Posted on 12/09/2011 1:31:59 PM PST by Jim Robinson
I share your opinions on both Santorum and Gingrich. There ought to be better candidates in this field to take advantage of the historically-bad Obama administration, but Santorum is, at this point, the only person for whom I can vote without feeling dirty about it.
It started with the Administrative implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in the Clinton era. This was a Treaty that was never ratified by Congress. It included the “Sustainable Development” initiative further by the “global climate crisis.” You can recognize it be such terms as “ecosystem management,” “biodiversity,” “health in all policies,” “ecosystem services,” “equity,” “social or environmental justice,” “sustainable,” “precautionary principle,” “public trust,” “polluter pays,” “cap and trade,” “mitigation banking,” “biodiversity corridors,” “key indicator species,” “programmatic permit waivers,” “strategic growth,” “footprint,” “communities of place and interest.”
These have resulted in massive regulatory schemes that have eroded the notion of private property ownership and individual rights - supplanting them with “communitarianism” and European socialism. If you have ANY doubt about this, visit this webpage that chronicles all the documents and programs put into place on the federal and State level since 1992. http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/agenda21.htm
There is no doubt in my mind and in that of my state assemblyman and senator that these policies are designed to push people off their rural and suburban land and into high density planned communities.
When I read about Newt's involvement in promoting environmental regulation and actions to combat “climate change,” I am convinced that he is yet another progressive globalist in sheep's clothing. He will give conservatives the rhetoric they want, but then act to further undermine private property rights, rural natural resource development and social engineering through “sustainable development.”
I do not want a choice between two men who will both further that agenda, albeit one more stealthily and perhaps a little slower than the other. I want someone who will cut the Gordian knot and return to Jacksonian/American individualism and the protection of private property rights.
I do not think Newt is that man - nor Romney.
I like Santorum also, don’t think he’ll get the nomation, but will vote him in Feb., if he’s still running.
Also don’t forget Michigan’s “Closed Primary”. The Rats will vote for whoever will Pee us off the most, or the one who will do the least against them when elected.
You’re blaming the ad for exposing the hypocrisy rather than blaming the politician for being hypocritical?
this describes me to a tee, except that I already lost my house.
we must not lose the supreme court to the dark side, thats more important than congress, and why the GOP candidate
should get our vote.
Nope. I have no dog in this race. I am just commenting on Paul’s ad that will likely, though not yet, tank a rival when Paul has no shot at all of the presidency. But don’t let that stop Paul from putting everyone else down. If Paul can’t be president, well, he won’t let Newt have it. RME And by the way, so far I am accepting Newt’s explanation.
:’) Thanks grellis, Santorum, or one of the candidates who appear but have dropped out by then might be a great way to make a statement.
“Women won’t vote for Newt when they learn about his betrayal of his wives and taking up with mistresses.”
That’s crap. Women flocked to Clinton and loved his infidelity and perfidy. Check out the demographic vote in 1996.
My one problem with Newt is his idea of allowing people who have lived 25 years in the country to remain and to set that decision in the hands of local officials. That stand got praise from both clinton and schumer.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/nov/27/picket-schumer-and-bill-clinton-plant-kisses-death/
Why would partisan democrats praise newt’s idea.
Because they would see clearly how it could be gamed.
In a conservative county most of the illegals would be pushed out but in a county where most people speak spanish and 40% of the population is illegal — nobody will be deported. That includes people who have just stepped over the border. There won’t be anything the feds or the state can do because they locals will be the ultimate arbiter. What’s more these counties will become gateway counties into the country from other countries and they will attract illegals from other parts of the country.
The result will be that florida and texas especially will shift over to the democratic column. That’s the big prize the democrats are counting on that will shut the republicans out of presidential politics and the direction of the country.
That’s why Schumer and Clinton had high praise for Newt’s idea.
My one problem with Newt is his idea of allowing people who have lived 25 years in the country to remain and to set that decision in the hands of local officials. That stand got praise from both clinton and schumer.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/nov/27/picket-schumer-and-bill-clinton-plant-kisses-death/
Why would partisan democrats praise newt’s idea.
Because they would see clearly how it could be gamed.
In a conservative county most of the illegals would be pushed out but in a county where most people speak spanish and 40% of the population is illegal — nobody will be deported. That includes people who have just stepped over the border. There won’t be anything the feds or the state can do because they locals will be the ultimate arbiter. What’s more these counties will become gateway counties into the country from other countries and they will attract illegals from other parts of the country.
The result will be that florida and texas especially will shift over to the democratic column. That’s the big prize the democrats are counting on that will shut the republicans out of presidential politics and the direction of the country.
That’s why Schumer and Clinton had high praise for Newt’s idea.
” Newt has demonstrated an ability to cobble together coalitions when necessary to enact conservative legislation.”
That is an astute observation.
Sorry Jim but I have to disagree.
I do agree with you regarding Romney though.
I cannot vote for Newt or Romney.
(It has NOTHING to do with his three marriages or affairs)
I feel like Newt is Big Government, do not feel he is conservative consistently, he is not strong on 2nd Amendment (he has not returned the National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey) AND
every time I think about Newt I get a visual picture of
him on the couch with Pelosi.
Newt is the wise Professor that has great ideas and can talk the talk but unfortunately he does not always walk the walk.
Perry is the Bad Ass who talks about bold changes and gets things done. Perry will strengthen the States and shrink the Federal Government. He doesn’t always talk smoothly like Newt but he does walk the walk and has a record to prove it.
Perry will make the changes in Washington DC that we need to SAVE THIS NATION. He is Bold and Decisive.
Perry doesn’t pander to Democrats.
I have been for Rick Perry since he entered the race and will remain for Rick Perry.
Rick Perry 2012
Well, who knows. Perry may pull out of his tail spin yet.
My concern is what Peggy Noonan referred to as the hand grenade factor. Newt is so smart and so fast on the delivery that sometimes he gets an idea out of left field, pulls the pin and blows up. Hopefully, with the stakes this high he'll take a more disciplined approach.
And I think that Santorum is the STAR pro-life candidate.
What about a Gingrich/Santorum ticket?
I’d be delighted! Could actually campaign enthusiastically for a platform I can fully support!
You seem to be under the impression that it is the ad, not the behavior which prompted the ad, that would tank Newt.
Robert Walker, B-1 Bob Dornan, Duke Cunningham, Dana Rohrabacher, Duncan Hunter.
Some flawed individuals, all flawless Reagan conservatives.
Newt has a nationwide grassroots organization that he has spent decades putting together, witness the Republican majority he was responsible for in 1994. They just don't have his name on them. He has had a newsletter longer than I can remember.
Enough of the MSM, GOP elitist sound bites.
Time for Newt to take the initiative and start on The Obammunist full time, conservatives will appreciate that more than an intraparty defense.
yitbos
But he's okay by me as a President.
Thank you Jim, for speaking out loud and clear. Your analysis and comment is spot on.
I, too, was hoping for Sarah to enter the race, but once my disappointment wore off, I looked around at all the candidates, and carefully watched all the debates and listened to the interviews. It became obvious early on that Newt the only one who was a strong conservative who could wipe the floor with Obama in a debate. He is the smartest and most experienced & knowledgeable in all areas. He has shown a depth of maturity and leadership among the candidates -very different from what he was as a young man.
No candidate is perfect, and for the failings in his personal life, Newt has admitted wrongdoing, has shown repentance, and asked for forgiveness. I believe his spiritual conversion is genuine.
Using the Reagan rule of agreeing with at least 80% I can vote for Newt with a clear conscience.
Obama MUST be defeated, and so must Romney and Ron Paul. Romney is truly a RINO, and is Obama-lite. Ron Paul is dangerous. He’s a Libertarian, not a conservative, not even a Republican. He thinks like someone stuck on stupid in the cold war mentality of the 60’s. His foreign policy would be catastrophic for America. The Neville Chamberlain of the 21st century. His newsletter & website are as offensive and inflammatory as Obama & Rev Wright when it comes to Israel, the Jewish people, and race.
Our primary in NY is very late, but I’m voting for Newt.
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.