Great response from Governor Romney regarding Obama’s attack on the Catholic Church!  Five past ambassadors to the Vatican have endorsed Governor Romney!

The Obama administration is at it again. They are now using Obamacare to impose a secular vision on Americans who believe that they should not have their religious freedom taken away.

On January 20, 2012, the Obama administration affirmed a rule that would force Roman Catholic hospitals, charities, and universities to purchase health insurance for their employees that includes coverage for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization, in violation of their religious principles. This is wrong.

My own view is clear. I stand with the Catholic Bishops and all religious organizations in their strenuous objection to this liberty- and conscience-stifling regulation.  I am committed to overturning Obamacare root and branch. If I am elected President, on day one of my administration I will issue an executive order directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue a waiver from its requirements to all 50 states. And on day one I will eliminate the Obama administration rule that compels religious institutions to violate the tenets of their own faith. Such rules don’t belong in the America that I believe in.

The America I believe in is governed by the U.S. Constitution and I will not hesitate to use the powers of the presidency to protect religious liberty.

Religious liberty is at the heart of the American experiment. As a nation founded in part by religious dissenters, we enshrined it as the first freedom in our Bill of Rights. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is how the First Amendment begins. James Madison put the moral principle behind the amendment succinctly: “Conscience is the most sacred of all property.” And accompanying the moral principle came the social principle that only religious liberty could ensure tranquility in a new land composed of men and women of differing faiths.

But, now, more than two centuries after the drafting of the Bill of Rights, religious liberty is facing the most serious assault in generations. And the assault is coming from liberalism itself. In the process of implementing Obamacare, the Obama administration is pressing forward with a rule that tramples on religious freedom, taking particular aim at Roman Catholics. The Obama administration is forcing religious institutions to choose between violating their conscience  or dropping health care coverage for their employees, effectively destroying their ability to carry on their work.

Those of us who object have an irrefutable case. American courts have long held as a foundational principle the right of religious institutions to control their own affairs. It was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court as recently as January 11  in a case involving ministerial hiring. It is notable that in that case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC, the Obama administration was also challenging the basic time-honored principle of ecclesiastical autonomy. But a unanimous Court rejected the Obama administration’s position, declaring it to be “extreme” and explaining that the suit was “hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations.”

Seemingly in line with this “special solicitude,” the Obama administration has put forward a “religious employer” exemption regarding contraception and sterilization insurance coverage. Unfortunately, the Obama administration lawyers narrowed its actual force almost to the vanishing point. It only applies to religious organizations engaged primarily in serving people of the same religion. But that is not what many religious institutions do; serving the broad public is the essence of their divine mission. Accordingly, they will be compelled to provide health coverage to which they object as a matter of conscience.

In an effort to mollify the Bishops, Health and Human Services has now given religious institutions an additional twelve months to comply. That twelve-month extension is a clumsy attempt to push this matter past this year’s presidential election. As long as the rule hovers in front of us, we must keep up the battle. In a polity that provides all manners of exemption on the basis of religious freedom, it is an appalling trespass on the First Amendment.

Liberals and conservatives have made common cause to defend the rights of religious minorities in the past.  But somehow, today, when it comes to the agenda of the left-wing of the Democratic Party—those who brought us abortion on demand and who fight against the teaching of abstinence education in our children’s schools—their devotion to religious freedom goes out the window. They would force Catholics and others who have beliefs rooted in their faith to sacrifice the teachings of their faith to the mandate of federal bureaucrats.

It is a prerequisite to the preservation of our liberty that our government not dictate to religious institutions the principles by which they are to carry out their charitable and divine mission. Religious liberty and freedom of conscience flow from the common conviction that it is freedom not coercion that exalts the individual, just as it raises up the nation.

What the Obama administration has done is indefensible. But this is about even more than President Obama denying America’s Catholics their constitutionally protected rights. This is about the preservation of our freedom. We must come together to make sure that these egregious violations of our Constitution do not stand.

So, after demanding Mitt Romney’s tax returns in an effort to make him look like he’s just another greedy, rich Republican , the returns show that Mr. Romney donates 15 times more to charity than the President of the United States.  I guess all those multi-million dollar vacations to Hawaii, Spain and other swanky, super expensive resorts around the world really do eat into the Obama’s budget.  Not that it really came out of their pocket, mind you.  Mr. President, Newt, a word of advice…careful what you ask for, sometimes what you find explodes in your face.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.

The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income.

Romney charitable contributions 

Tax year    Taxable income          Charitable donations Donations as % of income
2010           $21.7 million                 $2.98 million                13.73%
2011 (est)   $20.9 million                $4 million                     19.14%

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/01/24/whos-greedy-obama-gave-1-charity-romney-gave-15#ixzz1kRKkSXvR

New Romney Web Ad “The real State of The Union Address”



Campaign Carl sits down with Mitt Romney to discuss his take on the President’s upcoming State of the Union address, if he considers himself an underdog, and today’s release of his tax returns.

This is a clear indication that Mitt Romney needs to be the GOP candidate to face off with Obama.

Romney Still Strongest Against Obama

Rasmussen 2012 Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

• Barack Obama 46% [45%] (44%)
• Mitt Romney 43% [43%] (44%)

• Barack Obama 49% [48%] (47%)
• Newt Gingrich 40% [39%] (40%)

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.  Results from the poll conducted January 20-22, 2012 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 19-21, 2012 are in parentheses.

–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal

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.

I know we’re still six days away from just the third GOP nomination contest, but, as to the eventual nominee, signs are all pointing in one particular direction.  Toward Mitt Romney.  If you’ve followed Election Projection long, you have probably gathered that Mitt Romney is not my favorite prospective GOP nominee.  In fact, I’ve tried my objective best to imagine someone else overtaking him and his longtime frontrunner status.

When Rick Perry joined the fray, I boldly declared him the next nominee – and the next president. (Ok, how was I to know he’d forget his own policies?).  When Rick Santorum utilized Mike Huckabee’s GOP base in Iowa to gain a virtual tie with Romney in the Hawkeye Caucuses, I pegged the nomination contest as a two-man race.  In between, I rode the short-lived waves of Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich.  And most recently, I even floated the possibility of a Perry comeback in the days before New Hampshire.

Now, with South Carolina’s primary less than a week away, I’ve become convinced of a less-than-optimal inevitability.  It is with some regret that I hereby relinquish hope of an “anti-Romney” candidate prevailing to face President Obama in November.  Mitt Romney is dominating the fundraising battle and the endorsement tally.  Beyond that, also continues to lead the polls both in South Carolina and nationally.

Trying to draw up a scenario that doesn’t end with a Romney nomination has become unreasonably improbable.  So sure am I that he will emerge the nominee that I will soon be dispensing with my preliminary presidential projections and initiating actual, formula-driven projections using Obama vs. Romney poll numbers.  Let the games begin – and may Romney win.

Source 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.

Romney: Some Desperate Republicans Have Joined Forces With President Obama:

Pawlenty Gives a Strong Defense of Against Socialist Like Attacks By Gingrich/Perry

Alex and Maggie wrote this morning about the very real possibility of a long-slog primary for Mitt Romney, in which his opponents stay in the race long beyond South Carolina and Florida to amass delegates under the new proportional rules.

But the Romney camp is making a fairly explicit argument this morning that the race will be over much sooner than that. In a memo this morning, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul writes — complete with the chart below — that since many of Romney’s GOP rivals have missed ballot deadlines in one or more states, they’ll be unable to amass enough delegates to keep their campaigns going.

Ballot access has been an issue for several less organized campaigns this year, and delegates from bigger states like Illinois or Virginia could be crucial to keeping a candidate in the running delegate-wise. It’s no secret that Romney’s campaign has the best ground organization further down the calendar, which is why making the ballot hasn’t been an issue for them — but whether that advantage will be enough to end the primary quickly remains to be seen.

Original article here: http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/team-romney-makes-the-case-for-a-quick-primary-110325.html#.TwyamFQNo2c.twitter