In 2008, now Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich teamed up with Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House, to make a video commercial on the threat of global warming. In it, they called on Americans to demand that our leaders take action to fight climate change.
Even back then (only four years ago), ‘climate change’ had been substituted for the claim of manmade global warming as the ‘theory’ was already a crash-and-burn in the eyes of the proponents. They had already lost the evidence war.
What was that Gingrich and Pelosi commercial really about?
In effect, both Gingrich and Pelosi, seated comfortably together on a couch, were encouraging Americans to voluntarily call on their representatives to enact massive taxes, and stifling regulations that would close down small businesses, send more jobs to China, and dictate our every move in our own homes.
Gingrich is not a statesman, he’s a politician. Pelosi is an enemy of the Constitution (Obamacare provided decisive proof for the public at large, but it was there before if a representative but looked).
The last place a real American statesman would want to be caught is on a couch with Pelosi, but for a career politician its just politics. At best, Gingrich may have hoped it would show his magnanimity in uniting with the opposition for the more pressing and greater cause of saving the world.
Saving the world from what?
Even in 2008, the facts were making it blatantly obvious that manmade global warming was not only unlikely, it was an impossibility. Obvious, that is, to anyone who would have put even in a little effort examine what was being advanced as evidence, and from where it was coming.
The facts said, and say more assuredly now, this: Global Warming was a hoax; those who most vigorously pushed its purported cures always knew it.
The proposed remedies would enrich its prophets, fuel more runaway government spending through tax increases, and the touted regulations would give the government more control over every small detail of American lives.
To his political credit, in 2009 Gingrich questioned the facts used by Al Gore to support the hoax. He sounded very articulate, and looked persuasive in video, with the new information put before him, but that’s really indicative of another very serious problem.
Politicians can read a script (or teleprompter), and even learn enough in a given area to speak convincingly and extemporaneously in debates.
But they don’t have to believe a single word coming out of their own mouth. Gingrich is a very fair orator with a convincing command of conservative sounding rhetoric. But we are cautioned in the Bible about a very smooth, superhuman diplomat coming in the future who will sway even kings with his oratory. The source of his silver tongue is also revealed in the Bible.
This is not an indictment that Gingrich be that man, but an admonishment to some in Christian circles to remember that one can be too smooth. This next presidential election will not be about the lessor of two evils. At this hour, it will be the difference between a frail statesman who could be empowered by God, and one who will be almost the embodiment of evil. The point is this: it would be better to gain an intelligent and sincere statesman who stumbles a few times than to elect another smooth sounding politician.
We’ve seen what that leads to.
Only back in 2008, Gingrich and Pelosi both gave a disclaimer, in their global warming call to arms, acknowledging that they rarely agreed with each other. But does it really matter to the man on the floor with the fatal exit wounds that one of the marksmen didn’t car for his tie, and the other not one bit for his topcoat? Gingrich and Pelosi agreed on the most important thing, our fatality as a nation.
