You might recall the left going absolutely batshit when elected official Kim Davis absolutely refused issue marriage licences for gay couples if her name was on it.

The site Gawker in particular hated Kim Davis with a passion never missing an opportunity  to attack 

Like many others they argued that the rule of law was paramount and that Davis’ civil disobedience could not stand against the judge’s order.

 

The couples appealed to Morehead Sheriff Matt Clark, the Washington Postreports, but he told them there was nothing he could do to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision.

“She will likely be found in contempt, as we know,” he said.

Davis faces fines or jail time if she doesn’t begin issuing the licenses Tuesday.

And in the comments sections their readers reacted with glee.

And Davis did go to jail but stood her ground, eventually being released and after a compromise crafted by the newly elected governor who ran in support of Davis remains free to do her job without damage to her conscience.

The irony of course is before Kim Davis was ever a news story Gawker was also very publicly disobeying a judge’s order

And while Kim Davis is still collecting her pay as an elected official it is Gawker’s turn to pay the piper:

Weighing free speech against privacy, a Florida jury has decided to uphold the sanctity of the latter by turning in a $115 million verdict against Gawker over its 2012 posting of a Hulk Hogan sex tape.

Hogan brought the case three years ago after Gawker, a 13-year-old digital news site founded by Nick Denton, an entrepreneur with an allergy to celebrity privacy, published a video the wrestler claimed was secretly recorded. The sex tape was sensational, showing Hogan — whose real name is Terry Bollea — engaged in sexual intercourse with Heather Cole, the then-wife of his best friend, Tampa-area radio shock jock Bubba the Love Sponge (real name: Todd Alan Clem). Gawker’s posting of the Hogan sex tape was accompanied by an essay from then–editor-in-chief A.J. Daulerio about celebrity sex and a vivid play-by-play of the encounter between Hogan and Cole.

That number doesn’t isn’t the end of it either as that figure doesn’t include punitive damages

Oh and not just Gawker the media company either:

The jury didn’t stop with the media company.

It also found Gawker founder Nick Denton and the ex-editor who posted the video, A.J. Daulerio, personally liable.

Jurors awarded Hogan $55 million in economic damages and another $60 million for emotional distress.

Under Florida state law, Gawker must post a $50 million bond about one month after jurors decide on punitive damages — which could have disastrous consequences for the company.

Strangely enough the end result of this defiance of a court order does not seem all that interesting to Gawker, while we have pictures of Kim Davis’ mug shot and several stories hitting her after the case was done, Gawker doesn’t seem to find the verdict in this case newsworthy at as 18 hours after the ruling we still don’t see a word about it on the site. This is quite a surprise as they took a very loud stand on the rule of law and obeying court ruling just a little while ago.

Perhaps they are waiting for the large protests in favor of Nick Denton, or the new Papal Nuncio to set up a meeting between the Pope and Denton before breaking the story.

Perhaps someone can convince Kim Davis to start a blog so she can provide the coverage of Gawker’s situation that the site is lacking?

*******************************************************************

I’m back trying to get that elusive $61 a day for DaTipJar.

I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. We are currently 116.3 subscribers at $10 a month to make our goal every day without further solicitation but the numbers are even more interesting:

If less than 1/3 of 1% of our February readers this month subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

If less than 2/3 of 1% did, I’d be completely out of debt and able to attend CPAC

If a full 1% of our February readers subscribed at $10 a month I could afford to travel across the country covering the presidential race this year in person for a full month.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



By Definition I of course want all of the posts at DaTechGuy Blog to be read and noticed but looking at my 2015 stats I want to point to five posts that deserve a lot more attention then they got:

January 17 2015

The I93 gift to the GOP if they’re only smart enough to use it

By now you’ve heard about the I93 debacle in Boston, how a group of “activists” held up traffic for hours, disrupted the lives of thousands of folks, cost millions of dollars in lost wages and wasted time and even messed up ambulance service in the area.

The anger against these fools is almost universal and all kinds of creative names are being used to describe them, but there is one description that should be the first one out of the lips of everyone but for some reason is not.

Democrats

These people ARE the Democrat base, you will not find a single Romney or even a Charlie Baker voter among them, These are the folks who have been crying “War on Women”, Heteronormative Patriarchy and all that good stuff, and right now they have managed to anger almost the entire voting population of one of the most liberal states in the Union.

Yet where is the Mass GOP pressing State Democrats on these protesters? Where are the conservative talk show hosts, bloggers et/all calling every single state Democrat senator and rep to comment?

It’s a story of how the GOP never seems to learn and a great contrast to Trump fighting back against Hillary Clinton.

Feb 11th 2015

Pope Provides very Public Context for: “Who am I to Judge” Media Yawns


Pope Francis offered his support this week to pro-family Slovaks who have championed a referendum this Saturday to outlaw “gay marriage” and adoption of children by same-sex partners.
In his weekly general audience on Wednesday, during the section where the pope normally greets different nationalities, Francis said, “I greet the pilgrims from Slovakia and, through them, I wish to express my appreciation to the entire Slovak church, encouraging everyone to continue their efforts in defense of the family, the vital cell of society.”

That referendum won with 90% support but the Pope’s support was apparently not newsworthy

Odd in the midst of all the Alabama gay marriage news I didn’t see the US media go long on the Pope’s support of the winning side here only a post at the Huffington post gay voices section.

Why is this not news? Because no matter how much the left spins the popularity of Gay Marriage it can’t be spun to be more popular than the Pope who opposes it openly and the left is still openly fearful of attacking the first Latin American Pope who is extremely popular with almost every native Spanish Speaker in the western hemisphere.

There are times when I can’t figure out who wants to spin the Pope more, liberals or conservatives.

April 19th 2015 Ted Cruz John Kasich Carly Fiorina or Why I don’t travel with the Media Swarm

Now at first glance that might seem like a bad idea, after all smaller bloggers have fought very hard for the right to be considered equals with the MSM and if one is credentialed one should take advantage of it. But there are two factors that made the decision easy. The first is at a GOP event being part of the press scrum is like wearing a big sign in front of a candidate saying “I’m here to destroy you if I can” but the second is the same factor just mentioned above.

Location Location Location

While the Press Entrance was next to the door connecting to the green room & private area most people not named Trump don’t want to be instantly swarmed by press. The Salon spot not only gave good plug access it allowed me a view of the main entrance and the experience next to the bar restaurant meaning when someone like Say Carly Fiorina is coming in.

A lot of my live coverage of events got very little attention, that was kind of discouraging.

April 22nd 2015

Women ARE having Children, just not the Right ones

It’s no coincidence that each year the pro-life marches contain more and more young people, particularly woman and their children brought up in religious homes, many educated in religious schools while not immune to the influences of the MSM culture are much more likely to hold the values that their parents hold dear.

They will be bouncing children and grandchildren on their knees while the women in Stacy McCain’s sex trouble series prepare their cat lady starter kits

If you want to know why Democrats are so pro-illegal immigration & pro islam, this is why.

May 9th 2015

Tina Fey, Slutwalks & Knowing Your Worth

The reality is that if these women were marching fully clothed nobody would notice them therefore they deliberately march in a state of undress, ie parade himself as sex object in order to get people to pay attention to them while at the same time scolding said observers for viewing them as sex objects, although as Stacy McCain pointed out for some of said attendees it’s an iffy proposition for them to be noticed even in said state of undress.

What does that have to do with Tina Fey? Well like the women of slutwalk she was making a statement but that statement had nothing to do with feminism and not being viewed as a sex object and everything to do with being recognized as a sex object. Consider the image from the video at Chicks on the Right choose. It’s Ms. Fey bending over in a pose that frankly screams, pardon my vulgarity, “mount me”

It’s because of a rather nasty reality

 So where does that leave Tina Fey until the SNL 50th anniversary reunion?

It leaves her as an attractive woman who will be turning 45 on my birthday in an industry unkind to women as they age or put on weight who needs to be noticed.

As as Tami Erin once of Pippi Longstocking fame but now of Hustler Magazine fame discovered, a very easy way for an attractive woman to get noticed is to put herself out there in an advanced state of undress on Camera.  As Miley Cyrus will tell you doing so in front of a large television audience is even better.

That’s what the Letterman gambit was all about. It wasn’t about comedy, it was about her being noticed at a time when nobody was the least bit interested.

Tina’s stuff never got ratings, NEVER.

September 13th 2015

Kim Davis MLK and Civil Disobedience vs George Wallace The Democrat Party & Political Opportunism

Wallace didn’t go to jail or risk penalties for his beliefs because he didn’t have any other than “George Wallace deserves to be elected” , when segregation was popular he trumped segregation, when it became unpopular suddenly decided he spoke against it. In fact it seems to me that when it came to pols following in Wallace’s footstep the people are not Democrats like Kim Davis but Democrats like Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who, as you might have forgotten, abruptly changed their position when it appeared large gay donors were closing their purses.

And once they did by an astounding coincidence the entire democrat party from Bill Clinton who signed the Defence of Marriage act to every single Democrat pol who said things like this:

That’s a direct contrast to Kim Davis

Contrast all of this with Kim Davis. Davis didn’t seek publicity, those who choose to force her hand did, as marriage licences were available just a few miles away. Even as the country’s media and elites demonized her and pundit after pundit attacked her she went to court to defend her position citing her religious beliefs seeking a compromise that would allow her to function without her name being one marriage certificates.

When ordered to jail, she didn’t put on a show, she went to jail and when released during the middle of a rally in her support (a rally used by at least one presidential candidate to showboat a bit) rather than talking politics or anything of that nature she praised God while her lawyers, speaking to media stated that she would not be doing anything different to violate her conscience:

Doesn’t sound very Wallace. In fact, instead of political opportunism that’s a classic example of civil disobedience. Violate law, take penalty. That’s how it works.

I would have pushed the Doctor Who posts, but that’s a niche Market and this isn’t England.

Happy New Year all

I suspect if the previous governor did this to defuse the whole Kim Davis business a Democrat might still govern the state today.

Kentucky’s new governor on Tuesday ordered county clerks’ names removed from state marriage license forms at the center of a controversy involving Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, who was jailed after refusing to issue licenses to gay couples.

Governor Matt Bevin had said shortly after his election in November, as only the second Republican governor of Kentucky since 1971, that he would change the forms that had drawn objections from Davis and some other clerks.

“To ensure that the sincerely held religious beliefs of all Kentuckians are honored, I took action to revise the clerk marriage license form,” Bevin said in a statement.

Davis’s team was delighted:

“This is a wonderful Christmas gift for Kim Davis,” the group said. “Kim can celebrate Christmas with her family knowing she does not have to choose between her public office and her deeply-held religious convictions.”

I think driving Kim Davis from the Democrat party will cost them for decades to come.

Note: I don’t recall the ACLU getting their knickers in an uproar over Obama’s exec orders.

Yesterday was election day and there are several stories to tell.

On the local level Steve Dinatale left the Massachusetts State Legislature to run for mayor of fitchburg and his choice was rewarded with 74% of the vote in a city that has not been shy about voting for republicans like Scott Brown.

I hope Dinatale stays in the Mayor’s office a while, he’s a sensible fellow who will do a good job plus any attempt to advance further in state government would require a choice between his Catholic faith and the Democrat party and I suspect that choice is the reason why the city will get the benefit rather than the entire state.

Their loss is our gain.

Andrew Couture is a good guy and I think he should consider running for city council.

In Kentucky in a race Democrats were expected to win Matt Bevin, Mitch McConnell’s favorite punching bag was expected to lose and the media already had their narrative written

Bevin, who polls show is trailing by a small margin, appears on the verge of joining the list of tea party-aligned candidates whom establishment operatives will blame for years to come for losing a winnable race. Like other Republicans damaged by the party’s Obama-era civil war, Bevin took untenable positions in the primary that Democrats have turned against him in the general. And the Republican businessman’s strategy and decisions throughout the campaign have baffled longtime political observers.

As you can guess they hedged his bets with a single line

They think pollsters might be missing the anger of rural conservatives who are most likely to vote, which is what happened in the media polling here in 2014.”

The polls showed him down five, but you know what, people forgot about, a person named Kim Davis

As he travels around the state, Bevin’s body man hands out postcards describing Bevin as “the only candidate for governor that has stood up for traditional marriage and religious liberty.” Bevin has also made appeals to born-again Christians, urging them to vote to counteract the political activism of “agnostics and atheists” and telling them to “stand firm” for their beliefs.

The Advocate made it very clear which sides the Democrat Conway & the Republican Bevin are on:

Conway, on the other hand, is so staunchly pro-[gay]marriage, Kentucky’s former top lawman got choked up when announcing in 2014 that he would not appeal a federal judge’s order recognizing same-sex marriages performed out of state. “If I did so I would be defending discrimination. That I will not do,” Conway said, which you can watch in the video below

Bevin visited Kentucky clerk Davis in jail, where she spent time this summer for refusing to grant marriage licenses to any couples, citing personal religious beliefs against same-sex marriage. Bevin’s support for Davis became a tentpole of his campaign strategy

Alas for our liberal friends the voters of Kentucky clearly knew which side they were on too and it wasn’t close

Bevin was able to defy pundits, political insiders and polling — including one released by his own campaign in October that showed him losing — and emerge a winner Tuesday night.

In the end, it wasn’t even close. Bevin won 107 of the state’s 120 counties on his way to a nine-point victory.

The real fun part are paragraphs like this gay blogs like this:

Kim Davis’s attorneys at the Liberty Counsel sent out a press release congratulating Bevin which included a statement from Davis herself:

“I congratulate Matt Bevin on his win. I am ecstatic. He is such a genuine and caring person. I will be forever thankful that he came to visit me while I was in jail. At a clerks’ meeting he hugged me and said he was praying for me. I am looking forward to his leadership as our new Governor.”

Liberty Counsel attorney Mat Staver clucked as well:

“The election was not even close. The lopsided victory for Matt Bevin stunned most political pundits. There is no question that the issue of religious freedom and same-sex marriage played a role in the results. The people favor traditional values and marriage, and they are tired of the political elites represented by Governor Beshear who are out of touch with ordinary, God-loving citizens. We look forward to working with Governor Elect Matt Bevin to accommodate the religious convictions of Kim Davis and other Kentucky clerks. Finally, we will have common sense and the Constitution prevail in Kentucky.”

Apparently Judge Bunning can jail a clerk for her faith but you can’t jail the electorate.

Expect the MSM to spin this result as having nothing to do with Kim Davis.

Update: Out of curiosity I did a google and yahoo for any comments Alison Grimes might have made on the Kim davis case. I didn’t find anything.

On what I’m sure is a totally unrelated note in a year while Bevin won the governor’s race Grimes managed to be re-elected Secretary of state by two point margin.

****************************************************************************

The only pay I get for this work comes from you. My goal for 2015 is $22,000 and to date we’re only at $4400

Given that fact I would I ask you to please consider hitting DaTipJar.




Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.


Choose a Subscription level



Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what most of them are worth.

…For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.”  Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”

John 18:37b-38a

James Hacker:  Will you answer a direct question?

Sir Humphrey Appleby:  I strongly advise you not to ask a direct question.
James Hacker:  Why?
Sir Humphrey Appleby:  It might provoke a direct answer.
Yes Minister, The Moral dimension 1982
One of the arts of Diplomacy is the ability to make a statement targeted to mollify a particular nation or group but to do so in such a way that does not explicitly state what said group wants to hear.  By definition the ultimate expression of this craft would be an official statement so carefully crafted and so expertly parsable that two warring sides in a battle to the death can each interpret said statement as an endorsement of their cause.
A perfect example of this is conveyed by this exchange from the initial meeting of newly appointed Crown Minister James Hacker and career civil servant Sir Humphrey Appleby in the opening episode of Yes Minister:
Bernard Woolley:  I believe you know each other?
Sir Humphrey Appleby:  Yes we did cross swords when the minister gave me a grilling over the estimates in the public accounts committee.
James Hacker:  I wouldn’t say that.
Sir Humphrey Appleby:  You came up with all the questions I hoped nobody would ask.
James Hacker:Well opposition is about asking awkward questions.
Sir Humphrey Appleby:  And government is about not answering them.
James Hacker:Well you answered all mine anyway.
Sir Humphrey Appleby:I’m glad you thought so minister.
Yes Minister,  Open Government 1980
That is precisely the goal of the Diplomat to be able to answer questions in such a way to satisfy a person without actually answering said question.
While this description of “diplomat” is a constant the world over a problem arises when the diplomat is at the Vatican and is an ordained priest whose primary duty and vows are to follow Jesus Christ.  Diplomacy might prefer a deliberately obtuse statement Christ’s position on this is rather direct:

Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.

Matthew 5:37

So for a priest in the Vatican Diplomatic corps the question becomes who do you choose as your model?  “Sir Humphrey or Jesus Christ?”

The brief meeting between Mrs. Kim Davis and Pope Francis at the Apostolic Nunciature in  Washington, DC has continued to provoke comments and discussion.  In order to contribute to an objective understanding of what transpired I am able to clarify the following points:

Pope Francis met with several dozen persons who had been invited by the Nunciature to greet him as he prepared to leave Washington for New York City. Such brief greetings occur on all papal visits and are due to the Pope’s characteristic kindness and availability. The only real audience granted by the Pope at the Nunciature was with one of his former students and his family.

The Pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects.  [all emphasis mine]

Look at the words emphasixed, each of them were carefully chosen to allow one group of people to have a particular interpretation of the meeting between Kim Davis and the Pope while still allowing a different group of people to hold a completely opposite interpretation of that exact same event.

Perhaps if Father Lombardi was present at the trial of Jesus he could have issued a similar statement to mollify the crowd that had gone from crying “blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” to “Crucify Him” in under seven days they might have had 2nd thoughts about crucifying Christ.

Advantage Sir Humphrey.

Closing thoughts   today I consulted a friend with a decade of experience at the Vatican and a great familiarity with the language and the culture of same.  When I told him of Father Lombardi’s statement implying that the Pope’s meeting with Kim Davis did not imply support of her, he answered with a single abrupt phrase:

Riiiiight!

It’s a very good thing the MSM doesn’t believe in handgun ownership or upon seeing this story would likely blow their brains out.

A Kentucky clerk who went to jail for defying a federal court’s orders to issue same-sex marriage licenses reportedly met briefly with the pope during his historic visit to the United States.

A Vatican spokesman confirmed to the New York Times Wednesday that the encounter took place.

While Think Progress is spinning:

After fielding repeated late-night inquiries form reporters, the Vatican announced Wednesday morning that they could neither confirm nor deny the alleged meeting happening, saying they wouldn’t comment further. However, Rev. Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman, later told the New York Times that he “did not deny that the meeting took place, but I have no other comments to add.” The New York Times concluded that in saying as much, he had “confirmed the meeting,” but that remains unclear.

As is Joe my God

The Vatican is refusing to confirm or deny that Pope Francis met privately with Kim Davis. A Vatican spokesman says that no further statement will be made. So we get no photos, no video, no uninvolved witnesses – just a claim made by an unofficial Kentucky-based website.

The Blaze did some reporting:

A receptionist for the Vatican Embassy in Washington, D.C., confirmed to TheBlaze Wednesday that Pope Francis met with Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis during his visit to the United States last week.

While information about what precisely was discussed during the meeting has not been released, the staffer with the Apostolic Nunciature of the Holy See to the United States said the meeting did occur, confirming statements from Davis’ attorneys.

Slantpoint says he really never liked the Pope anyways:

Mr. Horsey seems to believe the Pope’s medieval economic views are somehow worthy of praise, while ignoring the fact he and Kim Davis share the medieval prejudices. If there is one thing the Pope hates, it is sin, and freedom apparently leads to sin. Certainly, if the poor are blessed because they are poor, he has embraced a view that will expand their numbers greatly, while simultaneously denying social freedoms as well.

Nor did America blog either:

Again, we already know how the Vatican feels about LGBT people. We already know how Pope Francis feelsabout religion’s relationship with secular liberal democracy. We already know that he didn’t have any problem holding politically-charged meetings with self-professed religious activists while he was in the United States. And we already know that when he was asked about Kim Davis’s situation, he took her side.

Why should the maybe-fact that he told her so in person change how I feel about either of them?

Friendly Atheist accuses the Pope of Deception:

The Pope is ultimately as opposed to gay rights as Kim Davis. He doesn’t want gay couples to get married and he sees “homosexual acts [as] intrinsically disordered.” Until last week, he did everything in his power to keep those beliefs hidden. Meeting with her, as if she’s a victim of anything, would send a message that the Church really hasn’t changed at all, even with a popular Pope at its helm.

Which is exactly what critics of religion have been saying for a long time

Unlike Radical Feminist Melissa McEwan

Anyone who imagines it’s not even possible for the Pope to have met with Kim Davis hasn’t been paying attention.

This Pope isn’t a liberal. His positions aren’t even particularly better, especially on social issues, than his predecessors—he’s just a much more sophisticated spinmaster. And he cunningly exploits our habits of not paying close attention, if we hear something that suits our hopes.

The Washington Post notes the anger:

Since his election as to the papacy in 2013, Francis — with his outspoken criticism of global warming and income inequality, as well as his perceived support of the gay community (“Who am I to judge?” he said) — has become a favorite of some liberals. His reported meeting with Davis could feel like a slap to progressives who see him — wrongly or rightly — as their ally on the topic of LGBT acceptance.

Biz pack review agrees:

This will put a damper on the progressive left’s infatuation with the pope.

And the significance is large:

Rick Klein: “It’s little surprise that this or any pope would stand up against gay marriage. But having spent time with this particular county clerk – the very public face of outright defiance of the US Supreme Court – has specific ramifications that surely the pope and those around him are aware of. Maybe that was the point – in which case conservatives have every bit as much of the right to cite this papal visit’s political message as their liberal friends.”

This tweet via The American Conservative is accurate

At least one evangelical says it’s a costly move:

To me, if he did meet with Davis, he has undone a lot of the bridge building image he has cultivated. Davis is a divisive figure right now and by aligning with her, he will appear to lack consistency and genuineness.

and Jezebel is angry:

Regardless, for all of her bigotry, Davis has been rewarded with the company of God’s representative on earth and Mike Huckabee. What a world.

As for Davis herself:

“That was a great encouragement, just knowing that the pope is on track with what we’re doing,” she told ABC. “Kind of validates everything.”

Here are some MSM reports:

Two interesting notes the first from a grump Guardian that notices an important irony:

Andrew Chesnut, a professor of religious studies at Virginia Commonwealth University, said the apparent meeting with Davis, coupled with his remarks on the plane, put the pope “squarely in the camp of conservative Christians in the US, both Catholic and Protestant, who believe their faith has been persecuted during the presidency of Obama”. He added: “One of the great ironies is that Kim Davis’s Pentecostal faith has historically viewed Catholicism as an idolatrous abomination of Christianity. In the pope’s Latin America, one of the first things many Catholic converts to Pentecostalism do is to make a bonfire to incinerate their Catholic ‘idols,’ such as the saints and Virgin Mary.”

Well that’s what happens when there is pretty much only one faith still fighting.

And the second is John Allen who makes three points:

First, it means that Francis has significantly strengthened the hand of the US bishops and other voices in American debates defending religious freedom….

Second, Francis may also have smoothed the waters in advance for round two of the Synod of Bishops on the family, which opens on Sunday…

Third, Francis has also debunked impressions of a rift with the American bishops when it comes to the “wars of culture.”

So what Do I think about all this? I think it’s hilarious. On Tuesday I mentioned the Pope’s words as supporting Kim Davis on the plane and was told

But the more important point here is what this says about the difference between the Pope and the Press that was covering him.   The left & media did all they could to politicize his words as a club to strike their political foes with, they minimized the Pope’s statement in favor of religious freedom and life and talked endlessly about any topic that they felt would help their cause. However the Pope came here with a goal, and that goal, despite what others might think, was evangelization.  His method is to take this piece of advice from the Screwtape twelve

You will say that these are very small sins; and doubtless, like all young tempters, you are anxious to be able to report spectacular wickedness. But do remember, the only thing that matters is the extent to which you separate the man from the Enemy. It does not matter how small the sins are provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing. Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick. Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one-the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts,

…and reverse it.  Move them gradually into the light, get them into church, give the Holy Spirit and the Sacraments a chance to allow grace to flow, let it eventually draw them into the confessional and full repentance. The best method for this was for people to hear is words unfiltered, to see his trip as it was, to watch the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as it takes place. This type of thing:

But something else happened which is hard to describe. It was like the very atmosphere of the cathedral had suddenly changed. I could feel the presence and force of Pope Francis’ love for all of us. The screens throughout the cathedral showed his sweet face as he shook people’s hands – and sought out the smallest and weakest in the crowds.

I had been sitting next to a journalist from The Economist all day. She was not a practicing Catholic. Yet, when I turned to her now, she was crying.

“I’m supposed to be a jaded journalist,” she said. “So why am I crying?”

and this:

He told me that he wasn’t Catholic – but that his wife was. She often told people that she had “survived” Catholicism growing up on Palm Beach, Florida. Apparently, she’d had several bad experiences growing up which led her to leave the Catholic faith for her whole life.

Until now.

“This Pope has caused her to look at Catholicism again,” said Bob. “She is seriously thinking about going back to Church now.”


and this:

Estela had recently come back to the Catholic Church in a big way because of Pope Francis. She told me that her cubicle was plastered with his pictures and his quotes.

She watched the DC papal parade with a group of high school boys from Gonzaga – a local Catholic school. Apparently, the Pope had come close and waved at them. When Estela looked at them, after the encounter, all the boys had tears in their eyes.

“Boys,” she told them, “Hold onto this feeling. As you go through life and you get challenged, don’t forget this moment. Because this is your Catholic faith.”

and this:

Francis’ Visit Made Me Reexamine Myself, and I’m Not Sure I Like What I See

In fact even that encounter with Ms. Davis, a daughter of Catholics who choose a different path before turning back to Christ via a protestant tradition screamed evangelization:

I had asked a monsignor earlier what was the proper way to greet the Pope, and whether it would be appropriate for me to embrace him, and I had been told it would be okay to hug him. So I hugged him, and he hugged me back. It was an extraordinary moment. ‘Stay strong,’ he said to me. Then he gave me a rosary as a gift, and he gave one also to my husband, Joe. I broke into tears. I was deeply moved.

“Then he said to me, ‘Please pray for me.’ And I said to him, ‘Please pray for me also, Holy Father.’ And he assured me that he would pray for me.”

No matter how much spin came before or after it,  at least people would see and hear things as they were. Francis may have assumed that if he met with Davis openly suddenly this would be the only topic, that his visit would be instantly converted by the media not as a religious event (that they were trying to politicize) but as a political event that would need to be countered.  How much more difficult is it for those who where cheering the open Francis, the welcoming Francis he Francis willing to speak to anyone deal with the idea that “anyone” includes Kim Davis. Mike Dougherty again:

Today even the local reporter talking about this looked like someone was peeing on their cornflakes.

Personally I think it would have been better to do this in public but this is his call and frankly the story coming out after the visit amplifies it.

This Pope is Catholic, he has always been Catholic and as I’ve said many times while I don’t always know what Francis is doing, I have faith that the Holy Spirit does.

Have some faith folks

****************************************************************************

The only pay I get for this work comes from you. My goal for 2015 is $22,000.

Given that fact and the discovery that the repairs needed for my car that failed inspection will run between $500-$1000 I would I ask you to please consider hitting DaTipJar.




Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.


Choose a Subscription level



Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what most of them are worth.

These headlines are a lot of fun (all emphasis mine)

Newsweek: Pope Francis Appears to Defend Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis

NBC News: Pope Appears to Back Kim Davis in Gay-Marriage Battle (note they eventually changed the headline, must have been too much for them.

Christian Science Monitor: Did Pope Francis just endorse Kim Davis?

Why the weasel words? Because each of these MSM outlet are loath to think that the man they spent the last week lionizing might actually believe in the faith of his church and even worse might actually disagree with them.

I’ll say this for the Huff post at least they use the Reuters headline which says it bluntly:

The Pope Just Handed Kim Davis A Huge Win

Here is an excerpt from the Newsweek piece:

The pontiff was unequivocal when asked by Terry Moran of ABC News if government officials should be exempt from abiding by laws they find objectionable for religious reasons. “It is a human right, and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right,” the pope said.

While this is not a surprise to me at all, I honestly don’t know who is in more distress over this. The Kim Davis hating media that spent the last week fawning over the Pope or some of the Conservatives who absolutely positively insist the Pope isn’t a real Catholic and has a secret plan to redefine sin completely and hand it over to the devil.

Either way I’m enjoying it, and as I’ve already said, conservatives need to learn the words: The Same Position as Pope Francis and be prepared to repeat them, and do your best not to smile and laugh at the look on their faces while you say it.

As I’ve been writing a lot about the Kim Davis situation I was very interested in how it would come up in the Presidential debate on Wednesday, however the subject didn’t so much point out the differences in the GOP position as it pointed out the seemingly contrary positions of both media and the selective enforcement of federal law and selective interpretation of the constitution depending on who it involves.

First lets look at the Kim Davis exchange:

Jake Tapper: I want to turn back to Governor Huckabee. Governor Huckabee, last week, you held a rally for a county clerk in Kentucky who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as I don’t need to tell you. You’ve called what happened to Kim Davis, that clerk, “an example of the criminalization of Christianity.” There are several people on the stage who disagree with you. Governor Bush, for example, says that that clerk is sworn to uphold the law. Is Governor Bush on the wrong side of the criminalization of Christianity?

Gov Mike Huckabee: No, I don’t think he’s on the wrong side of such an issue. Jeb is a friend. I’m not up here to fight with Jeb or to fight with anybody else. But I am here to fight for somebody who is a county clerk elected under the Kentucky constitution that 75 percent of the people of that state had voted for that said that marriage was between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court in a very, very divided decision decided out of thin air that they were just going to redefine marriage. It’s a decision that the other justices in dissent said they didn’t have and there wasn’t a constitutional shred of capacity for them to do it. I thought that everybody here passed ninth-grade civics. The courts cannot legislate. That’s what Roberts said. But heck, it’s what we learned in civics. The courts can’t make a law. They can interpret one. They can review one. They can’t implement it. They can’t force it. But here’s what happened: Because the courts just decided that something was going to be and people relinquished it and the other two branches of government sat by silently — I thought we had three branches of government, they were all equal to each other, we have separation of powers, and we have checks and balances. If the court can just make a decision and we just all surrender to it, we have what Jefferson said was judicial tyranny. The reason that this is a real issue that we need to think about

Jake Tapper:Thank you, Governor.

Gov Mike Huckabee: No, no. Let me finish this one thought, Jake. I haven’t gotten that much time, so I’m going to take just what little I can here. We made accommodation to the Fort Hood shooter to let him grow a beard. We made accommodations to the detainees at Gitmo — I’ve been to Gitmo, and I’ve seen the accommodations that we made to the Muslim detainees who killed Americans. You’re telling me that you cannot make an accommodation for an elected Democrat county clerk from Rowan County, Kentucky? What else is it other than the criminalization of her faith and the exaltation of the faith of everyone else who might be a Fort Hood shooter or a detainee at Gitmo?

Jake Tapper:  Well, I’m not telling you that, Governor. But Governor Bush is, because he — because he disagrees. He thinks that Kim Davis swore to uphold the law. You disagree? You’re not — you don’t…

Gov Jeb Bush: I don’t think — you’re not stating my views right.

Jake Tapper: OK. Please do.

Gov Jeb Bush: I think there needs to be accommodation for someone acting on faith. Religious conscience is — is — is a first freedom. It’s — it’s a powerful part of our — of our Bill of Rights. And, in a big, tolerant country, we should respect the rule of law, allow people in — in — in this country — I’m a — I was opposed to the decision, but we — you can’t just say, “well, they — gays can’t get married now.” But this woman, there should be some accommodation for her conscience, just as there should be for people that are florists that don’t want to participate in weddings, or bakers. A great country like us should find a way to have accommodations for people so that we can solve the problem in the right way. This should be solved at the local level…

Jake Tapper: You did…

Gov Jeb Bush: And so we do agree, Mike.

Gov Chris Christie: I was —

Jake Tapper: Governor, you said, quote, “she is sworn to uphold the law.”

Gov Chris Christie: She is, and so if she, based on conscience, can’t sign that — that marriage license, then there should be someone in her office to be able to do it, and if the law needs to be changed in the state of Kentucky, which is what she’s advocating, it should be changed.

Ok so we have a question of “she’s sworn to uphold the law” and “there needs to be an accommodation based on faith” presumably based on the 1st amendment but oddly enough when Mr. Tapper asked this question on federal drug laws

Jake Tapper: Senator Paul, Governor Christie recently said, quote, “if you’re getting high in Colorado today,” where marijuana has been legalized, “enjoy it until January 2017, because I will enforce the federal laws against marijuana.” Will you?

The arguments on enforcement suddenly changed.  While Senator Paul invoked the 10th amendment suggesting the feds had crossed into a state issue. During his answer he mentioned a person on stage who used pot at one time. It turned out to be Jeb who had this to say. (all emphasis mine)

Gov Jeb Bush: So, 40 years ago, I smoked marijuana, and I admit it. I’m sure that other people might have done it and may not want to say it in front of 25 million people. My mom’s not happy that I just did. That’s true. And here’s the deal. Here’s the deal. We have — we have a serious epidemic of drugs that goes way beyond marijuana. What goes on in Colorado, as far as I’m concerned, that should be a state decision. But if you look at the problem of drugs in this — in this society today, it’s a serious problem. Rand, you know this because you’re campaigning in New Hampshire like all of us, and you see the epidemic of heroin, the overdoses of heroin that’s taking place. People’s families are — are being torn apart. It is appropriate for the government to play a consistent role to be able to provide more treatment, more prevention — we’re the state that has the most drug courts across every circuit in — in — in Florida, there are drug courts to give people a second chance. That’s the best way to do this.

Hold on a second. The laws concerning drugs are Federal laws, laws actually passed by the congress and signed by the president as opposed to the reinterpretation of a constitutional amendment.  How is it that Kim Davis a county clerk is “sworn to uphold the law” but public servants in the state of Colorado who are not claiming this has anything to do with religion, are not?

As the exchange continued. It got worse, after Jeb bush was pressed by Sen Paul on medical marijuana: again emphasis mine

Sen Rand Paul: Well, you vote — you oppose medical marijuana…

Gov Jeb Bush: Here’s the deal. No, I did not oppose when the legislature passed the bill to deal with that very issue. That’s the way to solve this problem. Medical marijuana on the ballot was opened up, there was a huge loophole, it was the first step to getting to a (inaudible) place. And as a citizen of Florida, I voted no.

So Jeb Bush believes Kim Davis “Is sworn to uphold the law” but didn’t oppose the state legislature in Florida passing a bill directly contradicting established federal law and apparently he’s not alone here.  (again emphasis mine)

Gov Chris Christie: And Senator Paul knows that that’s simply not the truth. In New Jersey, we have medical marijuana laws, which I supported and implemented. This is not medical marijuana. There’s goes as much — a further step beyond. This is recreational use of marijuana. This is much different. And so, while he would like to use a sympathetic story to back up his point, it doesn’t work. I’m not against medical marijuana. We do it in New Jersey. But I’m against the recreational use against marijuana. If he wants to change the federal law, get Congress to pass the law to change it, and get a president to sign it.

So Christie, like Bush is willing to support and implement laws that contradict existing federal law, laws that he is sworn to uphold, and is willing to do this without claiming a religious or constitutional reason.  It sounds to me like “being sworn to uphold the law” apparently doesn’t apply if the law is supported by yuppies on the left or the MSM who are both widely in favor of legalizing medical marijuana.

 

Now let’s take a look at another subject. The Question of the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship came up, Mr. Trump (backed up by Senator Rand Paul) said scholars said no but when asked by Jake Tapper, Carly Fiorina (after making a great point concerning the Democrat’ desire to have this as an issue & not solve the problem said this: again emphasis mine

Carly Fiorina: …the truth is, you can’t just wave your hands and say “the 14th Amendment is gonna go away.” It will take an extremely arduous vote in Congress, followed by two-thirds of the states, and if that doesn’t work to amend the constitution, then it is a long, arduous process in court. And meanwhile, what will continue to go on is what has gone on for 25 years. With all due respect, Mr. Trump, we’ve been talking about illegal immigration for 25 years. San Francisco has been a sanctuary city since 1989. There are 300 of them. And meanwhile, what has happened? Nothing. The border remains insecure. The legal immigration system remains broken. Look, we know what it takes to secure a border. We’ve heard a lot of great ideas here. Money, manpower, technology…

So Mrs. Fiorina says that “you can’t just wave your hands and say “the 14th Amendment is going to go away, and an awful lot of media pundits and people like Jeb Bush are with her on this. But lets take a look at the text of it The 14th Amendment specifically section 1 which states:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Nowhere in that entire section do you see the words “Gay Marriage” ( in fact you will not find the words “marriage” anywhere in the US Constitution)

Yet five members of the Supreme Court found a right to gay marriage that every other justice who ever served on the Supreme Court did not, one that overrode every single state constitution that said otherwise.

So my question is this? If justices can magically reinterpret the 14th Amendment to find a right to Gay Marriage in a document that doesn’t mention marriage, and the media claims it is legit how is it that one can’t interpret that same 14th amendment to say it doesn’t grant citizenship to people born here if their parents came illegally not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

Bottom line, apparently some in the GOP believe, with the media that when it comes to Kim Davis, the 14th Amendment is flexible and the enforcement of federal law is not, but some of those same people believe with the media, that when it comes to birthright citizenship and federal drug laws. The 14th Amendment is rigid and the enforcement of federal law is flexible.

Funny isn’t it?

*******************************************************

The only pay I get for this work comes from you. If you think this is of value I ask you to kick in and help me reach my monthly goal $1834 a month or Twenty Two grand a year.

I’d appreciate it if you would hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.


Choose a Subscription level



Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what they’re good for.

The Kim Davis story has not been kind to our friends on the left.

First she definitely but respectfully refuses to violate her Christian faith by putting granting marriage certificates to gay couples on the grounds that with her name on them it suggests her cooperation in sin.

Then when the court orders her to do so she refuses again and rather than fine her the judge rightly concludes that someone would just pay the fine so her jails her, making them fear she will be perceived as a martyr.

Just as they fear Davis goes to jail, and even worse doesn’t mimic leftist activists attacking police or authorities, she accepts the sentence maintaining her determination not to violate her conscience.

And as she’s in jail people protest for her and unlike the black lives matter protests or the occupy wall street protests there is no destruction or violence.

Then the judge, a member of the GOP, with his prospects for higher position permanently dashed as the PR gets worse and worse for the left and as two presidential candidates show up to lead protests, releases her on the grounds that her deputies (well most of them) agree to issue licences.

Davis when released not only speaks only of God and promises not to violate her conscience, but declines the offer of an armed group to protect her from further arrest.

Now the last thing the left could hope for was that she would fire her deputies, allowing them to attack her for demanding a conscience exception while not allowing her subordinates to do the same.

Alas poor leftists, that was not to be:

Before starting her workday, Davis appeared defiant, saying she will not issue any marriage licenses that go against her religious beliefs. But she left the door open for her deputies to continue giving out marriage licenses to same-sex couples as long as those documents do not have Davis’ name or title on them.

The marriage license that the couple received said “pursuant to federal court order” on it, and instead of listing Davis’ name and Rowan County, it says city of Morehead, the county seat.

David said Monday that any such licenses “will not issued or authorized by me.” Her work-around is not to sign them but not interfere with her deputies who do give them out.

“(U.S. District Judge David Bunning) indicated last week that he was willing to accept altered marriage licenses even though he was not certain of their validity,” Davis said. “I, too, have great doubts whether the license issued under these conditions are even valid.”

Actually according to Kentucky law they would not be valid but that would wait upon yet another lawsuit if anyone cared to launch one, but what matters is this.

Kim Davis retains both her elected position and her freedom of conscience. She has been able to force the very compromise that the left was unwilling to consider less than two weeks ago and the precedent is now set for Christians to refuse to participate in mortal sin that risks their soul without costing them any elected office they hold.

That’s the worst possible result for the left unless she is re-elected in 2016, then That will be the worst possible result for the left.

Over the next few years you are going to be branded as bigots, hated and derided. You will be portrayed in every form of culture, plays, TV series and movies as people to be shunned and no member of the media will fail to come after you for your offenses against the twin sacraments of Abortion & Gay Marriage…The days of easy Christianity are over Now is the time to decide.

DaTechGuy March 29th 2013

One of the arguments I repeatedly hear from our friends on the left is that Kim Davis is the next George Wallace on Twitter an example:

I really find such tweets a lot of fun because the depth of historical ignorance they show is astounding

For all his: “segregation today, segregation tomorrow segregation forever” bluster and his showboat blocking of a schoolhouse door, George Wallace proved to be a pol whose primary concerning was getting power and obtaining more. Wallace used his showboat stance for political gain, using it, when term limited in office, to elect his wife as governor, using it to repeal his state’s term limit rule allowing him to run against his wife’s former Lt gov (she died of cancer in office) serving several more terms.

Furthermore he used it highlight himself nationally to peruse four presidential campaigns, the first abruptly pre-empted by JFK’s assassination, the 2nd on a third party ticket where he became one of the few 3rd party candidates ever to win states multiple states, the third for the Democrat nomination in 1972, a race he was doing well in until an attempted assassination attempt ended his campaign and left him in a wheelchair for life, and a fourth in 1976 which didn’t gain much traction.

Wallace didn’t go to jail or risk penalties for his beliefs because he didn’t have any other than “George Wallace deserves to be elected” , when segregation was popular he trumped segregation, when it became unpopular suddenly decided he spoke against it. In fact it seems to me that when it came to pols following in Wallace’s footstep the people are not Democrats like Kim Davis but Democrats like Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who, as you might have forgotten, abruptly changed their position when it appeared large gay donors were closing their purses.

And once they did by an astounding coincidence the entire democrat party from Bill Clinton who signed the Defence of Marriage act to every single Democrat pol who said things like this:

suddenly decided that anyone who didn’t beleve in gay marriage was a bigot. As Dave Weigel put it.

The new Democratic advocates for SSM fall into two camps. The first consists of people who always liked the idea of this but worried about losing national elections. In his memoir, Democratic consultant Bob Shrum remembers John Kerry fretting that the Massachusetts Supreme Court had forced Democrats to talk about gay marriage before they were ready to. “Why couldn’t they just wait a year?” he asked Shrum, mournfully. The second camp consists of people who really do oppose the idea of gay people getting married. Republicans argued that this second camp was tiny, and that liberals were hiding behind it. They were right!

There are two words to describe this: Political opportunism. That sounds very George Wallace to me.

Contrast all of this with Kim Davis. Davis didn’t seek publicity, those who choose to force her hand did, as marriage licences were available just a few miles away. Even as the country’s media and elites demonized her and pundit after pundit attacked her she went to court to defend her position citing her religious beliefs seeking a compromise that would allow her to function without her name being one marriage certificates.

When ordered to jail, she didn’t put on a show, she went to jail and when released during the middle of a rally in her support (a rally used by at least one presidential candidate to showboat a bit) rather than talking politics or anything of that nature she praised God while her lawyers, speaking to media stated that she would not be doing anything different to violate her conscience:

Doesn’t sound very Wallace. In fact, instead of political opportunism that’s a classic example of civil disobedience. Violate law, take penalty. That’s how it works.

Furthermore we’ve had several tweets talking about her disobeying the “law” and noting that some of her defenders have been upset other locations violating federal laws (such as sanctuary cities). There is an excellent answer to these statments that I can’t take credit for writing emphasis mine

Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

That is an excellent summation of what Kim Davis has done, she has stood up against an unjust “law” rejecting the fear of nonconformity and vividly illustrated the attempt to to create a de facto religious test for office, to wit, if you are christian you may not hold public office in the United States unless you are what we call a “cafeteria catholic” or protestant, willing to ignore or even violate you beliefs for the sake of political office.

Now some have argued that Davis wasn’t in jail to protest a religious test for office she was in jail for contempt of court for violating a judge’s order based on her religion and they would be right.

However they forget that the person who wrote that excellent summation of what Kim Davis did, some fellow by the name of Martin Luther King, did so while in jail, not for protesting segregation, but for parading without a permit and as for legalities King had a few things to say about that too: emphasis mine again

of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.

You know this is the type of language that Democrat pols and our friends on the left have labeled “christofacist” or a “homophobe” or a “bigoted” comparing it to the words of the mullas in Iran, Saudi Arabia & ISIS.

Who knew they hated Martin Luther King so much?

Closing thought: Given the choice between loyalty to a political party willing to join you when the political wind is with you and likely willing drop you twice as fast if the wind changes and loyalty to a God who love yous and sent his son to die for the redemption of our sins, I, along with Kim Davis, Martin Luther King and Pope Francis suggest the latter.

*******************************************************

The only pay I get for this work comes from you. If you think this is of value I ask you to kick in and help me reach my monthly goal $1834 a month or Twenty Two grand a year.

I’d appreciate it if you would hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.


Choose a Subscription level



Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what they’re good for.