How did the MSM let this one slip out???  Huge rally, check out this awesome photo.  Don't want to infringe, so here is the link, be sure to click to enlarge it, and just look at the enthusiasm!!  It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings....He IS surging!

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/30/146079654/new-republic-why-old-people-could-save-newt

The recent endorsement of Herman Cain, the ongoing encouragement of Sarah Palin and the rational support of a sensible immigration plan seem to be connecting with voters, in spite of the big money spectacle playing out here.  Over 3 days ago, ABC called for the removal of an ad showing their former news coverage of what we now know was an unfounded or grossly overrated charge against the former Speaker, who was later cleared by the IRS of all charges.  I saw this ad, again this morning.  Things like this make the so called front runner look less than honest, as they continue to run the ad day after day.

Add to that the swell of Hispanic support Newt is getting from Hispanic Leaders and you can see how this could really be tightening up, far faster than the polls can read it! Now the Tampa Tribune has reportedly decided to endorse Newt.

Recently the Latino GOP group Café con Leche endorsed him, and he already carries the endorsement of the Somos Republican group. From coast to coast he has received endorsements of support as the only candidate who, from the beginning has spoken for humane, yet fair, meaningful reform for all immigrants. I can’t name all the leaders who have committed to him! This will carry great weight when it reaches California and other places, since all immigrants everywhere seem to identify with him, and have spoken out in his favor.

Don’t buy the spin; this is going to be a squeaker: Out with the “O” in with the NEWT!

Go Newt GO!

Here is an Article on the Surge!

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/01/30/florida-newt-appears-to-be-surging-on-the-ground-report-florida-west-coast/

On January 27, Greta Van Susteren interviewed Florida's new Attorney General, Pam Bondi.  Now, it didn't surprise me when she didn't endorse Newt Gingrich.  For those of you who do not follow Florida politics closely, in the last election with the wave of Tea Party elections, and cries of throw the bums out, Pam Bondi took the available seat of our then Atty General, and the man who spearheaded the move into the courts against ObamaCare.  Bill McCollum sought The Governor's nomination and was narrowly defeated by Rick Scott. He is now Newt's Fl. Campaign Chairman.  It made me unhappy, to see him leave Atty Gen, because he was one of the few I truly believe are honest.  I was sad to see him replaced. I just had this funny feeling about Bondi.

Here is the interesting part!!!! On Greta’s Fox show she said during the interview, pay attention….

And let me tell you, I have been asked to be on Gov Romney's task force. I am going to be part of his health care policy team, um, when he's president to undo this and to create good healthcare. So I wholeheartedly support him, and I don't think he contradicts it at all. In fact, he is doing everything that we agree with.

NOW, What does this sound like to you??? Has Romney changed one bit?? Bondi has a picture of “CREATING Healthcare” for us???

Here we go again. Romney is a big government LIBERAL!!! Wake up Florida!!!!

Wake up Voters, wherever you are!!!

Vote for Newt on Tuesday!!!!

Newt and the Reagan Lie- EXPOSED

NEWT OFFICIALLY RECEIVED THE REAGAN MANTLE-IT’S TRUE!!!!

Nancy Reagan can be heard in 1995 how Ronald Reagan handed the torch to Newt Gingrich and the Republican members of Congress. Those who would call Newt a liar about this FACT are calling Nancy Reagan a liar, who did not know her own husband. This is particularly being pushed by the supporters of Ron Paul, who has told lie after lie in this campaign, and thrown mud on each and every candidate. No wonder his numbers are going down in the campaign, day to day.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/nancy-reagan-1995-ronnie-turned-that-torch-over-to-newt/

Mitt Romney is NEVER going to defeat Obama!!! Look at the OWS movement!! It was created to defeat Romney who is the 1% personified. He owns Goldman Sachs stock, for goodness sakes. Please Florida; don’t send the election to certain defeat!!! Vote for Newt!!!! Even beyond the Democratic plans, do these sound like a conservative to you? He is a big moneyed Democrat, just like his Father. You do realize Democrats are wealthier than Republicans, right?

The real Romney:

On guns: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk1bJOpYUqE&feature=related

On Reagan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pVqZzHm3Z4&feature=related

On working together, The Contract With America (which helped cut the spending and balance the budget.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jzno_apP1Q&feature=related

Florida Newt wants to get us back to work. Romney could care less, as long as big corps make money….. Please, I’m begging, vote Newt!

If you need to know more before you vote go to:

http://www.newt.org/

The holiday break distracted me from finishing up an old discussion about energy, and now the problem is complicated by the discussion disappearing from the original post, thanks to a member deleting his account (John H.).

Gather saves such disappeared comments in each member's own comment page, so here is my comment under John's thread that started it:

And here's is the main comment I wanted to respond to:

First off, that was a great list of all the ways government is distorting the price of oil. It is undeniable that governments have helped cause oil to be such a major source of energy. It's not a problem created by the market.

That said, even without government intervention, oil would have probably played a significant role anyway. Two others involved in the discussion, Graham L., and Dan E., thought I didn't recognize this. I do. Oil is a very important source of energy, and will remain so for a long time, even if it doesn't remain our primary source of energy.

I have no particular allegiance or disdain for any type of energy. I'm fine with whatever turns out to be the best options under market conditions, which would be many different sources, no doubt.

All the energy and environmental issues are best answered by the market. The price system is the mechanism that ensures sustainable use of resources; the enforcement of property rights ensures that pollution does not destroy the environment; and allows innovation to thrive, which will help create more and better sources of energy, including solar, wind, etc.

I'll be making a more complete case for free market environmentalism in a future Striking at the Root article. I believe it's a solution that can satisfy both the sides of the (political) debate, while ending the motivation for "denialism" and "alarmism". The special interests just looking for government money, though, that's another story...

One more thing:

Given that definition you must admit that a "free market" has never existed, nor can it in the real world.

The market does exist in the real world. The only thing limiting it from being freer is in our minds. There is nothing impossible about it; any subsidy could be ended tomorrow, if there was support for such an idea.

From the Washington Post, with comments from yours truly:

“President Obama will use his State of the Union address on Tuesday to deliver an election-year message focused on economic fairness for the middle class and what he calls ‘a return to American values.’”

**Note: Well, my first question is, which values? We certainly all do not hold the same values. Does he mean the founders’ value on limited federal powers? Doubt it.

“In a video distributed to campaign supporters Saturday morning, the president said his speech before Congress should be viewed as his ‘blueprint for an American economy that’s built to last,’ a slogan designed to evoke blue-collar imagery and draw contrasts with his Republican rivals.”

**Note: I see, this is going to be a partisan campaign speech that engages in class warfare. Why am I not surprised?

“Obama suggested that his third State of the Union would bookend the populist themes of his speech last month in Osawatomie, Kan., by laying out the specific steps his administration is taking to achieve a more equitable economy and amplifying his vision of a society that provides greater opportunity to the middle class.”  

“During a fall barnstorming tour across the country, Obama championed the idea that higher-income Americans should pay more in taxes to provide revenue for investments that could jump-start the economy and boost job creation. But Republicans balked at a time of fast-growing national debt.”

“In his State of the Union address, however, Obama is expected to renew his calls for many of those jobs provisions, including investments in infrastructure and education, as well as a full extension of the payroll tax cut that is set to expire next month.”

**Note: Two things—first, the President just passed on a major infrastructure project that his union supporters wanted, and second, he had an opportunity to get a full extension of the payroll tax cut by embracing the House plan instead of rejecting it in favor of a two month extension.

“In the video, the president reiterated previous calls for the manufacturing of more products ‘stamped with Made in America’ and said he wants to ‘get people the training they need so they’re ready to take the jobs of today and tomorrow.’”

**Note: Did he mention that products stamped with Made in America cost much more than products made elsewhere?  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-state-of-the-union-speech-to-focus-on-return-to-american-values/2012/01/21/gIQAaFkvGQ_story.html  

I’ve got to say, this is a bit ridiculous on the judge’s part. From CBS News Atlanta:

"A judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and can't be president."

"It's one of many such lawsuits that have been filed across the country, so far without success. A Georgia resident made the complaint, which is intended to keep Obama's name off the state's ballot in the March presidential primary."

**Note: A judge ordering the President to appear personally for a hearing is beyond moronic. His attorneys could handle any preliminaries without Obama's physical presence.

"Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi on Friday denied a motion by the president's lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to show up."

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16567672/ga-judge-orders-president-to-appear-at-hearing

“U.S. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia has a simple solution for people who don't like all the political advertisements unleashed by the court's decision two years ago that ended limits on corporate contributions in political campaigns - change the channel or turn off the TV.”

**Note: And there it is, in one simple sentence—common sense rather than government intrusion into private life. It’s no different for talk radio. If you don’t like what you’re hearing, change the station. Yes, I know, there are many more conservative radio programs than there are liberal ones, but that’s because that’s what the market wants. But a liberal market does exist in some geographic areas and on satellite radio.

“Scalia was asked about the decision during a presentation before the South Carolina Bar on Saturday, exactly two years after the court handed down the 5-4 decision in the case that led to the rise of Super PACs. They are outside groups affiliated with candidates that can take in unlimited contributions as long as they don't directly coordinate with the candidate.”

“Scalia said the blame for this type of system shouldn't fall on the Supreme Court, which he said decides merely whether the system is legal under the U.S. Constitution. Instead, he said the ones who have to change things are the politicians who created the system and the voters who often reward the candidates who spend the most money.”

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_SUPER_PACS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-01-21-16-41-10

Robert Samuelson is a member of The Washington Post’s Writers Group. I’ve really grown to like this guy because he doesn’t pull any punches for Republicans OR Democrats. He’s very good at laying out the facts, and while he offers his opinion, it’s based on reality, not politics. I’ve seen him support and bash Democrats and Republicans alike, and it’s kind of refreshing.

Here it is:

“President Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico is an act of national insanity. It isn't often that a president makes a decision that has no redeeming virtues and -- beyond the symbolism -- won't even advance the goals of the groups that demanded it. All it tells us is that Obama is so obsessed with his re-election that, through some sort of political calculus, he believes that placating his environmental supporters will improve his chances.”

“Aside from the political and public relations victory, environmentalists won't get much. Stopping the pipeline won't halt the development of tar sands, to which the Canadian government is committed; therefore, there will be little effect on global warming emissions. Indeed, Obama's decision might add to them. If Canada builds a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific for export to Asia, moving all that oil across the ocean by tanker will create extra emissions. There will also be the risk of added spills.”

“Now consider how Obama's decision hurts the United States. For starters, it insults and antagonizes a strong ally; getting future Canadian cooperation on other issues will be harder. Next, it threatens a large source of relatively secure oil that, combined with new discoveries in the United States, could reduce (though not eliminate) our dependence on insecure foreign oil.”

“Finally, Obama's decision forgoes all the project's jobs. There's some dispute over the magnitude. Project sponsor TransCanada claims 20,000, split between construction (13,000) and manufacturing (7,000) of everything from pumps to control equipment….Whatever the figure, it's in the thousands and important in a country hungering for work. And Keystone XL is precisely the sort of infrastructure project that Obama claims to favor.”

“There are three things to remember about Keystone and U.S. energy policy. First, we're going to use lots of oil for a long time. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that American oil consumption will increase 4 percent between 2009 and 2035. The increase occurs despite highly optimistic assumptions about vehicle fuel efficiency and bio-fuels. But a larger population (390 million in 2035 versus 308 million in 2009) and more driving per vehicle offset savings.”

“Second, barring major technological breakthroughs, emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, will rise for similar reasons. The EIA projects that America's CO2 emissions will increase by 16 percent from 2009 to 2035.”

“Finally, even if -- as Keystone critics argue -- some Canadian oil were refined in the United States and then exported, this would be a good thing. The exports would probably go mostly to Latin America. They would keep well-paid industrial jobs (yes, refining) in the United States and reduce our trade deficit in oil, which exceeded $300 billion in 2011.”

“The State Department had spent three years evaluating Keystone and appeared ready to approve the project by year-end 2011. Then the administration, citing opposition to the pipeline's route in Nebraska, reversed course and postponed a decision to 2013 -- after the election.”

“Now, reacting to a congressional deadline to decide, Obama rejected the proposal. But he also suggested that a new application with a modified Nebraska route -- already being negotiated -- might be approved, after the election. So the sop tossed to the environmentalists could be temporary. The cynicism is breathtaking.”  

 Fully story here.