Newt Gingrich, Faux Catholic

Newt Gingrich deserves all the scorn that can be heaped upon anyone who not only converts to Catholicism – though that is bad enough – but who falsely converts. Bottom line? The only reason Newt converted is because his third wife (Callista) is a life-long Catholic.  She had an affair with Newt even though he was still married to wife #2 at the time, but I’m sure she managed to have that sin magically wiped out.

Newt Gingrich wrote a 555-word piece (linked below, from which I’ll quote liberally) with this title:

Why I Became Catholic [published on April 26, 2011]:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/newt-gingrich-why-i-became-catholic/

As you read his words, keep in mind that he has a Ph.D. That, you would think, should mean he’d manage a lot more than 555-words in the way of an explanation. And that his explanation wouldn’t be so superficial or badly written.

QUOTE/COMMENT

I’m going to quote from Newt’s essay and add my own comments.

QUOTE:

I am often asked when I chose to become Catholic. However, it is more truthful to say that over the course of several years I gradually became Catholic and then decided one day to accept the faith I had already come to embrace.

COMMENT:

Newt’s first sentence bothered me, though I couldn’t figure out why at first. Then it hit me: he put a barrier (specifically, a barrier of three words) between himself (“I”) and Catholicism (“Catholic”) by writing, “…I chose to become Catholic.” By way of contrast, consider this more direct version:

“I am often asked why I converted to the Catholic faith.” [NOTE: I’ll address “why” vs. “when” below, where I highlight in green.]

His second sentence is either dodgy or else just badly written. Immediately below, compare his version followed by my suggested rewrite:

However, it is more truthful to say that over the course of several years I gradually became Catholic and then decided one day to accept the faith I had already come to embrace.

Over the course of several years I became increasingly attracted to the Catholic faith and then decided to formally convert. [NOTE: It was entirely unnecessary to preface, as he did, with “However, it is more truthful to say…” Why did he feel a need to tell his readers he was going to be “more truthful” with them?

Notice my highlight above. After he “became Catholic,” he “then decided…to accept.” Seems to me, once he became Catholic, he’d already accepted that faith, unless he meant to write “formally accept.” However, once cannot become Catholic without formal acceptance by the Church. Note also the strangeness of “I…decided one day to accept the faith I had already come to embrace.” Question: If somebody had “already come to embrace,” why would it be necessary to decide “one day to accept?” Isn’t embracing the same as accepting?

Newt’s first paragraph could well be interpreted as coming from a man who thinks of marriage in terms of accepting a woman as a wife as being different from (merely) embracing a woman. This type of thinking could well explain why he’s on this third marriage.

“why” vs. “when”

After his first paragraph (assuming Newt was keen on cutting to the chase as to “when” he converted), he should have written this:

The moment that finally convinced me [to convert] was when Benedict XVI came here [to the United States] … As a spouse, I got to sit in the upper church and I very briefly saw [Benedict] and I was just struck with how happy he was and how fundamentally different he was from the news media's portrait of him. This guy's not a Rottweiler. He's a very loving, engaged, happy person.”  -  source 1*

Actually, Newt had spoken these words in the course of an interview. To get directly to the point, he should have immediately written as he had spoken above. However, he doesn’t allude to what “finally convinced me [to convert]” until 398 words later when he wrote:

“Catching a glimpse of Pope Benedict that day, I was struck by the happiness and peacefulness he exuded. The joyful and radiating presence of the Holy Father was a moment of confirmation about the many things I had been thinking and experiencing for several years.

“That evening I told Msgr. Rossi I wanted to be received into the Catholic Church…”

Obviously, the earlier version starting with “The moment that finally convinced me [to convert]…” is vastly superior to what he actually wrote in his essay. But when one considers that vastly superior version, one has to wonder at how easily moved (to convert!) Dr. Gingrich was. After all, he said, “I…very briefly saw [Benedict]…” That was enough to strike Newt with “how happy he was and how fundamentally different he was…”

Is Newt Gingrich so easily impressed, especially from a distance? He wasn’t even close to Benedict, since he was seated in the “upper church.”

QUOTE:

“Although I was Southern Baptist, I had attended Mass with Callista every Sunday at the basilica to watch her sing with the choir.”

COMMENT:

Nowhere in his essay does Newt say why he abandoned Southern Baptism. This is no small matter, since Newt not only abandoned the Southern Baptists, he divorced himself from the entire Protestant movement.

QUOTE:

While there, I had the opportunity to talk at length with Msgr. Walter Rossi, rector of the basilica in D.C., about faith, history and many of the cultural challenges, including secularism, facing our country. Our conversations were enlightening and intriguing.

COMMENT:

Dr. Gingrich, however, doesn’t bother to tell us – at all – in what ways these conversations were enlightening and intriguing.

QUOTE:

During that trip, I experienced my first visit to St. Peter’s Basilica, and I recall marveling at being in the presence of the historic truth of the Church that day.

COMMENT:

I can understand how someone could be impressed by St. Peter’s Basilica. I can’t understand how that translates to being “in the presence of the historic truth of the Church.” The Church has a lot of historic truths swirling about it, though obviously Newt chose to ignore some of those uglier truths.

QUOTE:

At the same time, I was being influenced by several books I was reading, including George Weigel’s The Cube and the Cathedral, about the crisis of secularism in Europe, and his book The Final Revolution, about the role of Christianity in freeing Eastern Europe from an atheistic dictatorship.

COMMENT:

I suspect Newt was overly impressed with how Eastern Europe was freed from Communism, choosing to allow that to blind him to the Dark Side of Christian History (the title, by the way, of a marvelous book by Helen Ellerbe). Newt would also benefit from an introduction to Buddhism, which his White Supremacist’s view of the world totally disallows.

QUOTE:

I was also moved by Pope Benedict’s reflection in his book Jesus of Nazareth that, “God is the issue: Is he real, reality itself, or isn’t he? Is he good, or do we have to invent the good ourselves?”

COMMENT:

Dr. Gingrich fails to expand on why he was moved by Benedict’s reflection. I can’t see how anyone could be moved by what Gingrich quoted. As for Benedict’s claim, God most certainly is not the issue. This is the issue: What constitutes an ideal life for people?

I can, however, answer the Pope’s questions:

·       God is real, alright. But He’s only one god among untold trillions. And he, like all gods (and those humans who are awake) is working on becoming a fully-enlightened Buddha. And that is a far superior state than any godhood.

·       God is not reality itself, nor did He create reality. He Himself is a product of karma which is the guiding law of a universe which was never created and which will never die. It has always been – which (interestingly enough) is a descriptor of God Himself.

·       Is God good? Sometimes He isn’t. “I am a jealous God,” “I am an angry God.”

·       We don’t have to “invent the good ourselves.” We simply have to be good which, briefly, means being compassionate and following the six paramitas of Bodhisattva practice.

QUOTE:

…worshipping with believers across the world opened my eyes to the diversity and richness of the Catholic Church. 

COMMENT:

The world has many sources of “diversity and richness.” The Catholic Church cannot lay sole claim to those distinctions.

QUOTE:

Over the course of a decade, the depth of faith and history contained in the life of the Catholic Church were increasingly apparent to me…

COMMENT:

Unfortunately, Gingrich hasn’t got a clue about the “depth of faith and history” of Buddhism. That’s pretty amazing since he has a Ph.D. in history. Or maybe not, since his Ph.D. is in White history.

QUOTE:

…the centrality of the Eucharist in the Catholic Mass became more and more clear.

COMMENT:

How can anyone possibly believe that receiving what a friend of mine calls Christ crispies and a cup of wine has anything to do with receiving Christ? Further, why is it so important to receive Christ? He was just a man who died for his own sins (that is, as a result of his own karma). Same as for untold millions over the ages who died for their sins. Jesus has no special power to “save” anyone. Saving only happens as a result of personal effort.

I’ve often said, “Anyone who thinks someone else can die for his sins must also believe the man who says, ‘Let me make love to your wife for you; that will be the same as if you made love to her.’”

Nobody can make love for you; nobody can take upon themselves the sins you’ve committed.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

After thought

Since Dr. Gingrich has a Ph.D. in modern European history, I’m amazed he doesn’t more fully appreciate the importance of Protestantism. My curiosity was further stoked by the title of Newt’s doctoral dissertation: “Belgian Education Policy in the Congo: 1945-1960.” That topic seems so far-removed from anything that would mark Newt as a serious scholar of modern European history – not to mention, as even a nominal scholar of religion. I’m starting to wonder, “How is Newt Gingrich relevant at all?”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractor’s Party

“I just hope the Evangelical Christians don’t become so disgusted by Newt Gingrich’s faux conversion that they start taking Rick Santorum seriously. OMG!”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

    *source 1: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/05/20/exclusive-newt-gingrich-opens-up-on-catholic-conversion-and-embracing-overt-christianity

Newt Gingrich, Callista Gingrich, 2012 elections, Gingrich Catholic, GOP debates 2011

Thou shalt not lie

No, the Ninth Commandment does not state: “Thou shalt not lie.” It says, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

I’ve read on-line posts which claim the Ninth Commandment, in effect, tells us not to lie. But that’s simply not true. Consider the following from Source A*:

Let’s say you were living in Nazi Germany and hiding Jews fleeing the holocaust. Would you break the intention of the commandment by lying to an SS Officer and saying that you’ve not seen any Jews, even though they are hiding in your closet? In such cases, the greater interest is justice for the innocent.

That author would have done better to replace that last sentence with this:

Since the Ninth Commandment deals with bearing “false witness against,” you wouldn’t be breaking that law since you didn’t say anything against your neighbors – the Jews you are hiding. In fact, giving them away would violate this one – “Thou shalt not kill.” If you lied, saying you hadn’t seen any Jews, you could claim to be “bearing false witness in favor of [my] neighbor.” No law against that! [NOTE: I will deal, later, with what if the Commandment actually said, “Thou shalt not lie.”]

That author, by saying “In such cases, the greater interest is justice…” is guilty of being dodgy by not answering (as I did) in terms of the Commandment itself. This same author shares, in that same posting, this anecdote:

A pastor walking through his neighborhood came up on a group of boys trying to out-lie each other. The kindly parson, overhearing a few whoppers, asked the boys what they were doing. They explained they’d found a puppy and decided the one who told the biggest lie would get to take it home. As you can imagine, this disturbed this man of the cloth. He looked each boy straight in the eye and told them all they should be ashamed of themselves, that when he was their age, he never told lies. The boys all bowed their heads and shrugged their shoulders in shame and their leader, picking up the puppy, handed it to the minister and said, “You win, you get to keep the dog.”

Being the mischievous soul I am, I would have been tempted to hack into his website and alter that last sentence to read:

The boys all gasped in amazement and their leader, picking up the puppy, handed it to the minister and said, “You win, you get to keep the dog, for you just now told a whopper that out-lied any of us.”

I know, I know…the author didn’t intend that meaning, but it sure jumped out at me…and struck me as being hilarious.

What about where he wrote (above): “As you can imagine, this disturbed this man of the cloth.” Why should he be disturbed at all? Since the boys were lying to each other without any intention of harming anyone – and each knew the other was lying (in which case, whatever was said wasn’t a lie in the sense of being an attempt to deceive anyone) – the preacher was just being a dick by trying to shame these boys.

Look at the wording of the Ninth

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

I’ve already dealt with the “against” part – what about the “neighbor” part? I looked up the word “neighbor” from Source B*, which says:

QUOTE:

1.    One who lives near or next to another.

2.    A person, place, or thing adjacent to or located near another.

3.    A fellow human.

4.    Used as a form of familiar address [like “Howdy, neighbor!”]

[Also included are the following:]

·       To lie close to or border directly on.

·       To live or be situated close by.

·       Situated or living near another: a neighbor state.

Word History: even though one can now have many neighbors whom one does not know, a situation that would have been highly unlikely in earlier times. The extension of this word to mean "fellow" is probably attributable to the Christian concern with the treatment of one's fellow humans, as in the passage in Matthew 19:19 that urges love of one's neighbor.

:UNQUOTE.

I duly note, here and now, that Matthew 19:19 was written after the Ten Commandments had been given to Moses. So I think we can disregard this from the definitions of “neighbor” listed above: “a fellow human.”

However, if we do that, then apparently the Commandment could be rewritten to say:

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor but it’s perfectly okay to do so against those who are not thy neighbors.” In other words, it’s only sinful to bear false witness against “folks like us.” We might not feel it right to embrace a Commandment that exclude others but…that’s what the words mean.

As for “bearing false witness against (someone),” what about saying something that isn’t true but which also isn’t against anyone? For instance, if some fool got up in the public square and insisted (even though he knew better) that the world was flat, he would be guilty of intentionally lying. But he wouldn’t be guilty of saying anything “against” anybody. Or would he? If someone in the audience were to believe this lie and act on it in such a way as to cause him loss or harm, then the lie would have had the effect of being against someone (that is, to his detriment).

But…maybe such a lie would be better prohibited by the “Thou shalt not steal” commandment. For by telling such a lie, the fool attempts to “steal” from the gullible listener something we all have a right to possess – an accurate description of physical reality.

The Four Agreements

Don Miguel Ruiz wrote a best-seller called The Four Agreements, which are basically four rules of conduct necessary for a virtuous life:

1.    Be impeccable with your word

2.    Don’t take anything personally

3.    Don’t make assumptions [Side Note: This would have given Euclid fits, since he built a vast body of work based on making “assumptions” – aka axioms.]

4.    Always do your best

Right off the bat, I liked the fact that God is not mentioned anywhere among these four rules. By saying that, I’m not weighing in on whether God actually exists or not. I’m merely saying, living a virtuous life doesn’t necessarily have to involve an external, higher being.

But I digress. Focus on #1: “Be impeccable with your word.” According to Source B*, impeccable means “without flaw or error; faultless.” But does that mean such words must be devoid of lies?

The Buddha, whose speech must surely be regarded as “impeccable,” never lied or so it is claimed. However, he is also praised for having used “expedient means” in order to teach his disciples – “means” which sometimes took the form of telling a lie. The idea, I suppose, is that lies told to help someone attain enlightenment aren’t really lies. But…I don’t buy that for a moment, as I explained in my essay, “Why did the Buddha lie to us?” at:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-did-buddha-lie-to-us.html

I can only speak for myself, but I regard “impeccable” speech as being completely free of lies.

Back to the beginning

Toward the beginning of this essay, I wrote:

[NOTE: I will deal, later, with what if the Commandment actually said, “Thou shalt not lie.”]

Let’s reconsider what Source A* said above:

Let’s say you were living in Nazi Germany and hiding Jews fleeing the holocaust. Would you break the intention of the commandment by lying to an SS Officer and saying that you’ve not seen any Jews, even though they are hiding in your closet?

If the Ninth actually stated “Thou shalt not lie,” the only proper response would be to tell that SS Officer, “I’m not going to tell you.” Of course that would prompt a search of your premises which would quickly reveal the Jews hiding in your closet. But do you really think that officer would have accepted your answer and walked away, if you had told him you’d not seen any Jews?

Maybe, maybe not. Some people calculate the odds on answers to questions like this before speaking. If they thought it highly probable the SS man would believe them, they might risk lying. If they thought otherwise, they might say, “I’m not going to tell you” knowing full well they themselves would be punished after the inevitable search turned up closeted Jews.

Under those circumstances – an SS man in your face – would it be worth risking your life to keep the “Thou shalt not lie” commandment? Maybe the better question would be: Would it be worth your soul not to keep that commandment?

Side note: I’m going to purposely ignore the possibility of asking God/Jesus for forgiveness (and it being granted) for violating a commandment. For when one asks forgiveness, one is saying they won’t ever commit the sin again. But we know full well, that if our hero survived the first SS officer asking this question, he would lie again if confronted by a second SS officer. How many times can one break a commandment and ask for forgiveness before it becomes obvious that the breaker will always continue to break?

The uncomfortable but honest position must be: If the Commandment said “Thou shalt not lie,” then that is what is meant. Even at the cost of your own life? Yes, but I hasten to add: “Too many people cling to life (or at least their idea of life) when they really should let go.” That might be easy to say, but (you might object) how many people could be brave enough to stand up to an SS officer like that?

The answer to that question is, “Not as many would have had to be that brave if more people had been more honest way before Nazism had a chance to become the state religion of Germany.” A lot of little lies allowed a great evil to take root. The lesson? Maybe it would be better to get out of the habit of telling (and accepting) so many little lies that have a way of getting out of hand.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Try it out for yourselves in your personal lives, to live according to a ‘Thou shalt not lie’ commandment.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

  *Source A = http://hastingspresbyterian.blogspot.com/2007/09/ninth-commandment.html

  * Source B =http://www.thefreedictionary.com/neighbor

US President’s Weekly Yahoo News Updates

Once per week, I consolidate comments I’d posted to recent articles appearing on Yahoo News. I share my views, written as if I actually were the US President. [I’m working on that.] The following were posted between Nov. 27 and today, though appear below in no particular order. As is my usual custom, if I open with a quoted item, that’s from the article itself.

I hope you enjoy all 15 of these mini-essays/comments.

ONE:

I just clicked on the Herman Cain for President website. There wasn’t any mention of him “suspending” his presidential campaign. There were, however, options to click on and “Join the Cain Train,” and to contribute. There was also an article posted by Cain on 12/01, entitled: “Ginger White: Another Loser Trying to Cash in.”

Also listed is a “private reception with photo op” scheduled for Dec. 5 in Oklahoma City…with a $250 minimum suggested contribution. How many will pay $250 to have their picture taken with Cain, without a colostomy bag over his head? Since his website is still open for business, will Cain insist on participating in future GOP candidate debates? I mean, he didn’t drop out, he just “suspended.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Even though Cain’s website brags, ‘[Cain] has never been fazed by what is expedient or easy…,’ it seems he was easily tempted by both.”

TWO:

Knew-it Gettin’-Rich vs. Barack Obama? Obama will win in a landslide after painting Gettin’-Rich as the personification of the insider, professional politician from the Party of No, who really believes it would take only 3 low-level nukes fired from a barge in the Gulf of Mexico to pump out enough EMP to completely paralyze the whole country. What a fool!

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“If the choice narrows down to Knew-It vs. Obama, the former Speaker wouldn’t be able to withstand the withering blast of reminders resurrected from his past brought to the entire country's attention.”

THREE:

 “… [Newt Gingrich’s] opponents, a slapstick lot….” Ron Paul & Jon Huntsman? Slapstick?

“But presidential campaigns are about character”… Knute Gettin’-Rich has character? People, especially female voters, could come to admire squeaky clean Romney as a personification of family values. Standing next to Knute, Mitt looks like a saint. Imagine that, Knute and Herman, a man who behaves himself, maritally speaking.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Joe Klein [the author of this article]? Or is it Joke Lyin’?"

FOUR:

Knute Gettin’-Rich, All American, promised on his website to sign this Executive Order (among others) on Day One:

“Respect Each Sovereign Nation’s Choice of its Capital. Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own Capital. Accordingly, the U.S. State Department should be instructed to respect the choice of each sovereign nation and place the American embassy in their Capital. (Israel is the only country the United States discriminates against in this regard. The people of Israel have designated Jerusalem as their capital. Yet the United States retains its embassy in Tel Aviv.)”

Knute is being disingenuous here. He could simply grant diplomatic recognition to Israel (even though it already has that status), but this time with this language, “The U.S. recognizes the state of Israel, Jerusalem being its capital, as the eternal homeland of the Jewish people (its Arab citizens be damned).” [Well, that IS where he’s coming from.]

Instead, Knute (All American) chooses to use an indirect route by claiming “the U.S. State Department should be instructed…” Instead he could choose the direct route by invoking the unique and unshared power of the President to grant diplomatic recognition. Is this an example of Gettin’-Rich’s bold leadership style – to hide behind the State Department?

Jerusalem doesn’t entirely belong to Israel, which is why we put our embassy in Tel Aviv in order to contest that claim. Israel has the right to choose its own capital. But we’re not obligated to endorse that decision. Besides, if Israel didn’t like our choice of Tel Aviv, they could have barred our embassy unless we placed it in Jerusalem. And Israel didn’t do that, now did it? So obviously Israel didn’t choose to invoke some mystic right that all embassies must be placed in a capital city.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I won’t kiss Israel’s butt like Gettin’-Rich; I will (on DAY ONE) completely void our recognition of Israel, granting that status to Palestine instead.”

FIVE:

Maybe Cain will make a defiant announcement [on Dec. 3], saying, "If Ginger White says I've had sex with her (off and on) for 13 years, she should be able to describe some of my intimate anatomical details. I say she won't be able to do that because...we never had sex!"

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"Wow, wouldn't that turn things around! At least somewhat. After all, he did admit giving her money."

SIX:

Why didn’t the interviewer cut to the chase by asking: “Since you had a 13-year affair with Herman Cain, you can surely give us some intimate details. Big or small? Circumcised or uncircumcised? Hangs to the left or to the right…or is he ambiDICKstrous?”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“I swear, the ‘journalists’ covering this case are as lame as the ones who never asked candidate Obama any hard questions back in 2007.”

SEVEN:

All Ginger White has to do is go public with details of Cain's anatomy. I'm absolutely amazed none of the media hounds has asked her, point blank, if she would consider doing this.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"I haven't seen any comments posted by Yahoo posters about this, though I have tried to bring it up twice before only to find - Yahoo censors again. Let's see if this post squeaks through." [This one did squeak through!]

EIGHT:

Independents can derail Newt Gettin’-Rich by simply asking for a GOP primary ballot and voting for someone else. Even Democrats could do that, since they won’t have to vote in any Democratic primaries (since Obama is running unopposed). Screw up the GOP primary, which is only fair considering how the GOP has screwed us for so long. By the way, this is perfectly legal.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“All the Occupy Wall Street types (and their legions of sympathizers) have to do is find structural weaknesses in the system and exploit those. Primary skewing sounds like a pretty good place to start.”

NINE:

If Gettin’-Rich becomes the nominee, compare his new Contract with America to mine. The biggest difference? My contract has teeth – if I don’t do what I promise, I forfeit the presidency via impeachment. Newt won’t do that. And I am only promising what I alone can actually deliver. Consider these elements from the contract I offered when running against Obama & McCain back in 2008 – elements I’m going to reintroduce:

ONE: Within 90 days of my inauguration, all U.S. military forces will be completely withdrawn from Afghanistan, regardless of the "situation on the ground." This withdrawal will also apply to any covert operatives in Iran.

TWO: There will be no military draft during my presidency. If Congress enacts a draft, however, I will encourage all draftees to be inducted. Immediately after induction, though, they will be subject to this blanket order: Do not follow any orders from any member of the military except this order from me, your Commander in Chief: "Carry on with your civilian lives as if you had never been drafted."

THREE: I will veto every single bill from Congress that comes my way until it passes a nationwide cap on personal credit card interest rates of 18%.

FOUR: Within 90 days of my inauguration, I will order all US personnel out of all facilities located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This will allow Cuba to reoccupy that land, as is its sovereign right.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Here’s a new provision: I will void US diplomatic recognition of Israel and grant it, instead, to Palestine.”

TEN:

Suppose China has as many nukes as we do. So what? The US delivery system is far superior and has greater diversity. I still maintain, as I did in 2008 when I ran against Obama and McCain, that we only need 1,000 nukes tops.

Can anyone blame the Chinese for being secretive? When we have people like Newt Gettin’-Rich publicly declaring that covert (and deniable) activity against Iran should be initiated, China knows that would also include them. They know what we’re capable of. Not to worry, though. China won’t do anything militarily since that might upset their inexorable march toward economic dominance. That’s the real way they hope to come out on top.

As for this “professor” and his student researchers – please. Talk about Chinese tunnels has been going around for at least 10 years – in the public press. If anything, I rather suspect this “professor” and his group benefitted from input provided by our own government.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“You can fool some of the people some of the time…but I’m pretty hard to fool, so stop embarrassing yourselves by trying.”

ELEVEN:

Stock markets will have their ups and downs. But they’ll tend to stay up if the EU and the US carry out two plans:

ONE:  to prevent the emergence of a Pan-Islamic Union (called by some “a new Caliphate”);

TWO: to continue to sow the seeds of African disunity.

The reasons are the same in both cases: Neither the US nor the EU (nor China, for that matter) wants to see the emergence of a new industrial economy that could threaten their market shares. The Elite view some nations as consumers, some as producers, and others as providers of raw materials never to be allowed to industrialize. Why do you think Obama recently sent 100 troops to Africa? That was part of a larger, on-going plan to expand our undermining influence in the Dark Continent.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“To my African brothers: The US is not your friend, nor are the Chinese and Euros. In their view, it’s best that you don’t forget your place.”

TWELVE:

Herman Cain is a sham candidate acting as a set-up man to make Romney look good. Think about it. Surely Cain didn’t think his skeletons would stay in their closets. I suspect that from the very beginning Cain wasn’t a serious candidate but (shall we say?) an enabler for a higher (GOP) power.

As for Knew-It Gettin’-Rich, he wasn’t a sham candidate – at least not by intention but he too will serve that function. Standing next to former Speaker Gettin’-Rich and (especially) next to Cain, the squeaky clean Romney will start looking awfully good to a lot of people. A lot more than just the fundie Christians who might go with Romney, since he seems to personify family values.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“However, I can’t explain why the latest Cain detractor doesn’t offer some intimate details, since she must have seen a lot of Herman in 13 years.”

THIRTEEN:

"For the Muslim Brotherhood, democracy is a useful means of coming to power, but not a valued end state." That’s funny – our own Dem/Pub axis feels the same way about our own “democracy.”

We don’t have a democracy here – we have a “constitutional republic” (or actually a union of such republics). Our leaders don’t like democracy – for if they did, the Senate filibuster couldn’t exist (we’d have one man, one vote). Democracy can only work if you have an informed and participating citizenry – which we don’t (we simply go through the motions of picking from choices forced upon us).

The most ideal form of government is an enlightened monarchy. And a large number of Republicans support that notion, since they can’t wait for Jesus to return and rule over us. So…’nuff said about democracy.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Say, you don’t suppose we’re afraid that Muslim Brotherhood might be pissed at us for having armed and trained Mubarak’s forces to suppress them for decades, do you?”

FOURTEEN:

“… as a drug-fueled civil war now rages in Mexico.” That’s according to the Newt for Prez website. “civil war now rages in Mexico?” Is this guy nuts or merely given to hyperbole? Yes, there’s a drug-war going on but that can’t be called a civil war. I’m going to send Knew-It Gettin’Rich (at last) a dictionary.

Even worse than not knowing what a civil war is, is Knew-Its fondness for alternative histories. This is a man who loves indulging (literally) in fantasy. Let’s hope, if elected, he knows where the borders of La-La Land end and Real Nations’ begin. One fantasy that he supports is the “threat” of a pending EMP attack, as in the book One Second After to which he contributed (movie deal went bust, though). I rip that delusion to shreds here: Google: EMP threat bogeyman Gingrich Searle.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Gingrich may have a PhD in history and have an arm chair quarterback's love of the military (never served), but that doesn’t mean he’s fit to lead our future.”

FIFTEEN:

“…[Newt Gingrich campaigns in a] wealthy conservative stronghold [in Florida]…” Ah, a bunch of rich white people waiting to see the Great White Hope (Knew-it Gettin’Rich). They be chomping at the bit for him to oust that black feller currently at 1600. Get down with your homies, Mr. Speaker. Enjoy it while it lasts, which won’t be for long. Then voters will remember why they soured on you back in the day.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Knew-it Gettin’Rich personifies what’s wrong with DC culture, but some folks love livin’ in the past and reminisin’ about when people knew their place.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Since Newt Gingrich is the latest GOP flavor-of-the-month, I promise to do my homework, read what he has to say, and proceed to rip him to shreds. [sigh] This is too easy. Why can’t the GOP give me a real challenge?”


Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Tags: