Staff Reports
In a world where controversies seem to brew faster than a pot of coffee on Monday morning, one former House Speaker is raising the alarm about what he describes as the biggest presidential scandal in American history. This talking point comes from Newt Gingrich, a renowned historian and Fox News contributor, who is not shy about expressing his concerns over the current administration and its surrounding narrative. According to Gingrich, the state of affairs regarding President Biden involves a tangled web of cover-ups and power plays that many people are unaware of—because, let’s face it, the mainstream media is too busy covering other stories that may or may not require a critical eye.
At the heart of Gingrich’s outcry is the Biden “cover-up” narrative, which he believes deserves critical public scrutiny. As he points out, since 2023, there have been growing signs that Biden may not be calling the shots himself. This leads to the more unsettling question: if Biden is not fully in control, then who is? With an astonishing claim that Biden signed a whopping 2,400 items using an auto pen, one wonders just who was behind that decision-making process. Was it an unsung hero, a shadowy figure in the White House, or perhaps a group of enthusiastic interns?
The former Speaker continues to press the issue, suggesting that there are far more important questions at play—who had the authority, who made the key decisions, and what laws were possibly broken during this chaotic time? Gingrich argues that all of this signals a deeper issue that dwarfs previous scandals, suggesting that this is a case of elder exploitation in a political context. Where’s the outrage? If someone were allegedly being taken advantage of in a nursing home setting, the masses would be up in arms. It seems what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander.
As Gingrich dives deeper into his critiques, it becomes clear that he sees a troubling connection between the Biden administration and previous leaders, particularly former President Barack Obama and his staff. The implication is that the past is haunting the present like a ghost that refuses to leave, as billions of dollars were purportedly funneled without adequate transparency. It raises an eyebrow regarding who exactly is benefiting from such decisions and whether they are coordinating behind the scenes to bend the rules, all while leaving the American public in the dark.
On this topic, the media landscape comes into play. Gingrich expresses his belief that the mainstream media, once viewed as the standard-bearer for truth—has morphed into a “propaganda media” more interested in spinning narratives than broadcasting objective news. When discussing past media failures, he cites historical blunders that damaged reputations and even ruined lives. He hints at a decline in the credibility of traditional media outlets, suggesting they don’t just have to mend a few broken fences; they need to build a whole new neighborhood if they hope to regain the public’s trust.
The dialogue concludes on a note of resolve but with a tinge of humor, as Gingrich suggests the possibility of inventing an “Honesty Prize” to reward those who dare to speak the truth in a world increasingly filled with misleading information. While that may sound like wishful thinking, it reflects a growing sentiment among many that the battle for factual reporting is far from over. How long will it take for the truth to emerge from the shadows? Only time will tell, but one thing is certain: Americans are watching, waiting, and likely growing more skeptical by the day.
