Heave Ho!

There is a lot of information out there in the polls to suggest that we are making progress in pushing Romney to where he has the potential to win this election.

Consider a few articles showing that there are a number of states that used to be considered safe for Obama to win, where Romney now has a real chance for the upset:

In Michigan: "Mitt Romney is within striking distance of Barack Obama in Michigan in the final days before the election, buoyed by more who are convinced the Republican is a viable alternative to the president, with the ability to turn around the economy.

Obama's lead over Romney has shrunk to just under 3 points, 47.7 percent to 45 percent, with 3.8 percent undecided, according to a new Detroit News/WDIV Local 4 poll of likely voters. Obama's lead was 6.7 points earlier this month and has eroded to within the poll's 3.8 percentage point margin of error. It's the smallest advantage for the Democratic president during the Michigan campaign."

In Oregon: "Earlier today, my colleague, Tony Lee, reported on a new poll from Oregon showing Obama up just six points over Mitt Romney. Surprisingly, Obama's support was only 47%, well below the 50% threshold deemed safe for incumbents. To say that Oregon wasn't expected to be competitive is a massive understatement. Obama won the state by 17 points in 2008. While he is certainly favored to win the state this year, his apparent struggles there are a sign of a campaign falling apart in the home stretch."

In Pennsylvania: "Mitt Romney is making his play for Pennsylvania with a new ad released Tuesday criticizing President Obama on his energy policies.

The Romney ad hits Obama for policies that the GOP campaign contends has led to the closure or conversion of 22 coal-powered plants in Pennsylvania. The ad opens with footage of Obama saying building a coal plant will "bankrupt" those who do so.

"People in the coal industry feel like it's getting crushed by your policies," Romney said to Obama during a presidential debate, in a clip used in the ad. "I want to get America and North America energy independent so we can create those jobs."

In Ohio: "The race for Ohio’s Electoral College votes remains very close, but now Mitt Romney now has a two-point advantage...Among all Ohio voters, Romney now has a 12-point lead over the president in voter trust – 53% to 41% - when it comes to the economy. Last week, he had just a seven-point advantage among voters in the state when they were asked which candidate they trusted more to deal with the economy. Romney’s also trusted more by eight points in the areas of job creation and energy policy but leads Obama by just two when it comes to housing issues. National security has been an area where the president has typically had an advantage over Romney this year. But, the Republican challenger now has a 52% to 42% advantage on the issue."

In Wisconsin: "The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Wisconsin Voters shows the president and his Republican challenger each earning 49% support. One percent (1%) likes another candidate, and two percent (2%) are undecided...Ninety-six percent (96%) of Badger State voters say they are sure to vote in this election. Romney leads 51% to 47% among these voters.

Among the 90% who say they’ve already made up their minds whom they will vote for, it’s Romney 51%, Obama 48%."

In Iowa: "Perhaps even more important for Romney, internal polls have shown him closing Obama’s narrow advantage in swing voter-heavy Scott County, where the GOP standard-bearer held a rally Monday in Davenport...Additionally, the Romney campaign believes that it is outperforming its goal in the heavily white, blue-collar counties that dot southeastern Iowa, an encouraging sign for any statewide Republican candidate. “Our state Senate tracking polls are moving [Romney’s] way in swing districts, and the sweep of endorsements over the weekend gives him a sense of momentum,” said Iowa GOP operative Steve Grubbs. “I predict he wins Iowa.” Indeed, The Des Moines Register’s backing of Romney this past weekend came as a surprise to just about everyone in Iowa politics."

In Colorado: "A confident Mitt Romney, two weeks out from Election Day, spoke about his campaign as a movement sweeping the nation during a moonlit rally at Red Rocks Amphitheatre on Tuesday night..."I think even the Republicans in the state have underestimated support for Romney," supporter Terri Miller said. Deb Lowry sat seven rows from the stage. "This is the first political event I've ever been to, the first politician I believe in," said Lowry, who owns a Liberty Tax franchise. "I feel like he truly gets the economy." The source of Romney's momentum is of little secret: Pundits largely agree his performance during the three debates elevated his stature in the race. And neither he nor Ryan on Tuesday was shy about talking about the debates, the most recent of which was Monday night."

In other news from Colorado, Republicans are leading Democrats in early voting - a good sign.

In Virginia: "When Jay Swiney emerges from the night shift in the coal mines to assume his duties as mayor of Appalachia, Va., it is hard for him to miss the partisan forces rocking the heavily unionized Democratic hamlets in the mountains along the Tennessee border. Mitt Romney held a rally in Abingdon, Va; Billboards proclaim “America or Obama — You Can’t Have Them Both!” and “Yes, Coal; No-bama.” Out-of-work miners are sporting baseball caps that say “Coal=Jobs” and T-shirts with the sarcastic message: “Make Coal Legal.” Yard signs and TV ads for Mitt Romney are everywhere."

In Florida: "Polls show Romney and President Obama essentially tied in the Sunshine State. The latest RealClearPolitics average of recent polls has Romney leading 49% to 48%."

And a general survey of the polls in some of these states: "In poll after poll of formerly safe blue states, the Republican is closing ground on Obama, far outpacing Republican totals from 2008:

In 2008, Connecticut went for Obama by 22 points. The latest Mason-Dixon poll has Obama up by just 7.
In 2008, Michigan went for Obama by 17 points. The latest Detroit News poll has Obama up by just 3.
In 2008, Minnesota went for Obama by 11 points. The latest Minneapolis Star Tribune poll has Obama up by just 3.
In 2008, Oregon went for Obama by 16. The latest Oregonian poll has Obama up just 6.
In 2008, Pennsylvania went for Obama by 10. The latest Morning Call poll has Obama up by just 3.

Romney, who along with his Super PAC is making a run at some of these states, will probably not win any of them. But he doesn’t need to. The simple fact that all of them are moving in his direction shows that more and more Americans are looking for a change of leadership in the White House this election year."

The election is there for us to win, but it'll take all of us giving it our very best.  Get family and friends out to support Romney and the Republicans, anywhere in the country, but especially if you know people in these close and battleground states it's especially important.  Heave ho!  We're not afraid of a little hard work and sacrifice, eh?  Less than a week to go!

Notre Dame & Brigham Young

So having had the opportunity of traveling to South Bend, Indiana to watch my BYU Cougars play the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame a week ago - which I thoroughly enjoyed minus one missed passed by our quarterback - the topic of Catholics and Mormons has been on my mind.  ND and BYU...Romney and Ryan...and then there's the issue of religious freedom.  I hope Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, Jews, and everyone else we can get to join the battle, will vote Romney-Ryan next week among other reasons to protect our freedom of religion in this country.

And on another topic...our hearts and prayers go out to those affected by the massive storm Sandy.  Time to help one another yet again.

Manhattan with lights out last night.

Hey and one more thing.  This, I hope, will really brighten your day and give you hope.  I know it did me. You may have heard of that great crowd of 10,000+ in Colorado in the past week for a Romney-Ryan rally.  Well, this caller to the Rush Limbaugh show was there and gives a terrific account of it.  We can do this, people!  

Jobs & Benghazi

Three short videos I recommend watching.  The first is the CEO of Home Depot talking about his economic fears if Obama were to win reelection.  The second is Senator McCain talking about the impact Benghazi is having in severely undermining the credibility of President Obama.  The third is Pat Caddell, a Democrat, calling shame on the Obama administration and the mainstream press for their handling of Benghazi.

Letting Men Die

I'm sorry, but I just can't accept the efforts by the Obama campaign, liberals, and the mainstream media to avoid discussing what happened in Benghazi, Libya that led to the deaths of four Americans, including our ambassador to Libya.

Reports in the past two days have uncovered e-mails that show that the administration most certainly know that organized terrorism was at least very likely, if not certainly, involved in those attacks.  Also that key members of the administration, including in the White House itself, were in real time communication with those under attack in Libya, but failed to send help.

Today it is being reported that not only did they fail to actively send help to those under attack, but they actively blocked help from being provided.  It makes me sick to think about this.  To know that CIA assets within a mile of the Benghazi diplomatic complex asked to go help and were told to "stand down" and that military resources an hour away in Italy were not sent immediately to help.

The two former Navy Seals that died actually disobeyed orders to make their way to the diplomatic compound to help those under attack, helped them get out and over to the CIA Annex where they were attacked again in a firefight that lasted hours longer before they were killed, none of the help the requested being provided to them.  Why was not every resource provided, every effort made to quickly help our people under attack?  Words fail.

Watch for yourself.

Then read this article from Mark Steyn on "The Incredible Shrinking President."  An excerpt:

"We also learned that, in those first moments of the attack, a request for military back-up was made by U.S. staff on the ground but was denied by Washington. It had planes and special forces less than 500 miles away in southern Italy — or about the same distance as Washington to Boston. They could have been there in less than two hours. Yet the commander-in-chief declined to give the order. So Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods fought all night against overwhelming odds, and died on a rooftop in a benighted jihadist hellhole while Obama retired early to rest up before his big Vegas campaign stop. “Within minutes of the first bullet being fired the White House knew these heroes would be slaughtered if immediate air support was denied,” said Ty Woods’s father, Charles. “In less than an hour, the perimeters could have been secured and American lives could have been saved. After seven hours fighting numerically superior forces, my son’s life was sacrificed because of the White House’s decision.”"

The Real Obama

Peggy Noonan's opinion article today is - as she so often is - precisely attuned to reality.  I encourage you to read the whole article.  A few excerpts:

"Why was the first debate so toxic for the president? Because the one thing he couldn't do if he was going to win the election is let all the pent-up resentment toward him erupt. Americans had gotten used to him as The President. Whatever his policy choices, whatever general direction he seemed to put in place he was The President, a man who had gotten there through natural gifts and what all politicians need, good fortune.

What he couldn't do was present himself, when everyone was looking, as smaller than you thought. Petulant, put upon, above it all, full of himself. He couldn't afford to make himself look less impressive than the challenger in terms of command, grasp of facts, size.

But that's what he did.

And in some utterly new way the president was revealed, exposed. All the people whose job it is to surround and explain him, to act as his buffers and protectors—they weren't there. It was him on the stage, alone with a competitor. He didn't have a teleprompter, and so his failure seemed to underscore the cliché that the prompter is a kind of umbilical cord for him, something that provides nourishment, the thing he needs to sound good. He is not by any means a stupid man but he has become a boring one; he drones, he is predictable, it's never new. The teleprompter adds substance, or at least safety."  

And more:

"People back home, he [a U.S. Senator] said, sometimes wonder what happened with the president in the debate. The senator said, I paraphrase: I sort of have to tell them that it wasn't a miscalculation or a weird moment. I tell them: I know him, and that was him. That guy on the stage, that's the real Obama.

Which gets us to Bob Woodward's "The Price of Politics," published last month. The portrait it contains of Mr. Obama—of a president who is at once over his head, out of his depth and wholly unaware of the fact—hasn't received the attention it deserves. Throughout the book, which is a journalistic history of the president's key economic negotiations with Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama is portrayed as having the appearance and presentation of an academic or intellectual while being strangely clueless in his reading of political situations and dynamics. He is bad at negotiating—in fact doesn't know how. His confidence is consistently greater than his acumen, his arrogance greater than his grasp."

A man out of his depth, who thinks he's great but is actually bad at the job he's had to do?  A teleprompter man who thinks he can just wow his way to success through appearance?  That's our president, it appears.

Which is yet one more reason, to me, to underscore how important this election is - we urgently need a competent president who can face up to the brutally serious challenges we face as a nation.

Let's renew our efforts for the next 10 days - let's do it on behalf of our future, our families, our nation.

Civil Society and You

From a campaign speech by Paul Ryan in the past hour or so in Cleveland, Ohio:

So what is government’s duty when it comes to the institutions of civil society? Basically, it is to secure their rights, respect their purposes, and preserve their freedom.

Nothing undermines the essential and honorable work these groups do quite like the abuse of government power.  Take what happened this past January, when the Department of Health and Human Services issued new rules requiring Catholic hospitals, charities and universities to violate their deepest principles. Never mind your own conscience, they were basically told – from now on you’re going to do things the government’s way.

This mandate isn’t just a threat to religious charities. It’s a threat to all those who turn to them in times of need. In the name of strengthening our safety net, this mandate and others will weaken it.

The good news? When Mitt Romney is president, this mandate will be gone, and these groups will be able to continue the good work they do. 

But it’s not just the abuses of government that undermine civil society – it’s also the excesses of government.  Look at the road we are on, with trillion-dollar deficits every year.  Debt on this scale is destructive in so many ways, and one of them is that it crowds out civil society by drawing resources away from private giving.  

Even worse is the prospect of a debt crisis, which will come unless we do something very soon. When government’s own finances collapse, society’s most vulnerable are the first victims, as we are seeing right now in the troubled welfare states of Europe.  Many there feel that they have nowhere to turn for help, and we must never let that happen in America. 

Where government is entrusted with providing a safety net, Mitt Romney and I have our own vision for how to keep it strong. It is a vision that leaves the failures of the past in the past, and proposes instead to build on those reforms that have worked. 

For starters, a Romney-Ryan administration will clearly restore those parts of the welfare-reform law that have been undone or weakened. We will do this for the sake of millions of Americans who deserve to lead lives of dignity and freedom.

We have so much more at stake in this election than most people realize...and we need to succeed at every level from the presidency to the Senate to the House.

10,000+ @ Red Rock

This gives me great hope.  We need this kind of energy in every battleground state and across the nation. This was last night near Denver, Colorado.  Spread the word, folks...

And from the great Clint Eastwood:

Big & Small After 3rd Debate

My initial impressions about the 3rd debate last night:

- To begin, Obama started out attacking and personal.  Romney took a bit to get his footing as he avoided taking Obama's bait and talked 'big picture.'  From there, the trend was Romney stronger and stronger, Obama looked mostly weaker as he appeared more petty and tried to trash Romney more than establish his own foreign policy goals and rationale.  Romney went 'big' and Obama went 'small' and by the end I thought Romney appeared more presidential, and Obama diminished himself - at least in the eyes of independents and Republicans.

- By being steady and reassuring but still strong, I think Romney got the most important thing out of the debate for a challenger to a sitting president: it was clear that he would be a strong, thoughtful, very capable leader in the world.  It continues to help remove any qualms most people would have about voting for him as president.  That is a big win for Romney.  I'm not able to come up with any new advantage Obama gained from this debate.  People expect a sitting president to be brushed up on details of foreign policy.  He didn't show anything new and as I say seemed competent but kind of petty.  I don't see how that does anything more than reassure his base.

- Overall, I don't think the overall trajectory of the campaign changes much from this...which is good for Romney as things have trended his way since the first debate.

There are two weeks to go.  The race is tight.  This is the time to rise up, redouble efforts, and let's get Romney in the White House and get this country and our economy back.  We can do this!





From Keith Koffler: "The impression that will linger through Election Day is that of the sunny guy to the left of the screen who seemed to have ideas about where to go and was interrupted repeatedly by the guy on the right who made lots of points but, in the end, had no new ideas, couldn’t defend his record the few times it was challenged, and seemed a little unlikable."

What We Know of Benghazi

What has been learned so far is tragic, but also looks awful for Obama.

Three specific failures I see from the Obama administration on this:
(1) Despite repeated requests for better security in Benghazi, the administration denied these requests and actually reduced security personnel in the compound in the months before 9/11.  Obama left Ambassador Stevens and his staff vulnerable.
(2) Perhaps the worst thing is that the administration had real time communication with Benghazi personnel from the start of the attacks and even had a video feed from a drone during the attack.  Planes from nearby US bases could have been there in an hour or less.  The attack was going on for more than 7 hours.  No help was sent.  The President didn't even meet with his national security staff during this time, and flew off to Vegas for a fundraiser.
(3) The blaming by the Obama administration of the YouTube video as reason for the attacks when all information during and right after the attack ran counter to this, and even though we now know that the assessment within 24 hours of the attack was that it was a terrorist attack, is more than poor, confused, incompetent messaging by Obama and his team.  If, as it appears, he and his team were misleading the American people based on political consideration, Obama will have to answer to us for that.

Romney's Core

This video segment deserves to be shared widely.  What a person does when they think no one is looking is one of the best indicators of the kind of person they are at the core.

The Al Smith Dinner

Very well done, Mr. Romney, at the traditional Al Smith dinner in New York.  Well done, and very funny...

"Natural Protests" - No!

Better and Better

Now that I've had a little time to reread the transcript from the debate, I have to say Romney looks better and better and better the more I read.  To be honest, he trounced Obama in terms of ideas and policies.

Let me give one example.  Here's a question where a voter asked what he (Obama) could do to improve gas prices (they have doubled under Obama):

QUESTION: Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it's not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department? 

OBAMA: The most important thing we can do is to make sure we control our own energy. So here's what I've done since I've been president. We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years. 

Natural gas production is the highest it's been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment. But what I've also said is we can't just produce traditional source of energy. We've also got to look to the future. That's why we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars. That means that in the middle of the next decade, any car you buy, you're going to end up going twice as far on a gallon of gas. That's why we doubled clean -- clean energy production like wind and solar and biofuels. 

ROMNEY: Well, let's look at the president's policies, all right, as opposed to the rhetoric, because we've had four years of policies being played out. And the president's right in terms of the additional oil production, but none of it came on federal land. As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent. Why? Because the president cut in half the number of licenses and permits for drilling on federal lands, and in federal waters.

So where'd the increase come from? Well a lot of it came from the Bakken Range in North Dakota. What was his participation there? The administration brought a criminal action against the people drilling up there for oil, this massive new resource we have. And what was the cost? 20 or 25 birds were killed and he brought out a migratory bird act to go after them on a criminal basis.

Look, I want to make sure we use our oil, our coal, our gas, our nuclear, our renewables. I believe very much in our renewable capabilities; ethanol, wind, solar will be an important part of our energy mix.

But what we don't need is to have the president keeping us from taking advantage of oil, coal and gas. This has not been Mr. Oil, or Mr. Gas, or Mr. Coal. Talk to the people that are working in those industries. I was in coal country. People grabbed my arms and said, "Please save my job." The head of the EPA said, "You can't build a coal plant. You'll virtually -- it's virtually impossible given our regulations." When the president ran for office, he said if you build a coal plant, you can go ahead, but you'll go bankrupt. That's not the right course for America...

We're going to bring that pipeline in from Canada. How in the world the president said no to that pipeline, I will never know.

Seriously?  Romney smashed Obama here.  First, Obama didn't even answer the person's question. Second,  Obama gave a general stat about amount of domestic oil production and a potpourri of his environmental agenda items.  Romney swipes all this off the table by saying "let's look at the actual record, not just hear nice sounding words" and proceeds to demonstrate in brutally efficient detail that the increase in oil production not only has nothing to do with Obama's policies (the increase is almost entirely on private lands developed by private businesses), but that Obama's administration has in fact worked hard against the development of these natural resources, with his EPA legally targeting developers.  Obama tried to claim the mantle as if he's the only one who wants to develop renewable energy sources.  Romney wouldn't let himself be defined by the President, saying 'of course we will continue to develop these areas' then personalized Obama's harsh rhetoric and record against coal by telling how Obama's policies are hurting the coal industry, then quoting Obama from the last campaign, and Obama's EPA chief since then, both slamming coal.  Bam.  Then for the cherry on top, he asks why in the world Obama said no to the Keystone oil pipeline from Canada (it's going to be built anyway, only an issue of whether it will benefit China or America more).  Check mate.

Read more about Obama's record of the last four years on energy here.

Obama Indictment in Long Island

Obama certainly came out more - energized - at last night's debate.  And considering how poor he looked in comparison to Romney at the first debate, that was enough for many to consider the debate close or a draw.  But I think if you look under the surface, Romney made strong progress on some of the most important issues that will determine the outcome of the election.

For one thing, although many of the "flash polls" right after the debate were very close or gave Obama a slightly edge in "who won," when details were asked in those same polls on things like who seemed the better leader, who was stronger on the economy, on the deficit, etc., Romney won resoundingly on those questions.  When independents/undecideds were asked who won the debate, they picked Romney.  It was only when already-committed Democrats were included that you saw the slight edge for Obama.

Where was Romney most effective?  For one thing, he is disciplined and strong in the most important message of his campaign: that his primary focus would be on the economy and getting good and higher paying jobs back in America.  And the corollary to that is that President Obama has a terrible record on this issue...in fact has failed to fulfill most of what he said he would do four years ago.  Obama has failed miserably.

Romney's strongest moment seemed to be when a questioner who was obviously disappointed in Obama's record of the past four years asked what the President would do differently in the next four years.  Obama really had no memorable answer, but Romney used the opportunity to give a two-minute indictment of Obama's record.  The comparison between Romney and Obama here was as clarifying as anything in the debate.

In terms of style, this debate was bound to be different from the first, and more difficult for Romney, if only because when your opponent is throwing around aggression and attacks, you have to give at least some effective response or you look weak.  Romney handled that OK, though perhaps not perfectly, and the result was a more contentious debate that will have turned some people off.  Most, however, will have expected this kind of thing from a debate like this and see it as "par for the course."

In the end, there is one matter that will get a lot of attention based on the discussion in this debate - and I predict it will redound to Obama's dishonor.  And that is the discussion about Libya and Benghazi.  Many are saying that Romney missed an opportunity to really nail Obama on this issue.  Well, maybe he could have done better, but in a way he will have set up the discussion between now and the debate next Monday on this issue very well, and the discussion in the press about it cannot look good for Obama at all.  When Candy Crowley, the moderator, tried to "fact check" Romney on the spot about Obama's initial reaction to the attacks in Benghazi, she not only looked bad herself in seeming to step into the debate on the side of Obama, but it turns out she was essentially wrong about the matter.  So in the discussion to follow that will be discussed, and Obama's handling of the situation will look worse.  And that discussion will continue in next Monday's debate, which has a focus on foreign policy.  Watch for Romney to be very clear on the matter there, and the public will be ready to pay full attention.

We have a lot to do in the last couple of weeks before Election Day.  Talk to your friends around the country and in your circles.  Let's get this done.  We need new leadership in the White House, and it can't come soon enough.

Miners for Romney

I recommend this video of a press conference by coal miners in the Ohio Valley.  It's a lot more impressive than most politics-related videos you'll see, both for who these men are, how they comport themselves, and for the points they make.

How Freedom Is Lost

How do you get a people who are accustomed to freedom to give up that freedom?  Maybe there are more ways than one, but one way is to convince them that they might be given some purportedly valuable thing only by giving up a small portion of freedom.  But once that freedom is given, the door is open for more, and too often there is no going back.

The freedom of religion is often called our first freedom, because without the freedom to believe as we will and act in accordance with this belief, our other freedoms lose meaning.

There are many principles that hang in the balance in this election, but we should all understand clearly that one of these is the protection of this first freedom.

The specific issue, of course, is that Obamacare forces all insurance plans in the United States to provide specific benefits determined by unelected bureaucrats of the federal government.  Every employer, any organization that helps pay for medical insurance, is thus forced to pay for these benefits, even if it runs against deeply held, sincere religious beliefs.

This affects Catholics, and the Catholic Church in particular, since contraception as the prevention of pregnancy and the potential life God may send is specifically against Catholic doctrine.  For those with other beliefs, we might be tempted not to worry ourselves about the issue.  But we would do so at our peril. Because if the federal government through Obamacare can force the Catholic Church to pay for something that is profoundly against its beliefs and teachings, then the government can do the same in other cases against your religious beliefs.

Obama and Biden are trying to hide the meanings of their actions in this matter, but the Catholic Church is having none of it and has been very clear about the danger they see in what the administration has been and is doing.

This was Joe Biden during the VP debate:

"With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution—Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital—none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact."

This is Kathryn Jean Lopez of the National Review in response:

"Well, it’s a lie, actually. But the Obama administration has thrived by lying — so far getting away with its assault on freedom. And the media has largely helped, frequently looking away the 100-strong lawsuits against the Obama administration’s HHS mandate."

And this is the Catholic Church's response to Joe Biden:

"This is not a fact. The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain “religious employers.” That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to “Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital,” or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.

HHS has proposed an additional “accommodation” for religious organizations like these, which HHS itself describes as “non-exempt.” That proposal does not even potentially relieve these organizations from the obligation “to pay for contraception” and “to be a vehicle to get contraception.” They will have to serve as a vehicle, because they will still be forced to provide their employees with health coverage, and that coverage will still have to include sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients. They will have to pay for these things, because the premiums that the organizations (and their employees) are required to pay will still be applied, along with other funds, to cover the cost of these drugs and surgeries.

USCCB continues to urge HHS, in the strongest possible terms, actually to eliminate the various infringements on religious freedom imposed by the mandate."

And it goes further, as Obamacare also forces the Catholic Church, and all others who help pay for health insurance, to specifically tell their employees and those they serve how and where to go to act in violation of its teachings.  From National Review's Wesley Smith:

"In fact, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius declared that the Obama administration intends not only to force churches to do what the state directs, but even to speak as the state directs. From Sebelius’s official statement about the promulgation of the new rule:

We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support.

Thus, the Obama administration is attacking even freedom of worship by forcing exempt organizations to tell their employees where and how they can violate church teaching."

To understand the meaning of this assault on religious freedom, think of something that is a sacred, deeply held belief of yours.  Imagine of the government forced you to act and speak in a way contrary to this sacred belief.  As a Mormon, I think of the temple.  What if the federal government forced the LDS Church to have an "open door policy" that prevented the Church from restricting anyone at all from entering the temple?  And if it forced the Church to publicize this new, forced policy?  Whatever your religion, think of an example that applies to you.  Now can you appreciate what this policy means?  And what it portends to the future of our freedoms as Americans?

This is important.  Please spread the word and help protect our freedoms as we vote in this election.

Bath-Salts Biden

Exactly why Joe Biden and the Obama campaign thought that independent/undecided voters would react favorably to Joe's act as a strange, insufferable jerk during the VP debate last night is a mystery to me.

Except for hard core liberal voters who already hold any Republican in contempt, I can't believe that there could have been any positive for Biden-Obama from this other than maybe the idea that by slinging lots of mud it would leave some on the other guy, not just him.  I guess that's something for them.

I thought the debate review from the Wall Street Journal this morning was perceptive.  A few excerpts:

"On nearly every specific issue on which Mr. Biden attacked, he was demonstrably wrong. The Administration's Medicare actuary really does say that 15% of hospitals will take on operating deficits as a result of ObamaCare's cuts in payments to Medicare providers. The American Enterprise Institute study doesn't say that Mr. Romney's plan will raise taxes on the middle class, and Mr. Ryan's Medicare plan doesn't raise costs for seniors by $6,400. Mr. Biden never even tried to offer a second-term agenda.

But this 90 minutes wasn't about an exchange of ideas or a debate over policies. It was a Democratic show of contempt for the opposition, an attempt to claim by repetitive assertion that Messrs. Ryan and Romney are radicals who want to destroy "the middle class." Mr. Ryan's cool under assault was a visual rebuttal of that claim, and we certainly know who looked more presidential."

When Paul Ryan was allowed to deliver more than a sentence or two without an interruption from Biden, he got a great response and high marks.

This debate was not a "game changer" but to the extent it makes a difference, I think it does more harm to Biden-Obama and allows momentum to continue for Romney and Ryan.

POST-DEBATE SNAP POLL RESULTS:

"Michael Barone reports Associated Press had Ryan up 51–43, CNN had Ryan up 48–44, CBS had Biden up 50–31 and CNBC had Ryan up 56–36." 

Romney Domination

Well, that was unexpected.  But maybe it shouldn't have been.  In the first presidential debate last night in Denver, Mitt Romney was everything you would want to see from our next president: he was smart, quick, focused, aggressive but still respectful, he had a command of the issues and the stage; he directly addressed questions but expanded to broader issues, he connected policy to real lives of real people, he showed that he cared.  And he showed that he would have a laser focus on the creation of jobs as his top priority as president - and explained why this is so important to our nation and our ability to get out from under our crushing debt, our ability to help one another, to freely live our lives and our dreams, and to keep our nation strong with a strong national defense.

Obama, in contrast, was defensive, somewhat insecure and even appeared lost at times.  He stared down much of the time and just seemed unhappy to be there, unhappy to be challenged.  It's been said that in the debate he was hurt by having had an uncritical, sycophantic press during his presidency, and I think that's true.  The man is not used to being challenged directly, and it showed.

As I say, maybe this should not have been unexpected.  Romney's command of policy knowledge being both broad and detailed, and his sense of presence and command in debates, are not surprising to me. Obama's style in the past has been giving broad sunny generalizations of his own plans (with few details), and ominous sounding generalizations of his opponent's plans (with few and sketchy details), and without anybody seriously challenging them in a detailed and factual way to show how weak his generalizations are. Put those together, and it should not have been surprising to see Romney effectively poke numerous holes in the picture Obama was trying to paint, and Obama unable to effectively counter and in fact looking irritated and at times a bit overwhelmed.

Tell me this photo doesn't express the outcome of this debate:

Some of my favorite lines from the debate:

"This is obviously a very tender topic. I've had the occasion over the last couple of years of meeting people across the country. I was in Dayton, Ohio, and a woman grabbed my arm, and she said, "I've been out of work since May. Can you help me?"  Ann yesterday was at a rally in Denver, and a woman came up to her with a baby in her arms, and said, "Ann, my husband has had four jobs in three years, part-time jobs. He's lost his most recent job. And we've now just lost our home. Can you help us?"

And the answer is, yes, we can help, but it's going to take a different path, not the one we've been on."  

“My priority is putting people back to work in America,” Romney said during an exchange early in the debate. “They're suffering in this country. And we talk about evidence. Look at the evidence of the last four years. It's absolutely extraordinary. We've got 23 million people out of work or stopped looking for work in this country. When the president took office, 32 million people on food stamps; 47 million on food stamps today; economic growth this year slower than last year, and last year slower than the year before. Going forward with the status quo is not going to cut it for the American people who are struggling today.”

"But don't forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years' worth of breaks, into -- into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tester and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said you don't just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right? So this -- this is not -- this is not the kind of policy you want to have if you want to get America energy secure."

"ROMNEY: In my opinion, the government is not effective in -- in bringing down the cost of almost anything. As a matter of fact, free people and free enterprises trying to find ways to do things better are able to be more effective in bringing down the cost than the government will ever be."

"The role of government: Look behind us. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The role of government is to promote and protect the principles of those documents.

First, life and liberty. We have a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of our people, and that means a military second to none. I do not believe in cutting our military. I believe in maintaining the strength of America's military.

Second, in that line that says we are endowed by our creator with our rights, I believe we must maintain our commitment to religious tolerance and freedom in this country. That statement also says that we are endowed by our creator with the right to pursue happiness as we choose. I interpret that as, one, making sure that those people who are less fortunate and can't care for themselves are cared by -- by one another.

We're a nation that believes that we're all children of the same god and we care for those that have difficulties, those that are elderly and have problems and challenges, those that are disabled. We care for them. And we -- we look for discovery and innovation, all these things desired out of the American heart to provide the pursuit of happiness for our citizens.

But we also believe in maintaining for individuals the right to pursue their dreams and not to have the government substitute itself for the rights of free individuals. And what we're seeing right now is, in my view, a -- a trickle-down government approach, which has government thinking it can do a better job than free people pursuing their dreams. And it's not working."

And...

OBAMA: "Jim, I — you may want to move on to another topic…" 

That kind of sums it up as well.

Watch this Frank Luntze focus group of previously undecided or "softly leaning" voters...it's quite amazing:



Much more to come...the president got hit hard and you have to expect they'll come back in a nasty way. Prepare yourself for the worst.

What Are They Hiding?

When the mainstream media start to question the Obama administration, you know it's bad.  Almost immediately after the attacks on the American embassies in Libya and Egypt and the murder of the American ambassador to Libya, I had a number of questions that I think many people had that we wanted to have answered by the Obama administration and the State Department.  Occurring as the attacks did on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, intuitively many suspected that terrorists were behind these attacks.  There was the possibility - remote to me - that it was not terrorist related, but on 9/11, what were the chances of that?

The Obama administration for days afterward maintained that the attacks were not coordinated or planned by terrorists, even after the public started getting information making that connection.  Why would the administration do this?  What were they trying to accomplish?  The best guess I can come up with so far is that it was apparent early on that the administration was woefully unprepared and inadequate in its security arrangements, that there were serious questions about the administration being inept in not anticipating and being prepared for these attacks.  Which puts a share of the blame for the death of Ambassador Stevens on the administration.  Which looks very bad when Obama is up for reelection.

It's understandable that Obama would want people not to start asking questions and looking deeper, but in knowingly misrepresenting the nature and background of these attacks, he and his administration have shown a willingness to misrepresent to protect the President's reputation.  We've seen that willingness before, and it's a sign to me of the corruption that comes with power.  It's a sign of Obama's narcissism.  It's a sign that we can't truly trust Barack Obama.

Go to this link for CNN's report.
And this piece in the Wall Street Journal.

And discussion from Fox News about it: