NEWT … AGAIN

3-20-12

“Departure and return ... if you don’t leave, you can’t come back,
because you’ve never left.”

Sadly, he has returned. It has not ceased to amaze me that the Newt supporters continue to try and sell this has been moderate as a bona fide “conservative” and the only “viable” candidate to beat the usurper.

NEWT the environMENTAList:

Newt and Nancy sitting on a couch -- K.I.S.S.I.N.G. Oh gag me!

Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich Commercial on Climate Change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154

This ad is part of the "We Can Solve It"

global warming ad campaign sponsored by

Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection. April 2008

"It is no secret that Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich
don't always see eye to eye, but
they do agree that on the issue of climate change,
we must take action now.

Please join more than one million others who know it will take all of us coming together to solve the climate crisis."

When asked about the ad during an appearance on WGIR radio in New Hampshire on Jul 26, 2011 he replied (via The Hill):

“I was trying to make a point that we shouldn't be afraid to debate the left, even on the environment, but obviously it was misconstrued, and it's probably one of those things I wouldn't do again.”

Let me tell you something Mr. Brilliant Ph.D man … we are not so stupid and ignorant that we cannot understand simple English. Your “point” was taken just as it was meant. There was no debate to “misconstrue” you moron. You have a long history of being an environMENTAList.

[For other stories on this “thing” he wouldn’t do again see the urls below]

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fmotherjones.com%2Fmojo%2F2011%2F07%2Fgingrich-pelosi-couch-climate-change&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGMW1eMJeutohpl0BZLvjHVbPse0w

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/07/gingrich-pelosi-couch-climate-change

Lest any of us forget, the couch incident with Pelousy was not the first time he publicly declared his undying support for the fraudulent gloBULL warming scam. Just one year earlier, in April 2007, there was to be a much touted “debate” between the Newtster and John Eff’n Kerry. I was excited for the debate and anxiously awaited the Newt slapdown of that arrogant Kerry person. Imagine my dismay when the Newtster folded like a cheap suit before the “debate” had even begun. What offends me is the fact he allowed that smug slime ball Dana Milbank a golden opportunity to mock the GOP, President Bush and Conservatives in general.

Gingrich drops skepticism on global warming
But he and Kerry differ on solutions
Alan Wirzbicki Globe Correspondent / April 11, 2007
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/gingrich_drops_skepticism_on_global_warming/

WASHINGTON -- In a Capitol Hill debate about global warming touted by its moderator as a "smackdown" between former House speaker Newt Gingrich and Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, Gingrich praised Kerry's recently released book about environmentalism, acknowledged that global warming is real, and offered what amounted to an unexpected apology for his party's inaction on curtailing greenhouse gas ...

Kerry and Gingrich Hugging Trees--and (Almost) Each Other  
By Dana Milbank Wednesday, April 11, 2007  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001457.html

But Gingrich, weighing a long-shot presidential run, is unpredictable. He proved that by meeting with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to discuss common ground on health care, and yesterday it was Kerry's turn to be surprised when Gingrich preemptively distanced himself from President Bush on global warming. "I agree entirely with whatever criticism the senator wants to make in general about the absence of American leadership," he said.

http://climatedepot.com/a/10969/Flashback-2007-Sen-John-Kerry-and-Gingrich-Hugging-Trees---Almost-Each-Other--Gingrich-folds-like-pup-tent-in-alleged-debate-on-AGW--Positions-himself-as-a-treehugging-green

Of course Newt’s pro gloBULL warming stance is not new, but is simply part of who he is. Per Wikipedia: In 1970, Gingrich joined the history department at West Georgia College as an assistant professor. In 1974 he moved to the geography department and was instrumental in establishing an interdisciplinary environmental studies program.

Let’s focus on that last sentence for a bit. Exactly what is interdisciplinary environmental studies? You can see for yourself simply by scrolling through this website, the first one I pulled up. http://www.sas.upenn.edu/lps/graduate/mes

If you know the keywords to watch for you will understand my trepidation about Newt.  Look for the words advocacy, sustainability, land use, environmental regulation, habitat restoration and land conservation.

What this proves to me is that Newt is saying whatever he needs to say to gain the confidence of the conservative base, who generally reject the insanity of the environmentalists, who are now far more than just globull warming nuts.

Old Newt Greenrich also co-sponsored legislation, titled the Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989 (H.R. 1078) which had 144 co-sponsors, the majority of which were the likes of Pelosi, Boxer, Frank and Conyers. There were only 25 Republican co-sponsors, which included Greenrich.

SUMMARY AS OF: 2/22/1989--Introduced.

Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989 - Establishes as national goals: (1) that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere be reduced from 1988 levels by at least 20 percent by the year 2000 through a mix of Federal and State energy policies; and (2) the establishment of an International Global Agreement on the Atmosphere by 1992. Requires the Secretary of Energy (the Secretary) and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to report to the Congress within two years regarding whether a higher level of carbon dioxide emissions reduction is desirable after 2000, together with any necessary policy actions and their costs and benefits.

Title XI: World Population Growth - Declares it is the policy of the United States that family planning services should be made available to all persons requesting them. Authorizes appropriations for FY 1991 through 1995 for international population and family planning assistance. Prohibits the use of such funds for: (1) involuntary sterilization or abortion; or (2) the coercion of any person to accept family planning services.

Requests the President to initiate an international conference on population, and to seek an international agreement on population growth. Establishes a National Commission on Population, Environment, and Natural Resources to prepare reports and convene conferences. Terminates such Commission three years after the enactment of this Act.

Mandates that multilateral development banks adopt guidelines promoting lending strategies which emphasize the maintenance of sustainable world population levels. Authorizes appropriations for FY 1991 through 1993

Of course the Greenrich of today, says he opposes such a policy and that he supported only a small part of the legislation that promoted hydrogen energy research...all while being a co-sponsor. Can you say “weasel words” boys and girls? I think you can!

There are some real beauts contained in this monstrosity, which anyone who cares about what these people are doing to us and our country should do at least a quick perusal of this attack on freedom.

Marc Morano has done a brilliant job exposing Newt Gingrich in this wonderful Climate Depot Editorial.

For your reading enjoyment and edification, you may also want to carefully read this transcript from an online discussion with Newt on Monday, April 21, 2008 as the author of "A Contract With the Earth," working to find a common commitment to environmental stewardship and bipartisan solutions for global warming and other critical problems.

NEWT GREENRICH'S VOTING RECORD -- In regards to gloBULL warming:

01/30/2011 - He lobbied for ethanol subsidies.
01/30/2011 - He suggested that flex-fuel vehicles be mandated for Americans.
02/15/2011 - His book said that he believes man-made climate-change and advocated creating "a new endowment for conservation and the environment."
04/25/2011 - He's a paid lobbyist for Federal ethanol subsidies.
- Gingrich voted for an oil windfall profits tax in 1979, which was signed by Jimmy Carter.
- Gingrich voted for Jimmy Carter’s “Energy Mobilization Board.”
- Gingrich voted for an increase in taxes on coal producers in 1981
- Gingrich voted for a 5-cent increase in the gas tax to fund highway and other mass-transit projects.

Thanks for playing Newtie Newt, but I’ll take a pass like the vast majority of primary voters are already doing. Buh-Bye Mr. GREENrich! Time to enjoy life and get out of politics.

[This post was written and submitted by Shell, but we were unable to get it to post under that name for some reason.]

A. B. O.

1-24-12

When they say Anybody But Obama they really mean Anybody But Obama or Mitt Romney. Now, I don’t disagree with that sentiment in the least … however … NEWT???

Really people, have we learned nothing? Let’s refresh shall we? Do these names sound familiar to you? GEORGE H.W. BUSH - BOB DOLE - JOHN MCCAIN

When you keep doing what you’ve always done, you will always get what you’ve always got!

Of all the republicans that actually declared their candidacy there are only a couple worth discussing.

Herman Cain, while falling into the “old men” category, was vivacious and alive with new ideas presented with a fresh twist. He took no guff from the dreaded enemedia and had a unique way of putting them in their place … until they took him down of course … all with the help of the power brokers in the GOP. The other exceptions for Cain are he is not white nor is he a career politician.

Michele Bachmann of course was in unchartered territory. First, she is a woman, which apparently freaked out more than a few in the Good Old Boys Club. Second, she is unashamedly very conservative and had no problem articulating her conservatism. Third, she is young and full of energy. Last, but certainly not least, she is not a career politician. She has actually had a life outside of the government largess.

Rick Santorum is the last conservative standing, but the big guns and knives are coming out for him in a big way. While I like Rick just fine, he would not have been my first choice for this, the most important election of our time. However, after Cain and Bachmann turned tail and ran, Rick is the only one I would consider voting for although he is not as conservative as I would prefer. Admittedly, I arrived at this decision when all the alleged conservatives were screaming for him to get out of the race to make room for the gigantic ego that is Newt.

What is most curious is that these mouth pieces were insisting he withdraw even though he won in Iowa while Newt came in at a very distant fourth place. The screams continued after Rick beat Newt in New Hampshire – albeit in fourth place -- which I will never understand. But I guess it is true what they say … the media chooses our candidates and that includes the so-called “conservative” media.

The Newt Blitz has been formidable and finally propelled Newt to his very first win in South Carolina. Now the cat calls for Santorum to quit have reached decibels that I no longer hear. Hopefully Rick can’t hear them either. It should now be clear for all to see at this point that the fix is in – AGAIN!

WHEN IS A WIN JUST A TIE?

Thursday 1-19-12

When the GOP says it is, you peons! Now shut the hell up and vote so we can perpetuate this fraud we call democratic, free and fair elections.

Back on January 3rd, there was a farce called the Iowa Primary. At the end of the day, Mitt was declared the winner as he was credited with 8 votes more than the nearest challenger, Rick Santorum. Of course we had to wait a couple of days as the hunt was on for more ballots, but eventually they were able to produce the 8 votes that allegedly put Mitt over the top.

Good old Mitt took his victory lap and Santorum gave his concession speech and life went on. Never mind the fact there were questions even back then as to the actual vote count. We were told in all likelihood there would be changes to the actual vote once everything was calculated for certification in a couple of weeks.

There were no headlines screaming “It’s a Tie” back then. No…no, Mitt had a BIG win which lead him to the “historical” win in New Hampshire a week later. Yeah, Mitt “won” both Iowa and New Hampshire so the other candidates might as well quit and allow Mitt to be crowned as the “Republican” nominee for President. This was an absolute “historical” moment in American politics -- if you care to believe the lying, communist Enemedia -- and by God no one was going to steal it from them! All this clamor after only 121,000 in Iowa and 248,000 in New Hampshire have had an opportunity to cast their vote. We the People have been excoriated and candidates have been “urged” to drop out and face the writing on the wall … Mitt Romney WILL BE the Republican candidate for president in 2012 and all you little people will NOT stop us.

Uh-oh…what have we here? Back the truck up! After two weeks of recounts -- with eight missing precincts never to be seen again -- the official vote count being submitted for certification shows Rick Santorum actually won the Iowa Caucus Primary by more than four times the number of votes Mitt had at the time … which sent the GOP Establishment and the Enemedia into euphoric fits of ecstasy for the past two plus weeks.

Now I want to see 100s of headlines touting the fantastic win by underdog Rick
Santorum! I want to see Mitt come out and give his Iowa concession speech and congratulate Rick Santorum on his fine win. I want to hear the GOP establishment say … never mind … I want the GOP Elitists to simply shut the hell up!!!

Iowa Republicans to call caucus result split decision
http://news.yahoo.com/iowa-republicans-call-caucus-result-split-decision-114838850.html

Split decision my ass …

RICK SANTORUM WINS IN IOWA!

Systematically Destroying the GOP:John McCain vs. Ron Paul

How the TEA Party has been co-opted and is displacing the Conservative base

Part II

After very closely observing the machinations and affiliations of certain members of the Republican Party, it is my belief that there are a couple of factions working diligently to take control of the party. To anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention will certainly agree. Unfortunately, what I call the “real” conservatives – those who represent the stable 3-legged stool of conservatism – are not one of those factions. Oh, they may think they are, but they are being deceived.

Lest I appear unclear, allow me to define the 3-legged stool of conservatism as it was explained to me some time ago.
The top of the stool – the platform on which one stands – represents the whole of conservatism. The three individual legs are what stabilize and hold up the platform. Each leg represents a pillar, or leg, of conservatism.

1. One leg of conservatism relates to fiscal conservatism. Financial responsibility, not only in government, but in our personal lives as well. The well-rounded conservative will not put themselves in debt to where it is not easily managed, risking the possibility of having to seek financial help from others…or the government.

2. Another leg imparts the need for social conservatism. This leg includes a sense of strong traditional values; God, the necessity of the nuclear family, absolute respect and honor of life at all stages – from the unborn child to the disabled, handicapped and the elderly. It states that marriage is between one man and one woman. We believe in the rule of law as our founders imagined and planned for within the confines of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We were founded to be self-governing using the rule of established law, as opposed to the tyrannical whims of man. We believe in love of our country and all she stands for -- both at home and abroad – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, unencumbered by government dictates.

3. Last, but certainly not least, the real conservative believes in a strong national defense. Without this leg what would we have? If the country is invaded or taken over in some other fashion, what need would there be for fiscal responsibility – it would be taken out of your hands. Our social concerns would no longer exist, but instead be in the hands of the invaders and the new rulers they would put in place. One only has to look at history to understand what I am referring to – Hitler, Castro, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, the mad Mullahs of Iran – are all perfect examples of what happens when a country does not maintain its own national defense.

There are many today claiming to be “conservatives” who are anything but. Sure…they may be extremely conservative in one area, say fiscally, but without the other two legs of conservatism what do they really stand on? What base can they depend on to hold them up? The same can be said for defense conservatives. Although I personally believe that is the most important pillar of the stool, if we as a country spend our way into the conservatorship of outside sources, how will our military and all our defense mechanisms help us? Of course, social conservatives have the same problems as the other two legs. Without a strong national defense to protect us from the evil forces of the world who would like nothing better than to conquer the “great Satan” and the fiscally irresponsible who would sell us to our creditors, what good are all our personal beliefs in relation to God, family and country.

Without every one of these three legs, the stool – or platform – of conservatism is worthless at the least and wobbly at its best. Conservatism cannot stand without all three legs present and secure. We must be vigilant in securing all our conservative principals if we are to be prepared to stand the tests coming our way. We must stand the storm to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

It would be great if the TEA Party movement embraced the total conservative package, but their entire focus is only on the fiscal irresponsibility that has sent our debt and deficit soaring to heretofore unheard of highs and the obscene growth of the federal government. Don’t get me wrong, fiscal irresponsibility on the part of our so-called representatives and out of control government growth is a huge deal. The problem, as I see it, would be that this leaves a void to be filled in relation to the other two legs of conservatism.

Granted, the TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already, but the vacuum remains for the social and defense conservatives, who may well be in agreement with the TEA Party, but are at a loss to express their concerns on other issues which are equally important to them.

Enter John McCain – “Mr. Fiscal Conservative”, alleged Defense Hawk and very moderate Social Conservative – all depending on the day and who he is opposing, of course. Close on his heels paddling as hard as he can, would be Mr. Libertarian himself, Ron Paul. He loudly proclaims his fiscal conservatism as he calls for a return to the gold standard, all the while insisting on an audit of the Fed and no earmarks. He is pro-life, but all other positions of the social conservatives do not exist in his world. And then there are his insane defense/national insecurity positions. Calling America an “imperialist nation”… our troops “occupying forces on foreign lands”… and referring to our “illegal and failed wars”… is straight out of the communist propaganda playbook. These are the phrases used by the communist left. Don’t try to peddle them as conservative positions.

My firm belief is that these two men along with their gaggle of followers are jockeying for the leadership and the power that comes with it within our political system, both claiming to be right of center.

Ron Paul is a Libertarian, not a Republican. Unable to win elections and gain traction on the political landscape it behooved him to drop the libertarian mantra and proclaim his republicanism. One only has to listen to him to realize he is bastardizing both. The one concession I give to Paul would be his ability to enlist thousands of energized and very aggressive young people. They have hit the web, the streets, and the airwaves armed with few facts and a whole lot of conspiracy theories. These groups of so-called libertarians have taken the personal freedom and liberty meme to such an extreme as to abolish any sort of governance by rule of law which would lead only to anarchy. To refer to Paul as a defense dove would be an insult to doves everywhere. His foreign policy is nothing short of nuts, and that is all I’m going to say about that. Come to think of it NUTS sums up the entirety of Ron Paul.

McCain is far more dangerous, not because he is not nuts, but that he hides behind many faces. He claims fiscal conservatism, but one only has to study his votes to realize that only applies if what he is voting on is done his way and in his timing. To hell with what is best for the country…it’s all about what is best for Johnny and what will keep his name up in lights! To prove he would not play second fiddle to the President of the United States, he kicked off 2001 by opposing the Bush tax cuts, which were designed to head off the recession he had inherited. John then attempted to usher in a ridiculous cap-and-trade system, McCain-Feingold-Thompson, HMO reform, anti-gun legislation -- all of which President Bush opposed – and the battle was on.

Systematically Destroying the GOP: John McCain vs. Ron Paul

How the TEA Party has been co-opted
and is displacing the Conservative base
Part I

There is something very nefarious occurring in our land and no one is seemingly aware of it…or they simply do not care. Perhaps the drumbeat is being drowned out by the cacophony we have been subjected to since President Bush won the South Carolina primary in 2000, effectively ending John McCain’s bid for the presidency at that time. The ongoing and massive campaign to malign, castigate and absolutely destroy President George W. Bush should disturb any citizen who has a concern for his country. Allowing the blatant falsehoods, misrepresentations and abject lies -- not only to stand, but to be cultivated and expounded on -- is simply mind boggling. At least that was the case until this week.

On Friday April 23, 2010 a rather innocuous article from the Wall Street Journal titled; “Miss Me Yet? The Freedom Agenda After George W. Bush,” was posted on freerepublic.com, regarding President Bush’s ongoing work on his “Freedom Agenda” through the newly formed Bush Institute at SMU. Of course, the thread devolved into comments and attacks on the first part of the title -- Miss Me Yet? -- totally ignoring the latter portion.

I followed a poster on the thread at FreeRepublic.com. He was a weird and nasty sort of chap, never giving any sort of sourcing to support his fragmented, inane statements, but continued to reiterate his nonsense with an air of superiority and arrogance not seen in anyone other than Obama. There were of course, those who came on the thread to voice their sentiments in regard to missing President Bush, as well as his on-going mission to assist those seeking freedom throughout the world. Vicious, vitriolic attacks were launched on long time members of FreeRepublic and were tolerated for six days before the eventual banning of said poster.

The above was included as a precursor to the story line indicated in the title.
Fortunately, before he was banned -- or zotted as they say of FR -- he managed to post what I believe is a key to understanding the unprecedented onslaught against a good and courageous man who has more honor and integrity in his little finger than most will ever possess collectively.

What was it the weasel said that finally made my brain engage and connect the dots that have been bouncing around inside my head?

“… I’m opposed to deifying Bush’s record.
The MSM defined him as a “far right conservative”, but he was anything but.
Continued defense of that record provides cover for other soft-socialists in the GOP.
If we want to retake the GOP, that liberalism must be expunged.”

These few lines speak volumes that will surely take time to examine and research, thus Part I in a continuing series to unravel the mysteries of such a vile attack on President Bush, the GOP, America and all who care about our great country.

In dissecting these absurd statements, let me begin by stating unequivocally that no one is attempting to deify the record of President George W. Bush. We are simply undertaking the massive task of providing an honest and legitimate accounting of his presidency. Although the same cannot be said for those vilifying his record with baseless accusations and lobbing gratuitous insults -- not only at the President -- but the whole of his supporters.

In the irony of all ironies, the poster referred to the “Main Street Media” has having defined President Bush as a “far-right conservative” -- which he claims the President was not. I will concede the point…to a degree. President Bush may not have been a “far-right” conservative, but he was most certainly a conservative. That he was not as conservative as some would have preferred, is irrelevant. The problem I have is basing anything on what the alleged “MSM” has to say.

Continuing to play defense to a medium that has lost much of their influence -- not to mention profit margin -- is ludicrous. My contempt is aimed at those who continue this practice as opposed to launching an all-out offensive to restore truth and accountability. The media -- especially the media of today -- have labeled themselves as our enemy by their actions and their faux reporting. They have become the Enemedia…or maybe they always were the enemy and only through the internet, conservative talk show talent, and the plethora of conservative print media that have sprung to life over the past two decades, are we finally waking up to that fact.

To continue appeasing the Enemedia by defending their incongruous charges against President Bush -- in whole or part -- is ridiculous. The GOP and the conservatives who identify with them -- for lack of another outlet -- should take a few pointers from the DemonRats. First…deny, deny, deny…their obscene charges. Second…coalesce around the intended target of the attacks. In this case…President Bush. As an example, think Bill Clinton. Third…demean and ridicule those making the statements.
Finally, follow up with concise irrefutable evidence to defuse the lies of both the Enemedia and those repeating them, regardless of which side of the isle they resent.
Seeking to assist in the destruction of a good man that led with dignity, honor and love of country in one of the worst scenarios in which any President has had to cope, is reprehensible. Doing it to play defensive games with a known enemy, while promoting one’s own agenda makes it all the more deplorable.

There is far more to applaud in President Bush’s record than that for which to castigate him. Most of the charges in relation to his “alleged socialism” can be correctly and easily explained – something I will do in a follow-up article. At the top of the list would be that the President of the United States of America is not a king, a dictator nor a tyrant. Well…at least he wasn’t until January 20, 2009. Most Presidents must work with Congress, whether they are hostile or friendly. To affix all blame on the President is to ignore the 535 people that actually write and promote their signature pieces of legislation and along with themselves -- John McCain being a perfect example of such behavior.

Those that declare President Bush is a liberal socialist and he and his kind must be “expunged” from the GOP if there is any hope of retaking the party, are working on an agenda of their own, with their own “leaders” and time-tables. This agenda and those behind it are who and what must be exposed.