Who is Alinsky and Why is He Inside a Bubble?

 

On his HBO show, Real Time, which was broadcast on January 27, 2012, Bill Mahr questioned the most bizarre lines of attack by Newt Gingrich and the GOP/Tea Party talking heads, against liberals and President Obama. Gingrich's recent rally cry that is being leveled against Obama is accusing him of being a "Saul Alinsky radical."

So, Bill Maher wants to know, "Who the F#@K is Saul Alinsky?" A Wikipedia search determined that Alinsky was a beloved and influential community organizer with zero communist ties. Alinsky is best known for being a civil rights advocate in the 1950s.


The Republicans are running against a fictional Obama, a radical and socialist political figure who has no basis in actual policy or even personal association, as the Alinsky charges demonstrate: Alinsky died when Obama was ten.


Based on fictional misrepresentations, the GOP/Tea Party can create a fictional candidate to run against.


This is how politics has changed. You used to run against an actual president. But now you just recreate him inside the bubble and run against your new fictional candidate.

WATCH:

The Nit-Picking of Newt

Massachusetts Senatorial Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren has articulated quite well a progressive economic message regarding the debt crisis and fair taxation, as she speaks on the campaign trail. As a Democrat candidate, she makes a strong case for the underlying social contract that has been in effective in this country.

Here is a another statement from a political candidate that reflects the same sentiment as Warren's statements. Can you figure out who said this?

The era of Republican domination back between 1856 and 1932 was a period of tremendous government experimenting, a period of building the transcontinental railroad...a period of encouraging homesteading through the Homestead Act, a period of the agricultural college and the Morrill Act which led to the land-grant colleges and the agricultural agent system.

The test I always give conservatives is to say "How many of you wanted to save the Panama Canal?" Most of my conservative friends promptly raise their hands. But the fact of the matter is that the Panama Canal was built by government engineers, because government doctors cured yellow fevers. It was run by a government corporation and it was constructed by government Army and Navy, the largest public works project in history at the time was it was set up.*

The underlying message of the above statement fits into the progressive economic message of Elizabeth Warren. However, this quote did not come from Elizabeth Warren. It came from a young Rep. Newt Gingrich, in 1983. Gingrich has previously acknowledged the benefits of government in certain cases.

*Via Congressional Record (daily ed.), November 3, 1983, H9200

A Big Bad Bully

FREEdom Of Speech is a blog by Travon Free who is a stand-up comedian, actor, and writer. He wrote "An Open Letter To Newt Gingrich From A Black Kid Who Grew Up In A Poor Neighborhood" in response to Newt Gingrich's comments about the poor, the black and the kids. It is a must read.

Dear Newt Gingrich,

I recently saw you stand up in front of a group of people and allow some of the most idiotic, unfounded, racist, and ignorant words pass your lips that I’ve ever heard from a member of a group of the most unqualified presidential candidates America has ever seen.

To have the audacity to say that poor kids, and let’s be clear that’s republican speak for black and brown kids, “have no habits of working and nobody around them who works” is not only an insult to me as black man who grew up in one of those “really poor” neighborhoods you spoke of, but it’s an insult to my mother. And it’s an insult to many other black, brown and white children, adults, and hard working parents(often single parents) who get up every single day to try to provide a better life for their children in poor neighborhoods.

As a child who grew up in Compton in the early 90′s, one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in America at that time, I watched my mother work tirelessly, sometimes juggling multiple jobs to provide for myself and my sister. Day in and day out like many other parents in poor neighborhoods, she did what she had to do in order to provide for us. You know what that turned into Mr. Gingrich?

A son who received academic and athletic scholarship offers from three Ivy League schools and countless other universities, a son with a college degree in Criminal Justice who graduated with honors from every school he attended, and a daughter who not only attended a Gifted and Talented Education high school, but is one year away from completing a degree at UCLA.

This is not just the case for my family. I know I speak for many other hard working black, brown, and poor white families who have the same experiences in the poor neighborhoods you look down upon from your elitist 1% out of touch pedestal. To say that an entire community “literally has no habit of showing up on Monday” or “they have no habit of staying all day” I say that is a load of shit.

Millions of poor children watch their parents show up Monday and many of them sometimes have to suffer from the fact that their parents have to stay at work ALL DAY.

And lastly, you suggest that to remedy this “problem” as you so blindly see it is to make poor kids assistant janitors and pay them to clean the restrooms? Your solution is child labor. Degrading young children by suggesting they clean toilets while painting all union workers as lazy leeches. It’s a shame they don’t have the work ethic of hard working Americans like Kim Kardashian who worked so hard in her sex tape before we crowned her a role model for young girls and showered her with money and adoration or Paris Hilton who was forced to clean so many toilets as a teen to learn “work ethic” before her parents handed over the millions.

This not only echoes the depth of your ignorance, but just how truly unqualified you are to ever be president of this country. Your assumption that poor people have no ingrained work ethic and “have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash’ unless it’s illegal” is not only dangerously ignorant but it proves you have no connection with the true heart of this country.

I believe I speak for most if not all of “poor” America when I say Mr. Gingrich you have no habit of performing, thinking or speaking in a manner that warrants becoming the leader of the free world and the 45th president of these United States of America. You represent a party of greedy, selfish, out of touch, wealth protecting, non tax paying, destroyers of the middle class. You know nothing about us. But your words in your
speech in Des Moines told us everything about you.

Which is why I hope you win your party’s nomination. So that poor and impoverished families can at least experience four more years of a man working diligently to help them and the communities they call home that you have proven to know nothing about. president number 44.

PS. You look like someone poured mashed potatoes into a suit

[Update 12/14/11] This is for all the “how is that racist” and “he’s not talking about black people” comments. Click the link in the middle to watch the video(No Flash on WP blogs sucks.) Nobody does it better than Team Stewart.

[Update 12/13/11] First and foremost, thank you all who have read, shared, and commented on this post. I try to respond as often as I can and as soon as I see the comments but cant get to them all due to time spent working on other projects. As a note to future commentators in defense of Newt, please read my response comments below. I also want to acknowledge that I am well aware of the excessive amount of poor white Americans(I mentioned above) and I support your struggle and triumph just as aggressively as that of my own community. However, the reason the letter has a more black/brown focus is because this was a product of directly defending my mother who is a black woman and I grew up around black and brown poor people. Thank you so much for reading!!

Also, the mashed potatoes line is only a joke. I am a stand up comic and I leave a little humor in everything I touch. Consider it a little mental palate cleanser to remove the dirty taste of Newt in your minds!

Newt is nothing but a bully pretending he is your friend.

The Newtster is at it Again!

In the news last week, Newt Gingrich said that he believed that kids from poor neighborhoods should work janitorial jobs at school in order to learn a work ethic. The REASON? Gingrich wants to relax our "truly stupid" child labor laws. He wants to do away with union workers, fire janitors and employ children at slave labor wages. Newt has a way of putting his thoughts into succinct statements.

“It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child [labor] laws, which are truly stupid,”

"You say to somebody, you shouldn’t go to work before you’re what, 14, 16 years of age, fine. You’re totally poor. You’re in a school that is failing with a teacher that is failing. I’ve tried for years to have a very simple model. Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they’d begin the process of rising."

But not to worry, even Gingrich has his limits. When speaking to WNYM radio host Curtis Sliwa, he clarified, “Kids shouldn’t work in coal mines; kids shouldn’t work in heavy industry,” but he still supports having poor school kids scrub toilets in public schools.

Is this a new way of thinking for Gingrich? Absolutely not! In 1994, Newt proposed bringing back orphanages for children on welfare.

In 1994, during the early days of the public debate on welfare reform, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich ignited a media firestorm by suggesting that orphanages are better for poor children than life with a mother on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).

As part of his push for welfare reform, Gingrich proposed that states end aid to poor single mothers and their children be sent to orphanages that would be built with the saved money.

Responding to criticism of the plan by then-first lady Hillary Clinton, Gingrich cites a 1938 Hollywood film and said, “I’d ask her to go to Blockbuster and rent the Mickey Rooney movie about ‘Boys Town.’”

Newt's statements are bold, direct and false. Recently he added a proposal about the food stamp program.

In a speech in Iowa last month, for instance, Gingrich took on the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — or food stamps, as it used to be called. The former U.S. House speaker, whom one would assume would know better, said that “people take their food stamp money and use it to go to Hawaii” on vacations. He also said “they give food stamps now to millionaires.”

PolitiFact.com, the fact-checkers at the Tamp Bay Times, looked into Gingrich’s charges and found them false, giving him the “Pants on Fire” rating of its truth meter for being so wrong.

The political pundits seem to agree that with Newt's success in the GOP primary race, Newt will continue to make outrageous, absurd and misinformed statements.

A different view has been espoused by Louis King, president and CEO of Summit Academy OIC, an educational and vocational training center focused on getting jobs for the jobless and under-employed. King believes that, “the best example for kids is to see their parents working” in order to have parents serve as role models. In other words, put their parents to work.

“You can’t have it both ways,” he adds. “You can’t demand people take care of themselves and at the same time not afford equal lending, good education and access to jobs. That is the hypocrisy of both the left and the right.”

Jobs for adults, he repeats, not putting children to work, is the path away from poverty to prosperity. “If I can put one or two people to work feeding their families, that is better than feeding 300 people one time.”

Secret Money Scandal

Michael Winship at Salon War Room has an interesting article, Secret Cash, The worst political scandal of all.

Sometimes I feel like Gus, the father in "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" -- you know, the guy who thinks you can cure all maladies with a spritz of Windex and declares, "Give me a word, any word, and I show you that the root of that word is Greek."

Only in my case, it’s give me a scandal, any scandal, and I’ll show you how the corrosive influence of money on politics is at its root and makes what’s bad even worse (okay, maybe not in the case of Anthony Weiner -- yet). It’s not an especially effective party trick, I know, unless you’re at a really dreary policy wonk picnic, but you work with what you’ve got.

John Edwards’ illegitimate child? The legal case being built against the freshly indicted former presidential candidate isn’t about paternity or custody or any of that kind of stuff, but revolves around felony campaign finance charges; whether or not two wealthy backers -- his now deceased fundraising chair Frederick Baron and 100-year-old heiress Rachel "Bunny" Mellon -- provided hundreds of thousands in contributions that in reality paid for the hiding of Edwards' mistress, Rielle Hunter, and their baby.

Gingrich and Tiffany

Newt Gingrich and his wife Callista’s big fat, revolving, no interest credit account at Tiffany's? It might be tin-eared and wrong for someone who purports to be a fiscal conservative and a man of the people to throw around big bucks for expensive bling, but that ain’t necessarily the scandal. Look a little deeper. On May 24, Jeff Stein of The Washington Post blog "Spy Talk" reported:

"At the same time Tiffany & Co. was extending Callista (Bisek) Gingrich a virtual interest-free loan of tens of thousands of dollars, the diamond and silverware firm was spending big bucks to influence mining policy in Congress and in agencies over which the House Agriculture Committee -- where she worked -- had jurisdiction, official records show."

Until 2006, Ms. Gingrich was chief clerk at the committee. During the years between 2005 and 2009, Tiffany's annual lobbying costs shot up from around $100,000 to $360,000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The jewelry giant strongly denies any connection: "We had no reason to lobby the Agriculture Committee and we did not… Our focus has been on the Natural Resources Committee." The company also said it had never spoken with Newt or Callista Gingrich about federal mining policy.

But hang on, there’s more.

Tim Carney of The Washington Examiner reports:

"Christy Evans, formerly a top staffer to then-whip Newt Gingrich, is a registered lobbyist for Tiffany’s, the high-end jeweler where Gingrich and his wife enjoy an extraordinary line of credit. Evans, former floor assistant to Gingrich and now a lobbyist at the legendary K Street firm Cassidy & Associates, has represented Tiffany's on mining issues since 2000, according to lobbying filings."

The revolving door between government and corporate interests, revolving credit… the saga of Newt "Holly Golightly" Gingrich spins on. The whole affair is reminiscent of the preferential loan treatment now-collapsed subprime mortgage giant Countrywide Financial Corporation reportedly gave a few years ago to Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson (he resigned as a result), North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad (chair of the Senate Budget Committee), former Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd (who served as chair of the Senate Banking Committee), and former cabinet secretaries Alphonso Jackson and Donna Shalala.

The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United

Yet all this greed and venality pales against the dark heart of the worst political scandal of all, the continuing nightmare caused by Citizens United and other court decisions that have unleashed a monster of unlimited and frequently anonymous private and corporate campaign cash against a nearly defenseless citizenry.

The recent disclosure that the conservative, "grass roots" advocacy organization American Action Network received first year revenues of $2.75 million from fewer than a dozen unnamed, wealthy donors (and 82% of the money from only three of them) led Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethic in Washington, to cite AAN as just one example of how "very few people are having a disproportionate impact on our country’s elections." (The group, affiliated with Karl Rove’s American Crossroads political action committee, raised another $24 million in the four months before the 2010 midterms, funding attack ads against Democratic Senate candidates in Wisconsin, Florida, Washington State and Florida described by progressive watchdog Media Matters as "bogus," "deceptive" and "stripped of the facts.")

Secret Donors and Corporate Money

This revelation follows superb investigative reporting by a Bloomberg News team last month headlined "Secret Donors Multiply in U.S. Election Spending." They found that outside, or non-party organizations, including "trade groups, unions and non-profits started by political operatives that raise and spend money for advertising" spent $305 million on the 2010 elections, four times more than similar groups spent four years ago. They plan to raise even more money for the 2012 campaign. Contrary to law, five of those groups have failed to report to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) more than $4 million spent on attack ads in last year’s races.

"The organizations face little scrutiny from the FEC, where split votes between Republican and Democratic commissioners have stymied enforcement in case after case for almost three years," Bloomberg reported. "As a result, voters may find themselves choosing the next U.S. president knowing less about those trying to shape their views of the candidates than they have since secret money helped finance the Watergate burglary and re-elect President Richard Nixon in 1972."

The journalists quoted Donald Simon, a director of pro-disclosure organization Democracy 21: "The amounts of corporate money involved in Watergate will look quaint by the standards of secret corporate funding that will take place in 2012."

Republicans and many Democrats oppose all new attempts at campaign finance reform, including a proposed White House executive order requiring corporations seeking government contracts to reveal their political contributions. On May 26, a federal district court in Alexandria, Virginia, ruled that a long-standing ban on corporate contributions to federal candidates is unconstitutional. Unless the composition of the Supreme Court shifts in a new direction, a constitutional amendment that reverses Citizens United and other federal rulings may be our only prayer, the solitary hope we have to prevent the total usurpation of representative government by big businesses with bottomless pockets.

Economic dominance, it’s the biggest scandal of all

The Greeks had a word for it -- "oligarchy" -- political clout based on economic dominance. It is, in the words of economist Simon Johnson, "an antithesis to democracy… a small group with a lot of wealth and a lot of power. They pull the strings. They have the influence. They call the shots."

No accountability, no scruples, no shame. It’s the biggest scandal of all; a republic struck down by a possibly fatal malady that even Gus the Greek’s magic bottle of Windex can't cure.

It is always the wealthy who are continually complaining that the poor are getting things they haven't worked for and therefore don't deserve. But it is only the rich who work hard to buy the votes they want because they truly don't trust our system of democracy.

Gingrich Flip-Flop

The Words of Newt Gingrich and Osama bin Laden

A recent Slate article, Sheikh Your Newtie, compares the intent and words of Osama bin Laden with the intent and words of former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gringrich.

In the years since 9/11, Osama Bin Laden has issued more than 20 audio and video statements to spread his view of the conflict between the United States and al-Qaida. According to his worldview, the United States represents Christianity, al-Qaida represents Muslims, Christians won't protect Muslims, the West hates mosques, peaceful coexistence is a fraud, and the "war on terrorism" is really a war on Islam. By spreading this message, Bin Laden works to turn Muslims against the United States and rally them to al-Qaida.

Now Bin Laden has an ally in this propaganda campaign, Newt Gingrich.

Over the past two weeks, in a series of articles and speeches, Gingrich has declared a religious war that suits al-Qaida's agenda almost perfectly. While denouncing "Islamists" rather than Islam, Gingrich has blurred the distinction by selecting as his initial target the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero. Everything Bin Laden says about the United States, Gingrich validates.

The Atlantic Wire took five unsourced quotations in order to "see if you can guess which belong to the world's most notorious terrorist and which to the former U.S. Speaker of the House."

This is a struggle with [religious adherents] in both their militant and their stealth form. … The stealth form believes in using cultural, intellectual and political [power], but their end goal is exactly the same.

The [group of people] is incapable of recognizing the rights of others. It will not be able to respect others' beliefs or feelings. The [group of people] still believes in ethnic supremacy and looks down on other nations.

[Our culture] is experiencing a [foreign religion's] cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could. No [foreign religious structures]. No self deception. No surrender.

The intentions of [their people] have also been clarified in statements about the need to change the beliefs, curricula, and morals of [our people] to become more tolerant, as they put it. In clearer terms, it is a religious-economic war.

[He approvingly quotes a man who prayed solemnly before launching a famous military strike.] This was not a man who was confused about what the stakes were, nor was he confused about what the goal was.

Newt's words and Osama's agenda can be synchronized with each other for the same purpose of fomenting hate. To fully see the similarities, click through these side by side statements.

BIN LADEN	GINGRICH
[N]ow that senior U.S. officials have spoken … every Muslim should rush to defend his religion. … They came out to fight this group of people who declared their faith in God and refused to abandon their religion. They came out to fight Islam in the name of terrorism. (Oct. 7, 2001)	One of our biggest mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11 was naming our response to the attacks "the war on terror" instead of accurately identifying radical Islamists (and the underlying ideology of radical Islamism) as the target of our campaign. (July 28, 2010)
This war is fundamentally religious. … Those who try to cover this crystal clear fact, which the entire world has admitted, are deceiving the Islamic nation. … It is a question of faith, not a war against terrorism, as Bush and Blair try to depict it. … Fear God, O Muslims and rise to support your religion. (Nov. 3, 2001)	Some radical Islamists use terrorism as a tactic to impose sharia, but others use non-violent methods—a cultural, political, and legal jihad that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence. Thus, the term "war on terrorism" is far too narrow a framework in which to think about the war in which we are engaged against the radical Islamists.(July 28, 2010)
It has become clear that the West in general and America in particular have an unspeakable hatred for Islam. … A few days ago, they ... dropped—in what they said was a mistake—a radio-guided bomb on a mosque where ulemas were praying. They targeted the mosque, killing 150 Muslim worshippers. It is the hatred of crusaders. (Dec. 27, 2001)	[T]he Ground Zero mosque is all about conquest and thus an assertion of Islamist triumphalism which we should not tolerate. … It is simply grotesque to erect a mosque at the site of the most visible and powerful symbol of the horrible consequences of radical Islamist ideology. (July 28, 2010)
The intentions of the Americans have also been clarified in statements about the need to change the beliefs, curricula, and morals of the Muslims to become more tolerant, as they put it. In clearer terms, it is a religious-economic war. (Jan. 4, 2004)	America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could. No mosque. No self deception. No surrender. (July 21, 2010)
The West is incapable of recognizing the rights of others. It will not be able to respect others' beliefs or feelings. The West still believes in ethnic supremacy and looks down on other nations. … How can we explain France's stance on the headscarf and the banning on wearing it at schools ... This is a Zionist-Crusader war. (April 23, 2006)	[T]hey proposed a 13-story mosque and community center that will extol the glories of Islamic tolerance for people of other faiths, all while overlooking the site where radical Islamists killed almost 3,000 people in a shocking act of hatred. Building this structure on the edge of the battlefield created by radical Islamists is not a celebration of religious pluralism and mutual tolerance; it is a political statement of shocking arrogance and hypocrisy. … [F]or radical Islamists, the mosque would become an icon of triumph, encouraging them in their challenge to our civilization. (July 28, 2010)
So what is the sin of the Afghans due to which you are continuing this unjust war against them? Their only sin is that they are Muslims, and this illustrates the extent of the Crusaders' hatred of Islam and its people. (Nov. 29, 2007)	This is not a war on terrorism. Terrorism is an activity. This is a struggle with radical Islamists in both their militant and their stealth form. … The stealth form believes in using cultural, intellectual and political [power], but their end goal is exactly the same. (July 29, 2010)
"O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them." … Similar are sophistries like "dialogue of religions," "freedom of opinion," "freedom of speech," "peaceful coexistence." … (March 14, 2009)	President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as our troops were landing in Normandy, went on national radio at 10 o'clock at night and actually led the nation in six and a half minutes of prayer, something very few modern liberals appreciate. This is part of what he said: "Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set up on a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity." This was not a man who was confused about what the stakes were, nor was he confused about what the goal was. (July 29, 2010)
So, who stood by America the Christian, and who supported it? Isn't that Zardari and his government and army? … Obama has walked like his predecessors in increasing hostility towards Muslims. … I encourage my Muslim nation to stand by the side of the mujahideen and support them everywhere. ("Speech to the Pakistani Nation," June 3, 2009)	President Roosevelt said the following: "We must remember what the collaborative understanding between Communism and Nazism has done to the processes of democracy abroad. Those forces hate democracy and Christianity as two phases of the same civilization. They oppose democracy because it is Christian. They oppose Christianity because it preaches democracy. Their objective is to prevent democracy from becoming strong." Again, this is hardly a man who's confused about what's at stake. Winston Churchill, at the very peak of the Battle of Britain, said, "Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization." (July 29, 2010)
The war which has been taking place on your soil these past years is a war between Islam and the International Crusade. – ("Fight On, Champions of Somalia," March 19, 2009)	There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over. (July 21, 2010)

Hate in any language is about destruction and control.

Rebranding or Purging?

Steve Benin at the Washington Monthly has posted an article about "The Great Purge."

In a district represented by a Republican lawmaker in every election since the Civil War, the national Republican Party not only endorsed the consensus choice of local GOP leaders in the special election in New York's 23rd, they also invested $1 million last month. Yesterday, on the verge of an embarrassing third-place defeat, she quit.

The right-wing inmates have decided it's their asylum now, and they're just getting started. [...]

Scozzafava was a respected local Republican, with a record slightly to the right of most GOP state lawmakers in New York, but she was deemed insufficiently conservative. Sen. Arlen Specter was a Republican senator for nearly three decades, but he was deemed insufficiently conservative. Gov. Charlie Crist is supposed to be a rising GOP star from the nation's largest swing state, but his future is in doubt because he's been deemed insufficiently conservative. Eight House Republicans supported energy reform in July, and the base has targeted them for retribution. Newt Gingrich, for reasons I've never understood, is considered one of the GOP's great idea men. But the Tea Party/wingnut crowd has turned on him, too.

When Newt Gingrich is too moderate, and trying to pull the Republican Party closer to the American mainstream, it's safe to say there's something deeply wrong.

Is this now a Republican Party in which "right-wing nihilists are deliberately driving moderates from the party ranks?"

Being Anti-American

Via Daily Kos

This is maybe the most disgusting display of conservative mental illness and anti-Americanism I've seen to date.

While all of these pampered fops were sitting, doughy asses-in-chair and having their pusses painted up in TeeVee make-up, so that they could come on the air and go all in against America, actual heroes were at that very moment doing the real dirty work of executing that rescue.

Watch this video to see how Fox News is aptly named Faux News:

"At one point, as uncomfortable as the pirates were, they exposed themselves where there was an opportunity," Gortney said.

He gave details of that "exposure" at a news conference Sunday. He said two of the pirates had their heads and shoulders exposed, while the third was visible in the boat's pilot house, through a window.

"The on-scene commander saw that one of the pirates still held that AK-47, was very, very concerned for the captain's life -- and he ordered the shots to be taken," Gortney told CNN on Monday.

Even with the small boat "moving up and down a couple of feet," the SEALs hit their targets. "Remarkable marksmanship," Gortney said.

The moment came at 7:19 p.m. (12:19 p.m. ET) Sunday -- after sundown, military officials say.12:19 p.m. ET on Sunday.

Where, exactly, do you think each of these tough-talking blowhards were at 12:19 p.m. ET on Sunday?[...]

Almost every clip in this video was being taped or going to air at the very time that U.S. Navy SEALs were executing this mission.[...]

Disgusting. America is rightly sickened by these disaster porn perverts.

Republicans just need to be more 'Truthful' and 'Patriotic.' Novel ideas!!!

The Rush & Newt Show

Via Think Progress

This past Sunday on Meet the Press, former House Majority Leader Newt Gingrich took a shot at Rush Limbaugh, saying that anyone who doesn’t want President Obama to succeed is “irrational.”

Limbaugh responded on his radio show.

“You know, I’m frankly getting tired of talking about Newt,” Limbaugh began. “I mean, it’s a pointless exercise.” He then ripped Gingrich for being a typical “fly-by-night,” finger-in-the-wind politician who can’t be trusted:

They are fly-by-night operators, and most of them stand for nothing until they see a poll about what the American people want, and then they go out and try to say one way or another what the American people want while trying to falsely hold onto an ideology at the same time — and you can’t count on them. You can’t depend on them. They will sell you out; they will throw you overboard to save themselves, faster than anything. And they’ll use you on their way up as often as they can at the same time.

Limbaugh claimed that Gingrich is simply jealous of his influence. “I know that Newt would give his whatever to have what I’ve got,” he said. “So would any of these other critics of mine. … Newt Gingrich wishes they were running TV ads against him. But they’re running TV ads against me. So I love it. I’m up for it.” Listen here:

Gingrich is looking “seriously” at a 2012 run for the presidency. How far can Newt get if the leader of the Republican Party won’t give him his blessing?