Tag Archives: big government

God Bless Michelle Malkin For Saying What Needed To Be Said About Scott Walker


By Gary P Jackson

Conservatives thirst for a leader, someone they can rally around. Lacking a real leader, they manage to latch on to every “flavor of the month” that comes along, no matter how far from being an actual Conservative their latest heartthrob may actually be. And if the lamestream media attacks their latest love interest, oh boy, they cling to him even harder! It’s become very knee-jerk, with these Conservatives taking a media attack on their new love, as absolute proof that person is “THE ONE!” [The old adage “they attack who they fear the most” ~ which isn’t always true]

I like the fact that Scott Walker has taken on the violent Union Thugs™ in Wisconsin. I like that Wisconsin is now a Right-to-Work state. But fighting billion dollar unions isn’t a Conservative thing, it’s simply a human rights thing.

The fact is, on the issues that matter most to Conservatives: stopping amnesty for illegal aliens and reforming education, Scott Walker sucks!

Scott Walker has been OFFICIALLY pushing amnesty for these criminal invaders for over a decade. And by “officially” I mean in his capacity as an elected official. As I have stated many times, amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens is an act of TREASON against the United States and the American people. PERIOD.

Walker claims to have “shifted” his position on amnesty, but if you read his statement he only disagrees with HOW Obama is handling amnesty, not amnesty itself. Like all “progressive” Republicans, it’s not about actually stopping an evil deed, but simply claiming they can manage that evil better than the other guys.

Walker is also on the wrong side of the Common Core debate. He is all for the nationalization of schools that first began under Jimmy Carter. [and Ronald Reagan had promised to end] We’ve seen the quality of education fall off the proverbial cliff since Washington, and not local school boards, have been in control of education. It’s one of the greatest evils the federal government has ever done to the American people.

Recently in Iowa, Walker showed he is also subservient to Big Ethanol, another great evil the government has created. I could go on for days about the evils of ethanol, and the cost of taxpayer subsidies, but if you are reading this, you already know what an evil scheme ethanol is, and the damage it’s done to the environment as well as our national fleet.

We love Michelle Malkin because of her no-bullshit attitude. She never puts party over principle. She is a fearless warrior, which is what we need if America is to survive. In an exclusive interview with Breitbart’s Matthew Boyle, Malkin reminds readers that on every issue we, as conservatives, care about, Scott Walker is in lock-step with Jeb Bush and other left-wing Republican scum-bags.

From the article:

Nationally syndicated conservative columnist Michelle Malkin, founder of the website Twitchy, tells Breitbart News that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker—a potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate—needs to be vetted. She also says Walker’s “problems” run much deeper than the decision to hire—then quickly let go of—pro-amnesty communications aide Liz Mair, who had taken shots at Iowa.

Scott Walker has much bigger problems than the ill-considered hiring and firing of one D.C. operative,” Malkin said in an email:

What does he really stand for and is he fully equipped to bear the slings and arrows of his enemies on a national and global scale? Yes, he fought Big Labor and has managed his state well. But grass-roots activists in his state have long been warning me of his ideological gymnastics on core issues: immigration and education.

He has been on the same side as the progressive Left and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Right: pro-amnesty, pro-massive legal immigration expansionist, and pro-Common Core. He’s been left, right, center, and all over the map.

She added that Washington-based GOP establishment forces are good at backing up establishment politicians, as they seemed to have tried to do to defend Walker and Mair.

The D.C. consultant class and Capitol Hill GOP operators are adept at swooping in to ‘rescue’ the campaigns of neophytes and molding them into Beltway barnacle tools,” Malkin said. “They did it with Spencer Abraham and Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan. Face it: Many of the D.C. messaging ‘experts’ and ‘communicators’ DO have their own policy agenda and it is naive or stupid to believe they have no sway or influence on ambitious, outside the Beltway seekers of higher public office with no fixed principles.”

Malkin also stood up for the few reporters willing to pressure Walker to answer legitimate questions about Mair, and about his positions on issues like immigration and education.

I believe conservative journalists should not be mocked for asking GOP candidates or their staffers unorthodox, ‘rude,’ and uncomfortable questions,” Malkin said. “That’s called vetting.

This is a great article and a must read. There is much more here.

We thank Matthew Boyle, as well as Michelle Malkin, for standing up to those who are trying to pull one over on actual Conservatives who care about our nation. We MUST vet everyone who we consider for election to ANY office. This is something Sarah Palin has been preaching for years! Blindly following anyone who remotely sounds “conservative” is idiotic, as is following the crowd.

Michelle tweeted this a few days ago to drive that point home:

I absolutely agree with her! Groupthink is dangerous. Fuck groupthink!

As Conservatives, we’re supposed to have the intelligence to look past the bullshit and hype and figure things out. Let the other guys be sheep and play “follow the leader“!

The real and honest truth is, as Conservatives, we really don’t have a champion going into 2016. There truly is no one on the so-called “deep bench” of candidates that are champions of not only Conservatism, but Liberty and Freedom as well.

We are screwed, well and good.

And don’t give me, or anyone else, any of that “Reagan’s 11th Commandment” bullshit. Ronald Reagan famously ripped on Republicans who cared more about power than the American people. He ripped left wing Republicans a new one. And yes, I KNOW Reagan said that someone who agrees with you 80% isn’t 20% your enemy, and I agree with that. BUT when the 80% we agree on is inconsequential, and the 20% will destroy the very fabric of our society, then yes, that person is not just 20% my enemy, he [or she] is 100% my enemy.

Compromise is NOT a dirty word, and frankly, I think if we got partisan politics [and groupthink] out of the picture MORE than 80% of the nation [the entire nation] could sit down and agree on almost everything. BUT, there are some things that are not negotiable. One simply cannot compromise on core principles. If you are ready to throw away your core principles in the name of compromise, you are no better, and maybe even worse, than those who, if left unchecked, would destroy civilization, forthwith.

It’s funny, you NEVER see a democrat stray from their core principles, as evil as they may be, EVER. In fact, among democrats groupthink is mandatory and independent thought discouraged, and often punished.

I’m very disappointed that Scott Walker isn’t the “conservative savior” so many want him to be, but life’s hard. I suggest you wear a helmet!

Scott Walker, if elected president, would be an unmitigated disaster, just as would Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, or any of the other corrupt, pro-amnesty, Big Government crapweasels. If you are for amnesty, you are an enemy of the American people. Period.

2016 is going to be a tough election. The Republican Party “leadership” has been stabbing the American people, who gave them an unprecedented mandate to stop Obama, in the back [and the front] If we don’t get control of the party, and find a Pro-AMERICAN candidate, we’ll not only lose the White House, but Congress as well. And as evil as Barack Obama is, and as much irreversible damage as he has done, any democrat who would replace him, WILL be worse.

Vet every candidate, then re-vet them. Don’t be a sheep. The life of our nation is at stake. Act like it!

¡Sí, Se Puede! ~ Yes We Can! [hold EVERY politician accountable]



Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Video Reminder From Ronald Reagan: “Government IS the Problem”

By Gary P Jackson

A little reminder for democrats and liberal Republicans from the great Renaldus Magnus:

Leave a comment

Filed under In The News, Politics, Ronald Reagan

DNC Video: “The Government Is The Only Thing We All Belong To”

By Gary P Jackson

Need any more proof that democrats have an incredibly warped view of society? Well watch this:

This was shown on day one in Charlotte at the democrat convention. It’s their “soft sell” attempt to get you to buy into their idea of a central command-and-control, Big Government, nanny state, that will care for you from cradle to grave. Never mind that it’s been proven over and over that these sort of schemes never work out. Governments eventually collapse under their own weight when they’ve tried this.

The government belongs to the people, for sure, but politicians and bureaucrats are OUR EMPLOYEES and work for US. Something, it seems, we must remind them of on a regular basis.

I wish I had some snappy commentary here, but a commenter on You Tube says all that needs to be said:

We don’t ‘belong‘ to the government – we settled that by Declaration in 1776, by Force 1775-1783 and by Law in 1791!

~ PalmettoStateForever

1 Comment

Filed under In The News, Politics

Rick Santorum: “Freedom’s not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute?”

By Gary P Jackson

Holy Bill of Rights Batman:

Freedom’s not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations. You might want to say the same thing about a whole variety of other things that are on the Internet — “let everybody have it, let everybody do it.” No. There are certain things that actually do cost people a lot of money, cost them their lives, cost them their fortunes that we shouldn’t have and make available, to make it that easy to do. That’s why we regulate gambling. You have a big commission here that regulates gambling, for a reason.

If the above quote from Rick Santorum doesn’t have chills running up and down your spine, there is something seriously wrong with you!

Now let me put this in context. This quote, and more, comes from an article Jim Geraghty wrote about Newt Gingrich’s sugar daddy, billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson. Santorum is talking about internet gambling, and evidently, in Rick’s world it’s evil, and the government, being our nanny, must take steps to protect the American people from itself. You can read the entire article here.

Now Rick may be right, in theory, there are some legitimate limits on freedom that are also constitutional, they are, however, few and far between.

The American experiment, as envisioned by our founders, is based on personal Liberty and Freedom, as well as personal responsibility. In other words, you are free to do pretty much as you wish, as long as you break no laws. If your actions causes you problems, well, you made your bed, now lie in it!

This is pretty much how God works as well. He gave us the ability to distinguish right from wrong, and the free will to choose. He also gave us a strong path to redemption. But, we have to live with the consequences of our actions.

Thing is, government isn’t God, and neither are our lawmakers. Government has no business trying to be the nanny of over 300 million Americans, micro managing our lives down to the last detail.

Government has no business trying to protects, from ourselves.

Yeah, there are obvious exceptions to that, but we now have government officials trying to control our ever action. That ain’t Liberty and that ain’t Freedom.

There are far too many, in both political parties, who want to do just that. Politicians who think they know what’s best for everyone.

I’ve always been rather neutral on Santorum, seeing him as a mixed bag, some good, some bad. My only real concern, since day one, is he has always seemed to be more interested in being the bedroom police, rather then Senator, or President. Other than that, I thought he was at least somewhat Conservative. That was a grave error on my part.

I’d call Santorum a “compassionate conservative” in the mold of George W Bush, but looking into Rick’s record, I see nothing particularly compassionate or conservative about the man. What I see is just another Big Government Statist. Just another person who wants to exert his power over everyone else.

There is little difference between Santorum and those who want to regulate what you can eat, what you can drink, what kind of car you can drive, what kind of toilet and shower head you must buy, and what sort of light bulb you must have.

For people like Santorum, government knows best. As a free man or woman, you don’t have the capability of exercising good judgment, so government must protect you from yourself.

There’s something inherently evil in this sort of thing. Something un-American.

Santorum’s argument on gambling, online gambling, is troubling. From the article Rick says:

I’m someone who takes the opinion that gaming is not something that is beneficial, particularly having that access on the Internet. Just as we’ve seen from a lot of other things that are vices on the Internet, they tend to grow exponentially as a result of that.

It’s one thing to come to Las Vegas and do gaming and participate in the shows and that kind of thing as entertainment, it’s another thing to sit in your home and have access to that it. I think it would be dangerous to our country to have that type of access to gaming on the Internet.

I like Vegas and since I’m not that much of a gambler, I enjoy the shows and the good eats. That said, what business is it of Santorum’s? Even more so, what business is it Rick’s what I do on the internet? If Rick is worried about gambling on the internet, folks can find a game anywhere. Don’t need the internet for that, unless you are booking a hotel!

Look, I know why Baptists don’t like gambling, they are afraid it might lead to dancing! [relax it’s just a joke] But what is Rick’s excuse?

Oh, and about those shows and fine dining in Las Vegas? Lots of folks have a problem with overeating. Vegas is a place where that is not only possible, but probable. What is Rick’s position on this?

Most Americans don’t like the idea of government telling them what they can and can’t do, within reason, and gambling, while most certainly a vice, is also reasonable.

In fact, this entire election, for the American people, is about getting away from a government that wants to control our every move.

Sarah Palin put it best when she said this election will come down to the “Freedom Party” vs the “Government Party.”

Between this latest by Santorum, and his extreme ideas about all things of a sexual nature, as well as many of his votes and positions over the years, I’m beginning to thing Santorum belongs in the “Government Party.”

I have no qualms with Rick’s personal beliefs, though I disagree with many. What I have a problem with is his desire to impose those beliefs on others.

People need to take a long, hard look at Rick Santorum. He is not what he represents himself to be. He is a progressive, not a Conservative. He’s the sort who can’t wait to get in power so he can exert his authority over the American people.

We already have a nanny state president, and a nanny state government. No use to send them re-enforcements like Rick Santorum.


Filed under In The News, Politics

Vintage Rick Santorum: “I’m a Progressive Republican” Also Wobbly on Abortion

By Gary P Jackson

By now we should be used to politicians who are never what they seem. Rick Santorum is being hailed as the newest Conservative savior. I’m thinking folks need to re-think that whole mind set.

I know this will anger our readers who support Rick, but it would not be in keeping with our blog’s mission to just ignore all of this. We hammer Mitt Romney for being a squish, and a flip-flopper, but always ignore the election year conversions of the rest of the field. Newt Gingrich was also hailed as our “last best hope” until people remembered that he’s really a Big Government progressive.

I’ve been going through Santorum’s voting record and will be publishing a report that readers can then search it all for themselves. So far, I’m not convinced Santorum is the Conservative he says he is, but well look at his record as a whole in a future post.

For now, this little gem has come up from Santorum’s first run for the Senate. Frankly, it sounds EXACTLY like the way Mitt Romney sounded during his failed attempt to unseat Teddy Kennedy:

Santorum, who describes himself in his campaign manual as a “progressive conservative,” and who did not have a firm position on abortion.

Santorum said he had always opposed government funding of abortions, but “beyond that I tried as much as I could to dance around the issue, not really take a position on it.”

Far cry from the “crusader” we see on the stump today. Read more here.

Now it’s OK for candidates to evolve. Especially when they evolve in the right direction, but we still have to look at people’s motivations. Character still matters.

We’ll be doing more vetting on Santorum as the days go by.

H/T: Race 4 2012


Filed under Uncategorized

Gingrich Attacks Romney with Socialist Talking Points

By Gary P Jackson

I become more disgusted by Newt Gingrich with each passing day. Now this despicable, corrupt, Big Government “progressive” bastard actually has me about to passionately defend Mitt Romney.

Mitt friggin’ Romney!

It’s quite obvious that Newt Gingrich, whose only jobs for the last 33 years have either been in government as an elected official, or out of government as a shake-down artist, has absolutely no idea how business works.

It seems Newt is attacking Mitt because his venture capital firm, Bain Capital, was known to buy companies and shock of shocks, lay people off in order to save them! This has been standard practice, and considered good business sense, since the formation of capitalism.

From the Weekly Standard:

Newt Gingrich has adopted an anti-free market argument—a favorite of the political left—to criticize Mitt Romney. Gingrich accused his rival of making money by “bankrupting companies and laying off employees” in his years at Bain Capital.

Under Romney’s leadership, Bain Capital emerged as a prominent private equity firm, investing initially in startups—Staples was one—then specializing in turnarounds. The company was highly profitable, but was criticized for reducing payrolls and shutting down firms it couldn’t revive. Romney left Bain Capital in 1999.

Whether its investments were successful or not, Bain Capital was engaged in the rough and tumble of free market capitalism. Thus Gingrich’s criticism, coming from a conservative, was surprising.

His attack echoes the criticism of Romney by the late senator Ted Kennedy in 1994. Romney ran against Kennedy when the senator sought reelection in 1994. Kennedy won, aided by brutal, unfair TV ads criticizing Romney for killing jobs.

Gingrich was responding to a statement by Romney earlier Monday on Fox News. Romney was asked if Gingrich should return the $1.6 million he earned for advising Freddie Mac. “Boy, I sure do,” Romney said. “He [Gingrich] was on a debate saying that politicians who took money from Freddie and Fannie should go to jail, which is outrageous in itself.

In response, Gingrich said: “I would say if Governor Romney would like to give back all the money he’s earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employee’s over the years at Bain, I would be glad to listen to him.”

With Romney at the helm, Bain Capital bought companies, restructured them on firmer financial footing, and later sold them at a profit. But not every buyout succeeded. The Kennedy campaign broadcast ads that focused on cases in which workers lost their jobs. Romney has insisted Bain Capital created far more jobs than it killed.

President Obama’s reelection campaign is reportedly prepared to use the left-wing line of attack against Romney, should he win the Republican presidential nomination next year. Now Gingrich has jumped in first with his sharp criticism of Romney’s career at Bain Capital.

In a debate in October, Gingrich said: “If you want to put people in jail…you might start with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.” They were the chief Democratic defenders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the “government sponsored enterprises” that have lost around $150 billion at the taxpayers’ expense.

As usual, Newt’s own words come back to bite him in the ass. Newt is fine sending democrats to jail [as am I] for the exact thing he [Gingrich] is just as guilty of. Newt took a serious amount of money from Freddie Mac to do the same thing Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are guilty of.

If Dodd and Frank should go to jail for taking money from Freddie Mac, why shouldn’t Newt? I’m just using Newt’s own logic here, and frankly, I’d LOVE to see all of em in prison from now, ‘till the end of time.

Though not anywhere near the scope and scale of Bain Capital, I have a bit of experience at what it takes to turn a business around. Years ago I worked with a team of fellow managers whose job was to do just that.

After working in the service end of the business for over a decade as a manager, it came time to move on, and up. I found myself hired by a large mega-dealer, with dealerships all over the state.

I started in sales. More importantly, I walked into a dealership that was undergoing serious restructuring in order to save it. Unfortunately, that particular dealership had been run so far into the ground that nothing was going to make that happen, and was eventually closed.

The good thing, in my case, that came out of this, was I did well, professionally …. and financially …. even though the business was a lost cause. My boss, and his small team, were the dealer group’s “turn around specialists” whose job it was to go into one of the group’s dealerships, if it was in trouble, and try to save it. With a group this size, at least one dealership was always under-performing The one I was working at was the only unsuccessful attempt to save.

Long story short, I was asked to join this group, and would eventually go all over our state on a little adventure.

Our deal was simple. A dealership was in trouble, and we’d do whatever it took to fix things. Though that wasn’t the objective, often the entire staff would quit en masse the second we showed up. Most times, all stayed, except for obvious reasons, the management.

We spent time figuring out what went wrong, and correcting the mistakes. Sometimes this meant firing the entire sales staff and starting over, or firing some and training those who remained the right way to create sales, and retain customers, thus creating future sales. Other times, really good people were there, and a simple bit of professional guidance is all that was needed.

Without our group, these dealerships, and eventually the entire company, would have failed.

It comes down to having 15-50 people looking for new jobs, or 5000.

Had we not been there and helped restructure these companies, that would have been the end result. Not only would the dealer group eventually collapsed, the hundreds of vendors that we did business with would have been effected as well. Many of them would have went under too, as we were their biggest, and sometimes only customer.

Sometimes running a business calls for tough decisions, but I was taught it was better to help someone realize they had chosen the wrong profession, and send them on their way towards their right one, rather than have them [and you] be miserable and unproductive.

What we did, and what Bain Capital did, was save companies. Companies that create jobs. They had to go in and make tough choices. Had to weed out those who were responsible for the failures. Sometimes people lost their jobs simply because the company couldn’t afford to keep them on. That’s not evil, it’s just business.

In a way, it’s no different than what Texas Governor Rick Perry has been doing, and receiving great, and much deserved praise for. You see, California is failing, and many companies are about to either close, or relocate. Governor Perry has been poaching these companies from California, and elsewhere, for years. Now sometimes many of the employees move to Texas. Other times, the companies bring key people, but hire Texans to fill most positions.

They do this to save their companies.

What’s better in the grand scheme of things, having a business collapse, and everyone loses their job, or have the company made whole again, and only a relative few lose their job?

Obviously, if you are the one losing your job, you aren’t happy, but restructuring businesses that have been mismanaged, making them viable again, is a good thing.

Having a business go under doesn’t just effect that business, or it’s employees.

You see, every time a company goes out of business, it also effects it’s suppliers.

Depending on the size of the company, it could effect the suppliers in such a way they too have to lay people off, due to lost business. The worst case scenario, being some suppliers go out of business as well. So now you have not one, but two companies that are out of business, and even more people out of work.

It rolls down hill, and the suppliers’ suppliers can be effected as too.

This is business 101, and not a difficult concept to understand. Unless you are Newt.

There are many, many reasons to go after Mitt Romney, just as there are more reasons than one can count to hammer Newt Gingrich over. But going after Romney for what is a standard [and proven highly successful] business practice is stupid. It proves Newt doesn’t understand how businesses work.

It also speaks to Newt’s REAL ideology, not the pablum he feeds his fans.

The sort of argument Newt is using, is right out of the Socialist handbook.

Is it any wonder that Newt says socialist dictator wannabe FDR, not Ronald Reagan, is the “greatest president of the 20th Century”?


Filed under Uncategorized

Gene Healy: Newt Gingrich is Mitt Romney with More Baggage and Bolder Hand Gestures

By Gary P Jackson

The former speaker’s immense self-regard is evident in one of the exhibits to a 1997 House Ethics Committee report on him. In a handwritten 1992 note to himself, he wrote: “Gingrich — primary mission, Advocate of civilization, definer of civilization, Teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who fan civilization, … leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces.” Whew!

Gene Healy writes in the Washington Examiner that Newt Gingrich is not a Conservative. He goes on to talk about Newt being an “idea man” with no particularly good ideas.

I wrote something similar to this in April of this year in a piece called WTF? Newt Gingrich Proposes Giant Government Boondoggle To Replace Giant Government Boondoggle. I talked about a program that Healy describes as “Solyndra on steroids.”

Here’s a taste of Healy’s warning to the American people: [emphasis mine]

Has it really come to this? Newt Gingrich as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney? That’s what many in the punditocracy have proclaimed as the former speaker of the House has surged recently in the polls.

Yet a look at his record reveals that Newt is hardly the “anti-Mitt” — he’s Mitt Romney with more baggage and bolder hand gestures.

Every Gingrich profile proclaims that he’s a dazzling “ideas man,” a “one-man think tank.” It seems that, if you clamor long enough about “big ideas,” people become convinced you actually have them.

But most of Gingrich’s policy ideas over the last decade have been tepidly conventional and consistent with the Big Government, Beltway Consensus.

Gingrich’s campaign nearly imploded this summer when he dismissed Rep. Paul Ryan’s, R-Wis., Medicare reform plan as “right-wing social engineering.” But that gaffe was a window into Gingrich’s irresponsible approach toward entitlements.

In 2003, Gingrich stumped hard for President George W. Bush’s prescription drug bill, which has added about $17 trillion to Medicare’s unfunded liabilities. “Every conservative member of Congress should vote for this Medicare bill,” Newt urged.

And in his 2008 book “Real Change,” he endorsed an individual mandate for health insurance.

In a 2006 piece for Human Events, Gingrich offered House Republicans “11 Ways to Say: ‘We’re Not Nancy Pelosi.’ ” Point seven proposed a Solyndra-on-steroids industrial policy devoted to “developing more clean coal solutions, investing in a conversion to a hydrogen economyand more. It’s not clear why the former madame speaker would complain.

It’s also unclear why anybody looking to distance himself from Pelosi would plop down on a love seat with her to call for government action on climate change — as Gingrich did in a 2008 television commercial.

It was a season of bipartisan chumminess for Newt. “Kerry and Gingrich Hugging Trees — and (Almost) Each Other,” the Washington Post described a 2007 global warming event Gingrich headlined with Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

On foreign affairs, Gingrich’s ideas are a little less conventional, but his apocalyptic saber rattling hardly instills confidence. “We need a calm, reasoned dialogue about the genuine possibility of a second Holocaust,” he told an American Enterprise Institute audience in 2007.

In 2009, he proposed zapping a North Korean missile site with laser weapons. (“Beam me up, Mr. Speaker!” as former Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio, used to say in the ’90s.)

There’s no denying that Newt is smart, but there’s a zany, Cliff Clavin aspect to his intellect. At times, Gingrich, who’s written more than 150 book reviews on Amazon.com, sounds like a guy who read way too much during a long prison stretch.

The former speaker’s immense self-regard is evident in one of the exhibits to a 1997 House Ethics Committee report on him. In a handwritten 1992 note to himself, he wrote: “Gingrich — primary mission, Advocate of civilization, definer of civilization, Teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who fan civilization, … leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces.” Whew!

When he’s not leading the assembled armies of civilization in a Thermopylae-style battle against “Obama’s Secular Socialist Machine,” Newt does a little consulting on the side.

In 2009, the ethanol lobby paid his firm $312,000, and in 2006, the former speaker scored a $300,000 fee from Freddie Mac, one of the government-sponsored enterprises that helped pump up the disastrous housing bubble.

Newt Gingrich is as phony as they come, and as big of a narcissist as Barack Obama. He’s also as big of a Statist.

Newt’s default position is always Big Government solutions. Being a narcissist, Newt is also a technocrat. One of those who thinks only HE can make things work. He’s like most democrats who think Communism is a viable solution, it’s just that the right people haven’t tried to make it work yet.

A technocrat is a Marxist in denial. And that’s the best way I know to describe Newt Gingrich, the REAL Newt Gingrich, not the character he plays on television.


Filed under In The News, Politics

The Best Reason NOT To Elect Mitt Romney I’ve Seen

Perhaps you and I have lived with this miracle too long to be properly appreciative. Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.

Knowing this, it is hard to explain those who even today would question the people’s capacity for self rule. Will they answer this: If no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?Using the temporary authority granted by the people, an increasing number lately have sought to control the means of production as if this could be done without eventually controlling those who produce. Always this is explained as necessary to the people’s welfare. But, “The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principle upon which it was founded.” This is true today as it was when it was written in 1748.

~ Ronald Reagan

By Gary P Jackson

If one was to take time to list all of the reasons not to vote for liberal Republican Mitt Romney it would be a daunting, time consuming task. One could go on for days about RomneyCare and how it’s basically destroyed the state Mitt governed. Then there is the totally unprincipled Mitt Romney, a human windsock, whose positions, much like current President Barack Obama, all have expiration dates. [except for his undying love of his socialized medicine scheme]

In fact, it’s in RomneyCare that we find Mitt’s real problem, and why he can never be allowed in elected office. One of Romney’s constant refrains, now that his socialized medicine debacle has festered into a big liability, is to blame it all on those rascally democrats. It was the democrats, you see, who messed up his magnificently magnificent creation. Only HE, Mitt Romney is capable of maintaining such a brilliant plan!

During the run up to Romney’s big “health care address” and after, myself and others pointed to the fact that Mitt, rather than being a strong leader, a CEO type, who chooses the right people and lets them work, is the middle manager type that must be hands on, in every project, whether he should be or not.

Romney is a technocrat. A Big Government progressive that doesn’t have the slightest concept of our Founding Principles, personal Liberty, or personal Freedom. He’s the type who never saw a good idea without thinking a government program would’t make it better.

Paul Rahe captures this perfectly in the first two sentences below. The rest is just expanding on the subject: [emphasis mine]

The reason why I oppose Mitt Romney is simple. He was born to destroy everything that we have accomplished since the Tea-Party Movement emerged in the Spring of 2009. Romney is the very model of a managerial progressive. He has one great virtue. He knows how to run things; he knows how to organize things. He would make a good Secretary of Commerce. He has no understanding of the principles that underpin our government. And, in fact, like most businessmen, he is a man almost devoid of political principles. Give him a problem, and he will make a highly intelligent attempt to solve it. Ask him to identify which problems should be left to ordinary people and what are the proper limits to government’s reach, and he would not understand the question. He is what you might call a social engineer; and, in his estimation, we are little more than the cogs and wheels that need to be engineered. …

Romney’s political instincts are disastrous. He will betray the friends of liberty and limited government at the first opportunity. If he is nominated, the people who joined the Tea Party and turned out in 2010 to give the Republicans an historic victory are likely to stay home. If, by some miracle, the progenitor of Romneycare actually defeats the progenitor of Obamacare, he will quickly embrace the entitlement state and present himself as the man who can make it hum, as he did in Massachusetts. He is not better than Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Bush père, and Bush fils. He is cut from the same cloth, and in practice he is apt to be far, far worse. The consequence will be the death in American life or at least the decay of the impulse embodied within the Tea-Party Movement.

At the start of this I cited a timeless quote by Ronald Reagan: “If no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?” This was part of Governor Ronald Reagan’s first inaugural address in 1967, and would be part of President Ronald Reagan’s first inaugural address in 1981. It’s simple, yet profound. It’s also a concept I highly doubt Mitt Romney understands.

Mitt Romney is the little intellectual elite that Ronald Reagan warned the nation about in his iconic 1964 speech, A Time For Choosing.

Reagan also reminded the nation often:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

Mitt Romney, and those like him, are the sort of men Ronald Reagan feared would someday come to power. The sort who, “for our own good” would take away our Freedom and Liberty, in order to “make the trains run on time


Filed under In The News, Politics

From The Office Of Why Chris Christie Will Never Be President: New Jersey Wants to Seize Your Unused Gift Cards And Travelers Checks!

By Gary P Jackson

Can we PLEASE stop worshiping these “shiny new object” politicians!

New Jersey’s Chris Christie has become somewhat of a You Tube celebrity for his antics while taking on the union thugs who have cause the state all sorts of grief.

Of course all of this attention has the “look at the shiny new object he should be our next President !!!!!11!!!!!” crowd” having hot flashes. We saw the same thing after big time RINO Scott Brown was elected. He hadn’t even made his victory speech yet and the usual suspects were already printing up “Brown 2012” t-shirts! Since then he’s been a dismal failure for the Conservatives who sent money from around the country supporting his run. He’s become a reliable vote, for the democrats!

Brown is not the only “shiny new object” who isn’t what he was sold as, just one of the newer ones.

Which brings us back to Chris Christie.

Look, the man deserves credit for taking on the unions. That’s a big deal, and they should be taken down. States that don’t have “right to work laws” which pretty much put unions out of business, are crazy. But that’s another blog topic.

Christie is a One-Note-Johnny. He’s doing that one thing right, but he simply is not a Conservative in any way shape or form.

I’m not just talking about the fact Christie endorsed far left Senate candidate Mike Castle over Conservative Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, or his backing of establishment candidate Meg Whitman in California. Those do give us an insight of where his heart lies though.

No, Christie has bigger issues. He’s weak on the Second Amendment, for amnesty for illegals, thinks it’s marvelous radical Muslims want to build a mosque at Ground Zero, and is weak on the human rights of the unborn.

Even all of that is not as big of an outrage as this latest nonsense:

Now it seems that Christie is as heavy handed as any communist thug out there. Christie backs a law that would allow the state to literally steal private citizen’s unused gift cards and travelers checks!

Think about this a minute.

You take your hard earned [and already taxed to death] money and buy a gift card for yourself or someone else. This is property. YOUR property! Just as if it was a house or an automobile. Or you could even think of it as cash, for that matter. No matter how you look at it though, it’s government sanctioned theft of private property.

Fausta Wertz reports:

The legislation amended part of the state Uniform Unclaimed Property Act to include gift cards for the first time, allowing the state to consider a card abandoned two years after purchase and seize the balance.
The amendment also allowed the state to consider a traveler’s check abandoned if it is not cashed or spent three years or longer from the purchase date, instead of after 15 years under the previous law — the rule in most states.

Think about this for a minute. You have property, in the form of an unused gift card, or traveler’s check, and just because you haven’t found a use for it in a totally arbitrary amount of time [made up by greedy politicians who lust after money to fund more failure] those greedy politicians can come in and just steal it from you, and Chris Christie is on board with it!

Christie’s administration estimated that the amendment would bring in $80 million to help solve the state’s chronic budget problems. A key element of the legislation was that it would be retroactive, allowing the Treasury to seize money from travelers checks as far back as 1994.

Read more of Fausta’s shocking report here.

So Chris Christie, who presents himself as a fiscal hawk, sees stealing the private property from hard working New Jersey citizens, already some of the most over-taxed in the nation, as a way to cure “chronic budget problems.” I guess it never occurred the this genius to cut spending!

Oh, and this government sanction theft of private property will be retroactive all of the way back to 1994!

What’s next?

Let’s say you are a car guy, and restoring an old car, a process that can take years. Since you can’t drive it while it’s apart, and not “use” it, would Christie and his money hungry thugs come confiscate that?

How about a second home? What if you have a second home that is vacant, for whatever reason, will Christie want that next to feed the government monster?

Even better, what of vacant land? It’s just sitting there and you aren’t using it, why not let Christie and his thieves come and take it, by force of law!

After all, the government machine MUST BE FED!

This is no different than being mugged in an ally. No wonder New Jersey law makers [and Christie] don’t want New Jersey citizens owning guns!

The media, which has built Christie up as some sort of “Conservative star,” has been very silent on this, and the usually loud and obnoxious Governor hasn’t made any You Tube videos bragging about it either. I wonder why ….

This is outrageous. Big Government run wild and completely out of control. And Christie, whose only claim to fame is as a supposed “fiscal Conservative,” is not only enabling this fiasco, he’s cheerleading it on!

This guy has no clue on how to handle out of control government. His only solution is to keep feeding the monster, not matter what it takes. 

Look, the bottom line is this. Christie is no Conservative, not even a pretend one. He’s another Big Government progressive who will do anything, including stealing from his own people, to feed the beast. To continually grow and sustain the monster, rather than put it on a diet, and shrink it down to a manageable size. He’s a fraud.

The bigger issue though, to me, is how some Conservatives act every time someone new pops up and does one thing right. Rather than setting back and watching to see if it’s a fluke, and rather than going back and actually researching the person’s record, they loose their minds and start claiming this “flavor-of-the-month” is the second coming, and the next thing you know, everyone is pushing that person as the next President!

Now Christie says he wants no part of the presidency, which is awesome, since I doubt America would want anything to do with Christie, if they knew the truth about him. But what scares me is some other “shiny new object” is going to pop-up out of nowhere and squeak past us all, only to turn out to be another Chris Christie, who is to the left of even some democrats. What do we do then?

What if, god forbid, this “shiny new object” got elected President, and we find out he’s a Chris Christie clone? A Big Government progressive.

We already know that Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are frauds, because EVERYONE has done their homework and looked at their extensive and disastrous records. We need to make sure that we fully vet anyone before were start proclaiming they are the “second coming.”

People got behind Barack Obama not knowing a damned thing about him. Too lazy to look at his record and find out just how radical he was. How dangerous he was. I’d like to think, as Conservatives, we are more intelligent than that …. but I’m starting to have my doubts.

While this article is about Christie, and exposing him for the fraud he is, there is a bigger picture to consider.

Quite simply, stop worshiping every “shiny new object” that comes along! Instead sit back and watch them. See how they perform over time. Sadly, over time, most will let you down. But …. if one turns out to be the real deal, then …. and ONLY then …. should you get excited.

Hack politicians are a dime-a-dozen. Good solid leaders are hard to find. One thing is for sure, the latest “flavor-of-the month” politicians are seldom what they seem, and rarely, if ever, real leaders.


Filed under In The News, Politics

I Want Your Money

By Gary P Jackson

Check out this trailer for a new movie opening nationwide on October 15th:

From their website:

Two versions of the American dream now stand in sharp contrast. One views the money you earned as yours and best allocated by you. It champions the traditional American dream, which has played out millions of times through generations of Americans, of improving one’s lot in life and the entrepreneurial spirit of daring to dream and to build big. The other believes that the federal government, using taxpayers’ money, should play a major role in leveling out the nation’s wealth to guarantee outcomes to all, regardless of effort. How America chooses between these two views of the role of government, at this crucial juncture, will have everything to do with the future we and our children and our children’s children will enjoy.

President Barack Obama clearly believes in the larger government view. In his Inaugural Address, he said, “Now there are some who question the scale of our ambitions – who suggest our system cannot tolerate big plans…The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works—whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.” With a federal deficit of nearly one and a half trillion dollars for 2009 and deficit projections of not less than a half a trillion dollars over the next ten years, the question of whether government is too big or too small is very relevant, even vital to the future of the nation.

Join filmmaker Ray Griggs in this documentary film I Want Your Money as he contrasts the two paths the United States can take using the words and actions of Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan. The film uses interviews from well-known public figures, experts, movie clips, dramatic portrayals, music, graphics and even comedic animation to tell the story in the plainest terms of the choice between the Obama and the Reagan views of the role of the federal government in our society. It also examines how these big government programs have been tried in the past at great moral and financial cost to the nation. California is offered as a case-in-point in understanding what economic challenges might face the nation, if we choose the larger government path. Finally, I Want Your Money is a call to action for those who care about the future of the United States.

For more information on the out of control national debt, as well as locations for the movie, check out the website here.

H/T: Bardsmith

Leave a comment

Filed under In The News, Politics