Linked by The Astute Bloggers
Hat tip: Brian B.
Why is the Obama administration picking a fight with the Catholic church during an election year? It doesn’t make any sense. He’s got the bishops all riled up, and those guys are hard to rile up.
He’s ticked off the Catholic church like no other President has ever done before. If Obama and Co think their assault on our religious liberties can be compared to the war in Iraq because the Catholic church opposed that, too, they’ve got another thing coming.
The Catholic church may not have liked the Iraq war, but American Catholics were allowed to follow their own consciences on whether or not it was a “just war.”
When they force Catholic employers to offer their employees health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception, and force almost all individuals to buy that coverage as a part of their policies, it is seen as a direct attack on our faith. Those life issues are considered “non negotiable”- meaning that for Catholics, they are always morally wrong and must never be promoted by the law.
Last Sunday, in Catholic churches across the nation a letter from the bishops was read, slamming the Obama administration for the policy. Catholic Democrats and Republicans are united against the policy. Former Catholic supporters are feeling betrayed.
I don’t know if the Obama administration is even smart enough to know how much damage this is doing to the President’s reelection chances.
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just been dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people — the Catholic population — and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers,
including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.
In so ruling, the Obama Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Obama Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.
We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture,
only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.
And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting http://www.usccb.org/conscience,to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Obama Administration’s decision.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
+Alexander K. Sample
Most Reverend Alexander K. Sample
Bishop of Marquette
At least three Catholic bishops have said they will not comply with the mandate the Obama administration put in place recently in Obamacare that will force religious employers to pay for birth control, contraception and drugs that may cause abortions in their health care plans.
The Obama Administration issued a statement re-iterating the “contraceptive mandate” requiring all insurance providers cover the full range of FDA-approved drugs and devices would remain intact. This mandate, originally proposed in August, includes drugs that work after conception to destroy life rather than prevent it. The statement included a postponement of one year for religious groups that do not already carry contraceptives and additionally would not be exempted under last year’s narrow definition of “religious employer.”
Meanwhile, a total of 86 bishops who have spoken out against the Obama/HHS mandate publicly. In some cases, the bishops had priests in parishses throughout their diocese read the statements all diocesan Masses (bold). According to Thomas Peters of CatholicVote.org here are some of the bishops have are opposed to the mandate and have urged their parishoners to contact Congress and the Obama administration to oppose it.
- 1. Roger Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles, CA (Emeritus)
- 2. Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan of New York City, NY
- 3. Bishop Joe Vasquez of Austin, TX
- 4. Archbishop Robert Carlson of St. Louis, MO
- 5. Bishop Thomas Omsted of Phoenix, AZ
- 6. Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit, MI
- 7. Archbishop John Nienstedt of Saint Paul & Minneapolis, MN
- 8. Bishop David Ricken of Green Bay, WI
- 9. Bishop Paul Etienne of Cheyenne, WY
- 10. Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, CT
Also, an expected lawsuit against the mandate could find itself moving all the way up to the Supreme Court which, as the Los Angeles Times notes, “recently affirmed — in a 9-0 ruling — that the 1st Amendment gives special leeway to religious employers.”
Again, this is extremely out of the ordinary for the Catholic church to be taking such a forceful position against a government policy.
This discussion between Glenn Beck & Bill Donohue on the Obama Admin’s attack on the Catholic Church is worth watching in full.
I’ve always liked Ed Koch. The former Mayor of New York sent Donohue a letter, saying, “Catholics and Jews need to stand together in these times….”
This Catholic Advocate video shows the clip from Obama’s Notre Dame speech where he called for an “unprecedented common ground” for those with differing beliefs, and said he would draft “a sensible conscience clause.”
Someone should have told Father Jenkins back in the Spring of ’09, that all of Obama’s statements come with an expiration date – he might have been spared those pangs of regret and betrayal he’s now feeling.
See Father Z’s blog: What Does The Prayer Really Say, for more Statements from US Bishops about Obama’s attack on the church.
The links are in the comments.
Those of you who are pulling your hair out about how bloody hideous the Republican primary has been, so far, are losing sight of just how vulnerable Obama is on a number of fronts.
- He is going to have a much harder time attracting Catholic, Christian and Jewish votes this time around.
- The Fast and Furious scandal is coming to a full boil, and it’s hard to see how the White House isn’t implicated after it’s established that the Attorney General knew about Fast and Furious since the beginning and has been lying to Congress all this time.
- People are getting sick of seeing their tax dollars circling the “green energy” drain, they want to see the pipeline approved – they want to see us taking real steps toward being energy independent.
- The economy is on very shaky ground – we may be in for a double dip recession.
- The Middle East and North Africa are much less safe places now, thanks to him.
All the money in the world can’t negate those facts.
Newt Gingrich in a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity, Monday night, talked about his intention of rolling back, (through executive orders) 40% of Obama’s policies on his first day in office – including the abortion mandate.
This is a must read (no I hadn’t read this, yet, Lily):
Cliff Kincaid, New Zeal: Catholic Church Rejects Surrender Terms from Obama:
My Catholic priest, Father Larry Swink, delivered a homily on Sunday that I told him would make headlines. In the toughest sermon I have ever heard from a pulpit, he attacked the Obama Administration as evil, even demonic, and warned of religious persecution ahead. What was also newsworthy about the sermon was that he cited The Washington Post in agreement—not on the subject of the Obama Administration being evil, but on the matter of its abridgment of the constitutional right to freedom of religion.
What is happening is extraordinary and unprecedented. The Catholic Church is in open revolt against the Obama Administration, with Fr. Swink noting from the pulpit that priests across the archdiocese were joining the call on Sunday to rally Catholics to resistance against the U.S. Government. He said we are entering a time of religious persecution and that Catholics and others will have to make a final decision about which side they are on.
The issue is what the Catholic Bishops have called a “literally unconscionable” edict by the Obama Administration demanding that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans.
So why would the administration pick a major fight with the Catholic Church? There are two main reasons. (1) The administration wants to please its progressive and feminist, secular pro-abortion base. (2) The administration believes Catholics are divided on the issue and will ignore their leaders and follow Obama.
A number of nominal Catholics, surely will. But the faithful are in open rebellion.
Support for the latter explanation comes in the form of the Obama Administration’s efforts to co-opt the Catholic Church, primarily through appointing nominal Catholics to high-level positions in government and keeping funding going to the church for “social justice” causes. Another player in this effort is the hedge-fund billionaire George Soros, an atheist who nevertheless has found groups that are “Catholic in name only” to accept his financial largesse. These groups, including Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, are designed to give the impression that Catholics are less concerned about issues like stopping abortion and protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage than passing government health care. The Obama/Soros gamble may be backfiring.
Some may see this battle as just another church-state dust-up that will be resolved through litigation. But when apocalyptic imagery is used, such as what I heard at my church on Sunday, one must wonder if there is an awakening on the part of the Catholic community and if there is something else going on here besides politics as usual. In short, is the Catholic Church beginning to finally recognize the real nature of the Obama Administration?
Learn the truth behind the fake Catholics who have helped an atheist billionaire dominate the Democratic party, here.
I remember one Cardinal in particular using “apocalyptic imagery” shortly after Obama was elected, when he predicted that the election of Obama would begin a“Time Of Trial” For Americans:
Cardinal James Francis Stafford, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary of the Holy See, delivered a lecture on Thursday at the Catholic University of America:
Criticizing Obama as “aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic,” he went on to speak about a decline in respect for human life and the need for Catholics to return to the values of marriage and human dignity.
I find it hard to believe that Obama made this unforced error. Clearly he is pandering to his far left base. But in doing so, he is taking direct aim at religion. How historically ignorant do you have to be not to understand that you don’t screw with peoples’ religion.
True, its been almost a millenium since the Catholic Church launched a Crusade against such a fundamental attack on her religion. And it has been almost four centuries since the last of the Christian religious wars. But to think that Christian passions have so cooled this will not drive the religious to vote their conscience in the 2012 election is, I think, a grand error.
Obama may be trying to fire up his base, but he has just done so at tremendous cost. If the election is close, this may prove the tipping point.
In an oped in The Washington Post, Michael Gerson proclaimed that the Obama administration has formally declared a war on religion:
The administration’s ultimate motivation is uncertain. Has it adopted a radical secularism out of conviction, or is it cynically appealing to radical secularists? In either case, the war on religion is now formally declared.
Professor Bainbridge: A remarkably narrow definition of religion
The Anchoress sees a silver lining: Obamacare’s Gift to the Catholics:
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the president have brought us often-divided Catholics some clarity: it has helped us to discover the line in the sand upon which we can stand together and declare, “Dude…we are church!”
Also via the Anchoress: Thomas Peters is keeping track of the Bishops speaking out
Sarah Palin: How Obama Repaid Notre Dame
This is a great plug for the Santorum campaign, but is it too little, too late?
Michelle Malkin finally took off her nose plugs long enough to endorse a candidate:
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.
He’s all those things and more. Keep reading.
I’ve always said there’s very much to recommend Santorum, not the least of which is – he’s a good guy. I’ve been wavering between Santorum and Gingrich, because to be honest, either one of the not-Romneys is fine with me. I like them both. How I vote on Feb 7 will be determined by whichever one has the most momentum going to beat Romney.
Another huge blogger endorses Santorum at the American Thinker. (Just kidding, as far as I know Abie Rubin isn’t obese, either.)
A strategic word from Prof. Jacobson: A vote tomorrow for Santorum still is a vote for Romney:
The reality is that only Newt is within striking distance of Romney tomorrow in Florida, Santorum is the margin of difference, and only Newt tomorrow can derail the narrative of Romney inevitability.
If the narrative of Romney inevitability is derailed, Santorum politically gets to fight on and see if he can stage another Iowa in caucus states or elsewhere.
That’s what I was talking about when I said I’ll back the one who has the greatest chance of beating Romney. I actually lean toward Santorum, myself – but I’m not about to throw my vote away on a sure loser.
One of my favorite conservatives, Paul Ryan, let Obama have it with both barrels, yesterday on Fox News Sunday, for his divisive campaign tactics and dishonest rhetoric:
The president can’t run on his record. It’s a miserable record. He is not going to change his tune and moderate like say Bill Clinton did in 1996 because he’s really stuck with his ideology so he has no choice but to divide. So he is going to run a very divisive campaign for political gain and he has this concept of fairness and equality where he uses the kind of rhetoric we use, but the policies he’s producing will result in crony capitalism will result in more power in the government to supervise our lives, to give us a stagnant economy where the rich and the powerful are the ones who are picking it. So what I’m trying to say is he is giving us a future of debt, doubt, and decline. ‘
Hat tip: Brian B.
Mitt is inevitable — we have to get behind Mitt – he has the greatest chance of beating Obama.
That’s an excusable position to have if you’re a Republican senior in Florida who’s been inundated with a blizzard of anti-Newt ads and you have no memory of the 1980′s and/or no acquaintance with the right-wing blogosphere, where you can find the corrected record. Romney’s scorched earth campaign against Newt has been so full of over the top, hypocritical distortions – I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like it in a Republican primary. Mitt is making as many bitter enemies on the right, as he will have on the left if/when he’s the Republican nominee. How does this make him the best candidate to beat Obama?
RWNs’ John Hawkins polled conservative bloggers on their choices in the Republican primary race. The results in a 4-way match up were encouraging for Newt:
1) If you had to pick the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee today, which of the following candidates would you select?
4) Ron Paul: 11.6% (8 votes)
3) Rick Santorum: 21.7% (15 votes)
2) Mitt Romney: 31.9% (22 votes)
1) Newt Gingrich: 34.8% (24 votes)
But out of three choices, Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich, Romney won with 39.1% of the votes.
And he blew away the competition as the most “electable”.
4) Which candidate do you consider to be the most “electable” against Obama?
4) Ron Paul: 2.9% (2 votes)
3) Rick Santorum: 10.3% (7 votes)
2) Newt Gingrich: 32.4% (22 votes)
1) Mitt Romney: 54.4% (37 votes)
I’m shocked that there are so many conservative bloggers backing Mitt, and that in a 3-way race, he wins.
Dan Riehl has a message for those of you who are backing Mitt: Wake Up, Conservatives: Mitt Romney Is Running As A Leftist:
Mitt Romney is doing precisely what Progressives and the media do year after year. He is unable to debate honestly on conservative ideas and win. Scratch the campaign pressed and ready veneer and Mitt Romney is center-Left. If he were in the White House, he’d be crafting legislation with Democrats and liberal Republicans, not conservatives.
George Soros agrees: Romney = Change That Matters Little.
There is an alternative to this – those of you who should know better. Either Gingrich or Santorum are substantially more conservative than Romney, and both politicians would have a good chance of beating Obama in the Fall. We’ve seen the underdog win before, as Riehl argues:
What the Reagan era and victories demonstrated was that conservatism can win based upon ideas and principles. I don’t believe that’s changed in America, even if we currently lack top notch genuinely conservative political leadership. But it’s sad to see so many would be conservatives either abandon principle to support Romney, or perhaps to not understand what conservative principles even are.
And Melissa O’Sullivan recently noted in NRO, even her liberal friends are impressed by Newt’s rhetorical gifts:
Electability? The gender gap? Two very liberal women friends of mine who voted for Obama have come up to me recently and said they like and would vote for Newt. Why? Because he’s “so damn smart”!
But for some reason, we’re going to let the establishment bully win? William Jacobson writes Romney is winning his battles, but losing our war:
Newt rose in the polls in the fall on a positive message of not attacking fellow Republicans. Newt’s great moments in fall debates were refusing to engage when debate moderators sought to pit candidate against candidate. The message of a united front against Obama and a bright conservative future resonated with the Republican electorate like nothing else.
Romney had no positive message to sell or at least was not good at selling it, so in Iowa Romney, his SuperPAC, and the Republican political and media establishment launched Scorched Earth I on Newt, what David Limbaugh appropriately called “relentless, unmeasured scorched-earth savagery.”
The attacks on Newt were highly personal and deliberately demeaning, eiptomized by National Review’s notorious “Marvin the Martian” issue.
Even then, Newt tried to stay positive in Iowa until the last few days, and Newt paid the electoral price.
Ever since then, it has been downhill, with Newt launching negative ads in South Carolina and Florida and Romney unloading with far greater resources. Some of the ads run by or for Newt have been as negative as those run by or for Romney, if only in smaller doses. The rhetoric has escalated on both sides.
But make no mistake about it, the reason the Republican campaign has turned so nasty and so divisive is because the Romney campaign and its supporters decided in Iowa to win at any price, a theme which continues to this day even if it means embracing Nancy Pelosi and distorting the history of the Reagan revolution.
This will not be put back together easily. The smugness and condescension are salt on open wounds.
Why are we letting the bully, win, conservatives?
Jimmie Bise: I’m For Newt, and Here’s Why.
Legal Insurrection: No, Newt did not endorse the Obamacare mandate
Legal Insurrection: A glimmer of a glimmer – The latest polls show Newt closing in…
Could Mitt’s scorched earth tactics be backfiring?
It may be backfiring big in the Cuban community. Dan Reihl reports: Reaganite Fla. Cuban Leader Backs Newt, Blasts Mitt For Distortions
Keith Koffler: Newt Gingrich Takes it to the Establishment
Read it – he’ll make you giggle a little, and we all need to lighten up a bit.
A happy update on the Santorum’s sick little girl -
After what Rick Santorum described as a “very, very tough night“ , Bella is reported to be alert and back to her own “beautiful, happy” self. “It’s been a very hectic 36 hours,” Santorum said. “Life in the Santorum family has dramatically improved since the late afternoon.”
Via The Blaze:
(AP) — Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Sunday his daughter Bella remains in the hospital with pneumonia but is recovering after a rough 36 hours.
Santorum spoke with Florida supporters by telephone from 3-year-old Bella’s hospital room and said doctors hope she can go home in the next few days.
The former Pennsylvania senator also said, “We’re going to get out on the campaign trail later tomorrow … heading out to the Midwest, and start campaigning in the next states as we move this campaign forward.”
Santorum aides did not immediately provide details, but his advisers are looking at upcoming contests in Missouri and Minnesota, as well as Arizona and Colorado.
“I feel very, very good about where we are and where the campaign is going,” the candidate said.
But during the call with Florida voters, Santorum opened his remarks with his daughter, who has a genetic condition known as Trisomy 18. The condition typically proves fatal and Santorum often says his daughter wasn’t expected to live past 12 months.
“She without a doubt has turned the corner,” he said.
At The Villages, this Sunday, Newt Gingrich gave his closing argument on why Florida voters should vote for him on Tuesday in the Florida Primary.
He succinctly summed up the President’s lame tactic of blaming everyone but himself for his failures when he said, ‘Obama’s gone from “yes we can to why we couldn’t.”‘
Gingrich’s appeal to voters to vote for him rather than Romney was a persuasive one: “If we’re going to beat Obama”, he said, “we need to have somebody who can draw a sharp distinction”.
He said that even after billion dollars of ads are over, there is still going to be a huge difference between he and Obama.
Meanwhile, it’s nothing but scorched earth, negative campaigning from Mitt (I so hope this backfires): Buzzfeed: Romney, Eyeing Blowout, Keeps Foot To Newt’s Neck
NAPLES, Florida—Mitt Romney’s goal in Florida is no longer just winning.
After Gingrich Newt 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 not about winning here anymore,” one Romney staffer told BuzzFeed. “It’s about destroying Gingrich — and it’s working.”
After two standout debate performances that put him up 9 points in recent polls, Romney is keeping the pressure on Gingrich, looking to score a blow-out victory of his own here.
To that end, Romney has rolled out a team of surrogates in the Sunshine State to take the fight to Gingrich in person: from Connie Mack (III) and Connie Mack (IV), to Rep. Jason Chaffetz and Sen. John McCain. Romney has also aired a controversial ad featuring Tom Brokaw announcing that Gingrich had been sanctioned by the House.
Today both Macks took the stage before Romney to attack Gingrich’s character, proclaiming that he has a “checkered past with ethics and honesty.”
Romney also launched into his longest attack directed squarely at Gingrich, devoting almost four minutes of his 18 minute stump speech attacking the former Speaker of the House.
Florida? Are you really going let Obama-lite win? Or will you go with the conservative who draws the sharpest contrast with ‘His Imperious Majesty Barack the First, President of America, Protector of the People as Long As They Know Their Place and Belong to The Right Unions, Defender of the Privileges Accrued by Attending the Right University, and Scourge of the Rich If They Don’t Contribute To The Democratic Party’.
MORE Newt News:
Looks like Newt is catching on with the yout.
Mediaite: This Exists: Florida Teens Write ‘Hoot For Newt’ Rap Anthem To Show Support For Gingrich
Legal Insurrection: Romney starts war in Republican Balkans
You know – Romney is not a nice guy.
If he puts half as much effort into attacking ZERO as he has attacking Republicans, we’re going to be in for one hell of a bloody brawl, this Fall. But something tells me that his greatest vitriol is reserved for conservatives – when it comes down to fighting the guy who really deserves a kick in the groin, he’ll suddenly become very careful and reserved – lest he be called a raaaaacist.
Linked by Doug Ross in Larwyn’s Links, thanks!
A gut-wrenching a ordeal for any parent to go through, especially while running for President:
Rick Santorum admitted his three-year-old daughter, Isabella, to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia on Saturday, the campaign said in a statement.
Isabella was born with Trisomy 18, a rare genetic disorder. Most infants with this disorder don’t live to see their first birthday.
The campaign has cancelled Santorum’s Sunday morning Florida events, but said he will return to the Sunshine State as soon as possible.
Here’s a moving video I’m pretty sure I’ve posted before of Rick Santorum talking about his family.
My thoughts and prayers go out to the Santorum family.
Sarah Palin: Beautiful Bella Santorum:
Thank you, Rick and Karen Santorum, for living the Christ-like example of sacrifice and right priorities. Nothing is more precious or important than the life of an innocent child. Our prayers are with Bella, a perfect child in an imperfect world.
God bless the beautiful Santorum family.
- Sarah and Todd Palin and family
What a treat. Gather Us In by Marty Haugen, is nicely performed here by Haugen, and fellow songwriters, David Haas, and Michael Joncas:
This is delightful, too: Performed by the Christian Academy in Japan Handbell Ensemble, spring 2009, with another very nice piece following:
Newt Gingrich is coming back in Florida!
First Coast News reports:
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Florida is up for grabs when it comes to next week’s Republican primary, according to a new Dixie Strategies/First Coast News poll.
According to the new results out today, Newt Gingrich leads over Mitt Romney statewide, but his lead is well within the poll’s1.93 percent margin of error.
In the three days leading up to Thursday’s debate at the University of North Florida, First Coast News and St. Augustine-based Dixie Strategies commissioned the Dixie Strategies/First Coast News Public Opinion Survey, a poll of Republicans throughout the state who described themselves as “likely” voters in the Jan. 31 primary.
When asked, “If the Republican Presidential Primary were held today, for whom would you vote?,” 35.46 percent of the 2,567 likely voters polled selected former House speaker Gingrich, and 35.08 percent selected Romney.
Let’s face it, Gingrich took some fierce body blows after the SC primary. First wife #2 came out in an attempt to torpedo his campaign, and then Mitt hit him with something even more grievous than marital infidelity: Infidelity to the great Ronaldus Magnus. For a while the “not Romney” vote was disoriented – it didn’t know where to go – some even flirted with the idea of going with Romney. But Romney’s slimy campaign tactics keep backfiring, as people wise-up to the gross distortions.
If Newt’s momentum keeps up, he could very well win on Tuesday.
Here’s his Saturday Lincoln Day Dinner speech in West Palm Beach Florida, after Herman Cain’s introduction:
Sarah Palin with Tom Sullivan 1/28/2012 “Be Tough:
Sarah Palin: Newt Best Candidate to Articulate Ideas and Solutions for GOP:
“In a debate Newt Gingrich would clobber Barack Obama…”
This is Granny Jan’s way of pointing out the President’s insincerity when he tells people that he has a thick skin and doesn’t take things personally.
Btw, am I the only one who notices Obama’s foolish-looking, wannabe basketball jock trot EVERY TIME he goes up and down the stairs of Air Force One? What’s that all about?
That’s it, he’s toast. He lied under oath, and Congressional Republicans can prove it, now. A series of emails from the latest DOJ Friday night document drop shows that Holder was informed of the Dec15, 2010 shooting of border patrol agent, Brian Terry, before he was even dead. And he was informed that the weapons used to kill him were from Operation Fast and Furious on that same day.
Read Matthew Boyle’s entire report at The Daily Caller:
These new emails are written evidence that Holder was aware of Fast and Furious about five months before he testified in Congress that he had only learned of the gunwalking program a “few weeks” before a May 3, 2011, House Judiciary Committee appearance.
Holder has since walked back that “few weeks” comment, amending it to more of a “couple months.”
“I did say a ‘few weeks,’” Holder said during a November 8 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, responding to a question from its chairman Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy. “I probably could’ve said ‘a couple of months.’ I didn’t think the term I said, ‘few weeks,’ was inaccurate based on what happened.”
There have also been a series of documents containing the intimate details of Fast and Furious that were sent to Holder all throughout 2010 from several of his senior aides. Holder claims he did not read his memos.
Holder will be appearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform next Thursday, Feb. 2. Though Holder has already testified before Congress three times about matters relating to Fast and Furious — twice before the House Judiciary Committee and once before the Senate Judiciary Committee — this is the first time the House oversight committee will have an opportunity to question Holder himself.
The Associated Press reports an outbreak of mass amnesia at the Justice Department!
In a letter to the committee, the Justice Department said that Wilkinson DOES NOT RECALL a follow-up call with Burke and that Wilkinson DOES NOT RECALL discussing this aspect of the matter with the attorney general. According to the letter, the department has been advised that Burke HAS NO RECOLLECTION of discussing this aspect of the matter with Wilkinson. (Emphases supplied, MBV.)
It should be noted that numerous felonies were committed by Holder and Co’s implementation of Fast and Furious:
These felonies include violations of the Arms Export Control Act, violations of the Kingpin Act, possible RICO violations, violations of the Whistleblower Protection Act, felonies related to the cover-up of Brian Terry’s death at the hands of an FBI criminal informant, including the hiding of the informant’s SKS rifle, and other crimes. Eric Holder’s apparent perjury in front of Congress about when he know of Operation Fast and Furious is the least of the administration’s problems.
Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar, a member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is pushing a resolution of “no confidence” in Holder’s management of the Justice Department.
That resolution, H. Res. 490, provides a course of action for the momentum generated by that hearing.
H. Res. 490 finds that, as a result of “Holder’s failure to properly control, monitor, or establish Operation Fast and Furious, it is likely Mexican nationals were killed or wounded by weapons sold through this scheme” — and that the victims of Holder’s incompetence included U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
It goes on to resolve that the House has “lost confidence” in Holder, which is, basically, a call for him to resign.
Clearly, the Justice Department believes it can stonewall Issa’s inquiry and bull its way through questions concerning its criminal malfeasance. Adoption of the Gosar resolution would make it much, much more difficult to do so.
According to Matthew Boyle, a total of 103 members of the House have either called for Holder’s resignation or firing, or expressed “no confidence” in Holder via a formal House Resolution, or both.
As many of you know, I’ve been tracking the Democrats’ cynical use of the already maxed out race-card, this election season. It should be painfully obvious to almost everybody by now, that they are pushing a racialist narrative in order to inoculate Obama from criticism. Outrageous accusations of racism are hitting us on a daily basis now, and they’re aimed not only at the Republicans seeking office, but at their supporters as well. We are seeing an uptick in the number of these charges all across the media spectrum – TV, radio, newspapers, big liberal blogs, small liberal blogs, and even in comment sections, where the party faithful (either oblivious to how they’re being manipulated, or knowingly playing along), parrot the racialist talking points. Anybody who criticizes Obama on this or that issue is a racist. Anyone who shows disrespect (real or imagined) is a racist. If you think he’s a Socialist, you’re a racist. This is all they’ve got to stem the flow of criticism coming at Dear Leader as our economy, (which should be roaring by now), barely limps along, hamstrung by his policies, and about to make a turn for the worse.
This week, race mongers continued to steam at Newt Gingrich for calling Obama a “food stamp President”, turning what one would think was a race neutral issue - the fact that more Americans than ever are using foodstamps – into a racist insult. Also, it would appear that the racialists are trying to turn Governor Jan Brewer’s confrontation with the President on the tarmac in AZ into a racial incident, as if their disagreement had anything to do with the color of his skin.
An MSNBC news anchor actually argued that the famous photo of Brewer pointing her finger at Obama reminded her of an ugly anti-integration incident during the civil rights era, when nine black students trying to enter the school surrounded by an angry (Democrat) mob.
Please understand that this is just a partial list. It’s meant to give you an idea of what racialist memes were being pushed this week.
Weasel Zippers: MSNBC Yet Again Claims Gingrich Using Racist “Code Words”…
Yahoo News (Destination 2012): Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
In the Weekly Republican Address, Florida Senator Marco Rubio explains the failures of the Obama administration. He contrasts those with the promise of America that he and Republicans believe in, if the government stops doing the wrong things.
Sen. Rubio says, “As you know, earlier this week, President Obama delivered his fourth annual address to Congress. It was an opportunity for the President to talk about his accomplishments over the last three years and to lay out his plans for the year ahead.
“And he missed on both counts.
“You didn’t hear much talk about the success of his Administration—and that’s because there isn’t much.
Via Verum Serum: Video: Obama Touts Investment in EnerDel, Now Bankrupt:
Freedom’s Lighthouse:Great New Ad Depicts Obama as Captain Steering “Ship” of State over a Waterfall –
Via Conservatives With Newt: Newt’s Declaration of American Energy Independence:
This one is short, but sweet – via Moonbattery: Who Is Rachel Maddow?
Via RS McCain: “Tea Party Fight Coming”:
Rush Limbaugh Defends Rick Santorum, Takes Newt To Task:
Via Gateway Pundit: “The Debt Generation”, created by Tennessee College Students.
Last week, in Georgia, birthers had their day in court:
Obama May Be Left Off Of Georgia Ballot For Ineligibility:
Orly Taitz at Obama Ballot Challenge Court Hearing January 26, 2012:
The Birther’s Victory In Atlanta Court:
Cindy Simpson and Alan P. Halbert at The American Thinker: Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks On By:
Under Georgia law, the Secretary of State had properly deferred the ballot challenges to the OSAH for the court’s opinion, and the determination of whether or not Obama’s name will appear on the Georgia ballot ultimately rests with the Secretary.
Regardless of the outcome in Georgia, it appears that Obama has openly shown his disregard for the laws of that state. According to Irion, Obama has also “decided that he is above the Courts, the law, and the Constitution. He has just indicated…that he is not subject to their authority. This is the true story from today, yet almost no one will report it.”
Obama has deliberately turned his back, and walked on by.
Lying is a sin. Lying in order to smear a man’s good name is an abomination. I don’t care if you’re doing it in the interest of saving the Republic or whatever – because you think your guy is the only one who can defeat ‘President Spread-the-Wealth’ in the general. For the Romney crowd to be trying to paint Newt Gingrich as some kind of rabid anti-Reagan crusader when he was anything but – is proof positive that this bitter primary season is going off the rails, already, and some of the candidates and their surrogates need to have their knuckles roundly rapped with a ruler.
I posted an excerpt from Abrams’ piece, yesterday, believing it was written in good faith because he has a sterling reputation. I was confused, because it was flying in the face of everything I knew to be true about Newt, and I have been following his career since the early ’90s. Yesterday, I posted everything that was coming out about Gingrich - the good, bad and ugly – because I’m still trying to make up my mind about supporting him. I’ve updated it several times since it was posted as more pundits weigh in.
Via Legal Insurrection, according to Jeffrey Lord at The American Spectator, that Elliot Abrams piece in National Review, the other day, was a gross distortion of how Gingrich treated Reagan in his speeches.
Yesterday we took note of former Reagan State Department official Elliott Abrams’ piece over at NRO that went after Newt Gingrich on his relationship with Reagan. While voting regularly with Reagan as a young congressman from Georgia, Gingrich, claimed Abrams, “often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides and his policies to defeat Communism.” Abrams then goes on to cite ” a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986.”
Or sort of cites it.
In fact, I’m sorry to say, what appears to be going on here is that Elliott Abrams, a considerably admirable public servant and a very smart guy, has been swept up in the GOP Establishment’s Romney frothings over the rise of Newt Gingrich in the Republican primaries. He is even being accused of trolling for a job in a Romney administration. No way!!!! Really????
What else can possibly explain a piece like the one Abrams penned on a day when Gingrich was being of a mysterious sudden targeted in one hit piece after another for his ties to Reagan? The pieces invariably following the Romney line that Newt had some version of nothing to do with Reagan.
A piece like the one Abrams wrote depends for its success in garnering headlines — which it did — by assuming no one will bother to get into the weeds and do the homework. Usually a safe assumption when dealing with the mainstream media, particularly a mainstream media that, as one with Establishment Republicans, hates Newt Gingrich.
Not so fast.
Due to the diligence of one Chris Scheve of a group called Aqua Terra Strategies in Washington, Mr. Abrams has been caught red-handed in lending himself to this attempted Romney hit job.
Mr. Scheve, you see, is himself a former foreign policy aide to none other than Speaker Newt Gingrich in his days as Speaker. While now out on his own and not working for Gingrich, Scheve is considerably conversant with the Gingrich foreign policy record.
That’s right. Mr. Scheve, incensed at what he felt was a deliberate misrepresentation of his old boss by Abrams and the Romney forces, specifically of Gingrich’s long ago March 21, 1986 “Special Order” speech on the floor of the House, and aware “that most of his [Abrams'] comments had to have been selectively taken from the special order” — Scheve started digging. Since the Congressional Record for 1986 was difficult to obtain electronically, Scheve trekked to the George Mason Library to physically track down the March 21, 1986 edition of the Congressional Record. Locating it, copying and scanning, he was kind enough to send to me.
You need to go to The American Spectator to read the whole thing, but here’s one of the more shameful distortions:
• Abrams quotes Newt for saying in this speech that Reagan’s policies towards the Soviets are “inadequate and will ultimately fail.” This is shameful. Why? Here’s what Newt said — in full and in context:
“The fact is that George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick are right in pointing out the enormous gap between President Reagan’s strong rhetoric, which is adequate, and his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail.”
In other words, Newt was picking up on a concern, prominent in the day and voiced by no less than Reagan’s then ex-UN Ambassador Kirkpatrick, not to mention prominent Reagan supporters Will and Kristol and the late-Mondale aide turned conservative Krauthammer, that Reagan’s anti-Communist policies could be stronger if better institutionalized and not tied as much to the Reagan persona. The entire speech focused on suggestions of how to do just that — to effectively institutionalize Reagan’s conservative beliefs in the government. Is Abrams seriously accusing Jeane Kirkpatrick and George Will of being anti-Reagan? Of spewing “insulting rhetoric” at a president everyone in Washington knew they staunchly supported? Really? Of course not. But in apparent service to the Romney campaign, in order to make Newt Gingrich appear to be doing just that, Abrams apparently quite deliberately cut out the original Gingrich reference to Will, Kirkpatrick, Krauthammer, and Kristol.
What gall Romney has to question the “Reagan conservative” creds of Gingrich, when he himself cravenly backed away from supporting Reagan when he had the opportunity to do so. As Lord says, the attacks on Gingrich are not only not true, but laughably untrue.
I wish I could laugh.
Sarah Palin feels exactly the same way I do – read her latest post on her FB page: Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left
I didn’t want to say it – but she did. Tactics of the left. I’ve saw the headlines this week about the Romneys being Alinsky fans, or something, but I never got around to reading them. Tactics like what we’ve been seeing throughout this campaign, and especially in Florida are pure Alinsky. I almost alluded to it in my post. Something really smells, here.
I hope that this outrageous smear marks a turning point in the campaign. I don’t know if I can find a clothing pin tight enough to block my nasal passages from the stench of this particular candidate when it comes time to vote.
We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.
We will look back on this week and realize that something changed. I have given numerous interviews wherein I espoused the benefits of thorough vetting during aggressive contested primary elections, but this week’s tactics aren’t what I meant. Those who claim allegiance to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment should stop and think about where we are today. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, the fathers of the modern conservative movement, would be ashamed of us in this primary. Let me make clear that I have no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign. As I said at the first Tea Party convention two years ago, I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.
I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.