MUST READ from Canada Free Press

The coming chaos from the Obama-Soertoro playbook

Riots, property destruction, chaos, and death seen in Athens and other European cities shown on the television news is coming to America very soon

By Doug Hagmann  Monday, April 23, 2012

America and the world today is in chaos. Wars, rumors of wars, high gasoline prices, increasing food prices, growing divisions among races and between classes, current and impending financial collapses dominate the headlines. Critics and detractors of Barack Hussein Obama claim that it is a result of his failed policies that our house and much of the world is in such disarray. Investigation into the man known as Barack Hussein Obama II and the people behind him suggests otherwise.
The chaos that presently exists domestically and across the globe is destined to get worse, but it’s not due to Obama’s inexperience or failed policies. Rather, it is the direct result of the implementation of his successful policies. The chaos in which we find ourselves is exactly what has been planned for decades. Chaos is the tactic, the means to an end, and not the result of failure of policy by the man known as Barack Hussein Obama II.
We have seen only the tip of the full frontal assault of the chaos planned for this country. Actually, we haven’t seen anything yet.

Connect the dots

Investigative findings suggest that our present state of disorder was crafted long ago, compliments of a shadowy cabal of government leaders and their often unwitting lackeys, complicit media moguls and their eye-candy mouthpieces, and ideologues intent on changing the United States and thus the world. While this might sound like a bad fictional plot from the film noir genre, a good bit of investigation indicates otherwise.

Before dismissing such musings as delusional fodder, carefully consider the current state of our country - and the world - and start to connect the dots, stepping backwards chronologically. As you do, understand that the traditional right-left political paradigm with which we’ve been indoctrinated no longer exists, except as a distraction to the viewers and listeners of political talk shows hosted by highly paid ornaments who dutifully adhere to narrow scripts of approved show content.

The “necessity” Obama-Soetoro narrative

Our founding fathers had the vision to understand that the biggest threat to our Republic is from within. That’s the reason that the founders placed a natural born restriction clause for President at the time the U.S. Constitution was drafted. They understood that there was a contemporaneous threat from a Trojan Horse president, as well as a future threat, despite the other checks and balances constructed within our government. Over time, however, communist influence in our schools and media continued to dilute the literal interpretation of the Constitution. Such revision changed or ignored history altering events, such as the infiltration of Communists into our federal government in the post World War II era. History has been revised. As the famous novelist George Orwell once stated, “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” That has never been so true as today.

Since 2008, coherent discussion of the bona fides of Barack Hussein Obama II as they relate to his constitutional eligibility has been declared off limits, except to mock and marginalize those who bring up the issue. His association with communists, socialists and other “radicals” has been deliberately downplayed, revised and in some cases, rewritten. This, thanks to the incestuous corporate ownership of big media, which has collectively ensured that legitimate discussion into the legend that is Barack Hussein Obama II, a/k/a Barry Soetoro has been effectively nullified. Unfortunately and in many cases, it’s paychecks over patriotism.

Who is Barack Hussein Obama II, a/k/a Barry Soetoro?

To fully understand what is taking place today, and more importantly, what is being planned for tomorrow, we must identify the actors involved in fomenting chaos. Let’s first consider the meteoric rise of the virtually unknown community organizer Barack Hussein Obama II, a/k/a Barry Soetoro.

People who have questioned his constitutional eligibility to hold office, known by the pejorative term “birthers,” are a troublesome lot among for the Progressives and the establishment Republicans. The issue, however, extends well beyond the Constitutional formality of where Obama was born, as the formal admission that his parental lineage, as questionable as it still is, officially denies him eligibility of the office.

This is not about the Certification of Live Birth, however, as much regarding this has already been written, except for this: any seasoned investigator experienced in conducting background investigations knows that there is no valid substitute for the actual authenticated paper document. When there is an outright refusal to allow for a legitimate inspection of an actual document, combined with an overt redirection of investigators’ attention away from the hardcopy form, there is always something being hidden. Always.

Based on extensive research and investigation, this investigator has identified at least 135 legal actions brought against Barack Hussein Obama II, a/k/a Barry Soetoro by plaintiffs demanding authenticated evidence of his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States. These actions span various venues, from hearings in various courts and before administrative law judges, to the more recent state ballot challenges. In each instance, “team Obama” prevailed.

In many cases, legal giant Perkins Coie defended Obama against these lawsuits. Perkins Coie made headlines in 2006 when they represented Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the alleged driver and bodyguard of Osama Bin Laden.

According to legal financial documents, Obama paid Perkins Coie over $2.5 million in fees to defend him on a variety of issues from October 2008 through the end of 2010. It is unclear exactly how much of that $2.5 million was earmarked for defending Obama against eligibility challenges.

So, from this investigator’s perspective, along with Mike Zullo, lead investigator of the Maricopa County, Arizona Cold Case Posse tasked with conducting a law enforcement sanctioned background investigation of Barack Hussein Obama II, it can be concluded that we do not know the legal name or legal status of the individual holding the highest elected office in the United States.

If an American citizen lies to a federal official, they can be charged with a felony. What happens when a federal official lies to the American people? Nothing, it would appear.

Therefore the question still remains: Who is Barack Hussein Obama II, a/k/a Barry Soetoro?

Beyond the birth issue

Some will continue to deride those who adhere to the importance of the Certification of Live Birth. Supporters of “Obama the American” are a prolific and vocal bunch, yet become silent or full of excuses as questions are naturally extended to his refusal to release other records of relevance that would provide valuable and necessary insight into the man currently at the helm of our nation.

Obama-Soetoro has repeatedly refused to produce documentation that former presidents have traditionally provided. In the case of Obama-Soetoro, his passport records, school records from kindergarten forward, Punahou School records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, University of Chicago scholarly articles, Illinois State Bar Association records, Illinois State Senate records and schedules (reportedly “lost”), medical records, important family records including the Obama/Dunham marriage license and divorce documents, and any adoption records remain off limits.

From the perspective of an investigator, there are compelling reasons for Obama-Soetoro to keep these records private, and none are likely to bode well for the putative president. In total, releasing authenticated documents of all of the above would create an accurate historical profile of the man in the Oval Office, which we do not have. Instead, we have the Obama-Soetoro legend, manufactured by… whom? And why?

I pledge allegiance to…

Consider that Obama is, in part, an artifact of the intentional “Balkanization” of America. Look at the historical immigration policies, the intentional lack of enforcement of illegal immigration, and other related issues and question why. Globalists have been constantly attacking our national identity and culture well beyond what was intended and engraved on the Statue of Liberty.

The legend of Barack Hussein Obama II involves much more than a Certification of Live Birth. It’s about the very issue our cautioned by our founders. It’s allegiance to the United States of Americaand the survival of our nation as a free, Representative Republic.

The founders believed that a natural born citizen would be more inclined to have a “natural” allegiance to the country in which they were born and the principles on which our country was founded. they would protect our freedoms, the rights of citizens, and side with America in international disputes. Are we seeing this in the narrative of Barack Hussein Obama II?

No.

Another question involves the unprecedented contributions made to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. The amount is somewhere between $650 to $750 million, depending on the source, and a lot of that money reportedly originated from outside of this country. Is this what the founders intended? What strings came with such contributions?

On the morning of Obama’s first day in office of January 21, 2009, one of the first, if not the first phone call he made as American leader was to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Less than five months later, on June 4, 2009, Obama kicked off his American apology tour in a speech at Cairo University in Egypt, co-hosted by Al-Azhar University. Obama “honored” a promise made during his presidential campaign to give a major address to Muslims from a Muslim capital during his first few months as president. To date, Obama has not yet stepped foot in Israel, our only democratic ally in the Middle East.

The list could continue ad nauseum and include the recent statement of collusion made in front of a “hot” microphone to the Russians about missile defense. There are numerous other examples that can be used to question the true allegiance of the man known as Barack Hussein Obama II.

Perhaps most troubling, however, is what we are seeing played out on our domestic front. Recall that history has been revised to downplay Obama’s associations with Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Rashid Khalidi, Jeff Jones, and many other communist, socialists, Leninists and Marxists revolutionaries. Recall their objectives, and put them in perspective to current events.

Peering into the Obama-Soetoro domestic playbook

“Our primary task is to build a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary movement. The American system is racist, capitalist and imperialist. We must arm ourselves. I believe we are going to have a revolutionary change in society. -Michael Klonsky 1969 SDS Center, Washington, DC (with Bernadine Dohrn and Allen Young)

Revolutionaries thrive on chaos. Protests offer opportunity to spread chaos and in nearly every protest, trained agitators of the Progressives appear on site to inflame passions, foment disorder and violence.

This putative president and the powers behind him knew the consequences of fueling the Arab Spring, from our role in Tunisia to Egypt and the chaos that would result. Equally important, he knew the ramifications that would result from his polarizing statements pertaining to the Trayvon Martin case, and the racial divide that would be exacerbated.

He knows the results of our oppressive domestic energy policy, which are exacerbating the economic divide within the U.S. and the societal upheaval that will result.

He knows the results of our unlimited monetary printing presses that will bring our economy to its knees. So emboldened is Obama, that he continues to work with Jon Corzine of MF Global, the man behind the missing $1.6 billion of American’s money. He knows that the economic collapse of America is coming. He knows that there will be riots in the streets.

Is he preparing for it? Yes, but not in the manner that a truly American president should.

Obama, the Emperor

Consider recent executive orders and other executive actions as “big dots” in our dot connecting exercise. The importance or relevance of these executive orders in our normal existence have either been downplayed or ignored by the media, and are subject to ridicule when brought up in political discussions. After all, they’ve been standard procedure since 1789.

DOT: On Friday, April 13, 2012, Obama signed an executive order titled ” Supporting Safe and Responsible Development of Unconventional Domestic Natural Gas Resources.” This order is a stepping stone for the takeover of the natural gas (and related) industry. Moreover, it creates an oversight group headed by Ceclia Munoz, chairman of the White House Domestic Policy Council who connected to globalist George Soros and a number of other socialist groups antagonistic to private U.S. energy production.

DOT: On Friday, March 16, 2012, Obama signed the order on National Defense Resources Preparedness, which dramatically expanded the Defense Production Act of 1950, and essentially gives Obama the power to take over our national resources and infrastructure for reasons that are no longer limited to times of war or declared states of national emergency.

DOT: On February 9, 2012, Obama signed Executive Order 13600, “Establishing the President’s Global Development Council,” which is an enhancement of the 2010 National Security Strategy and the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development. In short, it is internal subjugation to a global agenda, or global governance.

DOT: Consider that the Department of Homeland Security recently acquisitioned 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition (an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity, one year contract with 4 option years). Hollow points, as well, which are not used for target practice. Also consider that the Department of agriculture has ordered 326,000 rounds of mixed caliber ammunition this month as well.

DOT: Consider that the executive branch has the unfettered authority to execute American Citizens deemed “a threat.”

DOT: Several unconfirmed reports indicate that the Department of Homeland Security have ordered Mine Resistant Anti-personnel Carriers (MRAPs) for deployment in the United States.

DOT: During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in March, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey openly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but they take their orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.

DOT: Consider other reports of FEMA quarters being readied here in the U.S., ostensibly for disaster relief and protection of its citizens. In consideration of everything else taking place, can we afford to take their word for this “preparation?”

Readers can fill in numerous other “dots” unaddressed here. The point is that it would appear that final preparations are being made not necessarily for the protection of our citizens, but against them. By a man in the Oval Office whose legal name we do not know, and whose allegiance is suspect at best.

Get ready, Americans. Understand the playbook.

God Bless,

JohnnyD

Are You a U.S. Citizen or a Squatter?

Are You a U.S. Citizen or a Squatter?

Unusual question, but, when asked if you are a U.S. citizen you will most certainly reply, yes. Now if you were asked what is your duty as a U.S. citizen, are you able to answer? Probably not. And that, my friends, would put you in the category of, “squatter”.

But have no fear, it’s not your fault. If you are a product of the public school system you were never taught what responsibilities and duties you have as a U.S. Citizen.

Your parents and the public school system have the duty to teach you these responsibilities. All of our ancestors who immigrated to the U.S.A. took the following oath to become U.S. citizens, and that oath is handed down to each generation.

I hereby declare, on oath,

• that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
• that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
• that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
• that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law;
• that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
• that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;
• and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

 This is much more than an oath, these are promises you make as a U.S. citizen.

You have promised to participate in the political process by registering and voting in elections.

You have promised to serve on a jury.

You have promised to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

You have promised to serve the country when required.

You have promised to participate in the democratic process.

You have promised to respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others.

You have promised to participate in your local community.

You have promised to swear allegiance to the United States.

So, are you a U.S. citizen, or a squatter? Only you can decide.

God bless,

JohnnyD

 

THE BEST QUOTE OF 2012

Over the weekend, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) said at a Lincoln Day Dinner for the Palm Beach County GOP.


"We need to let President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and my dear friend the chairman of the Democrat National Committe, we need to let hem know that Florida ain't on the table."

"Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America."

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.)


Standing O for Mr. West, it's about time a Republican stands up and tells it the way it is, kudos Mr. West for telling the world the way the majority of Americans really feel about the Obama Regime.


God bless,
JohnnyD


 

Reagan's Young Lieutenant

Really Great Article from The American Spectator

Reagan's Young Lieutenant

By Jeffrey Lord on 1.24.12 @ 6:09AM

Gingrich a star on Reagan team: Romney "work product" as conservative at issue.

Mitt Romney has raised the issue of Newt Gingrich's "work product."
Wow.
Intended to prod the former Speaker on the issue of his work for Freddie Mac (Gingrich last night released his contract with Freddie), the question, as seems to be a Romney characteristic, has clumsily backfired. It raises an all-too obvious question that is becoming increasingly revealing.
What is Mitt Romney's "work product" for the conservative cause?
The closest Mitt Romney ever got to the Reagan Revolution is apparently because he reads about it 30 years later. And he isn't even reading everything he should. This is the man, remember, who proudly professed when running against Ted Kennedy in 1994:
"I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush"
A peculiar stance considering Reagan carried Massachusetts twice in his two presidential landslides. Romney now assures that Newt Gingrich -- who actually had a serious and considerably well-known role working with Reagan -- had little role in it. (By the way, Reagan won over 1, 310, 936 votes and over 51 percent in Massachusetts in his 1984 re-election race, while Romney won his solitary gubernatorial victory in 2002 with 1,091,988 votes and 49.77 percent. Which is to say, Reagan outpolled Romney by over 200,000. In 1980, third party candidate John Anderson drew off 15 percent of Reagan's vote, otherwise, one suspects, Reagan would have trumped Romney then as well.)
Why? Why is Romney going after Gingrich on his supposed lack of Reagan ties?
Because the former Governor apparently looked into the "G" section of the Reagan Diaries and found the then backbench congressman's name but once.
The ignorance this shows about what was actually happening inside the Reagan Revolution -- not to mention the positive change Ronald Reagan and his lieutenants like Newt Gingrich were bringing to Washington and America -- is almost painful to watch. Romney flounders, giving the impression that he is learning conservatism as others learn painting by numbers. A splotch of free market economics here at Number 1, a dab of social issues over there at Number 2… or not…or, well, maybe… or… yes, kinda sort of maybe… ending with bright bold colorful strokes of national security war paint at Number 3.
And voila. Conservatism by Romney.
Why would one in the position Mitt Romney now finds himself -- thoroughly defeated in South Carolina by a surge of support for Gingrich's conservatism -- ever even entertain the idea of going after Newt Gingrich on Reagan?
This utterly dumb line of attack for Romney is as bad if not worse than Gingrich's flirtation with attacking Bain Capital. It raises exactly all the questions of Romney's vulnerabilities. Why, for example, did Romney deliberately play the wimp when it comes to defending Ronald Reagan in Massachusetts? At precisely the time in the fall of 1994, it should be noted, when Newt Gingrich was leading Chapter 2 in the Reagan Revolution? Is Romney really trying to draw attention to the fact that while Gingrich and hundreds of Republicans were on the verge of a historic landslide retaking the House by attaching themselves to the Reagan legacy… Romney ran from Reagan… and got clobbered?
If even those simple political basics can't be learned, which in Romney's case now include not just the broader inability to defend either Reagan or free markets but the quite specific inability to use the general principle of free markets and capitalism to defend himself over the inevitable "Mr. 1%" accusations -- this should be a red flag for conservatives.
Who knows why Romney gets tongue tied ? Or, as our friends at the Wall Street Journal note, "befuddled."
But the very fact of this latest attack on Gingrich for what Romney tries to imply is Newt's lack of ties to Reagan shows the "Massachusetts Moderate" (as Gingrich tags him) is unfamiliar with the details of Gingrich's role. Worse, Romney indicates a considerable ignorance about why Gingrich and others -- none of whom painted conservatism by the numbers -- were there fighting in the first place. All working under Reagan's leadership to begin to right a ship of state that was perilously close to the rocks in 1981 -- economically, socially, and on issues of national security.
Be that as it may, Romney has raised the question of Newt Gingrich's real role in the Reagan era. So let's take a look.
TO MORE FROM ART to sports, let's use a baseball analogy, the New York Yankees of the 1920's who were famously known as "Murderers' Row." They possessed in their line-up the man seen as the greatest baseball player of the day  and -- arguably -- all time: Babe Ruth. But Babe Ruth alone did not a Murderers' Row make. What made the New York Yankees of the 1920s such a legend -- in particular in 1927 -- was the collective power of the rest of the line-up. In particular the first six men at bat terrified opponents. One of them, Lou Gehrig, was later immortalized on film by Gary Cooper. The 1927 Yankees had a 110-44 win/loss record, won the pennant by 19 games, and swept the World Series.
If politics were sports, the period of the Reagan Revolution from 1981-1989 would be the 1927 Yankees. Without doubt, Ronald Reagan, would be the political version of Babe Ruth. As seen today by his fellow Americans, Reagan is viewed as America's greatest president in poll after poll (as in this one last year from Gallup that puts him even above the revered Abraham Lincoln).
But just as Babe Ruth was the leader of the Yankees, the leader of the team -- there was a team. Without which there would have been no Murderers' Row. Not to mention, no pennant and no World Series.
Ronald Reagan and the Reagan Revolution that he led had the political, intellectual, and governmental version of Murderers' Row. There was vision, energy, and principle when they ran out onto the political playing field. As with the Yankees of 1927, the Reagan Revolution had a star line-up. Government having a larger starting line-up than the nine positions on a baseball team, the Reagan Revolution's Murderers' Row had a considerable number of stars, every one of whom was a key player in their own fashion. Names like Jack Kemp, William Bennett, Edwin Meese, James Baker, Drew Lewis, Lyn Nofziger, Edward Rollins, Lee Atwater… the list goes on and on. Many were true conservatives -- some, like Baker and his deputy the late Richard Darman, were moderates. Yet all were brought together by Reagan to serve the conservative cause he had been outlining to the nation since that first famous speech he gave on behalf of Barry Goldwater in October, 1964 (seen here if you have never seen).
In 1985, as the second Reagan term began, an interesting book was published that captured the major players of the day. Not, as one might think, a biography or written record. The season of the Reagan Revolution was still very much ongoing. There was no time for the inevitable flood of memoirs. No, this book was something else -- a book of photographs, titled People and Power: Portraits From the Federal Village.
Its author/photographer was Michael Evans, President Reagan's personal photographer. Evans had the idea to make a list of the most influential people of the day in Washington, inveigle them to his studio, and take a quite personal black-and-white photo of each. Capturing for the record the men and women who made Washington what it was in the 1980s. The Reaganites and their opponents. Conservatives and liberals. Politicians and journalists. The famous and the unknown.
Dubbed "The Portrait Project," it was a considerable project. Not least because Evans forced himself to sit down and sift through a literally endless list, sorting out those who were considered in the day to be the people of power in their own individual areas within the nation's capital. Of all the thousands, he whittled his list down to over 600, in his words "from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Assistant Food Service Coordinator of the White House, members of Congress, Supreme Court justices, administrative aides, journalists," and so on. From the thousands who became the 600-plus, Evans finally selected a mere 139. Say again, 139 men and women. Each pictured simply in black-and-white, identified only by their full, formal name (middle names included, no nicknames-thank-you-very-much) and title -- all who were seen in the day as what might be called Washington's movers and shakers in the time of the Reagan Revolution.
And of that list, on page 178, there he is:

Newton Leroy Gingrich (R-GEORGIA)United States Representative

The famous mop of hair is only beginning to shade to its now-familiar white. There is a friendly, open smile and, yes, what appears to be several fewer pounds.
But the question is, considering the Romney implication that Gingrich was just another anonymous back-bencher congressman in the Reagan era -- what was Newt Gingrich doing in the middle of this book in the first place?
Photographer Evans selected only 19 members of the 435-member House of Representatives for his book featuring 139 people. The photograph that opened the book was perhaps the most influential and famous conservative outside of Reagan himself: Arizona's Senator Barry Goldwater. Like Goldwater in the Senate, most of those 19 House members were men of long tenure and vast power. They included the then-current Speaker of the House and the man who would succeed him as Speaker, Tip O'Neill. O'Neill's opposite number, the Republican House Leader Bob Michel. The powerful old bulls of both parties in the House were there -- men like Florida's Claude Pepper, Virginia's Dan Daniel, Illinois' Dan Rostenkowski and Henry Hyde as well as Michigan's Guy Vander Jagt.
But there, selected as one of the 19, was Newt Gingrich. 
Why young Newt in this particular book recording the serious power players of Reagan's Washington?
Newt Gingrich certainly was not Speaker or the House member pictured who already (and correctly) was thought to be the one who would follow O'Neill -- Jim Wright. He wasn't the Republican Leader or the Whip like the also-photographed Trent Lott or even a ranking member of a committee. By 1985 Newt Gingrich had been in the House of Representatives a sum total of six years, next to nothing against much older men like Speaker O'Neill (33 years in 1985) or Claude Pepper (23 years).
So why the young Congressman Newt in this book?
Answer: Newt Gingrich was part of the Reagan Revolution's Murderers' Row. And anybody who was in Washington in the day, much less in the Reagan White House or the 1984 Reagan re-election campaign (and I would make that particular cut of three), knew it.
WHAT, EXACTLY, DOES this mean? To use Mitt Romney's words, what was Newt Gingrich's "work product" for conservatism -- for America -- as part of Reagan's Murderers' Row?
Glad you asked. Here is an example of the kind of "work product" that made a young congressman from Georgia such a key player on Reagan's Murderers Row.
1984. Dallas, Texas. A story.
In May, former Reagan Secretary of Transportation Drew Lewis, now a senior adviser in the President's re-election campaign, is asked by the Reagan White House to be the White House liaison to the Republican Platform Committee. A job scheduled to be done by presidential counsel Edwin Meese until Meese was nominated as attorney general.
Lewis jumped into the job, and I with him as his chief of staff in the campaign. The very first thing to be done was get a copy of the platform draft. It existed, drafted by a collection of staffers at work for the Platform Committee chair, then-Congressman Trent Lott of Mississippi.(The staff director's, by the way, was a young John Bolton, future Ambassador to the United Nations.) Once read -- line by line (my task) -- Lewis began meeting with key members already elected to the Platform Committee.
One of the first? That would be young Congressman Newt Gingrich, already serving as a member of the Platform Committee's executive committee. The meeting took place in Gingrich's basement book-lined House office, a cramped affair reflecting precisely how junior in rank Gingrich actually was in the House pecking order. The three of us -- Lewis, Gingrich, and myself -- sat for over an hour talking about what Newt saw as the problems ahead.
The meeting was pure Newt Gingrich. Precisely the kind of talk that so struck the Republican voters of South Carolina the other day and has captured Gingrich such a following in the GOP debates. It was filled with polite if barely disguised disdain for the American Left in general, and what he would later refer to as "the old, passive and reactive Republican party."
Specifically in focus was Gingrich's fear that the Republican RINO/Establishment members on the Platform Committee -- specifically this meant people like then-Kansas Senator Bob Dole (the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee) Connecticut Senator Lowell Weicker, and Virginia Senator John Warner -- would somehow try and moderate the Reagan Revolution with calls for tax increases or somehow lessening the Reagan demand for American military superiority over the Soviet Union.
To shorten the tale, once the executive committee arrived in Dallas in August for the week ahead of the actual convention and the traditional period in which the Platform Committee delegates assemble to do their task -- Gingrich's fears were realized in spades. All hell broke loose as Senator Dole -- carrying the prestige of the chairmanship of the Senate's tax writing committee -- insisted on an open-ended plank on taxes that would accept a tax increase as a "last resort."
BAM!
Newt struck back. Hard. In private session -- and public. Working with his fellow Young Turks Rep. Jack Kemp and Tom Loeffler from Texas, Newt Gingrich raised holy hell. What Dole was proposing was a violation of the Reagan 1980 platform, a gross violation of Reaganomics, and just plain dumb. With Democratic nominee Walter Mondale already out there pledging to raise taxes, this was effectively caving in to Mondale. Bob Dole, Newt snapped at one point, was nothing other than the "tax collector for the welfare state."
Ouch. 
The media ate it up. Gingrich, Kemp, and the Young Turks taking on the Old Guard. The problem, of course, was that the liberal media of the day -- remember there was no talk radio/Fox/Internet -- presented this all as a battle between old extremists and younger ones who were even worse (that would be Newt). The press delighted in trying to humiliate Reagan, who spent the week at his ranch in California more or less inaccessible until arriving the following week to accept his re-nomination. Meanwhile, on the phone were all manner of people furious with Newt Gingrich. Dick Darman was calling me. And then Secretary of the Treasury Donald Regan called Lewis. In that case I got to listen -- and didn't need an extension to do so. Notoriously short fused, sensitive to perceived slights and not the most politically skilled, Regan called from Washington threatening to come to Dallas personally and deal with Gingrich. Who was Newt Gingrich to be deciding on the tax prerogatives of the Treasury Secretary? The line practically melted, but Lewis soothed him and Regan stayed put.
The solution? A comma.
This sentence was the proximate cause of the fury:

We therefore oppose any attempts to increase taxes which would harm the recovery and reverse the trend to restoring control of the economy to individual Americans. 

At the insistence of Gingrich and Kemp and in an amendment proposed by Loeffler, a sentence that kept the door open for tax increases had a comma added to it after the word "taxes." 
The sentence now read subtly but considerably different: "We therefore oppose any attempts to increase taxes, which would harm the recovery and reverse the trend to restoring control of the economy to individual Americans."
The Gingrich work product? Making certain that Ronald Reagan was not put on record leaving the door open for any more ill-fated tax increases. Dole was furious with the young Newt -- and, it might be noted, recently made a point of endorsing Mitt Romney. Hmmmmm.
THE OTHER EXAMPLE of the kind of "work product" from Newt Gingrich that week was his opposition to Senator Warner's insistence that the word "superiority" be stricken from the national security section of the platform -- a word the Reaganites had insisted be in the 1980 platform. Getting his way in his Subcommittee on National Security, Warner suddenly found himself confronting Gingrich and Kemp over this issue as well. Gingrich insisted on inserting language saying that the U.S. must be "stronger than any potential adversary." He also insisted the full Platform Committee vote on the issue. The full committee sided with Gingrich and overruled Senator Warner.
Is it any wonder the Washington Republican Establishment can't stand Newt Gingrich? Doubtless there is some sincere sentiment about his management capabilities, his verbal and intellectual wanderings, and other things that did in fact disappoint conservative leaders over the years of his speakership. Perhaps the WSJ captured the sentiment best when it described the ex-Speaker's "penchant for over-the-top statements and sudden shifts of strategy or policy based on personal whim."
That said, time after time after time in the Reagan years, a number of those times which I had the opportunity to see up close as a young Reagan staffer charged in my duties with being the White House liaison to Gingrich and Kemp's Conservative Opportunity Society, Newt Gingrich was out there again and again and again for Ronald Reagan and conservative principles. In his own memoirs, The Politics of Diplomacy, James Baker noted of his days as Reagan White House Chief of Staff that he always "worked closely" with the people Baker described as "congressional leaders." And who were those leaders? Baker runs off a string of names of the older leaders of both House and Senate in the formal positions of power -- plus one. That's right: young Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich repeatedly demonstrated a considerable ability to illustrate conservative principle, help Reagan using events of the day. Here were two notable examples.
• Was the House of Representatives being run as a liberal fiefdom after decades of unchallenged power? It was Newt Gingrich who came up with the idea in 1984 of using what were called "special orders" -- a moment for House members at the end of the work day to stand in the well of the House and give speeches on the subject of their choice. With C-SPAN cameras newly present, Gingrich used these moments to launch a fusillade of attacks on liberals, enraging Speaker O'Neill and prompting the Speaker into a personal attack, violating House rules. The news was everywhere, and the Republican caucus of the day promptly gave Gingrich something South Carolinians did three times at the last two debates: a standing ovation.
• Was there a letter out there from ten House Democrats, including then-Majority Leader Jim Wright, playing up to the Nicaragua Sandinista Communist Daniel Ortega -- even as Reagan worked to fund the Contras and their fight for democracy? It was Newt Gingrich who made a point of getting a debate on the House floor, flatly accusing Wright and the others in their sycophantic "Dear Comandante" letter of violating the Logan Act. The law that prohibited anyone other than the executive branch from conducting American diplomacy. "Jim Wright is corrupt," Newt remarked at one COS meeting in my presence… a sign of things to come. It was Gingrich who boldly filed the ethics charges against the powerful Speaker Wright in 1988 -- charges that eventually forced Wright to resign as Speaker in 1989. There are many who believe the ethics charges against Speaker Gingrich, charges Romney is now trying to use against Gingrich, were made up and sold to a Gingrich-hating media by livid congressional liberals as payback for both nailing Wright and humiliating O'Neill -- not to mention Gingrich's role in electing a GOP House for the first time in forty years. For Romney to be following this line gives the impression he can be easily taken in by both the liberal media and the anti-Newt Democrats and GOP Establishment.
And so on. And on. Newt Gingrich's "work product" in the Reagan years was and remains highly visible and on the historical record. Unlike Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich was not busy defensively claiming his independence and running from Reagan.
He never failed Ronald Reagan or the cause both believed in so passionately. Newt never wavered, and he always led. "Ronald Reagan is the only coherent revolutionary in an administration of accommodationist advisers," Gingrich is quoted as saying in Steven F. Hayward's The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution 1980-1989.
Whatever the status of Newt Gingrich's advisers, it is crystal clear that in the narrowing choice between Gingrich and Mitt Romney, it is decidedly Gingrich whose "work product" as a card-carrying member of the Reagan Revolution is repeatedly marked with the contributions of the type that landed him in Michael Evans book of photographs of the most important players of the Reagan era.
The kind of contributions, the kind of vision and the kind of boldness that won him the respect and votes of South Carolina voters across the board.
Hayward also notes that in one instance towards the end of the administration, Gingrich discussed complaints about things left undone. Writes Hayward of the president Jack Kemp fondly nicknamed the "Oldest and Wisest":

Reagan put his arm around the young Georgia Congressman and said in his typically gentle fashion, "Well, some things you're just going to have to do after I'm gone."

Ronald Reagan is now gone.
No one, and this is perhaps important to say, is expecting Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum or anyone else to be Ronald Reagan. That is silly.
But to anyone who was present, awake, and paying attention in the 1980s -- anyone who is listening to Newt Gingrich right now -- it doesn't take much to understand that some version of those gentle words from Ronald Reagan when he put his arm around a young Newt Gingrich is in fact driving the older Newt Gingrich in this campaign.
Ronald Reagan's very last public appearance in 1994, coincidentally at the approach of Gingrich's triumph later that year in winning a GOP House, was an evening in Washington with his old friend and fellow conservative the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In a dinner that re-united the Reagan team with their chief one last time, a small memento of the night was given to all of us. Underneath a picture of the two great conservatives Reagan and Thatcher strolling the grounds of Camp David, deep in conversation, was this reminder of conservatism from Reagan:

History comes and goes, but principles endure and inspire future generations to defend liberty, not as a gift from government, but a blessing from our Creator.

Why did Newt Gingrich win South Carolina?
Because he was one of Reagan's Lieutenants. A member of Reagan's Murderers Row of conservative stars.
It's too soon to know whether the conservative Gingrich or the moderate Romney will win this nomination. Or, yes, Santorum. Or even, if all those panicked rumblings from the Washington Establishment are true, someone not yet in the race -- a Daniels, Jindal, or Ryan.
But whatever happens, quite unlike the picture Romney is trying to paint of his prime opponent in South Carolina, Newt Gingrich was very much present and accounted for on the Reagan team. To borrow from Reagan's farewell address to the nation and the men and women who served him, Newt Gingrich wasn't just marking time. He made a difference. He helped make that City on a Shining Hill stronger. He helped make the City freer.
Quite to the contrary of the Romney message, Newt Gingrich was in fact one of Reagan's Young Lieutenants.
One of the best.

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/24/reagans-young-lieutenant

God bless,
JohnnyD

 

2011 - Not the Best Year for America

A GREAT ARTICLE FROM "CANADA FREE PRESS"
http://www.canadafreepress.com/

2011 -  NOT THE BEST YEAR FOR MERICA
- Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh, Friday, December 30, 2011

This year was not a good year for America, for freedom, for democracy, for law and order. We watched the accelerated disintegration and reshaping of every local, state, and federal institution to the detriment of the American people.

We allowed the leftist minority to push their communist agenda to the point of dismantling traditions dear to generations of Americans who have fought hard to establish the most successful society on the planet.

We watched young people debase themselves publicly. Morality reached a new low of depravity on television, in the streets, on YouTube.  Every narcissist and self-indulged egoist looked for his/her fifteen minutes of dubious fame. Our children emulated the depraved Hollywood.

We witnessed the useful idiots, filthy Occupiers of Wall Street, so-called defenders of the ninety-nine percenters, destroy and foul our streets, parks, and monuments with the support of some Democrat Congressmen and the White House. Police looked the other way in the face of millions of dollars worth of property destruction during months of squatting on private or public property. Millions in damages were paid by bankrupt cities and states, by citizens who diligently worked, supported their families, and paid taxes. Occupiers closed down ports in California, interfering with international trade, domestic trade, and the flow of goods while Homeland Security did nothing to prevent the closure.

We watched the mainstream media shill for the communist party and communist dictators across the world, while telling American people lies and giving deceptive statistics and falsehoods to support the anti-American agenda of adoring “progressives” in this country.

I never understood why socialists/Marxists called themselves progressive; “regressive” seemed a more appropriate description of their goals. Destroying progress and the capitalist economy is not exactly progressive. Adopting the blue color for socialism-loving Democrats seems like a misnomer since communism by any other name is red, coached in “green” on the outside, fiery red on the inside.

We witnessed the “environmentalist green” proponents weave their “smart-growth” plans to de-develop the United States to the Middle Ages and reduce population growth through crafty health care rationing, outlandish eugenics, and sterilization proposals in order to punish U.S. for the perceived social injustice to third world nations run by tin pot dictators.

We gave developing nations trillions of dollars towards economic development, progress, and to fight poverty, yet we seem to have lost this war since third world nations are just as poor now as they were in the beginning, kept so by the corruption of their leaders and their immediate supervisor, the United Nations.

We saw the end of the expensive war in Iraq that cost us at least $1.5 trillion and thousands of dead and maimed on both sides. After ten years of supposed liberation, nation and democracy building, we are watching the slow takeover of Iraq by Iran, and the certainty of civil war between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Not only were we not reimbursed for the war effort, we did not buy much oil from Iraq; it was sold to China.

A head of state was deposed while another was assassinated without due process; his pleas for mercy and a trial were ignored. The touted Arab Spring turned into an Arab Winter with the Muslim Brotherhood the victors.

A minority of atheists, agnostics, and Islamists objected to our Christian symbols and traditions dear to all of us - mangers, crosses, and the Bible. Forbidding Christmas displays, Merry Christmas, carols, displaying crosses in public places, and displacing Bibles at Walter Reed Hospital gave fodder to our enemies to push on with the “radical transformation” of America.

Disagreeing with the current regime became hate speech and racism. Following in the footsteps of U.K.’s intrusive citizen control by a government that knows best did not seem like a farfetched possibility.

We heard the news media glorify the death of the North Korean tyrant. Reporters and political pundits made the murderer of millions into an eccentric saint. The MSM ignored the true hero and patriot, Vaclav Havel, who helped bring the peaceful end to the communist dictatorship. He freed millions of his own people who suffered 45 years of communist oppression. Vaclav had died within days of the butcher Kim Jong Il. Millions shed heartfelt tears for the passing of Vaclav Havel. North Koreans hired professional mourners. North Koreans sighed perhaps in relief but were too frightened, weak, and hungry to show any emotion.

We watched CNN and Anderson Cooper stir up the youth in Egypt into Twitter frenzy under the false pretense of democracy and freedom from Mubarak. Every free thinker knew that the Muslim Brotherhood extremists were waiting in the wings to take over the country while oil rich nations were providing money and weapons.

Congress, the Fed, and the White House spent trillions of dollars on schemes, bailouts, and stimuli that benefited foreign governments, domestic and foreign banks, AIG, Goldman Sachs, and created no jobs in America. On the contrary, the jobs czar shipped the GE imaging department overseas. Jobs were created in countries like Brazil, Mexico, and Norway with taxpayer money.

The debt-ceiling crisis pointed out the failure of this administration to lead the nation and its success in plunging our economy into insurmountable national debt, a massive threat to our national security.

Corruption had become so rampant, Americans wondered if the famous checks and balances that prevented any one entity from acquiring unbridled power and control over our nation still exist.

Congressional representatives on both sides of the isle legislated against the wishes of the American people, passing law after law in the dead of night, chipping away at our freedoms. Legislators were bribed in order to garner necessary votes.

The Democrat-controlled Senate had not passed a budget in almost three years

The Democrat-controlled Senate had not passed a budget in almost three years, funding government in piecemeal increments with much fanfare and political posturing on the part of the Obama White House and the Democrats. Republicans caved every time, in spite of the fact that voters had given them mandate in the November elections for lesser government and less spending. As Mark Steyn said, the recent two-month payroll tax cut was the biggest cave since Tora Bora.

Elections were defrauded by ACORN and voter intimidation remains unpunished to this day. The Justice Department sued state after state that tried to pass laws to protect its borders and financial integrity from illegal immigrants’ free buffet of rights, demanded through organized street protests by La Raza and its many affiliates. Trampling and burning our flag, booing our national anthem, and waving foreign flags at national events and football games became accepted and mundane.

Dropping anchor babies, accepting social welfare, and demanding equal rights with Americans, illegal aliens brought an array of bankruptcies, hospital closings, school closings, unchecked diseases, increased gang violence, gang membership, and drug cartel murders at the border with Mexico. ACLU filed lawsuits against defenseless American citizens whose rights and safety were violated.

The leftist “social justice” movement and the “green” movement pushed by United Nations’ Agenda 21 and EPA brought us closer and closer to a Marxist dictatorship

The leftist “social justice” movement and the “green” movement pushed by United Nations’ Agenda 21 and EPA brought us closer and closer to a Marxist dictatorship by a few oligarchs who pull the strings of our politicians. Lavish union donations kept the campaign coffers of the Democrat party well stocked.

Education became more and more politicized by the left, indoctrinating students into the “global citizen” and the “evil capitalists who are destroying the planet” mentality. Busy and ignorant parents looked the other way, implicitly accepting this indoctrination. Vigilant parents home-schooled their children. Textbooks rewrote history and morality to suit the leftist agenda.

We experienced more and more censorship on line, in life, in academia, and in print. We became more of a police state, under surveillance for our views, our patriotism, and our military service. TSA received increased powers and authority to strip-search us of our dignity and molest us in the name of public safety.

More and more non-elected bureaucrats gained fiat power over our freedom, our energy, our industry, our speech, assembly, our health care, choice of schools, banking, finance, land use, water use, and home ownership.

What will 2012 bring? We have high hopes and expectations. Next year will be the defining moment of our nation – whether we continue to exist as free men and women or we cease to exist as a constitutional republic and become another tin pot banana republic dictatorship ruled by a handful of oligarchs.

God bless,
JohnnyD

The Payroll Tax Holiday?

Why is everybody making a big deal about this I cannot understand. OK if you make $50000 a year you will get $40 and if you make $25000 a year you will get $20! Whoopee! There are much more important things to be addressed than this penny-ante fiasco!

If you were asked what you would do with the $20 to $40 that you get how would you answer?

I know what I would do. I would happily donate it to any Political Action Committee that would help rid us of Obama and his Socialist Democrats, it would be money well spent and actually doing more for Americans than this present Regime!

God bless,
JohnnyD

Dear Patriots:

During this Christmas season, Thomas Paine's famous words – "These are the times that try men's souls" – seem especially relevant and poignant.

For while everything good, decent and generous about America tends to assert itself at Christmastime, we continue to witness outrage after outrage in Washington, D.C., as a disgraced and repudiated administration continues in its attempts to transform America into something that would horrify Thomas Paine and the other Founding Fathers.

Many people have analyzed, pontificated and written books about how we got to such a low point, but please allow me to remind you of what is undoubtedly the No. 1 reason America is today writhing under the "leadership" of the most destructive and dangerous president in history.

Do you remember why 69 million Americans voted for Barack Obama?

It's because he had an advantage no other presidential candidate has ever had – the total, unabashed support of the "mainstream media," which was so enchanted by the prospect of a young, eloquent, cool, liberal – and for the first time in history, black – president, that they ignored his anti-American, Marxist, Islamic and criminal associations and his unbelievably subversive track record. Instead of vetting him as was their solemn duty, the media lifted him high overhead and giddily raced across the finish line, all the while reassuring Americans Obama would be a great, "historic" and "transformative" president.

As if to assuage their guilt, immediately after Election Day, when it no longer mattered, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell publicly admitted the paper's reporters and editors had utterly neglected to vet either Obama, who "deserved tougher scrutiny," or Biden – an omission she referred to as "one gaping hole in [the Post's] coverage."

But the problem with journalism today is not just "gaping holes in coverage" and temporary abdication of professional journalism standards. Our "big media" have come increasingly to resemble the state-run press we see in China, with its gigantic Xinhua "News" Agency, in reality a mouthpiece for the Chinese Communist Party. Or Russia, where although criticism of the government can be found in some newspapers and on the Internet, the country's national television channels are essentially extensions of the state: "They are all either controlled by the Kremlin or run by editors who know what not to say," says Allison Gill, director of the Human Rights Watch office in Russia.

Here's the problem: You cannot have a free country without a free press. Yet America's "big media" today – especially the national broadcast and cable TV news (except perhaps Fox), as well as the major trendsetting newspapers like the New York Times – have devolved into a de facto government propaganda ministry.

The big media mock patriotic Americans trying to set their country right. They rewrite White House press releases and call it news. They bow and scrape before President Obama or anyone else. They pretend abortion is OK, or that same-sex marriage is good, or that global warming is "proven science," or that more government is the solution to all problems, or that Palestinian leaders want peace, or that the Constitution is old-fashioned, or that the "Federal Reserve" is good for America. In short, they are “politically correct” and have many sacred cows. Instead, they should tell the truth that Americans desperately need and deserve to hear.

With everything going on in America today, we need a vibrant, free press more than ever.

Merry Christmas and God Bless,

JohnnyD