Say What? White House launches audio series titled “Being Biden”

Another one to file under “You Can’t Make This Up” – via AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans who petitioned the White House to give Vice President Joe Biden his own reality TV show may be getting the next-best thing.

The White House on Thursday launched an audio series to give Americans the sense they’re along for the ride for some of Biden’s behind-the-scenes moments.

Dubbed “Being Biden,” the series features photographs of Biden from events that aren’t part of his public schedule. Viewers can listen to Biden narrate the story behind the photos, curated by White House staffers to give the public a look at his life inside the Obama administration.

It’s an idea not terribly far removed from what thousands of Americans requested earlier this year when they signed a White House petition to give the freewheeling, often unscripted vice president a recurring show on C-SPAN — “a glimpse of the lighthearted side of politics even in the midst of contentious and divisive national debates.” The petition didn’t cross the 100,000-name threshold required for a White House response in the time allotted, and it was later removed from the White House website.

With “Being Biden,” the Obama administration can capitalize on Biden’s ability to connect viscerally with Americans without the risk of an impromptu moment that could go awry. The series uses official photos from White House photographers, allowing the administration to engage Americans directly through social media without relying on the mainstream media to get their message out.

The vice president’s office said new episodes will be released regularly, and said the idea stemmed from the regular radio-style addresses Biden would record for constituents when he served in the Senate.

Here’s the direct link to the “Being Biden” White House page. LMAO!

On one hand, it’s kinda disturbing they’d use this outlet for Biden to “get his message out” rather than going the mainstream media route – after all, this is the “most open, honest, and accountable administration EVAH!!!” so what do they have to hide by shielding Biden from the mike, outside of his penchant for gaffes which – as they would readily admit – end up endearing him to people more so than turning them off (unless you’re a conservative Republican, that is)? On the other hand, the whole concept of a “Being Biden” series is hilarious because it’s so obviously scripted when our Vice President is most definitely not a “play by the script” kind of guy – as I’ve written about here numerous times.

I look forward to the parody videos of this from the vast number of witty, creative conservatives who are out there. Let the “Being Biden” games begin!

Cruz vs. Feinstein, Texas vs. California, Liberty vs. …???

**Posted by Phineas

The following fascinating exchange occurred between Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today on gun control, presumably including Feinstein’s pet legislation to outlaw scary weapons. First, Ted Cruz:

“The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is,” said Cruz to Feinstein, “Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?

Notice how Cruz approaches the question of the legislation before them: as a Senator of the United States, whose oath binds him to protect and defend the Constitution. His first concern, therefore, is where it should be — on how the legislation jibes with the Constitution, the rights it enshrines and the limits it imposes on government. Hence the questions about the First and Fourth amendments and the attempt to draw a logical parallel in order to test whether gun control legislation meets constitutional muster.

Call me naive, but isn’t this how the Senate is supposed to operate?

Apparently the whole thing was just too much for Senator Feinstein to bear:

“I’m not a sixth grader,” said Feinstein. “Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons. I’ve been up — I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn’t mean that weapons of war and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I — you know, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time. I’ve passed on a number of bills. I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture.”

In other words, “Don’t you dare presume to question me, boy!”

Note how Feinstein replies: outrage at supposed disrespect (“I’ve been here for 20 years! I’ve passed bills!”); an emotional appeal (“I’ve seen dead people! Think of the children!”); and confusing the issue through ignorance (cosmetic features do not a “weapon of war” make, no matter how scary looking). But only once does she touch upon the Constitution, referring to Heller, and she never answers Cruz’s questions.

Memo to Senator Feinstein: You may have been in Washington for a lot of years (too many, if you ask me), you may have sat at one of the constitutional seats of power, maybe even read the Constitution, but you clearly don’t “get it,” and I doubt you’ve ever really thought about it. Your smokescreen reply to your colleague from Texas betrayed the emptiness of your position, its lack of any constitutional legitimacy. It was the bluster of an oligarch unaccustomed to being truly challenged. Senator Cruz was doing exactly what he should be doing, and what you should have been doing for those 20 years you’re so proud of.

I may be, like you, a child of the Golden State, but, right now?

I side with the Lone Star.

via The Weekly Standard, which has video

UPDATE/FLASHBACK: Don’t bother Senator Feinstein with facts, either.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Dems, MSM in panic mode as new Pope opposes abortion, gay marriage

Gosh darn it, why can’t the new Pope just “get with the times”? NBC – of course- exemplifies the type of focus our superficial, “progressive Christian” mainstream media has put on the new leader of the Catholic Church (bolded emphasis added by me):

Known as a compassionate Argentine archbishop who eschewed the trappings of his role to live amid his flock and who focused on the poor, Pope Francis will likely keep to Catholic teachings that reject abortion and same-sex marriage, experts said Wednesday.

Francis washed the feet of 12 AIDS victims living at a hospice in 2001, an action filled with symbolism in the Roman Catholic Church since it was reminiscent of Holy Thursday and the washing of the apostles’ feet by Jesus.

But in 2010, while Argentina was debating same-sex marriage legislation, he was quoted as calling the bill that ultimately passed “a plan to destroy God’s plan,” and said it was a “move by the father of lies to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

He has also said gays and lesbians should not be allowed to adopt, according to Bernard Schlaeger of the Pacific School of Religion.

“The pope will be Catholic,” Professor Christopher J. Ruddy, an expert in church theology at the Catholic University of America, said of how he expected Francis to respond to some of the controversial social issues. “He speaks and he teaches what the Catholic church teaches on these issues.”

Nonetheless, gay and lesbian advocacy groups called on Francis to embrace LGBT people and their families.

“For decades the Catholic hierarchy has been in need of desperate reform. In his life, Jesus condemned gays zero times. In Pope Benedict’s short time in the papacy, he made a priority of condemning gay people routinely,” the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said in a statement.

You know what? I’m not a Christian snob, and I don’t pretend to know everything there is to know about Christian teachings, but I do know that homosexuality is one of the sins expressly condemned in the Bible – and in fact is called an “abomination.” It’s a sin alongside adultery, false gods, etc. Faith-immersed leaders are supposed to preach against sin, no matter what that sin is. They aren’t supposed to ignore it nor de-emphasize it and any pastor or priest who does so is doing a serious disservice not only to his faith but also to believers who come to them seeking more knowledge and/or clarification about the Word of God. The job of a pastor or priest is not to “modernize” in order to “keep up with changing times” …. because scripture doesn’t change, isn’t supposed to. Christians are supposed to know and understand well what sin is and what the consequences of it are. If the meaning of the Word of God is watered down to “whatever you want it to mean”, it might as well not even exist.

We’re all sinners, all imperfect – and for those of who are believers, the Word of God is supposed to be our guiding light, what we look to not just when we are facing tough times but also when times are good. While it’s true God’s Word seems to mean something different to almost everyone, there are certain things that are not “debatable” and sin is one of those little inconvenient (to the left) things that are really unquestionable. Sin is not acceptable in the eyes of God – period, no matter the sin – whether they be lies or sleeping around or murder or, yes, homosexuality. Liberals and their allies in LGBT groups like the one mentioned in the NBC article just can’t seem to understand why Christian leaders put so much emphasis on traditional marriage and the traditional family structure more than other sins. “Just leave us alone, don’t condemn!” they say. Well, that’s what they want you to think, anyway – that they simply want to be “left alone”, but in fact, Christian leaders put such a strong emphasis on the home and family so much because that is precisely what is under attack today by militant secularists and misguided “liberal Christians” both inside the church and outside of it who seek to “normalize” behavior that, according to God, is a sin.

Guess what? Even if there was one day is a Pope who doesn’t have an issue with abortion and alternative forms of marriage, according to the Word of God, it is wrong and that’s
never going to change. Not ever. No matter how many worldly declarations are made, how many laws are passed to “normalize” and “de-sin” behavior that is indeed sinful, God’s Word doesn’t change.

That’s a good thing, and I say all this as a Christian myself who knows she is a sinner but who also seeks guidance and forgiveness from God, and who also tries to help others in their Christian walk. I don’t ask God to make sins “ok” – I don’t ask Him to make it ok to lie, cheat, steal, etc. Why would I? I also don’t tell other sinners that their particular sins are “ok” to commit, but I will counsel them about sin when/if the opportunity presents itself. I also do NOT yell that other sinners are, “going to hell.” It’s not my place to make that judgment – it is God’s. But I can urge them to right themselves. That’s ministering to each other, something we are supposed to do. I’m thankful every day to God that His Word will never change, that the Bible – like the Constitution – in reality is not a “living document” that liberals and hardline secularists both in the media and elsewhere can mold into whatever they want it to mean. Well, they can try to change it, anyway but I suspect they’ll greatly regret it later, whether or not they are “successful” at it …

Final word from National Review’s Jim Geraghty in today’s Morning Jolt newsletter:

Was there any cardinal in the mix who, upon assuming the papacy, would step out onto the balcony, and declare, “Oh, hey, abortion, homosexuality and contraception are cool now”?

A couple times a year, Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne writes a column that says basically, “The Vatican has a big problem, because lots of American Catholics don’t agree with the pope.” It never seems to cross his mind that each pope and the Vatican collectively don’t really care that lots of American Catholics don’t agree with them. Or, more specifically, they would like American Catholics to agree with them, but they’re not willing to change what they teach as right and wrong based upon what the Gallup organization says American Catholics think. They think they get that material from the Man Upstairs. You may or may not agree with that assessment of Divine leadership, but the point is that the pope and the cardinals believe it, and they’re not going to be talked out of it by some pundit.

This is an institution that weathered the storms of the schism with the Orthodox and the Protestant Reformation. They’re not going to suddenly abandon their positions in the face of criticism from Chris Matthews, Lawrence O’Donnell, or Andrew Sullivan.

And I pray they never will.