Newt hearts FDR

I don’t often do this, as in, send you to another site, but this is just too critical. It is especially important if you are currently supporting or are considering supporting Newt Gingrich. He is NOT the conservative he claims to be! He is not a Constitutionalist. Please click on the link below and listen to both clips in their entirety. Pass it on to anyone who supports Newt.

Newt vs Glenn Beck

Firebrands All

What do Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie & Donald Trump have in common. If you said, none of them are conservative, you’d be right. What else?

If you said they’re popular with conservatives, you’d also be correct.

There is one other thing they have in common that is very attractive to conservatives. If you guessed, all three of them are firebrands, you’d be right again. Wow, you’re good.

By firebrands, I mean political brawlers that stand up to the press & to the libs. They don’t take the usual crap mushy milk toast republicans have been taking like mutes for decades. We as proud conservatives have been putting up with leftist crap for most of our adult lives, all the time wondering why our elected representatives can’t grow a spine & tell the media & other leftists as it is.

When a public figure finally does confront the onslaught, we all stand up and cheer, proclaiming, it’s about time someone said what I am thinking. You go, so & so, stick it to um. Tell me I’m wrong. We’ve all done it. Then the very next thought is, how come my guy can’t do that? Why can’t my guy be the political pugilist I’ve been longing for?

The problem that faces me is that none of these firebrands, as I already stated, are conservative.

Chris Christie is a northeast moderate-to-liberal republican. He is more fiscally conservative than socially, but he is no true conservative. Folks love him though; like very conservative Ann Coulter. Her & Christie are kindred spirits in that I think they both enjoy slamming lefties. She has no problem looking beyond the fact he is a moderate, al la Romney. I assume she thinks it’s more important to fight back than where one actually stands on any given issue.

In Donald Trump, the public sees the same thing; someone who will stand up & call out Barack, the chosen one, without fear of retribution. The Donald isn’t afraid of it. His only fear is of losing the spotlight. I believe Trump is a chameleon. He is whatever he perceives the public needs him to be.

Anyone who has read my blog recently, knows how I feel about Newt. I fully understand what is attractive about him. So does he. Believe me when I say he will continue down this aggressive path. Why not? It’s working for him. He is presenting himself as the “Defender of the Faith”, fighting on our behalf.

Newt is the only one who has figured out that this is a popularity contest. He has come to the correct conclusion that our side has been yearning for someone to pick a fight with the pompous left & make them look like the in the tank shills that they are.

My fear going forward is that ideas & ideals will get lost as more and more seemingly intelligent conservatives join the fight just for the fights sake.

Conservatives Rule??

From The Blaze:

While many elements of society seem to surely be shifting ever-further to the left of the political spectrum, a recent Gallup poll released Thursday reveals otherwise. According to the survey, conservatives continue to make up the largest political segment in the country, outnumbering liberals nearly two-to-one.

The Gallup poll shows that 40 percent of Americans consider themselves conservative; 35 percent moderate; and 21 percent view themselves as liberal. The figures are no different than they were in 2010 and conservatives have outnumbered both moderates and liberals for three years running now.

Politico adds:

Conservatives began outstripping moderates in 2008, and the percentage of moderates has declined steadily over the last two decades, from 43 percent 1992 to 35 percent in 2011.

In fact, both self-identified conservatives and liberals have risen in number since the early 1990s, indicating a growing polarization in American politics.

While self-identified conservatives dominate the Republican Party, making up 71 percent, the Democratic Party is more split – 39 percent of Democrats view themselves as liberal, and 38 percent consider themselves moderates.

It might be worth noting that, per the poll’s findings, independents are mainly moderate (41 percent), but veer more towards conservatism (35 percent) than liberalism (20 percent).

The Gallup poll was conducted with 20,392 respondents and allows for a margin of error of plus or minus one.

Editorial Comment: Sorry to be a downer, but I personally am not buying any of this. If this poll is even close to accurate, how is it we keep electing and reelecting, squishy, middle of the road moderates. How is our frontrunning presidential candidate, “Thoroughly Moderate Mitt”.

Maybe it’s conservatives fear of losing that overshadows their better judgement? I don’t know what it is. All I know is that I am conservative & I am disappointed every election cycle.

Santorum moves on to New Hampshire

From The Daily Beast: Can Santorum Compete in New Hampshire and Beyond? by Lois Romano

(My Editorial Comments will be indicated by [EC])

Rick Santorum’s New Hampshire operation was over the moon Tuesday night as their man unexpectedly soared to a photo finish with Mitt Romney for first place in the Iowa caucuses, finally coming in a tight second by just eight votes. But it will take more than sheer joy and political dexterity for his small organization here to lift him from fifth place in the Granite State.

[EC: I agree. New Hampshire is an odd state. It has always been the bastion of conservatism surrounded, on all sides, by socialists. For the past several years the state has become much more liberal. Recently though, there has been blowback & a push to return to conservatism.]

The next test for Santorum now is whether he can realistically pivot his stunning Iowa success quickly into a New Hampshire surge—and beyond. Single-state strategies rarely are effective long-term, and many Republicans say this is no exception. Santorum has had neither the money nor the organization to get traction here.

[EC: Yes, and many of those saying that are just “Republicans”, not conservatives. They will do anything they can to torpedo Santorum’s campaign. Just watch. The “Republicans” want Romney, just as they wanted McCain. McCain, as it turns out, just endorsed Romney today. What a shocker. By the way, the democrats also want Romney.]

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, holds a commanding lead in New Hampshire, as well as millions of dollars to go the distance. And third-place Iowa finisher Rep. Ron Paul has an army of well-organized, messianic volunteers to propel him.

[EC: Romney does have a fortune to spend. He also has ‘Super-Pac’ money that will do the dirty work for him while he disavows any connection to them. Paul is an enigma. He has his minions that would follow him off a cliff. What I think is an interesting dichotomy; small government

This could be fun


Ron Paul & his ‘Occupy’ loving, hippy, want everything for free supporters. Do they not know he wants to shut down all the give-away governmental departments?]

In the most recent public-opinion survey in the state, Santorum was the choice of only 5 percent of the vote. He has had no money to run paid advertisements, and now he can count on his rivals to come after him with big guns.
[EC: 2-3 weeks ago Santorum had little more support in the polls in Iowa.]

“Senator Santorum is about to discover the wrath of the super PAC!” said Patrick Griffin, a senior fellow at the Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College: “Intense scrutiny, tough ads, and an uphill battle to raise money, continue to deploy staff, and search for a significant number of social conservative voters that are simply not as plentiful in New Hampshire as in Iowa.”

[EC: Mr. Griffin is right about the whole Social Conservative thing. It is imperative Santorum break out of that mold. He must become the conservative choice, not just the social conservative. As an aside, Mr. Griffin was a republican political strategist prior to joining Saint Anselm College. By sheer coincidence, one of his clients was Mitt Romney. Just an observation.]

Still, while some of his rivals are largely skipping New Hampshire and heading straight to the more conservative South Carolina for its primary on Jan. 21, Santorum has made it clear he has every intention of riding his wave into New Hampshire. “Game on,” Santorum told his cheering supporters Tuesday in Iowa.

With an attentive media contingent in tow, the former Pennsylvania senator hits the ground running with a two-hour town-hall meeting Wednesday night that will be followed by at least 10 more before Tuesday’s primary. He has spent considerable time here—and has an enthusiastic core of supporters and volunteers in place.

[EC: He is garnering more support here. I personally know he has many more volunteers. I’ve had more than a few calls from already. Some are even reading this blog.]

“I’ve spent more time in New Hampshire and done more events than anybody but Jon Huntsman. And the same thing with South Carolina,” he said. “We feel very, very good that we’ve got the organization. And money is coming in better than it’s ever come in. And [after Iowa] we suspect we’ll have the resources to be able not just to compete in New Hampshire, but to compete all the way through.”

Indeed, his staff is banking that his Iowa success will generate ample funds and supporters to help him push forward. In addition, Santorum will generate much free media coverage.

“We know we can build on this momentum,” says Bill Cahill, a co-chair of Santorum’s New Hampshire campaign. “We’re going to make it happen with what we’ve got. We’re not going to staff up. Look, if he can come in at third place, it would be a phenomenon and spectacular. And we think we can make it happen.”

[EC: He just may do that. There is a lot more buzz about Santorum up here. People actually know who he is now.]

Cahill dismissed the notion that New Hampshire voters may find Santorum too socially conservative with his oppositions to abortion and same-sex marriage. “Conservatives play well in New Hampshire, and his positions on trade, tax policy, and national security are appealing. There’s a very large Catholic and ethnic populations here … The old Reagan coalition is still around for us.”

[EC: Cahill was right to dismiss the notion of anti-abortion & homosexual marriage. The only reason they are still intact is thanks to New Hampshire’s democrat Governor’s veto pen. Santorum must push hard his fiscal conservative policies. Show he is a well-rounded & most of all principled & ethical conservative leader. Push his foreign policy, his support for Israel. Remind people how great and good America is under true conservative leadership.]

The Migration of Newt, Back to the Left

Newt has officially lost me. I was starting to warm to the idea of supporting him. He has had so many strong debate performances; one couldn’t help but to want to jump on board.

For the longest time I called Newt a convenient Conservative, meaning he spoke as a conservative when it was popular & convenient to do so. Whenever he started to get pushback, he was able to eruditely move back toward the mushy middle.

He has fooled me for the last time. I have had enough. I will not support Newt. If he becomes the nominee, of course I will vote for him, holding my nose, once again. I would vote for Spongebob Squarepants rather than Obama.

During last night’s debate Gingrich morphed into a George Bush, compassionate conservative clone. His answer to an illegal immigration question jolted me out of my mesmerized state. I guess I should thank him for snapping me back to reality.

He argued the children of illegal immigrants should not be ripped away from their families. He said that he did not believe Americans wanted to take people who have lived in the country for 25 years and expel them over a crime committed long ago.

He exclaimed that we would have a hard time explaining the uprooting of an entrenched illegal that has been here for 25 years, working, paying taxes, with a family & children in school. He added that he doesn’t see how the republicans, who claim to be the party of the family, could destroy families that have been here for a quarter of a century?

I wouldn’t have a hard time explaining it. It’s quite easy. Here it is.
Mr. or Ms. Illegal; You’ve broken the law for 25 years. Now you’ll finally be punished. It will be your choice to break up your family because of it. Here’s a solution; Take your family with you.

For illegal aliens to live & work in this country, there are only 2 possible scenarios, both unlawful (3, if you count MS 13). You are either committing tax evasion by working here illegally or committing identity theft (fraud) by using someone else’s Social Security number to pay said taxes. Pick your poison.

John Adams said, “ We are a nation of laws, not of men”. Obey the law or change the law. Don’t just ignore the law.

I also don’t wish to hear that Ronald Reagan did it.

Sorry, but it's a fact. I don't like it either.

He screwed up. He believed the lies that were told to him by the democrats about sealing the border, which of course, never happened. Shame on him for believing the dems. He made a mistake.

A few more questions: What if they have been here for less than 25 years? 25 seems like a rather arbitrary number.
What if, after all this time, they still can’t speak English?
When citizens get sentenced to prison, don’t they get ripped from their families? What if the illegal has no family?

In a 2007 Meet the Press interview, Mitt Romney said that illegals should be able to sign up for residency & a path to citizenship. Newt didn’t go that far. He was very careful not to mention anything about citizenship, just someway to make them legal.

This is pulled directly from Newts New Hampshire Campaign emailing, The Daily Newt: “Newt does not believe we have a binary choice between forcibly deporting 11 million people or letting them all stay. Newt recognizes that in some cases where people have lived in the United States for 20-25 years, have had children here, have joined churches and civic groups, and have OTHERWISE lived law-abiding lives, we are unlikely to forcibly deport them but find a way to make an exception for such families, and regularize their status without providing citizenship.”

It continues, “One idea for how to handle such humanitarian exceptions proposed by Gingrich is to empower local communities with the authority to allow those with long-established roots in the neighborhood a legal residency status, but not citizenship. Newt believes local communities are at a better vantage point to determine if those there illegally should stay or go. Under this system, kind of like Selective Service System boards, we will send home those without 20-25 years of residency here and family and community ties.”

Who will be the arbiter of that policy? Arbiter, “Mr. Illegal, have you been here for at least 20 years?” Mr. Illegal, Oh Sí!” Arbiter, “Ok, you may stay”.

Yes, and once they somehow become legal or “regularized”; of course it will end there. No one will ever push it to the next logical conclusion, citizenship. Right.

Mr. Speaker; Madame Pelosi is waiting for you to join her on the couch again.