Thursday, December 22, 2011

Newt Gingrich... Anti-Conservative as Well as Anti-American and Anti-Liberty

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


The holiday season is upon us. For those more conventionally inclined, and not intimidated by the PC Police (that would definitely be me) the season is best known as the Christmas Season.

Sorry all you over sensitive anal atheists (and that from a tolerant atheist), please stuff a nice big Christmas stocking in your over bloated and insensitive blow holes.

That aside, preceding what will be my last post prior to December 26th, Rational Nation USA wants to wish all its readership A Very Merry Christmas and A Happy and Prosperous New Year.

Please drink responsibly, and use a designated driver whenever common sense dictates.

Moving forward... In the interest of providing clarity Rational Nation USA can no longer represent itself as a conservative site. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, I didn't leave the republican party and conservatism, rather the republican party and conservatism has left me. As unfortunate and uncomfortable as that may be it is objective reality.

This development I suppose leaves me a man without a political home. When squared against the alternative however it is not such a bad place to be. I remain a man who knows and understands his principles. One who refuses to carry water for any party or ideology. Standing for right is, in the final determination, far more important than winning when winning requires sacrificing your soul. To crib Ayn Rand, that means sacrificing your independent objective mind. Or put another way it means sacrificing your principles in the support of a lesser of  two evils.

I think I'll pass and continue my advocacy for classical liberalism. For those wondering what the difference between modern liberalism, and or modern conservatism is from classical liberalism I suggest a visit to a website such as Wikipedia, any reputable Encyclopedia, or a good Dictionary. The rest is up to you.

George Will is a man whose positions I do not always agree with. He is however a thoughtful and intelligent man. I was pleased to come upon his recent article calling out so called conservative presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich for his blatantly anti-conservative, indeed anti-republican views on the judiciary.

This sites position on the Newt's statist, indeed his almost fascist like positions is well known. With his most recent statements that congressional police ought to be able to arrest judges whose views essentially differ from congressional views is extremely frightening as well as dangerous.

George Will is spot on in his analysis of  Newt, the would be dictator's  position with respect to the judiciary.

(The Washington Post) When discussing his amazingness, Newt Gingrich sometimes exaggerates somewhat, as when, discussing Bosnia and Washington, D.C., street violence, he said, “People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz” [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Jan. 16, 1994]. What primarily stands between us and misrule, however, is the Constitution, buttressed by an independent judiciary.

But Gingrich’s hunger for distinction has surely been slaked by his full-throated attack on such a judiciary. He is the first presidential candidate to propose a thorough assault on the rule of law. That is the meaning of his vow to break courts to the saddle of politicians, particularly to members of Congress, who rarely even read the laws they pass.

Gingrich’s most lurid evidence that courts are “grotesquely dictatorial” is a Texas judge’s aggressive decision concerning religious observances at high school functions, a decision a higher court promptly (and dictatorially?) overturned. Gingrich’s epiphany about judicial tyranny occurred in 2002, when a circuit court ruled unconstitutional the Pledge of Allegiance phrase declaring America a nation “under God.” Gingrich likened this to the 1857 Dred Scott decision that led to 625,000 Civil War dead. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the circuit court’s “under God” nonsense.

So, Gingrich is happy? Not exactly. He warns that calling the Supreme Court supreme amounts to embracing “oligarchy.”

He says that the Founders considered the judiciary the “weakest” branch. Not exactly. Alexander Hamilton called the judiciary the “least dangerous” branch (Federalist 78) because, since it wields neither the sword nor the purse, its power resides solely in persuasive “judgment.” That, however, is not weakness but strength based on the public’s respect for public reasoning. Gingrich yearns to shatter that respect and trump such reasoning with raw political power, in the name of majoritarianism. {Read More}

There can be little doubt but what the classical liberal thinkers, those individuals instrumental in founding our great nation and in the process changing history, are rolling over in their graves {if that were possible} witnessing the likes of one Newtie Gingrich vying for the most powerful office in the free world.

While I cannot support the likes of any of the republican candidates {Ron Paul excluded} currently arrayed the the Circus Tent of Elephants I can say this. For those who cannot bring themselves to support any alternative to the statist republican nominee for president cast your ballot for Mitt Romney in the primaries. While he may be a statist, just as  Obama is, at least he is not a anti-constitutional idiot like the Newtie.


Footnote: I speak only  for myself and for no other individual.  Nor do I speak for anyone's political organization.

Via: Memeorandum

28 comments:

  1. It seems to me you do have a partisan home, and that is with the Libertarian Party. Gary Johnson, as you may know, just signed up with them. They are not looking to score big next year, but it's still early yet.

    I've worked in third party campaign's before, knowing we would not win, but I did it because it seemed to me to be both the most right and most rewarding, thing to do. ;)

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, not yet jmj. Johnson gets my support only AFTER Paul is out of the picture.

    Even if Paul doesn't get the nomination {and we all know he won't) I relish the thought of him being the spoiler.

    I hope he completely spoils Newtie's delusions of grandeur

    ReplyDelete
  3. Who are you supporting for President in 2012?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon - Am I to assume you can't read?

    In the spirit of the season I respectfully suggest you visit the archives {as well as reading this post again}as the clues to the answer to your question can be found in the material.

    Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year. Or if you prefer Happy Holidays.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why not make it simpler for you Anon. Just read my response to JM in this comment thread.

    That work for ya?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't understand the Gingrich fervor. He's supposed to be a historian, yet he says Rick Perry taught him about the importance of the 9th and 10th Amendments...

    He's a big statist, the mirror image of Barack Obama.

    Unfortunately, we have no electorally-viable alternatives.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As I said, Gingrich is not only a huge statist, he is of the fascist breed. No one I will ever, under any circumstance support or cast a ballot for.

    PERIOD!

    Principles matter.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Statist/fascist isn't unfair to say about anyone who favors anything close to Obamacare, or any sort of "universal health care" that involves government taking control of healthcare away from the people, or these nasty requirements that people be forced to spend money on health insurance they can't afford and don't need.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I wasn't sure you say so many negative things about all the candidates.
    You must be anti-Jeffersonian then.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Anonymous,
    please check loose screws and replace the ones missing...
    And try to have a Merry Christmas!
    And Merry Christmas all and your families too!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I especially love this whole "positive" approach to campaigning by Gingrich. As Gloria Borger has pointed out on CNN, the only reason that Mr. Nasty is being positive at all is simply because he doesn't have the moolah to run any negative ads. The lunatic leopard absolutely HASN'T changed his stripes.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anon, or is it, never mind. You are becoming quite tedious. However in the spirit of the season I shall humor you.

    I support 1'st amendment rights for all. This includes jerks like Newtie.

    No please enjoy your holidays and take care of yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Sorry all you over sensitive anal atheists (and that from a tolerant atheist), please stuff a nice big Christmas stocking in your over bloated and insensitive blow holes."

    Oh Paul-ease, Les! No atheist ran up to you and told you it was Saturnalia instead of x-mas.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Grunge - Are you really that out of touch? Do you not read? Or is it a case of you just being you?

    I'll leave it to the readership to determine for themselves what the answer is to my questions.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Happy Holidays to you, and best wishes for a healthy and prosperous 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Gingrich is running as the populist. He is the sheep in wolves clothing as far as the establishment is concerned. Nothing. Paul is already far more dangerous to the establishment than Gingrich. Gingrich plays to the establishment, in his uniquely patronizing, clawing professorial way.

    And when all is said and done, Newt has no money. He has no big backers. He has no chance.

    What Gingrich has is just enough support to play a "smart" conservative voice after a series of embarrassing characters blathered their way through the GOP debates.

    Ginrich will not be the next president. Romney? Maybe. Paul? No.

    Conservatives can not find a unifying voice at this time to win over a majority of voters. This is going to be a close race unless something or someone dramatically changes things - on the right.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  17. For once jmj I find myself agreeing with you. At lest partially.

    Although you're too soft on Newtie. The man's views {his recent remarks regarding the judiciary etc.) present a clear and present danger to liberty should his view become generally accepted.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The race is Obama's to lose. If things get much worse with the economy, he will lose for sure.

    Already, and for a long time now, no Democrat ever wants anyone to ask the famous question "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?".

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Already, and for a long time now, no Democrat ever wants anyone to ask the famous question "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" --dmarks

    Ask the GM workers whose jobs were saved by Mr. Obama's actions. BTW, the loan has been paid back with interest.

    The job growth has been slow, but nothing as bad as it was when Bush was at the end of his term and the US was hemorraging jobs. Look at any chart to see this fact: Job growth has slowly improved since Obama became president.

    And has any GOPer had the courage to ask the House Republicans: "Where are the JOBS! JOBS! JOBS! you promised us when you were campaigning in 2010?

    Oooops!

    But the GOP controlled House did manage to pass a resolution that confirmed "In God We Trust" as our national motto. Thank Darwin! I was afraid that had the GOP House not done that bit of theater, we'd all be looking for unemployment benefits. But because the GOP House passed that important piece of blather, look at how many Americansf they've helped.

    And one more thing, the idiots in the GOP who went after Planned Parenhood? I personally know a young woman who, even though she's worked for a year and a half, did not have health insurance--the company didn't provide it. She switched jobs in a very difficult job-deficit economy to one that did provide insurance coverage--which comes out of her paycheck--and had to wait 3 months for it to kick in. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood provided health care in the form of pap smears, breast exams, etc. for her. The stupids in the GOP would take that meager bit of help away from millions of women who need it because of men like Republican Senator John Kyl, the moron who plays to the worst instincts in human nature--people's willingness to believe any lie.

    " 'Everybody goes to clinics, to hospitals, to doctors, and so on. Some people go to Planned Parenthood. But you don't have to go to Planned Parenthood to get your cholesterol or your blood pressure checked. If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that's well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does,' the senator crowed."

    That was a big fat lie.


    [Les, I can't include the link in your comments because I've found that Blogger dumps the comment into your Spam folder when a link is embedded.]

    So I would ask poor women without health insurance if they're better off now that the GOP has defunded Planned Parenthood. I would guess no.

    dmarks, our country and its problems are a bit more complicated than a political sound bite.

    ReplyDelete
  20. For what it's worth and as an Atheist and associate, child, parent of other Atheists and frequent author of Atheistic screeds, I have never heard anyone say it's wrong to say Merry Christmas although I've heard plenty tell me others are saying it. This is Fox Fabrication at its best. This is an attempt to give freedom of religion a bad name. I have sure as hell heard 'Christians' object to saying Eid Mubarak or Ramadan Mubarak however. So pardon me if my hypocrisy alarm is beeping here.

    Please give me an answer explaining why one man's political opinions which seem correct to him, are "PC" and the antithetical opinions which seem correct to an opponent are none the less not "PC."

    It's relative, right? It's away of saying I'm right and you're wrong in the absence of an argument. It's away of mocking without content. I'd suggest we'd all be much better off abandoning this maggoty chestnut that stinks of it's nefarious creators.

    And sorry, I think the idea that Liberals are telling people not to say Merry Christmas is a libel and a hoax. I've never heard evidence of it and again, it's something people believe because they are being told they are victims by others seeking to exploit their fears. I'm a liberal, I'm an atheist, I think Christmas is an adopted Roman holiday early Christians did not celebrate and that the only war on Christmas has been waged by Puritans
    who are correct - if not PC - in seeing it as pagan. BUT I DON'T CARE AND AM NOT OFFENDED BY SOMEONE ELSE'S FREEDOM TO SAY IT and I am not unanimous in that.

    If "PC liberals" are not telling you to ignore St. Swithins day, they're sure as hell not bothered by you saying Merry Christmas -- What some of us object to is government involvement in religion and if you object to that opinion, you have to object to the core values of our Republic.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Shaw said "Ask the GM workers whose jobs were saved by Mr. Obama's actions. BTW, the loan has been paid back with interest."

    Well, most of the auto company handouts were paid back. Most. And the jobs would have still been saved without this having happened: it would have also happened with a bailout-free bankruptcy option.

    Now, what about all the rest of the jobless? On Obama's watch, and as a result of his policies and leadership, unemployment has gone up 20%.

    "Look at any chart to see this fact: Job growth has slowly improved since Obama became president."

    Very slowly... it is going to take a long time to even get out of the hole he dug after he took office.

    And has any GOPer had the courage to ask the House Republicans: "Where are the JOBS! JOBS! JOBS! you promised us when you were campaigning in 2010?

    "And one more thing, the idiots in the GOP who went after Planned Parenhood?"

    There's a budget deficit problem, and surely it should be an easy decision to cut the corporate welfare to the abortion industry.

    "I personally know a young woman who, even though she's worked for a year and a half, did not have health insurance --the company didn't provide it"

    Welcome to Obama Country. His attempt to ruin healthcare has already forced companies to end healthcare plans, and by the time this is done. 30% of employees currently with company plans are expected to be kicked off of them... as a direct result of "Obamacare"

    "So I would ask poor women without health insurance if they're better off now that the GOP has defunded Planned Parenthood. I would guess no."

    OF course they are not better off, if she is one of the people who either lost her health insurance as a result of Obama's plan to ruin healthcare. or has seen her payments rise, due to insane aspects of the plan such as the provision to force equipment makers to raise prices on medical equipment.

    "dmarks, our country and its problems are a bit more complicated than a political sound bite."

    I know, which is why I stick to real problems, and the discussion of very bad policies (i.e. Obama's attempt to destroy healthcare) and the predictably catastrophic results.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Shaw - lets set aside all the defense mechanisms that the right and the left so frequently use.

    I will begin by acknowledge, as most reasonable people do, that the financial meltdown that begin under the Bush administration was the result of ill advised, indeed reckless financial management. Reasonable people also recognize the republican party bears some responsibility. They also realize the democratic party does not have totally clean hands in the matter.

    Some level of regulatory oversight is prudent and such oversight should be the same as successful businesses exercise in maintaining financial and fiscal health for their companies. In my considered opinion such bureaucratic oversight should be a partnership of government and business executives. Book, Three Billion New Capitalist got Me thinking along these lines. But feel free to challenge me as I have only been in business management at some level for thirty years with no government experience.

    As to jobs. dmarks is likely right. Job groth would have responded to market demand irrespective of government stimulus. And for te record I do not buy the argument of "too big to fail" which GWB also supported. Mismanaged and or unethical businesses should fail. Healthy businesses will fill the gap. Both existing as well as new start ups.

    I am opposed to ObamaCare and I do believe Medicare, if not restructured will ultimately bankrupt this country. Having said this I have grown to understand that 21'st century realities do require we address the issue of health care and the costs associated with those that are uninsured yet go to the hospital and receive free healthcare at the taxpayers expense.

    The government has no right to mandate any individual purchase any product they feel is not in their best rational self interest so be it. he antidote to that should be, okay, if you make the free UN-coerced decision to NOT select state sponsored health care then when you fall ill you're on your own based on your on decision. It is not the governments business to legislate against stupidity any more that it should be mandatory everyone by insure.

    As to Planned Parenthood, I hear what you're saying. I have posted on the whole abortion issue and my position on the issue can be found in my archives. Suffice to say as long as taxpayer dollars are not being used to fund abortion I have little issue with the rest of the organizations function.

    In God We Trust is a nice motto for those who place their trust in God exclusively and unquestionably. What that does for the nation is of course is very questionable. Religion is a matter of PERSONAL faith and should be left to the individual. That and government has no business in religion other than to insure that all faiths have the freedom to practice their faith in the United states. Does that answer your quest Capt?

    It's late and time is running short so I'll get back to the close tomorrow Shaw, as well as your comment Capt.

    ReplyDelete
  24. .. back to healthcare, I continue to wonder why the government hasn't seriously considered the Swiss Health plan to determine it's applicability with necessary modifications to fit US economic realities.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Capt., Thanks for by.

    As to PC, I can recall when the term politically correct first became part of the lexicon. In fact it was not a term used for those when they didn't have an argument. Rather it was a term used to create the environment that any language or view that didn't agree with a particular position (usually as relates to the state, political, religious thought etc.) was somehow inappropriate of incorrect. It was most often used by those on the left in the attempt to silence minority opinion or arguments. You are free to disagree if you like Capt. but I stand by the reality of my experiences.

    Having said this I need to make it clear that the sword cuts both ways. Republicans, conservatives, the religious right, etc. are guilty of the same today. In the sense they tolerate little straying from their approved ideologies.

    Being a person who believes all views deserve the light of day and scrutiny I am fine with views that differ from my own. In fact while often vehemently disagreeing initially there have been times I've changed from my initial positions, the result of rational logical arguments carrying weight and with me.

    While one view may be right and another wrong the advocates of both views have the right to their views and to express them. Preferably with out the coarse, crude, and vulgar language we see far too much of on the internet. Resorting to such language is less than respectful, it serve no purpose, and in fact puts the user of such language in a very unfavorable light in the eyes of more temperate individuals.

    You said Capt... "What some of us object to is government involvement in religion and if you object to that opinion, you have to object to the core values of our Republic."

    I concur completely. Government has no purpose in religion and religion has no purpose in government. Our nation was founded on a set of principles and has always been governed by "the rule of law." Our founders were brilliant in setting in place a system that would essentially insure this in our government affairs. The founders being Deists, and understanding persecution of religious sects in England set in place a system that would insure it not happening in America. Jeffersonian principles run deep in me and therefore I rail at the idea of religion gaining any foothold in government and vice versa.

    Every single individual has the right to believe and worship as they choose or choose not to. No individual (or government/political party) has the right to force on another their beliefs.

    I hope this has helped Capt. I'm more than happy to discuss further with you If you like. Again thanks for stopping in. As this site's policy states any and all views are welcome. However, cursing, vulgarity etc. will be removed. Heated respectful exchanges are fine as long a they remain respectful.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Les and dmarks, your assertion that the private market would have created created or sustained more jobs than had the government intervened is completely unsubstantiated.

    While TARPers still owe us around 90 billion dollars, the auto industry jobs were saved by government intervention, and have returned to private profitability, with little public debt.

    Leading to the recession, these companies were misdirected and mismanaged. GM was more a bank than automaker, and engaged in the same follies as the rest of the financial sector at that time, with unaccountable, irresponsible lending and hedging. A house of cards built on nothing - nothing lost, only gained. There is no such a thing, but if you assume there is then it always causes disaster in the end.

    The government did the right thing there and the results have been good. You just can't reasonably argue otherwise. Had we approached it the conservative way, those jobs and that industry would have been lost. We would be yet another step closer to the Third World.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Les and dmarks, your assertion that the private market would have created created or sustained more jobs than had the government intervened is completely unsubstantiated."

    Not in the least. Government intervention through overtaxation, over-regulation, and forced unionization (which ruins companies by having non-qualified people make basic management decisions) force businesses to go under or offshore.

    End forced unionization, reduce the taxation to something fair and bearable, and get rid of the needless regulations, and jobs will bounce back and flood to our shores.

    "the auto industry jobs were saved by government intervention"

    If the government had not intervened, GM would have gone through a typical bankruptcy. by which it would have been able to stay afloat and better deal with creditors. Jobs would have been saved this way also.

    "The government did the right thing there and the results have been good. You just can't reasonably argue otherwise"

    The government did the wrong thing, and the results are bad. There's a lot less of a reason now for businesses to run themselves in a proper and efficient fashion. Why do they need to, if Uncle Sam will bail them out? So yes one can very reasonably argue that the handout to GM and Chrysler was a bad idea.

    There are many other reasons it has been bad. Look at the "Government Motors" Chevy Volt debacle. A perfect example of what happens when people in government who have no knowledge of the realities of business and the needs onf consumers get involved.

    It was supposed to have sold hundreds of thousands. Instead it barely sells at all. It's the modern Edsel, only taxpayer-funded. Ford, the company that made the real Edsel, did not get a government handout, and as such it is doubtful that it will make the same mistake again. GM? Well, there's now a big disconnect between its plans and the needs of consumers. It doesn't have to serve their needs, so it can foist any bizarre thing on the market it wants to.

    Had we approached it the conservative way, the jobs would have been kept, and the industry would have been more responsive, and we would not have had the dangerous step in the direction of fascism that this huge handout means.

    And this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with the Third World.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.