Let me just say that I believe the debate we’re going to have
with President Obama over the next eight or nine months is the
outlining of the two Americas:
Those two choices, I believe, will give the American people a
chance to decide permanently whether we want to remain the historic
America that has provided opportunity for more people of more
backgrounds than any country in history, or whether, in fact, we
prefer to become a brand-new, secular, European-style, bureaucratic
socialist system.
The America of the Declaration of Independence v. the
America of Saul Alinsky; the America of paychecks v. the America of
food stamps; the America of Independence v. the America of
Dependence; the America of strength in foreign policy v. the
America of weakness in foreign policy.
In so summarizing his South Carolina victory speech last
week, Newt Gingrich framed the debate against President Obama with
a clear vision that will sharply clarify the choice the American
people will have to make this year.
Do we want the America of the Declaration of Independence?
Or the America of radical Marxist revolutionary and social
manipulator Saul Alinsky? One TV commentator indicated that most
Americans do not even know who Saul Alinsky was. But that is
exactly why Gingrich is so right to frame the debate this way,
because with Barack Obama as their President, Americans need to
know who Saul Alinsky was, and when Gingrich is done with his
campaign, every American will.
President Obama is not only a follower of Saul Alinsky,
and literally a practitioner of his strategies and tactics for the
radical socialist takeover of America. After graduation from
Harvard Law School, Obama was an instructor of fellow Marxist
comrades in the Alinsky philosophy and methodology of social
manipulation for the radical Marxist organization ACORN.
The American people need to know this, and all about
Alinsky, to make an informed decision on whether to vote for Obama
for reelection. That vote would represent a fundamental rejection
of America, and all it has stood for since 1776.
America has long been the land of world leading
prosperity, a true workers’ paradise. But the real point of Obama’s
State of the Union last night was that all of that has to change
now, because America is “unfair,” in the Alinsky/Marxist
worldview.
Let’s give the President credit where credit is due. Obama
is a very sophisticated Marxist philosopher, combining the highly
advanced social manipulation tactics of Alinsky with careful, long
developed insights in how to craft a modern, neo-Marxist message to
sell to a majority of modern America. This is what we heard in last
night’s State of the Union. The real question this year is whether
this generation of Americans can be duped into trashing the
greatest, most prosperous, most successful nation in the history of
the world, for a retrograde Marxist vision that thoroughly failed
throughout the last century, and which the rest of the world has
learned through hard experience is confused to the point of
practical silliness. This only indicates how much deep trouble
America is in, with Obama as President, and his philosophy and
worldview having taken over the modern Democrat party.
What Gingrich indicated in his South Carolina victory
speech is that he understands what Obama is really all about, and
the fundamental challenge he represents to the future of America.
And he intends to reveal the truth of Obama’s carefully crafted
neo-Marxist message to the American people.
Gingrich is the only candidate remotely capable of
carrying the flag for the true, original, historic America in this
fundamental, existential battle for national survival. He so
rightly identified the public mood in his South Carolina speech,
saying, “The American people feel that they have elites who have
been trying for a half-century to force us to quit being American
and become some kind of other system.” He further identified the
pending danger, “If Barack Obama can get re-elected after this
disaster, just think how radical he would be in a second
term.”
Gingrich recognizes the central importance of the economic
issues in this campaign, and has proposed the most specific, most
bold, most comprehensive supply-side economic recovery program of
all the candidates, which I have discussed in this space before. He
very effectively dramatizes that by saying, “President Obama has
been, historically, the most effective food stamp President in
American history…. If you want your children to have a life of
dependency on food stamps, you have a candidate, it’s Barack Obama.
If you want your children to have a life of independence and
paychecks you have a candidate, it’s Newt Gingrich.”
Gingrich recognizes another component of his long-term
economic recovery and prosperity program is an American energy
policy, unleashing producers to maximize production of American
energy from all sources. He adds as another central component:
“Since I am the only Speaker of the House in your lifetime to have
helped create four consecutive balanced budgets, I think I can tell
you, as President, I will work very hard to get back to a balanced
budget as rapidly as possible, and then to run a surplus to pay
down the debt so no Chinese leverage exists on the United States by
having our debt.” Indeed, as Speaker, he left a legacy of paying
down $560 billion in debt with four consecutive record budget
surpluses.
Gingrich rightly touts his proven leadership and success
on these policies, saying, “I worked with Ronald Reagan to create
jobs, and 16 million jobs were created by the American people in
the 1980s. I worked with Bill Clinton, the Democrat, to create
jobs, and 11 million jobs were created by the American people
during the four years that I was Speaker.” His goal in sharp
contrast to Obama: “I would like to be the best paycheck President
in American history.”
He also recognizes that “One of the key issues is the
growing anti-religious bigotry of our elites.” He served as one of
the most faithful, highly effective leaders in modern history on
social conservative issues while in office, from pro-life, to
pro-gun rights, to pro-family and traditional moral values issues.
Most intriguing, he has proposed in this campaign a comprehensive,
truly original, historically and legally based strategy to counter
liberal activist judges, who have implemented from the bench in
recent decades the social liberal agenda. (See Newt.org).
Gingrich concludes, however:
But the centerpiece of this campaign, I believe, is American
exceptionalism versus the radicalism of Saul Alinsky….[W]hat we are
going to argue is that American exceptionalism, the American
Declaration of Independence, the American Constitution, the
American Federalist papers, the Founding Fathers of America, are
the source from which we draw our understanding of America. [Obama]
draws his from Saul Alinsky, radical left-wingers, and people who
don’t like the classical America.
Having served President Reagan in the White House Office
of Policy Development in the early 1980s, I can say the
comprehensive conservatism and breadth of this South Carolina
victory speech is quintessentially Reagan.
The Romney Trash-Talking
Contrast
In sharp contrast, Romney is the perfect foil for Obama’s
Alinsky strategy and tactics. Everything about him, from his
business career, to his public record, to his appearance, to his
inability to express fundamental principles and philosophy, only
communicates “Country Club” Republican. Al Sharpton calls him “Mr.
1%.” Does the Republican Party, let alone confused “conservative”
talking heads, really want to run this year against Obama a Wall
Street multimillionaire who pays a 15% tax rate, and can’t explain
or defend that?
Instead of the inspiring substance of leadership that
Gingrich has provided, Romney has engaged in low brow trash
talking, backed by the millions provided by his Country Club
cronies. Romney says, “We’re not seeking a talk show host. We’re
seeking a leader.” New Jersey Governor and Romney crony Chris
Christie chimes in, “Newt has been an embarrassment to the
Republican Party.”
You want a leader? Gingrich led the entire party to an
historic victory in 1994 to the first Republican takeover of
Congress in 40 years, something even Reagan didn’t accomplish. Then
in 1996 and 1998, Gingrich as Speaker led the first reelection of
Republican House majorities in since the 1920s. Some embarrassment,
Chris.
Romney has no comparable history of successful political
leadership. Instead, he has lost every race he has run, except his
one gubernatorial victory in Massachusetts. Some
leadership.
Instead, Romney has sent his surrogates out to trash the
true leader with the false claim that he had to resign as Speaker
in disgrace, the only Speaker to have to resign in U.S. history,
they say. The only problem is that there was no resignation, and
there was no disgrace.
Gingrich never resigned as Speaker. In 1998, after
Republicans failed to make the traditional gains expected in a
second midterm election, Gingrich took responsibility as the leader
to decline to run for reelection as Speaker.
Moreover, the Romney campaign is engaging in the same
calculated deception as Obama in arguing he had to resign in
disgrace over supposed ethics charges, taking advantage of what it
hopes is a public with short memories. The “ethics” charges were
filed against Gingrich at the beginning of his service as Speaker,
by defeated left-wing Democrats bitter over losing their first
majority in 40 years. This was the exact same thing that was done
to Sarah Palin recently. Out of 84 supposed charges, 83 were
dismissed. The IRS cleared Gingrich of the last years later. In
January 1997, upon returning for a second term as Speaker, Gingrich
settled to end the political mudslinging by agreeing to pay
$300,000 to cover the costs of the investigation. There was no
fine. Gingrich did not leave as Speaker until two years after that,
upon the disappointing election results discussed above.
But he left as a legacy the first reelected Republican
House majorities in 70 years, since the 1920s, and record budget
surpluses, balancing the budget in three years instead of the
expected seven, doing it the only way it has ever been done,
cutting both taxes and spending. Contrast that with Romney mentor
and cheerleader George H.W. Bush, who in 1990 fell for Democrat
seduction for tax increases that are still with us, in return for
budget cuts that never happened, with the deficit soaring by 50% as
a result.
Yet, Romney continues with his own disgrace, charging
Gingrich with “influence peddling.” But he provides exactly zero
documentation of any instance of actual influence peddling.
Gingrich’s consulting contracts all included prohibitions of any
lobbying of any sort, at his insistence. For making that dishonest
charge without documentation, it is Romney who should resign his
campaign, in disgrace.
