September 2015

Want a Speaker who knows how to get things done? Want a Speaker who is smart as a whip? Want a Speaker with a proven record of success under the most trying of conditions? How about one who knows when to press an advantage, and when to compromise? Want a Speaker who actually learns from his mistakes? Or a Speaker who has exhibited a true willingness to work with a president of the other political party without sacrificing the core goal of his Party? Then elect Newt Gingrich as the next Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

First, some disclaimers. I did not agree with everything Newt did as Speaker from 1995-1999, when we served together in the House; and, I do not agree with every position he has taken since he resigned the speakership and his congressional seat amidst a scandal a decade and a half ago. Newt did not endorse me when I sought a return to the House in 2014.

However, Newt Gingrich remains one of the singularly brightest and most competent public figures in the United States today. He can write a book, or deliver a seminar to a gathering of top CEOs or political leaders, on the most substantive of issues; from health care reform, to technology futures. There are few others alive today in the political arena who can do this — and none among those known to be considering, or being considered as a replacement to John Boehner.

While all 61 occupants of this constitutionally-established post have been members of the House of Representatives, the Constitution does not limit the pool of candidates to this college. Indeed, it would present a wave of fresh air to break with tradition in this regard; and, after all, 90% of a Speaker’s duties and responsibilities have nothing to do with representing his or her home district. And then again, Newt has served many years in the House; he knows how it works and how to keep a very fractious majority together even as he fought a very adversarial minority Party. In Speaker Gingrich, we would have the best of both worlds – fresh air and experience.

Think back. The last time we had a Speaker who actually accomplished notable goals as Speaker, and as a direct result of his hard work to forge a working majority and convince a President (who was not his friend) to come along, was Newt Gingrich. Structural reform of the House of Representatives, the Contract with America, a balanced federal budget, welfare reform, and tax cuts are just some of his more noteworthy accomplishments. Granted, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who served as Speaker from January 2007 to January 2011, can claim passage of significant legislation during her tenure – the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank, for example — but these were easy legislative victories considering the fact that she enjoyed a Democratic majority in the House, a similar situation in the Senate and, most importantly, a President of her own Party who strongly pressed for passage of those precise measures.

Sure, Newt has been out of public office for over 15 years, but he has hardly been out of public service. His schedule is busy as ever; full of speeches, articles, interviews, consulting gigs, and appearances at political events. He is every bit the Energizer Bunny today as in years past. He has been active in more issues than he was during his terms as Speaker, for the simple fact his responsibilities do not include the many day-to-day duties with which the occupant of that office must concern himself.

Yes, Newt can be stubborn, wrong, egotistical, and aloof. He is no Everyman. At the same time, Newt has navigated the roadways between Wall Street and Main Street with consistent success; and he possesses as deep an understanding of what makes America tick as any current office holder, at any level of government. For Newt there would be no learning curve. Yet, there have been learning curves for Newt; and unlike many of his peers, he actually has learned from them.

Whereas two decades ago when Newt would deliver a speech, he might identify six main themes, each with five subparts and three minor themes. Then, through the course of an hour-long speech, Newt would and could follow each and every branch of his complex presentation. His audiences, of course, rarely could; even though they would gather he knew what he was talking about and it all somehow made sense. Today, Newt’s speeches are far more precise and aurally legible. He has learned how to simplify complexity far better than in his previous incarnation.

Despite their many partisan differences, Newt Gingrich and his counterpart at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue during the tumultuous years he served as Speaker – Bill Clinton – share much in common. Most importantly, they both possess an ability to fight for those goals their Party demands, but also a willingness to recognize when the time is ripe to join forces to accomplish something the country needs, and not be concerned that the other will claim credit for it.

Newt has learned the hard way that the world does not revolve around him. But Newt knew then, and he knows now, what makes the world revolve and what needs to be done to make it continue to do so, in a way that no other potential candidate for Speaker even comes close to being able to claim.

Originally Published here via townhall.com

Trashed streets. Tent camps. Chaos at railway stations. A toddler’s body washed up on the seashore. These are the scenes replayed over and over by the news media, depicting the worst refugee crisis to hammer Europe in more than half a Century. Among other refugees, some four million Syrians — nearly a quarter of its population – reportedly have fled the country as a four-year civil war rages; overwhelming surrounding countries, and sending hundreds of thousands streaming toward the heart of Europe. However, it is not so much personal security that is the goal of many, if not most of these immigrants, as it is jobs and the economic freebies offered by that continent’s pervasive social welfare system.

While several European Nanny States, including France and England, succumbed to the tugs at the heartstrings resulting from photos of plaintive children, and precipitously announced they would accept thousands of immigrants, Ground Zero quickly became Germany — perceived by many as having a virtually unlimited need for workers.

However, even Germany, which initially welcomed thousands of refugees with open arms and group hugs, has now realized the folly of its unrealistic “open border” policy. Chancellor Angela Merkel has moved belatedly to stem the rising immigrant tide – the schönes chaos or “glorious mess” created by her government’s dithering.

Here in America, rather than simply leave Germany, France, Austria and England to deal with the can of worms they opened, President Barack Obama and many members of Congress are wringing their hands and fretting about how to deal with this latest immigration crisis.

Obama last week announced plans to allow 10,000 Syrian refugees to enter the U.S. Even more troubling than this initial immigrant tranche, is the fact that many in the Democrat Party – and even some Republicans in the Congress – are pressuring the President to admit many more Syrian immigrants; perhaps ten times that number.

The basis for this “open door” immigration policy? Bloviating by the Administration that, “the refugee crisis is not just a European problem, it’s a world problem,” which then somehow – magically – creates an “obligation” on the part of the United States to do something.

An influx of immigrants from an area dominated by ISIS is a very real danger to national security; and despite promises from the Administration that it will take all due diligence to screen these immigrants, its track record in handling such intelligence and security matters leaves much to be worried about. Already there are reports suggesting that economic migrants from other countries, seeking to take advantage of better economic conditions and social welfare in Europe, are using fake Syrian passports to avoid being sent back to their own countries.

There is a more fundamental question than simply what security risks are posed by these immigrants, or if they even qualify for “refugee” status at all. What we should be asking is why we have any obligation, responsibility, or reason to take in these immigrants from Syria and elsewhere in the first place; particularly when our own immigration problem at the border with Mexico continues to fester without resolution.

Perhaps Obama harbors guilty feelings about his Administration’s inept handling of the turmoil in Syria and the rise of ISIS; factors which have fueled much of the current instability in the region. Or, perhaps it is simply a bid by a lame duck to salvage a degree of foreign policy relevance in the waning months of his presidency. Whatever the reason, this latest “open door” immigration folly should be slammed shut by the Congress, not encouraged.

One need only flip the calendar back one year to see how ill-prepared we are to deal with immigration problems at our own borders, much less one facing Europe. It was just last year when the Obama Administration authorized planeloads of “undocumented” immigrant families from Mexico and Central America, to be placed into communities across the country, for no sound reason but simply as a humanitarian gesture. The cost of that “policy” – in both dollars and security risks – is still being calculated.

And now, Obama and other Bleeding Hearts in our nation’s Capital want to do the same thing with thousands of immigrants from Syria and other countries torn by sectarian violence and suffering from lack of economic opportunity.

What about the obligation to the American taxpayer, who, as always, will bear the cost for housing, feeding and maintaining these “refugees”? What about the obligation to protect the fundamental values on which our country was built and under which it has prospered, but which have been widely rejected in the regions from which these people come? And at the very least, what about the common-sense notion that we must focus on fixing one immigration crisis at our southern border, before meddling in another one for which there is neither a clear obligation to or benefit for the United States?

Originally Published here via townhall.com

My Candidate for the Next Speaker of the House: Newt Gingrich

Europe’s Immigration “Crisis” Is Not America’s Problem

About Us

From The Desk of Bob Barr

Latest Videos

Get Liberty Guard Email Updates