John R. Houk
© April 11, 2012
Yesterday when I discovered that Rick Santorum was suspending his campaign for the GOP nomination, I along with many Conservatives felt that Newt Gingrich’s concession that Mitt Romney will probably be the nominee for the GOP was also a throwing in the towel:
In a virtual concession Gingrich has publically acquiesced that Romney will be the GOP nominee:
In an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” Mr. Gingrich called Mr. Romney “far and away the most likely Republican nominee,” adding that he would throw his support behind the front-runner if Mr. Romney secured the required delegates for the nomination.
Since then I have learned that Gingrich is remaining in the race for the GOP nomination. This amazes me because Gingrich has no money to continue. He has laid-off campaign staff, he had a $500 check bounce that would have secure his name on the Utah Primary and I have heard a Gingrich Think Tank has filed for bankruptcy. That is not a road map to election victory.
Don’t get me wrong. At this point I would love for Gingrich to be the GOP nomination rather than Mitt Romney. I don’t think the Brokered Convention strategy that Gingrich might have depended on will work without Santorum in the GOP race. This means a catastrophe of monumental proportions would have to occur for Newt to pull a GOP nomination out of his hat. The catastrophe would have to be along the line of an insurmountable scandal (like that which stabbed Cain’s campaign in the heart), a near death health issue or worse death itself.
The biggest reason I am not a Romney guy is Mormonism and questionable stands on social issues.
Yeah-Yeah I know. The accusations of bigotry will be flying my way now that everyone knows I am anti-Mormon. Frankly any Christian that takes a Biblical stand on the nature of Jesus Christ should have a problem with Mormonism. I have blogged on lots of issues that should catch the ear of a Christian; however there is one simple formula for orthodox (not Orthodox with capital “O”) Christian theology:
Jesus Christ is part of the Trinity: three equal persons consisting in ONE nature of God. That is to say each single member of the Christian Trinity is ONE Divine entity in union with no beginning and no ending – Eternal. Jesus Christ is simultaneously fully man and fully God. The Lord’s God nature purifies his man nature enabling the death of Christ on the Cross to be a Blood sacrifice that Redeems humanity from the twisted spiritual DNA nature bequeathed to all the ancestors of the first man Adam.
Let the Redeemed of the Lord say so: “I am Redeemed! I am Redeemed! I am Redeemed!
Mormon theology claims Jesus is a son of God in that the Father created Jesus. For that matter Satan is the brother of the created Jesus. Satan went bad and Jesus went good. In Christian orthodox theology that is bad theology. In the humble opinion of this blogger that has a traditional outlook of Christian theology; Romney’s Mormon theology is a Gnostic-cult off-shoot of Christianity. I do have a problem with that.
On the other hand if you are going to be a member of a Christian off-shoot cult Mormonism can’t be a bad choice. Mormons are family oriented, most Mormons are Pro-Life and most Mormons have Conservative family values. Currently I have questions about Romney’s commitment to Conservative Social Values. And yet as it stands now, I am voting for Romney for President.
If Newt benefited from some kind of catastrophic event that knocked Romney out of the GOP nomination, I would support Newt. On the other hand Santorum has officially only suspended his campaign and did not end his campaign. For that matter I believe Herman Cain only suspended his campaign as well. That means a Romney catastrophe may not only benefit Newt. I doubt that Cain would press for a nomination because of the lack of delegates; however Santorum does have delegates. I suspect if the situation arose that Romney’s delegates were no longer committed, that a majority would go to Santorum.
Remember though. The key word is “catastrophe.” There probably is as much of a chance of a catastrophe happening to Mitt Romney as there is for a passenger jet to crash without terrorist help.
Newt Gingrich may be the last active Conservative standing in the GOP race but it is extremely doubtful he will win the nomination.
So again, as Republicans it is time to unite behind Mitt Romney to defeat President Barack Hussein Obama for President.
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.
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.
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
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!
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:
4152 West Blue Heron Blvd., Ste. 1114
Riviera Beach, FL 33404 USA
John R. Houk
© January 2012
Sarah Palin took on the criticism that Newt Gingrich is receiving from Establishment Republicans on her Facebook page yesterday. Palin compared the attacks as consistent to how the Left Wing Media assassinates the character of Conservatives. Of course the greatest negative ads are coming from Mitt Romney who has not exactly demonstrated a Conservative Republican exemplar in his days of Governor of Massachusetts. Whereas Newt Gingrich has spent his entire political career emphasizing Conservative fiscal policy and values. Yes I said “values”. Newt’s personal life may have been a screw-up in living those values; however he did espouse those values. Every single person supportive of Christian values has made a mistake contrary to Christian values to one degree or the other. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone!
Those that have made a mistake with Christian values and have not sought repentance but rather have sought self-justification are the people that should concern values voters.
Consistent Pro-Life Record
Newt Gingrich has consistently upheld a pro-life standard. He had a consistent pro-life voting record throughout his twenty years in Congress, including his four years as Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Gingrich pledges to uphold this consistent pro-life standard as president. (READ MORE)
Asking Wife For Divorce While She Was In The Hospital Dying of Cancer
Newt’s daughter recently wrote a column to set the record straight about this smear.
This story is a vicious lie. It was first reported by a left wing magazine in the 1980s based on hearsay and has survived in left-wing chat rooms on the Internet until today. It is completely false.
Recently, Newt’s daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, wrote a column to set the record straight about this smear. The column reveals that 1) It was her mother that requested the divorce, not Newt, and it was months before the hospital visit in question; 2) Her mother was in the hospital to remove a tumor, but it was benign, and she is still alive today; 3) Newt visited the hospital for the purpose of taking his two children to see their mother, not to discuss a divorce. You can read it here.
Here are some excerpts from an article demonstrating Gingrich’s opposition to Same-Sex Marriage and abortion. The article asks about Newt’s three marriages in which Newt responds by saying as President he will enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president in 2012, has vowed to support a federal constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.
Gingrich’s pledge came in a written response to conservative Iowa group The Family Leader’s “The Marriage Vow — A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family.” The group’s 14-point pledge can be found at http://www.thefamilyleader.com/the-marriage-vow.
In addition to opposing same-sex marriage, the pledge also requests candidates vow “personal fidelity” to their spouse, appoint federal judges who are “faithful constitutionalists” and reject Islamic sharia law.
Gingrich, 68, has been married three times. …
In his response to The Family Leader, Gingrich also said he would “vigorously enforce” the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which bans federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Earlier this year, President Barack Obama directed the Justice Department to cease defending the constitutionality of the law.
Gingrich joined U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) in signing The Family Leader’s pledge.
In regard to Gingrich’s response, Bob Vander Plaats, president & CEO of The Family Leader, said: “We are pleased that Speaker Gingrich has affirmed our pledge and are thankful we have on record his statements regarding DOMA, support of a federal marriage amendment, defending the unborn, pledging fidelity to his spouse, defending religious liberty and freedom, supporting sound pro-family economic issues, and defending the right of the people to rule themselves.”
Following is the full text of Gingrich’s response to The Family Leader: (Read the text at the Rock River Times)
On Education: Removing God from Pledge of Allegiance assaults our identity
There is no attack on American culture more destructive and more historically dishonest than the relentless effort to drive God out of America’s public square. The 2002 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the phrase “under God” is unconstitutional represents a fundamental assault on our American identity. A court that would unilaterally modify the Pledge of Allegiance as adopted by the Congress in 1954, signed by President Eisenhower, and supported 91% of the American people is a court that is clearly out of step with an America that understands that our unalienable rights come from God.
How can the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, overrule the culture & maintain its moral authority? It can’t. The Supreme Court begins each day with the proclamation “God save the United States and this honorable Court.” This phrase was not adopted as a ceremonial phrase of no meaning: it was adopted because justices in the 1820s actually wanted to call on God to save the US & the Court
Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 6 Dec 31, 2006
On Education: Removing “God” from Pledge assaults our identity
There is no attack on American culture more destructive and more historically dishonest than the secular Left’s relentless effort to drive God out of America’s public square. The 2002 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the phrase “under God” is unconstitutional represents a fundamental assault on our American identify. A court that would unilaterally modify the Pledge of Allegiance as adopted by the Congress in 1954, signed by President Eisenhower, and supported by 91% of the American people is a court that is clearly out of step with an America that understands that our unalienable rights come from God.
Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 6 Dec 31, 2006
On Government Reform: Insist on judges who understand our rights come from God
For most Americans, the blessings of God have been the basis of our liberty, prosperity, and survival as a unique country.
For most Americans, prayer is real, and we subordinate ourselves to a God on whom we call for wisdom, guidance, and salvation.
For most Americans, the prospect of a ruthlessly secular society that would forbid public reference to God and systematically remove all religious symbols from the public square is horrifying.
Yet, the voice of the overwhelming majority of Americans is rejected by a media-academic-legal elite. Our schools have been steadily driving the mention of God out of American history. Our courts have been literally outlawing references to God, religious symbols, and prayer.
We have passively accepted the judiciary’s assault on the values of the overwhelming majority of Americans. It is time to insist on judges who understand that throughout our history, Americans have believed that their fundamental rights come from God and are therefore unalienable.
Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 9-10 Dec 31, 2006
On Government Reform: Insist on judges who understand our rights come from God
· For most Americans, the blessings of God have been the basis of our liberty, prosperity, and survival as a unique country.
· For most Americans, prayer is real, and we subordinate ourselves to a God on whom we call for wisdom, guidance, and salvation.
· For most Americans, the prospect of a ruthlessly secular society that would forbid public reference to God and systematically remove all religious symbols from the public square is horrifying.
Yet, the voice of the overwhelming majority of Americans is rejected by a media-academic-legal elite that finds religious expression frightening and threatening, or old-fashioned and unsophisticated.
It is time to insist on judges who understand that throughout our history–and continuing to this day–Americans have believed that their fundamental rights come from God and are therefore unalienable.
Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 9-10 Dec 31, 2006
On Government Reform: Our rights come from God, not from government
As the most consequential document of freedom in human history, the Declaration of Independence is the most important document held in the National Archives. It was influenced by the Magna Carta of 1215, a contract of rights between the British king and his barons generally regarded as the first step toward guaranteed liberties in Britain. However, the Declaration of Independence differs from the Magna Carta in one essential way: The Founding Fathers believed that our rights as human beings come from God, not from the kind or the state. Thus, they rejected the notion that power came through the monarch to the people; but rather, directly from God.
The Declaration of Independence contains four references to God: as lawmaker, as Creator, as Supreme Judge, and as Protector. The Declaration of Independence represents both the genesis and heart of American liberty. Our rights come from our Creator, not the government, sovereign, or King.
Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 29-30 Dec 31, 2006
On Principles & Values: Constitution says freedom OF religion, not FROM religion
The first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. Amendment I begins: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The language clearly prohibits the establishment of an official national religion, while at the same time protecting the observance of religion in both private and public spaces. In fact, two of the principal authors of the First Amendment, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who were also our third and fourth presidents, respectively, both attended church services in the Capitol building, the most public of American spaces. During Jefferson’s presidency, church services were also held in the Treasury building and the Supreme Court. Therefore, these Founding Fathers clearly saw no conflict in opposing the establishment of an official religion while protecting the freedom of religious expression in the public square.
Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 31-32 Dec 31, 2006
On Principles & Values: Supreme Court hostile to religion, but building based on it
While recent years have seen increasing hostility from the courts to public displays of religion, the Supreme Court is filled with them. Notice that all sessions begin with the Court’s marshal announcing: “God save the United States and this honorable court.”
Throughout history, decisions of the Supreme Court have recognized that we are a religious nation. For example, in the 1952 case Zorach vs. Clauson, the court upheld a statute that allowed students to be released from school to attend religious classes.
The most striking religious imagery at the Supreme Court building is that of Moses with the Ten Commandments. Affirming the Judeo-Christian roots of our legal system, they can be found in several places: at the center of the sculpture over the east portico of the building, inside the actual courtroom, and finally, engraved over the chair of the Chief Justice, and on the bronze doors of the Supreme Court itself. There is also a sculpted marble depiction of Mohammad on the wall.
Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 85-89 Dec 31, 2006
On Principles & Values: Creator as source of liberty is literally written in stone
The first rays of sun on our Nation’s Capital each morning illuminate [the Washington Monument]. And there on the top is inscribed Laus Deo (“Praise be to God”). These simple words, for the eyes of heaven alone, are a fitting reflection of George Washington’s conviction that liberty is owed to divine blessing.
[One can see in any tour of Washington DC] that our Creator is the source of American liberty–it is literally written into the rock, mortar, and marble of American history.
Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.130-131 Dec 31, 2006
On Principles & Values: Media-academic-legal elite imposes radical secularist vision
A media-academic-legal elite is energetically determined to impose a radically secularist vision against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Americans. This outlook rejects the wisdom if the founding generation as outdated and treats the notion that our liberties come from God as a curious artifact from the 1770s but of little practical importance for more enlightened times.
This elite is especially hard at work in the courts and in the classrooms where it is attempting to overturn two centuries of American self-understanding of religious freedom and political liberty.
In the courts, we see a systematic effort by this elite to purge all religious expression from American public life. The ongoing attempt to remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance is only the most well-known of these mounting efforts.
Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.131-132 Dec 31, 2006
On Civil Rights: Five justices banned school prayer against American majority
The views by the media-academic-legal elite are completely at odds with the overwhelming majority of Americans. Once five justices decided we could not pray in schools or at graduation or could not display the Ten Commandments, we lost those rights. If five justices decide we cannot say that our nation is “under God,” then we will also lose that right.
They are not only arbitrarily rewriting the law of the land but are usurping the legitimate rights of the legislative branch to make the laws.
Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.132-133 Dec 31, 2006
On Government Reform: Supreme Court has become permanent Constitutional Convention
The media-academic-legal elite have been successful to date at purging all religious expression from American public life. Their success is because for the last 50 years the Supreme Court has become a permanent constitutional convention in which the whims of five appointed lawyers have rewritten the meaning of the Constitution. Under this new, all-powerful model of the Court, the Constitution and the law can be redefined by federal judges unchecked by the other two coequal branches of government.
This power grab by the Court is a modern phenomenon and a dramatic break in American history. The danger is that the courts will move us from a self-understanding that we are one nation “under God”, to a nation under the rule of the state, where rights are accorded to individuals not by our Creator, but by those in power ruling over them. History is replete with examples of this failed model of might-makes-right–Nazism, fascism, communism–and their disastrous consequences.
Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.132-133 Dec 31, 2006
On Education: Replace multiculturalism with patriotic education
In the classroom, the very concept of America is under assault. The traditional notion of our country as a union of one people, the American people, has been assaulted by multiculturalism, situational ethics, and a values-neutral model in which Western values and American history are ignored or ridiculed. Unless we act to reverse this trend, our next generation will grow up with no understanding of core American values. This will destroy America as we know it, as surely as if a foreign conqueror had overwhelmed us.
It is absolutely necessary to establish a firm foundation of patriotic education upon which further knowledge can be built; otherwise, Americans will lack understanding of American values & how important & great it is to be an American.
It is important to understand what makes America so unique and why generations of diverse people immigrated to this great land for freedom and opportunity. If Americans do not appreciate America, then how can they be ready and willing to defend her?
Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.133-134 Dec 31, 2006
The above quotations are from Rediscovering God in America: Reflections on the Role of Faith in Our Nation’s History and Future, by Newt Gingrich (published October 10, 2006).
For all the criticism about Newt Gingrich’s past we must understand these are the thoughts of a man with Christian Values and a person that is a fiscal Conservative.
On the other hand Mitt Romney is not a Christian. He is a Mormon. Romney’s business experience is undoubtedly excellent; however his Conservative bona fides are definitely sketchy. Romney if elected will be a RINO that will make his goal to satisfy the Left and the Conservative Republicans. The cost will be the continued influence of the Left in Congress and a Leftist Activist Judiciary to continue to transform America away from its heritage by erasing the influence of Christianity.
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.
John R. Houk
© December 22, 2011
Mitt Romney seems to be the choice of establishment Republicans and his poll numbers seem to be consistent. I am one of those Christians that believe Mormonism is a cult hence I am very anti-Romney. Yep, that makes me a Mormonphobe.
My old buddy Tony Newbill sent me a link to an article posted in June 2011 that gives an old Mormonphobe like me some ammunition other than my dislike for the Mormon cult that should start Romneyphiles to rethink their thoughts on which they support.
Newbill had tipped me earlier that Romney’s so-called business expertise has a tainted history. This June article referred to me entitled, “The Romney/ Goldman Sachs Chronicles – Modern Day Robber Baron’s g[al]ore,” is chalk full of allegations that should be investigated. If even a hint of them are true, the allegations would turn out to be criminal. It seems that Republican Establishment people are willing to look the other way as the Democrats were in not vetting President Barack Hussein Obama in his secretive history and connections to Marxists who favored violence and to racists that hate whitey.
The article is posted at Daily Kos so I am not so surprised in the detail of the Romney hit. What I am surprised about is that there are so few stalwart Conservatives who distrust Romney’s Conservative bona fides that have failed to publicize these same allegations. Perhaps the reasoning in the failure is the sources that are anti-Romney are Leftist in origin. Hey! I never read the Daily Kos because of its Leftist nature; however this dirt needs to be opened up to prevent another secretive candidate from possibly attaining the White House. I have a problem exchanging a Center-Right corrupt President for a Left Wing corrupt President, don’t you?
At this point I am still on the Newt train. Perhaps this author – Laserhaas – writing for a Leftist Internet Journal is worth the read.
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:
Below is a link that is set to start at the 11:40 mark:
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.
Newt Gingrich has been leading recently in the polls indicating he is the comeback king so far in the GOP race for the 2012 Presidential nomination. My friend Tony Newbill sent a Mother Jones link in which Newt speaks specifically against Agenda 21. Conspiracy Theorists believe the United Nation’s Agenda 21 is a program that trends the world’s nations to enter into a one world government. Most often Conspiracy Theory is kind of out there; however Agenda 21 is active with UN policy being instituted not only in the nations of the world but right here in America NOW.
I view Mother Jones as Leftist on the political spectrum. So I am certain that Mother Jones reporting on Newt is a criticism rather than a moment of praise; nonetheless the article provides a great abbreviated description of Agenda 21 as Conservatives perceive the global conspiracy to eradicate sovereignty and render the U.S. Constitution into an ineffective document of history.
“Newt Gingrich Name-Drops Sustainable Development UN Agenda 21; Go Gettem NEWT!!!!”
Then Newbill provides the Mother Jones link (which he sent 11/15/2011 4:47 PM} which below:
John R. Houk
© November 16, 2011
Over the last several weeks I have been examining some GOP candidates running for the Presidential nomination. I started out looking at tax plans because Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 was simple enough to comprehend as a possible tax reform move that would raise Federal revenues and be fair taxation for American voters.
Not all the candidates are emphasizing tax reform as the fix. Many are looking at job creating projects based on Conservative principles that would in turn create more tax revenues without raising taxes using the current IRS tax system.
Because of the Cain success in connecting to American Conservatives with his 9-9-9 tax plan, some candidates have added some form of tax reform or lower tax principles to their American economy building plans which include issues dear to Conservatives such as the debt ceiling and lowering the Federal debt.
So far I have looked at:
The path of examination is of no particular order; however when I began I have to admit a proclivity for Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain. I have never been a Mitt Romney fan. The initial appearance of Rick Perry as a GOP candidate initially caught my attention because of his appearance to not be affected by political correctness by opening a Texas State Christian prayer event even with Leftist contempt for a Governor to pray as a Christian. I loved that! Since then I am convinced Perry could not defeat BHO because our Left Wing President would chew Perry out and spit him out in campaign debates. There are other issues of Perry concern however going toe-to-toe with Obama in campaigning is my principle concern. As of writing this post Herman Cain has been assaulted with he-said she-said accusations of unsubstantiated sexual harassment open to the judgment of public opinion rather than a civil or criminal court. Recently Cain has had a debate moment in which hesitation of a foreign policy question on Libya caused an uncomfortable pause. Michele Bachmann is a person I still like especially as a Tea Party candidate and as a Social Conservative but there is the appearance that Conservative media and voters (opinion polls) have lost sight of her.
Now I am looking at Newt Gingrich who has actually begun a steady rise in the polls. Newt has always been a bona fide Conservative; however I sense the knock on Gingrich is he is an establishment Conservative. Gingrich has a bunch of skeletons in his closet that might alarm Social Conservatives such as his humiliating demise from Speaker related to an affair scandal. On the other he has been married to Callista for some time now and past sins are meant to be forgiven.
On my part Newt is beginning to look very consistent, quick witted and an excellent debater. I might be actually moving with some other voters into the Newt camp.
Let’s look at Newt’s design for a better non-socialistic Conservative Christian influenced America. Newt is actually fairly precise for his plan for America. A good place for detailed information is Newt’s campaign website Newt.org. There is a wealth of details about a prospective Gingrich Presidency to rival if not exceed Mitt Romney’s campaign website.
Since I began this expedition on examining candidates via their tax plan, Newt’s website has a tax plan that is compared to Mitt Romney:
Personal Income Tax
· Gingrich: Choice of current system or 15% flat tax with personal, homeowner, and charitable deductions.
· Romney: Maintain current tax rates.
· Verdict: Gingrich Plan Better – he Gingrich plan gives Americans a choice to continue to file under the existing system, or to eliminate compliance costs and hours of paperwork by filing with a flat rate of 15%. The Romney plan hopes to make taxes “flatter” in the future, but offers no immediate choice and no immediate relief.
Capital Gains Tax for Individuals
· Gingrich: Eliminate tax completely
· Romney: Depends how much money the taxpayer makes. Romney’s plan eliminates capital gains taxes for those making less than $200,000/year, but maintains the current system, with rates of up to 35%, for the rest.
· Verdict: The Gingrich plan maximizes the capital investment and job creation that will accompany the elimination of this tax, and acknowledges that a tax reform is only fair if all Americans receive relief. The Romney plan determines that some Americans should pay no taxes on a particular investment, while other Americans should pay taxes of up to 35% on the same investment.
Capital Gains Tax for Corporations
· Gingrich: Eliminate tax completely
· Romney: Maintain current system
· Verdict: he Gingrich plan is modeled on the success of the 1997 capital gains cut, which spurred job creation and a 500% increase in venture capital in just 3 years. The Romney plan maintains the corporate capital gains tax, an unequivocal burden on American job-creators who need to be freed to grow, prosper, and compete in a 21st century global economy.
Corporate Income Tax
· Gingrich: 12.5%
· Romney: 25%
· Verdict: The Gingrich plan will create a boom of new American entrepreneurship by dramatically cutting the corporate tax rate to one of the lowest in the developed world. The Romney plan will still be average-to-high compared to the rest of the developed world, and still over 50% higher than our closest economic competitor Canada, which has a rate of only 16.5%. Gingrich rate makes U.S. more competitive than Canada.
· Gingrich: Eventually replace payroll tax with personal accounts, financing better results
· Romney: No information
· Verdict: Gingrich supports personal savings investment and insurance accounts that would eventually be expanded to finance all of the benefits now financed by the payroll tax, allowing that tax ultimately to be phased out altogether.
· Gingrich: Choice between the traditional system or opportunity to purchase private insurance with premium support
· Romney: No information
· Verdict: Under the Gingrich Plan, any American who wants to enjoy the existing Medicare system will be able to do so. Americans can also opt to transition to a more personalized system in the private sector with greater options for better care, where they would receive premium support to purchase private insurance.
As I said Newt’s website has many details for righting the ship of America’s prosperity. I found this decent summary of Newt’s overall plan that should bring some interest:
Gingrich told the audience that his 21st Century Contract for America has four components.
The first part consists of 10 legislative proposals to be finalized and published on Sept. 27, 2012, the anniversary of the original 1994 Contract for America, Gingrich said. Gingrich was a co-author of the 1994 contract.
The contract’s second component is a First Day project consisting of 100 to 200 executive orders that he would sign if elected president after his inaugural address. The executive orders would be developed over the next year and published on Oct. 1 as part of the last month of his campaign. The very first executive order he signs, Gingrich said, would “abolish every White House czar.” Citizens can submit suggestions for the initial executive orders.
“Part of our goal by signing the executive orders that afternoon is by the time President Obama lands in Chicago, we will have dismantled about 40 percent of his government,” Gingrich said.
Gingrich proposes developing a “real, genuine, serious training program” for members of his presidential Cabinet, subcabinet and other appointees as the third element of the contract. “The level of change that I believe you want me to implement is so large that I do not believe we can just appoint people and hope they are smart,” he said.
The fourth part of the contract involves creating a citizen movement to provide feedback “because the fact is we’re gonna make mistakes” with this scale of change, he said. “I think it’s important to have a genuine citizens movement using things like Facebook. Google Plus, Twitter and other new devices to try to find a way to connect us electronically so we can have a permanent ongoing virtual town hall meeting of the entire country moving forward in a way no one’s ever done before.”
During his talk, Gingrich frequently referred to the 10 legislative proposals in his 21st Contract for America displayed on a banner next to the podium. The proposals include repealing President Barack Obama’s healthcare reforms, creating jobs through tax cuts and regulatory reforms, balancing the federal budget, increasing U.S. energy production, saving Medicare and Social Security, revitalizing the country’s security, and enforcing the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by transferring power from the federal government back to the states and the people. A complete list is available on his campaign website.
Gingrich announced he plans to challenge Democratic President Obama to seven Lincoln-Douglas style three-hour debates. He will be debating Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain Saturday in Houston on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, Gingrich said, and the debate will be televised on CSPAN. Also, Gingrich said he would like to engage GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney in a debate on the economy and the size of government.
“What I really want the Republican team to understand,” Gingrich said, however, “is that our real opponent is Barack Obama.”
… (Excerpted from: Newt Gingrich Outlines Plan to Transform America; By Faye Edmundson; Duluth Patch; November 3, 2011)
VIDEO: Newt Gingrich outlines his Jobs and Prosperity Plan at the Palmetto Freedom Forum
John R. Houk
November 8, 2011
I have written that I am taking a wait-&-see path on the myriad allegations of sexual harassment against Herman Cain particularly this most recent one in which Sharon Bialek has mysteriously emerged fourteen years later going public about unwanted advances in an intimate interview for a job. I say intimate because the interview was not to take place in an office. Rather the job interview was to be a part of a business meal in the evening.
Now certainly there are all sorts of questions as to why Cain would set-up a one-on-one with an attractive blond (14 years ago) when he has been and still is married to his wife Gloria now going on for 40 plus years.
On the other hand what is it that a man runs for High Office and 4 women (3 anonymously) from 14 to 17 years ago decide to point a finger at Herman now rather than following through for justice when the alleged crime occurred? The first three gals decided compensation was better than justice. The fourth gal is not bound by an agreed upon gag order of confidentiality for money; however will money be forthcoming to the fourth gal Sharon Bialek? Obviously not from Cain; however money will come for her story or Bialek would not have hired high profile lawyer Gloria Allred. I am guessing Allred is not representing Bialek out of the goodness of her heart – which means money.
Unfortunately for Cain a he-said-she-said back and forth places the matter of proof upon Cain in relation to public opinion that the accusations are false and are politically motivated. I am guessing without the smoking gun truth Cain is done. The only alternative Cain has is a civil suit of defamation of character; however Bialek has hooked up with a saber rattling lawyer in Allred that signifies a civil suit battle is ready. Even if Cain wins the suit the information that will go public in my estimation will cause political harm for Cain’s campaign for the GOP nomination.
Judson Phillips has written a piece that is slanted in favor of Herman Cain. I am guessing the pro-Cain slant is due to Bialek’s lawyer Gloria Allred. Gloria Allred takes on the high profile cases typically on the basis that she is a Liberal feminist protecting women’s rights. It is not that Conservatives are against women’s rights, but it is that Conservatives are against the Left Wing agenda of women’s rights (e.g. a woman has a right to kill her unborn baby). There is an air that Allred might be a Left Wing political assassin more than a lawyer standing up for a woman that needs to be defending from a sexual predator like
Bill Clinton – er I mean – a person that is an accused sexual predator like Herman Cain.