Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Mike Church Explains Why Newt Gingrich is Not a Conservative

Excellent quick analysis of why Newt Gingrich is not a conservative.

If you fancy yourself a politician these days It has become fashionable to call yourself “conservative”. If you are a conservative politician who retires to private life as a lobbyist, you are now a lobbyist and no longer a conservative. Why, Because you are complicit in growing the size and power of the government that “conservatives” are supposed to oppose. This is what former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has done, he lobbied Congress to vastly expand the welfare state with the passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug Entitlement. Now, as he seeks a return to office Gingrich claims he was NOT a lobbyist and can be trusted to shrink the same government he helped expand, this is nice work if you can find it!

But Gingrich’s big government bonafides do not end there, his consortium was paid millions to “consult” Freddie Mac as a “historian”. Well unless he were instructing them on the history of the recent nationalization of the mortgage market that claim is dubious besides how many historians make $30,000 an hour vending advice to mortgage companies? To make this infringement on liberty even more offensive, the man who will shepherd our return to the land of Constitutional milk and honey told Fox News’ Great van Susterin that he never saw the mortgage bubble burst coming and neither did anyone else. Perhaps the Speaker has not heard of Peter Schiff, Mish Shedlock or Ron Paul. All three of these men saw the bubble bust coming long before it actually happened.

Gingrich goes on to incorrectly blame the Federal Reserve and its 2008 reactions to the market crash for this bubble and he is exactly incorrect here too. The Fed cause the bubble beginning in 2001 by setting interest rates too low and artificially holding them there. Any one who does not candidly admit this and then say it must be brought to an end is either woefully misinformed or a permanent member of the ruling elite. Combine those two together and you should disqualify that person for the Presidency, even if he is a shrewd enough lobbyist to convince conservatives” to hire him as First historian.
Posted by Bungalow Bill

2 comments:

  1. This may be a good example of why so many today are untrusting of political commentators and biased journalism being disguised as objective reporting. To open an arguement using such patronizing language as "anyone who does not candidly admit" along with a debatable hypothesis should not be given further consideration for thought or taken seriously interested in what logically intelligent individulas would determine as a well put forth arguement. This manipulative ploy is a weak attempt to cut short any contrary thought or opinion concerning the concusion to a possibly faulty assumption. It in itself is formed out of an elitist or ignorant viewpoint. You have no right to consider yourself other than one who is manipulative in the way in which you are puting forth your position or reason. You either can do better to make your case or, in my opinion (which are the words you could have chosen to qualify your belief as to the cause of the crisis and let intelligent individuals decide if you are correct in that position,
    should you be willing to go through the extensive dilogue necessary to validate such a position). However, that wouldn't allow you to move so quickly to your conclusion, based upon that supposition. In my opinion, only the weakminded would not see through this. That you might be correct in your conclusion, is suspect by your approach to free thinking individuals.

    Secondly, Your berating of a specific candidate and your quite subtle honorable mention of a competing candidate,one who is desirous of the same goal of obtaining the plurality of the GOP primary votes,appears to be an endosrement and highly suspect. Your inference is that somehow Ron Paul was prophetic concerning this matter; however; if you didn't intend to explore any of his positions, you shouldn't have brought him into the arguement. Let's combine some other thing about each candidate before we eliminate every one of them, since each one has at least two disqualifying factors, in my opinion. Should you open that can, I don't think your simple process of elimination will leave anyone standing. For your follow-up article how about the two reasons Ron Paul would be disqualified, as well/ If you have problems getting there, I believe that I can help in this regard. If you create a chart of the candidates and their stated positions and on position changes, you would then have a basis for your arguements. Again, much will still be dependent upon your opion,but should be state as such, as opposed to you declaration of opinions as "facts"

    ReplyDelete

  2. Your first mistake is calling Mike Church a reporter. He doesn't make such a claim. This is political commentary not reporting. Further more, there is no prophecy when it comes to Newt not being a conservative. There is a record of that. Unfortunately, not enough reporters are reporting that record.

    ReplyDelete

Sorry about the captcha. I hate them just like you, but the spambots have gotten ridiculous.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
"Clay, I am proud to have made your acquaintance, and also know you are a committed patriot who's not just messin' around! Thank you!" - Doug Burlison, Springfield, MO City Councilman

Join the Constitution Party!

I Took the Founders Red Pill!
Bungalow Bill's Conservative Wisdom: As featured on Politico, The Daily Paul, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Drudge Report, Breitbart Big Government, Michael Savage, Western Front America, Newsmax, KY3, KSPR 33, KOLR 10, Alan Keyes is Loyal to Liberty, Lucianne, Infowars,Prison Planet, Speigel, Willie Nelson.com, Vincent David Jericho, Nick Reed, Truth About IB, and David Icke.com.