Newt & the Weapon of Fear

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Jun 18, 2008.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Glenn Greenwald

    Monday June 16, 2008 10:27 EDT
    Newt Gingrich, supreme fear-monger

    (updated below - Update II)

    Even when set against all the reckless fear-mongering being spewed in response to last week's Supreme Court ruling -- which merely held that our Government can't abolish the constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus and must provide minimum due process to people before locking them in cages for life -- this comment by Newt Gingrich on Face the Nation this weekend is in a class all by itself:
    On the other hand, I will say, the recent Supreme Court decision to turn over to a local district judge decisions of national security and life and death that should be made by the president and the Congress is the most extraordinarily arrogant and destructive decision the Supreme Court has made in its history. . . . . Worse than Dred Scott, worse than–because–for this following reason: . . .
    This court decision is a disaster which could cost us a city. And the debate ought to be over whether or not you're prepared to risk losing an American city on behalf of five lawyers . . . .
    We better not allow people we seek to imprison for life to have access to a court -- or require our Government to show evidence before it encages people for decades -- otherwise . . . we'll "lose a city."
    Casually threatening Americans with the loss of a city unless they allow their Government to violate core constitutional guarantees is deranged fear-mongering in its most unadorned form, exactly what every two-bit tyrant tells his country about why they must be deprived of basic liberties. But what makes it all the more notable is how repeatedly Gingrich invokes this same deranged formulation in order to argue for a whole array of policies he supports -- we better accept what Gingrich wants or else we'll "lose a city":

    From The New York Sun, November 29, 2006, here's Gingrich arguing that we also need to give up First Amendment rights:
    A former House speaker, Newt Gingrich, is causing a stir by proposing that free speech may have to be curtailed in order to fight terrorism. . . .
    "We need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until we actually literally lose a city, which I think could literally happen in the next decade if we're unfortunate," Mr. Gingrich said Monday night during a speech in New Hampshire. . . . "Either before we lose a city or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people."
    From The Associated Press, September 7, 2006, here's Gingrich arguing for a harder-line against Iran:
    Speaking before a conservative public policy group Wednesday, Gingrich said Americans should take Iranian leaders' threats seriously, before they acquire nuclear weapons.
    "You don't appease your enemies you defeat them," Gingrich said. "We have to take this seriously because the next time we won't just lose a building or an airplane we will potentially lose a city."
    From The Seattle Times, July 16, 2006, here's Gingrich arguing for rhetorical escalation from the White House:
    Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so.
    Gingrich said in an interview Saturday that Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.
    "We need to have the militancy that says 'We're not going to lose a city,'" Gingrich said.
    In a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations on April 26, 2007, here's Gingrich tripling the stakes as he explains the beliefs that lie at the heart of his worldview:
    And my personal planning assumption is that we have to recognize we're at risk of losing at least three cities in our lifetime. . . . And nobody's taking this seriously yet, and we're not taking it seriously till after we lose a city, at which point somebody say, "Gosh, why didn't we have any imagination," and we get a new 9/11 commission. I mean, this is utterly mindless.
    On Hannity & Colmes, November 1, 2006, Gingrich warned about what will happen if the Democrats win the 2006 midterm elections:
    HANNITY: Is America fully aware of the record of Pelosi and Reid and what the Democrats would be about?
    GINGRICH: No, I don't think so, and I think that, as it's made clearer -- and if you saw, for example, in Pennsylvania, where Bob Casey was still defending John Kerry today and making Alan happy by saying he sided with Senator Kerry, the gap between Santorum and Casey on national security is a mile wide. But I'm not sure that they've yet closed, really convinced people of Pennsylvania that this is about the future of Harrisburg, and Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh, and whether or not some day we lose a city to a nuclear attack by terrorists. I'm not sure that's gotten through the way it should.
    On Fox News Sunday, on July 17, 2006, Gingrich explained why it's important to change our negotiating approach with North Korea:
    And at that point, we look around, and somebody is going to say, 'Oh, my God, we could lose a city.' And they say, 'You know, we're totally insane, and if you don't agree to withdraw from the Peninsula, and you don't agree to turn over South Korea, we're going to set off this weapon and eliminate Seattle.'
    That isn't just an authoritarian or radical mind revealing itself. It's extremely disturbed. On November 28, 2006, Law Professor Jonathan Turley said this on MSNBC about Gingrich's warning that we'll lose a city unless we rescind the First Amendment:
    We saw that with John Ashcroft not long after 9/11, when he said the critics were aiding and abetting the terrorists. There is this insatiable appetite that develops when you feed absolute power to people like Gingrich.
    And people should not assume that these are just going to be fringe candidates, and this could never happen. Fear does amazing things to people, and it could lead to a sort of self-mutilation in a democracy, where we give up the very things, the very rights that define us, and theoretically, the very things that we are defending.
    In fairness to Gingrich, this worked before, as Condoleezza Rice's dramatic warnings about "mushroom clouds" convinced huge numbers of Americans to support an attack on what they believed was a nuclear-armed Saddam -- and those taken in by that transparent manipulation included, according to Chris Matthews this weekend, the Giant of American Journalism, Tim Russert:
    It may be tricky to say this, and I'll say it, when we went to war with Iraq, [Tim] and I had a little discussion about that, and this is where Tim is Everyman, he is Us as a country. I said: "How can you believe this war is justified?" And he said: "The nuclear thing. If they have a bomb that they can use, we gotta deal with it. We can't walk away from that."
    And that, to me, was the essence of what was wrong with the whole case for the war. They knew that argument would sell with Mr. America, with The Regular Guy, with the True American Patriot. They knew the argument that would sell, that would get us into that war. Tim was right on the nail. He was Us, the American People. . . . That was the thing that sold America, and the guys who wanted the War used that one thing that would sell the Patriot in Tim Russert.
    Threatening Americans with obliteration unless they support authoritarian and war-making hysteria ought to be the most discredited idea there is. But there is Newt Gingrich, invited on Face the Nation to opine, because he's a very Serious and important Ideas Man. As but one example, here's Time's Liberal Pundit Joe Klein, chatting with Hugh Hewitt about Gingrich:
    I've always really respected Newt, because he's a man of honor, and he is a real policy wonk, and he really cares about stuff.
    That's how most media stars talk about Gingrich, as he wallows in his never-ending dreams about American cities being vaporized and how the only way we can prevent that is if we relinquish our Constitution -- or at least just small parts of it such as the First Amendment and habeas corpus -- and start more wars. That's squarely within mainstream American political discourse.

    end part 1
  2. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Part 2: Newt Gingrich, supreme fear-monger

    UPDATE: Speaking of fear-mongering, I've been working today on various campaigns to derail the Steny-Hoyer-led effort to vest lawbreaking telecoms this week with immunity. Quick -- and severe -- action will be required because the House Democratic leadership is conniving to negotiate this in secret and then pass all of this quickly so as to avoid debate and consequences. The campaign is going to expand well beyond Chris Carney and will include, at the very least, a massive effort directed at voters in Steny Hoyer's district to make them aware of just what he is doing. I hope to have more details and updates on all of this later today, but will, at the absolute latest, have it early tomorrow morning.

    A concerted effort, lots of resources, and alliances with other like-minded factions and groups will be required to make this work. If, as appears, Congressional Democrats are intent on doing this, there should be a hefty and real price for them to pay for doing it.

    UPDATE II: This blogger, who recounts the day he just spent on the phone being lied to by Steny Hoyer's office, knows exactly who the prime culprit is here, and he's doing the right thing. I'll definitely have a post later today tomorrow morning with all the updates about what is going on and about the campaign we're formulating -- aimed right at Hoyer's considerable vulnerabilities, though not only him -- to do what is possible to stop this deeply corrupt deal that they're preparing to pass or, at the very least, to force the prime culprits to pay as high a price as possible for it.
    -- Glenn Greenwald

  3. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    Greenwald is on point, as usual. He's like a bloodhound :happy2:
  4. hseofpayne

    hseofpayne Guest

    The Sublime Court made a decision to change our constitution, not to uphold it! We have never given enemy combatants habeus corpus rights and we never should. Several of these "freedom fighters" as you wimpocrats call them, have been released through the efforts of your heroes, the ACLU. Guess where we ran into them( and them is referring to just one that blew himself up to become "them"!) again. That's right, they went back to the battlefield and killed more Americans, GOOD JOB!!!!!!!
  5. brazenbrown

    brazenbrown New Member

    Since you love Newt so much I've included a new campaign for;



    Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.

    You go Newt..:peaceful:
  6. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I absolutely agree that the US Constitution has no bearing outside the geographic location of the 50 insular states and US territories. A person engaged in acts of war in Afghanistan has no Habeus Corpus rights, again I agree. Where the problem falls is a total lack of faith in the honesty of the US gov't (both democrat and republican) when they look us in the eye and say that the various legal measures taken in no way effect, can effect or will effect law abiding citizens within the insular 50 states and US territories. It comes down to whether or not I trust my gov't and no I do not!

    Forget the Iraq War, our gov't over the years has lied and lied to us so many times it ain't even funny anymore. That said, why then should I believe any different of them in this case with Habeus Corpus.

    As for Newt, I've known Newt up close and personal and during his years as speaker he was my Congressman. I saw firsthand in the late 70's just how committed Newt Gingrich was to true conservative principles when he worked under the table to try and defeat another Congressman who's conservative predigree was literally beyond question all because he was a democrat. That was back in the day when both parties had liberals and conservatives and the idealogy worked across the isles to get legislation passed and not along party orders or doctrine.

    Who was this DEMOCRAT?

    Newt Gingrich is a snake of the first order period!

    You know Newt, when you were speaker and had the majority control of the Congress, you did very little then to create an energy policy that did some of the things you suggested and many are good ideas. No argument there.

    I guess my question is, why come to Jesus now? A good true leader sees over the horizon and leads to it, not preach the gospel once we are already there. Not much has changed since your West Georgia College days have they?

    There are just a few of us left who know and remember what you really are!

  7. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Amen for Brother Jones!

  8. hseofpayne

    hseofpayne Guest

    It sound like you trust the dimocrats because most of your issues are with propoganda that the Al Je New York Times has been spreading for years. I had this very discussion 2day w/ a bunch of dimocrats who went on and on about losing liberty. I asked them to give me one example(outside of their calling their friends in Iran) of any freedom they had lost, they gave me nothing. Our Constitution is not a suicide pact. Our enemies have used the dims and the MSM to further their cause and the dims go along willigly in a blind pursuit of power. Do I trust my govt.? No. But I trust the men, women, and children who will cut our heads off in the name of Allah even less.
  9. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    No I don't trust the democrats either.

    I don't worry at all and sleep well at night which I am about too again in just a few minutes. Besides, all you have to do is fire up the grill loaded with babybacks and the smell of pork is so strong they won't come within a 100 miles.


    Hmmmmm! Let's eat!
  10. hseofpayne

    hseofpayne Guest

    I want you to post the video of Paul Kanjorski telling an audience after the 2006 election that the democrats intentionally lied to the American people about getting out of Iraq as soon as the election was over. I have already posted this request once, but it magically disappeared. I am seeking to find out if you are fair and balanced in your presentation. If Al Jazeera remains your source , then maybe you really are in a cave somewhere! Osama? Obama?
  11. hseofpayne

    hseofpayne Guest

    What happened to the posts where you used Al Jazeera as your source? Embarassed?
  12. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    RE: Newt and the Weapon of Tears

    Serial adulter and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich a man of honor ?Intellectually,and fundamentally a dishonest man. I'm not even going to comment on his fearmongering because I lost all respect on Gingrich's typical republican conservative hypocracy of high morals by divorcing his first wife recovering from cancer and was banging his soon to be second wife, all this while persuing Clinton and Monica-gate. BTW He left his second wife when she developed multiple sclerosis. He must of tuned out the part on family and integrity.
  13. browndevil

    browndevil Active Member

    Family value? Guess he forgot to honor his vows "in sickness and in health"....TWICE
  14. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    You mean something like this?

    You posted this request before? Really? Where? I never saw it!

    Fair and balanced. How'd I stack up to Fox News?
    Not enough? OK. Maybe this one will score a few points.

    Are those words clear and concise enough for you?
  15. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    You know, back in the day they called a man who ran around a "whore hopper" which to be honest may have been a little strong not to the man but rather towards the woman involved.

    That being the case we no longer use such harsh and potentially wrong terms (in the woman's case) but instead we use more polished and polite terms. You want a couple of examples?

    Here's 2: Mr. President and Mr. Speaker


    And BTW: In the effort of truth and full disclosure, Larry McDonald was no saint in that department either. Those Larry Flynt pics had more truth in them than a lot of people want to admit. I don't condemn Newt and give Larry a pass let the record show but at least Larry or I should say Kathy stuck with Larry.
  16. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    I'm sure there were many charges of fearmongering levied after the first attack on the towers. I saw two towers fall that I never thought would. I don't need to see anymore to believe its possible for a terrrorist to take out something even bigger such as a city.
  17. hseofpayne

    hseofpayne Guest

    You posted this request before? Really? Where? I never saw it!

    Last night,b4 you signed off, there were 2 posts on here that disappeared. One was a post where you quoted Al Jazeera and; the other post was where I asked if those were your only sources and made my request to see Kanjorski. One minute they were there, the next, poof, gone. Looks like you don't care for either side! What do we do now?! Both sides have sold their soul to the special interest groups;lobbyist, and job #1 is getting re-elected , not representing We The People.
  18. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    LMAO! OK House of Payne calm down a minute. Those posts are still there and right where they were all along. Here's the link to the thread where they are:

    3rd post down is the Aljazeera link and a few posts below that is your "request" for the Kanjorski video which I had already posted several months ago I might add. When you said you'd requested the video I thought you meant way before this discussion we just had the other evening. Had no idea I had a immediate timelimit in posting that video once you made your request. I hope 2 months early is not to far outside the timelimit.

    If you think I magically had those posts deleted, I'm not that tight with Cheryl or any of the moderators so you can put those worries outside your head.
  19. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    At one time, the 2 parties were a very mixed bag. In each, there were conservatives, liberals, middle of the roaders if you will. All colors and stripes. As a result, there was still an idealogy but the parties were not united like they are today (although that's a bit of smoke and mirrors too) and therefore this "all about the party first and we're Americans 2nd" was not the dominate feature. People ran for office and they got voted in not so much because of party affliation but by the governing principles they esposued. Now it wasn't a perfect world mind you but today in order to get the conservative vote, just show up, declare yourself a republican and as long as the other guy is a democrat, who cares what you really are. You're in! The reverse is true if the person was liberal and declared to be a democrat. The point is, they can be complete :censored2: car salesman and if the district is gerrymandered to a specific party (vast majority are) he'll get the job. Why do you think 80% of America thinks Congress sucks?

    The oil situation IMO is a good example. OK, we all know we've got a problem, a big problem on many fronts. I doubt we'll get much arguement on that point. This problem was seen miles away and yet not a soul lifted a finger so to speak and now we sit in the middle of a crisis moment, if you will. Sounds like UPS don't it? :happy-very:

    The response from Washington? One side wants to drill which in light of our condition does make one want to look to Washington and just say with one loud voice, DUH! :happy-very: Makes you feel better any way!

    The other side in effect sez no and gives several reasons and some may have merit but still seems beyond belief.

    OK, why the real reason for the vast difference? I mean most if maybe not all here just might agree there is need to use our our domestic sources for oil and tell those ":censored2:s" to take a leep. The vastly deeper answer lay in what is called "global interdependence" but this requires much deeper study into all things gov't and I doubt most of you would be willing to put the time and effort into reading dry and boring political wonk sites and university white papers on economics and social order to figure this out so let's stick with the easy stuff.

    Republicans want drilling and let's say they get their way, the drilling commences and then low and behold the price of oil drops because it's overweighted in the futures markets and this market works off of 5 year contracts which project a value of oil 5 years out. Obviously, with drilling greenlighted, in 5 years there will be more oil on the market and thus this effects futures contracts. Now as the price at the pump drops, the price of other goods and services also drop, things start to rebound so to speak and we get to election day in November, who will the dumbmasses think saved them from the brink? Ah yes republicans! It won't matter that any democrats went along with the idea because we're to stupid to know when we've been played.

    OK, flip the pancake. Democrats hold tight, no drilling and things stay pretty bad or even get worse. Who do we generally blame? The guy sitting in the White House and the party he's associated with. If the dems can hold the day, they stand to benefit from discontent and get their guy in and then they can open up drilling and they look like the hero. Believe me, if the roles were reversed, you see the same thing in reverse. It happens all the time. We stopped being Americans a long time ago and now the congress has followed our lead or rather, they know a good thing (for them) when they see it.

    What do you do? Stop falling for the tricks. If there's a good democrat or republican out there and I mean one adamant about the Constitution, forget the party, vote for him/her. Understand that no one is as good at playing god as you are so don't expect perfection from anyone. Now that comment is not directed at you personally but is a bit of a joke really aimed at each of us and our human nature. We always have all the answers don't we. :happy-very: The hard part is getting everyone else to see how godlike we are! :happy-very::happy-very: Bunch a hardheads.:wink2:

    Sit down and establish dropdead principles that you will not move off of. Myself, I use a lot of the moral code of the bible which I happen to believe a good foundation and the historical use of natural or common law of old world Europe which was the bedrock of our own civil culture. I belive each person should set his/her own course and seek their happiness as long as it imposes no force or fraud on me in doing so and visa versa. Even if their choose of lifestyle is not one I'd choose for myself because it'd be obvious the reverse for them would hold true towards me. but I know if they are always free to believe different than myself I can be asured of my own freedom to believe as I do. Political correctness runs in many differnet directions contary to popular myth!

    Now whatever those principles are, don't bend to meet them on election day, force them to come to you even if you are the only one out there. If you truly believe in the moral truths then stick to them, even to death. If that means voting 3rd party to hold true to yourself or even withholding you vote, then hold true to yourself. If it means Obama or Mccain wins to hold true to my beliefs, then so be it. Treat your vote like money that you are about to invest. If the right compnay stock is not out there don't be afraid to park your vote in CD's until a better investment comes along. Don't act like an 8 year old with $5 in the pocket that's burning :censored2: and you're bound and determined to buy something from the toy section no matter what it is. What would it say to the political system if 20% of the voters went and voted but made no selection at all for President. You wanna turn Washington into full tilt panic, do that. There's your Boston Tea Party or Bunker Hill.

    America is a glass half full not half empty as long as we connect to our roots and that constitution remains in play. Never, Ever forget that. Anytime we get off course, that document is our safe haven. Our founding fathers (even with their many faults) gave us a nation of free, independent people who determined their own destiny and that where those people would go, the gov't would follow. That formula has flipped and it's time to take it back!

    That's where I'm at House of Payne. Love it, hate it, I could care less even if I'm the lone wolf doing it I will continue that course. hope that answers your question.

    Fear is the mind killer!
  20. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Wow . Everyone Diesel has given us the proper title to now bestow on all democrats who get caught with their pee pee in the wrong poo poo.:happy-very:

    Serial adulter and former president Bill Clinton

    Serial adulter and former president john kennedy

    Serial adulter , former bridge diver and current congressman Ted Kennedy.:happy-very: