Gingrich: Surrender or fight - our country is at stake

[Right_in_Virginia]

Gingrich: Surrender or fight - our country is at stake
Fox News, May 18, 2017, Newt Gingrich

***

The Left’s dance of destruction is stunningly choreographed.

I have been overseas for the last three days, and it has been sickening to see so many foreigners terrified because they unknowingly believe the news media’s false reports and vicious attacks. The only version of President Trump they know is the one portrayed in the 24-hour cesspool of CNN and the daily acrimony of the New York Times. Sadly, our own nation’s news media is doing more to undermine America's image than Al Jazeera or Pravda combined.

As the media continues to serve as a megaphone for the nameless federal employees who have axes to grind, remember that 95 percent of 2016 campaign donations from federal employees went to Hillary Clinton. At the State Department, 99 percent of employees who gave supported Clinton, and that figure is 97 percent at the Department of Justice.

Congressional Republicans are rapidly approaching a crossroads. Some have already surrendered by giving up on town hall meetings. Others have accepted the news media's false narrative as the truth. Republicans must decide if they are going to fight for what they believe in or retreat to the tenuous safety of the beltway bubble.

We are today in a one-sided cultural civil war. The Left has picked the battlefield and defined the terms of engagement. If conservatives respond to this aggressive, sometimes violent hostility from the Left with confusion, uncertainty, and appeasement, we are guaranteed to lose the struggle to drain the swamp and reform Washington.

***

When your opponents are "among the most dishonest human beings on earth,” “do a tremendous disservice service to the country,” and are “part of the problem," then you need a strategy and system that is built around that analysis.

The next few months will see one of the greatest decisions in American history. Do we fight to make America great again, or do we surrender to those who claim the elitist power to dictate to the rest of us?

There is no middle ground.


More:  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/18/gingrich-surrender-or-fight-our-country-is-at-stake.html

[geronl]

For those of us not in schizo bunkers and not confusing a man with the country, we don't feel like media reports will make the sky fall.

[LMAO]

From the article...

Republicans must decide if they are going to fight for what they believe in or retreat to the tenuous safety of the beltway bubble.

Well if history is any guide I suspect they'll choose the latter

 If Trump has broken any laws obviously he should be held accountable as no one should be above the law.   But this goes beyond Donald Trump. The elites, especially leftists elites are going to use whatever means necessary to push their agenda on the rest of the country.  As we have seen in the past several weeks they're not even afraid to use violence.  They will punish the country for rejecting them.  I understand  there are more than just a few of us conservatives that are probably not that happy that Donald Trump is in there and wish someone else was .  But the fact is he is the president right now and this is probably the greatest opportunity we have to implement some real reforms if we keep the pressure on.  I have never seen a president that turned the left so discombobulated  as this one. Therefore for that reason alone I will stand behind Donald Trump until it is proven any laws were broken.  Yes I expect to have very many disagreements with  President Trump.  But I will never side with the left wing fanatics who are trying to use any means necessary to overturn a legitimate election. They absolutely cannot win for the  sake of hopefully restoring some sortof a constitutional republic. As the article states, there is no middle ground on this

[Right_in_Virginia]

For those of us not in schizo bunkers and not confusing a man with the country, we don't feel like media reports will make the sky fall.

Who's the "we" @geronl ?

[jpsb]

For those of us not in schizo bunkers and not confusing a man with the country, we don't feel like media reports will make the sky fall.

When Newt said  ...... When your opponents are "among the most dishonest human beings on earth,” “do a tremendous disservice service to the country,” and are “part of the problem," he was talking about you @geronl and your fellow NeverTrumpers that pretend to be conservatives.

[Rivergirl]

Gingrich and Hannity advising DT are perfect examples of people who will end up sinking the DT presidency.
Their rabid ranting is so over the top as to be nothing more than a parody of The Onion.

[driftdiver]

When Newt said  ...... When your opponents are "among the most dishonest human beings on earth,” “do a tremendous disservice service to the country,” and are “part of the problem," he was talking about you @geronl and your fellow NeverTrumpers that pretend to be conservatives.

@jpsb

What I don't get is we didn't even see this kind of behavior from the never trumpers towards Obama.  Certainly most didn't like him but they didn't twist every single little thing.

[skeeter]

@jpsb

What I don't get is we didn't even see this kind of behavior from the never trumpers towards Obama.  Certainly most didn't like him but they didn't twist every single little thing.

Its all a result of Trump acting like a pr*ck during the primaries.

Some us have gotten past that, others haven't.

I just want the country to recover, and I want the statest progressives crushed. I don't care if Trump ends up looking good or goes home to his real estate business.

[Cripplecreek]

Everything I ever needed to know about Gingrich I learned during the 2012 race when he tried selling us amnesty under the guise of making millions of illegals into "Non voting citizens". That lying trash knew full well that the supreme court would unanimously give those millions of new citizens the right to vote within 6 months.

Only a moron would consider Gingrich to be an outsider after 40+ years of swimming in the beltway swamps.

Here is Newtie selling global warming alarmism with his buddy Nancy.



And here is Newtie with racist supporter of cop killing, Van Jones and Tulsi Gabbard. The 3 of them were campaigning against America's racist justice system that targets minorities.

[endicom]

@jpsb

What I don't get is we didn't even see this kind of behavior from the never trumpers towards Obama.  Certainly most didn't like him but they didn't twist every single little thing.

Too true. They fume, they foam, they frenzy. Cuz Trump.

[jpsb]

@jpsb

What I don't get is we didn't even see this kind of behavior from the never trumpers towards Obama.  Certainly most didn't like him but they didn't twist every single little thing.

@driftdiver

They wanted Cruz and when Trump beat Cruz, fair and square, Trump became enemy number one. They do not give a damn about the country or its' constitutional form of government. All they care about is revenge on Trump for beating Cruz in the primary.

[jpsb]

Newt and Tulsi Gabbard are two of a very small number of good guys (and gals) in DC.

[EasyAce]

Gingrich and Hannity advising DT are perfect examples of people who will end up sinking the DT presidency.

Having Gingrich advise you is something like hiring Jeffrey Dahmer to be your head chef.

[Hondo69]

Newt and Tulsi Gabbard are two of a very small number of good guys (and gals) in DC.

Tulsi has always struck me as very impressive, but we don't see much of her.  It's probably because she often says things on TV the radical Left doesn't want to hear.  She doesn't just make blanket statements like her Democrat counterparts, she backs them up.  It's one reason I find her interesting to listen to.

It seems to me that the Tulsi Gabbard's of the world will be important voices with America at a crossroads.  Another liberal, legal eagle Jonathan Turley, has not been shy about voicing his concerns about the direction of the country and the ongoing Constitutional crisis.  Until voices from the Left make a stand and shout, "stop, this is insanity", we can't expect to make much progress towards rolling back statism.  Otherwise it will be much like a football game, Team A vs Team B.

[Bigun]

Gingrich: Surrender or fight - our country is at stake

By Newt Gingrich
Published May 18, 2017

Republicans, in particular the Trump administration, are approaching a historic decision that will shape America for generations to come.
The endless hostility of the Left, exemplified by violent fascists on college campuses, thugs in the streets, determined disrupters at town hall meetings, and the dishonest elite media are all part of their efforts to defeat the reforms and changes that President Trump was elected to implement.
The constant, anonymous leaks from disgruntled federal bureaucrats aim to provide ammunition for the propaganda news media to press the attack.
The Left’s dance of destruction is stunningly choreographed.

I have been overseas for the last three days, and it has been sickening to see so many foreigners terrified because they unknowingly believe the news media’s false reports and vicious attacks. The only version of President Trump they know is the one portrayed in the 24-hour cesspool of CNN and the daily acrimony of the New York Times. Sadly, our own nation’s news media is doing more to undermine America's image than Al Jazeera or Pravda combined.

As the media continues to serve as a megaphone for the nameless federal employees who have axes to grind, remember that 95 percent of 2016 campaign donations from federal employees went to Hillary Clinton. At the State Department, 99 percent of employees who gave supported Clinton, and that figure is 97 percent at the Department of Justice.

Congressional Republicans are rapidly approaching a crossroads. Some have already surrendered by giving up on town hall meetings. Others have accepted the news media's false narrative as the truth. Republicans must decide if they are going to fight for what they believe in or retreat to the tenuous safety of the beltway bubble.

The Trump White House faces an even greater challenge. Trying to reason with, placate, or even respond to the Washington news media is a losing game.  Each day, the opposition media is fiercely committed to either magnifying a supposed problem or inventing a new one.
We are today in a one-sided cultural civil war. The Left has picked the battlefield and defined the terms of engagement. If conservatives respond to this aggressive, sometimes violent hostility from the Left with confusion, uncertainty, and appeasement, we are guaranteed to lose the struggle to drain the swamp and reform Washington.

Further, surrendering will destroy America as we know it. Far from making America great again, we will have yielded our country to left-wing thugs, liars, and intimidators.

More at link: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/18/gingrich-surrender-or-fight-our-country-is-at-stake.html

[Bigun]

I'm thoroughly convinced that Newt is right about this!

[anubias]

Notice how our beloved NTs feel the need to disparage the messenger when the messenger speaks truth?  Jesus himself could post a message pointing out the duplicity of the left and they would rush to post that he associated with prostitutes and was a wino.  They use the exact same tactics at the left.   

Watch them try to twist my post into claiming I am comparing Newt to Jesus.  It's what they do.  ;-)

[EasyAce]

Notice how our beloved NTs feel the need to disparage the messenger when the messenger speaks truth?

Perhaps you should know this particular messenger a little better:

Gingrich is almost universally associated with opposition to big government. But that
was not actually the case. Gingrich rhetorically criticised big government. And it served his
enemies in the Clinton administration to portray Gingrich as slashing government programs.
The Gingrich-inspired "Contract with America" was generally seen as a call for smaller govern-
ment although it did not actually call for cutting a single government program. (The closest
it came was a call for zero-baseline budgeting.)

Actually, Gingrich opposed bureaucratic government---inefficient government---not big
government per se. As Gingrich said in 1994, "government plays a huge role" in society and
"anybody who believes in the American Constitution ought to believe in a fairly strong
government." He went on to say that he has "no particular beef with big government." Or,
as he has said more recently, if the bureaucracies can be reformed and made more
efficient, "the country could get excited about the opportunity to make government
work."

That is not to say that Gingrich and his followers would not like to see a smaller govern-
ment. Many changes they support would indeed reduce government bureaucracies. But
in the end, Gingrichism means "recognising that even a relatively small federal or state
government will be much bigger than anything the Founding Fathers could have dreamed
of" . . .

Make government institutions "efficient" and all else will fall into place. "As a country we
can give people better lives through better solutions by bringing government into
conformity with the enterpreneurial systems they are experiencing in the private sector."
The issue is not how big government is or how much it spends; it is whether we have
"the systems architecture that would spend it intelligently." Traditional conservatives
want the government simply to do less. But Gingrich and his fellow technophiles
believe that the right systems architecture will enable the government to provide "greater
goods and services at lower and lower costs."

This attitude gave Gingrich conservatism its appearance of optimism. Rather than being
against big government, Gingrich could be for reform. "We need to move from a 'no,
because' to a 'yes, if' approach to government policy." Former representative Vin Weber,
one of Gingrich's followers, has also sounded the call for reforming government, rather
than cutting it:

Conservatives have to do better than simply bash government. We
have to lead the way toward reform of government. We need to look at the whole
government and think about how to empower the consumers of government
benefits, rather the bureaucracy. Conservatives who simply look to abolish
agencies are going to be disappointed, but conservative reformers still have an
open field.

Thus one could say of Gingrich's conservatism, "while this view did indeed see the
federal government as the source of many of the nation's troubles, it did not hold
that the problem was federal power as such. Change those wielding federal power,
and the power could be harnessed to the ends of conservative reform". . .

Gingrich once called for abolishing the Department of Education, but he has since
become an enthusiastic supporter of federal government involvement in education. He
endorsed President Clinton's plan for the federal government to finance 100,000 new
teachers and called for the government to provide Internet access to all Americans
and computers to every four-year-old. He has proposed paying students for taking
difficult math and science courses.

Energy policy is another area where Gingrich . . . support(s) massive government inter-
vention. Gingrich strongly supports the Bush administration's investment in trying to
build hydrogen-powered vehicles. But that's only the start. He would support a host
of public-private partnerships, investments in alternative fuels, and conservation
measures. Almost anything goes, as long as it involves new technology . . .

(F)ar from leading conservatism back to the philosophy of Reagan and Goldwater,
Gingrich's ideas for a technocratic, efficient, and bigger federal government have
helped drive it toward the big-government conservatism that drives it today.

---From Michael D. Tanner, Leviathan on the Right: How Big Government Conservatism
Brought Down the Republican Revolution. (2007)

Mr. Tanner cited, among other documents, Gingrich's own foreword to Alvin and Heidi
Toffler's Creating a New Civilisation: The Politics of the Third Wave (Gingrich
himself was so influenced by The Third Wave* he made it mandatory reading
for new Republican Congressmen while he was Speaker of the House); two Gingrich
essays published in The Wall Street Journal in 2001; a feature on Gingrich in
Washington Technology's January 1995 issue; a Gingrich speech to the
American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2000; Tod Lindberg's analysis "Gin-
grich Lost and Found" in Policy Review (the April-May 1999 issue); and, Gingrich's
speech to the American Enterprise Institute in February 2005.

(*---In case you were wondering, in The Third Wave Alvin Toffler said the Constitution
"is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and danger-
ous to our welfare" and, thus, ought to "die and be replaced." That from the book Gingrich
once called "the seminal work of our time," the book he made mandatory reading for newly-
elected Republicans during his Speakership.)

[Hondo69]

You may not like the messenger and that is perfectly fine.  The other side of the coin is the message.

[Bigun]

@mystery-ak

Here's another one that needs removing.

Thanks!

[Bigun]

Perhaps you should know this particular messenger a little better:
---From Michael D. Tanner, Leviathan on the Right: How Big Government Conservatism
Brought Down the Republican Revolution. (2007)

Mr. Tanner cited, among other documents, Gingrich's own foreword to Alvin and Heidi
Toffler's Creating a New Civilisation: The Politics of the Third Wave (Gingrich
himself was so influenced by The Third Wave* he made it mandatory reading
for new Republican Congressmen while he was Speaker of the House); two Gingrich
essays published in The Wall Street Journal in 2001; a feature on Gingrich in
Washington Technology's January 1995 issue; a Gingrich speech to the
American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2000; Tod Lindberg's analysis "Gin-
grich Lost and Found" in Policy Review (the April-May 1999 issue); and, Gingrich's
speech to the American Enterprise Institute in February 2005.

(*---In case you were wondering, in The Third Wave Alvin Toffler said the Constitution
"is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and danger-
ous to our welfare" and, thus, ought to "die and be replaced." That from the book Gingrich
once called "the seminal work of our time," the book he made mandatory reading for newly-
elected Republicans during his Speakership.)

Regardless of who the messenger is, in this case, the message is correct!

[Night Hides Not]

Everything I ever needed to know about Gingrich I learned during the 2012 race when he tried selling us amnesty under the guise of making millions of illegals into "Non voting citizens". That lying trash knew full well that the supreme court would unanimously give those millions of new citizens the right to vote within 6 months.

Only a moron would consider Gingrich to be an outsider after 40+ years of swimming in the beltway swamps.

Here is Newtie selling global warming alarmism with his buddy Nancy.




And here is Newtie with racist supporter of cop killing, Van Jones and Tulsi Gabbard. The 3 of them were campaigning against America's racist justice system that targets minorities.

IMO, Newt lost his moral authority after the "change" election in 1994. Within weeks of that election, and before he actually took the gavel, he received a $4 million book deal. Rush spent hours of his show backing Newt, saying it was all legit.

No argument from me that it was legal, but if you're going to cast yourself as a "change agent", you better have the moral authority to be one. It proved to me, and other conservatives, that Newt was not the man we thought he was.

Fast forward to that photo with Pelosi...Newt's message may be good, but he's hardly the messenger to deliver it.

[EasyAce]

Regardless of who the messenger is, in this case, the message is correct!

There are more credible messengers. I don't need Willie Sutton to denounce bank robbery for me. One
of the reasons things ended up coming to the current mess in the first place was what turned out to
be Gingrich's kind of Congressional leadership.

[Doug Loss]

Its all a result of Trump acting like a pr*ck during the primaries.

Some us have gotten past that, others haven't.

I just want the country to recover, and I want the statest progressives crushed. I don't care if Trump ends up looking good or goes home to his real estate business.

I'm with you on that, Skeet.

[truth_seeker]

I'm thoroughly convinced that Newt is right about this!

This subject is far bigger than Trump alone. It is political warfare from the left, by any (unelected) means possible.

--Career bureaucrats, media, courts, educational institutions, foreign governments etc.

Trump could resign tomorrow, and the exact same game would continue.

Had another Republican won instead, they might destroy him more easily, because none have Trump's will to fight back.