Gingrich doubles down on France Bashing, says he can't find France on a globe

Newt Gingrich knows his campaign is in desperate straits after his loss in Florida,  but polling data shows Republican voters were favorably impressed by ad slamming Mitt Romney for speaking French.

In states with upcoming primaries, Gingrich will run an ad taking the anti-French theme even further, appearing himself with a globe in his hands and saying, "Unlike Mitt Romney, I not only don't SPEAK French, I can't find it on a globe."

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum's campaign got an early copy of the ad and plans to go even further than Gingrich and say their candidate is uncertain of the very existence of France.

"If people want to believe in some theory of France because they read it in a book or heard it from some atheist humanist gay college professor, I can't stop them--but I can tell them they're wrong."

Santorum says that France was made up by elitists in New York City as a utopia of wine drinking, mass transportation, and the metric system, to bolster their own failed socialists ideas.

"If they can't back up their ideas with real places like Selma, Schenectady , or San Antonio, they should have the dignity to admit their ideas don't work rather than appeal to some fantasyland "France."

Santorum said that if France did exist, that like other non-English speaking countries, it would pose a grave existential threat to the United States since they may be using their foreign language to plan terrorist or conventional military attacks on the US.

"This is why we need a military larger than the rest of the world combined," Santorum added.  "We have no way of knowing what they are saying in their godless, subhuman 'languages.'"

When asked about the success of the Gingrich ad and further efforts in that direction by Gingrich and Santorum, former Massachusettes governor Mitt Romney said that just because he publicly spoke French once does not mean he supports or denies the existence of France.

PAT BUCHANAN nuclear math: 10,000 US + 200 Israeli nukes= no Iran threat

In 1992, I listened to Pat Buchanan's speech to the GOP convention as I drove from LA to Portland, and he scared the shit out of me. He came close to calling for an open civil war between conservatives and the rest of us. Fortunately, Papa Bush was embarassed by the excess and lost anyway.

Buchanan has not changed, but the Republicans have moved so far right that he has more in common with the left, largely because he refuses to ignore what he knows about history and math for the sake of agreeing the party.

The basic math on Iran is roughly the same as it was on Iraq:

• We have 10,000 nuclear warheads


• Israel has 200


• Iran has none (maybe a handful in a few years to a decade)


• If Iran uses one on us or Israel, either of us could nuke Iran out of existence and still have plenty to spare.

Back in the Cold War, neither we nor the Soviets launched our nukes because of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). It seems hard to believe a smaller country would commit suicide, knowing that at best they injured us, but couldn't take us with them. This should be called a corollary of MAD: OSH-OSAD (One Side Hurt-One Side Assured Destruction).

We have the most powerful military on earth, but are continually being persuaded that some flea on our ass is going to eat us alive. imagine you had a neighbor who collected machine guns and occasionally shot the other neighbors dogs. Would you ever steal his newspaper off the driveway? Or sleep with his wife? Or pick a fight with him?

If you prefer we skip this war, sign this petition that Howard Zinn, Harold Pinter, and George Galloway have already put their names on:

http://stopwaroniran.org/statement.shtml

KEY EXCERPTS:

Churchill, Hitler, and Newt

By Patrick J. Buchanan

02/20/06 "WND"

But are the comparisons of Ahmadinejad with Hitler and Iran with the Third Reich, let alone Newt with Churchill, instructive? Or are they ludicrous? Again, a few facts.

In 1942, Hitler's armies dominated Europe from the Pyrenees to the Urals. Ahmadinejad is the president of a nation whose air and naval forces would be toasted in hours by the United States. Iran has missiles that can hit Israel, but no nuclear warheads. Israel could put scores of atom bombs on Iran. The United States, without losing a plane, could make the country uninhabitable with one B-2 flyover and a few MX and Trident missiles.

Why would Ayatollah Khameinei, who has far more power than Ahmadinejad, permit him to ignite a war that could mean the end of their revolution and country? And if we were not intimidated by a USSR with thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on us, why should Ahmadinejad cause Newt to break out in cold sweats at night?

Currently, the "nuclear program" of Iran consists of trying to run uranium hexafluoride gas through a few centrifuges. There is no hard evidence Iran is within three years of producing enough highly enriched uranium for one bomb.

FULL TEXT:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11991.htm


pat buchanan iran nuclear program cold war warhead mutually assured destruction newt gingrich political opinion colonialism white mans burden professor smartass iraq peak oil bourse smartass answers president george w bush false flag northwoods propaganda