It’s no secret that we ain’t fans of Mike Huckabee here at A Time For Choosing. I most definitely detest con men of every shape and form. I really don’t like liberal democrats who pretend to be Republicans, for whatever reason.
I don’t think I need to go through Mike Huckabee’s entire career, nor do I need to read you chapter and verse about his time as Governor of Arkansas. If you are reading this blog, chances are you already know about Huckabee’s record as a tax and spend, Big Government liberal. You also know Huckabee is a Nanny Stater on par with New York City’s Nanny Bloomberg.
I will treat you to Governor Huckabee telling the Arkansas legislature: Whatever Tax You Pass, “You Will Have Nothing But My Profound Thanks”
A little different than his phony “I’m a Conservative” act, huh!
Huckabee supports the nonsensical “Fair Tax” as well. But that a whole entire rant all it’s on, so we’ll save that for later!
I am however, about to tell you why I am sick of Mike Huckabee and his kind sticking their noses in politics. Sit back, grab something cold to drink, and maybe a snack. This may take a while!
Here’s the deal. This is one more situation where Big Daddy government, [or should I say Big Nanny] is going to tell you how you MUST live your life.
Rather than allowing parents to educate their own kids, and control what they eat, some little elite in Washington is going to control yet one more part of your life, and there will be nothing you can do about it [unless you are wealthy and send the kids to a private school or home school them]
This is where Sarah Palin comes in. While Michelle Obama has been out there preaching her nonsense, Sarah has been having fun with her. There was talk of banning school bake sales, so Sarah shows up at a school where she was giving a speech, cookies in hand! She’s been tweeting about this stuff for some time, just wearing MO out.
This really got going though after this past Sunday’s airing of Sarah Palin’s Alaska. While getting ready to do a bit of camping, after some white water rafting, Sarah is looking for the goodies to make s’mores, and dedicates them to MO because the First Lady “says we aren’t supposed to have desert”
It was hilarious!
Bear in mind now, SP’sAK was filmed in the summer, months ago, when the debate was in full swing.
Of course, there was some buzz around the “cookie incident” at the time, but it seems Sunday’s episode turned into an international story. All one has to do is search Bing to find stories from around the world, mostly progressives losing their minds. How DARE Sarah Palin be against totalitarian rule!
That’s what makes Huckabee’s little “me too” so sad. This isn’t exactly fresh ground.
Though he had no comment on the calorie-count of a fried-squirrel platter, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is readily taking sides in a nasty political food war.
Earlier today, Huckabee told New York radio host Curtis Sliwa that he’s on board with Michelle Obama’s national dietary scolding effort and against Sarah Palin’s light-hearted criticism of the first lady’s campaign.
[ …. ]
Did Huck just fall off of a turnip truck? He really appears to believe the Obamas are content to campaign for social change in eating habits rather than a gradual move toward laws that prohibit foods they find objectionable.
Ever been to California, Mike? Just try to propose a steak house in a lefty-controlled city and watch the resulting firestorm.
Could someone this naive really be considered a major presidential contender?
I also didn’t like it when sleazy Huckabee lied and attacked Bristol Palin, trying to drum up ratings for his lousy radio show, either. A show he put up against Rush Limbaugh, on purpose. I did love it though, when Bristol called him out on his lie, and put him in his place.
But all that is nothing compared to his misadventures in politics. Most recently he’s taken a stand with certified moron Todd Akin, who may single-handedly cost Republicans control of the Senate, which will lead to the end of America as we know it. Huckabee has been blowing smoke up Akin’s backside, and telling him to stay in the race. A race Akin’s own supporters want him out of!
This ain’t the first time Huckabee has endorsed a fool, or a corrupt, worthless politician. Let’s look at some of Huckabee’s “greatest hits” since 2010:
First, let’s head up to Alaska. We all remember the Joe Miller-Lisa Murkowski fiasco. Governor Palin endorsed Miller, a long time friend. It was a real war, with the GOP Establishment™, specifically NRSC chairman Senator John Cornyn, (R-Tx) coming to Lisa’s aid.
Somewhere along the way, Huckabee stuck his nose in this race, and sent some of his people to “help” Miller. These brain surgeons’ first piece of advice to Miller? Distance himself from his friend Governor Palin. And not just distance himself, but hey, make a big [and public] deal of it. This worked about as well as expected. Support for Miller collapsed. Enough bad blood was created that it became a huge story.
By the time some of the fences were mended, “Daddy’s Girl” [Lisa] had mounted a massive write in campaign, backed by union thugs and even democrats, and Joe lost big time. All thanks to Huckabee and company’s sage political advice. Now America has to deal with corrupt liberal Republican Lisa Murkowski as she supports the democrats more than the American people. Thanks Mike.
Also in 2010, and Huckabee has somehow escaped most of the wrath from Conservatives for this, there was the election for South Carolina Governor. Of Course, Governor Palin backed Nikki Haley. Her endorsement immediately boosted Haley from last place, in a crowded field, to front runner status. So who did Huckabee support?
Remember during that election, accusations were flying that Nikki, now Governor Haley, had an extramarital affair. She was being called a “slut” and a “whore“.
As Jenn Taylor [JennQPublic] noted at the time, in an article entitled From “Nikki Who?” to Nikki the “Raghead” Whore in Less Than a Month all of these accusations were coming from, you guessed it, Mike Huckabee endorsed Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer’s crew!
Jenn starts out:
A month ago, few people outside of South Carolina knew of State Rep. Nikki Haley. But that didn’t stop her opponents from wetting themselves when Haley picked up some impressive endorsements and her gubernatorial campaign gained momentum.
Don’t worry, said their trusty consultants as they mopped up the puddles, a scarlet letter oughta finish her off. And if a little old fashioned slut-baiting doesn’t do the trick, we’ll just make sure everyone knows Nimrata Randhawa Haley is secret “raghead.” Trust us, the good ol’ boys in South Cackalacky know just how to handle a foreign lady who’s in our way.
And thus began their Hail Mary pass to sideline the uppity woman with the ethnic name.
Why bother? Because Haley’s record of fighting for transparent government is a direct threat to politics as usual at the Statehouse. South Carolina’s good ol’ boys are terrified that Haley will force on-the-record legislative voting, so they scraped the sewers for the scummiest strategy imaginable.
Not only were they calling Haley a slut and a whore, they were attacking her religion and ethnic background, calling her a “raghead. ” It’s a rather long article, but it lays out all of the hate and lies coming out of the Bauer campaign. Click here and read it. It’s worth the time.
Now in case you are thinking I drug up some isolated instance and that Huckabee doesn’t normally back sleazebags like Bauer and his misogynist crew, lets move on to 2012 and the Texas Senate race.
I think most of America knows this story. Most certainly our readers do. Once again, we have Sarah Palin endorsed and certified Reagan Conservative Ted Cruz, going up against one of Mike Huckabee’s endorsees, Lt Governor David Dewhurst.
To say David Dewhurst is not only one of the most corrupt men in politics, as well as one of the most despicable human beings imaginable, may be too kind. During the campaign we ran numerous articles laying out all of the corrupt activities the Lt Governor has been engaged in, as well as all of the bills that Texans demanded, that he worked over time to kill, in his position as president of the Texas Senate, a job that makes Dewhurst more powerful than the governor.
We also noted all of the numerous lies Dewhurst told about Cruz, including a last ditch act of desperation, blaming Cruz for the suicide of a Pennsylvania youth. Lies that Dewhurst was telling right up until the day he lost in a landslide to Cruz.
One of the more hilarious attacks from Dewhurst [and his running buddy Rick Perry] though, was the ads attacking everyone supporting Ted Cruz. Dewhurst and Perry conveniently “forgot” they begged Governor Palin to come to Texas and bail out Perry’s behind in 2010, during the Governor’s race. Nope, Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Mark Levin, and other Conservative supporters of Ted Cruz magically became “Washington Insiders” in Dewhurst’s many ads decrying “outsiders who don’t know Texas.”
This is hilarious because at the same time, Dewhurst was touting Huckabee’s support. Mike Huckabee who divides his time between New York City and his mansion in Florida. I’m not even sure if Huckabee could pick out Texas on a map. On the other hand, it’s well know that Governor Palin has spent a lot of time in Texas, and has a special fondness for the town of Lockhart, not that far from Austin.
But, as they say: Wait, there’s more!
Backing Despicable Dewhurst isn’t Huckabee’s only brush with corruption.
In one of the stupidest things I have ever seen, those who drew up new districts in Florida, after the 2010 census, pitted Congresswoman Sandy Adams against Congressman John Mica. Both Republicans, both incumbents. That’s where the similarities stop, BTW.
You already know what I am about to tell you. Sandy Adams was a Tea Party favorite. One of Sarah Palin’s favorites. Though new to Congress, she had already made a reputation as a true reformer who got it. Unfortunately, she lost.
Who won? Ten term Establishment hack, John Mica. As Breitbart Newsreported before the election, Mica may be one of the most corrupt members of Congress. Most certainly the most corrupt of the Florida delegation. Mica has sent tens of millions of tax payer dollars to family and cronies.
So once again, Huckabee, the false prophet, backs a corrupt Establishment hack, over a Tea Party patriot, and a true reformer.
That brings us to Missouri and a yet another familiar story. As you know, Governor Palin backed Sarah Steelman. She STILL backs Steelman. Sarah Steelman has impressive credentials as a true reformer. She was exactly who we needed in Washington. She has a long record of distinguished service. She had the support of some major Tea Party groups.
Todd Akin, on the other hand, was going nowhere fast until the democrats decided that he was the weakest link, and spent over $1.5 million in ads painting him as some sort of Conservative boogie man. They figured if they attacked him as “conservative” some voters would take to him. They were right!
Now I’ve looked at Akin’s 12 year record as a Congressman. It’s not bad. His record isn’t in question here, just his intelligence. That and his ego. An ego being fed by Mike Huckabee.
Here’s where I really have big problems with Huckabee and his phony “awe shucks” tent revival preacher act. I detest guys like Huckabee who hide behind scripture to coerce social conservatives to follow them down dead end paths. I have nothing against social conservatives, I consider myself one, though with a huge splash of common sense libertarianism thrown in for good taste. I’ve seen a real tendency among those who only focus on social issues to fall for these false prophets. I hate to say it, but con men like Huckabee start sounding like a preacher and some folks lose all common sense. Huckabee ain’t the only one who does this, but he has a real knack for it.
Huckabee has really screwed us all with this Akin deal though. Reports early on had Akin looking to do the right thing and drop out, after his insane remarks became public, but good old Huckabee stuck his nose in and ginned up his groupies, and now you couldn’t pry Akin away from this race.
Governor Mike Huckabee not only gave Todd Akin cover with his supportive email yesterday, he also was able to screw Republican candidates across the nation.
Huckabee helped Akin frame the calls for him to drop out as an attack by the Republican Establishment™. I didn’t know that Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, National Review’s Jim Geraghty, Dennis Prager, Charles Krauthammer, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, the Tea Party Express, as well as the editorial boards of National Review and the Wall Street Journal and well, every Conservative commentator and blogger worth their salt, had magically become part of the Establishment™. When and how did THAT happen? It’s hard to keep up these days!
Huckabee said in a conference call to Southern Baptists: “This could be a Mount Carmel moment,” likely referring to the holy battle between Elijah and the prophets of Baal in the book of Kings:
You know, you bring your gods. We’ll bring ours. We’ll see whose God answers the prayers and brings fire from heaven. That’s kind of where I’m praying: that there will be fire from heaven, and we’ll see it clearly, and everyone else will to.
Listening to his rhetoric though, it’s rather insulting to hear him talk about a dumb-ass politician, using biblical references. I know for a fact that God looks out for babies and fools, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to send down “fire from the heavens” because some moron says something stupid, and gets asked [rightly] to step aside!
After the conference call, Huckabee started taking some heat and downplayed his participation. He’s also been claiming he’s been in contact with the National Republican Senate committee, [NRSC] something the folks over at the NRSC have denied. [emphasis mine]
A spokesman for the NRSC, Brian Walsh, took issue with Huckabee’s comments Friday.
“We have a great deal of respect for Governor Huckabee and regret that we do not see eye to eye with him on this race,” Walsh said in an email to CNN. “It’s important to set the record straight though that the types of tactics he describes simply did not happen and further, no one at the NRSC has even spoken with the Governor this week.“
By Friday night, according to CNN’s Peter Hamby, Huckabee had resorted to calling the folks over at the NRSC “union goons.”
On call tonight with Missouri pastors, Huckabee calls NRSC "union goons" and rallies support for Todd Akin > on.cnn.com/NmzNIX
I’ve not always been the biggest fan of the NRSC, but union goons? Really?
Gateway Pundit reports Akin re-tweeted Hamby’s tweet, so obviously he agrees with Huckabee.
This is why false prophets like Mike Huckabee are so dangerous. They have the ability to reach a large number of people. They lead these people astray. Whether it’s convincing them to vote for a corrupt, and often despicable human being, or clinging to a disaster of a candidate far too long, Huckabee, and those like him have a knack for making poor decisions, and dragging far too many people down with them.
There used to be a time we could tolerate these sorts, mixing their snake oil salesman style of “religion” with politics, but that time has past. Thanks to liberals, like Huckabee, America is staring into the abyss. It wouldn’t take too many false moves before the entire nation collapses. Yet here we have Huckabee supporting an unelectable candidate, encouraging him to stay well past his welcome.
While people like Huckabee think they are standing up for the right to life, they are, in reality, hurting the pro-life movement. Worse, if we don’t take back the Senate, and this nonsense makes it a lot harder, we will never repeal ObamaCare. There goes the economy, and anything resembling Liberty and Freedom.
People are going to do what they do, but I implore folks to wake up and start paying attention to these false prophets. Realize who they really are, and how they are part of the problem, not the solution. Mike Huckabee has a decades long record of being part of the problem. It’s time for him to retire to his TV and radio show, and leave politics to those who actually know what they are doing.
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:
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.
Even the best of con men can only keep up their act for so long. In the end, a leopard can’t change it’s spots, and a scorpion is always a scorpion. It’s their nature.
Newt has been able to deftly hide his Big Government, ultra-liberal mind-set, from the less engaged voter for the last few months. In last night’s debate, Newt brought the Full Monty on an issue that Conservatives care deeply about, and once again showed just how clueless he is, and how his default solution for every single problem is MORE government not less.
Newt has always been soft on illegals, and has always been for amnesty. He voted for amnesty back in the Reagan era, one of the few things Ronald Reagan got wrong. Unlike Reagan, who regretted trusting the democrats, and regretted signing the bill in the first place, Gingrich has stated that even knowing the democrats screwed Reagan, and the country, and nothing they promised in return was ever delivered, he’d still vote for amnesty again.
Newt talks about dealing with illegals in a “humane way”, implying that anyone who isn’t down with his plan doesn’t want that, which is an insult to us all.
Might as well call Conservatives “heartless like Rick Perry has.
He also thinks it’s just horrible that illegals who have lived here for 25 years should be asked to go home. Yeah, because breaking the law every single day for 25 years makes them model citizens!
Among other things, Newt wants to create a WWII style Selective Service Board, at the local level, to review illegals, and give them some sort of “legal” status, if they pass whatever criteria Newt cooks up, or allows them to.
Again, these would be local, and the local citizens on these review boards would determine, using their own standards, who stays and who must go. Unless Newt has buried the details somewhere, it looks like you could potentially have a different standard in every single community. You can bet these review boards would be quite liberal handing out legal status.
Worse, as this is a federal deal, the federal government would be footing the bill, using YOUR money.
We already have plenty of laws on the books to deal with illegal aliens. We’re $15 TRILLION in debt [and counting] The last thing we need is another Big Government boondoggle.
Much like Rick Perry’s DREAM Act, something Newt supports on a national basis, in what he calls an “amended form”, Newt’s “draft boards” would only serve as a magnet for more illegals, rather than a deterrent.
Micky Kaus has a good read on what Newt is up to, and what a mess it would be.
1) A key word here is “ultimately.” Is Gingrich saying he’d wait a while–i.e. years–between putting “every piece in place” and giving out his Selective Service style amnesty? If the answer is yes, then his plan might be an incremental improvement on proposals like the “FEET” plan–which would wait eight years after enforcement measures work before talking about amnesty.
The intervening years of effective enforcement would a) send a signal to the world that the immigration game had changed, counteracting the “magnet” effect amnesty inevitably has, and b) by definition prevent future generations of illegals from getting in even if an eventual amnesty made the idea more attractive. (The improvement would be that the amnesty wouldn’t be a blanket amnesty but a case-by-case review– though if there were any real chance of losing at the review stage few illegals would come forward.)
2) But there’s no particular need (aside from the political need to woo Latinos) to specify now what sort of eventual amnesty might be considered. You could just tell the illegals now living here that they’ll have to wait “in the shadows” while the borders are secured. Or you could say nothing. That would enhance the temporary deterrent effect of enforcement measures and lower the “magnet” effect of ”ultimate amnesty” talk. Gingrich seems to want to tie up all the loose ends in a nice detailed “comprehensive” plan befitting a world-historical thinker like himself. On immigration this impulse tends to get you into trouble.
3) Gingrich doesn’t emphasize the time delay between the enforcement “pieces” and the amnesty, leaving the impression he’d like to rush from one (“OK! Border’s closed!”) to the other, without waiting, say, for the inevitable ACLU enforcement-weakening lawsuits to wend their way through the courts.
4) That impression is reinforced by his additional embrace of the Krieble Foundation’s “red card” proposal. This plan would apparently grant immediate, legal, non-citizen status to all illegals in the country who went home and obtained an easy-to-get guest worker pass from an employer. There would be no “artificial limits on their number”–in effect, as many red cards would be issued as employers demanded. The catch is that in theory a red card holder would then be required to re-return “home” when his or her guest worker pass expired in order to obtain another one. How many of today’s illegals–especially the one’s who’ve been here “for 25 years”–are going to take this deal? If they don’t, will Gingrich immediately offer them Selective-Service style review? If so, his plan moves a lot closer to a near-term amnesty.
As Phillip Klein reports, Mitt Romney was quick to jump all over Newt.
After tonight’s debate, Mitt Romney’s campaign clearly saw an opening to go after a surging Newt Gingrich, after he argued for considering a path to legality for immigrants who had originally come to this country illegally 25 years ago, but had spent decades integrating themselves in a community.
“Newt Gingrich supported the 1986 amnesty act, and even though he conceded that was a mistake, he said that he was willing to repeat that mistake by extending amnesty to immigrants who are illegally in the country today,” Romney adviser and spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said in the spin room following the AEI/Heritage Foundation debate in Washington, DC. “Mitt Romney is against amnesty, and Newt Gingrich made it very clear he was for amnesty.”
I’m no fan of Mitt Romney, but in the interest of fairness, it must be pointed out that Romney actually vetoed DREAM Act legislation in his state, pioneered a program to let state police enforce immigration law, implemented English immersion programs, and [unsuccessfully] fought off attempts to grant driving privileges to illegals.
Let’s face it, when you are to the left of Mitt Romney, on any issue, it’s time for you to pack up and go home.
Romney is actually better on immigration that Newt or Rick Perry. English immersion is critical. Assimilation is a good thing.
Thanks to a misguided U.S. Supreme Court ruling [Plyer v Doe] states are forced to educate the children of illegal aliens, all the way through high school. If we’re going to educate them, we should make sure they know English. It’s the language we speak in America, and the universal language of business.
I’m glad the REAL Newt Gingrich showed up last night. Maybe that will wake people up!
It doesn’t matter what the issue is, Newt’s default setting is to find a bloated, Big Government solution for it. And the “solution” is generally something completely out of touch with Conservative values and goals.
We have plenty of laws on the books to deal with illegals. All that needs to happen is have those laws enforced. If one wants to create new laws, they should be laws that severely punish those who hire illegals. Severe enough to stop employers from hiring anyone not here legally.
I like to think I can put myself in the illegal’s shoes as well. I do understand why someone would want to come to America and live a better life. But we are a nation of laws. When a group refuses to obey those laws they need to be dealt with.
One of the issues of illegals, that few talk about, is the fact these illegals are little more than modern day slaves. Since they are here illegally, and aren’t in a position to complain, employers take advantage of them, not only by paying far less than market wages, but often force them to work in conditions that are unsafe. Of course, the illegals are here by their own choice, but it doesn’t make this situation right.
This is a complicated issue, and deserves serious action, by serious people, not huge Big Government boondoggles, and what amounts to amnesty for 10’s of millions of illegals.
Let’s not forget that many of these illegals aren’t good, hard working people who simply want a better life for themselves and their families. As Texas Agricultural Commissioner Todd Staples notes, in a groundbreaking strategic military assessment, the Texas border is a war zone. Terrorists are routinely crossing our border.
Some of these are Narco-terrorists looking to further there position in the drug trade, but some are members of Islamic terrorist groups like Hezbollah. These Islamic terrorists learn Spanish, and blend in with others as they come over our border.
Border security is a major issue, and instead of talking about securing our border first, Newt is talking about amnesty for illegals. Shows you where his priorities are.
Newt is, and has always been a Big Government liberal. He knows how to talk like a Conservative, but in the end, he’s the farthest thing from it!
America can do a hell of a lot better than Newt Gingrich.
America MUST do a hell of a lot better than Newt Gingrich!