By Gary P Jackson

Mit Romney and Newt Gingrich may have been the headliners at the Hispanic Leadership Network event, but it was Ann Romney who stole the show.

I don’t care what you think of Mitt, Ann is a truly inspirational person.

I first learned of Ann Romney during the 2008 election. I was moved by her personal story. Ann suffers from MS and is also a cancer survivor. My favorite cousin suffers from MS, has since she was in her teens. I know how tough this disease is on someone.

I admire anyone who can face MS with courage and determination.

It says something that Ann, not Mitt or Newt was the headline story from the event. She may end up being Mitt’s secret weapon as the campaign moves forward.

Here’s a report of the event from the Palm Beach Post:

DORAL – Before Feliciano Ramirez heard Mitt Romney speak today, he was all-but certain he was going to vote for Newt Gingrich.

“He can really debate Obama on all of the issues because he’s a Washington insider,” Ramirez said, echoing the sentiments of many recent converts to the Gingrich camp.

However, after hearing the two candidates deliver back-to-back speeches at the Hispanic Leadership Network, Ramirez’s vote in Tuesday’s GOP primary wasn’t so certain.

“I’m going to have to pray on it,” he said with a laugh after the Massachusetts governor gave a rousing speech to roughly 500 Latin American leaders.

And, he said, it wasn’t just Romney’s enthusiastic rhetoric or Gingrich’s more professorial speech. Ramirez said he was impressed with the candidate’s wife, Ann.

Romney was introduced to the crowd in Spanish by the couple’s youngest son, who spent several years in Chile. After a quick “Ola!” from one of their 16 grandkids, Ann Romney delivered what appeared to be a heartfelt, funny and down home assessment of the rigors of being a candidate’s wife and raising five children while her husband traveled on business and why she agreed, once again, to join him on the campaign trail.

“Four years ago, I was definite about one thing: I would never do it again,” she said of her husband’s failed 2008 campaign. “Mitt said, you say that after every pregnancy. All the women out there know what I’m talking about.”

When he broached the subject again, she said she was reluctant. Before she was going to endure another campaign, she asked him to answer one question: “Can you fix it?” When he answered yes, she was in.

“He has the ability to find the core of the problem and then figure out how to fix it,” said Ann Romney, who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998 and is a breast cancer survivor.

Ramirez was impressed with her moxie. “His wife pulled it off,” he said.

Gingrich, who speaks what he calls “pigeon Spanish” but didn’t try it out on the Hispanic audience, was also accompanied by his wife, Callista. She didn’t speak, but stood by his side, smiling, clapping and nodding her support.

Here’s what Ann, their son Parker, and Mitt had to say:

“I believe Rick Santorum will become one of the front-runners very soon,” Foster Friess, a major donor to the Red White and Blue Fund, during his interview with Bloomberg Television.

By Gary P Jackson

Off the strength of Rick Santorum’s debate performance Thursday night, Foster Friess, a top donor, is saying he believes Rick will be the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination “soon.”

Freiss, a successful businessman, has given $700,000 to Santorum’s campaigns over the years. Though Freiss backed Mitt Romney in 2008, he’s backing Santorum know because he’s known Rick personally for 16 years and feels he is the right man for the job.

Freiss is supporting Santorum and plans on giving him significant help moving forward, but also states he has an “open checkbook” for anyone who will run against Obama.

This is a great interview and Freiss’ high profile support should give Rick Santorum a nice boost moving forward.

By Gary P Jackson

Congressman John Campbell, while talking with BreitbartTV Editor Larry O’Connor, who was hosting the Hugh Hewitt Show, rips into Newt Gingrich. Calls him more obnoxious than Obama and more arrogant than Obama.

Now I know Newt’s fan boys will start screaming about conspiracies and The Establishment™ being against Newt, but that argument will fall pretty flat. You see, Congressman Campbell is from Orange County, California. Doesn’t get more Conservative than that, at least not in California. Congressman Campbell has a lifetime rating of 92.7 from the ACU. He’s hardly part of The Establishment™.

I know it’s hard for some to understand, but Conservatives who don’t like Newt do so on principle. Campbell gets to the heart of the matter in his interview. We don’t need or want a candidate who sounds exactly like Barack Obama when he attacks capitalism.

Newt uses the language of the Communist/Occupy crowd when he attacks Mitt Romney. That should frighten all, because it reveals to us who the real Newt Gingrich is. His default position is to run to the left.

In the interview Campbell also echoes Sarah Palin’s sentiment that all of these debates sharpen the candidates and prepare them for battle.

…One of the left’s favorite weapons is frivolous ethics complaints. That’s what they used to bring down the architect of the 1994 “Republican Revolution”, Newt Gingrich.

Prior to the election of 1994, the Democrats had held a majority in the House of Representatives for nearly 4 decades. Working with a team of grassroots activists, Newt selected and trained candidates, shaped a political message, and became what [David] Horowitz called “something rare in Republican politics–a genuine movement leader.”

To the left, that meant one thing: he had to be eliminated. There are many fine Democrat public servants, but sadly many in the party have moved increasingly left, and often the beating heart of their political warfare had been the personal distruction of their enemies. Generally speaking, after decades of failed social policies and weak national security positions, the party doesn’t have a strong base of success from which to win political arguments. So it targets people instead of ideas.

Back in the 1990s, Democrats had Newt in their sights. And strangely enough, the more influential he became, the more “unethical” he became–at least if you count the number of complaints filed against him. Horowitz wrote, “Eventually, Democrats lodged seventy-four separate charges against Gingrich, sixty-five were summarily ‘laughed out the committee’.

Over time the cloud of ethical questions hanging over Newt reached critical mass. Instead of defending their own, Republicans on certain committees forced Newt to concede one charge. 

-Governor Palin in Going Rogue (page 363-364) (emphasis added)

Yesterday, Governor Palin wrote a scathing rebuke of the GOP Establishment, which based upon the title of that Facebook post, I’m going to now refer to as the Donner Party.Governor Palin has recognized the tactics of the left as they have been applied to both Speaker Gingrich and herself. The excerpt from her book that I shared above comes amid her discussion of the frivolous charges launched at her. What this excerpt and her Facebook post really boil down to is three things: 1) the savageness of the left 2) the passive and sometimes non-existent defense of the “right” and 3) the cannibalism that has been employed by the “Donner Party”.

As Governor Palin wrote in that Facebook post:

But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 who didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.

[...]

As I said in my speech in Iowa last September, the challenge of this election is not simply to replace President Obama. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. It’s not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country. We truly need sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our republic, though it’s becoming clearer that the old guard wants anything but that. That is why we should all be concerned by the tactics employed by the establishment this week. We will not save our country by becoming like the left. And I question whether the GOP establishment would ever employ the same harsh tactics they used on Newt against Obama. I didn’t see it in 2008. Many of these same characters sat on their thumbs in ‘08 and let Obama escape unvetted. Oddly, they’re now using every available microscope and endoscope – along with rewriting history – in attempts to character assassinate anyone challenging their chosen one in their own party’s primary. So, one must ask, who are they really running against?

Governor Palin has seen the nature of the tactics of the left and some in the Establishment first hand. She saw her family attacked, her maternity questioned, and her record misrepresented by an Obama campaign machine and a complicit media. The media still employ individuals, like recent Newsweek cover story author Andrew Sullivan,  who question that she is the mother of her youngest son. The 2008 election and beyond brought a whole flurry of attacks on Governor Palin and her record. A legislative inquiry, billed as an “October surprise” for the 2008 election, was launched into whether or not Governor Palin pressured a commissioner to fire a state trooper for personal reasons. This was led by a Alaskan Democrat who later was rewarded with a cushy job in the Obama Interior Department, and the Obama campaign kept in contact with the trooper’s union during the proceedings. Her record–from funding for special needs education as Governor to funding for rape kits while mayor–was lied about.   Additionally, when the barrage of frivolous ethics complaints were levied against the Governor in 2009, many of them came from the DNC’s official Alaskan blogger for the 2008 campaign. The McCain campaign in 2008 and few if any Republicans in 2009 came to her defense when her record was misrepresented, her character was attacked, and unsubstantiated charges were levied against her.

As an electoral defeat seemed imminent and eventually came to be in 2008, anonymous McCain staffers (many of whom were former Romney staffers) were thought to be the ones who disparaged the Governor–who was a candidate on the very ticket they were working for–by saying she “went rogue” against the McCain campaign’s direction, didn’t know that Africa was a continent, and answered the door of her hotel room with nothing but a towel on during the campaign. All this happened while, as Governor Palin stated in her Facebook post, “[m]any of these same characters sat on their thumbs in ‘08 and let Obama escape unvetted”. Senator McCain’s staff was kneecapping their own candidate while Senator McCain was unwilling to effectively focus on candidate Obama’s associates and lack of a record.

In 2010, anonymous Romney staffers would dismiss Governor Palin as “not a serious human being”, and even as recently as last fall, other anonymous staffers joked that they would be trilled with a Palin (and/or a Bachmann) candidacy because they could run against  those “crazy women”.   Not juxtaposition of records or ideas, but personal attacks, not by Romney himself, but by anonymous staff. His hands stay clean while his potential opponents get knocked.

It’s not just about Governor Palin, though in spite of the fact she isn’t running for President this cycle, the Donner Party still sees her as a great threat. It is the Tea Party movement.When Christine O’Donnell won the GOP primary race for Senate in Delaware, GOP Establishmentarian Karl Rove and others spent the remainder of the campaign bashing O’Donnell and the Tea Party movement and essentially serving as an across-the-aisle surrogate for Chris Coons, the Democratic candidate and later victor of the race. To be sure, O’Donnell was in many ways a flawed and perhaps out-of-depth candidate, but the level of vitriol launched at her by her own party was hurtful to their chance to potentially regain control of the Senate. Although like O’Donnell,  Nikki Haley is seen by some as a traitor to Tea Party principles following her endorsement of Mitt Romney, she was one of the many who came into office under the wave of the Tea Party. Haley won her race in spite of sexist and Establishment lies about alleged affairs launched at her.  Again, the South Carolina Establishment, rather than supporting their party’s gubernatorial nominee, levied attacks against her. To his credit, Governor Romney did support Nikki Haley in this, though the same could not be said of the next attack on Tea Party conservatives when the tragedy of the Tucson shootings occurred a few months following the 2010 election.  Romney and others said little if anything in defense of the Governor Palin, specifically, and the Tea Party, more broadly, when they were essentially deemed to be essentially accomplices to murder. Governor Palin is absolutely right. These folks are political cannibals, or at the very least, political pacifists unwilling to defend the people of their own party.

In Governor Palin’s post, she articulates that this is also not about Newt Gingrich. In fact, Gingrich’s support of liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava in the special election in NY-23 indicated that he was willing to go along with the Establishment, and he even criticized Governor Palin for supporting conservative candidate Doug Hoffmann. Gingrich has indeed been in Washington for many years and isn’t without fault, but at this point in the election, poses the greatest threat to the Establishment’s golden boy, Mitt Romney. As with any election, the candidates are imperfect. Herein lies the beauty of the American electoral experience! James Madison once said, ” if men were angels, there would be no need for government”.  The beauty of the America lies in the fact that  we choose are leaders from among ourselves. By default, they are going to be imperfect. That’s not to say that their faults are to be excused. Quite possibly the only thing that Mitt Romney has not flip flopped on is the topic of Romneycare, among his other faults. Newt Gingrich has supported efforts on climate change with Nancy Pelosi and education with Al Sharpton among other liberal notions he’s espoused over the years. Rick Santorum has voted against national right-to-work laws  and has some issues with using taxpayer money to fund his children’s “cyber school” education. Ron Paul has a dangerous approach to Iran, and in spite of his strong stand against massive government spending, has requested millions in earmarks, even at a time when the GOP has called for a moratorium on earmarks. Like Governor Palin said, Newt Gingrich is an “imperfect vessel”. Any candidate would have some level of imperfection.

The problem with the Donner wing of the GOP is that a double standard is applied. Earlier during the presidential primary, Romney hit then candidate Rick Perry from the left on Social Security without a peep from the Establishment, but when Newt Gingrich hit Romney from the Left on Bain Capital, it was seen as an inexcusable attack on capitalism. Romney, the candidate who said that he didn’t want to return to the ways of Reagan, have been inaccurately and malevolently trying to paint Newt Gingrich as anti-Reagan. To be sure, Gingrich has perhaps been critical of Reagan’s state department and had suggestions for George HW Bush’s campaign, but to paint the man whom Nancy Reagan said carried President Reagan’s torch, is an underhanded tactic. One could only imagine the tactics the Establishment would use against Governor Palin had she chosen to run. Attacks on her resignation and the frivolous ethics complaints would likely be used to try to paint her as not up to the pressure of the job of leader of the free world. Who knows? They may have even tried to paint her as anti-Thatcher as well!

The Establishment wants a coronation; the electorate wants a nomination. Generally it has been the “next-in-line” who has gotten the support of the Establishment. In 2008, it was John McCain, and in 2012, it is Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney has gotten the support of the those in the conservative media–Jennifer Rubin and Ann Coulter. He has received the support of the likes of John McCain, President George HW Bush, and Bob Dole–candidates who took the phrase “everything in moderation” and turned it into a political ideology. Whoever has been the biggest challenge to Mitt Romney has been disparaged by the Establishment. Jennifer Rubin started writing negative pieces about Governor Palin 8 days after she started writing for the Washington Post. At the time, Governor Palin’s potential candidacy was the biggest threat to Romney’s nomination. The Establishment knocked Rick Perry when his candidacy peeked and was a threat to Romney’s nomination. Tom Ridge, moderate Republican and former Bush Cabinet member, hit Michele Bachmann as inexperienced when she was at her peak. While Newt Gingrich is seen as a Washington insider, he is not necessarily the Establishment’s choice, and has therefore been in many ways unfairly attacked.

To be sure, campaigns are cutthroat. Records need to be exposed. Policy plans will be scrutinized. Character will be tested. This is all for the benefit of the electorate and the refining of the candidates’ mettle. Same standards must be applied to all candidates. People who cry foul on Gingrich’s misrepresentation of Romney’s immigration stance can’t try to sweep Romney’s misrepresentation of Gingrich’s ethics record under the rug. Our country was founded in part because the settlers wanted representation; they didn’t want a distant king calling down orders and levying taxes from on high. Similarly, the conservative electorate, or any American electorate for that matter, does not want an oligarchical “Donner Party” to determine the outcome of election.  Here in Illinois, some of Mitt Romney’s delegates are challenging Rick Santorum’s ballot petition signatures to potentially keep him off the Illinois primary ballot. Mitt Romney’s Illinois campaign manager is also our state treasurer.  Never mind that in the interim, Illinois credit was downgraded to the worst in the country. Getting a political opponent off the ballot is far more important than hunkering down and addressing a major fiscal crisis to those backing Romney. In other words, Romney’s supporters would rather not give Illinoisans a choice of candidates rather than win the battle of ideas.

Thankfully, there are people like Governor Palin who are echoing the words of President Reagan when he said, “those voices don’t speak for the rest of us” when speaking about the Elite whether it liberals in elected office or those in the political power at a party level. During her gubernatorial run in 2006, a pivotal point came when Governor Palin’s opponents were bickering, and she interrupted them and calmly said, “we owe Alaskans a better discourse than this”.  Governor Palin has essentially said the same thing on a national level.  The GOP owes the electorate a discourse, not an Establishment monologue, on the issues, and they owe us a better one. Eleanor Roosevelt once said, ” Great minds discuss ideas;average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people”. This primary election must be a discourse of ideas, not a barrage of personal attacks. As an undecided voter, a discourse of ideas, not an Establishment command, is what I would like to see in the coming weeks and months of this upcoming election. I’m glad to see that Governor Palin has continued to hold the Donner Party accountable for their tactics.

By Gary P Jackson

Back in 2009 the Obama regime announced it was going to “loan” Brazilian oil giant Petrobas $10 billion. It just so happens, as was reported at the time, George Soros bought controlling interest in the state controlled oil company, just before the “loan.”

It was also reported at the time the China Development Bank made a similar loan to Petrobas.

Just a year ago Obama was in Brazil telling them he wanted to help them with America technology and other tangibles. He also said he wanted the United States to be one of Brazil’s best customers:

Well, as this report from the Washington Times says. Obama may want the oil, but China is getting it!

BUENOS AIRES — Off the coast of Rio de Janeiro — below a mile of water and two miles of shifting rock, sand and salt — is an ultradeep sea of oil that could turn Brazil into the world’s fourth-largest oil producer, behind Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United States.

The country’s state-controlled oil company, Petrobras, expects to pump 4.9 million barrels a day from the country’s oil fields by 2020, with 40 percent of that coming from the seabed. One and a half million barrels will be bound for export markets.

The United States wants it, but China is getting it.

Less than a month after President Obama visited Brazil in March to make a pitch for oil, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff was off to Beijing to sign oil contracts with two huge state-owned Chinese companies.

The deals are part of a growing oil relationship between the two countries that, thanks to a series of billion-dollar agreements, is giving China greater influence over Brazil’s oil frontier.

Chinese oil companies are pushing to meet mandatory expansion targets by inking deals across Africa and Latin America, but they are especially interested in Brazil.

“With the Lula and Carioca discoveries alone, Brazil added a possible 38 billion barrels of estimated recoverable oil,” said Luis Giusti, a former president of Venezuela’s state oil company, PDVSA, referring to the new Brazilian oil fields.

“That immediately changed the picture,” he said, adding that Brazil is on track to become “an oil giant.”

During Mrs. Rousseff’s visit to China, Brazil’s Petrobras signed a technology cooperation deal with the China Petroleum & Chemical Corp., or Sinopec.

Petrobras also signed a memorandum of understanding with Sinochem, a massive state-owned company with interests in energy, real estate and agrichemicals.

The Sinochem deal aims to identify and build “business opportunities in the fields of exploration and production, oil commercialization and mature oil-field recovery,” according to Petrobras.

The relationship with China goes back to at least two years before Mr. Obama came to Brazil to applaud the oil discovery and tell Mrs. Rouseff:

“We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and, when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.”

China rescued Petrobras in 2009, when the oil company was looking at tight credit markets to finance a record-setting $224 billion investment plan. China’s national development bank offered a $10 billion loan on the condition that Petrobras ship oil to China for 10 years.

A chunk of Brazil’s oil real estate appeared on China’s portfolio in 2010, when Sinopec agreed to pay $7.1 billion for 40 percent of Repsol-YPF of Brazil, which has stakes in the now internationally famous Santos Basin, and the Sapinhoa field, which has an estimated recoverable volume of 2.1 billion barrels. Statoil of Norway also agreed that year to sell 40 percent of the offshore Peregrino field to Sinochem.

Read more here.

The obvious question is why did Obama give all of that money to Petrobas, knowing the Chinese already had deals in place that would give them control over what happened with the oil?

Oh that’s right:

Reading the Constitution, there are very narrow and specific definitions of treason. That said, what Obama has done and is continuing to do must somehow rise to the level of a crime that he should be punished for. Something stronger than impeachment, which would only see him removed from office, something that will [hopefully] happen after the November election.

Obama is purposely doing anything and everything to destroy America’s ability to become energy independent, while at the same time doing anything and everything to enrich his cronies.

George Soros and Warren Buffett are making out big time thanks to Obama’s oil policies, and there are dozens of “Solyndras” out there who have stolen tax payer money under the guise of “green energy” and “saving the planet”!

People need to go to jail over this stuff. A lot of people. Starting with Obama.

By Gary P Jackson

Sitting down to watch Thursday night’s debate, I expected a few fireworks, as CNN has figured out if you just let the fur fly, more people will watch. Debates as entertainment fascinates me but also saddens me a bit too.

Debates like this are more raw, if you will, but a lot of time is spent on just a few issues. Many of the things Americans wanted to see discussed, like the economy, jobs, and all of Obama’s corruption, were never heard from.

One thing was evident early on. Mitt Romney came loaded for bear and Wolf Blitzer wasn’t going to be like John King and serve up softballs to Newt so he could pander to the crowd.

The first questions were on immigration and then Cuban and South American policy. Romney really hammered Newt. Mitt has the best policy of any candidate when it comes to dealing with illegal immigrants. He has a pretty good record on this from his time as governor.

Newt is a typical establishment type who wants amnesty. He uses a lot of weasel words to try and mask it all, but in the end, amnesty is where he’s at.

Rick Santorum was very good when talking Cuba and South America. He noted the dangers of allowing the status quo in Cuba. He also took on Obama’s South American policies, mentioning our allies in Columbia specifically, and how Obama hung them out to dry, protecting the unions here at home.

The part where Romney really shined though, and Newt’s world came crashing down around him, was when the discussion got more personal and Blitzer started talking about Romney’s personal wealth and Newt’s attacks against Mitt.

Newt again sounded more like the closet socialist he is than the Conservative he pretends to be. It’s more than apparent Newt loves playing the class warfare game just as much as his fellow travelers in the democrat party.

Romney’s unapologetic defense of capitalism, and his own personal wealth, was one of the highlights of the debate.

Conservatives celebrate success. We truly believe anyone can and should be successful. We don’t think there should be any limits on success.

Then the debate turned to ObamaCare and by extension RomneyCare. Mitt has gotten nominally better at making his case for the state run system, but it still rings hollow. There are so many better solutions than mandated health care insurance. Newt is no prize though, as NewtCare is essentially RomneyCare for the entire nation.

This is where Rick Santorum really shined. He correctly pointed out both Romney and Newt support mandates. In fact Newt has supported mandates much longer than Mitt has. Long after Romney has said his plan was OK [in his mind] for a state to put in place, but not right for the nation, Newt has continued to push his own plan that includes mandated insurance coverage or a personal cash bond of up to $150,000.

Santorum shredded both Mitt and Newt and never stopped for the rest of the debate.

As I watched the debate, I also had an eye on my Twitter feed. As Santorum was ripping into Mitt and Newt the hardest, a story came across that Rick himself had once supported individual mandates. It claimed that in 1994 Santorum was in favor of mandates. Problem is, it was quoting another source that had no direct quotes from Santorum, or video.

I did a bit of research and found video of a 1994 debate when Santorum was challenging the incumbent democrat Senator, Harris Wofford. Watching the video, one thing is clear, Santorum has been pretty darned consistent over the years, on health care and other issues. Watch and decide for yourself where Rick was on mandates in 1994.

One note, a lot of people lost their minds during the health care portion of the debate when Romney told Santorum “it isn’t worth getting mad about.” A lot of people took that to mean Romney didn’t think that health care was worth getting mad about. The real loons extrapolated that to mean Liberty and Freedom wasn’t worth getting mad over. [in Mitt’s mind] That’s simply insane. I watched the entire debate twice, and Mitt was talking to Rick on a personal level.

If you saw the debate, you know Santorum was quite passionate as he ripped into both Mitt and Newt over their love for mandates. Mitt was really hit hard. He seemed to have taken it personally. Sadly, a lot of people used his remark to Santorum to try and score cheap [and dishonest] political points. Lots of that going around these days.

When it’s all said and done, my take-aways from the debate are:

Mitt is most certainly capable of hitting opponents hard when needed. He may not be combative and bombastic, but he knows how to win.

Newt struggles when he’s not teed up for one of his patented long rants at the media. If he can’t find away to attack the debate moderator, his performance isn’t nearly as entertaining.

Something else I noted about the two men. When Mitt is talking to someone at these debates, he looks them straight in the eye. Newt tends not to.

Newt struggles when actually confronted on his record and ideas.

The real thing that struck me though, and honestly, the reason that prompted me to write this article in the first place, is why aren’t people supporting Rick Santorum as the “Not Romney” candidate instead of Newt. Seriously, Santorum has no problem being strong and forceful.

Now personally, I’ve been cool to Rick for several reasons. It’s important to me that a candidate have Executive Experience. Good business skills are a plus, but I still think holding an Executive position in government is essential. Working with a legislature is a little different than working with a board of directors.

I also disagree with Rick on his approach to social issues. I may agree with his personal stances on the issues, but not his professional ones.

Just as I don’t want government to tell me what I can eat, what I can drive, or what sort of light bulb I must use, I don’t want government in my bedroom. Liberty and Freedom is very important to Americans. Rick comes off as a Statist on social issues. This is troubling, and will hurt him in the general election. And we already have a nanny stater in office.

That said, Santorum has a solid grasp of the issues. He’s not right on all of them, but at least he has an understanding of where we are at and where we need to be.

Also, and this is big, Rick is focused and on point. You won’t see him going off on flights of fancy dreaming up new ways to spend money we don’t have. No moon colonies turned into our 51st state under a President Rick Santorum! I believe Santorum would be pretty good on fiscal issues.

I really don’t understand how Newt Gingrich, one of the least desirable characters in all of politics, has become the Conservative standard bearer in this election. Newt has been a collaborator and enabler for the socialist movement since his earliest days in politics back in the 1970s. He’s morally bankrupt and untrustworthy.

He’s also a Big Government Statist. Never met a problem he couldn’t find a Big Government “solution” for. And when short on problems, he creates them, just so he can create more government. He lives in a fantasy world where he thinks up grandiose projects, and then gets to play puppet master with everyone’s lives. Too much time hanging out with Alvin Toffler.

Readers know if I had my way, we’d all be rooting on Sarah Palin to victory right now. I think this election will go down in history as one of the greatest missed opportunities for real leadership, and restoration, in our nation’s history. Sarah Palin is the only one who meets every requirement needed to actually do what must be done.

That said, we live in the real world.

Mitt Romney has a lot of warts. But I still think, out of this bunch, he has the best chance of becoming our next president. Mitt has run for president before. He knows how to campaign, and has a solid support system in place. His campaign is organized and prepared.

Thing is, Rick Santorum has a real chance too.

He’s had two great debate performances in a row. Personally, I care more about records and abilities, but it seems most Americans give debate performance real weight. So be it.

Rick Santorum doesn’t have the baggage Newt Gingrich has. He’s also been mighty consistent throughout his career. You don’t find any instances of Rick standing with the worst socialists of our time, and helping them advance their cause the way Newt has. As I’ve said before, Newt has done more to advance socialism in America than many democrats.

Santorum is clean cut and has a pretty good record as a Senator. He knows what he believes and is consistent about it. Mitt Romney is a human windsock, and Newt Gingrich has flip flopped all over the place. He’s inconsistent, undisciplined, and at times, quite erratic. Santorum has neither problem.

Unlike Mitt and Newt, Rick Santorum really seems to have the courage of his convictions. He knows what he believes.

I’ve said before, I could vote for Mitt Romney against Obama and sleep well at night. From what I’m seeing, I could vote for Rick Santorum and not just against someone else.

When you really break it down, being able to vote FOR someone, rather than just against the other guy, is ideal. It means a great deal personally. You are more apt to be excited about that vote. More apt to do more than just vote. You’ll get out and help.

Sarah Palin excited everyone because they knew they were voting FOR something. Not just a person, but an idea. A movement. Sarah has that ability to inspire.

It’s not fair to compare Rick Santorun to Sarah Palin. It’s not fair to compare anyone out there to her, so I won’t try.

Rick is his own guy. He seems solid and reliable. Consistent and trustworthy. If Conservatives want a real “Not Mitt Romney” candidate, Rick Santorum is their man. I believe, like Mitt, Rick Santorum can beat Barack Obama.

If somehow Newt Gingrich ends up being the Republican nominee, the democrats would think it was Christmas every single day. That is if they believed in that sort of thing!

I am not endorsing anyone, but if folks are simply looking for someone besides Mitt to throw their support behind, Rick Santorum, in my opinion, is far more worthy of that support than Newt Gingrich. He’s a better candidate, and if elected would make a hell of a lot better president.

The second point to make is that Gingrich made these assaults on the Reagan administration just as Democratic attacks were heating up unmercifully. Far from becoming a reliable voice for Reagan policy and the struggle against the Soviets, Gingrich took on Reagan and his administration. It appears to be a habit: He did the same to George W. Bush when Bush was making the toughest and most controversial decision of his presidency — the surge in Iraq. Bush was opposed by many of the top generals, by some Republican leaders who feared the surge would hurt in the 2008 elections, and of course by a slew of Democrats and media commentators.

Here again Gingrich provided no support for his party’s embattled president, testifying as a private citizen in 2007 that the strategy was “inadequate,” contained “breathtaking” gaps, lacked “synergism” (whatever that means) and was “very disappointing.” What did Gingrich propose? Among other things, a 50 percent increase in the budget of the State Department.

By Gary P Jackson

When you tell a Newt supporter the truth about the man, they will, unfailingly call you a liar. Claim you are just attacking a good man.

Thing is, I rarely talk about Newt Gingrich without reminding them that when it comes to the fight between Conservatives and socialist democrats, in reality, good vs evil, Newt always stands with evil. Worse, Newts stands with his socialist fellow travelers at the very time Conservatives are fighting them the hardest.

When Ronald Reagan wrote an Executive Order forcing the FCC to stop enforcing the Ani-American “Fairness Doctrine” Newt gathered up his socialist buddies and wrote legislation bringing it back. This passed legislation actually passed, and Reagan was forced to veto it. Reagan stopped Newt and his comrades from the continued destruction of Liberty and Freedom.

We all remember that at the time Conservatives were fighting the hardest against the global warming scam, Newt sat on the couch with Nancy Pelosi and begged Americans to fall in line and support the socialist “green” movement. In fact, Newt has never stopped backing the socialist greens. It was only after he became a presidential candidate that he fired the lefty who was ghostwriting the section in his book, due out in 2013, on global warming.

Then there was L’Affaire Scozzafava.

Obviously there have been more betrays of Conservatism, and America, by Newt, there is a definite pattern of this disgusting behavior.

You can read more about it here.

Elliott Abrams has more examples. This time Newt sides with the socialists against Ronald Reagan. The ultimate betrayal of all, except for maybe stabbing President George W Bush in the back during the lead up to war. [emphasis mine]

In the increasingly rough Republican campaign, no candidate has wrapped himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan more often than Newt Gingrich. “I worked with President Reagan to change things in Washington,” “we helped defeat the Soviet empire,” and “I helped lead the effort to defeat Communism in the Congress” are typical claims by the former speaker of the House.

The claims are misleading at best. As a new member of Congress in the Reagan years — and I was an assistant secretary of state — Mr. Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism. Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong.

The fights over Reagan’s efforts to stop Soviet expansionism in the Third World were exceptionally bitter. The battlegrounds ranged from Angola and Grenada to Afghanistan and Central America. Reagan’s top team — William Casey at CIA, Cap Weinberger at DOD, and George Shultz at State — understood as he did that if Soviet expansionism could be dealt some tough blows, not only the Soviet empire but the USSR itself would face a political, technological, and financial challenge it could not meet. Few officials besides Ronald Reagan predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union entirely, but every one of us in positions of authority understood the importance of this struggle.

But the most bitter battleground was often in Congress. Here at home, we faced vicious criticism from leading Democrats — Ted Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, Jim Wright, Tip O’Neill, and many more — who used every trick in the book to stop Reagan by denying authorities and funds to these efforts. On whom did we rely up on Capitol Hill? There were many stalwarts: Henry Hyde, elected in 1974; Dick Cheney, elected in 1978, the same year as Gingrich; Dan Burton and Connie Mack, elected in 1982; and Tom DeLay, elected in 1984, were among the leaders.

But not Newt Gingrich. He voted with the caucus, but his words should be remembered, for at the height of the bitter struggle with the Democratic leadership Gingrich chose to attack . . . Reagan.

The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.”

Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.” Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”

Read more here.

What more do so-called “conservatives” need to know about Newt Gingrich? The man has a record of stabbing Conservatives, and by extension America, in the back. And that record spans over two decades!

Do you really think after all of this time Newt has changed?

If so, I have this wealthy uncle in Nigeria who needs your help!

A dedication to Newt and his fellow travelers:

By Gary P Jackson

The rule of unintended consequences on full display:

STUDIO CITY (CBS) — A SoCal woman says the energy efficient window installed in a neighbor’s condominium is melting the plastic components on cars parked in her carport.

Heather Patron of Studio City was dealing with a mystery regarding her Toyota Prius.

“The side view mirrors were melting,” says Patron. “Anything that was plastic on the car was melting.”

Toyota told Patron nothing was wrong with the car. After having the mirrors replaced, she noticed the mirrors on the car parked next to hers were also melting.

Patron then observed a powerful beam of light that was reflecting off the window of a next door condominium, casting a concentrated beam over her carport.

CBS2’s Randy Paige placed a thermometer in the pathway of the beam on a partially cloudy day. The temperature registered over 120 degrees in less than five minutes.

“I’m positive that this window is what is causing the damage to my car,” says Patron.

Patron is not alone. Reports across the country have alleged damages brought on by concentrated sunlight reflected off of energy efficient windows. The National Association of Home Builders is now conducting a study on the matter.

“I just don’t feel like it’s fair,” says Patron. “I feel like it needs to be known that this is happening. And a lot of people probably have damage out there, that they aren’t aware that it’s the windows that are causing this.”

Click here for more, and video of the car owner’s interview.

It stands to reason that anything that reflects heat, will of course, direct that heat elsewhere.

It also stands to reason that heat reflected, rather than absorbed, may actually contribute to warmer outside temperatures. Especially, if enough of these kind of windows are used in a particular area.

Once again, the do-gooders in the environmental movement are causing more harm, than good. It is kinda poetic that a Prius is the victim of this heinous act though, don’t ya think?

Obligatory:

The Doors – Light my fire (Ed Sullivan Show)

By Gary P Jackson

Some wonderful thoughts from a truly wonderful man.

This is a man of true conviction. After listening to the GOP clowns on the debate circuit it’s like a drink of cool water to a man in the desert.

The right to life is the most important issue of all time. It’s the most important right we have. Without life, no other rights matter. None. Thanks to Allen West for such eloquent support for those who can’t defends themselves.

Earlier on Monday Michael Williams, who is running for Congress out of Texas tweeted this:

Yet another grim reminder of how evil abortion is.

By Gary P Jackson

Let me start out by saying I really like Pamela Geller. She is good people. She is one of the leaders in fighting against radial Islam. However, here she is just wrong. At least about the facts from this 2007 video, when Romney was running for president :

It’s pretty easy to understand what Romney is saying here. He was asked about the efforts of George W Bush to eradicate AIDS in Africa. Bush spent more money fighting AIDS than any president. A noble effort. It also bought America a whole lot of good will in Africa.

The lady in the video asks if he would continue Bush’s support of humanitarian efforts around the world. During his answer Mitt mentions the fact that after elections in Lebanon, Hezbollah showed up with all kinds of aid. They built hospitals, gave people free health care and so on. Now OF COURSE this bought the terrorists a lot of good will.

Mitt didn’t praise Hezbollah, he simply used them as an example. Now if it had been me, I would have noted they were terrorists, and added one of the reasons the United States should be helping where it can, is to counterbalance groups like Hezbollah, who do offer people social services in many countries, in order to buy goodwill and support. But that’s just me.

If anything, Mitt is guilty of assuming his audience “got” what he meant, and we all know what happens when one assumes.

You can accuse Mitt of being inarticulate all day long. He is. Never seen a guy who was better at starting a good thought, but never finishing it, as Mitt Romney. But that’s his problem here, not that he’s supporting Hezbollah.

I’ve said over and over the last few months that I’m not a Mitt Romney fan, but I find myself defending him a lot lately over things like this, and Newt’s despicable ads in Florida claiming Mitt supports Castro.

Call Mitt dumb and I’ll stand with you. Call him inarticulate and I’ll stand with you. But don’t take things out of context.

All of these candidates for president are flawed. Flawed enough that one doesn’t have to do this sort of thing to hammer any of them. We shouldn’t do this to any candidate.

Pamela may be right about Romney and his overall cluelessness about radical Islam, but she’s off base with the video.