Mr. Hyde Returns

A Lovely Couple

It's official; I am done with Newt Gingrich. He's a nice enough fellow, of that  there is little doubt, but he has in the past proven at times to be too nice. Then again, so was Dr. Jekyll, which leaves one to genuinely wonder if Newt is bipolar.

In 1994, during Bill Clinton's presidency, Gingrich spearheaded the Republican revolution that saw that party win the House for the first time in forty years. The victory also propelled him to the Speaker's chair. As a result, a frothing Liberal coalition was formed which immediately set about the task of the demonization of the "ultra-right-wing" Gingrich. And it was mostly made possible by Newt's bitter opposition to the Clintons' designs regarding health care.

Then, a mere eleven years later, Gingrich angered the base that once revered the historian and all-around bright guy, the guy they saw as the hero who had slain the Clinton health care dragon. In 2005, when Hillary was first dipping her toes in the presidential waters, Newt and Hillary were suddenly "an item", appearing together at news conferences and on talk shows, with Gingrich singing adoring praises for the first woman presidential wannabe.

An Extremely Odd Couple

In May of 2005, the New York Times reported on the gushing words of Gingrich being lavished on Mrs. Clinton. It was portrayed then as a virtual kumbaya, and that's what it was. In one part of the article, the Times makes a pertinent point as it relates to Newt's current presidential aspirations, albeit prophetically. Just about midway through the article, the Times states:

As it turns out, Mr. Gingrich and Mrs. Clinton have a lot more in common now that they have left behind the politics of the 1990's, when she was a symbol of the liberal excesses of the Clinton White House and he was a fiery spokesman for a resurgent conservative movement in Washington.

I must confess, I am also guilty of forgetfulness in my zeal to see Newt run this time around. I also forgot about another stunning event a few years later, when Gingrich took to the couch with Nancy Pelosi who -- destined to be the speaker shortly thereafter -- actually makes Hillary look like a Rush Limbaugh dittohead.

In an advertisement to beseech our government to "do something" about Global Warming, Gingrich once again slept with the enemy by espousing a silly concept that he would later counter in a Congressional hearing. The video is here.



Two years later, Gingrich published  A Contract with the Earth, which set off another kabuki dance in which Liberals praised him and Conservatives gasped. In 2008, just a year later, Gingrich published Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less. That tome had his newfound friends on the left questioning his commitment to the environment and the cause. Newt was fast becoming a human pendulum. In 2009, he pushed further to the right, testifying before a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing on "climate change" legislation in which he ripped Al Gore's ideas to shreds and challenged the former Vice President to engage in discussions on the matter.

Suddenly, Newt was ours again, but only for a while.

Just yesterday on the May 15th Sunday Meet the Press, Gingrich assaulted the Republican plan touted by Paul Ryan as "right wing social engineering", and endorsed a government mandate that citizens be required to purchase health insurance. As this country is slowly being dragged back to its senses by the Tea Party movement -- as evidenced by the mid term elections -- we're now not only fighting a formidable Progressive monolith...we're fighting the man who was once described by the New York Times as a "fiery spokesman for a resurgent conservative movement in Washington".

No thank you. I will not speak or write well of Newt Gingrich again until he is well past the age of a viable Presidential candidacy. He is a smart man and an excellent historical mind, but I do not want such a man anywhere near the Oval Office.

Sphere: Related Content

Shameless, Boundless Hypocrisy

Richter Should Have Made a Gall Scale

Just when it seems that the Left couldn't possibly best their own record for chutzpah, they reach down deep and go for the gold. In the latest news cycle it is being reported that "Progressives" are disrupting town hall meetings being conducted by Republicans such as Paul Ryan, the architect of a budget bill that has MoveOn.org, among others, in a lather.

FoxNews.com is reporting on an email sent to members from MoveOn titled "payback time" in which the Liberal group encourages its members to disrupt town hall meetings while remaining "civil". What is particularly ironic is both the Republicans' reference to the action as "astroturfing", and the Left's visceral reaction to the charge.

Much of the outrage from the Left is directed at the House-passed version of Ryan's budget proposal, but the reasoning of Leftist groups is nothing short of astounding. While the Left may be sincere in their collective loathing of any attempt to reduce the role of government as nanny to all, their indignation at the astroturf label is comical in light of Nancy Pelosi's charge against the Tea Party, which has since been proven false. (No news organization has been able to pinpoint any particular group as guiding the genuine ire of ordinary Americans).

When made aware of the charges that there was a carefully orchestrated effort by her side, Lauren Weiner, a spokesman for Americans United for Change perfectly illustrated that if hypocrisy could be measured on a seismic level, Richter's scale would prove tragically inadequate. "I think that's ridiculous", she claimed, punctuating her point with "the anger is real."

The theoretical Hypocrisy Scale would have shattered on the following point made by Ms. Weiner, however. Complaining that the House of Representatives -- now controlled by Republicans -- passed the Ryan budget two weeks ago while the details were still a mystery to many people, she uttered the following:

"We think the anger is going to grow. The more they learn about it, the angrier they're going to get."

Did Ms. Weiner sleep through the week that the Democrat-controlled House rolled the American people like a mugger might a suburban father of three in an urban alley?  Did she somehow manage to miss then-Speaker Pelosi uttering the infamous "We have to pass the bill so that you can, uh, find out what is in it."? And is there any chance in this Hell in which we now reside that anyone in the media will notice this glaring hypocrisy, or that if they do, will actually mention it?

Highly unlikely would be the correct answer, but one must marvel at the brazen machinations of the Progressive operatives who now feel that they can abandon their "black ops" brand and move freely in the sunlight with impunity. The reason that evil often fails is that its proclivity is to jump the gun through over-confidence.

Independents are who got Obama elected, and it is the Indy group that has swung so dramatically away from not only Obama, but the entire Democratic agenda. The Democrats had their day in the sun. The Progressive movement had a brief share in that day and they squandered it, foolishly thinking that the fruit was ripe for picking. Now they will either pay the price at the ballot box and go away, or throw off the last cloak of civility and make their final lunge at dictatorship.

Perhaps the Left will go so far as to attempt a perverted version of a theocracy, reminiscent of Iran, with the entrenched Democrat officials serving as a sort of store-front parliament while the controlling mullahs are represented by outfits like MoveOn.org. Nothing would offer the pungent scent of hypocrisy and the bitter taste of irony any better.

Sphere: Related Content

Why Did the Turtle Cross the Road?

How much would you pay to save him?

Perhaps the most obvious answer to the title question would be, "because he hadn't yet received taxpayer money to safely traverse it underneath".

As our country grapples with a severe debt, the in-your-face debate revolves around the question of where to cut spending. Politicians and pundits hand-wring while claiming to understand the angst of the American people in general, and the Tea Party in particular, pretending to understand that concern but not quite grasping the concept.

The Liberal reaction to our demands of less spending is to demagogue and vilify. "Why do you hate children?" and "Why do you want to kill seniors?" are common taunts, when any sane person realizes that they are ridiculous accusations. Yet, the easily shamed are quickly tamed, and acquiesce to the demands of more spending without question. And they are so easily fooled.

For example, it is common for politicians to claim a reduced increase in spending is a "cut". It doesn't matter to the average Joe - who garners all of his knowledge from thirty second sound bites on television - that spending of his hard earned taxes is still going up. If it involves a "cause" he's been conditioned to endorse, he'll only "know" that the bad guys "slashed" funding for it.

One must wonder if that same person would feel like he's getting a bargain if he had to pay more for a product he frequently purchases if the price increase was suddenly 50% less than the purveyor intended. For example, let's say that "Joe" buys a widget every week, and it's always been a dollar. One day he walks in and it's three dollars, but the store is having a half-off sale. Will he realize that since last week, the price tripled, or will he be happy that with the "sale", he's only paying 50% more?

Likewise, when talk of eliminating actual spending amounts to a paltry "few million" dollars, politicians dismiss the notion as meaningless, a drop in the bucket. But leave a bucket under a dripping gutter and see how fast it fills up. The leak responsible for that drip needs to be repaired, just as tax dollars spent on turtle tunnels and the like need to stop immediately. If someone has that much passion for the plight of turtles, they can raise the money on their own and dig the damn tunnels by hand. (The money would be needed for permits to dig on federal property, after all).

Earmarks, the "pet projects" of Congress people, continue for the very reason that politicians dismiss their impact on the overall debt and deficit. Each to its own, they seem insignificant, but add drops to that bucket that soon overflows. And they are wasteful, albeit very nice gestures for a genuine philanthropist. To steer precious public funding (confiscated earnings) toward them must end.

A little spending here, a little there...

Case in point: in 2007, amid debates in Congress over desperately needed infrastructure repairs on highways and bridges that were crumbling, Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California secured $550,000 of transportation money to build a boat in Los Angeles that would never sail. In fact, it would never touch water. Known as "Noah's Ark",  it was part of a project called the Skirball Cultural Center, a private charity in Los Angeles. The charity's director, Uri Herscher, reportedly went to Waxman, and Waxman directed the funds in the form of an earmark.

No big deal, Waxman later countered, it was small change. “The amount of money that the Skirball got for this project was very, very small. It was $550,000," Waxman said. True, but Waxman is only one of 435 members of the House, and it is unknown how many other "small" projects like this he "gave" to through the unknowing generosity of the American taxpayer.

With all of that in mind, let's examine the actuality of the $38 billion in FY2011 spending cuts that Speaker Boehner is touting today. Shortly after the vote, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calculated the true savings at $350 million, with an "m". That's right, million...small change in the eyes of Congress when it refers to spending rather than cutting.

Most of the cuts the CBO projects are from monies that were previously allocated but unspent, and relegated to remain that way. And the total savings do not take place in the remaining six months, but rather in the next five years, stretching out to 2016. FY2012 is only six months away. If Boehner and his members can't do better in the next round of budget negotiations, we are in serious trouble, and so is the Republican party.

I feel like the proverbial turtle crossing the road. Why do I do it? To get to the Tea Party.

Sphere: Related Content

Here Come Those Demagogue Tears Again

Democrats' Road to Ruin

As this Friday looms as the deadline for the 2011 budget stopgap, and as both parties in Congress seek to avoid a government shutdown, the gauntlets are being thrown down by both sides of the debate.

Republican Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is the chairman of the House Budget Committee, and he has presented a plan to reduce the federal deficit by $4 trillion in the next decade. Democrats, predictably, are already in full demagogue mode, claiming that the Republicans care more about "Big Oil" than they do about our seniors.

It's ironic that the alleged "party of the people" is comprised of the very same people who rammed Obamacare down our throats based on a cost-saving premise of letting the elderly "expire" rather than receive "unnecessary" care. Oh, they denied the existence of what Sarah Palin called "death panels", but even the most cursory examination of the models for this bill - from Europe and Canada - reveal the truth that there is a Logan's Run criteria in the administration of government health care.

No matter. As the Republicans now try to place a tourniquet on our hemorrhaging economy, Democrats are busy finding ways to convince the electorate that we must keep spending, and spending fast. And they will pull out every fallacy known to Man to accomplish that goal. Or every trick.

While Republicans like Paul Ryan maneuver to reign in the out of control spending of the previous session of Congress, the perpetrators of our plight continue in their finger-pointing endeavors, claiming through a dutiful mouthpiece media that they are trying to mop up after their predecessors. Worse yet is that the clarion call is still the misnomer that the "rich" and the corporations fail to pay their fair share of taxes. Democrats don't see a spending problem...they see a revenue problem. Think of the alcoholic blaming the liquor store for running out of booze.

Now, just as the Democrats have hidden behind other causes they have never actually helped - see minorities and poverty - they continue to use seniors as a sort of human shield, claiming to champion them while merely exploiting them. Their rhetoric may sound fine for the consumption of the gullible and politically impatient, but it still remains false. Nevertheless, the ground still runs uphill for Republicans, who have been successfully portrayed as the party of the uncaring.

For the vast majority of seniors out there who have actually raised families and dealt with the challenges of a balanced budget, I would simply ask for some common sense here. One parent is always more liberal where the children are concerned. They need things, but not always because they are actual sustenance, but because of social mores at the school that they attend. In other words, "need" is not the correct description, whereas desire would be more apt. And yet one parent always advocates for the alleged needs of the children regardless of the strain on the family finances. (Mikey really needs those new $200 Nikes!)

Sound familiar, America?



Phony Democratic Compassion



Ryan's plan doesn't actually cut funding from Medicare, as the Democrats claim, but rather reduces the acceleration of increases. Of course, to Democrats, that's considered a cut, and that's how it will be portrayed on the evening news and by Liberal commentators (pardon the redundancy). And if the Republicans succeed, it is inevitable that Liberal organizations will aid the Democrats in demonizing them, with commercials showing grandma being pushed down the stairs in her wheelchair, or a variation of the Gingrich "wither on the vine" lie.

Meanwhile, the majority of American taxpayers want the spending reined in, and are prepared for a little pain to precede the gain. We may have to swim through a torrent of demagogue tears to get there, though.

Sphere: Related Content