You know, I've just about heard it all. Newt Gingrich cheated on his wives, because he loves his country

I kid you not. This came out of the man's mouth.

Newt's got White House ambitions. Yet, he's got alleycat morals, and no amount of prostrating in front of the Holy Rollers is going to erase what he did.

But, here are his latest comments about his MULTIPLE adulteries.

From TPM.COM:

Gingrich: Past Adultery 'Partially Driven By How Passionately I Felt About This Country' (VIDEO)
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is in the early stages of a presidential campaign, spoke in an interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network about his history of adultery and divorces. And as Gingrich told it, he sought God's forgiveness -- and as for the events themselves, they were driven by how hard he was working and his great passion for America.

"There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate," said Gingrich. "And what I can tell you is that when I did things that were wrong, I wasn't trapped in situation ethics, I was doing things that were wrong, and yet, I was doing them.

"I found that I felt compelled to seek God's forgiveness. Not God's understanding, but God's forgiveness. I do believe in a forgiving God. And I think most people, deep down in their hearts hope there's a forgiving God. Somebody once said that when we're young, we seek justice, but as we get older, we seek mercy. There's something to that, I think.

G-T-F-O-H with this mess.

I won't put up the videos, if you want to see them, click on the link.

Gingrich can have one of these ' confessionals' per week until November 2012, and it won't make a difference.

Republican David Frum explains why.



Newt’s Family Values Problem

Pete Wehner tries to assess how much past marital infidelity will hurt Newt Gingrich’s presidential chances.

Many of the rest of us are on a continuum when it comes to deciding how much infidelity should matter in the selection of a president. Facts and circumstances are crucial. Was the infidelity an isolated instance or a chronic pattern? Were the transgressions long ago or recent? What levels of deception and cover-up were involved? What was the position of authority the person held when the infidelity occurred? Was there an alarming degree of recklessness on display? What evidence is there that this person has changed his ways? Has this person shown other worrisome signs when it comes to character and trustworthiness?

These are all fair and interesting points, but they do not address the reason that Gingrich’s personal life has been – and will be – so politically lethal.

It’s not the infidelity. It’s the arrogance, hypocrisy, and – most horrifying to women voters – the cruelty.

Anyone can dump one sick wife. Gingrich dumped two.

And that second dumped wife is talking to the media. From the Esquire magazine profile of Newt Gingrich published in September 2010:

After going to the doctor for a mysterious tingling in her hand, [Marianne Gingrich] was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.

Early in May 1999, she went out to Ohio for her mother’s birthday. A day and a half went by and Newt didn’t return her calls, which was strange. They always talked every day, often ten times a day, so she was frantic by the time he called to say he needed to talk to her.

“About what?”

He wanted to talk in person, he said.

“I said, ‘No, we need to talk now.’ “

He went quiet.

“There’s somebody else, isn’t there?”

She kind of guessed it, of course. Women usually do. But did she know the woman was in her apartment, eating off her plates, sleeping in her bed?

She called a minister they both trusted. He came over to the house the next day and worked with them the whole weekend, but Gingrich just kept saying she was a Jaguar and all he wanted was a Chevrolet. “‘I can’t handle a Jaguar right now.’ He said that many times. ‘All I want is a Chevrolet.’ “

He asked her to just tolerate the affair, an offer she refused.

He’d just returned from Erie, Pennsylvania, where he’d given a speech full of high sentiments about compassion and family values.

The next night, they sat talking out on their back patio in Georgia. She said, “How do you give that speech and do what you’re doing?”

“It doesn’t matter what I do,” he answered. “People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.”

and that's the SECOND wife.

We haven't even gotten to the ' I DUMPED HER WHILE SHE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL WITH CANCER' First Wife.

Gingrich 2012 Prez Run Now Plausible

Unless or until he announces at some point that he is not running, I am coming out two years early in support of Newt Gingrich for President in 2012. Here is the first of a series of articles regarding this potential Republican hopeful, a true Conservative who, if he really wants it, is the best person for the job in this man's opinion.

Let me first do what some in this business fail to do: Reveal a potential conflict of interest and remind readers that I served as Newt Gingrich's political chairman before and while he was speaker of the House. I've known him 30 years. But those who follow this column, including Gingrich, have not always enjoyed my views on some of his words or actions.


Newt knows I am an independent thinker, and while I'm not on his level of political genius, I might be a bit more in touch with the daily grind that faces most Americans every day.

So what's my take on this week's disclosure from Newt that he might run for president in 2012? First comes an initial, perhaps superficial reaction: Mitt Romney seems more charismatic, better organized and hungrier for the job than any other potential 2012 candidate. Sarah Palin is attractive, also charismatic and an ambitious potential candidate. Even Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is not well known, has a lot of "curb appeal" as a young candidate on the rise.

But I don't discount a Gingrich run. The presidential campaign of 2008 was about style over content. John McCain won GOP the nomination because Mike Huckabee, who shocked the Republicans by winning in Iowa, was viewed as perhaps too socially conservative. Romney seemed stiffer and "slicker" that year. He was too closely aligned with the unpopular George W. Bush camp. The GOP voters went for the image of "the maverick" in John McCain. It didn't work.

As for the Democrats and ultimately the nation, the elegant, charming and oratorically gifted Barack Obama represented a "change" as much in style as in substance. Oh, yes, there ultimately was plenty of substance in the change Obama brought to the nation as president. It just has not been the kind of change that many independent voters who supported him were expecting.

I have seen Newt Gingrich reinvent -- or perhaps better to say, "evolve" -- many times in his career. First, he was the bright new Republican conservative thinker in an overwhelmingly majority Democratic House in the late 1970s and the 1980s. By the early 1990s, he was the bomb-throwing, take-no-prisoners fighter who helped oust Speaker Jim Wright from power. By the mid-1990s, he was still a "revolutionary," but one with a detailed plan of action and a band of Republican "brothers and sisters" in the House willing to follow his lead to a huge 1994 electoral takeover of that chamber.

Then there were the years in the "wilderness," a term once used to describe Winston Churchill after his having led his nation through World War II, only to be later tossed out of power, at least for a while. Gingrich resigned after much internal GOP fighting. Yes, there is always the "he has baggage" argument. But years have passed, and Americans have short memories and forgiving hearts.

Now we see Newt Gingrich the "elder statesman." When Gingrich speaks, not only do cable news, talk radio and conservative popular news and opinion sites take note, so too does the "media establishment" that once ruled the airwaves and print journalism in America.

No, Gingrich will never match a Palin or Romney in a contest of style or youthful appearance. But in 2012, he will be the same age as Ronald Reagan was when he won the presidency for the first time. In that contest, the dashing John Connally and the elegant George H.W. Bush were viewed as the early frontrunners in the GOP race, along with other younger stars like Howard Baker.

Remember how Reagan moved from being viewed as an elder conservative also-ran to frontrunner status. It was one debate held in New Hampshire where the establishment GOP tried to keep Reagan from speaking. "I paid for this microphone," Reagan blasted as the moderator attempted to have him silenced.

And while I often discount the power of debates, it was the CNN/YouTube debate late in 2007 that catapulted Mike Huckabee toward a win in Iowa. And if you really want to reach back in time, I can name several presidential contests in which the debates turned the tide and the outcome of the election.

I can see Gingrich potentially playing roles like these. He is not an unappealing man. His grey hair and the calm manner in which he analyses issues gives those who view him a sense that there is still around at least this one bright, able -- and stable -- statesman. Do you really think any of the Republican contenders -- to say nothing of Barack Obama -- would want to debate Newt Gingrich?

A Gingrich run is more plausible than many think. Depending on an assortment of factors, it could just work for the Republican Party.

WRITTEN BY: Matt Towery at Human Events with the original article available by clicking on the title of this entry

The Legacy of the Declaration of Independence

This Sunday, July 4th, we will once again celebrate our nation’s founding, marking the day in 1776 that the Continental Congress formally adopted the Declaration of Independence.


The Declaration of Independence was intended to be an official statement explaining why the 13 American colonies had declared their independence from Great Britain. In the years following its passage, however, this statement of principles about the rights of man grew to mean much more.

America became the only country in history founded, as Leo Strauss explained, “in explicit opposition to Machiavellian principles,” by which he meant crass, power politics. Instead, America was founded on a set of clearly expressed “self-evident” truths. Thomas Jefferson said the Declaration was “intended to be an expression of the American mind,” and indeed, no document since has so succinctly and so eloquently spelled out the spirit of America.

Our country has evolved out of the timeless truths expressed in the Declaration of Independence to develop a distinct character and set of values that distinguishes us from even other Western democracies.

This holiday, it is worth taking a look at how several key phrases from the Declaration of Independence have served as definitional statements about the aspirations of America, and how those words of our Founding Fathers’ have affected America in the 234 years since they were written.

“…all men are created equal”
The Founding Fathers who authored the Declaration were the first people in the history of the world ever to express our natural equality as a principle of government in such an unqualified way. Though neither the Constitution that followed nor the Founders personally quite fulfilled the promise of those words, it has since been the project of our country to accomplish them.
America came though to recognize that we are not all literally equal—we are born with different capabilities and attributes, and to different stations in life—the words of the founders capture the truth that we must treat each other as equals. We are “created equal” in the sense that all men (and, we now recognize, all women) have the same natural rights, granted to them by God. We are all the same under the law.
This powerful statement of universal rights was used by abolitionists as a moral cudgel to rid the United States of slavery, an institution explicitly at odds with the truths expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Abraham Lincoln consistently evoked the phrase in his famous Peoria speech against the Kansas-Nebraska Act and later during the Lincoln-Douglas debates. As President, Lincoln again included the phrase in the Gettysburg Address as the moral underpinning by which the union should be rededicated. Later, during the women’s suffrage movement and civil rights struggles of the 1960s, leaders such as Martin Luther King used the powerful phrase as a reminder to America that separate (treating people differently under the law based on their race) was not equal.

Leaders such as Lincoln and King believed that as America’s founding political document, the Declaration of Independence is our moral guide with which to interpret the Constitution. They saw that we cannot divorce the law from the moral underpinnings that legitimize it.

But by what authority does that moral underpinning exist?

“…endowed by their Creator”

The core contention of the Declaration of Independence and the principle of natural rights upon which America was founded is that there is a higher moral order upon which the laws of man must be based. The Declaration asserts the existence of “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” which had a clear meaning in 18th Century England and America. It referred to the will of God as displayed by the natural order of the world.

John Locke, who was widely read by the leaders of colonial America, wrote in his Second Treatise on Government: “Thus the law of nature stands as an eternal rule of all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions, must ... be conformable to the law of nature, i.e., to the will of God.”

William Blackstone, who was arguably the single greatest influence on the creation of the American legal system, wrote in Commentaries on the Laws of England, “As man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should at all points conform to his maker’s will.”

America’s founding was heavily influenced by the English and Scottish enlightenment, which specifically included a space for God and religion in its conceptions of rights, freedom and human reason. This gave the American Revolution a distinctly different character than the French Revolution, which in its most radical phase sought freedom by casting off all authority and remnants of the existing order -- especially God.

In the American formulation as declared by our founders, man’s rights come from God, not from man’s ability to “reason” them into existence. Man does not depend on government to grant him rights through a bureaucratic process, but instead to secure those rights that have been granted to him by God.

In other words, power comes from God, to you, which is then loaned to government.

Thus, the Declaration states, “That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The English and Scottish enlightenment’s conscious inclusion of a space for God and religion had another key influence on the American system of government. Whereas the French Revolution believed it could create a “new man” through government education and indoctrination, the American Founding Fathers had a profound sense of the fallen nature of man. Thus, they created a system of checks and balances that would serve as a restraint on those in power.

“…the pursuit of happiness”

Here again we see the influence of the English and Scottish enlightenment on the Founding Fathers. For writers such as John Locke and Francis Hutcheson, the term “happiness” meant something close to “wisdom and virtue.” It did not mean hedonism or other shallow pleasures as the term is too often confused to mean today.

It is also essential to note that the Declaration does not say that we have a right to have happiness provided to us. It says we have the right to pursue happiness – an active verb. As I point out in jest to audiences in my speeches, the Declaration says nothing about a right to redistribution of happiness. It says nothing about happiness stamps. It does not say some people can be too happy and that government should make them less happy out of a sense of fairness.
The Founding Fathers understood that government could not give people happiness, that it was instead up to government to create an environment where the people could best work to achieve their dreams. As AEI’s Arthur Brooks has pointed out, polls of wealthy and successful people show that the harder one works for that success, the greater happiness one derives from it.

America is a land where through hard work, determination, and entrepreneurialism, people can achieve their big dreams. The right of “the pursuit of happiness” spelled out in the Declaration is a definitional statement about the nature of America that has attracted people from all over the world to come here to pursue those dreams.

Who We Are This July 4th

A bedrock belief of American conservatism is a respect for the established traditions and values of American culture. Conservatives believe from the time the first colonists landed in Jamestown, America took on a unique culture and set of values that have set us apart from our European cousins: a belief in natural rights, strong religious faith and values, the importance of the work ethic, and a spirit of community that manifests itself in a belief in limited government and strong civic participation. It is this set of beliefs – truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence – that have made America so successful, and they deserve to be protected.

The modern Left – what I describe in my book To Save America as a “secular-socialist machine” – is using every lever of power at its disposal to dismantle our unique American civilization and replace it with a secular, bureaucratic culture in which government is big, citizens are small, and our rights are defined by the state rather than endowed by our Creator. Equality under the law is being discarded in favor of equality of results; consent of the governed is being subverted by an increasingly overbearing federal bureaucracy and imperial judiciary; and the pursuit of happiness is being undermined by a redistributive welfare state that kills the can-do, entrepreneurial spirit of America.
This July 4th, I hope you will take time to read the Declaration of Independence and consider the truths about our rights and freedoms contained within. I hope you will take time to appreciate the sacrifices made by the founding generation and generations since to secure our liberty.
But most of all, I hope you will take time to appreciate the greatness of America and how hard we must be willing to work to preserve that which makes it so special.
Happy Independence Day.
 
WRITTEN BY: Newt Gingrich and original article available by clicking on the title of this blog entry

Something Rotten in America

One thing we can conclude from David Letterman's bad jokes about Sarah Palin: He hasn't flown commercial in a while.

Letterman's "slutty flight attendant" remark about Palin was in poor taste, we can all agree. But it was a joke and Letterman is a comedian. The joke probably would have been shrugged off and forgotten -- Palin proved her humorous good sportsmanship on "Saturday Night Live" during the campaign -- if not for Letterman's sexually suggestive "joke" about her daughter.

Everyone knows by now that Letterman made fun of the Palin family's trip to New York last week. He quipped that Palin's daughter got "knocked up" by Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez during the 7th inning. Unable to stop his slide into the gutter, he said the hardest part of the visit was keeping Eliot Spitzer away from her daughter.

Ba-da-bad. Alas, the only daughter with Palin was 14-year-old Willow.

Sorry, Dave, not funny. It was a joke according to stand-up formula -- take two disparate news items and combine them in an unexpected way. No one does this better than humor columnist Andy Borowitz, who has the blogosphere in a snit with his column suggesting that Newt Gingrich accused Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor of faking her broken ankle to get sympathy. It was a JOKE!

The flight attendant line is a grown-up joke that one may or may not think is funny -- though my guess is that many of the offended big brothers out there were happy to participate in the Palin-as-sexy-librarian fantasy. Fess up.

In any case, the joke was about an adult voluntarily in the public arena and, therefore, clearly of a different order than suggesting sexual relations between a child and a man. We call that rape. Letterman's sort-of apology fell short of fixing things. He didn't mean the 14-year-old daughter, he said. He meant the 18-year-old.

Sir, may I offer you a shovel? Or, perchance, a backhoe? Letterman was way off base and should apologize sincerely. But, please, may we stop there?

Calls for censorship or worse are far more dangerous to the land of the free than any inappropriate one-liner. John McCain -- ever the chivalrous warrior -- sallied forth with his own disapproving statement Thursday, saying: "They (the Palins) deserve some kind of protection from being the butt of late-night hosts."

They DO? Are we talking vigilantes -- or just good ol' government censorship?

No, the Palins don't deserve protection from late-night hosts. No one does. But children deserve protection from adults who have lost sight of their responsibility to be wardens of the innocent. And parents are the best guardians of their children. Keeping them out of the limelight seems a good starting point. And, no, I'm not suggesting that anyone "asked for it."

The Palin jokes, for lack of a better term, were merely the latest in a string of recent hostile treatments of women -- conservative women in particular. The Playboy magazine Web site listing conservative women whom men would like to have "hate" sex with was beyond the pale. The harsh treatment of poor Miss Runner-Up California when she expressed her opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman was simply unfair.

Opinions don't get punished in this country. Period.

But we do have a problem, don't we? Simply put, the Zeitgeist has become mean and nasty, and we're at a loss as to how to fix it. Here's one thought: The Internet -- which, ironically, contributes to the problem -- may be the best solution possible.

Both gift and curse, the Internet has been so revolutionary and its gifts so immense that we've been like inmates in sudden possession of the keys. Instant access to a bullhorn and the world as one's stage has unleashed a monstrous id, that undisciplined, infant part of the human psyche that wants what it wants when it wants. Multiply that by billions and civilization is one harried nanny.

Thus, we have hate-sex Web pages and millions of others that degrade women, sexualize children and leave man- and womankind to their basest instincts. Such is the profoundly messy, sometimes frightening, part of free expression.

On the other hand, we also have the passionate voices of sensible Americans, who won't let a comedian get away with trivializing rape. Which suggests that the best defense against rude comics is not "some kind of protection," but the rallying cry of people who demand more from their society and themselves.

WRITTEN by Kathleen Parker at TownHall.com on June 14th, 2009

GOP Scrambles For a Messenger

The struggle to settle on a speaker for Monday's big congressional Republican fundraising dinner underscores the tough time the party is having finding national leaders to help them form a message and go head-to-head with President Obama.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich ended up headlining this year's Senate-House Republican dinner, capping an awkward back-and-forth in which Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's advisers in Washington initially agreed for her to deliver the keynote speech only to have her Alaska office later argue that she never committed. The party's former vice-presidential nominee was then reinvited to attend but told she could not speak out of fear she might upstage Mr. Gingrich.

Despite the back-and-forth, the event's sponsors -- the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) -- said the dinner had raised $14.45 million to aid Republican congressional candidates in the upcoming election cycle.

"We simply have to take both of them back," NRSC Vice Chairman Orrin G. Hatch of Utah said of the two chambers.

Rep. Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin added: "We've got to be the reform party we used to be. We've got to be the party of ideas."

Mr. Gingrich, who stepped down from the House a decade ago, recently earned headlines for describing Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as a "Latina racist" on the social networking site Twitter.com, a comment he later backed away from. But he was given a rock star's welcome at Monday night's dinner at the Washington Convention Center, receiving a standing ovation after a speech that spanned American history, judicial philosophy and economic policies.

"The challenge for the Obama administration is simple: Americans know better," Mr. Gingrich said, citing the president's plan to shut down Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, which has stalled in Congress. "Reagan used his rhetorical skills to shine light on truths and fundamental facts. Obama uses his rhetorical skills to hide fundamental facts."

Mr. Gingrich, like Republican analysts, appeared to shrug off the Palin drama as inside-the-Beltway chatter, giving the hockey-mom-turned-politician a public welcome. "I felt, looking at John McCain and Sarah Palin [tonight], this country would have been amazingly better off had they been in the White House," he said.

Since Mr. Obama's victory over Sen. John McCain of Arizona in November, Democrats have mocked the Republican Party for recycling former leaders while attempting to paint polarizing figures such as talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh and former Vice President Dick Cheney as titular party heads.

But Republicans pointed out that it's not surprising to find a field of several potential leaders after losing the White House, and argued that electoral success hinges more on ideas than a single party leader. "After [the loss of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry] 2004, before Barack Obama, the Democrats didn't really have a leader," said Republican strategist Kevin Madden.

Other analysts downplayed the Palin drama as inside-the-Beltway chatter. "In the end, she's coming to the dinner and it's all much ado about nothing," veteran Republican strategist Ron Bonjean said.

But the behind-the-scenes intrigue did little to help promote Republican Party unity. In addition to Mr. Gingrich, a possible 2012 presidential contender, former 2008 presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee -- both of whom appear interested in reviving their campaigns for the White House -- have been active on the public circuit, appearing on television and campaigning for Republican candidates across the country.

Mr. Gingrich, who stepped down from the House a decade ago, recently earned headlines for describing Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as a "Latina racist" on the social-networking site Twitter.com, a comment he later backed away from.

After two bruising election cycles, the Republican Party is eyeing next year's midterm contest as a chance to redeem itself as the party of fiscal responsibility amid a trend of record-setting spending by Democrats.

As part of that effort, Mr. Gingrich said, Republicans should not be afraid of interparty debates between moderates and more conservative members of the party.

"I am happy that [former Vice President] Dick Cheney is a Republican. I am also happy that Colin Powell is a Republican," he said. "A majority Republican party will have lots of debates within the Republican party -- that is the nature of a majority."

Republicans are particularly focused on the Senate, where Democrats will have 60 votes if disputed Minnesota Senate candidate Al Franken is seated. The Republicans will have to work hard to keep the seats of retiring Sens. George V. Voinovich of Ohio, Christopher S. Bond of Missouri and Mel Martinez of Florida in the Republican column next year while it holds out some hope of knocking off a few Democrats up for re-election.

The party has set its sights on defeating veterans Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut as well as newly appointed Sens. Roland W. Burris of Illinois and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. Republican-turned-Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania is also being targeted by his former party after switching sides ahead of next year's re-election battle, though he could face a tough primary if Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak decides to challenge him.

Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire has said he would not seek re-election next year but has acknowledged pressure from his Republican colleagues to reconsider his decision.

House Republicans, meanwhile, are looking to narrow the Democrats' margin of power, which is 256 to 178.

WRITTEN by Kara Rowland at The Washington Times on June 9th, 2009

SCOTUS Nominee Sotomayor: You Decide

Shortly after President Obama nominated her to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, I read Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s now famous words:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

My initial reaction was strong and direct -- perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor’s fitness to serve on the nation’s highest court have been critical of my word choice.

With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree. The word “racist” should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable (a fact which both President Obama and his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, have since admitted).

So it is to her words -- the ones quoted above and others -- to which we should turn, for they show that the issue here is not racial identity politics. Sotomayor’s words reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system -- that everyone is equal before the law.

The Central Question: Is American Justice No Longer Blindfolded?

The fundamental issue at stake in the Sotomayor discussion or nomination is not her background or her gender but an issue that has implications far beyond this judge and this nomination: Is judicial impartiality no longer a quality we can and should demand from our Supreme Court Justices?

President Obama apparently thinks so. Other presidents, Republican and Democrat, have considered race and gender in making judicial appointments in the past. But none have explicitly advocated the notion that judges should substitute their personal experiences for impartiality in deciding cases. And certainly none have asserted that their ethnicity, race or gender would make them a better judge over a judge from a different background.

Here is how President Obama explained his criteria for appointing judges earlier this year:

“We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old -- and that’s the criterion by which I’ll be selecting my judges.”

No Group Has Benefited More From Impartial Justice Than the Less Fortunate

With these words, President Obama is cleverly inviting his critics to come out swinging against empathy for the less fortunate among us. But Americans are smarter than this.

We understand that the job of a justice is to enforce the law, not the rule of empathy. And we understand that when a judge substitutes his or her personal experiences for the law, the law becomes what he or she wants it to be, not what the people, through their elected representatives, have decided it should be.

Most tragically, it is this principle of judicial impartiality -- of justice, not just for the rich and the powerful, but for all -- that has most benefited the vulnerable and the downtrodden in America.

No group has needed or continues to need justice -- that can’t be predetermined by wealth or privilege -- as much as the less privileged. President Obama doesn’t seem to grasp that, by weakening judges’ adherence to the rule of law, he is also weakening the very foundation of equal justice for the less fortunate Americans he wants to help.

The “Court of Appeals is Where Policy Is Made”

How does Judge Sotomayor come down on the issue of a judge’s fidelity to the law?

Here is what she told a Duke University Law School audience in 2005 (emphasis mine):

“All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating.”

Is Judge Sotomayor Being Quoted Out of Context? You Read, You Decide

If Judge Sotomayor, by her own words, believes the judge’s bench is “where policy is made,” what kind of law can we expect her to make as a Supreme Court Justice?

The Berkeley Law School speech in which Judge Sotomayor made the comments that I quoted at the outset of this newsletter -- that a “wise Latina” would make a better judge than a white male -- has been widely cited.

The White House is now claiming that critics are taking Judge Sotomayor’s comments in that speech out of context. So in the spirit of “you read, you decide” I am linking here to Judge Sotomayor’s speech in full.

As you read it, see if you agree with those respected legal scholars who have concluded that the speech as a whole isn’t as damaging as the Judge’s “wise Latina” comment -- it’s worse.

“Our Gender and National Origins May and Will Make a Difference in Our Judging”

Here are some excerpts from the speech (emphasis mine):

"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that."


"Whether born from experience or inherent psychological or cultural differences...our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."


"Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases....I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Again, you read, you decide. Read Judge Sotomayor’s speech in full here. Then let me know what you think at Newt.org.

“Equal Justice Under Law” Is Chiseled in Stone on the Supreme Court

The central principle of American justice -- and perhaps the single, great idea of America -- is equal justice before the law.

This idea is expressed in the words “all men (and today we would say all men and women) are created equal.” It means that Americans stand before the law, not as members of groups, but as individuals.

"Equal justice under law" is in fact chiseled in stone on the front of the Supreme Court building -- and for good reason.

When a judge disregards the rule of law and applies a different standard to certain groups -- or, as the President would say, shows “empathy” -- he or she violates this central American principle.

One Group’s “Empathy” is Another Group’s Injustice. Ask Frank Ricci.

When a judge views Americans as members of groups and not individuals, one group’s “empathy” becomes another group’s injustice.

Nowhere is the injustice that results from judging Americans as members of groups and not as individuals more evident than in Judge Sotomayor’s ruling in the case involving Frank Ricci, a New Haven, Conn., firefighter.

Ricci quit his second job and studied 13 hours a day in 2003 for a civil service exam he hoped would earn him a promotion to lieutenant in the New Haven Fire Department. And when Ricci took the exam, all his hard work seemed to pay off. He got one of the highest scores. But because no African-Americans scored high enough on the exam to be promoted, the city of New Haven threw out the results of the test and promoted no one.

Frank Ricci, 16 other white firefighters, and one Hispanic firefighter sued the city, claiming they were denied promotions on the basis of their race. A district judge dismissed the case, and a three- judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. One of those judges was Judge Sotomayor.

An Opportunity to Have a Debate About Equal Justice for Americans Like Frank Ricci

The Supreme Court is currently hearing the Ricci case, and a ruling is expected next month, likely in the midst of hearings on Judge Sotomayor’s nomination.

Legal experts expect the Supreme Court to reverse Judge Sotomayor’s ruling. But however the high court rules, this is a moment for America to have a full, honest and open debate, not just about the impartiality of our judges, but about equal justice before the law for Americans like Frank Ricci.

Which Judge Sotomayor Will Show Up on the Supreme Court?

In fairness to the judge, many of her rulings as a court of appeals judge do not match the radicalism of her speeches and statements. She has shown more caution and moderation in her rulings than in her words.

So the question we need to ask ourselves in considering Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation is this: Which judge will show up on the Supreme Court, the radical from her speeches or the convention liberal from her rulings?

It’s no small question. Judge Sotomayor is 54 years old. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is 89. Judge Sotomayor has the potential to spend more than 30 years on the Supreme Court. There, unlike on the court of appeals, she will have no reason to show caution. On the high court, Judge Sotomayor will not have to worry about a higher court overturning her rulings. As a Supreme Court Justice, she will do the overturning.

The stakes are very high with this nomination. Has President Obama nominated a conventionally liberal judge to a lifetime tenure on our highest court? Or a radical liberal activist who will cast aside the rule of law in favor of the narrow, divisive politics of race and gender identity?

WRITTEN by Newt Gingrich as "Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor: You Read, You Decide" at Human Events on June 3rd, 2009

Why Nancy Pelosi Should Step Down

The case against Nancy Pelosi remaining Speaker of the House is as simple as it is devastating:

The person who is No. 2 in line to be commander in chief can't have contempt for the men and women who protect our nation. America can't afford it.

To test how much damage Speaker Pelosi has done to the defense of our nation, ask yourself this: If you were a young man or woman just starting out today, would you put on a uniform or become an intelligence officer to defend America, knowing that tomorrow a politician like Nancy Pelosi could decide you were a criminal?

Would you?

This Isn't About Politics. It's About National Security

The controversy swirling around Speaker Pelosi isn't political - she may think it is, other liberal Democrats may think it is, and the media may want it to appear that way.

But this isn't about politics. It's about national security.

At issue is whether Speaker Pelosi was informed, at a briefing by intelligence officers on September 4, 2002 when she was the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, that the CIA had used and was using enhanced interrogation techniques - specifically waterboarding - on captured al Qaeda terrorists.

From a Question of Memory to a Question of Criminality

Prior to her now infamous press conference last week, Speaker Pelosi insisted that the CIA had not told her in 2002 that waterboarding and other enhanced techniques were being used. At last week's press conference she went beyond this position to assert that "the only mention of waterboarding at [the September 2002] briefing was that it was not being employed."

In contrast, Leon Panetta, the current CIA director, wrote a memo last Friday to CIA employees in which he stated that "our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of [Al Qaeda terrorist] Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed.'"

And so the question, prior to her rambling press conference, was one of memory: Did Speaker Pelosi remember correctly the briefing she received in 2002?

If she had confined the controversy to her memory versus the CIA's, Speaker Pelosi may have saved herself. She would be guilty of irresponsibility and incompetence perhaps, but that would basically be it. Not good, but not disqualifying.
Pelosi on the CIA: "They Mislead Us All The Time"

But Speaker Pelosi did not confine the question to the reliability of memory. Instead, she made the allegation last week that the CIA intentionally misled her - misled Congress - and not just once, but routinely.

"They mislead us all the time," she said.

She charged that the CIA, deliberately and as a matter of policy, violated the law by lying to Congress.

And with that allegation, Speaker Pelosi disqualified herself from the office she holds.

Why Did Pelosi Escalate the Controversy into a Full Scale War With the CIA?

And the question that remains is why? Why would Speaker Pelosi escalate the small skirmish she found herself in over the 2002 briefing into a full-scale war with the CIA?

Perhaps it's because if America knew that Speaker Pelosi consented, fully informed and without complaint, to waterboarding back in 2002, it would reveal the current liberal bloodlust over interrogations for what it is: The Left's attempt to hunt down and purge its political opponents.

Remember what America was like in September, 2002, less than a year after 9/11.

America was terrified. As I said on ABC Radio last week, our entire defense, intelligence and justice establishment expected that there would be additional al Qaeda attacks, we just didn't know where and we didn't know when.

If Pelosi Consented to Waterboarding in 2002, the Bush Policy Is Vindicated
If Nancy Pelosi believed that waterboarding was justified in 2002 - just like Porter Goss, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Tenet - then a policy of selectively using enhanced interrogation techniques in carefully circumscribed ways in order to prevent future attacks - in other words, the Bush Administration policy - is vindicated.

But rather than admit that President Bush, when faced with an array of difficult choices, made the hard choice that kept the nation safe, Nancy Pelosi has instead retreated into the cheap sanctity of ignorance. She didn't know, so she claims. That's why she didn't do anything about it.

But President Bush did know. It was his job to know, and he made the tough choices needed to save American lives.

It was Nancy Pelosi's job to know too. But to avoid culpability for the choices she supported, she's now telling us she didn't know. And she's calling the intelligence officials who say otherwise liars and criminals.

Shame on her.
Speaker Pelosi Has Made America Less Safe
Speaker Pelosi has damaged America's safety.

She's made America less secure by sending a signal to the men and women defending our country that they can't count on their leaders to defend them.

And every day they spend worrying about being politically persecuted is a day we are made more vulnerable to a nuclear attack on one of our cities, a biological attack on one of our subways, or a bomb going off in one of our malls.

America is losing ground because of Nancy Pelosi's contempt for those who defend her.

Democrats owe it to their country and our national security to replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

WRITTEN by Newt Gingrich in his newsletter Volume 4, No. 20 dated May 20th, 2009

Dream Big

Everyone defines success differently. That is what makes personal success so complex. What your neighbor values will be different from what you value. It is important to understand your personal version of success, which includes all aspects of life: family, physical, social, spiritual, financial, community and business just to name a few. Once you have defined your version of success, then it is time to Dream BIG and make it happen.

In, “5 Principles for a Successful Life: From Our Family to Yours,” which I co-authored with my father, Newt Gingrich, Principle One is 'Dream Big'. Why dream big? Because the only other options are to dream small or not dream at all—both of which will not yield worthwhile results.

Dreams are essential, no matter what age we are—they help focus our energy on the future and keep us hopeful. Dreaming—finding that picture and allowing its pursuit to motivate you—is key.

When you dream, don't let practical considerations limit you: the bigger the better. Big dreams inspire you to start moving. They grab your imagination and fill your mind, consume your thoughts and lead you to act. Because they are hard to achieve, they provide you with a great sense of satisfaction once you have accomplished them. Remember that you will accomplish only as much as you dream you can—so if you want to accomplish big things, you'd better dream big.

Everyone can see what is certain and real, but only those who can imagine what could be have a chance to create and live their dreams. Those without a dream will have no reason to strive, work hard, or think of better days to come. People who dream big accomplish big.

A big dream is a goal that will stretch you beyond your current capabilities. That is the point. Dream BIG.

How big is big enough? Tavis Smiley, one of our 42 contributors, explains it best, “If people don't laugh at you when you share your dreams, then you're not dreaming big enough.”

If your Dream is big, the next step is to make sure it is your dream and yours alone. Our dreams are influenced by others—our parents, siblings, grandparents, teachers, employers—and that is fine. While others may influence your dreams, only you can create them. After all, only you know what really makes you excited and ready to work hard.

Your big dream will be in an area of your life where you have talent and interest. Talent is an important element because it is unique to you and provides you with the ability to perform better than others in the same area. A genuine interest is important too because it allows you to be passionate about your dream rather than trying to make yourself work toward a goal that doesn't interest you. Very few of us have the discipline to become masters in an area we dislike. Choose a dream that fits your passion.

If you have a big dream that is yours – it is time to begin making it a reality by setting a deadline. When obstacles occur, view them as challenges rather than frustrations and roadblocks.

A few years ago, one of my Big Dreams was to become a columnist. With an MBA in finance, and a background in corporate finance and planning, it might appear to be an unusual dream. But, as an avid reader and lover of words and their impact and meaning, this dream fits my interest and passions. I wrote my first column in November of 2004. Ongoing practice, writing and rewriting, getting up early and working late and putting in the time and effort, have moved me closer to this big dream.

After identifying your big dream and turning it into measurable goals with deadlines, put these goals in a place where you will see them daily. This will remind you of where you are headed and allow your subconscious to continually work on ways to help you achieve your goal.

WRITTEN by Jackie Gingirch Cushman for TownHall.com on May 18th, 2009

Will April's Showers Bring May Flowers?

April was a pretty rough month in any way that you want to size it up. Record spending, debt, unemployment. A major shift towards socialism by our government. Increased attacks on the sacrament of marriage by homosexuals and liberal thinkers. And then finally ending with an attack by a Swine Flu pandemic. It's all a bit much for a normally happy soul such as mine to take in for one big reason. There is no end in sight. President Obama was only recently elected, and just took office three months ago. He still has more than three years at a minimum in office, and if the magnitude, scope, and pace of his 'Change' continues as it has thus far it will be an agonizing three years. One thing that I have come to appreciate over the course of these past three months is the utter joy and euphoria that Obama elicits in his followers. It makes me jealous, because frankly I have never, ever had that feeling for a President of the United States. Forget Kennedy and Johnson, I was just a baby. As a young child, Nixon and Ford certainly were not high on my priority list. I liked Jimmy Carter at first. He spoke to my youthful desire for progressivism. He was a minister and brought a certain amount of credibility and morality to the office, which was important to the country after the dishonesty of Nixon's Watergate. And he was intelligent too, a genius, at least that's the rep that the media was passing around. It was Jimmy Carter that began to ruin things for my early liberalism. By the end of his term he was proving to be a major letdown, and I'm still trying to figure out that whole 'genius' thing. His and liberalism's weaknesses were on full display in the face of the emergence of radical Islam, Soviet aggression, and America's energy problems. But still, politics and these major issues at this point were still only news stories to me, fleeting images on the TV set, and I would quickly change the channel to a ballgame or a comedy and go back to my own inner liberal feelings. During the 1980's, Ronald Reagan was king, but I didn't support the kingdom. I didn't vote for 'The Gipper' either time. Here was the first time in my lifetime where it was obvious to me that a large portion of America was feeling something for a President that I just wasn't getting. It was disconcerting to me, because I was beginning in my 20's to actually pay more attention to national and world affairs. I was a liberal Democrat and became a joiner, with paid memberships in 'Greenpeace' and 'Amnesty International', and with subscriptions to 'Rolling Stone' and 'U.S. News & World Report', and enjoying anti-establishment music videos on the new media outlet of MTV such as Genesis' "Land of Confusion". But something began to change. The optimism of the 'Morning in America' days that Reagan led, the return of outward signs of American patriotism, the general feelings of positivism were creeping into my psyche a little at a time. His demand that the Soviets "Tear down this wall!" followed by that event actually happening was a watershed moment, the moment when I began to think to myself "Why are there so many millions of people seeing what I am not?" and I began to realize that these folks couldn't possibly all be evil or idiots, and I actually began to open my mind to thoughts and ideas outside of my previously grounded liberal thinking. But it still wasn't a transition. I still voted for Dukakis in 1988, because I simply was not ready to vote for George H.W. Bush for President. He was as establishment as you could possibly get, and a former head of the C.I.A. to boot, and I simply did not trust a former head of a spy agency to be my leader. When he eventually led us into the Gulf War, all his faults were on display in my mind. I didn't understand the whole Iraq issue. My naive liberalism still had me being sold by those talking heads and celebrities who lamented our 'going to war over nothing but oil' and other such talk. In 1992, with my own life going through major changes on many fronts, I remained a liberal thinker for the final election. When Bill Clinton was elected, it was the first time in my life to that point that my candidate had won, and I was excited. His youthful exuberance was infectious, and I genuinely believed that he would make things better. But I also by this time was already in the habit of looking at issues deeper than the surface, reading and researching major issues beyond just what I was being sold on what I increasingly was noticing was an obviously biased mass media in newspapers and on television. I hated the idea that these folks seemed more like cheerleaders whenever a Democrat was involved, and like antagonists when a Republican was involved. It was all so obvious, and it was turning me off. When I realized that all of the positive economic turns of the early Clinton years were going to happen no matter who was President, that they had actually begun in the final months of the Bush administration, and yet the Dems were trying to take credit, I began to experience my first bit of cynicism towards my party and its politicians. By the end of Clinton's first four years the transition was complete. My own personal scales had tilted towards conservatism over liberalism, and as Newt Gingrich led the 'Republican Revolution' of 1994, I was amazingly in tune with their message and supportive of this man who just a couple years earlier I would have viewed as a negative influence. I was still a Democrat, but I did not vote for Clinton in 1996. The second Clinton term was what fully shoved me over to the conservative side, and my final flip to an actual change of party to the Republican side. Still, even with the election of George W. Bush in 2000, I was not excited. Seeing Al Gore for the quack that he has turned out to be, I was simply unbelievably relieved with the narrow outcome in Bush's favor. Bush was not the conservative that I was becoming, but he was much more tilted in that direction than Gore and his followers would have been. The attacks of 9/11 and President Bush's outstanding leadership in the following months and years cemented my support for him, and helped cement my conservative beliefs. But he never elicited that outright joy as a follower or supporter. And obviously Obama will never elicit those feelings for me. And yet I look around at his followers and I realize something. His supporters are every bit as enthused and enthralled as Reagan's were back in the 1980's, and I was on the outside back then as well. I don't get it, but I am trying to learn more about Obama's programs and ideas beyond what the media on both sides is trying to feed the public. So far, the more that I learn the worse it looks to me, but I am going to try to keep learning and stay open. The showers of April turn to flowers in nature in May. We can only hope that the showers brought on our nation by the early Obama actions in April will bloom into flowers in May, but I don't hold out hope. May has not started well, with an announced SCOTUS opening and the specter of the likely appointment to the Supreme Court later in the year of what will almost definitely be its most liberal member ever. The Swine Flu is still advancing, with a possible retreat for the summer but a return in the fall. Chrysler joins the growing list of formerly private businesses in the auto, banking, insurance and other industries now controlled by the government. It is still raining. But I won't let it get to me. One thing that age and experience teach you is that if you wait, the sun will indeed come out tomorrow. There are signs of hope. We have rid ourselves of Senator Arlen Specter, a RINO (Republican In Name Only) who saw the writing on the wall that we were going to dump him in the upcoming primary and who then ran for the Democratic cover like a coward. And I still hold out hope that one day I will have that President come along who inspires me and elicits that passionate adulation of feeling to go along with a support for their policies and direction that Obama's supporters feel today. Someone like Newt Gingrich, Bobby Jindal, or Sarah Palin. You gotta keep that smile on your face and in your heart, and keep your own dreams alive.

Talent on Loan from God

On issues of politics and culture, there is little doubt that the leading voice of the revolutionary revival in talk radio during the past decade and a half has been one Rush Limbaugh. Michael Harrison, the editor of Talkers Magazine has been quoted: "Before Rush Limbaugh, there was nothing like talk radio. He's been to talk what Elvis was to rock-n-roll. He saved the AM dial..." Former White House aid Karl Rove has said: "He's a leader. If Rush engages on an issue, it give others courage to engage." This year, Rush is celebrating the 20th anniversary of his highly successful "Rush Limbaugh Show", a syndicated radio program which can be found in the Philly area airwaves at The Big Talker, 1210am, every weekday from noon to 3pm. Limbaugh blends an incredible mind with a sharp wit and a sometimes biting, often humorous tongue to spread the conservative gospel to the converted masses (as well as any of the opposition who want to read the true pulse on the other side.) Rush takes on all of the important issues both political and cultural, brings their key points into sharp clarity, and tells you why you should not only agree with him, but should actively engage yourself in supporting these positions. The force of his will as spread through the popularity of his show was no doubt a key ingredient in Republicans taking over the US Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years, helping usher in the Newt Gingrich-led 'Republican Revolution', the backbone of which was the 'Contract With America'. Rush also was a huge Bush supporter in 2000, and certainly played a key role in galvanizing the conservative base to get out and vote, helping President Bush to the most narrow win in the history of the American political process involving the Presidency. During breaks, Rush's plugs for the show include his voice announcing that you are listening to the Rush Limbaugh Show, and stating that what you are hearing is "Talent on loan from God!" When he says that, he is not being at all disrespectful, though certainly be a bit boastful (though honest). He is announcing that he has talent, a point supported by his immense popularity and the respect afforded him by leading politicians, pundits, journalists, and other broadcasters. And he is letting us know that this talent was loaned out to him by his God, a fact that we all should embrace about ourselves and our own abilities on a more regular basis. Rush began his career as a Top 40 radio DJ in Pittsburgh during the 1970's, a time when the NFL's Pittsburgh Steelers were a Super Bowl-winning powerhouse. Limbaugh became a big Steelers fan then, and remains so to this day. In 1979, Rush set aside the music to become the director of promotions for the Kansas City Royals baseball team during a period when the Royals were one of baseball's top teams (Royals' Hall of Famer George Brett remains one of his best friends.) After five years in KC, Rush moved on to Sacramento, taking over a talk radio job there, and in 1987 the alleged 'Fairness Doctrine' was removed from the radio industry by the FCC. This idiotic piece of junk basically shackled talk radio, saying that in order to express any political views a station had to give equal time to opposing views. With the television industry becoming dominated by politically liberal viewpoints and commentary, the radio restriction was certainly anything but 'fair', and its removal changed the talk radio landscape forever. The Wall Street Journal described it in outstanding terms when they said that "Ronald Reagan tore down the wall (the Fairness Doctrine) and Rush Limbaugh was the first man to proclaim himself liberated from the East Germany of liberal media domination." On August 1st, 1988, Rush moved across country to New York, and began his now-famous self-named radio program on the ABC network. His radio home there at WABC-AM (770 on the NY dials) remains his flagship station two decades later. His listeners have become affectionately known as 'dittoheads', signifying that they agree with Rush on the issues. His style has been said to bounce between "earnest lecturer and political vaudevillian". In his personal life, Rush has often fallen short of being the conservative values man that he talks up on-air. He has been married and divorced three times, has no children, and had to win a very public battle with an addiction to pain killers. He has also had professional controversies, including criticisms received for mocking the effects of Parkinson's disease on actor Michael J. Fox, and on support for Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb as being largely media-created because there was a desire there to see a black quarterback succeed at a high level. But despite personal and professional setbacks and challenges, Limbaugh has never shied away from voicing his valid cultural and political opinion in an honest, straight-forward manner, and he has been a true leader in the conservative movement in the United States. He openly and regularly advocates for conservatism: "We conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the War on Terrorism." No one articulates the conservative positions more succinctly. Current Republican party candidate for President, John McCain, has been quoted: "I respect Rush Limbaugh." A plain and simple statement that I can easily say that I would echo. Rush Limbaugh most certainly has what he says that he has: talent on loan from God. Give his radio program a listen-to for a week. If you have that courage, I can almost guarantee that you will be hooked, and perhaps, if need be, politically and culturally converted.

Winning the Future With Real Change

Some of the biggest influences on me in recent years have been the ideas and writings of Newt Gingrich. The man is simply the single most eloquent spokesperson for the Conservative cause since Ronald Reagan himself. In fact, blasphemy acknowledged, he may actually be an even stronger advocate for the cause. Three of his books, "To Renew America" (1995), "Winning the Future", and now "Real Change" (2008) are absolute must-reads, particularly "Real Change", which was just released this year and is much more updated in scope and time. Gingrich is a college history professor, historian and novelist who has written outstanding works of living-history fiction on both the Civil War and Pearl Harbor as well. In the concept of 'living history', you take known historical events and people and 'adjust' the facts/results to show 'what might have happened' had certain things gone a different way. In the real world, Gingrich was first elected to Congress from Georgia back in 1978. He was re-elected 10 times, and eventually became the architect of the 'Republican Revolution', which saw the Republican Party take control of Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years thanks largely to an effort that he led called the 'Contract With America'. Gingrich became the Speaker of the House, leading numerous Republican challenges to President Bill Clinton's liberal Democratic agenda, and was named by Time magazine as the Person of the Year in 1995. Newt Gingrich is now 65, and may have seen his opportunities to lead the party as a Presidential candidate pass him by, but he remains a leading Conservative activist, thinker, and teacher. In a year when the Democratic nominee, Barrack Obama, talks incessantly about "change" to a taxing, weakening, liberal agenda, 'Real Change' is well worth your reading time, and in future Blog entries I am going to talk about some of the particular ideas that it puts forth on various topics of importance to our families and to the nation.