Gulf1 - C - Pappas

Stand with Newt

by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired

Never in my adult life, and I’ve been around a while, have I observed the level of attacks on a candidate from one’s own Party as I observe ongoing against Newt Gingrich. People who have held my respect for years are engaging in a character assassination ritual which is every bit as despicable as their characterization of the object of their disdain. Long time admired Ann Coulter is about to have a nervous breakdown and has gone off a cliff with her angst and level of vitriol. The Drudge Report and Fox News, not to mention the “left” might just as well fly a banner of disparagement against Gingrich and endorsement of Romney. Today I read another hit piece on Gingrich by R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., Editor in Chief and Founder of the American Spectator.

Isn’t it co-incidental that piling on occurs just as the national cameras are focused on the Florida primary? Amazing how that works! The other candidates cannot win on the merits of the strength of their positions, debating skills or accomplishments so they turn to their friends in media who are evident shills for Romney. So, like is too often the case, the others seek to win by tearing down their opponent since they are incapable of winning on the strength of their positions or arguments, on the issues.  Is Romney, Paul or Santorum bad? Only to the extent that they are not up to the task of winning on the merits and all they have left is to resort to negative attacks.  When Gingrich first defended himself, the shills (that would be Fox News and Drudge) immediately painted Gingrich as angry and that he was being negative. Huh? Did I miss something? Wasn’t the first barrage of negative ads put out by Romney and Paul in Iowa? Yes, I thought I remembered that correctly.

It frustrates them that Newt, despite the fact that they put him on his political deathbed shortly after announcing his candidacy, and again after Iowa continues not only strong but leading. Could any of the others survive the slings and arrows as he has? No! His campaign Staff resigned early on and reported to Perry for duty, but then Perry endorsed Newt, Humm! When he (as did “The Donald”) criticized Paul Ryan’s plan, they went loopy that he would speak the truth. They emphasize out of context distortions, like the “$1.6 million he was paid” by Fannie Mae; and that he “resigned in disgrace” with a $300K “fine” are just that, out of context, intended to mislead distortions of the facts.

His resignation from the congress according to a Washington Post was because of losses during November 1998 Congressional elections that had nothing to do with the $300K reimbursement he agreed to make. Read the account and related articles from the November 8th 1998 edition of the WP yourself, then one can make an informed decision: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/gingrich110798.htm.

Establishment Republicans Party operatives such as Ann Coulter, Fox News in the person of Brit Hume and Carl Rove, and Drudge Report should carefully consider the consequences of their damning behavior toward the Party’s most likely candidate whether or not they succeed in destroying that candidacy. Nancy Reagan has bestowed the “Reagan Mantle” on Gingrich, and Michael Reagan has endorsed him…and yet Dick Morris (Fox News) quips the most laughable line of the season: “Romney is Reaganesque.” Sure, and I am George Patton or Douglas MacArthur, or both.

Was Newt perfect while he was Speaker in the way he dealt with issues? No. But, Newt Gingrich did more in four years for the American people as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives than any, no, all his competitors combined have done in a lifetime. 

Newt’s morals: So what is the issue...his distant past from which he has turned away, confessed, repented and has been happily married for twelve years? He has let the past go, but evidently a lot of good people have not. Thank the Lord for salvation from sin, and thank Him for his forgiveness, otherwise we are all "toast" and Jesus will have died in vain. But, I think not. David Hanson has an excellent piece in National Review Online, on the subject of Presidential morality. 
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289250/fidelity-and-presidency-victor-davis-hanson

I am for getting rid of Obama. My analysis is spot on that Ron Paul doesn't have a chance and he as much as says so although during the Thursday debate was more certain; Romney is a Mormon whose personal values may be okay, but intentionally pulling the plug on failing businesses, not to preserve capital but to make money is not my idea of how true capitalism is supposed to work; and, he lies and supports liars; and Santorum would be crushed by the media in the first five minutes after the nomination. At this juncture all Santorum is succeeding in doing now is to diminish the chances for conservative leadership. Coulter’s “Romney is more conservative than Gingrich,” may actually be one up to Morris’ “Reaganesque” comment in the comedy department. Romney may be better looking than Reagan and younger too, but Reaganesque? Stop it Morris, it makes my sides hurt.

That brings me back to imperfect Newt who is penitent and has matured; and who the Lord has molded into the man to best lead this nation, just as imperfect and impetuous “Peter” (Wasn’t Peter the disciple who denied knowing Jesus three times the night of Jesus’ betrayal? Yes, that Peter.) was the leader of the early “Christian” Church.

Semper Fidelis

Copyright ©  January 26th, 2012, by Robert L. Pappas. With proper attribution, this essay may be quoted and redistributed, except it may not be used in conjunction with any advertisement without the author’s expressed written permission.

Campaign Speech or State of the Union Address?

by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired

Was that Barack Hussein Obama the nation watched on TV making another campaign speech in lieu of the scheduled State of the Union Address? If one didn’t know better one would think he actually had America’s interest at heart, except for one itsy bitsy problem and that would be everything he has done over the past three years demonstrate otherwise.  He actually sounded like he is proud of the country, a first in the three years he has been acting as President. Was that an American Flag on his lapel, the very same symbol he repudiated during his last (and it will be his last) campaign? He’s come a long way, or has he?

If he actually believes that America’s stature has improved in the international community, he is inhaling the marijuana smoke left over from Bill Clinton’s drag but which Clinton did not inhale. “Better international relations than ever,” excuse me, but he must be residing on some other planet because, the Russians hate us; despite his bowing and kowtowing to Muslim dictators they hate the U.S. more than their usual level of contempt and malice; Chinese have used America and laugh all the way to the bank; the Caliphate holds Americans in “udder” contempt; the Japanese are wary; the South Koreans amazed and Europe is aghast at what they believe is his incompetence but which is actually an intentional decision to cut America down to size.

Obama rattled off a series of breathtaking falsehoods that any observer with even a modicum of knowledge knows are false. He told listeners that America is stronger than it has been in decades and that his new military strategy of downsizing will actually make the nation more secure.  Of course he was compelled to tell Americans that the economy is Bush’s fault and that he had rescued the nation from the precipice. He bragged that his policies regarding the automobile industry was responsible for GM’s return to the top of the list of automobile producers. But like most everything he says, shilling his policies is a lie. A January 20, 2012 Reuters report states:

“The Detroit-based automaker's (ed. GM) return to the top slot comes as Japanese rival and former No. 1 seller Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T) slips in the rankings after an earthquake in Japan and deadly floods in Thailand hampered its production in 2011.”

When Obama talks about American values, he means his socialist values, not mainstream traditional American values of self-reliance, opportunity and achievement.  With every passing moment the nation declines despite Obama’s best effort to signal improvement.  He is an unmitigated, nouveau rich socialist, backstabbing liar who deserves to be crushed and cast onto the ash heap of disrepute and ignominy as the only American President who worked to destroy the nation from within. With Soros’ continued help he may still succeed. 

Semper Fidelis


Copyright ©  January 24th, 2012, by Robert L. Pappas. With proper attribution, this essay may be quoted and redistributed, except it may not be used in conjunction with any advertisement without the author’s expressed written permission.

Review, Analyze and Forecast

by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired

The South Carolina primary is now, and voters are going to the polls. Reviewing to date, it has been an interesting race with Gingrich going into Iowa in a leading position only to be taken out by negative ads from the Romney and Paul campaigns. That act propelled Santorum, who had been at 5% to a win. Despite considerable effort and expense, Romney was able to find no more votes than four years ago.  Ron Paul followers put him in third place and Gingrich free-fell to fourth; and, Rich Perry landed fifth while Bachman dropped out and Huntsman was a no-show.

One’s carefully considered opinion is that the salient reason that Santorum and Romney scored in Iowa was the negative advertising campaign focused almost exclusively on Gingrich. Romney had 25% locked up and gained nothing from the advertising. Gingrich lost about 25% from his original position and that was split with most of it going to Santorum. Thus Santorum as the only remaining “untested” conservative rose from 5% to win at approximately 25%, and Perry who had taken a fall in poll numbers early-on rose from 5 to 10%. Negative ads did nothing to help Dr. Paul. The net effect of the $3 million dollar expenditure by Dr. Paul/backers and Gov. Romney/backers was a major boost to Santorum that otherwise would have never occurred.

In the New Hampshire primary Gingrich was held to fourth place and Santorum fell to fifth, with Gingrich winning that two man contest by a fifty vote margin according to an AP report. Romney did not perform quite as well as expected, at 39.3% due to 16.9% of the votes siphoned off by Huntsman. Perry was a no-show and Paul drew 21%.

Going in to South Carolina most media including Fox were referring to Romney as the “presumptive Republican nominee.” Romney’s big win in New Hampshire and tie in Iowa with an established campaign infrastructure in South Carolina for five years was combined with the notion that whoever wins there would go on the cinch the nomination. Given his big lead in the polls he was expected to win going away. However, his debate performance and attack ads were offset by stronger debate performances from the other candidates. That depressed his 36% figure going in to South Carolina to 26% the day before the election. Gingrich moved to 32% on strong debate performance, a number of salutary endorsements and strong campaigning.  Dr. Paul is holding at 11% and Santorum at 9%. This alignment, absent the percentages was forecast earlier.

Undecided voters will make the final determination. It is likely that most undecided votes will go to Gingrich because of his willingness to fight back; is the strongest debater; has the broadest and best vision; can and will crush Obama; and has the most cogent and doable economic plan.

In a desperate effort to derail Gingrich, ABC’s release of an interview with his former wife was intentionally timed to inflict harm; and CNN piled on. While both media outlets claimed that voters needed to know the information, virtually everyone breathing knows that it has been in the public domain for a decade and is as stale as leftover smoke. The Speaker handled the matter masterfully and judging from the response, the crowd repudiated both the questioner and the question; and we believe boosted his candidacy sufficiently to win.

Semper Fidelis


Copyright ©  January 21st, 2012, by Robert L. Pappas. With proper attribution, this essay may be quoted and redistributed, except it may not be used in conjunction with any advertisement without the author’s expressed written permission.

Come Over to South Carolina and Help Us

Volunteers needed, call 843-808-9061.

In its continuing series of recent negative advertisements the Romney campaign complains that Gingrich has gone negative out of desperation.  It would be useful to review the situation. Shortly before the Iowa caucuses both Romney and Paul began running negative advertisements against Newt. It is notable that Newt's numbers in Iowa at the time were over 40% of the potential vote. The conclusion as to why they proceeded along that line is Newt's numbers were high because of his ideas, knowledge, ability to deliver, to debate and because he is far and away the most intelligent and experienced. As a result of the ads Santorum jumped to the top as a part of the media scenario that 75% of Republican voters want an alternative to Romney; and, it is true.

In the interim a PAC has come forward to attack Romney and support Newt.  Some of the information that was put out was erroneous and has been repudiated by Newt. On the other hand when Romney's supporting PAC put out erroneous or false information, Romney's response was that Newt needed to develop broad shoulders. Again, in South Carolina the only way that Romney is able to compete is because of his negative ads against Newt, one of which comically turns reality on its head by heralding that Newt's negative ads as desperate, when the truth is Romney's ads are precisely those of desperation, he recognizes that far and away a majority would prefer an alternative.

What is abundantly evident is that Paul and Santorum have faded and Perry has no traction as predicted. Newt has reemerged as the leader of the conservative alternatives. If conservatives are to have a hope of a true conservative winning, they must rally around one of the conservative alternatives. I urge the strongest alternative and that would be Newt Gingrich. Please check the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLweKX3BkNM 
 
Semper Fidelis

Copyright ©  January 14th, 2012, by Robert L. Pappas. With proper attribution, this essay may be quoted and redistributed, except it may not be used in conjunction with any advertisement without the author’s expressed written permission.

Should a Politician Be Angry?

by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired

I will vote for whoever the Republican nominee will be. That noted, I support and advocate for “New” Gingrich! Please take the time to watch the video at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLweKX3BkNM .

If it’s a moderate that Republicans want, it looks like Romney would be the choice. After all, Romney’s 25% seems to be directly in line with that proportion that Gallup shows among registered Republicans who regard themselves “moderate.” It is amusing that Fox likes to paint Romney as the one to beat i.e. the non-Romney candidate. It isn’t as amusing that the only way Romney can maintain 25% is through negative advertising. One should be careful when living in a glass house, a well known line that applies to virtually every one of the candidates.  The New Hampshire results mean the following to me: Most Republicans in New Hampshire are moderate or liberal, that would be Romney and Huntsman. The next largest group as evidenced by Dr. Paul’s, Gingrich’s, and Santorum’s combined showing are conservative.  The winner is not representative of the majority of Republicans, but the media is doing its best to portray him that way.

One wonders why the conservative majority in the GOP would rather vote a “moderate” than any one of at least three more conservative candidates. Would it be because the openly secret strategy is to split the vote among conservatives so that the effect is to elect a moderate? Divide and conquer. Its worked in the past and is on track at the moment to do it again-- will conservatives be duped yet again?

The problem with being moderate is somewhat akin to not being able to differentiate truth and spin, or to put in well known Biblical terms, “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!”  And, this last is what the American public will do to the Republican Party again unless a genuine conservative is nominated. In a conversation around the coffee table after church last Sunday, one person said, “I would vote for Lucifer before I’d vote for Obama.” Although shocking, it is representative the strength of attitude against Obama in some quarters. The GOP needs to harness that opposition and ride it to victory.  And the best way to do that is to nominate a conservative not a candidate whose only chance to rise above 25% is for the field to narrow to the point where math begins to take over. The problem that confronts the GOP is how many will sit out the election given another “moderate?”

Therefore, my conservative readers, the choice is to allow the Party to be lead by a “moderate” and lose again, or someone with indisputable conservative credentials and win in a landslide. That, of course, is where the real “primary” debate in the Republican Party lies. The problem on the conservative side of the equation is that Paul is unelectable and has said as much; Santorum is a weak candidate who would not have risen in the polls as the conservative alternative had not Romney (the moderate) and Paul (the libertarian) launched attack ads against Gingrich during the run-up to the Iowa Caucus. Despite that loss Gingrich continues because he has the strongest message, the most experience and is best equipped to lead the country out of the mess created by those moderates who chose to vote their ‘white-guilt” complex or to “be part of history.”

When the question is raised: “What is it you oppose about Gingrich?”  The answer turns on two points: first, his personal life and two, his personality.  I for one, forgive him his personal life just as Jesus forgave the thief who was crucified with him, “today you will be with me in paradise.” From one who has known Newt personally in the past, I’m informed that he was arrogant, among other things. At this point conservatives should not be focused on whether or not a candidate has a particularly likeable personality unless this is a high school contest.  Rather, conservatives who are a majority in this country should be focused on who is strongest and that would be Newt Gingrich!  

Why does the Obama campaign focus on Romney? It’s the classic basketball head-fake. They want voters to believe Romney will be the Republican nominee because they know Obama would be crushed by true conservative Gingrich.

Semper Fidelis


Copyright ©  January 9th, 2012, by Robert L. Pappas. With proper attribution, this essay may be quoted and redistributed, except it may not be used in conjunction with any advertisement without the author’s expressed written permission.

Conservatives Unite!

by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired

One has to be completely devoid of rational thought to support Barack Obama any further. But, who has ever attributed rational thought to liberals? The spin from the left is amazing which is no way synonymous with rational.  Enter the RNC, on December 6th, Republican Headquarters issued an “edict to surrogates” not to attack Obama personally. In a Yahoo.com News account it was reported that: “Republicans on a private Republican National Committee conference call with allies warned Tuesday that party surrogates should refrain from personal attacks against President Barack Obama, because such a strategy is too hazardous for the GOP.”

Okay, it’s agreed no one should attack Obama for the color of his skin, that’s a no brainer; for being married to “For the first time in my life I’m proud of my country,” Michelle; for having a great smile; a fine looking family; for being fit and trim; and, for a number of other generally fine personal qualities. 

But how about his politics, does the RNC consider that “personal?”  How about his past, his philosophy, his associations with America hating Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, terrorist Bill Ayers and other despicable communists? How about his economic policies; his duplicitous rhetoric; his throwing “white middle class” workers under the political bus; his class-warfare strategy designed to split the country; his Foreign Policy strategy which turns away from the Middle East and slashes the military budget to fund his vote-buying programs; his tricking an inept Congress into revoking American rights protected by Habeas Corpus, an inherently unconstitutional act by both the Congress and President; his squandering trillions of dollars; his accumulation of the largest most economically destructive debt in history; his Chicago thug-style politics; his lying and cheating? How about his politicizing the Justice Department, Homeland Security, the Department of Defense and Government employees? How about his stabbing Israel in the back? Or worse, his own country? Would the RNC agree that it is okay to go after Obama on those or does it want to hold back on them?  What a bunch of wimps! They are disgusting.

One is beginning to wonder just whose side the Republican Party is on. And whereas one is not for a third party at this time, if conservatives don’t succeed in taking over the leadership of the Republican Party it is a guarantee that a third party will emerge and the Grand Old Party will fade into oblivion.  The chart below borrowed from Gallup illustrates the point:

It illustrates that without conservatives there would be no Republican Party just as there wasn’t a viable McCain candidacy until he drafted a certifiable conservative as a running mate.  What the RNC is doing by McCain’s endorsement of Romney is evident; and, would the idea be to bring in Michelle Bachman as VP Candidate this time…and with the same result?

•    Dr. Paul is so far right that he’s left of Obama on national security and foreign policy, out there in “la la” land. When he took the cheap, unfair shot at Gingrich: “I had two kids, was drafted and went to Vietnam,” he went too far. He knew full well that Gingrich was deferred from the draft because he was married with children and that as a medical doctor he (Paul) was draft eligible.

•    Santorum I like, a good looking candidate, strong on social issues and Iran, but a “weak sister;”

•    Governor, what’s that guy’s name from Texas who I like?

•    Huntsman, well okay. But I seriously question the judgment of a man who would align himself with, in fact be the Representative of a certifiable socialist/communist, no matter that he tries to spin it as serving the greater interest of the U.S.A., (And regardless of the spin by Fox News that Obama is simply inept, Fox is a shill for him on that score; inept, B.S.! Obama knows exactly what he is doing.)

•    Romney has it locked on looks, but like Obama he might just as well be using a teleprompter. In this case, he has all his lines memorized and behind them is no soul, no passion, it’s strictly acting and he’s no actor; and business.  Strictly business in the same way he refused to allow Boy Scouts to participate in Olympic ceremonies, and the way he eviscerated AmPad to make millions of dollars. It’s one thing to shut down a losing company, quite another to go in with a strategy designed to bleed it to death. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/articles/part3_main/?page=8 or http://www.massresistance.org/romney/ampad_062607/index.html That’s not capitalism that one can be proud of, that’s the darkest underbelly of Machiavellian greed. Oh, yes, there is more, but the point is made.

I support Newt Gingrich for among others, the following reasons: a 90% conservative voting record during his political career; a balanced budget during his tenure as Speaker; was responsible for reducing the rate of growth of the national debt; ended welfare as it existed then but has since been resurrected by Obama through extended unemployment benefits; produced the economic environment for a Federal budget surplus that reflected a strong economy for a number of years following his departure as Speaker; is the strongest leader in the field of candidates; the strongest debater; the most knowledgeable on American History which gives him the best historical perspective; gave the Republican Party a majority for the first time in 40 years; has the strongest record of political accomplishment; and, I've left out much.

Do I see his warts? Of course, but I strongly believe that the past twelve years he has not only changed and matured, he is wiser. Gingrich may not be perfect, but I’ll take him in a fight any day! Please go to the following link and donate to support Newt. http://www.newt.org/

Semper Fidelis


Copyright ©  January 6th, 2012, by Robert L. Pappas. With proper attribution, this essay may be quoted and redistributed, except it may not be used in conjunction with any advertisement without the author’s expressed written permission.

A Common Man’s Analysis

by Col. Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired

Oh, well, so much for one’s predictions for Iowa, one can predict and come close but still be off by a fraction, in fact by eight votes. We’ll see how New Hampshire develops.

Here’s a bit of 20-20 “retro spectroscope.” Two weeks ago Rick Santorum was in the single digits in Iowa, but because he worked his tail off since last summer doing everything he could on a small budget to convince the good people of Iowa that he would be the best conservative candidate, and given other factors, he won. I have always liked the Senator because of his pro-life and other positions with which I agree. I am delighted that the grandson of a legal immigrant has emerged as a frontrunner. But, here’s the downside, he’s too conservative (as am I) and mark this on your calendar, “the secular media will crucify him just like it did Bachman, Cain, and attempt at Gingrich.”

Consider this: less than three weeks ago Newt Gingrich was at 40% in Iowa, but because the Romney and Paul campaigns lacked comparative substance in relation to Gingrich’s message, they made a decision to pour a reported 6 million dollars into negative ads targeted at Speaker Gingrich. Had Paul and Romney had the integrity to fight on the merits and not run or supported ads that poisoned the election, Gingrich would have emerged the winner going away.  In the alternative, had the Speaker elected to go negative, he could have won, but the political and economic costs would have been debilitating to all concerned and Obama would emerge the winner. So, Romney and Paul achieved a pyrrhic victory over Gingrich which resulted in the meteoric rise and effective victory by Santorum, and in the process soundly repudiated the disreputable tactic they employed. Talk about a backfire! Maybe they will have the sense not to do that again, I doubt it but one can hope.

Two recent emails bear comment: “How could you support a moral leper?” and the other, “Why do you hate Romney?” To which the answers in order are: “I don’t” and, “I don’t.” First, I believe in forgiveness and redemption.  Just as Jesus cleansed the lepers, and me, He freely does the same for any who seek His forgiveness: to be specific, 1st John 1:9, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Is Newt penitent of his wrongdoing, has he confessed his sins? I have observed him to openly confess and repent of his past on a number of occasions when the question was put to him. From what I can see, despite his earlier spiritual foibles he is on the right track, so how can any true Christian believer condemn him? The last time I checked, the only perfect man was crucified two thousand years ago. Second, I don’t hate Romney (or Paul), I strongly dislike the fact that the media is trying to tell us who is anointed, and therefore that everyone should get in step. We will when it’s time, and now is not the time.

I support the one who has a proven record of conservative accomplishment, who delivered a Republican majority for the first time on forty years, who balanced the Federal Budget, who dismantled welfare (since effectively restored by Obama), and who significantly reduced the growth of the National Debt. Did he along the way step on toes? Did he make mistakes? No doubt he did, but did that era experience the continued unprecedented economic prosperity that began during the Reagan Administration because of Newt’s leadership? Damn right it did! To his credit, Clinton was cunning enough to tap into it. 

So, for those who are open to winning for America there is one who has the vision and ability to not only to win but restore and build on America’s greatness.  I urge you to set aside Newt’s past and abandon the temptation of malice; believe what a true Christian claim’s to believe, personal redemption; and support the one who has proven performance, intellectual prowess, and unmatched debating and leadership skills.  Does he have warts? Show me one who doesn’t!

Do I like Rich Santorum? Absolutely! Do I like Romney? Except for his manifest tacit admission of inferiority and weakness in the competition of ideas and vision, yes.  Do I like Ron Paul? Yes, same as Romney. To be absolutely clear, I will support anyone of them over Obama. But despite their attacks, the strongest of the litter on the merits is Newt Gingrich, and I stand with him.

Semper Fidelis


Copyright ©  January 4th, 2012, by Robert L. Pappas. With proper attribution, this essay may be quoted and redistributed, except it may not be used in conjunction with any advertisement without the author’s expressed written permission.

And the Winner Is…

by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired

As the hours wind down to the “fateful” Iowa Caucuses, one is inundated by images, sound bites and poll results claiming such a variety of information that it is difficult to assess the real situation.  No doubt, there will be a winner. Just who that will be is yet to be determined, but if one is supposed to take one’s clue as to who to for vote for, Romney will win hands down. Check the buzz words in relation to the Romney campaign: “he remains above the fray allowing supporting PACs do his dirty work;” “He looks Presidential” (well, so do a lot of other actors); “He’s the presumptive Republican nominee:” “Gingrich makes Romney better;” and, etc.  The list goes on.

As one journalist openly admitted of the journalist community, they are doing their best to determine who is nominated.  The journalistic community wants Romney because in the aggregate Romney would be the easiest for Obama to defeat.  For those readers who are quick to abandon any front runner then move on to the next, one must keep in mind that the best Romney has been able to do is 25%. In a national race that would be catastrophic; but of course the assumption is that everyone thirteen clicks to the right of Obama (which would be about 86% of the population) would get on board because of their antipathy toward him. One hopes that logic would hold, but in today’s environment it may not.

It is disappointing to have to admit, but given that 95% of voting age blacks voted for Obama in ’08 and despite some disaffection in the black community for some of his policies, blacks will vote again as a Democrat block in favor of Obama if for no other reason than the color of his skin. That reflects racism of monumental proportions and is a sad reflection on the black community notwithstanding a growing number of blacks who have their eyes open. Oh, that more would recognize that Obama is keeping them on the Democrat Plantation with his “spreading the wealth around” bait, and is essentially telling them that they can’t succeed without him or some other socialist (ever hear of social justice?) to take care of them. Tragic, but true.

Here’s another admission, Obama looked good, had a great smile, lovely family and was articulate and except for the fact that I took the time to read his books, to do the research into his background, to the extent possible examine his associations, his Illinois political connections, his voting patterns as an Illinois Senator and his lack of activity as a US Senator, his fundamental belief system, his anti-American bias, his religious connections, his use of illicit drugs and other aberrant behavioral patterns, I might have done as some of my friends did who wanted to be “a part of history,” I might have voted for him. But, I took the time to study and those things have galvanized my opinion, an opinion which has since been borne out as correct by his behavior while in office.

What I learned about Obama beforehand and his behavior since he took office including: his manifestly anti-American behavior while in office (epitomized by his world apology tour); his corrupt, crony capitalistic connections; his cavalier attitude about spending taxpayer money; his “struck it rich” attitude about using taxpayer money to fund his recreational lifestyle (the most recent of which cost taxpayers a reported four million dollars); his duplicitous political patterns and his divisive rhetoric; his embrace of what might well be Soros funded protest groups; his obscene connection to labor thugs; his duplicitous backstabbing attitude toward Israel: his open embrace of everything Islam and at the same time his not so subtle anti-Christian bias; his divisive class warfare political strategy which includes abandonment of working class taxpayers; and his crony capitalism makes him anathema, a leadership revulsion and political if not a domestic enemy (in the Constitutional context) to Americans.

Back to the Republican nomination, here’s an educated opinion:
•    Santorum will win Iowa, fourth in New Hampshire, fourth in South Carolina and Florida.

•    Paul will come in second in Iowa, fifth in New Hampshire, second in South Carolina and third in Florida.

•    Romney will come in third in Iowa, first in New Hampshire, third in South Carolina, second in Florida.

•    Gingrich will come in fourth in Iowa, third in New Hampshire, win South Carolina and Florida.

•    Bachman will come in fifth in Iowa, last and drop out after New Hampshire.

•    Huntsman will come in last in Iowa, second in New Hampshire last in South Carolina and Florida.

Santorum has spent too much time in Iowa that he lacks the strength elsewhere to continue on. Paul has enthusiastic followers but lacks broad based support to go forward with strength beyond Iowa. Romney can’t get past 25%, no matter what he does, even as Gingrich makes him better. Gingrich has the vision, message, will and tenacity to overcome the negative campaigning in Iowa and rebound in South Carolina and Florida. Bachman is in the hyperventilating mode, and Huntsman is gasping for political air.

The strong horse in the race despite the negative campaigning is Newt Gingrich, and I stand with him.

Semper Fidelis


Copyright ©  January 2nd, 2012, by Robert L. Pappas. With proper attribution, this essay may be quoted and redistributed, except it may not be used in conjunction with any advertisement without the author’s expressed written permission.

It’s About Obama and Democrats, Stupid!

by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired

Those who can’t win on the merits use personal attacks to improve their standing.  In a recent offer to debate his chief opponent, Newt opined that his opponent feared the prospect. His opponent stated in return that they had a number of debates and more scheduled, and to the effect “that it would be inappropriate to narrow the field before voting began.” It is notable that Herman Cain wasn’t afraid and didn’t shrink away, and it was a productive dialogue for both candidates. What does Gingrich’s chief opponent have to fear other than being shredded?  If he can’t stand up to Gingrich, does he actually believe he can stand up to the Presidential Teleprompter Reader who is spoon fed the answers? Come on, man up!

Obama’s effort to paint himself as a tax-cutter and Republicans as spenders is full of irony; and stinks worse than rotting fish. Obama, a tax cutter? That’s one for political comedy books and late night shows and qualifies for the Washington Post’s Four Pinocchio award. Obama has spent more, appropriated, by the Democrat House and Senate in three years than all other Presidents in the history of the U.S. combined.  Alas, everyone knows that it is Bush’s fault that Obama has had to spend so much. B.S.! And, of course, everyone knows that Obama is in the top four of American Presidents, or at least he says so. Finally, he tells us that he needs another term to finish his work. Now, just what work would that be, the total destruction of the U.S.? Fortunately, most Americans have awakened from their “make history” stupor and are ready to guard against any further attacks by and from their own President.  Anyone besides me for evicting him before his term is up? Nice family man (Or is he? One wonders why Michelle goes on vacation by herself.); and that is what he should stick to.

One is compelled to wonder about the mental capacity and state of those on the left.  Given that workers who have a job are carrying the majority of the leftists on their backs, if the left was to get its way to do away with the free market capitalist economy, who would carry them then? Allow me to answer that: No one! And they would be forced to go to work for a change rather than live at the expense of those who do pay taxes; and I’m not referring to well known hidden taxes that accounts for billions in addition to income taxes.  Everyone would effectively work for the state, and I call that national serfdom or slavery, take your pick.

Speaking of taxes, the recent debate of the “payroll” tax prompted me to learn more about it than I care to know.  I was under the mistaken impression that payroll taxes were deducted from a worker’s paycheck and sent to Washington for politicians to waste; most know that sending money to Washington is a waste except for Defense; and there is plenty of waste there too. At least I had the waste part right. What I didn’t know was the change in nomenclature. It turns out that “payroll” taxes are the worker portion of social security taxes; the employer pays the other portion. All the while, I thought anything having to do with Social Security was Social Security taxes, and the other was Federal Income Tax withholding.  But nowadays it’s called Payroll tax (Social Security) and FITW or Federal Income Tax Withholding.

In typical Obama sleight of hand, and in keeping with his promise to “spread the wealth around” (what he actually meant to say was, “spread the poverty around” judging from what he is doing to the middle class) to keep the books in balance (and, that’s a laugh) he would add a fee (tax) on homebuyers since they are the ones with the money, to offset the loss of revenue from the “payroll tax” holiday which if it were to lapse would be touted by Democrats as a tax hike, which latter day Obama opposes.  Got it? Now, how’s that for clarity, transparency and honesty?  Keep in mind: who forced through "Obamacare," arguably the most despicable legislative action and legislation in US history; who has literally wasted over a trillion dollars of stimulus and other money; who has increased the national debt to both historic proportions and in record time; and, who has set the stage for Iran to have a nuclear weapon and civil war in Iraq? To his credit he approved the raid that killed Bin Laden, but lost a stealth helicopter in the process; and more recently lost a reconnaissance drone to Iran; or was it a handover? Does anyone believe that the designers didn’t make it hack-proof, or if hacked or otherwise located, didn’t build in a self-destruct mechanism?  The one that I like most (not), is that Obama uses taxpayer money under the guise of promoting his “Jobs Bill” to fly around the country campaigning. 

It’s an Obama mess of mega proportions, and who can best fix it? I’ll tell you who, Newt Gingrich! I encourage you to join in by sending this to your friends in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina! In fact, send it to everyone in your email account.

Semper Fidelis and Merry Christmas!
Bob Pappas

Copyright © December 23rd, 2011, by Robert L. Pappas. With proper attribution, this essay may be quoted and redistributed, except it may not be used in conjunction with any advertisement without the author’s expressed written permission.

Want Real Solutions or Vacuous Personal Attacks?

by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired

Newt Gingrich has risen in the polls because of his command of the issues, proposed solutions to those issues and his incomparable delivery.  Yet, never in one’s lifetime has one observed the level of vitriol directed toward a candidate than is presently being directed at Newt. Fox News has all but abandoned any pretense of being “Fair and Balanced” as it pushes as hard as possible for its chosen candidate.  Fox’s tactic is as old as politics, trumpet one while maligning the other. Although Fox tries to obfuscate its evident bias by turning to selected third party apologists who on the one hand tear down Newt while trumpeting the virtues and electability of another candidate, its tactic is transparent.  Then there are direct venomous attacks by Fox senior commentator Brit Hume. One can raise a valid question: “With friends like that, who needs enemies?” There is no doubt on this score that Fox can absolutely claim to not be in the tank for one of its former analysts.

That noted, whenever a competing candidate turns to personal attacks it is a signal that he, she or they have lost the battle of ideas and strategic position. With the Iowa caucus two weeks away it is apparent that vacuous personal attacks are all that Newt’s opponents have to offer. The same attacks wouldn’t stand a chance against the billion dollar Obama campaign and multi-billion dollar media machine where for practical purposes campaign and media machine is one and the same.  Until now, one could count on Fox to be even-handed but in this case has shed its objectivity. It is so bad that any response by Newt to a personal attack is immediately analyzed then trumpeted as disqualifying. 

When one reads or hears, “Newt is scary,” “Newt is this or Newt is that” or, “so-and-so looks presidential,” one has to wonder whether or not there is any concern about the present occupant of the White House. If Obama’s first four years are any indication of the direction he wants to continue to take this country (i.e. more debt than all other administrations in history combined), one must conclude that the economy and the nation would be unrecognizable in another four. Now, that dear reader is a genuinely frightening prospect not only today but for future generations. College readers: PAY ATTENTION!

There is a Bible story where Jesus figuratively inserts Himself between a hostile crowd and a woman who was about to be stoned to death.  Imagine the scene, holding up His hand and looking each in the eye, Jesus said to the effect: “Any one of you who is without sin, step forward and I’ll move aside for you to cast the first stone.” Those who know me can attest that I am no Jesus of Nazareth, but I challenge anyone who is so pure in personal and political behavior to step forward and cast the first stone. Let me disabuse any would-be pretender: “don’t bother, there isn’t one!” (Oh, yes, this despite what the media would have all people, everywhere believe about Obama.)

Message to Newt’s Republican opponents: One is well aware of his past, his present shortcomings and his humanity.  This campaign is not about Gingrich, which of course is the focus of opponents’ efforts since they are incapable of competing in the realm of ideas and solutions; and, Newt will use those ideas and solutions to consign Obama to the ash heap of Chicago politics.

For Republicans voters in Iowa and across the country: Newt Gingrich has contributed more substance to the debate and to this country than all his competitors combined; I stand with him!  Learn more at: http://www.newt.org/

Semper Fidelis

Copyright ©  December 21st, 2011, by Robert L. Pappas. With proper attribution, this essay may be quoted and redistributed, except it may not be used in conjunction with any advertisement without the author’s expressed written permission.