Sunday, November 27, 2011

New Hampshire's Most Influential Newspaper Endorses Gingrich


Regardless of the inevitable spin that will come from the Romney campaign, this is quite the poke in the eye for Mitt. They even went out of their way to take a veiled shot at his "finger in the wind" tendencies.

I don't think this will spell victory in New Hampshire for Gingrich, but it may end up being a lot closer than it should be in a state that Mitt calls home.
This newspaper endorses Newt Gingrich in the New Hampshire Presidential Primary.

America is at a crucial crossroads. It is not going to be enough to merely replace Barack Obama next year. We are in critical need of the innovative, forward-looking strategy and positive leadership that Gingrich has shown he is capable of providing.

He did so with the Contract with America. He did it in bringing in the first Republican House in 40 years and by forging balanced budgets and even a surplus despite the political challenge of dealing with a Democratic President. A lot of candidates say they're going to improve Washington. Newt Gingrich has actually done that, and in this race he offers the best shot of doing it again.

(...)

Readers of the Union Leader and Sunday News know that we don't back candidates based on popularity polls or big-shot backers. We look for conservatives of courage and conviction who are independent-minded, grounded in their core beliefs about this nation and its people, and best equipped for the job.

We don't have to agree with them on every issue. We would rather back someone with whom we may sometimes disagree than one who tells us what he thinks we want to hear.

Newt Gingrich is by no means the perfect candidate. But Republican primary voters too often make the mistake of preferring an unattainable ideal to the best candidate who is actually running. In this incredibly important election, that candidate is Newt Gingrich. He has the experience, the leadership qualities and the vision to lead this country in these trying times. He is worthy of your support on January 10.
Read it all HERE

AN ENDORSEMENT

In this season of personal and media endorsement, often by well intentioned people and institutions with real or imagined influence, I have tried to consider what a similar endorsement by an average American might look like if it were to be headlined on the editorial page of a major newspaper.

An Endorsement by a Common Man

“ These are the times that try men’s souls.” Words of history written 235 years ago by Thomas Paine to rally an America that had lost its spirit and had become depressed by a series of defeats that threatened a national dream yet unseen by most. The Crisis Papers rallied Americans to a cause greater than themselves and sought to set aside those “ sunshine patriots “ who are found only when difficulties are absent and when their own personal benefit exceeds that of the nation.

Now, we are at another crisis point in our nation’s history. The last thirty years have seen a steady descent by America into a black pit of debt, despair, selfishness, self- interest, personal immorality, absent ethics and an increasing inability to dream great dreams and set great tasks that can be achieved. America has lost its way, led by a succession of elected representatives remarkable only in their similarity to one another and the absence of their achievements. These “ Pied Pipers” of mediocrity have led, and we have followed, to a point of national despair.

The crisis is at hand. This nation can not continue to elect leaders so enmeshed in the Washington Club and their own personal fortunes that there will be no visible difference, regardless of the outcome of the national election. Leaders must be able to lead Democrats and Republicans and Independents. We must be done with finger pointing and the great litmus tests of ideological purity. We need steel in Washington, not pure, unadulterated...tin.
How exactly have we come to this stage in our national existence ? As another great American wrote, “Let facts be submitted to a candid world.”

America has spent itself into a debt so immense it can never realistically be repaid absent financial leadership in Washington and personal sacrifice at home. We have been agents in our personal and national indebtedness, following the siren song of the money lenders enriching themselves in the present by draining the soundness of the future.

America has lost its ability to dream of great achievement and great accomplishment. We are reduced to a national focus on trite and pithy items by a national media focused on short term profit and obsessed with daily fleeting sensationalism.

America has allowed the dilution of its national values like religion, education, ethics and laws. It has allowed the high standards of its founders to be drowned in a pool of self pity where a concern for low achievers has replaced the esteem for high achievers, where the average C has now become the Gold standard , replacing yesterday’s A.

America has lost its ability to lead itself and has become dependent upon a kaleidoscope of international economic and political players from China to Europe to the Middle East whose national interests are decidedly different from our own and whose achievement often is at our expense

America has lost its image of global leadership. No one will follow one who is lost. The world is adrift in an average sea without a pilot, without a financial chart and without a moral compass. There are no bright mornings and brilliant sunsets......only a dull grey colorless patina of bland.

Americans increasingly disdain the effort to find great leaders and instead rely on an often biased media to choose one for us.

Americans have abrogated the challenge of selecting national leaders of high accomplishment, superior ethics, unchallenged personal morality, great intelligence and broad vision.

In this election, there is one candidate who stands apart from the dull patina of the last thirty years . We have an opportunity to select an exception to the rule of mediocrity. We can alter our destiny. We can plot a new course. We can elect......

A person of great intelligence and deep insight

A person of great personal morality

A person of strong personal and family values

A person of great achievement in the American environment, in private business as well as public government

A person with broad and deep experience in the American economy, not the veneer that is often the signature of a political career, who can fashion an economic plan that corrects the nation’s downward spiral and , equally important, can lead the Congress to pass such a plan without the infantile political acrimony of the past.

A person of profound and deep patriotism who can sing the national anthem while others pose for camera angles

A person far removed from the self- enrichment and personal focus that is Washington today and equally unassociated with the cloying and self- promoting cadre of sham national leadership

A person with real American values who can lead a world desperate for leadership, in a time of global political and economic chaos.

A person who does not apologize for America’s past, but challenges all of us to create a new American tomorrow.

We can elect a person to lead the world in the 21st century........not the 19th

We can elect Mitt Romney............and I thoughtfully and enthusiastically endorse him for the office of President of the United States


CraigS


Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Mitt Romney messages hit Iowa mail boxes

Mitt Romney is sending direct mail in Iowa this weekend as part of an expected effort to make an aggressive final push in the weeks before the Jan. 3 caucuses.
CLICK to enlarge
The mail is essentially two messages - electability, and anti-immigration. One side speaks to Romney's position on immigration, with words that the GOP primary electorate has been listening to (especially amid new focus on Newt Gingrich's non-demagogued position in the CNN debate last week, and with Rick Perry's self-inflicted wounds on the issue). Among them? Border fence, no "free rides," and so forth.

On the other side is a simple line about how in "30 minutes" Iowans can avoid four more years of President Obama, whose picture is on the mailer.
CLICK to enlarge
Another mailer deals with values and electability:
Mitt Romney’s first campaign advertisement in Iowa this election cycle – an oversized postcard – says he’s “the strongest Republican to beat Barack Obama and protect our values.”
[...]
Multiple versions of the Romney mailers, each with a different theme, are circulating in Iowa.
CLICK to enlarge
It's beginning to look as if Romney may be making a play for Iowa or is it more of keeping Gingrich from winning there? If Romney didn't make a play, my guess is that the bulk of the non-Paul votes may go to Gingrich and perhaps some to the others. With Romney in the mix, the non-Paul vote may be more thinned out. In my opinion, a Paul win there, would be the next best thing to a Romney win.

What do you think?

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer...WRONG!

H/T The RightScoop
People often say that "the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer." Economics professor Steve Horwitz explains why in the United States, this characterization is largely a myth.

Real income levels of the poorest 20 percent of Americans have actually risen over time. Further, the individual households that comprise the bottom income bracket do not stay the same. The majority of Americans in the poorest 20 percent become wealthier over the course of their lives.


Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

A look at Chicago Teacher Union leadership

It's no wonder that many large American school systems leave a lot to be desired.

The following video shows the President of the Chicago teachers union talking to her flock:



What's even more disgusting is the fact that Chicago teachers actually elected her to that position.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Romney's Immigration Policy

Somebody on Twitter the other day noted that the day Romney clinches the Republican nomination is the last day we hear him utter the words "illegal immigration." I concur. Sorry, but Romney is not a Tom Tancredo ghetto fighter. He is educated with a little dash of Northeast elite, where multiculturalism is a value. Not a vice. Is there anyone out there who really thinks that Romney senses the painful gravity of besiege that the Republican base feels when it sees the Martinez family moving in next door? I don't. In fact, I would submit to you that in the deep recesses of the Mitt Romney mind, illegal immigration is not even on the distant periphery of Mitt's doubts or concerns.

Yet, it is not often when Mitt can clearly get to the right of his opponents, so he fakes sincerity and swings for the fences. And by fences, I mean the tall mighty ones that will keep the illegals out.

Romney's immigration stance is currently nothing more than a slogan and an empty one at that.  Here you can see the logical two-step in action.

Conservative reporter Philip Klein asked Romney campaign spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom a natural follow-up question: Does Romney believe in kicking out illegal aliens who have been here a long time? Fehrnstrom refused to answer, and the exchange that followed is striking:
Fehrnstrom kept continuing to drive the “no amnesty” point home, and I tried to get more details.
I followed up again, asking what “no amnesty” would mean for the people already here.
“Well, first, you have to get turn off the magnets to get them to stop coming.”
Again, I asked about those already here.
“He would not grant them amnesty,” Fehrnstrom said.
“But what would he do with them?” I asked.
He reiterated, “He would not grant them amnesty.”
I asked again, “But what would he do?”
“I just told you, he’s not going to grant them amnesty,” he said.
Again, I said, “That’s not an answer, that’s telling me what he won’t do. What would he do?
“He would not grant them amnesty,” he repeated.
It's like a Laurel and Hardy skit. 

Nevertheless, I am not bummed. I have never voted for a politician with whom I completely agree and therefore I forgive Mitt for this. I will cast my vote for him knowing good and well that President Romney will either continue the status quo or offer, er, amnesty. He won't call it amnesty. He will probably name it Operation Secure Our Border. But he will sneak in the amnesty after "fighting" with the Democrats about it and finally remorsefully announcing to the Limbaugh crowd that he had to give in an inch but didn't want to. 

On every other issue, Romney stands heads and shoulders above the clowns running against him and yet the clowns keeping inching ahead of him in the polls. So in one sense, I want the immigration mongering to work. On the other hand, I long for the days of Ronald Reagan, when at least we spoke about immigrants like they weren't cattle to be prodded out of our lands.

And there is also a political calculation to all of this. Let's hope that Romney's short-sighted immigration bashing doesn't have devastating consequences when Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico vote in the general election. The good news is that Romney is running for President in 2012 and not 2020 or 2024 when demographics will not be kind to the Grand Old Party.

Get it in while you can, Mitt. The times, they are a-changing.

Gingrich: "I am not for amnesty for anyone."; Update: Video Added


Newt Gingrich addressed his opponents head on in front of a packed house in Naples, Florida last night. He is correct in stating that more than one of them agreed with his desire for a humane deportation policy in the September debate at the Reagan Library. It will be particularly difficult for Bachmann or Santorum to be critical once the voters are reminded of this. The full debate transcript is here.

I believe Newt is making a calculated play for the conservative Hispanic vote in Florida. We all know that Mitt Romney would not deport 11 million illegals. It will be interesting to see if he has the courage to admit to that. I have no doubt that he will be given the opportunity in the very near future.
...."I am not for amnesty for anyone. I am not for a path to citizenship for anybody who got here illegally," Gingrich told the crowd of roughly 750 people, many of whom were forced to stand in the hallway. "But I am for a path to legality for those people whose ties are so deeply into America that it would truly be tragic to try and rip their family apart."

The former House speaker, who is seen as one of the front-runners for the GOP nomination, has been taking some heat on his stance on immigration since Tuesday’s debate. After the debate some of his Republican rivals – Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney – have accused Gingrich of supporting amnesty, which the speaker said Friday night was misinformed.

"It speaks badly of any candidate who would deliberately repeat something which they know is not true," Gingrich told the packed crowd inside a Naples Hilton ballroom. Later, he added, "Ironically, in the Reagan Library debate I think most of them actually agreed with me," on my immigration policy.

Gingrich wants to model his immigration plan for illegals already in the country on the WWII model of the Selective Service System program, which allowed local communities to decide who would be drafted for war. He noted that the program "really tried to take general policy and give it a human face."

"I think the vast majority [of illegal immigrants] will go home and should go home and then should reapply. I do not think anybody should be eligible for citizenship," the former speaker said to loud applause in Southwest Florida with his wife, Callista, sitting in the front row of the audience. "I am suggesting a certification of legality with no right to vote and no right to become an American citizen unless they go home and apply through the regular procedures back home and get in line behind everybody else who has obeyed the law and stayed back there."....
Read the entire article HERE

Update: Video

Pull your pants up or get off the plane

Many of us will be traveling via airlines this holiday season. The thought of what to wear on a flight has never really been an issue for me other than wearing something comfortable. The problem is, what is comfortable is relative.

With terror groups doing there best to come up with ways to outsmart airport security methods, there is a possibility that airlines plan to put clarity as to what is proper attire. Some are considering instituting dress codes on flights:


From skirts too short, to pants too low, some passengers are learning the hard way that their wardrobe can keep them grounded.
Several high profile incidents have flyers rights groups calling on airlines to publish dress codes just as clearly as ticket fares and baggage restrictions.

People aren't mind readers,” says Kate Hanni, executive director of FlyersRights.org. “They don't know what that flight attendant's going to want to see when you get on a plane!"

She argues the lack of consistency leaves passengers exposed to the judgments of the flight crew, who may take offense at clothing that wouldn't be considered indecent off the plane, but which leads to an argument and sometimes ends with the passenger getting kicked off.
Such an incident happened in San Francisco this past June, when a college football player’s low hung pants- and his refusal to pull them up- caused his controversial removal from the plane.

Most airlines agree that the people running the flight need to know passengers will do what they’re told.
Read the full story HERE.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Newt Bad Idea #4,557

Bruce Bartlett has delightfully written a post entitled, "How Newt Gingrich Added $16 Trillion To The Deficit." It is so beautifully written because the entire post is an article Newt wrote to conservatives in 2003 when he was shilling for Medicare Part D. Bartlett only points out that "according to the latest Medicare trustees report (p. 146), the unfunded liability of Medicare Part D is $16.1 trillion." You may recall that it was recently reported that Newt's think tank was paid more than $30 million in political money by health care companies for him to use his mighty transformational influence to push Medicare Part D. Bartlett's opposition to the program was one of the reasons why he was excommunicated from the conservative movement a few years later.

Anyway, I bring you a snippet here. It is both breathtaking and surreal. For liberals, it is comedy gold. For the ABRs, it is annoying. For the Romney folks, it is a test in real time to see if one man's support of a bill that wrecked the federal budget is worse than another man's support for health care reform that cost 1% of his state's budget.

Oh, and of course, Newt's letter to conservatives was printed in the Wall Street Journal. It does not get any better than this, my friends. And I have taken the liberty to put in bold my favorite line. You will also notice that Newt employs the same pseudo intellectual language that he always uses in an effort to make his assertions sound factual. Unfortunately for the the history professor, his rhetoric has been revealed by the cold-hearted reality of history.

Enjoy.


Conservatives Should Vote "Yes" on Medicare
November 20, 2003
Every conservative member of Congress should vote for this Medicare bill. It is the most important reorganization of our nation's healthcare system since the original Medicare Bill of 1965 and the largest and most positive change in direction for the health system in 60 years for people over 65.
In a bold and unexpected move, the new Medicare bill includes a decisive shift to health savings accounts, which will allow every American to accumulate tax-free health dollars. HSAs allow account-owners to build savings and earn tax-free interest on their HSA contributions. HSA account owners can use their savings for tax-free spending on qualified health expenses, including health insurance premiums and deductibles, prescription drugs, and long-term care services including long-term care insurance.
If you are a fiscal conservative who cares about balancing the federal budget, there may be no more important vote in your career than one in support of this bill. Since health expenditures comprise almost 14 percent of the U.S. GDP, a shifting away from the failed bureaucratic third-party payer model and back to a market-mediated binary payer model, where the customer controls his own first health dollars, is the single most significant reform that can be made in saving the country from skyrocketing health costs and steadily increasing calls for taxpayers to finance more and more of the healthcare system through higher taxes.
...

Care Packages for our Troops

I had always assumed that our troops in harms way had the basic necessities and other supplies needed to keep them safe and to do their missions effectively supplied to them by the government. Boy was I wrong:



Here is the link to the Troops Direct site. I checked it out and read the information on the site including the FAQ.

I know we're approaching the holiday season and for many, money is tight. But if you're looking for a good cause to make a charitable contribution, check out Troops Direct.

My check is on the way.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Friday, November 25, 2011

Gingrich and his New Ideas

With all the focus on Newt Gingrich regarding immigration, it is well to consider how the Dems would address the myriad of opportunities Newt has provided over the years including the latest, just about a week ago. Newt said :

" Child labor laws are just stupid, saying to people you shouldn't go to work before you're 14, 15, 16. You're totally poor, you're in a school that's failing with a teacher that's failing. I tried for years to have a very simple model. These schools should get rid of unionized janitors, have one master janitor, pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work. They'd have cash; they'd have pride in the schools. They'd begin the process of rising ."

This is an example of Newt's brilliant mind, thinking out of the envelope.

And here's the Democratic response, in part, in an open letter to voters :

" Dear Newt,
Our country outlawed child labor. Almost a hundred years later, in the middle of the worst unemployment crisis in decades, you want to bring it back ? Seriously ?
Doing janitorial work in schools entails cleaning toilets, handling hazardous chemicals and scrubbing floors. Hunched over a mop for hours . It's hard to imagine a nine year old doing any of these tasks. Come On.
The U.S outlawed child labor because it denied children the chance at a real education and allowed employers to exploit children.....and because children were often injured and killed on the job.
And the people you want to fire and replace with kids ? A lot of them are parents. That job puts a roof over kids heads, food on the table and provides them with healthcare and the chance to get an education. That job is the only thing between a kid and poverty.
Firing someone's Mom and hiring the kid for less money ......isn't the process of rising.
.................."

Newt's idea may sound attractive to many who are nostalgic for a hundred year old past unencumbered with an overwhelming government presence in our lives when Republicans were Republicans and RINO's hadn't been invented yet. But which side of this issue would you like our 2012 candidate to be on ? How about explaining the benefits of child labor in a debate with Barack Obama ?
Newt is on that cusp between genius and lunacy.
This is an example of lunacy

CraigS


Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Bachmann Is A Hypocrite On Deportation Of Illegals (Video Evidence)

Michele Bachmann has spent the past few days blasting Newt Gingrich for stating that we need to take a humane approach to the deportation of illegals. The following clip is from the debate at the Reagan Library on September 7th.

HARRIS: A quick 30-second rebuttal on the specific question. The fence is built, the border is under control. What do you do with 11.5 million people who are here without documents and with U.S.- born children?

BACHMANN: Well, that’s right. And again, it is sequential, and it depends upon where they live, how long they have been here, if they have a criminal record. All of those things have to be taken into place.
Sound familiar?

H/T Towhall.com

Cross-posted at Redstate

The Rush Limbaugh Formula

The future of conservatism depends on brave conservatives calling out Rush Limbaugh and the rest of talk radio. Here at Right Speak, there has been a strategic opening for people like me to blast talk radio. Many of you support Mitt Romney and are quite ready to make a clean break from these bozos on talk radio. So having said that, please watch the following video in order to understand the Rush Limbaugh formula.

The issue is Jimmy Fallon's use of the song "Lying Ass Bitch" when Michelle Bachmann came on his show. This is prime territory for Rush. It's not complicated public policy, so his audience may follow along. And the subject is flashy, something you might see on AOL news.

First, let me say that Rush had every right to blast Fallon. I agree with him there. What I don't agree with is Rush proceeding to call Hillary Clinton a "lying ass bitch." In this video, you will see the following formula.

1. Rush blasts the "liberal" media/establishment.
2. Rush commits the same offense that he is calling them out on.
3. Rush warns his audience that the media is going to attack him for it.
4. Rush then plays hypothetical games so he can later claim that number 2 was not really his statement or that he was just repeating what the "liberal" media said.

The above formula is designed to maximize Rush's audience. Limbaugh doesn't use his show to advance conservative principles and policy choices. Instead, he uses his show to create controversy with the hopes that the media will attack him, so that he can keep his audience engaged. As ignorant as Rush is, he is a very savvy businessman. He knows how to manipulate his audience so that he can sign multimillion dollar contracts.

(Caution: I apologize for the gaudy Rush Limbaugh slide show in the video. This came from Rush's website, so naturally it is going to feature the fat slob himself.)



Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Mitt Romney: Not flashy, but a fearless, focused, and determined family man

The following op-ed was written by Nick Tzitzon a former driver of Mitt Romney during his 2002 campaign for Governor of Massachusetts. It gives a peek into the Mitt Romney from behind the scenes. I LIKE what it tells me:
What did I learn about the real Mitt Romney?

First, he is a voracious back-seat driver. He hated getting stuck in traffic and would routinely inquire about why I had taken one route over another. If I couldn’t give him a good rationale, he would step up his involvement. “Gosh, we’re going to get stuck at that awful rotary. Take a right in two miles and we’ll go around it.’’

Translation: Romney likes to focus on the immediate challenge and pays attention to every detail surrounding it. If someone couldn’t demonstrate a grasp of the problem, he got personally involved in finding the solution. It has been overlooked in this campaign, but Romney’s turnaround of the Salt Lake City Olympics was the result of this instinctive behavior. The guy loves challenges and devours details.

Second, Romney isn’t afraid to make an end-run around obstructionists. The driver’s seat provided a convenient place to monitor high-level campaign strategy and policy development. On one occasion, Romney was advised by campaign officials to give a “generic campaign stump speech’’ to a professional trade conference. “Don’t you think I should share some insights with these folks relating to their specific areas of interest?’’ Romney asked repeatedly and with increasing frustration. Finally, after being told to avoid specific issues, Romney hung up the phone and began researching specific issues on his own so that he could be responsive to the crowd.

Translation: Romney knows his own mind and acts on his own instincts. Campaign advisers or business associates can present their views, but Romney usually has a confident idea of what he thinks is best and isn’t afraid to ignore the conventional wisdom.

Third, Romney loves his wife and his family. I can’t even count the number of occasions that I observed Romney interrupt his campaign activity to speak with Ann or one of his five sons. What’s more, the conversations were never transactional or “check the box.’’ This guy knew about everything about the lives of his family. If he’s guilty of anything, it was getting too involved.

Translation: Romney will do anything for his family — including thankless campaigns for public office. Anyone who believes that his political ambition is about anything other than building a better country for his grandkids simply does not know the man.
Be sure to read the rest of the article HERE

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

SurveyUSA Poll: Romney beats Obama by 9 in Kansas, Obama beats Gingrich by 5

Head-To-Head:

Mitt Romney 48% (+9)
Barack Obama 39% 

Barack Obama 45%
Newt Gingrich 40% (-5)
A survey of 510 registered voters was conducted November 18-21, 2011. The MOE is +/-4.4%.
The results can be viewed HERE.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.