Newt @ HQ & Gwinnett Forum

36 pictures from when Newt was last in Atlanta.

Obama loves spending

From athousandnations.com   They should give a prize for whoever can count how many times he says "spending"!

Newt Gingrich by Noah Green

Great video created by Noah Green - talented Film Editor & Newt Gingrich volunteer!

Newt yesterday's Man?

On Fox News, Brit Hume pontificating upon Newt Gingrich says: Newt is seen as yesterdays man while people are looking at the future.

What does that mean?  That we start each day without remembering the day before and that is the key to our success?  Really?

Forget yesterday, that was so um, yesterday!  Tomorrow is the future don'tcha know and the future is um, tomorrow.  We need new ideas for new solutions to, um.... solve OLD problems.  And thats the dirty little secret, the problems we have today come from yesterday.  Why?  Because we might dress better, travel faster, live longer, eat more but we are still Human.  Human Nature has not changed which means neither have our problems or how we solve them.

Make no mistake about it.  Those who tell you that our problems are new therefore more complicated are those who have a vested interested in making or keeping it that way.

Some are simply arrogant.  They know better than the billions that came before them.  But some use this as a technique to control.

Consider these passages:

A civilization without memory ceases to be civilized. A civilization without history ceases to have identity. Without identity there is no purpose; without purpose civilization will wither ~ Michael Kammen

“We are like dwarfs seated on the shoulders of giants; we see more things than the ancients and things more distant, but this is due neither to the sharpness of our own sight, nor to the greatness of our own stature, but because we are raised and borne aloft on that giant mass" ~ Bernard of Chartres

I think that yesterday's man is quite suited to take on our not so unique or futuristic problems.  I think that yesterdays man needs to remind those with poor memories that he beat all those problems and will do so again.  This time permanently which actually means until we are seduced away from it again by those with their shiny new babbles promising a new life, one suited for the Future & beyond!  All the while carrying our not so new Human Nature with us wherever we tread.  

Give the GOP a gun...

... and it will promptly point straight down and pull the trigger as fast as it can til the foot is evenly riddled with holes.

Its not enough that we've had to suffer through the Dole & then McCain fiasco's but now this election cycle might top them all.

Why is the GOP having debates on CNN or PMSNBC or CNBC??? No Republican watches any of these Leftist media outlets. Aren't these debates supposed to be for a "Republican" primary? Who cares about the 400 unwashed commies who watch CNN??? In the general election throw some ad's on CNN and then be done with them! Why does the GOP give the Leftists so much control over its process of election??? These debates have had horrible formats that have been horrible on purpose - to make Republicans look stupid and to discourage primary voters. And they've been very successful with it. To be fair, Chris Wallace & Fox News have been no better which begs the question, why Fox, why? Its as if they are desperate for the love of the Leftist media that they copy those who hate them and who will never stop hating them. Then again that would describe most of the GOP as well. They so desperately want to be liked & never will... get over it GOP! (and Fox)

Perry announces an Economic plan that is an absolute rip-off of Newt Gingrich & Herman Cain. Worse, its being reported as if he were the first with Newt & Herman joining Perry's lead. Typical behavior by the Leftist media but also now by Conservative media outlets??? Really??? Again, give the GOP a gun...blah blah blah.

The choices we are being given are polished talking heads, bobble-heads, a corporate head, a gargoyles head, and an academic head. So far, the GOP is too busy admiring the holes in their foot to look up and see that they need an academic head versus the other puffed up heads. But I digress.

What makes me truly angry is not that we are headed for another election where the DNC chooses our candidate but that this candidate might win. I say "might" since all the candidates,with the exception of Newt Gingrich, would fail terribly in a debate against the master of lies, Obama. If a GOP candidate actually won, they would fail... again, with the exception of Newt Gingrich. And when they fail, so does the legitimacy of any Conservative movement which will plunge the country futher into the putrid swamp of Socialism.

It is our fault that this country has fallen as far as it has, now is the time to correct our mistakes and make America a truly Exceptional nation again. Not just for our sakes but for those who need to escape the tyrannies of Socialism in this World. This World needs a shining example of something better than the man-made religion of Socialism... America used to be that example.

Cartoons from 1994

Tell me again how times have changed? 

Its the same ole stuff only much worse today. 

How much longer are we going to live like this? 

Here are a few cartoons that tickled my funny bone from 1994 with the last picture being the answer to this insane merry-go-round that America has been on since then:

Cain or Gingrich?

One thing that is not lacking in a campaign is the amount of sunshine people like to blow up someone's backside.  Right now all the sunshine is directed towards Herman Cain which worries me for him & for this Nation.

In life I've found that brilliant people are only brilliant when in the right place at the right time.  When they are there, in that place, many people then mistake their brilliance for a type of omnipotent brilliance, one that transcends all therefore making the brilliant person - brilliant, at any or every thing they set their mind too.  In real life its not so neat.  There are the fortunate few who have a couple or more successes in life.  Most people get one chance and some of those may even get a second chance.  Herman is looking for another chance & Newt is here for a second chance.

Herman Cain is brilliant, no doubt about it.  And a heck of a nice guy.  He knows business and has had successe in business.  But his success in business does not make him a Brain surgeon nor a great President of the United States of America.

Newt Gingrich is an even more brilliant man, absolutely no doubt about that.  And a heck of nice guy.  He knows Politics, has had tremendous success in Politics but that does not make him a Brain surgeon nor a great or even competent CEO/Savior of a pizza company.

Herman Cain cannot walk into Newt's "House" and succeed anymore than Newt Gingrich could walk into Herman's business and succeed.

Herman Cain is being set up.  If he becomes President, he will fail & so will the Conservative movement which then dooms us all to Democrats getting back into power with more & more & more Socialism.  This also means, we are being set up as well.

Time Mag Man of the Year - 1995

Monday, Dec. 25, 1995

NEWT GINGRICH'S WORLD

By LANCE MORROW

 

 

LEADERS MAKE THINGS POSSIBLE. EXCEPTIONAL LEADERS make them inevitable. Newt Gingrich belongs in the category of the exceptional. All year--ruthlessly, brilliantly, obnoxiously--he worked at hammering together inevitabilities: a balanced federal budget, for one. Not so long ago, the idea of a balanced budget was a marginal, we'll-get-to-it-someday priority. Other urgent work needed doing: the Clintons' health-care program, for example, which would have installed elaborate new bureaucratic machinery. Today, because of Newt Gingrich, the question is not whether a balanced-budget plan will come to pass but when.

Gingrich has changed the center of gravity. From Franklin Roosevelt onward, Americans came to accept the Federal Government as the solution to problems, a vast parental presence. Ronald Reagan preached that government was the problem, but his Administration focused mostly on the Evil Empire; it did not overturn the grand centralizing legacy of New Deal and Great Society. Newt Gingrich wants to reverse the physics, make American government truly centrifugal, with power flowing out of Washington, devolving to the states.

A sometimes unlovely blur of headlong energy and pinwheeling, roughhouse creativity, the Speaker has transformed both the House of Representatives and the Speakership into unprecedented instruments of personal and political power. It has been an amazing performance and, for all its scattershot quality, a display of discipline that is either impressive or scary, depending on one's sympathies.

Having organized an insurrectionist crew in the House, Gingrich seized the initiative from a temporarily passive President and steered the country onto a heading that the Speaker accurately proclaimed to be revolutionary. His venture is in a stormy mid-passage now. It may ultimately be forced back, or even sunk. Yet Gingrich did the work--crude, forceful, effective--that compelled the voyage in the first place. It is for that reason he is Time's Man of the Year.

Gingrich envisions a promised land--an America that may lie just over the horizon, in his cherished Third Wave Information Age, where traditional values connect to the future. He hopes to get to a place beyond poverty and violence and moral decay by leaving behind the welfare state and the deadening, blockheaded bureaucratic mind of Washington: a renewed civilization, says Newt--Norman Rockwell in the 21st century, a wholesome Utopia. Newt's destination has the refulgence of a never-never land--that is, an ideal. But in America, ideals have always been a necessary and efficient form of national energy. Which came first--Newt's vision of the future? Or his fierce personal ambition? Which one drives the other? The nearest answer may be found in W.B. Yeats' line (in language prettier than Gingrich might use): "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" Gingrich decided not to run for President in 1996. That may be just as well. The polls say more than half the American people disapprove of him. His negatives reached critical mass just before Christmas. Whereupon Democrats began to rouse themselves amid the wreckage leftfrom '94 and to tend small campfires of hope again.
They worked on the idea of running in 1996 against one man, Newt Gingrich, a vividly inviting target who virtually poses for cartoons of himself. Enemies picture Newt as the Simon Legree of school lunches and Medicare, the golfing partner of capital gains, the Churchill from K Mart, the nerd pistolero of the punitive right, the all-purpose villain.

IF GINGRICH WERE TO RUN for president, of course, he might be applying for a job inferior to the one he has created for himself as Speaker of the House. Whatever his fortunes in the polls and in the hands of a special counsel to the House ethics committee, Gingrich has the American genius for reinventing himself. The Gingrich Republicans, however, may be in danger of exercising their party's perverse talent for throwing away its advantages with both hands. Clinton is a superb campaigner, himself a gambler with a gift for new lives. And Republicans underestimate him.

Americans in 1995 kept a wary, ambivalent eye on both Clinton and Gingrich, the famous fraternal twins of American power, yin and yang of the Baby Boom, polar extremes of Pennsylvania Avenue. A generation or two ago, leaders were father figures. For better and for worse, Clinton and Gingrich--powerful yet indefinably immature--give off a bright, undisciplined energy, a vibration of adolescent recklessness.

Justice Holmes judged that Franklin Roosevelt had a "second-class intelligence but a first-class temperament." Newt Gingrich has a first-class intelligence that fires through a strangely refracted temperament that is not exactly second-class but agitated and sometimes grandiose enough to make Americans nervous. He has proved himself an impresario of leverage in using Congress to change America, a sort of hothouse genius. Americans may discover in 1996 whether Gingrich can evolve outward--as a truly popular leader in the open air.
 

All Newt covers from 1994

If people remembered 1994 they would know it was then as it is now and Newt was the only one that stopped it from going as far as it has today.  We need Newt again!

Bloomberg Debate - Newt & the rest

I find it very discouraging how the Republicans never learn from their mistakes.  Yet again it looks like a Beauty contest more than a Presidential campaign.  Additionally, all these debates are the best prep for Obama or Hillary in the upcoming Presidential debates.  You know they're taking notes, you know they're prepping... they will be very prepared for the Nominee of the Republican party and I believe they can beat all but one of the current Candidates.

The support for the current front runners is a recipe for disaster as well.  We are setting them up for failure.  They don't know how Washington works.  They don't know, and are guessing, how to bring about permanent change in our current, corrupted system.  They are the band-aids.  We don't need band-aids, we need a Surgeon and that would be Newt Gingrich. 

Unfortunately petty jealousies, self-righteous attitudes, feelings of abandonment, amateurish analysis, or outright ignorance will keep people from voting for Newt Gingrich.  Whats ironic about that is that most if not all will acknowledge that Newt is the smartest guy in the room but.... I've found that "but" is code for all the aforementioned feelings, in other words, the heart.  Their minds say yes but their hearts say no.  There are ways to overcome it but should not necessarily be addressed by Newt's campaign.  Newt should do what he does best, he should stay on point.  Others should do that heavy lifting.

Last night in the debate you heard every Candidate preen about their substance or the need for substance.  Yet the Contract of America has more substance than all of these Candidates put together even in raw form.  Newt's campaign needs to do a better job of "reminding" people of who Newt is, what Newt was and is, how Newt did it, and why Newt is exactly what America needs. 

Newt alluded to how the his campaign could accomplish those goals last night when he said look at the mess the Politicians have created in the last decade.  In other words- look at the mess the Politicians have created since I left office, its time for me to finish my work.  Hows that for a campaign theme???

Lastly, if you closed your eyes and listened to Perry's or Romney's impassioned verbage for their programs, you would never have guessed they were Republicans.  I now firmly believe they are secret agents from the Democratic party.  I've never heard Republicans use emotionally dishonest rhetoric in defense of a or in creating a program that serves their cause & no one else's.  Thats always been the Democrats specialty.  I grieve for the Republican party if either one gets into Office.  It will be Bush all over again.

Huntsman's Ken doll looks, Cain's sloganeering, Santorum's fiery attacks, Bachmann's continually reminding people that she keeps picking fights and losing are not enough to make a President.  They do not have the depth needed.  Ron Paul is the Jekyll & Hyde of the group... good for Halloween and ending the Fed but thats about it.

Newt is the only one that has the knowledge to make permanent changes.  Yet feelings trump Reason. 

Newt knows the Why, the Who, the What, and the How of America. 

All the rest know most of the When & Where. 

We need to get back to Why America was created - What it was supposed to be - Who we were supposed to be in America - How America works & How to get back there. 

The rest know dates of When things happened and Where they happened (I hope). 

We need Newt's knowledge and his experience to remind us of the work he started and the work that needs to finished.

Newt reminding us of who we are

Lincoln once declared, “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate for the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulties and we must rise to the occasion.…We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country.” Lincoln’s counsel holds true today. I believe it is time for the Republican Party to disenthrall itself from the dogmas of being an opposition party, rediscover the fundamental principles of our republic, and based on those principles, work out a comprehensive program for renewing our economy and government. If we remember who we are, we will know what to do. That is why American Exceptionalism matters.

"A Nation like no Other" Newt Gingrich

Newt on Judicial reform

Transcript from Value Voters Summit:

You know, you're here at a historic moment. I think this is the first time in American history that two Georgians running for president have been back to back talking to an audience. 

I was just -- I was just comparing notes with Herman offstage. I don't know if you've watched it, but the elite media said several weeks ago this was now a two-person race. And Herman and I have decided that may be right, but they have the wrong two people.

And it is kind of interesting that the two guys who have gotten the most money have lost the most votes, and the two guys who had the most ideas have gained the most votes. And that might -- I don't want to be too optimistic, but that might convince the elite media that maybe there is more to politics than fundraising and consultants, and maybe having a heart and a brain actually matters a lot.

Now, I think we are in a period of enormous challenge. I think that part of that challenge is Barack Obama, but frankly, I think it's much deeper. We have bureaucracies out of control. We have judges who don't understand the Constitution. We have teachers who don't believe in American history. We have an academic class that is in many ways alienated from the American people and an elite media which, frankly, I think, has no understanding of the origins of the United States and the nature of American civilization.

So we have a lot of work to do. Recently I released -- and you can see it at newt.org -- a contract -- 21st century "Contract with America." And it outlines the scale of change. It outlines both a legislative program, and it outlines a first-day program of very specific executive orders.

Now, let me you give an example. Imagine about 3:30 or 3:45 on inauguration day, the inaugural address is over. We've said goodbye to folks. We take about an hour and a half, and we start signing between 50 and 200 specific orders moving the government away from Obama and back towards the American tradition.

Now I don't -- you can go to newt.org and you'll see a section -- and this is open to you -- we will release all the executive orders by October the 1st next year, so it will all be a part of the closing month of the campaign. And if the president says he's for one of them, we'll print it out, he can sign it.

But -- but I can -- I don't know what all of them will be, but I can tell you what the first one will be. Around 3:45 or 4:00 on the afternoon of the inauguration, about the time that President Obama gets to Andrews Air Force Base to get on Air Force One to go back to Chicago -- I will sign executive order number one, which will abolish as of that moment every White House czar.

Now, I wanted to come today to talk about a historic crisis that only indirectly relates to the president. You know, Abraham Lincoln said, if you debate somebody who does not agree that two plus two equals four, you probably can't win the argument because facts make no difference. And I want to start with that example.

Imagine that by a 5-to-4 vote the Supreme Court decided that two plus two equals five. Under the current theory which the Warren court promulgated in 1958, the only effective recourse would be either, A, to get a future Supreme Court to reverse them, or B, to pass a constitutional amendment declaring that two plus two equals four.

Now I want you to think about the absurdity of this. I mean, do any of you seriously believe that five appointed lawyers decided two plus two equals five, that the rest of us would promptly change our school textbooks, change our accounting systems? I mean, some people may. That could well explain Obama's budgeting system.

But obviously this is absurd. It can't possibly be true that the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution a very elaborate, complex process of amending the Constitution and said, however, that if the Supreme Court is split 4-to-4 between liberals and conservatives, and Justice Kennedy gets up in the morning, he becomes a one-person Constitutional Convention. If he gets up and he feels conservative that day, it must be a conservative Constitution. If he gets up and he feels liberal that day, it must be a -- this is an absurdity foisted on us in 1958 by a historic lie. There is no judicial supremacy. It does not exist in the American Constitution.

Let me be clear. Judicial supremacy is factually wrong, it is morally wrong, and it is an affront to the American system of self-government.

One of the major reasons that I am running for president of the United States is the 9th Circuit Court decision in 2002 that one nation under God, in the Pledge of Allegiance, was unconstitutional. That decision to me had the same effect that the Dred Scott decision extending slavery to the whole country had on Abraham Lincoln, because I thought, if an American appeals court could be so radically out of touch with America that it could seek to block children from saying one nation under God as part of their description of America, that we had come to a point when we needed a constitutional crisis to reassert the legislative and executive branches' legitimate prerogatives to teach the judiciary that they cannot be anti-American and expect us to tolerate them radically changing our society by judicial dictate.

Now, what I'm saying to you is in the best tradition of the American Revolution. Read the Declaration of Independence. A very large number of its specific charges against Great Britain involve dictatorial judges. The fact is, the Founding Fathers deeply distrusted judges and thought that the lawyer class was dangerous and that you could not give them unbridled power or they would undermine and destroy free society.

Now, this is not some marginal position. Thomas Jefferson, asked about judicial supremacy, said that is an absurdity; that would be an oligarchy.

And so I think we are faced at one of the great crossroads of American life. And it's doubly dangerous because, you see, if judges think that they are unchallengeable, they are inevitably corrupted -- corrupted in a moral sense. I don't mean taking money. But I mean in a sense of arrogance, in a sense of imposing on the rest of us, whether it's one judge in California deciding he knows more than 8 million Californians about the definition of marriage -- (applause) -- whether it's a judge in San Antonio who rules that not only can schoolchildren not say a prayer at their graduation, they cannot use the word "benediction," they cannot use the word "invocation," they cannot use the word "God," they cannot ask the audience to stand, and if they do any of these things, he will lock up their superintendent.

Now, the idea of an American judge becoming a dictator of words is so alien to our traditions and such a violation of our Constitution, as I will explain in a moment, that that particular judge should be removed from office summarily.

Lord Acton warned in the 19th century that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Notice he dropped the word "tends." And the courts in the last 53 years have proven that Lord Acton is right because with each passing decade, the judges have become more hostile to the American tradition. They now openly talk about using foreign sources of information because, after all, the American Constitution is so old and so antiquated. A justice who believes that shouldn't be serving on the American bench.

We have a very lengthy paper, the work of years of -- of -- of effort by a number of us, edited by Vince Haley, which we have published this afternoon at newt.org, which outlines step by step how fundamentally profoundly ignorantly anti-American the current judicial model is that is taught in virtually every law school in this country. It is profoundly wrong. And as Steve King has pointed out, one of the major impediments and threats to democracy today is the very behavior of the law schools, which teach a usurpation of power in a way that is utterly unsustainable.

The Founding Fathers designed our Constitution based on Montesquieu's concept of the balance of power. We're supposed to have three co-equal branches. There can be no supremacy if there are three co-equal branches, by definition. Otherwise, you'd have a superior branch and two inferior branches.

But it's worse than that. If you read Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, he says the courts couldn't possibly take on the legislative and executive branch because they would inevitably lose. And what did he mean by that? This is, I think, one of the most important things we will explore over the next year.

And because this is a more complicated topic than a 30-second answer during a game-show version of a presidential debate as the Republican nominee, I will, in my acceptance speech, challenge the president to seven Lincoln-Douglas-style three-hour debates with a timekeeper and no moderator. (Cheers, applause.) One of those debates should be on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the nature of the American judiciary.

Jefferson is the most clear example of taking on the judiciary. In the Judicial Reform Act of 1802, the Jeffersonians eliminated 18 out of 35 federal judges -- didn't impeach them, just abolished their offices -- told them to go home. Now, I'm not -- let me be clear: I am not as bold as Jefferson.  I think the judge in San Antonio would be an important initial signal, and I think the 9th Circuit Court should be served notice that it runs the risk of ceasing to exist.  Jackson in -- in tackling the Bank of the United States, which he said was a(n) overly centralized form of power -- think of it as the earlier Bernanke -- was told, well, the Supreme Court has said that it's constitutional. He said: Fine, that's their opinion. And he said: I have a different opinion. I am the president. They're a court. They get their opinion in court. I get my opinion in the White House.

Lincoln spends the -- a large section of his first Inaugural Address explaining with the Dred Scott decision may be the law of the case, but cannot be the law of the land, and Lincoln refuses to enforce the Dred Scott decision while he's president, period.

So people who come in and say, oh, as Nancy Pelosi once said, if the court speaks, it's as though God has spoken. Now be fair. Having somebody from her branch of the party recognize God is an important step in the right direction.

On the issue of God in American public life, a country created because we are endowed by our Creator

the courts have been historically wrong at least since the late 1940s and have gotten worse and worse, more and more anti-religious, more and more secular, and more and more hostile.

And the question of national security -- in the last few years, the courts, I think, have become virtually out of touch with reality. The idea that the courts are now going to take on responsibility for defending the United States is a clear and fundamental violation of the Constitution and a fundamental violation of the executive branch's power, and the Congress should pass a law repudiating every interference of the courts in national security issues and returning them to the Congress and the president, where they rightly belong.

On abortion, the courts are wavering all over the place. They start with a clear and definitively stupid decision over here, and they've modified it at least twice since then. They don't know what they're doing. The fact is, Robbie George (sp) of Princeton may be right and we should explore very seriously whether we could use the 14th Amendment to define life in a congressional statute and insist that that be in fact the law of the land. And I think it's something we should look at very, very seriously.

On marriage, it should be quite clear, on issues like the Defense of Marriage Act, that we should simply say it can't be appealed, as it simply -- you -- it's very clear in the Constitution. The Congress can decide what can be appealed. The Congress can exclude things from going to the court. In the Judicial Reform Act of 1802, they refused to let the Supreme Court hear about it for 14 months, until they'd finished wiping out all the judges.  They said: We want to establish a fact on the ground before you get to hear it. So this is clearly written in the Constitution.

Now I said -- I mentioned Jefferson, but there are other steps you could take that -- that are far short of wiping out half the judges. One, you can hold hearings. I -- I think for the Congress to bring in Judge Berry (sp) from San -- San Antonio and say to him, explain to us your rationale by what right will you dictate speech to the American people? How can you possibly take your court order and the First Amendment and tell us that this is about free speech?

Judges who knew that when they were radically wrong they'd be hauled in front of Congress would immediately have a sobering effect about how much power they have.

Second, presidents can follow the precedent of Lincoln. I would instruct the national security officials in a Gingrich administration to ignore the recent decisions of the Supreme Court on national security matters, and I would interpose the presidency in saying, as the commander in chief, we will not enforce this. And by the way, for our liberal friends, the source of that is Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

In 1942 a group of German saboteurs were landed in Florida and Long Island. They were all picked up within two weeks. Roosevelt brought in his attorney general and said: They will be tried in a military court, they will be executed, it should happen within three weeks, and tell the Supreme Court if they issue a writ of habeas corpus, I will not honor, and therefore they should not issue it. I am the commander in chief in wartime. They aren't.

Congress has the power to limit the appeals, as I mentioned earlier. Congress can cut budgets. Congress can say: All right, in the future, the Ninth Circuit can meet, but it will have no clerks. By the way, we aren't going to pay the electric bill for two years.  And since you seem to be -- since you seem to be rendering justice in the dark, you don't seem to need your law library, either.

This is, by the way -- I am paraphrasing Hamilton in "The Federalist Papers," in which he is defending -- he says flatly, the judiciary's the weakest of the three branches. I mean, this modern model is just totally opposite the American tradition.

Obviously, I'm only outlining for you item nine of the legislative part of the 21st-century Contract With America. And yet you can tell just from this, I mean, the struggle we're going to have with the lawyer class over shrinking their power and their dreams of being the people who dictate to America how we should behave -- just in that one zone, imagine how big this conflict is, and then you have other zones. How do we create jobs? How do we get the National Labor Relations Board under control so it's not attacking Boeing and other job creators? How do we replace the Environmental Protection Agency with an environmental security -- with an environmental solutions agency that has common sense, cooperation, takes into account the economy?

I mean, step after step of things that really matter: How do we control the border by January 1 of 2014? Which you can do, by the way. You pass a law very early in 2013 that says: We are suspending any regulation or law which would inhibit us from the National Security Act of securing our border -- no environmental impact statement, no confusion; get it done now.

Each of these steps will be met with substantial resistance by the reactionary forces who had dreams of creating a radically different America. And each of these steps has to win, if we're going to give our children and grandchildren the free, safe and prosperous country that our children and grandchildren -- that our parents and our grandparents gave us.

I came here today because I think this is going to be a tremendous struggle. I did not come here today to ask you to be for me, because if you're for me, you're going to vote and go home and say: I sure hope Newt does it. And I can't; no one person can do this. Under our Constitution, the president can lead the American people in educating the Congress, in changing things. If we shrink the power of Washington by applying the Tenth Amendment, we have to grow citizens back home to fill the vacuum.

So I came today to take this opportunity to outline for you one of the great historic decisions we will make over the next few years: whether we take back the courts, we rebalance the Constitution, we insist on judges who understand the Constitution. And I can promise you, in a Gingrich administration, only people who are dedicated to the original document and its original meaning will get any court appointment at any level.

So let me just close and say to all of you I am here to ask you to be with me, to ask you to be with me for eight years, to ask you to stand side by side to make sure that we once again reclaim America from the forces of socialism, from the forces of class warfare, from the forces of secularism, from the forces who would let -- try to get us to not teach our children about the history of this great country.

If you will be with me, together we will decisively defeat Barack Obama, we will defeat the Democrats in the Senate, and over the next few years, we will decisively reclaim America as the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Thank you. Good luck, and God bless you.

Newt on Hannity in Atlanta

If you look to the right you will see me a few times! :-D

Jedi Newt takes on the Debt Star

Thoughts & Pics from Hannity & Newt last night

Great night to be in Centennial Olympic Park to see Newt Gingrich on the Hannity show! 

The event brought to mind two comments, both made on the show this week that I would like to comment upon as well as seek advice.

First comment is from Frank Luntz, made a couple of nights ago: Newt is the most Intellectual with the most challenging ideas than any of the other candidates.... everyone respects him yet how is he going to translate that into votes? 

Second comment by Joe Trippi last night: Newt is the one to watch.  Listening to him shows you that he has put more thought into his campaign and into his message or solutions. 

Both of their comments are paraphrased but I think I remember them correctly.  They sound like different sound bites but I think they are related and provide the key to Newt winning the Nomination.  I'm not worried about the General Election since I know he would wipe the floor with any Democrat opponent using his knowledge of the Why/What/How pertaining to the reason of being American.

So here is where I want to get advice or comments or even strategies on how to address those comments. 

Everyone knows he's the smartest, best educated, best spoken, has the best ideas yet most will not vote for him. 

How do we translate respect into votes?  That is what I will delve into in the coming weeks.

The pictures are from my wife's Canon Powershot, still kicking myself for not taking my Pentax K-x!