Déjà-vu: McCain-Obama all over again

We didn’t learn the last time

 

by Don Hank

I showed yesterday that Newt Gingrich lied when he denied that

1-      he had peddled lobbying services,

2-      he had supported cap and trade

3-     he  had supported an individual health care mandate.

A thrice denial of New Testament proportions.

I provided links to articles that showed this was all true. It is a matter of public record.

But you know what I found out today?

Today, people who lie about the public record are praised as being expert debaters. Lying is in vogue.

Telling the truth, as Michele Bachmann did, is considered bad sportsmanship and she is being spanked for it. I should have known.

We the People know the GOP has anointed Newt, so we need to shut up and fetch their water. It’s that simple. Newsmax, a faux conservative rag, ran two very telling articles today, one praising Newt as a “true conservative” and another on how Bachmann’s book sales have plummeted, while Newt is selling books like hotcakes. To prove it, Newsmax is helping their darling sell his books, offering us a discount.

I am no prophet and I don’t pretend to know the future. Michael Savage predicts that the “fat little white man” can’t win against Obama.

I won’t go so far as to say that. He could, given a miracle.

But I will say we are reliving 2008, with another McCain clone, and we all saw how that worked out last time.

Here is the danger behind this kind of strategy, where you run a candidate who talks like a conservative but is not all that far to the right of the far-left candidate you are trying to beat, in hopes that people who sort of like Obama’s policies but not the man himself will mistake Newt for a white, fat Obama and reverse their racism again.

Two out of the 3 links I chose for yesterday’s article were taken from the far-leftwing mainstream media and one from Fox News, which is now center-left but still mistaken for “alternative” news by the gullible masses. I chose those links to show that these were not just from some little blogger like me blowing off steam.

Now most of the mainstream is pro-Democrat, even if they aren’t necessarily pro-Obama (how could they be any more?).

So while the three major blemishes I pointed out in yesterday’s article may be glossed over by the GOP and the RINO press, they will be taken under the MSM’s microscope as soon as Newt gets the nod and you will see his pimples, blackheads and fat rolls up-close and personal around the clock ad nauseam until election day.

Now we see through the glass darkly, but then face to face.

Once those blemishes are magnified 1000X as only the MSM can magnify them, even conservatives who backed Newt will be appalled at their naked little emperor.

Many will still vote for him, of course. Conservatives are herd animals.

But it is that amorphous middle that must be courted and brought into our circle to make this work.

And the image they see of Newt, who has never been the darling they cherished in the first place, will not endear him to them, quite the opposite.

They will see the cap and trade endorsement, the individual healthcare mandate, the shameful lobbying for the drug companies, the loot from the discredited Fanny and Freddy, the parade of trophy wives and much more, probably even worse.

As a result, many will vote third party, possibly Ron Paul or the like, and Obama will have a shoe in. (That is, unless Ron Paul has some tricks up his sleeve. He is, after all, closing the gap).

I will make only one prediction. If Newt gets the GOP nod, we are in for some real trouble up ahead. That is absolutely certain.

So why do the top brass at the RNC keep making the mistake of running smelly RINOs every single time? Not being very smart, they think they can convince you that all these blemishes I spoke about, as well as the unspoken ones, are only liberal lies. After all, they did show up in the liberal press.

But here is what they ignore. When the liberal press printed Gingrich’s pronouncements in support of, say, cap and trade, or an individual health care mandate, Gingrich did not go on record denying that he had said those things. He wasn’t running for president as a “conservative.” He was pleasing what he perceived to be the middle. So for Gingrich to deny these statements now makes no sense. He is very obviously lying. Unlike his crony Bill Clinton, he didn’t do something behind closed doors with no witnesses present. Bill was a better liar than Newt. He only miscalculated.

Newt just doesn’t know how to lie. And you won’t have to figure all this out for yourself. The press will eventually tell you. And everyone else, including the vast amorphous middle.

That’s Newt’s problem. And now it’s ours.

Newt Gingrich thrice denies the public record in public debate

Newt was once touted as the “best debater” in the Republican candidate field. He was also supposed to be the smartest candidate. But would a really smart debater brazenly lie about something that is a matter of public record? How stupid does he think we are?

by Don Hank

Last night there was a Republican debate among the candidates in Iowa. Michele Bachmann told three easily proven truths about Newt Gingrich, all a matter of public record (as evidenced below, see links to articles by PBS, Mother Jones and Fox News):

These 3 truths were as follows:

1–Newt Gingrich supported cap and trade.

2–Newt Gingrich supported an individual health care mandate

3–Newt Gingrich worked as a lobbyist and tried to influence congress on behalf of his clients.

Incredibly, despite the ready provability of these documented facts, Newt – who has, incredibly, been labeled the most effective debater by some conservative analysts — countered simply by telling a big lie:

“Well, Michele, you know, a lot of what you say just isn’t true, period. … You know, I think it’s important for you, and the – this is a fair game, and everybody gets to – to- to pick fights. It’s important that you be accurate when you say these things. Those are not true.”

Pitiful, just pathetic, when you consider how easily proven all three of Bachmann’s accusations are, as shown below (these are only a tiny sampling of the mainstream sites mentioning these damning facts). The first two are direct Gingrich quotes from before he thought about running as a “conservative.”

1–Newt Gingrich Supported cap and trade:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/gingrich.html

Gingrich:

“I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.”

 

2–Newt Gingrich supported individual health care mandate:

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/newts-big-whopper-individual-mandate

“In order to make coverage more accessible, Congress must do more, including passing legislation to: [deletia] and require anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year to purchase health insurance or post a bond.”

3–Newt worked as a lobbyist and tried to influence congress for his clients:

http://nation.foxnews.com/newt-gingrich/2011/11/21/newts-lobbyist-problem

“ A former employee of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, (the main industry lobby) told me Gingrich was being paid by someone in the industry at the time. A spokeswoman for Gingrich’s health care consulting firm, Center for Health Transformation, told me that drug companies have been CHT clients. PhRMA confirmed in a statement that they had paid Gingrich. Bloomberg News cited sources from leading drug companies Astra-Zeneca and Pfizer saying that those companies had also hired Gingrich.”

 

Obviously, there can be no question that Michele Bachmann nailed Newt on all three counts. So the main question for Americans is this:

Does honesty matter?

And another important question is:

Why didn’t any of the other candidates mention these 3 devastating facts?

 

Farewell time for Mitt and Hermann?

Time to bid Hermann and Mitt farewell?

 Don Hank

As it turns out, both Mitt and Cain have tons of baggage.

Seriously folks, is it time to take a fresh look at, say, Bachmann?

Opinions welcome (you may post yours below). 

So far, any baggage Michelle may have seems to be the carry-on type. Nothing aggravating. Plus she was the only one at the debate who called herself a “Constitutional conservative.” That, of course, was ignored by the press and by Fox News, who told us the lackluster Mitt performed brilliantly. Actually, the most memorable thing Mitt said was “nice try,” a line he repeated several times to parry Perry’s criticism. In response to the question about how to solve the economic crisis, he muttered something incoherent about “patriotism.” Mitt’s response on that number one issue was probably the most conspicuous non-sequitur in the debate.

A lot of you are starting to support Bachmann. I don’t see the kind of drawbacks with her as I do with these 2 sad sacks.

Let’s look at Hermann Cain. It seems Cain’s wife is unable to support him against these persistent sexual harassment accusations and has backed out of a planned TV interview slated for that purpose (see link below). Most people who have been in politics or worked closely with a candidate know that a wife’s support is absolutely crucial in this kind of scandal.

Not only that, well-known radio personality Steve Deace says Cain has personally shown him an example of questionable morals prior to a scheduled appearance on the air.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/cain-scandal-wife-interview/2011/11/04/id/416910?s=al&promo_code=D704-1

 

As for Mitt, the news about the Romney family’s relationship with a criminal Ponzi scheme is all over the internet (see below) and apparently, the MSM are licking their chops waiting until Romney’s candidacy is officially announced to bruit this to the world.

Assuming that happens, with this scandal in his background (even though it is via his son Tagg), it seems doubtful that Romney can win the election against anyone.

Now, GOP, will you finally start looking for a candidate who can win?

Or is losing “what you do”?

http://www.coachisright.com/the-stanford-group-solamere-connection-a-romney-scandal-the-media-is-just-waiting-to-write-about/

 

GOP Debate / Chavez learns a Bible lesson

by Don Hank

Did you see the GOP candidates’ debate the other night?

While Fox News moderators and commentators pretended that Perry and Romney were the stars of the debate and that Mitt had “won,” the fact is, neither of them were close to winning if you look at the debate from a constitutional conservative standpoint.

Bachmann said, near the end, that we should not dismiss those candidates who are “constitutional conservatives” in favor of candidates who look like they are better equipped to beat Obama. She pointed out – rightly in my opinion – that Obama is by now an extremely weak candidate and that this is a good opportunity for a true conservative to win.

In saying this, she defined not only herself – as a constitutional conservative – but also every one of the others, NONE of whom used that term.

Not only that, she was the only one who said she would build a fence on every mile and every foot of our southern border.

Frankly, folks, she sounded for all the world like Ronald Reagan and no one else came anywhere near that. She is THE conservative candidate, if you really want a conservative president. And if you are willing to do your own thinking and not let Fox steer you to the left.

Ron Paul is very smart and, as he mentioned, he really does understand the economic and financial issues well. His problem is that he has decided not to be a conservative. He clearly wants to be a libertarian and has defined himself as such without mentioning that word. If I recall correctly, Gary Johnson, the de facto libertarian former governor of New Mexico, said he wanted Paul as his running mate. Gary and Paul have indicated in the past that they are not for closing our southern border and that we need more, not less, immigrants – read, illegal aliens. You know better than that.

A friend emailed me that they are setting up Romney or Perry to win. However, judging by the tough comments by the moderators themselves, it looks like they favor spoiled rich kid Mitt Romney.

I haven’t given up on Bachmann yet.

 

Chavez learns a Bible lesson:

Did you know that, in June of last year, Hugo Chavez literally cursed Israel, in defiance of God’s warning in Genesis? I have seen this at YouTube. You can google it.

Well, that is not the interesting part:

THIS June, a crestfallen and humbled Chavez returned from Cuba, where he had gone to get treatment for cancer. In a press conference he admitted: My cancer is not gone.

Shortly thereafter, he released political prisoners from prison.

Chavez learned the hard way that God meant it when He said this:

Genesis 12

 1Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

 2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

 3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Listen and watch as Chavez says: “Maldito sea el estado de Israel”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7EYL0_5J_o

I told you so, again

Obama’s Libya:

I don’t mind one bit saying “I told you so” to all those — particularly journalists — who ignored my objective, fact-supported arguments against Western military and foreign policy in the Middle East and wound up with egg on their face as a result. (I have been trying to revive the nearly-lost scientific method and apply it to journalism, which has become nothing but a series of propaganda mills. So far, there seem to be no takers).

Obama and NATO must bear the responsibility for the fall of Kaddafi, and I have warned that this fall of a stable secular Middle Eastern leader will come back to bite the West hard in the butt.

Now Fox News and others are finally cautiously discussing the fact that the rebels are an unknown quantity and may not be as benign as they were portrayed back when they seemed to have much less chance of winning. Last night it was pointed out by Sean Hannity and Oliver North that they are a mix of tribal representatives and terrorists and their new proposed constitution already calls for sharia law, in stark contrast to Kadaffi’s secular constitution (miss him yet?).

Most telling was the remark: “Obama owns Libya.”

In case you have forgotten our direct military involvement in Libya, in addition to Obama’s repeated calls for Kadaffi (sp Gadhaffi in the linked article) to step down, here is the report on the joint French-American Operation Odyssey Dawn the day after it happened:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x617854948/France-U-S-bomb-Libyan-positions

 Back in March, I found no mainstream commentators on the left or right criticizing the West’s role in this operation or in Egypt. In fact, there has been a steady stream of “conservative” criticism against Obama for not going after Kadaffi more resolutely. (The clueless candidates — most recently Bachmann — mostly followed their clueless lead, bleating similar statements). Generally, there is a dearth of substantive criticism of any Western military involvement by left or right, no doubt for political or career reasons (many fear appearing unpatriotic, even though honest and objective commentary would ultimately save Western lives and Western embarrassment), but also due to a serious shortage of brain power. Now that a Marxist is in the White House, mainstream conservatives are finally criticizing our involvement in a Middle East conflict, but mainly because they can pin the fallout on the Left. But none of them mentioned that the regimes in post-Carter Iran, post-Clinton Kosovo, post-Bush Iraq, post-rebellion Egypt and the Ivory Coast, once ruled by secularists, are now in the hands of democratically elected Islamist leaders or mobs who openly persecute and murder Christians wholesale  (see, for example, the 4th link below on the Ivory Coast massacre of Christians presided over by the UN) and do not believe in Israel’s right to exist. (A nation that allows Muslims to live within its boundaries, whereas Muslim nations typically forbid Israelis — or often any Jews — even to visit. How fair and democratic is that?).

By contrast, I (who have nothing to lose, am not being paid for this and answer to no one) was warning repeatedly about the error in our involvement in the Middle East, not just by Democrat presidents, notably Obama, but also by Republicans (BTW, Reagan, who pulled us out of Lebanon, was an exception), and pointing out then-unheeded facts to state my case, reminding, for example, that the local Christian populations were always the ones who paid the biggest price when a stable secular leader was replaced by a mob, which eventually, inevitably, turned into an Islamic-led government with significantly less freedom for the people than under the “cruel dictators” we replaced — as well as vastly less diversity, which, oddly, Western powers prize in their countries. Israel, of course, came closer to the brink of war with each successive “win” and Iran was given a permanent pass by the West, as though these merciless enforcers of brutal Sharia law, who execute countless people for sexual misdeeds and inappropriate clothing, were lily-white defenders of human rights (as we speak, there are 2 Americans jailed in Iran for “spying,” on flimsy evidence). I sent links to each of my articles on this subject to thousands of potential readers, including major news outlets, inclucing to all Fox News personalities. News people typically do not respond, but judging by last night’s commentary by Sean, perhaps they had read some of what I said here:

http://laiglesforum.com/my-government-is-killing-me/2159.htm

here

http://laiglesforum.com/spare-me-the-crocodile-tears-when-northern-africa-explodes/2215.htm

here

http://laiglesforum.com/how-western-powers-abet-christian-persecution/2513.htm

here

http://laiglesforum.com/us-media-cover-up-ivory-coast-massacre-details/2398.htm

here

http://laiglesforum.com/why-i-am-not-on-our-side-any-more/2174.htm

here

http://laiglesforum.com/the-far-left-connection-to-the-near-east-rebellion/2224.htm

and here

http://laiglesforum.com/2286/2286.htm

 

Olavo de Carvalho also warned you here:

http://laiglesforum.com/strengthening-the-enemies/2126.htm

Look, I don’t mind people calling me crazy. But you journalists who lead the Western world by providing information to decision makers, should know by now that, in the long run, ignoring warnings about the West’s disastrous involvement in the Middle East is going to hurt you a whole lot more than it does the warning party.

Don Hank