See that blog title? It’s also Preachy McStretchTruth’s Facebook post title. She really ought to follow her own advice. But that’s water under the bridge to nowhere. I don’t have the patience to go through her ghost writer’s latest entry lie by lie, it’s just too nauseating. Suffice it to say the entire piece is one big soggy bag of defensive.

However, the last few sentences deserve some attention:

The more things change, the more they stay the same with twisted media coverage of my comments. Stories from yesterday are littered with typical inaccuracies and half truths; and in our never-ending quest to hold the press accountable, here are the points that require correction: [...]

As for Nancy Pelosi – she’s a San Francisco Democrat. That should be proof enough.

Nothing lamestream about that, eh Preachy? You make a sweeping, and inane, generalization intended to be unflattering as hell, and that’s okay. Every Democrat from San Francisco is a worthless radical. Every one of them is a carbon copy of the other, no independent thinkers, and they all want gun rights snatched from every gun owner.

That line of thinking (assuming you do think)  “should be proof enough” that you are an idiot, and that you don’t understand this simple fact: You are part of the “lamestream” media. Then again, ClusterFox is in a swamp of its own.

Memo to McStretchTruth: The media covers you in an unflattering way because you are an unattractive person, at least on the inside.

As noted in my remarks, I don’t believe that it’s politically expedient for them to attack our Second Amendment Rights. But that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t like to do so if they had the chance.

Show me where President Obama has done that. Your ghost writer’s post suffers from wrongitude. By the way, Preachy, oversight of the use of lethal weapons is not attacking anyone’s second amendment rights. That’s like saying Big Oil oversight is attacking proper, safe drilling [oxymoron].  But hey, what could possibly go wrong there?

3) Despite reporters’ claims to the contrary, Obamacare does allow for public funding of abortion in myriad ways, which is why the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (speaking as the voice of authority for the Catholic Church in America) unequivocally opposed Obamacare despite the Church’s long desire for health care reform.

I guess McStretchTruth failed to read this letter. Research is your friend, Preachy. Try it sometime.

My impassioned 72-year-old Twitter pal and friend, who goes by the name 42bkdodgr, would like to share his feelings about Pat Buchanan. I am more than happy to oblige.

But first, a personal note from 42bkdodgr:

Many of you may wonder why I chose to use the “ 72 year old friend” as the introduction to my Special Comments. I selected the moniker so readers could see that from my age and life experiences I give a different perspective to the issues of today.

Now for his Special Comment:

Supreme Court Make Up

On May 14, 2010, in his World Net Daily, Pat Buchanan wrote, “If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2% of the U.S. population, will have 33% of the Supreme Court seats“.

Pat, I will not go into your past remarks that have been both racists and anti-Semitic, but instead, lets look at some figures.

Polling data from a 2008 study conducted by the American Religious Identification Survey showed the following:

* Americans who identify themselves as Christian was 76%     (Protestant 51% , Catholic 25%).
* Americans who identify themselves as Jewish 1%
* American who don’t follow any organized religion 15%

Pat according to your logic, there should only be 2 Catholics on the Court, yet there are 6 Catholics on the court and they make up 66% of the Court. Where was your outcry about the number of Catholics who were being confirmed to the Court? I think I and many others know the reason for your silence.

One can assume part of that 15 % category is made up of Atheists and Agnostics, and I can only imagine Pat, what your reaction would be if anyone from that group was ever appointed to the Supreme Court.

Well if you want diversity based on belief here is the formula:
5 – Protestants, 2 – Catholics 1- Non-Religious 1- Other
Religion.

You always talk against affirmative action, because you believe that people should be awarded positions in colleges and on jobs based on their ability, not their ethnic background; yet here you are arguing that appointment to the Court should be based on ethnicity, not on a person’s capability. I would call that being hypocritical.

Pat, during the past two years we have seen the rise of hate and racism in the country and here you are, by your remarks, adding another log to the fire, to fuel the flame of those who are haters and racists.

Pat, your remarks in your May 14th article falls in line with another column you wrote on October 20, 2009 titled “Traditional Americans are losing their Nation“. I wrote a special comment in response to your article, but I see you still don’t get it.

I would be remiss in writing this Special Comment, if I didn’t say I was disappointed that neither Countdown nor the Rachel Maddow show had a segment on Pat Buchanan’s remarks. I know if such remarks were made by Rush, Beck or Hannitty both shows would have been all over it.

Its time for the MSNBC management to stop protecting Pat Buchanan and drop him as one of their political commentators; because we all know what he stands for, by his past and current statements, and that is not what America stands for.  

Many thanks again for another thorough, relevant piece, 42bkdodgr. You often say what many of us are thinking and feeling, and we thank you for your unique perspective.

Click to enlarge, via.

By GottaLaff

(click on image to enlarge)

The other day on the Rachel Maddow Show, Nancy Pelosi made a point of telling Rachel that health care reform was not just about abortion, it was about saving lives, money, and providing care to millions.

She repeated the positives of the plan and steered Rachel away from concentrating too hard on something that shouldn’t be an issue (mainly because Bart Stupak is spreading misinformation; abortion will not be being funded by the government).

Pelosi is one of the few that has insisted on clarifying and laying out the benefits of the bill. Anthony Weiner is another. Their consistent message of what health care reform offers, rather than getting sidetracked by GOP talking points, is something that’s been sorely missing over the past year.

Meanwhile, a group of “pro-life” Christian leaders has come out in support of the plan. They’re darn pretty clear, too.

Think Progress takes it from there:

Underscoring this point, this week, a group of 25 “pro-life Catholic theologians and Evangelical leaders” sent a letter to Congress urging them to look past the misinformation on abortion and pass health care reform. From their letter:

As Christians committed to a consistent ethic of life, and deeply concerned with the health and well-being of all people, we want to see health care reform enacted. [...]

We are writing because of our concern about the lack of clear and accurate information regarding abortion provisions in the health care reform bill passed by the Senate on December 24, 2009.

Reforming our health care system is necessarily complex, and the provisions related to abortion, or any other issue, require careful examination of the facts as they exist in the legislative language. We believe that the provisions below provide extensive evidence that longstanding restrictions on federal funding of abortion have been maintained. Furthermore, this bill provides new and important supports for vulnerable pregnant women.

Click to enlarge, via.

By GottaLaff

What’s that I hear? A crack in the Catholic position on abortion rights as they apply to health care reform?

In an apparent split with Roman Catholic bishops over the abortion-financing provisions of the proposed health care overhaul, the nation’s Catholic hospitals have signaled that they back the Senate’s compromise on the issue, raising hopes of breaking an impasse in Congress and stirring controversy within the church.

Cr-r-rack!

Catholic scholars say their statement reflects a different application of church teachings against “cooperation with evil,” a calculus that the legislation offers a way to extend health insurance to millions of Americans. For the Catholic hospitals, that it is both a moral and financial imperative, since like other hospitals they stand to gain from reducing the number of uninsured patients.

And in practical political terms, some Democrats — including some opponents of abortion rights — say that the Catholic hospitals’ relative openness to a compromise could play a pivotal role by providing political cover for Democrats who oppose abortion to support the health bill. Democrats and liberal groups quickly disseminated the association’s endorsement along with others from the nuns’ group, other Catholics and evangelicals.

There is much more “for and against” here.