The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

‘An Absolutely Stunning Piece’

By on 1.27.12 @ 12:33PM

That’s what Rush Limbaugh has called Jeff Lord’s Elliott Abrams item posted below, spending the entire first half hour of his show today discussing and reading from the item, which certainly raises disappointing questions about Abrams. Was he used, or has he simply forgotten neoconservative history? Hard to imagine a great neoconservative doing the latter.

View all comments (67) |

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.27.12 @ 12:47PM

Wlady,
Emmett should be ashamed with the hit piece on Newt yesterday!

I gave Rush a heads up, and he is going apesh*t over these lies as I write.

Emmett needs talking to in the woodshed!

Jack in Wi.| 1.27.12 @ 1:00PM

Anything that comes out of neocons like Abrams and Lord is an automatic lie, unless proved otherwise. Who knows what is going on in those fevered brains?

William R| 1.27.12 @ 1:38PM

Good Gravy, HillBilly Heroin junkie Hush Bimbo.

Margie| 1.27.12 @ 2:46PM

You gave Rush a heads up?
Sure you did, liar.

By the way, liar, where's those e mails you said you had to "prove" your false accusations against me here, publicly, hmm?

Oh, that's right, you changed your story several times here, but the fact is that your posts are here in the archives, when you stated you "had e mails to prove it".

You have proven what a liar you are.

"He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence, but a false witness utters deceit." Prov. 12:17.

Remember what God says about exactly what He promises to do to liars and slanderers and disgusting ones, unless they repent?

And YOU have not yet repented of it, so let me remind you of what He promieses to do with you:

"The one overcoming will inherit all
things, and I will be God to him, and he
will be the son to Me.
8 But for the cowardly and faithless ones,
and disgusting ones, and murderers, and
fornicators, and users of magic, and idolaters,
and all liars, their part will be in the
Lake burning with fire and brimstone,
which is the second death." Rev. 21:7 & 8.

Nick| 1.27.12 @ 6:28PM

Margie,

I'm still waiting for those answers to my three very simple questions.

Do you believe that infants can sin?
Did Paul mess up when he wrote, in the same chapter, that "many have sinned"?
Did the Holy Spirit inspire the Old Testament authors to write that Enoch and Elijah did not die, and then inspire Paul to write that "ALL [pantes] have died"? If He meant ALL, as in everyone who ever lived?

Until you can answer these questions, your argument, or, rather, your flawed interpretation, doesn't have a leg to stand on.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.27.12 @ 6:53PM

What "flawed interpretation" are you talking about, Idolator?

Nick| 1.27.12 @ 7:16PM

You know to what I'm referring, Margie.
Don't pretend that you haven't seen these questions before. You have tried to deflect and avoid answering them for over a month, now.

Besides, you missed my larger point. Which was to point out your hypocrisy, when it comes to answering other people's questions.
Physician heal thyself.

Margie| 1.27.12 @ 11:22PM

Idolator and ass kissing Pope worshipper:

You're not only an ass-kissing Idolator but a flaming liar as well.

You can believe whatever you wish, as you were destined to do.

I have not only repeatedly answered your asinine questions here which you choose to always ignore the answers to, as you reject the Scriptures and care nothing for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but have put up your repeated false accusations against my character for a very long time.

You're a fool. I hope you repent, but if not, I will be pleased to know that God deals RIGHTEOUSLY with the WICKED.

"Everyone transgressing and not abiding
in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.
The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ,
this one has the Father and the Son.
If anyone comes to you and does not
bear this doctrine, do not receive him into
the house, and do not speak a greeting to
him.
For the one speaking a greeting shares
in his evil works." 2 Jn. 1:9-11.

But you will burn in Hell for it.

"

Nick| 1.28.12 @ 12:03AM

Margie,

I, long ago, gave-up waiting for you to answer my three very simple questions. Apparently, you are unable to answer them.

Again, you are trying to deflect from my main point. Which was that you are a hypocrite for hounding others to answer your questions, when you regularly refuse to answer mine.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.28.12 @ 2:46PM

What is it with you ass kissing Pope worshipping fools?

It never ceases to disgust me how you see fit to lie repeatedly about the character of others, particularly Bible believing Christians, in order to try and deceitfully destroy them.

You all have been doing this ever since your Apostate and ungodly Religion's very beginning and it has never ceased.

NOW: All readers may not know what these "three questions" are that you supposedly never had answered, and that is part of your deceit.

You're a snake, Nick, with the worst of them, but God sees your perversion, and you are not going to get away with your lying.

Nor will Ken.

I am NO hypocrite because I already answered your questions~ as a lot of readers already know, but YOU are a liar for saying that I am.

You reject the Scriptures, and adhere to your Apostate Vatican's teachings, and so you don't like my answers~ which are from the Bible.

I don't care what you want to believe, it isn't MY soul that's going to Hell for rejecting HIS WORDS.

It's yours.

Lotsa luck.

Nick| 1.28.12 @ 3:10PM

Margie,

Blah, blah, blah. More deflection from your hypocrisy.

If you answered my three very simple questions, as you claim, then why don't you re-post them? You don't seem to have a problem with copying and pasting your previous comments, when you are not trying to obfuscate and deceive. Why do you, now, with these three questions?

"NOW: All readers may not know what these "three questions" are that you supposedly never had answered, and that is part of your deceit."

I just repeated my "three questions", remember? I think your memory is starting to go!
You had better eat more fish. Ha-ha!
God Bless!

Margie| 1.28.12 @ 3:16PM

Burn in Hell, filthy PUNK.

Nick| 1.28.12 @ 3:29PM

Margie,

Ah, yes, I remember Christ telling the Pharisees and Samaritans to "Burn in Hell."
Oh, wait a minute, no He didn't!

But, hey, when you can't argue with the message, attack the messenger. Whenever you want to provide answers to my three very simple questions, just let me know, okay?

Oldefarte| 1.28.12 @ 2:43PM

'....Idolator and ass kissing Pope worshipper....' Is this somehow related to a Bibleator who kisses same????????

Margie| 1.28.12 @ 2:58PM

If you don't consider the Words of God that are written in the Bible as the ONLY thing that you as a Christian ought to stand on and die for~ then you aren't a Christian, Oldefarte.

If you can mock Christians for adhering to God's Words and rejecting the false teachings of the Vatican, then yes, that makes one an Idolator~ that's what God calls it. Rev. 21:8.

It's a person who puts the teachings of men above the teachings of God.

"The sum of Thy Word is Truth; and every one of Thy righteous ordinances endures for ever." Ps. 119:160.

If you don't consider His Words TRUTH, you're in BIG trouble. Or if you don't care to find out how the teachings of the Vatican don't agree with His Words.. that's your "choice", but a serious one.

Jesus prayed to the Father and said this concerning those of us who were destined to believe in Him:

"Sanctify them in the truth; Thy Word is truth." Jn. 17:17.

The difference between a true believer and an Idolator is that Christians believe the Bible as containing God's Holy Words, Catholics believe the Vatican's teachings and the lying words of the Popes.

"

SpiralArchitect| 1.27.12 @ 6:45PM

Are you on a mountain?

Makes me think of sermon on the Mt.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.27.12 @ 7:23PM

I forgive you, Margie. I do understand you need a roof over your head.
Your email will never see the light of day...but God and I know what you wrote.

Margie| 1.27.12 @ 11:15PM

Well scumbag:

YOU have proven you're an utter fraud.
You accused me of gtoss sin, saying you have e mail to prove it. Then, you changed your perverted story and said that no, you didn't have them because I asked you to delete it or them.
Now you act as though you have something but it'll never see the light of day.

You're disgusting, and a filthy Reprobate of a human being.
And you aren't going to get away with it.
Do you really think that you will?

You forgive me? That is so disgusting that I feel like I am going to puke.

It is you that needs to repent, of falsely accusing me.

God knows what I wrote?? God knows what you are doing, and that is lying.

So.. come on, present the evidence you filthy scumbag.
Or burn in Hell.

We're all waiting!!

Margie| 1.27.12 @ 11:28PM

By the way, Ken:
How's that "deal" you think you have with God to use His Name in vain going?

And how's that drinking the hard stuff and agreeing with Darwin going??

And how's the living off of your wife's business going?

What an utter hypocrite you are.

Margaret| 1.27.12 @ 11:34PM

Margie, dear, you two make a lovely couple. Can you take your personal problems off line, please? We don't want to hear your daily bickering.

chuck| 1.28.12 @ 8:55AM

Margie,

For your own sake, forgive Ken for anything has has said or done to you, and move on. You are letting this make you bitter, and trust me, life is way too short for bitterness.

Forgive, and move on.

steve| 1.28.12 @ 1:17PM

fat chance

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.28.12 @ 2:38PM

Steve,
Margie CANNOT desist. She expressed her love for me, but MUST deny it here till the day she dies. Without her husband she becomes a homeless person...and a computerless person without a voice.

I do forgive her, and grieve for her past decisions.

Margie| 1.28.12 @ 3:12PM

Ken,

You are SCUM.

I did not do as you accuse me of doing, you FREAK.

NOW: YOU CLAIMED you had the e mail or e mail to "PROVE" your accusations against me, and you REFUSE to because there isn't any.

You disgusting pervert.

The Bible~ you know~ God's OWN WORDS CLAIM AGAINST YOU:

"He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence, but a false witness utters deceit." Prov. 12:17.

You're a filthy liar, and the daft and unbelieving here clack with you, (another thing that God will hold you accountable for), but there is nothing for you to FORGIVE about me since I am not the one sinning.

YOU are the liar who continues to bear FALSE WITNESS against me here publicly, with not an speak of shame.

I hope you repent, but so far you are not showing a sign of it, and God will deal with you in His Own Way.

PERVERT and REPROBATE SCUM.

Margie| 1.28.12 @ 3:15PM

s/b refuse to post it or them, above.

steve| 1.28.12 @ 7:19PM

Ken,
You have the sympathy of everyone.

Margie| 1.29.12 @ 12:57AM

What Ken the Reprobate has, is sympathy from the Devil.

Oldefarte| 1.28.12 @ 2:49PM

[1] LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE
[2] [Christ's response to the good thief's confession and request for forgiveness on Calvary] ON THIS DAY YOU SHALL BE WITH ME IN HEAVEN

Margie| 1.28.12 @ 3:13PM

Dear Oldefarte,

Ken isn't asking for my forgiveness. He is continuing to lie about me. This Scripture does NOT apply.

Margie| 1.28.12 @ 3:14PM

Chuck,

Ken is not ASKING for my forgiveness, he is LYING ABOUT ME HERE PUBLICLY.

There has to be REPENTANCE BEFORE I am required to FORGIVE him.

Nick| 1.28.12 @ 3:52PM

"There has to be REPENTANCE BEFORE I am required to FORGIVE him."

WRONG!

"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." - Matthew 6:14-15

"And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against any one; so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses." - Mark 11:25

"Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back." - Luke 6:36-38

steve| 1.28.12 @ 7:17PM

Margie should apologize to everyone here for her name calling, filthy language,and generally disgusting conduct towards everyone.

Margie| 1.29.12 @ 12:50AM

Furthermore, I agree with the Apostle Paul when he said this:

"I wish those who unsettle you would mutilate themselves!" Gal. 5:12.

Go mutilate yourselves, filthy liars!

Margie| 1.29.12 @ 12:47AM

Wrong, Idolator and liar:

"Take heed to yourselves; if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him;
and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, 'I repent,' you must forgive him." Lk. 17:

Heh, you Pope Idolators don't know your Bibles, that's what your entire problem is.

Do you REALLY think God is an unjust God??

Do you really believe that slanderers and liars like yourselves are going to be forgiven without REPENTING form what you are doing?

You do not regard the Word of God!

He PROMISES to throw scum like you into Hell for what you are doing here to me, but MORE IMPORTANTLY what you are doing against His Holy Word.

"The one overcoming will inherit all
things, and I will be God to him, and he
will be the son to Me.
But for the cowardly and faithless ones,
and disgusting ones, and murderers, and
fornicators, and users of magic, and idolaters,
and all liars, their part will be in the
Lake burning with fire and brimstone,
which is the second death." Rev, 21:7 & 8.

Margie| 1.29.12 @ 12:55AM

And "steve"~ another Pope Idolator who HATES Christians, and is utter lying punk. who, his only posts are lies against me EVER. That is the only time this PUNK Troll shows up.
Scumbag.

steve| 1.29.12 @ 1:45PM

About what I expected from filthy mouth Margie. Read my other posts, peabrain. You standard response is to attack all your critics as Pope Idolators who hate Christians. I am not Catholic and you sure ain't no Christian, scumbag. You are really really crazy.

Margie| 1.29.12 @ 2:27PM

You ARE SCUM.
Go mutilate yourself, LIAR.

And one more thing, to Ken the filthy Reprobate and false accuser who is brother to the Devil because this is what he is doing:

You have only the Pope Idolators defending you here, and the stupid unbelieving, as is fitting for you.

And to Nick:

You're already in Hell because you are also a false accuser and liar.
Your three questions were already answered by me, and according to Scripture, so dear Pope worshipper, this makes you not only a liar, but the hypocrite you accuse me of being.

And besides you deceitful punk, you started out here saying to me that I didn't answer your questions, which I have, and more than once. THEN, you said I had a "flawed interpretation" which indicates, does it not that I answered your asinine questions?

The Vatican's INTERPRETATION is what is FLAWED, you imbecile.

It is AGAINST GOD.

Mary was NOT SINLESS, she was a SINNER, as it is written in the Scriptures.

ALL Sin:

"..for all sinned and fall short of the glory
of God, being justified undeservedly by His
grace through the redemption in Christ
Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation
through faith in His blood, for a demonstration
of His righteousness through the
passing over of the sins that had taken place
before, in the forbearance of God,
for a demonstration of His righteousness
in the present time, for His being just
and justifying the one that is of the faith of
Jesus." Rom. 3:23-26.

Mary was a sinner, just like you and me, she was justified by her faith, just as anyone is who believes in Jesus and OBEYS HIS WORDS is.

NOW: I hope you truly repent of your lying, false accusing, misrepresentation of Scripture, and Idolatry.

Nick| 1.29.12 @ 9:00PM

Margie,

I have shown you three quotations from Scripture that show that we must always forgive those who trespass against us, if we want God to forgive us. "For the measure you give will be the measure you get back."

You are missing Christ's point in Luke 17. He is saying that no matter how many times someone sins against us, we must forgive them. Christ is not teaching that we have to wait for them to repent. This is another misinterpretation. Your focus on the words "and repent" as some sort of legal loophole you can use as an excuse not forgive others is something the Pharisees would have done.

Now, I have proven to you that the word all, in Romans 3:23, does not mean everyone who ever lived. The Greek pantes means a generic all. Not every single part. Remember how you used to bring up the Greek because you "only use the original languages"? Why aren't you doing that now?

"THEN, you said I had a "flawed interpretation" which indicates, does it not that I answered your asinine questions?"

No, it does not. You posted your flawed interpretation first, then I proved that you definition of "all" (pantes) was wrong. I did this, in part, by asking questions, like, "Was Christ included when Saint Paul used the word all?"

As the questions got harder, you stopped answering, as usual. Again, if you had answered my three questions, as you claim, why don't you copy and paste them again?

Finally, the Blessed Virgin Mary was sinless. The Bible tells us so, when the Archangel Gabriel greeted her, at the Annunciation, when he used the words, "Hail, full of grace." Gabriel says "Hail" because Our Lady is due this respect, since she was chosen by God to be the mother of Christ. As the Theotokos, the God Bearer, she is above the angels, because she is about to become the Queen Mother, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Archangel Gabriel says "full of grace" because Mary was SINLESS. She was created without sin, and, also, never sinned during her life, by a singular grace of God. When someone is full of grace, there can be no need of extra grace. She was already full, by the power of God, of grace. If someone is a sinner, they are definitely in need of more grace.

How else could Christ enter this world? How could He be born of sinful flesh? Mary, the vessel that God chose to use to become flesh and tabernacle amongst us, was also created pure and sinless by Him. How could it be any other way?
God Bless!

p.s. Your vile insults cannot hurt me. I still love you as a sister in Christ. How many times do I have to tell you this?

Drek| 1.27.12 @ 12:54PM

The key, THE SALIENT fact about Elliot Abrams was left out by Jeff Lord, who probably knew full well what it was.

Elliot Abrams is married to JENNIFER RUBIN.

Case closed.

Abrams was in on the orchestrated attack against Gingrich. In on it.

Sherlock| 1.27.12 @ 2:33PM

I dislike Elliot Abrams hit on Newt but he is NOT married to Jennifer Rubin. he is married to Rachel Decter who is a stepdaughter to Norman Podhoretz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams

Clint| 1.27.12 @ 4:21PM

The Israel Firster RINO-CINO's Are Having An Intramural Food Fight.

This Is McCain Redux.

Oldefarte| 1.28.12 @ 2:51PM

The TRUTH shall make you free!!!!!!!

Drek| 1.27.12 @ 6:59PM

Then the website I saw that is going to get an earful {id est memo} from me!

John - TMF| 1.27.12 @ 10:40PM

Same here.. My bad... sentiment stays the same however.

And Mr. Lord had better get on the stick because the Establishment squack wagon is aimed at him. Lowery is saying "Nuh uh, nyah... Tthhthth...:-p~" .

Also Several commentators (definintely seminar types) have been aguing that the plain text does not say what the plain text says.

I guess they really think that we are rubes, possessed of sub eighth grade reading skills.

Newt's speech as noted is clearly saying the following: (I will use 8th grade grammar and syntax to give them a chance to keep up.)

Ronald Reagan's foreign policy stances are good. They perform the job expected of a President. There is a problem; however what Ronald Reagan says, and what the members of his administration are doing do not agree.

We must find a way to have Reagan's foreign policy transferred to the bureaucracy so that it can be made permanent.

(A little instruction for the Romney peeps to blow a gasket over is in order.)

The President has some control over the workings of the various departments of the cabinet (executive branch) but only limited control. He cannot fire non-political appointees, and he cannot be everywhere at once, so even his appointees, if they hold differing views can subvert the President's prerogatives.

If you want an illustration of what Newt was driving at, no one needs to look farther than the famous line "Mr. Gorbachev, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!" Reagan's foreign policy experts were too chicken for him to say that. They kept removing the line, and he kept putting it back in. They fought him tooth and nail on the issue, right up until Reagan asserted that he was president and it was his choice to put the phrase in the speech, it was that important.

That is what Newt was talking about in the language of a History Professor. Reagan's policies were being subverted and diluted by his own people, and Newt was issuing the challenge to find a way to make Reagan's policies less dependent on Reagan being stubborn about what he wanted to say in a speech.

I remember because I was a political junkie, and lived and worked around good old Ground Zero. It was a dangerous time. Those were very dangerous summits, and the wrong move could have spelled disaster, or failure. That doesn't make Reagan a failure, it makes him a giant. And it doesn't say that Gingrich was being critical of him, just warning that "... all glory is fleeting..."

So, the Establishment has decided that it will continue to wage a dirty, half-truth, undignified, and destructive campaign in their frantic last ditch effort to get their "Chosen One" over the finish line.

That is precisely why we must stop the vote "against" Obama equivocation, it is our undoing. "Do what you are told, helot... jump to it or else."

I am not the Establishment's Helot; there for service, and their abuse. I am a free man and I shall not vote for their fraud; not now, not ever.

Gingrich or bust.
-John -The Mighty Fahvaag

1972Patriot| 1.28.12 @ 3:53AM

What you just described is a balance of power. It is what our fathers were aiming for.

It is clearly obvious, as more and more officials come to his defense, that Gingrich greatly respected and admired Ronald Reagan.

Diogenes| 1.27.12 @ 12:56PM

Maybe he stopped drinking the Red Koolaid, developed the embryo of a conscience and decided that a PATRIOT is not party insider trading on fearmongering, deception and dogma. Abrams most likely realized the RED party responsibility for the corruption of the American Dream known as Reaganomics and developed a genuine concrn for the well being and welfare of 306 million fellow Americans who would suffer egregious trauma and further, perhaps irreparable bankruptcy if Newt Gingrich was allowed to embezzle funds from the White House and lie to the universe under the Great Seal of the United States of America.

Trinacria| 1.27.12 @ 1:54PM

Yes, quite. An economic system that encourages and rewards personal responsibility, self-sufficiency, and achievement is clearly immoral and demonstrably inferior to a system that creates disincentives for innovation and confiscates assets from those who achieve to subsidize those who are content to suck on the teet of the benevolent government sugar daddy.

Why, it's patently obvious that one doesn't demonstrate concern for one's fellow man by encouraging him to fulfill his potential and become self-sufficient, but rather by creating a state of dependency and reinforcing the notion that one hasn't the skill nor the intellect to do great things. One need only look at the stunning list of extraordinary human achievements that have sprung forth from socialist systems - indeed, our modern cultural lexicon is filled with terms like Canadian space technology, Cuban technical innovation, French work ethic, Soviet humanism, Greek industry, and Dutch excellence.

Yes - those nefarious, uncaring, self-interested conservatives who dare to embrace the central tenets of Reaganomics clearly have it all wrong!

Trinacria| 1.27.12 @ 1:54PM

Yes, quite. An economic system that encourages and rewards personal responsibility, self-sufficiency, and achievement is clearly immoral and demonstrably inferior to a system that creates disincentives for innovation and confiscates assets from those who achieve to subsidize those who are content to suck on the teet of the benevolent government sugar daddy.

Why, it's patently obvious that one doesn't demonstrate concern for one's fellow man by encouraging him to fulfill his potential and become self-sufficient, but rather by creating a state of dependency and reinforcing the notion that one hasn't the skill nor the intellect to do great things. One need only look at the stunning list of extraordinary human achievements that have sprung forth from socialist systems - indeed, our modern cultural lexicon is filled with terms like Canadian space technology, Cuban technical innovation, French work ethic, Soviet humanism, Greek industry, and Dutch excellence.

Yes - those nefarious, uncaring, self-interested conservatives who dare to embrace the central tenets of Reaganomics clearly have it all wrong!

Trinacria| 1.27.12 @ 1:55PM

Oops, must have double-clicked...

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.27.12 @ 1:00PM

What difference does it make? Newt has been caught in many other lies.

Drek| 1.27.12 @ 1:20PM

So let's go with Romney instead of Gingrich, because he's just this paragon of truth.

Romney is just so truthful that his middle name should be: VERITAS!

Calling out Romney on lies is like calling out the sky for being blue, or the ocean for being wet. There's hardly any point to it anymore because it's like the physical laws of the natural universe, a given, a reality, an unalterable, ever-present fact.

Dai Alanye | 1.28.12 @ 1:58PM

Even had Romney never told a specific lie, his pose as a converted conservative is a giant fraud. He would only be safe with a VP who is both a strong conservative and a strong personality, but I doubt Sarah Palin will agree to run with him, and he'd be afraid to pick that meany Rick Santorum. He'll probably choose some respectable squish like Judd Gregg.

William R| 1.27.12 @ 1:32PM

How Reagan beat the NeoCons

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06.....ocons.html

Revising Ronald Reagan

http://reason.com/archives/200.....ald-reagan

William R| 1.27.12 @ 1:32PM

Reagan's Wisdom on the Middle East: Leave

http://orangepunch.ocregister......leave/619/

Dan Phillips| 1.27.12 @ 2:56PM

"a great neoconservative"?

Is that supposed to be some kind of a joke. A great neoconservative is like a great tooth ache or a great car accident. No such thing exists.

aware| 1.27.12 @ 4:05PM

Yes!

bobmontgomery| 1.27.12 @ 3:09PM

Well, even if Elliott ABrams is not married to Jennifer Rubin, the incest rampant in Washington, DC is exactly why Gov. Perry wanted to make it as inconsequential in everybody's lives as possible. .........Isn't it, Wlady?

Anthony| 1.27.12 @ 3:20PM

Wlady, It's good that you have opined on this. As much as I am saddened by Emmett's disgraceful and deceptive hit piece on Newt yesterday, I am equally heartened that at least Emmett does not silence his staff or his posters.
This was coordinated, pure and simple. Abrams was used and he made a total fool of himself. Emmett has a personal animus with Newt, that's obvious.
You need to tell Emmett he needs to come clean with both Newt and his readers, for his sake as well as TAS. Thanks, Anthony

aware| 1.27.12 @ 4:09PM

There was nothing inaccurate with RET's piece. Lots of people who have worked with Newt hate his guts.

Clint| 1.27.12 @ 4:16PM

" The New Hampshire Gazette

The Chickenhawk Hall Of Shame.

name:
Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich
rank:
Chickenhawk First Class with Distinguished Fleeing Cross
date-of-birth:
June 17, 1943
home state:
Georgia
missed opportunity:
Vietnam War
preferred activity:
Attending grad school
occupation:
Congressman

A virtuoso in the art of hypocrisy, the former Speaker of the House now claims the Vietnam War was a splendid idea, but at the time he opposed going himself. Newtie also speaks highly of morality, but as a serial adulterer he doesn't want to get too close."

Greta| 1.27.12 @ 7:08PM

So all who support a war must enlist and serve? this is idiocy. Newt did nothing illegal or avoid the draft. Ronald Reagan certainly did not end up in combat in WWII but served by making movies in Hollywood and he was far from a chickenhawk playing a large role in bringing down the Soviet Union assisted by Newt. There is a long list of our founding fathers who did not serve during the war of independence.

Dai Alanye | 1.28.12 @ 2:04PM

Captain Doctor RonPaul did not enlist, but chose to serve when drafted rather than move to Sweden or go to jail. What a paragon! What a patriot! What a hypocrite!

But thanks to Clint for disinterring the term "chickenhawk." I've missed it in his screeds.

Oldefarte| 1.28.12 @ 2:55PM

'...The Chickenhawk Hall Of Shame....' Is that similar to the TOO SHORT SHORTS HALL OF INFAMY??????????????

Clint| 1.28.12 @ 11:12AM

Compare Ronald Reagan's Involvement In Military Service To The Three Chickenhawk Rough Puff Candidates.

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/a.....itary.html

Dai Alanye | 1.28.12 @ 2:07PM

Againe I beg excessively modest Clint to reveal his war record, surely the equivalent of Sergeant York, Audie Murphy and Howlin' Mad Smith... Put together!

Too bad he threw all his medals over the White House fence.

Oldefarte| 1.28.12 @ 2:58PM

Nah, he's a certified Lake Jackson TOO SHORT SHORTS Rough Rider!!!!

Oldefarte| 1.28.12 @ 2:56PM

Or to McCain's military service, huh???????

More Blog Posts by Wlady Pleszczynski

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/27/an-absolutely-stunning-piece

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

High Court Strikes Down Arizona Voter Law

Jordan Gonzalez | 6.17.13

Waiting for the Middle East to Combust over Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 6.17.13

Snowden’s Online Q&A Leaves Many un-Aed Qs

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 6.17.13

Hannity: Secure the Border First

Jeffrey Lord | 6.17.13

A Grave New World: The Political Price of Overpopulation

Anne Hobson | 6.17.13

Serious Welfare Reform…in Massachusetts

Claire Healey | 6.17.13

Pelosi Misuses the Word “Sacred”

Rich Lizardo | 6.17.13

Keep the IRS Scandal Alive

Matt Purple | 6.17.13

Latest Headlines

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|83 comments

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens|16 comments

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow|114 comments

When Did Matty Tell Hatty?

Frank Schell|18 comments

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan|50 comments

Shah Na Na

Mark Tooley|22 comments

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman|31 comments

Jeff Sessions’ Conservative Populism

Matthew Walther|68 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

The Grey Lady’s Grudging Abortion Admission

George Neumayr | 6.14.13

Charles Krauthammer and The Limbaugh Theorem

Jeffrey Lord | 6.14.13

When Did Matty Tell Hatty?

Frank Schell | 6.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.