Let me just say that I believe the debate we’re going to have with President Obama over the next eight or nine months is the outlining of the two Americas: Those two choices, I believe, will give the American people a chance to decide permanently whether we want to remain the historic America that has provided opportunity for more people of more backgrounds than any country in history, or whether, in fact, we prefer to become a brand-new, secular, European-style, bureaucratic socialist system. The America of the Declaration of Independence v. the America of Saul Alinsky; the America of paychecks v. the America of food stamps; the America of Independence v. the America of Dependence; the America of strength in foreign policy v. the America of weakness in foreign policy. In so summarizing his South Carolina victory speech last week, Newt Gingrich framed the debate against President Obama with a clear vision that will sharply clarify the choice the American people will have to make this year. Do we want the America of the Declaration of Independence? Or the America of radical Marxist revolutionary and social manipulator Saul Alinsky? One TV commentator indicated that most Americans do not even know who Saul Alinsky was. But that is exactly why Gingrich is so right to frame the debate this way, because with Barack Obama as their President, Americans need to know who Saul Alinsky was, and when Gingrich is done with his campaign, every American will. President Obama is not only a follower of Saul Alinsky, and literally a practitioner of his strategies and tactics for the radical socialist takeover of America. After graduation from Harvard Law School, Obama was an instructor of fellow Marxist comrades in the Alinsky philosophy and methodology of social manipulation for the radical Marxist organization ACORN. The American people need to know this, and all about Alinsky, to make an informed decision on whether to vote for Obama for reelection. That vote would represent a fundamental rejection of America, and all it has stood for since 1776. America has long been the land of world leading prosperity, a true workers’ paradise. But the real point of Obama’s State of the Union last night was that all of that has to change now, because America is “unfair,” in the Alinsky/Marxist worldview. Let’s give the President credit where credit is due. Obama is a very sophisticated Marxist philosopher, combining the highly advanced social manipulation tactics of Alinsky with careful, long developed insights in how to craft a modern, neo-Marxist message to sell to a majority of modern America. This is what we heard in last night’s State of the Union. The real question this year is whether this generation of Americans can be duped into trashing the greatest, most prosperous, most successful nation in the history of the world, for a retrograde Marxist vision that thoroughly failed throughout the last century, and which the rest of the world has learned through hard experience is confused to the point of practical silliness. This only indicates how much deep trouble America is in, with Obama as President, and his philosophy and worldview having taken over the modern Democrat party. What Gingrich indicated in his South Carolina victory speech is that he understands what Obama is really all about, and the fundamental challenge he represents to the future of America. And he intends to reveal the truth of Obama’s carefully crafted neo-Marxist message to the American people. Gingrich is the only candidate remotely capable of carrying the flag for the true, original, historic America in this fundamental, existential battle for national survival. He so rightly identified the public mood in his South Carolina speech, saying, “The American people feel that they have elites who have been trying for a half-century to force us to quit being American and become some kind of other system.” He further identified the pending danger, “If Barack Obama can get re-elected after this disaster, just think how radical he would be in a second term.” Gingrich recognizes the central importance of the economic issues in this campaign, and has proposed the most specific, most bold, most comprehensive supply-side economic recovery program of all the candidates, which I have discussed in this space before. He very effectively dramatizes that by saying, “President Obama has been, historically, the most effective food stamp President in American history…. If you want your children to have a life of dependency on food stamps, you have a candidate, it’s Barack Obama. If you want your children to have a life of independence and paychecks you have a candidate, it’s Newt Gingrich.” Gingrich recognizes another component of his long-term economic recovery and prosperity program is an American energy policy, unleashing producers to maximize production of American energy from all sources. He adds as another central component: “Since I am the only Speaker of the House in your lifetime to have helped create four consecutive balanced budgets, I think I can tell you, as President, I will work very hard to get back to a balanced budget as rapidly as possible, and then to run a surplus to pay down the debt so no Chinese leverage exists on the United States by having our debt.” Indeed, as Speaker, he left a legacy of paying down $560 billion in debt with four consecutive record budget surpluses. Gingrich rightly touts his proven leadership and success on these policies, saying, “I worked with Ronald Reagan to create jobs, and 16 million jobs were created by the American people in the 1980s. I worked with Bill Clinton, the Democrat, to create jobs, and 11 million jobs were created by the American people during the four years that I was Speaker.” His goal in sharp contrast to Obama: “I would like to be the best paycheck President in American history.” He also recognizes that “One of the key issues is the growing anti-religious bigotry of our elites.” He served as one of the most faithful, highly effective leaders in modern history on social conservative issues while in office, from pro-life, to pro-gun rights, to pro-family and traditional moral values issues. Most intriguing, he has proposed in this campaign a comprehensive, truly original, historically and legally based strategy to counter liberal activist judges, who have implemented from the bench in recent decades the social liberal agenda. (See Newt.org ). Gingrich concludes, however: But the centerpiece of this campaign, I believe, is American exceptionalism versus the radicalism of Saul Alinsky….[W]hat we are going to argue is that American exceptionalism, the American Declaration of Independence, the American Constitution, the American Federalist papers, the Founding Fathers of America, are the source from which we draw our understanding of America. [Obama] draws his from Saul Alinsky, radical left-wingers, and people who don’t like the classical America. Having served President Reagan in the White House Office of Policy Development in the early 1980s, I can say the comprehensive conservatism and breadth of this South Carolina victory speech is quintessentially Reagan. The Romney Trash-Talking Contrast In sharp contrast, Romney is the perfect foil for Obama’s Alinsky strategy and tactics. Everything about him, from his business career, to his public record, to his appearance, to his inability to express fundamental principles and philosophy, only communicates “Country Club” Republican. Al Sharpton calls him “Mr. 1%.” Does the Republican Party, let alone confused “conservative” talking heads, really want to run this year against Obama a Wall Street multimillionaire who pays a 15% tax rate, and can’t explain or defend that? Instead of the inspiring substance of leadership that Gingrich has provided, Romney has engaged in low brow trash talking, backed by the millions provided by his Country Club cronies. Romney says, “We’re not seeking a talk show host. We’re seeking a leader.” New Jersey Governor and Romney crony Chris Christie chimes in, “Newt has been an embarrassment to the Republican Party.” You want a leader? Gingrich led the entire party to an historic victory in 1994 to the first Republican takeover of Congress in 40 years, something even Reagan didn’t accomplish. Then in 1996 and 1998, Gingrich as Speaker led the first reelection of Republican House majorities in since the 1920s. Some embarrassment, Chris. Romney has no comparable history of successful political leadership. Instead, he has lost every race he has run, except his one gubernatorial victory in Massachusetts. Some leadership. Instead, Romney has sent his surrogates out to trash the true leader with the false claim that he had to resign as Speaker in disgrace, the only Speaker to have to resign in U.S. history, they say. The only problem is that there was no resignation, and there was no disgrace. Gingrich never resigned as Speaker. In 1998, after Republicans failed to make the traditional gains expected in a second midterm election, Gingrich took responsibility as the leader to decline to run for reelection as Speaker. Moreover, the Romney campaign is engaging in the same calculated deception as Obama in arguing he had to resign in disgrace over supposed ethics charges, taking advantage of what it hopes is a public with short memories. The “ethics” charges were filed against Gingrich at the beginning of his service as Speaker, by defeated left-wing Democrats bitter over losing their first majority in 40 years. This was the exact same thing that was done to Sarah Palin recently. Out of 84 supposed charges, 83 were dismissed. The IRS cleared Gingrich of the last years later. In January 1997, upon returning for a second term as Speaker, Gingrich settled to end the political mudslinging by agreeing to pay $300,000 to cover the costs of the investigation. There was no fine. Gingrich did not leave as Speaker until two years after that, upon the disappointing election results discussed above. But he left as a legacy the first reelected Republican House majorities in 70 years, since the 1920s, and record budget surpluses, balancing the budget in three years instead of the expected seven, doing it the only way it has ever been done, cutting both taxes and spending. Contrast that with Romney mentor and cheerleader George H.W. Bush, who in 1990 fell for Democrat seduction for tax increases that are still with us, in return for budget cuts that never happened, with the deficit soaring by 50% as a result. Yet, Romney continues with his own disgrace, charging Gingrich with “influence peddling.” But he provides exactly zero documentation of any instance of actual influence peddling. Gingrich’s consulting contracts all included prohibitions of any lobbying of any sort, at his insistence. For making that dishonest charge without documentation, it is Romney who should resign his campaign, in disgrace.
Excerpt from:
Gingrich Frames the Debate
Occasionally, I will hear someone say that the amount of attention paid to Iowa and New Hampshire in the nominating process is ridiculous. However, on the Republican side of things, it turns out there is a good reason for that. Since the institution of the modern primary system (and even before), no Republican has won the nomination without winning one or the other of the early contests. Observe the chart below: A couple of observations are in order here. First, disparaging comments by Jon Huntsman aside, New Hampshire does not have a remarkably better record of picking Presidents than Iowa. New Hampshire and Iowa have disagreed on a total of five contests – in those, the candidate who won New Hampshire went on to win the nomination 3 times, the candidate who won Iowa went on to win twice. This is hardly a clear signal that Iowa can be disregarded in favor of New Hampshire in all cases. Second, South Carolina’s role in picking the nominee is at least largely due to the fact that the race has usually been all but decided by the time New Hampshire is over. Remember that South Carolina was not moved up to “third place” until 1988. It is believed by many that Atwater bumped SC up because it was thought to be friendly to Bush who was facing possible embarrassment – not necessarily of defeat, but of at least a long, difficult slog – against an insurgent Dole campaign (stop and relish the absurdity of that statement for a moment) and a stronger-than-expected showing from Pat Robertson. Since that election, there have only been three seriously contested Republican primaries – the fact that South Carolina has been the deciding factor in these elections is likely only symbolic of the fact that unlike Democrats, Republican primary voters tend to prefer settling down much earlier in a campaign and avoiding the long, drawn out debacles for which the Democrats are famous. If you look at this list, not only are there no nominees that come from outside the IA/NH column, but there are very few candidates who have even survived (in any meaningful sense) to Super Tuesday outside the IA/NH winner columns. Conclusion: Republican primary voters like to settle things early in the process. It seems like every election cycle people tend to believe that some candidate can win the Republican nomination while breaking the mold and waiting until South Carolina (or later) to claim their first victory. Evidence suggests that this is highly unlikely to be successful. Certainly I wouldn’t rule out such a thing ever happening, but I’d lay long odds against it happening any time soon. Which, you would have to assume, is bad news for anyone in the current GOP field not named Mitt Romney. All that having been said, I don’t absolutely hate the process like a lot of people do. The procession of IA, NH, and SC means that the first two contests are in small swing states in geographically diverse areas, which at least theoretically tests the candidates’ ability to win in states that will be important in November, and also allows candidates with smaller war chests to be competitive. Then SC speaks as a solid Republican state. The inclusion of MI, NV, and FL in the early rounds then tests the ability of any insurgent campaigns that might have captured IA or NH to fundraise and organize in larger and more expensive states, followed ultimately by Super Tuesday, which functions as a quasi-general. I could think of worse ways to do things. Certainly if folks are displeased with the involvement of the “establishment” in primaries, a national single-day primary would be the absolute worst idea possible, as only the wealthiest and most well-connected campaigns could even conceivably compete in such an environment. I suppose that ideally, the first two states might rotate around somewhat, while still keeping with the premise of starting with smaller swing states and trying to vary geographical location. This way certain idiosyncrasies wouldn’t keep popping up – for instance, the strong disadvantage faced by opponents of ethanol pork in the current field. But ultimately there aren’t that many variations that make as much sense (although you could imagine perhaps NV/WV, NM/IN as possible choices). While these sorts of small tweaks might be desirable, I’ve yet to see a compelling case for throwing the entire system out wholesale.
Continue reading here:
The Importance of the Early Contests
[Posted by Karl] Rick Santorum is looking to distinguish himself from his GOP rivals, particularly Mitt Romney, on taxes: If there’s any doubt that insurgent GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum is gunning for the mantle of blue-collar conservative, just take a gander at his tax plan: Families with children would receive triple the current tax exemption, and companies that manufacture goods in America would not be taxed at all. The populist proposals, which set him apart from his rivals, are key components of Santorum’s “faith, family and freedom” agenda that resonated in Iowa and which he now hopes will draw blue-collar voter support in New Hampshire. “I believe in cutting taxes. I believe in balancing budgets. … But I also believe we as Republicans have to look at those who are not doing well in our society by just cutting taxes and balancing budgets,” Santorum said Tuesday after coming within eight votes of front-runner Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucus. As we will see, there’s far less difference between Santorunomics and Romneynomics than the former Pennsylvania Senator has tried to create with rhetorical jabs at supply-siders. The differences fall mostly into the two categories identified above. First, he wants a pro-natalist tax policy in the mold of economist Jacob Stein. That’s unsurprising, given Santorum’s generally Catholic approach to public policy. It appeals directly to middle-class families, which is good campaign politics — on the surface, anyway. On closer examination, there would be budgetary and political obstacles to passing this type of proposal. Moreover, it is far from clear that this tax policy would actually do anything about falling fertility rates , which are part of human development in the modern age. That development, spurred in no small part by respecting innovation and entrepreneurial drive, may decrease fertility rates, but it also yields enormous benefits for families. Second, Santorum supports a hugely differential corporate tax rate of 17.5 percent for all but manufacturers, who would pay zero. Again, this is unsurprising from someone campaigning as the grandson of a coal miner. Again, the surface politics are good, given the importance of working-class voters, particularly white working-class voters , to the electoral calculations of both major parties this year. However, the Tax Foundation calls it possibly the worst idea of any of the Republican candidates , for several reasons. Indeed, the Tax Foundation gives Santorunomics a grade of “D+”. Unfortunately, Romneynomics does not grade out much better, earning a “C-” from the group. The, er, bright spot here is that either would be better than Obamanomics, which by their criteria should flunk. –Karl
Read more here:
Romneynomics vs Santorunomics
We have no good reason to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was born on December 25. Early church fathers settled on that date, rather arbitrarily, partly as a result of some well-meaning but tortured logic and partly to fit in with prevailing secular calendars and feast days. The Bible never mentions a date for the Nativity. Yet here we are, we believers, knowing that the Lord did come into this world. Here we are, believing, as per the Bible, that the event was in some ways entirely local to Bethlehem and its vicinity, marked by extraordinary signs and wonders – even if a larger world took no note of its momentousness. Here we are, wanting to celebrate the birth of hope and the promise of redemption, even as we enter the bleakness of winter. Here we are with tradition and culture telling us this is the time to mark the occasion. So we do. And it is good. The apostle John tells us that Jesus came into the world as a “light [which] shines in the darkness,” a “true light that gives light to every man.” The darkness of early winter, during the shortest days of the year, is exactly the sort of darkness in which is most needed a true light to shine. Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, sang that “the rising sun will come to us from heaven to shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow of death.” These were wintry themes for wintry times, for a Jewish people dominated – relegated to vassalage – by the ruthlessness of Rome. Mary, for her part, must have been perplexed. There she was, a virgin, visited by an angel of the Lord, told that she would be the mother of one to be called the Son of the Most High, one whose “kingdom will never end.” Yet when the time came for the birth, her child was born amidst the animals of a manger, far from home, unheralded by anyone but lowly shepherds, virtually unnoticed
There is a reason, you know. One doesn’t eat cake and ice cream 24/7 and put on weight only to be curious as to reason for the weight gain. There is a reason Ron Paul is doing well in Iowa (as seen in this recent story .) And yes, it is directly related to the fact that Iowa is a caucus state rather than a primary state, where the organizational skills of a candidate with a small core of passionate supporters can make more of a difference. But there is a second, hardly discussed factor at work in Iowa politics: Iowa is a state that has historically produced or supported political leaders whose left-wing foreign policy sentiments were somewhere in the same cornfield’s as Ron Paul. The most prominent, of course, was Henry Agard Wallace . Iowan Henry A. Wallace began his political life as a liberal Republican, or what in today’s world would be called a RINO (Republican In Name Only). His father had been Secretary of Agriculture for conservatives Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, but the son, as sons can do, had a different view of the world. Born and raised in Iowa, a graduate of Iowa State College, Henry Wallace began his career working on the family paper Wallace’s Farmer , eventually taking over as editor. An accomplished farmer, he parlayed his knowledge of agriculture into a successful company known for breeding a high yield hybrid corn. Along the way, as with many RINOs then and now (think, say, Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter), Wallace’s leftist instincts led to changing parties and he became a considerable supporter of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. This resulted in FDR lifting Wallace out of Iowa to take his father’s old job as Secretary of Agriculture. From this position Wallace became one of the leading voices of the American progressive movement. So much so that in 1940 FDR selected Wallace as his vice-presidential running mate for his famous third term victory over GOP nominee Wendell Willkie. For the next four years Wallace’s corn-fed Iowa leftism became so pronounced that nervous Democratic Party leaders began agitating for his removal from FDR’s fourth term bid, a strikingly unusual ploy that came about because of a considerable and quite unspoken fear. Democratic leaders had the uneasy feeling that FDR would win — and die. This was the middle of World War II, and by 1944, love him or hate him, Franklin Roosevelt had been at the helm of two of the most monumental events of the thus unfolded 20th century — the Great Depression and the Second World War. He was, at this point, a party icon and no one had the ability or the will to push him aside. What they could do was push Wallace aside and assure that someone else top Democrats considered as more responsible was in second place. They got their wish and did the deed with FDR’s exhausted consent — fatefully replacing Wallace with Harry Truman. And as feared, four months after inauguration day, FDR was dead. Truman, not Wallace was president. He was, however, Secretary of Commerce by the grace of a guilty FDR who had appointed him as a sop for removing him from the ticket. But it wasn’t long before the progressive politics of Iowa farmer Wallace were clashing with ex-World War I Captain Truman over the budding Cold War. There was a spectacular clash between the two — and Wallace was out. On September 19, 1946 Truman had angrily written in his diary — in terms opponents today frequently apply to Paul — that Wallace was “a pacifist 100 percent.” Truman bluntly accused the Iowa progressive of seeing “no wrong” in anything done by Stalin and the Soviets, including “Russia’s loot of Poland, Austria, Hungary, Rumania, Manchuria…. I do not understand a ‘dreamer’ like that.” In short, as with Ron Paul today and as Paul demonstrated afresh in the latest Fox debate, Wallace believed that the cause of America’s difficulties was — America. It was America provoking the Russians to their behavior, not some messianic Communist urge to take over the world that was the real problem. The spreading Soviet presence in Europe and elsewhere be damned. WALLACE’S BELIEF, OF COURSE, is now precisely the core philosophy of Ron Paul and his allies, although today it is applied to America’s struggle with Islamic fundamentalists. It was also the philosophy behind a Paul mentor, Murray Rothbard. Rothbard, a conservative with William F. Buckley Jr. and the rest at the beginning of the modern conservative movement, also believed with Wallace that the Cold War was America’s fault. Rothbard’s real philosophical alliance would eventually reveal itself in later years as he split with Buckley. Rothbard went on instead to ally himself with the leftist inclinations of the Students for a Democratic Society — the infamous SDS that birthed Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Jane Fonda’s radical husband Tom Hayden. In addition to Rothbard, Paul is a big fan of the leftist intellectual and progressive writer Randolph Bourne, whom he cites favorably in his
