Blog Archives
Conservatives can Unite Thanks to Karl Rove
John R. Houk
© February 7, 2013
I have a tendency to view Foreign Policy through the filter of Neoconservatism which in essence the promotion of American Exceptionalism, promoting alliances with democratic principled nations that view the USA favorably and make the effort to transform Third World nations to instill Liberty and representative democracy. The lesson learned about instilling Liberty and representative democracy in Muslim dominated nations is that the Western version is impossible. In lands dominated by millennia of Islamic indoctrination any Liberty and representative democracy will only work through the filter Islamic Sharia Law. Sharia is inimical to American Liberty at the very least.
I tend to view American Domestic Policy through the filter of American Conservatism which is Less Government, Lower taxes and a Free Market Economy.
I am definitely not a purist in either Neoconservatism or Conservatism because on minor issues I kind of do a mix and match depending on the effect an ideology affects American Exceptionalism and the promotion of Christian Morality in America. And so I have thoughts that tend to irk both Neocons and Conservatives.
The Neocon in me has often found favor with Karl Rove the architect of President GW Bush’s two election victories over acutely Leftist candidates in former VP Al Gore and current Secretary of State John Kerry. That made Rove a hero in my book. THE TIMES THEY A CHANGED.
Karl Rove has begun to filter his Neoconservatism through a love of Establishment Republicans and a hatred of true Conservatives in Tea Party candidates. This is unacceptable and punitive to true Conservatism.
Karl Rove is making my case that Conservatives MUST abandon the Republican Party and unify under a different political party that attracts voters supportive of true Conservative Principles and able to educate American voters that more apolitical in voting but are duped by Dem Party Leftist propaganda.
The key to unifying Conservatives is the Tea Party Movement. Currently the Tea Party is awesome on grassroots and deficient on moving voters on a national scale. Now how can Conservatives utilize the genius of Tea Party grassroots organization to find a unified national movement?
This is how: Unite Conservative leadership that is already recognizable on a national scale. Take that national leadership to form a political party with the various local Tea Party organizations gather to form a national caucus and/or a national political party convention to establish a political platform and develop candidates with a singular Conservative agenda to win the hearts of American voters tossing both Establishment Republicans and Leftist Dems to the political dung heap of nausea.
Maybe we Conservatives can thank Karl Rove for giving us an excellent reason to form our political party that has nothing to do with the GOP.
The inspiration for these thoughts is a recent column by Joseph Farah condemning Karl Rove who intends to target GOP Conservatives that are out of step with Establishment Republicans.
JRH 2/7/13
We Can Stop the Fraud by Restoring the Constitution and the Republic
Restore Government Accountability is a huge website that is definitely of the Conservative persuasion. The website has seven steps to restore governmental accountability:
I became aware of these seven steps because somehow I acquired the link to step 7 – We Can Stop the Fraud. I am certain someone sent the link to me but I don’t remember who. Also I don’t know that I agree with everything in these steps; however I see more agreement than disagreement. I am going to cross post step seven because that is what was sent to me, but I encourage you to take the time to read all nine steps for it will get the wheels of your Conservative mind to turn.
JRH 3/12/12
No-Romney BUT Especially No-Obama
John R. Houk
© March 10, 2012
In 2008 the candidates for the Office of President were Barack Hussein Obama (Democrat) and John McCain (Republican).
From the beginning of BHO’s campaign I perceived he was less than honest person that too many voters accepted the promise of Change as if that meant merely change from the GWOT-President policies of eight years. Voters ignored what was known of Obama’s past and didn’t care about the past that Obama has still successfully hidden from the public eye.
The Republicans needed a charismatic person to overcome voter weariness of President George W. Bush policies of his 8 year tenure. Frankly I don’t believe voters would have been so weary of President GW if the Left Slanted MSM had not hated him so much. You will never see the media vilify Obama the way it did Bush even though the deceptiveness of Obama is well worth the vilification.
The Republican elites therefore sought a nominee that could swing Center-Left on some issues and Center-Right on other issues. In the beginning that candidate appeared to be Mitt Romney. Then the cantankerousness of McCain and the Social Conservatism of Huckabee gave GOP voters an alternative to the former Governor of Massachusetts which is one of the most Liberal States in the U.S. Union. In the 2008 the Conservatives were still the nerve center of the Republican Party and Romney’s record did not jive with Conservative issues.
Eventually the GOP race in 2008 became a race between the self-described rogue in McCain and the Social Conservative (but not necessarily a full-fledged fiscal Conservative) in Huckabee.
I believed then as I do now that McCain was a RINO. He was the perfect GOP Elite choice to try distance from Bush as a Center-Right and the hope of retaining the White House with McCain’s Center-Left thinking. McCain overcame Huckabee. By this time the Democrats had sold the voters that Obama would be the chosen one to bring back bi-partisan, transparent politics and the hope of ending an already long war in 2008.
Obama’s promises and vision was a bill of bad goods that a majority of American voters bought into. Obama had the leg up before McCain could paint a picture of a Moderate Centrist to receive the baton from Bush. In fact I am of the opinion McCain would have been crushed political even in worse terms if had not the foresight to choose a Family Values-Fiscal Conservative as a running mate. Indeed Sarah Palin captured the hearts of the GOP so much that the Left Wing MSM went on the attack on Palin to the point of making stories up to castigate her to the voters.
I did not like McCain but I did like Palin. I voted for the McCain/Palin ticket despite McCain’s RINO credentials because I knew Obama backed by the Clintonista political machine would take America down a path of “Change” that voters did not comprehend in 2008. I am no political pundit genius however Obama has lived up to everything I thought he would do.
The Obama mantra of “Change” had less to do with repudiating President Bush and more to do with transforming America into the Socialist European style democracy. Socialism European style means the shredding of the U.S. Constitution. The Living Constitution crap of the Left is turning the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution into a historical fable of days gone by.
It appears that 2012 is a path that is mirroring 2008. Only this time Mitt Romney has more money and better organization. Romney has become the slow and steady tortoise racking up delegates while GOP Conservatives have been messing themselves up by splitting Conservative voters into fractured camps as Romney keeps collecting delegates. Many people are doing the math and the general consensus is Mr. slow and steady will win the GOP nomination because of the failure of Conservatives to unite behind one candidate.
Part of the problem is that the GOP candidates still in the running for the nomination have a bit of baggage that Conservative true-hearts find objectionable. An honest look at the records of Santorum and Gingrich will demonstrate their Conservative legislative decisions outweigh their Center-Left decisions. Can Romney make the same claim?
Anyway, I am still in the anyone-but-Romney crowd as a GOP voter and in the anyone-but-Obama voters when it comes to the General Election in November 2012. An Obama reelection will validate the course he has chosen for America. This means the Obamunistic Radical Left will continue to Change-Transform America into a Leftist Utopia solidifying Moral Relativity over Biblical Morality, Government intrusion over Limited Government, the agenda to denigrate Christianity over America’s Christian heritage, Demand Divisive Diversity over E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, ONE) and so on with the picture of Leftist Change.
I am voting for whoever wins the GOP nomination even if they are a RINO – again. It would take super star Conservative leadership to reverse the Leftist curse of EIGHT years of Obama. If the Tea Party Movement remains strong there will be a counter-balance of preventing a RINO from going too far to the Left. AND I know a RINO will not endorse the utopian agenda dreams of Obamunism.
Still there are Conservative purists that would rather vote on principle rather than succumb to a GOP President that might have tendencies to make some Center-Left decisions. My son Adam is one of those kind of Conservative purists. Another person is a Facebook friend Danny Jeffrey. Here is Jeffrey’s reasoning on sticking to principle.
JRH 3/10/12
I am Still Leaning Toward Gingrich
John R. Houk
© March 2, 2012
The GOP race for the nomination for President has been whittled down to Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul. I am definitively no supporter of Romney and Paul.
That leaves me with Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.
I like Santorum’s Social Conservatism.
I like Newt’s debating skills and the Conservative credentials that brought the Republican majority to the House for the first time in a quarter century when he became Speaker.
Newt has a checkered morals history in his personal life and some questionable choices in encouraging the thoughts of pseudo-Marxist Futurist Alvin Toffler. I have pretty much gotten over Gingrich’s past issues and believe in his present stands at his word.
Former Senator Santorum is big to claim he is the true Conservative. I am uncertain of the “true Conservative” claim as much as he is a better candidate than Romney claim (and everyone is better than Ron Paul because of an American anti-Exceptionalism stand in Foreign Policy). If the GOP race comes down to a choice between Romney and Santorum then I choose Santorum. At this point if the race involves Newt Gingrich I am still leaning toward Newt.
I am going to cross post a Townhall.com article by Rachel Alexander that sheds a light on Santorum’s Conservatism. The article is decidedly anti-Santorum; however if you look at the numbers you will notice that Newt’s numbers are better. Also I am guessing if one compares Santorum’s numbers to Romney’s gubernatorial numbers on Conservatism Santorum wins there. I think it is a good guess that even though Romney’s negative-Romney ads show Santorum is not as Conservative as the campaign claim, that Santorum still outshines Romney.
After the Townhall.com article I am posting a Newsmax ad email from Winning our Future Super PAC which is not Gingrich ran but is pro-Gingrich.
JRH 3/2/12
**************************
Is Rick Santorum Really the Most Conservative Presidential Candidate?
Mar 01, 2012
The anyone-but-Romney conservatives have currently latched onto Rick Santorum as their candidate du jour, providing him with a surge shortly into the Republican primary elections. But is he really that conservative? Santorum is known for taking strong stands on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. As a result of his outspokenness on the sanctity of marriage, he has been the target of a cruel gay activist.
Up until his surge, most people took his conservative claims for granted without closely scrutinizing his record in Congress. But his record is sketchy. Santorum’s lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is only 88. Newt Gingrich’s lifetime rating is 90. Santorum’s record was even worse in the past; during his first two years in Congress he received ratings of 83 and 81, which dipped to a low of 70 in 1993.
Santorum really hurt his conservative record in 2004 by backing abortion-rights supporter Arlen Specter for Senate over conservative challenger Pat Toomey, deciding that Toomey was unelectable. Specter narrowly won. Toomey went on to win the next election, as Specter switched parties and lost in the Democratic primary.
Santorum is not necessarily the best candidate for the Tea Party either, considering he expressed his distaste for the Tea Party a couple of years ago, “I have some real concerns about this movement within the Republican party…to sort of refashion conservatism. And I will vocally and publicly oppose it.”
Liberty Counsel Action put together a list of not 10, not 50, but 100 of Santorum’s disappointing votes on major issues over his 16 years in office. His record on social issues does not entirely live up to his rhetoric. He voted to fund Planned Parenthood as part of an appropriations bill that provided money for Title X family planning. He voted three years in a row against bills to end the National Endowment for the Arts, famous for funding artwork like a cross in urine.
The fiscal watchdog organization Club for Growth describes his performance in Congress as merely “above average.” Santorum voted for union-backed legislation that restricts steel imports. He opposed repeated attempts to reimpose the “pay-go” rules that would hold down spending increases and tax giveaways. He voted against the National Right to Work Act and voted for Fed Ex unionization. He supported a bill by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) increasing the minimum wage. He voted for practically every “emergency supplemental” spending bill sought by the Bush administration, which added tens of billions to the deficit. He voted to increase the debt ceiling and voted against a flat tax. He voted against reforming welfare programs numerous times.
He requested billions of dollars of earmarks for his home state of Pennsylvania, and defends this practice by claiming that “there are good earmarks and bad earmarks.” He was one of only 25 Senators who voted for the Bridge to Nowhere, part of the $284 billion 2005 highway bill known for its bloated earmarks.
Santorum does not appear strongly principled, since he now admits some of his past votes were mistakes. He voted for the expensive Medicare Part D prescription-drug program, the largest entitlement program since Lyndon Johnson, which is expected to cost $68 billion this year. He said after the fact that his vote was a mistake since the program did not have funding. During last week’s presidential debate in Arizona he admitted that voting for the No Child Left Behind Act, which expanded the federal government’s role in education, was a mistake and he “took one for the team.”
There is a reason why presidential candidates rarely come from Congress. Their records are more extensive and visible than governors or non-politicians. The nature of being a member of Congress means voting for bills that include items you don’t agree with in order to get your own agenda passed. This kind of compromise will translate into compromising as president, since the president will need to sign bills in order to get anything accomplished. The question is whether a president will stand firm and compromise on very little, like Ronald Reagan, or whether a president will compromise their principles more often like both presidents Bush.
What may ultimately turn conservatives away from Santorum are the robocalls he ran in Michigan this past week attacking Mitt Romney. They were directed into Democratic households, urging Democrats to vote in the Republican primary against Romney since Romney opposed the auto bailouts. The calls sounded like they were coming from Democrats until the very end when the Santorum campaign was identified. This kind of dirty campaigning, which tricks opponents into voting for you, crosses the line, especially since Santorum also opposed the auto bailouts.
Santorum may be reasonably conservative, but he is not clearly the most conservative candidate in the race. To claim that he is the best choice for conservatives is debatable. Gingrich’s record is slightly better, and it is difficult to compare Santorum with Romney since Romney’s experience as governor was different and brief. Ron Paul has the most conservative record when it comes to fiscal issues, but the least conservative record on foreign policy and defense. Perhaps conservatives who claim Santorum is the best candidate are basing their preferences on criteria other than his record in office.
_________________________________
Important Letter – Our Next President
Sent by Newsmax
By Becky Burkett
From: Winning our Future Super PAC
Sent: Mar 1, 2012 at 10:53 AM
“Is The Idea of Mitt Romney Being the Voice and Face of the Conservative Movement for Possibly the Next Eight Years Keeping You Up at Night?“
Don’t Let the Establishment Fool You!
The GOP Presidential Nomination Fight Ain’t Over. Here’s Why…
Dear Fellow Conservative,
In 2008, many conservatives secretly thought to themselves that while electing Barack Obama would be the worst thing that could happen to the country (and it was), electing John McCain would be the worst thing that could happen to the conservative movement (and it would have been).
Well, as Yogi Berra said, it’s déjà vu all over again.
Clearly, re-electing Barack Obama would be disastrous for our nation. It’d be the end of our country as we know it…and I say that without an ounce of hyperbole.
And electing Mitt Romney would inevitably force Republicans and conservatives to defend the same kinds of government-expanding programs John McCain would have pushed – such as his anti-free speech McCain-Feingold law.
Talk about being between a rock and a hard place. However…
It’s not too late this time.
Indeed, conservatives still have an opportunity to have our cake and eat it, too. We can both defeat Barack Obama next November…AND…do it with a Reagan conservative, not a Massachusetts moderate.
We can nominate Newt Gingrich.
While the elite media is desperately pushing the idea that “Newt can’t win,” it’s simply not so.
· I’ll remind you that that’s the same thing the media said about Newt leading Republicans to a majority in Congress in 1994.
· And I’ll remind you that the elite media declared Newt’s campaign “dead” last summer.
· And I’ll remind you that the elite media declared Newt’s campaign “dead” after Iowa.
· And I’ll remind you that the elite media declared Newt’s campaign “dead” after Florida.
But like Rocky Balboa, no matter what they’ve thrown at Newt; no matter how hard or how low they’ve hit him…he’s still standing…and he’s still fighting.
And again, quoting the immortal Yogi Berra, it ain’t over ’til it’s over.
Now here’s why it’s not over…
While the Romney campaign – aided and abetted by the mainstream media – continue to talk about winning “states” in this year’s GOP nomination process, the rules this time around have been radically changed.
In the “old days,” if you won a state you won ALL of the states delegates. However, under new rules for this year’s contests, very few states which go to the polls before the end of March – including on Super Tuesday next week – are “winner take all.”
Which means candidates coming in second, third and even fourth can rack up delegates.
For example: In the February 4 Nevada caucus – which Mitt Romney “won” – he was awarded 14 delegates. However, Newt picked up 6 delegates, Ron Paul got 5 delegates and Rick Santorum got 3.
Which makes it increasingly less likely that any candidate left in this race is going to wrap up the nomination anytime soon!
So like “Rocky Balboa,” we don’t need to knock Mitt Romney out in the fifth round on Super Tuesday. We only need to still be standing.
We just need to slowly and methodically continue to rack up enough delegates to get us to the 12th round at the Republican National Convention in Tampa this August.
And if we do…all bets are off.
And those in the elite media – who are today saying “it can’t be done” – will watch Newt Gingrich do the “impossible” once again.
And two months later…we’ll pull the plug on the Obama presidency!
· We’ll repeal ObamaCare.
· We’ll fire all the czars.
· We’ll stop apologizing to terrorists and dictators.
· We’ll stop spending our grandchildren into bankruptcy.
· We’ll cut the cost of gasoline by drilling here, drilling now.
· We’ll stop suing states for trying to enforce our immigration laws.
· We’ll put America back to work.
· We’ll put small businesses back in business.
With Newt Gingrich in the White House – along with Republican control of the House and Senate – we will finally realize the promise of 1994’s Contract with America, including a dramatically smaller and dramatically restructured government.
But none of those bold changes for America will happen if Republicans nominate a “pale pastel” Massachusetts moderate to go head-to-head with Obama’s “Chicago Machine” in November – the same machine that rolled over, chewed up and spit out John McCain in 2008.
Indeed, before we get a shot at Obama, we need to win the GOP nomination.
Now is not the time to “go wobbly.”
· Now is the time to step up and stop the Republican establishment from forcing another Gerald Ford on us.
· Now is the time to step up and stop the Republican establishment from forcing another Bob Dole on us.
· Now is the time to step up and stop the Republican establishment from forcing another John McCain on us.
· Now is the time to step up and stop the Republican establishment from forcing Mitt Romney on us.
Will you step up?
Can I count on you to help us help Newt stay in the fight all the way to Tampa?
I urgently need your help today. Super Tuesday is less than a week away. Please follow this link right now to make a donation of $25, $50, $100, $250 or more to help us help Newt…and give conservatives a true conservative nominee who can win!
Sincerely yours,
Becky Burkett
President
Winning Our Future Super PAC
P.S. In 1976, they gave us Gerald Ford. We got Jimmy Carter. In 1996, they gave us Bob Dole. We got Bill Clinton. In 2008, they gave us John McCain. We got Barak Obama. Now they’re trying [to] sell us Mitt Romney. Don’t let them. Not this time. Click this link right now to make a donation of $25, $50, $100, $250 or more…before we all wake up with a bad case of “buyer’s remorse” once again.
__________________________
I am Still Leaning Toward Gingrich
John R. Houk
© March 2, 2012
_______________________
Is Rick Santorum Really the Most Conservative Presidential Candidate?
Copyright © Townhall.com. All Rights Reserved.
_______________________
Important Letter – Our Next President
Paid for by Winning Our Future. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
This email was sent by:
Newsmax.com
4152 West Blue Heron Blvd., Ste. 1114
Riviera Beach, FL 33404 USA
Conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart is dead at 43
Andrew Breitbart has died. I am stunned!
JRH 3/1/12
**************************
Conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart is dead at 43
By FoxNews.com
Published March 01, 2012
Widely read conservative Internet publisher Andrew Breitbart, whose flare for battle with politicians and the mainstream media earned him a reputation as one of the nation’s most influential commentators, died Thursday.
The websites he founded ran a statement Thursday morning announcing that Breitbart, 43, died “unexpectedly from natural causes” in Los Angeles shortly after midnight. His attorney and editor-in-chief of those sites confirmed his death to Fox News.
“We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior,” the statement said. “Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how to love.”
· Full Coverage: Andrew Breitbart
Breitbart was a prolific commentator who founded several websites devoted to covering politics, entertainment and everything in-between. Earlier in his career, he worked for the Drudge Report before breaking off to start his own outlets — including Big Government, Big Hollywood and Breitbart.tv.
The statement on his sites quoted the concluding passage from his book, Righteous Indignation.
“I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the Complex refuses to report. I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and — famously — I enjoy making enemies. Three years ago, I was mostly a behind-the-scenes guy who linked to stuff on a very popular website. I always wondered what it would be like to enter the public realm to fight for what I believe in. I’ve lost friends, perhaps dozens. But I’ve gained hundreds, thousands — who knows? — of allies. At the end of the day, I can look at myself in the mirror, and I sleep very well at night,” Breitbart wrote.
The statement ended: “Andrew is at rest, yet the happy warrior lives on, in each of us.”
The Los Angeles coroner’s office said the preliminary evidence suggests a “cardiac event” led to his death. An autopsy is set for Friday.
Breitbart was walking near his house in the Brentwood neighborhood shortly after midnight Thursday when he collapsed, his father-in-law Orson Bean said.
Someone saw him fall and called paramedics, who tried to revive him. They rushed him to the emergency room at UCLA Medical Center, Bean said. Breitbart had suffered heart problems a year earlier, but Bean said he could not pinpoint what happened.
“I don’t know what to say. It’s devastating,” Bean told The Associated Press.
Those who knew and worked with him described Breitbart almost uniformly as “fearless,” sharply intelligent, witty and devoted to his work.
“He was the modern conservative iteration of a 1960′s radical,” conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg told Fox News, minutes after Breitbart’s death was reported.
“When I say he was the most fearless guy I ever knew, it really is true. I mean, he truly loved the fight,” he said.
Breitbart considered his charge to expose corruption, hypocrisy and media bias, and leveraged his network of websites to reach for that goal.
He was on the forefront of reporting several controversies, notably the salacious tweets former Rep. Anthony Weiner had sent to young women before his resignation.
Breitbart became embroiled in a controversy of his own, though, for his reporting on a web video of Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod. The edited video appeared to show Sherrod making a racist comment, but the full tape later put the remark in context and made clear that Sherrod was actually talking about bridging racial differences. Sherrod was fired after the edited video surfaced, and later filed suit against Breitbart.
Breitbart, though, went on to report on one of the biggest congressional scandals of 2011 — the tweets sent by Weiner to young women he met online. The former New York congressman, who is married, adamantly denied the reports at first, before admitting to them in a tearful press conference and resigning.
One of Breitbart’s most memorable moments came when he commandeered the podium before Weiner’s final New York conference, holding court with reporters and demanding an apology from Weiner — while Weiner waited to attend his own press conference.
Goldberg recalled how one of Breitbart’s favorite pastimes was to retweet the nasty things other people said about him. “He considered it a badge of honor,” Goldberg said.
Breitbart’s final tweet, posted shortly before he was reported to have died, typified the combative and blunt tone he took with his online debaters. “I called you a putz cause I thought you were being intentionally disingenuous. If not I apologize,” he wrote to the individual he had been arguing with.
That individual, Lamar White, told FoxNews.com in an email that Breitbart was committed to the First Amendment and the “open and free exchange of ideas.”
“Although I disagreed with him profoundly on politics and policy, I will always respect and admire his tenacious wit and his willingness to engage others in provocative conversation,” White said.
News of Breitbart’s death reverberated on Capitol Hill and on the presidential campaign trail. Rick Santorum said he was “crestfallen.”
“What a powerful force,” Santorum said. “What a huge loss, in my opinion, for our country and certainly for the conservative movement.”
Breitbart is survived by his wife Susannah Bean Breitbart, 41, and four children.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
____________________________
Conservative activist Andrew Breitbart dead at 43
LOS ANGELES | Thu Mar 1, 2012 1:58pm EST
(Reuters) – Conservative activist Andrew Breitbart, an influential voice in U.S. Republican politics known for his attacks on liberals and Democrats, died unexpectedly of natural causes in Los Angeles early on Thursday, his family said. He was 43.
Breitbart was walking last night near his Los Angeles home when he collapsed, said his father-in-law, actor Orson Bean.
“He collapsed on the sidewalk and the paramedics were there very quickly and they couldn’t revive him,” Bean told Reuters in a phone interview.
A friend of Breitbart told Reuters he had a history of heart problems and is believed to have suffered a heart attack.
The brash and outspoken blogger and commentator, who published politically inspired photos and undercover videos, was the center of several major news websites, including http://www.Breitbart.tv, http://www.breitbart.com and www.biggovernment.com.
Breitbart was a lightning rod who relished a role he cast for himself as an embattled conservative on the margins of the mainstream media he called “the Complex.” Even so, he gained fans as a frequent guest on television news shows.
His work helped spark a number of prominent news stories in recent years. Those included undercover videos posted on his website about ACORN, a grass-roots group that offered housing assistance and other aid to the poor, and his role in bringing to public attention a sexually suggestive photo that Democratic U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner of New York posted through his Twitter page. That scandal eventually led to Weiner’s resignation last year.
BROUGHT DOWN ACORN
In targeting ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Breitbart posted videos in 2009 by conservative activists who secretly taped employees of the group giving tax advice to a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute. The controversy led Congress to deny federal housing funds to ACORN, which disbanded in 2010. The former head of ACORN did not respond to an email seeking comment on Breitbart’s death.
Breitbart faced widespread criticism when in 2010 his website posted a heavily edited version of a speech by U.S. Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod that led to her forced resignation.
Sherrod, who is black, said her bosses at USDA pushed her to resign after Breitbart posted portions of a video in which she seemed to say she had discriminated against a white farmer. But in the full video of the speech that Sherrod gave, she had in fact said race should not matter.
Breitbart mentioned the Sherrod controversy last night in one of his last Twitter messages, in response to a back-and-forth discussion with Web users in which one person suggested he should apologize to Sherrod. “Apologize for WHAT?” Breitbart wrote back.
Breitbart cut his teeth in the freewheeling world of online media as an editor of the Drudge Report, working in Los Angeles far from the Beltway of Washington, D.C. He also worked with blogger Arianna Huffington, playing an early role at the Huffington Post, which was founded in 2005.
Matt Drudge, founder of the Drudge Report, said in a message on his website on Thursday that he remembered Breitbart as “a constant source of energy, passion and commitment.”
“I still see him in my mind’s eye in Venice Beach (in Los Angeles), the sunny day I met him. He was in his mid 20s. It was all there. He had a wonderful, loving family and we all feel great sadness for them today,” Drudge wrote.
MEDICAL ISSUES
Amid suggestions that Breitbart had suffered a heart attack, Bean said he did not know Breitbart had any cardiac problems and the editor-in-chief of Breitbart.com declined to discuss any details about his health.
Breitbart was transported to a hospital where he was pronounced dead at 12:19 a.m. on Thursday, said Ed Winter, a spokesman for the Los Angeles Department of Coroner. An autopsy is tentatively scheduled for Friday. Winter declined to discuss any possible heart problems Breitbart might have suffered. “He had some medical issues, hadn’t seen a doctor in over a year and we don’t have his medical history yet,” Winter said.
“We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior. Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how to love,” a memorial page on Breitbart’s websites said. The message said Breitbart “passed away unexpectedly from natural causes.”
The leading Republican presidential candidates, conservative commentators and some liberals quickly reacted with sadness to Breitbart’s death.
“Ann and I are deeply saddened by the passing of @AndrewBreitbart: brilliant entrepreneur, fearless conservative, loving husband and father,” Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney said on his Twitter page.
A message from former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin posted on her Facebook page also praised Breitbart. “We are all stunned and saddened by the news of Andrew Breitbart’s passing,” she wrote. “Andrew was a warrior who stood on the side of what was right.”
Even ideological opponents praised Breitbart.
“Andrew Breitbart was a conservative political combatant who was unafraid of his critics,” tweeted Donna Brazile, Democratic Party strategist and former presidential campaign manager for Al Gore. “We battled on and off air, but he was a genius.”
In his book “Righteous Indignation,” Breitbart wrote: “I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the Complex refuses to report. I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and – famously – I enjoy making enemies.”
“At the end of the day, I can look at myself in the mirror, and I sleep very well at night,” Breitbart wrote in the book.
(Additional reporting by Susan Heavey, Tim Gaynor and Mark Hosenball; Editing by Anthony Boadle)
_______________________________
Conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart is dead at 43
©2012 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
___________________________
Conservative activist Andrew Breitbart dead at 43
Thomson Reuters is the world’s largest international multimedia news agency, providing investing news, world news, business news, technology news, headline news, small business news, news alerts, personal finance, stock market, and mutual funds information available on Reuters.com, video, mobile, and interactive television platforms.
Thoughts on Michele Bachmann
John R. Houk
© January 6, 2012
I was a Bachmann supporter. She represented EVERYTHING I liked about candidate. Bachmann is a Conservative, she is a Tea Party Conservative, she is a Social Conservative, she is Pro-Israel and she understands that American Exceptionalism requires a strong military.
I suspect if the various Tea Party organizations across the nation would have been more vocal to support the only candidate that directly associated herself as a Tea Party Conservative, her numbers in Iowa would have been sufficient to keep her in the campaign for her to hear the voice of Conservative States. I am talking Conservative States that the Tea Party Movement was very effective in electing Tea Party candidates to Federal, State and Local Offices.
On Wednesday Michele Bachmann ended her campaign with a very awesome speech that all should check out!
VIDEO: Michele Bachmann drops out of presidential race
I pray the air kicked out of Bachmann’s Presidential campaign does not draw her to conclude to also not run for re-election in her District in Minnesota.
JRH 1/6/12
Newt the Conservative Candidate
John R. Houk
December 9, 2011
I have been leaning toward Newt Gingrich as a nominee choice for the GOP lately. Newt has been surging in the polls lately so I am guessing that I am not alone in that migration. Again I still like Michele Bachmann and will not hesitate to favor her again if she can get more support on board with her effort to win the nomination.
I am discovering though that Newt has many Conservative detractors that are calling him a Liberal or a Socialist in disguise. I am finding this especially among Conservatives that consider themselves among Independents and/or a Conspiracy Theorist slant.
My Conspiracy Theory buddy Tony Newbill echoes the complaint with this John Birch Society video that is a warning that Newt is not a true Conservative.
NEWT did you want to point out the foulness of The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler in 1994 when you became Speaker or Internationalize the USA?
Sent by Tony Newbill
Sent 12/4/2011 11:37 AM
NEWT did you want to point out the foulness of “The Third Wave” by Alvin Toffler as is described in this Video about when you became Speaker in the 1990s. You wanted the Congress to read this book, so was it to show the kind of ideology that was Infiltrating the USA policy making in Washington or was it to align with this ideology?
Please forward the video to the time frame 11:40:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWPz1Qdq1uI&feature=player_embedded
Below is a link that is set to start at the 11:40 mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWPz1Qdq1uI&t=11m30s
Kelleigh Nelson wrote a two part hit article on Newt Gingrich entitled “The Phony Right-Wing & Who is Selling Us Down the River? – Newt Gingrich: Part One & Two”.
Nelson begins Part 1 by describing Newt’s ten years in Congress as a closet communist by comparing Newt’s Congressional agenda to various Marxist ideologies. At this point Nelson calls Newt a Neocon. Evidently she considers Neocons as closet Communists because many of them actually came from a Communist background. The problem with her closet Communist assessment is that Neocons that were former Leftist Liberals abandoned Communism recognizing the utter failure of the Marxist based ideology. My perspective on Neoconservatism is that they are people that support Conservative values domestically and American Exceptionalism in relation to Foreign Policy and Foreign Relations. It is the less government – more government paradox. Neocons have rejected Big Brother control of the populace hence the less government domestically. Neocons see two objectives that need to be sustained (yes I know “sustained” is an evil word among Conspiracy Theorists). One objective is to promote any policy that protects American sovereignty as the world’s exceptionally best nation. The second objective is to spread American values internationally at all costs to promote a world that is more for us than against us. I realize these two objectives I have thought up are quite subjective and I am certain that intellectual Neocons could list quite a number of specifics; nonetheless in a nutshell I believe this is an easy to comprehend summary of Neoconservatism. Both objectives lean toward big government to maintain American Exceptionalism. Libertarians and Paleocons (i.e. more traditional Conservatives) have a problem with big government of any kind.
Then Nelson proceeds to list her perspective on Bills that Newt voted “Yea” on to contradict Newt’s Conservative bona fides.
In 1994 Newt voted:
1. YEA to the National Endowment for the Arts
2. YEA for 1.2 billion for UN peacekeeping
3. YEA for the presidential line item veto
4. YEA for 13 billion in foreign aid
5. YEA for 166 million more for the IRS
6. Led Congress into GATT with fellow CFR member Bill Clinton and then stated that it was a very big transfer of power. It was, because it overrode Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution. As well, GATT reduces the amount of money we can save for pensions. He jawed with President Clinton in NH that he was a huge fan of FDR and Woodrow Wilson, two of the most despised early communist leaning presidents. Remember Wilson gave us both the federal reserve and the 16th amendment, income tax.
He also voted:
1. China as Most Favored Nation for trade
2. Voted to supply funds to subsidize trade with the Soviets.
3. Voted to transfer 2.2 million acres in Idaho to Wilderness status.
4. Voted for federal funding loan guarantees for greater trade with Red China.
5. Voted for taxpayer funds being available to foreign governments through export/import banks.
He is pro amnesty – Joe Galloway wrote in December 2010 that both Newt and Jeb Bush were pro-amnesty. Gingrich stated, “We are not going to deport 11 million immigrants.” How about 40 million Newt…send them home, they’re an invasion! (Link (Link Dead))
He is pro foreign aid. In 1995 he voted for 31.8 billion in foreign aid, but wouldn’t vote to cut foreign aid by a measly 1%.
Newt also backed a strong central government, strong environmental laws, national service programs, the United Nations Goals 2000 (which many Republicans voted for), federal financing of local police, and UN peacekeeping missions for our military.
Gingrich is pro-Obamacare and even advocated it in the 90s on Meet the Press, and recently. (Link)
He did a Global Warming ad with Nancy Pelosi that is coming back to haunt him, but in reality, he is a big environmentalist. (Link)
Is pro-Gun Control — Newt is currently circulating a letter advertising a DVD called: “America at Risk” for which you may obtain a copy if you send him $35.00 or more. On page 3 of his six-page letter he says: “Today the choice is yours: You can either sit back and allow Barack Obama and the liberal elite to disarm our country, leaving us defenseless against enemies who explicitly desire to erase America from existence.”
If you are Conservative these points that Nelson is portraying should send shivers of distrust up and down your spine. Nelson’s point is that Conservatives should not trust Newt Gingrich in his current campaign rhetoric which has all the appearances of a Conservative Republican candidate.
I posted some thoughts on Newt’s illegal alien plan that included much of his 21st Century Contract with America which goes beyond the issue of illegals in America. That post is entitled, “Frankly I Like Newt’s Thoughts on Illegal Aliens”. Newt’s plan answers Nelson on the issue of the fake Conservative accusation. Frankly a comparison may connect Nelson’s indictment of Newt being a Neocon. I have Neocon leanings hence that makes Newt even more likable for me. You should note that Newt is NOT working a campaign with a Leftist message that government control the lives of American citizens. Newt is asking voters to send out their thoughts on how to improve America. Newt does not say he will use those thoughts; nonetheless it implies Newt would keep his possible Presidential Administration in contact with the little guy who actually thinks rather than is propagandized on how to vote.
Then Nelson joins many Conservatives with distrust of Newt because of the association with futurist Alvin Toffler.
Okay, so we’ve gone over what Newt has done in the past, and part of what he stands for, but we haven’t touched at all on his belief in Alvin and Heidi Toffler’s The Third Wave. To make it quite clear, Toffler’s beliefs are rooted solidly in communism, but dressed up thoroughly in neo-con speak and sprinkled with the tiniest bit of capitalism. This is why so many of our electorate are fooled by the RINOs and why so many of these RINOs go along with the communists in the Democrat party.
In 1994, Newt presented a list of 8 works he wanted everyone to read….first was the Declaration of Independence, second the Federalist Papers, and third was The Third Wave, by Alvin Toffler printed by the new age Progress and Freedom Foundation. Alvin Toffler is Newt Gingrich’s mentor, so we need to take a closer look at what Toffler espouses in The Third Wave. By the way he never mentioned reading the Constitution and for good reason. He wants to be rid of it.
Toffler believes mankind is entering a new system. To the founding fathers in his book, he wrote, “For the system of government you 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. …
Nelson proceeds to use an eight part article entitled Democrats in Drag by Steve Farrell as a data base to describe Toffler as a Marxist-Communist. Remember this is important to Nelson because Newt and Toffler are buddies at least intellectually.
Farrell compares Toffler’s book Third Wave as a futurist concept that has been used in the past. Farrell lists three people from the past he considers Communistic:
1. Plato – The Republic
2. Karl Marx – The Communist Manifesto
3. Adolf Hitler – “National Socialism” which is Nazism which has Mein Kampf as the primary document.
Is Toffler a Communist? A Free Republic blogger quotes a New American article in which Toffler’s thoughts run like this:
In 1994, Gingrich described himself as “a conservative futurist”. He said that those who were trying to define him should look no farther than The Third Wave, a 1980 book written by Alvin Toffler. The book describes our society as entering a post-industrial phase in which abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, and divorce are perfectly normal, even virtuous. Toffler penned a letter to America’s “founding parents,” in which he said: “The system of government you fashioned, including the 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.” He went on to describe our constitutional system as one that “served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.”
Honestly the parts the New Republic blogger emphasizes certainly is the objective of Marxism especially as espoused by Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. Leninist-Marxism desires societal transformation via violence. Gramsci-Marxism desires societal transformation by infiltrating culture and government to transform society slowly by the rule of law with people not realizing what is happening to them. Incidentally BHO’s hero Saul Alinsky is kind of an American version of Gramsci-Marxism.
Here is a review of a book (Cyber-Marx – Aufheben) that includes a snippet of information of Alvin Toffler thought.
…
The ‘information revolutionaries’ have revamped the post-industrial thesis as the transition to the ‘information society’ in which industry has been succeeded by information. The ‘revolutionary doctrine’ of those who have argued that this ‘information revolution’ is both inevitable and desirable, and to which one must adapt or face obsolescence is summarized by Dyer-Witheford in seven points:
1. The world is in transition to a new stage of civilisation, a transition comparable to the earlier shift from agrarian to industrial society.
2. The crucial resource of the new society is technoscientific knowledge.
3. The principal manifestation and prime mover of the new era is the invention and diffusion of information technologies.
4. The generation of wealth increasingly depend on an ‘information economy’ in which the exchange and manipulation of symbolic data matches, exceeds, or subsumes the importance of material processing.
5. These techno-economic changes are accompanied by far-reaching and fundamentally positive social transformations.
6. The information revolution is planetary in scale.
7. The information revolution marks not only a new phase in human civilization but also a new stage in the development of life itself.
Alvin Toffler is a former Marxist who has popularised these ideas and polemisized against what he now considers to be an obsolete Marxism. According to Toffler, as the information economy eliminates the factory so the legions of mass labour vanish, and with them Marx’s historical protagonist. The industrial proletariat disappears to be replaced by workers who ‘own a critical, often irreplaceable, share of the means of production’: knowledge. Thus the foundation for Marx’s theory of class conflict falls away – class as a collective identity based on adversarial relations of production will have been dissolved. (Emphasis SlantRight)
For the information revolutionaries, therefore, information technology has created a world in which communism is neither possible nor necessary.
This reviewer calls Toffler a “former Marxist.” Not so much because Toffler has abandoned the Marxist dream of a socio-political utopia, but because Toffler believes the Information Revolution (The Third Wave) will render class conflict irrelevant because the fruit of production – knowledge – will be shared across the class spectrum from the proletariat through the bourgeoisie. Toffler believes the Information Revolution will transform this world’s socio-political culture (or I guess cultures plural) in a natural evolutionary way.
So Toffler is not a Marxist in either the Leninist or Gramsci fashion, but he is a Leftist that predicts society-culture will abandon property rights and religion. I am uncertain about Toffler’s thought on free expression that would include both Liberal and Conservative having the ability to freely express thoughts on values; however it would follow that if Toffler believes there is a place for moral reprobates like homosexuals and transsexuals in his vision of a transformed society, and he does, I would have to guess religious morality (whether Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any other religion) is something to be rid of.
Thus Toffler’s vision of a transformed society-culture fits closer to Obama’s vision for “Change” than does Conservative and Family Values that is usually part of Republican Party platforms. So where does Newt Gingrich fit as a Republican vis-a-vis Toffler’s vision for transformation?
Newt’s 21st Century Contract with America is an awesome document of a Conservative paradigm reversing years of entrenched elitism governing our nation. A page on Newt’s campaign website lists three ways to reverse changes that have transformed Americans away from experiencing Constitutional Original Intent to experiencing the Liberal view of a Living Constitution that can be remolded to the views relativist rule that has enabled Leftist elites to morally harm America morally by attaching a European model of the rule of law.
Three large facts come from these ten specific challenges to the survival of America as the freest, most prosperous, and safest country in the world:
1. No single, narrow solution can meet our challenges. These problems are so pervasive and so widespread that only a comprehensive strategy can break through and force the changes needed for America’s survival as a free, prosperous, safe country based on the principles of the Founding Fathers.
2. The combined forces of the elites—in the news media, the government employee unions, the bureaucracies, the courts, the academic world, and in public office—will fight bitterly and ruthlessly to protect their world from being changed by the American people.
3. Therefore any election victory in 2012 will be the beginning and not the end of the struggle. It will take eight years or more of relentless, determined, intelligent effort to uproot and change the system of the elites—laws, bureaucracies, courts, schools– and replace it with laws and systems based on historic American values and policies.
These three points are a part of Newt’s defense for the need of a 21st Century Contract with America. The page carefully avoids Leftist and Right Wing in his description of ruling elites. Also Newt’s defense does not specifically mention anything about Conservative-Christian Moral Values; however the implication is there with thoughts on Judicial reform and American education. One can see this implication in the last three points (of many) in a section entitled America is dramatically and frighteningly on the wrong track.
· schools that no longer teach American history and generally fail to prepare young Americans for either citizenship or work (leading to a Nation at Risk, as the Reagan Administration described the effect of our schools 28 years ago and it is worse now);
· increasingly radical judges who impose anti-American values on the American people in a repetition of the British tyrannical judges who were the second most frequently cited complaint of the American colonists;
· a radical elite which has contempt for the American people, sympathy for America’s enemies, and overt hostility to American values and which dominates the universities, the news rooms, and increasingly the bureaucracies and the courts. (emphasis SlantRight)
Ergo if believe “American values” are the same as Conservative-Christian Values then we can assume Toffler’s futuristic influence on Newt is not a Left Wing brainwashing sycophancy. Does Newt believe the Third Wave Information Revolution is false?
I haven’t address this lately; however I am sure it will come somewhere around the primaries and/or the General Election if Newt makes it that far and on to victory. If I was to proffer an educated guess I would have to believe Newt still believes in a Third Wave transformation because of his past enthusiasm for Alvin Toffler’s works. The question that should be asked though: Does Newt’s thoughts on a Third Wave transformation the same as Alvin Toffler’s transforming vision?
The answer must be NO.
Newt’s 21st Century Contract with America is definitely conflicts with Toffler’s vision of a New World Order based on Leftist Humanism. So Newt’s vision for a Third Wave futurist transformation has to be based more on the Founding Father’s Constitutional vision combined with American Exceptionalism. The thought of American Exceptionalism contradicts New World Order Leftist Globalism. For an Information Revolution to exist combined with American Exceptionalism, a New World Order would look like a place that is friendly to American values. The New World Order would be a collection of sovereign nations watching over their own local interests while espousing legitimate representative government based on a free market in which globalism would translate into peaceful trade and mutual support rather than carving anti-social hegemonic empires based on top to bottom elitist rule.
I haven’t talked to Newt but I am guessing a man that has put forth the 21st Century Contract with America is not a disciple of Toffler’s Leftist transformation. Rather Newt is influenced that an Information Revolution will change the way we live and that American Exceptionalism must influence that change.
If Newt wins the nomination and wins the Presidency based on his 21st Century Contract with America and Newt begins to display Left Wing ideology, it may be the last time I vote for a Republican as a member of the Republican Party. This means at this time I am going to believe and trust Newt’s word more than Newt’s past. We’ll see how definite I will be in that trust as the GOP Convention draws near to place the mantle of nominee on a Republican candidate.
JRH 12/9/11
