Gingrich is an Establishment Candidate and a Neocon

A new poll out from Gallup (December 5 2011) finds that only Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are considered acceptable presidential candidates by a majority of Republican and Republican-leaning independent voters. Sixty-two percent called Gingrich an "acceptable" GOP nominee, while 54 percent called Romney "acceptable."And then there's this: The numbers for Ron Paul, who is polling in third in Iowa, are discouraging. Just 34 percent called Paul an acceptable nominee, while 62 percent called him unacceptable. [Source]

9/11 Newt Gingrich Recommended a Homeland Security Agency Led by FEMA in March 2001

December 5, 2011

You Tube - Newt wanted to restructure the US government outlined in the Constitution -- that he swore to uphold and said he believed in — giving special terror authority to the Executive Branch for terror attacks. He thought of this before 9/11. Look who is running for president.

Newt knew large scale terror was about to hit America.

It is critical you understand the post-9/11 government; it is not the America we were told about in US history. The DHS gives the president unconstitutional authority and power, eliminating the checks and balances, legally allowing unlawful engineered operations and secrecy under the guise of “security”.

Newt impossibly predicted 9/11 and Anthrax months before they happened, and planned the anti-Constitutional response.

Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change …February 15, 2001

The combination of unconventional weapons proliferation with the persistence of international terrorism will end the relative invulnerability of the U.S. homeland to catastrophic attack. A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter century. The risk is not only death and destruction but also a demoralization that could undermine U.S. global leadership. In the face of this threat, our nation has no coherent or integrated governmental structures.

We therefore recommend the creation of an independent National Homeland Security Agency (NHSA) with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security. NHSA would be built upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency, with the three organizations currently on the front line of border security—the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and the Border Patrol—transferred to it. NHSA would not only protect American lives, but also assume responsibility for overseeing the protection of the nation’s critical infrastructure, including information technology.

The NHSA Director would have Cabinet status and would be a statutory advisor to the National Security Council.

The legal foundation for the National Homeland Security Agency would rest firmly within the array of Constitutional guarantees for civil liberties. The observance of these guarantees in the event of a national security emergency would be safeguarded by NHSA’s interagency coordinating activities—which would include the Department of Justice—as well as by its conduct of advance exercises.

The potentially catastrophic nature of homeland attacks necessitates our being prepared to use the extensive resources of the Department of Defense (DoD). We recommend that a new office of Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security be created to oversee DoD activities in this domain and to ensure that the necessary resources are made available.

New priorities also need to be set for the U.S. armed forces in light of the threat to the homeland. We urge, in particular, that the National Guard be given homeland security as a primary mission, as the U.S. Constitution itself ordains. The National Guard should be reorganized, trained, and equipped to undertake that mission.

Finally, we recommend that Congress reorganize itself to accommodate this Executive Branch realignment, and that it also form a special select committee for homeland security to provide Congressional support and oversight in this critical area.

Research it: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nssg/

Gingrich: Palestinians Are an ‘Invented’ People

Officials in West Bank and Gaza say Republican presidential hopeful is cheaply trying to win the pro-Israel vote in US. Palestinian officials have reacted with dismay after the Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich said Palestinians were an "invented" people. The Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, said Gingrich was denying "historical truths". Fayyad demanded Gingrich "review history". He said: "From the beginning, our people have been determined to stay on their land." Gingrich's statements struck at the heart of Palestinian sensitivities about their national struggle. Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian politician, said Gingrich had "lost touch with reality" and his statements were "a cheap way to win [the] pro-Israel vote". A spokesman for Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, called Gingrich's statements "shameful and disgraceful". "These statements … show genuine hostility toward Palestinians," the spokesman said. - Palestinians tell Gingrich to learn history after 'invented people' claim, December 11, 2011

December 10, 2011

Business Insider - In an interview with Steven Weiss of The Jewish Channel following the Republican Jewish Coalition forum earlier this week, Newt Gingrich said the Palestinians are an “invented people.”

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

Gingrich also aligned himself with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s approach to foreign policy.

“I see myself as in many ways being pretty close to Bibi Netanyahu in thinking about the dangers of the world. I believe in a tough-minded realism. I believe that if somebody is firing rockets at you, they are probably not engaged in the peace process. I believe if somebody goes around and says you don’t have a right to exist, they’re probably not prepared to negotiate for peace,” he said. “I think if someone says they wanna wipe you out, you should believe them. So I see a much more tougher-minded, and much more honest approach to the Middle East in a Gingrich administration.”

Ben Smith at Politico notes that casting the legitimacy of the Palestinian state into question Gingrich, should he get the nomination, sets “a sharply confrontational tone toward the Arab world.”

The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty says that as a crazy as this may sound it’s a stance that will strongly appeal to the evangelicals.