Video: Newt Slams “Elite Media” For Not Asking About Obama’s Extreme Pro-Infanticide Views

I only caught the last half hour of the debate, so I missed this bea-u-tiful moment when Newt took the MSM to task for not once asking asking Barack Obama about his pro-infanticide position in 2008, reframing the abortion issue by positioning  Obama  as the far-out extremist, he is.

All I can say is THANK -YOU, NEWT. The other guys could learn a thing or two from you.

Btw, I’m not sure Newt’s correct that Obama was never asked about it. Perhaps he was never asked about it during any of the debates. But he was asked by CBN’s David Brody in August 2008, and naturally Obama shamelessly  lied his way through his answer while calling the National Right to Life Committee and whistleblower, Jill Stanek liars.

From the New York Sun, dated August 18: Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported “was not the bill that was presented at the state level.” His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate….

Little did Obama know his own words would so quickly condemn him. He admitted what he did “defies common sense and it defies imagination.” In fact, it was heinous.

He also sat down with Obama-friendly Pastor, Rick Warren at the Saddleback Faith Forum, where he – not surprisingly – hemmed, hawed, and yes, shamelessly lied through his answers, there, too.

CNN did actually do a fair report in late June of 2008 about Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive Act in IL:

As I noted in a previous post, it took people like Bill Bennett to point out that the 2003 IL bill had the same exact wording as the one passed unanimously in the US Senate….  Carville had no coherent response to that. He instead took the opportunity to slam Rick Santorum several times for being an “extremist”.

Ironically, Politifact concurs with Bennett 100% in a post about Santorum’s  “pants on fire lie”  at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition forum in March 2011. He had said,  “Any child born prematurely, according to the president, in his own words, can be killed.”

Santorum misspoke. He should have said “left to die”, rather than ” be killed”. He’s guilty of hyperbole.

The meat of the post is where it deals with Obama’s slimy, weaselly, hide-saving whopper:

The federal legislation (the law Santorum sponsored in the Senate) became law in 2002. The federal legislation included a so-called “neutrality clause,” which said the law would not change the legal status or legal rights of anyone prior to being “born alive.” Abortion rights advocates said the clause was necessary to make sure the bill would not affect current abortion laws.

Obama said as far back as 2004 that he would have supported the federal bill and that he would have supported the Illinois versions if they had included a similar neutrality clause. The laws the full Illinois Senate voted on in 2001 and 2002 did not have such a clause, but 2003 is a different story.

The National Right to Life Committee said during the 2008 campaign that the Illinois bill of 2003 did have a neutrality clause. The committee said Obama subsequently misrepresented the bill. Obama responded to that charge in an August 2008 interview.

“I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying,” Obama said. “I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported, which was to say that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion.”

Back in 2008, we requested documentation from the Illinois State Archives about the 2003 bill and found that it did have a neutrality clause, as the National Right to Life Committee said. (The clause was added at the committee level, and those records are not available online. But we have posted the documents we received via fax from the State Archives here).

But Santorum’s the one with his pants on fire.

Whatever. If they caught the vapors over “be killed”, wait til Politifact hears  Gingrich’s “legalized infanticide” comment.

SEE ALSO:

CNS News: All 4 Republicans Cheered for Their Responses to ‘Birth Control’ Question: Obama’s the ‘Extremist’

Maggie’s Notebook: Gingrich: Second Best Line of Debate: Stupid We Can’t Protect Border: Failure of Will Failure of Enforcement

Dan Riehl at Big Government: CNN Caught Influencing Debate On Obama’s Behalf:

Commentator Dick Morris picked up on it in a series of Tweets. It was so obvious, the Republican audience booed it and those looking in from home most likely understood what was taking place, as well.

Asked CNN’s John King, “Which candidate believes in birth control and why?”

Dick Morris: Birth control is a phony issue injected by Obama to try to eclipse economic issues

Romney is vindicating my theory that the birth control stuff by Obama was part of a big play and that Stephanopoulis tried to get Mitt on record on birth control

After getting hammered by all the candidates in their answers, (most notably Newt) Obama should probably be rethinking the strategy.

Does he really want his heinous opposition to BAIPA to be put under the microscope, again?

Linked By Doug Ross and Maggie’s Notebook, thanks!

Video: Religious Liberty: Obamacare’s First Casualty

The Foundry reports:

To date, seven lawsuits have been filed in response to this mandate, and those legal actions are but the tip of the iceberg of opposition to the Administration’s despotic directive.

The controversy began last August when the White House announced the anti-conscience policy as an interim final rule. Individuals and leaders from various faith backgrounds, including Roman Catholic, Jewish, evangelical, and Protestant traditions spoke out, prompting President Obama to announce an “accommodation” in response. But the proposal announced at a February 10 press conference would have done nothing to resolve the moral problem at the heart of the matter. In fact, more than 300 leaders to signed a letter deeming the gesture “unacceptable.”

The latest Rasmussen national telephone survey found that 38 percent of likely voters think health insurance companies should be required by law to cover the morning after pill without co-payments or other charges to the patient.  50 percent of Americans disagree and oppose this requirement, and 13 percent are undecided.

LifeNews reports:

…more than a dozen state attorneys general have signed onto a joint letter Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning started coordinating  against the controversial Obama mandate requiring religious employers to cover birth control and drugs that can cause abortions

Bruning has contacted each of his colleagues in 49 states and has already been joined by a dozen, including South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. Together, the three lawmakers have co-signed a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis over the Obama mandate.

Also, the largest Catholic pro-life group and Catholic television station have filed suit against the new Obama mandate that forces religious employers like them to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs in employee health insurance. The EWTN Global Catholic Network filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama against the Department of Health & Human Services, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and other government agencies seeking to stop the imposition of the anti-conscience mandate as well as asking the court for a declaratory judgment that the mandate is unconstitutional.

Priests for Life, a New York based international pro-life organization of Catholic clergy and laity, filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration in an effort to seek injunctive relief from impending regulations that would require the organization to pay for employee health insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization.

***

…the Republican presidential candidates had been taking verbal swings at Obama for imposing the original mandate on religious employers, which is not popular in the latest public opinion poll and which even some Democrats oppose.

Congressman Steve Scalise has led a bipartisan letter with 154 co-signers calling on the Obama Administration to reverse its mandate forcing religious organizations to include drugs that can cause abortion and birth control in the health care plans of their employees.

The original mandate was so egregious that even the normally reliably liberal and pro-abortion USA Today condemned it in an editorial titled, “Contraception mandate violates religious freedom.”

Meanwhile, Catholic clergy need to learn how to frame this debate because so far, too many are getting it totally WRONG, as Richard Viguerie and Mark Fitzgibbons  at The American Thinker point out:

In response to the Obama administration mandate requiring Catholic institutions to pay for insurance covering contraception, U.S. Catholic bishops announced that they will not “obey” that “law.”

The bishops have gotten it wrong and backwards, and in doing so have yielded the moral high ground that is rightfully theirs.

Catholic clerics and even lay leaders are allowing the left to bait and switch this issue into a debate about women’s health and their right to use contraception – not what this is about, at all.

Obama’s transformation of America is based entirely in what some have described as lawlessness.  That, however, is an inapt term.  One may be lawless without causing harm to others.  What President Obama is doing is violating our paramount law and, in doing so, causing harm to our individual, religious, and economic liberties.

When someone violates the law in ways that cause harm to others or the rights of others, that person is a lawbreaker susceptible to society’s punishment.  The law is intended to prohibit one person from harming others, and to punish those who violate this basic precept of civil society.

Obama is a lawbreaker unparalleled in American history not merely by the number of times he has broken the law, but by the number of victims of his lawbreaking.  While violations of our paramount law, the Constitution, do not come with the penalties of punishment like violations of other laws, that does not diminish the lawbreaking nature of Obama’s actions.

Catholic leaders have failed to approach the situation the right way.  Oh, sure, many have said that the contraception mandate is a violation of religious liberty.  But by saying they will not “obey” the contraceptive mandate “law,” they have acknowledged a false premise.  The mandate is not law.  It is a violation of law.  You cannot disobey a violation of the law.

This is not a situation of “render unto Caesar.”  Caesar was the law.  In the United States, we have the Constitution.  From that paramount law, all other laws to be obeyed flow.  But the Constitution is unlike all other laws governing the people.  The Constitution was written to govern government itself.

Once we begin to approach all situations from that perspective, our outlook and our responses change.

Catholic leaders assuredly want to follow the law and the dictates of their faith and consciences.  Many Catholic leaders are by nature non-confrontational.  However, history has been unkind to Catholic leaders who failed to confront wrongdoing and address it in appropriately moral but tactically aggressive ways.

Ann Barnhardt makes the same point and is a bit  more blunt about it:

People, you don’t ask the President of the United States OR ANYONE ELSE to “let” you practice your faith. Obama has NO POWER whatsoever to keep you from practicing your faith, or doing anything else, for that matter. Listen up you whipped sheep:

NO ONE CAN MAKE YOU DO ANYTHING.

Nope. Obama has NO POWER to force Catholics, or Catholic hospitals, or anyone else to do ANYTHING against their will – and if you don’t get this through your sheep skulls, we’re dead. You fools are playing right into their hands by going on defense and thinking that they have power over you that simply does not exist. I hear Dolan, and the bishops, and everyone else talking about Obama “forcing us to violate our consciences” and “forcing us to do this” and “forcing us to do that”. Speak for yourself, sheep. THE ONLY PERSON WHO CAN VIOLATE YOUR CONSCIENCE IS YOU!!!! And make no mistake, you WILL be held to account if you capitulate to this evil. You will answer personally for your stupidity, your cowardice and your faithlessness at your Particular Judgment if you don’t stand and fight this obvious satanic evil. It isn’t as if you don’t have the example of not just the Christian martyrs, but also the men who died for freedom in secular wars and campaigns. How any person, most especially an American, could not understand this is absolutely ENRAGING to me.

There can be no “compromise” between the Catholic Church and Obama administration on this one. One side wins – one side retreats. If it turns out to be the Catholic side doing the retreating, well – it’s pretty much over for the American Catholic Church, which, of course is the goal of the militant secularists running the show, right now.

SEE ALSO:

NRO: ‘Done Compromising’: Obama’s Government by Fiat:

In the eyes of the White House, the sham compromise on insurance payments was a sop to the serfs, granted by the magnanimity of the president, but in no way designed to derail the ideological objective of the policy. If we let this stand, if we buckle before such bureaucratic capriciousness, then we will have taken another significant step toward the imposition of government rule by fiat, and not by the will of the people. And once that victory has been secured, then the small steps will become larger and come faster and will not cease until liberty is defined solely by government officials. Or until they are opposed by a will just as strong and unyielding.

Santorum and Good v.s. Evil

When I was 13 years old, my Canadian grandmother told me something or other about “the Debbil”,  and I laughed in her face. See, at 13 years old  – I knew everything. There is no literal Satan, for cripes sake. Grammy’s gone senile. Sheesh.

It’s been said that  “the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” Well, all these years later, this girl believes he exists. I don’t laugh at the idea of a Devil,  any more than I laugh at the idea of Jesus. And no, I’m not going to go tell you all about  the spiritual journey that led me to this conclusion – that’s my business -  but trust me, it’s not just a simple minded faith, and  it’s not the faith I’ve come to just because it happens to be what I was brought up to believe. The road has been lush and full of life in places,  rough and dry in others,  but  I know there’s a God. I know there’s a Devil. Know.

God is Love, and the Devil is pure hatred and lies. Good v.s Evil. I believe in it. And I believe that the match-up between Rick Santorum and Barack Obama is about as stark a contrast between good v.s. evil that we’re likely to see this election cycle.  Obama’s governed by malice and  seems hellbent on knocking this country down a few pegs. If we don’t win in 2012 – it’s over for us.

I don’t know about Romney – he seems like a decent family guy, but  his flip flops make it hard to know what he really believes. Conservatism seems like a second language to him. His scorched earth campaign is making enemies and burning bridges – (Did his campaign really pay hacks to take down hundreds of Santorum signs at a Michigan event?!) He doesn’t connect with conservatives – maybe he doesn’t trust us any more than we trust him.

Newt Gingrich is a different sort of animal. He knows the language, alright. He’s either the most brilliant, cynical and manipulative phoney who’s ever come down the pike, or he really is a reformed Christian conservative, like he says he is. We all know Newt’s a great debater, but how much of it is heart-felt and how much is boob-bait for the Bubbas? I always wonder with Gingrich, although I want to believe him.

I don’t wonder with Santorum. I get him. He’s a smart, solid, conservative with the depth, experience, and gravitas necessary to hold the highest office in the land. When he says that the ‘Pursuit of Happiness’ clause in the Declaration of Independence, doesn’t mean a hedonistic pursuit of “stuff”, he’s speaking to my Catholic heart about the evils of crass materialism – something all too rampant in our society, and something every thoughtful parent frets about when witnessing the selfish, stupid, shallow, and crude pop culture influencing his/her children.

I understand him when he talks about good and evil - so do millions of other Americans. Maybe, to sophisticated elites  (not only on the coasts, but everywhere, including our smallest towns), the reaction is more like my 13 year old self. (LOL – who still believes in that shite)… But nobody can honestly make the case that Rick Santorum wants to start a theocracy. Nobody can make the case that he wants to ban contraception. Nobody can make the case that he hates gays. All they can do is demagogue those issues. And they will demagogue those issues. They can’t wait to. That’s why the organized left is pushing his candidacy – they think those are winning issues for them….

Are they?

They are if we let them be.

Are we at a point in time in this country when an orthodox Christian or Jew need not apply to the highest office in the land, and their values voters are no longer valued?

Does the Republican Party think that without touching on the cultural decay of our country, all at the hands of liberals, they will be able to win in November? Perhaps. I have seen the friendliness of local Republicans toward liberal Democrats who have said, “I used to be a Republican, until they started in with the social issues.” It is as if the Republican Party would rather have liberals in the party to replace the value voters.

It seems to me that the attacks on Rick Santorum for actually naming the culprits, is being thrown overboard, for the Republican Party’s asinine attempt to bring liberals and neo-liberals, (Ron Paul types) into the party with seats at the table and notebooks in hand.

Maybe Obama was right – we’re no longer a Christian nation….

Some people are coming to his defense, however:

Dan Riehl says These Faith-based Attacks On Santorum Are Repulsive And Un-American:

Santorum In 2008: Satan is Systematically Destroying America

In 2008, Sen. Rick Santorum spoke at Ave Maria University and said that Satan is destroying academia, politics, and the Protestant Church.

The full speech is available here and here is a contemporaneous press release by the university, excerpts below. Santorum has already made it quite clear, he respects the separation of church and state. While any politician must draw on their values in political decision-making, he has also said he does not believe in imposing his religious views on others through acts of government. Ethically, morally and constitutionally, the current faith-based attacks on Santorum are repulsive and completely un-American. The people employing them should be ashamed.

Sarah Palin called out the MSM on Hannity, Tuesday night: The Right Scoop: MSM makes me sick! They are hypocrites!

Palin says that the American people would be disappointed if Santorum decided to cower to the media and stop talking about good and evil and America’s Judeo-Christian foundation. She encouraged him to stand strong. But she also said his surrogates need to defend him and call out the MSM on their hypocrisy. And she blasted the MSM for not saying anything when Obama used the Bible to justify his increase in taxes, yet heavily criticize Santorum for talking about good and evil.

Santorum, himself, is trying to stay on message:

When pressed further if he believed Satan was attacking America, as he said in his 2008 speech, Santorum insisted the subject is not on the minds of voters.

“Guys these are questions that are not relevant to what’s being discussed in America today,” Santorum said.

“What we’re talking about in America today is trying to get America growing. That’s what my speeches are about. That’s we’re going to talk about in this campaign,” he added.

With Santorum now leading several national polls and moving within striking distance of two game-changing victories in next week’s Arizona and Michigan primaries, the rising GOP contender has seen his recent speeches subjected to increased scrutiny.

In a speech to a small crowd of supporters in Phoenix Tuesday evening, Santorum said he can handle the pressure.

“I’ll defend everything I say,” Santorum said.

After the speech, Santorum told reporters he’s pleased with the state of his campaign, disclosing that he’s raised more than $6 million this month.

He also commented on the latest Washington parlor game: whether the race for the GOP nomination could result in a contested convention in Tampa later this year.

“I feel very good about our chances of winning this election. Feel really good,” Santorum said.

He should feel good about AZ: Rick Santorum wins straw poll in Arizona’s largest county:

Former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) on Tuesday overwhelmingly won the Maricopa County Republican Partypresidential straw poll,

a sign that the tide may be turning against former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R) among party insiders in a key primary state where he had previously appeared to be on course for an easy win.

Santorum took first place in the informal Lincoln Day Luncheon survey with 230 votes. Romney placed a distant second with the votes of 71 participants. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) took third with 35 votes and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) placed fourth with 22 votes.

The survey comes a week out from Arizona’s Feb. 28 primary. Santorum addressed the Maricopa County gathering Tuesday afternoon and is slated to hold a rally in the same Phoenix venue later this evening.

Maricopa is by far the most populous of Arizona’s 15 counties, home to the cities of Phoenix, Mesa and Glendale.

In the 2008 Republican primary, it comprised about 330,000 of the roughly 514,000 votes cast in the entire state, or 64 percent.

In that race, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — who placed first in the state — won 167,717 votes in Maricopa County, or 48 percent, while Romney placed second with 116,995 votes, or 34 percent.

News of Santorum’s straw poll win also comes as a new CNN/Time/Opinion Research poll shows the former senator now within the margin of victory against Romney in the Grand Canyon State.

Rick Santorum could very well be our candidate. Those  of you who say he’s a big government conservative, and find his social views distasteful, I know you are motivated to attack him out the same horrific fear that we all have. The ungodly specter of another four years of Obama in office. I understand that. But when you continue to attack Santorum, rather than prop up your own candidate, you are serving the other side at this point. Rush is absolutely right to not back a candidate, yet. The chaos,  uncertainty and  infighting going on all around us is repressing the vote. We’re seeing  lower voter turnout in the primaries, this year, because of it. Different conservative factions are becoming disgruntled…some folks darkly mutter that they won’t vote in the general election if so and so wins the primary. That’s crazy talk, and the crazy is being fed by a constant stream of political  mud-slinging…..by own own side.

It’s time for Republican pundits to chill… Support your candidate in every way possible, of course, but stop aiding and abetting team Obama. I’m sure it’s not intentional, but that’s what you’re doing when you write post after post slamming one of these candidates.

Kindly knock it off.

***

Keep your eye on the ball: Obama: ‘When Congress Refuses to Act, Joe and I Are Going to Act’.

Yes, he said it again, and he means it. My God, if he’s willing act like this during an election year, what would an Obama second term look like?

RELATED:

This story illustrates the type of people we’re up against:

“If I ever see this girl, I will kill her. That’s a promise.”

Those precious words of tolerance were typed by an individual commenting on YouTube about a 14-year-old girl who recently, and publicly, defended traditional marriage.

From a Feb. 21 post on the website of TFP Student Action, a group that “defends traditional moral values on college campuses”

Also – a blast from the past on the issue that raised immediate red flags about Obama’s core decency for me, when I first heard about it in 1/2008: CNN: Barack Obama’s opposition to Born Alive Act:

Watch the video. Obama lied when he said that he voted against the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act because it somehow compromised Roe v Wade. The MSM dutifully repeated his lie without fact-checking it – it took people like Bill Bennett to point out that it was the same exact bill as the one passed unanimously in the US Senate….  Carville had no coherent response, but took the opportunity to slam Rick Santorum several times for being an “extremist”.

There is no reason why we should be losing to these vicious, transparently dishonest swine.

Good vs. Evil.

Linked by Michelle Malkin, and Pundette, thanks!