Video: Newt's South Carolina Victory Speech

Make no mistake; Obama is very scared of this man. Period.

Via the Right Scoop:

Newtralizing Rule Number Five

When Newt Gingrich scolded CNN's John King at the South Carolina debate, he didn't just stand up to the media; he smacked down Saul Alinsky. When a candidate does that, he can deliver a knockout blow to Barack Obama, Alinsky's prized ideological protege.

Take a look at Rule number five in Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, which states:

Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

This is exactly what King attempted to do by bringing up the charges made by Newt's ex-wife in an interview with ABC's Brian Ross. Did King infuriate Gingrich by asking the question right out of the gate? Yes. Did Gingrich react to King's advantage? Absolutely not. He channeled the fury of conservatives and delivered a counterattack squarely on the jaw of a liberal media bully; King had been stunned in epic fashion.

Conservatives know that the mainstream media is running interference for Barack Obama while attempting to portray objectivity. Gingrich exposed this dynamic thoroughly and with perfect timing, by making the charge as that reality was on full display for all to see. He connected the dots as the offense was being committed. The more King attempted to hit Gingrich, the more forcefully the former was beaten back by the latter.

One day after the debate, another CNN reporter – Erin Burnett – attempted to wound Gingrich with Rule number five. She asked him to respond to charges that he was hypocritical by going after president Bill Clinton in the 1990's during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, while he was committing similar indescretions. The question was intended to trap Gingrich but it did the opposite; his response made Burnett look foolish for not seeing the clear line of distinction. Clinton committed a felony by perjuring himself; Gingrich did no such thing. Burnett wilted and reacted to Gingrich's advantage.

Rule number five includes a premise that says the target will be placed on defense whenever it's used. When that happens, the rule works. However, when the target effectively goes on offense, the rule backfires. No other candidate has demonstrated this ability. Sarah Palin seemed to have some of it in 2008 but she was muzzled by her running mate, who was clueless and instructed his campaign not to go after Obama over Jeremiah Wright, which was exactly the wrong thing to do.

There is a narrative afoot that says Mitt Romney is the only candidate who can beat Obama. The media seems to be perfectly willing to echo it. Why would it do so if it is interested in getting Obama reelected? The answer is simple; the Obama camp wants to face Romney. Once Romney gets the nomination, he will be the target of rule number five and he has shown no indication that he is capable of overcoming its intended effect. He's already said he won't call Obama a socialist. By not telling the truth about Obama, Romney will be an ideal target for ridicule; he will succumb to rule number five and he will react to Obama's advantage.

Barack Obama will have untold amounts of money at his disposal when he faces the eventual nominee. He will spend a great deal of that money implementing rule number five; it's part of his wiring. It's simply not enough for the Republican Party to nominate a person who can neutralize rule number five; it needs someone who can reverse its intended effect.

It must nominate someone who can Newtralize rule number five.

Picked up over at Red County

Video: Newt Smacks down CNN's Erin Burnett on Lewinsky question

Folks, Newt Gingrich strikes fear in the heart of two entities. The first is Barack Obama, who absolutely does NOT want to face the former Speaker in November. If he did, the media would be demonizing Mitt Romney far more than it is Gingrich. The other entity is the liberal news media. Conservatives all across this country are sick and tired of the liberal media's double standards and bullying.

Newt put that frustration on full display at the CNN debate during his exchange with John King. One day later, he did it again with CNN's Erin Burnett, who wilted in this exchange.

Burnett attempted to paint as hypocritical, Newt's infidelity in his own marriages while going after Bill Clinton in the 90's over Monica Lewinsky. Newt's answer didn't just shut Burnett up. It did exactly what his scolding of King did at the CNN debate; it caused any conservative who watched it to pump his/her fist in the air.

If the strategy of the Obama administration - and by extension, the media - is to smear every Republican candidate with these tactics, there is one candidate who short-circuits that strategy. In fact, Newt actually uses it to his advantage and does so masterfully in this exchange.



h/t Hapblog

Video: Excellent Explanation about why SOPA and PIPA bad

Those who don't understand why the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) are very bad pieces of legislation need to see this video. Clay Shirky breaks it all down in very easy-to-understand terms. It is the entertainment and media industry lobbyists that are behind it and if they get their way, control of the internet is almost guaranteed to be wrested from the people.

Fortunately, the people won a victory this past week when both bills saw a significant reduction in support and were shelved. As Shirky explains here, though, it will not end there. It will come back.

Oh, none other than former Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd is the chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Ya think he's got some connections in Congress?

h/t Sipsey Street

Sorry Folks, this Birther Story in Georgia is Newsworthy

A case has been brought against Barack Obama by Georgia residents who say he his not eligible to appear on that state's presidential primary ballot. That, by itself, is not all that newsworthy. However, Georgia Judge Michael M. Malihi has denied Obama's request not to have to appear in front of the court on January 26th. That is newsworthy.

Via the AP:

ATLANTA (AP) — A judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and can't be president.

It's one of many such lawsuits that have been filed across the country, so far without success. A Georgia resident made the complaint, which is intended to keep Obama's name off the state's ballot in the March presidential primary.

What is the argument from the administration as to why Obama shouldn't appear? Well, he's too busy. Here is an excerpt from the Judge's order that denies the administration's motion to quash the subpoena:

In support of his motion, Defendant argues that "if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as President of the United States" to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant's motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority.

It ends with the following sentence:

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to quash is denied.

Read the entire order HERE.

Does this mean that Obama will appear in court on January 26th? Hardly, but it'll be interesting to see what the Judge does after getting the proverbial kiss-off.

h/t Free Republic

Ted Nugent Chimes in on Fast and Furious (Not Happy)

Those who think the Fast and Furious scandal has faded into the darkness because of stall tactics, stonewalling, and coverups are definitely mistaken. This week's news that the head of the criminal division in the Arizona US Attorneys Office, Patrick Cunningham, was subpoenaed and then pleaded the fifth is quite newsworthy. It also comes less than two weeks before the biggest Eric Holder / Darrell Issa showdown yet, when the Attorney General faces the Oversight Committee for the first time on February 2nd.

If the Feds thought the public would cry uncle after the repeated stonewalling, they were wrong. In fact, they've apparently roused Uncle Ted, who also says this is worse than Watergate.

Via Washington Times:

The United States of America has turned into bizarro land. Think of this: Our very own Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), under the direct guidance of the attorney general of the United States - America’s top cop, mind you - not only allowed, but encouraged American gun dealers to sell about 2,000 guns to known punks involved in the drug trade in order to trace the guns to Mexican drug cartels. If you think that’s unbelievably nuts, get a load of this: The suspected goons who bought the guns were not even placed under law enforcement surveillance.

This is analogous to the Drug Enforcement Administration knowingly allowing international dope pushers to sell heroin on American streets without placing the dope dealers under surveillance in hopes that somehow, some way, the dope pushers would enable the DEA to trace the heroin back to some dirty, cave-dwelling Afghan opium poppy farmer so we could then poison the farmer’s poppy fields. Wait a minute, let’s not give this crackpot administration any more loony ideas.

In all of its bureaucratic buffoonery, the ATF lost control of the weapons. Of course it did, as there were no electronic tracing components on the guns. Our less-than-esteemed attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., to whom the ATF reports, claimed not to know a thing about this brain-dead operation.

What kind of inebriated idiot would hatch an evil scheme such as this and then believe that, somehow, the guns could be traced to Mexican drug cartels without an electronic tracing component? This isn’t some low-ranking bureaucratic village idiot but a high-ranking government bureaucratic idiot who is paid by U.S. taxpayers.

Read it all.