Replies

Gingrich was an advocate of conservative futurist thinking. I have no problem with that. It’s better than liberal futurist thinking. In one aspect of his conservative futurism, he was looking for ways to link democratic legislatures worldwide for joint initiatives. That is not “global governance” as understood by those looking for a “one world government.” It is more like an alliance based on political adherence to democratic principles. It’s a DATO instead of a NATO...democratic alliance treaty organization.

Global Warming simply isn’t an issue with me regarding Gingrich. He had concerns about global warming in 2008 and before. He made the Pelosi ad in 2008. East Anglia Research was proven fraudulent in late 2009. Since Gingrich was a data-based global warmist, the proof of fraud changed his perspective. That’s actually a good thing, and it is something that has happened to many in the scientific community as well since the exposure of the fraudulent data.

ANWR: From a Newt & Callista Website: “WE HAVE THE POWER highlights America’s need to adopt our World War II mentality of “Do it all, Do it now” by tapping into all of our abundant energy resources. We owe it to future generations to explore the vast amount of oil and gas in the Outer Continental Shelf, Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), as well as our other vital energy resources including Hydroelectric Power, Wind Power, Oil Shale, Natural Gas, Gas Hydrates, Hydrogen, BioFuels, Solar Power, Clean Coal and Nuclear Power.”

Educ Dept: instead of abolishing it, he thinks it’s best to shrink it. If that’s what his legislative experience says is the most viable way to get what we want, then that’s just a disagreement on how best to implement. He also believe in tying education loans to work, and I don’t disagree with him there.