Glenn Beck`s interview with Gingrich was disappointing!

[johnwk]

I was very disappointed with Glenn Beck`s interview with Gingrich in that two extremely important questions were not asked of Gingrich.

The first is why he decided to help create the federal department of education? What Newt Gingrich did when voting to create Jimmy the-progressive Carter`s federal department of education was, to open the door for progressives to centralize a federal power over state public schools systems. The fact is, creating a centralized regulatory power over the education of a nation`s younger generation is a priority of every communist and dictatorial government, and is used to brainwash a nation`s younger generation.

Aside from that, Newt Gingrich, in voting to create a federal department of education, not only ignored our Constitution`s Tenth Amendment, and the retained powers of the State, but he defied the founder’s clear intentions regarding the limited power of Congress with respect to learning and useful arts! But don`t take my word for this, let one of our founding fathers explain this limitation to Mr. Gingrich and those interested:

``The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers.” SEE: Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792 Rep Page

The second issue of great importance which Glenn Beck did not ask is why Newt Gingrich favored adopting the ``Fairness Doctrine`` which would allow the federal government to regulate speech on radio and television stations under the guise to ``afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.`` Of course, this power is another one which every communist country and dictatorship exercises.

The fact is, Gingrich has shown his support for our federal government to exercise this extraordinary power and allow the federal government to meddle in our media when our Constitution forbids Congress from abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble It should also be noted that Gingrich was in very questionable company with those who sponsored a return to the Fairness Doctrine: RINOs, snakes and a PUBLIC BATHROOM CLOWN!


For the co-sponsors see: Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987

COSPONSORS(71), ALPHABETICAL

Rep Akaka, Daniel K. [HI-2] - 5/7/1987
Rep Bliley, Tom [VA-3] - 4/2/1987
Rep Bonior, David E. [MI-12] - 4/2/1987
Rep Boucher, Rick [VA-9] - 4/2/1987
Rep Boxer, Barbara [CA-6] - 4/2/1987
Rep Brooks, Jack B. [TX-9] - 4/2/1987
Rep Bryant, John W. [TX-5] - 4/2/1987
Rep Buechner, Jack [MO-2] - 5/7/1987
Rep Bustamante, Albert G. [TX-23] - 5/7/1987
Rep Callahan, Sonny [AL-1] - 5/7/1987
Rep Coelho, Anthony Lee [CA-15] - 4/2/1987
Rep Coleman, E. Thomas [MO-6] - 5/7/1987
Rep Collins, Cardiss [IL-7] - 4/2/1987
Rep Conte, Silvio O. [MA-1] - 5/27/1987
Rep Cooper, Jim [TN-4] - 5/7/1987
Rep Craig, Larry E.[ID-1] - 4/2/1987
Rep Crane, Philip M. [IL-12] - 5/27/1987
Rep Dannemeyer, William E. [CA-39] - 4/2/1987
Rep Daub, Hal [NE-2] - 5/7/1987
Rep de Lugo, Ron [VI] - 5/27/1987
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 5/7/1987
Rep Dellums, Ronald V. [CA-8] - 4/2/1987
Rep Dixon, Julian C. [CA-28] - 4/2/1987
Rep Dornan, Robert K. [CA-38] - 4/2/1987
Rep Dyson, Roy [MD-1] - 5/7/1987
Rep Eckart, Dennis E. [OH-11] - 4/2/1987
Rep Fascell, Dante B. [FL-19] - 4/2/1987
Rep Fields, Jack [TX-8] - 4/2/1987
Rep Ford, William D. [MI-15] - 4/2/1987
Rep Gingrich, Newt [GA-6] - 4/2/1987
Rep Gray, William H., III [PA-2] - 4/2/1987
Rep Hayes, Charles A. [IL-1] - 5/7/1987
Rep Hochbrueckner, George J. [NY-1] - 5/7/1987
Rep Hughes, William J. [NJ-2] - 5/7/1987
Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6] - 4/2/1987
Rep Lagomarsino, Robert J. [CA-19] - 4/2/1987
Rep Leach, James A. [IA-1] - 4/2/1987
Rep Leland, Mickey [TX-18] - 4/2/1987
Rep Levine, Mel [CA-27] - 5/7/1987
Rep Lipinski, William O. [IL-5] - 5/7/1987
Rep Lott, Trent [MS-5] - 4/2/1987
Rep Madigan, Edward R. [IL-15] - 5/7/1987
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 4/2/1987
Rep Marlenee, Ron [MT-2] - 4/2/1987
Rep Martinez, Matthew G. [CA-30] - 5/7/1987
Rep Murtha, John P. [PA-12] - 4/2/1987
Rep Nielson, Howard C. [UT-3] - 4/2/1987
Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8] - 4/2/1987
Rep Owens, Major R. [NY-12] - 5/7/1987
Rep Pepper, Claude [FL-18] - 4/2/1987
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-16] - 4/2/1987
Rep Scheuer, James H. [NY-8] - 5/7/1987
Rep Schroeder, Patricia [CO-1] - 4/2/1987
Rep Schuette, Bill [MI-10] - 5/7/1987
Rep Schumer, Charles E. [NY-10] - 4/2/1987
Rep Solarz, Stephen J. [NY-13] - 5/7/1987
Rep Stenholm, Charles W. [TX-17] - 4/2/1987
Rep Stokes, Louis [OH-21] - 4/2/1987
Rep Sundquist, Don [TN-7] - 5/7/1987
Rep Synar, Mike [OK-2] - 5/7/1987
Rep Torres, Estaban Edward [CA-34] - 5/7/1987
Rep Udall, Morris K. [AZ-2] - 4/2/1987
Rep Vento, Bruce F. [MN-4] - 5/7/1987
Rep Walgren, Doug [PA-18] - 4/2/1987
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-24] - 4/2/1987
Rep Weber, Vin [MN-2] - 4/2/1987
Rep Weiss, Ted [NY-17] - 5/7/1987
Rep Wise, Robert E., Jr. [WV-3] - 5/7/1987
Rep Wolpe, Howard E. [MI-3] - 5/7/1987
Rep Wyden, Ron [OR-3] - 4/2/1987
Rep Yates, Sidney R. [IL-9] - 4/2/1987


In regard to the background concerning this issue, early in 1987 the FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine of 1949. Then, Congress attempted to bring it back and a bill passed both Houses and President Reagan vetoed it and Congress was unable to gain enough votes [H.R. 1934, which Gingrich sponsored] to override the veto. The controversy was that part of the bill having the federal government providing `` a reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.``

See: Reagan's Veto Kills Fairness Doctrine Bill
``June 21, 1987|PENNY PAGANO | Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON — President Reagan, intensifying the debate over whether the nation's broadcasters must present opposing views of controversial issues, has vetoed legislation to turn into law the 38-year-old ``fairness doctrine,`` the White House announced Saturday. The doctrine, instituted by the Federal Communications Commission as public policy in 1949, requires the nation`s radio and television stations to ``afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.```


I can`t believe Glenn Beck did not raise these two vital issues with Gingrich.


JWK

 

[ScienceRocks]

I don't understand what's wrong with you people, as we aren't going to be able to elect perfect. Is newt that? No, but he is pretty conserative none the less. Lets stop attacking our front runner, which is to the right of McCain, george w bush, George hw Bush and on some issues Reagan. Heck, we may not win as we're to far right.

Most of this country is to newts left. Lets think of the bottle as being 80 percent full and partly electable instead of going for 100 percent and not.


The fairness doctrine was bad, but we now live in a different world today. Things change. Same with the education department.

 

[Avatar4321]

He's actually more progressive than conservative. Better than Obama? yes. But that doesnt make him conservative.

 

[johnwk]

I don't understand what's wrong with you people, as we aren't going to be able to elect perfect. Is newt that? No, but he is pretty conserative none the less. Lets stop attacking our front runner, which is to the right of McCain, george w bush, George hw Bush and on some issues Reagan. Heck, we may not win as we're to far right.

Most of this country is to newts left. Lets think of the bottle as being 80 percent full and partly electable instead of going for 100 percent and not.


The fairness doctrine was bad, but we now live in a different world today. Things change. Same with the education department.

Matthew,

We are not talking about electing “perfect”. But we do want someone who will respect the fundamental protections of our written Constitution.

In regard to your suggesting Gingrich is “pretty conserative”, I know our so called “conservative” radio talk show hosts and tv personalities continually say that. But when one does a careful research of Gingrich’s voting record, the evidence does not support that claim.

Gingrich, in my opinion, is a very dangerous individual and is in bed with those who support global governance, and they see our Constitution as an impediment to their vision.

JWK

 

[Avatar4321]

I think Glenn needed more time to ask all the questions necessary.

 

[Salt Jones]

I think it doesn't matter. Newt would get crushed by Obama, I hope he wins the nomination.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think it doesn't matter. Newt would get crushed by Obama, I hope he wins the nomination.

Crushed? He may win, but I dont think Obama has the capacity to crush anyone.

Even ignoring the fact that the 2010 Census redistributed the EC votes in a way that doesn't favor him. The people aren't exactly thrilled about his pathetic leadership.

I can count the number of positive things he has accomplished on one hand. And the negative things are a mile long.

Seriously, Obama isn't in that strong a position.

 

[Zoom]

I think it doesn't matter. Newt would get crushed by Obama, I hope he wins the nomination.

Crushed? He may win, but I dont think Obama has the capacity to crush anyone.

Even ignoring the fact that the 2010 Census redistributed the EC votes in a way that doesn't favor him. The people aren't exactly thrilled about his pathetic leadership.

I can count the number of positive things he has accomplished on one hand. And the negative things are a mile long.

Seriously, Obama isn't in that strong a position.

If by "I dont think Obama has the capacity to crush anyone" you mean he can beat every single gop person in the running, then you make perfect sense.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think it doesn't matter. Newt would get crushed by Obama, I hope he wins the nomination.

Crushed? He may win, but I dont think Obama has the capacity to crush anyone.

Even ignoring the fact that the 2010 Census redistributed the EC votes in a way that doesn't favor him. The people aren't exactly thrilled about his pathetic leadership.

I can count the number of positive things he has accomplished on one hand. And the negative things are a mile long.

Seriously, Obama isn't in that strong a position.

If by "I dont think Obama has the capacity to crush anyone" you mean he can beat every single gop person in the running, then you make perfect sense.

Nope. I mean there is no way Obama is going to crush his opponent, no matter who he or she may be.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Aside from that, Newt Gingrich, in voting to create a federal department of education, not only ignored our Constitution`s Tenth Amendment, and the retained powers of the State, but he defied the founder’s clear intentions regarding the limited power of Congress with respect to learning and useful arts! But don`t take my word for this, let one of our founding fathers explain this limitation to Mr. Gingrich and those interested:

You forgot to cite case law in support – which is understandable considering there isn’t any. Consequently, wrong. See: US v. Darby (1941). Remember the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law. Beck is unaware of this, of course, but it’s just as well he didn’t ask.

The second issue of great importance which Glenn Beck did not ask is why Newt Gingrich favored adopting the ``Fairness Doctrine`` which would allow the federal government to regulate speech on radio and television stations under the guise to ``afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.`` Of course, this power is another one which every communist country and dictatorship exercises.

The fact is, Gingrich has shown his support for our federal government to exercise this extraordinary power and allow the federal government to meddle in our media when our Constitution forbids Congress from abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble It should also be noted that Gingrich was in very questionable company with those who sponsored a return to the Fairness Doctrine: RINOs, snakes and a PUBLIC BATHROOM CLOWN!

The Fairness Doctrine is Constitutional:

It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969

It’s also no longer enforced. In 1986 two D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals judges - Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia – ruled that Congress never ‘intended’ for the Doctrine to become law, and the Reagan FCC was free to no longer enforce it. But the Constitutionality of the Doctrine was never addressed.

Subsequent efforts to amend legislation to mandate the Doctrine were unsuccessful, but it’s Constitutional nonetheless.

We are not talking about electing “perfect”. But we do want someone who will respect the fundamental protections of our written Constitution.

Well, that isn’t Gingrich.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I like President-elect Newt.

 

[johnwk]

Aside from that, Newt Gingrich, in voting to create a federal department of education, not only ignored our Constitution`s Tenth Amendment, and the retained powers of the State, but he defied the founder’s clear intentions regarding the limited power of Congress with respect to learning and useful arts! But don`t take my word for this, let one of our founding fathers explain this limitation to Mr. Gingrich and those interested:

You forgot to cite case law in support .

I cited our founder's own words!

Perhaps someday you will learn the most fundamental rule of constitutional law which is stated as follows:

“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”--- numerous citations omitted, Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling


I think Jefferson was speaking to your kind when he wrote:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.


JWK



“The constitution is the act of the people speaking in their original character, and there can he no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power, contrary to the true intent and meaning of the constitution, is absolutely null and void.”(my emphasis) Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

 

[Warrior102]

I think it doesn't matter. Newt would get crushed by Obama, I hope he wins the nomination.

Jimmy Carter had a higher approval rating than Obama currently does.
Do you think Carter could crush Gingrich?

Quit being a blind sheep/imbecile.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I think it doesn't matter. Newt would get crushed by Obama, I hope he wins the nomination.

Jimmy Carter had a higher approval rating than Obama currently does.
Do you think Carter could crush Gingrich?

Quit being a blind sheep/imbecile.

Reagan didn't have the baggage Gingrich does.