“Best multimedia solutions. Individual approach.
24/7 Fair, Balance,
News & Information”

The Case for Newt Gingrich: The State of the Union and Our Last Best Hope

Posted by on Jan 25th, 2012 and filed under Business, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

By Barbara Haney
Jan 25, 2012

Many people say we should not buy into the class warfare of Obama. I agree.

We should not ever buy into envy of those who have genuinely earned their due.  For I am the first to give kudos to those of all faiths and backgrounds who have made our nation great.

Could anyone decry the efforts of a man like Steven Jobs? A man like Thomas Edison?  Or anyone else who can be found to exemplify what is good and right about capitalism?  

For indeed, these people have served the masses, and through their service, have become better off by making the lives of others better off.  They have earned their just reward. 

But that is not the same of all who are wealthy. Not all have received their just due through serving consumers. For some have their largess from an insidious form of plunder.

Consider those who became wealthy through Solyandra or other green scandals. Consider those who participate in the K-Street activities.

When the rich use their resources to acquire favorable government treatment to enrich their coffers and solicit favorable government treatment or to establish barriers to entry and eliminate competition, should we admire that?

When a person, a robber who plunders by use of the government bureaucrats, or a President who gives such concessions, wants us to admire their success, their magnanimity, and hold it up as a shining example of American Exceptionalism and American service, should we give that person such regard?

For I will not decry a person their fair due, and I will applaud their fair success. But when this success comes from bending the rules of the game, obtaining favorable treatment, through fraud, or through establishing a monopoly position through the assistance of government regulation, should I regard that as success?  

I therefore give that person, that entity, no more regard that I would the petty thief. For that person uses a weapon of robbery not available to the common person who is impoverished; that person uses the tools of crony capitalism to exalt themselves above others with the aim of plundering others and oppressing others.

Would it be rightful for Obama to do this? Is it more rightful that Romney does this? For who can sincerely tell the two of them apart?

Whether they are the President granting the cronies their advantage, or the wealthy man behind the President taking their cut, they are equally at fault, at guilt, of stealing from the American people.

They have equally participated in a system of crony capitalism, aimed at destroying competitive markets and the democracy upon which this nation was established. I see little difference in the fault between the two.  

For the class warfare I see is not one that is between rich and poor, but between the permanent political classes: both government and business that use the tools of bureaucracy to maintain their power and to establish a feudal order.

These people do not seek to server voters and consumers, they seek to establish themselves as the new nobility; Lord and Master, fife of the castle, and establish a form of aristocracy in the tradition of the British Lords and Kings. No. I say no.

For we are a nation whereby ANYONE may enter the market and provide services and goods; we are nation where there are no special deals for special people.

We are a nation where fairness must prevail in the market place. For no one can pursue excellence in a game that is rigged. How can anyone be admired for their success when it has been obtained by ill-gotten means?   

Indeed, those who participated in the K-Street project and pay for play scandals are no better, no different, than those who seek pay for play under the green scandals. Paint the party a different color and the branch of government slightly different, but the net effect is no different.

Plunder, by gun or by bureaucrat, is still plunder. The difference is that plunder by bureaucrat has a better army than the poor thief could ever afford.  Those who plunder by bureaucrat play for stakes that are far beyond what anyone of us could dream, and yet, our very existence hangs in the balance by defeating these forces.

Is this a new battle?

No. Is this a battle that has been fought before?


Can we win?

We can if we hang together and reside in agreement that neither the bureaucratic enabler in the form of Barack Obama or the plunder in the form of Mitt Romney do not prevail. For this fight is not about rich or poor, but about free and enslaved.

It is a fight for our very right to exist as a free people, and nothing short of that describes the battle. It is about resisting a feudal order that seeks once again to establish itself over mankind and end the rights and freedoms of our nation.

Consider the modern interpretation in the Presidential race that is before us. We have the Establishment candidate in the form of Mitt Romney, the former K-Street Project Rick Santorum, and in the other party, the Sal Alinsky candidate in the form of Barack Obama.

Indeed, Obama decries those who are wealthy, yet his administration has been one of the largest crony capitalist “pay for play” administrations that our nation has ever seen.  

There is no small number of “the wealthy” who could not claim to be so before they received special treatment from a grant or another from the US coffers courtesy of Barack Obama.

And the Establishment candidate, Mitt Romney is perhaps one of the wealthiest men in the United States, has facilitated the man he seeks to run against! His own company, Bain Capital, owns NBC, and perpetuates the very radical rhetoric that Obama seeks to inculcate in the mind future generations of the American people.

It is the same media that fails to cover the issues of crony capitalism that have facilitated and participated in the very problems that our country faces!

Has there been coverage of the green scandals?

Fast and Furious?

The efforts to strip our nation of our rights granted in the Bill of Rights? The eligibility issue? 

While Obama claims that he would like to see the wealthiest pay their “fair share” he has done NOTHING to ensure that the markets remain fair, and has continued to participate in blocking entry in every sort and nature of economic activity. He has been part of the very problem, and his enriched his own wealth in the very process.  

And as for Romney, his wealth from Bain capital, while at first blush something to be admired, cannot entirely stand on its own record.

For Bain capital has contributed more money to Barack Obama’s campaign than his own. Romney’s wealth, gained from liquidating assets, appears to be from an almost super-human ability to outperform the market. Is it through his own super-human ability?

Or is it because his own firm owns the very servers and software used to file SEC reports known as EDGAR? Indeed, to own EDGAR, and then outperform the market…that is not “financial acumen” my friend.

That is cheating. Martha Stewart went to jail for far less, and yet it would seem that everyone ignores the matter. 

And a Justice Department that ignores the matter is complicit in the whole ordeal.  And it places Romney and Obama as complicit partners who have an aim of stripping American of her greatness and establishing some other order.

This order, sometimes termed as a new and novel idea, is as old as the Kings and Queens of ancient times.  I say, scream it from the highest mountain.  

And can Santorum claim to have some higher moral ground in the matter? Did he not carry the water for Tom Delay’s K-Street project with Jim Talent?

Would we have even know had not that contemptible Sen. Foley found his desire for little boys greater than his desire for wealth?  

And Santorum and Talent, those high and mighty men of family values, covered the matter. That is repulsive, and the voters of Pennsylvania were right to throw him out of office in a landslide.   

And for all my admiration of Ron Paul’s rhetoric, I have come to understand that his nice patriotic words have a different import than one might anticipate. Is it not ironic that he has a foreign policy that stems from the open society agenda of George Soros?

Is it not interesting that he preaches disarmament and is funded by Russia and many Islamic nations? He says more military support his campaign than anyone else.

I am wondering whose military that might be; for I cannot grasp how anyone in the military can honestly believe that “make love not war” would possibly keep us safe from those with ill intent.

While it is convenient to say that this is blow-back, history as far back as Thomas Jefferson’s war on the Barbery Pirates bears a different answer. There are bad men out there, and there are boogie men. They are real and even a SalAlinksy radical understands that.   

But beyond the issues of social morality and the market, there is another issue that strikes at the heart of our very process of selecting candidates. Please understand what it I am saying, and perhaps the corpus of the “Not Mitt” message.

You do not get to be the nominee because “It is your turn.” You do not get to be the nominee because “Your daddy ran.” You do not get to be the nominee because “you can buy support.”

This is a REPUBLIC and to be the nominee, you must have the support of the American people… and you must win their hearts and minds, and their support.

The American People choose, not the power elites. The American People decide the permanent political class.

It will be WE THE PEOPLE who will prevail, not the descendants of the manor lords of ancient times who have come to sell us servitude under a different name. We are a free people. We are a free nation. We decide.  

How then shall I vote?

Where then shall I place my trust?

Who then speaks to the rights of Americans and the historical circumstances our nation? 

There is no greater fighter for our sovereign rights that Newt Gingrich. Is he perfect?

No. Could we do better? Perhaps, but better is not running, and we must make the selection from those who have indicated a willingness to serve.

Should I take a higher moral ground to a more pure candidate that cannot hope to beat Obama?  

No, for the stakes are too high this year, for our very existence as a free people lies on precipice of disaster. If we pick Newt, will we have to keep an eye on him?

Probably, but he has indicated that this is his expectation of us, and he is willing to listen to citizens, and to respond to the requests of the citizenry.

This is a far cry above anything we have in the field, for I have seen no indication in the past four years that Obama is willing to engage in a conversation.

Indeed, he has done all he can to squash freedom of speech, and has been as much an advocate for giant corporations and the power elite as anyone else.

It has become abundantly clear that this congress and this president are not working for the benefit of the American people. I ask, then, that you support Newt Gingrich. For I see no one else on the field who is up to the task, and willing to take the mantle forward.

He did it once. I have faith that he can do it again. That perhaps, is that last stand that we have to make to reverse the tide of monopoly capitalism and the erosion of our freedom. Newt Gingrich is the best person we have to restore the Republic.

Source: Barbara Haney 

Editor’s Note: You can contact Dr. Haney at barbarahaney100@yahoo.com

We welcome your comments. Please Login in or Register to post a comment on this article. Thank you and we appreciate your support!

2 Responses for “The Case for Newt Gingrich: The State of the Union and Our Last Best Hope”

  1. dianemn says:

    Out of the remaining 4 candidates, Newt is my choice as well.

    Great article!

    Not only is Newt unafraid of telling the truth and calling out lies, misinformation and trash talk that has no value, but Newt has been through a situation where the Dems lost power and retaliated.

    That’s precisely what we’re up against now.

    Newt has experience, he survived before, and I’m sure he learned a lot and has his own bag of tricks to handle the Demonrat backlash that will come.

    If Newt becomes our POTUS in this next election cycle, I have no doubt America will rally around him as he vocally and publicly points out the immature and bad behavior of the Demonrats in their coming hissy fits.

  2. Dan says:

    Barbara Haney provides an incisive assessment of the candidates in the Presidential elections.

    Thanks Dan for sharing this with your friends.

    Andy O’Meara

Comments are closed

Log in ~ Copyright 2007-2014 DASK Internet Publishing Inc., All rights reserved.