No.  No he is not.

Real conservatives do not act like children.  Particularly, they do not act like children and try to change the rules of the game after the game has been played.  This week, Newt’s campaign announced that it would challenge Florida’s winner-take-all delegate process.  Why?  Because Newt didn’t win.  And he wants some of those delegates which he has no right to.

The request is downright wrong.  The rules were set.  You knew them going in Newt.  Respect them and move on.

The RNC already stripped Florida of half its delegates because it dared to buck the good old boy network within the GOP.   That network allows small, often liberal leaning states (Iowa and New Hampshire), to take the lead in narrowing down the Republican field months before most people even get to have their say.  Now Gingrich wants the RNC to infringe further on Florida?

Grow up Newt.  Just because you are not the RINO of choice is no reason to go super RINO on poor little Florida.

The primary season is starting to heat up with actual states that mean something coming up in the next couple months. The question is will there be any choice actually available for the electorate of these states to choose between.  Or have all these little states successfully left Republicans with no good options?

*Results based on 71% reporting.

Gerald Ford? Please. The man couldn’t even walk straight. He almost was bungling enough to make Jimmy Carter look sane.

Jimmy Carter? Oh, yeah, sure … he was so incompetent that he makes Obama look like Mr. Perfect.

JFK? The man who wilted in the face of Soviet aggression and caused the Cuban Missile Crisis? Don’t fool yourself.

Herbert Hoover? Ok, he did denounce overbearing government regulation as a problem. But then he turned right around and proposed a fair number of unconstitutional and overbearing government programs of his own like the unconstitutional Department of Education. And let’s not forget to mention his idea for $50 per month pensions for the elderly, a forerunner to the ponzi scheme of Social Security. He even exasperated the Great Depression by rejecting tried and true laissez-faire economic strategies.

William H. Taft? This is the man that proposed income taxes on corporations. Taxes like this, I remind everyone, are paid in the end by the consumer and just a tax on the people writ large. This is a favorite ploy of the left to soak the working class with hidden taxes and keep them from accruing wealth. He also led a crusade against companies he felt, arbitrarily of course, were too big.

Ultimately, when you boil it all down, Reagan’s only real competition for the title of Best President of the 20th Century was Warren G. Harding. And how many people even know that much about Mr. Harding other than the Tea Pot Dome Scandal? How many people even know about that? At least Harding practiced and implemented conservative fiscal policies that made the economic downturn which happened during his time in office short and all but forgotten to history.

Like so many better than average to almost great Presidents in American history, Reagan gets more than his fair share of praise. He even gets a little deified from time to time. That miffs me because people who fall over themselves to praise Reagan do so very blindly. Let us all remember, Ronald Reagan was not a god. Like with other greatly flawed leaders of this nation, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson come to mind, people mindlessly throw Reagan’s praises around. They forget his plethora of broken promises and his naive agreement with liberal Democrats who he actually thought would cut spending like they said they would. And let’s not forget his insane support of amnesty for illegal aliens. In the process of this blind idol worship those who have placed Reagan upon a pedestal of infallibility fail to think critically about things he actually did which were wrong. When trapped without an answer to these things they haphazardly spout off some quote or belief of his without care to its truth or substance. Which brings me to Reagan’s “11th Commandment”.

This “Commandment”, as if that was not the most arrogant thing one could call words spoken by a mere man, was simply “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” I have heard this Golden Rule evoked more times than warranted in this election cycle and by both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich supporters upset that the other side is attacking their candidate. Some of these attacks are valid. Some of them are not. Some of them are downright lies. And both sides have engaged in them.

Ok, first of all, let’s get something straight. This was not even “Reagan’s” “Commandment”. This actually came from Gaylord Parkinson who was Chairman of the California Republican Party. It was drawn up because of the mindless attacks by the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party against Barry Goldwater in 1964. But a mindless rule in response to a mindless attack is just, well, mindless.

Think about this for just one second. All you Reagan aficionados who get excited at the mere mention of the man’s name in vain settle down. Everyone now, take a deep breath. It is time to think critically. If a “fellow Republican” is a creep, a scumbag or a liar are we seriously suggesting that he not be called a creep, a scumbag or a liar? I am not talking about baseless attacks. I am talking about attacks based on the facts.
I am sorry. But isn’t bearing false witness against the laws of God? How can you seriously sit there and ask people to not tell the truth? Well, I hate to tell you this, but when it comes to a choice between the laws of God and the laws of men, or a man, I will choose the laws of God every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Reagan’s 11th Commandment is absurd. Those who spout it when anyone dares points out the truth about another Republican and how they often act in most unRepublican ways are mindless partisans who do the Party no favors. Get over yourselves and realize that, oh no, Reagan was, at times, wrong.

I understand all you Newt and Mitt partisans do not like lies being told about your candidate of choice. But you also do not seem to like too much the truth being spoken about them either. That is because both of them have a long and not so glorious past of acting like Democrats.

Personally I will ignore Reagan’s silly commandment because it is just that; silly. Reagan was not infallible. And this “commandment” proves it. Truth must be spoken.

These two are the same person with different hairdos. They both cannot run on their full records because their full records are so splattered with liberalism that it makes such a tactic impossible. They are both distorting and lying. If you trust that either of these men have the spine and the conviction to solve America’s real problems and not just nibble around the edges then you are going to be in for a big surprise once election day has come and gone.

And no, the answer is not the unconstitutional earmark promoting, American military bashing Ron Paul either.

Of course since the GOP has basically run out the most solidly conservative candidates over the past few months there isn’t much that is better left to vote for.

Florida was simply a slugfest between the Anti-Mitt and Anti-Newt contingencies of the GOP. Personally, I am anti both Mitt and Newt having studied their long and not so impressive political careers. I’ve watched them each flirt with and even push for and implement liberal ideology.

Mitt Romney walked away from Florida with 46% of the vote. Newt got 32%. Rick Santorum, who in my opinion is the best of a terrible field and who himself has a long record of liberalism, got 13% as the lie that he is the only “real” conservative is just not gaining traction. Ron Paul was last at 7%.

Reagan was no god. He had no right to dictate from on high limits upon the facts.

“[I]n the Reagan White House, Newt Gingrich was considered quite frankly by a lot of folks to be something of a political opportunist and who was not trusted and who had played no role whatsoever,” Buchanan said. “He was a Rockefeller Republican in the great Goldwater-Rockefeller battle, where conservatism came of age.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/28/pat-buchanan-reagan-white-house-saw-newt-as-something-of-a-political-opportunist/#ixzz1kwcvJlGu

Look, I do not care how hard you spin. Yes, Newt leans conservative, but he is not conservative. He is a moderate. And if you vote for him you will get that moderate.

It is not only Newt who loves to tell this Big Lie of a balanced budget. Former President Clinton likes to bloviate about the phantom ‘balanced budget’ as well since it supposedly happened under his tenure. Many other politicians who were in Washington at the time also try desperately to hitch their horses to this myth as they try to bolster their bona fides as being fiscally conservative.

I know that it is taken as a matter of faith that there was a balanced budget under Newt and the Republican Congresses that existed during Bill Clinton’s presidency. But the facts, as they say, are stubborn things. Back in 2005, the last time the myth of not only a balanced budget but actually a phantom budget surplus gained life, I wrote “The Surplus Fallacy”[1]. Boy, did I get a lot hate mail on that article. Liberals accused me of making up the numbers because they were desperate to defend Bill Clinton’s legacy, have him remembered for something other than using an intern as a humidor and being Newt Gingrich’s whipping boy. So-called conservatives accused me of being a closet liberal trying to discredit the greatest achievement of the Republican Party in recent times. No one ever actually provided any evidence to dispute the numbers however. How could they? The numbers are what the numbers are. And now with Newt and his annoyingly shrill PAC bringing renewed attention to the myth of the budget being supposedly balanced at one time in recent memory, I think it is time to revisit the facts. I will not let them be slaughtered for political expedience upon some partisan altar.

Those who claim that at some point after 1994 the United States was actually running a budget surplus use a lot of not so cute tricks to accomplish this. Sometimes what they do is look at only portions of the whole budget. Sometimes they ignore non-discretionary spending. Other times they ignore interest on the debt completely. They spin themselves sick trying to justify how they can exclude all too real expenditures from the budget in order to make it appear to have been balanced on paper. But ask yourself this, in the real world where you and I live, can you really get away with not counting all debits and expenses when determining how much money you have left over? Can you ignore $30,000 on your credit card and just pretend it does not exist? Of course you cannot.

Another sly trick these people use is that they look at some select data points within an actual fiscal year. They see that on February 2, 2001 the debt owed by the United States was $5.692 trillion and that back on February 2, 2000 it was $5.702 trillion. Thus they wondrously proclaim that they had “balanced the budget”. Not only that, but they also claim to have “run a surplus”. Even sites like PolitiFact.com [2] lie and claim that the there were not only balanced budgets but mythical “surpluses”, although not as many as Newt claims. God only knows where they are getting their numbers from.

The BIG problem with that methodology though is that the fiscal year of the United States runs from October 1st of one year through September 30th of the next. When you look at the entire fiscal year you see that the debt owed by the federal government actually increased despite these not very covert accounting gimmicks. When I point this out, the first response is shock. Where did these numbers come from? Well, they come right from the Department of the Treasury’s Bureau of the Public Debt [3]. Yep, these are not my numbers. These are the government’s own numbers.

Here are the deficits by year which the United States racked up from 1994 through 2006[4]. To calculate these numbers you just simply subtract the later year’s debt from the previous year’s debt.

From 10/1/1993 through 9/30/1994: $286,410,336,579.85
From 10/1/1994 through 9/30/1995: $281,232,990,696.07
From 10/1/1995 through 9/30/1996: $250,828,038,426.34
From 10/1/1996 through 9/30/1997: $188,335,072,261.61
From 10/1/1997 through 9/30/1998: $113,046,997,500.28
From 10/1/1998 through 9/30/1999: $130,077,892,735.81
From 10/1/1999 through 9/30/2000: $17,907,308,253.43
From 10/1/2000 through 9/30/2001: $133,285,202,313.20
From 10/1/2001 through 9/30/2002: $420,772,553,397.10
From 10/1/2002 through 9/30/2003: $554,995,097,146.46
From 10/1/2003 through 9/30/2004: $595,821,633,586.70
From 10/1/2004 through 9/30/2005: $553,656,965,393.18
From 10/1/2005 through 9/30/2006: $574,264,237,491.73

Now, who wants to show me where in there, anywhere, is a “balanced budget” or a “budget surplus”? How is red ink a balanced anything or a surplus something else? I know the myth of the balanced budget plays well. I know Newt and Clinton love to tell it. But it is still a myth. And when you tell this lie you are a liar plain and simple. You might as well be trying to court the Big Foot vote with something this transparently untrue.

[1] http://www.libertyreborn.com/2005/05/22/the-surplus-fallacy/
[2] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/28/winning-our-future/ad-credits-newt-gingrich-balancing-budget/
[3] http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/
[4] http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Mr. Simmons has now come out for Mitt Romney. And while the GOP might be happy to have such a prolific endorsement from a man with millions of hardcore fans who worship him like a God, let’s remember that in 2008 he fell for the rhythmic and ritual chants of the Cult of Obama.

“I want a real political and economic debate. On the one hand, you’ve got President Obama, who I voted for, last minute. I wasn’t going to vote for him because he didn’t have a good resume. He only had two years of local political experience, he’s never run a company, he’d never been overseas, and he didn’t know any of the political leaders. I voted my continence, based on some sort of – well, it’s the right time in history,”

Forgive me for not putting more credence in the opinion of a man who voted for Obama, and votes for Obama by his own admission, because he was black and who got swept up in the moment. Especially when there was a perfectly qualified black man, named Alan Keyes and who I voted for because he was qualified and not because of his skin color, out there. Gene, I think there is a woman somewhere who wants here breast signed and perhaps a deal with Nabisco for KISS shaped Oreo cookies you should be working on. You know, rather than giving us political insight.