Why are our ``conservative`` talk show hosts so gentle with Newt Gingrich?

[johnwk]

Wouldn’t it be music to the ears of all freedom loving Americans to hear one of our so called “conservative” talk show hosts ask Mr. Gingrich some tough questions, e.g., why he sided with the progressive Jimmy Carter in creating the un-constitutional federal department of education? And likewise ask Mr. Gingrich if he was wrong in helping to create this vehicle for a subversive federal takeover of public school systems established under state Constitutions?

And how about one of our “conservative” talk show hosts asking Mr. Gingrich, in reference to his vote to create the federal department of education, what part of Federalist No 45 did he not understand at the time of his vote which summarizes our federal government’s limited powers as follows:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

And further, how nice it would be to hear one of our “conservative” talk show hosts asking Mr. Gingrich, what part of our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment which was adopted to give force and effect to Federalist No. 45, and specifically intended to preserve and protect federalism, our Constitution’s plan, did he not understand when voting to create the federal department of education? The Tenth Amendment reads as follows:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”

And would it really be too much to expect one of our “conservative” talk show hosts, who constantly refer to Gingrich as a “conservative”, to ask him why he also ignored the limited role of our federal government when helping to create the federal department of education as summarized by our very own Supreme Court less than twenty years after the adoption of the Tenth Amendment? The SC stated:

“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” ____ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

And finally, for those who do not realized the creation of the federal department of education is the brainchild of subversive progressives, and its goal is to concentrate power in Washington in order to control public school systems established under state constitutions and then brainwash our nation’s children, take note of the warning given to us in 1983 by Sam Weaver in an article titled John Dewey: the father of progressive education (http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/weaver/040308)

"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers that correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being...The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new — the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent with the promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of 'love thy neighbor' will finally be achieved." - excerpt from an article by John Dunphy titled "A Religion for a New Age," appearing in the January/February 1983 issue of The Humanist Magazine

JWK

America we have a problem! We have a group of DOMESTIC ENEMIES (http://republicmainstreet.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/members-of-the-congressional-progressive-caucus-is-your-representative-a-member/) who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the circumvention of our Republican Form of Government with a 12 member committee vested with power to make law; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the transferring of America’s technology to hostile foreign nations; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the interference with our ability to develop our natural resources, namely oil, to fuel our economy; the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!

[fj1200]

To annoy you and to drive your vehement into the dregs of the interwebs where it will die an ignored death.

BTW, I didn't read your thread.

[avatar4321]

Clearly not listening to Glenn Beck, Because he's been really critical of Newt and for good reasons.

[johnwk]

Clearly not listening to Glenn Beck, Because he's been really critical of Newt and for good reasons.

I understand that Gingrich will be on Glenn Beck’s show Tuesday. I would love to hear Beck ask Gingrich why he voted to create the federal department of education and have Gingrich point to the provision in our Constitution which allows the creation of this agency and also allows it to redistribute tax revenue which is now up to about $122 BILLION a year and has about 5,000 federal employees!

I would also like to hear Beck question Gingrich on why he worked so hard to hand the NAFTA to Clinton on a silver platter which circumvents Congress’ constitutionally authorized power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and transfers this power into the hands of Binational Panels (http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/chap-192.asp#An1901.2), who are not elected by the American People and a majority of panel members being foreigners who now make binding decisions concerning America’s trade with foreign nations.

And, under 1904:Review of Final Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Determinations (http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/chap-191.asp#A1904) the United States is forbidden to “provide in its domestic legislation for an appeal from a panel decision to its domestic courts.” This of course circumvents American Citizens from seeking relief under America’s judicial system.

In addition, under “Review of Final Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Determinations“ the United States is required to amend its statutes and regulations “to ensure that its courts shall give full force and effect, with respect to any person within its jurisdiction, to all sanctions imposed pursuant to the laws of the other Parties to enforce...” This of course puts American businesses and industries involved in trade with Canada and Mexico under the jurisdiction of a foreign power and denies them the protection of our judicial system. Seems to me this is one of the indictments contained in the Declaration of Independence, namely: “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our law; giving his Assent to the Acts of pretended Legislation”.

And, if the above is not enough to cause concern for freedom loving Americans, Under Annex 1904.15: Amendments to Domestic Laws Schedule of the United States (http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/chap-193.asp#An1904.15) the United States is required to “amend section 301 of the Customs Courts Act of l980, as amended, and any other relevant provisions of law, to eliminate the authority to issue declaratory judgments in any civil action involving an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding regarding a class of kind of Canadian or Mexican merchandise.” This, in essence, deprives American domestic businesses and industries the protections of our judicial system, and requires them to submit to a foreign judicial power if they complain or question what foreigners involved in commerce are doing on American Soil!”

JWK

[johnwk]

Just for the record, I went to Hannity’s forum (Washington politics) to reply to the same thread I posted here, Why are our ``conservative`` talk show hosts so gentle with Mr. Newt Gingrich? and I see it has been deleted with the following message:

Thread deleted by Rick

Reason: borderline contempt of host

I guess that indicates Gingrich has friends in the media in high places and they are now circling the wagons to defend Gingrich, even to the point of suppressing opposing points of view..

JWK

[johnwk]

Why do so many “conservative” talk show hosts call Gingrich a “conservative”? Let us look at Gingrich’s phony balanced budget amendment which passed the House in 1995 and see if he is really a “conservative”, or tries to pull the wool over the American People’s eyes.

104th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 1

Article--

`SECTION 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

Translation: Gingrich proposes to allow Congress to override the amendment whenever it so desires when a mere 261 House members and 60 Senators agree to continue down its path of destroying America from within.

`SECTION 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.

Under this provision Gingrich would avoid requiring a balanced budget by cleverly omitting a requirement for specific increases in taxes to equal any proposed increase in the national debt!

`SECTION 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

This provision of the Gingrich balanced budget amendment was totally meaningless and mere window dressing to confuse the people, especially when figures can be made to mean whatever our folks in government want them to project as we have learned with Obamacare

`SECTION 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.

Under this provision of the Gingrich balanced budget amendment a mere 217 votes in the House and 51 in the Senate was all that was needed to allow Congress to squeeze more blood out of the America People and continue down a path to financial suicide. This particular provision makes one wonder why Gingrich was ever called a fiscal “conservative”

`SECTION 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.

After the words “declaration of war is in effect” Gingrich’s weasel wording which follows would be laughable if America’s national debt, including un-funded liabilities, was not so grave, not to mention a mere majority vote would be needed to give the finger to balancing the budget.. The flimflamery under this section of Gingrich’s balanced budget amendment was outright disgusting. Each House may ignore the requirement to balance the budget by simply declaring an existing military conflict has caused an “imminent and serious military threat to national security“. Have we not just seen how this “crisis” scare tactic mentality has been used to plunder our federal treasury under TARP? How it has been used to bail out auto companies which have blood sucking unions? Has been used to send BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars to foreign banks (http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/federal-reserve-documents-reveal-massive-foreign-b), and used to increase the national debt beyond human comprehension? And people dare to call Gingrich a “conservative“ when promoting this kind of crap?

`SECTION 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.

Estimates of outlays and receipts? This is one of those Gingrich, cleverly worded provisions, which really boil down to an in-your-face, screw the America People, that Congress will do what they want and what they want is to use mathematical illusions to enforce balancing the budget!

`SECTION 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.

And what would happen under Gingrich’s proposal when total receipts derived from borrowing far exceed those for repayment of debt principal?

`SECTION 8. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.'

Gingrich’s phony balanced budget amendment passed the House of Representatives January 26, 1995!

Bottom line is, why do our “conservative” talk show hosts call Gingrich a “conservative”?

JWK

[Psychoblues]

I really liked seeing him sitting in the love seat with Ms. Nancy Pelosi and agreeing with her about climate change, global warming, cap and trade and a host of other examples of everyday conservative hypocrisies. BTW. Just what is it that conservatives are supposed to be conserving? They are a pretty wasteful, belligerent and greedy bunch as far as resources are concerned.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

They are a pretty wasteful, belligerent and greedy bunch as far as resources are concerned.

But why are you using a description of Nancy Pelosi?

[johnwk]

Aside from Gingrich voting to create the unconstitutional federal department of education, his circumvention of Congress’ power to regulate commerce with foreign nations with the NAFTA and its bi-national panels, and his phony balanced budget amendment which would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget, why are our “conservative” talk show hosts failing to call Gingrich on the carpet for advocating line item veto power being placed in the president‘s hands? This proposal is of course not only unconstitutional, but an attempt to undermine our Constitution’s separation of powers and weaken our representative system of government by creating a blackmailing power in the hands of the president who will essentially have power to choose which pork barrel projects will be funded and which will not, regardless of their constitutionality. But let one of our founding fathers instruct us on this matter which our “conservative” talk show hosts fail to do.

Benjamin Franklin, on June 4th (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_604.asp) of the Constitutional Convention reminded the delegates how the veto power had been exercised by royal governors and why the convention should not grant such power to the president:

“The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.''

While line-item veto power may have a perceived benefit as now used in various States, advocating that power to be placed in the hands of the President of the united States is a clever attempt to subjugate the important separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches of our federal government, and consolidate a very dangerous blackmailing power in the hands of the President. And that is why our founding fathers granted a limited veto power to the president:

Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution contains a precise procedure for the president to follow regarding a bill having passed both houses of Congress ''__if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated__'' No allowance has been granted to the president by the Constitution to alter a bill to his own liking by striking some parts and leaving others, and returning a bill so amended to the House in which it originated.

Likewise, no provision can be pointed to in our Constitution granting power to Congress to overrule the precise procedure stated in Article 1, Section 7 and vest in the president a power as proposed by Mr. Gingrich or various other line item veto gimmicks. Make no mistake, these attempts are nothing more than another type of attack upon our constitutionally limited system of government and are intentionally designed to dissolve its separation of powers and consolidate a dictatorial and blackmailing power in the hands of the president.

Have faith in our founding fathers! Their plan created the political environment for America to become the most powerful and wealthiest nation on the planet, but is now in decline because we allow those we elect to spit upon our Constitution and dissolve the very protections our founding fathers wrote into it.

JWK

Is it not time to return to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360) and end the progressive’s occupation of America which began in 1913 with the 16th Amendment and taxes laid and collected calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”?

[Psychoblues]

But why are you using a description of Nancy Pelosi?

Ms. Nancy is none of those things, fj. Are you not feeling well today?


Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

Ms. Nancy is none of those things, fj. Are you not feeling well today?


Psychoblues

She embodies all those descriptions and more. You're still wearing those partisan blinders aren't you?

[jimnyc]

Ms. Nancy is none of those things, fj. Are you not feeling well today?


Psychoblues

Nancy is a party hack that does more harm than good, and people like her are largely to blame for the constant partisanship problems. She's been in the game too long now and should be euthanized like a good little horse.

[Psychoblues]

She embodies all those descriptions and more. You're still wearing those partisan blinders aren't you?

Actually, I know exactly what I see, hear and learn, Kath. Ms. Nancy cannot be accused of being wasteful, belligerent or greedy. She is a career public servant and a damned good one. But, back to my question about the so-called conservatives. Just what is it they are conserving? Their wide open exploitation of human and natural resources is legion. Their manipulation of legislation to suit themselves and to hell with the population and the environment is also well documented even if done mostly in the darkness of political backrooms. Their claims of "free markets" have been proven totally false on practically every level. The average free market conservative is actually an active participant in monopolizing and threatening if not destroying potential competitors. What do they call themselves conserving? Inquiring minds want to know.

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

Nancy is a party hack that does more harm than good, and people like her are largely to blame for the constant partisanship problems. She's been in the game too long now and should be euthanized like a good little horse.

Her constituency continues to support and elect her, jim. For an ol' mare she has my full respect for hanging in there like she has for all these years. She is indeed a gem and I am proud to stand beside her as a Democrat but mostly as an American that deeply loves this country and what it is all about. It appears Newt feels much the same about her.

Psychoblues

[jimnyc]

Her constituency continues to support and elect her, jim. For an ol' mare she has my full respect for hanging in there like she has for all these years. She is indeed a gem and I am proud to stand beside her as a Democrat but mostly as an American that deeply loves this country and what it is all about. It appears Newt feels much the same about her.

Psychoblues

Yeah, nitwits stand behind Rangel too, and Kennedy had supporters and blah, blah, blah. Nancy is a no good hack, doesn't work well with others, and the only good thing about her entire career was watching her whine like a little bitch when Boehner took over the gavel. Now THAT was priceless.

[fj1200]

Ms. Nancy is none of those things, fj. Are you not feeling well today?

She hates unions; why would you support such a hater to organized labor?

[Psychoblues]

She hates unions; why would you support such a hater to organized labor?

Then why do unions continue to endorse her? I don't believe your information is accurate, fj.

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

Yeah, nitwits stand behind Rangel too, and Kennedy had supporters and blah, blah, blah. Nancy is a no good hack, doesn't work well with others, and the only good thing about her entire career was watching her whine like a little bitch when Boehner took over the gavel. Now THAT was priceless.

I see. Your problem is democracy. There are many countries in the middle east that would love to have you. I'd like to have a video of the gavel handover, jim. I watched it and don't remember anything like that at all.

Psychoblues

[jimnyc]

I see. Your problem is democracy. There are many countries in the middle east that would love to have you. I'd like to have a video of the gavel handover, jim. I watched it and don't remember anything like that at all.

Psychoblues

Nope, I have only 2 problems with Nancy, and democracy sure isn't one of them. 1) She exemplifies what is wrong with government 2) She is one ugly bitch

[Psychoblues]

Nope, I have only 2 problems with Nancy, and democracy sure isn't one of them. 1) She exemplifies what is wrong with government 2) She is one ugly bitch

If you now want to personalize this tirade of yours to Ms. Nancy that's fine with me. But you brought into the conversation many more names of elected politicians that you don't care for and complained that they had "supporters" and those that voted for them. That is the democracy part that you seem to despise so and that is why I suspect you may not have a clue as to what this country is and what it represents if not to ourselves then at least to aspiring on-lookers. Your very ugly and uncalled for assessments of Ms. Nancy are despicable at best. But, I truly did enjoy seeing Newt and Ms. Nancy in the love seat and agreeing with one another about climate change, global warming, cap and trade issues and other environmental concerns. That is democracy and that was impressive.

Psychoblues

[jimnyc]

If you now want to personalize this tirade of yours to Ms. Nancy that's fine with me. But you brought into the conversation many more names of elected politicians that you don't care for and complained that they had "supporters" and those that voted for them. That is the democracy part that you seem to despise so and that is why I suspect you may not have a clue as to what this country is and what it represents if not to ourselves then at least to aspiring on-lookers. Your very ugly and uncalled for assessments of Ms. Nancy are despicable at best. But, I truly did enjoy seeing Newt and Ms. Nancy in the love seat and agreeing with one another about climate change, global warming, cap and trade issues and other environmental concerns. That is democracy and that was impressive.

Psychoblues

My point was that just because someone gets voted for often, this does not make them good politicians. Many politicians are out there that shouldn't be and were voted in due to the affiliation of their constituents. SanFran would vote for the carcass of a long dead animal if it had a (D) on it. Oh, wait a minute, they did!

[Psychoblues]

My point was that just because someone gets voted for often, this does not make them good politicians. Many politicians are out there that shouldn't be and were voted in due to the affiliation of their constituents. SanFran would vote for the carcass of a long dead animal if it had a (D) on it. Oh, wait a minute, they did!

Phshaw!!!!!!! I thinketh you exaggerate, jimmy!!!!!!!!!!

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

Phshaw!!!!!!! I thinketh you exaggerate, jimmy!!!!!!!!!!

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

Not even close to exaggeration.

[Psychoblues]

Not even close to exaggeration.

No? Please share, Kath, or do you actually just have nothing to say?

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

No? Please share, Kath, or do you actually just have nothing to say?

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

Try comprehending the post. I always have something to say, or nearly so.

[Psychoblues]

Try comprehending the post. I always have something to say, or nearly so.

Well, let's run a little comprehension test here, Kath, and I promise to keep it relevant and in good keeping with how we got to this point. It's real simple and I'll type slow for you. jimnyc was badmouthing Ms. Nancy Pelosi for no apparent reason that I could see other than he doesn't appreciate how democracy works in America. There was some dialogue and jimbo said something about SF voters electing a dead horse or something to that effect. I jokingly called it exaggeration. You seriously said it was not even close to exaggeration. Game's on. I ask you to share and here you are telling me you have something to say and accusing me of failing to comprehend. OK. I think it is you that is failing to comprehend but that is just what I think. Right now I'm comprehending that you're just playing the part of the village idiot and have nothing to agree, disagree or add to this a very good conversation!!!!!!! My, my. You're way smarter than that, Kath!!!!!!!!!!

:laugh2:

Psychoblues

[johnwk]

Getting back to the subject of the thread, Gingrich favored the “Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987” to allow the federal government to meddle in our media when our Constitution forbids Congress from abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble... And yet, our State Attorney Generals while on FoxNews failed to ask Gingrich what part of the Constitution allows the federal government to meddle in the media as outlined in the “Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987” which he supported?

And, Gingrich was in good company on this one, RINOs, snakes and a PUBLIC BATHROOM WEIRDO (http://www.rollcall.com/news/-19763-1.html)!

Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d100:HR01934:@@@P:..)

COSPONSORS(71),

Rep Akaka, Daniel K. [HI-2] - 5/7/1987

Rep Bliley, Tom [VA-3] - 4/2/1987

Rep Bonior, David E. [MI-12] - 4/2/1987

Rep Boucher, Rick [VA-9] - 4/2/1987

Rep Boxer, Barbara [CA-6] - 4/2/1987

Rep Brooks, Jack B. [TX-9] - 4/2/1987

Rep Bryant, John W. [TX-5] - 4/2/1987

Rep Buechner, Jack [MO-2] - 5/7/1987

Rep Bustamante, Albert G. [TX-23] - 5/7/1987

Rep Callahan, Sonny [AL-1] - 5/7/1987

Rep Coelho, Anthony Lee [CA-15] - 4/2/1987

Rep Coleman, E. Thomas [MO-6] - 5/7/1987

Rep Collins, Cardiss - 4/2/1987

Rep Conte, Silvio O. [MA-1] - 5/27/1987

Rep Cooper, Jim [TN-4] - 5/7/1987

Rep Craig, Larry E. [ID-1] - 4/2/1987

Rep Crane, Philip M. [IL-12] - 5/27/1987

Rep Dannemeyer, William E. [CA-39] - 4/2/1987

Rep Daub, Hal [NE-2] - 5/7/1987

Rep de Lugo, Ron [VI] - 5/27/1987

Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 5/7/1987

Rep Dellums, Ronald V. [CA-8] - 4/2/1987

Rep Dixon, Julian C. [CA-28] - 4/2/1987

Rep Dornan, Robert K. [CA-38] - 4/2/1987

Rep Dyson, Roy [MD-1] - 5/7/1987

Rep Eckart, Dennis E. [OH-11] - 4/2/1987

Rep Fascell, Dante B. [FL-19] - 4/2/1987

Rep Fields, Jack [TX-8] - 4/2/1987

Rep Ford, William D. [MI-15] - 4/2/1987

Rep Gingrich, Newt [GA-6] - 4/2/1987

Rep Gray, William H., III [PA-2] - 4/2/1987

Rep Hayes, Charles A. [IL-1] - 5/7/1987

Rep Hochbrueckner, George J. [NY-1] - 5/7/1987

Rep Hughes, William J. [NJ-2] - 5/7/1987

Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6] - 4/2/1987

Rep Lagomarsino, Robert J. [CA-19] - 4/2/1987

Rep Leach, James A. [IA-1] - 4/2/1987

Rep Leland, Mickey [TX-18] - 4/2/1987

Rep Levine, Mel [CA-27] - 5/7/1987

Rep Lipinski, William O. [IL-5] - 5/7/1987

Rep Lott, Trent [MS-5] - 4/2/1987

Rep Madigan, Edward R. [IL-15] - 5/7/1987

Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 4/2/1987

Rep Marlenee, Ron [MT-2] - 4/2/1987

Rep Martinez, Matthew G. [CA-30] - 5/7/1987

Rep Murtha, John P. [PA-12] - 4/2/1987

Rep Nielson, Howard C. - 4/2/1987

Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8] - 4/2/1987

Rep Owens, Major R. [NY-12] - 5/7/1987

Rep Pepper, Claude [FL-18] - 4/2/1987

Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-16] - 4/2/1987

Rep Scheuer, James H. [NY-8] - 5/7/1987

Rep Schroeder, Patricia [CO-1] - 4/2/1987

Rep Schuette, Bill [MI-10] - 5/7/1987

Rep Schumer, Charles E. [NY-10] - 4/2/1987

Rep Solarz, Stephen J. [NY-13] - 5/7/1987

Rep Stenholm, Charles W. [TX-17] - 4/2/1987

Rep Stokes, Louis [OH-21] - 4/2/1987

Rep Sundquist, Don [TN-7] - 5/7/1987

Rep Synar, Mike [OK-2] - 5/7/1987

Rep Torres, Estaban Edward [CA-34] - 5/7/1987

Rep Udall, Morris K. [AZ-2] - 4/2/1987

Rep Vento, Bruce F. [MN-4] - 5/7/1987

Rep Walgren, Doug [PA-18] - 4/2/1987

Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-24] - 4/2/1987

Rep Weber, Vin [MN-2] - 4/2/1987

Rep Weiss, Ted [NY-17] - 5/7/1987

Rep Wise, Robert E., Jr. [WV-3] - 5/7/1987

Rep Wolpe, Howard E. [MI-3] - 5/7/1987

Rep Wyden, Ron [OR-3] - 4/2/1987

Rep Yates, Sidney R. [IL-9] - 4/2/1987

So why do our “conservative” talk show hosts give Gingrich a pass?

JWK

[I]Is it not time to return to our Constitution’s [u]ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360) and end the progressive’s occupation of America which began in 1913 with the 16th Amendment and taxes laid and collected calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”?

[Kathianne]

Well, let's run a little comprehension test here, Kath, and I promise to keep it relevant and in good keeping with how we got to this point. It's real simple and I'll type slow for you. jimnyc was badmouthing Ms. Nancy Pelosi for no apparent reason that I could see other than he doesn't appreciate how democracy works in America. There was some dialogue and jimbo said something about SF voters electing a dead horse or something to that effect. I jokingly called it exaggeration. You seriously said it was not even close to exaggeration. Game's on. I ask you to share and here you are telling me you have something to say and accusing me of failing to comprehend. OK. I think it is you that is failing to comprehend but that is just what I think. Right now I'm comprehending that you're just playing the part of the village idiot and have nothing to agree, disagree or add to this a very good conversation!!!!!!! My, my. You're way smarter than that, Kath!!!!!!!!!!

:laugh2:

Psychoblues
P
We all know you are relishing in your role of the village idiot. As you say, we all know 'you're way smarter than that, PB.'

[Psychoblues]

P
We all know you are relishing in your role of the village idiot. As you say, we all know 'you're way smarter than that, PB.'

Why, thank ya, thank ya there, Kath. I appreciate the recognition. Now just how is that dead animal elected in San Francisco working out for the nuts that have dreamed it all up? Exaggeration? I think so regardless your insistence that it's all true!!!!!!!!

:laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

Then why do unions continue to endorse her? I don't believe your information is accurate, fj.

One letter: (D)

[Kathianne]

One letter: (D)

Yep, regarding leadership, those making 'the big bucks.' Membership? Depends on the union and location. Many find him an albatross around their necks. Some outright despise him and work against him.

[Psychoblues]

One letter: (D)

You said she hates unions. I disagree and pointed out that unions consistently endorse her. Unions do not endorse their enemies any more than a republican might endorse Katrina Vanden Huevel or Ed Shultz. It does happen though. Had it not been for the Teamsters and the Air Traffic Controllers in 1980 the republican patriarch Ronald Reagan wouldd not have done nearly so well and quite possibly would not have won at all. Oh, but he was once a union President, and a Democrat, wasn't he? And without doubt a liar and traitor to his most avid well wishers.

(D)? You're full of it as usual, fj.

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

Yep, regarding leadership, those making 'the big bucks.' Membership? Depends on the union and location. Many find him an albatross around their necks. Some outright despise him and work against him.

uh, Kath. fj and I were talking about the (D) behind the name of Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. You must have gotten side tracked. Or maybe it's me? Just who is this albatross that is so despised?

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

uh, Kath. fj and I were talking about the (D) behind the name of Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. You must have gotten side tracked. Or maybe it's me? Just who is this albatross that is so despised?

Psychoblues


Keep reading. Eventually you will catch up.

[Psychoblues]

Keep reading. Eventually you will catch up.

Nope. I think I just lost interest in that train. I'll catch another.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

You said she hates unions.

She's an evil 1%er, she's evil... EVIL.

It's clear that she deserves your ire not your praise. I mean you are part of the 99%. :slap:

[Psychoblues]

She's an evil 1%er, she's evil... EVIL.

It's clear that she deserves your ire not your praise. I mean you are part of the 99%. :slap:

I am not a single issue Democrat, fj. I'm certain she has other redeeming qualities!!!

:cool:

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

I am not a single issue Democrat, fj. I'm certain she has other redeeming qualities!!!

Unpossible; Evil 1%! EVIL!!! Unless you're giving the same deference to the Koch Brothers.

[Psychoblues]

Unpossible; Evil 1%! EVIL!!! Unless you're giving the same deference to the Koch Brothers.

If those cats have any redeeming qualities I fail to notice them. So, no deference from me will be forthcoming for them.

:laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

You said she hates unions. I disagree and pointed out that unions consistently endorse her. Unions do not endorse their enemies any more than a republican might endorse Katrina Vanden Huevel or Ed Shultz. It does happen though. Had it not been for the Teamsters and the Air Traffic Controllers in 1980 the republican patriarch Ronald Reagan wouldd not have done nearly so well and quite possibly would not have won at all. Oh, but he was once a union President, and a Democrat, wasn't he? And without doubt a liar and traitor to his most avid well wishers.

(D)? You're full of it as usual, fj.

Psychoblues


If Pelosi loves unions why has she not allowed the workers employed by her and her husband to join unions?





snip

Ms. Pelosi is known as a strong union supporter and has received the United Farm Workers Union’s Chavez award. Yet, her vineyards and associated winery are strictly non-union. The 250 employees of the resort Auberge Du Soleil, of which Pelosi and her husband own a sizeable chunk, is strictly non-union as are the 900 plus employees of the Piatti chain. Somehow in spite of her ‘union lockout’ Speaker Pelosi has received more contribution money from hotel employee unions and restaurant employee unions that any other member of congress. Ms. Pelosi is a multi-millionaire who has no concept of daily American life and consistently preaches, as do many of her colleagues, a ‘Do as I say’ doctrine. We are expected to forget or overlook what they do.

Speaker Pelosi was a member of the executive committee of the Progressive Caucus which was actually a part of the Democratic Socialist of America movement. After a great deal of polling and presentations to focus groups, the Progressive Caucus sought to mask their connection to the movement as the term ‘socialist’ made the average American voter uncomfortable. At 68, Ms. Pelosi more closely resembles a has-been silent film star than she does your mother or grandmother. Her entire political career has been a carbon copy of the first year of the Obama administration, that being, I can’t hear what you’re saying as I’m busy speaking, and besides, I don’t what to hear what you’re saying anyway. No member of congress has a greater talent of turning fact into fiction or fiction into fact that Speaker Pelosi unless one considers Senator Harry Reid.

http://tobey100.hubpages.com/hub/What-the-Media-Wont-Tell-You-About-Speaker-Pelosi

[fj1200]

If those cats have any redeeming qualities I fail to notice them. So, no deference from me will be forthcoming for them.

Precisely what I thought, it's all about the letter for you.

[johnwk]

Just for the record, and with regard to where Gingrich stands on the federal government meddling with freedom of speech, early in 1987 the FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine of 1949. Then, Congress attempted to bring it back and a bill passed both Houses and President Reagan vetoed it and Congress was unable to gain enough votes to override the veto. The controversy was that part of the bill having the federal government providing “ a reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.”

See:Reagan's Veto Kills Fairness Doctrine Bill (http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-21/news/mn-8908_1_fairness-doctrine)

“June 21, 1987|PENNY PAGANO | Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON — President Reagan, intensifying the debate over whether the nation's broadcasters must present opposing views of controversial issues, has vetoed legislation to turn into law the 38-year-old "fairness doctrine," the White House announced Saturday.The doctrine, instituted by the Federal Communications Commission as public policy in 1949, requires the nation's radio and television stations to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance."

Gingrich was in favor of having the federal government meddling and requiring stations to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance."

So, why do our “conservative” talk show hosts give Newt Gingrich a pass?

JWK

[jimnyc]

So, why do our “conservative” talk show hosts give Newt Gingrich a pass?



You can say that about ANY candidate depending on WHO the host is. Seems like you just have a boner for Gingrich. If that's the case, you may have a better chance if you aim for Barney Frank.

[Psychoblues]

Precisely what I thought, it's all about the letter for you.

Wha?????? The Koch's don't attach letters, do they? Come to think of it, neither do I.

Psychoblues

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CWKTOCP45zY?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CWKTOCP45zY?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like the usual trolls and insult-traders are coming out again, plus a new one; and the usual troll-feeders are catering to them on command.

I predict a long, energetic, and completely unproductive life for this thread, as usual.

[Psychoblues]

Looks like the usual trolls and insult-traders are coming out again, plus a new one; and the usual troll-feeders are catering to them on command.

I predict a long, energetic, and completely unproductive life for this thread, as usual.

Well, well. What brings you in runnin' your tater trap, trying to troll or insult someone or just bumping this one back to the top of the page, la? I predict your participation here to be at best unproductive as I have never known you to demonstrate stamina or being energetic.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[avatar4321]

I too am interested to see Glenn's interview with Newt tomorrow. I understand why people are attracted to Newt. He's charismatic. He shows strong leadership in the debates and can talk his way around anyone there. But the biggest problem I have with him is I am not convinced I can trust him. He is the ultimate Washington Insider. Of everyone running, he is the insider candidate. He has taken alot more positions than Romney has ever taken. Heck, Newt is one of the people who came up with the mandate for Romney care. He isn't conservative, per se. More conservative than Obama, yes, but like I said I dont know that I can trust him to be conservative.

He has voted for a lot of the departments in this ever growing government. While I think he will play to the people to some degree, I am not totally convinced he will.

Again, Trust is the biggest issue. I trust him more than Obama, but thats not saying much.

[red states rule]

If Pelosi loves unions why has she not allowed the workers employed by her and her husband to join unions?


Ah, the sounds of crickets chirping in the morning.

[red states rule]

I am not a single issue Democrat, fj. I'm certain she has other redeeming qualities!!!

:cool:

Psychoblues

No you are a Democrat hack and like Virgil will NEVER criticize a fellow liberal no matter what they say or do. It is always party ahead of country with people like you PB, and increasing the Dems political power regarding of the results of their policies

[Psychoblues]

No you are a Democrat hack and like Virgil will NEVER criticize a fellow liberal no matter what they say or do. It is always party ahead of country with people like you PB, and increasing the Dems political power regarding of the results of their policies

Blow it out your ass, piggy. It is you that is the party before country, family and everything else including probably your own soul, if you have one, hack. I was not a Democrat when I went to war the first time for this country and I was not a Democrat when I went back to war for this country and I was not a Democrat when I voted for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and other more local and state politico's with (R)'s behind their names. I continue to stray in that direction occasionally but I doubt, no I am positive, that you have the mental capacity to ever understand any of that. You are the hack, rsr, and you prove it daily. Projection is a mental disorder. See your physician. There is medication and there is doctor provided therapy for you.

Psychoblues

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like the usual trolls and insult-traders are coming out again, plus a new one; and the usual troll-feeders are catering to them on command.

I predict a long, energetic, and completely unproductive life for this thread, as usual.

Can I call them or what?