Did Newt Gingrich Win the First TV GOP Debate?

Newt and all these others can do whatever they want to appear to be an economic conservative or a politican that cares, but without addressing the Federal Reserve it makes absolutely no difference. That is where the problem lies. They can all argue any point they want but no one other than Ron Paul goes after the real and main issue destroying this nation. Newt and the rest will never attack their masters, which are the banks. They are all the same, even the democrats and republicans as a whole. They might appear to have different arguments but when it comes down to it they all have the same agenda, which is to protect the main power structure in the country.

And, Newt has a terrible record of supporting real Constitutional policies, for example, his position regarding the sovereignty of the United States. Does Newt believe as our founders that we are a sovereign nation and should refuse any outside influence from other nations and not align ourselves with those countries whose political philosophies are at odds with those of the United States Constitution? Newt is a self-professed globalist. He is more concerned with the global world than with the interests of our sovereign nation. One piece of evidence against Speaker Gingrich is the fact that he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Newt’s Foreign policy positions can be exposed by the fact that the Congressman was “schooled” by Henry Kissinger. Henry Kissinger is an avowed globalist who believes that sovereign national boundaries should be abolished and the nation-state should be eradicated. Mr. Kissinger has influenced many political leaders throughout the decades of this country’s history. Many of those policies have been to the detriment to the United States and the American people. In The Economist, an article entitled “The Internationalists” states, “If . . . Clinton and Gingrich as good internationalists want to keep this isolationism in check, they have work to do in their own parties. Strange as it may seem in these days of loud ‘contrast politics,’ on this issue they are on the same side.” (March 11, 1995) When asked to summarily describe Newt Gingrich, former Secretary of State Warren Christopher answered “an internationalist”.

Newt also shows his true nature by disregarding the interests of the American public by supporting legislation like NAFTA and GATT. The former of which can now be shown to be the cause of thousands of American jobs moving overseas. Opponents of NAFTA warned that the result would be American corporations leaving the U.S. in order to avoid the regulation, overhead, and take advantage of the cheaper labor in order to increase their bottom line and profits.

How does former Speaker Gingrich stack up against the Constitution and our founder’s view of government? Once again he fails miserably. Mr. Gingrich said “I believe in a very strong central government. This is completely at odds regarding the Constitutional Republic form of government our founders handed down to us. Compare Newt’s statement with this quote from James Madison in The Federalist No. 45, Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered, Independent Journal Saturday, January 26, 1788:

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.

Our founders did not advocate a “strong central government”, but rather a very limited government with multiple checks and balances with the majority of the decisions being made at the state level and rights being reserved to the States or to the people. The federal government was never to wield more power than the States or the people. In this point, once again Newt Gingrich reveals himself as a big government proponent, thereby nixing the very idea that he is a “conservative”.

How has Newt aligned himself in his associations in Congress? Did he align himself with genuine conservatives or others like himself? Truth is truly stranger than fiction. After a 10 year break from politics Dr. Ron Paul threw his hat in the ring to gain his current congressional seat. Dr. Paul may arguably be one of the staunchest defenders of the Constitution in our day. Judge Andrew Napolitano called him the “Thomas Jefferson of our day”. When Dr. Paul entered the race there was another Republican who ran for the same seat. Did Newt back Dr. Paul or the establishment lackey who ran against him in the primary? You can probably guess the answer to that question. He not only supported Dr. Paul’s opponent, but persuaded 50 of his congressional cohorts to also announce their support for Ron Paul’s adversary in the primary. Even President Bush came out in support of Dr. Paul’s political opponent at the request of Newt Gingrich. Newt better resembles a RINO rather than a Constitutional Conservative. He supported the illegal invasion of other sovereign nations and clearly Unconstitutional legislation like the Patriot Act, Enemy Detention and Prevention Act, etc.

There can be no doubt on where Newt Gingrich stands. He stands in opposition to our founders, he stands in opposition to our Constitution, and he stands in opposition to the safety, sovereignty, and welfare of the American people. Most importantly, he stands against everything that a genuine Constitutional conservative voter believes. He supports global governance more that American sovereignty. He supports legislation which increases the size and scope of government. He voted for legislation which sent thousands of American jobs overseas. He stood shoulder to shoulder with the opponent of a candidate who is a strict Constitutional conservative.

Five people shined last night in the "debate."

1. Herman Cain. http://www.hermancain.com/

2. Michele Bachmann

3. Newt Gingrich (I expected Newt to shine in this forum)

4. Ron Paul (the debate on foreign policy ought to ruin his candidacy)

5. Mitt Romney

---Newt cannot be trusted to be a true conservative. He's utterly brilliant, but he carries that conceit with him. While he often mouths the proper words and phrases, and has a stunning command of the facts, he also has government *cures* for all that ails the economy. He once championed the horrendous "Cap and Trade" bill, which is nothing more than an enormous tax increase on energy, meant to address non-existent, man-caused global warming. That's Newt's fatal flaw.

---Herman Cain is a true leader, a highly successful captain of American industry. Herman Cain FIXES problems, with common sense conservative solutions. Herman can be trusted, and to me, that's HUGE!
http://www.hermancain.com/the...

---Michele Bachmann was also spectacular. Way to articulate the conservative message Representative Bachmann!

---Ron Paul spoke my mind on a litany of domestic issues. BUT he also blames America and Israel for Islamic terrorism. To me, that betrays some sort of mental illness. When you misidentify simple EVIL, you've got a deep and disqualifying problem. In that mania, he has plenty of company: Obama and Michael Moore for starters.

---Mitt Romney was polished and glib, and he LOOKS like everything you might want in a president. And I don't trust him politically. Like Newt, he has been drinking the globaloney warming purple kool-aid. That's a disqualifier.