Posts tagged Newt Gingrich
Well, is the heat being turned up on Attorney General Eric Holder regarding operation Fast & Furious today, and what will the resulting outcome be? The House Committee holds Holder in Contempt. The party-line vote was 23-17. The controversy goes next to the full House, which is to vote next week unless there is some resolution in the meantime.
The vote followed a decision by President Barack Obama earlier in the day to assert executive privilege for the first time in his administration in order to protect the confidentiality of the documents.
There is committee chairman, Darrell Issa of California,heading the investigation in Arizona of gun-running into Mexico, called Operation Fast and Furious. This operation resulted in the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Agent Terry was shot on December 14, 2010 and he died the following day. Fast & Furious has also claimed the lives of over 300 Mexicans.
Issa said that “more than eight months after a subpoena and clearly after the question of executive privilege could have and should have been asserted, this untimely assertion … falls short of any reason to delay today’s proceedings.”
According to the DOJ, In Fast and Furious, agents of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Arizona abandoned the agency’s usual practice of intercepting all weapons they believed to be illicitly purchased. Instead, the goal of gun-walking was to track such weapons to high-level arms traffickers, who had long eluded prosecution, and to dismantle their networks.
If you believe that at face value I have property on the most pristine oceanfront beach locations in Arizona I would love to sell you, along with a few bridges, lol.
Add to this the President calling for executive privilege to what appears a power play to keep the Legislative branch along with the American people from every finding out the truth. So what is Obama’s role and involvement with this more than shady operation. The president is doing his best to avoid accountability, so why?
The last Cabinet member to be cited by a congressional committee for contempt was Attorney General Janet Reno in President Bill Clinton’s administration.
Jon Stewart Rips Newt Gingrich Moon Colony: He Wants To Be ‘Lunar Trump’
Before even seeing the epic “Moon plans” portion of last night’s CNN debate, Jon Stewart dedicated a segment on his Thursday night show to frontrunner Newt Gingrich’s mission to have a permanent base on the moon.
“Did he start with a Death Star and get kind of reigned in?” Stewart wondered about Gingrich’s plan, which involves putting a 13,000 person American colony on the moon by the end of his second term. You read that right, second term.
As you can imagine, Stewart found several things wrong with Gingrich’s lofty goal. For one, Gingrich called earlier plans from Washington D.C. to build a moon colony — a much larger one — “crazy.” Secondly, Gingrich recently told press that Ron Paul will never be the nominee because he “avoids reality” and won’t be taken seriously.
“And that’s why I’m going to make Ron Paul my first ambassador to Moonlandia!” Stewart joked.
But the funniest point of the night came when Stewart started analyzing Gingrich’s reasons for wanting a moon base. He says he eventually wants to create new states there, but considering that 13,000 people is less like a state and closer to the size of a condo development, Stewart realized what Gingrich is really trying to be: “Lunar Trump.”
“And like Earth Trump, you will not be President,” Stewart said.
Watch the full segment above to hear the other reason why Gingrich probably wants a moon colony. Let’s just say it has to do with his penchant for throwing out the old and bringing in the new.
Now more than every we need the Champion of the Constitution!
Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site by following the link below and donate today!
The Peter Schiff Show
Follow me on Twitter @SchiffRadio
Friend me on Facebook.com/PeterSchiff
Now more than every we need the Champion of the Constitution!
Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site and donate today!
By David French
I’ll never forget the moment. It was very late on election night in November, 1994, and I was at a friend’s house transfixed by election coverage. The Republicans had done it. Led by Newt Gingrich, the combative Georgia congressman, they had ended decades of Democratic dominance in the House, they were taking the Senate, and Bill Clinton was on the ropes.
Here was the triumph, recorded for posterity on YouTube:
This was the “Republican Revolution,” the moment when the party — demoralized by defeat in 1992 — was reborn, when the grassroots conservative movement cultivated by Ronald Reagan finally achieved Air Force One, ethics, repVictories in Congress would be followed by victory two years later, and Reagan’s vision of a conservative America would finally be realized. It was a great night.
Sadly, it was also our best night. What followed was perhaps the most agonizing slow-motion train wreck of my political life.
Our champion walked into the arena, faced off against Bill Clinton, and was crushed. For those with long political memories, the stories are well-known:
-Gingrich shut down the government partially because he was annoyed at his seating on Air Force One . . . and admitted it to the press.
-He was the first sitting Speaker reprimanded for ethics violations, with the vast majority of Republicans voting against him.
Complete story here: http://www.patheos.com
Iowa Voter to Gingrich: “Why don’t you get out before you make a bigger fool of yourself”
[CIM Comment: LMAO! Newt's not feeling love from this Iowa voter! I think they should both click the link below ]
Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site and donate today!
With the New Hampshire Union Leader’s endorsement of Newt Gingrich as well as Gingrich’s rise in the polls, the former speaker has the momentum in the race for the White House, but is this a good thing?
Speaker Gingrich has many commendable points. He’s skilled at crafting conservative policy proposals and he is an accomplished debater and proponent of conservative ideas. Gingrich also deserves credit for working with President Clinton to pass welfare reform, and some credit for the balanced budgets that existed prior to 9/11. Conservatives remember Gingrich fondly for leading the GOP to victory with the Contract with America.
However, things did not go so well once Gingrich was in office. His troubled tenure from 1995-99 (which he at one point compared to being prime minister) as well as his post-speakership career raise several red flags that conservatives would be wise to consider:
1) Big Spending and Earmarks:
While Gingrich was speaker, Congress and the president balanced the budget. This did not come about through hard choices, but rather through a booming economy. As the information age dawned and the dotcom boom began, government coffers surged with revenues.
As part of the balanced budget agreement, Congress put in place spending caps. With the surge of revenue, Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott decided to break the spending caps that had been put in place in the balanced budget agreement and increased federal spending. This practice was continued under Gingrich’s successor, Dennis Hastert. The predictable result of the Republican Congress’ profligacy on spending was that once the dotcom bubble burst and economic growth slowed, the only way that Congress could afford to continue the increases they’d made in the good years of the economy was to run up deficits.
Gingrich’s speakership was dealt a telling blow as a result of his ineptness in negotiating the FY1999 budget which was passed a month before the 1998 elections and increased spending without delivering any major tax reductions. Then-Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) said voters complained to him that nobody read the bill and “the president (Clinton) got virtually everything he wanted.”
One part of Gingrich’s legacy that remained long after he left was the expanded role of earmarks in congressional politics. Gingrich doubled the number of earmarks in Congress and his office sent out memos encouraging the use of earmarks for protecting vulnerable members of Congress. The number of earmarks would eventually increase to 14,000 per year and would lead to the end of the Republican majority. While the greatest excesses did not occur during Gingrich’s speakership, the first steps toward the Republican train wreck of 2006 were taken during Gingrich’s tenure.
2) Dysfunctional Leadership and Failed Communicator:
If conservatives want lasting victories, they need to survive politically and communicate to the public well. During the government shutdown in 1995-96, Gingrich and the House Republicans failed to formulate an effective response to the Democratic message. Gingrich’s inexplicable statement that President Clinton failed to give him proper seating on Air Force One to a state funeral for Yitzhak Rabin only made the problems worse. Gingrich’s approval rating shrunk to a toxic 20% in the polls as a result of this failure.
Gingrich’s speakership led to a historic lack of confidence from Republican leaders and the rank and file. In 1997, nine Republican members of the House refused to support Gingrich’s re-election to the speakership and the GOP leadership rallied barely enough votes to keep Gingrich in office. In July of that year, Gingrich faced a coup from his top lieutenants that collapsed due to incompetence. After the 1998 elections, Gingrich was forced to step aside.
3) Washington Insider:
Gingrich does not shy away from being a Washington insider. He responded to criticism of his work for Freddie Mac and the Washington insider label by stating that we need to elect someone who knows how Washington works in order to change Washington.
Conservatives have reason to be wary of this idea for a number of reasons, not the least of which is Gingrich’s flawed record as speaker, suggesting that his success at changing Washington has been slipshod at best, and that his career tendency has been to go along rather than address tough issues when called for.
In an October debate, while Gingrich lauded Herman Cain for proposing his 9-9-9 tax plan, Gingrich cautioned, “Change on this scale takes years to think through if you’re going to do it right.” It’s worth noting that sixteen years ago, Gingrich appointed Cain to Jack Kemp’s tax commission and since then several other tax reform commissions have been appointed. How many more years do we need to “think through” tax reform until we actually do something significant? It is standard Washington tactics to kick big issues down the road for others to deal with, and Gingrich is too big a part of that system to change it.
4) Betraying Conservatives on Key Issues:
Newt Gingrich threw himself into backing liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava while conservatives and tea party groups were rallying around Conservative Doug Hoffman. Gingrich scolded conservative activists for backing Hoffman. Hoffman, for his part, is forgiving of the whole thing and urges Republicans not to hold Gingrich’s action against him. While this is kind of Mr. Hoffman, conservatives would do well to ignore the advice because Gingrich’s belligerent defense of Scozzafava is part of a larger pattern of key betrayals of conservative interests.
While Gingrich was speaker, he and the NRCC were notorious for backing liberal Republicans over conservatives. For example, in 1997, Gingrich recruited liberal state Assemblyman Brook Firestone and supported him over conservative Tom Bordonaro in a special congressional election. Primary voters in the district rejected Firestone as well as Gingrich and company’s attempts to play kingmaker.
In addition to endorsements for liberal Republicans, Gingrich has been more than willing to endorse liberal causes. Among examples of this are the famous ad of him sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi calling for government action to address climate change and his letter in support of Bush’s immigration reform, which many conservatives labeled amnesty. When Gingrich opposes conservatives, he tends to do it in a very dramatic way that’s very belligerent to conservatives who disagree with him.
Conservatives betting on Gingrich have to hope that something has changed Gingrich over the past thirteen years that will transform him into someone who can not only talk about conservative ideas, but can implement conservative solutions. Given the totality of the Gingrich record, this is a bad bet.
Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site and donate today!
It is with great pleasure that Newt Gingrich is the first Presidential candidate on the never again list. Gingrich is the ultimate political insider. Newt is the establishment. Newt was one of the votes that actually started the department of education, supported the individual mandate and supported the theory of man made global warning. Newt is a globalist. Don’t believe me just take a look at the information below. It is more than enough to make this list.
These videos will explain it all for you:
A great explanation of who Newt really is
Jack Hunter gives you a great analysis of Newt
Gingrich supports the individual mandate
Now for his record:
Newt Bailed out savings and loan institutions in 1991. $40B Bank bailout….
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.
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.
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.”
02/15/2007 – He supported Bush’s proposal for mandatory carbon caps.
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.
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.
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.
10/16/2009 – He angered conservatives by endorsing super liberal Dede Scozzafava.
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.
House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker
By John E. Yang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 22 1997; Page A01
The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House’s 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.
The ethics case and its resolution leave Gingrich with little leeway for future personal controversies, House Republicans said. Exactly one month before yesterday’s vote, Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.
“Newt has done some things that have embarrassed House Republicans and embarrassed the House,” said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.). “If [the voters] see more of that, they will question our judgment.”
House Democrats are likely to continue to press other ethics charges against Gingrich and the Internal Revenue Service is looking into matters related to the case that came to an end yesterday.
The 395 to 28 vote closes a tumultuous chapter that began Sept. 7, 1994, when former representative Ben Jones (D-Ga.), then running against Gingrich, filed an ethics complaint against the then-GOP whip. The complaint took on greater significance when the Republicans took control of the House for the first time in four decades, propelling Gingrich into the speaker’s chair.
With so much at stake for each side — the survival of the GOP’s speaker and the Democrats’ hopes of regaining control of the House — partisanship strained the ethics process nearly to the breaking point.
All but two of the votes against the punishment were cast by Republicans, including Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (Md.), many of whom said they believed the sanction — especially the financial penalty — was too severe.
Two Democrats, Reps. Earl F. Hilliard (Ala.) and Gene Taylor (Miss.), voted against the punishment. Taylor said the measure should have specified that the $300,000 come from personal funds, not campaign coffers or a legal expense fund. Hilliard did not return telephone calls.
In addition, five Democrats voted “present,” many of them saying they believed the sanction was not severe enough. “If Newt Gingrich did what they said he did, he should have been censured,” said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), one of the five who voted “present.” A censure, second only in severity to expulsion, would have threatened Gingrich’s speakership.
House ethics committee members took pride in yesterday’s bipartisan resolution of the case. “We have proved to the American people that no matter how rough the process is, we can police ourselves, we do know right from wrong,” said Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), who headed the investigative subcommittee that charged Gingrich.
But even as they brought the case to a close, committee Republicans and Democrats traded potshots over the chaos of the last two weeks, during which an agreement for lengthy televised hearings collapsed amid partisan bickering.
The ethics case added to the last congressional session’s fierce partisanship, as Democrats sought to embarrass House Republicans with it in last year’s elections. Lawmakers in both parties said they hope the vote to punish Gingrich will help ease those tensions.
“If our action today fails to chasten this body and bring a halt to the crippling partisanship and animosity that has surrounded us, then we will have lost an opportunity,” said Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.), ethics committee chairman.
Similarly, President Clinton, when asked about the matter, said: “The House should do its business and then we should get back to the people’s business.”
For Gingrich, it was another humbling event in a remarkable series of peaks and valleys since 1994. That year, he led his party to the promised land of control of the House and Senate, only to threaten it when he was blamed for two partial government shutdowns during the battle over the budget, making him seem reckless. Then he complained about his treatment on a long flight aboard Air Force One, making him seem petty. The GOP narrowly retained its House majority last November, giving him a brief reprieve. The next month, he admitted to the charges brought by the ethics subcommittee.
The speaker was barely visible yesterday, staying away from the House floor during the 90-minute debate and vote on his punishment. He was in his office and did not watch the proceedings on television, according to spokeswoman Lauren Maddox. Gingrich left late yesterday afternoon for a two-day GOP House leadership retreat at Airlie Farm and Conference Center in Fauquier County, Va. As he left, he was asked if he was glad the case was over. He smiled broadly and said “yes.”
House Democrats had considered trying to force a vote yesterday on reconsidering Gingrich’s Jan. 7 reelection as speaker — the first for a Republican in 68 years — but decided against it, fearing it would distract from the harsh punishment being meted out. In addition, Democrats believe enough damaging information has been presented to tarnish the speaker, Democratic leadership aides said.
“This is not a vote on whether Mr. Gingrich should remain speaker,” said Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (Md.), the ethics panel’s top Democrat in the Gingrich case. “In the days and weeks to come, Mr. Gingrich and each member of this House should consider how these charges bear on the question of his speakership.”
In a strongly worded report, special counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich had violated tax law and lied to the investigating panel, but the subcommittee would not go that far. In exchange for the subcommittee agreeing to modify the charges against him, Gingrich agreed to the penalty Dec. 20 as part of a deal in which he admitted guilt.
Johnson called the reprimand and financial penalty “tough and unprecedented. It is also appropriate,” she said. “No one is above the rules of the House.”
The ethics committee that handled the charges against Gingrich went out of business at midnight last night without resolving complaints that the speaker received improper gifts, contributions and support from GOPAC, the political action committee he once headed. House Democrats are likely to submit those charges to the new ethics committee.
In addition, the Internal Revenue Service is looking into the use of tax-deductible charitable contributions to finance the college course Gingrich taught, which was at the center of the ethics case, and the ethics committee is making the material it gathered available to the tax agency.
At a closed-door meeting of House Republicans yesterday morning, the speaker noted his agreement to accept the sanction, which the ethics committee approved on a 7 to 1 vote Friday night, and said he wanted to get the matter behind him, according to lawmakers who attended.
Many House Republicans said they had trouble reconciling their leaders’ characterization of Gingrich’s rules violations as tantamount to a jaywalking ticket and the magnitude of the penalty. “That argument loses its steam [when] you talk about $300,000,” said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.).
Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) said that had he known what was in the ethics committee’s report, he would not have voted for Gingrich as speaker. “The gray got grayer when you read the report,” he said. “When I think of my three boys and what kind of example I want to set for them for leadership in this country, gray is not the example.”
But some lawmakers said the $300,000 financial penalty, described as a reimbursement to the ethics committee for the additional cost Gingrich caused it when he gave it false information, was too severe.
“I was willing to swallow hard and vote for the reprimand, but when they add the $300,000 assessment . . . that’s excessive,” said House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Dan Burton (R-Ind.), one of three committee chairmen to vote against the punishment.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), who cast the lone dissenting vote on the ethics committee, said of Gingrich’s violations: “They are real mistakes but they shouldn’t be hanging offenses.”
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) gave a spirited speech calling the penalty unwarranted. Answering those who said a speaker should be held to a higher standard of ethical conduct, DeLay said: “The highest possible standard does not mean an impossible standard no American could possibly reach.” He closed by declaring: “Let’s stop this madness, let’s stop the cannibalism.”
The last phrase echoed the May 31, 1989, resignation speech of House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.), who called on lawmakers “to bring this period of mindless cannibalism to an end.” Wright resigned in an ethics scandal triggered by a complaint filed by Gingrich.
Despite the partisanship that surrounded the Gingrich ethics case for more than two years, DeLay’s speech provided the only spark of yesterday’s debate. With Gingrich willing to accept the punishment, the outcome was never in doubt.
Still, more lawmakers were on the floor than for the average House debate; many of them were reading Cole’s report. Rep. Doug Bereuter (R-Neb.), presiding over the debate, took the unusual step of reading aloud from the House rule that admonishes lawmakers to “maintain an atmosphere of mutual respect” at all times.
As they have since Gingrich publicly admitted to the charges Dec. 21, Republicans sought to minimize the speaker’s misdeeds while Democrats tried to make them more sinister.
Rep. Steven Schiff (R-N.M.), a member of the ethics investigative subcommittee that charged Gingrich, called the speaker’s submission of false information to the panel “a comedy of errors.” But Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called it a “violation of trust. . . . We trust each other that we will deal truthfully with each other.”
Republicans also sought to portray the question of using charitable donations to finance projects that appeared to have a political intent as a matter of unsettled tax law. But Rep. Thomas C. Sawyer (D-Ohio), a member of the ethics panel, countered that “ethical behavior may be more important when the lines are blurred than when they are clear.”
Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.), who had been the ethics panel’s top Democrat, was among those who voted “present.”
He withdrew from the Gingrich case last week after being implicated in the leaking of a tape recording of a telephone conference call involving the speaker, which Republicans said was illegally made.
McDermott did not return telephone calls.
Staff writer Kevin Merida contributed to this report.
[CIM Comment: photo added to yhe original story.]
Airing Date Nov.30, 2011, youtube changed the size of my video :C
Ron Paul Interview On Piers Morgan Tonight
Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site and donate today!