Lately, there has been a mass hysteria — like that of James Dean and all of the woman that were after him — over Newt Gingrich. I, frankly, just don’t know why that is. Perhaps it’s because “he’s the smartest guy in the room.” Or, if we’re to believe the media and those conservatives who just want to beat Obama so badly they’ll nominate whoever can debate the best, it’s because he’s a great talker.

I find something wrong with those two assumptions.

First of all, Newt Gingrich is an intellectual; no one can take that away from Newt. But, even with all that brain-power, he comes up with ridiculous statements like saying Paul Ryan’s budget is “right-wing social-engineering” and that he’s “a Teddy Roosevelt Republican.” If that weren’t bad enough, he occupies preposterous positions more fit to be assigned to Mitt Romney than this God-like creature people seem to purport him to be. The individual mandate is a big, great thing  – this worse than Romney’s bill, because it’s at the federal level – he says and  TARP was also great: (http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/284472/newt-gingrich-said-iwhati). His statements vary from strange –

“In October 2005, Gingrich called for “universal but confidential” DNA testing” — to absolutely abhorrent:

Lawmakers should take the time to at least thumb through this report, especially those who have been demanding Secretary General Kofi Annan’s resignation, supporting the ill-conceived nomination of John Bolton as the United States ambassador to the United Nations and backing the latest benighted attempt to withhold America’s legally obligated dues.

to, well, Mitt Romney-esque: http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/11/29/examples-of-gingrich-comments-in-favor-of-federally-funded-abortion-stem-cell-research/

And, in an effort to shore-up the “I want a fence” vote, he’s promising a “double-border fence.”

Newt Gingrich isn’t a God-like creature. Newt Gingrich is a God for people who apparently disregard facts in an effort to get what they want with the “surest bet,” or is a God because he’s “so much smarter than everyone else.” This reminds me a lot of the times my mother has said “you’re so impatient, going with what you think is the best. If you just waited it out, instead of what’s good in the store, maybe you won’t wind up with a broken heart after it doesn’t work out.” (She doesn’t say that anymore.)

With all of these leftist, looney, ludicrous policies, I have yet to understand why on Earth the world’s biggest, bestest, most smarterest debater is also the stupidester person in the world when it comes to making coherent policy statements to conservatives. In my honest opinion, Newt either has the biggest ego in the world to think he has a shot at being the nominee, or he thinks everything he has said, is conservative. Or both.

So, while we all will dip our toes in the Newt-fad for a while, his campaign is certainly going to end the way — to put it bluntly — Jame’s Dean’s life did: dead. 

Next thing you know, he’s going to be telling everyone he’ll be the nominee and the searching is over.

Here are examples of former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s previous statements on abortion and stem cell research that give some social conservatives pause.

TAXPAYER-FUNDED ABORTION

The New York Times on April 10, 1995, reported, “House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Sunday supported the availability of federally financed abortions for poor women who are victims of rape or incest and expressed opposition to organized school prayer, positions that are at odds with many conservatives in his party.”

Also asked that year on CBS’s “Face the Nation” whether he agrees with Republicans who oppose federal abortion payments in cases of rape or incest or to protect the life of the mother, Gingrich answered: “No. First of all, I think you should have funding in the case of rape or incest or life of the mother, which is the first step.”

Later that year, Gingrich urged his colleagues in the U.S. House to accept language in an abortion bill that would not completely ban abortions under federal employee health plans, leaving in place exemptions in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, the Washington Times reported on Aug. 7, 1995.

TAXPAYER-FUNDED EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH

Bill O’Reilly on “O’Reilly Factor” asked Gingrich on July 19, 2001: “Stem cell research, should President Bush approve some federal funding for that?”

Gingrich answered: “Well, I agree with Senator Bill Frist, as the only medical doctor in the Senate and as a world-class heart surgeon. I think that there are ways to have appreciation for life, to recognize the sanctity of life, but nonetheless to look at fertility clinics where there are cells that are sitting there that are not going to be used to create life. They literally today, they’re unregulated, they can be thrown away. And I think the president, I hope the president, will find a way to agree that there ought to be federally funded research.”

On ABC News’ “This Week” on July 8, 2001, Sam Donaldson asked: “So he should approve stem cell research on embryos?”

Gingrich answered: “On embryonic cells that, that are pre-fetal.”

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION

Gingrich helped quash an effort to deny Republican Party funds to candidates who opposed legislation outlawing so-called partial birth abortions, according to a Jan. 21, 1998, article by the Associated Press.

The Republican National Committee at its winter meeting that year wanted to deny party campaign funds to Republican candidates who opposed banning most late-term, or partial-birth, abortions.

Gingrich addressed the RNC meeting on Jan. 16, 1998, calling for tolerance of candidates who support partial-birth abortion, saying he would campaign for them.

“It’s the voters of America who have a right — in some places they’re going to pick people who are to my right, some places they’re going to pick people who are to my left and in both cases, if they’re the Republican nominee, I am going to actively campaign for them, because when they get to Congress, whether they are a moderate Republican from the northeast, whether they are a very conservative Republican from the south or west, whatever their background.”

The AP reported that Gingrich said he opposed the “barbaric” abortion procedure, and would continue to vote to ban it. But he argued that the resolution was the wrong way to eliminate partial-birth abortions.

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/11/29/examples-of-gingrich-comments-in-favor-of-federally-funded-abortion-stem-cell-research/

I thought I’d quote this article from TMS. Consider this an open thread but, note that this is a blow to someone who, at one point, could have won Iowa.

Surprising to some, Newt was actually my first choice for president back in May. Unfortunately, certain things were revealed that practically led me to beg for him to drop out. I was not surprised whatsoever that Newt became a front-runner because, since he entered the race, he was championed as a great debater. “That’s his best asset” Brit Hume discussed on Fox News Sunday; all other commentators seemingly agreed. But alas, we wouldn’t be electing him to lead by debating but by conservative policies. So, there’s that.

We’d be electing a man who, while he was cheating on his wife, was trying to impeach Bill Clinton for the very same time–he’s cheated on two of his wives, to my knowledge. But there’s usually someone else in that situation. My mother drilled into my head when I was much younger “once a cheater, always a cheater.” I think that speaks volumes in this situation. Unfortunately for Newt, that’s the first strike and although some will forgive, the family leaders certainly won’t. Merely for the factor “when temptation blossoms anywhere, where shall he stand” will that be a near death-blow for his Iowa credentials.

Strike one is a problem, for sure; but I wouldn’t say that if he had nothing else, he’d still be doomed to demise. In fact, he’d probably come out a little stronger with the “I’ve changed message.” Once again for Newt, his actions chop off his rhe-to-ric. Funny enough, Newt endorsed the individual mandate just twenty years ago, and still hasn’t repudiated it (to my knowledge)! So, after all that time, when Barack Obama implements his idea, he no longer represents it apparently. Really, though? I have always wondered why some conservatives — now even Sarah Palin rumored to be at this point — will abandon their principles if “their guy” is doing it. That’s when it becomes mere criticism of Barack Obama because he’s not in our party, rather than actual merits upon which we should be criticizing. (Strike Two, for those who aren’t counting)

If that strike is not enough, there is of course the TARP incident. A friend of mine I have come to know quite well — who is an avid supporter of Newt — defends his TARP policy with “he was against it, and proposed something completely different. But in the end, he endorsed it.” Lucky for me, I do know quite well that that issue can be applied to several of Barack Obama’s policies and certainly many of the most liberal of house members. So, there’s number three.

Numbers four through six are literally mind blowing, unfortunately.  Seemingly, the commentary of Newt being “undisciplined” has all-but disappeared; although Newt himself does not seem to be missing that quality, as of just a year or two ago. Unless he can apply “I’ve changed because I had grandchildren” to the famous Global Warming question, there’s no way of getting out of the fact that he’s undisciplined–and further proof, is the Paul Ryan scenario, where he was nearly right but of course failed to use coherent words. If those two aren’t enough as strikes, we could certainly count his Hawaiian trip or Greek vacation he took this summer. (Four, Five, Six)

Fannie and Freddie paying him, isn’t exactly perfect either.

But I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, and let Sarah endorse for him, because he’s *clearly* the most conservative.

There is a lot to be said about Governor Rick Perry. He is undeniably both a family man and a man who loves his country; a case of which is proven by his time in the Air Force, and as well the many years he’s been married to the same woman. Of course, there is no doubt he is also a flawed man. Into this race he came, almost instantly being a front-runner–gaining endorsements, and of course lots of money. This boom however, was before his disastrous debate performances due to an array of problems. Most of which, because he got into this race so late. Now, he’s even solving that with his recent performances and has proposed some of the boldest plans we’ve ever seen. This is, if I dare, almost as big –if not bigger than– Reagan’s proposals. And they all could happen: but he has to be elected first.

The Governor’s recent poll numbers out of both Iowa and other key states are none too pleasing for his backers but, we have faith. It’s unfortunate that some others don’t. A few moderate members of the Republican party are as predicted, bailing ship and endorsing the “hot candidate.” It would even appear that Sarah Palin might endorse  Newt Gingrich, a more-moderate Republican.

To tell you the truth, I have never understood the obsession over political parties and the labels we place upon ourselves; if someone is ‘conservative,’ he’s conservative; if someone is liberal, he’s a liberal; and so on, and so on. I’m not really sure how to put this but, that’s all frankly ridiculous. The people on the right have begun to label Mitt Romney as ‘liberal’ after they labeled him ‘conservative’ in 2008. Hell, even Rush Limbaugh “endorsed” Mitt Romney. It’s quite funny, actually.

I’ve never trusted labels–or words, for that matter. The meaning of Republicanism has changed so often, it’s beginning to look rather empty and hollow with just a word written atop with pencil–so it can be easily erased and replaced, when the next new point comes along. It’s almost as if conservatism is a broad label of positions and regardless of these positions, you can be labeled something if you broaden the spectrum of acceptable positions for it. As I always like to remind everyone, “words are for children; actions for adults.”

There’s a very, very fine way to define conservatism in my mind though: limited government. But, what does that mean either? Well, unfortunately the English language is just too poor to depict that because, after all it is just a language. I’d need a dead language to describe that so, let me put it in today’s terms. I define limited government as a government that restrains its powers to the only points it needs to control — defense, perhaps a safety net for those who absolutely need it but having it delivered appropriately and as well, a few key things that are otherwise thought of as minuscule except for in this sentence — and then, from there, returns the powers to both the people and their individual states. Or, perhaps better said, only is allowed to take so much from one person to give to another.

Interestingly in my mind, there are a few things I would say should not be considered under that banner of principles I just described. Appropriately, TARP and the Individual mandate–which two candidates, who are both front-runners according to preposterous people polling, endorsed and in one case signed into law — are not. Nor, is the president lying about issues and trying to gain politically–Bachmann, with her new Gingrich ploy and her old Perry Ploy. Of course, neither is endorsing TARP and mismanaging a crisis so bad, you have to blame it on Perry–Cain.

But who does that leave us with? Well, it’s simple: Rick Perry. The only candidate running as a limited-government candidate, with the stuff to prove it. He’s promised to overhaul Washington, just like he helped do in Texas and flatten our taxes like he did in Texas. He’s also promised to balance the budget, just like he did in Texas. Yet no one on the right who constantly complains about no leadership in Washington, D.C. who has the power to do so, is endorsing him. Mark Levin? Barely mentions him. Rush? Don’t get me started. Hannity? He praises Romney. Palin? She might endorse the guy that himself endorsed TARP, and the individual mandate. Even the owner of this bloody website somehow still hasn’t “officially endorsed” Rick Perry.

I don’t know, but y’all sound scared to me. I know I am not, thus why I’m working hard in the fight.

It has long been a preposterous notion assumed by the liberal Democrats and the liberal Republicans that forcing people to buy healthcare is “conservative,” or “meant to make people take personal responsibility”–that is, quite truly, just plain dumb.  The Individual Mandate is not conservative. Forcing people to do something if they simply breathe– especially something that does not affect anyone else other than themselves– is nothing more than a trick from the book of communism.

Newt Gingrich has said only an insider can fix Washington, D.C. He is an insider alright, but an insider isn’t the answer. If he is the answer, than so too is TARP and this monstrosity known as ‘the mandate.’ Mitt Romney–well, he’s Ted Kennedy with better hair and less probability to murder. And the last time I checked, Ted Kennedy did not exactly improve the lives of anyone.

Think about this if you have any questions concerning the individual mandate’s cons/pros: If I am the CEO of Comcast and I cut a deal to bring about a mandate from the federal government that all people pay for cable and no longer can receive Over-The-Air signals, would that be right? What if the rationale were “if more people buy this product, we’ll charge everyone less. After all, TV is a fundamental right and those who don’t have it are just free-riders. Come on-it’ll be great!”

Does that sound good? Or, perhaps, when put in a new context do we all see the asinine ideas of the federal government and all of its cronies?

It is time for the beltway to be dismantled and destroyed. 

Year by year, every member of congress gets a salary increase. I do not care about their wealth, but about the money they receive from my checkbook. In fact, I encourage their wealth! But not when they tell me “I need to pay my fair share.”

Some time ago, I was made aware about just how rich our congressional members are. I find it deplorable. Well, deplorable that they take a salary.

(R) Michael McCaul 294.21 million

(R) Darrel Issa 220.40 million

(D) John Kerry 193.07 million

(D) Jay Rockefeller 81.63 million

(D) Mark Warner $76.30 million

(D) Jared Polis $65.91 million

(D) Frank Lautenberg $55.07 million

(D) Richard Blumenthal $52.93 million

(D) Dianne Feinstein $45.39 million

(R) Vern Buchanan $44.21 million

(Sorry, forgot to source this–here’s the source:  http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.html)

Of this fancy little bunch of elites, three are Republicans. I’ve calculated it out and, approximately, their combined wealth is 1.129 billion dollars. To top it off, they’re all paid $177, 000 a year, approximately.

Consider this: $535 million dollars was “loaned” to Solyndra– a failed Solar-Energy company. The company goes bust, but the money from the tax payers is to be repaid last. Interestingly, it took ten people — the richest ten people, I might add — to equal $915 million. If $535 million was spent on that, there would be roughly $594 million dollars to spend on something else. Funny enough: Planned Parenthood’s funds from the government? $349 million. John, why are you so greedy? Pay your fair share? Please? I guess it isn’t so easy when it’s not someone else’s money. I’ve got an idea though: you sign the check for your buddy Jay Rockefeller, he signs yours, and you both give your money away to these companies to experiment with your money.

*crickets*

Thought so.

So, let’s calculate — at 150,00 dollars per year, how much money they’ve made off of you, per their years in congress.

(R) Michael McCaul 294.21 million ||  (2005) $1,050,000

(R) Darrel Issa 220.40 million || (2001) $1,650,000

(D) John Kerry 193.07 million ||  (1985) $4,050,000

(D) Jay Rockefeller 81.63 million || (1985) $4,050,000

(D) Mark Warner $76.30 million || (2009) $450000

(D) Jared Polis $65.91 million || (2009) $450,000

(D) Frank Lautenberg $55.07 million || (2003) $1,350,000

(D) Richard Blumenthal $52.93 million || $150,000

(D) Dianne Feinstein $45.39 million || (1992) $3,000,000

(R) Vern Buchanan $44.21 million || (2007) $750,000

This, of course, is a gross under estimate of how much they’ve made. I rounded it down, as they generally get increases that vary from year to year. The members from more recent years — or any year, really, –If you’d like, here is how much they’ve been making throughout the years: http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/payandperqs.htm. The last time anyone has made $150,000 as a congressman was 2002. (It has since increased to $174, 000) But, be assured, the top ten richest members in congress have made millions of dollars off of your dime. Especially given the insider trading. 

The best, however, does not end there. Although the pay for members of congress is rather large — and does include fancy benefits — certain members of congress get even more than that. The Speaker of the House, Majority Leader and the Minority Leader all make more than the $174,000 dollar amount. The Speaker makes $223,000 dollars, while both the Majority and Minority Leaders make $193,00 dollars. (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm)

Total 2011 budget for paying congressmen: $75,690,000

So, why is it they’re taking salaries again?

I do not think any of us really know. Interestingly, the only candidate to propose anything to do about this? The same candidate that has challenged Nancy Pelosi to a debate, offered a flat tax and ran his state for eleven years with massive amounts of jobs being created.

Yet, because he has a bit of trouble debating–he’s 12% in the polls at the moment, but climbing. (Of course, he’s running against some stiff competition though: Newt, who has endorsed both TARP and the individual mandate, which all conservatives love; Herman Cain, who does not exactly have great instincts when it comes to foreign policy, talks in third person and is looking to implement a VAT: http://www.therightscoop.com/herman-cain-implodes-at-the-journal-sentinel/;  and Mitt Romney who, much like Newt, endorsed TARP and even was lucky enough to implement ObamaCare before it was ObamaCare. )

I do not know why, or how, such outrageous salary benefits came to be or how such preposterous games in Washington, D.C. were implemented. I do know how they’ll end though, and that’s by electing Governor Rick Perry as President of the United States. 

I thought it would be nice to go over the top four candidates. This is, I suppose, an open thread.

How do you say, 999 in Cuban? 

After a troubling series of gaffes, highs and lows, Gloria Allred, sexual accusers, a bad economic plan and a failure to grasp foreign policy, Herman Cain is done.

“You, over there. I’m smarter than you.”

This entire fascination with Newt is going to end faster than the obsession with Cain’s train. Voters will accept one failure, and that might just be your baggage if you’re lucky Newt. The American people the most kindest, forgiving people in their natural way; but that does not mean they won’t count what you did against them. It, from there, becomes a game of “Trust, but verify.” Unfortunately, you were able to do well during the essay part of this test — the debates — but not on the actual questions to do with your record. You’ve supported an individual mandate (strike two), TARP (strike 3) and sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi (strike 4).

It isn’t your time, Newt. Nor should it ever be.

This is your last show, before you go. 

Ron, I respect and admire you for all that you have done–including serving our country. You supported Reagan’s challenge in 1976, and for that I commend you. Your economic policies are great. Unfortunately, the rest of what you’ve done and said, discounts you from being even remotely a credible candidate.

You’ve said Reagan was a terrible president, and admitted you’d let Iran have Nukes. Those two right there disqualifies you from the presidency, let alone the nomination.

What can you say about Mitt Romney? He’s not going to win and, if he does–he won’t win in the general.

So, who does that leave?

Tonight, Sarah Palin will be announcing her decision via Greta’s show at 10pm on Fox news.

It’s crunch time, and here are her choices:

Herman Cain: Supports Greenspan, TARP, no foreign policy knowledge, Cannot lead in a crisis–need I go on?

Newt Gingrich: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/11/newt-gingrich-no-conservative?page=0%2C0%2C0%2C1&utm_=

Mitt Romney: Hah!

Jon Huntsman, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Buddy Roemer: Oddly enough I think they have more of a shot than Mitt.

Rick Perry: Led Texas to prosperity, Bold Solutions and Bold Reforms, Sweeping Tort Reform, Strong Border Governor, No New Taxes, and plenty more.

Now, who do you think she’ll choose? Mitt Romney, of course. (sarcasm)

Nov. 15, 2011, Bettendorf, IA 

*NOTE: Gov. Perry sometimes deviates from prepared remarks

Thank you. It is great to be here at Schebler in Bettendorf, Iowa.

I want to say a special thanks to Jim Anderson, your president, for opening your facility to us, and letting us meet the hardworking men and women of this plant. And I am especially delighted to be joined by the governor of a nearby Midwestern state, Kansas governor Sam Brownback.

Governor Brownback not only has the perspective of a leader in America’s heartland, but was a United States Senator, where he had an up-close view of just how broken Washington is, and has witnessed Washington’s encroachment on the 10^th Amendment from both perspectives. He shares my desire for fundamental reform in Washington, and I am delighted to be joined by him today here in Iowa.

The issue this election is not whether Washington is broken, but how we go about fixing it. There are two approaches, and even my own party is split.

There are some who want to tinker with the status quo. They want to work within the current system to achieve marginal change. Then there are those who believe, as I do, that Washington is too broken to be fixed by tinkering on the margins.

I do not believe Washington needs a new coat of paint, it needs a complete overhaul. We need to uproot, tear down and rebuild Washington, D.C. and our federal institutions.

We should apply the wisdom of Solomon to Washington. Ecclesiastes, Chapter 3, says, “there is a time to plant and a time to uproot, there is a time to tear down and a time to build.”

It is time to tear down the monuments to bureaucratic failure, and in their place build a smaller, more efficient federal government that puts the American People first.

The Washington Insiders won’t address Beltway decay, they won’t try a totally new way, because they like things as they are.

The lobbyists make their living on protecting corporate loopholes, and securing earmarks for the special interests they represent.

The status quo is good to the Washington Insiders. It’s good to the overpaid bureaucrats. It’s good for the power-players who can trade favors to build fiefdoms of influence.

While the rest of America remains mired in the ruin caused by Washington’s out-of–touch, big government economic policies, Washington is doing fine.

In fact, the Washington metro area is now the most affluent metropolitan area in the country. That’s because all the lobbyists, contractors and over-paid czars and bureaucrats haven’t suffered one bit in the worst economy in 70 years. While Main Street’s windows have been boarded up, the cash continues to flow to Wall Street financiers and Beltway profiteers.

Let me ask you a question: if you found out the house you built had crumbling walls, faulty wiring, and a leaky roof, would you call in the original incompetent builder to fix it?

And if it was fundamentally flawed, would you add on to the same faulty structure, or would you tear it down, and re-build again with a totally new crew?

Our country’s foundation – the American people and the United States Constitution – is still strong.

It’s what the politicians and bureaucrats have built upon that foundation, on the backs of American taxpayers, that must be replaced and rebuilt.

Those who got us into this mess will not get us out. Those who increased the debt $4 trillion in three years cannot be trusted to bring in a new era of fiscal austerity. Those who made the economic crisis worse do not have the capacity to make it better.

In recent weeks our president has taken to pointing the finger of blame instead of taking responsibility. He has called us soft and lazy, and he has said Americans lack ambition and imagination.

Mr. President, Americans aren’t soft or lazy, and Americans do not lack ambition of imagination, Washington has failed us.

We need new leadership. We need a new builder. We need a Washington Outsider.

Unique to the Republican field, I have never been an establishment figure, have never served in Congress or part of an Administration, and have never been a paid lobbyist. My career has been that of a Washington Outsider.

Here is my plan to fix our three broken branches of government.

Part one of my plan is to reform the federal judiciary by ending life terms for unelected federal judges. Too many federal judges rule with impunity from the bench, and those who legislate from the bench should not be entitled to lifetime abuse of their judicial authority.

Under my plan, future appointees to the federal bench will not receive a lifetime appointment.

Part two involves deconstructing the permanent political class in the legislative branch. Congress is out of touch because Congressmen are overpaid, over-staffed and away from home too much. Americans have had enough.

It’s time to create a part-time Congress where their pay is cut in half, their office budgets are cut in half, and their time in Washington is cut in half.

And if they do not submit a budget that balances by 2020, as my plan calls for, we should cut their pay in half again.

And when I take office, we will work to freeze congressional and agency salaries until the budget is balanced.

We have a lot of well-intentioned members of Congress. But they have become creatures of Washington. They get paid more than three times the average American Family, and they have doubled their own budgets in the last decade.

They are completely detached from the people, who are struggling to get by, and can’t vote to raise their own pay.

Some have even abused the public’s trust, trading on inside information to pad their stock portfolios. Congress has proven it can’t be trusted to watch our money, and now its clear they can’t be trusted with theirs’.

Any Congressman or Senator that uses their insider knowledge to profit in the stock market ought to be sent to jail – period.

And my plan makes that clear. But in reality, they shouldn’t wait until we have a new president, they ought to pass a law right now that criminalizes Insider Trading in Congress, no ifs, ands or buts.

We send members of Congress to look out for America, not enrich themselves. But too often, they are taken captive by the Washington culture.

That’s why we need a part-time Congress. I say send them home to live under the laws they pass among the people they represent.

Further, we must change the spending culture in Congress.

No more bailouts of bankers, no more earmarks for pet projects, and no more spending beyond our means.

I will bring spending down to 18 percent of GDP, the average amount of the last 50 years. And I will fight in every corner of this country for a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution.

And two more points on spending: no longer will we prop up failed entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were at the heart of the economic collapse because of mortgage financing policies that gave false confidence to homebuyers who have now defaulted or are under water.

We will privatize Fannie and Freddie so politicians can no longer politicize them, and taxpayers will no longer be fleeced by them.

And lastly, we will put a permanent stop to federal funding of Planned Parenthood because our tax dollars should never be used in taking an innocent, unborn life.

The third part of my plan involves the dismantling and rebuilding of the permanent bureaucracy.

We will eliminate agencies that perform redundant functions. I will get rid of the Commerce Department, the Department of Education, and the Department of Energy.

We will downsize and re-task the EPA so it no longer torments job creators or gives an official stamp to phony science.

We will end the TSA’s harassment of law-abiding travelers and return transportation security to the private sector.

And we will restructure the behemoth that has become the Department of Homeland Security.

We will perform a full audit of the Federal Government, and there will be no sacred cows, including wasteful spending at the Department of Defense, where every dollar we spend should support our warfighters around the world.

We will put a moratorium on every pending federal regulation, and order a full audit of the last five years of new regulations, repealing those that are not affordable, effective or that kill jobs.

And we will say to every bureaucrat except our military and law enforcement: no salary increases until the federal budget is balanced. And because a president must lead by example, we should cut his salary in half until the budget is balanced.

Washington is so broken, Americans will accept nothing less than a complete overhaul of the way business is done in America.

Americans know there is a season for everything under the sun. And this is the season for tearing down and rebuilding again, for uprooting the broken branches of government in Washington, and building a new government that is smaller and more humble, so America can be stronger and freer again.

RickPerry.org

This is a bold plan. This comes from, of the credible candidates, the only one that did not support TARP; from the only candidate that leads the nation in job creation, and the only real leader running for president.

Ladies and Gents, consider this an open thread..

I wasn’t entirely surprised to see Newt Gingrich shine to the top, like a beacon in a dark storm. Aside from my Rick Perry bias, when Newt first entered he was actually my first choice. In fact, sometime around May of this year — before he had entered — I was championing his candidacy, because he illuminated a so-far mum field. But of course, like most candidates, he lost my support as soon as I had learned about his questionable past.

Don’t get me wrong: Newt’s great on a lot of issues. He has ideas, which is always nice– but ideas are nonetheless not enough to allow us to forget fact. (I do not believe he is Winston Churchill, who was largely forgiven for things because he had so many grand ideas) Besides the many odd things Newt has done — like, for instance, sat on a couch with Pelosi or gone on vacation during the first week of campaigning– one of the worst is supporting the individual mandate. Unfortunately, that right there is the end-all for Newt’s candidacy.

Ironically enough, the same day he is surging is the same day his would-be presidency begins to unravel. Sad enough for Gingrich: if he had not all those years ago started the fire and endorsed an individual mandate, he would be secure and able to keep ObamaCare on the table–but no, it has to be off the table if he’s the nominee. True that unlike Mitt he did not implement it–but he certainly did endorse it. And should the individual mandate be struck down he, much like Mitt, will be trapped in an isolated-cage chock-full of ‘unconstitutional candidates.’

Mark my words: If Newt’s the nominee, there will be some serious problems with this issue.