Why is Obama hiding his school records from Columbia?‏

Former libertatrian vice presidential candidate Wayne Allyn Root (above) has written a smashing article detailing the evasion of Obama and his handlers about releasing his college records from when he (allegedly) attended Columbia University. Below are some juicy excerpts to pique your interest...

"If anyone should have questions about Obama’s record at Columbia University, it’s me. We both graduated (according to Obama) Columbia University, Class of ’83. We were both (according to Obama) Pre-Law and Political Science majors. And I thought I knew most everyone at Columbia. I certainly thought I’d heard of all of my fellow Political Science majors. But not Obama (or as he was known then- Barry Soetoro). I never met him. Never saw him. Never even heard of him. And none of the classmates that I knew at Columbia have ever met him, saw him, or heard of him.

But don’t take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that Fox News randomly called 400 of our Columbia classmates and never found one who had ever met Obama.

Now all of this mystery could be easily and instantly dismissed if Obama released his Columbia transcripts to the media. But even after serving as President for 3 1/2 years he refuses to unseal his college records. Shouldn’t the media be as relentless in pursuit of Obama’s records as Romney’s? Shouldn’t they be digging into Obama’s past–beyond what he has written about himself–with the same boundless enthusiasm as Mitt’s?

The first question I’d ask is, if you had great grades, why would you seal your records? So let’s assume Obama got poor grades. Why not release the records? He’s president of the free world, for gosh sakes. He’s commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. Who’d care about some poor grades from three decades ago, right? So then what’s the problem? Doesn’t that make the media suspicious? Something doesn’t add up...

If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that:

A) He rarely ever attended class.

B) His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.

C) He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.

D) He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

If you think I’m “fishing” then prove me wrong. Open up your records Mr. President. What are you afraid of?"

Indeed, why not release them? I must admit that when I first heard of recent clamorings from the Obama camp that Romny release more tax records than he already has, it was the biggest display of chutzpah I had ever seem. Obama has an entire laundry list of records he refuses to release. I figured, 'Why not challenge Obama to let independent documents experts examine the original of the obviously fake long form birth certificate he touts as genuine and Romney should offer to release more tax information then and only then'. Wayne Allyn Root might be onto something here people.

Is Bill Clinton Thowing Obama Under The Bus?

Is it at all possible for the president who largely got where he is by expediently throwing people 'under the bus' who become a liability for him or are no longer useful, himself feeling what it's like to be so thoroughly discarded and betrayed? (Make no mistake, that list of who has gotten thrown under the bus by Obama esta largisimo.) Link

I first started considering the possibility that Obama was being thrown under the bus by Clinton a couple of days ago when Bubba said the following in an interview on CNN when asked abou republican candidate Mitt Romney...

"I think he (Romney) had a good business career. If you go in and you try to save a failing company, and you and I have friends here who invest in companies, you can invest in a company, run up the debt, loot it, sell all the assets, and force all the people to lose their retirement and fire them. Or you can go into a company, have cutbacks, try to make it more productive with the purpose of saving it. When you try, like anything else you try, you don't always succeed. I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say this is bad work. This is good work. There's no question that getting up and going to the office and basically performing the essential functions of the office, a man who's been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold."

I was a bit amazed by this coming from Clinton, but then I heard former Clinton advisor Dick Morris state the following last night...

"...I’ve spoken to several good friends who are staunch conservatives who have had exchanges with Bill Clinton in private,’ Morris told Fox News’s Sean Hannity, ‘and at one point one of them quotes him as saying, “You have six months to save the country”…"

I really don't think Morris is lying here. What would he have to gain (personally) by doing so? Perhaps Clinton is actually seeing Obama for the complete disaster he is for religious freedom, free speech, representative democracy, race relations, the economy and the treatment of women that he actually is.

The Obama Administration's Neverending War on Women‏

The Obama administration's glaringly obvious disdain for women was again highlighted last week as Obama refused to support sex-selective abortions that are disproportionately killing girls...

"Why would Obama oppose legislation that doesn't ban abortion, but bans sex selective abortion? Two reasons. 1) He actually supports the idea of aborting a child based on gender preference, after all, who would want to be "punished with a baby" (insert boy or girl here). Not to mention, President Obama is a supporter of leaving babies who survive abortions to die. 2) He's pandering to his Planned Parenthood base. Both are disgusting and the fact that he is willing to stand against a bill that would help to protect both girls and boys from discrimination in the womb shows once again Obama isn't really that "likeable" or overall "good guy." As usual, the White House communications team has made sure it looks as though Obama doesn't stand for sex discrimination, but Obama's actions speak louder than words. Notice how the White House doesn't make any effort to hit back against gendercide, rather, President Obama opposes a bill that would help end it. Where is the White House solution to ending gendercide?"

It appears that Obama is merely attempting to be consistent in his worldview given that he has never voted to support life at any point, whether from conception, birth, even all the way to natural end.

If one desires even more evidence of Obama's disdain for women, simply check out this article from Time magazine detailing the 'boy's club' mentality inside the White House...

"Even when women are in the room with Obama, they are sometimes seen but not heard. At a 2010 symposium on women in finance, Christina Romer, then the chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, talked about the difficulty she had getting the floor in policy discussions. Suskind relates the story of how Obama reacted angrily to one suggestion by Romer, and yet calmly heard out the same point from Larry Summers a few days later. Other senior women have complained that their arguments seemed to disappear into the ether at meetings, unacknowledged by Obama. Ellen Moran, Obama’s first communications director, was the first member of his team to leave the White House, resigning just 92 days into the term...


Even at the dinner pushed for by top female staffers so they could air their grievances directly with Obama, his reaction–as told by Suskind–amounted to an apologetic shrug. The men who cut their female colleagues out of meetings and decision-making were his friends and closest advisers. He needed them, and didn’t seem inclined to rein them in. The unspoken message: toughen up and deal with it."

When one couples this latest decision not to stick up for females not yet born with the fact that Obama pays women employees about 18% less than male workers, hundreds of thousands of women losing jobs under Obama's watch and his chief campaign strategist defending Bill Maher's characterization of former governor Sarah Palin as a 'c***', (could you imagine the furor if Bush's chief campaign strategist had done so?), it's not very hard at all to apply the tag to Most Misogynistic President Ever to this complete amatuer who is obviously in WAY over his head.

Vindication for so-called 'birthers'

Jack Cashill has an even-handed article that gives his take on the newly uncovered evidence that the Serenghetti Saviour was still described as Kenyan-born as late as 2007.

"Despite the claims made in the 1991 sales brochure produced by literary agent Jane Dystel, I do not believe Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

But I do believe that Obama said he was. The agency’s alleged fact-checking error is pure bull. I have written eight books myself, and I got to review every piece of promotional literature sent out about me or about my books. All authors get to do this.

The question that must be asked is why would Obama say he was born in Kenya if he was not. Well, from early on no doubt, Barack Obama learned that it paid to be exotic. Foreign birth gave him a romantic allure and also allowed him to distance himself from the bitter clingers of the country he barely deigned to inhabit.

“I chose my friends carefully,” he writes in “Dreams,” “The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.” These were the people with whom he felt comfortable.

Of course, a Kenyan birth would preclude his becoming president, but in 1991, Obama was not thinking that far ahead."

I have said all along that I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that Obama was born in Hawaii. However one cannot say that this has conclusively been shown given that not a single document expert has ever examined O's long-form birth certificate. One would have to blame the Mainstream Media in this case for doing nothing but run intereference for the guy, squashing any examinination of this charlatan's past while covering his butt at every opportunity.

At least the Arizona Secreary of State is showing an ounce of backbone in this matter by asking hawaii officials to verify O's paperwork.

Obama 2012 campaign slogan 'Forward' shared by Hitler Youth, Marxists, Socialists

Filed under the category of 'Color Me Suprised' the Obama administration again takes off it's mask to reveal it's true nature, absorbing the terminology of other leftist organizations from the past...

 "Barack Obama’s latest campaign slogan “Forward!” also happens to be a Nazi marching tune. Vorwärts! Vorwärts! was a marching song of the Hitler youth."

"Mussolini was editor of the Socialist newspaper, Avanti (Forward), in April 1912. Avanti took its name from Vorwarts, the German Socialist paper. He was eventually kicked out of the party but they gave him his start because Socialism is the way Forward. L’Avanti still exists today." Link

And from the pages of the Washington Times..

"The Obama campaign released its new campaign slogan Monday in a 7-minute video. The title card has simply the word "Forward" with the "O" having the familiar Obama logo from 2008. It will be played at rallies this weekend that mark the Obama re-election campaign's official beginning.

There have been at least two radical-left publications named "Vorwaerts" (the German word for "Forward"). One was the daily newspaper of the Social Democratic Party of Germany whose writers included Friedrich Engels and Leon Trotsky. It still publishes as the organ of Germany's SDP, though that party has changed considerably since World War II. Another was the 1844 biweekly reader of the Communist League. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin are among the names associated with that publication.

East Germany named its Army soccer club ASK Vorwaerts Berlin (later FC Vorwaerts Frankfort).

Vladimir Lenin founded the publication "Vpered" (the Russian word for "forward") in 1905. Soviet propaganda film-maker Dziga Vertov made a documentary whose title is sometimes translated as "Forward, Soviet" (though also and more literally as "Stride, Soviet")."

So again we see the familiar terminology of over-arching government control morphing into a stunningly oversimplified mantra to be repeated by the mind-numbed masses that is only half as hard to remember as "Hope and Change'. Forward!  

McCain ignored massive voter fraud in '08 to avoid riots

I have known for years of the existance of massive voter fraud in Philadelphia...

"In Philadelphia, for example, ward leaders distribute register-by-mail postcards to local residents. The cards are stamped and pre-addressed and each contains the address of a vacant lot or a boarded-up house in neighboring Camden, NJ or Wilmington, DE. The voter simply prints his/her name on the card, signs it, and drops it in the nearest mailbox.

On Election Day, after voting in their home precincts (and perhaps one or two other Philadelphia precincts), voters are picked up in buses and mini-vans and driven across the Delaware River to Camden. After voting in New Jersey elections, they’re driven south to the Commodore Barry Bridge and back across the Delaware to Wilmington. Then, when they’ve voted in Delaware, they’re driven back to Philadelphia where each voter is given $20 or $25 for their time and effort. The money they are paid is called “street money” in Democratic circles.

In 2005, New Jersey Republicans released the results of a study which showed that some 170,000 New Jersey residents were registered to vote in two or more states. Of these, some 6,500 voted in two or more states in the 2004 General Election."

 Now, it is coming to light that John McCain is ever bit the milquetoast, also-ran that wasn't even really trying to win the presidency at all in 2008 that I suspected him to be...

"Leaked emails from the intelligence group Stratfor recently revealed some shocking allegations of massive Democrat voter fraud in 2008. The emails revealed by WikiLeaks say that the McCain campaign decided to ignore the wide spread voter fraud in order to avoid massive civil unrest — even though it meant he’d lose the White House.

The emails say that Democrats were caught “stuffing ballot boxes in Philly and Ohio,” but the McCain campaign decided to let it all go.

After discussions with his inner circle, which explains the delay in his speech, McCain decided not to pursue the voter fraud in PA and Ohio, despite his staff’s desire to make it an issue. He said no. Staff felt they could get a federal injunction to stop the process. McCain felt the crowds assembled in support of Obama and such would be detrimental to our country and it would do our nation no good for this to drag out like last go around, coupled with the possibility of domestic violence.

 You can bet your bottom dollar that fraud will be rampant this time around as well and the Justice Department charged with investigating instances of voter fraud steadfastly refuses to prosecute blatant voter intimidation in Philadelphia, never mind something as innocuous as voter fraud.

If Romney has half a brain, and I think he does, he should be quietly mobilizing observers for the upcoming elections, especially in PA and OH, to ensure that they are fair and on the up and up.

The Obama Administration's War on Working Women

Nothing say "I'm a clueless idiot simply parroting a left-wing talking point" like repeating the current fad in Lying To The Public concerning the manufactured 'Republican War on Women'.

Obama's numbers weren't too hot among women voters so strategists had to formulate this cockamamie scheme to boost their poll numbers.

Now Mitt Romney is weighing in with the pertinent fact concerning the current regime's antagonism towards working women...

"The former Massachusetts governor said 92.3 percent of job losses during Obama’s presidency were experienced by women.

“The other day there’s been some talk about a war on women. The real war on women has been waged by the Obama administration’s failure on the economy. Do you know what percent of the job losses in the Obama years have been casualties of women losing jobs as opposed to men?” Romney said during a campaign stop in Wilmington, Del.

“Do you know how many women – what percent of the job losses were women? 92.3 percent of the job losses during the Obama years has been women who’ve lost those jobs. The real war on women has been the job losses as a result of the Obama economy,” he said."

In fairness, I have heard there might possibly be a bit of overlap in the statistics cited by Romney between the Bush presidency and the current regime. But nothing this clown can say will change the fact that these numbers have only been exacerbated under his presidency.

On Bastardy in America and the Stark Differences Between Romney and Santorum

Kudos to presidential hopeful Rick Santorum picking up another huge win, this time in the Lousiana primary. Although behind front-runner Mitt Romney in the overall delegate count, it seems that Santorum won't be pulling out of the race any time soon, if at all.

Columnist Michael Barone has put out a great article contrasting the differences between the two candidates while at the same time examining the effects of bastardy on this country...

"Among the top 20 percent in income and education, (author Charles) Murray finds that rates of marriage and church attendance, after falling in the 1970s, have plateaued at a high level since. And these people have been working longer hours than ever. He labels this group Belmont, after the upscale Boston suburb.


In contrast, among the bottom 30 percent of whites, those indicators started falling in the 1970s and have been plunging ever since, to historical lows by 2008, even before the current economic doldrums. He labels this group Fishtown, after the Philadelphia neighborhood that has been the home of low-income whites since it was first settled in the early 19th century.


In Fishtown, he reports, one-third of men age 30 to 49 are not making a living, one-fifth of women are single mothers raising children. Nearly 40 percent have no involvement in a secular or religious organization.


The result is that the children being raised in such settings have the odds heavily stacked against them. Santorum made this point vividly, and Mitt Romney agreed.


These findings turn some conventional wisdom on its head. They tend to contradict the liberals who blame rising income disparity on free-market economics. In fact, it’s largely driven by personal behavior and choices.


They also undermine the conservatives who say that a liberation-minded upper class has been undermining traditional values to which more downscale Americans are striving to adhere. Murray’s complaint against upscale liberals isn’t that they’re libertines but that they fail to preach what they practice.


What light does this shed on the GOP race? For starters, Romney is literally from Belmont, where he raised his family and now has a condo, and where he helped build a large Mormon temple. He grew up in another Belmont: Bloomfield Hills, Mich.


Santorum, in contrast, describes himself as the grandson of an immigrant coal miner, a product of Fishtown. He often tells of getting his political start by winning two House races in Pittsburgh’s steel-mill suburbs."

The whole article is an interesting read and sheds some light on the differing viewpoints of the two leading presidential hopefuls to replace Barack Obama as well as the decline of what once made up the core of American society.

Mr 'Inevitable' has now lost 5 of 8 states

I just thought this was interesting. From Jeffrey Anderson over at The Weekly Standard we read...

"When Mitt Romney won the Florida primary last Tuesday by 14 percentage points, how many people in America imagined that when Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota were contested just seven days later, he would fail to win in any of them? But it wasn’t just that Romney lost. In Minnesota and Missouri, Romney failed to get even half as many votes as the winner, Rick Santorum. In Minnesota, Romney also finished 10 points behind the second-place finisher, Ron Paul (with 5 percent of precincts still outstanding). Santorum beat Romney by lopsided tallies of 55 to 25 percent in Missouri and 45 to 17 percent in Minnesota. Moreover, he beat Romney by 5 points (40 to 35 percent) in Colorado, where Romney won by 42 points (60 to 18 percent) over John McCain the last time around.

In all, the “inevitable” nominee has now lost in 5 of 8 states.

Santorum’s 30-point margin of victory in Missouri was the largest margin posted by any GOP candidate so far this year. True, no delegates were awarded as a result of that vote, but a quarter of a million Missourians still showed up and made their opinions known (more than anywhere else except for Florida and South Carolina).

What’s more, of the five largest states that have held votes so far this year (in order, Florida, Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado, and South Carolina), Romney has won by 14 points, lost by 30 points, lost by 28 points, lost by 5 points, and lost by 12 points."

This race is just starting to heat up and we have a long way to go. For the first time in decades, the later states in the primary process might actually get to decide matters. I thought the following information from PJ Media was interesting though...

"•The NBC-Marist poll taken right before the Florida primary showed Romney leading Gingrich by fifteen points. They asked how voters would vote in a straight Romney-Gingrich race. In a two-man race, Romney’s lead became sixteen points.


•Public Polling polled Missouri voters and found in a four-way caucus race, Gingrich led 30% to 28% for Santorum and 24% for Romney. In a two-way Gingrich-Romney race, Gingrich held a scant 43-42% lead, while in a Santorum-Romney race, Santorum led 50-37%.


•In Ohio, PPP found a similar phenomenon. Gingrich led Romney and Santorum 26-25-22%


. In a two-man race, Gingrich only led Romney by a 42-39% margin, while Santorum would lead Romney 45-38%.


•While not a scientific poll, the blog Hot Air’s reader survey gave a picture of how supporters of each candidate would react to different scenarios. Gingrich held a 45-33% lead over Romney in the most recent site survey with Santorum drawing 22% of the vote. If participants were restricted to Gingrich and Romney, the margin for Gingrich would be 57-43%, but in a two-man race, Santorum beats Romney 61-39%.

All four polls illustrate the point that Santorum voters aren’t all going to break for Gingrich, and three of the examples suggest that Santorum would do a better job of picking up Gingrich supporters than vice versa. Is this polling noise or is there a reason for this trend?"

A funny thing happened on the way to the coronation

"For all the hype in republican circles about getting behind the eventual nominee, the MSM seems to be pretty quite about these recent poll results...

"Minnesota looks like a toss up with any of the four candidates having some shot at winning. Santorum holds a small edge there with 29% to 27% for Romney, 22% for Gingrich, and 19% for Paul...


Tuesday has the potential to be a big day for Rick Santorum. In addition ... a Missouri survey we conducted last weekend found him with 45% to 34% for Romney and 13% for Paul. Given how quickly things have moved in this race I wouldn't assume Santorum still has that lead, especially given the momentum Romney has after big wins in Florida and Nevada. But nevertheless it looks like Santorum has a decent chance at wins in Minnesota and Missouri, and a second place finish in Colorado. 72 hours from now he may have supplanted Gingrich as the top alternative to Romney."

I say let this whole thing play out and may they best man win. It will only make for a stronger candidate and I don't think Santorum has even hit his stride yet.

Malkin: Santorum for President

If you get a chance, check out the latest article from Michelle Malkin in which she lays out her argument in favor of electing Rick Santorum for president. In it she she accurately decribes (IMO) the other candidates in the primary race and highlights way the obvious choice should be Santorum. The article is filled with numerous links supporting her position and you can spend an hour checking them all out.

Mark Steyn summed it up accurately last week in reference to the current crop of candidates running for the GOP nomination. To paraphrase, he basically said that he wished Calvin Coolidge was running for the GOP nomination, but for whatever reason (chiefly among them that he's been dead for 80 years) he has decided not to throw his hat in the ring this time. These are the four candidates we have. These are the ones we have to choose from. Let's get behind one of them and defeat Obama!

Thank You Georgia!

Finally a state has the cahones to stand up to the legal bullies utilized by Obama...

"In the courtroom of Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings, sworn testimony was delivered rapid-fire over two hours to the effect that Obama is not qualified to have his name on the 2012 presidential ballot because his father was not a U.S. citizen, which precludes him from being a “natural-born citizen,” a clear, unambiguous requirement of the Constitution.

Obama refused to honor a subpoena to attend the hearing, produce records answering the charges or even send legal representation to dispute the evidence. Instead, they sent a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp suggesting the judge was letting attorneys “run amok.”

In response, Kemp warned Obama and his counsel that if they chose not to participate in the proceedings, “you do so at your own peril.”

The judge is expected to rule in the case shortly. However, he has little choice but to issue a default judgment in favor of the challenge – potentially removing Obama from the ballot in Georgia in November.

That would be an astonishing development to the major media in this country that have collectively scoffed at and caricatured the notion that there is any doubt as to Obama’s eligibility."

Already the blogosphere is abuzz as to whether the excuse of health or family will be offered up for Obama's soon-to-be abrupt exit from presidential politics. I find it particularly hilarious that the supposed 'scientific evidence based' left competely accepted on face value the Obama nativity account without ever asking for solid evidence on the matter. It's particularly side-splitting because they made John McCain jump through hoops to demonstrate his eligibility.

Obama alienating the Catholic Left

Liberal Catholics reliably voted for a complete unknown in 2008 and were hoping for the best. It seems that now some are coming to the realization that they've been had and that the person that they put in office isn't quite so hopey-changey as they desired and instead is ramming mandatory birth control/sterilization coverage by employers down their collective throats. Conscientoius objector? Not allowed in the New World Order of Obama...

"The liberal Cardinal Roger Mahony, archbishop emeritus of Los Angeles, blogged that he "cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience"—and he urged people to fight it. Another liberal favorite, Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, Fla., has raised the specter of "civil disobedience" and vowed that he will drop coverage for diocesan workers rather than comply. They are joined in their expressions of discontent by the leaders of Catholic Relief Services and Catholic Charities, which alone employs 70,000 people.

In the run-up to the ruling, the president of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins, suggested a modest compromise by which the president could have avoided most of this strife. That would have been by allowing the traditional exemption for religious organizations. That's the same understanding two of the president's own appointees to the Supreme Court just reaffirmed in a 9-0 ruling that recognized a faith-based school's First Amendment right to choose its own ministers without government interference, regardless of antidiscrimination law.

A few years ago Father Jenkins took enormous grief when he invited President Obama to speak at a Notre Dame commencement; now Father Jenkins finds himself publicly disapproving of an "unnecessary government intervention" that puts many organizations such as his in an "untenable position."

Here's just part of what he means by "untenable": Were Notre Dame to drop coverage for its 5,229 employees, the HHS penalty alone would amount to $10 million each year.

The irony, of course, is that the ruling is being imposed by a Catholic Health and Human Services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, working in an administration with a Catholic vice president, Joe Biden. A few years back the voluble Mr. Biden famously threatened to "shove my rosary beads" down the throat of those who dared suggest that his party's positions on social issues put it at odds with people of faith. Does he now mean to include Mr. Winters, Cardinal Mahony and Father Jenkins?"

Barry is doing a wonderful job of alienating a core group that supported him in 2008. One thing that liberals never seem to like to admit or are completely oblivious to is the authoritarian streak inherent in alot of liberal policies and ideas. Their ideas aren't popular to begin with and the only way they can implement them is through judicial rulings and presidential orders rather than any sort of debate and subsequent voting by congress.

A day with Senator Rick Santorum

The Worldwide Christian Center in Pompano Beach was the setting yesterday for a visit by presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who attended the morning worship service and delivered about 20 minutes worth of remarks...

"His (Santorum's) remarks there focused on his personal journey as a Christian, which he said infused his overall views.

"Faith plus family equals freedom in America," Santorum said. "So many ways the brokenness that we see in America is the brokenness of the foundational pillars that we see in society…. I'm the candidate who understands the foundation upon which everything else is built, and that's faith and family.

"If you want to fix the economy in this country, let's do something about fixing the families in this country," he said.

He also said many of the nation's ills, including economic difficulties, would be fixed if men and women got married before having children. He has a long history of opposition to issues important to gays and lesbians, and he repeatedly emphasized his opposition to gay marriage.

Santorum, who is strongly anti-abortion, detailed his years-long fight to outlaw the procedure known as partial-birth abortion.

Earlier Sunday, Santorum said he has no intention of dropping out of the Republican presidential race."


The Shark Tank.net has put up a video of Santorum's remarks at the church that I was privileged to attend yesterday. As the field of potential republican candidates now stands at four, it is becoming increasingly clear that Santorum is the best candidate still standing. I agree with Santorum about 90% of the time on a variety of issues. However, he doesn't seem to have Gingrich's long line of extra baggage, seems more firmly grounded in conservative principals than Romney, and doesn't subscribe to the 'Blame America-Isolationist' stance adopted by libertarian Ron Paul that doesn't play very well outside his circle of fervent supporters.

Here's to hoping for a long and fruitful electoral process in which the candidates debate and offer up solutions and a number of states weigh in with their thoughts on the issues rather than just the first few in line.

EDIT: A special shout-out to Tea Party Ft Lauderdale which was well represented at yesterday's service. Such a 'Rainbow Coalition' on public display would be enough to give Jesse Jackson conniptions! HA!

Is Rick Santorum anti-gay?

It seems that CNN and other news outlets are trumpeting the report that Rick Santorum was booed by some members of the audience while speaking recently at New England College.

"One man asked Santorum about his opposition to same-sex marriage, which is legal in New Hampshire. The candidate quickly picked a fight with the crowd, which seemed to support same-sex unions.

"So anyone can marry anyone else?" Santorum asked, swiftly turning the conversation to polygamy. "So anyone can marry several people?"

The crowd objected and tried to talk over him.

"I tried," he offered reporters as he left the conference center."

I don't really see Santorum's answer as trying to change the subject from gay marriage to polygamy as some outlets are characterizing the exchange. I think that Santorum was merely trying to ascertain from his inquisitors if they thought that there should be any limits whatsoever as to what should define the term 'marriage'. It could be argued then, that if any of them thought there should be at least some level of exclusivity in what constitutes marriage, then Santorum then feels the same way, there being only a matter of degree as to where the terminator line for such exclusivity should be drawn.

Meanwhile, in a refreshingly open and honest exchange with "moronic, liberal ass-clown" Chris Matthews, former Santorum staffer for 10 years and openly gay man Robert Traynham, thoroughly rejected the idea that Santorum is in any way personally against gay people, insisting that he was 'openly out' with Santorum.

"An interesting interview with Robert Traynham, Rick Santorum's former aide of ten years appeared on today's Hardball with Matthews. Traynham tells Chris, "I was openly out to him." and then goes on to defend Rick's character and beliefs. An important interview considering the angle the media and the Democrat Party will take in trying to sink Santorum's campaign."

Check out the 3 minute video on the above links I provided if you have the time. Traynham seems quite passionate in his defense of Santorum and after working with him for 10 years, you would think he would have some idea as to whether Santorum is in any way homophobic and the evidence seems to bear out that he decidedly is not.

Iowa: Romney 25% Paul 22% Santorum 16%‏

This has GOT to be the best news of this young campaign season. It's music to my ears!

"In Iowa, both Romney and Paul are each up five points among likely caucus goers from a CNN/Time/ORC poll conducted at the start of December. The new survey indicates that Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, is at 16% support, up 11 points from the beginning of the month, with Gingrich at 14%, down from 33% in the previous poll. Since

Gingrich's rise late last month and early this month in both national and early voting state surveys, he's come under attack by many of the rival campaigns.

According to the survey, 11% are backing Texas Gov. Rick Perry, 9% are supporting Rep Michele Bachmann, and 1% are backing former Utah Gov. and former ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, who's spending nearly all his time campaigning in New Hampshire.

Santorum is campaigning on a shoestring budget, but he's visited all of Iowa's 99 counties and has made a strong pitch towards social conservative voters, who are very influential here in Iowa on the Republican side. Wednesday Santorum was up with a new radio spot on Hawkeye State airwaves touting endorsements by social conservative leaders. His pitch may be starting to pay off.

"Most of Santorum's gains have come among likely caucus participants who are born-again or evangelical, and he now tops the list among that crucial voting bloc, with support from 22% of born-agains compared to 18% for Paul, 16% for Romney, and 14% for Gingrich," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland."

Cain, Bachmann, Perry, Romney and even Gingrich and Paul have had their moment in the sun and surged in the polls, if even briefly, why not Santorum?If youre a conservative and you have a long checklist of conservatives you want in a candidate, Santorum would have alot of checkmarks next to his name. I don't think for one moment that there is a 'perfect' candidate, you can always find something wrong with someone's record. But Santorum has been consistently conservative on a variety of issues.

".. a lot of folks who are very concerned that between Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry and myself, that we're going to split the conservative vote and someone like a Gingrich or a Romney or now even a Paul could end up winning the Iowa caucuses, and we could be left with someone who's not particularly conservative as the standard bearer of the party.

And there were a lot of conversations. Several people called me and said, would you consider maybe getting out and supporting someone else? And we're going to call the others and do the same.

My response to that is let the people of Iowa vote. This race isn't going to be over
after one caucus. This is a long process.

Let the people decide who the best person to carry the conservative banner is. I believe that they are going to select me, and I feel very confident about that. But you know what? If it's somebody else, that's fine." Rick Santorum, 12/21/11 Link

Will Rick Santorum turn out to be this primary season's Mike Huckabee?

Tony Lee informs us of some of the latest developments affecting Santorum's campaign in the Hawkeye state in the day's leading up to their caucus to be held on January 3rd...

"The Family Leader, an influential social conservative organization in Iowa that has a lot of sway with Iowa's key Evangelical voting bloc, decided not to endorse a candidate today. Two of its most prominent leaders though, CEO Bob Vander Plaats and Policy Director Chuck Hurley, endorsed former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum​, citing Santorum as the candidate who has most prominently linked the strength of the nation's economy to strong families.

Vander Plaats and Hurley both referred to Santorum as the potential "Mike Huckabee​" of the Iowa caucus. Huckabee, who won Iowa's caucus in 2008, often, as Santorum has done, spoke constantly about how strong families and strong economies are interrelated.

"I saw him as a champion for the family on the campaign trail," Vander Plaats said. "He always brought the issues of the day back to the family."

Vander Plaats also said that he called Santorum after his third place finish in the Ames Straw Poll this summer to tell him to stay in the race because his voice was needed.

"I've never seen a caucus like this," Vander Plaats said. "People are going from one candidate to another in a ten minute period, figuring out where to land."..

“I believe Rick Santorum comes from us, not to us,” Vander Plaats said. “He’s one of us.”

A strong showing by Santorum in Iowa would certainly make things more interesting for those of us tiring of Romney/Gingrich talking points. Why not Santorum? Bachmann, Romney, Cain and Gingrich have all seen their stars rise, if only for a little while, in popularity polls and I wouldn't be suprised if Santorum gets his shot at the limelight being that there are still alot of people who haven't made up their minds yet or if they have, they're not too committed in their choices. I would definately consider voting for a Bachmann-Santorum presidency, irregardless of which name is at the top of the ticket. Link

Cal Thomas asks, 'What's so bad about adultery?'

Cal Thomas examines the importance of fidelity as it relates to society in his most recent article....

"What is marriage? Is it something for the convenience of the U.S. Post Office for orderly mail delivery, or is there a Higher Authority behind it?

For most people, marriage is a sacrament with "rules" firmly established by God and when followed these rules benefit married couples, their children and society.

Among the main requirements of marriage is fidelity. "Forsaking all others" is the phrase contained in the Christian marriage vow. Divorce has become widely accepted (though not to the Author of marriage) as a sometimes "necessary evil," but adultery remains for most people what it has always been: a betrayal.

It's not just a religious concept. Ask a person who is married but does not believe in God how he or she would feel about a cheating spouse and you most likely would get the same response you would receive from one who does believe in a higher power: anger and profound disappointment."

I think we can all agree with Thomas's assessment. Monogamous marriage is the very bedrock upon which our society is based upon, no matter how others may try to redefine it. Thomas goes on in the article to relate the problem society has with adultery as it relates to the current primary campaign for president...

"Once, divorce was a political "kiss of death." Now we are debating whether adultery should carry a similar penalty. One shudders to think what might be next.

Ultimately, what voters must decide is this: Does a presidential candidate's personal flaws rise (or fall) to a level that inhibits his ability to do the job of president?

Put another way, if you are about to have surgery, do you care if the doctor is a cad, or do you care more whether most of his patients are alive and well?

With the multiple challenges Americans face and with the choices presented to us, if the country is to be made well, voters may just have to sacrifice the ideal for the pragmatic."

While some may criticize Newt Gingrich's personal life, we now know that the 'He Served His Dying Wife With Divorce Papers on Her Hospital Bed' rumor to be completely false, albeit difficult to shake for Gingrich. Americans that had no problem voting for someone who lowered the bar when it came to their personal life like Bill Clinton may soon have to ask themselves if they would vote for a Republican whose personal life is less than pristine and see if the same standard of 'who cares what he did in his personal life' still applies.

Holder Needs to Resign-Now

Why isn't anyone in the MSM reporting that Michelle Bachmann now makes the 52nd lawmaker to call for Holder's resignation?

"Minnesota congresswoman and Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann told The Daily Caller late Friday that she thinks Attorney General Eric Holder should resign immediately because of Operation Fast and Furious.

Bachmann is the first presidential candidate, and the 52nd member of Congress, to demand Holder’s immediate resignation. “Attorney General Holder should resign because of the mismanagement of ‘Fast and Furious,’” Bachmann told TheDC. “As the nation’s top law enforcement officer, he bears the responsibility for the actions of his department.”

Bachmann went further with this statement than with her previous position on Holder’s job performance. On October 10 in New Hampshire, she told TheDC: “There needs to be a full investigation. And surely he should resign … if the facts prove to be what they appear to be.”"

None of this is newsworthy of course, because Obama is a democrat and liberals can only excoriate republican attorney generals. Criticism of their own is verboten apparently.

The best article on the Herman Cain contraversy you will find

Trust me, I visit numerous news sites and blogs and pour over entries from all types of pundits on a regular basis. Since allegations from the 1990's started coming up this past week concerning Herman Cain's conduct while serving CEO of the National Restaurants Association (ironically enough, about 12 hours before he was to address the National Press Club for the first time), this has got to be BY FAR the most informative article on the entire debacle. It's extensive, well written, informative, contains some points that other media outlets didn't cover and is even-handed in it's coverage. By all means, feel free to weigh in with your thoughts on this contraversy in the comment box below. Here's a brief snippet of the linked article from The Hayride...

"This thing could be a great opportunity for a transformational moment, and Cain’s campaign could well have led the way to a discussion that would greatly benefit the country. It’s somewhat analogous to the opportunity Obama had early in 2008 when the nation found out he’d spent 20 years in a church led by an anti-American charlatan who regularly trashed white people and bastardized the country’s history as a key element of his ministry. Naturally, Obama mucked that moment by throwing his “typical white person” grandmother under the bus, though he got away with that thanks to the media’s happy acquiescence in the faux racial-healing propaganda offensive. But a presidential candidate who isn’t a typical white person and whose qualifications as a candidate include a demonstrated ability to generate achievement in large organizations and who then points to old allegations of an arguably minor import as a reason why we’re killing ourselves with intolerance toward each other in our daily dealings would be perfectly placed to capitalize on it. And in doing so, said candidate would cement himself as a uniter on the national scene."


ADDENDUM: Additionally, check out this video response from Cain supporters. I think it can be an effective message but you be the judge.

EDIT: Politico runs 90 92 stories on Cain in 5 days, and counting...