jhaag Posted August 10, 2010 Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1056By Chuck BaldwinThe GOP is frantically searching for the person who will lead them to the Promised Land (translate: White House) in 2012. Barack Obama is leaving a death stench so heavy that even most of the political allies in his own party are asking him to stay away from their reelection campaigns. You gotta give it to Obama: he has done in one term what most Presidents cannot accomplish until their second (lame duck) term. The problem is, the GOP just can't seem to find their Moses (or even their Ronald Reagan). That means, as far fetched as it sounds now, Obama has a good chance of being reelected. And, once again, when any Democrat candidate for President wins, the GOP will have no one to blame but themselves. 2012 could be another example.You see, the GOP (including their lackeys at Fox News) either really don't know what a constitutional conservative looks like, or they do know what he or she looks like and don't want them leading the party. I believe the answer is the latter, but in either case, the GOP continually does nothing to groom constitutionalist conservatives for leadership. Just the opposite: such people are routinely ignored, shunned, besmirched, or impugned. (Can anyone say, "Ron Paul"?) Is it any wonder that by the time the general election comes around, the GOP candidate for President is usually nothing more than a Democrat-lite, or a "Democrat in Drag" to borrow from Steve Farrell.That brings me to one of the people that the talking heads at Fox News and other GOP propaganda centers are routinely discussing as their 2012 Presidential hopeful: former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.According to Reuters News, "Republican former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich said on Sunday [July 25th] he will decide after November's congressional elections whether he will make a run for the White House in 2012."Here's what Gingrich is looking at: he wants to see if the GOP makes significant gains in both houses of Congress in the November elections. If the GOP wins one house (especially if enough real conservatives win), I predict Gingrich will enter the race. So he can ride a conservative wave into the White House in 2012? No! So he can derail any potential conservative momentum that the Tea Parties might be able to create in this year's November elections. You see, Newt Gingrich is the Grinch Who Stole Conservatism from the GOP.Some of us are old enough to remember Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" that produced huge Republican victories in both houses of Congress back in 1994. However, what did that "Conservative Revolution" (as it was called then) actually produce? The answer: NOTHING! Newt's promise of smaller government was immediately forgotten. Instead, Gingrich, along with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, facilitated and helped orchestrate further expansion of the federal government. The "less government" theme that swept house freshmen such as Joe Scarborough, Steve Largent, Sonny Bono, Bob Barr, Helen Chenoweth, John Shadegg, and J.C. Watts into Congress quickly evaporated and this new neocon Republican Party was born.Mark it down, if Newt Gingrich is the Republican Party's Presidential nominee in 2012, he will do to whatever grassroots conservative momentum is brought about by this year's congressional victories what he did to the "Conservative Revolution" in 1994: DESTROY IT!Newt's track record is there for anyone to see. So, why does Fox News continue to promote him as a leader of smaller government or constitutionalism? Does Fox News even have a clue as to what limited government really means? Apparently not.Remember, Newt Gingrich is a long-standing member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which is a notorious proponent of globalism and archenemy of national independence, State sovereignty, and limited government. Does anyone at Fox News recall what Admiral Chester Ward said about the CFR? (Plus, how many of the Big Shots at Fox News are themselves members of the CFR?)Rear Admiral Chester Ward, who was the Judge Advocate General of the Navy from 1956 to 1960 and a former member of the CFR who pulled out after realizing what they were all about, warned the American people about the dangers of this and similar organizations (such as the Trilateral Commission). He said, "The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common—they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR . . . comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government."Admiral Ward also said, "The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government."Accordingly, as a loyal CFR elitist, Gingrich has supported Big Government programs and policies all of his political life. Gingrich is also an ardent disciple of Alvin Toffler, who is the guru of "The Third Wave" politics. That's why Gingrich refers to himself as a "conservative futurist."Webster's (1992) Dictionary defines "Futurism" as: "Study of, and interest in, forecasting or anticipating the future, or theorizing on how to IMPOSE CONTROLS ON EVENTS." (Emphasis added.)Steve Farrell rightly notes that "futurism is a head-in-the-clouds political philosophy, complete with theories and forecasts, which envisions the use of force to insure that those theories and forecasts come to pass." Farrell summarizes "conservative futurism" as "communism with economic vision."This is why Gingrich went along with Clinton's Big Government agenda, and supported the unconstitutional faith-based subsidies, public-private "partnerships," etc. Gingrich's brand of "conservatism" spawned another Big Government neocon's (Karl Rove—another favorite son at Fox News) "Compassionate Conservative" movement of the G.W. Bush White House, which at the time led to the biggest expansion of the federal government since Lyndon Johnson.Gingrich's infatuation with "conservative futurism" also helps explain his support for NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and virtually every other policy promoting globalism and interdependence. It also helps explain why Gingrich and former Vice President Al Gore have worked so closely together in globalist organizations such as the now-defunct Congressional Clearing House on the Future (once chaired by Gore).See Steve Farrell's column at:http://tinyurl.com/gingrich-toffler-goreGingrich was also a major proponent of the federal Department of Education, continually supports unconstitutional foreign aid, even to the Soviets and other unfriendly governments, through the Export-Import Bank. In one year (1994-1995) Gingrich voted for nearly $45 billion in foreign aid. He also helped push through federal loan guarantees to Communist China.Gingrich was the Grand Old Pal of President Bill Clinton. He supported Clinton's unconstitutional wars (as he did Bush's); he supported Clinton's welfare programs, education programs, labor programs, and environmental programs, as well as most of his foreign affairs programs. Gingrich supported spending $30 billion for the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that shackled gun owners with new restrictions, federalized a number of crimes, and handed the feds police powers that the Constitution reserves to the states. (I guess the NRA forgot all about that, too.)Gingrich voted to give billions of dollars to United Nations "peacekeeping" operations; he supported the National Endowment for the Arts; he supports giving illegal aliens amnesty; and he has continually supported increased federal spending and higher taxes.Campaign for Liberty has an excellent exposé on Newt Gingrich that I encourage everyone to read. See it at:http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=36799Also, John McManus has an outstanding video exposing Newt Gingrich as a traitor to conservatism and constitutional government that everyone should watch. See it at:http://vimeo.com/6445068In spite of overwhelming evidence that Newt Gingrich is a scheming, double-talking, duplicitous Big-Government globalist of the highest order, many conservatives continue to listen to pro-Gingrich propaganda coming from Fox News and other "conservative" outlets.If true conservatism has any chance of reemerging within the sheepfold of what is known as the national Republican Party, that fox, Newt Gingrich, must not be allowed to be anywhere near it. Unfortunately, thanks to Fox News (pun too easy to pass up), Gingrich is prowling around the barnyard and doubtless licking his chops at the prospect of having another opportunity to feast on the flesh of unsuspecting conservative sheep that foolishly believe him to be one of them.Copyright © 2010 Chuck Baldwin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted August 10, 2010 Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 Since I can only assume that you continue to post these musings on here because you agree with them and they share your opinion about the political climate of the country in general, who would you rather have as the Republican nomination in 2012? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted August 10, 2010 Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 No, they're just food for thought... he said so himself.http://www.ohio-riders.com/showpost.php?p=539106&postcount=6Still, answer the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAMBUSA Posted August 10, 2010 Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 Moar fear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMMW Posted August 10, 2010 Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 who would you rather have as the Republican nomination in 2012? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted August 10, 2010 Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 Since I can only assume that you continue to post these musings on here because you agree with them and they share your opinion about the political climate of the country in general, who would you rather have as the Republican nomination in 2012?Chuck Norris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhaag Posted August 11, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 Still, answer the question, please.fixed it for ya. Since I can only assume that you continue to post these musings on here because you agree with them and they share your opinion about the political climate of the country in general, who would you rather have as the Republican nomination in 2012?of course i agree with them, why else would i post them? i like the libertarian pov because its the only one that makes any sense anymore, but ,sadly, never gets any/much lip service. and i am fully aware that this is not your pov and would like both of you to spare any lectures for my benefit........thanks, in advance. so, to answer your question, i would like to see Ron Paul as our next president. i feel as though he offers the best chance to get this country back on track to a healthy economy, sound foreign policy and reasonably sized govt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 Ron Paul is a little nutty... on some things, but you can form your own opinions.http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htmIt appears to me he wants to basically dismantle the FedGov by not funding it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedTriple44444 Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 Ted Nugent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhaag Posted August 11, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 Ron Paul is a little nutty... on some things, but you can form your own opinions.http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htmIt appears to me he wants to basically dismantle the FedGov by not funding it.way to go to extremes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted August 11, 2010 Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 way to go to extremes. How is that extreme... he wants to lower taxes and privatize everything, his goal is to push everything back on the states to manage. His stances on that stuff is right in the link...Repeal 16th Amendment and get rid of the income tax. (Feb 2008) We spend too much, tax too much, & print too much money. (Dec 2007) Voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation. (Jul 2009)Voted NO on more funding for nanotechnology R&D and commercialization. (Jul 2009)Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)Voted YES on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks. (Jun 2004)Encourage homeschooling & private school via tax writeoff. (Dec 2007)Present scientific facts that support creationism. (Sep 2007)Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling. (Sep 2007)Replace Medicaid with volunteer pro-bono medical care. (Apr 2008)Private medical savings accounts, not government meddling. (Apr 2008)Voted NO on extending AMT exemptions to avoid hitting middle-income. (Jun 2008)Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)Voted YES on providing tax relief and simplification. (Sep 2004)Voted YES on making permanent an increase in the child tax credit. (May 2004)Voted YES on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty. (Apr 2004)Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)Voted YES on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)Voted YES on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)Voted YES on eliminating the "marriage penalty". (Jul 2000)Voted YES on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000)Abolish federal welfare; leave it all to states. (Dec 2000) With taxes gone, SS privatized, healthcare privatized, no FedGov support on welfare etc etc. The only bill the FedGov will have to foot is Defense funding... though that's a pretty big bill by itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhaag Posted August 11, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 How is that extreme... he wants to lower taxes and privatize everything, his goal is to push everything back on the states to manage. His stances on that stuff is right in the link...With taxes gone, SS privatized, healthcare privatized, no FedGov support on welfare etc etc. The only bill the FedGov will have to foot is Defense funding... though that's a pretty big bill by itself.applologies. i mistook the tone of your post. the point of his voting record is (imo) that govt has no role in so many aspects of our private lives; 10th Amendment; and (again, imo) better education. besides, i find it difficult to agree that govt would shrink to what you've described. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhaag Posted August 11, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 YES!!!!!BEHOLD, THE FRUITS OF MY LABOR:I'm for it... color me crazy' date=' but I really dig the old kooky bastard. I'd like to see him in office if only to get rid of most of these items. He'd never get all of it, but I'd sure like to see him try.[/quote'] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhaag Posted August 11, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2010 Eh.. you can take the credit if you want to' date=' but I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries.[/quote']oh.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.