Posts Tagged ‘Newt Gingrich’

Gingrich Or Romney: Why I Don’t Care Who Wins (Florida Or Anywhere Else)

January 31, 2012

When I left for my evening walk, we were all waiting for the outcome of the Florida primary with varying degrees of bated breath.

I, for one, had a VERY low degree of bated breath.

I’m looking at two very flawed candidates taking the biggest axe-swipes at one another they possibly can.  Romney won Florida primarily because – due to his millions in super pac money – he had a bigger axe.

Romney’s super pacs outspent Gingrich’s by more than 4-1.  And while 82% of Gingrich’s pac ads were negative compared to 12% positive, fully 100% of Romney’s pac ads were negative.  Gingrich, on the other hand, is viscerally angry about Mitt Romney lying about him while he lies about the guy whose lies he’s complaining about.

In my own blogging, I have to deal with a version of this dilemma: to be mean or not to be mean, that is the question.

Having watched Democrats be vile for, well, for my entire lifetime, I’ve come to the conclusion that you can either join them or get beat by them.  If your enemy fire bombs your cities and shells your troops with poison gas, you either fire bomb their cities and use poison gas on their troops, or you surrender and hope that the people who practice total war on you won’t put make the slave yokes too tight around your necks.

Here’s where I’m going with that: I routinely have pointed out incredibly hateful things that Democrats have said about Republicans.  But in every single occasion, my issue wasn’t about “Democrats being hateful”; it was rather about “hypocritical Democrats who demonize Republicans as being hateful are themselves incredibly hateful.” I don’t expect Democrats to do anything OTHER than practice hate; it’s simply who they are at their demagogic and hypocritical cores.  Which is to say that I’m not attacking Democrats for their hate, but rather for their abject hypocrisy.

Both Gingrich and Romney are hypocrites, in that both – in their own words and in the words of their ads – routinely attack the other for his lies even while he himself is lying about the opponent whose lies he is attacking.  And I don’t care for that entrenched hypocrisy one bit.

Obama – the man both men are hoping to face – is the grand master of ALL hypocrites, of course.  This is a guy who has routinely deceitfully portrayed himself as “transcending” the political language of anger and blame while he himself has done more of both than ANY president who has ever “occupied” the White House.

Then there’s the “I’m the true conservative and my opponent is a moderate/liberal” thing.

Hey, Newt and Mitt: YOU BOTH HAVE ALL KINDS OF BETRAYAL OF CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES TO ANSWER FOR

Mitt Romney clearly had an incredibly liberal “Republican” record as governor of Massachusetts that Gingrich can attack.  The problem for Gingrich is that he actually ENDORSED the worst of that record (RomneyCare), took over a million dollars from the detestable liberal creation a.k.a. Fannie Mae, sat on a love seat couch with Nancy Pelosi in mutual agreement about global warming, demonized free market enterprise with Bain Capital, and that sort of thing.

Neither one of these guys is a true conservative looking back; and the only question is which one would be more conservative if they actually got into the White House.

Now, it comes down to this for me: who is truly more likely to defeat Obama if he gets the Republican nomination.  And the answer is: I have absolutely no idea.

The Republican establishment and the mainstream media are agreed that Mitt Romney is the guy with the best chance of beating Obama.  But guess what?  I don’t particularly trust the former and I actively despise the latter.

I DO know that the night that Ronald Reagan defeated George H.W. Bush to clinch the Republican nomination, the Carter campaign team toasted champagne.  Because Bush then was “the man most likely to defeat Carter” and Reagan was “the man who would lose in a landslide.”  And of course history reveals that Reagan took that champagne bottle and shoved it right up ….  Well, you get the idea.

That said, I also know a couple of contradictory things: I know, for example, that winning a campaign largely means raising massive money.  Romney beat Gingrich in Florida largely because he was able to outspend Gingrich by a 4-1 margin.  And of course what will be the margin of Obama who is going to be able to extort a billion dollars from his crony capitalist and union special interests?  Wouldn’t the same Gingrich who is bitterly complaining about Mitt Romney attacking him with a blitzkrieg of negative ads be complaining about Barack Obama attacking him with a blitzkrieg of negative ads?

And I also know that Mitt Romney has all of the charisma and excitement of the proverbial pitcher of warm spit, and Newt Gingrich is a guy who is capable of both fiery debate and oratory and the simple ability to fire up passion.

Which is more likely to win in November?  I don’t know.  I wish I could have seen a candidate who was capable of both.

So here I am, watching the Republican primary process unravel like sheer torture.  And I have absolutely no idea who to root for.

To continue, from my perspective, what I am watching is the worst possible scenario that the Republican nomination could have degenerated into.

Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin have both publicly gone on the record as saying all of this is just wonderful and they hope the chainsaw fight will go one and on and on for as long as possible.

They might be right and I wrong, given the fact that both are far more politically accomplished than I’ll ever be.  But I cannot understand how.

I hate to introduce conspiracy theories, but it occurs to me that Rush Limbaugh’s ratings go UP when Democrats win.  And nothing would be better for Limbaugh’s career than Obama getting re-elected.  It is far easier to rip on a guy from the other party running things than it is to have to defend your guy’s policies.  As for Sarah Palin, she’s not running this year, but she might well run next time: and she sure would rather run against Obama’s cataclysmically failed record in 2016 than have to potentially wait until 2020 for her own shot at the title.

I hope I’m not right about their motivations, because I genuinely respect both Limbaugh and Palin.  But it remains a simple fact that the best thing that could happen for either of them professionally would be an Obama victory.

If one candidate could emerge, a few things would happen (all of them good, IMHO): 1) we could finally get to the case against Obama rather than the case against Romney or the case against Gingrich; 2) the Republican nominee could actually raise money for the war against Obama’s billion dollars rather than raising money to attack the other Republican(s) in the primary fight; 3) the attacks by Romney against Gingrich or Gingrich against Romney that Obama will be able to replay in his own hatefest would at least be lessened if the mud wrestling match ended now.

One last thing: I haven’t got involved in the slug fest (and I mean “slug” as much in the sense of “slimy crawling insect” as “punch-throwing”) because I genuinely believe in Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment that Republicans shouldn’t attack each other the way we’re seeing.  But I have watched other conservative blog sites such as Free Republic squander their credibility by (in the example of Free Republic) first picking Sarah Palin and viscerally attacking anybody who wasn’t Sarah Palin – including Newt Gingrich – and then picking Newt Gingrich and viscerally attacking Mitt Romney.  And my question is what will that site be worth to conservatives if Mitt Romney wins?

I am angry at the terrible Obama regime that has actually been WORSE than the terrible presidency I feared.  And I write with that sense of anger at what Obama has done to my country.  But one thing I can tell you about me is that I don’t WANT to be angry.  I WANT OBAMA OUT OF OFFICE and I want to see our country governed by policies that would at least forestall the collapse that Obama’s ruinous regime set into motion.  But I am convinced that there are conservatives who truly hate Obama and who feel empowered by that hatred and anger [liberals had the same unhinged hatred for Bush, fwiw].  And my question is are these conservatives unconsciously setting up Obama for victory so they can go on hating him.

For my own part, I plan to be done with political blogging one way or another after November.  If Obama wins, America truly deserves what it is going to get.  Jeremiah Wright – Obama’s reverend and spiritual advisor for over twenty years – prophetically said, “No, no, no!  Not God bless America!  God DAMN America!”  And “God damn America” was what the American people voted for in 2008.  If they want more God damn America, I’m washing my hands.  Jeremiah 11:14 says: “Do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them, because I will not listen when they call to me in the time of their distress.”  And that would be exactly where America would fall (And I DO mean “America will fall”).  On the other hand, if Romney or Gingrich wins, I simply can’t see myself enthusiastically defending their administrations against the onslaught of the newest version of liberal “Bush derangement syndrome.”

Bottom line: one way or another, I’m going to lay my political hatchet down and start writing as an evangelical Christian trying to warn as many as will listen about the soon-coming last days.  Because one way or another, the beast of Revelation is coming.  And if Obama wins, his coming will be hastened all the more.

Don’t think for a second that I won’t drag myself off of my deathbed (hopefully it won’t come to that!) to vote for the Republican nominee, be it Romney or Gingrich or Santorum or ???.  But as I watch the primary drag out, I’m shaking my head with disgust rather than nodding it in enthusiasm.

Obama ‘Fundamental Transformation’ Taking Us Way Back To The Flinstones Rather Than Way Ahead To The Jetsons

January 30, 2012

Obama told us he was going to fundamentally transform America:

And, of course, he has.

Food stamps:

This year, more than 46 million (15% of all Americans) will get food stamps. That’s 45% higher than when Obama took office, and twice as high as the average for the previous 40 years. This surge was driven in part by the recession, but also because Obama boosted the benefit amount as part of his stimulus plan.

Government-dependency benefits:

According to the Census Bureau 49% now live in homes where at least one person gets a federal benefit — Social Security, workers comp, unemployment, subsidized housing, and the like. That’s up from 44% the year before Obama took office, and way up from 1983, when fewer than a third were government beneficiaries

Direct government payments to the permanent welfare class that Obama has massively increased:

The amount of money the federal government hands out in direct payments to individuals steadily increased over the past four decades, but shot up under Obama, climbing by almost $600 billion — a 32% increase — in his first three years. And Obama’s last budget called for these payments to climb another $500 billion by 2016, at which point they would account for fully two-thirds of all federal spending.

Judi McLeod of the Canada Free Press points out the fact that:

“Most know by now that Obama dedicates his time to the end of America as it presently exists.”

One of the ways to illustrate what has happened in America is the flak that Newt Gingrich has taken for talking about a vision to not only put a man on the moon, but have a space station there.  There is doubt, skepticism and outright mockery of him in the mainstream media (“Newt Skywalker“?).

Greta Van Sustern asked Newt about why that was.  And Newt went right after Obama for killing America’s dreams and her future.

Gingrich pointed out that JFK in 1961 offered an even MORE audacious vision of putting a man on the moon when not only had no man ever been on the moon but when only the Soviet Union had ever even sent a man into orbit.  JFK said we would put a man on the moon within ten years.  And while he did not live to see the day because a leftist socialist assassinated him, we DID put a man on the moon within ten years of that famous speech.

Why can’t we now?

Because Obama has “fundamentally transformed America” into a country that can’t do anything and knows it can’t do anything, that’s why.  And of course how could we with such pathetic, failed leadership?  How could we possibly ever thrive under the wings of a man whose only talent is reading off a pair of teleprompter screens?

And the naysayers are completely right: nothing great is possible under this fool.

Only real leadership can get us to the Jetsons.

Newt Gingrich is dreaming of a day when America isn’t under the disgraced and failed leadership of “the Failure-in-Chief.”

Obama is taking us to the Flintstones.  And the sad fact is that the dinosaurs we’ll encounter won’t be anywhere near as friendly as that cartoon described when we get to where Obama is taking us.

Please vote for the destruction of America and a future that takes us – and in particular our children – down into collapse and depression.  Please give us more Obama because we simply don’t deserve to continue the way we’re going.

P.S. Hat tip to Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld for his “Jetsons-Flintstones” analogy.

Why Newt Gingrich Is Right To Attack The Mainstream Media

January 20, 2012

Newt Gingrich was blindsided by a story that had been in the media for more than a year (and actually quite longer than that).

How was it “newsworthy” to dredge up and old story and give it the face of a bitter ex-wife?

The most salacious detail of all – the “open marriage” thing – is almost certainly completely false.  There is no reason whatsoever to believe – even on Marianne Gingrich’s account – that Newt Gingrich was demanding an “open marriage.”

Several years ago I wrote a couple of articles about the blatant bias demonstrated by the mainstream media in refusing to cover and literally covering-up the affair and child that John Edwards had with a staff worker while his wife was in the process of dying of cancer:

LA Times Proves It’s Blatant Bias For Democrats

Sleazy Tabloid Rag Morally Superior To Top Democrat, Major Media

And the media most certainly did everything they could to help Bill Clinton deal with and put into the most favorable context his multiple affairs.  That is simply a documented fact of history.

So would the media return the favor of protectionism if a front running Republican presidential candidate’s career was at stake?

Well, given what it did to first Herman Cain and now to Newt Gingrich, the answer is most certainly not.

And, again, this wasn’t a “fresh” story that was just breaking.  We have known about Newt Gingrich’s marital “troubles” for YEARS before this story “broke” timed to do maximal damage to Gingrich immediately before the most critical Republican primary.

This is a media that says, “We want to hurt Newt Gingrich and undermine him.  How can we do it?”  And the thing they found most toxic was to dredge up a story that was old news.

The UK Mail underscores what a wet rag this “story” was:

20 January 2012 6:12 AM
Was that it then? Marianne Gingrich interview more damp squib than bombshell

Was that it then? After 24 hours of hype, angst and eager anticipation, ABC News aired its interview with Marianne Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House’s second wife. Brian Ross had indicated earlier that he had interviewed her for two hours. About two minutes of that was shown to televison viewers.

There was precious little that was new. The “open marriage” allegation had been playing all day. Not only had it been levelled at Gingrich before but it was clear that the term “open marriage” was Mrs Gingrich’s, not his.

And then Ross went all chocolate boxy, reminiscing about how Newt and Marianne once enjoyed “holding hands on the Mall, hiking the mountains, dressing up on Halloween”.

Much of the six-minute segment had the air of an attack ad against Gingrich with Brian Ross’s portentous voice intoning that Gingrich “regularly expounds on family values the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman” and how Callista Gingrich (his third wife) is “probably best known in this campaign for the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of jewellery Gingrich bought for her at Tiffany’s”.

The “family values” thing is a standard justification for going after conservatives over their private lives while giving liberals a pass. And Ross’s phrasing disingenuously conflated personal morality and Gingrich’s views on gay marriage.

Marianne Gingrich alleged that she has Multiple Sclerosis when Gingrich told her about his affair with Callista. “And he also was advised by the doctor when I was sitting there that I was not to be under stress,” she said. “He knew [she had MS].” But, as James Taranto points out, her account tonight conflicts with a previous version she has told.

ABC then went off onto a weird tangent about an attempted FBI sting that involved Marianne Gingrich meeting an arms dealer in Paris. Again, this is an old story and anyway it involved Marianne much more than it did Newt. She dismissed it as “all made-up, fabricated hogwash” and then gave a laugh worthy of a horror flick.

To give ABC their due, they included clips from Gingrich’s angry denials in tonight’s debate as well as an interview with his two daughters from his first marriage. Kathy Lubbers said: “The truth, Brian, is that our father and Marianne had a difficult marriage, they had a difficult divorce. She’s unhappy and this has been over for over a decade. He’s a much different person than he was then. He’s grown.

Jackie Cushnam added: “He’s gotten closer to God, his faith in God has grown. And I think what people need to remember is this happened a very long time ago and we wish Marianne no ill will. We wish her the very best. But it happened a very long time ago.”

Truth be told, the daughters came across much more sympathetically than the ex-wife.

The ABC agenda was apparent though when Ross noted that in the 1990s the couple were “without power or money” and then asked the leading question: “Did that create a desire to be rich?”

Marianne Gingrich answered: “I think we always talked that money would come when he left Congress.” Some might try to say that was a foretase of Gingrich using his political connections to enrich himself. But really, it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.

Any sympathy Marianne Gingrich might have elicted from viewers pretty much evaporated at the end when she showed her animus towards Callista, remarking: “He did tell me once that she was going to help him become president.” she then snorted: “Didn’t look like help to me.”

Well, Marianne Gingrich’s interview didn’t look much like help for Newt either. But as I suggested earlier, this bizarre episode might just end up assisting his White House campaign more than it hinders it.

This is kind of like the Romney Bain thing.  Going after Romney because he participated in free enterprise doesn’t chase me away from him; it makes me rally behind him.  Going after Newt Gingrich in such a hypocritical and biased ideological manner doesn’t turn me – a social conservative who is otherwise repulsed at the despicable personal character Gingrich once displayed – off.  It fires me up for the need to go after the REAL enemy of America: the mainstream media.

Conservative Republicans are something that liberal Democrats are not: Christians.  We believe in sin and we believe in personal accountability and we believe in the need to have a true moral climate.  But we also believe in forgiveness and redemption and moving forward.

This account from Newt Gingrich’s very bitter ex-wife who had every incentive to hurt him.  And her account is one that is purely a he-said-she-said issue.

We’ve already seen the media create a myth about Newt Gingrich’s divorce horror stories.  It is a proven historical fact that the mainstrem media created a horrendous-sounding but completely false version of events designed to make Newt Gingrich look as much like a monster as possible.

So did ABC – the network of Mark Halperin’s inexcusable bias before Democrat spindoctor George Stephanopoulos took over- due any due diligence to confirm the hatchet piece before swinging the axe?  Not even close.

Newt Gingrich angrily told the host of the CNN debate - there’s another “objective” media outlet if there ever was one -

“my two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate.

[...]

Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period said the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren’t interested because they would like to attack any Republican.”

- And we find out that the networks that went with this didn’t want to bother talking to those personal friends.  It was a chance to hurt a Republican.  And that was all that mattered to them.

I’m most certainly not happy about what Newt Gingrich did in not one but two marriages.  But the man claims that he converted to Catholicism and that he is now an older and wiser 68-year old granfather who has changed his ways.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media hasn’t learned anything and continues to demonstrate that it is the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party.

So if I’ve got to vote for Newt to vote against the mainstream media, that’s what I’ll do…

No Winning Vs. Liberalism: Gingrich A Racist For Wanting To Give A Minority A Job But Not A Handout; Romney A Racist For Giving A Black Woman Money

January 18, 2012

If you are a conservative and you zig, the mainstream media will pronounce you a racist.  But don’t you dare zag, either, or else the mainstream media will pronounce you a racist.

We cannot win if the most dishonest media since Hitler and Stalin has anything to do with it.  They hate us and they will treat us dishonestly because the very core of their beings are dishonest.

Newt Gingrich, we were assured, was incredibly racist in wanting to give minority kids jobs rather than teach them to accept handouts for life:

Gingrich to Juan Williams: Capitalism Is Not Racist
by AWR Hawkins

A funny thing happened in the GOP debate in South Carolina last night. FOX NEWS’ Juan Williams implied racism in Speaker Newt Gingrich’s defense of capitalism, and Gingrich did not back down:

Williams: Speaker Gingrich, you recently said, “Black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps.” You also said, “Poor kids lack a strong work ethic,” and proposed having them work as janitors in their schools. Can’t you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans?

After Williams asked this question, about three people applauded somewhat timidly, but there was mostly silence in anticipation of how Gingrich might dig himself out of this one. He had been put on the spot in front of the world by a media spokesperson who not only opposed Gingrich’s position, but who himself was black, and who views almost everything through the lenses of race.

But Gingrich did not fold. Instead he looked at Williams and responded: “No, I don’t see that.” In other words, Gingrich was saying “No, I don’t see how capitalism is racist nor do I see how a defense of capitalism is racist.” The venue exploded with applause and cheers.

Gingrich then continued by telling the audience his daughter’s first job had been as a janitor in a Baptist church in Georgia when she was thirteen. Said Gingrich: “She liked earning the money, she liked learning that if you worked you got paid, she liked being in charge of her own money, and she thought it was a good start.”

Amid applause, Gingrich continued

What I tried to say [is that] New York City pays their janitors an absurd amount of money because of the unions. You could…hire 30-some kids to work in the school for the price of one janitor and those 30 kids would be a lot less likely to drop out, they would actually have money in their pocket, they would learn to show up for work, they could do light janitorial duty, they could work in the cafeteria, they could work in the front office, and they could work in the library. They’d be getting money, which is a good thing if you’re poor. Only the elites despise earning money.

At this point, the audience rose to their feet and Gingrich received a standing ovation as Williams did everything he could to try to salvage some aspect of the exchange for the left. And the only way he could do this was to try once more to find racism in Gingrich’s words.

Said Williams:

The suggestion you made was about a lack of work ethic. And I’ve got to tell you, my email account and twitter account have been inundated by people of all races who are asking if your comments are not intended to belittle the poor and racial minorities…[People have asked] why you refer to President Obama as the “food stamp President.” It sounds like you’re trying to belittle people.

As the audience booed Williams, Gingrich responded:

Juan, the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any President in American history. I know among the politically correct you are not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable. Second, you are the one who earlier raised the key point. The area that ought to be I-73 was called by Barack Obama “a corridor of shame” because of unemployment. Has it improved in three years? No. They haven’t built a road, they haven’t helped the people, they haven’t done anything.

As the applause grew to unprecedented levels, Williams retreated. He literally just sat silently, staring straight ahead, while Gingrich rose above the applause to say:

One last thing…I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their Creator with the right to pursue happiness, and if that makes liberals unhappy, I’m going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn to get a better job and learn some day to own the job.

Bottom line: Capitalism is not racist, nor is the defense of capitalism racist. Conservatives needn’t be ashamed of offering the world a job instead of a government handout.

The statistics show that 43 percent of black teens are unemployed; but don’t you dare offer them a job or encourage them to begin developing a work ethic, because that would simply be racist, wouldn’t it?

For the record that catastrophically high rate of unemployed young people – and particularly young black people – isn’t a result of Newt Gingrich; it is rather the PREDICTED result of Obamanomics.

Liberalism is wrong 100 percent of the time.  The only things that liberals are good at is lying and demonizing.

Now we’ve got Mitt Romney branded as a racist for giving a black woman in need a $50 handout:

MSNBC: Romney racist for giving $50 to black woman
by Charlie Spiering Commentary Staff Writer

MSNBC commentators were not pleased that Mitt Romney gave a struggling unemployed woman $50 after she told him about her hardships.

MSNBC’s Alex Wagner called it “one of the more uncomfortable moments on the campaign trail,” setting off an angry response from the analysts on the panel.

“As an African American woman it galls me. I don’t even like to watch it. I felt like it plays into every sort of patronizing stereotype of black people,” MSNBC contributor Joy-Ann Reid said. “‘Oh, here is this little lady let me give her 50 bucks’. . . I think it plays into that conservative meme, that you don’t need actual programs that the government puts in place to help people in need, we’ll just give them charity, I’ll just give him 50 bucks.”

“There are a lot of very convenient elements to this story, as you said Joy, it really makes me cringe. We have this black woman who suddenly almost becomes this mascot for the campaign,” said MSNBC contributor Janell Ross. “She is sort of affirming all sorts of Conservative ideas about who is poor and how certain people deal with their poverty and seek out the assistance of a wealthy white man to hand you some form of aid.”

I particularly appreciated the very first comment to this article from Wakeus_com:

The liberals are furious that the money went directly to a struggling woman! They didn’t have a chance to skim some for themselves via one of their “social programs” that have obviously done so much for the poor and minority communities of this great nation. Without the skim, the liberal can’t keep itself in a useless job, therefore it hates.

I despise liberals for one reason; what they have done to hold down poor and minority citizens of this nation. They are modern-day plantation owners … and don’t you dare step out of line.

The unemployment rate for black people is nearly double the national average; which is to say that liberals have black people exactly where they want them: dependent for life on the tit of government.  And anything that would make black people less dependent on the government tit and the Democrat Party that offers it is “racist.”

If a Republican voluntarily gives me money it demeans me.  But nothing could possibly be more honorable than taking money that has been forcibly redistributed from other Americans and handed out to me in the form of a welfare check courtesy of a Democrat Party that wants to buy my vote.

The only thing in this entire universe that isn’t “racist” to a liberal is Marxism.

I once quoted Burton Folsom in his great book “New Deal Or Raw Deal?” It’s time to quote that passage again:

Throughout American history, right from the start, charity had been a state and local function. Civic leaders, local clergy, and private citizens, evaluated the legitimacy of people’s need in their communities or counties; churches and other organizations could then provide food, shelter, and clothing to help victims of fires or women abandoned by drunken husbands. Most Americans believed that the face-to-face encounters of givers and receivers of charity benefited both groups. It created just the right amount of uplift and relief, and discouraged laziness and a poor work ethic.

The Founders saw all relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for the government in providing charity. James Madison, in defending the Constitution, observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” In other words, if relief, and other areas, were made functions of the federal government, the process would become politicized and politicians and deadbeats could conspire to trade votes for food” (New Deal or Raw Deal, page 76-77).

Prior to FDR, the American people took care of their OWN, family by family, town by town, county by county, state by state. They had NEVER had welfare, and in fact found the very concept of welfare distasteful. And I’m going to tell you right now that they were better, stronger people than we are as a result of that moral superiority and that faith in THE PEOPLE and not the GOVERNMENT.

Barack Obama – who gave virtually NOTHING to charity when giving would have demonstrated the character he proved he DIDN’T have – doesn’t trust the American people, or much care about them, for that matter. He doesn’t want to help people; he wants to grow the size of government. He wants only to make the state bigger and bigger and more and more powerful and controlling. Obama is angry because he doesn’t believe people should have the right to decide for themselves how much of their own money they “need”; HE wants to make that decision for them and then impose it on them so he can seize their money and redistribute it to people who will vote for him and for his party.

Whenever a Democrat calls for more taxes, understand that what they are really saying is that they believe that the government is too small and needs to become larger. And whenever they call for more taxes for the sake of helping people, what they are really saying is that you are a bad and immoral person who can’t and shouldn’t be trusted to help people in need and that it is better to take your money away from you and put it into the coffers of a big government socialist redistributionist agency which will piss it away on boondoggle programs that benefit the politically connected far more than they do the poor. And the fact that even as Barack Obama and the overwhelming Democrat majority that had dictatorial control of both branches of Congress made government bigger than it has ever been and yet blacks are now worse off than they’ve been for generations and women are being set way back is the icing on the cake of the proof of that fact. Liberals hurt the people they cynically and falsely claim to be helping – and then demagogically use the misery that they themselves created to accumulate even more power for themselves and their failed agenda.

I’m With Newt Gingrich On Palestinians Being An ‘Invented People’

December 12, 2011

As far as I’m concerned, Newt Gingrich nailed this one.

The “Palestinians” exist for everyone who has a spiritual and ideological hatred of Israel, and that is the ONLY reason it/they exist. It NEVER existed prior to the existence of Israel and no Arabs even bothered to TRY to create it/them. The so-called “Palestinians” could have and should have gone to the 99-plus percent of the land that was controlled by Arabs; but the Arabs in their rabid hatred of Israel decided it was better to create a festering sore by leaving people in camps and ghettos as a deceitful way to denounce Israel.

Gingrich Gets It Right
Posted by David Horowitz Bio ↓ on Dec 12th, 2011

In an interviewon Saturday, Newt Gingrich put some reality into the surreal discussion of the Middle East conflict and (as he put it) the delusional nature of the current “peace process.” The Palestinians are indeed an “invented people” — invented by the Nasser dictatorship and KGB by the way — and the Hitlerian lie that Israel occupies one square inch of “Arab” let alone “Palestinian” land needs to be buried for any clarity on what the conflict is about, let alone progress towards peace.

Of course there is no peace in the Middle East and there can be no peace so long as the Muslim Arabs want to kill the Jews and destroy the Jewish state. That is the explicit goal of the enemies of Israel in the terrorist entities of Gaza and the West Bank, and also of Israel’s principal enemy the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Newt Gingrich’s gutsy statements — if he will hold to them — could change the nature of the debate not only about how to deal with the Islamic terrorists of the Middle East but with the Islamic jihad itself. For the campaign to destroy Israel is at bottom a campaign to restore the Muslim (not Arab) ummah — as it was under the Turkish empire and the caliphate.

According to CNN, a Palestinian spokesman called Gingrich’s observation that the Palestinians are “an invented people” quote “the most racist I’ve ever seen.” This just shows what brazen liars Palestinian spokesmen are. Everything that Gingrich said was obvious fact. For nearly 2,000 years “Palestine” referred to region not a people — just as “New England” refers to a region not a people. In 1948 the Arabs of the Palestine region were not talking about a Palestinian state and were not referring to themselves as Palestinians. That came in 1964 with the creation of the PLO, engineered by the KGB and the Jew-hating dictator of Egypt, Gamel Abdel Nasser​. Even then the PLO charter (which is still available on the web) did not call for the liberation of the West Bank or Gaza (annexed by Jordan and Egypt respectively) but for the destruction of the Jewish state. Jew hatred is what has driven the conflict in the Middle East which is more precisely described as a genocidal war against the Jews.

Here’s another article on the subject from another guy I listen to when it comes to this region:

Newt Gingrich and the “Invented” Palestinian People
by Daniel Pipes
December 10, 2011
Cross-posted from National Review Online

The former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and current Republican presidential candidate said yesterday that “there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. We have invented the Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and are historically part of the Arab people, and they had the chance to go many places.”

Everyone from the PLO to a Mitt Romney spokesman jumped on Gingrich for this assertion, but he happens to be absolutely correct: no Arabic-speaking Muslims identified themselves as “Palestinian” until 1920, when, in rapid order this appellation and identity was adopted by the Muslim Arabs living in the British mandate of Palestine.

For details, see a long article of mine from 1989 on the topic or a short one from 2000. (December 10, 2011)

I was frankly appalled at the criticism Newt Gingrich received from rival Republicans competing for the GOP nomination.  The only candidate who supported Gingrich’s completely accurate and factual statement was Rick Perry. 

The idea made by Mitt Romney and seconded by most of the candidates that covet Gingrich’s poll numbers that this somehow is “speaking for Israel” is simply asinine.  Newt Gingrich isn’t speaking for anybody; he’s a private citizen and doesn’t even speak for “America,” let alone Israel.  Rather, Newt Gingrich was speaking for “truth.”  And I’m on board with that.

Since Newt said this, I have laughed at the snooty “journalists” who huffed that countries like Iraq, Syria and Lebanon were “invented,” too, as though somehow that means that we can’t oppose allowing “Palestinians” to be similarly invented.  Because as we all know, the world would obviously have been just so much worse off without the many blessings provided by Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to world harmony.  And the more dictator-controlled hellholes, the better, right?

Al Jazeera puts it this way (you know, after citing the “wisdom” of Vladimir Lenin):

The modern Middle East was born in crisis. Remnants of the Ottoman and Safavid Empires of the 19th century, the countries of this realm only took the form of modern nation states after passing through the brutal mill of European colonialism. Whereas state formation in Europe took centuries to develop, countries in the Middle East were created by the veritable stroke of a pen; by a line drawn on a map; by a decision taken in a smoke-filled boardroom.

So what the hell, let’s get back into that smoke-filled boardroom and invent another country.  Because it’s just worked so damn well in the past and all.  And you know how great the United Nations is about getting things right, right?

Most of the countries “created with the stroke of a pen” are hellholes.  So one question worth serious discussion is why do we want to create another hellhole?

It’s almost as if the left is arguing, “We have a chance to repeat the mistakes of history, and let’s not be timid about doing so.”

Fwiw, when Newt Gingrich says (and when I agree with him) that Palestinians are an “invented people,” neither of us is trying to argue that the Arab people living in the West Bank, etc., are not “real people.”  What we are claiming is the FACT that there had never in history existed a people with a “Palestinian” identity, nor had there ever existed a nation-state with that identity.  EVER.  There is no legitimate historical reason to ascribe to them the idenity that the United Nation and liberals and various other enemies of Israel have been attempting to ascribe to them.  And these people – who have genuine needs and are genuinely suffering – should have been absorbed by the many surrounding regions and nations out of which they came from in the first place.  And I further submit that it is not Israel, but those Arab countries, to whom the real blame ought to be directed for ignoring the plight of the “Palestinians” and abandoning them to neglect.  Because these their own people literally WANTED these people to suffer simply so they could point a finger at Jews and say, “See what you did?”

For more than sixty years Arabs have allowed the “Palestinians” to suffer in ghettos and camps because they would not take care of their own people.  Rather than give a damn about their fellow Arabs in need, they preferred to keep hating on Israel and say, “We want nothing to do with these Arabs because we frankly have no respect for human life whatsoever, but YOU ought to care more about our people than we do and provide for them.”

So before you attack me as a “racist” or an anti-Palestinian “bigot” or whatever, realize that I will merely re-direct those charges right back at you and state that in fact YOU are the hater who wants these poor people to suffer just so you can point a finger of blame at the Jews you so rabidly despise.

Meet NBC’s David Gregory, Typical Dishonest Leftwing Media Propagandist Hack, Falsely Attacking Newt Gingrich

December 9, 2011

Here are your typical “journalists” talking on a typical mainstream media version of the Ministry of Propaganda:

As NBC’s Meet the Press panel ripped into Newt Gingrich on Sunday for his comments on poor children in inner cities lacking working role models, Manchester Union Leader publisher Joe McQuaid was the lone voice of dissent: “I think he gets a bum rap on the child labor thing.”

That prompted host David Gregory to declare: “Are you really saying that the working poor in this country don’t have good role models of how to work hard?…How do you get to that practical solution and not see it as a kind of grotesque distortion of what’s really happening out there?”

Mcquaid explained: “…there are kids in inner city schools who’ve never had a job, and they only have one parent and they have no idea what the work ethic is like….Not the working poor. But these are people who are not working and the kids are not working, and this gives a chance for the kids to take a broom, work in the cafeteria.”

Moments later, BBC Washington correspondent Katty Kay argued:

…it seems that in the country, this sort of general zeitgeist has shifted from a real loathing of big government to, to some extent, fears about the middle class being squeezed and problems of inequality. And I think, in that context, Newt Gingrich’s comments about the working poor and poor kids who can only find work if it’s illegal come across as the wrong tone in the country at the moment. That’s not where America is at the moment.

See, here’s the funny thing: it couldn’t be more obvious that Newt Gingrich was most definitely NOT referring to “the working poor.”

Here’s what Newt actually said – and I’ll even quote from the Daily Kos:

“Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works,” the former House speaker said at a campaign event at the Nationwide Insurance offices. “So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash,’ unless it’s illegal.”

Now here’s my question, David Gregory, you dishonest hatchet-man liberal polemicist: HOW IN THE HELL CAN THAT BE REFERRING TO “THE WORKING POOR” when Newt Gingrich specifically says they “have nobody around them who works”???

Is it okay for the media to just invent stories now???

This is just plain dishonesty.  And the mainstream media is going to pull out every single lie they can to destroy Gingrich.

David Gregory is a dishonest and biased man who has no business in journalism.  Unless you factor in that the field of “journalism” has long since been “socialized” (as Maxine Waters famously threatened to do to American oil companies) and Gregory is just one more liberal lemming in a vast herd of liberal lemmings.

ABC at least gets the spirit of what Gingrich was trying to say correctly (at least here):

“They have no habit of showing up on Monday and staying all day or the concept of ’I do this and you give me cash,’ unless it’s illegal,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich said that successful people he knows started work early by doing small jobs like babysitting and shoveling snow.

“You have a very poor neighborhood. You have students that are required to go to school. They have no money, no habit of work,” Gingrich said. “What if you paid them in the afternoon to work in the clerical office or as the assistant librarian? And let me get into the janitor thing. What if they became assistant janitors, and their job was to mop the floor and clean the bathroom?”

Gingrich talked about a program around while he was in Congress called “Earning While Learning,” which paid students to read books. He said it was the same concept of students gaining money for doing acedemic work that he would like to see students to invest in.

“They wanted the money. The kids were showing up saying, ‘I demand you let me read. You can’t keep me from this program,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich said there would be a lot of details to work out, but the general principle was “exactly the right direction for America’s future.

“If we are all endowed by our creator with the right to pursue happiness, that has to apply to the poorest neighborhoods in the poorest counties, and I am prepared to find something that works, that breaks us out of the cycles we have now to find a way for poor children to work and earn honest money,” Gingrich said.

Now, a lot of conservatives aren’t all that happy about this “program” Newt is suggesting, oh, I don’t know, BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE THE DAMN MONEY.

But it’s just another day for General Electric-owned NBC to reveal its pathological bias against Republicans.

Nancy Pelosi Threatens To Ignore Rule Of Law To Nuke Newt. Newt Fires Back.

December 6, 2011

I think of Nancy Pelosi and now I have a mental image of Joseph McCarthy in drag shrilly saying, “I have a list…”:

Gingrich fires back at Pelosi over threat
By Justin Sink – 12/05/11 02:50 PM ET

Newt Gingrich said that a threat from ex-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to disclose information she learned while serving on an ethics committee investigating him during his time as Speaker of the House would “totally abuse the ethics process” and violate rules of the House of Representatives.

“I want to thank Speaker Pelosi for what I regard as an early Christmas gift,” Gingrich said at a press conference in Manhattan Monday.

Gingrich denounced the threat from Pelosi, who is now the minority leader in the House, as “a fundamental violation of the rules of the House,” and said that if Pelosi were to disclose details of the investigation, it would expose the “tainted ethics process the House was engaged in.” He also called for the House to condemn Pelosi if she were to reveal anything from the ethics probe

Pelosi told Talking Points Memo that she would reveal damaging material about Gingrich “when the time is right.”

“One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” Pelosi said. “When the time is right. … I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.”

But responding to Gingrich’s comments, a spokesman for Pelosi said the former Speaker was “clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware.”

Pelosi served on the ethics committee that sanctioned Gingrich for violating tax law and lying to an investigative panel when he claimed tax-exempt status for a college course he ran for political purposes. Gingrich agreed to a $300,000 fine and admitted that he submitted inaccurate statements to the committee, but maintained Monday that the majority of the charges “were repudiated as false.”

Gingrich said that Pelosi’s suggestion that she would reveal information from that investigation underscored that the ethics charges were politically motivated.

“It tells you how capriciously political that committee was,” Gingrich said.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, here’s a picture to summarize the above events:

The Hill isn’t being very honest in its coverage of this story.  They tell you all about the sanction and the fine, but here’s what they DON’T tell you:

First of all, what exactly were the charges against Newt? David Bonior brought 75 charges against Newt – and 74 of them were found to have NO MERIT WHATSOEVER. The last charge, whether Newt funded his college class “Renewing American Civilization” properly, was too complicated a tax issue for the committee to investigate on its own, so they brought in an outside tax expert to investigate. Two charges arose out of this investigation.

The first ‘charge’ from the ethics committee is that he “may have” violated tax law by using tax-deductible contributions from nonprofit organizations to teach an allegedly partisan college course.

The lectures never mentioned the words “Republicans” or “Democrats,” and one entire session was spent praising FDR. Is that “partisan?” Not only has a former commissioner of the IRS has come forward and said that no tax laws were violated, but an Ethics Committee lawyer even gave approval for the class before Newt started it.

The second ‘charge’ from the committee is that, in the course of the investigation, Newt provided false information to the committee. Do you know what this “false information” is

Newt testified that the above contributions were in fact made by those organizations to “Renewing American Civilization.” He filed papers that stated the very same thing. This is never a fact that anyone was trying to hide. But one paper filed with the committee stated that those groups did not make the contributions. So is this a big deal? Is this “lying to Congress?”

What’s funny is that the Ethics Committee itself approved the course Newt taught, the same course that started this whole “ethics violation” farce. Newt wasn’t even paid for the course. In any case, I am not getting into all the details of the whole ethics violation mess, and the incredible double standard shown, since that would warrant a separate web site. I just find it odd that the Ethics Committee turned around and slammed Newt with a $300,000 penalty for something that they had approved! In addition, if a reprimand was enough “punishment” for Barney Frank, who was charged by the same committee with fixing 30 parking tickets, and writing a misleading probation letter on behalf of child pornographer, cocaine dealer, male prostitute and lover Steven Gobie, why is Newt getting slammed with such a harsher penalty?

The only reason that Rep. David Bonior and other Democrats filed 75 ethics charges against Speaker Gingrich in the first place is because Newt filed and forced former Democrat Speaker Jim Wright to resign in 1988. The whole ethics violation farce was about nothing but revenge. Bonior and the Dems. wanted revenge for Jim Wright and for losing the House in 1994 and 1996.

Newt Gingrich says that there were actually 84 charges leveled against him.  And what do you know, he’s right:

Of the 84 charges against him, 83 were eventually dismissed, but the case caused severe damage to his political career and he resigned from the House in 1998, following a disastrous midterm election for his party.

Today, Mrs Pelosi threatened to revive the scandal if Mr Gingrich were to become the Republican nominee.

Does the fact that 84 charges were brought against Newt Gingrich and 83 of them were determined to have NO MERIT WHATSOEVER tell you anything about the integrity of that “ethics” committee???

Newt Gingrich had better be ready for the most dishonest media since Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.  Because the “journalists” will be joining their fellow ideological traveler Nancy Pelosi in gunning for him now.

And hopefully he won’t be sitting on a couch with that wicked witch again any time soon.

Newt Nails It: Media ‘Would Rather Worry About Rumors About Conservatives Than Facts About The President’

December 1, 2011

The mainstream media is pure leftist propaganda. Nothing more. They are dishonest and disingenuous. Everything they cover (and won’t cover) is distorted by their unrelentingly un-American leftist worldview.

Let’s take the latest serial accuser of Herman Cain.  Consider the credibility of Ginger White:

Ms. White is an unemployed single mother. Before the interview, Fox learned that she had filed a sexual harassment claim against an employer in 2001. That case was settled. The station also found a bankruptcy filing nearly 23 years ago in Kentucky, and several eviction notices in the Atlanta area over the past six years.

The station also reported that Ms. White had a former business partner who once sought a “stalking temporary protective order” against her for “repeated e-mails/texts threatening lawsuit and defamation of character.” The case was dismissed, but it was followed by a libel lawsuit against Ms. White. A judge entered an order against Ms. White because she failed to respond to the lawsuit, Fox reported.

And if that’s not enough there’s more (from ABC News):

Ginger White . . . has liens and civil judgments in Kentucky and Georgia dating back to 1994.

Eleven of those liens have been filed since 2009, with nine in 2011. The owners of her apartment complex in Dunwoody, Georgia have sued her for non-payment of rent nearly every month since the beginning of the year.

White, a 46-year-old unemployed single mother who is at least twice divorced, was described by WAGA as an Atlanta-area businesswoman. . . . According to WAGA, she filed a sex harassment claim against an employer ten years ago, and the case was settled. . . .

In January, there is a scheduled court date in an unrelated civil suit filed against her by a former business partner, Kimberly Vay, who alleges that White stalked and harassed her and had sought a protective order. A judge has entered a default judgment in Vay’s favor.

But hey, it helps the Democrat establishment depict Herman Cain as (and I quote a leftwing blogger here) a

 “jungle boogie black stud” who has “Sexed Up Every Woman In America Including Your Mom.”

Now, that is quintessentially racist in the real world.  But liberals have absolved themselves of racism due to the fact that it is by (their own) definition impossible for a liberal to be “racist.”  No matter how viscerally racist they actually are.

It doesn’t matter if these women accusing Cain are all complete train wrecks.  Every allegation must be thoroughly described ad nauseam until Herman Cain finally learns that uppity black men need to get in their place on the liberal plantation.  Because the Fugitive Slave Act remains alive and well within the Democrat Party when conservative blacks are at issue.

To say that the media covered the Herman Cain accusations like piranhas and jackals is frankly an insult to piranhas and jackals.

Now, did the media cover the numerous – and FAR more credible – accusations against Bill Clinton the same way they’ve covered Herman Cain?  Not in this universe:

The Clinton Treatment: How The Media Protected Bill But Pounce on Cain
November 01, 2011 14:40 ET

Alexandria, VA – In direct contrast to how ABC, CBS and NBC newsrooms all but ignored the sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton from multiple women including Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick, the same networks are now salivating over an alleged act of harassment by Herman Cain from anonymous sources, a new MRC report finds.

A look back at the Clinton scandals:

Paula Jones – February, 1994 – Accused Bill Clinton of exposing himself to her in a hotel room. CBS and NBC ignored her press conference. ABC gave it 16 seconds of coverage.

Kathleen Willey – July, 1997 – Accused Bill Clinton of groping her in the Oval Office while President. CBS gave it one minute on July 30 while NBC gave it a mention and ABC gave it no immediate coverage.

Juanita Broaddrick – March, 1998 – Accused Bill Clinton of raping her while he was the Arkansas Attorney General and a candidate for Governor. ABC, CBS, NBC offered weekend coverage but then dropped the story. NBC’s Dateline finally aired an interview with Broaddrick in February of 1999.

Brent Bozell responds:

ABC, CBS and NBC pounced on the opportunity to slam GOP hopeful Herman Cain – even with unnamed accusers and sources. It is indefensible how the networks were quick to defend Bill Clinton by not reporting public accusations of rape, inappropriate physical contact, and explicit behavior – and are quick to attack Herman Cain on the basis of weak allegations by anonymous sources.

“While these women received a different kind of ‘Clinton Treatment,’ the media have their own version, and are quick to put it aside when it comes to Herman Cain. They want to see this smart, successful, black man come to ruin – all because he is a conservative. A disgraceful President who faced public accusers and an impeachment trial received better treatment in the so-called ‘news’ than a candidate whose accusers remain unnamed.”

Politico alone had run 90 stories on Herman Cain as a sexual harasser by November 4th.

Then there was John Edwards, who – unlike Herman Cain – actually fathered a CHILD in the course of his adultery.  The mainstream media REFUSED to cover the story even though they KNEW about it.  As I documented at the time here and here.  The same media that is going after Herman Cain like pitbulls going after a piece of bloody meat refused to go after John Edwards until AFTER the Democrat Primary.

With that as a backdrop of rampant, raging mainstream media bias and outright hatred for conservatives (and particularly black conservatives), let’s see what Newt Gingrich had to say when he found out that the Washington Post had their heads in his garbage cans:

Gingrich Rips WaPo: Media ‘Would Rather Worry About Rumors About Conservatives Than Facts About President’
By Noel Sheppard | November 30, 2011 | 09:34

On Monday, NewsBusters broke a story about Washington Post blogger Aaron Blake using Twitter to dig up dirt on Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.

On Tuesday, the former House Speaker spoke to St. Louis radio host and Big Journalism editor Dana Loesch about this saying, “It’s a little sad to see a paper the quality of the Washington Post stoop to…the National Enquirer approach to life” adding they “would rather worry about rumors about conservatives than facts about the President” (video follows with transcript and commentary):

[See video at Newsbusters]

DANA LOESCH: I’ve noticed that Aaron Blake who writes for the Washington Post’s The Fix, it’s a political blog, has reached out to readers asking them to crowd-source your past to see if they can get some skeletons in your closet. Have you heard of this?

NEWT GINGRICH: I haven’t heard of it. I’m not at all surprised. I think that you have to expect that kind of trash. I’ve been honest about the fact that there are things I did in my past that I’ve had to go to G-d and seek forgiveness for and seek reconciliation. And if this guy manages to find some magic example, I will stipulate it. I have a very good marriage with Callista. We have, we’re very, very close and have been now for well over a decade. I’m very close to my two daughters and my son-in-laws, and I’m very close to my grandchildren. And I’ll let people look at who I am and how I live today and decide whether or not I’m the person they want to have as president.

It’s a little sad to see a paper the quality of the Washington Post stoop to that, which used to be the National Enquirer approach to life. But that’s just the nature of where we are today.

LOESCH: And I wish that they would crowd-source the White House visitor logs the way that they’re going after individuals like you or Sarah Palin.

GINGRICH: I wish they would crowd-source to discover what he did at Columbia University, and I wish they would crowd-source to figure out what he did with Saul Alinsky’s ideas on the South Side of Chicago.

LOESCH: Exactly.

GINGRICH: Nobody’s ever explored exactly, the community organizer did not mean boys and girls clubs. It meant Saul Alinsky radicalism.

LOESCH: Yeah, it absolutely did.

GINGRICH: But the news media’s never quite found itself as excited about the facts about Barack Obama. Would rather worry about rumors about conservatives than facts about the President.

It really is absurd how little Americans know about our President’s life after he left Hawaii, in particular what he did in Chicago before running for the highest office in the land.

Instead of doing any such investigative journalism, our so-called press digs into every rumor and unsubstantiated allegation against his political rivals.

Will they only be interested in the truth once Obama leaves office, or will his past continue to be verboten as they try to build up his legacy much as they are currently doing with former President Jimmy Carter?

Loesch’s entire interview with the former Speaker is available at Big Journalism.

Mind you, that omits Barack Obama’s racist, anti-American, Marxist “reverend” for twenty years.  And it omits the terrorist bomber pal who gave Obama his start in politics.  Because yes, lying liberal media, Obama DID get his political start in Bill Ayers’ living room.

If you get your news from the mainstream media, from the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times or New York Times, from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc. etc., you are a dishonest person.  Because you prefer lies.  Your soul swims in lies.  And you gravitate toward dishonest “news” sources that will feed your addiction to lies.

If the media had gone after Bill Clinton the way it’s gone after Herman Cain, Bill Clinton never would have been president.

If the media had gone after Barack Obama the way it’s gone after Herman Cain or Sarah Palin, Barack Obama never would have even come close to winning the Democrat primary, let alone been president.

Journalists are the most dishonest vermin in the world:

“journalists are ranked as the least trustworthy with just 19 per cent believing they tell the truth.”

And one day they will burn in the hottest level of hell.

Not that that will help Herman Cain.  Or Newt Gingrich, when these lying cockroaches get to work on him, for that matter.

Newt does the National Enquirer a disservice in comparing them to the mainstream media; because the National Enquirer is vastly more credible than the mainstream media – even when they are talking about the latest Elvis or Bigfoot sighting.

Newt Gingrich Just Lost Any Chance At My Vote

May 16, 2011

I don’t know whose vote Newt Gingrich is pursuing.  It certainly isn’t mine.

Mind you, I would have had to hold my nose TIGHTLY to vote for him as it was.

Gingrich Calls GOP Medicare Plan ‘Right-Wing Social Engineering’
Published May 16, 2011
| The Wall Street Journal

White House hopeful Newt Gingrich called the House Republican plan for Medicare “right-wing social engineering,” injecting a discordant GOP voice into the party’s efforts to reshape both entitlements and the broader budget debate. 

In the same interview Sunday, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mr. Gingrich backed a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance, complicating a Republican line of attack on President Barack Obama’s health law. 

The former House speaker’s decision to stick with his previous support for an individual mandate comes days after former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney defended the health revamp he championed as governor, which includes a mandate. 

The moves suggest the Republican primary contest, which will include both men, could feature a robust debate on health care, with GOP candidates challenging the Democratic law while defending their own variations. 

Later Sunday, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he also acknowledged that many Republicans are uncomfortable with requiring insurance coverage but challenged them to offer an alternative solution. “Most Republican voters agree with the principle that people have some responsibility to pay for their costs,” he said.

Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are on the same side of Romney-care, are they?

We just found out that fewer than HALF of the doctors in Massachusetts are still offering to treat new patients under this terrible health care destruction program:

WASHINGTON — More than half of primary care practices in Massachusetts are not accepting new patients, and wait times for many new patients continue to lengthen five years after the state passed its landmark healthcare reform law, according to a survey sponsored by the state medical society.

[...]

Fewer than half of family physicians (47%) are accepting new patients, the survey found. When the Massachusetts Medical Society first began collecting data on access to family physicians in 2007, 70% were accepting new patients.

You like that trend?  Just let it continue.  Because the number of physicians accepting new patients is going to go down, down, down as long as we’re playing the game of socialist medicine.

We also find that Massachusetts health care recipients are facing increasingly long waiting times to see a doctor as a result of the increasingly few doctors who are willing to accept patients under these awful socialized medicine regulations.  Which in turn forces up the cost of health care, as more and more patients go to expensive emergency room care.

Remember how ObamaCare was sold under the fictitious guise that it would cut cost by eleminating the emergency room visits?  That was a load of methane.

And this is why:

Massachusetts has the most expensive family health insurance premiums in the country, according to a new analysis that highlights the state’s challenge in trying to rein in medical costs after passage of a landmark 2006 law that mandated coverage for nearly everyone.

Newt Gingrich has bided his time because of his shameful personal past.  But now that he finally gets back into political life, we quickly find that the man has not changed from the days when he abandoned his wife in a cancer ward because he found somebody prettier.  Now he’s abandoning conservatives figuring we’ll have to vote for him in a general election against Obama while he courts the so-called “moderates.”

There are two ways a Republican can run for president: by standing up for conservative values, or by abandoning them to appeal to “moderates.”  Which is to say that one can run as a Republican on Republican values, or one can run as a Republican-In-Name-Only and try to get votes by abandoning those principles.  Ronald Reagan did the former; John McCain and now Newt Gingrich are doing the latter. 

Calling the Republican Congress “right wing” and complicating the ability for Republicans to run on Republican principles disqualifies Newt Gingrich as the Republican nominee for president.  Believe me, Obama knows how to run against a RINO; don’t forget he got elected running against a career RINO.

There are a handful of politicians who truly stand for principles.  Newt Gingrich just proved he isn’t one of them.

Oh, and if the picture of Newt and Nancy sitting in the love seat wasn’t enough to trigger that RINO vomit reflex, try this one with Hillary on for size:

Gingrich, the former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, has been working alongside the wife of former President Bill Clinton, now a Democratic senator from New York, on a number of issues, and even appeared with her at a press conference on Wednesday to promote – of all things – health care legislation.

But more puzzling than that, Gingrich has been talking up Clinton’s presidential prospects in 2008, to the chagrin of conservative loyalists who once regarded him as an iconic figure. Last month, he even suggested she might capture the presidency, saying “any Republican who thinks she’s going to be easy to beat has a total amnesia about the history of the Clintons.”

What gives? For Clinton, standing side-by-side with her husband’s onetime nemesis gives her the chance to burnish her credentials among the moderates she has been courting during her time in the Senate.

But in recent comments, she portrayed the rapprochement as one born of shared policy interests, not calculated politics.

“I know it’s a bit of an odd-fellow, or odd-woman, mix,” she said. “But the speaker and I have been talking about health care and national security now for several years, and I find that he and I have a lot in common in the way we see the problem.”

For his part, Gingrich, who helped lead the impeachment fight against the former president, called the senator “very practical” and “very smart and very hard-working,” adding, “I have been very struck working with her.”

Don’t let that closing door to your political career hit you on the way out, Newt.

Says Nancy Pelosi: ‘The More Americans On Unemployment And Food Stamps, The Better For The Economy.’

October 8, 2010

On the unemployment situation and food stamps, Nancy Pelosi said this:

“It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck,” she said

Pelosi said that for every dollar a person receives in food stamps, $1.79 is put back into the economy.

Apparently, according to the leading Democrat in Congress, if every single American lost their job, and went on unemployment and food stamps, our economy would nearly double overnight, obviously resulting in an immediate recovery.

Which is to say, Obama, Pelosi and Reid should destroy even MORE jobs so that even MORE Americans are on unemployment and food stamps.  The more Americans getting food stamps, the bigger the bang.  And if Democrats get the chance to destroy a few more million jobs, all those millions of people receiving unemployment and food stamps will have our economy raring back in no time due to that zany multiplier effect.

But the problem is, Nancy Pelosi, the Obama administration and the entire Democrat Party are abject fools.  That big bang Nancy thinks she hears is our economy IMPLODING.   As an IBD article points out, even EUROPE now realizes this sort of government spending is counter-productive:

This is the big reason why they’ve made such a mess of the economy. They actually believe the more the government spends, the better off we all are — contrary to all evidence that suggests, in fact, cutting spending would push up economic growth.

The mistakes began as soon as the new administration entered office. Then, two of its main economic advisers, Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, estimated a multiplier effect from government spending of up to 1.55. That is, for every $1 the government spent, the economy would grow by as much as $1.55.

But a study by the International Monetary Fund debunks the idea. As noted by Stanford University economist John Taylor, the IMF study shows a multiplier of just 0.70 — that is, for every $1 the government spends, the economy sees just 70 cents in activity.

This means that government spending crowds out other components of GDP (investment, consumption, net exports) immediately and by a large amount,” wrote Taylor (see chart).

In short, two years of massive government bailouts and the projected surge in spending-driven deficits of as much as $12 trillion over the next decade have done nothing to make our economy healthier.

Instead, we are 3.8 million jobs in the red since President Obama took over. Unemployment remains stubbornly close to 10%, even as the White House touts its “Recovery Summer.”

The International Monetary Fund – which has been a great friend of liberals – utterly contradicts the ridiculous multiplier effect cited by the White House and now by Nancy Pelosi.  A picture is worth a thousand words, in this case:

Democrats are mocking Christine O’Donnell as a witch; but Nancy Pelosi is the real witch, in that she believes she can magically transform a dollar into a dollar seventy-nine – just by blessing it with bureaucratic magic.

And note: “Democrats,” as in Demonic Bureaucrats.

Newt Gingrich rightly wants to contrast Democrats and Republicans as the difference between “the Democratic party of food stamps and the Republican party of paychecks.”  And, as incredible as it might seem, Nancy Pelosi basically agreed with Newt Gingrich.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 530 other followers