Replies

When the Man Made Global Warming doctrine began, there was the perception that it was based upon scientific evidence. Who could dispute scientific evidence? What the socialists were going to do with that scientific evidence did not look good for America. In my opinion, when Newt signed on to the Man Made Global Warming doctrine, it was an effort to get his foot into the door so he could get inside the Socialist compound. Once inside, he could trash the socialists for the threat they posed for Capitalism and America’s economic superiority. To do it, he had to pose as a Kool Aid drinker with Nancy Pelosi—a smart tactic. I do not think Newt wants to reveal this tactic because it is the kind that you want to keep hidden, like the Ace card. But as a one time poker player, I saw it the minute I saw Newt on the couch. I laughed, because I knew Newt was going to take the DemonRATs for a ride. The next thing you knew, Newt was before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee testifying against Cap and Trade.

As for the Paul Ryan sabotage, I had to go out into the net to find out if there was something behind Newt's behavior. Why did he do it, is the question.

First of all, Newt is a close friend of Paul Ryan. Back in May 17th, 2011, Newt called Paul and apologized for calling his plan “right-wing social engineering.”

In a May 15th Meet the Press interview, Newt revealed this about himself:

"One of my great weaknesses is that part of me is a teacher analyst. And part of me is a political leader. And I've--one of the most painful lessons I've had to learn, and I haven't fully learned it obviously, is that if you seek to be the president of the United States, you are never an analyst, you know, you're never a college teacher because those folks can say what they want to say. And somebody who offers to lead America has to be much more disciplined and, and much more thoughtful than an analyst. Analysts can say anything they want to because there's no downside. But the person to whom you're entrusting the leadership of the United States had better think long and hard before they say things. I think that's a fair criticism of me."

As to the "“right-wing social engineering." comment, in that interview Newt says this:

"I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate. I think we need a national conversation to get to a better Medicare system with more choices for seniors. But there are specific things you can do. At the Center for Health Transformation, which I helped found, we published a book called "Stop Paying the Crooks." We thought that was a clear enough, simple enough idea, even for Washington. We --between Medicare and Medicaid--we pay between $70 billion and $120 billion a year to crooks. And IBM has agreed to help solve it, American Express has agreed to help solve it, Visa 's agreed to help solve it. You can't get anybody in this town to look at it. That's, that's almost $1 trillion over a decade. So there are things you can do to improve Medicare . . . I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options . . . I would be against a conservative imposing radical change."