Meet Left-Funded Domestic Terrorist Brett Kimberlin Whose ‘Job’ Is Terrorizing Bloggers Into Silence

Friday, May 25, 2012



Be prepared to enter an alternate universe, bizarre beyond any stretch of what you thought possible. And then keep reading, because this may be one of the most important exposés published on The Blaze to date. It will explain in frightening detail what it means to speak the truth at the expense of losing all you hold dear. And will reveal how easy it has been for one convicted domestic terrorist — backed by George Soros and Barbara Streisand alike — to use the U.S. legal system, as well as less desirable channels, to silence those who have dared tell the story of one Brett Kimberlin, a.k.a. the “Speedway Bomber.”
How immutable are our First Amendment rights? Would they remain so even under the most dire conditions? There are about half a dozen bloggers who, at this very moment in time, are finding out just that, after having been subject to: death threats, blackmail, extortion, numerous frivolous lawsuits, cyber-attacks of email and social networking accounts and become the target of smear campaigns that have led to their firing until ultimately discovering that others who came before them, have turned up dead.

Read more on The Blaze

VIDEO: The REAL Road We've Traveled - Obama for "Former President"

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Obama & Co. recently released a propaganda film masquarading as a documentary making the increadible argument that Obama was dealt a bad hand by the bad economy, but that he did a good job these last 4 years.

Some enterprising film-maker decided to set the record straight and fill in a few of the finer points that Obama's little campaign film failed to mention.


Comparing Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Shirtless

Sunday, March 18, 2012

While comparing the physiques of the current GOP nominees may seem shallow and irrelevant to some, I would disagree.  Maintaining a healthy weight and build takes a good deal of self-denial, sustained effort and long-term vision.  Wouldn't you rather have a president with these traits, so rare in our society today?

Newt Gingrich



Rick Santorum



Ron Paul




Mitt Romney


Hope for Change: Getting Obama Out

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Conservatives need to get their act together if they want to say
goodbye to Obama in 2012.

In following this Republican primary it's easy to get the idea that Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich don't really know what their doing.  How else do you explain the fact that they weren't even on the ballot in several counties in Alabama and Michigan, and the whole state of Virginia.  What kind of campaign can't figure out how to qualify to be included on the ballot?!!

And what kind of candidate celebrates a "huge" victory on a night that they slip behind in the delegate race?  That's right on Tues March 13th, while Santorum was lauding his paper-thin victories in Alabama and Mississippi, Romney quietly picked up 41 delegates with his wins in Hawaii and American Samoa beating out Santorum's highly-publicized 35 delegate win.

Santorum simply is not paying attention; he is too focused on winning a handful of states favorable to him and does not realize that all the time Romney has charted his way around to secure the nomination.  Look on any delegate chart and notice something: every single state Santorum won has also awarded delegates to Romney, often almost as much as to Santorum.  Now look at Romney's column.  He has won each and every winner-take-all state, giving him a 219 delegate lead from these states alone.  And, he is poised to win the remaining winner-take-all states as well including California's whopping 172 delegates. 

If nothing else, it should be clear that Romeny has done his homework over the last several years while Santorum and Gingrich have been flying by the seat of their pants.  Romney has thought of everything: plotting multiple scenarios, secured funding, recruited local support, used media power as necessary, and consulted with all the experts he needs to ensure that he wins this primary and then the general.  Why do you think he has become the so-called "institutional favorite?" 

The Republican Party does not care so much who wins as long as it is from their party.  You think they care at all for Romney's ideas and policies?  If so, you have gotten caught up in the campaign rhetoric.   The reason Romney is surging and will become the nominee is because his is shrewd, organized, disciplined and bold.  Take Florida for example, he has in real danger of losing the contest to Gingrich, but he took the bold step of spending millions on exposing Gingrich's many past faults to the public eye and it paid off: they broke for Romney in droves. 

If making a political statement (and then losing) is what Conservatives want to do in 2012, then perhaps Santorum or Gingrich may be our man.  But if beating Obama is what we want, then we must have Mitt Romney, the only man with the campaign discipline, craftiness, and ability to call up financial and man-power support.  Santorum and his campaign have made blunder after blunder: Obama, the democrats and the media will eat him alive.  Gingrich has too many contradictory liabilities: a personal history of loose financials and morals and an ethics violation conviction in the House to quickly render anything he says hypocritical.  Romney has an impeccably moral family life, and the real-life business experience to fix everything that's wrong with the economy today.

As a final note, Gingrich's apparent plan to prevent Romney from securing the needed 1144 delegates and causing a "brokered convention" at the Aug. 27-30 Republican convention is not just mathematically a pipe dream, it is suicide foe the effort to beat Obama!  Think about it.  Because the candidates have had to focus on each other (as well as all their supporters and the media) Obama has been receiving a free ride from the people who should be criticizing him the most.  Instead, each of our candidates have been repeatedly stripped and flogged before the public.  (In a way this is good, because it is airing out every possible negative ahead of the general and toughening the candidates.)  If this fight drags out to the beginning of September, as Gingrich hopes to do, Republicans will have barely two months to make their case to America why their heavily-contested nominee is better than the fully-Democrat-backed Obama.  Campaigns need time to sink in, and two months is simply not enough for a presidential campaign.  The longer this primary goes on the less chance we have of stopping Obama and all the things he plans on doing in his second term: a term that will not be bridled by a need to appear moderate to get re-elected. 

Consider that Romney not only has shrewdly been wining the winner-take-alls and the ignored islands , but he has also won the swing states that Republicans need to win in November while Santorum and Gingrich have only won the states that Rebpublicans are sure to win anyways.  Consider that Santorum and Romney have checkered pasts of years as Washington politicians, Romney is a successful businessman Washington-outsider.  Santorum focuses on Social issues.  While these are important, they will not win us this election.  Gingrich's baggage gives Obama and his media too much to work with.  Santorum himself considered Romney a conservative in 2008.  Only when he decided to enter the race did he change his tune.

Romney is our best hope to end Obamacare, anti-religious Obama dictates, prevent Cap-and-Trade, lower taxes, and restore our nation's economy.  Republicans, Conservatives, and right-minded moderates need to rise above the divisive campaign rhetoric and build the strong coalition we need!

Obama Impeachment Sought

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Obama's conducting of war by UN permission rather than congress, as demanded by the constitution,  constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" claims one blogger and apparently at least two congressmen.  HE claims that articles of impeachment have already been created and presented in the House and Senate.



http://youtu.be/pkRcfy4t6CM

Ouch, Santorum!

Friday, March 9, 2012

"Look at their record!" Santorum told us.  Well, let's look at it.  This video was put out by the Gingrich campaign, but seems to support a Romney nomination more than the baggage-laden Gingrich.


 http://youtu.be/ELbCuLEe7Sw

It's About Beating Obama: Glenn Beck Urges Conservatives to Get Behind Romney

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Freedom Work's Matt Kibbe joins Glenn Beck to discuss the need or conservatives to put infighting aside and unite behind the only man who could now beat Obama. "I'm a Santorum fan, but it's about time for us to unite behind somebody now and build a machine that can take on Obama." "It's hard to figure out how someone other than Mitt Romney wins at this point."

CNN's Soledad O'Brien and Jay Thomas Look Like Fools for Taking on Breitbart's Joel Pollak

If you missed the hilarious efforts of  Soledad O'Brien and Thomas Pollak to defend Obama from the late Andrew Breitbart, watch here:



Daily Caller has uncovered more things that leave egg yolk on these two pathetic media spinners' faces:


 Wow. Breathe into a paper bag, Soledad.

But she’s not the best part. The best part is at the 6:30 mark, when comedian and radio host Jay Thomas asks Pollak, “What are you frightened of? Are you frightened that black people are gonna do something to you?”

I think Thomas might have nailed it. Here’s Pollak’s wife, Julia. (Hat tip: Hot Air)



I have a funny joke for you, Mr. Thomas. Feel free to use it:

“Take my wife. Please. I’m scared of her because she’s black!”


Update: Oh, or maybe this could be why Soledad was so upset:








Update: Will Jay Thomas and/or Soledad O’Brien be making an on-air apology to the Pollaks for calling Joel a racist? If not, why not?

Update: Prepare to gaze into the face of hatred:

By the way… Good catch, Joel!


Update: Rebelpundit asks: Was Soledad O’Brien Bailed Out by Producers on Critical Race Theory Definition? Well, considering she just kept repeating the first sentence of the top Google result for “critical race theory,” it’s a safe assumption that somebody was reading it into her earpiece. Just like in Broadcast News. Except back then they didn’t even have the Web.



I assume they do this all the time. I just wonder if anybody has failed as hard at it as Soledad did today.

Update: Last week she fell for that hoax about the evil bankster who left a 1% restaurant tip and wrote “Get a real job” on it. Did she ever correct that on the air? How are her ratings even as high as they are?

Update: It turns out Jay Thomas also had somebody talking into his earpiece during that segment:

"Critical Race Theory" Wikipedia Article Changed to Support CNN's Soledad O'Brien's New Politically-Correct Definition


The late Andrew Breitbart's first torpedo to the Obama re-election effort was unleashed last night in the form of a video from the president's Harvard years in which he asked students to "open up [their] hearts and their minds" to the words of his good friend Derrick Bell.  This Derrick Bell was a radical activist who advocated "Critical Race Theory."
If we did, here’s what we’d be opening our hearts and minds to. This is a close associate of Jeremiah Wright, a man who was quoted by Jeremiah Wright regularly. This is a man who posited that the civil rights movement was too moderate because it accepted the status quo, and believed that the entire legal and constitutional system had to be transformed in radical fashion. This is a man so extreme that, as we’ve reported, he wrote a story in 1993 in which he posited that white Americans would sell black Americans into slavery to aliens to relieve the national debt, and that Jews would go along with it.

CNN's Soledad O'Brien had a hilarious exchange with Breitbart.com's CEO Joel Pollak in which she and liberal guests tried to deflect the attack on Obama (as well as themselves for not properly vetting Obama) by calling Pollak racist, scared of Black people, and by inventing a new, benign definition of Critical Race Theory.

Apparently Soledad or her followers felt the need to back up her revised definition of "Critical Race Theory" by changing the Wikipedia article on the subject.  Too bad for them, conservatives have caught them in the act of deception:
In the version dated January 31, 2012, the words "white supremacy" and "racial power" appear.

Although no set of canonical doctrines or methodologies defines CRT, the movement is loosely unified by two common areas of inquiry. First, CRT has analyzed the way in which white supremacy and racial power are reproduced over time, and in particular, the role that law plays in this process.
(Emphasis added.) However, the current version states the following:

Although no set of canonical doctrines or methodologies defines CRT, the movement is loosely unified by two common areas of inquiry. First, CRT has analyzed the way in which racial hierarchies are reproduced over time, and in particular, the role that law plays in this process.
(Emphasis added.) You can see both versions on this page. If you go to the revision page, it looks like a little war broke out today, with edits and re-edits. One participant commented that it had obviously been changed to match "Soledad Obrien's empty-headed explanation on television last night."
Busted!

Even worse for the CNN reporter, it has been uncovered that Soledad O'Brien herself is a sympathizer of Obama's radical friend Derrick Bell from her past tweets.  Fair and Balanced?  Not at CNN... 

Soledad O'Brien could not have acted any more perfectly to prove Andrew Breitbart's point.

 

No Possible Way for Santorum or Gingrich to Win

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Dick Morris confirmed that it is now statistically impossible for Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich to win the Republican nomination: unless Romney drops dead there is no way for them to attain enough delegates.  The only thing they are accomplishing is preventing conservatives from focusing on ousting Obama until the convention in August.

THEY ARE GUARANTEEING THAT WE ONLY HAVE 2 MONTHS TO CREATE OUR CASE AGAINST PRESIDENT OBAMA. 

If this continues, we are certainly in for four more years of Obama, this time without any restraint, since he has no need to worry about what the American people think for another election.


After winning 6 states yesterday, Mitt has now won 11 of the last 15 races. And in the important battle for delegates, Mitt now has more than twice as many as Rick Santorum and four times more than Newt Gingrich.



And looking at the schedule ahead, the delegate math just doesn't add up for anyone but Mitt. Here are a few reasons why:

  • There's only one Super Tuesday. Yesterday was the other candidates' only real chance to stage any real comeback in the delegate race.
  • Only four of the remaining 34 state contests award their statewide delegates on a winner-take-all basis. And those four contests are all favorable for Mitt: Utah, New Jersey, Washington D.C., and Delaware.
  • Before Super Tuesday, nearly half of all contests were caucuses, but only seven of the remaining 34 contests are caucuses. Primaries require a strong national organization that Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich simply don't have.
As the other candidates attempt to ignore the basic principles of math, the only person's odds of winning they are increasing are Barack Obama's.

Gingrich Investigated by FEC for Funneling Campaign Money to Himself and Friends

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Goodness Gingrich, you aren't even president yet!  Is this why Gingrich wants to be in the Republican primary race until the end?

"I laugh because no one has guessed that my sinister plan is not
to become president and then embezzle money.  I've actually been
doing it all along during my campaign! Mwahaha!!"


From the Washington Times:
Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign has received a second warning from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for widespread financial irregularities, saying the campaign must disclose why nearly $1 million was paid to the candidate, staff and a small group of fundraising consultants for questionable reimbursements.

But hours after the FEC letter on its 2011 finances became public, the campaign filed a report for a newer time period, January, that indicated that the problems have become far worse.

The campaign transferred Mr. Gingrich $88,000 last month for unspecified “travel” expenses, a pace far higher than he paid himself over the course of 2011, a federal report filed Monday showed. It was part of $220,000 in mystery money that month that went to people close to Mr. Gingrich on top of their salaries, raising the issue of potential self-dealing.

Are Conservatives Being Too Principled and Not Political Enough?

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Christian conservatives need to learn a lesson from their God:
Jesus didn't submit to crucifixion because He wanted to avoid a fight.

John Schroeder at the Article VI Blog raises this interesting point that may explain Republicans' serious lack of strategy by exposing so much flank in this raucous primary.  Here is what he said:

But let’s ask ourselves this – what is it about us that even makes speculation  of this sort [ie. that Obama's attack on the Catholic church was a calculation to further confuse the Republican nomination process] possible?  We are riven along religious lines to some extent.  Whether it be Catholic/Evangelical, liberal Catholic/conservative Catholic, Evangelical/Mormon these divisions and others are being exploited by Team Obama.   What is it about Republicans that allow these divisions to be exploitable while we just cannot get a wedge in similar divisions inside the Democrats?

The answer is not easy to hear.  There is a form of selfishness involved here.  As Republicans, we tend to worry about the task at hand instead of the power politics around it.  Thus we become so focused on abortion or same sex marriage that that is all we care about, neglecting the enormous amount political reality that surrounds the issue.  This is most expressed by the natural tendency for people of faith to avoid conflict.  “I don’t want to have a fight with you, my stance is right, here is the evidence, now agree with me and let me get back to doing what I really need to be doing.”  Democrats, on the other hand, are all about the fight.

Our tendency to avoid the fight comes, at least  in some part, from Christ’s apparent avoidance of a fight when He allowed Himself to be crucified.  But we must remember something – Christ’s crucifixion was not a result of avoiding a fight, it was in fact, shifting the battleground to where it truly needed to be.  More importantly, it set up the Resurrection which is the “nuclear weapon” of the great war in which Christ was engaged.  The Resurrection ended the war – its just the mop-up phase now.

We cannot afford to shy from this fight.  We have to follow Christ’s true example and shift the battleground.  The petty divisions that the Democrats currently exploit are not the real battleground.  It is time to set them aside.  We have a real and serious war to win.
 Some of this anti-Mormon bigotry was pretty clear in South Carolina, though much less so elsewhere.  I think every Republican needs to take a deep look at their own prejudices and ask if they are really worth giving the country to Obama for another four years.

VIDEOS: Romney Attacks Obama in Victory Speech; Gingrich Attacks Romney

Saturday, February 4, 2012



The contrast between Romney's Victory Speech and Gingrich's post-Nevada caucus press conference could not have been more different.  While Romney attacked Obama's failed policies and promised to reverse his radical agenda, Gingrich attacked Romney and blamed everyone but himself for his electoral disappointments.

Watch the two videos below and see for yourself:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/mitt-romney-nevada-caucus-victory-speech-2012-targets-president-obama-politics-15515465


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qRhn__V3SP4#!

Sandra Day O’Connor: Newt is a "Practicing Polygamist"

Friday, February 3, 2012

First, we have to affirm Justice O'Connor's Reagan credentials...

THIS is why true conservatives cannot support Newt Gingrich (and why his ratings are dismal among women. 
Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor attended the annual elite Alfalfa Club dinner in Washington last Saturday. Reporters weren’t allowed into the event, but according to the Washington Post, she was overheard commenting on the two front-runners of the Republican presidential primary.

“One is a practicing polygamist, and he’s not even the Mormon,” she said.

STING.

At great risk of insulting your intelligence I’ll remind you that Newt Gingrich has had three wives and been accused by one of wanting an open marriage. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is a Mormon and has only had one wife whom he’s still married to.

h/t Above the Law

Some Interesting Facts about the Florida Primary

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Romney had a lot to smile about last Tuesday in Florida.
Some key data from Florida's results that illustrates why the Obama campaign is worried about facing Mitt Romney in the general election:

  • Mitt had a broad base of support, winning among conservatives, Tea Party members, Evangelicals, women, men, and Hispanics.
  • With over 770,000 votes, Mitt received the most votes in Florida GOP Primary history.
  • The idea that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are splitting the conservative vote was proved wrong -- again. Not only did Mitt win more support from conservatives and Tea Party supporters than either candidate, Mitt garnered more votes than both candidates combined.
  • Mitt won Hispanic voters, a key swing voting bloc in the general election, increasing his support of 14% in 2008 to 54% in Tuesday's results.
  • Every GOP candidate who has won Florida has gone on to win the nomination.

Florida will be an important battleground state in November. Mitt proved he's ready to compete against Barack Obama -- and win.

Newt Gingrich's Playbook Calls For the Destruction of US Constitution

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Newt Gingrich wrote the Introduction to a 1995 book that called for the overthrow of the United States constitution. In the introduction of Creating A New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave by Alvin and Heidi Toffler, Newt Gingrich wrote:

"This book is a key effort in the direction of empowering citizens … to truly take the leap to invent a (new) civilization."

What is truly frightening reading through the book is that not only do they explicitly call for wholesale destruction of America, but that many of their phrases and ideas can be seen in Newt's campaign speeches.

For example, Newt's (un)concession speech in Florida warned that people are becoming "comfortable with the way America's decaying," and the "core question" is whether we want to just "manage the decay" or "find new and innovative and positive things." The Toffler book likewise describes a dying "Second wave" that stagnates and will give way to a "new civilization" which "entered history with a roar in Western Europe, fiercely resisted at every step."

Gingrich continues to channel this book in his speeches and ideas.

Newt wrote in his book To Renew America: "In Alvin & Heidi Toffler’s first bestseller, Future Shock, [they expressed the] view-with which I agree-the transformation we are experiencing is so large and historic that it can be compared with only two other great eras of human history-the Agricultural Revolution and the Industrial Revolution."

Like the "futurist" Toffler, Newt proclaimed his vision was a "a future we ask you to join us in imposing on the establishment in Washington and imposing it on both parties." Newt stressed the word "imposing." He called for a compulsion of the "establishment Republican" party, indeed the entire deadlocked nation, to follow his lead and no longer stagnate.

Gingrich's urge to dictatorially compel people to follow him is underlined in Tofflers' books which calls for monitoring of citizens, and remediation.

Newt in his un-concession speech said he is "positive," that he gave America a "positive program," a "positive vision" and did "positive things." His introduction for Tofflers' book likwise lauded their vision as "positive":
Alvin and Heidi Toffler have given us the key to viewing current disarray within the positive framework of a dynamic, exciting future... [it] is an effort to empower citizens like yourself to truly take the leap and begin to invent a Third Wave civilization."

This vision includes an overthrow of our governmental structure:
The founding fathers as the architects of the political system which served so well, this system of government you (founding fathers) fashioned, including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete and hence increasingly if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented- a democracy for the 21st century."

Economically, this includes "de-massification", "collapsing industrial giants, and weakening TV newtorks" so that smaller companies can "replace these mass structures" (pp.28-31). Gingrich likewise called for a a breakup of mass production in his book "To Save America", even calling for his employer Freddie/Fannie to be replaced by smaller companies. Of course he is always bashing mass media.

The Tofflers saw this "manifesting itself in computer customization and product diversity... Although the transition from Second Wave brute-force economies to Third Wave brain-force economies began in the 1950s and accelerated in the early 1970s, the transformation remains far from complete." Gingrich explicitly propagated this idea in his "let them eat laptops" tax credit for the poor:

"Maybe we need a tax credit for the poorest Americans to buy a laptop... Any signal we can send to the poorest Americans that says, 'We're going into a 21st century, third wave information age, and so are you, and we want to carry you with us,' begins to change the game."

Newt's hate for large corporations, despite his reliance on them, and tendency his towards a Communist-style uniting of classes is evident when he says he runs, "not a Wall Street- funded campaign, a people's campaign, and saying to every American of every background and every ethnic group and every community: We have a better future for you and your family."

The Constitution itself needs to fundamentally end, said the Tofflers:
"You (the founding fathers) would have understood why even the Constitution of the United States needs to be reconsidered, and altered- not to cut the federal budget or to embody this or that narrow principle, but to expand it's Bill of Rights, taking account of threats to freedom unimagined in the past, and to create a whole new structure of government capable of making intelligent, democratic decisions necessary for our survival in a Third Wave, 21st Century America..."

This new structure of government reflects a new structure of family. The Third Wave must make the home "central to society" with family the "center of the social universe." "This new civilization brings with it new family styles, changed ways of working, loving, and living, a new economy, new political conflicts, and beyond all this an altered consciousness as well," the book reads.

Gingrich famously had his own ideas about what new family styles are possible.

The Tofflers warned that outdated "Second Wave elites" are "tenaciously dedicated to preserving the core institutions of industrial mass society- the nuclear family, the mass education system, the giant corporation, the mass trade union, the centralized nation-state and the politics of pseudorepresentative government."

Gingrich with the same stroke of a pen endorsed an end to the nuclear family, corporate America, and representative government.

The deregulation that Newt made happen, which ultimately led to the collapse of our economy, is "basically right" according to the book. Newt's plan to privatize ambitious colonies on the moon follow their idea of privatizing government operations.

Gingrich echoes the book's call for "opening the system to more minority power." Gingrich said access for illegal immigrants to education and healthcare is basic humanity.

Ultimately it comes down to the utter shredding of our constitution:
"For this wisdom above all, we thank Mr. Jefferson, who helped create the system that served us so well for so long and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced."

Gingrich's introduction and continued support helped make the book popular in the nineties.

"One result of the election and the appearance of this book has been an unprecedented clamor by the media for information about our friendship with Newt Gingrich."

In the book, they say they have a close "relationship with the Gingriches, and have argued endlessly not simply about specific political issues but about broad social theory, philosophy, world events, and the future. Often when our arguments reach a high decibel level, we find ourselves bursting into laughter. Caricatured by the media as some kind of conservative Savonarola, Gingrich has a trait fanatics typically lack, a keen sense of humor."

Apparently Gingrich helped come up with the ideas in this book.

"Our personal relationship with the Gingriches has been warm and our intellectual relationship has been wide ranging..."
The book claims to be a road-map for Gingrich's politics:

"Gingrich has thought very long and hard about what he is doing and where he thinks America should go in the first quarter of the next century... we are neither Republicans nor Democrats. And we not only consult with Gingrich on occasion, but were delighted when, after the recent election, the Democratic leadership in the Congress began to express renewed interest in our ideas."

Unbelievable!

Gingrich Promotes Obamacare Mandate In Video

Sunday, January 29, 2012



Smoking gun.

Spread this everywhere! People need to know that Newt is completely dishonest and supports the federal mandate on healthcare! Romney, though he enacted a state-level healthcare, will repeal Obamacare on day one!!

Huckabee Demands Gingrich Pull "Dishonest" Ad Attacking Romney

Friday, January 27, 2012


Mike Huckabee, AP Photo

TAMPA, F.L.-- Former GOP presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee "would love for" Newt Gingrich to pull a political campaign ad that features a comment he made during the 2008 campaign that appears to slam Mitt Romney for being "dishonest."

"I know Newt Gingrich at the end of the ad says I approved this message, well let me just say, I didn't approve that message," Huckabee said in an interview Friday on Fox News.

The former governor of Arkansas said his words were "taken out of context" and were also " deceptive" because he was not referring to Romney, one of his 2008 primary rivals.

"That spot, which was back in December of 2007, never mentioned Mitt Romney by name, it never said anything about Mitt Romney. It was a general statement," Huckabee, has not endorsed anyone so far in the 2012 presidential race, and says he doesn't plan to do so.

Earlier in the week, the Gingrich campaign ran into trouble with another campaign ad. U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, who has also not endorsed a candidate in the presidential primary, told The Miami Herald's Marc Caputo, that Gingrich should take down a Spanish language radio ad that described Romney as " anti-immigrant." The Gingrich campaign soon pulled the ad to edit out that line, out of "respect" for Rubio.

But that won't happen with the ad featuring Huckabee. Gingrich spokesperson R.C. Hammond says the campaign does not plan on pulling the Huckabee clip.

"Huckabee has said he hasn't endorsed anybody but that doesn't change what he said," Hammond told reporters.

"Speaker Gingrich and his political cronies are desperate to distract from his record of failed and unreliable leadership, and voters won't be fooled." said Andrea Saul, a Romney spokesperson, said in an earlier statement.

Gingrich and Reagan: The True Story

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Gingrich trying to teach Reagan a few things on being presidential.


Anyone who thinks that Gingrich is a "Reagan Conservative" needs to read this:


National Review Online: Gingrich and Reagan

[A]t the height of the bitter struggle with the Democratic leadership Gingrich chose to attack . . . Reagan.

The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.” Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”

Gingrich scorned Reagan’s speeches, which moved a party and then a nation, because “the president of the United States cannot discipline himself to use the correct language.” In Afghanistan, Reagan’s policy was marked by “impotence [and] incompetence.” Thus Gingrich concluded as he surveyed five years of Reagan in power that “we have been losing the struggle with the Soviet empire.” Reagan did not know what he was doing, and “it is precisely at the vision and strategy levels that the Soviet empire today is superior to the free world.”
Read the entire enlightening article here.

Major Conservative Media See Gingrich as "The Republican Bill Clinton"

Tuesday, January 24, 2012


The National Review Online, The American Spectator and other major conservative think-tanks are beginning to see that Newt Gingrich is essentially the Bill Clinton of the Republican Party. John Stewart even pointed out the hypocrisy of conservatives supporting him.

Seriously, is Newt really the man we want representing our ideology?

----------------------------------------------------------------


National Review Online: Gingrich: The Republican Clinton (Except less lovable and more roguish.)

American Spectator: Bill Clinton of the Right With Half the Charm and Twice the Abrasiveness


New York Sun: William Jefferson Gingrich

Washington Post: Time to Bring Back Bill Clinton 

LA Times: Newt's Debt to Clinton

Good Sense Politics: Gingrich: The Republican Bill Clinton by Your's Truly

VIDEO: Gingrich Makes Conservatives the Laughingstock of Country

The hypocrisy of values that is Newt Gingrich is now starting to be applied to conservatives as a whole.  And rightly so!  How can we call ourselves the party of family values when we criticize reporters for asking Gingrich about his many infidelities?  How topsy-turvy will the political world become if we have the serial-adulterer Newt Gingrich going up against the faithfully wedded and family man Barack Obama?  How can we ever be taken seriously as a political ideology again? 

As long as Republicans continue to flirt with the idea of nominating Gingrich for the presidency, be ready for this line of searing satire of the right:




Jon Stewart Flips Out At Gingrich’s Nerve In Attacking John King’s ‘Open Marriage’ Question

Fact Checking Monday's Florida Debate

AP Fact Checks Gingrich, Romney, Paul & Santorum at NBC Presidential DebateGINGRICH: “When I was speaker, we had four consecutive balanced budgets.”

THE FACTS: Actually, two.
The four straight years of budget surpluses were 1998 through 2001. Gingrich left Congress in 1999, so he only had a hand in surpluses for his last two years. The budget ran deficits for his first two years as speaker.

The highest surplus of that four-year string came in budget year 2000, after Gingrich was out of office.

Overall, the national debt went up during the four years Gingrich was speaker. In January 1995, when he assumed the leadership position, the gross national debt was $4.8 trillion. When he left four years later, it was $5.6 trillion, an increase of $800 billion.




AP Fact Checks Gingrich, Romney, Paul & Santorum at NBC Presidential DebateROMNEY: “I don‘t think we can possibly retake the White House if the person who’s leading our party is the person who was working for the chief lobbyist of Freddie Mac. Freddie Mac was paying Speaker Gingrich $1.6 million at the same time Freddie Mac was costing the people of Florida millions upon millions of dollars.”

THE FACTS: While going after Gingrich forcefully on the issue, Romney did not mention his own earnings from the government-backed lender and its sister entity, Fannie Mae, which came to light in his most recent financial disclosure report.

The report shows he has as much as $500,000 invested in the two lenders. GOP presidential hopefuls almost across the board have blamed the two institutions for contributing to the housing crisis that helped to drag the nation into recession. Among Romney’s ties: a mutual fund worth up to $500,000 that includes assets from both lenders among other government income, and separate investments in each of the lenders in Romney’s individual retirement account, each worth between $100,000 and $250,000.

Romney campaign officials said Monday the investments were handled by a trustee with no direction by the candidate.



AP Fact Checks Gingrich, Romney, Paul & Santorum at NBC Presidential DebateGINGRICH: “I left the speakership after the 1998 election because I took responsibility for the fact that our results weren’t as good as they should be. I think that’s what a leader should do. I took responsibility. And I didn’t want to stay around, as Nancy Pelosi has. I wanted to get out and do other things.”

ROMNEY: “He had to resign in disgrace.”

RON PAUL: “I think the reason he didn’t … run for speaker, you know, two years later – he didn’t have the votes. That was what the problem was. So this idea that he voluntarily reneged and he was going to punish himself because we didn’t do well in the election, that’s just not the way it was.”

THE FACTS: Gingrich didn’t exactly resign in disgrace after he became the first speaker reprimanded and fined for ethics violations, slapped with a $300,000 penalty, in January 1997. He limped to re-election as speaker after that. But his number was soon up.

Within months, he was fending off a revolt from fellow Republicans weary of his antics and mercurial ways.

AP Fact Checks Gingrich, Romney, Paul & Santorum at NBC Presidential DebateAs Paul suggested in the debate, unexpected GOP losses in the 1998 elections were the last straw for Gingrich in the eyes of House Republicans. Three days later Gingrich announced he was stepping down as speaker and giving up his seat in Congress.

Paul‘s recollection now is supported by some of Gingrich’s words back then. He told Republicans, “I‘m willing to lead but I’m not willing to preside over people who are cannibals,” sounding less like a man interested in a career change than one intent on escaping a boiling pot.



ROMNEY: “Our Navy is now smaller than any time since 1917. And the president is building roughly nine ships a year. We ought to raise that to 15 ships a year. Under this president, under prior presidents, we keep on shrinking our Navy.”

THE FACTS: Romney is correct about the size of the Navy, but the numbers alone don’t tell the story.

At 285 ships the Navy is small by its own historical standards but still larger than the navies of the next several nations combined. These days, it’s not how many ships but what they can do. There is a longstanding trend toward smaller numbers of more complex and expensive vessels.

Still, the Navy has noted the smaller size of the current fleet and plans to add 28 ships over several years. The shrinking of the fleet size has spanned Republican and Democratic administrations, as the Navy restructures and plans for the addition of new platforms.



AP Fact Checks Gingrich, Romney, Paul & Santorum at NBC Presidential DebateRICK SANTORUM: “One of (my proposals) would be to be able to deduct losses from the sale of your home. Right now you can’t do that. You have to pay gains, depending on the amount, but you can’t deduct the losses, as other capital losses can be.”

THE FACTS: For a brief description, it was accurate. What Santorum did not explain, in appealing to Floridians who have one of the worst housing markets in the country, is that the tax code is already stacked in favor of home ownership.

Homeowners get many tax breaks from the government, most notably mortgage interest and property tax deductions. Under federal law, when you sell your private residence, you can make up to $250,000 in profit – $500,000 if you are married – and not owe any capital gains taxes. That’s a large tax break. There’s no such break if you have such a profit in selling stocks or works of art.

But there is a trade-off: You can’t claim a loss when you sell your private residence.



AP Fact Checks Gingrich, Romney, Paul & Santorum at NBC Presidential DebateROMNEY: President Barack Obama’s $814 billion economic stimulus program “didn’t create private-sector jobs.”

THE FACTS: There is no support for that assertion. Between 1.2 million and 3.7 million full-time-equivalent jobs were created last year because of the stimulus, according to an August 2011 report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Meanwhile, another government report found the stimulus program has paid $34.5 billion in tax incentives to businesses, including $260 million to hire younger, unemployed war veterans.

Economists debate whether the stimulus lived up to its promise or was worth the cost, but no one seriously argues that it created no jobs. Many believe it helped to end the recession even while falling short of its employment goals.



We’ll leave you with one last flub, as yet another noteworthy moment occurred when Gingrich claimed he supported Barry Goldwater over Nelson Rockefeller in the 1964 presidential campaign. During the debate, he said (watch here):
“I went to a Goldwater organizing session in 1964. I met with Ronald Reagan for the first time in 1974. I worked with Jack Kemp, and Art Laffer and others to develop supply side economics in the late ’70s. I helped Governor Reagan become President Reagan. I helped pass the Reagan economic program and worked with the National Security Council on issues including the collapse of the Soviet Empire,” Newt Gingrich said at tonight’s debate.”
But in 1988, he said just the opposite. “I was a Rockefeller state chairman in the south,” Gingrich proclaimed in an interview. So, which was it?

(Source: AP and The Blaze)

Gingrich: The Republican Bill Clinton

Monday, January 23, 2012

Clinton and Gingrich with their
mistresses, circa 1995.

Are Republicans about to elect Clinton's
Republican equivalent to the White House?
Last Saturday South Carolinian Republicans did an amazing thing: they declared to the world that personality is more important than moral character in a president.  They voted 10 to 7 in favor of the bombastic, unapologetic, unethical, unstable Newt Gingrich.

It is amazing how far the Republican party has come in just a decade and a half.  Rewind to the mid 90s and conservatives were decrying then-President Clinton’s many extra-marital affairs and the subsequent cover-ups, declaring that such an immoral, undisciplined man had no business being the leader of the free world.  Newt Gingrich, then speaker of the house, joined the chorus of moral distain, despite the fact that he had skeletons of his own.  For while Gingrich was self-righteously excoriating Clinton for the Lewinsky affair and preaching the values of the moral Christian life, he was carrying on another of his own many affairs.  This one was with a young libertine staffer named Callista, who later became his third wife. 

Gingrich later defended his own incredible hypocrisy by claiming that he was rebuking Clinton for his lying, not his adultery, but even then it was clear to many that Gingrich had a lot in common with his arch-nemesis Clinton.  Even with his marital infidelities yet unknown, reporters in the mid 90s described both powerful politicians as believing themselves above the morals and rules of the common man.  (See article)  Both were described as ego-maniacs with a tendency to act upon impulse with little thought for consequence.  It was no surprise to people at the time that Gingrich became the first and only Speaker ever to be disciplined by the House for ethics violations.  He was thrown out of politics by his own party for his many fiscal ethics scandals that threatened to bring down the whole Republican party.  Gingrich has smoldered in the background since then, subsisting on lobbying and speaking fees, nursing his great ambition to be president some day; an ambition that until South Carolina lived only in his own egomaniac head.  Gingrich currently has a national approval rating at 26% (compare with Obama at 46%).

What has changed in these 15 years?  Has the “rebellion” of the Tea Party movement led us to value sticking it to Obama with an attack dog over electing a moral man?  Have we abandoned civic duty to “reality show” political entertainment?  Or have we joined the Democrats in thinking that a long history of moral and ethical corruption has no relevance to the performance of a leader?  Seriously?  South Carolina, you are heavily church-attending Christians.  Seriously, it doesn’t matter? 

In her book “Demonic” Ann Coulter explained one of the major differences between liberals and conservatives as thus: Liberals vote for a president based on their “rock star” popular effect while conservatives vote based on the candidate's values and experience.  This hypothesis was certainly confirmed in 2008 when Democrats elected the charismatic and articulate, yet inexperienced and frankly unknown Barack Obama.  In 2012 Republicans have a choice between a religious conservative with a long career as a politician and lobbyist in Washington, another career politician and lobbyist plagued with a history of moral and fiscal misbehavior, and a business-leader outsider with a history of working in the free market.  Who will we choose?  Morals with political experience, morals with free-market experience or no morals with political infamy?

Or do we just choose the guy who puts on the best show?

Food for thought:
Or just read Gingrich's Wikipedia Entry
 



P.com mods suck

Santorum on Working Together with Liberals

Thursday, January 5, 2012

From his 2006 Senate re-election campaign (which he lost).  

Rick Santorum touts having partnered on legislation with Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer and then Sen. Hillary Clinton.


Santorum's "Google" Problem

Wednesday, January 4, 2012



 If you’ve had the displeasure of searching Rick Santorum‘s name on Google, you know about his so-called “Google problem.” It’s a sticky situation that has dogged Santorum since 2003.


It started when he answered a question about gay marriage in an interview with the Associated Press. Sex columnist Dan Savage, who is gay, took offense and started a contest to redefine “Santorum.” The winning definition was gross and it remains the top Google search result for the candidate’s last name.

In an interview with the Huffington Post his eldest child, 20-year-old Elizabeth, commented on the issue.
“That just makes me sad. It’s disappointing that people can be that mean,” she said. “That’s really the first thing that comes to mind, it’s hurtful. But it’s okay, we just try and focus.”

 
 
 

Save the Constitution

Declaration of Liberty

In memory of our God, our Nation, our Religions, our Freedom, our Peace, our Families and our Fallen Dead;

WE THE PEOPLE declare that We will Never Yield to those who would place us in bondage. We will live for the Constitution and we will die for the Constitution, for we know that it was inspired of God for all of his Children.


http://digitalnetworkarmy.com
 
Copyright © 2009-2010 Good Sense, All Rights Reserved.

Articles, quotes, comments, and images are the exclusive property of their respective authors, who own all rights to their use. Articles do not necessarily represent the views of Good Sense or its contributers. All copyrighted materials appearing on this site and not derived by contributing authors are protected by and used according to “Fair Use” as described in sections 107 through 118 of the U.S. Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code).