The American Spectator : To Save America

Text Size

To Save America

By Peter Ferrara on 6.30.10 @ 6:08AM

"Either we will save our country or we will lose it," Newt Gingrich writes in a book he didn't expect to write.

Newt Gingrich begins his new book, To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine, rightly describing the grave, mortal threat America faces today due to the left-wing extremism of the Democrats and the vast failures of the Republicans. He writes:

This is a book I never expected to write. After the victory of freedom over Communist tyranny, of religious liberty over secular police states, and of American pride over the malaise and cynicism of the 1970s, I fully expected America to follow an upward curve of consistent improvement.

I did not expect the Left to ignore the lessons of history and move further into ideological extremism. I did not expect them to react to their meager popular support by seeking to impose a corrupt, Chicago-style political machine on the entire country. After leaving Congress in 1999, I certainly did not foresee Republican failure so vast that it allowed left-wing radicals to take over the House, Senate and Presidency.

America as we know it is now facing a mortal threat. This danger to America is greater than anything I dreamed possible after we won the Cold War and the Soviet Union disappeared in December 1991. We stand at a crossroads: either we will save our country or we will lose it.

Indeed, as I noted last week, Gingrich recognizes that America today faces a challenge equally as grave as the Civil War: "whether the United States as we know it will cease to exist." The present danger is as great a threat, he rightly says, as posed by Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. He writes, "I'm talking about losing what defines us as Americans…. America is facing an existential threat." (Emphasis added.) America today is once again fighting President Kennedy's "twilight struggle," which we thought we had won, but this time, suddenly and even more ominously, the struggle is internal.

The Secular-Socialist Machine

That threat is posed today by what Gingrich defines as the "secular-socialist machine." The Obama-Pelosi-Reid political machine is secular because it "does not acknowledge God. It does not consider the implications of one's actions beyond the impact they make within one's own life. It does not recognize any higher moral order beyond that which human beings have rationally developed." Such a "purely secular worldview," he writes, cannot "account for the original American understanding of our rights and freedoms," an endowment from our creator of certain unalienable rights.

For those who start thinking "theocracy" any time God is referenced, grab a Corona. Gingrich explains that America's founders avoided "the fraternal twin oppressions of a militantly secular government or a state-sponsored and imposed religion." What they created was a new American model, "a country with no official national religion where everyone could worship as they pleased. But they were also careful not to shut out religion from public life. The Founders saw religion as vital to the survival of republican government because they believed the maintenance of liberty requires virtue." In other words, America is the exact opposite of Iran. Too many of the easily deluded and manipulated need to be reminded of that every morning when they wake up, until they get it.

Gingrich further explains the connection between religion, religious freedom, and our freedoms more generally:

Chasing religion from the public square inevitably lowers public morality. That's because a belief in God limits our tendencies toward hedonism, exploiting others, and abusing power. If you are subordinate to God then by definition you are subordinate to rules that transcend your own ego and your own personal appetites…. A religious worldview inherently limits the purview of government. Even the concept of sin limits government by suggesting that external constraints of right and wrong should guide us no matter what the state says. In short, our core religious values hinder the secular socialists from realizing a government-dominated, politician-defined world of limited citizenship and unlimited bureaucracy. Thus the culture of secularism has to replace the culture of religion if socialism is to survive.

Gingrich continues, "Describing the Left as socialist will be controversial because the Left hate accurate language about their goals. But any fair assessment of the Obama-Reid-Pelosi economic policies shows they are indisputably socialist." Gingrich clearly and accurately defines socialist policies, writing:

Broadly defined, socialist policies favor increased central planning of the economy by politicians and bureaucrats instead of allowing entrepreneurs, businesses, and customers to make decisions in the free market. Socialists also favor government attempts to collectivize the means of production and to divvy up the national wealth. Socialists favor these methods because they insist on equality of results, rather than the traditional American belief in equality under the law. Therefore, they champion a strong, central government to impose equality of outcomes.

Exactly these policies have been embodied in the stimulus, the health care takeover, cap and trade, the sweeping Obama tax increases next year, the Obama budget that has already increased federal welfare spending by one third in the first two years alone, Obama's green jobs scam, and every other jot and tittle of Obamanomics.

As Gingrich warns, "If the Left stay in power, they will transform America into a radically different nation -- a union-dominated, bureaucratically-controlled, high-tax, low-growth country." Indeed, the Left will deprive America of the traditional, world leading, economic prosperity the American people have enjoyed since early in the 18th century. Gone will be the American Dream that has drawn the enterprising to these shores from the world over for 400 years now.

In fact, that tide of huddled masses yearning to breath free has already been reversed by the utter failure of socialist Obamanomics. Not only illegal aliens have begun to return home, lacking the lure of good paying jobs that originally brought them here. Not only has capital flight from these formerly hopeful shores already begun, already limiting our prosperity. Even born and bred, enterprising Americans have already begun to trickle out in search of the opportunity that has previously been the hallmark of America. That is the change we can't believe in that Obama and his socialists have wrought.

Page: 1 2 3 >

About the Author

Peter Ferrara is Senior Fellow at the Carleson Center for Public Policy, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, and General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is the author of America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, now available from HarperCollins.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (114) | Leave a comment

Majito Querido| 6.30.10 @ 6:58AM

Unfortunately for the US, the vast array of citizens either do not believe the nation is at risk, they're neutered in their thought believing there is nothing they can do or simply apathetic thinking they don't have time to think about these issues.
This is the saddest truth...not enough that care enough and are willing to roll up the sleeves and begin to do something about it...
I don't put my hopes in the Nov '10 elections...the same saps that went for the african charmer will again do the same...no matter how much it is said...republicans will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...in prior times, when you saw your nation going by the way of the dodo bird, people actually went to the streets, march up to the governmental palace and took its residents out...now everybody is witnessing this and all think let's wait until november...by then it'll be too late...potus will have the power to switch off the internet and then what?

Alan Brooks| 6.30.10 @ 8:53PM

His mixture of conservatism and Toffler-influenced "futurism" is crazy-quilt. Perhaps not schizo, but extremely double-minded.

Like when Larry Flynt teamed up with Jimmuh's mother-- incongruous.

Alan Brooks| 6.30.10 @ 8:56PM

... or was it Jimmuh's sister? no matter... just a zit on the Lord's posterior.

Deborah D| 6.30.10 @ 7:01AM

All I've gotta say is -- let's get this party started. Get rid of these anti-American whackos who are killing our country as many Americans bury their heads in the sand.

Pat Spooner| 6.30.10 @ 12:38PM

Get rid of them. we need true conservatives who know and understand that thsi crazyiness cannot go on. We cannot survive as a country if more than 50% of the county is sucking off the less than 50% who are working real productive jobs. What incentive is there for me, working 24/7 as a consultant to the private sector on environmental projects, to keep doing that when the gum'mint sucks off more than 50% of what I receive in revenue.

Alan Brooks| 6.30.10 @ 10:34PM

When Joe Blow conservative tries to mix an oil & water mixture (witch's brew is more like it) of conservatism and futurism, he just doesn't know. But a genius such as Gingrich? Conservatives know you can't always have it both ways. You can't sell meth and be a nark. You can't run a cathouse and be a man of the cloth. Sometimes you have to choose. Newt has to choose between conservatism and futurism.

Do you ever think doctorate degrees are affected by grade inflation?

Margie| 6.30.10 @ 5:30PM

Deborah D.,

I'm with you. We need to get rolling!

blotto| 7.1.10 @ 5:10PM

What are you willing to do for our nation? How far will you go to get rid of the left? Elections do not matter to them; either by fraud they will win; or if they lose they will never tolerate losing their power.

So I ask: What are you willing to do? Talking is cheap and non-commital. Are you willing to get dirty and bloody?

There are only two ways to get rid of the left.

Stephanie| 6.30.10 @ 7:05AM

I can't wait to get my hands on this book.
We need Newt for President.

Tony Blake| 6.30.10 @ 8:37AM

Which Newt for President? " This Newt" who wrote "this book" as a way to cash-in on a changing political climate, or the Newt of a few years ago who pushed for a form of "cap and tax", "comprehensive immigration reform" and had a "listening tour" road show with Hillary?

Anthony| 6.30.10 @ 9:06AM

Well said Tony. Brother Newt has shifted gears once again, back to the Right this time.
Yes, which Newt are we talking about; is it Cap & Trade Newt, is it Global Warming, Go Green Newt? Curious minds want to know.

Nick| 6.30.10 @ 10:15AM

Anthony,

It is probably Help Create a New & Bigger Bureaucracy, Like the DHS, Then Decry Big Government Bureaucracies Newt.

Stephanie| 6.30.10 @ 11:57AM

To all of you who just excoriated my statement of wishing Mr. Gingrich to run for President,
who would you like to see run? Does the RNC have anyone in the wings or are we going to wait until the last minute and pull out some tired old guy and hope for the best. Really, some suggestions please.

Nick| 6.30.10 @ 12:33PM

Stephanie,

Newt isn't a "tired old guy?"

Newt is not an executive, he is an idea guy.
Haley Barbour or Rick Perry would be better than Newt.

Not that they're anything to rave about, either. But, they do have executive experience.

Margie| 6.30.10 @ 5:28PM

Well I'd take Newt, Nick IF he were to become the nominee, but Haley Barbour~ I love that guy! I remember back when I used to watch c-span alot around the time of the contract for America days and I first "discovered" him when they televised the Governor's meetings. He's fabulous in my book. He's one of the good guys and whenever he comes on the radio he's one of those people that I will stop everything and listen because I like hearing what he has to say.

I know nothing about Rick Perry but I'm gonna do my research. Any of these guys will do just fine as far as I'm concerned when it comes down to it. ANY of them are far better than the Communists!

R Martin| 6.30.10 @ 1:06PM

Stephanie, excoriated is a bit strong. We simply disagree with you that Newt is the guy, and many posters here have put meat on that skeleton. You are correct, though, in wondering about alternatives. Unfortunately we always seem to have inadequate info about political candidates, forcing us to make decisions based on appearances and image. Exhibit 1--Barack Obama. Remember when Arnold Schwarzenegger was first elected Governor? Some people wanted to change the Constitution so he could run for president. How wrong would that have been? Scott Brown is simply the latest shooting star.

In short, I don't know who it should be, but I hope I'll recognize him/her at the time. For now, I think Paul Ryan has great appeal. Ken likes Rick Perry but, to me, there is a poliltician's smoothness about him which suggests caution.

In any case, Stephanie, rather than excoriate you I applaud you for being interested and involved.

Tony Blake| 6.30.10 @ 1:45PM

Mitch Daniels for President, Paul Ryan for Vice President.

Deborah D| 6.30.10 @ 6:42PM

Oooh, I like that ticket!!

scotchieguy| 7.1.10 @ 11:46AM

Mike Pence is no. one on my list. Paul Ryan might be a bit inexperienced, but he is an expert on the budget. He might make a good VP. John Kasich. Pawlenty, from my state, is too much of a weenie...plus he raised cigaretted taxes and called it a "fee." Geeeez. I like Haley Barber. I like Bill Bennett, but I doubt he would run.

All I know is if we nominate some over the hill mushy moderate like Dole or McCain, we might as well throw in the towel. We need a serious, tough conservative this time--someone who will absolutely expose O for the fraud he is. This is our last chance.

blotto| 7.1.10 @ 5:34PM

How about Gov. Christie from NJ? Pence is a great person. And Michelle Bachmann from MN as VP? Kasich would be great at the Treasury or the economy guru but he could bring OH and the mid-west on the ticket.

Brian Mc| 6.30.10 @ 7:10AM

First, we must restore Federalism. The popular elections of our Senators was a huge mistake and we are reaping the whirlwind that is spiralling ever faster with each passing election cycle.

Second, and not to be ignored, and what Majito touched on above, ignorance in a democracy is death; we have a republic that is worth saving but it won't be, just so long as the ignorant are allowed the vote. Mob rule is not sustainable. Pay no income tax: no vote for you.

blotto| 7.1.10 @ 5:41PM

And we need someone who will demand a line-item veto and erase HUD, EPA, Education, HHS, DOJ (EEOC), medicaid, Commerce, IRS, Labor, Transportation, etc. http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Fe.....es/D.shtml

I like the idea of no voting rights for non-tax paying citizens.

Brian Mc| 6.30.10 @ 7:17AM

Mostly; would the editors please expel six-square's posts...Mr. Cube, whatever it goes by, they are not adding but distracting from this site.

If it wants to live in a box, let it perform that function somewhere else.

Ret. Marine| 6.30.10 @ 7:43AM

The common thread for all American's must be that of "freedoms" as guarenteed by the founders original intent. First and foremost is "that the States shall guarentee a Republic form of governance", until this is re-established all else is lost. The dumb will still be dumb, the poor will still be with us but those who chose to open their eyes to the lies of this regime will no longer be comfortable with the hand-outs, which will be slim in provisions unless you are one of the few who are reconized by this regime, think victim class.
One thing is certain, if they continue to treat us all with the mushroom methode, ( keep us in the dark, and feed us nothing but a sheet diet) there will be sufficient enough anger coming from more than a few Patriots to enforce the idea that something must be done and will be done before they are allowed to entirely ruin this Nation, it's principles, history, and moral standing. It is better to be shot with one bullet rather than to die from a thousand cuts bleeding to death.
This regime is placing every single American's life in extreme danger ( be it figuritively or financially) and laughting at us at the same time. We must rid ourselves of all of the anti-American plauge riders in this storm. We will have nothing else to hang onto if we don't. Let them put their hummingbird arses where their alligator mouths have been for the past eighty + years. What is going to happen in the first quarter of 2011 will hopefully be a wake up call to anyone who is listening and seeing what the outcome was designed for, how it was implemented and the who stands to benefit the most. The American people, those of us who cling to our Bibles and guns who pay for these entitlement programs are the intended targets here, as are the jews and tax payers. If you don't already see this unmistakeable daily birage already you truely are blind. A muslim will protect another muslim as the expense of any and all comers, it is required of them. We must remember to mute this muslim dog seeking refuge in our house. Get this party started already.

Tim| 6.30.10 @ 8:05AM

Most folks don't even have a clue just how big the recent Supreme Court decision on the 2nd amendment really was for victory over the commie/socialist world wide agenda.

They tried to kick out God from the public square and then they tried to disarm a sleeping public.

Well even with the Press in their hip pocket and god on the sidelines even the progressives can't stop a speeding bullet!

autoacct628| 6.30.10 @ 8:52AM

Yes, they can. By catching it with their heads.....

scotchieguy| 7.1.10 @ 11:51AM

That decision was 5-4...one more lib on the Ct and it would have been decided against us. That's the real danger w/ O---if he gets to pick one more justice, we are gonna be screwed.

Melvin| 6.30.10 @ 8:13AM

Every one of you who have posted above is correct in your opinions.
First Nov 10 will change nothing, not because Americans are disenchanted with Obama and the Democrats, it is all to do with the Republicans who have offered nothing other than being not Democrats.
Secondly Americans will be at a crossroad. Either to concede defeat and go the way of the Socialists Communists or Americans will enter into armed conflict.
Do I advocate violence? Absolutely not, but the status quo cannot remain and it will change with choices that each and every one of us must decide for ourselves, because it will be the last and only decision that we will have left as free men.

bill carson| 6.30.10 @ 1:01PM

What's wrong with violence against Democrats who want to destroy our society?

Melvin| 6.30.10 @ 1:25PM

Kind of don't want the FBI showing up on my front door, or at least not yet.

blotto| 7.1.10 @ 5:45PM

Fianlly someone besides myself has said what really needs to be said: What are we willing to do for our nation? And how far will we go to take back our nation? Elections will not matter to the left and O.

Will there be a second American Revolution?

Steve G| 6.30.10 @ 8:30AM

All right, I will speak the unspeakable...it's going to take a lot of hate in order to fuel the requisite push back. And we've been trained since infancy that hate is badddddddd.

That silly kindergarden teacher next door is trying to destroy you...yeah, but she's a decent person. She may well be a decent neighbor, but she has you and this country in her brain-addled, leftist sights. You better start hating.

Frankly, I don't see the hate. And the Left is counting on not seeing it. For them, overturning the country is no big deal....and the same is true of most Americans.

God help us.

crookedwren| 6.30.10 @ 12:00PM

Communism -- in ALL its myriad, hydra-headed incarnations -- is evil.

(I won't go into why -- If you want to know why, I'd suggest Whittaker Chambers' inside look at it in his book "Witness".)

Hate the sin -- not the sinner.

Chambers recognized that the world was headed for the great "battle" of ideologies. Our Republic and true liberty cannot survive the infection from Marxist/Mao-ist infiltration.

He also recognized that the woeful ignorance of the non-Communist makes him or her the tool of the Communist -- unless the non-Communist is ACTIVELY alert and ACTIVELY identifying and naming the lying face of the Revolutionary and blocking the inroads of the Revolutionary's ideology into our government, our educational system and our media/journalism.

Essential to Chambers turn away from Communism was his encounter with God. So Newt, fallible as he is, has identified for us one of the most significant attacks on the Republic -- through the secularization of our schools, our media, even -- in a surreal way -- our churches.

Chambers asserted that Conservatism alone would never be enough to defeat Communism. That's a sobering thought, but it would explain to some degree the failure of the GOP to stop the infection that has entered the body of our Republic from the gross poison of Communism.

Chambers rightly states that the modern world is divided into two camps: the Revolutionary or the Counter-Revolutionary. If you are not actively countering the Revolutionary, then you, too, are serving as a Revolutionary.

We need to serve the Republic with the same passion and devotion that the Communist serves. That's a daunting thought.

Margie| 6.30.10 @ 4:21PM

Wow, crookedwren, that was great! I know that may not matter coming from me and you may not even want to have me post to you but I'm in full agreement with your words.

I truly think that for example if we don't back the Republican party~ and seek to restore it~with conservatives~ that we have no chance of winning against the Revolutionary/Communist/Democrat party. I view placing my vote AGAINST this Revolutionary/Communist/Democrat party as my God entrusted duty. Anything short of this is in fact "handing the election over to Obama" again!

Tim| 6.30.10 @ 9:18AM

Lats time I checked it took a small band of "Armed" farmers to throw out the British and form our own country.

All you need to reclaim the country is a few good and committed men and women who are fearless and are willing to do anything and stop at nothing to restore our democracy and American way of life !

There! That should scare the living piss out of the far Left loones.

RCV| 6.30.10 @ 4:09PM

Since I've come to know that you consider anyone who isn't a right-wing survivalist to be a "far left loonie", let me say as one of them that it doesn't even send a whisper of concern to me. Our country has always been beset with small groups of anarchists intent on destroying civilized society. President Washington had to deal with the Whiskey Rebellion, John Hancock with Shay's Rebeliion, Lincoln with the slave-holding thugs of the Confederacy, right up to the Klan, the Timothy McVeighs and Aryan Nations, and the right wing militias.
The Republic will endure. Our fine men and women who serve us in the Police, and in our Armed Services, who love this country and who will give their lives to preserve our free Constitutional Republic will take care of any threats, whether from "Armed Farmers" or Steve G, who seems to think that the Kindergarten teacher next door is the face of evil.
The rational people of America will go on living the fortunate privileged life we enjoy despite all of you.

Wayen| 6.30.10 @ 7:49PM

RCV, I like to think of myself as pretty rational as well but I think you may wish to consider the non-right wing survivalist words of none other than Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

RCV| 6.30.10 @ 8:19PM

I love Jefferson. He had a great flair for words, and that's one of his best. But I don't think he'd include popularly elected Presidents under Madison's Constitution to be "tyrants" deserving of extra-judicial violence. I could be wrong - he did flirt with the Jacobins in France - but I think in his better moments he'd probably prefer the ballot box to the guillotine.

Steve G| 7.1.10 @ 11:54AM

Exactly. And if you're a productive citizen who objects to being plundered by the Left - why you're just an anarchist bent on destroying civilized society and RCV will make certain the Police crack your skull. And if that fails, RCV will bring in the Armed Services to make damn sure you toe the line.

The parasitic Left fully intends to go on living the fortunate, privileged life they enjoy at your expense and if that means a Police state...no problem, as long as they're in charge.

Glad to be of assistance in interpreting your doublespeak, RCV.

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 10:41PM

No, I believe in a diverse, robust open democratic republic, Steve. You have every right to object to any policies you want. You have every right to support and promote policies and candidates you want. And, in a democracy like ours, sometimes the majority doesn't agree with your view of the world and the candidates you oppose lose, like happened in 2008 when the majority of Americans elected Barack Obama as President and gave majority control of both house of Congress to the Democrats. You lost, Steve. If you don't like it, suck it up and work to elect your candidates next time. Lord knows, we Democrats had to live through 8 years of Bush-Cheney transforming this country from a peaceful, prosperous nation to the mess he left us with in February 2009. Stop whining and grow up.

blotto| 7.1.10 @ 5:59PM

Your left and my right cannot co-exist. And there are two ways this will work out: Seccession or a second American Revolution. Either way works for me. How about you?

If seccession takes place, you (and I imagine you are an effete, gay person of privilege, oh and white) will lose your position of status to a person of color or to the Islamic sword. Minorities will soon control your states or Islam will insinuate itself into the weakness that is the cowardly left. So don't come running to us for help.

If there is a second revolution you will find yourself on a boat hoping Cuba or Zimbabwe will accept you. Either way, you will no longer be an American.

So your smug and condescending attitude will only serve you for a short while longer.

RCV| 7.1.10 @ 10:49PM

No, neither will happen. The Republic will endure. We've settled the secession issue, at great cost of lives, and it won't happen again. If it did, the results would be the same. Nor will there be a violent revolution in this country. The overwhelming majority of Americans know that is what the ballot box is for. If you don't like our system, Blotto, head somewhere else.

R Martin| 6.30.10 @ 9:22AM

Gingrich has a first class mind, and he is an impressive strategic thinker. However, his leadership skills are weak and, as a politician, his record is spotty, leaning toward failure. His infamous $4.5 million book deal upon becoming Speaker was a thinly disguised get rich quick scheme, the 104th Congress, which he headed, passed no tax reform, no expenditure reform, no welfare reform and no tort reform and the government shutdown in 1995 was an unmitigated disaster for Republicans. In 1997 conservative Republicans failed in a coup to remove Gingrich as Speaker but the die was cast, and Gingrich resigned from Congress after the 1998 election, knowing he could not be reelected as Speaker. There is good reason to question Gingrich's conservative credentials, even Lindsey Graham has, for heaven sake. Consider his support of Dede Scozzafava in the Congressional election in NY 23.

Melvin is correct about the leadership issue. I don't think Gingrich measures-up, and many of the popular alternatives (Palin, Huckabee, Romney et al) are even weaker. Effective leadership requires a mix of qualities including management ability and likeability, and I'm not sure conservatives have yet identified that standard bearer.

John Navratil| 6.30.10 @ 10:15AM

Is Newt beyond redemption? I'm not apologizing for him and would love to see the next Reagan appear, but we cannot let perfection be the enemy of the good.

I'd rather vote for Newt than McCain. That's another way of saying we have to run the best we've got. I'm not saying Newt is it, but he is on the short list. The world has changed and Newt has too.

Doctor Right| 6.30.10 @ 10:27AM

Newt:

Which chapter of your new book recommends making TV advertisements with Nancy Pelosi on the phony-issue of global warming as being a really good way to "Renew America"..??

Is it the same chapter that recommends supporting a pseudo-socialist stooge for Congress in upstate New York simply because she has a G.O.P. membership card..??

And I haven't seen you at any Tea Party rallies, either in the last year. What's the matter? Afraid of being portrayed as an "extremist" by the mainstream media??

You have the right ideas, Newt. You always have. But your ego is huge...And your judgment sucks.

Sorry...But unless the choice in '12 comes down to you or Obama, don't count on my support.

John II| 6.30.10 @ 11:14PM

Yo Doc. I herewith bury the hatchet. I could not conceivably agree with you more.

It IS odd, though, when you think of it. There's something just downright WEIRD about Gingrich. Do you think it's merely the old business of the dampened finger in the wind? Perhaps all we can expect from Newt is a reliable weather-vane. Which means, at best, that his book indicates that things ARE due to change for the better, for a while.

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.30.10 @ 10:40AM

Folks,
Even as I write, the gears are grinding to a halt all across our country. It will be fascinating to hear your observations in your various locales/dealings.

Mr. Ferrara,
Once again thank you.
I for one appreciate Newt's thought as much as anyone's in America. The guy is an accomplished historian, as well as a leader in expressing the problems, and articulating workable solutions.

I don't think he should be in elective office.

I think he should be the orchestra conductor though.
I also believe the "polls" are all a bunch of BS trying to shape public opinion rather than reflecting it. Maybe...just maybe...The Rasmussen poll is better.
I have never been polled. Have any of you...any of you?
I do know that Texans worthy of the name are virtually ALL teaparty supporters. An overwhelming majority anyway. I have a teaparty society sign in my back windshield, and you would not believe the horn toots and thumbs up and grins I get in traffic.

So forgive me if you must for my pollyanna seeming attitude. Your governors perhaps did not stand on your capitol steps April 15, 2009 as ours did, and speak so forthrightly to the tea-party gathered there by the thousands.

In fact, except for a scattering of "safe" gerrymandered "povert" districts, Texas will send a huge R delegation to DC this November....if we have an election.

If not, or if skewed, some of the comments above are being expressed by millions (quietly among family and friends), and preparations are already in progress. (food, water, medicines, fuel)

Melvin, I refuse to be gloomy. We will win this thing not being against Democrats...but against the communists more and more people are recognizing as such.
AND IF
the overwhelming majority of Americans don't vote these guys out in November, then they are sheep and we don't have to worry about them afterwards.

One of you mentioned "Hate" above.

I prefer "agape' love". The same agape' love you express when you spank your child, or clobber a mugger...and just maybe save his soul.

Folks, we here are only articulating, and hopefully filling out the thoughts of dozens of millions of people. I know that many of your thoughts have been incorporated into mine. Thank you.

We have a country to save.

Melvin| 6.30.10 @ 1:29PM

On the contrary, I'm quite pleasant. My point was to stir thought, that all Americans are going to have to choose. No fence sitting will be allowed, and we only get two choices. I've been down this road before, there will no sitting on the sidelines with this one.

Pete| 6.30.10 @ 10:41AM

"Free elections" may be too much to assume going forward. That is the gravity of the situation.

Louis Jenkins| 6.30.10 @ 10:47AM

"either we will save our country or we will lose it. "

Gosh, no, really! Newt, you're a great thinker and a wonderful writer, but that about ends it all right there. Right now there is no one out there to take the leadership of the Republican party. Palin is good, but not really good enough. Huckabee? Forget it. Thompson? Forget it cause he's not interested. And so on. We're stuck out there without a leader, but all is not lost. The Teaparty leads the way to a certain extent, and concerned Conservatives are also leading. Being faceless is not without its benefits. The American people are skeptical.

FakeEagle| 6.30.10 @ 11:47AM

I wish I had his optimism, but I don't. I'd love to see our government return to its roots. I'd love to see socialism knocked off the map. I'd like to think that I, my daughter, etc. will not be taxed into poverty, or that we won't have to wait 24 months for bypass surgery when we need it, but I'm not convinced it will be successfully avoided. This country is still occupied by millions of people who voted BHO into office. Unless there is a real and lasting change in the constituency, government will continue to reflect our lame principles. To make matters worse, I don't see any real leadership in the Republican party that I can believe in. They won't stop the seating of Kagan, they won't stop BHO's agenda, and even if they win big in November, they won't stop rolling over to get their collective bellies rubbed while reaching across the aisle to people who despise them, and those who voted for them. I sincerely hope to be proven wrong.

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.30.10 @ 11:52AM

I modestly nominate a leader for our country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbWz1RYGE3Q

crookedwren| 6.30.10 @ 12:03PM

How about Gov. Jan Brewer? Gutsy, bold, clear.

Stephanie| 6.30.10 @ 12:47PM

Hmmm, Rick Perry! Thanks Ken :-) for that link.

Al Adab| 6.30.10 @ 1:55PM

Hello gang,

Another Texan for the Left to ridicule? And believe me Jan Brewer isn't it either. All she did was sign a bill- one that wasn't even hers- from the Arizona legislature.

No I don' think we even have the name yet, but lets all remember that the What is more important than the Who. Someone will emerge who embodies the Principles we wish to restore and Conserve. When that person shows, we'll all recognize it.

Margie| 6.30.10 @ 5:43PM

Al Adab,

With all due respect~ Screw the Left! I just watched the video and having never seen or heard Rick Perry before, he'd certainly get my endorsement.

Al Adab| 6.30.10 @ 10:08PM

Margie:

Oh he'd get mine too and my money and my pen. It's just that we have to watch the negatives because the enemy is very good and accentuating them no matter how small.

John Navratil| 6.30.10 @ 8:27PM

Rick Perry for the last couple of years has been making the right sort of noises. He can afford to as the Governor of Texas is not the power position. It is the Lieutenant Governor - David Dewhurst - who sets the legislative agenda of the Senate.

Listening to this speech, I wonder how he squared his talk of liberty with his EXECUTIVE decision three years ago to compel all schoolgirls to be treated with Gardasil by the sixth grade. Not a bad idea. One I could support for my daughter. In Perry's defense, there was an opt out, but if this was such a good idea, it could have been discussed. It left a bad taste in my mouth.

Robert Pinkerton| 6.30.10 @ 12:03PM

The Body Politic of the United States of America, which so many of us colloquially call "Uncle Sam," is beyond saving. "Uncle Sam" is on his deathbed, raving with senile dementia; and I, for one, believe he will not live to see his 250th birthday (4 July 2026).

The proximate cause of death will be poisoning by blowback of policy errors.

IMHO, the aftermath most to be desired, would be that of the several regions becoming the separate regions, i.e.: Several independent countries formed of former States of the (deceased) Union. The worst would be assimilation whole and entire into some hypothecated larger entity (such as the "North American Union" or the United Nations); that would be a second world-historical tragedy, compounding the first world-historical tragedy of the imminent and inevitable demise of this country.

Kent Lyon| 6.30.10 @ 12:20PM

Newt leaves out a big one: Healthcare financing. He should propose an optional opt-out from Obamacare in the form of a medical savings account for anyone who wishes, starting at conception. Anyone with such an account could permanently opt out of Medicare taxes and accumulate sufficient funds over a lifetime to cover all medical expenses. The other proposals Newt does include are long-standing proposals extant in conservative and libertarian circles, hardly original, but it's good he's advancing them. He's doing his best to get out in front of the parade of tea-partiers, who have long since understood very well all of the things he is proposing. He should also address reform of the financial system, toward transparency and disclosure, but skip all of the onerous and economic-growth killing proposals of the Financial reform bill in Congress. Come on Newt, start firing on all cylinders, not just 3 or 4.

Oldefarte| 6.30.10 @ 1:28PM

Gingrich, Perry, Romney, Palin, Jindal,etc all should have a role to play in saving our nation going forward. Tax cuts [although beneficial] should not be implemented at this time. Presently, whole governmental spending reductions are needed, with some useless programs entirely eliminated and others substantially reduced; which would [like tax cuts] facilitate budget balancing and debt reduction. Governmental programs should be reduced by 5,10, or 15% for truly essential operations; and eliminated for the non-essential ones. Social services [welfare] needs to be greatly reduced and converted into workfare [if you get a government check, you work for same]. Foreign aid and farm aid need to be eliminated [mostly] as they are simply throwing taxpayers' money down a financial rathole [ie, the government recently gave Pakistan a ton of money for fighting terrorism, and Pakistan gives part of same to the terrorists]. Converting SS to private accounts for certain ages is beneficial but not a critical concern financially. To be successful, it all starts with November 2010 and then continuing forward. If Americans are still in their previous state of brainlessness, imbicilic, moronic, and politically correct bleeding-heartiness as they were on 11/4/08 [and also when they elected JFK, Johnson, Carter and Clinton]; then this country is most definately headed for the financial toilet, and it's only a matter of time before it goes bankrupt, its governmental bonds become worthless, and its citizens take to the streets in riots. If Americans don't begin to grow a brain and vote intelligently, everyone reading this had better bend over, grab their socks and jocks, and kiss their arses GOODBYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

R Martin| 6.30.10 @ 2:03PM

Tax cuts should be implemented at this time, and history shows us why. The 1921 cut (top rate from 73 percent to 25 percent) ended a terrible recession and led to the Roaring Twenties. After WW II we suffered negative growth and high inflation. There was actually talk of another depression. Republicans cut taxes in 1948 (over Truman's veto), and growth zoomed to 4.6 percent per annum for the next six years. Federal debt was cut in half between 1945 and 1955. The famous Kennedy tax cuts in 1961 reversed three recessions of the Eisenhower era and led to 5.1 percent per annum growth through 1968. We all know about the Reagan tax cuts which generated 25 years of prosperity.

Unfortunately tax cuts aren't even an issue at the moment. It is tax increases everyone is talking about. Again, history shows how disasterous that can be, especially in a weak economy. Huge tax increases in the Revenue Act of 1932 were a key factor in the Great Depression, and Lyndon Johnson's tax increases of 1968 led to a decade of economic disaster.

One benefit of tax reductions (especially corporate tax reductions) is that they produce foreign capital inflow and strengthen the dollar. That lifts economic activity and has proven a more successful road to deficit reduction than trying to cut spending, especially given the political realities of today.

Dixie Pixie| 6.30.10 @ 1:50PM

Gentlemen, I respectfully disagree.
Newt is just stomping liberal ants.
Which is quite fun, but does not kill the liberal ant queen.

Consider your water,gas or electric bill.
Because you only pay for the amount of products used, the company have no incentive to over supply their services and products. Nor can they as you are not obligated to pay for services and products you did not need or order.

The Federal Government is the exact opposite. That is the true queen ant and motor of Liberalism.
The American public simply does not have financial control of the amount government services ordered or delivered. In fact the public has no way to control quality, quantity, duration nor delivery of governmental services. This is simply because the public has conned into giving up the “pay for services model” for unlimited government controlled by governmental personal.

As a result of having a unlimited credit card Liberalism went on a spending bender and ordered every Federal Governmental services they could think of. We and our children's children are obligated to pay for those governmental services the providers of governmental ordered. Newts solution does not touch the heart of Liberalism.

What will kill Liberalism is to annul the governments ability to tax, borrow or order government services beyond what the public wants to pay for. In short we should receive a water bill, electric bill, gas bill and then a bill for governmental services ordered. And the people should have the ability to order the amount and quality of governmental services. Finally the people should have the ability to refuse payment for governmental services not ordered.

Newt soultion sounds good but are just nibbling the toes of Liberalism.

Al Adab| 6.30.10 @ 2:41PM

Ahhh Dixie:
Thank you for the welcome dose of common sense. When are you planning to run? You have my support.

Dixie Pixie| 6.30.10 @ 4:20PM

Thank you Al Adab for your kind words.

However I will never run for public office as I consider myself a honest pixie and American politics a rather disreputable profession.

One other thought, to change from the current governmental funding system to a “payment for services“ system requires a change to the 16th amendment of the US Constitution. Since the change to the Constitution requires the Amendment to pass by nearly every politician at both the Federal and State level, the Amendment can not pass.

The reason is simple, the ( Pay for Services ) Amendment would take away the politicians unlimited credit card. The (PFS) Amendment would also cause a massive downsizing of both the Federal, State and Local governments work force. Try thinking of a 80% downsizing bloodbath. The current politicians will fight to the death before voting for such an Amendment.

RCV| 6.30.10 @ 4:15PM

I would have been more than happy not to pay for GWB's Iraqi and Afghan wars.

Dixie Pixie| 6.30.10 @ 5:08PM

And Happy Days to You RCV

And I feel I should not have to pay for inner-city children to go to the New York Museum of Art to view the artwork as to civilize them. Who knew that New York had barbarians which needed to be civilized.

There is another issue to consider.
Is it true that allowing the New York Museum of Art to preform and be paid for services without the permission of the people billed, is that a volition of the involuntary servitude clause of the 13th Amendment.

As to your main Issue.
The Gulf War II was sold to the American Public as costing 60 Billion dollars Max and to be payed for out of Iraqi oil revenues.
The Gulf War II was to last 6 to 18 months and be a “walkover” live-fire exercise in military supremacy.
Democracy and Liberty would blossom and therefor America would be loved.
Peace and Freedom would rein through out the Middle East.

Or if Gulf War II was not fought, Mushroom clouds would blossom over Manhattan within a year.

Have you tried to ask for a refund for the maladroit performance of the Bush administration in general and SecDef Rumsfeld in particular.

I think the US public should have the ability to collect the difference between a politicians promise and reality. Not if that will happen either.

GregA| 6.30.10 @ 3:37PM

We swirl around the core of the issue of this once glorious nation’s rapid and pernicious descent into socialism. We concentrate on the resultant waves, ignoring their cause. Our Founding Fathers properly attributed our rights as being endowed to us by our Creator. Yet, as the population has become more and more deceived by the Prince of this world, we are led to believe that there is no Creator and that the source of our rights is the government. Until folks understand that the government is supposed to protect our rights and not be the assigner of them, we will continue our decline like so many previous mighty nations. Those of us who believe in Him, Sovereign Lord of all, can sit and watch decadence propagate exponentially, or work at being the Lights we are supposed to be. In any event, Come Lord Jesus. Amen.

David| 6.30.10 @ 4:25PM

Tony, right-on about Mitch Daniels, IF, he walks back his recent statement about putting social issues on the backburner for a while so we can all get along. The conservative side should never ever have that opinion. Social and economic issue are inextricably tied together. I do like Daniels executive experience and his record of solving problems, but I'll have nothing to do with him unless he takes back that statement.

I would also like to see Rick Santorum back in office, meaning the Oval Office, as a VP maybe. He articulates the conservative positions as well as anyone.

With regard to the bad guys, it is amazing that Bam Bam's polling numbers by Rasmussen (who screens for likely voters much more than other pollsters) have remained the same for the last six months despite all the crap the boy and his congress are shoving down our throats. His approval ratings hover in the high 40's. It is no coincidence that the number of people who pay zero fed income taxes is now 47% up from 40% when he took office - see a correlation between his numbers and the non-taxpayers? I think the boy still has an excellent chance to be re-elected. Do a couple of things that most people approve of just before the 2012 election, and he'll have no problem jumping to 50+%. Will a repub presidential candidate have the juevos to campaign on repeal of Obamacare when the MSM asks them, "so, you are for allowing insurance companies to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions?"; or, "you would deny college students in their mid 20's the ability to stay on their parents' insurance plans?"; etc.; or are you going to make it so that the 7% who stopped paying taxes under Obama will now have to pay those taxes again?", etc. Unless we have a solid candidate who can "yes" answers to those types of questions and be able to give solid, unassailable reasons why he/she would do so, I think Bam Bam has an excellent chance of being re-elected.

Right on GregA.

JP| 6.30.10 @ 4:45PM

President Obama's re-election chances will largely be determined by the economy. What worries some pols is the sad fact that 30% of voters will vote for Obama no matter what. On the other hand. the President's radicalsim and his incompetence could for the first time in 20 years put make California and New York competitive. One of the biggest advantages Dems have had since 1992 was the assumption that they would have nearly half of the electoral votes in the bag. If Obama has to campaign heavily in those states, he will have to spend quite a bit of campaign cash in places he didn't even have to worry about in 2008. The election of Scott Brown indicates how spooked independents are. And without them he is finished. In this respect, the GOP candidate doesn't have to win those states to beat the President. Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania will also be in play. If Obama cannot carry Illinois and Pennsylvania he will lose. And most certainly he will not carry Indiana again.

RCV| 6.30.10 @ 4:44PM

As a Democrat, I agree with David that President Obama's chances for reelection are excellent given the dearth of a GOP candidate who can secure the nomination over the never-ending sparring between the economic conservatives, social conservatives and libertarians who make up the party's constituencies, AND still appeal to the independent middle necessary for winning the general election. Despite the calls of Margie and others to unite behind the GOP label, I don't see that happening, because each of the constituences has non-negotiable lines -- "IF he walks back his recent statement" is just one example.

Our party prevailed in 2008 precisely because in the end, most of Hillary's fervant supporters held their noses and voted for Obama despite their insistence that he accede to the Clinton demands on single-payer health care, and most of the far-left did the same despite his resistence to their "non-negotiable" calls for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't intend to debate the merits of any of these issues, and neither did most Democrats in the end do so in 2008. We knew we had to unite to win, and we did so. I frankly don't see the various GOP constituencies being willing to do so, and the upstate NY house election and the increasing Tea Party fervor on the right confirm that belief.

Mitch Daniels may be an attractive candidate, but are social conservatives going to truly rally behind and work for an Arab-American who has a marijuana conviction in his record? Won't they consider him a "pot-smoking Muslim"?

Vollowitz lives| 6.30.10 @ 7:17PM

It would be tough election in 2010. We don't have a candidate right now. Sure Obama is very unpopular but we need somebody to run against him. Unfortunately for Obama and merry followers the election is not in 2010 but in 2012. His economic magic will make him even more unpopular and we will have a candidate in 2012. Two years isn't enough to turn us into Europeans.

historychick| 6.30.10 @ 4:46PM

I agree with Newt that this is not simply a political struggle we're in the thick of, but a war of worldviews, quickly becoming a war or mythology: my view of the past can beat up your view of the past, etc.
Left-leaning Americans have one narrative of America and believe in one set of historical myths, and this informs their agenda, while those that lean towards the right have another narrative and believe in another set of myths that informs "ours."
The latest fashion on the right is to claim to adhere to the eternal wisdom of the founding fathers in all things -- but only the founding fathers as interpreted by the Right according to the needs of the moment, according to whatever vision of the founding fathers (i.e., myth) makes us feel warm and fuzzy.
I don't mean to belittle the founding fathers, but on the other hand, lets not make them more than what they were-- on the whole, the elite of their society, some slaveholders, all white males, all with enough private wealth that gave them enough leisure to read Montesquiou, Locke, et al. Maybe they indeed believed we were endowed with rights by our creator, but that was a narrow we-- it certainly didn't motivate them to think that women had many rights and in most states, Indians and blacks had no rights at all, from the creator or not. And so on for more examples.
The modern "left" ( I would say back to the 1880's) in my always questionable opinion, grew out of immigration that was not the homogenized British version that came before the 1840's, but out of germans, Irish and East Europenas reacting to conditions in the US ( which deserved to be reacted to) as though they were still in Germany, Ireland, Russia and so on. This background serves as the source of the left's version of America's past -- the version that saw the older Anglo-establishment as bad, and held up rebellion and resistance to authority (religious, economic, public, whatever it may be) as the ultimate virtue. But again, it's only a myth; these people weren't waht one reads in history books, they all had different motives, good and bad and so on.

And so we have the right's myth of the founding fathers doing battle against the left's myth of the rebel-- and the political ideologies that flow from these myths fighting it out at the ballot box. People are voting based on their view of current events, as filtered through their view of virtue as it is valued in their particular favorite myth of history.
I think that's at the heart of the dilemma facing this country today.

JP| 6.30.10 @ 5:00PM

I'm not sure what your point was. What exactly in the Constitution do you find offensive? Most of the Right believes that the Constitution was one of the greatest political documents ever written? Do you know of any better ones (the Weimar Constitution of 1921? The Soviet Constitution?).

And I don't think anyone of the Right believes for one minute that any of the Founders were larger than life. That would be the Left's problem, and thier cult of Obama.

And in your attack on the class the Founders came from, you seem to forget that the majority of them risked thier life, and that almost all of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence died paupers (Wars tend to do that -even to the wealthy).

historychick| 6.30.10 @ 5:54PM

I believe that the US Constitution is the greatest political document ever devised by man. I really do. I don't believe that it is perfect as writtenby the founders, otherwise it wouldn't have been amended!

I did not attack the founding fathers by commenting on their class and repeating some of their obvious beliefs. But I do see a tendency amongst those on the right ( and not only in this forum) to idolize them, recently. My whole analysis above was simply to try to offer a perspective on why the debate can get so heated, that there is more behind these debates than present-day beliefs -- and I seem to have stirred up some heat myself!

I think the British constitution ( though unwritten) is decent, and the Norwegian one-- the 2nd oldest written one still in force in the world, is admirable.

R Martin| 6.30.10 @ 6:41PM

May I suggest, respectfully, that you read David McCullough's biography of John Adams. I don't know if idolize is the right word to describe how many of us feel about the Founding Fathers, but respect, admiration and appreciation certainly do. There is nothing "mythical" about the achievements of these men and how they dealt with the issues of the day (yes, they were all men and social mores were different then) especiallly when compared to contemporary politicians like, say, John Kerry, John Edwards or any Kennedy.

Margie| 6.30.10 @ 5:11PM

historychick,

You're whole myth thing is a myth.

historychick| 6.30.10 @ 5:55PM

Are calling me a legend-- or just a legend in my own mind.

I really don't understand why a historical analysis got you people so worked up!

Margie| 6.30.10 @ 6:22PM

Now that was funny! :^) Nah, just meant that in calling both sides beliefs myths you're mistaken. I'll refer you to Ken (Old Tex's) post, below. He explains it well. In brief though~ there are absolutes. And there is right from wrong.
Basically, the Left is WRONG, and the Right is well, RIGHT!
OK that's simple you will say. Yep. Sure is.
The Left doesn't have principles. Well they have one in general. Take my money and give it to the government for them to use as they see fit.
The Right says~ Sorry, wrong number.
Need I say more?

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.30.10 @ 5:40PM

Historychick,
You are either stuck on stupid...or an unrepentant communist.
Welcome to the conversation.

You are sssooooo suave and debonaire you are making me laugh out loud.
Your little communist "everything is a narrative" bs simply ignores reality.

There is an eternal RIGHT that I aspire to. (the words printed in red in my Bible.)
You, woman, simply regurgitate lies, but that is OK. You and I are at war.

One of us will win, and the other will die. If I die, I have eternal life. When you die, you are dog-food and worm food...heh, or air pollution if they cremate you.
So you just go on your merry way with RCV. ...straight to hell...or dog-food. I will be praying for you to repent.

historychick| 6.30.10 @ 5:47PM

See what happens when you threaten someone's view of what they hold dear? They get a bad case of the nasties and call you a communist! Even when you are registered Republican ( as I am).
Sorry if my theory upset you. What lies did I regurgitate, by the way?

RCV| 6.30.10 @ 4:53PM

Pretty cogent, balanced and perseptive analysis.

RCV| 6.30.10 @ 4:53PM

make that "perceptive"

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.30.10 @ 5:43PM

RCV,
Thank you. I knew you would finally get it if I kept praying for you.

RCV| 6.30.10 @ 8:29PM

That was to historychick's posting, old Ken, not yours.

Since I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour, I know I'm not going to hell. Dog food, I can't speak to.

JP| 6.30.10 @ 4:53PM

"Mitch Daniels may be an attractive candidate, but are social conservatives going to truly rally behind and work for an Arab-American who has a marijuana conviction in his record? Won't they consider him a "pot-smoking Muslim"? "

Nice try. Danials grandfather was a Syrian-American from Pennsylvania. That makes Daniels and American. Period. He never emphasized his Syrian roots. And other than dumpster diving into someone's past I suggest you stick with the issues.

BTW, Hillary would split the Democratic vote without attracting any significant number of Independents. If Hillary ran it would mean a political civil war. President Obama still commands the bulk of the Dems campaign finance machinery. Unless she has a multi-billionaire surgar daddy, it is doubtfull she can afford to run.

RCV| 6.30.10 @ 5:06PM

Governor Daniels was honored by the Arab-American Institute for his sustained work in the Syrian-American and Arab-American communities, for which he deserves genuine commendation.

Clinton nee Publius| 6.30.10 @ 4:54PM

I'd like to believe him, but Newt's convictions blow with the winds of politics. First he was a firebrand, then he was working with Hillary Clinton, then he wanted "real solutions" (provided they were solutions already provided)...

historychick| 6.30.10 @ 6:10PM

People can change over time and not be hypocritical...especially as their circumstances change. I don't know enough about Gingrich to have an opinion on whether his core values have changed.

historychick| 6.30.10 @ 6:10PM

People can change over time and not be hypocritical...especially as their circumstances change. I don't know enough about Gingrich to have an opinion on whether his core values have changed.

Nate| 6.30.10 @ 9:45PM

You can say that again.

DaveS| 6.30.10 @ 5:43PM

I'd like to see book titles of five words or less, and titles without the title, colon, and the 'let me tell you what it really is about' title addend. Other than that, I approve of Professor Newt's service to his country.

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.30.10 @ 5:47PM

clinton Pubic hairs,
You keep looking for the perfect candidate... Why don't you send in YOUR resume'...midget.

historychick| 6.30.10 @ 5:58PM

Why are you so nasty?
For someone who defends the founding fathers so, I would think you'd like the Publius reference.

Margie| 6.30.10 @ 6:24PM

LOL @ Ken!

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.30.10 @ 7:30PM

historychick,
here is the core of the LIE you are perpetrating:
I quote you:

"""The latest fashion on the right is to claim to adhere to the eternal wisdom of the founding fathers in all things -- but only the founding fathers as interpreted by the Right according to the needs of the moment, according to whatever vision of the founding fathers (i.e., myth) makes us feel warm and fuzzy."""

You silly broad person, Our founding fathers did not even know about "germ theory". George Washington was thought to have died from sitting down wet to write something.

Pneumonia was thought to be...heck I cannot even spell the word... but many of our ancestors slept almost upright to let the lungs breathe at least from the top.
For a "history chick" you do seem very uninformed of context of those days. One could not count on women much. They died too often in child birth before they could mature into full adulthood.

Please, don't talk to me about "myths".

The harsh reality was that the "founding fathers' " hearts were often broken losing the "loves of their lives".

Death was ever present in their minds... children, wives, themselves...

Yeah, some of them owned slaves. Slavery was sorta' accepted in their world. The real question is...did they treat their slaves as outlined in the Bible?...Duh!
(mutual responsibilities in the eyes of God)

Warm fuzzy my hiney!

You will probably never "get it", but I will try...one brief time to 'splain it to you.

Choose sides! Wimp out! or... load the damned rifle and shut up and shoot!

That is what we honest re-founding fathers and mothers are preparing for.
God bless

PCP Smoker| 6.30.10 @ 6:16PM

Can you look to see if Nancy Pelosi authored the chapter on global warming? Is Hillary the co-author of the chapter in health care?
Come on people, this creep has been selling us out since 1997. In the beginning of the Obama regime, he was castigating Rush for his "I hope he fails" comments.
Newt is good at being a professor, after that he gets bored. Fuck him.

Ken Old Texican)| 6.30.10 @ 6:24PM

SAVING AMERICA
one congress critter at a time!

check this hilarious add out. from NRO
http://www2.nationalreview.com.....010_C.html

David Williams| 6.30.10 @ 8:17PM

Very cool. Any girl who can shoot a Thompson would get my vote.

PCP Smoker| 6.30.10 @ 7:11PM

SAVING AMERICA (Prequel from San Francisco)

he political odd couple of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich has teamed up to film a new TV ad urging U.S. leaders -- yes, that's aimed at you, President Bush -- to take immediate action on climate change.

It's the second of the "Unlikely Alliances" spots filmed as part of former Vice President Al Gore's $300 million "We" advertising and online activism campaign designed to get the American public to pressure their elected officials to address global warming.

The first ad featured left-leaning Rev. Al Sharpton and conservative Rev. Pat Robertson sitting on a couch on a beach in Virginia. The couch has been recycled in the latest ad, where Pelosi and Gingrich sit side-by-side before the backdrop of the U.S. Capitol.

"We don't always see eye to eye, do we, Newt?" Pelosi asks.

"No," Gingrich replies. "But we do agree our country must take action to address climate change."

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.30.10 @ 7:35PM

PCP smoker,

So, your screen name notwithstanding, (uh that means in spite of), you have never made a dumb mistake?
Smoke tobacco, fool!

PCP Smoker| 6.30.10 @ 11:17PM

Let me ignore the provocations, which I don't fucking get as you and I agree on a lot things. How many more "mistakes" are you willing to take from him?
He got bored around 1996 or 1997, sometimes after Blow Job Bill kicked his ass, and decided to abandon conservative leadership. He then pairs up with Hillary for some healthcare nonsense. He then appears on an Algore-sponsored commercial with Pelosi.

He can do whatever he wants and you can attach yourself to his asshole, but understand that he is accepting the left's premises. He accepted the premise that healthcare system was broken. He accepted the premise that humans, via CO2, are "destroying" the earth. He criticized Limbaugh for the "I hope he fails". Now, he is screaming socialism this and socialism that.

I just read NRO's endorsement of John Mcain. If conservatives like you cannot discern an opportunist like Gingrich and, one supposes, McAin, then we are definitely stuck on stupid.

Oh, and relative to your prior insults, I won't ignore it. Fuck you, fuck your wife, fuck your mother, and fuck your children.

Tim| 6.30.10 @ 7:39PM

Regardless of who edits this website the fact remains that the only constitutional amendment that will save our country is the 2nd amendment.

That said, no one is advocating armed war fare unless of course we reach a point where political folks like in the old Soviet Union are kidnapped from their homes and never seen again!

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.30.10 @ 8:11PM

Tim,
I get tears in my eyes thinking of armed warfare within these United States. I have been caught in the middle of civil wars. (Indonesia, Yemen).

If we cannot clean house in November, my option is to sit down...just sit down on the job...all of us.

...Cut off their fuel, and their food deliveries, and let the dumb bastards starve in the dark.
I will be right back with a fascinating map.

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.30.10 @ 8:21PM

Tim, check this out.
Its not the detailed map I have, but will give you the idea.

If Texas and Oklahoma pipeline hands get pissed, the country goes dark.
http://www.pipeline101.com/ove.....ts-pl.html

The refineries are all down here in Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisianna. Shipping ports as well.
As Texas Governor Rick Perry stated ..."Don't mess with Texas."

Blackwatch| 7.1.10 @ 12:15AM

similar to L.A. buying power from coal fired power plants in AZ.

Maybe a "demonstration" of the old axiom don't cut off your nose to spite your face is in order.

If Obama shuts off the internet I hope that all of the power plant workers and oil pipeline hands develop the "Barack Flue" and stay home. Or better yet go to work but become so safety conscious that they shut down all of that dangerous equipement until safer GREEN technology becomes available. Men must not die do unsafe working conditions ever again.

davelnaf| 6.30.10 @ 7:52PM

Although we are in rather trying times we should be cheered by the sure knowledge that Obama and his merry band of nation-wreckers will soon run out what is left of Americans’ tolerance for their brand of governance and they be expelled from office in 2012. In the meantime their fellow dems will lose control of Congress and turn Obama into the lamest of lame ducks. And limited as this revenge will be it will come as a nasty shock to the Bamster who lives in such an impenetrable bubble of self-deception that he actually believes he is doing a good job as president. When everything is said and done the Bamster will have done more harm to the left and its causes than Newt Gingrich could ever imagine was possible.

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.30.10 @ 8:36PM

Tim,
did you catch this link earlier in the thread?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbWz1RYGE3Q

Nate| 6.30.10 @ 9:43PM

What nonsense.

Gingrich is just trying to cash in, and he knows that hyper-inflated political rhetoric sells.

It sells, but it doesn't last.

The idea that the Democratic party has "socialist" goals is simply ludicrous.

To believe this, you have to begin with a complete ignorance of socialism and its goals.

Al Adab| 6.30.10 @ 10:02PM

Nate:

You are right of course. In our country the government would never own the banks... uhhh
Well certainly not the insurance companies...errr
But never the auto manufacturers...ohhh
Well, they would never try to nationalize the Medical field or...
Certainly not set a policy of redistribution...

Do you really need it spelled out for you?

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.1.10 @ 10:06AM

Al Adab,
Nat is stuck on stupid...AND...an unrepentant communist.
Al, you will note that I NEVER accuse Democrats in power of being socialists. never, never, never.

Heh, I call them lying stealing communists. They would not recognize an eternal truth...well each of them will the day they die and meet their Creator at the bar of Judgement.

Kylie Estick| 6.30.10 @ 10:33PM

America is only at risk from the extremist neo-Christians who choose to ignore all the words in red and instead focus on anything they can remotely construe as being pro-white and anti-non-white.

Blackwatch| 7.1.10 @ 12:08AM

doesn't "anti-non-white" mean "pro-white"??

my state college education is catching up with me again.

Nathan Bickel| 6.30.10 @ 11:32PM

Peter:

Excellent commentary -- especially, the last paragraph summation. You understand that Gingrich is the best choice to overturn the recent liberal and socialist policies that have ravaged our nation.

I, too , agree that Gingrich would be superb in leading our country out of the wilderness into a more promised land, state. However, is he the best candidate to defeat the Dem's pick? And, can the TEA Party people rally behind him?