ObamaCare: A Continuing Study on The Art of Political Deception

Back in October of 2013, I wrote an article about detailing how ObamaCare is an excellent study in how politicians manipulate, deceive and mislead the American people. In fact, the conception, passage and fragile survival of ObamaCare is probably the best example of political deception in modern American history. Someday, Obama will be known as the "great manipulator" in the same way that Regan will be remembered as the great communicator.

More details continue to emerge about Obama's campaign of deception in making ObamaCare the law of the land. We continue our study in the art of political deception with a video has been circulating around the Internet of Obama's 2008 Presidential run in which he aired a commercial that attacked John McCain's health care plan. 

The reason why this old 2008 campaign ad has suddenly become relevant today is because of how well Obama deceived the public on his health care plan.  Obama ended up adopting policies that were proposed by Hillary Clinton and John McCain even though he was initially against them during his 2008 campaign: 

And Obama, who has argued against adopting an individual mandate, as proposed by Hillary Clinton, ended up embracing exactly that option—and even accepted a variation of an idea from McCain that he criticizes in this ad.

What part of McCain's 2008 healthcare plan did Obama incorporate into ObamaCare? The high risk pools. The high risk pools was one of the criticisms Obama had against McCain's health care plan that was mentioned in Obama's 2008 campaign ad above. Its funny that every argument Obama had about McCainCare was, in hindsight, criticism of ObamaCare. 

This isn't the first time Obama attacked an idea before adopting it into his own plan. Obama went after Mitt Romney on RomneyCare's individual mandate before he ultimately incorporated Hillary Clinton's 2008 health care plan which included the individual mandate into ObamaCare.  Barack Obama's claims that Mitt Romney's healthcare plan was the basis for ObamaCare is a lie based on his own admission. There are many conservatives (as well as liberals) that argue that Obama got the idea for the individual mandate from Mitt Romney. That claim is not supported by the facts.

The truth is that 99% of ObamaCare is based on Hillary Clinton's health care plan with a few ideas from McCain's 2008 health care plan mixed in.

Obama sold himself to the public as young politician who would never lie his way into office and tell people what they wanted to hear. However, now that we have seen Obama in action as a politician as the President of the United States, he's everything he claimed he wasn't. He's a smooth talking, lying, do-whatever-it-takes-to-win, politician. Obama hasn't transcended politics. He's deep into politics.

The fact that Obama was against certain ideas contained HillaryCare, McCain Care and RomneyCare isn't case of a politician flip flopping. This is a case of outright deception in which he publicly opposed these ideas but secretly supported them. Obama had to scare voters away from supporting Hillary, McCain and Mitt Romney so that he can win the 2008 and 2012 election only later work to convince the American people to accept these proposals as part of ObamaCare that he advocated against as a candidate.

Where Did Obama's "If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your Plan" Promise Come From?

During the 2008 Presidential primaries, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were battling each other to become the Democratic candidate for the General election. They clashed with one another on the issue of health care. The only major difference between the two candidate's health care plan was that Hilary Clinton had an individual mandate while Barack Obama's health plan didn't. However, Obama would later include the individual mandate into his health care plan. Once he incorporated the individual mandate, he also incorporated her campaign promise:

Hilliary Clinton told the American people this: 

Obama would go on to repeat Hillary Clinton's promise 36 times:

Obama stole that infamous campaign promise from Hilliary Clinton. 

That 2008 campaign promise that "if you like your plan/doctor/hospital, you can keep it" is a lie. It was a lie told by both candiates. One of those candidates would later become President in 2008. The other candidate is thinking of running in 2016.

UPDATE (4/11/15):  The Wall Street Journal just came across a memo that one of Hillary Clinton's staffers wrote  nearly 20 years ago during the summer of 1994 which reads, “If you like your Blue Cross you can keep your BC.” The next line extends that promise to Aetna, Prudential, and any similar insurer. See the memo below:

How Badly Will Newt Lose To Obama And Why Republicans Should Not Vote For Newt In 2012

Ladies and Gentlemen, the time grows closer and closer to the beginning of the 2012 Republican primaries.

Before I talk about the 2012 Republicans, I want to remind people about the 2008 Republican primaries because I fear that we haven't learned from that last election.

During the 2008 election, John McCain's campaign was almost dead during months prior to the first Republican primaries. Mitt Romney was set to win the Republican nomination until Senator McCain won the New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida primaries. He made an agreement with Mike Huckabee, who was also running for President, to give his delegates to McCain's team in order to prevent Mitt Romney from winning that state.

With Super Tuesday coming closer, virtually almost all of the top conservative talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Dennis Prager, Mike Gallagher and other conservative talk show hosts were strongly telling people on their radio show to stop McCain in his tracks and vote for Mitt Romney because McCain was not a conservative and would most likely lose to Obama in the 2008 election. Sure enough, despite heeding the warnings of talk show conservatives, conservative authors like Ann Coulter and religious authorities, Republican voters chose to give the nomination to John McCain on Super Tuesday.

Just as so many conservatives predicted and warned, Barak Obama defeated John McCain by a wide margin. Obama got 365 of the electoral college votes while McCain only got a meager 173 votes. Moreover, Obama won the popular vote by 53% to McCain's 46%.

Once again, many conservatives, such as myself, are sounding the warning bell to conservative voters to NOT vote for Newt Gingrich. Even libertarians are urging people not to vote for Newt.

Like John McCain, Newt Gingrich will lose the 2012 election against Barak Obama. I'm predicting that Newt Gingrich will lose by a bigger margin than McCain did in 2008. I'm predicting that Gingrich will be comparable to Jimmy Carter's loss to Ronald Reagan in 1980, Walter Mondale's loss to Ronald Reagan in 1984 or Michael Dukasis' loss to George H.W. Bush in 1988. It will be that bad.

Lets review what would happen in the 2012 general election and beyond if Newt Gingrich wins the Republican nomination. 

1.  Newt Gingrich will definitely lose the female vote. He will push female voters into voting for Obama and will cause women vote against the GOP for years to come in the future.

2. He will also most definitely lose the crucial independent voter. The more independents learn about him or are reminded of who this man is, the less they will like him. Independent voters will not like the choices of choosing between Obama and Newt but they will select Obama over Gingrich at the end of the day. 

 3. Newt Gingrich will reverse all our gains in the 2010 midterm elections. He will hurt the local, state and national Republican candidates who are seeking to ride a second wave the against the Democrats in public offices across this nation.

However, This wouldn't be the first time Newt would cause major losses in these elections. Lets not forget how the House Republicans kicked him out as Speaker after he single-handedly alienated both Republicans and Democrats in Washington, along with much of the American public, resulting in the biggest loss of Republicans seats in the House in 64 years. How bad was Newt Gingrich for the Republican party? Very bad: 

And yet, his approval numbers while he was in charge of the House were dreadful. Gallup found his net favorable rating in negative territory by the early spring of 1995 (33 percent approve to 47 percent disapprove, or a 14 point net negative), and at the end of 1995 his net negatives would exceed 25 points, where they would remain for the rest of his tenure.

By the time of the 1996 election, Gingrich had become a drag on the nationwide Republican brand. Consider the following chart, which tracks Gingrich’s favorable rating in the 1996 exit poll, by two metrics. First, it looks at his approval rating among all voters, and among only Bob Dole voters. Second, it looks at his approval rating nationwide and in Georgia.

These are very weak numbers indeed. Obviously, his 32 percent national favorable rating shows that only the core GOP base was behind him, but even then Gingrich was viewed favorably by just 61 percent of Dole voters nationwide. And in Georgia – his home state where people knew him best – he could not even pull in three quarters from Dole voters.

If Newt Gingrich is nominated in the 2012 primaries, he will cause conservative candidates running in these elections to lose. He will push the Republican wave back.

3.  Voting for Newt Gingrich will discredit and destroy social conservative which will harm them for many years to come. Social Conservatives will not be able to 

4. Newt Gingrich would perform poorly in debates against Obama. Why conservatives think a Teddy Roosevelt progressive intellectual like Newt would be a good match with the FDR progressive intellectual like Obama at the debates is beyond me. Having a debate between two intellectuals is a bad match for Conservatives. Newt might be able to handle Obama in a debate, but his personality and his past will offset whatever strengths Newt has in the debating room. 

5. Newt Gingrich doesn't have the organizational stamina or financial resources to go head to head with Obama. As a result, Newt Gingrich will gas out early in the campaign because he doesn't have the resources to last long against Obama.

Newt Gingrich is the most repulsive, toxic, controversial, and dangerous candidate for Republican party. I'm surprised that people have even given him a first or a second look in this election. Electing Newt would be the kiss of death for the Republican party. Yet, there are many who irrationally insist that conservatives vote for Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney in the 2012 primaries. They use convoluted logic to justify their reasons for why we should vote for him despite the fact that he has so much baggage and issues that he will be a major liability for Republicans in 2012. Moreover, Newt Gingrich will erase all the progress the Republicans have made and damage the Republican brand for a long time.

That is why its no surprise that talk radio show host Micheal Savage has offered $1 million dollars to Newt Gingrich to drop out of the race. If Newt wants to do something good for America, he would be wise to take that money.

If Gingrich wins the Republican nomination and loses to Barak Obama in 2012, I will repost this article on the day to remind conservatives and Republicans that many of us sounded the warning bell against Newt but you refused to listen to our warnings just as you did in 2008. Those of you who have supported and will vote for Newt Gingrich will have no one but to blame but yourselves.

However, it is not too late to stop Newt Gingrich. The best way to do that is that everyone should ignore whatever Newt says in debates and interviews.  Moreover, not a single penny should be donated to his campaign, not a single person in any state should show up at his any of his campaign stops, no one should ever buy his books and most importantly, do not vote for him in any of the Republican primaries. You, the Republican voter in New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina and Florida have the power to stop Newt in his tracks by voting for Mitt Romney. 

As I said before, the goal of 2012 is to defeat Obama in 2012. The best way to do that is to unite around Mitt Romney who can not only beat Obama, but lead the country after he's elected in 2012.

Flashback: Jim Talent Praises RomneyCare in 2008 Election

Its always fascinating to go back in time during the 2008 elections when so many conservatives were promoting Mitt Romney as the most conservative candidate in that election. I'd like to introduce you to an article that Jim Talent, the former Republican senator from Missouri, who wrote in an article in 2008 in which he praised Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts:

Each candidate in the 2008 Presidential race will undoubtedly offer a health care plan. Those plans will include initiatives ranging from a single payer system, to employer mandates, to tax incentives for the purchase of private health insurance. But only one candidate has actually done something, waded into the issue and emerged with a successful plan that does not resort to one-size-fits-all, government run "Hillary Care." That innovative candidate is former Governor Mitt Romney.

On April 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed into law landmark legislation ensuring that every resident of Massachusetts would have access to affordable, portable, quality private health insurance – without higher taxes, an employer mandate or a government takeover of health care.

Massachusetts was afflicted with many of the same problems that plague the health care system across the country. There was no easy way to buy affordable insurance except through an employer. Without the employer option, it just was not feasible for many people to buy health insurance. As a result, they had to resort to emergency room care and the taxpayers ended up footing the bill. People choosing their health care provider could not get critical information about the cost or quality of care, and excessive state regulations reduced choices and drove up costs.

When Governor Romney decided to tackle the double-digit annual increases in health insurance costs, the average uninsured resident in Massachusetts had to pay $335 a month for private health insurance, which did not include coverage for prescription drugs and featured a $5,000 deductible. Moreover, the state was spending over $1.3 billion a year on "free care" for the uninsured.

Governor Romney actually got the Democrat-controlled legislature to enact a plan that addressed these problems. He took the time to understand what makes private health insurance markets work and transformed the market in his state from one that was government-controlled to one that allows competition to flourish.

Governor Romney's health care plan featured a number of reforms. First, his plan deregulated the overburdened Massachusetts insurance market to reduce the cost of private insurance, while giving consumers more choice from a broader range of plans. Second, the plan addressed the problems caused by the fact that many people could not get healthcare through their employers and could not afford it on the individual market. Third, he redirected the millions of dollars that were being spent on free emergency room care and used it instead to help those who truly were not able to afford private health insurance.

Finally, Governor Romney recognized that competition is the key to the success of any market – so doing what no one had ever done before, he created a new market where consumers can go to pick the health care plan that suits them best. Called the "Connector," this marketplace is not a new regulatory agency or insurance purchasing pool. It is a place that gives people access to more choices, better information, and lower costs in selecting a private health insurance plan. The Connector also provides a way for individuals to purchase insurance with the same pre-tax advantage given to those buying insurance through their employers. Even better, the Connector gives people the chance to buy private insurance independent of their jobs, so that they don't have to worry about losing their coverage when they change employers.

But Governor Romney's reforms did not stop at reducing the cost of insurance today. He also tackled a number of reforms that will help reduce the rise in health care costs over the long-term. His plan included medical transparency provisions that allow consumers to compare the quality of hospitals and providers, while tracking and recording the costs associated with the care they provide. The reforms also instituted measures to encourage the use of electronic health records, which will reduce medical errors and lower costs.

What's been the result of all these reforms? Although the reforms were signed into law just over a year ago, the changes are dramatic. The same uninsured individual whose choice was formerly limited to a policy with a $335 a month insurance premium with no drug benefits and a $5,000 deductible now can purchase quality private insurance, which includes coverage for prescription drugs, office and emergency room visits, and a $2,000 deductible, for $175 per month. Between July 1, 2006 and May 1, 2007, nearly 125,000 previously uninsured residents of Massachusetts got health insurance coverage.

Taxpayer-funded "free care" is falling at double-digit rates, because the Romney reforms no longer allow people to let others pay for their health care if they can afford their own health insurance. Those who previously couldn't afford health insurance now have the help they need to get access to affordable, quality, portable private coverage. And, as he promised, Governor Romney did all this without raising taxes and without a government take-over of health care.

All of Governor Romney's reforms are consistent with the goal of making private health insurance more available, flexible, and affordable. That is why many conservative organizations have hailed Governor Romney's health care reforms. The Heritage Foundation called it "one of the most promising strategies out there." Massachusetts Citizens For Limited Taxation said that Romney's plan was a responsible solution to America's health care challenges. And the Ethan Allen Institute praised Governor Romney's plan because of its focus on personal responsibility and choice.

The bipartisanship, innovation, conservative statesmanship and creativity he exhibited confirms my view that he is the kind of leader this nation needs.

My Response To Pastor Robert Jeffress

About a week ago, Pastor Robert Jefress recently wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post which he repeats the same old arguments he's been making on television in attempt to justify his message of religious bigotry.  I will respond to each of the points that he makes in his op-ed and show why each of his arguments fail: 

The first argument Pastor Jefress makes is that Article VI of the Constitution permits private citizens to vote against someone on the basis of their religious affiliation:  

First, discussion of a candidate’s faith is permissible. Over the past several days, talk show hosts have lectured me about Article VI of the Constitution, which prohibits religious tests for public office, as if considering a candidate’s faith is somehow unconstitutional, un-American or even illegal. How ludicrous. This is a not-so-subtle attempt to eliminate through intimidation religion as a suitable criterion by which to choose a candidate. The Constitution is referring to religious litmus tests imposed by government, not by individuals.

The Pastor is correct that the Constitution prohibits the government from imposing religious litmus tests and that the individuals are free to impose such tests at the ballot box. However, just because the Constitution doesn't prohibit someone from discriminating against a candidate because of that candidate's faith doesn't mean that it is appropriate to do so. 

For example, prior to the passage of the 13th Amendment in 1865, the Constitution did not prohibit the practice of slavery. However, as we all know, just because the Constitution didn't outlaw slavery means that the practice of having slaves was acceptable.

Again, prior to the passage of the of the 14th Amendment in 1868, the Constitution was silent on passing laws that discriminated against people on the basis of their skin color. Additionally, the Constitution said nothing about denying black Americans the right to vote until 1870 when the 15th Amendment was added to the Constitution. Just because the Constitution was silent on racially discriminatory laws meant that the practice of having such laws is ok.

As result, even though the Pastor is correct in his reading and understanding of Article VI, he's absolutely wrong when he claims that it acceptable for private citizens to vote for a candidate on the basis of their religious membership because religious litmus tests applies only to the federal government. It is un-American and unacceptable to use religion as a criterion to decide who to vote in a local, state or national election.

Any attempt to justify this practice is religious bigotry.

Thus, even though Article VI of the Constitution prohibits a religious test for holding office, iff you claim to uphold the Constitution, you should eliminate that kind of thinking from your personal beliefs.

To support his contention that Christians should vote for a Christian over a "non-Christian" like Mitt Romney, he uses a quote from Supreme Court justice to defend his teaching of religious bigotry at the ballot box in his op-ed:

Interestingly, John Jay, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court and co-author of the Federalist Papers, thought a candidate’s religious beliefs should be a primary consideration in voting. Jay wrote, “It is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” According to Jay, preferring a Christian candidate is neither bigoted nor unconstitutional.

The first Chief Justice was an anti-Catholic bigot. For example, while he was Governor of New York, he advocated laws that discriminated against Catholics such as requiring them to take an oath of loyalty:

In New York, Jay argued unsuccessfully in the provincial convention for a prohibition against Catholics holding office. However, in February 1788, the New York legislature under Jay's guidance approved an act requiring officeholders to renounce all foreign authorities "in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil," a law designed to discourage Catholics from holding public office, while not banning them outright.

Its also interesting to note the reason why John Jay and many others were bigoted towards Catholics and passed religiously bigoted laws was because they believed that Catholics were not Christians.   

Once you understand John Jay's bigotry towards Catholics, you'll see that he was advocating that Christians could vote for a Christian as long as they were not Catholic. As a result, John Jay's idea of "Christian nation" was limited only to Protestants and that only Protestants should be allowed to run for political office. 

If Pastor Jeffress wants to faithfully follow John Jay's belief, then by all means, let’s define Christianity as limited exclusively to the Episcopal Church and only allow Protestants to run for office. 

Its worth noting that John Jay wasn't the only religiously bigoted Supreme Court Justice. Supreme Court Justice James C. McReynolds was well known for his hatred of Jews: 

McReynolds was a racist and anti-Semite. There is no official photograph of the Supreme Court in 1924 because McReynolds refused to sit next to Justice Louis D. Brandeis, the first Jewish Justice, as required by the Court's seating protocol (which is based on seniority).

Given the views of Justices like Jay and McReynolds, it demonstrates that religious bigotry exist even in the Supreme Court. Thus, the fact that Pastor Robert Jeffress likes to quote John Jay doesn't help his argument at all. Especially, when he states that if "I'm a bigot, then John Jay is a bigot":

You can hear that quote starting at the 4:45 mark at the video above.

Quoting John Jay also doesn't erase people's suspicion that Robert Jefress is a religious bigot. Let us review the facts:

Pastor Robert Jeffress states in the 2008 film documentary, Article VI: Faith, Politics, America that not only could he not vote for a Mormon but he couldn't even be friends with one. 

Moreover, Robert Jeffress has done an interview with American Family Association's Bryan Fischer who has stated that he believes that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to Mormons. The fact that Pastor Robert Jeffress associates with someone who believe that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to Mormons because they are not Christians is disturbing.  So far, Pastor Robert Jeffress hasn't taken the initiative to distance himself from Bryan Fischer. 

As a result, I'd like to know if Pastor Jeffress shares the idea that non-Christians are not protected by the first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But since he hasn't repudiated these statements, it gives many people the impression he agrees with Bryan Fischer's bigoted views. 

The second point that Pastor Robert Jeffress makes is that it is certainly permissible to discuss a candidate's faith because its relevant to deciding whether or not a person is qualified to be in office:

Second, discussion of a candidate’s faith is relevant. During a time of rising unemployment, falling home prices and massive deficits, it is easy to relegate religion as an irrelevant topic. Yet our religious beliefs define the very essence of who we are. Any candidate who claims his religion has no influence on his decisions is either a dishonest politician or a shallow follower of his faith.

Pastor Robert Jeffress is correct but not for the reason he advocates. 

A candidate's religion does matter but only to the extent of how it affects a person's values. Two people who read the same scriptures and attend the same church can have different opinions and values. This example can be perfectly seen with Herman Cain who is strong conservative despite the fact that he goes to a liberal church: 

The black church has long been a paradox. It is one of the most politically liberal but theologically conservative institutions in the black community. Cain’s house of worship embodies some of these contradictions.

Antioch is a member of the National Baptist Convention USA Inc., a denomination in which some churches do not ordain women. The denomination’s leadership publicly broke with King over his civil rights activism.

But like many black Baptist churches, Antioch has developed a strong social justice component to its ministry over the years. It offers ministries for people suffering from drug addition and those infected with HIV/AIDS, and it has been a Sunday stopover for black politicians running for office.

That is why I've been arguing that a candidate's values is more important than than their theology.  Every president who has ever occupied the White House has been a Christian. Some of them have been Republicans. Some of them have been Democrats. Yet, the impact these presidents have had our nation and the world was not because of their political party or their religious affiliation. It was their values.

Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Clinton and Barak Obama were all Christian men. Some of these men were Republicans and most of them were Democrats. Yet, their progressive values has had a negative impact on our country politically, financially and militarily.

Interestingly enough, Pastor Robert Jeffress doesn't mention in his Washington Post op-ed that during the 2008 Presidential election, he believed that voting for a Mormon will affect's one's salvation in getting into Heaven:

"I believe we should always support a Christian over a non-Christian. The value of electing a Christian goes beyond public policies. ... Christians are uniquely favored by God, [while] Mormons, Hindus and Muslims worship a false god. The eternal consequences outweigh political ones. It is worse to legitimize a faith that would lead people to a separation from God."

In conclusion, Pastor Robert Jeffress' arguments in his Washington Post op-ed fail because he undermines his attempts to rationalize and justify his religious bigotry. Each and every argument he makes actually promotes religious bigotry if you take a hard look at the information behind the sources he uses in his arguments, the people he associates with and the statement he has made in the past and present.

And by the way, Pastor Robert Jeffress, if you are reading this, I'll be glad to debate you anytime and anywhere on whether or not Mormons are cults or whether Christians can vote for a Mormon.

A Debate Worth Watching: Jay Sekulow vs. Pastor Robert Jeffress

Given that Rick Perry has decided to employ a passive aggressive attack against Mitt Romney's faith by having controversial Pastor Robert Jeffress of the Dallas First Baptist Church introduce the Texas governor at the Value Voter Summit, it is worth traveling back in time to watch a debate between a well known conservative attorney named Jay Sekulow and Pastor Robert Jeffress. 

I'm going to post the entire debate because the exchange is the best debate I've seen on the important question of whether or not a candidate's theology is more important than the values they promote. This debate took place sometime around December 2008.

In the first clip, Mark DeMoss, president of the DeMoss Group, opened the debate by giving his introductory remarks and discusses why he, as Christian, decided to endorse Mitt Romney in the 2008 Presidential election: 

The next clip is currently making the rounds on the Internet on various media sites and conservative blogs. After Mark DeMoss gives his introductory remarks, Pastor Jeffress steps up to make the case why Christians must always vote for a Christian candidate even if the non-Christian candidate is a very moral and conservative candidate.

What is even more interesting is that Pastor Jeffress asks the audience to travel forward in time to January of 2012 and imagine a hypothetical match up between Mitt Romney and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who  Pastor Jeffress describes her as being a “professing Christian whose views do not completely mesh with what Evangelicals believe.” According to Pastor Robert Jeffress, voters must chose Christians over non-Christians regardless if the non Christian candidate is more moral than the Christian candidate.

Pastor Jeffress' scenario has become a reality in which Mitt Romney is up against another Texas politician named Rick Perry in this election.  Watch the clip below and listen to Pastor Jeffress try to make a rational argument that Christians cannot vote for someone like Mitt Romney.:

After Pastor Jeffress makes his case for why Christians cannot vote for an "unbeliever" like Mitt Romney, Jay Sekulow, a high powered conservative Jewish leader, demonstrates why Pastor Jeffress positions is dangerous and leads to some very disturbing outcomes if you follow the Pastor's argument to its logical conclusion by posing a hypothetical to Pastor Jeffress: ”If Mitt Romney was running against Jimmy Carter, would you support Jimmy Carter because he’s a born-again Christian? I find that premise to be troubling.”

Jay Sekulow makes some other powerful points and I'll let you watch the clip to discover them on your own:

I cannot find an embeddable video for Pastor Robert Jeffress's rebuttal to Jay Sekulow but in this video, he admits that if he was faced with voting for either Romney or Obama in the 2012 election, he would reluctantly vote for Mitt Romney because Obama's comments and positions run against the Bible. The Pastor, in this video, then asks Jay Sekulow if he would be willing to vote for a Muslim candidate who wants to impose Sharia law to which Mr. Sekulow responds.

Again, I cannot find an embeddable videos for the Question and Answer session that followed. However, you can watch the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eight, ninth, tenth and eleventh videos. Pastor Jeffress' responses to various questions is almost as eye opening as his opening statement in his debate against Jay Sekulow. 

Watching the debate and the following A&A session takes some time but I really think its worth watching in its entirety. 

Mike Huckabee DID collaborate with John McCain in 2008

An all out feud between Mike Huckabee and Glenn Beck has broken out in which they have been lobbying verbal bullets at each other. One of the claims that Glenn Beck makes is that Mike Huckabee collaborated with John McCain to push Mitt Romney out during the 2008 campaign. Here's what Mike Huckabee said in response to that allegation: 

"His ridiculous claim that John McCain and I collaborated and conspired in the 2008 campaign is especially laughable. Is he not aware that McCain and I were competitors—not cohorts? Beck needs to stick to conspiracies that can’t be so easily de-bunked by facts. Why Beck has decided to aim his overloaded guns on me is beyond me."

Mike Huckabee is disengenious with his defense here. McCain and Huck were out to keep Romney from winning it together, not against each other as Huckbee claims.

Unfortunately for Mike Huckabee, this is a conspiracy that can be debunked by facts. Lets look at them shall we?

We know for a fact that Mitt Romney had the most support prior to when the votes were taken during the first round of the the 2008 West Virginia primaries: 

"When Romney arrived this morning in Charleston to address the Republican convention, it was largely assumed that he had Mountain State in the bag. That confidence was partly the product of pure investment; his campaign went to work in the state in 2006, long before his rivals arrived, and Romney had visited repeatedly over the past several weeks. And part was establishment support; Mitt began the day with 280 committed state delegates (more than Huck or McCain) and all three West Virginia superdelegates in his column."

It clear that Mitt Romney was in the lead and that the people of West Virginia were ready to nominate Mitt Romney in the 2008 primaries. 

Now that we know what Mitt Romney's position looked like before the voting took place during the West Virginia primaries, lets look at the results of the first round of voting: 

"Romney won 41 percent during the first round to 33 percent for Huckabee. McCain won 16 percent, and Paul brought up the rear with 10 percent. Since no one had a majority, delegates voted a second time, with Paul eliminated."

Now that Ron Paul was eliminated from the first round of voting in the 2008 West Virginia, Mike Huckabee made a cut a deal with Ron Paul to get his delegates to vote for Mike Huckabee in the second round of voting:

"In an agreement first reported by West Virginia television station WSAZ, the three Ron Paul delegates were secured through an agreement with the Mike Huckabee campaign.

Ron Paul delegates to the state convention swung their support to Huckabee – putting Huckabee over the top – after Congressman Paul was eliminated in the first round of voting. With three national delegates, Ron Paul secured 17 percent of the 18 delegates that were decided at the State Convention."

Now here's where the conspiracy between Mike Huckabee and John McCain begins. 

While there is no proof that Mike Huckabee and John McCain or their staffers met in some smoked filled room to hash out a deal, there are snippets of facts that indicate that some kind of agreement did go down between these two men.

There  are independent reports that John McCain instructed his delegates to vote for Huckabee in order to prevent Mitt Romney from winning the second round of voting. We have a report from James Joyner who reported that John McCain instructed his delegates to vote for Huckabee:

“McCain told them to vote for Huckabee to keep Romney from winning. If the second round came down to McCain and Romney, the Huckabee delegates could very likely have broken for Romney.”

There's also this report from Marc Ambinder that independently verifies that fact:

"But sources say that representatives for John McCain called many of his reps in WV and asked them to vote for Huckabee...in order to thwart Romney on the second ballot."

We then get this report from Fox News:

"But before Huckabee’s surprising turnaround at the convention, McCain delegates told FOX News they had been instructed by the campaign to throw their support to Huckabee.

McCain delegate John Vuolo said former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer approached him and other McCain supporters at the convention and told them he had spoken to McCain, and that the best thing to do was to support Huckabee in the hope that Huckabee could beat Romney in this winner-take-all state."

John Vuolo's claim that former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer was instructing delegates to vote for Mike Huckabee can be verified from the Charleston Gazette:

"On the first ballot Tuesday morning, Romney was the leading vote getter, with 40.9 percent of the vote. Huckabee was second, with 33.1 percent. McCain had 15.5 percent, and longtime Texas Rep. Ron Paul had 10.4 percent.

Under the convention rules, the candidate with the fewest votes was knocked off the ballot, so that eliminated Paul.

Former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer, McCain’s representative at the event, then conceded defeat and asked McCain boosters to support Huckabee on the second ballot in order to block Romney…"

We then get a reports of John McCain supporters holding up signs encouraging other McCain delegates to vote for Mike Huckabee: 

"McCain staffers, meanwhile, began parading around the hall carrying signs telling their delegates to vote for Huckabee."

Lets sum up what we know now: 

Mitt Romney wins the first round of the West Virginia primaries which knocked Ron Paul out of the primaries. Mike Huckabee approaches Ron Paul convinces him to tell his delegates to vote for Mike Huckabee in exchange that Mike Huckabee will give Ron Paul three delegates at the GOP convention. The fact that Mike Huckabee gives gives three national delegates to Ron Paul doesn't make since since Mike Huckabee, at that time, didn't have that many delegates to give away. 

At the same time Mike Huckabee secured Ron Paul's delegates, we have John McCain calling many of his representatives and instructed them to vote for Mike Huckabee.

Former Louisiana Govenor Buddy Roemer begins approaching delegates like John Vuolo and instructing them to vote for Mike Huckabee. John McCain delegates start holding signs in an effort to get other John McCain delegates on board to vote for Mike Huckabee in the second round of voting.

Its clear from the facts that McCain crowd switched to supporting Mike Huckabee prior to the second round because they were under instructions to do so in order to stop Mitt Romney from winning the 2008 West Virginia primaries. 

Now with all the facts in mind, here's the result of the second round of voting:

"On the second ballot, Huckabee had 567 votes (51 percent), Romney had 521 votes (47 percent) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had 12 votes."

The story of how Mike Huckabee won West Virginia strongly suggests that the Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, and John McCain campaigns all collaborated together to deny Mitt Romney a win in West Virginia.

Here's an interesting little fact. Mike Huckabee could not have won West Virginia had it not been for getting Ron Paul's delegates to vote for him in the second round because the combined McCain-Huck vote was only 49 percent: Paul supporters sealed the deal.

As a result, Ron Paul's people were clearly in the kingmaker position.

Ron Paul's delegates were just as important to John McCain's chances of winning West Virginia as it was to Mike Huckabee.

Which raises some interesting questions: Its odd to me that we get no reports of John McCain competing with Mike Huckabee to woo Ron Paul's delegates. Did John McCain make any efforts to win over any of Ron Paul's delegates? Did Ron Paul approach John McCain to see what kind of deal was on the table for him?

John McCain could have easily decided to fight for Ron Paul's delegates and chose to remain in the second round of voting. Armed with Ron Paul's delegates, John McCain had a strong possibility of winning the second round by pushing Mike Huckabee out and go up against Mitt Romney in a third round. Maybe John McCain would have beaten Mitt Romney in the third round of voting if he could convince enough Huckabee supporters to vote him in that third round.

Yet, from all the facts that we have, it appears that he didn't make any effort snatch some Ron Paul delegates away from Mike Huckabee. He doesn't even put up a fight prior to the second round which is highly unusual for someone like John McCain who is known for fighting it out to the bitter end. Instead, he tells his representatives to go out and instruct McCain voters to throw their vote towards Mike Huckabee.

As a result, the big question remains: why didn't John McCain fight to get support from Ron Paul's voters?

Something doesn't pass the smell test here.

That's why a lot of people suspect that some kind of back room deal occurred between Mike Huckabee and John McCain because Ron Paul was in the king maker position yet there was no drawn out battle between Huckabee, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Instead, we find that delegates for  Ron Paul and Jon McCain were instructed to vote for Mike Huckabee.

Rush Limbaugh explains why he thinks that there was collusion between Huckabee and John McCain at the 2008 West Virginia Primaries: 

"We know a little bit more here about what happened in West Virginia -- and, folks, it underscores what many of us have been saying about collusion between the Huck forces and McCain forces.  After the first round of balloting in the West Virginia caucus, nobody got 50%, but Romney led with 41%.  Paul was out of it.  So it was Romney, it was Huckabee, and then McCain, in that order.  What has happened is that McCain forces have joined Huck forces, and that's how Huckabee has won West Virginia.  Now, McCain and Huck forces are denying that there was collusion.  But who cares? It doesn't matter what they say.  The fact -- what this proves -- is that a vote for Huck is a vote for McCain.  Because the Huck forces, whether by request from McCain forces or whether on their own, McCain forces decided to throw in with Huck forces en masse. So the combination of McCain forces and Huck forces overwhelm Romney, who had 41%.  So a vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain." 

Even though these kinds of deals are a part of politics, these these ‘votes’ were came about from instructions from above and as a result, the voters of West Virginia got disenfranchised by shady delegates. The people of West Virginia, prior to the that primary vote, supported Mitt Romney by a wide margin and yet the majority  of West Virginians didn't get the candidate they wanted. 

What occured in West Virginia demonstrates why multiple rounds of voting destroys the "one person, one vote" rule because it promotes the mentality of "Shoot, I didn’t win the first time, so let’s all gang up on the guy who did.”

Ed Morrisey agrees that West Virginia's primary system doesn't promote the kind of fair voting that we expect in elections:

"In fact, it shows why indirect mechanisms like caucuses and conventions are much less desirable than direct primaries. It turns these elections into games, and it increases the cynicism of the voters at a time when we need to attract them and make them believe they can make a difference. The last-minute hardball by the McCain campaign couldn't have been pulled in a primary state."

People think that the purpose of primaries are to determine individual strength and preference of the candidates by the people of that state, not coalition building exercises or efforts at conspiracy. Yet, that's exactly what happened at the 2008 West Virginia Primaries. 

Lets hope that these kind of shenanigans don't happen in 2012.