Are We Electing a Pastor in Chief?

When Governor Perry dropped out of the race on Thursday and endorsed Newt Gingrich, he had this to say:

“Newt is not perfect, but who among us is? There is forgiveness for those who seek God, and I believe in the power of redemption.”

Who could argue with that, especially those of us who are Christians? Well, forgiveness isn't really the issue. Newt has not wronged me or most who will read this. We have not personally met him or anyone in his family and his past marital infidelities have not personally affected us. There was no need for him to ask for your forgiveness or mine. Certainly, just as when a pebble is dropped into a pond and there is an ever widening circle of ripples, Newt's adultery and associated bad behavior affected many, many people in his life, so it is likely that there are many people he should have begged for forgiveness when he came to the point in his life where he had a religious conversion (2009) and repented of his former misdeeds.

Pastor John MacArthur explains the difference between a mere apology and repentance:

"Genuine repentance always involves a confession of wrongdoing and a willingness to make things right. An apology often takes the form of an excuse. 

"The word apology comes from the Greek apologia, which literally means "a speech in defense of." Apologies are often nothing more than self-defense: "I'm sorry if you took offense, but . . ." 

"Genuine repentance is properly expressed in an admission of wrongdoing and a plea for forgiveness: "It was unthoughtful of me to say that. Will you forgive me?"
Be wary of using merely apologetic language in place of genuine repentance."

For what it's worth, wife #2 in this sordid saga, Marianne, has said that she is still waiting for an apology from Newt.

Gingrich told the crowd at the S. Carolina debate on Thursday, “Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I had in that period who knew us said the story is false." He said this in response to CNN moderator John King's question about the "open marriage" allegations Marianne leveled against him in her Nightline interview.

And here's where we get to the distinction between "presidential candidate Newt" versus "husband Newt."  Obviously, in almost any divorce situation, there will be a certain amount of 'he said, she said.' The conversation about whether Newt asked his wife for an open marriage was most certainly not made in the company of "every personal friend" Newt is hiding behind in his denial, so his denials are not credible, unless, based upon Gingrich's reputation and trustworthiness, we believe him to be a truthful person. The same goes for Mariannes allegations.

And therein lies the crux of the problem. Newt tells us he's a changed man. He tells us he's had a religious conversion. He tells us that we can believe what he says. Only what he says seems to change from year to year and even week to week and he demonstrates behavior that is inconsistent with the devout Catholic he proclaims to be.

So it's not a matter of whether we forgive Newt. It's a matter of whether we trust him.

While I'd like to take him at his word and I ardently hope for his sake and the sake of his family that his repentance and conversion are sincere, I have serious suspicions that the New Newt has much in common with the Old Newt.

I have previously documented Newt's flip-flops in recent years (sometimes within the same week) on stem cell research and when life begins and on climate change. Here are a few more:

• Paul Ryan's budget plan
• Health insurance mandate
• No fly zone in Libya
• Criminal court trials for suspected terrorists 
• Publicly criticizing Freddie/Fannie while personally profiting as a lobbyist historian
• Endorsing liberal Dede Scozzafava

It's not being uncharitable or judgmental to ask why Newt has flip-flopped so often (and so quickly) on so many important issues in recent years. Francis Beckwith, a Catholic professor (and admirer of Gingrich) wrote that he would not endorse him for president. Though he believes that Newt's conversion is sincere, he says his Catholic doctrine teaches that,

"...absolution of sins does not eradicate all the effects and consequences of those sins on the shaping of one’s character. This requires ongoing conversion, including detaching oneself from those things that may provide an occasion for sin. 

"It seems to me that a man whose sins arose as a consequence of the pursuit of political power and the unwise use of it after he became Speaker of the House should not be seeking the most powerful office in the world."

Which brings me back around to Marianne. While the CNN debate made for a good show and we all enjoyed watching Newt gnaw off John King's shin, Newt's actual words betrayed a man who has an ugly underbelly. As he was finishing up King's shin and moving up to his kneecap, he said this:

"Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine."

For whatever reason, Newt chose not to acknowledge that he was the one who caused the "painful things." He seems to place his adulterous affairs in the same category as losing a loved one to cancer or having a child with a disability.  To make it worse, he rips CNN for using "trash like that" in a presidential debate.

Bob Walker, Gingrich's senior political adviser said in advance of Marianne's interview, “That was a very bitter divorce, and you’re talking about somebody who is still, probably, very bitter.”

I don't know what kind of religious counsel Newt is receiving, but the fact that a woman he was married to for 18-years is still so bitter all these years later as a result of his sin against her should cause him great sorrow. As John MacArthur said, true repentance includes "confession of wrongdoing and a willingness to make things right." Instead, Newt lashes out and refers to her story as "trash like that" to level a blow against moderator John King and gain the approval of the crowd. There is no cause for cheering and scoring points when discussing adultery and the death of a marriage.

Doug Wilson, perhaps said it best (the entire blog post is well worth reading) when describing Newt's response to King:

"Newt, in bellicose mode, wasn't having any and said to him, on the contrary, "your network decided to lead off with this question, and it was Disgraceful, Appalling, Reprehensible," or whatever words of high dudgeon he used. "How dare you bring moral indignation into a presidential debate! I'll show you moral indignation." The audience was at first agape, and then it roared to its feet. Is he not whacking a liberal? What's not to like? Despicable is not serial adultery. Despicable is asking about it."

For many, these serious character issues will not be a problem. For me, it's a problem. I want a president who I can reasonably believe will do what he promises to do. One who our allies believe they can trust. Is it too much to ask for a man of character in 2012, or is that an outdated notion? When the history of the next presidency is written, will it tell the story of another Lyndon B. Johnson, or will we elect a Reagan?

Peggy Noonan, in an essay about President Reagan, for whom she was a speechwriter, said this:

"In a president, character is everything. A president doesn't have to be brilliant; Harry Truman wasn't brilliant, and he helped save Western Europe from Stalin. He doesn't have to be clever; you can hire clever. White Houses are always full of quick-witted people with ready advice on how to flip a senator or implement a strategy. You can hire pragmatic, and you can buy and bring in policy wonks. 

"But you can't buy courage and decency, you can't rent a strong moral sense. A president must bring those things with him. If he does, they will give meaning and animation to the great practical requirement of the presidency: He must know why he's there and what he wants to do. He has to have thought it through. He needs to have, in that much maligned word, but a good one nontheless, a vision of the future he wishes to create. This is a function of thinking, of the mind, the brain. But a vision is worth little if a president doesn't have the character--the courage and heart--to see it through...."

We are the greatest country in the world. We're not electing a Pastor in Chief, but moral character is an important element in leadership. Moral failure in a president will not only damage the Republican party for years to come, it will demoralize and harm the country I love. Newt is not a risk worth taking.

Cross-posted at RedState

Instead of a debate, Mitt and Newt should settle this like men

I would like to suggest a good, old-fashioned dance competition. Last man standing wins the delegates from Guam.

Personalize funny videos and birthday eCards at JibJab!

Newt's Romp on the Green Couch with John Kerry

"Because you want the government to pay for it with a great big tax credit. If it's big enough to do what you say, it's actually going to be more expensive than having the private sector go out and capitalize it in the private market....You want the research, you want the tax credit. That's a government solution." Sen. John Kerry

[Entire debate]

[Newt debate clips]

Four years ago, Sen. John Kerry and House Speaker Newt Gingrich took to the podiums at NYU's Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service to have an unstructured debate about solving the environmental crisis. Newt began by stating that there was a consensus in the scientific community that the earth was getting warmer and that human activity was contributing to that warming, but rejected the idea that we are headed for an immediate catastrophe.

Still, he felt it was important enough that the government needed to get involved:

"So, it is a problem. We should address it. And we should address it very actively."

He proposed what he thinks are "economic" solutions:

"[23:12] And I have to start with the idea we have an absolute requirement as a human race to be committed to economic growth. We also have a requirement, if you're going to be realistic about the environment, to be committed to economic growth in China and India, which means, any serious strategy has to be thinking through what would green development look like in Africa? And what would a green economy look like in India and China? And for that to happen, I would argue, that we have to have a very strong commitment to finding new incentives, to use new science and new technology, and to maximize the rate of innovation. Because you would actually like - the Chinese are going to have cars. The question is, could we accelerate the development of hydrogen cars so the cars they have don't add to carbon loading?" [emphasis added]

He then takes a moment to impress the intelligentsia in the room at NYU with his superior intellect:

"[23:17] So the challenge to us to lead the world, and I agree entirely with whatever criticism the Senator wants to make in general about the absence of American leadership. I'm not gonna stand up here and defend our failure to lead. I am going to say our leadership should start with science, technology, entrepreneurship, and that we should focus on developing new approaches...."

No kidding...that was actually Newt and not John Kerry and not Barack Obama. We must ask if this will be our next Green President's theme as he jets off to all those UN-type environmental justice conferences. Or has he repented of bashing his country among the liberal elite?

To be fair to Newt, he gives a valiant argument against carbon cap and trade. No one would come away from this debate with any inkling that he would want to impose this on the American people. That doesn't mean he doesn't favor other government solutions for dealing with his vision of our "green" future:

"[49:18] So I start with, I want a really big solution. I believe a really big solution has to mean very rapid change. And his is a core argument. I'm not talking about a laissez-faire market. I'm in the Alexander Hamilton/Theodore Roosevelt model. I'm for an incentivized market where, for example, we have very substantial tax credits for the auto industry to convert over to dramatically better cars. We have a very substantial tax credit to trade in the oldest and most polluting of cars. We have a very significant tax credit to go to a clean coal technology. Because if you don't help provide the capital - the morning you provide he incentives, there will be 50,000 entrepreneurs trying to figure out how to get the money. The morning you try to do it by regulation, there will be 50,000 entrepreneurs hiring a lawyer to fight you. It's a fundamentally different model."

He goes on to talk about 20-year tax credits for wind farms and paying to retrofit gas stations for E-85, ethanol to dramatically decrease "carbon loading." Then he displays an astounding measure of cognitive dissonance:

"[53:27] We're arguing over whether bureaucracy is a better way to be urgent or whether science and technology translated by entrepreneurs into products is a better way to be urgent. And I would argue, most of American history argues, that the market can move faster than a bureaucracy to provide solutions if you incentivize the market."

Aside from this sounding eerily like Obama's first three years in office, throwing around the word "market" when you're proposing a government subsidy to pick winners and losers is completely bipolar. Henry Hazlitt, in his concise manual, Economics in One Lesson, explained it this way:

"It is obvious in the case of a subsidy that the taxpayers must lose precisely as much as the X industry gains. It should be equally clear that, as a consequence, other industries must lose what the X industry gains. They must pay part of the taxes that are used to support the X industry. And customers, because they are taxed to support the X industry, will have that much less income left with which to buy other things. The result must be that other industries on the average must be smaller than otherwise in order that the X industry may be larger" (p.101).

Kerry recognized Newt's hypocrisy and rightly called him out on it. If you watch the entire debate, Kerry seems to have the upper hand throughout. Newt is subdued and conciliatory. At one point Newt boasted,

"[1:19:15] And when I was speaker, I think it's fair to say, that on things, that on a whole range of biodiversity issues, I intervened again and again on the side of the environment."

Kerry replied, "Absolutely!" and the room erupted in applause.

John Hinderaker over at the Powerline blog has an interesting comment about Newt's mild-mannered performance:

"Gingrich can be a fire-eater before a friendly audience, but he has a history of turning conciliatory when he has to deal with actual Democrats. One recalls his embarrassing tributes to President Clinton during the days when Clinton was eating Gingrich’s lunch in budget negotiations. Like most conservatives, I am fond of Newt and will always be grateful for his leadership in the years leading up to the 1994 GOP takeover of the House, and in the early aftermath of that takeover. But there is little in Newt’s record to suggest that he would be the most effective conservative standard-bearer in a presidential election."

More important, we just can't say with any confidence that he would be willing to dismantle the massive administrative state that currently rules our country. Indeed, he may just rearrange the deck chairs.

The Club for Growth has excellent White Papers on all the presidential candidates. While they rightly compliment Newt on many of his accomplishments as House Speaker, they note his propensity for promoting his pet projects with tax credits:

"Gingrich has an affinity – all too common even among conservative politicians – for gimmicky, special interest tax incentives that empower politicians to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. His favorite device is the tax credit.

In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Gingrich proposed a six month, $1,000-per person tax credit for 50 percent of the cost of personal travel more than 100 miles from one’s home. The idea sounds nice, but just as Cash for Clunkers only expedited the purchase of cars people were going to buy anyway (at non-car buying taxpayers’ expense), Gingrich’s Cash for Getaways would only have subsidized trips people were going to make anyway, enabling a transfer payment to frequent travelers from families without the time or inclination to travel. This proposal would also require more government to administer and oversee compliance. It is not a fiscally conservative policy. While perhaps not a large issue in itself, this is indicative of an approach Gingrich has frequently advocated. At times he has sponsored bills or issued proposals to do the following:

• A tax credit for the purchase of home computers used for educational or professional purposes.
• A $1,000 tax credit for low-income first-time homebuyers.
• Refundable tax credits for auto companies for the cost of flex-fuels cars, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and the development of hydrogen cars.
• Tax credits to encourage investment in biofuels and “renewable forms of energy.”
• A permanent 50 percent tax credit for research and development, or at least for “companies that are willing to take on government's ‘grand challenges’ (for example, the first inhabitable moon base).”
• A special business tax credit for “corporations that fund basic research in science and technology at our nation's universities.”

Along with these gimmicky tax proposals, Gingrich voted for at least one tax increase during his time in Congress. In 1984, he supported a $50 billion tax bill that closed $15 billion in loopholes, eliminated a tax break on interest income, increased cigarette taxes, and raised taxes on distilled liquor. "

Again, these tax gimmicks are not conservative, free market solutions, but transfers of wealth from one group to another.

Much of Gingrich's appeal is based upon his performance in the debates and his supposedly superior intellect. It's become such a mantra that I fear conservatives are becoming the new Obama Girls. Having above-average debate skills is a job requirement for a candidate. Technically, it's not in the job description for the Commander in Chief. While strong debate performances are a necessary evil in this age, let's not fool ourselves into believing that the best spokesmodel will be the best president while ignoring the record. The Democrats did that last time around and it didn't turn out so well.

Cross-posted at RedState

Newt's Solyndra

Obama's Blueprint for a Clean Energy Future:

"Maintaining our leadership in research and development is critical to winning the future and deploying innovative technologies that will create quality jobs and move towards clean energy economy that reduces our reliance on oil. But as we aspire to achieve new breakthroughs – a battery that will take a car 300 miles on a single charge or a way to turn sunlight into fuel like gasoline, we area already beginning to see how our investments in the future are changing the game today. Through the Recovery Act, the Administration has invested in a host of clean energy programs and ultimately supported thousands of projects across the country targeted at the demonstration of clean energy projects in every state."

 Newt's 21st Century Contract with America:

"Today, we are on the cusp of an explosion of new science that will create new opportunities in health, agriculture, energy, and materials technology.Breakthroughs in brain science, in particular, will open up enormous opportunities for cures and treatments for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, autism, mental illness and learning disabilities. The question in the twenty-first century is whether we reform our system so we can educate, regulate, and invest in a way that allows us to continue to be at the forefront of innovation....

 "...Furthermore, government agencies such as the National Institutes for Heath have the opportunity to use scientific research funding today in a way that will avert massive costs and human suffering in the future.

"As Americans now live longer than ever, one of the greatest fiscal threats in health is the rising cost of treating Alzheimer’s patients. The current estimate is that the combined public and private cost of Alzheimer’s between today to 2050 will be $20 trillion. That is one and a half times the current total federal debt. But a smart emphasis on brain science and innovation today can change this projection for the better..

"...While this topic may initially seem unusual in a proposed 21st Century Contract with America, I look forward to laying out my case of why I believe that brain science will soon be a major part of planning for better health and longer lives with greater independence and lower costs to the federal and state governments. It will also be an area in which American leadership could lead to an enormous number of new American jobs providing services for the entire world."

Stimulus for green jobs to solve the energy crisis, stimulus for healthcare jobs to solve the Alzheimer's crisis. Six of one, half dozen of the other. 


The former Speaker has a habit of picking favored projects for incentives. 


The Club for Growth's Presidential White Paper on Gingrich documents his accomplishments as a solid conservative but also notes his penchant for big government meddling when it seems to be politically expedient or it benefits one of his pet projects. They conclude: 

"Unfortunately, the problems in Speaker Gingrich’s record are frequent enough and serious enough to give pause. On two of the most important recent issues that confronted limited government conservatives (creating the new budget busting Medicare drug entitlement, and the Wall Street bailout), Gingrich was on the wrong side. His advocacy of an individual health care mandate is problematic. His penchant for tinkering with rewards for favored industries and outcomes shows a troubling willingness to use federal power to coerce taxpayers into his preferred direction. And his occasional hostility toward conservatives who do not share his desire to support liberal Republicans or to compromise on matters of principle is worrisome."

While Newt has apparently repented of his romp on the couch with Princess Nancy, there are plenty of other issues he's been on the wrong side of, some of them recently. Though he's not the flip-flopper Romney is, Gingrich is not exactly the model of consistency. He preaches smaller government while promoting big government programs that he personally approves up. He talks a good game and debates well, but we must understand that his inconsistency points to a philosophy rooted in compromise and political expediency. 

CNN GOP Debate

Monday's GOP debate, hosted by CNN, was largely an exercise in frustration and futility.  The format allowed each candidate 30 seconds to answer each question - hardly sufficient to say much more than, "Well, first, I'd like to say..." By the time the candidate would get those words out, moderator John King would start grunting and wouldn't stop until the candidate had concluded the answer.  It was irritating and distracting.  And weird.  King needs more training as a moderator.  I suggest a couple years on the spelling bee circuit before they let him anywhere near a high-profile debate again.  


I was also frustrated by the "11th Commandment" pact the candidates had apparently agreed to prior to the debate.  By that, I mean Reagan's famous 11th Commandment never to speak ill of a fellow Republican.   Aside from the fact that even Reagan didn't follow the Commandment religiously, this was a primary debate.  The idea is for candidates to convince voters to choose them and not their opponents.  While it's great to criticize Obama and his policies, it's also important to debate important issues within the Republican party.  There are important differences between the candidates, both in philosophy and governing history, and those issues need to be addressed and debated.  Ignoring the elephant (pun intended!) in the room just makes it highly likely that the candidate with the most money and the highest name recognition will win the nomination - Mitt Romney.  But by default, rather than on the merit of his ideas, beliefs, and record.    


Here's my assessment (in no particular order) of the candidates' performances on Monday night:


Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)  - Rep. Bachmann took the opportunity to announce that she had filed the paperwork to run for president.  Like Sarah Palin, some on the Left have made a sport of turning her into a bizarre caricature. In this debate, she was able to show 3.162 million viewers  (up 400% from CNN's normal audience) that she is warm, smart, determined,  and can play with the big boys.  Her story of five natural children and 23 foster kids shows that her lectures and policies relating to family values are more than cerebral ponderings and book knowledge.  She's walked the walk and has skin in the game.  I think she was a big winner, especially among those who had not heard of her and those who had only heard her taken out of context. 


Gov. Mitt Romney - Governor Romney was a winner in the sense that he didn't lose any ground.  He "looked" presidential and managed to stay above the fray.  The other candidates refused to attack or even engage him on his state-mandated healthcare program in MA and his flip-flop on abortion.  He must have breathed a huge sigh of relief.  I was irritated that he obfuscated on several answers, seeming to remain just vague enough that he could back away from his answer and later say, "That's not what I meant."  For example, moderator John King could not pin Romney down on whether or not the debt ceiling should be raised.  He said, 

"I believe we will not raise the debt ceiling unless the president is finally, finally willing to be a leader on the issue the American people care about."  

So, in other words, we won't raise the debt ceiling unless we will.  Got that?  



Gov. Tim Pawlenty - Gov. Pawlenty had some good moments, but much of it was overshadowed by the completely awkward confrontation with moderator John King.  King asked, cajoled, even BEGGED Pawlenty to criticize Romney about what Pawlenty had - just the night before - referred to as "Obamneycare."  As Romney looked on , Pawlenty punted.  He went after Obama instead, refusing to lay a hand, or even a sharp adjective on Romney.   Pawlenty has said over and over again on the talk show circuit that he can be nice, but as a former hockey player, is willing to "throw a sharp elbow" when needed.  It was needed at this debate and he came off as more of a figure skater than hockey player. Would he do the same in a debate with Obama staring him down?  He left me with that question. 


Rick Santorum -   I honestly don't know there is so little enthusiasm for this man.  He gets it.  He can articulate the values of the Tea Party and he voted that way consistently when he was in the Senate.  When he talks about foreign policy,  he sounds like the adult in the room. And no one in the race is a more solid social conservative.  During the debate, he was passionate about the Constitution and his love for this country and confidence in the American people.  I just don't agree with detractors who say he is "boring."  


Ron Paul - I didn't hear all of what he said, as I learned to tune out that frequency of whining when the boys were little.  Really, he didn't belong on that stage.  He's a Libertarian, not a Republican.  Oh, he runs on the Republican ticket and he often votes with the GOP, but you won't find the issues he's most passionate about and for which the loons flock to him  anywhere in the GOP platform (ending the Federal Reserve,  isolationist foreign policy, legalizing drugs).   During the debate, Paul alternated between populist (to a certain segment that he appeals to) slogans and monetary mumbo jumbo that almost no one understands:

"And when you have a reserve currency of the world and you abuse it, you export money. That becomes the main export so it goes with the money."

 I would venture to say that the vast majority of Americans have no idea what that means.  I have no idea what it means.  If you fail to communicate, you can't win.  That, in addition to his many other issues. 


Newt Gingrich - His demeanor was more "grumpy old man" than elder statesman.  In fact, he may have overtaken Ron Paul in this category.  I don't think he cracked a smile the entire evening.   He's clearly a very intelligent man, knows his facts, has been around a long time.  We know because he reminds us. Constantly.  He gave some of the best answers of the night, including those on immigration and appointing Muslims to his cabinet.  However, he's got so much baggage it's hard to discern what is fact and what is campaign fiction with this man. 


Herman Cain - I like Herman Cain.  I enjoy listening to him, I love his story of realizing the American Dream and I really want to like him more. But I fear there is little more to him than slogans, acronyms and 5-point plans.  Most of his answers in the debate started with, "We have to work on the right problem."  True enough, but not enough.  He usually followed up with a 3-point plan represented by an acronym.  To me, it came across as simplistic rather than studied.  He also has still not articulated a foreign policy, instead, continuing to insist that he cannot give his opinion until he has all the intelligence at his disposal.  This is a very amateurish policy and not one I wish to see in a presidential candidate.   I want to like him more, but I feel like it would be foolish to do so.  


So what did you think?

March 30, 2011

 "The GOP can afford to lose 23 votes"

This doesn't bode well for those who are looking for serious, meaningful budget cuts.  If things move in this direction it will tell us that the House leadership has more in common with the Democrats than with the conservative block in the House and the Tea Party.  

House Republican leaders turn to moderate Democrats for budget deal - The Washington Post: 

"Having difficulty finding consensus within their own ranks, House Republican leaders have begun courting moderate Democrats on several key fiscal issues, including a deal to avoid a government shutdown at the end of next week...

...House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) met with a conservative bloc of Democrats to discuss potential common ground on the budget and other pressing fiscal issues.

Rep. Heath Shuler (N.C.), a centrist Democratic leader, said McCarthy did not specifically ask for their votes on any legislation, saying that the conversation was taking place at “10,000 feet” and that the Republican was “feeling us out.”
The Democrats left the meeting knowing that they could provide the decisive votes, Shuler said, a role they are willing to play...

...It’s just not cutting spending. There are a number of limitations that passed on the floor of the House” that must be addressed, Boehner said. Those provisions have created a large hurdle for securing a final deal. Republican aides have said the provisions and the overall cost cutting are linked: The fewer that are attached to the bill, the bigger the cuts Republicans will seek...

...With 241 Republicans, GOP leaders can afford to lose 23 GOP votes before needing Democratic help. That’s why McCarthy reached out to leaders of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of centrist Democrats — such as Shuler — from conservative-leaning districts.

“John Boehner can’t get something done without us,” [Steny] Hoyer said Tuesday."

~~~~~ 

Cold Equations has a handy guide to countries in the Middle East and N. Africa.  So, if you're the brutal dictator of one of these countries, you can make better informed decisions about your policies.  

Country	Prior relations with the US	Nuclear weapons program	US treatment of country	Status of leader
Egypt	Allied	Not significant	Pressured ally to step down	Permanent vacation
Libya	Moderately warm lately, despite past difficulties	Abandoned under US pressure	Bombs away	Probably on his way out
Syria	Strained to hostile	Not a lot of info, probably has some program	Mild economic sanctions	Life is sweet
Iran	"America is the Great Satan"	Probably going to join the nuclear club soon	Ineffectual, intermittent saber-rattling	Happy as a clam
North Korea	Hostile	Has some nukes, ICBMs are in the works	Ineffectual sanctions, endless talks, unkind portrayal in 2004 movie "Team America: World Police"	You know what sucks about being Kim Il-Jong? Nothing.

~~~~~

Speaking of the "religion of peace"...


Two Christians killed, churches burned: extremists respond to Florida Koran burning - Asia News: 

"Two believers killed, churches attacked, copies of the Bible burned: the Christian community in Pakistan is once again the victim of violence by Islamic fundamentalists, who have targeted places of worship in the country. The extremist violence was triggered by the insane act - repeatedly condemned by Christians in Pakistan and India – of the pastor Wayne Sapp, who last March 20, in Florida burned a Koran under the supervision of the evangelical preacher Terry Jones."

Spero News reports:

 "Msgr. Anthony Rufin, Bishop of Islamabad / Rawalpindi, strongly condemns the latest attack on the Christian community of Pakistan and once again distances the church from the burning of the Koran in the United States. 'We have already explained – says the prelate - we are Pakistani Christians, not Americans. We have repeatedly reiterated that we should not be equated to the Americans. '

"The prelate calls to take urgent action and anticipates the intention to arrange a meeting with Christian leaders, from the Anglican Church and other Protestant denominations to examine the current situation 'of minorities. The young Pakistani Christians, in fact, do not see any reason for hope in the future."

~~~~~

Former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson is featured in the latest ad by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List.  Facts about Planned Parenthood from the ad:

• Planned Parenthood is Americas largest abortion provider
• 98% of their services for pregnant women are abortions
• Planned Parenthood receives $360 million in taxpayer money every year

~~~~~

Also from the "this makes me sick" file, Chris Wallace interviewed Newt Gingrich on Sunday and questioned him about his apparent hypocrisy on moral issues.  Wallace noted that at the same time Gingrich was leading the charge for President Clinton's impeachment, Gingrich himself was cheating on his second wife with his current wife, Calista (Gingrich's first marriage also ended as a result of his infidelity).   Here is part of the exchange:

 WALLACE: There is something else that bothers people. You were leading the charge to push Bill Clinton from office for lying about an affair and yes, he lied in a court proceeding, in a deposition, where he was sworn to tell the truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth. At the same time, you were leading that charge, you were having an affair. Isn’t that hypocrisy?

GINGRICH: No. Look, obviously it’s complex and obviously I wasn’t doing things to be proud of. On the other hand, what I said clearly — and I knew this in part going through a divorce. I had been in depositions. I had been in situations where you had to swear to tell the truth. I understood that in a federal court, in a case in front of a federal judge, to commit a felony, which is what he did, perjury was a felony. The question I raised was simple: should a president of the united states be above the law? [...]

WALLACE: I’ll ask you man-to-man. did you think to yourself I’m living in a really glass house? Maybe I shouldn’t be throwing stones?

GINGRICH: No. I thought to myself if I cannot do what I have to do as a public leader, I would have resigned.

Well that explains it perfectly!!  Gingrich's experience in divorce court gave him the special knowledge and understanding that was essential in the impeachment process.  What would the nation have done without a cheater and philanderer at the helm in the House that year?  Watch the slimy interview for yourself if you can stand it:

~~~~~

Congressman West Proposes Defense Spending Cuts: 

"Congressman Allen West (FL-22) will introduce today three separate pieces of legislation to cut wasteful defense spending.  The legislation will be voted on by American citizens through the YouCut project.

“The Federal Government has a spending problem,” West said. “While the Democrats continue to propose to add trillions of dollars in new spending and new taxes, I am keeping my promise to my constituents to responsibly cut government spending in order to get the American Fiscal House back in order.   

As I have stated, all government programs must be thoroughly scrutinized, including the Department of Defense. After serving 22 years in the United States Army, I am aware of areas where saving money is very possible.  These cuts are aimed at wasteful Defense Department spending and will not affect the overall mission of our men and women in uniform in protecting our national security.”

West spoke to a group of bloggers at CPAC last month and when the former Army Lt. Col. was asked whether cuts in defense spending were on the table, he answered that there was definitely wasteful spending to be cut and said, "I know where the bodies are buried."  I believe him!


Here's a chart from the CATO Institute showing per capita defense spending for the U.S. and other NATO countries.  Let's hope West can get some of his proposed cuts through. 

~~~~~

Oh, Lebron!!  First, props to the Cavs for their 102-90 victory over the Miami Heat.

------------->>>(AARON JOSEFCZYK, REUTERS) <<<-------------

Also, props to my cousin for some great pics!!

LeBron James was missing from the player introductions (and the accompanying boos from Cavs fans).  He said he was "in the bathroom."  Uh huh.