Alternate title: How do you know Newt is thinking? Answer: He’s talking! And what a pendulum swing it has been for Newt Gingrich. The disgraced former Speaker of the House had spectacular successes and even more devastating failures. Along the way in the Political Wilderness, Newt has amassed a collection of controversies that makes even the most hapless voter cringe at the thought of his definition of conservatism. But perhaps I’m just being unfair.
From balancing the Budget, and the Contract with America; to NY-23 House race and sitting on the couch with Nazi Pelosi espousing the hoax of Global Warming. Quite a distinguish career for an establishment politician. And Gingrich is about as establishment as Bill Clinton is a skirt chaser. I often wonder when Gingrich looks in the mirror if he doesn’t see Romney looking back. Both have flip-flopped on just about every issue. Was For abortion and then against it. Believes in manmade Global Warming, and then explains it as a conservative position. A conservative position on what is a hoax? Right! He was favor of the healthcare mandate, then against the mandate. It’s enough to make your head spin.
Newt Gingrich, in a 2008 appearance at Alegent Health Clinic in Bellevue, Nebraska, expresses strong support for an individual mandate.
However, unlike Romney though, Gingrich has some good ideas. For example, Gingrich’s statements on having activist judges explain their controversial rulings. I thought that was brilliant!
Gingrich has been emboldened by his reception on the campaign trial, where conservative voters have cheered his view that judges who have ruled in favor of gay marriage or against prayer in school are “activists” who should be thrown out. In particular, Gingrich has criticized the US. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, on the West Coast, as well as U.S. District Judge Fred Biery of Texas, who ruled this year that a public school district in Texas could not, among other things, use the words “prayer,” “amen,” “invocation” or “benediction” during a graduation ceremony.
Now, if you think about this statement, in its full context, it makes sense. How does a judge explain threatening anyone with jail time for mentioning anything prayer related at either a graduation, or anywhere else? What if someone used the phrase “Allah Akbar“? Would that deserve the same scrutiny by this judge? The ruling may be argued on the “Church verses State” logic, but even that is not unconstitutional. But when pressed by CBS’c Face the Nation’s pretend to be journalist Bob Schieffer on how Gingrich would do that, Gingrich explained if necessary a President could send Marshall’s to arrest judges that refused to justify their rulings. That’s an important note, by ignoring a congressional subpoena, by anyone, judge or not, could get you arrested. Where Gingrich got in trouble is that everyone ignored the judge’s controversial ruling, and not the context of the question, if the judge refuses to comply with the subpoena. That is perfectly constitutional and well within the bounds of the congressional and executive branches. They are after all, co-equal branches of government and subject to the same checks and balances as outlined in the Constitution.
The downside is that it could be politicized by either party as a tit-for-tat revenge against the other party that hauled a judge before Congress. We’re already close enough to being a Banana Republic as it is. We no doubt have activist judges on the bench that have made controversial rulings. California’s Prop 8 ruling is another good example of judicial activism gone awry.
Then there’s the claim by Gingrich of being a Theodore Roosevelt Republican. Theodore Roosevelt brought us the Progressive movement. Look how that has worked out. Progressives have brought more nanny state regulations. Socialist Liberals consider progressive policies in line with their view of a centralized controlled government. Gingrich is a historian, but he’s choosing the same President that Obama fashions himself after.
During Roosevelt’s time in office, there was a need for child labor laws, clean water and air laws, fair wage and labor laws. Since then, Progressives have moved into tighter unnecessary regulations that are stifling job growth. The EPA and Dept. of Labor with its over-regulations is a perfect example.
Then Gingrich got into trouble by suggesting children, 14 years and older, could earn money and learn work good ethics by working to clean their schools. Again, another brilliant idea! And why not? Like cleaning schools, or any other work related project, it’s the learning experience and life lessons that help create good work ethic values. Properly supervised, it could be a rewarding experience for any child. We’re not talking slave labor. Make it voluntary and pay them a small wage, it’s a simple concept. However, Progressives bureaucrats in the Obama Regime’s Department of Labor ruled that young people cannot work because of dangers. Take the latest ruling by the Labor department:
Under new standards being advocated by the Labor Department, youths under the age of eighteen would be prohibited from working in hay lofts, giving shots, caring for baby animals, and being in the vicinity of animals whose behavior may be “unpredictable.” For the estimated 1.3 million youths living or working on farms, this means no longer being able to perform routine chores if the farm is set up as a corporation or a business partnership. Today, the vast majority of family farms are legally structured in this manner
Again, the context of Gingrich’s statement is good idea. However, the message got lost because people on both sides started fanning their wings citing child labor laws. The current labor laws allows for children of family farms to work the farm. That’s been going on before the country was formed. Labor conditions and laws currently already protect children from harm. This is about Progressive Government Control. In today’s world, with OWS kids that are not learning anything in school, have no work ethic, and no desire to find a job and cannot pay their college bills. Young people have a misguided entitlement ethic. They think they should get the corner office and a $100,000 a year salary as soon as they receive their diploma. Winning The Future?
Gingrich has enough baggage to cause concern. However, I believe he’s the only candidate that can debate Obama and win. Is he the right candidate for the country? But then, how does the smartest guy in the room miss the signature deadline to get on the ballot in Virgina?
What’s For Dinner?
Pan Seared Onaga (Ula`Ula Koae) Over Broccoli Risotto