Blog Archives

It is Time to Push Conservative Credentials on Romney


Romney for Prez 2

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.

 

JRH 4/11/12

 

 

Please Support NCCR

Apparently it is Time to Unite Behind One GOP Candidate


Santorum Suspending Campaign 4-10-12

John R. Houk

© April 10, 2012

 

I am not a supporter of Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination for President. Unfortunately it appears that Gingrich and Santorum have abandoned the Brokered Convention path and have thrown 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. (Gingrich All But Concedes Race to Romney; by Nathan Hodge; WSJ, 4-8-12)

 

Today Rick Santorum has “suspended” his campaign. “Suspended” is a euphemism for throw in the towel:

 

VIDEO: Full Speech – Rick Santorum suspends his campaign for president

 

 

I have committed myself to support whoever wins the GOP nomination even if that person is Mitt Romney. I am sorely disappointed. I would rather have the GOP go through a Brokered Convention. The GOP Establishment feared a Brokered Convention would show disunity going into the full race against President Barack Hussein Obama.

 

I disagree. I believe the drama and excitement of a Brokered Convention would have followed the nominee with an impetus that would have carried through to victory on November 2012.

 

It is irrelevant now. Mitt Romney is the guy. If Romney wins the election on November 2012, his actions will determine if I continue to be a Republican or begin to look for a Third Party. I will never be a Democrat with its fringe anti-American agenda.

 

That being said we have a lot of work to do to defeat the Chicago-style Obama machine financed by socialist-transformative billionaires like Soros. We must become aware of the proposition that Obama’s agenda is a Socialistic societal transformation of America that tosses out America’s founding Revolutionary War ideas that have made America the successful great experiment.

 

We must be dedicated to the proposition that America is exceptional because of the Revolutionary War ideas that were planted in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Honestly I cannot vouch that Romney is completely dedicated to a Conservative agenda to reverse the curse of the Obama agenda. I DO KNOW though if Obama is reelected the Obama agenda will become more intractably embedded in our political system.

 

Four more years of Obama will render the Original Intent of the Constitution useless as the Leftist political ideology will stamp every piece of legislation with the concept of a Living Constitution that is interpreted more by whoever is in power than the content of the document.

 

WE MUST VOTE FOR MITT ROMNEY AS PRESIDENT OF THE USA ON THAT FIRST TUESDAY IN NOVEMBER 2012.

 

JRH 4/10/12

 

Please Support NCCR

Conservatives Must Unite


GOP 2012

 

John R. Houk

© March 7, 2012

 

Mitt Romney is again beginning to be the anointed to win the Republican nomination for President among the MSM and Conservative pundits. This is not pleasing to me; however the reality is people are looking at the present numbers and the potential future.

 

It is my opinion that it is not too late for Conservatives to have a GOP candidate other than Mitt Romney. What is standing in the way for that Conservative nominee? That would be the political egos of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. It is time for Santorum and Gingrich to make a Conservative deal that might run something like a President/Vice President deal. According to the numbers the logical deal would be Santorum as President and Gingrich as Vice President.

 

As it stands to date according to the WSJ Delegate Counter:

 

Romney: 415

 

Santorum: 176

 

Gingrich: 105

 

Paul: Not a chance in H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks

 

If Santorum and Gingrich unite at this point the delegate count for Conservatives is 281.

 

Undoubtedly Romney will score more delegates in the future; however if a Santorum/Gingrich team worked together there is the chance they could catch up at least and at worst keep Romney from acquiring 1144 delegates to win the nomination outright. I believe the Conservatives at the Convention would take over and select another candidate other than Romney which would undoubtedly honor a Santorum/Gingrich deal.

 

Without deals, Romney will be the next GOP nominee for President.

 

Dan McLaughlin over at RedState.com kind of brings the numbers and reality together in a post.

 

JRH 3/7/12

I am Still Leaning Toward Gingrich


Gingrich and Santorum 2

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?

 

By Rachel Alexander

Mar 01, 2012

Townhall.com

 

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

Obama: ‘Son of Islam’?


 

Franklin Graham caused a bit of a stir while on MSNBC’s Morning Joe when he said Muslims believe Obama is a son of Islam. Leftists went on a frenzy to condemn Graham not realizing the reality of Islam. The Morning Joe Lefties were remarkably rude implying BHO’s demonstration of Christianity was real and candidates such as Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich’s profession of faith in was at least as equal to BHO. And the Leftie panel hammered Graham by not listing Mitt Romney as a Christian when in fact Romney is a Mormon with a very different theology than the orthodox basics stretching across the Christian lines of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant theology. 

 

 

Raymond Ibrahim sets the Left straight on the reality of Sharia Law and President Barack Hussein Obama.

 

JRH 2/28/12

******************************

Obama: ‘Son of Islam’?

 

By Raymond Ibrahim

February 27, 2012

Originally: Stonegate Institute

RaymondIbrahim.com

 

Many in the media are indignant with Reverend Franklin Graham, head of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Invited on “Morning Joe” last Tuesday to discuss Christian persecution, the hosts turned the focus to interrogating Graham on whether he thought President Barack Obama was Christian or not. Though the Reverend concluded that Obama “has said he’s a Christian, so I just have to assume that he is,” he appeared skeptical, suggesting Obama’s policies disagree with Christian principles, and thus earning the full ire of much of the fourth estate.

 

Intrinsically trivial on many levels, this incident nevertheless brings several important points to the fore.

 

First, Graham was absolutely right to say that, “under Islamic law, the Muslim world sees Barack Obama as a Muslim, as a son of Islam”: according to Sharia, if one’s father is Muslim, one automatically becomes Muslim. In fact, the reason behind last week’s church attack in Egypt, when thousands of Muslims tried to torch a church and kill its pastor, is that a Christian girl fled her father after he converted to Islam: she did not want to be Muslim, and was rumored to be hiding in the church. (This would not be the first time in recent months that churches were attacked on similar rumors.)

 

Because of this automatic passage of Islam from father to son—with the death penalty for those seeking to apostatize, the condemned Iranian pastor being just the most visible example—and because Obama attended a madrassa (a Muslim religious school) during his youth in Indonesia, many Muslims are convinced that Obama is a “secret” Muslim. In a Forbes article, “My Muslim President Obama: Why members of the faith see him as one of the flock,” writer Asma Gull Hasan elaborates:

 

[S]ince Election Day, I have been part of more and more conversations with Muslims in which it was either offhandedly agreed that Obama is Muslim or enthusiastically blurted out. In commenting on our new president, “I have to support my fellow Muslim brother,” would slip out of my mouth before I had a chance to think twice. “Well, I know he’s not really Muslim,” I would quickly add. But if the person I was talking to was Muslim, they would say, “yes he is.” …. Most of the Muslims I know (me included) can’t seem to accept that Obama is not Muslim. Of the few Muslims I polled who said that Obama is not Muslim, even they conceded that he had ties to Islam…. The rationalistic, Western side of me knows that Obama has denied being Muslim, that his father was non-practicing, that he doesn’t attend a mosque. Many Muslims simply say back, “my father’s not a strict Muslim either, and I haven’t been to a mosque in years.” Obama even told The New York Times he could recite the adhan, the Islamic call to prayer, which the vast majority of Muslims, I would guess, do not know well enough to recite. [Read the entire article, which is more eye-opening than the author probably intended.]

 

Another reason why many Muslims believe Obama is Muslim (a reason Ms. Hasan’s article understandably omits) is that, under the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya, Muslims are permitted—in certain contexts even encouraged—to deny being Muslim, if so doing secures them or Islam an advantage. Accordingly, Islamic history is full of stories of Muslims denying and publicly cursing Islam, even pretending to be Christian, whenever it was strategic.

 

In other words, if an American president was a secret Muslim, and if he was lying about it, and even if he was secretly working to subvert the U.S. to Islam’s advantage—not only would that be justified by Islamic doctrines of loyalty and deception, but it would have ample precedents, stretching back to the dawn of Islam. Such as when Muhammad commanded a convert from an adversarial tribe to conceal his new Muslim identity and go back to his tribe—which he cajoled with a perfidious “You are my stock and my family, the dearest of men to me”—only to betray them to Islam’s invading armies.

 

Graham further upset “progressive” sensitivities by saying “All I know is under Obama, President Obama, the Muslims of the world, he seems to be more concerned about them than the Christians that are being murdered in the Muslim countries,” adding that “Islam has gotten a free pass under Obama.”

 

Yet who can deny this? Whether by expunging any reference to Islam in U.S. security documents, or enabling Muslim persecution of Christians, or ordering NASA to make Muslims “feel good” about themselves, or bowing to the anti-Christian Saudi king—the President has made his partiality for Islam very clear: Islam is undoubtedly getting a “free pass” under Obama.

 

What Franklin Graham’s critics fail to understand is that, when it comes to Obama’s religious identity, the Reverend probably has Jesus’ dictum in mind: “By their fruits shall ye know them”—that is, pro-Islamic actions speak louder than Christian words.

____________________________

RAYMOND IBRAHIM, a Middle East and Islam specialist, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum. A widely published author, best known for The Al Qaeda Reader (Doubleday, 2007), he guest lectures at universities, including the National Defense Intelligence College, briefs governmental agencies, such as U.S. Strategic Command and the Defense Intelligence Agency, provides expert testimony for Islam-related lawsuits, and has testified before Congress regarding the conceptual failures that dominate American discourse concerning Islam and the worsening plight of Egypt’s Christian Copts. Among other media, he has appeared on MSNBC, Fox News, C-SPAN, PBS, Reuters, Al-Jazeera, CBN, and NPR.

 

His writings, translations, and observations have appeared in a variety of publications, including READ THE REST

 

Santorum, Gingrich or Romney – Oh My


Romney, Gingrich and Santorum

John R. Houk

© February 9, 2012

 

I have been leaning toward Newt Gingrich as the Republican nominee to run against President Barack Hussein Obama. Largely on the basis that Newt’s campaigning has been a pro-Christian, pro-Israel and pro-Conservative message. I have been willing to look the other way about past positions Newt has supported yet has repudiated in the 2012 campaign coupled with his successes to help the House of Representatives a Republican conclave that meant Newt was elevated to Speaker of the House. Newt was the first Republican Speaker in a quarter century Democratic Party nomination.

 

Honestly before Gingrich I held out for a Palin run for the nomination. Governor Palin opted out so I turned to Palin-like Michele Bachmann. Bachmann demonstrated a lack of support for her campaign so I began to lean to Herman Cain. Cain’s personal life was scandalized by the MSM with the surfacing of women that claimed Cain sexually harassed them or had an affair. All categorically denied by Cain and nothing substantiated with anything but a he-said/she-said. Cain opted out either because of unproven guilt or the realization the character assassination was too great to overcome to win the nomination. I have never been a Romney ally. For me Romney Conservative bona fides never rang true plus as a Christian I have a problem with the Mormon religion being somewhat of a Gnostic-Christian spin-off cult of Christianity that lacks the orthodoxy to be thought of as a Christian Denomination. So that left me with the perception that Newt Gingrich was the strongest Conservative that countered Romney. (Note that Ron Paul is not in my support list at all. I love Paul’s domestic economics and despise his isolationist weaken American Exceptionalist foreign policy.)

 

NOW Rick Santorum has racked up delegates from Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota and won an influential Missouri straw-poll Primary. That is nothing less than remarkable for a candidate that has appeared out of the race from the beginning. Santorum’s Conservative bona fides are much clearer than Newt’s. I am beginning to feel like a ping pong ball that is being slammed back and forth between Conservative GOP candidates with only one constant; i.e. not supporting Romney for the Republican nomination.

 

VIDEO: Santorum Shakes Up GOP Race With Three-for-three Finish

 

The Media recently christened the GOP race as a battle between two rivals in Romney and Newt. The way I see it now is that the GOP race is a battle of two Conservatives in Newt and Santorum on who can win out over Romney. That leaves me in a position of waiting to see who wins the most delegates at the GOP Convention. The current up in the situation may not be known until Convention haggling if Super Tuesday does not produce a clearer choice for Republicans. In Oklahoma I am voting for Santorum.

 

I know Ron Paul will not win the nomination; however between Santorum, Gingrich and Romney, I will Republican on Election Day November 2012 AGAINST President Barack Hussein Obama.

 

Rev. Larry Wallenmeyer writes about Rick Santorum’s big day on Tuesday February 7, 2012 in musing about Gingrich and Romney as well. Wallenmeyer’s thoughts inspired my thoughts.

 

JRH 2/9/12

Gingrich Certainly Qualifies as a Christian Values Candidate


Palin-Gingrich

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)

 

Setting Record Straight of Left Exploitation of Gingrich Divorce to 2nd Wife

 

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)

 

Here are twelve quotes from Newt Gingrich’s book “Rediscovering God in America” courtesy of the website OnTheIssues.

 

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.

 

JRH 1/29/12 (Hat Tip: Newsmax and The Hill)

Conservatives Stand-Up to Support Gingrich


John R. Houk

© January 19, 2012

 

Newt Gingrich had a superior debate performance on Monday’s GOP debate hosted by FOX News. Mix this with Sarah Palin endorsing Newt in South Carolina to further vet GOP candidates by keeping the process active; i.e. to keep Romney from winning the nomination for the Republicans.

 

 

Well Palin didn’t actually say the last part but we all know that is what she meant. And I say good for her and good for Newt. Anyway the mix is this: It is time to unite behind a candidate that is the best person to represent Republican Conservatives. There is no way that Mitt Romney is that Conservative. He simply has a record of supporting too many Center-Left issues.

 

Regardless of some bad choices of hooking up with Alvin Toffler’s Left Wing Futurist vision of tomorrow, Newt has a better record of fiscal Conservatism with bringing the House of Representatives back to the Republican Party for the first time since President Franklin Roosevelt. The original Contract with America that Newt was the primary architect of brought a GOP majority forcing Left Wing President Slick Willy Clinton to move away from the Left to a more centrist position in order to work with Congress to govern.

 

A smart move now is for Conservatives to unite behind Newt Gingrich again. Only this time Newt will not be dealing with the Executive Branch as Speaker of the House, but will be in charge of the Executive Branch as President of the United States.

 

South Carolinians: Vote Gingrich on Saturday

 

JRH 1/19/12

We need an American energy plan — ‘strait’ away


Hormuz-Ayatollah-Uncle Sam

 

I am currently on Newt’s band wagon to the GOP nomination. So it should not come as a surprise when I cross post his thoughts. In Newt’s 1/18/12 e-newsletter he says America must be prepared to stop a Nuclear armed Iran, be prepared to confront Iran over the threat to close the Strait of Hormuz and to develop oil resources which are huge in America but are untapped due to über-Leftists agenda to promote ecology over economy.

 

Newt’s foreign policy agenda and the promotion of developing oil resources on American soil are thoughts congruent with America Exceptionalism. I say Amen.

 

JRH 1/18/12

Newt Gingrich’s Message is Anything But Political


Dry Bones Palestinian Quiz

 

Newt Gingrich spoke a truism a couple of weeks ago in an interview on The Jewish Channel:

 

“I think we have had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs,” Gingrich said, after affirming “I believe that the Jewish people have the right to have a state.” Gingrich went on to suggest that differentiating between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority is not always appropriate, as “both…represent an enormous desire to destroy Israel.” He also specifically criticized PA President Mahmoud Abbas, saying he did not recognize Israel’s right to exist; Abbas has said he won’t recognize Israel as a Jewish State. (Emphasis SlantRight)

 

For saying the Palestinians are an invented people Newt has been excoriated especially by the Left and by the Right as well. I applaud Newt for having the guts to speak the truth about Arabs that call themselves Palestinians. American pundits and politicians have been brainwashed to think of these Arabs living in Gaza and Judea-Samaria are a group of people entitled to a nation.

 

On the December 10 GOP debate Newt stuck to his and clarified his thoughts that the Palestinians are an invented people:

 

Is what I said factually correct? Yes. Is it historically true? Yes,” Gingrich said. “We are in a situation where every day, rockets are fired into Israel while the United States – the current administration – tries to pressure the Israelis into a peace process.” (Washington Post 11:36 AM ET, 12/12/2011)

 

Consider this background for the article Norma Zager wrote in defense of Newt and Israel below.

 

JRH 12/18/11

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 92 other followers

%d bloggers like this: