Here’s the link:

http://townhall.com/columnists/terryjeffrey/2012/02/02/creators_oped

I’ve heard Romney’s excuse on this, he said there wasn’t anything he could do, because that was “the law”. But he signed Romneycare knowing this was in there, so his excuse doesn’t match up to reality.

I don’t know how you can paint this as anything other than something eerily similar to what O’ is doing right now. Taxpayers being forced, and religious hospitals mandated, to do something that is against their conscience and religious beliefs.

You just can’t paint over Romney’s core instincts by claiming him more “electable” than Gingrich or Santorum.

“Don’t count me among them,” he says.

Mark is right.

If Romney, or any other candidate, wants my vote, they will have to convince me to vote for them, not against someone else. But what’s worse, is that Romney has no place calling anyone out for being a non-conservative.

Quotes from Romney:

Oct. 25, 1994, Mitt Romney, trying to distance himself from conservatives so he could run against Ted Kennedy: “I was an independent during Reagan/Bush. ”

He also said during that race he would “never waver” on a woman’s right to choose, and he made that decision because of watching his mother work for woman’s rights in the 1970′s, and that someone he “met” had a botched abortion, and so it made him realize that abortion must be legal. Hmmm…sounds suspiciously like how he became pro-life. He met someone, or witnessed some case….why is one more compelling than the other? The person he met is more compelling than his mother?

Then in 2002, Romney says he’s a “progressive moderate” Republican. That’s HIM saying that, on video. Six years later, the man is trying to win the Republican nomination for president.

The reason I bring up these quotes from Romney, is that he is the one trying to convince us that Gingrich really wasn’t a Reagan advocate. Why should I listen to him, someone who tried repeatedly to distance himself from conservatives?

Further, as Levin said, Gingrich did more to further the conservative movement during that time and into the 1990′s than almost anyone except Reagan. When Gingrich was fighting Democrats, Romney was distancing himself from conservatives. This is not to say Gingrich isn’t wishy washy. He’s not my first choice, but I won’t sit by while he gets destroyed ala Palin by our own party.

Last, and perhaps most important because I am an expert on one line of attack from the Romneyites, let’s talk about the moon base. 

I’ve reported for Gannett on events near Kennedy Space Center for the last 6 years, and my military experience includes a background with NASA and Air Force space launches.  I’ve written two books about the history of the space program, and I’ve met or interviewed dozens of astronauts.

Now Romney is taking a line of attack that having a goal of a moon base is somehow crazy. How far some of these blog commenters and advocates of Romney have fallen.

Yes, you can disagree and argue on if spending money on a moon base is a good idea or even viable with our debt, but calling someone crazy for wanting to see us there is just a personal, political attack. 

I am one of those “crazy” people who knows for a fact that not only is a moon base possible, its feasible financially. Not just to “inspire” the next generation, although that is a nice side effect, but because it’s a national defense issue.

Trust me, it is not science fiction to think of China on the moon in two decades, with some kind of weapon aimed directly at us or our satellites, or using that to further their space technology far beyond what we can dream of now. It is vitally important we don’t let that happen.

How do we pay for it? Well first, there will be a NASA budget. That is the first issue. Moving money in that budget away from “muslim outreach” and toward a new goal is a good thing. But beyond that, there are many ways to partner with private companies and have much of the cost taken care of.

Again, this isn’t science fiction. Eventually, the moon could be mined for a type of non-polluting nuclear fuel. It is in great abundance all over the moon’s surface, and could change our energy problems forever. This can all be done within our life time, and with a president leading on the issue, it could be done in a couple decades. 

Can you imagine having an almost limitless nuclear fuel that is non-polluting? Would that be valuable to a private company? Would it be in the interest of the United States to forever get rid of our dependence on oil? Would it be in our interest to prevent China or even Russia or Japan from getting there before us? What if they get there, start mining it, and we don’t even have the capability to get to the moon?

We can get back to the moon, cut taxes, cut the debt, reduce unemployment, grow our economy, and chew gum at the same time. We’re the United States of America! It’s not crazy to strive for all these things, it’s visionary.

Gingrich might have sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi, but he’s more conservative than Romney, and he’s definitely not crazy.

The first sentence alone brings to mind writing advice from author William Faulkner, who used the phrase “Kill your darlings”. (Advice also recommended by Stephen King by the way). Faulkner’s intent was to warn writers that at times they were going to put words to paper that they thought just sounded so damn good. Unfortunately, the person writing the words is the only fan. Everyone else recognizes it for someone who is trying real hard to make themselves sound smart. Hence the first sentence of the New York times piece, by Peter S. Goodman:

PORTLAND, Ore. — The docks are humming again at this sprawling Pacific port, with clouds of golden dust billowing off the piles of grain spilling into the bellies of giant tankers.

Oh, Mr. Goodman… some publisher or famous agent is just waiting for you to write the next great fiction novel. Who wouldn’t with words like that, in a plain old news story to boot?

Unfortunately, I wonder if the 750 people who are actually in New York, who are standing in line, some having pitched tents, for a $15 an hour job as an elevator repair man, are in agreement with you? I can just see them all sitting there, each holding a copy of your story, with great smiles of relief on their faces.

“Look Bob!” John says. “Golden dust is billowing off the piles of grain! Jobs are coming our way!”

John, after giving his friend a lively punch in the shoulder, says, “You’re right, Bob! Thank goodness for Mr. Goodman, and God bless us all, the recovery is here!”

“Don’t forget to grab your tent when you leave,” Bob says.

CNN video of the job hunter’s below…no telling if Bob and John are still in line.

So Bill O’Reilly has a woman named Cathy Areu on his show , and the woman just rattles off a bunch of liberal talking points against Sarah Palin. Of course, O’Reilly had opportunity after opportunity to destroy her logic, but he let her silly points go mostly unchallenged.

That isn’t the funny part.The funny part is when I start asking myself, "Who the hell is Cathy Areu, and why is she getting this airtime ? All its doing is promoting her as some kind of expert, and no one knows who this "wise latina" is!

Of course, Google to the rescue!

Ms. Areu (or is it Miss, I really don’t want to offend anyone with such sensibilities!), supposedly is the "publisher" of a magazine called Catalina Magazine. (Aren’t titles grand? Did you know I’m the Pubisher of Wade’s Diary on Redstate.com? Cool…I think I should be on t.v. now!!)

So I do a search for Catalina Magazine, and as is often the case, the first search result is Wikipedia .

Just in case it’s gone when you see this, I screen capped it. I’m telling you, Wikipedia is getting so accurate these days!

Here’s what it said:

CATALINA magazine was founded in 2001 by Latina journalist Cathy Areu to solidify and propogate stereotypes of angry Hispanics in the media and entertainment. Created "for the subjugate female mind, owned body, and bitter soul of today’s Latina," CATALINA is currently a self promoting multi-platform lifestyle media company featuring a glossy magazine, political bias, Hollywood sponsored events, an annual "Groundbreaking Latina" awards show, a popular website featuring ACORN sponsored CATALINA TV, and an online adult book club. Famous, racist Hispanics featured in CATALINA include Jennifer Lopez , Eva Longoria , Carlos Mencia , Eva LaRue , Antonio Banderas , Sofía Vergara , Shakira , Daisy Fuentes , and Soledad O’Brien .

Hey, all you lefties that like to edit the Palin/Limbaugh/Hannity entries, ain’t revenge grand?

"Publisher’s" Note: I in no way was responsible for this site’s entry or content, I just found it and appreciate the accuracy of Wikipedia. I also have no idea if any of the celebrities mentioned are truly racist or not, their probably all nice people, but still, you gotta love a site that anyone can edit.

Here’s the part we all know:

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender

For a moment after the health care fraud, just the briefest of moments, I thought the Republicans in the U.S. Senate had gained some backbone (note: I refuse to say health care “passage” because it never legally passed):

From John McCain on March 22, 2010:

“There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year,” McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. “They have poisoned the well in what they’ve done and how they’ve done it.”

So browse through senate news at thehill.com and what do you come up with? Story after story that talk about Republican negotiations with Democrats, and even worse, agreeing to go along with them (emphasis is mine):

Senate Republicans agree to speed up consideration of three of President Barack Obama’s nominees after Democrats last week threatened late-night sessions.

What happened to “no cooperation”? Was it just campaign rhetoric on the part of Senator McCain? Oh wait, in this case, there was a reason for it:

…after Democrats last week threatened late-night sessions.

You’ve got to be kidding me right? Oh, well, maybe it’s because there wouldn’t be enough senators to block things in this case. That must be it. Actually, here’s the last sentence from that article:

“It takes just one senator to slow up or hold a nominee and that’s what we’re facing with a lot of the nominees,” said a Democratic aide. “These are qualified nominees and they deserve to be confirmed.”

It takes “just one senator”. Just one.

Where are our heroes? If the Republicans think they have a lock on the Tea Party, the Conservative, or the feeling-abandoned vote in this country, they are fooling themselves.

They are cowards. (As Mark Levin says, There. I’ve said it.) They are so worried about being painted as “The Party of No” that they’re blinded to the fact that people are screaming for them to say “NO!”

Do not let anything pass in the senate, with the exception of funding for our troops. No legislation. No nominee. Nothing. When you hear the media kicking and screaming like a two year old who hasn’t gotten their way, you can tell them when the senate starts running by the Constitution and Rule of Law once again, you’ll start negotiating. Oh, and you can tell them we are with you.

So, forgive me Mr. Churchill, but here’s what Senate Republicans should be saying, because as God is my witness, if they don’t, we’ll find some people who will:

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight for our country,

we shall fight you on corrupt legislation,

we shall fight you on every nomination,

we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air,

whatever the cost may be,

we shall fight on the East Coast,

we shall fight on the West Coast,

we shall fight in the streets of Middle America,

we shall fight in the halls of Capitol Hill;

we shall defend our constitution,

we shall never surrender

***Brief note for those who are offended by the use of the above term “fight”, which is not meant in any way to mean “violence”. When you stop trying to radically transform the country I love, I’ll stop using rhetoric that offends your little sensibilities.

Watch part 2 for her take on how there should be a complete separation of government and economics. I’ve included it first for those who don’t want to watch the whole thing.

If you don’t know much about Ayn Rand and want to watch the entire interview, you can start with part 1 that I’ve included below. Some might say she was to much “anti-government”, but if you listen to her answers, she says multiple times that she thinks our government should be run “as it was originally intended”…very limited…no forced legislation,taxation, anything from a minority to the majority. Truly unbelievable that we’re still having these same debates today.

Again, this is actually part ONE – but it doesn’t really get juicy until part 2.

With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline – 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President Bush first came to office.

“With record gas prices, record CEO pay packages, and record oil company profits, Speaker Hastert and the Majority Congress continue to give the American people empty rhetoric rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now.

“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”

P.S. : Hurry if you want to read the entire page, though, because as gas prices climb, Democrat web pages will start to disappear around here. I found a video on it as well, but it has already gone *poof* into the nevernever world of ghosts.

Judge Henry E. Hudson sits on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. (This is the same guy who tried the Michael Vick dog fighting case). According to ESPN, he was the chairman of a pornography study commission appointed by President Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, Edwin Meese, and the director of the U.S. Marshals Service.

Hudson’s 2,000-page report on pornography became known as “Uncle Sam’s Dirty Book,” and was a best seller for the U.S. Government Printing Office at $53 per copy.

and

Hudson’s fellow Republicans are in awe of his approach. U.S. Rep. Tom Davis, who orchestrated the Major League Baseball steroid hearings that starred Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Jose Canseco and Rafael Palmeiro, calls Hudson a “by-the-book guy.”

This guy wrote a memoir detailing his career from Deputy Sheriff to the Marshal’s service to Prosecutor to the Federal Bench. It doesn’t mean anything really in how the case will go, except that we aren’t looking at a Clinton appointed leftee who we could predict a bad outcome from the get go. Hopefully it means he’ll be fair, and at least in Virginia the first court battle over this health care debacle won’t be a let down for conservatives.

What someone forgot along the way is that Americans hate cheaters. I mean we really despise them. Who’s the throwaway villain in every old western? The guy with a card up his sleeve. What made the Soviet boxer so evil in Rocky IV? He was doped. Why was Tanya Harding so overwhelmingly ran out of Olympic skating? She tried to cheat to win.

Yes, there’s a victory lap going on, and even some conservative commentators are wondering whether the “anger” will remain when the November elections are still months away. But it’s a victory lap made up of cheaters. From the day Senator Scott Brown was sworn in to the day the president signed the new health care debacle into law, the Democrats have cheated. When they didn’t have enough votes in the House, they bribed, bought, and pressured their way to the finish line. When they didn’t have enough votes in the Senate, they went nuclear. (Yes, let’s stop calling it the “nuclear option” for Republicans and “Reconciliation” for Democrats, shall we?). Just for good measure and without any evidence at all, they tried to tarnish the reputations of Tea Party protesters, hoping to make anyone opposed look extremist.

Despite the corniness of the movie itself, can anyone forget the villain in Rocky IV? Does anyone not know who Tanya Harding is? Does anyone really think that we’ll forget a victory lap where the “winner” tripped the opponent right before the finish line? (Then stopped to brag about it).

Americans hate cheaters. Come November, Americans won’t forget. (The last video is just for fun, but even Bob Barker was thrown for a loop).

From senate.gov:

Breaking: “Fix” Bill May Not Advance In Senate

Senate Democrats Refuse Bi-partisan Meeting With Parliamentarian Until After House Votes

WASHINGTON DC – Senate Democrats have balked at a bi-partisan meeting with the Senate Parliamentarian to discuss a rule violation that could doom the entire House reconciliation proposal.

DON STEWART, McCONNELL SPOKESMAN: “Republicans have been trying to set up a meeting with Senate Democrats since yesterday to discuss this fatal point of order but have been met with nothing but silence. We suspect Democrats are slow walking us so as to have the House vote first. Since Senate Democrats refuse to meet with us and the Parliamentarian, we’ve informed our colleagues in the House that we believe the bill they’re now considering violates the clear language of Section 310g of the Congressional Budget Act, and the entire reconciliation bill is subject to a point of order and rejection in the Senate should it pass the House.”

BACKGROUND

DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP RELEASE: “The Congressional Budget Office estimate of the health care legislation shows an increase in Social Security revenues… CBO projects that the resulting increase in wages will generate $29 billion in additional FICA contributions to the Social Security Trust Fund.” (“Health Care Reform Update,” Office of Rep. Steny Hoyer, 3/21/10)

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT: “LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution reported pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget agreed to under section 301 or 304, or a joint resolution pursuant to section 258C of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, or any amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that contains recommendations with respect to the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program established under title II of the Social Security Act.” (Congressional Budget Act Of 1974, Sec. 310g, P. 31)

###
SENATE REPUBLICAN COMMUNICATIONS CENTER

I could name a hundred examples to prove my point, but here is John McCain again, one of the first Republicans to criticize the “you lie” shout by Rep. Joe Wilson during last night’s presidential address.

McCain called the outburst “totally disrespectful and demanded an apology. He said, there is “no place for it in that setting or any other and he should apologize immediately.

In 2005, the entire Democrat section during President Bush’s State of the Union booed him loudly. If Joe Wilson had simply booed during that moment, would the response have been the same? I think so. He would still be condemned.

John McCain will never learn, but for everyone else still asleep, let me give my two cents: the Democrats are not playing by the same rules of “civility” that they are trying to hold the right to, so stop worrying about what they think.

John McCain, you are a hero for your military service, but your “service” to your own party has been less than stellar, and that’s me being very civil.

More on this to come, but here’s the quote directly from the bill.

SEC. 205. TREE PLANTING PROGRAMS.

(a) Findings- The Congress finds that–

• (1) the utility sector is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States today, producing approximately one-third of the country’s emissions;

• (2) heating and cooling homes accounts for nearly 60 percent of residential electricity usage in the United States;

• (3) shade trees planted in strategic locations can reduce residential cooling costs by as much as 30 percent;

• (4) shade trees have significant clean-air benefits associated with them;

• (5) every 100 healthy large trees removes about 300 pounds of air pollution (including particulate matter and ozone) and about 15 tons of carbon dioxide from the air each year;

• (6) tree cover on private property and on newly-developed land has declined since the 1970s, even while emissions from transportation and industry have been rising; and

(7) in over a dozen test cities across the United States, increasing urban tree cover has generated between two and five dollars in savings for every dollar invested in such tree planting.

But the important part of all this is that between Iran, health care discussions and Sanford, the press isn’t paying any attention to the environutal legislation called Cap and Trade, which by most accounts, including those of then candidate Barack Obama in 2007, will increase energy costs by 300% or more in some areas of the country. It will destroy some industries all together.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t doubt Hannity’s conservative credentials, just his focus. There is no need to play this news conference, it will be over played in the media in the next few days like you have never seen. As I write this he’s taking calls about the affair.

I know some will say that Republicans sure did focus on Bill Clinton’s “handy work” – but let’s not forget that he lied about it under oath. Different story. John Edwards? He ran and hid in a hotel bathroom as all but the Enquirer outed him and his love child, and the man was trying to become the Democratic nominee for president, while having an affair, while his wife had cancer. I would say the circumstances warranted something different in coverage.

Conservatives had better get their ducks in a row and sharpen their focus. We have three and a half more years (at least) of dealing with Obama and at least until the elections of 2010, probably 2012, of dealing with a Democrat controlled congress. The press will want to focus on everything but these liberal votes.

Even if he’s a governor, is one man’s affair more important than a vote that will affect millions of people in a negative way?  It’s a weird, strange, story. But let that be covered on the back pages where it should, or on Dr. Phil. The Cap and Trade proposal is much more dangerous than this, and the fact that Pelosi and crew are trying to sneak it in while our head’s are turned is all the more evidence we better be paying attention.

The most important part of this race, which will be decided with another vote in December, is that Republican’s desperately need to hold on to as many senate seats as they can. (Especially in light of the Minnesota race, which is another sad story).

So, who comes out to campaign for Sen. Chambliss? John McCain.

Didn’t he just lose the presidential race? Is that who we really want showing up at campaign rallies to ‘stir up the crowds’?

Now, before I get any ‘hey you moron’ emails, let me just say that I voted for John McCain. I think, honestly, that he is a true American hero, and that he’s an honorable man. I wanted him to win. Badly. But like a lot of people, I wanted him to win because I really wanted Barack Obama to lose. Badly.

Now let’s face facts. The McCain campaign for president really wasn’t run very well. I won’t get into a rehash ‘what went wrong’ digression, but this is the truth. McCain was all over the map on issues. He weirdly suspended his campaign during the supposed crisis. He wouldn’t take the gloves off allowing the use of radical associations or even the speaking of his opponents middle name, and he hasn’t denounced the post-election trashing of his former running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin. (Which was the one bright spot in his campaign decisions).

I may be on my own here, but I’m ready to get past the whole McCain campaign. I really don’t want to see him give another speech right now. It’s funny, because I don’t mind seeing Gov. Sarah Palin at all. Somehow, I think we all know she came out of the campaign a winner, regardless of the actual result.

She is the future. It may not be politically correct, and I’m not speaking of age here, but McCain is the past.

(If reports are true, Palin will be campaigning for Chambliss as well, which is a good thing.)

Sen. McCain should go back to the senate, now. He can keep catering to independents who voted for Obama anyway, and he can keep patting conservatives on the head like a pet he just tolerates around election time.

The bottom line- if voters were not inspired to turn out and vote for Sen. McCain in Nov., then is McCain really helping Sen. Chambliss now?