Good Sense

Huckabee Demands Gingrich Pull "Dishonest" Ad Attacking Romney

2012-01-27T20:09:00.000-08:00

TAMPA, F.L.-- Former GOP presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee "would love for" Newt Gingrich to pull a political campaign ad that features a comment he made during the 2008 campaign that appears to slam Mitt Romney for being "dishonest."

"I know Newt Gingrich at the end of the ad says I approved this message, well let me just say, I didn't approve that message," Huckabee said in an interview Friday on Fox News.

The former governor of Arkansas said his words were "taken out of context" and were also " deceptive" because he was not referring to Romney, one of his 2008 primary rivals.

"That spot, which was back in December of 2007, never mentioned Mitt Romney by name, it never said anything about Mitt Romney. It was a general statement," Huckabee, has not endorsed anyone so far in the 2012 presidential race, and says he doesn't plan to do so.

Earlier in the week, the Gingrich campaign ran into trouble with another campaign ad. U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, who has also not endorsed a candidate in the presidential primary, told The Miami Herald's Marc Caputo, that Gingrich should take down a Spanish language radio ad that described Romney as " anti-immigrant." The Gingrich campaign soon pulled the ad to edit out that line, out of "respect" for Rubio.

But that won't happen with the ad featuring Huckabee. Gingrich spokesperson R.C. Hammond says the campaign does not plan on pulling the Huckabee clip.

"Huckabee has said he hasn't endorsed anybody but that doesn't change what he said," Hammond told reporters.

"Speaker Gingrich and his political cronies are desperate to distract from his record of failed and unreliable leadership, and voters won't be fooled." said Andrea Saul, a Romney spokesperson, said in an earlier statement.

Gingrich and Reagan: The True Story

2012-01-25T22:51:00.000-08:00

Gingrich trying to teach Reagan a few things on being presidential.

Anyone who thinks that Gingrich is a "Reagan Conservative" needs to read this:

National Review Online: Gingrich and Reagan

[A]t the height of the bitter struggle with the Democratic leadership Gingrich chose to attack . . . Reagan.

The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.” Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”

Gingrich scorned Reagan’s speeches, which moved a party and then a nation, because “the president of the United States cannot discipline himself to use the correct language.” In Afghanistan, Reagan’s policy was marked by “impotence [and] incompetence.” Thus Gingrich concluded as he surveyed five years of Reagan in power that “we have been losing the struggle with the Soviet empire.” Reagan did not know what he was doing, and “it is precisely at the vision and strategy levels that the Soviet empire today is superior to the free world.”

Read the entire enlightening article here.

Major Conservative Media See Gingrich as "The Republican Bill Clinton"

2012-01-24T21:59:00.000-08:00

The National Review Online, The American Spectator and other major conservative think-tanks are beginning to see that Newt Gingrich is essentially the Bill Clinton of the Republican Party. John Stewart even pointed out the hypocrisy of conservatives supporting him.

Seriously, is Newt really the man we want representing our ideology?

----------------------------------------------------------------

National Review Online: Gingrich: The Republican Clinton (Except less lovable and more roguish.)

American Spectator: Bill Clinton of the Right With Half the Charm and Twice the Abrasiveness

New York Sun: William Jefferson Gingrich

Washington Post: Time to Bring Back Bill Clinton

LA Times: Newt's Debt to Clinton

Good Sense Politics: Gingrich: The Republican Bill Clinton by Your's Truly

VIDEO: Gingrich Makes Conservatives the Laughingstock of Country

2012-01-24T21:03:00.000-08:00

The hypocrisy of values that is Newt Gingrich is now starting to be applied to conservatives as a whole. And rightly so! How can we call ourselves the party of family values when we criticize reporters for asking Gingrich about his many infidelities? How topsy-turvy will the political world become if we have the serial-adulterer Newt Gingrich going up against the faithfully wedded and family man Barack Obama? How can we ever be taken seriously as a political ideology again?

As long as Republicans continue to flirt with the idea of nominating Gingrich for the presidency, be ready for this line of searing satire of the right:

Jon Stewart Flips Out At Gingrich’s Nerve In Attacking John King’s ‘Open Marriage’ Question

Fact Checking Monday's Florida Debate

2012-01-24T10:48:00.000-08:00

GINGRICH: “When I was speaker, we had four consecutive balanced budgets.”

THE FACTS: Actually, two.
The four straight years of budget surpluses were 1998 through 2001. Gingrich left Congress in 1999, so he only had a hand in surpluses for his last two years. The budget ran deficits for his first two years as speaker.

The highest surplus of that four-year string came in budget year 2000, after Gingrich was out of office.

Overall, the national debt went up during the four years Gingrich was speaker. In January 1995, when he assumed the leadership position, the gross national debt was $4.8 trillion. When he left four years later, it was $5.6 trillion, an increase of $800 billion.

—

ROMNEY: “I don‘t think we can possibly retake the White House if the person who’s leading our party is the person who was working for the chief lobbyist of Freddie Mac. Freddie Mac was paying Speaker Gingrich $1.6 million at the same time Freddie Mac was costing the people of Florida millions upon millions of dollars.”

THE FACTS: While going after Gingrich forcefully on the issue, Romney did not mention his own earnings from the government-backed lender and its sister entity, Fannie Mae, which came to light in his most recent financial disclosure report.

The report shows he has as much as $500,000 invested in the two lenders. GOP presidential hopefuls almost across the board have blamed the two institutions for contributing to the housing crisis that helped to drag the nation into recession. Among Romney’s ties: a mutual fund worth up to $500,000 that includes assets from both lenders among other government income, and separate investments in each of the lenders in Romney’s individual retirement account, each worth between $100,000 and $250,000.

Romney campaign officials said Monday the investments were handled by a trustee with no direction by the candidate.

—

GINGRICH: “I left the speakership after the 1998 election because I took responsibility for the fact that our results weren’t as good as they should be. I think that’s what a leader should do. I took responsibility. And I didn’t want to stay around, as Nancy Pelosi has. I wanted to get out and do other things.”

ROMNEY: “He had to resign in disgrace.”

RON PAUL: “I think the reason he didn’t … run for speaker, you know, two years later – he didn’t have the votes. That was what the problem was. So this idea that he voluntarily reneged and he was going to punish himself because we didn’t do well in the election, that’s just not the way it was.”

THE FACTS: Gingrich didn’t exactly resign in disgrace after he became the first speaker reprimanded and fined for ethics violations, slapped with a $300,000 penalty, in January 1997. He limped to re-election as speaker after that. But his number was soon up.

Within months, he was fending off a revolt from fellow Republicans weary of his antics and mercurial ways.

As Paul suggested in the debate, unexpected GOP losses in the 1998 elections were the last straw for Gingrich in the eyes of House Republicans. Three days later Gingrich announced he was stepping down as speaker and giving up his seat in Congress.

Paul‘s recollection now is supported by some of Gingrich’s words back then. He told Republicans, “I‘m willing to lead but I’m not willing to preside over people who are cannibals,” sounding less like a man interested in a career change than one intent on escaping a boiling pot.

—

ROMNEY: “Our Navy is now smaller than any time since 1917. And the president is building roughly nine ships a year. We ought to raise that to 15 ships a year. Under this president, under prior presidents, we keep on shrinking our Navy.”

THE FACTS: Romney is correct about the size of the Navy, but the numbers alone don’t tell the story.

At 285 ships the Navy is small by its own historical standards but still larger than the navies of the next several nations combined. These days, it’s not how many ships but what they can do. There is a longstanding trend toward smaller numbers of more complex and expensive vessels.

Still, the Navy has noted the smaller size of the current fleet and plans to add 28 ships over several years. The shrinking of the fleet size has spanned Republican and Democratic administrations, as the Navy restructures and plans for the addition of new platforms.

—

RICK SANTORUM: “One of (my proposals) would be to be able to deduct losses from the sale of your home. Right now you can’t do that. You have to pay gains, depending on the amount, but you can’t deduct the losses, as other capital losses can be.”

THE FACTS: For a brief description, it was accurate. What Santorum did not explain, in appealing to Floridians who have one of the worst housing markets in the country, is that the tax code is already stacked in favor of home ownership.

Homeowners get many tax breaks from the government, most notably mortgage interest and property tax deductions. Under federal law, when you sell your private residence, you can make up to $250,000 in profit – $500,000 if you are married – and not owe any capital gains taxes. That’s a large tax break. There’s no such break if you have such a profit in selling stocks or works of art.

But there is a trade-off: You can’t claim a loss when you sell your private residence.

—

ROMNEY: President Barack Obama’s $814 billion economic stimulus program “didn’t create private-sector jobs.”

THE FACTS: There is no support for that assertion. Between 1.2 million and 3.7 million full-time-equivalent jobs were created last year because of the stimulus, according to an August 2011 report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Meanwhile, another government report found the stimulus program has paid $34.5 billion in tax incentives to businesses, including $260 million to hire younger, unemployed war veterans.

Economists debate whether the stimulus lived up to its promise or was worth the cost, but no one seriously argues that it created no jobs. Many believe it helped to end the recession even while falling short of its employment goals.

—

We’ll leave you with one last flub, as yet another noteworthy moment occurred when Gingrich claimed he supported Barry Goldwater over Nelson Rockefeller in the 1964 presidential campaign. During the debate, he said (watch here):

“I went to a Goldwater organizing session in 1964. I met with Ronald Reagan for the first time in 1974. I worked with Jack Kemp, and Art Laffer and others to develop supply side economics in the late ’70s. I helped Governor Reagan become President Reagan. I helped pass the Reagan economic program and worked with the National Security Council on issues including the collapse of the Soviet Empire,” Newt Gingrich said at tonight’s debate.”

But in 1988, he said just the opposite. “I was a Rockefeller state chairman in the south,” Gingrich proclaimed in an interview. So, which was it?

(Source: AP and The Blaze)

Gingrich: The Republican Bill Clinton

2012-01-23T00:31:00.000-08:00

Clinton and Gingrich with their
mistresses, circa 1995.

Are Republicans about to elect Clinton's
Republican equivalent to the White House?

Last Saturday South Carolinian Republicans did an amazing thing: they declared to the world that personality is more important than moral character in a president. They voted 10 to 7 in favor of the bombastic, unapologetic, unethical, unstable Newt Gingrich.

It is amazing how far the Republican party has come in just a decade and a half. Rewind to the mid 90s and conservatives were decrying then-President Clinton’s many extra-marital affairs and the subsequent cover-ups, declaring that such an immoral, undisciplined man had no business being the leader of the free world. Newt Gingrich, then speaker of the house, joined the chorus of moral distain, despite the fact that he had skeletons of his own. For while Gingrich was self-righteously excoriating Clinton for the Lewinsky affair and preaching the values of the moral Christian life, he was carrying on another of his own many affairs. This one was with a young libertine staffer named Callista, who later became his third wife.

Gingrich later defended his own incredible hypocrisy by claiming that he was rebuking Clinton for his lying, not his adultery, but even then it was clear to many that Gingrich had a lot in common with his arch-nemesis Clinton. Even with his marital infidelities yet unknown, reporters in the mid 90s described both powerful politicians as believing themselves above the morals and rules of the common man. (See article) Both were described as ego-maniacs with a tendency to act upon impulse with little thought for consequence. It was no surprise to people at the time that Gingrich became the first and only Speaker ever to be disciplined by the House for ethics violations. He was thrown out of politics by his own party for his many fiscal ethics scandals that threatened to bring down the whole Republican party. Gingrich has smoldered in the background since then, subsisting on lobbying and speaking fees, nursing his great ambition to be president some day; an ambition that until South Carolina lived only in his own egomaniac head. Gingrich currently has a national approval rating at 26% (compare with Obama at 46%).

What has changed in these 15 years? Has the “rebellion” of the Tea Party movement led us to value sticking it to Obama with an attack dog over electing a moral man? Have we abandoned civic duty to “reality show” political entertainment? Or have we joined the Democrats in thinking that a long history of moral and ethical corruption has no relevance to the performance of a leader? Seriously? South Carolina, you are heavily church-attending Christians. Seriously, it doesn’t matter?

In her book “Demonic” Ann Coulter explained one of the major differences between liberals and conservatives as thus: Liberals vote for a president based on their “rock star” popular effect while conservatives vote based on the candidate's values and experience. This hypothesis was certainly confirmed in 2008 when Democrats elected the charismatic and articulate, yet inexperienced and frankly unknown Barack Obama. In 2012 Republicans have a choice between a religious conservative with a long career as a politician and lobbyist in Washington, another career politician and lobbyist plagued with a history of moral and fiscal misbehavior, and a business-leader outsider with a history of working in the free market. Who will we choose? Morals with political experience, morals with free-market experience or no morals with political infamy?

Or do we just choose the guy who puts on the best show?

Food for thought:

Cain is Immoral? What About Newt Gingrich?

Will Newt Gingrich Be the Bill Clinton of the Rebublican Party?
Ann Coulter: "South Carolinians Would Rather Have Snotty Remarks Than Beat Obama."
Chris Christie: Gingrich ‘Has Been an Embarrassment to the Party’

Or just read Gingrich's Wikipedia Entry

P.com mods suck

Santorum on Working Together with Liberals

2012-01-05T11:18:00.000-08:00

From his 2006 Senate re-election campaign (which he lost).

Rick Santorum touts having partnered on legislation with Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer and then Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Santorum's "Google" Problem

2012-01-04T02:11:00.000-08:00

If you’ve had the displeasure of searching Rick Santorum‘s name on Google, you know about his so-called “Google problem.” It’s a sticky situation that has dogged Santorum since 2003.

It started when he answered a question about gay marriage in an interview with the Associated Press. Sex columnist Dan Savage, who is gay, took offense and started a contest to redefine “Santorum.” The winning definition was gross and it remains the top Google search result for the candidate’s last name.

In an interview with the Huffington Post his eldest child, 20-year-old Elizabeth, commented on the issue.
“That just makes me sad. It’s disappointing that people can be that mean,” she said. “That’s really the first thing that comes to mind, it’s hurtful. But it’s okay, we just try and focus.”

This is what will take Gingrich Down

2011-12-13T19:51:00.000-08:00

if anything will.... Gingrich is a big-government progressive RINO!!!

UNBELIEVABLE?! Newt loves FDR, models himself after Woodrow Wilson and admires SEIU’s Andy Stern

Gingrich is caught praising his favorite president of the 20th century: FDR. Yup, he picked the mother of all progressives ahead of Ronald Reagan.

Watch the video montage below:

Cue sound of heads exploding across the country…NOW!

Seriously?! This is unbelievable.

“This goes back to what Newt Gingrich said on this program. You got to get things done. That’s akin to saying we all love the Constitution but there are things we got to do,” Glenn warned.

“FDR did get things done, and then they were ruled unconstitutional,” Stu joked.

But that’s not the worst thing – on the clip at the top of the page Glenn reads a story where Gingrich praised SEIU’s Andy Stern in one of his books.

In his book “Real Chance: From the World That Fails to the World That
Works,” Gingrich praises the SEIU head, who remains a close adviser of
the President Obama. Pitching the need for conservatives to respect
organized labor, while simultaneously pushing back against some of
Labor’s more cherished legislative goals, he wrote the following:

” Conservatives cannot cheer unions overseas and then be blindly
anti-union here at home. There are legitimate historic reasons for
workers to organize together, and there is a strong need for a
healthy, competitive, union, movement that helps improve the lives of
its members and the competitiveness of our country.
Andy Stern, the head of the Service Employees International Union,
is the union leader who probably best understands the challenge of the
world market and the need to make American union members productive in
the face of world competition. Sadly, he is a distinct minority among
union leaders. “

“So he loves Andy Stern,” Glenn said. “If he can’t figure it of Stern is a Socialist communist dirt bag then he shouldn’t be the leader of the free world.”

And he admits to be a fan of Woodrow Wilson!

Watch Newt claim to be a “realpolitik Wilsonian” below:

more...

GQ: Obama One of "Least Influential People Alive"

2011-12-02T12:46:00.000-08:00

Ya think buyer's remorse has hit hard enough already? First on GQ magazine's (a decidedly liberal publication) list of "25 Least Influential People Alive” is the "Chosen One" himself.

No. 25 — President Obama:
Okay, so we’re cheating a bit with this one. He did order the raid that wiped Osama bin Laden off the face of the earth. But then he used that surplus of political capital to let everyone in Washington stick a boot in his ass. This is a man who should be the most transformational figure of the century. Hell, he promised to be that. Instead he wields all the power of a substitute teacher at night school.

Not far behind the Democrat's failed wunderkind are a couple more of his accomplices:

No. 3 — Ed Schultz

There are so many repugnant political pundits on TV now, we tend to forget that the likes of Sean Hannity actually represent the best of the lot.
[...] Do you watch The Ed Show on MSNBC? Of course you don’t. No one does. [...] Did you know MSNBC suspended Schultz this year? It did! He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut,” and he still couldn’t get noticed.

No. 17 — Newsweek/Daily Beast Editor Tina Brown:
Brown spent 2011 transforming Newsweek from a magazine no one reads into a magazine no one reads but everyone despises. That’s what happens when you @#$% the corpse of Princess Diana by Photoshopping her at age 50 for your cover, then do a separate Photoshop of her holding an iPhone…

Sex With Animals OK for Soldiers, Senate Decides

2011-12-02T12:31:00.000-08:00

The U.S. Senate voted Thursday to approve a defense authorization bill which included a provision that not only repealed the military ban on sodomy, but also repealed the ban on having sex with animals — or bestiality.

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said there’s a definite link between the repeal of DADT and the repeal of the sodomy law.

“It’s all about using the military to advance this administration’s radical social agenda,” Perkins told CNS News. “Not only did they overturn Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but they had another problem, and that is, under military law sodomy is illegal, just as adultery is illegal, so they had to remove that prohibition against sodomy.”

Perkins said removing the bestiality provision may have been intentional — or it may just have been “collateral damage.”

Former Army Col. Bob Maginnis told CNS News some military lawyers have indicated bestiality could be prosecuted under another section of the military code of justice — Article 134, for offenses against “good military order and discipline.” It’s not a sure bet, though.

“If we have a soldier who engages in sodomy with an animal — whether a government animal or a non-government animal — is it, in fact, a chargeable offense under the Uniform Code? I think that’s in question,” Maginnis said. “Soldiers, unfortunately, like it or not, have engaged in this type of behavior in the past. Will they in the future, if they remove this statute? I don’t know.”

(From The Blaze)

Gingrich Wants To Pay Children To Clean Government Buildings

2011-12-02T07:58:00.001-08:00

I can see it now. Throngs of little kids scrubbing the Capitol floor singing "It's a Hard Knock Life." Conservatism at its finest! Let's pay 10 year olds to use harsh chemicals to clean their schools, like prisoners in a prison, and pay them minimum wage. That will "fundamentally change the nature of poverty in America!"

Maybe Gingrich was trying to sound Libetarian- do away with government restrictions and all that? But then he wants the government to hire these children to service their school buildings- which is big government. So... is it Socialism or Conservatism?

This is the face of the man who destroyed the Republican party.

VIDEO: I Voted for Obama...

2011-12-01T09:02:00.000-08:00

In 2008, the youth vote was overwhelmingly for Obama and helped elect him to the White House. Now, three years into his presidency and one year from the most important election of our lives, college students are thinking twice before voting for Obama again.

And one more bonus video...

Thanksgiving Delight: Climategate 2.0

2011-11-22T10:07:00.000-08:00

Just in time for the holidays, whistleblower Foia.org apparently released more of those Climategate emails- a lot more. Over a million. Most of them have yet to be cracked, but the 5,000 emails without passwords contain the same cover-up from the same characters at University of East Anglia and around the world. Media Matters and Thinkprogress urges the media to investigate before they say anything. After all, "hide the decline" didn't really mean what it sounds like, I guess.

Here is one exerpt from this new email leak:

<1939> Thorne/MetO:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]

<3066> Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

<1611> Carter:
It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.

<2884> Wigley:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]

<4755> Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.

<3456> Overpeck:
I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?

More on Gingrich Baggage

2011-11-18T09:52:00.000-08:00

Think Newt is destined to become the Republican nominee? Think again.

A few days ago we ran an article pointing out the amazing hypocrisy in casting aside Herman Cain for a few unsubstantiated harassment claims (not too unlike those made on Bill Cosby and Clarence Thomas, other Black conservatives who dared to stand up for their beliefs) for Newt Gingrich, a man rife with scandals (both involving sex and money) stretching over decades. (See our article: Cain is Immoral? What About Newt Gingrich?)

Of course the liberal media are licking their chops as they hope beyond hope for an Obama-Gingrich contest. They are getting the video clips, soundbytes, and "expert witnesses" ready even as we speak. Did you know that Gingrich accepted $1.6 Million from Freddie Mac for doing essentially nothing?

Two more articles have appearing in leading news organizations incredulously questioning the collective wisdom of conservatives in turning to a candidate like Newt.

Gingrich the “Historian” Skips Over his Own Past

Is Newt Peaking Too Soon?

BREAKING: CA Can Defend Prop 8 in Court, says CA Supreme Court

2011-11-17T10:11:00.000-08:00

It is being reported that the California Supreme Court has unanimously decided that pro-family citizen groups do in fact have legal standing to fight for Prop 8, a voter-approved constitutional definition of marriage as between one man and one women.

After opponents succeeded in overturning the voter-approved constitutional amendment through a sympathetic federal judge (who was gay himself), they have been attempting to shut citizen groups out of the court proceedings by arguing that the citizens have no right to fight for the new amendment. Since Prop 8 became part of the California constitution, they argued, it was up to the state to defend it. This was argued with tongue-in-cheek since it is well-known that the current governor and attorney general were in fact fighting on the side trying to nullify the vote of the people.

From the Mercury News:

In a unanimous ruling, the justices sided with Proposition 8 sponsors, who've argued they should be able to appeal a federal judge's decision last year striking down the same-sex marriage ban because the governor and attorney general have refused to defend the voter-approved law. The state Supreme Court overwhelmingly agreed that Proposition 8 backers can go it alone in trying to preserve the gay marriage ban.

The Supreme Court was emphatic that it would "undermine" the California ballot initiative process if the governor and attorney general can trump the voters by declining to defend such laws in the courts.

"The inability of the official proponents of an initiative measure to appeal a trial court judgment invalidating the measure, when the public officials who ordinarily would file such an appeal decline to do so, would significantly undermine the initiative power," Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote for the court. [...]

As a result, the 9th Circuit could be in a position to rule on the case fairly swiftly, as it already has been briefed and argued by both sides. The court has one fresh issue to resolve, as Proposition 8 backers have raised new arguments that Walker's ruling should be set aside because he had been in a long-term same-sex relationship at the time he held last year's historic trial in the case and therefore is presumed biased.

Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware rejected that argument earlier this year, but Proposition 8 lawyers have appealed his ruling to the 9th Circuit.

Credit must be giving to these normally-liberal judges for rejecting intense political pressure and not playing along to the farce.

Of course,the Prop 8 issue will end up in the federal supreme court eventually anyways.

More details as they come in...

Previous Stories on the Prop 8 Saga:

Prop 8 Judge's Wife Filed Motion In The Case

Judges Picked To Review Prop 8 Are Mostly Radical Liberal

Liberal Court Blocks Gay Marriages in California

Judge Walker Infringes State Law As He Denies Right To Appeal Prop 8 Decision

Federal Tyranny Proven By Proposition 8 Overthrow

Gay Judge Overrrules Prop 8, Voter Definition of Marriage

Judge 'probably violated the constitution' to punish Prop-8 backers

Cain is Immoral? What About Newt Gingrich?

2011-11-12T17:56:00.000-08:00

For the first time in almost a month Romney is again polling higher than Cain on the RealClearPolitics Republican nomination chart. "9-9-9" notwithstanding, Herman Cain has plummeted 3 full percentage points in the last 3 days leading many to suspect that his "flavor of the month" status may have just expired, as did Rick Perry's about a month earlier.

It doesn't take much thought to attribute Cain's beginning free-fall to the recent allegations that continue to surface that he has a history of sexually harassing women in his professional life. Though the "victims" and very media reporters of these acts are certainly open to critical scrutiny, it seems clear that either at worst he is a rapist or at best he has acted inappropriately with co-worker women while away from his wife. (For example, it has been pretty solidly established that he requested an aid to arrange a dinner meeting with a woman that he did not know but saw at a meeting in Egypt. When his aids refused to do that, he contented himself with having dinner with all of his female aids together.)

Yes, conservative pundits remind us, Bill Clinton did much worse that Cain ever imagined doing, and still managed to be president for 8 years. But they are ignoring one big important point: Democrats are much more willing to forgive liberal politicians of immoral conduct provided their politics are in the desired place. An immoral scandal for a conservative politician, on the other hand, has repeatedly been the kiss of death to their political career. It seems that conservatives feel that a person's personal life will have a big impact on their public decisions, and they want leaders who will support upstanding family values and shun corruption. To liberal voters, character doesn't seem to matter too much, only what the politician will do for them.

Concurrent with Cain's political demise has been Newt Gingrich's slow rise in the polls. Pundits have attributed his gains to regular solid performances in the debates over the last couple months, but they are also failing to mention a few important, game changing points. Though he clearly has a lot of experience in politics and was a major conservative leader during the Clinton administration, there is a very good reason why Gingrich has never been able to get far in the several presidential campaigns that he has run during the last couple decades. Gingrich too has a checkered moral past, one that is arguably more troubling than Cain's.

Here is a brief outline of the Gingrich's more established scandals:

He reportedly began dating his high school geometry teacher Jackie Battley when he was only 16. They married when he was 19 and she was 26.
After having two children with Jackie, he began having an affair with another woman named Marianne Ginther. He presented Jackie the terms for their divorce as she was in the hospital recovering from surgery for uterine cancer. He married Marianne 6 months after the divorce was final and was reportedly very resistant to paying any kind of child support or alimony.
Newt's 2nd wife Marrianne reported him to be very much a spendthrift so she had to take over the finances. Even still, they did not get out of the debt they faced when they married in 1981 until 1994. In 1996 when he served as House Majority Leader, 84 ethics violations were filed against Gingrich for violating tax laws and lying to the House Ethics Subcommittee. He ended up admitting to one of the accounts and was fined $300,000, becoming the first and only Speaker ever to be disciplined for ethics violations. He was eventually forced out of his Speaker position by Republican leaders who blamed him for the party's election losses in 1998.
Even as Gingrich criticized Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky (and spoke of family values to conservative Christian groups), Newt later revealed that he was having an affair with a much younger woman, Callista Bisek. (He clarified to reporters that his actions were not hypocritical because he condemned Clinton for lying about his affair to a grand jury, not for actually having the affair.) A few months after his 2nd wife Marrianne was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (reportedly on Mother's Day), he informed her that he would be divorcing her and marrying Callista.

And these are really just the well-established scandals. There are additional reports of several more affairs and even an instance where President Clinton was able to use this information to muzzle his opposition during the 1998 mid-term elections.

I submit that a man who appears to be as amoral and heartless as Newt Gingrich will never get anywhere near the Republican nomination. Whether you care or not about the sordid and unethical behavior he has admitted to doing (and additional things he has not), surely any reasonable conservative will recognize that he will only become another brief flavor of the month until the media brings his past skeletons out and the Republican party will again be shamed. Why even bother entertaining the thought of his presidency?

Hilarious Demands from Occupy Wallstreet: Let's Do the Math!

2011-10-25T20:45:00.000-07:00

By Stu Brguiere, reposted from glennbeck.com.

In the least surprising development in modern political history, Occupy Wall Street seems to be better at spending your money than they are maintaining hygiene. As evidence, I present their first demand:

Jobs for ALL – A Massive Public Works and Public Service Program

We demand a massive public works and public service program with direct government employment at prevailing (union) wages paid for by taxing the rich and corporations, by immediately ending all of America’s wars, and by ending all aid to authoritarian regimes to create 25 million new jobs to:

Expand education: cut class sizes and provide free university for all;
Expand healthcare and provide free healthcare for all (single payer system);
Build housing, guarantee decent housing for all;
Expand mass transit, provided for free;
Rebuild the infrastructure—bridges, flood control, roads;
Research and implement clean energy alternatives; and
Clean up the environment.
These jobs are to be open to all, regardless of documentation/immigration status or criminal record.

After sifting through the standard ultra-progressive nonsense, one can pull out some interesting numbers. To pay for 25 million jobs at the median union salary, you’re going to have to come up with about $1.194 trillion. That is about 25% more than the entire income tax currently brings in. It also would add more than 1/3^rd to our already completely bloated budget.

To put it another way, the very first proposal from Occupy Wall Street would cost around 50% more than Medicare and Medicaid combined, which is currently our largest expense.

But they say it’s paid for…right? How? It’s simple!

The cost of the plan is $1.192 trillion.

First, get rid of those evil wars: savings $171 billion.

Then, end all “aid to authoritarian regimes.” I’m not exactly sure what Occupy Wall Street considers an “authoritarian regime” (with the exception of Israel…I’m pretty sure they don’t like Jews that much). But let’s be generous and say they think EVERY country we give aid to is authoritarian. Safe bet, right? That saves us a hefty $49 billion.

What’s left? Only $972.1 billion! That’s it! That’s still more than the entire income tax brings in every year…but don’t think about that too hard. How do we close that gap? With an unspecific plan of “taxing the rich and corporations.”

At this point, the idea becomes so ridiculously stupid, it’s impossible to seriously model. You would have to jack up the tax rates so high to bring in that kind of cash, the entire economy would shut down. (See Curve, Laffer.) But, let’s assume that a doubling of the tax rates would bring in twice as much money. It wouldn’t, but let’s do it anyway to humiliate them.

You have a choice—you can either:

a) Raise income tax rates from 35% to 114%.

b) Raise corporate income tax rates from 35% to 148%.

c) Raise both income tax AND corporate tax rates from 35% to 82%.

Of course, both A and B are literally impossible—but C is something that this crowd would seriously consider. They pine for the days when evil rich people dumped 90%+ of their cash to the federal government. It’s happened before—in the 1940’s and 1950’s–reaching a peak of 94% in 1944-45. For every year from 1936 to 1981 the top income tax rate was over 70%. Fabulous!

There’s just one problem—this only covers the salaries for these new jobs. It doesn’t cover the free college education for all. It doesn’t cover the free “single payer” health care for all. It doesn’t cover any of the raw materials for the “guaranteed decent housing for all” or “bridges, flood control, roads” etc. The point is, even if you assume that no additional people would go to college when it started being free, and no one would stop paying for their health care when it was available for free—you’d still have to raise both tax rates to about 114%. That means for every $1 you earned, you’d have to pay $1.14 in taxes.

It might just be time to occupy the calculator aisle at Staples.

Video: Egyptian Tanks Play 'Trample The Christians to Death'

2011-10-10T12:02:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Obama's 'Arab Spring' the Egyptian government is conducting a mass genocide of Coptic Christians. You probably won't see it on Saudi-run Fox News (they are busy spreading lies about Mormons), but fact is radical Muslims have been carrying out mass murders of Christians, rapes of Christian women, and arson attacks of their houses and places of worship. At least 26 were killed in this latest military attack on peaceful Coptic protesters.

Al Jazeera, propagator of the Egyptian Islamic revolution and friend of Hillary Clinton, blamed the Christians for the clashes. They claimed the Christians attacked police. Videos prove otherwise.

George Bush's Dedicatory Memorial Speech, September 10, 2011

2011-09-11T12:18:00.001-07:00

"One of the lessons from 9-11 is that evil is real, and so is courage." I was lucky to see this historic speech live. Hopefully everyone watches the entire dedication from yesterday.

Rick Perry Is Mitt Romney's 'Black Swan'

2011-08-16T13:43:00.000-07:00

Conservatives Are Enamored With Everything They Hated About Mitt Romney

Act 1: The Republican establishment shuts out all viable candidates, and presents a crusty old liberal white man. Democrats present a sterling young liberal black man with enormous appeal. He is smart, patriotic, and promises a fundamental transformation to bring heaven on earth.

Act 2: The Republican establishment shuts out all viable candidates, again by appealing to religious bigotry, sexism, and racial stereotypes. They need another fall guy to prop up the Democrat hero, but how to do it? Take the best viable candidate and present the fall guy as a better version of him. For example, Romney built his state's economy; Perry built his state's economy better and during a depression. Romney stood up to big federal government; Perry threatened succession. Romney attacks Democrats ferociously; Perry attacks them maniacally.

But along with Romney's strengths come Romney's weaknesses in this black swan. Romney flip-flopped on some issues to become more conservative; Perry used to be Al Gore's campaign manager and supported Al Gore's radical liberalism. Romney has some worrisome aspects about his unorthodox faith; Perry believes the world is only 4,000 years old. Romney courted the Republican establishment out of necessity to get elected; Perry was coached by Karl Rove himself. Romney had an illegal alien working on his lawn; Perry tried building a super-highway to Mexico with billions in taxes. Romney sought to get everyone healthcare using a state mandate; Perry mandated every girl get a dangerous drug that turned out to be phony.

The liberal New York Times successfully convinces the voting audience that the Black Swan is actually dominant over the other candidates, that all of Romney's weaknesses are Perry's strengths. But what is actually the difference between the two men? Why is one celebrated and the other scorned? The newspapers, TV channels, and blogs inexplicably take him all the way to the final elections.

Act 3: The Black Swan turns out to be no match against the Democrat, despite the Democrat being wounded and having all odds against him. He comes back at the climax and the audience realizes he possessed all those heroic traits after all. Obama gets his full 8 years and we start a new show in 2016 with the roles switched by party.

CA Solving Illegal Immigration by Bad Economy

2011-07-29T20:14:00.000-07:00

How long will it be until Mexico starts having an illegal immigrant problem? Maybe we should hold up on that border fence idea a little longer...

It appears that all the anti-economy legislation being passed by the geniuses in Sacramento has had an interesting side-effect: Illegal imigrants are reportedly leaving California to return home to Mexico where their prospects are better.

There are fewer undocumented immigrants in California – and the Sacramento region – because many are now finding the American dream south of the border.

"It's now easier to buy homes on credit, find a job and access higher education in Mexico," Sacramento's Mexican consul general, Carlos González Gutiérrez, said Wednesday. "We have become a middle-class country."

Mexico's unemployment rate is now 4.9 percent, compared with 9.4 percent joblessness in the United States.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/28/3799513/improving-mexican-economy-draws.html#ixzz1TYQVQzTu

VIDEO: The Truth About the West Bank

2011-07-26T12:54:00.000-07:00

Israel’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Danny Ayalon has launched a video titled “The Truth About the West Bank.” In the partially animated educational video, Ayalon relays historical facts relating to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, including explanations on where the terms “West Bank”, “occupied territories” and “67 Borders” derived from and how he says they are incorrectly applied.[...]

Based on the video’s positive reaction, Ayalon and his team are also reportedly planning to translate the video into more languages including Farsi. Ayalon said he now realizes that “there has been such a thirst for the truth,“ and not just among supporters of Israel but also among ”the undecided.”

Ayalon says the video’s success has prompted him to explore developing more diplomatic initiatives in the same area, perhaps using the same medium.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/israel-releases-the-truth-about-the-west-bank-video-challenging-palestinian-narrative/

VIDEO: Obama? Time for a Change!

2011-07-21T10:29:00.000-07:00

What Would a Mormon President Be Like?

2011-07-17T17:27:00.000-07:00

Several major media outlets on both sides of the political spectrum have been working overtime to try to tell Americans why they don’t want a Mormon president. Yet the polls have been telling a different story: Romney currently is maintaining a 14 point lead over the closest Republican contender (Rasmussen).

But despite the dire forebodings from the left and right, what would a Mormon president really be like? Let’s take a look at what Mormon politicians in Utah have done. According to the neutral adherents.com research:

Utah was ranked as the #1 best state in which to raise children in by the Children's Right's Council, Provo, Utah as the #1 healthiest city in the country for women, and the Salt Lake City-Ogden metro area as the best place to live in North America.

Despite the fact that Utah ranks next-to-last in educational spending, Utah spends a much greater percentage of their budget on education with the results that Utah has:

the highest high school graduation rates in the nation

the 2nd highest percentage of high school graduates

the highest number of AP exams taken and passed per capita

ranked 7th in the nation academically, beating out states that spend nearly $10,000 more per student.

Utah also spends a significantly smaller portion of their budget on public welfare with the following results:

lowest child poverty rate in the nation

lowest number of teen pregnancies

lowest number of children born to single or unwed mothers

highest amount of money given by wealthy (over $200k) to charity

Hmmm... lowest spending, highest results. What's so bad about a Mormon president again?