H/T: Sarah Palin.

…And life that never ends.

John 20: Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) Then the disciples went back to where they were staying.

Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?”

“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.”At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”

Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”

Jesus said to her, “Mary.”

She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).

Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.

~ ~ ~

Have a very Happy Easter everyone, may your day be blessed with family and friends, joy, laughter and the love of the Lord.

As many as 20 million Americans could lose the health insurance they now receive from their employers under President Obama’s new health care reforms, a report released Thursday shows.

But the report from the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation said 20 million would be the worst-case scenario and that it’s possible that the number of people losing their current employer-provided insurance wouldn’t exceed 5 million between 2019 and 2022.

The agencies warned, however, that they can’t really be sure how many people will lose their current coverage if the law is rolled out as planned in a few years.

Two things we can take away from this report; first, three years after is was passed no one, not the CBO or in industry, knows what effect Obamacare will ultimately on the health insurance market or on health care  in general. Second, if the CBO is reporting 20 million Americans could lose their employer provided health insurance as the worst-case scenario, I think it’s safe to assume it’s really a best-case scenario… Let me try to put this into perspective for you, as self-employed small business owner I’ve seen my health insurance premiums more than double in the last two years — from $803.58 a quarter in 2010 to $1640.67 a quarter this year.

Frankly, 20 million people losing their employer provided health insurance, sounds like serious underestimation to me.

Related:

• At worst, 20M may lose employer insurance – UPI
• Obamacare drives up health care costs for everyone – Sally Pipes, San Francisco Chronicle
• CBO: Health reform could cause people to lose workplace coverage – Politico
• CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs – Philip Klein, The Washington Examiner
• Study: Votes in favor of healthcare reform cost Dems 5.8 points in 2010 vote – Julian Pecquet, The Hill

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Rush Limbaugh, he’s been a tireless advocate for conservatism, but he’s wrong here. Mr. Limbaugh made Sandra Fluke the story and distracted everyone from the real issue and from what should have been the winning argument for conservatives.  This debate is not about contraception, it is about liberty — and one of the fundamental founding principles of America: religious freedom.

The First Amendment to the Constitution couldn’t be more clear on this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The simple truth, neither Congress nor the President of the United States can order religious institution to provide something that violates their religious convictions. The President’s compromise — forcing insurance companies to provide free contraceptives to employees of religious institutions is itself just an end run around the Constitution.

Look folks, I know this is a cliché, but there are no free lunches, or free contraceptives. Somewhere, somehow, someone is going to be paying the bill, it’s either going to come out of our tax dollars, or we’re all going to end paying for those free contraceptives in form of higher insurance premiums.

Bottom line; Americans instinctively love liberty and respect religious freedom, they don’t however react well to calling women sluts. If we’re going to refute Ms. Fluke’s argument and point out the flaws in her testimony let’s do it without calling her names.

Update (Saturday, March 3, 2012 5:30 p.m.): Rush Limbaugh posted a statement on his web site this afternoon apologizing to Ms. Fluke:

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

Good, Rush did the right thing here, and it’s important to note that while he apologized for his poor choice of words, he did not concede the greater point. Which is that the left wants to deny Americans their God-given, Constitutionally protected right to religious freedom.

Related

• Contraceptive War: Advertisers Bail From Rush Limbaugh Show Over Satire Of White House Operative Posing As Student – Pat Dollard
• Something missing from Georgetown Law’s condemnation – William Jacobson, Legal Insurrection
• Sandra Fluke Does Not Speak for Me – Angela Morabito, The College Conservative
• “Stunner. Georgetown ‘Coed’ Sandra Fluke Is a 30 Year-Old Women’s Rights Activist” – Jeff G., Protein Wisdom
• If You Don’t Like Slut As A Title For Sandra Fluke, How About Czar? – Smitty, The Other McCain
• Activists: Birth control can fight global warming – Jason Howerton, The Daily Caller
• What did Sandra Fluke really say? – Charlie Spiering, The Washington Examiner
• Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate – CNSNews.com
• Obama mandate: Not a women’s issue – Cathy Ruse, The Washington Times
• Schools Navigate State Birth-Control Patchwork – Wall Street Journal

Bravo Zulu Ms. Davis!

Video courtesy of The  Right Scoop.

Related

• Palin makes call for conservative nominee – The Washington Examiner
• Palin: Conservatives must rally to defeat Obama – The Washington Times

On a morning when Mitt Romney should be celebrating his big win yesterday’s Florida primary, his campaign is instead trying spin remarks he made in an interview CNN’s Soledad O’Brien:

I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there. If it needs repair I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they are doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who are struggling.

Ouch, talk about squandering your victory lap.

Even taken in context Gov. Romney’s remarks are cringe inducing, his reasoning plays directly into the Democratic Party’s ‘Republicans don’t care about the poor’ narrative. Not that the context even matters, the only thing people are to take away from that interview, the only thing people are going to remember is Mitt Romney saying “I’m not concerned about the very poor.”

The campaign ads practically write themselves.

Frankly, Jonah Goldberg is right:

“… the under-emphasized dynamic in this race isn’t that Romney isn’t conservative enough (though that’s obviously a real concern out there) it’s that he’s simply not a good enough politician. He may be the most electable on paper. He’s certainly a nice guy, decent father, smart, successful etc. But, every time he seems to get into his groove and pull away he says things that make people think he doesn’t know how to play the game.”

And that more than anything else is why I think he’s the wrong candidate, for all his strengths, he has the uncanny ability to look and sound like a frighteningly bad caricature of a disconnected, elitist country club Republican.

Overall, this gaffe probably isn’t fatal, but it’s worrisome — make no mistake this gaffe is going to come back haunt him. This is still Romney’s campaign to lose, he’s going to have to sharpen his focus and make sure he doesn’t fall into the class-warfare trap. This election is about the economy, the focus should be on fixing the economy so that everyone benefits not pitting one group of Americans against another, the way Barack Obama has.

I can’t say it any better than Tina Korbe:

No matter what measure you use, government spending has increased since 1965. Total government spending has more than doubled. Federal spending per household has increased from $11,431 in 1965 to $29,401 in 2010, for an increase of nearly 162 percent. That would all be fine if revenues had kept pace — if, in the same time period, the United States hadn’t also acquired more than $15 trillion in debt.

Under the Obama administration, the deficit and debt has only increased — and, to make matters worse, for all three years of Barack Obama’s presidency, the federal government has indulged in high levels of spending without an official budget. What could possibly be the result of such directionless spending other than unprecedented deficits and increased debt?

The Democrat-controlled Senate is directly to blame for the lack of a budget. Even when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, the Congress didn’t bother to pass a plan. Now that Republicans control the House, the House has passed a comprehensive budget plan — but the Senate has still done nothing. The Senate is the true do-nothing chamber, but the president will almost assuredly blame the House as the inactive chamber.

I’m honestly at loss for words here, as Ms. Korbe points out Pres. Obama and Senate Democrats will undoubtedly try to blame House Republicans for the lack of a budget, but the reality is they did their job and passed a comprehensive budget plan last April.

It’s Harry Reid, and Senate Democrats who have failed to fulfill one of their most basic responsibilities and it’s they who should be held to account.

Ms. Miller decided to buy a gun after she was the victim of a home invasion while dog and house sitting for friends in 2010:

I want a gun. I don’t feel safe living in Washington, D.C. and want to protect myself. I’m starting today by going down to City Hall to find the gun permit office to tell them, “I want a gun.” This series will follow me as I navigate the city bureaucracy and outdated rules in order to legally buy a firearm.

My desire for a gun started when I had to face down over a dozen criminals on an empty cul de sac in Washington, D.C., armed only with a Blackberry.

It was New Year’s Day 2010, and I’d been staying in the house to dog sit for friends who were on vacation. I’d returned from walking the dog when I saw a man coming from the house. “What are you doing?” I asked, sensing something was off with the situation. The Golden Retriever just stood next to me with a slack leash.

“We’re here to clean the pool,” the man said. He looked nervous and his eyes were blood-shot.

I was pretty sure my friends hadn’t called in a swimming pool emergency during the middle of winter. “No, we didn’t call for you,” I said.

“Oh, then it must be the house next door,” he said, smiling nervously. He turned and walked away quickly.

I’d left the front door unlocked since I was walking the dog for less than ten minutes. (I know, lesson learned.) After the man left, I was still suspicious so I went inside, grabbed my Blackberry and clicked on the icon for the camera. I walked down the street, and as I turned the corner, I saw about 15 scruffy young men standing around two pickup trucks. We were at the end of a woody, dead-end road.

I nervously held up my Blackberry to take a quick photo of them and the license plates. Suddenly, the blood-shot-eyed guy darted out, blocking the shot. “What are you doing?” he asked. I looked around at all the men staring at me and was suddenly scared. “Nothing, I’m um, just going now,” I said as I put my Blackberry down instead of taking the picture around him and went home.

To me the single most striking thing about Ms. Miller’s experience, is that the process just buy a pistol and register in our nation’s capitol is virtually identical to the process for obtaining concealed carry permit in most other jurisdictions. There’s simply no logical reason for making it that difficult just to legally purchase a firearm for home defense.

I’m all for reasonable restrictions like background checks or waiting periods, but forcing someone to go through a complex multi-step process, that takes months to complete and is virtually identical to the one for obtaining a concealed carry permit almost anywhere else is insane. The only reason for it to discourage law-abiding citizens from exercising their Constitutionally protected rights… And let me clear about this, this isn’t simply a second amendment issue, everyone one of us has a God-given right to feel safe in our own home and to protect ourselves, our families and our property from those who would do us harm. There’s an old cliché to says when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

It’s true if you live in densely populated urban area the average response time to a 911 call is around 7 minutes… But in rural areas it can often take 20 minutes or more for police to arrive.

Anyway, Ms. Miller recently reached something of milestone in her quest to legally obtain a handgun: She put done her money and ordered a Sig Sauer P229 in 9mm. Now all she has to do is jump through a few more hoops before she can legally take possession of her pistol:

And, that is the “but” in this story. Although I have paid and ordered the gun, I can’t take possession of it until it is transferred to Mr. Sykes, and I get an approved registration certificate.

In order to get this certificate, I still have to do the following: take a written test on the city’s firearm laws; get Mr. Sykes to fill out the application form; have the eligibility form notarized; get two passport photos and prove that my eyesight is better or equal to the driver’s license requirement (20/70 in best eye and field of vision of at least 140 degrees).

Next, I have to take all the forms to the registry office; pay $60 in fees; wait five days for the application to be approved; wait an additional five days for Mr. Sykes to be able to release my gun; and take the gun to the police for a ballistics test.

Finally, if I pass all of these steps, I should be able to take possession of the gun that I already bought.

The sad truth is, Washington D.C. is one of America’s most violent cities. The district’s arcane, restrictive gun laws haven’t made anyone safer, in fact one could argue that all the district’s decades old de facto gun ban has accomplished is to insure that criminals have largely defenseless population to prey upon.