The Wall Street Journal

James Freeman

Former presidential candidate Rick Santorum warned that Mitt Romney might not present a "clear contrast" to [Alleged] President Obama in the general election. Judging by Monday's action on the campaign trail, Mr. Santorum had a point.

On a day when the White House urged Congress to increase student-loan subsidies, Mr. Romney had an opportunity to draw a sharp distinction between the expanding Obama entitlement state and a plan to revive the private economy.

But instead of laying out plans to create jobs and reduce government spending, the former Massachusetts governor arrived at the same policy conclusion as Barack Obama. "Given the bleak job prospects that young Americans coming out of college face today," said Mr. Romney, "I encourage Congress to temporarily extend the current low rate on subsidized undergraduate Stafford loans. I also hope the president and Congress can pass the extension responsibly that offsets its cost in a way that doesn't harm the job prospects of young Americans."

House members who have been opposing the extension know it is anything but responsible. The Obama-Romney subsidy will keep rates as low as 3.4% for many student borrowers, not that far above the 3.1% rate that the Treasury pays to borrow for the long term. If interest rates spike, taxpayers could be losing on every single new loan, never mind the cost of defaults. And as for offsets, the White House and Senate Democrats favor a new tax on small businesses. If Mr. Romney can't provide a contrast to that idea, Republicans will know they're in for a very long campaign.

Read more at online.wsj.com ...

Tom Hoefling

I wrote the following in response to an Orange County Register piece that was posted at FreeRepublic.com, and it bears repeating here:

-----

Not a single sitting justice of the Supreme Court recognizes the personhood of the child in the womb and their protection by the explicit, imperative requirements of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.

"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." "No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Not even one of the majority of the justices who were picked by Republican presidents, members of a party whose platform HAS recognized the personhood of the chld and their protection by our Constitution for the last 28 years.

So, what do you think are the chances that a "president Romney" (it makes me sick just typing that) would pick a judge who is more conservative than Thomas or Scalia?

I say the chances of that are for all intents and purposes ZERO.

Especially since Mitt Romney himself is a pro-choice democrat. He thinks God-given rights can be decided by a majority vote.

He thinks courts make our laws, and that only they get to decide what is constitutional. In other words, he supports the abortion on demand status quo, the destruction of the checks and balances that make our form of government possible, and the erasure of the legitimate lines of authority granted to the various branches and departments of our government.

He thinks states can alienate unalienable rights if they want. A Stephen A. Douglas Democrat position if there ever was one.

In other words, even in this shape-shifter’s current incarnation, his views are anti-republican.

No matter how you cut it, Obama or Romney, all the babies continue to die, and so does the republic whose founding premise was the equal protection of the rights of all.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."

Frankly, at this point in history, all the Romney Republican fear-mongering about judges does is disgust and anger me.

‎"Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right."

-- Fulton J. Sheen, 1953

"What raised us to the present happy state?...The Government has been in the hands of the people. To the people, therefore...is the credit due...

It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty.

Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin...

If we persevere...we can not fail, under the favor of a gracious Providence...My fervent prayers to the Almighty that He will be graciously pleased to continue to us that protection which He has already so conspicuously displayed in our favor."

-- President James Monroe, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1817

"No great advance has ever been made in science, politics, or religion, without controversy."

-- Lyman Beecher

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one."

-- Alexander Hamilton

"Truth is incontrovertible. Ignorance can deride it; panic may resent it; malice may destroy it; but there it is."

-- Winston Churchill

"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Tom Hoefling

April 27, 2012

I deal on a regular daily basis with self-identified conservatives all across America who are addicted to the Republican Party. And when it comes to the impending nomination by their party of the most liberal governor in U.S. history, Mitt Romney, their reactions are overwhelmingly in line with the classic symptoms described below.

We can't make them face reality, of course. All we can do is to keep pointing it out to them, in the sincere hope that they will recover in time to help save the country. 

-----

From Wikipedia:

Denial (also called abnegation) is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The subject may use:

• simple denial: deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether
• minimisation: admit the fact but deny its seriousness (a combination of denial and rationalization)
• projection: admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility.

The concept of denial is particularly important to the study of addiction. The theory of denial was first researched seriously by Anna Freud. She classified denial as a mechanism of the immature mind, because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality. Where denial occurs in mature minds, it is most often associated with death, dying and rape.

Denial of fact In this form of denial, someone avoids a fact by lying. This lying can take the form of an outright falsehood (commission), leaving out certain details to tailor a story (omission), or by falsely agreeing to something (assent, also referred to as "yessing" behavior). Someone who is in denial of fact is typically using lies to avoid facts they think may be painful to themselves or others.

Denial of responsibility This form of denial involves avoiding personal responsibility by:

• blaming: a direct statement shifting culpability and may overlap with denial of fact
• minimizing: an attempt to make the effects or results of an action appear to be less harmful than they may actually be, or
• justifying: when someone takes a choice and attempts to make that choice look okay due to their perception of what is "right" in a situation.

Someone using denial of responsibility is usually attempting to avoid potential harm or pain by shifting attention away from themselves.

For example:

Troy breaks up with his girlfriend because he is unable to control his anger, and then blames her for everything that ever happened.

Denial of impact: Denial of impact involves a person's avoiding thinking about or understanding the harms of his or her behavior has caused to self or others, i.e. denial of the consequences. Doing this enables that person to avoid feeling a sense of guilt and it can prevent him or her from developing remorse or empathy for others. Denial of impact reduces or eliminates a sense of pain or harm from poor decisions.

Denial of awareness: This type of denial is best discussed by looking at the concept of state dependent learning. People using this type of denial will avoid pain and harm by stating they were in a different state of awareness (such as alcohol or drug intoxication or on occasion mental health related). This type of denial often overlaps with denial of responsibility.

Denial of cycle: Many who use this type of denial will say things such as, "it just happened". Denial of cycle is where a person avoids looking at their decisions leading up to an event or does not consider their pattern of decision making and how harmful behavior is repeated. The pain and harm being avoided by this type of denial is more of the effort needed to change the focus from a singular event to looking at preceding events. It can also serve as a way to blame or justify behavior (see above).

Denial of denial: This can be a difficult concept for many people to identify with in themselves, but is a major barrier to changing hurtful behaviors. Denial of denial involves thoughts, actions and behaviors which bolster confidence that nothing needs to be changed in one's personal behavior. This form of denial typically overlaps with all of the other forms of denial, but involves more self-delusion. Denial at this level can have significant consequences both personally and at a societal level.

DARVO See also: Victim blaming Harassment covers a wide range of offensive behaviour. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset. In the legal sense, it is behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing.

DARVO is an acronym to describe a common strategy of abusers: Deny the abuse, then Attack the victim for attempting to make them accountable for their offense, thereby Reversing Victim and Offender.

Psychologist Jennifer Freyd writes:

...I have observed that actual abusers threaten, bully and make a nightmare for anyone who holds them accountable or asks them to change their abusive behavior. This attack, intended to chill and terrify, typically includes threats of law suits, overt and covert attacks on the whistle-blower's credibility, and so on. The attack will often take the form of focusing on ridiculing the person who attempts to hold the offender accountable. [...] [T]he offender rapidly creates the impression that the abuser is the wronged one, while the victim or concerned observer is the offender. Figure and ground are completely reversed. [...] The offender is on the offense and the person attempting to hold the offender accountable is put on the defense.