The Republicans' Circular Firing Squad

Fred Barnes at the Weekly Standard believes that Gingrich and Perry have handed a pile of ammunition to Obama and the Democrats with their self-destructive Bain Capital propaganda. Barnes writes:

Republicans have reason to worry. Thanks to Gingrich and company, Democrats have been handed a gift that’s likely to keep on giving all year. Their attacks on Romney as a ruthless, uncaring businessman play into Obama’s reelection theme that the rich are the source of America’s economic trouble. Perry calls Romney a “vulture capitalist,” a tag certain to stick in the minds of voters.

Newt Gingrich had a bad reputation as a hot-head going into this campaign, and he has forever cemented himself to that reputation.  One of the key tactics in Saul Alinksy's "Rule for Radicals" is to goad your enemy into irrational anger wherein he becomes self-destructive, thereby losing credibility and support.  Apparently, Romney did that (probably unintentionally) in his negative ads about Newt.  Newt couldn't contain his anger and reacted in a very public, very self-destructive manner.  In the process, he has revealed himself as a pariah to the conservative movement and, in my opinion, should never again be considered a serious candidate for public office.

Anti-Romney Film "King of Bain" Cited as False and Vicious

Newt Gingrich's nasty half-hour ad "The King of Bain" panning Romney is false, vicious and over the top. The Washington Post Fact-Checker agrees:

The 29-minute video “King of Bain” is such an over-the-top assault on former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney that it is hard to know where to begin. It uses evocative footage from distraught middle-class Americans who allege that Romney’s deal-making is responsible for their woes. It mixes images of closed factories and shuttered shops with video clips of Romney making him look foolish, vain or greedy. And it has a sneering voice-over that seeks to push every anti-Wall Street button possible.

The Fact-Checker then explains key facts in the video and why they are false, awarding this propaganda film "Four Pinocchios."

Read it all here.

Newt Gingrich Responds to "Kamikaze" Charge (Photoshop)

North Korea Punishes Mourners Who Did a Poor Job of Faking Grief for Dead Leader

Painted on Tears Won't Work

When Kim Jung Mentally Ill croaked a few weeks back, mourners lined a major thoroughfare in North Korea to witness Dear Leader's funeral procession.  The mourners wailed, bawled and screeched, flailing their arms and moonwalking to showcase their deep grief for Kim Jung Mentally Ill.  Okay, I was just kidding about the moonwalking; the rest is true though.

Many pundits, including me, noted the dry eyes of the mourners.  In spite of their wild paroxysms of alleged grief, there were no tears.  Now those insincere mourners may be in trouble.  The North Korean government said it will arrest insincere mourners and send them to prison camps for at least six months.  Now you know why those mourners went to such lengths to display their non-existent grief for Dear (Worthless) Leader.  Some of them may be required to return their special Hollywood Oscars for bad acting.

ABC reports:

“authorities are handing down at least six months in a labor-training camp to anybody who didn’t participate in the organized gatherings during the mourning period, or who did participate but didn’t cry and didn’t seem genuine,” according to the Daily NK.

“The party conducted surveys to see who displayed the most grief, and made this an important criterion in assessing party members’ loyalty,” Yop wrote. “Patients who remained in hospitals and people who drank and made merry even after hearing news of their leader’s death were all singled out for punishment.”

 Note to North Koreans:  the next time a party official croaks, suppressing smiles and laughter is not enough.  You must shed tears -- not tears of laughter, mind you, as this will not work.  Painted tears, using body paints, will not work either.  Take a tip from Glenn Beck and rub Vicks Vaporub in your eyes before the cameras focus on you.  It will hurt a lot, but your eyes will stream tears, saving you from a labor camp.   As for the wailing, crying and flailing, it is advisable to practice in front of a full-length mirror in order to perfect your performance.

And whatever you do, do not drink champagne in public, throw confetti, moonwalk or sing "Happy Days Are Here Again."  The North Korean government considers these acts as evidence that your mourning is not sincere.

Newt Gingrich is Toast: Uses Far-Left Propaganda to Attack Romney

Newt Gingrich is despicable, an unprincipled, failed politician whose latest desperation measures prove that he is no Republican and has lost all credibility as such.  Gingrich has released a Michael Moore type video attacking Romney over Bain Capital -- a company hired by corporations to turn around or liquidate unprofitable operations.  Yes, when you liquidate unprofitable companies, you have to lay people off.  It is this "creative destruction" that frees capital and labor from unproductive pursuits and makes them available for better uses.

Rick Perry has joined Gingrich's anti-capitalist attacks on Romney, and Perry is all through too.  The Other McCain has a post explaining Gingrich's errors, and also has embedded Gingrich's propaganda film against Romney.  See it here.  Stacy McCain wrote:

Newt Gingrich’s “super PAC” has unleashed its 27-minute documentary about Bain Capital, When Mitt Romney Came to Town, which a Daily Kos blogger calls a ”hit job” that ”you’d expect from a lefty operation.” It’s as if Newt hired Michael Moore. Avowed lefty Steve Benen calls it “devastating.”

Desperate to gain some traction in South Carolina, Rick Perry has joined in on this weird left-wing beatdown of Romney. The fact that the latest South Carolina poll shows him in sixth place — behind Jon Huntsman, in what was supposed to be Perry’s “firewall” state – perhaps explains Perry’s willingness to engage in an “Occupy”-style attack on free-market capitalism.

The only Republican candidate with any principles in this fight is Rick Santorum, who has distanced himself from Gingrich's destructive propaganda.   I would gladly vote for Rick Santorum, but if Mitt Romney is the candidate selected, I will support him.  I will never again support Newt Gingrich, and I originally preferred him to Romney (and said so).

Michelle Obama Corrects an Unfortunate Misimpression of "An Angry Black Woman" (Photoshop)

Related Post with more images of angry black Michelle here.

Newt Gingrich's Nasty Temper Disqualifies Him as a Presidential Candidate

Newt Gingrich is mightily pissed off.  His star was rising in Iowa and he was the front runnner.  Then Mitt Romney ran negative ads about Newt and the latter's poll numbers plunged.  Now Newt wants revenge and has adopted the language of the left in pursuit of a scorched-earth policy against Romney.  Howie Carr of the Boston Herald (hat tip VFR) has called Gingrich a "suicide bomber" and a "kamikaze."  The description is apt:  Gingrich wants to destroy his enemies even if he must destroy himself in the process.  Carr writes:

When Newt got into the fight last year, many suspected he wasn’t really a serious candidate, that he was just trying to freshen up the aging Newt “brand,” to jack up his speaking fees. I guess not. The Club for Growth called his comments about Mitt “disgusting.”   The only group that might want him as a speaker now is the Occupy Wall Street Alumni Association.

It is becoming clear that Gingrich cannot win the Republican nomination for president.  But if he can't have it, nobody can.  Rush believes that Gingrich is solely focused on revenge, and like an angry bull he doesn't care what damage he inflicts on capitalism or the Republican party.  With Gingrich, it is now personal, and Romney must pay.

Read "Gingrich Goes Perot on Romney."

Newt has shown that it's all about him -- and that he doesn't have the thick skin or temperament it takes to be President of the United States.  

Poll: Greatest Fear of Two-Thirds of Americans in 2012 is Obama's Re-Election

From U.S. News, a poll that Obama won't like:

In our New Year's poll, when asked what news event they fear most about 2012, Americans by a margin of two-to-one said Obama's reelection. Only 16 percent said they fear the Democrat won't win a second term, while 33 percent said they fear four more years.

I hope the 2 to 1 figure is true, but the article refutes itself.  First it says 2 of 3 Americans fear Obama's reelection, but only 33% (1 in 3) fear four more years.  That doesn't make sense.

See the report here.

The next biggest worry is that we will have higher taxes.  It would appear that almost any Republican can beat Barack Obama, but that is illusory.  First, Obama has the backing of the mainstream press, who will propagandize in his favor.  Second, the Republican candidates are wonderful at screwing up golden opportunities.  As Rush pointed out today, Newt Gingrich's current attacks on Mitt Romney over Bain Capital sound like arguments from the left.

Paul and Pape's Fraudulent Argument: Islamic Violence Not Caused by Islam

Ron Paul's belief is that murderous and genocidal actions by Muslims worldwide are the result of western actions, not the tenets of the Islamic faith.  Ron Paul wrote:

Though it is hard for many to believe, honest studies show that the real motivation behind the Sept. 11 attacks and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism is not that our enemies are bothered by our way of life. Neither is it our religion, or our wealth. Rather, it is primarily occupation. …

On this point, Ron Paul is full of it up to his ears.  Joel Richardson of WND opines:

...despite the allure of Paul’s constitutional convictions, his perspectives on United States foreign policy, radical Islam and the nation of Israel are an absolute deal breaker. Paul’s emphatic trademark claim that the present rise of Islamic terrorism globally is the result of “blowback” from American actions abroad is nothing less than ridiculous and an absolute insult to my intelligence.

According to Paul, radical Muslims are not radical because they have drunk deeply from the trough of an expansionist, racist and murderous ideology, but rather because American actions abroad have brought about the natural response of resistance.

 Richardson blames a Paul advisor, Robert Pape for this fraudulent argument.  Pape claims in his book "Cutting the Fuse" that 95% of terrorist attacks worldwide were a response to foreign occupation.   Richardson counters with his argument that Robert Pape is a pseudo-scholar whose claims have been refuted by other, real scholars.  Further, Pape has been found conspiring with CAIR to promote his book and his arguments.

I think the best refutation of Paul and Pape's argument comes from Lawrence Auster of View From the Right.  Auster writes:

I have written about Pape's fraudulent argument in the past. In December 2005, in a long discussion with a reader who was promoting Pape's ideas. I said:

Obviously, a Western presence in a Muslim country is going to exacerbate jihadist manifestations including suicide terrorism. That's why I'm against any involvement by us in the Muslim world and any efforts to reform it from within.

But when analysts detach from Islam phenomena that are obviously deeply tied to Islam, such as terrorism, we have a problem. This is what all the mainstream intellectuals do today. They say terrorism is due to some cultural or economic or political factor that is extrinsic to Islam, so if we just remove that extrinsic factor, the terrorism will stop. So if we assimilate the Muslims in Europe better, or if we stop "discriminating" against Muslims, or if we create a global Provider State to give Muslim countries food and schools and highways, or if we betray Israel to its mortal enemies, then terrorism will go away.

My point is that while we should not do unnecessary things that exacerbate jihadism, ultimately jihadism is an expression of Islam itself. As long as Islam exists, jihadism, along with the terrorism that Allah specifically orders in the Koran, will exist as well. Thus any writer who says that terrorism committed by Muslims is not connected with Islam is promoting a dangerous delusion. [Emphasis added].

My reading of Islamic literature and books on Islam revealed that, according to Muhammad, the only sure way for a Muslim to go to heaven is to die in jihad fighting against the infidel.  Without this, a devout Muslim's chances of making it to heaven are only one in one thousand.  Therefore, I believe that jihad against non-Muslims in Muslim countries is merely Muslims taking advantage of a religious opportunity:  they can secure their place in heaven attacking "infidels," even when the infidels were sent to their country to protect it, as we did in Saudi Arabia after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

Islamic jihad is all about Islam and Muslim salvation; it is not Arabic nationalism.  The problem, reduced to its essence, is Islam itself.  Our best method of protecting ourselves from Islam is separation, i.e. stopping Islamic immigration into the west, developing energy independence, and ceasing the stupidity of "nation building" within the Islamic states.

Democrats Rooting for Romney as Easiest to Beat?

Donna Brazile, a Democrat strategist, is rooting for Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination.  Why?  Because she thinks he will easiest for Obama to beat.  Per Michael Walsh of the New York Post:

Lost in the weekend’s back-to-back debates in New Hampshire was this illuminating remark by Democratic strategist Donna Brazile after Saturday night’s soporific contest in Manchester: “Mitt Romney won tonight because no one touched him. And for Democrats, you know what? It was good news for us . . . because we believe that the weakest candidate is the candidate that the Republicans are not attacking. And that’s Mitt Romney.”

The remark drew guffaws from some of the other assembled party faithful and media commentators, but Brazile spoke the truth. Democrats do believe that Romney is eminently beatable, the perfect foil for President Obama, in fact.

George Stephanopolous  responded, "Donna, you don't believe that!"  Rush pointed out on his show today that Stephanopolous was essentially telling Brazile to shut up, lest she let the cat out of the bag.

The Dems think Mitt will be the easiest Republican to beat.  I tend to agree.

Read Walsh's article here.