A Call For Unity! Washington Caucus this Saturday is our last chance to slam Romney prior to Super-Tuesday!

Romney has received a boost last night after having won Arizona and his home-state Michigan and he appears to be heading into Super Tuesday which takes place next week with a renewed momentum.

There is though one more election prior to Super Tuesday - during which ten states vote. The state of Washington will be holding their caucuses this Saturday, March 3rd, and if Romney loses the state, his momentum won't have a chance to grow before being knocked off its feet.

Conservatives have been split from the start of the primary over who they desired as the GOP primary. Some supported Rick Perry, others supported Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich or some other individual which chose not to run. Voting for any of the above except for Santorum or Newt might provide the voter with a momentary feeling of satisfaction. However, that satisfaction will be extremely fleeting if the candidate who is viewed by all as the most anti-conservative wins the voters home-state, and even more so if that victory consists of a small margin.

The only ones left in the race who can still overcome Romney during the primary itself, are Newt and Santorum. The majority of conservative voters are now split between the two with each of them taking turns in rising and falling only to rise once again. It is okay to disagree over which one of the two is better suited to take on Obama or for the role of the presidency and it is also perfectly fine to long for a candidate who is no longer/never had been in the race. 

However, we've got to be realistic about the current situation and take positive action in the areas it can have an effect. An overwhelming majority of conservatives agree to the necessity of taking down Romney and it is still possible to achieve this goal.

In addition to his ultra-liberal record, endless flip-flops, and outright lies, his nasty and vicious bullying simply has got no room in our party. All of us, and especially Rick Perry supporters, haven't forgotten Romney attacking and trashing Perry for speaking the truth about social security by calling it exactly that which it is; a Ponzi scheme. Neither have any of us forgotten, most of all of course if you supported Herman Cain, of the sudden mysterious women popping up one after another with harassment claims against the then-front runner Cain.

These are two quick examples from the start of the campaign which have become somewhat covered up in our memories due to the dozens of additional bully tactics the Romney team has engaged in against Newt and Santorum.

The most recent poll taken of the state in Washington was taken by PPP Polling during 2/16-2/19 - prior to the elections in Arizona and Michigan. The poll results had Santorum leading Romney with 11% with Santorum having received the support of 38% while Romney received 27% and Newt got 12% of those polled. Romney's numbers have likely improved somewhat since he's won two states this Tuesday and it's crucial to prevent him from winning this one last state before Super Tuesday.

If conservatives will put their differences aside for just this one day and State and unite behind Santorum so that the results of the Washington caucuses this Saturday are "a Romney Defeat," it will send an extremely powerful message to the GOP establishment. It will show them that we are serious in wanting our voice and message represented and that if they wish to force a liberal RINO upon us they will be forced to sabotage the conservative candidate by spending an average of 15 million dollars in every single one of the 50 states (39 to go)! Even after pouring all that money into negative attack ads and phony oppo research, they are far from guaranteed that they'll be able to secure enough delegates - and the nomination - for their candidate Romney, as we've seen in South Carolina, Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota.

I therefore plead of all of you, fellow conservatives, to do all that is in within your power to ensure a Romney defeat this Saturday. Please contact all your friends, family, and acquaintances in the state of Washington using twitter, email, Facebook, and good old-fashioned phone calls and ask them to vote for Santorum in order to stop Romney's momentum prior to Super Tuesday. Tell them that conservatives across the entire nation have their eyes turned upon them and are counting on them to provide Romney with the shellacking that he deserves. The voters of Washington may be the ones who will ultimately be credited in the crushing of the establishment and the return of the party to the hands of the people.

United in one purpose we greatly outnumber the establishment. We can do it and we gotta do it. Vote for Santorum in Washington and send the GOP establishment and Romney team a powerful punch which they'll never forget! 



 

If Romney is the GOP Nominee than Conservatism Dies with Mitt’s Contraception Lies

The discovery of another Mitt Romney lie or flip-flop barely causes any eyebrows to go up. Indeed, Romney’s expertise in the falsehood department allows him to lie with a bold and straight face. Rather, one would be stunned if it would surface that he had actually been consistently conservative on even a single issue; something which hasn’t yet been found.

In the Arizona debate last Wednesday, Romney falsely claimed he’d been pro-life as governor of Massachusetts. When questioned directly about Romneycare – that it forced catholic hospitals to provide contraception – he lied blatantly once again with his response “absolutely not.”

The BCI has done a complete exposure of this particular Romney lie, and The Right Scoop and many others have linked to the article, calling it a “must read.” I agree with the call to “must read” although I’ll also take it a step further.

Romney’s lies about his true stance on contraception should be viewed as a call to arms for conservatives. This primary has extremely weighty issues on the line, far weightier than who could beat Obama (something that’s impossible to know so far in advance.)

Romney’s lies on contraception encompasses three areas conservatives profess to strongly defend; character, truth, and life, and this primary will reveal whether conservatives are truly ready to stick up for their beliefs. Having Mitt Romney serve as a representative of conservatives will signal that we are willing to look the other way when the person in question is not from the Democrat Party and that we are fraudulent with our convictions. We therefore must stand strong against Romney, clearly express our distaste and disapproval of him, and fight his candidacy with all our might.

With his lies about contraception at the debate Romney has shown that neither truth, nor life, nor character matter to him. Nor does an individual’s or an institution’s freedom to choose what actions they wish to take, for Romneycare – like Obamacare – also imposed mandates.

Here’s an excerpt of the BCI's article on the truth about Romney and his position on requiring catholic hospitals to provide contraceptive measures and make sure to read the entire article at The BCI.

1975. Massachusetts statute passed which allowed private hospitals to opt out of abortion, sterilization, and contraception.

2002: When Mitt Romney was running for governor, he filled out a questionnaire for NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, and in response to a question, “…Will you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception?” Romney said: “Yes.”

2004: the Massachusetts legislature considered an “emergency contraception” mandate. It would have required all hospitals to inform rape victims of the availability of such “emergency contraceptives” and provide them to the rape victim if she wanted them even when they would cause an abortion. Maria Parker of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the public policy organization of the state’s Catholic bishops, explained in testimony to the state legislature why Catholic hospitals could not do this.

That bill passed in the State Senate, but not in the House.

2005: Emergency contraception bill passes Senate and House, with veto-proof majority in both chambers of the Democrat-controlled legislature. In July, the House and Senate reached a compromise on it that would protect Catholic hospitals from being forced to act against their faith.

July 25, 2005: Romney vetoed the bill — even though it was clear his veto would be overridden.

He published an op-ed in the Boston Globe the next day explaining his decision. “The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception,” he wrote. “The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception.” Romney said the veto kept his pledge not to change the state’s abortion laws.

Romney made no mention of the religious liberty issue in his op-ed. But then, the bill, as the Massachusetts Catholic Conference and the House majority leader understood it, did not allow coercion of Catholic hospitals.

Dec. 7, 2005: a week before the law was to take effect, the Boston Globe ran an article headlined, “Private hospitals exempt on pill law“. The article said the state Department of Public Health had determined that the emergency contraception law “does not nullify a statute passed years ago that says privately run hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception.”

Public Health Commissioner Paul Cote Jr. told the Globe: “We felt very clearly that the two laws don’t cancel each other out and basically work in harmony with each other.”

Romney spokesman Fehrnstrom told the Globe that Romney agreed with the Department of Public Health on the issue. The governor, he said, “respects the views of health care facilities that are guided by moral principles on this issue.”

“The staff of DPH did their own objective and unbiased legal analysis,” Romney’s spokesman told the Globe. “The brought it to us, and we concur in it.”

December 8, 2005: The Globe itself ruefully bowed to this legal analysis. It ran an editorial headlined: “A Plan B Mistake.” “The legislators failed, however,” the Globe said, “to include wording in the bill explicitly repealing a clause in an older statute that gives hospitals the right, for reasons of conscience, not to offer birth control services.”

Liberals joined in attacking Romney’s defense of Catholic hospitals. But that defense did not last long.

The same day the Globe ran its editorial, Romney held a press conference. Now he said his legal counsel had advised him the new emergency contraception law did trump the 1975 conscience law.

“On that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view,” Romney said. “In my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape.”

December 9, 2005: Boston Globe reports, “Romney says no hospitals are exempt from pill law“.“Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state’s new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds.”

Lifesite News reported at the time, “Romney Does Flip-Flop and Forces Catholic Hospitals to Distribute Morning-After-Pill”:

In a shocking turn-around, Massachusetts’s governor Mitt Romney announced yesterday that Roman Catholic and other private hospitals in the state will be forced to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims under new state legislation, regardless of the hospitals’ moral position on the issue.

December 16, 2005: Archdiocesan newspaper, The Pilot, reports, “Romney: emergency contraception law applies to Catholic hospitals”

A constitutional law expert advising BCI says that the legislative intent was clearly to allow the 1975 statute to prevail. The formulation of the regulations is supposed to follow the legislative intent. Romney actually violated the law and his oath of office by NOT going with the legislative intent, and overruling the legislative intent (as well as the Constitution).

But it was not merely a legal interpretation by the legal counsel to Romney. Romney said he personally thought it was the “right thing” for hospitals to provide access to emergency contraception for any rape victims.

There is another Option for Floridians besides for Mr. Right-Wing Social Engineering

Below are several excerpts of an article I've written which appears today on American Thinker.

... 

Teaming up with even one liberal in order to promote a single aspect of liberalism is usually reason enough for conservatives to dump and despise a candidate. Newt has palled around with, teamed up with, and praised the vile Al Sharpton as one who "did a lot of good things" despite Sharpton having organized riots which resulted in the deaths of at least a dozen innocent individuals. And Newt's chummy behavior with a liberal like Al wasn't a one-time occurrence. He's joined a whole lot of liberals, including Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Arne Duncan.

Yet, contrary to the norm, Newt isn't despised for his love of liberals and their big-government ideas.
...

Regarding his vote under Carter in support of the creation of a Department of Education, Newt can't say that he was merely following the will of the conservative voters in Georgia, whom he supposedly represented. Nor can he throw back at the Georgians his vote as speaker for an additional 3.5 billion dollars for the Department of Education, which was the largest single increase that department has ever received. Ditto for his Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989, co-sponsored with Nancy Pelosi, which declared that climate change is "a major threat to political stability, international security and economic prosperity." Similarly, Newt's co-sponsoring the 1987 Pro-Fairness Doctrine was the result not of pressure from his constituents, but instead of his own big-government beliefs.

Even after he resigned, Newt spent hours persuading and cajoling fellow Republicans to vote for government-expansion bills. He supported individual mandates as late as May of 2011, Bush's amnesty for illegals in '04, government intervention to control global warming, and TARP, to name a few. In 2003, Newt demanded that "[e]very conservative member of Congress should vote" for Bush's prescription drug bill despite the fact that it added $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Prior to the 2010 midterm elections, Newt melted the phones of conservatives to ensure that social issues wouldn't be discussed.
...

There is another candidate whose record is far more conservative than the others despite having represented a purple-blue state. He didn't flip-flop his positions to please voters or garner media attention; instead, he remained true to his family and ideals because of inner convictions. He was and is a proud pro-lifer and a supporter of traditional marriage, lower taxes, and smaller government. He actually listened to the voices of those who sent him to Washington prior to voting and didn't originally support amnesty for illegals or federal action to curb global warming, as Newt and Romney have. And unlike Newt, this candidate actually supported some Tea Party conservatives over RINOs in the 2010 primaries.

This candidate is none other than Rick Santorum, who, as a newcomer to Congress, joined six others and fought corruption in both parties in what became known as the Gang of Seven while Newt -- the old-timer -- said nary a word. Rick Santorum has never linked hands with the left to destroy conservatism or grow liberalism, as Newt has. As a freshman in the Senate, it was Rick Santorum who led the fight for welfare reform and has been credited for its success, and it is Rick Santorum who continues to champion for entitlement reform. On the flip-side, although Newt supported welfare reform in the House, he also led the successful fight against entitlement reform, and again, he expressed his ardent support of Medicare in Florida this past week.

Newt can best be characterized as the Rod Blagojevich of the Republican Party: a smooth talker wearing a righteous mask who loves attention and makes a lot of noise. When removing his outer layer, though, one discovers a corrupted, immoral individual who has never met a liberal idea he hadn't tasted, liked, and then clothed in conservative clothing.

Three states have held primaries/caucuses so far, and three separate candidates won, so the race is still wide open. Floridian voters, cast your ballots wisely.

Please click here  To read the entire article.

Video: Conservatives Criticize Haley for endorsing Romney yet disregard Newt's endorsement of Pelosi Law for the USA

 

 

Below are several additional shocking videos of Newt in his own words bashing conservatism! You probably haven't seen these since the Newt Supporters don't want anyone to become aware of his non-conservative past.

Video: Newt Stumped for a State Department Increase of 50% in 2007  

Shocker Video! Newt Gingrich Demands the GOP to Drop Conservatism in order to win California and Maine  

 
Video: Newt Rips Conservative who Support Conservatives

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. 


UPDATE:

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.

The New Hampshire Union Leader Tells Us We Need a Leader – Even if He Leads us in the Wrong Direction

The Union Leader endorsed Newt Gingrich and explained within the endorsement that although they don’t agree with him straight down the line, he’s still better than those who say whatever one wants to hear without saying their true opinion on the matter, thus taking a swipe at Romney. They lauded Newt for his “positive leadership” he has shown capable of providing and which, they informed their readers, is what we currently are in critical need of.

The Union Leader, the largest and only statewide newspaper in New Hampshire, is absolutely correct in one aspect of their endorsement: leadership is crucial and sorely lacking. However, in addition to leadership, one must weigh whether the leader will lead in the right direction. Harry Reid is a hell of a leader, but I sure don’t want him to ever be president.

It’s easier to understand where I’m heading in this article with the following scenario.

Suppose you need to travel east, have no car for whatever reason, and are given a choice between the following three drivers: The first is a top notch driver who is traveling west. The second driver is a seasoned traveler who is traveling east but insists on racing down the highway against the wrong side of the traffic. The third guy, who has recently received his driving license, will also be driving east and promises to abide all laws, stay within the speed-limit and proper lane, and be really careful.

Which one would you choose?

Any sane individual would choose number three despite the greater qualifications of the other two since one is heading in the wrong direction while the other is heading straight into the face of danger.

The Union Leader has thrown their support behind a true leader, but where has he led us to in the past? 

He’s led to the destruction of Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan. It may have taken lots of guts, experience, and leadership to brand his plan “right-wing social engineering” but is that what we are seeking? He’s led the way to "Green Conservatism" and boldly proclaimed the need to act upon global warming on a couch with Nancy Pelosi. That was speeding down the road against the wrong side of traffic while weaving between the cars rushing straight into him.

Only a leader like Newt had been capable to convince enough Republicans to vote for Clinton’s bill, The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which placed many restrictions upon the 2nd amendment and increased the scope and power of the federal government. Newt was the leading conservative to fight a Tea Party candidate who ran in NY-23, by endorsing his opponent Scozzafava; a big-government radical who ran wearing GOP clothing.. (Perhaps he identified with her for he too has donned conservative clothing despite its clash with his interior.)

Examples of Newt’s leadership are countless though the results have often proven to be positive for the left and not the right.

The Union Leader’s endorsement of Newt should not be reason enough for a true conservative to change their mind and follow blindly. We can and should all choose a leader but one which we can trust will drive this country in the right direction.

An Open Letter to Professor William Jacobson

There are not too many political bloggers of whom I can say that I’ve agreed almost everything they’ve written the last several years. Professor William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection is one such an individual whose articles I read daily and generally nod along in agreement. It has therefore been a great honor for me, some time ago, to have been named as the “blog of the day” on his site.

It is precisely because of the respect and admiration that I have for his opinion that I’ve opted to pen this open letter directly to him though it’s applicable to all conservative Newt supporters.

Newt’s negatives won’t receive much scrutiny from his supporters, since they claim that his negatives are known, often twisted out of proportion, and apologized for. The most-oft repeated reason cited by conservative Newt supporters, is that they’ve chosen to disregard his flaws out of a lack for an alternative candidate whom they feel they can support. However, supporting a candidate for the presidency only because one has no one else to support isn’t a good enough excuse.

Yes, perhaps no one else is as articulate, polished, and experienced as Newt, thus resulting in anticipation for an Obama/Newt debate at which they envision Newt squashing Obama. However, anyone who has watched the 2008 debates will recall that Obama is actually an extraordinarily talented bluffer. He coolly and smoothly recited one outright lie after another, often prefaced with additional untruths like “I’ve always said that…” He created facts at the spur of the moment and openly contradicted past statements without the slightest hint of unease. If Newt is the candidate, Obama may simply have to spin some more lies, content in the knowledge that the media will cover for him.

Even if Newt makes minced meat out of Obama, in supporting Newt one has got to consider the consequences their support will have on the conservative brand.

Many conservatives had blasted the Democrat Party during the primary of 2008 for their shameless support of the radically liberal Obama. The conservatives who protested an Obama candidacy did so despite his almost nonexistent voting record since Obama’s voted “present” at every opportunity presented to him. With no record, what had caused conservatives to write him off as a radical left wing creature? Quite simply. They looked at the individuals he has associated with, for it is known that if one wishes to know what type of person an individual is one should look at those they associate with. Since his associates were of the most radical nature possible, it was obvious Obama was cut of the same cloth.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and many others therefore delved into the non-repentance of terrorist William Ayers and played audios of Obama’s reverend, Jeremiah Wright, cursing America, followed by Obama’s refusal to condemn them.

Majority of the right were unable to grasp how one can trust an unknown guy with such extreme radical ties with the presidency of the USA only because it was the cool thing to do and because it allowed one to be part of an historic event. Arguments of supporters included praise over his intelligence, articulation, ability to unite all fractions, and guarantee to victory, but conservatives wouldn’t accept any as a valid excuse to condone the Democrat Party’s support of Obama.

Couldn’t conservatives comprehend that putting Obama on the ballot provided an opportunity for many white people to assuage their guilt over their racist past by allowing them to pull the lever for a (half) black individual? Why couldn’t the conservative movement understand that no other Democratic candidate except for Obama would be able to accuse the other party for mocking his name and his looks? Was it so difficult to accept that no other candidate would have received the complete pass and adoration of the media that Obama got? Or that only he was capable of exciting the masses, drawing record-breaking crowds, attracting unheard of number of college students, give a voice to minorities, and be heralded as the messiah?

As a conservative, the responses they’ve given for supporting Obama had been incomprehensible to me, and I was glad and proud to be part of the conservative movement which valued character. Barely three years have passed, and to my utter dismay and disappointment I am shocked to watch as many within the conservative movement have expressed their support for Newt despite his association and praise for an individual whose hands are smeared with blood. How can one condone their support for Newt with excuses such as he’s the most intelligent, articulate, smooth talker when three years ago we wouldn’t accept a similar argument?

As a New Yorker I have been and am constantly exposed to the atrocities of Al Sharpton, and understand it’s pretty likely that many of you are unaware of his hatred-inciting nature and violent background. I’ve therefore penned a lengthy article detailing the atrocities of Al Sharpton, Newt’s chumminess with Sharpton, and the hypocrisy of the conservatives who are supporting him.

I therefore plead of you, William Jacobson, and all other Newt supporters to take the time and read the article, Resist We Much … Mr. Gingrich, with an open mind, give the matter careful consideration, and then decide whether you can continue supporting Newt.

The argument for Newt that he’s got a long record of accomplishments (including many non-conservative items) may be a valid one (though he’s also got a record of lobbying and not necessarily for conservative interests). However, even with a perfect record, his association with Al Sharpton is outright despicable and enough of a cause for conservatives to distance themselves from Newt.

Resist We Much … Mr. Gingrich for he’s Character Assassination for Conservatism

Updated 12/21/12:

Newt Gingrich was confronted by a African American in South Carolina about his declaration that teenagers should work. Newt replied that "I know Al" and he'd be glad to discuss it with him. In the article below you will see Newt's relationship with Al Sharpton and exactly what's so wrong with that.

After election night of 2008 had passed with Obama having emerged victorious, many conservatives were disappointed to hear that a powerful McCain ad had gone unaired due to McCain’s refusal to mention Obama’s anti-American Pastor. The ad, leaked after the elections were over, highlighted the very different paths the two candidates had taken as young men.

Narrator: Long before anyone knew who John McCain or Barack Obama were, one chose to honor his fellow soldiers by refusing to walk out of a prisoner of war camp. The other chose not to even walk out of a church where a pastor was spewing hatred.

Rev. Wright: Not God bless America! God damn America!

Narrator: Character matters, especially when no one’s looking.

No candidate is perfect since no human being is without flaws. It is therefore crucial for every individual to carefully research the strengths and flaws of each candidate and then choose to support a candidate despite his or her flaws. Obviously each individual will tolerate different flaws. For instance, some consider social issues to be a major deciding factor while others focus on a candidate’s voting record and yet a third individual look at executive experience as a priority. For most conservatives all of these are pretty high on the list.

There is one vital component, however, which a candidate must have and which takes absolute priority above everything else; character. Character is what has made this country a beacon of light amongst the nations and what gives a person the strength to choose right from wrong. How can an individual be trusted to practice what they preach, fulfill their promises, and to make the correct choices in the unknown future if they lack basic character?

In 2008 McCain was of the minority amongst the conservative movement who opposed airing the above ad and who refused to denounce the fact that the Obamas had attended Wright’s church for over twenty years. The 2012 primary though is revealing that a considerable chunk and perhaps even a majority of the conservative movement no longer view character as a vital component of a candidate. With their support for a characterless candidate, they inevitably condone Obama’s friendship with terrorist William Ayers and the fact that Jeremiah Wright was privileged to have the Obama’s attend his church for over two decades.

Newt’s campaign has recently been gaining an increasing amount of traction as more and more conservative express their support for his candidacy. He has made a favorable impression on many thanks to his expert debating skills, his steadfastness to conservative talk, and his dignified presidential manner at the debates when he refused to engage in petty attacks against the others. These are indeed positive qualities and the excitement for an Obama/Gingrich debate is easily understood. However, it is crucial to stop and consider while one is still able, whether the serious implication that will result if the bulk of the conservative movement throws its support behind Newt is worth it, even it leads to victory. For Newt’s character is seriously lacking.

Two short years ago Gingrich had proudly teamed up, at the behalf of Obama, with the rabble-rousing demagogue Al Sharpton to promote the Obama administration’s education policies. Awareness of their joint project was accomplished via rallies across the country and appearances on Sunday TV Shows.

I couldn’t imagine where and what has qualified Al Sharpton to be an education expert until I remembered Obama’s response when questioned about his association with the terrorist William Ayers. Obama spoke of a guy he knew who worked in the education field with nary a mention of Ayers’ terrorist past, his continued support of terrorism after 9/11, or their true relationship. With education experts such as Ayers and Sharpton one has got the answer to the problems plaguing the education system at one’s fingertips.

Several months prior to the Gingrich/Sharpton education stint, Gingrich graced Al Sharpton’s annual National Action Network Conference. For those unfamiliar, the National Action Network serves as Sharpton’s front, is used by Sharpton to promote racial division, and whose actions often fall into the violent and criminal category.

Gingrich’s readiness to team up with an individual such as Al Sharpton, who has no experience in education or any other field except for stirring up violence and racial divisiveness, is appalling. With their project completed, Gingrich continued to act chummy with violence-inciting Al Sharpton. This past October, Gingrich surprised Sharpton by calling into his TV show to wish him happy birthday. He praised the opportunistic, race baiting, hatred-inciting, narcissist, Al Sharpton, as one who “did a lot of good things.”

For those unfamiliar with Al Sharpton’s rabble-rousing violent history, here’s a sprinkling of the many acts he’s directly responsible for.

1987: Sharpton spread the incendiary Tawana Brawley Hoax despite his knowledge of the true facts. He heatedly played defendant of the 15-year-old black girl who was supposedly abducted, raped, and smeared with feces by a group of white men, and singled out Steve Pagones, a young prosecutor, as guilty of a crime which never occurred. Despite Sharpton being aware of Pagones innocence, he taunted him, “If we’re lying, sue us, so we can . . . prove you did it.” Pagones courageously fought for his innocence, sued Sharpton, and eventually won a $345,000 verdict for defamation. To this day though, Sharpton refuses to recant the slander or apologize for his role in the odious affair.

1989: Al Sharpton also led a vitriolic campaign to vilify the young white woman who had been raped and viciously beaten in the Central Park "wilding" case, since the rapist was black. He led demonstrations against the victim and accused her boyfriend of being the real assailant. Here too Al Sharpton never owned up to the facts despite the criminal’s admittance of his guilt and the DNA testing which proved the black rapist to be guilty of the crime.

1991: A Hasidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights section accidentally killed Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child. An anti-Semitic riot erupted, and thanks to Sharpton’s arrival, it lasted for three full days. At Gavin’s funeral he railed against the “diamond merchants” -- code for Jews – who have “the blood of innocent babies” on their hands. He mobilized and led hundreds of demonstrators who marched through the Jewish neighborhood and chanted “No justice, no peace.” A rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, was surrounded by a frenzied mob shouting “Kill the Jews!” and was stabbed to death. Two weeks later, Italian-American Anthony Graziosi, whose full beard and dark clothing caused him to be mistaken for a Hasidic Jew, was dragged out of his passing car, brutally beaten and stabbed to death.

1995: The United House of Prayer, a large black landlord in Harlem, raised the rent on Freddy’s Fashion Mart. Freddy’s white Jewish owner was therefore forced to raise the rent on his subtenant, a black-owned music store. A landlord-tenant dispute ensued and before one could blink an eye Sharpton had arrived at the scene and jumped at the opportunity to incite racial hatred. “We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business,” Sharpton proclaimed. He ignored the original cause of the rent hike and the lack of racist action from Freddy’s, and had \the National Action Network, set up picket lines. They spat and cursed as “traitors” and “Uncle Toms” anyone who dared shop at Freddy’s, and shouts of “Burn down the Jew store!” were heard. Protestors simulated the striking of matches while Sharpton’s colleague Morris Powell kept the frenzy going with lines like “We’re going to see that this cracker suffers.” On Dec. 8, one of the protesters burst into Freddy’s, shot four employees point-blank, and then set the store on fire. Seven employees died in the inferno.

Al Sharpton has also shared a stage with gay-bashing, Jew-hating, anti-Catholic racist Khalid Muhammad and praised him as “an articulate and courageous brother."

Fellow conservatives, we don’t need such an individual to be associated with a candidate of ours. Besides for it disqualifying the campaign led against Obama, it brands us as hypocrites and portrays us as morally equivalent to liberals. Carefully vetting a candidate’s record is of extreme importance. Greater priority though should be given to the character of the individual.

Newt proudly referred to his partnership with Al Sharpton as the original “odd couple” and explained his actions with the “education comes before party” lines. Noble sounding indeed except that the left is notorious for having implemented and supported action which raised the bar for the teachers union bosses, not the bar of education. Obama wrongly stopped the DC school vouchers Scholarship Program which had greatly benefited minorities who were stuck in under-performing public schools.

The program had been economically smart since the government paid per voucher less than half of the price they currently spend for each child which is educated in a failing D.C. public schools Additionally, after the Department of Education researched eleven programs, they found that scholarship programs achieved the largest gains. Despite all these facts, Obama found it more important to curry favor with the teachers unions, and his Education Secretary, Duncan, revoked the scholarship of 216 students already on the program. Education “specialist” Al Sharpton who is usually the very first to protest any act with the slightest smell of racism, remained shockingly silent and did not utter a whimper in protest of Obama’s decision which hurt minorities most.

With the closure of the D.C. vouchers program, Obama’s, Duncan’s, and Sharpton’s true colors were exposed yet Gingrich agreed to join teams with these very same individuals in an effort to promote better education for minorities. It would be quite hilarious if the results wouldn’t be so pathetic. After meeting with Obama, Gingrich praised Obama’s stance on education. Throughout the tour, Gingrich didn’t find it necessary to question Sharpton for his inaction. Nor did he take to task Obama’s education Secretary Arne Duncan, who had joined them as a direct representative of Obama in their endeavor to publicly laud Obama’s efforts to reform public education.

Was Newt so stupid as to really think Obama, Duncan, and Sharpton are the type of people who would take positive action to help minorities stuck in failing public schools after their blatant disregard to the minorities in D.C.? Gingrich’s actions can be understood in one of two ways:

A- He’s often turned to government for solutions especially in regard to education. He voted for and helped gather the necessary support Carter needed in order to pass the legislation which created the Department of Education. Under his leadership, Congress passed the largest single spending increase on education in US history, a whopping $3.5 billion dollars! At times, his persuasive skills have sure come to use … for the Democrats.

B-His quest to expand the Republican tent have often led to compromises and bipartisan acts which somehow amounted to conservatives giving in to Democrat demands. (See below)

Either way, his recent actions are in direct contradiction to the image he’s attempted to create of himself throughout his current campaign.

In addition to his lack of character, which unfortunately is no longer considered as a deciding factor for many, Newt’s record is far from unblemished. Since some of his actions are downright disturbing, here’s a handful of some of the Newt controversies, both well-known and lesser -- known.

In a speech given to the Center For Strategic and International Affairs in 1995, Newt Gingrich said this: "The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution…Either we are going to have to re-think our Constitution or we are going to have to re‑think our process of making decisions.”

He stumped for Bush's prescription drug bill and urged all conservatives to vote for it despite it having created an additional seventeen trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. This is one more of many instances where Newt’s smooth talk was used not to promote conservatism, but to promote big government.

Newt agreed with John Kerry regarding the urgency to take action to stop global warming and a need for "Green Conservatism." He also participated in a global warming ad created by Al Gore’s company, in which he sat one couch with Pelosi (and for which he apologized after having launched his presidential campaign.)

Newt’s firm received 1.6 million dollars from Freddie Mac for “consulting services” and another $312,000 from the ethanol lobby (which may explain his confusion regarding the myth of global warming.)

He had been the recipient of President Clinton heartfelt thanks for his support of The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which placed many restrictions on the 2nd Amendment Right and federalized certain crimes involving a firearm. This increased both the size and the scope of the Federal Government, and wouldn’t have passed without Gingrich.

Newt has endorsed moderate and questionable individuals such as Dede Scozzafava, an ACORN-friendly, union-pandering, tax-and-spend radical Republican who ran against a solid conservative, Doug Hoffman. Newt defended his endorsement of Scozzafava (before backtracking once she backed out of the race) saying that “If you seek to be a perfect minority, you’ll remain a minority” thus revealing his true colors and history of compromising with the left rather than sticking to one’s guns. Never mind that it wasn’t even applicable in this case since NY-23 is a Republican district.

Newt supported individual mandates in his book released in 2008.

Gingrich called Paul Ryan’s plan “right-wing social engineering” despite Ryan’s bravery in being the very first to actually present a plan (and for this too he later apologized after receiving heavy flak from conservatives.)

Gingrich had been the only Speaker of the House ever to have been disciplined for ethics violations.

Newt Gingrich has been a member for the past twenty one years of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which has been single-minded and dedicated to the goal of undermining our National Sovereignty in order to promote a One World Government!

My sincerest apologies for any Newt apologies inadvertently not mentioned. They are slightly difficult to keep track of. One thing is certain though. He hasn’t apologized for his teaming up with the Obama team, Obama’s education secretary, and most importantly, Al Sharpton. In fact, he honored Al Sharpton on his new MSNBC show with a surprise happy birthday call this past October in which he cited the time they’ve worked together as memorable and unforgettable. He then heaped lavish praise upon Sharpton’s head including saying that Sharpton “did a lot of good things.” Newt correctly assumed conservatives and family members of Sharpton’s victims weren’t listening to the show, thus providing him with the opportunity to reveal his chumminess with Al Sharpton without receiving any heavy backlash.

Last June, Newt Gingrich gave a speech for the Maryland Republican party in which he said that one only needs the courage to enter and communicate with the African American communities as to how Obama’s policies have caused their unemployment figures to rise and have only hurt the black people.

Mr. Gingrich, although you’re above statement is true there’s an additional reason why black communities’ sufferings are worse than that of the rest of the country, and you are part of the problem. Black communities are hurting precisely because of rabble rousers like Al Sharpton whose entire career is built through the suppression of blacks. He ensures they remain victims in their minds forever so that they remain thankful and faithful to their masters who provide them with food stamps and other programs in exchange for votes. Instead of denouncing and decrying these despicable racists, you’ve teamed up with him and continue to praise, embolden, and encourage Al Sharpton. This further validates this criminal and hurts the African American communities to no end, as detailed in a past article I’ve written.

If you truly seek better education for minorities, denounce Al Sharpton. Additionally, recognize that The Department of Education which you’ve supported from the start and the ridiculous union demands are the main components why minorities suffer from worse educations. Therefore, your promotion of additional government control and federal spending are not only not the solution, but actually part of the problem.

Conservatives have always stood a notch above liberals since conservatives are individuals with character. Conservatism dare not stoop to the level of liberals for America simply cannot afford another characterless president. We’ve got to prove that our values are not for sale. Vehement opposition against Gingrich’s association with Sharpton is necessary in order to demonstrate the truth behind our support of the unaired McCain ad and our opposition of Obama’s troubling past. Perhaps if character would have been given stronger focus in 2008 we wouldn’t be stuck now with our current president. The clock can’t be turned back, but the future is still open and waiting to be molded.


You will also want to read my article which appeared on American Thinker:
What Line Must Newt Gingrich Cross for Conservatives to Disown Him?

What the Conservative Movement Can Learn from the Democrats after the Ohio Failure

After witnessing the defeat of conservative legislation in Ohio and Mississippi the past Tuesday, and the unacceptable behavior of many on the right in throwing their own under the bus during the last few years, I've penned an article which appears today on The American Thinker.

After facing defeat in Ohio, conservatives must not give up hope in implementing positive change. Conservatives should take a page out of the Democrats' handbook and learn to stick to one's candidates and ideology despite opposition and defeat.

Ohio is a swing state where both sides are in a constant battle for control, with the red in the purple bleeding away and the blue gaining a slight upper hand, and then back again. In 2010, Democrats were forced to swallow a bitter pill when Republican John Kasich won the heated campaign against the incumbent Democrat Governor Ted Strickland with a mere seventy seven thousand votes. The Republicans also overtook the control of the Assembly by a considerable margin and upped their previous majority in the Senate, thanks to the rising anti-Obama sentiments and the growth of the Tea Party.  

...Tuesday, November 8th, the Democrats emerged victorious and undid that which the conservatives have accomplished after taking control of all three branches in 2010.

Is this a signal for conservatives to raise their hands in defeat? Absolutely not! At the contrary, Conservatives must remain energized, focused at the goal, and begin the process of reigning in government spending once again without delay. Furthermore, it's time to take a page from the Democratic handbook, memorize it, and follow it to the tee.

Number One: the left are extremely loyal to one another and to their cause, and will refuse to throw any single individual or cause under the bus despite extremely negative public opinion.

Number Two: the left remains focused, energized, and set to promote their liberal agenda even during the periods when they are not in power, have public opinion turned against them, and have already met repeated failure in the past in regard to that particular issue.

Liberals never lose sight of their goals. They wished to enforce socialized national healthcare and kept their focus on the target for over eighty years until, at last, they reached success. Their victory came after numerous attempts which ended in failed bills and lost elections, yet they refused to give up.

Why are Republicans so quick to lift their hands up in resignation? Republicans haven't yet received the opportunity to repeal ObamaCare, yet many have dropped the call to repeal it and instead adapted a repeal and/or replace ObamaCare slogan. Why? What will they replace or amend it with? Why not remain true to the original cause and fight for a complete repeal? Have Democrats ever caved in on their ideology? The Democrats in Ohio haven't attempted to replace parts of Section 2; they went for an outright repeal. Republicans are experts in expressing half - hearted support for their cause; enough to tell the conservative voters we tried our best, yet not enough to see true success. At the first hint of public opinion shifting Republican leaders shift right along with it, throwing their ideology and colleagues under the bus in order curry favor in the eyes of the media.

  Click here to see the complete article.