The Newt behind the suit

Newt is a good talker. So was Obama, remember?

Don Hank

In election cycles, Newt Gingrich knows how to talk like a conservative. Like Obama, he knows how to cater to his constituency (see link and quotes below).

But when the chips are down, he has proven to be quite at home in Democrat territory. Too much at home.

Now, the GOP establishment (and the “Tea Party,” which they have virtually co-opted) is saying that only the left-leaning Newt can save us from Obama because he can appeal to “both sides of the aisle.”

As Michelle Bachmann pointed out in the debate, Obama is so weak the Democrats are thinking of replacing him, and the notion that Obama can’t be beaten is patently false. It would be more plausible to say he can hardly win against a warm body.

This election cycle, more than any time in recent history, we don’t have to resort to a centrist or “moderate.” A conservative can win. So it isn’t the lefties and moderates who will determine the direction our country takes in 2012. It is you.

Now look, Greece and Italy, two bankrupt nations, were just forced to accept new presidents, both of whom are big central bankers — the group that blew up the global economy — and on top of that, they are members of the Trilateral Commission, a group that — like the CFR — has designs on world government. That is not a democracy, Folks. It is a technocracy of the EU kind, where your vote is meaningless and you are told what to do, where to sit, what medicine you can take (not natural medicine. Monsanto owns you)  and what you are allowed to raise in your garden, if anything.

America, you do not have to don this yoke. You aren’t bankrupt yet. Well, I could be wrong there….  But at any rate, you don’t have to accept a leader who is in lockstep with the NWO gang who wants to micromanage your life more tightly than the CP controlled the slaves in the USSR. As a member of the CFR, Newt is one of them. He will never be one of us, not even close!

Of course, defeating Newt would require a sufficient number of Americans to toss aside the GOP Kool-Aid, stop being spectators and join the fight!

Do you have it in you?

Don Hank

 

Quote:

In 1995 Newt Gingrich made a dispassionate appeal in the well of the US House of Representatives to increase the power of the Presidency by repealing the War Powers Act. After voting for $1.2 billion dollars in 1994 to fund increased NATO peace keeping missions, the very next year he urged President Clinton to expand the US military presence in Bosnia [SUPPORING MUSLIMS AGAINST CHRISTIANS–DON]! Newt has been pro abortion, pro amnesty for illegal aliens, in support of higher taxes at one time or another, and in favor of expanding the role of the Federal government! He is viewed as being anti-family by many, not only because of his pro choice stance on abortion, but also for his support of gay marriage, and because he has twice divorced and been married three different times. Actions speak louder than words!

 

Quote:

Newt Gingrich has been a member of the ‘progressive’ Council on Foreign Relations since 1990. This NGO, founded in 1921, and bankrolled with BIG MONEY from the Rockefeller Foundation and J. P. Morgan among other internationalists, has been dedicated since its inception to dismantling American sovereignty, de-constructing our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, and promoting the idea of One World Government!

 http://www.lessgovisthebestgov.com/Newt-Gingrich-Candidate-President-Republican-Primary.html

 

Remembering the prime cause of the economic crisis

Most Americans are puzzled and, of these, most are angry that Tim Geithner and Obama keep forking over our cash to a failing Europe via the IMF.

In fact, these politicians are some of the few who realize that the US Left actually triggered the world economic crash and therefore, in a sense, owes Europe and everyone else an apology at the very least.

It is interesting that even the most conservative authors, writing on the economy, rightfully blame the banks, the Fed and the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall for the economic crash, but most of them fail to look back at the prime cause, the bleeding heart giveaway policies of the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act). True, these other factors were absolutely key and no one is denying that. But without the CRA, it would not have happened, at least not in the same way.

“Most people do not realize this, but derivatives were at the center of the financial crisis of 2008,” states an article at theeconomiccollapseblog.com.

Nothing wrong with that statement. (This blog is in fact one of the best sources available on the progress of the West’s current economic suicide attempt.)

Indeed, neither party noticed the enormous destructive power of these instruments back when the market was bearish.

But let’s be more specific. In the case of the current crisis, it was not just any old derivatives that caused the initial tremor in the markets. It was mostly a derivative known as MBSs, or mortgage backed securities, that got the avalanche rolling. And the repeal of Glass-Steagall (which had denied banks the right to act as both investment houses and banks) was the enabler.

However, we need to look back further to find the root cause. To recap for those who have forgotten: Back in the 70s Carter, always the bleeding heart and skeptic of the free market, decided banks were deliberately refusing to service blacks, Hispanics, etc, on the basis of race. That assumption was in itself unproven at best and maliciously phony at worst. Nonetheless, the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) became the law of the land in 1977. No one tried to seriously enforce this law until Clinton became president because Republicans used to know that forcing banks to lend to the insolvent would inevitably lead to ruin. Ironically, by the founding of the Clinton Dynasty, businesses were even more conscientious than before about eliminating racial considerations from their lending practices. A well-off black men could secure a loan just as easily — if not more easily (thanks to affirmative discrimination) — than a white man.

But Clinton had declared himself the “first black president” and he had to live up to his absurd title. So his HUD secretary Henry Cisneros, with equal absurdity, started to put teeth into the law that had, mercifully, lay fallow in the intervening years:

Here is what the CATO Institute says:

In 1992, HUD was given regulatory authority over these government-sponsored enterprises, and it began pushing the two firms into the subprime lending business.

The ensuing horrors we see all around us could perhaps have been mitigated, or even averted, had GW Bush not tried so hard to be a “compassionate conservative” (code for socialist in sheep’s clothing). In fairness, Bush had initially warned against these policies, but by January 2004, his HUD web site was trumpeting:

“Offering FHA mortgages with no down payment will unlock the door to homeownership for hundreds of thousands of American families, particularly minorities,” said HUD’s Acting Secretary Alphonso Jackson. “President Bush has pledged to create 5.5 million new minority homeowners this decade, and this historic initiative will help meet this goal.”

It was the serious enforcement of a less-than-serious law, coupled with the repeal of another law that would have prevented the securitization and sale of mortgages that indirectly led to a debacle that has engulfed the entire world and has led to a situation in which derivatives with an estimated notional value of $1.4 quadrillion have flooded the world market – a value of about 23 times world GDP. Not only the issuance of MBSs, but the practice of creating and selling these potentially lethal instruments, is what threatens every inhabitant of our globe.

So keep this in mind: without the repeal of Glass-Steagall and without the “compassionate conservatism” and outright socialism of our past governments, you and your friends would have reasonable job security and/or a job.

Good reasons to avoid voting for a RINO or a Democrat next year.

Farewell time for Mitt and Hermann?

Time to bid Hermann and Mitt farewell?

 Don Hank

As it turns out, both Mitt and Cain have tons of baggage.

Seriously folks, is it time to take a fresh look at, say, Bachmann?

Opinions welcome (you may post yours below). 

So far, any baggage Michelle may have seems to be the carry-on type. Nothing aggravating. Plus she was the only one at the debate who called herself a “Constitutional conservative.” That, of course, was ignored by the press and by Fox News, who told us the lackluster Mitt performed brilliantly. Actually, the most memorable thing Mitt said was “nice try,” a line he repeated several times to parry Perry’s criticism. In response to the question about how to solve the economic crisis, he muttered something incoherent about “patriotism.” Mitt’s response on that number one issue was probably the most conspicuous non-sequitur in the debate.

A lot of you are starting to support Bachmann. I don’t see the kind of drawbacks with her as I do with these 2 sad sacks.

Let’s look at Hermann Cain. It seems Cain’s wife is unable to support him against these persistent sexual harassment accusations and has backed out of a planned TV interview slated for that purpose (see link below). Most people who have been in politics or worked closely with a candidate know that a wife’s support is absolutely crucial in this kind of scandal.

Not only that, well-known radio personality Steve Deace says Cain has personally shown him an example of questionable morals prior to a scheduled appearance on the air.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/cain-scandal-wife-interview/2011/11/04/id/416910?s=al&promo_code=D704-1

 

As for Mitt, the news about the Romney family’s relationship with a criminal Ponzi scheme is all over the internet (see below) and apparently, the MSM are licking their chops waiting until Romney’s candidacy is officially announced to bruit this to the world.

Assuming that happens, with this scandal in his background (even though it is via his son Tagg), it seems doubtful that Romney can win the election against anyone.

Now, GOP, will you finally start looking for a candidate who can win?

Or is losing “what you do”?

http://www.coachisright.com/the-stanford-group-solamere-connection-a-romney-scandal-the-media-is-just-waiting-to-write-about/