Erick Erickson's Blog, page 70

I Endorse for President . . . #EERS

I'm on CNN tonight, but I'm also on radio tonight out of Atlanta on my own show.

You can listen live right now on WSB's live stream. The show started at 6:00 p.m. and will run till 8pm tonight.

Tonight at 7:34 p.m. ET I will make my endorsement for President of the United States.

I will not be endorsing "We the People" as I kind of blame them for this present mess. But I will be making an endorsement and if you are curious you can listen by clicking right here.

Morning Briefing for February 6, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing

February 6, 2012

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

1. The Perversion of the Words of Our Lord Jesus Christ by the Sinner Barack H. Obama

2. Excommunicate the Bishops.

3. Growing Opportunities on Earth Rather Than Colonies on the Moon

4. Did a Former Nancy Pelosi Aide Screw Up the Komen Decision? Ogilvy Public Relations Should Explain.

———————————————————————-

1. The Perversion of the Words of Our Lord Jesus Christ by the Sinner Barack H. Obama

Hopefully someone at the White House will read this and realize just how ill advised the President was to do what he did this week and we should be praying hard for him to see the error of his ways on this.

In the Bible we read these things:

"And God blessed them. And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'" Gen 1:28 (ESV)

"Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?" Job 31:15 (ESV)

"Your hands have made and fashioned me; give me understanding that I may learn your commandments." Psalm 119:73 (ESV)

"For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb." Psalm 139:13 (ESV)

These are clear references to God intending people to procreate and recognize that, even in the womb, God played a vital role in the formation of children and we should not casually destroy life God himself created. These passages of scripture are what inspire so many pro-life advocates to defend the unborn.

Had the President of the United States stood at the National Prayer Breakfast and uttered any of those passages and then announced his intent to protect the unborn, abortion rights advocates would have stormed the White House and the Courts all in the name of separation of church and state. The media would have had on Barry Lynn to proclaim his outrage that the President was mixing religion and politics.

Jim Wallis would have gone on the news to dance around life issues and try his best to neuter God out of them and the media would have treated him as an objective source.

But that's not what happened.

Instead, the President went to the National Prayer Breakfast and quoted Jesus Christ himself to defend a tax increase. The President paraphrased Luke 12:48, "Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more." (ESV) He said it was because he was a Christian that he thought the rich should pay more in taxes.

It's a good thing President Obama did not draw from Matthew 13:12 instead or the poor would really be screwed.

"For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away." (ESV)

It is worth pointing out that the very same people who would have been outraged had the President quoted clear scripture on life to defend the unborn were willing to be silent or even applaud the President perverting the words of Christ to pursue his tax plan.

It is also worth pointing out that President Obama sat at the feet of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, so this might be the best he can do.

But we must also point out that Christians have an obligation to pray for their leaders and, given how the President of the United State just twisted the words of our Lord and Savior, we should pray all the more fervently for him because in reading Luke 12:48, he clearly ignored or has no understand of Luke 12:47.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Excommunicate the Bishops.

I, like most other Catholics, got to hear a heartfelt letter from my Bishop — a living examplar of St. John Chrysostom's famous (possibly apocryphal) maxim — explaining that clear out of nowhere, somehow, the Obama Administration decided to make Catholic institutions pay for abortifacents, birth control, and sterilization procedures, all of which are actually explicitly mortal sins in my faith, which is to say, one can be in danger of Hell merely for helping to provide them.

As Sts. Nicholas and Chrysostom would not, in their unenlightened days, have likely had warm feelings for His Excellency, it is perhaps incumbent upon me to note that my Bishop neglected a few details in the sermon he had our deacon read aloud. His Excellency was absolutely silent on the possible election of a man who actively defended the post-uterine execution of neonatal infants, which I ascribe to moral laziness and cowardice, though it may have been instead interest in funding a short lived billboard campaign in Atlanta extolling Catholics who believe him and the Pope evil to come on back for a quick round of communion. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is a self-professing Catholic who is one of the most ardent defenders of the abortion license in our country. Obamacare was passed through the good offices of numerous nominally-Catholic Senators and Representatives, despite warnings from Catholic groups (such as the Knights of Columbus, who fought tooth and nail) and without so much as a peep of the same from our esteemed Bishops, that maybe, just maybe, the Obama Administration might be vaguely interested in making free abortion on demand and contraceptives available to all, conscience exceptions be damned.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Growing Opportunities on Earth Rather Than Colonies on the Moon

Our nation is in economic turmoil, and American families are focused on what matters the most: putting food on the table and keeping the lights on.With economic growth stagnating and over 13 million Americans still jobless, it is clear that our priorities now, more than ever, cannot be frivolous. Our government spending cannot grow further out of control, and our politicians cannot lose sight of what is most important to the hardworking American people.

Knowing this, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich chose to blatantly pander to a Florida crowd on the space coast (known for its support for NASA) when he told them that as President, he would use taxpayer dollars to expand the role of the federal government in manned space exploration, with the goal of building a colony on the moon by the end of his second term.

After this announcement, many Americans were left scratching their heads especially since Newt is more prone to quoting George Washington rather than George Jetson. And when you factor in that our free enterprise system is at stake, how can we afford for anyone to lose sight of what matters most to the American people and heedlessly pursue more wasteful government programs?

Building a federally-funded moon colony would inevitably cost—at the very least—billions of dollars. In addition to our current overspending, this would ultimately saddle our children with the price tag for another one of Speaker Gingrich's grandiose ideas.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. Did a Former Nancy Pelosi Aide Screw Up the Komen Decision? Ogilvy Public Relations Should Explain.

Judd Legum at Think Progress did what appears to be a pre-emptive strike against former Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer claiming that Fleisher was "secretly involved" in the Susan G. Komen Foundations' strategy on planned parenthood.

In fact, according to people I've spoken to who are aware of the decision making processes at Komen, Fleischer had nothing to do with Komen's strategy or decision on this matter. I use the word "pre-emptive" because it seems Think Progress and the left wanted to get this out there quickly, damn the facts, to distract from Brendan Daly.

Brandon Daly is Nancy Pelosi's former press secretary. He now works at Ogilvy Public Relations.

According to people close to the Komen Foundation I've spoken to, it was not Fleischer who was involved in the strategy and PR related to the Planned Parenthood decision, but rather Nancy Pelosi's former press secretary and Ogilvy Public Relations executive Brendan Daly.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

The Perversion of the Words of Our Lord Jesus Christ by the Sinner Barack H. Obama

[image error]I'm afraid we need a little Sunday morning theology. Hopefully someone at the White House will read this and realize just how ill advised the President was to do what he did this week and we should be praying hard for him to see the error of his ways on this.

In the Bible we read these things:

"And God blessed them. And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'" Gen 1:28 (ESV)

"Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?" Job 31:15 (ESV)

"Your hands have made and fashioned me; give me understanding that I may learn your commandments." Psalm 119:73 (ESV)

"For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb." Psalm 139:13 (ESV)

These are clear references to God intending people to procreate and recognize that, even in the womb, God played a vital role in the formation of children and we should not casually destroy life God himself created. These passages of scripture are what inspire so many pro-life advocates to defend the unborn.

Had the President of the United States stood at the National Prayer Breakfast and uttered any of those passages and then announced his intent to protect the unborn, abortion rights advocates would have stormed the White House and the Courts all in the name of separation of church and state. The media would have had on Barry Lynn to proclaim his outrage that the President was mixing religion and politics.

Jim Wallis would have gone on the news to dance around life issues and try his best to neuter God out of them and the media would have treated him as an objective source.

But that's not what happened.

Instead, the President went to the National Prayer Breakfast and quoted Jesus Christ himself to defend a tax increase. The President paraphrased Luke 12:48, "Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more." (ESV) He said it was because he was a Christian that he thought the rich should pay more in taxes.

It's a good thing President Obama did not draw from Matthew 13:12 instead or the poor would really be screwed.

"For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away." (ESV)

It is worth pointing out that the very same people who would have been outraged had the President quoted clear scripture on life to defend the unborn were willing to be silent or even applaud the President perverting the words of Christ to pursue his tax plan.

It is also worth pointing out that President Obama sat at the feet of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, so this might be the best he can do.

But we must also point out that Christians have an obligation to pray for their leaders and, given how the President of the United State just twisted the words of our Lord and Savior, we should pray all the more fervently for him because in reading Luke 12:48, he clearly ignored or has no understand of Luke 12:47, the prior sentence, which reads

"And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating." (ESV)

One must wonder about the Christian grounding of the people in the White House who encouraged the President of the United States to pervert the words of the Living God.

What the President seems not to know is

Christ was not talking about money. The President, in making the case for his tax plan using that passage of scripture, perverts Christ's meaning. Christ was talking explicitly about the blessings flowing from God to the apostles and us through the Word and the need to proclaim Christ as the Living God.

To better understand what Christ was actually talking about, first understand that he was talking about an individual's relationship with God. In fact, throughout President Obama's speech he perverted a number of passages from Holy Scripture having to do with an individual's obligations toward the poor and toward God, co-opting those passages as claims that the state can then tax and spend in the name of Jesus.

I dare say I'd take peddlers of the "social gospel" much more seriously if they concerned themselves first with the actual Gospel as it pertains to men's salvation and eternity.

Not to delve deep into the theology, but Luke 12:47-48 is reflected in Hebrews 2:1-4, in which the writer preaches,

"Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will."

The Greek used for "pay much closer attention" (prosecho) and "lest we drift away" (pararheo) derive from Greek nautical terminology the original audience would have understood. Prosecho means to tie up or moor a ship in harbor (a metaphor for Christ) and pararheo means to negligently and knowingly let a ship drift past the harbor, or Christ.

In other words, what Christ is telling us in Luke and what the author of Hebrews explains in greater detail is that these passages apply to people who, like the President, claim to be Christians and claim to have experienced blessings in life and then turn their back on or drift away from Christ without securing themselves to him.

What both Hebrews 2 and Luke 12:47 say that the President conveniently ignored is that anyone who claims to be a Christian or who has experienced the blessings that flow from being surrounded by believers and then does not accept Christ will be judged more harshly on the last day than those who never knew or experienced Christ's love. Yeah, those levels of hell aren't just for Catholics. See e.g. Matthew 11:21-22 in which Christ says,

"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you." [Emphasis added]

Unfortunately for the nation, we have a President who claims to be a Christian who is willing to take God's Holy Word repeatedly out of context, subsume God's commands for individuals in their conduct with each other and with Him, and try to make the case for the government's fiscal policy with that perversion.

Contrast that with his other actions this week.

The President, through the Department of Health and Human Services, has ordered religious organizations — targeting more specifically the Catholic Church — to offer health plans that cover the costs of contraceptives and abortifacient drugs. I started this post with, unlike the President's use of Luke and Proverbs, un-perverted scripture Christians use to show their objections to abortion. But moreso, these are non exhaustive passages of scripture Catholics rely on as foundations both to their opposition to abortion and to contraception. God himself said, "Be fruitful and multiply."

The President this week chose to pervert God's Word to make the case for a tax increase, but he also chose to ignore God's word on life and is ordering Christians, while he claims to be one, to violate their Christian conscience on abortion — requiring Christian organizations to provide health insurance that will cover the cost of drugs that induce abortions.

He is trying to have it both ways. He is trying to use God's Word to defend a tax policy that dissuades individuals from giving gladly and charitably to the poor as God instructs and is ignoring God's Word in order to force fellow Christians into violating their Christian conscience — something about which God cares a great deal.

This cannot end well for him, particularly doing this claiming to be a Christian. And it might not end well for the rest of us either. Barack Obama has gone to war with Christians' consciences and he is perverting God's word in the process to get his way on public policy.

"First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way." 1 Timothy 2:1-2 (ESV)

Pray hard. The President needs it.

Did a Former Nancy Pelosi Aide Screw Up the Komen Decision? Ogilvy Public Relations Should Explain.

Judd Legum at Think Progress did what appears to be a pre-emptive strike against former Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer claiming that Fleisher was "secretly involved" in the Susan G. Komen Foundations' strategy on planned parenthood.

In fact, according to people I've spoken to who are aware of the decision making processes at Komen, Fleischer had nothing to do with Komen's strategy or decision on this matter. I use the word "pre-emptive" because it seems Think Progress and the left wanted to get this out there quickly, damn the facts, to distract from Brendan Daly.

Brandon Daly is Nancy Pelosi's former press secretary. He now works at Ogilvy Public Relations.

According to people close to the Komen Foundation I've spoken to, it was not Fleischer who was involved in the strategy and PR related to the Planned Parenthood decision, but rather Nancy Pelosi's former press secretary and Ogilvy Public Relations executive Brendan Daly.

Think Progress seemingly wanted to jump the gun and blame a Republican for a disastrous PR strategy when it was not just any Democrat, but one tied to Nancy Pelosi, who was quick out of the gate condemning the Komen Foundation.

Maybe Komen should have gone with Edelman instead.

Did a Former Nancy Pelosi Aide Screw Up the Komen Decision? Oglivy Public Relations Should Explain.

Judd Legum at Think Progress did what appears to be a pre-emptive strike against former Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer claiming that Fleisher was "secretly involved" in the Susan G. Komen Foundations' strategy on planned parenthood.

In fact, according to people I've spoken to who are aware of the decision making processes at Komen, Fleischer had nothing to do with Komen's strategy or decision on this matter. I use the word "pre-emptive" because it seems Think Progress and the left wanted to get this out there quickly, damn the facts, to distract from Brendan Daly.

Brandon Daly is Nancy Pelosi's former press secretary. He now works at Oglivy Public Relations.

According to people close to the Komen Foundation I've spoken to, it was not Fleischer who was involved in the strategy and PR related to the Planned Parenthood decision, but rather Nancy Pelosi's former press secretary and Oglivy Public Relations executive Brendan Daly.

Think Progress seemingly wanted to jump the gun and blame a Republican for a disastrous PR strategy when it was not just any Democrat, but one tied to Nancy Pelosi, who was quick out of the gate condemning the Komen Foundation.

Maybe Komen should have gone with Edelman instead.

Making Sense of the Komen Foundation's Actions

The left and right can together admit that the Susan G. Komen Foundation has just had three days of horrible publicity. They did the right thing and should have mapped out a release strategy better. My suspicion is that they assumed the purity of their intentions would override the abortion lobby's demands.

I heard today that while small donations are up more than 100% to the Komen Foundation, major funders have threatened to pull money allocated to Komen because of Komen's Planned Parenthood decision. Killing children in utero is the sacrament of the Church of the Secular Left and any person or organization that becomes the slightest threat to abortion rights must be destroyed. Because the Susan G. Komen Foundation dared to stop giving money to an organization that kills kids despite its spin, major liberal donors of Komen decided abortion outranks curing breast cancer and Komen had to be stopped.

The media headlines today are that the Komen Foundation has reversed itself. If you gave a donation in the past few days and want it back, you should call (800) 996-3329. But I hope I can provide for you some rational explanation for a mishandled PR exercise.

As a Komen Board member told Life News, the reversal is not really so much a reversal as a clarification of Komen's grants procedures, which will still impact Planned Parenthood's future funding from the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

The major outrage against Komen funding Planned Parenthood came after an undercover sting of Planned Parenthood proving conclusively that Planned Parenthood does not offer mammogram services. Komen claimed it funded Planned Parenthood because of its mammogram services. Planned Parenthood's dodge is that they referred women to places to get discounted or free mammograms, which itself is not true.

In walking back its denial of funds to Planned Parenthood, my understanding is that Komen will not cancel already approved grants to Planned Parenthood, but in the future will only fund organizations that provide mammograms themselves. That, in effect, still shuts out Planned Parenthood unless they actually invest in in-house infrastructures to give mammograms instead of just killing kids in-house.

Danger Will Robinson . . . or Ann Coulter

This week is a career milestone for me. I appear in Time magazine writing about the state of the conservative movement. As a kid living overseas, my American history teacher subscribed us all to Time and U.S. News and World Report. So it is kind of cool to be in an issue of, between the two, the still printed survivor.

The point I try to make is that the conservative movement is going through a necessary transition after the Bush years. You can read the whole thing here but a really relevant part is here:

The internecine fights we are witnessing are about a conservative movement starting to separate itself again from Republican Party. Unfortunately, neither of the front runners have legitimate conservative integrity to claim the banner of conservative movement leader, but they will both try. Romney will hold the banner for conservatives within the GOP and Gingrich will hold the banner of the traditional alliance of conservatives with the GOP.

I see this playing out in, of all things, my friend Ann Coulter's column defending Romneycare. Mark Levin offers the definitive rebuttal, which you can listen to here, but there is a point that too few are making that needs to be made.

It relates to the dangers associated with supporting Mitt Romney and Ann Coulter's column is exhibit A on why supporting Romney portends disaster for the conservative movement.

There is no need to fisk Ann's column line by line. I'll only quote the first paragraph, which is

If only the Democrats had decided to socialize the food industry or housing, Romneycare would probably still be viewed as a massive triumph for conservative free-market principles — as it was at the time.

I love Ann. She is brilliant. In fact, she is too brilliant to think that Romneycare is a "massive triumph for conservative free-market principles."

It is free market economics 101 that a free market requires that individuals have the right to opt-out of a transaction. In other words, zero must be contemplated in the equation. Consider it a null function. When individuals are, through state power, forced to opt-in to a transaction as individuals are forced to buy health care as a condition of breathing in Massachusetts, it is inherently not free market because a free market depends on the freedom to not purchase. Forcing demand is more akin to the keynesian economics Obama is pushing, not Milton Friedman or Adam Smith.

But it also is not conservative.

As Mark Levin notes in his monologue, when the state — whether it is a nation or one of the fifty states — can force an individual to engage in commerce it upends the relationship between the individual and the state. The conservative view of government is that the individual is supreme. The socialist view is that the state is supreme for the betterment of the collective.

In other words, in Ann Coulter's first paragraph she calls Romneycare both free-market and conservative, when any intellectually honest review of the facts would have no choice but to conclude it is neither. She confuses federalism and conservatism. Certainly, in our federal system, a state has plenary power to do as it wishes except for those powers it chose, in adopting our federal constitution, to cede to the federal government. But just because something is federalist does not make it conservative.

To use an analogy based on hyperbole as Ann does in her column, under the constitutions of one of the fifty states that state could constitutionally require all people buy a copy of the Communist Manifesto. It would be arguably permissible under the concept of vertical federalism, but it sure would not be conservative. Delete "Communist Manifesto" and insert "health insurance" and you have Romneycare.

During the Bush years, conservatives all too often sided with the Republican Party rather than their own principles. As I note in this week's Time:

By the time George W. Bush arrived in Washington, the conservative movement had fully moved within the Republican Party. Conservative Democrats had walked across the aisle making bipartisan outreach unnecessary. By the the mid-point of George Bush's Presidency, people were talking non-ironically about "big government conservatives," which prior to Bill Clinton's term would have been merely Republicans who put party ahead of principle.

As George Bush left office, conservatives who had seen his father put David Souter on the Supreme Court were championing Harriet Miers, fighting each other over immigration policy, supporting TARP, were okay with saving General Motors, and turning a polite blind eye to Bush's claim that he had to kill the free market to save it.

Leaders and strong voices within the conservative movement have an obligation to speak up in favor of, so to speak, true north within conservative principles and then leave it to the politicians to decide how far away from true north they must drift to build a coalition to enact policy.

Debasing ourselves with silly defenses of Republicans along with a willingness to put party politics ahead of principle will, yet again, see voters rejecting conservatives. Groups like the American Conservative Union, the Heritage Foundation, etc. have all made mistakes and have usually had to repent. But in making those mistakes, they have opened up both conservatives and the Republican Party to temptation and temerity that ultimately caused collapse at the polls or ceding issues in debates. Look at the Heritage Foundation and healthcare mandates. Look at the Republican politicians who expand the federal government's budget while hiding behind their ACU rating as proof that they are conservative.

The conservative movement has been sick for the past decade. The further it became absorbed within the Republican Party, the less it could shine with conservative ideas. It compromised with itself because it had become part of the Republican Party and was as much about the acquisition of political power as it was about advocating particular policy.

I am afraid supporting Mitt Romney will undo a lot of the repairs made to the conservative movement in the past few years. Already people are defending inherently not conservative ideas by calling them conservative. Already people are too willing to keep their mouth shut to do no harm to the party and, in the process, are doing harm to the intellectual capital built up within the conservative movement.

Ann Coulter's defense of Romneycare, released on the same day Romney rejected years of conservative arguments against the social safety net and the welfare state, is a canary in the coal mine. We are returning to that point where the voters decided they could no longer trust conservatives to be principled.

Morning Briefing for February 3, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing

February 2, 2012

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

1. Danger Will Robinson . . . or Ann Coulter

2.

3. Senate Porkers Defeat Earmark Ban

4. A Former Union Thug's Take On Right-to-Work: What's Right & What's Not…

5. Horserace for February 2, 2012

———————————————————————-

1. Danger Will Robinson . . . or Ann Coulter

This week is a career milestone for me. I appear in Time magazine writing about the state of the conservative movement. As a kid living overseas, my American history teacher subscribed us all to Time and U.S. News and World Report. So it is kind of cool to be in an issue of, between the two, the still printed survivor.

The point I try to make is that the conservative movement is going through a necessary transition after the Bush years. You can read the whole thing here but a really relevant part is here:

"The internecine fights we are witnessing are about a conservative movement starting to separate itself again from Republican Party. Unfortunately, neither of the front runners have legitimate conservative integrity to claim the banner of conservative movement leader, but they will both try. Romney will hold the banner for conservatives within the GOP and Gingrich will hold the banner of the traditional alliance of conservatives with the GOP."

I see this playing out in, of all things, my friend Ann Coulter's column defending Romneycare. Mark Levin offers the definitive rebuttal, which you can listen to here, but there is a point that too few are making that needs to be made.

It relates to the dangers associated with supporting Mitt Romney and Ann Coulter's column is exhibit A on why supporting Romney portends disaster for the conservative movement.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2.

Yesterday, in the middle of his campaign National Prayer Breakfast speech, President Obama delighted those of us who love irony by quoting C.S. Lewis. It was an interesting moment in a speech that put forth the notion that taxing the wealthy is right in line with the teachings of Jesus. I mean, Jesus did hang out with tax collectors, right? The idea that government welfare is somehow the fulfillment of Jesus' teaching on charity is a common misconception that many people make, Christians included, and it's the main reason that liberals believe conservatives are Christian hypocrites. Perhaps if the president visited church more often than only during campaign seasons, he might not be so confused. See, not only do we spend time praising God in church, we also gain insight from our pastors who have surely spent more time in the word of God than we have.

While Obama may have been correct in saying that government mandated, shared responsibility is equal to the Islamic belief that those who've been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, he is incorrect to group in Jesus' teaching, "for unto whom much is given, much shall be required." Aside from the fact that Jesus was discussing requirements from God, not the government, he was actually teaching his disciples that they were stewards of God's gift of Revelation. Their requirement was to spread the good news of Jesus Christ. It's the crux of Christianity that Obama seems to miss. Jesus came because we are imperfect. We could never fulfill all the requirements that the pharisees loved to lord over the people. Jesus' coming ended the rule of law and the began the acceptance that our only way to God was through Him. Yes, Jesus very much emphasized the importance of giving to the poor, but as a reaction in joy to what we've been given; not because of a law. Giving out of obligation is not truly giving, it's merely following the rules. Just ask anyone who's ever written a check to pay their taxes, I doubt you'd find them excited.

The Bible also teaches that everything we have, including money, belongs to God. We are called to be good stewards with His money. The government is the epitome of mismanaging money. If you truly want to help the poor, you should probably seek out charities; but that would require a bit of work on the part of the giver and a great many find it easier to just let the government run every aspect of their lives. So it is that welfare money ends up spitting out of strip club ATMs, and those same people who paid their charity to the government wonder why government hasn't solved the issue. Perhaps they should ask the 27 Democrats who voted against stopping welfare checks from being used at strip clubs, casinos and liquor stores.

3. Senate Porkers Defeat Earmark Ban

Senators Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) learned a valuable lession today about member's desire to go back to the practice of earmarking pet projects. Toomey and McCaskill offered an Amendment to the STOCK Act that would have created a new Senate point of order against earmarks in bills. They were met with bipartisan opposition to this common sense idea.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. A Former Union Thug's Take On Right-to-Work: What's Right & What's Not…

Having spent nearly a decade as a former union representative and activist (aka "union thug") in a Right-to-Work state, it has been interesting to discuss and watch the activities and debates over the Right-to-Work battles occuring within the various states. Having been on both sides of the labor-management equation, it's easy to see the two sides of the coin—the pluses and the minuses—that come into play with Right to Work legislation.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. Horserace for February 2, 2012

There are storm clouds on the horizon. A day after Mitt Romney's massive win in Florida he opened his mouth and promptly told conservatives he was incapable of articulating conservatism.

Then Newt Gingrich found a bright line rule in the Republican rules that clearly and precisely states that all delegates awarded before April 1, 2012, must be proportional. There goes giving Romney all fifty delegates from Florida despite what Florida's GOP Chairman says.

Then National Review and other Romney supporters , taking a bit of comfort in his secure win in Florida, decided they could finally express some buyers remorse, or at least now stop zealously defending him and criticize him some.

Then people really examined the exit polls in Florida. What they found was that turnout fell from 2008. But in counties where turn out was up, Newt Gingrich won. Where turnout from 2008 was down, Romney won. This pattern followed South Carolina. The base remains unexcited about Romney and his comments yesterday about the poor and the social safety net keep the base from getting excited.

What should have been Mitt Romney heading into February securing his nomination now becomes an effort to stave off a rear guard action to pick him off. Gingrich and Santorum now have the ammunition they need to keep the Great Coalescing from happening.

What should have been a clear path to the nomination is suddenly in jeopardy.

We'll get into it all in the Horserace.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Horserace for February 2, 2012

There are storm clouds on the horizon. A day after Mitt Romney's massive win in Florida he opened his mouth and promptly told conservatives he was incapable of articulating conservatism.

Then Newt Gingrich found a bright line rule in the Republican rules that clearly and precisely states that all delegates awarded before April 1, 2012, must be proportional. There goes giving Romney all fifty delegates from Florida despite what Florida's GOP Chairman says.

Then National Review and other Romney supporters , taking a bit of comfort in his secure win in Florida, decided they could finally express some buyers remorse, or at least now stop zealously defending him and criticize him some.

Then people really examined the exit polls in Florida. What they found was that turnout fell from 2008. But in counties where turn out was up, Newt Gingrich won. Where turnout from 2008 was down, Romney won. This pattern followed South Carolina. The base remains unexcited about Romney and his comments yesterday about the poor and the social safety net keep the base from getting excited.

What should have been Mitt Romney heading into February securing his nomination now becomes an effort to stave off a rear guard action to pick him off. Gingrich and Santorum now have the ammunition they need to keep the Great Coalescing from happening.

What should have been a clear path to the nomination is suddenly in jeopardy.

We'll get into it all in the Horserace.

Newt Gingrich

You would not know it, but Gingrich has put his campaign through a bit of a shake up in order to instill more discipline within the campaign and hopefully within himself. His erratic messaging and attacks hurt him in Florida. He knows it.

The campaign knows that Newt Gingrich's debate strategy — naps and quiet time — I AM NOT JOKING — will no longer serve him. The Romney camp sought to destroy the myth of Gingrich the Great Debater and largely succeeded in Florida.

Gingrich has much to do. He needs more focus, more message discipline, and more delegates. The RNC rule on proportional delegates will help him. Like Florida, Arizona had intended a winner take all primary, but that is not to be. And lucky for Gingrich, Mitt Romney's comments on the poor and the conservative outcry over them will give Gingrich an issue with which he can focus on jobs, the economy, and Mitt Romney. If Gingrich is serious about staying in till the convention, he could deny Romney a first ballot win and spare the base from the man they don't like, even if Newt himself cannot get the nomination.

He is more of a long shot today than he was a day before Florida, but he can still be the nominee.

Ron Paul

The spectacular disaster of the Ron Paul campaign has been one of the least told stories on the campaign trail. The media is officially ignoring Ron Paul because they don't want to deal with the crazy that will come out if they even deal with Ron Paul objectively.

He came in third in Iowa. He came in second in New Hampshire. He came in fourth in South Carolina. He came in fourth in Florida. Yes, he may currently lead Santorum in delegates, but consistently coming in behind the winner does not help him. He has not won a single state. He is the only candidate left standing to not win a state.

He hopes that Nevada will be that state. Caucuses are notoriously hard to poll, but the polls show he won't come in first. It is Ron Paul's best shot at a first place win. If he does not come in first in Nevada, his only other hope is to go to a brokered convention. That becomes harder and harder for him as we get to winner take all states if he can't win at least one now.

Ron Paul will not be the nominee. But might Gingrich and Santorum ally with Paul in Virginia and throw their support to him? It would bolster Paul there, but more importantly it would hurt Mitt Romney badly. Santorum and Gingrich are not on the ballot there.

Mitt Romney

Had Mitt Romney not gone on Soledad O'Brien's show and said what he said, he would be fully secure in his nomination. He has put himself in jeopardy. He gives Santorum and Gingrich wiggle room to keep playing.

I have to agree with Jamie Dupree of Cox Media Group's Washington Bureau. Mitt Romney is too message disciplined for something like this to happen accidentally. There had to be campaign preparation for this. There had to be campaign strategy behind the statement. My only guess is that, like Gingrich, Romney is exhausted from three weeks of grueling campaigns. He didn't get the talking points out right. He flubbed.

But to go on CNN and say what he said and then reiterate it later with a surrogate saying Romney won't change policies for the poor had to be a planned strategy. The messaging had to have gotten screwed up though. That, or the Romney camp really is out of touch.

This is still Mitt Romney's race to win or lose. The next few states favor him. But he just gave powerful ammunition to Gingrich and Santorum. How those campaigns use it will tell us more about them than Romney.

Rick Santorum

The Romney camp is actually nervous about Santorum. They believe he can do well in the caucus states that, even though they are non-binding, will put wind into Santorum's sail. They are nervous.

Santorum has not shown he can compete past Iowa. He does not have the money. He does not have the resources. He does not have a large enough team. But he has passion. And I maintain that Santorum staying in the race hurts Romney more than Gingrich because ultimately Santorum's voters will drift slowly to Romney.

That won't happen with Santorum in the race. And if, like in South Carolina, Santorum is able to pick up steam and money, Romney will have both Gingrich and Santorum firing at him. That's bad news for Romney.

Morning Briefing for February 2, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing

February 2, 2012

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

I'll be filling in for Neal Boortz today. You can listen live from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Neal's (and my) flagship radio station, News Talk WSB out of Atlanta by going to http://wsbradio.com. You can call in during that time by dialing 1-877-310-2100.

1. The National Review's Candidate Won't Stop Digging

2. Sixty-Five to One: It's Not That Complicated

3. The Government is Playing Hide and Seek With Airfare Taxes

4. The Earmarxists are Back

———————————————————————-

1. The National Review's Candidate Won't Stop Digging

It is days like today that make me thankful I think they all suck. At least I'm thankful I'm in the firmly not Romney camp.

Having told us only Romney was viable (with half-nods to Huntsman and Santorum) and having trotted out Elliot Abrams to smear Newt Gingrich with out of context quotes, even National Review is having trouble defending their candidate today.

This morning Mitt Romney said he wasn't concerned about the poor. The poor, after all, have food stamps and Medicaid. But don't worry. If the safety net is broken, Patrician Mitt Romney will fix it so the poor can stay comfortably poor. After all, just look what he did in Massachusetts. The poor can now wait 44 days to get in to see a doctor. Excelsior!

After making sure we all understood the poor were for the Democrats to be worried about, Romney decided to keep digging his hole even bigger. By the end of the day, Jim DeMint had to rebuke him.

Romney, digging his hole deeper, said his remark needed more context. The context, according to Romney, is that we have government programs to keep the poor . . . well . . . poor but comfortable.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Sixty-Five to One: It's Not That Complicated

Political analysts have a need to sound expertly and important when it comes to elections. They have to go in depth and explain artfully and deeply why someone won and someone lost.

It was the debates. It was the ground game. It was the strategies. It was the likability versus dislikability of the candidates. On and on they go.

What gets danced around is the money. Money is usually why candidates win or lose. Candidates with the highest favorable name ID usually win. To do that takes lots of money and lots of ads.

For all the hoopla about Mitt Romney's victory in Florida, it really is not that hard to understand. All you need to understand is the ratio 65 to 1.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. The Government is Playing Hide and Seek With Airfare Taxes

When purchasing a product or service, we all like to see the itemized list of charges – one that separates the cost of the purchase from the share going to Uncle Sam through the form of taxes and fees. Needless to say, government bureaucrats don't like that. They desire that we remain blissfully ignorant of government's burden on our everyday lives. This is one reason why they concocted the withholdings scheme for income tax collection. Now, they are expanding their tentacles into commercial taxes so they can obfuscate the magnitude of taxes and fees on airfare purchases.

Without much fanfare, the Department of Transportation (DOT) enacted a rule which requires airlines to ensconce all government taxes and fees in a single total advertised price with the fare. For example, if you purchase a $350 plane ticket with $50 of taxes and fees, the DOT is demanding that the airline advertise the price as $400. Airline passengers pay over a dozen taxes and fees on any given airplane ticket, but the government doesn't want us to know that. The rule was finalized last April, but only took effect last week.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. The Earmarxists are Back

It's another week in the Senate, and there's another battle over earmarks. Senators Toomey and McCaskill are proposing an amendment to the STOCK Act ("insider trading bill"S. 2038) to permanently ban earmarks in the Senate. Not surprisingly, there is pushback from Harry Reid…and a number of Republicans as well.

As always, there are those who argue that earmarks are just inconsequential "drop in the bucket" expenditures; that we must focus on more impactful issues.

Please click here for the rest of the post.