It’s Time to PREVENT a Dem from POTUS

Donald Trump-Ted Cruz Happier Days

Happier Days

John R. Houk

© May 4, 2016


I am a Cruzer. BUT Senator Cruz has suspended his candidacy for the GOP nomination for POTUS. YET, if Cruz has any kind national future as a leader in the United States – I will again be a Cruzer. The Financial Times provides a decent summary that correlates to the reason I chose to be a Cruzer:

A self-described fighter for “limited government, economic growth and the Constitution”, Mr Cruz joined the Senate in 2012, boosted by support from the anti-establishment Tea party. He quickly earned a reputation as a wrecker, championing controversial attempts to scupper the implementation of President Barack Obama’s healthcare law in 2013, in an effort that included a 21-hour filibuster in the Senate floor that helped pave the way to a government shutdown, and during which he read “Green Eggs and Ham” to his daughters on television. (Bold Text Mine – How Ted Cruz dropped the ball in his bid for the White House; By Sam Fleming & Demetri Sevastopulo; Financial Times; Last updated: 5/4/16 6:53 am)


I can add (Ted’s Website and OnTheIssues) that Senator Ted Cruz is an Evangelical Christian a son of a Pastor AND a huge supporter of Israel as America’s partner in the Middle East. I can also add Ted supported obliterating ISIS with the Rules of Engagement that would including a WWII-style crushing goal of victory at all costs. Gosh let me add the elimination of the Internal Revenue Service bureaucracy with an entirely different and simpler tax code AND a strong border to keep illegal alien out.


You can read the conventional wisdom of anti-Trump Conservative publication the National Review of the reasons Ted failed in 2016 in the article entitled “The Weaknesses that Doomed Ted Cruz”. But here’s the humble opinion of a small potatoes Christian Right blogger (i.e. me):


Ted Cruz failed to vigorously campaign based on the reasons he came from behind to win the Senate seat in Texas and take on the Republican Establishment at the National Level in both Houses of Congress. Rather Ted spent much of his campaign highlighting Trump’s negatives including The Donald’s propensity to communicate like a New York tycoon. As an ex-telemarketer I can tell you will not sell or have a pleasant conversation with a New York/New Jersey person by being a polite nice guy. The New Yorker will lose patience and rip you to shreds quite probably with insulting words you may not have used since becoming a responsible adult. I had to mirror the New Yorker language mannerism to come close to making a sale. I can’t recall how many times I nearly got into trouble with my managers for talking like a rude New Yorker until … I MADE A SALE.


When a Christian who has made his political stock on integrity and faithfulness to Conservative ideology, tries to match a New Yorker in tit-for-tat character devaluation, that Christian will fail and tarnish himself in the meantime. I pray Ted has learned that lesson for future campaigns or dialogues, because it was Ted’s demise in attempting to win the GOP nomination for President of the United States of America.


Let me be honest. I am no longer a registered Republican. In 2012 I was not a Romney guy. I considered him a RINO at best and a closet Liberal at worst. And yet he won the GOP nomination. In 2012 I was (and it holds true today!) that Obama was a Socialist in not also a closet Communist, who had huge sympathies toward the Islamic religion because of his Dad and stepfather. I am fairly convinced that Obama is neither a Muslim nor a Christian. Obama’s deceptive politics of the Left means at best he is a Progressive Christian denying the Divinity and the miraculous of the Bible as only adages rather than Truth. Shucks partner, for that matter Obama could be a Progressive Muslim (if such a thing can exist) denying all the absolutes of Islamic theo-politics while also looking to the Mecca portions of the Quran as an adage rather truth.


If Muslims in the West understood that Obama is using Islam to promote a Leftist New World Order in order to completely destroy the Christian influenced Old World Order, those violent absolutists would mark Obama for assassination. Obama should thank whatever Black Liberation Theology (BLT) deity he might believe in that he lives in a nation that is tolerant to all religious faiths to a fault and tolerant to both Left and Right ideologies. Americans have no clue that Obama’s “fundamental transformation” agenda for America correlates to the intolerance of Biblical Christian principles and the Founding Father principles that made America a great nation.


That lack of understanding of Obama’s “fundamental transformation” agenda led to American voters electing Obama in 2008 and reelecting Obama in 2012. Romney’s HUGE FAILURE was not attacking the Obama lies and the Benghazi lies of 2012 that should have elected Romney as President. Instead Romney stuck to political correctness of a RINO/Liberal and allowed Obama to back him into shadowland every time Romney dipped his little toe in the shallow pond of exposing Obama’s and essentially Hillary’s lies.


Romney’s failure to NOT expose the Obama/Hillary lies resulted in reelection in 2012 and me leaving the Republican Party and registering as an Independent.


I still believe Ted Cruz would have defeated any Dem Party candidate for President in this 2016 election cycle. Cruz was anti-establishment and a principled Conservative.


I am just not sure that Donald Trump can follow through in being a principled Conservative. Nonetheless, if Trump sticks to his guns on those anti-establishment and non-politically correct promises he has put forth, then Trump should be able to not only dip his little toe into the exposé-pond, but also should be able to immerse himself in the ability to expose Hillary Clinton as the lying crook that she inherently is.


AND so as a registered Independent I am voting for Donald Trump for President in November 2016.


JRH 5/4/16

Please Support NCCR

2016 — The Math That Matters Most

Trump v Hillary - who do you vote 4

Don Moore posted an interesting analysis focused on Donald Trump. The article is written by Mark Alexander of The Patriot Post. I actually also receive a Patriot Post subscription but I thought I’d give credit to where I read Alexander’s thoughts which Don Moore’s group on the Blind Conservative Group on IO.


It appears to me that Mark Alexander is not a Trump supporter; nonetheless Alexander provides a fairly decent examination that if Trump wins the GOP nomination and the Dem nominee is Hillary Clinton. Which is to say Trump loses unless these set of circumstances emerge …


JRH 4/8/16

Please Support NCCR


2016 — The Math That Matters Most

A Trump v Clinton Matchup


By Mark Alexander

Sent: 4/6/2016 2:09 PM

Post Date: April 6, 2016

Original link:

Sent by Blind Conservative Group on IO


Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the spot of every wind. With such persons, gullability [sic] takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.” -Thomas Jefferson (1822)


The 2016 general election will determine not just our next president; it will also determine which political party controls the Senate and House.


While the House is securely in Republican hands, Senate control is most assuredly in play1. That’s because Republicans will be defending 24 Senate

seats2 while Democrats only need defend 10. Currently, Republicans hold a narrow 54-46 majority in the Senate.


Consequently, this election is not just a four-year decision but a generational one, because the next president will nominate the Supreme Court justice who will fill the swing-vote vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia3, and perhaps three additional seats – those of Justices Ginsberg, Kennedy and Breyer. If Hillary Clinton4 holds off the challenge from Socialist Bernie Sanders5 and is then elected president on November 8, only a Republican Senate would stand between her and the progressive dream of a statist-controlled Supreme Court for the next quarter-century.


We elect our presidents every four years, but those presidents nominate Supreme Court justices for life.


This is what Ronald Reagan meant when he said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”


Let me be clear: If Republicans lose both the presidential election and control of the Senate, the Socialist Democratic Party6 will control the despotic Judicial Branch7 for the foreseeable future, and the tyranny of the so-called living constitution8 will reign supreme.


Thus, those of us who support Liberty and First Principles9 should engage in a vigorous debate about the qualifications of presidential candidates, and the consequences of who will run against Hillary Clinton this November. We should consider with great deliberation the character of our presidential candidates10.


For the record, that debate among those of us who advocate for Liberty by way of the ballot box, among other means, is not restrained by Ronald

Reagan’s11 admonition about fratricidal attacks – his “Eleventh Commandment12.”


In his 1990 autobiography, “An American Life,” President Reagan wrote of that brother-against-brother fratricide in his first campaign for the California governorship: “The personal attacks against me during the primary became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It’s a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since.”


Reagan fared well by following that rule, and after soundly defeating Jimmy Carter for the presidency in 1980, he won 49 of 50 states during his re-election campaign of 1984 – losing just Minnesota, the home state of his opponent Walter Mondale, by a mere 3,800 votes. (Oh, and he also lost the District of Columbia – an outcome that speaks for itself.)


Unfortunately, Republican presidential contenders since, most notably the 17 GOP candidates13 who began this primary, have taken the art of fratricidal attacks to new lows.


In every respect, this election cycle is like no other I have ever witnessed

– or read about – and primarily for one reason: The “establishment politicians,” the professional political class, are disconnected from those of us who live outside the Washington Beltway.


It’s no wonder that Bernie Sanders is nipping at Hillary Clinton’s heels, having thumped her in seven of the last eight contests – including last night’s double-digit win in Wisconsin14 – and I totally understand the popular appeal of Donald Trump15. According to the most recent (and reliable) Quinnipiac University political poll16, 57% of Americans agree that “America has lost its identity.” The same percentage say that they are “falling further and further behind economically,” and 53% say they want “a leader who is willing to say or do anything to solve America’s problems.”


These findings are consistent with our analysis and what we hear from our fellow grassroots Patriots17, most of whom have expressed their support for Ted Cruz or Donald Trump over the more centrist John Kasich.


But unlike each of these remaining three candidates who have broken their

pledges18 to support the eventual GOP nominee, I will support that nominee because I know for certain the perilous threat that “President Hillary Clinton” poses to the future of Liberty.


Last night’s Wisconsin win for Ted Cruz notwithstanding, Mr. Trump still has a commanding delegate lead in the race to see who will likely face Hillary Clinton.


But there are serious questions about the election math – not of the GOP convention math19 as determined by the delegates20, but of the general election math.


That is the only math that matters.


Until recently, Donald Trump has frequently referenced his “lead in the polls.” I tend not to reference most media polls because of what we define as the “Pollaganda Effect21,” which is: Outcome-based opinion samples (polling instruments designed to generate a preferential outcome), which in large measure reflect prior-opinion indoctrination or cultivation by the same media conducting the poll. The incestuous results are then used to manipulate public opinion further by advancing the perception that a particular candidate or opinion on an issue enjoys majority support.


But that being said, there are some very distressing research polls assessing a matchup between Clinton and Trump in the general election.


Notably, the results of these polls have been affirmed consistently for several months now. Allow me to reference a couple of the most recent findings below, and, of course, you determine what to make of these findings.


On Monday, there was a report from Whit Ayres, president of the conservative polling firm North Star Opinion Research and author of “2016 and Beyond: How Republicans Can Elect a President in the New America.”


According to Ayres’s research, “A Trump nomination has as much chance of success in the general election as Trump University, or Trump Mortgage, or Trump Shuttle, or Trump Vodka, or Trump Casinos. Trump is an electoral disaster waiting to happen.” He then notes the demographic trends22 that will have enormous impact in 2016: “A Republican nominee who hopes to win a majority of the popular vote in 2016 must gain either 30% of the nonwhite vote or 65% of the white vote, a level not seen since President Ronald Reagan’s 49-state landslide sweep in 1984.” There are more women than men voters, and “Trump’s favorable to unfavorable ratings among white women are 29% to 68%. . Millennials have now passed baby boomers to become the largest generation. Trump’s ratings among millennials are now 18% favorable to 80% unfavorable, with 70% strongly unfavorable.” (Trump’s unfavorable ratings with women are even higher in the latest Wall Street Journal/ABC News poll23.)


Ayres continues, “Since 1984, no victorious Republican presidential candidate has received less than 91% support from Republicans. Trump’s favorable to unfavorable ratings among Republicans are 52% to 47%, with 34% strongly unfavorable. A candidate beginning a general election campaign with almost half of his party holding unfavorable views is a non-starter.


Contrast that with Hillary Clinton’s favorable to unfavorable ratings among Democrats of 78% to 20%. A Trump nomination would put a Democrat in the White House, seriously threaten Republican majorities in Congress and leave the Republican Party in shambles.”


For the record, Trump’s GOP unfavorable ratings are on par with those24 of George W. Bush at his presidential low point.


Next up is the most recent research from Public Policy Polling25 on the most popular Republican in the race – Donald Trump – unless Kasich drops out.


According to this and similar polls, 42% of Republican voters would support Trump if the election were held now. About 33% would support Cruz and 22% Kasich. However, when asked if Kasich were to drop out, 51% of his supporters go to Cruz while only 23% support Trump. That would put Trump and Cruz in a statistical dead heat.


Notably, the latest Reuters rolling averages26 today put Cruz ahead of Trump nationally. These numbers have significant implications for the general election, particularly since Mr. Trump has yet to collect more than 49% of the votes in any primary.



The general election results, and the likelihood that Republicans will lose their Senate majority with Trump on the ticket, are upheld by both conservative and liberal media research, as noted both in New York Times poll summaries27 and Washington Post poll summaries28. They are also affirmed by the 30-day rolling average of polls29.


Perhaps most ominously, Larry Sabato, a seasoned election forecaster at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, concludes that in a Clinton v Trump contest, Democrats will go into Election Day with a whopping 347 electoral votes in their pocket or strongly leaning30 toward Clinton. They only need 270 to win. And by way of affirmation, Clinton leads Trump by double digits in six of the most comprehensive polls taken in the last month.


The fact is, whether the polling source is Left, Centrist or Right, Trump takes a beating in a head-to-head general election matchup with Clinton.


Based on the total number of primary votes cast to date, about 5% of all eligible voters have checked ballots for Donald Trump. That means an even smaller percentage have cast primary votes for Ted Cruz and others – because until a few weeks ago, the field was still flooded with GOP candidates. But, the percentage of primary votes cast for a candidate is of less importance than the percentage of total eligible voters supporting a particular candidate.


All that having been said, as utterly perplexing as the current primary cycle is, it remains possible that once Trump and Clinton debate each other mano a mano (yes, the masculine applies to Hillary), Trump might pull enough blue-collar and rustbelt Demo support away from Clinton to defeat her. This will be especially true if the momentum generated by Sanders does not transfer to Clinton. (She is, after all, a historically weak, unpopular and untrustworthy candidate.)


And where can Clinton attack Trump31 without undermining her own campaign?


Not Wall Street connections, not personal integrity, not honesty, not wealth, not marriage infidelity, etc. Raising any of those issues with Trump will draw fire on her own record. Of course, there is that wild card: A Clinton indictment32.


Unfortunately, she is coated with as much non-stick Teflon as Bill Clinton33. Even under the most unfavorable circumstances for Clinton, a Trump victory would still be a long shot.


If Trump is the nominee, I hope he can defeat Clinton – but I don’t base my reasoned, critical analysis on popular opinion or “hope,” and neither should any of us.


Again, this is not just a four-year decision but a quarter-century decision.


If Hillary Clinton wins and Republicans lose control of the Senate gauntlet against her judicial nominees, batten down the hatches.


Ultimately, the math that matters is the poll taken on November 8th of this year. I care less about the name of the GOP candidate than I do that candidate’s ability to defeat Clinton at best, or leave the GOP Senate majority intact at worst.


(Finally, a request for prayer: This morning, our nation lost another great Patriot. Sandy McMillan served with SEAL Team 2 and was a fellow Navy Leaguer. He was a family man, a long-time colleague and friend. Please pray for his wife and their family. Fair winds and following seas, my friend! We will miss you.)


Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis









































































Copyright from The Patriot Post: © 2016, The Patriot Post.


Blind Conservative Group Description


A group for blind people and others for the discussion of politics and other conservative interests.


Subscribe to Blind Conservative:


A Devil’s Pact

Justin Smith joins the long list of Conservatives – like the ones of the National Review – who believe Trump is swindling Conservatives through manipulation of voter anger with Obama’s policies and agenda.

On a personal level I am a Ted Cruz supporter. Nonetheless, I think I understand Trump’s popularity among Conservative-Republican voters. People are fed-up with Obama’s immigration policies whether they are illegal aliens from south of the border or refugee imparted status to Muslims fleeing conflicts originating with the Islamic Terrorists of ISIS-ISIL-IS-Daesh. Also Trump offers a Make-America-great theme. However, Trump is rather obscure on how that path will be achieved concretely. Yet angry Americans don’t care about the obscurity is long as there is the appearance someone intends to move heaven and earth to make America great again as in BEFORE Obama.

Ted Cruz is truly a Conservative. Offers a more concrete path to American greatness without making a bargain with a deal that validates his leadership more than upgrading America.

I could probably ramble on but this is Justin Smith’s time to share.

JRH 1/25/16

Please Support NCCR


A Devil’s Pact

Destroying the Heart of America

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 1/24/2016 2:06 PM

Donning a conservative persona, Donald Trump is cleverly pandering to American conservative’s and presenting his utopian hell as a Trump paradise, in which America is made “great again.” And, while America’s many virtues and time honored principles are still largely intact — while suffering constant Progressive and fascist assaults — Trump voters and fools are not concerned that Trump’s policy plans shift with each successive speech, because they only want a strongman who shares their values. Their disregard for circumspect scrutiny and their failure to demand policy details from Trump will serve to further demolish constitutional governance in America.

Yes. In some instances, Trump has correctly identified certain areas of crisis in America, such as immigration and refugee policies, in a manner similar to that of any average ten-year old in the country, with a sincerity that is highly questionable. He rarely makes clear statements regarding America’s problems, while stating that he will do “great things, without providing specifics, facts, details, substance or principles.

Trump is a dangerous anti-free market, crony capitalist, big government, statist demagogue, who never makes any arguments for libertarianism, conservatism or the Constitution. But he does brag of his own corrupt nature and just how easily he “buys” corrupt politicians.

Why on earth would any liberty loving, honest, selfless American, with an unshakable inner faith in God and America, want to replace Obama’s corrupt administration with an equally corrupt Trump administration?

The few times Trump has managed a coherent thought, Americans have heard Trump brag about how he’ll “get things done” with the Democrats, in compromise. Compromising the founding principles that built America with the foreign ideas of Marxism is the reason we’re in this mess now. Conservative Americans do not want any more of such “compromise” — “compromise” — a Progressive code for “let’s destroy the U.S. Constitution.”

Representing big trouble for America, we recently witnessed statist Progressive Republicans, under Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, give Obama a larger spending bill than even the Democrats had asked to receive. And Senator Ted Cruz notes: “Why is a Republican majority leader fighting to accomplish the priorities of the Democratic minority?”

With such an enormous Progressive presence in both parties inside the D.C. establishment and Trump’s own acknowledged affinity to the Democratic Party and New York values [i.e. abortion and gun control], what can America really expect from Trump? It certainly won’t be less government and more individual liberty.

In 2009, Trump told Neil Cavuto (Fox News) that Obama’s stimulus “had to be done”, which isn’t accurate in light of U.S. bankruptcy laws and propagates the Marxist myth of financial institutes “too big to fail.” Trump would later elaborate to the Conservative Review: [The stimulus was] “pork, as we call it, or … gifts to certain people. But overall, I think he’s [Pres. Obama] doing very well.”

When the Tea Party Patriots asked Trump to commit to the Penny Plan and cut $0.01 per year from every dollar of Federal spending, Trump refused and stated: “I will propose budgets that freeze overall spending levels until such time as the budget comes into balance.” [Scroll down to point 4]

This guarantees the continuation of trillion dollar budgets; and necessarily, the only way that the budget can be balanced is by increasing tax revenues by more than half a trillion dollars annually. This will happen only by raising taxes.

Most of the best known economic experts, the Tax Foundation [a nonpartisan tax research group], the Brookings Institute and the Tax Policy Center [TPC Details] contend that Trump’s tax plans will increase the national debt by $10.14 trillion over a decade and $24.5 trillion in two decades, unless it includes huge spending cuts. This debt will eventually have to be paid, so Trump’s tax cuts are only temporary at best; and payment will fall on the shoulders of the next generation of Americans.

Americans will also find Trump unsympathetic to their desire to protect their private property. He loves the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision, which allows the transfer of less prosperous landowners’ private property to wealthy private developers in a reprehensible abuse of eminent domain, if it provides a financial boost to the local community. Trump has utilized this maneuver several times in the past, starting with Vera Coking in the 1990s.

And can America trust Trump to lead a Congressional repeal of Obamacare, since he has often expressed his admiration for Sweden’s single-payer healthcare system and the socialized systems of Canada and the U.K.?

Do we really want a President Trump, who has said he would like to appoint his partial-birth abortion supporting sister, Federal Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, to the U.S. Supreme Court? — who once supported partial-birth abortion himself? [Charisma News weighs in by showing waffling back and forth on Obama. So question should be, “Can Conservatives trust a guy who pleases the audience listening to him?”]

Then one must consider Trump’s protectionist trade philosophy. It is similar to the 19th century guild socialism that mutated into fascism and then Nazism, and, while I subscribe to a certain degree of “protectionism” to counter current continuing currency manipulations and regularly fume over the damage that the World Trade Agreement and NAFTA did to the U.S. economy, Trump’s proposal of a 25% tax on foreign goods will surely result in a global trade war and punitive economic measures aimed at products made in America. America will see an untold number of U.S. firms leaving the country, as trade grinds to a halt along with our economy.

And, concerning the horrible Iran nuclear deal — a simple agreement between two heads of state and unratified by Congress — Presidential candidate Ted Cruz has said he would “rip it up” on entering office; and yet, Trump calls it a “contract” America must honor, but he would “renegotiate harder terms”. It is not a contract or a treaty, and Trump’s statement is one more example of his gross lack of knowledge and understanding of our U.S. Constitution.

Trump’s brand of statism may not meet the classic text book definition of “fascism”, but his statements echo an authoritarianism similar to fascism. He rarely speaks of working through Congress and he seems to assume he can accomplish his goals through his own will and the demands he will make upon his own authority, with or without Congress, just as he thinks he can force foreign powers to do his bidding. His administration will be heavy with crony capitalism, privilege for the few and bureaucracies controlling everything.

Donald Trump is manipulating the current political environment and conservative America’s justifiable anger over the damage to U.S. domestic and foreign affairs, that resulted from Obama’s Progressive Democrat policies; and in the process, through his populist message, insolent lies and glib propaganda, Trump is perpetrating a political swindle on America, second only to the one Obama managed. If conservative Americans give Trump the Republican nomination, they will be further destroying the principles that founded this nation — the heart of America — and entering a devil’s pact with a fascist.

By Justin O. Smith


Edited by John R. Houk

All links are by the Editor. Text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith

It is Time to Push Conservative Credentials on Romney

Romney for Prez 2

John R. Houk

© April 11, 2012


Yesterday when I discovered that Rick Santorum was suspending his campaign for the GOP nomination, I along with many Conservatives felt that Newt Gingrich’s concession that Mitt Romney will probably be the nominee for the GOP was also a throwing in the towel:


In a virtual concession Gingrich has publically acquiesced that Romney will be the GOP nominee:


In an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” Mr. Gingrich called Mr. Romney “far and away the most likely Republican nominee,” adding that he would throw his support behind the front-runner if Mr. Romney secured the required delegates for the nomination.


Since then I have learned that Gingrich is remaining in the race for the GOP nomination. This amazes me because Gingrich has no money to continue. He has laid-off campaign staff, he had a $500 check bounce that would have secure his name on the Utah Primary and I have heard a Gingrich Think Tank has filed for bankruptcy. That is not a road map to election victory.


Don’t get me wrong. At this point I would love for Gingrich to be the GOP nomination rather than Mitt Romney. I don’t think the Brokered Convention strategy that Gingrich might have depended on will work without Santorum in the GOP race. This means a catastrophe of monumental proportions would have to occur for Newt to pull a GOP nomination out of his hat. The catastrophe would have to be along the line of an insurmountable scandal (like that which stabbed Cain’s campaign in the heart), a near death health issue or worse death itself.


The biggest reason I am not a Romney guy is Mormonism and questionable stands on social issues.


Yeah-Yeah I know. The accusations of bigotry will be flying my way now that everyone knows I am anti-Mormon. Frankly any Christian that takes a Biblical stand on the nature of Jesus Christ should have a problem with Mormonism. I have blogged on lots of issues that should catch the ear of a Christian; however there is one simple formula for orthodox (not Orthodox with capital “O”) Christian theology:


Jesus Christ is part of the Trinity: three equal persons consisting in ONE nature of God. That is to say each single member of the Christian Trinity is ONE Divine entity in union with no beginning and no ending – Eternal. Jesus Christ is simultaneously fully man and fully God. The Lord’s God nature purifies his man nature enabling the death of Christ on the Cross to be a Blood sacrifice that Redeems humanity from the twisted spiritual DNA nature bequeathed to all the ancestors of the first man Adam.


Let the Redeemed of the Lord say so: “I am Redeemed! I am Redeemed! I am Redeemed!


Mormon theology claims Jesus is a son of God in that the Father created Jesus. For that matter Satan is the brother of the created Jesus. Satan went bad and Jesus went good. In Christian orthodox theology that is bad theology. In the humble opinion of this blogger that has a traditional outlook of Christian theology; Romney’s Mormon theology is a Gnostic-cult off-shoot of Christianity. I do have a problem with that.


On the other hand if you are going to be a member of a Christian off-shoot cult Mormonism can’t be a bad choice. Mormons are family oriented, most Mormons are Pro-Life and most Mormons have Conservative family values. Currently I have questions about Romney’s commitment to Conservative Social Values. And yet as it stands now, I am voting for Romney for President.


If Newt benefited from some kind of catastrophic event that knocked Romney out of the GOP nomination, I would support Newt. On the other hand Santorum has officially only suspended his campaign and did not end his campaign. For that matter I believe Herman Cain only suspended his campaign as well. That means a Romney catastrophe may not only benefit Newt. I doubt that Cain would press for a nomination because of the lack of delegates; however Santorum does have delegates. I suspect if the situation arose that Romney’s delegates were no longer committed, that a majority would go to Santorum.


Remember though. The key word is “catastrophe.” There probably is as much of a chance of a catastrophe happening to Mitt Romney as there is for a passenger jet to crash without terrorist help.


Newt Gingrich may be the last active Conservative standing in the GOP race but it is extremely doubtful he will win the nomination.


So again, as Republicans it is time to unite behind Mitt Romney to defeat President Barack Hussein Obama for President.


JRH 4/11/12



Please Support NCCR

No-Romney BUT Especially No-Obama

No RomneyNo Obama

John R. Houk

© March 10, 2012


In 2008 the candidates for the Office of President were Barack Hussein Obama (Democrat) and John McCain (Republican).


From the beginning of BHO’s campaign I perceived he was less than honest person that too many voters accepted the promise of Change as if that meant merely change from the GWOT-President policies of eight years. Voters ignored what was known of Obama’s past and didn’t care about the past that Obama has still successfully hidden from the public eye.


The Republicans needed a charismatic person to overcome voter weariness of President George W. Bush policies of his 8 year tenure. Frankly I don’t believe voters would have been so weary of President GW if the Left Slanted MSM had not hated him so much. You will never see the media vilify Obama the way it did Bush even though the deceptiveness of Obama is well worth the vilification.


The Republican elites therefore sought a nominee that could swing Center-Left on some issues and Center-Right on other issues. In the beginning that candidate appeared to be Mitt Romney. Then the cantankerousness of McCain and the Social Conservatism of Huckabee gave GOP voters an alternative to the former Governor of Massachusetts which is one of the most Liberal States in the U.S. Union. In the 2008 the Conservatives were still the nerve center of the Republican Party and Romney’s record did not jive with Conservative issues.


Eventually the GOP race in 2008 became a race between the self-described rogue in McCain and the Social Conservative (but not necessarily a full-fledged fiscal Conservative) in Huckabee.


I believed then as I do now that McCain was a RINO. He was the perfect GOP Elite choice to try distance from Bush as a Center-Right and the hope of retaining the White House with McCain’s Center-Left thinking. McCain overcame Huckabee. By this time the Democrats had sold the voters that Obama would be the chosen one to bring back bi-partisan, transparent politics and the hope of ending an already long war in 2008.


Obama’s promises and vision was a bill of bad goods that a majority of American voters bought into. Obama had the leg up before McCain could paint a picture of a Moderate Centrist to receive the baton from Bush. In fact I am of the opinion McCain would have been crushed political even in worse terms if had not the foresight to choose a Family Values-Fiscal Conservative as a running mate. Indeed Sarah Palin captured the hearts of the GOP so much that the Left Wing MSM went on the attack on Palin to the point of making stories up to castigate her to the voters.


I did not like McCain but I did like Palin. I voted for the McCain/Palin ticket despite McCain’s RINO credentials because I knew Obama backed by the Clintonista political machine would take America down a path of “Change” that voters did not comprehend in 2008. I am no political pundit genius however Obama has lived up to everything I thought he would do.


The Obama mantra of “Change” had less to do with repudiating President Bush and more to do with transforming America into the Socialist European style democracy. Socialism European style means the shredding of the U.S. Constitution. The Living Constitution crap of the Left is turning the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution into a historical fable of days gone by.


It appears that 2012 is a path that is mirroring 2008. Only this time Mitt Romney has more money and better organization. Romney has become the slow and steady tortoise racking up delegates while GOP Conservatives have been messing themselves up by splitting Conservative voters into fractured camps as Romney keeps collecting delegates. Many people are doing the math and the general consensus is Mr. slow and steady will win the GOP nomination because of the failure of Conservatives to unite behind one candidate.


Part of the problem is that the GOP candidates still in the running for the nomination have a bit of baggage that Conservative true-hearts find objectionable. An honest look at the records of Santorum and Gingrich will demonstrate their Conservative legislative decisions outweigh their Center-Left decisions. Can Romney make the same claim?


Anyway, I am still in the anyone-but-Romney crowd as a GOP voter and in the anyone-but-Obama voters when it comes to the General Election in November 2012. An Obama reelection will validate the course he has chosen for America. This means the Obamunistic Radical Left will continue to Change-Transform America into a Leftist Utopia solidifying Moral Relativity over Biblical Morality, Government intrusion over Limited Government, the agenda to denigrate Christianity over America’s Christian heritage, Demand Divisive Diversity over E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, ONE) and so on with the picture of Leftist Change.


I am voting for whoever wins the GOP nomination even if they are a RINO – again. It would take super star Conservative leadership to reverse the Leftist curse of EIGHT years of Obama. If the Tea Party Movement remains strong there will be a counter-balance of preventing a RINO from going too far to the Left. AND I know a RINO will not endorse the utopian agenda dreams of Obamunism.


Still there are Conservative purists that would rather vote on principle rather than succumb to a GOP President that might have tendencies to make some Center-Left decisions. My son Adam is one of those kind of Conservative purists. Another person is a Facebook friend Danny Jeffrey. Here is Jeffrey’s reasoning on sticking to principle.


JRH 3/10/12

I am Still Leaning Toward Gingrich

Gingrich and Santorum 2

John R. Houk

© March 2, 2012


The GOP race for the nomination for President has been whittled down to Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul. I am definitively no supporter of Romney and Paul.


That leaves me with Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.


I like Santorum’s Social Conservatism.


I like Newt’s debating skills and the Conservative credentials that brought the Republican majority to the House for the first time in a quarter century when he became Speaker.


Newt has a checkered morals history in his personal life and some questionable choices in encouraging the thoughts of pseudo-Marxist Futurist Alvin Toffler. I have pretty much gotten over Gingrich’s past issues and believe in his present stands at his word.


Former Senator Santorum is big to claim he is the true Conservative. I am uncertain of the “true Conservative” claim as much as he is a better candidate than Romney claim (and everyone is better than Ron Paul because of an American anti-Exceptionalism stand in Foreign Policy). If the GOP race comes down to a choice between Romney and Santorum then I choose Santorum. At this point if the race involves Newt Gingrich I am still leaning toward Newt.


I am going to cross post a article by Rachel Alexander that sheds a light on Santorum’s Conservatism. The article is decidedly anti-Santorum; however if you look at the numbers you will notice that Newt’s numbers are better. Also I am guessing if one compares Santorum’s numbers to Romney’s gubernatorial numbers on Conservatism Santorum wins there. I think it is a good guess that even though Romney’s negative-Romney ads show Santorum is not as Conservative as the campaign claim, that Santorum still outshines Romney.


After the article I am posting a Newsmax ad email from Winning our Future Super PAC which is not Gingrich ran but is pro-Gingrich.


JRH 3/2/12


Is Rick Santorum Really the Most Conservative Presidential Candidate?


By Rachel Alexander

Mar 01, 2012


The anyone-but-Romney conservatives have currently latched onto Rick Santorum as their candidate du jour, providing him with a surge shortly into the Republican primary elections. But is he really that conservative? Santorum is known for taking strong stands on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. As a result of his outspokenness on the sanctity of marriage, he has been the target of a cruel gay activist.


Up until his surge, most people took his conservative claims for granted without closely scrutinizing his record in Congress. But his record is sketchy. Santorum’s lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is only 88. Newt Gingrich’s lifetime rating is 90. Santorum’s record was even worse in the past; during his first two years in Congress he received ratings of 83 and 81, which dipped to a low of 70 in 1993.


Santorum really hurt his conservative record in 2004 by backing abortion-rights supporter Arlen Specter for Senate over conservative challenger Pat Toomey, deciding that Toomey was unelectable. Specter narrowly won. Toomey went on to win the next election, as Specter switched parties and lost in the Democratic primary.


Santorum is not necessarily the best candidate for the Tea Party either, considering he expressed his distaste for the Tea Party a couple of years ago, “I have some real concerns about this movement within the Republican party…to sort of refashion conservatism. And I will vocally and publicly oppose it.”


Liberty Counsel Action put together a list of not 10, not 50, but 100 of Santorum’s disappointing votes on major issues over his 16 years in office. His record on social issues does not entirely live up to his rhetoric. He voted to fund Planned Parenthood as part of an appropriations bill that provided money for Title X family planning. He voted three years in a row against bills to end the National Endowment for the Arts, famous for funding artwork like a cross in urine.


The fiscal watchdog organization Club for Growth describes his performance in Congress as merely “above average.” Santorum voted for union-backed legislation that restricts steel imports. He opposed repeated attempts to reimpose the “pay-go” rules that would hold down spending increases and tax giveaways. He voted against the National Right to Work Act and voted for Fed Ex unionization. He supported a bill by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) increasing the minimum wage. He voted for practically every “emergency supplemental” spending bill sought by the Bush administration, which added tens of billions to the deficit. He voted to increase the debt ceiling and voted against a flat tax. He voted against reforming welfare programs numerous times.


He requested billions of dollars of earmarks for his home state of Pennsylvania, and defends this practice by claiming that “there are good earmarks and bad earmarks.” He was one of only 25 Senators who voted for the Bridge to Nowhere, part of the $284 billion 2005 highway bill known for its bloated earmarks.


Santorum does not appear strongly principled, since he now admits some of his past votes were mistakes. He voted for the expensive Medicare Part D prescription-drug program, the largest entitlement program since Lyndon Johnson, which is expected to cost $68 billion this year. He said after the fact that his vote was a mistake since the program did not have funding. During last week’s presidential debate in Arizona he admitted that voting for the No Child Left Behind Act, which expanded the federal government’s role in education, was a mistake and he “took one for the team.”


There is a reason why presidential candidates rarely come from Congress. Their records are more extensive and visible than governors or non-politicians. The nature of being a member of Congress means voting for bills that include items you don’t agree with in order to get your own agenda passed. This kind of compromise will translate into compromising as president, since the president will need to sign bills in order to get anything accomplished. The question is whether a president will stand firm and compromise on very little, like Ronald Reagan, or whether a president will compromise their principles more often like both presidents Bush.


What may ultimately turn conservatives away from Santorum are the robocalls he ran in Michigan this past week attacking Mitt Romney. They were directed into Democratic households, urging Democrats to vote in the Republican primary against Romney since Romney opposed the auto bailouts. The calls sounded like they were coming from Democrats until the very end when the Santorum campaign was identified. This kind of dirty campaigning, which tricks opponents into voting for you, crosses the line, especially since Santorum also opposed the auto bailouts.


Santorum may be reasonably conservative, but he is not clearly the most conservative candidate in the race. To claim that he is the best choice for conservatives is debatable. Gingrich’s record is slightly better, and it is difficult to compare Santorum with Romney since Romney’s experience as governor was different and brief. Ron Paul has the most conservative record when it comes to fiscal issues, but the least conservative record on foreign policy and defense. Perhaps conservatives who claim Santorum is the best candidate are basing their preferences on criteria other than his record in office.


Important Letter – Our Next President


Sent by Newsmax

By Becky Burkett

From: Winning our Future Super PAC

Sent: Mar 1, 2012 at 10:53 AM


“Is The Idea of Mitt Romney Being the Voice and Face of the Conservative Movement for Possibly the Next Eight Years Keeping You Up at Night?


Don’t Let the Establishment Fool You!


The GOP Presidential Nomination Fight Ain’t Over. Here’s Why…


Dear Fellow Conservative,


In 2008, many conservatives secretly thought to themselves that while electing Barack Obama would be the worst thing that could happen to the country (and it was), electing John McCain would be the worst thing that could happen to the conservative movement (and it would have been).


Well, as Yogi Berra said, it’s déjà vu all over again.


Clearly, re-electing Barack Obama would be disastrous for our nation. It’d be the end of our country as we know it…and I say that without an ounce of hyperbole.


And electing Mitt Romney would inevitably force Republicans and conservatives to defend the same kinds of government-expanding programs John McCain would have pushed – such as his anti-free speech McCain-Feingold law.


Talk about being between a rock and a hard place. However…


It’s not too late this time.


Indeed, conservatives still have an opportunity to have our cake and eat it, too. We can both defeat Barack Obama next November…AND…do it with a Reagan conservative, not a Massachusetts moderate.


We can nominate Newt Gingrich.


While the elite media is desperately pushing the idea that “Newt can’t win,” it’s simply not so.


·         I’ll remind you that that’s the same thing the media said about Newt leading Republicans to a majority in Congress in 1994.


·         And I’ll remind you that the elite media declared Newt’s campaign “dead” last summer.


·         And I’ll remind you that the elite media declared Newt’s campaign “dead” after Iowa.


·         And I’ll remind you that the elite media declared Newt’s campaign “dead” after Florida.


But like Rocky Balboa, no matter what they’ve thrown at Newt; no matter how hard or how low they’ve hit him…he’s still standing…and he’s still fighting.


And again, quoting the immortal Yogi Berra, it ain’t over ’til it’s over.


Now here’s why it’s not over…


While the Romney campaign – aided and abetted by the mainstream media – continue to talk about winning “states” in this year’s GOP nomination process, the rules this time around have been radically changed.


In the “old days,” if you won a state you won ALL of the states delegates. However, under new rules for this year’s contests, very few states which go to the polls before the end of March – including on Super Tuesday next week – are “winner take all.”


Which means candidates coming in second, third and even fourth can rack up delegates.


For example: In the February 4 Nevada caucus – which Mitt Romney “won” – he was awarded 14 delegates. However, Newt picked up 6 delegates, Ron Paul got 5 delegates and Rick Santorum got 3.


Which makes it increasingly less likely that any candidate left in this race is going to wrap up the nomination anytime soon!


So like “Rocky Balboa,” we don’t need to knock Mitt Romney out in the fifth round on Super Tuesday. We only need to still be standing.


We just need to slowly and methodically continue to rack up enough delegates to get us to the 12th round at the Republican National Convention in Tampa this August.


And if we do…all bets are off.


And those in the elite media – who are today saying “it can’t be done” – will watch Newt Gingrich do the “impossible” once again.


And two months later…we’ll pull the plug on the Obama presidency!


·         We’ll repeal ObamaCare.


·         We’ll fire all the czars.


·         We’ll stop apologizing to terrorists and dictators.


·         We’ll stop spending our grandchildren into bankruptcy.


·         We’ll cut the cost of gasoline by drilling here, drilling now.


·         We’ll stop suing states for trying to enforce our immigration laws.


·         We’ll put America back to work.


·         We’ll put small businesses back in business.


With Newt Gingrich in the White House – along with Republican control of the House and Senate – we will finally realize the promise of 1994’s Contract with America, including a dramatically smaller and dramatically restructured government.


But none of those bold changes for America will happen if Republicans nominate a “pale pastel” Massachusetts moderate to go head-to-head with Obama’s “Chicago Machine” in November – the same machine that rolled over, chewed up and spit out John McCain in 2008.


Indeed, before we get a shot at Obama, we need to win the GOP nomination.


Now is not the time to “go wobbly.”


·         Now is the time to step up and stop the Republican establishment from forcing another Gerald Ford on us.


·         Now is the time to step up and stop the Republican establishment from forcing another Bob Dole on us.


·         Now is the time to step up and stop the Republican establishment from forcing another John McCain on us.


·         Now is the time to step up and stop the Republican establishment from forcing Mitt Romney on us.


Will you step up?


Can I count on you to help us help Newt stay in the fight all the way to Tampa?


I urgently need your help today. Super Tuesday is less than a week away. Please follow this link right now to make a donation of $25, $50, $100, $250 or more to help us help Newt…and give conservatives a true conservative nominee who can win!


Sincerely yours,


Becky Burkett
Winning Our Future Super PAC


P.S. In 1976, they gave us Gerald Ford. We got Jimmy Carter. In 1996, they gave us Bob Dole. We got Bill Clinton. In 2008, they gave us John McCain. We got Barak Obama. Now they’re trying [to] sell us Mitt Romney. Don’t let them. Not this time. Click this link right now to make a donation of $25, $50, $100, $250 or more…before we all wake up with a bad case of “buyer’s remorse” once again.


I am Still Leaning Toward Gingrich

John R. Houk

© March 2, 2012


Is Rick Santorum Really the Most Conservative Presidential Candidate?


Copyright © All Rights Reserved.


Important Letter – Our Next President


Paid for by Winning Our Future. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.


This email was sent by:
4152 West Blue Heron Blvd., Ste. 1114
Riviera Beach, FL 33404 USA

Gingrich Certainly Qualifies as a Christian Values Candidate


John R. Houk

© January 2012


Sarah Palin took on the criticism that Newt Gingrich is receiving from Establishment Republicans on her Facebook page yesterday. Palin compared the attacks as consistent to how the Left Wing Media assassinates the character of Conservatives. Of course the greatest negative ads are coming from Mitt Romney who has not exactly demonstrated a Conservative Republican exemplar in his days of Governor of Massachusetts. Whereas Newt Gingrich has spent his entire political career emphasizing Conservative fiscal policy and values. Yes I said “values”. Newt’s personal life may have been a screw-up in living those values; however he did espouse those values. Every single person supportive of Christian values has made a mistake contrary to Christian values to one degree or the other. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone!


Those that have made a mistake with Christian values and have not sought repentance but rather have sought self-justification are the people that should concern values voters.


Consistent Pro-Life Record

Newt Gingrich has consistently upheld a pro-life standard.  He had a consistent pro-life voting record throughout his twenty years in Congress, including his four years as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Gingrich pledges to uphold this consistent pro-life standard as president. (READ MORE)


Setting Record Straight of Left Exploitation of Gingrich Divorce to 2nd Wife


Asking Wife For Divorce While She Was In The Hospital Dying of Cancer


Newt’s daughter recently wrote a column to set the record straight about this smear.

This story is a vicious lie.  It was first reported by a left wing magazine in the 1980s based on hearsay and has survived in left-wing chat rooms on the Internet until today.  It is completely false.

Recently, Newt’s daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, wrote a column to set the record straight about this smear.  The column reveals that 1) It was her mother that requested the divorce, not Newt, and it was months before the hospital visit in question; 2) Her mother was in the hospital to remove a tumor, but it was benign, and she is still alive today; 3) Newt visited the hospital for the purpose of taking his two children to see their mother, not to discuss a divorce.  You can read it here.


Here are some excerpts from an article demonstrating Gingrich’s opposition to Same-Sex Marriage and abortion. The article asks about Newt’s three marriages in which Newt responds by saying as President he will enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):


Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president in 2012, has vowed to support a federal constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.


Gingrich’s pledge came in a written response to conservative Iowa group The Family Leader’s “The Marriage Vow — A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family.” The group’s 14-point pledge can be found at


In addition to opposing same-sex marriage, the pledge also requests candidates vow “personal fidelity” to their spouse, appoint federal judges who are “faithful constitutionalists” and reject Islamic sharia law.


Gingrich, 68, has been married three times. …



In his response to The Family Leader, Gingrich also said he would “vigorously enforce” the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which bans federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Earlier this year, President Barack Obama directed the Justice Department to cease defending the constitutionality of the law.



Gingrich joined U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) in signing The Family Leader’s pledge.



In regard to Gingrich’s response, Bob Vander Plaats, president & CEO of The Family Leader, said: “We are pleased that Speaker Gingrich has affirmed our pledge and are thankful we have on record his statements regarding DOMA, support of a federal marriage amendment, defending the unborn, pledging fidelity to his spouse, defending religious liberty and freedom, supporting sound pro-family economic issues, and defending the right of the people to rule themselves.”


Following is the full text of Gingrich’s response to The Family Leader: (Read the text at the Rock River Times)


Here are twelve quotes from Newt Gingrich’s book “Rediscovering God in America” courtesy of the website OnTheIssues.


On Education: Removing God from Pledge of Allegiance assaults our identity


There is no attack on American culture more destructive and more historically dishonest than the relentless effort to drive God out of America’s public square. The 2002 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the phrase “under God” is unconstitutional represents a fundamental assault on our American identity. A court that would unilaterally modify the Pledge of Allegiance as adopted by the Congress in 1954, signed by President Eisenhower, and supported 91% of the American people is a court that is clearly out of step with an America that understands that our unalienable rights come from God.


How can the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, overrule the culture & maintain its moral authority? It can’t. The Supreme Court begins each day with the proclamation “God save the United States and this honorable Court.” This phrase was not adopted as a ceremonial phrase of no meaning: it was adopted because justices in the 1820s actually wanted to call on God to save the US & the Court


Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 6 Dec 31, 2006


On Education: Removing “God” from Pledge assaults our identity


There is no attack on American culture more destructive and more historically dishonest than the secular Left’s relentless effort to drive God out of America’s public square. The 2002 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the phrase “under God” is unconstitutional represents a fundamental assault on our American identify. A court that would unilaterally modify the Pledge of Allegiance as adopted by the Congress in 1954, signed by President Eisenhower, and supported by 91% of the American people is a court that is clearly out of step with an America that understands that our unalienable rights come from God.


Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 6 Dec 31, 2006


On Government Reform: Insist on judges who understand our rights come from God


For most Americans, the blessings of God have been the basis of our liberty, prosperity, and survival as a unique country.


For most Americans, prayer is real, and we subordinate ourselves to a God on whom we call for wisdom, guidance, and salvation.


For most Americans, the prospect of a ruthlessly secular society that would forbid public reference to God and systematically remove all religious symbols from the public square is horrifying.


Yet, the voice of the overwhelming majority of Americans is rejected by a media-academic-legal elite. Our schools have been steadily driving the mention of God out of American history. Our courts have been literally outlawing references to God, religious symbols, and prayer.


We have passively accepted the judiciary’s assault on the values of the overwhelming majority of Americans. It is time to insist on judges who understand that throughout our history, Americans have believed that their fundamental rights come from God and are therefore unalienable.


Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 9-10 Dec 31, 2006


On Government Reform: Insist on judges who understand our rights come from God


·         For most Americans, the blessings of God have been the basis of our liberty, prosperity, and survival as a unique country.


·         For most Americans, prayer is real, and we subordinate ourselves to a God on whom we call for wisdom, guidance, and salvation.


·         For most Americans, the prospect of a ruthlessly secular society that would forbid public reference to God and systematically remove all religious symbols from the public square is horrifying.


Yet, the voice of the overwhelming majority of Americans is rejected by a media-academic-legal elite that finds religious expression frightening and threatening, or old-fashioned and unsophisticated.


It is time to insist on judges who understand that throughout our history–and continuing to this day–Americans have believed that their fundamental rights come from God and are therefore unalienable.


Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 9-10 Dec 31, 2006


On Government Reform: Our rights come from God, not from government


As the most consequential document of freedom in human history, the Declaration of Independence is the most important document held in the National Archives. It was influenced by the Magna Carta of 1215, a contract of rights between the British king and his barons generally regarded as the first step toward guaranteed liberties in Britain. However, the Declaration of Independence differs from the Magna Carta in one essential way: The Founding Fathers believed that our rights as human beings come from God, not from the kind or the state. Thus, they rejected the notion that power came through the monarch to the people; but rather, directly from God.


The Declaration of Independence contains four references to God: as lawmaker, as Creator, as Supreme Judge, and as Protector. The Declaration of Independence represents both the genesis and heart of American liberty. Our rights come from our Creator, not the government, sovereign, or King.


Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 29-30 Dec 31, 2006


On Principles & Values: Constitution says freedom OF religion, not FROM religion


The first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. Amendment I begins: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”


The language clearly prohibits the establishment of an official national religion, while at the same time protecting the observance of religion in both private and public spaces. In fact, two of the principal authors of the First Amendment, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who were also our third and fourth presidents, respectively, both attended church services in the Capitol building, the most public of American spaces. During Jefferson’s presidency, church services were also held in the Treasury building and the Supreme Court. Therefore, these Founding Fathers clearly saw no conflict in opposing the establishment of an official religion while protecting the freedom of religious expression in the public square.


Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 31-32 Dec 31, 2006


On Principles & Values: Supreme Court hostile to religion, but building based on it


While recent years have seen increasing hostility from the courts to public displays of religion, the Supreme Court is filled with them. Notice that all sessions begin with the Court’s marshal announcing: “God save the United States and this honorable court.”


Throughout history, decisions of the Supreme Court have recognized that we are a religious nation. For example, in the 1952 case Zorach vs. Clauson, the court upheld a statute that allowed students to be released from school to attend religious classes.


The most striking religious imagery at the Supreme Court building is that of Moses with the Ten Commandments. Affirming the Judeo-Christian roots of our legal system, they can be found in several places: at the center of the sculpture over the east portico of the building, inside the actual courtroom, and finally, engraved over the chair of the Chief Justice, and on the bronze doors of the Supreme Court itself. There is also a sculpted marble depiction of Mohammad on the wall.


Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 85-89 Dec 31, 2006


On Principles & Values: Creator as source of liberty is literally written in stone


The first rays of sun on our Nation’s Capital each morning illuminate [the Washington Monument]. And there on the top is inscribed Laus Deo (“Praise be to God”). These simple words, for the eyes of heaven alone, are a fitting reflection of George Washington’s conviction that liberty is owed to divine blessing.


[One can see in any tour of Washington DC] that our Creator is the source of American liberty–it is literally written into the rock, mortar, and marble of American history.


Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.130-131 Dec 31, 2006


On Principles & Values: Media-academic-legal elite imposes radical secularist vision


A media-academic-legal elite is energetically determined to impose a radically secularist vision against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Americans. This outlook rejects the wisdom if the founding generation as outdated and treats the notion that our liberties come from God as a curious artifact from the 1770s but of little practical importance for more enlightened times.


This elite is especially hard at work in the courts and in the classrooms where it is attempting to overturn two centuries of American self-understanding of religious freedom and political liberty.


In the courts, we see a systematic effort by this elite to purge all religious expression from American public life. The ongoing attempt to remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance is only the most well-known of these mounting efforts.


Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.131-132 Dec 31, 2006


On Civil Rights: Five justices banned school prayer against American majority


The views by the media-academic-legal elite are completely at odds with the overwhelming majority of Americans. Once five justices decided we could not pray in schools or at graduation or could not display the Ten Commandments, we lost those rights. If five justices decide we cannot say that our nation is “under God,” then we will also lose that right.


They are not only arbitrarily rewriting the law of the land but are usurping the legitimate rights of the legislative branch to make the laws.


Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.132-133 Dec 31, 2006


On Government Reform: Supreme Court has become permanent Constitutional Convention


The media-academic-legal elite have been successful to date at purging all religious expression from American public life. Their success is because for the last 50 years the Supreme Court has become a permanent constitutional convention in which the whims of five appointed lawyers have rewritten the meaning of the Constitution. Under this new, all-powerful model of the Court, the Constitution and the law can be redefined by federal judges unchecked by the other two coequal branches of government.


This power grab by the Court is a modern phenomenon and a dramatic break in American history. The danger is that the courts will move us from a self-understanding that we are one nation “under God”, to a nation under the rule of the state, where rights are accorded to individuals not by our Creator, but by those in power ruling over them. History is replete with examples of this failed model of might-makes-right–Nazism, fascism, communism–and their disastrous consequences.


Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.132-133 Dec 31, 2006


On Education: Replace multiculturalism with patriotic education


In the classroom, the very concept of America is under assault. The traditional notion of our country as a union of one people, the American people, has been assaulted by multiculturalism, situational ethics, and a values-neutral model in which Western values and American history are ignored or ridiculed. Unless we act to reverse this trend, our next generation will grow up with no understanding of core American values. This will destroy America as we know it, as surely as if a foreign conqueror had overwhelmed us.


It is absolutely necessary to establish a firm foundation of patriotic education upon which further knowledge can be built; otherwise, Americans will lack understanding of American values & how important & great it is to be an American.


It is important to understand what makes America so unique and why generations of diverse people immigrated to this great land for freedom and opportunity. If Americans do not appreciate America, then how can they be ready and willing to defend her?


Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.133-134 Dec 31, 2006


The above quotations are from Rediscovering God in America: Reflections on the Role of Faith in Our Nation’s History and Future, by Newt Gingrich (published October 10, 2006).


For all the criticism about Newt Gingrich’s past we must understand these are the thoughts of a man with Christian Values and a person that is a fiscal Conservative.


On the other hand Mitt Romney is not a Christian. He is a Mormon. Romney’s business experience is undoubtedly excellent; however his Conservative bona fides are definitely sketchy. Romney if elected will be a RINO that will make his goal to satisfy the Left and the Conservative Republicans. The cost will be the continued influence of the Left in Congress and a Leftist Activist Judiciary to continue to transform America away from its heritage by erasing the influence of Christianity.


JRH 1/29/12 (Hat Tip: Newsmax and The Hill)

Thoughts on Michele Bachmann

Michele Bachmann

John R. Houk

© January 6, 2012


I was a Bachmann supporter. She represented EVERYTHING I liked about candidate. Bachmann is a Conservative, she is a Tea Party Conservative, she is a Social Conservative, she is Pro-Israel and she understands that American Exceptionalism requires a strong military.


I suspect if the various Tea Party organizations across the nation would have been more vocal to support the only candidate that directly associated herself as a Tea Party Conservative, her numbers in Iowa would have been sufficient to keep her in the campaign for her to hear the voice of Conservative States. I am talking Conservative States that the Tea Party Movement was very effective in electing Tea Party candidates to Federal, State and Local Offices.


On Wednesday Michele Bachmann ended her campaign with a very awesome speech that all should check out!


VIDEO: Michele Bachmann drops out of presidential race



I pray the air kicked out of Bachmann’s Presidential campaign does not draw her to conclude to also not run for re-election in her District in Minnesota.


JRH 1/6/12

Romney the Corrupt One



John R. Houk

© December 22, 2011


Mitt Romney seems to be the choice of establishment Republicans and his poll numbers seem to be consistent. I am one of those Christians that believe Mormonism is a cult hence I am very anti-Romney. Yep, that makes me a Mormonphobe.


My old buddy Tony Newbill sent me a link to an article posted in June 2011 that gives an old Mormonphobe like me some ammunition other than my dislike for the Mormon cult that should start Romneyphiles to rethink their thoughts on which they support.


Newbill had tipped me earlier that Romney’s so-called business expertise has a tainted history. This June article referred to me entitled, “The Romney/ Goldman Sachs Chronicles – Modern Day Robber Baron’s g[al]ore,” is chalk full of allegations that should be investigated. If even a hint of them are true, the allegations would turn out to be criminal. It seems that Republican Establishment people are willing to look the other way as the Democrats were in not vetting President Barack Hussein Obama in his secretive history and connections to Marxists who favored violence and to racists that hate whitey.


The article is posted at Daily Kos so I am not so surprised in the detail of the Romney hit. What I am surprised about is that there are so few stalwart Conservatives who distrust Romney’s Conservative bona fides that have failed to publicize these same allegations. Perhaps the reasoning in the failure is the sources that are anti-Romney are Leftist in origin. Hey! I never read the Daily Kos because of its Leftist nature; however this dirt needs to be opened up to prevent another secretive candidate from possibly attaining the White House. I have a problem exchanging a Center-Right corrupt President for a Left Wing corrupt President, don’t you?


At this point I am still on the Newt train. Perhaps this author – Laserhaas – writing for a Leftist Internet Journal is worth the read.


JRH 12/22/11

Newt the Conservative Candidate

newt-gingrich-releases-new-contract-with-america. 9-23-11


John R. Houk

December 9, 2011


I have been leaning toward Newt Gingrich as a nominee choice for the GOP lately. Newt has been surging in the polls lately so I am guessing that I am not alone in that migration. Again I still like Michele Bachmann and will not hesitate to favor her again if she can get more support on board with her effort to win the nomination.


I am discovering though that Newt has many Conservative detractors that are calling him a Liberal or a Socialist in disguise. I am finding this especially among Conservatives that consider themselves among Independents and/or a Conspiracy Theorist slant.


My Conspiracy Theory buddy Tony Newbill echoes the complaint with this John Birch Society video that is a warning that Newt is not a true Conservative.


NEWT did you want to point out the foulness of The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler in 1994 when you became Speaker or Internationalize the USA?


Sent by Tony Newbill

Sent 12/4/2011 11:37 AM



NEWT did you want to point out the foulness of “The Third Wave” by Alvin Toffler as is described in this Video about when you became Speaker in the 1990s. You wanted the Congress to read this book, so was it to show the kind of ideology that was Infiltrating the USA policy making in Washington or was it to align with this ideology?


Please forward the video to the time frame 11:40:


Below is a link that is set to start at the 11:40 mark:


Kelleigh Nelson wrote a two part hit article on Newt Gingrich entitled “The Phony Right-Wing & Who is Selling Us Down the River? – Newt Gingrich: Part One & Two”.


Nelson begins Part 1 by describing Newt’s ten years in Congress as a closet communist by comparing Newt’s Congressional agenda to various Marxist ideologies. At this point Nelson calls Newt a Neocon. Evidently she considers Neocons as closet Communists because many of them actually came from a Communist background. The problem with her closet Communist assessment is that Neocons that were former Leftist Liberals abandoned Communism recognizing the utter failure of the Marxist based ideology. My perspective on Neoconservatism is that they are people that support Conservative values domestically and American Exceptionalism in relation to Foreign Policy and Foreign Relations. It is the less government – more government paradox. Neocons have rejected Big Brother control of the populace hence the less government domestically. Neocons see two objectives that need to be sustained (yes I know “sustained” is an evil word among Conspiracy Theorists). One objective is to promote any policy that protects American sovereignty as the world’s exceptionally best nation. The second objective is to spread American values internationally at all costs to promote a world that is more for us than against us. I realize these two objectives I have thought up are quite subjective and I am certain that intellectual Neocons could list quite a number of specifics; nonetheless in a nutshell I believe this is an easy to comprehend summary of Neoconservatism. Both objectives lean toward big government to maintain American Exceptionalism. Libertarians and Paleocons (i.e. more traditional Conservatives) have a problem with big government of any kind.


Then Nelson proceeds to list her perspective on Bills that Newt voted “Yea” on to contradict Newt’s Conservative bona fides.


In 1994 Newt voted:


1.   YEA to the National Endowment for the Arts


2.   YEA for 1.2 billion for UN peacekeeping


3.   YEA for the presidential line item veto


4.   YEA for 13 billion in foreign aid


5.   YEA for 166 million more for the IRS


6.   Led Congress into GATT with fellow CFR member Bill Clinton and then stated that it was a very big transfer of power.  It was, because it overrode Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution.  As well, GATT reduces the amount of money we can save for pensions.  He jawed with President Clinton in NH that he was a huge fan of FDR and Woodrow Wilson, two of the most despised early communist leaning presidents.  Remember Wilson gave us both the federal reserve and the 16th amendment, income tax.


He also voted:


1.   China as Most Favored Nation for trade


2.   Voted to supply funds to subsidize trade with the Soviets.


3.   Voted to transfer 2.2 million acres in Idaho to Wilderness status.


4.   Voted for federal funding loan guarantees for greater trade with Red China.


5.   Voted for taxpayer funds being available to foreign governments through export/import banks.


He is pro amnesty – Joe Galloway wrote in December 2010 that both Newt and Jeb Bush were pro-amnesty.  Gingrich stated, “We are not going to deport 11 million immigrants.”  How about 40 million Newt…send them home, they’re an invasion!  (Link (Link Dead))


He is pro foreign aid.  In 1995 he voted for 31.8 billion in foreign aid, but wouldn’t vote to cut foreign aid by a measly 1%.


Newt also backed a strong central government, strong environmental laws, national service programs, the United Nations Goals 2000 (which many Republicans voted for), federal financing of local police, and UN peacekeeping missions for our military.


Gingrich is pro-Obamacare and even advocated it in the 90s on Meet the Press, and recently.  (Link)


He did a Global Warming ad with Nancy Pelosi that is coming back to haunt him, but in reality, he is a big environmentalist. (Link)


Is pro-Gun Control — Newt is currently circulating a letter advertising a DVD called:  “America at Risk” for which you may obtain a copy if you send him $35.00 or more.  On page 3 of his six-page letter he says:  “Today the choice is yours:  You can either sit back and allow Barack Obama and the liberal elite to disarm our country, leaving us defenseless against enemies who explicitly desire to erase America from existence.”


If you are Conservative these points that Nelson is portraying should send shivers of distrust up and down your spine. Nelson’s point is that Conservatives should not trust Newt Gingrich in his current campaign rhetoric which has all the appearances of a Conservative Republican candidate.


I posted some thoughts on Newt’s illegal alien plan that included much of his 21st Century Contract with America which goes beyond the issue of illegals in America. That post is entitled, “Frankly I Like Newt’s Thoughts on Illegal Aliens”. Newt’s plan answers Nelson on the issue of the fake Conservative accusation. Frankly a comparison may connect Nelson’s indictment of Newt being a Neocon. I have Neocon leanings hence that makes Newt even more likable for me. You should note that Newt is NOT working a campaign with a Leftist message that government control the lives of American citizens. Newt is asking voters to send out their thoughts on how to improve America. Newt does not say he will use those thoughts; nonetheless it implies Newt would keep his possible Presidential Administration in contact with the little guy who actually thinks rather than is propagandized on how to vote.


Then Nelson joins many Conservatives with distrust of Newt because of the association with futurist Alvin Toffler.


Okay, so we’ve gone over what Newt has done in the past, and part of what he stands for, but we haven’t touched at all on his belief in Alvin and Heidi Toffler’s The Third Wave. To make it quite clear, Toffler’s beliefs are rooted solidly in communism, but dressed up thoroughly in neo-con speak and sprinkled with the tiniest bit of capitalism. This is why so many of our electorate are fooled by the RINOs and why so many of these RINOs go along with the communists in the Democrat party.


In 1994, Newt presented a list of 8 works he wanted everyone to read….first was the Declaration of Independence, second the Federalist Papers, and third was The Third Wave, by Alvin Toffler printed by the new age Progress and Freedom Foundation. Alvin Toffler is Newt Gingrich’s mentor, so we need to take a closer look at what Toffler espouses in The Third Wave. By the way he never mentioned reading the Constitution and for good reason. He wants to be rid of it.


Toffler believes mankind is entering a new system. To the founding fathers in his book, he wrote, “For the system of government you fashioned including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented, a democracy for the 21st century. …


Nelson proceeds to use an eight part article entitled Democrats in Drag by Steve Farrell as a data base to describe Toffler as a Marxist-Communist. Remember this is important to Nelson because Newt and Toffler are buddies at least intellectually.


Farrell compares Toffler’s book Third Wave as a futurist concept that has been used in the past. Farrell lists three people from the past he considers Communistic:


1.   Plato – The Republic


2.   Karl Marx – The Communist Manifesto


3.   Adolf Hitler – “National Socialism” which is Nazism which has Mein Kampf as the primary document.


Is Toffler a Communist? A Free Republic blogger quotes a New American article in which Toffler’s thoughts run like this:


In 1994, Gingrich described himself as “a conservative futurist”. He said that those who were trying to define him should look no farther than The Third Wave, a 1980 book written by Alvin Toffler. The book describes our society as entering a post-industrial phase in which abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, and divorce are perfectly normal, even virtuous. Toffler penned a letter to America’s “founding parents,” in which he said: “The system of government you fashioned, including the principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented—a democracy for the 21st century.” He went on to describe our constitutional system as one that “served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.”


Honestly the parts the New Republic blogger emphasizes certainly is the objective of Marxism especially as espoused by Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. Leninist-Marxism desires societal transformation via violence. Gramsci-Marxism desires societal transformation by infiltrating culture and government to transform society slowly by the rule of law with people not realizing what is happening to them. Incidentally BHO’s hero Saul Alinsky is kind of an American version of Gramsci-Marxism.


Here is a review of a book (Cyber-Marx – Aufheben) that includes a snippet of information of Alvin Toffler thought.



Information revolutionaries



The ‘information revolutionaries’ have revamped the post-industrial thesis as the transition to the ‘information society’ in which industry has been succeeded by information. The ‘revolutionary doctrine’ of those who have argued that this ‘information revolution’ is both inevitable and desirable, and to which one must adapt or face obsolescence is summarized by Dyer-Witheford in seven points:


1. The world is in transition to a new stage of civilisation, a transition comparable to the earlier shift from agrarian to industrial society.


2. The crucial resource of the new society is technoscientific knowledge.


3. The principal manifestation and prime mover of the new era is the invention and diffusion of information technologies.


4. The generation of wealth increasingly depend on an ‘information economy’ in which the exchange and manipulation of symbolic data matches, exceeds, or subsumes the importance of material processing.


5. These techno-economic changes are accompanied by far-reaching and fundamentally positive social transformations.


6. The information revolution is planetary in scale.


7. The information revolution marks not only a new phase in human civilization but also a new stage in the development of life itself.


Alvin Toffler is a former Marxist who has popularised these ideas and polemisized against what he now considers to be an obsolete Marxism. According to Toffler, as the information economy eliminates the factory so the legions of mass labour vanish, and with them Marx’s historical protagonist. The industrial proletariat disappears to be replaced by workers who ‘own a critical, often irreplaceable, share of the means of production’: knowledge. Thus the foundation for Marx’s theory of class conflict falls away – class as a collective identity based on adversarial relations of production will have been dissolved. (Emphasis SlantRight)

For the information revolutionaries, therefore, information technology has created a world in which communism is neither possible nor necessary.


This reviewer calls Toffler a “former Marxist.” Not so much because Toffler has abandoned the Marxist dream of a socio-political utopia, but because Toffler believes the Information Revolution (The Third Wave) will render class conflict irrelevant because the fruit of production – knowledge – will be shared across the class spectrum from the proletariat through the bourgeoisie. Toffler believes the Information Revolution will transform this world’s socio-political culture (or I guess cultures plural) in a natural evolutionary way.


So Toffler is not a Marxist in either the Leninist or Gramsci fashion, but he is a Leftist that predicts society-culture will abandon property rights and religion. I am uncertain about Toffler’s thought on free expression that would include both Liberal and Conservative having the ability to freely express thoughts on values; however it would follow that if Toffler believes there is a place for moral reprobates like homosexuals and transsexuals in his vision of a transformed society, and he does, I would have to guess religious morality (whether Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any other religion) is something to be rid of.


Thus Toffler’s vision of a transformed society-culture fits closer to Obama’s vision for “Change” than does Conservative and Family Values that is usually part of Republican Party platforms. So where does Newt Gingrich fit as a Republican vis-a-vis Toffler’s vision for transformation?


Newt’s 21st Century Contract with America is an awesome document of a Conservative paradigm reversing years of entrenched elitism governing our nation. A page on Newt’s campaign website lists three ways to reverse changes that have transformed Americans away from experiencing Constitutional Original Intent to experiencing the Liberal view of a Living Constitution that can be remolded to the views relativist rule that has enabled Leftist elites to morally harm America morally by attaching a European model of the rule of law.


Three large facts come from these ten specific challenges to the survival of America as the freest, most prosperous, and safest country in the world:


1.   No single, narrow solution can meet our challenges. These problems are so pervasive and so widespread that only a comprehensive strategy can break through and force the changes needed for America’s survival as a free, prosperous, safe country based on the principles of the Founding Fathers.


2.   The combined forces of the elites—in the news media, the government employee unions, the bureaucracies, the courts, the academic world, and in public office—will fight bitterly and ruthlessly to protect their world from being changed by the American people.


3.   Therefore any election victory in 2012 will be the beginning and not the end of the struggle. It will take eight years or more of relentless, determined, intelligent effort to uproot and change the system of the elites—laws, bureaucracies, courts, schools– and replace it with laws and systems based on historic American values and policies.



These three points are a part of Newt’s defense for the need of a 21st Century Contract with America. The page carefully avoids Leftist and Right Wing in his description of ruling elites. Also Newt’s defense does not specifically mention anything about Conservative-Christian Moral Values; however the implication is there with thoughts on Judicial reform and American education. One can see this implication in the last three points (of many) in a section entitled America is dramatically and frighteningly on the wrong track.


·       schools that no longer teach American history and generally fail to prepare young Americans for either citizenship or work (leading to a Nation at Risk, as the Reagan Administration described the effect of our schools 28 years ago and it is worse now);


·       increasingly radical judges who impose anti-American values on the American people in a repetition of the British tyrannical judges who were the second most frequently cited complaint of the American colonists;


·       a radical elite which has contempt for the American people, sympathy for America’s enemies, and overt hostility to American values and which dominates the universities, the news rooms, and increasingly the bureaucracies and the courts. (emphasis SlantRight)



Ergo if believe “American values” are the same as Conservative-Christian Values then we can assume Toffler’s futuristic influence on Newt is not a Left Wing brainwashing sycophancy. Does Newt believe the Third Wave Information Revolution is false?


I haven’t address this lately; however I am sure it will come somewhere around the primaries and/or the General Election if Newt makes it that far and on to victory. If I was to proffer an educated guess I would have to believe Newt still believes in a Third Wave transformation because of his past enthusiasm for Alvin Toffler’s works. The question that should be asked though: Does Newt’s thoughts on a Third Wave transformation the same as Alvin Toffler’s transforming vision?


The answer must be NO.


Newt’s 21st Century Contract with America is definitely conflicts with Toffler’s vision of a New World Order based on Leftist Humanism. So Newt’s vision for a Third Wave futurist transformation has to be based more on the Founding Father’s Constitutional vision combined with American Exceptionalism. The thought of American Exceptionalism contradicts New World Order Leftist Globalism. For an Information Revolution to exist combined with American Exceptionalism, a New World Order would look like a place that is friendly to American values. The New World Order would be a collection of sovereign nations watching over their own local interests while espousing legitimate representative government based on a free market in which globalism would translate into peaceful trade and mutual support rather than carving anti-social hegemonic empires based on top to bottom elitist rule.


I haven’t talked to Newt but I am guessing a man that has put forth the 21st Century Contract with America is not a disciple of Toffler’s Leftist transformation. Rather Newt is influenced that an Information Revolution will change the way we live and that American Exceptionalism must influence that change.


If Newt wins the nomination and wins the Presidency based on his 21st Century Contract with America and Newt begins to display Left Wing ideology, it may be the last time I vote for a Republican as a member of the Republican Party. This means at this time I am going to believe and trust Newt’s word more than Newt’s past. We’ll see how definite I will be in that trust as the GOP Convention draws near to place the mantle of nominee on a Republican candidate.


JRH 12/9/11

%d bloggers like this: