Fyodor's faith in technology is restored!

Meet Olly & Molly, who make tweeting worthwhile.

Olly let's you smell tweets...

Olly - The Web Connected Smelly Robot

...and Molly will give you a treat if you get enough retweets!

Molly

March 30, 2012: Day of Prayer, Fasting, Abstinence for Religious Liberty

Help stop the left-fascist perverts, criminals, babykillers, and traitors. Change your life and change their hearts.

PA Bishops Call Day of Prayer, Fasting, Abstinence for Religious Liberty

The Catholic Bishops of Pennsylvania have called for Friday, March 30, 2012, to be a day of prayer, fasting and abstinence for religious liberty.

Click here to send a message in support of religious liberty.

Below is their letter to the faithful:

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

The assault by the federal government on constitutionally guaranteed religious liberty continues. Our concern and alarm flows from a mandate of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which punishes the Church for its firmly held beliefs and consistent teaching. This mandate – published in the federal register without change, despite claims of “accommodations” – would force Catholic employers to pay for abortion-causing drugs, sterilization and contraception.

Some falsely suggest that the HHS mandate is about contraception. This is primarily about religious liberty and our First Amendment rights to the free exercise of our religion. Make no mistake about it – this government mandate is a step which will inevitably lead to other mandates that continue to strike at the heart of our Faith and the constitutional liberties we have been guaranteed. The mandate cannot stand – it must not stand!

This same mandate also, alarmingly, purports to tell churches what type of activities the government thinks are religious. Catholic schools, hospitals, nursing homes and Catholic charities do not qualify for a religious exemption. Why? Because they serve non-Catholics. Under the government’s view, Jesus and his disciples would have been deemed not religious enough. We have entered dangerous territory – the government is defining religion and limiting its practice. This is an unprecedented and gross infringement on our religious freedom. We did not pick this fight, but neither will we run from it.

Religious liberty does not belong to the Democrats or Republicans, it belongs to all Americans. Long before these mandates were issued, the bishops in the United States worked for health care reform and universal coverage that respects all human life from conception to natural death and includes language to protect religious conscience and practice of all citizens. Our fervent entreaties were answered with promises that we had nothing to fear. We cannot now sit idly by and let this happen. We cannot, as a Church, be silent because some have sought to politicize our plight. Please visit www.pacatholic.org to send a message to your legislators in support of conscience rights. Our voices and yours must be heard. The mandate must be rescinded. Our freedom and liberty must be preserved. And in this effort, we must remain steadfast.

Throughout history, Catholics in times of need have turned to God through prayer and fasting, as these practices allow us to grow closer to the Lord, inspire us to do His will and invoke His protection in answer to our prayers. During the Fridays of Lent, the faithful are obliged to abstain from eating meat. On Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, Catholics are also asked to fast – eating only one full meal, and, if necessary, two much smaller meals – to aid our spiritual life. Recognizing the efficacy of prayer and fasting as well as the challenges we face in overcoming the recent attack on our religious freedom, we, the Bishops of Pennsylvania, request that all Catholics dedicate the regular Lenten Friday practice of prayer and abstinence as well as the additional practice of fasting on Friday, March 30, to the preservation of religious liberty. On that day, offer your sacrifice for the cause of religious liberty, that the Church may be granted the basic right to practice what she preaches, and for our political leaders, that their eyes may be opened to the rights of all Americans, including those of faith. We will join with the over 3 million Catholics in Pennsylvania to mark this day of prayer, fasting and abstinence for religious liberty.

As we continue on our Lenten journey, we know the Lord walks with us during times of trial and concern. Let us do all that we are able – prayer, fasting, abstinence and the exercise of faithful citizenship – to uphold the freedoms of Christ’s Church and to grow closer to Him.

Here is a printable version of the Pennsylvania Bishops’ Letter on Religious Liberty.

More ultra-violence from the women-hating Opervma, who loves only death and power.

Talk about a war on women! Half the victims of the commiefag redefinition of "women's healthcare" are women. Where's the Geneva Convention when we need it?

From LifeNews.com:

Obama Admin Finalizes Rules: $1 Abortions in ObamaCare ...

It’s official. The concern pro-life organizations had about the ObamaCare legislation funding abortions has been confirmed, as the Obama administration has issued the final rules on abortion funding governing the controversial health care law.

Nestled within the “individual mandate” in the Obamacare act — that portion of the Act requiring every American to purchase government — approved insurance or pay a penalty — is an “abortion premium mandate.” This mandate requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion. As a result, many pro-life Americans will have to decide between a plan that violates their consciences by funding abortion, or a plan that may not meet their health needs.

The Department of Health and Human Services has issued a final rule regarding establishment of the state health care exchanges required under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

As a knowledgeable pro-life source on Capitol Hill informed LifeNews, as authorized by Obamacare, “The final rule provides for taxpayer funding of insurance coverage that includes elective abortion” and the change to longstanding law prohibiting virtually all direct taxpayer funding of abortions (the Hyde Amendment) is accomplished through an accounting arrangement described in the Affordable Care Act and reiterated in the final rule issued today.

“To comply with the accounting requirement, plans will collect a $1 abortion surcharge from each premium payer,” the pro-life source informed LifeNews. “The enrollee will make two payments, $1 per month for abortion and another payment for the rest of the services covered. As described in the rule, the surcharge can only be disclosed to the enrollee at the time of enrollment. Furthermore, insurance plans may only advertise the total cost of the premiums without disclosing that enrollees will be charged a $1 per month fee to pay directly subsidize abortions.”

The pro-life advocate told LifeNews that the final HHS rule mentions, but does not address concerns about abortion coverage in “multi-state” plans administered by the Federal Government’s Office of Personell Management (OPM).

“There is nothing in the Affordable Care Act to prevent some OPM (government administered) plans from covering elective abortion, and questions remain about whether OPM multi-state plans will include elective abortion,” the pro-life source said. “If such plans do include abortion, there are concerns that the abortion coverage will even be offered in states that have prohibited abortion coverage in their state exchanges.”

The final rule indicates: “Specific standards for multi-state plans will be described in future rulemaking published by OPM…”

Set to go into effect in 2014, the unconstitutional provisions found in Section 1303 of the Obamacare Act compel enrollees in certain health plans to pay a separate abortion premium from their own pocket, without the ability to decline abortion coverage based on religious or moral objection.

That provision was the subject of a legal document that Bioethics Defense Fund’s Dorinda C. Bordlee, lead counsel for the group, submitted to the Supreme Court in February.

“This violates the Free Exercise Clause because religious exemptions are made for groups such as the Amish who morally object to purchasing any insurance, but no exemptions are made for Americans who have religious or moral objections to abortion,” Bordlee said.

“President Obama’s healthcare overhaul includes an ‘abortion premium mandate’ that blatantly violates the conscience rights and First Amendment religious rights of millions of Americans,” AUL president Charmaine Yoest said. “Nowhere in the Constitution does it require Americans to violate their beliefs and pay for abortions.”

ADF Senior Counsel Steven Aden says Americans should not be compelled to pay for other people’s elective abortions.

“No one should be forced to violate their conscience by paying for abortions, but that’s precisely what ObamaCare does,” he explained. “ObamaCare requires that employees enrolled in certain health plans pay a separate insurance premium specifically to pay for other people’s elective abortions and offers no opt-out for religious or moral reasons. Such a mandate cannot survive constitutional scrutiny.”

BDF president and general counsel Nikolas Nikas said the individual mandate not only forces individuals into private purchases, it also effectively mandates personal payments for surgical abortion coverage, without exemption for an individual’s religious or moral objections.

He told LifeNews in an email, “Like a Russian nesting doll, the individual mandate has nestled within it a hidden, but equally unconstitutional scheme that effectively imposes an ‘abortion premium mandate’ that violates the free exercise rights of millions of Americans who have religious objections to abortion.”

GET YOUR WOMBS OUT OF MY WALLET!

The latest from the frontlines of the Women's War on the Constitution. First, five stories on the activities of Generalissima Subversivus, behind whose skirts Benito cowers...

Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of ...

1. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius ... sterilization, contraception or abortion are ... the controversy over whether the mandate is constitutional, Sebelius ...

   - cnsnews.com
   

2. HHS Secretary Sebelius: Church Groups Must Provide ...

   Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said ... go beyond the questions of contraception and abortion ... robust exemption for the HHS contraception mandate ...

   - ncregister.com
   

3. Sebelius: Didn't Talk to Bishops About Obama Mandate ...

   During questioning today before a U.S. Senate panel, pro-abortion HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admitted she did not contact the nation’s Catholic bishops before ...

   - lifenews.com
   

4. Sebelius: Fewer Babies Born Will Save Health Care Costs ...

   ... of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius ... whim of the Administration, there is no statute preventing an abortion mandate.

   - lifenews.com
   

5. Kathleen Sebelius: Reducing Pregnancies Will Cut Healthcare Costs

   Kathleen Sebelius alleged that reducing ... health plans to cover elective abortion ... this in mind, the contraception mandate, combined with the assertions by Sibelius ...

   - thenewamerican.com

Here's three on the helpless little law student who has been greatly oppressed by penile-Americans:


Sandra Fluke on Her Role in the Contraception Controversy: 'I Would Do This Again'

Last week Sandra Fluke became famous overnight. But the cascading sequence of events leading to Rush Limbaugh's tirade against the 30-year-old Georgetown law student began two months ago. At a Republican presidential debate on Jan. 7, moderator George Stephanopoulus mystified Mitt Romney -- and many observers -- by pressing Romney about his views on contraception. Two weeks later, the Obama ...

- Time.com via Yahoo! News


Sandra Fluke: I Won't Be Silenced
- National Journal via Yahoo! News

That's too bad. If she'd just shut up for a couple of minutes, she might hear the cries of her wounded womb.


Ann Coulter takes time off from pimping Mittens the Pompadoured Pussy to whack the Flukey One upside her dessicated uterus...

THE VAGINA DIATRIBES - Ann Coulter via Yahoo! News

Did I miss the deadline for alternative opinions on Sandra Fluke?

What with liberal women constantly talking about their vaginas suddenly pretending to be offended by the word "slut," and conservatives pretending to be as pussified as liberals about the nasty names they've been called, I never got an answer to the most pressing question about Sandra Fluke: Who are you again?

Was Fluke dragged out of obscurity after the women of America took a vote and chose her as our spokeswoman? (BEGIN ITAL)Please, Sandra, we know how deeply private, publicity-shy and terribly busy with law school you are, but we need you to speak for us!(END ITAL)

I don't think that happened. Rather, Fluke is the latest in a long line of my absolute favorite liberal typology: hysterical drama queens.

From Murphy Brown to the Jersey Girls, Cindy Sheehan, Joe Wilson and the New School's Jean Rohe, these fantasists inject themselves into a boiling-hot public debate and then claim victim status when anyone criticizes them.

At least since I've been keeping score, liberals had their first brush with the dark night of fascism in 1992, when Dan Quayle said of a fictional TV character: "It doesn't help matters when prime-time TV has Murphy Brown ... mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another lifestyle choice."

Suddenly, it was 1939 Germany and multimillionaire Hollywood elites were the Jews.

At the Emmy Awards ceremony that year, the creator of "Murphy Brown," Diane English, took the occasion to say: "I would like to thank our sponsors for hanging in there when it was getting really dangerous."

Really dangerous? You want "really dangerous"? Try being a pedestrian crossing Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica when Diane English is being driven to the airport! (A year earlier, English's husband mowed down the matriarch of Santa Monica's Chez Jay, killing her, while driving his wife to the airport.)

Marge Tabankin, executive director of the Hollywood Women's Political Committee, said: "The community feels targeted. It's created a chill and fear reminiscent of the '50s. Let's face it: We feel we're being used as whipping boys."

Yes, Hollywood liberals have got balls to spare, and that's why I admire them so much.

But the Academy Award winners of liberal martyrdom are the Dixie Chicks. In 2003, Chick Natalie Maines sucked up to a Bush-hating London audience by saying, "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."

What an odd coincidence that the only city Maines attacked Bush in was London! In a way, it was lucky for the band that, in their entire 60-city world tour, Maines claimed to be embarrassed by Bush only in London and not, say, Lubbock, Texas.

But at least we had heard of Murphy Brown and the Dixie Chicks before they demanded we all stand in awe of their raw courage.

Fluke was an absolute nobody who simply thrust herself into the limelight. She's more the Jean Rohe iteration of the liberal drama queen.

Rohe, you will recall, was the student speaker at the 2006 New School commencement proceedings, who bravely insulted the official speaker, Sen. John McCain.

As Rohe described her decision to attack the invited speaker, every person she talked to the day before the ceremony hated McCain with blind fury. At two graduation ceremonies a day earlier, attacks on McCain brought wild cheers from the audience.

Rohe's resolve to tell the audience what it wanted to hear was only hardened when she was told there would be media at the event.

Sensing that fake heroism was within her grasp, Rohe explained: "It was something I didn't want to do, but knew I had to out of an obligation to my own values" -- such as the value of being popular, of getting a standing ovation and of being praised for her courage.

Liberals' idea of questioning authority is to check with the authorities to see if a "Question Authority" bumper sticker would be popular.

So, back to Fluke: Who is she, and how did she become the spokesperson for American womanhood? If we're allowed to submit names, I think we can do better than a Georgetown law student whose claim to fame is that she belongs to a college club on "reproductive justice."

Pursuing a typical path to liberal heroics, Fluke was an utter nobody whom the Democrats substituted in a last-minute witness-switch to testify about contraception -- as if her haircut isn't birth control enough -- at a hearing on "religious liberty."

Despite her credentials as a heretofore unheard-of "birth control activist," the Oversight and Government Reform Committee declined to accept this 11th-hour witness on the grounds that Fluke did not have appropriate credentials for any congressional hearing, much less one on religious liberty.

That was the Republicans' first foray into "silencing" Fluke's "voice."

Nancy Pelosi used an even less appropriate committee to ensure that Fluke's "voice" would be heard -- the Democrats' Steering and Policy Committee, the normal function of which is to give House Democrats committee assignments.

One longtime Democratic operative admitted privately that Fluke was the least-qualified witness ever to appear before a congressional committee.

As a result of the huge commotion the Democrats' made of Fluke's "testimony," she was ridiculed the same way people in ridiculous situations often are. She was called some mean names: "slut," "prostitute," "law student" ...

In full indignation, Fluke said her critics were trying "to silence women's voices." She said this on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and a number of other national media outlets.

Thus, Fluke became a liberal hero even braver than an actress standing up for abortion rights in front of a Bill Maher audience.

President Obama called Fluke and told her that her parents should be proud of her and to make sure she was OK. Hillary Clinton said conservatives were trying to control women. Bill Clinton called her to see if she had any plans for the weekend.

(Fluke seems to be holding up wonderfully under the nightmare of constant TV appearances. In fact, if I didn't know better, I'd think she's enjoying herself tremendously.)

I don't care what liberals believe. Just please stop telling me they're courageous for saying exactly what every non-Fox media outlet in America is dying to hear, or I'll throw up harder than Rick Santorum did when he read John F. Kennedy's speech.

The Mini Me-Lie Massacre: Watch them try to pin this one on Bush.

Afghan Massacre: Army Docs Say Brain Injury Could Have Sparked Attack

So the still-unnamed U.S. Army perpetrator of the Sunday slaughter in Afghanistan apparently suffered a traumatic brain injury two years ago. Could this have triggered what by all accounts was an irrational act? You better believe it, current and former Army mental-health professionals say.

- Time.com via Yahoo! New


The Afghan massacre: Should the suspected killer be executed?

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta promises justice, saying a U.S. soldier could face capital murder charges for allegedly killing 16 Afghan civilians

- The Week via Yahoo! New


Obama seeks to calm Afghan massacre fallout

President Barack Obama Tuesday sought to calm outrage over a shooting massacre by a US soldier in Afghanistan, saying he took the tragedy as seriously as if Americans had been slaughtered.

- AFP via Yahoo! News

RICK SANTORUM FOR PRESIDENT!

1. Santorum For President - Elect The True Conservative

2. PLEASE DONATE NOW
   

TWO MORE WINS FOR SANTORUM; TIME FOR NEWT TO DROP OUT AND RELEASE HIS DELEGATES

It looks like conservative protestants are beginning to realize Santorum is the only conservative in the race and that is more important to them than his Catholicism. That's progress, kiddies.


Santorum wins big in South, grabs conservative banner

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama - Republican Rick Santorum won a pair of crucial Deep South primaries on Tuesday, taking control of the party's conservative wing in the presidential race and dealing a severe setback to rival Newt Gingrich. Santorum narrowly defeated Gingrich and front-runner Mitt Romney in three-way battles that shook up a volatile Republican presidential race that has already ...

- Roto-Reuters via Yahoo! News

Santorum AL edge from voters motivated by religion

People favoring a candidate who shares their religious beliefs helped Rick Santorum capture Tuesday's Republican presidential primary in Alabama, exit polls of voters showed. He also won among women and younger voters.

- Associated Press via Yahoo! News

• Santorum wins Ala., Miss.; Romney takes Hawaii... - Associated Press via Yahoo! News
• Santorum's Southern Sweep Sets Up Long Showdown With Romney... - Time.com via Yahoo! News
• all 82 news articles…

Eternal life grant unto them, O Lord.

From AP via Yahoo! News:

5 Irish immigrants re-buried in PA cemetery

BALA CYNWYD, Pa. (AP) — The remains of five Irish laborers who researchers believe were murdered in 1832 while building a Pennsylvania railroad received a dignified re-interment Friday, more than 3,000 miles from their homeland and nearly two centuries after their first anonymous burials.

People lined up to pay their respects before five wooden caskets at West Laurel Hill Cemetery in Bala Cynwyd, just outside Philadelphia. The sounds of bagpipes and gunshot salutes filled the air as more than 100 mourners paid tribute, including Kevin Conmy, deputy ambassador for the Irish embassy in Washington.

"What this does is it just reminds us that the story of Irish in America has many strands," Conmy said. "You do get a sense that justice has been done to these people."

The immigrants were among 57 hired to help build a stretch of the Philadelphia and Columbia Railroad known as Duffy's Cut. They lived in a shantytown by the rails in current-day Malvern, about 20 miles west of Philadelphia.

Historian Bill Watson and his twin brother Frank Watson, also a historian, led a team that set out nearly a decade ago to find out what happened to the workers from Donegal, Tyrone and Derry. They believe many died of cholera and were dumped in a mass grave at Duffy's Cut.

But they also theorized — based on mortality statistics, newspaper accounts and internal railroad company documents — that some were killed. Railroad officials never notified the workers' relatives of their deaths, and they later burned the shantytown.

The burial services on Friday marked the end of a long quest for the Watsons.

"It's a 10-year pilgrimage for us," Frank Watson said afterward. "It's a pilgrimage for truth and for justice."

When the Watsons' team first began excavating in woods behind a manicured subdivision, they unearthed items such as glass buttons, forks and smoking pipes, including one stamped "Derry." Many artifacts are now on permanent display at nearby Immaculata University, where Bill Watson is chairman of the history department.

In 2009, they found human bones. The team uncovered six skeletons in all, and forensic experts found evidence of skull trauma. The brothers speculate that when cholera swept through the camp, these immigrants tried to escape the deadly epidemic but were killed by local vigilantes, who were driven by anti-Irish prejudice and fear of the extremely contagious disease.

Those remains were found apart from the main ossuary, commingled with coffin nails. One set of bones was tentatively identified based on size and the passenger list of a ship that sailed from Ireland to Philadelphia four months before the men died. If DNA tests prove a match to descendants in Donegal, the remains of John Ruddy will be returned to Ireland.

The other sets of bones — four men and a washerwoman — were interred at West Laurel Hill. Identification proved nearly impossible, in part because the remains were so badly decomposed.

Their grave was marked with a 10-foot-high Celtic cross made of limestone quarried in County Kilkenny, Ireland, and paid for by Immaculata.

"It's just the right thing to do, to give these men a Christian burial," said university spokeswoman Marie Moughan.

The cemetery donated the plot for the same reason, said Kevin McCormick, a liaison to the Duffy's Cut Project from West Laurel Hill. Some might argue the dead should rest in peace in their original graves, but disposing of bodies is not the same as burying them, he said.

"Who put them there?" said McCormick. "Was it people who had their best interests in mind?"

The Watsons' ultimate goal had been to find, unearth, identify and repatriate the remains of all 57 workers using DNA analysis, the ship's passenger list and other documents. But ground-penetrating radar indicates the mass grave is too close to active train tracks for the bones to be exhumed.

Still, the evidence and artifacts the team did uncover are valuable, said Kurt Bell, an archivist with the state Historical and Museum Commission.

"It really speaks volumes about the social history of railroads. We don't know a whole lot about the men who built the railroads in Pennsylvania from early in the 19th century," said Bell, a railroad historian. "The Watson brothers have really shed light on a little-known subject."

More data will be coming. Scientists at the University of Pennsylvania and elsewhere are studying bone samples for additional information about the workers' lives.

And the Watsons plan to look into another reported potters' field of Irish railway workers in Downingtown, 10 miles up the tracks. Research shows cholera made its way to that camp, Bill Watson said, and he wonders if murder did as well.

"It happened here," Watson said. "Why not there?"

Why we preach Christ crucified.

1 Corinthians 1:21-25

[21] For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world, by wisdom, knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of our preaching, to save them that believe. [22] For both the Jews require signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: [23] But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: [24] But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. [25] For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

If the AmericaLasters admit his poll numbers are this bad, Okhrana's real numbers must be much, much worse.

Another Poll Shows Obama Approval Rating Sinking

A new CBS News/New York Times poll released on Monday confirms what an earlier poll showed: As gas prices have risen, President Obama's approval rating has slipped.

- National Journal via Yahoo! News

Polling 101: Why Obama's Sagging Approval Is Tied to Gas Prices

First, the all-important lesson when it comes to polling: don’t ever read too much into one poll. Instead, look at the trend. Here are polls that have tracked President Obama’s approval rating and were published between March 7 and March 11. Poll Date Sample Approve Disapprove...

- ABC OTUS News via Yahoo! News

Obama polls tumble as gas prices rise

US President Barack Obama Monday sought to contain fallout from rising gasoline prices, but polls showed his approval rating slumping as pain at the pump raised new doubts over his reelection hopes.

- AFP via Yahoo! News

Left-fascist media: AMERICANS HATE OBAMA MORE THAN THEY HATE BEING CALLED SLUTS AND WHORES!

The Weekly Standard reports on the panic running rampant among the chattering classes:

By 21-Point Margin, Americans Oppose Birth Control Mandate

The latest New York Times/CBS poll shows President Obama's approval rating hitting an all-time low. One month ago, 50% of Americans approved of his job performance and 43% disapproved. The new NYT/CBS poll shows Obama's approval rating dropping to 41% and his disapproval rating climbing to 47%.

The new poll also shows Americans strongly support an exemption to the "birth control mandate" by 57% to 36% for religiously-affiliated employers. By a 51% to 40% margin, Americans support a religious/moral exemption for all employers:

There's a lot of talk that Obama's dive in in the CBS/NYT and the ABC/Washington Post polls is due to high gas prices. That seems plausible. But why couldn't the contraception/abortifacient mandate--the biggest news story for the past month--also play a part in Obama's sinking numbers?

Comrade! The poor in Obamastan have clean clothes!

From Yahoo! News:

Theft of Tide detergent rampant across U.S.

Tide laundry detergent is meant to be used for household cleaning purposes, but thieves are turning it into something dirty. Authorities are reporting a spike in thefts of Tide, and in some cities they are setting up task forces where the detergent is sold to track the number of bottles in stores. Police believe thieves are using the soap on the black market, which retails for $10-$20, to buy drugs. On the black market, Tide is often referred to as "liquid gold" and can go for $5-$10 per bottle.

Last year, in St. Paul, Minnesota, a man is alleged to have stolen $25,000 worth of Tide over 15 months before authorities captured him. Stores such as CVS have amped up security measures to prevent theft; at some locations the detergent is kept in a locked container and an employee must retrieve it for customers.

So why is Tide the only detergent being targeted? Authorities list several reasons: Tide is instantly recognizable because of its Day-Glo orange bottle; it is one of the most expensive brands of laundry detergent; and it does not have serial numbers, so it cannot be tracked.

On social media, people are calling the theft trend "bizarre" and many are blaming it on the tough economy and rising gas prices. One person tweeted that the thefts are "a result of inflation."

A spokesperson for Procter & Gamble, the manufacturer of Tide, called the thefts "unfortunate."

Guess which party wants us to be dependent on unreliable foreign oil.

That's an easy one.

From Roto-Reuters via Yahoo! News:

Democrats block Keystone oil pipeline bill in Senate

Senate Democrats on Thursday defeated a Republican proposal to give a permit to the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline in a vote that will give Republicans more ammunition to criticize President Barack Obama's energy policies on the campaign trail.

Republicans argue the pipeline, which would ship oil from Canada and northern states to Texas, would create jobs and improve energy security at a time of surging gasoline prices.

Obama put TransCanada's $7 billion project on hold earlier this year pending further environmental review. He took the unusual step of calling some senators personally ahead of the vote, asking them to reject the proposal.

"He understood that a majority of the American public, a majority at least in the Senate, are strongly in favor of this project," said Senator Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, who sponsored the bill to take control of the pipeline decision away from Obama.

The Republicans tried to advance their plan as an amendment to a highway funding bill. It failed on a vote of 56-42, four short of the 60 needed to pass, although 11 Democratic senators voted with the Republicans.

Republicans are using the proposal to highlight Obama's delay of the project ahead of November presidential and congressional elections, linking his decision to rising gasoline prices.

"We're going to continue this fight," said Republican Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota, who championed the bill.

He told reporters he hoped the measure might still be attached to the highway funding package when the Senate and House of Representatives work on a final version.

"With gas prices going up every day, with what's going on in the Middle East, I'll tell you what: the pressure is just going to increase on the administration to get this project done," Hoeven said.

Obama has supported construction of the southern leg of the pipeline, and his administration will assess a new route around an environmentally sensitive area of Nebraska once it has been identified, said White House spokesman Clark Stevens.

"Once again, Republicans are trying to play politics with a pipeline project whose route has yet to be proposed," Stevens said. The entire project will take more than two years to build once permits are granted.

GREEN GROUP: 'TEMPORARY VICTORY'

The Keystone amendment was among 30 measures - many of them energy-related - being voted on as the Senate pushes in coming days to renew funding for highways and other infrastructure projects, slated to run out at the end of March.

Earlier, the Senate defeated proposals to expand the area available for offshore oil drilling and extend the time for manufacturers to phase in new pollution regulations set by the Environmental Protection Agency for industrial boilers.

But the Keystone amendment attracted the most attention. The pipeline would carry crude from Canadian oil sands to Texas refineries and would also pick up U.S. crude from North Dakota and Montana along the way.

Environmental groups have fought the project, staging large protests last year that pressured the Obama administration to block approval.

"Today's vote was a temporary victory and there's no guarantee that it holds for the long run," Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, said in a statement.

"We're grateful to the administration for denying the permit and for Senate leadership for holding the line."

With a 34-64 vote, senators also defeated a proposal from Democratic Senator Ron Wyden that would have blocked exports of oil from the pipeline, as well as refined products made from that oil.

Wyden said lawmakers need to carefully think through projects that would increase exports of oil, fuel and natural gas, lest the exports end up boosting prices for Americans.

"This is just a step in what is clearly going to be an extensive debate," Wyden told Reuters after the vote.

Democratic senators who voted for the Republican Keystone plan included Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jim Webb of Virginia.

As election day approaches, Senator Patrimony of PA pretends to be less of a criminal.

Two Republican senators were absent, and all the 45 who were present voted for the amendment.

Crazy from the heat...

...or, Hey President Tong, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn your countrymen would love.

From AP via Yahoo! News:

Entire country may pick up and move

Fearing that climate change could wipe out their entire Pacific archipelago, the leaders of Kiribati are considering an unusual backup plan: moving the populace to Fiji.

Kiribati President Anote Tong told The Associated Press on Friday that his Cabinet this week endorsed a plan to buy nearly 6,000 acres on Fiji's main island, Viti Levu. He said the fertile land, being sold by a church group for about $9.6 million, could provide an insurance policy for Kiribati's entire population of 103,000, though he hopes it will never be necessary for everyone to leave.

"We would hope not to put everyone on one piece of land, but if it became absolutely necessary, yes, we could do it," Tong said. "It wouldn't be for me, personally, but would apply more to a younger generation. For them, moving won't be a matter of choice. It's basically going to be a matter of survival."

Kiribati, which straddles the equator near the international date line, has found itself at the leading edge of the debate on climate change because many of its atolls rise just a few feet above sea level.

Tong said some villages have already moved and there have been increasing instances of sea water contaminating the island's underground fresh water, which remains vital for trees and crops. He said changing rainfall, tidal and storm patterns pose as least as much threat as ocean levels, which so far have risen only slightly.

Some scientists have estimated the current level of sea rise in the Pacific at about 2 millimeters (0.1 inches) per year. Many scientists expect that rate to accelerate due to climate change.

Fiji, home to about 850,000 people, is about 1,400 miles south of Kiribati. But just what people there think about potentially providing a home for thousands of their neighbors remains unclear. Tong said he's awaiting full parliamentary approval for the land purchase, which he expects in April, before discussing the plan formally with Fijian officials.

Sharon Smith-Johns, a spokeswoman for the Fijian government, said several agencies are studying Kiribati's plans and the government will release a formal statement next week.

Kiribati, which was known as the Gilbert Islands when it was a British colony, has been an independent nation since 1979.

Tong has been considering other unusual options to combat climate change, including shoring up some Kiribati islands with sea walls and even building a floating island. He said this week that the latter option would likely prove too expensive, but that he hopes reinforcing some islands will ensure that Kiribati continues to exist in some form even in a worst-case scenario.

"We're trying to secure the future of our people," he said. "The international community needs to be addressing this problem more."

Tong said he hopes that the Fiji land will represent just one of several options for relocating people. He pointed out that the land is three times larger than the atoll of Tarawa, currently home to more than half of Kiribati's population.

Although like much of the Pacific, Kiribati is poor — its annual GDP per person is just $1,600 — Tong said the country has plenty of foreign reserves to draw from for the land purchase. The money, he said, comes from phosphate mining on the archipelago in the 1970s.

Golly, who knew having three "wives" could be trouble?

Don't cry for Onana Porn Laden. He got to lead the Playboy lifestyle.

From AFP via Yahoo! News:

Did jealous wife and deputy betray bin Laden?

Osama bin Laden spent his last days sidelined by Al-Qaeda and slipping into dementia, possibly betrayed to the Americans by a jealous wife and his own deputy, a Pakistani investigator says.

Retired brigadier Shaukat Qadir says he spent eight months investigating the Al-Qaeda chief's life in Pakistan, using his army connections to visit the villa where he lived and died, and securing access to confidential documents.

He says he spoke to Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agents who interrogated bin Laden's wives and saw their interview transcripts, all thanks to a close relationship with Pakistan's army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani.

He has no evidence, but offers a tantalising image of a frail man resigned to death and betrayed through one of his wives in an Al-Qaeda plot -- which if true would shed new light on the demise of the world's most-wanted man.

"Al-Qaeda decided to retire him in 2003. He was going mentally senile. From 2001, he had some kind of degenerative disease and was coming up with fantasies," Qadir said.

That sounds like Bill Gates.

He says his theories are his alone, but admits he may have been manipulated by the army and acknowledges that his account suits the ISI, which is still fending off suspicions of incompetence or complicity in sheltering bin Laden.

Say it ain't so, Ahmed!

Pakistan was humiliated by the covert American operation that killed the Al-Qaeda leader in the early hours of May 2, practically on the doorstep of the country's elite military academy in Abbottabad where he lived for five years.

Bulldozers moved in to demolish the compound under the cover of darkness on February 25, which observers took as a sign that Pakistani authorities want to consign the physical evidence of their embarrassment to oblivion.

Qadir says his investigation took him to the lawless tribal belt on the Afghan border, Al-Qaeda's chief sanctuary for the past 10 years, where he served during his time in the army before his retirement in 1998.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian doctor often considered the real brains behind Al-Qaeda, "got fed up and decided to sideline" bin Laden when the leader started losing his mental faculties after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Qadir says bin Laden moved frequently between hiding places in northwest Pakistan before Al-Qaeda decided Abbottabad was the perfect spot and built a home shielded by a towering wall for him, two of his wives and their children.

Bin Laden moved into a bedroom on the third floor with his youngest and reputedly favourite wife, Amal Abdulfattah, the Yemeni he married in 1999 and who gave birth to two children in Abbottabad.

For years, Qadir believes, the family got on well, but things changed in March 2011 when bin Laden's older Saudi wife, Khairia, suddenly turned up for the first time since the family was separated in late 2001.

At that time, she had fled Afghanistan into Iran, rather than into Pakistan with the rest of the family.

Qadir says the Iranians released her in late 2010 and she returned to her husband, but first, spent several months in an Al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan.

Two months after she arrived, the Americans raided the house. Qadir is convinced that Khairia betrayed her husband.

"Everything began to happen when Khairia arrived," he said. "Everybody had a problem with her. Before, the two other wives were living comfortably."

Old chicks just don't understand guys who are world historical figures. They just gotta have some young strange to continue being great men. Just ask King Goober II.

Bin Laden's grown-up son, Khalid, born to another Saudi wife, was also suspicious, Qadir said.

"He kept on asking her 'why have you come? What do you want from him?' She just responded 'I have one more duty to perform for my husband'.

"Khalid told his dad: 'I suspect she's going to betray you.' Bin Laden answered 'so be it'."

Bin Laden tried to persuade the other wives to leave for their own safety, but they refused, Qadir said.

The United States says it was tipped off much earlier by an Al-Qaeda courier. But Qadir contradicts that, stating that Zawahiri may have used Khairia as bait for the Americans.

The Americans managed to intercept one of Khairia's phone calls, leading them to believe bin Laden was in the compound, he thinks, adding that Bin Laden's long-serving Egyptian deputy was consumed by personal ambition.

Washington's other newspaper can't even line a birdcage right.

At the Washington Post, history ends in 1964

By Richard A. Viguerie | 3/5/12

The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza is a smart guy, so when he misfires as badly as he did in his March 5, 2012 column, “In GOP circles, some wonder whether the party needs to lose big to eventually win [1]” one can’t help but wonder whether if inside the liberal bubble of The Post’s newsroom, history has died, or if Cillizza intentionally chose to ignore the facts in order to manage a result – namely the nomination of moderate establishment Republican Mitt Romney.

Cillizza’s premise in the column is that when Republicans nationalize presidential campaigns and run as conservatives they are foreordained to lose -- because in 1964, Barry Goldwater ran as a conservative and lost.

The support for this argument seems to be the self-serving comment of an unnamed establishment Republican figure who warns against nominating a strictly conservative candidate (like former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum), and the assumption on Cillizza’s part that Goldwater’s opponent at the 1964 Republican convention -- New York’s liberal Republican Governor Nelson Rockefeller -- would have done better against Lyndon Johnson in the ’64 general election.

Neither of those points is borne out by Republican success or failure in campaigns since 1964 or the dynamics of the present campaign.

As I pointed out in a recent column, since 1964, social conservatism has a winning track record for the GOP.

Just as a reminder to the history challenged writers at The Washington Post, as conservative writer and former Reagan official Jeffery Bell noted, social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964. The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. When social issues came into the mix (starting with the 1968 election), the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections.

Cillizza’s claim that Republicans showed they learned their lesson and “nominated establishment favorite and political pragmatist Richard Nixon” in 1968 flies in the face of history and Nixon’s central campaign theme (that he represented the “silent majority” of socially conservative Americans of whatever economic circumstance).

Far from running as an establishment-type Republican in the 1968 campaign, Nixon praised the “forgotten Americans, the nonshouters, the nondemonstrators” [2] -- hard-working, tax-paying Americans whose values were under siege by antiwar protesters, urban rioters, criminals and antipoverty liberals.”

Even more egregiously, Cillizza ignores the two victories of Ronald Reagan (the first against determined establishment Republican resistance in the primaries) that proved the viability of establishing a conservative governing majority in this country.

But one need not go back to Reagan to find elections that show the faults in Cillizza's logic. In 1994, the GOP took control of Congress for the first time in 40 years, campaigning as conservatives opposed to Bill Clinton's big government policies.

And more recently, the 2010 “Tea Party election” was run on a platform of small government constitutional conservatism--the core principles of the Tea Party and modern movement conservatives.

That election saw Republicans running on a conservative agenda gaining 63 seats in the House (the largest turnover of the House since 1948) and six seats in the United States Senate. Perhaps even more importantly, a stunning 721 seats in the various state legislatures shifted into Republican hands, the largest turnover in U.S. history, granting Republicans control of 25 of this country's legislatures (compared to the 15 controlled by Democrats, and the remaining being split). After the 2010 Tea Party election, Republicans also held 29 governors' mansions [3].

As one might expect, the column also ignores the abject failures of establishment Republican candidates for president (such as Jerry Ford, Bob Dole and John McCain) to win election by uniting the mythical centrist coalition that Cillizza believes decides elections in response to content-free campaigns.

In the present campaign, the candidates have all striven to sell the public on their conservative bona fides. Mitt Romney struggles to close the deal with Republican primary voters this cycle because of his record as a moderate Governor of Massachusetts, not because he is too conservative. If the appeal of moderate establishment Republicans (like Mitt Romney) is so compelling, why the struggle to remake Romney into a conservative?

As I have noted many times, contrary to Chris Cillizza’s revisionist view of history and the wishful thinking of establishment Republicans, history proves that when Republicans run content-free establishment campaigns they lose. When they nationalize the election and run on the conservative agenda, they win.

"Le Magnifique" is immortalized in bronze...

...along with two helpless Islander defenders.

Cry "Freedom!" Rick Santorum for President!

Donate today!

Rick Santorum: Elect The True Conservative

Donate today!

Corollary A of Fyodor's Rule # 7: Our destinies are not determined.

Nate Silver of the Old Gray Whore takes quite a while to paraphrase Yogi Berras's "It ain't over 'til it's over".

...the delegate count is what matters in the end.

Although there is some truth in this position, I am reluctant to embrace it fully. The reason is that the G.O.P.’s delegate-selection rules are exceptionally complicated and ambiguous. Many delegates could go to the convention in Tampa either loosely pledged or entirely unbound to any of the candidates.

That means there will be some wiggle room in the math. Doing things like winning key states, leading in the aggregate popular vote, leading in national polls and appearing to have the momentum at the end of the process may influence the behavior of these unbound delegates. If a candidate can make a credible claim to having a mandate from the voters, they might line up behind him. If his claim is poor, they could block his nomination.

There are 2,286 delegates to the Republican National Convention, of which 1,144 are required to clinch a majority. The Web site TheGreenPapers.com, which has extensive information on delegate-selection procedures in each state, divides them into two broad categories, what it calls “hard” and “soft.” Hard delegates are formally bound to a candidate on at least the first ballot at the convention, while soft delegates are not.

Although this is a useful conceptual framework, it probably simplifies things too much. Instead, Republican delegates exist along something of a spectrum between bound and unbound, pledged and unpledged, hard and soft.

Contributing to the confusion is that there are a series of three interrelated ideas about delegates which are often treated as interchangeable, even though they are not:

Bound vs. Unbound Delegates. Is the delegate officially bound to a particular candidate on at least the first ballot at the convention?

Pledged vs. Unpledged Delegates. Whether or not she is formally bound to a candidate, will the delegate’s candidate preference be known in advance of the convention and reported upon by the news media?

Elected vs. Selected Delegates. Was the delegate selected through some relatively direct means, such as based on the popular vote in the state’s primary? Or through some indirect means, like through the series of conventions that often take place in caucus states, and which may not correspond to the popular vote there?

There are delegates who will go to the convention technically unbound, but who will have pledged their support to a candidate and can probably be counted upon to vote for them. There are delegates who are selected through a complex, multistep caucus process that may bear little resemblance to the popular vote in those states, but who are formally bound to a candidate once that process has taken place.

The following represents an effort to sort the delegates into about a half-dozen categories. One could easily pick more categories or fewer. There are a number of states whose rules are ambiguous enough to qualify as borderline cases, and which could be placed into a different category than the one I have chosen. But this ought to give you some basic sense of how the math works.

Super Delegates

There are 126 delegates, about 6 percent of the total, who are complete free agents. These are party leaders and elected officials, three per state or territory, who will go to the convention unbound to any candidate. Formally, these are known as “automatic delegates”; the more common term is “super delegates.” A few states do bind their super delegates to the winner of the primary or caucus, but most do not.

Even though they are officially unbound, however, some of these delegates will indicate a candidate preference in advance of the convention. Some already have, in fact: 18 have said that they prefer Mitt Romney, while the other candidates have just 5 super delegates among them. However, these preferences are subject to change at any time.

Unbound Delegates Chosen through Party Conventions or Committees

In addition to the super delegates, there are 84 delegates who will be selected at state conventions, or appointed by a committee of Republican officials in the state, with no direct or indirect relationship to the popular vote in these states. States like Pennsylvania, Illinois and Louisiana select some of their delegates trough this method, for instance, even though they also pick some through their primaries.

Like the super delegates, these 84 delegates are officially unbound. However, influential Republicans within each state will have some say about just who they are and about which candidate they are most likely to prefer.

Unbound Delegates Chosen through Caucuses

I distinguish this group of 84 delegates from another, larger group of 188 who are picked through a caucus process but are officially unbound to any candidate. In addition to being unbound, these delegates are usually also picked in a way that is separate from the straw poll or popular vote that is held in each state.

All 28 of Iowa’s delegates, for instance, fall into this category. When the state held its caucuses in January, voters there held a straw poll to indicate their presidential preference; these are the results that were widely reported on in the news media and that eventually showed Rick Santorum winning a small victory. Caucus-goers took a separate vote, however, on which delegates should be appointed to county conventions that the state will hold in March. These county conventions will then pick delegates to district conventions, who will then pick delegates to the state convention, who will in turn appoint delegates to the Republican National Convention.

As confusing as this sounds, this process is fairly typical in most Republican caucus states. There are only a couple of exceptions, like Nevada and Idaho, where delegate selection is directly related to the presidential preference vote at the caucuses.

Although the delegates in this group are officially unbound, most can be expected to be supporters of one of the candidates. Delegates who are known to be favorably disposed toward Ron Paul, for instance, are more likely to be voted for by caucus-goers who like Mr. Paul.

Still, the eventual delegate allocation will not always match the straw poll results in the state. For example, if one candidate’s supporters tend to stick around for the delegate-selection part of the caucus, while the rest take off after casting their straw-poll vote, that candidate could benefit. In Maine, for instance, it looks like Mr. Paul may get the plurality of delegates even though he narrowly lost the state’s straw poll.

Unbound Delegates Chosen through “Loophole” Primaries

Three large states, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania, conduct so-called “loophole” primaries, in which voters at the primary cast one ballot for their presidential preference and another for a slate of delegates who are known to be supporters of one or another candidate. In essence, this mirrors the process in caucus states like Iowa, where there is a beauty contest vote for presidential preference coupled with a separate vote for delegate allocation.

Most of the delegates in these states are chosen at the Congressional district level. Sometimes candidates, like Rick Santorum in three districts in Ohio, may fail to post a full delegate slate in those districts, costing themselves the opportunity to win delegates even if they win the popular vote there.

Even though these delegates will have their names officially associated with one of the candidates on the ballot, they are not legally bound to them and are free to change their minds.

Bound Delegates Chosen through Party Conventions

Every case we have listed so far concerns delegates who are officially unbound on the first ballot at the convention, even though they may be unofficially pledged to a candidate. But not all bound delegates are chosen in the same way.

Nebraska, for instance, chooses its 32 delegates through a party convention. The delegates are not required to match the preferences of voters in the “beauty contest” primary that Nebraska will conduct on May 15. Nebraska’s delegates are bound on the first two ballots at the national convention, however, once the state convention picks them.

Bound Delegates Chosen Through Caucus Process But Not Bound by Popular Vote

Finally, there are two states, Missouri and Washington, that pick their delegates through a multistage caucus process, as Iowa or Maine do. As in Iowa and Maine, these delegates are not bound by the results of the straw poll in each state and are instead chosen through a separate process. However, unlike in Iowa or Maine, these delegates are officially bound at the national convention once they are chosen in this way.

All told, about 25 percent of delegates to the Republican National Convention will be officially unbound, although many of these will be informally pledged to a candidate. Another 5 percent — those in Nebraska, Missouri and Washington — are bound by the time they get to the convention but are chosen in a circuitous way.

That leaves 70 percent of delegates who are both bound and chosen through relatively straightforward means. Even within this group, however, there exists some ambiguity.

Ambiguous Circumstances Among Bound Delegates

First, even if delegates are initially bound by the results of a primary or caucus, they enter a gray area if their candidate subsequently drops out and releases them. So far, this has not been a material issue, although Jon M. Huntsman Jr. won two delegates in New Hampshire. But it could become more pertinent if a candidate like Newt Gingrich, who has more delegates, were later to drop out. State laws differ on how delegates are obliged to behave once this occurs.

Second, there is the possibility of legal or rules challenges to delegate slates. Florida and Arizona, for instance, plan to apportion their delegates on a winner-take-all basis, but this is technically in violation of Republican National Committee rules since their primaries were held prior to April 1. Other states have delegate selection rules that are confusingly written, perhaps making them fodder for legal challenges. Finally, even where the rules are relatively clear, the delegates at the convention have broad latitude to change them if they don’t like the result that they are producing.

Another complication is that all of the delegates are human beings, and human beings can be fickle. A legal complication could arise if a delegate who was officially bound to a candidate decided later on to change his mind. How such a case would be handled is hard to predict; some delegates are bound to a candidate by the rules of the state party, but not by state law.

The substantial amount of ambiguity in delegate selection rules presents both risks and opportunities to the Republican Party. On the one hand, in a case where one candidate had a fairly clear plurality of delegates, but not an outright majority, uncommitted delegates (especially super delegates) could align behind them to give them their majority.

In the scenario outlined below, for instance, Mitt Romney would still be 3 delegates shy of the 1,144 that he needs for a majority after the final state (Utah) holds its primary. However, there are 170 unpledged delegates. Some of them would almost certainly declare their support for Mr. Romney in advance of the convention. This is the scenario that resulted in Walter Mondale’s nomination in 1984, for instance; he did not have quite enough delegates after the last set of primaries, but super delegates put him over the top.

There are also cases, however, in which the substantial number of unpledged delegates could work against the convention’s ability to reach a majority. In the scenario outlined below, for instance, Rick Santorum has a narrow plurality of delegates, but is still 319 votes shy of the number that he would need for a majority, considerably more than the number of unpledged delegates. Such a deadlock would probably require several ballots to resolve.

The most interesting scenario, however, is the case where the unpledged delegates would be sufficient to give a candidate a majority, but his claim to the nomination was somewhat tenuous. Suppose, for instance, that Mr. Romney had 43 percent of the delegates, Mr. Santorum 37 percent, and about 8 percent of delegates had not yet pledged to a candidate. Incidentally, if you assume that the Republican contest will continue to go back-and-forth and make some guesses about how each state will vote, you wind up with a lot of scenarios like this one.

If all of these unpledged delegates aligned themselves with Mr. Romney in this case, he could win on the first ballot. But whether they would do so is an open question.

If Mr. Romney’s plurality lead seemed to be built upon structural advantages in the delegate selection process rather than popular support — say, for instance, that Mr. Romney had the most delegates, but Mr. Santorum was 10 points ahead in national polls at he time — some delegates might conclude that it was not in the best interest of the party to give him a helping hand.

There has not been a case in the recent past when the candidate who was ahead in delegates once the last primaries were held trailed in popular support — even George McGovern led in national polls by the time states like Michigan and California voted in May and June 1972. Such a scenario seems plausible this year, however.

The aesthetics of how a candidate performs could be important in a case like this. If in addition to trailing in national polls, Mr. Romney had lost key states like Michigan and Ohio, it would be harder for him to claim that his nomination reflected the collective will of the Republican electorate. He would have a more credible argument, however, if he had won these primaries, which would add to his other impressive results like in Florida.

In short, the notion that the Republican nomination process is simply a delegate-counting contest is correct on technical grounds, but somewhat misses the forest for the trees. Quite a lot of delegates to the Republican convention may go there unpledged to any candidate, or will have the wherewithal and the legal standing to change their minds. If one candidate holds a lead in the delegate count, but another seems to have the clearest mandate from Republican voters, the delegate math could change quickly.

Who dares cling to the quaint, outdated concept of "unlawful orders" in these days of Obama the Destroyer?

Marine Sergeant Gary Stein looks like a real man who refuses to play the Adolf Eichmann card.

From AP via Yahoo! News:

Marine's Facebook page tests military rules

SAN DIEGO — Marine Sgt. Gary Stein first started a Facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots to encourage service members to exercise their free speech rights. Then he declared that he wouldn't follow orders from the commander in chief, President Barack Obama.

While Stein softened his statement to say he wouldn't follow "unlawful orders," military observers say he may have gone too far.

The Marine Corps is now looking into whether he violated the military's rules prohibiting political statements by those in uniform and broke its guidelines on what troops can and cannot say on social media. Stein said his views are constitutionally protected.

While troops have always expressed their views in private, Stein's case highlights the potential for their opinions to go global as tech-savvy service members post personal details, videos and pictures that can hurt the military's image at home and abroad.

"I think that it's been pretty well established for a long time that freedom of speech is one area in which people do surrender some of their basic rights in entering the armed forces," said former Navy officer David Glazier, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

"Good order and discipline require the military maintain respect for the chain of command," Glazier said. "That includes prohibiting speech critical of the senior officers in that chain of command — up to and including the commander in chief."

According to Pentagon directives, military personnel in uniform can't sponsor a political club; participate in any TV or radio program or group discussion that advocates for or against a political party, candidate or cause; or speak at any event promoting a political movement.

Commissioned officers also may not use contemptuous words against senior officials, including the defense secretary or the president.

In January, an Army reservist wearing camouflaged fatigues got into trouble for taking the stage during a rally in Iowa with Republican presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul.

Stein was first cautioned by his superiors at Camp Pendleton, north of San Diego, in 2010 after he launched his Facebook page, criticizing Obama's health care overhaul. Stein volunteered to take down the page while he reviewed the rules at the request of his superiors.

He said he determined he was not in violation and relaunched the page under the shortened account name Armed Forces Tea Party. Last week, he said his superiors told him he couldn't use social media sites on government computers after he posted the message stating he would not follow unlawful orders of the president.

Stein said his statement was part of an online debate about NATO allowing U.S. troops to be tried for the Quran burnings in Afghanistan.

In that context, he said, he was stating that he would not follow orders from the president if those orders included detaining U.S. citizens, disarming them or doing anything else that he believes would violate their constitutional rights.

Another Marine alerted his command about the statement, Stein said.

Stein said he respects the office of the president, but he does not agree with Obama's policies. He said he is within his rights to speak up.

"Just because I'm a Marine doesn't mean I don't have free speech or can't say my personal opinion about the president or other public official just like anybody else," Stein said. "The Constitution trumps everything else."

Stein said it's positive when service members are well-versed on the Constitution and what's going on in government.

"When we know what we're fighting for, we fight harder," he said.

The Marine Corps said Stein is allowed to express his personal opinions as long as they do not give the impression he is speaking in his official capacity as a Marine. Spokesman Maj. Michael Armistead said the Corps is taking a closer look to ensure Stein has not crossed that line.

"At this time, he has not been asked to take down the statement on his page," he said.

Stein appears in a dress shirt and tie on his Facebook page but he also describes himself as "a conservative blogger, speaker, the founder of the Armed Forces Tea Party and active-duty, eight-year Marine Corps veteran."

Marine Sgt. Jerret Wright, who liked Stein's page, said Stein "probably skirted the line a little bit" with his latest message about not following Obama's orders, but his boldness in expressing his views has been refreshing in a community that often feels silenced.

"People assume that we're zombies with an on-and-off switch, and that we listen to orders and do nothing else," Wright said.

Military observers say it's not that simple. They say it is bad form to lash out at the commander in chief. Experts also say his Facebook postings appear to link his professional standing with his political views.

They also point out that the Pentagon policy is necessary in preventing political and religious debates that could divide a unit and disrupt the strong working relationship that is needed to carry out missions, Glazier said.

"There are plenty of examples in the world of militaries heavily involved in influencing political events that have shown that is not conducive to civilian rule of law," he said.