Free Republic

Carolina wins!

These polls are so screwy. Where is Ras coming with the D +2?

I guess we will know after Tuesdsay

I live in MN, and on my way home from Mass tonight I saw a lot of home made Romney/Ryan signs up on people’s lawns, which weren’t up in the last few weeks.

Eager to see how many MN will show up to see Ryan tomorrow.

I live in MN and this is encouraging...would love to see MN go Red! Are you all watching the Romney Rally in CO right now? It’s on C-Span and Mitt just introduced his scout master - he’s talking about his life heroes and the crowd is going wild...

watching the rally on C-Span...they are hammering the two B’s - Budget and Benghazi...

Praying that Romney and Ryan have a decisive victory Tuesday night.

He invites a radical islamist leader at first opportunity, yet has not made a state visit to Israel.

What’s sad is a there are many of our fellow countrymen who fail to wake up.

I know in the past I have been critical of Romney, but after the ruling today from the Supreme Court, I donated to his campaign.

It is up to us, the American people to take a stand and defend our rights and liberties.

“The bishops are seeing – rightly – a pattern of emerging of hostility towards the Catholic faith for upholding protection of the life of the unborn and because of its position on contraception,” said Hudson.

And Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League pointed out to Newsmax that the protests will come around the time the Supreme Court issues its judgment on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Unless the justices throw the act out completely, the protests could not be timed better, he said.

“If the individual mandate falls and the rest stands it will be more important than ever for Catholics to step forward and get involved,” said Donohue. “We will have to make the point that we are not going anywhere.”

Donohue said the mandate to make insurance companies cover not only contraceptives but abortion-inducing drugs is the key, he said. “It was done on purpose as a wedge to open the door. If we don’t fight it the next step is to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortion facilities,” he said.

“The idea that I as a Catholic should have to pay for some woman’s abortion makes me want to reach for the vomit bag.”

Donohue praised the bishops for their proactive stance “if for no other reason than to make the point that they are furious,” he said.

“Over the years there have been times when the resolve of the bishops wasn’t quite what we wanted it to be. Today that resolve is extremely strong,” he said.

The two weeks of protest has been called by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “That is not the type of body that goes out of its way to pick a fight,” Catholic Advocate’s Hudson pointed out.

“That is precisely what makes this so unusual a moment. The bishops have been provoked to such a degree that they will go to this extreme. They would prefer quiet negotiations leading to a principled compromise, instead they are talking about the probability of civil disobedience.”

Republicans are hoping the protests, planned for June and July will have a major bearing on the election which will follow four months later. They look forward to TV shots of robed priests and nuns being led away in handcuffs.

“These would be devastating images for the Obama administration,” GOP strategist Ron Bonjean told The Hill. “You have a very important religious demographic coming out in protest of Obama’s policies and being arrested for their expression.”

And Hudson agreed. When asked if the protests could be a game-changer come election time, he responded. “Potentially it could be the game-changer.

“It is a mistake to prognosticate with certainty this far out from the election, but two weeks of protest in mid-summer will help put this before the conventions and make it a major issue in the campaign.”

Hudson said Catholic Advocate has already been working in battleground states including Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina and Pennsylvania to get its message across and is about to start work in New Mexico.

“At one meeting in Des Moines, we had about 80 people and one guy sat in the corner and at the end he raised his hand and said he had been a life-long social justice Catholic – so I was getting ready for the big smackdown on all the stuff we had been doing.

“But he said, ‘I’ve just had it with Obama.’ That was a moment that really got my attention.”

The bishops outlined their plan in an April 12 statement signed by Conference general secretary, Msgr. Ronny Jenkins. The statement entitled “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty” was drawn up by the ad hoc committee for religious liberty, which includes 11 bishop members including Archbishop of Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl, one of Obama’s fiercest critics in the church.

They called on fellow bishops to focus “all the energies the Catholic community can muster” to arrange special events to highlight the importance of defending religious liberty.

The dates were picked to run from the feast day of martyrs St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More to Independence Day. “This special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action would emphasize both our Christian and American heritage of liberty,” the bishops said.

“Dioceses and parishes around the country could choose a date in that period for special events that would constitute a great national campaign of teaching and witness for religious liberty.”

It referred to the mandate that church-affiliated organizations such as hospitals, schools and universities would have to provide contraceptive coverage in their employees’ insurance policies as well as state and local moves that the church says affects its freedom.

“Religious liberty is not only about our ability to go to Mass on Sunday or pray the Rosary at home,” the statement said. “It is about whether we can make our contribution to the common good of all Americans. Can we do the good works our faith calls us to do, without having to compromise that very same faith?

“What is at stake is whether America will continue to have a free, creative, and robust civil society—or whether the state alone will determine who gets to contribute to the common good, and how they get to do it.”

Hudson said that in many ways the statement itself is more important than the two weeks of action, but he accepted it would not get as much publicity.

“This is not something to get giddy about,” he said. “It would be sad if it came to priests or lay people or bishops being led away in handcuffs. What could be a sadder moment in the history of our nation than to see Catholics arrested for simply refusing to compromise on a central moral principle of their faith?

If Romney is the nominee, I will be writing in another candidate for POTUS.

The fact that he will not repeal Obamacare is enough to convince me.

I am thoroughly disgusted with the GOP Establishment.

If Romney is the GOP it marks the end of the Republican Party

What else can possibly explain a piece like the one Abrams penned on a day when Gingrich was being of a mysterious sudden targeted in one hit piece after another for his ties to Reagan? The pieces invariably following the Romney line that Newt had some version of nothing to do with Reagan.

A piece like the one Abrams wrote depends for its success in garnering headlines -- which it did -- by assuming no one will bother to get into the weeds and do the homework. Usually a safe assumption when dealing with the mainstream media, particularly a mainstream media that, as one with Establishment Republicans, hates Newt Gingrich.

Not so fast.

Due to the diligence of one Chris Scheve of a group called Aqua Terra Strategies in Washington, Mr. Abrams has been caught red-handed in lending himself to this attempted Romney hit job.

Mr. Scheve, you see, is himself a former foreign policy aide to none other than Speaker Newt Gingrich in his days as Speaker. While now out on his own and not working for Gingrich, Scheve is considerably conversant with the Gingrich foreign policy record.

Uh-oh.

That's right. Mr. Scheve, incensed at what he felt was a deliberate misrepresentation of his old boss by Abrams and the Romney forces, specifically of Gingrich's long ago March 21, 1986 "Special Order" speech on the floor of the House, and aware "that most of [Abrams'] comments had to have been selectively taken from the special order" -- Scheve started digging. Since the Congressional Record for 1986 was difficult to obtain electronically, Scheve trekked to the George Mason Library to physically track down the March 21, 1986 edition of the Congressional Record. Locating it, copying and scanning, he was kind enough to send to me.

So now I've read the Gingrich speech that is the source of all the hoopla. All seven, fine print pages worth of it exactly as it appeared in its original form.

I can only say that what Elliott Abrams wrote in NRO about Newt Gingrich based on this long ago speech is not worthy of Elliott Abrams.

Specifically, Abrams implies that Newt Gingrich was spewing mindless vitriol about Reagan on the House floor. Not only not so, it was quite to the contrary. Of President Reagan, Gingrich says:

• "Let me be clear: I have the greatest respect for President Reagan. I think he personally understands the threat of communism." Gingrich then goes on -- at Newtonian length -- praising Reagan for Reagan's understanding of Lenin, Reagan's understanding of the real "purposes of a Soviet dictatorship" and much more. He lists and applauds Reagan repeatedly for the President's appreciation of "the threat in a more powerful Soviet empire" and the threats posed by Communist Cuba and Nicaragua. He ranks Reagan with the great cold war presidents in protecting freedom. In short, time after time after, Newt Gingrich -- true to form -- is there on the floor of the House relentlessly praising and crediting Ronald Reagan. Is it any wonder that years later Nancy Reagan would speak so publicly and warmly about "Ronnie" passing the conservative torch to Newt? Is there any wonder that Michael Reagan has stepped into the middle of this current brawl to endorse Newt?

• Abrams quotes Newt for saying in this speech that Reagan's policies towards the Soviets are "inadequate and will ultimately fail." This is shameful. Why? Here's what Newt said -- in full and in context: "The fact is that George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick are right in pointing out the enormous gap between President Reagan's strong rhetoric, which is adequate, and his administration's weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail." In other words, Newt was picking up on a concern, prominent in the day and voiced by no less than Reagan's then ex-UN Ambassador Kirkpatrick, not to mention prominent Reagan supporters Will and Kristol and the late-Mondale aide turned conservative Krauthammer, that Reagan's anti-Communist policies could be stronger if better institutionalized and not tied as much to the Reagan persona. The entire speech focused on suggestions of how to do just that -- to effectively institutionalize Reagan's conservative beliefs in the government. Is Abrams seriously accusing Jeane Kirkpatrick and George Will of being anti-Reagan? Of spewing "insulting rhetoric" at a president everyone in Washington knew they staunchly supported? Really? Of course not. But in apparent service to the Romney campaign, in order to make Newt Gingrich appear to be doing just that, Abrams apparently quite deliberately cut out the original Gingrich reference to Will, Kirkpatrick, Krauthammer, and Kristol.

• ABC News. Now here's a little juicy tidbit. What's been the big news with Newt's campaign in the last week? That's right. The ABC News "investigative" piece by Brian Ross in the form of an interview with Gingrich's ex-wife Marianne. Aired two days before the South Carolina primary, the incident famously backfired as Gingrich launched an attack on ABC during that now-famous CNN debate hosted by John King.

All new, right? Wrong.

Five days previous to Gingrich's speech, President Reagan had addressed the nation on what he called "the mounting danger in Central America" from Nicaragua. Nicaragua, which Reagan described as "a Soviet ally on the American mainland only 2 hours' flying time from our own borders. With over a billion dollars in Soviet-bloc aid, the Communist government of Nicaragua has launched a campaign to subvert and topple its democratic neighbors." Typically, the liberal media of the day zapped Reagan. And sure enough, buried in that March 21, 1986 Gingrich speech on the House floor, Gingrich was tough on the liberal media's handling of Reagan's speech. And who -- quite specifically -- did he single out for criticism?

You guessed it: ABC News.

Said Newt:

All too often the news media itself is grotesquely uncritical and grotesquely willing to use Soviet language to explain Soviet behavior. Possibly it reached its epitome when ABC News put on a paid Soviet propagandist following the President of the United States. In other words, 26 years ago Newt Gingrich was busy incurring the institutional wrath not just of the mainstream media in general but ABC News quite specifically over the issue of their "grotesquely uncritical" treatment of the Soviet dictatorship. What America is seeing in real time today in this 2012 presidential campaign in terms of Newt Gingrich taking on both the media in general and ABC News in particular is decidedly not new. There is a history here -- a long one -- of Gingrich calling out ABC. And, as seen in the now infamous ex-wife interview, ABC pulls no punches when dealing with Newt Gingrich.

One could go on here. This March, 1986 speech was a long, typically Newt presentation. Lots of history. Lots of constructive thought. Lots of talk about strategy, tactics, the military. At one point -- a full 15 years before 9/11, Gingrich addresses the need for an American strategy that will support "Islamic freedom."

The main point is that the Newt Gingrich who spoke on the floor of the House on March 21, 1986, was thoroughly pro-Reagan, honestly engaging in a serious intellectual effort to assess the strengths and weaknesses of American foreign policy in the day from a hierarchy of vision, strategy, operations or projects and then last but not least, tactics. In grossly misrepresenting this speech as some sort of anti-Reagan jihad, Elliott Abrams has ironically only called attention to Governor Romney's lack of strengths and experience in this area.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but this kind of stuff is getting out of control. Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum all have their strengths and weaknesses. It does no one -- least of all Elliott Abrams or Governor Romney -- any good to try and say that Newt Gingrich, as loyal a friend and ally to Ronald Reagan as could be found in the day -- was somehow some crazed anti-Reaganite who got the Cold War wrong. Not only is this not true, its laughably untrue. Quite noticeably in last night's debate, on the heels of the release of that video showing Nancy Reagan herself praising Newt and the news that Michael Reagan is endorsing the ex-Speaker, Romney sheepishly began to back away from all of this zaniness.

He should.

So should Elliott Abrams -- who is much, much smarter, courageous and filled with character than that shoddy NRO piece conveys.

In the immortal words of Cher: "Snap out of it!"

I would like to see somebody at the debate tonight to say that a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama

This is all going to backfire on the President and dems.

I will say it again, if Romney is the nominee I will not vote for him for this reason - he is pro-choice. I vote my conscious and cannot vote for a man who does not believe in protecting our most vulnerable citizens - infants in the womb and the elderly.

The more I hear of Herman Cain, the more I like him. He stands by what he believes and stays on message.

This was a great video. More people need to to see this

I will not vote for Romney if he is the nominee - period. Romney is pro-choice. I will not compromise my principles to vote for a man who will not protect the rights of our most vulnerable - infants in the womb and the elderly.

The more I hear of Herman Cain, the more I like what he says, especially how he will defend our most vulnerable citizens - infants in the womb, children, and the elderly. If Romney gets the nod, I will not vote for him as POTUS for his pro-choice stance. If a candidate does not respect life from conception til natural death, they have no business being POTUS of this great nation.

Miss Pelosi - 11 of your Democrats also sided with the Republicans.

It is a sad day when we advocate the killing of our young and old for sake of political principal. Life must be respected and protected at all costs.