He is proposing a ban on sugar-filled drinks greater than 16 ounces. I heard him say that people can still purchase 32 ounces of soda and the like but they will have to buy it in increments of 16 ounces. Because he says so!

Our paternalistic leader believes it is healthier for us not to eat and drink high calorie, sugar-filled products. He may be right but he has no right to impose his beliefs and idiosyncrasies on us.

That is what makes him an obnoxious, snobby liberal. He thinks because he is a billionaire that he can tell the people who elected him what to do. We didn’t elect him to do that, however.

But there is something about Bloomie where he feels the need to impose his beliefs and values on us.

We who are pro-life are not supposed to share our thoughts. Those of us who oppose so-called same-sex marriage are told we’re intolerant.

Yet who is more intolerant than Mr. Mayor? Recall he should have been barred from this third term but the will of the people was overturned and he bought the mayoralty again.

Where did he get his medical degree? How does he know better than millions of New Yorkers? Why does his opinion matter more than yours and mine?

That’s right–he is rich. Very, very rich.

I think it is funny how liberals give him a pass while Mitt Romney–who is a pauper in comparison–is raked over the coals for being an evil rich guy.

(Source: Appapillai.com)

Mitt does not want to tell anyone how to live his life.

Yet Bloomie feels entitled to compel us to live as he would have us live.And why not? When Obamacare goes into effect and the government is paying for our healthcare, people like Bloomie will be able to say that our bad eating habits cost the government money in increased health care costs and so we have to be subject to creeps like him. Bureaucrats who will tell us what to eat and drink.

And eventually what to think.

Just because someone is rich does not make him better or smarter than the rest of us.

And throughout time rich and prominent people have been complete idiots. As liberal legal scholar Alan Dershowitz said, he would rather be governed by the first several random names in the phonebook than the losers who claim to know what is best for us. (I am paraphrasing–he had the right idea this one time!)

We are Americans who believe in freedom and we know what is best for us. And even if we don’t, liberty means we have the right to be wrong.

To me one is pro-life or pro-abortion. So even with the fake pro-choice option, more people are self-identifying as pro-life. That is big news.

Are you surprised that this was not trumpeted from the rooftops by the pro-abortion media? It is like gay marriage. When the people vote against it, it is a minor story. When legislatures or judges ignore the will of the people and legalize same-sex marriage, that is front-page news. No accident there. The media want to isolate conservative Americans so we feel like we are the minority but we are the MAJORITY.

And are you surprised that people are increasingly pro-life as the administration is openly pro-abortion? Despite Democrat griping about a war on women, people who are not stupid know the truth. President Obama is the best friend of the abortion rights crowd. He is willing to alienate Catholics and those who believe in the First Amendment by trying to force organizations to violate their beliefs via Obamacare and the birth control mandate.

The birth control mandate also includes forcing Catholic institutions to pay for sterilizations and abortifacient pills. We know the next step is paying for surgical abortions. That is the goal.

So in servicing the pro-aborts, Obama has opened the eyes of the American people. And maybe that is the best thing he could have done to energize and unite those who wish to help the unborn.

We are the majority in this country. In the media, they side with Obama. So don’t ever expect acknowledgement of our pro-life views.

In fact, the media is so pro-abortion as a force in society that even when they dare to criticize Bam, they re-assert their pro-abortion credentials.

Quick case in point: Campbell Brown, a journalist who married a Republican, took Obama to task for patronizing women. Indeed, she is right. But to avoid any question that she is a real journalist–you know, a liberal–she cited her support for abortion rights as a sign of her legitimacy as a reporter and her reasonableness as a human being.

Imagine I am reading this great piece in The New York Times where she is telling the truth about Obama and then she has to preserve her reputation with the media by saying she too loves abortion. Obama is not so bad, of course, because, as condescending as he is, he shows his support for abortion.

While being a member of the media elite means promoting abortion, the American people are waking up and are at odds with the media. Nothing new there!

Don’t be afraid to admit you are pro-life like your fellow Americans. Contact your local media outlets and tell them to run this story.

We are pro-life and the media need to share the message even if they don’t share those values.

What is the biggest liberal cause these days? Yes, that’s right, it is the agenda of the powerful and well-funded gay lobby.

So I was not terribly surprised when I saw the NAACP passed a resolution calling so-called same-sex marriage a civil right. What is it the business of a civil rights organization for African Americans to advocate the cause of homosexual so-called rights?

Independent of that, gays have all the rights of every other American.They are not entitled to special rights due to their sexuality. In addition, if they want to get together, no one is stopping them. What the majority of Americans are saying is that it is not marriage. It can be called marriage, but it is not and getting the state to recognize it as such does not change two men or two women hooking up from simply that to the holy state of matrimony.

We all know the arguments for and against gay marriage. What is disturbing about this resolution is that it does not represent the average African American. Blacks overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage. If you recall, when black people voted for Obama and against gay marriage when it was on the ballot in California, many supposedly open-minded gays turned against blacks for their alleged intolerance of the gay agenda.

(Source: Zimbio.com)

Many black people, especially Christians, are rightly opposed to gay marriage, recognizing it as illegitimate. When organizations that purport to represent African Americans advocate another agenda, this is a wake-up call that the NAACP and similar organizations do not represent the concerns of black Americans.

Likewise, leftist blacks in Congress also do not represent the needs and aspirations of African Americans. Promoting poverty and government dependence does not liberate anyone, including African Americans. Look at what President Obama has done for blacks–that’s right, nothing.

Like other Americans, blacks need jobs, equal opportunity and freedom. None of us need to be regulated beyond belief, over-taxed and mocked for our firmly-held beliefs.

Finally, the worst part of the resolution by the liberal NAACP is that they oppose efforts to “codify hatred or discrimination into the law.” What? They want to change the law, change the most fundamental institution of a sane society, and they have the nerve to say opposition to such a resolution is hatred or discrimination. Is it not these people who hate traditional morality and wish to discriminate against those who believe in God and the Bible?

How does a group claim to represent its members when it does not even know them? And in fact is calling them hateful bigots!

The truth is this group is taking this position to assist President Obama, who created a firestorm of controversy among his most loyal supporters, African Americans, when he advocated for same-sex marriage. I don’t think the NAACP cares about the issue but they want to support their president — even if it means turning their backs on the people they claim to represent.

You have probably never heard of it because the media is not widely reporting this anti-American and anti-freedom legislation which President Obama signed into law last New Year’s Eve.

Like healthcare “reform” that was signed into law in the middle of the night over a holiday, NDAA became law without proper vetting by the American people, who did not have a say. While Republicans and Democrats favor NDAA, lovers of liberty must reject the parts of it that threaten our freedoms.

Under this law, an American citizen suspected of supporting terrorism can be arrested and detained indefinitely, denied fundamental protections of the Constitution.

Liberals, of course, are paranoid that the government will come after them. They’re the ones who challenged the law. My concern is that true conservatives would be targeted. For example, Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Secretary, is concerned about right-wingers, including pro-lifers, being domestic terrorists. I could see pro-life activists being targeted and victimized by this law. Who would defend them?

(Source: Allvoices.com)

Liberals have the media, Hollywood and the academics. They have deep pockets such as those of George Soros. I have no concerns for them. I am deeply troubled by the thought that ill-defined concepts such as terrorism could lead to arrests without rights. Actual terrorists who are not citizens seem to have more rights. It is upside down and backwards.

The reason you as a conservative should be concerned is that under this law, American citizens, anywhere in the world — even on American soil, can be detained indefinitely by the military as alleged terrorists with no charges made or a trial set. This is a clear violation of the Bill of Rights. I know terrorism is dangerous but so is giving power to define terrorism and take away people’s rights.

There is also a big difference between detaining a non-American caught fighting American soldiers in the field of battle and detaining an American citizen on U.S. soil who supports a cause with which the government disagrees. While Obama has said he will not use the controversial provisions because they trouble him, I can see him changing his mind. He never closed Guantanamo despite campaign promises to do so.

Moreover, notwithstanding liberal concerns for actual terrorists and themselves, conservatives who have politically incorrect positions should be the ones who are afraid. Those who don’t get with the liberal program. As noted above, Napolitano supported the issuance of a government report broadening the scope of what constitutes terrorism to include all sorts of right-wing extremists–as defined by the government. This includes pro-lifers and returning veterans.

We need Obama defeated in November and more judges willing to stand for freedom. While the preliminary injunction is a step in the right direction, we need for the law to be invalidated as unconstitutional.

Maybe America can still be saved!

To start with the trivial in some ways but significant in others, I am delighted to report that certain TV shows have been cancelled. First, I reported back in March about an anti-Christian version of Desperate Housewives called GCB. It stands for Good Christian Bitches. I am glad that the Christian majority did not support this program. This tells Hollywood that mocking us is not okay.

The other show of the many cancelled that brings me delight in Missing starring Ashley Judd. Recall she recently attacked Rick Santorum for being pro-life in a Funny or Die! video that was not funny. She is an angry feminist. I am so glad the American people have voted against her extremism by not watching her show.

So we may feel powerless against Hollywood spewing its anti-God agenda, but we are not. They need us to support them. If we don’t want our morals and beliefs mocked, we must not support shows and stars that are openly against us.

Speaking of Hollywood, they were delighted with President Obama’s politically motivated announcement of his support for gay marriage. The funny thing is I knew he favored gay marriage. I don’t go by what he says; I know it by what he does. This is the same man who ordered the Justice Department not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. If someone supports gay marriage, that is exactly the move he would make, isn’t it?

While liberals were delighted about Obama’s alleged ”bravery,” the important message of the week was that the good people of North Carolina came out in large numbers to vote against same-sex marriage. The vote was not even close. Every time the people have the chance to speak on this issue, they say no to changing marriage from what it is to something it is not, such as the union between two men or two women. It may be popular with the elites but they know it is not what the people want.

(Source: purepeople.com)

Any state that has gay marriage has it as the result of a judicial determination or legislators caving in to special interests. Not the will of the people.

But the people spoke this week, despite Joe Biden, despite George Clooney and his wealthy guests, despite Ellen and Rachel Maddow, despite The New York Times.

There is hope and we have to continue to make good choices.Every chance we get.

The following is the shocking statement made by a man who regularly makes inane comments:

“I am vice president of the United States of America. The president sets the policy.  I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties.  And quite frankly, I don’t see much of a distinction — beyond that.”

What? I cannot believe a supposedly educated man, particularly one who claims to be a practicing Catholic, could make such a stupid declaration. Even dopey Joe! Does he really see no difference between a man marrying a man and a man marrying a woman? In all of human history, there never has been such an idea. There may have been homosexuality but no gay ever tried to marry his partner. But Joe thinks it is all the same.

So why do I call for this idiot’s excommunication? First, he is a disgrace to the faith. His advocacy for gay marriage is a source of scandal to his fellow Catholics. Excommunication would serve to show that the Church is serious in her opposition to gay marriage. Being a high-ranking public official, Biden is an appropriate object of scrutiny. He should use his position to promote what is morally right.

Instead he is a political hack like his boss, always seeking to please the leftists.

(Source: Renovomedia.com)

Second, Biden should have been excommunicated for his position on abortion. While not as radical as Obama, he is fully supportive of Roe v. Wade and has voted repeatedly to uphold so-called abortion rights. He is also a supporter of embryonic stem cell research. The Catholic Church opposes both evils. And everyone knows one can be excommunicated for promoting abortion. It is time for his bishop to act.

Finally, and most importantly, Biden should be excommunicated for his own sake. That he can publicly deny his faith and yet still receive Communion puts his soul in mortal peril. Just because his boss and the elites support him, we as Catholics know better.

If we truly believe what we preach, then we need to live it. Mr. Biden cannot be credibly Catholic. He cannot pick the parts of Catholicism he likes and ignore the parts that are politically unpopular in his party. He needs to have integrity and the Church has to help him re-claim the faith he claims to love.

So I call for the excommunication of Joe Biden because he is my brother in Christ and I wish for him to repent.

Pray for Joe Biden and pray for his bishop–pray they may do what is morally right.

Mom is desperate to win the award which promises absolution for all her past sins. Hollywood really doesn’t understand Catholicism, which they see as hocus-pocus. They could not be further from the truth but they revel in their ignorance which they trumpet on movie screens from coast to coast.

While this movie is not in wide circulation, it is one that has been warmly received by critics and has a big name cast. If you replace the characters described below with homosexuals or Muslims behaving badly, there would be no critical acclaim or celebrity participation. Funny how that happens.

(Source: RottenTomatoes.com)

So I have kept you in suspense long enough. What makes this movie anti-Catholic and reprehensible?

• Mom is old-fashioned in her thinking (practicing Catholic) and in fact admits to not thinking. How could a thinking person believe in Catholicism? That is what Hollywood believes. So imagine them making a movie that portrays Muslims negatively. They value their botoxed heads too much.
• Her husband is an alcoholic.
• Her daughter is  a pregnant lesbian who plans to get married to her partner.
• Her son dumped his wife and family to commit adultery with a Protestant woman.

This resembles a typical Hollywood family minus the practicing Catholic mother. But to mock her, she needs to represent what the elites believe a traditional Catholic to be: ignorant and intolerant.

The movie is said to be about tolerance, but as the Catholic League points out, the tolerance is of deviancy, not of traditional Catholic values. Mom needs to get with the program and see that her family is right and she is wrong.

I ask again, would Hollywood leftists makes a movie that showed homosexuals in a bad light, as fools who need to change their ways? Or would a traditional Muslim mother be shown as stupid while her lesbian daughter, drunk husband and cheating son are shown as enlightened?

I am sure you can see that film being made and shown in theaters. Yes, very possible in our modern world.

So, it goes without saying that I will not see this movie. I read enough reviews to make me sick. Hollywood being Hollywood means we need to avoid rewarding them for insulting us. But this kind of film does shed light on what we who claim the culture is a cesspool have been saying. Normal people will recognize this for what it is and will hopefully open their eyes.

We have lost the culture and this is a reminder. We need to live good lives and do our part to get the culture back.

• Professors at “Catholic” Georgetown University protested a speech by Catholic pro-life Rep. Paul Ryan because he wants to fix government programs in a way they don’t like
• Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, a “Catholic” who loves abortion based on his record, signed a bill to outlaw the death penalty even though people really don’t get executed in that liberal northeast bastion
• Lover of abortion, actress Ashley Judd, mocked–or attempted to–pro-life Sen. Rick Santorum, a devoted Catholic who has the nerve to call abortion evil

As for Georgetown, the Catholic League pointed out that professors–over 90 of them–wrote a letter to protest a speech at the school by a leading Republican, Wisconsin’s Paul Ryan, on his budget that rightfully uses Catholic principles of subsidiarity. Government handouts are not the solution as the professors contend. Ryan wants to empower the poor. That is a Catholic idea. But liberal professors know nothing of what is Catholic.

(Source: csmonitor.com)

They love abortion and advocate any violation of Catholic social teaching that involves sexuality.

But they all become very Catholic–or their version of what Catholic is–when it comes to the poor or war or other issues where Church teaching is perceived to be liberal. Except Church teaching is not liberal; it is Christian.

And professors are the ultimate hypocrites when they protest free speech which they claim to love above all else. And especially when they object because they don’t like the content of the speech!

To add to my upset stomach I heard that Gov. Malloy outlawed the death penalty. I am against the death penalty although it is permissible under Church teaching in certain circumstances. Unlike abortion which is NEVER permissible. The reason this upset me is it is outlawing something that is so rarely done that it is hardly worth the effort.

Only a couple of people have been executed in Connecticut over the last half century. So you can see the burning need for this legislation. Reminds me of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo pushing through gay marriage while the economy was crumbling. Not a priority.

What really galls me is that, according to the Cardinal Newman Society, Mr. Malloy is a cheerleader of Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood, and the HHS birth control mandate that threatens the liberty of the Church. Another hypocrite who picks and chooses which Catholic Church teachings to follow. No to capital punishment and yes to abortion.

On top of his hypocritical position on social issues, to add insult to injury, a “Catholic” college, St. Joseph’s in Connecticut, is conferring on him an honorary degree next month, according to the Cardinal Newman Society.

And we wonder why many Catholic school graduates, especially those that go into politics, turn out poorly and live lives contrary to the faith. They get bad role models like Malloy addressing them at graduation.

Finally, Ashley Judd, movie actress-turned-TV actress, stars in a Funny or Die! video where she lectures Rick Santorum on terminating his campaign as if she is a pro-life counselor. The thing about these videos are they are supposed to be funny. Instead, Ms. Judd, abortion-loving feminist, like most of her ilk, appears angry, just bitterly angry.

And her rant is thus not funny.

Seems strange to me that she would let out her venom when he is no longer a factor in the election. She is really objecting to educating women who are considering abortion as if women in crisis pregnancies are not vulnerable and emotional. We’re not talking about wearing the wrong dress to the Oscars. An abortion cannot be un-done. And her friends at Planned Parenthood want to keep women ignorant. Aren’t we told women should be empowered? What is more empowering than educating women about what an abortion is?

If women are strong, as she contends, they can handle it. Why should she be afraid if abortion is the great good she acts like it is? Because Planned Parenthood knows exactly what it is and how knowledge will lead to fewer “terminations.”

It is hypocritical to be pro-woman and then to act like women are victims of pro-lifers like Santorum. Women can handle the truth that abortion takes a life. The question is, can this flaky former starlet?

She makes me sick since I am a strong, pro-life, educated woman who understands what abortion is and believes this information needs to be shared with all women.

What I can do as one person is never see her movies (although that ship has apparently sailed due to her increasing age and lack of appeal!) or her TV show, Missing, which airs on ABC.  I knew not to support her career before this incident because of her pro-abortion views but now I am actively sharing her intolerant positions with you and everyone else I know because this is the last straw.

I am glad this got wide attention from Bill O’Reilly earlier this week on his program on Fox News.

The more we are educated on what is going on in this world, the more informed we can be in our choices. Let’s do our part to fight the sick society.

Join us in Celebration of

Good Counsel, Inc.

Homes for Homeless, Pregnant Mothers

27^th Annual Ball for Life

Friday, May 11, 2012

The Racquet and Tennis Club

370 Park Avenue * New York City

7:00 P.M. to Midnight

Honoring

LARRY KUDLOW

Host of CNBC’s The Kudlow Report and Nationally-Syndicated Radio Host,

The Larry Kudlow Show.

For more ticket information visit us on the web:

www.goodcounselhomes.org

or call 201-795-0637

Despite the lack of media coverage of the Solyndra scandal or the Fast and Furious debacle, President Obama has managed to keep his reputation as an ethical person, a moral man, and new kind of leader.

Sure, we all know he appears incompetent and enjoys vacations a little too much. But we all concede he is smart, well-spoken and polished.

Whatever his negatives, he has managed to avoid being tarnished by scandal.

There are always scandals during a presidency. And Obama has had them but on the QT. The media has been engaged in don’t ask, don’t tell when it comes to scandals like those cited above.

But that has changed. Big time.

The simultaneously-breaking scandals of the GSA taxpayer-funded partying masquerading as a conference and the Secret Service dalliances with hookers are eye-opening.

That Secret Service agents would bring hookers or any unknown women into their hotels with the president’s schedule in their rooms is unfathomable. The fact that they were ready to party instead of working is troubling. But doesn’t the president set the example by his constant merriment–basketball games, golf, Hollywood guests, vacations? He is so busy enjoying himself that he rarely has time to govern.

(Source: Esquire.com)

Not a bad thing in light of his radical agenda.

So maybe the Secret Service agents didn’t get the memo that they protect their leaders while they have sex. They’re not supposed to be having the sex themselves. And by the way it is morally reprehensible that these agents were picking up prostitutes whether or not it is legal in Cartagena.

And then there is the General Services Administration sending its employees to Vegas for team building. Why do government workers need to build themselves up? Why can’t they do something novel like work? Or better yet this sounds like an agency that should be targeted for closure under our next president.

As to why they thought they could party on the taxpayers’ dime, they need look no further than the First Lady. Like her husband, she likes to vacation. No matter the price. She flies separately if it suits her even if the taxpayer is footing the bill. And Obama is scouting locations for their next vacation, even in Cartagena, the site of the scandal!

And of course the main reason the GSA “workers” feel like they can spend the taxpayers’ money is that they know Obama will print more or borrow it from China. It’s our money–they value it not.

So we can say that Obama should be held accountable for what happens in his administration. He is their role model. And hopefully our soon-to-be former president!