The excerpts…

“Satan has his sights on the United States of America!” Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has declared.

“Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition.”

“This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country – the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age?”

“He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions.”

Here’s the audio.

Drudge said Santorum made these “provocative” comments to students at Ava Marie University in Florida.

Yes they’re so provocative nobody knew about this speech until four years later?  While I wouldn’t entirely agree with his focus on the United States as Satan is at work in all nations and scripture is pretty clear that he exercises great influence on earth.  He does want to corrupt.  He has come to steal, kill and destroy, (John 10:10).

So how is Santorum really wrong?  Isn’t this just an attempt to marginalize him because of his faith?  Weren’t we told that was off limits for Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama?

I’m frankly sick of the attacks on this man’s faith.

Related articles

• These Faith-based Attacks On Santorum Are Repulsive And Un-American (riehlworldview.com)
• Santorum and Satan (theconservativehillbilly.wordpress.com)
• Santorum 2008: America is under attack from Satan (hotair.com)
• Santorum: Satan Has His Sights Set on United States of America (thegatewaypundit.com)
• Santorum in ’08: “Satan is attacking” America (cbsnews.com)
• Raising Satan against Santorum (politico.com)
• Santorum: Satan Bad, Vote For Me (biggovernment.com)

I’m glad that Governor Haley is willing to take a stand on something my Governor seems to be jumping into, happily I might add, with both feet.

One of the complaints about the common core state standards lies with the literacy standards.   They no longer require students to read a list of the classics.  Instead 70% of the reading is informational texts which have the potential to indoctrinate, not educate.  In the AP article written about Fair’s bill those standards are discussed. The defense of using information texts is maddening:

Opponents of the standards derided the shift, for example, from reading literature to more informational texts.

But Hawkins said that’s a good thing: “If we want students to be college and career ready, we don’t need to spend hours reading the classics.”

It’s just too time consuming to have students read the classics is basically what she is saying.  Let’s not read the original instead let’s read somebody’s interpretation of it.  It would be like me saying I’m going to no longer read the Bible, but instead I’m going to just read commentaries.  Those commentaries may be good, but some may not be.

This is maddening.  There is such an over emphasis on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) that we are seeing literacy standards get dumbed down.  Having worked with kids a good number of years I have seen a growing inability to write.  What helps writing skills?  Reading good writing.  Also classical literature helps shape our knowledge of our culture.

Reading and writing is foundational to everything else that is taught so why would we want to short change this?  To say we don’t have time to do this is absurd.  Cut out electives if you must, but don’t subject our kids to someone else’s interpretation of classical literature.  Let them read it for themselves!  Otherwise we will end up kids who may know science, but don’t know how to write and are culturally illiterate.

Related articles

• Blocking the Common Core State Standards from South Carolina (caffeinatedcarolina.com)
• S.C. Governor Nikki Haley Backs Bill to Block Implementation of Common Core State Standards (truthinamericaneducation.com)
• Classic literature: ‘Boring’ or relevant? (teleread.com)
• What I Want My Students to Know (polensplace.wordpress.com)
• The Art of Language (brandinielsen.wordpress.com)

“Iowa is not a secure state for Obama.”  Those are words I’m sure President Obama’s reelection team would rather not hear from pollster J. Ann Selzer who is well known for her accurate polling in Iowa contests.  The Des Moines Register released late Saturday night the first head to head prospective general election polling in Iowa.

It’s horrible news for Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich.  Three of the four remaining GOP contenders beat President Barack Obama head to head.  Texas Congressman Ron Paul logs the biggest margin leading by 7 points (49% to 42%).  Rick Santorum leads Obama by four points (48% to 44%), and Mitt Romney leads by 2 points (46% to 44%).  Newt Gingrich is the only candidate not to lead President Obama.  He trails Obama by 14 points (37% to 51%).

President Obama only has a 46% approval rating, one above his lowest point in Iowa.  Gallup’s daily tracking of the President’s national approval rating gave him a 45% weekly average from last week.  They note since 1964, when they started keeping track, that there has been no President who has won reelection with a approval rating under 49%.  Today his approval rating is at 44%.

In Iowa looking at the unfavorable rating, Romney ties Obama at 51%, Gingrich has a 65% unfavorable rating, Ron Paul has a 41% unfavorable rating, and Rick Santorum has the lowest unfavorable rating at 33%.  There were more “unsures” about Santorum and Paul however so their favorable and unfavorable ratings could change significantly in an election.  19% said they were unsure about Santorum, 17% said they were unsure about Paul.  Only 3% said they were unsure about Obama, 10% for Romney, and 11% for Gingrich.  Santorum leads the field with his approval rating at 48%.  Gingrich had the lowest at 24%.  Mitt Romney’s was only at 39%, and Ron Paul’s was at 42%.  President Obama’s favorable rating is at 36%.

I’m not surprised by this development with the Iowa Caucus having just took place.  Also Iowa has swung to the left and the right in Presidential elections.  In 2000 Iowans picked Al Gore, in 2004 they went for George W. Bush.  In 2008 Obama won Iowa easily.  It’s all in the independent vote, and that is where he has problems, nationally at least, last week having a 42% approval rating with Gallup.  In this recent Iowa Poll, independents were the largest group surveyed making up 41% of the sample pool.

So if the independents in Iowa are unhappy it doesn’t look good for Obama.

This also is bad news for Newt Gingrich.  His narrative that he is the only one who can go head to head with Obama is shattered.  His favorability is in the tank.  This further proves that he is the worst nominee we could have run against Obama.  Mr. Speaker, if you do poorly in Ohio and Arizona, it’s time to exit the race.  Mitt Romney can’t be happy with this news either as he had the monopoly on the “electability” argument.  No longer.

Related articles

• Obradovich: Focus on Romney may need to change (desmoinesregister.com)
• As Santorum seizes social issues, Romney demurs (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Obama Behind Every Republican Except Gingrich In Iowa (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Poll: Obama Trailing 3 GOP Challengers in Swing State Iowa (biggovernment.com)
• Iowa Poll: Obama trails trio from GOP (desmoinesregister.com)

Washington, DC─ Today the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List), a national pro-life organization, announced its endorsement of Rick Santorum in the Republican presidential primary.

“Among the field of strong pro-life candidates in the GOP primary, one stands out as a proven leader in this great human and civil rights cause of our time.  Rick Santorum communicates the vision and has exhibited the strategic and tactical prowess the pro-life movement must have in order to succeed.  Women and children deserve his leadership, grounded as it is in affirming the dignity of every person.

At this inflection point in the primary process and a tipping point in history on the abortion issue, the Susan B. Anthony List endorses Rick Santorum for the Republican nomination for President,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA List.

“Each one of the candidates in the Republican presidential field have made a commitment to be a pro-life president.  However, none of them have the record of consistent leadership that Rick Santorum has demonstrated.  At this critical moment in the race, our Board of Directors unanimously decided that we must stand with Rick Santorum, the candidate who throughout his career has stood so strongly for Life,” said Jane Abraham, Chairman of the SBA List Board of Directors.

The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of more than 365,000 Americans dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics.  Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.

Related articles

• Anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List backs Santorum (live5news.com)
• Susan B. Anthony List Endorses Santorum (nationalreview.com)
• Santorum Picks Up Big Endorsement From Pro-Life Group (townhall.com)
• GOP Candidate Gets Backing From Anti-Abortion Group (huffingtonpost.com)
• Anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List backs Santorum (sfgate.com)

The guns are turning on Rick Santorum now that he is the clear front runner nationally and leading Romney in two key primary states – Michigan and Ohio.   Mitt Romney is now going after Santorum.  His Super PAC attacks against Santorum while on the surface true, they ring hollow, and have been deemed juvenile as Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard notes and then says:

The Romney campaign often gives the impression that it thinks Republican primary voters are really stupid—and it doesn’t do a very good job of hiding its contempt. The Obama administration clearly thinks the American people are really stupid—and it doesn’t do a very good job of hiding its contempt. It would be nice if the Republican nominee could contrast his respect for the American people with the Obama administration’s contempt.

Byron York notes that Romney’s attacks have backfired because his surrogates doing the attacking have been “guilty” of many of the same things they’re accusing Santorum of.  Did Santorum vote to raise the debt limit?  Yes he did, as did every other Republican Senator when the GOP controlled the Senate.  Did he vote for earmarks?  Yes, but Romney as Governor requested millions in earmarks. So it’s not ok to vote for them, but ok to request them?   Was Santorum a Senate spendthrift?  The National Taxpayers Union says no.  Santorum’s NTU GPA ranked 5th out of 50 Senators that served while he was in the Senate.

National Review in their editorial calling on Newt Gingrich to step down said of Romney:

Romney remains the undramatic figure at the center of the primaries’ drama. Lack of enthusiasm for him has set it all in motion. Romney is trying to win the nomination by pulverizing his rivals. His hope is that enthusiasm will follow when he takes on Obama in the summer and fall. But his attacks on Santorum have been lame, perhaps because they are patently insincere. (Does anyone believe that Romney truly thinks poorly of Santorum’s votes to raise the debt ceiling?)

Based off of Romney’s prior support of TARP, it seems unreasonable to believe that if he had beaten the late Ted Kennedy in his 2004 Senate bid he wouldn’t have voted to raise it as well.

On the liberal side of things liberals are going batty over my interview back in October when Santorum said the following:

One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.’ It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.

Again, I know most presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues. These have profound impact on the health of our society.

He never once said in that interview that he would make contraception illegal.  Never.  Having the Feds pay for it?  While we didn’t specifically get into that it would make sense for a fiscal and social conservative to argue that taxpayer money shouldn’t be spent on this.  But spin… spin… spin… as Andrea Mitchell does when she points out my interview yesterday on MSDNC:

How dare Santorum speak on women’s issues!  Women voters burn your bras, unite, and rally against this barbaric man!  Ugh.  Again, he has never said he’d make them illegal.  He was in the context of my interview talking about using a bully pulpit as every President has done on issues of concern to them.

Now liberals are going through the roof based on something one of his supporters, Foster Friess, said to Andrea Mitchell:

Mitchell: Do you have any concerns about some of his comments on social issues, contraception, about women in combat, and whether that would hurt his general election campaign would he be the nominee?

Friess: I get such a chuckle when these things come out. Here we have millions of our fellow Americans unemployed, we have jihadist camps being set up in Latin America, which Rick has been warning about, and people seem to be so preoccupied with sex. I think it says something about our culture. We maybe need a massive therapy session so we can concentrate on what the real issues are. And this contraceptive thing, my gosh, it’s such inexpensive. Back in my day, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly.

Mitchell: Excuse me, I’m just trying to catch my breath from that, Mr. Friess, frankly.

It was a joke folks.  It was noted yesterday that he loves to tell jokes like the one he told at CPAC, “A conservative, a liberal and a moderate walk into a bar. The bartender says ‘Hi, Mitt.’”

Kirsten Powers also noted that of late due to Obama’s contraceptive mandate Santorum’s convictions have helped with a contrast with not only Obama, but Romney as well:

Well, it was a gift for Rick Santorum. For Romney, it was a lump of coal. Of all the issues the author of “RomneyCare” does not want on the front burner, there are none more toxic for him among the GOP base than reproductive rights and health-care mandates. Obama’s mandate for free contraception manages to wrap both of those up tidily as a potent reminder to GOP voters of what makes them balk at Romney.

Obama has ignited a culture war, and Santorum is the beneficiary.  He’s the one who has been the most articulate in relation to his worldview.  Romney doesn’t hold a candle.

Something that is being overlooked in the press is that the larger issue isn’t about contraceptives.  It’s religious liberty.  Santorum’s a much better standard bearer on that issue.   As much criticism as Santorum has been given on the left it’s hardly mentioned that the only person to implement a contraceptive mandate wasn’t Rick Santorum, but President Barack Obama.

Related articles

• Fact check: Mitt Romney’s claim that Rick Santorum was a big spender (winteryknight.wordpress.com)
• Santorum says he’s no big spender (content.usatoday.com)
• Romney Campaign: Santorum ‘Big Labor’s Favorite Senator’ (weeklystandard.com)
• Rasmussen: Santorum Surge Has ‘Substance’ (newsmax.com)
• How Does Mitt Romney Stop Rick Santorum’s Rise? (npr.org)
• Numbers Suggest Santorum Could Be Romney’s Worst Nightmare (townhall.com)
• Romney On the Edge (townhall.com)

DES MOINES, IA – The Latham for Congress campaign announced that it has launched its third ad of the 2012 election cycle.  The ad is a direct response to the nearly $400,000 in negative attack ads against Tom Latham being run on behalf of long-time Congressman Leonard Boswell, by a Washington based super PAC, and the false claims about Latham’s work on behalf of Iowans.

“The first question a reporter asked of Tom Latham when he threw his hat in the ring for this race was if he was ready to deal with the type of nasty negative campaigns that Leonard Boswell is known to run,” noted campaign manager Annie Kelly.  “Leonard Boswell’s reputation for these types of attacks by, and on behalf of, his campaign is not unwarranted and this latest ad confirms that.”

The script of the campaign’s thirty second ad, titled “Hiding Boswell’s Record”, follows:

Announcer: The election is nine months away.

But already Leonard Boswell’s Leonard Boswell’s Washington allies are attacking Tom Latham.

Independent fact checkers call the attack against Latham, quote “the lie of the year.”

Boswell’s allies attack Latham to hide Boswell’s record of voting to cut Medicare by $500 billion and Boswell’s votes for trillions in new spending.

Tell Congressman Boswell that Iowans deserve a real campaign about issues — not more attacks.

Tom Latham: I’m Tom Latham and I approved this message.

The ad begins its run today and can be seen throughout media markets in Iowa’s new third district, which encompasses the 16 counties in the southwest corner of the state and created as a result of the redistricting process.

“These are serious times in America and Iowa families don’t want a continuation of Boswell’s negative campaigns that divide the state purely for political gain,” said Kelly. “Iowans already know that Tom Latham fights for them and for what is right.  And, while Leonard Boswell hides behind his Washington friends and their negative attacks, Tom Latham will proudly contrast that with his own proven record of listening to Iowans and working hard to improve their lives.”

Latham’s campaign has shown impressive organizational successes including the establishment of a grassroots network of over 400 precinct leaders that cover all 384 precincts in the new district.  The network is an impressive sign of organization that was in place and very active almost a year before the November 2012 election.

Additional information about the race – and an extensive profile of Tom Latham can be accessed at the campaign’s website: TomLatham.com

Related articles

• Iowa: Latham Quadruples Boswell’s Bank Account (rollcall.com)
• Big bucks to stoke congressional races in Iowa (desmoinesregister.com)
• Citizens United endorses Tom Latham in congressional race against Leonard Boswell (blogs.desmoinesregister.com)
• Democratic Super-PAC running tv ad in IA-03, polled IA-04 (bleedingheartland.com)
• What the Iowa Congressional Fundraising Reports Mean for 2012 Races (theiowarepublican.com)
• IA congressional hopefuls amass millions for election (statehousenewsonline.com)
• The other big race in Iowa (humanevents.com)

“Obama said that he ‘won’t take no for an answer’ regarding his nominees and now it’s clear he will abuse the power of his office to get his way,” said King. “The President’s administration continues to trample the Constitution. His actions have spurred the creation of a coalition of conservative and liberal constitutional scholars who all agree on the invalidity of his actions- some of whom I questioned today. Now President Obama is not only taking our liberty through socializing our healthcare, but he’s also manufacturing ‘recess appointments’ and disregards the plain meaning of the text of the Constitution.”

Related articles

• Obama Creating ‘Constitutional Crisis,’ Rep. Tim Walberg Warns (heritage.org)
• THE HILL: Obama’s recess appointments might not hold up in court. “Some legal experts, including t… (pjmedia.com)
• Obama’s recess appointments will create uncertainty, GOP critics say (washingtonpost.com)
• Abuse Of Power: Obama’s Recess Appointments And The Constitution (jonathanturley.org)
• DOJ approved recess appointments (politico.com)
• Mike Lee on Obama recess appointments: A ‘day of infamy’ (washingtonpost.com)

Watching the news or visiting a main street media website could lead you into thinking the delegate count they have posted is the real deal.  But in actuality, each is guessing as there is no official delegate count, at least not for many of the states that have already voted, Iowa among them.

The following are the delegate counts from some of the leading national media sites:

*Note Fox news and the Wall Street Journal each cite the Associated Press delegate count.

Romney has anywhere from 73 to 127 delegates.  While Santorum is anywhere from a close second with 72 to dead last with 3.  One of the more interesting things I found when looking at different new agencies delegate count comes from CNN.com.  There you will find two different delegate counts, depending on what part of their website you visit.

Lets look a little closer at Iowa.  The AP, WSJ and Fox allocate the delegates as: Santorum 14, Romney 12, Gingrich and Paul with 0.  CBS and the New York Times each give Santorum 13, Romney 12, and again Gingrich and Paul get 0.  CNN most closely allocates Iowa’s delegates based on the actual percentages received during the caucus giving Santorum, Romney and Paul 7 each, leaving 2 for Gingrich.  Of the sources above, NPR is the most honest, not allocating any Iowa delegates to their count because Iowa’s delegate are unbound and undetermined.

Now all this fuzzy math may not be that big a deal at this time, when even the highest delegate count has Romney at around 10% of the required delegates, but it could prove to be very important when someone reaches the delegate threshold by a news agencies fuzzy math.  If a winner is prematurely declaired, based on presumed delegate allocation, it could greatly impact any state that has not yet voted.

Now the above delegate counts, estimates, and projections are all based on guesses and not based on rules.  One candidate whose campaign knows the real rules to the T and are attempting to take full advantage of them is Ron Paul.

For example, Iowa, Colorado, Minneosta, and Maine Caucuses as well as the Missouri Primary were all essentially non-binding straw polls.  Each state on their respective night took the first in many steps in voting for delegates to represent their state at the national convention.  According to the RNC rules, these delegates are not bound by their state’s preference polls.  The Paul campaign has organized and instructed supporters to remain at the caucuses after the initial preference voting occurs and attempt to be selected as delegates.  If his plan works, and he even picks up half of the available delegates in these unbound states, that would currently put him neck and neck with the leaders.  Many may call this shady, but he is playing by the rules.

Related articles

• Why Estimating Delegate Counts Could Backfire (npr.org)
• Romney Wins Nevada Easily; Delegate Counter Updated (theiowarepublican.com)
• TIR’s GOP National Delegate Counter (theiowarepublican.com)
• Counting The GOP Delegates, But Not Before They’re Official (npr.org)
• Ron Paul: All Your Delegates Are Belong To Us (crooksandliars.com)
• How Many Delegates? Don’t Ask Legacy Media (my.firedoglake.com)

RUSH: Now, to illustrate what I was just talking about regarding how the Democrats and the media work together to set up just outrageous characterizations and lies. First, here’s Santorum October 21st last year. He’s appearing on a blog called Caffeinated Thoughts. The editor of this blog, Shane Vander Hart, asks, “What’s at Rick Santorum’s core? What are your core values, your convictions, the hills that you will die on?”

SANTORUM: (bad audio) We’ll repeal Obamacare and get rid of the any idea that you have to abortion coverage and contraceptive coverage. One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about is, I think, the dangers of contraceptives in this country. The whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Contraception’s okay.” It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.

RUSH: If you were unable to hear that, I have the transcript. He said, “We’ll repeal Obamacare and get rid of the any idea that you have to abortion coverage and contraceptive coverage. One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about is, I think, the dangers of contraceptives in this country. The whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘Contraception’s okay.’ It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” So Santorum clearly is suggesting this is an area the feds ought not be involved in. All it does is promote aberrant behavior that causes cultural rot and decline. (interruption) I know. It’s been the Church’s position for centuries, and he’s a Catholic. Exactly right. There’s nothing new here. That’s my point. This has been the Church’s position. Now, the Church doesn’t preach this anymore. That was the point of Paul Rahe’s piece at Ricochet the other day. The Church has totally thrown in with the Democrat Party on this stuff. So last night on MSNBC, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson was on. He got this question: “Are we headed toward a November election that is the pro-birth control party against the anti-birth control party?”

ROBINSON: That cannot be a good idea for the Republicans to go into a November election as the anti-birth control party. Tha… I’ve tried to figure this out from every sort of cynical, smart politics angle I can figure it out from (gasp) and it doesn’t matter for me. What’s the figure? Something like 98% of American women use some form of birth control at some point during their lives? How can you be against that?

RUSH: All right, so that’s one example. Now, up next yesterday on Capitol Hill. This during a Senate Democrat press conference. Senator Frank “The Lout” Lautenberg (Democrat-New Jersey) had this to say about the Republican Party.

LAUTENGERG: (haltingly) The GOP agenda gives women one option: Barefoot and pregnant. It’s time to tell the Republicans to mind their own business. Our side believes that women should be able to choose the paths in life that’s best for them. And that’s why President Obama wants to make birth control more affordable. Contraception is basic health care. And it’s essential for individuals to choose when they want to have a career and when they want to start a family. This is an attack by the Men’s Club here.

RUSH: So this… Now Republicans want women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Exactly what I said! Exactly! I didn’t know this was in the roster until Cookie pointed it out to me. This is exactly, exactly what I knew (I even said it last half hour) was gonna happen.

Regarding the bad audio in the video that some have whined about… in my defense, I used a flip cam in a noisy restaurant and had no idea it was going to be played on national syndicated radio.  Those who complain are more than welcome to hit the tip jar to help me buy better equipment.   Seriously though, I’m glad he brought this up.  Rick’s position is personal belief, it’s one that as an evangelical I don’t entirely agree with, but here’s the major difference between his position and Obama’s – he won’t make his belief about contraceptives a mandate.  He’s not going to try to get them banned, but where I do agree with him – he doesn’t believe the Federal government should subsidize or violate religious liberty by forcing religious, specifically Catholic, organizations to cover contraceptives in health insurance policies they provide to their employees.

Here’s the video of that interview topic at hand starts at about the 19:00 minute mark (the direct audio will probably be better as well):

Related articles

• Rush: Birth control plot against Rick (politico.com)
• Santorum In October: Contraception Is “Not Okay” (alan.com)
• Rick Santorum Wants to Fight ‘The Dangers Of Contraception’ (swampland.time.com)
• The Contraception Election (spectator.org)
• Rush Limbaugh: The Real Target of Obama’s HHS Birth Control Mandate Is the Constitution (Video) (thegatewaypundit.com)
• Limbaugh on So-Called HHS ‘Accommodation’: There’s no ‘Compromise,’ It’s all BS! (theblaze.com)