I woinder if I can get a grant to study if breathing is linked to heart attacks? After all, the non-bnreathing don't have heart attacks so their must be some kind of relationship. But just what is it?

I can assure you that this study will be more productive than Solyndra.

Here are the questions I wish _someone_ would ask Newt Gingrich in a debate: 1. Why did he vote for the legislation that created the US Department of Education when one of the Democrats pointed out during the House debate that there is no authorization in the Constitution for the federal government to get involved in education? If three votes had been against rather than for the legislation we would not have a Department of Education today. 2. Why did he vote for NAFTA when it was obvious at the time that it would make our borders less secure and more easily penetrable? 3. Why did he for GATT when it made the US subject to the authority of the World Trade Organization? 4. Why did he vote for the 1979 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act which gave the federal government rather than the state government control over almost 80 million acres of land and its resources in Alaska? 5. Why did he not oppose the 1996 $18B dollar spending increase for the Department of Education when he was Speaker of the House?

In short, why does his actual voting record not coincide his rhetoric either then or now?

First realize that political campaign advertising is exempt from truth in advertising laws. That means that any candidate can say _anything_ during their campaign. Time and time again candidates say one thing and do something completely different after taking office. The only valid information for comparing candidates is their positions and voting records while in office. Newt Gingrich is adept at telling the voters what they want to hear but if you look at his voting record he is at best a one worlder and at worst a Progressive with an (R) behind his name. He has supported many policies and positions that have harmed this country including GATT, NAFTA, federal Department of Education, and many others. Look at his voting record and you will see a pattern completely at odds with his rhetoric. One particularly obvious stance was his vote FOR creating the Federal Department of Education when a Democrat pointed out in the debate that the federal government has no authorization under the Constitution to do so. If three votes had changed for yes to no we would not have a federal Department of Education today and Gingrich was one of those three yes votes.

Look at the voting records and you will find similar situations with Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.

So watch all the campaign ads and debates you want to but realize that they have no bearing on what the candidate will do once in office. You really need to research their voting records to see the real candidates.

And yes, that excludes Herman Cain from my list because he has no public office voting record. Public office is nothing like private enterprise simply because elected officials cannot be held personally accountable in a court of law for their actions while in office. Sorry, Mr. Cain - show me some public office experience and a voting history and if your actions match your rhetoric, I'll most likely support you.

If you are liking Newt Gingrich for the 2012 election, you better think again. If you look at his voting record rather than his rhetoric, you will find a different man than is portrayed in the media.

He voted for NAFTA which weakened our borders with Canada and Mexico.

He voted for GATT which makes the US subject to the authority of the World Trade Organization.

He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations which is a group of influential people dedicated to globalization at the expense of America's sovereignty. Use the following web site to explore their membership: http://www.muckety.com

Go to the site, type in the organizations' name, and click the Search button. Read the column on the right to learn how to use the tool. In general, you can double click a displayed box to expand it or right click a box to get a menu of options. It is an interesting tool for mapping relationships between people and organizations.

If you start a new map and enter Newt Gingrich you'll see about what you would expect. But double click on John Vincent Weber and check him out. He is affiliated with the Aspen Institute and any time you see the Aspen Institute, you know you are dealing with Progressives. If you double click that, you'll be shocked at some of the names shown. I don't know if he is still a member but when I looked at it about a year ago, Andrew L Stern of SEIU was a director of the Aspen Institute. In effect, John Vincent Weber is Newt Gingrich's link to Andy Stern, SEIU, and the Progressives.

Domestic policy votes include supporting the creation of the Department of Education in 1979 under President Carter. Approval of that bill was close - 3 more votes against it would have killed it. Gingrich was one of 30 Republicans who supported it when the Republicans held 159 seats in the House of Representatives. Even one of the Democrats pointed out that there is no authorization in the Constitution for federal involvement in education. That Department of Education is how the Progressives took over the indoctrination of children into their philosophy.

In 1979 he also voted for the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act which gave the federal government control over almost 80 MILLION acres in Alaska. Jimmy Carter signed the bill into law in 1980. That act turned 80M acres into tourist sites controlled by the federal government rather than Alaskan state controlled mineral and timber resources.

Here is a link to search for historical votes in the US Congress: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes.xpd?year=19... That link is for 1979 but there is an area on the right side of the web page where you can select the year and other selection criteria.

Time Magazine, one of the Progressives' propaganda outlets, named Newt Gingrich "Man of the Year" in 1995. If you watch closely who is currently giving him, if not praise, then at least less vitriolic coverage, during the current election articles you'll see that they are mostly leftist news outlets - Time Magazine, The New York Times, Huffington Post, etc. Compare that to their coverage of Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann.

Gingrich's "Contract with America" was simply a marketing ploy. Under his leadership and with a majority in both houses, spending _growth_ not only continued but actually increased as did the size of the federal government. In 1996 Congress passed the single largest spending increase on education in US history under his leadership. It was 14 billion with a B and that was 1996 dollars. Keep in mind that the House of Representatives totally controls spending. The president and the Senate can negotiate what they will approve, but it is up to the House to specify the spending - and Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the House, the most powerful position in that body.

In short, Gingrich talks the conservative talk and once elected furthers the agenda of the Progressives. He is, in fact, one of the reasons our deficit is as large as it is because of the spending and growth of government that occurred when he was Speaker of the House in the late 90's.

How Did Obama Know About ‘Fast And Furious’ Before Holder? That would be because Cass Sunstein ran it by Obama before suggesting it to Holder. Nudge, nudge. Sounds exactly like a Sunstein ploy.

If you go back and do the research you will find that all four of the successful American presidential assassinations led to a Progressive becoming president.

Granted, the Progressives were not yet a political party when Lincoln was assassinated but the philosophy existed and was growing in prominence.

Chester Arthur became President when Garfield was assassinated. Arthur did not follow through with the Progressive agenda once he took office but if you look back at his mentor and supporters of the time they all had Progressive philosophical leanings.

Theodore Roosevelt became President when McKinley was assassinated and then ran for reelection as a member of the Progressive Party.

Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 1965 was Lindon Johnson. The title of the article? "Man Of The Year: Lyndon B. Johnson, The Prudent Progressive" Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,...

Four assassinations. Four progressives take office. Coincidence or "the ends justify the means"?

The Rep. Giffords shooting in Arizona got me looking into assassinations. What I found was startling. The four successful assassinations of American presidents all resulted in Progressives becoming president. It's true that the Progressives were not organized into a political party when Lincoln was assassinated but the philososphy was developing at that time and growing in prominence. If you look at who took office after the assassination and their political supporters and mentors you will clearly see it.

Chester Arthur became President when Garfield was assassinated. If you look back at his mentor and supporters of the time they all had Progressive philosophical leanings.

Theodore Roosevelt became President when McKinley was assassinated and then ran for reelection as a member of the Progressive Party.

Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 1965 was Lindon Johnson. The title of the article? "Man Of The Year: Lyndon B. Johnson, The Prudent Progressive" Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,...

Four assassinations. Four Progressives take office. Coincidence or "the ends justify the means"?

I kind of like "Otherguy" Obama myself. See _Out on the Rim_ by Ross Thomas.

Some other guy always did it.

In a strict sense you are correct. The very first groups of organized workers were created in the 17th century before Karl Marx lived. The initial growth of organized unions then pretty much paralleled the spread of the various forms of Marxist philosophy. Speaking of today's unions which were put together in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, however, the various socialist and communist parties had an undeniable role in their formation and growth.

I don't think communism took over the unions. It created them.