Focus on Rick Santorum in Tonight's Debate

From Howard Kurtz, at Daily Beast, "Rick Santorum Faces a Grilling at CNN Debate" (at Memeorandum):

The GOP’s new frontrunner will be under a harsh spotlight in Wednesday’s CNN debate after widely covered remarks on explosive social issues like Obama’s theology, prenatal care, and home schooling.

It doesn’t take a crystal ball to predict the kinds of questions Rick Santorum is going to get at the CNN debate in Arizona.

President Obama practices a “phony ideology” that’s not “based on the Bible?” Check.

State government involvement in public schools is “anachronistic”? Check.

Prenatal testing leads to more abortions and prompts us to “cull the ranks of the disabled”? John King, over to you.

When Santorum takes the stage Wednesday night, the glare of the spotlight will be unusually harsh. Despite complaints from his campaign about distorted media coverage, he is the one who has raised every one of these issues, along with birth control, in recent days. Reporters weren’t peppering him with questions about home schooling or amniocentesis. He’s the guy who put these subjects in play.

More at the link.

And at the video, Sarah Palin says the worst thing Santorum could do is back off from discussing these issues. That would play into the left's hands exactly and he'd be caving on issues he's championed all along.

I'll have some reactions and links later tonight...

Obamacare Contraception Mandate Attacks Religious Liberty

At the Heritage Foundation, "Religious Liberty Under Attack":

Today is Ash Wednesday — the first day of Lent — the beginning of 40 days of prayer and fasting observed by Christians across the country, culminating in the Easter feast. Likewise in April, Jews will gather to celebrate Passover, one of many traditions observed under the religious freedom that the U.S. Constitution was designed to preserve. Now, though, that freedom is under direct attack by the very government that purports to represent the people, and that is but the first step in Obamacare’s re-writing of America’s blueprint.

This week, two more Christian colleges joined other religious institutions in fighting back against that attack when they filed lawsuits against the Obama Administration for imposing an anti-conscience mandate under Obamacare. The controversial regulation forces almost all employers to provide health insurance coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization, without a co-pay.

Heritage’s Sarah Torre writes that Geneva College, a private institution in Pennsylvania associated with the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, and Louisiana College, a small Southern Baptist school located in the middle of the state, have deeply held moral objections to the mandate and are left with no choice but to take their case to court ...

Continue reading. 

And see earlier at Michelle's, "Obama’s fraudulent abortion mandate “accommodation”."

French President Nicolas Sarkozy Says the Syrian Regime 'Must Go'

Sarkozy is quoted at the New York Times report on the journalists' deaths in Homs, "Two Western Journalists Killed in Syria Shelling":

CAIRO — Syrian security forces shelled the central city of Homs on Wednesday, the 19th day of a bombardment that activists say has claimed the lives of hundreds of trapped civilians in one of the deadliest campaigns in nearly a year of violent repression by the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Among the 20 people that activist groups reported killed, two were Western journalists, the veteran American war correspondent Marie Colvin, who had been working for The Sunday Times of London, and a young French photographer, Rémi Ochlik. The two had been working in a makeshift media center that was destroyed in the assault, raising suspicions that Syrian security forces might have identified its location by tracing satellite signals. Experts say that such tracking is possible with sophisticated equipment.

Activists, civilian journalists and foreign correspondents who have snuck into Syria have infuriated the authorities and foiled the government’s efforts to control the coverage of clashes, which have claimed thousands of Syrian lives in the last year and which Mr. Assad portrays as caused by an armed insurgency.

Quoting a witness reached from neighboring Jordan, Reuters said the two journalists died after shells hit the house in which they were staying and a rocket hit them when they were trying to escape....

Last week, Anthony Shadid, a correspondent for The New York Times, died of an apparent asthma attack in Syria on Thursday after spending nearly a week reporting covertly in the northern area of Idlib, near the Turkish border.

Another activist group said that 27 young men had been killed the day before in that area. Reuters cited a statement from the Syrian Network for Human Rights as saying that most of the men, who were civilians, had been shot in the head or chest on Tuesday in several villages: Idita, Iblin and Balshon in Idlib province near the border with Turkey.

“Military forces chased civilians in these villages, arrested them and killed them without hesitation,” Reuters quoted the organization said in a statement. “They concentrated on male youths and whoever did not manage to escape was to be killed.”

Overall, the United Nations stopped tallying the death toll in the 11-month uprising after it passed 5,400 in January, because it could no longer verify the numbers. Efforts by the Arab League and United Nations to stem the violence have so far had little traction, with Syria’s remaining allies — China, Iran and Russia — continuing to stand by it.

But the latest deaths of journalists, on top of the agonizing civilian toll, focused a new wave of international revulsion and anger on Mr. Assad and the Syria government. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said the killings showed that “enough is enough, this regime must go. There is no reason why Syrians should not have the right to live their lives, to freely choose their destiny.”

Hey, how about regime change in Syria? I've mentioned it a few times now. It would be extremely messy, and there's obviously no international consensus for it. But if Obama can back the toppling of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya he should at least make the case for the same against Bashar al-Assad in Syria. I'd love to hear it.

See my earlier report: "Military Intervention in Syria."

Why the Left Can't Handle the Truth About Social Conservatism

Another great piece, from James Taranto, at Wall Street Journal, "Mystification and Triumphalism" (via Memeorandum).

I can't quote a key takeaway so just RTWT.

I can say that this whole debate on social conservativism is extremely refreshing and --- and this is something I'll need to flesh out more --- extremely damaging to the progressive left.

The Left's Double Standard on Social Issues

It's all double standards with progressives, but it needs pointing out here and again.

 A great piece, from William McGurn, at Wall Street Journal, "Sex, Lies and Rick Santorum":

When Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, he declared that marriage is between a man and a woman. For the most part, his position was treated as a nonissue.

Now Rick Santorum is campaigning for president. He too says that marriage is between a man and a woman. What a different reaction he gets.

There's no mystery why. Mr. Santorum is attacked because everyone understands that he means what he says.

President Obama, by contrast, gets a pass because everyone understands—nudge nudge, wink wink—that he's not telling the truth. The press understands that this is just one of those things a Democratic candidate has to say so he doesn't rile up the great unwashed.

It's arguably the most glaring double standard in American life today. It helps explain why candidates with social views that are fairly conventional among ordinary Americans—the citizens of 31 states including California have rejected same-sex marriage when put to a vote—find themselves depicted as extreme. It also speaks to why even some who share Mr. Santorum's social views nonetheless fear that his outspokenness on these issues will only undermine his candidacy.

That has led some folks to suggest that Mr. Santorum simply drop these issues altogether. Their hope is that by concentrating his energies solely on Mr. Obama's management of the economy and foreign affairs, Mr. Santorum might avoid dividing his party and America. However reasonable the argument may be on paper, it is simply not practical.

It's not practical...

More at that top link.

And at Riehl World View, "These Faith-Based Attacks On Santorum Are Repulsive and Un-American."

BONUS: At The Other McCain, "Memo From the National Affairs Desk: Meanwhile, Back on the Campaign Trail …"

President's Stimulus Turns Three: Long-Term Unemployment Up 83%; National Debt up 42%

At IBD, "Obama Stimulus Turns Three: What Has It Achieved?":

Without any fanfare whatsoever from the White House, February 17 marks the three-year anniversary of the day President Obama signed the much ballyhooed stimulus into law.

At the time, Obama claimed that it would "create or save" up to 3.5 million jobs, and that "a new wave of innovation, activity and construction will be unleashed across America." The stimulus, would, he promised "ignite spending by businesses and consumers" and bring "real and lasting change for generations to come."

So three years later, how do the stimulus results stack up? Here's where various indicators stood in or around February 2009, and where they stand today... 

Keep reading.

Michael Coren Gets More Death Threats

Via Blazing Cat Fur:

Supreme Court to Hear Affirmative Action Case in University Admissions

This is awesome.

At WSJ, "Justices to Revisit Race Issue: University of Texas Admissions Policy to Be Tested Before Reshaped High Court":

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to revisit affirmative action in state-college admissions, suggesting a 2003 ruling that narrowly permitted race-conscious policies in public higher education may face tough scrutiny from today's more conservative court.

The case, which comes from the University of Texas at Austin, joins a docket already crowded with major issues, most prominently President Barack Obama's 2010 health-care overhaul, whose constitutionality will be argued next month....

The University of Texas said it based its admissions policy on the 2003 precedent, Grutter v. Bollinger. In that case, involving the University of Michigan Law School, the court by a 5-4 vote held for the first time that racial diversity in higher education qualified as a compelling governmental interest. Such a state interest is essential when a government classifies individuals by race.

The UT policy includes consideration of race as part of a "holistic" evaluation of applicants who didn't qualify for admission through either superior academic performance or a plan that grants admission to the top 10% of graduates from each Texas high school. The policy was challenged by lead plaintiff Abigail Fisher, who was denied admission to the university after applying in 2008.

RTWT.

Adele Sex Tape?

Well, it's a fake.

At Telegraph UK, "Adele takes legal action over false sex tape":

Adele, the award winning singer, has fallen victim to an attempted smear after a French paparazzo released a sex tape falsely alleging that she was its star.

The 23-year-old immediately made clear that she had not appeared in the tape and instructed top law firm Schillings to take legal action.

The claims were described as “untrue and grossly defamatory”. A spokesman for Adele said it was "100 per cent false".
The hoax tape was alleged to have been made by the singer’s former boyfriend who inspired some of her most successful songs.
At her 18th birthday party she told him she was falling in love with him. But four hours later he is said to have left her for one of her gay male friends.

Adele has never disclosed the man’s identity but did reveal that he had tried to claim a share of the songwriting royalties on the grounds that he had inspired the lyrics.

Continue reading.

Republican Candidates Battle as Arizona and Michigan Races Tighten

At New York Times, "In Tightening Race, Top G.O.P. Candidates Race to Capture 2 Battleground States":

In the brilliant sunshine of Arizona, Rick Santorum aggressively challenged Mitt Romney in a state where the Tea Party is strong and the politics of immigration are poised to take center stage at a debate on Wednesday night.

And in the gritty cold of Michigan, the advertising air war intensified, as Mr. Romney increasingly faced questions about his conservative credentials from voters in his home state, a place of grim economic news and plenty of cultural conservatives.

Together, the two states — separated by about 1,700 miles — are the immediate battlegrounds for a Republican presidential contest that appears to be tightening drastically in the week before voters go to the polls to award the biggest single-day cache of delegates since the race began.

Mr. Santorum held two events in Arizona on Tuesday as he sought to seize on anecdotal and polling evidence that Mr. Romney’s large lead in the state may be quickly evaporating.

Speaking to about 500 people at the Maricopa County Lincoln Day luncheon, Mr. Santorum tipped his hat to the Tea Party movement, many of whose members had packed into the large Shriners’ hall to hear him speak.

“We need to take everything from food stamps to Medicaid to housing programs to education training programs,” he said. “We need to cut ’em, cap ’em, freeze ’em, send ’em to the states and say that there has to be a time limit and a work requirement,” he said, the rest of his words drowned out by thunderous applause.

Mr. Santorum is scheduled to address Tea Party activists near Tucson on Wednesday.

More at that top link.

Extreme C-17

My buddy at Boeing sent this:

PREVIOUSLY: "Long Beach Boeing C-17 Tour."

USA Today/Gallup Poll: Republican Voters Oppose a 'Brokered' Convention

Actually, a brokered convention would be exciting, since you just don't see that kind of thing nowadays. And personally, I'm not all that unhappy with the GOP field. If it's Romney it's Romney. He's a good man and could make an excellent president. We'll see if he can get his mojo back, or if Rick Santorum becomes the prohibitive favorite after this next round of primaries. Either way, GOP voters don't like the prospects of taking it to Tampa, as USA Today reports (via Memeorandum):

WASHINGTON – While most Republicans wish they had different choices in the party's presidential field, a nationwide USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds overwhelming resistance to the idea of an old-styled brokered convention that would pick some new contender as the nominee.

By 66%-29%, the Republicans and Republican-leaning independents surveyed say it would be better if one of the four candidates now running managed to secure enough delegates to clinch the nomination. Most are happy to see their roller-coaster campaign continue: 57% say the battle isn't hurting the party.

Meanwhile, President Obama's standing against two potential Republican rivals has ebbed a bit. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney leads the president 50%-46% among registered voters, Romney's strongest showing against him to date. Obama edges former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum by a single percentage point, 49%-48%.

The poll, taken Thursday through Sunday, illustrates the battle between head-and-heart for many GOP voters...

Read it all at the link.

The Left Fuels Santorum Surge

An outstanding essay, from Star Parker, at Townhall:

A succession of high profile left wing decisions and initiatives of recent weeks drive home the extent to which the left is changing the face of America.

Notable among these are the decision of a federal appeals court in California to uphold a prior court decision finding California’s Proposition 8, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, unconstitutional; the reversal of a decision, due to a tsunami of left wing pressure, of the Susan G. Komen Foundation to withdraw its funding to Planned Parenthood; and the Obama administration rulemaking refusing to grant a religious exemption from the new health care law employer mandate requiring provision of free contraception and sterilization services as part of health coverage.

These developments are, I think, helping to buoy the newly surging candidacy of former Republican Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum.

Why?

Santorum stands out in the current Republican field in the clarity of his image and identity. There is little doubt about who the man is and there are no glaring inconsistencies between who he says he is today and his past behavior and positions.

Even Ron Paul, who is closest to Santorum in consistency and clarity of image, carries the baggage of the sickening racist and anti-Semitic newsletters that once carried his name.

So the issue with Santorum is whether you buy what he is selling. Not whether you have to worry that there are different Santorums hiding in the closet waiting to emerge when political calculations might seem to justify their appearance.

And candidate Rick Santorum is squeaky clean conservative.

There is no pretense that so-called social issues are a world apart from economic issues.

And there is no inclination to insert social issues as a footnote to please religious conservatives while just talking about the economy because this is the main thing on everyone’s mind.

While the Republican Party splits on whether “values” should stand front and center in its platform, Democrats and the left make no pretense about this.

The political left, led today by President Obama, is defined and energized by an ongoing sense of mission to wage a cultural war in America.

And the left is determined to win this war.

Whoa, sing it sister!

More at the link.

Why I Can't Talk to Liberals

I don't even call them "liberals," of course.

They're radical progressive bobbleheads and simply bad people with bad intent.

But see Charlotte Allen, "Debating a liberal is maddening: They think conservatives are evil, while we think they're silly":

A few years ago Ann Coulter published a book titled "How to Talk to Liberal (If You Must)." With all due respect, Coulter, one of my favorite conservative eye-pokers, was wrong. There is no "how" in talking to a liberal. You can't talk to a liberal, period.

Believe me, I've tried. I've got a liberal mother, four liberal siblings and their assorted liberal offspring, and a horde of liberal friends (I went to college and grad school). Whenever I advance to them even the mildest of challenges to liberal orthodoxies, on topics ranging from the welfare state to illegal immigration to abortion, I'm greeted with name-calling, obscenities, shout-overs and, finally, the grave-like silence of ostracism.

The problem is this: We conservatives think liberals are silly; they think we're evil. Tell a liberal that you hope President Obama will be defeated in the upcoming election, and you'll be branded a racist. Voice your opposition to same-sex marriage, and you're a homophobe. Express outrage at the idea of building a mosque on the spot where one of the planes' fuselages fell in the 9/11massacre, and you're an Islamophobe. If you support the tea party, or Rick Santorum for president, or defunding Planned Parenthood, or setting up credible border enforcement, you could be all of the above plus more: anti-woman, anti-poor-people, anti-tolerance and a "fascist" to boot.

Liberals go on and on about the "Manichaeism" of conservatives: how quick we supposedly are to divide a morally gray world into black and white. But nothing beats the Manichaeism of liberals: Their causes are holy, and ours deserve a bucketful of scatology on Daily Kos.

Here are some characteristics of liberals that make it impossible to carry on a civilized debate with them...

Continue reading.

Actually, I don't think "liberals" are silly --- I think they're dangerous, and they escalate from attacking you as racist to attempting to destroy you and everything you stand for. That's why the election in November is so important. We've got to get these freaks out of office. And FWIW, while her views come as no surprise, Diana Wagman has the companion piece to Allen's, "We are not the same. I equate Republicans' political views with thoughtlessness, intolerance and narcissism. They're neither kind nor empathetic."

Understanding the Real Unemployment Rate

At Maggie's Notebook, "Unemployment Rate: Grossly Distorted – How It's Done."

Lying Your Way Into Office: How Bob Casey Beat Rick Santorum in 2006

An awesome post from Doug Ross at Director Blue, "Let's Go Back to the Replay: How Bob Casey Beat Rick Santorum in 2006."

Occupy Cleveland Rape Report Proves Olbermann Wrong

Well, the progs will find a way to deny the legitimacy of the police report, but Dana Loesch et al. have the goods here.

See: "EXCLUSIVE: Big Journalism Uncovers Police Report From Occupy Cleveland Rape Proving Olbermann Wrong."

And see Jenn Taylor, "Olbermann Defends Convicted Rapist’s Right to Occupy 14-Year-Old Girl: Worst Person in the World."

BONUS: At Bloviating Zeppelin, "Contrast & Compare: OWS v TEA Party."

Avalanches, and Danger Warnings, on the Rise for Thrill-Seeking Skiers

Avalanches are extremely fascinating, but deadly as hell, so be careful out there.

At New York Times, "Avalanches on the Rise for Thrill-Seeking Skiers":

ASPEN, Colo. — The deaths of four people in two avalanches Sunday in the Cascade Mountains northeast of Seattle are the latest examples of what can happen when backcountry skiing, powered by the predictable human urge for thrill, meets the more capricious nature of high-country snow. Though textbook conditions for avalanches have had forecasters throughout the Mountain West ramping up warnings for backcountry travelers, close calls and fatal accidents continue to mount.

So far, 17 skiers, snowboarders and snowmobilers have been killed with more than two months remaining in one of the most avalanche-prone seasons in memory. And although that number projects only marginally higher than the national average of 28.8 deaths a year over the last decade, and perhaps closer to the 36 in 2009-10, increasingly those who put themselves in harm’s way seem not to be careless novices, but rather, experts pushing the limits of safety.

Among the victims in Washington was Jim Jack, the longtime head judge of the Freeskiing World Tour, who was killed along with two other experienced backcountry skiers near the Steven’s Pass ski area. Their party of 13, all of whom were buried in snow to some degree, included professional skiers and ski journalists.

“It’s mostly the hardcore riders, people who know better,” Bruce Tremper, director of the Forest Service Utah Avalanche Center, said recently of the emerging trend of experts testing their skills against the backcountry, no matter the conditions. “In the past, we felt once you’re in the hardcore category, you’re more low risk for us. But now with the films and the videos, everybody is pushing it to the extreme.”

Read it all.

Republican Jewish Coalition Slams Obama Administration Cuts to U.S.-Israel Missile Defense

Via Weekly Standard, "The Republican Jewish Coalition's latest web ad":

Mainstream Media (MFM) Attacking Rick Santorum for 'Controversial' Comments

This is why folks don't like reading the "lamestream" press. Non-controversial comments by a conservative candidate become "controversial' when the Democrat-Media-Complex fires up the attack machinery.

See New York Times, "Santorum Defends Remarks on Obama and Government’s Role in Education."

KSLA News in Shreveport claims Santorum's comparing Obama to Hitler, "Santorum’s controversial comments meet criticism," via the radical extremist blog Crooks and Liars, "Santorum Uses Hitler Analogy to Describe Obama."

And here's CNN, "Santorum denies Hitler-Obama comparison" (via Memeorandum):

Rick Santorum on Monday denied he was comparing President Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler while using a World War II analogy the previous day.

During a speech at a Georgia church on Sunday, Santorum paralleled the election to America's slow response to the swelling Nazi presence during the late 1930s. He urged his audience to get involved and not sit on the sidelines like "the greatest generation" did for a year and a half while "Europe was under darkness."

 The former Pennsylvania senator described Americans as a "hopeful people," easily susceptible to ignoring a growing problem.

"We think, well, you know, it'll get better. Yeah, he's a nice guy. I mean, it won't be near as bad as what we think. This will be okay. I mean, yeah, maybe he's not the best guy after a while. After a while you find out some things about this guy over in Europe who's not so good of a guy after all, but ya know what, why do we need to be involved? We'll just take care of our own problems," he said.

Asked Monday if he was likening the president to Hitler, he responded, "No, of course not."

He added: "It's a War World II metaphor. It's one I've used a hundred times."

Exactly.

A metaphor.

But progressives see something mentioning WWII and it's "OMG, they're attacking Obama as Hitler!"