Religious freedom, or freedom of conscience, is critical to the health of a diverse society.

This is Part 3 in a series of articles on religious freedom. For the series introduction, see “An Introduction to Religious Freedom.”

Over the past two years, general officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have delivered major addresses on many aspects of religious freedom — what it means, what it does, the threats it faces and why it is so vital for free people everywhere. Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Church’s Quorum of Twelve Apostles said, “There is a battle over the meaning of [religious] freedom. The contest is of eternal importance.” And Elder Quentin L. Cook, also an Apostle, challenged university graduates to “work with people of other faiths” to protect and “be an advocate for religious freedom and morality.”

Alongside these endorsements of religious freedom from Latter-day Saints are the significant efforts of other religious leaders and citizens. So why this attention to religious freedom? Why do we as citizens of the United States need it?

The need flows from the immense diversity of our nation and society. From its very beginning, the United States has been home to a wide range of religious beliefs. Without a confining state-sponsored church (thus breaking a 1,500-year European tradition) and with a steady and assorted stream of immigrants, religious pluralism has been a signal feature in America. Americans in the new and growing nation found a range of religious choices unheard of in their past experience — they could choose their own faith group, select a congregation (or start their own) and find a minister. They could also choose not to adhere to religion at all. This vast array of religious choices demonstrated an invigorating freedom of conscience and a flourishing religious freedom. Americans didn’t simply tolerate other religious beliefs, but eventually embraced full-fledged religious liberty, realizing that the “only way to get it for themselves was to grant it to all others.” [1]

Yet there has been no royal road to religious freedom in the United States. Baptists, Jews, Catholics and other faiths — which at some time have been new, unpopular and minority religions — have felt the sting of religious persecution and societal prejudice. But the possibility of a society where diverse faiths and beliefs can coexist is rooted in the high principles of freedom of conscience and the enabling protections for religion in the First Amendment. They are the architectural framework that ensures the physical, social and legal space for individuals and groups to live out their different beliefs in meaningful ways, both privately and publicly. A statement of principles signed by scholars and statesmen emphasizes these principles: “The Religious Liberty clauses are both a protection of individual liberty and a provision for ordering the relationship of religion and public life. They allow us to live with our deepest differences.” [2]

But freedom of religion and conscience require more than simply living and coexisting with our differences. These preeminent freedoms also create rejuvenating obligations. All recipients of religious freedom — every group and individual who is free to live according to the dictates of conscience — must in turn protect that same freedom for all others, especially the most vulnerable, whether religious or not. That is the obligation. And it is rejuvenating because it “enable[s] diversity to be a source of national strength.” [3]

These principles are splendidly articulated in The Williamsburg Charter. Drafted as a national “reaffirmation of the First Amendment,” signatories included leaders of government (including two former presidents of the United States), business, education and faith groups and many other interests. Elder Dallin H. Oaks signed the document on behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The charter emphasizes the vital nature and moral importance of the obligations associated with religious freedom, including the incisive observation that a “society is only as just and free as it is respectful of [freedom of religion and conscience] for its smallest minorities and least popular communities.”

Recent studies quantify the societal benefits of religious freedom. [4] These findings report, for example, that:

• Religious freedom promotes stability in a pluralistic society, but when limited, it correlates to increased violence and conflict.
• Wherever religious freedom is high, there is more economic prosperity, better health, lower income inequality and prolonged democracy.
• Religious freedom directly correlates with the protection afforded other civil and human rights; if some agency can control the yearnings of faith and conviction, then that agency could, in James Madison’s words, “sweep away all our fundamental rights,” such as freedom of speech, press and assembly.

These are some of the consequences of religious freedom that contribute to a just and free society where tensions are negotiated and people live peacefully with their deepest differences. This is the essence of democracy.

[1] See Robert Booth Fowler, Allen D. Hertzke, Laura R. Olsen, Kevin R. Den Dulk, Religion and Politics in America, Faith, Culture and Strategic Choices, p. 6.

[2] The Williamsburg Charter, Summary of Principles, 1988.

[3] Ibid.

[4] See, for example, Brian J. Grim and Roger Finke, The Price of Freedom Denied, and Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom study, __________________

LDS Newsroom

What Americans Know About Religious Freedom

Most Americans know that religious freedom is one of the most basic freedoms guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Frequently called the “first freedom,” freedom of religion is prominent in the American founding documents and gives rise to many other freedoms.

It is a fundamental human right — one that is now protected in the laws of many nations around the world and in global compacts like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Americans generally recognize and revere religious freedom as one of the unalienable freedoms they can claim.

Yet despite Americans’ awareness of religious freedom and a common perception that it is something of profound worth, research suggests that many Americans aren’t entirely clear about what it means. As a result, they also don’t fully understand why it is so critical and what it requires.

Studies do suggest that most Americans grasp the basic concept. For the average citizen, religious freedom is the right enjoyed by many in the free world to believe the things about God and about moral truth that they choose to believe, as well as the right to honor those beliefs in worship, if they want to. Intuitively, this makes sense. It would not be right for someone to be coerced in matters of religious belief or morality, or prohibited from worshipping according to their conscience.[1]

The Rest of Religious Freedom

But while these private and inward activities are vital parts of religious freedom, they do not encompass the whole of it. Religious freedom is actually much broader and deeper than this description suggests. More fundamentally, religious freedom — akin to “freedom of conscience” — is the human right to think and believe and also to express and act upon what one deeply believes according to the dictates of his or her moral conscience. This freedom applies to those who adhere to religious beliefs and those who do not.

The full picture of religious freedom reveals a deep liberty that goes much further than the right to believe as one chooses and that extends well beyond the right to private devotion in one’s place of worship or home. Indeed, religious freedom is not merely interior and private, to be enjoyed internally in our minds and in the privacy of personal life. It also incorporates the right to act according to one’s moral beliefs and convictions. And more than the freedom to worship privately, it is the right to to live one’s faith freely and in public.

Beliefs lead to actions, and freedom to believe, without the ability to act on that belief within the bounds of law, is no freedom at all. Most will agree that moral and religious beliefs don’t mean much if they don’t influence the way we live. In other words, we expect religious beliefs to influence the way that people behave, how they raise families and how they treat others. And indeed, religious freedom protects the right of individuals to act in line with their religious beliefs and moral convictions. Religious freedom does not merely enable us to contemplate our convictions; it enables us to execute them.

Because of this, religion cannot be confined to the sphere of private life. Certainly religious freedom protects the rights of individuals to observe their religion within the walls of private spaces. But religious and moral speech is also protected in the free air of the public domain. Whether in the town hall, in the newspaper column, on the Internet or elsewhere in the public sphere, people with moral convictions are entitled by their religious freedom to share those convictions, to reason and persuade, and to advocate their vision for society.

Research suggests, in fact, that religious people in the United States contribute to, enrich and improve society. They tend to demonstrate a disproportionate level of social virtues like neighborliness, generosity, service and civic engagement. Hence it is not only required by religious freedom for religious people and their voices to be welcome in the public sphere; it strengthens the civic fabric of society.[2]

Practicing and Protecting Religious Freedom

The fact that religious freedom is public and that it involves more than mere belief does not, of course, mean that it overwhelms all other considerations in society. The purpose of a democracy is to accommodate the diverse interests of all its members. Religious freedom and freedom of conscience are vital because they help sustain this system of peaceful coexistence, and they must be balanced against other considerations, such as the rights of others, the law and public safety. However, because these freedoms are so fundamental to human dignity, and because they contribute so much to society, they merit careful protection.

Such protection is the responsibility of all citizens who value their freedom and recognize that one’s own freedoms are only as secure as those of others. Protecting religious freedom also requires that it is understood fully and respected in its entirety. An inadequate understanding of religious freedom can be problematic if it leads, for example, to policy and laws that define it too narrowly and protect it too feebly. Ignorance of religious freedom can also, without care, allow for it to be slowly and subtly eroded, leaving this fundamental liberty exposed or compromised. A robust sense of religious freedom — an appreciation for its full meaning — is required for it to endure and to flourish.

[1]See “Survey Fact Sheet: What Americans Know About Religious Freedom,” American Religious Freedom Program, accessed January 14, 2012, http://religiousfreedom.org/research/detail/survey-fact-sheet-americans-views-on-religious-freedom; and“What It Means to Be an American,” Brookings Institute and Public Religion Research Institute, accessed January 14, 2012, http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2011/0906_american_attitudes.aspx.

[2]See Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010).

LDS Newsroom

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has issued a series of articles about the principle of Religious Freedom here  in the US.  The church generally tries to stay out of political issues but when political issues threaten moral/religious issues, the church will stand by those who are defending what is morally right.  In light of recent attacks on religious freedom by the administration, both in terms of the administration’s insistence that religious institutions be forced to provide services that they find to be morally offensive and the recent ruling in CA regarding gay marriage, the church has issued a series of articles stating our beliefs regarding Freedom of Religion.  And, since Mitt Romney is a practicing Mormon, I am posting this on this website.

For many people in the world, there are few things more precious than freedom. Freedom — the power to live as one would choose — is one of the great sources of human dignity. Exercising freedom correctly is also one of the great responsibilities that humans hold. We continue to grapple with how to define our freedoms, how to understand them, and how they should be both cultivated and tempered. At the heart of these questions, we find one of the most fundamental of all freedoms: freedom of religion.

Religious Freedom© 2012 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.

What is freedom of religion?

Contrary to what some may assume, religious freedom is not simply the freedom to worship or to believe the way one chooses, though these are essential parts of it. Neither is it just for religious people. Religious freedom is actually deeper, broader and more important than most realize.

At the most fundamental level, religious freedom is the human right to think, act upon and express what one deeply believes, according to the dictates of his or her moral conscience. In fact, religious freedom has always been understood in conjunction with “freedom of conscience” — the liberty to develop and hold moral convictions and to act accordingly. So while religious freedom encompasses the liberty of religious belief and devotion, it also extends well beyond that, incorporating the freedom to act — to speak freely in public, to live according to one’s moral principles and to advocate one’s own moral vision for society. The breadth of religious freedom and its relationship with freedom of conscience helps explain why religious freedom is important for everyone, not just for people of faith.

The United States of America has a long and exceptional tradition of freedom of religion, a virtue that was embedded in the original documents of the nation and extolled by its founders. Enshrined as the preeminent freedom in the U.S. Bill of Rights, religious freedom is the first among other essential liberties and is often referred to as the “first freedom.” It is characterized this way because it enables and protects other human freedoms, like freedom of speech. Indeed, the culture of liberty and peaceful democracy in the United States in large part emerged from its firm respect for religious freedom. Like the United States, many other nations have also come to acknowledge this most essential of liberties and made it a central premise of their own governments. The United Nations, in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and in many other compacts since then, has identified religious liberty as “a fundamental human right.”

Religious freedom and society

This fundamental right is indispensable in the diverse societies of the modern world, where the rights and interests of different parties often come into conflict. Since the potential for animosity is greatest where differences are most profound or where majorities dominate, freedom of religion is critical because it allows people with differing convictions about the deepest matters of truth to live together peacefully. A careful regard for this freedom protects all groups and individuals, including the most vulnerable, religious or not. When honored, religious freedom helps to avert violence and to mediate conflict.

Nations around the world that have nurtured religious liberty have witnessed its positive effects on society. While cases of religious extremism have blemished the public image of religion, scholars recognize that religion imparts vital benefits, including harmony and stability, to the societies that support it. Their scholarship consistently shows that religious people typically are more civically minded, more generous and more neighborly than their nonreligious counterparts. Empirical data also suggest that religiously free societies enjoy many other benefits, including higher levels of other freedoms, than do those where religion is repressed or disadvantaged. These benefits are additional reasons why religion should be free to flourish in society. [1]

Honoring religious freedom does not mean discarding other freedoms and social interests or subverting the law; religious freedom coexists with other legitimate interests in society. Government has a critical role to ensure public safety and to arbitrate the conflict of some rights with others. In the United States, we maintain a healthy independence of church and state, though we should not sequester religion’s moral influence from the nation’s public affairs. Religious freedom does not exclude other interests, but as the “first freedom,” it ought to be given due respect.

Mormons and religious freedom

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have great reason to revere religious liberty. From a history that at times has involved religious persecution, Mormons have a special appreciation for the freedom to speak and live according to their convictions and faith. Religious liberty, in fact, has been significant for Mormons since the beginning. Church founder Joseph Smith was a strong and generous proponent of this principle, and he recognized that it was critical for all parties to reciprocate in upholding it. “I am bold to declare before Heaven” he said, “that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbytarian [sic], a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination.”

In a 19th-century Mormon settlement, Smith also underlined the importance of religious freedom by introducing a city ordinance that guaranteed religious freedom for inhabitants of all faiths. Freedom of conscience and religion were incorporated into the Church’s Articles of Faith, which explain, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” [2] Mormons are steadfastly committed to religious liberty and to its protection.

The mounting challenges to religious freedom

The condition of religious liberty and freedom of conscience in the United States is not as dire as it is in some areas of the world. Today, American people of faith and conscience do not generally face the physical violence or coercion sometimes experienced in other nations. However, freedom of religion and conscience in the United States are nonetheless at risk. Social and legal shifts are squeezing this liberty in new and deeply problematic ways. Americans who have long taken it for granted are being reminded of its value.

Challenges to religious freedom are emerging from many sources. Emerging advocacy for gay rights threatens to abridge religious freedom in a number of ways. Changes in health care threaten the rights of those who hold certain moral convictions about human life. These and other developments are producing conflict and beginning to impose on religious organizations and people of conscience. They are threatening, for instance, to restrict how religious organizations can manage their employment and their property. They are bringing about the coercion of religiously-affiliated universities, schools and social-service entities. They are also resulting in reprimands to individuals who act in line with their principles — from health practitioners and other professionals to parents. In these and in many other circumstances, we see how religious freedom and freedom of conscience are being subtly but steadily eroded. And of equal concern, the legal provisions emerging to safeguard these freedoms are often shallow — protecting these liberties only in the narrowest sense. In many aspects of public life, religious freedom and freedom of conscience are being drawn into conflicts that may suppress them.

The requirements of religious freedom

Given the depth of these conflicts and the controversy that they sometimes create, it is essential that all parties are civil as they negotiate these deeply important issues. This is only right, because the qualities of human dignity that are part of religious freedom also entitle all people to respect and to the expression of their views. Each group, including religious individuals and organizations, is responsible to state its views reasonably in order to contribute to meaningful discussion. As fellow citizens we should always speak courteously and show patience, understanding and empathy for those who disagree with us. We foster goodwill by giving it ourselves. [3]

Religious freedom, or “freedom of conscience,” has long been the bedrock of democracy. Long buried and taken for granted, it is now an elevated concern. There is need for Americans — Latter-day Saints included — to become reacquainted with this freedom and recommitted to it. A free society committed to religious freedom and freedom of conscience means that all its members are vigilant in protecting the freedoms of each other. Maintaining this most basic of human freedoms and the harmony it brings is imperative for us all.

[1] See Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us (Simon and Schuster, 2010); Brian J. Grim and Roger Finke, The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge University Press, 2010).

[2] See LDS Newsroom, “Selected Beliefs and Statements on Religious Freedom of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

[3] For further explanation of the commitment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to civil discourse, see LDS Newsroom, “The Mormon Ethic of Civility.”

LDS Newsroom

For parts two and three, please follow the “LDS Newsroom” link just above.

Barack Obama just went from “blame Bush” to “blame Founding Fathers” for his lack of success in delivering on the promises he made to the American people!  It’s very clear when you listen to this statement that Obama doesn’t like the Constitution and feels it is getting in his way of “forcing” Congress to do what he wants them to do.  THIS makes me feel super grateful we have a Constitution to protect us from obama!

Jeffrey Zients will serve as President Obama’s new acting director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), but the president’s decision might undercut attacks on Republican Mitt Romney’s career as a venture capitalist, because Zients and Romney are both alumni of Bain & Company.

“I’m pleased to designate Jeff Zients to lead the Office of Management and Budget. Since day one, Jeff has demonstrated superb judgment and has provided sound advice on a whole host of issues,” Obama said in a statement accompanying the announcement today. Zients previously served as Deputy Director of OMB under Jack Lew, who became Obama’s chief of staff with the departure of Bill Daley.

Romney might also be pleased at Zients’ promotion, given that they have a common professional background; Zients worked with Bain & Company as early as 1988, according to the Bain website. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney worked at Bain & Company, first from 1977-1984, and then again from 1991 and 1992, when he was the Bain & Company chief executive officer.

Update: Bain & Company says that Zients worked there from August 1988 to June 1990. Romney apparently returned to Bain & Company from Bain Capital in January 1991, so they missed each other by six months.

The Bain name has become politically-charged recently with the rise of Mitt Romney — not for his work as a Bain & Company executive, but rather his career at Bain Capital. Romney helped found Bain Capital with his Bain and Company colleagues in 1984, and he led the firm from until 1990.

President Obama’s top campaign strategist, David Axelrod, criticized Romney for having a “Bain mentality,” and while Romney’s Republican presidential election rivals have blamed him for layoffs that took place at companies that Bain Capital financed.

The White House emphasized Zients’ “twenty years as a CEO, management consultant, and entrepreneur” when announcing his promotion, but did not mention that  Zients’ used to work with Bain & Company.

Source found here.

For all the fire directed at the private equity world this week – from Mitt Romney’s opponents in both parties – few major politicians can claim to have their hands clean when it comes to the financial services industry, and President Barack Obama is no exception.

Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry found that out the hard way: Gingrich took criticism for attacking Bain Capital while having one served on the board of Forstmann Little, while Perry came in for a grilling from Laura Ingraham over the thousands of dollars in campaign donations he’s taken from private equity executives.

And Obama may have some private equity questions of his own to answer, having both taken donations from the industry and appointed a number of private equity veterans to his administration.

The most prominent among them is Jack Lew, the new White House chief of staff, who was previously a managing director at Citi Alternative Investments. Nancy-Ann DeParle, a deputy chief of staff who helped lead the president’s health care reform effort, was a managing director at CCMP Capital.

Jeffrey Goldstein, the recently-departed undersecretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance, was a managing director at Hellman & Friedman before he joined the administration. He’s returning to the private equity firm now that he has resigned. Former auto czar Steve Rattner came out of the world of private equity before briefly working with the administration, and defended Bain Capital from attacks in a POLITICO op-ed this week.

A number of Obama advisory board members and lower-profile appointees have also had private equity on their resumes. Mark Gallogly of Centerbridge Partners, and formerly of the Blackstone Group, was on the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Richard Parsons, the former Time Warner executive on the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, is also linked to Providence Equity Partners Inc. Walter Jones, the U.S. executive director of the African Development Bank, was a senior private equity executive with Gravitas Capital Advisors.

There are other private equity connections on the President’s Management Advisory Board, the Board for International Food and Agriculture Development, the National Infrastructure Advisory Council and the Advisory Committee of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

In light of that, one private equity insider suggested to me in an email: “If President Obama plans to campaign against Mitt Romney and the alleged evils of private equity, then he will need to start by purging the ranks of his own administration.”

Make sure to read the rest of the article here.

Wow. So I just came across this video of Chris Wallace taking on the head of the Democratic National Committee for Democrat attacks on Mitt Romney for laying off workers. He asks that if we should blame Mitt Romney for bankrupt companies that he invested in, then shouldn’t we blame the president for making a bad investment in Solyndra? She doesn’t seem to grasp the connection, and refuses to see his point of view. It’s nice to see her caught off guard not knowing how to defend the president’s failures. Here’s the video:

Here’s an article describing the interchange.

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Folks, I realize this is serious out there, and at some point I may have to issue a fatwa to stop this. If I sense it’s really getting out of hand, of course I’ll take action. I’ll stand up and I’ll just tell everybody here involved, “Cut this out and get serious.” I don’t want to bleed on any of you. It’s unbecoming (sigh), but you don’t know what being surrounded by negativism is. I am surrounded by it. It takes a concerted effort on my part every day to avoid it, to not be affected by it. I can’t tell you tell you the amount of pessimism that’s out there over this and a number of other things. So I know how you feel about this. I know you’re worried about the negative aspect of it, but I just want to tell you that you are not alone. We have more Newt sound biteshere. You’re gonna have to hear this. That happened this afternoon on Fox with Megyn Kelly. Yeah, it was Megyn Kelly. It’s America Live. She interviewing Newt. Megyn Kelly said to Newt, “Isn’t our financial system, isn’t our free enterprise system, set up to speak to profits, not so much fairness?” Isn’t that what people go into business for (this is the essence of her question): profits?GINGRICH: There has to be some sense of everybody’s in the same boat — and I think again, as I said, he’s gonna have to explain why would Bain have taken $180 million out of a company and then have it go bankrupt, and to what extent did they have some obligation to the workers? Remember, these were a lot of people who made that $180 million, it wasn’t just six rich guys at the top, and yet somehow they walked off from their fiduciary obligation to the people who had made the money for them.RUSH: (sigh) Folks, things happen. Sometimes they happen for a reason. Now, one of the things that you have to say that is happening here is (whether he intends it or not) we’re finding out some things about Newt that we didn’t know. We’re finding out that he looks at “these rich guys,” six rich guys, and they have an obligation. He sounds like Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren is this Harvard professor, who is running for Scott Brown’s Senate seat in Massachusetts who had the disparaging comments for the nameless factory owner. (paraphrased) “You didn’t make it on your own! You couldn’ta done it without us! We paved your roads and built your distribution system, and it was our taxes that did it. You didn’t do anything on your own! Nobody ever does anything on their own. We did it for you and you can’t ignore us.” So, Newt… I guarantee you, Newt… You go back to the eighties and the nineties when Newt’s Speaker and trying to run the Conservative Opportunity Society in the House, you never heard stuff come out of Newt’s mouth like this. I never have. So, in that regard, it’s serving a purpose. Kelly then said, “Well, the Club for Growth has come out against you on this. They call your criticism of Romney on the Bain issue ‘disgusting.’ They said, ‘Newt Gingrich should apologize for his attacks on free markets. He should apologize to Governor Romney.’”GINGRICH: If we identify capitalism with rich guys looting companies, we’re gonna have a very hard time protecting it. I am totally committed to capitalism. I am totally committed to Main Street. I am totally committed to people’s right to start companies. I am committed to their right to fail. But I think it has to be fair, it has to be out in the open. This is why you have this underlying anger about the financial class. Because people look over there and they go, “Wait a second. How come I lost my mortgage and you stayed a millionaire? How come I lost all my savings and you stayed a millionaire?”RUSH: No, no, no. If anything, they’re saying, “How come I lost my mortgage and Fannie Mae paid YOU a million dollars?” I mean, it works both ways here. I don’t understand why the Occupy Wall Street crowd is protesting Newt. They’re singing from the same hymnal on this. This is right out of the New York Times. Newt is parroting what the New York Times is writing about Romney on this: Six rich guys taking over. “But, if we identify capitalism with rich guys looting companies…” Folks, it is clear here (to me, anyway) what’s really going on. This is not a campaign for the presidency. That’s not what this is anymore. This is payback time. This is Newt. It drove him nuts that series of ads the Romney super PAC ran against him in Iowa, and this is the result of it. That’s why we are where we are. (interruption) No, no. I’m not making excuses, don’t misunderstand. I’m just explaining. I’m not defending anybody. I just think this is very unfortunate. This is… (sigh) This is not the kind of stuff you want said by Republicans. I mean, even the establishment Republicans don’t go after conservatives this way. Here is one final bite. Megyn Kelly says to Newt, “What is your goal in New Hampshire?”

GINGRICH: My goal in New Hampshire is to have done well enough — which I think we already have, frankly. Uh, if you look at the energy level we have, you look at the size of our crowds, you look at the level of news coverage, we’re doing just fine. My real goal was to make sure that Romney did not win here by a big enough margin to develop real momentum.

RUSH: All right. So that’s it: My purpose here is Romney. I’ve taken out Romney. You can almost say that Newt is going Perot. You know, when Perot got involved in 1992 everybody was saying, “What the heck is this? Where did Perot come from?” And I found out. Do you remember, Snerdley? Do you remember the story? (interruption) Yeah, but why? (interruption) It was: Get Bush. Exactly. I’ll tell you what happened. If you have forgotten, here’s what happened. Ross Perot was a huge supporter of the military. He always has been. Loves them. At some point in the Reagan years, the administration wanted to investigate claims that there were American POWs in North Vietnam, but it was long after the war was over, and they needed private sector funds to do this.

So from what I was told, the Reagan White House dispatched George H. W. Bush to go to Perot and explain what they wanted, what they needed. They asked for Perot to help fund the potential rescue mission — and Perot was willing to — but he said he wanted to go. He wanted to be part of it. He wanted to be on the front lines. And they said, “Oh, no, no, no. You can’t go. Nobody can know. No, no, no. You can’t have any role in this.” And a couple of other things, and Perot felt — (sigh) what’s the word? — slighted, betrayed, what have you, ’cause that was after. They told him after they got the money that he wasn’t gonna be able to be involved in it anyway, and from what I was told — and it was by somebody in the inner circle of Bush — that that led to the desire of Perot to wage payback.

When I learned that, that’s why I’ve felt all along that Perot never really wanted to win that campaign. He just wanted to deny it to Bush. He just wanted to deny reelection of George H. W. Bush in 1992. So you might say that Newt now has adopted the Perot stance, because he just said it: “I’m gonna make sure that Romney doesn’t come out of New Hampshire with any momentum whatsoever.” And he’s using language that the left uses, and he’s attempting to make hay with this. You know, he’s trying to dredge up and have long-lasting negatives attach to Romney (this is what’s so unsettling about this) in the same way the left would say it. You could, after all these bites, say, “I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message.”

Source here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/10/gingrich_goes_perot_on_romney

(Update: Video can be watched here)

Mitt Romney is calling President Obama’s appointees to the labor board “union stooges” who practice un-American political playback, in a new ad his campaign is airing in South Carolina.

The release of the 30-second television ad comes the day after Obama installed three new members of the National Labor Relations Board, appointing them while the Senate was in recess to sidestep Republican opposition.

A day earlier, Romney claimed victory in Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses, but his razor-thin margin raised prospects that the nomination fight will carry on in earnest past New Hampshire’s primary on Tuesday and into South Carolina, where Republicans will vote on Jan. 20.

“The National Labor Relations Board, now stacked with union stooges selected by the president, says to a free enterprise like Boeing, ‘You can’t build a factory in South Carolina because South Carolina is a right-to-work state.’ That is simply un-American,” Romney says in the ad. “It is political payback of the worst kind.”

Republicans have lambasted Obama and the labor panel for trying to block Boeing from building in South Carolina, a decision the panel said was made because of contract disputes with union employees in Washington state. The scrape was dropped last month after Boeing reached a contract agreement with the union.

“You’re seeing a president adopt policies which affect our economy based not upon what’s right for the American worker but instead what’s right for their politics,” Romney says.

Today Mitt Romney delivered a major speech on Health Care.  He detailed the differences between Obamacare and what he was able to accomplish in the state of Massachusetts, as well as detailing why Obamacare is bad for the country.  You can view the powerpoint by clicking on the image below.