Gingrich won South Carolina because of his image as a fighter, a combative champion for a conservative base that has beenradicalized by four years of Obama and is aching for the kind of the hard-hitting campaign John McCain refused to wage.

Gingrich skillfully used the last two debates to win over these angry conservatives. Thus on January 16^th, Juan Williams asked if Newt Gingrich would concede that his comments about blacks wanting “jobs, not food stamps” and “poor kids lack[ing] a strong work ethic” were, at the least, insensitive to black Americans. Gingrich fixed him with the expression of bemused contempt he has come to master and said: “No, I don’t see that.”

The audience, perhaps stunned that he didn’t immediately back down, erupted in cheers. Predictably, Gingrich immediately turned the discussion about the problem of janitors’ unions leading to the downfall of the nation.

Nonetheless, Williams foolishly pressed the point, telling Gingrich that “my email account and twitter account have been inundated by people of all races who are asking if your comments are not intended to belittle the poor and racial minorities”. The crowd erupted in boos. Gingrich again defended himself without retreat, stating “I know that among the Politically Correct you are not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable.”

He received a standing ovation.

Of course, Williams is correct when he casually links the poor and racial minorities. The truly “uncomfortable fact” is the connection between blacks and wildly disproportionate welfare use.

....Gingrich at least didn’t prostrate himself to the usual Republican extent. Earning the condemnation of the affirmative action commentariatwas certainly a badge of honor.

Then Gingrich had a repeat performance at January 19’s CNN debate. Incredibly, he managed to utilize a scandal about his personal life to his advantage. Just before the debate, ABC News resurrected an old story by reporting the former Marianne Gingrich’s allegation that Newt had requested an open marriage so he could carry on his affair with his current wife Callista.

ABC’s decision was despicable for three reasons. First, the network forced an already suffering Republic to consider our triple-chinned former Speaker’s unconventional sex life. Second, ABC was obviously engaging in the kind of shamefully overt bias in reporting that that has turned “liberal media” into a cliché. Finally, and most importantly, the attack enabled Gingrich to exploit the Republican base’s utter contempt for MSM reporters. Many conservatives obviously said “Newt may be a sleaze—but he’s our sleaze”.

CNN’s John King made it easy for Newt by beginning the most recent Republican debate with a question about Gingrich’s marriage and asking if he’d like to comment. Gingrich responded: “No, but I will,” leading to a roar of approval and setting up a lecture by the Speaker on the perfidy of the liberal media that is “protecting” Barack Obama. The crowd ate it up....

....It’s very impressive. But all it means is that Gingrich has accomplished an epic bait and switch of Republican voters.

When even National Review is dedicating entire issues to calling Gingrich a phony, pointing out the holes in Newt’s record seems almost superfluous.

However, it should be noted that Gingrich has been particularly awful on immigration—even during this campaign cycle. Gingrich has given passionate soliloquies about mythical “grandmothers and grandfathers” who allegedly are being deported on a regular basis. Gingrich makes the usual noises about the supposed difficulty of legal immigration. Most bizarrely, he endorses an utterly unworkable system of citizen panels to give illegals permanent residency—seemingly with the goal of keeping illegals in the country to be used for cheap labor but somehow denying them voting rights. Of course, without confronting birthright citizenship, such a proposal does nothing to stop the demographic transformation of America and the eventual extinction of a conservative Republican Party and the historic American nation.

Gingrich also goes above and beyond in the usual pandering and cowardice on race when it comes to policy. He supposedly champions English as an official language—but is a passionate advocate of Puerto Rican statehood. He sponsors Hispanic forums and Spanish language publications that openly call for more immigration into the United States. Significantly, he has earned the support of Somos Republicanos, a supposedly Republican Hispanic group that doesn’t seem to do anything except attack patriotic Republicans. He not only pals around with racial racketeers Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, he attacks even black Republicans who criticize them. He claims to be a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution, but against the wishes of President Reagan, hechampioned sanctions on South Africa, with the absurd rationale that Republicans needed the black vote. (Note: it didn’t work).

And, perhaps more than any other person in this country, Newt Gingrich is responsible for the astonishing conservative retreat on racial preferences and the continued existence of an anti-white racial spoils system in jobs and education.

Gingrich not only does everything he can to destroy his conservative constituency; he has actively attacked leaders like Pat Buchanan who attempt to defend it. Given Gingrich’s self-created view of himself as a world historical figure and “teacher of civilizing principles”, it appears he does not want to challenge the egalitarian zeitgeist but to lead it.

Nonetheless, despite Gingrich’s lifetime of treason, cynicism, and cowardice, grassroots conservatives supported him because of style rather than substance. In the tribal politics of the Republican primary, Gingrich is a champion of the conservative activist against the cosmopolitan elites.

More than that, conservatives view the hysterical charges of racism from the likes of Bill Maher and Andrew Sullivan as proof of Gingrich’s sincerity. The more Gingrich is attacked as a racist, the more conservatives rally to defend him—and paradoxically, the more Gingrich can deviate from even the pretense of standing up for the historic American majority.

Most critically, despite some praise by former Congressman Tom Tancredo, grassroots conservatives have not rallied to Romney. Internalizing the enemy propaganda, grassroots conservatives only seem capable of recognizing and championing immigration patriotism when it is part of a larger combative package. As a result, Romney lost the votes of conservatives but won the votes of liberals, moderates, the rich, and Tea Party opponents. Conservatives want a fighter, not a CEO. As long as a candidate says he is against Obama, they don’t seem to care (or understand) what someone is actually fighting for.

South Carolina was agonizing for immigration patriots. Gingrich has exploited the purely reactionary instincts of the base to seize the mantle of conservative champion.

“True Conservatism” now represents a populist style, rather than a series of principles or policy positions. Absent that kind of confrontational approach, Romney’s relatively strong position on (illegal) immigration is not paying electoral dividends.

The only positive to be found: Republicans are clearly looking for a champion who will scorn the MSM and its shibboleths, attack the President and his assault on traditional America, and dismiss the Republican (and “Conservative”) Establishment that has dictated terms for far too long.

Gingrich, unbelievably, seems to be the only candidate embracing this kind of approach. But it could be more profitably exploited by a populist patriot who cares about his country. Unfortunately, such a figure has not appeared, at least not this election cycle.

Gingrich should be condemned for his hypocrisy and opportunism. But he is not solely responsible for this sorry situation. The Beltway Right has undercut any attempt to make immigration patriotism a plank of movement conservatism and ruthlessly enforced leftist egalitarian dogma within its ranks.

... In Gingrich, they have someone who makes the right noises to the rubes but then carries out the cheap labor agenda of the corporate elite. The rubes have the words, but no action. They have the rhetoric of resistance, but the substance of surrender. Isn’t that what they’ve wanted the entire time?

The real question is whether the conservative grassroots will find out that they’ve been had. And, if so, what they will do about it.

James Kirkpatrick [Email him] travels around the United States looking for a waiter who can speak English and a libertarian who believes in America.

Jerry Kane points out the "coincidence" of the arrogant fool Terrell Suggs:

"...(W)e don't pray on the sideline. ... we gonna go out there and win that game. We don't need our kicker to make a 62-yarder. I'm just saying. We don't need guys to fall out of bounds and then we get to punt it back ... we don't need stuff like that to happen for us.

Our quarterback knows how to go out and win games. When our quarterback prays, he be like, 'You know what, ...God, you know what, you sit on your couch and enjoy this. ... I'm gonna impress you.' "--Baltimore Ravens OLB Terrell Suggs on ESPN's First Take a couple weeks ago talking about Denver Bronco Quarterback Tim Tebow.

Critics, including the LAPD police union, say the changes just reward lawbreakers and put politics above safety.

The meeting in Northridge was packed with residents who were overwhelmingly against the change. At one point, things got so heated, police commissioners nearly walked out of the meeting.

Don Rosenberg, whose said his 25-year-old son was killed in an accident involving an unlicensed driver, was one of those who opposed changes to the policy.

"The car should be confiscated and the driver should be arrested, and if they are caught again, then just keep jacking up the penalty until this stops," Rosenberg said. "There's over a million unlicensed drivers in California, and they're killing people every day."

Rosenberg received resounding applause from the crowd when he spoke.

"If you think it's fair, you come down the road and come meet my son in his cemetery and you tell him that this is fair," Rosenberg said, addressing Beck and the commission."

That just says to me they've already made up their minds to go forward with this unlawful policy change. Oh, and they're cowards and puppets. They need to remember that they serve the people that are angry but they obviously don't care.

Chief Charlie Beck is a total coward and a political puppet of Mayor Tony Villaraigosa. Villaraigosa is in cahoots with State Sen Gil Cedillo who is the illegal alien's best friend. This policy will only serve to put those without licenses right back on the road after being cited. The Mayor and the LAPD have put politically correct politics above the safety of the people of this city and all of us should attend every Police Commission meeting and demand the immediate resignation of these phonies who dare to call themselves "city leaders."

This law applies to everyone not just immigrants(legal or illegal- even ones NOT from Mexico). If you don't have a valid license then don't drive. If you are going to break the law then be prepared for the punishment. Allowing anyone to knowingly break the law tells me that you Mr. Mayor and Mr. Police Chief are in the WRONG profession. Those of us who ARE law abiding, are punished more or suffer more risks because of it. What laws will illegal immigrants be compelled to abide by? Apparently NONE of them want to abide by our laws, no matter what they are. And it's dangerous for LAW ENFORCEMENT officials to go along with it. To what purpose is HAVING the laws, if some have to abide, and some don't?

Chief Beck you are the top law enforcement official for the City of L.A. Most of us are law abiding citizens and frankly I am OUTRAGED that you would even consider allowing unlicensed drivers to break the law without any consequence. Most unlicensed drivers are illegal aliens, who by their mere presence, is already breaking the law. They work using false identities, more law breaking and none of our city/state officials do anything to stop it. Why should the rest of us continue to obey the laws when you reward and coddle these offenders? Have you noticed, Chief Beck, how many more hit & run crimes there are lately? Stop being political, that is not your job. Please do your job Chief Beck and arrest these unlicensed drivers and IMPOUND their cars.

I'm astonished this is even being discussed... why do politicians continue to pander to illegals..they can't vote (yet) they can't legally hold a job, they don't pay taxes..they are a drag on our tax dollars with all their benefits they they easily get when real Americans are suffering. I say take care of American Homeless, American unemployed NOT those driving with PIOLIN bumper stickers and killing Americans.

The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. was born January 15, 1929.  He was assassinated in 1968.  “MLK Day” as it were, is celebrated the third Monday in January close to the time of his birthday.  One may ask how such a short life should warrant a federal holiday.  Martin Luther King, Jr. never was elected to public office.  His life was controversial while he lived it.  Moreover, his memory is skewed given that FBI files were sealed under court order until 2027.  These records were not accessible to lawmakers, who voted for his holiday in 1983.  The measure nevertheless passed with bipartisan support and by large margin before Ronald Reagan signed it into law. 

Martin Luther King, Jr. still evokes an ecstatic memory from his admirers, and the man has become something of an icon too.  That is to say, the representation of high ideals and idealism is separate and distinct from his actual biography.  Of course the same can be said of many others, including Lincoln and Jefferson.  Great men are often given a public pass on their blemishes and shortcomings.  Historians are or ought to be a bit more circumspect. 

The reason for the Day, and celebrating the life of MLK involves the issue of race.  Martin Luther King, Jr.’s work was important in achieving a Second Reconstruction so-called, i.e., the end of segregation and the application of rights past state laws based upon the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.   

Martin Luther King, Jr. attended segregated public schools in Georgia.  After that he went to Morehouse College in Atlanta and then to Crozer Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania.  At Crozer he was elected president of a predominantly white senior class.  He then proceeded to Boston University where he earned his Ph. D. in 1955 and met his wife Coretta Scott.  They would have two sons and two daughters together. 

After educational and professional preparations, King launched himself into the pastorate first in Montgomery, Alabama and then in his native Atlanta, Georgia.  At the same time he dedicated himself to political activism throughout the South, in order to end “Jim Crow” discriminatory statutes.  As a member of the executive committee of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) he led the Montgomery bus boycott lasting 382 days.  This led to a Supreme Court decision ending bus segregation.  During the days of the boycott, King was arrested and subjected to personal abuse, and his home was bombed. 

In 1957 he was elected to head the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, from which he provided new leadership for the burgeoning civil rights movement.  King employed the teachings and techniques of Henry David Thoreau and Mahatma Gandhi.  His enduring success is largely attributable, however, to skilful adaptation of widely accepted American values, including the rule of law—albeit, through aggressive non-violence; as well as strong appeal to common spiritual beliefs, especially in the South, about God and the moral worth and dignity of man, and to Christian values of forbearance and brotherly love.  His historicism was Lincolnesque and so helpful, in that he emphasized the text of the Declaration of Independence, characterizing that document as a promissory note as yet unfulfilled.  Thus he appealed to American patriotism, while strongly criticizing social norms regarding race. 

In the eleven year period from 1957 to 1968 Martin Luther King, Jr. traveled more than six million miles, gave over twenty-five hundred speeches, wrote five books and numerous articles, consistently preaching against racial hatred and injustice.  His activity is largely credited with changing the conscience of America on the subject of race.  In 1963 he directed a peaceful march on Washington, D.C. of 250,000 people and delivered perhaps his finest address, “I Have a Dream” from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.  In 1965 he led 30,000 people on a march from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery, where he demanded that black people be allowed to vote without unfair restrictions.  The speech televised to a national audience, as well as the Selma march and various protests he orchestrated, stirred general unrest in the South and American cities, leading to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

In 1964 he became the youngest man to have received the Nobel Peace Prize, turning over that considerable cash prize to the furtherance of civil rights.  The iconic ideal he articulated at the Lincoln Memorial is still one of the highest domestic hopes in the land.  It has come to define what we mean by a just equality.  Speaking of his four little children, he said “I have a dream that … one day” they “will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” 

____________________

Wesley Allen Riddle is a retired military officer with degrees and honors from West Point and Oxford.  Widely published in the academic and opinion press, he serves as State Director of the Republican Freedom Coalition (RFC).  This article is from his newly released book, Horse Sense for the New Millennium available on-line at www.WesRiddle.net and from fine bookstores everywhere.  Email: Wes@WesRiddle.com