Fwd: [New post] Moochelle Booed at NASCAR

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Fellowship of the


New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Moochelle Booed at NASCAR

by Dr. Eowyn

Moochelle was in Florida today to make the traditional "Gentlemen, start your engine!" call at the final NASCAR race of the season.

She did not get a warm welcome. There were "boos" from the crowd at the mention of her name. LOL

H/t Breitbart.

~Eowyn

Dr. Eowyn | November 20, 2011 at 2:47 pm | Tags: Michelle Obama | Categories: 2012 Election, Liberals, United States | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-aK7

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/moochelle-booed-at-nascar/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Occupy Oakland Hosts Gay Porn Movie Shoot

---------


 

http://sfist.com/2011/11/19/gay_porn_company_shoots_new_film_on.php

Occupy Oakland Hosts Gay Porn Movie Shoot

<http://sfist.com/attachments/SFist_AndrewD/occupyoakland_porn.jpg> 
Credit: Dirty Boy Video via LeFag
This one's bound to catch the attention of the anti-Occupy sect: Porn company Dirty Boy Video, which (we're guessing) specializes in videos of boys who are dirty, used a tent in the middle of the Occupy Oakland encampment at Frank Ogawa Plaza as the set for a recent video shoot. As Le Fag reports, along with the promotional stills, "This video could be a nice historical document in years to come, should the movement prove more than a flash in the pan."
Adding a political note to the recently-released porn, Dirty Boy Video quips, "Police can ban the erection of tents at Occupy Wall Street, but they can't keep us from pitching a tent in our pants!"
There's a trailer, which is obviously Not Safe for Work or public Wi-Fi, of the "hipster twink themed" piece of performance art.

A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.  ~Herm Albright~
Israel should not be fearing world opinion. Israel should be making the world respect her!!!  And remember, it is the rich oil cartels who rule the world, NOT the Zionists!!
Mech'el B. Samberg

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProJewishProZionistGroup/?yguid=368134690

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/stillnotjustmusicanymore/?yguid=368134690

http://groups.yahoo.com/adultconf?dest=%2Fgroup%2Fwhateverreturns%2F%3Fyguid%3D368134690

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shieldofdavid/?yguid=373549731

Permission granted to share with others!!

__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:

Visit Your Group
Contact the group owner or moderators at this address if there are any problems ::
House_of_Dawg-owner@yahoogroups.com

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/House_of_Dawg/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UncensoredPolitics/
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Halomaniacs/
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

<http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=4948e4c8-13e8-11e1-a815-ff26611a5e93&T=1d1apg6ia%2fX%3d1321842418%2fE%3d1705083764%2fR%3dgroups%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d2583289499%2fH%3dY29udGVudD0iTWVtYmVyX0RpcmVjdG9yeTtHcm91cHM7MzYwO1Bob3RvcztCcmllZmNhc2U7UGVyc29uYWxzO0FsZXJ0cztBdXRvcy1DdXN0b207R2VvY2l0aWVzO01lc3NlbmdlcjsiIGRpc2FibGVzaHVmZmxpbmc9IjEiIHNlcnZlSWQ9IjQ5NDhlNGM4LTEzZTgtMTFlMS1hODE1LWZmMjY2MTFhNWU5MyIgc2l0ZUlkPSI0NDUyNTUxIiB0U3RtcD0iMTMyMTg0MjQxODA2ODQ2NSIg%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3dAC238962&U=13ccnmcpu%2fN%3d9aVyA0PDhEc-%2fC%3d493064.14543979.14562481.13298430%2fD%3dMKP1%2fB%3d6060255%2fV%3d1>
<http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/yg/logo/us.gif>
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=21565773/grpspId=1705083764/msgId=140684/stime=1321842417/nc1=5758223/nc2=5028927/nc3=3848583>
__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Obama Warns World Leaders Global Economic Crash Can’t Be Stopped;

---------

Subject: Obama Warns World Leaders Global Economic Crash Can't Be Stopped;

http://www.eutimes.net/2010/04/obama-warns-world-leaders-global-economic-crash-can't-be-stopped/

__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:

New Members 7

Visit Your Group
This email group is to share information, opinions, and experiences that relate to politics. Please be polite, open-minded, and tolerant. World-wide_Politics is not responsible for the comments, copyrights, or topics of messages received on this email group. Messages are the complete responsibility of the sender. World-wide_Politics reserves the right to modify messages or delete posts considered not appropriate for this email group, revoke posting privileges, and/or revoke the membership of any group member. Posts about religion should relate to politics.
Ideal Post Format
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/World-wide_Politics/files/Ideal%20Post%20Format
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Ron Paul: Hopelessly Naive or Just Plain Stupid?

lets reject 3 wars in the med. sea area out of hand along with over
900 bases in over 130 countries... just what description do you place
on that. (those numbers do NOT count embassy and consular staffs and
protective details)

On Nov 20, 3:41 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Bruce,
>
> Dr. Paul  said it, during one of the debates,  (I think the third debate)
>
> I don't necessarily agree with most of what Mark just wrote, although I
> think it simplifies the status of the United States' Middle Eastern Foreign
> Policy.   I reject the notion that the United States is some type of an
> interventionist war mongering Nation.   That's simply not true.
>
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I doubt he said that
>
> > On Sunday, November 20, 2011, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > That's funny. I could have sworn some raghead Jihadists destroyed a
> > > marine> barracks, two US Embassies in Africa, and almost sunk a
> > > warship in the> 1990′s and ended up killing 3,000 Americans on our own
> > > soil in a few> minute's time one fine September morning.
>
> > > Lets see..... the present course of action has seen the USA help in
> > > the FOUNDING of at least two firmly entrenched radical Islam/anti-
> > > America governments, third out of four has point blank said that if
> > > there was a choice between helping an Islamic country or the USA they
> > > would help the Islamic state.  The fourth, the one the USA has NO
> > > interest in, now or ever, is the only one that will come out of recent
> > > conflict as moderate and progressive.
>
> > > Given the constant state of "alerts" in the USA the wars have done
> > > NOTHING to make you more secure... other than to be secure in the loss
> > > of basic rights.
>
> > > Just exactly what is wrong with the "rule of law"?  Just what do you
> > > have against the constitution that is forcing you into the the "war
> > > powers" and "(un)patriot act" corner?
>
> > > The standing army is not a good idea... A well armed ...in every way..
> > > defense force is. Had the Air Force done its duty on 9-11 no planes
> > > would have hit the towers... had the ships watch done its duty the
> > > Cole would not have been harmed... etc. etc. etc.   NONE of the
> > > protocol was followed in any of these cases.. this resulted in the
> > > successful attacks.
>
> > > I have "0" problem with not allowing a plane, ship, or automobile that
> > > carries a Muslim to enter US space. Just quit playing politics with
> > > the world, bomb Irans nuke plant, cut off aid to Muslim countries etc.
> > > But don't play with boots on the ground.. it has not worked in over 50
> > > years.
>
> > > On Nov 20, 9:26 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Ron Paul said today that he could see no possible reason to ever launch
> > >> military action or initiate a war.
>
> > >> I'm convinced now, that Ron Paul has become a complete buffoonish
> > nitwit,
> > >> either hopelessly naive, or plain stupid. I'd like to hope it's the
> > former,
> > >> but as the days wear on and I listen to his insane anti-war rantings,
> > I'm
> > >> not so sure anymore.
>
> > >> How can anyone even consider this 'Feel-The-Love' Libertarian for the
> > helm
> > >> of Commander-In-Chief?
>
> > >> Jihadists all over the world are vowing our destuction. Ahmadinejad of
> > Iran
> > >> is vowing to wipe out "The Great Satan" and usher in the Islamic
> > Messiah.
> > >> Nukes are being sought by Al Qaeda and being developed by Jihad states.
> > >> Plans for mass death and mayhem in American neighborhoods and schools
> > have
> > >> been recovered from Jihad base camps.
>
> > >> Ron Paul says he sees no possible reason to EVER launch military action
> > or
> > >> go to war.
>
> > >> The guy is on some serious LSD, or he has a hippie Love Fest hangover
> > with
> > >> his pals at moveon.org and other Left-wing Anti-war groups of mostly
> > 60′s
> > >> anti-war retreads.
>
> > >> No possible reason to EVER launch military action???
> > >> Hey Paulie Girl! Remember this???
>
> > >> *(Picture of the WTC)*
>
> > >> Or do you think some 17th Century letter of Marque and Reprisal would
> > >> better deal with the global beast that is militant Islam? But then, if
> > >> Jihad homicide bombers kill themselves by killing Americans then the
> > idea
> > >> of letters of marque are a bit stupid are they not?? The perps are
> > already
> > >> DEAD.
>
> > >> Of course some Libertarians not smoking a bong would think that Letters
> > of
> > >> Marque and Reprisal is a workable option – except they be hypocrites
> > >> considering they are the loudest voices of opposition to Blackwater USA,
> > >> which is essentially the posse a Letter of Reprisal would merit.
>
> > >> Yes, methinks Ron Paul has had too many tokes from the doobie or a major
> > >> contact high from his hippie fans piled in the Ron Paul '08 VW Van
> > >> considering his foray into an alternate reality where giving peace a
> > chance
> > >> defeats Jihadists hell bent on world domination.
>
> > >> But let's take a look at Ron Paul's latest Blame America Pacifistic
> > >> sonata<
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR200...>
> > >> .
>
> > >> In an interview with Washingtonpost.com's PostTalk program, the Texas
> > >> congressman said he could see "no reason" to justify military action if
> > he
> > >> were elected president. He compared the United States to a schoolyard
> > bully
> > >> and said the country has no reason to flex its muscles overseas.
>
> > >> 3,000 dead Americans whose blood cries out to us disagree with you Mr.
> > >> Paul. Of course you are of the Osama Bin Laden opinion that America
> > >> deserved 9-11, due our presence in the Middle East and the world.
>
> > >> "There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today," he
> > said
> > >> in the interview.
>
> > >> That's funny. I could have sworn some raghead Jihadists destroyed a
> > marine
> > >> barracks, two US Embassies in Africa, and almost sunk a warship in the
> > >> 1990′s and ended up killing 3,000 Americans on our own soil in a few
> > >> minute's time one fine September morning.
>
> > >> "I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If
> > >> anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the
> > >> earth within hours.
>
> > >> Oh really? And what nation should we have wiped off the earth after
> > 9-11?
> > >> Afghanistan? Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Egypt? All four?
>
> > >> You bother to READ Islamic prophecy and what both Bin laden and
> > Ahmadinejad
> > >> WANT Mr. Paul?
>
> > >> Of course not.
>
> > >> Otherwise you would not be an appeasement stooge for them, playing into
> > >> their foremost desires to martyr entire Muslim nations before the final
> > >> great battle they promise will destroy the West.
>
> > >> And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like
> > such
> > >> bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military
> > >> and have no weapon."
>
> > >> It was amazing what their trained warrior Jihadists were able to
> > accomplish
> > >> with just a few boxcutters and some training on U.S. soil thanks to our
> > >> Immigration policies.
>
> > >> 3,000 American dead. Billions in destruction.
>
> > >> Wonder what the same kind of barbarians would be able to accomplish WITH
> > >> substantive weapons and the willpower to use them to kill us all Mr.
> > Paul?
>
> > >> Nah, your feeble mind refused to grasp reality and the concept the 9-11
> > >> reality woke us up to.
>
> > >> Ron Paul, you are become a disgrace. An embarrassment. Just like the
> > >> hippies of old – you are high and you stink.
>
> > >> If we keep listening to this foreign policy idiot, we're going to need
> > some
> > >> heavy ludes to calm us down, but Ron Paul is already there on the mellow
> > >> yellow submarine of psychedelic pacifism. Pass the 'shrooms and get
> > ready
> > >> to go far out man, all the way back to the 1700′s when men wore wigs and
> > >> the biggest weapon was a ten pound cannonball. Yup, those days of Marque
> > >> and Reprisal are sure to put a stop to Al Qaeda today. Of course there's
> > >> this little problem with the fact Congress passed a law forbidding the
> > >> assassination of any foreign leaders or rogues – but hey – whose
> > counting
> > >> facts? Let's wrap ourselves in the parchment of the Constitution and
> > >> pretend the real world melts in it's presence.
>
> > >> Kindof how our faces seem to melt with the heavy drugs Ron Paul must be
> > >> freebasing.
>
> > >> Someone wake up Ronnie there – before some Jihadist hands him a hooka
> > next
> > >> and he smokes some more appeasement propaganda.
>
> > >>http://swordattheready.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/ron-paul-is-hopelessl.
> > ..
>
> > >>  9-11.jpg
> > >> 112KViewDownload
>
> > >>  Paul2012..jpg
> > >> 185KViewDownload
>
> > > --
> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Obama Regime Will Force US Taxpayers To Pay the Salaries of Terrorists

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/its-official-the-obama-regime-will-force-american-taxpayers-to-pay-the-monthly-salaries-of-terror-group-hamas/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

No wonder these talking heads don't like talking to Ron Paul

No wonder these talking heads don't like talking to Ron Paul
Published: Sunday, November 20, 2011, 1:22 PM     Updated: Sunday, November 20, 2011, 4:55 PM
By Paul Mulshine/The Star Ledger

On "Face the Nation" he made host Bob Schieffer sound like the tired TV talking head he is.

  A transcript reveals this exchange on the subject of Iran:

Schieffer: Am I correct that your idea of how to discourage Iran from building nuclear weapons is to be nicer to Iran's leaders? Is that correct?

Paul: No, I think we have 12,000 diplomats … I'm suggesting that maybe we ought to use some of them but just think of how we prevented a nuclear war with the Soviets when the Soviet missiles were put in Cuba. We didn't say we're going to attack you. Kennedy and Khrushchev talked and they made a deal. You take your weapons out of Cuba, we'll take them out of Turkey. That's the kind of talk I want. I think the greatest danger now is for us to overreact and this is what I'm fearful of. Iran doesn't have a bomb. There's no proof, regardless of this recent report. And for us to overreact and to talk about bombing Iran, that's much more dangerous. We've gotten the Libyans to get rid of their nuclear power and nuclear weapons and look at what happened to them. So we've got to understand that.

Schieffer: Mr. Paul I have to interrupt for a second. No one has suggested in the US government that we're going to bomb Iran. What they've said is that we're going to impose very tough sanctions. You are against sanctions on Iran. Is that correct?

Paul: Yes because sanctions are the initial step to war. I was opposed to all the sanctions for ten years and the bombing that was occurring with Iraq because I said it would lead to war, but if you say nobody's suggesting it, why don't you listen to the debates? Listen to the other candidates.

Schieffer: Mr. Paul, may I correct you? I am listening to the debates. You know there've been some candidates who've talked about that, including Mr. Romney. The United States government has not said we're going to bomb Iran.

Paul: No, obviously they haven't said that but the implication is that nothing is off the table.

Schieffer: Well yes alright. Let's move on then.

 

No, let's not move on. This is a fascinating exchange. Schieffer's knee-jerk defense of the Beltway consensus on Iran tells you all you need to know about the Beltway crowd. There really is no difference between the parties when it comes to the embrace of the liberal internationalist approach to foreign policy.

And observe Schieffer's tactics. Note the way in which Schieffer tries to dumb down  Paul's views to the low level of  television news, such as when he asserts Paul is urging that the U.S.  "be nicer to Iran's leaders."

Paul corrects him. Then the real fun begins when Scheiffer states that "No one has suggested in the US government that we're going to bomb Iran."

Hold the heck on. Hasn't this guy ever talked to Hillary? As this article shows, the secretary of state has toed the neocon line in repeating the mantra that "it is the policy of this administration that Iran cannot be permitted to have a nuclear weapon and no option has ever been taken off the table."

You would have to be entirely ignorant about the way diplomats speak to not understand that this is a suggestion not just of a possible bombing attack but of a possible attack with nuclear weapons.

Paul responds by pointing out the obvious: That the current debate in the GOP primary campaign centers on whether the U.S. should continue that policy. Ron Paul thinks we shouldn't.

Instead of addressing the issue, which could have led to an interesting exchange, Schieffer  now mischaracterizes his own prior statement from just seconds before.  Now he states he was arguing that, "The United States government has not said we're going to bomb Iran."

Ron Paul never said it did. He did say the administration has  suggested such an attack  with that  "all options open" language. This is true and Schieffer knows it. So he changes the subject.   

He does that quite a bit in this interview. Though it is brief, you see Schieffer employing  over and over a thoroughly dishonest approach to dialogue. Instead of asking the interviewee a question, he mischaracterizes his views.

The passage right before the one I quoted concerned the motivations of the 9/11 attackers. Like a typical neocon, Schieffer rehashes the neocon spin to the effect that Paul is blaming the U.S. for the attack.

This has been talked into the ground already in the debates and Paul has refuted it every time. In fact he simply restated the reasons given by the attackers. After Paul states that in precise prose, note how Schieffer tries to caricature that view and then refuse a chance at rebuttal:

Schieffer: But you are saying it was the government's fault. That basically what you're saying. Let me move on from something else ...

Paul was saying nothing of the sort. This is the sleaziest of stunts on Schieffer's part. In fact if you are a reader of my column and blog, you note that I have a prohibition in my comments policy of this exact sort of thing:

5. I can't stand commenters who say I wrote something I didn't write. Please cite my exact words. Do not paraphrase my views and do not allude to something you think I may have written.

You can't get away with this sort of thing in print. But it's what I would expect from a TV talking head.  Like other TV talking heads, Schieffer is simply not up to the job. It's not so much that Schieffer has a bias here but that he is clearly uncomfortable in trying to address ideas he has not heard addressed inside the Beltway bubble.

But I'm not complaining. That's why you need us inkstained wretches. 

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2011/11/no_wonder_these_talking_heads.html

This Is How an Anti-Establishment Candidate Is Treated

November20th
This Is How an Anti-Establishment Candidate Is Treated
Tom Woods

Watch the contemptible shill Bob Schieffer throw propaganda questions at Ron Paul, and then laughably try to deny that the U.S. government has threatened to use military force against Iran. Ron reminds him that the last two presidents repeatedly said no options had been taken off the table, which obviously means military force is still being considered, and Schieffer just moves on to the next question. The first few questions are sheer neocon, so I sometimes wonder why the neocons complain about the "liberal" media. The "liberal" media shares all their basic assumptions, as this interview with the "liberal" Schieffer shows for the millionth time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pf5eJlDupo&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tomwoods.com%2Fblog%2Fthis-is-how-an-anti-establishment-candidate-is-treated%2F&feature=player_embedded

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/this-is-how-an-anti-establishment-candidate-is-treated/

Re: Ron Paul: Hopelessly Naive or Just Plain Stupid?

Hey Bruce,

 

Dr. Paul  said it, during one of the debates,  (I think the third debate)

 

I don't necessarily agree with most of what Mark just wrote, although I think it simplifies the status of the United States' Middle Eastern Foreign Policy.   I reject the notion that the United States is some type of an interventionist war mongering Nation.   That's simply not true.

 

  

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:

I doubt he said that

On Sunday, November 20, 2011, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's funny. I could have sworn some raghead Jihadists destroyed a
> marine> barracks, two US Embassies in Africa, and almost sunk a
> warship in the> 1990′s and ended up killing 3,000 Americans on our own
> soil in a few> minute's time one fine September morning.
>
>
> Lets see..... the present course of action has seen the USA help in
> the FOUNDING of at least two firmly entrenched radical Islam/anti-
> America governments, third out of four has point blank said that if
> there was a choice between helping an Islamic country or the USA they
> would help the Islamic state.  The fourth, the one the USA has NO
> interest in, now or ever, is the only one that will come out of recent
> conflict as moderate and progressive.
>
> Given the constant state of "alerts" in the USA the wars have done
> NOTHING to make you more secure... other than to be secure in the loss
> of basic rights.
>
> Just exactly what is wrong with the "rule of law"?  Just what do you
> have against the constitution that is forcing you into the the "war
> powers" and "(un)patriot act" corner?
>
> The standing army is not a good idea... A well armed ...in every way..
> defense force is. Had the Air Force done its duty on 9-11 no planes
> would have hit the towers... had the ships watch done its duty the
> Cole would not have been harmed... etc. etc. etc.   NONE of the
> protocol was followed in any of these cases.. this resulted in the
> successful attacks.
>
> I have "0" problem with not allowing a plane, ship, or automobile that
> carries a Muslim to enter US space. Just quit playing politics with
> the world, bomb Irans nuke plant, cut off aid to Muslim countries etc.
> But don't play with boots on the ground.. it has not worked in over 50
> years.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 20, 9:26 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ron Paul said today that he could see no possible reason to ever launch
>> military action or initiate a war.
>>
>> I'm convinced now, that Ron Paul has become a complete buffoonish nitwit,
>> either hopelessly naive, or plain stupid. I'd like to hope it's the former,
>> but as the days wear on and I listen to his insane anti-war rantings, I'm
>> not so sure anymore.
>>
>> How can anyone even consider this 'Feel-The-Love' Libertarian for the helm
>> of Commander-In-Chief?
>>
>> Jihadists all over the world are vowing our destuction. Ahmadinejad of Iran
>> is vowing to wipe out "The Great Satan" and usher in the Islamic Messiah.
>> Nukes are being sought by Al Qaeda and being developed by Jihad states.
>> Plans for mass death and mayhem in American neighborhoods and schools have
>> been recovered from Jihad base camps.
>>
>> Ron Paul says he sees no possible reason to EVER launch military action or
>> go to war.
>>
>> The guy is on some serious LSD, or he has a hippie Love Fest hangover with
>> his pals at moveon.org and other Left-wing Anti-war groups of mostly 60′s
>> anti-war retreads.
>>
>> No possible reason to EVER launch military action???
>> Hey Paulie Girl! Remember this???
>>
>> *(Picture of the WTC)*
>>
>> Or do you think some 17th Century letter of Marque and Reprisal would
>> better deal with the global beast that is militant Islam? But then, if
>> Jihad homicide bombers kill themselves by killing Americans then the idea
>> of letters of marque are a bit stupid are they not?? The perps are already
>> DEAD.
>>
>> Of course some Libertarians not smoking a bong would think that Letters of
>> Marque and Reprisal is a workable option – except they be hypocrites
>> considering they are the loudest voices of opposition to Blackwater USA,
>> which is essentially the posse a Letter of Reprisal would merit.
>>
>> Yes, methinks Ron Paul has had too many tokes from the doobie or a major
>> contact high from his hippie fans piled in the Ron Paul '08 VW Van
>> considering his foray into an alternate reality where giving peace a chance
>> defeats Jihadists hell bent on world domination.
>>
>> But let's take a look at Ron Paul's latest Blame America Pacifistic
>> sonata<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR200...>
>> .
>>
>> In an interview with Washingtonpost.com's PostTalk program, the Texas
>> congressman said he could see "no reason" to justify military action if he
>> were elected president. He compared the United States to a schoolyard bully
>> and said the country has no reason to flex its muscles overseas.
>>
>> 3,000 dead Americans whose blood cries out to us disagree with you Mr.
>> Paul. Of course you are of the Osama Bin Laden opinion that America
>> deserved 9-11, due our presence in the Middle East and the world.
>>
>> "There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today," he said
>> in the interview.
>>
>> That's funny. I could have sworn some raghead Jihadists destroyed a marine
>> barracks, two US Embassies in Africa, and almost sunk a warship in the
>> 1990′s and ended up killing 3,000 Americans on our own soil in a few
>> minute's time one fine September morning.
>>
>> "I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If
>> anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the
>> earth within hours.
>>
>> Oh really? And what nation should we have wiped off the earth after 9-11?
>> Afghanistan? Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Egypt? All four?
>>
>> You bother to READ Islamic prophecy and what both Bin laden and Ahmadinejad
>> WANT Mr. Paul?
>>
>> Of course not.
>>
>> Otherwise you would not be an appeasement stooge for them, playing into
>> their foremost desires to martyr entire Muslim nations before the final
>> great battle they promise will destroy the West.
>>
>> And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such
>> bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military
>> and have no weapon."
>>
>> It was amazing what their trained warrior Jihadists were able to accomplish
>> with just a few boxcutters and some training on U.S. soil thanks to our
>> Immigration policies.
>>
>> 3,000 American dead. Billions in destruction.
>>
>> Wonder what the same kind of barbarians would be able to accomplish WITH
>> substantive weapons and the willpower to use them to kill us all Mr. Paul?
>>
>> Nah, your feeble mind refused to grasp reality and the concept the 9-11
>> reality woke us up to.
>>
>> Ron Paul, you are become a disgrace. An embarrassment. Just like the
>> hippies of old – you are high and you stink.
>>
>> If we keep listening to this foreign policy idiot, we're going to need some
>> heavy ludes to calm us down, but Ron Paul is already there on the mellow
>> yellow submarine of psychedelic pacifism. Pass the 'shrooms and get ready
>> to go far out man, all the way back to the 1700′s when men wore wigs and
>> the biggest weapon was a ten pound cannonball. Yup, those days of Marque
>> and Reprisal are sure to put a stop to Al Qaeda today. Of course there's
>> this little problem with the fact Congress passed a law forbidding the
>> assassination of any foreign leaders or rogues – but hey – whose counting
>> facts? Let's wrap ourselves in the parchment of the Constitution and
>> pretend the real world melts in it's presence.
>>
>> Kindof how our faces seem to melt with the heavy drugs Ron Paul must be
>> freebasing.
>>
>> Someone wake up Ronnie there – before some Jihadist hands him a hooka next
>> and he smokes some more appeasement propaganda.
>>
>> http://swordattheready.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/ron-paul-is-hopelessl...
>>
>>  9-11.jpg
>> 112KViewDownload
>>
>>  Paul2012..jpg
>> 185KViewDownload
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Ron Paul: Hopelessly Naive or Just Plain Stupid?

I doubt he said that

On Sunday, November 20, 2011, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's funny. I could have sworn some raghead Jihadists destroyed a
> marine> barracks, two US Embassies in Africa, and almost sunk a
> warship in the> 1990′s and ended up killing 3,000 Americans on our own
> soil in a few> minute's time one fine September morning.
>
>
> Lets see..... the present course of action has seen the USA help in
> the FOUNDING of at least two firmly entrenched radical Islam/anti-
> America governments, third out of four has point blank said that if
> there was a choice between helping an Islamic country or the USA they
> would help the Islamic state.  The fourth, the one the USA has NO
> interest in, now or ever, is the only one that will come out of recent
> conflict as moderate and progressive.
>
> Given the constant state of "alerts" in the USA the wars have done
> NOTHING to make you more secure... other than to be secure in the loss
> of basic rights.
>
> Just exactly what is wrong with the "rule of law"?  Just what do you
> have against the constitution that is forcing you into the the "war
> powers" and "(un)patriot act" corner?
>
> The standing army is not a good idea... A well armed ...in every way..
> defense force is. Had the Air Force done its duty on 9-11 no planes
> would have hit the towers... had the ships watch done its duty the
> Cole would not have been harmed... etc. etc. etc.   NONE of the
> protocol was followed in any of these cases.. this resulted in the
> successful attacks.
>
> I have "0" problem with not allowing a plane, ship, or automobile that
> carries a Muslim to enter US space. Just quit playing politics with
> the world, bomb Irans nuke plant, cut off aid to Muslim countries etc.
> But don't play with boots on the ground.. it has not worked in over 50
> years.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 20, 9:26 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ron Paul said today that he could see no possible reason to ever launch
>> military action or initiate a war.
>>
>> I'm convinced now, that Ron Paul has become a complete buffoonish nitwit,
>> either hopelessly naive, or plain stupid. I'd like to hope it's the former,
>> but as the days wear on and I listen to his insane anti-war rantings, I'm
>> not so sure anymore.
>>
>> How can anyone even consider this 'Feel-The-Love' Libertarian for the helm
>> of Commander-In-Chief?
>>
>> Jihadists all over the world are vowing our destuction. Ahmadinejad of Iran
>> is vowing to wipe out "The Great Satan" and usher in the Islamic Messiah.
>> Nukes are being sought by Al Qaeda and being developed by Jihad states.
>> Plans for mass death and mayhem in American neighborhoods and schools have
>> been recovered from Jihad base camps.
>>
>> Ron Paul says he sees no possible reason to EVER launch military action or
>> go to war.
>>
>> The guy is on some serious LSD, or he has a hippie Love Fest hangover with
>> his pals at moveon.org and other Left-wing Anti-war groups of mostly 60′s
>> anti-war retreads.
>>
>> No possible reason to EVER launch military action???
>> Hey Paulie Girl! Remember this???
>>
>> *(Picture of the WTC)*
>>
>> Or do you think some 17th Century letter of Marque and Reprisal would
>> better deal with the global beast that is militant Islam? But then, if
>> Jihad homicide bombers kill themselves by killing Americans then the idea
>> of letters of marque are a bit stupid are they not?? The perps are already
>> DEAD.
>>
>> Of course some Libertarians not smoking a bong would think that Letters of
>> Marque and Reprisal is a workable option – except they be hypocrites
>> considering they are the loudest voices of opposition to Blackwater USA,
>> which is essentially the posse a Letter of Reprisal would merit.
>>
>> Yes, methinks Ron Paul has had too many tokes from the doobie or a major
>> contact high from his hippie fans piled in the Ron Paul '08 VW Van
>> considering his foray into an alternate reality where giving peace a chance
>> defeats Jihadists hell bent on world domination.
>>
>> But let's take a look at Ron Paul's latest Blame America Pacifistic
>> sonata<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR200...>
>> .
>>
>> In an interview with Washingtonpost.com's PostTalk program, the Texas
>> congressman said he could see "no reason" to justify military action if he
>> were elected president. He compared the United States to a schoolyard bully
>> and said the country has no reason to flex its muscles overseas.
>>
>> 3,000 dead Americans whose blood cries out to us disagree with you Mr.
>> Paul. Of course you are of the Osama Bin Laden opinion that America
>> deserved 9-11, due our presence in the Middle East and the world.
>>
>> "There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today," he said
>> in the interview.
>>
>> That's funny. I could have sworn some raghead Jihadists destroyed a marine
>> barracks, two US Embassies in Africa, and almost sunk a warship in the
>> 1990′s and ended up killing 3,000 Americans on our own soil in a few
>> minute's time one fine September morning.
>>
>> "I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If
>> anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the
>> earth within hours.
>>
>> Oh really? And what nation should we have wiped off the earth after 9-11?
>> Afghanistan? Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Egypt? All four?
>>
>> You bother to READ Islamic prophecy and what both Bin laden and Ahmadinejad
>> WANT Mr. Paul?
>>
>> Of course not.
>>
>> Otherwise you would not be an appeasement stooge for them, playing into
>> their foremost desires to martyr entire Muslim nations before the final
>> great battle they promise will destroy the West.
>>
>> And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such
>> bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military
>> and have no weapon."
>>
>> It was amazing what their trained warrior Jihadists were able to accomplish
>> with just a few boxcutters and some training on U.S. soil thanks to our
>> Immigration policies.
>>
>> 3,000 American dead. Billions in destruction.
>>
>> Wonder what the same kind of barbarians would be able to accomplish WITH
>> substantive weapons and the willpower to use them to kill us all Mr. Paul?
>>
>> Nah, your feeble mind refused to grasp reality and the concept the 9-11
>> reality woke us up to.
>>
>> Ron Paul, you are become a disgrace. An embarrassment. Just like the
>> hippies of old – you are high and you stink.
>>
>> If we keep listening to this foreign policy idiot, we're going to need some
>> heavy ludes to calm us down, but Ron Paul is already there on the mellow
>> yellow submarine of psychedelic pacifism. Pass the 'shrooms and get ready
>> to go far out man, all the way back to the 1700′s when men wore wigs and
>> the biggest weapon was a ten pound cannonball. Yup, those days of Marque
>> and Reprisal are sure to put a stop to Al Qaeda today. Of course there's
>> this little problem with the fact Congress passed a law forbidding the
>> assassination of any foreign leaders or rogues – but hey – whose counting
>> facts? Let's wrap ourselves in the parchment of the Constitution and
>> pretend the real world melts in it's presence.
>>
>> Kindof how our faces seem to melt with the heavy drugs Ron Paul must be
>> freebasing.
>>
>> Someone wake up Ronnie there – before some Jihadist hands him a hooka next
>> and he smokes some more appeasement propaganda.
>>
>> http://swordattheready.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/ron-paul-is-hopelessl...
>>
>>  9-11.jpg
>> 112KViewDownload
>>
>>  Paul2012..jpg
>> 185KViewDownload
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Answering the Attacks

That's a compliment coming from the likes of Justin Raimondo!   Again,  the socialists, communists, and Anti-Americans are coming out of the woodwork to attack our next President!  

 

It's all good!

 

 

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 3:48 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Newt's new website is "hilarious," says Justin Raimondo.

Answering the Attacks
Setting the Record Straight: Newt's Positions on the Issues and His Record

Now that our campaign to rebuild the America we love is gaining momentum, those who want to see us fail are on the attack, digging through Newt's past to try and stop us.

Newt, Callista and our campaign welcome the opportunity to tell the truth about Newt and set the record straight about Newt's positions on the issues as well as his record in public life and as a private citizen. 

We've set up this page to arm you with answers to the attacks.

See an attack that is not answered?  Let us know here. This page will grow as we receive more feedback to help you answer the attacks.



Newt is the only candidate in the race for the Republican nomination who has led a national movement to elect a Republican majority and then actually achieved substantial conservative reforms of the federal government, including welfare reform, balanced budgets, and tax cuts. These historic reforms liberated the American people to create 11 million new jobs in just four years. Read more about the remarkable Newt Gingrich record here.

No candidate in the race can match Newt Gingrich's 35-year career as a public figure advocating, explaining and achieving conservative reforms in government.  

With this vast amount of experience, however, comes over 7,000 votes, over 1,500 speeches, thousands of television and radio appearances, thousands of articles and opeds and 24 books to scrutinize.

The following are the most commonly asked questions about Newt's record:

Paul Ryan (and the House GOP's) Medicare Plan

Like Ryan and the House GOP, Newt supports a premium support model for Medicare. However, he wants seniors to have the choice to opt into the new system or to stay in traditional Medicare.

Newt agrees wholeheartedly with Rep. Ryan that we must give our seniors more choices than the current one-size-fits-all Medicare model. Both concur that creating the opportunity for seniors to buy private insurance is the key to both improving care and lowering costs.

The one key difference is that under Newt's plan, as outlined in his 21st Century Contract with America, seniors will also have the choice to stay in the current Medicare system or choose a private insurance plan with support from the government to pay the premiums.  The other difference is that Newt believes that seniors should have this option starting next year, not in ten years.

Q: So why did Newt use the term "right wing social engineering" on Meet the Press when discussing these proposed changes to Medicare?

Gingrich is opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed. Afterwards, Newt quickly admitted that his choice of words was too extreme, and he apologized to Congressman Ryan shortly thereafter.

In response to the host's hypothetical question of whether Republicans should change Medicare even if there is public opposition, Gingrich's response was no you should not.  One of Newt's basic governing philosophies is that government should offer a better alternative to existing entitlement programs that seniors can freely choose. Gingrich is opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed. Afterwards, Newt quickly admitted that his choice of words was too extreme, and he apologized to Congressman Ryan shortly thereafter. Newt regards Paul Ryan as one of the biggest innovators in Washington, D.C. and he deeply admires the seriousness and boldness of his historic Path to Prosperity budget.

Back to Menu

Mandate to Purchase health insurance

Newt opposes Governor Romney's health insurance mandate, and Newt opposes President Obama's health insurance mandate.  Newt believes mandates to buy health insurance are wrong on principle, and in the case of the Obamacare health insurance mandate, unconstitutional as well.

With respect to President Obama's health insurance mandate, Newt believes it is an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of federal power. If the federal government can coerce individuals­by threat of fines­to buy health insurance, there is no stopping the federal government from forcing Americans to buy any good or service. It is a serious and unconstitutional infringement of individual liberty.

With respect to Governor Romney's mandate, we have observed that it doesn't achieve its goal of providing low cost catastrophic coverage for the uninsured. The intractable problem we have learned from experience with health insurance mandates is this: once you have a mandate, the government has to specify exactly what coverage must be included in insurance for it to qualify. This introduces political considerations into determining these minimum standards, guaranteeing that nothing desired by the special interests will be left out. 

In the 1990s, Newt and many other conservatives, such as the Heritage Foundation, proposed a mandate to purchase health insurance as the alternative to Hillarycare.  However, the problems outlined above caused Newt to come to the principled conclusion that a mandate to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional, unworkable and counterproductive to lowering the cost of healthcare.

Today, Newt carries the banner in fighting for the repeal of Obamacare and advocates for a "patient power" replacement that will create a free market framework for healthcare, provide affordable, portable, and reliable healthcare coverage, and establish a healthcare safety net focused on those truly in need.  This system moves us towards the goal of healthcare for all with no unconstitutional mandate of any kind.

Back to Menu

Ethanol

Newt supports an "all of the above" approach to achieving American energy independence by the aggressive development of American energy resources, including American oil, natural gas, coal, and biofuels like ethanol.

Newt's position towards supporting American farmers, American energy, and American security has been consistent for over 25 years.  He supported ethanol development since 1984 with Ronald Reagan, and supported it over objections of other Republicans as Speaker.

Newt's American Energy Plan, part of his 21st Century Contract with America, will reverse Barack Obama's assault on American energy. Every day, the Obama Administration continues to prevent unleashing new sources of American energy that will create thousands of new American jobs, make energy more affordable, and reduce our dependence on unfriendly nations.

Meanwhile, Obama tells foreign countries that we want to be one of their best customers for oil and natural gas.

Newt prefers that energy development happens here in America. If the choice is for the next job to be created in Iran or in Iowa, Newt prefers Iowa. If the next dollar is to go to Saudi Arabia or to South Dakota, Newt prefers South Dakota. Ethanol has been a 25-year success story of greater and greater productivity, which has kept money here at home, enriched rural communities, and made Americans safer by lowering our dependence on overseas sources of fuel.

Back to Menu

Fairness Doctrine

Newt opposes the left's efforts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and vocally supported Rep. Mike Pence's 2007 bill that prohibited government censorship in radio.

Newt does not support the Fairness Doctrine and he has been vocally critical of the left's efforts to reinstate the doctrine over the past decade, including supporting Mike Pence's bill that prohibited government censorship in radio in 2007.

In 1987, the three left-wing networks plus PBS/NPR dominated media, and talk-radio was still nascent; many of America's most influential conservative activists, including the American Conservative Union and Phyllis Schlafly, supported the Fairness Doctrine at this time.

The rapid growth of conservative viewpoints in the media in the last 25 years is a testament to the power and innovation of the conservative movement once power is taken out of the hands of the elite networks and put into the hands of consumers.

Back to Menu

Global Warming/Cap and Trade

Newt does not believe there is a settled scientific conclusion about whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere.

Newt absolutely opposes "cap and trade" as well as any system of taxing carbon emissions. He testified before Congress against it in 2009 and led a grassroots effort while the Chairman of American Solutions to block its passage in the House and Senate.

Newt believes that  cap and trade would kill hundreds of thousands of American jobs, cause electricity and fuel prices to skyrocket, and make America poorer.  In contrast, Gingrich believes the best way to protect the environment is through markets, incentives, and entrepreneurs, who quite often are deploying innovative new technologies.

As for the question of whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere, Newt has noted there is no settled scientific conclusion.  Many scientists believe it is the case.  Others do not.  But this unsettled scientific question has nothing to do with the best approach to protecting our environment, which is always markets, incentives, and entrepreneurs creating better and more efficient products and services.

Q: So why did Newt do the ad with Nancy Pelosi in 2007 calling for action to address climate change?

Newt does not believe there is a settled scientific conclusion about whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere.

Through his entire career, Newt has supported pro-market, pro-entrepreneur, innovative solutions to our environmental challenges, which he believes are superior to the liberal pro-bureaucracy, pro-tax, pro-regulation approach to the environment.

Newt believes that conservatives cannot be absent from the conversation about the environment and instead that conservatives must offer and explain why conservative solutions are better. Unfortunately, the attempt to get that message out through the ad with Nancy Pelosi failed.  On November 8, 2011, Newt told FOX News' Bret Baier that doing that commercial with Pelosi was "probably the dumbest single thing I've ever done".

Newt will continue to oppose the Democrats' destructive cap-and-trade and carbon tax proposals, continue to support expanded domestic oil and gas drilling, and continue to fight for a fundamental replacement of the job-killing Environmental Protection Agency with an Environmental Solutions Agency.

Back to Menu

Immigration/DREAM Act

In his 21st Century Contract with America, Newt pledges to control the southern border by January 1, 2014, waiving any regulations and pushing aside any bureaucracies that get in the way.

Newt believes America must be a nation of laws.  The first duty of the federal government is national defense, and it is inexcusable that we haven't secured the border. In his 21st Century Contract with America, Newt pledges to control the southern border by January 1, 2014, waiving any regulations and pushing aside any bureaucracies that get in the way.

As we secure the border, we must make an aggressive and serious effort to deport all criminals, gang members, and any other threats to our society as quickly as possible.  We must also tap into the ingenuity of the private sector to better validate who is in the United States legally.

Newt opposed the DREAM Act.  However, he did agree with part of the legislation which allowed those who came to the United States illegally as children to serve in the U.S. Military to earn their citizenship, just as foreign nationals are today allowed to do the same.

Furthermore, Newt has proposed giving local communities the authority to allow those with long established roots in the neighborhood a legal residency status, but not citizenship.  Newt believes local communities are at a better vantage point to determine if those there illegally should stay or go.  Under this system, we will send home those with no family or community ties and quickly deport those who have committed criminal and other destructive acts, while providing minimal disruption to families and communities.

Back to Menu

Agriculture Subsidies

Newt supports maintaining components of existing federal policy that safeguard American farmers against inherently unpredictable weather and price volatility, including a strong crop insurance program, while also streamlining USDA bureaucracy so it better serves American farmers and consumers

Agriculture is critical to the economy and only becomes more important as the world's population rapidly continues to grow beyond 7 billion people. Newt supports maintaining components of existing federal policy that safeguard American farmers against inherently unpredictable weather and price volatility, including a strong crop insurance program, while also streamlining USDA bureaucracy so it better serves American farmers and consumers.

Newt's plan for prosperity for rural Americans in Iowa and across the country begins with an outright repeal of the death tax, which has inflicted disproportionate pain on family farms. Job-killing EPA regulations make it difficult for American farmers to earn a living, and the new threats to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act are downright destructive. Newt will replace the Washington-centric job killing EPA with a new Environmental Solutions Agency that will work with agriculture more closely and constructively.  In addition, community banks provide a credit lifeline to American farmers, and Newt will work to repeal the Dodd-Frank regulatory bill that puts disproportionate strain on banks in rural America.

Back to Menu

TARP

Newt believes that the reckless, secretive and opaque way in which the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department administered the bailouts has been an affront to democracy.

Newt was appalled and disgusted at the amount of dictatorial power that Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson tried to grab for himself at the outset of the financial crisis. However, he reluctantly supported a scaled-down plan after Paulson told the country that the world financial system was going to collapse without this emergency support.

Newt believes that the reckless, secretive and opaque way in which the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department administered the bailouts has been an affront to democracy. The Fed was picking winners and losers, using several emergency lending facilities to make all types of loans to connected parties, including to a bank owned by the Libyan government.

This is why broadly scaling back the role of the Federal Reserve and repealing the Dodd-Frank bill are two of the central pillars of Newt's 21st Century Contract with America.  The Fed will be fully audited and made more transparent to ensure the events of 2008 are never repeated, and getting rid of Dodd-Frank will once and for all end the destructive policy of "too big to fail."

Back to Menu

Zero-Based Budgeting in Foreign Aid/Inclusion of Israel

Newt believes that Israel is one of America's closest friends and a key strategic ally in a dangerous part of the world.  Newt fully expects that Israel will continue to receive a robust package of aid from the United States under a new merit-based approach to foreign aid.  

Newt believes that zero-based budgeting is a good approach to apply all across the federal government, not just for foreign aid.  Before we spend money every year in various areas of the federal budget, we should ask the right questions of whether we should continue to spend like we have the year before. We have to break the "baseline" mentality that just assumes that spending will automatically be in place and grow every year.

The question has been raised as to how this budgeting approach applies to foreign aid to Israel.

At the moment, the United States has a multi-year aid agreement with Israel. Newt believes we must honor this agreement.  And sometimes multi-year aid agreements will continue to be appropriate. But as a general matter, we should apply a zero-based budgeting approach to all recipients of foreign aid. Newt believes that Israel is one of America's closest friends and a key strategic ally in a dangerous part of the world.  Gingrich fully expects that Israel will continue to receive a robust package of aid from the United States under a new merit-based approach to foreign aid.

Back to Menu

Vote for Department of Education

As President, Newt will dramatically shrink the Department of Education to a research and reporting overview agency, and restore decision-making powers to states and communities.

When Newt voted for the creation of the Department of Education, the institution was only structured to provide research and collect data. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy ballooned, so while Speaker, Newt aggressively campaigned to pare down the Department back to its appropriate role and return power to the states.

As President, Newt will dramatically shrink the Department of Education to a research and reporting overview agency, and restore decision-making powers to states and communities. Most responsibilities and positions will be eliminated, and its new role will be to help find new and innovative approaches to then be adopted voluntarily at the local level. Newt will steadfastly oppose any national curriculum standards, and will reverse Barack Obama's nationalization of the student loan industry.

Back to Menu

Dede Scozzafava Endorsement

Newt has admitted it was a mistake to back Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee in the 2009 NY-23 special election.

Whether it was helping to build the Republican Party of Georgia back when Democrats controlled the entire state or leading the nationwide effort in 1994 to break 40 years of Democratic rule in the House, Newt has always tried to advance the cause of a truly conservative Republican party. This has always meant supporting the most conservative nominee possible as selected by Republican primary voters.

Therefore, Newt will almost always back the nominee of the Republican party and not back an independent candidate in a race against a Democratic candidate.

Newt still believes in this principle, however, he has admitted it was a mistake to back Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee in the 2009 NY-23 special election.  Although she was the Republican nominee, the problem was that Republican primary voters did not pick her, the local party leaders did, otherwise her liberal views would have prevented her from becoming the nominee. The Conservative Party candidate whom Scozzafava was running against, Doug Hoffman, recently remarked about Newt's endorsement of his rival, "I would advise other conservative republicans: Don't hold this against him."

Back to Menu

Government Shutdowns

Gingrich-led Republicans stuck to their principles. The result: 4 consecutive balanced budgets, over $400 billion of debt paid off, bipartisan welfare reform, 11 million new jobs, and unemployment falling to under 4%.

In February 2011, Newt wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post to set the record straight about the government shutdowns of 1995 and early 1996.  Read it here.   Excerpts:
 

The Washington media establishment believes that the government shutdowns of 1995 and early 1996 were disastrous mistakes that accomplished little and cost House Republicans politically. The facts are exactly the opposite.

While the shutdown produced some short-term pain, it set the stage for a budget deal in 1996 that led to the largest drop in federal discretionary spending since 1969. The discipline imposed by this 1996 budget let to a balanced-budget deal in 1997, the first of four consecutive balanced budgets – an achievement Congress and the White House had not achieved since the 1920s. Overall spending grew at an average of 2.9 percent a year while Newt was Speaker, the slowest rate in decades, and Americans created 11 million new jobs…

This process hardly damaged the Republicans politically: Americans rewarded House Republicans the following November, as they became the first Republican majority to be reelected to a second term since 1928. Republicans would go on to hold the House of Representatives for all but four years between 1995 and today…

This would all have been impossible had Republicans not stood firm in 1995 and shown the American people (and the White House) that we were serious about reducing spending.

Back to Menu

Ethics Investigation

In 1999, after a 3 ½ year investigation, the Internal Revenue Service (under President Bill Clinton) concluded that Gingrich did not violate any tax laws, leading renowned CNN Investigative Reporter Brooks Jackson to remark on air "it turns out [Gingrich] was right and those who accused him of tax fraud were wrong."

Eighty four politically motivated ethics charges were filed against Newt when he was Speaker of the House regarding the use of tax exempt funds for a college course he taught titled "Renewing American Civilization."  Eighty-three of the eighty-four charges were found to be without merit and dropped.  The remaining charge had to do with contradictory documents prepared by Newt's lawyer supplied during the course of the investigation.  Newt took responsibility for the error and agreed to reimburse the committee the cost of the investigation into that discrepancy.  In 1999, after a 3 ½ year investigation, the Internal Revenue Service (under President Bill Clinton, nonetheless) concluded that Gingrich did not violate any tax laws, leading renowned CNN Investigative Reporter Brooks Jackson to remark on air "it turns out [Gingrich] was right and those who accused him of tax fraud were wrong."

Back to Menu

Lobbying – Newt has never engaged in lobbying, period.  Newt made a decision after resigning that he would never be a lobbyist so that nobody would ever question the genuine nature of his advice and perspectives.

Relationship with Freddie Mac

Recent reporting from Bloomberg News on the Gingrich Group's consulting services for Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.

After leaving public office, Newt Gingrich founded a number of very successful small businesses.  One of these small businesses, a consulting firm called The Gingrich Group, offered strategic advice on a wide variety of topics to a very wide range of clients.  One of these clients was Freddie Mac.  At no time did Gingrich lobby for Freddie Mac, or for any client, and neither did anyone in Gingrich's firm.  This prohibition against lobbying was made clear to all Gingrich Group clients.  Nor did Gingrich ever advocate against pending legislation affecting Freddie Mac, as some articles have incorrectly alleged.  In fact, recent reporting from Bloomberg News on the Gingrich Group's consulting services for Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.

Newt is in favor of efforts to increase home ownership in America but as a conservative believes they must be within a context of learning how to budget and save in a responsible way, the opposite of the lending practices that led to the financial crisis.  You can watch a video from March 2008 of Newt warning about the danger of politicized decision making in the housing crisis here.
As part of Newt's Jobs and Prosperity Plan, Newt advocates breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and moving their smaller successors off of government guarantees and into the free market.

Back to Menu

Personal Life

Newt has been honest and forthright about the fact that he has had moments in his life that he regrets, that he has had to seek reconciliation, and go to God for forgiveness.

Today, Newt and Callista have a very strong marriage.  They produce movies, write books, and enjoy their time on the campaign trail together.  They are also blessed to be very close to their family.

Newt believes that by continuing to be honest and forthright about his past failings, voters will come to understand the man that he is now and conclude they can trust him to represent the American people in the White House.

Furthermore, Newt welcomes the opportunity to clear up the many lies and misconceptions that persist about his past:

Extramarital Affair During Clinton Impeachment

The impeachment proceedings against President Clinton were due to the fact that the president committed perjury in front of a sitting federal judge, which is a felony.

Opponents often try to delegitimize Newt Gingrich by pointing out that he had admitted to having an extramarital affair during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.  What these accusers are ignoring is that the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton were due to the fact that the president committed perjury in front of a sitting federal judge, which is a felony.  As the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt felt that he had a duty to uphold the rule of law by pursuing impeachment.  He stands by that decision today. 

Asking Wife For Divorce While She Was In The Hospital Dying of Cancer

Newt's daughter recently wrote a column to set the record straight about this smear.

This story is a vicious lie.  It was first reported by a left wing magazine in the 1980s based on hearsay and has survived in left-wing chat rooms on the Internet until today.  It is completely false.

Recently, Newt's daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, wrote a column to set the record straight about this smear.  The column reveals that 1) It was her mother that requested the divorce, not Newt, and it was months before the hospital visit in question; 2) Her mother was in the hospital to remove a tumor, but it was benign, and she is still alive today; 3) Newt visited the hospital for the purpose of taking his two children to see their mother, not to discuss a divorce.  You can read it here.

http://www.newt.org/answers

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Answering the Attacks

Newt's new website is "hilarious," says Justin Raimondo.

Answering the Attacks
Setting the Record Straight: Newt's Positions on the Issues and His Record

Now that our campaign to rebuild the America we love is gaining momentum, those who want to see us fail are on the attack, digging through Newt's past to try and stop us.

Newt, Callista and our campaign welcome the opportunity to tell the truth about Newt and set the record straight about Newt's positions on the issues as well as his record in public life and as a private citizen. 

We've set up this page to arm you with answers to the attacks.

See an attack that is not answered?  Let us know here. This page will grow as we receive more feedback to help you answer the attacks.



Newt is the only candidate in the race for the Republican nomination who has led a national movement to elect a Republican majority and then actually achieved substantial conservative reforms of the federal government, including welfare reform, balanced budgets, and tax cuts. These historic reforms liberated the American people to create 11 million new jobs in just four years. Read more about the remarkable Newt Gingrich record here.

No candidate in the race can match Newt Gingrich's 35-year career as a public figure advocating, explaining and achieving conservative reforms in government.  

With this vast amount of experience, however, comes over 7,000 votes, over 1,500 speeches, thousands of television and radio appearances, thousands of articles and opeds and 24 books to scrutinize.

The following are the most commonly asked questions about Newt's record:

Paul Ryan (and the House GOP's) Medicare Plan

Like Ryan and the House GOP, Newt supports a premium support model for Medicare. However, he wants seniors to have the choice to opt into the new system or to stay in traditional Medicare.

Newt agrees wholeheartedly with Rep. Ryan that we must give our seniors more choices than the current one-size-fits-all Medicare model. Both concur that creating the opportunity for seniors to buy private insurance is the key to both improving care and lowering costs.

The one key difference is that under Newt's plan, as outlined in his 21st Century Contract with America, seniors will also have the choice to stay in the current Medicare system or choose a private insurance plan with support from the government to pay the premiums.  The other difference is that Newt believes that seniors should have this option starting next year, not in ten years.

Q: So why did Newt use the term "right wing social engineering" on Meet the Press when discussing these proposed changes to Medicare?

Gingrich is opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed. Afterwards, Newt quickly admitted that his choice of words was too extreme, and he apologized to Congressman Ryan shortly thereafter.

In response to the host's hypothetical question of whether Republicans should change Medicare even if there is public opposition, Gingrich's response was no you should not.  One of Newt's basic governing philosophies is that government should offer a better alternative to existing entitlement programs that seniors can freely choose. Gingrich is opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed. Afterwards, Newt quickly admitted that his choice of words was too extreme, and he apologized to Congressman Ryan shortly thereafter. Newt regards Paul Ryan as one of the biggest innovators in Washington, D.C. and he deeply admires the seriousness and boldness of his historic Path to Prosperity budget.

Back to Menu

Mandate to Purchase health insurance

Newt opposes Governor Romney's health insurance mandate, and Newt opposes President Obama's health insurance mandate.  Newt believes mandates to buy health insurance are wrong on principle, and in the case of the Obamacare health insurance mandate, unconstitutional as well.

With respect to President Obama's health insurance mandate, Newt believes it is an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of federal power. If the federal government can coerce individuals­by threat of fines­to buy health insurance, there is no stopping the federal government from forcing Americans to buy any good or service. It is a serious and unconstitutional infringement of individual liberty.

With respect to Governor Romney's mandate, we have observed that it doesn't achieve its goal of providing low cost catastrophic coverage for the uninsured. The intractable problem we have learned from experience with health insurance mandates is this: once you have a mandate, the government has to specify exactly what coverage must be included in insurance for it to qualify. This introduces political considerations into determining these minimum standards, guaranteeing that nothing desired by the special interests will be left out. 

In the 1990s, Newt and many other conservatives, such as the Heritage Foundation, proposed a mandate to purchase health insurance as the alternative to Hillarycare.  However, the problems outlined above caused Newt to come to the principled conclusion that a mandate to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional, unworkable and counterproductive to lowering the cost of healthcare.

Today, Newt carries the banner in fighting for the repeal of Obamacare and advocates for a "patient power" replacement that will create a free market framework for healthcare, provide affordable, portable, and reliable healthcare coverage, and establish a healthcare safety net focused on those truly in need.  This system moves us towards the goal of healthcare for all with no unconstitutional mandate of any kind.

Back to Menu

Ethanol

Newt supports an "all of the above" approach to achieving American energy independence by the aggressive development of American energy resources, including American oil, natural gas, coal, and biofuels like ethanol.

Newt's position towards supporting American farmers, American energy, and American security has been consistent for over 25 years.  He supported ethanol development since 1984 with Ronald Reagan, and supported it over objections of other Republicans as Speaker.

Newt's American Energy Plan, part of his 21st Century Contract with America, will reverse Barack Obama's assault on American energy. Every day, the Obama Administration continues to prevent unleashing new sources of American energy that will create thousands of new American jobs, make energy more affordable, and reduce our dependence on unfriendly nations.

Meanwhile, Obama tells foreign countries that we want to be one of their best customers for oil and natural gas.

Newt prefers that energy development happens here in America. If the choice is for the next job to be created in Iran or in Iowa, Newt prefers Iowa. If the next dollar is to go to Saudi Arabia or to South Dakota, Newt prefers South Dakota. Ethanol has been a 25-year success story of greater and greater productivity, which has kept money here at home, enriched rural communities, and made Americans safer by lowering our dependence on overseas sources of fuel.

Back to Menu

Fairness Doctrine

Newt opposes the left's efforts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and vocally supported Rep. Mike Pence's 2007 bill that prohibited government censorship in radio.

Newt does not support the Fairness Doctrine and he has been vocally critical of the left's efforts to reinstate the doctrine over the past decade, including supporting Mike Pence's bill that prohibited government censorship in radio in 2007.

In 1987, the three left-wing networks plus PBS/NPR dominated media, and talk-radio was still nascent; many of America's most influential conservative activists, including the American Conservative Union and Phyllis Schlafly, supported the Fairness Doctrine at this time.

The rapid growth of conservative viewpoints in the media in the last 25 years is a testament to the power and innovation of the conservative movement once power is taken out of the hands of the elite networks and put into the hands of consumers.

Back to Menu

Global Warming/Cap and Trade

Newt does not believe there is a settled scientific conclusion about whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere.

Newt absolutely opposes "cap and trade" as well as any system of taxing carbon emissions. He testified before Congress against it in 2009 and led a grassroots effort while the Chairman of American Solutions to block its passage in the House and Senate.

Newt believes that  cap and trade would kill hundreds of thousands of American jobs, cause electricity and fuel prices to skyrocket, and make America poorer.  In contrast, Gingrich believes the best way to protect the environment is through markets, incentives, and entrepreneurs, who quite often are deploying innovative new technologies.

As for the question of whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere, Newt has noted there is no settled scientific conclusion.  Many scientists believe it is the case.  Others do not.  But this unsettled scientific question has nothing to do with the best approach to protecting our environment, which is always markets, incentives, and entrepreneurs creating better and more efficient products and services.

Q: So why did Newt do the ad with Nancy Pelosi in 2007 calling for action to address climate change?

Newt does not believe there is a settled scientific conclusion about whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere.

Through his entire career, Newt has supported pro-market, pro-entrepreneur, innovative solutions to our environmental challenges, which he believes are superior to the liberal pro-bureaucracy, pro-tax, pro-regulation approach to the environment.

Newt believes that conservatives cannot be absent from the conversation about the environment and instead that conservatives must offer and explain why conservative solutions are better. Unfortunately, the attempt to get that message out through the ad with Nancy Pelosi failed.  On November 8, 2011, Newt told FOX News' Bret Baier that doing that commercial with Pelosi was "probably the dumbest single thing I've ever done".

Newt will continue to oppose the Democrats' destructive cap-and-trade and carbon tax proposals, continue to support expanded domestic oil and gas drilling, and continue to fight for a fundamental replacement of the job-killing Environmental Protection Agency with an Environmental Solutions Agency.

Back to Menu

Immigration/DREAM Act

In his 21st Century Contract with America, Newt pledges to control the southern border by January 1, 2014, waiving any regulations and pushing aside any bureaucracies that get in the way.

Newt believes America must be a nation of laws.  The first duty of the federal government is national defense, and it is inexcusable that we haven't secured the border. In his 21st Century Contract with America, Newt pledges to control the southern border by January 1, 2014, waiving any regulations and pushing aside any bureaucracies that get in the way.

As we secure the border, we must make an aggressive and serious effort to deport all criminals, gang members, and any other threats to our society as quickly as possible.  We must also tap into the ingenuity of the private sector to better validate who is in the United States legally.

Newt opposed the DREAM Act.  However, he did agree with part of the legislation which allowed those who came to the United States illegally as children to serve in the U.S. Military to earn their citizenship, just as foreign nationals are today allowed to do the same.

Furthermore, Newt has proposed giving local communities the authority to allow those with long established roots in the neighborhood a legal residency status, but not citizenship.  Newt believes local communities are at a better vantage point to determine if those there illegally should stay or go.  Under this system, we will send home those with no family or community ties and quickly deport those who have committed criminal and other destructive acts, while providing minimal disruption to families and communities.

Back to Menu

Agriculture Subsidies

Newt supports maintaining components of existing federal policy that safeguard American farmers against inherently unpredictable weather and price volatility, including a strong crop insurance program, while also streamlining USDA bureaucracy so it better serves American farmers and consumers

Agriculture is critical to the economy and only becomes more important as the world's population rapidly continues to grow beyond 7 billion people. Newt supports maintaining components of existing federal policy that safeguard American farmers against inherently unpredictable weather and price volatility, including a strong crop insurance program, while also streamlining USDA bureaucracy so it better serves American farmers and consumers.

Newt's plan for prosperity for rural Americans in Iowa and across the country begins with an outright repeal of the death tax, which has inflicted disproportionate pain on family farms. Job-killing EPA regulations make it difficult for American farmers to earn a living, and the new threats to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act are downright destructive. Newt will replace the Washington-centric job killing EPA with a new Environmental Solutions Agency that will work with agriculture more closely and constructively.  In addition, community banks provide a credit lifeline to American farmers, and Newt will work to repeal the Dodd-Frank regulatory bill that puts disproportionate strain on banks in rural America.

Back to Menu

TARP

Newt believes that the reckless, secretive and opaque way in which the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department administered the bailouts has been an affront to democracy.

Newt was appalled and disgusted at the amount of dictatorial power that Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson tried to grab for himself at the outset of the financial crisis. However, he reluctantly supported a scaled-down plan after Paulson told the country that the world financial system was going to collapse without this emergency support.

Newt believes that the reckless, secretive and opaque way in which the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department administered the bailouts has been an affront to democracy. The Fed was picking winners and losers, using several emergency lending facilities to make all types of loans to connected parties, including to a bank owned by the Libyan government.

This is why broadly scaling back the role of the Federal Reserve and repealing the Dodd-Frank bill are two of the central pillars of Newt's 21st Century Contract with America.  The Fed will be fully audited and made more transparent to ensure the events of 2008 are never repeated, and getting rid of Dodd-Frank will once and for all end the destructive policy of "too big to fail."

Back to Menu

Zero-Based Budgeting in Foreign Aid/Inclusion of Israel

Newt believes that Israel is one of America's closest friends and a key strategic ally in a dangerous part of the world.  Newt fully expects that Israel will continue to receive a robust package of aid from the United States under a new merit-based approach to foreign aid.  

Newt believes that zero-based budgeting is a good approach to apply all across the federal government, not just for foreign aid.  Before we spend money every year in various areas of the federal budget, we should ask the right questions of whether we should continue to spend like we have the year before. We have to break the "baseline" mentality that just assumes that spending will automatically be in place and grow every year.

The question has been raised as to how this budgeting approach applies to foreign aid to Israel.

At the moment, the United States has a multi-year aid agreement with Israel. Newt believes we must honor this agreement.  And sometimes multi-year aid agreements will continue to be appropriate. But as a general matter, we should apply a zero-based budgeting approach to all recipients of foreign aid. Newt believes that Israel is one of America's closest friends and a key strategic ally in a dangerous part of the world.  Gingrich fully expects that Israel will continue to receive a robust package of aid from the United States under a new merit-based approach to foreign aid.

Back to Menu

Vote for Department of Education

As President, Newt will dramatically shrink the Department of Education to a research and reporting overview agency, and restore decision-making powers to states and communities.

When Newt voted for the creation of the Department of Education, the institution was only structured to provide research and collect data. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy ballooned, so while Speaker, Newt aggressively campaigned to pare down the Department back to its appropriate role and return power to the states.

As President, Newt will dramatically shrink the Department of Education to a research and reporting overview agency, and restore decision-making powers to states and communities. Most responsibilities and positions will be eliminated, and its new role will be to help find new and innovative approaches to then be adopted voluntarily at the local level. Newt will steadfastly oppose any national curriculum standards, and will reverse Barack Obama's nationalization of the student loan industry.

Back to Menu

Dede Scozzafava Endorsement

Newt has admitted it was a mistake to back Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee in the 2009 NY-23 special election.

Whether it was helping to build the Republican Party of Georgia back when Democrats controlled the entire state or leading the nationwide effort in 1994 to break 40 years of Democratic rule in the House, Newt has always tried to advance the cause of a truly conservative Republican party. This has always meant supporting the most conservative nominee possible as selected by Republican primary voters.

Therefore, Newt will almost always back the nominee of the Republican party and not back an independent candidate in a race against a Democratic candidate.

Newt still believes in this principle, however, he has admitted it was a mistake to back Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee in the 2009 NY-23 special election.  Although she was the Republican nominee, the problem was that Republican primary voters did not pick her, the local party leaders did, otherwise her liberal views would have prevented her from becoming the nominee. The Conservative Party candidate whom Scozzafava was running against, Doug Hoffman, recently remarked about Newt's endorsement of his rival, "I would advise other conservative republicans: Don't hold this against him."

Back to Menu

Government Shutdowns

Gingrich-led Republicans stuck to their principles. The result: 4 consecutive balanced budgets, over $400 billion of debt paid off, bipartisan welfare reform, 11 million new jobs, and unemployment falling to under 4%.

In February 2011, Newt wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post to set the record straight about the government shutdowns of 1995 and early 1996.  Read it here.   Excerpts:
 

The Washington media establishment believes that the government shutdowns of 1995 and early 1996 were disastrous mistakes that accomplished little and cost House Republicans politically. The facts are exactly the opposite.

While the shutdown produced some short-term pain, it set the stage for a budget deal in 1996 that led to the largest drop in federal discretionary spending since 1969. The discipline imposed by this 1996 budget let to a balanced-budget deal in 1997, the first of four consecutive balanced budgets – an achievement Congress and the White House had not achieved since the 1920s. Overall spending grew at an average of 2.9 percent a year while Newt was Speaker, the slowest rate in decades, and Americans created 11 million new jobs…

This process hardly damaged the Republicans politically: Americans rewarded House Republicans the following November, as they became the first Republican majority to be reelected to a second term since 1928. Republicans would go on to hold the House of Representatives for all but four years between 1995 and today…

This would all have been impossible had Republicans not stood firm in 1995 and shown the American people (and the White House) that we were serious about reducing spending.

Back to Menu

Ethics Investigation

In 1999, after a 3 ½ year investigation, the Internal Revenue Service (under President Bill Clinton) concluded that Gingrich did not violate any tax laws, leading renowned CNN Investigative Reporter Brooks Jackson to remark on air "it turns out [Gingrich] was right and those who accused him of tax fraud were wrong."

Eighty four politically motivated ethics charges were filed against Newt when he was Speaker of the House regarding the use of tax exempt funds for a college course he taught titled "Renewing American Civilization."  Eighty-three of the eighty-four charges were found to be without merit and dropped.  The remaining charge had to do with contradictory documents prepared by Newt's lawyer supplied during the course of the investigation.  Newt took responsibility for the error and agreed to reimburse the committee the cost of the investigation into that discrepancy.  In 1999, after a 3 ½ year investigation, the Internal Revenue Service (under President Bill Clinton, nonetheless) concluded that Gingrich did not violate any tax laws, leading renowned CNN Investigative Reporter Brooks Jackson to remark on air "it turns out [Gingrich] was right and those who accused him of tax fraud were wrong."

Back to Menu

Lobbying – Newt has never engaged in lobbying, period.  Newt made a decision after resigning that he would never be a lobbyist so that nobody would ever question the genuine nature of his advice and perspectives.

Relationship with Freddie Mac

Recent reporting from Bloomberg News on the Gingrich Group's consulting services for Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.

After leaving public office, Newt Gingrich founded a number of very successful small businesses.  One of these small businesses, a consulting firm called The Gingrich Group, offered strategic advice on a wide variety of topics to a very wide range of clients.  One of these clients was Freddie Mac.  At no time did Gingrich lobby for Freddie Mac, or for any client, and neither did anyone in Gingrich's firm.  This prohibition against lobbying was made clear to all Gingrich Group clients.  Nor did Gingrich ever advocate against pending legislation affecting Freddie Mac, as some articles have incorrectly alleged.  In fact, recent reporting from Bloomberg News on the Gingrich Group's consulting services for Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.

Newt is in favor of efforts to increase home ownership in America but as a conservative believes they must be within a context of learning how to budget and save in a responsible way, the opposite of the lending practices that led to the financial crisis.  You can watch a video from March 2008 of Newt warning about the danger of politicized decision making in the housing crisis here.
As part of Newt's Jobs and Prosperity Plan, Newt advocates breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and moving their smaller successors off of government guarantees and into the free market.

Back to Menu

Personal Life

Newt has been honest and forthright about the fact that he has had moments in his life that he regrets, that he has had to seek reconciliation, and go to God for forgiveness.

Today, Newt and Callista have a very strong marriage.  They produce movies, write books, and enjoy their time on the campaign trail together.  They are also blessed to be very close to their family.

Newt believes that by continuing to be honest and forthright about his past failings, voters will come to understand the man that he is now and conclude they can trust him to represent the American people in the White House.

Furthermore, Newt welcomes the opportunity to clear up the many lies and misconceptions that persist about his past:

Extramarital Affair During Clinton Impeachment

The impeachment proceedings against President Clinton were due to the fact that the president committed perjury in front of a sitting federal judge, which is a felony.

Opponents often try to delegitimize Newt Gingrich by pointing out that he had admitted to having an extramarital affair during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.  What these accusers are ignoring is that the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton were due to the fact that the president committed perjury in front of a sitting federal judge, which is a felony.  As the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt felt that he had a duty to uphold the rule of law by pursuing impeachment.  He stands by that decision today. 

Asking Wife For Divorce While She Was In The Hospital Dying of Cancer

Newt's daughter recently wrote a column to set the record straight about this smear.

This story is a vicious lie.  It was first reported by a left wing magazine in the 1980s based on hearsay and has survived in left-wing chat rooms on the Internet until today.  It is completely false.

Recently, Newt's daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, wrote a column to set the record straight about this smear.  The column reveals that 1) It was her mother that requested the divorce, not Newt, and it was months before the hospital visit in question; 2) Her mother was in the hospital to remove a tumor, but it was benign, and she is still alive today; 3) Newt visited the hospital for the purpose of taking his two children to see their mother, not to discuss a divorce.  You can read it here.

http://www.newt.org/answers