Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Florida doesn't end this race

Take heart, conservatives. No matter who wins this evening (yes, Romney is the favored according to all the pollsters...Florida, oh, Florida), this presidential race is far from over. With Gingrich atop the national poll averages & making his intentions known that he'll stay in through the party's national convention, and Santorum looking beyond Florida (already campaigning in Missouri and Minnesota yesterday) & likewise voicing that he sees a definite reason to stay in, this race will grind on to Super Tuesday (March 6) and very likely through the summer.

Thus far, here are the stats we're realistically looking at:
  • Among the first three caucus/primaries, Santorum won Iowa (Romney came in 2nd), Romney won New Hampshire, Gingrich won South Carolina (Romney in 2nd, Santorum in 3rd). 
  • In the delegate count, Newt leads with 23, Romney has 21 and Santorum has 13. 1144 delegates are needed to secure the nomination.

If Romney wins Florida, that would give the frontrunner a mere two state lead out of only the first four, or better yet, out of 50!  Then adding Florida's winner-takes-all 50 delegates to Romney's count would raise him to 6.2% of the votes needed to secure, well, anything.  How does that Carpenter's song go..."We've only just begun..."

Some may be worried about a drawn out primary, but these concerns are overblown and are primarily coming from those who'd prefer to proclaim 'Carpe diem' well in advance of the game's proper conclusion (whether that be McCain wanting to end the debates or Gingrich wanting Santorum to drop out).  Romney bowed out about a week from now this time in '08, and Huckabee stayed in until Super Tuesday.  Does anyone also recall how long the Obama/Clinton primary lasted? Yep, that battle lasted until June. So it's a little early to once again proclaim victory on any front. Let's wait until at least Super Tuesday (with 22 states having primaried candidates) to pop any corks. However, with a primary season like the one that's lining up, even that might be too early to celebrate. As I continue to say, leave your crystal balls in the closet, unless you'd prefer them shattered.

Monday, January 30, 2012

RomneyCare and ObamaCare: one in the same

Some may say it's campaign rhetoric when either Santorum or Gingrich say 'RomneyCare and ObamaCare are essentially the same', but let's take a closer examination referencing a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed.  Yes, even the more establishment-prone publication is capable of expressing moments of clarity from time to time; and in commenting on Rick Santorum's debate performance Thursday night, Grace-Marie Turner writes, "Rick Santorum went for the jugular...exposing Mitt Romney's weak and contradictory defense of his Massachusetts health-reform law." Santorum scored in a big way against the Massachusetts moderate.

Mr. Santorum attacked Mr. Romney's claim that the individual mandate affects only "the 8% of people who didn't have insurance." Mr. Romney insisted that "92% of the people in my state had insurance before our plan went in place. And nothing changes for them."

Mr. Santorum blasted back that "what Governor Romney said is just factually incorrect," because the mandate affects 100% of the residents who are forced to buy health insurance "as a condition of breathing in Massachusetts."

Turner goes on to dissect Romney's insistent defense of the Massachusetts healthcare program, and finds at every turn, Romney is being dishonest about it. The state's health-insurance mandate determines the amount of health insurance one can afford, "not, unfortunately, from your perspective but from the state agency's view," as one government official tells WSJ.

Also, the boasting that RomneyCare didn't cut $500 billion out of Medicare like ObamaCare did is an empty argument, as the states have no authority over those cuts, which reveals that cutting Medicare was never an option with RomneyCare. However, Turner explains that the state did indeed pass a large share of its costs on to federal taxpayers by relying on previously enacted state health-insurance taxes infused with federal Medicaid money to finance expanded coverage.

And remember that new study that Santorum cited in Thursday's debate after the one-term governor claimed that RomneyCare is "very different" from ObamaCare? Turner reveals that this study came from the liberal Families USA, "which credits John McDonough and explains he "was deeply involved" in developing both RomneyCare and ObamaCare."

Among the key checkpoints showing the similarities between the two plans: "RomneyCare authorizes 'tiers' of insurance coverage, which are called Gold, Silver, Bronze, and Young Adult . . . ObamaCare sets the following tiers for policies: Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze, and Young Adult." And government will specify which benefits must be included in health plans under both reform laws. Mr. McDonough earlier said the federal law is "Massachusetts with three more zeros."

As to Romney's states' rights argument, Turner points out Romney's quick inclination to give states more discretion in implementing ObamaCare, echoing Obama's own position. As Mark Levin explained in Monday's opening monologue, Santorum (and to Paul's credit as well) has never supported the individual mandate, and Gingrich, who once supported it (along with Heritage mind you), no longer supports the individual mandate. Yet to this very day, Romney continues to defend the state's individual mandate. Whether on the state level or the federal, a mandate forcing someone to purchase something under penalty of law is wrong at its core. Allow me to echo Santorum's passionate plea: "Folks, we can't give this issue away in this election. It is about fundamental freedom."

Romney has backed himself into a corner with his insistent defense of the top-down, government-run MA healthcare program, and as Turner concludes, "Unless Mr. Romney takes steps to conform his position with reality, he will have trouble convincing voters he is serious about repeal and will have an even harder time mapping a clear plan on health reform should he be elected president." Arguably, a Romney nomination will in affect 'give this issue away'. Do Republican primary voters really want to jump on this bandwagon? I implore all to consider more wisely. Don't sell your principles short to risk a lifetime of living through this, knowing you had an opportunity to rollback this imposition...

ADDENDUM: Betsy McCaughey has an in-depth piece that's definitely worth checking out over at NewsMax showing the identical nature of both healthcare laws, which share: an individual mandate, an employer mandate, mandatory electronic records, a comparative effectiveness research board, an end of life program, and facilitate medical homes.

Romney staffer confessions

They're not even pretending anymore, via Gateway Pundit.

Mitt Romney’s goal in Florida is no longer just winning.

After Newt Gingrich scored a surprise blow-out victory in South Carolina last week, the former Massachusetts governor not only unleashed a political broadside of epic proportions.

“It's not about winning here anymore,” one Romney staffer told BuzzFeed. “It’s about destroying Gingrich — and it’s working.”

Breathes new life into Romney's 'winning at any cost' philosophy, doesn't it? How will that go over, Florida? Or better yet, America? And what happened to that laser-like focus on Obama? Gone. There's no way he'll hound Obama this vehemently, just as there's no way the Republican establishment will ever fight against the Democrat statists with the tenacity that we've witnessed them launch against conservatives and the tea party movement over the past year. They're timid when it comes to the former, yet ferocious when against their own. It never ceases to amaze me as to why the establishment think we would even want the loser to the Party's loser in '08?!  But they do, and they will fight tooth and nail to secure their man.

ADDENDUM: Here's a compilation of truths about Newt from an array of heavyweights, for and against Newt, who dispel Romney's attacks: Levin, Limbaugh, Lord, Palin, York, Krauthammer, Bozell, CNN and Newsmax. Yet, Romney still won't admit his dishonesty in this matter.

And leave it to Democratic strategist Doug Schoen to point out what should be the obvious:

Mr. Romney has been able to rebound from his South Carolina defeat by outspending Newt Gingrich in Florida by 5 to 1 and going on the offensive — attacking the former Speaker on his ethics violations, his investments in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and his position as the ultimate Washington insider.

While this strategy will certainly be necessary to secure the nomination, it will be insufficient going forward in the general election campaign.

So there you have it folks, another assessment that Romney won't employ these viciously conniving tactics against Obama. So why your own, man?  Could it be that perhaps conservatives aren't his own?  In the end, it really wouldn't be all that surprising to discover the Romney campaign's fingerprints on some of the other candidates' detrimental occurrences.

Malkin: the case for Santorum

Michelle Malkin makes a pretty clear & compelling case for Rick Santorum's candidacy. She writes:

Rick Santorum opposed TARP.

He didn’t cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn’t follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd — including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — and he didn’t have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills.

Santorum opposed individual health care mandates — clearly and forcefully — as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual health care mandate waters.

He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. He hasn’t written any “Contracts with the Earth.”

Santorum is strong on border security, national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement.

Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values — not just in word, but in deed.

He won Iowa through hard work and competent campaign management. Santorum has improved in every GOP debate and gave his strongest performance last week in Florida, wherein he both dismantled Romneycare and popped the Newt bubble by directly challenging the front-runners’ character and candor without resorting to their petty tactics.

He rose above the fray by sticking to issues.

Most commendably, he refused to join Gingrich and Perry in indulging in the contemptible Occupier rhetoric against Romney. Character and honor matter. Santorum has it.

So while acknowledging his faults, which he obviously has some that even he has admitted, and going on to voice her rather civil opposition to Paul and Romney, while unequally escoriating Gingrich (I'm not a Newt 'cheerleader', but definitely don't see eye-to-eye with her assessment), Malkin concludes that "at this point in the game, Rick Santorum represents the most conservative candidate still standing who can articulate both fiscal and social conservative values — and live them." On this, I can indeed agree!

Allen West to Obama, Reid, Pelosi: "Get the Hell Out of the United States of America"


Although he didn't say it, I'm certain some of this resilience is reserved for the Romney-supporting Republican establishment in Florida, like Rep. Will Weatherford, who are attempting to write out West's congressional district! TheRightScoop elaborates on this subversive move by the establishment's further attempts to dismantle the tea party:

It’s more likely that he’s made enemies in DC whose tentacles are reaching into the state legislatures to do their bidding. It seems pretty clear that there are some who definitely don’t like West’s level of Tea Party influence and that the long knives are out for him.

But something tells me they underestimate this man and they could be, in effect, pushing him onto a more national stage where his voice would be even larger. I’m just wondering what they would think if West were to become a VP candidate this year.

How electrifying that would be!

ADDENDUM: State Rep. Weatherford released a statement earlier today claiming that the Florida legislature is not targeting West; however, Levin interviewed West this evening and isn't buying what’s been said about how the congressman's district has been carved up, saying that if West loses his district, he will make the names of those who redrew the map nationally known and will work to defeat them!

On Tuesday, Allen West issued a statement explaining that he's decided to switch to the newly proposed 18th district in Florida to pursue his re-election. Right on, we can't afford to lose this statesman!

Levin: Character matters and Romney’s worries me

On Sunday, Levin wrote of the issue of character, and the lack thereof, with Romney's 'anything goes' campaign...

I am beginning to think that the nature and level of attacks being launched by Mitt Romney against Newt Gingrich, which he would surely use against any conservative threatening his nomination, are going to make it very difficult for Romney to unite the different factions of the GOP and the conservative movement behind his candidacy should he win the nomination. While I have said that I would vote for Rick Santorum, I am appalled at the “anything goes” assault on Gingrich. See here:


Romney is not a conservative in the traditional sense, and he has a record of big-government Republicanism. Even many years after the success of the Reagan administration, he sought to distance himself from Reagan and the GOP, self-identifying as a progressive and independent. Thus, he resorts to spending multi-millions of dollars trashing his opponents, rather than providing thoughtful arguments on conservatism and constitutionalism. Lest we forget, it was Gingrich who was trying to run a positive campaign and who offered to debate Romney one-on-one, asking Romney to stop with the millions in unanswered ads attacking him. Romney declined. I have no doubt that Romney would do the same thing to Santorum if Santorum was rising in the polls, albeit on different issues.

I have said that Romney is in many ways Richard Nixon, and that Romney would not successfully lead efforts to repeal Obamacare but, in fact, would grow the federal government in many respects. Romney’s advisor, former senator Norm Coleman, has now said as much. That is Romney’s record. Despite having been a businessman, he was not a defender of free market capitalism while governor. Romneycare is, as Santorum pointed out, a top-down government health care system with an individual mandate that is breaking Massachusetts’ treasury and destroying private health insurance. It is a disaster. Romney also backed cap-and-trade and TARP (as did Gingrich).

My great fear is, however, that he is the weakest candidate who can face Obama and will go into the general election with a fractured base, thanks to his own character flaws, which are now on display, and his tactics of personal destruction. Moreover, while Romney can swamp his Republican opponents by 3 to 1 or more in every state with his spending advantage, Barack Obama will be raising more and spending more to beat him in the general election, meaning Romney’s financial advantage will be non-existent.

We better start paying a lot more attention to holding the House of Representatives and winning the Senate with a bunch of solid conservatives. I have spent a year on my radio show identifying and interviewing these candidates, and will continue to do so.

All relative and decisive points. As for the latter, I'd refer one to both the House Conservative Fund and the Senate Conservative Fund!

Sunday, January 29, 2012

I love religion and Jesus

A nice Sunday afternoon seems like an appropriate time to discuss a religious topic, so here goes. I'm certain many, if not most, have already seen the obviously popular (17M hits), yet disturbingly misleading video entitled, "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus"

This young man's skewed, misinformed and hostile message is so off base on so many fronts, it's hard to know where to begin. At the core of the Christian faith, he doesn't understand that the Church is the living body of Jesus Christ. Yes, there are from time to time men who lead the Church improperly, but that should not be the basis of taking aggressions against religion.  That's an extreme irrationality. And on a more mundane level, once again, we have a liberalized individual of a younger generation come forth to dispel all the knowledge of history and the experience of generations past, because he's figured it all out.

One could go on and on and on, but let's take a 'road less traveled' approach, leading to a video with fewer hits, yet a much more appropriate rebuttal...

A young Anglican priest once told me that the wasteland of "just me and Jesus spirituality" or rather, the nonreligious, have been duped into thinking that we can just launch out into the wilderness to survive on what the untamed landscape will produce for us, without true shepherds leading us to green pastures and still waters. He's correct...that wasn't Christ's plan set forth.

"And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." ~ Matthew 16:18


h/t Fr. Chris

Friday, January 27, 2012

CNN FL GOP debate highlights

Here's a highlight reel of last night's CNN Florida GOP debate via Reuters:

I'd say a very Romney-friendly crowd last night somewhat benefited the former MA Governor, but as Aaron Goldstein pointed out, "I don't think Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have helped themselves with their terse exchanges on illegal immigration and Fannie & Freddie." It was Rick Santorum who cut past the Romney/Gingrich soap opera and made the salient points.

After providing his answer to a question between the bickering, Santorum stepped in as the voice of sanity, cutting at the heart of the petulance and distraction by emphatically declaring, "Leave that alone and focus on the issues!"

Although Newt attempted to call a truce, Blitzer and Romney would have none of that. Yet, speaking of those two, the seemingly eruptive topic of the day was padded when the questioning turned to Gingrich's Reagan bonafides. As Goldstein pointed out, "Romney just said he "wasn't terribly politically involved" until he ran for Governor here in Massachusetts. So Romney "wasn't terribly politically involved" when he ran against Ted Kennedy in 1994? He "wasn't terribly politically involved" when he said he didn't want to return to Reagan-Bush?"

Nonetheless, the topics moved on, and when it came down to healthcare and government's involvement, Santorum stuck to one of the most substantive issues at hand and eviscerated Romney over top-down mandated RomneyCare! "Folks, we can't give this issue away in the election. It is about fundamental freedom... Your mandate is no different than Barack Obama's mandate. It is the same mandate."

Then towards the end, when asked about how faith would influence his decisions as President, Santorum hit it out of the park with a magnificent answer. "No other country in the world has its rights based in 'God-given rights', not government-given rights. And so when you say 'faith has nothing to do with it', Faith has everything to do with it."

I know that the media has chosen to stay on the Romney/Gingrich tug-of-war, and you know who they've sided with, but the real winner of last night's debate was the man who continues to stay above the fray. I can only hope that the people of Florida saw the same last night, and have the insight to make the wiser choice going into their primary.

Peculiar (UPDATE)

“People see Gingrich fighting for an ideal, and they see Romney fighting to get elected.” ~ Rush Limbaugh

You know, I had originally prepared a relatively lengthy discussion about the events that occurred yesterday with some disturbingly truncated and rather misleading videos making their way around the internet, primarily due to the establishment's disdain for a particular contender to their prescribed choice. Before I elaborate any further, let me just preface this by saying that I have no illusions. I realize that to some degree, we're all idealists. And with any political candidates, we are certain to find some degree of agreement with one, while perhaps disappointment with another. With the current crop, but honestly any for that matter, perfection is unattainable. However, without the fight for the ideal, conservatism, or for that matter, Americanism, is ceded to something foreign, invasive and perhaps even tyrannical if given the opportunity to fester and grow.

Certainly, all our presidential candidates are fighting to get elected. And the more you dig, the more you can find something to consider hypocritical. All I would point out to the Romney supporters, and the Drudgeons, is that it's very 'peculiar' (to use a word that Gingrich used in one of the truncated videos floating around) that the more establishment-prone Republicans, politician and pundit alike, particularly those wielding the power of the pen, lob what can rather blatantly be considered coordinated attack stories out there, all in a single day, disappointingly distracting from Obama's disastrous SOTU speech! Do they hate Gingrich more than they want to defeat Obama?

Per those isolated videos snip-its, it seems to me that Newt is pragmatically commenting, in one, on Bush's ability to win in a situation in which "the country's changed" such that "the American people are 'peculiarly' addicted to the future." Even out of it’s full context, it’s not trashing Reagan, it’s making a tactical assessment if you listen to the words the man is saying in the isolated segment provided. In the other video, Newt explains that he was a Rockefeller state chair in the South at the time of the Rockefeller-Goldwater fight, and then gestures, as if he's about to further explain that internal conflict, but...well, we're not permitted to view the rest of the piece. Why? Might it be that we'd come to a different conclusion if seen in its full context? Probably.

I find this pile on targeted at Newt both disturbing and astonishing, particularly at a time when one of Romney's own advisers has boldly stated that NONE of the Republican candidates will repeal Obamacare in its entirety! Knowing what we know about his other advisers of the MA healthcare law in conjunction with their later advisement on Obamacare, it doesn't fare well for the former governor. What of being advised to support a $2 gas tax, a VAT or opening Taliban talks? Or what of the fact that Romney advisers lobbied for Freddie Mac? Wasn't the man just criticizing Gingrich about 'lobbying' or “influence peddling?!” It's peculiar that Romney not only lob these negative attacks only when he's in political trouble, but equally peculiar that he surrounds himself with so many 'advisers' seemingly willing to sell out ANY principle.  It's also peculiar that Newt's obvious contributions towards conservatism, however imperfect through the years, are being questioned by a man and his campaign of whom never embraced Reaganism, and an all-to-willing establishment elite ready to buy in.

None of the smear merchants seem to want to acknowledge that while Nancy Reagan, on behalf of Ronald, was handing the torch off to Newt and the Republican members of Congress in 1995 “to keep that dream alive”

…Mitt Romney was openly rejecting it.

I don't argue that Gingrich has some questionable areas within his repertoire, but I stand by what Rush said as a general statement, “People see Gingrich fighting for an ideal, and they see Romney fighting to get elected.” The intended ideal is one of conservatism, however imperfect his path has been at getting there. And the perception of Romney, not just mine I'd add, is that the man will do or say whatever it takes to get elected.

You know, I'll take it from those who were there, in the conservative trenches, like Mark Levin, who opened last night's program dispelling these ridiculous accusations and putting those videos in full context...

“Newt Gingrich, if he does nothing else, did more for the conservative movement and to stop the liberal Democrats in the House of Representatives than virtually everybody today who is criticizing him!” ~ Mark Levin

As well as Jeffrey Lord, former aid to Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan.

UPDATES: 'Uh oh' for the Romney camp...Friday vindication for Newt (unfortunately, after the last televised FL debate).  And in full agreement with theRightScoop, "ask yourself where this misinformation came from. My guess it was part of an opposition research file dug up by the Romney campaign." Yep. And what does this campaign remind me of?  Oh yeah...

In other news over the weekend, Gingrich received an outright endorsement from Herman Cain and a pseudo-endorsement from Sarah Palin.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Rush'd analysis

This probably could have been part of the previous post, but what the hey...

If you didn't hear Rush's monologue this morning, the day after Obama's SOTU, it's definitely worth checking out.  After running through the latest happenings with Gingrich (Univision interview on Clinton impeachment) and Romney (adviser Norm Coleman says the GOP won't repeal Obamacare...which Rush covered a bit later), as well as Daniels' GOP response to Obama's SOTU, Rush covered the wide array of facts that were missing in the SOTU address...

Then after covering some of the other optics of the evening (like Mooch wearing a $2400 dress while hubby is railing against income inequality and the greedy rich!) and before the Establishment's orgasm over Daniels, Rush had 'white comedian' Paul Shanklin parody the "honest abridged version of last night's class warfare rally on the House floor." (instant CLASSIC @ 05:32!)

What soap is to the body, laughter is to the soul. Total absence of humor renders life impossible. Always laugh when you can. It is cheap medicine.

A state of disunion

As George Neumayr wrote in the American Spectator, “Glib and cocky as ever, Barack Obama used his State of the Union address on Tuesday night to push his sophomoric and gimmicky socialism.”

On par with the boredom of Monday night’s Republican debate, and rolling out his latest campaign slogan, an America built to last, with all the faux emphases that we’ve become accustom to hearing from his oratory, Obama’s State of the Union speech presented a lot of disingenuous circular arguments and recycling of ideas that won't go anywhere (primarily due to his own administration's stance on them), more class warfare speech ('fair share', 'fair shot', 'same rules', etc.), more planning & executive fiat from our Ruler-in-Chief, more outright lies (and they were so blatant that you really didn’t even have to ‘fact check’ to recognize them)...and perhaps the most disturbing were the bookends of Obama’s speech.

The President attempted to compare the way our government 'should' work to the way the military 'does' work. Well then, that would be somewhere between totalitarianism & oligarchical rule, when taking into account all the liberty that our soldiers sacrifice in service to the country. A Democracy is not a military! As John Tabin notes, “America works as well as it does because it's made of citizens who jealously guard their liberty.” Now, Barack Obama doesn’t seriously believe Congress is just going to roll over and submit to his will, but his rhetoric is problematic, because it is the rhetoric of one who seeks power beyond the presidency, particularly when he dishes out yet another executive order during the speech (clean energy initiative through the Dept. of Defense?), not to mention, the blueprints of additional executive panels created: a Trade Enforcement Unit, a Financial Crimes Unit, a special unit of federal prosecutors over abusive lending, another request of Congress to grant him the power to consolidate executive powers, and a Veteran’s Job Corps.

Mix in a 'fair share' of egalitarianism, and you've got Obama's SOTU speech last night.

Oh, yeah…speaking on the previously mentioned ‘recycling of ideas’, theRightScoop points out, “The RNC has put together a great video showcasing how Obama used the same rhetoric last night that he’s been using in previous State of the Union address, sometimes using the same line in all three. And it’s all part and parcel of his failed record. He’s out of ideas.”

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels delivered the GOP response to Obama’s SOTU, starting with ‘loyal opposition’ & ‘salutes’ (blah, blah, blah…with a ‘personal admiration’ that could be seen as a slap at Newt), THEN quickly moving beyond the “sunny side of our national condition” that Obama lays claim to, to get to the meat of Obama’s tenure:

“But when President Obama claims that the state of our union is anything but grave, he must know in his heart that this is not true. …he cannot claim that the last three years have made things anything but worse: the percentage of Americans with a job is at the lowest in decades. One in five men of prime working age, and nearly half of all persons under 30, did not go to work today. … In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt. … Those punished most by the wrong turns of the last three years are those unemployed or underemployed tonight, and those so discouraged that they have abandoned the search for work altogether.”

Daniels also addressed Obama’s “grand experiment in trickle-down government” that’s done more damage to the economy than enabling its recovery:

“He seems to sincerely believe we can build a middle class out of government jobs paid for with borrowed dollars. In fact, it works the other way: a government as big and bossy as this one is maintained on the backs of the middle class, and those who hope to join it.”

Perhaps the most poignant part of the Republican rebuttal, was the differentiation of our embrace of individual liberty, as the Founders & Framers set forth, opposed to Obama’s view of how we should succumb to Big Government ‘team work’:

"You know, the most troubling contention in our national life these days isn't about economics, or policy at all. It's about us, as a free people. In two alarming ways, that contention is that we Americans just can't cut it anymore.

In word and deed, the President and his allies tell us that we just cannot handle ourselves in this complex, perilous world without their benevolent protection. Left to ourselves, we might pick the wrong health insurance, the wrong mortgage, the wrong school for our kids; why, unless they stop us, we might pick the wrong light bulb!

A second view, which I admit some Republicans also seem to hold, is that we Americans are no longer up to the job of self-government. We can't do the simple math that proves the unaffordability of today's safety net programs, or all the government we now have. We will fall for the con job that says we can just plow ahead and someone else will pick up the tab. We will allow ourselves to be pitted one against the other, blaming our neighbor for troubles worldwide trends or our own government has caused.

2012 must be the year we prove the doubters wrong. The year we strike out boldly not merely to avert national bankruptcy but to say to a new generation that America is still the world's premier land of opportunity.”

In addition to the Republican response, Herman Cain was asked to give the tea party response, and did he ever!

“Mr. President, stop the class warfare, discourage your surrogates from making racial innuendos, stop the attacks on business, stop the attacks on citizens by making government too big; and Mr. President, most of all, stop the blame game.”

ADDENDUM: U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (FL) shared his thoughts on Obama's SOTU speech afterwards with Sean Hannity...

House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (WI) also had economic concerns with Obama's agenda...

And the presidential contenders have weighed in as well: Gingrich, Santorum, Romney.

A couple other notables: CBS News runs through the top 10 highlights from Obama's speech, and Aaron Goldstein of the American Spectator presents twelve SOTU questions for Obama (these are good!).

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

1000 days: timely coincidence

What a timely coincidence. The same night that Barack Obama will give his SOTU address, which is certain to contain the class warfare rhetoric that we've come to expect from our post-American President, also marks another profound occasion. Today marks 1000 days that our federal government has operated without an official budget. I wonder if Obama will mention this unaccomplished feat during his speech tonight? For three years under this president, two of those years under a totally Democrat-controlled Congress mind you, our federal government has exorbitantly run up both deficit and debt. But let's give credit where credit is due, as Tina Korbe of HotAir so accurately targets:

The Democrat-controlled Senate is directly to blame for the lack of a budget. Even when Democrats controlled all three branches of government, 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.

At that point in the president’s speech, tweet this video:

"The refusal by the President and his party’s leaders to advance credible budget plans commits America to a future of debt, doubt and decline. In spite of this lack of leadership, House Republicans will continue to advance bold solutions to put our budget on the path to balance and our economy back on the path to prosperity. On the 1,000th day without a budget from the Senate Democrat Majority, I encourage you to share this message" ~ U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (WI)

Communicating conservatism beyond race

Instead of trying to stay awake with the most boring debate of the primary season last night, I should have flipped over to Greta's much livelier interview with U.S. Rep. Allen West (FL), discussing an array of topics surrounding the communication of conservatism in relation to the Republican Party & the black community (and the nation on whole for that matter), while also calling out the race-baiters & other misguided liberals. Here's some substance that was missing in last night's snoozefest!

Your prep for Obama's SOTU speech

If you listen to nothing else today, take note of these two things that you need to prepare yourself for Obama's State of the Union speech tonight: Levin & your copy of Ameritopia!

Reading from Ameritopia, Mark says "here's the key" to understanding what Obama said in his pre-speech comments (played in the segments above) & what he'll profess tonight:

"Simply put, equality in misery -- that is, equality of result or conformity -- is advanced as a just, fair, and virtuous undertaking. Liberty, therefore, is inherently immoral, except where it avails equality. Equality, in this sense, is a form of radical egalitarianism that has long been the subject of grave concern by advocates of liberty."

Then Levin moves on to the 'mastermind' and the 'blueprint'...

"Althought the mastermind's incompetence and vision plague the society, responsibility must be diverted elsewhere -- to those assigned to carry them out, or to the people's lack of sacrifice..."

h/t: Mr. Timotheus

Monday, January 23, 2012

Articulating conservatism panics the establishment

This morning on the the Rush Limbaugh Show, from his opening monologue, El Rushbo explored the GOP establishment's panic over Gingrich's win in South Carolina, beating their guy:

They are in an uproar, a panic. They are secretly trying to get Mitch Daniels to get back in the race. There are entreaties being made to Bobby Jindal to get in the race. They are panicked. They are scared to death they're going to lose the House and not win the Senate, and I told you on November 10th that's their primary concern. ... It's about being in charge of the money. It's not about cutting spending. The Republican establishment is not signed on to the cutting spending business. ... They don't like conservatives and they're not really all that concerned about spending. They want to be in charge of it. That's who they are. And they are not gonna be in charge of it if they don't hold the House and if they don't pick up the Senate. And that's what they really want. They're not and never have been convinced that Obama can be beat.

Now, Newt has thrown this thing into a tizzy. They don't know what to do. They wanted this wrapped up. They don't understand why it happened. They're blaming all the wrong people. They're blaming their own voters. They're blaming the media. They're blaming stupidity on the part of the voters. They haven't the slightest idea why this happened in South Carolina. It's not too much democracy going on in their minds; they just don't understand it. They don't understand the base of their own party. They resent the base of their own party. They don't understand the passion.

Rush goes on to explain that the American conservative middle class are the ones who've been playing by the rules for the past quarter-century, obeying the law, raising their kids, while shielding them from "cultural rot and depravity," all at the expense of being ridiculed, mocked and impugned at every turn. And they're done with it, but "nobody's fought back for 'em."

The last time somebody actually spoke up in this large a forum, a presidential forum, would have to be Reagan; and Reagan did it not so much by what he said (although he had his moments). He did it by winning. He did it by skunking these people! Since then, the Republican leadership has not seemed focused so much on winning and they sit there and they take it. Whenever their own voters are insulted -- when their own voters are laughed at and impugned and called racists, sexist, bigot homophobes -- the Republicans don't defend them nor themselves because they're scared to death the independents are gonna be upset, or the media is gonna be upset.

So the base of the Republican Party, the voters, have been bottling up for 25 years, a resentment -- an anger, if you will -- that their own party won't fight for them, won't fight for itself, won't fight for what's right. So when Newt gets teed up with these questions from Juan Williams and John King and whoever else and simply says what they've been thinking for 25 years, they say, "Finally!" What they want right now is fight-back, what they want is push-back, what they want is kick-back, what they want is smack-down! What they want is for these people who have been laughing at them and mocking them and impugning them, put in their place.

They're tired of the cultural rot taking place in the country. They're tired of the incessant growth of government and spending. They're tired of it, and they're frustrated as they can be that members of their own party who get elected can't seem to articulate their own passions. Politics is about passion, and the Republican Party doesn't seem to have it! There's always fear of somebody. Fear of the media, fear of Democrats. Well, Newt doesn't act like he's got any fear. So how many wives does he got? "I don't care!" What did he do for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac? "I don't care." What are his national disapproval ratings? "I don't care! Finally somebody's telling the bad guys who they are, what to do and that we're not gonna take it anymore..."

They're panicked not only because they don't understand their own base, but they don't understand that Newt won S.C. because he is articulating conservatism!  As theRightScoop states, "It’s not because of some Nixonian southern strategy that the MSM is allowing to be parroted by politicos on their networks...It’s because Newt is saying exactly the things that we all know to be true yet the MSM willfully ignores. In fact he’s doing the very thing Mitt Romney refuses to do in calling out Obama for his radical socialist/Alinsky views."

"I was glad to see his debate performance but especially him standing up to, as he said, the liberal elite media. And I think conservatives have been waiting for some people that would stand up and not be used as punching bags and not just take the same old same old from the liberal media." ~ FL Rep. Allen West

ADDENDUM: Mark Levin called this weekend's South Carolina primary a "stunning defeat for the Republican Establishment," and calls out both Chris Christie and Romney himself for going on the weekend news shows & using phony ethics complaints as an attack line to rail against Gingrich. Levin's having none of it!

Sunday, January 22, 2012

a Right to Life

Yesterday was National Sanctity of Human Life Day, also referred to as Pro-Life Sunday, encouraging America to turn away from a culture of death by marking our nation's wretched stain of legalized abortion for the past 39 years. The clock it ticking, and it's past time for every conservative, every Christian, every AMERICAN for that matter, to STAND UP and condemn this barbaric and murderous practice!

However, our current President, fully supported by the Democrat apparatchik, continues to ardently displayed his embrace of such a damnable culture.  CNSNews reports that on Friday, "[the Obama administration] finalized a regulation that orders all Americans—unless they work directly at a church--to purchase government-approved health insurance plans that cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives including those that cause abortions," without any fees or co-pay, and requiring Christians, Catholic & Protestant alike, to act against their Faith that clearly acknowledges abortion as a violation of natural law.

Then doubling-down on the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Obama says that this occasion is an opportunity to recognize the “fundamental constitutional right” to abortion and to “continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.” He believe that the destruction of innocent life before it's even given a chance to live reflects the broader principles of America.  The 'fundamental constitutional right' is LIFE, NOT DEATH!  Our daughters DO 'have the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as our sons'. The despicable process of an abortion procedure, particularly the abhorrence of partial birth abortion, does NOT deny our daughters of ANY rights.  What of the child's rights that share the mother's body?  The American Left could care less, for it all comes down to the inconvenience of the individual and a disrespect, or denial, of natural law.

How can it be described any other way, when our current President, Barack Hussein Obama, even goes as far as defending the indefensible, a procedure that's not a procedure at all, known as live birth abortion...

The barbarism and unequivocal murder in any and all abortion procedures, is embraced and vigorously protected by the American Left and their leaders, all the way to the top. Folks, it's past time to elect leaders who observe this most essential sanctity, declared at our nation's birth, and who will absolutely protect and defend innocent human LIFE for the sake of all generations. This is not up for debate, this principle cannot be compromised. We're not talking about crime & punishment here, we're not even talking about mistakes; we're talking about viability and the disposal of it. God's gift is Life, unconditionally and undeniably, yet for nearly 40 years, we've allowed it's termination from birth.

Instead of continuing down a path of cultural death, let us renew our vigilant defense of the innocent & embrace a culture of LIFE from its very beginning, lest we risk aborting our culture, our consciences, and essentially our nation, to the ash heap of history.

"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters...And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign." ~ Mother Teresa

ADDENDUM: Hattip to Ed Morrissey of HotAir for exposing the "products of conception" Newspeak...and 'thanks' to ABC for airing an amazing pro-life story...even if they didn't realize it! Lastly, it's worth noting Allen West's short, but sweet speech at Monday's March for Life rally held at our nation's Capitol, reading from three inspiring sources: the Bible, Reagan and Lincoln...

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Gingrich wins South Carolina!

We knew it was coming from the moment the game changed on Thursday. Newt Gingrich won South Carolina tonight, and won BIG! So now with Santorum winning Iowa and Romney winning New Hampshire, we've got ourselves a GOP presidential race heading into Florida, folks! Here's Gingrich's victory speech...

Gingrich's kind words for his fellow Republican contenders were notable, particularly in regards to Santorum (on courage, impact, articulation of social conservatism, American manufacturing & the dangers of Iran), but even with Paul (on money & the Fed) and Romney (on work, success & organization), as well were his harsh criticisms of Obama, the elite media and the Left in general, who are antithetical to making American once again exceptional.

Mitt Romney bitterly conceded to second with a sharpened tone towards the unnamed victor, while Rick Santorum came in third, giving another inspiring speech.

Onward to Florida...

Friday, January 20, 2012

Game changer

I went to sleep thinking about this last night, and I by no means will be the first to point it out; but in the context of historical GOP primary debates, Newt Gingrich's definitive Charleston, South Carolina moment last night...

...was on par with Ronald Reagan's epic Nashua, New Hampshire moment in 1980.

(read the excerpt at YouTube to understand the full context of Reagan's response)

And I make this statement focused well beyond the mere lashing John King received over the ex-wife dirt. I'm talking about the fact that although these moments were brought on by obvious different circumstances, both occurrences involved a growing sentiment of frustration, of both candidate and voters, with an elitist ruling class media -- a media that we've come to know all to well as one that fervently protects their chosen, primarily liberal, while working aggressively to destroy their perceived conservative threats. And the embodiment of this sentiment, of Newt's entire admonition of the media's biased tactics against conservatives, was perfectly expressed in Newt's final statement made during this exchange:

"I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans."

Big Media, you have been excoriated and exposed by not only Gingrich's comment, but by the vindicated applause and cheers of every audience member at that moment.  And this is why we're reminded of Reagan's Nashua moment, because it too was inarguably a game changer.

CNN S.C. debate highlights

From dusk 'til dawn, Thursday proved to be one hell of a game changer in the GOP presidential race.  With Perry's dropout, Iowa ultimately called for Santorum, and Newt riding high in South Carolina despite the allegations, things were bound to heat up in Thursday night's debate, and it certainly didn't take long at all.

With the very first question, the boiling point was reached, and Gingrich delivered the showstopper. Now for the most part, the media are collectively using the verb 'attacked' to describe what happened. I prefer to use a different one: Newt Gingrich ANNIHILATED John King...

No apologies...this was so well deserved, particularly the final line delivered: "I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans." Notice, Gingrich received not one, but two standing ovations during his response, and it wasn't simply for categorically denying the ‘open marriage’ charge, per say. It was for letting the media at large know precisely what conservative America has been feeling over the past four years. And 'Bravo!' for it. It's easy to see why many have now said, Newt won the debate in the first question.

Rick Santorum remained as assertive throughout tonight's debate as I've seen him. And whether it worked successfully to his advantage every time or not, he forced both Newt and Mitt to explain & defend their records. One such successful moment was when he criticized both on their past support for top-down government-run healthcare. As theRightScoop points out, "Something that has been lacking for the most part in past debates is exposing Romney’s continued support for RomneyCare. And Santorum does that quite well here as he casts Romney as untrustworthy."

Newt also had a response to that one, but perhaps the most memorable exchange between Santorum and Gengrich, and I have to admit, I thoroughly enjoyed both responses, began with the issue of who should get out of the race and who should stay in. It grew from there into this riveting exchange...

There was a particular question of the evening in which all but one (Newt's succinct and sufficient answer) simply sucked air on, and that occurred when the four were asked about releasing their tax returns. Seems like a simple enough question, right? Listen to these responses...

Then Romney was further pressed by King, and not only was Romney initially heckled for his response, but as Aaron Goldstein ponders with the rest of us, "That he can't give a simple answer to a simple question is mind boggling."

It was at this point in the debate that I noticed how stuttery Romney appeared, yet how contrastingly comfortable Gingrich seemed.  However, with news of Mitt's loss in Iowa to Santorum (which I'm sure factored into his assertiveness), as well as Newt's steady rise in the polls, surpassing Romney, one could see how the cracks might begin to form in whom we've been repetitiously told by the establishment was our inevitable nominee.  We learned just how significant the events of one single day can make in this all-too-important race.

I'm going to help readers out by abbreviating the rest of this and simply mentioning some of the other notable moments throughout the debate over the following discussions:

on the economy: Paul, Gingrich, Romney, Santorum
on illegal immigration: Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Paul (to note: here's NumbersUSA's ratings)
on abortion: Newt and Romney, Paul, Santorum (I feel I should make the distinction between Santorum's observance of the Declaration's endowment by our Creator with the unalienable right of life, as opposed to Paul's advocacy for a confederacy, as he practically makes about every stance)
closing statements: Paul, Gingrich, Romney, Santorum

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Obama's Fantasy World

A picture truly is worth a thousand words. This morning, Obama traveled down to Orlando, Florida, specifically Walt Disney World Resort, to announce his latest set of executive actions to bypass Congress, or in political speak, to "unveil a strategy that will significantly help boost tourism and travel...The action will be the latest in a series of ‘We Can’t Wait’ actions the President has undertaken to aid job creation through executive action." I rather like what Weasel Zippers said about the visit:

Team Obama obviously thought the optics of this was extremely important because they had Disney shut down “Main Street USA” so he could give his speech in front of Cinderella's Castle.

Comical, no? "To close half of the magic kingdom for the purpose of a White House invitation 'townhall' meeting, on a phony main street, on behalf of a phony president..." Only Newt could get away with this skewering...

Have to agree, Speaker. And as soon as that was done, Obama headed to New York City for what was described as a "low level" of four campaign fundraising events. Well, I guess he needs all the fundraisers he can get, considering the latest New York Times/CBS News poll finds Obama’s approval rating down to 38%, and only 31% among independent voters! Racists? Nope. Awakened to the havoc this man is wreaking on our nation? By all means, let's hope so.

Ohhh, and almost forgot...has anyone caught Obama's first campaign ad? You know, the one that cites 'fact checkers', but actually isn't factual, and that the Washington Post's Fact Checkers have given "Three Pinocchios"...

Hope Pinocchio steered clear of this man today, because Obama truly lives in his own fantasy world!

South Carolina is wide open!

Newt has the Palins, Perry drops out, Santorum wins Iowa...and now the fit hits the shan on this Thursday morning! The UK's Telegraph lays it all out quite nicely:

1. Rick Perry is out. (and endorses Gengrich)
2. Rick Santorum won Iowa after all.
3. Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife has recorded an interview (she says he wanted an “open marriage”) [but],
4. Sarah Palin says “vote for Gingrich to stop Romney”.

That sums it up so much more succinctly than I possibly could! So now, only a few days before the primary, South Carolina is WIDE OPEN, folks!

'Unethical' a bit?

How coincidental. No, actually, how convenient. By now, everybody's heard the news broken by the Drudge Report about Newt's ex-wife Marianne sitting down with ABC News, saying she could end her ex-husband's career with this single interview. And not to connect the two, but this news broke in the evening, after Romney released his latest hit-pieces using former failed cowards of Congress to attack Gingrich's time as Speaker, one claiming he's unreliable, the other claiming he's undisciplined.  Now, I should preface this by admitting that I'm not the biggest Gingrich fan (although he's probably my second pick at this point in time), but it seems oddly convenient for the media to swoop in on the same day, right after some relatively hard hitting ads have been cast against Newt by the Romney campaign, to seemingly drive the nail in further.  Moreover, the unethical behavior of ABC News is astonishing, with its initial report that "now a "civil war" has erupted inside of the network, an insider claims, on exactly when the confession will air!"

ABCNEWS suits determined it would be "unethical" to run the Marianne Gingrich interview so close to the South Carolina Primary, a curious decision, one insider argued, since the network has aggressively been reporting on other candidates.

A decision was tentatively made to air the interview next Monday, after all votes have been counted.

Then the update from Drudge came, informing us that the AP reported ABC is now likely to air the segment Thursday on NIGHTLINE. How ethical.

Of course, I'm being a little facetious. This is neither odd nor astonishing at all. It's typical & predictable. Might I remind folks of the savagely false and sexist attacks launched and permeated by the media against Herman Cain when he was surpassing Romney's frontrunner status heading towards Iowa (of course, they didn't count on Santorum, but that's another story, and let's stick to this one).  Haven't heard a peep out of those supposed accusers since he dropped out, have you?  Of course not, because that was the media's goal from the start.  It took several weeks, but they finally got there, and now they could care less about those ladies (I use that word in the loosest of terms).  Now, don't misunderstand me, I'm not blaming Romney for this.  I'm saying that our driven liberal media was directed to take out the perceived threat to Obama's preferred election rival.  To borrow a line from the Great One, "Yeah, I said it!" Speaking of, Levin had a few things to put into perspective surrounding this topic last night as well (via theRightScoop).

However, Gingrich has proven to be a much tougher cookie to crumble.  So why not release this news (once again, using a female, because it worked before with their colleagues Politico) immediately following some of the most hard hitting Romney ads against the former Speaker?  You know, after he's already been perceptually tenderized, even if there is little merit or truth to them.  Too soon, too obvious?  Probably, but once the news leaks, they have to run with it, right?  Particularly when their chosen challenger is at risk of losing South Carolina.

Folks, please tell me that you can smell the stench from wherever you might be located?  The Media is out to destroy any and all conservative challengers, however fantastic or imperfect they might be, to assure that the man they have chosen to be Obama's challenger, Mitt Romney, will make it through the primaries to face their President.  Now, you'd be just as hard-pressed to get this admission from any of the media participants, as you would be for the Republican establishment wing that supports Romney to admit that their candidate is the preference of the other side, or for that matter, that either would have liked nothing more than to see every conservative knocked out of the running much sooner. Afterall, you have been paying attention to the setup for the inevitable attacks against Romney, right?  OWS, Bain, and the current Cayman Islands story, which was effectively derailed by Drudge's ABC News leak yesterday...this is all the initial legwork before the outright onslaught comes.  They don't have a mystery woman for him, they're intending to hit him head-on with the full weight of class warfare that far too many have bought into.  And again, Big Media is all to happy to oblige.

ADDENDUM: Hmmm, pretty interesting theory from Rush:

"I'm gonna tell you what I think. I think Drudge messed 'em up. 'Cause I think the plan, if you look at the news yesterday, the news yesterday was all Romney. Has Romney got money in the Caymans? Romney gave money to the Mormon church, Bain Capital, 15% tax rate, all of that was ABC News. ... I think the objective of ABC was to take Mitt out this week, or to just do damage. And I think they were saving Marianne Gingrich for Monday after the vote, after Newt wins or theoretically wins South Carolina, then they run the Marianne interview, and that takes Newt out of, and then who we left with? As far as they're concerned, Santorum and Ron Paul. And they think, okay, that's it, Obama's won now, and there's nothing the Republicans can do."

Regardless, Newt seems to be handling the ex-wife interview effectively, as theRightScoop reports, "he’s basically got his daughters on his side and he’s going to let them defend him. That’s very smart and will go far in bolstering his credibility over that of his ex-wife."

Also, Jeffrey Lord chimes in with some integral insight in understanding ABC's hypocrisy & motivation:

If ABC News is intent on playing this game, then in an era where the mainstream media has lost their monopoly, it is perhaps time to remind all of the way ABC personnel handle these stories when they involve -- ABC News itself.

Exhibit A: The late Peter Jennings [and] radio star Don Imus's once hotly controversial talk at the 1996 White House Correspondents Dinner [joking about Jennings' private life/marital problems].

Exhibit B of ABC News hypocrisy in this area? That would be, of course, the hiring of ex-Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos as an ABC anchor, now at Good Morning America.

No, the "news" tonight will be this hit piece on Newt Gingrich's private life. Decided old news indeed. Except for two very important things that make running this hit piece 72 hours before the South Carolina primary a necessity for ABC News.

1. Newt Gingrich is a conservative.

2. Newt Gingrich is not an anchor for ABC News.