AP
See more here:
Santorum gaining ground before Tuesday’s primaries shows progression of both candidate and campaign
It’s an unfortunate component of being a partisan blogger, but as folks of late have seen around here, you can’t cower from the hatred. You must never cave to the progressive totalitarians. Few people live that dictum with more resolve than Pamela Geller. See, ” Charles Johnson, Misogynist, of Little Green Footballs In Servitude to Savages “: I will not submit to the whitewashing and outright cover-up of honor killings in the West, despite the withering personal attacks on me. That these monstrous crimes of murder do not unite rational men on the basis of sheer humanity is indicative of how debased and morally bankrupt the monsters on the left are. I hold them ultimately responsible. Devout Muslims who support or subscribe to religiously sanctioned gendercide are merely adhering to their faith. What’s the left’s excuse? Imagine someone so twisted and dysfunctional that he would vilify those who are fighting against an ideology that oppresses, subjugates and slaughters women. Honor killings are a family affair, and there are as many accomplices as there are killers. Jessica Mokdad was subjected to years of strict religious punishment in that hellish house. Where was her mother? Who lured her back to that deadly house after she had run away? The once fiercely counter-jihad now viciously pro-jihad Chuck Johnson is rabid with news of my human rights conference, mixing moral equivocation with good old-fashioned lies. Really nuts. I/we asked the Hyatt for nothing. After they apologized profusely for canceling a Geller event in Sugar Land, Texas (the mistake of a weak, on-site tool), the Hyatt offered to give us space and pay for it at any of their hotels in America. I never bullied Hyatt. I never even contacted them. I am always surprised when someone sends me a link from the green swamp. No one reads this boil on the ass of the blogsophere anymore, but look what’s become of him. Once the pre-eminent blog on the right, the now notorious leftwing troll is mocking the fight for the right to live and live freely as a “ghoulish obsession”: Pamela Geller’s Ghoulish Obsession With ‘Honor Killings’ Takes an Ugly Turn. Fighting to save girls’ lives is a “ghoulish obsession.” I guess CJ would call Elie Wiesel’s work on the Holocaust a “ghoulish obsession.” Or any human rights group or anti-torture organization — do they have “ghoulish obessions,” too? Continue reading . Pamela adds: Evil. And although no one takes this tool seriously anymore (he was us, now he’s them, tomorrow he is Gregor Samsa), it is illustrative of the left’s canny ability to paint good as evil. “Ghoulish obsession” — think about that. It is evil. It’s not simply disagreement. It’s a demonically obsessed campaign to destroy her. Pamela also a posts a screencap from Little Green Footballs, where the Little Green Gargoyles in the comments compare honor killings to circumcision and warn that Pamela and the AFDI/SIOA organizers are “looking for trouble.” And on cue, Charles Johnson’s posts another attack on Pamela, at the Twitter link here: ” Pamela Geller Spews Hatred at LGF Again .” The hatred in the comments is heating up right on schedule. This is what you deal with when you stand up for right. I’m engaged in this kind of thing at American Power . It’s f-king unbelievable the depths of genuine evil I deal with, but as you can see with Pamela, there’s black contagion spreading and people of good faith can’t stand aside. NEVER CAVE TO THESE ASSHOLES.
Continue reading here:
Charles Johnson’s Servitude to Savages
I called him a sore loser, and Jonathan Tobin elaborated the point . Now here’s Victor Davis Hanson, ” Gingrich’s Speech — How to Make a Bad Night Worse ” (via Memeorandum ): Gingrich should carefully play a tape of his post–Nevada caucus performance, and then he would quickly grasp that it was little more than a litany of excuses, whining, and accusations — characterized by stream-of-conscious confessionals and rambling repetitions. And, I think, will hurt him more than anything yet in the campaign. And see Freedom’s Lighthouse, ” Newt Gingrich Slams Mitt Romney as “Fundamentally Dishonest” in Nevada Press Conference; Says He Can be Frontrunner Again by the April 3 Texas Primary – Complete Video 2/4/12 .”
Read more:
Newt’s Bad Night
File this under “Well, Crap.” Kimberley Strassel has a real upper of a column at the Wall Street Journal today: “Reimagining Speaker Pelosi.” While the GOP and the Right are focused on the fight for the White House and getting rid of President Obama, there’s a creeping political menace that too many are not seeing: The 2010 takeover of the House could be short-lived. Conservatives are by nature optimists. They are intensely focused on retaking the White House and the Senate. But what if, in that optimism, they are missing a growing threat? That threat is to the House of Representatives. Republicans claimed a sweeping victory there in 2010, a win that stopped President Obama’s marauding legislative agenda. Yet that has led to a certain Republican nonchalance about the House in 2012. What the optimists are missing is that the House remains the linchpin of all their future ambitions. A Republican presidency will mean little with Speaker Nancy Pelosi redux. Mr. Obama may well win re-election. What leverage will a Republican-run Senate have in the face of that, and a Democratic House? Or consider the possibility that Republicans botch both the Oval Office and the Senate. True, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), under Texas Rep. Pete Sessions, is aware of the challenge and is energetically fund-raising and recruiting. True, the party is already coaching its newer members about the rigors of re-election. And true, John Boehner and Eric Cantor are going all out to collect money for their members. The speaker alone raised some $46 million in 2011—nearly double his take for the entire last election cycle. What Messrs. Boehner and Cantor know is that they’ll need all this, and more. The House is no sure thing. Read the whole thing for a sobering account of what could happen if the Right and the GOP don’t get their act together.
Sky watchers from Waco, Texas, all the way to Oklahoma City saw an unexpected meteor streak across last night’s sky. Watch the ABC News report with footage of the meteor making its way slowly across the screen: KIII TV reports that the Federal Aviation Commission has confirmed it was in fact a meteor. The footage was captured from a camera on a police vehicle but here’s the question of the day: Was the minivan in front of the cop car pulled over and did they still get a ticket?
Read this article:
What Was the Strange ‘Fireball’ That Lit Up the Texas Sky Last Night?
The scimitar horned oryx is extinct in the wild.
Link:
Could TX Hunting Actually Help Save These Endangered Species?
In an article titled “ Rick Santorum for President ,” conservative authoress Michelle Malkin throws her support behind the former Pennsylvania senator. Malkin argues that Santorum would be the best choice for the GOP and she does this by citing his political record. However , lest she be written off as a shameless Santorum shill, she also makes sure to point out that like the other Republican candidates, he has some shortcomings. Malkin begins by highlighting Santorum’s conservative credentials: his opposition to TARP, the fact that he didn’t “cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008,” that he is not among the GOP nominees (i.e. Romney and Gingrich) who supported the bailouts and he didn’t have to “obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did.” Furthermore, Santorum “strongly opposed the auto bailout,” the Freddie and Fannie bailout, “porkulus” bills, and he “ clearly and forcefully ” opposed individual health care mandates. He also voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted “Yes” to drilling in ANWR, and, unlike some of the other GOP candidates, he never “dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren , Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi ,” as Malkin puts it. “Santorum is strong on border security , national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement,” Malkin writes, “Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values — not just in word, but in deed .” Another feather in his cap: unlike Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) and the former Speaker of the House, Santorum hasn’t attacked Mitt Romney’s career at Bain Capital with, in the words of Malkin, “ contemptible Occupier rhetoric .” However, as mentioned in the above, Santorum also has some shortcomings. “As I’ve said all along, every election cycle is a Pageant of the Imperfects,” Malkin writes. Santorum “lost his Senate re-election bid in 2006, an abysmal year for conservatives” and he was a ” go-along, get-along Big Government Republican in the Bush era,” according to Malkin. “He supported No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks and outraged us movement conservatives by endorsing RINO Arlen Specter over stalwart conservative Pat Toomey,” Malkin continues. “I have no illusions about Rick Santorum. I wish he were as rock-solid on core economic issues as Ron Paul,” she writes. So, why isn’t she writing an article titled “Ron Paul for President”? Because, according to Malkin, the Texas congressman is a “far-out, Alex Jones-panderer” on foreign policy, defense, and national security. Malkin writes: If Ron Paul talked more like his son, Rand Paul, about the need for common-sense profiling of jihadists at our State Department consular offices overseas and if he talked more about the need for strengthened visa screening and airport security scrutiny of international flight manifests, I might have more than a kernel of confidence that he would take post-9/11 precautions to guard against jihadi threats and protect us from our enemies foreign and domestic. But he doesn’t, so I can’t support Ron Paul. What about Mitt Romney? Mitt Romney has the backing of many solid conservatives whom I will always hold in high esteem — including Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement stalwart Kris Kobach, former U.N. ambassacor John Bolton, and GOP Govs. Nikki Haley and Bob McDonnell. With such conservative advisers in his camp, Romney would be better than Obama. And a GOP Congress with a staunch Tea Party-backed contingent of fresh-blood leaders in the House and Senate will help keep any GOP president in line. Romney’s private-sector experience and achievements are the best things he’s got going. Only recently has he risen to defend himself effectively. But between his health care debacle, eco-nitwittery, and expedient and unconvincing political metamorphosis, Mitt Romney had way too much ideological baggage for me in 2008 to earn an endorsement — and it still hasn’t changed for me in 2012. Should we even ask what she thinks of Newt Gingrich? Then there’s Newt, who has long made a career out of trashing progressive Saul Alinsky while employing his tactics at every turn. I’ve been making this point for years and have chronicled his dalliances with leftists as long as anyone in the conservative blogosphere. Many grass-roots conservatives were awakened to Newt’s double-talk and double-dealing during the NY-23 race . Inconvenient truth: Newt’s transgressions are not from decades ago. It’s not ancient history. It’s here and now. Readers of this blog know the truth: It’s not just “the GOP establishment” that’s repulsed by Gingrich’s combination of moral baggage and K Street/Beltway culture of corruption. It’s the very grass-roots that Gingrich’s cheerleaders purport to represent. Lest we forget, this election is not about choosing a showboat candidate to run against John King or Juan Williams or Wolf Blitzer. It’s not about “raging against” some arbitrarily defined GOP “machine.” For many grass-roots conservatives across the country, Romney and Gingrich are the machine. Therefore, given that two of the four remaining GOP candidates are, in her eyes, part of “the machine,” and that she finds Paul’s stances on foreign policy and national security inadequate, this leaves her with one option: the former senator from Pennsylvania. “Rick Santorum represents the most conservative candidate still standing who can articulate both fiscal and social conservative values — and live them,” Malkin writes.
See the rest here:
Michelle Malkin: ‘Santorum for President’
