Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R. Minn.), the two-term representative for Minnesota's 6th Congressional District, has now announced that she is running for president. Perhaps what she really wants is to be chosen as a Republican vice-presidential candidate. Her candidacy is being treated like any other candidacy even though she is a representative of extreme right-wing politics. She should not be looked upon as a traditional conservative. Her views are in line with the views of ultra right-wing militias and hate groups. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that exposes and fights hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and far-right-wing militias, she is one of the chief political “enablers” of hate groups and “has used her office as a megaphone for outrageous claims and conspiracy theories that in the past wouldn't spread far beyond the firing ranges and obstacle courses where militiamen and other antigovernment ‘Patriots’ gather.”
In 2009, Bachmann became a critic of what she characterized as proposals for mandatory public service. Speaking in reference to the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, an expansion to AmeriCorps (a federal community service organization), she said: “The real concerns is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums.” Nevertheless, her son, Harrison, joined “Teach for America,” which is a member of the AmeriCorps program.
You can get an idea of how extreme her views are from statements such as “I am very concerned that he [Barack Obama] may have anti-American views." When asked during the Meet the Press interview if she would take back her previous comments that Obama held "anti-American views" and was running a "gangster government", Bachmann backed her statements, saying "I do believe that actions that have been taken by this White House -- I don't take back my statements on gangster government. I think that there have been actions taken by the government that are corrupt...I said I have very serious concerns about the president's views, and I think the president's actions in the last two years speak for themselves.
Bachmann would be happy to see a return to McCarthyism because she believes that there are a lot of “Anti-Americans” in Congress. She found the Capitol teeming with so much anti-Americanism that she called on the media to ferret-out the unpatriotic politicians. "I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America?" she said during an interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews in 2008.
Bachmann has embraced the culture of conspiracy advocated by ultra right-wing militias with their fear of concentration camps and U.N. black helicopters. When it comes to the Census, Bachmann sees a sinister plot hearkening back to World War II. "They used the U.S. Census information to round up the Japanese and put them in the internment camps," she said during an interview with Fox News' Glenn Beck. "I know for my family the only question we will be answering is how many people are in our home, we won't be answering any information beyond that, because the Constitution doesn't require any information beyond that." However, she failed to realize that the Constitution does not require citizens to complete the census.
Bachmann does not just oppose the proposed cap-and-trade legislation to fight global warming. She claims that global warming is a hoax, and says that she wants Minnesotans "armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back."
Like many far-right zealots, Bachman believes that almost every form of government program to help the poor, disabled, youth, and the aged is socialistic or communistic. She has called for phasing-out of Social Security and Medicare. I wonder how many senior citizens know that and will vote for her in the primaries. She wrote that education laws passed by Congress in 2001, including "School To Work" and "Goals 2000", created a new national school curriculum that embraced "a socialist, globalist worldview; loyalty to all government and not America."
Bachmann has voted against continuing resolutions enacted to prevent the government from closing while the budget is being debated. She has made it clear that she would rather see the government shut down than see a continuation of current governmental programs. She said: "I am vowing to vote 'no' on future Continuing Resolutions to fund the government unless there is specific language included to defund Obamacare and rescind the funding that has already been appropriated. Defunding Obamacare, along with defunding Planned Parenthood, must be non-negotiable planks in our budget negotiations.”
Bachmann has made it clear that she will vote against extending the debt limit of the United States and would rather see the collapse of the American economy and credit. She has posted a petition on the Web site of her political action committee, encouraging voters to tell Congress that the "spending frenzy cannot continue. It's time to force our elected officials to stop spending cold turkey, and we can start by making sure they do not raise the debt ceiling."
Among her other positions, Bachmann supports the teaching of “Intelligent Design” in public school science classes. Intelligent Design is a purely religious concept that says that there was no Darwinian evolution of the species by natural selection, but rather, that God designed everything. The theory has been scorned by most legitimate scientists and has been banned from the classroom by the courts. During a 2003 interview on the KKMS Christian radio program Talk The Walk, Bachmann said that evolution is a theory that has never been proven one way or the other.
Bachmann explained in a 2010 speech that if the United States turns its back on Israel, "a curse" will be placed on the land. As proof, she cited Genesis 12:3, in which God says to Abraham, "The one who curses you I will curse." It was an uncommonly explicit blurring of policy and theology from a prominent politician
Bachmann supports both federal and state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage and any legal equivalents.
Michele Bachmann is an attractive woman. She is a good speaker and a tireless campaigner. People seeing her might be lulled into thinking that she is just another conservative trying to stop the growth of taxes and government. But she is much more than that. She is an ultra right-wing ideologue. If she was president, she would abolish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, the Obama Medical Reform Act, and most other social legislation. She would abolish most restrictions on business and most laws governing fraud in the securities markets. She would inject prayer into the schools, prosecute people seeking or carrying-out abortions, cancel all laws protecting the rights of gay people, and withdraw America from the United Nations. She would cancel most of our First Amendment rights and prosecute people with left-wing views. She is not just an extremist. She is dangerous.
.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Friday, June 10, 2011
The Paul Ryan Budget Plan
The Republicans in both houses of Congress are now on the record as voting for a budget prepared Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, which abolishes Medicare as we know it. The Ryan plan attacks the deficit by lowering taxes paid by the wealthy and makes the Bush tax cuts permanent.
Ryan’s plan to demolish Medicare would save the government billions of dollars by shifting the burden of paying for medical care from the government to the senior citizens who would have been covered by the current program.
The way Medicare works today, the government pays for all approved medical care for senior citizens. Let’s say that you need to have heart bypass surgery. The surgeon will bill Medicare for the cost of the surgery, which might be in the tens of thousands. Medicare will approve a percentage of that bill and pay the surgeon. Most surgeons will accept as full payment the amount paid by Medicare, but if there is a deductable or amount in excess of the Medicare amount, many seniors are able to pay it by taking-out Medicare-Plus insurance. That insurance is low in cost and affordable for most senior citizens.
Under the Republican plan put forth by Representative Ryan, the government will no longer make Medicare payments for people 55 years old and under at the time of the legislation. When those people become eligible for Medicare, there will be no Medicare for them. They will have to purchase private health insurance. The government will assist people earning less that $80 thousand per year by giving them a voucher to help pay for health insurance. For people earning over $80 thousand, the voucher will be half the amount, and even less for people earning over $200 thousand per year. The voucher amount will be pegged to the cost of living.
There is one basic problem with the Ryan plan. The cost of health insurance is rising at a rate far higher than the cost of living. In ten years, when the 55-year-old generation reaches eligibility for Medicare, the cost of health insurance will be more than double the amount provided in the Ryan budget. Sure, this will save the government billions of dollars, but it will deprive millions of seniors of health care during that period of their lives when they are most in need.
According a new survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, health insurance premium are going up much faster than overall inflation and workers’ wages. By the survey’s calculation, increases over the next decade would translate to the average policy for a family costing in the neighborhood of $24,000 a year.
While Medicare may be an expensive program, the solution is not to eliminate it. There are ways to lower the cost of Medicare without the drastic kind of demolition envisioned by the Republican budget. President Obama has offered a proposal which would lower the cost of Medicare by lowering the cost of the terribly wasteful (private insurance) Medicare Advantage program. There are many other steps that can be taken without lowering the benefits to seniors.
Supposedly, the impetus for the Ryan/Republican budget comes from the huge deficit which was initially incurred during the Bush Administration due to tax cuts for the wealthy, two wars, and the Medicare Part D Drug program. Because of Republicans’ refusal to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, the deficit has continued to rise during the Obama Administration. Ryan’s solution to the deficit is to—cut taxes! Yes, Ryan and the Republicans want to cut the tax rate on the wealthy and on corporations from 35% to 25%. They also want to make the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent! Needless to say, Ryan intends to reduce the deficit and support this reduction in revenue by cutting programs for the poor, disabled, and aged. His proposed cuts include $2.17 trillion in reductions from Medicaid and related health care; $350 billion in cuts in mandatory programs serving low-income Americans (other than Medicaid); and $400 billion in cuts in low-income discretionary programs.
The Nobel Prize laureate and economist, Paul Krugman, says the Congressional Budget Office, “finds that a large part of the supposed savings from spending cuts would go, not to reduce the deficit, but to pay for tax cuts. In fact, the budget office finds that over the next decade, the (Ryan) plan would lead to bigger deficits and more debt than current law."
The United States is now approaching the most dangerous financial catastrophe in its history. If Congress does not approve an increase in the debt limit by August 1, the country will go into default and the economy will be shattered. It appears that the Republican Party, driven by Tea Party fervor, will demand spending cuts as outlined by the Ryan budget. One can only hope that the American people will let their representatives know that that plan cannot form the basis of any reasonable budget compromise.
Ryan’s plan to demolish Medicare would save the government billions of dollars by shifting the burden of paying for medical care from the government to the senior citizens who would have been covered by the current program.
The way Medicare works today, the government pays for all approved medical care for senior citizens. Let’s say that you need to have heart bypass surgery. The surgeon will bill Medicare for the cost of the surgery, which might be in the tens of thousands. Medicare will approve a percentage of that bill and pay the surgeon. Most surgeons will accept as full payment the amount paid by Medicare, but if there is a deductable or amount in excess of the Medicare amount, many seniors are able to pay it by taking-out Medicare-Plus insurance. That insurance is low in cost and affordable for most senior citizens.
Under the Republican plan put forth by Representative Ryan, the government will no longer make Medicare payments for people 55 years old and under at the time of the legislation. When those people become eligible for Medicare, there will be no Medicare for them. They will have to purchase private health insurance. The government will assist people earning less that $80 thousand per year by giving them a voucher to help pay for health insurance. For people earning over $80 thousand, the voucher will be half the amount, and even less for people earning over $200 thousand per year. The voucher amount will be pegged to the cost of living.
There is one basic problem with the Ryan plan. The cost of health insurance is rising at a rate far higher than the cost of living. In ten years, when the 55-year-old generation reaches eligibility for Medicare, the cost of health insurance will be more than double the amount provided in the Ryan budget. Sure, this will save the government billions of dollars, but it will deprive millions of seniors of health care during that period of their lives when they are most in need.
According a new survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, health insurance premium are going up much faster than overall inflation and workers’ wages. By the survey’s calculation, increases over the next decade would translate to the average policy for a family costing in the neighborhood of $24,000 a year.
While Medicare may be an expensive program, the solution is not to eliminate it. There are ways to lower the cost of Medicare without the drastic kind of demolition envisioned by the Republican budget. President Obama has offered a proposal which would lower the cost of Medicare by lowering the cost of the terribly wasteful (private insurance) Medicare Advantage program. There are many other steps that can be taken without lowering the benefits to seniors.
Supposedly, the impetus for the Ryan/Republican budget comes from the huge deficit which was initially incurred during the Bush Administration due to tax cuts for the wealthy, two wars, and the Medicare Part D Drug program. Because of Republicans’ refusal to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, the deficit has continued to rise during the Obama Administration. Ryan’s solution to the deficit is to—cut taxes! Yes, Ryan and the Republicans want to cut the tax rate on the wealthy and on corporations from 35% to 25%. They also want to make the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent! Needless to say, Ryan intends to reduce the deficit and support this reduction in revenue by cutting programs for the poor, disabled, and aged. His proposed cuts include $2.17 trillion in reductions from Medicaid and related health care; $350 billion in cuts in mandatory programs serving low-income Americans (other than Medicaid); and $400 billion in cuts in low-income discretionary programs.
The Nobel Prize laureate and economist, Paul Krugman, says the Congressional Budget Office, “finds that a large part of the supposed savings from spending cuts would go, not to reduce the deficit, but to pay for tax cuts. In fact, the budget office finds that over the next decade, the (Ryan) plan would lead to bigger deficits and more debt than current law."
The United States is now approaching the most dangerous financial catastrophe in its history. If Congress does not approve an increase in the debt limit by August 1, the country will go into default and the economy will be shattered. It appears that the Republican Party, driven by Tea Party fervor, will demand spending cuts as outlined by the Ryan budget. One can only hope that the American people will let their representatives know that that plan cannot form the basis of any reasonable budget compromise.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Depression
I have long suspected that depression might be the most realistic way of feeling. I have written about the many sorrows, tragedies, and horrors of life, and have often wondered why depression is classified as a mental illness. Illness is something that is not normal. Depression should be considered a normal way of feeling, thinking, and behaving. Anybody who takes a hard look at life realizes that as we age, if we don’t die young, we go through a long period of physical, and often mental, disintegration. In old age we become more and more reliant upon doctors, surgeries, treatments, therapies, medications, and hospitals. In the end, we die, often in great pain and agony. Some of us may think that there is life after death, but that is most unlikely.
Even if we are especially blessed with a life full of riches, good health, respect from the community, and fine children, we still have to go through the degeneration of old age and the ultimate insult of death.
When we look around us we see a world overflowing with misery. I have written about the massive amount of tragedy in the world resulting from poverty, disease, starvation, war, accidents, natural disasters, lack of clothing and shelter, mental illness, pain, addiction, sexual abuse, crime, envy, cruelty, sadism, dishonesty, deceit, disloyalty, treachery, infidelity, political tyranny, bigotry, ignorance, and many other causes of sorrow. Nobody goes through life without experiencing some of these evils. Yet most of us find that life is sweet, and we have a desire to go on living and not to die. One would think that it would be quite natural to want to commit suicide, but that is looked upon as a horrible thing. Why?
In an article by Tali Sharot in the June 6, 2011, issue of Time Magazine entitled: “The Optimism Bias,” the author, a cognitive scientist, finds that we are all genetically programmed with optimism. She says that without a neural mechanism generating optimism, all humans would be mildly depressed. In other words, even though the events of life should make us depressed, we tend to look for a silver lining because of an evolutionary adaptation of our brain which makes us optimistic even in the face of horror and tragedy. This is a tremendously important finding about human nature. It is actually this genetic tendency toward optimism that keeps the human species alive. Without it we might all commit suicide.
Tali Sharot’s finding helps explain the existence of religion in our world. A number of cognitive scientists, including Scott Atran, Pascal Boyer, and David Sloan Wilson, claim that religion is an evolutionary adaptation. Humans go on believing in gods, heavens, paradises, and life after death, despite the complete absence of evidence for their existence. I assume that such beliefs help to relieve us of the crushing grief surrounding the death of a loved one. They help us to deal with the dismal prospect of our own death. In the usual religious funeral services, the pastor will assure the relatives that the deceased “is in a better place.” Most people are unable to deal with the likelihood that such beliefs are overly optimistic and unwarranted.
One of the most terrible tragedies that can occur to a family is the death of a young child. While such a death destroys the life of some parents and siblings, others are somehow able to deal with it. They may be comforted by the belief that the child went to heaven and is living a life of wonder and beauty in the presence of God. If such people were able to critically examine such beliefs I think they would wind-up in deep despair. They would realize that there is no rational basis for such beliefs. The genetically built-in predisposition toward optimism enables such persons to get around the enormous grief of death and to go on living.
Despite this neural predilection for optimism, millions of people in America and around the world are depressed. The use of antidepressant medicine is widespread. Some critics claim that we use far too many antidepressants. I don’t agree. If the sorrows of the world are as prevalent as I think, it is surprising that there are not more people on such medications. Even depressed people want to go on living and do try to find happiness. The genetic predisposition toward optimism makes them eager to find some good even in bad situations. Nobody wants to be unhappy.
Our gene for optimism might help explain many of the ways we seek to find pleasure. Today I was listening to some beautiful music. It made me feel wonderful--as have so many beautiful pieces of music. Perhaps music is one of our ways of coping with the sadness of life. During times of depression and sorrow I have often turned to music. One piece that has soothed me is the slow movement of Beethoven’s Emperor Concerto. While I do not believe in God, I remember the line in the movie Amadeus where Salieri looks at the scores of Mozart and complains that somehow this must be the voice of God. There are times in great music when it almost seems that the beauty comes from something supernatural.
It is a good thing that we are blessed with a gene that veils the sorrows of life. It enables us to go on living, and sometimes to feel great bliss in the midst of all the bad things of life. It is wonderful to enjoy the pleasure of love and sex, to feel the beauty of a lovely spring day, to appreciate great art, literature, film, and theater, to take joy in the play of young children, to take pleasure in food and drink, to dance, to sing, to laugh, and sometimes, even to cry. Bart Ehrman tells us that we should confront the evil in the world by enjoying life, and that part of that enjoyment should be the helping of other people. Perhaps that is the answer to depression.
Even if we are especially blessed with a life full of riches, good health, respect from the community, and fine children, we still have to go through the degeneration of old age and the ultimate insult of death.
When we look around us we see a world overflowing with misery. I have written about the massive amount of tragedy in the world resulting from poverty, disease, starvation, war, accidents, natural disasters, lack of clothing and shelter, mental illness, pain, addiction, sexual abuse, crime, envy, cruelty, sadism, dishonesty, deceit, disloyalty, treachery, infidelity, political tyranny, bigotry, ignorance, and many other causes of sorrow. Nobody goes through life without experiencing some of these evils. Yet most of us find that life is sweet, and we have a desire to go on living and not to die. One would think that it would be quite natural to want to commit suicide, but that is looked upon as a horrible thing. Why?
In an article by Tali Sharot in the June 6, 2011, issue of Time Magazine entitled: “The Optimism Bias,” the author, a cognitive scientist, finds that we are all genetically programmed with optimism. She says that without a neural mechanism generating optimism, all humans would be mildly depressed. In other words, even though the events of life should make us depressed, we tend to look for a silver lining because of an evolutionary adaptation of our brain which makes us optimistic even in the face of horror and tragedy. This is a tremendously important finding about human nature. It is actually this genetic tendency toward optimism that keeps the human species alive. Without it we might all commit suicide.
Tali Sharot’s finding helps explain the existence of religion in our world. A number of cognitive scientists, including Scott Atran, Pascal Boyer, and David Sloan Wilson, claim that religion is an evolutionary adaptation. Humans go on believing in gods, heavens, paradises, and life after death, despite the complete absence of evidence for their existence. I assume that such beliefs help to relieve us of the crushing grief surrounding the death of a loved one. They help us to deal with the dismal prospect of our own death. In the usual religious funeral services, the pastor will assure the relatives that the deceased “is in a better place.” Most people are unable to deal with the likelihood that such beliefs are overly optimistic and unwarranted.
One of the most terrible tragedies that can occur to a family is the death of a young child. While such a death destroys the life of some parents and siblings, others are somehow able to deal with it. They may be comforted by the belief that the child went to heaven and is living a life of wonder and beauty in the presence of God. If such people were able to critically examine such beliefs I think they would wind-up in deep despair. They would realize that there is no rational basis for such beliefs. The genetically built-in predisposition toward optimism enables such persons to get around the enormous grief of death and to go on living.
Despite this neural predilection for optimism, millions of people in America and around the world are depressed. The use of antidepressant medicine is widespread. Some critics claim that we use far too many antidepressants. I don’t agree. If the sorrows of the world are as prevalent as I think, it is surprising that there are not more people on such medications. Even depressed people want to go on living and do try to find happiness. The genetic predisposition toward optimism makes them eager to find some good even in bad situations. Nobody wants to be unhappy.
Our gene for optimism might help explain many of the ways we seek to find pleasure. Today I was listening to some beautiful music. It made me feel wonderful--as have so many beautiful pieces of music. Perhaps music is one of our ways of coping with the sadness of life. During times of depression and sorrow I have often turned to music. One piece that has soothed me is the slow movement of Beethoven’s Emperor Concerto. While I do not believe in God, I remember the line in the movie Amadeus where Salieri looks at the scores of Mozart and complains that somehow this must be the voice of God. There are times in great music when it almost seems that the beauty comes from something supernatural.
It is a good thing that we are blessed with a gene that veils the sorrows of life. It enables us to go on living, and sometimes to feel great bliss in the midst of all the bad things of life. It is wonderful to enjoy the pleasure of love and sex, to feel the beauty of a lovely spring day, to appreciate great art, literature, film, and theater, to take joy in the play of young children, to take pleasure in food and drink, to dance, to sing, to laugh, and sometimes, even to cry. Bart Ehrman tells us that we should confront the evil in the world by enjoying life, and that part of that enjoyment should be the helping of other people. Perhaps that is the answer to depression.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Newt the Salamander
In a recent editorial, The New York Times described Newt Gingrich’s many inflammatory rants against Democrats. Newt called President Obama and his party: “left-wing radicals” who lead a “secular socialist machine.” He accused them of producing “the greatest political corruption ever seen in modern America.” And then averred that: “The secular-socialist machine represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did.” Then, stooping to abject racism, he charged that President Obama displayed “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.”
Gingrich has claimed that advocates for gay rights are imposing a “gay and secular fascism” using violence and harassment. He stated that Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the Supreme Court is a “Latina woman racist.”
Perhaps the most disturbing thing about Newt is his blatant hypocrisy. Newt repeatedly denounced President Clinton for immoral behavior during his efforts to impeach Clinton for the affair with Monica Lewinsky. Nevertheless, Gingrich was, at the same time, while married, having a sexual affair with a female staffer. Newt’s history of marital infidelity is epic, especially when seen against the background of his moralizing criticism of Bill Clinton.
Gingrich has been married three times. In 1962, when he was 19 years old and she was 26, he married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher. In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left Battley after having an affair with Marianne Ginther. Battley said that Gingrich visited her while she was in the hospital following cancer surgery to discuss the details of their divorce. Six months after the divorce from Battley, Gingrich wed Marianne Ginther.
In the mid-1990s, Gingrich began an affair with House of Representatives staffer Callista Bisek, who is 23 years his junior. They continued their affair during the period in which Gingrich was a leader of the Republican investigation of President Clinton’s Lewinsky scandal. In 2000, Gingrich divorced his second wife, Ginther, and married Callista Bisek.
In a 2011 interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Gingrich addressed his past infidelities by saying: "There's no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.” This is Newt’s excuse for infidelity and hypocrisy! He loved America and worked too hard! If anybody swallows that line of crap, they deserve to have Newt as their president.
While Slick Mitt Romney may be the leading flip-flopper among the Republican presidential hopefuls, Newt is not far behind. In 2004, Gingrich repeatedly bashed then Democratic nominee for President John Kerry, saying his flip-flop on the Iraq war funding disqualified him from being president. Gingrich said on Fox News: "You can't flip-flop and be commander-in-chief." Nevertheless, Gingrich has repeatedly flip-flopped on the issues.
On May 15,2011, on Meet The Press, Gingrich said: “I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond.” When David Gregory asked him: “But that is the individual mandate, is it not?” Gingrich replied: “It’s a variation on it.” Nevertheless, the following day Newt issued a statement saying that he opposes an individual mandate.
On April 20, Newt Gingrich said he would have voted for Paul Ryan's Medicare reform and praised it as just a "first step” toward fixing our health care system. On May 15Gingrich ripped Ryan's plan as "radical change."
As of March 7, President Obama had not yet announced that the United States would be involved in a military action to institute a no-fly zone over Libya. When asked by Greta Van Susteren on March 7: “What would you do about Libya?” Gingrich replied: “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more likely they were to survive ... This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.” On March 23, after President Obama ordered U.S. forces to be actively involved in instituting a no-fly zone over Libya, Gingrich said: “I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot ... I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.”
In 2007, Gingrich favored "mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system.” In 2008, he even produced a video with Nancy Pelosi on the urgent need to stop global warming. In April of 2009, he testified before the House against cap and trade.
Do the Republicans really want this clown to be President of the United States?
Gingrich has claimed that advocates for gay rights are imposing a “gay and secular fascism” using violence and harassment. He stated that Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the Supreme Court is a “Latina woman racist.”
Perhaps the most disturbing thing about Newt is his blatant hypocrisy. Newt repeatedly denounced President Clinton for immoral behavior during his efforts to impeach Clinton for the affair with Monica Lewinsky. Nevertheless, Gingrich was, at the same time, while married, having a sexual affair with a female staffer. Newt’s history of marital infidelity is epic, especially when seen against the background of his moralizing criticism of Bill Clinton.
Gingrich has been married three times. In 1962, when he was 19 years old and she was 26, he married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher. In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left Battley after having an affair with Marianne Ginther. Battley said that Gingrich visited her while she was in the hospital following cancer surgery to discuss the details of their divorce. Six months after the divorce from Battley, Gingrich wed Marianne Ginther.
In the mid-1990s, Gingrich began an affair with House of Representatives staffer Callista Bisek, who is 23 years his junior. They continued their affair during the period in which Gingrich was a leader of the Republican investigation of President Clinton’s Lewinsky scandal. In 2000, Gingrich divorced his second wife, Ginther, and married Callista Bisek.
In a 2011 interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Gingrich addressed his past infidelities by saying: "There's no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.” This is Newt’s excuse for infidelity and hypocrisy! He loved America and worked too hard! If anybody swallows that line of crap, they deserve to have Newt as their president.
While Slick Mitt Romney may be the leading flip-flopper among the Republican presidential hopefuls, Newt is not far behind. In 2004, Gingrich repeatedly bashed then Democratic nominee for President John Kerry, saying his flip-flop on the Iraq war funding disqualified him from being president. Gingrich said on Fox News: "You can't flip-flop and be commander-in-chief." Nevertheless, Gingrich has repeatedly flip-flopped on the issues.
On May 15,2011, on Meet The Press, Gingrich said: “I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond.” When David Gregory asked him: “But that is the individual mandate, is it not?” Gingrich replied: “It’s a variation on it.” Nevertheless, the following day Newt issued a statement saying that he opposes an individual mandate.
On April 20, Newt Gingrich said he would have voted for Paul Ryan's Medicare reform and praised it as just a "first step” toward fixing our health care system. On May 15Gingrich ripped Ryan's plan as "radical change."
As of March 7, President Obama had not yet announced that the United States would be involved in a military action to institute a no-fly zone over Libya. When asked by Greta Van Susteren on March 7: “What would you do about Libya?” Gingrich replied: “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more likely they were to survive ... This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.” On March 23, after President Obama ordered U.S. forces to be actively involved in instituting a no-fly zone over Libya, Gingrich said: “I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot ... I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.”
In 2007, Gingrich favored "mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system.” In 2008, he even produced a video with Nancy Pelosi on the urgent need to stop global warming. In April of 2009, he testified before the House against cap and trade.
Do the Republicans really want this clown to be President of the United States?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
