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.

By Gary P Jackson

I’ve seen candidates pull some despicable stunts, but this is just beyond the pale. As everyone knows Miami has a huge Republican leaning Cuban population. Obviously they are no fans of the Castro brothers. Many escaped the island’s dictatorial grip to come to America.

I came across this story over the weekend. It’s a fine example of the sort of person Newt is. It’s right out Newt’s socialist comrades’ playbook of demonetization. Alinsky would be proud.

First the back story. In 2008, evidently trying to connect with the Cuban population in Miami, Romney used a phrase connected to Castro. Not his finest hour, and a shining example of why, if you don’t have a clue, just be yourself and hope for the best. Don’t try to “fit in” when you clearly don’t.

Now most of us would see this, make fun of Mitt Romney…. relentlessly…. and move on. Not Newt. Nope, he’s running ads, in Spanish, on radio stations that serve the Cuban market.

When Newt Gingrich stopped by WAQI-AM (710), better known as Radio Mambí, last Friday, he promised to soon be on the South Florida airwaves in English and Spanish.

He has followed through, at least in part, airing a Spanish-language ad on some of the most influential radio stations in Miami.

In the piece, a man’s voice (not Gingrich) calls Mitt Romney a “liberal” who is “anti-immigrant” and may have “fame” but not be up to the job of president. Perhaps most damning, the ad says, “Mitt Romney goes around using Castro phrases,” referring to the 2008 presidential campaign when Romney, campaigning in Miami, mistakenly associated a Fidel Castro slogan with a free Cuba.

Romney talked about Patria o muerte, venceremos — Fatherland or death, we shall overcome — a trademark phrase Castro used to close his speeches. Romney’s use of the phrase did not sit well with Cuban Americans, who, according to a Miami Herald report at the time, “
“winced.”

The ad also refers to Miami Republicans Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and former Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, who have backed Romney but whom Gingrich served with in Congress.

[ .... ]

Here’s the text of the latter portion of the ad. The translation is ours.

Newt Gingrich is a candidate who has committed himself to the Hispanic people, a Republican in the style of Ronald Reagan with experience. Unlike Mitt Romney, who goes around using Castro phrases, Newt Gingrich fought against the regime alongside Ileana and Lincoln to approve the Helms-Burton law. He supported the creation of Radio and TV Martí and is in favor of prosecuting the Castro brothers for bringing down the Brothers to the Rescue planes. Newt Gingrich has given his word to the Hispanic community in writing and won’t let us down.

Now obviously, beside the lie that Romney supports Castro, Mitt is not “anti-immigrant” as Newt suggests. He does have a record of being tough on illegals.

Meanwhile, Newt is the biggest amnesty shill left in the race.

The Herald has this response from the Romney campaign:

UPDATE: Here’s a response from Romney campaign spokesman Alberto Martinez:

“This ad is false and full of ridiculous claims. Mario Diaz-Balart, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Lincoln Diaz-Balart all stand with Mitt Romney because he has laid out a clear vision for spreading democracy in our hemisphere. By attacking anyone who supports common-sense border security and immigration reforms as ‘anti-immigrant,’ Newt Gingrich is once again reading from Barack Obama’s liberal talking points.”

Read more here.

Anyone who watched Monday night’s debate knows that Mitt Romney has a pretty strong anti-Castro stance. Regime change is something he supports.

Newt Gingrich has done some really rotten things in his life, but this ranks up there with some of the worst.

Politics is war, that’s for sure, but honorable men [and women] fight the battles using FACTS about the candidates and themselves. Newt is not an honorable man. He lies about his own record, and then lies about others as well.

Is this the sort of man we want leading our nation? I don’t think so.

A couple of interviews. One with Sean Hannity one with Eric Bolling.

Big news from the Hannity interview is no endorsement. She also calls on both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich to be transparent.

The Bolling interview is a tad more lively! She kicks Chris Christie’s big fat RINO arse. Delicious.

As this was the most boring debate night ever, I think Scott Conroy summed the whole thing up right here!

One thing. Sarah says to watch who the elite is attacking and who they go easy on. Obviously meaning the one who the media and elites go after is the one to run toward. After watching NBC gang up on and even cut off Mitt Romney, while going easy on Newt, one has to wonder!

For those thinking she’s solidly behind Newt for whatever reason, you’ll note that she challenges Newt and Santorum and has some praise for Romney.

Final thought after listening? Why the hell isn’t she running!

Videos courtesy SarahNet

By Gary P Jackson

I find this bit from Perry a bit ironic since the first thing he did as he was dropping out of the race was to endorse serial adulterer Newt Gingrich:

Rick is right though, and Newt Gingrich is the perfect example of this. We all know that Newt claims to be a Conservative, but has a record going back to the 1970s of standing with the far left when the chips are down.

From voting to establish Jimmy Carter’s Department of Education, which has destroyed the education system in this country, to trying to bring back the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”, after Ronald Reagan ended it, Newt Gingrich has a long record of cheating on the Conservative principles that he claims to stand so strongly with.

After being thrown out of his Speaker’s position by his fellow Republicans, Newt has consistently stood with the biggest socialists of our time.

Of course, lets not forget that as Speaker, Newt teamed up Nancy Pelosi to pass Anti-Second Amendment, un-American gun grabbing legislation.

Newt, a true believer in global warming:

Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA) co-sponsors the ambitious Global Warming Prevention Act (H.R. 1078), which finds that “the Earth’s atmosphere is being changed at an unprecedented rate by pollutants resulting from human activities, inefficient and wasteful fossil fuel use, and the effects of rapid population growth in many regions,” that “global warming imperils human health and well-being” and calls for policies “to reduce world emissions of carbon dioxide by at least 20 percent from 1988 levels by 2000.” The legislation recognizes that global warming is a “major threat to political stability, international security, and economic prosperity.” [H.R. 1078, 6/15/1989]

Of course we ALL remember this deal:

Nothing like a “true Conservative canoodling with Nancy Pelosi while shilling for Al Gore’s hoax. Why he’s just like Ronald Reagan…. not!

Oh, and here’s Newt with another Conservative stalwart, John Kerry talking about “green conservatism.” Here Newt scolds Conservatives for not getting in line with the socialists and supporting the hoax. A hoax that was cooked up to line a lot of people’s pockets and steal even more Liberty and Freedom from all of us.

Notice that Newt says a lot of words but concedes the left will pass cap and trade. Something that would destroy the economy forever, and take away huge chunks of your Liberty and Freedom.

And yet some people think Newt has the guts to actually fight the socialists.

Now I’m sure Gingrich apologists will claim that he has changed and like every position Newt flip flops over and over on, they will forgive him and say he’s “learned his lesson” or just scream ”But Mitt Romney is Satan!” or something equally stupid.

Fact is, Newt is very much a global warming believer. He has a new book coming out in 2013 that is being ghostwritten by Terry Maple. Environmental Entrepreneurs was to have a chapter in it about global warming written by radical leftist Katharine Hayhoe.

As Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin.com points out, after it became known this book shilling for the global warming hoaxers was coming out, Newt bailed on the author.

Newt’s fellow travelers in the socialist movement, and the author were none too happy about this either!

Gingrich and his co-author Terry Maple never told Hayhoe — a professor at Texas Tech University, mother, and evangelical Christian — that her chapter would be junked. Hayhoe was dismayed by the “ungracious” way she found out that her work was being discarded.

“Nice to hear that Gingrich is tossing my #climate chapter in the trash,” Hayhoe tweeted in response to the news. “100+ unpaid hours I could’ve spent playing w my baby.”

So not only does Gingrich pal around with socialists, he’s also an insensitive jerk who can’t even be trusted to honor the deals he makes. His wives know this all too well, don’t they.

Environmental Entrepreneurs sounds like it will suggest more Solyndra type corruption. Something Newt has proposed before.

Oh, and don’t forget, in 2009 Newt again teamed up with his couch mate Nancy Pelosi, to try and pass the “energy tax” President Obama [Democrat-Socialist] wanted.

Newt has been paid hundred of thousands of dollars by Big Ethanol to push that boondoggle down America’s throat too.

In 2009 Newt also teamed up with race hustler Al Sharpton and Education Secretary Arnie Duncan [Communist-Chicago] to push Obama’s education plan.

And don’t even get me started on Newt’s love for GOVERNMENT MANDATED health care insurance. Newt has teamed up with good buddy Hillary Clinton to shill for that, and has taken $37 million from Big Pharma and Big Insurance for his trouble. I assure you that bunch doesn’t pay out that kind of money for “history lessons!”

For more reading about Newt’s Big Government mandates check out:

Flashback: Newt’s Passionate Support of Mandated Health Care Insurance, RomneyCare

Government Mandates: Newt Gingrich and the Art of the Con Explained

And of course:

May 15, 2011: Newt Gingrich Supports Individual Mandate Would Force ALL Americans to Have Insurance

Do you REALLY think Newt is going to do anything about ObamaCare? If you listen to what he’s been proposing for years, you’ll come to understand it’s basically RomneyCare, except for the entire country, something even Mitt Romney understands is wrong.

I’ve been around a long time, and I have yet to find an instance where Newt Gingrich has stood with Conservatives and backed them up the way he has his socialist friends.

Let’s never forget Newt called the Tea Party “militant” not that long ago. This of course allowed the socialists over at the Daily Kos to gin up even more hate for every day Americans.

Thanks Newt.

By the way, showing how out of touch Newt really is, he called the Tea Party the militant wing of the Republican Party.

Most of us are independent, and there is also a significant amount of angry democrats in the Tea Party as well. Newt doesn’t know this because he’s never been part of the Tea Party movement. He’s a Big Government Statist and a Washington insider. The sort we are trying to run out of politics forever. Tea Party people aren’t his sort.

Newt is not, and never has been a Conservative. He’s more of a Manchurian Candidate, a life long democrat, who has infiltrated the Republican Party.

Again, I have never seen Newt stand with Conservatives the way he has with the socialists. He’s been too busy helping further their agenda for that. It’s not a stretch to say that Newt has done more to advance socialism in this country than many democrats.

Where was Newt when the Tea Party was formed? He was lobbying Congress to stop legislators from stopping Freddie Mac. That’s where. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are two of the biggest reasons our economy collapsed, and Newt was on the wrong side of that fight.

When has Newt ever went out and campaigned for Tea Party patriots? Spoke at Tea Party events?

Where was Newt in 2010 when Conservatives fought to take back Congress?

Newt was busy supporting far left Margaret Sanger Award winning De De Scozzafava, who was to the left of the democrat, over real Conservative Doug Hoffman. That’s where.

Hoffman was endorsed by Sarah Palin and once she endorsed, absolutely every Conservative worth talking about followed.

Newt kept saying De De was “conservative enough for him.” Newt didn’t even know De De wasn’t chosen by New Yorkers. She was the result of a backroom deal. But Newt kept talking about supporting the “will of the people.” Putz!

Oh, and how did De De “thank” Newt for his support? Once she realized she was going to be destroyed at the polls, she dropped out and endorsed the democrat!

That Newt sure can pick em!

Newt has no problem lying to Conservatives and conning them at every turn, because he’s had so much practice doing the same thing with his wives. Newt has been carrying on, with multiple affairs, and multiple wives. He went for years cheating on wives number one and two, without getting caught. That was great practice for what he’s doing now in the political arena.

Newt is a Big Government “progressive”. He has a lot more in common with Barack Obama and the rest of the socialists, than he does Conservatives and the American people at large.

Just as Newt cheated on his wives, Newt has spent decades cheating on Conservatives. Sadly, just like his wives, Newt has been able to con Conservatives into taking him back.

It hasn’t been that long ago, that Newt was universally despised by Conservatives for the exact reasons I have highlighted. When the chips are down, Newt ALWAYS stands with the socialists. For some reason, conservatives are allowing Newt’s pretty words to erase the horrific memories of Newt’s actions.

People need to wake up to the harsh reality that is Newt Gingrich. Newt would be like granting Obama his second term. Newt has never met a problem that he couldn’t think up a Big Government [and expensive] “solution” for.

Newt must be stopped. As president he would be our worst nightmare.

Caveat Emptor

By Gary P Jackson

When it looked like Mitt Romney was going to run away with the South Carolina primary, and the nomination, Sarah Palin stepped up and said we’ll just see about that!

In an effort to make the primaries and the debates continue, Sarah suggested a different plan, and it worked. Like many of us, Sarah believes in tough competition and hard fought battles. Competition, strong competition, only makes everyone better. As she said: “steel sharpens steel.”

By continuing the fight, Sarah is forcing all of the candidates to be at their best. This is a good way to force the cream to rise to the top. Whomever wins the nomination will have earned it, and be in a better position to defeat Obama. This primary battle will expose all the warts, and steal the democrat’s thunder. It will make the eventually nominee much stronger.

Speaking with Megyn Kelly on Saturday night, Sarah said she was pleased with the outcome, but would not be endorsing any candidate yet. She also said Rick Santorum should fight on. We agree!

If there is one thing that saddens us, it’s that all of this just reinforces the fact that had Sarah run for president herself, she would have won it all hands down.

One thing I have to point out though. While she’s right, Newt Gingrich did fight against HillaryCare…. sorta…. in 2005 Newt teamed up with Hillary to push government mandated health care insurance. Newt has consistently pushed for government mandated health care insurance for almost a decade. His last big push was in May of 2011, when no one was paying attention. After that he’s laid low, hoping no one would notice that NewtCare is basically RomneyCare, except for the entire nation.

On to Florida!

Video courtesy SarahNet