I get the same thing ... and then get accused of being closed minded.

I have a very basic and simple recommendation. Watch this Bill Whittle video:

http://youtu.be/_dwz_Z62e0s

It's not about religion, but it does compare two fundamental world views that impact how we view governance. Though he doesn't say it specifically, it also applies to religion.

I would also recommend G.K. Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man" - very readable, logical case for religion/God and (speaking as a Christian) C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" Both of these helped me in my  overcome a fundamentalist Christian upbringing and, remarkably, get back to church.

It's not just the Catholics who are invested in the whole idea that public assistance creates absolution for a lack of private charity. As a member of a Presbyterian church (PCUSA), I've been struggling with their politics for a long time.

regarding deficits and taxes

 politics & scripture

anti Tea Party confusion over Christ

the intellectual cowardice of my 'thinking' friends

There is a reason mainline denominations are losing members ... they stand for everything instead of something.

As Josh Trevino tweets: Planned Parenthood's primary means of fighting cancer is unaffected by the loss of Komen funds. They'll stop cancer at the source: people.

The Christian left consistently promotes redistribution of wealth as 'what Jesus would do' so it is not surprising that Obama would have this interpretation of the scripture. He has demonstrated that his faith is one of convenience, not commitment, which makes his scriptural outbursts more distasteful to me. I've got more to say on this subject on my blog.

Perhaps I should have differentiated between the wannabe wonks and pundits (like me) who are looking for someone to support and the professional class of pundits (like NRO) who obviously have a Romney agenda.

I argue in my most recent blog post that there are plenty of folks who are anxious to vote against Obama and there are still plenty of voters looking to vote for change. The change, however, is not left vs. right or Republican vs. Democrat, but insider vs. outsider. People are not anxious to vote for the next in line - that's why Hilary couldn't beat Barack.

If the Republicans want to win, they need to have someone the base can vote for, that the mushy middle won't vote against and that is definitively NOT Obama.

here's part of my blog ...

... for the average American, the name Gingrich is a lot closer to meaning double-talking-political-grinch than it is to principled, effective leader ... they likely know something about his personal life. Unfortunately, someone in their third marriage is not unusual in our society, but it's still not considered an enhancement to character. ... Gingrich carries a negative political and personal vibe with him, plus, he's an arrogant, big ego, know-it-all who has a government related answer to everything. His vertical leap is higher than his likeability index. There is little doubt that Gingrich is capable of saying the right things, the things that will differentiate him from Obama, because he is, after all, the "smart" Republican. ... the policy wonks and political dilettantes will like him, because his intelligence reflects their own, you see, but your average Joe knows that "smart Republican" in the nomination press is simply code for sneaky, greedy and morally bankrupt in the general election press. Newt would eviscerate Obama in a debate, but how would he govern? Just like Obama ... ego first.

I don't think Newt would be worse than Obama. I think he would be the same as Obama. As would Huntsman. As would Romney.

I've "winnowed the field", too ... but came up with a different result.

I prefer Mom and Pop's ... and I explain why in a blog post entitled 'Conservative Bargains' ... but the bottom line is, I don't like how Walmart does business.

The three most important things to a successful marriage are money, sex and the in-laws*. Keep those under control and you eliminate 80% of the potential problems.

*not necessarily in that order.

... and I wouldn't be so sure that "jobs" is the principal concern of the American people. I think people truly fear the direction of the country and that they will accept some level of economic sacrifice in exchange for "getting the car out of the 'no principals' ditch" the current administration has driven into.

I foresee a long, hard battle. This is not simply Republicans vs. Democrats and 'can't we all just get along' politics. The American people are indeed, 'het up.' Even if Obama moves to the center, Obamacare will continue to be a boat anchor for him, or rather the "tea" for the Tea Party movement.

As Brent Morehouse points out in the introduction to his book, Tea Party: The Awakening, the anti-establishment "patriots" pushed the Whigs in a libertarian/natural law direction that eventually led to the modern Republican party. Obamacare, like the 'intolerable acts' has finally pushed Americans too far and they will push back. But it will take time.

I am hopeful it won't be that long. Already you can see that the public is not easily fooled. No one bought the 'Loughner is a right-wing nut' story. Few believe Obamacare can be tweaked into working shape, and many understand its true implications. It's hard to convince people the Tea Party is racist and uneducated when they and their neighbors are carrying the signs.

"they're paid only a fraction of what they're worth."

~$2.6 million in salaries listed here, they generate ~$100 million in revenue ... so the question is would an executive staff with half the salary raise more than $50 million?

The effectiveness of charitable organizations are hard to judge. but there is something to the "success breeds success" argument in fundraising for large charitable organizations.

I don't think there is anything to be gained in making that gesture. My point is that there is no mutual respect and as etoiledunord points out, it just makes the Christians chumps. It seems to me that openness and diversity and multiculturalism and 'No Labels' and apology-diplomacy and all of the many get-along-politically-correct pressures boil down to one important problem ... believing in something is now a bad thing.

I just saw in another article on Ricochet that Lang Lang played an anti-American song at the state dinner for China. How's that openness working out on the diplomatic front? Do you think Muslim worship in a Christian church would be sensitive and respectful enough to avoid the unpleasant talk about infidels?

I like the Motown/Doo-Wop sound of "O'Chets" ... pronounced "oh-shets" 

Claire and the O'Chets

Peter and the O'Chets

Sounds cool, no?