I too am leaning towards Newt. Every debates ends with comments from the pundits saying he is the brightest one of the bunch, he is brilliant. Why would we not support the smartest and most experienced conservative of the candidates to go against Obama. I would pay $$ to see a Gingrich/Obama debate, wouldn't you? Also, if he does have big government aspirations, a conservative packed house and senate would rein him in. We have to make sure that happens, too!

I am presently attending a liberal arts college with extremely liberal professors. They are very good a confusing morality with religion. I corrected my professor when she spoke about the religious right possibly reversing Roe V Wade and explained that I would not call abortion a religious issue, it is a moral issue.

Does anyone else find it just a bit hypocritical that these endangered species activists are also the people who believe in evolution and natural selection, i.e. survival of the fittest?

This is heartbreaking and horrifying and has been encouraged here in America under the guise of a woman's right to choose or reproductive rights. Chaos results from interfering with the natural order of things. Cicero said "True law is right reason in agreement with nature." True law has been violated. Margaret Sanger would be so proud.

The true test of the "health care" that this administration wants everyone to be able to receive will be what they doctors will say when a baby is born prematurely, who will require costly medical care to get him/her to a point where he/she will be able to breathe and survive on his/her own. The potential of a new life? What is this worth in this Brave New World?

The EPA is positioned to regulate (for now) larger power plants and manufacturing operations who emit more than a certain amount of carbon.This can be offest by purchasing carbon credits while they "retrofit" their operations to work cleaner. The emissions permitted are going to be methodically reduced so they these companies will continue to have to purchase carbon credits to offset their "pollutants". In an effort to encourage power plants to get us to use less energy, which will result in less revenue to these utilities, they are permitted to raise the cost to provide power to us through a decoupling mechanism. Saving energy will not save us money. This is about control and is integral to the UN global initiative of redistribution of...

For an insight into the "green job" debacle, please visit my column on examiner.com is california dreaming. The cap and trade program begins on 1/1/2011 and will increase unemployment and increase energy costs, putting them more at risk of bankruptcy (if such a thing is possible) http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-tampa-bay/is-california-dreaming

For now earmarks will be a reality. The fact is earmarks are the only way to get back some of the money we sent to the federal government. Florida is a donor state, getting back only about 87% of every dollar that we send to Washington. We must work to restructure Washington to send them less money so we don't have to compete with other states to get back our money. We should keep more here and spend it on what we decide.

So was my husband.You knew there were homosexuals in the military. He made a point to me though, that there are a lot of young recruits, 18 or so, who join the military having been brought up in conservative, conventional homes, and that if there were "out" homosexuals in their midst they may not know how to deal with them and may act out violently against perceived overtures - they are still immature at that age.

Come on! Homosexuality is not the norm, but isn't it obvious to most that being homosexual is not a choice? Everyone should be treated the same, period. No special exceptions based on race, creed, religion, sex, etc. The hesitation to repeal DADT is in the special treatment that may result. More relaxed morals code for some. A unit must be cohesive in war time and identifying "differences" among troops would create less cohesion.