Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Newt Demands Congress to Impose Individual Mandates in 06 AND 07

In April of 2006, Newt Gingrich wrote a note on his organization's website, Center for Health saying "we agree entirely" with  Romneycare. He strongly suggested the federal government to model it.

Here's  the complete Newt Note:

The most exciting development of the past few weeks is what has been happening up in Massachusetts. The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system.

We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans. Individuals without coverage often do not receive quality medical attention on par with those who do have insurance. We also believe strongly that personal responsibility is vital to creating a 21st Century Intelligent Health System. Individuals who can afford to purchase health insurance and simply choose not to place an unnecessary burden on a system that is on the verge of collapse; these free-riders undermine the entire health system by placing the onus of responsibility on taxpayers.

The Romney plan attempts to bring everyone into the system. The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle, but the details are crucial when it comes to the structure of this plan. Under the new bill, Massachusetts residents earning more than 300% of the federal poverty level (approximately $30,000 for an individual) will not be eligible for any subsidies. State House officials had originally promised that there would be new plans available at about $200 a month, but industry experts are now predicting that the cheapest plan will likely cost at least $325 a month. This estimate totals about $4000 per year, or about 1/5 of a $30,000 annual take-home income.

While in theory the plan should be affordable if the whole state contributes to the cost, the reality is that Massachusetts has an exhaustive list of health coverage regulations prohibiting insurers from offering more basic, pared-down policies with higher deductibles. (This is yet another reminder that America must establish a cross-state insurance market that gives individuals the freedom to shop for insurance plans in states other than their own.)

In our estimation, Massachusetts residents earning little more than $30,000 a year are in jeopardy of being priced out of the system. In the event that this occurs, Governor Romney will be in grave danger of repeating the mistakes of his predecessor, Mike Dukakis, whose 1988 health plan was hailed as a save-all but eventually collapsed when poorly-devised payment structures created a malaise of unfulfilled promises. We propose that a more realistic approach might be to limit the mandate to those individuals earning upwards of $54,000 per year.

While the Commonwealth’s plan will naturally endure tremendous scrutiny from those who assert that the law will not work as intended, Massachusetts leaders are to be commended for this bipartisan proposal to tackle the enormous challenge of finding real solutions for creating a sustainable health system. I hope that Massachusetts’ initiative to provide affordable, quality health insurance for all continues to ignite even more debate around the subject of how to best address our nation’s uninsured crisis and the critical problems within the health system at large.

On a different note, I am pleased to report that our work on accelerating the Right-to-Know movement continues to build. Leaders in Washington are now demanding that Medicare disclose its data, and CHT is helping to carry the message to the states. During my recent trip to Sioux Falls, South Dakota, our work on accelerating the Right-to-Know movement played a key role. My host in South Dakota was state senator and majority whip Tom Dempster, who is the recognized leader in South Dakota healthcare policy.

Senator Dempster is responsible for passing legislation in 2005 that requires all hospitals in the state to post the prices of their 25 most commonly-performed procedures. The law takes full effect on July 1, 2006, and will be the first of its kind in the country. The Sioux Falls Argus Leader did a poll last year that found 85 percent of South Dakotans supported this law. Senator Dempster said he looks forward to working with CHT to develop transformational ideas relating to Medicaid, health insurance, and their state employee health plan.

Also, last month the Center held a two-day Pandemic Influenza Strategic Simulation with our partner and CHT member, Booz Allen Hamilton. The exercise, hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce at their Washington headquarters, was sponsored by MedImmune and Securitas. We were honored to be joined by 150 leaders of pandemic influenza preparedness planning drawn from federal, state, and international government organizations, as well as by business and health sector leaders.

Thanks both to Booz Allen’s excellent facilitation of the event and the insights shared by all who attended, participants have told us that they regarded the event as a great success. We expect to release a report of strategic simulation’s results and findings by the close of this month. (For more information, please contact Robert Egge, the director of CHT’s Health Preparedness and Homeland Security Project, at 202-375-2001 or regge@gingrichgroup.com.)

Finally, I want to take a moment here to challenge the Congress to put forth genuine effort to fix major faults compromising the quality of our health system. The House absolutely must pass a health IT bill this year. Hurricane season is fast approaching – how many lives will be lost this year to our disconnected, paper-based health system?
If this is not enough, here's more.

In 2007, Newt wrote an additional note in which he demanded Congress to take action to ensure every individual has health insurance. Included in his statement is a demand for individual mandates.

In order to make coverage more accessible, Congress must do more, including passing legislation to: establish a national health insurance marketplace by giving individuals the freedom to shop for insurance plans across state lines; provide low-income families with $1,000 in direct contributions to a health savings account, along with a $2,000 advanced tax credit to purchase an HSA-eligible high-deductible health plan; make premiums for these plans tax deductible; provide tax rebates to small businesses that contribute to their employees’ HSAs; extend and expand grant funding to high-risk pools across the country; and require anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year to purchase health insurance or post a bond.

a link to the entire lengthy article Newt wrote in June of 2007 



Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Whenever Obama demands we ask Osama whether his Foreign Policy is effective, We'll just Ask The Drone

The Obama administration has been boasting non-stop over the deaths of
Osama Bin Laden and other top Al Qaeda leaders as though Obama was the one who actually raided the building or participated in any of the other operations. In a recent email, the Democratic Party reminded the recipients that “Obama killed Osama” and the standard reply to all criticism from the right regarding his awful foreign policies is a conceited, ask Osama whether or not Obama is a foreign policy expert.”

On top of all the outright boasting, a movie detailing the Bin Laden raid is “coincidentally” scheduled for release
several weeks prior to the 2012 elections.

Although Obama simply can't stop patting himself on the back for the successful operation, the credit belongs to the military, intelligence, and navy SEAL's, as
Santorum and others have bluntly pointed out. America had built a great military which spent a complete decade tracking down Osama, and it was simply Obama's luck that they'd succeeded under his presidency. Their success actually came despite Obama and the limits the Obama administration has placed upon the military, not because of Obama. Obama, though, remains oblivious to the facts, and continues to take all the credit for himself.

Well, last week Obama committed a most ludicrous act and if he wouldn't be the president of this country he would've surely been charged with espionage, for there simply is no other word to describe the path Obama chose to follow last week.

Who would have ever dreamed that the president of the United States of America would opt to ignore
all three options which were available for him which would've destroyed the drone and prevented crucial information from falling into enemy's hands? Did Obama really believe that pleading on his hands and knees would frighten Ahmadinejad into returning the drone, rather than grabbing the never-again-opportunity of exploiting America's most sophisticated radar-detect-less drone? Of course Ahmadinejad laughed off Obama's request since evil only understand the language of threats and force. Much the same way he continues his efforts in attaining nuclear weapons despite Obama's and the U.N.'s protests.

Obama's purposeful neglect of the surveillance drone and of U.S. military secrets should not be allowed to slip off the radar. His acts of treason should be hounded and pounded upon throughout the upcoming election until every single American is made aware of Obama's disregard for his country and his endless appeasement to enemy countries, which have weakened and damaged America's image across the globe. Not only has he destroyed the American economy, but he has allowed our military secrets to enter the hands of our enemies.

One can sum up Obama's incompetent foreign policy agenda with one sentence; “let us ask the drone which was left intact for the Iranians to hand over to Russia whether we can afford for more years of Obama's policies.”


After the Nikki Haley Endorsement, the Conservative Media has become Nasty

The conservative media's current behavior in response to Nikki Haley's endorsement is not too shocking, since many had revealed their self-serving nature at prior occasions, such as during the 2010 elections.

Sarah Palin endorsed John McCain in 2010 for the Arizona senatorial seat, and understandably so, since she was his former running mate. In addition, McCain is the individual who launched Palin onto the national stage. Her endorsement of McCain was seen by many as an act of gratitude and doing that which had always been considered basic human decency. Despite the debt of gratitude she owed McCain, there were quite a number of conservatives who criticized her endorsement and even questioned her conservatism because of it.

Nikki Haley's endorsement of Romney for 2012 can be seen and understood in a similar light. Tea Party candidate Nikki Haley was one of many candidates seeking the governorship of South Carolina in 2010. During her campaign, she came under a considerable number of false attacks. Nevertheless, she bravely fought the attacks and forged forward, and with the support and endorsement of Palin and Romney ultimately won the nomination.

I've written two articles against David Frum and rarely agree with him, though I'm beginning to think he might be right for once. Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity may be creating a negative image of and causing considerable damage to the conservative movement. Just to make it absolutely clear, Levin is my favorite talk-show hosts and I listen to him and Limbaugh daily. However, their behavior of the last several weeks has taken a negative turn.

Haley's endorsement of Romney for the 2012 presidential campaign is an obvious act of gratitude and thankfulness for his support in 2010, and conservatives shouldn't blast Haley for attempting to pay back Romney for his support during her difficult campaign. Why do some conservatives find it so difficult to comprehend that she owes him a tremendous debt of gratitude and that basic human decency demands one to remember one's benefactors?

When Haley fought to win the governorship in South Carolina in 2010 despite false and harmful allegations, Romney stood by her side and expressed her support while Newt endorsed one of the others. I no longer remember whether the individual Newt had endorsed was a RINO or not, although Newt's endorsements in 2010 consisted primarily of moderates. Either way, it doesn't make much of a difference. What does matter, is that he didn't stand with Nikki.

Why has my favorite talk-show host Levin bitingly bid her goodbye? Why doesn't he remember that not a single one of the other current presidential candidates have felt it necessary to defend her, the conservative, in 2010? Why was that not enough to say bye to Newt and the others forever? Why are conservatives so eager to throw their fellow conservatives under the bus because they disagree with one single act they've done?

Besides, it just so happens to be that Romney's flip flops are pretty much equal to Newt's “change of hearts” regarding each and every single issue. Their records on most major issues are strikingly similar, and both of their records are sprinkled with conservative acts. Romney actually carries less baggage than Newt, and I say this not as a Romney supporter for I've criticized his flip-flops on many occasions. My original choice for the presidency was Sarah Palin, and since she isn't running I am currently considering supporting Santorum with Perry coming in not too far behind.

What irks me more than anything else, is how countless conservatives bash Romney and in the same breath bash those who unfairly attack Newt. Since when is criticizing Romney's record part of the vetting process, yet doing the same to Newt unfair attacks? The disingenuous two-faced acts of these conservatives does not go unnoticed by many of their listeners and readers, and I'm afraid their hypocrisy will lead to the weakening of the conservative message and movement.

Not only does the truth no longer matter for them, but with the
free pass they provide for Newt, conservatives will no longer be able to blast a politician for adultery, serial or single. Nor will conservatives be capable of lambasting a president for his big-government solutions if conservatives continue to promote Newt for the presidency. Unless we wish to appear as hypocritical and character-less as the left.

Now, with the waves of criticism directed towards Haley, one can no longer even expect from conservatives to act with basic decency such as returning a favor to a fellow human being.


Sunday, December 18, 2011

Video: Newt Rips Conservative who Support Conservatives

Newt Gingrich is currently playing the role of the Tea Party candidate, and quite convincingly so.

So successful is he in adapting new roles, that many actual conservatives have become so strongly convinced by his current talk, that it seems that nothing about Newt's opposing history is enough to convince them otherwise. And when I talk about his history that includes items from several decades ago, several years ago, and even barely several months ago.

This video is of Newt at the end of 2009 on Fox News, where he not only defends his decision to support liberal Dede Scozzafava over Tea Party candidate Doug Hoffman in a Republican district, but criticize those who support Hoffman.

Newt's smooth talk at the debates may convince some that he's turned over to a new leaf overnight, however this very morning on CBS's Face The Nation, Newt announced he would subpoena Supreme Court Judges who rule contrary to his liking. He explained that he understood that such action would create history, nevertheless he stood strongly at his opinion.

Thus, this very morning he's convinced me once again that the old Newt who loves historic moments such as sitting on one love-seat with Nancy Pelosi and partnering Al Sharpton is ready to do anything and everything, including items contrary to conservatism and the constitution, all to receive some limelight, attention, and the creation of historic moments.


Wednesday, December 14, 2011

What Line Must Newt Gingrich Cross for Conservatives to Disown Him?

The following article
I've written , What Line Must Newt Gingrich Cross for Conservatives to Disown Him?, appears on the American Thinker:

In the 2010 primaries, Charlie Christ, then-Senator from Florida and a Republican In Name Only, faced several serious contenders for his seat. One of the most successful ads used against him by his staunchly conservative opponent, Marco Rubio, was an image of opportunist Charlie Christ hugging Obama at a rally where Charlie helped promote the stimulus package. Rubio's constant usage of the image, which reminded the Florida voters of Charlie's support for the stimulus, was a key factor in ousting Charlie from his Senate seat.

In the few short years since Obama has become president, he's caused unbelievable destruction for this country via the weakening of our global image, the wrecking of the economy, the heightened division between class and race, and other ruinous policies. Any politician who had supported Obama in reaching any of his goals deserves to have his opponents harp upon it and to be thrown out of office, as happened to Charlie Christ.

It is now barely two years after we got rid of Charlie Christ, and I'm left to wonder what has occurred to conservatives' demand for character. If an image of Charlie hugging Obama was so powerful two short years ago, why doesn't the image of one of our presidential candidates palling around with a different demagogue receive a similar outcry?

Read more:



Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Obama Shifts Focus from Creating Destructive Job Policies to Creating Voters

Obama has embarked on a voter creation mission. No, I am not talking about Obama's massive voter creation he has actively pursued since the day he became president, in which he destroyed the private sector so that millions of additional individuals were forced to join those already dependent on government. Those millions of new dependents are obviously expected to express their gratitude for extended unemployment benefits and free health care at the voting booths.

However, all his herculean efforts have proven to be inadequate, for his polling figures are worse than that of Jimmy Carter. A new solution was therefore desperately needed, and our brilliant president immediately discovered the perfect venue where one can purchase cheap voters while simultaneously destroying additional jobs!

The Obama Administration has announced it plans to
slash the national guards protecting the U.S. - Mexican border at least in half, probably far more, citing budget cuts. You see, it is simply too expensive to spend ten million dollars a month for the security of this country, although trillions are available to throw into the failing pit of green industries.

With the removal of a majority of the national guards, illegals will once again be free to enter in the masses and enjoy free health care, free education for their kids, and many other benefits; courtesy of course from U.S. taxpayers. Most important of all, when election time comes around, ACORN will be able to register millions of new voters who will then cast their ballots for the Democratic Party. Voila! What a stroke of genius on Obama's part, although his experience as community organizer may also be credited in having helped him develop this plan.


The left has invested tremendous effort through the creation of programs to curry illegals' favor, the funding of ACORN groups which register and get them out to vote, challenging Arizona's immigration laws, and protests against voter ID laws, that removing security from the borders is simply the sensibly thing to do. It creates millions of new voters without them stealing any jobs from legals, contrary to the citizens' protests. After all, if there simply are no jobs to be found and Obama hasn't created any, how can they be stolen?

Ron Paul and Barack Obama both vehemently oppose a fence at the border, though due to differing concerns. Paul fears it can be used in the future to prohibit citizens from escaping communist America, while Obama is worried it will prevent or discourage illegals from strolling across the border. However , it might become necessary for Obama to take a lesson from Paul's concerns and support a fence in order to keep the illegals from heading back home prior to election day. As long as they keep on coming, though, the borders might as well be as open as possible.

Obama's policies will be discussed by future generations who will debate not how many jobs he has saved or created, but how many voters he has saved or created. 


Sunday, December 11, 2011

How long was Boehner, the RINO, in Congress & how many Bills did he co-sponsor with Pelosi? What about Newt?

John Boehner has donned RINO clothing far too many times throughout his political career, especially these last few years under Obama. Instead of remaining strong in his demands from Obama at the debt-ceiling talks, he provided Obama with a free pass with the creation of a mock Super Committee, and this is only one example.

The fact that Boehner isn’t very conservative is old news. What surprised me, was the information that Newt, who is also no conservative despite his and others claims, when measured against Boehner, is to the left of Boehner.

Boehner has spent a total of 20 years together with Queen Pelosi in the House, and throughout those two decades had co-sponsored with her 104 bills. Sounds like a lot? How do you like this? Newt had served in Congress together with demagogue Pelosi for only 12 years, yet throughout that time had co-sponsored with Pelosi a whooping 418 bills!

His chummy environmentalist ad he’d done together with Pelosi was not something out of character for Newt despite his protests that it was the “dumbest thing he’d ever done.” If the ad was the dumbest thing he’d done, what does he think of The Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989 he had co-sponsored with Pelosi, a bill which thankfully never made it out of committee?

Here’s a glimpse of the bill’s contents, courtesy of the
Daily Caller:

The legislation declared that climate change was “a major threat to political stability, international security and economic prosperity.”

The bill could also make the pro-life community uneasy with language about the availability of “family planning services” that included a declaration that, “curbing world population growth will be critical to achieving the goals.”

And while it prohibited funds from going towards “involuntary sterilization or abortion,” it doesn’t appear the bill would have prevented “voluntary” cases of abortion.

This is but one tiny example which illustrates that although Newt is NO CONSERVATIVE despite his current conservative talk. He’s been in Congress long enough for his record to speak louder than all his current glib talk, and his actions from even the last ten years are far more revealing as to what type of president he’d make, than all the speeches he has given the last few months.

It is simply mind-boggling to watch how so many conservatives have fallen for his smooth talk despite the fact that he’s often used his talent of convincing others to promote liberal ideas such as the Department of Education, gun control, and a one world government, and Bush’s prescription drug plan. He’s also used his power of speech to destroy conservative change such as Paul Ryan’s Medicare Reform Plan and Tea Partier Doug Hoffman’s campaign.

If we can all agree that Boehner ain’t a conservative, why can’t we all agree the same about Newt?


Obama and Reid Oppose a Bill which will provide national security, fiscal solvency, and decrease unemployment

President Barack Obama has shown true leadership cowardliness last week with his threats to veto the payroll tax cut extension since Republicans are adding on to it an approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which promises to employ more than 10,000 workers and decrease gasoline prices in the United States.

“Any effort to tie Keystone to the payroll tax cut, I will reject. So everybody can be on notice,” Obama announced. Obama accused the Republicans for playing
"politics and focusing on extraneous issues" instead of following his every whim.

If we thought Obama was the only one who cared more for his own reelection than the jobs of 10,000 unemployed Americans, think again. Harry Reid, senate Majority Leader and sidekick to Obama has announced last Friday that, “If the House sends us their bill with Keystone on it, they are just wasting valuable time because it will not pass the Senate.”

Approving the Keystone Pipeline will not only create many jobs, but will also lead to lower gas prices and increased national security since the oil originates from our ally, Canada, and will be processed within the U.S.

The only reason the Keystone Pipeline has not yet been approved, is actually the same reason why we aren't drilling in many oil-rich areas throughout the United States and that is none other than the environmentalists who have the Democrats sitting in their palms thanks to the grease they send their way.

Victor Davis Hanson wrote a brilliant column
which clarifies the importance and necessity for the country to become energy independent through the extraction of natural resources previously unknown or difficult to extract and cutting our dependence on foreign Arabic oil. New technology has made many oil wells previously thought inaccessible or too expensive, extremely doable – if only environmentalists would take a step back. Additionally, many new oil and gas wells have been discovered, thus greatly increasing our quantities.  

With expanded exploration and conservation, the United States could also eventually supply half its own petroleum needs. If we were to eliminate just 5 million barrels of our current daily 9 million barrels of imported petroleum, the annual savings could reach nearly $200 billion per year. Eventually, the new gas and oil could add another 1.6 million new jobs and add up to nearly $1 trillion in federal revenue.

That windfall would cut out about a third of our present annual trade deficit -- well apart from additional income earned by new natural gas exportation. "Investments," "shovel-ready jobs" and "stimulus" would finally become more than empty sloganeering.

Current crises in American foreign policy -- Iran's efforts to obtain the bomb, the protection of an embattled Israel, stopping the funding of radical Islamists -- might be freed from the worries of perennial OPEC threats of cutoffs and price spikes.

Federal subsidies for inefficient corn-based ethanol production in the Midwest also could cease. That would save the Treasury billions of dollars and allow millions of American acres to return to food production to supply an increasingly hungry world.

The Obama administration's efforts to subsidize "green" energy so far have proved both uneconomical and occasionally corrupt -- as we have seen in the Solyndra affair. Yet more gas and oil can offer America critical breathing space until better technology makes wind, solar and electric power more price-competitive -- without massive federal subsidies and a marked reduction in our standard of living.

Of course, there are sizable interests opposed to the new American gas and oil finds -- not all of them foreign governments, but instead reflected in the current Obama administration policy of halting new pipelines, placing moratoriums on offshore drilling, and putting lucrative federal lands off-limits. Yet if the United States does not produce much of the fuel that it uses, will the oil-exporting Gulf sheikdoms, Nigeria or Iran better protect the world's environment than American-based oil companies? Would our oil dollars or theirs be less likely to fuel terrorism, illegal arms sales and rogue regimes?

For the American poor and unemployed, how liberal is it, really, to keep energy prices high while stalling millions of high-paying private-sector jobs that would both lower government costs in entitlements and empower the working classes?

In the current presidential campaign, three issues dominate: national security, fiscal solvency and high unemployment. Development of America's vast new gas and oil finds addresses all three at once.

The idea of vastly expanding American gas and oil production in the 21st century is almost as unbelievable as the present administration's apparent reluctance to capitalize on its windfall.

You can read here the entire column


Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Gingrich has Co-Sponsored 418 Bills with Pelosi!

It seems as though every day, additional information is discovered when glancing through Newt's past.

Yesterday's News:

Newt Gingrich has named FDR - the president who BEGAN food stamps, social security, etc. - as "probably the greatest president of the twentieth century." Newt didn't just say this once and "regret it" on the campaign trail, but WROTE it TWO of his books he's written, one in '95 and the other in '06.

Today's News:

Newt Co-Sponsored 418 bills together with Nancy Pelosi! Here's the news via The Daily Caller:

Newt Gingrich has taken heat on the campaign trail from conservatives for filming a 2008 commercial on climate change with House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi.

But that was hardly the first time the Republican presidential candidate and former House speaker collaborated with Pelosi.

Gingrich co-sponsored 418 bills in Congress with Pelosi during the 12 years they served together in the House, according to the Library of Congress’s THOMAS database.

Gingrich was in Congress from 1979 to 1999. Pelosi has served since 1987.

As a matter of comparison, House Speaker John Boehner, who has served in Congress with Pelosi for more than 20 years, has only co-sponsored 104 bills with her.

Many of the bills Gingrich and Pelosi co-sponsored were hardly divisive: authorizing an award for Mother Teresa, giving a congressional gold medal to former President Gerald Ford and recognizing the 50th anniversary of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

But one piece of legislation could be problematic for Gingrich with conservatives: the Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989, which never made it out of committee.

The legislation declared that climate change was “a major threat to political stability, international security and economic prosperity.”

The bill could also make the pro-life community uneasy with language about the availability of “family planning services” that included a declaration that, “curbing world population growth will be critical to achieving the goals.”

And while it prohibited funds from going towards “involuntary sterilization or abortion,” it doesn’t appear the bill would have prevented “voluntary” cases of abortion.
You can read the rest over here.

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Rick Santorum, A Traditional Conservative Republican

Rick Santorum had served Pennsylvania for a total of sixteen years; four years in the house, followed by twelve years in the Senate. In the last two years of his Senate career, he had
an average Club For Growth rating of 77%, compared to an average of 73% for all Senate Republicans over that same time period. In the previous thirteen years before the Club had a scorecard, Santorum had accumulated an average score of 76% on the National Taxpayers Union scorecard, a non-partisan group that advocates for limited government. This compares to a 71% average among all Republicans.

Santorum is your typical pro-life, traditional marriage, conservative who staunchly opposed the raising of taxes and most big government ideas as evidenced in his votes for a balanced budget amendment and line-item veto power in 1995. I think of him as a traditional conservative and not only in regard to social issues. He hasn’t fought the party or stood up against Bush but voted along with a majority of Republicans for some big spending bills like the “No Child Left Behind Act” and Bush’s Medicare Prescription Drug Act. These votes, which were in support of the Republican president, were the expected behavior of conservatives at the time, thus giving a new definition to the term “traditional conservatives.” These traditional conservatives generally behave in a conservative manner except when party norms demand otherwise.

This is the type of candidate we’ve looked for and accepted in the past, unlike the “conservative reformer” we currently seek. Santorum's record is not that of one who has consistently fought corruption and he hasn’t taken on the role of the “sudden and relentless reformer” we so desperately seek in order to root out the corruption and cronyism Washington is currently infested with. However, the same is true of the rest of the field. (See Update below)

On the flip side, Santorum can't be described as the “bipartisan” guy who voted with a majority of Democrats against his party, a basher of conservatism, or someone who has praised the Obama agenda. The same can’t be said of Huntsman who has joined the Obama administration, or of Romney who had expressed great pride in running to the left of Kennedy, or of Newt who promoted Obama’s education agenda. Santorum has never done anything which comes close to such action.

Is Santorum the greatest conservative who will bring about “sudden and relentless reform”? Probably not. Can he be trusted to implement stick to his promises of basic reform such as overturning Obamacare and cutting down the size of the federal government? It definitely seems to be so.

Santorum’s strong stance for social issues, which has always been a top priority for many conservatives, is usually the first (and for some the only) thing which comes to mind, thanks in part to his repeated vocal support, and partly thanks to the media’s ability to focus only on the social sentences which emerge from his mouth. As a pro-lifer, I consider his being a social conservative as an important bonus which doesn’t contradict or minimize his promises to repeal Obamacare or his proposed economic plans which include the elimination of the corporate income tax for manufacturers.

Individual mandates, which greatly expand the power of the government and limit individual choice, is guaranteed to remain a hot topic throughout the campaign especially since the Supreme Court will take on the case prior to the elections. Three of the candidates, including the two current frontrunners, have supported individual mandates at some point during their political career: Perry wished to enforce mandates for the Gardasil vaccine, while Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney endorsed health-insurance mandates. All three have expressed great opposition to Obamacare and vow to repeal the federal health care mandate, and we can hope they will keep their word regarding Obamacare. The knowledge, though, that they’ve supported similar ideas in the past, indicates a greater possibility of them turning to big-government solutions when forced to deal with other issues throughout their presidency. 

Santorum, on the other hand, hasn’t actively engaged in promoting greater government control or turned to government as the solution to any and every situation on hand. Although Santorum has never really gone against the flow and has voted for several big-government bills such as Bush’s Prescription Plan, he stood together with conservatives in the opposition against Obamacare, Cap & Trade, and other bills destructive to American economy and American freedom.

Throughout his years in public service Santorum has taken an active role and had sponsored/co-sponsored many bills. His leadership was also visible in his endorsement of Doug Hoffman, the Tea Party candidate of NY-23 who ran against RINO party-backed Scozzafava. Santorum was the second conservative (Governor Palin was the very first) to throw their support behind Hoffman, who was unknown at the time.

Santorum’s biggest detraction is his inability to garner more than a couple of point in the polls which leads to people wary of supporting someone so low in the polls. He’s not the cool and calm guy as Obama had been in 2008, and his imperfect debates performances where he came across to many as whiny has not helped his image. Although he has adopted a somewhat better tone, he still needs additional improvement.

Santorum’s endorsement of his fellow Pennsylvanian Arlen Spector in 2004 - five years prior to Specter’s defection to the Democrats - is not that difficult to understand when taking into consideration that Specter was chairman of the Republican Conference in the Senate, and as such, was expected to support an incumbent senator’s reelection campaign.

Similarly, his massive defeat in 2006 where he lost with seventeen points may be a perfect bumper slogan although it was simply the results of a tough year for many conservatives who faced reelection due to the intense anti-Bush sentiments. Many respected conservatives in red states barely won with a small margin while quite a few seats went blue. George Allen, a conservative Senator who was up for reelection in the conservative state of Virginia lost his reelection bid in 2006 to Democrat Jim Webb. Santorum’s loss in Pennsylvania, which is a blue-leaning state and had gone for the Democrats during the last five presidential elections, is thus not that eyebrow-raising. Even with the Tea Party momentum and anti-Obama sentiments in 2010, Toomey won the senatorial race in PA with a mere two percent.

In addition to the anti-Republican emotions which ran extremely high, Santorum was smeared by many liberal groups such as the Trial Lawyers of America PAC who ran misleading television ads against him because of his attempts to pass tort reform.

You can see additional specific details of Santorum’s record, both negative and positive, at Club For Growth.

Voters who are seeking stability, substance, trustworthiness, and basic conservatism can find them all within Candidate Santorum and Senator Santorum. Although the dream candidate would be a conservative reformer, we are currently faced with compassionate conservatives, flip-flopping conservatives, conservatives in talk only, or a traditional conservative, of which the traditional version seems like the best option. 


I’ve originally written “Santorum has no record of having fought corruption …” but it has been brought to my attention that I've missed the important role he’d played as a freshman still as congressman. He, together with six other highly influential Congressmen formed a group known as the “Gang of Seven” who publicly criticized what is now known as the Housing Banking Scandal. The scandal, which involved over 450 representatives who were allowed to overdraw their congressional accounts without penalty, received heavy media attention mostly due to the diligent efforts of the Gang of Seven. Santorum’s involvement with the Gang of Seven gained him a lot of notoriety early in his career as an advocate against government corruption.


Monday, December 5, 2011

From the Tucson Blood Libel to the Operation Fast and Furious Massacre

It is currently close to a year after a large chunk of the media has falsely and shamelessly accused Rush Limbaugh, Tea Partiers, talk-radio, and Sarah Palin specifically, citing a map upon which she had placed cross-hairs at districts she felt were worthwhile investing energy during elections and which included Giffords’ district.

It mattered not that the blame for the horrific act rested solely on the shoulders of a deranged non-political lunatic whose obsession with his Democratic Congresswoman dated back to at least 2007, a time when Sarah Palin served as the Governor of remote Alaska. Once the fog had lifted and it became clear without the shadow of a doubt that the anti-Giffords Jared Loughner who committed the crime was as disconnected from the right and Sarah Palin as could possibly be, many thought the left would apologize or at least ensure to stick to the facts. However, the left has never tired of their obsession against Palin and continue to blame her for a deranged guy’s act.

Giffords has recently released a book and sadly chose to blame a proven innocent individual rather than supporting the truth. Her husband, whose doing the publicizing, spoke negatively of Palin during an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan despite the facts that the shooter’s motives were unrelated to politics and that the usage of targets on a map is an accepted act and had also been used by the Democrat Party.

The liberal tactic in blaming their opponents in the death of others despite their obvious innocence isn’t new. It has been played continuously throughout Bush’s presidency after the launch of the Iraqi war, with slogans like “Bush Lied, People Died” which blamed Bush in the deaths of civilians and soldiers instead of the terrorists who directed car bombs, roadside bombs, and other forms of violence.

Liberals have always been loyal to the ideology that “facts don’t matter especially if they contradict your message.” Thus, minor details such as that far more Iraqis have died during Clinton’s presidency due to Saddam’s systemic murders and gassing of entire neighborhoods than had been killed by terrorists during Bush’s presidency, simply had no significance upon the anti-war crowd. Heralding Bush as a hero who saved thousands of Kurds from unjust suffering simply contradicted their agenda and therefore remained unmentioned by the left. In contrast, Obama’s war in Libya was lauded by the left for its humanitarian and noble mission.

It is stunning to watch the leftists’ reactions once their political opponent can no longer be blamed, whether because of lack of evidence, evidence proving them wrong, or their nemesis no longer being in power. Instead of reversing the blame they’ve heaped upon their opponents and directing it towards the true guilty party, they either disappear without the slightest apology, or remain entrenched in their warped facts despite reality proving otherwise. 

This was seen after the details emerged as to who was responsible for the Tucson shooting. The left hadn’t redirected the hatred and anger they had expressed against Palin and the others towards Loughner, the guy truly guilty of the crime. Similarly, once Bush was no longer in office and their buddy Obama had taken over the reins, the death counts, protests, and chants have come to a mysterious end. These reversals indicate not only the falsehood of the original claims but tell us that these liberals have been knowledgeable of the true facts throughout their protests, yet nevertheless chose to proceed with the lies. How disgusting.

Additionally, the left personalize their hatred against political opponents and speak badly of the person/people instead of the ideology, and it often leads to improper behavior. It is therefore common amongst liberals to label their opponents as Hitler and Nazis, and joke of a longing to bring the life of a conservative to an end without receiving any criticism of the others. Since hating the person is deemed the norm in liberal circles, the media hasn’t found it necessary to protest the many death wishes made publicly against Palin and other conservatives since they too carry a personal hatred against conservatives and would have loved to see such threats followed through.

This is the polar opposite of the manner in which conservatives conduct themselves, and conservatives can be proud of their behavior. Conservatives strictly oppose the message and the ideology of the left without mocking or wishing physical ill for its messengers. The demands of fifty one conservative congress members, three presidential candidates, and many other influential conservative figures for Eric Holder to step down from his post as Attorney General is but one example of the exemplary behavior in which conservatives conduct themselves.

The American public in general and conservatives in particular were shocked to discover the details of Operation Fast & Furious, an operation led by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in which firearms were sold to suspected gun smugglers in the hope to eventually trace the arms all the way up to the higher echelons of Mexican drug cartels. Although it must have appeared novel to some in theory, reality proved the operation to be disastrous as they lost track of most of the weapons, only to have them repeatedly turn up at crime scenes and has been direct cause of the deaths of at least 200 innocent Mexicans and one U.S. Border Control Agent, Brian Terry. Since only 600 out of the 2,500 guns have been recovered and a majority of those were found only after having been used to commit violence, that death-toll is expected to at least double.

The conservative media deserves much respect and credit for their dedication to the truth, in only reporting information of which were absolutely accurate and of which evidence was available. Despite the information which traced the program directly to the Obama administration, there were no hasty assumptions and finger-pointing as liberals are want to do. Rather, they waited until they had absolute facts before placing any demands directly upon a single individual. What a contrast to Obama’s “I don’t know the details” but “the police acted stupidly” which then required a beer summit in order to undo the damage his hastiness has caused.

Those investigating the details demanded from the federal government two reasonable requests; transparency and responsibility. Transparency is necessary so that those who were responsible for this out-of-control program can be held responsible and removed from their post. 

The first individual of which responsibility has been demanded is Erick Holder, Attorney General, whose resignation has been requested by many conservatives in Congress since he was aware of this scandal yet did nothing to counteract it. For some unknown reason, the government has found both requests to be unreasonable. In the latest development, the grand jury indictment issued for Brian Terry’s murder was sealed last week by the Obama Administration, thus blocking the door for additional information to be released. As for responsibility, Obama has not yet demanded a resignation from Holder or anyone else.

The call for Holder to resign isn’t the result of randomly choosing one individual upon whom to pounce and throw some blame. Only after evidence surfaced which exposed Holder and the lies he’d said during the Congressional Hearings, did conservatives call for him to take responsibility for his irresponsible actions. Since the outcry was focused at the action and not the individual, it did not include any “jokes” which demanded violence against Holder. The only demand which has been placed upon Holder is resignation, something which should’ve been self-understood and self-enacted by Holder.

As an aside, it’s pretty ironic that the same administration who wishes to place additional restrictions upon the second amendment rights of ordinary Americans, and the president who has mocked the bitter folks who cling to their guns, hasn’t had any qualms in supplying guns to violent foreigners behind the backs of their government. 


Friday, December 2, 2011

Moira Crooks: Holding Out for a Hero – Why Character Still Matters

 Moira Crooks has posted a profound article at C4P focusing on the importance of character, the inevitable effects of a leader which lacks character, and the disinterest in character of an overwhelming amount of Americans despite the country having been founded by men of character who focused on character. Make sure to read the powerful example she brings towards the end from the not-so-distant past.

Whew! Wanna count how many times I've said character so far? :) As many times as it's been mentioned, it's obviously and sadly not stressed upon enough these days so let's say it once more; CHARACTER STILL MATTERS!

Where is a leader of good character when you need one? The fabric of American history is woven with political men and women of character. The honesty of George Washington who chopped down the cherry tree. Young Lincoln who walked miles to correct an insignificant error of accounting. Jane Addams, the founder of Hull House. Nathan Hale, who regretted he had but one life to give for his country. 
There once was a time when an individual’s character, principles and virtues were the first qualifications laid on the table when one was considered for political office. In the more than two centuries since the U.S. was founded, there has been a great shift in public attitudes toward the importance of character development. In 1790, the U.S.’ first President, George Washington, wrote to his nephew that “a good moral character is the first essential in a man.”
Lately we have been having a national debate over the issue of the private actions and personal character of public officials. Specifically we have been confronted with the issue of whether such a person ought only to be judged by his official performance in office, or also by his personal actions and his private lifestyle. In 2011, does character count?

On both sides of the aisle, Americans seem to hold a double-standard as to whether character indeed matters. Liberals, who professed to be appalled by the one accusation against Clarence Thomas, dismissed President Bill Clinton’s behavior as no big deal. Conservatives argued at the time, that character mattered. Liberals replied, in effect, that it didn’t. In 2008, Democrats argued that as long as you can get the job done… it really doesn’t matter what kind of character you have. In fact, a majority of Americans seemed to have felt that way and Barack Obama was elected President of the United States. 
Conservatives argued that character did indeed matter. We held up the tenet that “you can always recognize a man’s true character by the people he surrounds himself with” when discussing President Barack Obama’s past associations. Over the years, President Obama kept company with some disturbing characters. He connected himself with domestic terrorists like William Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn. He attended the church of an anti-American, racist minister, Jeremiah Wright for over 20 years. He is tied to corrupt people like Tony Rezko and corrupt organizations like ACORN. 
In our wiser moments, we have always understood that character, broadly defined, is important to possess for those in high public office, in part because it tells us whether our leaders warrant our trust, whether their word is dependable, and whether they are responsible. And one of the best indicators of character is the people with whom you associate. This is basic, elementary-school level common sense. Its something we are imparting to our nine-year-old son. As parents, we want him to hang around with the ‘right’ crowd instead of the ‘wrong’ crowd. We argue that the members of the latter crowd would be a bad influence on him, it would reflect poorly on him, and he might end up getting into trouble. What applies to my 9-year-old son should also apply to a presidential candidate.

Moira then took a quick skip through the current front-runners for the GOP presidential candidate, and lamented that none of the characters were men of character.

How do you separate the content of a man or woman’s character from their ability to lead? This question begs another, is the president just simply a worker bee in the hive of our nation? Is the role of the president to just be a mechanic of foreign policy and domestic concerns? 
Usually when we hire a tradesman to fix our house, we don’t care much about his personal morality. All that matters to us is that he can get the job done. Is that the way we view our president? Is he simply a mechanic, a contractor, a hired gun, of sorts? Or is he something more? Now, you might not care about the private ethics of your contractor, though you may. You might be careful about the kind of person you choose for those big jobs. Even contractors should be honest, one might argue, that dishonesty or immorality in one area of life might result in dishonesty and immorality in other areas of life. But one could argue that a contractor is valuable because he builds well and not because he lives well, that doing the task is the only thing that matters. 
Would you have the same attitude, though, about somebody who was to be a public spokesperson for you or your family, somebody that was going in your name? Would you care about the ethics of someone who was speaking to your children, or planning your future, laying the foundation for things that would deeply effect you personally?That’s different, it seems to me, because you’re not just talking about a contractor. You’re not just talking about somebody who will get a specific job done. You’re talking about a representative, an ambassador, someone who will represent you in a respectable way. You’re talking about someone who is planning your future. You’re talking about a role model, aren’t you? You are talking about a leader aren’t you?

Evidence that character matters in a leadership role can also be found in the story of post World War I Germany. Germany, like Egypt after the ten plagues, was destroyed. She was disarmed and allowed only minimal armed forces. She was stripped of her colonies and her naval fleet given to the Allies. The illegal (under international law) blockade of her coasts that had caused thousands of civilian deaths during the war was continued for a period after the armistice adding thousands more casualties, mainly women and children. The armistice that had been based on Woodrow Wilson’s famous fourteen points was reneged on and a harsh, punitive peace was forced on Germany. She was saddled with a huge war debt and staggering, unpayable reparations to the Allies. As the loser, she was unjustly blamed for the war, and treated as a pariah among the nations. The nation was in chaos. Unemployment rose to massive proportions. Inflation was rampant. Men were paid twice a day and the wives picked up the morning’s pay at noon so they could rush to the stores and spend it before prices doubled again. The social fabric was coming apart, revolution was in the air, and the communists were poised to seize power. The government, any government that accepted and conformed to the Treaty of Versailles, was held in contempt by the people. What happened to change all this?

A strong leader took the helm in Germany. He repudiated the hated Treaty of Versailles. He rebuilt Germany’s armed forces. He strengthened the economy and restored the nation to full employment. He suppressed the communists and restored law and order. He restored the nation’s pride and made Germany again a respected power among the nations of Europe. He was able to restore to Germany some of the territory taken from her after the war where millions of German citizens had been living under foreign occupation. And he was able to do all this without involving the nation in war. As some historians have pointed out, if Hitler (yes, you guessed right) had died in August of 1939 before the invasion of Poland, and the outbreak of the Second World War, he would have gone down as one of the most effective rulers in Germany’s history.

However there is no happy ending to this story. Hitler and the Nazis went on to lead German to another disastrous defeat and to national dismemberment. This time they were justly looked upon as a pariah among the nations. Again, what happened? What happened is that the character issue surfaced again. In spite of standing for many things the German people justly desired, and besides accomplishing some amazing things on behalf of the nation, there were from the beginning serious warning signs about the true nature of Adolph Hitler.
He had already launched an aborted coup to seize control of the Bavarian government in Munich. From the prison cell where he wound up he had written a book, “Mein Kampf”, outlining his radical program for the German nation. He conducted a bloody, murderous purge of his more radical followers to make himself more acceptable to the nation in his bid for power. Once in power he speedily moved to subvert the ordinary forms of constitutional government and to seize totalitarian power for himself.
The German people however seemed prepared to overlook these “character flaws”. The nation was strong and prosperous. Employment was good. What reason was there to complain? So they looked the other way as he seized total control of the nation. They acquiesced as he established a ruthless secret police and began to crush his political opposition. They accepted the concentration camps for undesirables and the politicization of the justice system to serve the ends of the Nazi Party. Finally they looked the other way as he began to implement his radical racial theories by persecuting Jews and Gypsies etc.
In short the German people gave their answer to the issue that lies before the American people today. They decided that character doesn’t matter. They decided that all that mattered was performance in office. Hitler had delivered. The nation was better off than ever before. Long live Hitler! But neither Hitler nor the Third Reich had long to live. Ultimately Hitler’s character flaws brought the nation to ruin and destruction. Ultimately character mattered.

Character continues to matter today. People can argue that we should overlook character under the premise of “judge not lest you yourself be judged”. However, I believe good character and effective leadership are as inseparable as hydrogen and oxygen in water. The president we elect is not just as a drone, not just as a worker bee, not just as a mechanic, a contractor in domestic and foreign policy. He or she is an ambassador for us, a representative of the United States, a figurehead, a role model, for good or for ill. That’s why he or she should be an example not just administrative excellence–a qualified contractor–but of good character as well. For me, good character births good governing by a leader.
Peggy Noonan, speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan made the following observation, “In a president, character is everything. A president doesn’t have to be brilliant…He doesn’t have to be clever; you can hire clever. White Houses are always full of quick-witted people with ready advice on how to flip a senator or implement a strategy…But you can’t buy courage and decency; you can’t rent a strong moral sense. A president must bring those things with him.”

Make sure to read the entire article over here.


Thursday, December 1, 2011

HIlarious New Perry Ad: pokes fun of those stuck on his Poor Debating Skills

In a short and brilliant ad, Perry pokes fun of his highly publicized brain-freeze! I found it hilarious and am sure you will too, whether he's your first or last choice as the GOP presidential nominee!


Follow me on Twitter