The Top 10 Things That “Environmentalists” Will Soon Make Us Do (by ContraSuggest)

10.  Institute “National Hold Your Breath Day”:  You’ll never guess what evil substance human beings release into the atmosphere each time we exhale.  If you’re thinking CO2, give yourself a pat on the back.  Imagine if everyone riding along on Mother Earth were to hold his or her breath for just 10 minutes.  What a difference we could make; write your congressmen and get the ball rolling, this could be the greatest thing since Hootie said, “Give a hoot, don’t pollute!”

9.     Live with Farm Animals/Plant and Grow Trees Indoors:  It’s a known fact that human beings are destroying our beautiful planet.  We crowd animal species right out of their habitats and into extinction; we cut trees down by the millions, decimating Mother Earth’s delicate ecosystem.  Now, the perfect solution: plant redwoods in your living room and take on a gator as your roommate.  Just remember the importance of all those wonderful things that nature provides us with, like: Tsunamis, erupting volcanoes, Bubonic Plague, and poison ivy!  Good ole Mother Earth

8.    Virtual Meat-Eating:  An on-line game in which the player portrays a character that “eats” lots of meat.  This way we can get carnivorous urges out of our systems in cyberspace while at the same time, saving cows and chickens in the real world.  If the statists have their way, we may not be able to eat cows, but soon we’ll be able to marry them

7.    Eat Styrofoam:  Preliminary studies show that although Styrofoam is harmful to our precious planet, it’s non-toxic when ingested by us horrible humans.  Yes, we can use our own bodies to recycle cups and plates!  So the next time you’re at the family barbeque, consider skipping the pie and pudding for desert and eat a Styrofoam plate or cup instead.  Recycle that nasty Styrofoam into harmless poop!

6.    Kill The Whales:  Did you know that plankton helps rid the oceans of that hateful Devil Gas, CO2.  That’s right, but did you also know that whales love to eat plankton?  How can that marvelous plankton continue to do Mother Earth’s work while being devoured by whale?  Easy solution- kill ‘em all (the whales that is)

5.    Compost our Poop:  Composting toilets are all the rave, they recycle pooh-pooh into, well, symmetrical blocks of pooh-pooh.  We’re not sure exactly why, but when you’re helping the environment, who needs an explanation?  Sure your house will smell like a New Jersey land fill, but isn’t a stench that could knock a buzzard off a shit truck from a hundred yards away worth the benefit of saving the environment?  The answer is an inconvenient truth

4.    Make Love to Blow-Up Dolls (or at least use condoms):  By now we all know that humans suck.  There simply needs to be less of us so we stop defiling our pristine planet.  If more people would just exercise their libidinous energies on blow-up love dolls we could reduce our population.  If you can’t manage this, at least use condoms (especially if you’re under the age of eleven).  I mean, abortion is great and all, but we need to do more

3.    Extinguish Burning People with Dirt:  Can anyone guess what substance is in many fire extinguishers?  That’s right, dreaded CO2!  Let’s outlaw these things quick, Mother Earth hangs in the balance.  In the meantime, if someone’s on fire, just throw dirt on ‘em, it’s worth a few layers of skin in order to not release extra CO2 into the atmosphere

2.    Insert Butt-Plugs:  As you know CO2 is the greatest threat to the Earth since Y2K.  Guess what flatulence releases into the atmosphere?  I’ll put it this way: we ain’t fartin’ roses.  So save the environment- assume the position!

1. Kill Ourselves:  Humans are, in the end, just an infestation on this planet, with less of a right to be here than fungus, bacteria, ticks, and lizards.  It’s already OK to kill unborn babies and old people (which shows how sophisticated and advanced we can truly be); at the same time we shouldn’t deter everybody else from making sacrifices for our beautiful planet.  So save the planet; kill yourself!

Environmental Disclosure Statement:

***No trees were harmed in the sending of this message.  However, an extremely large number of electrons were highly inconvenienced***

Pilgrim’s Progress: My Journey Home to the Catholic Church (by ContraSuggest)

Looking back at my life, I don’t think there was ever a time when I learned anything important through conventional means.  As a kid, my grades in school were pretty decent overall, but by the time I crammed my brains out, passed the tests and graduated, I was an exhausted nervous wreck, and my ability to retain knowledge ranked up there with that of a lab rat.  Not until much later did I discover that I was best able to learn only slowly, on my own, through independent study.  As a kid, my inability to retain academic knowledge stood side by side with ignorance of my religious faith.  Furthermore, I thought that anyone who practiced so-called “organized religion” was basically a douche-bag.  Oh how I detested those pushy, self-righteous, over zealous religious lunatics, who were going to convince me that I faced eternal damnation in the pits and bowels of Hell, lest I immediately repent and turn myself over to Christ!  These boobs were able to gain access to my attention through several different means.  The main avenue of access was the television airwaves.  Having spent the better part of my childhood in front of the tube, I received quite a large dose of “televangelism” in between reruns of Star Trek and the Odd Couple.  These televangelist guys, mostly dressed in dark three-piece suits, always seemed to be yelling at the tops of their lungs and foaming at the mouths.  Every now and then they’d work themselves up into such a lather that tears would stream down their faces.  Suffice to say that these various televangelists all seemed like babbling lunatics to me and so, I thought, the most unlikely messengers of Christ that I could conceive.  Another method used by the minions of religious conversion was to set out on Sunday mornings pounding the pavement, going from house to house to spread the word of the Lord.  So while your bacon and eggs were getting cold, these dapperly dressed automatons would take to buzzing around your front porch, quoting scripture, refusing to leave until you agreed to take some of their omnipresent literature for later reading.  I tried everything to keep these religious Amway salesmen away from the house, including keeping all the doors and windows closed, turning on the lawn sprinklers (making sure that they were aimed squarely at the front porch).  I tried letting the dog out with no leash, and some even more radical measures, like telling them (with a straight face) that our family were worshipers of mighty Satan and so could not possibly have any use for Christianity.  Although each method was effective to varying degrees, the situation was always uncomfortable, and those people always managed to piss me off.

I certainly had a lot of frustration and anger towards the world of religion back then, even my own church was not immune from the harshest of my criticisms.  I was raised in a not so devout Roman Catholic family; since I attended public schools, I had to receive religious instruction on Sundays and in the evenings, received my first communion, was confirmed, but attended Mass sporadically.  During my formative years, though I always remained respectful of Jesus Christ, there weren’t many positive things I had to say about the Church.  Mass was too long, boring, and annoying (sit-stand-kneel-repeat), the liturgy incomprehensible (the Catholic missal might as well have been written in Klingon), most churchgoers looked like a bunch of mindless zombies, some parishioners observed various customs while others did not, etc.  As I got older these resentments grew stronger, and learning about the politics and scandals within the Catholic Church (always from secular, anti-Catholic sources, mind you) including infidelities on behalf of some priests, helped to reinforce all my negative feelings.  Taking some crash courses in world history (again, from anti-Catholic sources) I discovered that the Church had been the progenitor of many a bloodbath: the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the improprieties that made the Reformation necessary, just to name a few.  The “proofs” of science seemed to disprove the literalness of many biblical events.  I proceeded to enter a period of great doubt, never questioning the existence of a God, but believing God to be something other than what Christendom claimed Him to be, and thinking Christianity to be nothing more than a quaint and convenient mythology.

As the years wore on I pictured myself to be on a course moving farther and farther away from my Catholic faith.  Who needed organized religion and all the scandal and guilt that went along with it?  The dastardly cartoon image of the Church, viewed through the lens of our destructive secular culture, was a perfect fit with my cynical immaturity.  I had a habit of siding with anyone who had even the slightest beef with the Vatican, imagining the Church to be a cross between the Mafia and the evil M.A.D. organization from the Inspector Gadget cartoons.  I drifted in a nebulous void for years; reading, contemplating, and searching.  I read books and pamphlets on just about every other belief system known to man: Christian Gnosticism, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, I Ching, Shinto, Mithraism, Kaballah (aka Jewish Gnosticism), Ceremonial Magic, Wicca, Astrology, and the list of drivel went on and on.  There were few I hadn’t heard of or read something about, but none of them could fill the void that I felt in my heart and in my soul.  I viewed religion as something that you kept tucked away in your pocket, to be taken out as a crutch at funerals, merely to be tucked away afterwards out of embarrassment.  I just couldn’t understand the concept of faith: believing in something with all your heart when most of the salient facts told you otherwise. Taking things “on faith” seemed to me like a fool’s pursuit; I wanted truth, and to me truth meant possessing the cold, hard facts, not some fuzzy, illogical belief in something that I couldn’t perceive with my five senses. 

But things are not always as they seem, as I came to realize that the course leading me away from the Catholic Faith was more akin to that of a boomerang than a bullet.  For so long I assumed the grass to be greener on the other side of the religious fence.  However, when looking at the unmolested historical record, it becomes clear that Catholic Doctrine, although based upon faith, is invariably consistent with reason, history and scientific inquiry (for a thorough exposition on this topic, see my post of 12/26/2011 titled, Merry Christmas and a Defense of the Catholic Faith linked here: http://contrasuggest.blogspot.com/2011/12/merry-christmas-and-defense-of-catholic.html).  Throughout my long period of disillusionment there were two people, both practicing Catholics, who helped to guide me back home.  One was my mother; the other my oldest friend; they were always there as gentle defenders of the faith, sounding boards, and shoulders to cry on in my spiritual frustrations.  They continually showed me a side of Catholicism that was inconsistent with the presumptuousness that I attributed to it.  Never did they dismiss me out of hand, never did they back away from me, and rarely, if ever, did they exhibit the smug sanctimoniousness that I at times engaged in.  They nearly always showed patience and tolerance for my dissenting views of the Church, no matter how harsh and disrespectful those views were.  And in attempting to answer some of my often very tough questions, they taught me, through example, one of the key exponents of faith: never be afraid to say, “I don’t know the answer,” while still maintaining your belief.  Somehow they just knew that I would eventually return, and they made that prognostication without consulting the Psychic Friends Network, a deck of Tarot Cards, or even the much-revered Magic Eight Ball.  Without their prayers and patient support, my journey would certainly have been a longer and harder one.  And, lucky for me, I married a fantastic woman who happened to be on a similar journey, which allowed the two of us to return to the Church together.  I know that I speak for her as well when I say that it feels great to be home.  And so I encourage all cradle Catholics who have drifted from the faith to fairly reexamine the Church; you’ll be pleasantly surprised at what you discover.     

Beyond the Shrouds of Islam (by ContraSuggest)

On several occasions I have been asked to explain my critical views of Islam.  Although I have done so in private letters and communications, I have never posted a blog on the subject.  Since most Americans, and the major media outlets that Americans look to for their information, continually display ignorance about the history and disposition of Islam, I felt it was time to broach the subject here at the OTPE.  Before I begin, there are two things I’d first like to get out of the way.  One, I harbor no ill will towards law abiding Americans who happen to be Muslims.  Two, I do not believe that President Obama is a Muslim.  It’s a shame that I have to state these things up front, but I strongly suspect that I’ll be accused of believing them somewhere down the road.  What you’re going to get here is a fact-based, historical analysis regarding the main problems with Islam, unknown to the average American.  I’ll begin with Islam’s version of Holy Scripture:

Foundational Texts of Islam:

Koran (or Qur’an) (Words of Allah)

Sira (Life of Mohammed)

Hadith (Traditions of Mohammed)

These are the three sources from which all Islamic belief is drawn; although the media only speaks of the Qu’ran, the Sira and Hadith are perhaps more important, for they provide the only context within which the Qu’ran can be properly understood.  Now let’s dive right into the three things that I believe most people don’t know about Islam, but should:

1. In theory and in practice, Islam is more of a socio-political ideology than a religion
2. Islam is the only one of the world’s major “religions” that does not have a version of the Golden Rule
3. Islamic thinking uses a kind of dualistic logic that is alien to our Western thinking

I’ll briefly touch on each of these three points. 

(1) Radical political Islam has existed ever since the 7^th century when predatory Muslim hordes first issued forth from Arabia, unprovoked, in order to conquer a decaying Byzantine world.  The Christian Middle East, Northern Africa, and Western Europe were ferociously invaded and conquered by Muslim armies, 200 years before the first Christian Crusade was launched.  The unrelenting jihad has continued, almost unabated, for 1400 years, claiming nearly 300 million lives.  In any country or province where brutal Muslim law (Sharia) is practiced, it is used as an alternative to other systems of law and other forms of government (which makes its implementation anywhere in the U.S. a serious threat to our secular rule of law and representative government).  Muslim law distinguishes itself from other forms of government to such a degree as to reveal its political nature. 

The great theorist of The Muslim Brotherhood, Sayyid Qutb provided this instructive quote in 1948:

“We only have to look in order to see that our social situation is as bad as it can be.  …we continually cast aside all our own spiritual heritage, all our intellectual endowment, and all the solutions which might well be revealed by a glance at these things; we cast aside our own fundamental principles and doctrines, and we bring in those of democracy, or socialism, or communism.”

^(Source: Quote- Social Justice in Islam, translated by John B. Hardie and Hamid Algar, revised edition, Islamic Publications International, 2000, pg. 19).

If Islam is not a political doctrine then why does Qutb juxtapose it with other forms of government rather than other religions?  He is in effect admitting that Islam is a political doctrine.  Oh, and by the way, political Islam, rather than religious Islam, makes up the largest part of subject matter in Islam’s foundational texts. 

 

(2) Every one of the world’s major religions has some version of the Golden Rule, namely, the concept that one should “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  Every religion, that is, with the exception of Islam.   Over the centuries, the Catholic Church has been the greatest promoter of the natural rights doctrine (outlined and defended by Aquinas and many others); and the United States of America was founded upon that same doctrine.  It holds that all people, regardless of creed, color, national origin or social standing, are equal in the eyes of the creator, and possess unalienable rights upon birth (see the second paragraph of The Declaration of Independence for the most eloquent statement concerning these rights).  In Islam there is a set of rules that applies to believers and another set that applies to unbelievers.  One may not lie, cheat, murder or steal from a fellow Muslim; but doing those things to non-Muslims is not only permissible but encouraged, this is clearly outlined in the Hadith.  Westerners regularly fail to live by the Golden Rule, but it is the standard by which we are judged and the ideal which we aspire to; there simply is no corresponding doctrine or belief in Islam.

(3) When faced with two statements that contradict each another, Western logic informs us that at least one of those statements must be false.  Not so with Islamic dualistic logic.  The Muslim holy books are filled with glaring contradictions that make the Bible look like a Nobel-winning chemistry dissertation, in terms of its consistency.  The Qur’an contains the words of Allah, as told to us by his one and only profit Mohammed.  Since Allah is perfect, everything that he says is the unimpeachable truth.  Therefore, if one sura (chapter) of the Qur’an says that unbelievers should be shown tolerance and left to their own devices; and another sura says that the unbelievers should have their heads and the tips of their fingers cut off; in Islamic thinking, both are considered true!  I expect that the “moderate” Muslims that the media always tells us about choose to adhere to the former sura; Islamic fascists, like Osama bin Laden and Kalid Sheik Mohammed, choose to adhere to the latter.  But there are further twists: firstly, the vast majority of the statements concerning unbelievers in the Muslim holy trilogy are of an intolerant, violent nature; only a small minority of them urge tolerance.  Then there’s the Islamic doctrine of “abrogation.”  The Qur’an’s moderate suras were written in Mecca, before Mohammed and his followers were forced to flee that city; the intolerant suras were written later when Mohammed settled in the city of Medina. The doctrine of abrogation in Islam holds that the later writings take precedence over the earlier writings.  So the harsher, more intolerant suras take precedence over the earlier, more tolerant ones. The sad truth is that there is far more in Muslim holy writings, history, and tradition that inspire the bin Ladens of the world than the Muslim moderates of the world.

Finally, it’s rather clear to see that whatever brutal, regrettable actions have been taken throughout history by some adherents to the world’s non-Muslim religions; with very few exceptions, those actions were in violation of those various religions’ tenets.  The opposite is true of Islam; this is the historically verifiable legacy of jihad.

Fact Sheet: Obama vs. Gingrich on Healthcare (by ContraSuggest)

For years, Newt supported the individual mandate that would require, under penalty of a fine, all citizens to purchase some form of health care insurance.  It was a stupid thing to have advocated, but he has publically admitted that it was a mistake and has since changed his position.  Rick Santorum, who happens to be a very good conservative candidate, greatly exaggerates when he points out that Newt’s former stance on individual mandate would preclude him from effectively critiquing Obamacare.  Newt was one of the leaders in the fight to stop Obamacare’s predecessor: Hillarycare.  The health care proposals put forth by Gingrich in the past have been consistent, with the sole exception of individual mandate; the rest of the measures that he called for were designed to empower the free-market, not the federal government, which is the antithesis of Obamacare.  I have bulleted out the main points below so readers can decide for themselves.  Newt has never supported any of the other disastrous measures that make up Obamacare, such as:

• The creation of at least two-dozen new bureaucratic, taxing and regulating offices, councils, groups, and programs
• Gauging “comparative effectiveness,” which will bring about rationing, ill-health, and in some cases, death
• Trillions of dollars worth of tax increases on nearly every aspect of the health care industry; costs that will either be paid by or passed onto consumers
• A $500 billion cut in Medicare
• Total exclusion of medical malpractice reform
• A legislative pogrom against insurance companies
• Bribes, payoffs and threats to coerce legislators into voting for a bill that the public did not support; dirty machine politics on an order of magnitude that was shocking (even by sleazy Washington standards!)

Gingrich offers these solutions, absent the individual mandate:

• Elimination of waste and fraud that costs taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars per year.  Medicare fraud is largely enabled by the current paper-based system of billing and record keeping; implementation of electronic third-party liability verification and payment would save billions.  Similarly, as 90% of all medical claims are paid by printing paper checks that are delivered by mail, transitioning to electronic payment would save an estimated $11 billion a year       
• Reform the bureaucratic disaster that is the FDA by streamlining the process of approving new drugs and treatments by relying on true scientific applications rather than endless analysis via bureaucratic red tape
• Extending the same favorable tax treatment enjoyed by those covered under employer provided plans to individuals who purchase their own health insurance
• Encourage health plan portability and competition in the free-market by repealing the laws that prevent insurance companies from doing business across state lines
• Allow small businesses to band together and form associations, enabling them to purchase less expensive employee insurance plans
• Give taxpayers access to the healthcare data (not privileged patient information) that their money has allowed the government to compile, allowing them to be better-educated, healthier consumers
• Encourage preventative rather than acute care by reforming the Medicare doctor reimbursement equation.  Currently, doctors only get paid for office visits; not, for instance, counseling patients via phone or e-mail regarding healthy behavior, how to lower their drug costs, or how to comparison cost shop online
• Encourage a private-sector-led best-practice initiative that educates the health care industry regarding documented, evidence-based best practices that work and will promote massive cost savings
• Empower states to better manage their Medicaid programs, because they better understand the health care needs of their citizens than do Washington pols

Moderate Mittsy Wins Florida and Nevada; Gingrich Campaign Floundering (by ContraSuggest)

Newt’s debate performances have clearly had a bearing on his caucus and primary showings.  The cycle is now familiar: low poll numbers, followed by great debate performances are followed by better than expected primary showings.  The same linkage proved to hold in Florida; unfortunately for Gingrich, after winning upwards of ten Republican presidential debates in a row, he finally had two consecutive poor showings just prior to the Sunshine State tally.  Not to mention the fact that Newt was besieged by zillions of dollars worth of negative attack ads.  Moderate Mittsy took it to Gingrich hard during the CNN encounter on 1/26, scoring multiple debating points.  Gingrich seems to be in a weird place right now.  For some reason he thinks he can release media adds ripping Mittsy without having to defend the charges in detail during the course of the debates.  Newt seems to have lost his stomach for the hand-to-hand combat required to back up the anti-Mitt charges put forth in his ads.  He must understand that if he’s going to make scathing criticisms of an opponent, then he needs to get his facts straight and stick to his guns, if not, then keep his trap closed.  He looked exhausted, and lately, less capable of delivering the impassioned, eloquent and forceful anti-liberal-establishment flurries that have electrified debate audiences and gained him the respect and support of Republican primary voters.  My advice to Newt: after Florida and Nevada, take a few days off to recharge your batteries, watch a recording of the CNN debate, like a boxer watches a fight that he’s lost, pinpoint your weaknesses and come to the next debate loaded for bare.  Stop whining about Mttsy’s negative ads and start defending yourself against them.  If you can’t take this kind of pounding, what the hell will you do against Obama’s leftist mafia?  You’d better toughen-up and revert back to the winning strategy you employed in South Carolina before it’s too late!      

Now some advice for Governor Blake Carrington: get a life you big phony!  Were you kidding when you said that your investment in Freddie Mac is not hypocritical, after flaying Newt for accepting paychecks from them?  Oh wait; your zillions are invested in a blind trust, which, of course, makes it all better.  So let me get this straight Thurston, if it was discovered that you were invested in a Guatemalan teen-prostitution ring, you could escape criticism by simply saying your money was in a blind trust?  What a total crock!  If there are certain types of enterprises that a beneficiary does not want to be invested in due to ethical objections, then his money should not be in a truly blind trust.   The point here is that Mittsy’s ethical objections are ad-hoc; his outrage at Newt for earning money from Freddie Mac, manufactured.  By the way Mittsy, contrary to the tortured logic you plied at the CNN debate, holding securities issued by Freddie Mac, means that you’re profiting each time you collect a dividend; I guess you don’t consider it dirty money when it’s lining your golden pockets, you big fraud.  By the way, remember when you said that Teddy Kennedy’s use of blind financial trusts was nothing more than a “ruse.”  Your flip-flopping is absurd, and you are beyond pathetic.  Meanwhile, the executors of your “blind” trust are your buddies over at Bain Capital; I’m sure you have absolutely no idea where any of that money is invested.  Sure.     

Your anti-Newt campaign ads are so unprincipled that you have lured your opponent (to his own discredit) into the mud with you.  One of your ads has the unmitigated gall to call Newt’s emotional stability into question!  Why don’t you just accuse him of spending two days a week in a straight jacket at Belleview hopped-up on Thorazine?  You’re so clueless that when the subject of another depraved ad was brought up during the debate, you questioned whether or not it was one of yours, only to have moderator Wolf Blitzer later embarrass you by confirming that it was.  You are such a putz; if you win this nomination Obamao will destroy you.    

Although I agree with many commentators that the low blows being leveled by both Gingrich and Mittsy are not adding any substance to the dialog, I still assign most of the blame to Mittsy.  It was Newt that resolved himself to only attacking Obama in the early stages of the campaign, running a positive campaign, and even repeatedly praising his opponents.  When this positive strategy of presenting innovative ideas led to higher poll numbers, Mittens and his super PAC nuked Gingrich with millions in negative ads.  On the subject of real substance, Senator Santorum simply kicked Mittsy’s ass up and down the stage when he pointed out that the author of Romneycare could not possibly make an effective case against Obamacare.  There are far more substantive similarities to the two plans then there are differences.  In a general election, the voting public will not be able to make a clear enough distinction between the two, thus greatly strengthening Oblabla’s Achilles’ heel and nullifying any attacks on Mittsy’s part.  Primary voters really need to rethink their support of Moderate Mittens.

Gingrich Wins South Carolina, Defeats the Romney Imperium! (by ContraSuggest)

Despite a massive, mostly dishonest onslaught from all sides, including an ex-wife, primary opponents, super PACs, hostile jabbering media morons, Democrats, and the tofu establishment-wing of the Republican Party, Newt Gingrich has won a decisive victory over moderate Mittsy Romney in the South Carolina Republican Primary.  It’s obvious that Mittsy’s plan to let his mendacious super PAC take Gingrich down, while he coasts to victory sporting a halo, hasn’t worked.  In fact, Newt’s super PAC has given Mittsy a taste of his own medicine.  Media reports say that Mittsy’s campaign has a backlog of dirt it hasn’t yet unleashed on Newt.  I say, bring it on!  Let’s see how tough you are in a bare-knuckle brawl, mano-a-mano with Newt.  Let’s see how your moderate record as Taxachusetts governor stands up to Newt’s conservative congressional record.  Let’s see how your consistency on core conservative issues stands up to Newt’s.  Let’s see how your meager knowledge of history and foreign policy stands up to Newt’s.  Who really has the most to lose in such an exchange?  You do Mittsy.  Let’s stop pussyfooting around and have it out already!  One thing’s for sure, after yesterday’s primary results, you’re not going to be able to marginalize Newt Gingrich. 

By persevering under a withering high-tech media blitz designed to disgrace him and destroy his candidacy, the former House Speaker has proven that he’s tough enough to withstand attacks from the Obama mafia.  C’mon Republicans, stop flirting with the Thurston Howell III-wing of the party and throw your support behind Newt.  An aristocratic, country club Republican will have trouble tacking Obamao to the wall; Newt will skewer him!              

In addition to putting forth innovative, viable solutions, detailed elsewhere in the pages of this blog, Gingrich has taken on the shibboleths of the left by going for the jugular, he has fearlessly and accurately pointed out the following:

• That the Palestinians are an “invented people”
• That no one in the media had the common sense to ask the OWS protestors how they could have a park to protest in if it wasn’t for corporations making profits
• That the U.S. Constitution clearly gives Congress the authority to limit the injunctive powers of the federal judiciary
• That treating captured enemy terrorist combatants like armed robbers is tantamount to surrender in the war against Islamic-fascism
• That Obama is the biggest food stamp president in history
• That despite the criticism of race-baiters, he’ll continue to fight to empower poor people to lift themselves from poverty

These are the words of a man who will use the bully pulpit of the presidency to articulate time-tested, traditional, conservative American values.  He’s also laid out a detailed legislative roadmap that will lessen federal intrusiveness on states, the private sector, and in the lives of individuals.  This is a man who will fight the leftist Matrix tooth and claw, and provide invaluable help to those of us who wish to restore the American Dream.  He has the legislative record of accomplishments; the leadership skills from his time as House Speaker, well-honed oratorical abilities, the value of many lessons learned the hard way from the blunders and mistakes of the past, and now, a stunning victory in South Carolina!  Go Newt!

Intelligentsia’s Mission: Stop The Newtonian Surge at all Costs! (by ContraSuggest)

In all my years of following the national political scene, I have never witnessed a more dishonest media-driven attempt to dismantle a presidential candidacy than the low-class smear job being done on Newt Gingrich.  Criticism of the former House Speaker is ubiquitous, coming from all points on the political spectrum, up and down the radio and TV dials, and in cyberspace.  I continue to be flabbergasted at the casual disregard for the facts, the distortion of Newt’s record, the exaggerations, the cherry picking of factoids, and the often outright lies that have characterized coverage of his campaign.  I find myself at odds with writers and commentators that I have respected for years who have now succumbed to the dreaded Newt-derangement contagion. 

The latest round of BS criticism sees Newt being savaged by so-called conservatives, in and out of the media, for going after moderate Mittsy Romney regarding his tenure at Bain Capital.  Wow, not only have the nattering nabobs of negativism in the media anointed moderate Mittsy as the Republican standard bearer; but now we’re told that criticizing him amounts to a criticism of capitalism itself!  This evokes images of Mittsy skipping along through a field of lilies, hand in hand with Adam Smith, as Journey’s big hit single Open Arms plays along in the background.

This criticism of Newt is analogous to saying that questioning the suspect personal actions of my local parish priest is the same as questioning the institution of the priesthood, or the legitimacy of the Catholic Church itself.  Yet many media schmucks are suggesting that Newt is taking a page out of Obama’s playbook in suggesting that Mittsy’s decisions as the head of Bain should be made public and known to voters.  So I will make the same criticism of the media that they’re making of Newt.  No intellectually honest person in command of the facts would suggest that Newt is anti-capitalist.  To suggest that, reeks of a level of absurdity normally reserved for the likes of team Obama.  So who is really emulating the tactics of President Stupid; Newt or the media alligators who’re attacking him?  Look, every aspect of every presidential candidate’s record has been scrutinized and examined, down to the atomic level.  Every speech, action, quote, piece of legislation, utterance, dirty look, slice of footage and photograph of Newt has been dredged up by rival campaigns, the media, Democrats, and various campaign super PACs.  His record has been placed under an electron microscope, and continually, purposefully distorted.  One of the main bullets on Mittsy’s resume is his tenure at Bain, yet we’re not only told that we shouldn’t ask details about his actions and stated accomplishments there, but anyone who does so is labeled “anti-capitalist” and accused of being in bed with Oblabla.  And moderate Mittsy is the guy who gave the people of Massachusetts boilerplate socialized medicine.  Yeah, he’s a real free market champion.  Let’s face it people, the fix is in.  If the monolithic media establishment has its way, and it increasingly looks as if it will, Moderate Mittsy will be the 2012 Republican presidential candidate.