Taste or Brainwashing..

According to Webster: taste (in context) the ability to distinguish between sweet and bitter.

Sweet, Pleasing; agreeable.

       

SWEET

Bit·ter, Sharply unpleasant; harsh.

 

BITTER

According to Webster: brain·wash·ing, Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political, aimed at destroying a person’s basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs.

Question: Why do more people buy Capt Crunch…

 …than Wheaties?

 

..when everyone knows that Wheaties are better for you, and for your kids.

Simple: Capt. Crunch buys more advertising.

Come on America, get up off your elbows and spend your vote on a family sized box of Newt “Wheaties” Gingrich and leave Mitt “Capt Crunch” Romney on the shelf where his proven liberal ideology on Government run healthcare can’t destroy your children’s financial future.

Think about it, I’ll be back tomorrow

Crusader Rabbit…

Choosin’ Sides..

Deferring from Webster to my unabashed and unpublished  “pearlsofprofundity” dictionary: (choosin’ sides,) is defined as getting’ up off your elbows and taking a stand for “right,” over both “wrong and left.”

   WRONG

LEFT

Yesterday, I touched on a few of the current anti-Gingrich sources being covered by the leaning left mainstream, i.e. “liberal media,” to include the all-time favorite motor mouth Ann Coulter, the distinguished columnist George Will, the also distinguished columnist and author Peggy Noonan and the not so distinguished convicted felon Tom delay.

Today I add “Charles Krauthammer” to the list…

Ann Coulter – taking aim at Newt.

Question: Do you think that one of Ann’s friends, if she has any? Should mention to her that “Conservative Americans” don’t shoot at “Conservative Americans.”

 

George Will – Renowned Columnist and Sniper.

Peggy Noonan – Friend or Foe?

Tom Delay – Credible Pundit, …NOT!

Charles Krauthammer, MD – born March 13, 1950, is an American Pulitzer Prize–winning syndicated columnist, political commentator, and physician. His weekly column appears in The Washington Post and is syndicated to more than 275 newspapers and media outlets. He is a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard and The New Republic. He is also a weekly panelist on the PBS news program Inside Washington and a nightly panelist on Fox News’s Special Report with Bret Baier.

Charles Krauthammer was born in New York City and raised in Montreal, Quebec, where he attended McGill Universityand obtained an honors degree in political science and economics in 1970.

McGill University is a public research university located in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The university bears the name of James McGill, a prominent Montreal merchant from Glasgow, Scotland, whose bequest formed the beginning of the university. Founded in 1821, McGill was chartered during the British colonial era, 46 years before the Canadian Confederation, making it one of the oldest universities in Canada. ( Source Wikipedia)

Krauthammer was also a Commonwealth Scholar in politics at Balliol College, Oxford, England 1970 – 1971. ( Source Wikipedia )

Balliol College, founded in 1263, is one of the constituent colleges of the University of Oxford in England. ( Source Wikipedia )

Krauthammer later moved back to the United States, where he attended Harvard Medical School. He graduated with his class, earning a Doctor of Medicine from Harvard Medical School in 1975, and went on to complete a residency in psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital. In 1984 he became board certified in Psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. (Source Wikipedia)

Impressive credentials to be sure, albeit “is” Charles Krauthammer actually a conservative?

Ideology…

Within the American political spectrum, Krauthammer has been called a conservative. However, on domestic issues, Krauthammer is a supporter of legalized abortion; an opponent of the death penalty; an intelligent design critic and an advocate for the scientific consensus on evolution, calling the religion-science controversy a “false conflict;” Charles is also a supporter of embryonic stem cell research using embryos discarded by fertility clinics with restrictions in its applications; and a longtime advocate of radically higher energy taxes to induce conservation. Meg Greenfield, editorial page editor for The Washington Post who edited Krauthammer’s columns for 15 years, called his weekly column “independent and hard to peg politically. It’s a very tough column. There’s no ‘trendy’ in it. You never know what is going to happen next.”

(Sidebar) Question: Isn’t that pretty much what Krauthammer accused Newt Gingrich of, ..being “unpredictable.”

Hendrik Hertzberg, a former colleague of Krauthammer’s at The New Republic during the 1980s, said that when the two first met in 1978, Krauthammer was “70 per cent Mondale liberal, 30 per cent ‘Scoop Jackson Democrat,’ that is, hard-line on Israel and relations with the Soviet Union;” while in the mid-1980s, he was still “50-50: fairly liberal on economic and social questions but a full-bore foreign-policy “neoconservative.” Hertzberg now calls Krauthammer a “pretty solid 90-10 Republican.”

Krauthammer’s major monograph on foreign policy, “Democratic Realism: An American Foreign Policy for a “Unipolar World,”…

(Sidebar) According to Webster: u·ni·po·lar, Having, acting by means of, or produced by a single magnetic or electric pole.

…is critical both of the neoconservative Bush doctrine for being too expansive and utopian, and of foreign policy “realism” for being too narrow and immoral; instead, he proposes an alternative he calls “Democratic Realism.” In a 2005 speech (later published in Commentary Magazine) he called neoconservatism “a governing ideology whose time has come.” He noted that the original “fathers of neoconservatism” were “former liberals or leftists”. More recently, they have been joined by “realists, newly mugged by reality,” such as Condoleezza Rice, Richard Cheney, and George W. Bush, who “have given weight to neoconservatism, making it more diverse and, given the newcomers’ past experience, more mature.” In “Charlie Gibson’s Gaffe” in The Washington Post, September 13, 2008, Krauthammer elaborated on the changing meanings of the Bush Doctrine in light of Gibson’s controversial questioning of Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin regarding what exactly the Bush Doctrine was, as if there was a single definition. Palin was criticized for her response. Krauthammer states in the article that “The Bush Doctrine” has had “four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of” the Bush Administration. Krauthammer states that the phrase “Bush Doctrine” originally referred to “the unilateralism…

(Sidebar) According to Webster: u·ni·lat·er·al·ism, A tendency of Nations to conduct their foreign affairs individualistically, characterized by minimal consultation and involvement with other nations, even their allies.

…that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.” He states that “There is no single meaning of the Bush Doctrine. He also states “the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world.”

FYI Charlie, “neo-conservatism” is simply an expediently coined replacement for the term; “Carpetbagger.”

Is Charles Krauthammer? A Conservative, neoconservative, traditionalist or fundamentalist, ..”In my considered opinion,” not so much.

I think I’ll stick with my “Tea Party” folks, like Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, and the good Reverend Donald E Wildmon and others who understand the definition of true conservatism.

 

Herman Cain endorsing Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich is a true conservative…

Think about it, I’ll be back tomorrow

Crusader Rabbit…

When Money rewrites History..

When money rewrites history, America gets a George W. Bush and a Barack Hussein Obama.

Let’s examine my statement…

George “Duba” Bush, a man, “who in my opinion” would lose and intellectual competition to “a box of rocks,” was elected to the Office of “President of the United States,” when money and influence rewrote history.

Barack Hussein Obama, a man “who in my opinion,” would be defeated in a clean hands competition with “a cockroach,” was elected to the Office of “President of the United States” when money and influence ignored history.

And it’s happening again…

Willard Mitt Romney, Massachusetts’s wealthy ego driven ex-governor is presently attempting to elevate himself with the good folks in Florida by blatantly and dishonestly altering the history of a man he couldn’t compete with otherwise.

 

Alluding to former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in her interview with John Stossel, Sarah says; Newt Gingrich is being “crucified” by the Republican establishment, including allies of Mitt Romney, who are trying to rewrite his record with a barrage of negative attacks.

“Look at Newt Gingrich, what’s going on with him via the establishment’s attacks,” Palin told John Stossel of Fox Business on Thursday.

She added: “They’re trying to crucify this man and rewrite history and rewrite what it is that he has stood for all these years.”

Palin has not endorsed any of the GOP Presidential candidates, but has been enthusiastically supportive of Gingrich.

Last week before the South Carolina GOP primary Palin said she would vote for Newt Gingrich if she was voting in that state’s primary.

Palin’s husband, Todd, has officially endorsed Gingrich for president.

Sarah Palin explained her husband’s endorsement of Gingrich: “I think that endorsement was real reflective of a lot of Americans who understand that somebody with experience in cutting government budgets, cutting taxes, which does more for liberty and an economic turnaround than anything else, someone who has waged war on Hillarycare and government taking over of healthcare, somebody with that experience plus somebody who has struggled personally and overcome struggles and challenges, would be one that was embraced by voters.”

And Sarah Palin’s defense of Gingrich, especially of his conservative, Reaganite record, has gotten significant backing from leading conservatives.

On Thursday, Rush Limbaugh slammed Romney allies for a “coordinated attack” on Gingrich.

Limbaugh described Gingrich as the “premier defender of Ronald Reagan” and said such smear tactics against Gingrich hurt Mitt Romney.

“That kind of stuff is why people hate Romney so much,” Limbaugh said.

Palin also struck out at conservative writers like Washington Post columnist George Will and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, who earlier this month called Gingrich an “angry little attack muffin.”

“That’s that typical hypocrisy stuff in the media, you know, I’ve lived with over a couple of decades in the political arena,” she told Stossel, complaining that Mitt Romney doesn’t get the same treatment.

Last week, in a radio interview with Sean Hannity, Palin blasted ABC News for its interview with Gingrich’s ex-wife, Marianne Gingrich, saying these kinds of media hits “incentivize conservatives and independents” who are tired of “the politics of personal destruction.”

“We know the game now, and we just won’t put up with it. Good call, media.”

Romney is suffering a major backlash from conservatives outraged by his tactics.

Michael Reagan, the conservative commentator and son of President Reagan, slammed Romney for his recent assault on Gingrich.

“As governor of Massachusetts, Romney’s achievement was the most socialistic healthcare plan in the nation up until that time,” Reagan said.
“Say what you want about Newt Gingrich but when he was speaker of the House he surrounded himself with Reagan conservatives and implemented a Ronald Reagan program of low taxes and restrained federal spending.

“Newt’s conservative program created a huge economic boom and balanced the budget for the first time in more than a generation.”
Mike Reagan concluded: “I would take Newt Gingrich’s record any day over Mitt Romney’s.” (Source, newsmax.com)

Editorial: Accordingly, “at least in my opinion,” folks like Ann Coulter, George Will and Peggy Noonan, purported conservatives should be totally ashamed of themselves.

Ann Hart Coulter, is an American lawyer, conservative social and political commentator, author, and syndicated columnist. She frequently appears on television, radio, and as a speaker at public events and private events. Well-known for her conservative political opinions and the controversial ways in which she presents and defends them, Coulter has described herself as a polemicist who likes to “stir up the pot” and does not “pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do.” ( Source Wikipedia )

George Frederick Will, is an American newspaper columnist, journalist, and author. He is a Pulitzer Prize-winner best known for his conservative commentary on politics. By the mid 1980s the Wall Street Journal reported he was “perhaps the most powerful journalist in America,” in a league with Walter Lippmann. (Source Wikipedia)

Peggy Noonan, is an American author of seven books on politics, religion, and culture and a weekly columnist for The Wall Street Journal. She was a primary speech writer and Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan and in her political writings is considered a Republican. In her political writings, Noonan frequently cites the political figures she admires, including Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln, and Edmund Burke. (Source Wikipedia)

As for Newt Gingrich’s detractor Tom Delay…

Thomas Dale “Tom” DeLay, is a former member of the United States House of Representatives and “ convicted felon.” … (Source Wikipedia)

Need I say more? Other than, “at least in my opinion,” considering their present tact, ..Ann, ..George, ..Peggy and ..Tom might want to consider applying for employment with MSNBC or NPR.

Don’t be stupid, Mitt Romney is a documented socialist when it comes to healthcare, and he wants to run your life every bit as much as Barack Obama.

If my choice is between a documented liar and a man accused of bad judgment and impropriety, I’m going with the guy accused of impropriety.

According to Webster: im·pro·pri·e·ty, The quality or condition of being improper.

Think about it, I’ll be back tomorrow

Crusader Rabbit…

Evolution in America..

This according to Webster: ev·o·lu·tion, A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

From Wooden Ships…

Santa Maria

 To Space Ships…

Columbia

America has evolved and it has been a gradual process. Gradual is good, gradual is stable and gradual serve the people more surely than abrupt.

According to Webster: a·brupt, 1. Unexpectedly sudden. 2. Surprisingly and unceremoniously; curt. 3. Touching on one subject after another with sudden transitions. 4. Steeply inclined. 5. Terminating suddenly rather than gradually.

Let’s take a moment and examine “abrupt” more closely.

Question: What does “abrupt” mean to you and how has “abrupt” affected your life in recent years?

Speaking for myself, I would present an example of “abrupt” as electing a no experience, non-vetted Junior Democratic Senator from the State of Illinois to the office of President of the United States,

“ABRUPT.”

I believe the decision to use American tax dollars to bailout corporate America was “abrupt.”

I believe that every rank-and-file man and woman in America who lost their job since 2008, understand the meaning of the word “abrupt.”

For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, since January 20, 2009, Barack Obama, has indeed touched on “one subject after another,” like closing Guantánamo Bay, healthcare, defendings America’s borders, creating shovel ready jobs, creating green energy, ..all (without success) resulting in a “suddenly transition” for millions of Americans from employed, ..to unemployed since “he” (Barrack Obama) set foot in the Oval Office. ..and for those of you with families, or hope to have families, Barack Obama is presently in the process of “terminated” your family’s future.

But enough about the dark side, there is a ray of sunshine on the horizon for those not blinded by rhetoric.

We, “We the People,” albeit interested or not? ..are being deluged by political ads to select an individual to replace Barack Obama. Which of course goes without saying, “is my agenda” between now and Tuesday, November 6.

My candidate, Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich, my reasons, Newt has “real” experience in Washington. Newt has “real” accomplishments in Washington. Newt is not intimidated by the press, nor is he intimidated by either side of the aisle. Newt is tough, Newt will serve “America’s interests” instead of America’s “special” interests.

A paradigm to ponder…

Close your eyes, ..now invoke your imagination, ..it’s after midnight, ..you are in an unlit alley, (where, and how you got there, doesn’t matter) you encounter John King, Wolf Blitzer, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matheson with questions about where you slept last night?

Who do you want at your side; Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, or Newt Gingrich?

 Newton Leroy Gingrich

Think about it, I’ll be back tomorrow

Crusader Rabbit…

Debate or Debacle..

According to Webster: de·ba·cle, (in context) 1. A disastrous collapse. 2. A ludicrous failure.

According to Webster: dis·as·trous, 1.a. A catastrophe. b. A grave misfortune. 2. Informal. A total failure.

According to Webster: lu·di·crous, Laughable or hilarious because of obvious absurdity or incongruity; foolish

Editorial: In all my years of observing political candidates vying for the office of President of the United States, I have never witnessed a more pathetic display of disgusting, vile, inappropriate childish behavior.

Although Newt Gingrich again brought to light that his purpose and the purpose of his fellow candidates was to convey the necessity of electing the GOP to save America from Barack Obama and socialism or worse, ..“Obamaism.” Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul conjointly continued attacking Newt Gingrich on everything from toothpaste and toilet paper.

 

Behavior not only understood, but expected from liberal ilk like Wolf Blitzer. Newt Gingrich makes no secret of the fact that he disapproves of liberal media bias, ..what intelligent “common sense” human being doesn’t?

What Wolf Blitzer and his ilk fail to comprehend is that he was employed last evening to moderate a debate between four GOP candidates, not to incite or referee a schoolyard brawl. A “debate,” by my understanding and by Merriam-Webster’s definition…

According to Webster: de·bate, (in context) To engage in a discussing of opposing views.

..America, “at least in my considered opinion,” has for too long now given credence to a conglomeration of agenda driven left-wing bias individuals who in reality via self hypnosis are incapable of understanding anyone or anything outside of their liberal programming.

According to Webster: cre·dence, Acceptance as true or valid.

According to Webster: pro·gram·ming,  (in context) To train to perform automatically in a desired manner. 

According to Webster: mod·er·a·tor,  (in context) One who presides over a meeting, forum, or debate.

Whether due to a lack of understanding concerning the job description or responsibility of a moderator, or due to his liberal programming, Wolf Blitzer did not properly perform his duty as a moderator during last night’s GOP debate.

Nowhere in the description or definition of the word “moderator,” does the word “instigator appear.

According to Webster: in“sti·ga”tor, To urge on; goad. 2. To stir up; foment.

Accordingly, it is my considered opinion that if Wolf Blitzer or any other liberal ilk wants to referee fights, then they should apply through proper channels to the athletic commission of the state in which they reside to acquire a license.

Now then, to the business of selecting an individual to compete with Barack Obama for the Oval Office in 2012. The GOP had better get its head out of its armpit and back to the business of convincing me and other common sense driven Americans that our choices for a 2012 Presidential candidate are better than the childish, self-centered, trivial individuals that allowed Wolf Blitzer to manipulate them in front of CNN’s cameras and the world last evening.

If Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, or Ron Paul believeat that there ill behavior in attacking a fellow Republican, in name, Newton Leroy Gingrich, will not be used against the GOP in the general election, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul desperately need counsel.

When I was in Vietnam, as a matter of protocol to survive any particular 24-hour period, It was standard practice not only to crush our C-ration cans, it was protocol to bury them as well, ..so as not to provide “material” to our enemy that could be used to construct a device that could kill you the following day.

Newt Gingrich has warned sense day one that quarreling among the ranks of the GOP would do nothing more than advance the GOP’s opposition. Of course, with not being a college graduate,  ..I can only offer a layman’s, “common sense” opinion that if Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul have nothing more than negative rhetoric to promote themselves, they all need to sit down and have a long session with themselves about what it means to be an American, ..and what “America” needs, ..not what “they want.”

And yes Gentleman, ..I totally understand that it is difficult to accept that there is a “better man” to serve America than you, ..but you’ll get over it.

Newton Leroy Gingrich – The better man.

 Think about it, I’ll be back tomorrow

Crusader Rabbit…

With great power..

COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY!

            

Newton Leroy Gingrich

 Think about it, I’ll be back tomorrow

Crusader Rabbit…

Boo-B00..

Hard Drive crashed..!!!!!

Sorry, ..be back tomorrow, ..I HOPE !  🙂

Previous Older Entries