Newt Gingrich Continues to Say Things

Citing a recent Forbes article by Dinesh D’Souza, former House speaker Newt Gingrich tells National Review Online that President Obama may follow a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview.

Gingrich says that D’Souza has made a “stunning insight” into Obama’s behavior — the “most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama.”

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asks. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”

Okay, first of all, why do you say anti-colonial like it's a bad thing? Didn't our Founding Fathers (pause for genuflection) launch the American Revolution in a fit of anti-colonialism? Are you saying that you're Pro-Colonialism? Being anti-colonial is like being anti-child-abuse. It's a no-brainer. Anyone with any shred of human decency is going to be anti-colonial. This is your trial balloon for 2012, vote for me, I'm not anti-colonial? Good luck with that.

Secondly, no one has ever, not ever, said that Dinesh D'souza has had a "stunning insight" into anything. Ever. That's just one of those sentences that has never been spoken, like "Gee, I just can't get enough of that Katy Perry!" or "I think Dane Cook is funny." Never been said. By anyone. Ever.
See, this is the kind of "insight" you get from D'Souza:

9/11 was bad, I hate the left, therefore the left is responsible for 9/11!

Or check out this brilliant "insight" into the Abu Ghraib scandal:

Abu Ghraib did not reflect the shared values of America, it reflected the sexual immodesty of liberal America. Lynndie England and Charles Graner were two wretched individuals from Red America who were trying to act out the fantasies of Blue America. Casting aside all traditional notions of decency, propriety and morality, they simply lived by the code of self-fulfillment. If it feels good, it must be right. This was bohemianism, West Virginia-style.

I can't wait for his next book "The Left Is Responsible for my Being Picked on in Junior High" or maybe "Why the Liberals are to Blame for my Poor Eyesight."

Seriously, Dinesh D'Souza? You really want to hitch your wagon to that star? Be my guest.

If you want my advice, though, if you're serious about running in 2012 (and please, God let him be serious!) you might want to think about this for a second. We haven't elected a fat president since Taft.

Just sayin'!

More Evidence That Vaccines Don't Cause Autism

Mon, Sep 13, 2010

"Prenatal and early life exposure to ethylmercury from thimerosal in vaccines or immunoglobulin products does not increase a child's risk of developing autism," concluded senior study author Dr. Frank DeStefano, director of the immunization safety office at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Yeah, I don't know. . . I still think Jenny McCarthy might know a little more about this than the CDC.

Martin Peretz is an Idiot. And an Ass. And just Awful.

This is Martin Peretz.

Martin is the editor of the New Republic, a disgraceful rag which I hear was once actually respectable a long time ago. But not now. No. Not with Martin Peretz at the helm for sure.

Here's a recent article Martin burped up onto the interwebs recently:

The New York Times Laments "A Sadly Wary Misunderstanding of Muslim-Americans." But Really Is It "Sadly Wary" Or A "Misunderstanding" At All?

• Martin Peretz

  Martin Peretz

  view bio

  • The Sweet New Year Nectar: A Postscript
  • Gezunt, Parnosseh, Nachas
  • Get An Injunction
• September 4, 2010

Now that's a snappy headline!

The newspaper has done a poll of New York City residents which found that 33% of them thought Muslim-American "more sympathetic to terrorists" than other citizens.

Okay.

Frankly, I don't trust opinion surveys on matters like this. But I'd guess that if respondents were truly honest with the pollsters and with themselves the percentage would be considerably higher.

Um, okay. And this is based on what, exactly?

Where does the Times get reliable data on the feelings of American Muslims (or, for that matter, Arab Americans) about terrorists and terrorism? Forgive me: I don't think such data even exists.

Um, they get it by doing opinion polls? That's how they find out about people's opinions?

And, to tell you the truth, I do not think there's much reliable data on how Americans see American Muslims either.

And what you think is relevant how?

But the Times survey does infer some knowledge about this matter.

Infer? The survey infers some knowledge? Really? You may infer something from reading the survey, the survey might imply something, but since the survey is not a sentient being, it has no capacity for inference. And you're the editor, hmm?

Remember, though, that these responses are from New Yorkers and New Yorkers alone. If you believe, as I do, that citizens of the five boroughs are not only more "diverse and cosmopolitan" but also more tolerant and condoning than most other Americans than you might come to the conclusion that our non-New Yorker fellow citizens are far more deeply biased and warped than the Gotham locals.

So, if we believe this stereotype about New Yorkers, then we may also believe stereotypes about the folks in the flyover states?

Actually, no one has shown that a single serious demonstration against Muslims and Arabs, against their beliefs and behavior can be raised in this country.

Really?

In fact, there has not been a single rally or demonstration in America aimed at Muslim or Arab interests or their commitments to foreign governments and, more likely, to foreign insurgencies and, yes, quite alien philosophies.

I suggest that this is largely the case because Americans are so fearful of being accused of bias, however the injustice of the charge might be.

However the injustice of the charge might be? So you're saying that Americans won't act like bigots for fear of being labeled bigots?

Frankly, the only demonstration against a mass killing (after all, they happen nearly every day) I've read about was last week in Pakistan when some 30-odd people, not designated and not guilty of doing anything except going to a Shia shrine were blown right then and there.

I'm sorry, where did you say this shrine is where everyone gets blown? This must be a very popular religion!

A day or two after two bombs went off taking the lives of what turned out--you can read it about in the recent Tehran Times--to be just under one hundred Shi'ites in two town different towns.

Two town different towns?

This intense epidemic of slaughter has been going on for nearly a decade and a half...without protest, without anything. And it has been going for decades and centuries before that.

This has been going on for 15 years! And also for decades and centuries!

But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims.

So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.

Hey, asshole! The First Amendment is not a privilege! It guarantees the right of people to freedom of speech. A right which, yes, can be abused. But it's hard to imagine anyons abusing their First Amendment rights worse than you have in this article.

Crazy Candidate of the Day - Can't possibly be serious edition

This! Man! Is! Phil! Davidson!
and he is running for some stupid office no one cares about in some place called Star County.
This guy has to be a joke. He's the political equivalent of the kids who go on the first week of American Idol and sing horribly.

He can't even remember his favorite quote.

This Lady is Just Freakin' Nuts -- Part Two

Here is the scene I imagine playing out in the mind of Sher Zieve:

Scene: The Oval Office.

President Obama is kneeling on his prayer rug, stroking his Hitler mustache and reading Mao's Little Red Book. Suddenly, a fiendish idea occurs to him. He jumps up and presses the intercom button.

Obama

Miss Johnson? Send in my henchmen!

Ms Johnson (off screen)
Right away, mein fuhrer!

Several Jack-booted thugs in ACORN shirts enter.

Henchman #1

You wanted to see us, Dear Leader?

Obama
Yes, I just had a great idea. I'm going to eliminate my enemies!

Henchman # 2
But Sir, it's just that that seems almost too evil, even for us!

Obama
How dare you question the great emperor? Have this man taken out and beaten with Korans!

Henchman # 3
Right away, your excellency!

Henchman # 1
So, your majesty, how will we be eliminating the target? Gunfire? Explosion? Putin-poison?

Obama
No, I mean really eliminate the enemy! Eliminate him from the Internet!
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!



Henchman #1
But your highness, it's it's. . . impossible!

Obama
Nothing is impossible with the help of my friends in the left-wing media!

Henchman #3
So, your excellency, whom shall we eliminate?
Bill O'Reilly has shown a distinct lack of faith in you!

Obama
No, I need a much bigger target!

Henchman # 1
Rush Limbaugh?

Obama
Too obvious! I was thinking the target should be a loony toons blogger no one has ever heard of!

Henchman #1
Surely not. . .

Obama
YES! I say we eliminate Sher Zieve!

All henchmen gasp in unison

Obama
Bring me my villain hat!

Obama begins typing on his desktop computer

Obama

Let's see, it says here that she has over a million "entries" on Google and Yahoo! Well, I'll just click here, and enter my secret new-world-order code word, and. . .
Aha! Now she has a mere 8000 entries! Victory is mine!

Henchman # 2
But, Excellency, she hasn't been eliminated. Her internet presence has just been reduced somewhat! She has not been silenced!

Obama
How the hell did you get back in here? Guards! Take this man to the death panel!