<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Searching for Signs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://searchingforsigns.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://searchingforsigns.com</link>
	<description>Signs abound under the blue Florida sky. Finding them is another story.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:40:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Ash Wednesday and Subtraction by Addition by Pitbull (no, the other one)</title>
		<link>http://searchingforsigns.com/2012/02/22/ash-wednesday-and-subtraction-by-addition/#comment-1695</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Pitbull (no, the other one)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:40:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://searchingforsigns.com/?p=1598#comment-1695</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m giving up on trying to understand liberals...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m giving up on trying to understand liberals&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Facts?? Who Needs Facts? by Pitbull (no, the other one)</title>
		<link>http://searchingforsigns.com/2012/02/20/facts-who-needs-facts/#comment-1693</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Pitbull (no, the other one)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:27:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://searchingforsigns.com/2012/02/20/facts-who-needs-facts/#comment-1693</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Precisely. I don&#039;t live in Massachusetts, New York, California or Illinois, nor do I want to. I get to vote with my wallet and my beliefs. This very simple exercise in liberty escapes liberals who, at their best, want to control every damn thing a person does &lt;i&gt;according to their beliefs.&lt;/i&gt; At their worst, well we&#039;re seeing it unfold before our very eyes...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Precisely. I don&#8217;t live in Massachusetts, New York, California or Illinois, nor do I want to. I get to vote with my wallet and my beliefs. This very simple exercise in liberty escapes liberals who, at their best, want to control every damn thing a person does <i>according to their beliefs.</i> At their worst, well we&#8217;re seeing it unfold before our very eyes&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Facts?? Who Needs Facts? by Robert Molleda</title>
		<link>http://searchingforsigns.com/2012/02/20/facts-who-needs-facts/#comment-1692</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Molleda]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:10:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://searchingforsigns.com/2012/02/20/facts-who-needs-facts/#comment-1692</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Exactly right, Pitbull. I wouid be vehemently against this type of mandate at any level (local, state, etc.). But handling this at the state level perhaps allows for greater flexibility and modification of the legislation. Also, it&#039;s easier for people to &quot;vote with their feet&quot; in the case of a state versus wide-reaching federal mandate. This I believe is part of the spirit of the 10th Amendment.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Exactly right, Pitbull. I wouid be vehemently against this type of mandate at any level (local, state, etc.). But handling this at the state level perhaps allows for greater flexibility and modification of the legislation. Also, it&#8217;s easier for people to &#8220;vote with their feet&#8221; in the case of a state versus wide-reaching federal mandate. This I believe is part of the spirit of the 10th Amendment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Facts?? Who Needs Facts? by Robert Molleda</title>
		<link>http://searchingforsigns.com/2012/02/20/facts-who-needs-facts/#comment-1691</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Molleda]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:59:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://searchingforsigns.com/2012/02/20/facts-who-needs-facts/#comment-1691</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This just hit me:

&lt;i&gt;Maybe, just maybe, because he doesn’t like abortions either…he just has a different way of showing it. &lt;/i&gt;

I can accept that answer as legitimate, not to justify the mandate, but because it makes the logical connection between contraception and abortion. Not everyone, or even most people, who use contraceptives are willing to abort a child if the contraceptive method fails. But many do. A couple of studies from the U.S. and Spain, respectively:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3429402.html

http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(10)00327-6/abstract]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This just hit me:</p>
<p><i>Maybe, just maybe, because he doesn’t like abortions either…he just has a different way of showing it. </i></p>
<p>I can accept that answer as legitimate, not to justify the mandate, but because it makes the logical connection between contraception and abortion. Not everyone, or even most people, who use contraceptives are willing to abort a child if the contraceptive method fails. But many do. A couple of studies from the U.S. and Spain, respectively:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3429402.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3429402.html</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(10)00327-6/abstract" rel="nofollow">http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(10)00327-6/abstract</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Facts?? Who Needs Facts? by Pitbull (no, the other one)</title>
		<link>http://searchingforsigns.com/2012/02/20/facts-who-needs-facts/#comment-1690</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Pitbull (no, the other one)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:31:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://searchingforsigns.com/2012/02/20/facts-who-needs-facts/#comment-1690</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Robert, let&#039;s take this a bit further: if a State wants a mandate like that it is entirely within their purview &lt;i&gt;as long as the Federal government is not involved.&lt;/i&gt; That&#039;s what the Tenth Amendment is there for. There are a great many extra-constitutional things the Federal government now does that should be left &lt;i&gt;exclusively&lt;/i&gt; to the States. It was never the intent of the founders to allow Federal control of certain governmental functions. 

(P.S., Rick, I know you won&#039;t understand any of this since your reading consists of the Starbucks menu, the Sun Sentinel and The Daily Show. Don&#039;t worry. We understand.) 

(P.P.S., Robert, have you gotten your cease and desist from The Herald yet? I know we haven&#039;t...)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robert, let&#8217;s take this a bit further: if a State wants a mandate like that it is entirely within their purview <i>as long as the Federal government is not involved.</i> That&#8217;s what the Tenth Amendment is there for. There are a great many extra-constitutional things the Federal government now does that should be left <i>exclusively</i> to the States. It was never the intent of the founders to allow Federal control of certain governmental functions. </p>
<p>(P.S., Rick, I know you won&#8217;t understand any of this since your reading consists of the Starbucks menu, the Sun Sentinel and The Daily Show. Don&#8217;t worry. We understand.) </p>
<p>(P.P.S., Robert, have you gotten your cease and desist from The Herald yet? I know we haven&#8217;t&#8230;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Facts?? Who Needs Facts? by Robert Molleda</title>
		<link>http://searchingforsigns.com/2012/02/20/facts-who-needs-facts/#comment-1689</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Molleda]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:19:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://searchingforsigns.com/2012/02/20/facts-who-needs-facts/#comment-1689</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For starters, Chris Matthews. This link includes him and others who aren&#039;t exactly known for their conservative views: http://www.faithfulcitizenri.org/2012/02/who-opposes-the-hhs-mandate-youd-be-surprised/

As far as some states mandating the coverage, yes, but except for  3 or 4 of the states, they have broader exemptions than the HHS mandate. Really though, it&#039;s a big step to go from a state-level mandate to a federal mandate. 

I don&#039;t think Obama is against the practice of faith, and nor do I think he is anti-Catholic. That would make the argument way too simplistic. However, it&#039;s quite obvious that he and others in the administration believe that the state has the authority to trump someone&#039;s deeply-held religious beliefs for what they perceive as the &quot;common good&quot;. Whether intentional or not, it&#039;s placing a greater importance in the authority of the state than in the authority of God, something the Founding Fathers fought tooth and nail against. The problem here is that the Obama and HHS premise that contraception is  &quot;preventive care&quot; and therefore as essential as routine physicals or cancer screenings is severely flawed and illogical. A family isn&#039;t something that is to be &quot;prevented&quot; like some disease.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For starters, Chris Matthews. This link includes him and others who aren&#8217;t exactly known for their conservative views: <a href="http://www.faithfulcitizenri.org/2012/02/who-opposes-the-hhs-mandate-youd-be-surprised/" rel="nofollow">http://www.faithfulcitizenri.org/2012/02/who-opposes-the-hhs-mandate-youd-be-surprised/</a></p>
<p>As far as some states mandating the coverage, yes, but except for  3 or 4 of the states, they have broader exemptions than the HHS mandate. Really though, it&#8217;s a big step to go from a state-level mandate to a federal mandate. </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think Obama is against the practice of faith, and nor do I think he is anti-Catholic. That would make the argument way too simplistic. However, it&#8217;s quite obvious that he and others in the administration believe that the state has the authority to trump someone&#8217;s deeply-held religious beliefs for what they perceive as the &#8220;common good&#8221;. Whether intentional or not, it&#8217;s placing a greater importance in the authority of the state than in the authority of God, something the Founding Fathers fought tooth and nail against. The problem here is that the Obama and HHS premise that contraception is  &#8220;preventive care&#8221; and therefore as essential as routine physicals or cancer screenings is severely flawed and illogical. A family isn&#8217;t something that is to be &#8220;prevented&#8221; like some disease.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Facts?? Who Needs Facts? by Rick</title>
		<link>http://searchingforsigns.com/2012/02/20/facts-who-needs-facts/#comment-1688</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rick]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:25:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://searchingforsigns.com/2012/02/20/facts-who-needs-facts/#comment-1688</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Maybe, just maybe, because he doesn&#039;t like abortions either...he just has a different way of showing it. That and the not so small fact that there is case law [at the State level, at least] that requires it.

Do you honestly believe, Robert, that President Obama doesn&#039;t want Americans to be free to practice their faith? Do you really believe that he has it out for Catholics? All because he wants all women to have access to comprehensive health care?

&quot;Many liberals?&quot; Give me a source or, better yet, a few names other than Lieberman and Manwich, or whatever his name is, who are as much Democrats as Rubio is an exile. 

.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe, just maybe, because he doesn&#8217;t like abortions either&#8230;he just has a different way of showing it. That and the not so small fact that there is case law [at the State level, at least] that requires it.</p>
<p>Do you honestly believe, Robert, that President Obama doesn&#8217;t want Americans to be free to practice their faith? Do you really believe that he has it out for Catholics? All because he wants all women to have access to comprehensive health care?</p>
<p>&#8220;Many liberals?&#8221; Give me a source or, better yet, a few names other than Lieberman and Manwich, or whatever his name is, who are as much Democrats as Rubio is an exile. </p>
<p>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Facts?? Who Needs Facts? by Robert Molleda</title>
		<link>http://searchingforsigns.com/2012/02/20/facts-who-needs-facts/#comment-1687</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Molleda]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:44:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://searchingforsigns.com/2012/02/20/facts-who-needs-facts/#comment-1687</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The question you should be asking yourself is: Why does Obama insist  on the contraception mandate if he&#039;s really in favor of religious freedom? It&#039;s not a right/left issue as even many liberals have spoken against the mandate. It&#039;s a right/wrong issue, plain and simple.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The question you should be asking yourself is: Why does Obama insist  on the contraception mandate if he&#8217;s really in favor of religious freedom? It&#8217;s not a right/left issue as even many liberals have spoken against the mandate. It&#8217;s a right/wrong issue, plain and simple.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Dr. Biscet to Pope Benedict: Speak for the Oppressed by Continuing to Hope in the Pope &#171; Searching for Signs</title>
		<link>http://searchingforsigns.com/2012/02/17/dr-biscet-to-pope-benedict-speak-for-the-oppressed/#comment-1686</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Continuing to Hope in the Pope &#171; Searching for Signs]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:21:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://searchingforsigns.com/?p=1482#comment-1686</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] as the regime allows him to, including these three individuals. I expressed this desire in another recent post. I still think that the Pope&#8217;s failure to meet with dissidents would be a blow to those brave [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] as the regime allows him to, including these three individuals. I expressed this desire in another recent post. I still think that the Pope&#8217;s failure to meet with dissidents would be a blow to those brave [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Praying for Fidel by Continuing to Hope in the Pope &#171; Searching for Signs</title>
		<link>http://searchingforsigns.com/2012/02/15/praying-for-fidel/#comment-1685</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Continuing to Hope in the Pope &#171; Searching for Signs]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:21:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://searchingforsigns.com/?p=1456#comment-1685</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] three plan on attending the Masses Pope Benedict will celebrate in Cuba in March. As I stated in a previous post, we ought to see the Pope&#8217;s visit to Cuba as an opportunity to spread faith and grace to a [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] three plan on attending the Masses Pope Benedict will celebrate in Cuba in March. As I stated in a previous post, we ought to see the Pope&#8217;s visit to Cuba as an opportunity to spread faith and grace to a [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

