Transforming to Conservatism with an Illumination of Heresy


Proud to be everything Leftists Hate

John R. Houk

© August 8, 2014

 

Years ago when I became a Born Again Christian I began the ironic evolution (ironic because since being Born Again I am not a huge fan of Darwinian Evolution) of moving from a Center-Left Liberal to a downright Christian Right Conservative. And honestly there are quite a few Neoconservative ideas in which I have an affinity.

 

I began with this micro-bio of my faith because I read a fascinating article from the Acton Institute with the theme of heretics and heresy. I first became aware of the Acton Institute back in the days of the disillusionment I began having with the Democratic Party. Just think, back in the early 1980’s the Dems were not even close to being as anti-Christian as they have become under the direction of President Barack Hussein Obama. One of the last good Dems was still in the Senate – Henry (Scoop) Jackson – in Washington State where I grew up in Eastern Washington.

 

Senator Jackson was quite Liberal on most domestic issues (I am a bit uncertain social issues such as abortion and gay marriage). On the other hand before terms like Neoconservatism and American Exceptionalism was a political cause, Jackson was quite supportive of a strong military to confront Marxist expansionism embodied by the then Soviet Union. Jackson believed in supporting Western-style democracy in foreign governments to confront the totalitarianism that was the spread of the disease of Communism.

 

After abandoning the Dems I was not politically transformed enough to be a Republican. Hence in 1980 I did not vote for Ronald Reagan. Actually I don’t even remember the name of the Candidate I voted for in 1980 except it was the Libertarian Party’s candidate for POTUS. I voted Libertarian because of my disgust for Carter and my distrust Reagan (at the time) as a button pushing warmonger. It is in these Libertarian days that I found the writings of Lord John Acton, Ayn Rand (See Also HERE and HERE) and Ludwig von Mises. Libertarians promoted these people as pioneers of Libertarianism. Although my insight today is these guys though definitely espoused much of the Libertarian ideals, none of them would call themselves Libertarian in today’s sense of social Liberalism and Free Market Conservatism as expressed in this thought:

 

Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force-actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud. (Quote from Libertarianism: A Primer by David Boaz; Found at – What is Libertarian? Written for Institute of Humane Studies at George Mason University)

 

This train of thought sounded like a great compromise between the exploitive ravages of Left Wing Liberalism and the part of Conservatism I was not ready embrace, viz. a super military with the ability to threaten the people of Independent nations that live under a different political paradigm in which Americans are acquainted. Today I view the latter as naïve wishful thinking that people can just get along. The former sounded great from a Liberty point of view yet I came to realize Social Libertarianism did not comply with the Biblical view of God Almighty.

 

This social view hypocritically viewed the rights of female individuals trump the rights of unborn human beings in a woman’s womb. This social view deceptively justifies immoral living as acceptable as long as it doesn’t cause physical harm to another person. This is deceptive because if the Creator says it is wrong that means there is harm to the inner man (or inner person to feminists and Liberals) of an individual both in person and to those unwittingly exposed to immorality from another. And so, I abandoned Libertarianism.

 

I have found that the Acton Institute (actually founded in 1990) named after Lord John Acton promotes Conservative economics and Godly morality.

 

And hence I return to the fascinating article from the Acton Institute entitled, “Heretics and Heresies, New and Old”. Here Hunter Baker brilliantly demonstrates that a heretic can be something other than merely deviating from the orthodox principles of a particular faith.

 

JRH 8/8/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Heretics and Heresies, New and Old

 

By Hunter Baker

August 6, 2014

Acton Institute

 

You may not have realized it, but Tony Dungy is a heretic.  Does the former football player, coach and now TV analyst hold beliefs that are considered heretical by his fellow Christians?  No.  But his recent doubts about Michael Sam as an NFL player (you’ll recall Sam as the All American college athlete who has publicly announced that he’s gay), caused Dungy to be viewed as a heretic by members of another sect that is gaining adherents at a rapid pace.  They are more sure of themselves than ever.  Where once they pleaded for tolerance, now they sense that they are gaining the upper hand.  “There can be no tolerance for ideas that are wrong,” they explain.  And they are thinking it might be time to exercise new power.

 

Whether the issue is the HHS mandate regarding the provision of contraceptive products or new attitudes regarding same-sex romance and marriage, the group holding what might be called “progressive” attitudes has demonstrated a willingness to push those who disagree into conforming.  The Christian florist or baker must be brought to heel.  Maybe even sent away for sensitivity training.  When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a narrow decision in favor of Hobby Lobby, the secular-progressives howled as though some peasant had failed to remove his hat in the presence of the king.

 

The issue hasn’t always been sex or bioethics.  If we look back into the 20th century, we can see the Soviets persecuting heretics of a different kind.  In Russia, the heresy was the idea that the state should be limited or that people should be able to determine their own economic destiny.  Some heretics even thought (gasp!) that citizens should be allowed to own property. While they were at it, of course, the Soviets, and the Bolsheviks before them, launched a massive persecution of Christians that heaped up martyrs by the millions.

 

China under Chairman Mao had heretics, too.  These were people who had doubts about The Great Leap Forward and other plans set forth by the great leader who declared that “China has stood up!”  Some of the heretics were people like college professors who had to be humbled by being sent out into the rural areas to perform farm labor.  Others forgot to place pictures of Mao in their homes in prominent positions.  During the Cultural Revolution, packs of enthusiastic teens beat such people, including their once esteemed elders, with belt buckles for a lack of proper revolutionary attitude.  As of this summer, I think a few members of our own revolutionary vanguard may have wanted to take belts off and start swinging at the proprietors of a certain craft store.

 

The tragic thing is that we all seem to have a tendency to want to marginalize and hound the heretics among us. Deng Xiaoping was sent to a re-education camp by Mao Zedong for his incorrect thinking.  You might think he would, in turn, be an advocate for greater freedom of expression.  But who authored the outcome at Tiananmen Square?  It was none other than Chairman Deng.

 

I am sorry to say that Christians, who are rapidly becoming the heretics of this age as they were in others, are far from innocent in this regard.  They were persecuted terribly as an unacceptable cult in the Roman Empire.  When they finally gained acceptance, it was a great deliverance for them.  Official tolerance brought freedom.  Eventually, there was power.  While the first Christian emperor, Constantine, was not a great coercer of others, some of his successors were.  And we all know that the experience of the church in the west includes acts of savagery in war and the torment of heretics in times of peace.  Sometimes repression is due to a desire to retain power, but all too often we are willing to commit crimes against others because we want to bring the millennium.  According to this view, Paradise won’t overtake us unless a few committed people are willing to do whatever it takes (perhaps by any means necessary) to get the job done.

 

It is one thing to pursue visions of moral and spiritual excellence in a positive fashion.  We should feel free to exchange ideas and to persuade one another of the correctness of our views.  That is the process by which we attempt to discover truth.  But there is a human factor that turns healthy debate toward coercion.  It is the penchant we have for finding disagreement and disconfirmation unpleasant and unsettling.  We don’t like to hear that others hold a different view.  Our understandings of the world are precious to us.  It can be especially exciting to have some new view that seems to be enlightened in comparison to the retrograde mindsets of others.  We don’t appreciate it when these knuckle-draggers don’t get with the program.

 

But the temptation is always there to finish the process of converting the group with a little intimidation here, some official marginalization there, and the loss of privileges.  Maybe those people shouldn’t be able to run a school or have an important job or participate in the community in a variety of ways.  Brendan Eich, another new heretic who co-founded Firefox and was evicted from his own organization, can tell you all about it.

 

_____________________________

Transforming to Conservatism with an Illumination of Heresy

John R. Houk

© August 8, 2014

___________________________

Heretics and Heresies, New and Old

 

© 2014 Acton Institute

 

Acton Institute Core Principles

Integrating Judeo-Christian Truths with Free Market Principles

 

1)     Dignity of the Person

 

2)     Social Nature of the Person

 

3)     Importance of Social Institutions

 

4)     Human Action

 

5)     Sin

 

6)     Rule of Law and the Subsidiary Role of Government

 

7)     Creation of Wealth

 

8)     Economic Liberty

 

9)     Economic Value

 

10) Priority of Culture

 

Dignity of the Person – The human person, created in the image of God, is individually unique, rational, the subject of moral agency, and a co-creator. Accordingly, he possesses intrinsic value and dignity, implying certain rights and duties both for himself and other persons. These truths about the dignity of the human person are known through revelation, but they are also discernible through reason.

 

Social Nature of the Person – Although persons find ultimate fulfillment only in communion with God, one essential aspect of the development of persons is our social nature and capacity to act for disinterested ends. The person is fulfilled by interacting with other persons and by participating in moral goods. There are READ THE REST

 

Newt the Conservative Candidate


newt-gingrich-releases-new-contract-with-america. 9-23-11

 

John R. Houk

December 9, 2011

 

I have been leaning toward Newt Gingrich as a nominee choice for the GOP lately. Newt has been surging in the polls lately so I am guessing that I am not alone in that migration. Again I still like Michele Bachmann and will not hesitate to favor her again if she can get more support on board with her effort to win the nomination.

 

I am discovering though that Newt has many Conservative detractors that are calling him a Liberal or a Socialist in disguise. I am finding this especially among Conservatives that consider themselves among Independents and/or a Conspiracy Theorist slant.

 

My Conspiracy Theory buddy Tony Newbill echoes the complaint with this John Birch Society video that is a warning that Newt is not a true Conservative.

 

NEWT did you want to point out the foulness of The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler in 1994 when you became Speaker or Internationalize the USA?

 

Sent by Tony Newbill

Sent 12/4/2011 11:37 AM

 

 

NEWT did you want to point out the foulness of “The Third Wave” by Alvin Toffler as is described in this Video about when you became Speaker in the 1990s. You wanted the Congress to read this book, so was it to show the kind of ideology that was Infiltrating the USA policy making in Washington or was it to align with this ideology?

   
 

Please forward the video to the time frame 11:40:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWPz1Qdq1uI&feature=player_embedded

 

Below is a link that is set to start at the 11:40 mark:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWPz1Qdq1uI&t=11m30s

 

Kelleigh Nelson wrote a two part hit article on Newt Gingrich entitled “The Phony Right-Wing & Who is Selling Us Down the River? – Newt Gingrich: Part One & Two”.

 

Nelson begins Part 1 by describing Newt’s ten years in Congress as a closet communist by comparing Newt’s Congressional agenda to various Marxist ideologies. At this point Nelson calls Newt a Neocon. Evidently she considers Neocons as closet Communists because many of them actually came from a Communist background. The problem with her closet Communist assessment is that Neocons that were former Leftist Liberals abandoned Communism recognizing the utter failure of the Marxist based ideology. My perspective on Neoconservatism is that they are people that support Conservative values domestically and American Exceptionalism in relation to Foreign Policy and Foreign Relations. It is the less government – more government paradox. Neocons have rejected Big Brother control of the populace hence the less government domestically. Neocons see two objectives that need to be sustained (yes I know “sustained” is an evil word among Conspiracy Theorists). One objective is to promote any policy that protects American sovereignty as the world’s exceptionally best nation. The second objective is to spread American values internationally at all costs to promote a world that is more for us than against us. I realize these two objectives I have thought up are quite subjective and I am certain that intellectual Neocons could list quite a number of specifics; nonetheless in a nutshell I believe this is an easy to comprehend summary of Neoconservatism. Both objectives lean toward big government to maintain American Exceptionalism. Libertarians and Paleocons (i.e. more traditional Conservatives) have a problem with big government of any kind.

 

Then Nelson proceeds to list her perspective on Bills that Newt voted “Yea” on to contradict Newt’s Conservative bona fides.

 

In 1994 Newt voted:

 

1.   YEA to the National Endowment for the Arts

 

2.   YEA for 1.2 billion for UN peacekeeping

 

3.   YEA for the presidential line item veto

 

4.   YEA for 13 billion in foreign aid

 

5.   YEA for 166 million more for the IRS

 

6.   Led Congress into GATT with fellow CFR member Bill Clinton and then stated that it was a very big transfer of power.  It was, because it overrode Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution.  As well, GATT reduces the amount of money we can save for pensions.  He jawed with President Clinton in NH that he was a huge fan of FDR and Woodrow Wilson, two of the most despised early communist leaning presidents.  Remember Wilson gave us both the federal reserve and the 16th amendment, income tax.

 

He also voted:

 

1.   China as Most Favored Nation for trade

 

2.   Voted to supply funds to subsidize trade with the Soviets.

 

3.   Voted to transfer 2.2 million acres in Idaho to Wilderness status.

 

4.   Voted for federal funding loan guarantees for greater trade with Red China.

 

5.   Voted for taxpayer funds being available to foreign governments through export/import banks.

 

He is pro amnesty – Joe Galloway wrote in December 2010 that both Newt and Jeb Bush were pro-amnesty.  Gingrich stated, “We are not going to deport 11 million immigrants.”  How about 40 million Newt…send them home, they’re an invasion!  (Link (Link Dead))

 

He is pro foreign aid.  In 1995 he voted for 31.8 billion in foreign aid, but wouldn’t vote to cut foreign aid by a measly 1%.

 

Newt also backed a strong central government, strong environmental laws, national service programs, the United Nations Goals 2000 (which many Republicans voted for), federal financing of local police, and UN peacekeeping missions for our military.

 

Gingrich is pro-Obamacare and even advocated it in the 90s on Meet the Press, and recently.  (Link)

 

He did a Global Warming ad with Nancy Pelosi that is coming back to haunt him, but in reality, he is a big environmentalist. (Link)

 

Is pro-Gun Control — Newt is currently circulating a letter advertising a DVD called:  “America at Risk” for which you may obtain a copy if you send him $35.00 or more.  On page 3 of his six-page letter he says:  “Today the choice is yours:  You can either sit back and allow Barack Obama and the liberal elite to disarm our country, leaving us defenseless against enemies who explicitly desire to erase America from existence.”

 

If you are Conservative these points that Nelson is portraying should send shivers of distrust up and down your spine. Nelson’s point is that Conservatives should not trust Newt Gingrich in his current campaign rhetoric which has all the appearances of a Conservative Republican candidate.

 

I posted some thoughts on Newt’s illegal alien plan that included much of his 21st Century Contract with America which goes beyond the issue of illegals in America. That post is entitled, “Frankly I Like Newt’s Thoughts on Illegal Aliens”. Newt’s plan answers Nelson on the issue of the fake Conservative accusation. Frankly a comparison may connect Nelson’s indictment of Newt being a Neocon. I have Neocon leanings hence that makes Newt even more likable for me. You should note that Newt is NOT working a campaign with a Leftist message that government control the lives of American citizens. Newt is asking voters to send out their thoughts on how to improve America. Newt does not say he will use those thoughts; nonetheless it implies Newt would keep his possible Presidential Administration in contact with the little guy who actually thinks rather than is propagandized on how to vote.

 

Then Nelson joins many Conservatives with distrust of Newt because of the association with futurist Alvin Toffler.

 

Okay, so we’ve gone over what Newt has done in the past, and part of what he stands for, but we haven’t touched at all on his belief in Alvin and Heidi Toffler’s The Third Wave. To make it quite clear, Toffler’s beliefs are rooted solidly in communism, but dressed up thoroughly in neo-con speak and sprinkled with the tiniest bit of capitalism. This is why so many of our electorate are fooled by the RINOs and why so many of these RINOs go along with the communists in the Democrat party.

 

In 1994, Newt presented a list of 8 works he wanted everyone to read….first was the Declaration of Independence, second the Federalist Papers, and third was The Third Wave, by Alvin Toffler printed by the new age Progress and Freedom Foundation. Alvin Toffler is Newt Gingrich’s mentor, so we need to take a closer look at what Toffler espouses in The Third Wave. By the way he never mentioned reading the Constitution and for good reason. He wants to be rid of it.

 

Toffler believes mankind is entering a new system. To the founding fathers in his book, he wrote, “For the system of government you fashioned including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented, a democracy for the 21st century. …

 

Nelson proceeds to use an eight part article entitled Democrats in Drag by Steve Farrell as a data base to describe Toffler as a Marxist-Communist. Remember this is important to Nelson because Newt and Toffler are buddies at least intellectually.

 

Farrell compares Toffler’s book Third Wave as a futurist concept that has been used in the past. Farrell lists three people from the past he considers Communistic:

 

1.   Plato – The Republic

 

2.   Karl Marx – The Communist Manifesto

 

3.   Adolf Hitler – “National Socialism” which is Nazism which has Mein Kampf as the primary document.

 

Is Toffler a Communist? A Free Republic blogger quotes a New American article in which Toffler’s thoughts run like this:

 

In 1994, Gingrich described himself as “a conservative futurist”. He said that those who were trying to define him should look no farther than The Third Wave, a 1980 book written by Alvin Toffler. The book describes our society as entering a post-industrial phase in which abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, and divorce are perfectly normal, even virtuous. Toffler penned a letter to America’s “founding parents,” in which he said: “The system of government you fashioned, including the principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented—a democracy for the 21st century.” He went on to describe our constitutional system as one that “served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.”

 

Honestly the parts the New Republic blogger emphasizes certainly is the objective of Marxism especially as espoused by Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. Leninist-Marxism desires societal transformation via violence. Gramsci-Marxism desires societal transformation by infiltrating culture and government to transform society slowly by the rule of law with people not realizing what is happening to them. Incidentally BHO’s hero Saul Alinsky is kind of an American version of Gramsci-Marxism.

 

Here is a review of a book (Cyber-Marx – Aufheben) that includes a snippet of information of Alvin Toffler thought.

 

 

Information revolutionaries

 

 

The ‘information revolutionaries’ have revamped the post-industrial thesis as the transition to the ‘information society’ in which industry has been succeeded by information. The ‘revolutionary doctrine’ of those who have argued that this ‘information revolution’ is both inevitable and desirable, and to which one must adapt or face obsolescence is summarized by Dyer-Witheford in seven points:

 

1. The world is in transition to a new stage of civilisation, a transition comparable to the earlier shift from agrarian to industrial society.

 

2. The crucial resource of the new society is technoscientific knowledge.

 

3. The principal manifestation and prime mover of the new era is the invention and diffusion of information technologies.

 

4. The generation of wealth increasingly depend on an ‘information economy’ in which the exchange and manipulation of symbolic data matches, exceeds, or subsumes the importance of material processing.

 

5. These techno-economic changes are accompanied by far-reaching and fundamentally positive social transformations.

 

6. The information revolution is planetary in scale.

 

7. The information revolution marks not only a new phase in human civilization but also a new stage in the development of life itself.

 

Alvin Toffler is a former Marxist who has popularised these ideas and polemisized against what he now considers to be an obsolete Marxism. According to Toffler, as the information economy eliminates the factory so the legions of mass labour vanish, and with them Marx’s historical protagonist. The industrial proletariat disappears to be replaced by workers who ‘own a critical, often irreplaceable, share of the means of production’: knowledge. Thus the foundation for Marx’s theory of class conflict falls away – class as a collective identity based on adversarial relations of production will have been dissolved. (Emphasis SlantRight)

For the information revolutionaries, therefore, information technology has created a world in which communism is neither possible nor necessary.

 

This reviewer calls Toffler a “former Marxist.” Not so much because Toffler has abandoned the Marxist dream of a socio-political utopia, but because Toffler believes the Information Revolution (The Third Wave) will render class conflict irrelevant because the fruit of production – knowledge – will be shared across the class spectrum from the proletariat through the bourgeoisie. Toffler believes the Information Revolution will transform this world’s socio-political culture (or I guess cultures plural) in a natural evolutionary way.

 

So Toffler is not a Marxist in either the Leninist or Gramsci fashion, but he is a Leftist that predicts society-culture will abandon property rights and religion. I am uncertain about Toffler’s thought on free expression that would include both Liberal and Conservative having the ability to freely express thoughts on values; however it would follow that if Toffler believes there is a place for moral reprobates like homosexuals and transsexuals in his vision of a transformed society, and he does, I would have to guess religious morality (whether Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any other religion) is something to be rid of.

 

Thus Toffler’s vision of a transformed society-culture fits closer to Obama’s vision for “Change” than does Conservative and Family Values that is usually part of Republican Party platforms. So where does Newt Gingrich fit as a Republican vis-a-vis Toffler’s vision for transformation?

 

Newt’s 21st Century Contract with America is an awesome document of a Conservative paradigm reversing years of entrenched elitism governing our nation. A page on Newt’s campaign website lists three ways to reverse changes that have transformed Americans away from experiencing Constitutional Original Intent to experiencing the Liberal view of a Living Constitution that can be remolded to the views relativist rule that has enabled Leftist elites to morally harm America morally by attaching a European model of the rule of law.

 

Three large facts come from these ten specific challenges to the survival of America as the freest, most prosperous, and safest country in the world:

 

1.   No single, narrow solution can meet our challenges. These problems are so pervasive and so widespread that only a comprehensive strategy can break through and force the changes needed for America’s survival as a free, prosperous, safe country based on the principles of the Founding Fathers.

 

2.   The combined forces of the elites—in the news media, the government employee unions, the bureaucracies, the courts, the academic world, and in public office—will fight bitterly and ruthlessly to protect their world from being changed by the American people.

 

3.   Therefore any election victory in 2012 will be the beginning and not the end of the struggle. It will take eight years or more of relentless, determined, intelligent effort to uproot and change the system of the elites—laws, bureaucracies, courts, schools– and replace it with laws and systems based on historic American values and policies.

 

 

These three points are a part of Newt’s defense for the need of a 21st Century Contract with America. The page carefully avoids Leftist and Right Wing in his description of ruling elites. Also Newt’s defense does not specifically mention anything about Conservative-Christian Moral Values; however the implication is there with thoughts on Judicial reform and American education. One can see this implication in the last three points (of many) in a section entitled America is dramatically and frighteningly on the wrong track.

 

·       schools that no longer teach American history and generally fail to prepare young Americans for either citizenship or work (leading to a Nation at Risk, as the Reagan Administration described the effect of our schools 28 years ago and it is worse now);

 

·       increasingly radical judges who impose anti-American values on the American people in a repetition of the British tyrannical judges who were the second most frequently cited complaint of the American colonists;

 

·       a radical elite which has contempt for the American people, sympathy for America’s enemies, and overt hostility to American values and which dominates the universities, the news rooms, and increasingly the bureaucracies and the courts. (emphasis SlantRight)

 

 

Ergo if believe “American values” are the same as Conservative-Christian Values then we can assume Toffler’s futuristic influence on Newt is not a Left Wing brainwashing sycophancy. Does Newt believe the Third Wave Information Revolution is false?

 

I haven’t address this lately; however I am sure it will come somewhere around the primaries and/or the General Election if Newt makes it that far and on to victory. If I was to proffer an educated guess I would have to believe Newt still believes in a Third Wave transformation because of his past enthusiasm for Alvin Toffler’s works. The question that should be asked though: Does Newt’s thoughts on a Third Wave transformation the same as Alvin Toffler’s transforming vision?

 

The answer must be NO.

 

Newt’s 21st Century Contract with America is definitely conflicts with Toffler’s vision of a New World Order based on Leftist Humanism. So Newt’s vision for a Third Wave futurist transformation has to be based more on the Founding Father’s Constitutional vision combined with American Exceptionalism. The thought of American Exceptionalism contradicts New World Order Leftist Globalism. For an Information Revolution to exist combined with American Exceptionalism, a New World Order would look like a place that is friendly to American values. The New World Order would be a collection of sovereign nations watching over their own local interests while espousing legitimate representative government based on a free market in which globalism would translate into peaceful trade and mutual support rather than carving anti-social hegemonic empires based on top to bottom elitist rule.

 

I haven’t talked to Newt but I am guessing a man that has put forth the 21st Century Contract with America is not a disciple of Toffler’s Leftist transformation. Rather Newt is influenced that an Information Revolution will change the way we live and that American Exceptionalism must influence that change.

 

If Newt wins the nomination and wins the Presidency based on his 21st Century Contract with America and Newt begins to display Left Wing ideology, it may be the last time I vote for a Republican as a member of the Republican Party. This means at this time I am going to believe and trust Newt’s word more than Newt’s past. We’ll see how definite I will be in that trust as the GOP Convention draws near to place the mantle of nominee on a Republican candidate.

 

JRH 12/9/11