Obama Campaign - "If I Wanted America To Fail"

Total Pageviews

Daily Devotions

WISDOM

If you support our national security issues, you may love and appreciate the United States of America, our Constitution with its’ freedoms, and our American flag.

If you support and practice our fiscal issues, you may value worldly possessions.

If you support and value our social issues, you may love Judeo-Christian values.

If you support and practice all these values, that is all good; an insignia of “Wisdom” . - Oscar Y. Harward

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Circling the Drain: The Death of the Democratic Party (1828-2012)

The Democratic Party has been hijacked by the grifters, con men, and hustlers who should be behind bars


Roger Gitlin


Allow me to borrow the above-noted title from political writer Charles Kimball when he predicted the death of the Democratic Party back in 2006. Mr. Kimball’s prediction was just a bit premature. We are watching in slow motion the demise of the Democratic Party in America. Ex- Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised to drain the swamp when she assumed power in 2007. It never happened…
What we are witnessing today as 2011 turns the page, is a slow, agonizing death of the once proud party of the people. In decades past, the Democratic Party was the party of the working man. It was the party that fought to even the playing field with unscrupulous and an all-too greedy American industry. Over time, real progress was made and working folks were paid a decent wage and afforded a lifestyle that many today would envy. I was fortunate enough to grow up in the America of the 1950s and 1960s that molded me into what I am today. In 1968, I was proud to cast my first ballot for Hubert Horatio Humphrey. Things have changed a bit these past 45 years.
Today the Party of the working man has become the Party of the non-working class. The Democrats have devolved to become the Party of moochers, leeches, and victims. And this Party of hope and change has morphed into a Frankenstein that would turn FDR in his grave. The Democratic Party is an abomination that is slowly strangling the greatest country in the world: The United States of America.
2012 will be the election for America’s future. Does the United States go the route of the moocher, leech, and faux victim or does it awaken and cast off its chains of bloated, inefficient government and re-take its rightful place as the World magnet for those seeking liberty and freedom from oppressive, authoritarian, and totalitarian dictatorships?
Which direction will we go next year?
Democrats don’t have a lot of faith in the everyday humble guy. Democrats think they know what’s best for us and are continually sticking their bureaucratic noses into our everyday business. That’s why the Party of the Donkey is slowly succumbing to an ugly demise. I can’t say I will miss the Democratic Party after it passes away, next year.
Indeed, we are a divided country. There are those like me who believe passionately, “ I know what’s best for my family and me.” I loathe this over-government bureaucracy which, as it swells larger and larger, becomes less and less efficient. Is there anyone in the room who thinks the Federal government can or will handle the health care needs of this country of 307 million, without adding a single new medical doctor? Of course not. The party cannot even dole out a $529 million dollar loan to a fraudulent “green” company, without losing track of YOUR precious taxpayers’ funds. The Democratic Party has been hijacked by the grifters, con men, and hustlers who should be behind bars rather than behind the Justice Department, the EPA, the National Labor Relations Board, or countless other useless, worthless agencies which serve no purpose and have long overstayed their usefulness.
Leading this pack of these charlatans is its leader, Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetero. If Obama is not the killer of American greatness, he is most certainly its weapon of choice.
As the Democratic Party pinwheels itself into irrelevancy, I can only urge you with every molecule of my being to spend your precious vote on any candidate with no D in back of his name. Barney Frank saw the writing on the wall and he departed the scene before he had to face the music. Let’s complete the job and remove these ideologues who pander to the very worst of America; It’s time to say Sayonara to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Adios to Luis Gutierrez , Auf Wiedersehen to Steve Israel, Ciao to Charles Rangel, Arrivederci to Steny Hoyer, and Au Revoir to Henry Waxman. These are just some of the minions of misery who display blatant contempt for anyone who dares to address and challenge their authority. I wonder if the voters of San Francisco will finally say, enough is enough and get rid of Pelosi for good. I wonder if that could happen in the City by the Bay. I see the swamp Pelosi promised to drain, painfully and slowly seeping its contents. I ask, is there anyone in the house with a plunger? Take this monstrosity of a Democratic Party and put it out of its misery. Please! Consider it an act of mercy.
Take back America 2012.

Obama's controlled price of gasoline!

Has President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats found “cash cows” in oil-producing nations? 
Inasmuch as President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats refuse to allow Americans to drill for oil and gasoline in “proven finds”, then to retrieve, refine, and market (y)our own oil and gasoline to become “energy independent”, there must be Democrat Party donor/business “cash cows” in Islamic Muslin nations. 
We must continue to follow the money.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Natural-born citizens – Defined by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) - MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)


The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168]   parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

U.S. Supreme Court

88 U.S. 162 (Wall.)
MINOR
v.
HAPPERSETT.
October Term, 1874


[88 U.S. 162, 163] ERROR to the Supreme Court of Missouri; the case being thus:
The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in its first section, thus ordains:1
    'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.'
And the constitution of the State of Missouri2 thus ordains:
    'Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.'
Under a statute of the State all persons wishing to vote at any election, must previously have been registered in the manner pointed out by the statute, this being a condition precedent to the exercise of the elective franchise.

In this state of things, on the 15th of October, 1872 (one of the days fixed by law for the registration of voters), Mrs. Virginia Minor, a native born, free, white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri, over the age of twenty-one years, wishing to vote for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, and for a representative in Congress, and for other officers, at the general election held in November, 1872, applied to one Happersett, the registrar of voters, to register her as a lawful voter, which he refused to do, assigning for cause that she was not [88 U.S. 162, 164] a 'male citizen of the United States,' but a woman. She thereupon sued him in one of the inferior State courts of Missouri, for wilfully refusing to place her name upon the list of registered voters, by which refusal she was deprived of her right to vote.

The registrar demurred, and the court in which the suit was brought sustained the demurrer, and gave judgment in his favor; a judgment which the Supreme Court affirmed. Mrs. Minor now brought the case here on error.

Mr. Francis Minor (with whom were Messrs. J. M. Krum and J. B. Henderson), for the plaintiff in error, went into an elaborate argument, partially based on what he deemed true political views, and partially resting on legal and constitutional grounds. These last seemed to be thus resolvable:

1st. As a citizen of the United States, the plaintiff was entitled to any and all the 'privileges and immunities' that belong to such position however defined; and as are held, exercised, and enjoyed by other citizens of the United States.

2d. The elective franchise is a 'privilege' of citizenship, in the highest sense of the word. It is the privilege preservative of all rights and privileges; and especially of the right of the citizen to participate in his or her government.

3d. The denial or abridgment of this privilege, if it exist at all, must be sought only in the fundamental charter of government,-the Constitution of the United States. If not found there, no inferior power or jurisdiction can legally claim the right to exercise it.

4th. But the Constitution of the United States, so far from recognizing or permitting any denial or abridgment of the privileges of its citizens, expressly declares that 'no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.'

5th. If follows that the provisions of the Missouri constitution and registry law before recited, are in conflict with and must yield to the paramount authority of the Constitution of the United States.
No opposing counsel. [88 U.S. 162, 165]

The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination.

It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.

There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' are expressly declared to be 'citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [88 U.S. 162, 166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.

For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words 'subject,' 'inhabitant,' and 'citizen' have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.

To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.

Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by 'the people of the United States,'3 and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth,4 and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of 'the United States of America,' entered into a firm league of [88 U.S. 162, 167] friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever. 5

Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen-a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides6 that 'no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,'7 and that Congress shall have power 'to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.' Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words 'all children' are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as 'all persons,' and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided 'that any alien, being a free white person,' might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. 8 These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also.9

As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath;10 and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or [88 U.S. 162, 169] who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. 11

From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.

But if more is necessary to show that women have always been considered as citizens the same as men, abundant proof is to be found in the legislative and judicial history of the country. Thus, by the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between citizens of different States. Under this it has been uniformly held that the citizenship necessary to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record. Its existence as a fact may be put in issue and tried. If found not to exist the case must be dismissed. Notwithstanding this the records of the courts are full of cases in which the jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of women, and not one can be found, we think, in which objection was made on that account. Certainly none can be found in which it has been held that women could not sue or be sued in the courts of the United States. Again, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, in many of the States (and in some probably now) aliens could not inherit or transmit inheritance. There are a multitude of cases to be found in which the question has been presented whether a woman was or was not an alien, and as such capable or incapable of inheritance, but in no one has it been insisted that she was not a citizen because she was a woman. On the contrary, her right to citizenship has been in all cases assumed. The only question has been whether, in the particular case under consideration, she had availed herself of the right.

In the legislative department of the government similar [88 U.S. 162, 170] proof will be found. Thus, in the pre-emption laws,12 a widow, 'being a citizen of the United States,' is allowed to make settlement on the public lands and purchase upon the terms specified, and women, 'being citizens of the United States,' are permitted to avail themselves of the benefit of the homestead law. 13

Other proof of like character might be found, but certainly more cannot be necessary to establish the fact that sex has never been made one of the elements of citizenship in the United States. In this respect men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws precisely apply to both. The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.

If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters.

The Constitution does not define the privileges and immunities of citizens. For that definition we must look elsewhere. In this case we need not determine what they are, but only whether suffrage is necessarily one of them.

It certainly is nowhere made so in express terms. The United States has no voters in the States of its own creation. The elective officers of the United States are all elected directly or indirectly by State voters. The members of the House of Representatives are to be chosen by the people of [88 U.S. 162, 171] the States, and the electors in each State must have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature. 14 Senators are to be chosen by the legislatures of the States, and necessarily the members of the legislature required to make the choice are elected by the voters of the State. 15 Each State must appoint in such manner, as the legislature thereof may direct, the electors to elect the President and Vice-President. 16 The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives are to be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing Senators. 17 It is not necessary to inquire whether this power of supervision thus given to Congress is sufficient to authorize any interference with the State laws prescribing the qualifications of voters, for no such interference has ever been attempted. The power of the State in this particular is certainly supreme until Congress acts.

The amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as he already had. No new voters were necessarily made by it. Indirectly it may have had that effect, because it may have increased the number of citizens entitled to suffrage under the constitution and laws of the States, but it operates for this purpose, if at all, through the States and the State laws, and not directly upon the citizen.

It is clear, therefore, we think, that the Constitution has not added the right of suffrage to the privileges and immunities of citizenship as they existed at the time it was adopted. This makes it proper to inquire whether suffrage was coextensive with the citizenship of the States at the time of its adoption. If it was, then it may with force be argued that suffrage was one of the rights which belonged to citizenship, and in the enjoyment of which every citizen must be protected. [88 U.S. 162, 172] But if it was not, the contrary may with propriety be assumed.

When the Federal Constitution was adopted, all the States, with the exception of Rhode Island and Connecticut, had constitutions of their own. These two continued to act under their charters from the Crown. Upon an examination of those constitutions we find that in no State were all citizens permitted to vote. Each State determined for itself who should have that power. Thus, in New Hampshire, 'every male inhabitant of each town and parish with town privileges, and places unincorporated in the State, of twenty-one years of age and upwards, excepting paupers and persons excused from paying taxes at their own request,' were its voters; in Massachusetts 'every male inhabitant of twenty-one years of age and upwards, having a freehold estate within the commonwealth of the annual income of three pounds, or any estate of the value of sixty pounds;' in Rhode Island 'such as are admitted free of the company and society' of the colony; in Connecticut such persons as had 'maturity in years, quiet and peaceable behavior, a civil conversation, and forty shillings freehold or forty pounds personal estate,' if so certified by the selectmen; in New York 'every male inhabitant of full age who shall have personally resided within one of the counties of the State for six months immediately preceding the day of election . . . if during the time aforesaid he shall have been a freeholder, possessing a freehold of the value of twenty pounds within the county, or have rented a tenement therein of the yearly value of forty shillings, and been rated and actually paid taxes to the State;' in New Jersey 'all inhabitants . . . of full age who are worth fifty pounds, proclamation-money, clear estate in the same, and have resided in the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election;' in Pennsylvania 'every freeman of the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the State two years next before the election, and within that time paid a State or county tax which shall have been assessed at least six months before the election;' in [88 U.S. 162, 173] Delaware and Virginia 'as exercised by law at present;' in Maryland 'all freemen above twenty-one years of age having a freehold of fifty acres of land in the county in which they offer to vote and residing therein, and all freemen having property in the State above the value of thirty pounds current money, and having resided in the county in which they offer to vote one whole year next preceding the election;' in North Carolina, for senators, 'all freemen of the age of twenty-one years who have been inhabitants of any one county within the State twelve months immediately preceding the day of election, and possessed of a freehold within the same county of fifty acres of land for six months next before and at the day of election,' and for members of the house of commons 'all freemen of the age of twenty-one years who have been inhabitants in any one county within the State twelve months immediately preceding the day of any election, and shall have paid public taxes;' in South Carolina 'every free white man of the age of twenty-one years, being a citizen of the State and having resided therein two years previous to the day of election, and who hath a freehold of fifty acres of land, or a town lot of which he hath been legally seized and possessed at least six months before such election, or ( not having such freehold or town lot), hath been a resident within the election district in which he offers to give his vote six months before said election, and hath paid a tax the preceding year of three shillings sterling towards the support of the government;' and in Georgia such 'citizens and inhabitants of the State as shall have attained to the age of twenty-one years, and shall have paid tax for the year next preceding the election, and shall have resided six months within the county.'

In this condition of the law in respect to suffrage in the several States it cannot for a moment be doubted that if it had been intended to make all citizens of the United States voters, the framers of the Constitution would not have left it to implication. So important a change in the condition of citizenship as it actually existed, if intended, would have been expressly declared. [88 U.S. 162, 174] But if further proof is necessary to show that no such change was intended, it can easily be found both in and out of the Constitution. By Article 4, section 2, it is provided that 'the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.' If suffrage is necessarily a part of citizenship, then the citizens of each State must be entitled to vote in the several States precisely as their citizens are. This is more than asserting that they may change their residence and become citizens of the State and thus be voters. It goes to the extent of insisting that while retaining their original citizenship they may vote in any State. This, we think, has never been claimed. And again, by the very terms of the amendment we have been considering (the fourteenth), 'Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in the rebellion, or other crimes, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.' Why this, if it was not in the power of the legislature to deny the right of suffrage to some male inhabitants? And if suffrage was necessarily one of the absolute rights of citizenship, why confine the operation of the limitation to male inhabitants? Women and children are, as we have seen, 'persons.' They are counted in the enumeration upon which the apportionment is to be made, but if they were necessarily voters because of their citizenship unless clearly excluded, why inflict the penalty for the exclusion of males alone? Clearly, no such form of words would have been [88 U.S. 162, 175] selected to express the idea here indicated if suffrage was the absolute right of all citizens.

And still again, after the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, it was deemed necessary to adopt a fifteenth, as follows: 'The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.'

The fourteenth amendment had already provided that no State should make or enforce any law which should abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. If suffrage was one of these privileges or immunities, why amend the Constitution to prevent its being denied on account of race, &c.? Nothing is more evident than that the greater must include the less, and if all were already protected why go through with the form of amending the Constitution to protect a part?

It is true that the United States guarantees to every State a republican form of government. 18 It is also true that no State can pass a bill of attainder,19 and that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. 20 All these several provisions of the Constitution must be construed in connection with the other parts of the instrument, and in the light of the surrounding circumstances.

The guaranty is of a republican form of government. No particular government is designated as republican, neither is the exact form to be guaranteed, in any manner especially designated. Here, as in other parts of the instrument, we are compelled to resort elsewhere to ascertain what was intended.

The guaranty necessarily implies a duty on the part of the States themselves to provide such a government. All the States had governments when the Constitution was adopted. In all the people participated to some extent, through their representatives elected in the manner specially provided. [88 U.S. 162, 176] These governments the Constitution did not change. They were accepted precisely as they were, and it is, therefore, to be presumed that they were such as it was the duty of the States to provide. Thus we have unmistakable evidence of what was republican in form, within the meaning of that term as employed in the Constitution. As has been seen, all the citizens of the States were not invested with the right of suffrage. In all, save perhaps New Jersey, this right was only bestowed upon men and not upon all of them. Under these circumstances it is certainly now too late to contend that a government is not republican, within the meaning of this guaranty in the Constitution, because women are not made voters.

The same may be said of the other provisions just quoted. Women were excluded from suffrage in nearly all the States by the express provision of their constitutions and laws. If that had been equivalent to a bill of attainder, certainly its abrogation would not have been left to implication.

Nothing less than express language would have been employed to effect so radical a change. So also of the amendment which declares that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, adopted as it was as early as 1791. If suffrage was intended to be included within its obligations, language better adapted to express that intent would most certainly have been employed. The right of suffrage, when granted, will be protected. He who has it can only be deprived of it by due process of law, but in order to claim protection he must first show that he has the right.

But we have already sufficiently considered the proof found upon the inside of the Constitution. That upon the outside is equally effective.

The Constitution was submitted to the States for adoption in 1787, and was ratified by nine States in 1788, and finally by the thirteen original States in 1790. Vermont was the first new State admitted to the Union, and it came in under a constitution which conferred the right of suffrage only upon men of the full age of twenty-one years, having resided [88 U.S. 162, 177] in the State for the space of one whole year next before the election, and who were of quiet and peaceable behavior. This was in 1791. The next year, 1792, Kentucky followed with a constitution confining the right of suffrage to free male citizens of the age of twenty-one years who had resided in the State two years or in the county in which they offered to vote one year next before the election. Then followed Tennessee, in 1796, with voters of freemen of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, possessing a freehold in the county wherein they may vote, and being inhabitants of the State or freemen being inhabitants of any one county in the State six months immediately preceding the day of election. But we need not particularize further. No new State has ever been admitted to the Union which has conferred the right of suffrage upon women, and this has never been considered a valid objection to her admission. On the contrary, as is claimed in the argument, the right of suffrage was withdrawn from women as early as 1807 in the State of New Jersey, without any attempt to obtain the interference of the United States to prevent it. Since then the governments of the insurgent States have been reorganized under a requirement that before their representatives could be admitted to seats in Congress they must have adopted new constitutions, republican in form. In no one of these constitutions was suffrage conferred upon women, and yet the States have all been restored to their original position as States in the Union.

Besides this, citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote. The same provision is to be found in the constitutions of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas.

Certainly, if the courts can consider any question settled, this is one. For nearly ninety years the people have acted upon the idea that the Constitution, when it conferred citizenship, did not necessarily confer the right of suffrage. If [88 U.S. 162, 178] uniform practice long continued can settle the construction of so important an instrument as the Constitution of the United States confessedly is, most certainly it has been done here. Our province is to decide what the law is, not to declare what it should be.

We have given this case the careful consideration its importance demands. If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us. The arguments addressed to us bearing upon such a view of the subject may perhaps be sufficient to induce those having the power, to make the alteration, but they ought not to be permitted to influence our judgment in determining the present rights of the parties now litigating before us. No argument as to woman's need of suffrage can be considered. We can only act upon her rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an end if we find it is within the power of a State to withhold.

Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we
AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.

Footnotes

[Footnote 1] See other sections, infra, p. 174.
[Footnote 2] Article 2, 18.

[Footnote 3] Preamble, 1 Stat. at Large, 10.
[Footnote 4] Declaration of Independence, Ib. 1.

[Footnote 5] Articles of Confederation, 3, 1 Stat. at Large, 4.
[Footnote 6] Article 2, 1.
[Footnote 7] Article 1, 8.

[Footnote 8] 1 Stat. at Large, 103.
[Footnote 9] 10 Id. 604.
[Footnote 10] 2 Id. 293.

[Footnote 11] 10 Stat. at Large, 604.

[Footnote 12] 5 Stat. at Large, 455, 10.
[Footnote 13] 12 Id. 392.

[Footnote 14] Constitution, Article 1, 2.
[Footnote 15] Ib. Article 1, 3.
[Footnote 16] Ib. Article 2, 2.
[Footnote 17] Ib. Article 1, 4.

[Footnote 18] Constitution, Article 4, 4.
[Footnote 19] Ib. Article 1, 10.
[Footnote 20] Ib. Amendment 5.

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Newt, Is your proposal a re-run of “Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986”?

In 1986, Ronald Reagan wanted to stop ”illegal immigration”. Newt voted for it. Today, Newt Gingrich says his newer proposal is to cover “illegal immigrants“ who have been here for 25 years. Newt, S.1200“ Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986” already covers “illegal immigrants” up through 1986 and you voted for it then http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1986-872. 

The difference between “amnesty” and Mr. Gingrich’s “legal status—but not citizenship—to certain illegal immigrants except a legal status” is the right to vote. The “illegal immigrants” have all other rights, benefits, and privileges. Why should US citizens grant these rights, benefits, and privileges to “illegal immigrants” who are guilty of entering the USA by “federal trespassing”, then continued to create/steal/buy a fraudulent and illegal Social Security card, Driver’s License, or some other fraudulent Identification card.  

On October 15, 1986, Congress passed S.1200 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:SN01200:@@@S%7CTOM:/bss/d099query.html on a House Agreed to Conference Report by Yea-Nay Vote: 238 - 173 (Record Vote No: 469)  http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1986-872.  Newt Gingrich voter for this legislation and Ronald Reagan signed it.  

The Act required:

Employers to attest to their employees' immigration status.

Made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit unauthorized immigrants.

Granted amnesty to certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants.

Granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986  

This legislation as approved by Ronald Reagan and voted in favor of by Newt Gingrich was to include:


TITLE I--CONTROL OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION 


Part A--Employment

Sec. 101. Control of unlawful employment of aliens.

Sec. 102. Unfair immigration-related employment practices.

Sec. 103. Fraud and misuse of certain immigration-related documents.

Bachmann Releases Gingrich Amnesty Letter

Posted on November 26th, 2011
Davenport, Iowa – Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann provided more evidence indicating that Newt Gingrich is the most liberal GOP candidate on the issue of immigration reform, with his signing of a letter in support of President Bush’s comprehensive immigration reform, which includes amnesty. While appearing on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends” Bachmann referenced a 2004 letter written by the National Foundation for American Policy, co-signed by Speaker Gingrich. (letter is copied below)

“This letter is a clear indication that Speaker Gingrich has a deep history of supporting amnesty,” Bachmann said. “I don’t agree that you should make 11 million workers legal because that in effect is amnesty and will only encourage more illegal immigrants to come here.”

In the letter, Gingrich supports the idea that “keeping a door open to those with the ‘will and heart to get here’ is vital to our economy, our culture, our role in the world, and our historic tradition as a land of freedom and opportunity.”

In signing the letter, Gingrich also calls on others to “recognize that those already working here outside the law are unlikely to leave.”

Just this week, Speaker Gingrich re-affirmed his support for amnesty in the CNN / Heritage Foundation Foreign Policy debate by stating, “I’m prepared to take the heat for saying, let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality….”

“You don’t come into this country illegally and get a special pathway to stay here,” Bachmann said. “This type of amnesty will only encourage other illegals to enter our country illegally.”

Bachmann, who received the highest rating from NumbersUSA for Lower Immigration and was the first to sign the “Americans for Securing the Border” pledge to build a fence, is committed to securing the border and unequivocally opposed to amnesty, and will enforce existing immigration laws and end magnets like taxpayer supported tuition benefits that bring illegal immigrants into the country.

Additional information:

“[Gingrich was] instrumental in passing legislation that allowed hundreds of thousands of Central American refugees become legal permanent residents of the United States.” (Kendra Marr, “Newt Gingrich’s 2012 immigration dance,” Politico, www.politico.com, 4/22/2011)

The following is a copy of the letter:

National Foundation for American Policy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Stuart Anderson (703) 351-5042

February 6, 2004 Tamar Jacoby (973) 744-6117

CONSERVATIVES JOIN TOGETHER TO SUPPORT IMMIGRATION & IMMIGRATION REFORM

Arlington, VA — The following “Conservative Statement of Principles on Immigration” appeared today in the Wall Street Journal. If you have any questions regarding the statement please contact Tamar Jacoby, Manhattan Institute, at (973) 744-6117 or Stuart Anderson, National Foundation for American Policy, at (703) 351-5042.

The Wall Street Journal, February 6, 2004

Welcome to America

Fifteen authors offer this “Conservative Statement of Principles on Immigration”:

In his farewell address to the nation, President Reagan said: “I’ve spoken of the Shining City all my political life . . . [I]n my mind it was . . . teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here.”

America is a nation of immigrants. Except for Native American Indians, everyone in this country came to America or is here due to the good fortune that a parent, grandparent, or other relation came before them. Keeping a door open to those with the “will and heart to get here” is vital to our economy, our culture, our role in the world, and our historic tradition as a land of freedom and opportunity.

Conservatives believe in legal immigration. We believe that America grows stronger by welcoming those who seek to better their families, work in our industries, and find liberty and refuge from oppression.

Conservatives oppose illegal immigration. We believe there is a right way and a wrong way to immigrate to the U.S. However, as conservatives we believe that our laws must reflect reality and common sense, be fiscally responsible, and avoid the loss of innocent life. Our current immigration laws do not pass this test. Between 1990 and 2000, the U.S. increased the number of Border Patrol Agents from 3,600 to 10,000. During that same period illegal immigration rose by 5.5 million.

Moreover, over the past eight years, more than 2,000 men, women, and children have died attempting to cross into America and seek the opportunity to work and achieve a better life. The status quo is unacceptable and clinging to the status quo — or tougher versions of it — is neither conservative nor principled. It has become clear that the only viable approach to reform is combining enforcement with additional legal avenues for those who wish to work in our economy, while also addressing the situation of those already here in the U.S.

President Bush has proposed a new legal path to work in the U.S. through a temporary worker program that will match willing workers with willing employers. We applaud the president and believe his approach holds great promise to reduce illegal immigration and establish a humane, orderly, and economically sensible approach to migration that will aid homeland security and free up border-security assets to focus on genuine threats. The president has shown courage by calling on Congress to place reality over rhetoric and recognize that those already working here outside the law are unlikely to leave. Congress can fulfill its role by establishing sufficient increases in legal immigration and paths to permanent residence to enable more workers to stay, assimilate, and become part of America.

We believe strongly in assimilation and oppose efforts to weaken the historical process that has led toe pluribus unum. While immigrants by and large reject entreaties by those who favor multiculturalism, the best defense is a good offense: making the teaching of English and civics a priority in our schools, community colleges, and adult education programs.

Immigrants are crucial to our competitiveness and future labor and economic growth, as well as our military strength. Our country’s welcoming attitude to immigrants will permit the U.S. to grow and prosper, as the populations of many other nations stagnate and decline. Each generation of Americans must connect our nation’s past to its future and in so doing keep President Reagan’s vision of the “Shining City” alive.

Co-authored by Stuart Anderson, Jeff Bell, Linda Chavez, Larry Cirignano, Cesar V. Conda, Francis Fukuyama, Richard Gilder, Newt Gingrich, Ed Goeas, Tamar Jacoby, Jack Kemp, Steve Moore, Grover Norquist, Richard W. Rahn and Malcolm Wallop.

SIGNATORES:

Stuart Anderson
Executive Director National Foundation for American Policy

Jeff Bell
Principal Capital City Partners

Linda Chavez
President Center for Equal Opportunity

Larry Cirignano
President Catholic Alliance/CatholicVote.org

Cesar V. Conda
Former Assistant for Domestic Policy to Vice President Cheney and Board Member of Empower America

Francis Fukuyama
Dean of Faculty The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies

Richard Gilder
Gilder Gagnon Howe & Co. LLC

Hon. Newt Gingrich
Former Speaker of the House of Representatives

Ed Goeas
President and Chief Executive Officer The Tarrance Group

Tamar Jacoby
Senior Fellow The Manhattan Institute

Hon. Jack Kemp
1996 Republican Vice Presidential nominee, former Representative from New York, and Co-director of Empower America

Steve Moore
Senior Fellow Cato Institute

Grover Norquist
President Americans for Tax Reform

Richard W. Rahn
Senior Fellow Discovery Institute

Hon. Malcolm Wallop
Former U.S. Senator from Wyoming and Chairman of Frontiers of Freedom

Note: Affiliations for identification purposes only.

National Foundation for American Policy
Started in 2003, the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to public policy research on trade, immigration, and other issues of national importance. Its Advisory Board members include Columbia University economist Jagdish Bhagwati, Ohio University economist Richard Vedder, Rep. Guy Vander Jagt (ret.), Cesar Conda, until recently Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief domestic policy adviser, and other prominent individuals.

2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700, Arlington, VA 22201 phone: (703) 351- 5042 fax: (703) 351-9292 www.nfap.net

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Erroneous political attacks On Newt Gingrich

Setting the Record Straight:
Newt's Positions on the Issues and His Record

 

Now that our campaign to rebuild the America we love is gaining momentum, those who want to see us fail are on the attack, digging through Newt's past to try and stop us.
Newt, Callista and our campaign welcome the opportunity to tell the truth about Newt and set the record straight about Newt's positions on the issues as well as his record in public life and as a private citizen.
We've set up this page to arm you with answers to the attacks.
See an attack that is not answered? Let us know here. This page will grow as we receive more feedback to help you answer the attacks.

Menu

Newt is the only candidate in the race for the Republican nomination who has led a national movement to elect a Republican majority and then actually achieved substantial conservative reforms of the federal government, including welfare reform, balanced budgets, and tax cuts. These historic reforms liberated the American people to create 11 million new jobs in just four years. Read more about the remarkable Newt Gingrich record here.
No candidate in the race can match Newt Gingrich’s 35-year career as a public figure advocating, explaining and achieving conservative reforms in government.
With this vast amount of experience, however, comes over 7,000 votes, over 1,500 speeches, thousands of television and radio appearances, thousands of articles and opeds and 24 books to scrutinize.
The following are the most commonly asked questions about Newt's record:
Paul Ryan (and the House GOP’s) Medicare Plan
Like Ryan and the House GOP, Newt supports a premium support model for Medicare. However, he wants seniors to have the choice to opt into the new system or to stay in traditional Medicare.
Newt agrees wholeheartedly with Rep. Ryan that we must give our seniors more choices than the current one-size-fits-all Medicare model. Both concur that creating the opportunity for seniors to buy private insurance is the key to both improving care and lowering costs.
The one key difference is that under Newt’s plan, as outlined in his 21st Century Contract with America, seniors will also have the choice to stay in the current Medicare system or choose a private insurance plan with support from the government to pay the premiums. The other difference is that Newt believes that seniors should have this option starting next year, not in ten years.
Q: So why did Newt use the term “right wing social engineering” on Meet the Press when discussing these proposed changes to Medicare?
Gingrich is opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed. Afterwards, Newt quickly admitted that his choice of words was too extreme, and he apologized to Congressman Ryan shortly thereafter.
In response to the host’s hypothetical question of whether Republicans should change Medicare even if there is public opposition, Gingrich’s response was no you should not. One of Newt’s basic governing philosophies is that government should offer a better alternative to existing entitlement programs that seniors can freely choose. Gingrich is opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed. Afterwards, Newt quickly admitted that his choice of words was too extreme, and he apologized to Congressman Ryan shortly thereafter. Newt regards Paul Ryan as one of the biggest innovators in Washington, D.C. and he deeply admires the seriousness and boldness of his historic Path to Prosperity budget.
Back to Menu
Mandate to Purchase health insurance
Newt opposes Governor Romney’s health insurance mandate, and Newt opposes President Obama’s health insurance mandate. Newt believes mandates to buy health insurance are wrong on principle, and in the case of the Obamacare health insurance mandate, unconstitutional as well.
With respect to President Obama’s health insurance mandate, Newt believes it is an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of federal power. If the federal government can coerce individuals—by threat of fines—to buy health insurance, there is no stopping the federal government from forcing Americans to buy any good or service. It is a serious and unconstitutional infringement of individual liberty.
With respect to Governor Romney’s mandate, we have observed that it doesn’t achieve its goal of providing low cost catastrophic coverage for the uninsured. The intractable problem we have learned from experience with health insurance mandates is this: once you have a mandate, the government has to specify exactly what coverage must be included in insurance for it to qualify. This introduces political considerations into determining these minimum standards, guaranteeing that nothing desired by the special interests will be left out.
In the 1990s, Newt and many other conservatives, such as the Heritage Foundation, proposed a mandate to purchase health insurance as the alternative to Hillarycare. However, the problems outlined above caused Newt to come to the principled conclusion that a mandate to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional, unworkable and counterproductive to lowering the cost of healthcare.
Today, Newt carries the banner in fighting for the repeal of Obamacare and advocates for a “patient power” replacement that will create a free market framework for healthcare, provide affordable, portable, and reliable healthcare coverage, and establish a healthcare safety net focused on those truly in need. This system moves us towards the goal of healthcare for all with no unconstitutional mandate of any kind.
Back to Menu
Ethanol
Newt supports an “all of the above” approach to achieving American energy independence by the aggressive development of American energy resources, including American oil, natural gas, coal, and biofuels like ethanol.
Newt’s position towards supporting American farmers, American energy, and American security has been consistent for over 25 years. He supported ethanol development since 1984 with Ronald Reagan, and supported it over objections of other Republicans as Speaker.
Newt’s American Energy Plan, part of his 21st Century Contract with America, will reverse Barack Obama’s assault on American energy. Every day, the Obama Administration continues to prevent unleashing new sources of American energy that will create thousands of new American jobs, make energy more affordable, and reduce our dependence on unfriendly nations.
Meanwhile, Obama tells foreign countries that we want to be one of their best customers for oil and natural gas.
Newt prefers that energy development happens here in America. If the choice is for the next job to be created in Iran or in Iowa, Newt prefers Iowa. If the next dollar is to go to Saudi Arabia or to South Dakota, Newt prefers South Dakota. Ethanol has been a 25-year success story of greater and greater productivity, which has kept money here at home, enriched rural communities, and made Americans safer by lowering our dependence on overseas sources of fuel.
Back to Menu
Fairness Doctrine
Newt opposes the left’s efforts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and vocally supported Rep. Mike Pence’s 2007 bill that prohibited government censorship in radio.
Newt does not support the Fairness Doctrine and he has been vocally critical of the left’s efforts to reinstate the doctrine over the past decade, including supporting Mike Pence’s bill that prohibited government censorship in radio in 2007.
In 1987, the three left-wing networks plus PBS/NPR dominated media, and talk-radio was still nascent; many of America’s most influential conservative activists, including the American Conservative Union and Phyllis Schlafly, supported the Fairness Doctrine at this time.
The rapid growth of conservative viewpoints in the media in the last 25 years is a testament to the power and innovation of the conservative movement once power is taken out of the hands of the elite networks and put into the hands of consumers.
Back to Menu
Global Warming/Cap and Trade
Newt does not believe there is a settled scientific conclusion about whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere.
Newt absolutely opposes “cap and trade” as well as any system of taxing carbon emissions. He testified before Congress against it in 2009 and led a grassroots effort while the Chairman of American Solutions to block its passage in the House and Senate.
Newt believes that cap and trade would kill hundreds of thousands of American jobs, cause electricity and fuel prices to skyrocket, and make America poorer. In contrast, Gingrich believes the best way to protect the environment is through markets, incentives, and entrepreneurs, who quite often are deploying innovative new technologies.
As for the question of whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere, Newt has noted there is no settled scientific conclusion. Many scientists believe it is the case. Others do not. But this unsettled scientific question has nothing to do with the best approach to protecting our environment, which is always markets, incentives, and entrepreneurs creating better and more efficient products and services.
Q: So why did Newt do the ad with Nancy Pelosi in 2007 calling for action to address climate change?
Newt does not believe there is a settled scientific conclusion about whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere.
Through his entire career, Newt has supported pro-market, pro-entrepreneur, innovative solutions to our environmental challenges, which he believes are superior to the liberal pro-bureaucracy, pro-tax, pro-regulation approach to the environment.
Newt believes that conservatives cannot be absent from the conversation about the environment and instead that conservatives must offer and explain why conservative solutions are better. Unfortunately, the attempt to get that message out through the ad with Nancy Pelosi failed. On November 8, 2011, Newt told FOX News’ Bret Baier that doing that commercial with Pelosi was “probably the dumbest single thing I’ve ever done”.
Newt will continue to oppose the Democrats’ destructive cap-and-trade and carbon tax proposals, continue to support expanded domestic oil and gas drilling, and continue to fight for a fundamental replacement of the job-killing Environmental Protection Agency with an Environmental Solutions Agency.
Back to Menu
Immigration/DREAM Act
In his 21st Century Contract with America, Newt pledges to control the southern border by January 1, 2014, waiving any regulations and pushing aside any bureaucracies that get in the way.
Newt believes America must be a nation of laws. The first duty of the federal government is national defense, and it is inexcusable that we haven’t secured the border. In his 21st Century Contract with America, Newt pledges to control the southern border by January 1, 2014, waiving any regulations and pushing aside any bureaucracies that get in the way.
As we secure the border, we must make an aggressive and serious effort to deport all criminals, gang members, and any other threats to our society as quickly as possible. We must also tap into the ingenuity of the private sector to better validate who is in the United States legally.
Newt opposed the DREAM Act. However, he did agree with part of the legislation which allowed those who came to the United States illegally as children to serve in the U.S. Military to earn their citizenship, just as foreign nationals are today allowed to do the same.
Furthermore, Newt has proposed giving local communities the authority to allow those with long established roots in the neighborhood a legal residency status, but not citizenship. Newt believes local communities are at a better vantage point to determine if those there illegally should stay or go. Under this system, we will send home those with no family or community ties and quickly deport those who have committed criminal and other destructive acts, while providing minimal disruption to families and communities.
Back to Menu
Agriculture Subsidies
Newt supports maintaining components of existing federal policy that safeguard American farmers against inherently unpredictable weather and price volatility, including a strong crop insurance program, while also streamlining USDA bureaucracy so it better serves American farmers and consumers
Agriculture is critical to the economy and only becomes more important as the world's population rapidly continues to grow beyond 7 billion people. Newt supports maintaining components of existing federal policy that safeguard American farmers against inherently unpredictable weather and price volatility, including a strong crop insurance program, while also streamlining USDA bureaucracy so it better serves American farmers and consumers.
Newt’s plan for prosperity for rural Americans in Iowa and across the country begins with an outright repeal of the death tax, which has inflicted disproportionate pain on family farms. Job-killing EPA regulations make it difficult for American farmers to earn a living, and the new threats to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act are downright destructive. Newt will replace the Washington-centric job killing EPA with a new Environmental Solutions Agency that will work with agriculture more closely and constructively. In addition, community banks provide a credit lifeline to American farmers, and Newt will work to repeal the Dodd-Frank regulatory bill that puts disproportionate strain on banks in rural America.
Back to Menu
TARP
Newt believes that the reckless, secretive and opaque way in which the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department administered the bailouts has been an affront to democracy.
Newt was appalled and disgusted at the amount of dictatorial power that Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson tried to grab for himself at the outset of the financial crisis. However, he reluctantly supported a scaled-down plan after Paulson told the country that the world financial system was going to collapse without this emergency support.
Newt believes that the reckless, secretive and opaque way in which the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department administered the bailouts has been an affront to democracy. The Fed was picking winners and losers, using several emergency lending facilities to make all types of loans to connected parties, including to a bank owned by the Libyan government.
This is why broadly scaling back the role of the Federal Reserve and repealing the Dodd-Frank bill are two of the central pillars of Newt’s 21st Century Contract with America. The Fed will be fully audited and made more transparent to ensure the events of 2008 are never repeated, and getting rid of Dodd-Frank will once and for all end the destructive policy of “too big to fail.”
Back to Menu
Zero-Based Budgeting in Foreign Aid/Inclusion of Israel
Newt believes that Israel is one of America’s closest friends and a key strategic ally in a dangerous part of the world. Newt fully expects that Israel will continue to receive a robust package of aid from the United States under a new merit-based approach to foreign aid.
Newt believes that zero-based budgeting is a good approach to apply all across the federal government, not just for foreign aid. Before we spend money every year in various areas of the federal budget, we should ask the right questions of whether we should continue to spend like we have the year before. We have to break the "baseline" mentality that just assumes that spending will automatically be in place and grow every year.
The question has been raised as to how this budgeting approach applies to foreign aid to Israel.
At the moment, the United States has a multi-year aid agreement with Israel. Newt believes we must honor this agreement. And sometimes multi-year aid agreements will continue to be appropriate. But as a general matter, we should apply a zero-based budgeting approach to all recipients of foreign aid. Newt believes that Israel is one of America’s closest friends and a key strategic ally in a dangerous part of the world. Gingrich fully expects that Israel will continue to receive a robust package of aid from the United States under a new merit-based approach to foreign aid.
Back to Menu
Vote for Department of Education
As President, Newt will dramatically shrink the Department of Education to a research and reporting overview agency, and restore decision-making powers to states and communities.
When Newt voted for the creation of the Department of Education, the institution was only structured to provide research and collect data. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy ballooned, so while Speaker, Newt aggressively campaigned to pare down the Department back to its appropriate role and return power to the states.
As President, Newt will dramatically shrink the Department of Education to a research and reporting overview agency, and restore decision-making powers to states and communities. Most responsibilities and positions will be eliminated, and its new role will be to help find new and innovative approaches to then be adopted voluntarily at the local level. Newt will steadfastly oppose any national curriculum standards, and will reverse Barack Obama’s nationalization of the student loan industry.
Back to Menu
Dede Scozzafava Endorsement
Newt has admitted it was a mistake to back Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee in the 2009 NY-23 special election.
Whether it was helping to build the Republican Party of Georgia back when Democrats controlled the entire state or leading the nationwide effort in 1994 to break 40 years of Democratic rule in the House, Newt has always tried to advance the cause of a truly conservative Republican party. This has always meant supporting the most conservative nominee possible as selected by Republican primary voters.
Therefore, Newt will almost always back the nominee of the Republican party and not back an independent candidate in a race against a Democratic candidate.
Newt still believes in this principle, however, he has admitted it was a mistake to back Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee in the 2009 NY-23 special election. Although she was the Republican nominee, the problem was that Republican primary voters did not pick her, the local party leaders did, otherwise her liberal views would have prevented her from becoming the nominee. The Conservative Party candidate whom Scozzafava was running against, Doug Hoffman, recently remarked about Newt's endorsement of his rival, "I would advise other conservative republicans: Don't hold this against him."
Back to Menu
Government Shutdowns
Gingrich-led Republicans stuck to their principles. The result: 4 consecutive balanced budgets, over $400 billion of debt paid off, bipartisan welfare reform, 11 million new jobs, and unemployment falling to under 4%.
In February 2011, Newt wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post to set the record straight about the government shutdowns of 1995 and early 1996. Read it here. Excerpts:
The Washington media establishment believes that the government shutdowns of 1995 and early 1996 were disastrous mistakes that accomplished little and cost House Republicans politically. The facts are exactly the opposite.
While the shutdown produced some short-term pain, it set the stage for a budget deal in 1996 that led to the largest drop in federal discretionary spending since 1969. The discipline imposed by this 1996 budget let to a balanced-budget deal in 1997, the first of four consecutive balanced budgets – an achievement Congress and the White House had not achieved since the 1920s. Overall spending grew at an average of 2.9 percent a year while Newt was Speaker, the slowest rate in decades, and Americans created 11 million new jobs…
This process hardly damaged the Republicans politically: Americans rewarded House Republicans the following November, as they became the first Republican majority to be reelected to a second term since 1928. Republicans would go on to hold the House of Representatives for all but four years between 1995 and today…
This would all have been impossible had Republicans not stood firm in 1995 and shown the American people (and the White House) that we were serious about reducing spending.
Back to Menu
Ethics Investigation
In 1999, after a 3 ½ year investigation, the Internal Revenue Service (under President Bill Clinton) concluded that Gingrich did not violate any tax laws, leading renowned CNN Investigative Reporter Brooks Jackson to remark on air “it turns out [Gingrich] was right and those who accused him of tax fraud were wrong.”
Eighty four politically motivated ethics charges were filed against Newt when he was Speaker of the House regarding the use of tax exempt funds for a college course he taught titled “Renewing American Civilization.” Eighty-three of the eighty-four charges were found to be without merit and dropped. The remaining charge had to do with contradictory documents prepared by Newt’s lawyer supplied during the course of the investigation. Newt took responsibility for the error and agreed to reimburse the committee the cost of the investigation into that discrepancy. In 1999, after a 3 ½ year investigation, the Internal Revenue Service (under President Bill Clinton, nonetheless) concluded that Gingrich did not violate any tax laws, leading renowned CNN Investigative Reporter Brooks Jackson to remark on air “it turns out [Gingrich] was right and those who accused him of tax fraud were wrong.”
Back to Menu
Lobbying – Newt has never engaged in lobbying, period. Newt made a decision after resigning that he would never be a lobbyist so that nobody would ever question the genuine nature of his advice and perspectives.
Relationship with Freddie Mac
Recent reporting from Bloomberg News on the Gingrich Group’s consulting services for Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.
After leaving public office, Newt Gingrich founded a number of very successful small businesses. One of these small businesses, a consulting firm called The Gingrich Group, offered strategic advice on a wide variety of topics to a very wide range of clients. One of these clients was Freddie Mac. At no time did Gingrich lobby for Freddie Mac, or for any client, and neither did anyone in Gingrich’s firm. This prohibition against lobbying was made clear to all Gingrich Group clients. Nor did Gingrich ever advocate against pending legislation affecting Freddie Mac, as some articles have incorrectly alleged. In fact, recent reporting from Bloomberg News on the Gingrich Group’s consulting services for Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.
Newt is in favor of efforts to increase home ownership in America but as a conservative believes they must be within a context of learning how to budget and save in a responsible way, the opposite of the lending practices that led to the financial crisis. You can watch a video from March 2008 of Newt warning about the danger of politicized decision making in the housing crisis here.
As part of Newt’s Jobs and Prosperity Plan, Newt advocates breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and moving their smaller successors off of government guarantees and into the free market.
Back to Menu
Personal Life
Newt has been honest and forthright about the fact that he has had moments in his life that he regrets, that he has had to seek reconciliation, and go to God for forgiveness.
Today, Newt and Callista have a very strong marriage. They produce movies, write books, and enjoy their time on the campaign trail together. They are also blessed to be very close to their family.
Newt believes that by continuing to be honest and forthright about his past failings, voters will come to understand the man that he is now and conclude they can trust him to represent the American people in the White House.
Furthermore, Newt welcomes the opportunity to clear up the many lies and misconceptions that persist about his past:
Extramarital Affair During Clinton Impeachment
The impeachment proceedings against President Clinton were due to the fact that the president committed perjury in front of a sitting federal judge, which is a felony.
Opponents often try to delegitimize Newt Gingrich by pointing out that he had admitted to having an extramarital affair during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. What these accusers are ignoring is that the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton were due to the fact that the president committed perjury in front of a sitting federal judge, which is a felony. As the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt felt that he had a duty to uphold the rule of law by pursuing impeachment. He stands by that decision today.
Asking Wife For Divorce While She Was In The Hospital Dying of Cancer
Newt’s daughter recently wrote a column to set the record straight about this smear.
This story is a vicious lie. It was first reported by a left wing magazine in the 1980s based on hearsay and has survived in left-wing chat rooms on the Internet until today. It is completely false.
Recently, Newt’s daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, wrote a column to set the record straight about this smear. The column reveals that 1) It was her mother that requested the divorce, not Newt, and it was months before the hospital visit in question; 2) Her mother was in the hospital to remove a tumor, but it was benign, and she is still alive today; 3) Newt visited the hospital for the purpose of taking his two children to see their mother, not to discuss a divorce. You can read it here.
Back to Menu