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?
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.”
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.
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 gracedAl 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:
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.
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.
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.)
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.
