Image 01 Image 03

Obama “undoubtedly pulled punches in his first term to maximise the likelihood of winning a second term”

Obama “undoubtedly pulled punches in his first term to maximise the likelihood of winning a second term”

Interesting theory from Steve Kates at the Catallaxy Files (“Australia’s leading libertarian and centre-right blog”) that Obama does not want to run against Romney and that exciting the religious base in the Republican Party decreases Romney’s chances.

I’m not sure I agree with what amounts to a double-manipulation theory.  I agree with Dan Riehl that Obama is trying to make the campaign about social issues, not economics:

This administration is many things, politically dumb isn’t one of them. Something in some poling somewhere must be telling them there’s just enough of an angle for them to exploit, along with their wanting social issues, not financial news, driving as much of the political discussion as possible.

This comment from LI reader stevewhitemd also is on point:

In any left revolution, be it progressive, bolshevik, socialist, fascist, maoist, or bolivaran, it is necessary to knock down organized religion. The Catholic Church competes for the hearts and minds of people and does so effectively, as do the evangelical Protestant churches, etc. Further, the Church is organized and so can put out a message of opposition.

So at some point the revolution has to take the Church on, or lose. Socialists today understand the power the Church had in Poland in the 1970s, in Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 1980s, and in Venezuela today. The current revolution will not make the mistake of allowing the Church to survive long-term.

If the revolution is strong enough to take out the Church directly, it does so. But if not, it has to take on the Church in ways that compromise the Church’s moral authority and organization. It’s rather Alinsky-like, eh?

Here is the money quote from Kates as to what is going on in this country:

There is an Alinskyite Marxist in the White House who has undoubtedly pulled punches in his first term to maximise the likelihood of winning a second term. He is possibly the worst economic manager in American history and is overseeing a series of foreign policy disasters that have left the US in an incomparably weakened position in relation to every major issue in the world today.

Yet for all that Obama is still the favourite to win in November. I have been astonished at the ability of the Obama administration to manipulate the electorate almost at will.

The view from down under is quite clear.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


In any left revolution…

Actually it goes a bit deeper than that-

Google “collective salvation”.

After you have a clear understanding of it, read what Obama says about it-

The man’s been telling us he’s a straight up marixist from the word go-

And like all good marxist, they all strive to cloak it;poorly, I might add.

    Probably just a coincidence…

    “I feel like we got a righteous wind at our backs here, but we’re going to have to work. We’re going to have to struggle. We’re going to have to fight.”
    – Barack Obama Virginia, October 22, 2008

    “The ill wind of opportunism is falling, the righteous wind of socialism is on the rise. By the end of this year the victory of socialism will be greatly assured. Naturally there will be many struggles ahead and we must struggle hard.”
    – Mao Zedong, “The Writings of Mao Zedong”

      O’m sorry. These guys aren’t that smart. The only way this double manipulation theory could work is if the White House has access to a time machine.

    WoodnWorld in reply to Browndog. | February 15, 2012 at 3:35 am

    American Marxist presidents have to cloak their intentions IF they want a second term. Once they are in their second term, there is no need to hide anymore.

    I do not question for a moment that this administration has tried to get away with as much as they could in the last three+ years, as long as what they do/have done does not overly jeopardize their prospects for a second term.

    If Barack wins in November, what we have seen so far will be tiddlywinks compared to what is coming. Second term Presidents are, by design, left free and unchecked to pursue their legacy however they best see fit. They are always less accountable to the public in their second terms than they are in their first (what do they have to lose?).

    Given everything we have seen so far, everything they have hinted at and moved towards, in both foreign and domestic policy, what kind of a legacy do we think he really wants to leave? He must be stopped.

It helps when you have a cooperative media like CNN that actually did a five minute segment on the horrors of prosperity wrought by the new oil economny in North Dakota.

The story about the kidnapped Montana jogger also mentioned that it happened near a [gasp!] oil boomtown.

It’s like in the Soviet Union where the evils of capitalism and the “so-called” prosperity of the west were contrasted with the peacefulness of the austere life in Communist Russia.

    ella8 in reply to OCBill. | February 14, 2012 at 9:52 pm

    It is so awful in ND that a local college has resorted to handing out fake degrees to foreigners because the locals are getting high paying oil jobs straight out of high school. Isn’t that awful? How are the college administrators, tenured professors, and the student loan candy man going to get the sheep to keep jumping into the abyss of useless degrees and student loans if the economy is booming? Damn those oil companies.

Why Angering Catholics Makes Sense For Obama
02/10/2012 – Covert Rationing Blog by Richard N. Fogoros, M.D
=== ===
[edited excerpts]  Why did President Obama choose in an election year to issue this directive, which he knew, from Archbishop Dolan himself, would create huge problems with American Catholics?

The reason was not to undermine religious or constitutional principles, but rather to establish new principles of his own that are critical both to Obamacare and to the overarching Progressive agenda.

The battle is whether American citizens will retain their individual freedom, to be permitted to spend their own money on their own healthcare. This new directive actually was issued to establish once and for all the foundational principles for Obamacare:

1) The government will determine what constitutes healthcare and what does not.
2) If the government says it’s healthcare, every insurance product must cover it.
3) If it’s not covered by insurance, thou shalt not have access to it.
=== ===

The government is breaking the free market in healthcare. Our policy makers have already designed a system of price controls that doesn’t work. Their solution is to cover up this failure by blaming “the market”. The “market” is short for the freedom of people to produce and cooperate among themselves, always delivering value and achieving efficiencies that government cannot match.

That freedom is what the government has taken and is taking away, in favor of higher hidden taxes and rationing. Our leaders have been buying votes with lavish promises of what the government will deliver. Their plan is to put us all in one boat, then make us pay for their promises to prevent the boat from sinking.

Obamacare Bails Out Medicare.

    Re “The reason was not to undermine religious or constitutional principles, but rather to establish new principles of his own that are critical both to Obamacare and to the overarching Progressive agenda.”

    From the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized Medicine as proposed by the Democrats, then a private citizen Ronald Reagan Speaks out against socialized medicine. There is no video because this was an LP sent out by the American Medical Association

Amazing how all of a sudden the GOP and conservatives are holding up the Catholic bishops as these all knowing seers. I don’t recall conservatives and Republicans really paying all that much attention to them when the Bishops supported immigration reform and amnesty, when the opposed the AZ immgration law.

Maybe that was back when the GOP was launching a war on religion.

So, to sum up, the Catholic bishops matter and are important when they agree with conservatives and the GOP on an issue. But when they agree with the Dems and Obama on an issue, well, then they don’t really matter.

How come Santorum, Romney, McConnell, Boehner didn’t care what the Bishops said about immigration?

The Catholic Bishops were also strong supporters of the New START treaty in 2010 that conservatives and the GOP opposed. I don’t recall GOP leaders saying anything about religious freedom then and touting the position of the Bishops.

The Catholic Bishops were also strong opponents of Bush-era interrogation techniques and torture, an issue that the GOP and conservatives were largely on the other side of. Again, no one cared what the Bishops thought then.

The bishops are also strongly against the death penalty. Most conservative are strong supporters and don’t really care what the bishops think.

In fact, if you look at their position, the USCCB leans to the left and the dems on most economic and foreign policy/military issues. On abortion and gay rights they’re more conservative.

but it’s just funny to see all these conservatives and republicans who never cared what the bishopsthought before all of a sudden holding them up and using their comments to support their position. I guess it’s now ok for Obama to accuse the GOP of religious intolerance and persecution because they oppose the Bishops on immigration, nuclear weapons, the death penalty, torture, and a whole host of other issues.

Also, where was all this concern for religious liberty during the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque? When muslims wanted to pray on planes before takeoff?

Lets say some Muslims wanted in the US wanted to set up forced marriages or practice clitoridectomies and female genital mutilation. Would McConnell and Blunt and Santorum be out there talking about religious freedom and the 1st amendment and how we’re on the raod to tyranny? I somehow doubt it.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to holmes tuttle. | February 14, 2012 at 7:07 pm

    back when the GOP was launching a war on religion.

    Did the GOP ever try to use the power of government to force churches to compromise their beliefs? Disagreeing with some positions is not a war.

    The main issue now is government mandating churches act against their belief. This is not about women’s rights (to a free product?), but about the church not being forced to act against their conscience. Have Republicans ever attempted such control of religion?

      holmes tuttle in reply to Midwest Rhino. | February 14, 2012 at 8:26 pm

      Many Republicans and conservatives support laws against polygamy. They have no problem using the power of govt to force the Mormon church to compromise its beliefs. To force muslims to compromise their beliefs.

      Republicans have been pretty vocal about using the power of govt to control religion when it comes to Muslims. In many different areas.

      Conservatives supported Justice Scalia in the Smith case when he said it was ok to use the power of govt to force members of a certain native american church to compromise their beliefs.

      The GOP had no problems using the power of govt to force the Catholic church to compromise its beliefs on immigration and ban sanctuary cities and other law enforcement measures designed to counteract the Church exercising its beliefs on immigration.

      The GOP had no problem using the power of govt in forcing Catholics to pay tax dollars to support nuclear weapons, tough interrogation, the Iraq War, etc… that the UCSSB and the Vatican all opposed.

      The GOP had no problem when they all supported denying communion to Catholics like Kerry, Pelosi, Biden, etc…

      It just seems pretty to selective to me that all of a sudden the GOP is wrapping itself in the flag of the USCCB.

      This Obama war on religion is just too far in my opinion. Is catholicism illegal of a sudden? Anyone prevented from going to mass? Taking communion? reading the bible? celebrating various holidays? observing lent? are churches being closed down by the govt? Is anyone being forced to be less of a Catholic under Obama than they were back in say 2005?

      Speaking of the USCCB, maybe they shold have paid more attention to the priests in their oarrishes and what they’ve been doing for the past 50 years as opposed to this.

      And it doesn’t look like it’s working out for them. Multiple polls show Obama with over 60% support on this, more than a 2-1 edge over the GOP. Even among catholics. Even higher among women.

      What political geniuses we have at Republican headquarters.

      Oh for the days of 2010 when the public actually supported the GOP by 21 or more on most of the key issues.

        Good grief. And I thought you were tediously boring on your first post …

        Juba Doobai! in reply to holmes tuttle. | February 14, 2012 at 10:15 pm

        The problem here is the Church of Rome, not the GOPE so much. Rome has lost its way and no longer teaches the doctrines of the Christian Church. Please, don’t tell me I’m anti-Catholic. Rome now teaches social justice and rebellion against the authority of the government. She no longer teaches Judaeo-Christian ethics of hard work, respect for life, value for the law, and such. In this, Rome is not alone. You get the same clap trap from the synagogues and the other Christian denominations. (Meanwhile, the mosque teaches kill everybody.)

        What we’ve had over the past fifty-sixty years or so has been a dissolution of the American community by the Communists in our midst, the ones who inhabited the WH and other positions of power down to today. America society has traditionally rated on three pillars: church, family, school. We have watched the disintegration of the school and family with horror, and we thought the Church was okay. It was not. The church, especially the Church of Rome, was being systematically dismantled by enemies within. It was not by happenstance that an amazing number of homosexuals are in the Roman priesthood; so far, the LCMS has been spared that because they encourage a married priesthood, but the ELCA with their anything goes are in disarray. It was not by happy stance that Rome mounted no fight against Roe vs Wade. It is not by happenstance that Rome encourages disobedience of the immigration laws. This problem is not unique to the American branch of the Church of Rome.

        Our situation right now is dire, mo so than we thought because all the pillars of our society are disintegrating or have and we didn’t notice. When the churches, especially Rome, remember their evangelical mission and fundamental Christian doctrine and preach that from the pulpit, then we will see changes in the other other two pillars of society. Until then, piecemeal objecting is a waste of time. The synagogues and the churches (no mosques, please) need to get together and discuss the need for restoration of their theological foundations, for Scripture based teachings (I’ve been to synagogue and come away disappointed because the post-reading talk was just that, talk unrelated to the text) to reanimate their congregations and reshape their values. Unless they do that, Obama will be successful in writing both their obituary and headstone.

        DocWahala in reply to holmes tuttle. | February 14, 2012 at 11:59 pm

        “Is anyone being forced to be less of a Catholic under Obama than they were back in say 2005?” …your own question…

        And the answer is “yes”….

        Being forced to participate in an activity which your church says “no”…then I would have to again say ‘yes’, they are being forced by Obama to be less of a Catholic than they were in 2005.

        Today’s Fortune Cookie:
        “today is all about contraceptive…next up, churches that stand against same-sex union”

        Many Republicans and conservatives support laws against polygamy.

        Damned right. Polygamy is toxic to civilization. That’s a cultural issue, not a religious one.

        Midwest Rhino in reply to holmes tuttle. | February 15, 2012 at 12:13 am

        well, a lawyer could give you a better response I guess … but mostly you are talking about issues government are given to control, like immigration.

        You blame the GOP for the Catholics’ decision to withhold communion? Isn’t that a case of NOT interfering in the church decision?

        I’m not sure how they are limiting Islam, except for not allowing honor killings. But the Catholic decision is more about not allowing the killing of babies, which they may consider a morning after pill to do. In any case, the church doesn’t want to force people to not use contraceptives, but rather to not be forced to be the instrument. Government provides military protection, individuals can be conscientious objectors.

        Western society did establish some laws that religions can’t break, like polygamy I suppose, and perhaps “marriage” being a man and woman that would have children. Maybe it is up to society to change those moral things. But judges are trying to make that choice.

        Government does intrude into our lives, but limited government should minimize that. Our negative liberties constitution is specifically to limit the intrusion. Whether it is due to my religion or not, I really object to forced intrusion except when government is doing its constitutional duties. The forced providing of contraception is just the first stab of the Obamacare knife into control of our lives.

        These women have access to contraception, but Obama dictates the church provide it for free. You really think that is the same as not allowing the church to decide immigration law? And the church doesn’t really pay for nukes, the members do that as citizens.

        The obvious question to me is why Obama can just speak from his throne and mandate insurance companies to give free conception to all. I guess that was in the “to be written later” portion of Obamacare. I don’t know who was polled on what .. but Obamacare is not popular, and if asked whether government should mandate what insurance we must pay for and what things are required to be given for “free”, 70% would be against it.

    “Amazing how all of a sudden the GOP and conservatives are holding up the Catholic bishops as these all knowing seers.”

    Wow. You don’t read much, do you? I stopped right there.

    stevewhitemd in reply to holmes tuttle. | February 14, 2012 at 8:51 pm

    Holmes: one quick answer to one question you asked —

    Also, where was all this concern for religious liberty during the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque?

    The Ground Zero mosque is not an issue of religious liberty. The men who pushed that mosque were doing so in a time-honored muslim tradition of seizing ground that has been fought over, to make it muslim ground. See the Hagia Sophia, Dome of the Rock, and the Ka’baa in Mecca as examples. Each was established to dominate where a previous religion once ruled, to remind everyone that the old ways were gone.

    Hence the Ground Zero mosque, at the site of the World Trade Center, to demonstrate that Allah destroyed the latter.

    It is religious in a way, but it’s not about liberty.

    StrangernFiction in reply to holmes tuttle. | February 14, 2012 at 10:45 pm

    It is not the Catholic bishops opinion that is being sought here, it is their help.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to holmes tuttle. | February 15, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    As Newt has pointed out, Islam/sharia is incompatible with both our Constitutional government and human rights.

    Islam is rotten down to its core texts…it is nothing more than a barbaric, racist, misogynist, violent, genocidal, unjust, aggressive, hate group and should not be tolerated or incorporated into civilized nations.

    Communism, though more subtle, also works against the principles and freedoms of our Constitutional system.

It is not so much that Obama is winning as it is we are losing.

Newt might have had a chance but the primaries have all but destroyed it. Santorum…. never. Romney…. maybe as VP on Obama’s ticket. Generic Republican…. a causality of infighting and MSM run debates.

    Hope Change in reply to Anchovy. | February 14, 2012 at 8:06 pm

    I don’t think Newt’s chances are all but lost.

    If you love the United States, you are giving up on us pretty easily.

    If Newt gets this nomination, Newt will win in the fall.

      G Joubert in reply to Hope Change. | February 14, 2012 at 8:42 pm

      Some commenters here need smelling salts or something. Newt is every bit as flawed as Romney, maybe worse, and that’s not a defense of Romney. They’re both horrific. I take little solace in the prospects of Newt.

      Anchovy in reply to Hope Change. | February 14, 2012 at 9:25 pm

      I would vote for any Republican except Santorum. It is not me giving up it is facing reality and adjusting accordingly. All of the potential candidates are severely flawed and they are making sure everyone knows every detail of those flaws. They are writing campaign ads for Obama such as he could never write for himself.

      What started out looking like a great chance to re-take the White House has devolved into a mud slinging blood bath among losers who have lost sight of the ultimate goal.

Catholic bishops are in the news but make no mistake, obama is targeting all religions…except maybe islam. My daughter’s church is southern baptist. The government asked that the church allow people to come in and talk about birth control to the congregation. Then, and here is the kicker, they asked if they could pass out free condums afterwards. The only reason to do all this is to denigate and tear down religion. I don’t know how much southern baptists are for or agains condums and such, but the church is not the place to discuss it. Next they will want to do all this on Sunday in lieu of a sermon.

On the subject of pulling punches…of course, he is. And the media is hiding what he HAS done. If he should lose, the last three months of his term will be sheer h*ll. He will put into place everything he can to tear down the country as a last ditch effort. All these czars with unlimited power in their department has enabled him to hit us left and right without stopping. One man could not accomplish this. It will take a long time to even get to all the junk he has caused to be put through. If he should win, all bets are off. We will be royally screwed.

It is amazing to me that three years ago we were not even talking about the country becoming communist. Socialism was the big bugaboo. I have come to the idea that the fall of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was deliberate an planned for yeas as the dims’ October surprise. This is a reasonable theory because of all that has come after that debacle.

    Hope Change in reply to BarbaraS. | February 14, 2012 at 8:36 pm

    Hi BarbaraS — I think you are right that in some way, the financial debacle was planned as part of the strategy to get Obama into the White House in 2008.

    The horror I feel when I think about what this White House and its extra-legal czars are doing to our law and the structure of our government is more than I could express in words.

    I would like to offer something that for me, at least, is strong support for optimism.

    This is a link to the video and a sort of “live-blogged” (not comprehensive) transcript of the plans Newt outlined at CPAC 2012 last Friday.

    These really are bold solutions. You can see the solutions listed in the transcript.

    If the American People choose to team up each other using Newt’s proposals, we can begin to restore our economy and freedoms starting election night, when it is clear to businesses across the country that Barack Obama is going to be gone.

    When I think about how WE THE PEOPLE can restore our country using these plans, I see a way forward, to MORE FREEDOM, MORE PROSPERITY. It’s a clear plan. And then I feel better. I hope it helps others as well. After all, we’re all Americans in this together.

Professor, first, thanks for quoting me!

For Andrew Garland and others, let me suggest that you should take one step back and look more at the general case. This is not about the Church, though it is. It is not about health care, though it is. It is not about free markets, though it is.

It is more general. Remember the quote from George Orwell: “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”

Remember the end of Nineteen Eighty Four, when Winston supposes that O’Brien wants power so as to improve the lot of mankind, and O’Brien (painfully) corrects him: no, humanity has nothing to do with it. It is about power.

I keep coming back to that because it is instructive. If you want to understand why the Democrats, at every cost and chance, jammed ObamaCare through, if you want to understand the contraception issue, the bailouts of GM and Chrysler that subverted our legal bankruptcy system, the bank bailouts, the ‘green’ energy subsidies that gave money to cronies, Fast and Furious giving untraceable guns to Mexican drug lords so as to push gun control at home — if you want to understand that, ask a simple question:

“How does this act further the progressive revolution?”

And it becomes clear.

Mr. Obama is a progressive. Forgive me, he is a marxist. He was a marxist in college (one reason why we don’t get to see his college records, so that we won’t see which classes he took); he was a marxist as a community organizer, and he has been a progressive as a state politician.

You see, you can’t be a marxist and win, not in Chicago, not in Illinois, and not in America. Now do you get it? Mr. Obama ran as the cool-cat, post-racial, post-political centrist in 2008 because IF HE HAD RUN AS A MARXIST Hillary would have buried him. Even McCain could beat a marxist. He would today be a Senator without a future, marking time until he would bail into an NGO.

Now do you get it? Having set the stage with ObamaCare and the rest of what he’s done in the first term, he’s going to run as a ‘centrist’ again against the boogeyman of the ‘extremist’ Rethuglican, be that Pub a Romney, a Gingrich, or a Santorum (or a Bush or a Palin). He’ll say whatever, do whatever, wag the dog if needed, to win.

For the second term. Mr. Kates is correct: in the second term, particularly if the Democrats keep the Senate and regain the House, he’ll ram the next parts of the revolution through.

And then we’ll see where we are, and where Obama is, for 2016.

Not to benefit us. It’s about power.

We will soon discover if the old adage–“God takes care of drunks, little children, and the USA”–is still true.
( discusses the origins of the proverb.)

Well, we’ll see what happens. The GOP and conservatives can keep pushing this birth control issue and maybe it will work for them. Maybe it’s a winning issue. I guess we’ll find out. So far, the polling doesn’t indicate it is, but polls have been wrong before.

It is interesting though that in all the shows on FOX no one ever mentions that FOX’s own poll shows registered voters back Obama on this issue 61-34. That 67% of women and even 65% of catholic women support Obama on this over the GOP.

Now, I’m not a profession political operative. But I’d think that when the public opposes you on an issue 61-34 and when 67% of women oppose you and support the other guy, it’s probably a good idea to find a different issue.

I just remember back in 2010 when 60-70% of the public opposed Obama and the dems on issues like the AZ immigration law, the GZ mosque, airport profiling, and other issues that all helped the GOP.

Maybe it’s also a good idea to have the GOP push on this issue totally dominated by old men like McConnell, Blunt, Santorum, etc… Again, I’m no expert but I’d think having a bunch of guys as point men on an issue concering women may not be the best idea. Seems kind of telling to me that the GOP can’t really find any women to put out front on this.

But overall I agree with the Aussie that this has helped Obama. I don’t think he planned it, although maybe he did. It’s certainly helped Santorum and hurt Romney. It’s put contraception and birth control as the #1 issue for the GOP for the past week or more. Republicans aren;t even talking about the economy anymore. I can only imagine what they’ll be saying in say May when we’ve had over 1 million new jobs just this year. Over 4 million new jobs since 2010.

Maybe the birth control issue will work for the GOP, though. I could be wrong.

    You quote a lot of stats, but I would be interested in knowing where you got them. 65% of all Catholic women side with Obama on this? You wouldn’t have happened to have gotten that stat from the Guttmacher Institute, would you?

    You also seem to be under the misguided impression that this debate is over abortion (issues concerning women). It’s not. It’s over the First Amendment. Clear and simple. You also seem to object that it is old men in Congress who are objecting to the clear violation of the First Amendment by Obama. That is like objecting to the abolition of slavery because it is white men in Congress wanting to abolish it.

    Again, it has NOT put the abortion/birth control issue on the front burner. It has put the Constitution on the front burner. Either people have the right to practice their religion as they choose, or they don’t. And forceing religious agencies who self fund insurance plans to accept Obama’s dictate is not freedom of religion. It is fascism.

    The suppression of religion in any oppressive regime was never done in one feld swoop. It was done by degrees, one limit/restriction at a time.

    BTW, you’re wrong about the Mormons and why they abolished polygamy. The Mormons fled to Utah because they felt it would never be part of the U.S. and therefore they could practice their faith as they wished. When Utah wanted to petition for statehood, the Mormons, who also wanted it, knew that it would never be granted as long as they allowed polygamy. It was a Morman decision, not a presidential fiat.

      holmes tuttle in reply to retire05. | February 15, 2012 at 2:23 am

      I actually got that 65% of Catholic women support Obama on this from that well known pro-abortion liberal pro-Obama outlet FOX News. It was a FOX News poll that had those figures. But, nice try with the Guttmacher Institute thing.

      I bet a lot of those 65% of Catholic women are republicans and conservatives, by the way.

      With all due respect you’re wrong about the LDS and polygamy. the history is pretty clear on what happened. They didn’t just renounce polygamy because they felt like it. They did so because the US Govt threatened to destroy them if they didn’t. To seize their assets and building, arrest their leaders and clergy, basically shut them down completely. You can look up the history. The Govt started upping their efforts by the late 1800s and the Church was in trouble. Many leaders were in hiding. Basically the US Govt said either you get rid of polygamy or you’re finished. Then all of a sudden the LDS Prophet says he had a visit from Jesus himself and wouldn’t you know it, polygamy is no longer LDS policy. The govt got off their backs, let Utah be a state, and everything was ok. You’re right it wasn’t a Presidentail order. It was Congressional order signed by the President. Same thing.

      As far as whether it’s about birth control or religious freedom, you can think what you want. If you want to make the case go ahead. I’m just suggesting the public is on the other side and Obama is winning on this issue(especially when the GOP frontrunner is on record as saying that contraception is a danger to society and that Griswold was wrongly decided, that doesn’t help matters)

Someone inform Kates that we don’t have a legitimate media in the U.S. That’s how Barry pulls it off. He has the network media, the major daily rags, he has the local networkd affiliates, he has the daytime talkshows. If we had a real media he’d have been impeached by now. Actually, fake prez 042-68-4425 never would have been permitted to run.

Also, I can just imagine what they’re saying in Chicago the past few days. “Wait a minute, you mean we might actually get to run again against someone who voted for and was a big supporter of the Iraq War? For the 3rd straight time(Clinton and McCain were the first two). The most unpopular foreign policy decision of the past 40 years and the #1 reason for Bush’s historic unpopularity and the GOP may actually nominate another guy who voted for the war and backed Bush 100% on it? Where do we sign up?”

BannedbytheGuardian | February 14, 2012 at 9:07 pm

Sorry never heard of that blog.I took a peek but did not understand them.

I have also never met one single Libertarian in the whole land.

They don’t exist.

One thing that Obama failed to understand was that he had the Bishops in the palm of his hand already, the Catholic Church was the moral backbone of the social justice movement, and now he has betrayed them. Does he really think that the American public will buy into the movement if it is nothing more than a secular agenda. If you peel the moral facade off of the social justice agenda, all you are left with is marxism pure and simple. All I hope is that the Catholic Church can see that they were betrayed. The Church should not be political, they need to be unAlinskyed.

On another note, I agree that this could be a trap to prop up Santorum. I think he is a great guy, I’d love to have him as a neighbor, I just don’t think he could win the general election. I have finally come around to Romney. He is not perfect, but none of them are.

The problem with Romney is he’s a two-faced, lying SOB. Perhaps that is built in to Mormonism, like it is with Islam. I don’t know. I do know that if Romney were an honest, decent man of principle voters would go for him. The faux religious will vote Obama cuz socialism counts more than God and His Christ. The rest? Well, we’re in no man’s land if Romney’s the nominee cuz there’s no appreciable difference. Santorum will get us there slower, but without abortion. With Paul we are headed for Auschwitz all over again and that is untenable. That leaves Newt, and I have reservations about some of his ideas and why he raises them, but I will take him if Palin is not in the race. Newt listens to counsel. He can be advised. He has a sense of the American heartbeat. These are the reasons I think, in addition to his reform record, why Palin is so open to Newt.

Anyway, the Aussie guy’s on. I don’t think it’s Obama as much as it is the crew he has assembled. He has dedicated Communists each of them devoted to dismantling a section of American society. He’s the spear head and he gets the credit. We can’t keep up because they just keep on coming, and because it is so very many different kind of spins, yes, some of us are being manipulated, Knut people are reaching saturation point. The manipulators are Legion. Ah, Legion. Well, we know how that story ends.

I don’t think Romney can win, either. But I see a difference between the two of them.

When Romney loses to Obama the base will blame the establishment, the establishment will be discredited, and looking ahead to 2016 conservatives will be in a very strong position to break the Bush-Dole-Bush-McCain-Romney chain and return to a more Reaganite nominee.

When Santorum loses to Obama the opposite will take place. The establishment will be able to say “Look, for years all you guys have said we need to run a real conservative, no more moderates, no more squishes. Well, we finally listened to you. We ran a real conservative. A real culture warrior. As hardcore as they come. And look what happened”

It’ll be the perfect opening for Jeb Bush or Christie or someone like that. They’ll use it to lessen the influence of the tea party and evangelicals and try and purge the paryt of that element if they can.

So in terms of 2016 I think Romney being the nominee and losing is far perferable to Santorum being the nominee and losing. If one of them is going to lose, I’d rather it be Romney.

Also, all this talk about coercion and religious freedom. the govt has done that plenty of times. The US Govt forced the LDS Church to renounce and abandon polygamy, one of the core tenets of their faith. The govt said they’d seize all their assets and arrest them and shut down the Church if they didn’t abandon the practice. All of a sudden one day in 1890 the LDS Prophet said he’s had a vision from Jesus himself the night before and that polygamy was no longer part of LDS doctrine. Fancy that. Amazing how that happens, isn’t it? The Congress said if Utah wanted to be a state it had to write the ban on ploygamy into the state constitution. The state did.

So, spare me the coercion argument. Unless the GOP is saying that Utah should be allowed to have legal polygamy and the LDS church should once again be allowed to practice it. Is McConnell in favor of that? Is Santorum? He’s a conservative, a federalist, believes in the Constitution and 10th amendment, or so he says. Does he support Utah and Mormons being allowed to practice polygamy and support their religious liberty and freedom?

    Why do you keep brining up the LDS and polygamy? The change, from many wives, to one, was done by the LDS themselves, not by presidential order.

    And what doesn’t seem to bother you, and should, is that the killing of the unborn has become part of the American behavior. No society, from ancient Rome to modern day western civilizations, can survive when they lose value for human life, no matter what stage it is in.

      holmes tuttle in reply to retire05. | February 14, 2012 at 10:41 pm

      The change wasn’t done by the LDS themselves. It was done because the US Govt threatened to shut them down, arrest them, and confiscate their assets if they didn’t.

      Google the Edmunds-Tucker Bill of 1887, Utah statehood, etc…

      It was far from voluntary.

    A very small part of me wants Obama to win again, only because I want to get him over with. The possibility of another four years sometime in the future, I’m not sure I could handle it.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | February 14, 2012 at 10:04 pm

Rush spent a considerable amount of time yesterday discussing this article titled, “American Catholicism’s Pact With the Devil” by Professor Paul Rahe:

It’s fascinating. I had long thought that the Church’s role in society had diminished BECAUSE socialism/liberalism had become increasingly accepted by many Americans. It turns out, the Catholic Church has been complicit in influencing Americans to accept the wealth redistribution necessary implement liberalism/socialism in America.

The author makes a pretty convincing case that had it not been for the Church, the whole concept of limited self government would not have been possible. Then, in the 20th century, with the Church’s initial embrace of socialism/liberalism with FDR, the Church inadvertently helped create the conditions for its diminished role in society and a much bigger role for government.

Major backfire.

Great read if you have the time.

I am just amazed that so many folks actually believe the “legend of The Won” and the mythical “smartest man in the room” bolder dash. The fact that they put on the year waiver just so they could the rule would not rippen and allow a court challenge during the election season tells me that this is no asset to their plans.

holmestuttle elides o’er the distinction between political or partisan positions and money taxation mandates. Where the leftist American Roman Catholic Church politically stood for libertarian or liberation theology type non-borders (um, against US sovereignty only) to support unlimited illegal immigration and for too long has preached required socialist redistribution to alleviate its Christian conscience, it was never for being forced by government to bypass its pro-life, pro-making more
Catholic babies stance with regard to its personnel monies.

Catholics, meet your politics and demographic consequences writ particularized.

At least, holmestuttle is a forthright Obamabot.

    holmes tuttle in reply to monkeybiz. | February 14, 2012 at 10:49 pm

    you can say what you want, but I am not now and have never been an Obamabot. Didn’t vote for him in 08, won’t vote for him this year. Disagree with most of the things he’s done. The idea that I’m an Obamabot is absurd.

    I do admit, however, to being upset at the fact that with him vulnerable on so many issues and with the public against him on so many issues, the GOP has decided to pick a fight with him and take a stand on one of the few issues that the public actually supports him on in large #s.

The Progressive Left knows what fools so many of us are today: experts in American Idol contestants, in love with feel good cliches and sentimentality. Sitting fools for the plucking. Not serious about politics, prefering a cool, smart talker over real substance. Unless the American instinct for preserving a free society comes out in force this fall, this country’s on its way out as any icon of exceptionalism and liberty.

Well, if Obama can do it, then so can I. I am hesitant to defer to a divine God; but, I will most definitely not bow to a mortal god. No matter how many unicorns he promises to provide.

Think of the children! Demand collective taxpayer bargaining rights!

Save the avian minorities. Stop tilting at windmills!

Feed a plant! Sequester an environmentalist.

Enforce equal rights! Ask an illegal alien for proof of citizenship.

Demand your civil rights! Physical intercourse is an arbitrary qualification for marriage rights. End the discrimination!

Normalize behaviors when justifiable. Tolerate deviant behaviors when possible. Respect the natural order! Say no to normalizing evolutionary dysfunction.

Stop the sacrifice of virginal human lives! They are innocent until proven guilty!

Demand they qualify “progressive”! Not all “progressives” qualify.

Tell them to buy their own contraceptives. Progressive involuntary exploitation is “rape-rape”!

Respect individual dignity! Empower the people! Say no to overbearing authoritarians!

Oh, if we are forced to endure an “egalitarian” society, then I demand inequality, and a designated beachfront property in Hawaii.

I pledge* to realize your dreams of physical, material, and instant gratification. Unicorns** for everyone!

Elect me to be your alpha, your mortal god.

* pledge fulfillment will be inversely commensurate to audacity of dreams
** actual unicorn may not resemble preconceived notions

    ella8 in reply to n.n. | February 15, 2012 at 8:00 am

    Actually, collective bargaining rights for the taxpayer is not a bad idea. Where do I sign up? If you can’t beat them, join them. T.E.A. Union, I’ll start pumping my fist to get the jackboots off of us. If it is ok for the public employee bullies to pump their fists while they have you pinned on the ground and are stealing your wallet, then it certainly must be ok to pump your fist back at them and take your wallet back so you can take care of your own family.

[…] Riehl via Legal Insurrection: This administration is many things, politically dumb isn’t one of them. Something in some […]

distantdrummer | February 15, 2012 at 2:41 am

Obama promised a lot of crap to get people to vote for him. Things like “Change” and “Hope”,and that with his leadership the country would be better. He even said, that he would close Gitmo. Now, after almost four years, the country is worse and he wants another four years? He rushed to get the troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011. He did this because the Iraqi government refused to extend immunity for WAR CRIMES to our soldiers as of 2012. Since immunity is still offered in Afghanistan, that war continues. So soldiers and civilians can die, but for what reason. The US is headed for trouble and the government is putting into place ways that they will be able to “control” the people. On Jan. 1st, a SUNDAY, Obama signed the Defense Security Authorization Act. This Act makes it now legal for soldiers to ‘arrest’ or ‘detain’ Americans on US soil. This can be done without duo process. YOU can be ‘detained’ Indefinitely!! So with one stroke of the pen, Obama has taken away a right that Americans have had since the Revolution. We do not want four more years of his leadership. I have started a website with political artwork. I plan to put new work on the site each week that will help to create opposition to Obama. As quoted above, he said that;”we are going to have to fight”. Through out history, political artwork has helped create opposition to Kings and Fascist leaders. I can not do this by myself and hope that many of you will help. If ‘change’ is going to come, it won’t be from four more years of Obama. We can do this thing and create a type of ‘arab spring’ right here in the US. There are people all over the world who are pissed off with him and his indifference to humanity. You see him laughing with his children while some other family happens to be the mistake of a drone attack. Or some family has to receive a flag instead of being re-united with family member. Check out the site; We can hold him accountable and stop his madness.”Change” is now in the hands of the voters. Lets help them see why we do not want Obama in November.

You mean we get all this scorched earth socialism and the Creepy Singing Obama Kids too?

I mentioned in a previous posting, that I do practice NFP. I’m deeply confused on how this will all play out. It seems whoever is pulling the strings to push for this mandate has a lot of financial and political clout/control.

There is a lot of reasons for NFP, not just religious and yes with much research and understand it is just as effective as the Pill. For instance I use the Marquette Method with the use of the clear blue easy monitor, in the past I’ve used the Billings method which is the initial research starting decades ago. There are many forms of NFP to fit your lifestyle, for instance I can’t wake up on the same time every day, so taking monitoring my temperature would work as in some methods.

New Natural Family Planning Method Appeals To Wide Range Of Women via Science Daily

“In the new study, the most common reason study participants gave for choosing the Standard Days Method was that it “does not have side affects nor affect women’s health”. Participants also noted the low costs of CycleBeads. Although natural family planning methods are frequently associated with religious beliefs, relatively few women gave this reason for selecting the method.”

Did you read that? “does not have side affects nor affect women’s health”

Contraception stinks, and we all know it.
Men, do you really like wearing a condom if you don’t have to?

Every two years there is a NEW FORM of birth control to women, most women do not like the Pill. Natural Family Planning is effective, but the pharmaceutical companies and women’s clinics push for birth control and sterilizations because it’s EASY MONEY!!!

I haven’t been to the GYN since my last baby a few years ago… If it wasn’t for my pregnancies, it would be 15 years.

Again, Very nervous how this will all play out. The players in this game of mandating this ‘preventable health’ are big.

    The key to “family planning” is family. This is not part of the conversation when promiscuity is the normal behavior in society. The next question would be to distinguish between cause and effect. What came first, men and women’s progressive incapacity for self-moderating behavior or the industry which supports it.

We are dealing with the Borg, and we know resistance is not futile. Janeway showed us that, and our Palin keeps reminding us of it.

We are dealing with a hive mind. A Communist mind. Since we do not know the identities of the czars, and since we know who is the Borg king, Obama, we must destroy him at the voting booth. Not one state. Not one city. Not one town. Not one village. That’s how thorough and complete our destruction of him must be.

His and their every thought is power and the bondage of the people. Their every action binds us to serfdom to the state. We must vanquish them and and discredit them thoroughly, show them for the monsters they are who will eventually bargain and deal in death of those who won’t toe the line. A greater trail of tears awaits us if we don’t eradicate these monsters in our midst and make sure no one ever pulls a lever for them and their cohorts ever again.

I for one welcome our new Oborg overlords.