Can you tell the difference?

Rick Santorum is taking a lot of heat right now. When comparing Obama and Romney, Santorum said that voters might as well keep what they have. The media is trumpeting this as an endorsement of Obama by Santorum; both Foxnews  and CNN have articles to this effect.

Which is just silly. In fact, it is little more than another example of how hard the media is working to make Romney the GOP candidate.  Seeing that Romney has historically held to the farthest left views of any GOP contender, liberals in the mainstream media look at Romney as the weakest GOP contender and the easiest for Obama to beat.  Establishment GOP'ers, blinded by their convictions that conservatism is both dead and undesirable, and despite all evidence that it was conservatives who gave Republicans control of the House in 2010, are convinced that Palin and not their choice of McCain cost them the 2008 election.

Taken in context, Santorum is merely pointing out the obvious: that there is not much difference in the views held by Romney and Obama. After all, imagine a Presidential debate between candidates Obama and Romney.

On Obamacare:

Obama: "Obamacare's a wonderful law, and before I say more, I want to thank Mr. Romney. Obamacare was modeled on Romneycare and even written by the same team."

Romney: "Er, thank you."

End of Obamacare as campaign issue.

On gay marriage:

Obama: "I want to thank Governor Romney for leading the way in issuing gay marriage licenses in Massachusetts even before the law required him to.

and on abortion:

Obama: "I'm not anti-abortion."

Romney: "I'm not anti-abortion."

End of values issues as campaign issue.

On gasoline prices:

Obama: "It's not my fault, it's Congress' fault, big oil's fault, wall street's fault, Bush's fault. And anyway, I'm okay with higher gas prices, just as Governor Romney said back when he was governor."

Romney: "Er, yes I did, but I was governor then."

Obama: "Yes, you were governor, I said that. Don't repeat everything I say."

End of energy costs as a campaign issue.

And that is the point Santorum is trying to drive home, and that the media is trying hard to make the voters miss. About the only thing Romney can campaign on is his balancing the state budget without raising taxes. Which he did, but by raising state fees substantially instead. Whoopee; sounds like a winner.

Just what is it that the GOP stratagists see in Romney that makes him an "electable" candidate when he is already drawing record low turnouts to Presidential caucuses? Santorum is simply asking- between Obama and Romney, can you tell the difference?

From Russia With Love

From Russia with love. Well, probably not "with love."

There are reports that Russia is propping up the Assad regime not only with weapon sales, but that Russia has actually sent troops into Syria. For America, if not the world, that may strangely enough be a good thing.

Recall the angst of the media in the past few weeks. Reports almost daily on the atrocities of the Assad regime, of snipers and death squads, of journalists killed while trying to report from Syria. The upshot was a push for increasing pressure from the U.S. and the UN on Syria, with calls for sanctions and intervention. Some pundits even went so far as to suggest that the U.S. should militarily intervene in Syria.

The Obama-Clinton Foreign Policy Disaster Machine does not need yet another opportunity to bring down another Middle Eastern regime and raise up yet another Islamist regime. After helping bring down Mubarak, the U.S. will fund Islamist Egypt as an "ally." And after spending a billion dollars to bring down Qaddafi in Obama's "Not A War" war, the U.S. will no doubt help establish another Islamist "ally."

After fighting two wars in the Middle East to stop terrorism and "spread democracy," and with Obama cutting the U.S. military (while both Russia and China substantially increase theirs), America is not well positioned to take on the task of spreading democracy in Syria. Especially since such an action might well have drawn the U.S. into a confrontation with Syria's ally, Russia.

So the news that Russia has seized the initiative by sending its own troops into Syria should be something of a relief to Americans. At least, it should be for those who don't want another few billions of dollars or a few thousands of American lives spent on the task of establishing democratically elected Anti-American Islamist regimes. It can be hoped that even a foreign-policy-challenged duo like Obama and Clinton will not risk bringing American troops into direct confrontation with Russian troops and starting a world war. And it may be hoped that Russia can influence Assad to deal more calmly with his countrymen.

Now an important disclaimer. The point here is not that Americans should embrace Russian foreign policy. That is just irrelevant, because Russia is already allied with Syria; the balance of power in the Middle East is not affected. Rather, cooling the tensions in the Middle East, whether or not it was "with love," is a good thing for everyone.

It isn't the economy, stupid.

There is a lot of talk in the Republican primary race, and the media, about the "electability" of a certain candidate. You know who. He's the guy the voters in his party don't really believe in and can't really connect with. He's the guy who says he can work with people from both parties; he will give the Democrats what they want and the Republicans what they want, even though their goals are mutually exclusive. He is for gay marriage if he is leading a liberal state like Massachusetts; he's not for gay marriage if he is campaigning for conservative votes. He is pro-abortion, but not personally. His moral values, as such, simply follow the polls like a weathervane the wind.

However, the inside-the-beltway establishment pundits, tell us to rest assured that he can fix the economy. The media assures us that he is the one the liberals are scared of, that the possibility of his winning the nomination has Obama shaking in his Wall Street shoes, because he can fix the economy.

Bill Clinton, when he was campaigning, is said to have kept a sign on the wall to remind him, "It's the economy, stupid." It was never the economy, though; that was a reminder to redirect reporters who asked tough questions to economic issues. And it serves the same purpose here. After all, this candidate wrote the healthcare bill on which Obamacare was modeled; Obama even used the same people to write it. It really takes the whole Obamacare question out of the campaign. Does this candidate's economic performance in Massachusetts show him to be such a clear choice over the incumbent? Maybe, but as of 2009, Massachusetts was the most debt-ridden state in the Union. Not a good sign, and Obama will know it.

Elections are never about the economy, anyway; both parties promise to "fix" the economy.

Elections, campaigns and politics are actually all about worldview. Democrats are always intransigent about social issues and political correctness. They don't reach across the aisle if it means giving up a social or politically correct position; they always craft legislation to forward their social concerns. Remember, when Obama ran, his theme was "hope and change." It wasn't "Dollars and Cents." And while some politicians use crony capitalism and self-dealing to enrich themselves, that is a reflection of the fact that they believe they are entitled to by virtue of their position; they do not have in their worldview the moral constraints to recognize that their position is one of trust.

And if you still think it's about the economy, ask yourself when you last saw the Democratic Party run a candidate like this: "I am Anti-Gay and Pro-Life, but I can fix the economy." You haven't seen it, and you won't, because despite what Bill said, it isn't the economy, stupid.

Claiming the Moral High Ground

Rush Limbaugh is in the middle of a firestorm. After the Congressional testimony of one Sandra Fluke, an apparently thirty-something law student, who beseeched Congress to pay for her protected sex, Limbaugh referred to her with the unflattering term "slut." Now, to be fair, that's pretty strong language. On the other hand, Ms. Fluke testified that many college students "struggle financially" to bear the ($1,000 per year) cost of protected sex while in college; according to some calculations, that is 5 sexual escapades per day, so Limbaugh might be forgiven for thinking Ms. Fluke and her companion students are more occupied in the sex trades than occupied as students.

Furthermore, despite all the hoopla, it seems that liberals actually embrace the word "slut." A website has been created to encourage people to embrace their inner "slut." So it is obvious that liberals are complaining at Limbaugh not because liberals object to the term, but because they simply don't like Rush Limbaugh and they hope conservative sensibilities will be offended by the term; it is simply a tool to create a wedge between conservatives.

After all, look who's talking here. These liberals who are claiming the moral high ground with loud and self-righteous outrage are the same people who attack conservative women with the worst possible vulgarities- and laugh about it. Look at what Bill Maher says about Sarah Palin, for example. Or better yet, if you have any shred of decency, don't, because Maher certainly doesn't. The only difference is that Democrats simply approve of these attacks.

As with all things "moral," liberals believe that what makes you feel good is "right." It's relative truth in practice. These folks are so self-centered and conceited that they believe all who disagree with them are obviously wrong and must be either stupid or immoral; and it's "right" to attack stupid or immoral people with every weapon available lest they stand in the way of progress.

This country is in a culture war, and this firestorm around Limbaugh uncovers the nub of it;  who determines what is moral and right. Liberals believe there is no god, and they as the narcissistic educated elite make the rules and determine what is moral and right based on what makes them feel good. Moderates don't care if there is a god, so long as they do well financially. Conservatives believe there is a God, and He makes the rules and determines what is moral and right.

Liberals are claiming the moral high ground, but they have no inherent right to. Instead, their claim raises the fundamental question which Americans must address. The Founding Fathers built this country on Christian principles, on a faith in God, which they referred to as the hand of Providence. Americans can choose whether to accept or reject God, but if Americans refuse to follow God's principles or place their faith in God, Americans will get "change." It will not be for the better; socialism has demonstrated its truly vicious nature in every society which has fallen prey to its siren song.

Aborting the Mandate

Everyone knows the definition of"abort;" it is to terminate a process prematurely. Then there's the term "abortion;" the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. It's useful to be clear on those terms, especially since the media talking heads and the folks in the Obama Administration seem to be completely lost about their meaning. Liberal pro-abortion folks always carefully omit "death of the fetus (latin, unborn baby)" from discussions about abortion. These liberals always presume that a woman will be healthier and happier after hiring her baby killed, so abortion is cheerfully rolled into the term "women's health care."

In the recent mandate for "women's health care," the HHS proposed, and then finalized, a rule requiring essentially all employers to pay for sterilization, abortifactients, and contraceptives for women as part of Obamacare's insurance requirements. There is a purported exemption for religious organizations, but it exempts only organizations which perform solely religious functions. As defined by HHS, of course, not by the organization. The exemption is so narrow that Jesus Himself could not qualify for the exemption.

Initially, there was a hue and cry about the mandate, so the Administration offered a compromise of sorts: an additional, even more egregious mandate which would require the insurance providers to give these services to religious organizations for free. As if the cost of the services was the issue. And as if the President has any authority to order any business to provide anything to anyone at all, let alone for free.

This mandate flies directly in the face of the teachings of Bible-based churches. The Catholics, in particular, are hard-hit by this rule, since they fund many hospitals and charities. If this mandate is not aborted, these institutions will be forced to choose between conscience and compliance.

The Administration has presented this as a women's rights issue, of course, with the media chorus line singing backup, while the Church has correctly pointed out that it is a Constitutional issue. In countries where "rights" are privileges temporarily granted by government fiat, "religious freedom" and "women's rights" may be "balanced" by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats secreted in a conference room. In a country founded by a grant from the people (the Constitution), subject to the people's inalienable rights, "religious freedom" is guaranteed.

The Democrats talk about polls which, they claim, show that many people support the use of contraceptives. They don't talk about polls which show that fewer people, and probably a minority, support abortion. Polls provide nice talking points to mislead the unthinking, but they are not relevant.

The entire point of Constitutionally-guaranteed rights is that the majority cannot vote them away. The best way the government can show it still respects the Constitution is by aborting the mandate. Or perhaps that is the point: it may be the Obama Administration no longer is comfortable with the "restrictions" on its "authority" that silly old Constitution saddles the it with.