At Newsmax:

The Republican establishment, which is backing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in his presidential bid, also is trying to erase the tea party, Rush Limbaugh said [yesterday] on his radio show.

“The establishment Republicans are trying to take the tea party out,” Limbaugh declared. “And this is another reason why, in the Republican primary, there is such fevered opposition to Romney and people who despise
. . . the campaign that Romney is running.”

LifeSiteNews reports:

In news that will come as a heavy blow to many coffee lovers, Starbucks has officially backed homosexual "marriage."

In a January 24 letter to U.S. partners, Kalen Holmes, Starbucks executive vice president, expresses support for the homosexual “marriage” legislation in Washington State. The “important legislation,” says Holmes “is core to who we are and what we value as a company.”

Now that Starbucks is selling homosexualist kool-aid, pro-family folks who respect the Creator's liberating norms for human sexuality and married life may want to exercise the stewardship of their coffee funds at more civilized locales.

David Corn wites at Mother Jones:

It's no secret that Mitt Romney has an albatross around his neck: Romneycare, the Massachusetts health care overhaul he enacted while governor of the Bay State.

The plan, which included a mandate compelling state residents to obtain health insurance, was a model in part for President Barack Obama's health care reform, which is much-despised by conservatives and Republican voters.

This video of the Romney-Kennedy healthcare bill signing, in which Romney introduces "my collaborator and friend Sen. Edward Kennedy," will make defense of Romney as a constitutional "conservative" that much more difficult. And it should.

Hat tip: David Limbaugh

The great thinker, theologian, social critic, and former agnostic Francis Schaeffer was born Jan. 30, 1912, 100 years ago today.

To help celebrate that birth and to remind ourselves of how Schaeffer offered a rich and humane alternative to the evangelical religious machine of his day (and ours), please see "Francis Schaeffer: A Student's Appreciation of a Distinct Approach."

AP reports:

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has been reaching out to evangelicals and tea party advocates as the Florida primary approaches, touting an endorsement from campaign dropout Herman Cain, as well as former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's accusation that the establishment is trying to "crucify" him.

Standing outside the First Jacksonville Baptist church as dusk fell, Kurt Kelly, chairman of Florida Faith Leaders for Newt Gingrich, said the candidate held a midweek conference call with an estimated 1,000 evangelical pastors around the state.

Palin writes on her Facebook page:

We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.

Read the entire statement. 

Pete Winn reports at CNSNews.com:

Media Research Center President L. Brent Bozell III laid down the gauntlet to the news media on Thursday over their coverage of the 2012 presidential race: Tell the truth about the candidates, or be exposed.

“It’s 2012, and already we’ve documented endless examples of the so-called ‘news media’ covering up the failures of the Obama presidency and attacking every conservative presidential candidate one by one by one,” Bozell said.

“These attacks, just as we predicted, aren’t based on policy debates, they’re personal," he said, "an onslaught of character assassination against anyone who dares to challenge Obama.”

Bozell announced the start of the "Tell the Truth 2012 Campaign" -- a $5 million campaign to document and expose liberal media bias and its role in the 2012 presidential election.

Bozell charges that Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich have all been subjected to intense media bias. 

The challenge, Bozell says, is for the "news media to be fair and even-handed: If reporters are going to ask tough questions, then they should ask them of both sides in the election."

For example, “Who was Michelle Obama sleeping with before Barack Obama? If you think that's an outrageous question -- and I'd agree -- then why did you ask it about Mrs. Santorum?" Bozell asks.

According to CNS, "Bozell said hundreds of thousands of 'I Don't Believe the Liberal Media!' bumper stickers, buttons and signs will be distributed, and the [Media Research Center's] 1 million Facebook fans and 65,000 Twitter followers will also be activated."

To see the formerly mainstream media at work, here's a video and transcript of MSNBC's Chris Matthews at Real Clear Politics.

By the way, if Matthews were correct, the Declaration of Independence would be a "troglodyte" document -- for it bases the American experiment upon that exceptional being known as the Creator.

Note also that a country that respects and builds upon endowments from the Creator would necessarily be a "troglodyte" country, in the lexicon of Matthews.

You can see how an off-putting, permanent, alienated sneer of hubris might attach itself to the visage of some in the "elite" media.

However, the vision offered by the likes of Matthews is intellectually, morally, politically, and existentially bankrupt. And it's against views such as this that freedom must take her stand.

The debate starts at 8 pm Eastern time. Watch online here.

The following column is by Matt Barber, vice president of Liberty Counsel Action: 

You’re being manipulated. A well respected, highly influential news source has cast aside all journalistic integrity to shill for the liberal, GOP establishment candidate in this presidential race.

The New York Times, you say? MSNBC? The Washington Post? No. We all gave up on those “progressive” rags a long time ago.

Regrettably, the latest media outlet to assume a decidedly yellow hue during this heated primary cycle is the Drudge Report. It pains me to even write this. Drudge has always been both my first and last internet news stops of the day.

It’s often said, “Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.” Well, Drudge deals in pixels instead of ink, but the same principle applies.

Still, this is a fight worth having.

In past years, Matt Drudge has done a fair job of playing it down the middle during presidential primaries. Not this time. In the game of “Washington insider hold ‘em,” the Drudge Report is “all in” for Willard Mitt Romney. It’s not even subtle.

As the Politico reports: “Newt Gingrich better hope voters who lapped up his delicious hits on the ‘elite media’ and liberals don’t read the Drudge Report this morning . . . . If they do, Gingrich comes off looking like a dangerous, anti-Reagan, Clintonian fraud.”

This, of course, is utter pablum. Gingrich is the last Reagan conservative standing in this race; or, as the venerable Nancy Reagan said of “the distinguished speaker, Newt Gingrich” in 1995: “The dramatic [conservative] movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century.Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt andthe Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.”

To this day, Newt Gingrich is keeping that conservative dream alive and that Reagan torch aflame. America is beginning to get this, and it has the “Republican in Name Only” (RINO) establishment tied in knots.

Politico summarizes Drudge’s hit job on Gingrich: “The overnight Drudge Report banner: ‘Insider: Gingrich repeatedly Insulted Reagan.’ The headline linked to a devastating takedown by Elliott Abrams in the National Review, who wrote, among other things, that Gingrich had a long record of criticizing and undermining Reagan’s most transformative policies.”

Baloney. Sorry, Matt Drudge, but Mrs. Reagan’s vote of confidence carries considerably more weight than your shameless smear on behalf of the Massachusetts moderate.

Cherry picked quotes, biased headlines and hyperlinks to Newt-hating op-eds in order to patch together an ugly and distorted mosaic of the former House speaker is not journalism. It’s mercenary-style political prostitution.

At the top of Thursday’s Drudge was linked an opinion piece by another Romney surrogate, Ann Coulter, headlined “Re-elect Obama: Vote Newt!” In it, she skewers Mr. Gingrich and claims, “Romney is the most electable candidate.”

Odd when you consider that, less than one year ago, Coulter told a packed house at CPAC the exact opposite: “If you don't run Chris Christie, Romney will be the nominee and we’ll lose,” she said. “By the way, I warned you about McCain.” (I don’t know, maybe Ann’s now angling for a gig as Romney’s Secretary of Snark. Look for her next book: “Moderate: An Autobiography.”)

But Coulter’s exactly right about that whole McCain thing. He recently endorsed Romney too. So did Bob Dole. Interesting. And they’re both vehemently opposed to a Gingrich nomination as well.

See where this is going? What do Bob Dole and John McCain have in common? Is this really who we think is going to unseat Barack Obama? Mitt Romney: the ideo-political love child – figuratively speaking -- of Bob Dole and John McCain?

The RINO is a slow, lumbering beast. It is foolishly and predictably drawn, over and again, toward that “moderate” watering hole. There, it hopes to attract that equally perplexing animal, the “independent.” From this liaison, it is believed a bevy of voting offspring will be produced.

Never happens. In fact, the mushy middle is exactly where that fierce predator -- The Democrat -- wants its Republican prey corralled. Ever seen Wild Kingdom? Not pretty.

RINO Republicans and liberal Democrats have something in common: they both mistakenly assert that conservative candidates are unelectable. Ronald Reagan proved them wrong and so will Newt Gingrich.

No, I’ve got news for Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter and the rest of the establishment GOP: As 2010 proved and as I believe 2012 will show again, conservatives don’t shine to being told who our nominee is going to be.

We’ll pick him ourselves, thank you very much.

Aaron Klein writes:

In his third State of the Union address . . . President Obama channeled the mantra of U.S. progressive groups by repeatedly calling for so-called “economic fairness” in America.

Some progressives point to revolutionary socialist Karl Marx as the modern originator of the idea of “economic fairness.”

Also, late Harvard professor John Rawls, one of the most important philosophers of liberalism in the 20th century, named his own theory “justice as fairness.”

Some have previously pointed to Rawls’ possible influence over Obama. Rawls calls for ensuring distributive justice of resources.

Newsmax reports on Limbaugh's comments from his Wednesday broadcast:

"In fact, there are a lot of facts that were omitted in the State of the Union speech,” [Limbaugh] said.

“He didn’t talk about the 13.1 million unemployed Americans -- didn’t talk about the national debt. You realize one-third of our entire national debt . . . is his, his alone. Of course he didn’t bring it up. He didn’t talk about the Keystone pipeline.”

Limbaugh also scoffed at Obama’s references to teamwork, saying the Founding Fathers’ intention was a nation based on the freedoms of the individual.

“Teamwork?” he said. “Do you know, ladies and gentlemen, how wrong that is?

"The whole point of this government, the whole point of this country, the whole point of this [nation’s] founding was to champion the power, and the rights, and the civil rights, and the freedoms, and the liberty of the individual over the government."

Michelle Malkin writes:

Obama's State of the Union address defiantly pitched a new round of clean energy spending orgies to help the "middle class."

But how have the serial bankruptcies and near-bankruptcies of several federally subsidized solar companies -- all under Obama's watch -- helped anyone but an upper-crust elite of eco-crats and their lobbyists and consultants?

From the National Journal:

"Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., said on Monday he is boycotting President Obama’s State of the Union address."

Join Nancy at KKLM on the Frank Pastore show. The broadcast airs at 7 pm eastern time (6 pm central, 4 pm Pacific).

Listen online here.

Bruce Walker writes at American Thinker:

Gingrich can beat Obama and add more Republicans to elective office. His debating skills will eviscerate Obama, and a Republican platform like the Contract With America would put the left on the defensive through November. More importantly, however, Gingrich can actually defeat leftism in America.

Thus far, Gingrich has done the best job of articulating the antithesis between the rules of freedom (as set forth in the Constitution and Declaration) and the rules of unfreedom (as embraced by radicals Obama and Saul Alinsky).

Whoever wins the GOP nomination, however, if the United States is to escape the clutches of Obama and Obamaism, this fundamental antithesis must be front and center, with particular issues (education, marriage, life, energy, foreign policy, jobs, etc.) framed as choices between these two different destinies for the American people.

And then, while in office, a new president must govern in ways consistent with the rules for freedom. Arrayed against him will be the Democrat machine and RINO Republicanism, not to mention islands of unfreedom in media, the academy, Hollywood, unions, and secularized churches.

Therefore, while the new president is governing, American society in all her sectors must be educated anew in those founding and liberating principles that alone have demonstrated an ability to make this nation a "shining city on a hill."

In this way, the American people can begin throwing off the chains of liberalism and squishy Republicanism.

And when your kids and their kids ask what you did in the struggle to liberate America, those who participate in refounding this great nation will have some terrific stories to tell. Gather around the campfire to pass the torch of freedom.

Get the lastest 2012 South Carolina GOP Primary results here.

Track the race in real time here. Gingrich tweets thanks to South Carolina.

From the front flap:

Levin asks, what is this utopian force that both allures a free people and destroys them? . . . .  

In the end, Levin’s message is clear: The American republic is in great peril. The people must now choose between utopianism or liberty. 

Newsmax reports:

An American Research Group survey released Saturday and reported by CNN indicates that 40% of people likely to vote in South Carolina's GOP contest say they are backing the former House speaker, with 26% supporting former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

In other findings: 18% are backing Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and 13% support former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

Newsmax continues, "The poll, conducted half before and half after Thursday night's debate in Charleston, South Carolina was all good news for Gingrich."

Dawn Wilde writes:

"I am a 37-year-old Catholic woman who has been happily married for nearly 15 years. We have five children that I homeschool. I also struggle daily with same-sex attraction."

Or perhaps the better question for the country is: Can a nation of free people survive another four years of Obama?

The big news since last night is that the "Gingrich campaign is bracing for a TV interview with his ex."

Here's something to consider: We are still waiting for the formerly mainstream media to vet Barack Obama.

Why is this important? Because until then, candidates running for office are not operating on a fair and level playing field.

And until then, by the omission of information unfavorable to Barack Obama, "facts" begin to function as propaganda. 

Thus, the formerly mainstream media: A lust for political outcomes, but not a passion for truth.

Thus a rigged election.

The basic question is not: Will Newt survive?

The real question is: Will America survive a post-constitutional, post-Declarational regime supported by enablers who reject the rules for freedom and embrace the rules for unfreedom? 

A personally flawed candidate who affirms the rules for freedom is vastly superior to a protected candidate who rejects those rules.

One has a past that is unfortunate; the other a future that is Hell.

This is not an endorsement of Gingrich. It is an endorsement of America.

Kathleen Gilbert reports:

The New Hampshire House of Representatives on Wednesday morning voted to put Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers at the bottom of the list of eligible recipients of state family planning funds, further frustrating efforts by the Obama administration to keep the local abortion branch afloat.

Lawmakers passed HB 228 by a margin of 207 to 147, prioritizing state-controlled family planning dollars away from abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood. The funding is now prioritized to public and private entities that provide comprehensive health care to women and do not perform abortions. . . .

The measure represents the latest move in a tug-of-war between the state and the Obama administration over funding of Planned Parenthood.

Apparently, feathers have been ruffled. The Blaze has the story. Meanwhile, note that Newsweek is a proud member of the formerly mainstream media. Homosexualist blogger Andrew Sullivan seems a perfect fit for the rag's current agenda.

William L. Gensert writes at American Thinker:

In America, no man is born a king or a tyrant. Just as a man must learn to be a killer, men must teach themselves to be tyrants. Barack Obama has learned how to be a tyrant.

The proclivity was always there, along with the arrogance and narcissism. When you are better than everyone else, it is a small step to wish to reign over them as well. 

Yet, few expected a University of Chicago lecturer on constitutional law to decide the Constitution did not apply to him, only to mere mortals like us. After all, when speaking of George Bush in 2007, he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.

"I refuse to take 'no' for an answer," said Barack Obama in defense of his usurpation of our Constitution, which established three coequal branches of government, sharing power, designed to impede the machinations of a transformational tyrant refusing to take "no" for an answer, or a power-drunk Congress, or an out of control judiciary.

Terry Jeffrey writes:

"In an interview with CNSNews.com about his new book -- Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America -- Mark R. Levin said he believes America has already largely become 'a post-constitutional country.'"

Billy Hallowell writes at The Blaze:

A federal judge has ruled in favor of a teenage atheist whose fight for the removal of a prayer mural in her public high school in Cranston, Rhode Island, has attracted national attention.

Jessica Ahlquist, 16, who was represented by the Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, was elated on Wednesday when her lawsuit against Crayton city and officials at Cranston High School West came to a close. In the ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Lagueux said that the school must remove the banner immediately. Additionally, he decided that legal fees should be provided to the plaintiff. . . .

Ahlquist‘s main argument in the case has been that a prayer mural present in her school’s auditorium is offensive to non-Christians. Additionally, she claims that it has made her feel ostracized and, thus, she has petitioned fervently for its removal.

This federal judge and young lady might be suprised to know that the U.S. Declaration of Independence explicitly roots the American vision for freedom in the Creator. That would be God.

I would say that would be "religion," but "religion" then included the concept that information from the Creator was actionable out in the public arena. Today, "religion" has been reduced to a private belief system that a person may or may not "value."

This new dumbed-down, anti-Biblical concept of "faith" has nothing to do with the content of the verifiable information we have given in the Judeo-Christian worldview, and it is quite at odds with the founding of the United States.

Note also that atheism gives no basis for human freedom (out of nothing comes nothing, including the nothingness of no freedom), and atheism as a worldview has nowhere been shown to produce the liberties that are the intellectual and practical results of building a political system upon verifiable information from a knowable, rational, and free Creator.

It is these facts that federal judges and 16-year-olds are obligated to respect -- if what they want is to remain within the mainstream of the American experiment, and if their desire is freedom, not tyranny.

Billy Hallowell writes at The Blaze:

A hard-line Iranian newspaper called Thursday for retaliation against Israel, a day after the mysterious killing of a nuclear scientist in Tehran with a magnetic bomb attached to his car.

Provocative hints from Israel reinforced the perception that the killing was part of an organized and clandestine campaign to set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions, which the U.S. and its allies suspect are aimed at producing weapons. Iran says the program is for peaceful purposes only.

Matthew Vadum writes at Frontpage:

The Obama-backed “Occupy” movement has been working nonstop in New Hampshire bullying, intimidating, harassing, and provoking the Republican Party’s presidential candidates.

It is the kind of unseemly, Latin American-style political activism that threatens to become a permanent feature of American politics if President Obama wins a second term.

It’s also the classic Saul Alinsky “inside/outside” strategy. Ensconced in the White House Obama appears to remain above the fray while his loyal minions on the outside of officialdom do their best to irritate and embarrass his Republican adversaries.

The activists attend the candidates’ campaign events, shouting and carrying on in an attempt to prevent Republicans from speaking.

They’re not interested in honest discussion or debate: their only goal is to silence the opposition.

"The Occupiers’ tactics are the kind one might expect to see from the Italian squadristi or the German Sturmabteilung," Vadum notes. These authoritarian tools of fascist Europe "used physical coercion and intimidation to halt the democratic process."

From a Brent Bozell column:

Why must the Republicans keep handing over their debate stage in the primary season to the people who desperately want them all to bumble, stumble and fall on their faces on national TV?

"We’ve lost with John McCain. We lost with Bob Dole. We lost with Gerry Ford," say Rick Santorum.

On the other hand, says the former senator from Pennsylvania:

When we’ve run conservatives, you know, like Ronald Reagan . . . who went through a tough primary, we’ve been able to win, and that’s what we need.

This is a party that understands ultimately that we need a strong conservative voice out there to be a strong alternative to Barack Obama, and we’re that alternative.

Here is Obama's statement, as quoted in the Weekly Standard: 

The very core of what this country stands for is on the line -- the basic promise that no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, this is a place where you could make it if you try.

The notion that we're all in this together, that we look out for one another -- that's at stake in this election.

Don't take my word for it. Watch some of these debates that have been going on up in New Hampshire.    

The most important part of this is Obama's statement: "Don't take my word for it."

Amen, brother.

Because the core of America, as clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence, is that we are a nation founded upon certain politically actionable truths in regard to God, man, and nature.

Namely, that we are endowed by our Creator with "certain unalienable rights" and that "among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

It is true that many Republicans don't get this. They are therefore part of the problem, insofar as they have drifted from what is the enduring and defining mainstream of American freedom.

But Obama and the liberal, secularist Creator-despising Democrats are in worse shape, and that's because they have purposefully embraced an agenda that stands in total antithesis to the core of America.

America is liberated under a knowable and verifiable Creator, not under the creature Obama, the federal government, czars, homosexuals, abortionists, pornographers, Hollywood, or by platitudinous appeals to "equality" and "diversity."

"Equality" ripped away from the Creator produces sameness and terror as greedy politicians use an absolutely predictable chaos as an excuse to steamroll a rebellious people so that there is no room for real individuality out in society.

That kind of "equality" sees humanity's God-given individuality as a threat that must be liquidated. You might say it loves sin but hates the sinner.

"Diversity" ripped away from the Creator is just another word for anarchy and another excuse to allow Washington and secular elites to further inject themselves into the daily lives and personal affairs of the America people.

Unwise people like Obama will not rest until they "diversify" America to death. That's not hope and change, it's death and decay.

That's why this next election is so vital. Both Obamaism and RINOism must be defeated if what is the core of America as a free and great nation is to survive.

In their place must be a healthy political renewal that operates within the liberating circle of constitutional government that reflects the content and norms of the Declaration of Independence. From that is liberty; against that is tyranny.

History, reason, and present experience show that, beyond this ennobling mainstream, all else is extremism. And that a free people resists. It's the humane thing to do.

Malkin writes:

Here is the operating motto of the Obama White House: "So let it be written, so let it be done!"

Like Yul Brynner's Pharaoh Ramses character in Cecil B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments, the demander in chief stands with arms akimbo issuing daily edicts to his constitution-subverting minions with an imperious wave of his hand.

His entourage of insatiable usurpers never rests.

"In July 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama vowed to create a 'civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded' as the U.S. military," writes Joseph Farah of WND.

Farah then discusses "two recent developments" that suggest Obama was far from kidding.

Steve McCann writes at American Thinker:

The mask is fully off. Barack Obama is the most corrupt, power-mad president in this nation's illustrious history. 

By his actions in bypassing Congress and making appointments that should be subject to Senate approval while the Senate is still in session and innumerable extra-constitutional actions since he became president, he is following in the footsteps of the despots who dominated the 20th century.

Martin Gould reports at Newsmax:

The Iowa caucuses failed to produce a clear Republican winner, but former candidate Pat Robertson says God has shown him who will win the next election -- and it won't be President Barack Obama.

The 81-year-old evangelist won't say who the Almighty is picking for the White House, claiming on his 700 Club, “I'm not supposed to talk about that so I'll leave you in the dark.”

This announcement by Pat Robertson isn't just odd, it demonstrates (if reported upon accurately) a methodology of privatized spirituality that does not comport well with Biblical Christianity, which is rooted in verifiable information from a living Creator who acts and speaks in space and time.

In the Biblical data, yes, the Creator can and does communicate rationally with people made in his image. But this is done in ways that are open to consideration, discussion, and verification. You can ask questions to ensure, for example, that what you are experiencing is not just some fanciful dream, overworked imagination, or autonomous spirituality. 

Thereby are Christian truth-claims and assertions that one possesses information from the Creator able to be distinguished from various political, religious, educational, or other kinds of cults. Thereby is Jesus of Nazareth distinguishable from pretend messiahs such as Barack Obama, Karl Marx, or some guy who says "God" told him the world is ending next Tuesday at 6:35 am eastern time. Or that Joe Blow will be the next president. 

Human beings are creatures of great nobility and dignity. By virtue of having been endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable capabilities to think for ourselves and to test various truth-claims, no one is asked to "believe" or act on upon supposed "revelation" from the Creator, unless there are basic ways to test that information out in the empirical world and also to test that information for consistency with previously known verifiable content from the Creator.

Inner feelings or goose bumps in the shower or 30 hours of prayer time are nowhere in Scripture given as indicators by which one knows that God is speaking. And neither is having a TV show.

Claims of "God told me" this or that are not the end of the discussion but the beginning of the discussion. This is true in matters political, ecclesisastical, scientific, and personal.

Cheap believism, like cheap grace, is not an option.

To obtain a fuller picture of how to properly assess claims of revelation from the Creator, and of the validity and need to be able to test such claims out in the real world, you might turn to the work of thinkers such as C.S. Lewis, John Warick Montgomery, or Francis Schaeffer. Or read the histories of Moses and Joshua, not to mention the Gospels themselves. 

And given that less than two weeks ago, we celebrated one of the more dramatic events in human history, you might consider my "Christmas Spirit in Space and Time." When the Biblical God speaks and acts in human history, people are not left in the dark.

In a column titled "Santorum's Experiment in Truth-Telling," CNSNews Editor-in-Chief Terry Jeffrey explains that Rick Santorum has emerged in Iowa because a) he clearly is qualified to hold the office of the presidency and because b) he offers (unlike Barack Obama) a fact-based vision of American freedom rooted in the Delcaration of Independence.

The conference is Feb. 10-11, 2012, in Rochester, MN. For information, please see this website. Hope to see you there!

At LifeSiteNews:

Those who said there was a pro-homosexuality agenda were treated with scorn as alarmists before the propagandists for that agenda became as bold as they are now.

But we have it directly from the managing editor of Xtra Vancouver: as clear an enunciation of the homosexual activist agenda for the schools as we may have seen anywhere.

In the October 20th, 2011, edition of the Vancouver edition of the homosexual magazine Xtra, the managing editor of that magazine wrote in the online edition:

The gay rights movement is shifting norms in Canada. And with that comes a message to those who won’t evolve: your outdated morals are no longer acceptable, and we will teach your kids the new norm.

The "gay" "rights" agenda has always been about power -- the power of a propaganda machine to create "rights" out of thin air and to impose them upon a people already "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" and that among these real rights are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

If the homosexualists succeed, human freedom and human dignity lose.

Why? Because the "trans"-everything (except their own selfishness) crowd can succeed only by overthrowing the only philosophic and political system known to man to give an adequate intellectual and practical basis for human freedom and dignity.

And that would be what we see emphasized in the U.S. Declaration of Independence -- namely, that there is a real Creator, that human beings are endowed by that Creator (and not by San Francisco or Barack Obama or RINOs) with unalienable rights, and that no one has the authority to separate humanity from those God-given rights.

Thus the rage against God and man we see in the cultlike homosexualist community. In their reactionary idolatry, the homosexualists despise running up against the "laws of nature and of nature's God."

And they despise, as all bullies do, running up against a people who will stand their ground against oppression and against discrimination against real norms as they apply and liberate in the real world.

This is their dilemma. For these extremist reactionaries rage not against a simple interest group, but against reality.

Theirs is a hatred against the reality of a Creator who objectively and verifiably exists, against the reality of human beings created ontologically equal and yet also in the liberating diversity of male and female, and against the reality of real norms that do not go away because extremist activists have decided to stomp their feet.

And employ the power of the state to impose their dictates.

And in the name of that hatred, these homosexualist hegemonists are coming after our children and coming after them on the basis of the "new norm" they wish to impose.

A people of humanity and dignity who respect the true spring of human rights resists. We revolt for the good, the true, and the beautiful.

Instead of the old reactionary paganism, we stand for the deep norms, the abiding truths, the eternally liberating wisdom. These norms have been around forever, and they make all things new again.

The "Rap" on Iowa? Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters holds Andrea Mitchell of NBC's "Nightly News" accountable.