JG55

And maybe some

I am breaking out some Tito'sVodka

Posted on February 3, 2012 by John Hinderaker Was Today’s Jobs News Good? The administration trumpets the fact that nonfarm payrolls increased by 243,000 in January, dropping the unemployment rate to 8.3%, only .5% higher than when Barack Obama took office. This is what counts as good news in the beleaguered West Wing! But how good was today’s news, really? What is mainly going on is that fewer Americans have any intention of working; therefore, they cannot be unemployed. That is the Orwellian logic that underlies “good news†in the Age of Obama. The key fact is that labor force participation has reached a 30-year low of only 63.7%. More and more Americans are giving up on gainful work and resigning themselves to lives of dependence on government. Barack Obama thinks that is a good thing. Do you? Here is another very basic fact: notwithstanding the employment gains in January, there are fewer Americans working today than there were when George W. Bush took office in January 2001, and more than one million fewer Americans are working than when Barack Obama was inaugurated! What an appalling record! If Obama had campaigned in 2008 on the promise that, if he were elected, a million more Americans would be unable to find work, would you have voted for him? Would anyone have voted for him? The Obama administration has been a disaster, and the reason is no mystery. Obama and his advisers do not understand how wealth and jobs are created. They have little or no experience in the private sector, they do not understand economics, and they think that parasitism is a viable strategy. So is it any wonder that when their policies are implemented, a million or more Americans are unemployed?

Grocery store shooter not charged, speaks about incident By Bruce Vielmetti of the Journal Sentinel The Aldi customer who shot an armed robber in the store Monday won't face any criminal charges, prosecutors confirmed Friday. Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm said the law allows use of reasonable force in threatening situations, regardless of whether the shooter has a concealed weapons permit. "He disrupted an act that potentially exposed himself and others to great bodily harm," Chisholm said. Video footage from the store showed "he acted reasonably and in a controlled manner during the encounter," Chisholm said. The customer, Nazir Al-Mujaahid of Milwaukee, held a news conference to discuss the incident. Al-Mujaahid, 35, called it nothing to brag about, but that "sometimes you have to do what you have to do." Al-Mujaahid said he and his wife stopped at the store, at N. 76th St. and W. Villard Ave., for some last-minute dinner items. They'd never shopped at the store before, he said. He said they had just walked in when he noticed the suspect approach the cashiers holding up a shotgun with the stock cut off and a bag, demanding money in a very agitated way. Fearing for the safety of himself, his wife and others in the store, he said, he unholstered his semi-automatic 9mm handgun, cocked it and kept it down at his side as he motioned another customer behind the robber to move away. When the robber turned the shotgun toward him, Al-Mujaahid said, he fired six or seven shots from about 20 feet away. He said he hit the suspect in the leg and forehead. The robber then dropped the shotgun and bag, and fled the store. Police arrested a suspect and an accomplice later. They had not been formally charged as of Friday morning. The whole process took less than 30 seconds, he estimated. He said he has not seen the store video, but that he was assured by detectives at the scene that he would likely not be charged. He said he knew from his recent training that you need a clear head, breathe right and "commit to a decision." Al-Mujaahid, an Internet marketer, said he's always been a gun rights supporter and previously exercised his right to openly carry a firearm. When Wisconsin adopted a concealed carry law last year, he applied for his permit in November. He said he obtained it Jan. 17 or 18. He said he did not notice the sign at Aldi prohibiting weapons in the store, and that if he had, he would have gone elsewhere. He said since he began to carry a concealed gun, he has stopped from going into other businesses where he did see the sign. Al-Mujaahid said he hopes the incident will deter other criminals from using guns in areas where law-abiding people may defend themselves. At the news conference, Al-Mujaahid plugged his new website, ccwadvocates.com. It reads in part: Learn from Real People like you and me, normal Ordinary Citizens that have awaken the spirit of personal responsibility and freedom that this country was founded upon! Sign up to hear exclusively from the Man that stopped an Armed Robbery at a Milwaukee Aldi store. Many have called him a hero, we like to call him our brother! The Michigan company whose firearm and CCW training course Al-Mujaahid took in November was already touting the case on its website Thursday night.

[h=1]As Obama Crows, Real Story Is 10.5 Mil Jobs Deficit[/h] Posted 02/03/2012 07:02 PM ET View Enlarged Image Jobs: Of course it's good news that 243,000 new jobs were created in January, shaving the unemployment rate to 8.3%. But thanks to massive policy errors by the White House, we're still way below where we should be. President Obama, speaking in Arlington, Va., immediately took credit for the bullish report, crowing that "altogether, we've added 3.7 million new jobs over the last 23 months." The president went on to say: "We can't go back to the policies that led to the recession. And we can't let Washington stand in the way of our recovery." "Our" recovery? And "We can't go back to the policies that led to the recession"? The cause of the recession was, in fact, housing policies put in place by President Clinton and aggressively supported by Democrats in Congress, including former Sen. Barack Obama. How soon we forget. These were the policies that led to the housing meltdown, the financial crisis and, ultimately, the deep recession we're still climbing out of. Yet Obama's "blame Bush" theme will be the Democrats' strategy for the 2012 campaign. So get used to it. Truth is, by now we should have created millions more jobs than we have. But Obama's $836 billion stimulus, his botched industry bailouts, his failed "green" energy policies, his regulatory siege on business, and his disastrous attacks on Wall Street and entrepreneurs have made this the worst recovery in history. The recovery began in June 2009, just months after Obama took office and before his stimulus took effect. According to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the economy is just 0.7% above its previous high. Usually at this point in an expansion, it's 13.5% above the last peak. In other words, thanks to Obama's policies, we're missing about $1.8 trillion in GDP — or roughly $5,760 for every man, woman and child. Far worse for most Americans is the jobs depression that has accompanied Obamanomics. As the chart shows, we've suffered a jobs implosion greater than any since World War II. Obama likes to blame his predecessor for this. And true enough, 4.4 million jobs disappeared during the 2007-08 panic. But after Obama took office, an additional 4.3 million jobs disappeared. So when Obama says "we've added 3.7 million new jobs," he's not giving you the full story. We are still 5.6 million jobs below where we were at the peak in 2007. Add to that the 4.9 million new jobs that would have had to be created just to soak up new entrants into the workforce, and all told we have a jobs deficit of 10.5 million. As for the 8.3% jobless rate, remember this: The month he entered office, Obama's advisers vowed unemployment would remain below 8% if we passed his stimulus. Congress did as he asked, and unemployment promptly surged above 10%. The 8.3% number is a mirage. In fact, unemployment rate is declining in large part because millions of people have given up hope and left the workforce. Last month alone, they totaled 1.2 million. Since Obama took office, 4.7 million people have stopped looking for work. Add them in, and the real unemployment rate suddenly doesn't look so good: 11%. And when you add up the 12.7 million unemployed, the 4.7 million no longer looking for work and the 10.5 million who can't find full-time positions, that's 28 million people — for a jobless rate of 17%. Hardly something to crow about.

The discussion starts at 4:11 in this video. See what you think ? is it possible ? http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=20080811&topic_id=24584158

There is no evidence that she is wagging her finger at BO. We don't know what is being said on either side, so it is entirely possible that her finger pointing might of been a appropriate for the moment. We just don't know. Consider the Brain Williams stuck his finger in George Bush's Chest when interviewing him. How inappropriate was that ? Also consider this, BO THE PRESIDENT IF THE UNITED STATES, TALL MALE gets off AIR FORCE ONE, with MANY SECRET SERVICE AGENTS, WITH MANY BIG SUV'S AND MANY ASSISTANTS VS A GOVERNOR, SMALL WOMAN WITH LITTLE AMOUNT OF ASSISTANTS AND MAYBE 1 BODYGUARD Who is in the power position here ? Hint: it ain't the Governor. Think of the intimidation the Office of the President carries with it. if BO was an honorable man, he should be defending her from the unscrupulous attacks from his side of the aisle i.e. Jesse Jackson, Brian Williams, NBC, MSNBC, ABC etc

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. You will not vote for Gringrich because of lack of military service but you would vote for Obama who has none and is in the process of fundamentally transforming this country into something you will not recognize.

I think each gone has it's own idiosyncrasies in regards to ammo. Mine doesn't like Wolff, Winchester and Fed 550 red box. I have read where others like those. Just find the one that works and stick with it. I like the trigger, so I am a happy camper with mine.

Actual Copy of Hand-written letter

Here's the letter: Taken from Investor's Business Daily Dear Mr. President, Welcome to Arizona! You‘ve arrived in a state at the forefront of America’s recovery — and her future. We were at the brink. We were at the bottom of the list in job creation. Today, we have a balanced budget and we’re in the top 10 for job creation. I’m proud of that hard-won recovery — the result of many tough decisions, courage and perseverance. My hope is while you are here you will have a chance to see our tremendous results first hand. We both love the great country, but we fundamentally disagree on how to best make America grow and prosper once again. I‘d love an opportunity to share with you how we’ve been able to turn Arizona around with hard choices that turned out to be the right ones. And, of course, my offer to visit the border — and buy lunch — still stands! With respect, Jan

Not cheap but they are in stock THUN22BLMAG - Thunder 22 Lr Bersa, 22 , Blue,10 Round, Magazine

I picked one of theses up a couple of months ago and have found it to be excellent at plinking. For a gun so small compared to the Rugers, S&W and Buckmark, it is extremely accurate and easy to clean. Even out to 50 ft , it is not hard to keep a good group at 1-2 inches using the guns fixed sights. Pros Very Accurate out of the box All metal Compact size Easy to disassemble, clean and reassemble- Pull the lever down lift off slide that's it. Ergonomics are good, feels good in the hand and grips well- aims well 3 Dot sight system which is adjustable Low recoil Safety/Decocker Magazines have a pull down bar for ease of loading Inexpensive Designed to be inexpensive trainer Cons Picky about ammo I have found the Federal Auto Match (white box), Blazers and CCI works fine, other stuff hit or miss or no so much. At Bersa Chat Most everyone recommends Blazers and CCI. Only comes with one Magazine Anyone looking for a compact plinker or a gun to train a new shooter with, might want to take a look at this one. I give it 4.5 stars out of 5 stars due to ammo issue.

Herman Cain Enthusiastically Endorses Newt For President of the United States (Video) …Update: Giuliani Praises Newt Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, January 28, 2012, 11:33 PM Former presidential candidate Herman Cain, who last week endorsed “the American people,” announced his support on Saturday of another entity — this time a Republican hoping to win the White House. “I hereby officially and enthusiastically endorse Newt Gingrich for president of the United States,” Cain said at a GOP fundraiser. Speaking to supporters on the day he left the race last month, the former head of Godfather’s Pizza said he would be making an endorsement. But at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in South Carolina last week, he announced that his official endorsement would be of “we the people.” While Cain publicly promoted his endorsement last week, the one he made Saturday night came with little warning. The announcement was a surprise to Gingrich staff, and the traveling press who most frequently cover the former House speaker were not in attendance after boycotting the price the campaign was charging for chartered flights. “There are many reasons, but one of the biggest reasons is that I know that Speaker Gingrich is a patriot. Speaker Gingrich is not afraid of bold ideas, and I also know that Speaker Gingrich is running for president and going through this sausage grinder,” said Cain. “I know what this sausage grinder is all about. I know that he is going through this sausage grinder because he cares about the future of the United States of America.” Giuliani Knocks Romney, Likens Gingrich to Reagan Saturday, 28 Jan 2012 10:08 PM By Newsmax staff Speaking on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe," former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani praised Newt Gingrich and criticized Mitt Romney as a flip-flopper. “I’ve never seen a guy change his positions on so many things, so fast, on a dime, on everything,” Giuliani said about the former Massachusetts governor. “Pro-choice, pro-life. And pro-choice because somebody, a close friend, died, and he became pro-choice because this woman died of an abortion. Then he figures out there are embryos and he changes. “Then he was pro-gun control,” Giuliani opined. “Fine. Then he becomes a lifetime member of the NRA. Then he was pro cap and trade. Now he’s against cap and trade. He was pro-mandate for the whole country, then he becomes anti-mandate and he takes that page out of his book and republishes the book. I could go on and on.” Giuliani concluded that Romney is a "man that will say anything to become president of the United States.” Meanwhile, the 9/11 icon likened Gingrich to Ronald Reagan. “I kind of go back to 1980 and I remember the Carter White House just dying [to run against] Ronald Reagan,” Giuliani said. “Ronald Reagan was the dumb actor, Ronald Reagan said incendiary things, Ronald Reagan was like Newt — gosh, you never knew what he was going to say and the whole world would go crazy — The New York Times would write editorials. There was Bush, greatest resume of anyone who ever ran for president, solid citizen. They got Reagan and they got trounced.” Giuliani continued: “I think Newt has a much more consistent position as a conservative, with some real exceptions like Ronald Reagan had. Ronald Reagan signed a bill that made abortion legal in the state of California. Ronald Reagan did in fact raise taxes several times, not just as president, but also as governor of California.” Giuliani also talked about electibility. “It may be that Newt is appealing to some that maybe Mitt isn’t appealing to,” Giuliani explained. “There’s something wrong when you’ve been running as long as Mitt has and you’re at 25 percent, and you don’t go much below, and you don’t go much above. Seventy-five percent of the other Republicans are telling you something.” © Newsmax. All rights reserved. Read more on Newsmax.com: Giuliani Knocks Romney, Likens Gingrich to Reagan

[h=2]We’re Screwed… Florida AG Pam Bondi Says Mitt Wants Romneycare In Every State (Video)[/h] Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, January 28, 2012, 10:21 AM The cat’s out of the bag… Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Romney supporter, went on The Record last night. The Florida Republican told Greta Van Susteren that Mitt wants Romneycare in every state. She also said she would be on Romney’s Health Care Advisory Team when he’s president. Jim Robinson reported on the segment: Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi who’s fighting to repeal ObamaCare appeared on Greta, tonight, defending RomneyCare. She says Romney’s health care plan is not the same as ObamaCare and, in fact, Romney’s plan reduces costs. She goes on to say that Romney wants all states to impose similar laws (including mandates) and that she and is all for it. She went on to explain that she’s going to be on Romney’s Health Care Advisory Team when he’s president! What this means is that while Romney may say he wants to repeal ObamaCare, he actually agrees with it. He believes that RomneyCare, ie, ObamaCare is a model health care plan and all states should impose similar plans. RomneyCare and ObamaCare are the same thing. The only difference is that Romney’s was imposed at the state level where Obama’s was imposed nationally. RomneyCare = ObamaCare = taxpayer funded abortion = death panels = socialism = government force = fascism = tyranny!! So Romney and his co-conspirators in the GOP establishment are now planning a National Healthcare Task Force to impose top-down government run national healthcare on all 50 states!! We all know what Reagan said about government by a group of elites and that socialism would be imposed on America through socialized health care. Well, welcome to the Socialist States Of America if Romney is elected. If the GOP does this then the hell with them!!

[h=1]In Airport Run-In, Democrats See Help for Obama Among Hispanics[/h] [h=6]By HELENE COOPER[/h] [h=6]Published: January 26, 2012[/h] AURORA, Colo. — Democrats see the chance that President Obama’s heated exchange with Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona on the airport tarmac in Phoenix could help him with the Hispanic voters he came West to court this week. The run-in, captured in a photograph of the governor wagging a finger at the president as they discussed her book, “Scorpions for Breakfast,†lit up Hispanic radio stations and blogs all over the state. While it is difficult to judge whether the moment will have any lasting impact, Hispanic leaders said that what is being dubbed by some as the “dustup in the desert†could play in the president’s favor given the unfavorable view many Hispanics have of the governor for her advocacy of tough immigration measures. “For that incident alone,†Robert Meza, a Democratic state senator from Phoenix, said Thursday, “85 percent more Latin people will gravitate toward the president.†Republicans saw the incident in another light. Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, told the show “Imus in the Morning†on Fox Business Network that Ms. Brewer had “very legitimate†concerns about the state’s border and that her tarmac exchange with Mr. Obama was another display of the president’s “prickly personality.†Appearing on Fox News on Thursday, Ms. Brewer said Mr. Obama had walked off while she was still talking. “You know me, when I talk, I am animated and I talk with my hands,†she said, explaining her finger-wagging. “I suppose that the picture was probably shot when I was moving my hands around.†In an interview with ABC News that was broadcast Thursday, Mr. Obama said the conflict was being blown out of proportion. “I’m usually accused of not being intense enough, right?†he said, laughing. “Too relaxed.†The book, in which Ms. Brewer takes the federal government to task for what she calls lax enforcement of immigration laws, is, like Ms. Brewer herself, unpopular among Latinos, particularly in Arizona, a state Mr. Obama is hoping to put in play this election year. The president, for his part, was doing all he could to build his standing among voters in this potentially crucial bloc. While his five-state tour is ostensibly meant to roll out the tax, manufacturing, energy, education and jobs proposals he unveiled in his State of the Union address this week, the White House made sure that three of the states on the high-profile itinerary were swing states where the Hispanic vote will be crucial. Besides Arizona, the president traveled to Nevada, visiting a UPS plant on Thursday to talk about energy proposals, before heading to Colorado to give another speech. He took along with him Luis Miranda, his director of Hispanic media. And he gave interviews to two Spanish-language television networks on the trip, one to Telemundo on Thursday in Las Vegas and one on Wednesday to Univision, which has increasingly been influencing the view of national politics among Hispanics. During Mr. Obama’s Univision interview, the anchor Maria Elena Salinas pressed the president on one of the few potential sore spots that could hurt his chances of winning large numbers of Hispanic voters: the record numbers of deportations since he took office. “Over 1.2 million people have been deported under your administration,†Ms. Salinas said. “More families separated under your administration than any other president. You couldn’t do anything administratively for this?†Mr. Obama sought to turn the question around to reflect his other efforts on behalf of immigrants, particularly those with no criminal background. “That’s the law that’s on the books right now,†he said, quickly adding: “What we have systematically done, is to use our administrative authority to prioritize and say, Let’s not focus on Dream Act kids. Let’s not focus on a law-abiding family that is out there trying to, you know, make their way. Let’s focus on folks who are engaged in criminal activity.†While Mr. Obama acknowledged during the Univision interview that his Spanish is not very good, he still managed to delight the crowd during his speech in Chandler, Ariz. One man yelled, “Barack es mi hermano!†which means “Barack is my brother.†Mr. Obama shouted back: “Mi hermano, mucho gusto,†for “My brother, good to meet you.†As the Republican presidential candidates battle it out in Florida for Latino voters, Mr. Obama’s Spanish-language outreach has been under way in other critical states, where his backers have been running Spanish-language advertisements. Seeking an edge in the Florida presidential primary, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have broadcast Spanish-language commercials in that state, and both men also gave interviews to Univision this week. Publicly, the White House treated the confrontation with Ms. Brewer with a scripted, and bland, retelling. “Political theater,†the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, told reporters aboard Air Force One to Denver. But privately, one administration official, when asked on Thursday about the Wednesday confrontation, offered: “Let’s just say I don’t think yesterday was a bad day.†http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/us/politics/in-airport-run-in-democrats-see-help-for-obama-among-hispanics.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

What really happened in the Gingrich ethics case? [/url] byByron York Chief Political Correspondent posted8 hours ago at11:20pm with87 Comments The Romney campaign has been hitting Newt Gingrich hard over the 1990s ethics case that resulted in the former Speaker being reprimanded and paying a $300,000 penalty. Before the Iowa caucuses, Romney and his supporting super PAC did serious damage to Gingrich with an ad attacking Gingrich's ethics past. Since then, Romney has made other ads and web videos focusing on the ethics matter, and at the Republican debate in Tampa Monday night, Romney said Gingrich "had to resign in disgrace." In private conversations, Romney aides often mention the ethics case as part of their larger argument that Gingrich would be unelectable in a race against President Obama. Given all the attention to the ethics matter, it's worth asking what actually happened back in 1995, 1996, and 1997. The Gingrich case was extraordinarily complex, intensely partisan, and driven in no small way by a personal vendetta on the part of one of Gingrich's former political opponents. It received saturation coverage in the press; a database search of major media outlets revealed more than 10,000 references to Gingrich's ethics problems during the six months leading to his reprimand. It ended with a special counsel hired by the House Ethics Committee holding Gingrich to an astonishingly strict standard of behavior, after which Gingrich in essence pled guilty to two minor offenses. Afterwards, the case was referred to the Internal Revenue Service, which conducted an exhaustive investigation into the matter. And then, after it was all over and Gingrich was out of office, the IRS concluded that Gingrich did nothing wrong. After all the struggle, Gingrich was exonerated. I wrote about the matter at the time, first in a 1995 article about Gingrich's accusers and then in a 1999 piece on the Internal Revenue Service report that cleared Gingrich. (Both pieces were for The American Spectator; I'm drawing on them extensively, but unfortunately neither is available online.) At the center of the controversy was a course Gingrich taught from 1993 to 1995 at two small Georgia colleges. The wide-ranging class, called "Renewing American Civilization," was conceived by Gingrich and financed by a tax-exempt organization called the Progress and Freedom Foundation. Gingrich maintained that the course was a legitimate educational enterprise; his critics contended that it had little to do with learning and was in fact a political exercise in which Gingrich abused a tax-exempt foundation to spread his own partisan message. The Gingrich case was driven in significant part by a man named Ben Jones. An actor and recovered alcoholic who became famous for playing the dim-witted Cooter in the popular 1980s TV show The Dukes of Hazzard, Jones ran for Congress as a Democrat from Georgia in 1988. He won and served two terms. He lost his bid for re-election after re-districting in 1992, and tried again with a run against Gingrich in 1994. Jones lost decisively, and after that, it is fair to say he became obsessed with bringing Gingrich down. Two days before Election Day 1994, with defeat in sight, Jones hand-delivered a complaint to the House ethics committee (the complaint was printed on "Ben Jones for Congress" stationery). Jones asked the committee to investigate the college course, alleging that Gingrich "fabricated a 'college course' intended, in fact, to meet certain political, not educational, objectives." Three weeks later, Jones sent the committee 450 pages of supporting documents obtained through the Georgia Open Records Act. That was the beginning of the investigation. Stunned by their loss of control of the House -- a loss engineered by Gingrich -- House Democrats began pushing a variety of ethics complaints against the new Speaker. Jones' complaint was just what they were looking for. There's no doubt the complaint was rooted in the intense personal animus Jones felt toward Gingrich. In 1995, I sat down with Jones for a talk about Gingrich, and without provocation, Jones simply went off on the Speaker. "He's just full of s--t," Jones told me. "He is. I mean, the guy's never done a damn thing, he's never worked a day in his life, he's never hit a lick at a snake. He's just a bulls--t artist. I mean, think about it. What has this guy ever done in his life?…Gingrich has never worked. He's never had any life experience. He's very gifted in his way at a sort of rhetorical terrorism, and he's gifted in his way at being a career politician, someone who understands how that system works and how to get ahead in it, which is everything that he has derided for all these years. So I think he's a hypocrite, and I think he's a wuss, and I don't mind saying that to him or whoever. To his mother -- I don't care." At that point, Jones leaned over to speak directly into my recorder. Raising his voice, he declared: "HE'S THE BIGGEST A--HOLE IN AMERICA!" Jones and his partner in the Gingrich crusade, Democratic Rep. David Bonior -- they had been basketball buddies in the House gym -- pushed the case ceaselessly. Under public pressure, the Ethics Committee -- made up of equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats -- took up the case and hired an outside counsel, Washington lawyer James Cole, to conduct the investigation. Cole developed a theory of the case in which Gingrich, looking for a way to spread his political views, came up with the idea of creating a college course and then devised a way to use a tax-exempt foundation to pay the bills. "The idea to develop the message and disseminate it for partisan political use came first," Cole told the Ethics Committee. "The use of the [the Progress and Freedom Foundation] came second as a source of funding." Thus, Cole concluded, the course was "motivated, at least in part, by political goals." Cole argued that even a hint of a political motive, was enough to taint the tax-exempt project, "regardless of the number or importance of truly exempt purposes that are present." Cole did not argue that the case was not educational. It plainly was. But Cole suggested that the standard for determining wrongdoing was whether any unclean intent lurked in the heart of the creator of the course, even if it was unquestionably educational. Meanwhile, Democrats kept pushing to raise the stakes against Gingrich. "Anyone who has engaged in seven years of tax fraud to further his own personal and political benefits is not deserving of the speakership," Bonior said just before Christmas 1996. "Mr. Gingrich has engaged in a pattern of tax fraud, lies, and cover-ups in paving his road to the second highest office in the land…I would expect the Justice Department, the FBI, a grand jury, and other appropriate entities to investigate." With the charges against Gingrich megaphoned in the press, Gingrich and Republicans were under intense pressure to end the ordeal. In January, 1997, Gingrich agreed to make a limited confession of wrongdoing in which he pleaded 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 Gingrich's contention that the course was not political -- a claim Cole and the committee did not accept, but the IRS later would. In return for those admissions, the House reprimanded Gingrich and levied an unprecedented $300,000 fine. The size of the penalty was not so much about the misdeed itself but the fact that the Speaker was involved in it. 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 told me in 1999. "He was admitting to whatever he could to get the case over with." It was a huge victory for Democrats. They had deeply wounded the Speaker. But they hadn't brought him down. So, as Bonior suggested, they sought to push law enforcement to begin a criminal investigation of Gingrich. Nothing happened with the Justice Department and the FBI, but the IRS began an investigation that would stretch over three years. Unlike many in Congress -- and journalists, too -- IRS investigators obtained tapes and transcripts of each session during the two years the course was taught at Kennesaw State College in Georgia, as well as videotapes of the third year of the course, taught at nearby Reinhardt College. IRS officials examined every word Gingrich spoke in every class; before investigating the financing and administration of the course, they first sought to determine whether it was in fact educational and whether it served to the political benefit of Gingrich, his political organization, GOPAC, or the Republican Party as a whole. They then carefully examined the role of the Progress and Freedom Foundation and how it related to Gingrich's political network. In the end, in 1999, the IRS released a densely written, highly detailed 74-page report. The course was, in fact, educational, the IRS said. "The overwhelming number of positions advocated in the course were very broad in nature and often more applicable to individual behavior or behavioral changes in society as a whole than to any 'political' action," investigators wrote. "For example, the lecture on quality was much more directly applicable to individual behavior than political action and would be difficult to attempt to categorize in political terms. Another example is the lecture on personal strength where again the focus was on individual behavior. In fact, this lecture placed some focus on the personal strength of individual Democrats who likely would not agree with Mr. Gingrich on his political views expressed in forums outside his Renewing American Civilization course teaching. Even in the lectures that had a partial focus on broadly defined changes in political activity, such as less government and government regulation, there was also a strong emphasis on changes in personal behavior and non-political changes in society as a whole." The IRS also checked out the evaluations written by students who completed the course. The overwhelming majority of students, according to the report, believed that Gingrich knew his material, was an interesting speaker, and was open to alternate points of view. None seemed to perceive a particular political message. "Most students," the IRS noted, "said that they would apply the course material to improve their own lives in such areas as family, friendships, career, and citizenship." The IRS concluded the course simply was not political. "The central problem in arguing that the Progress and Freedom Foundation provided more than incidental private benefit to Mr. Gingrich, GOPAC, and other Republican entities," the IRS wrote, "was that the content of the 'Renewing American Civilization' course was educational...and not biased toward any of those who were supposed to be benefited." The bottom line: Gingrich acted properly and violated no laws. There was no tax fraud scheme. Of course, by that time, Gingrich was out of office, widely presumed to be guilty of something, and his career in politics was (seemingly) over. Back in January 1997, the day after Cole presented his damning report to the Ethics Committee, the Washington Post's front-page banner headline was "Gingrich Actions 'Intentional' or 'Reckless'; Counsel Concludes That Speaker's Course Funding Was 'Clear Violation' of Tax Laws." That same day, the New York Times ran eleven stories on the Gingrich matter, four of them on the front page (one inside story was headlined, "Report Describes How Gingrich Used Taxpayers' Money for Partisan Politics"). On television, Dan Rather began the CBS Evening News by telling viewers that "only now is the evidence of Newt Gingrich's ethics violations and tax problems being disclosed in detail." The story was much different when Gingrich was exonerated. The Washington Post ran a brief story on page five. The Times ran an equally brief story on page 23. And the evening newscasts of CBS, NBC, and ABC -- which together had devoted hours of coverage to the question of Gingrich's ethics -- did not report the story at all. Not a word. Gingrich himself, not wanting to dredge up the whole ugly tale, said little about his exoneration. "I consider this a full and complete vindication," he wrote in a brief statement. "I urge my colleagues to go back and read their statements and watch how they said them, with no facts, based on nothing more than a desire to politically destroy a colleague." Now, Gingrich is saying much the same thing in the face of Romney's accusations. And despite the prominence of the matter in the GOP race, few outsiders seem inclined to dive back into the ethics matter to determine whether Gingrich deserves the criticism or not. But if Gingrich is to have any hope of climbing out from under the allegations, he'll have to find some way of letting people know what really happenrd. http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/what-really-happened-gingrich-ethics-case/336051

So the JOBS President, the Centrist President, The Unifier, the Most Transparent President ever, decided on Politics instead of JOBS, because of a 2 month time frame or a poorly written piece of legislation. This is the same Jobs President who is focusing in on JOBS like a laser. Really !!!

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/keystone-calamity/1400506675001

Dr. Newtlove: Newtolean BonaMuffin: Hide the sharp objects: We are all commies now: Revenge is a dish best served in South Carolina: Dumb rednecks don’t read The NY Daily News and didn’t know that Newt’s just a “woman on the verge of a nervous breakdown”:

Thanks for posting. Here's Mine, a little more gooey... but so good !!! ALL GONE !!