It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Newt Gingrich Staff Blocking the Truth from Getting Out

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:31 AM
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow

No one denies most of those instances, including Gingrich himself. Far be it from me to claim the man is perfect. However, he has a couple traits I do find attractive (as well as missing from Mother Jones):
  • Gingrich was Speaker during the oft-touted balanced budget attributed to Bill Clinton. What is missing from this acknowledgment is the fact that by Constitutional mandate, all appropriations bills must be introduced in the House of Representatives, not in the Oval Office.

    The President actually has little to do with the budget, besides recommendations and the obvious veto power. The House, which Gingrich led, is the body with the most power over financial concerns of the Federal Government.

  • Gingrich penned the 'Contact with America' which helped improve the economy of the time. He made campaign promises, and kept them.

  • Gingrich was railroaded out of his duly-elected/appointed position as Speaker of the House by the Democratic party... 84 different ethics charges, ranging from tax evasion to minor House rules violations which consisted of little more than filing the wrong piece of paper. Of those 84 charges, 83 were dismissed... the IRS investigated him on the tax charges and cleared him of any wrongdoing... and in the final report, the only thing he did wrong was an error on a filing report. The investigating authority refused to press charges on that one because it did not believe the error was malicious, but rather an oversight.

    Knowing how this whole plan played out, it is easy for me to see how certain powers wanted him out at all costs. Why? The country was doing great, the economy was fine... so maybe, just maybe that was the problem.

    A problem I want back.

  • I do not care about the man's sex life... any more than I cared about Clinton's sex life... or Cain's sex life... or ANYONE's sex life. I am not voting for a priest,.. I am voting for a President.

  • Climate change... gee, how many people initially bought into that claim? I did at one time! But like Newt, I kept an open mind when further information began coming to light.

  • Speaking of which, when he thought climate change was a concern, he reached across the aisle to try and get the job done. That's a nice change of pace, don't you think?

Gotta go for a bit, but I'll check for your response when I get back... will give you some time to search Mother Jones for more dirt.


posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:42 AM
Don't like Mother?
Dig a little bit into the Newt.
More Dirt on Newt

Gingrich claims that he supports Fannie and Freddie because he believes the federal government “should have programs to help low income people acquire the ability to buy homes.” But Fannie and Freddie don’t do this and never have. When government “helps” someone by subsidizing the purchase of something (through easy credit or lower-than-market rates), it makes that something more expensive. Helping someone buy something that is overpriced because of your help is not help. Fannie/Freddie subsidies not only hurt the low income people they intend to help, they hurt everyone by subsidizing, and therefore distorting, the entire housing market. Fannie/Freddie’s charity has now taken a dark turn. Like their Depression-era New Deal predecessor the Regional Agricultural Credit Corp., Fannie/Freddie are now repossessing homes at an increasing and alarming rate.

From source.
He sounds an awful lot like a Democrat.

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 12:08 PM
Let's also be clear. Newt is a liar.
He stated that it is okay for the president to kill American citizens without trial, it is "law". It was legal to kill Alawaki, and I suppose his 16 year old son as well.
It was NOT legal. It WAS unconstitutional. Gingrich plays on the fears the average American has of terrorism, to take our rights away.
He is firmly in the pro-Israel camp. Every sin of Israel puts blood on Newt's hands, because he empowers them. Add traitor and fraud to his resume.

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 03:28 PM
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow

Wow... breaking news! I had no idea Newt actually did consulting work to make a living after being railroaded out of the House on trumped-up charges. I guess I should start seeing the error of my own ways, seeing as I accepted money from the local college for tutoring in mathematics. Oh, the shame of working for someone else!

Come on... Newt was hired as a consultant. He was working, just as people do every single day across the globe. So far I have not heard a single report of what Newt advised Freddie and Fannie on. For all I know, he could have been advising them to not participate in the bailouts. The advice of a consultant is not binding on the consultee.

And this quote from your source

...he believes the federal government “should have programs to help low income people acquire the ability to buy homes.”
speaks volumes to me. I as well would like to see every family in America be able to purchase their own home. Wouldn't you? Contrary to popular belief, "conservative" does not equal "anti-poor" or "anti-opportunity"... at least not the way I define it.

He sounds an awful lot like a Democrat.

Again, as I have said time and time and time again... I do not care about Democrat vs. Republican. I am supporting a man, not a party.


reply to post by SurrealisticPillow

Ahhh, so Newt's position on a legal issue makes him a liar.

I as well believe there are some issues with the killing of Alawaki, but it is not as clear-cut as you imply. Alawaki was acting as a terrorist agent, and his citizenship alone does not give him immunity in a war zone. It is a difficult issue, and my major concern is that there should be more checks in place to prevent this practice from becoming a threat to American citizens... not over Alawaki himself.

So until the Supreme Court rules different, this may well be legal. It may also be immoral and need to be illegal. Opinion does not equal law, right does not equal law, and a dissenting opinion does not equal a lie.

He is firmly in the pro-Israel camp. Every sin of Israel puts blood on Newt's hands, because he empowers them. Add traitor and fraud to his resume.

That statement in itself shows a dangerous precedent in thinking, just as dangerous as the Alawaki case. Israel is one of the best allies the US has, in an area which is very volatile and strategically vital. Do you support cutting ties with Israel completely?

I will also state that just because someone supports an Israel-US alignment, that does not mean they are bound to support every action taken by Israel. I support the alliance, but I do not agree with every action taken by Israel. Like every other country, they make mistakes. It's not a question of good vs. evil, but a question of National Security interests for both nations.


posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 03:30 PM
If Newt is the best that the Republicans can run, then they should just throw in the towel.

I don't think that he is electable.

Third line.

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 03:50 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Newt is an elitist. He is part of the "club". He cares nothing for you Redneck. How much of his history do you really know?
The Real Newt
Newt is a globalist. He is part of the club. You have heard of Bohemian Grove?
Newt at Bohemian Grove
I won't link it, it is from ABC NEWS. With the title you can find it,
GOP Debate: Newt Gingrich's Comparison of Muslims and Nazis Sparks Outrage
Yes, Muslims are terrorists, and his organizations spread Democracy around the globe, don't they Redneck? What kind of gifts is he going to pay his backers with? You know, the ones paid for by you and me?

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:50 PM
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow

Newt is an elitist. He is part of the "club". He cares nothing for you Redneck.

Neither does Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry... sheesh, do you think I am supporting the guy because we're friends or something?

I have news for you: none of these people care for you either. They care about their job and their agenda. Period.

I would not invite Newt Gingrich to a party... nor would I invite any of the rest. If you are looking for friends in the political arena, I am afraid you are sadly confused. I am looking for someone to perform a job. Period. That job is to run the Executive Branch of the US Government. Here are my choices:
  • Barack Obama, who I voted for last election to my eternal shame. He has supported the bailouts, spent the US into multi-trillion-dollar deficits, raised my taxes, instituted a health insurance program to increase the profits of insurance companies at the expense of individuals and business, lobbied for a UN-based tax on energy during the worst recession (depression?) in memory, supported unfair trade practices under NAFTA/CAFTA, and managed to resurrect racism in the country.
  • Michelle Bachman has some good ideas, but can't seem to find her own moral center. Every speech seems aimed toward saying what people want to hear instead of what she believes. At least that is my impression.
  • Mitt Romney, the man who instigated state-run health care plans in Massachusetts, which are now breaking the state's budget; the man whose state plan was the very blueprint for ObamaCare.
  • Rick Perry, a man who can't seem to listen to the views of others around him, heck, can't even let Mitt get a word in between accusations, and has no problem going after every little slip his opponents make with full teeth and claws.
  • Herman Cain, who, while he had some good things to say at first, doesn't seem to be able to give a straight answer, constantly answering specific questions on policy with an analysis of his thought process rather than a position.
  • Rick Santorum sounds good but has no support.
  • John Huntsman sounds good but has no support.
  • Ron Paul (my second choice, incidentally) who has great position on the Fed, who has fantastic ideas on taxation, but who seems a little eager to cut ties with all foreign powers... a dangerous ploy if done too quickly IMO.
  • Newt Gingrich, far from perfect, but at least he owns up to his mistakes and reduced the deficit last time he served.

Now you may take a completely different stance than I do, and assuming you are an American, you have every right to vote that stance in this upcoming election. But I will continue to give my two cents and call foul when someone wants to 'play politics' with op-eds for news sources and sound bites for policy explanations.

Who, may I ask, do you support?


P.S.: You have got to be kidding me. InfoWars as a source?

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:59 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Thanks for the reply Redneck.
Excellent, btw. My opinion of course.
Infowars, like any other source, is not perfect. As a commercial enterprise, they serve a market, I understand that. They have posted articles that I would never use, pure speculation. The one I posted had verifiable information.
I support Ron Paul. There is a network of truth activists on the internet, that care for only the truth. Ron Paul is part of this network because he has the pedigree. Truth.
To me it is all about character. That is what I vote for when someone is supposed to represent ALL of us...the U.S. You can't very well do that if you are in the pocket of a foreign country.
Newts associations define the man. I like who Ron Paul associates with.

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:38 PM
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow

One thing I cannot do is argue hard against Ron Paul. I have said before, if he gets the nod, I will vote for him gladly.

One thing that recently happened has made me wonder about him, and that concerns his associations. A youtube video of his son Rand Paul went viral concerning S.1867, the military appropriations bill. In it, Rand was making some quite off the cuff accusations that were specifically not in the bill. Not what I would expect from a Paul, and it does make me wonder how far that apple fell from the tree.

Of course I know Rand Paul is not Ron Paul.

I believe Ron Paul's problems with the race are a consequence of his own deep convictions, ironically enough. He sees so much corruption that when he tries to explain it, he is simply overwhelmed by the amount of data there is to tell. As a result, he comes off looking somewhat panicked and hysterical to most people. We here, of course, know what he is trying to say, but remember that the majority of the people who vote have no clue how deep the political rabbit hole goes.

Poor Alex Jones... he could do so much good with his following, if he would only get off the sensationalist wagon and onto the truth wagon... but you may be right about that particular article. Heck, even Obama has had a couple of good ideas, so anything is possible.


posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:34 PM
My biggest problem with this whole mess is that we go down the list; Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and now Newt. We all know Romney is going to get the nom. They just want us to think the choice is ours. The reason I can't support Newt is after compairing his record in Congress to that of Paul's. I'm sorry but like the rest that have come before, Gingrich is telling us what we want to hear to get elected. His actions don't match up to what he has been saying. What really gets me is the fact that the MSM has us picking between him and Romney. Which is the lesser of two evils or who can beat Obama? I don't want to have to compromise when I have a candidate that has stood by his convictions for 30 years. Thats exactly what I felt like I was doing in 2008 and how the majority of conservatives felt with McCain. In my opinion, people should listen to about 20% of what is said at the debates and look where that person stood on the issues the last 15,10, even 5 years ago. That should tell you what kind of president to expect with each person.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in