Next Generation - Allen West - High School Senior Fights and Wins - Battle to Bring Santorum to His School

Langston Bowens is a high school senior at Grosse Pointe South in Michigan, and helped arrange for Sen. Rick Santorum to speak at his school. But a funny thing happened after the speech was announced: School district officials changed their minds and cancelled the event.

The story may have ended there, but Langston Bowens refused to be bullied by officials he felt objected to the speech based on their own, personal beliefs, so he took a stand. Col. Allen West sat down with Langston at the Reagan Center library in Santa Barbara to find out how he was able to challenge the system...and win.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Rep. Paul Ryan - Obama Has No Plan for Debt Crisis

Apr 10, 2012 FBN’s David Asman with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), who weighs in on Rick Santorum’s withdrawing from the 2012 election, and the Republican plan for the budget and economy.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Doug Giles - Stick a Fork in Santorum... He's Done

I think the fog of the campaign war is getting to Santorum because he said last Thursday in San Antone that there is “little difference” between Romney and Obama, and we might as well stick with Barack. “Little” my skinny white backside! Dial down, Richard. I think Santorum should have stayed down in Puerto Rico for an extra couple days of R&R to gain his composure because the disparity betwixt Mitt & B. Hussein is humongous.

Now, for the record I’m not a Romney cheerleader; I voted for Newt in the Florida primary, hoping against hope that maybe, just maybe, we’d get to see Gingrich dust Obama in the presidential debates. But alas, that ain’t going to happen.

That said, if Rick were to get the nod (which he probably won’t), I would vote for him versus BHO any ol’ day. For that matter, if my uncle Slappy Giles, who sells moon crickets and Chattahoochee jig worms down by Harper’s Swamp, were the GOP’s pick, I’d vote for that toothless, brainless bastard because I know he at least digs America and that for which she stands. Obama? Let’s just say I’m getting a different read.

Now, before the Santorumites queue up to send me their hate mail, do you really, really think there’s very little difference between Romney and Obama?

Look, I get it. BHO will bash Mitt for his Romneycare hypocrisy. And I know Mitt, heretofore, changed his political mind every two years. And like the Visa Card, historically he has been everywhere you want him to be. But to say that he’s the same as Obama is like saying getting kicked in the nuts by a two-year-old is the same as getting kicked in the nuts by Chuck Norris. Yes, our boys might get pummeled, but there is a huge difference in the extent and depth of pain and damage delivered by a Chuck versus a child, capice?

For instance, do you guys who buy this “little difference” nonsense think that Romney will bypass Congress and give Egypt’s bat crap crazy America/Israel-hating Muslim Brotherhood $1.5 billion for their demented military? I don’t.

Also, I don’t think Mitt is going to get endorsements from Hamas, various and ubiquitous communist parties at home and abroad, nor from Hollywood and their America-loathing lovelies. Nor do I believe Romney would run up our debt and destabilize our economy like BHO has purposely done.

Here’s the difference, at least to me, between Mitt and Barack: Obama is a disaster with the caps lock ON. Romney, I believe—and so did Santorum in 2008—will be a true relief from the socialism BHO’s been trying to saddle us with these last three debt-addled years. However, if it turns out that Mitt, too, should suck, I will dare to predict that what he’ll do in the White House will suck less than the subterranean suckiness that we are dealing with now. What do you think, Dinky?

In summation, I’m in agreement with the late Andrew Breitbart, who told me last February at CPAC at the hotel bar that he is for “anybody but Obama!”

*Check out my new video—Wisdom from Doug: Skinny Jeans.

Doug Giles

Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Star Parker - Republican Race Just Getting Started

Mitt Romney told Fox News after Rick Santorum’s victories in the Alabama and Mississippi primaries, “We’re not going to go to a brokered convention.”

But those who put their money where their mouth is, buying contracts on the Intrade.com online prediction market, assess the picture much differently from Romney. The latest Intrade.com probability that the Republican nominee will be selected in a brokered convention is 21.5 percent. This same probability stood at 5 percent a month and a half ago.

Ed Rollins, veteran presidential campaign manager and consultant, who ran President Reagan’s landslide 1984 victory, wrote after Alabama and Mississippi, “It’s now clear, it’s a fight all the way…We haven’t picked half the delegates yet and there is no inevitable winner.”

It’s significant that there is so much talk about a brokered convention when the current primary system is designed to avoid exactly that and when it hasn’t occurred in years.

Perhaps the question worth re-asking is why Romney, well into his second presidential campaign, with financial resources many orders of magnitude greater than either of his opponents, remains so weak.

Three major trends are worth noting, all of which are unflattering to the Romney candidacy.

One, within the Republican Party itself, the party has become more conservative over the last decade.

In a Gallup poll in 2000, 62 percent of Republicans self identified as conservative. By 2011, this was up to 71 percent.

So, in his own party, Romney’s tepid conservative credentials hurt him.

Despite this, what seems to be sustaining his candidacy, beyond his prodigious financial resources, is a notion that a more moderate Republican candidate will do better in the general election against Barack Obama.

But this is also a dubious assumption considering two other trends.

First, independent voters have also become more conservative over the last decade. In 2000, 29 percent of independents self identified as conservative. By 2011, this was up to 35 percent.

Second, the number of voters identifying as independent is now at an all time high of 40 percent.

Gallup explains this surge in growth in independents as “record levels of distrust in government” and “unfavorable views of both parties.”

So over the last decade, voters overall have become more conservative and more sensitized to looking for authenticity in a candidate.

Romney comes up short on both counts. His conservative credentials are easily questioned.

And at a time when voters put a premium on authenticity, a candidate like Romney, who comes off as the political equivalent to the 1997 Aqua song “I’m a Barbie Girl, in the Barbie World, Life in Plastic, It’s Fantastic,” doesn’t sell well.

The attempt to offset all this with the claim that, as a successful businessman he knows how to fix the economy and restore prosperity, also stands on feet of clay.

President Reagan stands as the icon for leadership for turning the nation around from recession and inflation to prosperity. He had no background as a businessman. His strong suit was his understanding of, and absolute commitment to, conservative principles.

President Carter, whom Reagan defeated in 1980, who led the nation to the brink, had a background as a successful businessman prior to being governor of Georgia.

As Karl Rove convincingly argues in the Wall Street Journal this week, Barack Obama is a weakened candidate.

Voters disillusioned with the Republican Party, and looking for the kind of authenticity I’ve mentioned here, voted for Obama in 2008. Now it’s clear they got a boilerplate liberal who, like Carter, has also brought our nation to the brink.

Republicans have a real opportunity to restore credibility as a party and deliver the kind of candidate that the nation needs.

It’s why the conservative opposition to Mitt Romney, despite being massively outspent, remains strong and credible.

Far from being over, this Republican race is just getting started.

Star Parker

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

FOX NEWS Sunday - Rick Santorum - Birth Control

"I'm reflecting the views of the church that I believe in," he said. "We used to be tolerant of those beliefs. I guess now when you have beliefs that are consistent with the church, somehow, now you're out of the mainstream, and that to me is a pretty sad situation when you can't have personal held beliefs. But that's not the issue -- the issue is whether the government can force you to do things that are against your conscience, and that's what we've been talking about on the road. We haven't been talking about my own personal beliefs." Rick Santorum

March 4, 2012

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Star Parker - Despite Attacks, Conservative Support For Santorum Will Grow

New Gallup polling shows the clearest picture yet of the great divide in the Republican Party that has been pushing Rick Santorum to the head of the class.

Behind Santorum’s eight point national lead over Romney is a yawing gap in ideological support for the two candidates.

Conservative support for Santorum stands at 42 percent, compared to 24 percent for Romney. Among those who attend church frequently, support for Santorum is at 44 percent and for Romney 22 percent.

In the nation’s heartland in the Midwest and South, Santorum leads by 19 and 8 points respectively. It is only on the more liberal East and West coasts where the two are running neck and neck.

The poll also challenges conventional wisdom that Santorum is too conservative for the tastes of independent voters. He is leading Romney among Republican leaning independents by 8 points.

With Santorum establishing himself as the candidate of choice among conservative and church going Republicans, Romney’s tactic, manifest in the debate in Arizona, is to try and discredit Santorum’s credentials that is drawing conservative voters to him.

Having served two full terms in the U.S. Senate, there are enough party line votes on Santorum’s part to expose him to the attacks he got in Arizona as being a business-as-usual party politician.

I don’t believe this approach will dissuade those generally attracted to Santorum’s traditional values conservatism.

Even in the case of the most ideologically disposed candidate, politics will always be the art of the possible. Particularly in a nation as big and complex as ours.

Consider, for instance, that the Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear a challenge to racial preferences in college admissions policies at the University of Texas. There is a good chance that the court decision will overturn the Grutter v Bollinger decision of 2003 in which racial preferences were upheld.

That decision, arguing that the nation needed to continue racial preferences in college admissions, was written by Sandra Day O’Connor, who was President Reagan’s first Supreme Court appointment.

Given Reagan’s legacy as conservative hero, it is hard to believe that his first Supreme Court appointment was a pro-choice moderate.

It is also worth recalling that shortly into his first term, Reagan convened a commission under the leadership of Alan Greenspan to fix Social Security. Rather than proposing bold changes in the structure of Social Security, the commission simply slapped temporary patches on a broken system, raising taxes and cutting benefits. By avoiding addressing the core structural problems of the system, the Greenspan commission allowed the problem to get worse, and bequeathed to us today an even more difficult challenge to confront.

Do the Sandra Day O’Connor appointment and the Greenspan Commission challenge Reagan’s legacy as a great conservative leader?

Certainly not. Leadership is art. Even the most principled leaders must set priorities and choose which battles to fight. It is impossible to do it all.

A leader must identify the biggest, most immediate challenges and where compromises are unthinkable.

In the case of Reagan, this was cutting taxes, shrinking government, and taking a hard stand internationally against communism and the Soviet Union.

The most immediate challenge for our nation today is understanding that our hobbled economy reflects erosion of the cultural pillars that make possible a free society.

When Reagan became president, 18 percent of American babies were born to unwed mothers. This has grown today to over 40 percent.

The way to stop runaway government today is to understand that it reflects the collapse of the core values which define personal responsibility and form the glue that keeps American families intact.

There is no candidate today clearer on this than Santorum. It’s why I think, despite the expected onslaught of attacks, he will not only not lose his attractiveness among conservative voters, but the attraction will strengthen.

Star Parker

---

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Mary Grabar - Teaching George Washington When Professors Aim to 'Stop Santorum'

In an age and time when I find most of my college students unfamiliar with the story of Adam and Eve or the origin of the phrase, “judge not lest ye be judged,” I enter discussions about religion with some caution. Almost universally my students do not believe that religious belief is necessary for morality, and seem to be offended by the very concept.

But when one discusses the speeches of our earlier presidents, as I do in my composition classes, it is necessary to address religion’s role.

So last week, as we discussed George Washington’s Farewell Address, I asked students to recall the major points he made. Because several of them had already studied the speech in high school, they listed points most emphasized by teachers: his cautions about foreign entanglements, factional discord, and debt. Not many recalled his injunction to use the Constitution as a safeguard against “internal enemies.” Only one recalled his reminder about the importance of religion.

Although it does not take up much of the speech, it is an important passage, and one worth recalling in today’s age when libertarian ideals seem to motivate most college students and when many conservative pundits caution us about focusing on social issues.

But Washington reminds us, as do the other Founding Fathers, of why the Constitution is necessary in the first place.

The Constitution is structured according to a vision of mankind as inherently flawed, as marked by Original Sin. This view of human nature is what sets apart those who established the longest-lasting Constitution from the utopian idealists who see human nature as essentially good. Those human beings who are flawed by selfishness or irrationality (as they see it) can be shaped by the right social and political forces—and woe to the man who resists the efforts by the utopian theorists to make him good! We have seen that in the death tolls of such schemes.

But in Washington’s view, because character alone cannot be trusted, a division of powers helps provide checks against branches of government and of individuals. Washington echoes James Madison.

Yet, even with such multiple safeguards and a contract that stands beyond the immediate interests of parties, Washington still reminds us of the importance of religion. He calls “religion and morality” the “indispensable supports” of the “dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity.” In fact, he implies that patriotism is impossible without “these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.” It’s a sentence I emphasize. I ask students if they agree. Of course not, they almost unanimously say. One does not need to be religious to be patriotic. One does not need to believe in God to be moral.

Washington continues: “The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.”

Notice that Washington calls on the “mere politician” to respect religion and morality. Washington then claims, “A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity.” (It’s no wonder that moderns who ascribe to the notion that religion is a private affair that should be divorced from political life would rather forget George Washington or wipe him from the history books.)

Furthermore, Washington maintains that morality emerges from religion, as he asks a rhetorical question: “Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?” This leads to my question of why we ask those who testify in court to place their hands on the Bible. This inspires more looks of consternation among students who have been educated in the idea that any kind of insistence on religious faith is an expression of “intolerance.”

Washington finally ends that paragraph by stating point blank, “And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

That is about as unequivocal a statement as one can get.

Earlier in the speech, Washington had cautioned about regional animosities. Reminding them of the common “religion, manners, habits, and political principles” they shared, Washington encouraged citizens to adopt the identity “American”.

This is where students are apt to point out the changes that have taken place in over 200 years. The United States is no longer as homogenous as it was back then, when the vast majority of Americans belonged to various denominations of Protestantism. Students echo the standard line about “diversity” that infuses our educational establishment. They parrot the notion that it is an expression of “intolerance” to state that our nation is based upon a common moral and religious foundation of Judeo-Christian principles.

Yet, in spite of their constant exposure to “diversity” and a “globalism,” students have almost no ability to place our form of government and society into a global context. I remind students of the historical fact that Christianity introduced the notion that all people are equal in the eyes of the Creator. I ask students about our most basic laws. Why are parents who abuse or kill their children prosecuted? After all, in Greek and Roman culture, the father had the prerogative of allowing his infant child to die of exposure. Why do we take care of our elderly, even beyond the point of their “usefulness” to us? After all, Eskimos and other primitive societies, simply abandoned the weak and elderly, sending them off on ice floes. Apparently, students today don’t hear about such practices, while they are constantly bombarded about the “social injustice” of our economic system.

So, why, I ask, do our laws follow this Judeo-Christian injunction against killing? Other primitive societies, and now professors of ethics, like Peter Singer at Princeton, do not see anything unethical about killing handicapped infants.

When looks of horror register on the faces of students when I tell them about Singer’s proposal to allow parents to kill handicapped children, I tell them that their recoil at the thought of killing babies indicates the fact that even if they are not practicing Christians or Jews they have imbibed the values of a Judeo-Christian culture that values life. Those like Singer, quite significantly, begin by rejecting the Bible, which provides the premise that life is sacred.

The professor who works in a non-tenured position, as I do, broaches such topics with trepidation, lest any student (often called the “customer”) complain to the administration.

But I was pleasantly surprised when several students told me how much they had enjoyed and appreciated the discussion about religion in Washington’s speech. One, who is a Hindu, stayed after class, to tell me this.

Yet, if and when they follow today’s political debates in the news, students are likely to hear attacks upon Republican candidates’ religiosity and lack of respect for the “separation of church and state.” This is especially true about Rick Santorum who has been most outspoken about the importance of religion in public life.

In the classroom students are likely to hear views like those of Georgetown University Professor Jacques Berlinerblau, who charges Republicans with “secular-baiting” in his blog at the Chronicle of Higher Education. He claims Newt Gingrich pioneered the genre and Mitt Romney took it a “milestone” in its “evolution.” It is Santorum, however, whom he charges with demonizing Secularism, by reminding audiences of the atheistic nature of the “’French Revolution, moving onto the facists, and the Nazis and the communists and the Baathists.’”

Instead of considering the historical veracity of Santorum’s statement, Berlinerblau attributes nefarious and crazy motives to Santorum: “It is easy, lucrative, and even pleasurable, to pulverize sinister Secularism. It rallies the base, secures contributions, and helps conservative voters focus on demonic (i.e., liberal, Democratic) forces possessing our political system.” Running with his theory, Berlinerblau assigns an all-or-nothing faith in “divine revelation,” as if Santorum imagines he has a direct line to God. Berlinerblau then posits that religionists like Santorum might hear different things from God and thus have no basis upon which to decide policies. Such “anti-secular rhetoric,” he maintains, is “at its core . . . a demagogic evasion” (italics retained).

After he has whipped himself up to making Santorum a dictatorial theocrat, Berlinerblau concludes ominously, “Santorum and others will keep baiting secularism, and evading difficult issues, until someone stops them.”

In class, it will be worth reminding students about how the French Revolutionists and the Soviet Communists did first kill all the priests and nuns. It will be worth reminding students of the freedom voters have in drawing upon religious principles when they exercise their right to vote—in spite of many professors’ desire to simply “stop” people of religious faith, like Rick Santorum.

Mary Grabar

---

Mary Grabar is a writer and college English teacher, whose parents escaped from Slovenia in 1959 and spent a year in a refugee camp in Austria. They immigrated to Rochester, New York, when she was two.

Her views have been formed by experiences as an immigrant during the racial violence in Rochester in the 1960s and then at her alma mater, Benjamin Franklin Junior-Senior High School.

She tried to be a liberal, but then quickly realized that it was an exclusive club. Her conversion to conservatism was cinched when she returned to school in the master's program in English in the 1990's.

In spite of the hostility of most of the faculty and the torture of having to wade through postmodern nonsense, she earned her Ph.D. from the University of Georgia in 2002.

---

Mary Grabar is a frequent Columnist at Town Hall.com and writes articles for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Newspaper.

---

Visit Mary's Website and her other Website: The Literate Citizen

---

Star Parker - The Left Fuels Santorum Surge

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.

The front line of battle is obliteration of traditional values and to sever the connection between rights and responsibilities.

The three high profile left wing victories of recent weeks all touch these key areas. End the traditional institution of marriage as a bulwark of our society. Continue to promote sex as recreation and relegate the life this activity creates as a trivial byproduct which we allow to be destroyed with ease, and destroy the sanctity of private property so government can finance irresponsibility with other people’s money.

President Obama is unapologetic about this agenda and even has the audacity to call it Christian for government to borrow trillions on the good credit of the American people and then permit politicians to determine who it is fair to tax to pay for it all.

The Santorum surge, I think, is being fueled by a growing sense that our economic crisis is at its core a moral crisis. And there is a growing sense among Republicans and conservatives that we must recognize the cultural war being waged and engage it with clarity and aggressiveness that matches that of the left.

An America with broken families, with an aging population growing old alone, with no educational framework to pass traditional truths on to our children, and with no private property so that our wealth and our wages remain exposed to politicians, is an America without a future.

Santorum is offering the very clear, consistent conservative alternative to this disaster and I think it’s why he is becoming the biggest surprise so far of this campaign.

Star Parker

---

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Kevin McCullough - Newt's Honorable Option

Just after the South Carolina primary, Newt Gingrich--or his minions--put considerable public pressure upon Rick Santorum to stand down, to get out, to leave the race.

Santorum's response was simple. If he began to come in last in any series of races, he would do so. Santorum went on to explain that he had won as many states as Newt had at that point, so there was no need to go anywhere.

That was five states, 3 Santorum victories, and several instances of bottoming out by the Gingrich campaign ago.

The Gingrich people will not like what I have to say next, but it is resolutely true, and there is no argument against it, so here goes...

"If Newt Gingrich believes Mitt Romney is a worse choice for nominee than a real conservative would be, then he must leave the race now. Staying in the race until Super Tuesday hurts the conservative cause, aids Romney, and ultimately will re-elect Barack Obama."

There, it is said. It had to be. It is all true.

This week Billionaire Casino Magnate Sheldon Adelson announced his intentions to continue to sink money into the Gingrich SuperPAC "Winning Our Future." This newest round of $10,000,000 would roughly match the $11,000,000 that allowed Gingrich his one state win in South Carolina. But even that is money poorly spent.

Gingrich had the chance to build on his win, but was unable to capitalize in Florida, and his absolute stubbornness in refusing to organize for the three state caucus strike-out that catapulted Santorum to front-runner status demonstrated some old inclinations about the former speaker that had been voiced by many former colleagues. Newt is flagging in polls nationally, ranking behind Ron Paul at times, and does not show a path to victory even if he were to break through on Super Tuesday using massive SuperPAC money to land somewhat mediocre media presence. (After all $10,000,000 across seven states won't even begin to touch a fourth of the penetration rate he had with $11,000,000 in South Carolina.)

Debates are now being universally panned, and the free media will not add up to give Newt new opportunities to "un-re-define" himself from himself.

I asked a few columns back if Gingrich was Churchill, for 2012, the answer seems to be "no!"

But that doesn't render him insignificant.

If Gingrich were to leave, and especially if he were to endorse Santorum, Mitt Romney's campaign would truly be on the death's door. Romney is trailing in Michigan, where he couldn't seem to connect with voters even before Santorum's sweep, and according to Rasmussen--the most accurate pollster in the past six cycles--he trails Santorum by 12 nationally, and by nearly 20 in the swing state of Ohio.

Despite what her "right-to-be-wrongness" Ann Coulter says about Mitt's inevitability, Republicans--if they are smart--should always elect the man for nomination who wins Ohio. Because in the general election, it is the best indicator of who will be President.

Santorum has thicker skin than Newt and Mitt combined, and next to Newt, he's the best debater left in the bunch. But most importantly he is the sharpest contrast to Obama--in nearly every imaginable category.

Newt is steadily polling at 14% in the polls. Santorum has exploded in Michigan and Ohio, is nearly within the margin of error to Romney in Arizona, and almost the same within Gingrich in Georgia. Meanwhile in some states Gingrich finishes last, Santorum never does. But if you add 2/3's of Newt's total to Santorum's, Rick Rollin' would become the new GOP past time.

If Gingrich is a man of principle, he will allow the consolidation and much-more-baggage-free candidacy of Rick Santorum to zoom into an even further all-out lead nationally. If Gingrich stays in, it is obvious his feelings about Romney's danger and likely losing proposition as nominee will come true. And the former speaker would have only himself to blame.

If Romney is the nominee, Obama will be President for a second term. (His inability to take Obama on--on his biggest weaknesses, the target of his faith's racially questionable history and the twisted way the mainstream media will exploit that, his inability to not say things from an entirely silver spoon perspective, and his lack of distinction from Obama on many social issues--like subsidizing abortion, and creating "gay" marriage.)

The GOP's job at the moment is to pick the best candidate they can to beat Obama, and the one who is most-different-than him presents the best possibility.

Especially if that candidate wins Ohio.

Kevin McCullough

---

Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "The Kevin McCullough Show" weekdays (7-9am EST) & "Baldwin/McCullough Radio" Saturdays (9-11pm EST) on 289 stations & Sirius/XM . His newest best-selling hardcover from Thomas Nelson Publishers, "No He Can't: How Barack Obama is Dismantling Hope and Change" is in stores now.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

THP Videos - Rick Santorum at CPAC 2012

“Conservatism did not fail our country, conservatives failed conservatism, we lost heart.”

“We will no longer abandon policies and principles that made this country great, for a hollow victory in November.” Santorum said.

Santorum quoted conservative activist Richard Viguerie that “personnel is policy,” and that in his administration he would surround himself with those that share his values.

The winner of the recent primaries and caucuses in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado, Santorum repeated his promise to cut five trillion in spending and balance the federal budget in five years, and said each of his annual budgets would not spend more than the previous year.

Santorum warned about the dangers of government control. “Our rights come not from government, but from a higher authority,” he said. “A government that gives you rights can take them away.”

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

THP Videos - Rick Santorum Missouri, Minnesota Colorado Victory Speech

Wow! Conservatism is alive and well in Missouri and Minnesota. Thank you all so very, very much. It is great to be here. I just can't thank the people of Missouri; we doubled them up here and in Minnesota.

I want to also thank -- I have to always thank -- first off, let me just thank God for giving us the grace to be able to persevere through the -- through the dog days, and blessing us and blessing our family.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Kevin McCullough - Why Rick So Irritates Mitt

Mitt Romney desperately needs both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to stay in this Presidential race as long as possible. Though it is not a reality the former Governor relishes. In fact the disdain he has for the situation seems to be aging him on the trail right before our very eyes.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich is an easy villain for Romney and his notoriously dirty campaign team. Beginning back in 2008 when they passed verifiably false information to National Review that was repeated with nary a breath of inspection, the Romney campaign has always utilized a multi-angle position of attack.

Unfortunately for the Governor these days he is on the receiving end of some multi-pronged offensives of his own. The difference being they have become very public--usually taking place on debate stages--and they are made up of facts, instead of fomented fiction.

Rick Santorum has especially shone bright when picking the Governor's weak spots, and if the withering sweat dribbles that Romney exhibits under the factual correction of his GOP colleagues, I hesitate to express any desire to see what would happen under the billion dollar assault that President Obama will level at him.

Sen. Santorum has reminded folks of Romney's two biggest vulnerabilities and he has single-handidly voiced the most articulate response to them.

A number of debates back it was Senator Santorum, not Bachmann, Perry, or Cain, who dismantled Romney's epic myth that he had fought for the sanctity of marriage as then governor of Massachusetts. Santorum correctly asserted the facts: that while the judges in the state had definitively over-reached, the Governor was never ordered by the bench to execute their wholesale change in the writing of laws, nor could he have been compelled to under the separation of powers in the commonwealth. Santorum's articulate and precise observation was that not only did Romney not ignore the court--which he was in position to do--he went the extra step in enforcing the court's non-legislative law into existence and even forced the first several marriage licenses to be processed. Santorum's view like most GOP base voters is simple. The Governor was in position to call the court's bluff and should have done so. It would have created a temporary crisis in the state courts, but it likely would've been resolved by a higher court, and Romney would've been able to truly claim the mantle of someone who fought to keep marriage defined as it always has been.

This week in debate number nineteen of this election cycle Senator Santorum nailed Governor Romney to the wall on his biggest fiscal weakness--Obamacare. Senator Santorum calmly laid out the facts that Obama looked to Romney's own model as not-so-much the blueprint for the federal version, but more like the actual skeleton.

Santorum pointed out that the mandate, penalties, co-ops, and oversight all work the same way in the Obama version of health care reform as they do in the Romney version. He didn't even mentioned the state-tax-payer-supported $50 abortions that Romneycare went out of their way to include.

Romney countered by merely claiming that his version didn't do certain things like raise taxes and rob medicare programs. (Of which only the latter claim is true. Romney raised taxes on BLIND PEOPLE in Massachusetts who needed state certification of their condition to qualify for state aid.)

Wolf Blitzer attempted to rescue Governor Romney but Senator Santorum did not allow it. Re-stating what he had previously asserted he asked Romney if the mandates, penalties, and population coverage was the same in his plan, and Romney was forced to concede the point.

It showed utter weakness for the potential nominee to have to reconcile the similarities, and Santorum illustrated that this would be the exact weakness Obama would exploit in a campaign match-up between the two.

The crowd seemed overly populated with Romney fans--a strategy more likely to be carried out by Ron Paul's campaign--but even the majority of the people in the room applauded Santorum when he forced the Governor to finally concede his weakness.

This has to bother the Governor immensely. But Santorum's case is sound.

Many knew that Romney has been inconsistent as a social conservative, but Santorum forced the world to see how weak he is as a FISCAL nominee as well.

Ann Coulter said it less than a year ago, "Mitt Romney will be the nominee, and the republicans will lose."

Senator Santorum demonstrated why Ann was right to say that, and while there may not be time for the Santorum team to make the long steep climb they need to, at least everyone in the room is aware of what the greater issue should be to primary voters--Romney can't win.

And as Ann Coulter believed, he probably won't.

Kevin McCullough

---

Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "The Kevin McCullough Show" weekdays (7-9am EST) & "Baldwin/McCullough Radio" Saturdays (9-11pm EST) on 289 stations & Sirius/XM . His newest best-selling hardcover from Thomas Nelson Publishers, "No He Can't: How Barack Obama is Dismantling Hope and Change" is in stores now.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Wild Bill for America - Candidate #1

Which candidate is best for you? Take this cool survey and let your computer reveal all.

---

Click Here to Take Survey

---

Visit the Wild Bill for America Blog

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Romney barely Wins Iowa Caucuses By 8 Votes Over Santorum

Jan 4, 2012 - Iowa GOP chair: 'What a might'

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Santorum Goes to Bat for Early Primary States

GOP 2012 hopeful on his latest campaign strategy and why he opposes Florida possibly moving up the date of its primary

September 29, 2011

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Kevin McCullough - Debunking the Perry Immigration Lie

In this week's GOP Presidential debate, Governor Mitt Romney and Senator Rick Santorum both repeated untruths about Governor Rick Perry's immigration position. It is time to set the record straight.

First let me say, I've not endorsed a candidate and though I've predicted a Perry win in 2012, it is not based on a personal desire, but rather the assessment of all the data that I believe the general election race will be dependent on. I did the same thing in 2006, predicting a Barack Obama win, but by no means endorsing his candidacy.

Second let me also say, this week's debate performance by Governor Rick Perry was bizarre and seemed to run out of complete steam in the final thirty minutes. In fact I was so curious as to the Governor's performance down the stretch I inquired to the Perry campaign to see if the Governor had taken ill, or had some other medical issue arise in the final half hour.

But on Thursday evening it did become clear that the GOP opponents intend to rhetorically bloody Governor Perry as best they can until they begin to be eliminated from the race.

In the debate, Chris Wallace asked a direct question to Mitt Romney regarding the in-state tuition rates of children who live in the state, but happen to have parents who came here illegally.

Mitt Romney replied, "I don't see how it is that a state like Texas--to go to the University of Texas--if you're an illegal alien--you get an in-state tuition discount. D'you know how much that is? It's twenty-two thousand dollars a year. Four years of college you're almost a hundred thousand dollar discount if you're an illegal alien--if you go to the University of Texas. If you're a United States citizen, from any one of the other forty-nine states, you have to pay a hundred thousand dollars more. That doesn't make sense to me. And that kind of magnet, draws people into this country, to get that education, to get that kind of hundred thousand dollar break, it makes no sense..."

I was disappointed that Chris Wallace didn't stop him and make him answer the question he had actually asked him.

Maybe Mitt Romney doesn't realize that many children of illegal aliens aren't illegals themselves. And as long as birth-rite citizenship is the law, anchor babies are protected under the law with equal benefits to all other American citizens.

Maybe Mitt Romney doesn't realize that nearly all of the rest of children of illegals had no choice in whether to live in Texas or not. If they were brought there by parents who were illegal--how is that the child's fault? Is Romney ready to charge those children with crimes? Mass deportations? Even Romney has not pledged to go that far.

Maybe Mitt Romney somehow missed the point that Governor Perry's problem is one that the Federal Government created for him. By refusing to enforce current immigration law, the Obama administration has made life for border states unbelievably difficult. And in some cases the Federal Government is even attempting to choke out state's rights to react to border issues in any way whatsoever.

Maybe Mitt Romney is completely ignorant of what the reality of dealing with the border actually means--in real terms. Gov. Perry had to raise $400 million in state taxes to attempt to shore up the border and do the job that the Feds should be doing.

Or maybe Governor Romney believes he doesn't need any votes from legal Hispanics and legal immigrants who are wrestling with the real issue of being in a position where their family's future is in question.

But to set the record straight, it was the state of Texas, and most specifically its lawfully elected legislature that drafted the legislation and passed it with only 4 votes of 181 possible to vote against it. Yes, Governor Perry signed it into law, but it was a definitively bi-partisan initiative that the people of Texas clearly wanted to see become law.

Additionally, Governor Perry has actual compassion for these children who ended up in his state, outside of their own doing. Educating them gets them working and contributing to the state's treasury faster, and is more meaningful than letting them sit on the sidelines.

And despite what the unusually angry Rick Santorum offered, all the legislation did was allow those children (NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS AT LARGE) to get the same "starting point" in state institutions that all of their classmates got. The stupid argument that Romney and Santorum grew red-faced and spittle-spewing over didn't seem to hold true against Texas where non-Texan students would have to pay $88,000 more than other Texas-raised children. And states discriminate that way against other children from other regions of the country--all the time.

President Obama will need to re-energize the American Hispanic vote in order for him to win re-election. They had left him on the economy, and they were never with him on his values. But Mitt Romney--who vows allegiance to a church that had at its core a racist doctrine until only a couple of decades ago--is verging on alienating other ethnic groups, in part because he is not telling the truth about the Texas legislature's law to allow children (not illegal aliens who crossed the border--the children of) to simply pay the same amount of tuition as the kids they sit next to in class.

In short Perry knows this problem intimately. And it will be a cold day in Hades before he ever signs a federal version of the DREAM Act. He believes in fencing, technology, state's rights, and workplace incentives.

Which more or less means he believes in the same enforcement techniques as all the rest of the GOP field.

And for Santorum and Romney to pretend otherwise is sanctimonious and dishonest.

Kevin McCullough

---

Related Post: Kevin McCullough - Why It Will Be President Perry in 2013

---

Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "The Kevin McCullough Show" weekdays (7-9am EST) & "Baldwin/McCullough Radio" Saturdays (9-11pm EST) on 215 stations & Sirius/XM . His new book from Thomas Nelson Publishers, "No He Can't" March 2011.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Glenn Beck 6/23/11 - Rick Santorum

Glenn sits down for much of the show with former Pennsylvania Senator and 2012 GOP Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum. Is he the right man for the job? Tonight, Glenn asks the tough questions so you can decide for yourself!

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---