[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZiTFcmICVQ]The Annals of Bohemian Grove “Yearbook” Uncovered – Rare Book and Photos Inside Elite Club
#1 reason to vote for Trump!
“Because he’s an outsider. He’s not them. He’s not part of the club. He’s uncontrollable. He hasn’t been through the initiation rights. He didn’t belong to the secret society.” – Newt Gingrich
• • •
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO6QwySsm-M]Gingrich: Establishment Scared of Trump Because He “Didn’t Belong to the Secret Society”
Published on Mar 4, 2016
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly last night that the establishment is scared of Donald Trump because he “didn’t belong to the secret society” and wasn’t involved in any of the rituals associated with such groups.
Joel discusses this with Dr. Stanley Monteith
on Radio Liberty, 1/26/11, hour 1
* * *
World Affairs Brief, January 27, 2012 Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World. Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief (http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com)
THIS WEEK’S ANALYSIS:
Evidence of South Carolina Vote Tampering
Is Gingrich the New Frontrunner?
Watch Out for Jeb Bush
Obama’s State of the Union
Space Code Leading to Weapons-Free Space
TSA Detains a Senator
More Internet Censorship Proposed
Why Gas Prices aren’t Coming Down
EVIDENCE OF SOUTH CAROLINA VOTE TAMPERING
For Newt Gingrich to go from a 15% rating in South Carolina to winning 40% of the vote took much more than manipulated polling. There had to be electronic vote manipulation on a large scale. While no whistleblower has come forth there is the telling evidence that all authorized vote tally watchers were blocked from being in the actual room to observe the vote tally. They were relegated to watching it on a television or behind a soundproof glass wall. Why the secrecy?
More and more states are starting to seal off the tally rooms so that no one can hear any conversations going on. The law in South Carolina requires that the vote tallying be done in public. Isolating tally watchers from hearing the proceedings is a violation of that process. Of course, then there’s the fact that the final tally is being done out of state, where no one can see if the tally is being changed. Conveniently, this tactic allows local politicians to escape blame if vote fraud is found. Brandon Tubeville of the Activist Post provides some of the evidence we have up to this point.
“After Newt Gingrich’s stunning victory [because of the unbelievable change in the voter’s choices] in the South Carolina Republican primaries on Saturday, there are now questions surrounding the vote counting process that took place Saturday night. Indeed, some individuals who witnessed the actual certification of the vote are beginning to question whether or not the outcome is a result of clever campaigning, or that of voter fraud.
“Although no one is pointing fingers at the Gingrich campaign, or any other campaign at this point [that is because the PTB are the ones who pull the strings and control election machinery at the state and national level], the anomalies that are arising from the accounts of eyewitnesses call into question the certainty and the credibility of the final count in South Carolina.
“At this time, the most serious questions are centered around the precincts in Pickens County.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKo6HQBjyzY]Newt Gingrich mentions “Homeland Security” 5 Days After 9/11 ?!?!
Uploaded by WakeUpToTheNWO2 on Dec 1, 2011
Absolute proof that “Homeland Security” was devised PRIOR to 9/11. But we were all told by the media that “Homeland Security” was born out of the ashes of 9/11. Yet another 9/11 LIE !!!
Exit polls: Newt won big with conservatives
Newt Gingrich’s victory here in South Carolina tonight was based largely on a strong showing from the conservative wing of the Republican Party, according to exit polls.
A full two-thirds of South Carolina voters – 65 percent – identified themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians, another demographic Gingrich won handily. He took 42 percent of that group, compared with 22 percent for Romney, 20 percent for Santorum and 14 percent for Paul.
The biggest single threat to the strategy to sell Newt Gingrich to Republicans as a conservative is the truth. This week, Marianne Gingrich broke her silence and decided to tell America what the real Newt Gingrich is like. …
ABC aired the interview on NIGHTLINE Thursday evening and her charge that he sought an “open marriage” with wife, to include his mistress. Gingrich wanted this accommodation with his wife only to avoid another messy divorce which would expose him for the serial philanderer that he was. Her statement that “Newt Gingrich lacks the moral character to serve as President,” is an absolute truth.
* * *
World Affairs Brief, January 20, 2012 Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World. Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief (http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com)
THIS WEEK’S ANALYSIS:
Here Comes Newt, Again
Debt Ceiling Games
Europe Turns to the IMF for Next Bailout
Russia Warns Against Attack on Syria
SOPA Debate Not Over
Paul Proposes Repeal of NDAA
Drones Over America
HERE COMES NEWT, AGAIN
It’s hard to tell why the Powers That Be (PTB) seem so desperate to topple Mitt Romney as the frontrunner. Although not an insider, Mitt has taken every possible position the establishment wants—he has a neocon foreign policy, is in favor of NDAA and he has even hinted at using the dreaded VAT tax to solve the deficit problem. Only Gingrich could be worse than Romney and that is why the PTB are working overtime to create yet another phony surge for the former Speaker of the House who betrayed conservatives in 1994 due to his secret globalist ties. If they can get him a win in South Carolina they will try to keep him on a roll in Florida and beyond.
Sarah Palin showed her subservience to the PTB yet again this week by endorsing Gingrich, but Gingrich’s ex-wife is making good on her threat to derail his bandwagon with a no-holds-bar killer interview with ABC news exposing Gingrich’s hypocritical dark side. The network attempted to delay airing this devastating indictment until after the South Carolina primary, but a leak forced them to air it Thursday.
As Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry end their campaigns, the establishment is betting everything now on Gingrich or Santorum. Earlier, the kingmakers asked Perry to continue his campaign even after his poor showing in Iowa, not knowing who they would or could try to resurrect against Romney, but now they want him out so the manipulable voters in SC are not split between 3 false conservative—only two. That way Gingrich or Santorum has a better chance at coming out with a win above Romney’s numbers.
Right now, they are pushing for Gingrich more than Santorum, even after the first phony surge for Gingrich failed. This headline from the AP is emblematic of the typical media theme: “Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is drawing big, enthusiastic crowds and fending off new attacks from GOP front-runner Mitt Romney while reveling in a strong debate performance and a nod from tea party favorite Sarah Palin.” Palin’s endorsement is bound to become the second most stupid thing she has done since joining John McCain.
Ever wonder why we’ve had so many debates this election cycle? In a normal election year, we’d be lucky to have 3 or 4. Now they come almost twice a month, and this week we got two in a week! Of course, they are all run by establishment news machines that have a clear agenda—to promote the latest “flavor of the month” candidate surging against Romney, and evade or embarrass Ron Paul. The first half hour is always spent showcasing whoever they want to promote. These always get the first softball question designed to make them to shine. Ron Paul always gets the token or quirky questions to make him look bad.
Ron Paul is clearly as much of a target of the hosts in these debates as Mitt Romney. The PTB may not want Romney but they can control him if he wins. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is a complete threat to establishment control in government. FoxNews.com, the supposed conservative TV network news made a blatant attempt to evade even mentioning Ron Paul in its Monday debate analysis. Steve Watson of Infowars.com has the story:
“The dirty tricks campaign against GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul reached new heights during the South Carolina debate last night, with virtual exclusion from the first 40 minutes of the program, poisonous questions in the second half, and a cringe inducing situation during the post debate analysis where Fox pundits were forced to admit that Paul had completely wiped the floor with the other candidates.
“During the post debate commentary, Fox reporter John Roberts blatantly excluded Paul from the charts and graphs he presented representing feedback from viewers. The results of Twitter surveys on which candidate had most accurately answered questions and who had performed the best were displayed with Ron Paul’s name nowhere to be seen.
“Almost one hour later, Roberts was called upon to go over the results one more time, after floods of complaints from viewers asking why Paul had been left out. ‘John, you caused a fury in my world.’ Fox anchor Harris Faulkner began. ‘You left off Ron Paul.’ she added, before Roberts attempted to slime out of the fact that he had totally excluded Paul from his results tally by saying that because Ron Paul won by huge margins in every category, it was unnecessary to report on it!
“Roberts then went through each debate topic again with Paul added to the graphic. As he explained the result Roberts downplayed and skipped over Ron Paul’s figures in every category, causing Harris Faulkner to interject. ‘John, can I stop you right there because I’m getting real time feedback.’ Faulkner said. ‘Ron Paul did not just do well, he did the best from that chart. I just want to be fair because people are watching for this.’ she added.”
“The fact that Ron Paul was the outright winner of the debate was remarkable, given the fact that the moderators had done their utmost to exclude, smear and misrepresent the Congressman earlier in the night. The opening portion of the debate was exclusively reserved for Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum [see what I mean about promoting the establishment favorites first?] to attack frontrunner Mitt Romney in an atmosphere that more resembled The Jerry Springer show than a coherent political debate.
“Refraining from joining in with such pantomime ridiculousness, Ron Paul patiently waited to be addressed by the moderators… and waited… and waited. Indeed, during the first 40 minutes Ron Paul was only asked one question, and that was about ‘scathing attacks’ on the other candidates in campaign ads [as if the others weren’t doing that]. Paul succinctly noted that he believed pointing out legitimate flaws in the other candidates voting records was fair game.
“As the exclusion of Paul continued, it even triggered a commercial break discussion between the Fox political panel about how Paul was being sidelined. Analyst Ed Rollins commented, “I thought Paul placed second in New Hampshire and was effectively second in Iowa – but they’ve got him standing way over on the side. [Even the placement of candidates on the stage is scripted]”
“When Paul was finally asked further questions, they were so leading and laced with underlying venom it defied belief. With almost every question the Congressman had to begin his answer by correcting the moderators for grossly distorting his position on multiple issues.
“Firstly, Paul had to once again explain that there is a significant difference between ‘defense spending’ and Pentagon waste, and that he is not about to decimate military funding, as the moderators suggested. Paul said to thunderous applause. ‘I want to cut military money. I don’t want to cut defense money,’ Paul said. ‘I want to bring the troops home.’”
The contrast between the Washingtonian principles of Paul and his neocon counterparts is vast. Conservatives were horrified as Romney proudly answered that he would have signed the NDAA giving government authority to indefinitely detain people aligned with al Qaeda and even said they don’t have rights. He pontificated upon the old neocon propaganda about “violent jihadists” having declared war on us, and that’s supposed to justify losing our civil liberties.
This growing skewed philosophy of terrorism justifying all manner of government power was illuminated by William Grigg in his latest column at Freedominourtime.com: “Santorum, who is regarded by some misguided conservatives as a champion of the pro-life cause, warned those who doubt that the U.S. government would assassinate civilian scientists should take heed to the way it treats American citizens designated enemies of the State: ‘When people say, `You can’t go out and assassinate people’ — well, tell that to al-Awlaki….We’ve done it. We’ve done it to an American citizen [he bragged].’
“According to Newt Gingrich – whose General Urko act drove the assembled Republicans into a simian frenzy of bloodlust – it is ‘irrational’ of Paul to insist that there are limits on the government’s powers of discretionary killing. Elaborating on that idea in a January 18 interview with South Carolina pastor Kevin Boling, Gingrich asserted that Dr. Paul’s insistence on applying the Golden Rule to foreign policy demonstrated that he had absorbed the ‘anti-American, self-hating attitude of the American Left.’
While Palin endorsed Gingrich, numerous South Carolina legislators came out for Ron Paul as the Denver Libertarian Examiner reported: “3 Conservative Senators, [including] leading SC State Senator, Tom Davis (R-Beaufort) endorsement on Sunday, collectively send a very big message to the people of South Carolina and the US by coming together and giving a combined endorsement that immediately propels the Ron Paul campaign into ‘serious contender’ status.”
The biggest single threat to the strategy to sell Newt Gingrich to Republicans as a conservative is the truth. This week, Marianne Gingrich broke her silence and decided to tell America what the real Newt Gingrich is like. Her interview was with ABC and they have been trying to bury the story ever since. Fortunately Matt Drudge got wind of it and is trying to shame ABC into airing the interview:
The Drudge report: “Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband’s career with a single interview. Earlier this week, she sat before ABCNEWS cameras, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. She spoke to ABCNEWS reporter Brian Ross for two hours, and her explosive revelations are set to rock the trail.
“But now a ‘civil war’ has erupted inside of the network, an insider claims, on exactly when the confession will air!.. A decision was tentatively made to air the interview next Monday, after all votes have been counted. Gingrich canceled a press conference on Wednesday to deal with the matter. ‘He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don’t have to be connected,’ Marianne Gingrich, Newt’s wife of 18 years, explained to ESQUIRE last year.”
ABC aired the interview on NIGHTLINE Thursday evening and her charge that he sought an “open marriage” with wife, to include his mistress. Gingrich wanted this accommodation with his wife only to avoid another messy divorce which would expose him for the serial philanderer that he was. Her statement that “Newt Gingrich lacks the moral character to serve as President,” is an absolute truth.
The Open Marriage charge was brought up in the debate last night, giving Gingrich a chance to give a loud denunciation of the media. Gingrich has used this technique before with great success. Conservative audiences are rightly angry with media bias, and so switching the attack from himself to the media always generates applause. But he perjured himself in the end with a flat out denial that the conversation ever too place. If South Carolinians believe Gingrich over his wife after seeing that interview, then there is little hope of them making the right choice.
Romney made a major tactical mistake by acceding to demands to show his tax returns, even though delaying such to a point if and when he gets the nomination. No person ought to do this on principle. Tax returns are way too private for individuals of wealth to be forced to reveal. He should have taken the high ground and said no–it’s a private matter. I am personally glad that Romney was able to structure his income to fall under the capital gains tax rate of 15%. Deriding him for that is simply building more class warfare in the US.
Only Ron Paul got it right on taxes during the debate. When asked “What is the appropriate tax rate Americans should pay?” Romney said 24% and Paul said 0%. In other words, abolish it.
Contributions should be revealed, but even those are confusing and misleading. OpenSecrets.org provides profiling of where contributions come from for each candidate. Conservative pundits have made much about the fact that all the big banks and investment firms have backed Romney. Wait, but they are also backing Gingrich, and Santorum—everybody but Ron Paul.
But even that doesn’t tell the whole story. While Romney’s campaign for 2012 lists $376k from Goldman Sachs, this isn’t donations from the company itself, it’s from individual brokers. Goldman brokers gave Obama $1,2M during his campaign, so you have to compare the candidate’s numbers side by side to get the full story.
It is also noteworthy that employees of the big banks, big corporations, and big investment houses back all of the establishment candidates, and Congressmen, whether Republicans or Democrats. But they don’t support Ron Paul. He only gets contributions from the little guy. That should tell you who they don’t want and who we should be voting for.
But on other issues, Romney had no high ground to retreat to. The latest charge is that Romney accepted Federal pension bailouts for a steel company that went bankrupt during his tenure at Bain Capital. The bankruptcy triggered the federal pension insurance fund to kick in. He also got an $10B debt forgiveness decree for Bain Capital just as he entered the firm. All of this makes Romney’s denouncing of federal bank bailouts a bit hypocritical.
The Third Party question continues to plague the establishment. One subscriber wrote, “Will Ron Paul remain [within] the party confines, apply his capital leverage at the convention or bolt and go as an Independent/Libertarian? If he exercises the latter, the pundits generally agree upon a Ross Perot scenario1992. But this time around Ron Paul actually stands a solid chance to become the next President on a third party ticket.”
In an honest election, this would be true. Ron Paul’s core support is now above 20%. The Republican support is only 27% of the nation, and Democrats hold only 31% and many of them don’t vote. That means in a three-way race, for the first time since the Whigs lost their status as a major party, we have the opportunity to bust the two party system wide open. So don’t pass off lightly that an independent candidacy would be suicide. The ire of a substantial minority of Americans is so hot against the establishment, that this may well be our greatest opportunity to stage a political rebellion.
January 11, 2012
It’s often said the ability to lie convincingly is a job prerequisite for modern presidents. If so, Newt Gingrich has the skill down pat, although he will never get anywhere near the White House.
Newt lied (again) about attending Bohemian Grove the other day. Fact is, Newt not only attended the “most faggy g-d- thing you could ever imagine,” as Nixon deemed it, he delivered a speech there.
Instead of admitting it, he told Luke Rudkowski he’s living in a fantasy world. See the video below.
Here’s a photo of a much younger and slimmer Newtster at the “faggy g-d- thing” along with Bush the Elder and his son, George the Lesser. The photo is from the Annals of the Bohemian Club, Volume 7, 1987-1996. An Infowars.com reader sent it along back in 2004.
Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon tried to get confirmation that Gingrich attended the “saturnalia of juvenilia” (as Maureen Dowd of the New York Times put it), but they were spurned by Gingrich staff writer Robert George, who admitted Newt had attended but there was no transcript of his speech.
People in serious denial of reality are usually characterized as suffering from mental illness. On numerous occasions Newt has declared 9/11 truthers are insane because they question the government’s contention that cavemen in Afghanistan were able to make NORAD stand down and defy the laws of physics.
So, is Newt insane for denying what is documented and readily available in the public domain?
Naw. He’s just a liar.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpiLARg87FU]Newt Gingrich Denies Bohemian Grove Existence: Some People Have “Fantasy Lives”
Uploaded by wearechange on Jan 11, 2012
Please help support our existence so we can do more road trips to primary states and ask the questions that are never asked
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jD6TJNflGk]Newt Gingrich, Bohemian Grove and media lies
Uploaded by ThErEdPiLl09 on Jan 2, 2012
The Bohemian Grove is an all male “club” in Sonoma California where the elite of the world meet once a year. The most powerful, wealthiest men meeting in secret yet the “media experts” don’t want to talk about it. Mark Dice called many stations to try and spread this info. followed by Anthony Antonello.
Known Members of Bohemian Grove
Both George Bushes
Stephen Bechtel (Bechtel Corp.)
Newt Gingrich …
Establishment throws its weight behind the ultimate RINO globalist
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Monday, November 28, 2011
Desperate to derail Ron Paul’s momentum in New Hampshire, the key early primary state in which polls show Paul has a very real chance of winning, the establishment has thrown its weight behind Newt Gingrich, the ultimate RINO globalist who in reality is about as conservative as Mao Tse-tung.
With the campaigns of Mitt Romney and Rick Perry collapsing, the editorial board of the New Hampshire Union Leader chose to endorse Gingrich on Sunday, a move that the mainstream press immediately hailed as all-important, attempting to bestow kingmaker status on a relatively irrelevant newspaper in the grand scheme of things.
The anointment of Gingrich as Republican frontrunner is just the latest desperate bid to fool voters into supporting anyone other than Ron Paul. From Perry, to Romney, to Cain – the establishment has attempted to crown all of them as top dog – failing every time as each campaign subsequently crashes and burns.
Gingrich will inevitably follow suit because he has more skeletons in the closet than a halloween costume shop. Newt Gingrich is Mr. New World Order – a committed globalist who has publicly made clear his contempt for American sovereignty and freedom on a plethora of occasions, not least when he joined forces with Nancy Pelosi to push the Obama administration’s cap and trade agenda that would have completely bankrupted the country.
“I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good,” Gingrich told PBS Frontline in February 2007.
And if you think that doesn’t sound bad enough, just wait until you read what Gingrich had to say about mandatory health insurance.
“Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it,” he wrote in a 2007 OpEd for the Des Moines Register.
That’s right – self-proclaimed “conservative” Gingrich is an aggressive supporter of Obamacare, just like his rival Mitt Romney.
Gingrich has also been instrumental in pushing political frameworks with the goal of accomplishing global governance.
As Attorney Constance Cumbey writes, Gingrich worked feverishly with his buddy Al Gore back in the mid-90′s to help create the embryonic architecture of a global parliamentary authority.
Gingrich’s support for NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO entrenched his position as an enthusiastic advocate of globalism and sending American jobs abroad, the “giant sucking sound,” as Ross Perot labeled it It was Gingrich who helped Bill Clinton and the Democrats garner enough votes from Republicans to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement, which is now quickly evolving into the North American Union.
Gingrich’s Council on Foreign Relations membership and his close relationship with his mentor Henry Kissinger cements his role as a key agitator for the destruction of U.S. sovereignty. Indeed, during a July 1995 speech, he openly decried the constitution as being a roadblock to a UN-managed global government.
“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.”
“In order to understand just how dedicated Gingrich is to destroying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, consider that he described himself as a “conservative futurist” who enthusiastically recommended as Speaker of the House his colleagues read Alvin Toffler’s 1980 book The Third Wave,” writes Kurt Nimmo.
“In the book, Toffler wrote a letter to America’s “founding parents,” in which he said: “The system of government you fashioned, including the very 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.” According to Toffler, our constitutional system is one that “served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.””
The shudder-inducing thought of Newt Gingrich in the White House makes the prospect of a second term for Obama look positively inviting.
At least we know what to expect from Obama. Gingrich is that most dangerous kind of political animal – a wolf in sheep’s clothing – being able to harness the ability of sweet-talking conservatives into calm acquiescence while simultaneously sacrificing America on the altar of globalism.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.
World Affairs Brief, November 25, 2011 Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World. Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief (http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com)
THIS WEEK’S ANALYSIS:
No Fly Zone Proposal in Syria a Sign of War Coming
Super Committee Failure: No One Has the Courage to Stop Spending
GOP Warmongers Emerge in CNBC Debate
Ron Paul’s Finest Hour Defending Civil Liberties
Failure of US-Russia Arms Control Talks
Europe’s Rush to Liquidity
Official List: Too Big to Fail Banks
GOP WARMONGERS EMERGE IN CNBC DEBATES
This week’s Republican debate sponsored by Wolf Blitzer of CNBC showcased how far Republican candidates (excepting Ron Paul and sometimes Michelle Bachman) have descended into the control of neocons. I never saw so much warmongering in the past 4 years. It seems they were all intent on using the war drums of terrorism to increase rather than abolish the Patriot Act and increase war rather than stop these invasions and occupations of foreign nations. The hatred against the US is building and that’s just what these wars are intended to do in the globalist playbook.
Spencer Akerman noted that no one except Ron Paul offers a significantly different point of view than the Obama adminstration: “Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich pretty much agree with Obama on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ex-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, saying that he backed the ‘commanders on the ground,’ [who are mostly yes-men to the politicians] endorsed Obama’s current approach: ending the Afghanistan troop surge in 2012 and withdrawing most troops by the end of 2014.
“Romney’s challenger-of-the-week, ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, was more concerned with the other side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. He said he’d tell Pakistanis to ‘get out of the way’ of U.S. troops conducting hot pursuit of terrorists running out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan. And it also sounded like he’d up the covert raids: ‘Don’t complain if we kill people you’re not willing to go after on your territory where you have been protecting them,’ Gingrich said [incredibly calloused].
“That’s a departure from Obama’s approach — but it’s a change in degree, not kind. NATO helicopters currently pursue terrorists fleeing into Pakistan, and U.S. troops on the border fire artillery at Pakistani positions where insurgents attack them. Then there are special-operations raids like the one deep into Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden. But those are still exceptional circumstances; Gingrich sounded like he’d turn them into something closer into the rule [they already are].
“Romney wants to get rid of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. Perry recently called for a no-fly zone over Syria. Romney ripped him apart: ‘You’d need a no-drive zone’ instead, since Assad’s military isn’t attacking Syrian dissidents from the air. But even if Romney wouldn’t launch a Libya war redux in Syria, he endorsed more sanctions, ‘covert action’ (without explaining), and backing Turkish and Arab League diplomacy to get Assad out, while ‘meeting with the Alawites so they understand they have a future after Assad [under US and NATO control].’ It was a much deeper policy answer than most on display tonight, and evidence that Romney’s thought through what his stated support of the Arab Spring would require [nonsense. He’s just parroting what his highly paid CFR advisors tell him—it’s the standard line].
“Practically everything else is up for grabs. Debate moderator CNN deserves its share of blame for this. In two hours, there were no questions about China [or Russia], no questions about the Eurozone financial meltdown, no questions about the Mexican drug cartels. Nine Republican candidates said practically nothing about whether they’d acquiesce to huge defense cuts or roll them back.” That is how the media frames the debates to evade many issues.
Think Progress criticized neocon and presidential hopeful Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) for his “wildly conflicting positions on Iran. Last month, Santorum defended Ronald Reagan’s decision to negotiate with Iran but contradicted himself a day later by asserting that the Iranian government ‘cannot be negotiated with.’ But in comments made on Friday at a campaign stop in Iowa, Santorum took a more extreme position than any other candidate, claiming Iranian nuclear scientists are ‘enemy combatants’ and could be targeted for assassination.”
Santorum completely ignores the fact that our assassination work by drones and its collateral damage to civilians is enraging the non-western world. But Newt Gingrich was the worst calling [for] more use of the warrantless surveillance and heavy handed tactics permitted by the misnamed PATRIOT ACT. You get the feeling from watching Newt’s smug looks while listening to Ron Paul’s impassioned response for preserving civil rights that Gingrich would welcome a 1984 style society. He’s a totally unprincipled man.
But what will really hurt the establishment chances of selling Republicans on Gingrich is his defense of amnesty for illegals that have been here for years (thanks to little enforcement by the federal government). “Newt adopted the ‘heart position,’ arguing that long-rooted families, even if illegal, ought to be given a path to citizenship. ‘The party that says it’s the party of the family is going to destroy families that have been here for a quarter of a century?’” This quote is already coming back to haunt him. “Along with Santorum, Gingrich also endorsed profiling, saying that ‘you need to use every tool you can possibly use to gather the intelligence.” Every tool? Scary.
Gingrich takes a hard line on expanding foreign policy in line with his globalist background and policy advisors. As pointed out on Jim Lobe’s blog, “Former House Speaker and GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich announced his national security team last night, ahead of tonight’s CNN national security debate. David Wurmser: a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute [a neocon think tank where Gingrich is a former senior fellow], Wurmser served on the staffs of two top Bush administration hawks, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton and Vice President Dick Cheney (where Stephen Yates, another Gingrich adviser, also served). In 2007, a U.N. official called Wurmser one of the ‘new crazies’ who wanted to attack Iran. In 1996, Wurmser co-authored a paper from a right-wing pro-Israel group advocating the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.
“Ilan Berman: Berman, the vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council (which also gave the Gingrich campaign Herman Pirchner and Yates) and editor of the Jewish Institute For National Security Affairs journal, has advocated U.S.-led regime change in Iran and wrote that military action against Iran should be a ‘last resort.’ But he’s also attempted to minimize negative effects of an attack and, in 2005 at a Middle East Forum briefing, said Iran is a ‘prime candidate’ for Iraq-style pre-emption.
“James Woolsey: Woolsey served as honorary co-chair of Islamophobe Frank Gaffney‘s Center For Security Policy and is a current leadership board and executive team member at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). Woolsey advocated for the Iraq war, supports illegal Israeli West Bank settlement construction, and now pushes a confrontational stance on Iran. In 1998, Woolsey signed onto a Project For a New American Century letter urging the military removal of Saddam Hussein.”
Margaret Carlson of Bloomberg, along with various other pundits has begun to notice the “new front runner of the month” syndrome affecting the Republican Party. Carlson blames it on lack of intellect within the Republican party: “Gripped by anti-intellectualism, the party has successively swooned over Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Texas Governor Rick Perry and Herman Cain.”
Unthinking though the majority may be, this alone isn’t the reason for this too good to be true rise and fall of challengers to Romney. It’s the controlled media and their pollster whores that are outright forging the data in order to make it appear as if these new challengers are suddenly in first place. When the public fails to rally in support of each failed puppet candidate, the polling numbers are allowed to drop to their real level.
Carlson then engages in a fairly cogent analysis of “The Newt:” “In Gingrich, Republicans at least have a candidate who, unlike Cain, understands that the Taliban aren’t threatening to take over Libya (although Gingrich was for President Barack Obama’s intervention there before he was against it). Republicans can be certain that Gingrich’s overactive brain won’t freeze when confronted with rudimentary questions. It may, however, overheat.
“Gingrich has a hundred ideas, many of them half-baked, when a single consistent theme would suffice. He loves listening to his own voice and is so dazzled by his rhetorical skills that he believes he can wriggle out of the very tight spots in which he invariably wedges himself. The most recent example was his claim that he was paid by Freddie Mac not as an influence peddler, but for his advice as a ‘historian.’ Bloomberg News subsequently revealed that his fees had totaled more than $1.6 million, which is a whole lot of history.”
But Gingrich, a member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations since 1990, is a lousy historian when it comes to remembering his own unprincipled past. “In giving Gingrich a second look, conservatives are bound to see some ugly things. Before reversing his position under a barrage of conservative criticism, Gingrich called the Medicare reform championed by Republican Representative Paul Ryan ‘right- wing social engineering.’ Earlier this year, his campaign imploded as Gingrich decamped with his wife for a cruise of the Greek isles (which he now characterizes, incredibly, as a prescient fact-finding mission to study Greece’s debt problem). When he returned, his staff quit.
“In addition to a longstanding credibility problem, Gingrich has committed multiple heresies against the conservative faith. He made an advertisement with House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi in which together they promoted global-warming awareness. Gingrich called it ‘probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in recent years,’ an admission that won’t necessarily appease a Republican base convinced that global warming is a fraud perpetrated by scientists.
“In 1986, Gingrich backed amnesty for illegal aliens and, as former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has gleefully pointed out, Gingrich was one of the many Republicans who expressed support for an individual mandate to buy health insurance before that idea was adopted by Obama.
“Gingrich, who recently converted to Catholicism and says he’s pro-life, didn’t do much for the pro- life cause in the 1990s when he was the second-most-powerful person in Washington. He did not defund Planned Parenthood or pass the human-life amendment. In a high-profile Republican primary in a New York special election in 2009, he endorsed the pro-choice candidate before she dropped out of the race.
“Influence Peddling in Gingrich’s post- congressional life: For more than a decade he has exploited his insider credentials to embed himself in the interlocking and lucrative system of special interests and influence peddling. For one paying client, Gingrich said that Medicare could save more than $33 billion a year if it were to encourage patients to sign ‘advance directives’ to limit end-of-life care, a policy that Sarah Palin has since relabeled ‘death panels.’ As historian Gingrich tries to explain away his work for Freddie Mac without actually disclosing what he did, he risks digging himself deeper into the Washington muck that the Tea Party abhors.
“Gingrich has so many missteps to explain, he has set up a website featuring his own negatives (well, some of them) and respective explanations. Lots of luck there. It took a surge in the polls for his daughter to explain that Gingrich’s visit to his wife’s hospital bedside as she recovered from cancer surgery was not, as widely reported, to tell her that he wanted a divorce. He just wanted to visit.
“For Republicans, Gingrich’s rise and eventual collapse may prove more embarrassing than the boom-and-bust cycles of previous candidates who claimed to be the One Who Can Stop Romney from gaining the nomination. Conservatives have to forgo so many principles — three marriages? — to elevate Newt, that there’s almost nothing left.”
I had a subscriber quit last week over her feelings that I was being “too hard on Gingrich.” In reality, I haven’t even begun to tell of the skeletons in this man’s closets. Some are too unsavory to tell in detail, but here’s an edited version from the 1995 Vanity Faire article about Gingrich:
“In the spring of 1977, [Anne Manning, who admitted to a relationship with Gingrich that started during his 1976 campaign] was in Washington to attend a census-bureaus workshop when Gingrich took her to dinner at a Vietnamese restaurant. He met her back at her modest hotel room. ‘We had [a form of sex without getting in bed],’ she says. ‘He prefers that… because then he can say, ‘I never slept with her.’ Indeed, before Gingrich left that evening, she says, he threatened her: ‘If you ever tell anybody about this, I’ll say you’re lying.’” During that same period one of Newt Gingrich’s neighbors Kip Carter, who lived a few doors down from the couple, saw Gingrich have an aberrational form of sex with one of his house guest’s wives in the car. Carter described Gingrich’s reaction upon discovery as a boyish smirk. That’s what kind of amoral man this is.
Newt Gingrich is a globalist, establishment-neocon, warmonger/torturer/regime changer, whom I could never support, but he said one important thing that the other candidates didn’t mention in yesterday’s CNN debate.
GINGRICH: I — I helped create the Hart-Rudman Commission with President Clinton, and they came back after three years and said the greatest threat to the United States was the weapon of mass destruction in an American city, probably from a terrorist. That was before 9/11.
That’s one of the three great threats. The second is an electromagnetic pulse attack which would literally destroy the country’s capacity to function.
And the third, as Herman just said, is a cyber attack. All three of those are outside the current capacity of our system to deal with.
– Newt Gingrich
In the CNN National Security Debate, 11/22/11
Gingrich Said to Be Paid at Least $1.6 Million by Freddie Mac
The total amount is significantly larger than the $300,000 payment from Freddie Mac that Gingrich was asked about during a Republican presidential debate on Nov. 9 sponsored by CNBC, and more than was disclosed in the middle of congressional investigations into the housing industry collapse.
THElNFOWARRlOR | February 03, 2011 | 69 likes, 3 dislikes
Baldwin says we have more to fear from Washington DC than we do from Tehran or from Afghanistan, pointing to a program that seeks to recruit pastors as martial law pacifiers for FEMA in the event of a national emergency. Baldwin relates how a pastor from Ohio who attended a FEMA training seminar confirmed to him that there is a program to enlist pastors and clergymen to be part of clergy response teams, the primary goal of which would be to use the clergymen to encourage their constituents to submit to following government orders upon declaration of martial law, including the confiscation of firearms.
Baldwin cites the States’ Rights movement as the primary method through which freedom-loving American citizens in the 21st century will regain the liberties that have been usurped by the federal government in Washington DC. Part of this process was started by the genuine grass roots Tea Party groups which began in January 2007 as part of Ron Paul’s bid for the presidency, organizations like Oath Keepers. Baldwin warns that neo-cons have surreptitiously infiltrated and are trying to take over the modern Tea Party internally and re-focus the energy and the philosophy of the movement.
The only way the Tea Party can succeed is if they avoid two party partisanship and stick to the issues, states Baldwin, adding that there are two factions within the Tea Party, the Sarah Palin/Newt Gingrich-neo-con faction that has hijacked the movement, and the founding Ron Paul constitutionalist faction. Baldwin says that we will know by 2012 which way the Tea Party will move and whether or not it will have any lasting impact.
The cancer that is destroying America can be traced back to the Federal Reserve, states Baldwin, identifying the End the Fed movement as another crucial step towards reclaiming liberty. “It’s not enough to audit the Fed, we have to eliminate the Fed,” states Baldwin, adding that bringing America back to sound money principles is the only way to secure a prosperous future. This process must be undertaken at the state level, stresses Baldwin, adding that Ron Paul’s 2008 election campaign was responsible for bringing the Federal Reserve issue to nationwide prominence and prompting the national debate that continues to this day. The fact that Ron Paul was largely correct about the course of the economy since early 2008 has only given his message more credibility.
Monday , April 06, 2009
CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: … Mr. Gingrich, before today’s launch, you said the North Koreans should not be allowed to fire a missile and that the U.S., quote, “should take whatever preemptive actions are necessary.” Are you saying that “President Gingrich” would have taken out that missile on the launch pad?
NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Yes, I’m saying if you look at the new book by my co- author Bill Fortune called “One Second After,” and you look at electromagnetic pulse capabilities, which can take out — one weapon could take out a third of the electric generating capacity of the United States.