The Newt Gingrich Deception

Author Topic: The Newt Gingrich Deception  (Read 35850 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,160
The Newt Gingrich Deception
« on: November 18, 2011, 02:24:01 PM »

27 Reasons Why Newt Gingrich Would Be A Really, Really Bad President

The American Dream
November 17, 2011

In recent weeks, the poll numbers for Newt Gingrich have absolutely skyrocketed.  Many now believe that he has a legitimate shot at winning the Republican nomination.  But the truth is that he would be a really, really bad president.  Gingrich is a big time Washington insider who believes in individual health care mandates, who supported the bailouts, who was instrumental in cramming NAFTA down the throats of the American people and who is either soft or wrong on just about every single issue that conservatives care about.  His personal life has a history of being a mess, his finances have a history of being a mess and his campaign was such a mess a few months ago that most observers considered his candidacy to be completely dead.  He has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations for two decades and he has been spotted attending meetings at the Bohemian Grove.  He sounds good during a debate, but it really boggles the mind that anyone would consider voting for someone with such a nightmarish track record.

The funny thing is that a lot of Tea Party activists are now jumping on board the Gingrich bandwagon.  A couple of years ago, the Tea Party movement was very much anti-establishment and Tea Party activists declared that they were sick and tired of “fake conservatives” and “RINOs”.

Well, other than Mitt Romney, there isn’t anyone left in the Republican field that is more of a “fake conservative” than Gingrich is.  Gingrich is a big time “RINO” that represents just about everything that the Tea Party is supposed to be against.

It just seems inconceivable that a big chunk of Republicans would actually be thinking of voting for Gingrich at this point.  Yes, four more years of Obama would be a complete and total disaster for America, but so would a Gingrich administration.

The following are 27 reasons why Newt Gingrich would be a really, really bad president….

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,160
Newt Gingrich: Mr. New World Order
« Reply #1 on: November 28, 2011, 04:07:51 PM »

Newt Gingrich: Mr. New World Order

Establishment throws its weight behind the ultimate RINO globalist

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Monday, November 28, 2011

Desperate to derail Ron Paul’s momentum in New Hampshire, the key early primary state in which polls show Paul has a very real chance of winning, the establishment has thrown its weight behind Newt Gingrich, the ultimate RINO globalist who in reality is about as conservative as Mao Tse-tung.

With the campaigns of Mitt Romney and Rick Perry collapsing, the editorial board of the New Hampshire Union Leader chose to endorse Gingrich on Sunday, a move that the mainstream press immediately hailed as all-important, attempting to bestow kingmaker status on a relatively irrelevant newspaper in the grand scheme of things.

The anointment of Gingrich as Republican frontrunner is just the latest desperate bid to fool voters into supporting anyone other than Ron Paul. From Perry, to Romney, to Cain – the establishment has attempted to crown all of them as top dog – failing every time as each campaign subsequently crashes and burns.

Gingrich will inevitably follow suit because he has more skeletons in the closet than a halloween costume shop. Newt Gingrich is Mr. New World Order – a committed globalist who has publicly made clear his contempt for American sovereignty and freedom on a plethora of occasions, not least when he joined forces with Nancy Pelosi to push the Obama administration’s cap and trade agenda that would have completely bankrupted the country.

“I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good,” Gingrich told PBS Frontline in February 2007.

And if you think that doesn’t sound bad enough, just wait until you read what Gingrich had to say about mandatory health insurance.

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison


  • Guest
Re: The Newt Gingrich Deception
« Reply #2 on: November 29, 2011, 11:13:51 AM »

“You can either be in the Ron Paul tradition and say there’s nothing wrong with heroine and cocaine or you can be in the tradition that says, ‘These kind of addictive drugs are terrible, they deprive you of full citizenship and they lead you to a dependency which is antithetical to being an American.’”

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich says he supports using the death penalty as punishment for leaders of drug cartels who bring drugs into America.

Gingrich made the comments when asked in an interview with Yahoo! News if he still stands by a bill he introduced in Congress in 1996 allowing those convicted of smuggling drugs to be put to death.

“I think if you are, for example, the leader of a cartel, sure,” Gingrich told reporter Chris Moody. “Look at the level of violence and the level of violence that they’ve done to society.”

Elaborating, he said: “You can either be in the Ron Paul tradition and say there’s nothing wrong with heroine and cocaine or you can be in the tradition that says, ‘These kind of addictive drugs are terrible, they deprive you of full citizenship and they lead you to a dependency which is antithetical to being an American.’”

“If you’re serious about the latter view, then we need to think through a strategy that makes it radically less likely that we’re going to have drugs in this country.”

Also in the interview, Gingrich said his campaign has begun exploring the option of getting protection from the Secret Service. The only Republican candidate for president so far with protection is businessman Herman Cain.

“We’ve explored it with them, and I think at the moment I would prefer not to do it as long as we could,” Gingrich said. “I prefer as much as possible to remain open to people.”


  • Guest
Re: The Newt Gingrich Deception
« Reply #3 on: November 29, 2011, 11:19:38 AM »
Newt Gingrich: Medical Marijuana Is a Convenience That Must Be Stopped

It’s rare to hear Republican politicians espouse medical marijuana. If they support it at all, they stick to the “states rights” rhetoric their voters know so well. See, for example, Ron Paul.

But Newt Gingrich thinks marijuana, medical or otherwise, is so dastardly that federalism should be tossed out the window and Mary Jane should be banished from coast to coast.

Yes, then-Congressman Gingrich in 1991 introduced pro-medical marijuana legislation, but now he’s thinking of the children, he tells Yahoo! News’ Chris Moody.

“What has changed was the number of parents I met with who said they did not want their children to get the signal from the government that it was acceptable behavior,” said Gingrich, before saying that Americans who need medical marijuana will simply have to cope with the inconvenience of debilitating pain and nausea.

“[My supporters] were prepared to say as a matter of value that it was better to send a clear signal on no drug use at the risk of inconveniencing some people, than it was to be compassionate toward a small group at the risk of telling a much larger group that it was okay to use the drug,” Gingrich explained. “Within a year of my original support of that bill I withdrew it.”

As for the drug war as a whole, Gingrich believes the government should thrust itself into people’s private lives and start requiring testing for anyone who gets federal benefits like food stamps.

    I think that we need to consider taking more explicit steps to make it expensive to be a drug user. It could be through testing before you get any kind of federal aid. Unemployment compensation, food stamps, you name it.

Hmmm, will these tests apply to people receiving social security? Oh, wait, that’s unsustainable, so it won’t be around for much longer. Drug problem solved!


  • Guest
Re: The Newt Gingrich Deception
« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2011, 02:58:42 AM »


  • Guest
Re: The Newt Gingrich Deception
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2011, 11:16:53 PM »
Newt Gingrich Rose to Wealth Through Congress

n 1979, an impoverished Georgia college professor named Newt Gingrich became a Member of Congress and proceeded to make himself a very rich man.

Fifteen years after coming to Congress, Gingrich was earning more than 60 times the income he reported in the year before his swearing-in. After he left the House, Gingrich leveraged his status as a former Speaker and leading Republican thinker to rise to the ranks of the truly wealthy.

The man who entered Congress three decades ago with essentially no personal assets beyond a modest home in Carrollton, Ga., would now rank among the 50 richest Members of Congress if he were to return to the House.

The story of the rise in Gingrich’s fortunes is told in the financial disclosure forms he filed with the House in each of the 20 years he served in Congress and capped with the disclosure form he filed this summer as a candidate for president. His campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

In May 1979, the freshman Republican Congressman filed his first financial disclosure form, reporting that his salary from West Georgia College the year before had been $10,166. Gingrich reported having no investments or other assets, and one liability — a debt to the Peoples Bank of Carrollton, valued at $15,000 to $50,000. The entire form was one page.

At the time, a Member of Congress was paid just more than $60,000 annually. His Congressional salary rose sharply over the ensuing years, and his reputation as a compelling speaker allowed him to enhance his paycheck with speaking fees. By 1983, Congressional pay had risen to just less than $70,000, and Gingrich earned an additional $20,000 giving more than two dozen speeches around the country, a nearly 30 percent bonus above his salary.

It was at this point that Gingrich also began reporting small assets and other income — an account at the national Bank of Georgia worth less than $1,000 and a Merrill Lynch account worth $1,000 to $2,500 and two retirement accounts — presumably for himself and his then-wife, Marianne — worth less than $5,000 combined. During his brief tenure in Congress to that point, Gingrich bought and sold a house in Fairfax, Va., pocketing a capital gain of $5,000 to $15,000.

At the time, Gingrich was a backbench member of the minority party, but he was already thinking on a grand scale. In 1984 he and his wife, Marianne, co-authored a book called “Window of Opportunity,” a kind of manifesto for a conservative vision of America based on embracing high technology and on replacing welfare systems with an “opportunity society.”

On his financial disclosure form for 1987, Gingrich reported that he and his wife each earned royalties from the publisher of $5,000 to $15,000 that year. The Congressman earned another $26,000 in honorariums for speeches that year, but he donated about $4,000 to charity in keeping with the limits on outside income that were in place at the time. In 1990, Gingrich earned $61,000 in honorariums — Congressional salaries were then about $97,000 — but was required by House rules to donate about $40,000 of his speaking fees to charity.

By the late 1990s, Gingrich was earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in book royalties on top of his Congressional salary. In 1995, when he became Speaker, his Congressional salary rose to $171,500, and his disclosure form for that year showed an array of other financial interests.

Gingrich reported earning $479,000 in book royalties and $2,000 for speaking to the Association of American Medical Colleges. He and his wife had several investment accounts and a savings account at South Trust Bank worth $100,000 to $250,000. At the end of the year, Marianne bought another money market account worth more than $100,000. As Speaker, Gingrich also was receiving a monthly check of just more than $2,000 to defray the costs of “leadership official expenses.”

In all, Gingrich’s income that year was about $675,000.

Gingrich had become a prosperous man during his time in Congress, but by the time he left in 1998, he was not a financial titan. His last financial disclosure form listed assets worth no more than $606,000, and he had a number of financial burdens dragging him down, including a $300,000 penalty assessed against him by the House Ethics Committee for an improper book deal and a second divorce on the way.

But as a former Speaker still considered a leading intellectual of the right, Gingrich proceeded to build an empire as a paid public thinker. The Washington Post reported last week that Gingrich’s web of enterprises ranging from a health care think tank to a documentary production company “generated close to $100 million in revenue over the past decade.”

The financial disclosure form Gingrich filed this summer as a presidential candidate reflects that prosperity.

The former Congressman now lists assets worth a minimum of $7.3 million — which does not include homes or other non-income-producing property — and millions more in income. His dividends from Gingrich Productions for the year before becoming a presidential candidate were just shy of $2.5 million, and his family-run talent agency paid him another $72,000. He reports no liabilities.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,160
You've GOT to be kidding me!
« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2011, 09:52:55 AM »
Election 2012: Republican Presidential Primary

National GOP Poll: Gingrich 38% Romney 17%

Rasmussen Reports
Thursday, December 01, 2011

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has surged to the largest national lead held by any candidate so far in the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters finds Gingrich on top with 38% of the vote. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is a distant second at 17%. No other candidate reaches double-digits.

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison


  • Guest
Re: The Newt Gingrich Deception
« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2011, 06:05:16 PM »
Months Before 9/11, Newt Gingrich recommended a "Homeland Security Agency" to be "Led By FEMA".

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,160
Newt Gingrich: Let Mad Scientists Terraform The Planet
« Reply #8 on: December 06, 2011, 01:57:32 PM »

Newt Gingrich: Let Mad Scientists Terraform The Planet

Presidential frontrunner is a geoengineering advocate

Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Republican presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich’s embracement of global warming pseudo-science isn’t limited to cringeworthy PSA’s with Nancy Pelosi, not does it stop at his advocacy for carbon taxes. Gingrich is also a vehement proponent of geoengineering.

Geoengineering is a product of the harebrained and potentially catastrophic scientific fringe which posits that using airliners to dump huge amounts of sulphur into the atmosphere, injecting the oceans with nitrogen, and parking giant spaceships above the earth to block out the sun, is necessary to avert global warming.

“Geo-engineering holds forth the promise of addressing global warming concerns for just a few billion dollars a year,” Gingrich said back in 2008. “We would have an option to address global warming by rewarding scientific innovation. Bring on American ingenuity. Stop the green pig.”

Perhaps this was what Gingrich meant when he described himself as a “conservative futurist”.

As we have documented, geoengineering, which is already being conducted by U.S. government agencies and major universities, threatens to cause more environmental damage than “global warming,” even if you believe the alarmists, could ever possibly accomplish.

But it’s par for the course for someone like Gingrich, who has enthusiastically backed the kind of “green economy” being pushed by Obama that left Spain with a 21 per cent plus unemployment rate, not least when he joined forces with Nancy Pelosi to push the Obama administration’s cap and trade agenda that would have completely bankrupted America.

Gingrich’s penchant for using man-made climate change to ‘solve’ man-made climate change is shared by Obama’s White House Science Czar John P. Holdren, who wrote a 1977 book in which he called for a “planetary regime” to carry out forced abortion, mandatory sterilization and all manner of draconian measures in the name of saving mother earth.

But if you think Gingrich’s advocacy for space mirrors and cloud seeders is “out there,” check out what else he has embraced, from orbiting death rays to EMP armageddon. You wouldn’t trust this man to sell you a used car, never mind be in control of thousands of nuclear warheads.

Gingrich’s desperate back-peddling on his support for global warming alarmism and carbon taxes is yet more evidence that the former Congressman is a political chameleon who flip-flops whenever it’s convenient for him and whose political campaign has no principled foundation whatsoever.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,160
Re: You've GOT to be kidding me!
« Reply #9 on: December 06, 2011, 07:33:18 PM »

Gingrich 37%, Romney 22% Among GOP Voters Nationwide

Gallup's initial Daily tracking finds all other candidates in single digits

by Frank Newport and Jeffrey M. Jones
December 6, 2011

PRINCETON, NJ -- Newt Gingrich leads Mitt Romney 37% to 22% in Gallup's inaugural Daily tracking of Republican registered voters' preferences for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, with all other candidates in the single digits.

Gallup Daily tracking of the race for the GOP nomination began Dec. 1, and will be reported each day at 1 p.m. Eastern on the basis of a five-day rolling average of at least 1,000 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who are registered to vote. The current results are based on 1,277 Republican registered voters nationwide interviewed Dec. 1-5.

This initial Daily report confirms that the Republican race has shifted once again, with former Speaker of the House Gingrich this time rising to the top of the GOP list. This is the latest in a series of front-runner changes that have marked the Republican nomination battle as one of the more volatile in the recent history of presidential politics.

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,160
Re: The Newt Gingrich Deception
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2011, 07:37:09 PM »

U.S. Wealth Gap Between Young, Old Is Widest Ever

Hope Yen

WASHINGTON — The wealth gap between younger and older Americans has stretched to the widest on record, worsened by a prolonged economic downturn that has wiped out job opportunities for young adults and saddled them with housing and college debt.

The typical U.S. household headed by a person age 65 or older has a net worth 47 times greater than a household headed by someone under 35, according to an analysis of census data released Monday.

While people typically accumulate assets as they age, this gap is now more than double what it was in 2005 and nearly five times the 10-to-1 disparity a quarter-century ago, after adjusting for inflation.



Based on all I've experienced and observed over the years, so-called seniors tend to have a much greater preference for "establishment" candidates (be they Democrat or Republican) over 3rd party/independent candidates than have young adults. Could the above be the primary reason why?

The question answers itself.

Internet-using younger voters must start reaching out to their TV-watching grandparents, or else next year's "election" will end up being a repeat of the 2008 "election" (and the one before that, and the one before that, ad nauseum).
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline diamondgussetinthecrotch

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • where you need it most!
Re: The Newt Gingrich Deception
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2011, 12:02:27 AM »

After Newt, let other
New Age fascists follow
by Nancy Spannau Nov 20, 1998

The departure of House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the New
Age futurist who proclaimed himself a French revolutionary
(jacobin) upon his ascendancy to the Speakership in 1994,
should be a harbinger of a total cleanup of the U.S. House of
Representatives. The brash symbol for New Age fascism is
gone, but now the serious work of exorcising his ideology remains.
Gingrich’s declaration that he will leave his Congressional seat as well as the Speaker’s chair, is in keeping with his belief in the British parliamentary system. He is “taking
responsibility” for the poor showing of his party in the midterm elections, responsibility he does indeed hold, as he pushed through the last-minute ad campaign against President Clinton. The maneuver is widely being seen as the removal of an abrasive personality, since those who will be
replacing Gingrich in the Republican leadership that still
dominates the Congress, share his ideology. To a large degree, that is true.
All the more important, then, for us to review here the
ground-breaking studies which this magazine put out in 1995
and 1996, which documented the genesis and British-sponsored backing for the New Age futurism, and Conservative
Revolution fascism, which Newt represents. The apparatus
which created Gingrich is not only still in place, but it has
increased the stock in its “Democratic” wing—the New
Democrats—in hopes of achieving its ultimate aim of destroying the concept of government upon which the American republic was founded. It’s the entire stinking mess that
has to be taken out to the garbage dump.

Why the Conservative Revolution is fascist

In a seminal article entitled “Phil Gramm’s ‘Conservative Revolution in America,’ ” published in the Feb. 17, 1995 edition of EIR, Lyndon LaRouche addressed the genesis
of Gingrich’s “Contract with America” in historical and
philosophical detail. Introducing a series of documentary
articles, he presents the following thesis: that the Contract
with America’s “neo-conservative following was organized,
top-down, by the bloated network of indoctrinating and funding organizations constructed under the overall coordination
of the branch of British intelligence services which created
Friedrich von Hayek’s Mont Pelerin Society and deployed
it against the United States.” As such, he concludes, it is a
fascist movement.
LaRouche then dissects the essence of fascist movements, locating the oligarchical sponsorship of such movements historically. In fact, LaRouche notes, Gingrich’s supporter Lord William Rees-Mogg, who puts a lot of effort
into organizing the Conservative Revolution in the United
States through newsletters like Strategic Investment, describes Gingrich’s “Third Wave” beliefs as a form of neofeudalism. Their vision of the technetronic future, involves
educating only the top 5% of the population, and leaving
the rest to scramble to survive.
Lord Rees-Mogg is joined by fellow oligarchs and their
Leporellos, such as the academics who founded and continue
von Hayek’s Mont Pelerin Society, in steering the populists
who are most identified with the “conservative” movement.
Their theories call for the dismantling of the nation-state, and
its characteristic responsibilities to the universal education,
health, and welfare of the general population. Instead, there
is to be a struggle for survival, with the rules set by the
international oligarchical few.
LaRouche presents an extensive proof of the fascist nature of the Conservative Revolution in this article. The nub of the matter is the commitment of the movement to turn the clock to an era prior to the fostering of scientific and technological progress. This is demonstrated not in rhetoric, but in the determination of the conservative revolutionaries to destroying the forms of republican government upon
which the promotion of such progress absolutely depends.
In the backup articles to LaRouche’s piece, EIR researchers show how the Mont Pelerin ideologues dominate the think-tanks and political action committees which ran the
Conservative Revolution’s successful drive to control the
Congress, and show that the Contract with America measures
themselves, sugarcoated as they are in populist rhetoric, will
devastate the majority of the population.

The futurist agenda

EIR’s 1995 dissection of Gingrich’s ideology—and that
of his colleagues Phil Gramm, Dick Armey, Bill Archer, and
the like—was followed in January 1996 with another major
study, this time focussing on the futurist pedigree of the
Speaker. In this feature, put together by Counterintelligence
Editor Jeffrey Steinberg, EIR puts a spotlight on the careers
of Heidi and Alvin Toffler, the New Age futurists who coined
the phrase “Third Wave” to describe the campaign to destroy
industrial civilization.
Toffler combined his promotion of the information age
with a call for “anticipatory democracy,” a form of social
engineering in which the proliferation of “feedback” (or focus) groups would give people the illusion of making decisions, while the supranational corporations, and bankers, actually would determine what is produced, who gets what, andbut closely allied with Newt’s Progress and Freedom Foundation, specifically attacks the ideas of man’s dominion over nature, man’s superiority over animals,
and the principle of progress which flows from the first two.
It is instructive to read some of his drivel:
“This industrial civilization took the idea of representation and merchandised it around the planet as the latest, most efficient, most humane form of government imaginable. As
the industrial way of life spread, representatative government,
denatured or otherwise, spread with it. In fact, using shorthand, one might declare representative government—whether ‘capitalist’ or ‘socialist’ in form—to be the key political technology of the industrial era.“This era is now screeching to a halt. Industrial civilization is now in a state of terminal crisis, and anew, radically different civilization is emerging to take its place on the world
stage. . . . We are swiftly entering a new, more sophisticated
state of evolutionary development based on far more advanced yet more appropriate technologies than any known so far. This leap to a new phase of history is bringing with it new
energy patterns, new geopolitical arrangements, new social
institutions, new communications and information networks,
new belief systems, symbols, and cultural assumptions.
“Thus it must generate wholly new political structures
and processes. I fail to see how it is possible for us to have a
technological revolution, a social revolution, an information
revolution, moral, sexual, and epistemological revolutions,
and not a political revolution as well. . . . In this sense the
breakdown of government as we have known it—which is
to say representative government . . . —is chiefly a consequence of obsolescence. Simply put, the political technology of the industrial age is no longer appropriate technology for
the new civilization taking form around us. Our politics
are obsolete.” Try to think through the gobbledygook. What Toffler is
saying—and Gingrich echoes verbally and in print—is that
the Constitution is outmoded, that free trade and globalization are here to stay, and a 1984-style society based ontechnetronic communication is the wave of the future, and
of control and processes. I fail to see how it is possible for us to have a
technological revolution, a social revolution, an information
revolution, moral, sexual, and epistemological revolutions,
and not a political revolution as well. . . . In this sense the
breakdown of government as we have known it—which is
to say representative government . . . —is chiefly a consequence of obsolescence. Simply put, the political technology
of the industrial age is no longer appropriate technology for
the new civilization taking form around us. Our politics
are obsolete.”
Try to think through the gobbledygook. What Toffler is
saying—and Gingrich echoes verbally and in print—is that
the Constitution is outmoded, that free trade and globalization are here to stay, and a 1984-style society based on technetronic communication is the wave of the future, and
of control.

The Democratic Gingrichites
Newt Gingrich and his anti-government, New Age ideology are by no means unique in the Republican Party. There
is a vast network of think-tanks and groupings with whom he
has worked, and its representatives are still in place in the
Congress. They are still determined to deregulate government, privatize Social Security, sabotage the building of government infrastructure, and otherwise destroy the potential
for reversing our economic and social decline.
Equally worrying, however, are his co-thinkers on the
Democratic side of the aisle. These are the Information Age
New Democrats, descended from the Jimmy Carter tradition,
and willing to go along with the futurist agenda, as long as
different buzzwords are used.
Take into account, for example, the factthatthe Tofflerites
had established in 1979 the Congressional Clearinghouse for
the Future, a grouping of Congressmen devoted to creating
a “paradigm shift” away from traditional commitments to
scientific and technological progress, and toward the information age. This group had 23 Representatives and 4 Senators
in 1979, and they were all brainwashed in this anti-industry,
anti-government ideology. Gingrich joined the group when
he came to Congress in 1979. Another member was Tennessee’s Al Gore, Jr.!
The Democratic Leadership Council, for example, fits the
bill as an ideological spawn of this group. Explicitly rejecting
the Franklin Roosevelt approach, including responsibility to
labor and farm constituencies, this group has substantial convergence with the Gingrichite program, including its information age push. (“Just give them a computer, and they don’t
need a doctor or a teacher. . . .”) It’s not surprising that they—
led by Vice President Gore—pushed President Clinton to sign
the Gingrichite welfare bill, and to ram through the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) bill


  • Guest
Game Over Newt :)
« Reply #12 on: December 08, 2011, 01:44:19 AM »
"Woman says she performed sexual acts on married Newt (her boss) in 1977, thinks voters simply must know"
A woman who worked for Newt Gingrich’s first successful congressional campaign in 1977 is sharing allegations of an adulterous affair with her boss in an attempt to stem the rise of the current GOP front-runner.

Anne Manning says that she had an adulterous relationship with Gingrich 34 years ago. At the time, he was married to his first wife, Jackie Battley, and campaigning for Congress with the slogan “Let Our Family Represent Your Family.”

Manning told the National Inquirer that she performed a sexual act on Gingrich in a Washington, D.C. hotel room, but adds that they didn’t have sex so that “he could say he had not slept with me.”

“He always talks about being big on family values but he doesn’t practice what he preaches,” Manning said, according to London’s Daily Mail newspaper. “I wasn’t planning to say a word about him, but voters need to know what sort of man they’re being asked to support.”

Manning first alleged in 1995 that she had had an affair with Gingrich, telling Vanity Fair, “We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, ‘I never slept with her.’”

Gingrich has publicly acknowledged his past infidelities: He cheated on his first wife with Marianne Ginther, who he later married. In turn, he cheated on Ginther with his current wife Callista Gingrich.

David Frum, formerly a speechwriter for President George W. Bush, pronounced earlier this year that “it’s not the infidelity” that will hurt Gingrich. “It’s the arrogance, hypocrisy, and — most horrifying to women voters — the cruelty.”

In 1984 Mother Jones reported that Gingrich presented his first wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital recovering from uterine cancer surgery. The Washington Post related a similar story a year later. Gingrich’s daughter, Jackie Cushman, disputed this story in a 2011 column for Creators Syndicate, and later told the Union Leader newspaper in New Hampshire that it was her mother, not her father, who initiated divorce proceedings.

Media reports have suggested that Gingrich divorced his second wife shortly after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. But the Gingrich camp challenged that account as early as 2000, when his lawyer told The New York Post that it’s unlikely he knew of her medical condition until divorce proceedings were well underway.

Circumstances aside, the issue of Gingrich’s marital infidelity has split Christian conservatives, an influential voting bloc in Republican primary elections. Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, claims to have conducted focus groups and found that evangelical women are particular unnerved by the former House Speaker’s past. Others became more supportive after he told the Christian Broadcasting Network in March that he “felt compelled to seek God’s forgiveness” for breaking his marriage vows.

Offline shipgeek

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,046
Re: The Newt Gingrich Deception
« Reply #13 on: December 08, 2011, 02:24:49 AM »
Even pigs look better than this guy.

Just looking at him is... repulsive! Yuck!!!


Offline tritonman

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,085
Re: The Newt Gingrich Deception
« Reply #14 on: December 08, 2011, 02:40:52 AM »
The Newt is a blood sucking life sucking vampire sent by demons from hell to lay waste to what is left of the country.

Offline diamondgussetinthecrotch

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • where you need it most!
Re: The Newt Gingrich Deception
« Reply #15 on: December 08, 2011, 11:32:19 AM »

The Ultimate Third Way

by Niki Raapana, Updated March 18, 2005

The Third Way is another term used to define communitarianism and Civil Society (Dana Milbank, Washington Post (2001)). Third Way politicians claim they seek to find a middle ground between the far-right and the far-left. They identify the "new" American responsibilities to the "new" communities.

Third Way philosophers, politicians, gurus and Presidential advisers are included in all organizations devoted to training Americans (and all nations) to incorporate their modern version of "democratic ideals." These ideals include a global database of human capital assets, mandatory citizen participation in "rebuilding the world," eliminating national borders, and most importanly, establishing a stronger, central global government (made up entirely of Third Way "thinkers").

The Third Way dialectic:

Individual Liberty versus Communism equals= Communitarianism

What is anticommunitarian "thinking"?

On March 17, 2005, the ACL created the first definition for anticommunitarian to fill that gap in your dictionary:

anticommunitarian, noun : 1. one who recognises the untenable foundations for political communitarianism; 2. a principled oppositionist to the synthesized solutions presented by the Communitarian Network; 3. legal resister to communitarian plans, programs and laws that abolish legitimate national governments; 4. in the United States, a member of a movement geared toward non-participation in deadly racial/cultural/religious conflicts promoted by dialectical ideologists.

What is the Ultimate Third Way?

About the Third Way by the New Democrats online. "On Sunday, April 25, 1999, the President Clinton and the DLC hosted a historic roundtable discussion, The Third Way: Progressive Governance for the 21st Century, with five world leaders including British PM Tony Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Dutch PM Wim Kok, and Italian PM Massimo D'Alema, the First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and DLC President Al From... The Third Way philosophy seeks to adapt enduring progressive values to the new challenges of the information age. It rests on three cornerstones: the idea that government should promote equal opportunity for all while granting special privilege for none; an ethic of mutual responsibility that equally rejects the politics of entitlement and the politics of social abandonment; and, a new approach to governing that empowers citizens to act for themselves."

The "idea" of using a Third Way system to resolve the 150 years of constant conflict between the uncompromising right and left was introduced to the world by three countries: England, Israel, and the United States. It was prompted by either British Prime Minister Tony Blair or U.S. President William Jefferson Clinton. (It was also promoted by quasi-German Chancellor Shroder and the Soviet Union's Mikhail Gorbachev and according to some anti-globalist sources it was the Dutch who invented the term, as we see in this article about Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands - personal background and his part in starting the Bilderberg Conferences.)

It's such a vague term. What does it stand for? Is it just a silly joke? Maybe these third way news clips can explain it. Is there a Third Way to Tame the Court?

THE THIRD WAY: IS IT FOR REAL? explains how achieving bipartisan Marxist consensus replaces the outdated, phony conflict between the Repubs and the Dems.

How do the British define the Third Way?

"Third Way is a political party based in Britain which advocates a practical decentralisation of power through constitutional reform and the creation of a society in which wealth is more equitably distributed.

"A party rather different from the rest, Third Way combines democratic socio-economic reform and inclusive nationalism with co-operative internationalism and ecological awareness; supporting the right to genuine self-determination for peoples throughout the world. The resultant synthesis, still evolving, offers an alternative approach to politics -- a new perspective, in contrast to the failed and outdated dogma of past and present governments...."

How does the American opposition define it?

"The plan to usher in the Third Wave rests on four pillars.
1. Get rid of or radically reform the US Constitution
2. Replace it with a direct or semi-direct democracy.
3. Replace majority rule with minority rule
4. Improve government efficiency through a management tool called decision division."

The Third Way Part VI: Eradicating the US Constitution by design By Steve Farrell, web posted April 10, 2000.
Current Third Way News:

The DLC is the branch of the Democratic Party called the "new" Democrats. Clinton was a Third Way Communitarian Democrat. Founded in 1990 by Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, Communitarian William Glaston, Al From and Michael Steinhart, the DLC's goal is to "define the ultimate Third Way."

Here is the letter we sent them on 12/29/04: "To the Honorable members of the U.S. Senate's Third Way Group, It is our thesis that the Third Way is the contrived phoney synthesis in the Hegelian-Marxist dialectic. We have numerous verifying documents to substantiate our claims. We have no documentation to disprove our allegations. We have received not one rebuttal from the Communitarian Network... As per our right under the First Amendment right to a redress of grievances, we would appreciate a statement from your group that directly answers the facts we present as evidence that led to our conclusion in the anti-communitarian manifesto... Our evidence shows the Third Way is a conspiracy to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States. Please provide contrary evidence that your planned agenda meets U.S. constitutional requirements for legitimate government activities.. Respectfully, Niki Raapana Anti-Communitarian League

So the DLC "new democrats" and their fellow trotskyites the neocons teamed up to end democracy and in its place put up a facade, making sure to disagree only on what are in their minds trivial social issues so people who still believe in the fake left/right shell game will feel as if they have some semblance of a choice in Newt's good friend Alvin Toffler's "Third Way" duopoly?

Offline egypt

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,981
  • Love: A Wish to bestow the fullness of Joyous Life
Re: The Newt Gingrich Deception
« Reply #16 on: December 08, 2011, 12:02:46 PM »
I thought Newt G was laughed out of politics and discredited a long time ago.  How is it he makes some new comeback  ???

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,160
Gingrich Cosponsored 1989 Climate Change Bill With Pelosi
« Reply #17 on: December 10, 2011, 10:22:18 AM »

Gingrich Cosponsored 1989 Climate Change Bill With Pelosi

New American
December 9, 2011

The synergetic bond between former House Speakers Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi extends well beyond the 2008 climate-change commercial that has stirred heated criticism among conservatives, as the GOP presidential hopeful has cosponsored 418 bills in Congress with Pelosi. Such a revelation, particularly when coupled with Gingrich’s Freddie Mac connections, liberal-leaning views on illegal immigration, and support for an individual healthcare mandate, underscore the Gingrich’s waning support for true conservative principles.

Gingrich served in Congress from 1979 to 1999; Pelosi has served since 1987. By comparison, the current House Speaker, John Boehner, who has worked in Congress with Pelosi for more than 20 years, has cosponsored only 104 bills with her — more than 300 bills fewer than Gingrich.

While much of the legislation Gingrich and Pelosi cosponsored was non-divisive — such as approving an award for Mother Teresa and granting a Congressional Medal to former President Gerald Ford — his sponsorship of the Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989 is the likeliest to stir controversy among Republican voters.

The legislation, which never made it out of committee, professed that climate change was “a major threat to political stability, international security and economic prosperity.” The bill’s title asserted the following:

    To establish national policies and support and encourage international agreements that implement energy and natural resource conservation strategies appropriate to preventing the overheating of the Earth’s atmosphere, known as the “greenhouse effect”.

Further, the 1989 bill established two goals:

(1) that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere be reduced from 1987 levels by at least 20 percent by the year 2005 through a mix of Federal and State energy policies; and (2) the establishment of an International Global Agreement on the Atmosphere by 1992. Requires the Secretary of Energy (the Secretary) and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to report to the Congress within two years regarding whether a higher level of carbon dioxide emissions reduction is desirable after 2005, together with any necessary policy actions and their costs and benefits.

The Global Warming Prevention Act should also draw pro-lifers into the controversy, as it used language about access to “family planning services,” and advocated a form of population control, affirming that “curbing world population growth will be critical to achieving the goals.”

Title XI of the bill, “World Population Growth,” stated, “It is the policy of the United States that family planning services should be made available to all persons requesting them.” Further, through the United Nations, it sought to authorize “appropriations for FY 1991 through 1995 for international population and family planning assistance.”

Alongside Pelosi, several other pro-choice advocates sponsored the bill, including John Conyers, Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank, and Chuck Schumer.

Of course, the revelation that Gingrich would have supported such legislation should be no surprise, considering some of the GOP candidate’s past remarks regarding cap-and-trade and other environmental policies. For instance, in a February 2007 interview, he averred,

    I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.

For those who may not yet have seen it, here is the 2008 Gingrich-Pelosi commercial on climate change:
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,160
You’re the Wrong One, Mr. Gingrich
« Reply #18 on: December 10, 2011, 11:07:45 AM »

You’re the Wrong One, Mr. Gingrich
December 8, 2011

Just in time for the holiday season.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison


  • Guest
Re: The Newt Gingrich Deception
« Reply #19 on: December 10, 2011, 03:34:01 PM »
Gingrich calls Palestinians 'invented' people

Gingrich mocked the US policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, calling it 'out of touch with reality' [File: Reuters]
Republican White House hopeful Newt Gingrich has stirred controversy by calling the Palestinians an "invented" people who could have chosen to live elsewhere.

The former House of Representatives speaker, who is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for the 2012 presidential race, made the remarks in an interview with the US Jewish Channel broadcaster released on Friday.

Asked whether he considers himself a Zionist, he answered: "I believe that the Jewish people have the right to a state ... Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire" until the early 20th century,

"I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs, and who were historically part of the Arab

"And they had a chance to go many places, and for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s, and it's tragic."

Most historians mark the start of Palestinian Arab nationalist sentiment in 1834, when Arab residents of the Palestinian region revolted against Ottoman rule.

Israel, founded amid the 1948 Arab-Israel war, took shape along the lines of a 1947 UN plan for ethnic partition of the
then-British ruled territory of Palestine which Arabs rejected.

More than 700,000 Palestinians were forced from their lands by Zionist armed groups in 1948, in an episode Palestinians refer to as the Nakba or "catastrophe".

'Irrational hostility'

Gingrich's comments drew a swift rebuke from a spokesman for the American Task Force on Palestine, Hussein Ibish, who said: "There was no Israel and no such thing as an "Israeli people" before 1948.

"So the idea that Palestinians are 'an invented people' while Israelis somehow are not is historically indefensible and inaccurate.

"Such statements seem to merely reflect deep historical ignorance and an irrational hostility towards Palestinian identity and nationalism."

Sabri Saidam, adviser to the Palestinian president, told Al Jazeera, "This is a manifestation of extreme racism and this is a reflection of where America stands sad, when Palestinians don't get their rights...this is sad and America should respond with a firm reaction to such comments that, if let go, more of which will come our way,"

"Let me ask Newt Gingrich if he would ever entertain the thought of addressing Indian Americans by saying that they never existed, that they were the invention of a separate nation, would that be tolerated?"

"Let's also reverse the statement; let's put ourselves in "the shoe of Jews who are listening now. Would they ever accept such statements being made about them?"

Saidam said, "I think it's time that America rejects such statements and closes the door to such horrendous and unacceptable statements."
Gingrich also sharply criticised US President Barack Obama's approach to Middle East diplomacy, saying that it was "so out of touch with reality that it would be like taking your child to the zoo and explaining that a lion was a bunny rabbit."

He said Obama's effort to treat the Palestinians the same as the Israelis is actually "favouring the terrorists".

"If I'm even-handed between a civilian democracy that obeys the rule of law and a group of terrorists that are firing missiles every day, that's not even-handed, that's favouring the terrorists," he said.

He also said the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, share an "enormous desire to destroy Israel".

The Palestinian Authority, which rules the occupied West Bank, formally recognises Israel's right to exist.

President Mahmoud Abbas has long forsworn violence against Israel as a means to secure an independent state, pinning his hopes first on negotiations and more recently on a unilateral bid for statehood via the UN.

Gingrich, along with other Republican candidates, are seeking to attract Jewish in the US support by vowing to bolster Washington's ties with Israel if elected.

He declared his world view was "pretty close" to that of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and vowed to take "a much more tougher-minded, and much more honest approach to the Middle East" if elected.

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,885
    • The Great Deception
Re: The Newt Gingrich Deception
« Reply #20 on: December 11, 2011, 10:14:49 PM »
The Real Newt - Videos: He is such a fraud!
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,160
Newt Gingrich's Invented History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2011, 07:47:52 PM »

Newt Gingrich's Invented History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Gingrich’s Serial Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds

by Jeremy R. Hammond

Global Research
December 12, 2011

The Republican presidential candidates are falling all over themselves competing for who can be the most “pro-Israel”, with Newt Gingrich taking the game to a whole new level  last week when he said in an interview with The Jewish Channel that Palestinians were an “invented” people. When asked whether he considered himself a Zionist, Gingrich responded (his emphasis):

Well, I believe that the Jewish people have the right to have a state, and I believe that the commitments that were made at the time—remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and who were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places, and for a variety of political reasons, we have sustained this war against Israel now, since the 1940s, and it’s tragic.

Shall we take that as a “Yes”? During the ABC News Republican debate in Iowa on December 10, Gingrich defended his comments by saying:

    Is what I said factually correct? Yes. Is it historically true? Yes. Are we in a situation where every day rockets are fired into Israel while the United States—the current administration—tries to pressure the Israelis into a peace process. Hamas does not admit the right of Israel to exist and says publicly, “Not a single Jew will remain.” The Palestinian Authority Ambassador to India said last month, “There is no difference between Fatah and Hamas, we both agree Israel has no right to exist.” Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth. These people are terrorists. They teach terrorism in their schools. They have textbooks that say, “If there are 13 Jews and nine Jews are killed, how many Jews are left?” We pay for those textbooks through our aid money. It’s fundamentally time for somebody to have the guts and stand up and say, “Enough lying about the Middle East.”

Unfortunately, Newt Gingrich isn’t someone who has the guts to stand up and tell the truth, preferring instead with utmost hypocrisy to repeat numerous lies about the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Where to begin? Gingrich’s comment that the Palestinians are an “invented” people is not new. It’s simply a reiteration of old Zionist propaganda, dating back to before Israel even existed.

Chaim Weizmann, in a letter to Lord Arthur Balfour, wrote in May 1918 to say how the only guide to resolving the growing conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine was through applying what he called “the democratic principle”. Since “the brutal numbers operate against us, for there are five Arabs to one Jew”, Weizmann wrote, the “present state of affairs would necessarily tend towards the creation of an Arab Palestine, if there were an Arab people in Palestine”. His meaning was not that there were no Arabs inhabiting the land—he had just acknowledged they were a large majority—but that they didn’t meet the criteria for a “people”, and thus that their right to self-determination could be denied to them under the colonialist application of “the democratic principle”.

In 1936, David Ben-Gurion, head of the Labor faction of the Zionist movement, similarly declared that “there is no conflict between Jewish and Palestinian nationalism because the Jewish Nation is not in Palestine and the Palestinians are not a nation.” His meaning, of course, was that Palestine was not “Palestine”, but the “Jewish Nation”, which belonged not to the Arabs but entirely to the Jews, the minor problem of the Arabs constituting the majority and possessing most of the land being of no consequence, since the colonialist “democratic principle” could be applied.

Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir more famously remarked in 1969, “It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist.”

The basic logic of Gingrich’s argument about Palestine being part of the Ottoman Empire follows much along the same principle. Since the Arab inhabitants of the land never exercised sovereignty over Palestine as an independent nation before, this logic dictates, we may therefore continue to reject their right to self-determination today. Gingrich is effectively reiterating the same racist and colonialist “democratic principle”.

In the debate, Gingrich added:

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,519
Technology, Sovereignty, and the Third Wave - Steve Farrell
« Reply #22 on: December 13, 2011, 12:42:45 AM »
After reading this thread I remembered reading a long series of articles that described the morphing of the democrats and republicans into a third way... I also remembered that I had saved the articles as pdfs on one of my external drives.

I read them first in real time... back in the late '99 around Y2k time, so I went digging in the storage unit through the boxes of computer stuff for my early backup and data drives... I grabbed E; and F; the earliest data drives I have, plugged them into my little lap-top and went on a search for "Third Way" ...within a few minutes they appeared; four of the six articles by Steve Farrell that ran from September 1999 to April 2000.

Here are lengthy teasers from each article over my next 6 posts with a link to where each was originally published... they are long and represent what is tantamount to a graduate course in the NWO...

Technology, Sovereignty, and the Third Wave
Steve Farrell
September 20, 1999


To most ordinary people, the technological revolution is one of those matter of fact blessings and spoils of life in modern America. Few of us, then, give technology a second thought... except when it fails. Yet, all of us depend on it, enjoy it, and forever demand its ready medley of gizmos and gadgets to be newer, unique, and better than before.

Technology’s job should be to make our work easier and quicker, our leisure more fun and comfortable and our liberty more secure. And it has. Thanks to the creative fire laissez-faire has fanned, there are always ample numbers of deep thinking inventors and deep-pocketed entrepreneurs eager and able to supply the instant gee-whiz wants and needs of millions of freemen and freewomen.

On the other hand, to the unordinary, that is to that odd creature called the Legislator, technology is an unmanageable, out of control threat which has forced and will yet force America, and other free countries, to contemplate the redefinition of such things as republican government, private property, the individual and collective right to self defense, neutrality, and ultimately national sovereignty. A remarkably shrunken view of the explosive potential of technological growth for good!

But then legislators prefer controlling rather than liberating things and people, don’t they?

And the painful truth is that the I-Need-to-Control-People-Syndrome (INCPS) cuts across party lines, afflicting both Democrat and Republican leaders alike. It compels many to flee from thoughts of how to use technology to better protect our God given rights and hard won sovereignty and to run and seek psychological cover in a progressive wanna-be philosophy called the ‘Third Wave’ or ‘Third Way’; a world outlook that has the outward markings of everything new and progressive, but the inner workings of everything old and repressive.

Indeed, its disciples include such earlier notables as Plato, Karl Marx, and Adolf Hitler.

Plato’s Third Wave

The Greek philosopher Plato was the first one to use the term ‘Third Wave’ in his pro-Communist (some claim satirical) work The Republic. Plato called the "third wave” that "largest and most dangerous [wave of all]” wherein the pro-Communist philosopher-king overthrows the existing order, either by "smooth” persuasion or by brute force. The Third Wave was the transitional phase from any form of government, free or otherwise, to total Statism under the leadership of an elite class of individuals called "philosopher kings." (1)

Setting the standard for Third Wavers today, Plato didn’t call his revolutionary plan for tyranny 'tyranny', but cloaked every item of reform or revolution in more palatable terms like justice, the Heavenly ideal, the pursuit of the good, and the love of truth. They work better.

So much so that Plato succeeds in convincing the casual reader that he or she is mulling over a Judeo-Christian appeal to virtue, that is until they take a hard look at Plato’s definition of virtue. Virtue, he taught, is whatever sustains or brings about the ideal city. And such an ideal city this is! The Third Wave is the real world process of converting this dream of a communist utopia into reality.

Here is a partial list of those ancient "virtues” that ride upon the ancient tyrannical Third Wave of 370 BC. They are as modern as today’s newspaper.

The abolition of private property complimented by the forced redistribution of the wealth, and in transition, the promotion of public cynicism toward the wealthy. (2)
The establishment of state nurseries which raise children away from the noxious influence of parents and a belief that children are the property of the state. (3)
State control of education, with the elimination of private education - the very headwaters of falsehood and social strife. (4)
State control of all other potential forms of education to include: song, history, and children’s story writing. Likewise, a mandated rewrite of the same during the transitional phase to discredit and erase all old values and exalt and enthrone the new. (5)
The elimination of frivolous children’s games, with new games which emphasize law and order. (6)
State control of all industry. (7)
The necessity of a strict caste system where free choice and class mobility are nearly eliminated in order to prevent revolutionary threats to state stability and the undermining of true philosophy. (8 )
The channeling of children into careers at an early age with a "few” promising students selected by the guardians for class or career crossover. (9)
During the transitional phase, a deceptively extreme view of the equality of man with the goal of dividing rich and poor for the purpose of promoting revolution. (10)
The exploitation of women for the benefit of the state is wisdom. First to foment "class war” during the transitional phase (wherein their roles are reversed to that of men), and next, after the revolution is complete, to become part of a "community of women” shared collectively by all male guardians, war heroes, and rulers for pleasure or offspring. (11)
Selective Breeding is good policy (12), yet recreational sex as well as rape across class lines is acceptable because -
Unwanted, inferior, or deformed babies were to be put to death. (13)
Adults too, are expendable, when it is convenient or beneficial to the state. The handicapped should be left to die. (14)
Homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle and homosexual rape of lower class males and boys is a right of rulers, guardians, and war heroes. (15)
Elitism is the road to the greater life. Only the philosopher-king understands life and the higher good to be dictated by the state, while the masses are dumb sheep who must look to their leaders and the state as saviors. (16)
Spying on citizens and upcoming and current guardians through a KGB-like spy network is thought wise to test loyalty to the state and fitness for leadership. (17)
Warfare against admittedly more prosperous city states should be waged via infiltration and, again, the instigation of class warfare. (18)
Lastly, the virtuous ideal rejects troublemaking Democracy, yet shrewdly identifies Democracy (pure Democracy) as the quickest and surest route to promoting the communist view of equality of ends (19), of degenerating traditional morality and fostering fierce intolerance against it, of promoting revolution (20), then anarchy, and finally the most absolute of tyrannies (21), that of the Democratic King - this is so because the people consent to a police state in the name of restoring order, peace, and security.

Because unrestrained liberty sends government "creeping into private houses” (22) - a power traditional kings never held; and because the ruler of such an enslaved people will be a slave himself - to his passions.(23)

Indeed, today movement toward direct democracy is one of the central pillars of Third Way thinking, for those very reasons.

Marx’s Three Waves of History

The next third waver to build on Plato’s plan was modern Communism’s hired hack and egotistical founder, Karl Marx - who stole all of Plato’s Republic for his supposed "original” plan for a utopia, added another borrowed twist from Hegel’s Godless dialectic view of history, mixed Aristotle’s quantum leap view of evolution, then threw in Plato’s idea that the strong rule and create laws and morals which perpetuate their wealth and dared to call it all a new and unique theory. It wasn’t. It was strictly cut and paste.

It was also really dark stuff! All man cares about is money, comfort, and power - and probably sex. There always has to be sex. Meanwhile everyone exploits everyone. The government, in collusion with the moneyed class, exploits the citizen worker. The husband exploits the wife. The parent exploits the child. The priest exploits the parishioner. The majority exploits the minority.

But the only one who doesn’t exploit anyone, apparently, is the exploited one. He, she, or it, becomes the holy class which must bind together to overthrow all the greedy brutes and lead mankind into a millennium of peace. Of course, mind you, the exploited masses are too stupid to do this themselves - they must be dragged into the light by someone - and that someone is the exalted communist! You see, Marx read The Cave too! (24)

As for the millennium of peace, there is an unpleasant blip along the way called the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. That’s when, at the end of the third wave (capitalism - the first two waves are slavery and feudalism) (25), the exploitees get to take out "justifiable revenge” on the exploiters, reigning bloody horror on them until every last vestige of private property and belief in private property are swept from the earth.

Then, even though their hands are drenched in blood, poof! the proletariat turn into saints, government disbands, and those who were smart and immoral enough to survive live happily ever after! Just like what happened in Russia and China, eh?

Technology plays a critical role in all of this. Of the three private property phases of economic history, all three supposedly arose and were terminated, in part, because of the unforeseen emergence of new forms of technology or methods of production.

Primitive communal man moved into the first economic phase of private property with the invention of tools, which led to specialization and trade and, eventually, private ownership. The stronger private property owners, selfish and greedy, then enslaved the rest to secure their booty - thus wave 1 - slavery.

In the end, the world returns to communal ownership under communism, again thanks in part to technology. The third phase, capitalism, which came about as a result of the Industrial Revolution, will be destroyed by the same, as modern technology leads to mass production, mass production to the centralization of the world’s credit and the centralization of the world’s credit (26) to the world revolution of the proletariat who unite and overthrow their oppressive overseers.

Just like modern third wavers and wayers, Marx believed man was powerless against the inevitable march of history, that covetous capitalists who opposed his plan were enemies to public safety, that this last transition was the most dangerous and violent of all, and that Communists ought to be compassionate enough to intervene, guide the agency bereft masses, and expedite the revolution, lest the blood flow too thick.

In the last analysis, Marx’s revolution, like Plato’s exploits the poor as a strategy to invoke class warfare, but admittedly is, as said Lenin, "all about power.” Or as he said concerning the poor socialist bloats who really believe in the coming utopia: "They just don’t get it . . . the Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” that brutal transitional phase, "will never end.”

So goes third waver number two.

Adolf Hitler’s Third Way

Hitler was number three, and who should be surprised that tyrants and tyrant wannabes should mimic each other. In a 1945 National Socialist Party (the official name of the left, not right, wing of the Nazi Party) birthday address, Hitler condemned "exploitive capitalism and murderous bolshevism,” identifying his party’s movement as a third way between these two "extremes.” (27)

Walking in Hitler’s footsteps, today, one of Europe’s major neo-Nazi "White Power” movements refers to itself as the "Third Position,” again, as between Communism and laissez-faire capitalism, a key element of modern third way theology. (28)

It’s the safe middle ground ploy. You know, that spot in the middle of a lion's cage where we sit disarmed, bludgeoned, bloodied, bruised, and blindfolded; and yet are so programmed to believe the unbelievable that we recite, "It’s safe! It’s safe!” And the lion agrees.

But there’s more to it than just that. Fascism actually makes for one of the best case studies on the modern third wave, both economically and politically.

Economically, fascism is but a form of socialism and a sister to communism. As communism in theory is complete state ownership of the means of production, fascism is state majority ownership of major industry and utilities, heavy regulation and more "government partnerships” of other industries and businesses, and laissez-faire of nickel and dime operations.

Thus private enterprise and private ownership are given a window of opportunity, but a very closely monitored one, which can be eradicated, selectively or collectively, by government fiat at any moment.

A privately owned press exists, for example, but the competition is not one of ideas but of markets; indeed, opposition to the state by the press, except within prescribed boundaries, is an intolerable and dangerous business. Scientific development is also in "private” hands, controlled via block grants. "You want our money, you teach our science.” Just as effective, if not more effective, than straight-forward totalitarianism.

Therefore, fascism embraces much of the already discussed principles of Plato and Marx but utilizes different methods of control.

Politically, Hitler’s fascism offers four other prominent features as major players in today’s Third Way.

1. A rejection of majority government. Hitler said his "doctrine” was "people and country,” and he accepted the idea of a democratic election (to get into power), but he rejected "decision by the majority” and demanded "absolute authority” for the executive, after the elections (29). A bit of Hobbes, but a bit of Marxian minority rule too. The minority is just different this time - Aryans and Nazi’s. The masses were inherently scorned too, for Hitler taught, they don’t want self rule but only to be led.

2. Decentralization of power; but don’t get that confused with federalism. American federalism gives state and local units complete sovereignty over delegated powers. Decentralization on the other hand creates local units of power which are still accountable to the central authority.

Hitler’s brand of decentralization gave . . .

general guidelines and layers of central check systems on those periphery units, however, within those stipulations (such as fierce loyalty to the party) he granted peripheral leaders ruthless autonomous power, even in competition with other agencies.

It’s socialism’s self-fulfilling prophecy of ‘the strong survive’, providing a new pool of brutal leaders for the government (30). It also creates a loyal cadre of men trapped by fear of reprisal for their sins, who in protection of their own self interest, feel inclined to sustain their corrupt party to the bitter end.

Decentralization serves other political purposes as well. It creates a nice front for the outside world, as if to say this kind of rival power struggle is proof of democracy or weakness and division. Hitler used this in the foreign aid game, as did the Old Warsaw Pact, as does the "new” Russian Federation, China, and other communist states today. The Third Way doesn’t lack for smarts.

3. A double-talk rejection but endorsement of Internationalism. Hitler rejected the International community because of its punishment of Germany under the Versailles Treaty, but, truth be told, he favored its use when it benefited Germany. Further, he viewed expansion into the territories of Europe and Asia, the springing forth of "national offshoot[ s ] for centuries,” and the requisite disarmament of all neighbors on its "frontiers,” as the right and destiny of Germany (31).

Call imperialism what you like; a Eurasia with Germanic hegemony, or dreams of a worldwide Aryan led Utopia (and he spoke of Utopia). There really is no difference. 4. The strategic injection of state sponsored religious fervor into politics. In Mein Kampf, Hitler writes: "The future of [the] movement is conditioned by the fanaticism, even more the intolerance, with which its adherents present it as the only right one.” (32)

This being the very sin socialists accuse Christians and Jews of, except it is they (the socialists) who in this century have engaged the power of the state and the collective good to do their intolerant bidding against mankind.

An estimated 200 million killed by secular or atheistic governments in this century alone; far worse than the old state/church horrors of Europe.

Hitler and his Third Way intolerance inflicted horrendous carnage on his people and their neighbors. Love of fellow man was not in his religious formula, just love for the state. A critical imbalance.

Aside from that, it could have been worse if he had only done a better job of parading it all in front of the world by masking it in better Democratic language than he did, or in terms of "justifiable revenge” for some perceived previous Jewish persecution, or better yet, if only there had been a Clinton, or a NATO, or a UN to back up his claims and call it the right thing to do!

Plato, Marx, and Hitler are the forefathers of Third Way/Wave thinking; thinking that is through and through socialist. Today its proponents quite predictably include the socialist Fabian Society, the British Third Way Party, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, German Chancellor Schroeder, most delegates to the European Union, the People’s Liberation Army friends and fiends Bill Clinton and Al Gore, the Democratic Party itself - which hosts a Third Way site (33), and most surprisingly a pack of "progressive” Republicans including their "icon,” Contract With America author, Newt Gingrich, a man who calls himself a "conservative futurist” and who enthusiastically forwards and markets "ex” Marxist turned Third Waver Alvin Toffler’s books (34). Odd bedfellows by their own admission.

In every case, their Third Way banter includes appeals to direct democracy, decentralization, minority rule and the abandonment of "fuzzy” sovereignty. They allege that technology makes all of these things possible and necessary. In fact they are collectively positive that this is the road - the only road - to the future.

Their only fear is that a blind and dangerous rear guard, namely you and I, will resist, slow them down and usher in a costly conflict. But they have it all backwards, don’t they? They are the rear guard of the old oppressive state, and we are the progressives who will work to sustain our liberties in the face of their great fraud.

And this we will do, with God and the technology he has blessed mankind with, by our side. Maybe its time they, not we, opened their eyes!

Upcoming: 21st Century Democracy and the Third Way; George W., The Third Way and Compassionate Conservatism, and Third Way Contract

Newsmax writers Diane Alden of Holly Springs, Missouri and Steve Farrell of Henderson, Nevada, are widely published research writers and former co-workers at Right Magazine, where Steve served as managing editor. Joint projects include their upcoming book "Democrats In Drag: A Second Look at the Republican Party.” Please email any comments to Steve and Diane at

Footnotes 1. Plato. "Great Dialogues of Plato,” (New York and Scarborough, Ontario; Mentor Books, 1956) pgs. 271, 296-300.
2. Ibid. p. 219, 262 - 263
3. Ibid. pgs. 258, 255, 221, 341.
4. Ibid. pgs. 258, 260.
5. Ibid. p. 222.
6. Ibid. p. 222
7. Ibid. p. 219.
8. Ibid. p. 233.
9. Ibid. p. 233.
10 Ibid. pgs. 220, 250, Chapter VIII.
11.Ibid. pgs. 247, 249, 250, 258-260.
12. Ibid. pgs. 257-260
13. Ibid. pgs. 257-260
14. Ibid. pgs. 209, 267
15. Ibid. pgs. 258-260.
16. Ibid. pgs. 249, 142, 224-225, 227, 240, 261
17. Ibid. pgs. 213-214.
18. Ibid. p. 220.
19. Ibid. p. 242
20. Ibid. p. 356.
21. Ibid. pgs. 361-363, 369.
22. Ibid. p. 363.
23. Ibid. p. 369.
24. Ibid. pgs. 312-320.
25. Hoover, J. Edgar. "A Study of Communism” (New York, Holt Rinehart and Winston Inc. 1962) pgs. 38-41
26. Foster, William Z. "Toward a Soviet America” (Balboa Island, California, 1961) pgs. 171-172. See Also Marx, Karl, Communist Manifesto Section 1, and Plank 5.
27. The New American, September 27, 1999 Insider Page
28. Ibid.
29. Hitler, Adolf. "Great Books: Twentieth Century Series: Mein Kampf” (New York, WM. H. Wise & Co. 1941) p. 16.
30. Laski, Harold. See His Work "National Socialism” for a full work up on fascism in Germany. Laski’s perspective is pro-Communist, anti capitalist (he accuses fascism of being laisse-faire plus the force of the state), but his book is penetrating, nonetheless, if you can wade through the occasional outbursts of anti-capitalist bias.
31. Hitler, pgs. 18-19, 12-13.
32. Ibid. pg. 16, 15
33. The Third Way site sponsored by the Democratic Party Leadership Council is found at Al Gore was one of the early leaders with this movement dating back to 1972.
34. Toffler, Alvin and Heidi, "Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave.” (Atlanta, Turner Publishing Inc. 1995) pgs. 13-18. See Also Rep. Gingrich’s blatant endorsement of the same before the US Congress in his Contract With America victory speech found in Gingrich, Newt "Contract With America” (USA, Times Books Random House, 1994) pgs. 186-187. Or look in the Congressional Record for November 11, 1994.

(Edit 5/21/16... I found these Steve Farrell articles years ago at the above link... since they are no longer there, I have inserted the entire article into the 6 posts, instead of the linked partials as before... JT)


"Whenever the people are well informed,
they can be trusted with their own govern-
ment; that whenever things get so far wrong
as to attract their notice, they may be relied
on to set them to rights."
~Thomas Jefferson,

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,519
21st Century Democracy and the Third Way - S. Farrell and D. Alden
« Reply #23 on: December 13, 2011, 01:25:14 AM »
21st Century Democracy and the Third Way
Steve Farrell and Diane Alden
October 20, 1999


Last time around, this column raised a justifiable flap about the hush-hush history of that Tsunami for political and sociological change called the Third Wave or the Third Way. We presented evidence that today’s famously popular Third Way emerged like a creature in hiding from the socialist badlands of communism and fascism.

The Third Way just happened to be next in line.

Disturbingly, consideration of the Third Way presents not only links to foul political thought in far gone times, but highlights the unsettling possibility that the fall of communism and socialism was not the result of the victory of capitalism or Reaganism, but rather a Communist vote of confidence that the West was dumbed down , disarmed and ripe and ready for the long ago predicted comfortable merger.

The Third Way wants this merger, and wants a removal of all stop-gap reform tactics in favor of a radical new approach; one befitting our fast paced and rapidly changing world.

Pathetically the Third Way has succeeded in attracting a crowd of fanatical followers both in Europe and in the United States, who really think they are on to a fresh Jeffersonian formula. It’s utopian Woodrow Wilson’s holy ‘Lets make the world safe for Democracy all over again’ minus sensible opposition from the US Senate. Today the dream is of a 21st Century Democracy that will compassionately and progressively lead the world.


Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, and the Third Way

Fortunately for the conservative movement, Tony Blair pulled an international boo boo by confessing before the World at NATO’s 50th Anniversary Celebration that he, Bill Clinton, and other national leaders, were hammering out a political plan for the future loosely based around the notion of the Third Way, which is an attempt by centre and centre-left Governments to re-define a political program that is neither old left nor 1980s right. He declared that the Third Way is their way, and the way of the future for both NATO and all the world under the United Nations.

Coming right on the heels of President Clinton’s Impeachment, right in the middle of a fresh Clinton China treason scandal and also the first use ever of NATO as an offensive war power, Blair couldn’t have done a better job of casting a suitable cloud of suspicion over the Third Way.

That said, his explanation of what was the Third Way was even more ominous.

It is not, he said, Mrs. Thatcher with a smile instead of a handbag (compassionate conservatism), [or] really old-style socialists (Fabians) in drag, desperate to conceal our true identity. Rather it is something different, something new.

But what is new is not a rejection of socialist principles. It embraces those fully. Blair, himself, chose the Socialist Fabian Society as the publisher of his booklet The Third Way. What is new, or so they claim, is their rejection of socialisms incessant inflexibility in a modern world. This then is an out of the closet and better-educated Socialism.

Seven months earlier, September 21st 1998, speaking at a Third Way Conference at NYU, again with Bill Clinton, Blair clarified this point. The Third Way rejects the moderate left which too often. . . argued for a slower pace of change, [while ignoring] the world of ideas. . . The Third Way is a serious reappraisal of social democracy, reaching deep into the values of the left to develop radically new approaches.

The Radical Center

Radical, as a matter of fact, is on the frequently-used-words-list in all Third Way literature. Appropriately the Third Way Party in Great Britain describes itself as the Radical Centre (sic). And the Third Way truly is radical. A summary of their beliefs from Prime Minister Blair, from the Third Way Party, and from Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council, includes the following:

1. On top of [the] foundation (of the Third Way), is a new economic role for government, which is this: We don’t believe in Laissez-faire [free enterprise].

2. The Third Way also opposes compromising socialism, which Lenin decried as spontaneous socialism, that is, a socialism that’[s so busy cutting deals with capitalism that it loses touch with its founding principles and becomes but an arm of the capitalist ruling class or state monopoly capitalism. Nevertheless, the Third Way accepts some capitalism, because it claims to have experienced a Russian/Chinese like awakening that a little bit of capitalism is necessary for the sake of efficiency and adaptability in our high tech world. With one difference:

3. The socialists must be in charge, and the capitalists closely monitored, serving the interests of the state and the people not the interests of individuals. This socialist in charge idea is critical, because although the socialist has been awakened to the benefits of capitalism, nevertheless, he declares unequivocally that:

4. Capitalism cannot be left to itself (laissez-faire] because of its self serving, lawless, unstable, divisive, and environmentally insensitive nature. And so it must be tempered with the social justice, equality, law, peace, environmental protection, and the good of the whole, which socialism offers. Thus, socialism becomes the moral and legal fabric of society; capitalism, the financier.

This new, unique combination of the left and the right provides for a radical new social democratic state which rejects complete state ownership of all the means of production, in favor of a mixture of private ownership here, state ownership there, and state private partnerships everywhere else.

And although it is apparent that the state penetrates every walk of life, more than ever before, they promise it will not bureaucratize the economy, nor rule it with an iron fist, but only guide and provide opportunities for its success, while keeping a watchful eye for social injustice, unnecessary factory shutdowns, economic fluctuations, and so forth.

That is what they promise. Others see it differently.

Lord Ralf Dahrendorf examining the Third Way in the September/October edition of Foreign Affairs, laments that in the European Union nowadays: The Third Way is the only game in town; and although it preaches of a coming wave of democratization, there is a curious authoritarian streak in it.

The Creative Vocabulary of the Third Way

The authoritarian streak is not readily apparent, however. Third Way propaganda attracts unsuspecting zealots and liberty lovers to their cause thanks to an arsenal of democratic sound bites, which hide very anti-liberty definitions.

So here’s a handy decoder:

When [they] speak of a second wave of democratization, [it] in fact means deconstructing traditional democratic institutions, or in other words, rejecting representative government, old inflexible constitutions, and majority rule, and adopting direct or semi-direct democracy, with minority rule.

Minority rule, in this new democracy, comes into being through a new kind of representation — focus groups. Here, the government grants bargaining status privileges for minorities, political outcasts, select business institutions and even churches, who will individually barter for rights and privileges at the foot of the state.

No doubt, deals will be cut, but for whose benefit? This is not true representation. It is at best virtual representation, and oddly a privilege only a few will be permitted to possess; so it is unequal, even in theory. In practice it will eventually usher in an era of extreme centralization of power and the negating of both majority and minority rights, as underrepresented individuals feel naked against so distant and powerful a state, and thus compelled to look to one strong voice to lead them.

Third Way reforms of the welfare state include compulsory savings and the old communist equal liability of all to work, including single mothers and the disabled. But it doesn’t stop there, throw in the part about creating state run Boy’s Town-like facilities for the neglected, something Third Wayer Newt Gingrich fought for in his Contract With America, and you get the picture.

First create welfare laws which encourage dads to leave the home, then reform the laws to make moms leave the home, then have the state confiscate the parent-neglected kids - which was the goal of socialism from the start - and parenthood of the state finally wins the day. Welfare reform at its best.

Third Way decentralization, as described in our previous essay, is but the local administration of federal and international programs, not our founders federalism, which granted state and local government complete sovereignty over designated powers.

In Europe, says Lord Dahrendorf, it is translating into something far more sinister. He reports, decentralization. . . at the sub-national level. . . more often empowers militant activists rather than the people and yields to the new nationalism of self-aggrandizing leaders. And at the national level, problems and solutions alike militate against the liberal [classical liberalism] order.

Among the problems, law and order stand out; among the solutions, the proliferation of agencies and quangos (quasi-autonomous nongovernmental organizations) that evade civil control. As stated in our previous essay on the Third Way, this smacks of Hitler’s decentralization plan: Brutal, lawless, yet subservient to the designs of the order thanks to its war on the existing order.

Third Way self-determination, is for minorities, not sovereign states. A key goal: The uniting of minorities across national borders in a joint effort to throw off the bonds of their respective states; an idea lifted verbatim out of the Communist Manifesto. Wrote Marx: “In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they [the communists] point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat independently of all nationality.” Or as he shouted: “Working men of all countries unite!”

The Third Way is strongly in favor of secessionist Movements. The British Third Way Party hosted an International Secessionist Conference in 1997. There they presented the opinion that post WWI and WWII political boundaries were drawn up hastily by the hegemons of the world, without regard to the unnatural separation of cultures and peoples they inflicted.

50 to 80 years later, these peoples, and others similarly situated [like native Hawaiians], now possess an inherent right of secession, they say; and all who would put the interests of a sovereign nation over the rights of these to secede are worthy of contempt. Except in cases like Taiwan and Chechnya, no one in the International order has rose to defend their right to secede.

The Third Way Internationalism and the Globalization of all government and economies is an irresistible reality imposed upon us by technology. We are all internationalists now, whether we like it or not, Tony Blair arrogantly proclaims. Yet it is not just about technology, but the breaking forth of a new social revolution which is intolerant to anything undemocratic, immoral (in a humanist, not religious sense), and destabilizing to peace, prosperity, and world order.

We cannot turn our backs on conflicts and the violation of human rights within other countries if we want still to be secure, says Blair speaking for NATO. Defensive wars, he notes, have traditionally been the only just wars. That narrow perspective must be forever abandoned, he demands.

International law must be able to permeate national borders, and the central pillar of that law must be the democratic loving laws of the United Nations. Every prominent supporter of the Third Way has said something like: [We] labor everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries, and as they do, they feel like they are quoting the gospel. And it is the gospel of Karl Marx, as these words are his found in the closing sentences of the Communist Manifesto.

Third Way Free Trade means accepting the decisions of international organizations, even when we don’t like them. It also means to the US, Great Britain, and Japan, that protectionism equals poverty. At the same time these Third Wayers insists that protectionism must be the order of the day for Russia, which ought to be flooded with grants, credits, subsidized loans, and foreign investment from every quarter possible, with encouragements for Russian companies and savers to keep their own money in Russia.

Russia, they say, is unique, with its own special problems, and its own unique potential. We must respect Russia’s history, her culture, and her aspirations.

But U.S. history, culture, and aspirations are meaningless dribble and dangerous babble to the Third Way new world order. So Third Way free trade means America must surrender her right to freely choose that which will benefit her own unique interests, while Russia and other communist states may do whatever they please in pursuit of theirs.

Finally the Third Way’s belief in the right to property is in the right to collective private property not individual private property. That is, they vigorously support the establishment of co-ops, where employees, not individuals own businesses. This should be accomplished through employers selling shares in the company to all employees, with the implementation of partnerships, workplace representation, and economic democracy (redistribution of the wealth).

Company general meetings should include representatives of employees and consumers. And especially, there should be a government social audit to appraise how far companies meet their stated social objective[s ]. Traditional individual private property, on the other hand, is debunked as the main factor leading to the fragmentation of our society.

This, then, is but one more new and radical concept of the Third Way, that a socialist might, for the first time, believe that property is good, just so long as its nature is changed. Radical yes, new no; for again they are borrowing from Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. Said Marx: The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. . . When, therefore, capital is converted into common property. . . the social character of the property is changed. It loses its class-character.

And if this change in the nature of property is the very heart of communism, then how is it that the safe middle of the Third Way, or any other Third Way, whether it be of Socialism, Fascism, Corporatism, Keynesianism, State Monopoly Capitalism, Democratic Socialism, or Social Democracy - which all challenge and attack traditional private property - is anything less than Communism?

Four Big Lies

All these Third Way schemes have had their day in the sun, because they perpetuate four big lies. That free enterprise endorses lawlessness, that religion is not the necessary moral glue of a free society, that communists havent always know that capitalism is more economically effecient, and that communism is inherently inflexible.

Lie 1. Was laissez-faire ever lawless or supposed to be lawless? Tony Blair justifying the socialist framework wherein free enterprise must work (Clinton makes an identical comment) reasons: We have learnt (sic) that big government doesn’t work, but that no government works even less. We suppose almost any kid who has had a college course in Political Science or Economics could recite the same, would probably believe it, and would thus find the Third Way, or any derivation of that way, logical. It seems logical, that is, when free enterprise is grossly misrepresented as something that contends that business must operate in a morale-less, lawless vacuum. It never did.

Free-economist Frederik Bastiat explained in his 1850 treatise The Law, that a free market economy rejects only positive, not negative law. Simply, the state has no right to dictate to anyone or any business how to be good or moral, but it does have the right and duty to punish those who violate the sacred rights of others.

This is fundamental. The proper role of government is to administer justice, nothing more. Anything more or less than this is usurpation and oppression. That means no socialist busy body regulatory state, but a state, nonetheless, which protects rights and permits its citizens to appeal to the common courts of justice when those rights are violated.

This is not anarchy and those who say it is are either miseducated or dishonest.

Lie 2. Religion has no role in a free society. It is really a self-fulfilling prophecy to vilify capitalism as greedy and selfish, while at the same time using the state to strip society of all vestiges of traditional morality. Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote in Democracy in America, The more the conditions of men are equalized and assimilated to each other, the more important is it to have religion. Democracy, with its freedom of movement tends to fragment society and families, and create a general disrespect for authority and law. Religion, therefore, is all the more necessary as mans freedom enlarges, so that his self interest is purif[ied]. . . regulate[d]. . . [and made] honest, and that he feels a tugging force toward unity with his fellow man, and correcting reverence for morality and law.

Herein is found the key to resolving the controversial Adam Smith self interest theory of free enterprise: Self interest can be good.

Scholars ask, how can a system which pits one mans self interest against another be inspired and right? But the doctors of economy almost always ignore Smith’s reference to enlightened self interest.

That is, that self interest which is natural and good, which urges a man to do better, to improve his surroundings, his education, and that the lot of his family.

It is not, in that sense, far removed from the common religious desire for the attainment of Heaven for self and family. We must first love ourselves before we can help others, goes the psychological jargon, and the Bible reads, ‘each man must work out his own salvation,’ so how is the pursuit of self interest inherently evil?

Lie 3. Communists have suddenly awakened to the superior economic efficiency of capitalism.

Marx, writing in the Communist Manifesto of his plan to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie and to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, admitted: This cannot be effected except by means. . . which seem economically insufficient and untenable.

Lenin likewise confessed in the Development of Capitalism in Russia, “… we will have to admit that the development of social economy under capitalism is very rapid, in contrast to all other periods in Russian history.” And Stalin knew who paid the rent and put missiles on the table when he bragged, “The Capitalist will sell us the rope with which we will hang them!” This is why, from day 1, foreign aide, espionage, patent theft, and joint efforts with the West have always been policy, and critical to communist survival.

Who’s fooling who?

Lie four.
Communism is inherently inflexible. The old lie is that Marx knew no other plan than the violent overthrow of the capitalist order, and that socialism and all its varieties, because they seek peaceful, gradual, middle ground methods of approach, are not endorsed by Communists.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Again, in the Communist Manifesto Marx wrote: Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

Contrary to Lenin’s strategic criticism of spontaneous socialists, already referred to, Marx wrote: The Communists fight for the attainment of . . . immediate aims. Thus, in France the Communists ally themselves with the Social-Democrats. . . In Switzerland they support the Radicals. . . In Poland they support the party that insist on agrarian revolution. . . In Germany they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bougeoise.

Lenin’s New Economic Plan (NEP) was in reality a call for a Third Way economy of a mixture of state ownership, partnerships, and limited free enterprise, and is all that Gorbachev ever promised to return to under Perestroika - vowing loudly and clearly, that from the Communist Revolution ‘we will never depart.’

To suppose that communism is inflexible is to ignore the dialectic which Lenin explained was the only way to truly understand communism. It is the ‘one step forward two steps back’ game. Lenin said, “…without a knowledge of the dialectic, no one knows anything about communism.” Fred Schwarz wrote forty years ago, “If we judge where the Communists are going by the direction in which they are moving, we will obviously be deceived.”

There is no Safe Middle Ground With Communism

The apostle John wrote in the Book of Revelations: ‘I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neigher cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.’

Christian patriot and former Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson lamented on the same subject: ‘One of our most serious problems is the inferiority complex which people feel when they are not informed and organized. They dare not make a decision on. . . vital issues. They let other people think for them. They stumble around in the middle of the road to avoid being controversial, and get hit by the traffic going both ways.’

This we cannot do.

Lenin admitted, there is no middle ground. And even Woodrow Wilson, who unfortunately betrayed his own advice, wrote of even the slightest compromise with socialism: “After you start a little way on that road it is merely a question of time and choice as to how far you will go upon it. You cannot, after you have got on that road, arbitrarily call a halt at any one point upon it.”

On government guiding private industry he wrote: “You are saying: Let the private individual have the burden and risk of the active administration, but let the government say what the character of the administration shall be. Let the individual take all the risks, let the individual spend all the money, but let the government say how the business should be conducted. Now in principle there is no difference whatever between that and government ownership.”

Yes there is no difference. The Third Way is but one more attempt to destroy the right to private property and forever subjugate man to the state. We cannot afford to fall for its democratic, progressive presentation. It is not democratic or progressive; it is not safe; it is closet communism.

There is no room for compromise, but only a widespread reeducation in the marvel of the American Free Enterprise system, the most democratic, the most progressive, and the most socially just system in the history of the world.


Next up: Our next two pieces examine Third Way compassionate conservatism and the Republican Contract With Americas headlong embrace of Third Way theology. It may surprise you. For a footnoted version of today’s document, please contact the authors.

Diane Alden and Steve Farrell are widely published research writers and former co-workers at Right Magazine where Steve served as managing editor. Their duel projects include their upcoming book, Democrats In Drag: Another Look at the Republican Party. Please email your comments or questions to Steve and Diane at

(Edit 5/21/16... I found these Steve Farrell articles years ago at the above link... since they are no longer there, I have inserted the entire article into the 6 posts, instead of the linked partials as before... JT)


"Arbitrary power is most easily established on
the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."

~George Washington,
Circular to the States,
May 9, 1753

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,519
How the Republicans Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the "Third way"
« Reply #24 on: December 13, 2011, 02:03:36 AM »
Dr. Strangehold: How the Republicans Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the "Third Way."
Steve Farrell and Diane Alden
October 22, 1999


The rallying cry for the journey down the "Third Way" ought to be: "Cry havoc! Slip loose the dogs of the trite bromide!" (Apologies to Shakespeare.) Gypsy Rose Lee might have described the "Third Way" as the intelligentsia and the political class gyrating, bumping and grinding to: "You Gotta Have a Gimmick."

By whatever name it is called, Clinton-Blair-Schroeder Third Way, Contract with America, Third Wave, Great Society, New Deal, New Paradigm, Thousand Points of Light, Compassionate Conservatism (comcon), nanny state, or bud-in-ski-ism, the intentions behind it may be admirable but the concept is flawed.

The reasoning camouflaging the new-old dialectic for expanding government influence is a prescription for inept, mediocre, more of the same, dead in the water government "help" to achieve ephemeral "righteous" ends. This "help" goes hand in hand with a plan which is intended to lift the poor and/or emerging nations from poverty. For the most part both the help and the plan will merely inflict more ill conceived, unworkable elitist Western government programs on those it is meant to help.

The current flurry of sacred "plans" comes as a result of a breakdown of 20th century's predictable order — the Cold War and the recognition that government social programs don't work. It combines a controlled form of free-market capitalism and social programs, juggling both to accomplish elitist ill-defined humanitarian goals, which will fail like its ancestors before it.

But the "third way" crowd will "help" everyone whether they ask for it or not. Plus they will insist that everyone chip in a "contribution" until the "helpee" gets better.

Among certain elites there is the notion that capitalism is a system, which unfairly beats up on the weak-minded poor, ignorant and incompetent. In its essence this notion is elitist, statist, condescending, contemptuous and patronizing.

These haute monde (snotty) conceits deny the evidence that the free-market and faith in the individual to make proper choices is the animus, the soul of real liberty and prosperity. The "Third Way" looks to an old-world dying view, that it is the state and its parasitic bureaucracies, which engender prosperity and freedom.

Nonetheless, in recent years, some politicians and social observers at the local and state level have made startling admissions. Discovering, post Great Depression, that the beneficent, cradle to grave, all encompassing - but societal destroying socialist/welfare state - has fundamental flaws. Reluctantly, the federal political class followed suit and passed "welfare reform." But rather than continuing in that vein, wisely decreasing the influence, tax burden, and bureaucratic control of people's lives, the statist elites have come up with a "new" plan and another reason why government must "help" those left economically behind. Thus, the "Third Way may be called by many names.

However, this new-old plan must first obtain legitimacy and therefore must take on the quasi-religious aura of a crusade, leading its followers to all things wise and wonderful. To wit there has to be a government administered plan to keep the wolves and boogey-men at bay from the citizens of the most prosperous country on the face of the earth. No risky options for anyone. Better that freedom should be lost than anyone should suffer the consequences of poor choices or the luck of the draw.

Not surprisingly in this worldview, everything and nothing can be accomplished without massive string pulling by the agents of the plan. Some form of federal government help, or a combination of federal help and community and private agencies is contemplated. But along with it comes the perquisite federal strings attached.

Armed with the ability to tax, the string pulling class, has decided to steer a 21st century course for the inhabitants of the United States, and tomorrow - the world. Likewise, the high priests of the plan are initiating rites to be performed by a bureaucratic hierarchy. By using regulations, which require massive amounts of paperwork - and in some cases taxes of 60 percent the hierarchy keeps the flock loyal and in their place.

Admittedly, some plans have more success than others. The G.I. Bill and its brother the Marshall Plan had a modicum of accomplishment and part of the reason is the fact that each formula had a limited duration, limited budget, and was offered to highly motivated individuals who had just been through hell. The people who administered these plans also had a sense of proportion and a realization that the success of the plan had more to do with the motivation of those who took part than it did with the plan itself.

Although they were relatively successful, these strategies were subject to abuse and also called for large amounts of tax monies to pay for them. Spurred by this success, the high priests of sacred plans devised still more - most of which merely flung money down a government sanctioned rat hole.

Contributions to the IMF, the UN, poorly managed foreign aid, cancerous and inept social programs taking up ever increasing percentages of the Gross National Product, over reaching environmental regulations, involvement in foreign wars and adventures not approved by congress, subsidizing corporations and pet projects of the political class and paying more and getting less all come to mind.

Even more devastating is the growth of bureaucracy created to implement them. Still and all, the antithesis of the sacred way is the slight matter of liberty.

In the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs, historian, statesman, and author Lord Ralf Dahendorf maintains: "The new global class of people hope to benefit from changed forces of production…There is something slightly contrived, almost elitist about the concept. The term "Third Way" shows a curious absence of historical awareness among its protagonists. It also show an unfortunate need to have a unified, or at any rate uniquely labeled, ideology."

He wisely maintains that, "In an open world, there are not just two or three ways but an indefinite number. There are many democracies…there are many capitalisms… the Third Way reforms of the welfare state not only involve compulsory savings but…the strict insistence on everyone working, including single mothers and the disabled…As it stands today, there are too many authoritarian temptations. The internationalization of decisions and activities almost invariably means a loss of democracy…it is more important than even a few years ago to begin a new political project with the insistence on liberty before we turn to social inclusion and cohesion.

Compassionate "Gummint" Is Here To Help You

In the words of Manhattan Institute Comcon guru Myron Magnet:

"Compassionate Conservatism does represent a break with national Republican programs of the past. But far from being an empty slogan, it is a well-formed domestic policy agenda. At its core is concern for the poor - not a traditional Republican preoccupation - and an explicit belief that government has a responsibility for poor Americans. From Richard Nixon on down, the policy of Republican presidents toward the poor seems to have been, in Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's indelible phrase, benign neglect. For Nixon this meant extending welfare programs he considered useless; for Ronald Reagan and George Bush it similarly meant paying scant attention to social issues. But more recently, several innovative Republican mayors and governors have made solving the problems of the urban underclass a top priority. Compassionate conservatism really is the effort to make these solutions central to national politics"

Does Mr. Magnet therefore believe that not enough attention was paid to social programs in the past, even though nearly $6 trillion was invested in them? Or does he merely believe that not enough money was hurled in their direction wrapped in only lukewarm government love and understanding? Or perhaps his concern is that "comcons" want to make sure "gummint" has a hand in screwing up programs which are working pretty well without said interference.

The question for the Republicans becomes: Are innovative government solutions to problems the "way" the truth and the light to a "better America?" If, as Magnet says, local and state government is having such an impact on social problems, why would he want to make more federal interference in the form of "help" a "new paradigm?" Was it not the choice of more people to vote Republicans into office because it was a core principle to dismantle expensive government "schemes?"

Government Census Bureau stats indicate that trillions of dollars thrown at social problems have done precious little to help an entrenched under-class. Bureaucratic "help" has all too often proved to be more hindrance than anything else. Additionally, bureaucrats are not noted for their kindly attitude or can-do spirit towards the poor — or anyone else. Just try getting one of them on the phone sometime.

The standard solution for those who want to inflict more inept help on the poor is to cry "education"; more money for education. If more money is thrown at education, then what? As they say, if you do more of the same, you will get more of the same. In other words, is money the answer? Is federal interference the answer?

Apparently many Americans think not, because each year thousands more take their children out of the public schools and send them to private or home school them. It is only the poor, and some unlucky suburbanites like the parents who sent their children to a Columbine High - a good school - who are choosing to believe that government has the answers.

The education establishment, which has burgeoned since the early 70s, has not been the instrument of an educated citizenry. Declining test scores have been the standard since the 60s. Employers know it. Most people know it. As the quality of American social and civic life affirms, government and the educational establishment has done very little to improve the quality of life or do its job.

Of course there are those who never give up on a bad idea because they have no original ideas of their own. So the keepers of the sacred plan of the moment -offer the new and improved version of more of the same.

What Hath Government Wrought?

Since the rise of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society," compassion for the poor has been a national obligation. Every year since Johnson's programs began, the amount of money spent helping the poor has become gargantuan in terms of manpower and money appropriated towards an ill defined goal. Approximately $5.8 trillion has been spent on domestic programs as societal bell weathers, such as the number of illegitimate births, have increased.

In 1960, five percent of births were illegitimate. By the 90s it has reached 31 percent. Unfortunately, for groups such as African-Americans their illegitimacy rates have increased to nearly 70 percent. Little consolation for whites is that their illegitimacy rate is growing faster and is over 30 percent. While in recent years there has been a slight drop, it is not enough to say the problem has been solved. Nor is the improvement because of anything the government has done. Welfare reform, epidemic social disease, and a new respect for abstinence among the young are part of the reason for the slight decline?

Is there a problem that should be solved by more government involvement? Is their real poverty and are people starving? Dr. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation maintains: “If poverty is defined generally as lacking adequate nutritious food for the family, clothing, and a reasonably warm and dry apartment to live in, or lacking a car to get to work when one is needed, then there are few poor persons remaining in the United States.

“Real material hardship does occur, but it is limited in extent and severity. The bulk of the "poor" today live in material conditions that would have been judged comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago…But material living standards were improving dramatically and poverty was dropping sharply long before the War on Poverty began. The principal effect of the War on Poverty has been not to raise incomes, but to displace self-sufficiency with dependence…The collapse of the work ethic and family structure has profound effects on low-income Americans and society in general, far outweighing any changes in income or living conditions.”

Just the Facts Ma'am

Government entitlements make up nearly half of federal spending. Under the Bush-Clinton administrations, reductions in defense appropriations have been given over to domestic spending. Interest payments on the debt make up nearly the entire other half.

Under the Clinton Administration, with a frightened Republican Congress rubber stamping almost the entire domestic program, that debt continues to grow. When Republicans attempted to slow down the rate of increase in domestic spending, the media and the statist elites screamed, "gridlock," and the government shut down for a short time.

Whipped by the sycophant media hype, conservative Republicans caved. They continued to cave for fear they would be portrayed as cruel and "mean-spirited." The result; the front runner for the GOP nomination for President of the United States is returning to a "kinder, gentler" more of the same old incompetent government string pulling. Thus, the "plan" will survive into the foreseeable future.

The prosperity and "surplus" of the moment is used as a rationale for looking to "poor" Americans as a reason to continue more of the same government interference. But does the surplus exist? Or in fact is it robbing an imaginary Peter to pay a really enormous and grossly overweight Paul. Right now the "surplus" is a paper one, based on anticipated revenues and Social Security payments. By the year 2015 this surplus will disappear as the effects of the "bipartisan budget agreement" of today makes those living in 2015, owe their souls to the government store.

If the economy grows worse, and as baby boomers age the imaginary budget surplus will turn into a very real deficit. This will mean taxes high enough to start a rebellion and boomers not receiving their fair share of "compassionate government" largesse. Government projections of a surplus in 2002 show that deficits will begin to increase by 2003. Current Social Security funds are helping to engender the imaginary Peter with the money bags to pay Paul somewhere down the road, all things being equal.

The "Strangehold" on Republicans

Republicans are not totally to blame for their apparent caving and cowardice. After all it is a difficult task to stay focused and on course, true to your core principles, economic or social; as Dan Rather or Judy Woodruff intone about how you have just ended the free world as we know it by disallowing further government spending or pleading for tax cuts.

Nonetheless, the inability to get the conservative message out is strange phenomenon. Although in state after state, government is headed by fiscally conservative Republicans. In addition, Congress, despite its brain dead leadership and terminal waffling, continues with a majority.

However, what is despicable from the Republicans is how far and fast the they have run from the programs and philosophy of Ronald Reagan. George Bush did indeed try for a "kinder, gentler" nation — on the backs of the middle class taxpayer. He accepted the bad advice of the last Republican loser, Bob Dole, and raised taxes.

Now, the Republicans stand with hat in hand, shuffling feet as the spin-doctors tell us that Clinton's economic record was better than Reagan’s. According to government statistics, the growth rate under Clinton has been 2.7 percent. Under Ronald Reagan it went from 3.2 percent to 3.8 percent between 1983-89. Government forecasts predict a 2-2.5 percent growth rate through the end of the decade.

Therefore, the 90s will have had the lowest economic growth rate since the Great Depression. Additionally, the bad old Reagan years have out performed the 90s in economic growth, job creation, the rise in personal income and production. The only worst case was that in the Reagan period the savings rate fell rapidly. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan years and experienced a $1500 loss in post-Reagan years.

Yet the Republicans would be bamboozled by the economic thinking of a Treasury Secretary Larry Summer, who warned in November of 1982 of a coming inflation "time bomb" because of Reaganomics, tax cuts, regulatory de-control, and cuts in domestic spending. Very interesting and very typical.

It was during the mean-street Reagan years, between 1981-88, that real household incomes grew for whites by 9.8 percent and for blacks by 11 percent. The poorest Americans in the 80s saw a 6 percent increase in real income and a 3 percent increase in the 90s in Bush-Clinton "good-times."

In fact in the 90s, real household income for whites has declined by more than 3 percent, while blacks have posted a mere 2 percent gain. But goodness how those Keynesian spin-meisters can spin. And how easily the Republicans dance to the discordant propaganda tune of the statists, Clinton advisors, and the sycophant media. They have also succombed to the tendency to Oprah-ize policy issues, which all too often are decided on feelings rather than facts.

Compassion Based on Truth By 1989 there were 5.9 million more Americans whose salaries exceeded $50,000 a year. The number of Americans earning less than $10,000 a year fell by 3.4 million workers.

Real federal revenues grew faster after Reagan cut tax rates than after Bush and Clinton tax hikes. From 1982 to 1989 they expanded by nearly 25 percent. Between 1990-97 real federal revenues grew by 19.3 percent.

Today, if housing and medical subsidies are factored in, the average "poor" household income rises to $20,335. Clinton's response to this inconvenient fact was to lower the threshold of who is "poor." This reaction is true "voodoo economics" and smoke and mirrors at its finest.

Statists fog the issue and insist that mean Republicans blame the victim. Republicans need to turn it around and say that statists don't give the poor enough credit for being able to learn how to make good economic decisions, which will benefit them in the long-term.

The real search for Republicans should be to discover if the Republican version of the "third way" will really do anything to make life more just or "better" for the working poor or the chronic under-class? If it involves more government spending or "plans" or string pulling than it is just another trite bromide to justify government expansion.

While the private sector would most likely make mistakes helping the poor, they won't be as big or as costly as those made by the federal government. State and local government can lend a hand but in truth only the individual can motivate himself to seek help and improve his lot.

Dr. R. Fuelner, President of the Heritage Foundation, recently put the issue in perspective: "Civil society and the welfare state are inimical to each other because their aims conflict-even if at first glance this does not seem to be the case…True compassion requires personal involvement with another's misfortune. It requires people to understand suffering before they try to alleviate it. It does not countenance unreflective giving. It requires society to think before it acts. This is why the institutions of civil society "succeed" at compassion-and why government typically fails."

Unfortunately, those who favor government expansion - the statists - refuse to recognize logic, historical data, statistics, or common sense and cannot be convinced that government is only helpful when it gets out of the way.

That would decrease their influence and power, and make their creaky worn out 19th century Charles Dickens' dictums and scenarios irrelevant and futile. Reducing taxes and bureaucracies, with their stifling sacred writ, should be tried - one time - before we finally turn heart and soul over to the command and control of the central government.

Living with less bureaucratic government actually hasn't been tried since before the Great Depression; the spin-doctors only want you to think it has. They don't want you to know that Reagan was on the right track.

Unfortunately, for the Republicans and America, a kinder, gentler, central statist mentality took Reagan's place. That was followed by a mentality of the corporate state variety with police state overtones; the "third way" of Clinton and Blair.

The sacred plan of the friends and comrades of the "third way" will only get Republicans and the rest of us an expansion of what we already have; and results which don't make life better for anyone except certain elites, while being immorally expensive.

Besides we have more at stake than money. Our liberty is on the line.

Diane Alden and Steve Farrell are widely published research writers and former co-workers at Right Magazine where Steve served as managing editor. Their duel projects include their upcoming book, Democrats In Drag: Another Look at the Republican Party. Please email your comments or questions to Steve and Diane at

(Edit 5/21/16... I found these Steve Farrell articles years ago at the above link... since they are no longer there, I have inserted the entire article into the 6 posts, instead of the linked partials as before... JT)


"You can fool all of the people some of the time,
and some of the people all of the time, but you
can never fool all the people all the time."

~Abraham Lincoln

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,519
Third Way Contract: Gingrich & Toffler, an Odd Duo
« Reply #25 on: December 13, 2011, 02:20:56 AM »
Third Way Contract: Gingrich & Toffler, an Odd Duo
Steve Farrell and Diane Alden
November 10, 1999


The most heralded achievement, and high water mark of Republican leadership, since the revival of America's military superiority under Ronald Reagan, is without question, the coming forth of the Contract With America during the election of 1994.

Its 100 day surge through the house of Representatives with its visionary agenda, and its promise and delivery of lock arm partisan voting, is a singular feat - such an one, that ever since, Republican's have looked back with fondness and longing, for a revival of the good old days.

Six years later, Republicans still hope that another leader, similarly charismatic, will step forward, take the reigns, and show the American people that the Republican Party really does have something unique to offer, something that will stem the tide of liberalism, turn on the speed boat engines of conservatism, and lead us back up the Potomac to our Promised Land heritage.

Pleasant dreams, all of them. Frenzied, partisan, election year amnesia, too.

Misplaced in the memory of this vision of loveliness is that the good old days of Republican unity were achieved not by fierce party loyalty, nor by like minded men all committed to a common vision; but, first by a publicity stunt of a Contract - which publicly bound signers to toe the line, and, second, by strong-arm, back-door tactics: including threats for chair and committee removals and vows of campaign fund withdrawal, to all those so unwise as to dissent from that dotted line.

It mocked the whole idea of the promised democratic reform, and should have knelled to all the inhabitants of Republicanland, that something not wonderful, but dreadful was afoot within the Party and its Contract.

What was afoot was the droll duo of ex-Marxist Alvin Toffler and Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, both posing as Thomas Jefferson back from the dead, preaching about some evolving, nebulous, revolutionary new democracy whose name keeps evolving too; from futurism, to anticipatory democracy, to 21st Century Democracy, to the Third Wave, to the Third Way.

Not forgetting all the other bad names for this bad idea, either. But don't laugh. It's all true. Go ask Newt Gingrich. Newt told it all, though it seems almost no one was listening.

On November 11, 1994, still bubbling and cocksure over the Republican takeover of both Houses and his coming coronation as Speaker of the House and King of the Republican Revolution, Gingrich couldn't resist exploiting the moment to put in a free plug for something he so devoutly believed in.

"The core of our Contract," and the solution for those "trying to figure out how to put me in a box," he said, could be found in a book by futurist Alvin Toffler called "The Third Way;" to which he added: "I am a conservative futurist ." (1)

Now futurism, as we already have alluded to is one and the same with the Third Way, but for brevity sake, Webster's Dictionary gives us yet another interesting take on this subject.

"Futurism: Study of, and interest in, forecasting or anticipating the future, or theorizing on how to impose controls on events.” (2)

The key is "impose controls." Which leaves us to wonder: "What then is a conservative futurist?" Is it a compassionate King with a telescope? A benevolent tyrant with a computer? An H.G. Wells like time-machine-toting-Socialist who tolerates abstinence as a choice? A President Bush like "kinder, gentler" leader who wages high tech, impose-democracy-wars, on small fry dictators? Or is it our favorite, "Margaret Thatcher with a smile instead of a handbag?" These are not all that far fetched!

It seems, from all that we have read, that a conservative futurist is one who busies himself on "conserving" the dictatorship of government controls, far into the future, while all the while preaching about democracy, free markets, and technological leaps. A sort of "Machiavelli for Modern Materialistic Man."

But let's move on.

This was no passing comment by Mr. Gingrich. His commitment to futurism, or the Third Way, the same fascist/socialist oriented Third Way that Clinton, Gore, Blair, and Schroeder are converted to, has a significant history. Gingrich told his fellow Congressmen: "For a long time, I have been friends with Alvin and Heidi Toffler, the authors of Future Shock and The Third Way.(3)

“I first began working with the Tofflers in the early 1970's on a concept called anticipatory democracy. I was then a young assistant professor at West Georgia State College, and I was fascinated with the intersection of history and the future which is the essence of politics and government at its best.

“For twenty years [30 now] we have worked to develop a future-conscious politics and popular understanding that would make it easier for America to make the transition from the Second Wave civilization - which is clearly dying - to the emerging, but in many ways undefined Third Wave civilization.

"The process has been more frustrating and the progress much slower than I would have guessed two decades ago. Yet despite the frustrations, the development of a Third Wave political and governmental system is so central to the future of freedom and the future of America that it must be undertaken." (4)

So central, indeed, that Mr. Gingrich put the book on a recommended reading list for members of Congress and all Americans, right along side the Federalist Papers and the works of DeTocqueville, as if it deserves such hallowed company. But that was not enough, in speech after speech and press conference after conference Gingrich referred to the Third Wave as "the seminal work of our time" (5)

Then comes this revelation:

"While I am a Republican leader in the Congress, I do not believe Republicans or the Congress have a monopoly on solving problems and helping America make the transformation necessary to enter the Third Wave information revolution. Democratic mayors like Norquist in Milwaukee and Rendel in Philadelphia are making real breakthroughs at the city level. Some of the best of Vice President Gore's efforts to reinvent government nibble in the right direction..." (6)

From bad to worse! First the socialist work the Third Wave is seminal, and then Al Gore's streamlining plan, which centralized executive authority, and spread gun carrying police powers to agencies previously lacking them, nibbles in the right direction! Toward what direction is that? The total state? One has to wonder.

But there was a reason, we suspect, Gingrich felt this way.

Alvin Toffler writes: "In 1975 at the request of Congressional Democrats, we organized a conference on futurism and "anticipatory democracy" [the latter being the political game plan of the former] for senators and members of the House. We invited Newt Gingrich, probably the only Republican among the many futurists we knew. He attended.

'That conference led to the creation of the Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future, a group eventually cochaired by a young senator name Al Gore, now vice president." (7)

Gingrich, himself would rise within the Third Wave movement, would become a member of the executive committee of The Congressional Clearing House on the Future, and would win the praise of Toffler as possibly "the single smartest and most successful intellectual in American politics..." ( 8 )

But why stop here?

New American Senior Editor, William F. Jasper, in a 1994 piece "New Age Newt: A Futurist Conservative for the 21st Century," reveals that Gingrich's History with the Third Way also includes a collaborative effort with Toffler and twenty new left and new age authors in a 1978 work Anticipatory Democracy, where Gingrich endorsed Governor Jimmy Carter's socialist "planning" agenda.

The book throughout extolled the virtues of "participatory democracy," a revolutionary slogan dear to the likes of Tom Hayden, Derek Shearer, and Bill Clinton, and one drawn directly from the eighth plank of the "Humanist Manifesto II (1973).” (9)

By 1984, Jasper continues, Gingrich's influence in the third way movement brought on kudos from the likes of New Age "philosopher" Mark Satin. In the February 27, 1984 issue of New Options, Satin, identified Gingrich as a top "decentralist/globally responsible" congressman. (10) An interesting paradox, that fits the odd decentralism of the Third Way, which moves power not just supposedly down to the local level, but up to the International level, as well.

Beyond that, Mr. Satin, the author of "New Age Politics" (1978), a guide to New Age political thought, is not the kind of man you expect to be praising the future founder of the Republican Revolution. In that guide Satin calls for planetary governance, "a system of world taxation (on resource use)," "an increased transfer of wealth from rich to poor countries," and "complete military disarmament."

And he rounds it all out by stating his hostility for the nuclear family, traditional marriage, and heterosexual society - all of this, typical Third Way stuff. (11)

Not surprisingly then, ten years later, in the wake of the passage of NAFTA, Henry Kissinger would be heard bragging across the universe that the man most responsible for giving us NAFTA (what Kissinger called the important checkpoint on the way to a New World Order), was none other than Newt Gingrich.

That's right, and it all fits. Heralded Republican Newt Gingrich, and his mentor Alvin Toffler, whether we care to believe it or not, are two cogs in the wheel of the Third Way movement that has swept a new wave of socialism across Europe, into NATO, and into the White House. We are not here to debate, whether it was by complicity or stupidity that Gingrich chose to take the Republican Party and the Contract With America along Third Way lines, also, we will leave that to others to decipher.

What is of pressing concern, to us, is that millions of Americans in 1994, and since then, have put their trust in the Republican Party as a savior from the radical, even criminal reputation of the Clinton Administration, and what they received, unwittingly, in answer to their prayers was a Contract, and a 1990's Republican philosophy, which was and is nothing less than a subtle compromise, at times a subtle aid, and yet in other instance, a source for radical change, to the advantage and promotion of national and international socialism.

Our hope, as we press on in this series, is that an increasing number of Americans, and especially Republicans, will open their eyes to the weakness of their own party, and become better equipped to recognize the hallmarks of the Third Way, so that they can work with us and others, to expose and root them out of the current political agenda of the Republican Party, putting the party back on track, to be a force for much good in the coming century.

Next up, tomorrow or Friday, a closer look at Alvin Toffler's Work, the Third Wave.

Newsmax columnists Steve Farrell of Henderson, Nevada; and Diane Alden of Holly Springs, Mississippi, are widely published research writers. Their joint projects include their upcoming book: "Democrats In Drag: A Second Look at the Republican Party."

Please email your comments and or requests for interviews and speaking engagements to Steve and Diane at

1. Gingrich, Newt; Armey, Dick. "Contract With America," New York, Times Books, 1994, p. 186.
2. New Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus of the English Language, Danbury, CT, Lexicon Publications, Inc, 1992,
3. Gingrich, Newt, Armey, Dick. "Contract With America," New York, Times Books, 1994, p. 186.
4. Toffler, Alvin and Heidi, "Creating A New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave" Atlanta, Turner Publishing, Inc.
    pgs.16 - 17 (Forward Written by Newt Gingrich)
5. Ibid. p. 8.
6. Ibid. p. 17.
7. Ibid. p. 9.
8. Ibid. p. 10.
9. Jasper, William F. "New Age Newt: A Futurist Conservative For the 21st Century, The New American, December 12
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.

(Edit 5/21/16... I found these Steve Farrell articles years ago at the above link... since they are no longer there, I have inserted the entire article into the 6 posts, instead of the linked partials as before... JT)


"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental
opinion of a day. But a series of oppressions, begun
at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably
through every change of ministers [administrations],
too plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of
reducing us to slavery.''
~Thomas Jefferson

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,519
The Newt Gingrich Deception: The Third Way Part V
« Reply #26 on: December 13, 2011, 02:53:42 AM »
The Third Way Part V
Steve Farrell
December 7, 1999


If ever there was a person suffering under the delusion that there really was a nickel's difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, Newt Gingrich's surfing in Alvin Toffler's Third Wave, and his application of the same as the launching pad of 21st Century Republicanism, should have been the wake-up call to stack the sandbags, vacate the beachheads, and run for the hills.

Mr. Gingrich told his fellow congressmen, in his Republican Revolution Victory Speech in November of 1994, that "The Third Way [The Third Wave is the correct title of the book] represented the key to figuring out where he and the new Republicrats were coming from, and that this futurism-based book was "the seminal work of our time." (1, 2)

It isn't!

At best, the work represents a compilation of glaring contradictions, hasty generalizations, and shamefully shallow analysis of US Constitutional foundations, topped off with foolish, risky, naive solutions that discard the political past and leap blindly into a radically different political future, for no better reason than — we must!

That's the kind appraisal. At worst, the work is intentionally deceptive, possibly treasonous, and downright Marxist in its political, historical, and sociological philosophy.

Either way, it is not seminal, in a salutary sense. What it is, is one of the most embarrassing and revelatory documents on just how far the Republican Party has strayed, since 1994, from the old hypothetical platform and from the promise of The Contract With America to "return to the wisdom and brilliance of the Founding Fathers."

The party simply did not then, and does not now, seek the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, but in its new progressive beliefs and concessions, pits itself against the same.

So let's get right to alleviating our disbelief that this might be so, by beginning where the Republican-Party-leadership-endorsed book ends, in its call for the abolition of the US Constitution as the first step for our collective salvation in the Information Age.

Goodbye to the US Constitution

Toffler explains in a letter he writes to the Founding Parents: "For what I now must write can all too easily be misunderstood by my contemporaries. Some will no doubt regard it as seditious. Yet is a painful truth I believe you [America's Founders] would have quickly grasped.

"For the system of government you fashioned, including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented — a democracy for the 21st Century." (3)

And why is that?

Power shifts, cultural and technological leaps, non-representation for minorities, a deficient Bill of Rights (he would, like every socialist before him, expand the Bill of Rights to include the right of gay couples to adopt children and the right of poor people and poor nations to share equally with the rich via the forced redistribution of the wealth). But perhaps his gut rationale comes in his communist-like castigation of the American system of government as a "disease" that "must, in its turn, die and be replaced." (4)

That's a seminal conclusion for Republicans to turn to, now, isn't it?

But that's o.k., Toffler assures us, because everything must change, and nothing is eternal. That is Marx too. (5) Constitutions weren't meant to stand forever, or to be worshipped as Heaven sent. (6)

It is, in substance, aside from sprinkles of shallow praise for the founders, nothing more than the old socialist lament that the Constitution was drafted by horse and buggy politicians whose only real contribution is that they made America rich, and their only wisdom, that they were smart enough to secure prosperity for themselves in an emerging second-wave world. It was a brilliant document all right, but little more.

Not at all a foundation of political truth for all time; there is no such thing. Taking a page out of Communist Mao Tse-tung's Little Red Book, he then declares moderns should not be bound by the moral codes and political laws of a distant mythological past. (7)

Which leads to the next problem with Toffler. Not only does he reduce the US Constitution to the status of great for its time, rather than a document which the founders knew, in its basics, was timeless, but he also attacks all issues from the Communist perspective from start to finish. There is, in fact, so much Marxism in The Third Wave that an accompanying volume could be written as an addendum, exposing this fact point by point.

But let's focus on a few central elements.

The Communist Doctrine of Three Waves

First of all, Toffler's idea of the Three Waves of History, which Gingrich bought into hook, line, and sinker, came out of the textbook of Communist founder Karl Marx. We've mentioned Marx's version of this previously, but a brief refresher is in order.

Marx outlined three private property phases of man — waves, if you will: 1. Slavery, 2. Feudalism, and 3. Capitalism. Capitalism he further subdivided into the Industrial Revolution; The Imperialist Period, that time when credit, corporations, and government would centralize on an international basis; and finally, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat — or the brutal and final transitional phase to full communism, when the last remnants of capitalism, to include its religion, its property, and its conception of the family, are obliterated.

Now mix in futurism and make a few adjustments for where Marx's paradigm falls apart, and presto! Alvin Toffler's Third Wave! An instant best-seller! An original score! A seminal work for our time! The model for the Republican Revolution!

Here's how he did it.

Toffler lumped Marx's Slavery and Feudalism together and called it the Agricultural Age (Wave 1); then he took the first stage of Marx's Capitalist period and called it, just as Marx did, the Industrial Revolution (Wave 2); and finally, he used Marx's Imperialist Phase of Capitalism and renamed it the Information Age (Wave 3). (8 )

Some who have fallen for Toffler's word games will argue that Toffler departs from Marx here. Marx described the Imperialist Phase, as already stated, as an era of worldwide centralization. Toffler, on the other hand, describes his Information Age as an era of decentralization.

But a careful look at what Toffler calls decentralization or decision division reveals that he calls for exactly what it pretends to oppose — centralization. Toffler's decentralization shifts power not just downward to the states, but upward to the United Nations; subsidiary international organizations like NAFTA, WTO, and NATO; and even to totally unaccountable NGOs. (9)

Meanwhile, he and his followers regard national sovereignty as "a myth." (10) A bit of a clue as to the real meaning of decentralization: Everything in the end, you can rest assured, will be focused on the UN and company, insuring that Marx and Lenin's Third Wave International Centralization does come to pass after all.

Plain and simple: Marx's and Toffler's three transformational periods in private property history are one and the same.

The Communist Dialectic

Next, the whole wave thesis is built around another communist principle, the dialectical view of history. On this point, one would have to be hell bent on looking the other way not to notice the all-too-frequent use of the Marxian words clash, convergence, inevitable, compelled, quantum leap, and transformation, from cover to cover in Toffler's volume. They are the key words of the dialectic, and Toffler applies them precisely as Marx did.

The dialectic, taught Lenin, is the key to unraveling everything communistic, so let's explore the dialectic, in simple fashion, to see how it applies to the Third Way.

According to the Communist perspective, there is only one constant in the universe, change, and change occurs because of the constant clash of opposing forces, which exist everywhere, both within and without.

Inevitably these opposites will collide, either as a matter of a natural course or by chance. Communists often describe these random collisions as "an unforeseen convergence of circumstance"; they do not, in this view, occur by the design of omnipotence or by the free-will choice of men, since communists reject the existence of God, and the agency of man.

Once the clash occurs, a crisis ensues. There is no escaping this. The random or natural event will take course in time; so will the crisis, and so will the product of that crisis. In the end, a transformation occurs, which includes a total negation of the former state of being, and the emergence of a new state of being. This change is not a gradual Darwinian evolutionary one, but occurs in a quantum leap.

If applied to macro-evolution, it means that the monkey did not gradually become a man over millions of years, but that some clash with an unforeseen change in circumstance caused him to leap from ape to man.

I know, you're laughing. But using the language of the dialectic, the monkey is the thesis, the change in circumstance that caused the leap (maybe the injection of a wonder drug by a visiting alien) is called the anti-thesis, a crisis then occurs, and the result is a quantum leap (or transformation) to a totally new thesis, Man.

Now apply this to economic history, using Toffler's Gingrich-endorsed version of history.

Primitive (First Wave) man is a farmer, he uses basic tools, he is pretty much self sufficient, and although he is exploitive of the environment (another Marxian view), he does relatively little damage, compared to later capitalists (Second Wave people), like you and me!

Along comes an unforeseen change in circumstance, a clash — the invention of the machine and mass production. Man is now compelled to change (no agency). This transformation is inevitable, Toffler says, a hundred times over.

The clash goes on for awhile, with those in power (the slave holders and feudal lords) resisting the crumbling of their exclusive monopoly on the wealth, but then society leaps, from agriculturalism to industrialism, and there is no looking back. The new order inevitably must win (in this case the Second Wave).

Eventually, wherever the wave hits (some remote villages are spared), everything is transformed, the government, the economy, the morals, and the family.

With this new order in place, Toffler takes the Marxian stand, that all of the changes, including a new morality, a new legal code, a new government, and a new culture, are the inventions of the ruling class of men, relative to their situation, in order to sustain the existing order.

None of it is inspiration, none of it is fixed truth, none of it will endure beyond the next crisis, the coming of the next wave. For us, the next wave is already upon us; we began to feel its effects in 1954, and it will inevitably and completely transform all of society, just as its predecessors did. This is not something we can resist, so he would like us to believe.

The Dialectic's Convenient Conclusions

Oversimplifying history and the conduct of man makes for some strange and, shall we say, convenient conclusions.

All the wars of the Industrial era were fought for no other reason than a clash between the backward-thinking forces of the Agricultural era (First Wave) protecting their interests, and the forward-thinking forces of the Industrial era (Second Wave) doing the same. These Second Wave forces were compelled to fight these wars, it seems, in the interest of the progress of man.

A very convenient perspective, which leads to Toffler's seminal conclusion about the Communist October Revolution and the murdering bloodbath of tens of millions that followed:

"In Russia, too, the same collision between First and Second Wave forces erupted. The 1917 revolution was Russia's version of the American Civil War. It was fought not primarily, as it seemed, over communism, but once again over the issue of industrialization.

"When the Bolsheviks wiped out the last lingering vestiges of serfdom and feudal monarchy, they pushed agriculture in the background and consciously accelerated industrialization. They became the Party of the Second Wave." (11)

Mass-murdering communist Ho Chi Minh became then, in this Wave game, an "anti-colonialist," resisting the heartless, exploitive Imperialism of the Capitalist version of the Second Wave. (12)

Soviet Imperialism became not a conspiracy to spread tyranny, but a reasonable desire to feed the urban populations of their Second Wave industrial complex. (13) While on the other hand, American Imperialism lived up to the old Marxist paradigm that the factory owners needed new markets to exploit in order to maintain their lofty status in the Second Wave.

Further, future bloodbaths are already justified under this theory, and predicted again and again as necessary and predictable outcome of progressive Third Wayers clashing with backward Second Wavers.

But the blame for it all he places on Second Wave forces, people like constitutionalists and Christians, who rigidly refuse to let go of old outmoded governments and morals. If only they would just wake up and submit to the program, he laments, we would be far better off. (14)

Toffler's hatred for our system and our culture reaches an embarrassing low when he describes the marvelous Christian missionary work of the last two centuries as having no higher purpose than to impose Second Wave civilization on what Christians viewed as "backward . . . underdeveloped . . . childlike . . . tricky and dishonest . . . shiftless [people who] did not value life." (15)

More seminal conclusions!

But don't get Mr. Toffler and the Third Wave wrong. Like all Third Wayers, he does criticize the communists, with this proviso — almost all criticism presents the assumption that the communist holds the moral, sociological, and political high ground. And so, he repeatedly starts off such criticisms with "Even in Russia" or "Even the Communist Nations," as if we should be surprised that "even" communists commit Second Wave errors and have a few flaws in the fabric of their plan!

There is more.

Changing Human Nature

Like so many elitists of the Marxist/Fascist school, Toffler rejects the fact that human nature is unchanging. This belief makes it easier for him to discount the continued importance of our Constitution, which Madison said established such things as a separation of powers, checks and balances, limitation of powers, and inalienable rights, as guards against the eternal foibles of human nature.

The main problem was the tendency of men in power to lust for more power — or in the case of governmental bodies of the one, the few, or the many, the tendency to strive to concentrate all power unto themselves.

Madison wrote: It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." (16)

The auxiliary precautions were the policy of "opposite and rival interests," which came via a house elected by the people, a Senate by the state legislatures, a President by the electoral college, a Supreme Court loyal to the Constitution, and state governments loyal to their local interests and jealous of their sovereign powers.

Other precautions express limitations and divisions of powers, checks and balances, a bill of rights, the rule of law (that is, written law that applies to all equally), and a difficult amendment process as part of that rule of law.

Toffler hates all this, because it slows government down. And his solution to Madison's argument is his utopian notion of the coming forth of a "new man," one who is shaped by the new order and particularly by "the politics of the future." (17)

This man, who he also describes as part of the "expanding elites," is the result of his Orwellian Third Way belief in a society-wide "altered consciousness." (18) Such a man, unlike his inferior Second Wave predecessor, can be trusted with power without the precautions of Republican government.

Humorously, Toffler's "new" superman is not at all new and not at all super; rather, he very much resembles the same old diabolical sinful man that consumed himself and his fellows in Sodom and Gomorrah. Toffler's "enlightened" Third Wave man is free of any sexual restraints, and is preoccupied with experimenting with a variety of sexual and non-traditional family lifestyles. (19)

In presenting this, Toffler, is totally oblivious to the possibility, or likelihood, that uncontrolled lust for sex will cross over into uncontrolled lust for power, or that sexual deviancy presents the danger of vulnerability to betrayal, bribery, and blackmail. Where, then, is the wisdom that such a man or group of men can be left unfettered?

NewsMax columnist Steve Farrell is the former managing editor of Right magazine, a widely published research writer, and a former Air Force Communications Security Manager. His projects include his upcoming book, Democrats In Drag: Another Look at the Republican Party.

Please send your comments and radio and speaking engagement requests to Steve at

(Edit 5/21/16... I found these Steve Farrell articles years ago at the above link... since they are no longer there, I have inserted the entire article into the 6 posts, instead of the linked partials as before... JT)


"Whenever there is an interest and power to
do wrong, wrong will generally be done, and not
less readily by a powerful and interested party
than by a powerful and interested prince."

~James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 1788

Offline Valerius

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,865
Re: The Newt Gingrich Deception
« Reply #27 on: December 13, 2011, 02:58:33 AM »
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck."  -Frederick Douglass

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,519
Third Way Part VI: Eradicating the US Constitution by Design
« Reply #28 on: December 13, 2011, 03:18:20 AM »
The Third Way Part VI: Eradicating the US Constitution by Design
Steve Farrell
April 6, 2000


A half-century ago, in a classic exchange between two men on opposite ends of the moral and political spectrum, Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschev bragged to American Patriot and Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson: “Your grandchildren will live under communism!” To which Secretary Benson enthusiastically replied: “If I have it my way, your grandchildren will live free!”

Kruschev, undeterred, fired back: “Oh you Americans! You’re so gullible! We’ll spoon feed you socialism until you’re Communists and don’t’ even know it. We’ll never have to fire a shot!”

Ironically, history has to some degree vindicated both men. A greater degree of liberty has arisen, if only temporarily, behind the Iron Curtain, as was Benson’s hope; but nevertheless, Kruschev was also on target - truth be told, more on target.

For socialism is still alive and well in Russia, throughout the old Soviet Empire, on all seven continents, on the isles of the sea, at the UN, in its regional arrangements, and as Kruschev predicted, in the United States.

Socialism is not in desperate retreat, as falsely proclaimed by the establishment press, our state university professors and our “all is well” don’t-rock-the-boat political machines. On the contrary; it moves forward confidently, aggressively, and for the most part uncontested, everywhere in the world.

If Benson were alive today, he might have surmised that communism was the victor in this ironic twist of events. For despite communism’s “demise,” Benson consistently held that Communism was but a tool in a game of political blackmail whose purpose was not to communize the world, but to frighten the world into a comfortable merger under socialism.

That comfortable merger is the very real threat of our day, and the ordained mediator of the final stages of that merger is the Third Way; whose mission it is to bellow such a merger as the only legitimate choice in politics, a place where social democracy and economic prosperity may safely meet.

Yes, it is among the Third Wayers today that we find people kooky enough to believe that mass murdering Communism has something as lofty as social democracy to bring to the bargaining table, and that the United States must of necessity bow before the economic clout of countries like Communist China - granting butchers, avowed enemies, and proven deceivers, privileges and political might that they do not deserve, which privilege and power will certainly be used not to enhance the economic freedom of their peoples, but to undermine the economic independence of the United States, not to enhance our national security, but to build up their military capability and political leverage against the United States.

It has been the unfortunate task of this series of articles (see archives for third way articles ) to expose this, the Third Way, as a creature in hiding which has come forth out of the badlands of socialism and communism, masked and cloaked in futurism and social democracy. Evidence enough that this is true, has been presented.

Yet, proving the Third Way is a threat was the easy task. Convincing hands-over-their-eyes-don’t-tell-me-the-facts Republicans, that it is not just the Democratic Party, not just Blair, Schroeder and the EU, and not just “reformed” communists in Russia and China, but their “liberty” party as well - the Republican Party - which is knee deep in the Third Way, is the far more daunting task.

Nonetheless, the claim is true.

Building the case for this claim, the last two articles in this series have:

1. Demonstrated that the most influential man of 1990’s Republicanism, Newt Gingrich, has of his own admission been for 30 years zealously involved with Alvin Toffler and the Third Way movement in a leadership capacity (see Third Way Contract: Gingrich & Toffler, an Odd Duo).

2. Exposed the Marxist underpinnings of Toffler’s version of the Third Way (see The Third Way Part V), which so-called Democratic philosophy Mr. Gingrich said was at the core of his own political ideology and the ideology of the Republican Revolution.

3. Pointed to the bold revelation that a trashing of the outmoded US Constitution is the grand key to implementing this strange democratic plan, which will replace or radically reform the US Constitution with a totally ‘new’ and ‘improved’ 21st Century Democracy. (see 21st Century Democracy and the Third Way)

The question some may be asking, is just how vulnerable is the Republican Party to this socialist philosophy. Surprisingly, Democrat Alvin Toffler singled out the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party, as the preferred Third Way party. Why? Because the Republican Party had the largest contingency of centrists and moderates - perfect fodder for a scheme which thrives on compromising politicians, rather than dedicated ideologues to the left or the right. (1)

Fittingly, although Heaven rejects the luke-warm warm, the Third Way recruits them, for a moderate is someone who loves everybody and loves nothing. He is a servant of the world, not of high principle. He is a seeker of the dingy side of self-interest. And the Third Way has a sales pitch he can’t resist; that is, a little bit of something for everyone: progressive thinking, democratic rhetoric, social welfare, “free” markets and Corporatism - the kind of political plan which guarantees election or reelection, but, deplorably, abandons the greatest system of government the world has ever known.

The Plan

The plan to usher in the Third Wave rests on four pillars. 1. Get rid of or radically reform the US Constitution 2 Replace it with a direct or semi-direct democracy. 3. Replace majority rule with minority rule 4. Improve government efficiency through a management tool called decision division. (2)

1. Get Rid of the US Constitution

Alvin Toffler described the US Constitution as a “disease” which “must die and be replaced.” (3) The reason why is that the US Constitution presents many obnoxious obstacles for futuristic man - the central threat being its cumbersome structural feature of checks and balances, which results in gridlock (which was, incidentally, by intent) rather than speedy legislation; and which results in bitter partisan politics, rather than the national and international unity requisite for rapid response to the needs of billions of people - needs, they say, which are not adequately being met in our high tech, rapidly changing, highly interdependent world. (4)

Or as Gingrich added: “[the divisiveness and gridlock inherent in the Republican structure] has kept our politics trapped in frustration, negativism, cynicism and despair.” (5) Apparently, it is more important that government has the power to make more laws to “bless” our lives, then that she be slowed down by those who might disagree with those new laws.

Debate hampers change.

So he and Toffler had a plan to facilitate that change, a plan which would discard many “horse and buggy” gridlock features of our US Constitution.

The majority of the solutions Mr. Gingrich proposed in the first 10 weeks of 1994 as part of the Contract With America (the plan), or as addendum’s thereto, attempted to solve the big problem: republican governmental features, or those features which promoted “frustration, negativism, cynicism, and despair.” He proposed 17 amendments in all!

Hardly conservative, especially when you consider that in the first 209 years after the Bill of Rights was joined to the US Constitution, only 17 amendments have been added. Gingrich sought to double that overnight!

Radical, then, is a better word to describe Gingrich, and foolish, the best word to describe Republicans who tra-la-la-ed along, and continue to do so today.

Gingrich went further, however, by attacking the Constitution not by the legal process of amendment alone, but by a Clinton-like sidestep of the Constitution, proposing and passing legislation which radically defied and redefined the Constitution, as if the Constitution weren’t there to say no.

Things such as fast track treaty authority for the King, line item veto for the King, disciplinary powers over Congress for the King (through the Justice Department), the transfer of state jurisdiction over criminal and other law to the King, and the surrender of Congress’s constitutional duty to regulate our nations commerce to unaccountable, non democratic regional and world governmental bodies like NAFTA and the WTO, organizations which are run by appointees of this leftist King and the leaders of nations antagonistic to our way of life.

These changes, even though they were radical departures from the Constitution, and could therefore, legitimately only be proposed as amendments to the Constitution, were instead ramrod through as routine legislation. Such was Newt Gingrich’s contempt for the United States Constitution.

Gingrich, as more than a few Congressmen have come forth and admitted, not only supported these and other bills, but strong armed them through Congress. No committee appointment, committee chair, or future party financial support was secure for any Republican Congressmen who defied Gingrich’s direction.

Interestingly, this powerful “leadership” tactic was out-to-lunch when support for legitimate constitutional issues such as missile defense system funding was needed. In 1994, such a system went down to defeat when 29 Republican’s dissented. Not one House member was threatened loss of a committee post over that issue!

Call it what you want - by an array of constitutional amendments, and unconstitutional legislation, the Republican Party under Gingrich’s Third Way approach, sought to radically redefine the US Constitution, doing away with gridlock and contention, by centralizing all power in the King and His Court, or worse yet, by centralizing power in remote, unaccountable, international bodies.

Such methods, admittedly, do dwindle the debate, and do guarantee smooth sailing for the passing of necessary laws, but they also guarantee smooth sailing for unnecessary, unconstitutional, and un-American laws, and therein lies the danger.

By no small surprise, the Third Way agenda of limiting the debate, so that Congress, the President, or the UN, might be free to maneuver (as if they were Kings or Independent Citizens rather than agents accountable to the people and to fixed laws) in a rapidly changing world, haunts the Republican Party today in new ways, as top candidates for the Presidency, during the recent primary, shook hands over a promise not to employ negative campaigning tactics.

Call it the new, “shut up and vote” strategy, as if our voting franchise is all that is necessary for liberty to prevail (ask Russian citizens if that is true). John McCain would eliminate negative campaigning 60 days before an election - and also eliminate, altogether, soft fund contributions (contributions which pay for issues advertising). Such a plan is akin to prohibiting Patrick Henry from rallying the colonists to fight the British, even as their ships armed to the teeth were anchoring in the harbor, because such talk creates cynicism and mistrust in government; or as if free speech is no longer a 365 day per year right!

With government as intrusive as it is today, and with politicians as uneducated in the doctrines of liberty and morality as they are today, pledging to keep our mouths shut is not an act of love, but of hatred for ourselves and of future generations.

The “middle” Ground which would remove the debate, the division of powers, and our stubborn amendment process, in favor of fast tracking every bill which “appears” necessary to keep up with our high tech, interdependent world, is a way which promises a smooth sail to the abolition of our “diseased” free government in the name of expediency.

Shame on Newt Gingrich and the Republican Party for their surrender of proven political principles and our fundamental right to free speech and consent, to their Fast Track Third Way Goddess of Change, Technology, Money, and Expediency. In as much as they have done this, they have proven once again, that they are Democrats in Drag.

Next Column: Alvin Toffler and Newt Gingrich want to replace our Republican form of government with a more direct democracy. This, they claim is a return to Jeffersonian Democracy. It is a lie! Find out why next Tuesday in Part VII of the series, Third Way Direct Democracy: Using Jefferson as a Cloak for Revolution

1. Toffler, Alvin and Heidi. Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave Atlanta; Turner Publishing, Inc. 1995, pgs. 77-78.
2. Toffler, Alvin. The Third Wave New York, London, Toronto; Bantam Books, 1980, pgs. 416-434. Also, Creating a New Civilization pgs. 89-108.
3. Ibid. pgs. 416-418 and Creating a New Civilization pgs. 89-91.
4. Creating a New Civilization, p. 16.
5. Ibid. p. 16

Steve Farrell is a widely published research writer. CalNews, Liberty Caucus, Ether Zone, Enter Stage Right, Spin Tech Magazine, OpinioNet, ConEye and carry his column. Projects include his upcoming book Democrats In Drag: Another Look at the Republican Party.

Please email your comments and/or media requests to Steve at

(Edit 5/21/16... I found these Steve Farrell articles years ago at the above link... since they are no longer there, I have inserted the entire article into the 6 posts, instead of the linked partials as before... JT)


"If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they
cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make
such laws and enforce them."
~Candidus, (aka Samuel Adams)
in the Boston Gazette, January 20,1772


  • Guest
Re: The Newt Gingrich Deception
« Reply #29 on: December 13, 2011, 03:02:44 PM »
Excellent post JT,

Kruschev, undeterred, fired back: “Oh you Americans! You’re so gullible! We’ll spoon feed you socialism until you’re Communists and don’t’ even know it. We’ll never have to fire a shot!”

Stunning reality ---

Offline diamondgussetinthecrotch

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • where you need it most!
Re: The Newt Gingrich Deception
« Reply #30 on: December 13, 2011, 05:36:32 PM »
This is another book that Newt has repeatedly cited as being influential to him, may give another glimpse into how his mind operates

Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,519
The Third Way Part VI: Eradicating the US Constitution by Design
« Reply #31 on: December 14, 2011, 01:18:46 PM »
Excellent post JT,

Kruschev, undeterred, fired back: “Oh you Americans! You’re so gullible! We’ll spoon feed you socialism until you’re Communists and don’t’ even know it. We’ll never have to fire a shot!”

Stunning reality ---

Thanks Jordan...

The words I cut and pasted in my last few posts are 12 years old now... yet they ring louder today than ever... I lost track of Steve Farrell after 911 and am sorry for that... I must thank him and Diane Alden for the exhaustive research and analysis they put into this series... everything they wrote is spot on.

Gingrich, has been slickly undermining America for almost 30 years, research shows. He is a Clinton-esque Obama clone with a chain rack, iron maiden, and cat-o-nine tails... he's deadly and must be defeated...

His "Contract with America" in '94 was a clever statutory cart blanc, a process for amending of the Constitution by legislation, and mainline republicans went along with it without a whimper. It effectively gutted our most Wholesome Law and streamlined the pace of tyranny by greasing it's wheels with the sweat and blood of the world...

Only Ron Paul is knowledgeable enough, righteous enough, determined enough, and respectful enough, to fix-it right. The rest have human blood on their hands and the dragon's breath of tyranny in their hearts.

With all that said, Obama is the globalist gorgon we must defeat. We have work to do... we have minds to change and hearts to win.


"Let no more be said of confidence
in man, but bind him down from
mischief by the chains of the
~Thomas Jefferson

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,941
Re: The Newt Gingrich Deception
« Reply #32 on: December 14, 2011, 02:43:46 PM »
Great series - thanks for posting that JT. Just started with the first article, and this excerpt is an excellent summary of the third wave 'cabal'... and Steve Farrell's excellent response to their agenda...


Plato, Marx, and Hitler are the forefathers of Third Way/Wave thinking; thinking that is through and through socialist.
Today its proponents quite predictably include the socialist Fabian Society, the British Third Way Party, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, German Chancellor Schroeder, most delegates to the European Union, the People’s Liberation Army friends and fiends Bill Clinton and Al Gore, the Democratic Party itself - which hosts a Third Way site (33), and most surprisingly a pack of "progressive” Republicans including their "icon,” Contract With America author, Newt Gingrich, a man who calls himself a "conservative futurist” and who enthusiastically forwards and markets "ex” Marxist turned Third Waver Alvin Toffler’s books (34). Odd bedfellows by their own admission.

In every case, their Third Way banter includes appeals to direct democracy, decentralization, minority rule and the abandonment of "fuzzy” sovereignty. They allege that technology makes all of these things possible and necessary. In fact they are collectively positive that this is the road - the only road - to the future.

Their only fear is that a blind and dangerous rear guard, namely you and I,
will resist, slow them down and usher in a costly conflict. But they have it all backwards, don’t they?
They are the rear guard of the old oppressive state,
and we are the progressives who will work to sustain our liberties in the face of their great fraud.

And P.S. - who knew Plato was such an elitist dick?  He must have been the inspiration behind Aldous Huxley's book "Brave New World".
And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,519
Re: The Newt Gingrich Deception
« Reply #33 on: December 14, 2011, 03:28:24 PM »

Farrell did another series prior to this exposing the "Contract with America" and the unholy marriage of the House, Senate, and the Executive in the mid '90s, that UNCONSTITUTIONALLY altered the government's power and literally usurped and redefined the entire constitutional system as under federal control...

Gingrich was the Pied Piper of all this... all while saying that James Madison, the architect of the Constitution, was his favorite founding father...

I will post this series here as well, later today...


"The people are the only legitimate fountain of
power, and it is from them that the constitutional
charter, under which the several branches of
government hold their power, is derived."

~James Madison

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,519
Re: The Newt Gingrich Deception: "Contract with America" pt.1
« Reply #34 on: December 14, 2011, 04:57:23 PM »
Here is another exposé series by Steve Farrell in the run up to the 2000 election which put a damper on any Gingrich run for the Presidency during that election cycle.

Contract With America - Part 1: Democrats in Drag
Steve Farrell
July 20, 1999

On the steps of the US Capitol on September 27, 1994, more than 300 candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives stood, under an “unusually warm, sun filled sky” and made history. All of them were there, joining hands and rubbing shoulders, with one goal in mind: To help launch a new revolution; the Republican revolution.

This catapult into a new order of things for the US Congress began with the reading and then the signing of a Contract With America, a contract which committed its 357 signatories to a bold 10 point program which promised a “return to the wisdom and brilliance of the Founding Fathers.” Including in that context, a promise to return to limited government, free markets, individual responsibility, and the protection of American sovereignty.

What a refreshing vow! And it seemed just in time. For two years American citizens had suffered under the shock wave of a radical new approach to politics under the Clinton Administration.

President Clinton had, in short order, authorized the installment of gays in the military; stood behind a Surgeon General who sought to legalize illicit drugs and teach sex education to five year olds; ordered and then publicly justified the police-state-like tactic of warrantless gun sweeps and immigration sweeps of public housing units; filled traditionally non gun- toting federal agencies, like the FDA, with armed agents who then began conducting raids on such enemies of the state as garlic researchers; condoned the tank led assault on a Church filled with men, women, and children in Waco, Texas; zealously promoted socialist medicine even while the celebration over the “fall” of communism was still echoing in our ears, and aggressively launched America’s soldiers into several New World Order commitments, transforming the US military into a busybody welfare agency, that was, for the first time in history, subservient to UN command. And then there were the scandals . . .

Who shouldn’t have been alarmed? Conservative action groups flourished, Democratic faithful ran for cover, and the Republican Party leadership seized the moment.

The Contract With America was the result. The overall goals, already alluded to, sounded good. They were: “To limit and hold government accountable, to promote economic opportunity and individual responsibility to families and businesses, and to maintain security both at home and abroad.”

Who could argue with that? They sounded vaguely conservative and vagueness sells.

Just as vague were the Contract’s ten planks or bills which the signers promised to introduce and vote on within the first 100 days, each bill having a catchy conservative title. They were: The Fiscal Responsibility Act, The Taking Back Our Streets Act, The Personal Responsibility Act, The Family Reinforcement Act, The American Dream Restoration Act, The National Security Restoration Act, The Senior Citizens Fairness Act, The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act, The Common Sense Legal Reforms Act, and The Citizen Legislature Act.

With all those commitments to Restoration, American Dreams, and Security, one would think the millennium had arrived, and finally every thing would be as it used to be, and as it should be.

But when vagueness gave way to specifics and the fine print legislation follows, it becomes clear enough, that this was not to be so. At almost every turn, the proposed and or passed legislation centralized power from the individual to the state, from the states to the federal government, from Congress to the President, or from the United States to the United Nations. The antithesis of what the founders stood for. Here are four illustrations.

1. Moving Power From the Individual to the State

The Personal Responsibility Act called for “denying increased AFDC (Welfare) [to parents who have] additional children.” This does resonates of conservatism, does it not? And it’s true that the founders were opposed to government welfare, is it not? Yet the self evident task of this legislation is not to repudiate welfare, for welfare continues, but to repudiate children, large families, the free agency of parents, and religious liberty (many religions oppose birth control and or family size limitations based on financial need). This being so, it is not far fetch to believe that this act argues in favor of abortion, as pregnant mothers on welfare discover that they cannot afford to care for their baby. Unsurprisingly, the act does not forbid funding for additional abortions. They’re cheaper.

China move over.

2. Moving Power from the States to the Federal Government

The Taking Back Our Streets Act’s stated intent was to “stop violent criminals.” However, none of the Republican Party’s elite bothered to consider the Constitution’s limitations upon the federal government in this regard. The Constitution, we remember, grants the federal government power to prosecute foreign nationals, to settle interstate extradition disputes, to impeach lawbreaking federal officials, to establish independent laws and tribunals for members of the US military, to establish law and order within the District of Columbia, to handle appeals to the federal court system from state courts, to prosecute treason, and to guarantee certain rights for the accused in federal courts. Nothing else. Everything else, according to the10th Amendment is “reserved to the states, or to the people.” Cut and dry.

The “Taking Back Our Streets Act,” had little regard for such technicalities. Instead, Clinton-like it called for multibillion dollar federal block grants to the states (which have always undermined state authority) for the “prosecution of habeas corpus cases;” to “hire, train, or employ [state or local] police officers; to pay overtime to police officers; to purchase [police] equipment and technology; [to] enhance school security measures [including closed circuit cameras]; establish citizen neighborhood watch programs; [to] fund programs that advance moral standards (whose, the Clinton’s?); to build, operate, and expand [state] prisons;” and to convert “old military bases” into “correctional facilities” for “nonviolent offenders.”

The Act also imposed upon the states truth in sentencing laws, a ‘three strikes your out’ law, habeas corpus laws, death penalty laws, sexual predator laws, minimum sentencing laws, mandatory victim restitution laws, appeals laws, and parole laws.

Finally, the act federalized an expansive list of crimes (which belong under state jurisdiction also), to include much stiffer sentencing for mere possession of a gun during the commission of crime (10 yrs. first offense), and triple the minimum sentencing if the gun “possessed” was an automatic weapon (minimum 30 years). Strangely, if the criminal intended to do violence with a knife, with a baseball bat (the weapon of choice in NYC), with fire, with chemicals, with one’s bare hands or with a car, the criminal would get off easy: Those are considered lesser crimes. That sounds justlike the founders’ belief in equality before the law, doesn’t it? Or is it oddly the voice of the Democratic Party testifying that guns are inherently evil?

3. Moving Power From Congress To the President

The Fiscal Responsibility Act sought “to restore fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress” via a Balanced Budget Amendment and a Line Item Veto. Again, these appear conservative, and at least in the former case, something the founders would have strongly approved of.

However, the proposed balanced budget amendment contained an outrageous provision, which gave the President of the United, States the kingly and new power of overriding the balanced budget any time he deemed it necessary under the vague umbrella of “a serious threat to national security.” The potential for abuse is enormous, as this President alone, as classified the economic plight of Mexico, the violence in Somalia, the economic woes in Japan, and the conflicts in Africa, Bosnia, and Kosovo, all as serious threats to our National Security. Had this passed, this would have been one of the greatest assumptions of power in the history of the Presidency, passed in the name of conservatism.

The Line Item Veto, which did pass, but was later declared unconstitutional, again rejected the founders wisdom and brilliance by placing within the hands of the President of the United States the power to legislate law and easily manipulate Congress.

4. Moving Power from the United States to the United Nations

The National Security Restoration Act demanded that the President “stop putting US troops under UN command [and] stop raiding the defense budget to finance social programs and UN peacekeeping. (91).” Remarkably, the fine print for the act subtly did the precise opposite.

Under the title “Prohibition of Foreign Command of US Armed Forces,” the Act reads: “The President may waive this provision if he certifies to Congress that operational control of our troops under foreign command is vital to our national security interests.” To the letter, what President Clinton asked for.
While ostensibly calling for a check to the UN, the Act called for the “acceleration of the expansion of NATO,” a key subsidiary organization of the UN.
While denouncing the raiding of defense funds for welfare, the bill gives the President the authority to raid those funds, just so long as the defense department has not supplied written notice, “30 days” prior to the transfer, with “proof” that these funds are “vital to national security interests.”
While denouncing endless expensive UN peacekeeping operations, the bill calls for the creation of a slush fund for the President to “hold advanced funding for . . . peacekeeping operations.”

And so here is the Contract With America, an agreement that should be more fittingly catalogued in history not as a Contract With America, but as a Contract On America. It’s claim to a restoration of the founders views were, and are, blatantly false. A return to limited government cannot be achieved by seizing power from the people, the states, and Congress, and placing it into the hands of one man and his friends at the United Nations. The Republican Party elites who pulled off this gimmick to gain power, only reinforced what some for so long have felt so strongly, and that is that establishment Republicans are nothing less than Democrats in Drag.

Steve will continue his examination of the 'Contract With America' in his nex installment, “School Vouchers: GOP Trojan Horse.”

Steve Farrell is the former Managing Editor of Right Magazine and’s newest staff writer. Please email your comments to Steve at

(Edit 5/21/16... I found these Steve Farrell articles years ago at the above link... since they are no longer there, I have inserted the entire article into this post, instead of the linked partial as before... JT)


"The truth is that all men having power
ought to be mistrusted."
~James Madison


  • Guest
Newt's loot: Billionaire commits $20M
« Reply #35 on: December 16, 2011, 01:04:46 AM »
Adelson discusses $20 million check to pro-Newt Gingrich group, denies commitment

Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson has discussed directing $20 million to an outside group backing Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign, multiple sources told POLITICO – a good sign for allies who have been pushing the former speaker’s longtime billionaire supporters to sign on.

But Adelson called POLITICO Thursday to challenge the characterization that he had committed $20 million.

“I’ve made no commitment to anybody. Now, doesn’t mean I won’t in the future, but up ‘til now, no commitment has been made and no amount has been stated,” he said, refusing to answer questions about whether he’d met with representatives of the super PACs supporting Gingrich.

“I’m not telling you who I talked to,” he said, explaining that he “would prefer to stay under the radar,” despite his high-profile in the business world. “But when it comes to political issues, or my personal issues or my philanthropic issues, I only allow anything to be done, I never talk about what I’m going to do to anybody. All I just do is do.”

After leaving Congress, Gingrich cultivated a network of a few dozen uber-wealthy backers who poured tens of millions of dollars into a network of groups that helped him maintain a foothold in politics. Now, operatives supporting his presidential campaign are asking those same donors to write fat checks to a suite of new super PACs they hope can spend big on ads to offset Gingrich campaign fundraising that had lagged behind his rivals’.

Adelson is considered the prized get for pro-Gingrich groups.

Many major donors prefer to keep their activity low-profile, though federal rules require super PACs to disclose their donors in the coming weeks.

Sources with direct knowledge of the $20 million figure, who requested anonymity, told POLITICO that Adelson planned to cut a check to one of the PACs as soon as this week.

But Adelson said “if these people say they heard me say it, just tell them to call me. If they know me well enough to quote me, tell them to call me. I’m telling you it’s not true.”

A major contribution from Adelson would enable the recipient group to start airing ads in Iowa to counter a weeklong anti-Gingrich on-air assault that is already taking a toll on his front-runner status in the Hawkeye State, according to private and public polling.

Adelson and his wife Miriam Adelson each contributed the $2,500 maximum to Gingrich’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in August. But there weren’t many options for them and other wealthy donors looking to give more to help Gingrich through the summer, when his campaign was on life support.

That changed as Gingrich’s campaign started surging last month, prompting his allies to create new outside groups known as super PACs that can accept unlimited funds to air ads supporting him.

Perhaps the leading player in the pro-Gingrich super PAC space, Winning Our Future, was unveiled this week and is being headed by Becky Burkett, who was the lead fundraiser for Gingrich’s main political vehicle over the past few years, the fundraising juggernaut American Solutions for Winning the Future.

That group raised $54 million — including $7.7 million from Adelson — between its late 2006 creation and its collapse this year after Gingrich left it to run for president, according to Internal Revenue Service filings.

On Tuesday, Burkett declined to detail her relationship with Adelson, telling POLITICO, “I certainly know him through American Solutions,” but added, “I have not spoken to him” about Winning Our Future.

Charlie Smith, who runs another new pro-Gingrich super PAC called Solutions 2012, said the group’s fundraiser, Jerry Seppala, “does have a relationship with Sheldon,” but stressed he “won’t comment on our contacts with any specific donor or whether anyone particular person has given.”
Continue Reading

And Craig Bachler, an official at a third super PAC called Spirit of America Solutions that is generally supportive of — but does not intend to endorse — Gingrich, also declined to discuss Adelson specifically. But he did add suggestively that his group got “a major commitment out of Nevada that the individual is big into donating money to Newt and I think is sharing the wealth with not just one PAC.”

While Burkett’s group is expected to emerge as the biggest pro-Gingrich super PAC, it’s unclear to which super PAC Adelson made the $20 million planned commitment, or how much money he intended to give directly versus raise through his network.

But a former official at one of Gingrich’s groups who is not involved in the presidential campaign or super PACs said that if Adelson “does end up giving big, he could really make a significant impact on this election.”

Asked why he wants Gingrich to be elected president, Adelson used a culinary analogy, asking  POLITICO “Why do you want to have a steak for dinner? … Steak tastes good. OK, well who would be good for the country? That’s why I want him to be president.”

Though he professed “loyalty” to Gingrich, he also said “if Newt doesn’t get the nomination, I would certainly support the Republican candidate. The idea is to avoid another four years of Obama because this won’t be the same country … because of his socialist leanings.”

The focus on Adelson underscores the increasing influence of megadonors in the new campaign finance environment as well as the promise and challenges in quickly mounting a robust outside effort to support Gingrich.

A competition between the pro-Gingrich groups for cash and attention could confuse donors and dilute the potential impact of each, and leave them at a disadvantage to the outside efforts boosting Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, which quickly coalesced around single, preferred super PACs.

“We’re really in hyper speed now with these super PACs where, in a universe of unlimited contributions, you can get seed money and be up and running with ads in a few days, particularly if a candidate gets hot like Newt Gingrich is now,” said Michael Toner, a former Federal Election Commission chairman. But there’s also “great potential for donor confusion, because [of] the sheer volume of these super PACs with names that are kind of similar,” warned Toner, who credited allies of Romney, Perry and President Barack Obama with quickly rallying behind a single respective super PAC for each candidate.

“And that’s not easy to do” because of rules barring campaigns from coordinating with super PACs, said Toner, who represented former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s bid for the GOP nomination, which ended amid paltry fundraising and poll numbers. “A super PAC is probably more valuable to someone like Newt Gingrich because he doesn’t have the organizational and financial resources of some of the other top-tier candidates.”

Yet many of Gingrich’s wealthy patrons aligned themselves with his rivals for the GOP presidential nomination when his campaign struggled earlier this year.

A POLITICO analysis of FEC and IRS filings found that of the 16 donors who contributed $100,000 or more to American Solutions and also gave to a 2012 GOP presidential campaign or campaigns, only six gave to Gingrich, including Adelson.

To be sure, the analysis only covers presidential campaign donations through the end of September, weeks before Gingrich’s campaign began the unlikely surge that has landed him at the top of the polls.

But his main rival, former Massachusetts Gov. Romney, and the super PAC supporting him, Restore Our Future, also have been working to win support from megadonors and have secured backing from some who had given big to American Solutions for Winning the Future.

For instance, real estate magnate Harlan Crow, whose company had given $100,000 to Gingrich’s group, this month threw a major fundraiser at his Dallas mansion for Romney.
Continue Reading

Crow, who had been a longtime donor to Texas Gov. Perry’s gubernatorial campaigns and had given to the presidential campaigns of former Govs. Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman of Utah, told The Wall Street Journal that “many folks who supported [Perry’s presidential campaign] are now reconsidering.”

There also are a handful of megadonors who cut big checks to American Solutions but have limited their disclosed presidential contributions to Romney’s campaign, including the recently deceased Cincinnati billionaire Carl Lindner Jr., who along with his widow Edyth Lindner had donated $690,000 to the Gingrich group.

Other major Newt World donors who have either given to, or signaled support for, Romney include personal investing billionaire Charles Schwab (who gave $200,000 to American Solutions), produce wholesaler Robert Castellini ($170,000), Johnson & Johnson heir Robert Wood Johnson IV ($75,000), New York finance titan John Whitehead ($30,000), Florida mall developer Mel Sembler ($30,000) and Home Depot investor Ken Langone ($25,000).

Perry, too, has made some headway with major Gingrich donors, getting contributions from the executives of Oklahoma’s Devon Energy (which had given $625,000 to American Solutions) and Houston’s Plains Exploration & Production Company ($200,000).

Of course, it’s difficult to gauge which donors will write big checks to super PACs. So far, only one major presidential super PAC has disclosed donations — the pro-Romney Restore Our Future, which raised $12.2 million in the first half of the year entirely from 90 high-dollar contributors.

The major pro-Perry super PAC, Make Us Great Again, had set a $55 million budget but initially looked like it might have to fight for big donor cash with at least five other pro-Perry super PACs.

The groups swiped at one another as Perry prepared to enter the race, but Make Us Great Again asserted its place as the dominant outside group in an August email from its founders, including a close Perry confidant named Mike Toomey.

“Many other groups are coming forward to draft and support the governor,” wrote Toomey and his co-founders. “Our advice is to avoid any other group claiming to be ‘the’ pro-Perry independent effort and, when the timing is right, to support Make Us Great Again.”

There won’t be any official signal like that from Newt World, predicted the former official from a Gingrich group, as well as the ex-Gingrich aide. In separate interviews, each said they expected a competition between the various groups, but gave an edge to Winning Our Future, thanks to Burkett’s ties to major donors to American Solutions for Winning the Future.

“I don’t think there will be a group that is ‘crowned’ to be the ‘official’ group. That will come with whichever group can prove their ability to fundraise and be successful,” said the ex-aide, asserting “there is plenty of money to be raised for everyone.”


  • Guest
Re: The Newt Gingrich Deception
« Reply #36 on: December 17, 2011, 12:15:06 AM »
The FBI "considered a sting operation against then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich after sifting through allegations from a notorious arms dealer that a $10 million bribe might get Congress to lift the Iraqi arms embargo." Investigation was called off, but the papers have just been publicly released.

It is a curious case in the annals of the FBI: The bureau considered a sting operation against then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich after sifting through allegations from a notorious arms dealer that a $10 million bribe might get Congress to lift the Iraqi arms embargo.

The FBI ended up calling off the operation in June 1997. It decided there was no evidence that Gingrich knew anything about the conversations the arms dealer was secretly recording with a man who said he was acting on behalf of Gingrich’s then-wife, Marianne, according to people with knowledge of the investigation.

But details of the case, which became public this week in an article and documents posted online by a nonprofit journalist, show how a series of second- and third-hand conversations alleging that the top man in Congress might be for sale caught the attention of federal investigators.

“There are so many falsehoods,” Marianne Gingrich said Thursday. “The FBI, they should have been protecting me, not going after me. This is scary stuff.”

Her lawyer, Victoria Toensing, said: “There was no basis whatsoever for an investigation. These were people puffing, which means they were making up access to a high-level goverment person.”

Gingrich’s presidential campaign did not provide immediate comment when asked for response Thursday.

The investigation began after the arms dealer, Sarkis Soghanalian, told federal prosecutors and FBI agents in Miami that Marianne Gingrich said during a meeting in Paris in 1995 that she could provide legislative favors through her husband. The case progressed to the point that it was deemed a major investigation requiring approval in Washington.

Soghanalian, a convicted felon who is now dead, said he wanted the speaker’s help in getting the arms embargo lifted so he could collect an $80 million debt from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, according to an FBI document filed to obtain continuing wiretap authorization for the case. The facts in the document were “developed through a cooperating witness,” whom The Washington Post has confirmed was Soghanalian.

Soghanalian said Marianne Gingrich assured him “she would be able to do anything [Soghanalian] requested of her ‘as long as they had an understanding,’ ” the document states.

Several months after the meeting in Paris, a man who had been on the trip with Gingrich and Soghanalian told the arms dealer that the embargo could be lifted for the right price. In conversations recorded by Soghanalian, the man, a Miami car salesman named Morty Bennett, stated that Marianne “wanted 10 million dollars to get the job done, five million of which would go directly to Marianne Gingrich,” the document states.

Bennett said in an interview Thursday, “I knew somebody and introduced them to somebody and that was it. Thank you for calling, and don’t call me back.”

The document and the existence of the aborted sting was first revealed this week in a 6,400-word story by Joseph Trento, who operates a Web site called DC Bureau ( Trento interviewed Soghanalian several times before his death in October at 82.

The investigation foundered because there was no evidence against Newt Gingrich to establish “predication” — a basis to believe the target was engaging in or about to engage in criminal activity — according to people familiar with the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case. FBI policy requires predication before significant undercover operations are initiated.

“There wasn’t any direct evidence that he knew anything,” said a source who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “The rules are you just can’t go in there and do an integrity check on someone.”

Bruce Udolph, the former chief federal corruption prosecutor in Miami, said he could not confirm the existence of the investigation but added, “With respect to Speaker Gingrich, I am not aware of any direct, credible evidence linking him to any conspiracy to receive a bribe from anyone.”

The Justice Department referred calls to the FBI, which declined to comment on the case.

The Armenian-born Soghanalian was a high-volume arms dealer nicknamed “the Merchant of Death” who was indicted by federal authorities in South Florida for conspiring to sell U.S. helicopters to Iraq in violation of a U.S. ban. His 61 / 2-year sentence was reduced to two years in 1993 because of his cooperation with federal authorities.

He was already a federal informant when he met with Marianne Gingrich in Paris in July 1995. Also in attendance at those meetings were Bennett and Howard Ash, who had earlier worked with Marianne Gingrich at the Israel Export Development Corp., a company that advocated for a free-trade zone in the Gaza Strip.

Marianne Gingrich, who had left her position as vice president of marketing at IEDC, said she went to Paris at the request of her former boss to help get an investment from Soghanalian in IEDC.

The FBI document states that Soghanalian, Marianne Gingrich, Ash and Bennett spent several days together in Paris. Gingrich said “her relationship with her husband was purely a relationship of convenience,” the document states. “She told [Soghanalian] that she needed her husband for economic reasons, and that he needed to keep her close because she knew of all his ‘skeletons.’ ”

“She also told [Soghanalian], ‘It’s time for me to make money using my husband, and after we get started doing this, it will be easy,” the document says.

In January 1996, the document states, Soghanalian said he received a call from Bennett, who said he was acting on behalf of Marianne Gingrich and asked for $10 million to get the embargo lifted. Bennett wanted more than $1 million in advance, $300,000 in cash. The rest of the money was to be wired into Bennett’s bank account so that it could be transferred to the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli-based think tank with offices in Washington where Ash was a fundraiser, according to the document.

“Bennett stated that the way they had the deal structured nobody would ever be able to prove it was anything illegal,” the document states. “Bennett stated that it would be handled like a campaign payment and ensured the source that [Marianne] Gingrich knew what she was doing. Bennett stated that the money was for Gingrich and her husband and that they needed buffers to protect them.”

Marianne Gingrich said Thursday, “All that’s hogwash.”

Soghanalian asked for a telephone call with Marianne. Bennett said that “would spook Gingrich” but that he would try to arrange it “for small talk about their Paris trip,” the document states.

But Bennett never produced Marianne Gingrich. He reestablished contact with Soghanalian in February 1997, and the FBI asked for approval from headquarters to keep recording the conversations “to develop evidence of possible Hobbs Act, Conspiracy, and Bribery violations by Bennett, Ash, Marianne Gingrich, and as yet unidentified federal officials,” the document states. Ash did not return calls seeking comment.

In June 1997, Soghanalian was planning to meet Gingrich and his wife at a fundraiser in Miami arranged by Ben Waldman, a Reagan administration official who later was lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s business partner in the controversial purchase of a casino cruise line in Florida. Waldman did not return calls for comment.

FBI agents began preparing to bug the meeting, but Neil Gallagher, then deputy chief of the FBI’s criminal division, ordered the investigation closed prior to the fundraiser, people familar with the case said. They said local agents were upset by Gallagher’s move.

“I’d have to refer any comment back to the FBI,” Gallagher said Thursday.

The FBI special agent in charge in Miami at the time, Paul Philip, who signed the document, said he could not recall the case. After reviewing the document, he said he could understand why the case did not progress.

“When you’re dealing with elected officials, you have to be real careful,” he said. “Not that they can do anything to us. But their reputations are so fragile, if you don’t really, truly try to do the right thing, you could really shaft somebody.”

Staff researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.


  • Guest
Re: The Newt Gingrich Deception
« Reply #37 on: December 17, 2011, 12:19:11 AM »
[Gingrich] among 100 Million Americans Who Smoke[d] Marijuana,’ while he has also called for the death penalty for drug offenses.

Fourth-tier GOP presidential candidate and one-time debate sensation Gary Johnson became the latest to level a “serial hypocrisy” attack at frontrunner Newt Gingrich over the weekend, telling MSNBC’s Alex Witt that in 1997, Gingrich “proposed the death penalty for marijuana — for possession of marijuana above a certain quantity of marijuana, and yet he is among 100 million americans who smoke marijuana.”

While Alex Witt didn’t think Gingrich’s herbal history would be “at the forefront,” maybe it should.

Johnson later referenced Gingrich’s marijuana use in the past tense, saying that he “would love to have a discussion with (Gingrich) on the fact that he smoked pot, and under the wrong set of circumstances, he proposed the death penalty for something, potentially, that he had committed?”

Gingrich, you may be surprised to learn, admitted to youthful marijuana use, and according to Reason magazine, was sort of ahead of his time:

    Gingrich had this to say about his illegal drug use: “That was a sign we were alive and in graduate school in that era.” Somehow, an activity that was no big deal in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s had become shameful and scandalous by the late ‘80s.

    Although Gingrich excuses his illegal drug use by implying that most of his fellow students also smoked pot, marijuana use was probably less common when he was in graduate school than it was in 1988. The government’s survey data don’t go back to 1971, when Gingrich got his Ph.D. But the survey shows a steady rise in drug use from 1974 until 1979. Although reported drug use declined after that, in 1988 it was still considerably higher than in 1974.

He was also an early proponent of legalized medical marijuana, penning a passionate, eloquent letter for the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1982.

In the intervening years, however, Gingrich’s attitudes toward marijuana, like so many of his positions, changed significantly, and while the years in this case might insulate him from the flip-flopping charge, he displays a moral flexibility that should disturb conservative voters. “See, when I smoked pot it was illegal,” he told WSJ’s Hilary Stout in 1996, “but not immoral. Now, it is illegal AND immoral. The law didn’t change, only the morality… That’s why you get to go to jail and I don’t."

This suggests not that Gingrich’s moral attitudes changed over time, or that the nation’s did, but that right and wrong themselves are subject to change, a sort of moral relativism on steroids (which might become moral any day now).

Johnson’s statement about Gingrich’s support for the death penalty is somewhat misleading. He conflates Gingrich’s personal use of marijuana with the amount of pot that a smuggler or a dealer might have. Still, under Gingrich’s proposed law, you could be put to death for possession of as little as 200 joints, which is equal in volume to a carton of cigarettes.

Inconsistency aside (Gingrich is, as far as I know, the only politician in history to be on both sides of the poem Whitey On The Moon), the former House Speaker might actually see some benefit from his extreme harshing of the collective mellow. In a general election, putting small-time pot smugglers to death might not play so well, but Republican audiences eat up the Death Penalty like bacon-laced Chex Mix.


  • Guest
Re: The Newt Gingrich Deception
« Reply #38 on: December 18, 2011, 09:40:10 AM »
Gingrich: I’ll ‘ignore’ any Supreme Court ruling I disagree with

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is doubling down from Thursday’s Fox News debate on his vow to abolish federal courts if he disagreed with their decision.

According to The Hill, in a conference call with reporters, Gingrich indicated that it was in the president’s power as commander-in-chief to deem any Supreme Court ruling irrelevant if he or she in the White House disagreed.

The former House Speaker used the Supreme Court’s ruling against the Bush administration exceeding its constitutional authority in handling suspected terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay in 2008 as a basis for his extreme view.
“They just ignored it,” he said. “A commander-in-chief could simply issue instructions to ignore it, and say it’s null and void and I do not accept it because it infringes on my duties as commander-in-chief to protect the country.”

Gingrich also backed his position to subpoena judges or abolish courts entirely if he thought their final rulings were wrong.

The current GOP frontrunner’s position challenges the landmark Supreme Court case of Marbury v Madison in 1803, where America’s highest court would be granted the final word on whether acts by the president or Congress are constitutional.

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.