Posted on 02/15/2012 9:43:17 PM PST by VinL
Newt's interview with Greta- Video at link
(Excerpt) Read more at gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com ...
Newt's energy policy - because he HAS a policy:
Initiate Keystone Pipeline immediately.
Open offshore drilling, where we ALREADY have rigs.
Open federal lands for drilling.
Gas futures will react immediately.
Right on, Newt!
One thing that Greta seems to miss is the large effect that gas prices have as a whole on our economy. These prices do not just effect the individual consumer, but the cost of business and the cost of goods.
Newt lays it out clear that we can become energy independent and not be held hostage or at the mercy of those in the Middle East. I hope Fr's will take a few minutes to listen to what he is saying.
Newt ping.
Great interview, but it appears Newt and Greta don’t understand the deeper issue over federal health insurance control. It’s not simply about religious freedom. It’s about private property rights. Even if an insurance company has no religious objections to birth control, the federal government does not have the legitimate authority to force it to give away free stuff.
If you believe government regulation gives the federal government the authority to regulate business to this extent, then there is literally nothing they couldn’t control. It doesn’t have to be the pill. It could be free eye exams, health foods, gym memberships, etc.
Once you start believing the federal government has the right to tell businesses to give away “free” stuff as the price of doing business, there is no end to it. A religious exception, while very important, misses the much larger issue of private property rights. Seriously. What’s next? Will the president force gas stations to give out free car washes or grocery stores to give out free milk in order to stay in business?
It’s a good issue- and Newt should develop it. Here in Ct, heating oil is over $4.00—For example, my house uses about 2000 gals per season. That’s a big “tax”- especially considering the fact that oil for years ranged between $1-$2 (until the money boy speculators realized they could drive it up- and the oil countries realized that “saber-rattling” was great for business.)
Read today, that gas could go over $5 this summer (oil is now at $120 per barrel). If that happened, I think this administration better starting packing its bags.
Newt’s got it- now, watch Romney try to steal the issue.
“watch Romney try to steal the issue.”
I’m all for Romney stealing good ideas. Problem is, he has this tendency to steal liberal ideas instead.
Yes, it involves property rights, but primarily it is a matter of religious liberty. Churches are the original non-profits. The First Amendment was passed to protect actual state religious establishments. Tax laws are written to give churches immunity, because as John Marshall said with respect to state taxation of the national bank, the power to tax is the power to destroy. Churches have until now been regarded as salutary organizations in our society. Academia, Obama’s true native land, disagrees. Ditto the gays and the radical feminists. They want to drive all religious influence from public life.
On the merits, the Speaker is the leader we need.
It's a pity this electorate appears suicidal.
On the merits, the Speaker is the leader we need. It's a pity this electorate appears suicidal.
Yep they are either suicidal are extremely lazy. Either one, the end game does not look good.
Newt is the only candidate speaking forcefully about turning our Republic towards Liberty. He is developing an outstanding Liberty platform.
suicidal are ==> suicidal or
I’m all for Romney stealing good ideas. Problem is, he has this tendency to steal liberal ideas instead.
************
Nah. He has no need to steal liberal ideas—they come naturally to the establishment folk.
WOOOOT, Newt!!
Do you believe it’s OK for the federal government to tell businesses they have to give away free stuff as a price for doing business? What about non-religious entities, like insurance companies, that don’t want to provide free abortion drugs? If they can’t prove a religious objection to whatever the federal government wants them to give away gratis, are they out of luck?
I believe this violates both private property and religious freedom rights. Both are important, but private property rights matter to both religious and non-religious organizations. The government in this case is stealing private property and handing it over to a voting constituency, women, in order to gain votes.
Bottom line: The federal government does not have the right to extort private property from a business as a price for doing business.
I am not saying it is OK, I am saying that the religious issue is separate, and on a different plain altogether.
Obama threw this birth control issue out now to try to divert and control the campaign discussion.
He would much rather play to his base and try stir up the conservatives to divert attention to the current state of affairs in this country.
Newt is much smarter than you think. He does not have to stay on one issue, while there are many that confront us.
I hope you’re right. I think the Obama administration WANTS to frame this contraceptive thing as a religious issue, with conservatives coming across as religious bigots. That’s why I keep telling people it’s a private property issue first and foremost.
The left is very adept at using the bigotry argument against the right. They incorrectly tie the religious right to Jim Crow and the battle for interracial marriage. Even though a small minority of Christians opposed interracial marriage on religious grounds, the left tarred all Christians as bigots. They use the same arguments to support gay marriage.
The left wants to divide and conquer. They will do everything they can to make faithful Christians look like irrational nut jobs. That’s the agenda here.
“watch Romney try to steal the issue.”
“I’m all for Romney stealing good ideas. Problem is, he has this tendency to steal liberal ideas instead.”
Romney has shown fatal charachter flaws, notice how many are not even surprised by them anymore. If he did steal or co-opt a conservative plan or agenda or issue to help him win I doubt we could depend on him to get it inacted. I believe for him it’s more about him holding the office than being the president.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.