• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

What Ever Happened to Leadership from the Oval Office? Something Besides ObamaWhine

Our politics are “lacking,” Obama whines

by Paul Mirengoff    at   PowerLine:

“In his weekly radio address, President Obama stated: “Every problem we face is within our power to solve; what’s lacking is our politics.” In Obama’s view, our politics are lacking because Congress hasn’t agreed to all aspects of a job bill he introduced. It’s a curious view of politics that measures success by the willingness of the opposition to capitulate to the full program of a president whom the American people don’t trust on the economy.

Obama noted that Republicans want to wait until after the November electiions to tackle the problem of the economy. If Republicans believed that Obama’s program has merit, it would be deplorable to wait for elections to pass it. But Republicans are opposed to his program on policy and philosophic grounds. Thus, they are hardly playing “politics” by not supporting it. Obama cynically equates legitimate policy disagreements with bad faith. He might just as well have declared a state of “national malaise.”

Obama also claimed that Republicans “haven’t lifted a finger” for job creation. This is nonsense. As Erika Johnsen at Hot Air points out, House Republicans, the only ones with the power to “lift a finger,” have pushed an agenda that conservatives believe would jump start the economy and thereby produce jobs. It includes reducing the tax and regulatory burden on businesses, promoting free trade, maximizing the production of domestic energy, and substantially reducing federal spending in order to control the deficit.

Democrats don’t believe in these policies and thus do not support them. This doesn’t mean they are playing “politics” and neither does Republican opposition to Obama’s prescription for job creation approach — the expansion of government, in essence.

But Obama has played politics of the most irreponsible kind. He has done so by proposing budgets so ridiculous that they failed to gain a single vote. Obama did so because he wanted House Republicans to make the first serious budget cutting proposal. And he wanted Republicans to do so, so that Democrats could shoot at the cuts, mainly by trying to scare old people.

This is politics in the bad sense. In fact, it is an abdication of Obama’s responsibility as president. The president’s job is less about opining on confrontations with the police in Cambridge, Massachusetts or making pretty speeches around the world, and more about presenting a responsible proposal about how the government will spend money and how it will address a debt problem that threatens the national well-being and security.

The president’s failure to perform this duty should disqualify him from accusing otherwise of playing politics. It should also disqualify him from serious consideration for another term in the office he is abusing.”

Minnesota for Marriage

  In this issue:

New Study: Children Fare Better In Traditional Mom-Dad Families

A new study dispels the myth that kids don’t need a mom and a dad. The Washington Times reports on a newly released study showing kids raised by same-sex couples don’t fare as well as kids raised by a mom and dad.

CLICK HERE to read the article

Lawyers For Marriage Group Formed To Support Marriage Amendment

Lawyers for Marriage is a group of Minnesota attorneys in support of the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment on the November ballot and has been formed to campaign in support of the amendment, as well as speak out in favor of religious liberty for all citizens.

CLICK HERE to check it out.

Minnesota For Marriage Criticizes General Mills For Supporting Gay Marriage

By taking this position, General Mills is saying to Minnesotans and people all around the globe that marriage doesn’t matter to them. Marriage is in the interest of children, because it is society’s best way to help children experience the ideal environment where they are raised by their mother and father. It’s ironic and regrettable that a corporation that makes billions marketing cereal to parents of children would take the position that marriage should be redefined.

CLICK HERE to read more.

New Hate Video Viciously Attacks Marriage Amendment Supporters

Opponents of the Marriage Protection Amendment have given us a glimpse of what the future will be like if gay marriage is legalized in Minnesota. In this shocking video, supporters of traditional marriage are viciously compared to Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and murderers.

Clearly this is a despicable scare tactic designed to silence and intimidate those people – a strong majority of Minnesotans – who believe marriage, is between one man and one woman.

CLICK HERE to view the video.

Marriage Minute Video: “I Have Heard People Talk About Same-Sex Marriage Interfering With ‘Religious Liberty’ Principles. What Does That Mean?”

It means that our country was founded on the principle that people of faith are guaranteed to be able to live their beliefs, and that legalization of same-sex marriage affects that right in many profound ways.
CLICK HERE to view the video.

Please Make A Contribution!

We may not have huge corporations like General Mills, but we have you, and that’s more important. You can help us fight back against corporate meddling and scare tactics like the hate video by making a generous financial contribution to fund our campaign to protect marriage in Minnesota. You can make a secure online contribution here.

Remember To Check Out Our Website And Social Media Outlets

Check out our website at www.MinnesotaForMarriage.com. Here you will find useful resources on defending marriage and a sign-up form to volunteer with our campaign.  Please “Like” us on Facebook and “Follow” us on Twitter and tell your kids and grandkids to do the same.

And remember, we are looking for Grassroots Leaders to work directly with the campaign staff to make sure all of the necessary grassroots activities we need to do to protect marriage in Minnesota are getting done: phone calls, door knocking, letters to the editor, yard sign and bumper sticker distribution.

If you are interested, have questions, or know of someone who might be a good fit for this position, please have them email Tim@MinnesotaForMarriage.com.

Wishing you and yours a Happy Father’s Day on Sunday!


John Helmberger
Chairman, Minnesota for Marriage



Prepared and paid for by Minnesota for Marriage, 2355 Fairview Ave N, Box 301, Roseville, MN 55113, in support of the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment.
Minnesota for Marriage is a broad coalition of leaders, both inter-faith and people outside the religious community, who support the Minnesota Marriage Amendment and asked the Legislature to place it on the ballot. These leaders have assembled a campaign to ensure this amendment passes.

Obama’s Crew at MSNBC Threaten Romney with Bus Bombings!

Video: MSNBC notes Romney’s bus tour

with montage of exploding buses

by Allahpundit      at   HotAir:

“Lest you doubt that they actually ran this, the Washington Free Beacon has posted its own copy of the same segment. The excuse here will be that it’s just a jokey metaphor for how badly things can go on the campaign trail, not any sort of death wish directed at Romney. Which may be true — but remember, Bashir is among MSNBC’s most enthusiastic practitioners of psychoanalyzing one’s political opponents to attribute the worst possible motives to them. If a Fox host used the same montage for an Obama bus trip, the “metaphor” excuse would never, ever fly, and Bashir would be leading the parade of righteous indignation. He’s a paradigm case of someone who thinks his own shinola doesn’t stink even though, as you’re about to see, the stench is overpowering.

In fact, I think the network will be immunized a bit from any outcry on this precisely because it ran on Bashir’s show rather than someone else’s. He’s already set the bar so cloddishly low that no one can honestly say they’re surprised. Call it “the Bill Maher effect.”

Exit question: More or less offensive than Bush’s head on a pike in “Game of Thrones” 

Tags: , , , ,

View the video from HotAir below:


Peggy Noonan on the Obama Leakings…..the Obama pretendings……the Obama LIES

Noonan: Who Benefits From the ‘Avalanche of Leaks’?

They seem designed to glorify President Obama and help his re-election campaign.

What is happening with all these breaches of our national security? Why are intelligence professionals talking so much—divulging secret and sensitive information for all the world to see, and for our adversaries to contemplate?

In the past few months we have read that the U.S. penetrated al Qaeda in Yemen and foiled a terror plot; that the Stuxnet cyberworm, which caused chaos in the Iranian nuclear program, was a joint Israeli-American operation; and that President Obama personally approves every name on an expanding “kill list” of those targeted and removed from life by unmanned drones. According to the New York Times, Mr. Obama pores over “suspects’ biographies” in “what one official calls ‘the macabre ‘baseball cards’ of an unconventional war.”

From David Sanger’s new book, “Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power,” we learn that Stuxnet was “the most sophisticated, complex cyberattack the United States had ever launched.” Its secret name was “Olympic Games.” America and Israel developed the “malicious software” together, the U.S. at Fort Meade, Md., where it keeps “computer warriors,” Israel at a military intelligence agency it “barely acknowledges exists.”

The Pentagon has built a replica of Iran’s Natanz enrichment plant. The National Security Agency “routinely taps the ISI’s cell phones”—that’s the Pakistani intelligence agency. A “secret” U.S. program helps Pakistan protect its nuclear facilities; it involves fences and electronic padlocks. Still, insurgents bent on creating a dirty bomb, if they have a friend inside, can slip out “a few grams of nuclear material at a time” and outwit security systems targeted at major theft. In any case, there’s a stockpile of highly enriched uranium sitting “near an aging research reactor in Pakistan.” It could be used for several dirty bombs.

It’s a good thing our enemies can’t read. Wait, they can! They can download all this onto their iPads at a café in Islamabad.

It’s all out there now. Mr. Sanger’s sources are, apparently, high administration officials, whose diarrhetic volubility marks a real breakthrough in the history of indiscretion.

What are they thinking? That in the age of Wikileaks the White House itself should be one big Wikileak?

More from the Sanger book: During the search for Osama bin Laden, American intelligence experts had a brilliant idea. Bin Laden liked to make videotapes to rouse his  troops and threaten the West. Why not flood part of Pakistan with new digital cameras, each with a “unique signature” that would allow its signals to be tracked? The signal could function as a beacon for a drone. Agents got the new cameras into the distribution chain of Peshawar shops. The plan didn’t catch Osama, because he wasn’t in that area. But “traceable digital cameras are still relied on by the CIA . . . and remain highly classified.”

Well, they were.

There was a Pakistani doctor named Shakil Afridi who was sympathetic to America. He became involved in a scheme to try and get the DNA of Osama’s family. He “and a team of nurses” were hired by the U.S. to administer hepatitis B vaccinations throughout Abbottabad. The vaccinations were real. Dr. Afridi got inside Osama’s compound but never got to vaccinate any bin Ladens.

In the days after bin Laden was killed, the doctor was picked up by Pakistani agents and accused of cooperating with the Americans. He was likely tortured. He’s in prison now, convicted of conspiring against the state.

No word yet on the nurses, but stand by.

Mr. Sanger writes that President Obama “will go down in history as the man who dramatically expanded” the use of drones. They are cheaper than boots on the ground, more efficient. But some of those who operate the unmanned bombers are getting upset. They track victims for days. They watch them play with their children. “It freaks you out,” a former drone operator told Mr. Sanger. “You feel less like a pilot than a sniper.”

During the Arab Spring, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was insistent that Mr. Obama needed to stick with Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, even, Mr. Sanger reports, “if he started shooting protestors in the streets.”

King Abdullah must be glad he called. Maybe he’ll call less in the future.

All of this constitutes part of what California Sen. Dianne Feinstein calls an “avalanche of leaks.” After she read the Stuxnet story in the Times, she was quoted as saying “my heart stopped” as she considered possible repercussions.

Why is this happening? In part because at our highest level in politics, government and journalism, Americans continue to act as if we are talking only to ourselves. There is something narcissistic in this: Only our dialogue counts, no one else is listening, and what can they do about it if they are? There is something childish in it: Knowing secrets is cool, and telling them is cooler. But we are talking to the world. Should it know how, when and with whose assistance we gather intelligence? Should it know our methods? Will this make us safer?

Liberally quoted in the Sanger book is the White House national security adviser, Thomas Donilon. When I was a child, there was a doll called Chatty Cathy. You pulled a string in her back, and she babbled inanely. Tom Donilon appears to be the Chatty Cathy of the American intelligence community.

It is good Congress has become involved. They wonder if the leaks have been directed, encouraged or authorized, and by whom. One way to get at that is the classic legal question: Who benefits?

That is not a mystery. In all these stories, it is the president and his campaign that benefit. The common theme in the leaks is how strong and steely Mr. Obama is. He’s tough but fair, bold yet judicious, surprisingly willing to do what needs to be done. He hears everyone out, asks piercing questions, doesn’t flinch.

He is Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Slayer.

And he is up for re-election and fighting the constant perception that he’s weak, a one-man apology tour whose foreign policy is unclear, unsure, and lacking in strategic depth.

There’s something in the leaks that is a hallmark of the Obama White House. They always misunderstand the country they seek to spin, and they always think less of it than it deserves. Why do the president’s appointees think the picture of him with a kill list in his hand makes him look good? He sits and personally decides who to kill? Americans don’t think of their presidents like that. And they don’t want to.

National security doesn’t exist to help presidents win elections. It’s not a plaything or a tool to advance one’s prospects.

After the killing of bin Laden, members of the administration, in a spirit of triumphalism, began giving briefings and interviews in which they said too much. One of the adults in the administration, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates, reportedly went to Mr. Donilon’s office. “I have a new strategic communications approach to recommend,” he said. What? asked Mr. Donilon.

“Shut the [blank] up,” Mr. Gates said.

Still excellent advice, and at this point more urgently needed.

Mark Steyn: God Obama Roars Louder Longer LOOKING DOWN ON FLOCK


from the Orange County Register:

Round about this time in the election cycle, a presidential challenger finds himself on the stump and posing a simple test to voters: “Ask yourself – are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

But, in fact, you don’t need to ask yourself, because the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances has done it for you. Between 2007 and 2010, Americans’ median net worth fell 38.8 percent – or from $126,400 per family to $77,300 per family. Oh, dear. As I mentioned a few months ago, when readers asked me to recommend countries they could flee to, most of the countries worth fleeing to Americans can no longer afford to live in.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – JUNE 15: U.S. President Barack Obama responds to a question from Neil Munro of the Daily Caller after he interrupted the president during his remarks about the Department of Homeland Security’s recent announcement about deportation of illegal immigrants in the Rose Garden at the White House June 15, 2012 in Washington, DC. With the DREAM Act unable to gain traction in Congress, Obama announced that his administration would stop deporting some young people who came to U.S. as children of illegal immigrants.

Which means we’ll just have to fix things here. How likely is Barack Obama to do this? A few days ago he came to Cleveland, a city that is a byword for economic dynamism, fiscal prudence, and sound government. He gave a 54-minute address that tried the patience even of the most doting court eunuchs. “One of the worst speeches I’ve ever heard Barack Obama make,” pronounced MSNBC’s Jonathan Alter, as loyal Democrat attendees fled the arena to volunteer for the Obamacare death-panel pilot program. In fairness to the president, I wouldn’t say it was that much worse, or duller, or more listless and inert than previous Obama speeches. In fact, much of it was exactly the same guff he was peddling when Jonathan Alter’s pals were still hailing him as the world’s greatest orator. The problem is the ever-widening gulf between the speech and the slough of despond all about.

Take, for example, the attempt at soaring rhetoric: “That’s how we built this country – together. We constructed railroads and highways, the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. We did those things together,” he said, in a passage that was presumably meant to be inspirational but was delivered with the faintly petulant air of a great man resentful at having to point out the obvious, yet again. “Together, we touched the surface of the moon, unlocked the mystery of the atom, connected the world through our own science and imagination. We haven’t done these things as Democrats or Republicans. We’ve done them as Americans.”


50 cartoons on Madonna’s breast, bacon sundaes, Eric Holder and more

Beyond the cheap dissembling, there was a bleak, tragic quality to this paragraph. Does anyone really believe a second-term Obama administration is going to build anything? Yes, you, madam, the gullible sap at the back in the faded hope’n’change T-shirt. You seriously think your guy is going to put up another Hoover Dam? Let me quote one Deanna Archuleta, Obama’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior, in a speech to Democratic environmentalists in Nevada:

“You will never see another federal dam.”


That seems pretty straightforward. America is out of the dam business. Just as the late Roman Empire no longer built aqueducts, so we no longer build dams. In fairness to the Romans, they left it to the barbarians to sweep in and destroy the existing aqueducts, whereas in America the government destroys the dams (some 200 this century) as an act of environmental virtue hailed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

Obama can urge us all he wants to band together because when we dream big dreams there’s no limit to what Big Government can accomplish. But these days we can’t build a new Hoover Dam, only an attractive new corner office for the Assistant Deputy Assistant Deputy Assistant Secretary to the Secretary of Deputy Assistants at the Department of Bureaucratic Sclerosis, and she’ll be happy to issue a compliance order that the Hoover Dam’s mandatory fish ladders are non-wheelchair accessible, and so the whole joint needs to close. That we can do! If only we dare to dream Big Dreams!! Together!!!

As to “touching the surface of the moon,” I touch on this in my most recent book, whose title I will forbear to plug. Imagine if we hadn’t gone to the moon in the 1960s. Can you seriously picture Obama presiding over such an event today? Instead of the Apollo 11 guys taking up a portable cassette machine to play Sinatra and the Count Basie band’s recording of “Fly Me To The Moon,” the lads of Obamo 11 would take an iPod with Lady Gaga or Ke$ha or whatever… Yet, even as you try to fill in the details, doesn’t the whole thing start to swim out of focus as something that increasingly belongs not only to another time but another place? In the Sixties, American ingenuity burst the bounds of the planet. Now our debt does, and “touching the surface of the moon” half-lingers in collective consciousness as a dimming memory of lost grandeur, in the way a date farmer in 19th century Nasiriyah might be vaguely aware that the Great Ziggurat of Ur used to be around here.

But all he can see stretching to the horizon is sand.

So today our money-no-object government spends lot of money but to no great object. What are Big Government’s priorities now? Carpeting Catholic universities with IUDs. Regulating the maximum size of milk-coffee beverages. As Obama told us: “‘That’s how we built this country – together. We constructed railroads and highways… Together, we touched the surface of the moon, unlocked the mystery of the atom.’ And as we will one day tell our grandchildren: ‘Together, we touched the surface of the decaf caramel macchiato and deemed it to be more than 16 ounces. Together, we unlocked the mystery of 30-year-old college students’ womanhood. One small step to the IKEA futon for a lucky Georgetown Law freshwoman, one giant leap for womankind. Who will ever forget the day when the Union Pacific Board of Health Compliance and the Central Pacific Agency of Sustainable Growth Enhancement met at Promontory Community College, Utah, to hammer in the Golden Spike condom dispenser?'”

Most of us don’t want a new Hoover Dam. We would like our homes to be less underwater, but there’s no danger of that anytime soon. Most of us don’t want America to go to the moon. We would like a few less craters on the economic wasteland down here. Soaring rhetoric at a time of earthbound problems – jobs, debt – risks making the president sound ridiculous. Granted, there’s a lot of it about this time of year – commencement speakers assuring kids who can’t manage middle-school math that you can be anything you want to be as long as you dream your dreams. But Obama offers an even more absurd evolution of this grim trope: “I can be anything I want to be as long as you chumps dream your dreams.”

Self-pity is never an attractive quality, and in an elected head of state even less so. Obama whines that his opponents say it’s all his fault. One can argue about whose fault it is, but not, as my colleagues at National Review pointed out, whose responsibility it is: It’s his. He’s the only president we have. And he made things worse. He increased the national debt by some 70 percent, and what do we have to show for it? No dams, no railroads, no moon shots. Just government, and bureaucracy, and regulation, unto national bankruptcy.

“Fly me to the moon/Let me play among the stars…” Who needs another moon shot? Obama’s already up there, soaring ever more unmoored from reality. Pity us mere mortals back on Planet Earth, living in the land he made.

Collecting Support to Save Marriage


Passing the Plate for Politics

Why it’s legal for churches to take collections for PACs that oppose gay marriage.
Matt Branaugh
 When the offering gets taken on Father’s Day at Faith Evangelical Free Church, senior pastor William Cripe knows exactly where every dollar collected will go afterward: a political action committee (PAC).

The Waterville congregation of 700 will join dozens of other Maine churches planning to send Father’s Day collections to Protect Marriage Maine (PMM), a PAC formed to defeat a same-sex marriage referendum on this November’s ballot.

“This will be a first for us,” said Cripe, who has led Faith’s congregation for nearly 22 years. “I see it as a duty, responsibility, and obligation part-and-parcel to our being salt and light in the world.”

Cripe doesn’t have to worry whether his church’s involvement will threaten its tax-exempt status. Despite public perceptions to the contrary, a limited amount of donations and lobbying efforts by churches on behalf of legislation is legal.

Expect to see churches do more of this too, observers say, as legislative measures tied to marriage, abortion, and other controversial social issues continue to go before voters on ballots across the country.

“There is a real misunderstanding about what is involved in the tax code when it concerns a church engaging in legislative efforts,” said Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). “They can be a vital partner in this process.”

Strict language from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding what churches can and cannot do with political candidates may be one reason why church leaders assume any involvement with legislative efforts is a no-no, says Steve King, a Virginia attorney who regularly advises churches and nonprofits.

Churches are prohibited in IRS Publication 1828 from “political campaign activity,” such as making financial contributions, providing endorsements or statements of opposition, or extending an invitation for one candidate to speak while denying the other a chance.

But those rules apply only to campaigns involving candidates running for elected office.

“A ballot initiative is not a political campaign, because by definition you have to have a candidate,” King said.

Frank Sommerville, a Texas-based attorney, says some churches understand this distinction, and he expects to see more churches take action as they learn about it. He has helped churches raise funds and lobby against casino-gambling proposals and zoning laws regulating adult-entertainment businesses. “Generally these [efforts] are related to a moral issue that most churches can agree upon,” said Sommerville, an editorial advisor for Church Law and Tax Report (published by Christianity Today).

Churches are still subject to some limitations on lobbying activity, albeit not clear ones. On its website, the IRS says a congregation’s lobbying efforts must not “constitute a substantial part of its overall activities.” But “substantial” isn’t defined; the agency only says it is “determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case.”

Other 501(c)(3) organizations are subject to an IRS “expenditures” test—which uses a sliding scale based on the organization’s overall spending—to determine if the political activity is acceptable. For instance, an organization that spends $500,000 or less per year cannot spend more than 20 percent of that amount on lobbying.

Attorneys like Sommerville and Stanley say they tell churches to make sure their efforts run less than 15 percent. Stanley notes that PMM is asking churches to take up collections only on Father’s Day, and possibly a handful of other Sundays throughout the summer and fall.

“Churches would really have to spend an awful lot of money or an awful lot of time before they’re going to cross that IRS threshold,” he said. “It’s not something churches really need to worry about.”

The ADF isn’t actively involved with PMM’s effort, but it has made its own push in recent years to challenge IRS rules pertaining to churches and political candidates. Through its annual Pulpit Freedom Sunday, ADF encourages pastors to endorse or oppose specific candidates, then submit the audio of their sermons to the IRS—all with an eye toward drawing a potential legal challenge that can address the constitutional standing of those rules. The IRS has yet to take action against any churches, including the 539 which participated last year.

Carroll Conley Jr., executive director of the Augusta-based Christian Civic League, is recruiting Maine churches to fundraise for PMM. He has about 75 commitments so far, and hopes to at least double that by Election Day. “This is really our first effort to reach out and say, ‘Okay, this is our campaign and we’re counting on you [churches] to fund this campaign from the beginning,'” he said.

In 2009, Maine voters approved—by a 53 percent to 47 percent margin—a veto that overturned the state legislature’s passage of a law allowing same-sex marriages. This time around, Conley says polling suggests an even race.

In terms of fundraising, though, PMM is a sizable underdog. Mainers United for Marriage, the PAC supporting this year’s same-sex marriage referendum, raised about $465,000 between January 1 and May 29, according to the Bangor Daily News. PMM raised about $11,000 during the same period.

Obama Relies on the Voting Public to FORGET HIS WORDS……HIS LIES

Small President, Small Man

President Obama’s penchant for blaming everyone but himself for his administration’s failures (pre-eminently George W. Bush, of course) has made him something of a laughingstock. He has, of course, a serious problem: his record is too poor for him to talk about it, and he has no plans for his second term other than more of the same. So he defaults to the blame game.

Michael Ramirez contrasts Obama’s small-mindedness with some of his predecessors:

This video from American Crossroads sounds a similar theme. It is titled “Wah Wahhh”:



And Byron York notes that Obama seems to have forgotten his first year in the White House.

Obama badly needs to turn his campaign around, and no doubt there will be brighter days ahead for him. Still, hard as he may try, he can’t run away from his record.