Newt Gingrich Exposed in New Campaign Ad

It is no secret that Newt Gingrich is the current flavor of the month in the Republican primary field, following in the footsteps of Rick Perry and Herman Cain as the mainstream media and GOP faithful's present alternative to Mitt Romney.

It is not that his positions differ sharply from the former Massachusetts governor, who is often chided for his liberal positions both presently and over the years. Rather, Newt--like his other so-called "conservative alternatives to Romney"--does a much better job of masking his big-government agenda on the campaign trail than the perceived front-runner, Romney.

Of course, like Cain and Perry before him, Newt is crossing both fingers--hoping voters stick to a superficial support of his candidacy without delving into his record. Doing so, would only leave him being found wanting in both conservative credentials and political consistency.

For those truly seeking what Mr. Gingrich is about, the campaign of Congressman Ron Paul has put together an invaluable starting point.

The video below is how a "negative" campaign ad should be--grounded completely in fact and policy.  Take a look and see the true Newt Gingrich for yourself.

Did the Dems Know What They Were Doing?

In light of the passage of the Democratic healthcare reform package, many on the Right are sitting back smugly thinking Pelosi and company naively delivered the House right into the Republican's hands. While it may be true that the House will possibly lose many of its Democratic members come November, I doubt the Democratic leadership was oblivious to this before it took the healthcare vote.

What we are dealing with here is a movement that disregards public opinion no matter the opposition. If they were merely taking principled stands, defying what Alexis de Tocqueville called "the tyranny of the majority," this would be something to admired. Unfortunately, the passage of Obamacare has less to do with principle and more to do with a tyrannical power grab by the federal government and the Democratic leadership. If principle is involved at all, it manifests itself only in the belief that the state is king and liberty is a disposable commodity.

What I see here is a group of individuals intent on reshaping the face of America according to their own agenda. Yes, elections are important to their cause. Elections are what got them into power, but elections will come and go. Seats will be won, and seats will be lost. What is harder to do is to create a lasting government program that will forever effect the power of the federal government over the lives of individuals. The moment was at hand, and the objective had to be met. Besides, the creation of more government dependents is far more valuable to a statist agenda than control of Congress. 

As George Bernard Shaw noted, "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul." With a whole new slate of dependents--and the return of many frequent offenders--Pelosi and her comrades may have created for themselves electoral support down the line. That is, unless we combat the prevalence of nanny state acceptance.

If we do not start properly understanding the Constitution and the tools it affords us to fight back, much of what is going on in DC cannot be undone. Rather, we will continue marching down the road to serfdom without a bit of protest.

It is time we step up and realize that one election does not matter, if we don't capitalize on the opportunities before us and advance our liberty principles. The Democrats have already wised up to this. That is why the scar of their leadership will last well beyond this Fall.