Saturday, November 08, 2008

Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor: Says Democratic senator must make request to obtain original document By Jerome R. Corsi


October 26, 2008

HONOLULU, Hawaii – Although the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama's birth certificate has become a focus of intense speculation – and even several lawsuits – WND has learned that Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate's birth certificate under seal and instructed the state's Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances.

The governor's office officially declined a request made in writing by WND in Hawaii to obtain a copy of the hospital-generated original birth certificate of Barack Obama.

"It does not appear that Dr. Corsi is within any of these categories of persons with a direct and tangible interest in the birth certificate he seeks," wrote Roz Makuala, manager of constituent services in the governor's office, in an e-mailed response to a WND request seeking the information.

Those listed as entitled to obtain a copy of an original birth certificate include the person born, or "registrant" according to the legal description from the governor's office, the spouse or parent of the registrant, a descendant of the registrant, a person having a common ancestor with the registrant, a legal guardian of the registrant, or a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant.

WND was told the official reason for denial of access to Obama's birth certificate would be authority granted pursuant to Section 338-18 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, a provision the anonymous source claimed was designed to prevent identity theft.

Still, the source told WND confidentially the motivation for withholding the original birth certificate was political, although the source refused to disclose whether there was any information on the original birth certificate that would prove politically embarrassing to Obama.

Get the book that started it all, Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation," autographed by the author, exclusively from WND's online store for the amazing low price of just $4.95.

The source also refused to answer WND's question whether the original document on file with the Department of Health was a hospital-generated birth certificate or a registration of birth that may have been filed subsequent to the birth.

The anonymous source made clear the Hawaii Department of Health would immediately release Obama's original birth certificate, provided Obama requested the document be released, but the Department of Heath has received no such request from the senator or from anyone acting officially on his behalf.

WND also found on microfilm in the Honolulu downtown public library a notice published under the "Births, Marriages, Deaths" section of the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser for August 13, 1961, on page B-6, noting: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack II Obama. 6085 Kalanianaole-Hwy, son, Aug. 4."

In searching through the birth notices of the Honolulu Advertiser for 1961, WND found many birth notices were published between one and two weeks after the date of birth listed.

The notice in the Honolulu Advertiser does not list the hospital where the Obama son was born or the doctor who delivered the baby.

In a startling development, Obama's Kenyan grandmother has reportedly alleged she witnessed Obama's birth at the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.

Friday, U.S. Federal judge Richard Barclay Surrick, a Clinton appointee, dismissed a lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania attorney Phillip J. Berg who alleged Obama was not a U.S. "natural born" citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency under the specifications of the U.S. Constitution, under Article II, Section 1.

Berg told WND last week he does not have a copy of a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama that he alleges exists.

In Kenya, WND was told by government authorities that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4.

The Obama campaign website entitled "Fight the Smears" posts a state of Hawaii "Certificate of Live Birth" which is obviously not the original birth certificate generated by the hospital where Obama reportedly was born.

"Fight the Smears" declares, "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America."

Although the Obama campaign could immediately put an end to all the challenges by simply producing the candidate's original birth certificate, it has not done so. And the "Fight the Smears" website offers no explanation as to why Obama has refused to request, and make public, an original hospital-generated birth certificate which the Hawaii Department of Health may possess.

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Family: Michael Crichton dies of cancer

Family: Michael Crichton dies of cancer

By HILLEL ITALIE, Ap National Writer
20 mins ago

Michael Crichton, the million-selling author who made scientific research terrifying and irresistible in such thrillers as "Jurassic Park," "Timeline" and "The Andromeda Strain," has died of cancer, his family said.

Crichton died Tuesday in Los Angeles at age 66 after privately battling cancer.

"Through his books, Michael Crichton served as an inspiration to students of all ages, challenged scientists in many fields, and illuminated the mysteries of the world in a way we could all understand," his family said in a statement.

"While the world knew him as a great storyteller that challenged our preconceived notions about the world around us — and entertained us all while doing so — his wife Sherri, daughter Taylor, family and friends knew Michael Crichton as a devoted husband, loving father and generous friend who inspired each of us to strive to see the wonders of our world through new eyes."

He was an experimenter and popularizer known for his stories of disaster and systematic breakdown, such as the rampant microbe of "The Andromeda Strain" or the dinosaurs running madly in "Jurassic Park." Many of his books became major Hollywood movies, including "Jurassic Park," "Rising Sun" and "Disclosure." Crichton himself directed and wrote "The Great Train Robbery" and he co-wrote the script for the blockbuster "Twister."

In 1994, he created the award-winning TV hospital series "ER." He's even had a dinosaur named for him, Crichton's ankylosaur.

"Michael's talent out-scaled even his own dinosaurs of `Jurassic Park,'" said "Jurassic Park" director Steven Spielberg, a friend of Crichton's for 40 years. "He was the greatest at blending science with big theatrical concepts, which is what gave credibility to dinosaurs again walking the Earth. ... Michael was a gentle soul who reserved his flamboyant side for his novels. There is no one in the wings that will ever take his place."

John Wells, executive producer of "ER" called the author "an extraordinary man. Brilliant, funny, erudite, gracious, exceptionally inquisitive and always thoughtful.

"No lunch with Michael lasted less than three hours and no subject was too prosaic or obscure to attract his interest. Sexual politics, medical and scientific ethics, anthropology, archaeology, economics, astronomy, astrology, quantum physics, and molecular biology were all regular topics of conversation."

In recent years, he was the rare novelist granted a White House meeting with President Bush, perhaps because of his skepticism about global warming, which Crichton addressed in the 2004 novel, "State of Fear." Crichton's views were strongly condemned by environmentalists, who alleged that the author was hurting efforts to pass legislation to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.

If not a literary giant, he was a physical one, standing 6 feet and 9 inches, and ready for battle with the press. In a 2004 interview with The Associated Press, Crichton came with a tape recorder, text books and a pile of graphs and charts as he defended "State of Fear" and his take on global warming.

"I have a lot of trouble with things that don't seem true to me," Crichton said at the time, his large, manicured hands gesturing to his graphs. "I'm very uncomfortable just accepting. There's something in me that wants to pound the table and say, 'That's not true.'"

He spoke to few scientists about his questions, convinced that he could interpret the data himself. "If we put everything in the hands of experts and if we say that as intelligent outsiders, we are not qualified to look over the shoulder of anybody, then we're in some kind of really weird world," he said.

A new novel by Crichton had been tentatively scheduled to come next month, but publisher HarperCollins said the book was postponed indefinitely because of his illness.

One of four siblings, Crichton was born in Chicago and grew up in Roslyn, Long Island. His father was a journalist and young Michael spent much of his childhood writing extra papers for teachers. In third grade, he wrote a nine-page play that his father typed for him using carbon paper so the other kids would know their parts. He was tall, gangly and awkward, and used writing as a way to escape; Mark Twain and Alfred Hitchcock were his role models.

Figuring he would not be able to make a living as writer, and not good enough at basketball, he decided to become a doctor. He studied anthropology at Harvard College, and later graduated from Harvard Medical School. During medical school, he turned out books under pseudonyms. (One that the tall author used was Jeffrey Hudson, a 17th-century dwarf in the court of King Charles II of England.) He had modest success with his writing and decided to pursue it.

His first hit, "The Andromeda Strain," was written while he was still in medical school and quickly caught on upon its 1969 release. It was a featured selection of the Book-of-the-Month Club and was sold to Universal in Hollywood for $250,000.

"A few of the teachers feel I'm wasting my time, and that in some ways I have wasted theirs," he told The New York Times in 1969. "When I asked for a couple of days off to go to California about a movie sale, that raised an eyebrow."

His books seemed designed to provoke debate, whether the theories of quantum physics in "Timeline," the reverse sexual discrimination of "Disclosure" or the spectre of Japanese eminence in "Rising Sun."

"The initial response from the (Japanese) establishment was, 'You're a racist,'" he told the AP. "So then, because I'm always trying to deal with data, I went on a tour talking about it and gave a very careful argument, and their response came back, 'Well you say that but we know you're a racist.'"

Crichton had a rigid work schedule: rising before dawn and writing from about 6 a.m. to around 3 p.m., breaking only for lunch. He enjoyed being one of the few novelists recognized in public, but he also felt limited by fame.

"Of course, the celebrity is nice. But when I go do research, it's much more difficult now. The kind of freedom I had 10 years ago is gone," he told the AP. "You have to have good table manners; you can't have spaghetti hanging out of your mouth at a restaurant."

Crichton was married five times and had one child. A private funeral is planned.


Associated Press writer Colleen Long in New York contributed to this story.

(This version CORRECTS title of novel to 'State of Fear')

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

If You Can Keep It By Adam T. Yoshida


November 4, 2008

Certain friends (and, naturally, enemies as well) of mine are eager for the “fall of the American Empire.” They chortle with glee at the present economic troubles of the United States. They delight in the basically declinist views of Senator Obama and imagine an end to American exceptionalism – an America that “rejoins the world” after the Bush years. Well, to borrow from George Bernard Shaw, they may be about to learn that there are two tragedies in this life – one is not getting your heart’s desire, the other is getting it.

Yes, America is down. Yes, the United States has troubles. But what my friends fail to understand is that the present situation is not at all analogous to the fall of the Roman Empire. (Indeed, of course, the fall of the Roman Empire was not even the end of all of that – Byzantium endured for another thousand years). The very real prospect with which we are faced is not the fall of the American Empire but rather of the American Republic.

The world is an absolute mess. Everyone recognizes this. That we are headed towards some sort of cataclysm is the one thing that pretty much everyone believes. Among the nations of the West, there is only one nation with the resources – human and material – to survive the coming crisis intact. That nation is the United States of America. Europe is doomed by low birth rates that make the end of Western Civilization in its cradle inevitable. Australia and Canada are too small and too few to make it through on their own. This is what Mark Steyn was talking about when he titled his book “America Alone.” For those who love our civilization – our traditions of tolerance and liberty, our languages, our cultures, our heritage – the final choice is reduced to one between the United States and nothing. There is no new Rome to pick up for the Greeks. There is no vast and sheltered continent to nurture and preserve us through a Dark Age.

That is the choice. Either we hold the line here and defend ourselves or, bit by bit, we shall be swallowed by alien nations, tongues, and traditions. Perhaps some of you are willing to regard such an outcome with laissez faire insouciance, but I am not. I am the descendent of refugees. Those who came before me were Tories, Jacobites, Puritans, Huguenots, and soldiers of the Shogun. If you trace your own history, I’m sure you’ll find much the same. They, at least, all had someone to flee to when they lost – we have no such luxury. This is, as Ronald Reagan once reminded us, our “last stand on Earth.”

Let us then return to the choice of today. I am often asked why I am for Senator McCain and against Senator Obama. Needless to say, it is not a common opinion in these parts (and rarely so strongly held, either). I typically offer a light opinion in these situations simply because it is difficult to convey my full view of the world and its problems in a soundbite.

To put it simply – I believe that the American Republic is probably doomed. The warnings have stacked up. Ben Franklin told us that the framers of the Constitution had given Americans, “a Republic, if you can keep it.” De Tocqueville warned that the Republic would last only until the point where Congress realized that it could bribe the people with the people’s money. Most of all, I am partial to the warning of Edward Gibbon in “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” who warned that “the powers of sovereignty will be first abused and then lost when committed to unwieldy multitudes.”

What has done in the American Republic (and, indeed, most of the West)? It’s fashionable to lay the blame upon the politicians. But, in truth, the fault rests with the people themselves. I advised Senator McCain to attack what I like to call the “Long Congress” – an institution filled with time-servers and self-dealers – but the plainer truth is that any reform of the Congress and other legislative institutions would be futile without first devising some means of dissolving the electorate and electing a replacement.

The reason for this state of affairs is obvious enough – no one ever really thought too much about the implications of universal suffrage. We pretty much stumbled into it piecemeal. Democracy, in the pure sense of the word, has never been defended by philosophers and thinkers as anything better than a least-worst choice of system. One needs only to look at the countless foolish decisions made by the Ancient Greeks – who punished successful Generals and embraced lunatic plans with regularity – to understand that anyone who believes that the people will always make the correct choice is an imbecile.

What is needed is change. But not, of course, the sort of change that Senator Obama promises.

How does anyone expect for bigger and more expensive government programs – universal health care, college as an entitlement, and so forth – to solve anything when one of the major long-term problems facing the whole of the Western world is the uneconomic nature of the entitlement programs that exist at the present?

I, for one, would appreciate it if someone could explain to me how Senator Obama’s economic proposals would solve anything at all.

What are the problems that face the American economy itself? Manufacturing jobs flowing overseas and the financial crisis would appear to top everyone’s list. What causes these things?

Well, we know what kills jobs. It’s what’s killing American automakers today – excessive levels of regulation, taxation, and, in particular unaffordable union contracts that make American cars uncompetitive in the marketplace. And what solution does Senator Obama offer to problem? He proposes to raise taxes, increase regulations, and to make the law even more union-friendly – even going so far away as doing away with the secret ballot in union certification elections (a move which is allegedly more “democratic” and “fair.” If this is so, I propose that we should adopt this reform on a wider scale and that during the next Presidential election I and some of my friends from Blackwater Worldwide should be allowed to go door to door in poor neighbourhoods asking voters to sign a card indicating their vote for the straight Republican ticket).

Some of the same problems, along with the demographic ones overseas that I spoke of earlier, played a major role in creating the present financial mess. Those who claim that the crisis was caused by inadequately regulation are operating under the delusion that it is possible to universally and comprehensively control human affairs in a non-totalitarian society (at least, I hope that’s what their delusion is). The problem is that when you over-regulate and over-tax core sectors of the economy (see the aforementioned auto industry) then you drive capital to riskier areas where less regulation and taxation promise better returns. This problem is compounded by the demographic factor as well – capital is something that is held by the old and invested in the young. The result is that places like Europe and Japan have more capital than they can effectively use at home because they don’t have the young people to innovate and create that they need and so they’re forced to pour it into the places that do – America and continental Asia – creating and inflating a series of massive bubbles (internet, commodities, real estate, to name a few from recent years) as investors chase the sort of returns that they will need to support themselves into lonely and childless old age.

Do I think that McCain is particularly stronger on domestic policy? Not really – especially since a President McCain would face a hostile Democratic Congress. But at least he can stop the Democrats in Congress from making things worse. The cures for the economy that the Democrats and Obama want are the equivalent of giving blood thinners to a patient with an aneurysm.

Abroad, of course, Senator Obama has no serious plan to deal with the actual problems of the world. The sort of weak and naïve people whom Obama would staff the Justice, Defense, and Homeland Security Departments would thwart necessary efforts to obstruct and prevent terrorism on legalistic and humanitarian grounds, just as they did when Bill Clinton was President during the 1990’s. The thought of ACLU-backed lawyers in the DOJ vetoing surveillance programs on the grounds that they violate the rights of terrorists is one that fills me with images of mushroom clouds.

Senator McCain has the experience and the temperament to stand up to foreign aggressors. Can you ever imagine Senator Obama having the guts to go toe-to-toe with the Iranians? Never mind the Russians or the Chinese. Putin is a smart man – he already has Obama’s measure. So, I’m sure, does Hu Jintao. Eager to please, interested in compromise, inward looking – those two veterans of the deadly internal politics of totalitarianism would take Obama for all he was worth and then some.

Most of all, I simply believe that McCain has the experience and the temperament to be President and that Obama doesn’t. Obama hasn’t run anything in his life. He’s never shown any indication of any great internal strength. He’s never even won a fair election (in his first campaign he had all of his opponents thrown off the ballot, in his Senate campaign he won because somehow someone convinced courts to unseal the divorce records of not one, but two of his opponents). He’s been hauled to this point by the slavish devotion of the media to his personality cult. His first book – doubtlessly the more honest of the two given that he wrote it before he was a politician – exposes him as a weak girly-man with what, for lack of a better word, I would describe as a definite emo streak within him. He’s a multicultural fashion statement – not a serious leader. He’s a man, to borrow from the Rt. Hon. Francis Urquhart, “with no background and no bottom.”

Take a close look at the man and his wife. Read what Michelle says. Study her. Senator Obama is, like so many others in this day and age, a weak man dominated by an acquisitive and vain woman. Hardly the stuff of which greatness is made.

Senator McCain, on the other hand, survived the destruction of four planes. One was his own error. Another lost an engine. A third was blasted out from under him when a rocket on another jet cooked off and hit it on the deck of the USS Forrestal. The fourth was shot down by the North Vietnamese. He survived them all. Most people don’t even survive the loss of one aircraft – let alone keep on flying afterwards. Then he spent half of a decade in captivity. And, through it all, he kept going – he never gave up, never surrendered. Whatever his ideological imperfections, whatever his personal failings – this is a man of proven courage and endurance.

Those are the qualities most necessary in a President. Choosing them by comparing their agendas and soundbytes is an exercise in absurdity. Out of most Presidential platforms at the most 10% is ever enacted. Obama’s alleged eloquence and rhetorical felicity is more a legend than an actuality – have you, or anyone else, ever heard anyone quote anything he ever said, except to parody it? (“Yes, we can.” “Oceans will turn back”, etc). His speeches are the fast food of politics – easily swallowed by the hungry, not particularly objectionable, well-presented from a distance, but, when examined several hours after the fact, they come out rather differently.

Simply electing Senator McCain will not save the Republic – though it may slow the bleeding. Electing Senator Obama could lose it. Because – and this something that all of you have to understand – one way or another, America isn’t going away. The American population is huge and, rumours and jokes aside, highly educated and motivated. America’s natural resources are tremendous. America’s latent power is actually far greater than its present effective power. The end of the American Republic – something which will be hastened if Obama gains office and further erodes America’s economic and global positions – wouldn’t mean the end of America. On the contrary.

The American people are fickle. That’s one of the problems with democracy. There’s no consistency. Do you really think if Obama wins and promptly responds to a crisis in an unpopular way (say, by appeasing a nuclear Iran) that the American people will hold firm? Do you think that “hope” will long be sustained in the face of a deeper economic crisis brought on by higher taxes, protectionism, and invasive regulation (the same factors, I should add, which turned the downturn of 1929-1930 into what we now call the “Great Depression”)?

The cycles of demonization and destruction that began when the media and Democrats broke every rule in the book to get Richard Nixon, who they hated so very much, will continue. A President Obama would be followed by a President Palin or a President Jindal or a perhaps someone else…

After all, as the time grows shorter and the nation’s foreign and domestic problems grow worse, recovery will require ever-stronger medicine. In another ten or twenty years, only the most extreme measures will recover the situation. And by “extreme”, my friends and readers know, I mean “extreme.” If America and the world require an Augustus, they will get one.

McCain is Cicero. He’s the old politician. A bit of a hack at times. A bit vain. But respected and, in the end, an honest and brave man. He can hold the line – and save enough that the situation might be recovered by minimally invasive measures. Or he may well be ignored by people chasing the delusion of “hope” who, in so doing, can only bring disaster on themselves.

There will always be an America. But there will only be an American Republic for so long as Americans choose to keep it.

Tuesday, November 04, 2008


Readers please check in and let us know what you think of Phillips Philes in our Guestbook located last on the left margin.

Thank you for stopping by. Please come by again.

Would Obama victory provoke constitutional crisis? By CKA in Red State USA


October 29, 2008

By refusing to produce his birth certificate, Barack Obama pushes America closer to constitutional crisis, if elected. If his real nationality was uncovered later and he was not a natural-born citizen, what would happen? Would chaos or civil strife follow?  

Sound farfetched? Maybe not. 

The Constitution–the same one that Obama says is fundamentally flawed; the same one whose First and Second Amendments apparently offend him–says in Article II, Section I: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President . . .”

So if a non-citizen should get elected and take the oath of office, this would create crisis not seen before. This potentiality of a non-citizen, specifically Obama if he is not a natural-born citizen, becoming president has bothered me for months. How badly would that damage our country and our very foundation?

I just found what appears to be the most compelling presentation I’ve found about the extent of a potential constitutional crisis, should potential non-citizen Obama be elected.

In this Oct. 29 must-read Web piece, “Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down,” by Edwin Viera Jr., Ph.D., J.D., constitutional attorney Viera suggests that if Obama takes the presidential oath of office–knowing he’s not a natural-born citizen, if that’s the case–he perjures or falsely swears. If so, then everything he does thereafter as “usurper” of Office of the President will be criminal, Viera asserts.

Other issues Viera, who has presented four cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and won three of them, raises?

The list is long, but basically indicates that everything Obama would do officially would be invalid.

Perhaps the most immediately troubling issue to me is Viera’s contention that Congress could not impeach Obama, because he was never legitimately president.

Instead, some individual, possibly having to use physical force, would have to arrest him, the attorney says. And that, Viera suggests, could lead to armed conflicts in the public and the government. Another name for this? Civil war.

Besides such potential nightmare, though, what Viera also presents speaks, in my opinion, to the very heart of what long-term public and constitutional disaster non-citizen Obama could create.

Consequences? Actions by the three branches of government taken during pretender Obama’s tenure might be overturned when a legitimate president was identified, Viera speculates. ”Breathtaking” domestic and international chaos would ensue, he theorizes.

All that Viera has discussed bears immediate reading, consideration and action.

To me, there must be clear, credible answers about Obama’s citizenship before the election.

And it’s now not just that Obama must be defeated, it’s that he must be pressured by someone in his camp, someone having a last vestige of integrity and character and honesty–and patriotism–to reveal his real nationality. Now.

Or pressure must come from some legitimate officer of some court. Somewhere.

Regardless who or what makes the demand, do or compel whatever needs to be done to find out if, indeed, Barack Obama is actually eligible to be president if, God forbid, he is elected.

But if that does occur and he is not a natural-born citizen, when that truth surfaces–and it will surface–then Obama’s real and lasting damage will occur.

And then he who once ran as the great unifier, but who continues to reveal himself as a racial and cultural arsonist and one who appears to dismiss any constitutional restraint, will have gained infamy that not even his smooth-talking tongue can undo.

He or someone in his camp still has the chance to be a real patriot. Obama can and must come clean. Now. And then do the appropriate right thing. Immediately.

Marty Kenney: In Memory of a Great American

Marty Kenney: In Memory of a Great American

Marty Kenney was born May 3, 1918 in Manhattan. He grew up in the Bronx and went to Fordham Prep. He had 4 kids - 3 sons and one daughter. Later he moved to NJ in 1958 and worked for Nabisco for over 35 yrs. Marty died at the age of 90 years young.

Marty Kenney started calling Sean in 1996 when Hannity was doing local night time programming on WABC. The Sean Hannity Show launched into syndication on September 10, 2001, one day before 9/11, but Marty continued to call the national program and soon became a permanent fixture and important member of the Hannity Team.

A World War II veteran from New Jersey who stormed the beaches of Normandy, Marty grew 'near and dear' to the hearts of Hannity's 13 million listeners. The Hannity Show often closes with a segment entitled, "Trash the Lines," where calls are taken unscreened, and listeners are given approximately five seconds to say whatever is on their minds. Whenever the segment is done, the final caller is almost always "Marty."

For the past 4 years Hannity has hosted Freedom Concerts to benefit the children of military heroes who have sacrificed life or limb for this great nation The biggest applause of the day always came with an appearance by Marty at the live broadcast of Sean's radio program. The legendary caller had become a staple at the New York/New Jersey Freedom Concerts, and had made an appearance at every local concert since 2003.

Sean and Marty's relationship was similar to that of a father and son, he was truly a Great American, who will be missed by Sean and all Hannity Show listeners.

But Where Did Bush Go Wrong?

But Where Did Bush Go Wrong?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

Posted 11/04/2008 ET

After losing control of the Senate and 30 House seats in 2006, the GOP is bracing for losses of six to nine in the Senate, and two dozen to three dozen additional seats in the House.

If the party "were a dog food," says Rep. Tom Davis, "they would take us off the shelf."

Bush's approval is 25 percent. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton left office with ratings more than twice as high.

But while John McCain and others have deplored the Bush failures, what, exactly, did he do wrong?

What were the policy blunders to which Republicans vehemently objected at the time?

That Bush is a Big Government Republican is undeniable. His two great social spending initiatives, prescription drug benefits for seniors under Medicare and No Child Left Behind, so testify. But how many Republicans opposed Bush on these initiatives? How many have called for the abolition of either program, or for raising payroll taxes to pay for prescription drugs?

McCain now supports the Bush judges and justices and the Bush tax cuts, as do almost all Republicans.

True, Bush sought amnesty for illegal aliens and backs the free-trade globalism that exported our manufacturing base and 3 million to 4 million jobs. But McCain is even more enthusiastic about both.

Does the party dissent on free trade and mass immigration?

Two-thirds of Americans now believe the Iraq war a mistake. Yet, all but a few Republicans backed the war. At the time of "Mission Accomplished!" in May 2003, the nation gave Bush a 90 percent approval rating, as his father had after Desert Storm.

What turned America against the war was not the decision to invade, oust Saddam, destroy the weapons of mass destruction and depart, but the long, bloody slog, the five-year war, with nearly 5,000 dead, that Iraq became. It was not the lightning war of Tommy Franks, with journalists riding tanks into Baghdad, that soured America, but the unanticipated duration and cost of the war.

Yet, Republicans still believe that the war was not a mistake, only mishandled. And now that Gen. Petraeus got it right in Iraq, they say, we should pursue the Petraeus policy in Afghanistan.

How many Republicans have repudiated the Bush Doctrine that got us into Iraq -- the belief that only by making the world democratic can we keep America secure and free?

Americans no longer believe that, if ever they did. And history proves them right. For Iraq has never been democratic, and America has always been free. Yet, the Republican Party has never renounced the Bush Doctrine

Indeed, it is being applied today in Afghanistan.

That war, too, after we failed at Tora Bora to capture or kill bin Laden, has become a long slog to create a democratic Afghanistan, which, like a democratic Iraq, has never before existed.

In Afghanistan, we are entering the eighth year of war with victory further away than ever. The Taliban grows stronger. U.S. casualties are surging. Opium exports are breaking records. Our NATO allies grow weary. Even the Brits are talking of reconciliation with the Taliban, perhaps accepting a dictator.

These two wars helped to cripple the Bush presidency and end the GOP ascendancy. Yet, at the highest levels of the party, one hears no serious questioning of the ideology that produced these wars. McCain has pledged to stay in Iraq until "victory" and send 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

Nor have Republicans objected to the U.S. air strikes that have killed hundreds of Afghans, or the Predator strikes that have inflamed Pakistan or the helicopter raid into Syria that humiliated Damascus and enraged the population. If Republicans disagree with these policies and actions, their voices are muted.

Bush is for facing down Russia and bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. Does any Republican disagree? For McCain is more hawkish than Bush when it come to Moscow.

The party says it is losing because the economy went south. But who caused that? Was it not because Republicans colluded with Democrats in pushing "affordable housing," subprime mortgages, for folks who could not afford houses?

Is the GOP prepared to demand tough terms for home loans?

Was it not GOP presidents who appointed the Fed chairmen who pumped up the money supply and created the bubble? How many Republicans objected to the easy money when the going was good?

The country wishes to be rid of the Bush policies and the Bush presidency. But where does the Republican Party think Bush went wrong, other than to be asleep at the wheel during Katrina?

The GOP needs to confront the truth: The failure of the Bush presidency lies not in a failed execution of policy but in the policies themselves and the neoconservative ideology that informed them.

Yet, still, the party remains in denial, refusing to come to terms with the causes of its misfortune. One expects they will be given the time and opportunity for reflection soon.

"The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves.

Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

Annoy the Media: Go Vote And the "Common Sense Effect"

Annoy the Media: Go Vote
And the "Common Sense Effect"

by Newt Gingrich
Posted 11/04/2008 ET
Updated 11/04/2008 ET

Special note: On this day of great consequence for our republic, our thoughts and prayers go out to Senator Obama, whose grandmother passed away yesterday in Hawaii. Presidential politics is a serious undertaking, and our differences are real, but the pain we feel from the loss of loved one is a burden we all share. May Senator Obama and his family find peace and condolence in this difficult time.


Today marks the end of one of the most dishonest, relentlessly one-sided campaigns of bias and distortion by the mainstream media in American history.

The latest tactic in this elite media campaign has been to declare the presidential race over in an effort to discourage some voters from going to the polls. After all, if Barack Obama has already won, why should supporters of John McCain even bother to vote?

But this election won’t be decided by Keith Olbermann, or CNN, or the New York Times.

It will be decided by you.

So annoy the mainstream media. Remember 2000. Remember how close it was. Remember how every single vote counted.

Go out and vote. Now.

The Bradley Effect vs. The Common Sense Effect

The same biased media that has declared the presidential race over has also (just to be sure) come up with a rationalization in the event that their candidate loses.

They call it the Bradley Effect, after the former Mayor of Los Angeles Tom Bradley’s unsuccessful bid to be governor of California in 1982.

A late election poll had Bradley, an African-American, ahead, but he went on to lose the election. His supporters and others in the media blamed his loss on the so-called Bradley Effect: the supposed tendency of voters to tell pollsters they are voting for a minority when, in fact, they refuse to once they get in the voting booth.

The Bradley Effect has been widely discredited (see here and here).

But that hasn’t stopped Obama partisans in the media from assuring us that the only way Senator Obama can lose is through the Bradley Effect. In other words, the only thing that could explain an Obama loss is the fact that America is a society of closet racists.

Our Choice Today Doesn’t Have Anything to Do With Race

But I have another theory to describe the choice Americans face in this election -- call it the Common Sense Effect.

The choice we face today doesn’t have anything to do with race. It has to do with which candidate believes in wealth creation and which one believes in wealth redistribution.

Which candidate believes in limited, effective government, and which candidate believes in unrestrained, liberal, big government.

Which candidate believes that the hard work and ingenuity of incentivized Americans can solve our energy needs, and which candidate believes that government taxation, regulation and litigation is the way to go.

It’s critical that this point be made now, before the results are in: If Senator Obama loses the election today, it won’t have anything to do with the so-called Bradley Effect. It will have everything to do with the Common Sense Effect.

Senator Obama in His Own Words: “If Someone Wants to Build a Coal Power Plant ….It Will Bankrupt Them”

But don’t take my word for it. Take Senator Obama’s word for it.

Consider the choice that faces us today on the issue of America’s energy independence. And consider Senator Obama’s recently uncovered statements about how he would solve this problem.

As my new book Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less and my new film, “We Have the Power” (buy it here) point out, America is the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have vast, untapped coal resources, and clean coal technology will allow us to use those resources to stop sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy oil from countries that hate us.

But listen to what Senator Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle in January about America’s coal industry:

"If somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

Senator Obama in His Own Words: “Under My Plan…Electricity Rates Would Necessarily Skyrocket”

In the same interview, Senator Obama went on to say:

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations. That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers."

When Obama Arrogantly Talks About Bankrupting the Coal Industry, He’s Talking About Bankrupting Whole Communities

Senator Obama’s idea of solving our energy problems seems to be to inflict pain upon American consumers -- and to pronounce a death sentence on American producers of coal in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

When Senator Obama off-handedly and arrogantly talks about bankrupting the coal industry, he’s talking about bankrupting entire communities; shutting down the industry that produces the jobs and the tax revenue that fund schools, hospitals and roads.

These are Senator Obama’s own words, spoken 10 months ago to the mainstream media but only now being heard thanks to the work of independent bloggers.

This is the choice we face today.

We Don’t Know Which Candidate Will Win, But We Know the Mainstream Media Has Already Lost

I began my message to you today noting that coverage of this election has been among the most dishonest and one-sided by the mainstream media in American history.

We don’t yet know which candidate won the election, but we do know this: The mainstream media lost.

The examples of bias and distortion that have occurred are too numerous to list here.

Suffice to say that when a supposedly unbiased media organization polls its staffers, and the vote is 55 to 1, something is deeply wrong.

When honest reporters are embarrassed to admit that they’re journalists, something is wrong.

When the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism finds that negative articles about John McCain outweigh positive pieces by four-to-one, and positive pieces about Barack Obama outweigh negative pieces by two-to-one, something is deeply wrong.

Going forward, center-right and conservative Americans will have to work even harder to reclaim the media and to create new ways to communicate with our fellow Americans that bypass the mainstream media. We’ve already had some significant successes, including this newsletter. I thank you for the ideas, energy and optimism you have shared with me through these messages for the past two and a half years.

Regardless of who wins tonight, I’m sure you share my belief that we will honor our political process, respect our new leaders, and move forward with the cheerful persistence that Ronald Reagan taught us.

But for now, grab a friend -- grab a couple friends -- and go out and vote.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

P.S. If you’re still not convinced of the need to go out and vote, consider this: Amid reports of homeless people being able to list park benches as addresses in order to cast ballots, there are reports that many of our men and women serving overseas are having problems casting absentee ballots. Go to the polls today for those who fight but can’t vote.

P.P.S. Last Friday I discussed my new book, Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less, at the American Enterprise Institute, where I detailed a three-pronged approach to creating a responsible energy policy. First we have to maximize our domestic supply of all energy sources. Then we need to adopt an “across the board” strategy to encourage efficiency and innovation. Finally, we have to incentivize technological breakthroughs with prizes and tax credits.

As Senator Obama’s comments on coal illustrate, current elites in Congress have an ideological imperative to increase the cost of energy. But only with a responsible, pro-growth model will we be able to weather the current financial storm and promote energy independence, all while decreasing the cost of energy for all Americans.

American Solutions Update

A Message from American Solutions’ Chief Advocate, Princella Smith.

V-O-T-E. You must vote. America is facing one of the most critical times in its history, and in a race where the two contenders could not be more different in terms of policy, the choice is crucial

American Solutions had a great presence on the air last week. FOX News invited me to appear on “Your World with Neil Cavuto”, and NPR featured me as a guest on “News and Notes.” With each appearance, I held true to the principles we advocate at American Solutions: ISSUES. At the end of this election cycle, the defining aspect of each campaign whether local, statewide, or national, will be the ISSUES.

CNN Headline News has invited me for both Election Day and post-election analysis from the American Solutions perspective on November 4th and 5th. On election night, I will join the CBN team on the 700 Club. Rest assured that through each of these appearances, American Solutions will seize the opportunity to make sure that YOUR voice is heard.

To get e-mail notifications of American Solutions media appearances, contact American Solutions: .

Stay tuned to and visit our blog for updates from the American Solutions team.

-HAVE YOU SIGNED? Join the Drill Here, Drill Now Pay Less Campaign, and get involved with the entire movement for the Platform of the American People! Contact: Princella Smith at

Mr. Gingrich is the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and author of "Winning the Future" (published by Regnery, a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).

Obama's Mine Shaft


By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, November 03, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: Barack Obama's plan to bankrupt anyone building a new coal plant prioritizes global warming myths over U.S. energy independence. It also wields government power punitively and will hurt the economy.

Read More: Election 2008 | Global Warming

Speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle on Jan. 17, Barack Obama singled out new coal plant construction for big taxes. The scheme, part of the cap-and-trade energy policy he wants to implement as president, is meant to tax coal producers straight out of business.

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can," Obama said. "It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

Isolated gaffe? No. On his own Web site, Obama declares:

"Once we make dirty energy expensive, the second step in my plan is to invest $150 billion over the next decade to ensure the development and deployment of clean, affordable energy."

In other words, Obama's plan is confiscatory taxes to first destroy America's domestic energy producers, and once that bridge is burned, force the U.S. to rely on alternative energies that haven't been developed. The big-government plan might make ideologues happy, but in the real world, it won't work. History shows that centrally planned industries fail, and when there's an energy shortage, the private sector works best when it's left alone.

We aren't just talking Cuba, where the agricultural base was destroyed after Fidel Castro decreed that it would produce only sugar, or Russia, where farms were devastated in the 1930s after collectivization.

In the 1970s, Jimmy Carter splashed out billions to develop shale oil and created a vast boondoggle with no new energy produced. In Brazil, the military-financed ethanol project also was a money-pit until the 1990s when the government ended all involvement.

Obama's $150 billion plan would be no different. But it's worse than just burning money because its punitive element destroys one of America's best competitive advantages: its treasure trove of coal and the companies that produce it.

America is the Saudi Arabia of coal, with the world's largest demonstrated reserve base of 489 billion short tons, the Energy Department says. About 93% of it is used to produce electricity, and it provides about half of U.S. electricity needs. As the nation's economy expands, that need for coal is projected to grow about 20% by 2030.

If that need can't be met, consumers will be hit with high prices brought on by shortages. Meanwhile, America's 80,000 miners and 1.6 million workers in coal-related and coal-dependent industries would suffer from Obama's taxes on new plants.

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system," Obama said in another interview, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." He added that because "I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to the consumers."

The biggest problem with Obama's plan is that it taxes productive companies, and offers nothing but "hope" to replace the missing energy. He does not propose using our current resources as a bridge to cleaner energy. He'd rather stop their use cold. No nuclear power, no offshore drilling, no new coal plants, and if consumers have to pay more, too bad. Obama's attack on coal use surely will leave us poorer.

Monday, November 03, 2008

My Message to Democrats: Listen to the People and Make This 4th of July Energy Independence Day

My Message to Democrats: Listen to the People and Make This 4th of July Energy Independence Day

by Newt Gingrich

Posted 06/24/2008 ET
Updated 06/24/2008 ET

This week I want to do something a little different.

Although my Winning the Future message has always been directed at all Americans, whether they consider themselves Republicans, Democrats, or independents, today I am directing my message specifically to Democrats. And my message is this:

The American people have spoken. Are your leaders listening?

Over 1.1 Million Americans Call on Congress to "Drill Here, Drill Now"
We really had no idea, just 35 days ago when we first posted the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" petition here, that we would provide the spark that has ignited a fire among frustrated, struggling Americans.

In just 35 days, over 1.1 million Americans have signed the petition. Seven hundred and fifty thousand signed in just three weeks. Almost 100,000 signed up in a single day.

Americans of all political parties have signed the "Drill Here, Drill Now" petition. Here's what they're saying:

The 1.1 million Americans who have signed the petition are appealing to Congress to allow environmentally responsible ways to produce more energy here, at home.

They're not calling for higher taxes on oil companies.

They're not blaming foreigners for our energy problems.

They're not begging the Saudis to sell us more oil.

And so my message to the party that controls Congress is this:

The American people have spoken. Are you listening?

New Poll Shows 74 Percent of Americans Support Offshore Drilling
Through our polling at American Solutions we have long known that a whopping 81 percent of Americans support developing more domestic energy, including oil and coal. And this 81 percent majority is made up of 85 percent of the Republicans, 83 percent of the independents and 76 percent of the Democrats surveyed.

Now we have even more data showing widespread support for increasing domestic energy production.

A new Rasmussen Poll has revealed that a full 67 percent of Americans support offshore drilling.

What is the party breakdown behind these numbers? The supporters were 85 percent Republican, 57 percent Democrat and 60 percent unaffiliated voters.

Moreover, a new Zogby poll shows that 74 percent of Americans support drilling offshore for our American oil. The supporters were 90 percent Republican, 58 percent Democrat, and 75 percent independent voters. A related survey by Zogby also shows that 59 percent of Americans support drilling in ANWR.

In other words, the American people have spoken. Are you listening Democrats?

175 Members of Congress Have Pledged to Increase U.S. Oil Production. Only One Is a Democrat.
As usual, the American people know intuitively what Washington just doesn't understand: You don't have to be a Republican to be struggling to put gas in your car. Democratic and independent families, commuters and small business owners are hurting too.

So why haven't Democrats in Congress responded? Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R.-Ga.) is circulating a petition challenging his House colleagues to pledge to ''vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for Americans.'' As of this writing, 175 members of Congress have signed.

Only one, Neal Abercrombie of Hawaii, is a Democrat.

Drilling opponents support more drilling so long as there is no oil
Perhaps some Democrats have been reluctant to sign on because of two popular talking points making the rounds.

These opponents say that oil and gas companies already hold 68 million acres of federal land (offshore and land combined) that they are not using to produce oil and gas. They also say it would take 10 years before any of that oil makes it into our gas tanks.

Just this weekend on Meet the Press, Sen. Joe Biden (D.-Del.) said, "They [the oil companies] have now leased 41 million acres of offshore leases. They're only pumping in 10.2 million of those acres. . . . And John [McCain] says they need more? And it would take 10 years for it to come online."

There are a number of problems with these arguments.

First, when federal waters or lands are leased to energy companies, the first step is to explore for oil - in other words, look for it. Most of the acres leased for oil end up being determined to not hold enough oil or gas to make it profitable for energy companies to actually extract it. So the vast majority of those 68 million acres are not being used for a simple reason: they're currently unusable.

Given this fact, it's obvious that citing the amount of currently unused leased land is a ruse. It allows opponents of using American oil to seem as if they actually support it, when in truth they only support more drilling in areas where there is not enough oil to make it worthwhile to drill. In other words, they actually don't support using our American oil to lower gas prices.

Either it is a ruse, or it is a testament to the profound arrogance of the Washington elite that they believe they understand the business of oil production better than American oil companies.

Drill here, drill now, pay less ... in the short term and long term
Lastly, even if we were to accept the estimate of 10 years to get American oil into our gas tank (if America made it a priority to quickly extract our oil I'm confident we could find a way to speed up the process), there is good reason to believe the short-term affect on oil prices would be significant.

While estimates range on the degree to which oil futures trading is affecting the price of oil, there is broad consensus that it is playing a role. The very act of opening America's vast oil deposits for extraction would send an immediate signal to speculators that supply will be increased, and that betting on higher prices for oil is no longer a safe investment. Prices will fall as a result.

Also, beginning the process of drilling for our American oil would allow us the freedom to empty part of the strategic oil reserve into the market on the promise it will be replenished by these future American sources. This immediate increase in the supply of oil would cause a decrease in price.

Make This July 4th Energy Independence Day
Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, if your leaders aren't listening to the clear, expressed will of the people then you have it in your power to change this, to send the message to Washington that this July 4th will be unlike other July 4ths.

This Independence Day we declare our energy independence. And we give our elected officials this choice:

Either take action to drill here and drill now for American oil or the American people will take action this fall.

What You Can Do NOW to Send a Message to Washington
Here's what you can do:

- If your Representative hasn't signed the Westmoreland petition, contact him or her here and make your voice heard.

- If you haven't signed the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" petition, click here and do so today. Our goal is to have three million signatures in time for the Republican and Democratic national conventions.

- When your House member is back in the district for the Fourth of July holiday, take the opportunity to personally let him or her know that Americans don't need to be suffering under $4-plus gas and that he has a responsibility to do something about it.

Senator McCain Proposes a $300 Million Prize for a "Super" Car Battery
One of the solutions we've proposed at American Solutions for reducing our dependence on foreign oil and producing more American energy is offering prizes for innovative answers to our energy needs.

When you think about it, prizes are the essence of the American way. Rather than bloated, bureaucratic government programs that are black holes for tax dollars, prizes unleash the creative, entrepreneurial spirit that built this country.

That's why I am so pleased to see that Sen. John McCain has proposed a $300 million prize for the individual who can develop a "super" car battery that can power cars more cheaply and with less harm to the environment.

Congratulations to Sen. McCain for his faith in the ingenuity of the American people. Sen. Obama should join him in passing legislation to create this prize now. This is an idea whose time has come.

A Life Transformed By United Cerebral Palsy
Finally, today I want to mention a remarkable organization that is doing remarkable things for people with disabilities.

This past Thursday, I had the privilege to speak to the leadership of a wonderful organization and member of the Center for Health Transformation, United Cerebral Palsy. UCP may be one of the most effective organizations you've never heard of. Through their network of affiliates, they provide care to more than 30,000 people with disabilities each day. They approach their work with energy, wisdom and tremendous creativity.

To give you a sense for how this truly 21st century organization operates, their CEO, Steve Bennett, spent several weeks this past November in briefings across Silicon Valley to understand where technology is heading and how it can be put to use immediately to transform the lives of the 54 million Americans with disabilities. This is exactly the approach we need throughout our health system. Click here to learn more about this organization and how you can help.

One example of the wonderful results UCP and its affiliates can deliver is a remarkable girl named Gina. When Gina was just 2 years old she was diagnosed with autism. She did not really start speaking any words until after age 3. Last Thursday, at the age of 6, she sang the National Anthem as beautifully as I've ever heard it sung. You owe it to yourself to read her story here, and if you are planning an event you couldn't find a better person to open it with the National Anthem.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

And If Obama Loses?

And If Obama Loses?

by Patrick J. Buchanan


DENVER -- After the phony roll call vote was taken here to formally nominate Barack Obama -- a roll call that did not remotely reflect the true delegate strength of Hillary -- the media exploded in an orgy of celebration about the historic character of the moment to which they had just been privileged to be witness.

"The first black presidential nominee ever of a major party in history!" was proclaimed. Coming on the 45th anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech, Barack's nomination is being hailed as the last great step forward in the long march to equality and justice in America.

The moral pressure to join the march of history is enormous.

Nor is it unfair to say that some journalists here are obsessed with the issue of race in this campaign. There may be wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, rising tensions with Russia, a falling regime in Pakistan, and reports of U.S. and NATO warships headed for the Persian Gulf, but here it is all about the first black ever nominated for president.

During the primaries, Bill Clinton was charged with racism by liberal Democrats for saying that Barack's claim to being consistent on Iraq was a "fairy tale" and for implying that Barack's victory in South Carolina was no big deal because Jesse Jackson had carried the state twice.

Here at the convention, the media watched Hillary and Bill's speeches with a commissar's care -- to ensure they not only embraced Barack but "validated" his credentials to be president. Should they not go all out for Obama, we are told, the Clintons are dead in the party.

The psychic investment in Barack's candidacy is immense.

So great is the moral pressure to conform that John Lewis, the young hero of Selma Bridge, buckled and recanted his endorsement of Hillary. And that act of disloyalty and betrayal, a capitulation to race solidarity, is regarded as praiseworthy.

Black radio has become a cheering section for Obama. Every GOP ad mocking Obama is inspected for racial motives. Campaign books that portray Obama as a radical or phony are denounced by people who have not even seen them. The thought police are out in force.

Michelle Obama's speech about her upbringing and beliefs -- crafted by Barack's hires -- is said to be the last word on what a mainstream patriotic woman she is. But why, then, would she have taken her two lovely daughters to be baptized by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and to listen on Sundays to his racist rants against America?

Abroad, we are told, Europe and the Third World are awaiting the moment when America turns her back on her racist past and elevates this black man to the presidency. The subtext is that this is not just a political contest, but a moral test for America.

Indeed, many have begun to see this election in solely racial terms, an issue of whether racism once again triumphs in America, or racism is buried one and for all.

Questions arise. With this immense moral and emotional investment in a Barack victory -- by 94 to 1 in one poll black America is behind him -- what happens if the nation decides he is too radical, too inexperienced, too callow, too risky to be president?

What happens if the American people reject their marching orders and say no to Barack and black America? What happens if all the hopes and dreams, hype and hoopla, end in disillusionment?

Would the defeat of Barack Obama be taken as an affront to black America? Could we be in for a time of deepening racial division rather than healing? Could we be in for a long, hot autumn like the long, hot summers some of us recall from 40 years ago?

One black preacher here suggested as much to me.

Should that happen, the people who have framed this election as a contest between morality and racial justice on one side, and the clammy hand of America's racist past on the other, will bear the same moral responsibility as did the advocates of mass civil obedience for the racial riots of the 1960s that followed.

Barack has just shot 6 points ahead of McCain. But he has not yet closed the sale. And to prevent his closing of the sale, the GOP must raise doubts in the public mind as to whether he is really a man of Middle America or the closet radical of the Rev. Wright's congregation who said of Pennsylvanians that they are bitter folks, who cling to their Bibles, bigotries and guns because the world has left them behind.

No candidate has ever been nominated by a major party with fewer credentials or a weaker claim to the presidency, or more doubts as to his core beliefs. If Obama wins, the country could be in real trouble. And if he loses, the country could be in real trouble.

What the media celebrate today, they may rue tomorrow.

Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

Can McCain Still Win?

Can McCain Still Win?

by Patrick J. Buchanan


Two weeks after the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn., John McCain and Sarah Palin were striding forward toward victory.

They had erased the eight-point lead Barack Obama had opened up in Denver and watched as one blue state after another moved into the toss-up category.

That is ancient history now.

Since mid-September, the stock market has cratered, losing half of the $8 trillion that has vanished since October 2007. All five of America's great investment banks -- Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill-Lynch, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley -- have either ceased to be independent or ceased to be.

The nation's largest savings and loan, Washington Mutual, and largest insurance company, AIG, have gone belly up, with the federal bailout of the latter costing $100 billion and counting. Perhaps $3 trillion of the $8 trillion in stock value that is gone disappeared after passage of the $700 billion federal bailout of Wall Street.

No bottom is in sight to the worst market crash since 1929. Recession is now certain. George W. Bush has fallen to 26 percent approval, a level unseen since Richard Nixon was driven from office in the Watergate summer of '74. Four in five think the nation is on the wrong course.

Yet, Obama has only a six-point lead in an averaging of national polls. While he has moved ahead in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, one senses America is not so much rallying to him as running away from a Republican brand that is now on the same shelf with Chinese baby formula.

Obama still has not closed the sale. He has overtaken McCain not because of any brilliant campaign he has conducted but because of the dreadful news pouring out of Wall Street. McCain and Palin are being dragged down by Dow Jones, not Barack Obama.

As of today, the country is not so much voting for Barack and the Democrats as it is preparing to vote against the Republicans.

Consider: The Congress, whose Democratic ranks the nation is getting ready to enlarge -- the Congress led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid -- has an approval rating half that of Bush.

Indeed, looking back on the Year of Barack, 2008, it is clear he has never closed the sale, either with the people or his own party.

After he came off the blocks with a startling triumph in Iowa and ran up a dozen straight primary and caucus victories in February, arrived the spring when Hillary, though Obama's media auxiliary was ordering her to get out, defeated him in Texas, crushed him in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and humiliated him in West Virginia and Kentucky.

Each time the voters take a long second look at Barack, their positive first impressions seem to dissipate. Barack is a weak closer.

Herein lies McCain's hope. The country wants change, but it has not concluded it wants Obama. But if John McCain cannot raise grave doubts about his agenda, his associates, his record, his character, his fitness to be president, Obama is going to win by default.

Obama has succeeded in the debates by playing defense. By his cool demeanor and persona, he has diminished apprehensions about an Obama presidency. There is no evidence of surging enthusiasm.

The Obama media are well aware of Obama's Achilles' heel, his great vulnerability, the doubts about him that still exist in the public mind. That is why they are near hysterical about Palin's ripping of Obama for "palling around" with "domestic terrorists" like William Ayres, the 1960s and 1970s Weatherman radical who conspired to bomb the Capitol and Pentagon and was quoted the morning of 9-11 as saying he wished he had set off more bombs.

The mainstream media call this irrelevant, as it was so long ago.

Yet, can one imagine how the media would have reacted had they learned that a GOP presidential nominee was introduced to politics and worked in harness with a KKK bomber of black churches in the 1960s, who was quoted the morning of Oklahoma City as saying he wished he had planted more bombs?

As McCain is an establishment man on illegal aliens, NAFTA and Wall Street bailouts, uneasy with social issues like affirmative action and abortion, he lacks the full panoply of weapons that successful Republicans like Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bush II used to win two terms. He seems to confine himself to the limited arsenal Gerald Ford, Bush 1 and Bob Dole employed when they went down to defeat.

This election is not over. Yet, even if McCain gets a bit of luck, a dead cat bounce on Wall Street, he must persuade the nation Obama is an unacceptable occupant of the White House if he is to win.

Palin appears ready to take the heat to make that case. But McCain seems ambivalent to the point of being bipolar on whether he wants to take responsibility for peeling the hide off Barack Obama.

Perhaps it comes down to what McCain really thinks about an Obama presidency, and how he wants to be remembered by history.

Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

The Reid-Pelosi-Obama (RePO) Team Vs. The Rest of America

The Reid-Pelosi-Obama (RePO) Team Vs. The Rest of America

by Newt Gingrich

Posted 10/15/2008 ET
Updated 10/15/2008 ET

First, this summer's economic bailout bill put the taxpayers on the line for $152 billion.

Then the housing bailout added $300 billion.

The Paulson bailout cost us another $700 billion.

Now Washington Democrats - already counting on complete, filibuster-proof control of the nation's purse-strings come November - are talking about spending another $300 billion on a "stimulus package."

That comes to a grand total of $1.45 trillion the taxpayers are being asked to provide for Washington's ideas on how to save the economy.

But here's the thing: Has anyone ever asked the people who are footing the bill - the taxpayers - how we'd like this money spent?

How would you spend $1.45 trillion to make America better? Today I'm going to give you an opportunity to tell America how you'd spend this money.

But first some news, with Halloween just around the corner, that should scare us all.

The Reid-Pelosi-Obama (RePO) Team Announces the Era of "Harsh Decisions"
They've been working hard to show us their happy face, but the mask of the Reid-Pelosi-Obama (RePO) team slipped a bit last week.

The Senate Majority Leader, the House Speaker and the Democratic Presidential nominee are already planning on a total Democratic takeover of Washington following the election, but here's the really frightening news: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that Congress may convene after the election to make "harsh decisions."

"Harsh decisions." Sounds scary.

Will RePO Make the "Harsh Decision" to Raise Taxes? Reward ACORN?
We should take Speaker Pelosi at her word. What "harsh decisions" does the San Francisco Democrat have in mind for America? Will they be tricks or treats?

Will the RePO Team make the "harsh decision" to raise confiscatory taxes on American businesses, the engine of jobs and economic growth?

Will they make the harsh choice to strip American voters of their right to a secret ballot when deciding whether or not to unionize a workplace?

Will they choose to send hundreds of millions of new taxpayer dollars to the radical leftwing group ACORN (on top of the hundreds of millions in this summer's housing bailout bill that went to radical groups including ACORN) in exchange for getting out the leftwing vote in the November election?

Will Reid-Pelosi-Obama rewrite deadbeat mortgages to steal from lenders and reward irresponsible behavior?

Just exactly who is going to find their decisions "harsh?"

In this Present Crisis, Government Isn't the Solution to our Problem
With just 21 days to go until the election, it's becoming clearer and clearer that the choice for Americans in 2008 is a choice between the kind of pro-special interest, pro-bureaucracy, "harsh" decisions the RePo Team isn't even waiting for the voters to ratify, or the sensible, center-right values of the rest of America.

In his first inaugural address, Ronald Reagan memorably said, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

A new Rasmussen Poll shows that a solid majority of Americans - 59%-28% - still agree with Reagan's statement.

Americans from across all age and income groups - including a majority who consider themselves politically moderate - believe that government, taxes and regulation and Fannie and Freddie-style government-backed corruption are what got us into this economic mess in the first place.

It is important to keep in mind that Reagan was not anti-government. As he said in that first inaugural, "Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work - work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."

It is as true today as it was when Reagan first said it in January 1981: in the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem.

The "Harsh Decisions" Of One-Party Washington Vs. the Rest of America
And so the decision we face in November is whether we're going to pursue more of the same heavy-handed government policies that got us into this economic mess, or whether we are going to put government on the side of fostering the private sector creativity, ingenuity and entrepreneurialism that made this country great.

But Speaker Pelosi is right about one thing: Congress should return to Washington in a special session to address the ongoing economic crisis.

But instead of making the "harsh decisions" advocated by the RePo Team, Congress should pass a package of reforms that will address the immediate economic crisis while creating jobs, keeping America's energy dollars at home, and addressing the long-term health of our economy.

A Pro-Growth, Pro-Jobs, Pro-Energy Independence Agenda For Congress
Instead of $300 billion in new liabilities for the American taxpayers, Congress should take action on the following:

1. Zero capital gains tax - Countries without taxes on capital gains, such as China, Singapore, and Taiwan, are magnets for global investment. Economists like Alan Greenspan have called for removing capital gains in order to see increased economic growth and American competitiveness in attracting foreign direct investment and international corporations.

2. Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley - After the devastating crash of Enron and WorldCom, Congress rushed to pass a law to alleviate panic. Instead of enacting reform measures that would reasonably prevent fraud, they passed a burdensome, accounting mess. Sarbanes-Oxley is a disproportionate burden for small businesses and start-ups, and has forced many companies to move from New York to London.

3. Allow 100% annual expensing for small businesses - Small businesses create 7 out of 10 new jobs in America and account for more than half of the output of our economy. One hundred percent annual expensing would give small business more money to invest in new technologies, like computers and machinery, to improve worker productivity. Likewise, it would allow business to hire more employees.

4. Move to break up and privatize Freddie and Fannie - Corporate greed at Freddie and Fannie fueled subprime mortgage loans. Because subprime mortgages carried higher risk, they also offered a higher interest yield that gave executives an increased profit share. Given the government sponsored enterprise, they had lower capital requirements, and were implicitly backed by taxpayer dollars in the case that these assets should crumble. These institutions should be prevented from offering more subprime mortgages, and we should move towards privatizing them.

5. Provide a comprehensive plan to keep Americans in their homes - The summer's housing bailout bill gave $300 billion to renegotiate mortgages with homeowners, but forced lending institutions to take an immediate 10% cut in profit, giving little incentive for lending institutions to participate. The government could instead offer a no-interest loan to homeowners who are current on their mortgage payments and work with their lending institution to renegotiate their mortgages into a 6% fixed interest, 30-year loan. We should help those homeowners who have acted in good faith keep the keys to their homes.

6. Move towards long term investment strategies - Congress should look to investing in the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation to foster innovation and make America the most competitive market for research and development.

7. Develop an all-of-the-above energy policy - Imagine if we invested a fraction of the billion dollar bailout into developing, for example, more nuclear power and coal-to-synthetic natural gas technologies and infrastructure. We should continue to advance clean coal, biofuels, wind, solar, hydrogen, and natural gas technologies. Further, we should increase exploration and development of our own resources offshore and in oil shale, so that we are not defenseless against any energy cartels.

8. We should repeal all congressional money given to ACORN - ACORN is under investigation in a dozen states for voter fraud. We cannot afford to be subsidizing an organization that operates under the façade of providing community development and low-income housing, while it has a record of fraudulent activity. See this CNN report about ACORN voter registration fraud in Indiana, where ACORN provided 5,000 new voter registration cards. Indiana authorities started reviewing them and found that the first 2,100 were all fraudulent.

How Would You Spend $1.45 Trillion to Make America Better?
You've heard a few of my ideas, and you've no doubt read plenty about what the Washington establishment thinks we need to do to rescue our economy. But when was the last time someone asked you - the American taxpayer - how we should use the $1.45 trillion of your money Washington has generously offered to spend?

My organization, American Solutions, is interested in what you have to say.

Do you think we should use the money to invest in technology to make us energy independent? Click here and tell us how and why.

Do you think we should use the $1.45 trillion to transform our health system? Click here and let us know?

Or should we just give the $1.45 trillion back to the American taxpayers? Log on to our website and say so. My bet is you'll be the most popular person on the site.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

P.S. -- Three Ideas to Transform the Health Care Debate: So far, the presidential debates have raised more questions than answers on how healthcare must be overhauled in 2009. Both during and since my time in Congress, I've been striving to change our ailing system. Regardless of who wins the election, a new administration and Congress brings an opportunity for the United States to shift to a 21st Century Intelligent Health System. It means gritty work and long hours, beyond bureaucracy, with a focus on proven solutions. At the Center for Health Transformation website, we have put forward three proposals that must lead the debate into 2009. I encourage you to be an empowered patient and join our YouTube channel "HealthTransformation."

Mr. Gingrich is the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and author of "Winning the Future" (published by Regnery, a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).

Obama's First 100 Days

Obama's First 100 Days
by Patrick J. Buchanan

Posted 10/28/2008 ET
Updated 10/28/2008 ET

Undeniably, a powerful tide is running for the Democratic Party, with one week left to Election Day.

Bush's approval rating is 27 percent, just above Richard Nixon's Watergate nadir and almost down to Carter-Truman lows. After each of those presidents reached their floors -- in 1952, 1974, 1980 -- the opposition party captured the White House.

Moreover, 80 percent to 90 percent of Americans think the nation is on the wrong course, and since mid-September, when McCain was still slightly ahead, the Dow has lost 4,000 points -- $5 trillion to $6 trillion in value.

Leading now by eight points in an average of national polls, Barack Obama has other advantages.

Not a single blue state is regarded as imperiled or even a toss-up, while Obama leads in six crucial red states: Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri and Colorado. Should McCain lose one of the six, he would have to win Pennsylvania to compensate for the lost electoral votes. But the latest Pennsylvania polls show Barack with a double-digit lead.

Lately moving into the toss-up category are Nevada, North Dakota, Montana and Indiana. All voted twice for George W. Bush.

Not only is Obama ahead in the state and national polls, he has more money, is running far more ads, has a superior organization on the ground, attracts larger crowds, and has greater enthusiasm and more media in camp. And new voter registrations heavily favor the Democrats.

Though Congress is regarded by Americans with a disdain bordering on disgust -- five of six Americans think it has done a poor job -- Democratic majorities are certain to grow. Indeed, with Democrats favored by 10 points over Republicans, Nancy Pelosi's majority could grow by 25 seats and Harry Reid could find himself with a filibuster-proof majority of 60 senators.

Democrats already have 49, plus two independents: Socialist Bernie Sanders and Independent Joe Lieberman. Their challengers are now ahead in New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico, Minnesota, Oregon and Colorado, with a chance of picking up Georgia, Alaska, Kentucky and Mississippi.

We may be looking at a reverse of 1980, when Reagan won a 10-point victory over Jimmy Carter, and Republicans took the Senate and, working with Boll Weevil Democrats, effective control of the House.

With his tax cuts, defense buildup and rollback policy against the "Evil Empire," Reagan gave us some of the best years of our lives, culminating in America's epochal victory in the Cold War.

What does the triumvirate of Obama-Pelosi-Reid offer?

Rep. Barney Frank is calling for new tax hikes on the most successful and a 25 percent across-the-board slash in national defense. Sen. John Kerry is talking up new and massive federal spending, a la FDR's New Deal. Specifically, we can almost surely expect:

-- Swift amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and a drive to make them citizens and register them, as in the Bill Clinton years. This will mean that Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona will soon move out of reach for GOP presidential candidates, as has California.

-- Border security will go on the backburner, and America will have a virtual open border with a Mexico of 110 million.

-- Taxes will be raised on the top 5 percent of wage-earners, who now carry 60 percent of the U.S. income tax burden, and tens of millions of checks will be sent out to the 40 percent of wage-earners who pay no federal income tax. Like the man said, redistribute the wealth, spread it around.

-- Social Security taxes will be raised on the most successful among us, and capital gains taxes will be raised from 15 percent to 20 percent. The Bush tax cuts will be repealed, and death taxes reimposed.

-- Two or three more liberal activists of the Ruth Bader Ginsberg-John Paul Stevens stripe will be named to the Supreme Court. U.S. district and appellate courts will be stacked with "progressives."

-- Special protections for homosexuals will be written into all civil rights laws, and gays and lesbians in the military will be invited to come out of the closet. "Don't ask, don't tell" will be dead.

-- The homosexual marriages that state judges have forced California, Massachusetts and Connecticut to recognize, an Obama Congress or Obama court will require all 50 states to recognize.

-- A "Freedom of Choice Act" nullifying all state restrictions on abortions will be enacted. America will become the most pro-abortion nation on earth.

-- Affirmative action -- hiring and promotions based on race, sex and sexual orientation until specified quotas are reached -- will be rigorously enforced throughout the U.S. government and private sector.

-- Universal health insurance will be enacted, covering legal and illegal immigrants, providing another powerful magnet for the world to come to America, if necessary by breaching her borders.

-- A federal bailout of states and municipalities to keep state and local governments spending up could come in December or early next year.

-- The first trillion-dollar deficit will be run in the first year of an Obama presidency. It will be the first of many.

Welcome to Obamaland!

Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

A Disturbing Look At a Very Near Future: Tax Cuts Vs More Spending at the Special Session

A Disturbing Look At a Very Near Future:
Tax Cuts Vs More Spending at the Special Session

By Newt Gingrich

October 28, 2008

We have a choice between two futures.

For the first, fast forward 23 days. It’s November 17. Congress convenes for a special session with a veto-proof Democratic majority Senate, an expanded Democrat majority in the House and a Democrat in the White House.

The sole item on their agenda is to pass the $300 billion government spending package promised by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi back in October.

There is no mistaking what is coming. Even before Democrats won sweeping, one-party control of Washington, they had made their intentions to increase taxes and spending clear.

Originally pegged at $150 billion, Pelosi’s spending package ballooned as time went on.

With 11 days to go before the election, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) fleshed out some details of the massive spending package. Frank called for a 25 percent cut in defense spending and conceded that Democrats will raise taxes to pay for new government spending. If they couldn’t get the votes in November, Frank was confident that they would have them in January.

And long before the election, President-elect Barack Obama had expressed his preference for wealth redistribution over wealth creation both on the campaign trail and in a startling radio interview in 2001, in which he claims the Warren Court was not radical enough. (Bill Whittle does an excellent job of dissecting this interview at National Review Online )

“You Can’t Say We Weren’t Warned”

The newly empowered Democratic majority passes the massive spending bill, confident that even a veto by President Bush can and will be overridden by their new Senate majority in January.

Before President-elect Barack Obama even takes office, government spending increases by $300 billion, bringing the grand total for the last six months of 2008 to $1.45 trillion.

And all center-right Americans can do is shake their heads and think, “You can’t say we weren’t warned.”

There is a Different Future: Make the Election About Big Spending Vs Big Economic Growth

For candidates, campaign managers, and consultants who are disturbed at this look at the very near future, there is another way.

But that way begins now. Today.

To avoid defeat on November 4 and avoid an out-of-control spending spree in the new Congress, the voters have to be given a real choice on Election Day.

• A choice between robust government spending and robust economic growth;
• A choice between higher spending and lower taxes;
• A choice between spreading the wealth around and increasing it through rapid economic recovery.

Because when Americans are asked to make these choices, our answers are clear and unequivocal.

We trust the private sector to grow the economy more than government. We favor keeping our money over giving it to Washington. We favor creating more wealth over redistributing the wealth we’ve worked for and saved.

We just have to be given the choice.

Three Times More Americans Believe In Tax Cuts Over More Government Spending

Newly released polling data show just how out of touch with Americans the REPO Team (Reid-Pelosi-Obama) pre-Christmas spending spree is.

By 60%-20%, Americans believe lower taxes, not higher government spending, will best ensure economic recovery, according to a new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll.

By 86%-9%, Americans believe government should focus on jobs and economic growth over income redistribution, according to a New Models/Winston Group survey.

By 71%-25%, Americans believe that if you cut taxes on small business it will create new jobs, according to the New Models/Winston Group poll.

So What Are We Waiting For?

So what are we waiting for? To counter the Reid-Pelosi-Obama massive $300 billion government spending spree, Republicans should offer a $300 billion tax cut package.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has proposed a rapid economic recovery program that should be the centerpiece of the campaign going forward. Instead of marrying new deficit spending with liberal special interests like the Reid-Pelosi-Obama plan does, the Boehner plan marries sound economics with the small government, free market values of the American people.

Here are some of the reforms in the Boehner rapid economic recovery plan:

• Energy Independence: Creating jobs and reducing energy and food costs by enacting an “all of the above” energy plan. For more information, watch my new movie “We Have the Power” (watch the new trailer here and buy the movie here ) and read my new book Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less .
• Creating Jobs: Bringing American jobs back home by lowering the tax rate on profits that companies bring back to the United States.
• Restoring Home Values: Encouraging home purchases by easing capital gains rules for homes purchased in the next 18 months and held for at least five years.
• Spurring Economic Growth: Immediately suspend the capital gains tax on individuals and businesses for equities purchased during the next two years.
• Encouraging American Companies to Assist in Recovery: Lower the tax rate on business income so American companies have an incentive to invest in distressed assets.
• Protecting Retirement: Suspend rules that require individuals at age 70½ to begin withdrawing from their Individual Retirement Accounts. This would spare investors from being forced to sell their stocks at just the time when the market is hurting the most.

I will have more to say about what we can do now to avert this impending massive government spending spree at an event this Friday at the American Enterprise Institute entitled “Energy, the Economy, and the Special Session of Congress.” For more details, go to

In the meantime, there is no time to waste. Republicans and center-right independents and Democrats can give the voters a real choice in the election, or we can lose our choice in the congressional special session to come.

Either way, you can’t say we weren’t warned.

Your friend,

P.S. Healthcare reform is a monstrous undertaking, but if we break it down to metrics - not financial discussions - we can see progress. And the best example of what I am talking about comes straight from baseball. To learn more, check out my op-ed co-written with Oakland A’s General Manager Billy Beane and Senator John Kerry at

P.P.S. As I travel across the country, it has been encouraging to see more and more young people getting involved in politics and finding solutions to the challenges facing our nation. I met Ryan Minarovich this summer after a speech and he told me about his plans for a new blog called that will engage more young Americans to be more active. It launched recently so I encourage all young Americans to take a look.

Platform of the American People Update

American Solutions Chief Advocate, Princella Smith visited Conroe, TX last week to speak about the way forward with regards to the economy, education reform, and a comprehensive energy plan. Check out her posts here!

American Solutions had a great presence on the air last week. On Monday, Princella was featured on CNN Headline News and on Fausta’s Blog Talk Radio.

This week, Princella will be featured on the following XM Satellite Radio channels: Thursday 1:30pm - 2pm ET POTUS '08 and Saturday 11pm - Midnight ET The Power. To get e-mail notifications of American Solutions media appearances, contact American Solutions:

Stay tuned to and visit our blog for updates from the American Solutions team.

-HAVE YOU SIGNED? Join the Drill Here, Drill Now Pay Less Campaign, and get involved with the entire movement for the Platform of the American People! Contact: Princella Smith at

Mr. Gingrich is the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and author of "Winning the Future" (published by Regnery, a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).