Maybe the Pope finally gets it. In his traditional end of the year address, held on December 21st - The Winter Solstice - Benedict said revelations of abuse in 2010 reached "an unimaginable dimension" that required the church to accept the "humiliation" as a call for renewal. 
It is about time. He continued.
"In the 1970s, pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children," the pope said. "It was maintained — even within the realm of Catholic theology — that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a 'better than' and a 'worse than.' Nothing is good or bad in itself."
What? 
In the realm of Catholic Theology, in the 1970's the church believed that pedophilia was normal?
Why am I not surprised? 
Maybe because they have believed that behavior was normal for quite some time. Sister Mary MacKillop, from Australia who was excommunicated from the church in 1871 after making charges against a pedophile priest. I guess protecting the pedophiles has been the policy of the church for a very long time.
And why not? According to the theology of the church, as the Pope said, it is normal behavior.
Unless the  Pope misspoke and meant to say the 1870s it was considered normal and not the 1970s. 
Not that 100 years makes a huge difference to the church. It took them over 350 years to officially pardon Galileo.
But I digress. Still I'm baffled at how the church could come to this conclusion. 
In Mark 9:42 Jesus says:
“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea"
Translation: Don't screw around with kids. Literally.
Which makes me wonder, who the heck is in charge of PR at the Holy See. Seriously.
Why would you encourage the Pope to say it was "normal" publicly?
Just recently released from the PR department, the Pope said it was okay for male prostitutes to use condoms to prevent the spread of aids.
And why not?
I'm imagining that if the church believed - as late as the 1970s - that it was okay for a man to have sex with a child, that it isn't too much of a leap to believe it is okay for two consenting adults to have sex without the risk of spreading disease.
Unless, of course, they are the same sex, then it is evil.  
Unlike pedophilia in the 1970s. And earlier.


The Catholic Church, the gift that keeps.
Merry Christmas Folks. Thanks for reading.
I will leave you with a Holiday Celebration from the Vatican.

As part of a multi-million dollar settlement, the Diocese of San Diego was forced to release personnel files of sexually abusive priests. Attorney Anthony DeMarco said "These documents demonstrate years and years and decades of concerted action that has allowed this community's children to be victimized, and it is not until the community looks at these documents that this cycle is ever going to be ended."
What concerted action?
Apparently the Diocese had a habit of moving abusive priests from parish to parish without notifying the police.  Once again, I'm guessing, I'm sure the Pope is shocked and saddened.
Who knew? Outside of folks in Boston, Ireland, Australia, etc where everyone knew, it is safe to say the Bishop in your Diocese might have known too.
Heck, even the Pope knew how to do this when he was a Bishop in Germany when he shipped a pedophile from Esson to Munich for engaging in oral sex with an eleven year old.
Yet most still believe him when he says he is shocked and saddened. Even with such an enormous paper trail.
Which brings me back the the 10th Congressional District in Massachusetts and candidate Jeff Perry.
At a recent debate he claimed that if he knew Officer Flanagan was assaulting a fourteen year old girl, 
“I would have locked him up myself.”
However, just like the church, there is a paper trail.
Two civil suits were filed. One surrounding the assault of a 16 year old girl in 1992 and one on the assault of the 14 year old girl in 1991.
The suits named Flanagan and Perry as defendants, along with the Town of Wareham. The one filed by the 16 year old girl's family went to trial and and they won the verdict saying Perry and the town acted with deliberate indifference. 
That doesn't quite sound the same as locking someone up.
In fact, in this case Perry didn't really show indifference. He was quite active. Even though he wasn't present (this time) during Flanagan's assault he went the the girl's house the night of the crime, claiming to have been with Flanagan telling her parents they found what might have been marijuana on their daughter's possession.
Perry tried to facilitate a cover-up. Unfortunately for him, he didn't quite have the expertise in this area like the church.
The family called the Wareham Police the next day.
After the verdict in this case they decided to settle with the 14 year old out of court.
Yet pundits for the right, filling the role of the Catholic League, will claim Perry did nothing wrong.
Ignoring the actual paper trail.
For the complete breakdown of the Perry and Flanagan relationship, just follow this link.

Excuse me for a moment while I scream. The recent circumstances surrounding the candidacy of Jeff Perry for the US Congress has my head spinning.
In 1991 a 14 year old girl was illegally strip-searched...Okay nice euphemism but she was actually sexually assaulted... by Scott Flanagan, a Wareham police officer while Police Sergeant Jeff Perry stood by, as close as ten feet away and did nothing to stop it and then tried to cover it up.
Flanagan forced the girl to lift her shirt and bra, as he stuck his hand down her pants. She screamed for help.
These facts are indisputable. The State Police Report puts him there.
In 1992 Flanagan again assaulted a 16 year old girl in Wareham. Perry wasn't present this time, however later that evening he accompanied Flanagan to the victims house and threatened her parents. 
He only reported his awareness of the assault, after the girls parents came forward to report it.
Yet Jeff Perry has consistently denied any wrong doing. Excuse me, I feel the scream coming on.
Can some one tell me the difference between this man's badge and a Bishop's ring? Can someone tell me the difference between Jeff Perry's behavior and Cardinal Law's?
He was a man in power who allowed the abuse of children and actively covered up. It is simple, if Perry had stopped the assault in 1991 and reported Flanagan, the 1992 assault never would have happened.
No difference between Law protecting and moving a Father Geoghan. None.
Now, Flanagan's first victim steps forward to hold Perry accountable to the truth, as he is running to become a United States Congressman. I know there are plenty of punch-lines to write about accountable congressman, but I'm not in a joking mood.
The assault from the right on this victim for coming forward is frightening. The comments posted by people on the Herald and Globes are horrifying. Most blaming the victim while blaming liberals for being soft on crime. What?
The hypocrisy makes me scream. Because it shows the basic truth, that conservatives want to stop the sexual assault and abuse of children, as long as it makes liberals look bad. Otherwise we will stand with our own.
Don't make the mistake that I only attack conservatives on this point. I have pointed out Martha Coakley's free pass given to Geoghan while she was a DA.  And I'm always horrified by the Democrats support of Rep. Fagan. 
But it is the right who consistently claims that the left, with their buddies in the ACLU, who don't go to proper lengths to hold criminals accountable.
But now they are throwing their support behind Cardinal Law for Congress.
I will repeat, if Perry had stopped the assault in 1991 and reported Flanagan, the 1992 assault never would have happened.
Just look at Charlie Baker running to stand by Perry's side. He says that Perry has done a good job explaining the 1991 incident. Clearly the reports show Perry has done the opposite. In the same story, Senator Scott Brown is reported as saying that Perry has "run an honest campaign."
I've been trying to help a group, CORSAL,  for years to eliminate the statutes of limitation of sexual abuse of children. Eliminate it. The right points to, rightfully so, the Democrat Eugene O'Flaherty  has been our biggest obstacle. He co-chairs the Joint Judiciary Committee and refuses to release it from committee for a vote.
But when they talk about Perry, they say, well this happened almost twenty years ago, as a way to minimize the abuse. 
Judged by Charlie Baker's response, I can only guess that he is in O'Flaherty's corner.
Because, at the risk of being redundant, if Perry had stopped the assault in 1991 and reported Flanagan, the 1992 assault never would have happened.
I really wish I could fine more people who stop viewing the sexual abuse of children a left or right issue and simply see it as wrong. And do everything they can to stop it.

I just shot a video today using shoes that were donated for an art installation I am hoping to show at some point in the future. My goal was and still is to collect 1000 shoes making each shoe represent 1200 victims of clergy sexual abuse. That's right, that means there are around 1,200,000 victims of clergy sexual abuse worldwide.


How did I arrive at that number?


Bishops Accountability has concluded that there are roughly 50,000 victims in the United States. The US represents 6% of the world's Catholic population so that would figure over 3/4 of a million victims worldwide. 


Father Andrew Greeley estimated that there were 100,000 victims in the US. That would make it a whopping 1,650,000 worldwide. 


I averaged the two and came out to 1,200,000. So far I have collected 180 shoes. I seriously thought it was a lot more but this was what I had to work with today.


Which was kind of creepy once I did the math. Each shoe represents 6,666 victims worldwide. Hmmmm.


The name of the short video and future art installation is "Putting On Its Shoes," named after the Mark Twain Quote - "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes."
What's the lie?


That the abuse is something new. It has been going on for a long time.


The song in the video is Ave Maria sung by Alessandro Moreschi, the last famous castrito who sang in the choir at the bascillica in Rome. He was castrated when he was a little boy so he could sing like that for the Pope. The song was recorded in 1904 when he was 46 years old. 
I'm going to say that castrating a kid as late as the in the 1860's or 70's is abuse. 
Come to think of it, it always was abuse!

Speaking of 1870, Mother Mary MacKillop was excommunicated from the church for reporting Fr Keating for sexually abusing children. Now she is about to become the patron Saint for the sexually abused.
Did I mention this was all in 1870?


And they are still shocked and saddened by the abuse they have been covering up for centuries.
Yep, the lie.

It is time to put on our shoes.

 Diversions

The Vatican has finally decided to forgive The Beatles for their satanic messages in such songs like "All You Need is Love." An ungrateful Ringo said "...they've got more to talk about than the Beatles." Doesn't he realize that it took the Vatican 359 years to pardon Galileo? Comparably The Beatles were fast tracked.

But Ringo may be onto something. This could be a diversion from discussing the cover-up of the sexual abuse scandal reaching the Pope's door. I think some other topics are also diversions.

Celibacy

Some have suggested that celibacy is the problem for the clergy sexual abuse of children. So are the proponents of this theory suggesting that if a man does not get laid for ten years, one day he will wake up and say, "Gee, I think I'll boink a kid"? Haven't they heard of craigslist?

I can't even begin to connect these dots. I worry about those who do. I think we need to create a registry for people who come to this conclusion. The creepy logic registry.

Allow Priests to Marry

Some are suggesting, as an offshoot from the celibacy argument, that allowing priests to marry will stop the sexual abuse of children. Because we all know married men never sexually abuse children.

Okay maybe they do.

The notorious serial abuser from the Fall River Diocese, Father James Porter, was married after he left the priesthood.  As a priest he has admitted to abusing over 100 kids. He was arrested and prosecuted for abusing his kids babysitter.

I guess his marriage didn't protect children.

Gays

Recently the Vatican has been saying that gay priests are the reasons for the sexual abuse of children.

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said "Many psychologists, many psychiatrists have demonstrated there exists no relationship between celibacy and pedophilia." So far so good.

"But many others have demonstrated, and have told me recently, that there is a link between homosexuality and pedophilia. This is true, this is the problem."

As it is with the celibacy argument, if a gay man wants to have sex he doesn't need to go to college, get accepted to seminary school and get ordained as a priest to do so. He can use craigslist. A pedophile would take the other route.

And how does the gay argument explain female victims? It seems to me the Vatican only seems to think sexually abusing little boys is the problem. But little girls?

Suddenly they become Maurice Chevalier singing "Thank Heaven for Little Girls"

The sexual abuse of little girls by priests still seems to be a secret. Or tolerated.

Prayer

One of the best solutions the Vatican and Catholics seem to be offering is prayer. It seems as if they pray hard enough, priests will stop abusing children.

The Knights of Columbus are even sponsoring a Novena.

V/ Let us pray for Benedict, the pope.R/ May the Lord preserve him, give him a long life,
make him blessed upon the earth,
and not hand him over to the power of his enemies.
V/ May your hand be upon your holy servant.
R/ And upon your son, whom you have anointed.

Uh oh. I think I'm the enemy.

And all I'm suggesting we do is prosecute criminals. Including the Pope.

A kind of secular solution.

Recently I've been feeling this heavy weight on my back and I couldn't quite figure it out. Until I received an email from Voice of the Faithful saying they were having Vigils of Sorrow on Good Friday to "stand in solidarity with victims of clergy abuse."

Really? They want to stand with us again? Why it seems like only yesterday that we were standing on the streets of Providence, in the rain, as they held their convention without much concern for the victims, on whose backs they built their organization.

Heck, because of all of the news about the Pope, VOTF's President Dan Bartley has even appeared on CNN. That should help raise some money for them.

I know I sound a little cynical. I do understand that this is reflective of the organization on the national scale. I also know that there are many local affiliates of Voice of the Faithful with integrity.

Apparently these vigils will be held at major cathedrals in Boston, New York and Washington D.C. I'm not sure I see this as the right PR move. It is Good Friday and the church will be discussing nothing but forgiveness. That is what the church is all about.

Unless you are the New York Times. Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn has gone as far to say, "I might even suggest canceling our subscriptions to The New York Times, but we need to know what the enemy is saying." That's not very forgiving.

Let alone the likes of our friend Bill Donohue at the Catholic League. When he forgives Larry David, Bill Maher and Kathy Griffin, then I will start to believe the church is about forgiveness.

They used to go willingly and humbly to the lions to profess their faith, now they can't even take a joke.

Is forgiveness what we are looking for anyway? How about justice first?

If you want to protest, why not start with the offices of federal prosecutors, attorneys general and local DAs? They are the only agents who can promote real change. Resignations won't solve anything, but prosecution will.

The question "Will the Pope resign?" is irrelevant.

From Boston to Australia to Ireland to Germany and everywhere in between, the handling of clergy sexual abuse worldwide has been the same. We should be looking at why.

The abuse is reported to the Bishop, and he either sends the priest to another Diocese or to a "treatment center" and then reassigns him, without ever notifying the authorities. Are we to believe this is all a coincidence? That they have acted individually and independently from each other? Not likely.

Let's look at how the Dioceses of Worcester and Fort Worth handled Fr. Tom Teczar. He served for a little while at St. Mary's in Uxbridge prior to this. That's where he got to know me.

Here is an article written by Richard Nagle from the Worcester Telegram, April 21, 2003.

In a letter:
Monsignor Raymond J. Page, vicar general of the Worcester diocese, wrote to Bishop Reilly, then in charge of the diocese serving Norwich, Conn., "Father Teczar is a priest of this diocese. Bishop Harrington has granted him a leave of absence with the suggestion that he seek a benevolent bishop.

"Tom's difficulties came to a head two years ago when a 16-year-old boy accused Tom of soliciting him," the letter continued.

Monsignor Page also wrote Bishop Reilly that "Bishop Harrington says there has long been a cloud of suspicion over Tom. Bishop Harrington knows a trail of damaged youngsters he left in one town. The police there were far from pleased. In that town, the police threatened to find a reason to arrest him if he returned there." Bishop Reilly declined to take on Rev. Teczar, and the Worcester diocese began to focus on Fort Worth.

With the knowledge of this risk, Bishop Delaney of Fort Worth still wanted Tom to serve in his Diocese. In a letter to the Worcester Diocese he wrote:

The letter went on, "Bishop Rueger sent me a copy of the letter you received from Mr. James Reardon, the diocesan attorney, with his opinion that Father Teczar should be excardinated from the Diocese of Worcester immediately. While respecting Mr. Reardon's expertise in civil law, I want to raise with you other questions about this matter involving both justice and charity." 

Bishop Delaney said he believed Rev. Teczar would perform well for the Fort Worth diocese. "Let me be clear about the three-year wait," he wrote. "It is not due to concern about Tom's past problem. If I had serious concern in that regard I would not be dealing with the matter at all! ... In Tom's case there is the past problem that you and he have fully shared with me. But that is not the reason for the wait. If I had any fear that the problem would ever arise again I could not and would not accept him at all for any length of time. "

You told me both times we talked that you believe Tom can do effective priestly work and that you do not want to see him laicized. I can offer him that chance ... I am willing to provide the Diocese of Worcester with a document absolving you of any responsibility for Father Teczar's conduct during this time."

That document absolving  Worcester cost Fort Worth $4.15 million in settlements. It ultimately gave Teczar a 50-year prison sentence. Not to mention the children that were abused.

There was full disclosure between these two Bishops. It is time for the full disclosure of the policy of the cover.

It is clear they knew what they were doing. Just like they did Germany and everywhere else. I wish I could say April Fools, but I can't. This is no joke.

The only fools are those who believe the Catholic Church will police themselves.

Archbishop Dolan of New York's assertion that Pope Benedict is like Jesus should be considered miraculous. What else could possibly explain the transformation of one person from Hitler Youth to the King of the Jews?

Alright, that's an unfair joke. He was only 16 years old when he went into military service for the Nazi's. Clearly that doesn't count. Just like my Uncle Vinny who lied about his age and joined the US Navy at the age of 16. He was there when they captured the only German submarine in WWII, the U-505. That doesn't count either.

I can understand the Church's unease with discussions around Nazi's as Pope Pius XII reputation and record during that period is a little suspect. In particular, letting the likes of Dr. Josef Mengele to escape justice by fleeing Europe down the ratline, which went through the Vatican.

That's not good for PR. Although all of this bad press does keep the likes of Catholic League President Bill Donohue employed. As silly as he sometimes may be. Like his response that Cardinal Ratzinger may have seen a memo about the transfer of pedophile priest Peter Hullermann.

Donohue said "So what? Wasn't that what he expected to happen?” Yes, but he wasn't supposed to get caught transferring him.

It is actually called the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. They spend their time fighting against those who suppress their civil rights, like Larry David, while minimizing sexual abuse by priests by blaming the parents.

Now that's not very civil, is it? Who would he blame for the escape of Mengele? Defending Genocide might be a little more difficult for him.

And that may be next. According to a column by Martin Kimani in the Guardian UK:

"To you, Catholic survivor of genocide in Rwanda, the Vatican says that those priests, those bishops, those nuns, those archbishops who planned and killed were not acting under the instruction of the church. But moral responsibility changes dramatically if you are a European or US Catholic. To the priests of the Irish church who abused children, the pope has this to say: "You must answer for it before almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals. You have forfeited the esteem of the people of Ireland and brought shame and dishonour upon your confreres."

"The losses of Rwanda had received no such consideration. Some of the nuns and priests who have been convicted by Belgian courts and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, respectively, enjoyed refuge in Catholic churches in Europe while on the run from prosecutors."

Hey, it worked with Mengele.

I'm coming to understand why they call the Vatican the Holy See. Because no matter how hard they might try to compare themselves to Jesus, the only thing I See are Holes.

In spite of the recent bad publicity, the Catholic Church is still flexing it's moral muscle. No not that one. Apparently the US Bishops are telling the faithful to press their Congressmen to vote against the Senate Health Care bill because of Federal Funding of abortions. It's nice that the church wants to use a woman's Constitutional Right as a bargaining chip. 

Why do we call it a Constitutional Right anyway? Does that make it less somehow? Like it isn't inalienable but a right that can only be granted by the government. Women, apparently, aren't born with certain rights.

Speaking of born...

If the church believes that life begins at conception, then why do they teach we are "born" with original sin and not conceived with it? They seem to be making some distinction between the two themselves. It's as if they are making this up as they go along.

Speaking of making things up...

It looks like the Vatican sent out a form letter of apology to Ireland yesterday. In it the Vatican apologized to the Irish, but in a statement said it could be read as applying to other countries. It's their new green policy. Saving trees and money. They are going to need it for legal fees.

In the letter the Pope describes the Bishops' response to the abuse as "botched." Obviously. They got caught. Just like he botched things in Germany.

It should be clear to everyone now that the Bishops worldwide used the same MO with the abusers. Keep them in ministry, move them to another parish and don't report the crime to authorities. They could not have been acting individually and independently from each other. They were behaving as directed.

From people like the Pope.

So, with all of this, the church still thinks it has the moral authority to tell our representatives how to vote. That is just plain silly.

Giving the church any moral authority at all now, would be like publishing a cook book by Jeffrey Dahmer.

Today's New York Times has an article by Nicholas Kulish and Rachel Donadio titled Abuse Scandal in Germany Edges Closer to Pope. It begins:

BERLIN — A widening child sexual abuse inquiry in Europe has landed at the doorstep of Pope Benedict XVI, as a senior church official acknowledged Friday that a German archdiocese made “serious mistakes” in handling an abuse case while the pope served as its archbishop.

The archdiocese said that a priest accused of molesting boys was given therapy in 1980 and later allowed to resume pastoral duties, before committing further abuses and being prosecuted. Pope Benedict, who at the time headed the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, approved the priest’s transfer for therapy. A subordinate took full responsibility for allowing the priest to later resume pastoral work, the archdiocese said in a statement.

And somehow people are shocked. Not Captain Louis Renault shocked, but actually shocked.

I'm beginning to understand the last thirty seconds of Congressman Patrick Kennedy's recent rant directed at the media. Prompting this response as reported in the Boston Herald:

...Larry Sabato, director of the center for politics at the University of Virginia, said Patrick’s outburst was ill-conceived, no matter the motivation. “You can understand and sympathize with someone, but that doesn’t justify the behavior,” he said. “It was a temper tantrum.”

Sometimes ill-conceived outbursts can make a lot of money. Just ask Joe Wilson who raised 4 million dollars after calling President Obama a liar. But Mr. Sabato won't mention that, because his Center for Politics received over seven million dollars in earmarked money from Republican Congressman Virgil Goode.

That's a nice little cottage industry. So few opinion makers and so much money.

I once wrote a haiku:

Glen Beck, Michael Moore
With Moral Indignation
Fuck Off and Go Home

Two very rich men who know what is best for you. Please. They have created two of the most successful cottage industries - themselves - and will do anything to promote and protect it.

Which brings me back to the mainstream media and the Catholic Church. Remember them? That's what I was writing about. And it is one hell of a successful cottage industry. The Granddaddy of them all.

No one in the mainstream media is connetcing the dots with the worldwide sexual abuse scandal. It's to the point where Anderson Cooper actually interviews a priest on the adoption scandal in Haiti.

What, was he looking for advice as to the proper way to exploit children?

They all reported on Cardinal Law. The Globe even won a Pulitzer. But they've kind of glossed over the Murphy Report, which lays out the horrific abuse in Ireland. It is quite a read. It even explains how a crucifix can be used as a sex toy.

Which makes me wonder, does the Bishop consider it foreplay when you kiss his ring?

Now we have the stories from Germany. The Pope's homeland. And cover-ups.

Why am I not surprised? Let's connect some dots. As I have written in a previous blog, in 1962, "Crimen Solicitationis," a confidential document from the Vatican was sent to every Bishop in the world instructing them how to cover up clergy sexual abuse.

I know, I'm quoting myself, but hey, it worked for Norman Mailer didn't it?

Which means Archbishop Ratzinger's job was to folow the rule of that document. We are now finding out, he obviously did. But he went beyond that. In 2001, while Cardinal Ratzinger was Pope John Paul II's right hand man...John Paul II, remember him? They are going to make him a Saint...Ratzinger sent a letter to all of the Bishops and Cardinals, reminding them of Crimen Solicitationis and even went beyond its scope in covering up these crimes against children.

Pope Benedict is the author of the modern day cover-up. So today's story comes as no surprise.

And those within the walls of the Vatican know it. Just ask Father Gabriele Amorth, the Holy See's chief exorcist. He says, according to the Times UK, that the sex abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church are proof that that "the Devil is at work inside the Vatican"

Yes, and he wears Prada.

I'm still struck that, on NECN with Jim Braude, Massachusetts US Senate candidate Scott Brown said he is inspired to "live every day like it's my last," because the late JFK Jr. and Princess Diana were "powerful, handsome, rich" people who can no longer make a difference in the world as he wants to do. What?

Does Scott Brown believe he is one of the beautiful people?

I think his, er, spread in Cosmopolitan answers that question.

To be able to relate to the less attractive, he has been running ads showing the public that, like the common man, he drives a pickup truck. Of course, unlike the common man, as an elected official in Massachusetts, the taxpayers pay for his gas. He'd be doing us all a favor if he drove a Prius.

I wonder if he remembers that Noble Peace Prize winner Mother Teresa died the same day as Princess Di. She was one of the greatest humanitarians and advocate for the poor and helpless of the last century.

I don't know of anyone in my life time who deserves Sainthood more that her. I can't think of anything more miraculous than a woman running a ministry in the Catholic Church.

Still, she was old, poor and, well,  unattractive. How can that be inspiring?

Last July, Ben Stein wrote a column for the American Spectator, We Figured Him Out, taking on the ultra-leftist president we elected and his socialist health-care reform. Since then it has been circulated in an email and yesterday, it came to me.

Ben says -

Why is President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed?

Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths:

The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008. They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.

They ignored his anti-white writings in his books. They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright...

I thought this was about Health Care reform?

Wait a minute, wasn't Ben Stein a speechwriter and lawyer for Richard Nixon?

Doesn't he remember that on February 6, 1974, Nixon introduced the Comprehensive Health Insurance Act? Nixon’s plan would have mandated employers to purchase health insurance for their employees, and in addition provided a federal health plan like Medicaid that any American could join by paying on a sliding scale based on income.

Anyway, I interrupted Ben, sorry, what were you saying?

Ben...Ben?

Bueller?