Gulf1 - C - Pappas

“Romney is Conservative” is an Oxymoron

by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired

In a recent article titled “The Anti Romney Vote” subtitled, “The Republican Electorate is saying, ‘We don’t want Romney’” in National Review Online, Thomas Sowell succinctly and flawlessly stated the case. Despite the litany of pushback to his article, Sowell is right. Anyone who believes that Romney is conservative would probably be willing buy the Golden Gate Bridge, which is offered here at a bargain.

The deep dark secret that his supporters hate to admit is that Romney is not a true gentleman in the image of his father. Romney likes to tell voters that he made his money on his own. Right. Sure. Who paid for his education? Where did he get name recognition? Who put him on the inside of deals? No doubt he made it happen, but with a lot of help from his family name. If Romney-lite governs with the same “Presidential” vicious malevolence that he happily, even giddily campaigns, Americans will wish they had Obama back. Underneath that plastic smile is a backstabbing SOB.

Romney is not conservative, is not compassionate, and is not Christian. He defended the right of minors to have abortions when he was Governor--definitely not conservative; he's not worried about the poor. Misspoke? BS! He spoke his heart; and is a Mormon--who are not Christian by definition, with due deference to the Constitution, Article VI paragraph 3 which stipulates “no religious test.” Aside: What is Obama? Christian or Muslim? Will the real Barack Hussein Obama please step forward?

The Republican Party is some 70% conservative who recognize that Romney is not one of them. Sowell is right, Republicans do not want Romney, consider the numbers: only once has he gone over 50% and won't again until Utah, in both instances Mormon driven or potentially driven wins. One can like Mormons and still recognize the reality that they are no different about voting their religion than the black vote was about Obama in ’08, or the Catholic vote was for Kennedy in 1960.

Weeks ago, as far back as South Carolina, Newt Gingrich pointed out that the Obama Administration was at war with the Christian Church in America. As usual he was out in front leading the charge, the media and Bishops are belatedly catching up. So I'll take imperfect Newt, foibles and all over plastic, lines memorized, unconnected, “Robot-Mitt” who has yet to condemn the Obama Administration for its dictatorial overreach into a tenant of faith of the Catholic Church in violation of the 1St Amendment! Hum, could it be that Mitt cares as much about the Catholic faith and 1st Amendment as he does the poor?

Semper Fidelis

Copyright ©  February 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.

Three Important Issues

by Col. Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired

Obama recently, unwittingly attacked religious institutions through his mandate that they provide free contraceptives.  When the Catholic Church pushed back so hard that it became politically painful he did the now famous Obama head fake, still requiring that the Church provide contraception but insurance companies provide funding.  To that the Catholic Church responds, “BS!” This not about funding, it’s about the 1st Amendment. Now, it is time that religious institutions go on offensive to put Obama back in his Tenth Amendment cage.

Please follow the link and watch the video of Obama making an announcement on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdjoHA5ocwU&feature=player_embedded  Then please respond here with a short description of your reaction.

Finally, I have long subscribed to a superb online devotional, This Day’s Thought and recommend it for your consideration.  It is the source of outstanding spiritual content and is well worth the price...like John 3:16.  I find This Day’s Thought to be a refreshing source of encouragement that often has the right words at exactly the right time.  http://www.thisdaysthought.org/

Semper Fidelis



Copyright ©  February 13th, 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.

Political Analysis, Calculus and Opinion

by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired

It is amusing to listen to Fox News nowadays especially given its solemn pronouncement after Iowa that Romney had the nomination sewed up. But “ta da” Santorum won Iowa propelled there by negative ads from Paul and Romney directed at Gingrich. Then as expected, Romney won handily in New Hampshire after which Fox News again gave the nomination to Romney. But a funny thing happened on the way to South Carolina where Romney went in leading but was trounced in a landslide.  Then the Fox spin was that Florida would be different than South Carolina.  So after two abject failures, Fox finally got it right; and, your humble scribe has nothing to crow about with only one correct prediction, South Carolina. Oh, well.

Reflect for a moment. After the South Carolina debacle Romney and his RINO establishment machine went into high gear fearing that defeat in Florida would spell the end of his campaign. So, pro-Romney Restore Our Future, aired 12,768 television commercials in Florida through Wednesday January 25th compared with 210 by former House speaker Newt Gingrich and his supporters during the same period.  In the end Romney won, not on the merits but because of the negative ads directed at Gingrich; take them away and see how well Romney does. Additionally, Romney brought every political hack he could muster to Florida from insiders at the Washington Republican establishment.

The notable thing about all the piling on is that despite the lopsided spending differential and Drudge’s proclamation of “Landslide,” Romney was held to 46% with Santorum and Paul pulling a combined 20% of votes away from Gingrich. Nothing guarantees that their votes would have gone to Gingrich although it is likely that most would have and the race might well have had a different outcome.  Fox, straight faced, albeit with left over egg from Iowa and South Carolina still in place, now tells us that “the nomination is Romney’s to lose.” That could be, but if the history of this race means anything there remains a good likelihood that Gingrich will rebound once again and win.

For my on-the-fence readers, consider this: from a Reuters report January 30th 2012: DAVOS, SWITZERLAND – “Billionaire liberal financier George Soros sees little difference between Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama, he told a Davos Switzerland interviewer last week. ‘The only difference is the crowd they bring with them,’ Reuters recorded Soros saying in the YouTube below. There would be a difference, however, if Gingrich or Santorum were to be elected, he said.”

Follow the link to watch the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyftC27vNp0&feature=player_embedded

Soros’ equivalency evaluation of Romney vs. Obama throws a wrench in the Republican machine that is doing all it can to paint Romney as conservative; and, is damning of both the Party machine and its “presumptive nominee.”  So, here we go again with a RINO as the “presumptive nominee;” they never learn, and don’t want to.

Santorum should wise up and move aside because he is effectively supporting Obama or his clone if Soros is even close in his assessment.  Dr. Paul? Well one may like him, but he is too far out of the mainstream to seriously count.  He too is going nowhere except to travel the country while sewing libertarian seeds, and that may be precisely what he has in mind; one should have no problem with that. There is only one candidate that can make real, effective, pro-America changes in Washington and get this nation going in the right direction, and that person is Newton Leroy Gingrich.

Semper Fidelis

Copyright ©  January 31th, 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.

Vote Newt!

by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired

Contrary to an earlier missive where I described how I became acquainted with Speaker Newt Gingrich through the Chairman of the Santa Rosa County Republican Executive Committee, a friend reminded me that Gingrich had come to the U.S. Air War College in Montgomery, Ala. where we were students in 1983-4 and he visited as a guest lecturer. At that lecture every one of the 241 students was awestruck by his brilliant and intimate knowledge, grasp and meaning of American History. 

During the rapid fire question and answer period that followed the lecture, one student raised a question about some issue a historian written about, to which the Newt responded, “Yes, I know,” then with the same surgical precision that he eviscerated John King of CNN, he named the book and said, “he discusses that issue on page 527, the top right side, second sentence.” There was momentary silence then the next instant the entire student body sprang to its feet in a roaring cheer and applause.

Proverbs 29:18 states: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” One of the Speaker’s opponents derides him for having a vision for government funded projects in New Hampshire, Inter-State 75 and improved port facilities in South Carolina and for Florida’s Space Coast he proposes a permanent colony on the Moon by 2020.  That’s vision and government we can live with!

Most have heard and seen a ton of negative ads about Newt and if every bit of them was true, which they are not, I would ten times over rather have this imperfect "Peter" who is penitent and humbled, but who has done more for this nation in four years as Speaker, and who is endowed with more God given genius, leadership and vision than all the other candidates combined, to lead this country to a renewed and glorious future!

Semper Fidelis
Bob Pappas
January 31, 2012

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.