How Newt Gingrich Loses the Election

By Roger F. Gay

Unfortunately, most of the public learns about respective political candidates during a limited election period in which most vetting is reserved for the pack leader. Candidates rise and fall in succession until time runs out and we're stuck with the guy who's timing was lucky. Newt Gingrich is now the establishment rising star just weeks before the initial caucuses and primaries.

He is at times a good speaker, with skills honed during the Reagan era. This has many people excited about how he might stand up against Barack Obama in debates. His public persona is that of a political conservative. He once claimed that he always carries a copy of the Constitution around in his back pocket. It's just the kind of talk the great masses yearning to end Obama's reign want to hear. The problem is, like most modern politicians, Newt Gingrich is not who he pretends to be.

It worked for Ronald Reagan and Republican (as well as some Democrat) candidates have been trying to channel The Great Communicator ever since. The former Democrat and Hollywood union boss developed broader industry connections in California and became a golden tongued spokesman for capitalism and what's good about America. This skill served him well enough to become governor of that state and POTUS. For many, he represents the prototype conservative politician by which all others must be judged.

Actions are not the same as words however. I've written about Reagan's sins against political conservatism many times. But let's not make this article about Reagan. Rather, the point is that his era is over and has been for some time. He operated according to a grand scheme decades ago and did an extraordinary job of getting away with it. Perhaps not everyone is wiser today, but many are. And since the Internet makes it so hard for Big Media to control the message, Gingrich's sins will be out of the bag well before the general election begins. What we have here is not a real conservative. He just plays one on TV. In other words, another Romney, another RINO, another loser.

That might seem too pessimistic for some Republican loyalists who haven't really been paying attention. Consider this. A “generic Republican” has been consistently winning against Obama in the polls for some time, reflecting a strong desire to evict the bum. But not by as much as you might imagine. Actual candidates like Romney and Gingrich haven't fared so well. Why? Because they're RINOs (Republican in Name Only – not really Republicans, not really political conservatives.) Data confirms that Republicans cannot assume Obama will lose. The party doesn't just need a candidate, they need a good politically conservative candidate. They need someone who they can believe. If that's not Newt Gingrich, then his chances are slim.

Now consider the Newt Gingrich we'll get to know if he's nominated – if not before. He's a flip-flopper, with a tendency to jump into any Washington con game that looks like it's working. Global warming – Newt was on board – with Nancy Pelosi no less. He once apologized for Republican inaction to pass laws against greenhouse gasses. Cap & Trade – you bet! Federally mandated health care – one of Romney's greatest cheer leaders. And he's made a lot of money jumping on board too. The millionaire school teacher who was just doing public service and minding his own business. (lol)

One of his signature issues is “welfare reform.” This really is an old one and I'm frankly quite surprised he'd bring it up. A remnant of the “Reagan Revolution”, we pretty much understand the effects 20 years after. Spending exploded. We've made a transition from a Constitutional federation to a federally controlled welfare state. Is everyone off welfare now and working in the private sector. No. Have statistics on long-term dependency changed remarkably? No. The only thing he has to brag about in discussing his role in “welfare reform” is that Republicans (and Democrats) got away with lying about it 20 years ago. The greatest actually accomplishment was to set up a system for funnelling 10s of billions of dollars a year from the public coffer into private hands, with nothing in exchange. If you're looking for a perfect example of “corporate welfare,” be sure to look at 1980s-1990s “welfare reform.” They invented an industry with the sole purpose of taking public money.

But there's actually more to it even than that. If a mainstream journalist ever grows a pair and talks about it, Newt Gingrich will be snapped in half like a twig. At the core of federal welfare reform was federalization of family law so that federal regulation could be used, as Reagan put it, to “enforce personal responsibility.”

Gingrich was one of the key promoters of federalization of one of the most sacred private issues known to human kind (and possibly the entire animal kingdom). As a result, the institution of marriage was legally destroyed along with basic human rights that accompanied it. The precedent has now been established that federal government powers are unlimited. Politicians in Congress can do whatever they decide to pay lots of public money to do. Nancy Pelosi was right when she said federal power is unlimated, at least in so far as interpreting current law (but not in actually interpreting the Constitution itself). They can arbitrarily decide what your “personal responsibilities” are enforce them in any way that they wish.

Reagan and Gingrich talked social and fiscal conservatives into supporting the reforms. Smooth talking. The most corrupt and farthest left changes in American history and some people still think they're conservatives. But now, we have hindsight. We know who Gingrich is before he gets to the presidency.

Good in debates against Barack Obama? I think not when no one believes a single thing he says. This is one of the key members of the gang that created our biggest problems, not a guy who's going to solve them.
.

Overruled: Government Invasion of your Parental Rights

By Roger F. Gay

The 35 minute documentary below illustrates some of the problems parents are now having with government intrusion. I'm going to give this a big huge "I told you so" and ask if we can get on the same team to address this now.

I spent a lot of time through the 1990s studying the radical changes in family law that were taking place and then wrote for MensNewsDaily.com for several years explaining and commenting. Imagine your worst fears. No matter how unbelievable it may seem that it could be true in real life modern America, your fears probably represent the truth. It started with the "deadbeat dad" propaganda and Newt Gingrich / Bill Clinton era "welfare reform." Then the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (P.O.P.S. v Gardner, 1993) reclassified family law from civil law to social policy. That had profound effects.

Marriage and family was at that moment yanked from the private domain where it had always been and dropped into the public sector. The whole chain of events also moved marriage and family law from state jurisdiction to incorporate it into federal welfare law. Your marriage and your family are now legally classified as nothing more than parts of a federal program, arbitrarily politically controlled. This not only threatened the American family, it was a huge step on the downfall of Constitutional rule. If courts can avoid Constitutional protections simply by reclassifying law, then the Constitution is no longer actually in effect.

Back then, too many people thought it wasn't their problem, and of course the mainstream media was too busy pushing propaganda to explain what was happening. They kept saying it was only about divorced and never-married parents who weren't supporting their children. They lied.
They said they did it to save taxpayers money. They lied. They did it to steal public money. They said they did it to "enforce personal responsibility." At first, most people cheered. Now look at some of the aftereffects of granting government the power to arbitrarily define what your personal responsibilities are and to enforce their decisions.

This documentary is about the abuse of parental rights. Remember the Fathers' Rights Movement? Fathers are parents. Get it?

So, are we on the same team yet? It's an important question. This new entry into the discussion, while seeming to have a special, narrowly focused interest, doesn't have the whole story yet. Traditionally, groups representing married parents such as this want to distance themselves from divorced parents. But that leads them to avoid understanding the most important parts of the story and any reasonable approach to seriously addressing the problem. It also breaks those most interested in addressing the problem into smaller, less effective groups.

In fact, this issue effects everyone. It's about a radical change in the relationship between government and the people of the United States. It's about fundamental liberty and freedom from arbitrary government control. Take that next step please. Recognize the true breadth of the issue. The suggested Constitutional amendment (given below) should not be so limited and specialized in scope, nor should you fail to recognize reasonable exceptions. I think sections 2 and 3 are off to a good start. Section 1 is too narrow.

The Proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

SECTION 1

The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

SECTION 2

Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

SECTION 3

No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to
supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

parentalrights.org/
.

.

Veterans Day: Gratitude For the Oath Keepers

This Veterans Day I want to give special thanks to all those who have sacrificed so much, then and now, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. So help us God.

"Not On Our Watch"

Anyone who has been a part of our military, police, and firefighters-presently or in the past had to take an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. There are a group of those who go the extra mile to affirm their Oath and solidify what that means. The Oath Keepers.

 If you are a Veteran or are currently serving and are not a member of the Oath Keepers I want to encourage you to join them in their lifelong mission to be true to that Oath.

Their motto is "Not on our watch"

Even if you have not served, you can still join as a Citizen Associate Member.

Who are the Oath Keepers? Here is a link to see learn who they are. About Oath Keepers

What I find most impressive is their list of "Orders We Will Not Obey":

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects -- such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Here is a video from their website about the above list:



"We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops."
"Help us win it."
www.oathkeepers.org

Common Cause, Federalism and the Constitution.

by Brent Lawler

We as Americans all claim to love our Constitution. Whether your politics are on the right, left or somewhere in between. But what does it mean to love the Constitution? To different people, I suspect, it means different things. Especially since most people cannot agree on what the document actually says.

Since the beginning we have been jostling back and forth as to what the Constitution actually means. Of course, original intent is easily discernible by reading the notes from the Philadelphia Convention, State debates on ratification, and the "Federalist" and "Anti-Federalist" papers. Today, neither side completely or honestly represents the Constitutions true meaning since it doesn't fit either agenda in the aggregate. Consequently, this argument and the factions created to defend each side, has served over time to split our beliefs about liberty, and undermine our uniting principles. But, is there an underlying theme that exists within the Constitutions true intent that can bring us all together and once again unite us under common cause? Or have we lost the concept of liberty altogether, along with any semblance of a free society?

What does the Constitution actually constitute?


The impression that many Americans are under today is that the Constitution was drafted as some sort of "charter of rights." That it was the Constitution that gave us our rights as Americans, and as such was the purpose of the founders in drafting the document. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is important first to understand what the founders were trying to achieve with drafting a new Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation.

Under the Articles, we were a Union of States that seemed to be in crisis. There were many problems that needed to be dealt with if the Union were to be continued. Such as, The General Government did not have enough power or money to sufficiently defend the Union in the event of an attack. Also, the States were erecting trade barriers between each other in the form of tariffs. These problems were blamed on flaws in the Articles, and a lack of sufficient power in the General Government. So, after much toil, and effort by James Madison and the Federalists, (Nationalist's would have been a more suitable name as the Anti-Federalists, or republicans as they were known then, actually promoted federalism) a Convention was called in Philadelphia to "amend" the Articles and deal with such flaws.

Madison showed up to the convention with an entirely new plan-"the Virginia Plan," which was presented by way of Edmund Randolph. It contained the basis for the constitution, and began the long process of abandoning the Articles of Confederation altogether, and finally giving us the Constitution.

The purpose of the Constitution was to constitute a new and more powerful form of government. One that could bring an end to the issues that had arisen under the Articles of Confederation, have enough power to defend the Union from attack, and resolve trade barriers. But not enough to relinquish the sovereignty of the States. In other words, the Constitution was a plan of government, and how to limit that government. Nothing more, nothing less.

Confirmed: Democrat Party Behind Occupy

By Roger F. Gay

To the casual observer, support for the activities of Occupy from Democrats may have seemed like just another bizarre event in what has become an overwhelmingly bizarre political culture. From the highest, most powerful positions in government, we have heard unbelievable statements about the violent international street party movement. Barack Obama attempted to put a mainstream face on the events, saying it “expresses the frustrations the American people feel.”

Like the poop these “protesters” dropped on the American flag, there was an awful stench emanating from their refusal to acknowledge the obvious; that the great bulk of the nation's problems were created by political corruption. The Democrats wasted no time in reflection. There was no wait and see period. None questioned whether this was a train they wanted to board. Even with consideration of the Democrat's endless inability to play competent politics these days, it seemed unwise.

If you've been paying attention, the involvement of Big Labor in Occupy would have been a hint that the Democrat Party was in from the beginning. In the past, labor represented America and would not have jumped at the chance to become direct allies of any groups overtly billing themselves as anti-American. In the early 1970s for example, labor organizations marched against anti-American protesters, managing to maintain enough discipline to physically harm only a few. But the Democrats have used vast amounts of public money to buy support from the unions, and an anti-Tea Party movement, thus anti-American movement is where they wanted to go.

If you've been paying attention, the involvement of billionaire George Soros, who pumped foreign money into Bill Clinton's campaign (Al Gore's speciality), would have raised a flag. Soros is and has for decades been involved in some of the most devastating political corruption in history throughout the world and is one of the primary figures behind the global warming scam. Much of his wealth has been accumulated by illegally manipulating and controlling markets. Even the attempts at a global warming coup support those activities in spades. Weather / climate is used to predict a lot of financially important information, like crop yields for example. So if you have accurate data, and everyone else gets false data, you can make a bundle; whether or not Al Gore's dream of collecting taxes as a private citizen comes true.

If it still wasn't obvious, Fox News has dropped the bombshell. In ACORN Playing Behind Scenes Role in 'Occupy' Movement, Fox exposed the role of New York Communities for Change (one of ACORN's new names) in “organizing 'guerrilla' protest events and hiring door-to-door canvassers to collect money under the banner of various causes while spending it on protest-related activities.”

ACORN is well known at this point as a criminal organization with strong ties to the Democrat Party. Aside from the exposure of illegal use of public funds to support child prostitution for example, they were tied directly to illegal Democrat Party campaign activities. For example, after Obama and others refused public campaign financing to avoid legal spending limits, the Democrats rewarded ACORN for “community organizing activities” with public money for their involvement in Democratic Party campaign activities.

ACORN (no matter what names they're using now) is part of the Democrat Party machinery, illegally financed with public funds. Their role in Occupy confirms that the Democrat Party is not merely an observer making bizarre supportive comments. They are active partners at the very least.

A giant effigy of U.S. President Barack Obama is held up by people affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street movement during a march outside Zuccotti Park in New York November 5, 2011. REUTERS/Andrew Burton (UNITED STATES - Tags: CIVIL UNREST POLITICS BUSINESS)

Republican Party Can't Field a Viable Presidential Candidate

By Roger F. Gay

Three decades of unchecked corruption and RINO inbreeding has produced a genetically flawed organism that can only produce copies of its own flaws. It's pretty obvious when Barack Obama is in the White House and the party's choice “front-runner” isn't miles ahead of him in the polls. The last thing we should do is pronounce them too big or too important to fail and then try to give them a bailout with our votes.

There may be a time and a place for defensive voting; to cast a vote against what is perceived as the worst of the evils on offer rather than for someone you believe worthy to receive it. But our age is not the time. The United States is not the place.

There isn't much difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney except that Mitt Romney may be able to convince a few more people that he's not very much like Barack Obama. Should I throw my vote away? Certainly not! I know that voting for Mitt Romney would be throwing my vote away, rewarding and strengthening a system that gives me no choice. I don't want what the two parties are offering – not at all. “Throwing my vote away”? Voting the way they want me to is like a border guard giving a gun to a Mexican drug cartel. They're going to shoot you with it.

Let me make myself perfectly clear. I want neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney to be president. (And I'm not alone.) Rick Perry seems strange to me, however enthusiastic; more like a cheerleader than a president. Newt Gingrich – sheesh! I love it when he puts on weight. Then I can call him a big fat RINO and it doesn't matter how people take it.

Herman Cain is an outsider – he's got that going for him. That's likely why the Republican Party representatives in Big Media have announced that his campaign has “peaked.” We can forget about him then, or try to work out the mathematics of candidate quality in relation to how the media treats them. Could be that the better the candidate, the more the talking heads will try to drive him or her off the road. That would bring us to you-know-who, the media unmentionable, as the obvious best candidate.

This time around I'm not going to tolerate the usual lines from the party faithful. Is Mitt Romney the only candidate who can win the general election? I have very serious doubts that he can win. Herman Cain and Ron Paul have a much better chance. (Oops! Did I mention his name?)

OK – so you know those same folks are going to claim I'm crazy – on cool-aid, etc. The candidate with the RNC approved label has to be the one. Not! These are the guys who brought us the great bipartisan compromiser John McCain and put Barack Obama in the White House to begin with. Following Einstein's wisdom, we shouldn't be looking for solutions from the same minds that created the problem.

What to do? What to do? The nation is in trouble; moreso than ever before. Our Constitution has been pushed aside. The government operates lawlessly and deprives us of our rights and freedom. The nation's wealth is being hijacked. And we have been locked out of democracy as a way of steering things back on course by two parties whose main aims are to remain in power and abuse it. What to do? What to do?