Affordable Care Act?

Today marks the two year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act which was signed into law on March 23, 2010. President Obama decided to start a new hash-tag on Twitter -- #ILikeObamaCare -- to commemorate the occasion. Ironically, the hash-tag was quickly adopted by conservative tweeters who used this most opportune occasion to lambaste Obama's takeover of the healthcare system in America.  I wanted to share some of the most delectable tidbits with my readers, so enjoy!

---

greybeard ‏ @greybeard411
#ILikeObamaCare cause in order for there to be "a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people".

Bret Schlyer ‏ @bschlyer

#ILikeObamaCare because Nancy Pelosi told me I would once I knew what was in it.

Samuel Tunis ‏ @killermist 

#ILikeObamaCare because it'll placate #occupy... oh, wait.

@hipEchik

#IlikeObamacare because my medical records will be online for all hackers to access!<<there goes my clearance :-)

Erin Haust ‏ @erinhaust 

#ILikeObamacare becuz nothing says "unity" & "patriotism" like giving waivers 2 public employee unions & Congress

jdmeac ‏ @jdmeac 

#ILikeObamaCare because it won't cost me a dime... just an arm & a leg.

Teri Christoph ‏ @TeriChristoph  

#ILikeObamacare because if anyone knows what's good for me, it's Rahm Emanuel's brother.

Matt Tabor ‏ @MattATL 

#ILikeObamaCare because it will have @DaveRamseyLIVE something to do for years to come. Talk about #debt.....

C. Walters ‏ @Hilohaw   

#ILikeObamaCare because of its reduced healthcare costs. The same way I like unicorns, rainbows & other fantasies!

Andy Wright ‏ @andy_wright_esq 

Not sure that whole #ILikeObamacare hash tag worked out quite like the administration was hoping. Some really funny tweets using it.

DW ‏ @62dw 

#ILikeObamacare because the government does such an awesome job with everything they get their hands on.

Debbie ‏ @debbieebb 

#ILikeObamacare because, let's face it, I've lived long enough.

 

David McMichaels ‏ @UncleWaldoe 

#ILikeObamaCare because nothing says "pursuit of happiness" like government paid abortions and death panels

Gabrielle Picard ‏ @GabrielleePic 

#ilikeobamacare because I always wanted to live in a communist country. #notreally

  

Mike ‏ @mrjc1 

#ILikeObamaCare b/c there's nothing like being at the mercy of the government in your weakest moments. #tcot

Dan Kurth ‏ @DanKurth1 

#ILikeObamacare because I was starting to get worried about what I would do with all of my excess money

  

Christopher Meier ‏ @darthlevin 

#ilikeobamacare because it has all the compassion of the IRS with the efficiency of the USPS

Jesse Dalton ‏ @ObamaBash 

#ILikeObamacare because a gubmint bureaucrat can certainly make health care decisions for me better than I can.

John Nolte ‏ @NolteNC 

#ILikeObamaCare because the Constitution is overrated.

Blaine Olmstead ‏ @blaine1957 

#ilikeobamacare cause it is my right to to pay more,, for less!

jdmeac ‏ @jdmeac 

#ILikeObamaCare because one size fits all government healthcare treats everyone the same... poorly!

JD Nelson ‏ @JDNelson_68W

#ilikeobamacare because its price tag will be less than $1trillion...err, wait, um... Oh never mind.

Will Collier ‏ @willcollier 

#ilikeobamacare because I think putting my health care decisions in the hands of 15 political appointees in DC is a really great idea. (NOT)

Allen Covert ‏ @THATAllenCovert 

#ilikeobamacare because I'm refinishing my basement in death panels

Susan Petrey ‏ @conservativesue 

#ILikeObamaCare Because controlling our Happy Meals, Carbon-Footprint, Light-Bulbs and Religious Expression.. just wasn't enough!

Susan Petrey ‏ @conservativesue 

#ILikeObamaCare because I think it's AWESOME how they can pass a 7000-page bill and without even READING it!

Susan Petrey ‏ @conservativesue 

#ILikeObamaCare because all these Pre-Med. majors are changing over to Tax-Law majors. Of COURSE we want fewer doctors and MORE IRS agents!

Susan Petrey ‏ @conservativesue 

#ILikeObamaCare because now my employer gets to stop doing all that pesky paperwork.. because he dropped all our Healthcare coverage!

Susan Petrey ‏ @conservativesue 

#ILikeObamaCare because I get to lose my current health insurance and join the Gov't exchange! Wow, this is just like the USSR..Awesome

Susan Petrey ‏ @conservativesue 

#ILikeObamaCare because I can just go straight to the morgue.. and bypass that 'elective' surgery altogether!

 

Susan Petrey ‏ @conservativesue 

#ILikeObamaCare because I'd rather make my appointments for the DR months in advance! & wait HOURS in the waiting room! I LOVE waiting!

Susan Petrey ‏ @conservativesue 

#ILikeObamaCare because Washington, DC is SO effective at governing, why not give them one-third of the economy to screw up, too!

Susan Petrey ‏ @conservativesue 

#ILikeObamaCare because nothing is quite so affordable as a trillion dollar NEW ENTITLEMENT program that has doubled in cost! #LiberalLogic

Loren Heal ‏ @lheal 

#ILikeObamaCare because I want the government to know everything about me. Gives me a tingle up my leg.

andy stamper ‏ @andystamper1 

#ilikeobamacare because a 7 month old fetus isn't a child, but a 26 year old is. #liblogic

Not@dadinnertable ‏ @Noblesavage1776 

#ILikeObamacare because your surgeries will get done like the keystone pipeline...it will take years to get approved & only 4 a part of it

Marshall Smith ‏ @MarshallFSmith 

#ILikeObamaCare b/c In the end you get to go to Euthanasia its a beautiful country and its always sunny.

betseyross ‏ @betseyross 

#ilikeObamacare because slack-jaw'ed bureaucrats should be in charge of our health care ... like.. u know .. 4 sure #tcot

Debbie ‏ @debbieebb 

#ILikeObamacare because my thumbs hurt from playing video games and I need pain killers. ASAP

wjnelson11 ‏ @wjnelson11 

#ilikeobamacare because nothing says "helping the poor" than fining them for not buying something they cant afford

 

Sunny ‏ @sunnyright

#ILikeObamacare because what America needed was a costly new entitlement program the majority of people hate. Instead of jobs.

Pundette ‏ @pundette

#ILikeObamaCare because it feels good to know the government will have access to all my medical records. What could go wrong?

William Hightower ‏ @wh_atl 

#iLikeObamaCare because it will take the IRS 10000 pages to define what is approved insurance. Good luck complying.

@thorninaz: 

#IlikeObamacare The only expense covered 100% is, “embalming.”

P Flynn Anderson ‏ @middlemom 

#IlikeObamacare because deciding who lives/dies puts the FUN back in "dysfunctional presidency" @BarackObama

David Adkins ‏ @daalad 

#ILikeObamacare because after 2 years they throw parties and parades for it because they're so proud, and......wa...oh...no?.... never mind.

Trent ‏ @Travesham 

#ILikeObamacare because I'm allergic to responsibility

readrothbard ‏ @readrothbard 

#ILikeObamacare because the gov't hasn't passed enough unconstitutional legislation!

@SkiGarmisch: 

#ILikeObamacare because $15Trillion in federal debt is not enough.

Whitney Pitcher ‏ @whitneypitcher 

#ilikeobamacare as much as Pres.Obama likes drilling on federal land.

Sean Hackbarth ‏ @seanhackbarth 

#ILikeObamacare because I didn't really want to keep my health care plan that I like. 

@NathanWurtzel: 

#ILikeObamacare because compelling my neighbor to financially assume responsibility for me is the American dream.

David Burge ‏ @iowahawkblog 

#IlikeObamacare because the best things in life are free. Give or take $2 trillion.

Ari Fleischer ‏ @AriFleischer 

#IlikeObamacare because the Federal government is really, really good at going deeper and deeper into debt.

Pain at the pump...

Have you noticed?  Gas prices are on the rise. Americans are having a hard time paying their weekly bills because the increase in fuel prices also impacts the cost of goods and services across the board. But, this recent spike in gas prices is not unprecedented.  At least once before, during President Obama's term in office, gas prices have peaked at a level at or above what we are currently experiencing. But, this time, the press seems to be pointing a finger at President Obama's failed energy policies. Why the change in focus by the news media?  I think the answer to that question is obvious. Newt Gingrich has been relentlessly attacking Obama's failed energy policies in his $2.50/gal. gasoline campaign. The talking-heads in the mainstream media have dismissed Newt's $2.50/gal. gas idea as just some silly campaign tactic, not a serious policy proposal, but Newt doesn't mind the skepticism, because every time they bring up the issue, he has one more opportunity to point out President Obama's failed energy policies.  It gives Newt another chance to point out that President Obama has done nothing about soaring gas prices and has no plan to do anything in the near future to ease the pain at the pump.

Domestic Gas Prices ($/gal.) in the past 3 years

To further illustrate, take a look at the graph of gas prices and note that prices have shown an upward trend that peaked in 2011 above the levels we are currently experiencing.  The media coverage of the 2011 spike in gas prices did not include an examination of President Obama's energy policies, but focused almost exclusively on trouble brewing in the middle-east and the how oil-speculators may have a hand in driving up the cost of fuel domestically.  This time it is different; this time we are hearing Obama and his Energy Secretary Chu referenced in media coverage surrounding high fuel prices.  The only variable that has changed since the spike in prices in 2011 is Newt Gingrich's candidacy and his campaign against Obama's failed energy policies.

Newt recently made an interesting point about President Obama's remarks involving his energy policies.  In the same speech Mr. Obama seems to have contradicted himself by insisting that Republican's idea of drilling, drilling, drilling isn't the solution to our energy problem, while also referencing that the production of natural gas will produce 600,000 new jobs in the next 10 years.

This heat map of gas prices shows how prices differ around the country.  Even though the cost for fuel is lower in the greener-regions of this map, the cost of living is also lower in those same regions, so there is little doubt that folks in all parts of the country are feeling the negative effects of higher gas prices

Newt made a stop at an Alabama gas station to discuss how rising gas prices are hurting people who commute to work and how high prices are affecting cost of everything that is delivered. He mocks President Obama's idea that algae is a solution to our energy crisis.

Newt's campaign against higher fuel prices and President Obama's failed energy policies highlights a key difference about Newt's campaign.  Newt is the only candidate who has successfully guided the narrative in the mainstream media. Time after time Newt brings up issues that President Obama feels compelled to address. Even Obama's campaign advisers have recently expressed their worries about rising fuel prices.  The other GOP contenders often take up issues raised by Newt, but, only Newt leads on these issues.

Newt speaks at the 2012 Gulf Coast Energy Summit

We have a clear choice in this election.  We can choose to go with status-quo politicians who allow the mainstream media and president Obama to drive the conversation, or we can choose the only candidate who has shown again and again that he is able to steer the national dialogue. I choose Newt Gingrich. 

A Mississippi girl's perspective...

I was born in Mississippi; my parents and most of my family now live in Alabama; so, I'd say, I have a rather intimate knowledge of voters in the south, specifically those in Alabama and Mississippi.  I've watched (online) some of Newt's campaign appearances over the last couple  of days and am starting to see a rising chorus of support, as he inspires his audiences and speaks to their distrust of Washington, DC, and the ruling elite that have continuously attempted to direct the actions of conservative voters. 

The recent jump in the polls for Newt in both Mississippi and Alabama have the pundits surprised because they had written off Newt's candidacy as dead after Super Tuesday; but, voters in the south don't much care what pundits think about Newt, they know what they like, and they like what they hear:  A fighter, who tells them the truth and understands their frustrations.

The GOP party bosses, and even many conservatives, keep suggesting Newt should bow out and pave the way for Rick Santorum to assume the mantle of the conservative alternative to Romney, but Newt knows...like any good southerner would.. Rick doesn't come from the south, lives in a heavily unionized state, and has a few blemishes on his conservative credentials.  Newt knows that Rick doesn't have the tenacity that southern conservatives are looking for, that Rick will never be able to rally the conservative base sufficiently to overcome the massive attacks in store for him during the general election.  Only Newt knows how to cut through the fog of liberal propaganda to direct the narrative in this election. Obama has already begun to address the issues Newt has raised in his campaign; why else would Obama have come out to attack Newt's energy policies? .. and defend his own bad policy of refusing to drill for oil? Southerners love a man who will call out his opponent and then proceed to smack him down. This explains why Newt is rising in the polls in Mississippi and Alabama; the more they see and hear Newt, the more they like him.

The GOP elite have attempted to back conservatives in a corner.  They say "vote for Romney, or we will have another four years of Obama", but, I say, Romney is not conservative and does not inspire conservative voters.  Even if Mitt were to wrap up the nomination soon, there is no guarantee that the conservative base of the GOP would get out to campaign for him, they may not even come out to vote for him.  Here is just a little piece of advice from a southern girl to those GOP establishment types who think they can coerce a southerner into voting for a moderate: "We will do exactly what we please, and, of course, we prefer doing those things that displease you."

Newt speaks the language of the south.  He doesn't have to pretend to understand us by talking of things he knows nothing about; he has actually lived and worked among us.  He isn't the scripted politician who chooses all the politically correct terminology, but he holds firmly to his conservative principles, defends his positions (brilliantly), and he isn't ashamed to be conservative.  Southerners are sick and tired of conservative politicians avoiding the conversation with liberals so as not to offend.  It's time to offend those who would strip away our religious liberties, refuse to address this meteoric rise in fuel prices, and continue with this non-stop international apology tour.  There is nothing wrong with being conservative; in fact, the lack of conservative governance is precisely what is wrong with America.

A picture paints a 1000 words...

This map of Ohio's primary results showing precincts won by Romney (yellow) and Santorum (purple) paints a chilling picture for the GOP in the general election in the fall. At first glance it would appear that Rick Santorum won Ohio handily by carrying 69 of the 88 county precincts, but Romney won by taking 19 of the most delegate-rich precincts. Turnout in this GOP primary battle was low with only 25% of registered voters participating compared to 44.5% voting in the 2008 general election.  Primaries usually have lower voter turnout, so this is not an apples-to-apples comparison, but, regardless, there are trends in the data that show Romney could face an uphill battle in November, if chosen as the GOP nominee.  

Let's dig deeper to uncover what the mainstream media is failing to report.

We first started hearing about the red-state phenomenon when President George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in 2000.  Examine the map of the United States precinct by precinct; the red (denoting a majority in the precinct voted for Bush) covered most of the map.  

But, in spite of Bush carrying such a large majority of precincts in 2000, the blue portions of the map are so densely populated that Bush barely won the election and actually lost the popular vote to Al Gore.  

Romney has had issues wooing conservatives throughout this GOP nomination process, evidenced by his lackluster performance with conservatives in each contest so far. Romney has shown not only a decreased level of support in nearly every precinct he's carried compared to the level of support he received in his 2008 bid, but turnout has been consistently low where Mitt has had success, and turnout overall has been down in most states. Some pundits are crediting Mitt's negative attack ads for the reduced voter turnout in the GOP primaries and caucuses. Obama's attack ads could likely have the same suppressing effect in the general contest. In Contrast, the precincts carried by Newt Gingrich have consistently shown improved voter turnout. Also, when you look at maps of all the states won by Romney, and, for nearly all precincts, those with the largest conservative voting block have chosen a candidate other than Romney.

Some of Romney's backers say his ability to carry these blue precincts may actually show a strength for Romney, because he will be able to win over the votes of more liberal/moderate precincts in the general election, but considering consistent low turnout in the primaries and caucuses for Romney, I am not sure that argument holds up.  Obama will surely carry all the most liberal precincts and the majority of moderate ones.  The only real path to victory in the general election in the fall is for the GOP contender to bring out enough support in more conservative precincts to off-set the numbers of votes in the more densely populated liberal/moderate precincts.  With over half the voters in the Republican party and a strong majority of conservatives voting against Romney  in the GOP nomination battle, can the GOP expect all of these voters to show up in the fall to cast their vote for the GOP if Romney is our nominee?  I have my doubts.

To further illustrate, let's take a look at the precinct-by-precinct results in 2008.  

Again, you'll note that Obama carried a minority of precincts in Ohio, but won the state with 51.2% of the vote.  I'd concede that Obama will probably have a less enthused base of support in the general election this round, but putting up a candidate that is not fully supported by the base of the GOP is very risky.  McCain suffered the same syndrome as Romney in his 2008 bid.  Conservatives were not enthusiastic for McCain and did not turn out in sufficient numbers in the red precincts to overtake Obama's lead in the densely populated blue ones. No GOP candidate has been able to win in the general without firm support of conservatives since Reagan.

Grumbling has already commenced with many Tea Party activists about a potential Romney GOP nomination.  If Romney wraps up the GOP nomination, will the Tea-Party stay within the Republican fold, or break ranks and run their own 3rd party candidate?   Many suggest the candidacy of Ross Perot in 1992 was because many conservative Republicans and more libertarian-leaning democrats were unwilling to get behind Bill Clinton or George H.W. Bush.  Could we see a repeat of something like this in the fall?

I think the pundits in the media need to open their eyes and stop insisting that Romney is the most electable of the GOP contenders. Data from Mitt Romney's primary/caucus wins provides plenty of evidence to the contrary. The fervent support of Romney by the GOP establishment has disenfranchised many in the conservative base of the Republican party.  If the GOP party bosses are not careful, they may find themselves presiding over the destruction of their party and a defeat in the fall. 

Framing the Debate

The mainstream media has focused their attention in this GOP nomination process on the horse-race, apologies from Rush Limbaugh and 'secret-alliances' between Paul and Romney; but, Newt Gingrich has done a masterful job of steering the conversation back to Barack Obama and the cost of Energy.

During each of his debate appearances, Newt has chastised the moderators for focusing on extraneous issues while failing to  provide equal time to address the contrast that each candidate has with Barack Obama.  Laura Ingram, a well known conservative radio personality, said, " Gingrich has been brilliant at framing the issues."

In contrast, Santorum has repeatedly found himself swallowed up in conversations about some of his more controversial social conservative positions and Romney in his dealings at Bain Capital and his severely conservative credentials.  

Newt's appearances on this past weekends news programs showcased why he is best at directing the narrative.  Without totally dodging their questions, he would re-frame questions to address the failings of Obama and his assault on religious liberty. 

Newt Gingrich on CBS Face the Nation

Newt Gingrich on CNN State of the Union

Newt Gingrich on ABC This Week

Newt Gingrich on NBC NBC Meet the Press

In order for the Republican party to successfully navigate the general election in the fall, it is imperative that we have a candidate who is able to wrestle the narrative back from the mainstream media and focus the conversation on what really matters to voters. Obama was swept into office in 2008 campaign largely because John McCain was unable to direct the course of the conversation. Republicans don't need a repeat this fall. Newt Gingrich has consistently shown that he can control the conversation.

Selective Outrage

This recent story about Rush Limbaugh's comments regarding Sarah Fluke, the Georgetown University student who testified before Congress about availability of birth-control in her health insurance plan, has many women's-rights activists in a tizzy.  Now, I would not normally defend a man who makes such crass remarks about any woman, but in this case, the hypocrisy of the left is so outrageous, that it is time for conservative women in America to point it out.  The double-standard is apparent as liberals rail against conservatives who step over the line in a manner that is disproportionately harsh compared to their reaction to similar or even worse comments and behaviors coming from their liberal counterparts.   Let's take a look at some of the more egregious violations that have gotten a pass from liberals and women's-right's groups.  If you are offended by off-color remarks, then I suggest you read no further!

Bill Maher

Bill Maher has made a career out of tearing down conservatives of both genders, but he seems to have a particular fondness for using incendiary and shockingly tasteless comments when discussing conservative women. Women's-rights groups, including the National Organization for Women (NOW) have remained silent about Maher's tirades against conservative women.  The Democratic party and left-leaning media outlets and publications are also mum on Maher's incredibly offensive remarks.  Do they condone Maher's behavior?

Here is a just a small sampling of Maher's reprehensible remarks:

• Referenced Sarah Palin: “Did you hear this – Sarah Palin finally heard what happened in Japan and she’s demanding that we invade ‘Tsunami,’” Maher said. “I mean she said, ‘These ‘Tsunamians’ will not get away with this.’ Oh speaking of dumb tw**s, did you...”
• Routinely uses a vulgarity (c**t) when referencing Palin
• Called Bristol Palin a wh*re and a twit
• Discussed having 'angry sex' with Michele Bachmann because his guests hated her so much.
• Said about the GOP presidential field: “If Bachmann and Palin both get in, that’s two bimbos"
• Talked about the wife of Senator Rick Santorum using a vibrator

Keith Olbermann

Keith Olbermann does not seem to limit his tactless remarks for conservatives only.  He repeatedly makes sexist remarks about women in general.   He has included the likes of Paris Hilton, Hillary Clinton, Lindsay Lohan, Brittany Speers in his rants.   He even called his co-worker Rita Cosby 'dumber than a suitcase of rocks'.  Yet there seems to be no similar outrage (compared to that directed at Limbaugh) coming from the left about Olberman's outrageous remarks. Why the double standard?

Here are a few examples of Olberman's crude remarks about conservative women:

• Referring to Michelle Malkin: a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” 
• Has made disparaging remarks about Malkin's ethnicity 
• Said that S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, 
• Discussed Carrie Prejean’s breasts (former Miss USA); participated in a tasteless attack
• Smashed an Ann Coulter doll to pieces while cackling maniacally

Other misogynistic leftists include:

• Chris Matthews, of MSNBC, has wondered aloud whether Sarah Palin is even “capable of thinking” and has called Bachmann a "balloonhead" and said she was “lucky we still don’t have literacy tests out there.” 
• Matt Taibbi, a left-wing blogger, described in Michelle Malkin using a very graphic sexual reference in a 2009 blog.  In his profile of  Michele Bachmann he labeled her “batsh*t crazy.”
• Ed Schultz, of MSNBC, said that Sarah Palin set off a "bimbo alert" and  called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing sl*t.” 

Now back to the Rush Limbaugh remarks that have caused such a ruckus: Limbaugh has been termed the 'shock jock' of conservatism. He regularly makes over-the-top remarks to drive his point home. I am personally not so offended with much of what Rush has to say, but I do concur that calling Sandra Fluke a sl*t did little to bolster his argument and likely undermined what he was trying to accomplish. By simply pointing out the fact that Fluke is a single female sitting before congress discussing her need for contraception, the audience would have had no trouble putting 2 and 2 together. I doubt many in Rush's audience consider Fluke a virtuous woman. I actually listened to portions of the radio-shows that are the center of this controversy, but missed some of Rush's more inflammatory remarks. I have since read some of the excerpts.

It is clear the focus of the media's coverage of Rush's remarks do not address his underlying argument:  liberals want the government to pay for everything, including birth control for liberals that choose to attend a Catholic university. Rush said that Fluke asking for insurance coverage for contraception was akin to asking the government to subsidize her sex-life, then went on to equate this with prostitution (i.e. money for sex).  This portion of Rush's argument was offensive and unnecessary, but it definitely got the attention of liberal media.  Perhaps that was his point; unfortunately, they are not playing his argument along with the term 'prostitute', so I am not sure many liberals even know what point he was making because they are not putting the offending words in the context of his argument.

The cries from liberal women and liberal organizations about Rush's comments have been relentless. They are now boycotting Rush's advertisers and making a full-out-effort to have Rush Limbaugh removed from the airwaves.  Those same women have said and done nothing to stop the vile and vicious attacks against Sarah Palin and attacks against other conservative women that go on unchecked.  This selective outrage a perfect example of liberal hypocrisy.  President Obama has even placed a phone call to Sarah Fluke to offer his support, but where is his sympathy for women being skewered routinely by the left?  I've never believed that the National Organization for Woman was really interested in women, but only interested in furthering their left-wing ideology; this selective outrage is just more evidence of that.  

Rush Limbaugh has since apologized for his remarks, but we're still waiting to hear apologies from the likes of Maher and Olbermann.  Because I have spoken out against this double-standard, I, too, am being subjected to harassment on Twitter from the left.  Godless liberals with no moral standards, sitting in judgement over conservatives.. oh, the irony.

Closing Arguments for Newt Gingrich

At the end of a trial, lawyers stand before a jury and plead the case for their clients, laying out all their best arguments as to why their client should be vindicated.  The American people and voters in the Republican party are the jury in this GOP nomination battle, and I am here today presenting  all the reasons why their final verdict should favor Newt Gingrich. Here is my summary of arguments that Newt Gingrich is the candidate best positioned to win the nomination for conservatives and beat Barack Obama in the fall.

We have four interesting candidates jockeying for position in this GOP nomination race: the Libertarian, the businessman, the family man, and the conservative warrior.  Let's look at the records of each to see who has what it takes to reign in an out-of-control government and clean up the mess in Washington, DC.

Ron Paul

The loudest voice in the fight to reign in government spending and strengthen our currency has been Ron Paul. His unwavering opposition to big government and the Federal Reserve is second to none.  He proposes we audit the Federal Reserve, return to the gold standard, and eliminate the IRS.  Many of his Libertarian views are now being adopted by others in the GOP.  The over-reach of the Obama administration has undoubtedly fueled the popularity of many of Paul's fiscally conservative positions; but, Paul is the least electable out of the remaining field of candidates because of his more extreme views that conflict with the platform of the Republican party.

A few reasons why Paul will not be chosen as the GOP nominee:

• Believes that the United States should cut off aid and support to Israel
• Opposes intervention in Iran to prevent the development of nuclear weapons
• Supports the legalization of illicit drugs
• Wants to cut the Department of Defense budget dramatically
• Does not support a federal role in the fight to end abortion
• Does not support a federal role in defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
• His delegate count and position in the polls make victory mathematically impossible

Mitt Romney

Many conservatives are skeptical of Mitt Romney.  Hailing from  liberal Massachusetts automatically raises suspicions in the minds of many conservative Republicans, but when coupled with Romney's less than conservative record as governor of Massachusetts,  his fluid positions on every conservative plank, and the unwavering support by GOP party establishment types, the cries to choose anybody but Romney have gotten louder.   News has recently come to light that Romney played a more direct role than was previously thought in the crafting of Obama-Care legislation. He urged Obama to include the individual mandate.  It appears the one candidate being championed by GOP party leadership has already ceded our biggest argument in the fall (Obama-Care), because Romney was complicit in it's crafting.  

A few reasons why Romney should not be chosen as the GOP nominee:

• Flip-flops on abortion, gay marriage, bailouts, guns, global warming
• Will not beat Obama in his home state of Massachusetts - behind double digits
• Nearly lost the state of his birth, Michigan, to Santorum in the primary
• Has reduced voter turnout in every precinct he has won in the GOP nomination battle
• Conservatives don't believe he is severely conservative
• Comes across as elitist and out-of-touch with working class voters
• Does not articulate the conservative message with conviction or effectiveness
• Plays right into the Democrat's argument that the GOP is only a party for the wealthy 
• Authored and signed into law Romney-Care, the blueprint for Obama-Care

Rick Santorum

When the nomination battle began this past summer, I doubt many believed that Rick Santorum would still be standing at this point.  His upset victory in Iowa stunned the establishment.  His slide in South Carolina, Florida and Nevada followed by decisive wins in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota even more surprising... and he followed that with an impressive showing in Michigan.  His very strong social conservative credentials have endeared him to many conservatives, but there are lingering doubts about whether Santorum has what it takes to defeat Obama.  I am one who has those doubts. He's come under attack for his less-than-conservative fiscal voting record in the senate.  Some of his statements about women  in combat and woman in the workforce have come back to haunt him.

A few reasons why Santorum should not be chosen as the GOP nominee:

• Falls into the Democratic's trap by arguing unpopular social conservative positions
• Has said women should be banned from military combat
• Voted against 'Right to Work' and does not hold a conservative position on unions
• Supported increases in spending and raising of the debt limit (6 times) while in congress
• Endorsed Arlen Specter who went on to cast the deciding vote to pass Obama-Care
• Voted for ear-mark legislation and still defends his support of ear-marks.
• Lost his last bid for the Senate by a very large margin in 2006
• Does not provide the impassioned rhetoric or inspiration to rally the conservative base

Newt Gingrich

When I found out that Newt Gingrich was running for President, I must admit, I was absolutely giddy.  I've closely followed Gingrich over the years, and always thought he would make an excellent president.  His historic take-over of the U.S. House in the GOP Revolution of 1994 was one of the most exhilarating political victories I've witnessed in my lifetime.  He followed that with unprecedented work to bring to a vote and pass 9 of 10 planks in the Contract with America.  His ability to rally conservatives, remarkable. Stunning victories by the GOP nationwide at the state and local levels were orchestrated by Newt in the 90's.  I watch his passionate speeches routinely to educate myself about our history, government and conservatism.

Here is the short list of reasons why Gingrich is the best choice for the GOP:

• Has successfully governed with Democratic opposition
• Can articulate the conservative message with passion and clarity
• Is a visionary with bold ideas
• Passed Welfare Reform and convinced Clinton to sign it into law
• Is gifted at framing the debate with liberals
• Leads on Energy policy.  Has a plan to bring down the cost of Energy
• Has taken on the main-stream media, calling them out on dishonest journalism practices
• Produced balanced budgets and cut government spending
• Knows how DC politics works and has successfully navigated it.
• Is not beholden to the GOP party establishment
• Knows our religious heritage and is very effective in defending religious liberty
• Has a brilliant mind with a thorough knowledge of history, foreign and domestic policies
• Can deliver impassioned speeches that inspire voters and drive turnout
• Is the most effective debater and will crush Obama in the fall debates
• Is a strong defender of Israel.  Recognizes their sovereignty to defend themselves.
• Supports the 10th amendment, will return healthcare and education decisions to states.
• Can win the argument with Liberals; make the case to the American people.
• Has a very passionate network of grass-roots supporters that includes the Tea-Party

Newt is not a perfect man; he has personal baggage that some voters feel may derail his candidacy in the fall.  But Newt's personal foibles have been vetted again and again.  There is no evidence that Newt's  misdeeds are on-going.  And, when questions about his personal history were raised by John King, the moderator in the South Carolina  debate, GOP voters turned out in large numbers to support Newt and send a message to the mainstream media that voters are not interested in their attempts to personally destroy Newt Gingrich.  Newt has turned his life around and has put himself in the line of fire because he passionately believes America is in crisis and desperately needs his leadership.  I agree with Newt. 

Now is the time to choose.  Review the records of each candidate.  As Ronald Reagan said, "Don't be afraid to see what you see."  It is time to choose the conservative warrior who will go into Washington, D.C. to shake up the system, clean up the mess, and bring back better days for America.  Please join me in this new GOP Revolution.

Newt's Big Ideas on Energy

Filling up with gas has become a very  painful experience. I'm luckier than most, because I live in Texas. We typically have some of the lowest gas prices in the nation, but, even in Texas, our $3.40/gal gas still puts a strain on the budget. The cost of everything seems to be taking a hit; I paid just under $4 for a gallon of milk this week. It costs producers and deliverers of goods and services more, so those additional costs are being passed onto us. With all the angst in the Middle East, and no faith that the Obama administration has any idea how to deal with recent foreign policy issues or soaring gas prices, American's are increasingly concerned about how they are going to pay their bills. We need answers. We aren't getting them from this president.

Newt Gingrich has come forward with bold ideas on how to address the rising cost of energy in America.  We have enormous untapped energy potential here in the United States.  Newt claims it is time for us to reverse course on our energy policies; drill here, drill now, and pay less.

Newt’s American Energy Plan:

1. Remove bureaucratic and legal obstacles to responsible oil and natural gas development in the United States, offshore and on land.
2. End the ban on oil shale development in the American West, where we have three times the amount of oil as Saudi Arabia.
3. Give coastal states federal royalty revenue sharing to give them an incentive to allow offshore development.
4. Reduce frivolous lawsuits that hold up energy production by enacting loser pays laws to force the losers in an environmental lawsuit to pay all legal costs for the other side.
5.  Finance cleaner energy research and projects with new oil and gas royalties.
6.  Replace the Environmental Protection Agency, which has become a job-killing regulatory engine of higher energy prices, with an Environmental Solutions Agency that would use incentives and work cooperatively with local government and industry to achieve better environmental outcomes while considering the impact of federal environmental policies on job creation and the cost of energy.

Newt is taking on the Energy crisis at every level:  Reduce regulation, increase domestic production, open up the world market for American oil, increase energy research, provide incentives to states to tap into their own resources, and reduce stifling litigation pertaining to energy production and exploration.  

Newt's solutions are in stark contrast to the liberal approach of Jimmy Carter in the 70's.  Carter sought to regulate consumption of gas by placing limits on consumers instead of working to increase production of oil.   With these limits, the cost of gas skyrocketed, and high inflation commenced.  Carter failed to understand the basic economic concept of supply and demand.   In contrast, Newt's plan is based on free-market principles.  

The Obama administration has been waging a war against the use of fossil fuels.  Obama's desire to reduce fossil fuel consumption has led to several wrong turns including the government financing of Solyndra, government subsidies for a $40K electric car, and restrictions on domestic energy exploration and production. Obama's rejection of the construction of the Keystone pipeline is another example of Obama's unwillingness to compromise his liberal agenda to bring down the cost of fuel.   He's recently tinkered with the Keystone decision saying he would allow the building of portions to go forward; perhaps because his rejection of Keystone was such a political loser for the Democratic party. 

Newt call's Obama's energy policy 'Stupid - like he is governing on Mars'

We learn this week that the Energy Secretary Chu is comfortable with higher gas prices because he believes that higher costs for fuel will force Americans to abandon their gas-burning cars and trucks for environmentally friendly alternatives.   

Newt Gingrich has railed against Secretary Chu saying he should resign from office calling him the 'Anti-Energy Secretary'., saying that Chu has openly admitted wanting America to have gas prices comparable to Europe ($9 to $10/gal). 

Newt Gingrich opened this conversation about energy.  He understands just how destructive high gas prices are for this economy. Other candidates are now jumping on Newt's energy-solutions bandwagon, but Newt was the first to step forward.   We need a leader who stands in the front, takes on the status-quo and can make the case to the American people.  Newt Gingrich is our energy crisis solution.

Faith of our Fathers ..

Christianity has been under assault in America for decades.  Prayer has been banned in schools, nativity scenes taken from city halls, and the ten commandments purged from court houses.  Most Christians sit idly by, buying the liberal argument that 'Separation of Church and State' makes these actions justified, but what most Americans don't know, is that the words 'Separation of Church and State' do not appear in our constitution, and beyond that, our founding fathers were deeply religious people who believed that only a moral society that had a strong faith and fear of God would ever realize the America they had envisioned.  No doubt our founding fathers would be horrified at the assault on Christianity that is being played out in America now.

Here are the words of our founders regarding religion:

George Washington:

     "The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that  lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations" 

Thomas Jefferson:

    "Among the most inestimable of our blessings is that ... of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support."

James Madison:
     "It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.

Benjamin Franklin:

     " Here is my creed: I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable service we render him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this."

John Adams:
     "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

An extensive recounting of our nations founding and the role of religion is found in the Library of Congress 

What is noted, among other things, is that people came to this land from Europe because they were deeply religious people, escaping religious persecution.  The establishment clause in the first amendment to our constitution was put there to protect citizens from tyrants who would dictate how they would worship God; it was not put there to remove any mention of God from civil society.  Liberals today suggest otherwise.  What would stun most Americans is that the establishment clause in the 1st amendment did not apply to the states.  States were allowed, and did, have state-run Christian churches.  I doubt any liberal mentions that.

Newt Gingrich regularly addresses this assault on Christianity, and how our founders viewed God and government.  This address to the First Redeemer Church in Cummings, GA one of his finest example.

Our Declaration of Independence references God's place in our founding:

—We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Our Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Christians need to fight back, armed with the facts.  There are no provisions in our constitution that provide for the wholesale purging of God from the public square.  Christians not only have the right to profess their faith openly, but it is perfectly acceptable and in keeping with our founding principles for prayer to be offered up by those in Government and students in our schools.  Government can't force you to adopt a particular religion, but is also can not stop you from openly practicing your faith.

Christians are routinely ridiculed in our culture.  Comedians, liberal pundits and godless celebrities scoff at the very mention of Christianity.  No doubt the moral decay in our country is directly proportional to the erosion of religious faith among our people.  We need to be that beacon on a hill for the rest of this world.  As Reagan said, "If we cease to be one nation under God, we'll be one nation gone under."