Newt Gingrich... much worse than you thought

A few months back I dedicated time to research then write about the rising star in the Republican Party Presidential field Rick Perry. He was tied to a crazy theocratic religious sect, visited the Bilderberg group, and wanted to continue eroding the border with Mexico. This guy, I thought, was the perfect globalist puppet who would be chosen as the savior of the foolish conservatives in this country. But as he opened his mouth in the debates it became apparent that he was definitely not their guy.

Herman Cain, a successful pizza store owner and former member of the Kansas City Federal Reserve soon rose up after Perry… what a perfect next option, a true inside of the banking class that has overrun the United States. But as time went on women begun to come out claiming they had affairs with him, just in this past week one woman has claimed to have had a 13 year long affair with him. His poll numbers began to drop and have continued dropping, now there is talk within his campaign of calling it quits.

So many of us had our eyes focused on the businessman Mitt Romney, the true author of ObamaCare and liberal in conservative’s clothing. He is getting all the money from Wall Street; it should be a common sense conclusion to say that he is their man. Perhaps he is, I do not doubt the globalist cabal has planted the entire field with their cronies making sure that if one duck fails there are 5 or so others. But lurking in the dark was a man who has remained relatively hidden for over a decade: Newt Gingrich.

Most of us do not like him; he truly established the Neoconservative domination over the American Right. This is not to be interpreted as a coincidence, especially not when you realize where the Neocons actually come from. But beneath that chubby exterior are a lying, cheating, and manipulative man that make Perry seem like a good ally of ours.

Newt Gingrich denies his own book at Charleston campaign event

In 1980 Alvin Toffler wrote the book "Third Wave." While Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich endorsed the book, and put it on his congressional recommended reading list. He liked it so much, that in 1996 he wrote the forward to it's sequel "The Politics of the Third Wave."

The premise of both books is that national sovereignty is an outdated concept. The books call for the complete repeal of the US constitution. It envisions a world wide technocracy run by multi-national corporations and NGOs.

When Gingrich was presented with a copy of "The Politics of the Third Wave" and asked to sign his forward, he was quite surprised. He signed it, but declared that "I disagree with half of what is in the book."

Toffler is a true constitutionalist, I mean he has to be or else Newt Gingrich would not endorse his books and write a forward to one of them… right? Or wrong…

Toffler believes mankind is entering a new system. To the founding fathers in his book, he wrote, “For the system of government you fashioned including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented, a democracy for the 21st century. For this wisdom, above all, I thank Mr. Jefferson who helped create the system that served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.”

Source

The whole Neoliberal (Clinton/Gore) and Neoconservative (Gingrich/Bush) re-alignment of politics in the 1990s was not particularly a coincidence. Some 20 years before Gingrich and Gore met as part of the same political group, one dedicated to the idea of ‘Futurism’ or as they like to call it today ‘Third Way’. This was the philosophy espoused by Clinton and Blair during the ‘90s as the new ideology of the future. These members of the Third Way were ‘New Democrats’, whom Barack Obama labeled himself a member of just a few months into his Presidency.

In his next book, “Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave,” Toffler writes:

“In 1975 at the request of Congressional Democrats, we organized a conference on futurism and ‘anticipatory democracy’ [the latter being the political game plan of the former] for senators and members of the House. We invited Newt Gingrich, probably the only Republican among the many futurists we knew. He attended.

“That conference led to the creation of the Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future, a group eventually co-chaired by a young senator named Al Gore, now vice president.” (7)

Gingrich, Gore-like, would rise within the Third Wave/Third Way movement, would become a member of the executive committee of the Congressional Clearing House on the Future, and would win the praise of leftist, “ex”-Marxist Toffler as possibly “the single smartest and most successful intellectual in American politics. …”

Source

Newt Gingrich was already involved in the politics of Al Gore, which is no surprise why he would film an ad with Nancy Pelosi about global warming, oops ‘Climate Change’.



Do not forget that Gingrich not only failed to end affirmative action, like he told the voters, but he became one of the biggest supporters of affirmative action. Or when he lashed out at Republican Paul Ryan for his Medicare reform proposals, calling them “too radical”. Perhaps we should mention Gingrich’s teaming up with Al Sharpton and Arne Duncan on a tour to promote Obama’s education reforms.



How about when he visited Sharpton’s National Action Network Conference, an annual event dedicated to racial division. He even referred to his partnership with Sharpton as the perfect “odd couple”… very odd indeed. Under the Carter administration Gingrich voted for and helped bring in more votes for the proposed Department of Education, then just 20 years later he pushed through the single largest spending increase on education in our nation’s history.

Then when you think he cannot be any crazier he says this:

"The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution," he said. "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."

Source

Do not forget about his recent 2008 support of the healthcare mandate, has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations for 21 years, the endorsement by Democrat’s for his amnesty for illegals , and voted to destroy American manufacturing by sending it abroad when he supported GATT and the WTO:

"I am just saying that 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 a transformational moment. I would feel better if the people who favor this would just be honest about the scale of change.
"I agree ... this is very close to Maastrict [the European Union treaty by which the EU member nations have surrendered considerable sovereignty], and twenty years from now we will look back on this as a very important defining moment. This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected. I am not even saying we should reject it; I, in fact, lean toward it. But I think we have to be very careful, because it is a very big transfer of power."
—Newt Gingrich, House Ways and Means Committee hearings during June 1994.

It was Newt Gingrich who said “I have an enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I’m doing it!” Yes Newt, you are doing it, unfortunately this is not a shift anyone except your cabal and some of the brainwashed masses want. This is an excerpt from the book which he wrote a forward to:

"The time has come for the next great step forward in American politics. It is not a matter of Democrats versus Republicans, or of left and right...but something more significant...a clear distinction between rear-guard politicians who wish to preserve or restore an unworkable past and those who are ready to transition to what we call a “Third Wave” information-age society…

A new civilization is emerging in our lives, and blind men everywhere are trying to suppress it. This new civilization brings with it new family styles, changed ways...a new economy, new political conflicts, and...altered consciousness... Humanity faces a quantum leap forward. This is the meaning of the Third Wave…

Our argument is based on what we call the “revolutionary premise”... The revolutionary premise liberates our intellect and will.

Nationalism is...First Wave. The globalization of business and finance required by advancing Third Wave economies routinely punctures the national “sovereignty” the nationalists hold so dear...

As economies are transformed by the Third Wave, they are compelled to surrender part of their sovereignty... Poets and intellectuals of Third Wave states sing the virtues of a “borderless” world and “planetary consciousness.”

The Third Wave...demassifies culture, values, and morality... There are more diverse religious belief systems.

The Constitution of the United States needs to be reconsidered and altered...to create a whole new structure of government... Building a Third Wave civilization on the wreckage of Second Wave institutions involves the design of new, more appropriate political structures... The system that served us so well must, in its turn, die and be replaced."

Source



Newt Gingrich: Vote for him if Clinton, Bush, and Obama were not Globalist enough.

Anyone with half a brain knows Newt is a complete dirtbag, good to see you've done extensive research to back it up.... This guy is leading in polls though?!?! I swear sometimes I feel like I'm living in a present time idiocracy...

We need to vote Ron Paul or none of the above. All of the others, in both parties, are jackals.

i dont have time right now to read all of your research that you have posted for us to review right now. so i have to post to subscribe. i will be back to check it out.

I just can't get past the picture of Newt and Nancy Pelosi cuddling on a park bench chatting up faux-man-made-global-warming. That alone would be enough to set off my radar, but of course Newt has a pile of other baggage along with the Pelosi park bench scene too.

I'm not liking ANY of the GOP field. Well ... I could consider Huntsman .. but he hasn't got a chance.

And obviously Obama isn't even a consideration. The 'obama experiment' (promote an inept, unqualified, community organizer to POTUS just because he's a black guy with a catchy slogan) is an EPIC failure.

Dunno' if I'm even going to vote. Why bother?

reply to post by Misoir


Sincerely, I don't believe the GOP has any real intentions of taking the white house next election.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I am probably going to vote for the party in my signature in 2012. In all likelihood the only Republican I could support, Ron Paul, will not win, although he will still receive my vote in the GOP primaries (of which I am registered). But in regards to Jon Huntsman, Jr., I would rethink my position on him if I were you:

It would be nice if we could look back 15 - 20 years ago and see if all other politician's views were 100% correct and consistent when judged by today's issues and standards.

I've always said that if a person's views do not mature and change over the years, that that person is a rigid fundamentalist; perhaps too rigid to govern.

It also brings to mind the following axiom: "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain".

flippity floppity of romnicorp and the grinch

Originally posted by mishigas
It would be nice if we could look back 15 - 20 years ago and see if all other politician's views were 100% correct and consistent when judged by today's issues and standards.

I've always said that if a person's views do not mature and change over the years, that that person is a rigid fundamentalist; perhaps too rigid to govern.

It also brings to mind the following axiom: "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain".

edit on 30-11-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)

See, that is what I thought at first, too.

I know my views have changed quite a bit since 1996.

I genuinely think Newt is an intelligent man--he certainly comes across as such. If so, he would be constantly refining his views based on presentation of new data and exposure to new ideas.

I also have to point out that you have mentioned one of my favorite quotes at the end of your post. I cringe to reveal that in my first presidential election...I voted for Dukakis. I was 19, and still in college, and as idealistic as any 19 year old. Then, 4 years later...Ross Perot. After only 2 years in the workforce, I had already realized we needed to get away from politicians. :-)

Newt in 2003

"In our battle against those that detest our free and prosperous society, we cannot sacrifice any of the pillars our nation stands upon, namely respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. Our enemies in the war against terrorism abuse the Islamic law known as the Sharia that they claim to value. It is perversely used as justification for their horrific and wanton acts of violence.

We must demonstrate to the world that America is the best example of what a solid Constitution with properly enforced laws can bring to those who desire freedom and safety. If we become hypocrites about our own legal system, how can we sell it abroad or question legal systems different than our own?

I strongly believe Congress must act now to rein in the Patriot Act, limit its use to national security concerns and prevent it from developing "mission creep" into areas outside of national security."

Source

Newt in 2011

BLITZER: So, Speaker, just to clarify, you wouldn't change the Patriot Act?

GINGRICH: No, I would not change it. I'm not aware of any specific change it needs. And I'd look at strengthening it, because I think the dangers are literally that great. And again, I've spent years studying this stuff. You start thinking about one nuclear weapon in one American city and the scale of loss of life and you ask yourself, what should the president be capable of doing to stop that?

Source

I would have to agree that he is a bit of a flip flopper personally. I just wonder what caused his stance to change between 2003, and now to cause him to become more corrupt? Perhaps the flawed American policies abroad. I'd suggest he stop thinking about entire American cities being wiped out. Fear mongering, I think it's called?

If I could respond to Newt Gingrich, I'd tell him I don't want his Feardom, I prefer the Freedom we once knew.

reply to post by Sek82

I would have to agree that he is a bit of a flip flopper personally. I just wonder what caused his stance to change between 2003, and now to cause him to become more corrupt? Perhaps the flawed American policies abroad. I'd suggest he stop thinking about entire American cities being wiped out. Fear mongering, I think it's called?

If I could respond to Newt Gingrich, I'd tell him I don't want his Feardom, I prefer the Freedom we once knew.

I would contend that your conclusions do not logically follow the scenario. It seems that because his 2011 views are different than his 2003 views, you want to label him "more corrupt" A more likely conclusion would be that *your own views* have not changed at all over the years; therefore, any other views which might have agreed with yours but no longer do must necessarily be "more corrupt" now.

I'd suggest he stop thinking about entire American cities being wiped out. Fear mongering, I think it's called?

No, it's called what the grownups do while the little ones sleep.

One final question: which particular freedoms have you lost since 2003 and now, that can be attributed to the Patriot Act?

reply to post by mishigas


I lost the freedom to openly discuss anything I wanted on the phone without fear that I may be being eavesdropped in on, whether someone believes Im a terrorist or a Ron Paul supporter.

Ive also lost the right to due process if I was ever to be suspected as being a terrorist.

Its not necessarily what freedoms we as Americans may have lost...its whats at stake if we are falsely accused. We have no recourse.

It also helped set up the bill that was approved today. Its called a stepping stone. One little step every few months/years in order for the PTB to reach whatever goal they are gearing towards.

Interesting.... I was just thinking to myself the other day, "When are people going to outline Newt and his connections", I FIRMLY believe that he is one of the most deceitful people running for Pres, next to Cain that is...

Not only CFR(Which is the who's who for truly understanding, who should not be involved in guiding our future) but....

Newt Gingrich not technically a lobbyist, but...
www.cbsnews.com...
November 30, 2011 11:19 AM

Ya know... the Gingrich made nearly $2 Million representing Freddie Mac

Someone as well brought up the subject that Newt has shown a 'change of heart' or a change in position or stance in regards to issues:
How about the switch to Roman Catholicism? Which road do people want to take to Rome? Seemingly the Newt road, which is just the same as the rest... but that's a whole different conversation.

I haven't read any of 'Rediscovering God in America', but it surely looks interesting. A book to add to the list for sure.
en.wikipedia.org...
"Gingriches lead the reader on a tour of Washington, D.C. to point out the religious beliefs incorporated in the Nation's monuments. From the National Archives and Capitol Building to Arlington National Cemetery and Library of Congress, the role of religion in the USA's founding is examined and explained"

I don't think that Newt is 'all that bad', he sure is involved in trying to change and save the world... that always entails opposition, so he's had his share of battles.

Do I think he'd be a perfect 'puppet' for a NWO?
Yes
Do I think he's already a part of any 'Elite' group of NWO supporters....
Probably Not

He does many things that suggest that he's on the peoples side, so yeah... Good dude in my opinion, but NOT the person I want as president. He just lies to himself, and comes off as conflicting with what he says... He knows where his alleigances fall, it just seems he used to be a little 'hesistant' in presenting himself in such a light that reflects it.

reply to post by mishigas
What has happened in recent years on US soil that has caused Gingrich's stance to change, between 2003 and now?

To cause him to state that the Patriot Act should be further strengthened?

Since he decided to talk about entire American cities being wiped out with Nukes, how many Nuclear weapons have been prevented from, or have successfully entered US soil? Zero?

How many plans of potentially catastrophic crimes such as nuclear attacks have been thwarted since 2003, or 2001? Like I said, it's Fear mongering, and a tactic of political terrorism against our own country and it's people. Feel free to look up the definition of the word, if you so happen to have been suckered into believing that we are fighting a war on terror abroad.

Considering that the Patriot Act should have expired back in 2005, wait a minute... Are you seriously unaware of what restrictions have been placed on one's individual rights granted by the Constitution by the enabling of the Patriot Act, and the subsequent renewals of it?

Look, I'll throw you a bone. Some small groups of individuals have been prevented from small attacks on US soil by various means, and some of these cases may have been prevented by the use of the Patriot Act, but I certainly disagree that it should be strengthened. And so did Newt, back in 2003.

But this isn't a thread about the Patriot Act, it's about Gingrich bring a hypocrite. Pardon me for providing indication of the fact.

reply to post by Misoir


I watched the clip about Huntsman just waiting to be amazed.

What do you know, it was just a sensational headline and he said something that made complete sense, as usual.

All he did was think it ridiculous for the birther issue to be brought up in a mainstream debate where wars and national economies were being discussed.

But I guess that's your strategy. You have nothing to argue that stands on it's own, so all you can do is make ridiculous assertions against people who make sense.

Do you have any idea about how intellectually dishonest it is to label what Huntsman said about that issue in such a way?

Search my posts or whatever, I couldn't care less about the birther issue, if anything I have supported it anecdotaly. I'm not against the birthers but it's ridiculous to act like that's the primary constitutional issue when you have things like the federal reserve and undeclared wars and so many amendments (like the 2nd and 5th) under political attack...

The only GOP candidate that can beat Obama is Huntsman....not because I agree with him on tons of things....but because he's RATIONAL......seems intelligent and doesn't seem to say or do completely moronic things. (IMO)

The rest is a freak sideshow at best....and Gingrich will soon drop from the polls like all the others...just as Ron Paul will if he ever hits the top.

Again...the only electable guy the GOP has that can pull in enough mainstream/independent voters is Huntsman....but odds are it will be romney that gets the nomination...which guarantees a win for Obama.

Originally posted by mishigas
It would be nice if we could look back 15 - 20 years ago and see if all other politician's views were 100% correct and consistent when judged by today's issues and standards.

I've always said that if a person's views do not mature and change over the years, that that person is a rigid fundamentalist; perhaps too rigid to govern.

It also brings to mind the following axiom: "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain".

edit on 30-11-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)

i'm a conservative at 21