Isn’t Obama a Theocrat?

Much has been made of Rick Santorum’s recent comments about Obama’s bad theology.¬† The media has tried to turn it into Santorum questioning Obama’s Christianity.¬† This is odd since the media at the same time is attacking Santorum for his Christianity.¬† Apparently Democrat brand Christianity is fine.

But this got me thinking, isn’t Obama a theocrat?¬† Obama definitely believes in the religion of Global Warming.¬† How can we forget Obama’s speech that generations from now people will look back and see his Presidency as the moment that the oceans would stop rising and the planet would begin to heal?¬† And Obama has accomplished his religious purpose by stifling American energy production, funneling billions of dollars to “green” energy, and engineering a takeover of a large portion of the US auto industry.¬† No where is federal ownership of private companies or green energy subsidies in the constitution.¬† These are things that Obama has done under the loose legislative framework of the stimulus package and TARP.

What about Obama’s belief in social justice?¬† Obama’s presidency is a prime example of liberation theology in action and the search for the religious concept of social justice.¬† Obama has taken Christ’s commands to give to the poor, help the afflicted and needy, and he has turned those things into federal responsibilities mandated by law.¬† No longer must someone tithe or give in order to be charitable.¬† Obama, like the Presidents before him, has turned the federal government into the largest charitable organization on the planet.

Obama invoked God when it came to his housing bill.¬† He indicated that God wants the federal government to provide jobs to people.¬† Obama unwittingly danced around a conservative idea of self-sufficiency while promoting his bill as God’s will.

Unlike Bush, who used faith based organizations to defray costs of social programs, Obama has leveraged the government’s relationship with faith based organizations to infiltrate them with his own social justice theology.¬† Obama now holds these institutions hostage by threatening them with fines and forcing closures of charities who don’t obey the radical liberal theology.¬† The unholy infiltration of religious institutions by the religious left has led to things like closures of Catholic orphanages.¬† This is all part of the Obama religion.

When it comes to taxes, Obama famously misquoted Jesus, saying that to those whom much is given, much will be required.¬† Of course, Jesus may have had spiritual things in mind.¬† But Obama’s interpretation is that people who have a lot (because if you have wealth it must have been given to you) should pay more in taxes according to Scripture.

Early on in Obama’s Presidency, CBS noted that Obama invoked Jesus Christ far more often than evangelical Christian President George W. Bush did.¬† Obama invoked God several times in his prayer breakfast speech, crediting God for his inspiration on everything from Obamacare, which forces Christians to pay for abortion, to Dodd-Frank.

Obama is a global warming believing social justice Christian, and he has tailored his governmental policies around that.¬† Included in Obama’s religious view of social justice is a brand of social equality for women that demands that contraception and abortion be provided by employers, even if the employers are religious institutions.¬† Access to abortion at no cost to the mother is a less advertised plank of mainstream liberation theology.¬† Don’t be fooled by his lack of explicit rhetoric on the issue, Obama’s theology inspires his determination on providing free federal abortion more than it does any piece of Wall Street regulation.

So why are we scared of Rick Santorum?¬† Don’t be fooled into thinking that it is because Santorum is the theocrat.¬† It is because Santorum is not a liberation theocrat.¬† Santorum does not believe that the government should redefine marriage.¬† Santorum does not believe that the federal government should provide equality of circumstances and end the perceived societal oppression of blacks and women.¬†¬† Santorum is much closer to the brand of Christianity that authored the first amendment, not Obama’s brand that seeks to overturn it.¬† He believes that baby murder should be illegal, not free and equally distributed.

Once upon a time, the GOP agreed with Santorum.¬† Today we are too afraid of Obama’s faithful followers and their witch hunts.¬† GOP candidates are refusing to speak up for personal freedom, responsibility, and the lives of the unborn because they see Santorum burning at the stake.¬† In fact, some establishment GOP’ers are standing along side the liberation faithful, tossing sticks on the fire to prove their own loyalty to the social liberal faith.

Make no mistake, 2012 is all about religion.¬† Will we continue to have freedom of religion and self determination?¬† Or will we all be forced to become worshipers of Obama’s God, even more so than we are already.

These Debates Could Be Game Changers

Come on.¬† We’ve heard these candidates in just over one million debates so far this year.¬† Another one?¬† Another two actually, this weekend leading up to the New Hampshire debates.¬† And these two debates could definitely wreak havoc on the standings going into New Hampshire.

Mitt Romney is the undisputed front runner.¬† Ron Paul and Rick Santorum fans at this point are dreaming if they think their candidates are on a solid trajectory to win.¬† Not winning Iowa should be a clear sign to heavily religious social conservatives like Bachmann, Perry, Santorum and Newt that getting past Romney is going to be nearly impossible with a crowded field.¬† Bachmann got the hint, and Perry almost did.¬† As for Ron Paul, maybe if he runs two more times he can win enough support to break out of his traditional 5-10% polling finish.¬† Look, he’s already doing better this year than last time, and last time he did better than the time before.¬† That was Ross Perot’s and Ralph Nader’s problems.¬† They quit trying too soon.

Back to Mitt Romney.¬† You know he is back on the punching bag hook tonight, a place he hasn’t been since the very first debates.¬† Santorum wants a piece of him, Newt wants a piece of him, Jon Huntsman finally qualified for another debate and you know he wants to take Romney down a peg.¬† I think Perry will try to just get through the night and might take a few shots at Santorum.¬† As far as the #1 conservative attack dog of other conservatives, Michele Bachmann will not be there tonight to claim that Perry is in bed with pharmaceutical companies,¬† Newt Gingrich is pro-partial birth abortion and the number one Freddie Mac adviser responsible for the economic collapse, and whatever she might cook up about Rick Santorum while mostly leaving Paul and Romney alone.¬† So I think Romney will be taking the hits and the other candidates can relax their guard a little bit.

Now, on to the x factor in debates.¬† Newt Gingrich was finished this summer after his campaign collapsed and he proved he was in the top 1% by buying his wife jewelry.¬† I mean how out of touch can you get.¬† But, he has climbed back into contention through powerful and commanding debate performances.¬† Just two weeks ago, Gingrich was the front runner.¬† The difference between Gingrich’s fall and other candidates falls is that their demises can be tied directly to debate performance.¬† Bachmann with her claims about HPV and other wild attacks on the candidates, Perry with his glaring gaffe, Cain who offered 999 and 999, oh yeah and 999.¬† It wasn’t enough substance to save him when scandal gave nervous supporters a reason to doubt.¬† Huntsman affirmed his global warming stance.

Gingrich hurt himself with his illegal immigration stance, but his downfall can be attributed to the harsh attacks he faced over the last two weeks from Romney’s friends, paid allies, and former foes.¬† Ron Paul also attacked Newt, not Romney, with harsh ads in Iowa.¬† Paul has probably done the same math I have, but mistakenly thinks he has a shot with Newt’s base over Romney’s.

The debates are ad free.¬† They are also friend free.¬† The only way Romney can attack another candidate tonight without attacking that candidate directly is to pay off the moderator or a fellow candidate.¬† On that stage, it is going to be Santorum’s “what smells” debate face versus Perry’s memory versus Huntsman’s out of touch moderate stances versus Paul’s old shaky finger wagging versus Romney’s slick hair and nice demeanor versus Newt’s heavy hitting and quick wit and ideas.

If these debates garner an audience, this is all upside for Newt, and downside for front runner Mitt Romney and social conservative front runner Rick Santorum.  In an instance of incredible luck for the candidates in this New Hampshire debate, the New England Patriots get this weekend of playoff action off.

Be Careful Who You Pick As Friends

Ron Paul never had a chance.  It was part him and his abrasiveness,  part his foreign policy that he failed to connect with voters on.  For me, it was also his pro-choice in the states stance on innocent human life.  But one of the reasons Paul never connected with mainstream Republican voters who would normally be drawn to his small government message was his annoying, in your face, loud, obnoxious, and sometimes downright mean supporters.

In fact, much of Paul’s candidacy has seemed like a mean spirited romp that he frankly has had little control over.¬† A perfect example is the racist, black helicopter newsletter that he either edited, or in some cases signed, but claims to have never read.

One thing is clear, the friends of Ron Paul have not helped Ron Paul in this election.

Take note, Mitt Romney, your friends are getting out of hand too.¬† Romney is a great candidate.¬† He is a Reaganite, and I believed even in 2008 in his conversion to pro-life, pro-family issues.¬† He is cool headed on foreign policy, and great on fiscal conservatism.¬† I believe him when he talks about states rights and the tenth amendment separating what he did in Massachusetts from what he would do in the Whitehouse.¬† I’ve said before that I think it is criminal what his opponent did in 2008, insinuating that he was going to cut and run from Iraq.¬† I will admit that I had hoped Newt would run in 2008, but when he didn’t, I supported Mitt Romney.

Now Mitt needs to be careful.¬† His friends are getting a little crazy.¬† I have been chronicling Ann Coulter’s conversion from right wing radical conservatism to mainstream moderate in her love affair support for Mitt Romney, and it appears the conversion is complete.¬† In her latest newsletter, she blasts Rick Santorum as a “right wing zealot” and calls him a Catholic, not a conservative.

Coulter also lists why only Romney is electable.¬† Ready?¬† Pay attention kids.¬† If you were merely a congressman or congresswoman, you can’t win.¬† If you have a Texas accent, you can’t win.¬† If you ever had a business with prominent clients who did bad things later on in life, you can’t win.¬† If you are a Catholic, you can’t win.¬† If you have ever cheated on a spouse, you can’t win.¬† If you’ve been divorced, you can’t win.

Apparently, if you are a Mormon, you can win, but not if you are a Catholic.  If you started your career as a pro-choice candidate, you can win, but not if you ever had dinner with a pro-choicer.  If you instituted and still defend a personal insurance mandate you are electable, but if you at any time thought one would be a good idea, you are unelectable.  If you believe in Global Warming, you are OK by Ann.  If you do an ad with a Democrat saying you believe in generic climate change, forget it.

As John McCain taught us yesterday, campaign rhetoric is campaign rhetoric.  If Newt or Santorum wins, Coulter will have a lot of backstepping and bridge rebuilding to do.  Judging from what she says now, we might be tempted to think she would vote for Obama over Newt or Santorum.  Time for a reality check.  Coulter is in full campaign mode for Mitt Romney.  Give it a few months and we will get back the fiery, anti-liberal conservative Ann Coulter we used to know and love.  The question is if she will get us back.

Debunking Newt Mythology

Ok, hold on a minute.¬† Let’s talk about Newt.

The left has gone all in on Newt.  After three years of seeing that the Democrats have an empty hand with Obama, they have put all their chips on the table and dared us to run Newt.  And as usual, we are folding.  Same thing happened in 2008 when the left and the media scoffed at Mitt Romney and said that the only candidate who could ever beat their guy was John McCain.  Believe it or not, we listened.  For the smarter party, Republicans sure can be stupid.

Now the left is saying it will be a cake walk if we run Gingrich and the only serious candidate who can beat their guy is Romney, or maybe Huntsman, although they seem to have figured out that one is a hard sell.  So why are we listening again?  Ann Coulter came out slamming Newt and endorsing Romney.  George Will has attacked Newt Gingrich.  And what for?

Newt got $1.8 million from Freddie Mac.¬† Not really, it was actually Newt’s company.¬† But he did it by lobbying.¬† Well, again, no.¬† Newt did not lobby for Freddie Mac, but his company did provide consulting services to Freddie Mac.¬† Now, I am a businessman and a lot of what I do involves consulting.¬† Does that mean I can never run for President in case one of my clients does something bad someday despite my advice?¬† Maybe.

Let’s take it out of the business realm.¬† Pretend you own a garage and you fix cars.¬† If George Soros drives up and asks you to change the oil, will you turn him away?¬† Are you a liberal if you change his oil?¬† What about Bernie Madoff before he was caught?¬† Are you part of his illegal pyramid scheme because you changed his tires?

It would be one thing if Newt counseled Freddie Mac on how lose billions of dollars, get bailed out, and pay everyone huge bonuses.  But if you are looking for that smoking gun, you are looking at the wrong person.  Try Franklin Raines, Jamie Gaerlick, etc.  Enough with the guilt by association.  Newt did consulting for large businesses, and they paid his company rates that large, multi-billion dollar businesses pay for high level consulting.

Ok, but Newt sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi.¬† Yes, he did.¬† He also had debates with Cuomo, Kerry and Sharpton.¬† Newt Gingrich is not going to implement cap and trade to prevent global warming.¬† That’s about as crazy as saying Mitt Romney is going to support partial birth abortion.¬† Seriously, you have my word that neither of those will happen.¬† Newt wasn’t endorsing Nancy Pelosi any more than Al Sharpton was endorsing Pat Robertson.¬† If Sarah Palin stood next to Michelle Obama and did a PSA saying its good for kids to have a healthy diet, would you suddenly think that Palin supports federal government takeover of school lunches? Newt has fought vigorously against cap and trade.

Well, what about Newt supporting a healthcare mandate?¬† When Hillary was pushing Hillarycare, which would take responsibility away from people, Newt signed on with the Heritage Foundation’s alternative that included an individual mandate. After researching it, Newt backed off that position.¬† He never implemented it for an entire state, or for anyone actually.¬† Newt is not going to implement a healthcare mandate on the entire country.¬† Guess what, neither is Romney.

In fact, let’s talk Romney for a minute.¬† Mitt Romney is pro-life.¬† He opposes gay marriage.¬† He makes Huntsman look like Hillary.¬† He supports tax cuts for the middle class and not raising taxes on employers and producers.¬† As much as Romney has been painted as the liberal in this bunch, he was the most conservative viable candidate in 2008 after Fred Thompson dropped out.¬† He may not be a card carrying TEA Party member, but he has said himself that he supports the TEA Party and shares all of their goals.¬† By the way, I never got a card either.¬† I really don’t think they issue them, even if Bachmann has one.

Why did Romney lose in 2008?¬† It all came down to two reasons.¬† Number one, Romney was not moderate enough to get the “independents”.¬† He was too conservative.¬† Only John McCain could beat the Democrat in 2008 by reaching across the aisle and not being so extreme.¬† Reason number two, the infamous time-table for withdrawal charge.¬† Romney said that when the time came to draw down the troops from Iraq, he supported a time-table for an orderly withdrawal.¬† His opponents turned that into Democrat style cut and run.¬† No matter how many times he tried to explain that was not what he believed, that became the mantra.

What about Rick Perry?¬† Why aren’t we going around saying that Rick Perry is going to implement cap and trade because years ago he was a Democrat working on the campaign of the future Nobel prize winner and global warming snake oil salesman, Al Gore?

The only person we have to actually worry about doing half the crazy stuff he’s been accused of thinking is Ron Paul!

So let’s not let people choose our candidate for us.¬† Research what you hear about candidates.¬† Just because George Will thinks you are too dumb to vote doesn’t make it so.¬† Each of the candidates left have some great ideas, and each one will do a far better job at running this country than the current President.¬† Did Cain have some foreign policy gaffes?¬† Shoot, the last three years have been an Obama foreign policy gaffe.

Part of this election cycle that Romney has skipped sofar has been the knife in the back from the right and the dare to run that candidate from the left.¬† Considering how well Newt is handling this complete onslaught from the right and left, wouldn’t you rather have him going up against Obama than the candidate that no one is vetting?¬† McCain got plenty of vetting after Romney dropped out in 2008.

This is not an endorsement of Newt.  I will make an endorsement of a candidate after the Jacksonville, Florida debate in January.  But this is a serious question to our party.  Why do we have to self destruct again?

Rush Hits Newt Again

Six months ago, I wrote an article about Newt Gingrich’s attempt to clarify his views on healthcare.¬† Newt had gotten himself in trouble when it came out that in 1993 Newt agreed with the Heritage Foundation on an insurance mandate.¬† At the time, Newt said that he felt there should be a law that made it so that people would need to either buy health insurance, or post a bond when they receive medical care as a guarantee that they will in fact pay for that care.

At the time, I warned Newt that this would cause problems.¬† Of course, we didn’t have as large a readership back then, so I’m sure he didn’t get my warning.¬† Shortly before that, Newt was secretly my number one pick to eventually win it all.

With great influence comes great responsibility

Sure enough, right about that time Newt called in to Rush Limbaugh’s show and tried to explain exactly what I said in the first paragraph here.¬† Rush didn’t buy it, and the godfather of Social Conservatism cast doubt on his blessing of Newt’s candidacy.¬† Listen to the interview here.¬† The result was that a couple weeks later I was writing about the rubble of Newt 2012.¬† In that article, I said that it would take a miracle to revive Newt, that miracle being upward movement in the polls.¬† Hallelujah, we now know the political gods did not forsake us after 2008.

Today, Rush once again expressed his reservations about Newt.¬† In what he framed as analysis of Newt’s rise to the top, Rush once again mentioned Newt’s baggage including his support of a mandate in 1993.¬† While doing his best not to appear against Newt, Rush laid out everything Conservatives should be careful about with Newt.¬† To be fair though, he did the same for Mitt Romney at the same time.

In the end, Rush chalked up Newt’s rise to the top as two things.¬† Newt doesn’t defend his mistakes (like Romney does with Romneycare), and he does go after the media for their bias.

It’s a little bit more than that.¬† Newt has a proven fiscal conservative track record.¬† He balanced the budget for four years in a row.¬† The Federal budget, not just one of the 50 states.¬† That doesn’t even seem in the realm of reality these days.¬† It would be like saying he walked on water in the context of today’s deficit.¬† But speaking of walking on water, Newt has the social conservative credentials as well.

In a speech in Jacksonville, Florida yesterday (that yours truly had the privilege of attending), Newt said that under his education reforms, teachers who could not adequately explain what it meant to be endowed by your Creator with certain inalienable rights would be asked to resign.  This was in response to a question from the audience regarding a neighboring county where the government was putting pressure on a pastor there to stop school flagpole prayer meetings.  Newt said that he would seek to end funding for Planned Parenthood and use that money to help promote adoption.  He is pro-school choice.  He has well rounded conservative credentials and unlike Romney, conservatives trust Newt when he says things like supporting a mandate and sharing a couch with Pelosi were stupid.

Frank Luntz on Sean Hannity’s show this afternoon said that everyone was shocked about Newt’s resurgence.¬† It wasn’t a surprise for me.¬† I predicted that as the Cain-Gingrich debate received acknowledgment and replay, Newt would rise.¬† On November 3rd, I said that people were taking a fresh look at Newt Gingrich.¬† But even better than that, on October 13th, I laid out the path to victory for Newt Gingrich going through South Carolina and Florida.¬† In a blog titled “Yes He Can”, I analyzed how Cain was preparing to fall on his 9-9-9 plan and how Newt would take early states Iowa and South Carolina, leading to a showdown in Florida between Newt/Mitt.¬† So no, it wasn’t a shock.¬† If you’ve been reading this blog, it wasn’t a shock to you either.

In that same article, I said that Newt’s dirty laundry has been airing out for a long time.¬† It doesn’t smell as “fresh” as Cain’s or Perry’s.¬† The same is true for Mitt, although Newt knows when to admit to a mistake.¬† Therefore, in this up and down race where nothing is certain and things change every minute, I am sticking to what I said over a month ago.¬† Newt/Mitt, for the championship, the second to last GOP debate in Florida in Jacksonville.¬† Newt will be carrying South Carolina and maybe Iowa to the table, Mitt will have New Hampshire under his belt.¬† Then the two smartest, most articulate, and strongest leaders will have one last significant chance to make their case.

Rush, Coulter, and any other big-time rightwing players who still think Bachmann, Cain, or Santorum could come back and win, keep dreaming.¬† It’s more likely that Tebow would win the Superbowl.

PS, I have absolutely nothing against Tebow.¬† In fact, after Thursday’s game against Rex Ryan and the Jets, Tebow is my second favorite quarterback.

Trunkline 2012: Friday‚Äôs Campaign Trail News ‚Äď 10/28/11

Bookmark and Share 

Occupy protesters take a step towards defeating Democrats in 2012, more Republican candidates run for president in¬† New Hampshire than ever before, TEA Party group wants Bachmann¬†out,Coulter sees Romney easily beating Obama, ¬†Romney sits in hot Global Warming water and Huntsman throws¬†him an anchor, Democrats claim GOP likes Cain because he’s a Negro who knows his place, and Rick Perry starts to reiforce¬†his flat tax and economic reform message.¬† All that and more are among some of the campaign trail tidbits you¬†will in this Friday’s Trunkline 2012.

Bookmark and Share 

The Field Is Set: And Herman Cain Could Win

Sarah Palin has now announced she will not be running.¬† It appears the 2012 GOP Primary is ready to kick off.¬† So you heard it here first: barring a major disqualifying gaffe, Herman Cain will win the 2012 primary.¬† Here’s why.

Cain passes on the right to pull even with Romney

Ok, seriously.¬† No one knows at this point how this¬† is going to go down.¬† Candidates surge and fall, as Rick Perry has proven.¬† I don’t really know that Herman Cain is going to win the primary.¬† But he does have a clear path to victory.¬† Right now it is his race to give up.

But wait, isn’t Romney leading the polls??¬† Yes, but as I pointed out in my last blog Romney’s majority is an illusion caused by a split vote among social, TEA party candidates.¬† As Perry continues to fade and Cain continues to pick up his supporters, you will see more polls like the most recent CBS poll that shows Cain and Romney tied.¬† Perry’s demise is all upside for Cain while Romney maintains his solid base of support.

So why Cain?¬† Why didn’t Bachmann, Gingrich, or Santorum gain any momentum from Perry’s fall?¬† Perry dropped 11 points in this CBS poll while Cain jumped 12 points.¬† Gingrich and Santorum both got small bumps, but are still considered unelectable and still cannot shake their baggage from the last 20 years.¬† Santorum continues to come across as an unelectable champion of family values with a support base that loves what he says and believes but won’t vote for him because they’d rather have Obama gone than lose with the most socially conservative candidate on the stage.¬† For Gingrich, conservatives have already written the USA Today, Time Magazine and New York Times headlines in their heads about his failed marriages, hypocrisy in the Clinton impeachment, global warming commercials with Nancy Pelosi, and other things from his decades in the spotlight.

Bachmann, with a relatively small public history, is a different story.¬† Although her message, naivete on some issues, and ability to stir a TEA party crowd mirror Herman Cain, she somehow comes across differently.¬†¬† While Herman Cain gets away with announcing that no future President will raise the rates on his 999 plan, Bachmann promises $2 a gallon gas and becomes the laughing stock of the mainstream media and even conservatives.¬† Bachmann tells stories of raising her kids and foster kids and is seen as homely and amateurish.¬† Cain tells stories of him and his brother sneaking drinks from the Whites Only drinking fountain as kids and the story simply tugs at anyone’s heart strings.¬† Bachmann embellishes Perry’s Merck connection and the potential health risks of the HPV vaccine and the media drags her through the coals on it.¬† The media tried to make hay out of Cain’s comment about blacks being brainwashed into voting Democratic and the story was dead on arrival.

Perhaps the greatest difference that speaks to American hearts is that Cain is not bitter or angry.¬† Yes, he is the first to tell us that Obama’s policies are destroying the country.¬† But he does it with an air of policy sincerity, not partisan gamesmanship.¬† Cain doesn’t seem to have a racist bone in his body, to the extent that some Democrats seem to think he is racist against blacks.¬† Cain simply comes across as a successful American who believes in America and in every American’s ability to become whatever they want to be.¬† Cain brings back with sincerity something that politicians have been falsely touting for years: a sincere belief in the American dream and the ability of Americans to achieve it.¬† His simple, Reaganesque faith in the American people and freedom will be enough to preserve his seat as the top social conservative.¬† As other social conservatives call it quits, Cain will continue to swallow up their supporters and surpass Romney.

Just a month ago Cain was barely on the radar.¬† With Perry’s self-destruction and the Florida straw poll, Cain now has the potential momentum to carry him through.¬† The key will be surviving early Romney primary wins until the race narrows to just Cain and Romney.¬† From there he can coast to GOP victory.

%d bloggers like this: