ELVISNIXON.COM

The Embarrassment that is NAFTA Newt

2012-02-13T21:42:04Z

It seems that the Newt Gingrich officianados are intent on following a "don't bother me with the facts" stance.

Newt polled less than 6% in Maine. He came in last place. Rick Santorum had nearly three times the votes that Gingrich did. That is an outright rejection of the amnesty hispandering that Newt has been emphasizing in his misguided campaign.

Rasmussen released a poll today showing that Rick Santorum is the only Republican who can beat Obama in a head to head contest.

If Newt were a true conservative and a man of honor he would drop out today and pledge all of his support to Santorum -assuming Newt actually believes Romney is the wrong man for the job- a hard thing to imagine seeing as there is hardly a dimes' worth of difference on policy between them- except on importing illiterate illegal aliens in the midst of an economic crisis- Newt is all for that- Romney is not.

We have pointed out the multiple factors that would lead any reasonable person to conclude that Newt Gingrich by far the worst candidate in GOP field

Gingrich has an abysmal record of throwing fellow conservatives under the bus in favor of enriching himself and preening before the cameras.

Ron Paul was the Texas Chairman for Ronald Reagan back in 1976. Reagan personally taped a glowing endorsement for Dr Paul when he was campaigning in the 1980's. Newt Gingich attempted to put an open borders neoCon up against Ron Paul. If your standard for a candidate is being a genuine "Reagan Conservative" that would mean you must endorse Ron Paul.

I made the following factual statements that were dismissed as something "we can argue about until the cows come home"- actually there would not be much of an "argument" as each statement is a historically accurate truth:

"..Gingrich is a committed globalist who shepherded through GATT and NAFTA for Bill Clinton. These treaties sundered American sovereignty and resulted in the hemorrhaging of millions of manufacturing jobs and the massive influx of illiterate Mexicans whose own traditional economy was shattered as a direct consequence of NAFTA. Gingrich has never once apologized for his vital role in these fiasco and indeed boasts of it.

Did conservatives endorse pro-abortion/pro-homosexual "marriage" candidate Dee Dee Scozzafava over a TEA Party candidate? No. But NAFTA Newt did.

Do conservatives join with Nancy Pelosi endorsing the idea of man made climate change and make commercials on behalf of this sideshow? No, but NAFTA Newt did.

With millions of American citizens out of work and illegals FLOODING the US to take jobs away from unemployed Americans, do conservatives endorse the DREAM Act and amnesty? No, but Newt does. His Hispandering is nauseating.

The list goes on and on. I have not even started on Newt's profiting from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Newt is no conservative.

His erratic behavior and hubris guarantee an election campaign overflowing with gaffes (such as his "moon base" pledge) that will be fodder for the very media Newt disparages.

If anyone ought to drop out, it must be Newt"

To discount the media firestorm that will be unleashed on whoever the GOP candidate will be it is madness to argue that "I do not care about what MSNBC says"- you may not but plenty of ignorant voters do listen to the managed media. Why give them a seemingly deranged candidate with a horribly checkered past?

Gingrich has led his entire public life as a parasite. A parasite on public funding. A parasite who excortiates actual conservatives like Paul Ryan with his infamous "Right Wing Social engineering" remarks- Gingrich is a parasite on the conservative moment.

The man is a phony and the electorate sees him as erratic and un-electable. His win in South Carolina has been repudiated by wide margins. Even his Vegas money base failed to generate any interest in him and his "sugar daddy" Adelson is cutting off the spigot of gambling $.

Newt must go= He is an embarrassment on par with Jeb Bush and Juan McCain.

Ignoring Thirty-One Straight Elections

2012-02-08T16:30:51Z

Steve Sailer points out:

"Obviously, by hook or by crook, gay marriage is going to happen in America, because powerful people want it to happen. Sure, last time I checked, gay marriage had gone 0 for 31 when presented to voters on ballots, but how can something so inherently suspect as "majority rule" be allowed to stand in the way of what has been defined as a "minority right?" Indeed, the very fact that gay marriage lost 31 straight elections proves that it must be imposed. I mean, when you stop and think about it, holding elections and abiding by the results is downright anti-democratic, because the contemporary understanding of democracy is victory for The Good People (i.e., those poor, powerless victims holding the bullhorn) by any means necessary.

Will gay marriage turn out in the long run to have unintended consequences? Yeah, probably. Most things do. Has there been a frank, widespread public discussion to try to anticipate some of those unintended consequences? Of course not. That would be insensitive and thus outside the "bounds of public discourse.""

(Emphasis added)

Same-Sex “Marriage” is Unjust Discrimination

2012-02-07T17:02:17Z

Patrick Lee presents one of the most cogent arguments of all for Natural Marriage over "'gay''Marriage" at the Witherspoon Institute:

The conjugal conception of marriage is just and coherent; the same-sex marriage proponents’ conception of marriage is unjust and incoherent.

The “marriage equality movement”: that’s the name chosen for themselves by same-sex “marriage” supporters. The implicit argument is that the state’s granting marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples is undue discrimination. The claim has an initial plausibility: the state grants a marriage license to John and Mary but not to Jim and Steve. Isn’t that unequal treatment? But this charge, I will show, rests on a profound confusion about both marriage and equality. A state’s recognition that marriage is only between a man and a woman is not unjust. What’s more, a state’s endorsement of same-sex “marriage” does create an arbitrary and invidious discrimination.

A law is unjust only if the distinction it creates is not essentially related to a legitimate purpose of law. But whatever one holds about the morality of homosexual acts, it is clear that the state does have an interest in promoting and regulating marriage as traditionally defined, and that the sexual relationships of same-sex couples are distinct in kind from that. So, even if—contrary to fact—the state did have an interest in promoting same-sex sexual relationships, that interest would be different from the one served by promoting marriage. And so the two types of relationships or arrangements should not be lumped together. Moreover, falsely to equate the two is to obscure the nature of marriage.

What is marriage? The traditional view of marriage is: the union of a man and a woman, who have consented to share their lives, on the bodily (sexual), emotional, and spiritual levels, in the kind of community that would be fulfilled by having and raising children together.

Two points need emphasis here. First, marriage is a bodily union, as well as emotional and spiritual. For in sexual intercourse—which consummates the marital union—the spouses become biologically one: they complete each other to form a single subject of a single biological action, the kind of action that could procreate, provided conditions outside their conduct are present. This biological union (a procreative-type act) embodies their procreative-type union (provided they have consented to share their lives in that kind of union).

Second, marriage is the kind of union whose fruition is procreation. It is the kind of union that would be fulfilled by having and raising children together; the union of the spouses is embodied, prolonged, and enriched by enlarging into family. Still, marriage is not a mere means in relation to procreation, but a sharing of lives (bodily, emotionally, and spiritually) that is good in itself—and so a man and a woman who have consented to such a multi-leveled union are genuinely married, and have an intrinsically fulfilling marital union, even if it turns out they cannot procreate together.

....

Second, while good in itself, and not a mere means to an extrinsic end, marriage also provides the crucial social function of encouraging parents (and potential parents) to commit to each other and to whatever children they may have. A healthy and strong marriage culture will provide the safest and healthiest environment for children. For these reasons it is in everyone’s interest for the state to promote a sound understanding of marriage, and certainly to avoid obscuring its nature.

Since a same-sex couple is unable to form the kind of union marriage is, not granting same-sex couples marriage licenses is simply a decision by the state not to engage in a confusing and harmful fiction. Marriage is a certain kind of union. Denying a marriage license—or the privileges, protections, and obligations of marriage—to those who are unable to marry is not unjust discrimination. The state denies marriage licenses to threesomes or foursomes (refraining from declaring polyamorous groups marriages) and denies marriage licenses to twelve-year-olds (requiring valid consent for a marriage). These denials are not unjust because threesomes, foursomes, and twelve-year-olds are unable to form the kind of union that marriage is. But the same is true of same-sex couples. So, just as the distinction between eighteen-year-olds and twelve-year-olds is relevant to the purpose of marriage—because the former but not the latter are actually able to form the union that is marriage—in the same way, the distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples is relevant to the purpose of the marriage laws, because the former but not the latter can actually form the kind of union that marriage is.

According to same-sex “marriage” proponents, the public interest served by marriage laws is the stability of households. For example, in striking down California’s pro-marriage constitutional amendment called Proposition 8, Judge Vaughn Walker claimed: “The state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of a stable, governable populace.” Stability of households might of course be a legitimate public aim, but laws to promote that (and to provide benefits and privileges for stable households as such) are not marriage laws. Such laws, benefits, and so on, would—if applied justly—have to be given also to groups who do not have sexual relationships and groups not pledging permanence and exclusivity.

Clearly, though, same-sex “marriage” supporters want much more than certain benefits and privileges. Discussion of concrete benefits such as hospital visitation, inheritance rights, and so on, is really a side issue—such benefits could be secured by other means for individuals who need them (for example, a durable power of attorney for health care, a will, etc.). Nor—contrary to how it is usually portrayed—is the same-sex marriage proposal aimed at tolerance, since persons with same-sex attractions are already free to engage in private sexual behavior and to establish for themselves long-term romantic and sexual relationships. Rather, what proponents of same-sex “marriage” principally desire is the social affirmation and endorsement of homosexual relationships as such. Judge Walker indicated this point clearly in his Proposition 8 decision: “Plaintiffs [some same-sex couples] seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships . . . . Perry and Stier seek to be spouses; they seek the mutual obligation and honor that attend marriage.”

So, the proposal is for the state to promote something called marriage, and that marriage is to be understood in a way that will include same-sex partners. This sounds like old news. But what, on their view, is the thing called “marriage,” and why should the state promote it? What distinguishes marital unions from others, such that the state should promote them? One cannot just pronounce that these couples will now count as married; there must be something one means by “being married,” something held in common by all married couples. But the same-sex “marriage” position cannot provide a coherent account of what that something is.

..... In contrast, the conjugal understanding of marriage allows a clear answer to these questions: since marriage is a bodily and procreative-type union, and an irreducible basic good, it is non-arbitrarily distinct from other types of relationships. The promotion of this kind of relationship, for its own sake (because it is a basic good), and for the sake of children generally (since a strong marriage culture provides a safe haven for children), makes it in accord with justice to recognize, as marriage, only a relationship between a man and a woman, pledged to be permanent and exclusive. The conjugal conception of marriage is just and coherent; the same-sex marriage proponents’ conception of marriage is unjust and incoherent.

Patrick Lee is John N. and Jamie D. McAleer Professor of Bioethics at Franciscan University of Steubenville.

Tethered Citizens

2012-02-06T21:07:16Z

The United States is one of the freest countries on the globe, but unless my sensibilities are entirely out of whack, I assert that this country—the country of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Randolph, Calhoun, et al—is not nearly free enough. It isn’t even as free as we think. Can a man or woman truly live here according to conscience? At one time, we could have answered “almost certainly.” Today one’s conscience must be conformed in so many ways to so many things. We are not free, except in the most abstract, academic—and ultimately irrelevant—way. Our spirits are dying: death by a thousand pinpricks. Nay worse, a hundred thousand paper cuts from a faceless bureaucracy! Since Eden, there have been so many constraints on man anyway, without the added coercion of the muscular enforcers of state, whether they enforce the will of the few on the many—or the will of the many on the few! I just wish our government were less concerned for my welfare and more concerned for my freedom. I wish it were less concerned for this collective nonentity called “the people” and more concerned for every single individual, made in the image and likeness of God. I wish the government were less concentrated, had less power and authority, and were more respectful of the natural regions and the natural differences that exist amongst us. I don’t want to cooperate with everybody else, marching off into a global abyss. I JUST WISH THE GOVERNMENT WOULD LEAVE US ALONE.

Of course, you know what they say about wishing in one hand and picking up horse hockey with the other: one hand is likely to get fuller than the other. I reckon the wish must obtain a will and the necessary resources to in fact change things. God help us. Today the federal government literally employs extortion on the States with the money it taxes from us. To make you wear your seatbelt and do a hundred other things, the feds withhold funds from sovereign States, unless and until those States pass particular laws. They did the same thing after the War Between the States: permanent military occupation unless the States would approve certain constitutional amendments. The contexts are indeed different, and there were hard historical and practical realities to settle during the Reconstruction. But is another Robert E. Lee or Jeff Davis left anywhere in this unified, chained and tethered house of ours—locked down from the inside out? Is there a governor with backbone anywhere in the country to point out and even put an end to . . . (shall I name it? Are you willing to recognize it?). Tyranny.

Some of you will say, gosh he’s gone over the top (again). So you think, “I’m free, right?” Not if you think you ought to be in charge of the money you set aside for retirement, or the age you choose to retire. Not if you think you ought to be able to choose when your child goes to school, for how many weeks he or she should study, as well as what subjects. Walter E. Williams reviewed Sheldon Richman’s excellent new book, Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State (available at www.laissezfairebooks.org and www.amazon.com). In the review, he asks “What if you think your child is capable of having a job at age 12, as I was? No dice. The government determines the age at which one can work, and for how long and at what pay.” Andrew Jackson joined the American Revolution at the age of 14, and he was a natural soldier. I’m glad nobody told him No dice, Andy. (He probably would have killed somebody on our side). Of course, I’m not advocating enlistment of child soldiers—just pointing out the arbitrariness of well-meaning rules, forced and enforced down every throat in the country—where no one possesses the slightest degree of discretion and no State retains a sovereign prerogative.

Alexis de Tocqueville predicted Americans would face this kind of despotism, to which democracies are prone—more widespread and milder than other forms, degrading men rather than tormenting them. In his masterpiece Democracy in America, he writes that our leaders are likely to become as schoolmasters. Our government will try to keep us “in perpetual childhood” and will do this by providing security and necessities, assuming responsibility for our concerns, managing our work. He foresaw government, which “gladly works for [‘the people’s’] happiness but wants to be the sole agent and judge of it.” Williams sums up his review with a very insightful comment, that “Democracy gives an aura of legitimacy to acts that would otherwise be deemed tyranny.” Moreover, my fellow tethered citizens, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe observed, there is no one quite as hopelessly enslaved, as the person who thinks he is free but is not!

___________________

Wesley Allen Riddle is a retired military officer with degrees and honors from West Point and Oxford. Widely published in the academic and opinion press, he serves as State Director of the Republican Freedom Coalition (RFC) and is currently running for U.S. Congress (TX-District 25) in the Republican Primary election scheduled April 3, 2012. This article is from his newly released book, Horse Sense for the New Millennium available on-line at www.WesRiddle.net and from fine bookstores everywhere. Email: Wes@WesRiddle.com

How To Be a Racist and Get Away With It

2012-02-04T17:36:31Z

Memphis, Tennessee, media ignore disc jockey Thaddeus Matthews’ racist, abusive insults during his profanity-laced interview with Republican congressional candidate Charlotte Bergmann.

“I’m so sick of your shit, yourself, and I’m about to put your ass up outta here. You are a token negro that white folk have control over. … Get up and get your ass up outta here. Get your stupid, ignorant ass up outta my studio.”—Thaddeus Matthews

As Bergmann was leaving the studio, she extended her hand to the Memphis DJ:

“I don’t need to shake your hand. I’m scared because some of that whiteness might rub off on me.”—Thaddeus Matthews

Matthews’ tirade has garnered attention throughout the blogosphere, but mainstream and local media have ignored it. Bergmann said that no politicians have phoned and no organizations have spoken out expressing their outrage over the DJ’s racist, abusive rant.

“The anger has been expressed throughout the nation, but not in my local … area.”—Charlotte Bergmann, Republican congressional candidate

Bergmann is running in Tennessee’s mostly-black 9th District against Democrat Steve Cohen. Cohen received national notoriety in September 2008 for comparing Obama to Jesus and Sarah Palin to Pontius Pilate.

Cohen is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the first Jew to represent a majority black district. In 2008, he tried to become the first white member of the Congressional Black Caucus, but CBC members didn’t like the idea of a white Jew in their ranks.

Matthews is lucky that he called Bergmann a “curly-haired nigga” and not a “nappy-headed ho, or he’d be in real trouble right now.

I.M. Kane

For more on the story, see Black Republican Charlotte Bergman gets thrown out Radio Studio in Memphis Tennessee 1180 WPLX Host: Thaddeus Matthews.

Black Republican gets thrown out of Memphis Radio Studio 1180 WPLX (part 2) 9:14 Video

NAFTA Newt Must Drop Now!

2012-02-03T19:08:02Z

I am participating in an online debate regarding the nation that Newt Gingrich must drop out of the Presidential race for the good of the nation.Here is my opening salvo:

"...Far too often political debates degenerate into rancorous jeremiads with neither side proving much except their own emotional incontinence.

(My opponent) and I agree one the most important issue of all. Mr Obama is a threat to Christian values and in his arrogance Mr Obama has emboldened our enemies abroad and weakened our nation at home. His judicial appointments have been a catastrophe and his administration is openly hostile to the republican form of government as enshrined in our U.S. Constitution.

The fundamental question is which candidate is best suited to unseat Mr Obama in the upcoming election?

I must state that I am not overly impressed with any of the four remaining GOP candidates. In a nation that is overwhelmingly Protestant, it is peculiar that the political party most strongly associated with evangelical Christians has a Mormon front runner and two Roman Catholics as its top three candidates.

Let's examine the field. I have read Ron Paul's explicit Christian testimony and am heartened by his statements in favor of life and other issue of profound importance to Christian voters. Dr Ron Paul is outstanding in his analysis of the Federal Reserve and Austrian (Free Market) economics, and his domestic policy is overall quite good, but for a variety of issues that deserve a fully developed treatment and analysis, it is perhaps best to say that he has made a few remarks that are "off the reservation" with regard to current mainstream GOP voters. He will not be the GOP nominee (but I believe he can make an important contribution via his delegates at the GOP Convention in Tampa, Florida.) Beyond that it seems that Mr Paul is far and away the dark horse of the GOP field and as such not really a part of the discussion at hand.

That leaves the other three. In an effort to address the most crucial issue before us, how to unseat Obama I will stipulate, for the sake of this debate only, that Governor Romney has some problems.

Having said that, we are left with Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

If we table the viability of Governor Romney, the problem before us is: If not Romney, who?

Realistically, one of the other two should step aside so that the votes of those opposed to Romney may be pooled together. Who must step aside? It must be Newt Gingrich.

I agree wholeheartedly that Mr Gingrich's attacks on the sanctimonious liberal media are delightful to watch but the sad truth is that he is an enormous liability to the Republican Party.

Gingrich claims he is a "Reagan Conservative." This claim has as much validity as Islamo-Atheist Obama claiming that he is a Christian and that the Bible instructs him to raise taxes. Simply making a statement does not make it true.

Mr Gingrich is not a traditional conservative. Conservatives do not leave their wife (suffering with cancer) for another woman and then do the same to wife #2 (who suffered from MS) while carrying on an elongated affair with wife #3. Gingrich libeled his former wife by claiming he had "witnesses" that he never asked for an "open marriage." This defense is absurd on its face. Were these alleged witnesses with him at every moment? Were they privy to his bedroom conversations with his wife? If so, how reliable are their claims?

Even if you believe Gingrich's abandoned wife is a liar, you must face the reality that a triple-marriage career politician is better suited to the party of Clinton than than the Party of Reagan (Yes, Reagan was divorced once. His wife left him- enormous difference).

Can we be so naive as to believe that Mr Gingrich's "friends" in the media will not revisit this sordid affair over and over as he campaigns against beloved Obama?

Gingrich polls in the low 20% with GOP women and even lower among independent women and democrats. There are more women registered to vote in the United States than men. This argument alone ought to be dis-positive on practical grounds.

For the sake of argument, let us continue with Newt's disqualifications beyond his personal moral failings.

Fundamentally, the argument is that Gingrich represents "true" conservative values and Romney does not. The issue then becomes defining what you mean by "conservative."

Gingrich is a committed globalist who shepherded through GATT and NAFTA for Bill Clinton. These treaties sundered American sovereignty and resulted in the hemorrhaging of millions of manufacturing jobs and the massive influx of illiterate Mexicans whose own traditional economy was shattered as a direct consequence of NAFTA. Gingrich has never once apologized for his vital role in these fiasco and indeed boasts of it.

Did conservatives endorse pro-abortion/pro-homosexual "marriage" candidate Dee Dee Scozzafava over a TEA Party candidate? No. But NAFTA Newt did.

Do conservatives join with Nancy Pelosi endorsing the idea of man made climate change and make commercials on behalf of this sideshow? No, but NAFTA Newt did.

With millions of American citizens out of work and illegals FLOODING the US to take jobs away from unemployed Americans, do conservatives endorse the DREAM Act and amnesty? No, but Newt does. His Hispandering is nauseating.

The list goes on and on. I have not even started on Newt's profiting from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Newt is no conservative.

His erratic behavior and hubris guarantee an election campaign overflowing with gaffes (such as his "moon base" pledge) that will be fodder for the very media Newt disparages.

If anyone ought to drop out, it must be Newt."

http://thejimmyzshowblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/debate-newt-gingrich-v-mitt-romney.html

The Cost of Regulation

2012-01-30T23:36:50Z

Regulations exist to ensure that what people do is done a certain way. We don’t want people to erect fences, unless they are so high and made of such and such. We don’t want folks to be able to add on to their houses, unless the additions blend nicely and meet certain safety standards—for people and for wildlife. We sure don’t want someone to invent a craze or gadget that might catch on, unless we determine in advance how the paperwork should be filed, how much it ought to be taxed, who will inspect the item or activity. We don’t even want a few folks to work at all, unless we establish licensing requirements first or mandate membership in some organization.

Regulation in general costs individuals and businesses a lot of money to comply. Costs are passed on to consumers, or else taken in the shorts. Of more concern, according to ABC News reporter John Stossel, is the sheer distraction of creative power. The proverbial bar is raised by regulations, i.e., the threshold for achievement goes harder if not exactly higher. Creative impulses can in fact be thwarted, because regulations distract focus, diffuse effort, discourage risk-taking, frustrate intent, and spend a lot of (life)-time. Thus, things that could be simply aren’t, because the regulatory environment keeps them from being realized—a new engine or energy source perhaps, new medicine, maybe just a better mousetrap. The reason is that an inducement one place is a disincentive someplace else. Regulatory roadblocks and obstacles, including scrutiny, result in a comparative incentive to do something else or to go somewhere else. The implied message is certainly not one for the budding hero. Rather, regulations choke the best and instruct men and women of initiative to take the easier road, the one most traveled. Regulations don’t only depress the economy, they also depress the spirit.

The difference between something regulated and unregulated is in the measure of freedom. Stossel shrewdly observes that,

Visitors to Moscow before the fall of communism noticed a dead-eyed

look in the people. What was that about? I don’t think it was about

fear of the KGB. Most Muscovites didn’t have intervention by the secret

police in their daily lives. I think it was the look that people get when

they live in an all-bureaucratic state. If you go to Washington, . . . you’ll

see the same thing [in government agencies].

In order to get a new drug approved today, it costs $500 million and takes ten years. Thousands die waiting on the approved release of drugs that could be available now. Millions die for want of medicines that won’t be invented soon enough. The simple alternative in the area of medicine, as elsewhere, would be for the government to serve as an information agency and not as a nanny placement service. Did any of you hire the fed to be your babysitter? Sometimes I wonder who/what the government thinks it is! (It ain’t us for sure). Even if we allowed for some (albeit inefficient) government research, information alone would do more to help free people protect themselves than twenty-one warning labels on a stepladder. Indeed, that’s where we as a people may have gone wrong: we value other things now more than freedom it seems. “Give me absolute safety or give me death!”

The Clinton years accelerated a trend from the sixties, when he added 500,000 new pages to the Federal Register—a spider web of new little rules for everyone to obey. Notwithstanding the information age growth during the nineties, the US grew into an economic powerhouse in years when the government didn’t account for as much of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). For most of American history, government’s share of GDP was five percent or less, but today it’s forty percent. Some regulations are necessary, and I don’t mean to categorically denounce them all—indeed, some environmental regulations even lack alternative market incentives. But let’s get off this regulation kick that stifles innovation. Today Los Angeles has the same economic output as all of Russia. Dallas, Texas outranks the whole country of Thailand, in terms of economic output. That should illustrate plain-as-day this important inverse relationship: between the healthier, wealthier societies of the world and those that are corrupt, bureaucratic, and politically controlled. Freedom should never take a back seat to “the good of the people” divined by government. Tell our babysitter she can go home now; we’ve suddenly grown up.

___________________

Newt Obama's America

2012-01-24T21:26:49Z

I have never read a better description of what Los Angeles has become- and what the entire nation will become- if treason lobbyist Newt Gingrich or his ideological twin,B. Hussein Obama win in 2012:

"You do not have to be on board a sinking ship to observe Third World "survivalism"; you need only go to the nearest Third World America barrio or ghetto of the kind burgeoning across our collapsing nation.

There is no "culture" in these places, they are cultureless.

They exist as a mass cesspool of opportunistic hustlers, gangs, crime, and unbearably dull dreariness. Just as in the Third World it is the thug, the popularist vote getter, the purveyor of escapist fantasies that rise to the top.

Life is an unbearably dreary routine of just surviving. Nothing changes, nothing new is created, ever. Everything is utterly predictable and repetitious on the very lowest IQ level. Men are self centered braggart machos, women are chattle to be impregnated ASAP, and children transition from childhood to adulthood with no emotional or intellectual growth. But of course the leftist One Worlder description of all this is "vibrant." The left is good for something sometime. As in Orwell's Ministry of Truth, and Ministry of Love the truth is always in the exact opposite direction from what is being claimed."

Ed. H

How The Gingrich Stole Carolina

2012-01-23T17:15:22Z

Gingrich won South Carolina because of his image as a fighter, a combative champion for a conservative base that has beenradicalized by four years of Obama and is aching for the kind of the hard-hitting campaign John McCain refused to wage.

Gingrich skillfully used the last two debates to win over these angry conservatives. Thus on January 16^th, Juan Williams asked if Newt Gingrich would concede that his comments about blacks wanting “jobs, not food stamps” and “poor kids lack[ing] a strong work ethic” were, at the least, insensitive to black Americans. Gingrich fixed him with the expression of bemused contempt he has come to master and said: “No, I don’t see that.”

The audience, perhaps stunned that he didn’t immediately back down, erupted in cheers. Predictably, Gingrich immediately turned the discussion about the problem of janitors’ unions leading to the downfall of the nation.

Nonetheless, Williams foolishly pressed the point, telling Gingrich that “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”. The crowd erupted in boos. Gingrich again defended himself without retreat, stating “I know that among the Politically Correct you are not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable.”

He received a standing ovation.

Of course, Williams is correct when he casually links the poor and racial minorities. The truly “uncomfortable fact” is the connection between blacks and wildly disproportionate welfare use.

....Gingrich at least didn’t prostrate himself to the usual Republican extent. Earning the condemnation of the affirmative action commentariatwas certainly a badge of honor.

Then Gingrich had a repeat performance at January 19’s CNN debate. Incredibly, he managed to utilize a scandal about his personal life to his advantage. Just before the debate, ABC News resurrected an old story by reporting the former Marianne Gingrich’s allegation that Newt had requested an open marriage so he could carry on his affair with his current wife Callista.

ABC’s decision was despicable for three reasons. First, the network forced an already suffering Republic to consider our triple-chinned former Speaker’s unconventional sex life. Second, ABC was obviously engaging in the kind of shamefully overt bias in reporting that that has turned “liberal media” into a cliché. Finally, and most importantly, the attack enabled Gingrich to exploit the Republican base’s utter contempt for MSM reporters. Many conservatives obviously said “Newt may be a sleaze—but he’s our sleaze”.

CNN’s John King made it easy for Newt by beginning the most recent Republican debate with a question about Gingrich’s marriage and asking if he’d like to comment. Gingrich responded: “No, but I will,” leading to a roar of approval and setting up a lecture by the Speaker on the perfidy of the liberal media that is “protecting” Barack Obama. The crowd ate it up....

....It’s very impressive. But all it means is that Gingrich has accomplished an epic bait and switch of Republican voters.

When even National Review is dedicating entire issues to calling Gingrich a phony, pointing out the holes in Newt’s record seems almost superfluous.

However, it should be noted that Gingrich has been particularly awful on immigration—even during this campaign cycle. Gingrich has given passionate soliloquies about mythical “grandmothers and grandfathers” who allegedly are being deported on a regular basis. Gingrich makes the usual noises about the supposed difficulty of legal immigration. Most bizarrely, he endorses an utterly unworkable system of citizen panels to give illegals permanent residency—seemingly with the goal of keeping illegals in the country to be used for cheap labor but somehow denying them voting rights. Of course, without confronting birthright citizenship, such a proposal does nothing to stop the demographic transformation of America and the eventual extinction of a conservative Republican Party and the historic American nation.

Gingrich also goes above and beyond in the usual pandering and cowardice on race when it comes to policy. He supposedly champions English as an official language—but is a passionate advocate of Puerto Rican statehood. He sponsors Hispanic forums and Spanish language publications that openly call for more immigration into the United States. Significantly, he has earned the support of Somos Republicanos, a supposedly Republican Hispanic group that doesn’t seem to do anything except attack patriotic Republicans. He not only pals around with racial racketeers Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, he attacks even black Republicans who criticize them. He claims to be a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution, but against the wishes of President Reagan, hechampioned sanctions on South Africa, with the absurd rationale that Republicans needed the black vote. (Note: it didn’t work).

And, perhaps more than any other person in this country, Newt Gingrich is responsible for the astonishing conservative retreat on racial preferences and the continued existence of an anti-white racial spoils system in jobs and education.

Gingrich not only does everything he can to destroy his conservative constituency; he has actively attacked leaders like Pat Buchanan who attempt to defend it. Given Gingrich’s self-created view of himself as a world historical figure and “teacher of civilizing principles”, it appears he does not want to challenge the egalitarian zeitgeist but to lead it.

Nonetheless, despite Gingrich’s lifetime of treason, cynicism, and cowardice, grassroots conservatives supported him because of style rather than substance. In the tribal politics of the Republican primary, Gingrich is a champion of the conservative activist against the cosmopolitan elites.

More than that, conservatives view the hysterical charges of racism from the likes of Bill Maher and Andrew Sullivan as proof of Gingrich’s sincerity. The more Gingrich is attacked as a racist, the more conservatives rally to defend him—and paradoxically, the more Gingrich can deviate from even the pretense of standing up for the historic American majority.

Most critically, despite some praise by former Congressman Tom Tancredo, grassroots conservatives have not rallied to Romney. Internalizing the enemy propaganda, grassroots conservatives only seem capable of recognizing and championing immigration patriotism when it is part of a larger combative package. As a result, Romney lost the votes of conservatives but won the votes of liberals, moderates, the rich, and Tea Party opponents. Conservatives want a fighter, not a CEO. As long as a candidate says he is against Obama, they don’t seem to care (or understand) what someone is actually fighting for.

South Carolina was agonizing for immigration patriots. Gingrich has exploited the purely reactionary instincts of the base to seize the mantle of conservative champion.

“True Conservatism” now represents a populist style, rather than a series of principles or policy positions. Absent that kind of confrontational approach, Romney’s relatively strong position on (illegal) immigration is not paying electoral dividends.

The only positive to be found: Republicans are clearly looking for a champion who will scorn the MSM and its shibboleths, attack the President and his assault on traditional America, and dismiss the Republican (and “Conservative”) Establishment that has dictated terms for far too long.

Gingrich, unbelievably, seems to be the only candidate embracing this kind of approach. But it could be more profitably exploited by a populist patriot who cares about his country. Unfortunately, such a figure has not appeared, at least not this election cycle.

Gingrich should be condemned for his hypocrisy and opportunism. But he is not solely responsible for this sorry situation. The Beltway Right has undercut any attempt to make immigration patriotism a plank of movement conservatism and ruthlessly enforced leftist egalitarian dogma within its ranks.

... In Gingrich, they have someone who makes the right noises to the rubes but then carries out the cheap labor agenda of the corporate elite. The rubes have the words, but no action. They have the rhetoric of resistance, but the substance of surrender. Isn’t that what they’ve wanted the entire time?

The real question is whether the conservative grassroots will find out that they’ve been had. And, if so, what they will do about it.

James Kirkpatrick [Email him] travels around the United States looking for a waiter who can speak English and a libertarian who believes in America.

Raven's Suggs Mocks God: Suffers "Coincidence"

2012-01-23T16:44:55Z

Jerry Kane points out the "coincidence" of the arrogant fool Terrell Suggs:

"...(W)e don't pray on the sideline. ... we gonna go out there and win that game. We don't need our kicker to make a 62-yarder. I'm just saying. We don't need guys to fall out of bounds and then we get to punt it back ... we don't need stuff like that to happen for us.
Our quarterback knows how to go out and win games. When our quarterback prays, he be like, 'You know what, ...God, you know what, you sit on your couch and enjoy this. ... I'm gonna impress you.' "--Baltimore Ravens OLB Terrell Suggs on ESPN's First Take a couple weeks ago talking about Denver Bronco Quarterback Tim Tebow.

In the AFC Championship game today, Ravens place kicker Billy Cundiff hooked a 32-yard field goal wide left with 11 seconds left. He had been 16 of 16 in the fourth quarter the past two seasons.

Go figure!

Wide Left, Wide Over: Ravens Lose To Patriots In AFC Title Game

www.wbaltv.com

The Ravens lose to the Patriots 23-20 in the AFC Championship game. Sunday, January 22, 2012.

Joe Paterno and NAMBLA: The "Gay" Agenda

2012-01-22T20:28:56Z

JOE PATERNO was forced out of Penn State after decades of excellence as the Nittany Lions Head Coach.

Why was "JoPa" fired? Because he allowed the weakest, most defenseless in our society to be exploited for the degenerate pleasure of rich and powerful homosexuals.

Sandusky is a male, and he forced young males to have sexual relations with him -- that is by definition same-sex or homo(same) sexual. Why does our media mask the fact by calling him a "pedophile"? He engaged in homosexual pederasty.

What our media is hiding from you is the fact that Paterno was simply following the PC dogma. Paterno refused to be "HOMOPHOBIC." After all, Sandusky just did what LGBT media push- same sex sodomy.

Children in kindergarten in California are now being forced to learn about homosexual "heroes." Why?

Homosexuals are using so-called anti-bullying codes to impose pro homosexual propaganda in teh classroom.

"Gays" have already lowered the age of consent in Canada to 12 years old.

Sandusky is a protected "minority" as a "gay" man.

When homosexual predators start doing this in our post-Obama military, look for cases like this to increase exponentially.

This is highly reminiscent Ft Hood jihadi Nidal Hasan. The Muslim murderer should have been removed from the Army years ago, but fear of being called "Islamophobic" lead to those in authority willfully turning a blind eye to the potential for ghastly crimes. After all "Diversity is Strength" is the mantra that our media brainwashed us to believe.

Make no mistake, Harvey Milk himself marched in San Francisco's "gay" parades along with NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association)

The fact that the homosexual Coach Sandusky was allowed to rape young boys for years and years is a statement about our society's refusal to face the facts about the "gay" agenda.

An even more horrifying possibility :

"Back in April, Pittsburgh radio host Mark Madden wrote a story revealing Penn State for much of the cover-up of Jerry Sandusky's alleged child rape that has been exposed in the past week. While it didn't raise many eyebrows back then, six months later it looks to be incredibly accurate

Madden was asked on The Dennis and Callahan Show what he believes the next piece of news will be.

What he said was twice as shocking as anything that's been released thus far.

"I hear there's a rumor that there will be a more shocking development from the Second Mile Foundation -- and hold on to your stomachs, boys, this is gross, I will use the only language I can -- that Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile were pimping out young boys to rich donors. That was being investigated by two prominent columnists even as I speak."

"My opinion is when Sandusky quit, everybody knew -- not just at Penn State," Madden added. "I think it was a very poorly kept secret about college football in general, and that is why he never coached in college football again and retired at the relatively young age of 55. [That's] young for a coach, certainly."

This is what people like Obama and his supporters are ultimately all about. The weak being exploited by the powerful.

America has forgotten: the moral law is the ONLY thing that protects the weak.