The Obama Administration: Using the Military as Guinea Pigs

In my recent post, Moochelle and Her Food Police Strike Again, I brought you information concerning the First Lady’s efforts to make our Best and Brightest eat like a bunch of rabbits:

In an event at Little Rock Air Force Base, Obama announced a new Pentagon obesity and nutritional awareness campaign that will change nutrition standards across the services for the first time in 20 years.

The changes will bring more fruits, vegetables, whole grains and food choices that are lower in fat to 1.45 million troops a day at all 1,100 American military dining facilities in the coming months.

“This isn’t just a drop in the bucket – this is really a big splash,” Obama said.

“It’s happening because our military leaders know it’s not just a diet issue, it’s not just a health issue. This is truly a national security issue,” she said at the base, which already has a pilot program to improve nutritional quality of food available to service members and their families.

Moochelle and her Food Police are wasting no time implementing their new diet restrictions and using our Fighting Men and Women as guinea pigs (again).

CNSNews.com has the story:

During a panel discussion Thursday on how government can promote healthy eating habits, the U.S. Army touted its mess hall labeling system that places warning on desserts and fried foods.

The event, held at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, saw Lt. Col. Sonya Cable highlight the “Go for Green” program, which labels healthy foods green, moderate foods amber, and high calorie foods red.

The nutrition education program alerts soldiers that “red” foods like bacon and apple pie should only be eaten rarely, with a warning: “limit intake.” Foods labeled green, however, such as mustard greens, are deemed “premium fuel for the soldier athlete,” “fresh and flavorful” and “nutrient dense.” Soldiers are advised to eat these frequently.

Cable represents the U.S. Army Soldier Fueling Initiative, which is remaking dining facilities at Initial Military Training sites across the country. She currently serves as a dietitian and the Chief of the Human Dimensions Division within the Initial Military Training Center of Excellence.

During the panel discussion she advised using the “red, amber, green” system in public schools too.

“My eyes got opened very quickly that it really is a community,” she said, about her visit to Fort Jackson, S.C. seven years ago to observe its dining facilities. “We talk about a village that raises a child. Well a community develops a brand new soldier, too. And that’s what we found there.”

“When I got there our dining facilities were typical dining facility type styles, you know, the fried foods, salad bars existed,” Cable continued.

“We had soda machines and the pastries were, you know, typical cookies, cake, cakes, pies, all of those types of things. Well, then we had the challenge of, okay, now we’re taking former civilians, now developing into soldiers and trying to develop them,” she said. This was the beginning of the Soldier Fueling Initiative and Cable’s efforts to influence the behavior of new recruits.

If you walk into a basic training cafeteria today you will find far fewer fried foods and soda machines have been replaced with “hydration stations,” she explained.

“In the military we all kind of know red means, ‘uh oh, there’s problems,’” Cable said. “Amber, middle of the road, we’re doing okay. And green is good to go, all is right. We took that same concept and we applied it to our menus.”

For instance, the program’s Recipe Nutrition Analysis lists pies, cookies, cakes, éclairs, and banana splits as “red” foods – highest in calories and lowest in vitamins and minerals.

Posters and placards encourage soldiers to opt instead for such “green” desserts as baked bananas and fruit cups.

“All the foods are labeled throughout the serving line so that our soldiers would be informed as to making choices related to their performance goals,” Cable said.

“I had some folks say to me, ‘Well, why on earth did you even include the red ones to begin with?’ Two reasons – one, we’ve got soldiers who have racehorse metabolisms that they needed every calorie I could get into them. And by taking off the ‘red’ we just found that we couldn’t get enough calories in them.”

The second reason for including “red” foods, Cable said, was “so they could learn what contributed positively and maybe what contributed negatively. Not to say that every food is bad, it’s just how they fit into your performance goals.”

So, within a year’s time, the Obama Administration has ended Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, laid out a plan to cut our military’s health insurance, and now, they won’t even let them have a Coca-Cola.

Why does Obama and his Administration hate our Best and Brightest?

Romney: Meet the New Mod, Same as the Old Mod

Republican Candidate for his party’s nomination, Mitt Romney, stuck his foot in his mouth again today.  Or was it intentional?

Here’s the quote from talkingpointsmemo.com:

It’s very easy to excite the base with incendiary comments. We’ve seen throughout the campaign if you’re willing to say really outrageous things that are accusative, attacking of President Obama, that you’re going to jump up in the polls. I’m not willing to light my hair on fire to try and get support. I am who I am. I’m a person with extensive experience in the private sector, in the economy.

Conservative Talk Show King Rush Limbaugh had an excellent observation about Mitt’s latest gaffe:

All right. Gosh, these guys are making it so hard for me. So Romney’s not willing to say “incendiary” things about Obama to excite the base. Well, what does he say? Nice guy, just in over his head. What does this tell you that Romney thinks of the base? That it takes incendiary comments to turn you on. That all you want is somebody beating up on Obama. Somebody to come along and beat up Obama or set their hair on fire to get attention, something like that, and that’s all you care about. And maybe not all you care about, but that’s what really gets you off your duff. And Mitt Romney says, “I have got extensive experience in the private sector. I am not gonna criticize Obama.” If he’s not careful, you know how we joke about John Kerry, who, by the way, served in Vietnam — been pointing that out now for eight years — it isn’t gonna be long before everybody’s gonna say, “Mitt Romney, who had extensive experience in the private sector.”

Look, Romney people, you got to know, I love you. But I’m not the one saying what he’s saying. I did not raise the white flag in Michigan today. I didn’t say I’m not gonna say incendiary things just to attract the base. At least McCain waited until the general campaign to make it clear that anybody criticizing Obama would be fired. Here it’s happening in the primary. I’m not gonna make any incendiary comments to attract the base. I have extensive experience in the private sector. Obama can say whatever he wants about us and does, and the media can, and we’re not talking about incendiary, we’re talking about truth, I thought.

I’m getting this strange feeling of deja vu…all over again.  

And here’s the proof, courtesy of The Wall Street Journal, in an article posted June 5, 2008:

Barack Obama and John McCain spoke on the phone Wednesday night and agreed to engage in a “civil discussion in the campaign moving forward,” according to an Obama aide.

McCain initiated the call at 7:00pm EDT to congratulate Obama on securing the nomination after a hard-fought primary against Hillary Clinton.

This is the first time the opponents have spoken since Obama clinched the number of delegates needed to capture the nomination on Tuesday.

As of now, Obama and McCain have exchanged rhetoric that by most counts would not be characterized as “civil.” Obama has come down on his Republican rival over a gaffe he made about troop levels and has accused him of not understanding the economy. McCain, meanwhile, has attacked the Democratic nominee over his lack of foreign policy experience and his willingness to meet with leaders of rogue nations.

During his victory rally in St. Paul, Minn., on Tuesday, Obama praised McCain for his military service and said he is “a genuine American hero.” But criticized him for offering “four more years of the failed Bush policies.”

McCain has called for a series of ten joint town hall style meetings with Obama. The Illinois senator is also open to the proposal of joint appearances, and the two campaigns are in talks.

“The American people deserve a debate worthy of their concerns and hopes for the future. Everyone can celebrate today’s step toward that goal with an agreement, in spirit, between the McCain and Obama campaigns to participate in joint town hall appearances,” McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said in a statement.

Back on January 19, 2012 at the CNN Republican Candidate Debate, Romney said:

And — well, let’s see. I guess — I guess I also would go back and take every moment I spent talking about one of the guys on the stage and spent that time talking about Barack Obama because…the — the truth is that — that Barack Obama is just way over his head and he’s taking our country down a path that is very dangerous. He’s making us more and more like a European social welfare state. He’s making us an entitlement society. He’s taking away the rights of our citizens. He believes government should run this country.

Look, the right course for America is to return to our fundamental principles, and I would be talking about that more, and probably about my colleagues less because frankly, any one of them would be a better president than the one we’ve got.

Gov. Romney is right about one thing:  America needs to return to our fundamental principles.  However, in order to accomplish that, we will need a leader who will fight to restore them, not stick his finger up in the air to determine from which direction the wind is blowing, before he makes a presidential decision.

And, we need a Republican Candidate who will fight to win the Presidency.

We already tried nominating a Moderate in 2008….and we all remember how that fiasco turned out.

Obama to Cut Troops’ Health Insurance

Remember when we had a Commander in Chief who actually cared about our Best and Brightest?

Here’s a reminder:

From The Washington Times, 12/22/2008

For much of the past seven years, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have waged a clandestine operation inside the White House. It has involved thousands of military personnel, private presidential letters and meetings that were kept off their public calendars or sometimes left the news media in the dark.

Their mission: to comfort the families of soldiers who died fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and to lift the spirits of those wounded in the service of their country.

On Monday, the president is set to make a more common public trip – with reporters in tow – to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, home to many of the wounded and a symbol of controversy earlier in his presidency over the quality of care the veterans were receiving.

But the size and scope of Mr. Bush’s and Mr. Cheney’s private endeavors to meet with wounded soliders and families of the fallen far exceed anything that has been witnessed publicly, according to interviews with more than a dozen officials familiar with the effort.

“People say, ‘Why would you do that?’” the president said in an Oval Office interview with The Washington Times on Friday. “And the answer is: This is my duty. The president is commander in chief, but the president is often comforter in chief, as well. It is my duty to be – to try to comfort as best as I humanly can a loved one who is in anguish.”

Mr. Bush, for instance, has sent personal letters to the families of every one of the more than 4,000 troops who have died in the two wars, an enormous personal effort that consumed hours of his time and escaped public notice. The task, along with meeting family members of troops killed in action, has been so wrenching – balancing the anger, grief and pride of families coping with the loss symbolized by a flag-draped coffin – that the president often leaned on his wife, Laura, for emotional support.

“I lean on the Almighty and Laura,” Mr. Bush said in the interview. “She has been very reassuring, very calming.”

Mr. Bush also has met privately with more than 500 families of troops killed in action and with more than 950 wounded veterans, according to White House spokesman Carlton Carroll. Many of those meetings were outside the presence of the news media at the White House or at private sessions during official travel stops, officials said.

In contrast, this administration seems to view America’s Fighting Men and Women as nothing more that lab rats to be apologized for and jacked around with.

You’re not going to believe this.

The Washington Free Beacon has the story:

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

Many in Congress are opposing the proposed changes, which would require the passage of new legislation before being put in place.

“We shouldn’t ask our military to pay our bills when we aren’t willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population,” Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a Republican from California, said in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon. “We can’t keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more.”

Administration officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

“When they talked to us, they did mention the option of healthcare exchanges under Obamacare. So it’s in their mind,” said a congressional aide involved in the issue.

Military personnel from several of the armed services voiced their opposition to a means-tested tier system for Tricare, prompting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey to issue a statement Feb. 21.

Dempsey said the military is making tough choices in cutting defense spending. In addition to the $487 billion over 10 years, the Pentagon is facing automatic cuts that could push the total reductions to $1 trillion.

“I want those of you who serve and who have served to know that we’ve heard your concerns, in particular your concern about the tiered enrollment fee structure for Tricare in retirement,” Dempsey said. “You have our commitment that we will continue to review our health care system to make it as responsive, as affordable, and as equitable as possible.”

Under the new plan, the Pentagon would get the bulk of its savings by targeting under-65 and Medicare-eligible military retirees through a tiered increase in annual Tricare premiums that will be based on yearly retirement pay.

Significantly, the plan calls for increases between 30 percent to 78 percent in Tricare annual premiums for the first year. After that, the plan will impose five-year increases ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels.

According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048.

The new plan hits active duty personnel by increasing co-payments for pharmaceuticals and eliminating incentives for using generic drugs.

This is no way to treat the brave men and women who keep our country free.

Mr. President, you and your Administration should be ashamed of yourselves.

But…you aren’t.

Barack Obama: The Great Uniter?

Do you remember when Barack Hussein Obama was running for president?  He was positioned by his handlers and the Main Stream Media as “The Great Uniter”.  He was going to bring us all together as one nation…under him.

Washingtonpost.com reported on August 15, 2007 that:

Drawing a sharp contrast with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, his main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama said in an interview that he has the capacity she may lack to unify the country and move it out of what he called “ideological gridlock.”

“I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can,” Obama said. “I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the ’90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t be running.”

Consistently trailing Clinton (N.Y.) in national polls, Obama (Ill.) has sought recently to draw more explicit contrasts between his views and what he has portrayed as the conventional thinking and behavior that have caused problems for the country, especially in the rest of the world. He did that again in the interview Monday afternoon, defending himself against criticism from Clinton and other Democratic rivals for a series of statements on foreign policy and arguing that Clinton’s foreign policy views risk continued international perceptions of U.S. arrogance.

But he also made a broader argument that more than a change in parties is needed to fix the country’s problems. At one point, Obama said he was not singling out Clinton in saying that he is better able to pull the nation together than any of his challengers, but over the course of the 40-minute interview he volunteered a number of contrasts between his views and Clinton’s.

“Her argument is going to be that ‘I’m the experienced Washington hand,’ and my argument is going to be that we need to change the ways of Washington,” he said. “That’s going to be a good choice for the American people.”

Saying that Bill Clinton’s presidency was good for America, he added: “The question is, moving forward, looking towards the future, is it sufficient just to change political parties, or do we need a more fundamental change in how business is done in Washington . . .? Do we need to break out of some of the ideological battles that we fought during the ’90s that were really extensions of battles we fought since the ’60s?”

Obama never used the term “polarizing” to describe Clinton but made it clear he has studied polls that show that many people have an unfavorable opinion of her. “I don’t think there is anybody in this race who’s able to bring new people into the process and break out of some of the ideological gridlock that we have as effectively as I can,” he said.

Well, that didn’t happen.  In fact, America, under President Barack Hussein Obama, is more polarized than ever before.

Now,  Obama and his Campaign have just announced the formation of “African Americans for Obama”.

Believe it or not, prisonplanet.com has this interesting story:

The program urges black Americans to volunteer their time by making calls, organizing events and going door to door in their neighborhoods encouraging other African Americans to vote for Obama.

Not only is Obama playing the race card in an attempt to pressure black Americans into voting for him, he is also violating the separation between church and state. In the video promo for the campaign, Obama urges black people to pressure churches into supporting his administration by getting his message out via “the faith community”. He also calls on voters to become “congregation captains”.

Again, imagine what the reaction would be any of the Republican candidates launched a ‘Whites for Romney’, ‘Whites for Santorum’ or ‘Whites for Gingrich’ campaign. There would be non-stop uproar. But Obama does the equivalent and gets a free pass.

“I thought race didn’t matter Mr. President?” asks Chad Hasty. “I don’t think MLK would be too pleased with you at all. African-Americans for Obama? Give me a break. Under this President, more blacks are unemployed. More blacks are on food stamps. If I had to bet though, Obama will still pull 93% of the black vote. Again, just a wild guess.”

As part of his efforts to lock down the black community as a voting bloc, Obama has arrived in Florida accompanied by an invasion of rappers and NBA basketball stars – all at taxpayer expense.

“The group — which organizers said includes Magic Johnson, Alonzo Mourning and NBA Commissioner David Stern — will meet with President Obama for a $30,000-a-plate fundraiser at the (actual) home court of Dallas Mavericks guard Vince Carter in his Isleworth mansion,” reports the Orlando Sentinel.

The expensive fundraising trip is timed to coincide with Sunday’s 61st NBA All-Star Game at Orlando’s Amway Center.

An expensive new basketball shoe launched to capitalize on the event caused mayhem at a Florida mall last night. Riot police were called after crowds attempted to rush into a branch of Foot Locker to purchase the shoe before closing time.

“The Great Uniter” has had quite a month.  First, he attacked Freedom of Religion by issuing an edict that Catholic Hospitals had to provide contraceptives and the morning after abortion pill to patients desiring to use them.

Next, he and his Administration apologized to Karzai and the rest of the Muslims in Afghanistan for burning Korans which had been defaced already by Islamic Terrorists

And now, this.

Hardly unifying the country, is it?

I was thinking, as I lay around, under the weather, of forming “Fishbelly White Old Guys for Santorum” in retaliation.  But, I wouldn’t do something so stupid.

That would be RAAACIIIST.

Stand Beside Her and Guide Her…

By now, you’re probably tired of me mentioning that, per Gallup, 78% of Americans are Christian.  There’s a reason that I constantly refer to that fact. If you listen to the Main Stream Media, Liberals, “Fiscal Conservatives”, and the Obama Administration, you would think that we’re only about 1% of the U.S. Population, when, in reality, that status belongs to Muslims.

Christians are an overwhelming majority in this country, and yet, we’re treated in the public square, as some sort of hateful minority.

I was going to write that Christians are being treated like a bunch of Islamic Terrorists or sumpin’…but, the Obama Administration are negotiating with them (and apologizing).

When you think about the start of Islamic Terrorism, your mind, if you’re as old as I am, probably goes back to 1979, and the overthrow of the Shah of Iram by Muslim Clerics, precipitating the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Given the recent news out of the country of Iran, with that country feverishly trying to build a nuclear arsenal, so that they might kill all of us infidels, can you imagine how they might treat one of their own, who not only converted to Christianity, but became a Christian Pastor?

The Pastor in question, Youcef Nadarkhani, has been held in an Iranian jail since 2009.

The Christian Post has the story:

The American Center for Law and Justice told The Christian Post that, according to their sources in Iran, Youcef Nadarkhani is indeed alive. The statement was emailed Wednesday amid reports that an execution order may have been issued for the evangelical Christian pastor.

“Our efforts to secure his release are intensifying – in Congress to seek support of the resolution and at the U.N. to bring this case to the attention of member nations,” Gene Kapp, the ACLJ’s media representative, told The Christian Post Wednesday morning.

Both the ACLJ and Present Truth Ministries (PTM), which has also been closely monitoring Nadarkhani’s case, revealed this week that it was believed that the Iranian courts may have signed an execution order for Nadarkhani. However, PTM issued a press release Wednesday saying it had learned that an execution order had in fact been signed by the Iranian courts.

“The order has not been delivered to Youcef’s family and we do not know if they will allow another appeal. We also do not know if it has been approved by the Ayatollah who is the head of the Judiciary Sadegh Larijani,” Present Truth Ministries stated in the press release.

Nadarkhani was originally arrested in Oct. 2009 for protesting the teaching of Islam at his children’s school. His charges were later changed to apostasy and attempting to evangelize Muslims. His sentence for apostasy was execution, but after much international pressure the Iranian court system delayed the verdict, passing the case to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the nation’s supreme authority, for review.

“The news out of Iran is not encouraging. With Iran now dominating international headlines because of its military actions, it’s clear Iran may have decided to move forward by issuing an execution order, knowing that the world’s attention is focused elsewhere right now,” Jordan Sekulow, Executive Director of the ACLJ, announced in a press release Tuesday.

According to the ACLJ, it was unclear whether Nadarkhani will be able to appeal his execution order. Most of Iran’s executions are conducted in secret.

“We also know that Iran’s top officials can reject the execution order and release Pastor Youcef if they so desire. We will keep the international pressure on Iran to free Pastor Youcef,” Sekulow said.

Nadarkhani has refused to renounce his Christian faith, even though he was repeatedly pressured to recant.

Just last week, United States Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.) introduced a resolution to Congress condemning Iran for imprisoning Nadarkhani and demanding his immediate release. More than 35,000 Americans signed the ACLJ petition urging members of Congress to support the resolution, entitled H. Res. 556.

That could never happen here, right?  I mean, America is a country founded on a Judeo-Christian belief system.    Certainly, American Christian Pastors would never wind up in jail, would they? I refer you to our neighbor to the North: On September 17, 2003, Canada’s House of Commons passed a bill that adds sexual orientation as a protected category in Canada’s genocide and hate-crimes legislation. According to many religious believers and free-speech advocates, the bill will criminalize public expression, including Sunday sermons, against homosexual behavior. Those convicted of violating this law face up to five years in prison. In July of 2008, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal issued a ruling forbidding evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights” activist who filed the complaint. So, you’re saying, “KJ, that’s Canada.  Don’t be silly.” Uh huh. Back in June of 2006, Obama said:

Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

Obama made a similar statement in an email response to CBN’s David Brody in 2007:

Whatever we once were, we’re no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

Speaking in Turkey in July of 2011, Obama said:

We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.

Consider the happenings of this week.  Obama and his Administration apologized twice to President Karzai and the Afghanis for the burning of Islamic Terrorists’ Korans with the barbarians’ notes scribbled in them.

Then, think about Pastor Youcef, his family, and all those Christians living in Iran and the Middle East and say a prayer for them.

…and, say a prayer for our nation, as well.

Of Apologies and Apostasy

America’s Best and Brightest have been fighting and dying in Afghanistan since 2001.  Current casualty figures cite 1,904 killed, 14,342 wounded.

President Barack Hussein Obama (peace be upon him) has taken it upon himself to apologize for our entire nation to the people who have killed our sons and daughters.

Yahoo! News has the story:

US President Barack Obama sent Afghan President Hamid Karzai a letter of apology over the burning of copies of the Koran overseen by a US officer at a US military base, Karzai’s office said Thursday.

Obama said the incident was unintentional and pledged a full investigation, the president’s office said, as fierce anti-US protests swept the nation in which at least 14 people have died, including two American soldiers.

“I wish to express my deep regret for the reported incident,” Obama wrote in the letter presented to Karzai by US ambassador Ryan Crocker. “I extend to you and the Afghan people my sincere apologies.”

“The error was inadvertent; I assure you that we will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible,” the letter said.

Karzai told members of parliament that a US officer was responsible for the burning that was done “out of ignorance”, his office said.

The incident at the US military base at Bagram north of Kabul sparked three days of fierce anti-US protests in which at least 12 protesters were killed.

Two American soldiers also died when an Afghan army colleague turned his weapon on them as demonstrators approached a US base in eastern Nangarhar province Thursday, the military and officials said.

“As the protesters approached the American base here an ANA (Afghan) soldier in the base opened fire on American soldiers, killing two soldiers,” said the district chief of Khogyani in eastern Nangarhar province, Mohammad Hassan.

The shooter then escaped among the crowd while two protesters were killed and six wounded as the foreign soldiers returned fire, Hassan said.

NATO’s US-led International Security Assistance force had announced the deaths of two soldiers at the hands of a man in Afghan army uniform, without identifying their nationalities.

The attack came just hours after Taliban insurgents urged Afghans to kill foreign troops to avenge the burning of the Korans.

You want to know what the ig’nant thing is about Obama’s apology?

CNN.com will tell you:

The Qurans were among religious materials removed from a detainee facility at Bagram Airfield. The materials were gathered for disposal and were inadvertently given to troops for burning, Gen. John Allen, commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force, said Tuesday.

“This was not a decision that was made because they were religious materials,” he said. “It was not a decision that was made with respect to the faith of Islam. It was a mistake. It was an error. The moment we found out about it, we immediately stopped and we intervened.”

A military official said the materials were removed from the detainee center’s library because they had “extremist inscriptions” on them and there was “an appearance that these documents were being used to facilitate extremist communications.”

On May 19th, 2009, abcnews.go.com published the following story:

On May 4, Al Jazeera English ran a report suggesting that U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan may have been violating anti-proselytizing rules by distributing Dari-and Pashto-language New Testament Bibles.

Central Command General Order No. 1 specifically forbids “proselytizing of any faith, religion or practice.” The footage came from documentary filmmaker Brian Hughes

The report showed a service from approximately a year ago, with the head U.S. military chaplain in Afghanistan, Lt. Colonel Gary Hensley, talking about the need to spread the Gospel.

“The special forces guys — they hunt men basically,” Hensley said. “We do the same things as Christians, we hunt people for Jesus. We do, we hunt them down. Get the hound of heaven after them, so we get them into the kingdom. That’s what we do, that’s our business.”

In another clip, Sgt. Jon Watt mentions during a Bible study class: “My church collected some money to get Bibles for Afghanistan. They came and sent the money out.”

In a discussion about General Order No. 1, Watt says “you can’t proselytize, but you can give gifts.”

In the extended documentary footage Watt talks about how this worked in Iraq. “I bought a carpet and then I gave the guy a Bible after I conducted my business… The expressions that I got from the people in Iraq [were] just phenomenal, they were hungry for The Word.”

The day of the Al Jazeera English broadcast, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Adm. Mike Mullen was asked about the report.

“My reaction is twofold,” Mullen said. “One is that I’m not aware of the details of this and certainly want to know more about it. Secondly, it certainly is — from the United States military’s perspective — not our position to ever push any specific kind of religion. Period.”

Pentagon officials immediately began assailing the story as “wrong.” Pentagon officials said that Lt. Col. Hensley was not promoting the proselytizing of Afghans, and Watt was counseled not to distribute them.

Though a discussion about what to do with the Bibles was captured on video, Pentagon officials said the end result that the Bibles were not distributed but confiscated by the chaplain — which is not shown in the footage.

“A documentary filmmaker was allowed onto Bagram last May to shoot footage of religious sessions involving troops,” the Pentagon said. “He recorded a session where a participant displayed Bibles translated into Dari and Pashto that had been sent to him by his church back home. After a discussion of how or if they should be distributed, the chaplain running the service reaffirmed Gen. Order No. 1 and the Bibles were not distributed and were confiscated.”

As to the Lt. Col. Hensley urging his congregation to hunt people for Jesus, the Pentagon official said the chaplain was speaking in general terms and not urging them to go out into Afghanistan to convert locals.

(That, of course, does not touch the issue of Sgt. Watt distributing Bibles in Iraq.)

On May 5, Army spokeswoman Major Jennifer Willis told Reuters that at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan “the Bibles shown on Al Jazeera’s clip were, in fact, collected by the chaplains and later destroyed. They were never distributed.”

Today, Christian Broadcasting’s David Brody says “the Bibles were burned because the rules on the base say that all garbage is burned at the end of the day. But just asking here; if the U.S. Military seized a stack full of Korans, would they be burned? You think that might cause a little outrage in the Muslim world?”

Brody also makes note of The Great Commission in the Book of Matthew where Jesus says “(G)o and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

Why did the 78% of Americans who proclaim Christianity never receive an apology?

Merriam-Webster.com defines apostasy as:

1. renunciation of a religious faith
2. abandonment of a previous loyalty

As pertains to our current Commander-in-Chief, you decide which definition applies.

Or, you could choose “3. Both of the above”.

Obama’s Gas Prices Address: “Malaise II: The Sequel”

Are you old enough to remember what America was like under the leadership of President Jimmy Carter?  If you aren’t, here’s a reminder of what Americans had to endure, as the Carter Administration faced a “Crisis of Confidence”, courtesy of PBS.org:

At the heart of the internal debate over the administration’s future was a memo by Caddell, Carter’s pollster and resident “deep thinker.” “What was really disturbing to me,” he remembered, “was for the first time, we actually got numbers where people no longer believed that the future of America was going to be as good as it was now. And that really shook me, because it was so at odds with the American character.” Caddell argued that after fifteen years filled with assassinations, Vietnam, Watergate, and a declining economy, Americans were suffering from a general “crisis of confidence.” Address this fundamental problem, he told the president, inspire the country to overcome it, and you will turn your presidency around.

…On the evening of July 15, 1979, millions of Americans tuned in to hear Jimmy Carter give the most important speech of his presidency. After sharing some of the criticism he had heard at Camp David — including an unattributed quote from the young governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton — Carter put his own spin on Caddell’s argument. “The solution of our energy crisis can also help us to conquer the crisis of the spirit in our country,” the president said, asking Americans to join him in adapting to a new age of limits.

But he also admonished them, “In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does but by what one owns.” Hendrik Hertzberg, who worked on the speech, admits that it “was more like a sermon than a political speech. It had the themes of confession, redemption, and sacrifice. He was bringing the American people into this spiritual process that he had been through, and presenting them with an opportunity for redemption as well as redeeming himself.” Though he never used the word — Caddell had in his memo — it became known as Carter’s “malaise” speech.

Fast forward to the Obama Administration, which Americans have less-than- affectionately dubbed, “Carter on steroids”.

On April 23rd of last year, npr.org posted the following article, “Gas Prices: Lessons From the Carter Years:

Oil and gas prices are a perennial bane for American presidents. The cycle is familiar by now — they go up, the American people get angry, and they blame the man at the top.

“It’s so visible in our lives,” political consultant Tad Devine tells NPR’s Linda Wertheimer. “Now, through pervasive television coverage, through the Internet and everything else, people are so aware of how much it costs and how quickly it’s rising.”

“There’s growing demand around the world for petroleum products,” Devine says. “China, India — these economies, which are emerging as gigantic competitive economies, are going to rely on petroleum as a principal source of energy.”

“As a result of that competition, I don’t think there is going to be pressure for [petroleum companies] to cut the price,” he says. “I think there’s going to be pressure to raise the price. So we’re really in a fix here.”

No kiddin’, Einstein.

Yesterday, the 44th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm), stepped to the podium, to address American’s out-of-control gas prices.  To say that his words were less than reassuring is an understatement.

CNBC.com has the story:

President Barack Obama hit back on Thursday at election-year Republican criticism of his energy policy, offering a staunch defense of his attempts to wean Americans off foreign oil and saying there was no ‘silver bullet’ for high gas prices.

Obama sought to deflect growing Republican attacks over rising prices at the pump, blaming recent increases on a mix of factors beyond his control, including tensions with Iran, hot demand from China, India and other emerging economies, and Wall Street speculators taking advantage of the uncertainty.

U.S. gasoline prices have jumped nearly 9 cents in the past week to an average $3.61 a gallon, and are expected to rise further toward the $4 mark through the summer driving season and the approach of the Nov. 6 election.

In a visit to the University of Miami less than nine months before the presidential election in which he will seek a second term, Obama offered a modest series of proposals aimed at diversifying Americans’ fuel supplies and increasing energy efficiency.

“It’s the easiest thing in the world (to) make phony election-year promises about lower gas prices,” Obama said.

“What’s harder is to make a serious, sustained commitment to tackle a problem that may not be solved in one year or one term or even one decade.”

Republicans seeking to dislodge Obama from the White House are seeking to pin the higher prices on the Democratic president’s tax and environmental policies they say have hindered domestic production and kept the United States at the mercy of imports. They cite his decision to block the Keystone pipeline that would transport Canadian oil to refineries in Texas.

Repeating there would be no “silver bullet” for America’s energy crunch, Obama highlighted steps already taken to expand domestic production and improve fuel efficiency.

The trio of proposals announced in Miami included a $30 million competition in natural gas technologies and a $14 million program to development algae-based fuel.

Obama repeated calls to roll back tax incentives for the oil industry, and urged Congress to renew a clean energy tax credit. Yet he acknowledged he was at odds with Republicans in Congress over energy.

Lawmakers are deeply divided and little legislative action is expected this year.

Just a reminder:  when Obama took office on January 21, 2009, gas was $1.84 per gallon.

While this inept, unfunny joke of a president is lining his Green Energy Cabal’s pockets with our money, Americans are coming to grips with the realization that we may have to decide very soon if we’re going to use our hard-earned money to buy food to eat, or if we going to have to use that money for gas so that we can make it to our jobs.

In Mississippi, we’re spending 14.2% of our personal income on gasoline.  And it’s worse in other parts of the country.

With viable “Green Energy” transportation decades away, we may have to walk to the polls on November 6th, but I guarantee, wild horses couldn’t keep Americans away this time.

Dear Ms. Coulter: Regarding Mitt Romney…

Yesterday, Famous Authoress and Conservative Beltway Darling, Ann Coulter, published a column with the title, “What’s Their Problem With Romney”?

While I am not anywhere near as talented a writer as Ms. Coulter, nor am I rich like she is, I am one of “Them”, which I presume to mean the Republican Party’s Conservative Base.

So, please bear with me as I attempt to answer some of Ms. Coulter’s pronouncements concerning the perfect candidate, Former Governor Willard Mitt Romney.

COULTER:  As governor of one of the most liberal states in the union, Mitt Romney did something even Ronald Reagan didn’t do as governor of California: He balanced the budget without raising taxes.

Per Boston.com:

The Republican managed to slash spending to eliminate a deficit pegged at $3 billion, but he also proposed or presided over a far-ranging series of fee hikes — a strategy that allowed him to maintain the no-new-taxes stance he now boasts about as he runs for president.

In all, then-Gov. Romney proposed creating 33 new fees and increasing 57 others — enough, he said, to pull in an extra $59 million for the cash-strapped state.

Horseback riding instructors, prisoners, those seeking training to combat domestic violence and used car shoppers were asked to dig a little deeper.

Romney and Democratic lawmakers ended up approving hundreds of millions in higher fees and fines, making it more expensive to use an ice skating rink, register a boat, take the bar exam, get a duplicate driver’s license, file a court case, install underground storage tanks, sell cigarettes or alcohol, comply with air quality rules and transport hazardous waste.

A survey of states by the National Conference of State Legislatures found Massachusetts led the nation during Romney’s first year, raising fees and fines by $501 million. New York was second with $367 million. Nine other states raised fees and fines by more than $100 million.

COULTER:  Romney became deeply pro-life as governor of the aforementioned liberal state and vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill. (Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich lobbied President George W. Bush to allow embryonic stem cell research.)

Again, per Boston.com:

In December 2005, Romney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, even though some Catholics view the morning-after pill as a form of abortion.

COULTER:  Romney’s approach to illegal immigration in Massachusetts resembled what Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona is doing today, making her a right-wing heroine.

From Boston.com, December 6, 2007:

The Globe reported yesterday that Romney had continued to employ Community Lawn Service with a Heart to mow his lawn and rake his leaves, one year after the newspaper reported that the company was using illegal immigrants for work on his grounds. Romney fired the company Tuesday night, hours after the Globe inquired about the work at his Belmont home.

COULTER:  Romney pushed the conservative alternative to national health care that, had it been adopted in the 49 other states, would have killed Obamacare in the crib by solving the health insurance problem at the state level.

From my post “Romney:  Romneycare Good.  Obamacare Bad.”:

…although Mr. Romney promised that his plan would lower costs, the liberal Commonwealth Fund reports that Massachusetts insurance costs have climbed anywhere from 21% to 46% faster than the U.S. average since 2005. Employer-sponsored premiums are now the highest in the nation.

COULTER:  Unlike actual Establishment candidates, Romney has never worked in Washington, much less spent his entire life as a professional politician. He’s had a Midas touch with every enterprise he has ever run, including Bain Capital, the Olympics and Massachusetts.

A Washington Outsider? Hardly. MSNBC.com reports:

Romney’s fourteen lobbyist bundlers – including representatives from powerhouse D.C. lobbying firms Dutko Worldwide and Ogilvy Government Relations – raised $1.1 million for his campaign in the second half of 2011, according to recent Federal Election Commission filings. Ogilvy chief Wayne Berman, one of Romney’s top bundlers, is also a co-chair of his national finance committee.

But Romney’s connection to elite D.C. operatives don’t end with fundraising.

Ron Kaufman, a former Bush Sr. advisers and now one of Romney’s top advisers was a top lobbyist for Dutko for years, telling the Boston Globe he decertified as a lobbyist just last year.

Team Romney also includes other top-tier Washington power brokers like Charlie Black, a former top adviser to John McCain began advising Romney earlier this year, and Romney’s chief counsel Ben Gingsberg, who held the same role in both Bush-Cheney campaigns, and has represented numerous house and senate campaigns and PACs.

COULTER:  The chestnut about Mitt Romney being pushed on unsuspecting conservatives by “the Establishment” is the exact opposite of the truth. The Establishment, by any sensible definition, is virulently opposed to Romney — and for completely contradictory reasons.

The entire NFM (non-Fox media) hate Romney because he is the only candidate who stands a chance of beating Obama.

Meanwhile, many of the pillars of the conservative establishment also implacably oppose Romney. Fox News is neutral, but its second-highest-rated host, Sean Hannity, is anti-Romney – though endorsing no one — as is prominent Fox News contributor Sarah Palin — who has also offered herself up as a possible presidential nominee at a contested convention. (Wouldn’t a former candidate for vice president on a major party’s ticket be part of the Establishment?)

The No. 1 conservative talk-radio host in America, Rush Limbaugh, is critical of Romney, and another top conservative talk-radio host, Mark Levin, is adamantly against Romney — though both Limbaugh and Levin supported Romney as the conservative alternative to John McCain in 2008, and Romney has only gotten better since then.

That’s your opinion, Ms. Coulter.

Here’s mine, which I originally expressed on January 23rd, in a post titled, “Southern Man Don’t Need Ann Coulter Around, Anyhow”:

You see, we average  Americans, here in Dixie, and folks in the rest of the Heartland, are fed up with you Vichy Republicans treating us like the hired help.  We stood by and watched you nominate the likes of Bob Dole and John McCain, the squishiest of squishes, then held our noses and dutifully voted for them.

Then, we watched you and your buddies, the Democrats, and their lackeys, the Main Stream Media, trash a good Christian American like Sarah Palin, to the point where she and her family said, “Enough of this mess”, which led to her dropping out of the Primary race.

Miz Ann, you need to go on Wheel of Fortune, buy a vowel and get a clue.  The South and rest of the Heartland will vote for whomever we want to, so go get your skinny self a sammich and stuff it.

Besides, why should we trust the judgment of someone who used to date Bill Maher, anyway?

I rest my case.

Santorum: The Devil You Say

Political junkies were abuzz yesterday, as the Democrats dug up, and Romney Supporter Matt Drudge posted, a 2008 interview at a Catholic University where Republican Presidential Nominee Candidate Rick Santorum had the nerve to actually say that Satan, the Father of Lies, had his sights set on the United States of America.

Welllll, Duuuuuuuuuuuuh!

Also, yesterday, Rev. Franklin Graham, son of Rev. Billy Graham, America’s Pastor, lent his support to Santorum and expressed his doubts concerning the faith of the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

ABCNews.go.com has the story:

Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, said on MSNBC Tuesday that he could not verify that President Obama is a Christian. “I just have to assume that he is,” Graham said.

But he has no question about Rick Santorum. “His values are so clear on moral issues. No question about it. … I think he’s a man of faith.”

Santorum’s faith was in the news for another reason, too. The Pennsylvania Republican said in 2008, two years after losing his Senate seat and four years before seeking the presidency, that Satan was attacking U.S. institutions in government and religion.

The comments, not before mentioned during the 2012 election cycle, were the lead item on the Drudge Report Tuesday. Santorum has surged to even or even ahead of Mitt Romney in opinion polls, including in Romney’s home state of Michigan, where Republican voters cast their preference for the GOP nominee next Tuesday.

Santorum, speaking at the conservative Catholic Ave Maria University in Florida, praised the Catholic Bishop Samuel Aquila for pledging to deny communion to politicians who support abortion rights and said the matter went beyond politics and was a symptom of Satan’s reach in U.S. society.

Here’s a partial transcript, along with some analysis, courtesy of   RushLimbaugh.com

SANTORUM: The Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies, Satan, would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country — the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age? There is no one else to go after other than the United States, and that’s been the case for now almost 200 years, once America’s preeminence was sown by our great Founding Fathers.

SANTORUM: Satan has done so by attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of these strong plants that have so deeply rooted in American tradition. He was successful. The place where he was, in my mind, the most successful and first successful was in academia. He understood pride of “smart” people. He attacked them at their weakest, that they were in fact smarter than everybody else and could come up with something new and different, pursue new truths, deny the existence of truth, play with it, “because we’re smart;” and so academia a long time ago fell.

RUSH: Satan conquered academia: Rick Santorum, August 29, 2008. And it was in 2006, September 20th, to be exact, where Hugo Chavez strode confidently to the microphones of the UN and was sniffing around and said, “The Devil came here yesterday. It still smells of sulfur today.” And let’s not forget, ladies and gentlemen, Saul Alinsky, who’s the primary mentor of “Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm, mmm, mmm!” Saul Alinsky, the author of the book Rules for Radicals — a book about which Hillary Clinton wrote her masters or doctoral thesis, whatever it was, when she was at Wellesley. Saul Alinsky, who Obama has studied and implements to this day and whose tactics he taught while ostensibly teaching law at the University of Chicago.

Saul Alinsky dedicated his book that all these leftists love to Lucifer, the Devil! Here’s Alinsky’s dedication: “Lest we forget, at least an over the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical from all our legends, mythology and history — and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins or which is which? The first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom: Lucifer.” Saul Alinsky made that dedication in his book Rules for Radicals. So Santorum is just joining the crowd here in discussing this. Here is the final sound bite.

SANTORUM: The next was the church. Now, you say, “Well, wait. The Catholic Church?” No. We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic, but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic. Sure, the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country, and the Protestant ethic. Mainstream, mainline Protestantism. And of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country, and it is a shambles.

What I believe that Santorum was doing, was calling out those churches who had “lost their First Love”, like the Church at Ephesus in Revelation, Chapter 2, verses 1 – 7.

Those who are nervous about how well Santorum is doing, are hoping that this event from 2008 will somehow damage the momentum he has.

What those who think that they are smarter than average Americans do not understand, is that this subject is something that Americans have heard coming from the pulpit of their own churches for the last 3 years.

And, we believe it.

The Republican Primary: Conservatism is Winning

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh nailed the GOP Establishment to the wall with a frank, spot-on assessment of the Santorum Surge:

Well-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l. How about this, ladies and gentlemen? It looks like the establishment Republicans are very worried that Romney cannot win, even if he is nominated. They’re very, very worried that, even if Romney is nominated, he can’t win, yet they continue to push him. There are a bunch of pieces.

…But, at any rate, it was fascinating to read blog after blog and news story after news story. The establishment Republicans are scared to death. If Romney loses Michigan, his so-called home state, if Romney loses Michigan… In fact, I don’t know if it was a blogger or an actual news network, they talked to an unidentified Republican leader, might have been a Republican Senator, might have been somebody in the upper ranks of the party, not sure which, one of the two. They actually said that if Romney loses Michigan, the party is gonna have to get in gear and try to find somebody else that they can nominate at the convention, ’cause they don’t want Santorum and they don’t want Newt, and they don’t want Ron Paul.

…Here you have the Republican establishment which, by virtue of this admission, that if Romney loses Michigan they think he’s gonna lose the nomination. And that means it’s time to ditch everybody and go find somebody else. That is a tantamount admission that they don’t care what their own voters are saying in all of these primaries, in all of these elections. We are seeing the Republican establishment force a candidate down the throats of the Republican base. The Republican base is obviously saying from primary to primary to primary they’re not really sure, really not all that sold on, Romney. And so the establishment, “Oh, well, okay, well, we gotta find somebody else you don’t like that might be able to win it,” which is what it boils down to.

They are saying, depending on where you go, certain bloggers, certain Republican Party officials, high-ranking elected Republicans are saying that the reason this is happening, the reason that Romney doesn’t catch hold, the reason Romney’s not getting any traction, the reason Romney’s not running away with this, is because of the conservatives who have been challenging him. And they think none of these conservatives can win. Santorum can’t win because he’s too conservative. Santorum can’t win because he’s too big a spender, according to Romney and Paul. The Tea Party needs to stop making demands of Boehner and company. The conservatives are screwing everything up. The Republican establishment is essentially saying that the conservatives are screwing everything up, making a mess of this. That if it weren’t for the conservatives, which is just the party, if it weren’t for the conservatives, Romney would have had the nomination sewn up by now, damn it. If it weren’t for the conservatives, all this would be done and everything would be hunky-dory. It’s funny. It is breathtaking to watch.

According to gallup.com, Conservatives continue to be the largest political ideology in America, with 40% of the population.  35# of Americans claim to be Moderates, and 21% identify themselves as Liberals.

Also, per Gallup, 78% of Americans identify themselves as Christians.

The G.O.P. Power Brokers have failed to take into consideration the old-fashioned American system of Faith and Values, that still flourishes in the Heartland.

Frank Newport, PhD, is the Editor-in-Chief of Gallup.com.  Last Thursday, he wrote the following assessment of the Republican Primary, so far:

As predicted, Rick Santorum has moved up in support among Republicans nationwide. Meanwhile Newt Gingrich is down and Mitt Romney has slipped modestly. We are now in a situation in which Romney and Santorum are statistically tied. Santorum’s meteoric rise is, of course, a direct reaction to the results of his Feb. 7 victories in the caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota as well as the primary in Missouri.

Now when I say direct reaction, I’m underscoring the fascinating way in which Republican support has played itself out all year. Generally speaking, a sizable segment of Republicans nationally have been willing to shift their preferences from candidate to candidate extremely quickly, based on the latest events on the campaign trail. These events have mostly been debates and actual voting in primary and caucus states.

When Gallup reaches a person by phone who identifies themselves as a Republican or says that they lean Republican, it seems like we essentially find them figuratively scratching their heads and scanning the news environment to figure out whom they support. As in “Hmmmm, I see in the news that Rick Santorum won in Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri Tuesday night, so I guess I will support him.” This suggests that Republicans nationally are letting the process provide them with a continuing flow of information that they take into account when constantly adjusting their support preferences. The fact that they are open to this type of movement, of course, allows us to rule out the hypothesis that large numbers (i.e., a majority) of Republicans across the land are excited by Romney and eager to get behind his candidacy.

This is not exactly how the Mitt Romney campaign team had hoped this would play out. They were hoping that Republicans nationwide would coalesce around Romney in the same way the coalesced around John McCain by February 2008. By late February 2008, over 6 in 10 Republicans nationally supported McCain. We certainly have not seen that level of support for any candidate so far this year.

The G.O.P. Establishment are victims of their own pomposity.  They believed that by putting all of their considerable resources behind a clearly Center-Left candidate, that they could force the Conservative Base to compromise their believes, swallow hard, and vote for Mitt “The Legacy” Romney.

So far, it appears they were wrong.