In Defense of Newt Gingrich

Important note: prior to absorbing this post, I recommend perusing my introduction page for a proper preface of my diplomatic advocacy mission.

A response to a World Net Daily 17 November 2011 article misleadingly entitled:
“Money scandal to make a Newt out of Gingrich?” Link:

This article is a prime example of irresponsible journalism on a par with the Huffington Post. When has it been a crime to provide a service for a fee? Or is it a crime because it’s a large amount that nearly every American would like to earn, but cannot for lack of experience, influence, and social status positioning. Not everyone can earn large sums. That is the way life is, no matter what the communists of the OWS proclaim about income equality. When has it been immoral to maintain an income after becoming unemployed by the government? Every American wants to be able to pay their bills after losing a job, and government officials need income after public service is complete.

Moreover, do we really need to sanctify the lame accusations of a former criminal, Jack Abramoff to the detriment to Newt Gingrich who rightly has never paced the prison exercise yard for many years. Why is it that a prior criminal’s vague insinuations are held in such esteem? Portraying Abramoff as a credible source for disparaging Gingrich, a dedicated and honorable public servant, is as much corruption as is falsely claimed against Gingrich.

To be labeled as an “insider” has unfortunately and incorrectly become an indictment, as if purely being an insider is illegal or unethical. It is neither. It is only when an insider commits an illegal, unethical, or immoral act that they should be the subject of our disdain, accusations, or prosecution. Overall, people today have lost the ability to think for themselves; they are unable to exercise proper discernment for what is right and wrong and therefore unthinkingly spew forth whatever disingenuous rhetoric that has deceived them. To simply condemn a person for who they are in social or political status violates the standards that our wise founding fathers sacrificed so much to implement. To be an insider is a fortunate status for some, and most people would love that niche, but because they are excluded, they discredit those who enjoy that good fortune. It is pure unadulterated jealousy hidden behind a façade of social justice advocacy. The insiders deserve the benefits derived from such a position because they have toiled long hours for many years to reach that level and likely have paid a heavy price being subject to the often debilitating rigors inherent to public service. To be an insider is far from wrong in, and of itself. It is only when the insider chooses to stray from proper behavior, decorum, or legality that we should properly declare a problem, scandal, or crime; therefore, it is not what one is, but it is what one does that is the issue. Moreover, too often we conduct a media trial wherein the accused is unconstitutionally pronounced guilty before any formal charges are filed and the proper court process can examine and judge all the evidence usually hidden by those raising false accusations.

Gingrich is being denigrated for being a lobbyist and is accused of lying about lobbying income. The truth is that Gingrich was not a lobbyist, he operated a consulting firm that earned fees by providing advice to Freddie Mac that, bytheway, was ignored and caused huge financial problems. Abramoff hints that scandal was afoot in that Feddie Mac paid several million in consulting fees to Gingrich’s firm, but Newt disclosed only $ 300,000. The firm earned the millions, but Newt’s portion was the $300K. Abramoff insinuates scandal in other vague accusations; however, nothing in his new book substantiates any wrong-doing.

Gingrich also faces poor character allegations concerning marital problems. What’s new? Most Americans have marital problems and those in stressful public service are far more susceptible to that harsh reality that others. C’mon America, get real. Let us be moral people, but let us lose the puritanical and overly judgmental nit-picking and unscrupulous witch hunting that is running rampant in our modern age and contributing to the corrosion of our society.

We need government servants with substantial experience to run the most powerful nation on earth and “outsiders” sorely lack that necessary experience to negotiate the complicated subterfuge of national and world politics. Newt Gingrich as an “insider” with basic good ethical values (though wrongly accused otherwise) has the necessary experience, intelligence, statesmanship, negotiation skills, presidential bearing, and diplomatic prowess required to lead this country. He has gone through the trials by fire in the past that have taught him valuable lessons. We all learn by our mistakes. Good judgment comes from wisdom and wisdom comes from poor judgment. Americans will suffer greatly if they allow reprehensible smear campaigns to cause a rejection of the only candidate that has the ability to overturn the mess created by the immoral and unethical Obama abomination and restore American greatness.

Jerry Clifford, the Word Guru

I need and desire constructive comments of any kind, for they are a necessary educational and enlightenment process. Please visit the comment section at the bottom of this page and follow the guidelines for legitimate response or Please contact me by email:

This entry was posted in 2012 Presidential campaign, American freedom in jeopardy, Newt Gingrich, Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to In Defense of Newt Gingrich

  1. Anthony says:

    Pretentious: Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

    I’d say that’s about right on the mark in this case. You claim to be an intelligent man, but your assumptions and “theories” about life and politics are so off the mark they come across as presumptuous at times.

    To also say I am “brainwashed” by liberal media is nothing more than an argument from ignorance fallacy. Also, what exactly is the difference between “liberal” media and “conservative” media? None. Both twist the truth to fill a human desire for sensationalism, which leads to good ratings. However, a key difference I see in liberal media vs conservative is one is fact-based (however biased) and the other follows a series of paranoid assumptions, which once again plays into the type of audience they cater to.

    Regardless if the facts are skewed, I would rather be on the side of liberty and justice for all Americans. I’d rather be on the side of politics that works to protect the people, that allows people to not only have a voice in politics, but also to use that voice to live their lives the way they see fit. I am a liberal and damn proud of it.

    Liberals gave women and African Americans the right to vote. This may not be a good thing if your views on race and women are conservative. Let’s see, white, middle-aged, single, conservative, God-fearing man… All that’s missing is a white robe and a cross to burn. Assumptions hurt, don’t they?

    Liberals created the social security system, which helped lift the elderly out of poverty.

    Liberals passed the civil rights act and the voting rights act. Once again, if you’re a conservative republican, you don’t believe that everyone has the right to vote because they might vote against your best interest.

    Liberals insured our air and ground quality isn’t like that of industrial China or India. Seriously, go to either of those countries and take deep, refreshing breath. But if you’re conservative republican, you are only interested in abolishing expensive regulations on “job creators” so they can outsource what they can, while most of the employees don’t see a single dime of those savings. Lack of federal environmental regulations is why people can LIGHT THEIR WATER ON FIRE in areas where fracking is common. Oh but that must be more liberal media brainwashing.

    Liberals also created medicare (and seeing as you are getting pretty old, this may come in handy one day)

    So tout all you like about how evil liberals are, but when it comes down to it, who really has the best interest of the people at heart? But oh, I must be brainwashed. Anyone can pick up a history book, or books written in times before all of this evil socialist liberal stuff came about. They can read for themselves about how “better off” we could be, simply by looking at our past. Ignorance is being unaware of what is currently going on and what happened before. Stupidity is ignoring it. Pretentiousness is adding a pseudo-intellectual twist to stupidity. If A really does in fact equal B, then that pretty much summarizes what I think about you.

    • Jerry Clifford says:

      I won’t waste too much time on addressing your errors and unwarranted self-importance, but I will present brief comments on a few important tissues.

      Today’s liberal is not the same as he was, say in 1960. Take my hero JFK. He was classified a liberal Democrat, but was very conservative in action, much like today’s Republicans. And his initiative actions led to Black Civil rights.

      Thomas Jefferson, a famous God believing conservative, though inheriting a Virginia plantation with slaves from his Father, was the premier instigator of legislation for Black slave emancipation, though because of extreme antagonism from Southerners, it didn’t come to fruition until the resort to violence and bloodshed of civil war. Jefferson was also involved with equality for women. Read “Thomas Jefferson, an intimate history” by Fawn M. Brodie.

      The Social Security system would have never passed without conservative Republican support which was the case because Republicans held the Congressional majority between 1933 & 1960.

      And your reference to conservatives as being akin to the KKK is pure progressive smear lies. You truly display the effects of the new liberal brainwashing. There is more to our history than what these modern liberals want you to know.

      Best regards, Jerry

      Jerry Clifford Professional Management Solutions Southwestern America 340-690-3459

  2. Anthony says:

    Aaaand my head just imploded. When you get paid to use your political influence for proposals that benefit large business… THAT IS LOBBYING. I couldn’t imagine spending 1.8 MILLION dollars for most of Newt’s “advice,” but his political influence and inside knowledge of Washington sure could come in handy, huh?

    And as far as character is concerned, as long as someone is Southern Baptist, they can walk on water in your eyes. The guy has a very broad history of infidelity and divorce, but yet has the gall to preach about the sanctity of marriage. It’s just another round of hypocrisy and self-service. Do as I say, not as I do.

    Most of your writing is pretentious BS in the first place, but to devote a whole article to the defense of Newt Gingrich? It both amazes and terrifies me that people like you actually exist, and in great numbers.

    • Jerry Clifford says:

      I appreciate your comments, but you are totally out of touch with political and business reality. It appears that you’ve been seriously brainwashed by the liberal community and bent on witch hunting for excuses to disparage a good candidate according to the progressive agenda. You have no concept of what lobbying is. There is a big difference between lobbying & consulting.

      Lobbying is the aggressive and often deceptive activity of special interest groups expending significant time, energy, and money to sway, pressure, or “influence” government officials to side with the agenda of said interest group. The target of the group is not a client and does not “choose” or hire a lobbyist to argue for an ideal or agenda – they endure it. The lobbyist if successful reaps huge rewards based on the effort expended.

      Gingrich, as a consultant, is passive and careful to be accurate and honest because he is chosen and hired by an organization to offer, for a fee, advice that fills a gap in the knowledge of the hiring entity. The consultant must be honest because his reputation depends on it. If his advice is bogus, the word will get around and he won’t be hired anymore. The lobbyist has no need for this concept. There is no agenda by a consultant being pushed upon the client against their will as lobbyists do. It’s a contract for service rendered. It’s not influence being pressured or sold, it’s experienced advice given with no expectations of, or essential need for the advice to be followed. A lobbyist must have his promotion accepted and implemented.

      Are you also going to trash the high paid consultants that Obama hires to give him advice?

      And as for any marital issues with Gingrich, you only know the lies and exaggerations forwarded by antagonists and the liberal media that are notorious for lies, cover-ups, and smears. It’s best not to base your life on media misinformation and excavating for imagined dirt on others when you have your own short-comings to deal with.

      Bytheway, ” pretentious” is in the eye of the beholder and moreover, you are obviously unaware of the proper definition of “pretentious”. I don’t present advocacy for the purpose of garnering attention. It’s all about patriotism and advocacy for what is right and good – for what the founding fathers intended for America. I suggest you educate yourself apart from the socialist and immoral Democratic/ Progressive agenda.

      Best regards, Jerry

      Jerry Clifford Professional Management Solutions Southwestern America 340-690-3459

Please leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s