*******Who is the Real Newt Gingrich?
Newt: Liar, Liar; Pants On Fire
By Jon Christian Ryter
January 4, 2012
So desperate to win the GOP Florida primary as he began slipping in the polls, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich launched what is proving to be a false robocall triggered from information provided to Gingrich by Democratic New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind. Hikind is an Orthodox Jew—and a Gingrich supporter who gave Gingrich the fodder. Like many people who get part of the story right and embellish what they don't have, Hikind said what Romney did during the Massachusetts 2003 financial crisis was "insensitive." based on Jeffrey Goldstein, a now-retired head of a kosher nursing home in Massachusetts who was interviewed for a report by the Rupert Murdock-owned New York Post.
The Massachusetts legislature proposed a new spending bill in 2003 that contained a $600 thousand addition to the budget of the State's nursing homes. The money was not designated to provide kosher food for Holocaust victims. It was just general fund money.
But, that's not how Goldstein or Hikind saw it. Hikind said that Romney apparently thought, "...let them eat pork, or let them eat something else. If you're kosher, you're not eating anything else. It's just that simple. Why Romney didn't get it at that time is disappointing and quite shocking to me."
Without checking the facts Gingrich ran with it—and put his name on it as being approved by him. As Florida voters prepared for Tuesday, Jan. 31's vote, the voice mail message they received via robo-caller said, "As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney vetoed a bill paying for kosher food for our seniors in nursing homes. Holocaust survivors, for the first time, were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay for our grandparents to eat kosher. Where is Mitt Romney's compassion for our seniors?" First question: why did Gingrich run the robo-call smear? Because Florida has a very large Jewish population.
In a campaign stop in Pensacola where there is only a marginal Jewish population, Gingrich began beating the "you can't trust a Mormon" drum by saying: "...[as governor, Romney] imposed on Catholic hospitals provisions against their religious strictures. And Romney as governor eliminated kosher food from retired Jewish senior citizens on Medicaid, and he has no understanding of the importance of conscience and importance of religious liberty in this country."
First, there is no truth in the statement about Romney personally imposing anti-religious regulations on Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts (which is implied). Romney actually did the opposite.
Granted, he campaigned on a pro-choice platform, and could have obligated Catholic hospitals to provide patients with the "morning after" pill or other forms of birth control, or forced Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or have to fend off possible lawsuits. In point of fact, Romney—whose views on abortion changed rapidly after winning the job as governor—regularly exempted Catholic hospitals from dispensing birth control devices. However, a provision in a law enacted by the State legislature in the summer of 2005 clashed with an existing law allowing Romney to issue waivers, and he was advised by Paul Cote, his Health Commissioner that the new law, forcing hospitals to dispense contraceptive devises or birth control information, barred him from exempting Catholic hospitals. His hands were tied by the State Legislature. Of course, since it took me less than two minutes to find that information, Gingrich very likely knew that when he smeared Romney.
Now, back to denying Jewish Holocaust survivors $5 for a kosher meal. It's a bogus story, too. First, the decision to cut kosher meals was made by nursing home managers or owners for political purposes. During periods of austerity, cutting budgets becomes the rule of the day. Everyone does it. It's the "Law of the Pocket." When your pockets are empty, you prioritize spending. Usually the first adjustment you make in your home is meat loaf instead of roast beef, and navy beans and corn bread instead of southern-fried chicken, mashed potatoes and gravy. The nursing homes did the same thing. They substituted frozen kosher entrees for home-cooked kosher meals. The kosher Jews were never deprived of kosher meals.
During tight financial times in Massachusetts in 2002-2003 (which is likely why one of the ten most liberal States elected a moderate Republican), several nursing homes in the States weighed cutting costs by closing their kosher kitchens instead of making cuts in staffing or in other areas, and decided that it was a good business decision to close the kosher kitchens and use prepackaged kosher foods or, when they could, provide catered kosher meals (think of them as kosher carryout delivered to the nursing homes). It worked, and no "Holocaust Jews" were deprived of kosher meals.
In addition, the liberal media in Massachusetts was only to happy to pass the "blame" to the Republican governor, inflaming the citizens of Massachusetts for Romney's refusing to spend five lousy bucks on a kosher meal for some holocaust survivors. They fanned the fire and built the sympathy needed for the State legislature to push an extra $600 thousand through. And, by the time the media, and the Democrats, got through with the spin, Romney appeared to have vetoed a bill to deny kosher food to holocaust survivors. And, you can bet Obama has a recording of the robocall to use this fall. Bet he keeps Newt's name on it. Had Newt Gingrich taken five more minutes to check, he would have learned what really happened to the holocaust survivors' kosher meals. But then, in this case, I expect he did vet the story, but the version in the robocall was just too good to pass up.
Remember this about Newt Gingrich— a man who will lie to the voters to win his job, won't hesitate to continue to lie—with even more egregious falsehoods—to keep the job, and to profit from it, once he gets elected. A man who will lie to win can't be trusted to govern.
Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban markets in the United States.
Today, Jon is an advertising executive with the Washington Times. His website, www.jonchristianryter.com has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on his website.
Why the Republicans need to pick Gingrich despite his past failings
Has Gingrich grown enough to deserve a second chance. Frankly, we have no other serious choice or it’s going to be four more years of Obama, out of control spending, and socialism
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
The Iowa caucuses are upon us, and with it the official start of the 2012 presidential election campaign. Therefore, it’s time to evaluate the Republican field. When you get to it, this race is really about one person: Newt Gingrich.
This really is Newt, Part 2. For all of us who remember 1994, and the Republican Revolution, which is already 18 long years ago, we conservatives are playing jilted wife to that political lothario, Newt Gingrich. Should we take him back and give him another chance? Or is it a case of fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me? A brief disclosure, I was still a conservative Democrat in 1994 and not fully vested in the conservative cause and its home in the Republican Party.
Almost miraculously, Newt has resurrected his political career, since being faced down by Bill Clinton over shutting down the federal government in 1995, and by ethics investigations and censures from which in the long run Newt was mostly absolved. Since those times, Newt has also divorced and remarried. He also has been a highly-paid lobbyist for Washington bad guys, the now government agencies of Fannie and Freddie. He is and has been a bomb-thrower with the English language, controversial, and self-referential, to a fault. Nevertheless, for true-believers like me, we are enthralled with his star.
For example, Gingrich said what everybody who knows any history knows to be true: that the Palestinians are a made up people. Equally outrageous to some is Newt’s comment that the judiciary should be ignored when they render unconstitutional judgments. He is flat out correct about that.
Newt has surged in the polls and is considered the new frontrunner in the fight to go head-to-head with President Obama. Yet, most of the smart money remains on Mitt Romney, because, he is more moderate than the rest, looks presidential, and has raised the most money on the GOP side.
Is it safe to say that Newt is by far the most talented person running for president today? I think so. In fact, I’m willing to speculate of the Republicans, he has the best chance to beat Obama. Why? Because of the sure power of Newt’s debating skill and intellect, and probably nobody else can make the case for limited government better that Newt, even though, like President Reagan, he sometimes or even often diverged from core conservative principles.
Because the Republicans often nominate the person who is “next in line,” Romney must still be considered the favorite to get the nomination. If he does, it will be John McCain all over again. The base has no enthusiasm for Romney. Having passed health insurance for all in Massachusetts, Romney is a non-starter. Romney might not even win New England, much less battleground states such as North Carolina, Ohio, Missouri, and Colorado that a Republican almost assuredly has to win to defeat Obama. The country, much less the GOP, does not want a moderate Republican from the Bay State, perhaps the least popular state in the nation besides New York or California.
So really the other serious question that needs to be answered is can Romney go the distance? His best moment in 2008 was his concession speech when he sounded like a true conservative. But I think it will become increasingly difficult for Romney because every contender when they suspend their campaign will have their supporters going to someone else and not to Romney. That will defeat Romney in the long run.
So, really as long as Newt can weather the storm of criticism that he consistently faces from the media, I’m willing to bet on Newt taking the nomination and even defeating the heavily-financed Obama in November.
What about the Republicans besides Gingrich and Romney? They have been criticized for being less than spectacular, but that is not fair. In fact, I think just about all of them are material for hopefully a Republican cabinet in 2013. That even goes for Herman Cain, who suspended his campaign when he was done in by his past associations with women who were not his wife. The challenge for Cain, and really all the GOP candidates is how to maintain yourself as a national figure, and for that he did not appear to be ready.
Clearly he will be a top economic adviser should a Republican defeat Obama.
Clearly he will be a top economic adviser should a Republican defeat Obama.
Ron Paul is everybody’s darling. His following is the most devoted. Just about every conservative agrees with him 100 percent on domestic issues. However, his comments about foreign policy, I believe, show a profound naivete. I’m not even talking about his lack of support for Israel, which is of course, a concern. It’s more that he seems to have no true understanding of international relations except for taking the position of greatly scaling back American commitments overseas, which all in all, makes sense. Nevertheless, Paul’s disqualified for foreign policy inexperience, but hopefully he will be the next Secretary of the Treasury.
Rick Perry? We’re not accepting another “conservative” Texas Republican governor so soon after the George W. Bush presidency, especially since Perry has been in government his whole life and believes in crony capitalism. Stay in the Lone Star State, governor, and solve what to do about securing the border with Mexico, and then we’ll talk.
Last but not least, Michele Bachmann. The only true conservative in the race, and a great patriot of this country. Unfortunately, because she is a woman, she’ll have to clean up her own party first the way that Sarah Palin did in Alaska, before she could be considered the Republican standard-bearer for the White House. Nevertheless, as an attorney, Bachmann is the perfect choice to overhaul the Eric Holder Department of Justice.
As for Obama, his poll numbers have come back, and his support remains steadfast among the unions, university faculty, public school teachers, and public employees. However, independents, bamboozled in 2008, have deserted him. The poor economy, unemployment, and the debt in the United States and in Europe are enough to bring Obama down in 2012, as long as the Republicans nominate a conservative with national appeal.
So the question remains has Gingrich grown enough to deserve a second chance. Frankly, we have no other serious choice or it’s going to be four more years of Obama, out-of-control spending, and socialism.
Daniel Wiseman is an independent political commentator, who focuses on national and international affairs. He spent nine years as a professional journalist in Wyoming before working in fund-raising, non-profit management, and now finally as a financial advisor in New York City. Wiseman focuses his writing on how to bring the United States back to its Constitutional moorings. He writes exclusively for Canada Free Press.*******
By: Devvy Kidd
June 15, 2009
© 2009 - NewsWithViews.com
[I am traveling right now and can't do new columns while on the road. I pulled this one from my CD because Gingrich has fooled people for a long, long time. If Americans continue to support the same people who have taken us to the point of collapse, nothing will change. Make no mistake about it: Gingrich is a one world government advocate. This article was written in February, 1996. By necessity, it is two parts.]
It always amazes me how otherwise intelligent people will put party loyalty above their commitment to God, flag and country. I have been a Republican all my life except when I ran for Congress in 1994 and that hiatus was strictly for the election. I am a Republican because I believe in our Republic. I do not pledge loyalty for any individual in the Republican party if that individual introduces, supports or passes unconstitutional legislation and sells out this country to this proposed New World Order.
[Left: Devy Kidd]
One of the goals of my Project on Winning Economic Reform and my bid for Congress is to bring out the truth about how certain programs, i.e. social security, the FED, the IRS and so on, are set up and why they don't work. Equally important, is bringing forth ideas for solutions and then running for office so we can bring these solutions forward.
It's very frustrating when you spend a great deal of time explaining all of this, providing factual documentation which supports the truth, and then have people simply ignore this truth and continue to support the same people who support these unconstitutional, programs bringing America to financial ruin -just because that individual is a mucky- muck in their party or their incumbent. Very frustrating.
On January 12, 1996, Mr. Gingrich came to Redding, California to raise money for my opponent, Walter Herger- Eight hundred people paid $125.00 per person to hear his spin; Mr. Herger got a hundred thousand dollars from his cohort and supporter of the New World Order. It's difficult to try and explain to folks just what the problem is with people like Dole, Gingrich, Herger, Gephardt, Clinton, Feinstein and so on if people don't want to hear the truth. These individuals, through their actions, all support the destruction of America. Their rhetoric is structured to meet the needs of whatever audience they are pandering to.
How can we determine whether a duly elected public servant is really doing the right thing for America and not for his own power? Through his voting record. It's that simple. Not by listening to his speeches, not by 15-second sound bites on TV but through his voting record. In the case of Mr. Clinton, the media kept all his illegal activities and shenanigans a secret so that Americans only got 15 second sound bites. Had the media told the truth, this immoral individual and his equally immoral wife would not be the Presidents of the United States.
Mr. Gingrich struts around like he's Thomas Jefferson. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Our illustrious speaker almost lost his last primary election and the election itself. Five Democrats and more importantly, five Republicans on the House Ethics Committee unanimously voted to appoint an Independent Counsel to look into his GOPAC activities - most notably, the channeling of those funds into his 1990 primary. You see, he almost lost that primary too.
Many individuals who participate in my Project On Winning Economic Reform live in Cobb County, Marietta, Georgia, Gingrich's district. I have received a mountain of information on him and his voting record. The media has created this image that Gingrich is the quintessential conservative, yet nothing could be farther from the truth. I'll let you be the judge after you read the rest of this article.
Now this may not sit well with conservative Republicans who are desperately seeking leadership, but the facts are the facts. It's not that I dislike Gingrich. I've never met him. What I don't like is the way he votes and what he supports, period.
It's nice to belong to a political party. It's a good thing to be active in your local community on the grassroots level, working for a better America for all. However, when party loyalty to individuals who do not uphold their oath of office and are selling America down the road, becomes more important than loyalty to God, flag and country, it become s destructive. This type of blind loyalty is not in anyone's best interests, least of all for our country. lt may also split the vote in 1996 if Dole or Gramm wins the GOP nomination, and tragically, would put this Marxist back in the White House for another four years.
The New American magazine, a very conservative publication, published a story on Mr. Gingrich last year. This article is quite accurate and I feel deserves a good airing for Republicans. There are 79 freshmen Republican men and women in the House [Congress]. They are going to be our only salvation in keeping a steady course. As yet, they haven't started to expose the core truth, but I honestly feel if another 35-50 constitutionalists are elected this year, collectively, as a whole, they will make the move against the Federal Reserve. God willing, I will be one of them.
Reprinted with permission. The New American - December 12, 1994, Copyright 1994 - American Opinion Publishing, Inc., P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, Wisconsin 54913. Subscriptions: $39.00/year (26 issues)
Title : Speaking for Whom? By author William F. Jasper
Subtitle: Can A New Age, CFR functionary lead the Conservative Advance?
"Fire breather," "bomb thrower," "the man most Democrats consider the devil incarnate," "the guerrilla leader of Congress' Republican insurgents," "McCarthyite," "bulldog extremist." These are some of the nice epithets that have been hurled at Rep. Newton Leroy Gingrich, the Republican minority whip from Georgia's 6th Congressional District who is expected to be replacing Tom Foley as Speaker of the House in the lO4th Congress.
To judge from the furious invective he inspires from sputtering Democrat polls and media liberals, this man must be far indeed "to the right of Attila the Hun." Barely a day after the seismic shift of November 8th that swept the GOP to power in Congress and in state houses across the land, Mr. Gingrich had liberal punditdom frothing in high dungeon for referring to Bill and Hillary Clinton as "counterculture McGoverniks" and to their White House staff as a bunch of "left-wing elitists." Even worse, he charged that Clinton Democrats are the "enemy of normal Americans" and the party of "total bizarreness,, total weirdness."
The Vision Thing
To millions of Americans, of course, Gingrich's words were merely accentuating verbally what they had already so powerfully expressed with their votes. And the media reaction was not only delicious icing on the cake, but proof that their new champion had hit the mark. An arrogant, imperial President and an equally contemptuous Congress intent on imposing homosexuals on the military, pushing condoms to grade school children, disposing of the Second Amendment, taxing families into extinction, gutting national defense, regulating businesses to death, spending the nation into oblivion, and entangling America in one UN military operation after another had been resoundingly repudiated in one of the most severe political massacres of modern times. And the victors, who had been scorned and excoriated as nuts, malcontents, and "religious extremists," had earned the right to crow - something Gingrich does with unmatched flair.
But Newt Gingrich is also a capable exponent of "the vision thing." In a policy address on November 1lth at Washington's Willard Hotel, Gingrich delivered the conservative/populist message that many Americans wanted to hear, declaring that he was going to pursue the goal of "disciplined, smaller, more frugal government" - with a vengeance. "One of the reasons the American people are so fed up with the current political structure," he charged, "is that they think they send a strong signal on election day and they watch it gradually dribble away in Washington, with all the people in Washington finding excuses not to do what they've [been] asked to do." Amen. And the signal the American people were sending, he said, was "based on a pretty clear direction of less government, less regulation, less interference, and lower taxes, not just at the federal level, but at virtually every level across the country in virtually every state..."
Liberal columnist David S. Broder was suitably impressed by the address, calling it "a policy speech that was confident, coherent, and in every way impressive. The words were strong, the thoughts were clear, and no one who heard him was in any doubt that the House Republicans he leads will attempt to enact the conservative governing agenda he described."
Whoa there, Mr. Broder, speak for yourself. For those who were listening closely, there was more than one agenda described. And for those familiar with history, with politicians in general, and with Newt Gingrich in particular, there was plenty of cause for doubt - and concern.
The GATT Man
Chief and most immediate among those doubts and concerns is Gingrich's zealous commitment to helping President Clinton secure congressional approval of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World Trade Organization [GATT/WTO] accord. When asked at his November 1lth briefing, "Will you rally the troops for GATT and the World Trade Organization?" he replied: "Yes. In the first place, the Administration has accepted amendments of Senator Dole and myself giving Congress dramatically more oversight of the WTO, including the right to bring up a vote on withdrawal every five years in perpetuity, so at any point that we think it is out of control or inappropriate, we can simply withdraw."
The impression given by his answer was that he and Dole recently had come up with some amendments that would allay all concerns about loss of U.S. sovereignty to, and interference in domestic U.S. concerns by, the proposed supra-national WTO. What he actually was referring to was Section 125 of the agreement, entitled "Review of Participation in the WTO," which hardly provides the security against WTO tyranny he pretends to find. One of the most manifest weaknesses of Section 125 " protection" is the five-year cycle of opportunity for withdrawing, the WTO mega-bureaucracy could do a lot of damage to American interests in five years.
Moreover, as far as "congressional oversight" goes, one need only consider how little that has been worth in protecting U.S. interests at the United Nations, the World Bank, IMF, UNESCO, or any of the other internationalist ventures with which we have become entangled.
Earlier this year Gingrich hesitated to support GATT and expressed concern that the WTO smacked of world government. "That is a bizarre turnabout for a man who almost single-handedly bailed out the Clinton Presidency by rounding up Republican votes for a similar accord - the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] - over the opposition of House Democrats," the New York Times chided in a May 8th editorial.
The Times had a point about Gingrich's NAFTA role, even though its arguments in favor of GATT/WTO were phony. "The WTO would be more pussycat than tiger - and would protect U.S. interests better than the existing GATT," putted the Times. That is about as convincing as the claims of Clinton, Gingrich and company that GATT would, after ten years, "add an average of $1,700 to the annual income of every American family."
The WTO does indeed present a threat of world government. It is a multinational body with legislative, executive and judicial branches wielding formidable powers. The myriad of ministries, councils, committees, commissions, panels and boards to be established under the WTO would make it a global leviathan. It would be far worse than the dozens of international commissions, committees, and secretariats created to oversee and regulate trade between Canada, Mexico and the U.S. under the 1,700 page NAFTA treaty - which Newt Gingrich gave to Bill Clinton on a silver platter. So much for promises about kinder, simpler, and less intrusive government.
Fast Track to Disaster
However, the dangers of the GATT/WTO agreement, itself are, at this point, of less immediate concern than the immoral and illegal process by which it is being rammed down our throats. And this from Mr. Gingrich, who in the same breath promises a new "openness" and "honesty" in governing and who calls for greater "participation" and "engagement" by the people. It is the rankest hypocrisy to talk about the new "mandate" and "listening to the people" and then to continue with the same sleazy manner of doing "business as usual" in Washington.
Forcing a "fast track" vote on GATT/WTO - what some have called the "most important vote of the decade, if not the last 50 years" - in the "lame duck" Congress is an unconscionable act that cannot be justified on any county. It intentionally ignores what is obvious:
• As Gingrich himself has noted, "the people have spoken," and have elected a new Congress; and that new Congress should have the right (and responsibility) to vote on something as important as GATT. It should not be passed by a body that has been repudiated by the voters.
• The GATT system and negotiations have been going on since 1947. It is absurd to suggest that after nearly 50 years we must now rush this new agreement through, that it cannot wait a couple more months for a new Congress to consider.
• The GATT accord runs some 26,000 pages. No member of Congress has read all of this monstrosity. Gingrich promised to make all bills and documents accessible to the American people, but we certainly have not had full access to all of this document.
• If the Clinton health care program deserved to be knocked of the "fast track" because it was a costly, bureaucratic, socialists nightmare, GATT/WTO deserves the same.
"The matters with which the GATT/WTO accord deal clearly qualify it as a treaty and therefore require ratification by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Gingrich's repeated veneration of the Constitution (not to mention his oath) will be proven false if he does not demand compliance with this constitutional requirement.
However, the new Speaker of the House appears to be taking his direction from the New York Times and from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the driving organizational force behind GATT (Gingrich is a member of the CFR), rather than from the Constitution or "the people" he claims to honor and represent.
Rhetoric and Reality
Since so many other conservatives actives have been gulled into embracing GATT under the false banner of "free trade," Newt Gingrich's role in promoting NAFTA & GATT is seen by as insufficient in and of itself to call into question his "conservative" bona fides. After all, his rhetoric is as fiercely conservative as anyone 's. He once denounced Senator Robert Dole, the Republican Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, as "the tax collector for the welfare state." He labeled all of official Washington "a large, open conspiracy to take away the money and freedom of the citizens of this country." In 1985, he called President Reagan's rapprochement with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbechev potentially "the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Chamberlain in 1938 at Munich." Over and over again, he had denounced big government, socialism, high taxes, deficits, welfare, bureaucracy, and the "counterculture."
True enough, but in politics deeds speak louder than words. And Newt Gingrich's deeds all too often do not match his words. Since entering Congress, Gingrich has repeatedly voted for big government, deficit spending, welfare, foreign aid, regulatory intervention, and socialism. He has repeatedly voted to send U.S. taxpayer dollars to communist countries and to grant communist tyrannies such as Red China and the Soviet Union most favored nation (MFN) trade status, while demanding trade sanctions against South Africa.
He has given support to Nelson Mandela and the terrorist African National Congress. He repeatedly has voted for extremist environmentalist measures that are costing Americans billions of dollars. He repeatedly has catered to the "counterculture" and the militant homosexual lobby.
June 15, 2009http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd450.htm
Newt Gingrich's rating on the Conservative Index (CI) of the New American, while better than many other members of Congress, is far from the stellar rating you would expect from one heralded as "the theoretician in chief" of the conservatives in Congress, His CI ratings for his eight terms in office has fluctuated between fairly good to mediocre to abysmal:
96th Congress : 85 - 97th Congress: 77
98th Congress : 74 - 99th Congress: 80
100th Congress: 80 - 101st Congress: 57
100nd Congress: 60 - 103rd Congress: 78
The following sample of votes shows only some of the many decidedly unconservative votes Gingrich has cast:
During his 16 years in Congress, Gingrich has inveighed vociferously against the evils of the New Deal/Great Society welfare state - while voting for every kind of welfare program imaginable: for the elderly, children, the "homeless," businessmen, farmers, bankers, left-wing broadcasters, etc. Those votes include: March 21, 1991 - $40 billion to begin the unconstitutional bailout of failed savings and loan institutions; June 26, 1991 - $52.6 billion for agriculture program subsidies, and food stamps; October 5, 1992 - $66.5 billion for housing and community development; September 22, 1994 - $250.6 billion in appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education.
Budget-Busting Profligacy. A Balanced Budget Amendment forms the core of the first plan of Gingrich's "Contract with America." He has been calling for such a measure and condemning deficit spending ever since coming to Congress. In an early 1982 speech he called on Congress to reject further increases in the National Debt Limit. "Only by using the debt limit as a leverage point" he bravely declared, "can we force the changes which clearly the liberal leadership of this body wants to avoid." Trouble is, a few months earlier, on February 5, 1981, he had voted with those same "liberals" to raise the National Debt ceiling by another $49.1 billion to $985 billion. He has gone this same route many times since.
[Ed. Note: Fast forward to July 24, 1998: The "public debt" is $5,537,391,525,542.80. How the international banking cartel must sit and laugh themselves silly at the stupidity of the American people to sit back and take this. Guess what? The "debt ceiling level" is $5.950 BILLION. Soon you will see another horse and pony show by the Congress of Clowns, agonizing, posturing and blustering about having to raise the debt limit and more distractions. And raise it they will. That $5.5 billion will soon hit the $5.950 billion mark. Sick.]
Of course, raising the debt ceiling would not have been necessary had he practiced what he preached. His votes against "more frugal government" include: December 21, 1987 - $603.9 billion for 13 regular appropriation bills larded with many wasteful, extravagant, and unconstitutional items (it passed by a vote of 209 to 208); May 4, 1989 - outlays of $1.165 trillion and a deficit of $99 billion for a dishonest and spendthrift 1990 budget designed to barely skim in under Gramm-Rudman $100 billion deficit limit; March 10, 1994 - a vote against a responsible amendment offered by Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-NY) to balance the budget by 1999 through $698 billion in spending cuts (a mere 3.5% cut) over five years.
Considering these and other votes against sound fiscal policy, it is not surprising that Gingrich's spendthrift ways have carried over into his personal finances. The 1992 House banking scandal revealed that Gingrich has run 22 overdrafts on his checking account, and this in spite of having voted himself a huge pay raise and having a taxpayer-provided, chauffeur-driven car. Nor it is surprising that his rating from the National Taxpayers Union during the latest session of Congress (the lO3rd) was a meager 75%. His tax-and spend record over the years on votes tabulated by Tax Reform Immediately (TRIM) has so often contradicted his rhetoric that the National Director of TRIM, James Toft, was prompted to remark: "Professor Gingrich hopefully will never be called upon to teach a course in the proper role of our federal government. His rare votes against bloated big government usually have been prompted by the partisan wrangling of the moment, not by any great respect for, or understanding of, the Constitution."
Foreign Aid. If there is anything more unpopular, unconstitutional, counterproductive, fiscally irresponsible, and immoral than welfare for domestic freeloaders, it is welfare for foreign freeloaders. But the "tight-fisted" Mr. Gingrich consistently votes to send U.S. tax dollars to kleptocrats and tyrants abroad: June 27, 1990 - $15.7 billion in foreign aid for fiscal 1991; June 20, 1991 -$12.4 billion for fiscal 1992 and $13 billion for fiscal 1993; June 25, 1992 - $13.8 billion for fiscal 1993; August 6, 1992 - $12.3 billion for the International Monetary Fund and $1.2 billion for the "republics" of the former Soviet Union; June 17, 1993; $ 13 billion for fiscal 1994; September 29, 1993 - $12.9 billion, including $2.5 billion to Russia; August 4, 1994 - $ 13.8 billion for foreign aid for fiscal 1995.
Eco-lunacy. Gingrich, a longtime member of the Georgia Conservancy ("an aggressive environmental group comprised largely of upper-middle class urbanites" - Newt's own words) CO-founded by Jimmy Carter, organized one of the early environmental studies programs back in 1970 while a professor at West Georgia State College. According to Current Biography, the success of his early congressional campaigns was due in large part to "the support of environmentalists." Besides being blatantly unconstitutional, virtually all federal environmental legislation involves gross violations of states' rights and property rights of private individuals, both of which Gingrich claims to champion.
Newt's "green" votes include: May 16, 1979 - the Alaska Lands Bill, locking up 68 million aces as untouchable "wilderness," December l7, l987-$307milion for continuation of the fraudulent and unconstitutional Endangered Species Act, putting the "rights" of owls, bugs, rates, snakes and newts above those of people; March 28, 1990 - elevating the unconstitutional Environmental Protection Agency to Cabinet-level status; May 23, 1990 - the badly misnamed Clean Air bill, requiring radical cuts in industry and automobile emissions, adding tens of billions of dollars annually in new costs to our already stringent and costly air standards.
Federalizing Education. The Communist Manifesto calls for nationalizing education, while the U.S. Constitution, to the contrary, prohibits federal involvement in educational matters. These votes cause on to wonder which document's philosophy is guiding Newt Gingrich's education policy decisions: May 10, 1979 - for creation of the new Cabinet level Department of Education demanded by President Carter and the radical National Education Association; May 9, 1989 - $1.4 billion in federal aid for "applied technology education," the new federalese for vocational education; May 16, 1990 - $2.9 billion for Head Start and Follow Through programs for fiscal 1991, rising to $7.7 billion in 1994; July 20, 1990 - $ 1.I billion for a variety of education programs, none of which the federal government has authority to fund; May 12, 1994 - "such sums as may be necessary" for the $3.3 billion-per-year Head Start program and $2.6 billion for fiscal 1995 for three low-income and child abuse prevention programs.
Counterculture values. Despite playing to the "religious right," Gingrich has racked up a surprisingly "moderate" record on homosexual "rights." His troubling votes include : May 22, 1990 - the Americans with Disabilities Act, permitting massive new federal invention into the private work-place in order to stop "discrimination" in hiring on the basis of disability, including AIDS; June 13, 1990 - $2.76 billion for various AIDS programs demanded by the militant homosexual lobby; July 12, 1990 - the final version of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
On July 26, 1990 Gingrich voted with the majority in refusing to support a resolution by Rep. William Dannemeyer (R-CA) to expel Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) for felony criminal offenses related to his homosexual activities. He actively supported the re-election of Rep. Steve Gunderson (R-WI), an open homosexual, and praises Gunderson's "courage" for being "gay" and Republican.
Nationalizing Law Enforcement. On October 22, 1991, Gingrich voted for an amendment to the federal crime bill offered by Rep. David McCurdy (D-OK) to establish a National Police Corps. Although he didn't vote for the $30-billion Clinton crime bill of 1994, he resurrected it and helped make passage possible. As Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY), one of Newt's cheerleaders, explained to Michael Kinsley on CNN's Crossfire, "If it wasn't for Newt Gingrich, you wouldn't have a crime bill."
Indeed. The Gingrich-led opposition "threw" the game, failing to challenge the bill's fundamental flaw - that the federal government has no constitutional authority to take over state and local crime fighting duties - and focused instead on "pork" in the bill. "That crime bill stank to high heaven," charged Pat Buchanan. "It federalizes crimes such as spousal abuse, giving the feds police power the Constitution reserves to the states." And the crime package in Newt's "Contract With America" would speed us further down the road toward a national police state.
Llewellyn Rockwell, President of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and publisher of The Free Market, observes that, rhetoric notwithstanding, "Newt Gingrich is a Rockefeller Republican," a big-government `Conservative' who talks a good line, but like Ronald Reagan will give us higher taxes, more government, and more spending. His `Contract with America' is a fraud; it should be called a `Press Conference with America."' Or, perhaps, a "Contract On America." Newt's "Contract" with its calls for amendments to balance the budget and impose term limits, seems to imply that our original contract, the U.S. Constitution, is gravely deficient. This could give new impetus to the dangerous movement for a constitutional convention. *
[*NOTE: Mr. Jasper will examine the "Contract With America" in our January 9, 1995 issue.]
The problems with Newt Gingrich's "conservatism" go back to his "roots. Current Biography Yearbook for 1989 gives this snapshot of his early career:
After graduating from Emory [University in Atlanta] in 1965, Gingrich received a master's degree from Tulane University in 1968. and a PhD. degree in modern European history in 1971. His behavior at Tulane appeared to belie his future conservatism and hawkish foreign policy views. He accepted student deferments rather than face the draft during the Vietnam War, experimented with marijuana, led a campus demonstration defending the school paper's right to print a nude photograph of a faculty member, and campaigned for Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller of NY in 1968 because of the governor's support of civil rights.
Nelson Rockefeller, of course, was the bane of all conservatives, the epitome of effete internationalism, and a member of the CFR (run by his brother David) and the ruling elite of the Eastern Establishment. In his unsuccessful runs for Congress in 1974 and 1976 Gingrich showed no deep conservative leanings. He was, and remains, a member of the NAACP, the World Futurist Society, and the New-Age oriented Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future.
In 1978, Congressional Quarterly gave this bio of the freshman congressman: "In his previous campaigns, Gingrich was considered unusually liberal for a Georgia Republican. But this year he relied on the tax cut issue, using an empty shopping cart to emphasize his concern about inflation." He also capitalized on the wide - spread anger over President Carter's Panama policy and headed up "Georgians Against the Panama Canal Treaty."** He has been using conservative issues to advance his career ever since.
[Ed. Note: The Panama Canal was paid for with the sweat off the back of decent Americans. From a military strategic point of view, and economic if you want to include that into the equation - it was UTTER STUPIDITY for the United States to give up this canal. We will regret it some day.]
In 1981 this writer asked Georgia Congressman Larry McDonald for an evaluation of the rising Republican star from his neighboring 6th District. His reply was surprising at the time. Newt Gingrich, he said, was a devious and ambitious politician masquerading as a conservative and not one to be trusted. Gingrich had gone out of his way, Dr. McDonald said, to obstruct and to undermine support of conservative members of Congress for some of McDonald's legislative efforts. This was particularly disturbing since Rep. McDonald was the most conservative member of Congress by virtually all rating systems and would have been a natural ally of Gingrich if Gingrich were truly conservative. In July 1983, the Conservative digest compared the voting scores of the leading conservatives in Congress based on ratings from the American Conservative Union, the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, the National Conservative Political Action Committee, and the New American's only Conservative Index. Congressman McDonald topped the list at a combined 98.3 percent. Congressman Gingrich weighed in at an anemic 77.5 percent.
CFR - Crafted Conservative
However, by beating his chest more loudly, trumpeting his message more stridently, and pursuing power more ruthlessly than all others, Gingrich has won the title of Maximum Leader of the "Conservative Revolution." Not that it was all his own doing, by any means; the CFR-dominated "liberal" media have been only too accommodating in crafting conservative bona fides for one of their own. It is a sickeningly familiar redux.
In 1976, CFR front man Jimmy Carter was presented to us by the same CFR media elites as a "conservative" southern Baptist from Georgia who would give us the "change" America needed. In 1992 it was CFR member Bill Clinton, another "conservative" Southern Baptist from Arkansas who was sold to the country as the ticket to positive "change," the "New Democrat" with "traditional values" and a "New Covenant." Now comes "conservative" Southern Baptist and CFR member Newt Gingrich, with promises of drastic "change" and a new "contract." If you're beginning to sense another imminent betrayal, congratulations, you're catching on.
***End of Article***
Gingrich's activities outside Congress are equally distressing. Alvin Toffler is a New Age guru and dear friend of Newt. In an upcoming issue I will lay out this "New Age" issue, from both sides and you can be the judge regarding the relationship between New Age and the New World Order. Alvin Toffler's book, Creating A New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave, is a bizarre, revolutionary view and blueprint for the 2lst century. Gingrich WROTE the forward for this book - it's frightening and you should read both editions. These books became best sellers in Communist China because they mirror Mao.
On page 433 of Toffler's bilge, we read: "The founding fathers as the architects of the political system which served so well, this system of government you (founding fathers) fashioned, including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly OBSOLETE and hence increasingly if inadvertently, OPPRESSIVE and DANGEROUS to our welfare. It must be RADICALLY changed and a NEW SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT INVENTED - a democracy for the 2lst Century." How frightening. And who constantly talks about "re-inventing government?" Why, Al Gore, our illustrious tree kissing Vice-President. Mr. Toffler wants to convert our form of Republican government to a democracy. Who died and made him King?
On page 74 of the 1994 version of Toffler's book: "You (again referring to the founding fathers) would have understood why even the Constitution of the United States needs to be reconsidered, and altered - NOT TO CUT THE FEDERAL BUDGET OR TO EMBODY THIS OR THAT NARROW PRINCIPLE, but to expand i's Bill of Rights, taking account of threats to freedom unimagined in the past, and to create a whole new structure of government capable of making intelligent, democratic decisions necessary for our survival in a Third Wave (New Age jargon), 2lst Century America...."
Referring back to the 1980 version of this book by Toffler and praised by Gingrich, I quote from page 227: "...the nuclear family can no longer serve as the ideal model for society.: The explanation then given for a solution is "more exotic possibilities" for the future family, i.e. "Homosexual marriages, communes, elderly people sharing expenses sex and families with several husbands and one wife."
Don't take my word for it, order Gingrich's voting record and read Toffler's book - both versions. Actions speak louder than words.
I ask you - who gave us the Mexican peso plunder of $52 billion, the Brady Bill, GATT, NAFTA and on and on and on? Dole, Gingrich, Herger, Clinton, Gephardt, Bonior, Feinstein, Bush - the list goes on. In August of 1993, Henry Kissinger, kingpin of this global kingdom, stated in an article he wrote for the Los Angeles Times Syndicate: "NAFTA represents the single most creative step towards a New World Order since the end of the Cold War."
The New York Times ran a full page ad, April 15, 1994 which read: "GATT is the third pillar of the New World Order." The aforementioned can claim that they don't support the loss of our sovereignty or this New World Order, but if that's the case - why do they keep voting for mechanisms that are critical in destroying our sovereign nation and securing this New World Order of socialism?
Do you see the problem I have in supporting these individuals who claim to be conservatives but their voting records say differently?
These newly elected 79 freshmen Republicans have been standing firm. I've seen their press conferences on C-SPAN. They say they were elected by their constituents to go to Washington and stop the plunder. Newt Gingrich canceled fund raisers for two freshmen Republicans here in California because they wouldn't do what big-daddy said.
Do we want people in Congress who simply jump when their leash is pulled by the Speaker of the House? Do we want incumbents who grossly ignore, like my opponent Wally Herger, the wishes of his constituents to vote for unconstitutional, disastrous legislation like NAFTA & GATT just because Gingrich, Dole & Gramm said that's the way it will be? Or do we want strong leadership from constitutionally educated and committed individuals?
Maybe Herman Cain will be the Next President?
19 October 2011
What About Mitt Romney for President?
13 October 2011
Will Rick Perry be the Next President?
23 August 2011
Will Michele Bachmann be the Next President?
22 August 2011
A Preview of the 2012 Presidential Election!
19 November 2010
Gingrich, Toffler, and Gore: A peculiar trio
Democrats In Drag: Third Way Fall From Grace, Part III
By Steve Farrell
web posted July 9, 2001
The most heralded achievement and high water mark of Republican leadership since the revival of America's military superiority under Ronald Reagan is, without question, the coming forth of the Contract With America during the election of 1994.
Its 100 day surge through the house of Representatives with its visionary agenda, and its promise and delivery of lock arm partisan voting is a singular feat - such an one, that ever since, Republican's have looked back with fondness and longing for a revival of the good old days.
Seven years later, conservative Republicans, unhappy with the current party, unhappy with their wishy washy Commander-In-Chief, still hold out hope, that he, or some other Republican will rise up, Newt Gingrich-like, with charisma, courage and acumen, and take a firm grip on the reigns of the party, take the heat, and show the American people what the Republican Party is really all about.
But why all this nostalgia for the "good old days?" Are we really sure that they were that good, and that they were that conservative?
Misplaced in this dreamy partisan memory of loveliness, is the plain fact that things weren’t so lovely. The conservative Contract was deceptively liberal, the strong armed tactics of its chief proponent was not at all democratic, and the same man’s established political loyalties were ironically tied to the same political movement he was tough guy like fighting - even Clinton, Gore and their Third Way.
A few, knew this from the start, but most missed the connection even though Newt Gingrich laid it on the line, for those who cared to listen.
On November 11, 1994, still bubbling and cocksure over the Republican takeover of both Houses, his coming coronation as Speaker of the House, and his annointing as King of the Republican Revolution, Gingrich couldn't resist exploiting the moment to put in a free plug for something he so devoutly believed in.
"The core of our Contract," and the solution for those "trying to figure out how to put me in a box," he said, could be found in a book by futurist Alvin Toffler called "The Third Way;" to which he added: "I am a conservative futurist ." (1)
Futurism, as already alluded to, is one and the same with the Third Way or Third Wave, but for brevity sake, Webster's Dictionary gives us another take on this subject.
"Futurism: Study of, and interest in, forecasting or anticipating the future, or theorizing on how to impose controls on events." (2)
Or in other words, a head in the clouds political philosophy, complete with theories and forecasts, which envisions the use of force to insure those theories and forecasts come to past.
It would not be a stretch to call it communism with economic vision, for that is what the futurists of the Third Way call it. But, what then, is a conservative futurist? If we believe Newt Gingrich, it is in person, a post 1994 Republican. And it is in policy, the Contract With America, the go along, get along policies of a party who for the next six year "caved" under Clinton, and the faith-based subsidies, public private partnership, fast track hopes, and bipartisan spirit of today’s Compassionate Conservativism movement - the latter of which had its start in the legislation and underlying principles of that same Gingrich Contract
"For a long time, I have been friends with Alvin and Heidi Toffler, the authors of Future Shock and The Third Way.(3)
"I first began working with the Tofflers in the early 1970's on a concept called anticipatory democracy. I was then a young assistant professor at West Georgia State College, and I was fascinated with the intersection of history and the future which is the essence of politics and government at its best.
"For twenty years we [who’s we?] have worked to develop a future-conscious politics and popular understanding that would make it easier for America to make the transition from the Second Wave civilization [the one our Founders gave us] - which is clearly dying - to the emerging, but in many ways undefined Third Wave civilization [Alvin Toffler’s Centrist Utopia].
"The process has been more frustrating and the progress much slower than I would have guessed two decades ago. Yet despite the frustrations, the development of a Third Wave political and governmental system is so central to the future of freedom and the future of America that it must be undertaken." (4)
So central, so critical, indeed, that Mr. Gingrich put the book on a recommended reading list for members of Congress and all Americans. And mind you, he wouldn’t let go of it. In speech after speech and press conference after conference Gingrich referred to the Third Wave as "the seminal work of our time" (5)
For those who hadn’t read it, or who knew nothing about the Third Way/ Third Wave (he used both names) Gingrich delivered a few extra hints of where the Third Way was taking him.
"While I am a Republican leader in the Congress, I do not believe Republicans or the Congress have a monopoly on solving problems and helping America make the transformation necessary to enter the Third Wave information revolution. Democratic mayors like Norquist in Milwaukee and Rendel in Philadelphia are making real breakthroughs at the city level. Some of the best of Vice President Gore's efforts to reinvent government nibble in the right direction..." (6)
To those conservative freshman, just elected, those dyed in the wool conservatives already in a hot war with Clinton and Gore, and those millions of Americans who had just swept this "revolution" into power, nothing could have smacked more of betrayal than the foregoing.
Sad to say, Gingrich, wasn’t kidding, he really had a thing for the Third Way, and a peculiar partnership with what are now commonly referred to as "new democrats."
'That conference led to the creation of the Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future, a group eventually cochaired by a young senator name Al Gore, now vice president." (7)
Gingrich, Gore-like, would rise within the Third Wave/Third Way movement, would become a member of the executive committee of The Congressional Clearing House on the Future, and would win the praise of leftist, "ex"-marxist Toffler as possibly "the single smartest and most successful intellectual in American politics . . ." (8)
As "probably the only Republican among the many futurists" Toffler knew, Gingrich’s involvement in the movement, was not what one would call conservative, by traditional conservative standards.
New American Senior Editor, William F. Jasper, in a 1994 piece "New Age Newt: A Futurist Conservative for the 21st Century," reveals that Gingrich's embrace of the Third Way also includes a collaborative effort with Toffler and twenty new left and new age authors in a 1978 work Anticipatory Democracy, wherein Gingrich endorsed Governor Jimmy Carter's socialist "planning" agenda.
The book throughout extolled the virtues of "participatory democracy," a revolutionary slogan dear to the likes of Tom Hayden, Derek Shearer, and Bill Clinton, and one drawn directly from the eighth plank of the "Humanist Manifesto II (1973)." (9)
By 1984, Jasper continues, Gingrich's influence in the third way movement was so far to the left that it brought on kudos from the likes of New Age "philosopher" Mark Satin.
Mr. Satin is certainly no ordinary American. In his "New Age Politics" (1978), a guide to New Age political thought, he called for planetary governance, a system of world taxation (on resource use), an increased transfer of wealth from rich to poor countries (international communism), and complete military disarmament. He rounded that all out by stating, in no uncertain terms, his hostility for the nuclear family, traditional marriage, and heterosexual society (11)
So what did, such a one as this think of "conservative" Newt Gingrich? In the February 27, 1984 issue of "New Options," Satin, singled out Newt Gingrich as a top "decentralist/globally responsible" congressman. (10) Not the kind of praise any true conservative would want on his resume. As for the odd phrase, "decentralist/globally responsible" congressmen, this is the kind of interesting paradox that fits the fishy decentralism of the Third Way, a decentralism which seeks to move power not just down to the local level, but suspiciously up to the international level.
Not surprisingly then, ten years later, in the wake of the passage of NAFTA, globalist, Council on Foreign Relations Republican Insider Henry Kissinger would be heard bragging across the universe that the man most responsible for giving us NAFTA (what Kissinger called the important checkpoint on the way to a New World Order) was none other than Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich, in fact, fast-tracked NAFTA and GATT through Congress, in December of 1994, as a gift to Clinton, shortly before a new Republican Congress - which would have likely defeated the treaties - took control. An example of things to come from this "conservative" Futurist.
And perhaps, it all fits. Heralded Republican Third Way Futurist, Newt Gingrich, emerges from the right - at the same time that his comrade, Third Way Futurist Al Gore and his pal Bill Clinton, burst upon the scene from the left. Gingrich promised to take them down - but in the end, he took them in.*******
Maybe Herman Cain will be the Next President?
19 October 2011
What About Mitt Romney for President?
13 October 2011
Will Rick Perry be the Next President?
23 August 2011
Will Michele Bachmann be the Next President?
22 August 2011
A Preview of the 2012 Presidential Election!
19 November 2010