January 26, 2012
Jan 26 02:16 Pelosi contracts Joe Wilson Disease Jan 26 03:09 Newt News 1.26.12 Jan 26 04:33 Sanitizing a Satanic Savior Jan 26 10:37 Romney's chanting points exposed Jan 26 18:53 Conservatism's big guns now trained on Mitt Jan 26 22:01 Tonight's Debate: No real winner
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Pelosi contracts Joe Wilson Disease
When Valerie Plame was all the talk with liberals, conservatives grew tired of Joe Wilson's fabrications. I said at the time that the easiest way to detect whether Amb. Wilson was lying or not was to see if his lips were moving. Based on her bold accusations, then her immediate backtracking on the issue, I'd suggest that the Joe Wilson Rule applies to Nancy Pelosi. Here's Pelosi's disgusting accusation:
When Newt challenged her, saying that she should "bring it on", Pelosi started backtracking faster than I thought an old lady like her could move. Here's Newt's response:
After Newt's response, Team Pelosi went into damage control :
Rep. Nancy Pelosi's office on Wednesday said the minority leader doesn't have any dirt on Newt Gingrich.
Pelosi has suggested in two interviews that she knows something that could prevent Gingrich from becoming president, but her office said the California Democrat doesn't have any secrets about Gingrich, who has shot to the top of national Republican polls after winning the South Carolina primary.
"The 'something' Leader Pelosi knows is that Newt Gingrich will not be President of the United States. She made that clear last night," Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said in a statement.
"Leader Pelosi previously made a reference 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,' Hammill said.
San Fran Nan is a windbag. Tell her to jump on her broomstick and tell her to get the hell back to San Fran.
Tags: Nancy Pelosi , Joe Wilson , Valerie Plame , Plamegate , Democrats , Newt Gingrich , Republicans , Election 2012
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:16 AM
No comments.
Newt News 1.26.12
Reagan's Son: Gingrich Exemplifies My Father's Conservative Principles Lexi Stemple FNC Blog
GOP eyes new faces as Newt Gingrich stays in front Chris Cassidy Boston Herald
Nancy Reagan 1995: Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt William Jacobson Legal Insurrection
2,000 attend as Gingrich fires up crowd at townhall Don Walker Florida Today
Newt Gingrich Takes Obama to Task over Chavez & Castro Andrew O'Reilly FNC Latino
Poll: Gingrich holds tenuous lead in Minnesota Star Tribune
Conservative North Florida voters: Romney's too rich John Sepulvado CNN Radio
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:09 AM
No comments.
Sanitizing a Satanic Savior
I've written about Saul Alinsky , the radical whose teachings inspired politicians like President Obama and Hillary Clinton. This article attempts to sanitize Alinsky's image through omission. Here's an example of that omission sanitization:
Alinsky was known for mobilizing poor people and minorities, getting them to the polls.
"I'm not sure why anyone would think that's bad, unless you're one of the people with power and don't want to give it up," said USF political professor Michael Gibbons.
Gibbons says by mentioning Alinsky's name over and over, Gingrich hopes, perhaps, to try and make Alinsky a buzzword. It was the same kind of thorn in Obama's side during the 2008 campaign when he was associated with ACORN and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
"I think that what Gingrich is counting on is that nobody knows who he is," said Gibbons.
Let's stipulate that "mobilizing poor people and minorities, getting them to the polls" is a good thing if that's the whole story. Unfortunately, Prof. Gibbons omitted some things. This might fill in the holes about Alinsky :
In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace.... "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.' This means revolution." p.3
"Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing." p.6
" A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists . From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism , then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage, the political paradise of communism." p.10
" An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth; truth to him is relative and changing ; everything to him is relative and changing...To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations..." pp.10-11
That isn't the image painted by Prof. Gibbons, is it? In fact, it's dramatically different than the sanitized edition of Alinsky. That's only the beginning, though. There's more:
"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work... The real arena is corrupt and bloody ." p.24
" The means-and-ends moralists , constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive, but real, allies of the Haves : The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means...The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be...." pp.25-26
"The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means..." p.29
"The seventh rule...is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics..." p.34
" The tenth rule...is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments ...It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time...Who, and how many will support the action?...If weapons are needed, then are appropriate weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly..." p.36
Suddenly, Prof. Gibbons' description of Alinsky's tactics sounds more like propaganda than truth, doesn't it? Saying that ethical behavior is situation-based certainly doesn't fit into the teachings of Judaism or Christianity. Apparently, that's the whole point:
Alinsky's tactics were based, not on Stalin's revolutionary violence, but on the Neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist. Relying on gradualism, infiltration and the dialectic process rather than a bloody revolution, Gramsci's transformational Marxism was so subtle that few even noticed the deliberate changes.
Like Alinsky, Mikhail Gorbachev followed Gramsci, not Lenin. In fact, Gramsci aroused Stalins's wrath by suggesting that Lenin's revolutionary plan wouldn't work in the West. Instead the primary assault would be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish. Malachi Martin gave us a progress report:
"By 1985, the influence of traditional Christian philosophy in the West was weak and negligible...Gramsci's master strategy was now feasible. Humanly speaking, it was no longer too tall an order to strip large majorities of men and women in the West of those last vestiges that remained to them of Christianity's transcendent God."
Considering these things, it isn't surprising that this was the dedication for Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:
Opening page - Dedication
'Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history...the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom, Lucifer.'
This isn't the image of Alinsky that Prof. Gibbons painted. Apparently, that was Prof. Gibbons' intent from the outset. More on that later.
The bottom line is that Saul Alinsky was a reprehensible, corrupt human being. There's nothing worthwhile I see in his radicalism.
Tags: Saul Alinsky , President Obama , Radicalism , Marxism , Michael Gibbons , Academia , Democrats , Newt Gingrich , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:33 AM
No comments.
Romney's chanting points exposed
The past few days, Mitt's attempted, as is his custom, to peddle the crap that Newt wasn't a trusted ally of Ronald Reagan. This video puts that BS to rest:
While Newt Gingrich was leading the second wave of the Reagan Revolution, Mitt Romney was distancing himself from the greatest president in my lifetime:
The gutless wimp is now peddling the crap that he's the conservative and that Newt's the moderate. That's crap and he knows it. It's time to tell Mitt that it's time he stopped trying to lie his way into the Oval Office. If he doesn't stop his quasi-civil war against Newt, the TEA Party will rebel against him and let him suffer a defeat.
After all, it isn't like TEA Party activists feel affection or affinity for Mitt.
Mitt's desperate lies are being repudiated by people like Nancy Reagan . They're getting repudiated by Michael Reagan . Here's what Michael said when he endorsed Newt:
I am endorsing Newt Gingrich for President and here's why:
Newt understands that we must reject and fundamentally change the course that Barack Obama has set for America.
Newt is our only chance in 2012 to contrast a Reagan conservative with Obama's European' styled socialism. Newt exemplifies the conservative principles my father championed. Strong national defense, lower taxes and smaller government.
In the 90's Newt's leadership brought us the Contract with America which changed Washington. I'm confident Newt can do it again.
We cannot afford a candidate backed by the same Washington insiders who repeatedly tried to undermine my father and the Reagan revolution.
It's time to choose.
Do we go forward with bold ideas or continue with failed policies? So I ask my fellow Republicans and conservatives to join me in supporting Newt Gingrich for president.
Here's what Michael Reagan said in a tweet he posted last Friday:
In the Race for the WH I would rather go dwn swinging with Newt then stuttering with Romney..After 5 yrs MR should be able to debate!
The two people nearest to Ronald Reagan both praise Newt Gingrich. Nancy Reagan said that "Ronnie" passed the torch he'd received from Barry Goldwater onto Newt. Michael Reagan said that "Newt exemplifies the conservative principles my father championed. Strong national defense, lower taxes and smaller government."
Meanwhile, Mitt couldn't run from Ronald Reagan fast enough.
The general election won't be time for choosing between President Obama's Alinskyite radicalism or Reaganite conservatism if Mitt's the nominee. It will be if Newt's the nominee.
Before the nominee is picked, though, it's a time for choosing between whether the GOP will revert to the Establishment GOP or Ronald Reagan's GOP.
This isn't a difficult choice. Picking Mitt is like picking John McCain without the war medals.
Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator , Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit , William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection and I are leading the fight to prevent the anti-TEA Party candidate, Mitt Romney, from getting away with telling the biggest whoppers in GOP history.
This isn't a formal coalition. It's just that, in my daily trip through the rightosphere, it's pretty obvious that we're leading the fight against Mitt's disgusting behavior.
Join us in rejecting the Establimentarian thinking that told us our core beliefs couldn't get people elected. In 2010, We The People proved those chanting points false. Join us in fighting for the first principles that made this a great nation.
Tags: Ronald Reagan , Nancy Reagan , Michael Reagan , Endorsements , Barry Goldwater , Jeffrey Lords , Newt Gingrich , TEA Party , Mitt Romney , Establishment , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:36 AM
Comment 1 by peggy jane at 26-Jan-12 06:10 PM
Romney lies through his teeth and needs to be stopped in his ugly tracks. Go Newt go.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Jan-12 06:22 PM
Peggy, Stop back in 20 minutes. I'm putting together a post that'll blister Mitt's backside & set the record straight on who's the conservative & who's the fraud.
Conservatism's big guns now trained on Mitt
Mitt Romney's vicious, coordinated attacks on Newt have pissed off awakened conservatism's biggest voices. Check out this article and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about:
Even Rush Limbaugh, shocked by the Romney claims, chimed on his Thursday radio broadcast to say "This is obviously a coordinated attack to take Newt out here in Florida."
Rush slammed the Romney-backed smear campaign against Newt.
'That kind of stuff is why people hate Romney so much," Limbaugh said.
Limbaugh added that Newt has always been a conservative from his early days in national talk radio in the 1980s.
'He was perhaps the premier defender of Ronald Reagan,' Limbaugh said.
That's only part of the anti-Mitt response. Here's what Michael Reagan said in his official statement:
'I am deeply disturbed that supporters of Mitt Romney are claiming that Newt Gingrich is not a true Reaganite and are even claiming that Newt was a strong critic of my father.
'Recently I endorsed Newt Gingrich for president because I believe that Newt is the only Republican candidate who has both consistently backed the conservative policies that my father championed and the only Republican that will continue to implement his vision.
'It surprises me that Mitt Romney and his supporters would raise this issue - when Mitt by his own admission voted for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale who opposed my father, and later supported liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas for president .
'As governor of Massachusetts, Romney's achievement was the most socialistic healthcare plan in the nation up until that time.
'Say what you want about Newt Gingrich but when he was Speaker of the House he surrounded himself with Reagan conservatives and implemented a Ronald Reagan program of low taxes and restrained federal spending.
'Newt's conservative program created a huge economic boom and balanced the budget for the first time in more than a generation.'
Mike Reagan concluded: 'I would take Newt Gingrich's record any day over Mitt Romney's.'
The message is unmistakeable. Mitt didn't just go too far. He didn't just say something that needed correcting. Mitt's vicious, dishonest attacks have gone far beyond anything that these conservative giants will accept.
Michael Reagan and Rush Limbaugh aren't bit players in the conservative movement. In many ways, especially in the pre-TEA Party days, they were, along with Newt, the heart and soul of the conservative movement's idea factory.
While Rush was building the 'product' that is now the dominant conservative media empire, Mitt was telling Massachusetts voters that he'd been an independent during Reagan-Bush and that he wasn't "looking to return to the days of Reagan-Bush."
Suddenly, Mitt's deciding to run for president and -- Presto Change-O -- Mitt's a card-carrying member of the Reagan fan club, not to mention suddenly being a Lifetime Member of the NRA. Mitt the conservative is a joke and a hoax.
I'd say that Mitt's a northeastern liberal Republican, not a conservative connecting with voters in America's Heartland except that that isn't telling the whole truth. Mitt's a dishonest northeastern liberal whose team did some selective editing to make it sound like Newt was bashing Reagan. Here's the truth about that :
The C-SPAN video, titled 'Newt Gingrich bad-mouths Ronald Reagan in 1998' on YouTube, was part of a huge coordinated campaign against Gingrich that was launched on Thursday, five days ahead of the vital Florida primary.
But it cuts off before Gingrich explains what he means.
In the portion shown on YouTube, Gingrich talks about the Republican Party's chances after Reagan leaves office. 'On Election Day, the American people, given a choice of more of eight years or something new, will vote for something new,' he said.
But what the clip does not show is Gingrich's rationale behind his statement, which shows he was not bashing Reaganism, but merely suggesting that then-Vice President George Bush needed to take it forward.
The entire clip, which was discovered by the website RiehlWorldView, shows Gingrich going on to say he wanted 'A Republicanism of the '90s that builds on Reaganism, but goes beyond Reaganism.'
He continues, 'This is the country where 'new' and 'improved' are the two most powerful words in advertising,' and says if the two candidates in the 1988 election had similar stances and were equally 'pleasant' the Democrat would win simply because it would signify change.
Mitt Romney needs to be drummed out of the Republican Party. He's ruthless. He's dishonest. He's liberal. (That's right. I don't believe a split second of his I'm-a-conservative schtick.) He's surrounded himself with parasites like Ann Coulter, with people looking for their next government job (TPaw) and other northeastern liberals like Chris Christie.
Mitt Romney's days are numbered. Now that Michael Reagan and Rush Limbaugh have trained their sights on him, it's time to get out the butter because Mitt's toast. Newt's got Michael Reagan, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin on his side. Mitt's got Hugh Hewitt, Chris Christie and Little Annie Coulter.
That isn't a fair fight. That's why Mitt's desperate.
Tags: Rush Limbaugh , Michael Reagan , Mark Levin , Ronald Reagan , Newt Gingrich , Conservatism , Mitt Romney , Liberalism , Chris Christie , Ann Coulter , Hugh Hewitt , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:53 PM
No comments.
Tonight's Debate: No real winner
Early in the night, I was prepared to say that Mitt was going to win this debate. Later in the debate, I thought Rick Santorum did well, especially at expense of Romneycare's individual mandate. Sen. Santorum's exchange exposed Mitt's weaknesses on the issue.
Ron Paul had an up and down night. When they talked about Central American issues, Paranoid Ron appeared. After Sen. Santorum talked about strengthening relations with Central and South America, partially to help America prosper, partially to control Cuba's and Venezuela's influence, Paul went into his usual 'we can't afford more wars' paranoid trance.
Sen. Santorum handled it smoothly, saying "I don't know which question you were listening to but it wasn't mine."
Newt didn't have a strong opening, getting hit harder on Fannie and Freddie than Mitt. That said, Mitt stepped in it when he called Newt "a spokesman for Fannie and Freddie." Newt immediately pounced on that, characterizing that as utter fabrication.
While Mitt opened strong, he ended weak, especially when he admitted that Newt really was the heir to the Reagan legacy. It didn't help Mitt to hear that Michael Reagan would be campaigning with Newt this weekend. This essentially trashes the advertising Mitt's currently running.
Bill at Legal Insurrection noted something else that's bound to hurt Mitt:
A lot of discussion of immigration, back and forth between Newt and Romney, they each hit some singles, no extra bases.
Romney denied knowledge of running an ad saying Gingrich referred to Spanish as the language of the ghetto. Here's the ad, right on his campaign website . Blitzer then hammered Romney by pointing out it's his ad and at end he says he approved it. Good moment for Newt.
Tonight's debate isn't a gamechanger for anyone. Sen. Santorum did well but he ended sounding like a sourpuss again.
The other thing that won't get alot of play tonight was Mitt's admitting that he'd changed his immigration policy since criticizing Newt's immigration policy. Tonight, Mitt admitted that Newt's idea that we wouldn't deport people who've been here 25 years was humane. A month ago, Pandering Mitt said that that was creating a magnet.
If you didn't like the Mitt you saw tonight, wait a week. He'll change. Except when it comes to defending his indefensible Romneycare plan.
Tags: Debates , Newt Gingrich , Fannie , Freddie , Reagan , Conservative , Mitt Romney , Flip-Flops , Immigration , Negative Ads , Corruption , Goldman Sachs , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:01 PM
Comment 1 by Joe at 27-Jan-12 11:24 AM
No comments allowed?
Comment 2 by Joe at 28-Jan-12 07:57 PM
I and many others thought that Ron Paul won the debate. I don't know where you saw paranoid Ron. I thought he was spot on with Cuban policy. The embargo has been in place for 50 years. How long do we have to wait for it to work? 50 more?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 28-Jan-12 11:40 PM
I saw Paranoid Ron ramble on about how Sen. Santorum was beating the drums of war after Sen. Santorum talked about strengthening diplomatic & economic ties with Central & South America in general & Columbia in specifics. When did Paranoid Ron think that strengthening economic & diplomatic ties equaled beating the drums of war?
There's only one explanation: Paranoid Ron heard what he wanted to hear instead of hearing what was actually said.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 31-Jan-12 12:11 AM
What do you think strengthening diplomatic ties means? It isn't just about sitting down for tea more often. It's talking through security issues that must be addressed.
Letting Venezuela have nukes is something that must be prevented at all costs. RP hasn't shown any concern for that.
That means 'constitutionalist' RP is willing to ignore the most important affirmative responsibility given to presidents.
Pick-and-choose constitutionalists aren't what I'd call true constitutionalists.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 31-Jan-12 10:49 PM
Joe, Pacifists don't make good commanders-in-chief. RP is a pacifist.
