Caffeinated Thoughts

Mitt Romney Coiner of New Words and Phrases
Mitt Romney, Bain Capital, the Damon Corporation and Medicare Fraud
Rick Santorum Interrupts Florida Campaign Schedule Due to Hospitalization of Isabella Santorum
Sixth Circuit Court Rules Counseling Student Cannot Be Expelled for Religious Views
Rick Santorum Wins CNN Florida Republican Debate

Mitt Romney Coiner of New Words and Phrases

Posted: 29 Jan 2012 04:08 AM PST

From the Romney Archives:

Romney turned out to be a great coiner of new words and phrases. Usually the domain of linguists, the former Governor of Massachusetts created a new phrase to go along with his highly deceptive term, "effectively pro-choice" on abortion (which really means, really pro-choice… really, I'm just sayin').

In 2007, when asked by Tim Russert about whether he would support further infringements upon the second amendment right-to-bear-arms, he said that he would only support the banning of "weapons of unusual lethality" (WUL).

Anybody familiar with Princess Bride knows that our hero Wesley had to fight "Rodents of Unusual Size" (ROUS). Since most people think weapons were supposed to be lethal, unusual lethality must mean making people more than mostly dead, perhaps Governor Romney will be the next public official to call for safer bullets.

Please Share:

Share with Addthis

Mitt Romney, Bain Capital, the Damon Corporation and Medicare Fraud

Posted: 28 Jan 2012 09:00 PM PST

Mitt Romney in ABC News Debate at Drake University in Des Moines, IA

Mitt's Blood Money is a new mini-documentary released by Winning Our Future, a Newt Gingrich-friendly Super PAC, that questions Romney's involvement with the Damon Corporation that was investigated for Medicare fraud. They introduce the film:

Debating in Tampa, Florida in late-January, while falsely characterizing Newt Gingrich's income from his government consulting work, Mitt Romney denied that Bain did "any work with the government like Medicaid and Medicare". Now we learn that Bain, under Romney's "supervision", purchased and ran the Damon Corporation, who pled guilty to Federal conspiracy charges as a result of tens of millions of dollars in systemic Medicare fraud committed under Romney's and Bain's control. Damon was fined over $119-million which was, at the time, the largest criminal healthcare fine in Massachusetts history and Mr. Romney's participation was characterized in 1996 by Corporate Crime Reporter thusly: "As manager and board member of Damon Corp, Mitt Romney sits at the center of one of the top 15 corporate crimes of the 1990's."

Here is the documentation they say backs up the film. You can watch the full mini-documentary below:

I’ll be interested to see how Romney spins responds to this. Unlike the previous criticism of Romney’s involvement with Bain Capital this can’t really be seen as an attack on capitalism. Folks, Romney’s business record is very relevant to the vetting process. If the facts are wrong then Romney should come out and say so. But they really don’t.

The Romney campaign denounced the super PAC ad, saying it “would make Michael Moore proud and (has) already struck a chord with President Obama‘s liberal allies.”

“They have been thoroughly discredited by independent fact checkers and by respected Republicans like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio,” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said. “Once again, Speaker Gingrich is reaching into President Obama’s playbook and trying to re-litigate old Democrat attacks. Speaker Gingrich and his political cronies are desperate to distract from his record of failed and unreliable leadership, and voters won’t be fooled.”

First off, Speaker Gingrich, as Romney pointed out before in defending himself in light of his own SuperPAC ads, can’t legally be in communication with Winning Our Future. Secondly… What is inaccurate? What isn’t truthful? Comparing Gingrich to President Obama instead of addressing the ad says nothing to Florida’s voters other than they’re deflecting the questions the mini-documentary raises. Third, no SuperPAC ad should ever be taken at complete face value so I doubt that everything in the documentary is 100% accurate and it includes it’s own spin (that includes the ads that Romney’s SuperPAC runs).

Picture by Dave Davidson – Prezography.com

DNC hits Mitt Romney for Bain’s link to Medicare fraud (tampabay.com)
Top Gingrich backer: Medicare fraud questions ‘fair game’ for Romney (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
Mitt Romney – Blood Money (2012patriot.wordpress.com)
Mitt Romney’s ties with Damon Corporation, a company that was fined for Medicare fraud (browardsblog.blogspot.com)
Romney should disclose Bain, tax records (thegazette.com)
Romney faces Medicare attacks in Florida (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
Mitt Romeny and Newt Gingrich are Allegiant to the Money not “We the People” (bellwetherpost.com)
Pro-Gingrich PAC attacks Mitt Romney over ‘blood money’ in web ad (miamiherald.typepad.com)

Please Share:

Share with Addthis

Rick Santorum Interrupts Florida Campaign Schedule Due to Hospitalization of Isabella Santorum

Posted: 28 Jan 2012 07:30 PM PST

Rick Santorum in Florida

Verona, PA – The Rick Santorum for President campaign has issued the following statement on the admittance of Isabella Santorum to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Hogan Gidley, National Communications Director, said: “Rick and his wife Karen are admitting their daughter Bella to Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia this evening. The campaign will cancel Rick’s upcoming Sunday morning Florida campaign schedule. However, Rick intends to return to Florida and resume the campaign schedule as soon as is possible”

Santorum Ready To Move Campaign To Next Set Of States (pittsburgh.cbslocal.com)
Santorum’s dilemma in Florida (cbsnews.com)
Santorum: Sticking it out, if not in Florida (tampabay.com)
Tired and trailing, Santorum goes home to do taxes (boston.com)
Newt bids for Santorum votes in Fla. (politico.com)

Please Share:

Share with Addthis

Sixth Circuit Court Rules Counseling Student Cannot Be Expelled for Religious Views

Posted: 28 Jan 2012 05:15 PM PST

Julea Ward at Eastern Michigan University

Julea Ward (Courtesy of Alliance Defense Fund)

I posted a year-and-a-half ago on two cases where Christian counseling students were expelled from their graduate counseling programs because they believed homosexuality was wrong. At the time one of these cases, Eastern Michigan University's decision to expel Julea Ward had been affirmed in Federal district court.

Yesterday the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court's decision. This is a huge victory for protecting the religious liberty of students. As the court held that Eastern Michigan University may have violated the Constitution by expelling Ward based on her religious beliefs about homosexual conduct.

A recap of what happened leading up to her expulsion. Ward was a graduate student in Eastern Michigan University's counseling program. She had four classes left to take before graduation. She maintained a 3.91 GPA in her program. She was required to complete a counseling practicum, in which she would counsel clients under the supervision of a faculty member. She made it clear that she was willing to counsel homosexual clients on a variety of matters, but that her religious beliefs would forbid her from affirming their same-sex relationships.

In one instance she asked her faculty supervisor permission to refer her client to another counselor. Permission was granted for her to do this. Soon after she was expelled from the University on the ground that the referral violated the university's code of ethics. She then filed a lawsuit, alleging that the expulsion violated her rights of free speech and free exercise of religion.

The court in writing its opinion wrote:

Ward was willing to work with all clients and to respect the school's affirmation directives in doing so. That is why she asked to refer gay and lesbian clients (and some heterosexual clients) if the conversation required her to affirm their sexual practices. What more could the rule require? Surely, for example, the ban on discrimination against clients based on their religion (1) does not require a Muslim counselor to tell a Jewish client that his religious beliefs are correct if the conversation takes a turn in that direction and (2) does not require an atheist counselor to tell a person of faith that there is a God if the client is wrestling with faith-based issues. Tolerance is a two-way street. Otherwise, the rule mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination. (Emphasis is mine)

Exactly, as I said in my original post:

Not only have these schools prohibited the free exercise of religion, but by telling these students they can stay if they believe differently is establishing a religious doctrine. I'm sure they don't see it that way, but we all have religious beliefs. Nobody lives in a moral and religious vacuum.

The court pointed out evidence of religious speech discrimination during the University's disciplinary inquiry:

Many of the participants' comments and questions focused on Ward's beliefs and her religious objection to affirming same-sex relationships. Professor Dugger said that Ward "communicated an attempt to maintain [her] belief system and [her] behaviors," id. at 8, and dismissed the religious basis of Ward's objections: She offered her "professional opinion" that Ward was "selectively using her religious beliefs in order to rationalize her discrimination against one group of people" because Ward said that she could "set aside her religious values" and counsel clients about things such as "abortion, child abuse, and murder" but "could not set aside her religious values in order to effectively counsel nonheterosexual clients." Id. at 5–6. This line of inquiry suggests a distinction between secular values and spiritual ones, with a preference for the former over the latter. Besides, the reason why Ward (in Professor Dugger's words) could "set aside her religious values" in counseling clients about "abortion, child abuse, and murder" is because the university likely would not insist that she affirm the values underlying this conduct.

Pressing these points, Dugger asked Ward whether she would "see [her] brand of Christianity as superior to" that of a Christian client who viewed her faith differently. Id. at 28. In the same vein, Professor Marx queried "how someone with such strong religious beliefs [as Ward's] would enter a profession that would cause [her] to go against those beliefs . . . by its stated code of ethics." Id. at 31. And Professor Francis took Ward "on a little bit of a theological bout," id. at 28, asking whether she believed that "anyone [is] more righteous than another before God?" and whether, if Ward's stated beliefs were true, "doesn't that mean that you're all on the same boat and shouldn't [gays and lesbians] be accorded the same respect and honor that God would give them?"

Evidence of the faculty's hostility to Christianity in this instance is made plain, and the court in their ruling said:

Many of the faculty members' statements to Ward raise a similar concern about religious discrimination. A reasonable jury could find that the university dismissed Ward from its counseling program because of her faith-based speech, not because of any legitimate pedagogical objective. A university cannot compel a student to alter or violate her belief systems based on a phantom policy as the price for obtaining a degree.

They continue…

On its face, the ACA code of ethics sets forth neutral and generally applicable policies, and the university has ample authority to adopt these policies, including the anti-discrimination provisions, for the school's graduate counseling program. What poses a problem is not the adoption of an anti-discrimination policy; it is the implementation of the policy, permitting secular exemptions but not religious ones and failing to apply the policy in an even-handed, much less a faith-neutral, manner to Ward.

This case has now been remanded to district court for further proceedings to go before a jury instead of the decision being made by an individual judge.

You can read the whole opinion for yourself below:

Ward v. Wilbanks: 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion

Another legal victory for religious liberty: U.S. Sixth Circuit rules in favor of Michigan student expelled for religious views… (becketfund.org)
-US 6th Circuit: Rules in Favor of Expelled Student and Religious Freedom (answersforthefaith.com)
Sixth Circuit Revives Free Speech Lawsuit over Grad Student’s Firing (blogs.wsj.com)
11th Circuit: Counseling Student Was Rightfully Expelled For Intending To Condemn Gay Clients (thinkprogress.org)
A Victory for Freedom of Speech in Academia (gratiaetnatura.wordpress.com)

Please Share:

Share with Addthis

Rick Santorum Wins CNN Florida Republican Debate

Posted: 28 Jan 2012 01:45 PM PST

Life and work has kept me from watching the 20th Republican debate held in Jacksonville, FL on Thursday until today (contrary to what some may believe I don't blog full-time). You may have missed me since I haven't written anything since Wednesday. Just how busy have I been? Both my oldest daughter and son watched this debate before I did. (My daughter watched it for her U.S. Presidential Elections class, and my son watched for his traditional logic class – got to love homeschooling!)

Three quick takeaways from watching this debate:

Gingrich has just been flat in the recent Florida debates and this particular debate may seal a Florida Primary loss as recent polls seem to indicate. Romney was able to turn the tables on Gingrich with his Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae criticism. His criticism of Wolf Blitzer fell flat. He needs to change up his debate strategy; attacking the moderators has become predictable.
Romney while he certainly performed better than he did in South Carolina; Santorum got the better of him in several exchanges in particular with health care (see the video below).
While Gingrich and Romney have been sniping at one another over trivial matters. Santorum scored when he said, "You guys should leave that alone and talk about the issues." Santorum looked the most Presidential.

The clear winner of this is Rick Santorum. The clear loser was Newt Gingrich. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul both had a good debate (Paul better than Romney), but Santorum had the best moments and took the opportunity to demonstrate he is the full spectrum conservative running.

Here was one of the better moments of the debate where Santorum clearly got the better on Romney on the subject of health care.