Reagan’s Campaign Manager: Gingrich was one of “most important players and most loyal to Ronald Reagan”

Ed Rollins, National Campaign Manager for President Reagan, sets the record straight about Newt’s work with Reagan:

“I’m going to straighten it out once and for all: Gingrich was a very important congressional ally. Congressmen aren’t in the White House all day long, and they’re not basically giving advice. But he and Jack Kemp and Trent Lott and others were among 10 or 12 most important players and most loyal to Ronald Reagan. At the same time, Mitt Romney was an independent and he was not on the political scene at all. It’s stupid argument. They ought to be talk about this future, not the past.”

Study: 100% of Romney SuperPac Ads Are Negative

Smear campaign –

Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG):

The two super PACs supporting the top candidates were more divergent in their ad strategies.

Restore our Future, supporting Romney, ran 4,969 spots, all of which were negative.

The Gingrich-backing Winning our Future ran 1,893 spots, and only 53% were negative.

Of the 1,012 spots Newt Gingrich’s campaign ran, 95% were negative.

Mitt Romney’s campaign ran 3,276 ads and 99% were negative.

Art Laffer: Why Gingrich’s Tax Plan Beats Romney’s

Art Laffer is the economic genius behind the Reagan Recovery where 8 of the top 10 economic indicators showed almost unending growth for two decades.

Read every last word carefully before you vote.

Art Laffer at the Wall Street Journal:

If we judge both leading contenders in the Republican primary, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, by what they’ve done in life and by what they propose to do if elected, either one could be an excellent president. But when it comes to the election’s core issue—restoring a healthy economy—the key is a good tax plan and the ability to implement it.

Mr. Gingrich has a significantly better plan than does Mr. Romney, and he has twice before been instrumental in implementing a successful tax plan on a national level—once when he served in Congress as a Reagan supporter in the 1980s and again when he was President Clinton’s partner as speaker of the House of Representatives in the 1990s. During both of these periods the economy prospered incredibly—in good part because of Mr. Gingrich.

Jobs and wealth are created by those who are taxed, not by those who do the taxing. Government, by its very nature, doesn’t create resources but redistributes resources. To minimize the damages taxes cause the economy, the best way for government to raise revenue is a broad-based, low-rate flat tax that provides people and businesses with the fewest incentives to avoid or otherwise not report taxable income, and the least number of places where they can escape taxation. On these counts it doesn’t get any better than Mr. Gingrich’s optional 15% flat tax for individuals and his 12.5% flat tax for business. Each of these taxes has been tried and tested and found to be enormously successful.

Hong Kong, where there has been a 15% flat income tax on individuals since 1947, is truly a shining city on the hill and one of the most prosperous cities in history. Ireland’s 12.5% flat business income tax propelled the Emerald Isle out of two and a half centuries of poverty. Mr. Romney’s tax proposals—including eliminating the death tax, reducing the corporate tax rate to 25%, and extending the current tax rates on personal income, interest, dividends and capital gains—would be an improvement over those of President Obama, but they don’t have the boldness or internal integrity of Mr. Gingrich’s personal and business flat taxes.

Imagine what would happen to international capital flows if the U.S. went from the second highest business tax country in the world to one of the lowest. Low taxes along with all of America’s other great attributes would precipitate a flood of new investment in this country as well as a quick repatriation of American funds held abroad. We would create more jobs than you could shake a stick at. And those jobs would be productive jobs, not make-work jobs like so many of Mr. Obama’s stimulus jobs.

Tax codes, in order to work well, require widespread voluntary compliance from taxpayers. And for taxpayers to voluntarily comply with a tax code they have to believe that it is both fair and efficient.

Fairness in taxation means that people and businesses in like circumstances have similar tax burdens. A flat tax, whether on business or individuals, achieves fairness in spades. A person who makes 10 times as much as another person should pay 10 times more in taxes. It is also patently obvious that it is unfair to tax some people’s income twice, three times or more after it has been earned, as is the case with the death tax.

The current administration’s notion of fairness—taxing high-income earners at high rates and not taxing other income earners at all—is totally unfair. It is also anathema to prosperity and ultimately leads to the situation we have in our nation today.

In 2012, those least capable of navigating complex government-created economic environments find themselves in their worst economic circumstances in generations. And the reason minority, lesser-educated and younger members of our society are struggling so greatly is not because we have too few redistributionist, class-warfare policies but because we have too many. Overtaxing people who work and overpaying people not to work has its consequences.

On a bipartisan basis, government has enacted the very policies that have created the current extremely uneven distribution of income. And then in turn they have used the very desperation they created as their rationale for even more antibusiness and antirich policies. As my friend Jack Kemp used to say, “You can’t love jobs and hate job creators.” Economic growth achieved through a flat tax in conjunction with a pro-growth safety net is the only way to raise incomes of those on the bottom rungs of our economic ladder.

When it comes to economic efficiency, nothing holds a candle to a low-rate, simple flat tax. As I explained in a op-ed on this page last spring (“The 30-Cent Tax Premium,” April 18), for every dollar of net income tax collected by the Internal Revenue Service, there is an additional 30¢ paid out of pocket by the taxpayers to maintain compliance with the tax code. Such inefficiency is outrageous. Mr. Gingrich’s flat taxes would go a lot further toward reducing these additional expenses than would Mr. Romney’s proposals.

Mr. Gingrich’s tax proposal is not revenue-neutral, nor should it be. If there’s one truism in fiscal policy, it’s this: Wasteful spending will always rise to the level of revenues. Whether you’re in Greece, Washington, D.C., or California, overspending is a prosperity killer of the first order. Mr. Gingrich’s flat tax proposals—along with his proposed balanced budget amendment—would put a quick stop to overspending and return America to fiscal soundness. No other candidate comes close to doing this.


ZeroHedge: Real Unemployment Rate 10%


What do the NAR, Consumer Confidence and CBO forecasts have in common? If you said, “they are all completely worthless” you are absolutely correct. Alas, the market needs to “trade” off numbers, which is why the just released CBO numbers apparently are important… And the fact that the CBO predicted negative $2.5 trillion in net debt by 2011 back in 2011 is largely ignored. Anyway, here are some of the highlights.

  • 2012 Deficit: $1.1 trillion; 2013 Deficit: $0.6 – yes, we are cackling like mad too…
  • Unemployment to remain above 8% in 2012 and 2013; will be around 7% by end of 2015; to drop to 5.25% by end of 2022.
    • This forecast is utterly idiotic and is completely unattainable unless the US workforce drops to all time lows and the US economy generates 300,000 jobs a month for 10 years
  • Needless to say, CBO assumes the best of all worlds in this meaningless forecast
  • But here is the kicker: “Had that portion of the decline in the labor force participation rate since 2007 that is attributable to neither the aging of the baby boomers nor the downturn in the business cycle (on the basis of the experience in previous downturns) not occurred, the unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of 2011 would have been about 1¼ percentage points higher than the actual rate of 8.7 percent” translation: CBO just admitted that the BLS numbers are bogus and real unemployment is 10%. Thank you

CBO another reports another $1 trillion deficit

It is enough to make one ill.


The government faces a fourth year of trillion-plus deficits in 2012, according to new projections released Tuesday—numbers which also show little relief in the future unless Washington comes to grips with needed changes in its tax and spending policies.

Like Aunt Cassandra coming down from the attic, the Congressional Budget Office steps squarely into the 2012 campaign season with the 147-page report which might have been subtitled “It’s not just the economy stupid, it’s also the debt.”

Read more:



300 Tea Party Groups Endorse Newt Gingrich

Orlando, FL – In another sign of Newt Gingrich’s surging momentum, 200 additional Tea Party Organizers have joined the coalition Tea Partiers With Newt. This Coalition now represents 300 Tea Party organizers from 36 states who have joined together to help elect a bold Reagan conservative in Speaker Newt Gingrich and defeat Massachusetts Moderate Mitt Romney and then President Barack Obama.

Earlier today Newt2012 announced the endorsement of 47 Florida Tea Party organizers who also joined Tea Partiers With Newt.

Tea Party support for Newt in Florida is extremely high according to Tom Gaitens, Former Florida State Director of FreedomWorks. “Newt Gingrich is a Reagan Conservative and Mitt Romney is not. Their records clearly support this. If Americans truly want to have real change they will elect the man who balanced four federal budgets, who has reformed entitlements and not the man who is a Massachusetts Moderate who governed as a liberal and continues to flip flop on every Conservative issue.”

“The GOP establishment and liberal and conservative mainstream media assault on the Speaker clearly shows that the people who have torn our great nation down are afraid of change and bold vision. Another moderate GOP nominee in Mitt Romney will result in the reelection of President Obama.” said Patricia Sullivan, Founder of Patriot Army and Co-Founder of North Lake Tea Party from Eustis, FL.

“The Tea Party is not going to sit by and let the establishment determine who our nominee is. Our time for remaining quiet and balancing our ideals with staying out of elections is absolutely over. We will either elect Newt Gingrich or we will have the second incarnation of John McCain – and we all know how that turned out,” said Karin Hoffman, who leads DC Works For Us in Broward County, FL and has organized meetings between key Tea Party organizers and RNC Chairman Reince Priebus and also former Chairman Michael Steele.

Full list of endorsements:

United States House of Representatives

Representative Joe Barton of Texas, Chairman Emeritus of the House Energy and Commerce Committee
Representative Michael Burgess of Texas
Representative Phil Gingrey of Georgia
Representative Jack Kingston of Georgia
Representative Tom Price of Georgia
Representative Austin Scott of Georgia
Representative Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia
Representative Andy Harris of Maryland
Representative Trent Franks of Arizona
Representative David Rivera of Florida

Governors and State Constitutional officers

Governor, former Presidential candidate Rick Perry of Texas
Governor Nathan Deal of Georgia
Georgia Insurance Commissioner Ralph Hudgens
Georgia Public Service Commissioner Stan Wise
Georgia Public Service Commissioner Lauren “Bubba” McDonald

Former officeholders

Former Senator, former Presidential candidate and actor Fred Thompson of Tennessee
Former Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire
Former Senator and Governor Zell Miller of Georgia
Former Representative Fred Grandy of Iowa
Former Representative Greg Ganske of Iowa
Former Representative J. C. Watts of Oklahoma
Former Representative John Napier of South Carolina
Former Representative, former Attorney General Bill McCollum of Florida
Former Representative Gary Lee of Florida
Former Governor Sonny Perdue of Georgia
Former Lieutenant Governor André Bauer of South Carolina

Former diplomats, board members and other officials

Former United States Treasurer Rosario Marin
Former Ambassador to Tanzania, former Commerce Secretary of South Carolina Bob Royall
Former member of President Ronald Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board Arthur Laffer
Former Director of White House speechwriting for President Ronald Reagan Bently Elliott
Former chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, partner at the Nexsen Pruet law firm, Billy Wilkins
Former member of the board of visitors at the Medical University of South Carolina Debra Wilkins

Current and former state and local officials and party officeholders in Florida

Former Miami Mayor Joe Carollo
Former Orange County Mayor Rich Crotty
Vice Mayor of Bradenton and Bradenton City Councillor Patrick Roff
State Senator Jim Norman
State Senator Thad Altman
Former State Senator John Grant, Sr.
State Representative Michael Bileca
State Representative Gayle Harrell
State Representative Deborah Mayfield
State Representative Carlos Trujillo
Former State Representative Kurt Kelley
Former State Representative Monica Rodriguez
Former State Representative Luis Rojas
Brevard County Chair William Tolley
Hillsborough County Chair Sam Rashid
Honorary Brevard County Chair Coy Clark
Duval County Co-Chair Bert Ralston
Pinellas County Co-Chair Dr. Miguel Fana
Jacksonville City Councillor Ray Holt
Brooksville City Councillor Kevin Hohn
Former Chairman of Calhoun County Commission Dan Wyrick
Miami-Dade County Commissioner Xavier Suarez
Palm Beach County Commissioner Steve Abrams
Former Leon County Commissioner Ed Depuy
Gingrich Florida Chair College Republicans Nathan Meloon
Gingrich Florida Chair of Young Republicans Christian Waugh

Solyndra caught tossing millions of dollars’ worth of assets YOU paid for into dumpsters

With so many of thee green energy boondoggles it looks like this: Obama gives big taxpayer money to a fund raiser who is an owner in a “green energy company”. Said owners pay themselves in a big way, give big money to Democrats and go out of business.


Another Green Energy Stimulus Recipient Hits the Skids (the third this week!) – LINK

CBS: Obama Admin knew green energy boondoggles were politically motivated – LINK

Whopping Lies: New Obama ad defends energy policy, Solyndra – LINK


Do not apply “perfection tests” to candidates

by Political Arena Editor Chuck Norton

This perfection double standard could apply to any candidate, but since Newt Gingrich is the subject of the current news cycle he will make a fine example.

Like many people, Newt’s ideology has changed over the years. Reagan’s influence changed the ideology of a great many. Did you know that Charles Krauthammer and George Will both opposed Reagan?

I see many people on FaceBook, blogs, and message boards blasting a candidate for saying something nice about a Democrat in 1972, while engaging in pretzel logic justifying their own candidate’s recent imperfections. By that standard every candidate is disqualified including President Reagan.

Ronald Reagan campaigned for FDR and Truman. So by the standard applied to Newt Gingrich this week Reagan was unfit to serve as a Republican.

Michelle Bachmann campaigned for Jimmy Carter.

Rick Perry was Texas Chair for Al Gore for President.

Zell Miller was a life long Democrat before he spoke at the Republican Convention against John Kerry as the Keynote Speaker.

Dennis Miller used to be a Democrat. David Horowitz, a conservative icon in every sense of the word, used to be a full fledged Communist radical.

I see many people posting videos of Glenn Beck criticizing Newt, but Beck cannot meet the standard that he applies to Newt Gingrich because Beck was a liberal alcoholic just a few years ago by his own admission.

I have particularly noticed this “perfect conservative consistency standard complete with a 20/20 hindsight rider” used against Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum by supporters of Mitt Romney… yes that is right Mitt Romney, who of course has a record that isn’t nearly as conservative as the other two.

On line and in other communications I have seen more and more Romney supporters get so caught up and emotionally charged with the anti-Newt media narrative that they are ready to vote for:

The guy behind RomneyCare over the man behind the Contract with America (Newt), America’s premier social conservative (Santorum), and the best job-creating governor in America (Perry – but he just dropped out), all of whom would also be more electable.

The “perfectionists” are selectively and conveniently applying a standard no candidate can meet. They are making the perfect the enemy of the good as evidenced by a recent Romney narrative  “Newt supported Rockefeller in 1960’s” line. Really guys… the 1960’s?

The propaganda from those who oppose TEA Party conservatives and newly involved independents is designed to target the sensitivities of those TEA Party conservatives – by using that tactic those who are far less conservative have TEA Party activists attacking the candidates that would actually govern more conservative.

When Santorum started going up in the polls what did Romney and his attack dogs call him in ads – a Big Government non-conservative who was contrary to the Reagan Revolution.  The Ronbots ran with it and spouted a similar narrative.

At first Rick Santorum was too conservative and now he is akin to Nancy Pelosi… many TEA Party activists are being lead about by the nose with these false narratives that are so brilliantly designed to target their sensitivities.

As a trained propagandist myself, I am like the magician who shows you how the other guys “made it disappear”.

One can be certain that Mitt Romney and President Obama have hired a team people all with similar training to what I have. Their propaganda is focus-grouped to be tested to generate exactly the narratives I am explaining to you here. The tactics and psychology of communication they use IS that sophisticated. You need to be as aware of this as possible. And make no mistake, even educated conservatives who believe they are informed are as easily influenced by negative ads and attitude change propaganda as anyone.

Mitt Romney is attacking candidates far more conservative than he is for not being perfectly conservative throughout history and voters are falling for it…. and emotionally investing in it with zeal.

But Chuck, Romney can get independents and is more likely to win….

Besides the fact that the political strategy just outlined was the political strategy of Gerald Ford, Bush 41 vs Clinton, Bob Dole and John McCain… and it is precisely that strategy that Reagan opposed; just who are these “Independents”??

In the 2010 elections, in 9 of the top 10 presidential swing states, women and Catholics voted for GOP/TEA Party candidates in the largest numbers since the 1984 Reagan 49 state landslide. Woman and Catholics are the two most notorious 50/50 swing voters.

So let me ask you. Were those swing voters responding to a moderate message of not being too conservative? Were they responding to “lets not be too strident in our opposition to Obama” (That is a Romney quote by the way)? Or were they responding to the TEA Party message of Allen West, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin?

Newt’s early previous statements, which I will freely admit are all over the place, do cause one to pause, but policy is where the rubber meets the road. not statements. Look at the policy heavy lifting Newt got done for conservatives.

While some are content to vote for the man who continues to defend RomneyCare and government mandates; I am more inclined to vote for an imperfect man who passed the Contract With America, balanced the federal budget, cut taxes, grew the economy, and passed Welfare Reform.

Newsmax: Romneycare and Obamacare Are Identical

Betsy McCaughey at Newsmax:

Presidential aspirant Mitt Romney may not have intended that the mandatory health insurance law he signed in 2006 would look like the Obama health law. But the Massachusetts law does a lot more than cover the uninsured (a worthy goal). The law broadens the powers of government to dictate treatment decisions and even interferes in where and how patients die. The result will be a breathtaking shift of decision-making from the doctor at bedside to the state.

ROMNEYCARE                                     OBAMACARE
Individual mandate                              Individual mandate
Employer mandate                               Employer mandate
Mandatory electronic records              Mandatory electronic records
Comparative effectiveness                   Comparative effectiveness
End of life program                              End of life program
Medical homes                                     Medical homes

Read more on Romneycare and Obamacare Are Identical

Steven Tucker from the Chicago TEA Party comments:

I challenge ANY ONE to find the difference between the two –

Another Green Energy Stimulus Recipient Hits the Skids (the third this week!)

With so many of thee green energy boondoggles it looks like this: Obama gives big taxpayer money to a fund raiser who is an owner in a “green energy company”. Said owners pay themselves in a big way, give big money to Democrats and go out of business.


Earlier this week, Stimulus beneficiary Evergreen Energy bit the dust. Then, Ener1, a manufacturer of batteries for electric vehicles and recipient of Stimulus largesse, filed for bankruptcy. And today, the Las Vegas Sun reports that Amonix, Inc., a manufacturer of solar panels that received $5.9 million from the Porkulus, will cut two-thirds of its workforce, about 200 employees, only seven months after opening a factory in Nevada.

I foresaw this spate of bad news last November. As I explained yesterday,

In a previous post, I compared renewable energy spending in the 2009 Stimulus to a green albatross burdening the President. I argued that Stimulus spending was inherently wasteful, because politics invariably corrupts government’s investment decisions. The result is taxpayers losses on bankrupt companies that existed only by the grace of political favoritism, a la Solyndra. I predicted the green stimulus would haunt the President, in the form of a slow drip public relations nightmare, as a litany of bad investments go belly-up in the run up to the 2012 elections. is a nice site. I suggest that our readers add it to their reading lists.

Democrats Face Another Financial Scandal: MF Global client money feared gone

CEO of Thomas Capital Management and Political Arena contributor Thomas J. Zaleski comments:

WHERE are the Democrats blood curdling screams of corporate raiders, banksters, greed, etc? Oh, Democrats love [former New Jersey Governor] Corzine! And it’s Bush’s fault?

Imagine a CPA NOT being able to find ONE POINT TWO BILLION? Must be a drunk CPA. James R. Spear, CPA Diplomat Forensic Accounting could find the money in days.


Watch this video and keep in mind that New Jersey fired Gov. Corzine because he put the state on the brink of default, now Gov. Chris Christie is cleaning up the mess:

Wall Street Journal/NY Post:

MF Global client money feared gone

Nearly three months after MF Global Holdings collapsed, officials hunting for an estimated $1.2 billion in missing customer money increasingly believe that much of it might never be recovered, according to people familiar with the investigation.

As the sprawling probe that includes regulators, criminal and congressional investigators, and court-appointed trustees grinds on, the findings so far suggest that a “significant amount” of the money could have “vaporized” as a result of chaotic trading at MF Global during the week before the company’s Oct. 31 bankruptcy filing, a person close to the investigation was cited as saying Monday.

Many officials now believe certain employees at MF Global dipped into the “customer segregated account” that the New York company was supposed to keep separate from its own assets — and then used the money to meet demands for more collateral or to unfreeze assets at banks and other counterparties as they grew more concerned about their financial exposure to MF Global.

Lawmakers have pushed for answers from Jon S. Corzine, the former New Jersey governor and Goldman Sachs Group chairman who led MF Global into its big European bet and was CEO when the company failed.

[But I thought it was those rascally Republicans who owned Wall Street and Goldman Sachs…. – Editor]

Read more HERE.

MIT Economist: ObamaCare is RomneyCare with three more zeros

This professor worked to implement RomneyCare and worked with President Obama to implement ObamaCare:

Lawrence O’Donnell, MSNBC host: “Alright, come on. Come clean. You were in the room with President Obama discussing healthcare reform and you did in fact work with the Romney administration in Massachusetts. Come on Professor, you’ve got to tell us the truth.”

Jonathan Gruber, MIT professor: “The truth is that the Affordable Care Act is essentially based on what we accomplished in Massachusetts. It’s the same basic structure applied nationally. John McDonough, one of the other advisers,who work in both Massachusetts and advised the White House said ‘it’s the Massachusetts with three more zeros.’ And that’s basically a good description of what the federal bill did.”

Gruber says Massachusetts received some federal funding for Romney’s healthcare reform, meaning all U.S. taxpayers chipped in to fund RomneyCare.

Video HERE.

Washington Times: Romney playing the class warfare game…

Emily Miller
Emily Miller

Emily Miller in the Washington Times:

Even though Mr. Romney earns his current multimillion income from his investments, he favors keeping capital gains at its current rate. He would lower it to zero for families with a combined income below $200,000. While he might be advocating this policy to avoid accusations of favoring his fellow uber-rich, the former Massachusetts governor is playing Mr. Obama’s class-warfare game.

If George Soros is so into promoting socialism, why does he go to such lengths to enrich himself often at the expense of others?

I was asked the question in the title so I thought I would provide a short answer with some supporting evidence.

Socialists like Soros are not truly into socialism, they are into control. Envy is the tool and socialism is the vehicle that he and people like him use.

There are essentially three kinds of socialists:

The Control Freak: We are the ruling elite and are born to rule. Follow me and stay out of my way or else…

The Utopian: The Utopian wants to create a perfect society which is impossible. The more they tighten their grip the more slips through their fingers. When Utopians come into power they often lose that naivete and become control freaks.

The Sucker: Those who have swallowed the envy narrative. They see someone else get taxed or punished who has more and that makes them feel better in spite of the fact that they are not better off for it and are in fact, worse off. Why? Because envy corrupts the spirit and the thought process. There are 37% fewer millionaires in the country now than when Obama got elected. If this is all about redistribution of wealth let me ask you –  how much of that money did you get?

Obama while giving a speech to Google blasted the Chamber of Commerce for opposing a raise in the top marginal tax rate to 39.9% because millionaires and billionaires weren’t paying their fair share.

Google paid 2.4% federal tax on 3.1 billion in income. Google doesn’t pay the top marginal rate – small to medium sized businesses called “S-Corps” do.

Google pays the corporate rate and has the influence to get favors in the 60,000 page tax code. Google also makes money overseas and chooses not to repatriate the profits.

Raising the top marginal tax rate doesn’t effect millionaires and billionaires because by and large they do not pay that tax, but small businesses would get soaked. Google and GE pay next to nothing and small to medium domestic business pays 39.9% (albeit with some deductions). This is how President Obama and the leadership of his party define fairness. Now you have just figured out why the largest Wall Street outfits and many other mega-corporations donate to Democrats in such numbers over Republicans.

Hence Norton’s First Law: Big Business loves big government because big government taxes and regulates the small and medium sized domestic competition out of the competition.

The taxes Democrats propose to “soak the rich” always seem to miss those who they demagogue for not paying their fair share. They have been “soaking the rich” for decades and keep missing the target. Why? – LINK


George Soros and Warren Buffet benefited from Obama Keystone Pipeline Veto – LINK.

Don’t forget George Soros – LINK.

Political Arena George Soros Coverage – LINK.

Romney Supporter Florida AG Pam Bondi Says Mitt Wants Romneycare In Every State

In the process she tells whopping lies about RomneyCare in Massachusetts.

Pam Bondi says that RomneyCare cuts costs and expands choice, both claims are shown to be false with just minutes of research.

As far as cutting costs, RomneyCare was not designed to cut costs and they said so when creating it. Romney’s team made it clear that they aimed for “universal coverage” first, and decided to worry about controlling costs later – LINK.

Costs continue to rise faster in Massachusetts than in the rest of the country. So much so that when one examines the details of just how much RomneyCare costs not just the Massachusetts tax payer, but the American taxpayer you will not be pleased.

Be sure to read this entire post.

You paid the high cost of RomneyCare in Massachusetts… – LINK and here is an excerpt:  

The High Price of Massachusetts Health Care Reform

We find that, under health care reform:

• State health care expenditures have risen by $414 million over the period;

• Private health insurance costs have risen by $4.311 billion over the period;

• The federal government has spent an additional $2.418 billion on Medicaid for Massachusetts.

• Over this period, Medicare expenditures increased by $1.426 billion;

• For a total cumulative cost of $8.569 billion over the period; and

• The state has been able to shift the majority of the costs to the federal government.


As you read on and read the related links below you will understand why many insurance companies have fled the state thus reducing choice.


Romney: Requiring people to have health insurance is “conservative” – LINK.

The Truth About RomneyCare – LINK.


Is “the establishment GOP” trying to make a third party to protect Democrats forever?

I heard Trent Lott on the radio trashing conservatives to protect Mitt Romney. I can’t say that I am very surprised but I sure am disappointed.

Sometimes I really believe that the so called “inside Republican establishment” would rather have a Democrat elected than a Reagan conservative;  just as Charlie Crist tried to do, much of whose senior staff works for Mitt Romney.

The same establishment that opposed Ronald Reagan now pretends that he doesn’t exist with narratives like “People like Newt can’t win”  – meaning conservatives can’t win elections… only people like Dole, Ford, McCain and Romney can. Then they have the gall to claim that they are more like Reagan.

If the GOP does not perform and present serious change in a big way against institutionalized leftism people will conclude that there is not enough difference between Democrats and Republicans and it will be Ross Perot’s and such all over again.

The GOP “establishment STILL has not learned the lessons from 2006, 2008 and 2010.

Ann Barnhardt’s Mailbag

We do not post about religion and God as much as we should, so to help remedy that we present to you Ann Barnhardt’s mailbag. No matter what you may think of her politics Ann gives a great testimony. You will love it 🙂



Dear Ann,

Could you please stop posting the Lord’s Prayer every day? It significantly reduces the number of visible posts.


Dear Reader,
Congratulations! You win this month’s “Way to Completely Miss The Point” award! And given the nature of the award, here is the requisite excruciatingly direct answer to your question: Uh, no. I cannot stop posting the Lord’s Prayer every day. Mmm-kay? Yeah. Thanks.





Dear Ann,

I thought you hated all secular music. You’re always complaining about “rockband church”, and then you post Elvis and try to make some connection to God. You need to make up your mind.


I Don’t Understand Context


Dear I Don’t Understand Context,

Let’s say your best friend has been arrested, tried in a kangaroo court and sentenced to execution for a crime that YOU committed. Before the actual execution, your best friend is tortured, whipped until skinned, and then led through the streets being mocked, pelted and spit upon by huge crowds. He finally gets to the place of execution and is stripped naked and then NAILED hand and foot to two beams to hang and slowly asphyxiate. Amazingly, your best friend does all of this willingly, and is even CONSOLED by the fact that you are present at his execution. What is the proper, moral and dignified way for you to behave while you hold vigil at the place of execution while your best friend dies in agony on your behalf?

A.) “Day-um. This is SO FLIPPING BOOOORING. This is SOOO STUPID. I can think about my friend at home just the same as here. AND I can do chores or watch the football game at the same time! I’m out. Peace, yo.”

B.) “I’ll hang around, but there better be a kick-ass rock band, a PowerPoint show and a stand-up comedy routine or else I AM OUT. If I’m not seriously entertained, then forget it. Oh, and if ANYONE brings up the fact that my friend is dying on my behalf for crimes that I COMMITTED and tries to lay some sort of guilt trip on me, I’m just going to leave. Screw that.”

C.) “I’ll go, but they had better let me talk and sing and be an on-site usher or else I AM OUT. I’m not going to go and just be anonymous and ignored, because if you think about it, this really is ALL ABOUT ME.”

D.) On knees, SILENT, head covered, SILENT, mortified, SILENT, begging in prayer for your Best Friend to forgive you, and telling Him how much you love Him and His Sacrifice of Himself for you. Oh, and SILENT.

The correct answer is . . . D.

When you are at the foot of the Cross at Mass (because that is what the Mass is – the bending of time in order to touch today to Calvary 1979 years ago), you SHUT YOUR MOUTH, GET ON YOUR KNEES and PRAY, just exactly as The Virgin Mary, St. Mary Magdalene and St. John did. They didn’t talk. They didn’t sing super-fun songs in order to entertain themselves or the others there present and show off their musical abilities. They didn’t laugh, or relax or have fun. They got on their knees, beheld the Crucified Christ, and wept and PRAYED. Christ Crucified is NOT ENTERTAINING. Christ Crucified is not “fun”. You don’t play secular music, or music that is trying to sound secular and thus be “entertaining”, AT CALVARY. To do so is, frankly, narcissistic to the point of being utterly deranged.

It is called CONTEXT. If you don’t have it, get it.

In keeping with the situation,




Dear Ann,

Could you please explain the Trinity?

Unreasonably High Expectations


Dear Unreasonably High Expectations,

In a word, no. No one can. It is a mystery. And I find this consoling. Frankly, the fact that the Church says straight-out that there are certain things which are simply unable to be comprehended by human beings is a testament to the legitimacy of the Church as a teaching authority. Never trust any human being or group of human beings who claim to “know everything”. Anyone who claims to know everything is, by definition, a liar right out of the chute, because only God knows everything.

There are several huge mysteries of faith: the Trinity (one God in Three Divine Persons), the Incarnation (Jesus Christ being both fully God and fully human) and the Eucharist (bread and wine being transubstantiated into the physical Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ).

How can God be One in Being, but Father, Son and Holy Ghost? I dunno. It’s a mystery.

How can Jesus be both fully God and fully Man? I dunno. It’s a mystery.

How can something that was bread a few minutes ago, and still looks like bread, and still smells and tastes like bread actually be God? And how did that change occur? I dunno. It’s a mystery.

Regarding the Trinity, here is what we do know. The entire point and revelation of God in the Old Testament is the reality that there is not a “pantheon” of many gods, but that there is, in fact, only ONE God. If you had to pin down what the point of the Old Testament is – that’s it in a very, very simple nutshell. GOD IS ONE.

The Torah, or the first five books of the Old Testament, were written by Moses. The entire point of Moses’ life was to bear witness to the fact that there is only ONE GOD. There was absolutely no ambiguity about this. None. But, if we look at literally the FIRST CHAPTER of the book of Genesis, we see something amazing. Verse 26:

“And He said: Let Us make man to Our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.”

Moses spent most of his adult life in interface with and witnessing for The ONE TRUE GOD. And yet he can’t get more than a couple hundred words into his written record and he is using PLURAL PRONOUNS – “Us” and “Our” – when quoting the ONE TRUE GOD.

SURELY Moses, of all people, wouldn’t make the sloppy mistake of using plural pronouns. SURELY someone around Moses, and for the centuries upon centuries afterward, would say, “Hey! You’ve got plural pronouns here! Shouldn’t we fix that? Afterall, it completely undercuts the whole “GOD IS ONE” thing we are trying to communicate here.”

Nope. Not only did Moses write it that way, but it STAYED that way for all of these centuries.

About the most that can be said about the Triune Godhead is this: God is RELATIONAL to Himself. God is Love – and what is love? Love is the complete giving of one’s self, and love is the act of fully RECEIVING and then returning love. Soooo . . . if God were NOT relational to Himself, how could He have existed as existential love before the creation of the universe? Who was He loving? Was He sitting around pondering Himself? How does inward-turned naval gazing constitute a GIFT of self? What love was He receiving? How could God receive love if He was the only thing that existed?

Because God is, in Himself, able to relate to Himself. Christ revealed to us that God is Three Divine Persons, all distinct but yet completely One in Being. Got your head around that? No, of course not. We can’t FULLY grasp that existential reality any more than we can grasp and explicitly describe what a fifth dimension would look like. But Christ did give us names for the Three Persons in Matthew 28:19 so that we could relate a little bit to the Trinity. Those names are: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The words “Father and Son” are not a perfect analogue because the Father did not exist before the Son, as in the human case. The Three Divine Persons of the Trinity are co-eternal. No one can explain that. No one can explain eternity. All we can do is name it, and then get on with living. Also, there is the issue of gender, which is another post, but suffice it to say that God contains “femaleness” and women are not a foreign mystery to Him.

So, God the Father gives Himself fully to God the Son. God the Son then fully receives that love, and then returns it to God the Father fully. This infinite back-and-forth of love is so existentially perfect that it yields a Third, which Jesus taught us to call “The Holy Ghost”. The big human clue-in to all of this is human procreation. A man loves his wife and gives himself to her fully and completely. The wife loves her husband and thus receives his gift of himself in the form of his DNA and offers her own DNA in return. The two gifts of self are so perfect and complete that they actually become a third person.

Thus, the Triune Godhead is the foundational reality, and human procreation is the DERIVATIVE, which points back to the underlying reality of the Trinity. And yes, eventually every derivative expires, and upon expiry there is a delivery and the books get settled and squared. That would be “death” and “judgment”. As a (former) futures broker, I like that part. 🙂

Here is a classic song that touches on the crux of what real, Trinitarian love is: “Nature Boy”, best performed by Nat King Cole.

Ann Barnhardt and Sarah Palin featured in “Not Romney”

Ann Barnhardt:

Well, some people have taken that video of mine and built an entire 52 minute piece around it, inserting citations, clips of Romney himself, news stories, and all kinds of HILARIOUS pop-culture references. There are movie clips, Randall the Honey Badger guy (a huge guilty pleasure of mine) makes several appearances, even Beavis and Butthead have cameos. The work that went into this was enormous, and the editing is superb. It is long, but it is very informative while being laugh-out-loud funny.

Well done, Guys.

CBS: Obama Admin knew green energy boondoggles were politically motivated

These companies get a big chunk of tax-dollars, the companies are ran by Obama fundraising bundlers and/or contributors; they write a big check to Obama for President, pay themselves fat and go out of business.

CBS News:

Via Real Clear Politics:

CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson takes a look at 11 more Solyndras that were part of Obama’s Energy program. Attkisson was one of the original reporters that uncovered the Solyndra scandal.

CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra.

According to CBS News, Beacon Power, a “green energy storage company,” received $43 million from the government. Standard and Poor’s had given the project a rating of “CCC-plus.”

Black Obama Voter to Limbaugh: Will Vote Republican for the First Time Over Keystone

Obama’s veto of the Keystone oil deal with Canada is beyond stupid. It is instant jobs, instant oil from a friendly country in a strategically sound place. There is no sane reason to oppose it.

This is a great call into Rush today from a self-identified black man named Dennis who has finally abandoned not only his support for Obama but says he is considering dropping his support for the Democrat party too. And his tipping point was Obama’s pandering to environmentalists in rejecting the Keystone Pipeline.

Here’s the full call – VIDEO.

16 Scientists: No compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.

16 Scientists:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to “do something” about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris;

J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting;

Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University;

Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society;

Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences;

William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton;

Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.;

William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology;

Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; 

James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University;

Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences;

Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne;

Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator;

Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem;

Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service;

Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.


Palin Defends Newt Again: Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left

For the second time in a week Sarah Palin has spoken out about the dishonest and unfair attacks against Newt Gingrich.

Sarah Palin:

Sarah Palin

We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.

We will look back on this week and realize that something changed. I have given numerous interviews wherein I espoused the benefits of thorough vetting during aggressive contested primary elections, but this week’s tactics aren’t what I meant. Those who claim allegiance to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment should stop and think about where we are today. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, the fathers of the modern conservative movement, would be ashamed of us in this primary. Let me make clear that I have no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign. As I said at the first Tea Party convention two years ago, I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.

I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.

Read more HERE.