CNN Poll has Santorum ahead of Gingrich in Iowa

Yeah, it's a CNN poll but Santorum has been waiting for a bone to be thrown to him for quite some time now. If Gingrich's warts continue to reveal themselves on a near daily basis, this may just be indicative of a trend we can expect. In any case, Santorum's momentum is going in the right direction less than one week before Caucus day in Iowa.

Via CNN:

A new survey of people likely to attend Iowa's Republican caucuses indicates that the former House speaker's support in the Hawkeye State is plunging. And according to a CNN/Time/ORC International Poll, one-time long shot candidate Rick Santorum has more than tripled his support since the beginning of the month.

Twenty-five percent of people questioned say if the caucuses were held today, they'd most likely back Mitt Romney, with 22% saying they'd support Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Romney's three point margin is within the poll's sampling error.

The poll's Wednesday release comes six days before Iowa's January 3 caucuses, which kickoff the presidential primary and caucus calendar. The Iowa caucuses are followed one week later by the New Hampshire primary.

As Byron York Reports, a significant percentage of Paul's support is coming not from Republicans but from Democrats and Independents. In theory, among Republican voters - according to this poll - Santorum may be Romney's next challenger.

In Iowa, both Romney and Paul are each up five points among likely caucus goers from a CNN/Time/ORC poll conducted at the start of December. The new survey indicates that Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, is at 16% support, up 11 points from the beginning of the month, with Gingrich at 14%, down from 33% in the previous poll. Since Gingrich's rise late last month and early this month in both national and early voting state surveys, he's come under attack by many of the rival campaigns. 

'Conventional' wisdom at both Hot Air and and Erick Erickson at Red State says that this news benefits Romney because Santorum has no money or real organization. Frankly, this defeatist attitude among conservatives is wearing thin. Then again, Erickson recently threw all of his chips into the 'elect Gingrich' movement so his reticence to see a path to victory for Santorum could be slightly misguided.

The fact remains, there has never been a primary season like this one. That conventional wisdom everyone would like to follow was rendered meaningless some time ago.

Santorum may be a distant memory one month from now. He may also be the frontrunner. Anyone who tells you they know which it will be, is guessing.

That said, if you're a conservative, revel in this news as long as you can because it's about to change.

More at Hot Air

Top 25 Richest Celebrities who Support OWS

There's hypocrisy and then hypocrisy on steroids, laced with a level of self-loathing that involves aligning with those who hate you. Enter the segment of the richest 1% of Americans who happen to be both liberal and on the side of the 99% who wants to steal their wealth.

First, there's the laughable hypocrisy of the likes of Alec Baldwin, who makes the list of the top 25 richest celebrities who hate capitalism in general, banks in particular. Baldwin does commercials for Capital One.

Or how about Miley Cyrus and Jay Z? Both of them have capitalized on OWS while not sharing their wealth. In the case of Jay Z, his 'Occupy All Streets' t-Shirts have made him a pretty capitalist penny. Ditto for Miley's OWS song.

Via NewsBusters:

Here is a list of the 25 richest celebrities supporting the Occupy Movement (Source: Celebrity Net Worth)

1. Yoko Ono - $500 million

2. Jay-Z - $450 million

3. David Letterman - $400 million

(tie) Stephen King - $400 million

5. Russell Simmons - $325 million

6. Sean Lennon - $200 million

7. Mike Myers - $175 million

8. George Clooney - $160 million

9. Brad Pitt - $150 million

(tie) Don King - $150 million

11. Roger Waters (Pink Floyd) - $145 million

12. Jane Fonda - $120 million

(tie) Miley Cyrus - 120 million

14. Al Gore - $100 million

15. Roseanne Barr - $80 million

(tie) Deepak Chopra - $80 million

17. Kanye West - $70 million

(tie) Dan Rather - $70 million

19. Alec Baldwin - $65 million

(tie) Matt Damon - $65 million

21. Tom Morello - $60 million

(tie) Mia Farrow - $60 million

23. Katy Perry - $55 million

24. Michael Moore - $50 million

(tie) Susan Sarandon - $50 million

Total: $4.1 billion

No wonder liberals are so angry. They have defective wiring.

Report: Ron Paul said he would not have Intervened to end Holocaust

On the heels of the statement from former Ron Paul aide, Eric Dondero, that Ron Paul is anti-Israel, this alleged first-hand account of similar sentiment being expressed from Paul seems to bolster the charge.

Via Jeffrey Scott Shapiro at Big Government:

On the evening of Sept. 16, 2009, I was invited to a function for Rand Paul’s U.S. Senate campaign at the headquarters of Americans for Tax Reform. 

I had been invited by a friend of mine via Facebook who was a passionate supporter of Ron Paul. Within minutes of arriving, I saw Rep. Paul enter the room, followed by an entourage of several college students. 

I immediately walked up to Paul and introduced myself, and Paul smiled at me and shook my hand. I told him that I had always wanted to ask him a question, and that it was a hypothetical question, but I would appreciate his answer nonetheless. Paul smiled, and welcomed the question. At this point there were about 15 people surrounding us, listening. 

And so I asked Congressman Paul: if he were President of the United States during World War II, and as president he knew what we now know about the Holocaust, but the Third Reich presented no threat to the U.S., would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany purely as a moral imperative to save the Jews? 

And the Congressman answered: 

“No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”

Shapiro even writes that he contacted Dondero to see if the accounts of each men were consistent. Here is what Shapiro reports Dondero said in response:

“He told me numerous times it was not worth it to intervene to save the Jews in World War II,” Dondero said. “I don’t think that’s because he’s an antisemite. It’s because he’s an extreme isolationist and he’s trying to be 100% principled–he doesn’t think there’s any reason to intervene for human rights or any other reason anywhere on the planet.”

Beyond the fact that Israel is western civilization's eastern front against Islamic fascism, the spiritual element is at the core of passionate support for the nation on the part of Christians and Jews.

So, if Paul would have been in charge, Winston Churchill would have been on his own and the Nazis may have realized their goal.

Paul's warts are showing and they are growing.

Read it all.

Leader of Hamas Visits with Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt

In light of Ron Paul's comments from 2009, in which he said 'Israel... started Hamas,' I found this bit of news a sufficiently salient retort to that insane point of view. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh recently sat down with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Via Jerusalem Post:

Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh received a warm welcome Monday when he arrived at the Muslim Brotherhood Headquarters in Cairo.

Haniyeh is on his first regional tour since 2007 that will take him to a number of Arab and Islamic countries.

Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Badei welcomed Haniyeh at a joint conference and said that his party was concerned with Palestinian issues.

"Your highness Mr. Prime Minister, our brothers, Ismail Haniyeh and his accompanying delegations -- you are welcome to our country; you are welcome to our headquarters," Badei said. "The general center of Muslim Brotherhood is paying attention all the time to the Palestinian issue as it pays attention to the issues of liberation all over the world."

Haniyeh responded with: "The Islamic resistance movement of Hamas, by definition is, a jihadist movement by the Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian on the surface, Islamic at its core and its goal is liberation."

An aide said Haniyeh's trip will also include stops in Tunisia, Bahrain and Turkey.

Before making his way to Egypt, Haniyeh gave a speech marking Hamas' 24th anniversary and said the long term goal of his group remains the elimination of Israel. Here is video from Haniyeh's speech via PMW:



A website known as Loon Watch, which has taken up the task of smearing those who warn about these sorts of things, had this to say about the fall of Hosni Mubarak back in February:

Is it any surprise that the Islamophobes are the most against this uprising. 

Hopefully now the Egyptians can reconstruct the system to be a free and Democratic nation.

Paging Loon Watch...

h/t GWP

Washington Times Writer Implies Obama a Domestic Enemy

Actually, Robert Knight's piece in the Washington Times calls Obama a 'Trojan Horse' president without mentioning the latter's name.

I was thinking about writing a novel about what might happen if a man who hates America and wants to bring it down is somehow elected president. What would he do?

I sketched out a few plot elements, and you can decide whether this will fly.

First, the Trojan Horse president would initiate unprecedented spending, driving the debt up by more than $4 trillion just in the first three years. Much of the money would go into the pockets of political supporters and people who donate heavily to his campaigns.

He would ram through an unreadable law allowing the federal government to seize the health care system, which would transform citizens into beholden subjects.

He would cut out private lenders and federalize student loans.

He would go on a world apology tour, letting America's friends and foes know that he is doing whatever he can to make sure America becomes a third-rate power and is brought to heel under a growing world government headed by the United Nations. While on the tour, he would praise Islam and denigrate America's Christian heritage.

Read it all because there is much more.

Under this 'fictional' scenario Knight lays out, the president to which he is referring warrants impeachment, a Senate trial, and removal from office. The part Knight doesn't get to in his novel idea, involves a hyper-partisan Congress that has essentially neutered itself and hasn't the political will to do the right thing thanks, in large part, to a president who possesses the nefarious ability to exacerbate division.

By referring to a president of the United States, whether real or fictional, as a 'Trojan Horse,' Knight is essentially identifying such a president as a 'Domestic enemy.' Via the Tenth Amendment Center, here is the oath of office every member of Congress must take upon being sworn in:

Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter: So help you God?

The response is two words: 'I do.'

If this hypothetical president were to succeed in destroying America, Congress would be to blame for allowing him to do so; it is the body that is responsible for dealing with any such reality. That leads me to the response then Republican whip, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) gave to a questioner in the audience at the Heritage Foundation on May 4, 2010.

Cantor was asked what it would take for Obama to be defined as a 'domestic enemy.' His answer carries with it a very, very serious indictment of the legislative branch of government to which he belongs, if that answer was wrong.

2008 Video: Newt Insists Individual Mandate is Necessary

If there are two words that became radioactive in 2009-2010, 'individual mandate' fits the bill. It was a different story in 2008, which might help explain why Newt Gingrich gave a speech, in which he expressed a view that said everyone should be required to pay for health insurance (that's individual mandate).

At first blush, this might sound like a cogent argument. Such things are Newt's strength. People are more willing to pay their credit card bills than they are to pay for health insurance. The reason for this is that we have a culture that is being taken advantage of because people know there will be no real consequences for failing to pay for health insurance. There ARE consequences if you have a poor credit rating (mortgage crisis notwithstanding).

However, that's not the point or the solution. It's called creating a bigger problem through misdiagnosis and treating a symptom instead of the illness. The point is that the government should not have to force its citizens to buy anything. The biggest part of the problem with healthcare has been government meddling, regulation, and illegal immigration. In every case, government IS the problem, either through egregious actions (over-regulation) or inexplicable inaction (illegal immigration). What Newt is advocating for in this speech is more government intervention when the answer is less (except in the case of immigration).

Forcing people to pay for insurance is like mandating everyone pay income tax. We'll get to a point where not everyone pays while still mandating law-abiding citizens continue to do so, when they were already paying in the first place. Half of this country already doesn't pay income tax. The other half has to deal with the IRS every year, an undertaking that will become even more difficult with the implementation of an individual mandate - except for the people who already don't pay taxes.

This idea should never see the light of day. The two things that should be done right off the bat are to seal the borders and allow insurance companies to do business across state lines. This will reduce the insurance pool, increase competition and efficiency, and thereby make it more affordable for people to buy health insurance. Yeah, some government bureaucrats will have to be fired and earn a living in the real world but how is that a bad thing? They can start contributing to economy instead of living off the taxpayers while making it more difficult for those taxpayers to do so.

It might sound reasonable, Newt, but more government is NOT the answer.



Here is a memo penned by Newt in 2006 that echoes the same sentiment.

h/t Daily Caller

Honor Killing in a Santa Suit?

There's a very tried and true rule in journalism. When writing a story, the meat should always come in the headline and first paragraph. If the reader wants more detail, he will continue reading. Apparently, this rule doesn't apply when the story is about a Muslim who dresses in a Santa suit and kills his daughter because she's dating a non-Muslim man.

Here is the headline and first three paragraphs appeared in the Dallas Morning News via Jihad Watch:

Neighbors horrified at news of family’s slayings in Grapevine

GRAPEVINE — Aziz Yazdanpanah seemed to be losing control of his life in recent months — his wife left him, his house was in foreclosure, and his 19-year-old daughter was dating a young man he didn’t like.

Even so, the 58-year-old former real estate agent from Colleyville seemed to be holding it together. Neighbors say he would smile and wave as he drove through his middle-class neighborhood. Recently, he was seen raking leaves in his yard.

“He was very friendly, a very good neighbor,” said Carrie Stewart, who lives across the street. “He was out here often doing yard work and he even watched our house for us when we went to Colorado.”

Suggested alternate headline and first three paragraphs...

Muslim Male dresses as Santa Claus, slays family on Christmas morning 

GRAPEVINE - Aziz Yazdanpanah, a Muslim, who reportedly objected to his daughter's boyfriend, was found dead along with his daughter, Nona, and six others on Christmas morning in the home where Yazdanpanah's estranged wife was living. 

An investigation into the motive is ongoing in the apparent murder / suicide but according to a classmate of Nona, the dating habits of his daughter were a source of great distress for Yazdanpanah. 

“She couldn’t date at all until she was a certain age, but when he was going to let her date she couldn’t date anyone outside of their race or religion,” Laci Reed, 18, said.

Reading the piece in the Dallas Morning News, one is almost left with the impression that the real victim was the murderer, who had fallen on hard times, and not his young daughter, who had her whole life in front of her.

Oh, and the police officer at the scene, Lt. Todd Dearing, said the motive wasn't important.

h/t GWP