Newt Gingrich for President

Yes...I'm a Newt man. But first let me talk about the other major candidates seeking the office of President of the United Sates of America in one of the most important times of our history.

Hillary Clinton is absolutely power mad. She would say or do anything to get elected. But how could we trust a woman who would stay with her whore of a husband just so she could have a chance at power? How could we trust a woman who would disavow her previous support for the most important battle in the War with Islam to buy votes from the Marxist wing of her party? How could we support a woman who would settle for a defeat against merciless muslim crusaders intent on our destruction? And what of HRC's stand on personal property? Hillary claimed she would "take" Exxon Mobil's profit. Isn't that unconstitutional to take personal property without due process? Does Hillary even understand the constitution? Or does she even care about that dusty, old document? I don't trust this witch and could never vote for her.

President Barak Hussien Obama? Getdafuckouttahere. Sounds like the name of a president in some third world shithole. And perhaps Barak is qualified to be president in some country, like Kenya. But America? No way. And what are his "rock star" qualifications? Barak is a civil rights attorney who served 8 years in the Illinois Senate, 2 years in the US Senate and his sole piece of legislation is a state earned income credit. Considering his race based, socialist leanings perhaps we should consider ourselves lucky. Barak is an actor pretending to be a presidential candidate, backed by media elites and wholly without any credentials. He is the joke candidate that mindless leftists would vote for to display their multiculturism. Nope. No vote for Barak from me. He is the Chia pet candidate.

John Edwards is the Democrat full-of-shit candidate. John harps about 2 Americas while this trial lawyer lives in a 28,000 square foot house on his "compound" in North Carolina. Yes, you read that right 28,000 square feet of house. And John considers himself a champion of the common working guy. I wouldn't buy a car from this slimey trial lawyer, who stole his fortune from tobacco class action lawsuits. The "Breck Boy" has pretty hair and a voice as smooth as molasses. But no vote for this smooth liar.

On to Republicans.

John McCain is the Manchurian candidate. I think he suffered a brain injury when he was shot down or in captivity. Why, he's liable to say any damn thing. I suspect he was reprogrammed in captivity and will be "activated" by his Chinese controllers if elected president. I can't vote for an open border candidate. Nor can I respect a guy who sucks up to the mainstream media at the expense of Republicans who brought him to the party. No vote for John. He's to scary for me.

Ruddy Guilliani has some credibility for telling a Saudi prince to shove a million bucks up his ass after 911. But his anti-gun stance, pro-abortion stance and sleezy lifestyle make him a no-go in my book. Any lawyer that can't understand why Americans need guns to protect themselves from the government and crooks is too Orwellian for me. And those who think it's just Ok to rip a human fetus' head apart because it is inconvenient to the whore-mother just don't pass the moral muster. Ruddy just can't seem to forge personal relationships either. How many times can a guy marry and divorce before we call him fickle and unwilling to do the hard work of maintaining a marriage? Ruddy is just too creepy for me.

Mitt Romney is from a political family in Boston. Enough said for me. America doesn't need even one more Clinton, Bush, Kennedy or Romney leading the nation. Romney is too slick by half with his changing abortion stance. I can't trust a guy who is uncertain about what he believes about murder. No vote here.

And now the real candidate for 2008.

Newt Gingrich is an educated, eloquent man with real conservative credentials. He knows how to get things done in Washington yet stands for a set a principles. Newt will defend the nation, the constitution and the rights of unborn children. The former Speaker of the House will be a candidate that the regular guy in the street can trust and support. Newt gets my vote.

What is there to talk about with Iran

Iran is developing nuclear weapons and has clearly declared what they will do with nuclear weapons once developed. Many politicians and pundits in the West have stated that we need to talk with the Iranians to diffuse the international crisis. Talk about what?

Does any sane person believe that we could talk Iran out of developing nuclear weapons? Iranian leaders clearly understand the costs and benefits of developing nuclear weapons. Having done the calculus, Iranian leaders have decided that having a nuclear arsenal provides benefits that far outweigh the costs. Analysts who believe that Iran is a rational nation-state believe that Iranian leaders merely want the ultimate defensive weapon for the regime or want to become the regional hegemon. Other analysts, who actually listen to Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, believe that Iran is a theocratic cult that wants to bring on the end times by destroying Israel and dragging America into allout nuclear war. Who has it right?

Who believes that Iran can be talked into accepting the legitimacy of non-muslim peoples and nations? Iran cannot accept the existence of Israel let alone the right of non-muslims to be free to choose what god they worship or how they live their lives. The mullahs tolerate no discussion within their borders amongst their own subjects. How can there be a discussion with infidels outside of Iran when there is no discussion inside Iran amongst believers? Iran thinks that they alone know God's will and that they are divinely appointed to do God's work on earth.

What is there to negotiate with Iran? The mullahs say they are not interested in the number of watermelons sold nor the cost of watermelons? Iran is standing on principle, that allah said that the entire world shall submit to allah. Iran will not negotiate principle for improved standards of living, better trade agreements or anything else. Only principle matters.

There is nothing to talk with Iran about. All the words that need to be said have been said. All that remains is determining who will stand on principle and fight for their principles. President Bush declared that Iran will not be allowed to field nuclear weapons. The West needs to stand by that principle. If that means destroying Iran then so be it.

The West has tried to bring a liberal democracy to muslims but that effort has failed. There is no reason to try again. Many pundits claim that the Iranian people like Americans and would embrace a liberal government. I've seen that pig-in-a-poke before. There is no reason to rebuild Iran after we destroy it. Let the survivors clean up the mess. If the Iranian people rebuild into something we abhor, then we can destroy it again later. No need to put armies on the ground.

Iran can be the model that Iraq wasn't. The West will not submit to islam but will in fact destroy islamic regimes if they disturb the international order. Islamic regimes are responsible for the lives of their mothers, children and grandparents. Not us. There are repercussions for your actions. Don't count on Westerners to care for your people more than you do.

The West needs to tell muslims these facts before they die by the millions and the survivors live in stone age squalor. That is the only talk we need to have with these 7th century heathens.