Why the establishment fears Newt Gingrich

By Robert S. Walker, Published: December 22

Robert S. Walker, executive chairman of the public policy firm Wexler & Walker, represented Pennsylvania’s 16th District in the U.S. House from 1977 to 1996. He is an unpaid adviser to the Gingrich campaign.

After Newt Gingrich rose in the polls, criticism of the former House speaker began grabbing headlines. But Republican establishment attacks on Newt are not new. Newt’s political career has been devoted to mounting a conservative challenge to the establishment’s desire to play the Washington power game of go along to get along.

As a junior congressman, Newt founded the Conservative Opportunity Society (COS), a group of activist members of Congress whose goal was to challenge the liberal welfare state but whose first target was the Republican establishment in the House of Representatives. The “old bulls” who dominated the party in the House had become quite comfortable in their minority status and saw little chance they would ever become a majority. Newt and the COS knew that, to create a true conservative agenda, the party needed to focus on becoming a majority. We used the House floor and C-SPAN to promote our ideas. We attacked spending bills and efforts to expand government, some of which the establishment had endorsed. It reacted by telling newly elected members to stay away from those COS guys because they are trouble

Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich trims the Judicial branch.

Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich trims the Judicial branch.

Newt really stirred up establishment backlash by taking on then-Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) for ethics violations. The further Newt pushed his case against Wright, the more uncomfortable establishment leaders became. When Newt won, they leaned more toward agreeing with Wright’s characterization of the result as “cannibalism” rather than seeing it as a victory for Republicans against an increasingly corrupt majority.
In 1989 Newt scored a stunning victory over the establishment candidate to win the job of Republican whip. It was a hard-fought battle decided by one vote. But that victory meant that the party was moving toward a conservative activist profile, shedding its passive minority attitude.

Newt really upset the establishment when he refused to go along with the tax increases that had been engineered in negotiations between Congress and the George H.W. Bush administration. Party leaders put him on the negotiating team in an effort to neutralize him. Instead, Newt made it clear that he would not accept tax increases and his message to President Bush was that tax increases would destroy his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. When the negotiations produced new taxes, Newt refused to sign on and led the Republican opposition to the settlement in the House. To this day, establishment figures harbor a grudge against Newt for not joining their “revenue enhancement” conspiracy.

When the 1994 election seemed likely to produce significant Republican gains in the House and Senate, it was Newt who engineered the Contract With America. He saw the need for a conservative governing document because he believed we would become a majority with the power to change the course of policy toward conservative values. Many of those values were spelled out in the contract, which included the legislation that we intended to pass. Much of the establishment opposed the contract, believing it was too specific and would subject us to criticism that might cost us victories. The real story was the angst from the establishment about the conservative reforms evident in the contract. Most eventually signed on, only because many of them still believed we would never get a majority and therefore would not have to act on the contract’s provisions.

When Newt became speaker, he was focused, disciplined and tough. He insisted on moving the Contract With America intact. He abolished committees and denied “old bulls” chairmanships. He insisted on using the majority to win conservative victories such as balancing budgets, achieving welfare reform and producing 11 million new jobs with tax cuts that spurred economic growth. He made some people unhappy when he pursued legislation that could win instead of pet bills that would have divided Republicans rather than uniting them. And he negotiated with a Democratic president to get the conservative legislation being passed signed into law. Some Republicans were left unhappy in the wake of all of that activity — some of them are still complaining today.

While Newt has been a part of the Washington scene for some time, he always has been the outsider challenging the establishment and insisting on reforms and transformation. He has been vilified, targeted with ethics complaints, subjected to lies and mythology. Millions of dollars have been spent on attacks against him. And he’s still standing, offering America the kind of ideas and leadership it needs in the 21st century.

It boils down to this: Newt Gingrich is a conservative; the establishment prefers moderates. Newt prefers to stand up and debate conservative ideas and ideals; the establishment prefers to keep people guessing. Newt is a proven leader, someone with the background, understanding, vision and discipline to be our president; the establishment fears that he just might win.


Gingrich Wins Tea Party Straw Poll

Monday, 19 Dec 2011 11:17 PM

By Newsmax Wires

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich scored a huge victory Monday, winning a key straw poll of Tea Party supporters.
The poll, taken among 23,000 Tea Party enthusiasts organized by the Tea Party Patriots, one of the nation’s biggest Tea Party organizations, had Gingrich winning with with 31 percent of their vote, registered in a conference call on Sunday night.

Coming in a close second was Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, with 28 percent. Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, pulled 20 percent; former Sen. Rick Santorum, 16 percent; Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, 3 percent; Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, 2 percent, and Jon M. Huntsman Jr., 0.3 percent, The New York Times reported.

The results come as Gingrich is seeing some of his once-formidable lead slipping away. In some recent polls, he is either slightly leading in Iowa or behind Paul.

The candidates, who spoke in succession, were asked 10 minutes’ worth of identical questions, all of which assumed agreement in the premise of the question. For example, all were asked how they would repeal President Obama’s health care law — not whether they would repeal it.

Gingrich said he would ask the House and Senate to pass legislation to repeal it and move the bill in time so that he could sign it on Inauguration Day. He said he would ask all House and Senate candidates who are running to pledge in advance to vote for repeal.

Romney said he would issue an executive order to grant a waiver to each state. For states that did not accept the waiver, he would introduce legislation to repeal it.

Bachmann said she would campaign for those candidates who pledged to repeal the health care law and argued that waivers would not work.

Santorum, meanwhile, said he would use the budget reconciliation process, in which only 50 votes in the Senate, not a supermajority, are necessary to pass a budget, which could be stripped of all health care spending. “Gut it,” he said.

Rep. Steve King, a Republican and tea party favorite from, told the listeners that so far, he was disappointed in the field. He lamented that none of them had “articulated the depth of the financial problem we’re in.”

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Gingrich Wins Tea Party Straw Poll
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama’s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Kincaid: Gingrich Charge of a Socialist America Confirmed

                                      Sponsor …. 

Studio 7 Web Designs

By Cliff Kincaid     December 7, 2011 2:00 pm     

Democrats say they have dirt on Newt Gingrich, but he has the dirt on them. He has accurately described the socialist infiltration of America: “The Left has thoroughly infiltrated nearly every cultural commanding height of our civilization. That is, they hold power, influence and control of academia, the elite news media, Hollywood, union leaders, trial lawyers, the courts, the Congress, and the bureaucracy at all levels of government. They are radically redefining our very culture by deciding what is news, what is entertainment, what our children learn in school, and what kind of government we should have.”

When Gingrich made this charge, the left-wing scandal sheet Politico reacted with alarm, as if Gingrich had crossed the line of respectable discourse. But the publication was not able to rebut his assertion.

Confirmation of Gingrich’s statement, which came in an article about his book, To Save America: Stopping Obama’s Secular-Socialist Machine, has come from an unlikely source—John Nichols, a writer for The Nation magazine. Speaking to the recent Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) conference, Nichols said that the progressive movement is on the move, citing Big Labor’s organizing efforts in several states, and indicated that the 2012 elections will continue this process of revolutionary change.

According to the Nichols book, The “S” Word, America’s socialist legacy included founding father Thomas Paine. The “S” stands for socialism, “an American tradition,” Nichols claims. And this, he said, is America’s future.

But not so fast. Professor Harvey J. Kaye, the Ben & Joyce Rosenberg Professor of Democracy and Justice Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, wrote the bookThomas Paine: Firebrand of the Revolution, which is popular with the so-called “progressives.” He says that while Paine had some radical ideas about poverty and government assistance, “He was not a socialist; he did not contest the right of the propertied to their property.”

Indeed, in his Rights of Man, Paine recognized the inalienable rights to property, liberty, security, and resistance to oppression. Private property, which communists want to abolish, was the cornerstone of the American system. America’s founding was a repudiation of socialist ideas.

While Nichols is wrong about the socialism of Tom Paine, his point about the march of socialism in the U.S. is not something that can be so easily dismissed. Nichols’ book, as well as another controversial book, Lincoln’s Marxists, describes the determined activities of socialists in America in the 1800s. They have always looked for an opening to advance their un-American ideas on American soil. Over the last three years, Obama has been their vehicle in the White House.

The problem for Nichols is that, despite his own openness about wanting to be part of Obama’s socialist transformation of America, the effort has used deceptive practices and tactics and associates with sworn enemies of the United States. Nichols says he owes a debt to his late friend, Howard Zinn, a “historian” who concealed his involvement in the Moscow-funded Communist Party until his FBI file confirmed his secret life. The revelations have not caused “progressives” like Nichols to have any second thoughts about their admiration for Zinn.

The socialist-communist alliance, which backed Obama from the start of his political career in Chicago, has been making strides. “Polls tell us that democratic socialism is more popular today that at any time in recent American history,” Nichols says. He cites polls that 20-25 percent of Americans view socialism positively, with the number at 43 percent among those ages 18-29. The polls also find that Americans are increasingly critical of the capitalist system that made America the envy and target of the rest of the world.

Yahoo News noted that pollster Frank Luntz is advising Republicans on how to respond to the coverage generated by the Occupy Wall Street movement and that he is “frightened to death” because “They’re having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”

Luntz is referring to the sympathetic coverage of the movement, standing in sharp contrast to the media’s demonization of the Tea Party.

Luntz is telling Republican politicians not to even talk about capitalism being a superior economic and political system. “I’m trying to get that word removed and we’re replacing it with either ‘economic freedom’ or ‘free market,’” Luntz said. “The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral.”

This state of affairs requires a media that will tell the truth about how socialists, who are increasingly out of the closet these days and supported by billionaire George Soros, are distorting America’s founding and transforming the United States into something it was never intended to be. It is the struggle that will decide the future of America.

The Gingrich book, To Save America, addresses the subversive role being played by George Soros and other rich liberal billionaires such as Herb and Marion Sandler, who have funded such left-wing media operations as ProPublica. This is the group that just announced a “cooperative newsgathering and reporting arrangement” with NBC owned television stations around the U.S. ProPublica’s “partners” already include such outlets as ABC News, The Baltimore Sun, The Boston Globe, CBS News, CNN, The Huffington Post and public broadcasting’s Frontline.

For his part, John Nichols gives credit in his book to the support given to him by MSNBC, Al-Jazeera, Wisconsin Public Radio, and MSNBC host Chris Hayes, among others.

If the liberal media will not tell the truth, and if the conservative media do not have the ability to make the case for capitalism and freedom, politicians such as Newt Gingrich may have to do so in the context of a presidential campaign. His challenge will be to survive the personal attacks from the machine that he attacks.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

The Gingrich Buzz

By Beth Fouhy and Shannon McCaffrey December 6, 2011 7:23 am

NEW YORK (AP) – Surging in opinion polls, a confident Newt Gingrich declared Monday he plans to challenge Barack Obama in every state next year, and he began running a gauzy TV ad — his first — to push toward the Republican nomination to take on the president. But, illustrating how far he has to go, Gingrich also found himself defending the state of his campaign and his own comments about poor children.

“I do not suggest children until about 14 or 15 years of age do heavy, dangerous janitorial work,” Gingrich told reporters. “On the other hand, there are a number of things done to clean buildings that are not heavy or dangerous.”

He’s drawn fire over the past week for suggesting that poor children as young as 9 should work at least part time cleaning their schools in order to learn about work.

As Gingrich volunteers scrambled in some states to meet deadlines to get his name on ballots, the candidate dismissed the notion that his team wasn’t up to the task of waging a credible challenge against the better-funded, better-organized Mitt Romney. “We run a very decentralized campaign,” Gingrich insisted. “The system works.”

With only one month until the first presidential votes are cast, the GOP race has seemed to narrow to a contest between Gingrich and Romney.

Each spent the day wooing donors, Gingrich on the East Coast and Romney on the West Coast, as the hunt for cash intensified ahead of the string of costly contests that begin Jan. 3 in Iowa. The two will cross paths Wednesday as the candidates all convene in Washington to court Jewish voters and again Saturday at a debate in Iowa, the first of three planned for December.

This one is shaping up as a pivotal debate, given that Gingrich’s recent comeback has been fueled largely by a string of strong performances in which he demonstrated policy expertise and was able to appear statesmanlike while steering clear of criticizing his GOP rivals. He is the latest GOP candidate to enjoy a burst of momentum and he’s working to prove that, unlike the others who have risen and fallen, he’s a serious contender with staying power.

To that end, Monday was supposed to be a day for the former U.S. House speaker to capitalize on Herman Cain’s departure from the race and his own soaring poll numbers, making a good showing for up-for-grabs tea party supporters.

He chose heavily Democratic New York City to announce plans to campaign all across the country — not just in traditionally Republican or swing states — next fall against Obama. He packed the rest of the day with fundraisers and meetings, including one with Donald Trump, who flirted with a presidential bid himself and has sought to play a role in the GOP selection process.

But Gingrich’s expected show of force didn’t go exactly as planned, and the day ended up underscoring the challenges he now faces since going from the back of the pack to the front.

Twice on Monday he tried to explain what he had meant about poor kids working.

He said his original point had been “distorted” to make him look insensitive. The idea, Gingrich said, would be “to get them into the world of work, get them into the opportunity to earn money, to get them into the habit of showing up and realizing that effort is rewarded and America is all about the work ethic.”

He said he had persuaded Trump to mentor a group of children from New York City’s poorest schools.

“I thought it was a great idea,” said Trump, who hosts the reality show “Celebrity Apprentice.” ”We’re going to be picking 10 young wonderful children and make them ‘apprenti.’ We’re going to have a little fun with it.”

While praising Gingrich, Trump said he would wait to endorse a candidate until after he hosts a debate in late December.

In Iowa, Gingrich’s campaign rolled out a 60-second ad that projected sunny optimism.

“Some people say the America we know and love is a thing of the past. I don’t believe that, because working together I know we can rebuild America,” Gingrich says in the ad that’s laden with Americana, down to a white picket fence, the Statue of Liberty and the American Stars and Stripes.

But there were signs, in Iowa, that Gingrich’s personal and professional background was starting to become an issue in the campaign.

A group called Iowans for Christian Leaders in Government is circulating a new Web video reminding Republicans that Gingrich once appeared with then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to advocate action on climate change. Pelosi, a Democrat, is widely loathed among Republican activists, many of whom do not believe there is proof that human activity has caused climate change and oppose many efforts to regulate carbon emissions.

The same group circulated fliers earlier in the year criticizing the thrice-married Gingrich for his divorces.

Elsewhere, Gingrich’s organizational struggles to catch up with his rivals were coming to light.

He has already missed the deadline to appear on the ballot in Missouri, which holds its primary Feb. 7. He insisted Monday that he did not plan to compete in that contest because the state was stripped of its delegates after it moved its primary in violation of Republican rules.

The troubles are perhaps most urgent in Ohio, where candidates face a Wednesday deadline to submit between 50 and 150 signatures from registered Republicans from each of the state’s 16 congressional districts.

“Newt Gingrich will not be on the Ohio Primary ballot in 2012 unless we take immediate action,” read a Saturday email with the subject line, “Emergency” from a Gingrich organizer to Ohio Republicans. The message gave potential delegates just 24 hours to travel to the Gingrich headquarters to sign required forms.

And there’s no indication that Gingrich’s team has begun to gather signatures to meet deadlines in such states as Virginia, Illinois and Indiana, all of which are due in the next several weeks.

In New Hampshire, which hosts the nation’s first primary Jan. 10, Gingrich’s newly assembled team last month failed to submit a list of 20 supporters to serve as potential delegates to the GOP’s national convention. It was largely a symbolic submission, but one that candidates take seriously to reward top local supporters.

Gingrich’s staff, however, rounded up just 14 names scratched on state forms in messy handwriting. The other serious candidates submitted typed forms with a full slate of delegates. And former state GOP chairman Fergus Cullen suggests the incident “could signal a lack of basic organization.”

On Monday, Gingrich defended his bare-bones approach as one that reflects efficiencies that businesses have adopted to make them run more efficiently over a consultant-heavy approach that’s “slow, cumbersome and expensive.”

His approach could be more from necessity; as of Sept. 30, his campaign was in the red.

McCaffrey reported from Atlanta. Associated Press writers Steve Peoples in New Hampshire, Tom Beaumont in Iowa and Stephen Ohlemacher in Washington contributed to this report.

Gingrich Blasts Obama Administration Over Immigration Litigation

By Fred Lucas  November 29, 2011

(CNSNews.com) – GOP presidential front-runner Newt Gingrich, campaigning in the early primary state of South Carolina, criticized the Obama administration for challenging state laws that combat illegal immigration.

“After years of failure on the part of the federal government to achieve border security, it is an outrage that the Obama administration would seek to block South Carolina and other states who choose to pick up the slack,” Gingrich said in Charleston after meeting with state Sen. Larry Groom, the author of the South Carolina immigration law.

“If the Obama Administration put as much energy and resources into controlling the border as it does into attacking our own states, we would have 100 percent border security by now,” said Gingrich.

The Georgia Republican and former House Speaker has been fending off criticism from other Republican primary opponents for arguing in a recent debate that certain illegal aliens should be allowed to stay in the country, if they have been in the country for 25 years and broke no other laws.

In South Carolina, the first in the south primary state, Gingrich took a firmer line in touting the South Carolina law that requires law enforcement officers who make traffic stops to call federal immigration officials, if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The measure bars officers from holding someone solely on that suspicion. Opponents claim the measure encourages racial profiling. The law is set to take effect in January.

Obama SupercommitteePresident Barack Obama. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa, File)

As was the case when Arizona and Alabama passed similar laws, the Department of Justice (DOJ) brought suit to stop the South Carolina law from being enforced. In this most recent case, 16 Latin American and Caribbean countries asked to join the Justice Department’s suit, the Associated Press reported in early November.

The countries involved in the case are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay.

“It is inconceivable that these foreign countries would have joined a lawsuit that deals exclusively with the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, if President Obama had made it clear that their participation was not welcome,” Gingrich said.

Adding that other nations were involved in the Arizona lawsuits as well, Gingrich said, “It makes you wonder what country does President Obama think he is president of?”

“Welcoming foreign governments to participate in constitutional disputes between our federal government and the government of several of the states touches upon American sovereignty,” Gingrich continued. “Sovereignty means our right to self-government, that is to say, our right and ability to rule ourselves rather than following the dictates of others.”

“In weakening our sovereignty by such actions as welcoming the participation of foreign governments in a judicial determination of the meaning of the U.S. Constitution – a question foreign governments have zero competence in – President Obama ignores the core fundamentals of our Constitution and Bill of Rights,” said Gingrich. “The Obama administration should defend American sovereignty from foreign encroachment, not abet such encroachment.”

In its filing in the South Carolina case, the Mexican government said it “has an interest in protecting its citizens and ensuring that their ethnicity is not used as the basis for state-sanctioned acts of bias and discrimination,” the Associated Press reported.

Titus Howard of Birmingham, Ala., pulls plastic from fields as he tries his hand at field work in Steele, Ala., Thursday, Oct. 20, 2011. Howard took on the job after migrant workers fled the area because of the stiff new Alabama immigration law, leaving many farmers without enough help to harvest their crops. (AP Photo/Dave Martin)

Gingrich’s campaign plan, the “21stCentury Contract with America,” says that his administration will “waive every obstacle to controlling the border and would shift resources to achieve virtually 100 percent control by January 1, 2014. If necessary, we would move one-half of the 23,000 Washington-area Department of Homeland Security bureaucrats to the Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona borders.”

In South Carolina, Gingrich leads the previous frontrunner, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, 38 percent to 15 percent, according to a Nov. 28 Insider Advantage poll.

Nationally, Gingrich has a more narrow lead, with a 2.5 percent lead over Romney according to the Real Clear Politics average of all polls.

But in Iowa, which holds a caucus on Jan. 3, 2012, Gingrich leads Romney 32 percent to 19 percent, according to a Rasmussen poll on Nov. 15. Romney’s stronghold is in New Hampshire, where he holds a 17 point lead over Gingrich according to a Polling Company poll.

On Nov. 27, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the largest newspaper in the state and very influential among conservatives, endorsed Gingrich for the Republican presidential nomination.

Faith In The Word

118 Brushy Lane
Arley, Alabama 35541

plugin by DynamicWP