I find a large percentage of committed Republican 2012 presidential voters to be hypocritical and dangerous. -- Bungalow Bill
The commitment to individual liberty exhibited by the majority of Tea Partiers and other so-called conservatives is basically, well, zilch. Their real commitment is to the Republican Party. That's why any old Establishment figure offering nothing but cheap rhetoric and "amazing" 57-point plans which promise to calibrate statism continue to lead Republican polls.
Newt Gingrich in a Nutshell
ABC News and Yahoo sponsored a round of interviews with the Republican presidential candidates earlier this month. Here's Newt's response when he was asked what other graven image he thought should adorn Mount Rushmore.
Who should be the fifth president on Mount Rushmore?
Gingrich: I'll go for five and six: F.D.R. and Reagan.
Yes, you read that correctly. Newt Gingrich wants to honor Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the very man whom the modern conservative movement rose to fight against. See: FDR and the Collectivist Wave.
The FDR legacy is not individualism, and it's certainly not liberty. FDR's legacy is that of crushing property rights, constructing huge public works programs, printing money, confiscating gold, massive unemployment, and unprecedented government intervention and power. FDR is the very symbol of the leviathan state. He represents everything conservatives profess they oppose.
In other words, he wants to honor conservatives most fearsome enemy.
There is nothing conservative about Newt Gingrich.
- News Flash: Gingrich Not Conservative
- Under his skirt, Newt Gingrich is revealed to be a bankster operative
- Gingrich Latest Phony to Rise in Polls
- The Real Newt Gingrich – Outting The Radical Progressive Republican – Videos
How Bad Do Things Have To Get? When will enough be enough?
Our founding generations went to war over fewer regulations, significantly lower taxes, and fewer rights infringed than what we deal with, yet we're afraid to cast our single, statistically insignificant vote, for anyone we haven't been all but assured (by the Establishment) can "win?" Really?
Have conservatives learned to love the leviathan state? Or have they simply lost their balls? Either way, it's a sad state of affairs indeed.
Newt Gingrich has betrayed conservatives so many times, it's a wonder how anyone gets away with calling him a conservative. He betrayed conservatives on global warming. In 2009, he supported the ACORN and WFP linked Dede Scozzafava over conservative Doug Hoffman, then scolded the Tea Partiers for "purge[ing] the party" of leftists. But these barely scratch the surface, because Newt Gingrich has a long list of radically statist agendas he's pushed for over the years, and nothing has changed his ay of thinking.
Newt Gingrich: Progressive
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."
President Barack Obama promised to "fundamentally change America" too. How's that working out for you so far? Do you really want another "transformation," this time into Newt's "Third Wave?"
Are you sure? Because, now call me crazy, but I liked the way America was before everyone began thinking they could "immanentize the eschaton" via government.
Newt's Crazy Prophet
Newt Gingrich is not loyal to America folks, make no mistake about it. This man is a one world communist advocate and his every action in public life, despite all the "conservative" publicity stunts, prove this point explicitly. Like Larry McDonald said, Newt is not to be trusted. From a recent New American article,
In 1994, Gingrich described himself as "a conservative futurist". He said that those who were trying to define him should look no farther than The Third Wave, a 1980 book written by Alvin Toffler. The book describes our society as entering a post-industrial phase in which abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, and divorce are perfectly normal, even virtuous. Toffler penned a letter to America's "founding parents," in which he said: "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." He went on to describe our constitutional system as one that "served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced."
Are you with me so far? When asked what he believed in, he pointed people to this Alvin Toffler guy. In fact, Newt wrote the forward to Toffler's book, Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave. He's not just a fan, he's really, really into the Third Wave, ok?
In 1995, he gave a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Affairs:
"The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution," he said. "Under our [constitutional system] — either we're going to have to rethink our Constitution, or we're going to have to rethink our process of decision-making." He went on to profess an oxymoronic belief in "very strong but limited federal government," and pledged, "I am for the United Nations."
Newt Gingrich, the technocratic kook, is "conservative?" ... Yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt.
Disagreement is one thing, it's what happens when any two or more people walk into a room. But that's not what we're talking about here. Newt Gingrich represents a radically different approach toward organizing society and governing philosophy than anything even remotely considered conservative. Just like Obama, Newt's a radical interventionist.
Should we be trading our principles for electability? Of course not, but a vote for Newt Gingrich is much worse than that. A vote for Newt Gingrich is a rejection of American conservatism itself.