With Rick Santorum as the GOP Nominee Obama will be forced to stop Barking over his favorite Bones

The Democrat Party has developed a whole slew of slogans during the last several decades which they’ve used to paint the Republican Party and all freedom-loving Americans. Obama has overindulged in his usage of these slogans during his years on the political scene and specifically in the oval office.

Ranking at the top of the list, is the absurd claim that the Republican Party is comprised the rich bankers and Wall Street magnates while the Democrat Party favors the lower and middle income brackets. I doubt a week had gone by without Obama having railed out against the big oil companies or the banks since he’s been sworn into office. An election between Obama and Santorum will be as disastrous for Obama as a malfunctioning teleprompter, or worse. Obama will be forced to put aside his number one weapon against the Republican Party or risk appearing foolish, unintelligent, and hypocritical (though I’ll admit it doesn’t take much for Obama to appear so.)

How will Obama be able to play the “GOP and the evil rich Wall Street are one” card if he was the one who supported TARP as a presidential candidate and who bailed out many large companies - most notably GM - during his presidency while Santorum openly opposed TARP in 2008 and all of Obama’s bailouts? How will Obama play his beloved card against Rick Santorum who truly enjoys talking to and mingling with the average American since he is just like them when he’s held a secret Hollywood-themed Halloween Party in 2009 staged by film director Tim Burton and actor Johnny Depp while Americans suffered from the recession and were told by Obama that “everyone must sacrifice”?

How will Obama lump Santorum with the millionaires and billionaires when Obama has earned far more money and is far more qualified than Santorum for the “millionaire” title? (Obama has earned over 5 million in ‘0 while Santorum earned less than 1 million in ’09.) How will Obama be able to blast Santorum for buddying around with Wall Street when Obama and Warren Buffet enjoy an extremely close relationship? If Obama does use his class warfare rhetoric, how will he explain his campaign fundraisers at which attendees paid tens of thousands for the honor of dining with him and other famous liberal tycoons while the majority of Santorum donations for his campaign coffer are from average Americans who donated a small sum of money?

Michelle Obama has just completed her 16th extravagant vacation within three years - since her husband has taken office! Additionally, when vacationing with her husband - the president, she had often opted to travel separately, with each of those separate trips having amounted to additional hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars! Why should she waste an extra day in the boring White House when the taxpayers’ generosity is limitless? It’s outrageous no matter which way one attempts to spin it. However, when comparing the actions of the Obamas to the Santorum campaign which is run on a shoestring budget and doesn’t even own a campaign bus, the contrast is all the more striking.

Santorum strongly identifies with blue-collar middle income earners and is indeed the only Republican candidate who can successfully crumble Obama’s false slogans, especially the nonsensical “Republicans are the party of millionaires and billionaires.” With Santorum as the Republican nominee, the tables will turn against Obama and the Santorum team will correctly be able to hold Obama accountable for messing up the free market by bailing out select big businesses instead of allowing them to face the consequences of their actions – as the rest of the private sector does.

With Rick Santorum as the Republican nominee, Obama will also lose his upper-hand with the American workers for he won’t be able to employ the usual “GOP is anti-unions and against the struggling American factory worker” rant. If Obama does try it, Rick Santorum can point to his history as a representative of Pennsylvania where he followed the people’s will and expressed support for the unions. Even further than that, Santorum is the only one who can tout an anti-amnesty record under presidents Clinton and Bush.

Rick will therefore be able to use Obama’s pro-amnesty talks he engages in when pandering to the Hispanic vote and turn them into a giant negative amongst the majority of the public. All Santorum has to, is play his own record next to Obama’s speeches and throw in the figures of the current unemployment rate versus the estimated number of illegals currently working illegitimately. With millions of Americans unemployed, Obama will be told to wave goodbye to term number two.

All of the above alone is enough to seriously impede Obama’s reelection campaign, for his entire presidency had been based on class warfare; pitting the poor against the rich. In employing it against Santorum, though, Obama will notice his tactics backfire straight at him and he’ll have to scramble to create new slogans and rhetoric without the benefit of having had it drilled into the minds of the American people for the past three years or longer. There’s more though.

When Obama will remind everyone of his generosity via Obamacare and how it’ll spread more “liberties” for all, Rick Santorum can whip out his anti-mandates speech he held in 1994 and remind the American people that if Obamacare isn’t repealed within a short while then any individual who cannot afford or chooses not to purchase insurance will be slapped with a fine.

Similarly, when Obama will pride himself in his aid for the “Arab Spring” while lamenting at the unforeseen radicalization, Santorum will be the only one capable of tackling him for supporting the radical extremists in Egypt over our former ally Mubarak. This is so because Santorum was, once again, part of the very few who warned us about the true intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood. Santorum will also be able to take Obama to task over his un-American and damaging apologies he’d delivered to Iran and the Muslim world which greatly weakened our standing in the world, since Santorum had repeatedly spoken as a Senator about the dangers of Iran.

Another disadvantage for Obama in facing a Santorum campaign will be the likely loss of the delegate-rich swing states of Pennsylvania – Santorum’s home state, and Ohio – which is nearby Pennsylvania. Obama hails from liberal Illinois while Biden hails from equally liberal Delaware and they don’t have any advantages in any of the swing-states which are critical for a victory as Santorum does.

On the other hand, Santorum is leading strongly in both PA & OH in the primary, and is the only one capable of beating Obama in the general in these states and not only because he’s from the Northeast. Santorum’s economic plan which will cut taxes across the board and eliminate all taxes for manufacturers in order to bring jobs back to the American people is extremely popular in these and other manufacturing states.

Although many are attempting to portray social issues as Santorum’s greatest weakness, in truth, Santorum has got the overhand on that too. When Obama ran in 2008 he was forced to support traditional marriage in order to have a chance in winning states like Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and just about any state from the South. Mostly though, Obama had stressed in 2008 that social issues aren’t important and he’d convinced many Independent voters who value traditional marriage to cast their vote for him. If Obama will abandon his ’08 stance and decide to focus his campaign on social issues by falsely portraying Rick as a radical, he will find his already shrinking support totally collapse in the above-mentioned competitive battle states since they are deeply religious states.

This was clearly visible when it was discovered recently that Obamacare will require for religious institutions to provide contraception despite it being contrary to their religious values. An overwhelming majority of the country opposed Obama and it greatly strengthened Santorum who wisely focused on the aspect that it is contradictory to the G-d given rights the country has been built on.

From the start of his 2008 campaign straight through this current day, Obama has blamed all the country’s troubles on the evil Republicans while savoring in the role of the savior. He’d admonished the Republicans to keep quiet while he mopped up their mess and required from them to sit in the back while he drove them out of the ditch. With Rick Santorum as the Republican nominee Obama will discover the ground has shifted and Obama will be forced to sit in the back, eat the effects of his own actions, and hopefully, ultimately hand over the mop and the keys to someone far more capable and experienced. 



 

If Romney is the GOP Nominee than Conservatism Dies with Mitt’s Contraception Lies

The discovery of another Mitt Romney lie or flip-flop barely causes any eyebrows to go up. Indeed, Romney’s expertise in the falsehood department allows him to lie with a bold and straight face. Rather, one would be stunned if it would surface that he had actually been consistently conservative on even a single issue; something which hasn’t yet been found.

In the Arizona debate last Wednesday, Romney falsely claimed he’d been pro-life as governor of Massachusetts. When questioned directly about Romneycare – that it forced catholic hospitals to provide contraception – he lied blatantly once again with his response “absolutely not.”

The BCI has done a complete exposure of this particular Romney lie, and The Right Scoop and many others have linked to the article, calling it a “must read.” I agree with the call to “must read” although I’ll also take it a step further.

Romney’s lies about his true stance on contraception should be viewed as a call to arms for conservatives. This primary has extremely weighty issues on the line, far weightier than who could beat Obama (something that’s impossible to know so far in advance.)

Romney’s lies on contraception encompasses three areas conservatives profess to strongly defend; character, truth, and life, and this primary will reveal whether conservatives are truly ready to stick up for their beliefs. Having Mitt Romney serve as a representative of conservatives will signal that we are willing to look the other way when the person in question is not from the Democrat Party and that we are fraudulent with our convictions. We therefore must stand strong against Romney, clearly express our distaste and disapproval of him, and fight his candidacy with all our might.

With his lies about contraception at the debate Romney has shown that neither truth, nor life, nor character matter to him. Nor does an individual’s or an institution’s freedom to choose what actions they wish to take, for Romneycare – like Obamacare – also imposed mandates.

Here’s an excerpt of the BCI's article on the truth about Romney and his position on requiring catholic hospitals to provide contraceptive measures and make sure to read the entire article at The BCI.

1975. Massachusetts statute passed which allowed private hospitals to opt out of abortion, sterilization, and contraception.

2002: When Mitt Romney was running for governor, he filled out a questionnaire for NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, and in response to a question, “…Will you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception?” Romney said: “Yes.”

2004: the Massachusetts legislature considered an “emergency contraception” mandate. It would have required all hospitals to inform rape victims of the availability of such “emergency contraceptives” and provide them to the rape victim if she wanted them even when they would cause an abortion. Maria Parker of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the public policy organization of the state’s Catholic bishops, explained in testimony to the state legislature why Catholic hospitals could not do this.

That bill passed in the State Senate, but not in the House.

2005: Emergency contraception bill passes Senate and House, with veto-proof majority in both chambers of the Democrat-controlled legislature. In July, the House and Senate reached a compromise on it that would protect Catholic hospitals from being forced to act against their faith.

July 25, 2005: Romney vetoed the bill — even though it was clear his veto would be overridden.

He published an op-ed in the Boston Globe the next day explaining his decision. “The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception,” he wrote. “The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception.” Romney said the veto kept his pledge not to change the state’s abortion laws.

Romney made no mention of the religious liberty issue in his op-ed. But then, the bill, as the Massachusetts Catholic Conference and the House majority leader understood it, did not allow coercion of Catholic hospitals.

Dec. 7, 2005: a week before the law was to take effect, the Boston Globe ran an article headlined, “Private hospitals exempt on pill law“. The article said the state Department of Public Health had determined that the emergency contraception law “does not nullify a statute passed years ago that says privately run hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception.”

Public Health Commissioner Paul Cote Jr. told the Globe: “We felt very clearly that the two laws don’t cancel each other out and basically work in harmony with each other.”

Romney spokesman Fehrnstrom told the Globe that Romney agreed with the Department of Public Health on the issue. The governor, he said, “respects the views of health care facilities that are guided by moral principles on this issue.”

“The staff of DPH did their own objective and unbiased legal analysis,” Romney’s spokesman told the Globe. “The brought it to us, and we concur in it.”

December 8, 2005: The Globe itself ruefully bowed to this legal analysis. It ran an editorial headlined: “A Plan B Mistake.” “The legislators failed, however,” the Globe said, “to include wording in the bill explicitly repealing a clause in an older statute that gives hospitals the right, for reasons of conscience, not to offer birth control services.”

Liberals joined in attacking Romney’s defense of Catholic hospitals. But that defense did not last long.

The same day the Globe ran its editorial, Romney held a press conference. Now he said his legal counsel had advised him the new emergency contraception law did trump the 1975 conscience law.

“On that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view,” Romney said. “In my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape.”

December 9, 2005: Boston Globe reports, “Romney says no hospitals are exempt from pill law“.“Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state’s new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds.”

Lifesite News reported at the time, “Romney Does Flip-Flop and Forces Catholic Hospitals to Distribute Morning-After-Pill”:

In a shocking turn-around, Massachusetts’s governor Mitt Romney announced yesterday that Roman Catholic and other private hospitals in the state will be forced to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims under new state legislation, regardless of the hospitals’ moral position on the issue.

December 16, 2005: Archdiocesan newspaper, The Pilot, reports, “Romney: emergency contraception law applies to Catholic hospitals”

A constitutional law expert advising BCI says that the legislative intent was clearly to allow the 1975 statute to prevail. The formulation of the regulations is supposed to follow the legislative intent. Romney actually violated the law and his oath of office by NOT going with the legislative intent, and overruling the legislative intent (as well as the Constitution).

But it was not merely a legal interpretation by the legal counsel to Romney. Romney said he personally thought it was the “right thing” for hospitals to provide access to emergency contraception for any rape victims.

The Twisted Anti-Santorum Argument Regarding Santorum’s 2008 Romney Endorsement

As The Right Scoop and many others have noted, the Romney campaign is sending around robo-calls to voters in Michigan using the single most positive sentence Santorum had said about Romney in his endorsement in 2008 without mentioning that the statement is four years old.

The act of placing a robo-call on unsuspecting Michinganders as though his current top rival had suddenly endorsed him screams of desperation and hypocrisy. Shockingly, or perhaps not so shockingly, Romney supporters don’t see anything wrong with the above robo-call. They defend the Romney campaign’s actions with the response that Romney hadn’t done anything wrong; Santorum had simply flip-flopped away from his “support” for Romney from 2008, ignoring the complete Santorum statement of the time.

Rick Santorum had clearly stated in 2008 that he hesitated over endorsing anyone since they all had very serious flaws with McCain obviously being the worst of all as even his campaign platform was loaded with liberal rhetoric. He then went on to say that while Huckabee would’ve been great as a governor of the country, he’s got national security all wrong. That left him and the entire conservative movement with the very imperfect Mitt Romney.

Although I haven’t (yet) seen the official Romney team use quotes from others who’ve supported him in ’08 (not out of support but for lack of an alternative) but refuse to do so in 2012 since there are better options, Romney supporters repeatedly cite old endorsements without specifying that they’re from four years ago and that Romney hasn’t been the recipient of their endorsements in 2012.

In 2008, amidst John McCain’s cries against the “torture” of terrorists and the need for intervention to stop global warming, McCain expressed opposition to all earmarks, glad to having identified an almost insignificant item with which he can brand himself as a conservative. It’s interesting to note that Romney too has grasped at earmarks as “proof” of his conservatism and he had indeed received McCain’s endorsement, something no one else desired.

Romney’s opposition to earmarks though, as with everything else in his current campaign, is a direct contradiction to the Romney from prior this election. The Romney who was governor of Massachusetts didn’t only support earmarks; he begged, cajoled, and pleaded for them on his hands and knees. He lobbied for federal funds to help build the Fort Dix highway in Massachusetts and turned to Uncle Sam once again when arranging the Olympics which took place in Utah and which McCain had railed against during that time as the greatest boondoggling of earmarks.

Rick Santorum like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and many other prominent conservatives, endorsed Romney in 2008 as the anti-McCain. Additionally, Romney is now attempting to play conservative in the second election in a row, after falling back to supporting a liberal agenda in the interim, and is fooling far less people about his lack of loyalty to the conservative movement. Mitt Romney is now the John McCain of the GOP primary and we’re lucky we’ve got a true conservative as an alternative choice, unlike in 2008.

It is clear that both the actual Romney team and Romney supporters have decided that the end justifies the means and that misleading and lying is acceptable if it will get their preferred candidate elected. It is equally clear to me and many other conservatives that such behavior is unacceptable and we will not remain silent in expressing our opposition.

Steve Deace’s False Analysis on the Rick Santorum Campaign

It’s pretty hilarious to watch Newt’s most ardent supporters spin the primary in every angle possible in a desperate attempt to provide Newt’s dying campaign with some much-needed oxygen.

Steve Deace is an Iowan talk-show host whose endorsement for Newt Gingrich prior to the Iowa caucus was seen as the ultimate signal of an upcoming Newt victory. Steve had spent the weeks prior to the caucus pumping Newt via his radio show, weekly columns, interviews and social media. On twitter, his daily predictions the last week before the caucus showed an increasingly strengthening of Newt and weakening of Santorum with Romney leading the pack despite it having been obvious at that point to most of us that we were witnessing a Newt decline and a Santorum rise.

Steve Deace is also the talk-show host who had helped undermine Herman Cain’s credibility at a time when there was no evidence against him. Steve accused him of having said inappropriate comments to his staff yet refused to disclose what those comments were. His claims caused Cain significant damage since this was a prominent conservative speaking out against a fellow conservative.

Steve had written an analysis on the state of the primary on Townhall titled Michigan: Mitt Romney's Waterloo? Most of the article consists of the valid reasoning that Romney must win Michigan since it’s his former home state and his father had been a popular Governor there, or else. A Santorum win, he wrote, will deliver a “mortal wound to Romney’s Candidacy while also taking a giant step towards eventually securing the nomination for [Santorum].” Indeed, Michigan ending up as Romney’s Waterloo is a very possible outcome if Santorum wins.

The remainder of his article, though, was quite puzzling and incomprehensible except when taking into consideration that he’s probably attempting to create a positive spin for Newt. He argues that Michigan “is likely Santorum’s one and only chance to win the nomination” and that if Santorum fails to lock in a victory it once again opens the window for Newt just as Newt’s failure in Florida opened the window for Santorum in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado.

Furthermore, Steve blamed Newt’s failure in Florida after his victory in South Carolina on the ten-day span between the two primaries, arguing that Newt didn’t have enough time to orchestrate a rise. Santorum, on the other hand, has a full three weeks between his previous victories and the Michigan primary and he can use this time to put forth a strong campaign.

Steve’s reasoning is seriously flawed and for several reasons:

Firstly, a Romney victory in Michigan is extremely crucial, as Steve himself pointed out, because this is a state he’s been expected to win without any difficulties at all. He grew up there and his father was a beloved Governor. A Romney loss would be his Waterloo because it should be and is so difficult for any other candidate to beat Romney in his own hometown.

So if it’s usually impossible to beat a candidate in his hometown and a Santorum victory would be a stunning upset, then how can a Santorum loss in Michigan suddenly become a Santorum Waterloo? It isn’t Santorum’s home state and Santorum doesn’t have the many advantages Romney does. There were no expectations for Michigan to go to anyone but Romney.

Secondly, Newt’s landslide loss in Florida hadn’t come because of a lack of time and if one wants to blame the clock then he clearly had too much time. Newt had surged into Florida after his South Carolina and led Romney with double digits. If the elections had been three days later he would’ve probably continued his momentum ride from South Carolina and won Florida.

However, he instead faced a ten-day interim during which the Romney attacks and personal fire exchanged between the two camps caused his favorability to drop with each successive day and ultimately led to his defeat. Just as there was time to fall, there was time to rise. As an aside, we are now almost two weeks post Santorum’s three stunning victories and he’s still leading over Romney in Michigan.

Thirdly, Newt’s loss in Florida, although it weakened his campaign, was not the act had caused his stunning plunge. Newt poll figures in Nevada, which voted a few days after Florida, hadn’t changed much from before the Florida primary to afterwards. Newt ended up coming in a strong second in Nevada, as predicted, despite his Florida loss.

Newt’s reaction to his Nevada loss, though, had resulted in a mass exodus of conservative support. Instead of graciously admitting defeat and congratulating Romney, he called a press-conference the midnight after the Nevada primary where he ranted against those suggesting he leave the field (a suggestion which was born because of his strange decision to hold a press-conference and not a speech). He appeared ready to explode and his manner was almost suicidal. Americans were disgusted and turned off by his tantrum and chose to abandon Newt because of his own actions.

Unlike Newt, Santorum has stuck to the issues of the day and kept his cool and dignity at all times. A Santorum loss in Michigan won’t be seen as a failure of Santorum and a signal to turn to Newt once again. Everything is possible including another Newt rise. However, if Newt rises it won’t be a direct result of a Santorum loss in Michigan. A Santorum loss in Michigan will rather be understood in the context that Romney won his home-state where he had many advantages and is the case the majority of the time.

The stronger Santorum will do in Michigan, the stronger he will appear. If Romney barely ekes out a victory in his hometown, that will hint at the strength of Santorum, the weakness of Romney, and nothing about Newt.

Rick Santorum = a Carbon Copy of Barack Obama! Except ...

I’ve noticed many folks have been comparing Rick Santorum to Barack Obama and other pro-life Democrats.

Such a comparison is worthy of “the weirdest claim made yet against Rick Santorum” award. They seem to have forgotten that there are no true pro-life Democrats for even Democrat “staunch pro-lifer” Bart (Mark) Stupak had agreed to put his pro-life stance aside in order to provide Obama with the final vote for Obamacare. Those who compare Santorum to Democrats like Obama have also obviously not watched this video in which Senator Santorum fought against federal funding for partial-birth abortion in 1998.


Social issues aside, let us see just how similar Santorum is to Barack Obama and the Democrat Party. We all agree that to beat Obama one must be able to draw a strong contrast between their record and Obama’s. Is Santorum able to do that?

Let’s check it out:

TARP - Government Bailouts

Rick Santorum had opposed TARP right from the start. He didn’t merely pay lip-service in opposition, but railed out against it several months later in ’09 at CPAC.

TARP had received support not only from then-candidate Obama but also by a majority of the GOP establishment including Newt and Mitt. Santorum also opposed Obama’s stimulus, the auto bailout, and the Fannie-Freddie bailout.

Needless to say, Obama is the King of the Bailouts.

Next.

Government Reform – Reducing Spending and Dependency on Government

In the 1990s, when he was only a freshman Senator, Rick Santorum was a leading author on the bill that completely overhauled the country’s welfare system.

Yes, you read that right. As a Congressman, Santorum had started the fight for welfare reform in the House, and once in the Senate he combined forces with his old buddies, actually wrote the bill, and successfully fought the left and ensured its passage. To give credit when credit is due, Newt who was speaker of the House at the time, voted in support of the bill.

Santorum also voted for the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996 that started the process of ending direct farm subsidies. When Congress decided that it couldn’t live up to that promise, it voted to re-establish the subsidies in 2002 with the Farm Security Act, a bill that Santorum rightly opposed. Santorum voted for a balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto in 1995.

Santorum strongly believes in a bottom-up economy and in keeping government out of the private sector in most cases.

Obama obviously strongly opposes all reform to the federal government since, as we all know, he wants us all dependent on government for our health-care and every-day needs. He has successfully vastly increased the number of individuals collecting unemployment, Medicaid, and Food Stamps.

Okay, they clearly differ on role of government. All right, let’s try something else.

Health Care Mandates – Obamacare

Oops! Here’s a video from Rick Santorum in 1994 where he clearly and passionately spoke against government mandating individuals into buying health-care or anything else for that matter. This is a direct quote from Rick Santorum spoken in 1994 when health-care mandates were on the table;

“I think what the role of the federal government is to provide opportunity for everyone to get what they want, to live their dreams and not to dictate what everybody should have.”

Sounds like Obama to you? Not to me. Let’s also remember that in 1994 both Newt and Romney amongst many other Republicans had heavily supported and pushed for health-care mandates.

Still convinced he’s a carbon copy of Obama at least in some way? Let’s continue!

Global Warming Hoax

The entire Democrat Party has adopted “saving the environment from us bad people” as the reason they’ve been created, and many Republicans have also fallen for the hoax including … Mitt and Newt once again. Newt in a debate with John Kerry actually took the more liberal position than Kerry, arguing that government intervention is necessary in order to effectively regulate the environment while Kerry wanted the private sector to do it!

Rick Santorum, though, is included in the minority of people who had always opposed global warming, as is Rush Limbaugh and many other prominent conservatives. His record shows he’s always voted against it. As the years go by, increasingly more information keeps on surfacing which prove that global warming was a hoax from the start, and even a decade or two ago one was able to see the truth if they searched for it.

Barack Obama and his henchman in the EPA are still in the belief that the polar bears will die if you don’t use their energy-saving light-bulbs.

Polar opposites indeed.

However, Santorum MUST have something in common with Obama; I’ve seen folks here on Red State say so! All right; let’s move on!

Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants

Hmm. Santorum opposed Bush’s amnesty plan, something a majority of the GOP establishment had supported, and had received an A+ rating for his stance against Amnesty. Newt, no longer in the Congress, attempted to convince members of Congress to vote for it.

Obama’s stance? In 2010, during the mid-term primaries, Obama sneakily whispered to Latinos that they should punish their enemies on November 2nd. He also believes he’s done all he can to secure the border according to original Republican demands, and that Republicans won’t be satisfied until he puts a moat filled with alligators at the U.S.-Mexican border.

We covered all the major issues of the day, and they don’t seem to agree on anything!

Oh, wait!

National Security

Surely they think the same in regard to the defense of this country? Umm, Obama wants to cut our nuclear heads to a number lower than that of China. He has bowed and apologized to all our enemies, while alienated and insulted all of our allies.

What about Santorum? Rick Santorum has warned about Iran over a decade ago and is very clear with who our enemies are and who our friends are. He doesn’t think Ahmadinejad will love us if we’d only bow a bit deeper and understands the importance in keeping a positive relationship with our allies like Great Britain, Canada, and Israel.

Sorry, strike that one out as well.

Perhaps they are similar in position on the next vitally important topic? Let’s see!

Energy Independence

Obama is doing all he can to create jobs yet refuses to allow the Keystone Pipeline to go into effect due to environmental concerns. Never mind that we already have numerous pipelines running beneath our grounds for many years. Who cares that it would employ tens of thousands of unemployed Americans? What difference does it make to Obama that it would help lower the price at the pump or that we’d be less reliant on foreign oil from hostile countries?

Where is Rick Santorum in this picture? Rick Santorum’s grandfather worked in a coal mine in Pennsylvania and Santorum speaks strongly about the importance for energy independence for the multitude of reasons involved. Santorum is aware of the dangers in being reliant on foreign oil which funds terrorism. He is also highly attuned to the need of manufacturing good here in the US, and explains that energy creation has been and can be once again a major source of jobs.

He’d therefore grant permission to execute the Keystone Pipeline immediately and also increase permits for Hydraulic fracturing, offshore drilling, onshore drilling, and everything else that will help us become energy independent and isn’t really dangerous; not “liberal/environmental-style” dangerous.

What’s left?

War against Terror

Obama refused to credit the surge in Iraq for its success even when directly questioned about it and the facts were clear to (almost) all. In Honduras, President Obama joined Chavez and Castro in siding with the bad guys. In Iraq and Afghanistan he provides timetables that fit his political calendar ignoring the advice of his generals who are on the battlefield.

Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and helped oust our decades-long ally Mubarak who helped keep the region stable in the name of Democracy yet looked the other way when Iranian protestors pleaded for freedom from Ahmadinejad.

On the flip side, Rick Santorum supported the war in Iraq and Afghanistan from the start and expressed strong support for the surge which Obama and Newt opposed. He warned of the dangers of allowing terrorist reaction go unanswered and warned about the threat Al Qaeda poses to the U.S. several months prior to 9/11. He criticized Obama’s handling of Iran and Egypt as appeasement for terrorism and stifling of Democracy.

Sorry but I raise my hands in defeat. Santorum is the direct opposite of Obama and not at all similar to the Democrats. Those who have made this silly comparison have also called Obama a socialist and the worst president ever. Making such a comparison minimizes all the bad Obama has done, for it leads one to think that perhaps Obama not so bad-after all … he’s like Santorum.

False.

Leon H. Wolf from Red State and many others have also been greatly bothered by Santorum’s lack of executive experience in comparison to Romney’s 4 years of Governor in Massachusetts. Executive experience is truly an important asset to any candidate but in this scenario it needs a bit of closer inspection. Romney ran for Senate and lost. He then ran for Governor, won one term, and didn’t run for reelection since he knew he wouldn’t win. He was an executive but not a very successful one.

Rick Santorum ran for the House, and won twice. As a freshman and newcomer to the House, Santorum was appalled at the level of corruption taking place, and he together with six others stood up and exposed the actions of senior members of BOTH PARTIES in what become known as the “Gang of Seven.” Compare Santorum’s actions to that of the over three hundred others who either took a part in the corruption or turned a blind eye towards it. Santorum then ran for the Senate and won twice as a conservative in the blue state of Pennsylvania. In the Senate he took the initiative and led the fight against the left in many scenarios including stopping funding for partial-birth abortion, reforming welfare, and reforming social security.

Rick Santorum is human, has made mistakes in the past, and isn't perfect. No one is. However, after reviewing all of the above, it is clear he provides the strongest contrast to Barack Obama and I wish to go as far from Obama as possible. This therefore leads me to support Rick Santorum in the primary and definitely in the general election.




 

Hey - Team Romney: Keep On Shooting those Negative Ads ... You're Hurting Your own Candidate!

Anyone who has followed the GOP primary season this year and watched the Romney Team's nasty negativity is unsurprised at the latest developments.

Shortly after Perry had jumped into the race, he had appeared as the most threatening candidate to Romney, so they dumped millions in negative ads against him. Once Perry was overtaken by Newt, who had become the next frontrunner, the Romney team unloaded a trunk of attacks against Newt.

Although the Romney team had thrown some false attacks Santorum's way after his victory in Iowa, they hadn't thought he'd be someone they'd have to seriously contend with. However, with Santorum having beaten Romney in 3 states after Florida, 2 of which Romney had won in '08 and were expected to win once again, the Romney team has unleashed its entire arsenal against Santorum.

Romney's motto had been electability since he has no conservative record to tout. Since he can no longer play his only winning card, with the most recent Rasmussen poll showing Santorum has a national double-digit lead over Romney and an even greater gap between the two if it comes down to a 2-man race, Romney has resorted to his only option; throw more negative ads against Santorum.

The Romney Team is having a bit of a harder time, though, since Santorum doesn't have Newt's heavy baggage. Not too hard though, since they haven't gotten any issues in resorting to taking words out of context and resorting to plain old-fashioned lies.

The Santorum Team, knowing the impact those negatives ads could have, has responded; but not in the nasty personal manner Newt had. As previously declared, they remain solely on the issues, doing so in a highly humorous fashion. Since Romney's greatest playing card seems to be his ability to play negative, that too is issue-related in this ad. Sit back, enjoy, and make sure your boss is not behind you for this will have you laughing out loud!!

Don't you love Romney's foolish grin when he notices he's hurting himself? Now you've gotta watch it again! and again!

Coffee break is over :-) Back to work!!



 

Rabbi Avigdor Miller zt”l and the Current Political Election

Note:

This article is geared specifically to the Orthodox Jewish people.


Not that long ago the Jewish world had benefitted of the great legend Rabbi Avigdor Miller zt”l whose towering brilliance in Torah and Avodah combined with an overflowing passion and love to each and every yid. His humility and piety struck all who came in contact with him with an overwhelming sense of awe. He used his vast knowledge to share and spread yiddishkeit at all times in all places to all types of Yidden and his shiurim are still widely listened to today.

Rabbi Avigdor Miller zt”l was also greatly respected amongst the general public and when he felt a need to express the Torah opinion he would write articles in The New York Times. He particularly fought heavily to preserve the sanctity of marriage and decried those who wished to legalized toevah (gay marriage.) When fighting for Torah values he never backed down, and when wished death by haters, he calmly replied that it will indeed be his last act in this world.

He had also heavily protested the Israeli army’s attempt to draft females and had written an article in protest despite knowing the majority of the general public disagreed with him. The article was complete with data and proofs that women act upon emotion and therefore tend to be of greater disservice to the army for they often put at risk the lives of men who are sent to rescue them. The only reason the Israeli army was attempting to do so, he explained, was to follow the footsteps of the rest of the world in breaking all barriers between the genders thus creating an immoral and impure society.

The political world has been thrown abuzz the past week by a comment from presidential candidate Rick Santorum. Santorum was asked about the Pentagon’s decision to send women in the front lines and he responded that it could lead to compromising conditions because of the emotions involved. A female Navy vet who has held a leading role in the invasion of Iraq agrees with Santorum, as does all data. However, since we currently live in a post-reality world, the feminist movement is enraged at Santorum for daring to tell the truth as it stands.

Rick Santorum is one of the very few people out in the general world who aren’t afraid to publicly speak strongly in support of traditional marriage and sanctity of life, and has successfully fought the war to stop federal funding for partial-birth abortion.

His fearless fight for what’s right in face of ridicule and attacks is very rare in the politics of America today.

In a country where G-d may no longer be mentioned in many public places such as schools and colleges Rick Santorum has reminded the people that America had stood apart from all other nations because of their expression of faith in a creator. He reminded the American people that far more important than the “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” which is guaranteed for all in the Declaration of Independence and is widely quoted is the start of the statement which reads as follows; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, [that they are] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

He explains that unlike in other countries where rights are given by government, which can then take away those rights, the United States of America was formed on the premise that government is there not to give or take rights, but merely to protect those G-d given rights. And since they are given by G-d and not by government, government can take them away.

Rabbi Avigdor Miller zt”l is no longer alive, and we can no longer hear his pearls of wisdom. In addition to his brilliant expansions on Torah itself, he often spoke of what was the correct Torah opinion on a specific political situation. He had often stressed that as Torah Jews we must vote for Torah values and for the candidates who support morality as defined by Hashem.

Although I dare not speak in his stead or pretend to know what he would say in a specific scenario, the facts in the current presidential election speak for itself. There is only one candidate who has never been afraid to openly oppose immorality in every form. We must continue to support those who stand up for a moral society, as Rabbi Avigdor Miller zt”l had done all his life. 



 

A Social and Fiscal Conservative Sends Shockwaves from the Heartland

The political scene is packed with pundits and predictors who despite being wrong most of the time don’t pause their endless flow of predictions across the media waves, which unfortunately influence the votes of many Americans who tune in to the news for a couple of minutes a day and form their decision based on their meaningless gibberish.

An overwhelming majority of these pundits have pounced upon Rick Santorum as incapable of going forward immediately after his stunning Iowa victory. Did their declarations come after having foretold the Santorum victory for months and weeks prior to the Iowa caucus? Quite the contrary; these political pundits actually foretold Santorum would come in somewhere towards the bottom and would drop out right after Iowa. Despite the results having been the polar opposite of their punditry, they continued to spew their worthless predictions.

Overblown egos had led to bold-faced demands to Santorum he should drop out of the race in the hope it would boost Newt’s campaign, despite no proof that such action would yield their wished-for results. To their utter disappointment Senator Santorum hadn’t accepted their lovely advice and just look at the mess they have now landed in, face-down! Rick Santorum has won Minnesota and Missouri with landslide victories!

In Missouri, Santorum won with 55.2% while Romney came in a full thirty points behind Rick at 25.3%. In Minnesota, a state Romney won in 2008, with 88% precincts counted, Santorum won with 45%, Paul came in a distant second with 27.1% while Romney squeaked in at third with merely 16.9% of the votes. To top off the night-turned-morning, Santorum surprised everyone with an unexpected sweep in Colorado, another state Romney had won in 2008 and which he was expected to win once again. Santorum won with 40.2% while Romney received 34.9%. His victory in Colorado has brought the total states he’s won to four out of eight, while Romney won three and Newt won one.

Who is Rick Santorum?

Rick Santorum grew up near the coal mines in Pennsylvania where his grandfather was a miner and understands the struggles of the everyday American. He served in the Congress for a total of 16 years, first two terms in the House and then twelve years as a Senator. As a freshman Congressman, Santorum was shocked at the level of corruption amongst both parties specifically in relation to the housing market, and together with six other Congressman, brought the information out to the public. They were dubbed the "Gang of Seven" for their courage, honesty, and refusal to let matters continue to slide downhill.

Rick Santorum is the only one, of the candidates left standing, who can and does provide a clear contrast to Barack Obama on all the major issues.

He has never bought into the nonsense named Global Warming. Despite having hailed from a liberal state, he opposed overbearing government regulation and intervention which were deemed crucial to the safety of the planet based on those bogus facts. He has also opposed government bailouts including TARP from the very beginning, and not simply when campaigning as a Tea Party Conservative. During the 1990’s, when many conservatives including Newt and Romney championed for health care mandates, Rick Santorum had stood up in Congress and denounced the concept of government mandates, arguing for the rights of each individual to make their own decisions.

Santorum is also the only candidate who has never wavered on family values no matter who the audience was or what was at stake. He had his very name disgraced because of his strong conservative social views and risked his career defending the lives of the unborn. One can actually credit his fearless defense of conservatism for causing his loss in 2006 since the Democrat’s turned their entire arsenal at him precisely because of his constant outspoken championship of conservatism. Yet, he hasn’t backed down or regretted taking a stand for conservatism. Quite the contrary, he continues to do so with his head held high.

In short, Rick Santorum is a proud representative of the conservative viewpoint on all major issues we wish to challenge Barack Obama including Obama’s trademark legislations - Obamacare, government bailouts, government takeovers, and Cap & Trade. Santorum also provides a clear contrast to Obama’s endless choking environmental regulation, stifling energy policies including the denial for the Keystone Pipeline, first-class insulter of our allies and apologist to our enemies.

This is the case, and would be so, even if he wouldn’t have won with landslide victories this night. His victories, though, highlight the strong positives he brings to the table, since he focused throughout his campaign strictly on substance and the issues.

It just so happens to be that Rick Santorum is also the only candidate currently in this race who is a conservative and has remained staunchly loyal to conservatism during his representation of the purple/blue state of Pennsylvania. We can therefore be confident with a President Santorum that he won’t engage in any rash moves which will contradict conservative principles even if he will come under extreme pressure and badmouthing of the Democrats. He’s already been there and remained rock strong in defense of conservative values.

Obama’s entire three years has been an endless play of pitting poor against rich, ethnic groups against one another and so forth. With Rick Santorum on the Republican ballot, his fight against the rich will fall flat, for Obama’s income exceeds that of Rick Santorum’s. Additionally, Santorum’s amazing ability to unite with average blue-collar hardworking Americans, as he’s proven repeatedly in liberal Pennsylvania, will help him carry the crucial swing-states one must win in a presidential election. He’s won Iowa in the primary and can carry it in the general, and is polling best against Obama in the important swing-state Ohio. He is also the only one on the Republican side who can make Pennsylvania turn red again after having gone blue in every election since 1988. He is also polling extremely well in many other crucial swing states.

Yes, Santorum has lost his reelection in 2006 in Pennsylvania, but he has also won two statewide elections, in 1994 and 2000, despite PA having gone blue in every presidential contest since 1988. Santorum’s strong support for Bush’s War on Terror was a major cause for his loss, for anti-war protests were reaching its peak.

There’s still a long road ahead, although a clear shift has taken place this night. Santorum ran on a conservative platform and has shown that conservatism is quite popular amongst Americans across all spectrums. He has also proven capable of winning the heartland of America including swing states which are crucial in the general election. We may still look back at this night as the turning point in the primary in more ways than just one.

A Fighter for Conservative Values when Conservatives Weren't Looking

As a first-term Senator, Rick Santorum had authored a bill to ban federal funding for partial-birth abortion, and he battled the issue heavily in the Senate until he met success. I've come across this video from 1998 which reveals a couple of minutes of the fight Rick Santorum had led to defend the lives of helpless innocent semi-newborns who were being killed because they were unwanted for whatever reason.

In the video, Santorum rebutted statements from the Senator of California who proclaimed violence as the highest killer of children and from the Senator of New Jersey who agreed that murder is the highest killer of children in New Jersey and cited that 13 murders of children occur daily in his state. Santorum proved them both wrong, explaining that abortions are the biggest baby killer for it is responsible for four thousand killings daily! He also made a passionate and sound case as to why the leftist argument of "freedom to choose what to do with my body" is wrong, explaining that just as murder is wrong for morale reasons and not just because a majority of the nations is of the opinion that it's wrong, so too is the case with abortion. It is morally wrong and will remain morally wrong despite herculean efforts from the left to shift public opinion in favor of abortion.

Watch it.



Indeed, Santorum's impassioned pleas successfully convinced the Senate to block funding for partial-birth abortions. I've been particularly impressed and inspired to watch Santorum courageously defend conservative values despite his hailing of the purple/blue state of Pennsyvania and his first reelection coming up (which he ended up winning despite vicious leftist attempts to bring him down.)

Santorum's passionate defense for conservative values was not limited to his fight against partial-abortion. Santorum was at the forefront in numerous occasions, and took upon himself to battle for conservative principles at times when others preferred to delay action, whether because of upcoming elections, lack of motivation, or other reasons.

Santorum fought corruption in the house taking up members of both parties despite having been a newcomer, in what has been dubbed the Gang of Seven. This was before the days of the Tea Party! It's no wonder The Washington Post has said of Rick that, “Rick Santorum was a tea-party kind of guy before the tea-party even existed.” Rick had also denounced those who were in favor of mandating health insurance upon the American people as early as in this video of 1994,, as mentioned in a previous post. Another battle Rick successfully fought, first in the House, and then in the Senate, was the fight to reform Welfare.

Here's an excerpt of Brian Bolduc's article regarding Santorum's leading role in Welfare Reform:

Santorum first entered the House in 1991; two years later, he became ranking member of the subcommittee on human resources. “How I got to be ranking member of that subcommittee does say a lot, I’m afraid, about how Republicans used to view welfare — and too many still do,” Santorum wrote in his 2005 book, It Takes a Family. “Something like five Republican members more senior than I on the committee chose to claim a regular seat on either the Health or Trade subcommittee instead of taking the ranking position. . . . None of my Republican colleagues saw this subcommittee as particularly important to them or their constituents.”

Santorum showed that willingness in designing the Republican bill. Eager to call Pres. Bill Clinton’s bluff — he had promised to “end welfare as we know it” in the 1992 campaign — Santorum and the House Republicans introduced their version of welfare reform in 1993. “When we introduced our bill, the liberals savaged it, calling it cruel, heartless, and mean-spirited,” Santorum writes in his book. He continues with the characteristic sarcasm that has somewhat unfairly won him a reputation for acerbity: “We had actually had the audacity to call for time limits on welfare for the able-bodied!”

....

After Santorum won election to the Senate in 1994, he took up the cause on the floor of the upper chamber. As chair of the finance committee, which had jurisdiction in this area, Sen. Bob Packwood was meant to the lead the charge, but sexual-harassment charges distracted him and eventually lead to his resignation in September 1995.

In response, Dole assigned Santorum to be the floor leader on the bill, a remarkable appointment for Santorum in Haskin’s eyes. “He gets elected to the Senate, he’s not on the finance committee, he’s a freshman, and Dole basically puts him in charge of floor operation on welfare. This is completely unheard of, and the reason he did it is Santorum is really, really smart,” Haskins concludes.

On the floor, Santorum went head-to-head with liberal titans Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Ted Kennedy. In July 1996, Santorum directly confronted Moynihan’s lacerating criticism that the bill “invite[d] calamity.”

“I found it odd that he used the term,” Santorum mused aloud, “that the bill before us invites calamity, right after a very eloquent and fact-filled dissertation on the calamity that has been created by this welfare system, that calamity of illegitimacy in our civilization.”

Republicans in the House appreciated the strong ally they had in Santorum. “It was nice to have an ally who understood it,” says former congressman Clay Shaw, who assumed leadership on the issue after Santorum left the House.

Rick Santorum has stuck to his conservative principles and done so while serving from Pennsylvania. Remarkably, although Santorum hasn't bent his views to curry favor with voters as the examples above highlighted, he nevertheless attracted a considerable number of Independent and Reagan-Democrat voters who respected his consistency and his fiscally-sound approach. He's actually the only candidate to have won as a conservative in not one, but two, state-wide elections in Pennsylvania, a state which had gone to Democrats in every single presidential election since 1988. Although Romney has won one state-wide election in the blue state of Massachusetts, he has not done so on a conservative platform, as he himself admits. On the other hand, Rick Santorum has run and won twice on a conservative platform as a staunch pro-lifer who promoted lower taxes and took a tough stance against terror.

Although many are impressed with Santorum's record, his biggest problem seems to be his ability to present a clear case that he is capable of defeating first Romney and then Obama.

It seems as though Santorum was aware of the surprising data recently released by a PPP poll, for even prior to the Florida results having been made official, Santorum was off to campaign in the states whose primaries take place in the upcoming week. He’s already been to several states in the last few days and he’s had a full schedule today in Colorado.

Here are the astounding results of the above mentioned PPP poll which had been released yesterday regarding Santorum's ability to overtake Romney.

In Missouri, held a week from today, Santorum has a 63-21 favorability spread to Gingrich’s 52-32, Romney’s 46-36, and Paul’s 28-57. On the actual primary ballot, for which Gingrich did not qualify, Santorum leads with 45% to Romney’s 34% and Paul’s 13%. In the caucus, in which Gingrich can compete, Santorum falls to second at 28% behind the former speaker’s 30% and ahead of Romney’s 24% and Paul’s 11%. Head-to-head, Gingrich would defeat Romney in the state, 43-42, but Santorum would, 50-37. That is because Santorum’s supporters only go for Gingrich by eight points over Romney, but Gingrich’s vote for Santorum by 28 points. In Ohio, which will be held on Super Tuesday (March 6th), Santorum’s favorability rating is 59-24, compared to Romney’s and Gingrich’s 47-37 and Paul’s 31-52. The primary is a three-way race between Gingrich (26%), Romney (25%), and Santorum (22%), with Paul at 11%. Gingrich would top Romney, 42-39, but Santorum would, 45-38.

In Missouri, held a week from today, Santorum has a 63-21 favorability spread to Gingrich’s 52-32, Romney’s 46-36, and Paul’s 28-57. On the actual primary ballot, for which Gingrich did not qualify, Santorum leads with 45% to Romney’s 34% and Paul’s 13%. In the caucus, in which Gingrich can compete, Santorum falls to second at 28% behind the former speaker’s 30% and ahead of Romney’s 24% and Paul’s 11%. Head-to-head, Gingrich would defeat Romney in the state, 43-42, but Santorum would, 50-37. That is because Santorum’s supporters only go for Gingrich by eight points over Romney, but Gingrich’s vote for Santorum by 28 points. In Ohio, which will be held on Super Tuesday (March 6th), Santorum’s favorability rating is 59-24, compared to Romney’s and Gingrich’s 47-37 and Paul’s 31-52. The primary is a three-way race between Gingrich (26%), Romney (25%), and Santorum (22%), with Paul at 11%. Gingrich would top Romney, 42-39, but Santorum would, 45-38.

In other words, here’s how the two different two-man races would look like:

-In Missouri Santorum leads Romney 50-37 and in Ohio Santorum leads 45-38.

-In Missouri Gingrich leads Romney 43-42 and in Ohio Gingrich leads 42-39.

Two additional notable factors of this poll: Santorum scored the lowest in negative favorability. He also came in as the most-liked second choice candidate with 38% of those polled saying they consider Santorum as their second choice while Newt and Romney were both chosen by only 18% of those polled.

As for Santorum's ability to face Obama, here's some additionally surprising information from the PPP poll taken in the crucial swing state of Ohio, via the Daily Caller.

According to a poll released on Wednesday by Public Policy Polling, a Democrat-affiliated organization, Obama’s numbers have improved in the state: He breaks even on approval and disapproval, with 48 percent in each category; and he bests all of his possible Republican opponents in a head to head match up. But Santorum does the best — getting 42 percent to Obama’s 48 percent. Romney loses 49 to 42, Paul 48 to 38, and Gingrich gets flattened 51 percent to 39 percent.

The ability to appeal in blue-collar states has been a centerpiece of Santorum’s electability argument throughout the campaign. He has repeatedly highlighted the fact that he is the only candidate to have won a statewide election in a swing state — Pennsylvania — and argues that he could use his blue-collar appeal to beat Obama in other crucial swing states, like Ohio.

Another mistaken perception Santorum has to break through, is the mindset of many who think he's still in the red with no funding to go forward. Although that was the case at the start of the campaign prior to Iowa, it is no longer so. The Santorum campaign has confirmed it has raised $4.2M in January and is currently zero dollars in debt. Additionally, Foster Friess, a major donor to the Red White and Blue Fund, a Super Pac which supports Santorum, said during his interview with Bloomberg Television that he plans to give Rick significant help moving forward.

If Santorum is able to convince enough voters in the handful of primaries until Super Tuesday that he is a serious contender who can indeed reach the White House, the field may undergo a change once again in this ever-changing primary.

John McCain's team had prepared a powerful ad against Obama which never ran because McCain refused to mention Jeremiah Wright. The ad explained that McCain chose to serve in the military while Obama chose to attend Jeremiah Wright's church for over twenty years, and ended with the punchline that "Character matters, especially when no one's looking."

Rick Santorum has proven that he has had the character and conservative streak even when no one was looking whether he behaved in a conservative manner. In fact, the pressure had stemmed from the opposite spectrum for he was answerable to the voters of Pennsylvani. Yet, amazingly enough, as a candidate for office in a purple/blue state he remained true to the very same values he currently touts in the strongly conservative GOP presidential primary.