Newt Gingrich Really Want the Constitution to ‘Die?’ By Jack Hunter 12/13/2011 American conservatism has long been synonymous with protecting and promoting the U.S. Constitution. Barry Goldwater explained what it meant to be a conservative leader in his famous 1960 book “The Conscience of a Conservative”: The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to the men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power that they have been given. It will come when Americans, in hundreds of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic. In 1995, authors Alvin and Heidi Toffler published “Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave.” The Tofflers formulated something they called the “futurist” movement, in which they believed technological advancement would usher in massive civilizational change. One of the implications of their envisioned societal transformation was alluded to on page 91 of their futurist tome: For this wisdom above all, we thank Mr. Jefferson, who helped create the system that served us so well for so long and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced. “The system … Mr. Jefferson … helped create … now must … die and be replaced”? We can safely assume the Tofflers were speaking of Thomas Jefferson. We can also infer that “the system” Mr. Jefferson and his generation helped create was the experiment in limited government known as the United States Constitution. Wrote Newt Gingrich in the foreword to “Creating a New Civilization”: This book is a key effort in the direction of empowering citizens … to truly take the leap to invent a (new)
civilization. “A new civilization”? Goldwater believed that conservatives would finally win the day when “Americans, in hundreds of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic.” Yet the man many Republicans currently want to put in this nation’s highest office once heartily endorsed a fad philosophy that essentially advocated the death of the U.S. Constitution to make way for a “new civilization” that would replace the old republic. Not that the current Republican presidential front-runner has ever been a big fan of the Constitution. Based on his record, we can assume that Gingrich’s “new civilization” would include individual health care mandates, cap-and-trade, bank bailouts, gun control, amnesty for illegal aliens, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Plan D, Planned Parenthood funding — all of which our Constitution prohibits. No wonder Gingrich needs our nation’s founding charter out of the way. But rattling off Gingrich’s many liberal policy offenses is easy. What is far more disturbing than Newt’s constant support for dreadful ideas is his consistently anti-conservative frame of mind from which they spring. Russell Kirk wrote that, “In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos … A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers.” Completely void of Kirk’s custom-and-habit conservatism, Gingrich has not only always been eager to follow outlandish “coffee-house philosophers” like the Tofflers, he fancies himself as one — and Newt has always been way over-caffeinated. Gingrich is really not the oft-perceived brilliant man brimming with innovative ideas, but a political schizophrenic whose philosophical center never holds because he doesn’t have one. Said former Congressman Mickey Edwards (R-OK), “I’ve known Newt now for 30 years almost. But I wouldn’t be able to describe what his real principles are.” Business Insider’s Michael Brendan Dougherty explains further: Newt Gingrich always has ideas. He has 5-point plans for fixing everything. He’s constantly pitching these “solutions.” Ever wonder why Newt Gingrich has so many ideas? It’s pretty simple. Ideas come to you easily when you have no principles to get in the way of your roaming untrained intellect.
National Review’s Yuval Levin has made a similar observation: [Gingrich] exhibit[s] the technocratic countenance of the Rockefeller Republican — a program for every problem. Conservative humility about human nature and about the potential of technical solutions is not readily discernible … Gingrich has supported so many liberal policies and ideas, of which conservatives now find so hard to explain, because he has no tangible guiding philosophy. Gingrich possesses the liberal fascination with discarding the past and advancing human “progress” yet none of the “conservative humility about human nature.” Gingrich’s “roaming untrained intellect” has led him to all sorts of fads and bizarre endorsements because he has never had a permanent set of principles to keep him from going off the deep end. In fact, Gingrich lives off the deep end. Kirk wrote that “conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order …” In this light, Gingrich’s mind is determinedly anti-conservative — ready to revolutionize society on a “futurist” whim, even discarding the United States Constitution if necessary to indulge his intellectual fancy. It should come as no surprise to keen observers that Gingrich would have endorsed a book that essentially said the Constitution needed to “die.” Still, such sentiment is a complete reversal of what the American right has stood for during most of its existence. And if Gingrich and what he represents is now conservatism, Barry Goldwater no longer has any claim on that term.
"You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy " his is the video I have been waiting for. How many times have we heard, "I agree with Ron Paul about everything except his foreign policy."? Or "He's soft on defense?" Or "He would let the radical Islamists take over"? How many times have we wished for a video that would answer those objections that was clear, concise, authoritative, simple, logical, emotionally compelling, and poetic; with music and editing as polished as its message? HonestPresident2012 took an already excellent video and has made it into a classic. I was literally moved to tears.
You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo
Ron Paul argues for small government in New Hampshire By Shira Schoenberg, Globe Correspondent 12/13/2011 PETERBOROUGH, N.H. - Texas Representative Ron Paul said tonight that he was not worried that government bureaucrats would be laid off, under his plan to cut $1 trillion out of the federal budget in one year. “Some would be laid off, but economically there’s a big difference between a bureaucrat who hinders productivity than people in the workforce who actually produce goods and services,” Paul said. The comment was part of the small government message that Paul, a Republican presidential candidate, delivered to an audience of about 500 people at the Peterborough town hall. Paul also said he believes the United States should allow young people, under 25, to opt out of Social Security. To tide over retirees during the transition, he said he would cut overseas spending. He stuck with his traditional message of a limited foreign policy: “Stop the drones. Stop the bombing. Bring our troops home.” And he counseled self-sufficiency. Asked how to make people live within their means, Paul responded that people would be more cautious if they did not always know government would take care of them: “If we didn’t have bailouts, dependency on government, welfare for the rich, food stamps for the poor.” Shira Schoenberg can be reached at sschoenberg@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @shiraschoenberg.
Michael Savage Pulls Offer to Pay Gingrich a Million Dollars to Drop Out of Race Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com December 14, 2011 The only viable candidate in the run against Obama is Ron Paul. On Monday, radio talk show host Michael Savage “jokingly” said he will give the current GOP front-runner Newt Gingrich one million “monopoly dollars” if he drops out of the race. Savage contends Gingrich is not a real conservative and says he is a “fat, old, white man” that does not stand a chance against Obama in November of 2012. “Newt Gingrich is unelectable. Any of the other candidates would have a more viable chance of defeating Barack Obama,” Savage writes on his website. “His continued candidacy spells nothing but ruin for conservatives, Republicans, and all true American patriots.” According to Savage, Gingrich is not a conservative because he failed to implement his Contract with America, he teamed up with Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi to push the climate change agenda and carbon taxes, and is in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens. On Wednesday, the announcement on Savage’s website produced a “Error 404 – Page Not Found” message, indicating it may have been removed by Savage, possibly due to legal issues. According to Talking Points Memo, the offer is illegal in South Carolina. Todd Kincannon, a lawyer and former SC Republican Party Executive Director wrote to TPM to note that under South Carolina Election Law (Section 7-25-200 to be precise) both parties could be subject to a $10,000 fine or up to a year in jail. Despite the snafu, Savage’s offer reveals a growing dissatisfaction by mainline Republicans with Gingrich and underscores their frustration in finding and promoting a candidate that reflects their philosophy and will be capable of beating Obama next year. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal 1. survey has Gingrich leading Mitt Romney by 17 points. If the election were held today, however, Gingrich would lose to Obama. “Although Gingrich may be at the front of the pack of contenders, if the next election for president were held today, four in ten registered voters said they’d choose him and 51% said they’d vote to re-elect President Obama, whose approval rating
remains in the mid-forties according to the poll,” notes CNN. Mitt Romney would fare better against Obama, but would also lose if the election were held today. The only Republican contender who stands a chance against Obama is Ron Paul. According to an NBC/Marist poll, 42% of registered voters in Iowa support Ron Paul and 42% back Obama, with 16 percent undecided. “Paul also leads Obama 42 to 35% among independent voters and attracts 15 percent of Iowa’s Democrats according to the survey. The Congressman also betters Obama by 14 percentage points among voters under 45 years of age,” writes Steve Watson. “Tellingly, Paul also leads the way over his GOP rivals with 25% among voters who see a candidate’s position on the issues, rather than electability or popularity, as the most important factor of their candidacy. Gingrich, on the other hand, leads among avid college football fans.” Paul continues to gain momentum and win straw polls. He won the Cedar Valley Tea Party Presidential Straw Poll and a straw poll held in Pasco County, Flordia. Despite the fact the two recent straw polls had a small number of participants and were off the establishment media’s radar screen, they demonstrate growing support for the Texas congressman. Michael Savage did not suggest Ron Paul or any other candidate. He simply encouraged Newt Gingrich to stand down. Michael Savage Says He Would Sleep Better at Night with Ron Paul as President (December 12, 2011) VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dq_OL614N4 Ending Taxation - The Only Game in Town - 2011 VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn3hUcmNDdA Make Mine Freedom VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVh75ylAUXY The American Dream VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU
Presenting The Three Unscripted Sentences That May Have Cost Jon Corzine His Freedom 1. Zero Hedge Wednesday, December 14, 2011 Today, in advance of their sworn testimony, each witness to the Senate Agricultural Committee’s MF Global hearing was requested to disclose what their prepared remarks would be. Sure enough, CME executive chairman Terry Duffy did that, and his prepared testimony can be found here. In and of itself there was nothing unexpected about said speech, the relevant section of which has been transcribed below. Where things got very ugly for Corzine, is when Duffy literally veered from the script, and added three unexpected sentences, catching everyone in the committee off guard (including those who had given up on the testimony which came just after Corzine’s) and which according to most news wires could have buried Corzine’s defense strategy, exposing him for a liar under oath, and potentially costing him his freedom. The video of the relevant 2 minutes is attached below. First: here is what the Duffy prepared remarks should have been: Our auditors returned on Sunday, October 30th because we learned from the CFTC that the draft segregation report for Friday, October 28th, which had been provided to the CFTC that day, showed a $900 million dollar shortfall in segregation caused by an “accounting error.” Our auditors, working with the CFTC, devoted the rest of the day and night Sunday to find the so-called accounting error. No such error was ever found. Instead, at about 2 am Monday morning, MFG informed the CFTC and CME that customer money had been transferred out of segregation to firm accounts. Transfers of customer funds for the benefit of the firm constitute serious violations of our rules and of the Commodity Exchange Act. MFG was taken over by a SIPC Trustee on Monday. However, before the SIPC Trustee stepped in Monday, the segregation report for Thursday, October 27th, which had shown not only full segregation compliance but also $200 million in excess segregated funds, was corrected by MFG to
show a deficiency of $200 million in segregated funds. Apparently based on MFG’s segregation reports, additional transfers out of segregation occurred on Friday. And here is what they ended up being: revised text in bold. Our auditors returned on Sunday, October 30th because we learned from the CFTC that the draft segregation report for Friday, October 28th, which had been provided to the CFTC that day, showed a $900 million dollar shortfall in segregation caused by an “accounting error.” Our auditors, working with the CFTC, devoted the rest of the day and night Sunday to find the socalled accounting error. No such error was ever found. Instead, at about 2 am Monday morning, MFG informed the CFTC and CME that customer money had been transferred out of segregation to firm accounts. After receiving this information CME remained at MF Global while MF Global attempted to identify funds that could be transferred into segregation to reduce or eliminate the discrepancy. A CME auditor also participated in a phone call with senior MF Global employees wherein one employee indicated that Mr. Corzine knew about the loans that had been made from the customer segregated accounts. CME Group has provided this information, the names of these individuals to the DOJ and CFTC who are investigating these matters. Transfers of customer funds for the benefit of the firm constitute serious violations of our rules and of the Commodity Exchange Act…. etc. The only question we have is: why? MF Global Employee Indicated Corzine Knew Loans Were Made From Customer Accounts VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUro9-0aowE ZEITGEIST ADDENDUM VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gKX9TWRyfs The Capitalist Conspiracy - G Edward Griffin VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-H99C4JEq80