newt (13)

Newt on the Ryan Budget

Upon first look at the budget put forth by Congressman Ryan, Former Speaker of the House (and at the time presidential candidate) Newt Gingrich had some harsh words as to what he thought of the budget. He has amended his statement, voicing his support of changes and the congressman/now vice-presidential pick.

He said this on Sunday:

"The basic thrust of (Ryan’s budget plan) is the right direction for the country. The one thing I objected to back in May of 2011 was that he eliminated Medicare for everybody. He came back with Ron Wyden. He met my only objection.”
143138843.jpg?uuid=o3ZSMI4uEeGNaTMwIj7ukgNewt Gingrich has been campaigning aggressively for Mitt Romney over the past few weeks.

Read more…

Why I won't vote for Romney


Why I won't vote for Romney


Because I want to defeat Obama.

The Romney argument from day one has been 'you have to vote for Romney because he's the only one that can beat Obama'. I won't vote for Romney precisely because I know he will lose to Obama. A few examples as to why he'll lose:


Romney's positive approval rating has been 20 points below even McCain and Dole's who both ended up losing. It will probably start to rise with the end of the primary, however this is before the Obama Nasties open fire with both barrels, and Romney is a very target rich environment.


McCain lost to Obama by five million votes. The retort is 'yes but the luster is off Obama this time', true, but the luster has never been and never will be on Romney. The apathy on the right is every bit as apathetic as the apathy on the left. However in addition to apathy there is almost a disdain on the right for Romney and the GOP. Romney will lose three types of voters. 1. Unmotivated voters who won't bother to turn off 'Dancing with the Stars' to go vote. 2. Voters like myself that know Romney is a liberal and are disgusted with the dishonest corrupt campaign he and the GOP have run. 3. Voters that hate Romney so much that as soon as the word 'Romney' leaves your mouth the conversation is over. So from where is Romney going to get his votes?


Romney is so stiff that it makes it almost too painful to watch. Part of his historically low 30 percent approval rating is simply that he is not a likeable candidate. It just seems as if he doesn't quite know how to relate to humans. The following video (cookiegate) of Romney talking to supporters is a perfect illustration of Romney's legendary awkwardness. If this were an isolated event it could be overlooked, but it's more the rule than the exception.


Both Romney and Obama are desperate to avoid their records, causing them to run a vapid, mud slinging campaign with both candidates trying to bring the other down, rather than building himself up. Perhaps this is why we spent the last few weeks arguing about the value of stay-at-home-moms, roof carriers for dogs and yes dog meat. However this kind of campaign will not help Romney, on the contrary, this type of campaign is tailor-made for the democrats. Democrat voters are the quintessential mind-dead-voter. All David Axelrod has to say is: are you really going to fire the first black president? (Chris Matthews is already promoting this) and 'hope and change', or the 2012 equivalent.


If Obama wins the world will end

If Obama wins the earth will fly off it's axis, spin out of control and explode. In addition to the dishonest and corrupt campaign, the GOP has been forcing Romney down our throats since the primary began. As Americans we are genetically predispositioned to raise our middle finger whenever someone tells us we HAVE TO do something. The main argument for Romney is that we can't afford another four more years of Obama. The question is never raised, can we afford eight years of a liberal republican? I would argue, muddling through four more years of Obama is preferable to eight years of a directionless liberal Romney. Does anyone anywhere really think Mitt is going to bring a backbone to the table. On the budget battles Boehner and McConnell have caved every single time to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham even pleaded with the republican leadership, 'don't shut down the government or we'll get blamed'. Coulter might have an adam's apple but she has no cojones. Is Romney really going to stand up to Ann Coulter?


If Obama wins, the next two Supreme Court justices will alter the makeup of the court. Nonsense. Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts aren't going anywhere. Kennedy probably isn't either. If he does, his replacement still has to be confirmed by the Senate. You simply don't confirm anyone less conservative than Kennedy, next problem.


We need someone with a spine. The only republicans in the last thirty years with guts were Reagan and Gingrich. Both shut down the government several times and Newt even forced Clinton to say “the era of big government is over”. Will Romney ever shut down the government, will he ever stand up to the liberals when they cry about draconian cuts? He's not going to fight the liberals because in truth he is a liberal and we all know that the democrats will keep spending until we become Greece. Just like the liberals in Greece kept spending until it became so bad people started committing suicide. We are on the exact same path and a liberal republican is barely going to slow us down on our inevitable run off the cliff.


Going on offense.

I started to write a section about forcing a brokered convention, but the more I wrote the more I realized, any candidate coming out of the GOP convention this year will still have to be GOP approved. In other words we'd still end up with a total bucket of mush, like Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels, better, but not good enough for the mess we're in today.


Don't get me wrong I still think we need to flip off the GOP every chance we get. Such as:

  1. Voting for Ron Paul in the remaining primaries as a protest vote.

  2. Changing party affiliation to independent and telling the GOP why you're switching.

  3. Stop sending money to RNC.

  4. Throw your remote at the T.V. whenever Karl Rove shows up.


No, this time I think we need to go big. We need to enlist a true conservative as our third party nominee. We don't need a third party, at least not at this point. We just need a true conservative to represent us as a third party candidate in the presidential election. We'd still vote for the best republican in each race for congress. Many say this is a suicide mission, but I disagree. Rather I would argue that voting for Romney in this environment is the true suicide mission. Yes I've heard the argument over and over that Ross Perot is the reason we ended up with Bill Clinton, but had Ross Perot been a better candidate he could have actually won. He was shooting up like a rocket until he pulled out of the race, only to come back later and he still got 20 percent of the vote. Ross Perot was not a good candidate but we have time to find a truly great conservative candidate to represent us.


Not only was Ross Perot a poor candidate but H.W. Bush was not a horrible candidate either. But this time Romney is a horrible candidate. Also Clinton does not even come close to Barak Obama on the socialist meter, so things are very different this time. Can you imagine a true conservative debating these two liberal Bozos, with their socialist medicine legislation hanging around their necks?


As for the question, can a third party candidate really win? I'd point to Murkowski in Alaska who beat her republican rival with a write-in campaign and she wasn't even on the ballot. Granted our candidate will be underfunded but so were Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum and they still won states where they were outspent 10 to 1. On the other hand our third party candidate will start with a huge base of disenfranchised conservative voters in which to build on. The contrast between the conservative and the two liberals will suck voters from Romney until he's no longer viable. This happened recently in the Colorado Governor's race where the conservative independent destroyed the republican candidate making him into a non factor. Once Romney is made a non factor voters will turn to replacing the worst president in U.S. history.


In summary

If we don't stand up to the GOP this election we'll be be facing another thirty years of Doles and McCains and Romneys. We won't last thirty years with more Doles and McCains and Romneys. If Obama wins we muddle through for another four, but have another shot in four years for a true conservative. If Romney wins, the dramatic 'change of course' needed to save this country will not occur for at least the next eight years.

Read more…

   This has been one of the most unusual presidential campaigns in modern history;but Hope is Still Alive in some conservative circles, and We the People of the Conservative GOP can still envision a brokered convention that overcomes all of the injustices, potential fraud, corruption, lies, and muddy money thrown at the honorable Statesman, Patriot, and still most qualified to lead and defeat Obama...Newt [You can count on me to support any GOP candidate provided it is a TRUE CONSERVATIVE choice, and not a Mirage]. Our path to VICTORY is simple. For the balance of the primaries, we must rally support behind our former opponent, Dr Ronald Earnest Paul, and here's why: quite simply, he is the only one left with money, machine, and zero debt, to #StopMitt.  #RonPaul cannot likely make 1144 at this point either, but with help from a #NewtRevolution coalition, neither will Mitt Romney.
Last Week, Texas Politico Polling showed Newt within "Striking Distance" in Texas with 45% to Romney, 35% to Newt, and 14% for Ron Paul. If that Poll would hold, then Paul would normally get ZERO delegates from his home state,since he got less than required 15%, and Newt and Mitt would divide them up. However, Newt's suspension of the campaign is big game changer, and, the all too soon unconditional surrender by Randy Evans, Gov Rick Perry, and other surrogates whom quickly endorsed liberal Romney, assures us that the 35% Poll numbers will not hold for Newt, but will plummet to inconsequential levels.
However, Ron Paul is still very much alive on the campaign trail, with money in the bank, zero debt, and a great story to tell. He has already reportedly made an alliance with Santorum followers in Colorado and other places to address injustices and corruption within the party.They are there. No use continuing to be in denial. But we the people still can do something about it.
My main opposition amongst conservatives is worrying about Ron Paul. First of all, this is not about Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney. They all have great personalities, or they would not have the big crowds, speaking of which, Paul's crowds have been competing with Obama in size. Yes, i still have problems with Paul on Foreign Policy,but he appears to be trying to mainly get back to putting more war decisions in hands of Congress, vs one man, the presidency.All that said, I AM STILL #WITHNEWT, Period [although I would support any TRUE CONSERVATIVE with a Proven Record and not a Mirage}.
As Conservatives, our goal is NOT "Anybody But Obama". We are NOT against Obama as a person. Rather, we stand against the ideas, philosophy,and policies that are shipwrecking our great country. Newt has always said it best, that this conservative battle is a battle for IDEAS, and that IDEAS MATTER.  The Left in the GOP is begging Paul, Newt, and Santorum supporters to UNITE and to be UNIFIERS, because they want to nominate Mitt Romney, since, if Mitt does manage to beat Obama, the end result is still the same...THEIR IDEAS WIN. To replace Obama with an Obama look alike is ridiculous, and certain suicide for the true conservative cause.
If those with Santorum and Newt will rally behind Ron Paul now, he will gain an amazing number of delagates, and #STOPMITT from ever getting 1144. But Ron Paul will not likely get to 1144 either, at this stage, however, at an Open Convention, everything will be on the table without any outside, disingenuous influence from Democrats in Open Primaries or ballot shenanigans. We the GOP will decide whom our candidate will be, not the liberal and moderate GOP Establishment, not Fox News, CNN, or the lame stream media.
Right Now, I hope you will join me, and the many others whom understand that this could be the Newt's [and Tea Party Patriots'] finest hour; for,  while he may have thought he left the race, truth is, the Spirit of his IDEAS is still very much alive. It is for those IDEAS, and the common cause of defeating the wrong ideas, that I and many others enjoin our efforts with Dr Ronald Earnest Paul, to Save the Republican Party from destroying itself by nominating a self proclaimed "Progressive" (Mitt Romney Video on YouTube,"I'm a non-partisan Republican and a Progressive"], which by definition is "soft communism or socialism".  [ See also  ]

Read more…

Our Freedom and rights are worth fighting for


Will we sell our Beautiful America to the highest bidders

Will we fight for our “God” Given Freedoms









                       “So Help Me God”

The Strength of conviction and commitment to the Constitution is who we are.  The United States Military



Newt Gingrich believes in the Constitution, America the Beautiful, the American Dream, prosperity for all and that our Freedoms come from “God” not the Government



Read more…

CNN Senior Producer Kevin Bohn
April 20th, 2012 - 11:32 PM ET

The Adelson family continues to be the major benefactor behind the super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich's candidacy, Winning Our Future.

While Nevada casino mogul Sheldon Adelson - who has donated $7.5 million to the group - did not give more in March, his wife Dr. Miriam Adelson contributed an additional $5 million last month, according to a report filed late Friday night with the Federal Election Commission. All totaled she has given $12.5 million and the family has given more than $20 million.

The family's contributions to Winning Our Future are a major reason the group has been able to continue operating. In total the group has raised $23 million.

Read more…

Mandate vs. Non-Mandate

You do not hear a report on the Republican Presidential Election today that does not include the words "presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney".  We will get into some details there as a sidebar, but mainly, this will discuss the messages of the remaining campaigns.  Make no mistake, you will NOT hear this side on the Mainstream Media... yet!

We have three men left in the campaign.  Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul are still running.  Mitt lead a state, Newt was speaker of the House of Representatives, and Congressman Ron Paul leads the relovetion "movement".  To take the easy one first, there is not so much as a piece of legistation that Ron Paul can put his name on in 20 years.  He has been ineffectual as a congressman, and little more can be expected from a Paul Administration, should he be elected.  That is before we we consider Paul's ostrich foreign policy platform.  So we are down to two serious contenders.  

Romney has money, AND connections in the media.  While he has maintained an arms length from Bain Capital, he still has his "wealth" managed there.  Bain is a treasure trove of issues to fire up Americans with, and Romney was its leader.  But here is the big thing; Bain owns Clear Channel Radio, which syndicates Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and others.  The conservative base is influenced by those hosts!  You can hear the urge to speak positively of Newt as they avoid it like the plague.  BUT, Mitt only owns the conservative media!

Owning something is not as important as what you do with that something.  Romney goes from place to place, reading his teleprompter, and taking few questions.  He claims to be pro life, now. He loves Cars, and Lakes, and is (this election cycle) a proponent of the 2nd Amendment.  Romney's main strategy has been turn out  suppression.  Can you point to an issue that Romney championed in the last four years?

There is one!  Most can't really say he was a champion, but Obama referred to him, in 2009,  time and time again as THE republican that supported RobamneyCare.  Mitt never denied it!  Still today, he can not deny it!  Which brings up the mandate.  What kind of mandate will Romney have if elected?  When he champions an issue, how strong will he be?  

Moreover, Newt Gingrich is driving for a Mandate.  The whitehouse has started two efforts to combat Newt.  Their energy response to $2.50 Gas is falling flat.  Their "War On Women", a direct response to the First Amendment Religious Freedom Newt has been touting, is flailing.  Newt called them out on it when George Stephanopolus initiated it.  Primarily, Newt has stuck to the precepts of building a mandate, to the point of publishing it at  

Mitt has been trippped up over the Religious Freedom issue in interviews on Fox.  Mitt's campaign has signalled an etch-a-sketch strategy once he is rid of these pesky idealists.  Romney's issue free candidacy will give up the "not a dimes worth of difference" argument that killed our base in 2008.  Mitt will not have a mandate, and will be hamstrung in special interest fights, if elected!

The next President will face forces that have been digging in over the last four years.  How much is changed directly relates to how well we recover, from the Fannie/Freddie debacle, as well as National Security and General American Health.  Newt has had to answer the question "When are you getting out?" ad nauseum.  Mitt will have to answer "So why are you running?" to the same extent from the liberal media.  Mitt WILL gaffe!  Romney will face the refrain, "you ran against a mandate, and won!"  The liberal media has spent their ammo on Newt.  Newt's mandate will stand after the election.

Newt said, "Money spent without purpose, in a campaign without an argument, is waste of Money!"  Newt has the arguments, and he is the master of them.  Speaker Gingrich is running to give YOU a choice! To preserve America, and to win the presidency, we must support Newt Gingrich for the GOP nomination, and for the Office of the President of these United States of America!

Read more…

And Then There were two!

By now you have heard...  Rick Santorum has dropped out of the race!  He ran a good race.  His daughter, Bella is sick, and in the hospital.  I am sure you will join with me to pray for Bella and the whole Santorum Family.  These have got to be tough times.

In the end, Rick's depth was unable to sustain him.  Santorum was a TV commentator before he threw his hat into the ring.  He was on from time to time, but really was not a regular on any show.  Having lost in Pennsylvania by 18 points, his impending loss there in two weeks would have destroyed any chance at getting better exposure.

Now it is just Newt and Mitt.  Newt has drawn the fire of the White House for $2.50 Gas, and Religious Freedom!  Mitt drew his first comments today, for running a negative campaign!  Do you know what Mitt's platform is?  Can you name a key issue Mitt has championed?

I can.  Mitt Romney advocated for RobamneyCare in 2009.  He was on several interviews touting his mandate.  Mitt was chipping away at the resolve and resistance to the government forcing citizens into commerce (  The conclusion that Romney would have cost the Republican Party their unanimous opposition, had he had a vote, is not beyond the pale.

Is that the kind of man that will ferret out the various tendrils of ObamaCare?  Without a detailed plan of action from day one, can we trust Mitt to stand up to the monstrosity our government has become?  Does anyone seriously think Mitt will be able to call out Obama on the lies and confusion we all know is coming?

Newt, on the other hand will turn our country back into the tradewinds.  Speaker Gingrich has shown the ability to pull details out the air that correllate with the public record, at the drop of a hat.  You know you want to see that!

But beyond the theatrics, Speaker Gingrich knows the government, and their games.  He knows the lay of the legislative land.  What's more, Newt will work with both sides, as he did with Clinton in passing entitlement reform!  The media won't tout that.  It will be just as it was with Reagan.  We will see our commander-in-chief bypassing the media often!

As President, Newt will actually propose a budget that will get a yes vote in congress!  He will institutionalize savings with the Chilean Plan, rather than leaving it to the general budget!  The Speaker will revamp the Fed.  And Newt will put the courts in their proper place with constitutional procedures and historical (and legal) precedents!  You can learn more at

Newt is going to Tampa.  He has the depth of business to get there - as a candidate.  But wait, the state of Texas has issued a debate challenge to all of the candidates, and Texas could matter.  Articles are appearing claiming the Republicans have a problem motivating their base!  They are right!  Romney is driving them away!  With the bulk of "Not Romney" voters now hammering, the game has changed!

Unless you want a Massachusetts Moderate, and a repeat of 2008, Newt needs your help now.  Go to to get involved!  Do it for Virginia. Do it for America.  Do it for yourself.

Read more…

Etch-A-Sketch Campaigns

This episode shows that the candidate who first drew White House fire can adjust to events.  Newt's $2.50 Gas is "an old fashioned pocketbook appeal" by his own admission.  Obama is going to oil fields in response.  Meanwhile, Ricky is digging his Gaffe hole with lamentations of Principle over Statehood, and unemployment.  Newt gets the video here, giving a child in his crowd a souvenier that will not be forgotten.

Early in the race, Newt was hammered for being undisciplined.  Just recently, Newt stuck to his tack of ignoring Presidential Religion comments.  Even under such whithering adversity, Newt has shown agility.  The gaffes in the other campaigns show who is truly disciplined, and whose cannons can be knocked loose.

Newt can campaign with what fits under the seat in front of him.  His message comes from him.  He knows the waters we will have to cross.  Speaker Gingrich has been choosing our subjects in this election cycle.  Are we going to ignore that?  The others are just looking to sit atop the hay stack.  Obama has demonstrated that fact to our dismay.

Go to, register, and help get American back on track.  It costs nothing but your time!

[In Re: to:]

Newt, Santorum debut Etch A Sketch props on the trail (Updated)

Newt Gingrich gleefully seized on Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom's "Etch A Sketch" comments from this morning, bringing out an Etch A Sketch as a prop on the campaign trail today.

Gingrich, via POLITICO's Ginger Gibson, called Fehrnstrom's comment a sign that the conservative movement couldn't trust Romney to stick to his positions in the fall:

"Now given everybody's fears about Gov. Romney's flip-flops, to have his communications director say publicly to all of us, if we're dumb enough to nominate him we should expect by the acceptance speech he'll move back to the left, triggers everything we should worry about," he told a crowd in Lake Charles, La. [...]

Read more…
Tim Tebow, the Super Bowl, Newt Gingrich, and the Future of Our Country
By Kris Zane
February 6, 2012

When Tim Tebow, whose ubiquitous expression of his love for God on bended knee threw 316 yards and averaged 31.6 yards per completion in the Broncos-Steelers game, many saw it as a sign and connection to John 3:16, the most famous verse in the Bible.

But was the Super Bowl between the Patriots and Giants also a sign, a sort of David versus Goliath, a good versus evil: the Patriots from the greater Boston area, the seat of love for country, versus New York, the seat of liberalism, anti-American sentiment, and Occupy protesters defecating on police cars.

Even the Super Bowl TV ads seemed to be in a battle, between pro-American themed commercials versus the usual hedonistic fare.  One commercial had the theme from the movie Rocky, “Getting Strong Now” playing in the background, beckoning back to a time in America when we were proud of our country; when Presidents didn’t go around the world apologizing for America; a time when Supreme Court justices didn’t jaunt around the globe denigrating our Constitution, as Ruth Ginsberg did recently in Egypt. Heroes and Super hero-themed movies were also advertised, like GI Joe: Retaliation, the ultimate in good versus evil, and Avengers, with a slew of superheroes, when America could use a few super heroes to look up to. There was also an ad for Act of Valor, a movie that actually portrays our military and their families in a good light instead of the endless America-bashing Hollywood serves up endlessly.

Lady Gaga, instead of Madonna, could have been chosen for the halftime show: hedonism versus a love for God and country. But Madonna was chosen, again from a different era, when love of country and love of God were not dirty words. Madonna’s new upbeat song,  “Give Me All Your Luvin’”, performed during halftime, also beckoned back to a better time with the sound of girl bands in the 1980s like the Go Go’s, with visuals of football and cheerleaders, in which you couldn’t get much more American- themed. She closed her fantastic half-time show with “Like a Prayer,” flanked by a large choir, perhaps a sign to America that we should move away from the Secular Machine of the Obama administration, whose order to the Catholic Church under the ObamaCare HHS mandate to begin providing health insurance coverage in Catholic hospitals, universities, and charitable organizations that include contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients has been repudiated nationwide by the Catholic church, and has even led to the Obama Administration censoring Catholic chaplains in the military. The Catholic Church is now fighting back

Newt Gingrich, a Catholic, was one of the first to publicly repudiate the HHS mandate and also fits into our analogy. Mitt Romney, the Goliath, backed by an endless supply of money from Wall Street, droned on and on to the American public by the mainstream media as the “inevitable” Republican candidate and being stuffed down the throats of conservative America by the Republican machine and most of the Right-wing media as the only “viable” candidate, dwarfs our David, Newt Gingrich, but Romney the Goliath is no conservative. 

Newt Gingrich, with little money, is demonized ad nauseam by the mainstream media, the Left,  the Romney machine, the Republican Party, and now by most of the Right-wing media. ABC tried to destroy Gingrich by airing an interview with Newt’s ex-wife two days before the South Carolina primary—allegations that are not news, being told ad nauseam for years. John King, as if it were merely by chance, made the allegations by the ex-wife the very first question in the CNN debate in order to bring Gingrich down— ironically, it had the opposite effect. After Romney was trounced in South Carolina by Gingrich, the Romney machine spent fifteen million dollars on attack ads in Florida alone.  On January 25 and 26, the Right-wing media, led by National Review Online and followed byDrudge Report’s screaming headlines and most of the remainder of the Right-wing media,  mounted an orchestrated attack within hours of each other, questioning Gingrich’s support of and relationship with Ronald Reagan, of which those who were close to Reagan repudiated, including Ronald Reagan’s son. A large part of the Tea Party, however, and a huge grassroots movement on thousands of websites and with millions of tweets and emails, stayed strong in their candidate. 

Gingrich is not back backed by Wall Street. The Left has made him Enemy #1. Gingrich has been demonized by both the mainstream and most of the Right-wing media. Both the Romney machine and the Republican machine have perpetrated lies about him ad nauseam. He is faced with what looks like an insurmountable task. A David versus a Goliath. A Patriot versus a Giant. 
With the New England Patriots’ loss to the New York Giants, like Tebow’s 316 rushing yards being seen as a sign of God’s hand in man’s events, will Newt Gingrich the Patriot lose the election to Romney the Giant? Has God turned his back on David and taken the side of Goliath for the sins of this country? Will He deliver us into the hands of another four years of Obama—which is what a Romney Republican ticket will mean. Will America turn their backs on Gingrich, patriots, movies that instill and uplift American values; place Madonna’s musical resurrection as an aberration, and embrace Romney, hedonistic movies, Lady Gaga, and eventually, in the end, Obama’s secular socialist machine? Only God knows...
Read more…

Pelosi Loves her Cushy Seat!


Nancy Pelosi usually does her dirty work behind closed doors, but the DEMS are not exactly in a comfort zone with their Commander in Chief and their greatest fear is Newt Gingrich. So good old Nancy erupts once again in a frantic attempt to derail Newt Gingrich. Nancy like Obama just can’t get enough of National TV and here are her latest comments about Newt.

Pelosi With Conviction, mouth puckered up like a prune and watery tearful eyes said, “Newt Gingrich will not be president" She Knows something! Nice try Nancy – I heard Newt respond to her threats this morning saying, “If she knows something, I have a simple challenge: Spit it out,” Gingrich said Wednesday on NBC's "Today" show.

Let’s check out Newt Gingrich, in fact let’s get the real stuff out in the open so everyone not only has an opinion, they have correct information.

Many moons ago in 1996 and 1997 House Speaker Newt Gingrich was charged by congressional Democrats of using a college course he taught to help him in his political activities. The allegations resulted in many stories on Dan Rather's CBS Evening News; but when Gingrich was cleared of all charges by the IRS, Dan Rather did not report on it.

The Democrats and many Republicans from the old establishment continued their attack on the Speaker of the House (Newt Gingrich) even after the first coup fell apart at the seams. They feared and still fear Gingrich more than the plague because once again he will take down their comfy house of cards, one card at a time.

They trumped up a total of 84 charges against the Speaker of the House only to find that 83 charges were false. The last charge, the 84th was tossed out the window by the IRS who was asked to investigate Gingrich on a tax fraud. The IRS found no violation and vindicated Newt Gingrich. Do your homework – find out the truth in the link provided below.

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 5]
[Page 6304]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office,]

In other words, the ethics charges David Bonior filed against Newt were all bogus. Every single charge was merely an attempt to derail the Speaker. If Newt Gingrich made any mistakes it was agreeing to pay 300,000 which basically paid for a 3 ½ year investigation by the Ethics Committee and voluntarily stepping down as House Speaker. .

The irony of this story that never seems to make headlines is this was about a college class that Newt taught on television about “Renewing American Civilization.' Here you will be able to read about each class Newt presented to colleges.

If you take time to read each college session offered, you will see that Newt Gingrich is truly a Patriot who loves his Country and fellow Americans. Newt Gingrich believes in a Government of the people, by the people and for the people. The Constitution is his road map and in 2012 he’s fighting to “Take Back Our Country America,” and vows to restore our freedoms and rights as set forth by our forefathers in 1787. Not bad for grandfather who has never given up the fight for his Country and fellow Americans.

May God Bless Our Nation
As Always,
Little Tboca

Read more…

Obama and the 2012 Presidential Race


by little tboca

Here’s a taste of what Americans can expect in the Presidential Race of 2012. Obama has already kicked his class warfare into all of his campaign speeches and will continue this strategy for the next 11 months. He’s pretending that he’s looking out for the “middle class” – what a laugh.

He’s the one who knocked the middle class off their feet in three years; he stopped any and all job growth, he redistributed 787 billion dollars known as the stimulus bill, which should have been called Obama’s “Dissuasion” bill. He backs the Muslim Brotherhood, trashes Israel, supports the Wall Street Protestors and continues hanging out with “America’s Most Wanted,” Marxists, Communists and Socialists.

Our final decision in 2012 will determine the future of our children, grandchildren and future generations. We must be resilient, determined and give them a legacy that they can wrap their arms around with pride.

So the question for 2012 is do we want to vote for the person who can “take our Country back” or will we succumb to the Liberal News Media’s lies and propaganda and give Obama his second term?

There is one man who can restore our Nations weak foundation, give us back our Freedoms, Rights and our voice. We can beat him to death for his mistakes, or we can acknowledge that he is the one person who has learned from his mistakes, asked God’s forgiveness for his indiscretions and give him 100% support.

Newt’s positive positions on economy, taxes, free trade, spending and regulations far outweigh his mistakes. We have the option of going to his website and asking specific questions, if we have any doubts on how he stands on certain issues. or

There wouldn’t be a Republican majority in the house today without the Republican Revolution led by Newt Gingrich in 1994. Newt is the reason and the only reason that the GOP took over the house for the first time in forty years.

Newt Gingrich made mistakes, but the difference between him and so many of the Old Establishment Politicians is this; Newt actually revisited his errors while serving in the House of Representatives analyzing and correcting his mistakes in order to become the committed leader that he is today.

Two Quotes that come to mind about making mistakes:

There are no mistakes, no coincidences. All events are blessings given to us to learn from. -Elizabeth Kubler-Ross

All men make mistakes, but only wise men learn from their mistakes.” Winston Churchill

Everyone has the right to decide who the next 2012 Presidential Candidate will be and pick the man or woman of his choice. We must be strong and arm ourselves against the lies, propaganda and political rhetoric and that can only be done by doing our homework.
If we want to sit on our butts and let Obama and the Liberal News Media spoon feed us lies about Obama’s ideology, we’ll face defeat due to our own complacency, negligence and ignorance.

May God Bless America
As Always,
Little Tboca

Read more…

Newt Gingrich a wolf in sheeps clothing

Please read and pass on we don{t need this wingnut subverting the movement... Remember the Conservatives and Democrats don{t want a third party because they want the sole power that is why they are undermining us...BOO him off the stage...


Newt “World Order” Gingrich supported GATT, NAFTA and WTO while in Congress.

Posted by John Kabitzke on 07/07/10 8:29 PM
Last updated 07/07/10 8:30 PM


Please be informed by reading the following on his broken contract with Americans:

Just as report cards keep parents posted on their children's progress in school, constituents have a tool to let them know how their federal representatives measure up to their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

We should expect high "grades" from them, because it is not difficult to determine whether legislation oversteps the clearly delineated, limited powers of the Constitution. If there is uncertainty, the Bill of Rights tells the government everything else is off limits. Moreover, an oath calls God as witness to the oath-taker's honesty and integrity. In other words, it is both illegal and immoral to violate the Constitution. Why are so many Representatives bringing home Fs on their report cards? They may mean well, but a Congressman's good intentions do not fulfill his obligation before God to vote according to the law.

There are a growing number of candidates for Congress who are running in support of the Constitution. Many of them were motivated to become involved as a result of the political phenomenon in the last presidential race that became known as the "Ron Paul Revolution." But if the GOP establishment has its way, the Republicans who will go to Washington will be of the neocon variety and will offer voters looking for alternatives to the liberal Democrats more of an echo than a choice. The establishment-favored Newt Gingrich is a case in point.

The Republican?

After more than a decade out of the spotlight, Newt Gingrich is once again making headlines as a conservative author and basking in media speculation of his possibility as a presidential candidate. He is busy promoting his conservatively themed books and documentaries while touting firm belief in limited government and personal freedoms. Gingrich's rhetoric brings back memories of his old days as a staunch proponent of cutting taxes, balancing the budget, reducing bureaucratic regulations, and strengthening national defense.

Just as in those days, Newt Gingrich now positions himself as a conservative. But does his definition of conservative mean loyalty to the Constitution, or loyalty to the establishment? "Understanding the real Newt Gingrich ... is essential," said John F. McManus, president of the John Birch Society and producer of the new DVD The Real Newt Gingrich. "Americans must realize that they are being persuaded to follow false leaders, to put confidence in men who don't deserve our confidence." Both Gingrich's congressional track record and his present activities prove him no better than the current White House occupant.

Gingrich Resumé

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, GATT, WTO - 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.


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.

The Internationalist

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."

Newt and Improved

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.

Global Government Gingrich

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.

Little Green Man

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.

Education Reform à la Al (Sharpton)

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.

Rearranging how the federal government regulates education may be "reform" of the current system, but the current system is unconstitutional.

Republican to the Oh-so-bitter End

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.

Jekyll and Hyde vs. the Constitution

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.


Read more…

Beware of the scorned ex-wife. Newt Gingrich's ex-wife (Marianne) is making all sorts of reckless claims in an effort to derail Newt's 2012 White House aspirations. This is another liberal media sponsored pack of

Newt represents all that is good about America and what is good about the Tea
Party. He's a true American and would go to great lengths to purify America.
Marianne's shameful claims are likely motivated by a liberal media paper trail.

Marianne's shameful allegations against Newt include:

Newt proposed to Marianne (she was 28, he 36) in 1980 while his first wife, Jackie, was in the hospital recovering from treatments for uterine cancer. He hadn't yet even asked her for a divorce.
Newt met Jackie in high school. She was his geometry teacher. He was sixteen,
she was 25. When he left, Jackie was nearly destitute. Jackie had to get
a court order just to pay her utility bills.

---- AND ---

Callista Bisek, Gingrich's current wife, became his mistress first and his wife second (really third, if one is counting wives), while Marianne was home visiting her mother. In 1999, Marianne
had just been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Newt asked Callista to marry
him before he and Marianne had agreed to divorce. The affair had been going on
for years. Newt compared Marianne to a "Jaguar" and Callista to a
"Chevrolet" and said he needed a Chevrolet, not a Jaguar.


Read more…