v. Wade overturned entirely. And now many states are passing laws that do restrict unfettered access to abortion. One other aspect that has helped is technology. That technology kind of sort of makes it hard to say that a baby is just a blob. A fetus.
But that change would not have started if it were not for that crazy so con, Ronald Reagan.
Another aspect of the left infiltrating the GOP and trying to pass the Equal Rights Amendment to the United States constitution met its end thanks to Mr. Reagan. Once the amendment failed to be ratified by two-thirds of the state legislatures by 1984, the GOP never mentioned support for the odeious amendment again. The Republican party as always been the party of women, yet with the help of the ever compliant leftywhore media, one would never know it.
Or how about this gem again from the 1980 GOP platform on families:

The family is the foundation of our social order. It is the school of democracy. Its daily lessons—cooperation, tolerance, mutual concern, responsibility, industry—are fundamental to the order and progress of our Republic. But the Democrats have shunted the family aside. They have given its power to the bureaucracy, its jurisdiction to the courts, and its resources to government grantors. For the first time in our history, there is real concern that the family may not survive.

Government may be strong enough to destroy families, but it can never replace them.

Unlike the Democrats, we do not advocate new federal bureaucracies with ominous power to shape a national family order. Rather, we insist that all that all domestic policies, from child care and schooling to Social Security and the tax code, must be formulated with the family in mind.

No "It Takes A Village" there!
And to further the point about families is this from the same document:

In view of the continuing efforts of the present (Carter) Administration to define and influence the family through such federally funded conferences as the White House Conference on Families, we express our support for legislation protecting and defending the traditional American family against the ongoing erosion of its base in our society.

Today, a Republican candidate for President, Rick Santorum, addresses many of these same issues and he is totally demonized. And told to keep quiet and get with it. All your traditional values talk is so old-fashioned.
Yet it did not stop one Ronald Reagan from speaking about these issues. And all he did was win the presidency in two landslide elections. And change the face of American politics long after he left the White House.
And one way Mr. Reagan changed things was the willingness to talk about some very uncomfortable social issues.
Ronald Reagan was the original crazy social conservative. Crazy like a fox!

Lent Is Around The Corner

Tomorrow is the celebration of Shrove Tuesday in the Christian world.
OK, not all Christians celebrate it. Mostly those who are in liturgical churches, Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant.
I am still, some days barely, a member of the Episcopal Church and we are a liturgical church.
The point of Shrove Tuesday is to get rid of the items that make for good and rich food.
And the purpose of that?
To begin the season known as Lent.
Lent is the 46 day period from Ash Wednesday to Easter Eve or The Great Vigil of Easter. And here is how Anglicans/Episcopalians celebrate The Great Vigil.
Whenever I bring up the subject of Lent, my American Baptist friend gives a brush off. He is amazed that his own church has been taking up the discipline the last several years. He would consider it too Roman Catholic.
While he is correct, as noted in the link, many non-liturgical churches are beginning this discipline. And it is a good thing.
For many, particularly Roman Catholics, it is all about "What are you giving up for Lent?" And mostly it is mundane stuff. Yeah, I never have heard one yet say they were giving up sex. Or maybe cutting back on the adult beverage. Or not going to the movies. A sporting event. A concert. You get the picture. As I said it is something usually mundane.
However, what I find Lent can be about is what are you going to do for Lent? Not focusing on a sacrifice, but of restoring one or more Christian disciplines.
Some people suggest they will read and study the Holy Bible more. Now most Roman Catholics do little if any true bible study. That is something rather unique to the Protestant world. And Protestant liturgical churches promote that as a discipline.
Traditionally, Lent was the period of preparation for a candidate to receive Holy Baptism and Confirmation as a full member of the church. It is still followed today, but at least in the Protestant tradition not with the strictness of the days of yore.
But it is a time of great expectation and immense sadness. After all it culminates not with the triumphal ride of Jesus Christ into the gates of the Holy city of Jerusalem. But it culminates with the crufifiction of Jesus on Mount Calvary.
But that is the bad part.
Of course there is the breaking of the stone and Jesus rising on the third day and taking his seat at the right hand of the Father.
But what are you doing for Lent? Is it giving up something and showing off about it? Or is it committing yourself to something like a disciplined time for intense prayer?
For me, I will commit myself to following reading the Holy Bible, King James Version of course, on a daily basis. I will try to follow the calendar of readings set forth by the church.
Remember, Lent is around the corner. It is the time to get closer to God.

Wanna Know Why Conservatives And Liberals Can't Seem To Have A Conversation With Each Other?

For once, the Left Angeles Times had something in today's op-ed section that was useful.
In the print edition, the conservative vs. liberal discussion was titled Cross Purposes.
What it really was about is a conservative writer and a liberal novelist writing about why it is so hard to speak with each other.
It is worth linking the liberal first, Diana Wagman because, as a conservative, I think that reading her point of view is instructive.
One has to go only a few short paragraphs to get the thought that because the people her and her husband were having a good time because they were. . .Democrats.
In paragraph five, we find that one of those people had the nerve to say the following:

"The tea party is not racist."

WHOA! Mrs. Wagman was totally taken aback. She could not believe it. And worse, how can a dude married to a Black woman be a member of the Tea Party?
Now it should be noted that while the conversation deteriorated, it appears that a lot of adult beverage passed the lips of those participating.
And that is never a good thing.
Yet as I continued to read Mrs. Wagman, she went on to write about what she thought was so right and logical that it clearly set up the end result:

My views on all these things — gay marriage, abortion, the war in Iraq, healthcare, education, food stamps, even NPR and PBS funding — seem so logical to me. Of course we need to take care of those less fortunate; of course we want everybody to have the joy and legal benefits of a life partner; of course we want every baby to be wanted and every person to be safe, healthy, informed and looking forward to a better future.

Well, of course Mrs. Wagman is in Fantasyland, IMHO.
But would it be a dealbreaker to me to be friends with someone that we had such political disagreements?
For me, no.
But for Mrs. Wagman, her life is her politics. And she just does not understand why anyone would disagree with her point of view.
And how she ends her piece is to me rather tragic:

Next time I drive to our cabin, I'm going to make sure I take everything I could possibly need. I don't want to ask my neighbors for help. I hope it's their weekend to stay home.

Really, Mrs. Wagman? You claim that as a liberal you are the one that is tolerant. That you have the superior ideas. That everyone should agree with that no matter what. Yet when the opportunity is there to engage with someone on the other side, you would rather not.
It is the smugness of the liberal mind.
So, I read with great interest Charlotte Allen and her take as to why it is so difficult to talk to a liberal.
For one, I am totally understanding of Mrs. Allen and her family relations.
She points out that most of her family are liberals.
Same with me.
As I have written here before, I am the only Republican in my family. Living or dead. I am the first and only one that I know of. Talk about being outnumbered!
But bless Mrs. Allen's heart for trying to engage with liberal people. Here how well that works out:

Whenever I advance to them even the mildest of challenges to liberal orthodoxies, on topics ranging from the welfare state to illegal immigration to abortion, I'm greeted with name-calling, obscenities, shout-overs and, finally, the grave-like silence of ostracism.

Yep, that sounds just about my experience with my family mostly.
That is why I have tried desperately to follow the Dennis Prager rule. That it is not worth talking about politics and or religion with family members that you know there is disagreement.
But Mrs. Allen points out that for the liberal, there is not that kind of common courtesy.

The personal is always the political, and vice versa. I nearly lost one of my oldest and dearest friends in 2004 after she forwarded me an email containing an incendiary anti-George W. Bush op-ed by the leftist novelist E.L. Doctorow. Among other charges in the op-ed, which made Bush look about as caring as King George III in the run-up to the Revolutionary War, Doctorow claimed Bush didn't care about the "forty percent" of Americans "who cannot afford health insurance." "Do you really believe this?" I emailed back, pointing out that Doctorow had gotten his numbers jumbled. It was not 40% but 40 million Americans — more like 15% — who lacked health insurance for various reasons back then. It took six years for my friend and me to mend our sundered relationship.

Now note the contrast between the angst of Mrs. Allen nearly losing a long-time friend over some political disagreement and Mrs. Wagman totally dismissing a potential new friend because they were not of the same political mindset. Mrs. Allen was in pain because she did not want a political disagreement to ruin a friendship.
That is humanity at the gut, personal level. Something that Mrs. Wagman really did not show other than in a smug, condescending way.
The rest of what Mrs. Allen wrote is funny and so true to my own experience in dealing with many liberals.
But what both sides need to realize is that at a level of personal relationship, we are not all that far apart.
I firmly believe that we both want the best for our children. Our families. Out neighborhoods. Our cities, states and nation. We just disagree about how to get there.
To me it is not worth it, especially in family relationships, to let this politics stuff ruin relationships.
Yet the first thing is talking with each other.
An example of how this can work is a situation at church that really bothered me.
In the prayers of the people recently, we prayed for two men that were duly convicted and executed.
I was thoroughly bothered by that. I felt that two things were wrong with that. One that we forgot about the victims of the crimes that the two men were executed for. And that we are elevating the two convicted killers over those they were convicted of killing and executed for.
In a discussion group, I talked about my concern. And a member of the clergy was present. I would have to say that other than myself, there was two others that saw my point of view and are marginal supporters of the death penalty. I was the only absolute supporter of the death penalty.
We layed everything out there about it. What we thought and why we believed the way we do. The reality is that no minds were changed. But what was done is we listened to each other. We did not diminish any one's thoughts or feeling on this most contentious subject.
The problem is that when people are so convinced they are right that they do not want to hear that maybe, just maybe there is another point of view.
What I got out of the two articles?
That the liberal writer, Diana Wagman, is a caricature of liberalism, pure plain and simple. She wants to be be in her cocoon of a liberal world and not recognize that there is maybe another way of getting to the same place.
That the conservative writer, Charlotte Allen, has the more open mind. That she wants and seeks to have many friends no matter their political point of view. That a political disagreement should not end a friendship. One willing to give the other side that benefit of the doubt.
If we can not agree on how to speak with each other, then how are we able to have the discussion to begin with?

Are We Way Too Sensitive Here?

Before I write what I am going to write, it is very important to consult a dictionary for the meaning of the following word:

Chink

Here is the definition of the word courtesy of www.YourDictionary.com:

noun
a narrow opening; crack; fissure; slit
transitive verb
1.to close up the chinks in
2.Obsolete to form chinks in

noun
1.a sharp, clinking sound, as of coins striking together
2.Slang coin or cash
intransitive verb, transitive verb
to make or cause to make a sharp, clinking sound

noun, adjective
Slang Chinese: a contemptuous or patronizing term no longer much used

OK, now that is the context.
Until this week and because I hardly follow the National Basketball Association, I had no idea about Jeremy Lin, a player for the New York Knicks.
There is a term that is now in use and it is Linsanity.
The Jeremy Lin story is a one of those stories that is a feel-good one in this age of, well people like Whitney Houston and her tragic, downhill spiral.
So as Mr. Lin is having the season of his life with the Knicks, like all good stories there are bumps in the road.
And last night was no different.
After winning seven games in a row with Mr. Lin being a huge catalyst in the wins, last night the Knicks lost to the New Orleans Hornets, 89-85.
So on the ESPN website, this was the following headline:

Chink in the armor

Oh, my bad!
One thing that I forgot to mention is that Mr. Lin is Chinese-American.
Mr. Lin was born in the United States but his family emigrated from the Republic of China on Taiwan.
Mr. Lin is the first American-born Asian-American to play in the NBA.
And if you look at the definition of the word chink, you find this at the bottom of what I took from the website:

chink
noun, adjective
Slang Chinese: a contemptuous or patronizing term no longer much used

So the immediate reaction is one of horror. How dare a headline writer use the term chink in reference to the Knicks losing a game. And we all know that it is intentionally used because it is a racial slur.
One of the many definitions is that it is a crack, a fissure.
And that is what happened last night at Madison Square Garden.
I do not believe that the headline writer even thought of it in reference to the fact that Mr. Lin is Chinese-American and that it is a racial slur.
The headline is something that I have and will continue to say. Because the correct usage is not a racial slur.
Yet at this link the writer refers to the headline as a "shockingly racist headline".
Really?
Well, ESPN sure did not take long to replace the headline.
My question is why did they replace the headline?
Since it is obvious that the headline writer meant nothing racist in the headline, it should have been left alone.
But in this age of every little term, phrase, word being offensive to some one or some group, it went out into the ether of cyberspace apparently as quickly as it showed up.
Had the headline writer and or the writer used the word chink before the name of Mr. Lin, then it would be not only shocking and racist but insipid on the part of the headline writer and the writer.
But it is only the headline.
And thus I take it on face value that it was in no way meant to denigrate in any way Mr. Lin.
Does this mean now one should not use the word chink in any reference? Because we all know that is a shockingly racist term. Only. Pay no attention to the actual definitions of the word. Only the reference to Chinese.
It is a hyper case of over-sensitivity on the part of the leftywhore media.
Chink is a legitimate word and in context was totally legitimate in reference to what happened.
In fact if you read my link about Mr. Lin over at Wikipedia, note this about his personal life:

Lin considers himself a basketball player more than just an Asian American. He understands that there have not been many Asians in the NBA. "Maybe I can help break the stereotype," said Lin."I feel like Asians in general don't get the respect that we may deserve whether it comes to sports, basketball, or whatever it might be."

I highlight that he considers himself a basketball player first over being Asian-American. And he recognizes his role as a first in a rather humble way.
And that might be because of this other bit of info on Mr. Lin:

Lin is an evangelical Christian who was a leader in Harvard's Asian American Christian Fellowship during his time there. Lin would one day like to be a pastor who can head up non-profit organizations, either home or abroad. He has also talked of working in inner-city communities to help with underprivileged children.

Well, that maybe OK to insult. You know, if you are a Christian, it is cool to maybe offend because, well we all know that they are nuts, right?!
Really this whole story reeks of the long arm of political correctness. That it is so pervasive in our nation that we can not even use legitimate words in describing a team effort in losing a game. It was not Jeremy Lin, Chinese-American, that lost the game but the New York Knicks basketball team.
The chink in the armor is that of the word police rum amok.

Dave Mustaine, Cool. Foo Fighters Down A Notch

OK, a lot of people have no clue as what the above headline means because it involves pop culture and hard rock/heavy metal music.
But why the aforementioned even get this post involves, what else, politics.
Dave Mustaine is the front man for the metal band Megadeth, a heavy metal band very popular in the 1980s and 90s.
The Foo Fighters are currently a very popular hard rock band in the present.
So why are they in the news for any reason involving politics.
Well, lets start with the Foos.
It is no secret that the lead singer/guitarist, Dave Grohl, is left-of-center. In this post from this past November, I highlighted Mr. Grohl and his support for the Dear Leader, President Obama. The Money Quote:

If he asks, will you support him in his 2012 re-election bid?
Absolutely. He’s got the toughest job on earth. I would hate to hand the administration over to another party that is just focused on corporation, greed and money. You know, I’m a fun, peace-loving guy, but sometimes the right wing gets a little too selfish.

The above was from an interview Mr. Grohl conducted with The Red Bulletin.
To me, it is typical, emotional pap with no substance. Kind of like a a Toyota Prius with a load of lefty oriented bumper stickers.
And Mr. Grohl probably is, dare I write this, an eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll one percenter. Only he acts as if he should be ashamed of it.
So, Team Obama asked Mr. Grohl and the Foos and they headlined a lavish fundraiser here in the Los Angeles area.
So it is not a shock that they were asked and they delivered.
Now comes along a veteran of the rock scene in Mr. Mustaine.
An aside is that Mr. Mustaine cut his teeth as a guitarist in one of the great metal bands of all time, Metallica.
Well, Mr. Mustaine did what I suppose is the unthinkable.
Mr. Mustaine is endorsing a. . .Republican for president. And not just any Republican. But the most vocal conservative and current front runner, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum.
WHOA! Can I get a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!
A rocker endorsing this eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll theocrat, Santorum?
Well, if you can beleive that he has turned to Christianity and has educated himself on the issues, then it does NOT seem all that unusal. And it should be noted that he did "report" from the Democrat National Convention for MTV in 1992. I think MTV still played music videos back then. And yeah, he voted for former president Clinton.
But he changed over the years and moved to the right. And although I do think that his touting crazy crank Alex Jones is not great, Mr. Mustaine had a human insight as to one of the reasons he is backing Mr. Santorum.
From the New York Daily News story,

“Earlier in the election, I was completely oblivious as to who Rick Santorum was, but when the dude went home to be with his daughter when she was sick, that was very commendable,” Mustaine told the music site (MusicRadar.com).

Again, it is an emotional response, but it is a contrast as to why Mr. Mustaine showed a genuine human reaction to another person who did the right thing. Whereas Mr. Grohl seems to have bumper-sticker reason to back the Dear Leader, President Obama.
And to me, it shows that Mr. Grohl is more into being cool and popular with the youts. You know, the biggest supporters of the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Of course Mr. Mustaine is now some fuddy-duddy and supporting some old, White Republican guy for president. Never mind that Mr. Santorum is Italian-American and not all that old at 53, two years older than Mr. Mustaine and six years older than your humble blogger.
Mr. Mustaine has more guts than Mr. Grohl, pure and simple.
It is not easy to admit in the world of entertainment and the arts that you are a Republican and-DA HORROR!-a conservative.
But Mr. Mustaine lays it all out there.
By taking a road less travelled by those in his profession, it is very possible that others who have heretofore have kept their opinions to themselves to, dare I write this, come out of the closet, on their politics.
And it will be welcomed by many including myself.
As I noted, many people are very surprised at the music that I like. For as conservative as I am, I have liked hard rock/heavy metal for most of my adult life. And there is no contradiction in the least.
In my mind, Dave Mustaine now has an extra cool about him. He is not taking any crap. He is going to go out and support the most conservative running for the Republican presidential nomination. Rick Santorum.
Dave Grohl and the Foo Fighters are part of the pack mentality that liberalism fosters. Thus he and his band are but another cog in the liberal wheel. They are, well not cool. They are conformists.
As I have on this blog's sidebar, conservatives are indeed the real rebels in today's world.
And Dave Mustaine is carriying on that rebel strain and Dave Grohl is an establishment toady.

Has The Obamawhore Media Jumped The Shark?

You know, just when one thinks that the Obamawhore media can not get any more worshipful for their Messiah, The Dear Leader, President Obama, it appears that why yes they can.
Tucker Carlson over at The Daily Caller in this expose on the Obamawhore media "watchdog" group, Media Matters, has this little story of how one of the flunkies, Karl Frisch, sent out a memo that, to cut to the chase, laid the ground work to take down the Fox News Channel.
I kid you not my friends, this was their strategery to do just that:

“Simply put, the progressive movement is in need of an enemy. George W. Bush is gone. We really don’t have John McCain to kick around any more. Filling the lack of leadership on the right, Fox News has emerged as the central enemy and antagonist of the Obama administration, our Congressional majorities and the progressive movement as a whole.”

“We must take Fox News head-on in a well funded, presidential-style campaign to discredit and embarrass the network, making it illegitimate in the eyes of news consumers.”

“We should hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff.” .

“We should look into contracting with a major law firm to study any available legal actions that can be taken against Fox News, from a class action law suit to defamation claims for those wronged by the network. I imagine this would be difficult but the right law firm is bound to find some legal ground for us to take action against the network.”

“An elaborate shareholder campaign. This can take many forms, from a front group of shareholders, to passing resolutions at shareholder meetings or massive demonstrations are [sic] shareholder meetings.”

“We should also hire a team of trackers to stake out private and public events with Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors and senior network/corporate staff.”

“If we need to buy tickets for events that these people will be speaking at, so be it.”

"Mailing anti-Fox News literature to their homes and placing yard signs and outdoor advertising in their neighborhoods.”

“Fox is likely to retaliate. Media Matters should find ways to protect the privacy of our employees and the security of our office.”

Whiskey? Tango? Foxtrot?
Where does one begin?
Well, the obvious is that Media Matters is really scared of FNC. So scared that they were ready to pretty much do anything and everything to bring the network down.
But what fascinates me is the opening graph in this memo.
The fact that the Obamawhore media was actively looking for enemies. That they had such little confidence in their guy that they looked for an enemy. Or a very big fish in FNC. And why did they look to FNC as an enemy?
The fact is that the left looks at FNC the way many conservatives look at the major media. As an enemy. The Obamawhore media really thinks that FNC gets it marching orders from the Republican National Committee.
FTR, I did not think that the Leftywhore media was coordinating itself.
Until Team Obama came to Washington.
With the leftywhore Jornolist of Ezra Klein to the open fawning of the Dear Leader, President Obama, by what should be objective journalists, and now this, one can not help but think that the Leftywhore media has decided to throw any pretense of objectivity out the window.
Take some seemingly random situations and one can see that hmm, maybe there was as much as a coordinated effort between Media Matters and the White House to try to discredit FNC.
For instance, how about former White House aide, Anita Dunn? Remember her tirade against FNC on third-place "rival", Cable News Network? She went on to lambaste FNC as some arm of the GOP.
HA! If only.
Oh, don't forget that Mrs. Dunn somehow was able to wrap Red China founder Mas Tse-tung and Mother Teresa as two of her favorite political philosophers.
Choice.
A lot more about this manipulation with the White House can be found here from Ed Morrissey at HotAir.
Remind me when FNC and conservative media coordinated the line of attack with the George W. Bush White House?
Oh, I know you will cite some radio talk show hosts visiting the White House. Well too bad that did not go over all that well. Many of these hosts turned against then President Bush pretty quick on many issues.
The fact is that Media Matters, the media Axis of Evil in Washington, D. C., New York City and Los Angeles, and what I call collectively as the Obamawhore media have been thoroughly exposed.
And guess what?
FNC is still going strong, grounding two legacy media outlets, MSNBC and CNN, into near oblivion.
The problem with these groups is that when there is another point of view, people will watch, read or listen. And yet they have a real hard time accepting the marketplace. That the very free media, free from government control and or manipulation, can not be so if they are in bed with the people that they may like.
Thus The Daily Caller in exposing Media Matters has cemented and made it clear.
There really is an Obamawhore media.

Meet Master Cashew

It has been a busy time here at Right View From The Left Coast Headquarters.
And the reason is that little guy above, Master Cashew.
He is the newest member of the RVFTLC family.
Master Cashew joined our family two Saturday's ago.
Yes, he is a rescue although we did get him through a pet shop. The pet shop only deals with rescue dogs on the brink. And we have the papers to prove that he was with the Los Angeles city shelter.
He is a Cocker Spaniel-Golden Retriever mix. I think you can tell the Cocker is most prominent.
Master Cashew is 10 months old. Hmm, not really house trained, but we are working on it.
And Scout the Wonder Dog is handling it all pretty well considering her senior age of 14 1/2 years old.
If you want to follow the adventures of Master Cashew, I am trying to keep it all on my Facebook page.
Now that things are getting more normal, it is time to blog on the issues of the day.

An Update To Common Sense In Los Angeles County

Well, it did not take long for the Los Angeles county board of supervisors to reverse itself and will not enforce a new ordinance that could have fined beach goers up to $1,000 for throwing a Frisbee or football on county beaches.
On Tuesday the county board raised the fines for violation to $1,000 and issued a 37-page ordinance on the issue.
But today, the county Department of Beaches and Harbors refined the policy and will allow the tradition of throwing a Frisbee and or a football so long as those get permission from a lifeguard.
See, as noted in this previous post, common sense in this case actually prevailed.
And citizens righteous outrage also may have had something to do with it.
The original justification, "public safety" did not go over too well because most do not believe this overreach has anything to do with "public safety" but is an attempt by a cash-strapped county to find other sources of revenue.
Score one for the people this time, folks.
Even in the middle of insane Blue California, the people will only take so much of big government. Especially on the beaches.

Common Sense In Los Angeles County? Are You Frickin Kidding?!

One wonders if the Los Angeles county board of supervisors ever actually get out of their offices in downtown Los Angeles and live with the very people they claim to represent.
Since I have lost count, lets chalk up the latest action of the board as another unbelievable encroachment of the Nanny State at the beach.Keep in mind that there is a lot of beach space in Los Angeles county. But if you want to go and have fun, forget it!
Now the basis of this abuse of power is. . .wait for it. . .public safety.
Are you frickin kidding me?!
Hey, here is something for the Los Angeles county board of supervisors to note.
You know there is another beach activity called surfing. I think I need somewhat explain it to you folks.
Surfing is when a dude or a gal gets up on this board and like ride waves. And like the higher the wave, the cooler the ride.
But you know what happens out there, dude?
Something called a wipe-out.
You know that is when you, you know, can't ride the wave and it is like so awesome full of energy that it knocks you off your board.
And another thing is that there are like some dangerous other things out in the water.
Like, you know, riptides. And jellyfish. And, whoa dude! Sharks.
Maybe our esteemed board of supervisors ought to ban surfing. And maybe boogie-boarding. And paddle-boarding. And body-surfing too. You know, all are dangerous and may affect the public safety.
No, really.
See what happens in the absurdity of the Nanny State?
OK, sometimes Frisbee and football throwers can be inconsiderate. But usually if they do bother people, all that has to be done is a gentle nudge and a "hey dude!" and usually the offenders back away and go someplace else.
In other words, almost all of the time, a little common sense is all that is needed.
But what this is really all about, IMHO, is another revenue stream for a cash-strapped county.
And what is really happening is that law enforcement is being reduced to glorified tax collectors with a sidearm.
As one that loves the beach, I can assure you that really very little goes on that a lifeguard can not handle. If there is a group of idiots that have no manners, usually a lifeguard can get in and rectify the situation.
But no.
There is a hope that this summer will produce a bunch of idiots that will flood Los Angeles county beaches and be no more than a cash cow because they can't play Frisbee and throw a football without incurring a not-so-righteous fine.
One of the problems in Nanny Statism is the fact that it is not in the best interests of most people. It is usually in reaction to an unusual event. And a clamor from special interest groups to "do something" about it.
Bottom line is that not only is it a blatant encroachment of people having responsible freedom. But it is an attempt to find new ways of revenue for a government. Neither is a good thing.
One hopes that the Los Angeles county board of supervisors will rethink this stupid ordinance and have common sense reign once again.

Santorum Three For Three Tonight!

In a possible real turning point to the Republican presidential nomination Death March, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum scored a clean sweep of three contests in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri tonight.
In Colorado and Minnesota it was caucus night and Mr. Santorum won in Colorado with about 40% of the caucus vote. In Minnesota Mr. Santorum scored 47% of the caucus vote.
But the big result is the primary in Missouri where Mr. Santorum got 55% of the vote.
The reason that Missouri is a big deal is the fact that Mr. Santorum won every single county in the state. No one else did. Not Mitt Romney. Not Ron Paul. And certainly not Newt Gingrich, who was not on the ballot here.
Now, you will hear that there were no delegates chosen in any of the three races.
That is true. But the results should give the eventual delegates to Mr. Santorum.
It would not be cool to have these contests and at a later date choose delegates at state and or county conventions that the voters did not favor.
Several things come out of tonight's votes.
One, Mr. Santorum is now the last conservative standing. Newt Gingrich is fading like the Hindenburg did over Lakehurst, New Jersey in 1937.
Two, for all the talk of the Ron Paul campaign being masters of the caucus process, my question is this.
Wha happen?!
Second place or third is not a sign of great organization as far as I can tell.
Three, now the Leftywhore media will start having to take Mr. Santorum seriously. He has won in four states. Mr. Gingrich, the Leftywhore and even some conservative media favorite has only won in one state. South Carolina.
Four, Mitt Romney needs to desperately step it up if he is going to be the eventual Republican presidential nominee.
What tonight proves is that in this election season, nothing is absolute on the Republican side. And that while this race started with a lot of candidates, the last three, and yeah, Crazy Uncle Ron Paul, are he most serious ones.
Saturday is the caucus in Maine. Mr. Romney should win there. But again, if tonight is any indication, Mr. Santorum could provide some fireworks.
Now, I do not hear it, but maybe Mr. Santorum should tell Mr. Gingrich to get out of the race and not to stand in the way of the clear conservative alternative. But, unlike the classless Mr. Gingrich, I do not think that you will hear this from Mr. Santorum.
We are now down to two men who are the serious fighters for the Republican presidential nomination.
They are Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.
And tonight's results put Mr. Santorum in the game for sure and maybe for keeps.

New York Giants Beat New England Patriots, 21-17 In Super Bowl XLVI

Once again, the New York Giants dispatched the New England Patriots, 21-17 in Super Bowl XLVI that just concluded in Indianapolis, Indiana.
Once again, those of us that hate the Pats can celebrate another bit of slapping Tom Brady back to earth.
And I for one am a big fan of Eli Manning. Hell, I liked the old man, Archie Manning. To bad the old man played for the New Orleans Saints when they were the Aints.
But this was a game that I regret not having watched.
There is an addition to the Right View From The Left Coast family.
No, Mrs. RVFTLC was not in the family way.
We adopted a new dog as a companion to Scout the Wonder Dog.
His name is Master Cashew (Peanut). He is a Cocker Spaniel-Golden Retriever mix.
It took a while and that is another post.
But this one is to celebrate a great comeback from a great team, the New York Giants.
And an actual exciting Super Bowl.

And Newt Is The ONLY Conservative "Alternative" To Romney?

Of course not!
But damn that media narrative.
Hell, even Fox News Channel, as The Other McCain pointed out in this epic rant, National Review, The American Spectator and The Weekly Standard have pretty much played the narrative that the race is a two-man one.
Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.
Too bad that Rick Santorum guy keeps popping up everywhere.
And I guess the fact that Mr. Santorum in this tracking poll is ahead of the Dear Leader, President Obama, ahh nothing to see here. Pay no attention. For it is only Mitt and Newt.
Don't you believe it!
Mr. Santorum needs to keep doing what he is doing.
As these Republican primaries and caucuses keep going, Mr. Santorum needs to keep in and win somewhere.
One place that he may do well and win is Ohio.
That is a large state. A swing state. And one that seems to lean Republican at this point in time. And being from the Western Pennsylvania area, the Eastern border of Ohio, will not hurt either. And he can communicate his message to people that might not think Republican in better terms that either Mr. Gingrich or Mr. Romney.
So, today the people of Nevada get to put there wooden nickels in the Republican caucus being held later today. Mitt Romney should easily win, but if Mr. Santorum can finish a decent second, he may just be on the road to slaying the dragon known as Newt Gingrich.
Then it will be a real two man race between Mitt and Rick.
Remember, there is another conservative who can actually win and that is Rick Santorum. Because Newt Gingrich can not.

The Dear Leader Is Down With Jesus Because He Wanted Taxes Raised

Today, the Dear Leader, President Obama, gave a blatantly political speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D. C.
What a surprise you might say.
Or not.
At what is usually an innocuous event that presidents have spoken at since President Eisenhower was the first in 1953, the Dear Leader, President Obama, used biblical passages to make the case for bigger government.
But before dissecting that part of the speech, I do want to commend the president on the fact that he is not ashamed to be a man of prayer. And how he found Christ. That is a powerful story.
However, he did not mention that the church that he "worshipped" in for 20 years, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago is a black-separatist church. Or that when he somehow realized that the former senior pastor, the "Rev." Jeremiah Wright was, oh how shall I write this, colorful to say the least and that caused problems, he dropped his relationship with the "Rev." Wright like a hot piece of lead.
But I always will contend and in fact defend that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is a Christian. And he gave the most overt speech about his Christian walk ever.
However, this is the Dear Leader, President Obama. And giving a political speech any where, any time, any place is his modus operandi.
And today was no different.
The following directly from the speech transcript is astonishing in that somehow, Jesus is just cool with big government:

And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren't discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren't taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody. But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God's command to "love thy neighbor as thyself." I know the version of that Golden Rule is found in every major religion and every set of beliefs -- from Hinduism to Islam to Judaism to the writings of Plato.

OK.
I am just trying, I really am, to find in the Holy Bible where it calls for big government to justify "Love thy neighbor as thyself".
It is because it is not there in the Holy Bible.
And here is a counter-passage from the Gospel of Matthew, 6: 1-4 that may trump the above assertion:

“Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 3 But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.

It is relevant because our Dear Leader, President Obama, continues:

And when I talk about shared responsibility, it's because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it's hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. And I think to myself, if I'm willing to give something up as somebody who's been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that's going to make economic sense.

You see, if one looks at the government in the welfare business, they are indeed puffing themselves up about all the wonderful things that they do for the less fortunate. And government welfare is a form of charity. Yes, it is. The fact is that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is looking for a pat on the back from Almighty God for advocating taking money from people, the supposed eeeeevvvvviiilllll rich, have it pass through the government, and then distribute it as it sees fit.
The biblical tithe of 10% of one's income is not for the government. It really is not. It is to give to the church to help those less fortunate. Oh, I know that there is Jesus saying render onto Caesar what is Caesar's and render onto God what is God's. But I do not think that Jesus really cared about American tax policy circa 2012.
But to use the National Prayer Breakfast to recite a laundry list of policies of the Dear Leader, President Obama, is just plain bizarre.
But wait, it really is not.
Because it fits into a view of Christianity that has been rightly summed up by Glenn Beck.
Collective Salvation.
While he did touch on his own personal relationship with Christ and about one's individual salvation, he really believes in Collective Salvation. It is not enough to have is own relationship with Christ. Everyone has to be the beneficiary whether they do or not. It is also the umbrella in which social justice is promulgated in Mainline Protestant churches. You know. Like Jesus was cool because he was for the poor. And he hated the rich people. All that kind of stuff.
I want to sum this up with this wisdom from Tina Korbe over at HotAir.com.
She is right.
It is tricky to use the Holy Bible to political problems. And it is done by both conservatives and liberals. It should be a guide to how one lives their life. That is a no-brainer for any Christian. But it should not be about how one can spiritually justify building the Socialist Utopia.
And this from Miss Korbe sums it up beautifully:

Yes, Jesus is acutely concerned with issues of authority and also with issues of wealth and poverty — but it all proceeds from the basic assumptions that authority comes from His Father and that the spiritual, in general, has primacy over the material. That is, Jesus’ injunctions to His followers to give everything they have to the poor proceed from the idea that whatever stands in the way of loving Him has got to go. It’s about His glory, not about the creation of some utopian society. Those who make Jesus’ teachings about the latter and not the former miss the major point His life, death and resurrection make.

But politicians always seem to make a mess of what the Holy Bible really means.
Too bad this one uses it to justify very bad decisions and governing.