jeffreymark

JUST PLAIN SICK

More liberal naiveté. Reminds me when Barney Fife brought a Mr. Potato Head and metal crafting set to rehab a group of prisoners held up in the Mayberry jailhouse. One prisoner took the metal crafting set, made keys with it, and escaped from the jail. Yes, indeedy, this is our Harvard elitist run government at it's finest.

THEOLOGIAN IN CHIEF

For centuries politicians made reference to biblical passages when seeking to bolster their own positions. Sadly, the act wreaks of blasphemy or taking God's name in vain. I suspect Obama used Jesus to add supremacy to his class warfare rhetoric. "To whom much is given shall much be required," the Savior exclaimed. I seriously think we ought to put this proverbial shoe on Obama's other foot. Those who have been given much in the way of tremendous leadership power, shall be required to use it with integrity and maturity-something Obama knows nothing about. 

Read news article about his quote here.

A NEWT REBUTTAL

Trashing Newt certainly is in vogue among bluebloods this season. All this talk about his lack of credentials as a conservative and his disparaging the Reagan administration are complete nonsense and borderline evil. They certainly confirm the immature character of those seeking to destroy Newt. Therefore, below I wanted to post articles that refute and enlighten the trash talk. These I previously posted on my Facebook.

I know I'm posting lots of stuff on Newt Gingrich. I'll get over it. But, for anyone who passionately cares about our nation and what our children may inherit from us they need to pay attention to those who may set the future direction of the country. 
The Romney camp has posted a legion of distorted facts about Gingrich. One publication that appeared yesterday was Newt supposedly disparaging the Reagan years. I never heard him do this. It seemed out of character. Plus, given Romney's record for waffling I immediately looked for the full interview so as to hear Gingrich's words in their context. And, what do you know? I found it. Follow the link below. 

Riehl World View: Video Of Newt Bashing Reagan Is Bogus

www.riehlworldview.com

There's a short excerpt of a 1988 C-SPAN video purportedly showing Newt Gingrich bashing Reagan when talking about how Bush, Sr. should run. As I suspected, it's edited to give a false impression. What you don't see is immediately after...

____________________________________________________

While Ms.O'Sullivan may not possess the credentials of those previously referred to on this page, she writes a compelling op.ed. piece in favor of Newt Gingrich. Yes, indeed I flooded today's posts with pro Newt articles. Yet, I hate to see the man lose as a result of smear campaigns. One thing I firmly believe-Gingrich is a principled conservative. Those influential pundits like Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter, who deceptively label him a liberal ought to take that one off the table. He has many flaws, but liberalism is not one of them.

Send Us Newt

Melissa O’Sullivan writes on NRO: Last fall, people in Washington told me, “Get over it, Melissa. Newt’s not going to be the nominee.” Later, in New York City over Thanksgiving, I was told, “Get over it, Melissa. It’s going to be Romney. There’s still so much stuff out there on Newt that’s just wait...

_____________________________________________________________________

 

I was quite engaged in politics during the 80s myself. I agree with Limbaugh. I don't remember this stuff. Everything I recall about Newt leaned toward one who was ultra conservative to a fault.

 

 

Coordinated Avalanche Against Newt Doesn't Match My Memory of Reagan Years - The Rush                Limbaugh Show

RUSH: I'm not denying it happened. I'm just telling you, this stuff was a total shock to me last night when I learned that Newt had said this stuff.

______________________________________________________________________

More conservative support for Newt Gingrich. Michael Reagan exclaims: (via Dallas Morning News)

“I am deeply disturbed that supporters of Mitt Romney are claiming that Newt Gingrich is not a true Reaganite and are even claiming that Newt was a strong critic of my father.

“Recently I endorsed Newt Gingrich for president because I believe that Newt is the only Republican candidate who has both consistently backed the conservative policies that my father championed and the only Republican that will continue to implement his vision.

“It surprises me that Mitt Romney and his supporters would raise this issue — when Mitt by his own admission voted for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale who opposed my father, and later supported liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas for president. 

“As governor of Massachusetts, Romney’s achievement was the most socialistic healthcare plan in the nation up until that time. 

“Say what you want about Newt Gingrich but when he was Speaker of the House he surrounded himself with Reagan conservatives and implemented a Ronald Reagan program of low taxes and restrained federal spending. 

“Newt’s conservative program created a huge economic boom and balanced the budget for the first time in more than a generation.” 

Mike Reagan concluded: “I would take Newt Gingrich’s record any day over Mitt Romney’s.”

______________________________________________________________________

I have not endorsed Newt Gingrich. I do, however, like his conservatism. The attacks against him are deliberately designed to get Romney nominated. Most of the attacks on Newt grossly misrepresent him and take his rhetoric out of context. For every attack on Newt I can find a counter by "elitists" who support him-people like Nancy Reagan and Michael Reagan. I encourage anyone who runs from Newt because of all the confusing half truths out there to do some investigative work themselves.

Newt Backed Reagan, Romney Opposed Him

www.newsmax.com

A newly surfaced video shows that no less a figure than Nancy Reagan asserted that President Ronald Reagan passed the “torch” of Reagan conservatism to Newt Gingrich — belying efforts by Mitt Romney supporters to cast Gingrich as anti-Reagan.

_____________________________________________________________________

Of course Newt is greatly flawed. Yes, he indeed tosses hand grenades. And, he probably chased a few women in his day. I'm not denying that. But, my favorite historian Victor Davis Hanson offers a provocative look at private morals vs. public political practice.

Fidelity and the Presidency

www.nationalreview.com

Victor Davis Hanson writes on NRO: The news media seem obsessed with the serial affairs of a younger Newt Gingrich back in the last century. The anger of his second of three wives mysteriously became national news on ABC’s Nightline on the eve of the South Carolina primary. Millions watched Mrs. Gin...

 

 

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT AND OBAMA CARE

All the cards point toward a day of reckoning when the Supreme Court will eventually rule on Obama care. Below Uncommon Knowledge features two well known constitutional scholars who hash the subject out.

 

WHY THE INSIDERS OPPOSE NEWT

Curious thing, these demons Ann Coulter exposes so effectively and thoroughly. They seem to drive the emotions of those who think they stand above such bane. This legion I speak of takes on the name "establishment predetermined to elect Romney." That demon so enfolded all us conservatives we saw no other alternative. I always liked Newt-thought he walked and talked like a true conservative. But, he carried baggage in the form of marital infidelity. Conservatives don't like infidelity and rightly so. Principled people know that cheaters cheat period. They cheat their families, friends, business associates and nation. They can't be trusted. Therefore, we ruled Newt out. He can't win, we passionately declared. So we went with Romney.

And, Mitt looks Presidential. He's articulate, handsome, and the all American boy; the quintessential Boy Scout. Your grandmother loves him because he stays out of trouble. Yet, we conservatives keep the skeptical cards once out there close to our vest. In other words Romney used to make us nervous. His health care reform in Massachusetts, his waffling on abortion, and his Mormonism, not exactly orthodox Christianity, all paint a portrait of a dubious candidate.  In fact Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post, did a little fact checking on Governor Romney and offered this bit of information:

 

A review of the record shows that Romney has shifted his position on abortion numerous times since 1994 when he first ran for federal office as senator for Massachusetts. His August 5, 2007 claim that "every action I have taken as governor of Massachusetts" appears to be undermined by his October 15, 2005 decision to sign a bill seeking a federal waiver to expand family planning services in the state.

I am trying to develop as full a chronology as possible of Romney's gyrations on abortion. Let me know of any twists or turns I may have missed. Most recent update: December 20, 2007. (see the full chronology here)

Since Massachusetts days Mitt adamantly declares he saw the light. All right, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. Of course he offers several explanations depending on the month, as to why he did what he did and finally saw the light. For one, he insisted that governing in a Ted Kennedy ruled domain he had to do things a bit differently. So, what must we make of this gimpy excuse. Did he sell his soul for a high place in the Kennedy palace? If so, do we really want a sellout? Or if we trust his conversion why can't we judge Newt by the same face value standard? Newt says he made mistakes, implying he fooled around. His new found Catholicism, however, authenticates his repentance, at least in his own world. Even his daughters publicly forgive him. 

Indeed, I sort of take him at his word. Furthermore, I do not seek a meek Sunday School teacher to hold the highest office in the land. I want a conservative with a proven CONSERVATIVE record who can both possesses a big vision and clearly articulate the same. Plus Newt Gingrich appeals to a broader scope of voters than Romney. Mitt looks stilted, wealthy, and made up. Gingrich inspires the informal, realness in us all. His policies clearly favored capitalism in the past while his raising eyebrows at Romney's Bain Capital strikes a positive chord with blue collar workers. In addition, Newt's southern roots impel his easy demeanor. People connect with laid back southern dispositions. 

In the long run establishment institutionalist types get the tea leaves wrong. They then end up scratching their heads and perceive, "We misunderstood the American people." Most common hard working Americans want a person outside the good old boy network where tradeoffs and back room deals become the scriptures for the day. Newt may work because he knows the back room and seems to publicly rise above it. Americans like that.

A NEWT ENDORSEMENT

I like Newt Gingrich. I have always liked Newt. For most of us in the Republican camp our choices may essentially reflect our feelings more than ideology or logic. Nevertheless, Newt certainly deserves little of the criticisms leading conservatives hurl at him. Their insults reflect their shallowness and weaken their credibility. I'm referring to people I respect such as Ann Coulter. Man of letters Thomas Sowell likes Gingrich and makes a formidable case for his ability:

Much depends on whether you think the voting public is going to be more interested in Newt Gingrich's personal past than in the country's future. Most of the things for which Gingrich has been criticized are things he did either in his personal life or when he was out of office. But, if we are serious, we are more concerned with his ability to perform when in office.

Even some of those who believe that Gingrich would devastate Obama in head-to-head debates on substantive issues nevertheless claim that all Obama has to do is come back with questions about Newt's work for failed mortgage finance giant Freddie Mac.

But, even at the personal, point-scoring level, Barack Obama can open up a can of worms by going that route, since Freddie Mac at least never planted bombs in public places, like some of Obama's political allies.

There are no guarantees, no matter whom the Republicans vote for in the primaries. Why not vote for the candidate who has shown the best track record of accomplishments, both in office and in the debates? That is Newt Gingrich. With all his shortcomings, his record shows that he knows how to get the job done in Washington.

Read Sowell Here.

 

RON PAUL THE NUT JOB

Do we really want another American apologist in the White House? This from the W$J (Wall Street Journal):

Hear Dr. Paul on the subject of the 9/11 terror attacks—an event, he assures his audiences, that took place only because of U.S. aggression and military actions. True, we've heard the assertions before. But rarely have we heard in any American political figure such exclusive concern for, and appreciation of, the motives of those who attacked us—and so resounding a silence about the suffering of those thousands that the perpetrators of 9/11 set out so deliberately to kill.

Continue reading here.

A NON TABLOID LOOK AT NEWT

Man of letters and economist Thomas Sowell writes a more objective piece about Newt than I have read in quite a while. In light of Obama's European Socialist thinking Sowell addresses the tabloid thinking of many so called conservatives who attack Gingrich:

Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich's personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics' claim that he has not? Nor should we sell the public short by saying that they are going to vote on the basis of tabloid stuff or media talking points, when the fate of this nation hangs in the balance.

When comparing Gingrich to Romney Sowell opines:

Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared to what Gingrich accomplished as Speaker of the House? When you don't accomplish much, you don't ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.

Read Sowell here.

THE CONSERVATIVE MOB

Ann Coulter, who loathes the demonic mob, recently let that demon in when she, along with other mainline conservatives took on the bash Newt mantra. They now sadly look like the very liberal pundits they so vehemently despise. Master of pen eloquence, Peggy Noonan, basically implies that Newt disturbs her. This is the same woman who inferentially endorsed Obama as a sort of political breath of fresh air. Excuse me! Newt disturbs you. Many might feel a little frightened at the mindset that deemed Obama a fresh start. Yes, Newt has infidelity issues. Yes, he throws bombs. But, most take him out of context. He thinks outside the box. That bothers cultural prophets like Coulter and others who can brilliantly read the tea leaves yet, fail to comprehend a blueprint. Newt Gingrich majors in blueprints, not predictions.

And, proof is in the pudding. Mr. Gingrich was the last practical CONSERVATIVE to LEAD congress into some formidable changes. Thus, impelling President Clinton to move right. Perhaps before conservative hormones drive them to despair they ought to take an objective look at Newt's 21st Century Contract With America. I defy anyone to watch the presentation below and label this man a left wing progressive as many, including Glenn Beck, have done. 

Conservative pundit Brent Bozell, makes some salient points concerning this hate Newt phenomenon when he opines:

It brings us back to Angelo Codevilla’s piece last summer in The American Spectator on “America’s Ruling Class.” What Codevilla called the “country class” – the party of freedom, as opposed to a “ruling class” that resents the country’s input – has rarely captured the GOP flag. The GOP rulers sabotaged Barry Goldwater and ultimately were stuck with Ronald Reagan. Contrary to quaint historical rewrites, they were not in his camp, and instead bogged Reagan down with establishmentarian deal-makers and principle-shredders.

The country class is demanding the GOP choice be independent of the GOP establishment and confrontational with the radical Left. It is why both camps are now united in their desire to tear this man down. He is a threat.

 This blogger is greatly disappointed with conservatives whose myopic vision for America seeks to destroy a true creative conservative genius. 

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS RIP

British writer turned American citizen Christopher Hitchens, remained committed to his atheism even during his tragic battle with cancer. I liked Hitchens because he made me think. He bowed to no one, including partisan politicians and corporate interests. He made fools of his debating opponents who failed to do their homework-a lesson all witnessing evangelical Christians must consider. Hitchens eternally fancied himself a modern day Edmund Burke who zealously defended our historical American rights. I will miss his passionate patriotism, penetrating intellect, and mesmerizing accent. In the end I pray he found peace with God. (Read Vanityfair's tribute below)

Christopher Hitchens—the incomparable critic, masterful rhetorician, fiery wit, and fearless bon vivant—died today at the age of 62. Hitchens was diagnosed with esophageal cancer in the spring of 2010, just after the publication of his memoir, Hitch-22, and began chemotherapy soon after. His matchless prose has appeared in Vanity Fair since 1992, when he was named contributing editor.

“Cancer victimhood contains a permanent temptation to be self-centered and even solipsistic,” Hitchens wrote nearly a year ago in Vanity Fair, but his own final labors were anything but: in the last 12 months, he produced for this magazine a piece on U.S.-Pakistani relations in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s death, a portrait of Joan Didion, an essay on the Private Eyeretrospective at the Victoria and Albert Museum, a prediction about the future of democracy in Egypt, a meditation on the legacy of progressivism in Wisconsin, and a series of frank, graceful, and exquisitely written essays in which he chronicled the physical and spiritual effects of his disease. At the end, Hitchens was more engaged, relentless, hilarious, observant, and intelligent than just about everyone else—just as he had been for the last four decades.

“My chief consolation in this year of living dyingly has been the presence of friends,” he wrote in the June 2011 issue. He died in their presence, too, at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. May his 62 years of living, well, so livingly console the many of us who will miss him dearly.