Recent comments

In many respects, the Genesis line about human dominion over plant and animal life states the obvious. The scripture's purpose is to distinguish the human creation as exceptionally special in comparison to the remarkably awesome and beautiful spectrum of flora and fauna. Note further that the creation scripture provides no line in which man is to have dominion over another man (or over weather, or water vapor or even CO2 concentrations). While it may be a fact that humans are predisposed to dominate plants and animals, it does not follow that we should presume to be anything more than feeble actors with respect to the sun's radiant heat, the planet's weather and atmospheric greenhouse balances that are essential to life.

I see nothing in Genesis that lends support to surrendering our economic activities to review, modification and approval (or confiscation) by a new climate police presuming to possess the power to save the planet. Put another way, I don't see how can we use Genesis to support man's dominion over other men. I am concerned about an imbalance in carbon releases, but I suggest we stop deforestation and plant a lot more trees. But the Left prefers to shove a Chevy Volt up our posteriors, and then tells us to like it.

I think people are creating a gulf between Santorum's views and the Vatican's that doesn't exist --

"There exists a certain reciprocity: as we care for creation, we realize that God, through creation, cares for us. On the other hand, a correct understanding of the relationship between man and the environment will not end by absolutizing nature or by considering it more important than the human person. If the Church's magisterium expresses grave misgivings about notions of the environment inspired by ecocentrism and biocentrism, it is because such notions eliminate the difference of identity and worth between the human person and other living things. In the name of a supposedly egalitarian vision of the "dignity" of all living creatures, such notions end up abolishing the distinctiveness and superior role of human beings. They also open the way to a new pantheism tinged with neo-paganism, which would see the source of man's salvation in nature alone, understood in purely naturalistic terms." -- Pope Benedict XVI ( http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=35044 )

"Well, it's perfectly clear. I mean, let's be honest. This is standard fare. I mean, I'm not saying anything particularly new here. I mean, what we have been talking about, the radical environmental agenda that puts the earth over the needs of man, that, you know, doesn't understand that the best way to create a sound environment is for people to be doing well and to have prosperity. Because you go to countries where in fact the mankind is not doing well. And let me assure you, the last thing they worry about is the environment. It depends on America's growth and prosperity, so we can in fact be good -- husband to the environment as the way we should." -- Rick Santorum ( http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/02/21/santorum-theology-comments-about-obamas-radical-energy-agenda-not-faith )

No, he did not "make peace with god", and for you to insinuate that he would consider it, is offensive.

LifeSiteNews has a nice piece on PP trying to dupe and then bully a St. Vincent de Paul food pantry. The PP racketeering is in full swing, what a coincidence that HHS is issuing its anti-life mandates now. hat tip: The Anchoress.

has been fixed with the new compromise. In fact, as I see it, the solution seems so simple that one wonders why they didn't start with this in the first place. Of course, those against the health care law and contraception before this brouhaha won;t be satisfied, but as for me, the religious liberty issues have been settled.

stopped funding it, that solves that problem, but what if you're a Catholic or Protestant organization, that gas a large number of secular employees, but is nonetheless guided by church teachings? I mean, I hear what you're saying, but if a church organization that deals with the unchurched, let's say a Christian bookstore--if you're forcing them to choose between their beliefs and providing health insurance, that's just troubling thing for me. Why notthe opt out, like the California system?

The way I read it, the Catholic institutions only have to fund birth control for their employees if a) there are more non-Catholic workers than non-Catholic workers at the place and b) if they are already funding similar medicine for male employees. Thus, if you're a Catholic hospital that has 53% non-Catholic employees, and funds Viagra for your male employees, then you're duty bound to fund birth control for your female employees as well. If you're a Catholic school which employs only Catholic workers, then there's nothing to worry about.

Of course, there could be a painless way around this; simply stop funding Viagra. Nobody's discriminated against, everybody's treated equally, and you save money as well. And they can't do that because...?

Frost calls it a trainwreck scenario. That begs virtually the same question John Anderson asked 30 years ago. What's to wreck?

Fantasy. Now could Ron Paul muck the nomination into a free for all at the convention? Possibly. But still unlikely. I'm not happy with the choices that the two-party system has given me for the last three decades but i don't see it changing anytime soon.

started, and I stand amazed as to why Reid and company have allowed this to continue on. As to the larger issue, I understand that the Senate has fin al say with regards to confirmation, and I suppose that the GOP minority has just as much of a right to refuse to confirm nominees, as the Democratic minority did during the big dust-up in 2005 that led to the Gang of 14. FWIW, I thought the Democratic filibusters were pretty hard to defend as a standing principle, and I find it rather strange that the GOP (and this includes you, apparently) finds it acceptable to subvert the process by trying to keep agencies unstaffed that were lawfully constructed. You may not like the fact that the CFPB exists, but unless you can prove the agency violates the Constitution, what's happening here is nothing short of childish sore loserism--we couldn't stop the agency from being created, so we'll just punish good people for attempting to do their job. The fact the GOP admits this makes their actions no less dishonorable.

If the Presudent's approach is in fact ultra vires, then I guess the only option is a shaming campaign, in which makes his case before the American people. The GOP may think they'll win this fight, but I think they've miscalculated.

Also, if the GOP really wants this program gone, why don't they follow the normal process, and either try and change the law, or have the program defunded? They know neither of those would pass, so they cheat. It may not be illegal, but IMO it's just wrong, and another reason why Congress' approval rating is at single-digits.

blocking all nominees to the post, and using pro forma sessions to prevent a recess is nothing less than dishonorable, cynical, nakedly partisan, and surely a violation of the at least the spirit of the advise and consent principle. That being said, you have a solid point--and if the Senate is not in formal recess--it's hard to see how the President can get around this. A dirty trick by the GOP, but a legal one, it seems.

I wonder if the the Dems could use this to force the Senate back to work--if the GOP wants to keep the senate open, why can't the Dems force legislative business through, that is to say, make them actually do some work?