Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Newt Gingrich’

‘Cowardly And Pathetic’: Newt Gingrich Rips Biden Administration, Says US Leadership Is Weak Trying To Handle Putin


Reported by NICOLE SILVERIO | CONTRIBUTOR | March 15, 2022

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2022/03/15/cowardly-pathetic-newt-gingrich-rips-biden-administration-leadership-weak-putin/

Newt Gingrich on "The Faulkner Focus"
[Screenshot/Rumble/Fox News]

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich ripped the leadership of President Joe Biden’s administration in handling Russian President Vladimir Putin on a Tuesday interview for “The Faulkner Focus.”

“We should know after Afghanistan, this is the most timid, cowardly and pathetic administration in modern American history,” Gingrich said. “There aren’t any words to express it. If you watch Kamala Harris in Europe, it was an embarrassment to have that person represent the United States because she’s so totally, utterly incompetent. And I think the Europeans have taken our measure. I don’t think anybody in Europe looks to the United States right now to provide any leadership of any kind.”

WATCH:

Gingrich said Biden has not provided “any leadership of any kind,” adding that he thought the U.S. could defeat Putin if the country could “unleash” the “competent people” in handling the conflict.

“But instead, we’re intimidated by him [Putin], we’re allowing him to get away with war crimes. These are all war crimes … It’s beyond words if you’re a serious person to try and describe what a complete, utter embarrassing failure Biden is,” he continued.

“This is not who we are,” host Harris Faulkner replied. “We’re not weak, we’re not.”

Gingrich agreed the country is not weak, but said that the president is now attempting to buy oil from Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia rather than increasing domestic oil production. (RELATED: Newt Gingrich Rips ‘Lack Of Seriousness’ In Biden Admin By Sending Kamala Harris On Diplomatic Trip) 

“You can’t be nuttier than this administration,” Gingrich continued. “It combines cowardice and crazy ideas into a really dangerous, historically threatening model. People should really worry about the next three years.”

The president imposed sanctions on Russia following the invasion of Ukraine and announced a ban on all imports of Russian oil and gas March 8. The administration has received criticism from some lawmakers for not doing enough to aid Ukraine, particularly after the State Department declined to send Polish MiG jets to Ukrainians from an airbase in Ramstein, Germany.

Vice President Kamala Harris received a wave of backlash for bursting into laugher during a joint press conference Thursday alongside Polish President Andrzej Duda.

QUESTION: Would ‘Loyal Giuliani’ Make A BETTER Sec of State Than ‘Traitor Romney?’


waving flagPublished on November 22, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/11/question-loyal-giuliani-make-better-sec-state-traitor-romney/

It’s like Fantasy football for political junkies. The latest matchup is for the Secretary of State position. And people are making their picks.

Newt Gingrich prefers Rudy Giuliani to Mitt Romney as a potential secretary of state, the former House Speaker said on Monday. Gingrich, emerging from a meeting with the president-elect at Trump Tower, told reporters he would support whoever Trump picked, but declared: “I think there are huge advantages to Rudy Giuliani.”

“Frankly, I think that if you want someone who is going to go out and be a very tough negotiator for America and represent American interest in the way that Trump campaigned, I think that probably Rudy is a better pick and has the right temperament,” he elaborated, according to a pool report of his remarks.

Gingrich suggested that it isn’t clear Romney was “willing to be [Trump’s] secretary of state,” and asked whether Romney “would work to make Trump Romney’s version of the presidency.”no-more-rinos

“I think they’ve got to talk it through,” he added. Romney is under “active consideration” to be Trump’s top diplomat, according to comments made by Vice President-elect Mike Pence over the weekend…

…As for Giuliani, Gingrich said, “We’re going to need somebody who is a fighter,” because “the world is not going to change just because we show up and say ‘please.’ If that was going to work, Secretary Kerry would be successful.”
Read more: Politico

What do you think?

Reward those who have stayed loyal? Or leave aside the infighting and pick someone whatever he said in the Primaries? (You might remember some of the trash-talk Romney made while being one of the leading #NeverTrumpers. It was ugly.)

On this question, what should take the priority? Building party unity so we can all be on the same page in crushing the Democrat’s ‘transformation’ of America? Or are we making an example of someone who made an ass of himself and the party in the Primaries?

WATCH: Newt Gingrich BLASTS Megyn Kelly To Her FACE – ‘You’re Obsessed With SEX!’


URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/10/watch-newt-gingrich-blasts-megyn-kelly-face-youre-obsessed-sex/

ROUND 1: The segment becomes increasingly heated when Kelly, asking Gingrich about Election predictions, brings up poll numbers. ROUND 2: It gets downright NASTY when she said THIS. ROUND 3: Newt blows a gasket!

Megyn Kelly said that Trump’s poll numbers began to decline after a poor performance at the first debate in addition to falling into the Alicia Machado trap and getting caught up in it. Suddenly the Access Hollywood tape was released and women were coming forward accusing Trump of inappropriate behavior.

Gingrich countered with the bias in the Media over the coverage of the Trump tape vs. Hillary’s private, paid speeches released by WikiLeaks.

Then, Kelly said the WRONG thing…

‘If Trump is a sexual predator…’

Gingrich lost it. He just couldn’t let that one go.

“I’m sick and tired of people like you using language that’s inflammatory that’s not true!” Gingrich said. “When you use the words, you took a position. And I think it’s very unfair of you to do that!” 

“Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. You have no idea if it’s true,” Kelly responded.

“Neither do you!” Gingrich shot back.

But Kelly doubled down on her point, saying if the allegations against him are true, it’s a “big story.”

That set Gingrich off, sparking this diatribe:

“You wanna go back through the tapes of your show recently? You are fascinated with sex and you don’t care about public policy! That’s what I get out of watching you tonight!”
Read more: Independent Journal Review

smackdown

Watch:

kelleynewt

KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am not fascinated by sex, but I am fascinated by the protection of women’ and what we are getting in the Oval Office. And I think that the American voters would like to know..

GINGRICH: And therefore we’re going to send Bill Clinton back to the East Wing because, after all, you are worried about sexual predators.

KELLY: Yeah, listen, it’s not about me, it’s about the women and men of America. And the poll numbers show us that the women of America in particular, are very concerned about these allegations, and in a large part believe they are a real issue. And don’t dismiss the women, summarily.

GINGRICH: Do you want to comment on whether the Clinton ticket has a relationship to a sexual predator?

KELLY: We, on the Kelly File, have covered that story as well, sir. I will tell you the polls…

GINGRICH: I want to hear you use the words. I want to hear you use the words, ‘Bill Clinton, sexual predator’. I dare you. Say, ‘Bill Clinton, sexual predator’.if-stupid-could-fly

Kelly doesn’t take him up on his dare.

Megyn Kelly may not be obsessed with sex, but she’s willing to use her sexuality to her advantage like in this GQ photoshoot:

megyn-kelly-gq

If it’s ok to use Trump on Howard Stern to show how he is misogynistic, this must be ok, too:

 

Kelly suggested that Trump ‘may’ be a sexual predator based on his ‘locker room’ talk and a gaggle of (increasingly discredited) women coming forward to accusing him of unwanted sexual advances… as he runs for President.

Suggesting that Kelly ‘may’ be a tramp based on her steamy GQ photo shoot and her TMI conversation with Howard Stern would be misogynistic and just darned unfair!

But, before we get in trouble, let’s make it clear that we ‘have no idea if it’s true’.

Has Kelly focused more on sex than issues lately?

Let us know what YOU think in the comments.

BREAKING: Trump Insider Reveals Top Candidate for VP Post, and It’s AWESOME


waving flagBy: Wilmot Proviso on May 12, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/trump-insider-top-candidate/

An insider close to presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump told reporters that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has emerged as an early favorite for running mate. According to Newsmax, while Trump is publicly saying that there are a few names that are being considered, the campaign insider said that Gingrich comes the closest to what Trump wants in a running mate.

Trump recently told Associated Press that his ideal vice presidential pick would be someone who could help “with legislation, getting things through.” According to the anonymous insider, Trump realized that he’s a political novice and saw Gingrich, who served in the House of Representatives for 20 years, as someone who could guide him through the complexities of Washington and help him “make nice” with Capitol Hill.

Secondly, Trump wanted someone he “can live with for eight years.” Gingrich and Trump are said to get along well, as opposed to some of the other more conventional picks. Word is that former competitors Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who allegedly lobbied hard through surrogates, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who Trump finds “kind of quirky,” were out of the running for that very reason.

Thirdly, while Gingrich didn’t initially endorse Trump (he has since), he was an early defender of his when the media began attacking him. “Donald values loyalty,” the source told Newsmax.

Finally, Trump wanted a candidate who has been extensively vetted by the media. Gingrich, who ran for president in 2012 and was a top Congressman for 20 years, has been through a very strong vetting process.

“For the most part, they’ve been vetted over the last 20 years,” Trump said of the candidates on his shortlist.

For his part, Gingrich was admirably terse when Newsmax asked him via email if he’d been in discussions with the Trump campaign, simply replying, “No.” However, given he’s the name that’s popped up the most often in the past few weeks, we can only assume him to be the front-runner.

H/T teaparty.org

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

From My Email Inbox


waving flagThis is one that I am forwarding to everyone…..Conservative and  Republicans to solidify their belief – Democrats and RINOs to open their eyes to the facts – Independents to get them off the fence and just plain Americans who have felt abandoned and forgotten by all of the aforementioned groups.  Read it, comprehend it and if you’re with it, do what I just did…FORWARD IT to as many people as you can and inform everyone.

 

“Understanding Donald Trump” 

From The Washington Times, by Newt Gingrich

Donald Trump is a genuine phenomenon.  He may or may not become the Republican nominee for president.  He may or may not win the presidency even if he becomes the nominee.  Yet it is clear that he is a phenomenon and that any history of the 2016 presidential race will have to spend a good bit of time analyzing Trump and his impact.

From the time he announced on June 16, Trump has dominated social and mainstream media.   He dominates the conversation despite the lack of paid advertising.  Trump says outrageous things and his supporters shrug it off. At every turn, his poll numbers continue to rise.

As a step toward understanding this amazing performance, I spent part of the Christmas break reading his first bestseller, ‘The Art of the Deal’.  Written in 1987, this book is a classic among American business books and has influenced a generation of entrepreneurs.  Trump wrote ‘The Art of the Deal’ when he was 41 years old and having a successful run.   The book’s popularity contributed to Time Magazine’s decision to feature Donald Trump on its cover in January 1989.

The portrait that emerges from this easy-to-read and remarkably interesting book is of an aggressive, ambitious person who is constantly pushing, constantly learning, and always seeking the next challenge.  Reporters and analysts who are trying to understand Trump would be well served by slowing down and reading this nearly three-decade-old bestseller.

They would discover that Donald Trump has developed a remarkable set of rules and principles that allow him to make decisions with incredible speed.  Trump knows a lot, but what is amazing is how rapidly he figures out what he doesn’t know.

My favorite story is of the Wollman Skating Rink in New York’s Central Park.

The Wollman Rink was a heavily used public skating rink which had fallen into disrepair in 1980.  New York City tried for six years to fix it, spent $13 million, and the rink still was not ready to open.  In June of 1986 Trump, who could see the rink from his apartment, finally got tired of the embarrassment and offered to fix the rink at his own expense.  At first the city turned him down because its bureaucracy did not want to be embarrassed by someone fixing something they couldn’t fix. Trump kept pushing and finally out of embarrassment the city gave in.

The key part of the story is Trump’s reaction to being put in charge. He promptly recognized that he didn’t know anything about fixing a skating rink. He asked himself who built a lot of skating rinks. “Canadians!” he concluded. He found the best Canadian ice skating rink construction company.  When the Canadians flew in to assess the situation, they were amazed at how bad the city had been at solving the problem. They assured Trump that this was an easy job.  Trump fixed the six year embarrassment two months ahead of schedule and nearly $800,000 under-budget. (The city did end up paying for the work, and Trump donated the profits to charity.)

After reading this chapter you begin to think that maybe Donald Trump really could build a wall along our southern border for a lot less than our current government estimates.

‘The Art of the Deal’ is filled with stories like this — stories of common sense stories of calculated risk taking, and stories of innovation and marketing. Anyone who would like to better understand Donald Trump would be helped by reading this remarkable book.

Another is his pledges and I have no way of knowing if he will make good on all of them but I do agree with all of them.  Trump is the only candidate that is serious about building “The Wall”! Two other important pledges Trump has made that no other candidate of either party has matched.  First, deportation of millions of illegals that are demanding and costing American taxpayers billions of dollars and second,  Closing 34 Muslim training Camps throughout our country!   I WOULD, LIKE TRUMP OR ANY OTHER CANDIDATES, PLEDGE TO REINSTATE ANY AND ALL MILITARY OFFICERS DISCHARGED BECAUSE THEY DISAGREED WITH OBAMA OR HIS POLICIES!!

Here is another that kind of wraps up my feelings about Trump: Raccoons in your basement!    An interesting analogy.  You’ve been on vacation for two weeks, you come home, and your basement is infested with raccoons.   Hundreds of rabid, messy, mean raccoons have overtaken your basement. You want them gone immediately so you hire a guy. A pro.   You don’t care if the guy smells, you need those raccoons gone pronto and he’s the guy to do it!  You don’t care if the guy swears, you don’t care if he’s an alcoholic, you don’t care how many times he’s been married, you don’t care if he voted for Obama, you don’t care if he has plumber’s crack…you simply want those raccoons gone!  

You want your problem fixed!  He’s the guy.  He’s the best.  Period.   That’s why we need Trump.  Yes he’s a bit of an ass, yes he’s an egomaniac, but you don’t care. 

The country is a mess because politicians suck, the Republican Party is two-faced & gutless, illegals are everywhere.   You want it all fixed! You don’t care that Trump is crude, you don’t care that he insults people, you don’t care that he had been friendly with Hillary, you don’t care that he has changed positions, you don’t care that he’s been married 3 times, you don’t care that he fights with Megyn Kelly and Rosie O’Donnell,  you don’t care that he doesn’t know the name of some Muslim terrorist… this country is weak, bankrupt, our enemies are making fun of us, we are being invaded by illegals, we are becoming a nation of victims where every Tom, Ricardo and Hammad is a special interest group with special rights to a point where we don’t even recognize the country we were born and raised in; “AND WE JUST WANT IT FIXED” and Trump is the only guy who seems to understand what the people want.  

You’re sick of politicians, sick of the Democratic Party, Republican Party, and sick of illegals.   You just want this thing fixed.  Trump may not be a saint, but doesn’t have any lobbyist money influencing him, he doesn’t have political correctness restraining him, all you know is that he has been very successful, a good negotiator, he has built a lot of things, and he’s also not a politician, so he’s not a cowardly politician.  And he says he’ll fix it. You don’t care if the guy has bad hair. You just want those raccoons gone. Out of your house!

Confirmed here………………

“Understanding Donald Trump” by Newt Gingrich-Authorship Confirmed!

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Democrats’ ‘Progressive Agenda’ is Outright Communism


waving flagPosted by

URL Of the Original Posting Site: http://godfatherpolitics.com/22451/democrats-progressive-agenda-is-outright-communism/#dtl4wsSBLblhYjRB.

It must be so close they can taste it. 

It’s never been a secret that the Democrat agenda has been quietly driven by the philosophies of Karl Marx and every radical socialist who ever lit a fuse against the United States. With a long line of public figures who have idolized or modeled themselves after Alinsky, Mao, Lenin or Castro, the Democratic Party has been home to the despicably anti-American and their foolishly misguided followers.

Anybody who paid any attention to the party’s politics and had a modicum of historical knowledge could spot the connections. But leftists being leftists, the DP leadership has always tried to pretend otherwise because their hold on many of the low-information voters is all based on perceptions. Which is what makes it remarkable that the Progressive Agenda to Combat Income Inequality, a document put together by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, so clearly patterns itself after Communist Party and Socialist Party doctrine.

Even more remarkable is that de Blasio and others are trying to make this the official Democratic Party platform for the 2016 presidential election. The Democrats are calling the Progressive Agenda their “Contract With America,” which is as frightening as it is insulting.Liberalism a mental disorder 2 Party of Deciet and lies

Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America” was a stroke of political brilliance that helped pull together congressional conservatives to pass important legislation and help America get back on track.

The Progressive Agenda is aimed at turning us into something just shy of the Soviet Union.

All the hallmarks are there:

  • hike the minimum wage (c’mon, if it’s such a great idea, why not make it $100 per hour, guys?);
  • national paid family and sick leave;
  • pass laws to make it easier to force workers to unionize;
  • “immigration reform” to organize illegals;
  • refinance student debt;
  • expanding state brainwashing with mandatory pre-kindergarten, after-school and child-care programs;
  • increasing taxes on “the rich”; etc.Cloward Piven

De Blasio, who calls President Obama “too conservative” to lead a Progressive economic policy, said last week at the agenda’s rollout, “It’s time to take that energy and crystallize it into an agenda that will make a difference. We’ll be calling on leaders and candidates to address these issues, to stiffen their backbones, to be clear and to champion these progressive policies.”more evidence

Democrat officials had a variety of silly metaphors about cavalry and “meat on the bones” to use in praise of de Blasio’s manifesto. The most interesting remark, however, came from Rep. Charles Rangel, who talked about “revolution.”

Buzzword alert.

The Revolution, of course, was the crucible in which the United States was formed. But there’s a world of difference between the way the Founding Fathers meant it and the way modern Regressives mean it. 

  • The Founders meant to take back something that never belonged to the King in the first place: our independence.
  • Regressives mean to assert everyone’s dependence on government and take things from the public treasury that never have belonged to them. **Please see related historical record regarding this point**

To facilitate the fattening of their own purses, Progressive leaders will begin by taking away your rights. If you don’t believe that, then you are dangerously naive. Look at history. That’s always how “progressive revolutions” begin.

It’s already started here. Obama was the warmup act. Now we’ve got closet socialist Hillary, open socialist Bernie and B-string socialist Fauxcahontas (aka Elizabeth Warren), all eyeing the Oval Office. And leftists hope their Communist Manifesto, er, Progressive Agenda will pave the way.

Lurking in the background, supporting de Blasio’s agenda, is Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party and founder of the New Party. The openly socialist New Party, Chicago branch, once claimed a young Barack Obama as a member, something his flying monkeys have denied for years. De Blasio was executive director of the New Party’s New York branch.

The basis of his plan was a report by Nobel prize-winning Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz, who also held “teach-ins” at Occupy Wall Street. Stiglitz has accepted funding from billionaire George Soros, the ex-Nazi employee who helped fund Obama’s career and who has hosted fundraisers for Elizabeth Warren and donated to Hillary Clinton’s PAC. Stiglitz also sits on the boards of several Soros organizations, including one whose aim is to remake the global economy.

You start to see how the pieces fit together? Who says there aren’t any real-life conspiracies to destroy America? Oh, right, mostly the people involved in them.

waving flag**Related Historical Context**

Not Yours To Give

Davy Crockett on The Role Of Government

from: The Life of Colonel David Crockett

compiled by: Edward S. Elis (1884)

“Money with [Congressmen] is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

Introductory note by Peter Kershaw:

Davy Crockett served four terms in the U.S. Congress from 1827-1835. In 1835 he joined the Whig Party and ran a failed attempt for the Presidency. Immediately thereafter he departed his native Tennessee for Texas to secure the independence of the “Texicans.” He lost his life at the battle of the Alamo and forever secured his legendary status in history as “king of the wild frontier.” The following story was recounted to Edward Elis by an unnamed Congressman who had served with Colonel Crockett in the U.S. House of Representatives.

…Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me. I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. It seemed to be that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make a speech in support of the bill. He commenced:

“Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House; but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into argument to prove that Congress has no power under the Constitution to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.’

“Mr. Speaker, I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.” He took his seat. Nobody replied.

The bill was put upon its passage, and instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as no doubt it would, but for that speech, it received but a few votes and was lost. Like many others, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move for a reconsideration the next day. Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table. I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what the devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied: “I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen.” I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into the hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.’

“The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.’ “The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them. “So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence.’

“As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: ‘Don’t be in such a hurry my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted.’ He replied: “‘I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.’

“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those fortunate beings called candidates, and . . . .’

“‘ Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

“This was a sockdolager (decisive argument: a decisive blow or argument)…. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.’

“‘Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. … But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

“‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

 “‘Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with.’

“‘Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?’ “Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said: “‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury; and, I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

“‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

“‘If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.’

“‘No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in Washington, who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.’ “I have given you,” continued Crockett, “an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:’

“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in this district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:’

“‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I have ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’ “The farmer laughingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than defeating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

“‘If I don’t,’ said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

“‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday seek. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

“‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.’

“‘My name is Bunce.’

“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’

 “‘Yes.’

“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go.’

“We shook hands and parted that day in gentlemanly friendship and amity.’ “It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met that man. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, incorruptible integrity, and, for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.’

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with. In fact I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifest before.’

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached the home of Mr. Bunce, and under ordinary circumstances should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.’

“I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.’

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him — no, that is not the word — I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will you sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.’ “But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand me there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted — at least, they all knew me.’

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying: “‘Fellow-citizens — I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying: “‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.’

“‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but my friend Horatio Bunce is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

“He came upon the stand and said: “‘Fellow-citizens — It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.’

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.’ “Now, sir,’ concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed, and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.’

“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a weeks’ pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men — men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased — a debt which could not be paid by money — and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation.’

“Yet not one of those Congressmen responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

OARLogo Picture6

Gingrich: “Every major city which is a poverty center is run by Democrats.”


http://www.humanevents.com/2013/12/16/gingrich-every-major-city-which-is-a-poverty-center-is-run-by-democrats/

Gingrich: "Every major city which is a poverty center is run by Democrats."By: John Hayward

Courtesy of NewsBusters, here’s one of those heated exchanges that partisans of both Left and Right are bound to view as a slam-dunk in-your-face win for their side, as former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Clinton-era Labor Secretary Robert Reich spar over poverty and policy on ABC’s “This Week.”

Newt

In the exchange, Reich argues that the War on Poverty was going great until tight-fisted Republicans started interfering with Democrat plans to redistribute even more wealth, and claims “income inequality” has gotten worse under Obama because of Republican resistance to his agenda.  This is, quite possibly, the dumbest thing anyone has ever said.  Just for starters, it projects staggering ignorance about the War on Poverty.  To agree with Reich, you have to be just about completely ignorant of actual history, not only from decades past but from the explosion of wealth redistribution and social welfare spending under the past few Presidents, particularly Obama.

But of course, it’s tedious leftist cant to insist that the only reason their policies fail is that they weren’t given another couple trillion dollars to pursue them more vigorously.  Every failure of State control is caused by insufficient State control.  The Daily Caller offers a look at how the War on Poverty was going when Reich was on the front lines under Clinton, and his history of deliberately misrepresenting that history:

One thing Reich isn’t taking responsibility for is his own contribution to inequality during his widely regretted  stint in the White House. Working as the Clinton Administration’s Labor Secretary from 1993 to 1997, Reich oversaw a substantial hike in the federal minimum wage and implementation of the Family Leave Act. Despite these apparent War-On-Poverty victories, according to inequality.org‘s chart of after-tax income by income group, U.S. inequality during his tenure grew at the fastest rate ever seen up until that time.

Reich left office prior to the late-Clinton-era boom that lifted all wage groups and saw the last balanced budgets in American history. He later slammed his former colleagues in the memoir “Locked In the Cabinet,” which was universally criticized and had to be substantially re-edited in later editions due to Reich’s multiple distortions and outright falsehoods.

Reich is a hardcore socialist, and socialists lie.  It’s what they do.  It’s baked into the very essence of their being, because their philosophy assumes the absolute primacy of a wise Ruling Class elite that knows how best to arrange society in a “fair” and “just” manner.  This involves the use of compulsive force to seize assets and income from their rightful owners, plus a good deal of forcing average citizens to live as the Ruling Class desires.

Unfortunately, the Western socialist lives with the unpleasant reality of popular elections, where the people have a distressing ability to reject the vision of the Ruling Class and insist on their liberties.  Therefore, it is inescapably necessary for the great and wise to lie to voters, because they can’t handle the truth.  It’s for their own good, so it’s all totally justified.  By definition, the common man lacks the vision of the elite, so he cannot be allowed to thwart that vision by voting against it.  You will never be granted complete candor by people who believe that you must be forced to do certain things for the greater benefit of society, as they envision it, because such candor would inevitably lead to greater resistance.  The path to utopia will require many sacrifices, so the ignorant people must be led down it blindfolded.

Gingrich hits back hard against Reich’s assertion that Republican stonewalling of the Obama agenda is the only reason we haven’t drawn closer to utopia over the past five years, calling it “baloney.”  Gingrich shot back: “Every major city which is a center of poverty is run by Democrats.  Every major city.  Their policies have failed, they’re not willing to admit it, and the fact is, it’s the poor who suffer from bad government.”

Reich stammered something about how outgoing New York mayor Michael Bloomberg wasn’t a Democrat, but aside from Bloomberg’s decidedly government-centered philosophy, the rest of New York’s political machinery has been safely in Democrat hands forever.  No one is going to “solve” the poverty debate in an exchange of sound bites, but Gingrich’s point about how badly-run government causes the greatest suffering among the poor is far more solid than anything Reich says, and it’s worth exploring further.

Perhaps the point begins as something of a tautology, because the poor are, by definition, “suffering” worst from a policy standpoint under any system of government.  But what Gingrich means is that bad government policies are particularly destructive to the opportunities for employment and stability essential to the climb out of poverty.  Reich is an utter fool to believe that these opportunities can be replaced by titanic government spending programs; the Obama years are definitive proof that doesn’t work.  As a left-wing propagandist, he might deserve a little applause for having the chutzpah to make his “just give us more money to spend and we’ll get it right” argument in favor of managerial liberalism at the exact moment ObamaCare is crashing down in flames, the most devastating failure of Reich’s ideals since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Over a trillion dollars in “stimulus” spending gave us permanent double-digit real unemployment.  Even the heavily cooked unemployment rate popularized by the news media has been stuck over 7 percent for years, and it’s a lot worse in the demographics Gingrich and Reich are discussing.  When Obama imposed his stimulus spending agenda, all the “smart people” in his elite team assured us their plans would bring unemployment under 5 percent by the end of the President’s first term.  Instead, the job market tracked consistently and significantly worse than the worst-case scare-tactic conditions they warned would occur without their redistribution scheme.

The social pathologies incubated by the Great Society turned cities into blighted war zones, not only because of the corrosive effect cradle-to-grave welfare has on the people it’s ostensibly trying to “help,” but because the cities ruled by Democrats have become the hardest places in America to launch a business venture or hire someone.  Their stale political cultures have been very lucrative for the ruling party’s cronies, but smokestacks of despair for everyone else.  Knowing that things will never change makes small entrepreneurs – the people who don’t get front-page headline coverage for throwing political fundraisers – depart the dying cities to seek opportunity elsewhere.  We’re not talking about a few people bailing out and skedaddling for the burbs just because a couple of elections don’t go their way.  We’re discussing cities with generational histories of one-party rule and machine politics.  To this day, their ruling political machines have absolutely no idea how to reverse the decline, because everything that might work is completely antithetical to their statist ideology, not to mention their hunger for government revenue.

The day Margaret Thatcher warned about has arrived – the Left has run out of other peoples’ money to spend.  Even the vast ocean of federal spending and debt is not bottomless.  We’ve arguably passed the point where the geese of industry can be squeezed by the State for more golden eggs, without choking them to death.  A great deal of Obama malaise is caused by government overtaxing and over-regulating the private sector far beyond the point where the net result is counter-productive.  This economy is begging for pro-growth tax reforms and the privatization of moribund government programs, beginning with ObamaCare, which managed the neat trick of being born moribund.  The situation is even more pronounced in the cities Newt Gingrich mentioned, which offer a glimpse into our national future for anyone with the intellectual honesty to look clearly.  The private sector needs to get bigger, and fast.  It is no longer strong enough to carry the flabby Ruling Class riding on its back.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: