Video: Paul Krugman and his audience eerily similar to Jim Jones and HIS audience

This is just plain creepy. It's definitely a softer version of what Jim Jones got the more than 900 people who followed him to commit suicide but it's very similar in two respects. The leader - in this case Krugman - espouses "death panels and higher taxes". The reaction he got was one of laughing approval. Who in their right mind cheers for death and taxes?

No one, which is more than enough evidence that these people are not in their right minds.

It's extremely bizarre to see and hear people cheer or laugh at something that will lead to either their own premature deaths or the premature deaths of their loved ones. It's a macabre form of groupthink and it's exactly what happened when New York Times liberal columnist Paul Krugman told an audience at an historic Synagogue in Washington, D.C. last week exactly that.

Listen not to what Krugman says at about the 2:15 mark but also to how the crowd reacts.

h/t Breitbart:



Here is video of Rep. Leo Ryan (D) in Jonestown the night before more than 900 followers of Jim Jones ended their lives. Note how loudly the crowd cheers when Ryan states people in the cult think it's the "best thing that ever happened to them in their whole life".

One day later, Ryan was shot dead by Jones' thugs and all of the people who cheered, took their own lives. Is that something to cheer about?



Think it's a stretch? Do you remember the reaction Robert Reich got when, in 2007, he advocated death panels and higher health care costs while speaking at Berkeley?  In fact, the laughter Reich elicited was even more pronounced than what Krugman got. The students cheered the premature deaths of their parents as well as a future in which they would live fewer years as well.



Three weeks before Rep. Ryan showed up in Guyana in 1978, the people held a vote - led by Jones - in which they unanimously voted to commit suicide. How is what Krugman and Reich have advocated any different?

Oh, and another similarity... Jones ingratiated himself with Democrats.

Relevant portion starts at the 4:40 mark

**CONTENT WARNING**

'Duh' Video of the day: Bart Stupak wakes up over two years too late

Further proof that former Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) - a supposed 'pro-life' Democrat - knew he was wrong when he caved to Obama by accepting an Executive Order that was supposed to prevent abortions being covered by Obamacare. Every clear-thinking American knew that Stupak chose to save face over standing on principle.

Now, thanks to Red State, Stupak is captured on video at the Democratic National Convention, essentially conceding that the Executive Order is useless. While he doesn't go so far as saying so, it's clearly the consequence of his actions when the 'Stupak 12' agreed to vote yes on Obamacare as a direct result of that Executive Order, which Stupak says now that Obama isn't honoring.

Well, duh! That WAS the common refrain from the Tea Party at the time.

More than two years later, Stupak is no longer in Congress and he's a step closer to admitting he was wrong. Once he goes all the way, maybe he'll switch parties but don't hold your breath.

Via Red State:



For more background on what Stupak did to get Obamacare over the hump, go here, here, and here.

This is for you, Mr. Stupak:

Is the IRS that 'Civilian National Security Force' Obama talked about?

As cuts to the military mount, the ranks of the IRS are increasing. Could the IRS be that 'Civilian National Security Force' that Obama talked about on the 2008 campaign trail?

Maine's Governor Paul LePage seems to think it might be.

Via Maine Sunday Telegram:

Gov. Paul LePage used his weekly radio address to blast President Obama's health care law and described the Internal Revenue Service as the "new Gestapo."

"We the people have been told there is no choice," he said. "You must buy health insurance or pay the new Gestapo -- the IRS."

Many people saw that and wondered what exactly Obama meant. Regardless of where you stand, we're getting closer to finding out.



h/t WZ

Harry Reid 'Proud' of Justice Judas Roberts

We'll probably never learn exactly what happened and why John Roberts changed his ruling on Obamacare but one thing is for certain. If he has a conscience at all, he's lying to himself in order to sleep at night. Considering the Democratic Party has been infiltrated by communists, it's going to be pretty hard for Roberts to rationalize this latest bit of news away.

Harry Reid is 'proud' of him.

Via the Hill:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he's proud of Chief Justice John Roberts for his ruling on the healthcare reform law and plans to call him soon.

Roberts joined the four liberal justices on the high court in upholding virtually the entire healthcare law. The 5-4 decision preserved the individual mandate to have insurance, which had been the primary target of conservatives who challenged the law in court.

"Roberts  — that was a very strong opinion, and frankly I'm going to call him when I have an opportunity because I'm very proud of what he did," Reid said in an interview Thursday with Nevada radio station KNPR.

When lawless Democrats are proud of you, it's a double negative and shame is what you should feel.

It's like a mob boss telling you, 'good job'.

Which should keep you up at night.

Video: Romney's Eric 'Etch-a-Sketch' Fehrnstrom sides with Obama

Here is Exhibit A for why the liberal media wanted Mitt Romney to be the Republican nominee. They knew the day would come when camp Romney would be incoherent when it came to drawing a contrast between Obamacare and Romneycare. Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom of etch-a-sketch fame appeared on MSNBC and told Chuck Todd that the Individual Mandate is a penalty and not a tax. In essence, the mouthpiece for Mitt Romney agrees with Obama.

The main reason Romney is now in a box is because he referred to the individual mandate in Romneycare as a penalty. The result here is that camp Romney now agrees with camp Obama.

The only thing missing from this clip is some accompanying circus music.

Via GWP: 

Was Justice John Roberts 'Stupak-ed'?

Can we enter a new word into the Dictionary? "Stupak" is not just the last name of a former Democratic Congressman from Michigan; it should also be a verb that means to intimidate someone until they bend to your will.

To be "Stupak-ed" is to be intimidated to such a degree that you will do whatever the bully wants and then lie to yourself and to others about it being the right thing do do, despite all evidence to the contrary. Few people have the cowardly lion experience of having to admit what they are; far too few. A lot of people have been stupak-ed along the yellow-brick road to Obamacare OZ. Was Supreme Court Justice John Roberts the latest one?

In late 2009, the 'Cornhusker kickback' secured the vote of Democratic Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska for Obamacare. The 'Louisiana Purchase' did the same with Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu. Despite these deals being nothing short of bald-faced bribery, both Senators stood by them. Nelson became a pariah in his state and announced he would not seek reelection but still expresses no regret for what would be illegal in a sane world. Landrieu isn't up for reelection until 2014 but voters are not likely to forget her betrayal either. Like Nelson, Landrieu has no regrets, despite indications that her "purchase" may have resulted in her - and the country - being sold down the river.

The Democrats thought they had the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster on Obamacare.

That was before the unexpected victory of Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts in early 2010 after Ted Kennedy died the previous August. Brown pledged to be the 41st vote for Republicans and not the 60th vote for the Democrats. It was supposed to block the passage of Obamacare because Brown took away the Democrats' filibuster-proof majority. Democrats didn't care about that. They went around the rules and sought passage through reconciliation, which only requires 51 votes in the Senate.

Initially, Pelosi didn't have the votes she needed in the House to pass the bill. Enter Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI). He led a group of a dozen 'pro-life' Democrats who were preventing the bill's passage because there were strong indicators that the bill would fund abortions. His group was targeted by the liberal media, Pelosi, and other Obama apparatchiks. Unrelenting pressure was applied. Caving would equal cowardice.

Ultimately, Stupak cracked and signed onto the legislation but he needed an out.  His 'out' came in the form of a ludicrous Executive Order signed by Obama that said no part of Obamacare would fund abortions. It was meant to save face for Stupak but the premise was so absurd, his cowardice was obvious. He may as well have been holding a deed to oceanfront property in Arizona. It was proof positive that looking foolish was preferable to looking cowardly. A mere four months after passage of Obamacare, abortion-funding was obvious. That's to say nothing of the HHS mandate that came down the pike two years later that required Catholic insurance providers to pay for contraception and abortifacients.

Though Stupak had no chance of being reelected, he still stands by his decision, supports the law, and expresses no remorse for his betrayal. Perhaps he simply can't face the truth of what he did because of the gravity of it (see Judas Iscariot). The human mind can block that which is too painful to bear. Either way, Stupak is in denial. The facts dictate it.

Two years after Stupak washed his hands in the blood of future Americans, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts seemed to follow a similar path. Credible reports continue to mount that Roberts initially sided with the four Justices who were prepared to throw out the Individual Mandate at the heart of Obamacare, which essentially, would have thrown out Obamacare itself, particularly because there was no severability clause in the law (likely a consequence of using reconciliation to pass it).

Roberts' decision was about as absurd as Stupak's reliance on an Executive Order to trump a law supported by the man who signed the EO. Roberts ruled that while the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional, it IS constitutional as a tax. There is a small problem with that ruling. It's not what the law says. The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court wrote law from the bench, which is a violation of his oath; it was a betrayal.

CBS Political analyst Jan Crawford claimed two sources told her that Roberts changed his vote. As was the case with Stupak, there were indicators that Roberts succumbed to pressure and threats in both the media and from politicians.

In the case of Stupak, the absurdity of the deal he took necessarily means he caved to pressure and had to lie to himself to believe otherwise.

In the case of Roberts, the absurdity of the ruling he rendered necessarily means he must lie to himself to believe otherwise as well.

One question that remains is...

Was Roberts 'Stupak-ed'?

Justice John Roberts: Genius or Judas?

U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) is now saying there are legitimate indicators that Supreme Court Justice John Roberts changed his decision on Obamacare.

Via Philip Klein (h/t Hot Air) at the Washington Examiner:

What happened?

“I don’t know,” Lee said in a telephone interview. “I didn’t see this coming. I confer with a lot of Supreme Court watchers, liberal and conservative alike and nobody saw this coming, this particular outcome. This is not what I expected, not what I wanted, but it happened.”

I asked Lee about speculation that the joint dissent filed by Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas and Alito – which argued for invalidating all of Obamacare – was originally drafted as the majority opinion. Among other things, the dissent spends much of the time attacking the government’s arguments, as well as a dissent from Ginsburg, and only passingly refers to the actual majority opinion. This has been seen by some as a strong indication that Roberts may have changed his vote.

“I noticed the same thing,” Lee said. “Although I don’t know exactly what happened within the Court, these are the kinds of signals you tend to see when something like that does happen. It made no sense to me that the dissent referred repeatedly to the ‘Ginsburg dissent’ instead of the ‘Ginsburg concurring opinion,’ for example. And it was written like it was expected to be a majority opinion. And although I don’t know exactly what happened there, that is the sort of thing you tend to see when somebody switches their vote.”

Lee went on to say that he believed the Obama administration did attempt to influence Roberts but stopped short of speculating on whether it did. If, in fact, the decision was leaked back to Obama, odds are good that Kagan would have been the most likely to do it.

All that aside, if Roberts was intimidated in any way, he has no business being on the bench and should be impeached (which will not happen). If he was not intimidated, he wrote law from the bench. That's really the bottom line here.

Frankly, I'm tired of reading the illogic of George Will and Charles Krauthammer when it comes to the decision rendered by Roberts when it comes to the Obamacare decision. The Individual Mandate was sold by the administration as something that was absolutely not a tax; it was a penalty. The legislation itself said the same thing.

Yet, we're supposed to buy the argument that Roberts made some grand political calculation and ruled that the law stands but that the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional. How'd he do that? Well, he ruled the Mandate is a tax which, by the way, is the kind of tax that's not permitted by the Constitution. It's certainly not covered under the Sixteenth Amendment (h/t Barrackaid #34).

To those who think Roberts' decision was a stroke of genius... Supreme Court Justices are strictly prohibited from issuing rulings based on political calculations or some grand strategy akin to a chess move no one saw coming that puts the other side in checkmate. Roberts isn't supposed to play chess; he's supposed to uphold the Constitution, devoid of any political calculations whatsoever.

In short, even if the decision was politically calculated, it was a violation of his oath to issue a ruling on those grounds.

I'm afraid Justice Roberts moved the United States one step closer to soft genocide.

That sounds like a stroke of Judas, not genius.

**UPDATE** Well, via NewsBusters, while on Face the Nation, CBS political consultant claimed that she had sources who told her that Roberts changed his mind after initially deciding to rule against Obamacare. It shouldn't be overlooked that the Obama administration did attempt to intimidate Roberts. If anything, if Roberts were truly courageous, any attempts to intimidate him should have been met with even firmer resolve.

If he changed his decision, that's not what happened.

Video: Obama Chief of Staff latest to channel Jim Carrey's 'Dick' Character

The premise is simple. Obama Chief of Staff Jack Lew was carted out onto the Sunday shows to do the best he could to explain the contradiction between what the administration has said all along - that the Individual Mandate in Obamacare is not a tax - and what the Supreme Court ruling said it was - a tax.

Watch as Lew attempts to twist himself into a pretzel by insisting that the Court did not rule the Mandate a tax despite the fact that the man who wrote the majority opinion - John Roberts - said it was. Stick with this video though because Chris Wallace lowers the boom at around the 3:00 mark when he actually plays audio of the White House attorney during oral arguments in the case.

Hint: the White House Attorney said it was a tax.

Via GWP:



The latest Obama administration member to channel Jim Carrey in this scene.

Congratulations, Jack Lew, you're it.

Obama Lied... Again; Individual Mandate ruled a Tax; Chief Justice 'Judas' betrays Constitution

Barack Obama lied... again, this time about the Individual Mandate not being a tax. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, who sided with the four professed liberals on the court, has gone to absurdly extreme lengths to make sure the law was upheld. The Individual Mandate was ruled unconstitutional as a penalty or mandate but Roberts decided to rule it constitutional as a tax, something Obama insisted it was not.

Here is Obama with George Stephanopolous on September 20, 2009 telling America that the Individual Mandate was NOT a tax.



That all changed when the legal argument from the Obama administration in front of the Supreme Court was that the mandate should be upheld because it is a tax. Translation: Obama lied... again.



As for Justice John 'Judas' Roberts...

The issue of severability was at the heart of the decision of U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson last year. Quite simply, the severability clause allows a law to stand if parts of it are thrown out. Obamacare did NOT have a severability clause. Vinson found the Individual Mandate unconstitutional and consequently ruled that the entire law had to be thrown out.

Roberts twisted himself into a pretzel to arrive at his decision today. Instead of ruling the Individual Mandate unconstitutional, which would require the law to be thrown out because it has no severability clause, Roberts ruled the Mandate unconstitutional under the commerce clause but found it constitutional as a tax, which the Obama administration argued it was not.

Chief Justice Roberts has just betrayed his nation.

**UPDATE** As Weasel Zippers points out, the White House website still has a post on the site, authored by Jason Furman, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Principal Deputy Director of the National Economic Council. Note the screen shot, taken today. The White House position is that the Individual Mandate is NOT a tax, though Obama still gets what he wants despite Roberts' disagreeing with him on what the Mandate is:

Obama in 2011: Executive Order Amnesty Illegal

I'm far more often than not, in agreement with the conservative activists who were at Right Online this weekend, but not this time. Apparently, a consensus among the group was that the Daily Caller's Neil Munro was wrong in challenging Obama at the rose garden as the president's announcement that an Executive Order had been signed to grant amnesty to 2-3 million illegal aliens.

Even if it were conceded that Munro was rightfully chastised, the offense committed by Obama is so much worse that Munro's actions should have been rendered insignificant. In my view, they're warranted. As I've said before, at some point, Obama's actions need to be seen as provoking these responses. The president blatantly lies and breaks the law while the story is how others don't respect the office of the presidency?!

Recap: On September 9, 2009, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouts, 'You Lie' at Obama during a joint session of Congress, after Obama said Obamacare would not apply to illegal aliens. In March, 2011, Obama told Univision's Jorge Ramos that using Executive Orders to grant amnesty to illegal aliens was against the law. On June 15, Obama signed the Executive Order he admitted over a year earlier, was illegal for him to sign.

Let's also not forget that when Obama granted amnesty on June 15th, Joe Wilson was shown to be right.

Yet, Neil Munro is the bad guy?

Here's video of Obama in 2011 saying that what he did in 2012 would be illegal.

Via Freedom's Lighthouse:

POLITICO Reporter: Daily Caller's Munro is a Raciss for Interrupting Obama

The latest from the left wing bunch that insists on operating from a premise that says if you disagree with Barack Obama, you must be a racist. On a day when Obama announced he was breaking the law to grant amnesty to 2 - 3 million illegal immigrants by going around Congress to do it, the Daily Caller's Neil Munro attempted to get Obama to answer questions about how his Executive Order will impact working Americans.

Later in the day, MSNBC's Michael Eric Dyson, who happens to be black, kicked off his interview with POLITICO reporter Joe Williams, who is also black, by referring to him as "Brother Joe." The two then pushed the narrative that Neil Munro must be racist for interrupting Obama on a day that the president broke the law.

Which is the worse infraction?

Williams and Dyson point to the previous incidents of when Joe Wilson shouted, 'You Lie' to Obama during a Joint Session of Congress and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer waving her finger at Obama on the tarmac. Aside from the ironic reality that Obama's actions today, validate Joe Wilson's words in 2009, Brewer is rightfully frustrated with Obama, not based on skin color but based on the fact that he's meddling in her state's business and suing her. Translation: If you're sued by someone who is black and don't take it lying down, you're a racist.

In the 'Heads I win, tails you lose' world of the liberal media, challenging the first black president is far worse because it necessarily means YOU'RE racist, regardless of HIS actions.

Speaking of Obama's actions, in addition to his illegal run around Congress, he's also a confirmed liar when it comes to his denial in 2008 of never being a member of the Socialist New Party.

Pointing these things out, however, could get you branded a racist. At what point do race-baiters take their rightful place as the true racists?

Via NewsBusters:



Since Williams brought up the Joe Wilson incident, have a look at it. Note, that Obama said Obamacare would not apply to those in the country illegally. Wilson responded with, 'You Lie.' Yesterday, Obama announced amnesty for 2-3 Million illegals. Any guesses as to who will pay for their health care?

Newsflash to Dyson and Williams: When people are lied to constantly, they generally don't like it, regardless of what color the liar happens to be. Again, Obama is a L-I-A-R. The New Party flap proves it.



RINO Senator John McCain, whose past words and stances seem to come back to haunt him every time Obama shows who he really is, demanded Wilson apologize at the time. Perhaps it's time for McCain to call up Wilson and apologize to him.



Here is the Daily Caller's Neil Munro with Nicholas Ballasy, explaining what happened from his perspective. Note how Munro admits that he perhaps asked his question too soon because he thought Obama was done speaking. There hasn't been one scintilla of even a faint admission of wrongdoing from the other side:

Catholic Bishops hitting the Streets over Contraception, in June

Catholic Bishops penned strong letters expressing their disapproval of Obama's HHS contraception mandate earlier this year. Though there has been a consistent murmur of disagreement since, there has been little action. That is all set to change on June 21st, as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will be taking their righteous anger to the streets.

Via Newsmax:

The protests, dubbed “A Fortnight for Freedom” will be an “unprecedented, aggressive attack” against policies that church leaders see as an assault on religious freedom, said Catholic Advocate chairman Deal Hudson.

“The bishops are seeing – rightly – a pattern of emerging of hostility towards the Catholic faith for upholding protection of the life of the unborn and because of its position on contraception,” said Hudson.

And Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League pointed out to Newsmax that the protests will come around the time the Supreme Court issues its judgment on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Unless the justices throw the act out completely, the protests could not be timed better, he said.

“If the individual mandate falls and the rest stands it will be more important than ever for Catholics to step forward and get involved,” said Donohue. “We will have to make the point that we are not going anywhere.”

Donohue said the mandate to make insurance companies cover not only contraceptives but abortion-inducing drugs is the key, he said. “It was done on purpose as a wedge to open the door. If we don’t fight it the next step is to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortion facilities,” he said.

“The idea that I as a Catholic should have to pay for some woman’s abortion makes me want to reach for the vomit bag.”

Donohue praised the bishops for their proactive stance “if for no other reason than to make the point that they are furious,” he said.

“Over the years there have been times when the resolve of the bishops wasn’t quite what we wanted it to be. Today that resolve is extremely strong,” he said.

The two weeks of protest has been called by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “That is not the type of body that goes out of its way to pick a fight,” Catholic Advocate’s Hudson pointed out.

“That is precisely what makes this so unusual a moment. The bishops have been provoked to such a degree that they will go to this extreme. They would prefer quiet negotiations leading to a principled compromise, instead they are talking about the probability of civil disobedience.”

The article goes on to make the point that Catholic Bishops in robes being put in handcuffs all across the country would be an extremely powerful visual for Obama to have to deal with. OWS'rs love to portray themselves as victims of overzealous police officers; it's why they're so provocative. That said, their tactics have grown tiresome.

If you're Catholic, call your priest or Bishop and ask about how they're participating.

Read it all.

Video: CNN's Jeffrey Toobin gives wrap-up Assessment of Obamacare Arguments at SCOTUS

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin has been the network's go-to guy after each of the three days of legal arguments on Obamacare in front of the Supreme Court. Every time they've gotten his take, he said it was either a "train wreck" or a "plane wreck" for the Obama administration. Before you take heart, remember, it IS CNN. That said, he REALLY went out on a limb if he was trying to make it look worse than it was.

The lynchpin of the law - the individual mandate - is all but gone, according to Toobin. He's even saying that scrapping the entire law is a possibility for two reasons. One, the individual mandate is the lynchpin and two, there is no severability clause in the law.

Here is Toobin after the final day of arguments. He does a very good job of explaining what happens now. Each of the nine Justices will vote on Friday so they will all know how this is likely going to go before the weekend. We won't know until the end of June.



h/t Hapblog

De-Coding David Axelrod's Quickly Deleted Mormon tweet

Earlier this week, the Atlantic posted a story about a tweet Obama strategist David Axelrod sent out but very quickly deleted. Did Axelrod mean to send this to a private network and inadvertently broadcast it, ala Anthony Weiner? Hard to say but if it was, it could have told us quite a bit about a strategy of the Obama campaign if Romney is the nominee. The tweet said, "Wring URS. This is the Medicare story." The tweet included a link to a story in the Salt Lake Tribune about menstruating women not being permitted to participate in proxy baptisms, a practice in which deceased non-Mormons are baptized through the baptism of a living Mormon. This fact alone demonstrates that the Obama campaign team is very aware of the practice and is almost certain to encourage the mainstream media to make it an issue if Romney is the Republicans' guy.

The Tribune article is tailor-made for a left wing campaign to keep the "war on women" narrative going if Romney is the nominee as well. By focusing on young women being treated unequally in this case, Axelrod would be able to subtly introduce the bizarre practice of posthumous baptisms while laying the groundwork for another narrative - Mormonism discriminates against women. Romney will eventually have to respond to both, which would be very damaging.

The tweet is a bit cryptic but let's start with the first word, "wring." In every definition, that word carries a negative connotation. Various meanings include, "to twist forcibly," and "to extract or expel by twisting or compression," and "to affect painfully by or as if by some contorting or compressing action."

That leads us to the less discernible and apparent acronym, "URS." Consider the components included in the administration's narrative about the fallacious "war on women" which has included free access to contraception as a central component. That narrative includes "reproductive rights," religion, and health care. Discrimination, while not a central issue there, was certainly implied. Not allowing women to participate in a religious ritual because of menstruation is easily proven to be discriminatory; it also makes pushing a new false narrative, based on that provable fact, much easier.

If "URS" stands for Utah Retirement Systems, Axelrod was referring to an entity that provides benefits to both active and retired Utah public employees. URS also offers a Medicare supplemental plan. If a reality can be manufactured that says URS discriminates against women, would it not be easier to "wring" more benefits out of them?

Though hypothetical, imagine a premise originating with Axelrod that says Mormons discriminate against young women in their baptismal rituals; they consider menstruating women as "unclean." Based on that premise, a logical question can be asked:

"If Mormons discriminate against young women, would they not discriminate against elderly women?"

Taking the next step, one of Axelrod's apparatchiks could float something like:

"If Mormons discriminate against women, is there any Mormon influence on URS?"

Even if the answer to that question is no, when has lying stopped the Democrats? Planting the seed that there is Mormon influence on an entity in the state with the highest Mormon population per capita wouldn't be difficult to do. Democrat operatives would only have to find one example that could be easily exploited based on prohibiting young women from taking part in proxy baptisms. Democrats could then start saying things like:

"Mormons are waging a war against women in both the temples and in the hospitals."

Remember, it doesn't have to be true, just effective. It also calls attention to the Mormon practice that has seen the posthumous baptisms of Adolf Hitler, Anne Frank, Daniel Pearl, and hundreds of thousands of Holocaust victims while appearing to draw attention solely to the issue of women's rights. Additionally, Romney can be identified by the left as someone who practices a sexist religion.

Look, there are three viable candidates in the Republican primary at this point - Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich. The latter two are Catholic and the recent rule from the HHS mandating that Catholic employers must include contraception in their insurance plans for employees was a direct assault on the religion of both Santorum and Gingrich. The subsequent Sandra Fluke controversy highlighted the issue further. So, if the administration is willing to attack Catholicism directly, why would it not be willing to go after the religion of the frontrunner - Mitt Romney?

Here is an excerpt from the Tribune article Axelrod tweeted a link to. Notice the first two words (music to the left's ears):

Mormon feminists recently learned that some young women were wrongly blocked from doing LDS proxy baptisms – which include wearing all-white clothing and being fully immersed in water – because they were menstruating.

Though this was not a consistent prohibition, the women had anecdotal evidence that it was happening in some Mormon temples, including several in Utah.

Trouble is, such a ban is bogus. If temple workers are excluding young women from doing baptismal work while having their periods, church spokesman Scott Trotter said, they are not following LDS policy.

“Performing baptisms in church temples is a sacred ordinance open to all members who are at least 12 years of age and who meet the standards of the church,” Trotter said in a statement. “The decision of whether or not to participate in baptisms during a menstrual cycle is personal and left up to the individual.”

The New York Times has already reported that Romney doesn't want his religion to become an issue in the campaign and declined to offer comment for the story when the Times approached him about it. This could be a way for Axelrod to draw attention to both Romney's religion, which includes an unusual practice (posthumous baptisms), while doing so under the guise of highlighting the fallacious "war on women" meme, which leads back to Axelrod's original tweet.

Commenter "Fuzzy" at Legal Insurrection seems to think "URS" stands for Utah Retirement Systems as well.

Romney told Obama to support Individual Mandate... in 2009

One of the biggest red flags here is the fact that Mitt Romney's 2009 Op-ed for the USA Today is now unavailable, except for approximately the first half of it on the Wayback Machine internet archive. Thanks to Buzzfeed, we now have access to it and it ain't kind to Governor Romney's current position about Obamacare being unconstitutional. The piece was practically written as an advice column to Barack Obama.

That advice?

Well, embrace the most unconstitutional part of Obamacare; embrace the individual mandate.

Here's the relevant excerpt of Romney's piece, h/t Red State:

Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.

Again, the single most defining issue of Barack Obama's agenda in his first term was Obamacare. Romney's debate quiver will be out of arrows on this issue. Not only was his state's health care plan the blueprint for Obamacare but whenever the issue comes up, Obama will be able to snarkily say, "Tell me again, Mitt, why is my health care law unconstitutional?" Regardless of Mitt's answer, Obama can whip out the aforementioned paragraph each time Romney attempts to say it's unconstitutional. If Mitt stands by the position, Obama will be able to assert that Romneycare is unconstitutional, save for the tenth amendment argument.

Even then, Romney advocated Obama go against the Constitution... in 2009 (assuming his position now is that Obamacare is unconstitutional).

As the proverbial cherry on top, check out this montage of Mitt Romney over the last few years. Stick with it though and take note of how he says during a 2008 campaign debate that he supports mandates. Then candidate Fred Thompson calls Romney on it and said, "I didn't think you'd admit that."

h/t Hot Air:

Video: Democrat says "We're not looking at the Constitution..." on Contraception Mandate

I'd say that this is unprecedented but it's really not. However, it does peel back another layer of the hidden Democratic agenda. Back in April of 2010, Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL) told Adam Sharp of Sharp Elbows that he "doesn't worry about the Constitution" during a town hall meeting at which he defended Obamacare.

Fast forward to just this week at another town hall. This time, the speaker is Rep. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) and the subject is the HHS mandate that says religious providers must offer insurance to its employees that covers contraception. While Obamacare was primarily about the Individual mandate relative to the commerce clause, this mandate has to do with the very first amendment to the constitution. When Hochul was called on it, she had the same response as Hare.

Via Freedom's Lighthouse:



For grins, here is then Rep. Phil Hare in April of 2010:

Time for Catholic Church to Excommunicate Pelosi?

Perhaps it's time for the Catholic Church to do something bold, like excommunicate Nancy Pelosi. While speaking at Texas A&M, Pelosi poked her finger in the chest of the Catholic Church by twisting the entire HHS contraception mandate around and blaming the Church for not "enforcing" its teaching on contraception.

The argument from Pelosi is that since 98% of Catholic women use contraception and that, as a result, the Catholic Church should shut up and pay for it because it hasn't been effective at preventing its use. First of all, if there's one thing that has been proven over and over and over again, it's that Democrats lie when quoting statistics so I don't believe her 98% figure at all (remember when the Obama administration's claim that 90% of the guns used in crimes in Mexico came from the United States?).

Second, if the Catholic Church was "enforcing" its teaching on contraception, Pelosi would be acting like a caged animal, throwing hay up in the air about it. If you've ever wondered what a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument is, this is it.

Nonetheless, if Pelosi wants to play hardball with the Catholic Church by saying it should shut up and pay for its employees' contraceptives because it hasn't enforced its own teachings, I can think of no better response from the Church than to say, "You know what, Nancy? You're right. We haven't been enforcing our own teachings and we're going to change that today, starting with you. We are hereby excommunicating you from the Catholic Church because of your position on abortion."

Via CNS News:

Video: Obama OMB Director makes Big Gaffe

It's been a rough week for Barack Obama's OMB Acting Director Jeffrey Zeints. It began when Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) made him look foolish after Zeints wouldn't answer a very basic question.

A day later, Zeints was in front of the House Budget Committee and actually torpedoed a central component in the argument of Obama's Justice Department in defense of Obamacare's individual mandate. First, the argument is that portion of the law that allows the government to fine anyone who doesn't purchase health insurance is rooted in the government's taxing authority.

Via National Law Review, h/t Hot Air:

The minimum coverage provision is independently authorized by Congress’ taxing power. The DOJ argues that the provision operates as a tax law, and the validity of an assessment under Congress’ taxing power does not depend on whether it is denominated a tax.

Yet, while being questioned by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Zeints responded to a question about whether the fine was a tax by saying it wasn't.

Busted. Not that it matters, though. This administration has absolutely no problem with doing whatever it wants while lying all along the way.



h/t Washington Examiner

Three Years Later, Notre Dame finally gets it

If you remember the controversy in the spring of 2009 involving Barack Obama being invited to give the Notre Dame commencement speech, you might remember the ND88. It was a group of pro-life supporters, which included a priest, who were arrested on the orders of the University's president, John Jenkins for peacefully praying in protest on school property over Obama's invite.

In a classic "oops" moment, prominent members of the Notre Dame faculty are now speaking out against the contraceptive mandate, essentially vindicating the ND88. The signature of the man whose name should be at the very top of the signatory list - Jenkins - is conspicuously absent, however.

Via CNS News:

Twenty-five Notre Dame faculty members--led by the university’s top ethics expert, and including some of the school’s most eminent scholars--have signed a statement declaring that President Barack Obama’s latest version of his administration’s mandate that all health insurance plans in the United States must cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions, is “a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand."

The statement—put out on the letterhead of the University of Notre Dame Law School--is also signed by leading scholars from other major American colleges and universities, including Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, Georgetown, Brigham Young, Yeshiva and Wheaton College.

Prof. Carter Snead, a professor of law at Notre Dame, was one of the lead organizers of the statement, which was published on his official law school letterhead. Notre Dame's top ethics expert, Snead serves as director of the university's Center for Ethics and Culture, a position to which he was appointed by Father John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame.

Ironically, Jenkins also awarded Obama an honorary law degree. Now, Obama is essentially going around Congress to tell universities like Notre Dame they must violate their consciences, which means he has no respect for the law, the first amendment in particular.

When Obama received his honorary degree at Notre Dame's May 17, 2009, commencement, he vowed to respect the conscience rights of those who believe abortion is wrong. 

“Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women,” said Obama. “Those are things we can do.”

Once again, another provable lie.

HERE is a copy of the statement.

Senator 'Cornhusker Kickback' calls Obama Contraceptive Mandate 'Boneheaded'

Well, Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) has now chimed in on the contraceptive mandate controversy and has settled on calling the Obama administration's decision 'boneheaded.' He's also not the only Democrat to come out publicly against the decision.

Via ABC News:

A handful of Senate Democrats have split with President Obama’s controversial birth-control mandate and slammed the administration’s requirement that church-affiliated employers cover contraceptives.

The five Democrats in the Senate expressing concern about some parts of the administration’s policy include, most recently, Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bill Nelson of Florida, who have spoken publicly about their unhappiness with the mandate.

“This was a bone-headed decision by HHS,” Sen. Ben Nelson said of the new Health and Human Services mandates, according to the Nebraska Radio Network.

Nelson agreed with state Attorney General Job Bruning’s decision to file a legal challenge to the mandate.

Nelson has already announced that he will not run for reelection so these comments can't be about trying to get back voter support after the 'Cornhusker kickback.'

Like former Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), Nelson was the guy in his caucus that put Obamacare over the top. Also like Stupak, he paid a price.

Calling the latest HHS rule 'boneheaded' is likely more about bitterness than anything else.

h/t Weasel Zippers