Viewing 1 - 9 out of 24 Blogs.

Page:  1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  Last >>

Dear FairTax supporters,

Our cause continues to gather steam in hometown America—while, with smoke in the air, Congress fiddles.

Could it be more obvious that we will have to save the nation from our own elected officials and candidates?

Retirement investments, savings and college education accounts are evaporating as the stock market falls—while at the same time leading economists predict that trillions of dollars can and will flow into the United States economy after enactment of the FairTax.

Candidate Obama signals a desire to raise the amount of money the government takes from the growth of savings and investments while the country has the lowest savings rate since the Great Depression.

With gasoline, food prices and inflation rapidly escalating and housing values falling, former Senator and John McCain economic adviser, Phil Gramm, says we’re all just a nation of “whiners” and the economy is really just fine.

Candidate McCain has changed his earlier Iowa tune and now tells audiences that the FairTax is not the answer.

Congress and the White House borrow $165 billion from other nations to finance taxpayer rebate checks to stimulate the American economy and ignore the wasted $265 billion annual cost of citizens and businesses preparing income tax returns.

Meanwhile, the powerful Chairman of the House Committee on Ways & Means, Charles Rangel, practices politics as usual and solicits big business for big contributions to his Charles Rangel Center in New York City—and with a wink and a nod Washington adds more loopholes and tax gimmicks for favored interests.

The United Nations concluded this week that three-quarters of the reason for higher food prices can be traced back to turning agriculture to bio-fuel production—here in the U.S. it is another recent ham-handed tax break by the meddling Ways & Means Committee.

While leaders ignore the crisis, citizens work for a FairTax solution

While "leaders" turn a deaf ear to our destructive tax system or offer medicine that will worsen the economic downturn, hometown America is quietly and steadily moving us toward the FairTax.

Hundreds of people recently turned out for a FairTax seminar in Georgia designed to equip average citizens with the means to spread the word to fellow Americans and wake up elected officials.

The Postal Workers Union is considering embracing the FairTax at its national convention.

In Oklahoma, all but one member of the Congressional delegation have co-sponsored FairTax legislation because of the determined and relentless work of local advocates.

A documentary team from Georgia is traveling the nation recording the determined but under-financed FairTax movement.

XM Satellite Radio just featured FairTax.org on "Open Road," Channel 171, heard across the country and a favorite of long-haul truckers. Host Dave Nemo enthusiastically added the FairTax web link to his home page. Other radio hosts from Michigan, Virginia, California, Florida, Arizona, Colorado and elsewhere and the always popular Neal Boortz and Herman Cain continue to support the issue with their audiences.

Candidates for Congress in West Virginia, Florida, Georgia, Colorado, Arizona and elsewhere have embraced the FairTax.

At kitchen tables across the country FairTaxers are finding their own ways to push the movement--from YouTube and MySpace videos to letters to the editor to friendly conversations with neighbors.

Keep the faith—and keep the FairTax movement growing!

It's our nation and we'll have to save it from the original bad idea of an income tax that just keeps getting worse at the hands of tax lobbyists and the corrupted Congressional tax writing process.

Now is the time for all citizens to band together and make the case for the FairTax. Tell your newspaper editor, tell your elected officials and tell your friends, neighbors and colleagues. Our country, our children and our future depend on this common sense solution—and it could not be more needed than right now.

For every FairTaxer who writes a letter to Congress, goes to a Town Hall meeting, talks with a candidate, writes to the local newspaper, wears the FairTax cap or proudly displays the FairTax window sticker—thank you!

For those who feel that someone else will get it done—wake up and smell the coffee because this lifeboat needs your oar. Our progress is slow but steady. Recruit one more FairTaxer and move us forward one more step at a time. Together we can make it come true.

Sincerely,

Ken Hoagland

Communications Director

Tags: Fair Tax Wevoteright

The Path to Becoming a Conservative

Dear Reader,

I don’t remember The Reagan Revolution of 1980. I was six at the time and politics didn’t have a whole lot of meaning for a kid interested in exploring, riding my bike, and getting into a whole lot of mischief. I do remember Reagan’s reelection in 1984. I asked my father who he was voting for?

“Reagan,” he replied.

My mother, a life long Democrat, was aghast. “He’s going to start a war; he’s going to blow up the world.”

All I knew at the time was that The Soviets were the enemy and I liked a guy who could stand up to bullies both personally and politically. A Republican was born in that fleeting moment.

As the years passed and I became more educated on the subject, I realized there was a reason why I leaned this way. The ideas of fiscal responsibility, a strong military, secure borders were just a few issues that were the pillars of my political opinion. One party advocated this; the other advocated appeasement and social anarchy.

The 1990’s filled me with disgust as Bill Clinton took office. I couldn’t believe Bush The elder had been defeated to this licentious womanizer and his band of worthless idiots. 1994 offered me some hope as Newt and company were voted in and did some great work. I voted for Dole in 1996 and watched in disbelief as the liar, philander, and felon was reelected. However, the reality was I was bogged down in college at the time and politics was an obsession I often didn’t have time for.

In 2000, a very good friend called me up. We chatted for a little while and the conversation took a turn to politics as Bush and Gore battled nationally for the right to be president. My friend, a former Republican, had taken a drastic turn in his political beliefs. I always attributed it to the liberally biased college we attended (SDSU) at the time. He swore up and down that wasn’t it. He bashed Bush with a hatred that was as hot as the fires of hell itself. And I think after all that hot air, he expected me to say that Bush sucks as well.

For being friends as long as we were, he should have known better. I told him I was voting for Bush. The conversation was a fiasco from there up until the point he uttered an expletive at me and hung up. He called back a little later and apologized but the point had been made—there was no tolerance for a differing opinion.

Fast forward, 2004, Bush and Kerry were locked in a vicious and ugly campaign. Over the years preceding this election I had started to reevaluate and research the issues and the arguments. And when I did this I started to shift more and more towards the “right” way of thinking. I'll argue a point when the right buttons are pushed. I have a hard time tolerating people who espouse The Bush is stupid theory. I was sitting in the break room with a co-worker, ex hippy and liberal, arguing some point with him when he stood up and screamed at me some liberal nonsense. Before I could react he stormed out of the break room. I sat there stunned for a second or two and then laughed it off. Later, he apologized as well. There were no hard feelings; it’s tough being “right” sometimes.

There was no debating with these people.

In 2006 I was furious with The Republican Congress, I was furious with Bush. The spending, the scandals (Foley being the big one), the seemingly endless fighting in Iraq, and the amnesty bill they tried to shove down America’s throat topped it off. I had for the past year started to reconsider my allegiance to The Republican Party. I knew by this time I could never vote Democrat. The very thought would make me ill. However, I didn’t like blindly guaranteeing my support to a party just because they pretended to be Conservative.

Months before the election, I officially became an independent. It was the death of a Republican but the birth of a Conservative. There is a difference—John McCain is a Republican but he’s no Conservative. I vote Republican but my allegiance is to my ideals that this country is still the greatest place in the world to be—and that it can be even greater if Conservative social and economic principles are applied to governing. It’s a dark period for Conservative thought but it’s also a time to rethink what we need to do individually and as a movement to win the hearts and the minds of the I Pod generation and the generations beyond that.

Tidbits:

The Supreme Courts decision to give terrorist access to our civilian legal system is an outrage. These un-elected judges are beyond reproach and a threat to national security. Like Pelosi and The Democratic Congress one wonders when they will put the security of our sons and daughters above that of their political and ideological aspirations.

However, it’s nice that one Constitutional right is still protected. A slim majority declared The Washing DC handgun ban unconstitutional. Charlton Heston must be smiling from the pearly gates.

Anybody see the current “Rolling Stone” with Obama on the front? I wonder who they want to win?

Tags: Wevoteright Conservative Republican

My aunt sent me this and I thought it was funny in a morbid way.

Hillary Clinton is elected president and the night before her inauguration she has a dream in which he meets George Washington. He says, "George, tell me what I can do tomake things better for the people."

George Washington replies, "Lower the taxes."

Clinton says, "I can't do that."

The next night he dreams again. This time Thomas Jefferson is there.

"Thomas Jefferson," Clinton says, "Tell me what I can do to make things better for the people."

Jefferson replies, "Lower the taxes."

Clinton says, "I can't do that."

The next night he dreams again. This time Abraham Lincoln is there. "Abraham Lincoln," Clinton asks, "what can I do to make things better for the people?"

Lincoln says, "Go to the theater."

Tags: Wevoteright Hillary

Disclaimer: James Hodges is head of The Fair Tax Group in Kansas. This is his stuff, not mine, I'm just passing it on. Thanks.

"The most costly per dollar of revenue raised is a tax concentrated solely on the income from capital. (In addition to the tax, the deadweight economic loss is about $4.) The next most costly is an across-the-board rate increase on the income from both labor and capital. (In addition to the tax, the deadweight economic loss is about $1.) But no matter whether the nominal tax is primarily on capital income or on labor income, and without regard to who files the tax return and pays the tax, the real burden of the resulting deadweight economic loss falls primarily on low and middle-income wage earners. Thus, not only is the real level of taxation in America about twice the amount reported in the budget, its overall impact tends to be flat or regressive. "

http://www.cstr.org/commentaries/taxreform/riponapr1807.html

The Fairtax taxes neither capital income or labor wages, and the Fairtax prebate makes it progressive, complete exempt all families up to the poverty level from taxation.

One concern is Churches will not be exempt from Fairtax? I do not know the answer to that question. Even if Churches are to pay the Fairtax, the cost of ministry would remain basically the same because churches could be built and operated, and Bibles purchased and distributed without the embedded federal taxes and the reign of terror they cause on the American Family.

Bibles printed without blood money, what a concept.

Thanks, James A. Hodges __._,_.___

Tags: [ksfairtax] How Our Tax System Works - Economic Destruction

* Gross Domestic Product (GDP) losses of $151 billion to $210 billion in 2020 and $631 billion to

* $669 billion per year in 2030

* Employment losses of 1.2 million to 1.8 million jobs in 2020 and 3 million to 4 million jobs in 2030

* Household income losses of $739 to $2,927 per year in 2020 and $4,022 to $6,752 per year in 2030

* Electricity price increases of 28% to 33% by 2020 and 101% to 129% by 2030

* Gasoline price increases (per gallon) of 20% to 69% by 2020 and 77% to 145% by 2030

This is the largest Embedded Tax increase in History and is exactly what the Fairtax.org tax plan is designed to eliminate.

The Best way to defeat this bill is by demanding the Fairtax (H.R. 25).

Gas Prices are the Score Board of Politics and Green Shirts are winning. Green is the new Brown Shirt.

Thanks,

James A. Hodges

Tags: Wevoteright Green H.R 25

This is an eye opening blog. I came across this when I visited Conservative Common Man. The source of this blog is at the bottom of the page. Everybody should visit it.

Say NO to Obama, stop the Obamanation!

May 28th, 2008 (6 hours ago) . by TexasFred

We are witnessing a political phenomenon with Barack Hussein Obama of rare magnitude. His speeches have inspired millions and yet most of his followers have no idea of what he stands for except platitudes of ‘Change’ or they believe him when he says he will be a ‘Uniter’.

The power of speech from a charismatic person truly can be a powerful thing. Certainly Billy Graham had charisma and his manner of speech, and particularly the content of that speech, changed the lives of untold millions.

On the extreme other hand, the charisma of Adolph Hitler inspired millions as well, and the results were catastrophic.

Barack Hussein Obama seems to radiate an aura of pure evil as he attempts to call upon the inspirational speaking styles of both Billy Graham and Adolf Hitler, and it makes me feel an almost primal fear every time I see this person, not a man to man fear but a deeper and much more spiritual fear, as if a pall of doom were being cast across America…

Here are just a few things that define Barack Hussein Obama:

– He voted against banning partial birth abortion.

– He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.

– Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government.

– In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing.

– Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as a minimum wage affair.

– Admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college.

– His religious convictions are very murky.

– He is willing to meet, unconditionally, with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

– Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations.

– Opposed the Patriot Act.

– First bill he signed that was passed was campaign finance reform.

– Voted No on prohibiting law suits against gun manufacturers.

– Supports universal health care.

– Voted Yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.

– Supports granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.

– Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.

– Voted Yes on comprehensive immigration reform. Would result in 20 million instant citizens never having paid SS, many refusing to speak English, immediately sending for their 40 to 50 million extended relatives telling them not to wait and obey the laws, the once mighty USA is theirs for the taking.

– Voted Yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.

– Wants to make the minimum wage a ‘living wage’.

– Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes.

– Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid.

– He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.

– He voted No on repealing the ‘Death’ Tax.

– He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.

– Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.

– Has never served in the military and has never visited Afghanistan, and hasn’t bothered to visit Iraq since Jan. of 2006.

– He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.

– Is a notorious gun grabber, he wants to completely disarm the American population and is a total supporter of ALL anti-gun legislation.

If your political choices are consistent with Barack Obama’s and you think that his positions will bring America together or make it a better place, then you will probably enjoy the ride and not re-post this message as we attempt to stop this poser from ascending to the Oval Office.

If you agree that this is an important issue, please pass it on in a nationwide emailing and re-post it on your blogs…

The mainstream media will not do it for you!

Obama is EVIL personified and a danger to America!

Source: http://texasfred.net/archives/1232

Tags: We Vote Right Conservative Texas Fred Obama

The Politicians' Energy Crisis -- And its Cure By Newt Gingrich

In this week's Winning the Future I am going to focus on how Washington has created the high energy prices Americans are paying and what we can do to bring them down.

But first, I want to say a few words about last week's newsletter.

A Note on Last Week's Solutions: They Were Just the Beginning Several commentators have noticed the difference between the scale of the challenge facing the Republican Party that I outlined in last week's newsletter and the relatively small number of proposals for change in that newsletter.

What they did not notice was that I specified in the newsletter that those proposals were just the beginning. There is a lot more to come. This week's newsletter on energy is another building block toward creating the new, more solution-oriented movement toward real change. Anyone who wants to get a sense of the full scope of the changes I am working on can go to the Center for Health Transformation (healthtransformation.net) and to American Solutions (American Solutions.com).

You will read a lot more bold proposals in this newsletter over the next few months. (And it is encouraging to note that John Boehner and other House Republican Leaders are moving forward with outlining an aggressive agenda for real change of their own.)

We Can Thank Shortsighted Politicians for High Energy Prices

The starting point of any discussion of America's energy future has to be this: Shortsighted politicians have created the current energy crisis. For decades left-leaning politicians have advocated higher prices and less energy. They were going to save the environment by punishing Americans into driving less and driving smaller cars. Now their policies have succeeded with a vengeance.

The very left wing politicians who favored a policy of no oil and gas exploration, no use of coal, no development of nuclear power, and no aggressive development of new technologies are now panic-stricken that their policies of higher prices have led to higher prices.

And now the same shortsighted, dishonest politicians who created the crisis are blaming everyone but themselves for the crisis. Because they refuse to be honest about the policies which led to this crisis, they can't be honest about the policies that will lead us out of it.

The politicians want scapegoats. The American people just want solutions.

The Solution? A Pro-Investment, Pro-Creativity, Pro-Production Energy Coalition

Politicians with vision -- working with entrepreneurs, scientists, and engineers -- could rapidly replace the current shortages and high prices with a flood of new energy at lower prices. And America's current vulnerability to blackmail by foreign dictators could rapidly be turned into virtual independence with a North American energy strategy that includes Canada and Mexico.

The key is to create a new coalition of Americans who favor greater investment, greater discovery, greater creativity, and greater production. That coalition could lead to a new era of American prosperity with a more prosperous economy, more abundant energy, a healthier environment, and greater national security. The Current Crisis of High Prices and a Limited Supply

The fact is, with leadership that unleashes the potential of the American people, there is no reason why America can't have safe, abundant, and relatively inexpensive energy.

America still has the world's largest supply of fossil fuels. We have more coal than any other country by a huge margin. We have abundant oil and gas reserves. We have the potential for nuclear, wind, solar and biofuels in tremendous quantities.

And, critically, America is still technologically the most advanced nation in the world, despite decades of bad policies. We have the potential for enormous breakthroughs in future technologies such as hydrogen power.

Without Real Change the Energy Problem Will Get Much Worse

The second inescapable fact of America's energy future is this: India and China are realities. As they become more prosperous their people want to have better lives. And having better lives means using more and more energy.

This year Asia bought more cars than the United States for the first time in history. The pressure for more energy on a worldwide basis is going to continue to grow.

The only solutions to the current high prices and scarcity are higher energy supply and/or lower energy demand.

In the long run we will almost certainly find dramatic breakthroughs including electric cars (super hybrids) and hydrogen-powered vehicles. But in the short and near term, oil is going to remain the primary source of energy for transportation. And any strategy that does not substantially increase the production of oil and the use of coal is a strategy for much higher prices and growing scarcities.

The Left's Strategy is Anti-Oil and Anti-Coal

Yet the current strategy of the left is anti-oil and anti-coal. {br} It is a recipe for very high prices for Americans who drive.{br} It is a recipe for higher inflation as the cost of energy is driven through the entire economy.{br} It is a recipe for growing vulnerability to blackmail by foreign dictatorships.

And it is a recipe for starving poor people in the third world. The price of oil has a much bigger impact on the cost of food than the production of biofuels. Higher oil prices mean higher fertilizer and transportation prices. Combine that with the impact of speculators and really destructive government policies (including the Left's opposition to scientifically improved food production), and you have a formula for starvation for the poorest people.

Americans Support Energy Independence, Innovation, Incentives, and Nuclear Power

At AmericanSolutions.com you can view the Platform of the American People, a collection of 91 planks with the support of the majority of Democrats, independents, and Republicans.

The Platform shows that the American people overwhelmingly agree that we should use our resources to become independent from foreign dictators. Brazil recently discovered two very large oil fields in the Atlantic Ocean. They are so large that they will make Brazil completely independent from Middle Eastern oil.

This is important because the Minerals Management Service has estimated a mean of 85.9 billion barrels of undiscovered recoverable oil and a mean of 419.9 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered recoverable natural gas in the Federal Outer Continental Shelf of the United States. And that estimate does not include any Brazil-size surprise discoveries.

The Platform also shows that Americans believe deeply in the power of technology, incentives, and innovation to develop new sources of energy and new methods of energy conservation. For example:

"We can solve our environmental problems faster and cheaper with innovation and new technology than with more litigation and more government regulation. (79 to 15)

If we use technology and innovation and incentives we do not need to raise taxes to clean up our environment. (68 to 29)"

And Americans also believe in the safety and reliability of nuclear energy.

"We support building more nuclear power plants to cut carbon emissions. (65 to 28)"

The First Step: Replace Warner-Lieberman with Domenici

In a sign of how out of touch the Congress is with the current realities of the average American, the Senate is planning to bring up the Warner-Lieberman bill. This "tax and trade" bill will be an economic disaster. A better name for it would be "The China and India Full Employment Act" because it is going to raise the costs of doing business in America so dramatically that most future factories will be built outside the United States.

SUMMARY OF WARNER-LIEBERMAN FINANCIAL COSTS OF WARNER-LIEBERMAN ESTIMATED JOB LOSS DUE TO WARNER-LIEBERMAN "Tax and trade" is a more accurate term than "cap and trade" because buried in this bill is a massive tax increase which will lead to a much bigger federal government with much more bureaucracy and a much smaller private sector operating only with the permission of federal bureaucrats.

At a time when the American driver is already complaining about the cost of gasoline and the American homeowner is beginning to complain about the cost of natural gas and home heating oil, the Warner-Lieberman bill will make those costs much worse.

Instead of turning to Warner-Lieberman, the Senate would send a better signal to the American people by taking up the American Energy Production Act, sponsored by New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici (R)

Where the Warner-Lieberman bill is one more step toward higher prices, more scarcity, and less production, the Domenici Bill is a first step toward trying to increase production.

If the Senate votes to bring up the Domenici Bill, they are beginning to get the message that we want more energy and lower prices.

The Next Steps to Clean, More Abundant, Lower Cost Domestic Energy After switching focus from the Warner-Lieberman bill to the Domenici bill, here are the next steps toward an energy abundant American future:

Change federal law to give all states with offshore oil and gas the same share of federal royalties Wyoming gets for land-based resources (48%). Today most states get zero royalties from offshore oil and gas development while states like Wyoming reap 48% of federal royalties for its land-based oil and gas. If Richmond, Tallahassee, and Sacramento suddenly had the potential to find billions of dollars a year in new revenues, their willingness to tolerate new oil and gas development with appropriate environmental safeguards might go up dramatically.

Change federal law to allow those states that want to permit exploration with appropriate safeguards to do so. Companies could be required to post bonds to pay for any environmental problems, and a share of the state and federal revenues from new offshore development could be set aside to finance biodiversity and national park projects.

Allow companies engaged in oil and gas exploration and development to write off their investments in one year by expensing all of it against their tax liabilities. This will lead to an explosion of new exploration and development.

Immediately renegotiate the clean coal (FutureGen) project for Illinois to get it built as rapidly as possible (see the chapter in Real Change for rapid contracting techniques with incentives that can reduce construction time from years to months). It is utterly irrational for the Department of Energy to postpone the most advanced clean coal project in America (LEARN MORE ABOUT DOE'S FAILURE ON FUTURE GEN).

Coal is America's most abundant and lowest-cost energy resource. If clean coal technologies can be demonstrated to produce power with virtually no carbon release, then coal becomes environmentally very acceptable. America IS the Saudi Arabia of coal. We simply must fund the most advanced experiment and get on with using our most abundant resource.

Congress should pass a series of tax-free prizes to accelerate innovation in developing new technologies for using coal. The result will be a better environment, more energy independence, and more energy at lower cost. Eliminate half the Department of Energy bureaucracy and turn the money into paying for prizes. America will get a much bigger, faster return on its investment.

Develop a tax credit for refitting existing coal plants. There are a lot of existing coal plants which are going to be around for a long time. The most efficient way to make them more environmentally acceptable is to create a tax credit for retrofitting them with new methods and new technologies.

Pass a streamlined regulatory regime and a favorable tax regime for building nuclear power plants.

Make the solar power and wind power tax credits permanent to create a large scale industry dedicated to domestically produced renewable fuel. A contractor recently told me about a solar project he had planned for the American southwest that is now being built in Spain because he distrusts the American Congress and is tired of it playing games with short-term tax credits. We have enormous opportunities in solar, wind, and other renewable fuels; and they can be developed with a stable tax policy. Develop long distance transmission lines to move wind power from the Dakotas to Chicago. The potential is there for an enormous amount of electricity generation, but it is locked up geographically because the neighboring states have no reason to be helpful. The Dakotas can generate the power and Chicago can use the power, but the federal government may have to make the connection possible.

Allow the auto companies to use their tax credits for the cost of flex fuels cars, hybrids, and the development of hydrogen cars including necessary retooling for manufacturing. The American auto companies have billions in tax credits, but they have no profits to turn the tax credits into useful money. The federal government could make the tax credits refundable and therefore useful if they were spent on helping solve the energy problem. This would be a win-win strategy of much greater power than the fight over CAFE standards.

Conservation as a Parallel, Co-Equal Strategy with Production At the same time we work to increase production of energy, we must work to find ways to increase energy conservation. There are a number of steps that can be taken.

Congressman Roy Blunt notes that we currently spend eight times more money on modernizing homes so they don't use as much energy.

A variety of tax credits should be developed to accelerate maximum efficiency in energy use and to accelerate the replacement of inefficient systems with more modern, more efficient systems.

The Choice is Ours

The time has come for Americans to demand a fundamental change in energy policy.

If we want less expensive gasoline, then we have to demand the policies that will increase the supply of oil and reduce its cost.

If we want a reliable energy policy that reduces our dependence on foreign dictatorships, then we have to demand greater use of American resources and American technology.

If we want these changes to come before we are blackmailed or bankrupted by foreign dictatorships, then we must demand that politicians cut through the red tape, change the bureaucracy, and get the job done.

And if our elected officials want to stick with the current scarcity-producing, high price-resulting energy policies, then its time to retire them for leaders who want more production at lower cost.

The choice is ours. Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

P.S. -- Father's Day is just around the corner and there are great gift ideas available at great prices at Newt.org. Just click here to order personally signed copies of my new novel, Days of Infamy, as well as Pearl Harbor and Real Change. With the purchase of either of these three personally signed books, you can get a signed copy of Gettysburg for only $5. If you buy both a personalized copy of Pearl Harbor and Days of Infamy, you will receive a signed Gettysburg for free!

Source:http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3412/The-Politicians-Energy -Crisis--And-Its-Cure.aspx

Tags: We Vote Right Conservative Newt Gingrich

May 6, 2008 Vol. 3, No. 19

My Plea to Republicans: It's Time for Real Change to Avoid Real Disaster By Newt Gingrich

The Republican loss in the special election for Louisiana's Sixth Congressional District last Saturday should be a sharp wake up call for Republicans: Either Congressional Republicans are going to chart a bold course of real change or they are going to suffer decisive losses this November.

The facts are clear and compelling.

Saturday's loss was in a district that President Bush carried by 19 percentage points in 2004 and that the Republicans have held since 1975. This defeat follows on the loss of Speaker Hastert's seat in Illinois. That seat had been held by a Republican for 76 years with the single exception of the 1974 Watergate election when the Democrats held it for one term. That same seat had been carried by President Bush 55-44% in 2004.

Two GOP Losses That Validate a National Pattern

These two special elections validate a national polling pattern that is bad news for Republicans. According to a New York Times/CBS Poll, Americans disapprove of the President's job performance by 63 to 28 (and he has been below 40% job approval since December 2006, the longest such period for any president in the history of polling).

A separate New York Times/CBS Poll shows that a full 81 percent of Americans believe the economy is on the wrong track.

The current generic ballot for Congress according to the NY Times/CBS poll is 50 to 32 in favor of the Democrats. That is an 18-point margin, reminiscent of the depths of the Watergate disaster.

Congressional Republicans Can't Take Comfort in McCain's Poll Numbers

Senator McCain is currently running ahead of the Republican congressional ballot by about 16 percentage points. But there are two reasons that this extraordinary personal achievement should not comfort congressional Republicans.

First, McCain's lead is a sign of the gap between the McCain brand of independence and the GOP brand. No regular Republican would be tying or slightly beating the Democratic candidates in this atmosphere. It is a sign of how much McCain is a non-traditional Republican that he is sustaining his personal popularity despite his party's collapse.

Second, there is a grave danger for the McCain campaign that if the generic ballot stays at only 32 % for the GOP it will ultimately outweigh McCain's personal appeal and drag his candidacy into defeat.

The Anti-Obama, Anti-Wright, and Anti-Clinton GOP Model Has Been Tested -- And It Failed

The Republican brand has been so badly damaged that if Republicans try to run an anti-Obama, anti- Reverend Wright, or (if Senator Clinton wins), anti-Clinton campaign, they are simply going to fail.

This model has already been tested with disastrous results.

In 2006, there were six incumbent Republican Senators who had plenty of money, the advantage of incumbency, and traditionally successful consultants.

But the voters in all six states had adopted a simple position: "Not you." No matter what the GOP Senators attacked their opponents with, the voters shrugged off the attacks and returned to, "Not you."

The danger for House and Senate Republicans in 2008 is that the voters will say, "Not the Republicans."

Republicans Have Lost the Advantage on Every Single-Issue Poll A February Washington Post poll shows that Republicans have lost the advantage to the Democrats on which party can handle an issue better -- on every single topic.

Americans now believe that Democrats can handle the deficit better (52 to 31), taxes better (48 to 40) and even terrorism better (44 to 37). This is a catastrophic collapse of trust in Republicans built up over three generations on the deficit, two generations on taxes, and two generations on national security.

House Republicans Should Call an Emergency, Members-Only Conference Faced with these election results, the House Republicans should hold an emergency members-only meeting. At the meeting, they should pose this stark choice: Real change or certain defeat.

If a majority of the House Republicans vote for real change, they should instruct Republican Leader John Boehner and his team to come back with a new plan by the Wednesday before the Memorial Day recess. This plan should involve real change in legislative, communications, and campaign strategy and involve immediate, real action, including a complete overhaul of the Congressional Campaign Committee. The House Republican Conference would then vote for the plan or insist on its revision.

If a majority of the House Republicans are opposed to acting then the minority who are activists should establish a parallel organization dedicated to real change. This group should focus its energies on creating the changes necessary to survive despite a conference with a minority mindset that accepts defeat rather than fights for real change (which is what we had when I entered Congress in 1978).

Nine Acts of Real Change That Could Restore the GOP Brand

Here are nine acts of real change that would begin to rebuild the American people's confidence that Republicans share their values, understand their worries, and are prepared to act instead of just talk. The Republicans in Congress could get a start on all nine this week if they had the will to do so.

Repeal the gas tax for the summer, and pay for the repeal by cutting domestic discretionary spending so that the transportation infrastructure trust fund would not be hurt. At a time when, according to The Hill newspaper, Senator Clinton is asking for $2.3billion in earmarks, it should be possible for Republicans to establish a "government spending versus your pocketbook" fight over cutting the gas tax that would resonate with most Americans. Lower taxes and less government spending should be a battle cry most taxpayers and all conservatives could rally behind. Redirect the oil being put into the national petroleum reserve onto the open market. That oil would lower the price of gasoline an extra 5 to 6 cents per gallon, and its sale would lower the deficit.

Introduce a "more energy at lower cost with less environmental damage and greater national security bill" as a replacement for the Warner-Lieberman "tax and trade" bill which is coming to the floor of the Senate in the next few weeks (see my newsletter next week for an outline of a solid pro-economy, pro-national security, pro-environment energy bill). When the American people realize how much the current energy prices are actually a "politicians' energy crisis" they will demand real change in our policies.

Establish an earmark moratorium for one year and pledge to uphold the presidential veto of bills with earmarks through the end of 2009. The American people are fed up with politicians spending their money. They currently believe both parties are equally bad. This is a real opportunity to show the difference.

Overhaul the census and cut its budget radically. The recent announcement that the Census Bureau could not build an effective hand-held computer for $1.3 billion and is turning instead to 600,000 temporary workers to do a paper and pencil census in 2010 is an opportunity to slash its budget, shrink its bureaucracy, and turn to entrepreneurial internet-based companies to build an information-age census. This is an absurdity that cries out for bold, decisive reform (see my YouTube video "FedEx versus federal bureaucracy" for an example of what I mean).

Implement a space-based, GPS-style air traffic control system. The problems of the Federal Aviation Administration are symptoms of a union-dominated bureaucracy resisting change. If we implemented a space-based GPS-style air traffic system we would get 40% more air travel with one-half the bureaucrats. The union has stopped 200,000,000 passengers from enjoying more reliable air travel to protect 7,000 obsolete jobs. This real change would allow the millions of frustrated travelers to have champions in congress trying to help them get places better, safer, faster.

Declare English the official language of government. This real change is supported by 87% of the American people including a majority of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and Latinos. It is an issue of national unity that brings Americans together in a red, white, and blue majority.

Protect the workers' right to a secret ballot. The vast majority (around 81%) of Americans believe that American workers have a right to have a secret ballot election before they are forced to join a union. Last year the House Democrats passed a bill that would strip American workers of the secret ballot. A new bill should be introduced reaffirming that right, and it should be brought up again and again until marginal Democrats are forced to vote with the American people against the union power structure.

Remind Americans that judges matter. Senate Republicans should mount an ongoing fight (including a filibuster of other activities if necessary) to get the American people to realize that liberals want to block all current judicial appointments in order to maximize the number of left wing radical judges they can appoint if they win the White House. This issue has three advantages. It reminds people that judges matter and that a leftwing radical Supreme Court would be bad for the values of most (70 to 90 percent, depending on the issue) Americans. It shows the Democrats are not engaged in fair play. It arouses the activism of those who have been disappointed by Republicans and have forgotten how bad a liberal Democratic Presidency would be.

What Is at Stake

No Republicans should kid themselves. It's time to face up to a stark choice.

Without change we could face a catastrophic election this fall.

Without change the Republican Party in the House could revert to the permanent minority status it had from 1930 to 1994.

Without change, the majorities of Americans who support the Republican principle of smaller, more efficient, smarter and fairer government will be in for a rude awakening.

It's time for real change to avoid a real disaster.

The "May Day Massacre": Can Liberals Govern in a Global Economy?

Despite the poor outlook for conservatives in our elections this November, there is encouraging news from across the Atlantic. The conservative wave sweeping Europe hit England last week when the liberal Labor Party suffered its worst local election results in 40 years.

Boris Johnson became the first Conservative Party member elected mayor of London when he defeated Labour candidate "Red" Ken Livingstone. In contests for more than 4,000 local seats across England, Conservatives captured 44 percent of the vote, compared to 25 percent for the Liberal Democrats and just 24 percent for Labour.

This Conservative victory in England comes on the heels of a history-making rout of the Communists and the Greens in parliamentary elections Italy two weeks ago. And the Italian results follow center-right victories in France (Sarkozy) and Germany (Merkel). The countries of so-called "old" Europe are turning away from the liberal high tax, big government policies that have crippled their economies and are turning toward pro-growth, pro-competitive center-right solutions.

All of which raises the question: Can the Left successfully govern in a modern, global economy? The voters of Europe seem to be saying no.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

P.S. -- Father's Day is just around the corner and there are great gift ideas available at great prices at Newt.org. Just click here to order personally signed copies of my new novel, Days of Infamy, as well as Pearl Harbor and Real Change. With the purchase of either of these three personally signed books, you can get a signed copy of Gettysburg for only $5. If you buy both a personalized copy of Pearl Harbor and Days of Infamy, you will receive a signed Gettysburg for free!

P.P.S. -- The Days of Infamy book tour took me to New York City last week where Callista took some great pictures of us on the set of Hannity and Colmes, The View, The Daily Show and others. You can view them here. I'm continuing the tour with a signing in Marietta, GA Wednesday. Click here for details

Source:http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3393/Default.asp

Tags: We Vote Right Conservative Newt Gingrich

April 29, 2008 Vol. 3, No. 18 Days of Infamy: Active History and the Teaching of History By Newt Gingrich

This week our new novel, Days of Infamy, is being published by St. Martin's Press. Days of Infamy is the sequel to Pearl Harbor, (just released in paperback) and carries on the story of "what might have been" if a different, more aggressive commander -- Admiral Yamamoto -- had led the Japanese Fleet in their surprise attack at Pearl Harbor in December, 1941.

The Wrong Admiral for the Wrong Job

In real history, the Japanese high command assigned their Pearl Harbor strike force of six aircraft carriers to Admiral Chuichi Nagumo. If ever there was an assignment of the wrong man for the wrong job, it was this one.

From the beginning of his forty-year career, Nagumo had been trained in surface warfare, especially the use of destroyers and cruisers as "hit and run" weapons. Thinking like a destroyer commander, he always saw the attack on Pearl Harbor as a "hit and run" raid: Go in, strike, then get out as fast as possible. He believed, as did most admirals in virtually every navy in 1941, that the battleship was the key to victory -- and that the aircraft carrier was just a vulnerable and limited auxiliary to the battleship.

Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

The real history of Pearl Harbor demonstrates the results of Nagumo's caution and traditionalism. After the two initial air raids, Americans forces on Oahu were wide open for total destruction. Our repair shops, dry docks, five million precious barrels of oil stockpiled in flimsy tanks, and especially our aircraft carriers (which luck, or fate, had placed outside the harbor that morning) were all vulnerable to renewed attack. The Japanese could have inflicted grievous additional blows. But a cautious "hit and run" admiral ordered an immediate retreat instead, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Thus our fascination with what we call "active history." Pearl Harbor asked readers to consider how profoundly different December 7, 1941, would have been if, instead of a cautious "hit and run" commander, the attack on Pearl Harbor had been led by Admiral Yamamoto, a man who understood the value of aircraft carriers and air power and whose goal was to wipe the slate clean on the first day of the war, sinking all of our carriers and gaining total air superiority across the Pacific.

Days of Infamy picks up where Pearl Harbor left off and invites readers to imagine how the ensuing battle in the Pacific might have been different with a small but significant twist in history.

Making History Come Alive

"Active history" is a concept my co-author, historian William Forstchen, and I developed a few years back (along with Albert Hanser, a contributing editor of all our books) to get people more interested in the leaders and events that have made us who we are. We were tired of history being taught in a boring way that forces students to memorize dates and events. That method makes people think of history as something to "get through" rather than something to enjoy, think about, argue over, and discuss.

As history professors (all three of us have doctorates in history and have taught with enthusiasm and excitement) we wanted to inject excitement and a dynamic sense of "what might have been" into the study and teaching of history.

So we developed the concept of active history. Active history teaches readers the events that have shaped their lives by inviting them to compare what actually happened with what might have happened. It shows how the wisdom -- and the folly -- of decisions made in the past impact our lives today, and how our decisions, in turn, will effect our children and grandchildren.

Gettysburg, Grant Comes East, Never Call Retreat, and Pearl Harbor

In Gettysburg, Grant Comes East, and Never Call Retreat we developed an active history version of the Civil War beginning with Lee winning at Gettysburg (which General Bob Scales and Colonel Leonard Fullenkamp of the Army War College helped us develop and think through).

In Pearl Harbor we began applying the model of active history to World War II in the Pacific. Many years ago we wrote 1945 as an active history of WWII in Europe involving Germany, but we decided that for a longer series we wanted to focus on the Pacific. Even as Asia is becoming more and more important to the United States economically and militarily, much of the history of twentieth-century Asia has not been fully explored and written about.

Admiral Yamamoto: A Risk-Taking Air Power Advocate

In real history Admiral Yamamoto was both the intellectual force behind the Japanese naval strategy in 1941 and a leading advocate of naval airpower. He had commanded an aircraft carrier and was head of the Japanese navy's aeronautics department. He had presided over the development of several Japanese naval aircraft and had thought long and hard about the use of aircraft carriers.

From a novelist's perspective there is an additional aspect of Yamamoto's personality that is intriguing. He was a very successful gambler. He had won a lot of money at poker while serving in the United States and had been successful in the casinos of Monte Carlo while serving in Europe.

A Dramatically More Aggressive and Daring Japanese Attack

In Pearl Harbor, our decisive, active history plot twist was to shift from the timid, battleship-oriented Nagumo to the gambling, airpower advocate Yamamoto. We showed the initial evolution of a dramatically more aggressive and daring air attack.

Many students of the Pearl Harbor attack have wondered what would have happened if there had been a third wave of attack late in the day on December 7. In Pearl Harbor we give them our interpretation of that event. In our active history there is a third wave launched at the now virtually defenseless naval and air facilities. Virtually all of the American aircraft had been destroyed on the ground in the first wave, and those who had gotten into the air were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of Japanese aircraft.

If Yamamoto Had Commanded, Would He Have Left After Just One Day?

Now, in Days of Infamy, we ask a simple question: Would Admiral Yamamoto, knowing that he had complete air superiority, have left after just one day of attacks? We suggest that, unlike Nagumo, who wanted to leave as quickly as possible, Yamamoto would have planned for the possibility of staying two or three extra days. That means, for one thing, that he would have had to bring his tankers closer to Hawaii for the refueling needed for his destroyers.

And how would Yamamoto have evaluated the first day's success?

Where Nagumo focused on the sinking of the American battleships and felt very successful, we believe Yamamoto would have focused on the absence of the American aircraft carriers in the harbor that morning and would have felt very frustrated and almost in danger of failure.

Two Different Leaders, Two Different Histories

These two different views of what happened on December 7, 1941, demonstrate the importance of personality and doctrine in leaders. Nagumo believed in a weapons system of the past. Yamamoto believed in the weapons system of the future. Therefore, they could look at the same evidence and reach exactly the opposite conclusions.

Nagumo was timid, tended to avoid risks, and valued safety for his ships over damaging the enemy's ships. Yamamoto was a gambler, a calculating risk taker, very aggressive, and focused on how many American ships he could sink -- not how many Japanese ships he could keep safe. This intersection of personality and doctrine leads to a dramatic difference in how two different leaders would have fought at Pearl Harbor.

The Hunt for the Saratoga, the Lexington and the Enterprise In Days of Infamy we carry the story to its next logical stage. Admiral Yamamoto, having achieved decisive surprise on Sunday morning and having established complete air and sea superiority over the America forces, is now in a position to hunt for the missing American aircraft carriers.

The Japanese believe there are three American aircraft carriers in the Hawaiian Islands. Actually one of them, the Saratoga, has gone to Bremerton, Washington for refitting in such secrecy that the Japanese do not know it is gone (in real history, the Saratoga was actually pulling into San Diego on its way back from refitting on December 7).

The Lexington is near Midway where it is delivering aircraft (it would turn back, keeping the aircraft with it).

The Enterprise is on the way back from Wake Island, having delivered aircraft there.

Halsey versus Yamamoto in the Pacific

Admiral Halsey is in command of the Enterprise task force. He was America's most aggressive admiral. It is not surprising, then, that Halsey's reaction to the news of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor is to hunt the Japanese.

Given Yamamoto's willingness to take risks and Admiral Halsey's confidence, it is easy to imagine the two of them aggressively seeking to destroy each other's forces in the battle that begins on December 8, the day after Pearl Harbor.

And that is where Days of Infamy begins....

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich P.S. -- I've heard from many of you about my new ad with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. As I've said before, I believe that protecting the environment is an issue that conservatives must take seriously in order to promote innovative, entrepreneurial solutions to our environmental challenges rather than the regulation, litigation, and bureaucracy advocated by the left. If you have thoughts on this topic or would like to join in our ongoing discussion about Green Conservatism just click here.

P.P.S. -- A big week of endorsements and adoptions for the Platform of the American people!

The Nevada GOP held their state convention this weekend and adopted 13 planks/principles from the Platform of the American People into their party platform! They also pledge to hold Nevada elected officials and those running to be Nevada elected officials accountable to the items in their platform. This is an example of what conventions and platform building should truly be about. Read more about the Nevada convention and see which planks they adopted!

U.S. Representative, Kay Granger (R-TX) endorsed the Platform of the American People this week!

Source: http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3375/Default.aspx

Tags: We Vote Right Conservative Newt Gingrich

Page:  1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  Last >>