I strongly encourage other Newt’s supporters to add to this diary.
Newt ran for congress twice before succeeding on his third try in 1978. Following Reagan’s Presidential election in 1980, Newt and a few of his colleagues in the House formed the Conservative Opportune Society (COS) in 1983 and took it upon themselves to defend the President against a fusilage of criticism from his enemies. Back in those days, Newt and
his colleagues would take turns to speak on the House floor, frequently to an empty audience. CSPAN will telecast the entire speech to the nation. It is believed that Newt and his young colleagues became known as Reagan’s young lieutenants because of those speeches to the empty House Floor. Unfortunately, it was during one such speech in March 21st, 1986 that Newt was caught lambasting Reagan’s reaching out to Gorbachev. Critics of Newt, including Romney’s super PAC friends used that little segment and took it out of context to assail the Speaker as being anti-Reagan when in fact in the very same speech, he was highly supportive of the President. The same critics failed to mentioned that most conservatives of that day were on Newt’s side. On January, 26, in an orchestrated move, the Drudge Report was flooded with a deluge of headlines lambasting Newt’s anti-Reagan speech, including a piece by serious conservative writer Elliot Abrams. Despite attempts by Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh to correct the error, damage was done and Newt paid the political price at the Florida primary a few days later.

While in congress, Newt

• Founded the Conservative Opportune Society which met weekly to discuss ideas many of which were adopted by Reagan during his second term supporting the group’s conservative goals on economic growth, education, crime, and social issues.
• Co founded the Congressional Military Reform Caucus and the Congressional Aviation and Space Caucus
• Led charges against the Democrat Speaker of the House Jim Wright
• Became House Minority Whip in 1989
• In 1990, he came up with a paper titled  ”Language, a Key Mechanism of Control”, that encouraged Republicans to “speak like Newt” and contained lists of “contrasting words” – words with negative connotations such as “radical”, “sick,” and “traitors” – and “optimistic positive governing words” such as “opportunity”, “courage”, and “principled”, that Gingrich recommended for use in describing Democrats and Republicans, respectively…Now we know why he is so good with words during the debates.
• Gingrich and several other Republicans,  in an effort to offer an alternative to Democratic policies and to unite distant wings of the Republican Party came up with a Contract with America which laid out ten policies that Republicans promised to bring to a vote on the House floor during the first hundred days of the new Congress if they won the elections. The contract was signed by Gingrich and other Republican candidates for the House of Representatives. The contract ranged from issues such as welfare reform, term limits, tougher crime laws, and a balanced budget law, to more specialized legislation such as restrictions on American military participation in UN missions. In the November 1994 elections, Republicans gained 54 seats and took control of the House for the first time since 1954.
• Congress fulfilled Gingrich’s Contract promise to bring all ten of the Contract’s issues to a vote within the first 100 days of the session
• Legislation proposed by the 104th US Congress included term limits for Congressional Representatives, tax cuts, welfare reform, and a balanced budget amendment, as well as independent auditing of the finances of the House of Representatives and elimination of non-essential services such as the House barbershop and shoe-shine concessions.
• Newt led the Republican majority to an re-election in 1996, the first time Republicans had done so in 68 years, and the first time simultaneously with a Democratic president winning re-election.
• In 1996, Newt pushed for the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act which was intended to reconstruct the welfare system. The act gave state governments more autonomy over welfare delivery, while also reducing the federal government’s responsibilities. It instituted the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which placed time limits on welfare assistance and replaced the longstanding Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Other changes to the welfare system included stricter conditions for food stamp eligibility, reductions in immigrant welfare assistance, and recipient work requirements. The said act was signed into law on Aug 22, 1996.
• Pushed Clinton for a Federal Balanced Budget- The plan included a total of $152 billion in Republican sponsored tax cuts over five years. Other major parts of the spending plan called for $115 billion to be saved through a restructuring of Medicare, $24 billion set aside to extend health insurance to children of the working poor, tax credits for college tuition, and a $2 billion welfare-to-work jobs initiative. Plan was to have a balanced budget by 2002 but was achieved in 1999, three years ahead of schedule.
• Through the Contract with America, Gingrich was credited with the largest Capital Gains Tax Cut in US History with the 1997 US Tax Relief Act

One of the most prominent ad involves Tom Brokaw on NBC news saying that Speaker Newt Gingrich was fined $300,000 in the ethics violation case. Interestingly, Tom Brokaw and NBC had asked the Romney campaign to stop using that particular newsclip in its ad. Rush Limbaugh took NBC to task for not doing enough. They should have come out and corrected an error in reporting because Newt Gingrich was totally exonerated by the IRS and that Newt was cleared of all but two of the charges in the Ethics case. On the Thursday before the Florida Primary, the Drudge Report was innundated with massive headlines attacking Newt Gingrich in an attack that Rush described as orchestrated. A few conservatives came to Newt’s defence, including Rush, and Mark Levin. Elliot Abrams hack piece on the Drudge Report was deemed a smear but the attack ads continued. Romney went on to beat out Newt in the Floridian primary. 

The Republican Establishment continues to turn a blind eye towards Romney’s negative and patently false attacks on Newt. The $300,000 continues to be called a fine instead of a reimbursement of the cost of hiring an outside lawyer to investigate Newt. No one ever talks of the IRS exonerating Newt of all the 85 charges, including the one he pleaded guilty to (in order to bring the case to a close) misleadingly claiming the course he taught was not political but educational. In the end, the IRS confirmed the course was educational.  Byron did a good job and I would include the conclusion to his article here. You all should read his article in its entirety. Well worth your time!

————————————————————————————————————————-

“It is hard to convey today how much the media became preoccupied with the case, and how much pressure fell on Gingrich and Republicans to end the ordeal. In January 1997, Gingrich agreed to plead guilty to the previously unknown offense of failing to seek sufficiently detailed advice from a tax lawyer before proceeding with the course. (Gingrich had, in fact, sought advice from two such lawyers in relation to the course.) Gingrich also admitted that he had provided “inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable” information to Ethics Committee investigators. That “inaccurate” information was largely Gingrich’s contention that the course was not political — a claim the IRS later would support.

Why did Gingrich admit wrongdoing? “The atmosphere at the time was so rancorous, partisan, and personal that everyone, including Newt, was desperately seeking a way to end the whole thing,” Gingrich attorney Jan Baran said in 1999. “He was admitting to w hatever he could to get the case over with.”

It was a huge victory for Democrats. They had deeply wounded the speaker. But they wanted more, and they pressed the IRS to investigate.

Experts examined every word Gingrich spoke in every class; they examined the financing and administration of the course; and they examined how the course might have fit into Gingrich’s political network.

In the end, in 1999, the IRS released a highly detailed 74-page report that concluded the course was, in fact, a legitimate educational exercise. “The ‘Renewing American Civilization’ course was educational … and not biased toward any of those who were supposed to be benefited,” the IRS concluded.

bottom line: Gingrich acted properly and violated no laws. Of course, by that time, Gingrich was out of office, widely presumed to be guilty of something, and his career in politics was (seemingly) o ver. Now he’s having to fight the fight all over again.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/byronyork/2012/02/06/what_really_happened_to_the_gingrich_ethics_case/page/full/

Will guys like Dick Armey also call on Romney to tone down his attacks on Newt? On a level playing field with no negative ads, it will be Newt Gingrich by a landslide. I
can’t see Romney stopping his negative ads. It has been proven time and again that they works. And Romney’s super PAC has tons of money. Romney will just let off for a while and whenever Newt draws too close for comfort, his super PAC will unleash those same negative ads. It does not matter that most of those negative ads had been proven to be false.

It is really hypocritical of the GOP establishment to keep harping on the candidates that they need to stop attacking each other and then turn a blind eye to Romney’s relentless attacks on Newt. When Newt tries to fight back, they condemn the man for waging a personal vendetta and for not looking out for the party. I would tell Newt…to hell with the party, just talk to the American people. Yes, people’s power versus money power! Sounds rather populist but what choice does the man has?

Newt is really fighting for the soul of the Republican Party….the Tea Party faction versus the traditional establishment wing. It is conceievable that conservatism is itself at stake. What will it take for all conservatives to coalesce around Newt Gingrich? What will take for Rick Santorum to follow the noble path that Gov Rick Perry took by withdrawing and endorsing Newt? Two of the former non-Romney front runners havecalready endorsed Newt. Just waiting for Bachmann and Santorum to follow suit.

Make no mistake! Conservatism is at stake. Even more at stake is the fate of America. In a battle for the soul of the country, squishy moderates always lose! Just ask Bob Dole, McCain and GHWBush(1992). Are we really thinking of sending another moderate to fight Obama? God forbid! There is too much at stake! Just what is in Romney’s record that tells us that he will be able to roll back the Federal Government, repeal Obamacare, and pull the country in a 180 turn towards conservatism. Or are we simply wishing that Romney will somehow pull it out! Records matter!and Romney had no record of conservatism in his core. First, the GOP establishment needs to wake up! Middle America will wake up in time to send Obama back to wherever he came from! We wish him Godspeed!

Interesting enough, in 2012, America is again in a very precarious position that no where in her history is a leader with big ideas and vision needed as much as NOW. So just as Churchill was discarded after WWI during peacetime, his service to the nation was needed in WW2 and he was promptly reelected to lead England through her darkest days. Likewise, Newt Gingrich was called upon to lead the Republican Revolution in the late 80′s and early 90′s and discarded in 1997. In 2012, when the country needs him most, let’s hope we have the courage and wisdom to reelect him. Like he said “I pledge my Life, my Wealth, and my Sacred Honor”. I believe that Newton Leroy Gingrich was prepared by God for a time like no other!

——————————————————————————————————–

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/newt-did-not-resign-disgrace_620900.html

Questions abound and it is better that they are asked now than later! One day before the Florida Primary, Romney’s Finances is indeed coming under withering fire from his opponents! Check this out!

—————————————————————————————————————

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s vast fortune is putting him under withering fire just one day before the most important vote so far in the Republican primary calendar.

Discrepancies between Romney’s tax returns and the financial disclosure he filed when he started his run for the White House last year are raising new questions about whether he has hidden huge sums from the Internal Revenue Service, claims the campaign of his nearest rival, Newt Gingrich.

“Governor Romney’s taxes are like an onion,” Gingrich communications director Joe DeSantis alleged on Monday, 24 hours before the Florida primary. “The more layers you peel back, the stronger the aroma.

“The people of Florida — indeed, the people of the United States — deserve answers to the questions raised by his secret network of hidden foreign bank accounts and shady tax accounting procedures.”

Among the new questions raised:

• Why does Romney need to squirrel his money away in foreign banks, best known for their ability to hide income from the tax man?
• Why does he claim he provides “services” to his former company, Bain Capital, so allowing him to pay reduced taxes, at the same time as saying he retired from the company more than a decade ago?
• Is the barrage of vicious attack ads that he has launched against Gingrich, in effect being funded by government bailout money given to his biggest donor, Goldman Sachs?

“Every time he takes a step toward transparency, new questions emerge,” DeSantis said in an exclusive interview with Newsmax.

“Why does an American citizen even need a Swiss bank account? There are plenty of banks here in the U.S. He says he pays taxes on everything and that’s great. But why does he need to place this money overseas in the first place?

“We all know that foreign accounts are usually used to obscure something, so we have to ask: What is it he is trying to hide?

“Putting it simply, it looks like he is trying to game the system.”

Questions were first raised last week by the Los Angeles Times, which compared Romney’s tax returns with his filings with the Federal Elections Commission. The paper discovered at least 23 overseas accounts on his tax return that were not included on his financial disclosure forms.

Among his assets were funds based in what the Times called “low-tax foreign countries such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg.”

Then The Wall Street Journal raised the question of whether Romney should be entitled to pay 15 percent tax on money he earned from “services” to Bain, when he previously had claimed he had retired from the company in 1999.

A Romney campaign official acknowledged to the Journal that the form was completed using “boilerplate language” and Romney had not actually provided any new services to Bain. Under complex tax laws, “you can have it both ways,” said the official, who also acknowledge that, “from a consistency standpoint,” the situation looked odd.

“In the complex accounting of Mr. Romney’s income, that could land him with a bill for back taxes,” the Journal reported.

DeSantis told Newsmax, “If you just look at the failure to disclose foreign bank accounts in his FEC report, you have to wonder why. There seems no good reason why any lawyer worth his salt would think you don’t need to include these assets.”

Romney already had come under attack from the nonprofit Sunlight Foundation which advocates for open government. Editorial director Bill Allison said failing to tell everything defeats the purpose of disclosure reports.

Romney’s campaign has claimed that the omissions were “trivial.” His spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, called it “a minor discrepancy” and said the former Massachusetts governor would be amending his FEC filing to include the information.

DeSantis said that, if that omission were the only issue concerning Romney’s finances, he could accept his word. However, he said it was “part of a pattern,” with too many other issues raised, such as whether he is entitled to a lower rate for his work for Bain, and his acceptance of $367,000 in campaign donations from Goldman Sachs, which received billions in bail out money.

“You have this perverse situation where this company received taxpayer money and is now donating to Romney to fund his attack ads.

“This comes at the same time that he is finding clever ways to reduce his own taxes, which in turn raises real suspicions even in such a respected conservative newspaper as The Wall Street Journal,” said DeSantis, who described Goldman Sachs as “the poster child for crony capitalism.

“The American people, and Republican voters in particular, know about the grotesqueries of Mitt Romney’s tax situation, his unwillingness to be completely transparent and his general attitude of gamesmanship when it comes to disclosing his sources of income,” DeSantis said.

“He treated the FEC in the same way he treats the taxpayer — looking for every loophole he can.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Romney Finances Face New Fire
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama’s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

 In 2010, millions of Americans all over the country were so enraged by the proceedings which gave rise to Obamacare (like Senate votes held on Christmas and New Year’s Eve 12:00MN while America sleeps, Louisiana Purchase, etc) that a grass root movement mushroomed into the Tea Party Movement which eventually swept 87 freshman congressman into the House and banished Nancy (vote for the bill so that you get to see what is in it) Pelosi to  the sidelines. As a side note, Newt Gingrich was forced to resign his speakership after the 1998 elections which saw the GOP retained the majority with a net loss of 5 seats while Pelosi retained her leadership position after such a drubbing which goes to show that the LEFT are far more united in their quest to destroy America than we are in defending her!

Nothing to get angry about….according to Romney!

That says it all folks…..Romney is prepared to cede Obamacare to Obama over the wishes of millions of Americans. We are doomed if Romney gets the nomination. Martin Gould from American Spectator said it better than I can ever do. Check it out!

———————————————————————————————————————

Mitt Romney’s retort during last Thursday’s debate that healthcare is “not worth getting angry about,” is his own admission that he cannot beat President Barack Obama in the election, according to the American Spectator.

“Most Republican voters, and more than a few independents, would disagree,” wrote healthcare expert David Catron. “Romney apparently didn’t notice that the hundreds of thousands of people who showed up at the nation’s capitol to protest the impending passage of Obamacare were pretty angry.”

Romney made his remark after fellow candidate Rick Santorum challenged him on his position on Obama’s healthcare reforms. “Folks, we can’t give this issue away in this election. It is about fundamental freedom,” the former Pennsylvania senator said.

Santorum’s tone showed that he cares about the issue, Catron wrote.

“It’s not an easy thing for a man of genuine principle to tolerate an opportunist like Romney, who obviously sees the issue as just another lever that he can use to hoist himself into public office.”

Catron said Romney’s “prissy” remark showed him as a man without convictions. Combined with his changing stances on gun control and abortion, he is giving Obama’s campaign too much ammunition should he win the Republican nomination.

“It will … be very easy for Obama and his creatures to exploit Romney’s flip-flops in the general election,” he wrote. “They will make sure the voters understand that these reversals reveal Romney as just another unprincipled politician willing to say anything to win the election,” wrote Catron. “That the president himself is cut of the same cloth won’t matter.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: American Spectator: Romney Knows He Can’t Beat Obama
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama’s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

This latest video is whole new ball game. It is about the largest federal medicare fraud in it’s time and most of those frauds occurred under the management of Mitt Romney. In one of the debate, Romney stated explicitly that he had never done any business with the government (another lie). Just as the Feds were completing the investigation on Damon Capital, Mitt Romney sold Damon Capital to Corning (questionable timing!). Initially Romney claimed to have no knowledge of the medicare fraud which happened under his watch. Then he changed his tune that he reported the fraud to the authorities (so which is which Mitt?). The sale of Damon Capital netted Bain Capital $12M of which Mitt Romney netted $437,000 ( not much!!!!). So if Newt was asked by Mitt to return the $1.6M earned from Freddie Mac over 6 years, shouldn’t Mitt return that $437,000 of blood money earned in a single sale transaction plus all the fraudulent billing to Medicare under his watch?

It is unlikely that supporters of Romney will be able to spin this as another attack on Capitalism (I have no doubt they will try). This simply reinforces the prevalent opinion that Mitt plays to a different set of rules from the rest of us and will be a perfect 1% foil for Mr Obama’s 99% (Personally I detest Obama’s class warfare but it is what it is and are we going to walk right into his trap by nominating Romeny?)

So here is the full length video. You decide!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVUQuJDEs04

—————————————————————————————-

Conservative talk radio star Mark Levin offered a passionate defense of Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on his show Thursday.

Levin was upset at recent attacks against the former House speaker by GOP pundits on the Internet and by Republican politicians in various public forums.

“If this is what the conservative movement has come to, then count me out,” Levin said. “I am not a special pleader for Gingrich. Newt Gingrich and I aren’t friends. We aren’t even acquaintances.”

But Levin took issue with those who cite a TV interview from 1988 as evidence that Gingrich broke from former President Ronald Reagan. “Newt Gingrich didn’t trash Ronald Reagan,” Levin said. “He said going forward we need tactical changes from the Reagan era, not changes in principle, not that we shouldn’t promote Reagan.”

Levin then played an audio clip from the interview to prove his point. “Reaganism is a value system which carried 49 states last time [in the 1984 election],” Gingrich said. “It’s fairly inclusive, more than just a personality issue.”

Republicans must remember that Gingrich was the first GOP speaker of the House in almost 50 years, Levin said. “He was fighting Democrats to win the House of Representatives before most of the people trashing him on the Internet were old enough to wipe themselves … before most of the commentators on TV were switching from Democrats to Republicans.”

It’s OK to criticize Gingrich, Levin said. “But don’t count me among those who are going to destroy the man,” he continued. “You can disagree with the man on substance, but don’t turn him into some Marxist, Reagan-hating mental case, because he’s not.”

Levin is particularly angry with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, an aggressive Romney supporter. “I was appalled when the two-year governor of New Jersey, who has done absolutely zero for the conservative movement, gets on TV and regurgitates all the ethical bull crap thrown at Newt Gingrich when he was speaker of the House.”

Levin’s not too happy about recent criticism of Gingrich from former Sen. Bob Dole, either. “Bob Dole was part of the problem,” he said.

An underlying motive drives the GOP criticism of Gingrich, Levin said. “There’s an effort to clear the path for Romney. If [Rick] Santorum was considered a threat, they’d be pulling out quotes from him and turning him into a pretzel too.”

It’s self-destructive for Republicans to launch negative commercials about Gingrich rather than focusing on President Barack Obama, Levin said. What’s most important is to defeat the establishment.

He had some choice words for Gingrich’s presidential opponent, Mitt Romney. “What was Mitt Romney doing when Newt Gingrich was speaker of the House fighting Democrats? He was running against Ted Kennedy as a self-identified progressive.”

Levin was referring to Romney’s unsuccessful bid to take former Massachusetts Sen. Kennedy’s seat away from him in 1994.

“Newt Gingrich, if he does nothing else, did more for the conservative movement than virtually everyone today who’s criticizing him,” Levin said.

To be sure, Gingrich made some mistakes in the past, Levin acknowledged. “I make no excuses for his personal life, which was a mess,” he said.

“But he has found his faith now, he has found God. Why would we act like Marxist leftists ourselves, like a bunch of frenzied nut jobs trying to turn this man into something he’s not. We would not have taken back the House of Representatives but for Newt Gingrich.”

As for those criticizing Gingrich, “What the hell did they do to take back the House of Representatives?” Levin said.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Mark Levin: Gingrich Is Strong Conservative
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama’s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

The perpetrators of the smear have clearly chosen to ignore the endorsement of Michael Reagan and Nancy Reagan. Rush Limgaugh and Michael Reagan came out strongly and lambasted the Romney’s campaign:-

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Ronald Reagan’s eldest son Mike Reagan has issued a statement lambasting Mitt Romney and his supporters for claims that Romney’s Republican presidential rival Newt Gingrich was a strong critic of President Reagan.

Reagan says such claims are false.

Even Rush Limbaugh, shocked by the Romney claims, chimed on his Thursday radio broadcast to say “This is obviously a coordinated attack to take Newt out here in Florida.”

Rush slammed the Romney-backed smear campaign against Newt.

“That kind of stuff is why people hate Romney so much,” Limbaugh said.

Limbaugh added that Newt has always been a conservative from his early days in national talk radio in the 1980s.

Editor’s Note: Do You Support Gingrich or Romney?  Ron Paul?  Vote in Urgen Poll — Click Here Now

“He was perhaps the premier defender of Ronald Reagan,” Limbaugh said.

On Thursday, Mike Reagan responded to the Gingrich critics with this statement to Newsmax:

“I am deeply disturbed that supporters of Mitt Romney are claiming that Newt Gingrich is not a true Reaganite and are even claiming that Newt was a strong critic of my father.

“Recently I endorsed Newt Gingrich for president because I believe that Newt is the only Republican candidate who has both consistently backed the conservative policies that my father championed and the only Republican that will continue to implement his vision.

“It surprises me that Mitt Romney and his supporters would raise this issue — when Mitt by his own admission voted for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale who opposed my father, and later supported liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas for president.

“As governor of Massachusetts, Romney’s achievement was the most socialistic healthcare plan in the nation up until that time.

“Say what you want about Newt Gingrich but when he was Speaker of the House he surrounded himself with Reagan conservatives and implemented a Ronald Reagan program of low taxes and restrained federal spending.

“Newt’s conservative program created a huge economic boom and balanced the budget for the first time in more than a generation.”

Mike Reagan concluded: “I would take Newt Gingrich’s record any day over Mitt Romney’s.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Mike Reagan, Rush Limbaugh Blast Romney
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama’s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

So in 2012, it is interesting to know what Newt, Santorum, and Perry would do in the next two weeks. Romney needs to be careful as not to be too focussed on stopping Newt and let Santorum sneak in a winner at SC! My hope is that Newt has somehow stopped his decline and mount a furious fightback! In the primary, i am a ABR&P as in anybody but Romney and Paul!

To read the entire newsletter, click below

http://www.citizenlink.org/focusaction/updates/A000008358.cfm

Our Father in Heaven,

We thank you for this great nation that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. We thank you that you have watched over this nation for the last 232 years. Even as our nation prepares to elect a new President and numerous senators, congressmen, state and local government officials, judges, as well as numerous state propositions, we beseech Thee Lord to have mercy on this country. Lord, first of all, we ask your forgiveness for the sins of our country. As a nation, we have seen fit to murder 2 million babies a year (46 million since Roe v Wade) while they were being formed in their mothers’ womb. Like the blood of Abel, these 46 million babies cries out to you day and night for justice. Yet, You are a merciful God whose Faithfulness endures for a thousand generations to those who love you. Several of our states have also legalized same-sex marriage and are trying to legitimize the homosexual life style which is an abomination to You. As a nation, we have not lived within our means and am saddled with record national debts. We have removed prayers from public schools and have sought to remove the Ten Commandments and every other vestige of our spiritual heritage from the public square.

Lord, as we seek your mercy, please give us a leader we NEED and not a leader we deserved. Please give us a leader who will honor our Constitution and protect each and every American. Give us a leader who will protect life, especially the most vulnerable and weakest ones among us. Pray that You will give us a leader who is both strong and resolute in leading our country to face the challenges of the 21st century.

We pray Father God that just as you reserved for yourself 5000 prophets who have not bowed to Baal, you will also release the 5000 journalists who have not bowed to the altar of Obama so that they can fearlessly report the truth about Obama to the American people. We also pray that you will give all the pastors in the land the boldness to preach to their congregation this final weekend before the elections about their duty to elect a leader whose philosophy matches their Christian world view. We pray that God you will impress upon all your people to vote.

We know Lord that this nation is ripe for judgement but we beseech you Lord to have mercy on us, and relent your hand of judgement on this great nation that you have nurtured over the last 232 years. No matter what happens on Nov 4, we pray that God you will keep our hearts and minds in Christ Jesus and to continue to trust that you are in control. While this nation is ripe for judgement, she is also ready for a great spiritual revival. We eagerly await the next outpouring of your Spirit on this great land.

In Jesus’ Name. Amen!

*…..Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass — no, make that shameless support — they’ve gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press. *

This is long but well worth the time.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=5

8. Lack of qualities to be the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces. Obama has stated that he will scraped the Missile Defense System. He also slandered our troops with air raiding villagers in Afghanistan. http://video.aol.com/video-detail/fox-news-obama-in-2007-air-raid-villages-in-afghanistan/2130970770/?icid=VIDURVNWS02He also referred to Iraq as a mistake. Here is a response from one of our troops who served in Iraq. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8

1. Supreme Court Judges-Just imagine President Obama nominating another Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Souter, John Paul Steven, and Breyer all in their 50′s and capable of pushing judicial activism and tyranny for the next 20~30 years.

2. Lack of Support for Israel. Enough said

2. Gay Marriage-At the Saddleback Forum, Obama said the magic words that Christians love to hear-marriage is between a man and a woman and was applauded. This however, is disingenuous because he went on to say that he would not support a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) to the Constitution to define marriage as such knowing full well that only a FMA can stand against the efforts of the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transexual lobby to redefine marriage. http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/Saddleback_16AUG2008.htm

1. Lack of Experience-Contrary to the main stream liberal media’s contention that Gov Palin does not have the experience to be the President, Obama is the least experienced of the 4 candidates running for office. He was the junior senator from Illinois starting 2005 of which 3 years was spent campaigning for the office of the Presidency of the US. Prior to that he was the state senator from Illinois. Thus, he had no prior executive experience. Compare to a governor who has to govern a state, senators spent the bulk of their time arguing amongst themselves before voting for a piece of legislation.

2. Voted 94 times to raise taxes on the American people. In fact he has proposed to raise taxes on people making $42,000 a year and above. Also proposed to raise taxes during a recession year which is tantamount to killing the goose which lays the golden egg. Not a wise choice. The actual number of times can be debated but not the fact that there is no tax increase that Obama didn’t like. http://www.gop.com/news/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=40abb3a8-83c8-4f0f-ae4f-c85162396145Together with a penchant for raising tax, Obama was caught on video explaining to Joe Plumber that he (Obama) was not trying to punish Joe for his success but was trying to ensure that those behind him (Joe Plumber) also have a chance to succeed. This is Obama Hood style economy.http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=joe+plumber&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#

3. Lack of Respect for the Bible-The Word of God. Obama mocked the Bible by scornfully quoting Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and the Sermon on the Mount as examples of how not to use the Bible to guide public policy. He also referred to Romans 1 as an obscure passage in the Bible. How many genuine Christians would refer to any part of Romans as obscure? http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=279222