Does this make your blood boil?

WOW! This is unbelievable! https://t.co/a35BvEAVxd

— 🇺🇸Eric Carmen🇺🇸 (@RealEricCarmen) September 16, 2020

Enthusiastically wrong!

At the Battle Swarm blog Newt Gingrich socks it to the New York Times because of their biased coverage of Trump.

The New York Times is having a hard time understanding President-elect Donald Trump.

Trumpism is a process and a philosophy of action and leadership so different from the normal Washington systems that the Times just seems incapable of understanding it.

Furthermore, there is an Orwellian quality of deliberation misinformation and disinformation to the Times’ coverage.

President-elect Trump IS different. In fact, he is unique. No other American has won the presidency without serving in elected office or being a general in the military. No other billionaire has been elected to the presidency. No one has ever used social media as effectively. No one has had the scale and frequency of rallies. No one has understood that a 20,000-person rally with every person using his or her smartphone to send out photos and videos creates an audience the size of MSNBC. No one else has been dramatically outspent in both the primaries and the general election and won.

You would think that a person with these achievements would be worthy of a certain respect and of a curiosity about how he thinks and what he is trying to do.

Furthermore, Trumpism IS different. It isn’t traditional conservatism. It is an entrepreneurial, pragmatic, energetic, constantly evolving and constantly learning and improving model.

If The New York Times were a serious newspaper it would start by recognizing that Trump is a remarkable leader and that this is a new phenomenon. Then it would try to explore and understand the differences between the old order and the world Trump is trying to create. Then it could describe the context of the President-elect and educate its readers accurately in an informed, coherent manner.

Unfortunately, The New York Times is trapped within the obsolete establishment mindset which was wrong about Trump throughout the primaries, then was wrong about Trump throughout the general election, then was wrong about who would win. This elite mindset has learned nothing. It is now enthusiastically being wrong about the transition. All of this is great practice for the paper to be wrong about the new administration.

Drain the swamp!

"You are fascinated with sex, and you don't care about public policy!"

Chris Wallace goes after Trump. Gingrich agrees, but then goes after Clinton

Newt Gingrich is blunt in his criticism of Donald Trump for attacking a federal judge for his Mexican heritage (even though the judge is an American born in Indiana).

Chris Wallace said the protests against Trump in San Jose were organized by immigrants. Where does he have the slightest proof of that? Has he ever heard of George Soros?

Trump-Gingrich: Kindred spirits in more ways than one

Eliana Johnson reports at PJ Media about the idea of a Trump/Gingrich ticket.

Gingrich has, in effect, launched his own campaign to secure the nomination. “I think Newt is lobbying to be the vice president, and I think their people are paying a lot of attention to him,” says Ed Rollins, a Republican operative and former Gingrich staffer now working for a super PAC supporting Trump’s candidacy. “It’d be a ticket with six former wives, kind of like a Henry VIII thing,” Rollins says. “They certainly understand women.” (Between them, Trump and Gingrich have four former wives; both are currently married to their third wives.)

Among the similarities between the two men, they share a genius for exploiting mass media. In his 1990s heyday, Gingrich was able to dominate the news cycle by harnessing the newfound power of talk radio, much as Trump has done with television and social media this year. “I don’t know two other people who can command more media attention than Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump,” says Rick Tyler, who served as Gingrich’s campaign spokesman in 2012. For Trump, Tyler says, naming Gingrich vice president would simply be “doubling down on an already successful strategy: keeping your enemies constantly on defense, constantly off balance, constantly explaining themselves. Newt knows how to do that.”

“They talk every day,” says a source familiar with the relationship, who claims that Gingrich e-mails Trump, campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and campaign manager Corey Lewandowski “countless times a day.” On Friday, the source says Gingrich sent five messages after lunch, musing on everything from Fox host Megyn Kelly’s interview with Trump to Trump’s recently announced list of potential Supreme Court nominees to ideas for targeting Bernie Sanders’s voters.

Read more here.

On the comment of Ed Rollins that "both men certainly understand women," Jennifer Burke writes at Politifact,

I have news for Ed Rollins. Being married multiple times because you chose to cheat on your wife and then divorce her does not demonstrate an “understanding of women.” It indicates a habit of using women, lying to them, then tossing them aside when you are through.

Read more here.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435715/donald-trump-newt-gingrich-gop-ticket-kindred-spirits

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435715/donald-trump-newt-gingrich-gop-ticket-kindred-spirits

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435715/donald-trump-newt-gingrich-gop-ticket-kindred-spirits

Is Gingrich advising Trump not to debate Cruz?

I just heard a caller to the Mark Levin radio show allege that Newt Gingrich is advising Donald Trump not to debate Ted Cruz. Mark Levin seemed to agree that Gingrich is doing that, because Levin responded to the caller by saying, "Yeah, c'mon out Newt, expose yourself, baby!" Does anyone know if this is true that Gingrich is advising Trump not to debate Cruz?

Newt Gingrich: There's no virtuous middle way here. You're either for the Republican nominee, whether it is Trump or Cruz, or you're for the election of Hillary Clinton and a very radical Supreme Court

Is Gingrich Trump's Vice Presidential nominee? Or, is he Cruz's Veep? Kinda like a Dick Cheney was to a George W. Bush?

Sean Hannity: Mathematically it's over, and the Establishment lost!

Laura Ingraham: The perfect is the enemy of the good!

Gingrich: Trump is a natural ally of conservatives

"No citizen could turn down such a challenge."

Debra Heine reports at PJ Media,

The GOP has been looking for the perfect “unifying” candidate for speaker of the House. How does “Speaker Gingrich” sound?

Newt had not previously expressed any interest, but when pressed by Sean Hannity on his radio show Thursday, Gingrich said he would consider returning to the speakership again if called upon by House Republicans.

Read more here.

"I have a desire to kill you before you cut off my head!"

"Reagan was not somebody who had been to Harvard Law School and been thoroughly educated in how to avoid reality." "We the people deserve the right to defend our civilization!"
Will someone tell me why this man did not win the GOP nomination to run in 2012?

A wake up call

Andrew McCarthy writes about a "rousing" speech given by Newt Gingrich at the Iowa Freedom Forum last week. Gingrich astutely noted that

when it comes to obfuscation about Islamic supremacist ideology, the State Department was nearly as bad under Bush as under Obama. And while Bush at least included the Taliban as a terrorist organization in a 2002 executive order, Obama spokesmen have spent this week spinning the risible yarn that the Taliban is not a terrorist organization but a purely domestic “insurgent” group.

In truth, as the former speaker asserted, we have an elite in both parties that is unwilling to tell the truth. You can’t win the war without telling the truth and without admitting it’s a war. As he put it, there is a common thread that unites the enemy, wherever on earth the enemy operates: They “hate our civilization and would impose their religion by force.”

Gingrich proclaimed:

If you are a Muslim, and you want to live in peace with your neighbors, and you have no problem with people converting in both directions, and you’d like to be allowed to have a mosque but, by the way, they can have a synagogue, a temple, or a church – I have no problem with Muslims who are prepared to live in diversity. But if you’re a Muslim who believes you are going to impose sharia by cutting off my head, I have a desire to kill you before you cut off my head.

Hearing Gingrich say those things, McCarthy asserted:

The ensuing standing ovation from Freedom Forum attendees carried a salient message for the GOP’s field of would-be presidential nominees: A Republican will not win the White House in 2016 unless national security is a major issue and one on which Republicans hold a decisive edge.

McCarthy believes that

It is again time – past time – to be bold in calling the threat against us what it is, and in understanding why it seeks to conquer us (i.e., in grasping that it is about their ideology not our flaws).

Read more here.