This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

The Depressing Agony of the Republican Primary

Written on Saturday, November 19, 2011 by


Thus far this primary season, we conservatives have had to watch the news media and untrustworthy pollsters methodically take apart the most conservative of the candidates and position the more liberal, big-government ones into top positions.

Last November when the Tea Party Republicans gained many seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, it was a breath of fresh air. Once again hope began to blossom in the hearts of those Americans who cherish freedom. All that remained was for voters to select a conservative leader, unseat Barack Obama and restore the Republic.

Then came the debates, followed by the potential elimination of the most conservative candidates, and the crowning of the least conservative by the media and pollsters as “most likely” to be chosen. How did this happen?

How did the selection process end up with the least conservative candidates being presented as the likely winners? What happened to the conservative cries for a simplified tax code, a balanced budget, domestic energy production, border security, a pro-life agenda and a less intrusive federal government?

Have all those desires been discarded and traded in for the best slick talker with an “R” behind the candidate’s name? What’s the point? Are primary voters only willing to select the best talker? Do they want style instead of substance? If that is how it ends up, then we may simply be selecting the lesser of two evils.

Mitt Romney, for example, changes his views depending on the political winds. If he did it in the past, then he will do it again.  Newt Gingrich is a big-government guy. Herman Cain, I believe, doesn’t really want to be President. Based on his accolades of Mr. Romney, Cain probably wants to be chosen as Mr. Romney’s choice for Vice President. But the media, and the polls, have been able to maneuver those three as the leading choices.

How can we trust polls? Some polls have questioned as little as 100 potential voters. I don’t believe they are accurate. The danger is in how the media presents them and that the media’s only purpose in polls is to sway us away from conservative choices.

Of course we don’t have to let the media, Republican Establishment and pollsters tell us what to do. It is still within the power of conservative primary voters to choose a true conservative.

This election really is for the heart and soul of America and even if Mr. Obama is defeated and the new President isn’t a true conservative, then we still will not have won the battle for liberty and freedom. Will we?

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

  • patriot77

    Looks like the best choice at this point is definitely Gingrich. I don’t know if he can stay on top. Click on my name to read what I wrote about it.

    • Hank is back

      If you have patience or can put two and two together, watch the first one first and the second one second. If you are impatient and have trouble concentrating, watch the second one first and the first one second.

      Gingrich is to the left of Huntsman and McCain on ‘Climate Change’.

    • Johnnygard

      Hank, Your first video is a total waste, and the second one is the ad with Pelosi. Newt says nothing about global warming, let alone that humans might be causing warming. He talks about other forms of energy, and like me, he wants more nuke plants.

    • sid

      nuclear is the future!!!

    • Hank is back

      Do you know who sponsored the add, or why the add was put up? Al Gore to push Cap and Trade. Have you read Newt’s book on his beliefs about climate change (which Newt has said numerous times that he believes in. he is able to get around this by saying he doesn’t know if ‘global warming’ is real or not. The Semantics of a classic demagogue). And where does it say in the Constitution that the federal Government has any role in energy? Eh, Johnny? Subsidies are corporate welfare. We’ll see about the nuclear plants if Newt is elected. Don’t count on it.

      Anyone that would do a favor for Gore and swap spit with Pelosi is a piece ofd trash. it is unconscionable that he is even a consideration.

    • Max Penn

      For starters their is no proof of global warming. The lates findings show -.7 drop in the world over the last 10 years. The loony left will have us living in a cave and burning animal fat for heat. Their is no free lunch, none. Someone has to buy it. If we conservatives can’t figure it out then the left will rule for many years to come.

    • Ltjg

      Well Max, There is some Global Warming but not the way our Politicians portray it. None of them are scientists and it is rediculous for the to speculate on something they know nothing of. Most Global warming is caused by Sun Spots. Mars has been shown to have climate changes also. There is new added Volcanic activity found under the Sea that also warms our wayer a few degrees. Our Continents are shifting West by approximately two incehes a year, hardly noticable but these things do have an affect that are not related to anything Humans have done. The last two Winters have been more severe Snow storms especially around DC to the point that our elected officials could not go to work. The claims we are responsible is all a political hoax and these people should never comment on this.

    • fliteking

      Newt has since strongly changed his position on global warming . . . google it to find the same.

      I am not entirely comfortable with any politician that changes their position based on public response, that said “President Gingrich” sounds like an improvement over our current situation.

    • Hank is back

      Pissing in a can is a strong improvement over pissing in a bottle. So what? The only difference between Newt and Obama is rhetoric.

      And why should I ever trust someone who has changed his more times than a four-year old in the snack aisle in Wal-Mart, to be the next president? just a tad to volatile an d mushy for me. Character matters. If by leadership you mean Newt will lead us one way and then another way and then back gain, then yes, I agree, newt would make a d-a-m-n fine leader. But leadership to me, is principle, character, courage, and a refusal to back down in the face of adversity. Gingrich got way to used to licking Bill Clinton’s, Hillary Clinton’s, Al Sharpton’s, Al Gore’s, and Nancy Pelosi’s boots to have any of the qualities I mentioned for more than the time it takes to answer a debate question on live television.

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      What would you know about character??? You have none.

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      Hank … I hope your parents get tired of your freeloading and throw you out of their basement… Are you so dense that you can’t see that we are serious about the country?? Maybe the communists will take a liking to you and just starve you slowly instead of shooting you outright.

    • Hank is back

      No character? Is that your definition of sticking to principles?

      And Ann! Listen to yourself. You are running scared. Obama sucks. His rhetoric is that of Mao. But his policies are those of Bush on steroids. You really think he is going to ‘shoot’ us and ‘starve’ us? How dense are you? He is a welfare-statists and nothing more. He is the worst president we have ever had. Not because of his past or what he says, but because of his policies! This country will go to heck because of them, but if you think it is going to end with us being rounded up and shot, I can see why you are so desperate that you would literally vote for anyone. Obama is not a true believer in Marxism, he is a power-whore and a narcissist. Rounding up the productive citizens (you and I) doesn’t serve to increase his power. Welfare-statism needs producers and the power hungry need a welfare state.

      I will not be voting for the mere lesser of two evils because I am not afraid of being shot or starved. If I thought that was a reality I would be up in arms right now shooting anything that moved.

      What concerns me is restoring America to prosperity. You can’t do that so long as you inflate the currency, progressively tax the industrious, and buy things we can’t pay for. Gingrich and Obama are the same in these regards.

      And my parents have ample reason to be proud and I don’t live at ‘home’, and my computer is at my work. I am free to use it because I own it myself and I know my employer very well.

      No need to bring any of them into this unless you have some latent issues with your own that you wish to project on someone else. You were probably just looking for an excuse to lash out at someone. Who better than the least popular guy on the forum.

    • Thinking gal

      Hank…..good heavens, we have a greenie Gore-ite here. You are a democrat, my friend, sneaking into this site.

    • Hank is back

      So comparing Newt and Pelosi sitting on a couch to Moses and Hitler sitting on a couch, and being critical of Newt’s love for Gore makes me a Gorite?

      Let the smears begin.

    • Millicent

      I’m with you. I have watched the debates. Newt outshines them all. Now he is on top and the attacks start. I think he can weather them. I can’t stand the repeated lie that he asked his first wife for a divorce when she was on her deathbed. Fact is she aske him for the divorce. I’m not thrileld with how he led his personal life, but he is a true patriot and will kill the Kenyan in a debate. I am contributing to his campaign and have joined in as well.

    • sid

      michelle drops, and her votes go to perry. perry falls, and his votes go to cain. cain stumbles, and his votes go to newt!!! does anyone see, what i see??? romney never gains, from anyones downfall!!! romney, will not be the candidate!!!

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      Sid…. Good point…. I like that. Ann

    • http://patriotupdate littlepat

      And she is alive and well.

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      Millicent… So have I. We need to stand behind Newt for I believe he is the one who can get us back on the road to prosperity.

    • Millicent

      I’m with you. I have watched the debates. Newt outshines them all. Now he is on top and the attacks start. I think he can weather them. I can’t stand the repeated lie that he asked his first wife for a divorce when she was on her deathbed. Fact is she aske him for the divorce. I’m not thrileld with how he led his personal life, but he is a true patriot and will kill the Kenyan in a debate. I am contributing to his campaign and have joined in as well.

    • Willis

      What is there in the female makeup that they love a rogue as long as they are not married to one? “One world Newt” is just as dangerous as our present CiC. Their lyrics are different but the tune is the same and they dance to the song of the same puppeteer. Republicans are as dumb as Charlie Brown every time he falls for lucy holding the football.

    • lharp207

      I have been very disappointed in the outcome of the debates. I was sorry Pawlenty dropped out over one gaff, and Michele became bitter over her mistake in Iowa. Perry took a nosedove over paying for illegals to go to college with taxpayers’ money. I loved Santorium, but he seemed immature when he did not get asked enough questions. Huntsman and Johnson were too liberal or libertarian from the beginning. I questioned Ron Paul’s foreign policy. His great economic plan would be no good if he traded us to Iran. That just leaves Romney, Cain, and Gingrich. I agree that Romney and Gingrich started talking much more conservative when they realized America wanted that. Cain has had some good debates and I love his common sense approach.
      Gingrich has apologized for his NY 23rd blunder over DeDe Scosofava, but I am not sure that covers all of his compromises.
      Romney has explained his Romneycare, but has not exactly come down to earth, yet. So it appears at this point that the candidate with the least damaging baggage may be Newt. If he would choose Palin, He would win in a landslide.

    • Hank is back

      He ‘apologized’ to get back in the good graces of the tea party because he was planning a run for Pres. How is that not the most obvious thing in the world?

    • Jack Coleman

      Before you really climb on Newt’s bandwagon I would like to suggest you read:

    • Darlene

      Wrong, the best is RON PAUL period.

    • armyvet

      Polls? Polls can be manipulated by what group of people you decide to poll. They usually mean nothing, just a way to make you believe that the person you are backing, has no chance!

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      Patriot77…. Please everyone… This person who calls himself hankisback is a hoax… Further on you will find his confession. He is just playing with us… Please complain to the moderators about him. Ann

    • Hank is back

      Wow, Ann. before you tattle-tale maybe you should get your facts straight. Wouldn’t want your conscience to get to you. I am surprised it hasn’t already.

      And there is no rule against making a mistake, Ann. If I had something to hide, why would I pick the same name again?


    • Thinking gal

      Ann…I have caught him and he is a greenie Gore-ite, I’m sure. How does one get to the administrator to comment?

      Input, please.

    • Ltjg

      So have many others. He has been Rude to everyone especially women with his vulgar language and obnoxious arrogant comments. He goes by several different names, probably some kid out to get his jollies off playing games on an Adult site.

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      Thinking Gal… Just go to the top of the page where it says CONTACT US. Thanks

    • Hank is back

      The only Gorite here is Newt.

    • Thinking gal

      patriot77…My apologies; I accidently gave you a thumbs down. That should not be. I went into your site and just scanned it but can see we agree.

      Romney looks Presidential, Newt does not; but I started favoring Newt when he just about even made double digits. (Of course the media doesn’t like him but that’s to be expected in this socialist-leaning time.)

      I know he’s called a Beltway guy, but he knows the issues, thinks on his feet, has ‘apologized’ for his past errors, and, in my mind, is the only one who can beat Obama and his compadre, the Teleprompter. (He most likely wouldn’t use that but have an ear piece to give him clues. I worked in television and know that game.)

      Given all our other choices, to me he has the strongest mind presence which is what we need in the Oval Office, not Mr. Wimp-in-chief.

      And, if he were nominated, I would simply love having Marco Rubio as his running mate, a Presidential man in the wings.

      I will go back into your site another time to more carefully digest your thoughts.

  • Ltjg

    I never trusted Polls and I do not let the Media make my choices. I do my own research. They will do an Anal Exam on all the Candidates they do not like. I have yet to see them give Romney one. He is their Poster Boy.

    • Jay

      Yes, the media and Obama want to run against Romeny and they think they will beat him. They are doi8ng everything they can to smear all the threatening othwers like Cain and Gingrich. By far Gingrich will tear Obama to bieces verbally and with facts.

    • florin

      Why would you think Gingrich would get the nomination? Even if he does, he has no chance against Obama. Gingrich is no conservative, he has no core values or principles; he says whatever he thinks his audience wants him to say; he IS whatever he thinks his audience wants him to BE. He cozies up to Pelosi and Gore and Rockefeller and pro abortion, pro gay marriage Scozzafava and when he realizes that conservatives are furious with him, he laughingly and condescendingly says he’s sorry – but he isn’t! He’ll do it again in a heartbeat if it serves his purpose. He uses women for his own pleasure and then dumps them for a younger model and then says he’s sorry to the Tea Party because he needs their votes – and he claims he’s changed. Maybe, but the pattern of the majority of his life is so disturbing, so unbalance, so utterly self-centered that he just doesn’t have enough time for a complete inside out change…maybe Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio or John Thune will step in when they see what a sorry lot of candidates we have left…it’s never too late!

    • The Blue Collar Man

      The “Lame Stream Media” will do their very best to “Select” our Republcain Candidate. (we are too dumb to do it for our self)

      That way the Election will be in the Demorat favor, just like they want it.

  • Hank is back
    • Joy

      Hank you need to get back on your meds! As for your operation against Newt, get over it. The left has been trying to elect Romney for the Republicans forever and it just will not work.
      We need a President that has a very good working knowledge of the Govt. Newt like everyone has some baggage but he is more superior than the rest in govt. I for one think Newt is the very one that will win if we win at all. If hes bright and drafts Sarah Palin as his running mate , he will win in a landslide. I have no ill feelings toward Herman Cain, I just don’t think he has the knowledge to be in that office in any capacity. Romney is Obama Jr. Huntsman is there as a spoiler, so I’m betting on Newt.

    • OneCitizenOfTheRepublic

      I just want to know one thing. Who was the genius who allowed the liberatards to run the questioning in these debates? What a total sell out to the enemy! What a brainless idiot. What a way to destroy our chances to win in November!

    • Millicent

      But Newt has stood up to them and put them in their place. Go Newt Go.

    • http://patriotupdate littlepat

      With the exception of Fox, all the other stations are owned and operated by liberals.

    • ConservativeRedneck

      I’ve been a Republican Conservative for 51 years. I have watched FoxNews more years then I can count. BUT I’m sad to say EVEN FoxNews has changed it’s programming and is leaning to the left A LOT! It is still the only news I watch on TV but even the wife has commented on why I never watch Fox News as much as I use to. I agree with the posters that say the media is doing everything they can to blow apart any conservative out there that has a real chance of beating Obama. 1st it was Perry then Cain. NOW they are attacking Newt. You would have to be a blind man or very stupid NOT to see they are leaving Romney pretty much un-touched. I’ll give ya one guess as to why this is when everyone else, they set out to destroy. PLEASE, for our nations sake don’t let this happen. I am 69 and I have seen a lot of changes in my life through the years but this time around it is worse then ever.

    • armyvet

      OneCitizen, the answer is this: the media runs all the tv networks. They supply the questioners and questions. The media is left! There is the answer.

    • David in MA

      Gingrich/Cain might be a good team and good for America. Newt knows his way around and Cain is the “get her done” kinda guy, in fact Cain hits me as a guy who can tell you to kiss his butt and you would think he’s doing YOU the favor…..
      Ron Paul/Rand Paul is interesting also.

    • sid

      newt, herman, and rand, YES!!! ron NO!!!

    • Carroll

      Joy, I agree with you. I like Michele Bachmann as far as honor, integrity, and a real conservative, but like Cain, I am afraid she does not have the political experience to beat Obama and his thug czars, and then undo as much as possible of what Obama has done to the country. It will take someone this election with a lot of male anatomy to beat these communists in office now, who are willing to pull any shenanigan out of their cesspool of tricks to steal the election. I believe that Newt might be the only one capable of doing this, and yes, it might be the lesser of two evils, but Newt would be eons better than the evil himself!

    • Tom Lorenz

      Carroll, a corpse could beat Obama. Michelle is brilliant and would easily dress down Obama. Obama has no core and is an empty suit.

    • Phil


    • Thinking gal

      Phil…cut it out — you’re reading my mind!

      Love it, love it. LOVE it!

      Newt and Marco! {:-)

    • Walter Bales

      Only one problem: Marco is NOT a natural born citizen. Neither of his parents were citizens when he was born. Have we reduced “natural born” to just being born on US soil? That makes all anchor babies eligible! Obama is not legal (his father being Kenyan) and neither is Rubio. Let’s stick to non-controversial natural borns, such as Palin, Cain or Bachmann.

    • Wayne Blair


    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      Joy….. Great comment.. Let’s stay at it . Ann

    • Jay

      Hang, you’re living in the past. This is the 21st Centruy and things have changed, or havent you noticed? This country is at war with a corrupt administation and Gingrich, whether you like it or not, has the best qualifications (and guts) to take on this administration.

    • skeebiejeebie

      Riiiight. The Constitution is a living, breathing document. I forgot. Pardon.


    • Johnnygard

      Hank, You are soo against Newt and don’t say anything positive about anyone else – I suspect you are working for Obemmer! You and the pres are the ones really afraid of Newt.

    • Hank is back

      Newt is the same as Obama. I am afraid of neither. The collapse is coming either way. All I am trying to do is allow people to know what they are getting into so they have only themselves to blame. The media sucks, but it is the people that react or overreact to them that are the real troublemakers. That includes you, my friend.

    • Willis

      Aren’t they clever? The Establishment has set Romney up as a Strawman upon which their enemies (say republicans) can vent their fury while the real Lib comes lo0ping up from behind with pretty words to tickle their ears and my repub cohorts fall for it every time. You’re right I’m not a republican. I am beyond conservative, I am a contitutionalist and would probably vote for Paul if he he didn’t think that wars were still fought with muskets. Newt will be worse for us than Bush.

    • Tom Stewart

      Willis Lets Try Rick Perry And Sarah Palin, Yippee, Cut DC In Half, Drill Baby Drill, Now That Was Kinda Easy Willis. Get Rid Of The Imposter King Muslim Obamacare, Now. God Bless America And The Tea Party Patriots.

    • fliteking

      What’s your point chief, no wait, don’t tell me, you think Obama is a better choice . . . are you in the ACORN computer room again?

    • Hank is back

      Gingrich=Obama. The ONLY difference is their rhetoric. Clever, them pols.

      It is as though you think that because Obama was not properly vetted that the GOP has the right to pick their own establishment hack and not vet him.

    • Thinking gal

      Hank…Newt has been vetted more than Obama and his appointees, Pelosi, Reid and the entire Democrat Congress.

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      T.G. That is true. Did you find the contact spot?? I sure hope so. This guy has been so rude for a while. He has a nasty mouth and we should not have to put up with it. Ann

    • Hank is back

      How has Newt been vetted. He does something stupid or down right evil all the time, and then in front of certain audiences he will down play, excuse, or half-heartedly ‘apologize’. The act of mushy-skulled nostalgics forgiving him with little to no scrutiny is not a vetting process. We are ‘vetting’ Newt, who has a deplorable record the exact same way the media did Obama: hardly at all.

      Even the left wing media will only criticize Newt for petty things like consulting for Freddie. They agree with him on a lot of what else he has said and done, so they are going comparatively easy on him, although slightly harder than they did with Obama.

    • AZ Don

      We all already know whoever is on top is going to be attacked in every way possible. The object should not be Gingrich it should be obama. All the negativity you can muster on Gingrich is nothing to the negativity that can be discovered on obama. It would, in my opinion, be difficult to find something positive on obama.

      One thing is for sure if obama is reelected he will complete his fundamental transformation of America. I have done a lot of research on him and am convinced he is fascist not socialist or communist or even marxist. Although marxist is still a possibility. I personally believe he wants to take our 2nd amendment away. If he is successful in that millions will die, not unlike the twentieth century when 170 million were murdered by different governments. This man, obama, is obsessed by evil and his goal is to assume the role of hitler or perhaps stalin, right here in the United States. But in any case, make no mistake, he will take our guns and murder us. However, he needs another 4 year term to complete his objective and will no doubt do anything and perhaps everything to reach that end. Don’t believe it research everyone within his administration and see where their loyalties lie. I did!

    • Blinker7

      Just as I feel about him… I also believe he is a sleeper cell. Brought into action at the right time. His goal is to destroy the USA from within.. And he has a good start.

    • Ltjg

      Thank You AZ Don, Very well said and I totally agree with you. We better get Untited on someone. It is not to Late. I will support some with enthusiasm and some reluctantly but I will support them No Matter What. Obama must GO.

    • armyvet

      I will support anyone going against the current WH occupant. However, I have my choices and Romney is at the bottom of the heap.

    • Ltjg

      LOL, Mine too.

  • Hank is back

    Partial Gingrich Resumé
 that would make Obama proud:

    Newt Gingrich served in Congress from 1979 until 1999. His first Freedom Index score (when it was known as the “Conservative Index”) was 84, but it nose-dived from there. He achieved his lowest scores as Speaker of the House. Gingrich consistently lost points for his propensity to support unconstitutional legislation.

    1. Education — Gingrich backed federal education funding from his earliest days in office, though the Constitution gives absolutely no authority over education to any branch of the federal government. He helped garner support to create President Jimmy Carter’s Department of Education in 1979. Since then educational spending has soared while educational standards have plummeted. Things got worse when he was Speaker. In 1996, then-Republican Party Chairman Haley Barbour bragged that “education spending went up under the Republican Congress as much as it went up under the Democratic Congress.” That is a bit of an understatement since Gingrich’s Republican Congress increased education funding by $3.5 billion in 1996, the largest single increase in history.

    2. Foreign Aid — Gingrich voted numerous times throughout his 20 years in Congress to increase and expand unconstitutional foreign aid and trade. He supported both subsidized trade with the Soviets and federally funded loans to foreign governments through the Export-Import Bank. Between 1994 and 1995, Gingrich voted for $44.8 billion in foreign aid. He also helped push through federally funded loan guarantees to China. Today, that murderous communist regime is the largest holder of U.S. debt in the world.


3. NAFTA and GATT — In 1993, Gingrich proved himself invaluable to Clinton and the Democrats in Congress when he garnered enough Republican support to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the precursor for development of an eventual North American Union, following the same trajectory that has occurred in Europe with the emergence of the EU. (See the October 15, 2007 “North American Union” issue of The New American, especially “NAFTA: It’s Not Just About Trade” by Gary Benoit.) The next year he followed suit by supporting the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO). As Minority Whip, he could have postponed the lame-duck vote on GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) that subjected Americans to the WTO. Gingrich’s Benedict Arnold act helped to hand over the power to regulate foreign commerce, a power reserved in the Constitution to Congress alone, to an internationally controlled body, making America’s economic interests entirely at the mercy of the WTO.

    Gingrich knew GATT sounded the death knell for American sovereignty. In testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee prior to the lame-duck session, he said, “We need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization…. This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected…. It is a very big transfer of power.”

    4. Contract With America — Another con-game Gingrich played was the much-acclaimed “Contract With America,” the Republican Party’s supposed answer to big government. It turned out to be a public relations smokescreen to cover various unconstitutional measures that Congress planned to pass under Gingrich’s leadership. The Contract included a “balanced budget amendment,” which amounted to a Republican excuse to continue spending while claiming to fight for fiscal conservatism. If the government only spent money on constitutional programs, the deficit would take care of itself.

    Other areas of the Contract With America dealt with measures to reduce welfare programs and relieve tax burdens on families and businesses. That sounds good until one considers that the Constitution prohibits welfare programs and taxes that the Contract proposed only to reduce. If Gingrich had been loyal to his oath of office, he would have worked not to trim but to purge them. Ironically, but hardly surprisingly, federal spending in all the areas addressed by the 1994 Contract rose in subsequent years. Edward H. Crane, president of the Cato Institute, observed that “the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract With America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%.” Crane also pointed out, “Over the past three years the Republican-controlled Congress has approved discretionary spending that exceeded Bill Clinton’s requests by more than $30 billion.”

    Another of the problems with the Contract was that it called for stronger federal crime-fighting measures, despite the Constitution’s prohibition on federal involvement in police matters outside of piracy and treason. Countries that do not have such strict constitutional safeguards on federal police end up with Gestapos, KGBs, and Departments of Homeland Security.

    5. School Prayer Amendment — The proposed balanced budget amendment was not Gingrich’s only attempt to change the Constitution. He also pushed hard for a school prayer amendment to allow America’s children to pray in schools. It was just another shameless publicity stunt, for Gingrich knows the main obstacle to prayer in schools is not a faulty Constitution but an overambitious Supreme Court. Had he truly wanted to release the federal stranglehold on prayer in schools, Gingrich could have employed Congress’ constitutionally authorized power to restrict the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction of the issue.

    6. Clinton’s GOP (Grand Old Pal) — In 1995, Time magazine named Newt Gingrich “Man of the Year,” characterizing him as a states’ rights conservative and the Republican answer to Bill Clinton. The ironic thing about Time magazine’s 1995 claim is that in June of that year, Gingrich and Clinton both agreed at a debate in Clare-mont, New Hampshire, that they were “not far apart” in their views. Later Clinton publicly thanked Gingrich for his support of the President’s pet projects in areas such as welfare, education, labor, the environment, and foreign affairs. He made special mention of Gingrich’s support of the $30 billion Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that shackled gun owners with new restrictions, federalized a number of crimes, and handed the feds police powers that the Constitution reserves to the states.

    On numerous occasions, Gingrich showed himself a friend to Clinton’s military policies, with a flagrant disregard for the constitutional mandate that Congress alone may declare war. He made a formal appeal to the House of Representatives in 1995 to “increase the power of President Clinton” by repealing the War Powers Act. He praised Clinton’s unconstitutional use of the U.S. military to inflict a communist regime on Haiti in 1994, the same year he voted for an extra $1.2 billion for United Nations “peacekeeping” missions. He also urged the President to expand U.S. military presence in Bosnia the following year.

    This partial resumé does not include Gingrich’s support of abortion and anti-family measures, federal welfare, a presidential line item veto, the National Endowment for the Arts, confiscation of private property, amnesty for illegal immigrants, higher taxes, and a myriad of other unconstitutional legislation. But it is enough to prove he lied each time took his oath of office. The question is, why this disdain for the rule of law? A close look at Gingrich’s associations provides the answer to why he had such a propensity for claiming conservatism while voting with the establishment.

    • http://AOL JIM


    • Hank is back

      Jim, you want to fight? Send me your home address to this email:, and I will do the same for you if you give me your email. Then we will see who the pussy is.

      I hope your guy (Newt) is not as explosive as you are. If he gets elected, it will be WW3. People take offense at the truth!


    • http://AOL JIM

      Hank it looks like you are a loose connon ,no one ask you for a duel or a fight you are the one thats bringing on the wrong kind of challenge ,it’s not about some one putting the hurts on each other ,it’s about who would be the best presidential canidate that started all your out of bound threats , and foul language !! get a grip my friend ,this is all about an election ,not about you and I fighting each other, I’m not backing doun on anything !! ,you need to go back and realize that this is all about what is best for AMERICA ,The canidates and who is the BEST for AMERICA !!YOU won’t decide the election ,neither will I!! ALL AMERICA WILL DECIDE THE ELECTION !!I will keep what you said in mind ,and act accordingly should you and your friends make the choice to cause me problems !!!

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      Jim… This guy(hank) is a loose cannon and possibly dangerous. He has been very rude and menacing. Be careful. Ann

    • Hank is back

      Let’s see…
      All caps.

      Guy’s instead of guys.

      Looser instead of losers.

      Space before punctuation.

      Your instead of you’re.

      No space after punctuation.

      Thik instead of think.

      No question mark.

      No ‘then’.

      Lets instead of let’s.

      Skeltons instead of skeletons.

      Woldn’t instead of wouldn’t.

      Insulting my mother.

      Frist instead of first.

      No ‘and’.

      Ant instead of and.

      Connon instead of cannon.

      Ask instead of asked.


      And ‘I’ am the loose cannon?


      I was just responding in kind. No threats, just checking your pulse there, Jim. I see that you did have a chance to calm down, and so did I. Frankly, I am wet behind the ears. I am not even old enough to run for congress and you want me to run for Pres!

      I want to like Newt. I want to like Perry. Heck, I even wish I liked Romney. But frankly, I know way to much about these men. Not because I lived through them, but because all my sources, left, right, center, libertarian, and every combination thereof, and even guys that are now supporting the likes of Newt and Perry and Romney, have all told me that these men are bad news. If they are elected, I hope to God that my sources were lying. But until better sources than the ones I have say differently, I have no choice but, and I feel it is my duty, to spread the word. I know it is a disservice to my cause to get angry, but sometimes the situation calls for it.

      Tell me why I should support Newt based on something other than what he has said in front of certain audiences he needs to please, or what he has changed his mind on. Commies are bad, but flip-flopping moderates that do the same thing as Commies anyways are even worse in the long run.

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      Jim…. This is for Hankisback… You are a creep and we do not have to put up with you and your crap. i don’t care how old you are or how slow you may be.. I promise you that I will do everything that I can do to get you off this thread.We are serious people here about a serious thing called trying to save our nation . This is not a joke.Ann Rand

    • Hank is back

      Well, gee. Aren’t you a saint. Feel free to get me off this thread. That is how losers win arguments.

      For all those that have complained about being moderated:

      Ann and her ilk are the ones that push for it.

      They don’t like to be disagreed with. No one does, but some, if they can’t win by persuasion, have to use what amounts to coercion. Cowardice takes many forms, but the least respectable form is that which is done behind the comfort of a desk.

      Polite speech is for slaves.

    • Hank is back

      Say it, don’t spray it, JIMBO! yeeesh! I musta hit pretty darn close to home. You’re not working for Newt are you? Or maybe the reason he doesn’t cheat on his wife anymore is because he has taken a ‘liking’ to you. You certainly sound like Barney Frank, so it is not a far cry to assume that your sexual preference is in the same boat.

      Newt is the dirtiest politician out there today, besides Gaddafi Junior back in DC.

      Pardon me if that alarms me and I don’t want him to be the nominee. I would hope that if you had this kind of dirt on any of the other candidates, that you would bring it to my attention.

      Some of this is old hat, but most people have short attention spans and poor memories. I have more real dirt on this amphibian than you have saliva! And that’s saying something.

    • http://windstream Sandra

      Not here to start an argument, but I don’t trust Newt. He has sided with the Dems too many times, and voted for Elena Kegan for Supreme Court.But I do believe that he would mop the floor with Obama in a debate.

    • Hank is back

      Can you live with selling your sole just for entertainment value. They will govern the same.

    • Johnnygard

      Sandra, I didn’t even know Newt had a position in the government to vote for or against Kegan.

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      Sandra… Please check your facts. Newt could not possibly have voted for Kagan,as he is not a member of congress. Ann

    • Hank is back

      Sandra is using the wrong words. Newt was all for Kagan. I don’t recall having heard that. She may be thinking of either Sotomayor, Ginsburg, O’Connor, or even Scozzafava. If he really did support Kagan, it would fit well with Newt’s belief in the Third Wave, a philosophy of civilization in which homosexuality, abortion, promiscuity, etc. are considered normal or even moral.

    • fliteking

      This post looks like Hank masquerading as a “conservative” poster . . . in hopes of making his posts look better.

      Haaaank – do you have 2 logins?

    • Ltjg

      Dear fliteking, My friends and I have realized this long ago. We have researched and found many. We call them Alters.

    • Hank is back

      My name Hank is back is a change from Hank because back when they first started moderating it took so long I thought it was permanent. So I used a different email address ever since. Full disclosure.

      No, I don’t ‘work’ for Obama. The things I would say to prove it to you I cannot because I could end up in jail. If that does not convince you, you are unconvinceable and I shall try no further.

      It should be noted that I have been here since March of this year, but I only recall the name fliteking recently. Not making any accusations, just stating a fact.

    • Ltjg

      You seem a little touchy and sensative about his comment. Why? I’ll give you credit for admitting the way you said you changed things but is this the only one you will Admitt to? How many others do you have? Your credibility has just been lost by me, and I really don’t care what you think or how you feel. Tough!!!

    • Hank is back

      Oh dear! I am not credible in the eyes of someone I don’t find to be all that credible themselves! What ever shall I do!

      And as I said below, who was the comment aimed at? Was I wrong?

      It honestly occurred to me that he WAS referring to me, and I was sensitive because in fact I HAD used another name. Where is the insecurity? That is the nature of making a full disclosure. You are letting folks know that you have made transgressions. No harm done.

      Curious: what is your obsession with it? Nothing wrong with that, but seriously.

    • Johnnygard

      If I didn’t hate lies so much, I’d just ignore you. Newt listed ten items that he promised the House would VOTE on within the first 100 days of a Republican House taking office. If you didn’t like the “Contract with America”, you could vote Democrat. Republicans took the House for the first time in 40 years, thanks to Newt. As promised, they voted up or down on all ten items within the first 100 days. Then he got Clinton to sign welfare reform (after having vetoed it 2 or 3 times before). Name another politican that put promises in writing (in a National magazine) and lived up to every one!!!

    • Hank is back

      Uh? Which lies would those be? Contract on America? Hmm. Sounds like a gimmick. Anybody can take advantage of a volatile situation and come out on top without actually having done much. that is Newt to a T. Sure, Newt has done a couple of good things. But anybody following the Constitution and not their whim could do better. But did you forget about NAFTA? And what about the WTO nullifying US LAW yesterday becaus eit offends the Canadians and the Mexicans? Thanks to Newt, who makes Rick Perry look like a save-our-sovreignty-wonk!

      And did you read Newts book from 2006/2007 saying he wants to pass cap and trade?

      Did you see him making out with Pelosi on the couch?

      Remember him endorsing the Public Option?

      Remember when he said we should to go into Libya and later he said that he wouldn’t have gone into Libya if he were president? Which is it, Newton?

      Remember when Hillary said this?: “But the speaker and I have been talking about health care and national security now for several years, and I find that he and I have a lot in common in the way we see the problem.” And they got on Rick Perry’s case just for writing a letter to Hillary.

      Remember when Gingrich was pro-choice?

      Remember when he wanted to make all American to take mandatory drug tests?

      And taking money from Freddie, a socialized lending institution that shouldn’t be there in the first place? That is $1.6 million right out of the taxpayer’s pocket. Sure it was before the bailout, but Freddie was always subsidized by the taxpayer, and Unconstitutional to boot. Some principles Newt has.

      And Newt said that the “pursuit of Happiness” actually means that we have an obligation to obtain wisdom, when what Jefferson meant by it was the right to enjoy the product of one’ labor and industry. Newt must think Rights come from government, not God? Just what we need, another person that wants to rewrite history to suit his agenda and pass his ideas.

      Newt is a clown. Apparently, so is one third of the GOP.

    • cmvbih

      Johnny, you should have mentioned that Newt only did that agreement with the House and ignored the Senate. “Congress” didn’t pass all of his contract, as a matter of fact, not even the House passed them all. If I recall correctly, the Senate only passed two items out of the 10 and Clinton vetoed one of them.
      I think your post is something called ‘lying by ommission’.
      Please don’t whitewash the truth in order to show Newt as something better than he was, especially when you consider he wasn’t very good at all. He was thrown out as Speaker and if he was really that good, the House Republicans would have never done that.

  • skeebiejeebie

    Newt is a joke. He makes Bill clinton look celibate.

    Mr. Family Values is amazingly similar to Bill Clinton – both are pot smoking, draft-dodging adulterers from poor Southern families.


    “We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, ‘I never slept with her.'” – Anne Manning (who was also married at the time.)

    “We would have won in 1974 if we could have kept him out of the office, screwing her [a young volunteer] on the desk.” – Dot Crews, his campaign scheduler at the time

    [In the book] “Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them”, [I] “found frightening pieces that related to my own life.” – Newt.

    “I think you can write a psychological profile of me that says I found a way to immerse my insecurities in a cause large enough to justify whatever I wanted it to” – Newt, speaking to Gail Sheehy.

    “She isn’t young enough or pretty enough to be the President’s wife.” – Newt, on his first wife.

    “I don’t want him to be president and I don’t think he should be.” – Newt’s wife Marianne.

    “If the country today were to move to the left, Newt would sense it before it started happening and lead the way.” – Dot Crews, his campaign scheduler throughout the 1970s.

    Sex on the Desk – Oral Sex is More Easily Denied
    Several newspapers are now reporting that Newt Gingrich is dating and basically living with Callista Bisek, a “willowy blond Congressional aide 23 years his junior.” Biske, 33, has been spending nights at Gingrich’s apartment near the Capitol and has her own key. In an amazing act of hypocrisy, Gingrich was apparently dating Bisek all during Clinton-Lewinsky adultery scandal, even as he proclaimed family values and bitterly criticized the President for his adultery.

    Reporters and other Washington insiders have known about this relationship since 1994, even before Gingrich became Speaker of the House, but did not have any solid proof to report. In 1995, Vanity Fair magazine described Bisek as Gingrich’s “frequent breakfast companion.”

    Gingrich was married to Marianne Gingrich during all of that time, and just filed for divorce in August 1999.

    Newt is apparently trying to create a new hybrid form, Christian adultery. According to MSNBC, Bisek sings in the National Shrine Choir, and Newt would often wait for her at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, listening to her sing while he read the Bible.

    This is hardly the first time Newt has cheated, either. “It was common knowledge that Newt was involved with other women during his [first] marriage to Jackie. Maybe not on the level of John Kennedy. But he had girlfriends — some serious, some trivial.” — Dot Crews, his campaign scheduler throughout the 70s. One woman, Anne Manning, has come forward and confirmed a relationship with him during the 1976 campaign. “We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, ‘I never slept with her.'”

    Kip Carter, his former campaign treasurer, was walking Newt’s daughters back from a football game one day and cut across a driveway where he saw a car. “As I got to the car, I saw Newt in the passenger seat and one of the guys’ wives with her head in his lap going up and down. Newt kind of turned and gave me this little-boy smile. Fortunately, Jackie Sue and Kathy were a lot younger and shorter then.”

    • am2sweet

      Most people don’t think about the fact that Gingrich is for one world order. Same as the Bilderbergs. I don’t think we need just a select few ruling the world with the rest of us considered disposible servants. Obama has been working toward that and I’d rather not see anyone coming in behind him helping further his cause.

    • David in MA

      A good old American boy, my kinda guy!

    • skeebiejeebie

      I figured you for more of a Sandusky.

    • http://AOL JIM


    • Millicent

      Please take the caps lock off. I feel like I am being screamed at. It makes it difficult to read your post. I am sure you have some good points to make but I am unable to read them. Thank you

    • http://AOL JIM


    • Hank is back

      I’ll give you my home address if you give me yours, old man.

    • Jay

      What sewer did you and Hank crawl out of? Right now we need a winner over Obama and Gingrich is the one, in my opinion.

    • Hank is back

      What good is a winner if he is the same pos as the one you are trying to replace?

      Expediency is not a virtue.

  • Chris P

    Well if you will have a bunch of clowns show up – what are we supposed to do? Laughing is all we can do.

  • Dee

    Reading this PATRIOT UPDATE today really turns my stomach for what you are saying here is really putting our CANDIDATES down and you all should be ashamed…..For you are listening to the MEDIA and thats not what you should be doing you should be DOWNING the Media like OUR CANDIDATES DO…I CHEER FOR CAIN,,GINGRICH,,PAUL,,ROMNEY,,PERRY,,BACHMAN,,PAWLENTY…WE WILL TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK AND WE DO NEED CONGRESS TO START SPEAKING UP ABOUT THAT ILLEGAL MUSLIM OBAMA HE IS NOT A AMERICAN AND WE ALL KNOW THAT……………

    • Ltjg

      Dee, I have been saying the same thing for Months now. If we do not support all our Candidates we will not have a single one left. We are just making it easier for Obama to win.

    • Ltjg

      I just can not feel all that thrilled about Romney. I will Vote for him or any of the others only if I must.

    • Willis

      Thank you for condescending. It is more generous than most who post here. I too will condescend and vote for Newt if he gets the nomination, though I do it with tears in y eyes.

    • cmvbih

      IiIf Newt gets in I will write in a candidate. Newt is waaay too inside the insiders, he being a member of the CFR and all. Plus, 2 years ago Newt said he wants to ‘fundamentally transform’ our government system. Newt, like his mentor, Alvin Toffler, believes our Constitution is outdated and needs to go.
      Please look up what I just wrote about. Newt will make you sick, too, once you read what little regard he has for our founding principles.

  • dallas wolff

    I urge all to not listen to the liberal press and only believe part of what you hear on fox news. Those polls are slanted and untrue. Carl Rove works for the old republican guard that is trying to push Romney. Ron Paul and Michelle Bachman are the real deal for smaller government. Ron Pauls plan gets us going right away and cuts of 1 trillion a year for three years. Not this delayed 10 year down the road crap. Vote for Ron Paul and we will also stop feeding the military industrial complex that has been getting us further in debt every year. Remember Isenhower warned us back in 1955.

    • Millicent

      Sorry, you lost me at Ron Paul. If he were President in WWII, we would all be speaking German now.

    • skeebiejeebie

      And how would Hitler have done that one? Do you think he could have wrapped up conquering Europe and keeping Stalin at bay and still kept the home fires burning and troop morale high.

      You are an idiot. We went to war because Churchill was a fat slob that couldn’t get the glory without our help. If you don’t trust FDR to handle the economy, why would you trust him to send troops in harm’s way? Oh well, at least they DECLARED WAR back then.

      Fearmongers are always the same. Take one Hitler out. Create another one. Take him out. Create another one. So on and so forth.

    • cmvbih

      Millicent, I suppose you don’t agree with our Founding Father’s either:
      o Thomas Jefferson said, “I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe [insert the Middle East here]. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war.”

      Perhaps you should remove the bloodlust from your heart so you can imagine an America at peace. A vote for Ron Paul may actually achieve that peace.

    • M.C. Xiques

      Rove does not like Gingrich. It shows in his interviews on Fox. He is pushing an establishment Rep. — Romney to be exact!

    • Hank is back

      Nope. rove is an establishmentarian. Romney is an establishmentarian. Gingrich is an establishmentarian. The reason Rove doesn’t like Gingrich is because Rove knows that Gingrich changes his positions to much. If Rove is the power behind the throne, the last thing he wants is someone he can’t work with. Rove can work with Romney.

    • Willis

      Oh you poor soul that you cannot see that Newt IS the establishment.

  • mikey

    On a positive note, the Press does not select the Candidate, we do. The Press can only influence the uninformed, so it is up to us to inform our like minded and those who find the current Administration abhorant. Keep focused at the task at hand and do not let the Media split the vote by having us argue over fine points and pushing us to vote for a third party.

  • bsfurg


    • TheThinMan

      I have a friend that says she’ll vote for a real monkey still locked in his cage at the zoo before she will vote for the dumbo one they let out in 2008

  • David in MA

    The time is here for all Republican candidates to conference and chose one of their own, support that person with funding and political strength, to run against obama, and to hammer that illegal immigrant endlessly on his dismil record and socialist agenda.

    • TheThinMan

      That’s what the primaries are for.

    • Lois Alltogether

      boy I would love to see all of the folks do the right thing and elect a christian man and Palin to be vice Pres.

  • Virginia

    The media is pushing Mitt Romney so we will lose, just like they pushed McCain last time so we would lose. We must not allow them to do this to us. Let’s use our hearts and minds and make the best choice ourselves instead of allowing the liberals to make our choice for us.

    • Willis

      If they are pushing Romney this time, why didn’t they push him last time? He was there looking for a good push. It doesn’t make sense. Newt is coming from behind just like McCain. Same pattern. Same push from behind. Newt is Mr. Establishment. We ignored the present president’s associates the last election are we going to ignore Newt’s this time around?

    • Hank is back

      A huge portion of the GOP constituency thinks that because the libs didn’t vet Obama, that they have the right not to vet their guy. If liberals held Obama to the same scrutiny they did conservative candidates, Obama would never have been president. Similarly, if conservatives held Newt to the same scrutiny as Obama, he would be their last or second-to-last pick.

  • http://patriotupdate Sue

    Yes the media is choosing the Republican candidate for president for all of us unassuming conservatives. They are dismantling each and every candidate until “miraculously” only Romney will remain standing Please do your own research as many have done here. Romney is merely Obama “lite” and will continue with the same agenda.

    • Johnnygard

      It is rather interesting that every time a candidate has poll numbers close to Romney, the media slims that candidate, but has yet to slime Romney.

    • Hank is back

      That is because they think he will be the candidate and are saving his dirt for last. They did it to McCain last time.

  • Scott

    I honestly believe that some who post here are plants

    • Ltjg

      That is very True Scott, and some have multiple names known as Alters. Many of my friends have researched this and know who they are.

    • Hank is back

      That is right. Label everyone you disagree with with some name you think sounds clever. Alter. Kinda catchy. But not gonna scare me away because I have nothing to hide.

    • Ltjg

      LOL, Did I mention anyone by name? How did you get involved with this comment? Was something I said directed to you? Or do you have something to hide? I guess if the shoe fits, you wear it.

    • Hank is back

      I already told you that the shoe does fit. But why would you even care about ‘alters’ unless most of them disagreed with you? Maybe it is because you hate liars of all sorts, even if they have good intentions. Good for you. But don’t pretend that I don’t have a right to respond to a comment on a thread. That is the purpose of threads.

  • scarolinarepublican

    Cain is a disaster. This is a country, not a pizza parlor. Bachmann says we need a mommy. This is a Nation, not a day care center. Paul is a nut job. Santorum thinks he is a Sunday School teacher. This is NOT a church.
    How about nominating someone who can beat Obama. There’s a brilliant idea! The Republican is a broad group of conservatives AND moderates. This “RINO” crap is a dangerous creation of the Tea Party. The Tea Party MUST support whoever we put up against Obama. Ideological purity be damned.
    The Dems are most afraid of Romney— so let’s get together and support him if he is the nominee. Gingrich is brilliant and would destroy Obama in dabates… but I am afraid that he has more baggage than Delta! There is never a more important time in our history to get together than now… we bicker and snipe at our own peril! The Democrats and the media LOVE IT when we are at loggerheads. Let’s clean up our act. The future of the USA depends on it!!!!

  • Warren Fales

    All I can add is: Bible prophesy declares we are going toward a ONE WORLD Government. It will happen because, as a nation, we are drifting away from God. Our churches are as void of God’s Spirit as was the Jewish Sanhredren that demanded the Romans crucify our Lord.If you are serious about eternal life, begin to obey the Bible so you can understand what it says

    • Hank is back

      And Newt is the King Saul that will be only to happy to usher it in.

    • Johnnygard

      Hank, you are a lib that is deathly afraid Newt will beat Obama. Instead of all the negativity, tell us what, or who, you are for.

    • Hank is back

      Sure thing there, kiddo,

      80 reasons to vote for Ron Paul

      Ron Paul continues to be ignored by the main-stream media, even after statistically placing first, along-side Michelle Bachmann in the Ames Straw Poll on August 13th. Below, is a list of 80 reasons why you should vote for Ron Paul. This is a short list (I have one listing 116 that I am working on typing).

      1. Ron Paul served his country as a Flight Surgeon in the air force and the air national guard.

      2. Ronald Reagan has called Ron Paul one of the most outstanding leaders: “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.” – Ronald Reagan

      3. Believes national defense is the single most important responsibility the Constitution entrusts to the federal government.

      4. Voted to authorize military force to hunt down Osama bin Laden and authored legislation to specifically target terrorist leaders and bring them to justice.

      5. He will Make securing our borders the top national security priority.

      6. He will avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.

      7. He will guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.

      8. He will end the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.

      9. He will follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.

      10. He will only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.

      11. He will ensure our veterans receive the care, benefits, and honors they have earned when they return.

      12. He will revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.

      13. He will prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency.

      14. He will stop the government from taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid.

      15. Ron Paul’s national defense policy will ensure that the greatest nation in human history is strong, secure, and respected.

      16. He is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency.

      17. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives

      18. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

      19. A man of principle and family values. He has been married to Carol for over 50 years, and are the proud parents of five children and have eighteen grandchildren.

      20. Ron Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending, and regulation, and used his House seat to actively promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels

      21. He serves on the House Financial Services Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee.

      22. He has been a distinguished counselor to the Ludwig von Mises (who was mentioned on Rush yesterday, 11/18/11) Institute, and is widely quoted by scholars and writers in the fields of monetary policy, banking, and political economy

      23. He has received many awards and honors during his career in Congress, from organizations such as the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Council for a Competitive Economy, and countless others.

      24. Dr. Paul’s consistent voting record prompted one Congressman to comment that “Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers’ ideal of the citizen-statesman.

      25. Ron Paul will Veto any unbalanced budget Congress sends to his desk.

      26. Will continue Refusing to further raise the debt ceiling so politicians can no longer spend recklessly.

      27. Will continue fighting to fully audit (and then end) the Federal Reserve System, which has enabled the over 95% reduction of what our dollar can buy and continues to create money out of thin air to finance future debt.

      28. Will fight for Legalizing sound money, so the government is forced to get serious about the dollar’s value.

      29. Will END the corporate stranglehold on the White House.

      30. Will drive down gas prices by allowing offshore drilling, abolishing highway motor fuel taxes, increasing the mileage reimbursement rates, and offering tax credits to individuals and businesses for the use and production of natural gas vehicles.

      31. Will work to eliminate the income, capital gains, and death taxes to ensure you keep more of your hard-earned money and are able to pass on your legacy to your family without government interference.

      32. Will oppose all unfunded mandates and unnecessary regulations on small businesses and entrepreneurs.

      33. Ron Paul will fight to put you back in control of your health care decisions, save you money on medical expenses, and institute reforms that will once again make America’s health care system the standard for other nations to follow.

      34. Ron Paul will repeal Obama-Care and end its unconstitutional mandate that all Americans must carry only government-approved health insurance or answer to the IRS.

      35. Ron Paul will allow purchase of health insurance across state lines.

      36. Ron Paul will work to provide tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses.

      37. He will work to exempt those with terminal illnesses from the employee portion of payroll taxes while they are suffering from such illnesses or are incurring significant medical costs associated with their conditions.

      38. He will work to give a payroll deduction to any worker who is the primary caregiver for a spouse, parent, or child with a terminal illness.

      39. Will ensure that those harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system by providing a tax credit for “negative outcomes” insurance purchased before medical treatment.

      40. Guarantee that what is taken from taxpayers to pay for Medicare and Medicaid is not raided for other purposes.

      41. Make all Americans eligible for Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and remove government-imposed barriers to obtaining HSAs.

      42. Stop the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from interfering with Americans’ knowledge of and access to dietary supplements and alternative treatments.

      43. Prevent federal bureaucrats from tracking every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave by prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds for a national database of personal health information.

      44. As an OB/GYN who delivered over 4,000 babies, Ron Paul knows firsthand how precious, fragile, and in need of protection life is.

      45. Dr. Ron Paul spent his entire career in the medical profession working to uphold this simple principle of “Do No Harm” by ensuring his patients received the best care he could give them, even if they could not afford it.

      46. Ron Paul believes it would be inconsistent for him to champion personal liberty and a free society if he didn’t also advocate respecting the God-given right to life—for those born and unborn.

      47. After being forced to witness an abortion being performed during his time in medical school, he knew from that moment on that his practice would focus on protecting life.

      48. As a physician, Ron Paul consistently put his beliefs into practice and saved lives by helping women seek options other than abortion, including adoption.

      49. Ron Paul will work to help Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

      50. Will remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home.

      51. Will Repeal the federal tax on gasoline. Eliminating the federal gas tax would result in an 18 cents savings per gallon for American consumers.

      52. Ron Paul will lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power.

      53. He will eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington.

      54. Make tax credits available for the purchase and production of alternative fuel technologies.

      55. Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

      56. Will stand by granting no Amnesty – The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

      57. Ron Paul will Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

      58. Ron Paul will End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.

      59. Ron Paul will Protect Lawful Immigrants – As President,
      Ron Paul will encourage legal immigration by streamlining the entry process without rewarding lawbreakers.

      60. He will Help parents better educate their children by providing parents with a $5,000 per child tax credit for tutors, books, computers, and other K-12 related educational needs.

      61. Paul will Ensure that the federal government treats high school diplomas earned through homeschooling the same as other high school diplomas.

      62. Dr.Paul is a strong supporter of the National Right to Work Act.

      63. Voted to defeat Big Labor’s “Card Check” scheme.

      64. Voted against the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill.

      65. Ron Paul’s exceptional record on Right to Work issues earned him the prestigious Everett Dirksen Award from the National Right to Work Committee.

      66. Ron Paul is Introducing legislation to repeal the “Brady Bill” and the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban.”

      67. Authoring legislation to end U.S. membership in the anti-gun United Nations to ensure American tax dollars are not used to fund global gun control schemes like the so-called “Small Arms Treaty.”

      68. Ron Paul is Writing a bill that would allow pilots and specially trained law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers and help prevent future 9/11-style attacks.

      69. Ron Paul has stood as a champion for law-abiding gun owners, and he will continue protecting your Second Amendment rights as President.

      70. Paul will support a Liberty Amendment to the Constitution to abolish the income and death taxes

      71. Ron Paul will eliminate the IRS!

      72. Capital gains taxes, which punish you for success (and interfere with your efforts to hedge against inflation by purchasing gold and silver coins), will also be repealed.

      73. Ron Paul has consistently endorsed legislation to let Americans claim more tax credits and deductions, including on educational costs, alternative energy vehicles, and health care.

      74. Dr.Paul believes it is immoral to tax senior citizens twice by requiring them to include Social Security benefits in their gross income at tax time.

      75. Would Restrain federal spending by enforcing the Constitution’s strict limits on the federal government’s power, which would help result in a 0% income tax rate for Americans.

      76. Will work for passage of comprehensive audit legislation, and he will also fight to legalize sound money so Americans will have alternatives to the Fed’s inflated paper money.

      77. Ron Paul will lead the charge to end the dishonest, immoral, and unconstitutional Federal Reserve System, enabling America to take a giant step toward economic security, financial responsibility, and lasting prosperity.

      78. Will allow the liquidation of bad debt.

      79. Will allow bankruptcies to occur, no more bailouts!

      80. Ron Paul has introduced a bill to eliminate the $1.6 trillion the United States owes the Federal reserve.

    • http://AOL JIM

      HANK ,YOU just might make a good canidate for republican party,your getting close to the stage just put your name in the hat ,I to think Ron Paul would make a good president,after Newt ,sorry no offensce ,WE do have a choice and a VOTE .hank i’m serious you, should see if you can be a help to your choice of presidentual canidate, you just might make a difference ,call them ,I’m serious you seem to have a lots of info on things ,just loose the foul launguage ,that would be a great help for you alone .Good luck .

    • Hank is back

      Well, Jim. I am glad that we made up in the end. I have seriously thought about doing some work for ‘my guy’, but my life is quite busy. I don’t know if my ‘help’ would really be a ‘help’ or not. I am sure I would have to calm down a little first, and I am capable of such.

    • Millicent

      But we can still pray for God’s mercy. There are still a lot of people out there who are not saved.

    • http://anyonewhoneedhelp,pageonfb Felix

      +++ My greetings to Ron

      About prophecy (gingrich, Miki Mous and other unknowen)

      Bible start with Kain kill Avel, and ask God – Am I keeper of my brother… While humans dont save others lifes including and Obama any politic down…


    • Lois Alltogether

      Our national problem is because we have let them take the bible out of schools and they want to take it out of the gov. and to go by the ways of the world…then all hell will break loose and we won’t have a choice except to leave with the Lord and let them have whats left of the world to do what ever the dark side wants…

  • MssKriss

    Bachmann is a real Conservative.
    Santorum is a real Conservative.

    Go read their records.

    Gingrich is NOT a Conservative. I like him but he is Not a Conservative so I will not vote for him. It’s too important this year. Go read Gingrich’s record.

    And you can just forget Romney, Perry, Cain and Huntsman. It makes me angry when they refer to themselves as Conservatives.
    And Ron Paul is an Liberterian so that let’s him out.
    Demand to hear more about Bachmann and Santorum. Write about them and talk about them. Spread the word about the only real Conservatives in the race. That’s our responsibility as Conservatives.

    • Hank is back

      We don’t need a conservative, we need a Constitutionalist. Bachmann is close, but no cigar. Santorum has an open disregard for the Constitution. He thinks it is the president’s job to force people to go to heaven, not to defend the Constitution. He rejects the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

      Ron Paul is not a Libertarian. He has been a member of the Republican Party longer than any of the others and best represents their traditional values of (truly) limited government and balanced budgets. Like I said, he is not a Libertarian. He is a Constitutionalist. Libertarians want gay marriage and abortion and legalized drugs for their own sake. Ron Paul and Constitutionalists want States’ Rights. In some instances this might lead to gay marriage or abortion or legalized drugs, but no one has to live in those states. That is why there are FIFTY OF THEM, and not one. They were meant to be different and you were meant to be able to leave the ones you don’t like and dry them of their tax revenue, and move to the ones you do like and make them influential and prosperous. That is the entire purpose of federalism. We have a FEDERAL Republic, not an absolute monarchy or a direct democracy or a burgeoning elite aristocracy.

  • Owen Barnes

    Is it too late to pray for the resurrection of of our Founding Fathers and our Constitution as it was intended?

  • Robert Young

    What’s left to say? Either Newt or Romney would be a vote for One World Government.Neither of them would uphold our Constitution and neither of them are Conservatives. Elect Ron Paul President in 2012. If we do not elect a Constitutional Conservative President in 2012 and a Constitutionally Conservative controlled House and Senate to support him, We, the People, will never get another chance to bring America back to the Constitutional Government of our Forefathers. When elected, Ron Paul will cut One Trillion in deficit spending his First year in office, abolishing redundant Government Agencies and Departments, stop Foreign Aid, get the U.S. out of the U.N., and in his Third year in office present the American People with a balanced budget. Do your part Americans, get out and vote. Elect Ron Paul President in 2012.

    • Millicent

      Ron Paul will allow us to be overrun with Sharia Law. No way no how

    • http://windstream Sandra

      Ron Paul votes per the Constitution.The Constitution states that we are not suppose to declare war on any country that does not directly affects us. The US has always been the worlds keeper. Our military needs to come home from some of the places that we left them 60 or 70 years ago.I believe the only country we should protect is Israel. I believe Israel will take care of Iran, and if they need our help, we should help. I like Ron Paul, because he would do everything he could to get rid of the Fed. Reserve, whom started taking our money through a ponsi scheme called the IRS. The people that started the Fed. Reserve are the same people that wants the one world government, and are controlling Odumbo.

    • Hank is back


      I agree for the most part.

      But consider this…

      The only reason Israel has not made a strike against Iran yet is because the US (under Bush and Obama) and the UN have tied Israel’s hands WITH FOREIGN AID, just as states in the US relinquish their rights in order to get federal funds. If they take our money, it gives the US leverage to tell them what to do. So we tell them that we will take care of Iran when what the US government and military-industrial complex really wants is to let the situation fester, apply more sanctions, constantly provoking Iran, not allowing Israel to do what it needs to do, and all so we can have a full scale war just before it is too late to prevent the acquisition of a nuke by the nuts in Iran.

      Ron Paul would give Israel back its sovereignty and also take back ours. Iran would either calm down or risk a strike by the independent Israelis.

      this is common sense. What is needed is not escalation, but a return to normalcy. On the international stage, the definition of normalcy is the idea of sovereign, independent, self-sufficient states.

      Remember: Israel has three to four hundred nukes, ample experience dealing with its enemies (it took out Syrian and Iraqi nuclear facilities), and a pretty decent economy not yet rotted away by the welfare-state.

      Do you really want to be in Libya, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen? This is how empires crumble. they spread their resources too thin protecting, not their interests, but the interests of the elite in all nations. they pay for it by inflating the currency (the reason the Fed was started was to fund WWI, which many knew was coming), giving the first round to allies and arms manufacturers, and by the time it reaches the average guy, it is comparatively worthless.

    • M.C. Xiques

      I do not believe Newt supports one world government. I have never read anything to support that view.

    • Hank is back

      Well, let me show you…

      This is the small version of the top ten reasons not to support Newt. I left out the domestic policy foibles because you are interested in his globalism.


      It is not too difficult to look up the North American Free trade agreement to review the dealings with that and how the United States was badly hurt with that. It was not that long ago, but perhaps some voters do not remember the dealings with Newt and that Newt Gingrich powerfully circumvented Congress so foreign nations controlled commerce. This action by Newt took the power from the American people and handed it over to mostly foreigners.


      Newt Gingrich professes to be a conservative, and is running on the Republican ticket for president in 2012. If you review his history resume you will see he lists himself as a career politician. His statements and endorsements of several candidates for political positions have anyone question what is his party? He worked on the Rockefeller (a committed internationalist) presidential campaign in 1968.

      Card Holder

      Newt Gingrich is a card carrying member of the Council on Foreign Relations since 1991. The CFR is a globalist organization with headquarters based in New York with other buildings of meetings and association as well.
On the membership roster is Newton Leroy Gingrich who is among the over 4,500 members. The very guarded organization has strict guidelines for membership and continued participation to remain current.There is some data referring to Council on Foreign Relations as being a shadow government that revolved from International bankers in the year 1913 who then spoke of the New World Order.

      Foreign Funds

      Along with being a wealthy man, Newt Gingrich spends Americans money with not much care. Newt is a huge supporter of foreign aid. In one year only from 1994 to 1995 Newt voted to give nearly 45 Billion dollars in foreign aid. His foreign aid extended to the Soviets through the Import Export bank.

      Loans to China

      Newt Gingrich had a first hand push for federal funded loan guarantees to Communist China.This action proved to steal American jobs and flood the US with receipts of debt the Communist Chinese hold against America. You can certainly see what the economy has done with those efforts, can’t you?

    • Hank is back

      Also, watch this video.

      and read this article

      I will not deny that these are ‘biased’ sources, but then who can we trust if not those with stated principles that they live by and. That is the true meaning of Bias.

  • MH

    I’ll vote for anyone but obama anyone is better.

  • MssKriss

    If you vote for Paul, or anyone other than Santorum or Bachmann, you better do your reading and understand who you are voting for. Do Not vote until you have read their records and you know exactly what you are voting for. Ron Paul is Not a Conservative. He’s a Libertarian. Libertarian’s are not Conservatives. Understand what that means before you vote for him. People did not read up on Obama, they just accepted what he said and look what we got. Ron Paul may believe in the Constitution but he is Not a Conservative. Understand who these people are before you vote for them. Read.

    • Hank is back

      Wow. So your narrow ideology trumps the Law of the Land. Wasn’t there a Biblical passage that required people yo submit to legitimate authority? Used to be a bid deal amongst ‘conservatives’.

      You said it yourself, Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist. But he is not a libertarian. To be sure, the Constitutionalists overlap to some degree with the Conservatives and to some degree with the Libertarians. So does Paul. But if you look into the conservatism of days past; Constitutionalism, and even some variants of libertarianism have more in common with it than does your concept of ‘conservatism’.

      Reagan said, in 1975,

      “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

      “Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.”

      Paul is pro-life. He authored legislation that would have saved millions of unborn babies by allowing states to reject Roe v. Wade, and just enough of the GOP house (including many so-called conservatives and so-called pro-lifers) voted against it because it didn’t allow them to force the states to do everything they wanted. It would have passed if all the GOP had voted for it. The Democrats didn’t block it. The ‘conservative’ Republicans did.

      Paul is for limited government.

      Paul is against taxes.

      Paul is for allowing prayer in schools.

      Paul is for balanced budgets and paying off the national debt.

      Paul is for obeying the Law (Constitution, not unconstitutional legislation).

      Paul is for closing the border to those that come here illegally.

      Paul is for a Foreign policy that most resembles that of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Quincy Adams.

      Paul is for honoring all contracts.

      Paul is for State’s Rights.

      Paul is for ending the brainwashing of children through the Federally-controlled (unconstitutional) public school system.


      And you say he is not a conservative?

      No. Your concept of conservatism includes deficit spending, foreign interventionism, unenforceable laws, the spreading of democracy a la Trotsky, preserving the theft of our dollars through the hidden tax, inflation (although, to be fair, Bachmann does ant to audit the Fed), imposing mandates, making the states mere departments of the Federal Government, rather than partners, spying on innocent Americans, assassinated Americans that have not been found guilty, detaining Americans without charges, and enforcing ‘morality’ with violence when persuasion and leading by example are all that is needed.

  • Palinista

    There is still is something called the American Conservative Party, and they don’t have to be a rubber stamp for the GOP. If we threaten to move en masse over to them, then maybe the GOP will sit up and listen!

    • Johnnygard

      The Tea Party needs to warn the GOP that if they don’t do the right thing(s) between now and February 2013, we WILL ALL move to the Conservative Party. We have to do it long before the following election to give life long Republicans time enough to realize that the GOP is no longer doing what we want.

    • Hank is back

      So push for Newt, the establishment’s establisher.

      Here is your GOP, Johnson…

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

      Gingrich recommended The Third Wave as essential reading to his colleagues when he became Speaker of the House. In his forward to another Toffler book, Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave, he grieved at the lack of appreciation for “Toffler’s insight” in The Third Wave and blamed politicians who had not applied his model for the “frustration, negativism, cynicism and despair” of the political landscape. He went on to explain that Toffler advocated a concept called “anticipatory democracy,” and bragged that he had worked with him for 20 years “to develop a future-conscious politics and popular understanding that would make it easier for America to make the transition” to a Third Wave civilization.

      Another explanation for Gingrich’s liberal voting record is that he has been a member, since 1990, of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a group founded in 1921 as a think tank of influential politicians and policymakers dedicated to sacrificing national independence to create a global government. He showed his fidelity to internationalism in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Affairs in July of 1995 when he brazenly admitted his disdain for our founding document.

      “The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution,” he said. “Under our [constitutional system] — either we’re going to have to rethink our Constitution, or we’re going to have to rethink our process of decision-making.” He went on to profess an oxymoronic belief in “very strong but limited federal government,” and pledged, “I am for the United Nations.” That is certainly no surprise since his mentor is none other than former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger (also a CFR member and one-world internationalist).

      On other occasions Gingrich expressed his admiration and regard for establishment insiders Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and George Catlett Marshall, praising what they had done to bring about international government. Gingrich scorned any connection with “isolationists” (a dirty word used to describe anyone who defines free trade as the ability to conduct international business unfettered by unconstitutional regulations) in a speech given at the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom on March 1, 1995. He cited his work on NAFTA, GATT, and various foreign aid measures, and concluded saying, “I’m always curious why there’s some presumption that [I am] in any way isolationist.”

What about Gingrich today? Isn’t it possible he has changed since he served in Congress? He has a new wife and a new religion, converting to Catholicism earlier this year. He still says he is conservative, but maybe that definition has changed, too. Indeed, he positioned himself as a hero of this past April’s Tax Day Tea Party movement, partnering with that group in his position as chairman of American Solutions for Winning the Future (ASWF). He issued a general invitation to all Americans on YouTube to join local Tea Parties across the nation. “The fact is that we need a smaller government, a more effective government, and we need lower taxes,” he said. “Let’s communicate to our leaders, ‘We want you to fix it, or we’re gonna want new leaders.’” He used even stronger language in a rousing delivery at the April 15 Tea Party in New York, when he warned big-spending legislators to straighten up or “we’re gonna fire you.”

      Yet it seems Gingrich is still up to his old tricks. In front of a Tea Party crowd, he expounds the virtues of limited government, but elsewhere he is still the futurist conservative devoted to internationalism. His blog biography brags about his work as Speaker of the House and then boasts of such unconstitutional credentials as serving on the CFR’s Terrorism task force, co-chairing the UN task force to “reform” (i.e., strengthen) the United Nations, and receiving credit for the DHS being his brainchild. “Newt Gingrich is a leading advocate of increased federal funding for basic science research,” reads the bio. Gingrich’s ASWF endorses federal involvement in areas such as energy, education, labor and the environment. He also founded the Center for Health Transformation, which advocates its own version of socialized medicine.

It would seem the CFR has done a good job schooling Gingrich in foreign affairs over the past 10 years as well. No longer the novice, Gingrich supports continuing the “war” in Afghanistan despite the fact that Congress never actually declared war as required by the Constitution. The Baltimore Sun noted on October 22 that Gingrich supports expanding the U.S. military presence in the Middle East. He claimed, “Afghanistan is a skirmish in a long war…. We need a much larger grand strategy that deals with the whole war.” He even had the audacity to invoke George Washington as a model for Obama in making “morally correct” decisions in Afghanistan. Careful, Gingrich, you’re quoting one of those nasty noninterventionists! Washington had this to say about foreign policy in his Farewell Address: “The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.” Yet National Review quoted Gingrich in opposition to the Father of Our Country. “You can pull out of Afghanistan, and then what?… We pulled out of Somalia, and now we have pirates,” he said, ignoring what U.S. support of the UN puppet regime in that unfortunate country has done to promote terrorism, and parallel scenarios in Afghanistan and across the Middle East. His statements leave little doubt as to how Gingrich would conduct himself as Commander in Chief.

But he isn’t all fight. There’s also the kinder, gentler Newt who, in April 2008, cuddled up with current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a love seat at the National Mall to make a “We Can Solve It” television commercial (for Al Gore’s $300 million global-warming ad campaign) urging constituents to pressure their Representatives in Washington to go green. He said that “our country must take action to address climate change.” Yet when he explained his participation at, he admitted, “I don’t think that we have conclusive proof of global warming [or] that humans are at the center of it.” This is ludicrous. If Gingrich intends to take a side in the debate, he is de facto conceding that climate change is real and humans are the cause. He is yielding to a false premise, and any “compromise” solution based on it will be disastrous.

      Gingrich’s blog explains further, “There is a big difference between left-wing environmentalism … and a Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want.” (Emphasis added.) He fails to acknowledge that the Constitution prohibits federal involvement in those areas, but the really troubling word is “prizes.” This has cap and trade written all over it. Gingrich  already sanctioned cap and trade on sulfur dioxide emissions in the 1990 Clean Air Act. He claims to oppose Obama’s plan but instead wants the government to lower prices on alternative energy sources, “because I think you’re going to get faster acceleration of new innovation if you lower the price of good products … rather than raise the price of obsolete products.” So Gingrich’s “conservative” answer to the concocted energy crisis is price regulation and government subsidies, both of which use tax money to stifle the economy, giving advantage to faulty products and services that cannot support themselves in a free-market economy. Gingrich’s “Green Conservatism” seems much like the “left-wing environmentalism” that he disapproves.

Pelosi and Gore are not Gingrich’s only strange bedfellows. He recently toured the nation with Reverend Al Sharpton and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to promote President Obama’s education reforms and charter schools. Of course, there are a number of problems with that scenario, not the least of which is Gingrich’s association with Al Sharpton, a controversial left-wing activist, or his contemptible pandering to the dictates of the liberal Obama administration. The main problem, as usual, is Gingrich’s endorsement of patently unconstitutional measures. The tour agenda recommends increased local control of schools to be regulated and subsidized by the federal Department of Education. That’s right: increased local control through increased federal regulation.

      The proposal also calls for “the ability of parents to pick the right school for their child.” Parents would already have that ability if it weren’t for the Department of Education. Rearranging how the federal government regulates education may be “reform” of the current system, but the current system is unconstitutional.

If all this weren’t enough to expose Gingrich’s fidelity-at-all-costs to the establishment, he endorsed an ultra-liberal Republican over a conservative third-party candidate in New York’s 23rd Congressional District special election held November 3. Republican Dede Scozzafava supports same-sex “marriage,” big labor, and abortion. She won the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood in March of 2008. The liberal ACORN-affiliated Working Families Party backs Scozzafava, and conservatives within her party call her a RINO (Republican In Name Only). When the New York Post came out in support of her Conservative Party opponent, Doug Hoffman, it said, “a Republican should adhere to certain minimum GOP principles. Scozzafava is just too far to the left too often.” Yet Gingrich described her in a letter to supporters as “our best chance to put responsible and principled leaders in Washington.” Gingrich explained his endorsement on, saying his “number one interest in the 2009 elections is to build a Republican majority,” and to do so it is sometimes necessary “to put together a coalition that has disagreement within it.” Considering that the publisher of the liberal Daily Kos endorsed Scozzafava as “willing to raise taxes” and “to the left of most Democrats on social issues,” it’s fair to ask if Newt has any principles at all.

      Scozzafava dropped a campaign bomb-shell when she withdrew from the race just four days before the election, leaving a two-man fight between Hoffman and Democrat opponent Bill Owens. Gingrich then endorsed Hoffman, not on principle, but to prevent the Democrats from gaining another seat in the House. Owens got an endorsement from Scozzafava the very next day and proceeded to win the election by a narrow plurality. So Republicans lost a seat in the House, and Gingrich lost an enormous amount of credibility among conservatives.

With outrageous national debt and out-of-control federal spending, loss of sovereignty to the likes of the UN and the WTO, spiraling taxes, and a bloodsucking bureaucratic leviathan, America can no longer afford to gamble on such a Jekyll-and-Hyde “conservative” as Newt Gingrich. What we need in Washington instead are constitutionalists who know that it is against the law to violate the Constitution no matter what anyone’s opinion may be. The easiest way to tell a phony conservative from the true constitutionalist is to ask a few simple questions. Does he support federal education and welfare programs? Foreign aid? An interventionist foreign policy as opposed to staying clear of foreign quarrels? If yes, he is not a constitutionalist. We will never get back to good government unless we urge lawmakers to use the Constitution as their guide, and only support candidates who adopt the Constitution as their platform, regardless of party.

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      Hank You have worn out your welcome here.There is no reason that we have to be subjected your obnoxious ways and your filthy mouth. After hearing you, I wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul even if he really was right. You are a poor representative.

    • Hank is back

      I am not worn out here. Since your little one-sided critique, I have responded to many that have asked ME legitimate questions. Some of them are people that are genuinely curious about Doctor Paul or want to know more about Gingrich’s globalism.

      Ann? Aren’t you one of the ones that has said ABO? I could be wrong, but if you are, then saying you WON’T vote for Ron Paul simply proves that you don’t want to get rid of Obama at all costs, but just that you want an establishment hack to be your leader.

      How moral is it to not support a candidate you know to be right? You would be punishing yourself far more than me.

      I only dish out abuse to those that ask for it. I use occasional remonstrances that only a woman would be seriously offended by (like idiot, fool), and only resort to harsher tones and forms when the situation calls for it. So far, many of the people I have gotten into a cussing match with have made their amends with me, and I with them. why? because we are men and men can handle verbal abrasion without being spiteful.

      Prove to me that women are indeed men’s equals by swallowing your pride and not allowing a few harsh words in a moment of passion (something you are not familiar with, I suppose?) to cloud your judgement, or by consistently criticizing everyone that engage in foulmouthery, even if you agree with them.

      Your moral superiority has been conspicuously absent elsewhere. You reserve your hatred for those who support Ron Paul, even those of us that merely point out his finer qualities and do not resort to name calling.

      Ann. As someone that admires Ayn Rand (though not her atheism), I truly want to like you. It is hard to like someone whose every comment is smug, hypocritical, and uninformed. Perhaps there is no cussing, but rarely either is there substance.


      I hope that I am not wrong in assuming that your name is a play on Ayn Rand’s name.

      And, you are right. Doctor Paul would not approve of all my efforts. But then, I drafted him, not the other way around.

      Perhaps the only reason you are so clean tongued is that you wouldn’t want to be blamed for messing up your guy’s campaign. How shallow and untruthful you are if that is the case.

    • R. Roberts

      All- Right, you people are like little kids fighting over a lollipop. Concentrate on beating Obuma not each other. Do not use caps all the time, it takes away from what you are trying to say. I am a Ron Paul fan but will vote for any the ones who get in except Romney. I will have to decide what to then, probably not vote. As per Ron Paul, everyone says letting Iran have a Nuclear Weapon is bad. Who are they going to use it on? Us or Israel? Israel is their sworn enemy, this is who they would go for ( they are alot closer). How many warheads does Israel have. hundreds? Israel would fire on every Muslim country, there would be nothing left. That is why Ron Paul is not afraid of Iran having a Nuclear Weapon. We should be more afraid of North Korea. This is my honest opinion. Beat me up if you like & give some negative points, who cares?

    • Hank is back

      R. Roberts,

      If it is okay for you to reject Romney, why is it not okay for me to reject Gingrich, who has a record of backstabbing, flip-flopping, contradicting, and liberal voting to rival Romney’s? Where do you draw the line and how is it not arbitrary?

      Other than that, I concede your points and voted you up. Don’t count on Ann Landers doing the same. She really hates it when someone treats her like a child.

  • MssKriss

    Palinista….that is a very good thought. Maybe in order to clear things up we need a definition of Conservatisim. The Tea Pary says;
    1. Constitutionally limited Government
    2. Personal and government financial responsibility
    3. Free market Capitalism
    Anyone want to add to that?

    • Hank is back

      Too bad Santorum doesn’t believe in any of those things. Bachmann accepts all of them to a degree. Paul accepts all of them and then some, in toto.

      You can’t have limited government if the only check on its use of power is its own discretion. That is why the founders adopted the Tenth Amendment. Why don’t you ask Rick Santorum if he believes if the tenth was meant to be a check on unconstitutional authority? Ask him if he has ever read the federalist Papers. The answer to both will probably be “NO” or too ambiguous to discern.

  • Frank

    The 2 most conservative candidates are Ron Paul & Michelle Bachmann… maybe Rick Santorum,.. but I still don’t know that much about him & my impression of him debating is negative. I’d be happy with Bachmann or Paul. But I’ll vote 3rd Party before I would vote for RomneyCare. The liberal mass media clearly want dumbed-down voters to pick another “big government” Republican RINO in case Obama darling loses.

    • M.C. Xiques

      Those who support a 3rd party will give the election to Obama

    • Hank is back

      What about independents that are fed up with both parties because neither has any credibility?

      And what about voting your principles and not your fear?

      The lesser of two evils is still evil.

      Don’t become a puppet.

      It is YOUR vote, not the GOP’s.

      Gingrich=Obama-Maoist Rhetoric

      And that is just on a good day for him

  • Not Impressed

    Are you going to vote based on Party? or Principle? At least find somebody that has honesty and integrity.

    • Hank is back

      I am voting on Principle and Conscience. Apparently most everyone else is voting Party. More like voting fear. They are so scared of Obama that they would replace him with a mini-me. Despair has taken over the GOP. Can they alleviate it with globalist liberal Newt Gingrich who ran to the left of the Georgia Democrats in 1974 and 1976, campaigned for Nelson Rockefeller in 1968, and couldn’t win in Georgia in 1998 because the Democrat was for smaller Government than Newton was! It is as though people are saying “Well, the Democrats didn’t vet Obama in 2008, so we don’t have to vet our guy this time”. How childish coming from the supposed adults in the GOP supporting the supposedly most adult candidate.

      The electable candidates will always renege on their promises, violate the principles that got them elected, and piss on the Constitution. This is the story of Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and both Bushes. Reagan at least made it half way through his first term before breaking a promise. Not so for any of the others. And not so for Newt, who is far to the left of Reagan (Newt’s supposed man-crush).

  • Hank is back

    Newt Gingrich Is No Conservative

    by Gene Healy

    Has it really come to this? Newt Gingrich as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney? That’s what many in the punditocracy have proclaimed as the former speaker of the House has surged recently in the polls.

    Yet a look at his record reveals that Newt is hardly the “anti-Mitt” — he’s Mitt Romney with more baggage and bolder hand gestures.

    Every Gingrich profile proclaims that he’s a dazzling “ideas man,” a “one-man think tank.” It seems that, if you clamor long enough about “big ideas,” people become convinced you actually have them.

    But most of Gingrich’s policy ideas over the last decade have been tepidly conventional and consistent with the Big Government, Beltway Consensus.

    ]ost of Gingrich’s policy ideas over the last decade have been tepidly conventional and consistent with the Big Government, Beltway Consensus.
    Gingrich’s campaign nearly imploded this summer when he dismissed Rep. Paul Ryan’s, R-Wis., Medicare reform plan as “right-wing social engineering.” But that gaffe was a window into Gingrich’s irresponsible approach toward entitlements.

    In 2003, Gingrich stumped hard for President George W. Bush’s prescription drug bill, which has added about $17 trillion to Medicare’s unfunded liabilities. “Every conservative member of Congress should vote for this Medicare bill,” Newt urged.

    And in his 2008 book Real Change, he endorsed an individual mandate for health insurance.

    In a 2006 piece for Human Events, Gingrich offered House Republicans “11 Ways to Say: ‘We’re Not Nancy Pelosi.'” Point seven proposed a Solyndra-on-steroids industrial policy devoted to “developing more clean coal solutions, investing in a conversion to a hydrogen economy” and more. It’s not clear why the former madame speaker would complain.

    It’s also unclear why anybody looking to distance himself from Pelosi would plop down on a love seat with her to call for government action on climate change — as Gingrich did in a 2008 television commercial.

    Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency: America’s Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power.

    It was a season of bipartisan chumminess for Newt. “Kerry and Gingrich Hugging Trees — and (Almost) Each Other,” the Washington Post described a 2007 global warming event Gingrich headlined with Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

    On foreign affairs, Gingrich’s ideas are a little less conventional, but his apocalyptic saber rattling hardly instills confidence. “We need a calm, reasoned dialogue about the genuine possibility of a second Holocaust,” he told an American Enterprise Institute audience in 2007.

    In 2009, he proposed zapping a North Korean missile site with laser weapons. (“Beam me up, Mr. Speaker!” as former Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio, used to say in the ’90s.)

    There’s no denying that Newt is smart, but there’s a zany, Cliff Clavin aspect to his intellect. At times, Gingrich, who’s written more than 150 book reviews on, sounds like a guy who read way too much during a long prison stretch.

    The former speaker’s immense self-regard is evident in one of the exhibits to a 1997 House Ethics Committee report on him. In a handwritten 1992 note to himself, he wrote: “Gingrich — primary mission, Advocate of civilization, definer of civilization, Teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who fan civilization, … leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces.” Whew!

    When he’s not leading the assembled armies of civilization in a Thermopylae-style battle against “Obama’s Secular Socialist Machine,” Newt does a little consulting on the side.

    In 2009, the ethanol lobby paid his firm $312,000, and in 2006, the former speaker scored a $300,000 fee from Freddie Mac, one of the government-sponsored enterprises that helped pump up the disastrous housing bubble.

    They sought “my advice as an historian,” Gingrich later explained. (Maybe they were impressed by all those Amazon reviews).

    Newt may be a poor fit for the role of “anti-Romney,” but you can say one thing for him: He knows how to play the Washington Game.

  • Jennie Apple

    The media…Obummer’s puppets…are trying to make us self implode by turning us against each other. They know Romney can’t beat Obama so they are behind him and rigging the polls for him. He is just a statue…no passion…a deadpan.
    We have to quit ripping each other apart and stand together before what little is left of our country disappears more than it has. We need someone who loves our country as much as we do.

    • http://windstream Sandra

      Jennie, you are so right.I will vote for whom ever gets the nomination. At least they will be a real American. Usually by the time the primary gets to NC, the candidate is already chosen, so I have to vote for the lesser of the 2 evils. Which of course I would never vote for Odumbo.

  • Patriot7

    Why must candidates be labeled as this or that when it only serves to divide and create dissent? We should all pray that God will put in the right person as the GOP nominee and stop trying to second guess who will be the best candidate. This nation was founded on Christian principles and for it to survive, we must return to those principles placing our trust in the almighty.

    • Hank is back

      God will do what he wants. Did it ever occur to you that maybe he wants us to suffer for breaking his laws? Did it ever occur to you that God is thinking long term and not about this election cycle that many are desperately scrambling about.

      It is better for our country to go to pieces that we may get back our principles than to elect someone just because he is slightly better than the alternative, thereby prolonging the agony and making the pain at the end all the more severe.

      Gingrich is a bandaid, not a cure. And not a very sanitary one, at that.

    • Thinking gal

      Hank…and WHO is REALLY your choice. Be honest.

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      Thinking Gal…. He is an ozero fan. He is hoping for an ozero dynasty. Or maybe he is planning to steal michelle from ozero.

    • Hank is back

      More unverifiable slander? Keep it up.

    • Hank is back

      A legitimate question. Thank you. They are so hard to come buy these days. I am a Ron Paul supporter. I vote my conscience. I vote for the candidate I believe to be the right one, not the candidate that happens to be the most popular or happens to fool the most people. I don’t expect you to believe me. It is too easy to fall into the trap that if someone disagrees with the mainstream (within a given scope. Here, it is Patriot update) you label them an Obama acolyte. I trust you are more open minded than that.

  • Larry Hughes

    Herman Cain is still the best choice, any of the others and you get more of the same that got us into this mess in the first place. Ron Paul’s views on the boarders and defense are just too far out to be considered.

  • MD

    Rember, obamas trained 10,000 plus “Public Allies” and funded them in the Stim-U-Less packages to several Billion. Their 6 weeks of training per their 2year contract was so they could hack computers to control voting, spread lies, block non-obama media, etc,etc.


  • John C. Stewart

    “Of course we don’t have to let the media, Republican Establishment and pollsters tell us what to do.”
    This is the truest statement I have, as yet, anywhere in all of the reporting of who is ahead or who is behind. We all have a God given mind, and should not let the forces of popularity contests be the overriding judge of who we vote for. All of “the folks” know, in there hearts and minds, who they think is best suited to be the leader of this Country and the type of leadership they want. Don’t allow some biased poll or pollster sway your mind.

  • Sharon Jeanguenat

    So far, I am not fond of any of the candidates, but, I will vote for which ever one gets the nomination rather than just allow Obama to stay in there. And, with all the violence that is going on in the OWS demonstrations, we may not get the CHANCE to vote at all. Rush says, & I agree with him, that the government is either behind the demonstrations, or have had their people infiltrate them, to start riots. When this happens, & gets out of control, Obama is going to declare martial law, suspend ANY elections until he deems it safe, thereby staying in office. So, people better get ready for what’s coming down the road. If he is not impeached by Congress, by the time the election day gets here, we won’t be allowed to vote.

  • Johnny

    This article hits a true note, but needs to be included in the media bias. The writer has a bias as much as the rest of the media. All of us do, and us it to try to sway others to our way of thinking. Personally my bias is against Romney. I think Herman Cain should be the choice, but you’ll notice the article slams him for not slamming Romney. What? He’s not attacking the other candidates so he’s bad??? See, I can show my bias as well as everyone else.

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      Johnny…. Although Cain is not my choice, he is a fine man and has my respect.You are right. The media loves to have a good fight going and as we all know, they are trying to manipulate the primary to be tailor made to fit obama’s agenda.. I will gladly vote for whomever is nominated for we can’t take any more “HOPE and CHANGF”. Ann

    • Ltjg

      Dear Ann, I am so happy to see that some of us realize this. We are in BIG trouble if we let this happen. If we let them make our choices for us then we DO deserve what we get and might as well have given up our entire right to Vote because then our Rights have become meaningless.

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      LtjG… Hi,friend! Good to hear from you. Yes, we cannot let the media dictate to us, We all know whose team they are on and it is not a pretty sight. I am supporting Newt asI feel that he has had a lot of experience and is not a timid man. He made a great remark recently, something to the effect that what we have now is “amateur ignorance”. I think that says it all. Ann

    • Ltjg

      Dear Ann, Please just stick with your beleifs. If in your heart and in your conscience and through all your research you are satisfied, then that is all that matters. Do NOT listen to the Media, Do NOT be swayed by Me or anyone else. You have the complete right to do as you please. I am glad you stand up for the Truth. God Bless.

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      Thanks LTJG… Did you see the comments about hankisback??? What a creep.

    • Ltjg

      Yes Ann, I did. For some reason he made an attack on one of my comments regarding Alters when I never mentioned any names. Makes you wonder now doesn’t it.

    • Hank is back

      To be fair, who else might you have been referring to? Not someone that you agree with, I gather. I think that I have read all the comments and as yet have to see someone else who has been as controversial as myself. Why would you complain about ‘alters’ if they weren’t controversial? One would have to be pretty hard to please. My apologies if I overreacted. But it was in response to other overreactions. This is known as escalation. It is not wise, but when you feign shock only to people of a certain political persuasion, how can you appear to be anything other than shamelessly one-sided. There is nothing wrong with bias, but one-sidedness I can’t abide.

      Ann? Not man enough to have it out with me? No time, no patience, no guts, no brains, or no balls? Oops,I guess i could excuse you from that last one. No offense.

      And LTJG. That is exactly what I am doing. Sticking to my beliefs. I am sure that is fine with you, as you just said. But certain others, whenever I make it plain, come out and attack me just for getting the word out. I will not deny that I have overreacted in some instances. My apologies. But could you be more one-sided?

      Do you really think I am just some shlub who heard about Gingrich and then did some research and then just followed the media template? I have disliked Gingrich from the beginning, and with the best of intentions. Perhaps I am wrong that he is bad, but is it not a moral imperative that if I feel something is wrong that I should warn my fellow voters? We all know what happened last time when people weren’t warned about McCain. I honestly do not see the difference between McCain and Gingrich other than that Gingrich appears less likely to cave (although he has plenty of practice during the Clinton administration). His apparent bravery is certainly a commendable quality but does not even begin to cancel out his negatives which are more numerous and more massive, IMO, than those of any other candidate. I agree with much of what he has to say, but have 0 reason to believe he means any of it. He has done the ‘John Kerry’ just a few too many times to maintain credibility.

      Or do you really think I am a democratic operative? I have been around on this site for at least as long as Ann Rand, and spend more time on this comparatively minor site than on any other political news service. If I was an operative, wouldn’t I have better chances amongst independents than a bunch of hard headed (myself included) conservatives?

      I would cut off my right arm before voting for Obama. And my left before voting for Gingrich.

    • Ltjg

      Hank, Over reacted by you is to say the least. You have made many attacks on those that do not deserve it. You have attacked most everyone and anyone that does not agree with you. You are under the impression your point of view is the only one that matters. Not only are you arrogant but you have been Rude to many people that try to share ideas dofferent from yours. If you do not like it, as I said, TOUGH. You do not need to attack them. No one hardly agrees with much of anything you have to say anyway. You must be a Liberal Plant by the way you Portray yourself. Not a good way to convince people to come to your way of thinking. Get a life and Grow Up.

    • Hank is back

      Like I said, LTJG, I am only responding in kind. You don’t believe me, why don’t you go back and read? I state my piece, usually which is a harmless series of facts and analysis. I wait for a response. If the comment is from a prick, I am only too happy to let him know. I don’t go out of my way to attack people. I am hot headed but am more than capable of humbling myself (like I said, go back and read). One of the times where you and I corresponded was not an instance of my overreacting. It was an instance of my disclosing my fault. The other I made a snide comment about how convenient it was to be able to label people that you happen to disagree with. That may have been a mistake but is hardly more offensive than much else that is said by most everyone else.

      As for the one person that really set me off, I have made peace with him and I am glad. The rest of my negative comments are either in defense of my misconstrued positive comments, or are no more offensive than the word ‘fool’ or ‘idiot’, which, in my opinion, some people are. Am I free to state my opinion even if it is offensive?

      But you (especially Ann) fail to see this. All you see is

      a) that I was angry with someone you would normally agree with and

      b) that you happen to disagree with me and

      c) someone else with whom you agree has also reprimanded me.

      Full disclosure time, sir: have you read all the comments in order?

    • Ltjg

      Yes, I did read all your comments in the order they were posted. Did you? Frankly, You owe a lot of people an apology. You are NO Gentleman. I think you have been very Rude and at times very Vulgar in your comments to the women and others. As far as your disclosure, as I said, people have been aware of this for some time. We all know who you are and what you represent. If you need the feeling of attacking someone take it out some place else. There is little tolerance for it here.

    • Ltjg

      Hello Ann, We have known each other on this site for quite a while now. Many of us have made good friends even though we might not agree with each other. Some of us continue our conversations privately away from this site and get a lot more out of each other. It is a shame there is no good way to Email you and include you in on some of our discussions. You always seem to put in worth while comments. You have strong values and are respected for them.

    • Bree

      I agree Ltjg, you are right always and I would like Ann to know that I would like to speak with her personally as well. So Ann, don’t be afraid to contact us and Ltjg can tell you how I’m sure. There are some things you really should know.

    • http://verizon Ann Rand

      LTJG Or BREE… I will look for your comments on the cartoon page for Nov.21…(Kagan) & Supreme court. Ann

    • Hank is back

      Just my comments to you I suppose. I suspect that if you had read everything, seen when it was posted, and taken moderation into consideration, you would realize just how one-sided this whole thing has been. But I wouldn’t expect you to have a disagreement with your mistress, Ann, even if it was completely justifiable.

      I hold the door open all the time for women. Not sure what it has to do with anything other than the fact that you are overly protective of the woman that is likely more than a friend.

  • Dissapointed

    I see by the statements here that the media has done a great job of brainwashing. Please people look beyond the media and see the real people that are ready to stand against a giant that is destorying us.

  • bernie copusino

    Newt is our only play out of the mess the country is in.

  • Tom Stewart

    Wake-Up Proud Americans, We Need New Blood However Lets Start With A Gov With The Best Record Like Gov Rick Perry Than Check Who Is Behind This Illegal Alien Mess, Like The Best Person On Earth For Getting This Solved Sheriff Joe Arpaio The Best Sheriff In The USA, Yikeess, Now A VP For Gov Perry, The Classiest Politican Person On Any Roster Is Ex-Gov Sarah Palin “The Iron Lady Of The USA” Who With Three Words Can Start The Money Spending, “Drill Baby Drill”, Plus These Two Proud Americans With “All Papers” Will Have A “Budget” That King Obamacare Says Is Not Needed, Yikeess, God Bless America And The Tea Party Patriots.