Search This Blog

Saturday, November 19, 2011


How many explanations are needed to try to explain his obvious Progressive mentality?  Newt is brilliant and a great orator...heard those comments before?  

Well, that is who we have in the WH right now.  It's time to realize that these power hungry politicians would sell their souls to be placed in the position of controlling your life.  They will say anything.  Their actions and words of the past need to be a signal into what they really stand for.  

My mother always said....."Actions speak louder than words."
Well by Newt's actions, I can only deduct that he is a Progressive that is operating under the guise of the Republican party and will continue to grow government until we all become slaves to it. 

  • What about when he endorsed the ultra-liberal candidate Dede Scozzafava, in New York’s 2010 Special Congressional Election, in the 23rd Congressional District, against conservative candidate Doug Hoffman, who had the endorsement of the TEA Party!  Mrs. Scozzafava supported Big Unions and abortion, and by endorsing her, so did Newt Gingrich!  You should either stand or fall on the merits of your words and deeds, and Newt Gingrich’s words and deeds should not stand!

- Card-Carrying member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a globalist think tank
- "Distinguished member" of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (neocon, pro-interventionism group)
- Member of Bohemian Grove
- Member of the World Future Society
- Voted for NAFTA, a blatant circumvention of Congress’ exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Took power from American people and put it into the hands of unelected Binational panels, made mostly of foreigners.
- Supported GATT
- Supported WTO
- Continually supported increased federal spending.
- Supported the National Endowment for the Arts;
- Voted for the creation of the Federal Dept. of Education in 1979 under Jimmy Carter.
- Big supporter of Foreign Aid -- even to Soviets through the Export-Import Bank.
- In one year (1994-1995) Gingrich voted for nearly $45 billion in foreign aid.
- He helped push through Federally-funded loan guarantees to Communist China.
- Urged the House to repeal the War Powers Act and give the Presidency more power.
- Urged Clinton to expand military presence in Bosnia.
- Supports Afghan War
- Supports Iraq War
- Calls for Iran War
- Supported Clinton's welfare programs, education programs, labor programs, and environmental programs, as well as most of his foreign affairs programs.
- Supported spending $30B for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that shackled gun owners with new restrictions, federalized a number of crimes, and handed the feds police powers that the Constitution reserves to the states.
- Voted to give billions of dollars to United Nations "peacekeeping" operations;
- Pushed for a School Prayer Amendment
- Mentored by Henry Kissinger
- Bailed out savings and loan institutions in 1991. $40B Bank bailout
He was a draft-dodger during the Vietnam War, yet pushed aggressive foreign interventionism his entire political career, and did say that Vietnam was the "right battlefield at the right time."
- He cheated on one of his wives while she was suffering from cancer, delivered divorce papers to her in the hospital.
- Worked on the Rockefeller presidential campaign in 1968.

04/02/1987 - He cosponsored the 1987 Fairness Doctrine (anti 1st Amendment legislation)
10/22/1991 - He voted for an amendment that would create a National Police Corps.
03/--/1993 - He was "passionately in favor" of sending $1.6 Billion in foreign aid to Russia.
11/19/1993 - He voted for the NAFTA Implementation Act.
11/27/1994 - He supported the GATT Treaty giving sovereignty to the U.N.
08/27/1995 - He suggests that drug smuggling should carry a death sentence.
01/06/1996 - He himself conceived a secret CIA mission to topple the Iranian leadership.
04/25/1996 - Voted for the single largest increase on Federal education spending ($3.5 Billion)
04/10/1995 - He supported Federal taxdollars being spent on abortions.
06/--/1995 - He wrote the foreword to a book about tearing down the U.S. Constitution and implementing a Fascist World Government.
06/01/1996 - He helped a Democrat switch parties in an attempt to defeat constitutionalist Ron Paul in the 1996 election.
09/25/1996 - Introduced H.R. 4170, demanded life-sentence or execution for someone bringing 2 ounces of marijuana across the border.
01/22/1997 - Congress gave him a record-setting $300,000 fine for ethical wrongdoing.
11/29/2006 - He said that free speech should be curtailed in order to fight terrorism. Wants to stop terrorists from using the internet. Called for a "serious debate about the 1st Amendment."
11/29/2006 - He called for a "Geneva Convention for terrorists" so it would be clear who the Constitution need not apply to.
02/15/2007 - He supported Bush's proposal for mandatory carbon caps.
04/04/2007 - He says that there should be a clear distinction about what weapons should be reserved for only for the military.
04/17/2008 - Made a commercial with Nancy Pelosi on Climate Change.
09/28/2008 - Says if he were in office, he would have reluctantly voted for the $700B TARP bailout.
10/01/2008 - Says in an article that TARP was a "workout, not a bailout."
12/08/2008 - He was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac to halt Congress from bringing necessary reform.
03/31/2009 - Says we should have Singapore-style drug tests for Americans.
07/30/2010 - Says that Iraq was just step one in defeating the "Axis of Evil".
08/03/2010 - Advocates attacks on Iran & North Korea.
08/16/2010 - Opposes property rights of the mosque owner in NYC.
08/16/2010 - Compares mosque supporters to Nazis
11/15/2010 - He defended Romneycare; blamed liberals
12/02/2010 - He advocates a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens.
12/05/2010 - He said that a website owner should be considered an enemy combatant, hunted down and executed, for publishing leaked government memos.
01/30/2011 - He lobbied for ethanol subsidies.
01/30/2011 - He suggested that flex-fuel vehicles be mandated for Americans.
02/02/2011 - He says we are "losing the War on Terror"; the conflict will be as long as the Cold War
02/10/2011 - He wants to replace the EPA instead of abolishing it.
02/13/2011 - He criticized Obama for sending less U.S. taxdollars to Egypt.
02/15/2011 - His book said that he believes man-made climate-change and advocated creating "a new endowment for conservation and the environment."
03/09/2011 - He blames his infidelity to multiple wives on his passion for the country.
03/15/2011 - Says that NAFTA worked because it created jobs in Mexico.
03/19/2011 - He has no regrets about supporting Medicare drug coverage. (Now $7.2T unfunded liability)
03/23/2011 - He completely flip-flopped on Libyan intervention in 16 days.
03/25/2011 - He plans to sign as many as 200 executive orders on his first day as president.
03/27/2011 - He says that America is under attack by atheist Islamists.
04/25/2011 - He's a paid lobbyist for Federal ethanol subsidies.
05/11/2011 - His campaign video said that he wants to "find solutions together, and insist on imposing those solutions on those who do not want to change."
05/12/2011 - He was more supportive of individual health-care mandates than Mitt Romney.
05/15/2011 - Said GOP's plan to cut back Medicare was "too big a jump."
05/15/2011 - He backed Obama's individual mandate; "All of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care."
05/16/2011 - He also endorsed individual mandates in 1993 when Clinton pushed Universal Health Care.
05/17/2011 - He has an outstanding debt to Tiffany's Jewelry of between $250K - $500K.
06/09/2011 - His own campaign staff resigned en masse.
07/15/2011 - His poorly managed campaign is over $1 Million in debt.
08/01/2011 - He hired a company to create fake Twitter to appear as if he had a following.
08/11/2011 - His recent criticism of the United Nations is United Nations by a long, long history of supporting it.
09/27/2011 - He says that he "helped develop the model for Homeland Security"
10/07/2011 - He said he'd ignore the Supreme Court if need be.
11/12/2011 - He advocates assassinating Iranian scientists and covert war with Iran.

The Grinch Who Stole Conservatism
Newt World Order Gingrich supported GATT, NAFTA and WTO while in Congress
Gingrich, Toffler, and Gore: A Peculiar Trio
Newt's Contract with the Earth: Pseudo-Science, Big Government
Newt Gingrich: The Establishment’s Conservative
Newt Gingrich: The "Anti-Romney" or the "Other Romney"?
Slideshow: The Many Flip-Flops of Newt Gingrich
Good Newt, Bad Newt
Newt's Voting Record

New World Order~Gingrich supported GATT, NAFTA and WTO while in Congress

"The idea that a congressman would be tainted by accepting money from private industry or private sources is essentially a socialist argument." - Newt Gingrich

"[O]ur government, at all levels, must be modernized to successfully partner, let alone compete, with the private sector." -- Newt Gingrich, A Contract with the Earth (p.196)

"The U.S. government operates endowments for the humanities and the arts…Perhaps, it is time we consider a new endowment for conservation and the environment." -- Newt Gingrich, A Contract with the Earth (pp. 115-116)

"We agree that there is plenty of evidence that global climate change is occurring…While humanity is certainly causing its fair share of the change, scientists are still not able to precisely pinpoint the extent of the change, or the margin of error in their estimates." -- Newt Gingrich, A Contract with the Earth (p. 200)

"In spite of the demonstrated liberal leanings in academia, we have nothing but respect for the nation’s scientists. They represent America’s best hope to protect the environment. We support a dramatic increase in science and technology research and development because we desperately need to understand global climate change and other environmental phenomena." -- Newt Gingrich, A Contract with the Earth (p. 201)

"If you import a commercial quantity of illegal drugs, it is because you have made the personal decision that you are prepared to get rich by destroying our children. I have made the decision that I love our children enough that we will kill you if you do this." -- Newt Gingrich (source)

"What we're being told is that free trade with Mexico would devastate the U.S. economy. With its low wages, Mexico would unleash a flood of cheap imports into our markets. There would be a mass exodus of U.S. factory jobs, as hordes of American companies fled across the border.... All this is scare talk." -- Newt Gingrich, on the House floor 9/22/1993. (source)

Q: "Will you rally the troops for GATT and the World Trade Organization?"

A: "Yes. In the first place, the Administration has accepted amendments of Senator Dole and myself giving Congress dramatically more oversight of the WTO, including the right to bring up a vote on withdrawal every five years in perpetuity, so at any point that we think it is out of control or inappropriate, we can simply withdraw." -- Newt Gingrich, 11/11/1994 (source)

"The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution. Under our [constitutional system] - either we're going to have to rethink our Constitution, or we're going to have to rethink our process of decision-making." He went on to profess an oxymoronic belief in "very strong but limited federal government," and pledged, "I am for the United Nations." -- Newt Gingrich, July 1995, speech at the Center for Strategic & International Affairs (source)

In March 1993, I got an assistance program I could support: $1.6 billion in direct aid to help Russia stabilize. Although a public poll said that 75% of the American people were opposed to giving Russia more money, and we were already in a hard fight for the economic plan, I felt we had no choice but to press ahead. American had spent trillions of dollars in defense to win the Cold War; we couldn't risk reversal over less that $2 billion and a bad poll. To the surprise of my staff, the congressional leaders, including the Republicans, agreed with me. At a meeting I convened to push the plan, Senator Joe Biden, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, strongly endorsed the aid package. Newt Gingrich was passionately in favor of helping Russia, saying it was a "great defining moment" for American and we had to do the right thing. -- Bill Clinton, 2004 (My Life, p. 506-507).

"Professor Gingrich hopefully will never be called upon to teach a course in the proper role of our federal government. His rare votes against bloated big government usually have been prompted by the partisan wrangling of the moment, not by any great respect for, or understanding of, the Constitution." --James Toft of “Tax Reform Immediately” (TRIM) 

Is Newt Gingrich the Best Candidate for President in the Republican Primary?
The Notes on Newt
- By Scott Rohter, March 2011

 "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time!” –Abraham Lincoln

“The Contract with America didn't change much because it didn't pull up the 'un-constitutional weeds' by their roots. It just mowed them back a little bit! And we all know what happens after you mow the weeds. They just grow back again!” - Scott Rohter

The Record of Newt Gingrich
1979 Elected to Congress from Georgia's 6th District
1979 Voted to create the Department of Education, under President Jimmy Carter
1990 Becomes member of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
1993 Voted for NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement
1994 Supported the WTO, the World Trade Organization. Voted for GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that subjected Americans to the international authority of the WTO (See his exact quote in accompanying article.) See additional link.
1995 Becomes Speaker of the House of Representatives and recommends reading The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler as required reading for all of his Congressional colleagues. (See accompanying article.)
1995 Delivers speech to the Center for Strategic and International Affairs in which he blames the US Constitution for making America's role in leading the world more difficult! Read his full quote in accompanying article, "The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution...".
1995 Wrote the foreword to another one of Toffler's books, The Politics of the Third Wave, Creating a New Civilization
1995 The liberal establishment Time Magazine names Newt Gingrich their “Man of the Year”
1995 Appeals to the US House of Representatives to increase the power of the Presidency by repealing the War Powers Act of 1972, and urged President Clinton to expand the US military presence in Bosnia.
1996 Under his leadership, Congress passed the largest single spending increase on education in US history, a whopping $3.5 billion dollars!
1999 Newt resigns over failed midterm elections in which Republicans lost 5 seats, the worst loss in history for a Party who did not control the White House! At the same time, he was also involved in a flap over an extra marital affair and a controversial book deal!

“The Reincarnation of Newt”
2008 Records the 'We Can Solve It' global warming TV commercial for Al Gore along with Nancy Pelosi
2009-2010 Travels around the country with Al Sharpton and Arne Duncan to promote President Obama's new educational policies: i.e. increased local control of schools with increased Federal subsidies and regulations from Washington. (Sounds like quite a contradiction to me.)
2010 Supported ultra-liberal, pro-abortion, pro-union, establishment candidate Dede Scozzafava in New York's 23rd Congressional District in a special election, over conservative candidate Doug Hoffman.

The Battle Before Us: First Skirmish

Now that Newt Gingrich has officially declared what most of us already knew or suspected, that he is in the running for the Republican Party nomination in 2012, I started thinking again. True conservatives, libertarians, and constitutionalists are not just fighting Barak Obama and the Democratic Party! We are also up against the entire ‘Progressive Establishment,’ that seeks to maintain control over both the National Democratic and the Republican Parties.  This so called forward looking, liberal, elite, establishment supports such programs as: -Continued deficit spending.

-Increasing our national debt, or at least maintaining the current high debt levels for well into the foreseeable future.

-Devaluing the Dollar.

-The eventual establishment of a one-world currency.
-The creation of a World Central Bank.
-Bailouts for billionaires and other taxpayer financed 'corporate welfare programs'.
-The suppression of States-Rights.
-The dissolution of our national sovereignty.
-The creation of an International World Government that is controlled by inter-national world socialists.
-The subjection of the United States to the increasing jurisdiction of the United Nations, the World Court, and the WTO, etc. 
-The virtual de-constructing of our Constitution and our Bill Of Rights.

The ‘Progressive Movement’ is well financed. It has been around since the early 1900’s. ‘The Progressive Establishment’ attempts to control both National Political Parties, which is why both candidates in a particularly important race can both be ‘Progressives’. They also control most of the national media, both print and electronic, which are the marketing tools that they use to get their candidates elected to high public office! That is why they will never willingly allow real campaign finance reform, because it will take money away from the national media which they own! 

The only thing that conservative patriots have on our side is the TEA Party Movement, a few good men and women on Capitol Hill (probably not more than 100), a few good pundits on Talk Radio, the writings of our Founding Fathers, some good contemporary conservative writers and bloggers, and as the proverbial saying goes, Truth, Justice, and the American Way! We don’t have the luxury of just being able to battle Democrats. We also have to come to ideological blows with forces inside our own political party!

" The strategy of 'The Progressive Establishment' has always been to get the two most liberal candidates, one from either political party nominated in their respective primaries, and then to promote the most progressive of those two candidates in the general election.” Either way 'The Establishment' wins, because they target and dispose of the most conservative candidates in the primaries, and so which ever of the two ‘libs’ win in the general election, it is still a victory for the 'The Establishment' and much better for them then one of the more conservative candidates from either political party!

Newt Gingrich has been a member of the ‘progressive’ Council on Foreign Relations since 1990.
This NGO, founded in 1921, and bankrolled with BIG MONEY from the Rockefeller Foundation and J. P. Morgan among other internationalists, has been dedicated since its inception to dismantling American sovereignty, de‑constructing our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, and promoting the idea of One World Government! 

During his long tenure in Congress which began in 1979, and ended in disgrace in 1999, Newt Gingrich supported and even pushed through Congress, as the Minority Whip or as the Speaker of the House, Federally funded loan guarantees to China! This is one of the reasons that China is beating the pants off us today in world trade! In 1993 New Gingrich not only voted for the ‘job destroying’ North American Free Trade Agreement, (NAFTA) but he was also instrumental in getting enough Republican support to pass the bill. In 1994, as the House Minority Whip, Newt voted to support the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) with his vote on GATT! 

In his position as Minority Whip, he had the power to postpone the vote on GATT, The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, until it could have been modified or defeated in the House, but he chose instead to let the bill pass in a Lame Duck session of Congress! Newt voted in favor of The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which subjects Americans to the international authority and the regulation of the World Trade Organization. See additional link.

The United States Constitution states in Article 1 Section 8
that “Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.” (not the WTO) Note: It doesn’t say that Congress has the right to delegate that authority away to anyone else! But Congress has abdicated their role and subrogated their authority to the World Trade Organization with the passage of GATT, and with the instrumental help of Newt Gingrich! 

Prior to orchestrating the vote in the House, in which Newt himself voted in a favor of surrendering American sovereignty on matters having to do with foreign trade to the WTO, Newt Gingrich testified in front of the House Ways and Means Committee. In his testimony in 1994 he said , "We need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level, significant authority to a new organization…This is not just another trade agreement. This is doing something which twice, once in the 1940’s and once in the 1950’s, the US Congress rejected…It is a very big transfer of power.” 

It sounds to me like he knew exactly what he was proposing, and in spite of his warning, he still arranged for the vote on GATT, he still voted in favor of it, and as much as anyone else, Newt Gingrich bears the responsibility for transferring American sovereignty on matters having to do with foreign trade to an international authority! This betrayal was a direct assault on our Constitution!

A staunch fighter against progressive ideas, former Ron Paul Congressional staffer and free lance writer, Rebecca Terrell called Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America a “Congressional con-job” and a “public relations smoke screen.” Her entire article can be read in the Dec. 7, 2009 issue of The New American. 

Outside of a brief mention of the words “ Promote the general welfare” in The Preamble to the Constitution which is repeated in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1, the Constitution says nothing at all about creating government entitlements or public welfare programs!  Some of the taxes which The Contract with America only purposed to reduce, that go to support government funded welfare programs have no basis at all in the US Constitution! Instead of just being reduced, they should have been eliminated altogether!

More than ten years after Newt Gingrich left office in 1999, and almost twenty years after
The Contract with America in 1994, the spending levels for all of these social welfare programs have increased dramatically! That’s why The Contract with America didn’t change much, because it didn’t pull up the ‘unconstitutional weeds’ by their roots. It just mowed them back a little bit. And we all know what happens after you mow the weeds. They just grow back again! That’s why The Contract with America was a big disappointment. 

If Newt Gingrich was a true Constitutional conservative, then he would have voted against, and worked to eliminate, unconstitutional programs when he had both the power and the opportunity to do so, instead of just reducing them! 

Six years after the Contract with America, the President of the CATO Institute, Ed Crane wrote in the November 2000 issue of Forbes Magazine that “The combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%...Over the years [since then] the Republican controlled Congress has approved discretionary spending that exceeded Bill Clinton’s requests.” That’s why the people were disappointed with the Contract with America. It wasn’t nearly enough, and what little it did accomplish didn’t last!

President Clinton thanked Newt Gingrich for his support of
The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. See additional link. That law placed additional restrictions on our 2nd Amendment Right to possess a firearm. It also federalized certain crimes involving a firearm which has increased both the size and the scope of the Federal Government!

In 1995 Newt Gingrich made a dispassionate appeal in the well of the US House of Representatives to
increase the power of the Presidency by repealing the War Powers Act. After voting for $1.2 billion dollars in 1994 to fund increased NATO peace keeping missions, the very next year he urged President Clinton to expand the US military presence in Bosnia!  

Newt has been pro abortion, pro amnesty for illegal aliens, in support of higher taxes at one time or another, and in favor of expanding the role of the Federal government! He is viewed as being anti‑family by many, not only because of his pro choice stance on abortion, but also for his support of gay marriage, and because he has twice divorced and been married three different times. Actions speak louder than words!

In 1994, Newt Gingrich described himself as a fan of the ideas espoused in the book,
The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler, in which homosexuality, promiscuity, adultery, divorce, and abortion are all viewed as perfectly normal and even desirable. 

He said that in order to understand him, you should read the book, The Third Wave by Toffler. This book is written from the perspective of someone who is writing a letter to America’s Founding Fathers, in which he describes the Constitution and the principles of limited government that guided our Founding Fathers as becoming increasing irrelevant, and obsolete, and hence in need of being radically redesigned and replaced! 

In fact the book goes on to state that our current system of government must be overhauled and a new system of democracy for the 21st century  must be developed! This is the New World Order that Toffler speaks of, and that Newt Gingrich is a BIG FAN of! And not just Newt, but this has been the special pet project of the Progressive Establishment  in this country for over 100 years! 

When Newt Gingrich became the Speaker of the House in 1994, he recommended The Third Wave as required reading for all of his Congressional colleagues! He also wrote the forward to another one of Toffler's books, The Politics of the Third Wave, Creating a New Civilization. That doesn’t sound much different to me then a New World Order. So the former Speaker’s ideas about Toffler’s book, The Third Wave or his ideas about a new civilization sound remarkably similar to the New World Order or the One World Government embraced by progressives! 

Is this just a coincidence or is there a connection?

One of the main bulwarks of the
Progressive Establishment is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). For over twenty years since 1990, Newt Gingrich has been a member of the powerful Council on Foreign Relations. Since 1921 the CFR has been single mindedly dedicated to the goal of undermining our National Sovereignty in order to promote a One World Government!  

In a speech given to the Center For Strategic and International Affairs in 1995, Newt Gingrich said, "The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution…Either we are going to have to re-think our Constitution or we are going to have to re‑think our process of making decisions.” 

These are Newt Gingrich’s own words! And this is his track record. It is not complete by any stretch of the imagination but it is 100% accurate! He has a record of twenty years in public office that we can judge him by. Now, he's considering running for public office again, and not just any office, mean office mind you, but the highest office in the land, and you would like to know if Newt Gingrich is worthy of your trust and your consideration. 

Well first of all, I must tell you that I am suspicious of anyone who wants to win high public office as bad as he does. The ideal model for a good public servant is George Washington, who didn't really want the job, only reluctantly agreed to accept the job, and who only aspired to leave public office and get out of the limelight and back home to Mt. Vernon as soon as he could!  

In contrast, Newt Gingrich has already been in the limelight and in public office for twenty years, and he has still not had enough! Newt represents the past and part of the reason that we are in the trouble we are in! Why don't we give someone else a chance instead of bringing back this tired, but still hungry old warhorse from out of the past? 

Secondly, while it is possible that his new positions on smaller government, and lower taxes, and his recent overtures to the TEA Party are real, it is more likely that he is just posturing, like any experienced politician, and saying what he needs to say in order to get elected. In other words, he is positioning himself for 2012. But he has always claimed to be a fiscal conservative even though he hasn't always followed through on his claims. It's just that this was as far as his claims to conservative values ever went. They never extended to limited government, adhering to the Constitution, or to any social issues!

Thirdly, they say that politics makes for strange bedfellows, but Newt's are even stranger than most! And by this, I am not referring to his past three wives! He recently partnered up with Nancy Pelosi to make a TV commercial for Al Gore's $300 million dollar global warming ad campaign. In this 2008 commercial Newt Gingrich said, “Our country must take action to address climate change!” Really? At the same time, on his own website,  he says, “I don't think that we have conclusive proof of global warming.” It sounds to me like he is taking both sides of the same issue. We either have global warming/climate change, or we don't. 

And if we don't have it, which he implies on his website, then why is he making commercials for Al Gore claiming that we do, and that we need to do something about it? Pardon me if I seem just a little bit confused by his vacillating back and forth on the issue, but which is it? Either we have global warming, or we don't! Either we need to take action to correct it, or we don't! Trying to be all things to all people means that you can't be anything to anyone!

In addition to Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore for strange bedfellows, apparently Newt was also partnering up with the likes of Al Sharpton, the notorious, race baiting, left-wing agitator, and with President Obama's Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, and he has been traveling around the country promoting President Obama's so-called ‘education reforms,’ i.e. increased local control of public schools with increased subsidies and regulations from Washington! (Isn’t that a contradiction?) But contradictions and increased federal control is nothing new for Newt! Newt Gingrich has always been a strong proponent of increased federal funding of public education from his earliest years in Congress. He helped to get the support needed to pass the legislation that created the Department of Education in 1979, under President Jimmy Carter. 

Since then, federal spending on education has skyrocketed with no corresponding improvement in academic achievement. Under Newt Gingrich's leadership, the Congress increased federal spending on education in 1996 by a whopping $3.5 billion dollars, the largest single increase in history! See link.

Finally, in the 2009 special election for New York's 23rd Congressional District, Newt Gingrich endorsed the ultra liberal Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava, over a real Conservative Third Party Candidate, Doug Hoffman who had the support of the TEA Party, the New York Post, conservative Republican radio talk show host and Constitutional lawyer Mark Levin, and other conservatives within the New York Republican Party! Dede Scozzafava supported same-sex marriage, big unions, and abortion! She was endorsed by Planned Parenthood and the Acorn affiliated, Working Families Party. 

After it appeared that she was still running in 3rd place behind both the Democratic and the Conservative Party candidates, but only drawing votes away from the Democratic candidate Bill Owens, she withdrew from the race and endorsed her liberal Democratic opponent, rather than conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman. 

Thus, the Democrat candidate narrowly won the race. Newt Gingrich's initial endorsement of Dede Scozzafava cost him whatever credibility he had left with conservatives in his own party, and with members of the TEA Party. He might as well pack it all in now and save all of us Republicans a whole lot of time and trouble arguing over the prospect of his potential candidacy!


John F. McManus, President of the John Birch Society,  anaylzes the voting record of former Congressman...

“The Contract with America didn't change much because it didn't pull up the 'un-constitutional weeds' by their roots. It just mowed them back a little bit! And we all know what happens after you mow the weeds. They just grow back again!” - Scott Rohter
A Newt Gingrich Update
-by Scott Rohter, May 2011
Newt Gingrich has many fine qualities.  He is smart, likeable, and articulate! I wish we had a good conservative Republican candidate running for President right now, who had the same level of charisma, and who could express himself as effectively as Newt Gingrich can, but unfortunately we don’t yet, and merely wishing won’t make it so!  Just like wishing that Newt Gingrich was a real conservative, and blinding your eyes to the fact of who he really is, won’t make it so either!

Newt Gingrich is NOT a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, and his latest remarks last week on NBC’s Meet the Press only serve to prove my point!  Newt said to David Gregory, the host of Meet The Press, that he didn’t like right wing social engineering any more than he liked left wing social engineering!  That wasn’t just a big guffaw.  It was Newt speaking from his heart with his guard down!  That’s the real Newt Gingrich. He is a politician’s politician, trying to appear to be fair to all sides in order to get elected again, while trying to keep his real intentions hidden until after the election!  But twelve years is not long enough to forget his political record when he was in power!  That is why David Jaques, a friend of mine in the newspaper publishing business, likes to say that, “No Newt is good Newt!”

Newt Gingrich does not have any problem communicating his thoughts and ideas!  He is first and foremost an idea man.  It’s just that his ideas are not conservative ideas!  They are progressive ideas.  This is evidenced by the fact that Newt Gingrich is a fan of author Alvin Toffler’s ideas for 'a New World Order' in his two books, The Third Wave and The Politics of the Third Wave.  Gingrich even wrote the forward to one of those books!  In his own words Newt said that in order to understand him, you had to read Toffler’s books!  

Newt Gingrich is an author himself, a lecturer, a history teacher, in addition to being a political pundit, and a successful businessman, and a frequent guest contributor on Fox News, but one thing he is NOT is a Constitutional conservative. 

In spite of all of the apologies and the back tracking, he said exactly what he meant last week on Meet the Press, in an off-guard moment, in a friendly venue, when he felt comfortable and his defenses were down.  He just momentarily got lost in his own musings, and forgot that he was not just talking with David Gregory, but he was actually speaking to the entire nation!  He was demonstrating the standard 20th century progressive strategy, to try to appear to be reasonable to all, in order to gain access to power, from which he can do all of the social engineering that he wants, i.e. progressive social engineering, just like President Obama is doing!  

We must not fall for the illusion again, the carefully crafted Madison Avenue script!  We must notice and understand what these precious few glimpses that we are able to glean into the political soul of Newt Gingrich, actually mean!

As I said, Newt Gingrich is no Constitutional conservative!  In fact, Newt Gingrich said in a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Affairs several years ago that, the problem for the United States in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution! “Either we are going to have to rethink our Constitution or we are going to have to rethink our process of making decisions [in the United States].”  

Those are not the words of a Constitutional conservative!  See my article, NewtWorthy or Not? from March 2011.  No conservative should even think of supporting Newt Gingrich!  We don’t need to rethink our Constitution!  It is not making it more difficult for America to lead the world! And even if it was, which it isn’t, I do not want Mr. Gingrich or progressives like him rethinking anything about the Constitution, not even the punctuation marks, more less the history changing ideas contained in it!

What are you going to do with these rare glimpses into Newt Gingrich’s political soul?  Are you just going to ignore them or overlook them?  I certainly hope not!  

Like when he recently partnered up with Nancy Pelosi to make a TV commercial for Al Gore, promoting his discredited idea of global warming!  Are you just going to ignore that too?  What about when he endorsed the ultra-liberal candidate Dede Scozzafava, in New York’s 2010 Special Congressional Election, in the 23rd Congressional District, against conservative candidate Doug Hoffman, who had the endorsement of the TEA Party!  Mrs. Scozzafava supported Big Unions and abortion, and by endorsing her, so did Newt Gingrich!  

You should either stand or fall on the merits of your words and deeds, and Newt Gingrich’s words and deeds should not stand!
Among all likely candidates for President in 2012, none has a record in public office or in commentary on public affairs as long or as thorough as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.  He has been voting or commenting on every important issue facing American politics, almost without interruption, for more than 30 years.  An exhaustive analysis of every nuance of each proposal is neither possible here, nor terribly useful for our purposes.  This report will focus on the highlights of his 19-year congressional voting record, as well as the economic policy positions he has most consistently championed in his post-congressional writings up to the present day.   

Gingrich is best known for leading the 1994 “Republican Revolution” that swept the GOP into the House majority for the first time in over forty years, and he deserves immense credit for that.  His actual voting record in the House, however, was somewhat less stellar.

The Club for Growth did not have its own scorecard for members of Congress during Gingrich’s tenure from 1979-98, but the non-partisan and pro-free market National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has been issuing a congressional scorecard for decades and Gingrich’s record on economic issues, as provided by NTU, is worth analyzing.  From 1979-98, Gingrich had an average score of 61% (with 100% being a perfect score on supporting lower taxes and limited government).  The average Republican score over this time period was slightly lower at 56%. 


The Club for Growth is committed to lower taxes – especially lower tax rates – across the board.  Lower taxes on work, savings, and investments lead to greater levels of these activities, thus encouraging greater economic growth.

From an economic growth perspective, Newt Gingrich is excellent on tax issues, except when he’s not.  In general, Gingrich does favor lower, flatter tax rates, and has a pro-growth instinct toward reforms that lower rates and broaden the base.  But he also has a persistent habit of supporting big-government tinkering that manifests itself in many unhelpful ways.

First, the good stuff.  On various high-profile tax votes in Congress, Gingrich amassed the following pro-growth tax record:
  • Voted YES on the Reagan tax cut of 1981
  • Voted YES on the Reagan tax reform bill of 1986
  • Voted NO on the George H.W. Bush “Read My Lips” tax hike in 1990.
  • Voted NO on the Clinton tax hike in 1993.
  • Voted YES on the capital gains tax cut in 1997.
His vote and leadership against the 1990 Bush tax increase is especially praiseworthy, as it exhibited political courage to fight against a bad policy that was promoted by the president and congressional leadership of his own party.

Further, Gingrich can be one of the most clear-eyed and forceful advocates for supply-side economics and the value of free enterprise.  He has most recently favored:

  • an immediate and permanent repeal of the Death Tax;
  • elimination of all capital gains taxes;
  • reduction of the corporate tax rate to 12.5 percent;
  • a 50 percent payroll tax cut for both employers and employees;
  • a 100 percent tax write off for businesses’ equipment purchases.
Gingrich also favors broader fundamental tax reform.  In a 2008 op-ed, he enthusiastically praised the idea of an optional, single-rate income tax reform proposal.  According to Gingrich, “[a]n optional flat tax would save taxpayers more than $100 billion per year and reduce compliance costs by over 90 percent. This is a stimulus package that would have an immediate effect on our American economy.”

In addition, Gingrich has advocated a near flat tax proposal that would lower the current 25 percent income tax rate to 15 percent.  This would, in Gingrich’s words, “in effect, establish a flat-rate tax of 15% for close to 90% of American workers.”  Both of these options would be enormously good for our economy.

Now the bad stuff.  Gingrich has an affinity – all too common even among conservative politicians – for gimmicky, special interest tax incentives that empower politicians to pick winners and losers in the marketplace.  His favorite device is the tax credit.

In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Gingrich proposed a six month, $1,000-per person tax credit for 50 percent of the cost of personal travel more than 100 miles from one’s  home.  The idea sounds nice, but just as Cash for Clunkers only expedited the purchase of cars people were going to buy anyway (at non-car buying taxpayers’ expense), Gingrich’s Cash for Getaways would only have subsidized trips people were going to make anyway, enabling a transfer payment to frequent travelers from families without the time or inclination to travel.  This proposal would also require more government to administer and oversee compliance.  It is not a fiscally conservative policy.  While perhaps not a large issue in itself, this is indicative of an approach Gingrich has frequently advocated.  At times he has sponsored bills or issued proposals to do the following:

  • A tax credit for the purchase of home computers used for educational or professional purposes.
  • A $1,000 tax credit for low-income first-time homebuyers.
  • Refundable tax credits for auto companies for the cost of flex-fuels cars, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and the development of hydrogen cars. 
  • Tax credits to encourage investment in biofuels and “renewable forms of energy.”
  • A permanent 50 percent tax credit for research and development, or at least for “companies that are willing to take on government's ‘grand challenges’ (for example, the first inhabitable moon base).”
  • A special business tax credit for “corporations that fund basic research in science and technology at our nation's universities.”
Along with these gimmicky tax proposals, Gingrich voted for at least one tax increase during his time in Congress.  In 1984, he supported a $50 billion tax bill  that closed $15 billion in loopholes, eliminated a tax break on interest income, increased cigarette taxes, and raised taxes on distilled liquor.


The Club for Growth is committed to reducing government spending.  Less spending enhances economic growth by enabling lower taxes and diminishing the government’s economically inefficient allocation of resources.

Gingrich’s record is mostly supportive of smaller government, but he likes to tinker with the economy using more federal government involvement in areas that he is most passionate about.  This is most pronounced on spending issues, and has led him to some very bad positions.

During his time in Congress, he had an exemplary voting record on a lot of the top spending proposals:

  • Voted NO on the Chrysler bailout in 1979
  • Voted YES on the Gramm-Rudman balanced budget bill in 1985
  • Voted YES on a balanced budget amendment (as part of the “Contract for America” effort that he led) in 1995
  • Led the effort and voted YES to cut $16.4 billion from the budget in 1995.
  • Voted YES on welfare reform in 1996
Gingrich has also been a vocal opponent of most of the big spending habits pushed by the White House and Congress over the past few years.  He opposed the $787 billion stimulus proposal,  the auto bailout,  and Cash for Clunkers.

But Gingrich also has a recurring impulse to insert the government into the private economy.  A particularly bad mark on his record came in 2003, when he urged “every conservative member of Congress” to support the Medicare drug benefit bill.  He called it the “most important reorganization of our nation's healthcare system since the original Medicare Bill of 1965.”  The drug benefit now costs taxpayers over $60 billion a year and has almost $16
trillion in unfunded liabilities. 

This flaw appeared again in late 2008, when he backed the $700 billion Wall Street bailout.   While he was initially opposed to it, he “reluctantly” endorsed it when successful passage was uncertain in Congress.

Prior to those big errors, and somewhat since then, Gingrich has shown an odd condescension toward fiscal conservatives who do not share his views.  In 1998, he derided a group of House conservatives by calling them the “the perfectionist caucus” for opposing a 4,000-page omnibus spending bill, adding that “those of us who have grown up and matured in this process understand after the last four years that we have to work together on big issues.”


Free trade is a vital policy necessary for maximizing economic growth.  In recent decades, America’s commitment to expanding trade has resulted in lower costs for consumers, job growth, and higher levels of productivity and innovation.  

In 1994, William F. Buckley, Jr. called Gingrich a “profoundly committed free trader,” and his record and rhetoric over the years bears out that characterization.   Gingrich has been a reliable advocate for free international trade, and a critic of both the politics and economics of protectionism.

In 1993, Gingrich supported the North American Free Trade Agreement,  and later argued for including Chile into the deal, with the eventual goal of having the entire Western Hemisphere as a free trade zone.

In 1994, Gingrich supported passage of the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade, which established fast track authority for the president and the World Trade Organization.

In 1998, Gingrich supported Most Favored Nation (now Permanent Normal Trade Relations) status with China.  And he supported free trade legislation between the United States and sub-Saharan African nations.

In 2010, Gingrich called for the creation of “Free Cities,” Hong Kong-style free trade zones, developed from scratch according to agreements reached between the United States and the “receptive governments” controlling the agreed-upon spots.

Evidence of any pro-protectionism support is scant.  However, Gingrich did vote YES to keep trade-distorting peanut subsidies in 1985,  although he later redeemed himself by voting against them in 1990.  


Excessive government regulation stymies individual and business innovation necessary for strong economic expansion. The Club for Growth supports less and more sensible government regulation as a critical step toward increasing freedom and growth in the marketplace.

There’s a long list of big government regulations that Gingrich has opposed.  Commendably, he advocates full repeal of Sarbanes-Oxley.   He vocally opposed ObamaCare and favors repeal.  He supports lifting restrictions on energy production like offshore drilling, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and nuclear plant construction.

Gingrich opposes the “Employee Free Choice Act,” or “card check,” especially its binding arbitration provision.   And he opposed the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform bill in 2010, calling it “another big government power grab.”

Once again, however, Gingrich’s penchant for tinkering undermines his otherwise very strong record of pro-growth deregulation.

He fought President Obama’s cap-and-trade  scheme and wants to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency.   He also opposes the Obama EPA’s controversial plan to regulate carbon emissions via the Clean Air Act, and has urged Congress to prevent its implementation.   But previously, in 2008, he starred in a television ad with Nancy Pelosi urging a bipartisan solution to climate change.  In a debate with Senator John Kerry in 2007, Gingrich said, “the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere." While he insisted that government regulation wasn’t the answer, he said, “I would agree you would get more change more rapidly with an incentivized market rather than a laissez-faire approach.”  That’s Gingrich-speak for government involvement.

More recently, Gingrich defended federal ethanol policies.  Even Al Gore now admits ethanol subsidies hurt the environment and that he only supported them because of Iowa’s influential presidential caucuses.  Gingrich singled out a
Wall Street Journal editorial critical of ethanol policies, and suggested ethanol’s “big city” critics get their facts straight.   Responding to the fact that, without subsidies, tariffs, and federal mandates, there would be no ethanol market, Gingrich said, “If they’re prepared to insist on a flex-fuel vehicle and every car in America capable of buying ethanol, I think the industry can stand on its own.”  Thus, Gingrich would favor eliminating ethanol subsidies only after Congress mandates that everyone buy ethanol cars. 

Gingrich has also long endorsed a federal role in supporting renewable energy projects and the development of clean energy technologies.

These inconsistencies are notable because they are inconsistencies.  Gingrich’s
default approach to regulatory issues is usually to favor the free market and empower entrepreneurs and consumers.  Despite that good record, too often Gingrich seems overly compelled to find government answers to complex issues when the hurdles to free market solutions appear too high.


America’s major entitlement programs are already insolvent.  The Club for Growth supports entitlement reforms that enable personal ownership of retirement and health care programs, benefit from market returns, and diminish dependency on government.

Gingrich has long advocated reforms, of one sort or another, of the federal government’s three major entitlement programs – Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.  But he has three glaring mistakes in his record that can’t be overlooked.

On Social Security, Gingrich has been consistently pro-growth and pro-reform and for all the right reasons.  He favors personal Social Security savings accounts owned by individual taxpayers and off limits to congressional spendthrifts.  He has written:

“With large personal social security savings accounts, even low- and moderate-income workers will accumulate hundreds of thousands of dollars by retirement and will be able to leave a financial legacy to their children or other heirs. Personal social security savings accounts offer workers far greater personal choice, ownership and control than the current system.”
In addition to his own plans, Gingrich supported President Bush’s effort in 2005 to reform Social Security with personal accounts, and a 2004 plan offered by Congressman Paul Ryan and then- Senator John Sununu that would have done much the same.

Gingrich also favors comprehensive reform of the notoriously inefficient Medicaid program.  He originally proposed the idea of block-granting the program back to the states in 1995, giving them more flexibility to administer it.

He has long advocated expanded health savings accounts, tax free accounts coupled with high-deductible catastrophic coverage to allow people to build a medical nest egg, like a health care 401(k) plan.

As noted above, however, Gingrich has a few doozies in his record.  First, in his 2008 book Real Change, Gingrich advocated an individual mandate for health insurance – a similar mandate is central to ObamaCare and is being challenged by 26 states in court as being unconstitutional.  Gingrich wrote:

“[I]ndividuals are expected to help pay for their care.  Everyone should be required to have coverage.  Those with very low incomes should receive vouchers or tax credits to help them buy insurance.  Those who oppose the concept of insurance should be required to post a bond to cover costs.”
The second large error in Gingrich’s entitlement record was equally troubling: the former Speaker played a high profile advocacy role on behalf of President George W. Bush’s Medicare prescription drug benefit bill in 2003.  Gingrich penned several op-eds supporting the general thrust and specific provisions of the bill, urging House Republicans to pass what was billed at the time to be a $400 billion expansion of the federal government.

Among the lowlights of his advocacy:

“Every conservative member of Congress should vote for this Medicare bill.  It is the most important reorganization of our nation’s healthcare system since the original Medicare Bill of 1965 and the largest and most positive change in direction for the health system in 60 years for people over 65.”

“Congress should allow seniors to get the drugs they need by adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.”
Gingrich still maintains his support for Medicare Part D, and in a 2006 op-ed lauded the virtues of the first year of its implementation. 

Finally, Gingrich supported the creation and eventual expansion of SCHIP, the government-run health care program for children of low-income families.  


The Club for Growth supports broad school choice, including charter schools and voucher programs that create a competitive education market including public, private, religious, and non-religious schools.  More competition in education will lead to higher quality and lower costs.   

Education reform is another area that perfectly illustrates Gingrich’s dual (and occasionally contradictory) tendencies toward both pro-growth conservatism and big-government meddler.

For decades, Gingrich has been an unequivocal advocate for school choice, writing in a 2006 op-ed:  

“The status quo is failing our students, and to truly see real change, we need to enact real change. The simplest and surest way to transform education is to give students and parents the freedom to choose where they will go to school. This means eliminating restrictive zoning laws that force kids into schools simply because they live nearby. This means introducing free-market forces into education, encouraging schools to compete for students, much like businesses compete for customers. This means that schools that do not perform will either improve or close their doors — which is as it should be. There is no middle ground.”
Gingrich admirably advocates charter schools, vouchers for families with children trapped in failing schools, and greater flexibility in rewarding good teachers and dismissing bad ones.

But Gingrich’s tinkering side reveals itself when he suggests that the federal government “save the children.”  In 2006, he wrote:

“Finally, Congress should tie education funding to school accountability. The No Child Left Behind law is making it blaringly obvious just how many schools are crippling and destroying children. We should save the children. Congress should require school systems to institute metrics-based performance standards in order to receive federal funding to ensure that every child is getting the education that they deserve.”
Demanding that the federal government get involved in what most conservatives believe is a state or local issue is something that Gingrich doesn’t seem to appreciate.


The American economy suffers from excessive litigation which increases the cost of doing business and slows economic growth. The Club for Growth supports major reforms to our tort system to restore a more just and less costly balance in tort litigation. 

Gingrich has been a clear and consistent advocate for lawsuit abuse reform for years.  The “Common Sense Legal Reform Act” was part of the Contract with America in 1994, and was passed by both the House and Senate, but vetoed by President Bill Clinton.    The bill would have reformed the tort system by penalizing frivolous and predatory lawsuits by imposing “loser pays” rules and capping punitive damages.

More recently, Gingrich has supported tort reform in the context of health care reform and cost-containment.  In 2009, Gingrich criticized President Obama’s health care overhaul for skirting the issue of lawsuit abuse reform: “The “plain and simple truth” is that leaving the tort system ‘as is’ ignores more than $200 billion in potential savings annually in health care.”   Specifically, Gingrich cited statistics pertaining to the expensive and wasteful practice of “defensive medicine,” in which doctors perform unnecessary tests solely to protect themselves from predatory lawsuits.

In 2002, Gingrich called for a cap on “pain and suffering” awards in medical malpractice suits, and cited the dangerous shortage of doctors in many states that had not – to date – reformed their liability laws.   In 2006, Gingrich noted the quick reversal of Texas’ trend of losing doctors after the state passed medical malpractice reform.

Gingrich has also called for the establishment of special “health courts” to manage the glut and exploding costs of medical malpractice litigation.


Maximizing prosperity requires sound government policies.  When government strays from these policies, citizens must be free to exercise their constitutional rights to petition and criticize those policies and the politicians responsible for them.

Except for one large blemish, Gingrich has what seems to be a clear, strong, and positive stand on behalf of political free speech.

In 1995, he countered calls for spending restrictions in campaigns by noting the 1992 presidential campaigns combined spent half of the major television networks’ news budgets.  He said giving journalists free, unlimited access to the public while restricting campaign contributions represented “a nonsensical socialist analysis based on hatred of the free enterprise system.”

Gingrich has rightly been a harsh critic of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, saying in 2006 that it ought to have been named the “McCain-Feingold censorship law” and compared it to the Sedition Act of 1798.

According to Gingrich,

“A truly functioning campaign system would take power out of Washington and return it to its owners—the American people. Such a system would allow individuals to make unlimited contributions to candidates for Congress in their district, so long as it is reported immediately on the Internet and is transparent and accessible.”
Gingrich strongly supported Citizens United in their challenge against the constitutionality of the McCain Feingold bill, and recently appeared in a video produced by Citizen United commemorating the anniversary of the successful ruling.

Nevertheless, Gingrich supported the “Fairness Doctrine” in 1987,  a proposal that would force broadcasters to air all sides of a controversial issue.  It obviously infringes 1st Amendment rights and it can only lead to bigger government as bureaucrats haggle over what’s controversial, what’s “fair”, and other details.


Robust political activity is essential to producing a federal government that is more respectful of free markets and produces more pro-economic growth policies.  The Club for Growth’s PAC has been active in some of the more central battles within the Republican Party nominating process in recent years, supporting pro-growth candidates over pro-government ones. 

Whereas in most policy areas Gingrich’s record has been consistently or largely good, his record of involvement in political activity in which a clear pro-growth and anti-growth choice was available has been frequently poor. 

In the 2009 special election for Congress in New York’s 23rd district, Gingrich was outspoken in his support of liberal Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava, up to the moment she finally quit the race after center-right voters rallied behind Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman.  Long after most prominent conservatives had endorsed Hoffman, Gingrich held firm in his advocacy for a liberal candidate who supported Obama’s stimulus plan and the pro-union “card check” proposal, among other bad positions.

In 2010, Gingrich openly campaigned for embattled U.S. Senator Robert Bennett in Utah, whom Gingrich’s wrongly called “a true-blue conservative.”  In 2008,  Gingrich aggressively supported and campaigned for liberal Congressman Wayne Gilchrist (R-MD) when he faced a conservative challenge from now-Congressman Andy Harris.  In 2006, same thing, when Gingrich backed liberal Congressman Joe Schwarz (R-MI) when he was challenged by conservative now-Congressman Tim Walberg.

It is of course common for leading Republicans to support incumbent Republicans who face primary opposition.  However, Gingrich has taken this to another level, supporting incumbents even when he had long been out of office himself, and doing so with a vigor and passion that is entirely inconsistent with the level of conservatism that the candidates themselves espouse.

In Gingrich’s worldview, he appears to elevate partisanship to principle.  His conflation of party expansion with genuine political or policy success is a common mistake, especially among establishment leaders and Washington insiders.  This mistake can easily morph into a strange contempt for serious conservative reformers within the GOP.  After all, from a pro-growth perspective, it is clear that the candidates Gingrich strongly opposed, Senator Mike Lee and Congressmen Andy Harris and Tim Walberg are far superior to the RINO incumbents they defeated.

Here again, Gingrich’s penchant for condescension appears.  In that NY-23 race, for instance, Gingrich went so far as to attack conservatives who supported Hoffman (whom Gingrich belatedly endorsed himself), saying: “So I say to my conservative friends who suddenly decided that whether they’re from Minnesota or Alaska or Texas, they know more than the upstate New York Republicans?  I don’t think so.”


As a historical figure, it is undeniable that Newt Gingrich has played leading roles in some of the most important battles on behalf of economic growth and limited government in the last quarter century.

His opposition and momentary defeat of the 1990 Bush tax increase, his leadership of the 1994 Republican Revolution, and his spearheading of the provisions of the Contract With America are major league achievements.  His consistent support for pro-growth tax reform, free trade, Social Security reform, tort reform, and political free speech also evidence a clear and impressive understanding of the fundamentals that underlie the free enterprise system that has made America prosperous.

Unfortunately, the problems in Speaker Gingrich’s record are frequent enough and serious enough to give pause.  On two of the most important recent issues that confronted limited government conservatives (creating the new budget busting Medicare drug entitlement, and the Wall Street bailout), Gingrich was on the wrong side.  His advocacy of an individual health care mandate is problematic.  His penchant for tinkering with rewards for favored industries and outcomes shows a troubling willingness to use federal power to coerce taxpayers into his preferred direction.  And his occasional hostility toward conservatives who do not share his desire to support liberal Republicans or to compromise on matters of principle is worrisome.

The totality leads one to be rather unsure what kind of president Newt Gingrich would be.  Past is often prologue, and in Gingrich’s case there is an enormous volume of past on which to base a judgment.  One could reasonably expect a President Gingrich to lead America in a pro-growth and limited government direction generally, possibly with flashes of real brilliance and accomplishment, but also likely with some serious disappointments and unevenness.

Source: Club For Growth 
Regarding the Fairness Doctrine: 
Fearful about the direction things were heading, Congress passed a law in June 1987 that would have codified the Doctrine. President Reagan vetoed it. The next month, the FCC voted 4-0 to abolish the Doctrine.
"It is worth noting that Reagan’s veto came over the objections of not just liberals but many of his fellow conservatives. Conditioned to accept the Doctrine as the norm, many feared they would not have access to the airwaves without it. Such notables as Senator Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina), a former TV commentator, and Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia), voted to codify the Doctrine. At the time groups such as the National Rifle Association and the Eagle Forum urged Reagan not to veto the bill. Then-Mississippi Congressman Trent Lott summed up their fears as well as their tangled logic: “We have unfairness now even with the Fairness Doctrine. Heaven knows what would happen without a Fairness Doctrine.”
The time has come to put aside all of the is cheap.  We must look at the history of these candidates.  Based on Newt's history, it is my personal opinion that he would be bad for America.  You need to decide if we want more of the same or do we want to save this country from the elitist politicians that will sell their souls for the power they crave?


  1. Newt says that he has matured and grown. I'm not convinced. For me, he's Bill Clinton in a Republican suit.

  2. This by far the most comprehensive dirt on NEWT I have found.
    I commend you for your diligence and hard work.

  3. Thanks for your kind comment. I have tried to compile as much information on Newt so it is easy for someone to find out how the REAL NEWT GINGRICH is...he is NOT a conservative.

    1. Who said a conservative is the answer? We need a middle-of-the-road approach so that we can "compromise" with everyone's opinion. I am sick and tired of black or white mentalities!