Posted on 12/17/2011 12:08:08 PM PST by Jim Robinson
First there was the Reagan Revolution, then Newt's Republican Revolution, and now the Tea Party Revolution.
In each successive revolution, the lovers of liberty threw off a bit more of the yoke of the oppressive ruling class to reestablish some vital part of our God given liberty and freedom.
Pro-life, small government, big defense Ronald Reagan set and accomplished the goal of bringing down the socialist Soviet Union as a threat to the world and reestablished free America as the dominate superpower. He rescued America from the hapless Jimmy Carter who had dragged the nation down into to the depths of despair. Reagan taught us that our best years were indeed yet to come. He reinvigorated our economy by reducing government regulations and taxes and created a free market environment ripe for capitalism to flourish. A lover of life and freedom, he fought off the socialists and merchants of doom and death at every turn and sparked the beginning of the decades long Reagan Economy. He was a champion of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and he delivered us from evil.
Pro-life, small government, big defense Reaganite, Newt Gingrich, set and accomplished the major goal of wresting the congressional majority away from the socialist Democrats who had held it for forty years. His conservative Republican Revolution cut the taxes, cut the spending, cut the deficit, cut unemployment, blocked President Clinton's progressive agenda, blocked HillaryCare, reformed welfare, defended life, and balanced the budget four years running, ensuring that the Reagan Economy flourished and stretched throughout his term and beyond.
Mitt Romney set goals of protecting and sustaining abortion as safe and legal in America. He sought to be more radical than Ted Kennedy in respects to "gay rights." He swore to defend Massachusetts' strict gun-control laws that "kept us safe" and promised not to chip away at them. He set and accomplished the goal of bringing big government healthcare solutions to his state and mandating that all formerly free citizens must purchase a government approved product or suffer a tax penalty. He loves mandates against the people.
He stated that he was an independent during Reagan-Bush and he was not returning to Reagan-Bush. And he didn't. Instead, he delivered taxpayer funded abortion, gay marriage, gun-control, socialized healthcare, busted budgets, ruined economy, liberal activist judges and a destroyed Republican label.
Romney was and is demonstrably per record an anti-Reagan, pro-big government, pro-abortion, pro-gay agenda, pro-gun-control, anti-liberty, pro-socialist healthcare, mandate-loving, liberal judge appointing, budget busting progressive.
He is without a doubt the exact opposite of Reagan, Gingrich, the Reagan Revolution, the Republican Revolution and the Tea Party Revolution.
If the Tea Party now embraces Romney, it will have accepted defeat and surrendered to the ruling class.
There is a reason why the elite establishment GOPers are pushing the anti-Reagan Romney and rejecting the pro-life, Reaganite Newt Gingrich. And I guarantee you, it's not in the best interest of the Tea Party or the Liberty we seek.
Not on my watch!! No Romney, no way!!
Rebellion is brewing!!
“I remember a time not too long ago when Ann Coulter was welcomed at FR; there are still pictures of her with FR members somewhere back in the archives. But here she is, solidly in bed with Romney and the other northeastern RINO’s/liberals.”
And, she is vicious about it. I had a book she wrote - it’s now in the trash along with her.
No you missed it.
Obama = enemy
RINOmney = supposed friend who will stab you in the back.
Better an enemy you can oppose than an untrustworthy “friend.”
But as I wrote earlier, you get one vote. Use it as you wish.
Just don’t come back here complaining about your “friend” when
he takes the mask off.
We’ll laugh at your foolishness in having believed in him.
Mitt wants to be POTUS so much that if you told him it required
being the first women POTUS, he’d have already had the surgery.
Great post, Jim. I just sent the link on twitter.
“When a storm is on the way, some folks shake in fear and speak of their impending doom. Others stand strong, look into the eye of the storm and... learn to dance in the rain.
We, together, will get through this storm. President Newt Gingrich.... fight FOR it, it’s going to happen.”
Gator is right. Stand up and go to newt.org and donate - jump into this storm!
WHY IS ROMNEY RUNNING AS A REPUBLICAN WHEN HE ISN’T ONE??
It’s obvious he would be happier with Democrats AND WE WOULDN’T HAVE TO DUMP HIS BUTT!
and of course you ignore Newt loved him some McCain in 08...endorsed him and said his TARP was historic....but thats ok I guess
If the Tea Party decides that they’re the party of wishy-washy Massachusetts liberals like Scott Brown and Mitt Romney (or of radical libertarian cranks like Ron Paul) they will be finished as a movement. They need to get behind strong, fearless candidates who have a long history of standing up to the establishment and moving the country in a more conservative direction. The only candidate that meets that standard right now is Newt.
re: “Why is Romney running as a Republican when he isn’t one?”
Another good question: Why is Ron Paul running as a republican when HE isn’t one?
what an awesome newt 2006 statement...hows this one from 08
In 2008, he hailed John McCain’s efforts in the crafting of the TARP legislation:
Gingrich put out a statement hailing McCain’s eleventh-hour intervention. “This is the greatest single act of responsibility ever taken by a presidential candidate and rivals President Eisenhower saying, ‘I will go to Korea’.” Eisenhower’s pledge was enough to reassure voters that if elected he would find a way to resolve the Korean conflict. McCain’s high-octane involvement in the bailout is meant to convey the same sense of stature and leadership, and to provide cover to reluctant Republicans to support a deal that runs counter to everything they thought they stood for.
Do I hear a Howard Dean “hee-yaw?”
vote for Romney? That’s your advice?
First off, what makes you think he could win against o’bummr?
Has it occurred to you that the reason mittens can’t above 22 -23 is because he’s unelectable? Maybe because he’s an avowed Progressive=Socialist?
http://mrctv.org/videos/mitt-romney-2002-my-views-are-progressive
“Advice” back atcha.
Newt is the one shot we have in breaking the back of the Socialists AND the Establishment. Both of these are essential.
Romney leaves the Establishment in power and they will continue to reign supreme - the Ivy League Elitist Cabal who have controlled who our candidates are for decades. (Reagan was the last non Cabal member.) They pick the VP and put all their people in all important positions.
Newt will not keep one holdover, has expressed he wants Col. West for his VP and Bolton for his SOS - both are amenable. They are definitely not form the CABAL nor would Newt’s other appointees be.
After 8 years of Pres. Gingrich and a probable 8 yrs following of Pres. West, the Establishment will have been swept into the dust bin of history, along with the Socialists. They won’t recover power in our lifetime.
This isn’t just a question of who will be president, but also who will the people he surrounds himself with will be.
the house must be swept clean.
Got It?
(nah, he just thinks he’s so clever, him being so erudite and all, giving us a history lesson on Constantin and the Romans, convincing us to vote for his man - mittens. Ain’t working here, I can tell ya.)
The TEA Party fought Obamacare tooth and nail. For Romney to claim the TEA Party mantle is ludicrous. He did the very same thing as Obama, he has Romneycare hung around his neck choking the life out of his campaign. We aren’t buying what the elites wish to sell us.
You are not kidding about rebellion brewing. Every year the GOP establishment puts up another Bob Dole and we all see them positioning to do it again. We're saying, this time, "Oh, no ya don't!"
I listened to Ann Coulter on O’Reilly the other night and I caught a glimpse of why she “supports” Romney over Gingrich, not that I’d ever vote for that flip-flopping b@st@rd, but I think I see what she’s getting at.
The 2008 voters were completely ignorant, devoid of logic, and thoroughly enchanted by Obama’s stage presence, style, and “perfect” family that they didn’t base their votes on quality or quantity of experience. Obama was a picture-perfect candidate (in their ignorant view). Ann seems to think that the stupid voters are disenchanted with Obama’s policies and need a reason to vote for someone else. She thinks the stupid voters will see Romney as similar enough to Obama circa 2008: smooth-talking, non-threatening, stylish, good-looking, prom-king-ish. All style, no substance. She thinks we can win by luring stupid voters away from Obama to Romney. She sees Newt as the typical old white guy who will turn off those disenchanted with Obama and considering an alternative.
She’s right about that, but she’s wrong about our priorities on this. Settling for someone who can attract Obama voters should NOT be our goal.
The ironic thing is the liberal media would have a much stronger card to play against Newt if they had bothered to cover Freddie/Fannie’s culpability in the housing collapse from the beginning. But because it was Democrats who were so heavily tied in with Freddie/Fannie all along, the media buried the story. Even when Freddie/Fannie have continually asked for new billion-dollar bailouts, it seems to get no coverage at all.
If they had been like Enron from the start, something the media could make a Republican connection to, the coverage would have been wall-to-wall and everyone in the country would have known every intricacy of the scandal and would have believed Freddie/Fannie were the spawn of Satan by now. So in a way it’s the media’s liberal bias that has resulted in Newt having an easier time of it right now.
Isn’t it amazing that the MSM cannot even be heard saying the name Rick Santorum? If we think there is any media outlet telling the truth, we are sorely deceived. Each candidate should be discussed in equal amounts by news outlets.
But I’ve gone “Galt” on MSM. I will vote for a conservative, no matter what the Republican party tries to shove down. I have drawn my line, and this is where I will stand. My vote may be meaningless to everyone but me, but when I go to sleep on election night, my conscious will be clear.
God first, and my vote will reflect that. I WAS thinking, after the debate, that Newt wouldn’t be that bad if he had a conservative running mate, but after further reflection, I realize that this is the analogy...
America with Obama is America in the throes of death.
America with Romney is America in a vegetative state on life support.
America with Newt is America receiving cancer treatments and a 50/50% survival rate.
America with a true conservative is an an America that stands a fighting chance.
I’m watching the Ricks and Michele. I’m leaning heavily to Rick S.
“as I said to them at the time, ‘This is a bubble. This is insane. This is impossible.’ “ Newt
re Fanny & Freddie - he HAS said THIS - and we need to repeat it and post it and repeat it and send to Hannity - to Rush - et al
He took the job because he is concerned about helping people HELP THEMSELVES get homes. He thought that was what F&F wanted - but when he found out what their bottom line was, this is what he advised them.
Excerpt:
“And my advice as a historian, when they walked in and said to me, ‘We are now making loans to people who have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything, but that’s what the government wants us to do,’ as I said to them at the time, ‘This is a bubble. This is insane. This is impossible.’ “
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/15/gingrich-fires-back-at-lobbying-charge/
they said to him “that’s what the government wants us to do.” They were forced to. BY WHOM? That’s what’s being forgotten.
Now, that all being said - why is NO ONE going back to ask why the banks, who did NOT want to make these loans, did? Who forced them to?
http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/
“Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans”
Does that ring a bell? This was brought to light some years back - but no one listens.
We’ve got to turn into investigative reporters - because there aren’t any left in today’s media. We have to dig these things out and get the out!
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.