Responding to criticism of his “nay” vote on a supplemental appropriations bill for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Sen. John Kerry said in 2004, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it” — a statement that came to define the Massachusetts Democrat, then running for President, as a flip-flopper with no convictions.

Eight years later another presidential candidate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, finds himself in a similar gherkin. Gingrich, it seems, was for the ObamaCare individual mandate before he was against it; and his newfound opposition to the mandate appears to be less a matter of conviction than of political opportunism.

According to CNSNews.com, as far back as 1993 Gingrich was stumping for an individual mandate. Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press in October of that year, then-House Minority Whip Gingrich said: “I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.” In other words, if Gingrich had gotten his way, one of the central features of ObamaCare would have been enacted 18 years ago.

Washington gridlock may turn out to be the salvation of the Obama administration.  Not only does gridlock allow the president to blame Republicans for not solving the financial crisis that his own runaway spending created, the inability to carry out as much government intervention in the economy as when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress means that the market can now recover on its own to some visible extent before the next election.


 

Sheriff Kelly Janke was searching for six missing cows. As he searched, he came upon three armed men, requiring the sheriff, armed with nothing but a search warrant, to come back with reinforcements.  Ranches spread for thousands of acres on the wide open ranges of North Dakota. The sheriff knew that better than anyone else, and he knew that the rifle-toting resisters could be waiting for him anywhere, so he came prepared. The cavalry called in to assist Sheriff Janke consisted of highway patrolmen, a SWAT team, an explosives detonation squad, and deputies from surrounding counties.

As Americans become increasingly opposed to the intrusive and unconstitutional searching techniques of the Transportation Security Administration — including recent allegations by several women that they were strip-searched by airport security — two New York lawmakers on Sunday proposed the creation of "passenger advocates" at airports. However, their solution is highly controversial. The two men — U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and New York State Sen. Michael Gianaris — have stated that such a position should be created by the TSA itself, which critics point out would virtually undermine its purpose of passenger advocacy.

 

For the atheist group Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFR), Christmas is not the season to be jolly or liberal in a giving sort of way. Instead, it’s the perfect time to ratchet up its well-worn intimidation strategy against Americans who are exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech and religious expression by displaying traditional nativity scenes in the public square.

The latest target of the FFR’s campaign against faith is Henderson County, Texas, where a nativity scene, erected annually on the lawn of the county court house in the city of Athens, has drawn the ire of the godless grinches.

After an unnamed individual in the community supposedly called the group’s Madison, Wisconsin, headquarters to complain about the harmless display, the FFR’s legal team quickly moved into action, sending a threatening letter to the county commissioners demanding that the display be removed immediately.

“It is unlawful for the County to maintain, erect, or host this nativity scene, thus singling out, showing preference for, and endorsing one religion,” FFR staff attorney Stephanie Schmitt exhorted the county commissioners. “The Supreme Court has ruled it is impermissible to place a nativity scene as the sole focus of a display on government property....”
 

Pushing his agenda for higher taxes on “the rich,” President Obama kicked off his December 6 speech in Kansas by saying his Kansas grandparents “shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the Great Depression.”

In fact, the 1929 stock market crash turned into the long-running Great Depression because the counterproductive soak-the-rich policies of the federal government hadn’t “triumphed” in reversing the downturn.

 

The December 10 Yahoo/ABC News presidential debate in Iowa revealed a strong swing of candidates over to the issues and leadership of Representative Ron Paul.  "I have learned that you should never give up on your opposition," Paul told moderators George Stephanopoulos and Diane Sawyer. "Because if you're persistent and you present your case, they will come your way."

 

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Congressman Ron Paul sparred over the issue of Gingrich's $1.6 million in consulting fees for mortgage giant Freddie Mac between 1999 and 2007 in an ABC News Iowa debate December 10.

Asked why his campaign released an advertisement accusing Gingrich of "serial hypocrisy," Rep. Paul stressed that Gingrich "received a lot of money from Freddie Mac. Now, Freddie Mac is essentially a government organization. While he was earning a lot of money from Freddie Mac, I was fighting over a decade to try to explain to people where the housing bubble was coming from. So Freddie Mac gets bailed out by the taxpayer, so in a way, Newt, I think you probably got some of our taxpayers' money." He added, "I think this is something that people ought to know about."

Paul, whose advertisement stressed that Gingrich had switched positions on many issues, suggested that he alone had been consistent in defending the U.S. Constitution over many years in Congress: "If we're looking for a consistent position, I think there'd be a little bit of trouble of anybody competing with me for consistency."

Senator Rand Paul, a self-described representative of the Tea Party, worries that the small progress toward the restoration of limited government may be "set back" by the upcoming Republican presidential nomination.

In a letter to the Des Moines Register, the son of GOP White House hopeful Ron Paul set forth his two goals for striving to protect the "conservative movement" from being hampered by the nomination of a candidate with "a different set of ideas and values."
 
The first of Senator Paul's two goals is to "prevent the European debt crisis from consuming America next." Although certainly a priority for the Senator, the rest of the letter is devoted to details of his second goal: electing a "constitutional[ly] conservative president in 2012."
 
An urgent issue for the Republican Party and the United States is the election of a president who will remain faithful to his Oath of Office from the moment his hand is placed on the Bible on Inauguration Day.
 
While Senator Paul admits that anyone on the current roster of Republican candidates would be an improvement over Barack Obama, he calls out the two men leading in the polls — Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — for not representing "the tea party, the conservative movement, or the type of change our country desperately needs...."

Nothing like politics more readily reveals man’s intellectual and moral vices. If ever we were in need of proof of the truth of this proposition, the Republican Party’s presidential primary race supplies it in spades.

The Democratic Party’s penchant for duplicity has long been noted by most readers of this column. That it seeks “the fundamental transformation” of our country into something bordering on a socialist utopia will be denied only by those who choose to characterize its prime objective in other terms. The ugly truth is that the Democratic Party of which President Barack H. Obama is the titular head abhors the America conceived by our Founders, an America within which liberty is the cardinal value. The United States Constitution — the secret to this liberty — is a burden from which Democrats seek relief, for as long as it remains, it stands as a monumental impediment to their agenda, a systematic program that involves nothing more or less than the repeal of the Revolution of 1776.

 

JBS Facebook JBS Twitter JBS YouTube JBS RSS Feed