Politics
Debate Highlight: Newt Sounds Off on the Courts — ‘Grotesquely Dictatorial’
- Posted on December 16, 2011 at 6:53am by
Mike Opelka
- Print »
- Email »
Newt Gingrich laid out his proposed plan to reform or completely rebuild the judicial system. At one point the former Speaker told Megyn Kelly:
“I would be prepared to take on the Judiciary if it did not restrict itself in what it was doing.”
The Q&A on the subject, in which Gingrich also calls the courts “grotesquely dictatorial,” is here:
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 679 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 530 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 425 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 373 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 329 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 279 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 285 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 169 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 279 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (87)
THETAXMAN
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 6:29pmMy understanding of the constitution is that we have three “equal” branches of government. When one branch can “trump” the others either singly or together, we no longer have three “equal ” branches. What we have is a suicide pact wherein common sense is banished from the lexicon and almost any given judge can tip the world on its ear by listening to the voices in his head making words long believed to mean one thing suddenly mean something else.
Report Post »Patrick Henry II
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:59pmWait a second….Progressives have been stacking courts/ judges for a while and abusing the power of the Judiciary to legislate from the bench. Gingrich cannot be for reigning in this because Beck has said that he is a progressive. Glenn FYI, Gingrich has a plan to get rid of the Progressive income tax too which is the largest weapon of the Progressives. Hmmmm. Your Budd Mitt is for keeping the tax code and has nominated liberal judges too. Hmmmm.
Report Post »gwssacredcause
Posted on December 17, 2011 at 8:56amSince the judges in this nation started making their opinions as rulers and basing their opinions on other opinions without being held accountable by the people their power and their ignorance has exceed the original intent of the founders
Report Post »AFeatherAdrift
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 5:40pmOkay, listen up children. Most of you have no clue what the constitution says about the judicary and the issue of the courts determining the constitutionality of laws passed was decided in Marbury v. Madison and has not been challedged SINCE. The Courts have not “decided” what marriage is as some of you loose heads think. It looked at the arguments given for discriminating against a class of citizens and found (in every SINGLE state where it has been raised) that NO state has yet to put forth an argument to support it’s reasoning. On the other hand, those pushing to have one-man, one woman laws struck down, bring in tons of studies, reports, and legal opinions that support their position that such laws violate the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE of the US constitution, which has long been held to apply to the states.
Newt’s silliness has been decried by Republican lawyers everywhere. Nobody agrees that we can just eliminate courts and impeach justices because we don’t like their ruling on this or that. To bring Judges to Congress to “defend” their decisions would chill the Court’s ability to decide based on the facts and law. As a progressive I despise a good deal that is coming out of the courts since, I believe the Courts have become partisan. However, that does not mean they should be disbanded or made more so. They are not the to give voice to the majority, and NEVER have been. To do as Newt suggests in his blustery crazy moment is to virtually destroy the court system. Yo
Report Post »gwssacredcause
Posted on December 17, 2011 at 8:45amI believe if the courts would go back to opinions based on the original intent of the constitution and not on previous opinions the country would be more like our founders intended,
Report Post »christianUSA
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 5:34amOpinion: in the tortured twisted legal case law has become as crazy as England Alice mad courts where by lawyers and judge have stripped the power to define definition of things likes marriage from there rightful place by the legislatures or people votes to court judges! But courts nor executive should Never have the power to change the meaning of words from the original meaning these changes should only come from the legislatures and even then Limited by a constitution! Yes judges that cross such line should be impeached! Power to reinterpret word meaning in law is power to destroy laws, freedoms and rights!
Report Post »RESET21776
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 3:28pmThrough my eyes the only sane candidates in this race are Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. I will be voting for Ron Paul. Newt Gingrich is a joke…
Report Post »RESET21776
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 3:26pmThrough my eyes the only sane candidates in this race are Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. I will be voting for Ron Paul. Newt Gingrich is a joke…
Report Post »Bonnieblue2A
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 3:28pmNewt is not a joke. He is also not a Conservative nor is he trustworthy. However, Newt’s statement about the courts being dictatorial and that this was not the vision of our founders is historically accurate.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:57pmThe Fox News for Romney campaign was on full display last night. They don’t even bother hiding it anymore.
Report Post »Sibyl
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:25amTHIS statement by Gingrich was my favorite moment in all of the debates. NEXT was his statement about the so-called ‘Palestinians.’
With the latter comment Gingrich was actually quoting early PLO and Arab leaders in their own words, when they admitted they were invented people…in order to take the land away from Israel and of course, kill the Jews which is written in the Koran, Hadiths and official charter of Hamas…and spewed from the mouths of Imams, Ayatollahs, Shiekhs and mobs from one end of the Arab world to the other.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:50amI was almost cheering when Gingrich said that about the courts. The man exudes “presidential”.
Report Post »ROMNEY2012
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:24pmWhy does Newt Gingrich hate our Constitution?
Does he think it needs to “die and be replaced”?
In 1980 Alvin Toffler wrote the book “Third Wave.” While Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich endorsed the book, and put it on his congressional recommended reading list. He liked it so much, that in 1996 he wrote the forward to it’s sequel “The Politics of the Third Wave.”
The premise of both books is that national sovereignty is an outdated concept. The books call for the complete repeal of the US constitution.
Toffler believes mankind is entering a new system. To the founding fathers in his book, he wrote, “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. For this wisdom, above all, I thank Mr. Jefferson who helped create the system that served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.”
Why would a “conservative” much yet an American endorse the message of such a radical book?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moFsABsJNL4
Sean Hannity grill Obama about his ties to Bill Ayres but so far NOT ONE SINGLE QUESTION about Gingrich’s ties to Toffler?
Why is it that Rush, Hannity, Fox News, will not even mention this connection?
Wake up SHEEPLE!
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:52pmWhy does Romney hate traditional marriage? He was called out for personally handing out marriage liceses to sodomites. Good luck running on that. Even fruitcake California voted to ban. Mitt is a pink – o liberal who will run at break neck speed to the left when the primary is over.
Report Post »ROMNEY2012
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:21pmSTOP YOUR LIES AND RESEARCH THE FACTS!
You claim Romney flipped on gay marriage. The fact is, Romney has consistently opposed gay marriage. When asked in 1994, Romney said: “I line up with Gov. Weld on that … he does not feel at this time that he wishes to extend legalized marriage on a same-sex basis, and I support his position”. When asked again in 2002 if he supported gay marriage, Romney still answered “no”.
When gay marriage came before the MA Supreme Court, Romney fought against the decision which made gay marriage a right. As governor he had to enforce the ruling, which some have faulted him for doing, but critics do not apply that standard to other issues, for instance faulting Pro-Life governors for enabling abortions in their states because of court decisions legalizing abortion.
http://whyromney.com/#gaymarriage
Report Post »don young
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:51amWe need newt to go up against obama he would mop the floor with him.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:06amFour Supreme Court Justices will be nominated by the next President to replace Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer.
RON PAUL will make sure those nominees are Constitutionalists that protect “We the people”
Gingrich, Bachmann, Romney and Santorum have demonstrated their ignorance of the Constitution enough for me to fear any of them making those nominations.
Report Post »ROMNEY2012
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:40pmNewt Gingrich’s idea for checking judicial activism is a case of historical revisionism that is strikingly similar to the court-packing scheme of liberal icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Gingrich’s idea would replace an imperial judiciary with an imperial presidency.
Gingrich’s idea is a modern version of FDR’s court-packing scheme to create six new Supreme Court justiceships, which FDR would then fill with supporters of his agenda.
FDR’s court-packing scheme failed miserably. Despite Roosevelt’s immense popularity, the American people energetically rejected this naked power grab that sought to subvert a coequal branch of government. Even his own Democratic Congress wouldn’t follow him
If Gingrich’s idea was legal and Congress agreed, a president could abolish all lower courts, ousting all 980 federal judges, then recreate those courts and stack them with all his supporters.
President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats could also oust John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito by eliminating their Supreme Court seats.
This would leave the Supreme Court with justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. They would be the Supreme Court.
To restore the Constitution, you can’t subvert the Constitution. An independent judiciary is essential to our constitutional system. The way to confine the courts to their proper role is to appoint the right people – principled const
Report Post »snidley-whiplash
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:47amGrotesquely Dictatorial!…………………. Who Newt or the Justices????????? I’ll go with the Justices
Report Post »Centralsville
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:46amThis to me was the best part of the debate. I don’t think our courts should be able to trash our Constitutional rights when anybody with mind can see them doing it. They think they are God in our country but they shouldn’t be. Newt was right on. On this issue and in foreign policy Paul showed himself for the social liberal that he is.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:07amI agree — this was the best part of the debate:
Bachmann and Gingrich agreeing to “trash the Constitution” and Dr. Paul saying “that’s not a good idea”
LOL HOW REVEALING!
Report Post »circleDwagons
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:46pm@vech. i thought Dr.Paul’s question on who was going to pay for a war on iran as the best part of the debate. However, newt‘s comments where revealing because he linked himself to ole’ Abe and FDR.
Report Post »2 of our worst presidents. ps. did you hear mr. levin? he called us neo-confederates
Deckle
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:46amGreat job on courts. This one issue for me is worth voting for you, but I thought Perry did a great job with the over haul of the entire government!
Report Post »chicago76
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:15amIt will take a strong self-assured president to take our country back. He will have to fight the Democrats, the system itself(all the bureaucrats who will fight him tooth and nail) and especially the courts. If you really want change then that is the only way it will happen. I repeat, THE ONLY WAY. Newt is not a phony conservative. He is someone with a plan and a method, which is more than I can say for the others running for President. I would like to see Michele as his vice President. I think she is great and smart and would learn well from Newt how to fight the bastards in the system.
Report Post »gwssacredcause
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:12amI am still considering all the candidates, there are many things about all the candidates that are so much better than what we now have in office. Our nation has moved so far beyond the high level on which it started that any move toward a more conservative President would be better but we need to move as far as we can back toward the principles that birthed this Nation. As with most of the people that post on this site I know when I walk into that voting booth I will be voting for the person I feel is the best choice for our nation and it will be because I am a more informed citizen then the ones that continue to vote for Obama or against him because of his race.
Report Post »plugthedamnhole
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:05amRomney appoints liberal judges to the courts…………….
That is conservative… ?? Beck can vote for that….??
Ron Paul as a third party is better than Gingrich ..?? Beck can support that..??
Newt sat on a couch as Glenn took a Drink .. ??? Who doesn’t have a past ??
Only Glenn can change.. ?? Done with this hyprocrite…….
Report Post »GilbertAcct
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:22amTop_Down… Oh hi there, Mad_Hatter_/Fastfacts! What name is FF2/Clinger_Bible going by these days? I see you are busy advertising your lousy Romney website. Keep up the hard work!
By the way, is your real name Tagg, Matthew, Joshua, Benjamin, or Craig? My guess would be Craig… Li’l Craig Romney out there supporting his dad!
Report Post »Top_Down
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:35amHi, GilbertACCT,
Get it right. Get rid of the FastFacts (no connection) this is my(mad_hatter) home computer. No the site I link has nothing to do with Romney. They just have the best coverage and I completely support them.
You are just mad that I shot down every one of you anti-Romney issues last time. As I told you before I don’t hide any from you.
Oh are you still mad that I called you a Paulie who eats the crackers instead of drinking the Koolaid.
Report Post »GilbertAcct
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:44amYou don’t shoot down any Romney issues. I gave you facts from the MA CAFR and you apparently think the official Massachusetts government website is an “anti Romney” smear website.
You have a great talent that you learned from Obama… blame everyone else for everything that happens on your watch. That is what you do for Romney. You have not proven my points wrong, you just resort to name calling and straw men.
Haha! Home computer?? You just started this “Top_Down” account a few days ago. Did you know you can log in from any computer with the same name? You just change names to try to solicit this lame website. Clinger_Bible said the exact same thing about his home computer.
Craig, you annoy everybody by posting that lousy website hundreds of times. Give it up.
Report Post »22hornet
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:45pmRon Paul as a third party is better than Gingrich ..??
Report Post »If that happens OBAMA WILL WIN 4 more years .. I think that ron paul is a Democrat Plant.
gwssacredcause
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:40amI noticed Megan Kelly said the Supreme Court’s decisions, they are not decisions it says so right on the paper it is an opinion Congress and the President is just as responsible for surrendering their power to the Supreme Court as the Supreme Court is for seizing that mythical power. I also noticed the candidates seem to believe the Supreme Court appointments are life-time appointments they are not, Justices can be impeached which was very common in early America. All three branches of government can determine the constitutionality of an issue. THE PEOPLE ARE THE BEST PROTECTORS OF THE PEOPLE’S RIGHTS NOT THE COURTS.
Report Post »ClunkerT
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:57amThey are LIFETIME appointments. If they are not impeached, they stay their until they resign on their own or die in office. When is the last time you saw an appointed justice or judge impeached. It would be like winning the lotto to impeach anyone in this progressive environment. Newt Gingrich is right on and he slaughtered the others in that portion of the debate. DEFUND the bastards is the only way to get rid of them. All those in Congress are yellow bellied spineless cowards, they will only impeach a judge if he rapes a 12 year old and that isn’t guananteed.
Report Post »chicago76
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:02amAmen brother, Our rights our best protected thru the people and their elected representatives.
Report Post »gwssacredcause
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:09am@CLUNKERT To me a life-time appointment ends at death, since impeachment is possible that would eliminate the life-time appointment.
Report Post »Ookspay
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:01amJudges are the most arrogant people on earth. They have a god complex and love to bully and dictate. Newt is right on, they need to be “Newtered”. Federal judges legislating from the bench usurp our representaion and should be removed!
It was awesome to see Megyn Kelly get her attorney A$$ slapped. She got a good schooling from the professor. Watch out newt, she is now a women scorned and will go after You on her show for the rest of the campaign. Just like that great historian and know it all Glenn beck has done….
Report Post »rose-ellen
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:21amI can’t believe I actually agree with that war mongering anti muslim genocidist. but I do. That judges can determine what marriage is and with the stroke of a pen overthrow thousands of yrs of the meaning of marriage is contemptuous of the people and dictatorial. Finally someone is saying this publically. So too these judges who go out of their way to trample all common sense in trials .That our values are at the mercy of these dictators is the most unjust reality we have in this country. People in high places behind closed doors determing for us -the people-what our values MUST be. They are the most dangerous and [subconsciously] malicious underminers of civilization today.
Report Post »heath974
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:29amActually that great big government historian, Newt was wrong. Jefferson, did not remove any judges. The House of Representative started the impeachment process and the Senate gave the verdict. You see a President has no Constitutional authority to do so. And if I was wishing to project myself as a Constiutional conservative, Lincoln is not the model for that, unless you want to be a tyrant.
Report Post »smackdown33
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:30amListen, no one has been tougher on the newt than me… but on this issue I agree. If it comes down to the newt or the suit, I’ll go with the newt.
Report Post »countryfirst
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:59amWith all these issue’s and possible probabilities, Why not ask this one -we are 16 trillion in debt, no one will buy are bonds. How do you stop the panic of a country and possible riots when the government can no longer pay all its bills and obligations.
Report Post »saranda
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:13amThat is a little uninformed to say no one will buy our bonds. Did you get this from GB or from Faux News? Either way it is wrong.
Report Post »saranda
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:19amIn fact I just checked and the 30 year auction this week saw lowest yields in years and the best bid to cover ration in over 10 years. Sounds like they are lining up to buy our bonds.
Report Post »countryfirst
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:47amThis is a probability question, we cannot keep borrowing 40 cents of every dollar, and not have it come crashing down. Before we know it the interest alone will consume our entire GDP.
Report Post »momsense
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:53amWas just listening to the story of the murder of a NYPD officer by a felon with a mutiple crime history—A NY judge let him out on his own recongnizance only a few days earlier for another crime defying all the current proceedured oF NY State law—. Perfect example of what Newt was talking about.
Report Post »EqualJustice
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:35amREAD… then comment.. many of you do NOT know exactly what he is saying… he is CORRECT!! http://www.newt.org/news/mentioned-debate-newt-activist-judges
Report Post »Bum thrower
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:59amI absolutely agree; I hope someone has been keeping ‘score’ and the ‘judicial act of 2013’ ABOLISHES the arragont courts that have rendeded the statist decisions that HAVE denied us our freedoms.
Report Post »ROMNEY2012
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:05pmNewt Gingrich’s idea for checking judicial activism is a case of historical revisionism that is strikingly similar to the court-packing scheme of liberal icon FDR.
Gingrich’s idea would replace an imperial judiciary with an imperial presidency.
Gingrich’s idea is a modern version of FDR’s court-packing scheme to create six new Supreme Court justiceships, which FDR would then fill with supporters of his agenda.
FDR’s court-packing scheme failed miserably. Despite Roosevelt’s immense popularity, the American people energetically rejected this naked power grab that sought to subvert a coequal branch of government. Even his own Democratic Congress wouldn’t follow him.
If Gingrich’s idea was legal and Congress agreed, a president could abolish all lower courts, ousting all 980 federal judges, then recreate those courts and stack them with all his supporters.
President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats could also oust John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito by eliminating their Supreme Court seats.
This would leave the Supreme Court with justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. They would be the Supreme Court.
To restore the Constitution, you can’t subvert the Constitution. An independent judiciary is essential to our constitutional system. The way to confine the courts to their proper role is to appoint the right people – principled constitutionalists — t
Report Post »EqualJustice
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:32amBaddoggy OBVIOUSLY did NOT read Newt’s papers.. HE IS SPOT ON! Take that to the bank….
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:38amHe may be spot on in terms of the Judicial, I didn’t read the papers, but this is the same man who wants to be a dictator from the Executive Office like Obama. The Executive is just as out of control, if not more..asserting it can assassinate American Citizens on a whim…and Newt wants to execute me for smoking marijuana!
Report Post »Msgt Ret
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:07amYes, their duties are made very clear within the very Constitution of the Republic, enforce the law as written, not write them, or change them to how they want them to read. Newt is right on this one!
Report Post »gmoneytx
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:19amNice call Newt…
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:04amThere’s something about that guy that reminds me of Augustus Caesar.
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:04amHiel Hitler! I mean Eye of Newt! I mean Good god Gingrich! I dunno, how would I salute you dear dictator?
I hate Obama, absolutely hate him. I would vote for him before I ever would vote for Newt.
Report Post »TxSon
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:19amYou are wrong, sir. It is the courts who are acting like all powerful dictators these days. Ignoring constitutional restictions on power to create and recreate laws at a whim instead of through the legislative process. Newt is absolutely right that the courts need to be restricted to their constitutional authority.
Report Post »quicker
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:50am@ TXSON.Just heard on the radio that our primary has been pushed back to April 3.Due to judges getting involved in our redistericting ,The libs strick agin thanks alot libs.
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:55amThe giving the President the power is the answer? Summoning the courts to appear for a lashing will not be the answer either. Just because they do not follow the Costitution is no reason to so something unConstitutional in return.
Report Post »ergo
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:16amOh yeah, much better…4 more years of that “hated” progressive administration to further erode our remaining liberties than to vote for that evil Newt Gingrich. How about just cast your vote for Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton, they seem more in line to your way of thinking.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:26amThe Executive branch is acting like they’re all powerful, and NEwt Gingrich CANNOT be allowed to weild that power. He is a very dangerous progressive, if not THE most dangerous. He actually believes his own con (such as Global Warming).
Report Post »ClunkerT
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:04amBaddoggy, if Newt is the nominee and you don‘t like him and won’t vote for him, stay the hell home. If you would truly vote for Barack Hussein Obama then you don’t have a clue as to how serious conditions are and will be with another 4 years of this illegal Usuper. So be a Gooddoggy and screw you thinking cap back on. Oh, by the way, Newt kicked ass again last night. He made them all look like little children. Bachmann was a disaster. She has been in the House for 5 years and didn’t stop a thing that Obama wanted. She wasn’t alone, she had other linguini spined members in the House who wouldn’t fillerbuster some of that legislation.
Report Post »ClunkerT
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:07amOh, I forgot to mention that Newt Gingrich got more standing ovations than any of the other candidates. The Media fears Newt, he makes them all look stupid. He has defended himself at every turn and looking smarter at every turn. He said he would crush 40% of the damage Obama has done in his first day in office. That is the kind of hardline talk you will never hear from the RINOS.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:59amClunkerT
Newt knows the right things to say because he’s been practicing lying to the people for a very long time. He said right there in the debate that he was lying to you and that he would change his position after he got elected… AKA “when conditions change”.
He’s a progressive. He used the same words as Barack Obama who campaigned on one platform and presides from another… “when conditions change”.
Report Post »bolsen00
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:44pmClunkert—You’re so easily fooled by the Gingrich smoke and mirrors. He talks everyone to death. If he can‘t dazzle ’em with brilliance, he‘ll baffle ’em with b.s.. He’s obsessed with historical info.. Fine…but he needs to confine himself to his home office with his obsessive compulsive disorder and ADHD. He reminds me of the book, “Driven to Distraction”. His mind is all over the place and if he were my college teacher he would drive me crazy the way he’s all over the place. You ask a simple question, and are forced to hear legislative rhetoric, laws passed, and anything else that pops into his mind during that tiptoe through Newt’s tulips. He is a great starter…but a lousy finisher… Look at his stint in Washington, his three marriages, his children…need I say more? He’s totally unfocused for more than 2 minutes on the problem at hand. He’d start as president, then get thrown out or run out of office.
Report Post »quicker
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:03amWell I have the give him that one.How many times have the majority of voters have voted for something and liberal judges have overturned it ,Like the gay marrage vote in Californa .
Report Post »pazzo242
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:20amIt happens all the time in Washington State….AKA “North San Francisco”
Report Post »quicker
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:22amThat`s why I moved to Texas from PA.
Report Post »nanzofsc
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:01amI’m very sad that GB has gone after Newt like this. But not about Newt – about GB. He said he didn’t care about politics, that the truth has no agenda. Well, he has gotten smack dab in the middle of it. Everyone I talk to feels the same – that he has gone too far. He has said he won’t vote for Newt – WHAT????? I too wish we had a pure conservative, but I will vote for ANYONE to get O out of office! Maybe he won’t be great – but I know he won’t be as bad as O and pray if he is the pres, he will pick a conservative VP for us to strive for down the road!! That’s my silver lining prayer!!! Merry Christmas everyone!!
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:06amNewt would take the freedoms from us that Obama has not yet taken. Wake up man! He is just another form of dictator.
Report Post »Juniemoon
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:21amI agree, GB is acting like he owns the tea party, calling us racists. He brings things up from the 90′s that Newt has said. I find it odd that Glenn who has called himself a rodeo clown, a drunk and an awful person in the past, just can’t believe that Newt, might have sought the same forgiveness that Glenn so proudly claims he received and was changed. Beck sees his mormon doctrine falling apart if George Washington isn’t elected. I think Glenn is bi-polar, people who have it are usually those who claim that God is speaking to them, even though you know he doesn’t speak through a cult member or one that believes you can get to heaven even if a fork is your god. God is not universal, every religion isn’t going to make it, you can’t make up your gods. Poor Glenn, the road ahead of him is a long one.
Report Post »chicago76
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:19amDoggy is a divisive fool. He’s probably a socialist.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:00amWhat? Whose the dictator here?
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:02amI mean: Who’s.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 6:59amNewt understand this much, if you mean take on the radical justices who feel they are the law and will make the law up as they go along then fine — the courts duties are made very clear within the very Constitution of the Republic.
Newt is a Progressive, we cannot trust him.
Report Post »quicker
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:10amHowever Snow by the time we get our chance the primarys may aready be decided.So we have to stand with who ever is aginst Obama.I would prefer someone like Rand Paul ,Allen West Or Paul Ryan.But as in pocker sometimes you have to play with the hand you have.
Report Post »quicker
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:17amSorry ment poker.Haven`t had enough coffee yet.
Report Post »Rightallalong
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:34amAllen West supported the NDAA which allows the President to indefinately detain any american without trial … how could you support someone that believes in that?
Report Post »EqualJustice
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:39amHey right.. just the kind of response I would expect from a phony conservative!
Report Post »chicago76
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:20amSnowy is also a socialist.
Report Post »