A good con always has an element of the truth. It’s essential. Not only does it make the con easier to pull off, even the best of con men can only lie so much without giving themselves away.
When I wrote that Newt Gingrich was more dangerous than the current occupant of the White House [and that I could prove it] I took readers down memory lane, pointing to all of the radical “progressive” votes and positions Newt has taken since 1979, many he still holds today. But my main focus was Newt’s incredible skill as a con man.
Newt is absolutely one of the best we’ve ever seen. This cat can look you in the eye, tell you his position on a particular issue, which is normally far left of mainstream America, then convince you that you didn’t just hear what you just heard.
This is a man who, when news came out he had been paid somewhere around $1.8 million from the corrupt Freddie Mac organization, was able to convince many of his followers that it was for “history lessons!” [and do it with a straight face]
One of the biggest cons Newt is pulling, is his on going effort to make people think he doesn’t support pretty much everything included in ObamaCare.
Newt constantly says he doesn’t support the individual mandate “in ObamaCare” and this is the truth. Newt does not support the individual mandate in ObamaCare but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t support the individual mandate!
This is how smart Newt is. And make no mistake, Newt is highly intelligent. Newt knows that he can ramble on and on about the individual mandate in ObamaCare and only the most observant, only those who actually know Newt’s real position on the matter will call BS. The average voter just hears Newt is opposed to individual mandates, and moves on.
Worse than that, after hearing Newt doesn’t support the individual mandate [in ObamaCare] when presented with the facts that Newt actually DOES support individual mandates, as long as it’s in HIS plan, victims of Newt’s con get angry, and will often call you a liar. Or they go into a long explanation telling you that Newt gave a long explanation about it all.
Newt can talk longer, and say less, than anyone in politics today.
Even when shown video proof of Newt supporting individual mandates on many occasions, including as late as May of this year, victims of Newt’s con will tell you that you are wrong.
That’s how good Newt is, and why he must never be allowed back in elected office.
Newt absolutely supports individual mandates. Newt teamed up with Hillary Clinton back in 2005, not only pushing for government mandated health insurance, but showering Hillary with praise in the process.
Newt says he’s against a “single payer system” of health care. This is likely true, at least as I and many others think of single pay systems, which generally means government run health care, where all of the doctors, nurses, etc. are employees of the government, and the government owns all of the hospitals and controls all of the health care.
The government determines who gets care, and at what level. Those death panels Sarah Palin pointed out, the panels of government drones who determine who gets life saving care, and who is deemed “expendable.” Come to mind.
While continuing my research on Newt, I came across yet more evidence of the con.
Talking Points Memo notes that Newt claims he doesn’t want a single payer system, but champions his mandates as a “300 million payer system.” Newt is very good with words, and this sort of seemingly off the cuff, throwaway line, is just another intricate part of the con.
Newt understands that Americans fear government controlled heath care, and rightly so. He also knows that when most people hear “single payer” they think government controlled health care. So, in one supposed throwaway line, Newt can say he’s against government run health care, while still supporting individual mandates, and get away with it! The only thing people hear is he doesn’t support government run health care.
This is brilliant. I mean absolutely brilliant.
The more you study it, you can’t help but realize what an elegant con this is. If Newt was using his skills for good, rather than evil, one could really admire the skill in which Newt is pulling this off!
And before anyone goes off, just let me remind you, government mandates of this kind ARE evil. They are also immoral, and unconstitutional. Government mandates, such as those Newt is supporting, have already been ruled unconstitutional in the lower courts. We’re only waiting on the Supreme Court to make the final call.
As a matter of fact, Judge Roger Vinson ruled ObamaCare unconstitutional, based on the mandates, in January of this year, five full months BEFORE Newt was last giving his complete support for … individual mandates!
For such a supposed brilliant man, you’d think he’d have backed away from such a high profile issue.
Not sure if he’s just earning that $37 million, or if he’s such a true believer, he doesn’t care what the courts, or the Constitution, say. With his record of supporting radical “progressive” policies, who the hell can be sure what is true. Hey, it may be a bit of both.
Newt Gingrich has attacked Mitt Romney on the issue of the individual health insurance mandate, while chalking up his own past support for the idea as an indiscretion in the 1990’s. But as it turns out, those 1990’s stretch all the way to 2005 — and beyond, to 2008 — when Gingrich gave as passionate an explanation of the mandate idea as any current supporter could ever muster.
On his own web site, Gingrich’s campaign explains: “In the 1990s, Newt and many other conservatives, such as the Heritage Foundation, proposed a mandate to purchase health insurance as the alternative to Hillarycare. However, the problems outlined above caused Newt to come to the principled conclusion that a mandate to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional, unworkable and counterproductive to lowering the cost of healthcare.”
However, in a YouTube video flagged by Health Care for America Now, as recently as 2005, well beyond the 1990s, Newt was vociferously championing the mandate — just a few years before Democrats took it up, and in the process reversing pretty much all past support for it among some Republicans.
At a forum in 2005, alongside then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and former Sen. John Breaux (D-LA), Gingrich explained the tradeoffs that both the right and the left would have to make in health care: For the right, some transfer of wealth is involved in providing health care for the working poor, the disabled, and other groups. And for the left, individuals should still have control over their health care, rather than total government management.
“I mean, I am very opposed to a single-payer system — but I’m actually in favor of a 300 million-payer system. Because one of my conclusions in the last six years, and founding the Center for Health Transformation, and looking at the whole system is, unless you have a hundred percent coverage, you can’t have the right preventive care, and you can’t have a rational system, because the cost-shifts are so irrational, and create second-order problems.”
This led Gingrich to a few conclusions of how to implement such a system: Convert Medicaid into a health insurance voucher system as it applies to the working poor (on the rationale that the creation of food-stamps do not involve the government running its own grocery stores); Create very large risk pools for individuals to purchase insurance (i.e., exchanges); and minimize insurance companies from cherry-picking customers.
“I know I risk not sounding as right-wing as I should, to fit the billing,” Newt said at one point, which did indeed trigger some audience laughs.
Notice Newt actually takes a shot at the “right wing” here. A con man enjoys the con, he revels in the lie. He will often take great pleasure in actually letting his victims know they are being conned, without actually telling them.
It’s perverted, a sickness. Interesting to watch, and even admire, but a con man like Newt is dangerous if ever put in a position of power.
If listen to what Newt is saying, and the manner in which he says it, he comes off as reasonable and confident. He uses praises like “principled conclusion” to declare his dislike of mandates in HillaryCare. Newt goes so far to call these mandates “unconstitutional, unworkable and counterproductive to lowering the cost of healthcare,” While at the very same time pushing …. you guessed it …. INDIVIDUAL MANDATES!
You know those movies where you almost find yourself admiring the bad guy, the crook?
Folks, individual mandates are individual mandates. It doesn’t matter which “progressive” is trying to shove them down your throat. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Newt Gingrich all want the same end result. They all want to force you to do something.
Remember the key words from Newt though:
…. unless you have a hundred percent coverage, you can’t have the right preventive care, and you can’t have a rational system, because the cost-shifts are so irrational, and create second-order problems.
Note the words “rational” and “irrational” to make his case FOR the individual mandate.
Who wouldn’t think it wasn’t irrational to propose a system to cover every American, that didn’t FORCE every American to pay into it. A Big Government scheme like this can ONLY work if everyone is forced to participate!
Now in a FREE society, with market driven services, including health care, one has the right to choose if they want to purchase any product, or not, including health insurance.
In a society that places a premium on individual Freedom and Liberty [like ours] we also realize the need for personal responsibility. In other words, its up to you. Of course, we are a compassionate society, so just because someone decides they have better uses for their money, than having insurance in the event they have major health issues, we don’t just turn our backs on them.
Though Newt claims to be against single payer, he is most definitely NOT against government run health care. In fact, he’s looking to “tranform” the system we have now. Even though Newt might not want to see the government completely take over health care, i.e. own the hospitals and pay the staff, he is very much advocating government control the industry.
Here’s Newt in the video we’re discussing:
Notice that right off the bat Newt uses the phrase “transfer of funds.” Certainly more articulate than Obama and his commie buddies shouting “share the wealth!” But it means the same.
Folks we are watching one of our nation’s greatest con artists practicing his craft with precision and even grace!
Newt Gingrich is giving a full throated support of individual mandates and government controlled health care, while denouncing the other guy’s plan for individual mandates and government controlled health care!
Again, it would be a beautiful thing, if it wasn’t so downright evil!
Newt can look you in the eye and tell you that he doesn’t support the individual mandates in HillaryCare and ObamaCare, and he’ll be telling you the truth.
It’s important for him to tell you this, and even believe it himself, or the con wouldn’t work. As good as he is, he’d give himself away, even to those who don’t really pay attention to exactly what he is saying.
On the other hand, while he’s denouncing the other guys, his on plan produces almost identical results. HillaryCare, ObamaCare, and NewtCare all end up with the federal government controlling you and your health care. All three plans DEMAND that you purchase insurance, or risk penalties. All three take away personal Liberty and Freedom.
We do need some health care reforms in this country.
Common sense reforms.
Things like law suit reform, that shuts down the ambulance chasing lawyers. This is a huge problem that drives the cost of health care through the roof. Doctors are forced either pay outrageous malpractice insurance premiums, or quit. Many unnecessary tests are run, as a bit of CYA for the doctors who remain.
One of the few things Rick Perry got right in Texas was championing law suit reform.
Before major reforms, Texas was home base to all of the ambulance chasing lawyers, and the entire system was out of control.
Now all of the ambulance chasers have moved on to friendlier ground, and almost 10,000 doctors have moved to Texas seeking refuge from law suit happy attorneys. Our health care is world class, and doctors are free to practice medicine without having to practice CYA medicine as well.
There are other factors, like the 10s of millions of illegal aliens who receive free health care, often by showing up in emergency rooms, where hospitals are required to treat them, regardless of ability to pay.
A common sense solution to our illegal alien problem would go a long way toward reducing the costs of medical care in our country. We have a moral obligation to treat those who need life saving treatment, whether they are here legally or not. Fixing the illegal problem is essential.
It is my great hope that readers will take this look into how Newt cons the American people, and apply it to his other positions.
Newt really is a brilliant man, when it comes to supporting radical “progressive” ideas, while claiming he does not. He may be the very best we’ve ever seen. But in the end, a con man is still a con man.
Newt is a con man, a liar, and a highly corrupt influence peddler who has been paid 10s of millions of dollars for his efforts. He is the exact sort of life long political insider Conservatives are trying to drive from politics forever.
And with Newt, we better be successful too!
A reminder of what Ronald Reagan said of people like Newt:
Damn it, when Tammy Bruce is on, she’s on, and in this monologue Tammy is en fuego!
I’ve talked about how Newt’s idiotic “solution” to America’s problem with illegal aliens.
I’ve focused more on the Big Government clusterfark Newt’s plan creates, and how ripe it is for massive class action law suits that will eventually lead to amnesty for the 10s of millions here in America illegally, and Lord knows how many of their family members that will follow.
I’ve also noted the situation we have now is what amounts to slavery, as illegals are, in many cases, working for low wages, and without the protections Americans and legal immigrants enjoy.
Tammy hits the nail on the head though. What Newt wants to do, the second class designation these illegals would have, would indeed be slavery. They will be like the “untouchables,” and we aren’t talking about the movie!
It is absolutely obscene.
She also touched on something that we all know will happen. Newt’s local civilian boards, that will determine who stays and who goes, are a joke. As Tammy points out, these board members will be known to the community. They are in a position they could be easily corrupted. Throw a few bucks at the right ones and these boards will just turn into a rubber stamp brigade.
And that’s the BEST outcome.
Honest, conscientious board members, especially in border states, would be targets for kidnapping and even assassination. This sort of thing is already going on inside our country in certain areas.
There is big money trafficking in illegals. Smuggling illegals across the border pays almost as well as illegal drugs, and the risks are a lot less.
Of course, the likely outcome of Newt’s “solution” is a gang of ACLU lawyers arguing in front of the Supreme Court that the entire scheme violates the 14th Amendment, even though these second class citizens are not “naturalized,” and we’ll see a mass amnesty for the entire group.
Newt is a dangerous man and simply not the sort America wants, or needs. His “solution” is one of the very worst ways ever created to deal with this serious issue.
Conservatives4Palin has purchased a television ad to be shown in the Sioux City, IA market tonight on KCAU-TV during “GMA, Dr. Oz, 5 PM, 6 PM, and 10 PM news programming.” Regardless of whether you agree or not about asking Sarah Palin to reconsider, consider one thing. Can we look ourselves in the mirror and be confident that we did all we could do to get Sarah Palin into the presidency?
Realistically speaking, the chances of her changing her mind are small and the idea that she could win even if she did run now after some important primary filing deadlines have passed also falls into the small chance odds range as well. But, this doesn’t mean we don’t give it one last effort – not out of disrespect for her decision, but out of a desire to continue being vocal in the cause.
Only time will tell whether or not this decision will play out like all of her previous ones: hard to understand at first but completely ingenious in outcome. By waiting, Sarah Palin risks allowing our country to go the way of Greece. Should Obama get reelected or should the next president be unable to fix our country’s dire fiscal condition, it is conceivable that there may not be an America as we know it for her to lead in the future. However, what if by not running, the truth of her record comes out and people see her for who she really is so that in four or eight years she can run straight up with the smear campaign against her as a fading memory for most voters?
If you notice, with the exception of the occasional jab afforded most conservative commentators, the bad-mouthing of Sarah Palin in the media stopped almost immediately after she announced she wasn’t running. You don’t see the routine hit pieces in The Huffington Post or on Politico anymore; nor is MSNBC furiously racing to deadline each night with the final edit of stories stoked by malcontent bloggers in Alaska and in the liberal section of cyberspace.
Suddenly, people are actually talking about how much Sarah Palin has contributed to the conservative cause. Even some liberals are admitting that she has been effective. Why shouldn’t they admit it now? She’s no longer a threat to become president.
The sudden end of the smear campaign tells us flat out that every lie, every smear and every hit article published about Sarah Palin was politically motivated. The demonization of Palin by the Left and by the establishment had nothing to do with any deficiencies in her character. It had to do with creating false perceptions of deficiencies in her character in the event she ran for president. Now that she’s not running, it’s no longer necessary for the smear merchants to continue to churn out the nonsense.
Many Palin supporters believe that the time was now. With our country in such dire straights, the argument is that we can’t wait for her the way we had to wait for Ronald Reagan. If those who believe this want to stay true to those beliefs, it is necessary to take on the exercise of asking her reconsider one last time so that it can’t be said we didn’t try.
It may be a sisyphusian effort. Some may say we’re wasting our time. But, we should go forward with a reconsideration movement even if it doesn’t change Governor Palin’s mind. History must record that if the day comes when America as we know it no longer exists that we didn’t just give up on Sarah Palin. “If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”
After much thought, I have to recognize that the Palin movement doesn’t die with her not running for president. It can only die if we stop trying to effect the changes needed in our political system. Part of this means that we need to move forward into the next chapter of the movement: supporting Governor Palin and candidates who are willing to carry out her and our vision for a better America. In doing so, some of us feel the need to make one last final plea for reconsideration.
We have always respected Governor Palin’s decisions. This is not about telling her she’s wrong for not running. It’s about telling her we need her and we will be there for her if she does, whether it’s now or later.
Let’s plan on moving forward without her in the White House for now. If she changes her mind, it will be a pleasant surprise. If not, then it is our duty to create an even more favorable environment for her to run in the future by changing our leaders and making our government more responsive to us.
If the country survives the next half decade and we are successful in bringing it back, imagine how much more powerful she will be should she run down the road. If the country doesn’t survive as we know it and we go the way of Greece, then at least let it be said that we tried to save it together.
The Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute and Human Events [Ronald Reagan’s favorite paper] have teamed up to name the 10 Most Influential Conservative Women in America.
Alyssa Cordova, lecture director of the Institute, writes:
In America today, our culture places a lot of value on promoting women. However, it is very rare that the mainstream media gives any positive attention to the contributions conservative women have had on our society.
At the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, we promote mentors and women leaders from all walks of life who are committed to the constitutional principles of individual freedom, economic liberty, limited government, personal responsibility, and traditional values, and we wanted to honor some of the great women who have been champions of these ideals.
We have teamed up with some of our favorite conservative men at HUMAN EVENTS to bring you the Most Influential Conservative Women in America, highlighting the lives and achievements of the top ladies of the Conservative movement. Click on each name to read the profile. Glenn Beck writes about Michele Bachmann; Rep. Steve King on the great Phyllis Schlafly; Film director Steve Bannon on Sarah Palin; Jason Mattera on Michelle Malkin, and a whole lot more.
The women on this list have made a tremendous impact for the better on this great country—and even abroad—and we are thrilled with the opportunity to give them the attention they deserve.
Check out the entire list, and the profiles on all of the women honored here.
On Sarah Palin:
I repeatedly get asked: “Why would you make a movie about Sarah Palin–what could we possibly not already know about her?”
The answer is quite simply, “everything that’s important.”
Sarah Palin is what I describe as a “McLuhanesque” figure—one of the most media-saturated people in the world, relentlessly covered by the 24/7 news cycle, yet her real story is there hiding in plain sight, never having been told.
And what story exactly is that? The rise of a woman from complete obscurity to national prominence through her own force of will and sense of justice.
When The Undefeated starts in the late 80s, Sarah Palin is working on a small commercial fishing vessel she co-owns with her husband Todd, who is a blue-collar union member, working on the North Slope. The daughter of a school teacher, she is not part of the social, political, or cultural elite in the remote Mat-Su Valley, 40 miles northeast of Anchorage. In fact, Alaska at that time, was still a wilderness with the rough-hewen culture of a frontier state.
She is essentially out of the loop in a state that is out of the loop.
Sarah Palin is the little guy in “Walmart Nation:” just as obscure, just as powerless, just as insignificant. And that is precisely why she is a role model for young men and women. She didn’t have a rich daddy, she didn’t marry a wealthy or connected husband, she doesn’t have an Ivy League union card. What she did have was the grit, tenacity and fortitude to accomplish great things against almost insurmountable odds.
It is those attributes that are the underpinnings of the American frontier and our success as a country: the “can do” spirit, and a doggedness that just won’t quit. That’s The Undefeated.
I came to appreciate what Gov. Palin stood for as I made the Tea Party Trilogy: ‘Generation Zero’, ‘Fire From the Heartland’, and ‘Battle for America’; a series of three films about the financial collapse of our country and the rise of the Tea Party.
I had never met Gov. Palin, but had filmed her innumerable times at big rallies and Tea Party events—from the dustbowl of Searchlight, Nevada, to the Nashville Tea Party convention, and everything in between.
From a distance, I saw not merely a charismatic leader, but someone who had a very plainspoken way of connecting with the working men and women of our country. Sarah Palin didn’t simply electrify crowds, she moved them.
You can read more of what media mogul Steven K Bannon has to say about Sarah Palin here.
Ran across an article by Pamela Geller [Atlas Shrugs] that really pissed me off.
It seems the Islamic terror front group CAIR is threatening free speech in America by demanding the FBI go after anyone who dares criticize Islam.
CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, the largest terrorism-finance trial in American history. During the trial, FBI Agent Lara Burns testified that CAIR was a front for the terrorist group Hamas. Other front groups, many that pose as charity, or advocacy groups, were also named as unindicted co-conspirators.
Patrick Poole at PJ Media reports the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have been told to cut ties with these terror groups:
When Barack Obama signed the continuing resolution this past weekend averting another potential government shutdown, it’s doubtful that he was aware that tucked into the bill, which funds several federal agencies through the fiscal year and extends the continuing resolution for the rest of the government until December 16, is a provision that may dramatically impact what Islamic groups and leaders the FBI and other law enforcement agencies can continue to work with.
Even though the FBI has a directive, CAIR is still actively pressuring them to shut down the Free Speech, and the dissemination of facts about radical Islam, and groups such as theirs.
Hamas-linked nazi goup CAIR is now monitoring blog comments and demanding that websites critical of Islam be shut down. That any rational freedom lover would listen to these killers is beyond the pale. Across the web, I have seen calls for a holocaust II, killing Jews, killing conservatives, killing Blacks, etc. I have been called a neo-kikess while being libeled, smeared and defamed. CAIR is libel machine.
Calls for my death and execution have been posted to youtube, twitter and other websites.
The death threats and calls for genocide are daily. Just today, there’s this comment:
xxxsampsonxxxX has made a comment on Pamela Geller vs Imam on CNN Sunday:
THIS BITCH SHOULD GET SHOT. I H8 HER
The blood libel against Israel organ trafficking in Haiti was started in the notoriously anti-Jewish Huffington Post comment section. Anti-semitism is raging in the pages of the NY Times, Time magazine, LA Times, etc. Nothing was ever said or done — that’s free speech.
I condemn all calls for killing and genocide.
CAIR has demanded that the FBI “investigate” BNI because of comments. WordPress (the blog platform) responded by shutting down BNI.
I don’t know what was said at Bare Naked Islam. Some of what I see I would not host or post on Atlas. But I don’t CAIR. The difference between an exchange of ideas and an exchange of blows is self-evident.
Freedom of Speech is our most precious right in America. I agree with Pamela, we MUST defend every American’s right to Free Speech. Especially that speech we find most reprehensible.
I know many of us were sickened when the United States Supreme Court sided with those despicable sewer dwellers at Westboro Baptist Church, who have made it their life’s work protesting at the funerals of our honored military heroes. This disgusting left wing “church is as foul as foul gets. That said, they have a right to make asses out of themselves, and we have the right to counter their speech, with speech of our own. This is what Freedom and Liberty looks like. It’s messy, but it’s supposed to be.
Popular speech never needs defending. It’s the speech that curdles your blood that must be defended most vigorously. Remember, if the government can take away the speech you don’t like, it can also take away the speech you DO like, as well.
There are however certain limits to speech, most are common sense, like the proverbial “shouting fire in a crowded theater.”
Freedom of Speech also requires responsibly. Irresponsible, and threatening speech, has its consequences.
People calling for the death of others, in a public setting, such as the internet, may have the right to say it, but again, with that right, also comes responsibility.
It’s incredibly irresponsible to call for someone’s death in an open forum, even if you are just frustrated. As we have seen, others can be motivated by this sort of thing, and inspired to act.
When it comes to radical Muslims, you can almost bet on it.
Muslim extremists have a long history of making good on death threats. It’s why many people are so afraid to criticize, or even make fun of them.
Notice that “brave” liberals will bash Christians from now until the end of time, because, for the most part, Christians don’t cut your head off when you do disgusting things like putting a crucifix in a jar of piss, or cutting out vaginas from porn magazines and pasting them all over the Virgin Mary. Instead that’s called “art..” [And many times paid for with taxpayer funded grants!]
Don’t you dare draw a cartoon depicting Mohammed though! [unless you have a death wish]
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, issued a “fatwa calling for Salman Rushdie’s death in 1989 after his book The Satanic Verses was published.
Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was slaughtered in the streets after making Submission, a film that exposes the horrible way women are treated in Islamic culture.
Of course, who could forget the episode of South Park, where Mohammed was depicted. [after much censoring] The U.K.Gardiannoted:
A posting on the website of the US-based group, Revolution Muslim, warned Stone and Parker they would “probably wind up like Theo van Gogh” if the images were broadcast.
It posted a graphic photo of Van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was stabbed to death in 2004 by an Islamic militant over a movie he had made that accused Islam of condoning violence against women. The post, which has since been removed, also included a link to a news article which contained details of a house in Colorado that the writers are thought to co-own and listed the addresses of Comedy Central’s New York office and the show’s production office in California.
The car bomb that was found near the Viacom offices in Time Square, last year, was thought to be a result of South Park’s depiction of Mohammed.
This sort of thing, make death threats against those who insult Mohammad, is the sort of speech one is free to make in this country, but it’s also the sort of irresponsible speech that must have consequences.
Radical Jihadis aren’t the sort to call for people’s death, as away to blow off steam. They generally follow through with their threats. Or inspire others to do it for them.
Instead of allowing terror front groups like CAIR to pervert our system of justice, our law enforcement authorities need to be spending their time investigating death threats coming from these Jihadis.
Some may think Pamela goes too far by calling the bunch from CAIR “Nazis,” but she is historically correct. People forget Islam isn’t just a religion, it’s a complete political and “justice” system that calls itself a religion. It’s a socialist form of politics.
Before WWII got up to speed, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the “Grand Mufti” allied himself, and Islam, with the Nazis.
The History Channel ran a documentary a while back that talks about Islam’s alliance with Adolf Hitler, and the Nazis:
Pamela Geller has an extensive file on this. It’s an absolute must read for those who want to understand what we are dealing with. It’s one of the best collections of facts and photos detailing Amin al-Husseini’s collaboration with the Nazis. You must take a look.
I bring this up to remind people that Islam is a form of socialism, just as Nazism is. Remember that Nazi is short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or National Socialist German Workers’ Party. It’s probably why so many democrats find themselves siding with Islam over America, in many ways. Also why the hatred of Jews and Israel is so deeply entrenched within the democrat party. Let’s not forget, socialists [and communists] took control of the democrat party long ago.
We need to remember these radical Muslims are ruthless and are not afraid of using violence to make their point.
They are also devious, and know how to use a free society’s rules against those they target. For example, militant groups like CAIR understand that political correctness has taken control and common sense no longer plays a role in American society. Especially when it comes to speaking out against groups, who wish to harm America.
We are our own worst enemy.
Groups like CAIR exercise their right to Free Speech to it’s absolute fullest, while working night and day to prevent you from doing the same. This is unacceptable.
CAIR, like the NAACP, La Raza, and other left wing minority groups, play the race card, religion card, and any other “victim” card available, to stifle the Constitutional rights of all who oppose them. They get away with it because good people sit back and allow it, rather than fight back, often too afraid of being labeled a “racist” or some other form of bigot.
As a nation we must stand together, and make sure groups like CAIR don’t bully authorities into violating OUR First Amendment rights. We must demand any group that tries be examined, and their motives discovered. We can’t let these group destroy the American way of life.
Brave men and women DIED, and are still dying, so that we can enjoy Freedom and Liberty. It’s all for nothing if we don’t stand up and join the fight as well.
Like any other group, as vile as CAIR is, I’ll defend their right to spew their nasty rhetoric, because the answer to vile speech isn’t censorship, it’s MORE speech.
It seems many in power have forgotten this.
I won’t defend the un-American actions they are currently engaged in though.
I stand with Pamela Geller, a true Champion of Liberty and Freedom. I urge all of our readers to do the same.
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.
An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.
He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.
A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.
~ Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Statesman, Philosopher and Orator
Attributed. 58 BC, Speech in the Roman Senate
By Gary P Jackson
Yes, Newt Gingrich is more dangerous to the well-being of the United States, and our people, than Barack Obama. That’s a strong statement, and I intend to prove it!
There are many ways to prove this.
I’ll use Newt’s actual voting record, as well as his many positions that run counter to what’s best for the Republic. I’ll also talk about his abilities to persuade otherwise intelligent people to follow him into the abyss.
You see it’s this ability to take the hard left’s positions, and carefully re-word them, making them sound like “conservative” positions, that makes Newt such a threat. Newt knows the language of the Conservative, though he’s never been one. He knows the words that excite the Conservative mind. And this is the real key to it all.
We’ll get to Newt’s lengthy record as a “progessive” in due time, but I want readers to fully understand it’s Newt’s highly developed skills as a con man that should worry all Americans. It’s THE reason he is so dangerous.
Barack Obama is a communist. He’s the most radical president we’ve ever elected. More radical than “progessives” Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt, more radical than LBJ or Carter. The nation’s only saving grace is: Obama is a bumbling fool, who can barely string two sentences together.
Obama has little skill in actual governing, so as bad as he is, much of his agenda [thankfully] hasn’t come to pass. Obama isn’t a leader, and simply can’t get things done. He’s also a bit on the lazy side, and would rather just go play and enjoy the all the perks that come with the office.
Newt Gingrich on the other hand, is quite skilled. He’s a very good speaker. A very persuasive speaker. He also can’t WAIT to get his hands on the controls of government!
This is some of what makes Newt incredibly dangerous:
Everyone hates Mitt Romney [I’m not a fan either] and the entire Conservative narrative this election has devolved into an exercise in finding a “not Mitt Romney candidate” to back. Many have jumped on Newt’s bandwagon, even though Newt has flip-flopped on many occasions, just like Romney, often in more serious ways, and Newt has many positions, and actual votes, that are much further to the left of anything Mitt has ever come up with. And yet, the disdain for Mitt is almost universal, while the support for Newt is relatively strong.
Now don’t get me wrong, Mitt Romney is not the answer to any question pertaining to leadership, or elected office of any kind. But this does illustrate just how persuasive Newt can be, and the perception of Conservatism he’s carefully crafted since the late 1970s.
Newt has managed to have himself described as a Conservative for so long, it’s become “accepted fact” among those who have never paid attention to Newt’s actual record. Newt is anything BUT a Conservative, and yet, many are convinced he’s the best Conservative ever.
Newt is such a consummate con man, that now even Conservatives who have despised Newt for years, because of all of his betrayals, and his constant want to team up with every liberal out there, and promote all of their causes, are starting to fall under his spell.
Conservatives, who for years have bashed Newt, are now proclaiming him our savior, and claiming he’s the only true Conservative out there. The only one we can turn to.
I’ve spent my entire working career in sales and management. I learned to spot a con man a mile away. Part of my job was to make sure we had none of these types in our organization.
These unscrupulous con men sell a lot of stuff, but in the end cause incredible damage to reputable companies. They will do and say anything to make a sale, including out and out lying to the customer, misrepresenting themselves, the company, and it’s products.
Customers are rarely happy after an encounter with this sort. Sooner or later reality hits them right in the face.
While these types initially bring in big money for the company, and earn high commissions, when the dust settles, they usually cost the company more money dealing with the aftermath than any profits generated by the con man.
This describes Newt, and the consequences of dealing with him, perfectly.
Newt would make a great used car salesman at one of those “tote-the-note” lots. He’s the sort that can convince you that you are hot, and about to get sunburned, when in fact, it’s a cold night and you are standing in a driving rainstorm! By convincing so many people he’s a Conservative, and a viable presidential candidate, he’s done the equivalent.
Look at the latest dust-up over illegal immigration. Newt refuses to call them illegal. Like most lifelong Establishment Republicans™, Newt takes the 100% “progressive” stance. He builds straw men around 80 year old grandmas, and says we can’t deport illegals who have been here for “25 years.” Never mind they’ve broken the law each and every day, for those 25 years. And never mind we’ve actually done it before. And with great success.
Of course, since Newt never met a problem that he couldn’t think up an incredibly convoluted, Big Government boondoggle, as the cure, he’s proposed an absolute clusterfark of “citizen selection boards” and “red cards” that relegate illegals to a second class life that amounts to modern day slavery.
Newt’s mess is a huge ACLU class action law suit waiting to explode. What Newt has cooked up is a lawyer’s wet dream.
Think it can’t happen? Thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision [Plyler vs Doe], local school districts are forced, at their own expense, to provide education for the children of illegal aliens. It’s not a stretch to think Newt’s plan wouldn’t end up in the courts, and see these courts give mass amnesty to 10s of millions of illegals.
This Big Government “solution” would be just one more magnet drawing illegals to come to America in hopes of gaming the system.
Then there is the potential for massive corruption. At a time many are fighting against corruption and crony capitalism in government, Newt’s “solution” would be a breeding ground for corruption on a level we’ve never seen. Local politicians, many inclined to be sympathetic towards illegals anyway, could find themselves making serious green selling their approval to those illegals.
In the link provided above, corrupt officials like then Senator Lyndon Johnson, of Texas, as well as many government drones, were a huge problem in 1954, but Eisenhower and his people not only took them out of the mix, they deported illegals by the boatload [literally] and didn’t feel an ounce of guilt about it.
Even though common sense, and history, tells us Newt’s plan is a disaster in the making, many Conservatives are applauding this nonsense as the greatest thing ever. Raving about what a “brilliant man” Newt is for coming up with this crap.
That is how dangerous Newt is. If he can convince people this Big Government catastrophe in the making, something I’ve seen described as “Rube Goldberg on acid,” is a competent, Conservative solution to our immigration problem. he can get away with anything!
Throughout his public life Newt has promoted, and voted for, many far left policies. Policies that either have, or if put into practice, would have, helped destroy what makes the United States the great nation that it is.
Newt has proposed, and even helped pass, legislation that is a direct threat to our personal Liberty and Freedom. And he’s done it many times.
Let’s look at some of his record as a legislator:
In 1979 Newt Gingrich was elected to Congress out of Georgia’s 6th District.
One of Newt’s first big votes was FOR Jimmy Carter’s establishment of the Department of Education. This is noteworthy because most Republicans, even well known “progressives” like Olympia Snowe, voted against this. The vast majority of Congressmen in New York, both Republican and democrat, voted against this federal government take over of education. NEW YORK!
Newt was all for it.
This Big Government take over of education allowed centralized federal control to rule over local schools, and allowed the teachers unions to dictate policy. You can trace the serious decline in the quality of our children’s education, as well as the assault on their Liberties and Freedoms, directly back to the creation of the federal Department of Education.
This was such a horrible idea, that in 1980, Ronald Reagan ran on making sure the DoE was never allowed to get up to full speed. He promised to abolish it before it ever took hold. Of course, he failed, because of “progressives” like Newt Gingrich stood in his way.
Even today, some presidential candidates are talking about eliminating the DoE, and giving the control of education back to the states, where it belongs.
What does Newt do?
After Obama was elected, Newt teamed up with race hustler, and all around weasel, Al Sharpton and Education Secretary Arnie Duncan, a Chicago socialist, “In an effort to push cities to fix failing schools and highlight the Obama administration’s programs to reform public education.” Newt said this of Sharpton: “I think he has it exactly right, that education has to be the No. 1 civil rights issue of the 21st century, and I’ve been passionate about reforming education.”
The best reform we could ever do for the American educational system is to get Big Government, Big FEDERAL Government, and the teachers unions, out of it completely.
Conservatives instinctively know this. It’s in our DNA.
Newt doesn’t have the common sense gene in his DNA. Instead, he joins up with Obama’s two henchmen to promote more Big Government “solutions.” Solutions that throw money at a problem he helped create.
Conservatives remember the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” and how it stifled Freedom of Speech for decades. Created by extremists, the left wing democrats who controlled Congress back in 1949, the “Fairness Doctrine” put severe limits on Free Speech, by requiring stations managers to air opposing view points on “contoversial issues.”
Now this may sound reasonable to some, but in practice, it was a direct assault on Free Speech. You see, station owners are businessmen. They are in business to make money. These rules made it impossible for them to do this.
Back then, just as today, few will sit and listen to the “progressive” point of view for long. There are few successful left wing talk show hosts in the U.S. On the other hand, Conservative talk is a thriving business, with $100s of millions paid out to the many stars who give good talk. Even in the bluest of blue states, Conservative talk radio makes money while liberal talkers end up bankrupting stations.
When the “Fairness Doctrine” was in effect, station owners simply took the path of least resistance, and played music, forgoing political talk altogether.
There was one exception to the “Fairness Doctrine”: The News. This was fine for the left, because the news is always presented from their point of view anyway. Liberals got around the rule on the Sunday morning shows by having a handful of liberals, some to the left of Stalin, and the one token “conservative” who was only on the show because he or she had spent a life time ripping on actual Conservatives! This is a practice that still goes on today.
The Supreme Court ruled the Federal Communications Commission had “limited powers of enforcement” concerning this rule, but was under no obligation whatsoever to actually enforce it.
Enter Ronald Reagan.
In his second term Reagan wrote an Executive Order directing the FCC to stop enforcing the “Fairness Doctrine.” Of course, we know an Executive Order is only good until another president rescinds it, or Congress passes legislation overriding it.
This legislation passed both the House and the Senate and was sent to Reagan’s desk, where he promptly vetoed it.
It’s funny, I first wrote about Newt’s support for this anti-America legislation back in May of this year. At the time no one cared, because Conservatives already knew Newt wasn’t one of us, and never had been. It got more exposure when another blogger linked to the article this month. [November]
So brainwashed are Newt’s supporters commenting on our blog, they claim this reinstatement of the anti-American law
was a good thing and squealed with glee at the prospect of Newt using this assault on Freedom and Liberty against the left. Never mind it never quite worked out that way in the past.
Taking away the First amendment rights of one’s enemy is never cool. Not in America.
In fact, it’s our duty to fight for free speech for everyone, no matter how repugnant it is. Let’s face it, popular speech doesn’t need defending. It’s that speech that angers you the most, that must be defended the strongest. Remember, if you, or the government, can take someone else’s free speech rights away, Yours can be taken away as well. And just as easily.
That Newt would co-sponsor such a vile piece of legislation is unforgivable, and this alone should disqualify him from holding any office. Newt swore an oath to UPHOLD and PROTECT the Constitution. He failed miserably.
Here we have, in just two pieces of legislation, a complete and total assault on the First Amendment, our most precious amendment, that protects our God given right to Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Religion.
Oh yeah, about that establishment of a federal Department of Education, the federal takeover of our schools that Newt voted for.
Before federal control of our schools, God was very much a part of our education system. Many schools opened with a daily prayer, and God was talked about openly in class. At least it was in Texas! You had prayers at many school sporting events, and the holidays like Christmas and Easter were celebrated as what they are, not some sort of winter or spring solstice observance.
This is the consequence of allowing the federal government in, and Newt was, as usual, on the wrong side of history. Rather than protect Liberty and Freedom, Newt pushed a Big Government program that destroyed a significant amount of both.
Newt was on the wrong side of history with the “Fairness Doctrine” as well. Once Reagan killed this anti-American thing off, talk radio started to bloom. Now we have a vibrant network of Conservative talk to counter the liberal lies that are spread daily. This has spilled over onto the internet, where vibrant discussions, from ALL points of view thrive.
Had Newt gotten his way, none of this would have happened. It simply couldn’t have.
Thanks to Reagan, we have giants like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin on the air daily. Conservative stars like Glenn Beck, Tammy Bruce, Mike Gallagher, and many more, owe it all to Reagan’s wisdom, and belief in Liberty and Freedom.
If Newt Gingrich had his way, all of these great voices would still be silent, and spinning Top 40 records for minimum wage instead! [if they really wanted to be in radio, that is]
Conservative talk radio has done more to educate America, spread Conservatism, and advance Liberty and Freedom than we’ll ever know, and yet, Newt was against it all.
We’re just getting warmed up on Newt, so hang on!
Newt supported the creation of the World Trade Organization [WTO] and America’s membership in the organization. Newt also voted for the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. [GATT] This is a treaty that cedes United States sovereignty and trade policy to foreign nations. It was always considered not in America’s best interest until Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole came along.
In 1974 Richard Gardner, a State Department official said this of the treaty:
We will be seeking new rules in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to cover a whole range of hitherto unregulated non-tariff barriers. These will subject countries to an unprecedented degree of international surveillance over up to now sacrosanct ‘domestic’ policies, such as farm price supports, subsidies, and government procurement practices that have transnational effects.
In other words, this group, through the United Nations, would control United States domestic policy, as well as foreign trade policy.
The World Trade Organization (WTO), originally called the International Trade Organization (ITO) was intended to be one of three global economic bodies (the others being the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank). The ITO envisioned a one-nation, one-vote scheme that would have left America’s trade policies in the hands of foreign rivals.
The ITO plan collided with patriotic opposition and was never presented to Congress for ratification – until 1994. Following the November 1994 election, incoming Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and prospective Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich agreed to an extraordinary session of the outgoing Congress. The politics in this lame-duck session were more favorable to passage than in the incoming Congress.
This is what Newt had to say in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee:
I am just saying that we need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment. I would feel better if the people who favor this would just be honest about the scale of change.
I agree … this is very close to Maastrict [the European Union treaty by which the EU member nations have surrendered considerable sovereignty], and twenty years from now we will look back on this as a very important defining moment. This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected. I am not even saying we should reject it; I, in fact, lean toward it. But I think we have to be very careful, because it is a very big transfer of power.
Rabid Newt supporters need to go back and read his statement once, maybe twice more, before moving forward.
We‘ll wait here.
OK, Newt is testifying this treaty would fundamentally change the United States. Newt says “we need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization.” In other words, ceding fundamental control of many basic government responsibilities, and decisions, over to a foreign power.
Newt goes on to point out this could end up much like the European Union, a clusterfark if there ever was one, and that it would surrender “considerable sovereignty” to the United Nations.
Does Newt warn against this dangerous, and possibly unconstitutional bit of business?
Does Newt stand up against this incredibly stupid treaty that has the potential to change America as we know it, and potentially destroy our economy?
Newt’s only concern is making sure folks who support this insanity, such as himself, are “honest” about the ramifications!
Knowing the potential dangers of this organization, as well as the agreement, Newt supported them and voted for both.
Our readers know I’m not one of those Alex Jones/Ron Paul types who sees a conspiracy behind every lamppost, but anything that’s good for the U.N. is generally bad for the United States, and as an American, I want trade agreements that work FOR us, not against us.
Anything that cedes control over our nation to a power other than our Constitution is bad, and anyone pushing this sort of thing should be barred from holding office.
I say this because federal officeholders are required to swear an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution. Newt, and the others who made this treaty law, violated their oath.
I can’t say it enough. We are far too forgiving, as a nation, to those who act counter to the Supreme Law of our Land, the United States Constitution. And we wonder why our nation is in such a mess.
Moving a bit ahead in time, Newt is talking big about “defunding” the United Nations now that he’s a presidential candidate, but as Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy points out, Newt was very much for the UN, before he was against it:
GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich is calling for the United States to cut off its contributions to the United Nations, but only a few years ago, he helped lead an effort calling for reforms at the United Nations that recommended increased U.S. funding for several of its programs.
Gingrich, in a Wednesday op-ed entitled, “Suspend U.N. Funding Now!” criticized the United Nations for entertaining an expected resolution that would grant statehood recognition to the Palestinian territories. He said that the United States should suspend all of its contributions to the United Nations if the resolution is allowed to proceed.
[ …. ]
But back in 2005, Gingrich was singing a different tune. He co-chaired a task force on how to improve the United Nations with former Senate majority leader and recently departed Special Envoy for the Middle East George Mitchell, and issued a report written with the help of the United States Institute of Peace.
“The American people want an effective United Nations that can fulfill the goals of its Charter in building a safer, freer, and more prosperous world,” Gingrich and Mitchell wrote in a joint statement at the top of the report. “What was most striking was the extent to which we were able to find common ground, including on our most important finding, which was ‘the firm belief that an effective United Nations is in America’s interests.‘”
The task force featured a bipartisan set of foreign policy leaders, including Anne-Marie Slaughter, Thomas Pickering, Danielle Pletka, Wesley Clark, and James Woolsey.
The report did include a great deal of criticism of the United Nations, the U.N. Human Rights Council, and its ineffectiveness in protecting victims of genocide around the world. But Gingrich and Mitchell saw the answer to these problems as increasing funding for U.N. institutions, not withholding U.S. contributions from the United Nations.
They called for more staffing and funding for peacekeeping operations, more funding for the international mission in Darfur, a doubling of the budget for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and more funding for the World Health Organization.
In other words, as with most Big Government Establishment™ types, Newt’s answer was to throw more money at the problem. Money we don’t have.
Now that he’s running for president, he conveniently changes his tune to con the people.
It’s telling that Newt always finds a way to “find common ground” with so many lefties, isn’t it?
Newt has “found common ground with those pushing Big Government control of our schools, those pushing the Global warming scam, gun grabbers, and those who want to hand over United States sovereignty to the United Nations.
What wouldn’t he find “common ground” with these lefties on?
And isn’t this the same as John McCain’s tendency to “ reach across the aisle” that is still driving Conservatives crazy to this very day?
How is it Newt gets away with all of this, when no one else could?
When Newt became Speaker of the House he recommended members read Marxist Alvin Toffler’s book The Third Wave. This book describes our society as: “Entering a post-industrial phase in which abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, and divorce are perfectly normal, even virtuous.”
Toffler wrote a letter to America’s “founding parents,” saying:
The system of government you fashioned, including the 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 21st century.
Toffler describes our constitutional system as one that “served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.”
You know who else calls the Constitution “obsolete?” And flawed? Barack Obama.
Gingrich calls himself a “conservative Futurist” [WTF?] and wrote a supportive foreword to Toffler’s Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave In his foreword, Newt is upset his fellow politicians haven’t seen the light and developed an appreciation for Toffler’s insight. Newt goes on to explain that Toffler advocated a concept called “anticipatory democracy,” and bragged that he had worked with him for 20 years “to develop a future-conscious politics and popular understanding that would make it easier for America to make the transition” to a Third Wave civilization.
With Newt Gingrich urging every member of Congress to read Toffler, and with Newt praising him so highly, even going so far as to write the foreword in a book promoting the implementation of this Third way …. one has to ask a serious and fundamental question:
Does Newt Gingrich also think our United States Constitution is obsolete and outlived it’s usefulness? Does Newt advocate trashing our Constitution, the one he once swore an oath to uphold and protect?
By praising Toffler so highly, one has to consider the notion that he likely does.
Barack Obama holds this same view and it’s a mighty dangerous one.
But what would Newt replace the welfare state with? Most American conservatives of a traditionalist or libertarian hue (those folks waving signs at Tea Party rallies) would simply demolish it and leave it at that. But Gingrich’s conservatism is more technocratic and it echoes many of the themes of the early 20th-century Progressive movement, which tried to improve America through governmental and social reform.
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, he argued that the welfare state should be replaced with an “opportunity society”. For every problem and corresponding program that the welfare state addressed, he urged conservatives to come up with an alternative “new idea”. To be sure many of these “new ideas” were conservative in flavour (privatised Social Security, tax cuts, term limits).
Conceptually, however, Gingrich remained wedded to the belief that government could and should promote economic opportunity and healthy living. He told Mother Jones Magazine, “I believe in a lean bureaucracy, not in no bureaucracy. You can have an active, aggressive conservative state which does not in fact have a centralised bureaucracy.” Gingrich’s role model was progressive Republican reformer Teddy Roosevelt. “We have not seen an activist conservative presidency since TR,” he said.
One of Gingrich’s new ideas was to hand out government-subsidised laptops to the poor. The role of technology was crucial to Newt’s thinking. Unlike traditionalist conservatives (the guys who hunt Saturday and pray Sunday), Gingrich calls himself a “conservative Futurist”. It’s a staple of Right-wing thinking that the past holds all the answers, but Gingrich has faith in tomorrow. On November 11, 1994, he told his fellow Congressional Republicans that he was a believer in the “third wave” theory of history. According to this view, societies evolve in turn with technological/economic change, and America was in the process of shifting from an industrial society to a consumer-orientated, high-tech one.
Rather than bemoaning the associated loss of jobs and identity, Newt urged Republicans to embrace the future – to use government to reach the stars and spread the revolution across the universe. He made a further, surprising statement: “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 … are making real breakthroughs at the city level. Some of the best of Vice President [Al] Gore’s efforts to reinvent government nibble in the right direction.”
Let’s see, Newt believes in Big Government, as long as it’s doing what HE thinks it should be doing.
His role models are Al Gore, for whom he lays on high praise, and Teddy Roosevelt, the first “progessive” president we ever elected, and a Big Government, central control, enemy of Liberty and Freedom if there ever was one.
Conservatives have grown up being taught Teddy was a hero of Conservatism. Might be because he was an avid hunter and a good steward of our natural resources. I have no clue. Teddy was an activist president who ushered in the era of Big Government, and centralized control. Our big slide down the slippery sloped started with TR.
Teddy Roosevelt and Al Gore, what could go wrong!
Dr Stanley’s piece is a good read. Though I believe he thinks he’s helping Newt, he makes the case quite well that Newt is as much of a Big Government “progressive” as any democrat, including Obama. Take time to read it all.
All of a sudden the video of Newt canoodling Nancy Pelosi on Al Gore’s love seat doesn’t seem like a one off deal of bipartisanship as much as a pattern of advocating the policies of the most insane, and corrupt among us.
Newt has supported legislation that significantly reduced the Second Amendment rights of law abiding United States citizens.
In a new statement, the Gun Owners of America express deep concern for Newt’s anti-Second Amendment record.
In 1995 Newt gave an impassioned speech in support of an effort to repeal the War Powers Act of 1973 which requires the president to bring troops home within 60 days of deployment, unless they receive congressional approval, for continued involvement in any military action.
Despite a last-minute appeal from the Speaker, Newt Gingrich, the House defeated an attempt tonight to repeal the 1973 War Powers Act. The act requires a President to bring home American troops within 60 days of deployment unless Congress authorizes their continued role overseas.
In a significant foreign policy vote, the House voted 217-201 not to repeal the law. Mr. Gingrich and Representative Henry Hyde, Republican of Illinois, who sponsored the repeal, said they had failed to educate enough Republicans; but they also said the war in Bosnia had scared Republicans away from giving President Clinton a freer hand overseas.
“A number of members felt that, on the edge of Bosnia, they didn’t want a year from now to have done something that strengthened the President’s hand,” Mr. Gingrich said. “They didn’t want a vote to come back to haunt us.”
But others argued that the bill was defeated on its merits. “Every President finds Congress inconvenient,” said Representative Toby Roth, Republican of Wisconsin, who voted against repeal. “But we’re a democracy, not a monarchy.“
Although our Constitution names the president Commander-in-Chief of all military forces, it gives Congress the power of the purse, as well as oversight of the military. It’s one of those pesky checks and balances all tyrants tend to find “restrictive.”
Why Newt would want to cede Congress’ responsibility to approve major military operations is beyond me, but gives us all great insight into how he sees the Executive. Another clue to how dangerous Big Government Newt would be in the White House.
More recently, in 2003 Newt was George W Bush’s front man on the unfunded $17 TRILLION Medicare Part D prescription drug bill. Newt urged: “every conservative member of Congress should vote for this Medicare bill.”
Lets not forget Newt is very much a believer in the man made global warming hoax. He’s also made big money shilling for Big Ethanol. Newt has made at least $40 million shilling for various left wing notions over the last five or six years. Good work if you can get it!
Besides the infamous love scene on the couch ….
…. where Newt is seen promoting Big Government solutions to fellow con man Al Gore’s hoax, back in 1989 Newt sponsored sweeping legislation to “cure” global warming. The Global Warming Prevention Act [H.R. 1078] is yet another of Newt’s Big Government solutions, this time to a problem that doesn’t even exist! A proven hoax.
Though Newt has gotten what appears to be over a million dollars shilling for ethanol subsidies, try as I might I haven’t found any direct ties to any of Al Gore’s carbon trading schemes, that had the potential to gross in the tens of trillions of dollars annually for the Chicago Climate Exchange, had cap and tax become a reality. This is a scheme Gore, Obama, Maurice Strong, and others are highly invested in.
This is an interesting read, because if nothing else it shows you how Newt tries to pretend to be a Conservative while supporting some of the most far out of left wing ideas. Newt has the ability to sound reasonable while pushing these extreme views. This is what makes him so dangerous!
Again, exhaustive research can’t find any ties to money and influence peddling, when it comes to this cap and tax nonsense, so one can conclude Newt is a true believer. I’d feel better if he was just a corrupt politician. [Oh wait …. !]
Katrina Trinko over at National Review Online has more on Newt’s love of a cap and tax set up, and takes readers down memory lane, reminding them of all of the left wing nuttiness he’s supported at one time or another.
Newt has also stood with Nancy Pelosi in support of a national energy tax as well. Barack Obama supports this sort of thing too.
Besides being immoral, Conservatives consider a government mandate such as this, forcing an American to purchase any product, by virtue of doing nothing more than existing, unconstitutional.
In fact, the upcoming Supreme Court case concerning ObamaCare is based on the idea that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The mandate is central to the entire scheme, so having it ruled unconstitutional is the key to having the whole thing come crashing down.
Conservatives have fought a WAR since 2009 trying to stop ObamaCare, and yet their supposed “savior” holds virtually the same position that the man he hopes to replace [Barack Obama] does.
To me this is simply incredible.
We’ve whipped Mitt Romney like a rented mule over this issue since day one, and rightly so, but Newt gets a complete pass from those who support him? Even though his position is virtually the same as Willard’s? [Except Romney claims he only supports mandates at the state level]
Tell me again Newt isn’t dangerous!
I’m not a Romney supporter in any way, shape, form, or fashion. In fact, I think he needs to join Newt and hot foot it over to the democrat party ASAP!
What is interesting to me, is Newt has as many flip-flops as Romney, and unlike Romney, has actually supported more dangerous left wing positions. Some have become law, others are still up in the air.
Newt has already caused more actual damage to America than Romney ever could, and has plenty more where that comes from. All Newt needs is a “title” to put his liberal ideas in motion. And yet, Romney is the one we are supposed to be frightened of?
How is that even possible?
Newt is more ethically challenged than Rick Perry, who is about as corrupt as it gets, and I haven’t seen any charges of unethical behavior in office by Mitt, other than this.
This seems to be standard for Big Government liberals who pretend to be Conservatives though, as Mike Huckabee, another Big Government “progressive” nanny stater destroyed all 12 years worth of records concerning his time as Governor. Like Newt, this tax and spend liberal was also once heralded as our “conservative savior.”
In fact, this media generated action turned out to be such a boost for Sarah Palin, the lamestream media, that thought it had finally found a way to stop her, dropped the whole thing, with little fanfare, after promoting it like it was the hottest story of the century.
But that’s another subject for another time!
If you are keeping score, Rick Perry stopped destroying his emails after an activist noticed he had a policy of destroying all official emails after 7 days.
Newt is currently engaged in corruption, and influence peddling, on an industrial scale. I’ve written extensively about Perry’s corruption, and the system of patronage and cronyism he’s created in Texas, but Newt is the King Daddy of this stuff!
Now is what Newt is doing, selling access and influence for $10s of millions of dollars illegal? Technically, no, but neither is insider trading by members of Congress. Just because it’s not illegal, because those engaged in the process have seen to it they are exempted from laws the rest of us must follow, doesn’t make it right, or ethical.
Sadly, the public has come to accept unethical dealings, and out and out corruption as “just how it is” and let it go.
This has to stop. The American people must stand up and demand corrupt, unethical politicians, in both parties, be removed from politics forever.
Newt is as good of a place as any to start. He’s [thankfully] not in elected office now, and we can certainly keep it that way.
Still, with all the serious ethical questions surrounding Newt …. and others …. it’s Romney we are supposed to be concerned with. Really?
Newt’s career long pursuit of “progressive” ideals and the unethical nature of his dealings, as he pushes his far left, Big Government “solutions,” coupled with his ability to convince people he’s actually a “conservative” makes Newt far more dangerous than Barack Obama.
Newt is seen as an acceptable, even brilliant, alternative to Obama, as well as actual Conservative candidates, as flawed as they are.
This is a national tragedy.
Many people supporting Newt think they are getting principled conservatism, when in fact, they are supporting a “progessive” who agrees with Barack Obama, and the rest of the communists who make up the democrat party, on many of the pressing issues of our time.
If Newt is elected, you can expect government mandated insurance, amnesty for illegals, more centralized, federal control of our schools. [and billions more wasted with zero results]
You’ll see some sort of legislation designed to “fix” the fictional global warming “problem” and more wasted money on nonsense like ethanol subsidies. God only knows what other Big Government “solutions” are floating around in Newt’s undisciplined, liberal mind.
Newt will do all of this to America, he will directly assault many of our basic Liberties and Freedoms, ignoring both the First and Second Amendments, and he’ll do it in such a manner than many won’t even protest, or realize it’s been done to them, until his schemes become law.
Newt is a “big thinker,” for sure, but he’s also an undisciplined thinker, as well as a technocrat who not only thinks he has all the answers, but also feels no constraints by the Constitution, or the Rule of Law. “Progressive” technocrats like Newt are as dangerous as dangerous gets.
Newt is the exact sort of life long political hack we are trying to run out of government forever, and yet many of the people who are a part of that fight, want to elect Newt as our president.
If I wanted, I could write more ways Newt is nothing more than a “progressive” con man, who, for some reason, feels he needs to be a member of the Republican Party [rather than the one he belongs in] and call himself a “conservative.” But, this is already a lot to consider, and voters really do need to consider this, and much more about Newt.
I’ll continue to expose the ways Newt is far more dangerous than Obama, and how he supports many of the same things Obama and his crew does, in future posts.
For now I ask readers to ponder this, and understand who and what the real Newt Gingrich is. He is very different from that fictional “Newt Gingrich” character he plays on television.
And for those who think Newt’s word means anything, please remember this promise Newt made, just before supporting some of the most anti-Second Amendment laws ever to pass through Congress:
As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights
~ Newt Gingrich
Any promise from Newt Gingrich is completely, and totally meaningless.
While the GOP presidential candidates argue over amnesty for illegals, and cook up Big Government boondoggles to deal with it, Texas and other border state are at war with Narco-Terrorists who are routinely entering the United States and terrorizing our citizens.
Recently Texas Agricultural Commissioner Todd Staples wrote an op-ed in support of a study entitled Texas Border Security: A Strategic Military Assessment
This study describes the situation in South Texas as dire. It’s a dangerous place for American citizens to be, and the federal government has done little to protect Texas, or any border state’s sovereignty, from the invasion.
In his op-ed, Staples asks that these dangerous drug gangs be officially designated as terrorists, and treated as such.
These Narco-Terrorists smuggle both drugs and illegal aliens. Both activities make them a lot of money. Many of these smuggled illegals are actually Islamic terrorists from groups like Hezbolah, who are trained to blend in with the Mexicans.
Now MSNBC is reporting it’s gotten so violent the federal law enforcement authorities are telling ranchers to purchase and wear body armor:
FALFURRIAS, Texas — While walking along a dirt road bordering his property, a South Texas farmer complained about living in fear of Mexican traffickers smuggling drugs and illegal immigrants across his land. He would later ask his visitor not to reveal his identity, for his safety and that of his family.
“I’m a citizen of the United States. This is supposedly sovereign soil, but right now it’s anybody’s who happens to be crossing here,” he said. “I’m a little nervous being here right now. Definitely don’t come down here after dark.”
The farmer said a federal law enforcement agent told him to buy a bulletproof vest to use while working in his fields. Whenever he goes out to survey his agricultural operations, he always tells his office where he is headed, and he has purchased a high-powered rifle.
“One of the basic points of the federal government is to protect the people of this nation to secure the border, and they’re not doing that,” he complained.
The Obama administration and many local officials have said the U.S.-Mexican border is safer than ever and that reports of violence on the American side are wildly exaggerated. But the farmer scoffed at that argument. “I walk this soil every day and have since I was old enough to come out on my own,” he said. “In this part of Texas, it is worse than it’s ever been.”
Moving families to safer ground
A report recently released by the Texas commissioner of agriculture said cross-border violence was escalating. “Fear and anxiety levels among Texas farmers and ranchers have grown enormously during the past two years,” the report said, adding that some “have even abandoned their livelihoods to move their families to safer ground.”
Retired U.S. Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who served as the U.S. drug czar during the Clinton administration and as an NBC News military analyst, is a co-author of the report. During a recent interview, McCaffrey said that while major cities along the Texas border are “pretty safe,” the rural areas between towns are “largely unprotected, and across those areas the (Mexican) cartels are conducting massive movements of illegal drugs and other criminal activity.”
Law enforcement agents say they are seeing more aggressive efforts by Mexican traffickers operating in the Rio Grande Valley. In South Texas alone, the traffickers smuggle hundreds of tons of drugs a year into the United States by floating them on rafts across the Rio Grande, then transporting them by car, truck or on foot — often across private land — into the United States.
The smuggling “clearly has intimidated U.S. citizen who don’t believe they’re safe on their own land in their own country,” McCaffrey said.
Several Texas congressmen and sheriffs have condemned the report, saying its conclusions are overstated and politically driven. But McCaffrey claims the officials not facing facts.
“I think there is an element of denial,” McCaffrey said. “Inside the beltway the senior law enforcement, I think, have fallen in line and said, no, that’s right, the U.S. border is the safest place in America, which is errant nonsense.”
Ranchers protecting themselves
Veterinarian and rancher Mike Vickers heads the Texas Border Volunteers, a group of about 300 landowners and supporters who work closely with law enforcement officials to track drug and immigrant smugglers entering the U.S. from Mexico and crossing private land. His primary concern, he said, is the safety of farmers and ranchers who have been confronted by armed traffickers.
“A lot of them have been threatened not to call the Border Patrol or law enforcement if they see smuggling going on their property, otherwise they’ll be killed or their family members may be killed,” he said.
During a tour of his land and that of a neighbor, Vickers pointed out numerous hiking trails worn by smugglers and illegal immigrants from around the world. He also showed where many parts of the wire fence had been cut and pulled back. “This is not done by wildlife,” he said. “This is done by smugglers and more than likely drug smugglers that have heavy backpacks full of drugs so they can drag the backpack underneath and not have to throw it over the fence.”
In order to prove their claims that thousands of smugglers and illegal immigrants are crossing private American land, the Texas Border Volunteers have erected hidden cameras and share the images with state and federal agents. Describing one of the pictures, Vickers said, “This individual’s got at least 80, maybe 100 pounds on his back. This is probably marijuana with a canvas covering.” Another black and white photograph showed a man hoisting a smaller load. “You know he’s carrying at least 40 pounds of drugs in that backpack. We suspect cocaine.”
Vickers said that since 2004, about 500 people, mostly illegal immigrants, have perished while on smuggling trips through private property in Brooks County, Texas, alone, where his ranch is located.
A war zone?
Todd Staples, the Texas agriculture commissioner and a candidate for lieutenant governor, argued that many leaders in Washington, D.C., continue to ignore the violence along the border. In a recent article he wrote, “A Webb County rancher checking his cattle is shot at and barely escapes with his life; the suspects are linked to drug cartels. Workers in a Hidalgo County sugarcane field are told by cartel members to stop harvesting the crop ‘or else, because the sugarcane provides coverage for cartel coyotes smuggling drugs.”
Vickers said he knows ranchers who have moved their families into nearby cities for their protection and have taken other safety measures. “Everyone is packing a weapon and carrying a cell phone with them. and they’re crazy if they don’t,” he said. “This is happening on American soil; this is a war zone here, there’s no question about it.”
The use of the phrase “war zone” to describe the U.S. side of the border is controversial. The report to the agriculture commissioner states, “Living and conducting business in a Texas border county is tantamount to living in a war zone in which civil authorities, law enforcement agencies as well as citizens are under attack around the clock.”
The lengthy article goes on to report Mexican Narco-Terrorists are corrupting U.S. Border Patrol officials, with payoffs.
While politicians pander to illegal aliens, more worried about hurting these illegals’ feelings than protecting America, we have an all out war on our own border. It’s past time to stop pandering to those who are in our nation illegally, and worry about securing our nation’s borders.
We need a full military presence on the border, with live ammo and a set of common sense rules of engagement. Rules that would allow the military to treat any intruder as an unlawful combatant. Treat them as terrorists, because that’s what they are.
It’s past time to do something about this ages old problem
As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights
~ Newt Gingrich lying to the American people
By Gary P Jackson
Like you needed more reasons to scratch Newt of your list as a potential GOP nominee. The Conservative group, Gun Owners of America, reminds us that back in the day, when Newt was in Congress, he was no friend to gun owners.
Despite Newt’s promise that NO gun control legislation would ever make it out of committee, let alone to the floor of the House, many left wing gun control bills did just that, and with the full support of Newt Gingrich.
[And some people wonder why you can’t trust Newt as far as you can throw him!]
Not only did Newt support liberal legislation that infringed on gun owners’ rights, some of this legislation, like the ban of guns in schools, made disasters like the shootings at Virginia Tech all the more possible.
Some of the legislation Newt helped pass through his Republican controlled Congress has resulted in otherwise law abiding Americans to lose their Second Amendment rights for the most minor of infractions.
What kind of man would work to take this lady’s rights away?
Prior to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America. But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.
The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban. And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”
His promise didn’t hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped to well below the “C-level.” In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal. Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.
The same bill also contained the now infamous Lautenberg gun ban, which lowered the threshold for losing one’s Second Amendment rights to a mere misdemeanor. Gun owners could, as a result of this ban, lose their gun rights forever for non-violent shouting matches that occurred in the home — and, in many cases, lose their rights without a jury trial.
While a legislator might sometimes vote for a spending bill which contains objectionable amendments, that was clearly NOT the case with Newt Gingrich in 1996. Speaking on Meet the Press in September of that year, Speaker Gingrich said the Lautenberg gun ban was “a very reasonable position.” He even refused to cosponsor a repeal of the gun ban during the next Congress — despite repeated requests to do so.
Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions. For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation. (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.) Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to “centralize Federal, State and Local police.”
Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) warned his colleagues about the hidden dangers in H.R. 3610, and in regard to the Kohl ban, noted that it would “prohibit most persons from carrying unloaded firearms in their automobiles.”
 Associated Press, “Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996. The full quote reveals how much Speaker Gingrich had adopted the anti-gunners’ line of thinking: “I’m very much in favor of stopping people who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns,” the Georgia Republican said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think that’s a very reasonable position.” But the fact that this gun ban covers misdemeanors in the home is primary evidence that NON-violent people have been subjected to lifetime gun bans for things like: shouting matches, throwing a set of keys in the direction of another person, spanking a child, etc.
 See H.R.1009, “States’ Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1997,” introduced by Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID).
Newt lies to gun owners, telling them he would protect their rights, and ensure no gun control legislation would see the light of day on his watch, then proceeds to push through some of the most radical gun control laws in our nation’s history. Can you trust this man?
Can you trust Newt when he says he won’t push amnesty for illegals, government mandated health insurance, sweeping “global warming” legislation like cap and tax, if elected? These are all positions he’s supported, some as recently as six months ago.
Not no, but hell no!
If Newt can’t be trusted to protect our sacred Second Amendment rights, after stating in no uncertain terms he would, how could any rational human being think he wouldn’t lie again, and push all of his Big Government “progressive” nonsense once in office.
How can any rational human being think Newt could be trusted in any way, shape, or form?
Newt’s word means nothing. Nothing whatsoever.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice ….
Though created as an anti-Obama, pro Tea Party video back in 2009, the sentiments apply to phony Conservatives who would destroy your Liberty and Freedom as well. There are very bad man in both political parties. Newt Gingrich is a very bad man.
Last week, I read Peter Schweizer’s insightful book, Throw Them All Out. I found it to be very well researched and well written. It is a fascinatingly frustrating read, in a righteous indignation kind of way. The book is a reminder that we need to evaluate politics vertically (top to bottom) a lot more often rather than just approaching politics on the horizontal spectrum of left to right ideology. Schweizer further reveals that those at the top of the political food chain are politicians themselves and their cronies, and we everyday Americans are subject to the rules these individual craft for everyone but themselves. Unlike intellectually dishonest researchers who often “forget” that correlation does not equal causation, Schweizer lays out the facts–the legislation, stock trades, associations, and timing– of the unethical behavior of Congress, the White House, and their cronies and allows the reader to make the judgement for himself or herself. He’s the prosecutor; the reader is the juror.
Throw Them All Out is comprised of three parts–discussion of Congressional transgressions, the gains made by politicians’ cronies, and how Schweizer’s feels these problems can best be addressed. Much of the Congressional behavior Schweizer discusses was highlighted in the recent 60 Minutes segment. Schweizer goes into detail on Congresswoman Pelosi’s insider trading on Bank of America IPOs and how earmarks for light rail projects would raise the value of nearby property that she owned. Isn’t it interesting that if you had the letters P-E-L-O-S-I, you could spell both “IPO” and “lies” on a Scrabble board? Schweizer hits at both parties–from former Republican Congressman Dennis Hastert and Democrat Heath Shuler on their land deals and the benefit they received from legislation. Schweizer also presents an excellent expose on how Congress trades health insurance and drug company stock based upon early knowledge of whether or not healthcare legislation is posed to pass. Isn’t it any wonder how Congress is more concerned with Americans health insurance and drug coverage specifically than they are with Americans health?
Schweizer continues in part two focusing in large part on two of Obama’s wealthiest cronies– George Soros and Warren Buffett. Schweizer highlighted the trend of hedge fund managers’ growing closeness with the political arena. Such associations likely contributed to Soros’ excellent stock picks that somehow seemed to be many of the same companies who received government grants. Buffett’s modus operandi seems to be feigning populist outrage only to greatly gain from legislation like the TARP bailout. Schweizer also highlights how 80% of green energy loans went to companies associated with President Obama’s top donors. In reality, of course, with companies like Solyndra receiving hundreds of millions of dollars, all of this crony capitalism amounts to taxpayer dollars swirling the water efficient “green” toilet?
Schweizer closes the book with a few chapters that seem like a cross between the Federalist Papers and Thomas Sowell’s Intellectuals and Society. He mixes both the thoughts and visions from the Founders on ethical government with the anti-Elite message Sowell pounded home in his book. He closes the book by offering some reforms to help solve this massive political problem. These reforms fall right in line with the reforms Governor Palin offered in her recent Wall Street Journalop-ed:
What are the solutions? We need reform that provides real transparency. Congress should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act like everyone else. We need more detailed financial disclosure reports, and members should submit reports much more often than once a year. All stock transactions above $5,000 should be disclosed within five days.
We need equality under the law. From now on, laws that apply to the private sector must apply to Congress, including whistleblower, conflict-of-interest and insider-trading laws. Trading on nonpublic government information should be illegal both for those who pass on the information and those who trade on it. (This should close the loophole of the blind trusts that aren’t really blind because they’re managed by family members or friends.)
No more sweetheart land deals with campaign contributors. No gifts of IPO shares. No trading of stocks related to committee assignments. No earmarks where the congressman receives a direct benefit. No accepting campaign contributions while Congress is in session. No lobbyists as family members, and no transitioning into a lobbying career after leaving office. No more revolving door, ever.
Recently, Governor Palin suggested that all presidential candidates read Schweizer’s book. It would do us all well to read it also. It provides us with a glimpse into the swamp of Washington inhabited by both parties and offers proposals to drain that swamp.At less than 200 pages complete with references and tables, Schweizer’s book is not heavy on opinions or words. It is a concise, yet thorough investigation of the political class. Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. You might want to read Schweizer’s book with a pair of sunglasses.
Just wanted to wish everyone the very best as we give thanks to all of the things we are so blessed with. God has granted us the great privilege of being in the greatest nation on earth. As bad as we think it is sometimes, we still have so much to be truly thankful for.
We are all blessed to have our family and friends, and the fellowship provided by them all.
We’ll be taking a few days to enjoy the holiday, but will be back stronger than ever fighting for the nation we so dearly love. A nation we want to keep free and strong, not only for ourselves, but for all of those we hold so near and dear.
Meanwhile, here’s a wonderful and inspiring Thanksgiving message from Sarah Palin:
On Thanksgiving, my family’s traditions will reflect the loyal, active, robust, big family life that shaped me. We’re so fortunate to be together to share the making of another year’s memory. In these late autumn days with temperatures dipping to 20-degrees below zero, we’ll brave Alaska’s biting cold to run and skate and ride – just because we can, and for that I am so thankful. Life in America’s Last Frontier is not an easy living, but it’s a good living. Here in Alaska, where I’m never without inspiration, an optimistic pioneering spirit still permeates, and harsh conditions force us out of self-centeredness and towards community – often in order to survive.
This need for selflessness – and the blessings that come with it – sharpened for me almost four years ago when I was given the gift of broader horizons, clarified priorities, and more commitment to justice and compassion for my fellow man who faces challenges and fears. I was granted this through a gift that arrived in a tiny, six-pound, awe-inspiring bundle. We named him Trig.
I know America’s potential for goodness, thus greatness, because I see it every day through my son. Nothing makes me happier or prouder than to see America’s good heart when someone smiles at my Trig. I notice it happens often in airports. Often a traveler passing by does a double-take when they see him, perhaps curious about the curious look on his face; perhaps my son momentarily exercises an uncontrollable motion that takes the passerby by surprise. Perhaps, as an innocent and candid child announced when she first met Trig, they think “he’s awkward.” But when that traveler pauses to look again and smile, and maybe tells me what a handsome boy I have, I swell with American pride. I am so thankful for their good heart. They represent the best in our country and their kindness shows the real hope we need today.
I am thankful that, as in so many areas of life, the bitter people who say bitter things about someone facing challenges are so outnumbered. There have been stinging criticisms, even from people still screaming that Trig should never have been born, but we know those critics may be the loudest and most malicious, but they’re not the majority.
To me, when individuals reflect the greater societal acceptance of someone facing challenges, they show the best of humanity – even by offering a simple pat on Trig’s head or a knowing smile shot our way. Conversely, when a society works to eliminate the “weakest links” (as some would callously consider the disabled) or “the unproductive” (as some would callously consider the very young and the very old), it eliminates the very best of itself. When a society seeks to destroy them, it also destroys any ability or need for sincere compassion, empathy, improvement, and even goodwill. And those are the very best qualities of humanity! Those are the characteristics of a country that understands and embraces true hope! America can be compassionate and strong enough as a nation to be entrusted with those who some see as an “inconvenience,” but who are really our greatest blessings. Through Trig, I see firsthand that there is man’s standard of perfection, and then there is God’s. Man’s standard is flawed, temporary, and shallow. God’s standard lasts an eternity. At the end of the day, His is what matters.
So, this Thanksgiving my family will bundle Trig up and grin while we watch him through ice-frosted eyelashes as he curiously takes in all that is around him in the crisp open air. I hope your Thanksgiving gives you the opportunity to find that reminder of what really matters, too. For me, my perfect picture of thankfulness is my perfectly awesome son. With him, all is well with my soul and I know I am blessed.