Tag Archives: liar

Newt Gingrich is More Dangerous To America Than Obama and I Can Prove It!

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:

Newt has taken almost $2 million from the corrupt Freddie Mac organization to help keep Congress off their backs, and $37 million from various drug and insurance companies to help push for government MANDATED health insurance. In spite of this questionable behavior [for a supposed “conservative” anyway] Newt has convinced many of his followers he was just giving “history lessons,” rather than engaging in good old fashioned influence peddling and corruption. And those who support Newt buy it without question!

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.

I’m only surprised these cats didn’t bring this noted professorial giant from Chicago along as well. After all, he has plenty of experience in this sort of thing.

Speaking of Newt and Reagan ….

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 is where Newt comes in.

Before the ink was dry on Reagan’s order, Newt and his fellow anti-First Amendment “progressivescreated legislation reinstating the “Fairness Doctrine with actually legislation, rather that just an FCC rule.

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!

Holy crap!

Knowing the potential dangers of this organization, as well as the agreement, Newt supported them and voted for both.

Read more here.

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.

Continue reading here.

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.

In an article by historian Tim Stanley entitled: The second coming of Newt Gingrich, a progressive conservative who wants government to shape a brave new world of entrepreneurs in the UK Telegraph, Dr Stanley describes a Newt Gingrich who has never met a Big Government idea he wouldn’t embrace.

This in particular caught my eye:

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.

For more on this, check out Gingrich, Toffler, and Gore: A Peculiar Trio

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.

Back to Newt’s history:

Under Newt’s “leadership” as Speaker, Congress passes the largest single spending on education in history, $3.5 billion dollars. If Newt hadn’t help create the Department of Education boondoggle ….

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.

The NY Times reported:

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.

However, in a 2007 PBS interview Newt was strongly advocating a cap and tax regime.

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!

In this interview you see the formation of a giant Big Government boondoggle that Newt dreamed up to replace ANOTHER giant Big Government boondoggle. A program that has been described as “Solyndra on steroids!

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.

Then there is health care and governmental MANDATES, something Newt was shilling for as late a May of THIS YEAR and as mentioned above, has gotten $37 million from various companies with a direct interest in seeing mandated insurance come to pass.

Around 2005 Newt became Hillary Clinton’s best buddy, and started praising her to the point of inducing nausea in normal folks. He also teamed up with her to push for government mandated health insurance.

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.”

I know someone who not only had 124,000 of her emails gone over with a fine tooth comb by the media, and instead of panicking, encouraged her supporters to not only read every damned one, but share them with everyone they knew!

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.

By I digress …

Back to Newt:

Gingrich is the only Speaker of the House in the 222 year history of the House of Representative to ever be officially sanctioned for ethics violations.

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.

Caveat emptor!


Filed under In The News, Politics, Ronald Reagan, sarah palin

Caught In A Lie: Rick Perry Claims He Didn’t Support TARP, When In Fact He Begged Congress For It

By Gary P Jackson

From Ben Smith:

After an appearance in Newton, Iowa today, Rick Perry denied to an unidentified woman that he’d ever supported the 2008 bank bailout known as TARP.

No Ma’am,” he told her.

I thought I saw a letter where you had written encouraging the support of TARP legislation,” he persisted.

“You saw wrong,” he replied flatly, as shown in this video, taken by a tracker, of this morning’s event.

Some video:

And now for something completely different:

In An Interview On KSEV 700 AM, Rick Perry Touts His Letter In Support Of TARP:

Perry: As a matter of fact, I signed a letter with the Governor of West Virginia, who’s a Democrat, when September/October a year ago, when they were talking about, Oh my goodness, the economy is tanking. We’ve got to do something. We signed a letter that basically said you know don’t get all frozen up in fear, act.

I didn’t know we needed to write it out for them and say stop spending all of the money and cut the taxes. That’s the blueprint that worked. And still we got people that voted for this bailout that was in hindsight now just an absolute giveaway, didn’t help the economy at all.


In August I wrote Rick Perry Teamed Up With Democrat Governor’s Association To Pressure Congress For TARP and included text of the letters that Perry and Democrat Joe Manchin signed. Perry was acting in his official capacity as Chairman of the Republican Governor’s Association. Manchin was doing the same, as the Chairman of the DGA.

This isn’t a “gaff” and Perry didn’t “misspeak” he out and out lied to the lady in the video when asked a straightforward question point blank. I’m not even sure Barack Obama could pull that off so smoothly!

What a guy!

Smith also reports Perry has tried to run away from this issue before. Read more here.

Look, Rick Perry didn’t just support TARP, he teamed up with a democrat to openly BEG Congress to pass the thing. He and his team can spin things ’til the cows come home, but the facts are the facts.

If Rick Perry would lie about something, that in the grand scheme of things, is so trivial, what else would he lie to the American people about?

This speaks to Perry’s basic character. And it doesn’t speak well at all.


Filed under In The News, Politics

It’s On…Sarah Palin vs Al Gore: Lets have A Debate!

Sarah Palin has a solid, hard hitting Op-Ed in today’s edition of the Washington Post. Once again, in light of the fact this global warming hoax has been exposed, she demands Obama to boycott Copenhagen.

From WaPo:

Copenhagen’s Political Science

By Sarah Palin

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.

Climate-gate,” as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle — the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won’t change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.

The e-mails reveal that leading climate “experts” deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What’s more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.

This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I’ve always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of “climate change impacts” was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska’s economy and the nation’s, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.

Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits — not pursuing a political agenda. That’s not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate — far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska’s communities and infrastructure.

But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen — which actually allow them to increase their emissions — President Obama’s proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That’s not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress’s cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.

In fact, we’re not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia’s Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold.

In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a “deal.” Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats’ cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs — particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen

Sarah references this video in her piece. We’ve posted it before, but frankly it needs to be played all day, every day, as long as this global warming hoax is still being shoved down our throats:

Now, the Clown Prince of all of this, the most unabashed liar in history, Al Gore is weighing in. Remember now, Al Gore has already turned his little scam into a personal bank in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and if cap and trade passes, stands to make billions.

Nothing wrong with making money….unless it comes from the destruction of the world’s economies and enslaves the entire world’s population, and denies all peoples freedom and liberty. At that point, there’s something very, very wrong.

Readers know exactly where I stand. I think Gore, Obama, and absolutely everyone pushing this lie should at minimum be jailed for the rest of their lives. They are committing treason. These policies will not only destroy the United States, they will destroy the world.

You know, if Gore actually lived the lifestyle he wants to force you into, it might be something, but well, this guy is the biggest hypocrite alive today.

As Newsbusters Noel Sheppard reported a while back:

Hypocrisy Update: Al Gore’s Home Uses 20 Times the Energy of Average American’s

In another classic example of liberals telling Americans to “Do As I Say, Not As I Do,” Dr. Global Warming Himself, aka Al Gore, has been identified by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research as talking a good game about energy conservation while not walking the walk.

In a press release published Monday just hours after the conclusion of the Academy Awards, the “independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization” reported (emphasis mine throughout, h/t Drudge): “Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.”

The release marvelously continued:

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).”

Lest we not forget that in his celluloid tribute to junk science, “the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.”

As a frame of reference, “[t]he average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy.”

By contrast, in 2006, Dr. Global Warming “devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.”

The release elaborated:

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Yet, the really delicious hypocrisy was still to come: “Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.”

Isn’t that just ducky? This charlatan goes around the world telling people that they need to conserve energy to save the planet, and his consumption increased by almost 14 percent.

What a crock! As a result, the press release aptly concluded:

As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In the immortal words of Our Gang’s Farina, you said a mouthful.

UPDATE (Ken Shepherd | 2/27/2007, 09:12 EST): The Anchoress has a good critique at her site, where she notes that President Bush’s Crawford ranch is and has been eco-friendlier than Gore’s mansion for years, although the press rarely if ever give the president credit for that.

Now bear in mind this home is just one of four that he owns. Again, nothing wrong with owning four homes or four thousand homes, but when you are going around hysterically screaming like a rabid hyena that the “earth is on fire” and demand people return to a 13th century lifestyle, well, then there are some things that need explaining.

Also, while Gore preaches that the internal combustion engine is the “greatest threat to mankind,” the guy flies on a Gulfstream private jet everywhere. Nothing wrong with that either, for most people.

I imagine every unapologetic capitalist has dreamed of reaching the level of success that allows you to travel by private jet. But most of us are not crooks, liars, and/or deranged! The Gulfstream is a fine luxury aircraft. It is also the least fuel efficient private jet one can own!

And this is from a guy who is screaming that the world is en fuego!

Andrea Mitchell over at MSNBC reports this:

In an interview that will air on MSNBC at 1:00 pm ET today, Al Gore rebutted Sarah Palin’s Washington Post op-ed and Facebook postings that question the science on climate change given the “Climate-gate” controversy.

In response, Gore said that “the deniers are persisting in an era of unreality. The entire North Polar icecap is disappearing before our eyes… What do they think is happening?

He said we’ve seen record storms, droughts, fires — and the effects taking place are exactly as predicted by these scientists for years.

Asked about Palin’s charge on Facebook that these are “doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood,” Gore replied that the scientific community has worked on this issue for 20 years. “It’s a principle in physics. It’s like gravity. It exists.”

Gore attributed the partisan divide (in recent Pew polls) over climate change in part to the fact that people believed to be the leadership of the modern Republican Party has adopted a global-warming-denier attitude. He said that 100% of the people who changed their opinion about global warming are conservative, adding that climate change should be a bipartisan issue like it used to be. He cited Lindsey Graham as one example of a Republican leader who accepts the science.

When asked about President Obama’s proposal for Copenhagen being even less than the Clinton-Gore proposal for Kyoto in 1997, the former vice president said. “It’s weaker than it should be, but it’s a crucial first step.” Gore added that Obama — with whom he met on Monday — shouldn’t be expected to make commitments beyond what Congress is willing to do.

And was it a mistake to do health care first, since climate change is now delayed in the Senate? Gore responded that “hindsight is 20/20.” If they had known that health care would take this long maybe they would have made different calculations, Gore said. But he noted that Obama has consistently made climate change one of his top priorities.

But: “I would always like to see more done.”

As usual, pretty much everything out of the Goreacle’s mouth, from the word hello, is a lie. The Polar Ice caps are not melting. Once can look at any number of polls, and guess what, belief in the global warming hoax is at an all time low. And when asked about priorities, people always place “climate change” dead last as things they care about.

From Newsmax:

Belief in Global Warming at All-Time Low — BEFORE Climategate

A new poll reveals that the percentage of Americans who believe carbon dioxide emissions will cause global warming has dropped dramatically in recent years.

And that poll by Harris Interactive was conducted between Nov. 2 and 11 — before the so-called “climategate” controversy erupted, calling into question the validity of some of the science supporting manmade global warming.

The poll found that the percentage of American who believe in global warming has dropped from 75 percent in 2001 and 71 percent in 2007 to just 51 percent.

At the same time, the percentage of those who do not believe in global warming has risen from 19 percent in 2001 and 23 percent in 2007 to 29 percent today, and the percentage who are unsure has climbed from 6 percent to 21 percent since 2001.

The 51 percent who believe emissions will cause climate change is by far the lowest number recorded in any Harris Poll since we started asking this question 12 years ago,” Harris Interactive disclosed.

Opinions differed sharply along party lines — 73 percent of Democrats believe in manmade global warming, compared to 28 percent of Republicans and 49 percent of Independents.

As for the upcoming international conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, only 28 percent of those polled knew that the main topic to be discussed is global warming and climate change. Nearly 10 percent said the economic crisis would be the topic, while smaller numbers cited nuclear weapons, health and epidemics, terrorism, international trade, or drugs.

Six days after the poll closed, on Nov. 17, someone hacked a server used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, and disseminated more than a thousand e-mails and other documents.

Climate change skeptics charge that the e-mails show collusion by climate scientists to skew scientific information in favor of manmade global warming.

The leaked documents “show that prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of manmade global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data, plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing, and concealed apparently buggy computer code from being disclosed under the Freedom of Information law,” CBS News reported.

One climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research was quoted as saying: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

This is bound to be time for a nice video break!

I wrote yesterday about the lunacy of all of this, and referenced the previous climate hysteria over “global cooling” and the coming ice age that alarmists were running around like Chicken Littles about in the 1970’s.

Forbes Magazine’s Gary Sutton also touches on this and the poor quality of climate research:

The Fiction Of Climate Science

Why the climatologists get it wrong.

Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed “the coming ice age.”

Random House dutifully printed “THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age.” This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported “many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age.”

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: “During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age.”

You can’t blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed’s mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today’s scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.

In 2002 I stood in a room of the Smithsonian. One entire wall charted the cooling of our globe over the last 60 million years. This was no straight line. The curve had two steep dips followed by leveling. There were no significant warming periods. Smithsonian scientists inscribed it across some 20 feet of plaster, with timelines.

Last year, I went back. That fresco is painted over. The same curve hides behind smoked glass, shrunk to three feet but showing the same cooling trend. Hey, why should the Smithsonian put its tax-free status at risk? If the politicians decide to whip up public fear in a different direction, get with it, oh ye subsidized servants. Downplay that embarrassing old chart and maybe nobody will notice.

Sorry, I noticed.

It’s the job of elected officials to whip up panic. They then get re-elected. Their supporters fall in line.

Al Gore thought he might ride his global warming crusade back toward the White House. If you saw his movie, which opened showing cattle on his farm, you start to understand how shallow this is. The United Nations says that cattle, farting and belching methane, create more global warming than all the SUVs in the world. Even more laughably, Al and his camera crew flew first class for that film, consuming 50% more jet fuel per seat-mile than coach fliers, while his Tennessee mansion sucks as much carbon as 20 average homes.

His PR folks say he’s “carbon neutral” due to some trades. I’m unsure of how that works, but, maybe there’s a tribe in the Sudan that cannot have a campfire for the next hundred years to cover Al’s energy gluttony. I’m just not sophisticated enough to know how that stuff works. But I do understand he flies a private jet when the camera crew is gone.

The fall of Saigon in the ’70s may have distracted the shrill pronouncements about the imminent ice age. Science’s prediction of “A full-blown, 10,000 year ice age,” came from its March 1, 1975 issue. The Christian Science Monitor observed that armadillos were retreating south from Nebraska to escape the “global cooling” in its Aug. 27, 1974 issue.

That armadillo caveat seems reminiscent of today’s tales of polar bears drowning due to glaciers disappearing.

While scientists march to the drumbeat of grant money, at least trees don’t lie. Their growth rings show what’s happened no matter which philosophy is in power. Tree rings show a mini ice age in Europe about the time Stradivarius crafted his violins. Chilled Alpine Spruce gave him tighter wood so the instruments sang with a new purity. But England had to give up the wines that the Romans cultivated while our globe cooled, switching from grapes to colder weather grains and learning to take comfort with beer, whisky and ales.

Yet many centuries earlier, during a global warming, Greenland was green. And so it stayed and was settled by Vikings for generations until global cooling came along. Leif Ericsson even made it to Newfoundland. His shallow draft boats, perfect for sailing and rowing up rivers to conquer villages, wouldn’t have stood a chance against a baby iceberg.

Those sustained temperature swings, all before the evil economic benefits of oil consumption, suggest there are factors at work besides humans.

Today, as I peck out these words, the weather channel is broadcasting views of a freakish and early snow falling on Dallas. The Iowa state extension service reports that the record corn crop expected this year will have unusually large kernels, thanks to “relatively cool August and September temperatures.” And on Jan. 16, 2007, NPR went politically incorrect, briefly, by reporting that “An unusually harsh winter frost, the worst in 20 years, killed much of the California citrus, avocados and flower crops.”

To be fair, those reports are short-term swings. But the longer term changes are no more compelling, unless you include the ice ages, and then, perhaps, the panic attempts of the 1970s were right. Is it possible that if we put more CO2 in the air, we’d forestall the next ice age?

I can ask “outrageous” questions like that because I’m not dependent upon government money for my livelihood. From the witch doctors of old to the elected officials today, scaring the bejesus out of the populace maintains their status.

Sadly, the public just learned that our scientific community hid data and censored critics. Maybe the feds should drop this crusade and focus on our health care crisis. They should, of course, ignore the life insurance statistics that show every class of American and both genders are living longer than ever. That’s another inconvenient fact.

Think about this a minute. Some of the very same “scientists,” and geniuses in Congress and Big Government, who are screaming we must “do something or else” over this global warming hoax, are these same brain surgeons who were telling the world 30 years ago that the whole world wold look like Alaska! (As in really, really cold!)

I seem to remember these loons back then were talking about ways to actually send up soot and other particles into the atmosphere to “insulate the world.” These people have been certifiably insane for a long, long time!

I’m actually glad to see Gore respond to Sarah. Al Gore is notorious for never debating anyone, or answering any kind of questions about his lies. Sarah Palin on the other hand is known for taking people head on. You know that she will now respond to Gore, just as she has others who have questioned her.

Sarah has famously taken up residence in the president’s head after just destroying him on health care. So much so that he is addressing her while giving joint addresses to Congress and the nation! If she can do that to our “brilliant” president. What can she do to Al Gore?

Personally, I’d love to see a televised debate. Texas energy billionaire T. Boone Pickens has offered to debate Gore on numerous occasions, even to the point of offering up millions of dollars for charity, to no avail.

I envision a live pay-per-view event between the Goreacle and the ‘Cuda!

As I see it: You have a known, and serious, environmentalist who is grounded in reality and common sense. A woman who has dealt with both energy and the environment as her state’s chief regulator, and has an exemplary record.

A Governor who lead the nation in setting a path for her state to get 50 percent of it’s energy renewable sources by 2025. Exactly double the figure that Barack Obama proposed, but has done absolutely nothing to actually make anything happen, to move his proposal along.

A citizen who has a genuine love for the land. A genuine love for nature.

Then you have Al Gore, a Divinity school drop out who score barely passing grades in math and science. A total hack and hypocrite at every level.

At best, Al Gore is a loon, and actually believes the nonsense that he is peddling. But more likely, he’s like every other corrupt democrat/communist in America. Like Obama and his buddies at the Chicago Climate Exchange, and everyone else pushing things like cap and trade, Gore is set to make billions of dollars, off of this hoax!

That makes Al Gore a crook. A crook who makes Bernie Madoff look like a saint!

I read a comment yesterday that sums up “global warming” or “climate change” as well as it can be done. Global warming is the “pet rock” of the 21st Century. A big scam!

A big honking scam!

So let’s have a pay-per-view debate!

Let’s see the Arctic Fox take on the Goreacle. Take all of the millions of dollars it will raise and donate the money to charities that benefit our brave men and women in the military!

Some smart promoter needs to make this happen!

My money is on Sarah Palin!


Filed under In The News, Politics