Newt on the Laura Ingraham Show

On Tuesday or Wednesday, I was listening to the Laura Ingraham show. Her special guest was presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. Laura asked some very piercing questions. The first that stood out to me was when she asked what Newt had to tell the people of Iowa in light of the mailers being sent detailing his despicable treatment of women. To this, Newt answered that in an election campaign folks ought to expect some negative news about a candidate. Of course, Newt evaded the question. Yes, the content of the mailers was negative, but were they true? Newt does not deny the truth of the mailers.

The second question of note is about his work for Freddy Mac. Of particular note was Newt's comments that after being the House Speaker it was an example of free enterprise for him to have contracted his services to Freddy Mac. Before the said comment, Laura pointed out that had he not been House Speaker he would not have been awarded the contract. My position is that reaping the benefits of having had  and by virtue of being a elected or civil office holder is not  exactly free enterprise. 

Newt used his former government position to get a contract with a government agency in order to influence government functionaries in the legislature to be favorable to a government agency. If the foregoing is Newt idea of free enterprise, then he would keep that shit to himself. 

Newt Gingrich is the flavor of the week. Sweet to the mouth and bitter to the belly. May his fall come quickly.

Herman Cain: Clueless on Foreign Affairs

Herman Cain was like a pompous and pretentious illiterate at a spelling bee contest. Why in the world would a man who wants to replace Obama not have an intelligib­le opinion on the Libyan battle?


Moreover, there is no one other than Ron Paul who has can contrast himself on foreign when matched with Obama. The criticism of Romney, Newt, Bachmann and others are weak and beside the point. Unless there is a strong contrast GOP candidates can't best Obama on foreign policy.

The GOP nonsense that Obama does not support Israel is weak. The fact is that support for Israel is bolstered by the congress. Even if a president wavered in support of Israel it would be of no consequenc­e.

Ron Paul correctly states that toppling a dictator most often results in states that are even more dangerous to American interests. Further, there was no declaratio­n of war and U.S. vital interests were not in play. Also, Paul is critical of the U.S. waging war because of a mandate from a foreign organizati­on or power. Agree of disagree, Ron Paul has been the most potent critic of Obama's foreign policy.

Online Polls Controversy

The very idea of an online poll is for individuals who frequent a website to vote. The poll is not meant to be scientific. The poll is for people who visit the site. The fact that Ron Paul supporters are adept web surfers does not discount the fact that we are real individuals. An online poll is not scientific, and the attempt to deny surfers an opportunity to vote because one does not like the way they vote is ridiculous.

The online poll is supposed to make a visit to a given site fun and engaging. Indeed, the way most visitors vote should be of no concern of a website owner. After all, the rational goal is to draw traffic to a website to cash in on advertising through site visitor statistics. The mere fact that the foregoing reasoning does not hold shows that a lot of websites are fronts for a particular presidential candidate.

Ron Paul Wins Iowa Straw Poll Of GOP Presidential Candidates

Ron Paul won a straw poll in Iowa and came in a close second in Alabama. Here is a comment I left over at the HuffingtonPost.

Congratulations to Ron Paul and all those who want to restore the American republic. It's interestin­g that the article mentions that the campaign bought attendees tickets. I wonder where the campaign got money. How did the campaign get people there to vote? I reckon this means that the money bomb where thousands donated to the campaign was good for something. The dedication of Ron Paul supporters must be quite intense for them to turn out to vote in a poll where the malcontent­s would surely try to discount Paul's win.

Oh Lord, Jeffrey Bitchin' about so-called Anti-Semitism

Jeffrey Lord, the resident idiot, over at The American Spectator, blogs about what he sees as the anti-Semitism of some of Ron Paul's supporters. Lord visited dailypaul.com and claims that he could not help noticing certain comments.

The problem with Lord's supposed outrage is that he does not validate his sentiment that the comments are anti-Semitic. The comments focus on putting America first and they highlight the negative aspects of the Israeli state. Zionism is a form of statism, so it's no surprise that Ron Paul supporters are against it.

Lord uses the term anti-Semite as a cuss-word as most paranoid Jews do. Apparently, no criticism of Israel or the actions of individual Jews is ever objective or logical, if Lord is to be believed. That sentiment represents a sort of enduring sin where Jews could do no wrong, and every criticism of Jews could only come from tainted Gentiles who are animated by hate.

I guess when Mark Levin insults other Jews he is an antI-Semite too. Or, is it the case that only Jews could criticize Jews?

Lord should keep in mind that not all Jews are Zionist. Plus, the Talmud flattering to non-Jews.

Michelle Bachmann drinks Trump's Cool Aid

Lately, Republican candidate Michelle Bachmann has been rubbing shoulders with Donald Trump. The results of their canoodling could be witnessed at the CNN Western Republican Leadership Conference debate, which occurred in Las Vegas, Nevada. Like Trump, Michelle thinks that countries that were preemptively attacked by the U.S. should reimburse the U.S. for costs associate with destroying their people and infrastructure.

The idiocy and depravity of such a sentiment is overwhelming. Here is the transcript of what Michelle Bachmann said:

COOPER: Time. Congresswoman Bachmann... [...] Should we cut foreign aid to Israel?


BACHMANN: No, we should not be cutting foreign aid to Israel. Israel is our greatest ally. The biggest problem is the fact... that the president -- the biggest problem with this administration in foreign policy is that President Obama is the first president since Israel declared her sovereignty put daylight between the United States and Israel. That heavily contributed to the current hostilities that we see in the Middle East region.


Cutting back on foreign aid is one thing. Being reimbursed by nations that we have liberated is another. We should look to Iraq and Libya to reimburse us for part of what we have done to liberate these nations.


Now, I need to add something on this issue of negotiating for hostages. This is a very serious issue. For any candidate to say that they would release the prisoners at Guantanamo in exchange for a hostage would be absolutely contrary to the historical nature of the United States and what we do in our policy. That's naive; we cannot do that. The United States has done well because we have an absolute policy: We don't negotiate.

The imperialistic conceit of Michelle Bachmann is disgusting. The supposition that there is some implicit liability for countries that were attacked by the U.S. to reimburse the aggressors costs is superstition. Bachmann seems to be saying that the U.S. is fighting wars based on altruism and not for national defense. Furthermore, she believes that the U.S. definition of liberation is sufficient for all peoples of the world. Trump is rubbing off on Bachmann, and she is more of ass for it.

Patrick Buchanan is terrified...

Patrick J. Buchanan is mostly right when he says that changing demographics is bad news for the Republican party and possibly whites. This is so, because in the next few decades there would come a time when the American state would not be controlled by whites, but by non Caucasians.

The white supremacists of all temperaments are uneasy about all of this. The state was used to enforce and enshrine white supremacy and privilege. The big question is what would happen to white interests when the state is controlled by mostly non-Caucasians.

As Bob Marley would say, "Guiltiness rest on their conscience."