Facepalm, Michigan!
BuzzFeed: Just four years ago Mitt Romney was running as the health care reform candidate. Now a Romney speech rarely comes without the Republican prerequisite “repeal ObamaCare.”
Oh, ye of such short, short memories.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
McConnell blocks conservative effort against Obamacare mandate
Redstate: On Thursday, the Senate will consider Senator Roy Blunt’s amendment to the Senate version of the highway bill. It is the only amendment the Senate GOP will offer up.
On its surface, it is a good amendment. It will allow religious employers to opt out of the new Obamacare mandate on contraception and abortifacient drugs. But strategically, it is another lame effort by Senator Mitch McConnell to let Senate Democrats in swing states absolve themselves of any blame for what Barack Obama has done.
There is another amendment Senator McConnell expressly refuses to bring up this week as an alternative — an amendment by Senator Jim DeMint for full repeal of Obamacare.
“Wait,” you say, “It’d never pass.” True. But neither with Roy Blunt’s. The difference is that Roy Blunt’s gives the Democrats cover to say they oppose the President without actually opposing the President and Jim DeMint’s amendment puts many swing state Democrats in the awkward position of either reminding voters of their support of Obamacare or suddenly flipping their support to try to save their political skin.
Oh, and as a bonus, with more polling out showing a majority of Americans still oppose the individual mandate, it is a great reminder of who is on the right side of history.
Our Senate Minority Leader wouldn't know strategy if it bit him on his establishment arse.
ADDENDUM: By the way, looks like Romney was against the Blunt-Rubio amendment before he was for it. Doh! Political expedience, lack of understanding or both? Either way, it doesn't particularly instill confidence in the presumptive nominee.
Romney handlers quickly retracted the misunderstanding and said Mitt now supports it:
“Regarding the Blunt bill, the way the question was asked was confusing. Governor Romney supports the Blunt Bill because he believes in a conscience exemption in health care for religious institutions and people of faith.”
Man, imagine the strategery we'll get from a Romney/McConnell/Boehner administration...errr...
Bad lieutenants
The trifecta of Obama untouchables have made some remarkably outlandish statements over the past 24 to 48 hours. Allow me to expand...
Public Enemy
Before a House subcommittee Tuesday, AG Holder affirmed that the Justice Department will indeed defend against any legal challenge to Obamacare's HHS mandate forcing employers to provide abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception, even if it goes against their conscience. Here's Holder's response to being asked about whether the new rule would be defended, even though it's a violation of religious liberty:
“I think I would respectfully disagree in the sense that I don’t think the rule that HHS promulgated was one that ran counter to the religious prohibitions that are contained in the First Amendment. That’s especially true looking at the compromise the president and Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius put in place. To the extent that that action is challenged in court, I would expect that the Justice Department would defend what is in place, which would be that compromise.”
This so-called 'compromise' is in reference to that accommodation that the majority of the offended parties did NOT agreed to.
Holder has created some other congressional fireworks throughout yesterday and today: first with the Fast & Furious scandal by not only refusing to call it a mistake, but not stopping it (despite Holder's contrarian view); and secondly, continuing to pursue his racial charged assertions that voter ID laws are 'harmful' (to cheats, certainly!).
Dr. Death Spiral
CNSNews: Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Tuesday that the private health care market was in a “death spiral,” and that had nothing to do with the passage the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.
Yeah, it's all just a silly coincidence...it couldn't be that the purpose has always been to get to single-payer now could it?
Gas Bag
When Energy Secretary Stephen Chu was asked if the overall goal of his department was to lower the price of gas, the House Appropriations Committee received this stark response:
“No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy. We think that if you consider all these energy policies, including energy efficiency, we think that we can go a long way to becoming less dependent on oil and [diversifying] our supply and we’ll help the American economy and the American consumers.”
These are the bad lieutenants of a worse boss, who could care less about our Constitution or economy, folks. Trying to imagine an additional four years of this is, well, unimaginable.
ADDENDUM: Just a quick note (because if I tried to keep this post updated, it would be a mile long with these people!), on Thursday, Sebelius made yet another ridiculous statement practically saying that a decrease in human beings would cover the cost of the Obamacare contraception mandate. So basically, the more preganancies Big Government can prevent (and this is where her logic is also applied to abortion), the more money they could seize to sink into their social engineering schemes. How sanctified.
Before a House subcommittee Tuesday, AG Holder affirmed that the Justice Department will indeed defend against any legal challenge to Obamacare's HHS mandate forcing employers to provide abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception, even if it goes against their conscience. Here's Holder's response to being asked about whether the new rule would be defended, even though it's a violation of religious liberty:
“I think I would respectfully disagree in the sense that I don’t think the rule that HHS promulgated was one that ran counter to the religious prohibitions that are contained in the First Amendment. That’s especially true looking at the compromise the president and Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius put in place. To the extent that that action is challenged in court, I would expect that the Justice Department would defend what is in place, which would be that compromise.”
This so-called 'compromise' is in reference to that accommodation that the majority of the offended parties did NOT agreed to.
Holder has created some other congressional fireworks throughout yesterday and today: first with the Fast & Furious scandal by not only refusing to call it a mistake, but not stopping it (despite Holder's contrarian view); and secondly, continuing to pursue his racial charged assertions that voter ID laws are 'harmful' (to cheats, certainly!).
CNSNews: Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Tuesday that the private health care market was in a “death spiral,” and that had nothing to do with the passage the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.
Yeah, it's all just a silly coincidence...it couldn't be that the purpose has always been to get to single-payer now could it?
When Energy Secretary Stephen Chu was asked if the overall goal of his department was to lower the price of gas, the House Appropriations Committee received this stark response:
“No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy. We think that if you consider all these energy policies, including energy efficiency, we think that we can go a long way to becoming less dependent on oil and [diversifying] our supply and we’ll help the American economy and the American consumers.”
These are the bad lieutenants of a worse boss, who could care less about our Constitution or economy, folks. Trying to imagine an additional four years of this is, well, unimaginable.
ADDENDUM: Just a quick note (because if I tried to keep this post updated, it would be a mile long with these people!), on Thursday, Sebelius made yet another ridiculous statement practically saying that a decrease in human beings would cover the cost of the Obamacare contraception mandate. So basically, the more preganancies Big Government can prevent (and this is where her logic is also applied to abortion), the more money they could seize to sink into their social engineering schemes. How sanctified.
Another great lie
Folks, whether you're Republican or Independent, moderate or conservative, or even a sensible Democrat, and hold a fiber of faith within you, don't allow this narrative to persist that any of the GOP candidates will hoist their religious beliefs onto you legislatively. It's a complete fabrication, for it's Obama's brand of secular statism that doing quite the opposite, foisting his statist ideology onto the religious, and civil society on whole. He pushes this authoritarianism through his current policies...
(accompanying Heritage piece from last week)
...but has displayed his hostilities from the very beginning through either mockery...
...or by casting stones.
(couldn't find this without the Coultier/Scwhartz discussion attached, sorry)
(accompanying Heritage piece from last week)
...but has displayed his hostilities from the very beginning through either mockery...
...or by casting stones.
(couldn't find this without the Coultier/Scwhartz discussion attached, sorry)
McCain says Romney's too wounded
NewsMax: Mitt Romney could be too wounded from the drawn-out and increasingly bitter Republican primary battle to be an effective candidate against President Barack Obama, leading supporter Sen. John McCain suggests.
And the GOP’s 2008 presidential candidate called on all four candidates left in the race to tone down the intra-party attacks and concentrate on policies.
“This is like watching a Greek tragedy,” McCain told the Boston Herald, saying that negative campaigning and increasingly personal attacks “should have stopped long ago.”
You should have told Romney that a looong time ago...and good luck with talking Paul into being sane, much less civil.
Did Santorum win more Michigan delegates? (UPDATE)
The Moderate Voice: According to the MSM, and most people who blindly follow their reports, Mitt Romney won the Michigan primary last night by about 3 points, 41 to 38. However, like the Electoral College, the point of the contest is not to win the popular vote (Gore – 2000) but to win more delegates per state based on the apportionment of those delegates.
Michigan’s primary delegate system allows for a set number of delegates to be won by state wide popular vote and the rest to be evenly distributed by Congressional districts. When you consider the facts of the contest, and the outcome of the voting pattern of the Congressional districts, Rick Santorum won more delegates by a count of 17 to 13 for Romney.
No spin; just the facts. The MSM will not report it that way so someone has to.
Rush just reported that one district is still under review, but whichever way this goes, either they both tie with 15 delegates a piece, or Santorum wins more delegates by a 17-13 count. Still, a decisive popular victory for Santorum would have been much more exciting for the conservative base. Still, Santorum's staying positive...
UPDATE: Looks like the Michigan GOP waited for the dust to settle, then slipped Romney a favor...
FoxNews: The Michigan GOP has allotted both of the state's popular vote delegates to Mitt Romney. Romney and Rick Santorum each won 7 congressional districts for a total of 14 delegates each. With the additional two for the popular vote the Michigan delegate count is 16-14, with Romney taking the majority.
The Santorum camp had held a conference call on Wednesday telling reporters that the delegate count would end up a 15-15 split and is now outraged at the news.
"There's just no way this is happening. We've all heard rumors that Mitt Romney was furious that he spent a fortune in his home state, had all the establishment political connections and could only tie Rick Santorum," said Hogan Gidley of the Santorum campaign. "But we never thought the Romney campaign would try to rig the outcome of an election by changing therules after the vote. This kind of back room dealing political thug-ery just doesn't happen in America - what an outrage."
Yeah, it does happen, Mr. Gidley.
Romney wins, conservatives lose
So, what does this mean for conservatism? A couple of things. First, it's becoming clearer that as long as Paul shields Romney, and we have more than one defined 'conservative' challenger to Romney, our chance of having a conservative face Barack Obama in the general election continues to decline. That doesn't comfort me in saying so, but just take a look at the slim margin of victory by which Romney won Michigan's primary, and it's not too difficult to do the math to figure out what could have been.
So what if Romney returns, once again, to presumptive nominee status, as will most certainly be the line Wednesday morning, then proceeds on to the nomination? Well, there lies our second conundrum. Besides the tantrum throughout the day that signified a severe weakness in the establishment's candidate, Romney managed to reveal one certainty: he believes it's easy to excite the base, but he's just not willing to go the distance to do so. In other words, he's not willing to go after Obama, like he's gone after his conservative rivals (the mark of a card-carrying establishment member, if ever there has been...and recent history can attest to that affirmation). It's this unwillingness, that despite his efforts and perceived ease, will not excite the base...
"It’s very easy to excite the base with incendiary comments. We’ve seen throughout the campaign if you’re willing to say really outrageous things that are accusative, attacking of President Obama, that you’re going to jump up in the polls. I’m not willing to light my hair on fire to try and get support. ...I think this president's taken us in a very dangerous direction, and that we've got to get him out of the White House, but I'm not willing to say anything to get that nod."
No one's asking him to 'light his hair on fire' or to say anything, just show some conservative guts to take this Marxist on...but if he's not even willing to call him such...well, then that's not going to help him defeat Obama.
Nothing truly frustrates me more than to see the party elite jubilant in not learning the err of the last presidential election, only to risk repeating its fate with a lite candidate of pale pastels.
It's equally discomforting that the establishment already has its excuses lined up for Romney's defeat in the general, whether that be directed at us "if people had just gotten in line when we told them to," or at conservatism itself because his "increasingly conservative rhetoric on a number of hot-button issues could hurt him" against Obama. Make no mistake, as Tom Blumer of PJMedia writes, "Across America, state Republican parties and legislators are pursuing the opponents they most despise with renewed vigor."
They have expected genuine conservatives to swallow their pride for decades and vote for moderate squishes who were in some ways barely better than their Democratic brethren (e.g., John McCain, Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford nationally, as well as more state and local candidates than one can hope to count). But as was the case in 1980 with Ronald Reagan, it appears that there is no establishment desire to reciprocate and provide meaningful resources to the winners if their people lose, starting with Mitt Romney and his acolytes at the national level and moving on down from there — even if it leads to Barack Obama’s reelection.
This election certainly doesn't have to be a choice about the lesser of two evils, or even the lite version of the 'real deal'; however, the GOP establishment, along with its candidate and his campaign, have undermined and disregarded its base every step of the primary process and continue to do their damnedest to see this inevitable trajectory through...and conservatives resent it.
ADDENDUM: Levin displayed equal concern about a Romney nomination and the state of the Republican Party on whole...
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Gitmo detainees get new $750G soccer field
FoxNews: At a time of record deficits, a new soccer field for detainees at Camp 6 in Guantanamo Bay is just getting the finishing touches -- at a cost of $750,000 to taxpayers.
The project began in April 2011 and is due to finish this spring. The detainees will now have three recreation facilities at Camp 6, which is home to "highly compliant" detainees who live in a communal setting.
In addition to an indoor recreation field and the existing outdoor recreation field, the new soccer field -- selected because it is such a popular sport with detainees -- is half the size of an American football field.
The new field has been specially constructed so that the detainees "have maximum access" -- about 20 hours a day. Special passageways allow the detainees to pass into the new recreation yard without being escorted by the military.
'Cause military escorts would be demeaning for a PRISONER! Our federal government has no problem finding things to waste our tax dollars on, even when it comes to easing our enemy's stay. Sick.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." ~ James Madison
RINO Olympia Snowe won't seek reelection (UPDATE)
PORTLAND, Maine (The Blaze/AP) — Maine’s U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe says she’s not running for re-election.
The three-term senator’s campaign office issued a statement Tuesday afternoon that was confirmed by her campaign manager. The Republican senator said in the statement that she was confident she would’ve won re-election but said she was frustrated by “an atmosphere of polarization and ”my way or the highway ideologies.”
This Democratic Republican won't be missed. I only wished there was a chance of replacing this New England RINO with some semblance of a conservative, and there very well could be, but I've learned not to hold my breath with New England politics. Anyway, good riddance...now, if only her twin would follow suit!
UPDATE: Rush says Republicans panicking over Snowe's retirement is laughable, via theRightScoop, "With her in it, we never had it!"
Romney backers pushed for open primary in Michigan
RebelPundit: According to a Michigan Republican State Committee (MRSC) member, Romney backers in statewide Republican leadership roles, including the governor and attorney general, pushed for an open Michigan primary. These open primary rules allow voters to vote in either party’s primary without declaring any party affiliation.
Romney today is bemoaning the possibility of Democrats influencing then outcome of today’s election. He should recall it was his own prominent establishment Republican supporters across Michigan who made this possible.
Not to mention, there were no complaints when this tactic aided Mitt in the New Hampshire primary, as Santorum explained today:
Did you ask [Romney] whether when 53% of the people in NH who voted, who were not Republican, was that kidnapping the process? He didn’t seem to complain about it then. That’s what bullies do. When you hit them back, they whine.
Obama wants to cut military healthcare benefits
“First of all, if you’ve got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.” ~ Barack Obama, 2009
Now, that broken promise is two-fold: force individuals on his prescribed plan, while further trashing the military.
The Washington Free Beacon: The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.
The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.
The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.
Many in Congress are opposing the proposed changes, which would require the passage of new legislation before being put in place.
The Washington Free Beacon: The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.
The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.
The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.
Many in Congress are opposing the proposed changes, which would require the passage of new legislation before being put in place.
What's good for the goose, Mitt
Waaa! Oh, the irony. The master of dirty tricks in this primary is now whining, calling foul and gnashing teeth over Santorum reaching across the aisle to Democrats in an open primary and asking for their votes. He's just ticked he didn't think of this first!
Wait, though...what's good for the goose is good for the gander, Mitt. Afterall, the Romney camp used fraudulent robocalls of Santorum endorsing Romney in Michigan! So, Rick's just taking advantage of the open primary process, which is a much more genuine effort than attempting to trick voters into believe that one candidate would endorse against his own candidacy.
And as I recall, Democrat and Independent votes assisted Romney in winning New Hampshire, and we'll see that model follow suit throughout the New England primaries (he just doesn't have to ask for their votes up there...it's an unspoken rule). So when we're told that we, conservatives, must gain Independents and Reagan Democrats 'to win', it's now wrong for Santorum to reach across the aisle? I'm calling BS on that establishment double-standard.
ADDENDUM: Rush weighed in like only he could: "None of this bothers me."
And why should it bother us when we've come to find out that Romney's done similar, and perhaps more, in past Massachusetts elections! Politico points out that Romney himself raided the Democrat primaries to crossover vote during the 1990s in Massachusetts:
"In Massachusetts, if you register as an independent, you can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary," said Romney, who until he made an unsuccessful run for Senate in 1994 had spent his adult life as a registered independent. "When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I’d vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for the Republican."
Wait, though...what's good for the goose is good for the gander, Mitt. Afterall, the Romney camp used fraudulent robocalls of Santorum endorsing Romney in Michigan! So, Rick's just taking advantage of the open primary process, which is a much more genuine effort than attempting to trick voters into believe that one candidate would endorse against his own candidacy.
And as I recall, Democrat and Independent votes assisted Romney in winning New Hampshire, and we'll see that model follow suit throughout the New England primaries (he just doesn't have to ask for their votes up there...it's an unspoken rule). So when we're told that we, conservatives, must gain Independents and Reagan Democrats 'to win', it's now wrong for Santorum to reach across the aisle? I'm calling BS on that establishment double-standard.
ADDENDUM: Rush weighed in like only he could: "None of this bothers me."
And why should it bother us when we've come to find out that Romney's done similar, and perhaps more, in past Massachusetts elections! Politico points out that Romney himself raided the Democrat primaries to crossover vote during the 1990s in Massachusetts:
"In Massachusetts, if you register as an independent, you can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary," said Romney, who until he made an unsuccessful run for Senate in 1994 had spent his adult life as a registered independent. "When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I’d vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for the Republican."
Santorum's Economic Freedom Agenda
Last week, Rush expressed some criticism in Romney's uneventful new tax plan, particularly in how it buys into Obama's class warfare argument, while having the potential to be "so much more"...
Juxtapose that plan with the 'so much more' of Santorum's Economic Freedom Agenda discussed in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Monday...oh, you didn't see that or hear about it? Riiight...the media were still harping on Sunday morning gotcha questions about Santorum's just belief (shared by Rush, Levin and Reagan, mind you) that an absolute separation of church and state does not exist...that's correct, it does NOT exist. Anyway, that discussion can be found in the previous post, but what's worth checking out on this one, is what the media managed to distract from on Monday: Santorum's pro-growth and pro-family Economic Freedom Agenda. Here's its ten main initiatives:
Santorum concludes that working between Congress and the American people, an economic environment can once again be created "where hard work is rewarded, equal opportunity exists for all, and families providing for their children can once again be optimistic about their future."
Juxtapose that plan with the 'so much more' of Santorum's Economic Freedom Agenda discussed in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Monday...oh, you didn't see that or hear about it? Riiight...the media were still harping on Sunday morning gotcha questions about Santorum's just belief (shared by Rush, Levin and Reagan, mind you) that an absolute separation of church and state does not exist...that's correct, it does NOT exist. Anyway, that discussion can be found in the previous post, but what's worth checking out on this one, is what the media managed to distract from on Monday: Santorum's pro-growth and pro-family Economic Freedom Agenda. Here's its ten main initiatives:
- Unleash America's energy. I'll approve the Keystone Pipeline for jobs and energy security, and sign an order on day one unleashing America's domestic energy production, allowing states to choose where they want to explore for oil and natural gas and to set their own regulations for hydrofracking.
- Stop job-killing regulation. All Obama administration regulations that have an economic burden over $100 million will be repealed, including the Environmental Protection Agency rule on CO2 emissions that's already shut down six power plants. I'll review all regulations, making sure they use sound science and cost benefit analysis.
- A pro-growth, pro-family tax policy. I'll submit to Congress comprehensive tax policies to strengthen opportunity in our country, with only two income tax rates of 10% and 28%. To help families, I'll triple the personal deduction for children and eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
- Restore America's competitiveness. The corporate tax rate should be halved, to a flat rate of 17.5%. Corporations should be allowed to expense all business equipment and investment. Taxes on corporate earnings repatriated from overseas should be eliminated to bring home manufacturing. I'll take the lead on tort reform to lower costs to consumers.
- Rein in spending. I'll propose spending cuts of $5 trillion over five years, including cuts for the remainder of fiscal year 2013. I'll propose budgets that spend less money each year than prior years, and I'll reduce the nondefense-related federal work force by at least 10%, without replacing them with private contractors.
- Repeal and replace ObamaCare. I'll submit legislation to repeal ObamaCare, and on day one issue an executive order ending related regulatory obligations on the states. I'll work with Congress to replace ObamaCare with competitive insurance choices to improve quality and limit the costs of health care, while protecting those with uninsurable health conditions. In contrast, Gov. Romney signed into law RomneyCare, which provided the model for ObamaCare. Its best-known feature is its overreaching individual health-care mandate. But it shares over a dozen other similarities with ObamaCare and has given Massachusetts the highest health-care premiums in the nation, and longer waits for health care.
- Balance the budget. I'll submit to Congress a budget that will balance within four years and call on Congress to pass a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution which limits federal spending to 18% of GDP.
- Negotiate and submit free trade agreements. Because many Americans work for companies which export, I'll initiate negotiations in the first 100 days and submit to Congress five free trade agreements during my first year in office to increase exports.
- Reform entitlements. I'll cut means-tested entitlement programs by 10% across the board, freeze them for four years, and block grant them to states—as I did as the author of welfare reform in 1996. I'll reform Medicare and Social Security so they are fiscally sustainable for seniors and young people.
- Revive housing. I'll submit plans to Congress to phase out within several years Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's federal housing role, reform and make transparent the Federal Reserve, and allow families whose mortgages are "underwater" to deduct losses from the sale of their home in order to get a fresh start in difficult economic times.
Santorum concludes that working between Congress and the American people, an economic environment can once again be created "where hard work is rewarded, equal opportunity exists for all, and families providing for their children can once again be optimistic about their future."
There is no 'separation'
"I believe that George Washington knew the City of Man cannot survive without the City of God, that the Visible City will perish without the Invisible City." ~ Ronald Reagan
Oh, how controversial to say that there is no separation of church and state? Not really. As Levin has made the point time and time again, as well as in Liberty and Tyranny, so again he reiterated on Monday's program, leading with this conundrum: "If faith has nothing to do with our government, then we need to throw the Declaration of Independence away!" Mark elaborated from there...
On Monday's Mark Levin Show: Mark talks about the issue of separation between church and state - the history of it and Justice Hugo Black, the fact that it's not even written in the Constitution anywhere, and how the liberals have run wild with it and put it in many aspects of our lives.
"[Justice Hugo Black] had also been a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920's and was hostile to the Catholic Church. Is it not an irony that David Gregory brings this up to Rick Santorum, a practicing Catholic?"
Certainly, everyone's heard the feigned outrage throughout the Sunday circuit of the MSM elites, from Stephanopoulos to Gregory, as well as the so-called 'conservative' outlets who've disseminated these seeds throughout most of Monday (for you-know-who's sake), concerning Santorum's response when confronted about yet another old, dug up speech given, once again, to a Christian organization (oh, the horror), in which he had to audacity to criticize JFK for his stance on an absolute separation of church and state. To that, Santorum boldly responded, "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute." Well, Rick, you find yourself in great company, whether that be shared in Levin's arguments from Monday evening or remarks from his former employer at an ecumenical prayer breakfast back in 1984:
I believe that faith and religion play a critical role in the political life of our nation - and always has - and that the church - and by that I mean all churches, all denominations - has had a strong influence on the state. And this has worked to our benefit as a nation.
Those who created our country - the Founding Fathers and Mothers - understood that there is a divine order which transcends the human order. They saw the state, in fact, as a form of moral order and felt that the bedrock of moral order is religion.
Here's the key portions of Reagan's remarks that directly correlate to Santorum's argument against JFK's absolutist belief:
When John Kennedy was running for President in 1960, he said that his church would not dictate his Presidency any more than he would speak for his church. Just so, and proper. But John Kennedy was speaking in an America in which the role of religion - and by that I mean the role of all churches - was secure. Abortion was not a political issue. Prayer was not a political issue. The right of church schools to operate was not a political issue. And it was broadly acknowledged that religious leaders had a right and a duty to speak out on the issues of the day. They held a place of respect, and a politician who spoke to or of them with a lack of respect would not long survive in the political arena.
It was acknowledged then that religion held a special place, occupied a special territory in the hearts of the citizenry. The climate has changed greatly since then. And since it has, it logically follows that religion needs defenders against those who care only for the interests of the state.
Reagan continued to define the bond, not the separation, between church and state:
The truth is, politics and morality are inseparable. And as morality's foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related. We need religion as a guide. We need it because we are imperfect, and our government needs the church, because only those humble enough to admit they're sinners can bring to democracy the tolerance it requires in order to survive.
And Reagan closed that speech with a stern warning to future generations, to us, right now:
We establish no religion in this country, nor will we ever. We command no worship. We mandate no belief. But we poison our society when we remove its theological underpinnings. We court corruption when we leave it bereft of belief. All are free to believe or not believe; all are free to practice a faith or not. But those who believe must be free to speak of and act on their belief, to apply moral teaching to public questions.
I submit to you that the tolerant society is open to and encouraging of all religions. And this does not weaken us; it strengthens us, it makes us strong. You know, if we look back through history to all those great civilizations, those great nations that rose up to even world dominance and then deteriorated, declined, and fell, we find they all had one thing in common. One of the significant forerunners of their fall was their turning away from their God or gods.
Without God, there is no virtue, because there's no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we're mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.
So, you are not alone in your convictions, Rick Santorum, not by a long shot.
"I would be the greatest fool on this footstool called Earth if I ever thought that for one moment I could perform the duties of that office without help from One who is stronger than all." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Oh, how controversial to say that there is no separation of church and state? Not really. As Levin has made the point time and time again, as well as in Liberty and Tyranny, so again he reiterated on Monday's program, leading with this conundrum: "If faith has nothing to do with our government, then we need to throw the Declaration of Independence away!" Mark elaborated from there...
On Monday's Mark Levin Show: Mark talks about the issue of separation between church and state - the history of it and Justice Hugo Black, the fact that it's not even written in the Constitution anywhere, and how the liberals have run wild with it and put it in many aspects of our lives.
"[Justice Hugo Black] had also been a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920's and was hostile to the Catholic Church. Is it not an irony that David Gregory brings this up to Rick Santorum, a practicing Catholic?"
Certainly, everyone's heard the feigned outrage throughout the Sunday circuit of the MSM elites, from Stephanopoulos to Gregory, as well as the so-called 'conservative' outlets who've disseminated these seeds throughout most of Monday (for you-know-who's sake), concerning Santorum's response when confronted about yet another old, dug up speech given, once again, to a Christian organization (oh, the horror), in which he had to audacity to criticize JFK for his stance on an absolute separation of church and state. To that, Santorum boldly responded, "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute." Well, Rick, you find yourself in great company, whether that be shared in Levin's arguments from Monday evening or remarks from his former employer at an ecumenical prayer breakfast back in 1984:
I believe that faith and religion play a critical role in the political life of our nation - and always has - and that the church - and by that I mean all churches, all denominations - has had a strong influence on the state. And this has worked to our benefit as a nation.
Those who created our country - the Founding Fathers and Mothers - understood that there is a divine order which transcends the human order. They saw the state, in fact, as a form of moral order and felt that the bedrock of moral order is religion.
Here's the key portions of Reagan's remarks that directly correlate to Santorum's argument against JFK's absolutist belief:
When John Kennedy was running for President in 1960, he said that his church would not dictate his Presidency any more than he would speak for his church. Just so, and proper. But John Kennedy was speaking in an America in which the role of religion - and by that I mean the role of all churches - was secure. Abortion was not a political issue. Prayer was not a political issue. The right of church schools to operate was not a political issue. And it was broadly acknowledged that religious leaders had a right and a duty to speak out on the issues of the day. They held a place of respect, and a politician who spoke to or of them with a lack of respect would not long survive in the political arena.
It was acknowledged then that religion held a special place, occupied a special territory in the hearts of the citizenry. The climate has changed greatly since then. And since it has, it logically follows that religion needs defenders against those who care only for the interests of the state.
Reagan continued to define the bond, not the separation, between church and state:
The truth is, politics and morality are inseparable. And as morality's foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related. We need religion as a guide. We need it because we are imperfect, and our government needs the church, because only those humble enough to admit they're sinners can bring to democracy the tolerance it requires in order to survive.
And Reagan closed that speech with a stern warning to future generations, to us, right now:
We establish no religion in this country, nor will we ever. We command no worship. We mandate no belief. But we poison our society when we remove its theological underpinnings. We court corruption when we leave it bereft of belief. All are free to believe or not believe; all are free to practice a faith or not. But those who believe must be free to speak of and act on their belief, to apply moral teaching to public questions.
I submit to you that the tolerant society is open to and encouraging of all religions. And this does not weaken us; it strengthens us, it makes us strong. You know, if we look back through history to all those great civilizations, those great nations that rose up to even world dominance and then deteriorated, declined, and fell, we find they all had one thing in common. One of the significant forerunners of their fall was their turning away from their God or gods.
So, you are not alone in your convictions, Rick Santorum, not by a long shot.
"I would be the greatest fool on this footstool called Earth if I ever thought that for one moment I could perform the duties of that office without help from One who is stronger than all." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Monday, February 27, 2012
Levin's EPIC 'apology'
TheRightScoop labeled Monday's opening monologue on the Mark Levin Show "EPIC!" And I must concur...
Levin is livid over the way things are being handled in Afghanistan and has had enough. He says that we should carpet-bomb the hell out of the Taliban and that we should have never apologized in the first place for burning Korans that had already been destroyed by the enemy.
But the epic part of this clip comes when Levin apologizes to the men and women serving in the military, and their families, for “this jerk who’s the Command-in-Chief, for this jerk who’s the Secretary of State, for this Jerk who’s the Secretary of Defense, for the whole damn bunch of them!”
Right on, Mark! Now, on to that separation discussion (that I can't resist)...
Levin is livid over the way things are being handled in Afghanistan and has had enough. He says that we should carpet-bomb the hell out of the Taliban and that we should have never apologized in the first place for burning Korans that had already been destroyed by the enemy.
But the epic part of this clip comes when Levin apologizes to the men and women serving in the military, and their families, for “this jerk who’s the Command-in-Chief, for this jerk who’s the Secretary of State, for this Jerk who’s the Secretary of Defense, for the whole damn bunch of them!”
Right on, Mark! Now, on to that separation discussion (that I can't resist)...
Inconvenient truths about Obama's energy policies
On January 19, 2009, the day before Barack Obama was sworn in as President of the United States, gas prices were $1.84 a gallon. As of February 20, 2012 a gallon of gas cost $3.59.
This is #3 among a list of seven gas facts that Obama can't escape, as explored by Wynton Hall of Breitbart's Big Government. Among the seven, surface several inconvenient clips of Obama in his own words, all compiled during his initial 2008 campaign, tying the rise in gas prices to his overarching energy policies as president. He told us, folks...
In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama admitted that, like his future Energy Secretary Mr. Chu, he believed that high gas prices would be a good thing because they would force Americans to ween themselves off of oil, but that he would have “prefered a gradual adjustment.”
In 2008, Barack Obama seemed perfectly comfortable with soaring energy prices if they meant curbing green house gas emissions. As Mr. Obama confessed: “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
As seen in the video below, Obama’s own 2008 campaign rallies actually cheered higher gas prices because they would “force us to think about changing the culture to create more emphasis on mass transportation.” Following the sustained applause, then candidate-Obama proceeded to laud Europe (not unlike his future Energy Secretary Steven Chu) for its rail system.
Try as he might, President Obama’s campaign will try to distance themselves from the fact that a central pillar of Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign was a pledge to reduce the “pain at the pump” caused by high gas prices. However, videos such as the one below reveal the extent to which Mr. Obama promised that, if elected, he would bring down the cost of gas for “everyday Americans.” Missing no opportunity to invoke class warfare, Mr. Obama said: “For the well-off in this country, high gas prices are mostly an annoyance. But to most Americans, they are a huge problem, bordering on a crisis. Here in Indiana, gas costs $3.60 a gallon.”
Today, gas prices in Indiana are $3.74/gal...and with national gas prices at their highest for this time of year EVER, fears grow over what the summer spike might have in store for us.
He's told us so from the very beginning, so the multitude of excuses Obama professes as the source of this price surge grow harder and harder to swallow. And I actually tend to agree with the stance that Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) expressed in a local op-ed:
To prop up his claim that his policies are working and the U.S. economy is turning the corner, President Obama recently offered some dubious evidence: rising gas prices. He said gas prices are rising “because as the economy strengthens, global demand for oil increases.”
That’s absurd. Far from indicating this White House’s policies are working, the skyrocketing price of oil indicates they are driving our economy into the ditch. They also show the President’s lack of leadership in coming up with a coherent energy policy that creates jobs, keeps gas prices low, develops our domestic resources and lessens our dependence on foreign oil.
Almost as absurd as his green dreams, as discussed by Rush and a caller employed at Kent BioEnergy (oops, forgot about those carbon emissions!).
Koch's fire back
In response to an email from the Obama For America campaign that blatantly, and falsely, attacked the Koch brothers (which most of the media hasn't bothered to report) with rhetoric like this:
Those are the same Koch brothers whose business model is to make millions by jacking up prices at the pump, and who have bankrolled Tea Party extremism and committed $200 million to try to destroy President Obama before Election Day.
...the Koch's demonstrated to the entirety of conservatives, particularly to the Republican Party hierarchy, precisely how you take these Leftists to task (here's excerpts):
"...it is false that our “business model is to make millions by jacking up prices at the pump.” Our business vision begins and ends with value creation — real, long-term value for customers and for society. We own no gasoline stations and the part of our business you allude to, oil and gas refining, actually lowers the price of gasoline by increasing supply. Either you simply misunderstand the way commodities markets work or you are misleading your supporters and the rest of the American people."
"Contrary to your assertion that we have “committed $200 million to try to destroy President Obama,” we have stated publicly and repeatedly since last November that we have never made any such claim or pledge. It is hard to imagine that the campaign is unaware of our publicly stated position on that point. Similarly, Americans for Prosperity is not simply “funded by the Koch brothers,” as you state — rather it has tens of thousands of members and contributors from across the country and from all walks of life. Further, our opposition to this President’s policies is not based on partisan politics but on principles. Charles Koch and David Koch have been outspoken advocates of the free-market for over 50 years and they have consistently opposed policies that frustrate or subvert free markets, regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican was President."
"If the President’s campaign has some principled disagreement with the arguments we are making publicly about the staggering debt the President and previous administrations have imposed on the country, the regulations that are stifling business growth and innovation, the increasing intrusion of government into nearly every aspect of American life, we would be eager to hear them. But it is an abuse of the President’s position and does a disservice to our nation for the President and his campaign to criticize private citizens simply for the act of engaging in their constitutional right of free speech about important matters of public policy. The implication in that sort of attack is obvious: dare to criticize the President’s policies and you will be singled out and personally maligned by the President and his campaign in an effort to chill free speech and squelch dissent."
Entire response found here.
ADDENDUM: the Atlantic and Politico are among the few who caught on to this story.
Holier than thou?
The killing continues in so-called retaliation for last week's accidental burning of Qurans at an American military base. But I guess when it's "their people" doing the desecration deed, it's ok? Or is it more acceptable to marinate in filth than accidentally burn? I'm confused...
BTW, this happened last year...and we never heard a word until now.
Can we say feigned outrage and excuses used to justify barbarism? I think perhaps we can...and no amount of apologizing is going to change that.
BTW, this happened last year...and we never heard a word until now.
Can we say feigned outrage and excuses used to justify barbarism? I think perhaps we can...and no amount of apologizing is going to change that.
72% say Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional
Washington Examiner: Gallup is out with new numbers about President Obama's health care bill. According to the poll, 47 percent favor a repeal of the law, should a Republican president get elected and 44 percent oppose it. Not surprisingly, Republicans favor repeal by 87 percent and Democrats oppose it by 77 percent.
More importantly, 72 percent of Americans believe that the law's individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, including 56 percent of Democrats.
If this many have the sense to realize that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then the percentage for repeal must equally grow.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Obama: energy out of 'algae'
Uhhh...here's Obama's answer to $6/gal gas: pond scum.
RealClearPolitics: "We're making new investments in the development of gasoline and diesel and jet fuel that's actually made from a plant-like substance. Algae. You've got a bunch of algae out here, right?" President Obama said at a campaign event in Coral Gables, Florida. "If we can make energy out of that, we will be doing alright," Obama said.
I'm not gonna say 'the man is out of ideas'...because he never had any by design.
RealClearPolitics: "We're making new investments in the development of gasoline and diesel and jet fuel that's actually made from a plant-like substance. Algae. You've got a bunch of algae out here, right?" President Obama said at a campaign event in Coral Gables, Florida. "If we can make energy out of that, we will be doing alright," Obama said.
I'm not gonna say 'the man is out of ideas'...because he never had any by design.
Romney: trees, streets and a couple of Caddies
Hey 'team players', unscripted Mitt really knows how to connect with the people.
He's also speaking the OWS language (in AZ on Wednesday)...
...and Romney's pseudo-progressive tax-the-rich plan went over so well to a packed crowd on Friday...oh wait...
"Bold conservative plan"...not really.
He's also speaking the OWS language (in AZ on Wednesday)...
...and Romney's pseudo-progressive tax-the-rich plan went over so well to a packed crowd on Friday...oh wait...
"Bold conservative plan"...not really.
Santorum: "I'll take them on in pairs"
Santorum tells Laura Ingraham, "I’ll take them on in pairs if necessary."
Polls are now mixed in Michigan and that race is tightening up.
Polls are now mixed in Michigan and that race is tightening up.
Still losing their minds in the Mid-East
TheRightScoop: Here we go again. Obama has written a formal letter apologizing for the burning of the Korans and delivered it to the Afghans. Meanwhile, rioting Muslims in Afghanistan have killed two American troops and wounded four others.
That was the tally on Thursday...this today...
WashingtonPost: With nine more dead Friday following the protests in Afghanistan over the burning of Korans on a U.S. military base, some in Washington are making the argument that the U.S. government stop apologizing for the incident.
Ya think?! Newt chimed in and made an excellent point about it...
Meanwhile, Weasel Zippers informs us of how those lovable muslim extremists are taking it:
Koran Burning Protests Spread To Malaysia – Update: And Pakistan…
Top Iranian Cleric Blasts Obama’s Koran Burning Apology As “Superficial,” Says Muslims “Devastated By Heinous Crime”…
Report: NATO Promised Karzai To Put American Soldiers On Trial For Burning Koran “As Soon As Possible”…
There'll be hell to pay if you even think about that last one, buddy.
Elite media has always ignored Obama's infanticide support
Gingrich was right. And it looks like the media are scrambling, once again, to cover for Obama's support of infanticide as an Illinois state Senator. Doug Ross does his own extensive research and calls 'horsecrap' on the supposed fact checking going on to disprove Gingrich's comment, while defending Obama's stance (surprise). The FACTS speak for themselves.
From his own words (at the beginning of this piece)...
...to the text of the amendment...
From his own words (at the beginning of this piece)...
...to the text of the amendment...
7 states sue to block Obama contraception mandate
Fox Nation: Seven states filed a lawsuit Thursday to block the federal government's requirement that religious organizations offer health insurance coverage that includes free access to contraception for women.
The attorney generals of Texas, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma and South Carolina jointly filed the lawsuit in a Nebraska US District Court.
Two private citizens, two religious non-profit organizations and a Catholic school also joined the lawsuit against the contraception mandate, which is part of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care law.
The lawsuit asks a federal judge to declare the law unconstitutional and enjoin the government from enforcing the requirement.
Voters aren't buying Obama's recovery
National Journal: Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg is out with a must-read polling memo this morning, which offers some eye-opening advice to President Obama and his re-election team. After testing several of the president's economic messages, he finds the argument that the economy is back on the right track polls miserably - and "produces disastrous results."
"It is weaker than even the weakest Republican message and is 10 points weaker in intensity than either Republican message," Greenberg wrote. "A third said this message made them less likely to support Barack Obama. Alarmingly, this message barely receives majority support among self-identified Democrats - and even less support among all other groups."
It's not flying anymore. Perhaps folks might finally be fed up with the BS?
Romney lied about Cardinal and Contraceptives during debate
Boston Catholic Insider: When Romney was asked in the debate if he had required Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims and had infringed on Catholics’ rights, he responded, “No, absolutely not. Of course not.” That was untrue.
When Romney said “for the Catholic Church to provide morning-after pills to rape victims…was entirely voluntary on their part”, that was also untrue.
For him to suggest to the citizens of the United States on national television that Cardinal O’Malley and the Catholic Church would “voluntarily” provide morning-after pills is an egregious misrepresentation of Catholic Church teachings and an egregious misrepresentation of what actually happened in this situation.
BCI hopes that the media and other candidates call him out on this.
Other candidates, probably; media...hopeless.
The energy of mocking, propeller hats & heated socks
As Republican presidential candidates toss barbs at Barack Obama over expensive gasoline, the U.S. president and his team are going on the offensive with a strategy to divert blame and prepare voters for higher costs.
His strategy is both politically- and policy-oriented. The president wants to advance his plans to increase renewable energy sources and reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil.
I'd change 'strategy' to 'tactic', 'prepare' to 'condition', 'plan' to 'rhetoric' and 'foreign' to, well, 'any'! Republicans have been pushing Obama to stop cowtowing to his eco-statist base for how long now? But the man refuses to pursue domestic drilling, now or later, to relieve our energy burdens while these supposed alternatives materialize from his...you know where. Levin comments on yet another one of Obama's taxpayer subsidized piggybacked stops down in Florida on Thursday, where he continues to twist the logic.
"He has driven up the price of fuel, then he sides with the people, us, who have to pay the higher prices (and they're going much higher by the way), as if he's one of us, as if he's a victim of something going on out there; then he attacks, as you'll see, the Republicans for politicizing it. So in other words, when you point out that his policies are driving up the price of fuel and creating energy dislocation, and that it has a direct impact on the consumer, and I myself have said this is a tax in essence. It's unnecessary, but Obama's policies have brought us here. So now I am 'political', while he stands with the driver. This is the way of the demagogue...he lies."
How peculiar it is when the shoe is on the statist's foot. Didn't the Dems rail against Bush for $3/gal gas? Oh yeah...thanks to BuzzFeed, MRCtv and Weasel Zippers for these reminders...
Which one's the bobblehead again? Eh, no matter.
That was 2007...now look who Nancy's still blaming, via The Hill.
The Great Obama vows to “double down” on green energy spending, and as CNSNews reports, "would do what he could even without Congress" (sound familiar) to subsidize more venture socialism that will inevitably result in more of what Levin points out with what we've got thus far from those magnificent wind and solar investments, "crony capitalism, campaign bundlers who made a fortune and then broke the companies..."
Meanwhile, gas prices run up with no end in site, nor a plan...except more empty rhetoric, blaming Republicans (who want to switch to domestic drilling, while developing additional sources), blaming Mid-East turmoils (that's always ongoing), blame anybody, anything, but his own destructive policies. Harper must be shaking his head, while Hu Jintao lets out a slight chuckle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)