There was an error in this gadget

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Santorum in his own words

Santorum claims to be a Christian but just take a minute and digest his own words in the video below. I am sorry but a real christian would not be chomping at the bit to kill people, no matter who they were. I challenge any reader who claims to be a Christian and a Santorum supporter to justify what he is saying with scripture. God help us if this man is elected. The "blow-back" that America would experience would be great. We would be far less safe with Santorum as president. At one point I thought that Santorum would at least be better then Romney. I don't think that anymore. I really don't see any other choice then Ron Paul. If you vote for anyone else, mark my words, it will just be more of the same.

The only area where I can find common ground with Santorum is how science is tought in the classroom.  Teach science.  Don't teach the theory of evolution as science.  Maybe, this should also be left to the states though. Something he would not agree with.

America, when did we lose our way? When did we cease being that city on a hill? Why are we despised by the world? Not because we are a Christian nation, not because we are successful, not because we are free, not because we have a great country and constitution. They hate us because we have forgotten our roots and our founders words. 9/11 would  never have happened if we would have followed our founders advice. We get into to many problems when a President starts acting on what he personally feels and what he wants to do and the direction he wants to see the country go.

Our founders had it right; George Washington said in his farewell address "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world". Thomas Jefferson was no less clear when he said; "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."

We are going in the opposite direction America.  Wake up before it is to late.

- Michael

Are Ron Paul's views the most biblically based of all the candidates?

Nationally-known Christian Producer Justin Machacek Endorses Ron Paul for President
Describes Dr. Paul’s principles and ideals as “biblically based” and joins the campaign’s active ‘Evangelicals for Ron Paul’ nationwide coalition

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul was endorsed today by nationally-known Christian broadcast professional and senior producer Justin Machacek.

Justin Machacek is an Emmy award winning television producer, independent faith-based filmmaker, and promotional creative. He serves as the president of Reel Deal Productions, Inc. in Fort Worth, Texas and as the Senior On Air Producer for one of the largest Christian media networks in the world. Justin has worked closely with many of the most prominent Christian ministries and faith-based media organizations in America, is a devout Christian, and church attendee.

In making his endorsement, Mr. Machacek issued the following statement:

“With looming economic uncertainty, fear of security threats from around the world, and massive government expansion, there is no better time than now for Ron Paul’s leadership. His moral character and consistent record prove that Ron Paul embodies the ideal candidate for Christian conservative voters.

“As the founders intended, many of Dr. Paul’s principles and ideals are biblically based. They include integrity regarding the oath of office (Eccl. 5:5), sound money based on what the Bible calls ‘just scales,’ support of Israel and her sovereignty (Gen. 12:3), eliminating debt (Rom. 13:8), noninterventionist foreign policy based on the Golden Rule (Luke 6:31), and a firm commitment to promoting religious freedom.

“I especially appreciate Ron Paul’s unwillingness to exploit his devout Christian faith for political gain. Although he is a devout Protestant and leaves the campaign trail most Sundays for church and family, he doesn’t flaunt or pander his religion.

“I believe Ron Paul is a true leader: honest, sincere, and inspirational. I am proud to endorse Ron Paul for President in 2012 and to help bring his constitutional approach and leadership to the GOP and America.”

As a function of this announcement, Mr. Machacek is a member of the “Evangelicals for Ron Paul” national advisory board.

Article Link

"Is the Electoral College Outdated?"

YouTube description:

November 4, 2011
"Is the Electoral College Outdated?"
First Principles on First Fridays lecture featuring John Fortier
The Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship
227 Massachusetts Avenue, NE | Washington, D.C. 20002

"The Global Threat of the Muslim Brotherhood"

YouTube description:

Andrew C. McCarthy
October 7, 2011
"The Global Threat of the Muslim Brotherhood"

First Principles on First Fridays lecture featuring Andrew C. McCarthy
The Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship
227 Massachusetts Avenue, NE | Washington, D.C. 20002

Obama launches ‘Truth Teams’

from yesterday

Sen. Rand Paul Calls For The Release Of Detained Americans In Egypt

Sen. Rand Paul sends a message to Egypt after the illegal detention of 19 Americans.

Senator Rand Paul at CPAC 2012

Sorry, I missed this last week. - Reggie

Media Matters manipulating headlines?

from yesterday

Daily Caller online editor Vince Coglianese on investigation

Very Very Best Chance

new Rick Santorum ad

Preschooler’s Homemade Lunch Replaced with Cafeteria “Nuggets”

What the heck?!?! Are we free or do we live under tyranny? - Reggie

State agent inspects sack lunches, forces preschoolers to purchase cafeteria food instead

RAEFORD, North Carolina — A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.

The girl’s mother — who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation — said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.

Read the full article

Senator Sessions Discusses Astounding Gimmicks In President's Budget

from yesterday

Sessions To Obama Budget Chief: Will You Resign If Your Statement Is Proven False?

YouTube description: WASHINGTON, February 14—At a Budget Committee hearing today, OMB Acting Director Jeffrey Zients refused, under direct questioning from Sen. Sessions, to answer whether the president's budget would increase spending over current-law levels. The White House has repeatedly claimed that their budget contains $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. In truth, the budget plan submitted by the president would increase spending by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years relative to current projections. Over that time, the federal government will spend a total of $47 trillion, up from $45.5 trillion projected under the already enacted Budget Control Act—producing by the president's own projections an additional $11.2 trillion in gross debt.

NOTE: To view a detailed breakdown of proposed spending increases using numbers from President Obama's own budget, please click here:

Chuck Norris: Rick Santorum supported Mitt Romney

“Walker, Texas Ranger” star Chuck Norris isn’t impressed with the latest surge by Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum in the Republican primary race.

Mr. Norris endorsed former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in December, and is shocked to see Mr. Santorum so critical of rival Mitt Romney four years after he “supported the flip flopping Massachusetts Moderate” during the 2008 presidential election.

“Why an alleged conservative like Santorum would fight for the flip-flopping Massachusetts moderate on the presidential campaign trail, especially in light of the fact that Huckabee and even McCain were running then with a much clearer conservative record, I will never know,” wrote Mr. Norris in an op-ed article for World Net Daily Monday.

During the 2008 election, Mr. Norris endorsed former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who became a serious contender to win the nomination after winning the 2008 Iowa caucuses that year.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Norris has endorsed Mr. Gingrich this year, and Mr. Huckabee actually asked Mr. Gingrich to remove him from an ad he was running leading up to the Florida Republican primary election. Mr. Norris does not mention that in his article slamming Mr. Romney Monday, but he does bring up some questions about Mr. Santorum’s recent comments slamming Mr. Romney.

Read More>>

First They Came for Rush and Lou Dobbs

The Catholic Bishops relearn the lesson of Pastor Niemöller and the totalitarian mindset. Will the UCC?

"….in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside." -- John F. Kennedy, America's First Catholic President, in his Inaugural Address

First they came for Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs.

And the Catholic bishops did not speak out.

Now they are coming for the Catholic bishops.

Who will speak out now?

Not, alas, the United Church of Christ.

Let's go back into recent history -- 2009 to be exact.

It was a story that involved the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in a blatant, full-on attack on the right of free speech and a free press -- the First Amendment. As I wrote here, here, here, here, here, and here three years ago, the Catholic bishops had managed to get their denomination involved in the leadership of a group calling themselves So We Might See.

What was So We Might See? It was presented by one of its prime sponsors, the United Church of Christ (alas my own denomination, of which more in a bit) as a group of the lofty like-minded religious simply concerned with violence in the media. Specifically, seven major denominations were involved. They were listed by the group as the United Church of Christ, U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops, the Islamic Society of North America, United Methodist Communications, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and "several other faith groups."

In fact, under the guise of stamping out "hate speech," this instantly emerged as an effort -- partially funded by a $40,000 grant from the George Soros funded Media Democracy Fund -- to intimidate conservatives in the media through the Federal Communications Commission, when not getting them off the air completely. It turned out then-FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, previously a longtime Senate Democratic staffer, had even traveled to New York to meet privately on September 30, 2009, with the members of So We Might See before delivering a speech to an event sponsored by the liberal leadership of the UCC. A mere 16 days later the UCC had a petition going, in the name of So We Might See and its seven denominational members, which was to be sent to the Federal Communications Commission. It was a petition that featured one name and one name only.

Guesses please? Anyone? Anyone?

Very good! Yes! It was Rush Limbaugh, of course.

So We Might See went about this task by presenting to the FCC -- mind you this was after a closed door meeting between the group and a left-leaning FCC Commissioner -- with a Petition for Inquiry into Hate Speech in the Media and Request to update report on The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes which you can find here. In which they preposterously accused Rush of being responsible for the beating of two Mexican men by four American teenagers. Why? Because he opposed illegal immigration in a broadcast.

Literature accompanying all of this went on to specifically call for getting Lou Dobbs off of television, (the "Drop Dobbs" campaign) as well as Glenn Beck, while targeting Bill O'Reilly and Michael Savage by name. It took little imagination to understand that there was an implied threat to other TV and radio conservatives like Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Fox News as well.

There was a considerable blowback from outraged Rush listeners and fans of the others when the news of my investigation, replete with links to original sources, appeared here in The American Spectator. The blowback hit the sponsors -- the coalition of seven major religious denominations -- like a tornado. The effort as presented effectively collapsed.

Media Matters memo called for hiring private investigators ‘to look into the personal lives’ of Fox employees

A little after 1 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2009, Karl Frisch emailed a memo to his bosses, Media Matters for America founder David Brock and president Eric Burns. In the first few lines, Frisch explained why Media Matters should launch a “Fox Fund” whose mission would be to attack the Fox News Channel.

“Simply put,” Frisch wrote, “the progressive movement is in need of an enemy. George W. Bush is gone. We really don’t have John McCain to kick around any more. Filling the lack of leadership on the right, Fox News has emerged as the central enemy and antagonist of the Obama administration, our Congressional majorities and the progressive movement as a whole.”

“We must take Fox News head-on in a well funded, presidential-style campaign to discredit and embarrass the network, making it illegitimate in the eyes of news consumers.”

What Frisch proceeded to suggest, however, went well beyond what legitimate presidential campaigns attempt. “We should hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff,” he wrote.

After that, Frisch argued, should come the legal assault: “We should look into contracting with a major law firm to study any available legal actions that can be taken against Fox News, from a class action law suit to defamation claims for those wronged by the network. I imagine this would be difficult but the right law firm is bound to find some legal ground for us to take action against the network.”

Frisch went on to call for “an elaborate shareholder campaign” against News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News: “This can take many forms, from a front group of shareholders, to passing resolutions at shareholder meetings or massive demonstrations are [sic] shareholder meetings.”

Given the leaky nature of electronic communications, it’s unusual to see the term “front group” used approvingly in office email. Yet Frisch continued: “We should also hire a team of trackers to stake out private and public events with Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors and senior network/corporate staff.”

Preparing his bosses for the potential cost, he added that, “If we need to buy tickets for events that these people will be speaking at, so be it.”

The memo goes on to suggest new and unusual ways to harass Fox News: “detailed opposition research” on the network’s staff and executives, attacks against Fox News employees on Facebook and other social media, mailing anti-Fox News literature to their homes and placing “yard signs and outdoor advertising in their neighborhoods.”

At one point, Frisch suggests putting “a mole inside of” the network.

The cloak-and-dagger tactics seemed to make Frisch jumpy. “Fox is likely to retaliate,” he wrote. Media Matters should find “ways to protect the privacy of our employees and the security of our office.”

David Brock apparently took this warning seriously. By the next year, Media Matters had two security guards in the office, and Brock’s personal assistant was carrying a holstered Glock to protect him.

Monday, February 13, 2012

Republicans see need to give Paul a voice

Rep. Ron Paul and his loyal band of supporters were uncharacteristically missing from the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington last week — and high-profile Republican leaders say the party can’t afford for that to happen in November if the GOP is to win the White House.

They pointed to, and applauded, the 76-year-old Texan’s unique ability to attract young, independent and first-time voters, giving his campaign a consistent level of energy and enthusiasm that is sometimes lacking in the other presidential camps.

“It would be a dramatic error for the winning campaign to disavow Ron Paul’s contributions to the process,” said Al Cardenas, chairman of the American Conservative Union, which hosted the CPAC gathering. “I am a firm believer that Ron Paul has found a niche and found a movement that he wants to have a voice. It may not be a majority movement, but it’s a growing movement. So, if we are smart, he’s going to have his fair opportunity at convention, and a platform committee to have his points of views discussed and expressed.

He added, “Any winning campaign of the nomination, if it is not his, should embrace him and his followers if we are going to win in November.”

Mr. Paul’s supporters say he is the most genuine candidate and offers a unique brand of politics that doesn’t fit neatly into the Democratic-Republican duopoly that has ruled Washington for decades. Before it was chic on Capitol Hill, they say, he defended the U.S. Constitution, advocated for individual liberty and pushed for limited government through less spending and less taxation.

Read More>>

Ron Paul: Uniting All People

Americans for Prosperity Responds to President Obama's Budget

President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2013 Budget

Just another Tax-and-Spend Proposal

On February 13, President Obama released his budget proposal for the fiscal year starting October 1, 2012.  Just like every budget he has offered, this proposal spends too much, taxes too much, uses budget and accounting gimmicks, and fails to address the nation’s biggest challenges.  Last year, the President’s budget was so unserious that the Senate rejected it 97-0; not even a single member of his own party supported the plan.  This year he hasn’t done much better.

Spends Too Much, Taxes Too Much:  Once again the President produced a budget that never balances, creates trillion-dollar yearly deficits and uses campaign rhetoric instead of pro-growth tax policy.
  • The President’s budget envisions over $3.8 trillion in federal spending in 2013.  Over the next five years, his budget runs up $20.6 trillion in government spending.
  • The budget calls for $1.9 trillion in higher taxes while the economy struggles to regain its footing.  Economists of all stripes agree that raising taxes during a recession is bad policy, but the President is more concerned with campaign rhetoric about taxing the rich than using proven policies to restore economic growth.  What’s more, raising taxes only gives politicians more money to spend; it will only undermine efforts to control federal spending.
  • Even with all these new taxes, the President foresees a $1.3 trillion deficit for this year; the forth straight year with a trillion-dollar deficit.  For 2013, Obama's budget projects a deficit of $901 billion, but if we strip out the budget’s unrealistic assumptions, yet another trillion-dollar-plus deficit is nearly certain.
  • The President uses rosy estimates to make his budget look better than it really is.  The past three years the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued an analysis of the President’s budget.  They found the deficits were actually 20 percent higher than the President claimed.
Budget Tricks and Accounting Gimmicks:

Read the full column

A Nation of Takers

Government policy is making welfare more profitable than work

Americans pride themselves on being a self-reliant people. We know that the freedom to make our own fortune sets us apart from the people of many other nations. It’s what has drawn to our shores generations of immigrants - men and women risking their lives to live a life in which they, not the government, are in charge.

But with each passing year, that portrait flies more and more in the face of reality. The numbers plainly show that we are becoming a people dependent not on ourselves, but on government. We are evolving into a nation of takers, not givers.

The numbers in question come in the form of a new Heritage Foundation report, the 2012 Index of Dependence on Government. You don’t have to read far before you realize that the days of Horatio Alger stories are behind us.

Start with the most basic facts: More than 67.3 million Americans rely on assistance from Washington for everything from food, shelter and clothing to college tuition and health care. These benefits cost federal taxpayers roughly $2.5 trillion annually.

About those taxpayers: Even as the number of Americans receiving federal aid rises, the number of federal taxpayers continues to drop: Nearly half of all Americans - 49.5 percent - don’t pay any federal income taxes. If that strikes you as an equation that will spell trouble down the road, you have a better grasp of the problem than many politicians have right now.

The Empire Of Liberty: Thomas Jefferson, Ron Paul And The Sacred Fire Of Freedom

Who stands in opposition to “the [central] bank of the United States,

public debt, a navy, a standing army, American manufacturing, federally funded improvement of the interior, the role of a world power, military glory, an extensive foreign ministry, loose construction of the Constitution, and subordination of the states to the federal government”? Hint, these words were not written about Rep. Ron Paul.

This is Garry Wills’s description of Thomas Jefferson. The elite political class looked with disdain, and now looks with a certain measure of bemusement, upon Dr. Paul. Paul represents the re-emergence of a great American tradition. That tradition reawakens in the person of Ron Paul, who has a fair claim to be our era’s Thomas Jefferson. As Jefferson’s heir he commands deep respect if not always (as in the case of this Supply Side, Hamiltonian, writer) complete fealty.

One of the keys to America’s greatness is how George Washington was able to harness both the great centralizing, industrializing forces represented by Alexander Hamilton together with the great decentralizing, Arcadian forces represented by Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton’s positions prevailed, tilting America toward a stronger central government. Jefferson, affectionately enshrined in our national memory, has a Memorial. As for Hamilton, “Reader, if you seek his monument, look around you.”

The Hamiltonian version of America is ascendant. Yet the Jeffersonian streak of subsidiarity lives on, is essential to America’s identity and greatness, and is a rising force. It has found its most powerful exponent since, at least, Goldwater in the person of Ron Paul.

Read More>>

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations

This is the first in a Daily Caller investigative series on Media Matters For America. Daily Caller reporters Alex Pappas and Will Rahn contributed to this report.

David Brock was smoking a cigarette on the roof of his Washington, D.C. office one day in the late fall of 2010 when his assistant and two bodyguards suddenly appeared and whisked him and his colleague Eric Burns down the stairs.

Brock, the head of the liberal nonprofit Media Matters for America, had told friends and co-workers that he feared he was in imminent danger from right-wing assassins and needed a security team to keep him safe.

The threat he faced while smoking on his roof? “Snipers,” a former co-worker recalled.

“He had more security than a Third World dictator,” one employee said, explaining that Brock’s bodyguards would rarely leave his side, even accompanying him to his home in an affluent Washington neighborhood each night where they “stood post” to protect him. “What movement leader has a detail?” asked someone who saw it.

Extensive interviews with a number of Brock’s current and former colleagues at Media Matters, as well as with leaders from across the spectrum of Democratic politics, reveal an organization roiled by its leader’s volatile and erratic behavior and struggles with mental illness, and an office where Brock’s executive assistant carried a handgun to public events in order to defend his boss from unseen threats.

Yet those same interviews, as well as a detailed organizational planning memo obtained by The Daily Caller, also suggest that Media Matters has to a great extent achieved its central goal of influencing the national media.

Founded by Brock in 2004 as a liberal counterweight to “conservative misinformation” in the press, Media Matters has in less than a decade become a powerful player in Democratic politics. The group operates in regular coordination with the highest levels of the Obama White House, as well as with members of Congress and progressive groups around the country. Brock, who collected over $250,000 in salary from Media Matters in 2010, has himself become a major fundraiser on the left. According to an internal memo obtained by TheDC, Media Matters intends to spend nearly $20 million in 2012 to influence news coverage.

Donors have every reason to expect success, as the group’s effect on many news organizations has already been profound. “We were pretty much writing their prime time,” a former Media Matters employee said of the cable channel MSNBC. “But then virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff.”

The group scored its first significant public coup in 2007 with the firing of host Don Imus from MSNBC. Just before Easter that year, a Media Matters employee recorded Imus’s now-famous attack on the Rutgers women’s basketball team, and immediately recognized its inflammatory potential. The organization swung into action, notifying organizations like the NAACP, the National Association of Black Journalists, and Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, all of which joined the fight.

Over the course of a week, Media Matters mobilized more than 50 people to work full-time adding fuel to the Imus story. Researchers searched the massive Media Matters database for controversial statements Imus had made over the years. The group issued press release after press release. Brock personally called the heads of various liberal activist groups to coordinate a message. By the end of the week, Imus was fired.

Sarah Palin on Mitt Romney: "I'm not convinced"

Sarah Palin was on Fox News Sunday this morning and talked about the 2012 GOP field as well as other topics. During the interview she proclaimed she is not convinced Romney is a conservative.

Well, Sarah, he's not. - Reggie

WH Chief of Staff Errs on Senate Budget Rules

Before reading Jake Tapper's blog post, it is worth noting that there are 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans and 2 Independents in the U.S. Senate. - Reggie

Jake Tapper
As President Obama prepares to unveil his FY2013 budget Monday, White House chief of staff Jack Lew this morning was asked by CNN to defend the Senate’s refusal to pass a budget in more than 1,000 days.

“You can’t pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes and you can’t get 60 votes without bipartisan support,” Lew said. “So unless… unless Republicans are willing to work with Democrats in the Senate, [Majority Leader] Harry Reid is not going to be able to get a budget passed.”

That’s not accurate. Budgets only require 51 Senate votes for passage, as Lew — former director of the Office of Management and Budget — surely must know.

Rep. Ron Paul not conceding Maine vote

Rep. Ron Paul is not conceding the GOP’s Maine caucuses, which state party officials and major networks called Saturday for rival Mitt Romney.

With 84 percent of precincts reporting, Romney has 39 percent to Paul's 36 percent, and Maine GOP Chairman Charlie Webster declared Romney the winner Saturday night, following a week-long series of caucuses.

But in Washington County, where Paul had expected to perform well, the caucus was postponed until Feb. 18 due to an expected snowstorm. Washington County Republican Chairman Chris Gardner told the AP he had no idea when the caucuses were postponed that his county would no longer count toward the grand total.

“This is an outrage," John Tate, Paul's campaign manager, said in an email to supporters. "But our campaign is in this race to win, and will stay in it to the very end."

Paul's campaign has accused the local GOP of postponing the caucuses to prevent the results from being reported on Saturday, arguing that "just the votes of Washington County would have been enough to put us over the top."

Paul Ryan: Leaders have a moral obligation to advance solutions

from this morning

Will There be a Brokered Convention?

Fox News Sunday Panel Plus: Bill Kristol, Mara Liasson, Kimberley Strassel and Evan Bayh as they discuss the possibility of a brokered convention.

Santorum Suggests Romney May Have Rigged CPAC Poll

This would be typical behavior for an opportunist but I'm not convinced Romney did this. I'm more inclined to believe the "conservatives" attending CPAC may not be conservatives, after all. - Reggie

Palin Calls on Romney to Work Harder for the Conservative Vote

Washington (CNN) - Sarah Palin issued a warning to Mitt Romney Saturday, calling on the former Massachusetts governor to do a better job explaining his record to conservatives or risk dampening voter turnout in November if he wins the Republican presidential nomination.

In an interview with CNN and The New York Times before her speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, Palin said she was confused by Romney’s declaration here on Friday that he was a “severely conservative Republican.”

“I wasn’t quite sure what the word 'severely' meant,” Palin said.

She said Romney and his two main rivals - Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich - should be given time to explain the flaws in their record until the Republican National Convention in August, when she said the nomination fight could ultimately be decided.

But Romney may have the hardest sale to make, she said, asking him to explain his “shifts in ideology” since he left the Massachusetts governorship.

“You have to have the tea party patriots enthused and energized in order to win this nomination, and more importantly in order to defeat Barack Obama,” Palin argued.

If conservatives are “dismissed and they are marginalized” by the Republican establishment, “they are going to be much less enthused and much less willing to put it all on the line for the GOP candidate in the general election.”

Read the full article

SNL Spoofs Romney

Even his dog doesn't like him.

'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

Will reduced solar activity counteract global warming in the coming decades? That is what outgoing German electric utility executive Fritz Vahrenholt claims in a new book. In an interview with SPIEGEL, he argues that the official United Nations forecasts on the severity of climate change are overstated and supported by weak science. 

The articulate utility executive is nervous at the beginning of the conversation. He is groping for words -- not a common occurrence for the practiced provocateur. After all, Fritz Vahrenholt, 62, who holds a doctorate in chemistry, has been a rebel throughout his life. "Perhaps it's just part of my generation," he says.

He is typical of someone who came of age during the student protest movement of the late 1960s, and who fought against the chemical industry's toxic manufacturing plants in the 1970s. His party, Germany's center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), chose him as environment senator in the city-state of Hamburg, where he incurred the wrath of the environmental lobby by building a waste incineration plant, earning him the nickname "Feuerfritze" (Fire Fritz). He worked in industry after that, first for oil multinational Shell and then for wind turbine maker RePower, which he helped develop. Now, as the outgoing CEO of the renewable energy group RWE Innogy, he is about to embark on his next major battle. "I'm going to make enemies in all camps," he says.

He wants to break a taboo. "The climate catastrophe is not occurring," he writes in his book "Die Kalte Sonne" (The Cold Sun), published by Hoffmann and Campe, which will be in bookstores next week.

He has only given the book to one climatologist, Jochem Marotzke, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, to read prior to its publication. Marotzke's assessment is clear: Vahrenholt represents the standpoints of climate skeptics. "A number of the hypotheses in the book were refuted long ago," Marotzke claims, but adds, on a self-critical note, that his profession has neglected to explain that global temperatures will not increase uniformly. Instead, says Marotzke, there could also be phases of stagnation and even minor declines in temperature. "This has exposed us to potential criticism," he says.

While books by climate heretics usually receive little attention, it could be different in Vahrenholt's case. "His fame," says Marotzke, "will ensure that there will be a debate on the issue."

The book is a source of discomfort within Vahrenholt's party. No one with the SPD leadership is willing to comment on the theories of their prominent fellow party member, from former Environment Minister and current SPD Chairman Sigmar Gabriel to parliamentary floor leader Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who was given an advance copy of the book.

A lecture Vahrenholt was scheduled to give at the University of Osnabrück in northwestern Germany was recently cancelled.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Vahrenholt, in the week before last, you made the surprising announcement that you are resigning as head of RWE Innogy. And now your book "Die Kalte Sonne," in which you deny the climate catastrophe, is appearing. Were you forced to step down because your ideas could damage RWE's new green image?

Vahrenholt: No. My contract would have expired at the end of the year, anyway. Besides, I will continue to be a member of the company's supervisory board for another three years.

SPIEGEL: How have your fellow executives responded to your provocative prediction that it will get colder instead of warmer in the coming decades?

Vahrenholt: This is not an RWE book. Aside from CEO Jürgen Grossmann, I didn't give an advance copy to anyone in the company. Grossmann, at any rate, found it so engrossing that he read the entire book in one night.

SPIEGEL: Nevertheless, your precipitous withdrawal from RWE management is reminiscent of the scandal surrounding Thilo Sarrazin, who was forced to resign from the board of Germany's central bank in 2010 following the publication of his controversial book on immigration and integration.

Vahrenholt: This isn't a precipitous withdrawal. Besides, I don't need Thilo Sarrazin as a role model. I also didn't need a role model when I drew attention to risks in the chemical industry in my 1978 book "Seveso ist überall" (ed's. note: Seveso is Everywhere -- a reference to the infamous Seveso chemical spill in 1976 in Italy). Today, I want new scientific findings to be included in the climate debate. It would then become clear that the simple equation that CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gases are almost exclusively responsible for climate change is unsustainable. It hasn't gotten any warmer on this planet in almost 14 years, despite continued increases in CO2 emissions. Established climate science has to come up with an answer to that.

SPIEGEL: You are an electric utility executive by profession. What prompted you to get involved in climatology?

Vahrenholt: In my experience as an energy expert, I learned that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is more of a political than a scientific body. As a rapporteur on renewable energy, I witnessed how thin the factual basis is for predictions that are made at the IPCC. In one case, a Greenpeace activist's absurd claim that 80 percent of the world's energy supply could soon be coming from renewable sources was assumed without scrutiny. This prompted me to examine the IPCC report more carefully.

SPIEGEL: And what was your conclusion?

Vahrenholt: The long version of the IPCC report does mention natural causes of climate change, like the sun and oscillating ocean currents. But they no longer appear in the summary for politicians. They were simply edited out. To this day, many decision-makers don't know that new studies have seriously questioned the dominance of CO2. CO2 alone will never cause a warming of more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century. Only with the help of supposed amplification effects, especially water vapor, do the computers arrive at a drastic temperature increase. I say that global warming will remain below two degrees by the end of the century. This is an eminently political message, but it's also good news.

SPIEGEL: You make concrete statements on how much human activity contributes to climatic events and how much of a role natural factors play. Why don't you publish your prognoses in a professional journal?

Vahrenholt: Because I don't engage in my own climate research. Besides, I don't have a supercomputer in my basement. For the most part, my co-author, geologist Sebastian Lüning, and I merely summarize what scientists have published in professional journals -- just as the IPCC does. The book is also a platform for scientists who apply good arguments in diverging from the views of the IPCC. The established climate models have failed across the board because they cannot cogently explain the absence of warming.

SPIEGEL: You claim that the standstill has to do with the sun. What makes you so sure?

Vahrenholt: In terms of the climate, we have seen a cyclical up and down for the last 7,000 years, long before man began emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. There has been a warming phase every 1,000 years, including the Roman, the Medieval and the current warm periods. All of these warm periods consistently coincided with strong solar activity. In addition to this large fluctuation in activity, there is also a 210-year and an 87-year natural cycle of the sun. Ignoring these would be a serious mistake …

SPIEGEL: … but solar researchers are still in disagreement over whether the cycles you mention actually exist. What do you think this means for the future?

Vahrenholt: In the second half of the 20th century, the sun was more active than it had been in more than 2,000 years. This "large solar maximum," as astronomers call it, has contributed at least as much to global warming as the greenhouse gas CO2. But the sun has been getting weaker since 2005, and it will continue to do so in the next few decades. Consequently, we can only expect cooling from the sun for now.

SPIEGEL: It is undisputed that fluctuations in solar activity can influence the climate. Most experts assume that an unusually long solar minimum, evidenced by the very small number of sunspots at the time, led to the "Little Ice Age" that began in 1645. There were many severe winters at the time, with rivers freezing over. However, astrophysicists still don't know the extent to which solar fluctuations actually affect temperatures.

Vahrenholt: Many scientists assume that the temperature changes by more than 1 degree Celsius for the 1,000-year cycle and by up to 0.7 degrees Celsius for the smaller cycles. Climatologists should be putting a far greater effort into finding ways to more accurately determine the effects of the sun on climate. For the IPCC and the politicians it influences, CO2 is practically the only factor. The importance of the sun for the climate is systematically underestimated, and the importance of CO2 is systematically overestimated. As a result, all climate predictions are based on the wrong underlying facts.

SPIEGEL: But you are doing exactly what you criticize climatologists of doing: Using a thin body of data, you make exact predictions. In your book, you estimate the sun's influence on the climate down to the last 0.1 degrees. No one can do that.

Who Castrated Ann Coulter?

She once had cast iron… well… courage. Now she's backing the "safe" GOP candidate.

There is no conservative writer that I admire more than Ann Coulter. She's smart as hell and, more importantly, she is courageous. She has always been willing to write what other conservatives believe but don't have the guts to say in print. She has never played it safe and has certainly never adjusted her opinions for the sake of conforming to the conventional wisdom of Old Guard Republicans. In 2008, for example, she declared that she would not merely vote for, but actively campaign for Hillary Clinton if the Republican Party were foolish enough to nominate John McCain for President: "If you are looking at substance rather than if there is an R or a D after his name, manifestly, if he's our candidate, than Hillary is going to be our girl, because she's more conservative than he is."

But something has happened to Coulter. I don't have firsthand knowledge that she was kidnapped by RINO Team Six and taken to an offshore medical facility where she was forced to undergo a gruesome surgical procedure, but many of her recent columns suggest that something of the sort must have occurred. What else could explain her endorsement of Mitt Romney? Once immutable where her core convictions were concerned, she has executed a vertigo-inducing volte-face in order to promote a brazen opportunist whose positions on the big issues were the opposite of hers before he began running for President. She relentlessly trashes Republican "moderates" like McCain, yet now supports a candidate who makes the Arizona Senator look like Barry Goldwater by comparison.

It first became apparent that something awful had happened to Coulter last November, when she wrote a column asking "If Not Romney, Who? If Not Now, When?" In this surreal effusion, she claimed that the media were "pushing Newt Gingrich" and other alternatives to Romney "because they are terrified of running against him." This, as many pointed out at the time, was preposterous. The only thing that terrifies the media about Romney is that he might not get the GOP nomination. This is the man they want to run against. Unlike Coulter, the media and the Obama reelection team know that Romney can be easily portrayed as a Wall Street parasite whose only memorable "accomplishment" as the Governor of Massachusetts was the enactment of a health "reform" law that renders him unable to credibly denounce ObamaCare.

Which brings us to the latest evidence that Coulter has been somehow altered. Her inexplicable support for Romney has led her beyond being merely wrong about his chances in the general election to writing things that are either deliberately disingenuous or genuinely ignorant. The latest example of this tragic development is a column titled, "Three Cheers for RomneyCare." As its title suggests, this piece actually defends the Massachusetts "universal" health law. When I first read it, I could hardly believe such horse manure had emanated from Coulter's keyboard. The column opens with this howler: "If only the Democrats had decided to socialize the food industry or housing, RomneyCare would probably still be viewed as a massive triumph for conservative free-market principles -- as it was at the time."

First, Coulter apparently didn't notice, but the Democrats did socialize housing, and it triggered the most dangerous financial crisis since the Great Depression. More to the point, her suggestion that Romneycare was viewed by conservatives as a free-market triumph is revisionist nonsense. Coulter attempts to support this claim by naming a couple of conservatives who initially supported the law. Somehow, though, she neglects to mention the large number who opposed it. As Merrill Matthews pointed out in Forbes, when Newt Gingrich claimed in a debate that most conservatives once supported the mandate as a way of countering HillaryCare, "That's wrong. There was, in fact, a heated battle among conservatives, with a handful pushing for the mandate and the large majority opposing it."   

Saturday, February 11, 2012

BREAKING NEWS: Whitney Houston has Died

Whitney Houston, who reigned as pop music’s queen until her majestic voice and regal image were ravaged by drug use, erratic behavior and a tumultuous marriage to singer Bobby Brown, has died. She was 48.

Publicist Kristen Foster said Saturday that the singer had died, but the cause and the location of her death were unknown.

No one can sing like Whitney Houston. Every time I hear her rendition of the Star Spangled Banner, I get chills. What a loss. Very sad. - Reggie

Romney Wins Maine Caucuses

This does not surprise me. Romney is a northeast liberal and Maine is a northeast liberal state. I expected him to win Maine. - Reggie

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) – Maine Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster says Mitt Romney has won the Maine caucuses by a slim margin, giving him a much needed boost following losses in three other contests in the past week.

The former Massachusetts governor defeated Ron Paul, the only other GOP hopeful competing in the state. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich did not actively participate in the contest.

Read the rest of the article

Church and state, Newtzilla, social media, and the second favorite flavor

YouTube description: This week on Uncommon Knowledge, columnist, scholar, and social media maven Jonah Goldberg discusses topics including the unconstrained vision of the left, the problem with Romney, the reality of diversity, why vanilla is everyone's second favorite flavor, and offers some wise but unpalatable advice to conservative voters. He cites Bill Voegeli's essential book Never Enough: America's Limitless Welfare State.

Disclaimer: I have not watched this interview yet so I don't know if I agree or disagree with whatever Jonah Goldberg talks about but I do like these Uncommon Knowledge interviews and enjoy watching them regardless of the opinions of the guests. - Reggie

The Church of Obama

Mark Steyn
The president has issued his own Act of Supremacy.

Announcing his support for Commissar Sebelius’s edicts on contraception, sterilization, and pharmacological abortion, that noted theologian the Most Reverend Al Sharpton explained: “If we are going to have a separation of church and state, we’re going to have a separation of church and state.”

Thanks for clarifying that. The church model the young American state wished to separate from was that of the British monarch, who remains to this day supreme governor of the Church of England. This convenient arrangement dates from the 1534 Act of Supremacy. The title of the law gives you the general upshot, but, just in case you’re a bit slow on the uptake, the text proclaims “the King’s Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England.” That’s to say, the sovereign is “the only supreme head on earth of the Church” and he shall enjoy “all honors, dignities, pre-eminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity,” not to mention His Majesty “shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, record, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offenses, contempts, and enormities, whatsoever they be.”

Welcome to Obamacare.

The president of the United States has decided to go Henry VIII on the Church’s medieval ass. Whatever religious institutions might profess to believe in the matter of “women’s health,” their pre-eminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, and immunities are now subordinate to a one-and-only supreme head on earth determined to repress, redress, restrain, and amend their heresies. One wouldn’t wish to overextend the analogy: For one thing, the Catholic Church in America has been pathetically accommodating of Beltway bigwigs’ ravenous appetite for marital annulments in a way that Pope Clement VII was disinclined to be vis-à-vis the English king and Catherine of Aragon. But where’d all the pandering get them? In essence President Obama has embarked on the same usurpation of church authority as Henry VIII: As his Friday morning faux-compromise confirms, the continued existence of a “faith-based institution” depends on submission to the doctrinal supremacy of the state.

“We will soon learn,” wrote Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, “just how much faith is left in faith-based institutions.” Kathleen Sebelius, Obama’s vicar on earth, has sportingly offered to maintain religious liberty for those institutions engaged in explicit religious instruction to a largely believing clientele. So we’re not talking about mandatory condom dispensers next to the pulpit at St. Pat’s — not yet. But that is not what it means to be a Christian: The mission of a Catholic hospital is to minister to the sick. When a guy shows up in Emergency bleeding all over the floor, the nurse does not first establish whether he is Episcopalian or Muslim; when an indigent is in line at the soup kitchen the volunteer does not pause the ladle until she has determined whether he is a card-carrying papist. The government has redefined religion as equivalent to your Sunday best: You can take it out for an hour to go to church, but you gotta mothball it in the closet the rest of the week. So Catholic institutions cannot comply with Commissar Sebelius and still be in any meaningful sense Catholic.

If you’re an atheist or one of America’s ever more lapsed Catholics, you’re probably shrugging: What’s the big deal? But the new Act of Supremacy doesn’t stop with religious institutions. As Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, put it: “If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I’d be covered by this mandate.” And so would any of his burrito boys who object to being forced to make “health care” arrangements at odds with their conscience.

Bigoted Barack, Red in Tooth and Clause

The deformed heart of monstrous Obamacare is sick and secularist social engineering.

Modern liberalism is willfulness writ large -- a godless ideology that rests upon the caprice of central planners. Under it, the fluctuating and often frightening desires of corrupt men, rather than the changeless will of a caring God, form the shaky measure of "good government." As the grim chapters of recent history show -- chapters written in the blood of millions of unborn children and other "undesirables" -- taking God out of "goodness" drains the term of any coherent meaning, leaving mankind at the mercy of power-seeking ideologues.

Pope Benedict XVI calls modern liberalism the "dictatorship of relativism," a phrase that neatly summarizes the Obama administration as it moves to crush the freedom of Americans through such monstrosities as the HHS mandate.

On one level, Obama is nothing more than a glib and empty pol, who careens from focus group to pollster. But on another level, buried deep within his cold and rootless personality, he is a man of perverse tenacity, a convinced socialist and secularist who was trained long ago to run the ball into the end zone for radicalism.

For all his joshing and superficial charm, he remains the creepy child of post-Enlightenment liberalism -- the infant demigod presented between sets of oversized and plastic Greek columns at the Democratic National Convention in 2008, who as the proceedings concluded crawled back into the shadows to watch mutely the adoring crowds below.

Such a deluded Democratic president was bound to overreach disastrously. Obamacare is a "big f -- king deal," Joe Biden whispered into his ear. And it is -- an unconstitutional coup disguised as altruistic legislation that was rammed through Congress by reckless partisan hacks who hadn't even read it.

But the central planners and social engineers from Planned Parenthood had pored over the bill carefully. The passage of the legislation left them giddy with excitement, as they knew its unread provisions would soon turn into nooses for their religious enemies on the right.

The future casts its shadow backwards, said the late British writer Malcolm Muggeridge. Obama, red in tooth and clause, saw the devilish flicker of those shadows in his triumph of social engineering. "Darn tooting," he declared to his most militant supporters -- pro-abortion feminists who demanded to know from him during a campaign stop last fall if he was going to make good on his promise to manhandle the Catholic Church over contraception and abortifacients.

The raffish Greg Gutfeld, who, despite his screwing around on the set, remains Fox's deepest and most perceptive observer of politics and culture, made the valuable point on "The Five" recently that one of the sick motivations behind the HHS mandate is a form of eugenics and ironic class warfare: Obama does not want the poor to procreate.

Mitt Romney: Severe conservative?

Ouch! This is a new ad put out by Newt Gingrich. He uses a CNN segment of the Anderson Cooper show delving into Mitt Rommney's claim of being "severely conservative" while governor of Massachusetts. One again, Romney is shown to be an opportunist who will say anything to be elected.

Let me tell you what I think is worse than the fact that Romney is a liberal, progressive, Obama lite candidate that will lose the general election. The conservatives are blind to this fact! They are believing the Republican establishment propaganda. How do I know?

Romney won the CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) straw poll today. Do the participants of CPAC know what conservatism is? Do they know what a liberal is? Do they know what a progressive is?

There are none so blind as those who will not see. God help us! - Reggie

Daniel Hannan at CPAC 2012

Daniel Hannan: "I am a writer and journalist, and have been Conservative MEP (Member of the European Parliament) for South East England since 1999."

I have heard this man speak before and he is worth listening to any time you get a chance. He sees the danger America is in and he is hoping we can survive. - Reggie

Many thanks to The Right Scoop for the video.

Sarah Palin at CPAC 2012

from earlier today

Many thanks to The Right Scoop for the video.

Friday, February 10, 2012

Alarming New Issues Injected into Presidential Race

Mark Levin on Hannity last night.

GOP Candidates Spoke at CPAC 2012

Three of the GOP presidential candidates spoke earlier today at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) in Washington, D.C.

Ron Paul did not attend CPAC this year.

Newt Gingrich

Evidently, Romney used desperate language to appeal to conservatives. Claiming to be "severely conservative" he prompted Kyle Peterson at The American Spectator to write For Some CPAC Viewers, Romney Doth Protest Too Much.

Mitt Romney

Rick Santorum

Click here to watch all of CPAC on C-SPAN. Sarah Palin will be giving the keynote tomorrow.

Ron Paul Caucus Strategy: The View From Inside Is Looking Up

I found the following article very interesting. I have read a few other articles that touch on this same issue. It is a know fact that Paul supporters are very involved in his campaign and take the time to educate themselves. The following article is a perfect example.

- Michael

We've spent a lot of time talking about Ron Paul's "caucus strategy" approach to the GOP nomination season, but haven't really been able to illustrate what's actually going on behind the scenes. The lackadaisical approach is to liken Paul's strategy to the advantage Barack Obama took in the caucuses in 2008, where the distribution of delegates by vote proportion was better understood by his campaign team than by the team of his chief rival, Hillary Clinton. Taking advantage of complacency is sort of what the Paul campaign is up to, but Paul's strategy hinges more on a careful study of the process and not so much on Mark Penn being an idiot.
What's important to note about these nonbinding caucuses in states like Iowa and Colorado is that they are part of a long, drawn-out process. The klieg lights and the cable teevee cameras have captured the sexier, drenched-in-pageantry opening act, but the real work is actually still to come, and when it does, it's not going to get covered in the same glittering way.
In Iowa, for example, what we all call the "Iowa caucuses" do nothing more than select delegates who then go to county conventions next month, where the delegates selected in January will be winnowed down into a group of delegates who will attend congressional district conventions and, finally, the state convention, where the 25 delegates who will eventually attend the Republican National Convention are selected.
To use another example, Colorado has a process that's much the same. The best source for learning the ins and outs of the process is The Green Papers, and here's how they describe what actually happened this past Tuesday:
Tuesday 7 February 2012: Precinct Caucuses meet in each precinct at 7p MST to choose delegates to the County Assemblies and District Conventions. Caucuses last about 1.5 hours. There are 2,917 precincts.
There is no formal system applied in the Precinct Caucus to relate the presidential preference of the participants to the choice of the precinct's delegates to the Colorado County Assemblies and District Conventions; however, a non-binding Presidential Preference poll of the delegates will be conducted. (NOTE: It is the District Conventions and the State Convention that will actually pledge Republican National Convention delegates to presidential contenders).
Delegates selected at the Precinct Caucuses may (but are not required to) declare their Presidential Preference.
Since no National Convention delegates are bound to Presidential contenders, the Precinct Caucuses do not violate the RNC's Tuesday 6 March 2012 timing rule.
That forms the foundation of what's to come, which -- like in Iowa -- is a process that involves later conventions in which the delegates selected Tuesday night are winnowed down to those who will eventually go to Tampa.
I've bolded a couple of points in the block quote above that are pertinent to explaining Paul's strategy, which is best illustrated by a campaign email to supporters that Dave Weigel published yesterday:
We are confident in gaining a much larger share of delegates than even our impressive showing yesterday indicates. As an example of our campaign's delegate strength, take a look at what has occurred in Colorado:
- In one precinct in Larimer County, the straw poll vote was 23 for Santorum, 13 for Paul, 5 for Romney, 2 for Gingrich. There were 13 delegate slots, and Ron Paul got ALL 13.
- In a precinct in Delta County the vote was 22 for Santorum, 12 for Romney, 8 for Paul, 7 for Gingrich. There were 5 delegate slots, and ALL 5 went to Ron Paul.
- In a Pueblo County precinct, the vote was 16 for Santorum, 11 for Romney, 3 for Gingrich and 2 for Paul. There were 2 delegate slots filled, and both were filled by Ron Paul supporters.

Read More>>