Why do I get the feeling that if the subject of this headline was President Obama that someone would have been given his walking papers?

Go to the home page of MSNBC and click on “World News.” From there click on “Americas.” Next click on the article, “Losing Their Religion? Catholicism in Turmoil.” Scroll down and in the “Click for Related Content” section there is an article entitled, “Pope Describes Touching Boys: I Went Too Far.” Clicking on this piece takes the reader to an article about a homosexual German priest who had sex with males in the 1980s. It says absolutely nothing about the pope. Yet MSNBC paints Pope Benedict XVI as a child molester in the tease to the article.

Of course it is pure coincidence that MSNBC runs with this headline after pounding on the Pope for days. We should accept MSNBC apology.

I’m sure the explanation is simple and innocent, the person at MSNBC likely is Hungarian and was using Alexander Yalt’s phrasebook to translate

After all we have no reason to believe that MSNBC dislikes the Pope do we?

I thought I was good at the cutting remark but Adrienne put me to shame today:

Today is called Spy Wednesday in the Church. Today’s liturgy celebrates this as the day Judas betrayed Jesus for thirty peices of silver. I hear Bart Stupak has a party planned…

Some insults are just so great that they should be celebrated.

don’t think for one minute that the president would be defying his leftist friends if he didn’t need to recover from their pushback.

In a move that could help win Republican support for other energy initiatives, President Obama will announce plans Wednesday to open large sections of the eastern Gulf of Mexico and an area off the Virginia coast for oil and natural gas drilling.

“To set America on a path to energy independence, the president believes we must leverage our diverse domestic resources by pursuing a comprehensive energy strategy,” said a statement provided by an administration official

Wrong reason or right reason aside, it is the right policy, particularly in a time of high unemployment and it should be supported and encouraged, particularly when done by a president on the left.

The Lonely conservatives thinks it might be to get votes on cap and tax. We’ll see.

I would really like to see what “experts” are saying the Catholic Church is in turmoil. It is not for nothing that the story has a big correction at its head.

I submit that cafeteria Catholics and the media are seeing and trying to make turmoil where it doesn’t exist. As Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio… said

called upon the priests and people of the Diocese of Brooklyn to stand up with him and “besiege The New York Times. Send a message loud and clear that the Pope, our Church, and bishops and our priests will no longer be the personal punching bag of The New York Times.”

Bishop DiMarzio’s spirited defense of the Holy Father was based on the decision of The New York Times editors to, “Omit significant facts,” and ignore the reality that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Cardinal Ratzinger headed up, did not have competency over Canonical Trials in 1996. Moreover, Bishop DiMarzio continued “…the priest in question, Father Murphy was in the midst of a Canonical Trial. He died before a verdict was rendered.”

via Brutally Honest.

If the media bothered to look they would notice the huge attendance at events like the Catholic men’s conference among Catholics who actually believe and attend mass.

If Catholicism is so weak why was such a fuss made when dissenting nuns supported it? If Catholic opinion doesn’t matter why fund pseudo Catholic groups? In my opinion it is no coincidence that the scandals that struck the church were at their height as the church walked away from traditional practices.

I would suggest going to the Anchoress site and reading the whole thing as opposed to say Morning Joe trumpeting the BS class action case against the pope is a great example of this nonsense propagating the “big lie“:

Which brings us to Crimen sollicitationis. The document was crafted to ensure that if a Catholic were solicited to commit a sexual sin by a priest while going to confession, he or she could denounce that priest without being exposed to public scandal. Sinead O’Connor (and many, many others who have been flogging this particular Big Lie) have it precisely backwards. Crimen sollicitationis was not written to protect sexually abusive priests from punishment; it was written to enable the Church to get to the truth about predatory priests without embarrassing their victims or breaking the seal of confession. In fact, the protections required by Crimen sollicitationis encouraged victims of abuse to come forward. By requiring secrecy of the bishop and priests who handled any complaint about a priest-confessor who was a sexual predator, the Church tried to protect the confidentiality of the confessional and the privacy of the victim, not to prevent the crime from being reported to the police by the victim, who was never under any obligation of secrecy. The appropriate analogy is not to some Mafia-like international criminal conspiracy, but to the secrecy of those newspapers that choose not to print the names of rape victims.

The ignorance of American Catholics concerning their own faith in criminal, ironically foes of the church are using that ignorance to allow the former Bishops in Milwaukee to pass onto the pope their responsibility for turning a blind eye to their own problems.

Any Catholic who uses the New York Times in general and Maureen Dowd in particular as a source for their opinion of their church has real problems. Perhaps if they talked to the actual priest who served as the Judicial Vicar in the Milwaukee case they might learn something, oh sorry the NYT didn’t bother to even ask for an interview.

The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.

My suggestion to Mika and Barnicle is to read the whole thing until they have done so their comments on the case are simply uninformed gibberish. Perhaps they should try talking to or interviewing Fr. Thomas Brundage themselves before they jump on the Dowd bandwagon.

Update: I of course meant the “Dowd” bandwagon rather than the “Down” in the last sentence. I’ve corrected it.

Jon Meacham on Morning Joe insisted that the lack of evidence despite people actually filming and recording that somebody called John Lewis a Nigger is totally irrelevant to if it actually happened. He, in his words believes American saint John Lewis. For some reason Andrew Breitbart’s $10,000 (now $100,000) offer to anyone who can prove it not withstanding. Mika to her credit challenged him on that. This produced his statements. Kudos for her.

I wasn’t aware it was the job of an American Journalist to accept things on faith.

I say that the lack of evidence that Jon Meacham is deeply involved in efforts by the planet Vorslat to conquer earth and turn all humans into their sex slaves it totally irrelevant to if it actually happened.

If you want to know why the main stream media is dying, this is it.

the Fishbait Miller theory of Nancy Pelosi:

“The Speaker always carries a number of votes in her pocket,” he said, meaning that some members who voted ‘no’ would have voted ‘yes’ if needed.

“I had a number of members who thanked us after because they could vote no.”

I think we should follow Tom Blumer advice on this.

Well, okay Bart, who were these Dems who didn’t have the courage to vote their convictions, and instead wish to go back to their constituents and claim they didn’t support the ObamaCare monstrosity? (crickets …)

Better yet, pal, don’t tell us. It would be much more convenient for November voters to presumptively assume that their no-voting Democratic congressman really was a “yes” until Bart bailed them out. That works for me, and it would work for many other like-minded Americans — which is why the press will more than likely pretend that the CNA-Stupak interview doesn’t exist.

Works for me.

The Back room at the Border Grille & Bar was full. The waitstaff was working diligently to keep up with the crowd that spilled into the upstairs section filling up the place on a Monday night when restaurants are hard pressed to get people in the door.

Just a few months ago the closest thing to a political meeting the place had seen was Stacy McCain holding court with American Glob and Left Bank of the Charles at the Charles at the bar four days before the January Election.

Brown supporters ate there that weekend and on the 19th the back room was filled not with Football fans but with citizens following the game of politics.

The next month some of those people had returned reserving the room for the first Twin City Tea Party meeting. Neither the organizers nor the restaurant knew what the draw would be. The 40 people who came kept the waitstaff on their toes.

Now one month later the crowd has doubled. At the height of the evening people stood lined up in front of the lunch buffet area as candidates for office and tea party organizers spoke about what was going on.

There were familiar faces in the crowd, some had protested in front of Representative Olver’s office two weeks ago. Several faces from the Conservative Forum of the commonwealth were there.

But most were new, people who had heard about the meeting from a friend or who, as the patriots of old, had seen a handbill at a location and were drawn to see what they could see.

Richard Chambers had seen the handbill at a gym and came down. He didn’t necessarily disprove of the healthcare bill but thought the method of passage was a disgrace.

The bill and the methods used to pass it were certainly the catalyst for many there. Mike and Kathy Holland were also new, they wanted to see for themselves what the tea party looked like. They found it totally opposite of what the media had portrayed it as.

Both the media and the government took their lumps among attendees. The idea that Government was out of control was a common theme. Scott Houle who had been involved in republican politics on the local level seeing the crowd that gathered commentated he was surprised it took this long for people to get angry.

Justin Brooks then took the stage welcoming the still growing crowd. He urged them not to let the passage of obamacare “take the wind out of our sails”. When he asked for a show of hands as to how many people had volunteered for Scott Brown a wave of digits filled the air. He pointed to the 3rd and 5th congressional districts as places where supporters of Obamacare were being challenged and expressed regret that a viable candidate had yet to challenge Rep Olver. He then gave the stage over to candidates and speakers.

Several candidates and/or their representatives came to the stage. It was an opportunity to meet energized votes and get signatures on nomination papers. Some like state auditor candidate Mary Connaughton had a person speak for her. Others like Kamal Jain, Lew Evangelidis and Jennie (Jane) Caisste made their case personally. Jain in particular made a strong case about the need for transparency and how important it was for people outside the system to see the books.

…yet he expressed that it was actually a better thing for the tea parties to remain independent.

The office seekers there were for positions that are not considered glamorous. State Auditor, Worcester County Sheriff, Governor’s Counsel (they vet judges) , but in each case the candidates pointed out the functions of the office and the reason why it is important. All fielded questions from the inquisitive crowd.

When the candidates were done Ken Mandile of the Worcester Tea Party came to the stage. He talked about the need to focus on local races to build a farm system and stressed, from his successful experience in organizing events in Worcester, keeping people the focus of the tea party events.

At the time he took the stage the crowd was at its peak (86). Although he had a lot of practical experience, his long disorganized presentation started to thin the crowd and his attack on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party express brought grimaces to many faces there.

Justin retook the stage and closed with a bit of brainstorming on how to keep momentum and interest alive though November before adjourning.

It was a strong second showing and experience would certainly lead to improvement, but would March 29th be the high water mark or another step toward the summit of change for the Twin City Tea Party? That question will be answered next month by those 40 new faces that came to see for themselves.