Meet the Real Newt Gingrich!

Another election year is almost under way and primary battle lines are being drawn as we speak. Recently Newt Gingrich formally announced his entrance into the 2012 Republican primary race for President of the United States. He now joins the ranks with Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Gary Johnson, and several other less notable names from the Republican Party. The first Republican primary debate now lies in the history books. News outlets have dedicated incredible airtime to Newt’s announcement. The Republican pundits are abuzz with talking points lauding the former Speaker of the House. For years the media painted Newt as the epitome of the staunch Conservative. Most republican voters cannot fathom or entertain the idea that Newt would be anything other than a true Constitutional conservative Republican. Unfortunately, the facts regarding Newt’s political views and voting record tell a far more ominous tale. Newt’s history will prove to be a very “inconvenient truth” for many conservatives who care to examine the data, rather than living in a fairy tale land where Speaker Gingrich’s past is as pure and shiny as the yellow brick road. Let’s meet the real Newt Gingrich!

For years the public has been inundated with a media deluge of false information regarding the “conservatism” of Newt Gingrich and a host of other RINO’s (Republican In Name Only). Newt’s actions, words, and voting record reveal an insidious political genius on his part to fool conservative voters. The average conservative voter today believes that Newt is a proponent of small, limited government and fiscally conservative. To our country’s detriment, the truth exposes a completely different narrative on the former Speaker of the House’s political philosophy and the people and authors who shaped his world view.

We will first examine Newts position regarding the sovereignty of the United States. Does Newt believe as our founders that we are a sovereign nation and should refuse any outside influence from other nations and not align ourselves with those countries whose political philosophies are at odds with those of the United States Constitution? Newt is a self-professed globalist. He is more concerned with the global world than with the interests of our sovereign nation. One piece of evidence against Speaker Gingrich is the fact that he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. A NY Times article, decrying Newt’s Foreign policy positions exposed the fact that the Congressman was “schooled” by Henry Kissinger. Henry Kissinger is an avowed globalist who believes that sovereign national boundaries should be abolished and the nation-state should be eradicated. Mr. Kissinger has influenced many political leaders throughout the decades of this country’s history. Many of those policies have been to the detriment to the United States and the American people. In The Economist, an article entitled “The Internationalists” states, “If . . . Clinton and Gingrich as good internationalists want to keep this isolationism in check, they have work to do in their own parties. Strange as it may seem in these days of loud ‘contrast politics,’ on this issue they are on the same side.” (March 11, 1995) When asked to summarily describe Newt Gingrich, former Secretary of State Warren Christopher answered “an internationalist”.

Newt also shows his true nature by disregarding the interests of the American public by supporting legislation like NAFTA and GATT. The former of which can now be shown to be the cause of thousands of American jobs moving overseas. Opponents of NAFTA warned that the result would be American corporations leaving the U.S. in order to avoid the regulation, overhead, and take advantage of the cheaper labor in order to increase their bottom line and profits. Thinkprogress.org author, Alex Seitz-Wald, entitled a March 15, 2011 article “Gingrich: NAFTA worked because it created jobs in Mexico”. In this article Alex cites the transcripts from the Howie Carr radio show. The transcript records a caller confronting Newt regarding his support for NAFTA and the resulting loss of jobs after its passage.

CALLER: Back in the ’90s I remember Ross Perot saying that there was going to be the giant sucking sound of jobs if NAFTA passed. I think it ended up being true, right? And I know you were a big free trader.

GINGRICH: Yeah, well, I don’t think it was true in Mexico. I think the fact is that NAFTA allowed us to build jobs in Canada, the United States, and Mexico, in competition with China. I mean, our big competitor is not Mexico. Our big competitor is China and India. And I’d rather have jobs close to the United States than have jobs overseas in places like China and India. That’s why I was in favor of it. … So in a sense, I’d like our neighborhood to be fairly well off and fairly prosperous.

Newt’s response exposes the fact that he is more concerned for the global community than he is for Americans and the sovereignty of this nation.

How does former Speaker Gingrich stack up against the Constitution and our founder’s view of government? Once again he fails miserably. Mr. Gingrich said “I believe in a very strong central government. You can have a strong but limited government.” Unfortunately this Orwellian double-speak is completely false and at odds regarding the Constitutional Republic form of government our founders handed down to us. Compare Newt’s statement with this quote from James Madison in The Federalist No. 45,
Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered,
Independent Journal Saturday, January 26, 1788:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Our founders did not advocate a “strong central government”, but rather a very limited government with multiple checks and balances with the majority of the decisions being made at the state level and rights being reserved to the States or to the people. The federal government was never to wield more power than the States or the people. In this point, once again Newt Gingrich reveals himself as a big government proponent, thereby nixing the very idea that he is a “conservative”.

How has Newt aligned himself in his associations in Congress? Did he align himself with genuine conservatives or others like himself? Truth is truly stranger than fiction. After a 10 year break from politics Dr. Ron Paul threw his hat in the ring to gain his current congressional seat. Dr. Paul may arguably be one of the staunchest defenders of the Constitution in our day. Judge Andrew Napolitano called him the “Thomas Jefferson of our day”. When Dr. Paul entered the race there was another Republican who ran for the same seat. Did Newt back Dr. Paul or the establishment lackey who ran against him in the primary? You can probably guess the answer to that question. He not only supported Dr. Paul’s opponent, but persuaded 50 of his congressional cohorts to also announce their support for Ron Paul’s adversary in the primary. Even President Bush came out in support of Dr. Paul’s political opponent at the request of Newt Gingrich. Newt better resembles a RINO rather than a Constitutional Conservative.

In conclusion, there can be no doubt on where Newt Gingrich stands. He stands in opposition to our founders, he stands in opposition to our Constitution, and he stands in opposition to the safety, sovereignty, and welfare of the American people. Most importantly, he stands against everything that a genuine Constitutional conservative voter believes. He supports global governance more that American sovereignty. He supports legislation which increases the size and scope of government. He voted for legislation which sent thousands of American jobs overseas. He stood shoulder to shoulder with the opponent of a candidate who is a strict Constitutional conservative. On all points Newt receives an F minus. You now know who the real Newt Gingrich is. Now you must decide whether this man stands for anything that you, an American conservative, believe. Can you in good conscience vote for a man whose voting record reveals that he is a big government, big spending globalist? Can you make this man President whose votes are responsible for the loss of jobs in the United States and destruction of our industrial economic power? Can you elect this man when legislation which he supported increased the national debt, the crisis which we are now facing? He has a part in it, yet some people will still give him a pass? If you can, in good conscience, send this man to the White House again, will you please do those of us who are genuine Constitutional Conservatives a favor? Please stop calling yourself a conservative.

By William Tolp

Copyright ©2011

Who Else is to Blame?

“Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions . . . . Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful good society’ which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to mean ‘more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.’ Julius was always an ambitious villain, but he is only one man.” Marcus Tullius Cicero

Do not only blame the greedy central bankers. Do not only blame the Wall Street greed mongers. Do not blame only the corrupt politicians who are just puppets to those who control their purse strings and political careers. Look in the mirror to find another piece of the puzzle. Look in the mirror to find another contributing factor to the destruction of this great nation. In that mirror exists a monster, regardless of the physical beauty of the individual, whose result of their life, to this point, was to remain deaf, dumb, blind, and ignorant of the atrocities being committed against individual liberty and the United States Constitution. A monster which threatens the very liberty of their own children and the future of other parent's children.

Why, one might ask? Because you loved your own ambitions and self-interests more than you loved liberty. You are part of the cause because you have sacrificed your freedom for safety. You are part of the reason because you refuse to educate yourself on what really happens in Washington. You aid in the destruction of the U.S. because you care so little that you don't keep abreast of what is taking place in Washington or the unconstitutional legislation which they are passing under your nose. You are one of the reasons for the demise because you refuse to look at the idea of liberty, which no man can kill, and instead take all of your marching orders and political opinions from only two parties. It is you who refuses to see that there is no difference between Republican and Democrat when you look at their voting records for the past two decades.

Both parties have trampled our civil liberties with the "Patriot Act". Both parties have grown the government to a monstrous size. Both parties have spent our money wastefully and to a insane degree. Both parties have increased the national debt, nearly equally. If you wake up one day under martial law, with all of your worldly possessions gone, homeless, destitute, and hungry . . . Find a mirror... you played a part in your own demise and that of your children and grandchildren.

The time has passed for Americans to wake up to some very disconcerting facts. Every one of the "popular" party favorites they put before you each election cycle are wolves in sheep's clothing. If the establishment is for them, you should be against them. The time is past to stand up against the encroachment of our liberties and bald-faced assaults on the Constitution of this Republic we call the United States of America.

What will you do? Continue to live in ignorance, stick your head in the sand, and pretend that the train you see coming through the tunnel really isn't there and won't hit you? We very well may be at one of those defining moments when our nation stands on the brink of economic and or total collapse. Where will you stand and how will you contribute to the cause and continuance of liberty in this country? Will you run for an office? Will you stop voting for the establishment candidates and start voting for pro-liberty and strict Constitutionalist candidates? Or will you do nothing and become one of the reasons why the United States descended into a socialistic/fascist country like those in Europe have gone and be scattered on the dung heap of history along with every other great Empire through the ages? What side will you take? Liberty or safety? Freedom or Fascism? The time to decide is NOW!

By William Tolp

Blatant Abuse of Journalistic Power

For years the mainstream media outlets were primarily ABC, NBC, and CBS. Then the advent of twenty four hour news coverage came by the likes of CNN a creation of Ted Turner. Multiple twenty four hour news networks now exist which include FOX, MSNBC, FOX BUSINESS NEWS, and others. During the rise of conservative talk radio, the medium gave rise to conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Mark Levin, to name a few. The mainstream media cried foul because the influence of these conservative hosts began to significantly affect the outcome of elections. Now there is a rise of Libertarian talk show hosts on both radio and on television. Fox Business News showcases Judge Andrew Napolitano on “Freedom Watch” and John Stossel on “Stossel”. Though Fox gives these individuals a platform, it may be argued that Ron Paul and his libertarian leanings largely inspired this awakening of the American public regarding libertarian views of government. Proof of the popularity is exemplified in the fact that for two years in a row with 30 percent of the vote Ron Paul has won the CPAC straw poll followed by Mitt Romney trailing 7 points behind him this year.

The television network which has built its reputation on being “fair and balanced” has proven itself to be nothing of the kind. Fox News Network , a tentacle of News Corporation, Inc. owned by Rupert Murdoch, committed the unpardonable sin to those who love freedom and liberty beginning in 2008. Ron Paul was excluded from the Fox debates, minimized, and demonized by their pundits with right wing political philosophies. History is repeating itself. On February 15, 2011 Fox News aired a segment, reporting on the results of the CPAC 2011 straw poll. The video used to accent the report was, in fact, from the CPAC straw poll in 2010, when there was a larger group of Mitt Romney supporters. The booing in the audio was quite overwhelming. Unfortunately this exposes Fox to be no better of a journalistic source than CNN, MSNBC, and others who deliberately distort and spin newsworthy information. When other videos posted on YouTube are viewed, the booing is not anywhere near as prominent as in the video used by Fox News. They even refused to use CSPAN’s footage which also had omni-directional microphones and clearly reveals that the boos were not anywhere nearly as prominent in the audio as in the Fox News piece. The news network is now clearly proven to be nothing more than one more arm of the government propaganda machine.

Fox today issued a correction to their news piece and an apology to Ron Paul for their “mistake”. Many journalists realize that it is nearly impossible to mix up video footage which aired one year earlier with current footage, which is readily available at multiple locations on the web. The program feature clearly attempted to downplay the influence which Ron Paul has made in the minds of many Americans, especially among the youth. When viewing the footage from CPAC 2011 Live’s website, the cheers and standing ovation by a majority of the crowd contradict the footage used by Fox News. This shows a deliberate attempt to cast Ron Paul’s victory in the straw poll in a negative light. This example shows how Fox, along with other news networks, are deliberately attempting to shape the news and popular political opinion. Shame on Fox and every other network that deliberately lies to their audience! In short, this event highlights the need for Americans to get their news from multiple sources and become free thinkers, not accepting anything they hear on a main stream media station or web site. In many respects, one must go to alternative media sites in order to get the “real” story or at least the facts which are omitted from the main stream media’s coverage. The outcry, in great part, forced Fox News to retract and correct their program piece. This retraction shows signs that true Constitutional Conservatives are growing in number and influence. Perhaps hope still remains that this Constitutional Republic may be saved.

Shays' Rebellion

A historical event transpired in the year 1786 which eludes the memories of many Americans. The History Channel aired a one hour documentary entitled Ten Days That Unexpectedly Changed America: Shays' Rebellion—America's First Civil War” in 2006. This historical marker could arguably be the single most important event in all of American legal history. The event was dubbed “Shays’ Rebellion” due to the fact that one of the key figures involved was Daniel Shays, a former captain during the Revolutionary War (Richards, 2002). The ramifications of this rebellion located in the western counties of Massachusetts would reverberate throughout American history.

The Rebellion exemplifies the fact that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate to provide a national government under which all Americans would unite. Under the Articles of Confederation the federal government was nearly powerless. The founding fathers so hated the monarchical rule of England that they formed a government whose limitations prevented it from functioning properly. In legal history the Articles of Confederation were the first official legal documents governing this newly formed nation. The extreme limitations the articles placed on the federal government reveal themselves in this example from Article IX: “The united States in congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque or reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and welfare of the United States . . . unless nine States assent to the same”.

The second reason why Shays’ Rebellion remains significant to American legal history is exemplified by the fact that “habeas corpus” was suspended for the very first time ever (Minot, 1786). In order to quell the uprising among those farmers, the governor of the State, seeking help from the Federal government, suspended habeas corpus and arrested the rebels, two of which, “John Bly and Charles Rose” were executed (Phillips, 2007, p.17ff). During this time peace officers were given broad, sweeping powers to capture and arrest the individuals causing the social upheaval (Minot, 1786). The rebels prevented many debtor courts from opening and holding trials due to the fact that many of those trials would be judgments against them for taxes and monies owed to lenders in which the “courts ordered their land taken in payment” (Peet, 1996, p.21ff).

Lastly, Daniel Shays and his rag-tag band affected legal history because their insurrection was the lynchpin which influenced the already planned Philadelphia Convention three months later, which would eventually produce the United States Constitution. Szatmary (1980) observes George Washington’s thoughts regarding the rebellion’s influence on the meeting in Philadelphia, saying “the revolutionary war hero attributed his own presence at the Constitutional Convention in May to the Massachusetts troubles”. The single most important legal document in American history birthed from the actions of individuals who refused to be taxed unfairly, despised the wasteful spending and debt of the government, and refused to have their natural rights denied.

In conclusion, little doubt exists pertaining to the significance of Shays’ rebellion and its effect on the minds of the framers of the Constitution. Clearly one must view this historical event with reverence, because it solidified the founders resolve to produce a document which would not only protect its citizen’s natural rights, but bring about a form of government which could hold the nation together and function with broader, yet limited powers. The result being every public official from the President of the United States to the city Mayor must take an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” (Armed Forces Oath of Office). If there be any who doubt the significance of this rebellion, remember that the Constitution remains to this day the supreme law of the land.

by William Tolp

References

Armed Forces Oath of Enlistment. (2010). http://usmilitary.about.com.

Articles of Confederation. (1777).

Cutler, R. (Producer). (2006). Shays’ Rebellion---America’s First Civil War [Ten Days That Unexpectedly Changed America]. South Burlington, VT: The History Channel

Minot, G.R. (1786). History of the Insurrection in Massachusetts.

Mary, E. (2000, June). Shays’ Rebellion and the Constitution in American History. School Library Journal. 167.

Peet, R. (1996). A Sign Taken for History: Daniel Shays’ Memorial n Petersham, Massachusetts. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 21-43.

Phillips, C. (2007, Feb). A Day to Remember. American History. 17-18.

Richards, L. (2002). Shays’ Rebellion: The American Revolution’s Final Battle. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Szatmary, D. (1980). Shays’ Rebellion: The Making of an Agrarian Insurrection. University of Massachusetts Press.