WWIII Countdown: CFR declares “Time to Attack Iran”

The highly influential Council on Foreign Relations (aka CFR) declared this month in their online publication “Foreign Affairs” that it is now time to attack Iran, subtitled “Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option”

FORMER SNL ACTRESS VICTORIA JACKSON: ‘MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD HAS INFILTRATED OUR HIGHEST POSITIONS IN GOV’T’

Former “Saturday Night Live” actress Victoria Jackson is facing some criticism over recent comments she made on “Politichicks,” a web talk show she co-hosts. During a recent episode, Jackson contended that the Muslim Brotherhood — the same Islamist group that has been winning Middle Eastern elections — has infiltrated the American government at its highest levels.

“I just went to a briefing in Washington D.C., across the street from the Capitol, at the Longworth building at 8:30 am two days ago and it changed my life,” she said. “For six hours, I saw pictures and names and dates and facts and Islamic law books and Korans, Surahs for six hours and they proved to me… that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated our highest positions in government and this is serious.”

Watch these comments, below:

Jackson also detailed this meeting in a blog entry earlier this month, writing:

I went to a six hour briefing in Washington D.C. last week. Thirty eight government representatives were invited. Fifteen showed up. Slides, photos, names, dates and documents were shown overhead proving that the Muslim Brotherhood, not only planned the “Arab Spring” and Libyan take over, but has infiltrated our highest government positions, schools, courts and military and is even making policy.

Gossip blogger Perez Hilton, who typically rattles on about entertainment (with occasional hints of political news where there’s a cultural element), called Jackson “misinformed” and “uneducated,“ saying that ”there are barely any others in the world that match her low level.” He continued, contending that her comments about the Muslim Brotherhood are “ignorant hatred with no foundation in reality.”

Washington Times KUHNER: Ron Paul’s moment.

Ron Paul is poised to pull off a major upset. The Texas congressman is surging in the polls and may even win the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3. He has run an effective - and at times brilliant - campaign. His scathing ads have eviscerated former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. As Mr. Gingrich’s numbers fall, Mr. Paul is attracting disaffected Republican voters. He is emerging slowly as the conservative alternative to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Yet, is Mr. Paul’s rise good for the GOP? Or will he ultimately help President Obama get re-elected?

Mr. Paul is the godfather of the Tea Party movement. He is not a Burkean conservative but a libertarian constitutionalist who champions limited government, sound currency and states’ rights. In foreign policy, he is a non-interventionist who believes - like our Founding Fathers - that America should mind its own business. For this, Mr. Paul has been excoriated by both the progressive left and the neoconservative right. The Democratic and Republican establishments despise him. The media largely ignore him. Much of talk-radio ridicules him.

I, however, have a confession to make: I like him. Mr. Paul is right on many key issues - out-of-control spending, our runaway national debt, exploding entitlements, the evils of the Federal Reserve and the perils of military interventionism and nation-building. He is the only Republican candidate truly serious about rolling back the federal leviathan. He seeks to slash government spending by $1 trillion - within one year. He favors massive cuts to capital-gains, dividend and income taxes. He would repeal Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley, thereby unleashing the private economy. He champions real entitlement reform, pushing for Social Security and Medicare to be phased out gradually and privatized. He wants to audit and eventually abolish the Federal Reserve. This alone would tame inflation, restore the value of the dollar and protect the purchasing power of the working and middle class. Mr. Paul is the mortal enemy of New Deal-Great Society liberalism.

Even on foreign affairs, the area where he is most vulnerable and out-of-step with the Republican mainstream, Mr. Paul has shown genuine courage and foresight. Of all the GOP contenders, he is the only one who opposed the Iraq War. He warned that the invasion would drain precious American blood and treasure. Many of his policies echo those of pre-Cold War conservatives - abolishing foreign aid, withdrawing from entangling alliances such as NATO and protecting U.S. sovereignty from transnational intelligentsia, such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization.

Mr. Paul is saying what most on the right (and left) are not willing to confront: America is being broken by military overstretch. We are no longer a constitutional republic, but an empire. Democratic universalism - the notion that Washington must spread democracy and human rights to every corner of the world - is a recipe for perpetual war, national exhaustion and economic ruin. Also, Mr. Paul laments that Congress has ceded its war-making powers to the executive branch. The presidency has become a modern-day Caesar, able to wage war with little or no legislative restraint.

Mr. Paul is tapping into growing public frustration with endless military conflicts abroad. Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated the disastrous failure of nation-building; democracy, economic modernity and the rule of law cannot be imposed by the bayonet upon alien tribal cultures. Conservatives used to know that government activism cannot create economic prosperity or fix broken families, never mind mold entire national cultures. “War is the health of the state,” warned writer Randolph Bourne. Conservatives wage it at their peril. Small government and militarism are incompatible. Moreover, Mr. Paul understands the seminal truth of our time: We are broke. Like imperial Britain and ancient Rome, America is being bled to death, unable to sustain its global ambition. The welfare-warfare state is doomed to collapse.

Yet Mr. Paul is also an ideologue. This is his fatal weakness. Ideology trumps reality. He denies that Iran is bent on getting the bomb. In fact, he often sounds like Tehran’s public-relations agent, defending the mullahs’ quest to acquire nuclear weapons. He refuses to recognize the existence of radical Islam and the mortal threat it poses to the West. He lionizes anti-American, anti-war websites such as the odious WikiLeaks. He will not stand up to China’s predatory trade practices, blindly adhering to free-trade nostrums. His support for homosexual rights and the legalization of drugs, including cocaine and heroine, represents an assault upon traditional America. His libertine libertarianism would lead to a more permissive society and widespread drug use, especially among youth. Indeed, Mr. Paul appeals to many young voters: He combines the principles of Steve Jobs with Charlie Sheen, the economic individualist and the moral hedonist.

Mr. Paul’s anarcho-capitalism is too radical and too naive and deviates too much from Reaganite conservatism to capture the GOP nomination. Yet he has the potential to command 10 percent of the electorate - not enough to win, but enough to be a spoiler. He repeatedly has refused to shut the door on a possible third-party run. In 1988, he was the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee. The party would take him back in a heartbeat.

This, however, would be a tragic mistake. Running as an independent candidate would split the anti-Obama vote, enabling the president to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Mr. Paul would become the right’s Ralph Nader - the man who helps consolidate Mr. Obama’s socialist revolution. His legacy would be tarnished permanently and his movement betrayed.

No one has done more to remind the GOP of its small-government roots than Mr. Paul. This is why he continues to rise. It also is why he should tell Republican voters that, like Sen. Robert A. Taft and Sen. Barry Goldwater, his home is in the GOP. Otherwise, the only real winner is Mr. Obama.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.

Doctors speak about H1N1 VACCINE DANGERS. Will The Newly Created “Killer Bird Flu” Someday Be Used As A Bio-Terror Weapon To Reduce The Population

The American Dream
Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Most people have no idea how close we are to a biological doomsday. All over the world, incredibly dangerous “superbugs” are being created by virologists and military researchers. This reckless tinkering with nature will eventually cost millions of lives because it is inevitable that some of these “superbugs” will eventually get released either on purpose or by accident. When the time comes, we will have absolutely no protection against them. But a lot of these scientists don’t seem to care about the risks. In fact, a team led by Ron Fouchier at Rotterdam’s Erasmus Medical Centre has created a “killer bird flu” that could kill hundreds of millions of people and they want to publish how they did it. They don’t seem to realize that this scientifically created “killer bird flu” could be easily replicated by those that would like to use it as a bio-terror weapon. In particular, a “super flu” would make a great weapon for those that would like to dramatically reduce the population of the world without getting “blood on their hands”. Unfortunately, there are way too many people out there today (including many among the global elite) that actually believe that we need to get rid of most of humanity in order to save the earth.

A few years ago, a lot of people were really freaked out about the H5N1 bird flu, but it turns out that it is really, really hard to transmit H5N1 bird flu from human to human.

But if there was a way to make H5N1 spread much more easily among humans it could potentially be absolutely devastating. So far, approximately 60 percent of all humans that have been infected with H5N1 have died.

Well, that is exactly what this team of European researchers has done.

The following comes from an article in the Independent….

For the first time the researchers have been able to mutate the H5N1 strain of avian influenza so that it can be transmitted easily through the air in coughs and sneezes. Until now, it was thought that H5N1 bird flu could only be transmitted between humans via very close physical contact.

It would be hard to overstate how dangerous this virus would be if it got out.

In fact, one senior scientific adviser to the U.S. Government told the Independent that the “worst-case scenario here is worse than anything you can imagine”.

Even the leader of the team that created this virus, virologist Ron Fouchier, has admitted that this “killer bird flu” is “probably one of the most dangerous viruses you can make“.

So why in the world did they do it?

Why make a virus that could kill hundreds of millions of people?

This is such a reckless thing to do that it is hard to find the words to describe it.

Ah, but European authorities say that there is no reason to fear.

EU Health Commissioner John Dalli recently told journalists the following….

“The Dutch authorities confirmed that the virus itself is stored in a very secured way and that the necessary permits were given and that the researchers are bound by a code of conduct”

But it has also been reported that there are no armed guards guarding the virus.

TO READ THE REST OF THE STORY CLICK HERE

‘THE 12 DAYS OF CHRISTMAS’ (THE OBAMA VERSION) & OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CHRISTMAS PARODIES

Debt-Free United States Notes Were Once Issued Under JFK And The U.S. Government Still Has The Power To Issue Debt-Free Money

Notice that there is a red seal instead of a green seal on the front, and it says "United States Note" rather than "Federal Reserve Note".

According to Wikipedia, United States Notes were issued directly into circulation by the U.S. Treasury and they were first used during the Civil War....

They were originally issued directly into circulation by the U.S. Treasury to pay expenses incurred by the Union during the American Civil War. Over the next century, the legislation governing these notes was modified many times and numerous versions have been issued by the Treasury.

So why are we using debt-based Federal Reserve Notes today instead of debt-free United States Notes?

It seems rather stupid, doesn't it?

Well, that is what Thomas Edison thought too.

Thomas Edison was once quoted in the New York Times as saying the following....

That is to say, under the old way any time we wish to add to the national wealth we are compelled to add to the national debt.

Now, that is what Henry Ford wants to prevent. He thinks it is stupid, and so do I, that for the loan of $30,000,000 of their own money the people of the United States should be compelled to pay $66,000,000 — that is what it amounts to, with interest. People who will not turn a shovelful of dirt nor contribute a pound of material will collect more money from the United States than will the people who supply the material and do the work. That is the terrible thing about interest. In all our great bond issues the interest is always greater than the principal. All of the great public works cost more than twice the actual cost, on that account. Under the present system of doing business we simply add 120 to 150 per cent, to the stated cost.

But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good.

Our current debt-based monetary system was devised by greedy bankers that wanted to make huge profits by creating money out of thin air and lending it to the U.S. government at interest.

Sadly, the vast majority of the American people have no idea how money is actually created in this nation.

In a previous article about money and debt, I explained how more government debt is created whenever the U.S. government puts more money into circulation....

When the government wants more money, the U.S. government swaps U.S. Treasury bonds for "Federal Reserve notes", thus creating more government debt. Usually the money isn't even printed up - most of the time it is just electronically credited to the government. The Federal Reserve creates these "Federal Reserve notes" out of thin air. These Federal Reserve notes are backed by nothing and have no intrinsic value of their own.

When each new Federal Reserve Note is created, the interest owed by the federal government on that new Federal Reserve Note is not also created at the same time.

So the amount of government debt that is created actually exceeds the amount of money that is created.

Isn't that a stupid system?

The U.S. Constitution says that the federal government is the one that should actually be issuing our money.

In particular, according to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, it is the U.S. Congress that has been given the responsibility to "coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures".

So why is a private central banking cartel issuing our money?

As is the case with so many other issues, we desperately need to get back to the way the U.S. Constitution says that we should be doing things.

The debt-based Federal Reserve system is literally stealing the future from our children and our grandchildren.

Back in 1910, a couple years prior to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, the national debt was only about $2.6 billion.

A little over 100 years later, our national debt is now more than 5000 timeslarger.

So why don't we just admit that this system simply does not work?

Our current debt-based monetary system also requires very high personal income taxes to pay for it.

In fact, it is no accident that the personal income tax was introduced at about the same time that the Federal Reserve system originally came into existence.

Our children, our grandchildren and many generations after that are facing a lifetime of debt slavery because of us.

As I have written about previously, if the federal government began right at this moment to repay the U.S. national debt at a rate of one dollar per second, it would take over 440,000 years to pay off the national debt.

Neither the Republicans or the Democrats are proposing any solutions to this problem. Rather, both parties are only trying to slow down the rate at which we are going into even more debt.

But the truth is that the federal government does not have to go into a single penny of additional debt.

How could this be?

It is not too complicated.

If Congress took back the power over our currency and started issuing debt-free money a lot of our problems could be fixed.

A basic plan would look something like this....

#1) The U.S. Congress votes to take back all of the functions that it has delegated to the Federal Reserve and begins to issue debt-free United States Notes. These United States Notes would have the exact same value as existing Federal Reserve Notes, and over time all existing Federal Reserve Notes would be taken out of circulation.

#2) The U.S. Congress nationalizes all debt held by the Federal Reserve. That would instantly reduce the national debt by 1.6 trillion dollars. In fact, there are a few members of Congress that have already proposed this.

#3) A Constitutional amendment is passed limiting future U.S. government deficits to a reasonable percentage of GDP. Any future deficits would not be funded by borrowing. Rather, future deficits would be funded by newly created United States Notes. Therefore, the federal government would never again accumulate another penny of debt.

And it would be important to inject new money into the economy from time to time. When existing money is destroyed or when the population grows it is important to inject a certain amount of new money into the system in order to avoid deflation.

#4) The existing national debt would be very slowly paid off with newly created United States Notes. The U.S. government spent over 454 billion dollars on interest on the national debt during fiscal year 2011, and over time this expense would go to zero.

READ THE REST OF THE LIST BY CLICKING HERE.....

Evacuation plan for Brits in Spain amid warning euro collapse could leave them stranded!

EMERGENCY evacuation plans for Brits living in Spain and Portugal are being drawn up amid fears of the euro collapsing.

The drastic proposals emerged as a former Security Minister warned expats could be left stranded and destitute by the break-up of the single currency.

Brits who invested their savings in their adopted countries may not be able to withdraw cash and could even lose their homes if banks call in loans, worried ministers are warning.

The Foreign Office is preparing to bring them back from Spain and Portugal if the two countries are forced out of the euro, triggering a banking collapse.

A million Brits live in Spain and 50,000 in neighbouring Portugal – plus a million in the other eurozone countries.

And Baroness Neville-Jones, who only stepped down as a minister in May, called the situation “very, very worrying”.

The Tory peer – who once chaired the Joint Intelligence Committee for MI5, MI6 and other security agencies – said: “Spain is clearly a vulnerable area. If that happens, one of the things that will happen in a crash of that kind, is that the banks would close their doors. You would find that there are people there, including our own citizens, a lot of them, who couldn’t get money out to live on. So you would have a destitution problem.”

Commenting on the evacuation plans, she added: “I think they are right to be doing that. I think this is a real contingency that they need to plan against – very, very worrying.”

Officials are braced for a nightmare scenario where thousands end up penniless and sleeping at airports with no means of getting home. Planes, ships and coaches could be sent, with some expats being brought out through Gibraltar.

The Foreign Office could offer small loans while piling pressure on the banks to give Brits access to their funds.

Spanish and Portuguese banks guarantee the first 100,000 euros deposited by savers but many put limits on withdrawals in a crisis.

A powerful credit rating agency downgraded 10 Spanish banks last week, while another warned over the weekend the debt crisis was threatening to spiral out of control.

Top Tory Boris Johnson yesterday became the first senior politician to predict the eurozone will break up.

The bungling London Mayor even joked about Greece being forced out, which would threaten a credit crunch.

“Ouzo will be substantially cheaper,” he told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.

He claimed letting the single currency collapse might be the best thing for Europe – but Deputy PM Nick Clegg warned it would end up hurting Britain.

The Lib Dem leader said: “I hear a lot of people sort of breezily predicting almost with a sense of glee that the eurozone is going to fall apart. I don’t think witnessing the break-up of the currency block in our European backyard would do us any good at all.”

Expat Doreen Peplow keeps most of her money in a British bank account

Doreen Peplow, 68, who lives between Marbella and Fuengirola, says: “I am worldly wise enough to have made sure I have kept most of my money in my British bank account.

“Until now I have been getting my pension paid directly into a Spanish account. I might change that now.

“I cannot imagine there will be an evacuation; people retired to Spain and Portugal before Britain entered the Common Market and they managed.

“I have lived here 15 years. I don’t want to go back to Britain as the weather is dismal and it is overcrowded.

“But if it comes to it I am prepared to sell up and buy myself a retirement property near my son in Dorset.”

Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/12/19/evacuation-plan-for-brits-in-spain-amid-warning-euro-collapse-could-leave-them-stranded-115875-23645721/#ixzz1h1E40SDc

WASHINGTON TIMES KUHNER: Obama’s Watergate Officials cover up culpability for gun smuggling and murder.

A year ago this week, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered. He died protecting his country from brutal Mexican gangsters. Two AK-47 assault rifles were found at his death site. We now know the horrifying truth: Agent Terry was killed by weapons that were part of an illegal Obama administration operation to smuggle arms to the dangerous drug cartels. He was a victim of his own government. This is not only a major scandal; it is a high crime that potentially reaches all the way to theWhite House, implicating senior officials. It is President Obama’s Watergate.

Operation Fast and Furious was run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and overseen by the Justice Department. It started under the leadership of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. Fast and Furious enabled straw gun purchases from licensed dealers in Arizona, in which more than 2,000 weapons were smuggled to Mexican drug kingpins. ATF claims it was seeking to track the weapons as part of a larger crackdown on the growing violence in the Southwest. Instead, ATF effectively has armed murderous gangs. About 300 Mexicans have been killed by Fast and Furious weapons. More than 1,400 guns remain lost. Agent Terry likely will not be the last U.S. casualty.

Mr. Holder insists he was unaware of what took place until after media reports of the scandal appeared in early 2011. This is false. Such a vast operation only could have occurred with the full knowledge and consent of senior administration officials. Massive gun-running and smuggling is not carried out by low-level ATF bureaucrats unless there is authorization from the top. There is a systematic cover-up.

Congressional Republicans, however, are beginning to shed light on the scandal. Led by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Rep. Darrell Issa of California, a congressional probe is exposing the Justice Department’s rampant criminality and deliberate stonewalling. Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, who heads the department’s criminal division, helped craft a February letter to Congress that denied ATF had ever walked guns into Mexico. Yet, under pressure from congressional investigators, the department later admitted that Mr. Breuer knew about ATF gun-smuggling as far back as April 2010. In other words, Mr. Breuerhas been misleading Congress. He should resign - or be fired.

Instead, Mr. Holder tenaciously insists that Mr. Breuer will keep his job. He needs to keep his friends close and potential witnesses even closer. Another example is former acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson. Internal documents show Mr. Melson directly oversaw Fast and Furious, including monitoring numerous straw purchases of AK-47s. He has admitted to congressional investigators that he, along with high-ranking ATF leaders, reassigned every “manager involved in Fast and Furious” after the scandal surfaced on Capitol Hill and in the press. Mr. Melson said he was ordered by senior Justice officials to be silent regarding the reassignments. Hence, ATF managers who possess intimate and damaging information - especially on the role of the Justice Department - essentially have been promoted to cushy bureaucratic jobs. Their silence has been bought, their complicity swept under the rug. Mr. Melson has been transferred to Justice’s main office, where he serves as a “senior adviser” on forensic science in the department’s Office of Legal Policy. Rather than being punished, Mr. Melson has been rewarded for his incompetence and criminal negligence.

Mr. Holder and his aides have given misleading, false and contradictory testimony on Capitol Hill. Perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power - these are high crimes and misdemeanors. Mr. Holder should be impeached. Like most liberals, he is playing the victim card, claiming Mr. Issa is a modern-day Joseph McCarthy conducting a judicial witch hunt. Regardless of this petty smear, Mr. Holder must be held responsible and accountable - not only for the botched operation, but for his flagrant attempts to deflect blame from the administration.

Mr. Holder is a shameless careerist and a ruthless Beltway operative. For years, his out-of-control Justice Department has violated the fundamental principle of our democracy, the rule of law. He has refused to prosecute members of the New Black Panthers for blatant voter intimidation that took place in the 2008 election. Career Justice lawyers have confessed publicly that Mr. Holder will not pursue cases in which the perpetrators are black and the victims white. States such as Arizona and Alabama are being sued for simply attempting to enforce federal immigration laws. Mr. Holderalso opposes voter identification cards, thereby enabling fraud and vote-stealing at the ballot box. What else can we expect from one who, during the Clinton administration, helped pardon notorious tax cheat Marc Rich and Puerto Rican terrorists?

Mr. Holder clearly knew about Fast and Furious and did nothing to stop it. This is because the administration wanted to use the excuse of increased violence on the border and weapons-smuggling into Mexico to justify tighter gun-control legislation. Mr. Holder is fighting ferociously to prevent important internal Justice documents from falling into the hands of congressional investigators. If the full nature of his involvement is discovered, the Obama presidency will be in peril.

Fast and Furious is even worse than Watergate for one simple reason: No one died because of President Nixon’s political dirty tricks and abuse of government power. But Brian Terry is dead; and there are still 1,500 missing guns threatening still more lives.

What did Mr. Obama know? Massive gun-smuggling by the U.S. government into a foreign country does not happen without the explicit knowledge and approval of leading administration officials. It’s too big, too risky and too costly. Mr. Holder may not be protecting just himself and his cronies. Is he protecting the president?

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.

Alex Boye

"NEWT" THE PROGRESSIVE...LOVES FDR?

I’ve always liked the feisty tone Newt Gingrich brings to debate.

There is a cool, analytical detachment to his brutal and effective dissection of liberal failure.

I like it. And maybe that’s the problem. A Blaze correspondent suggests this:

There is an interesting research study that sheds some light on why someone like Gingrich, who is abrasive and has a history of ethical lapses, enjoys his current standing in the polls.

Research has shown that the most important factor in charisma is self-confidence. Interestingly, the confidence doesn’t even have to be justified for people to consider a leader charismatic. In fact, narcissists are initially viewed as confident and charismatic leaders-although that perception eventually changes when the leader’s true capabilities are revealed.
In times of conflict, people who are aggressive and emotionally cool or cold are more likely to be seen as more charismatic leaders. Since the focus is on the person’s aggressiveness, the ethics of the person is not seen as important.

Why is this? In stressful environments and times, people instinctively look for people who are more aggressive and colder emotionally to protect them and to take on enemies. In less stressful, less dynamic, and less conflict ridden environments, leaders who less aggressive and warmer emotionally are more likely to be seen as charismatic because there is less of a perceived threat and the focus isn’t on defeating an enemy. Think of George Patton. The perfect personality for war time. The wrong personality for peacetime.

The challenge is that voters are currently focusing on one thing-How do we beat Obama? They want a Winston Churchill, to give ‘em hell, storm Washington, fight Obama on his own turf, and set things right. This is why we believe Newt Gingrich is enjoying his current lead in the polls. He is abrasive, emotionally cold, and has a history of ethical lapses. Even though Republicans are well aware of Gingrich’s past character issues, they are giving more weight his aggressiveness and relative emotional coldness because they are looking for someone to very aggressively take on Obama–Patton style.

MICHAEL SAVAGE OFFERS NEWT GINGRICH ONE MILLION DOLLARS TO DROP OUT OF RACE

Writing that the Republican presidential field only boils down to two candidates — Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — and that only one of those candidates — Romney — is capable of beating Barack Obama in the general election — conservative radio host Michael Savage has offered Gingrich $1 million to drop out of the primary race within the next 72 hours.

Savage posted the announcement on his website, a portion reads as follows:

"NEWT GINRICH IS UNELECTABLE. MITT ROMNEY IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE WITH A CHANCE OF DEFEATING BARACK OBAMA, AND THERE IS NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT FOR FUTURE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THEREFORE, I AM OFFERING NEWT GINGRICH ONE MILLION DOLLARS TO DROP OUT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE FOR THE SAKE OF THE NATION."

"IF NEWT GINGRICH REALLY LOVES THIS COUNTRY AS MUCH AS HE SAYS HE DOES, IF HE REALLY WANTS WHAT IS BEST FOR AMERICA, HE WILL SET HIS EGO ASIDE, CALL ME, AND ACCEPT MY OFFER. HIS CONTINUED CANDIDACY SPELLS NOTHING BUT RUIN FOR CONSERVATIVES, REPUBLICANS, AND ALL TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOTS. ONE MILLION DOLLARS IN EXCHANGE FOR PRESERVING THE NATION, NEWT. I SAY TAKE THE MONEY… AND DON’T RUN."

Savage also provided a bullet-point list of all the reasons why he believed Gingrich was incapable of beating Obama, including his marital infidelity and involvement with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Savage wrote that Gingrich will “look like nothing more than what he is: a fat, old, white man.”

While this may be nothing more than a publicity stunt for the radio host, many prominent conservatives have also voiced their concerns over a Gingrich run and feel the former House Speaker is less electable than Obama.

WHY WE SHOOT DEER.

WHY WE SHOOT DEER

Why we shoot deer in the wild.
(A letter from someone who wants to remain anonymous, who farms, writes well and actually tried this)

I had this idea that I could rope a deer, put it in a stall, feed it up on corn for a couple of weeks, then kill it and eat it. The first step in this adventure was getting a deer. I figured that, since they congregate at my cattle feeder and do not seem to have much fear of me when we are there (a bold one will sometimes come right up and sniff at the bags of feed while I am in the back of the truck not 4 feet away), it should not be difficult to rope one, get up to it and toss a bag over its head (to calm it down) then hog tie it and transport it home.

I filled the cattle feeder then hid down at the end with my rope. The cattle, having seen the roping thing before, stayed well back. They were not having any of it. After about 20 minutes, my deer showed up - 3 of them. I picked out a likely looking one, stepped out from the end of the feeder, and threw my rope.

The deer just stood there and stared at me. I wrapped the rope around my waist and twisted the end so I would have a good hold. The deer still just stood and stared at me, but you could tell it was mildly concerned about the whole rope situation. I took a step towards it, it took a step away. I put a little tension on the rope, and then received an education.

The first thing that I learned is that, while a deer may just stand there looking at you funny while you rope it, they are spurred to action when you start pulling on that rope. That deer EXPLODED. The second thing I learned is that pound for pound, a deer is a LOT stronger than a cow or a colt. A cow or a colt in that weight range I could fight down with a rope and with some dignity. A deer-- no Chance. That thing ran and bucked and twisted and pulled.

There was no controlling it and certainly no getting close to it. As it jerked me off my feet and started dragging me across the ground, it occurred to me that having a deer on a rope was not nearly as good an idea as I had originally imagined. The only upside is that they do not have as much stamina as many other animals.

A brief 10 minutes later, it was tired and not nearly as quick to jerk me off my feet and drag me when I managed to get up. It took me a few minutes to realize this, since I was mostly blinded by the blood flowing out of the big gash in my head. At that point, I had lost my taste for corn-fed venison. I just wanted to get that devil creature off the end of that rope.

I figured if I just let it go with the rope hanging around its neck, it would likely die slow and painfully somewhere. At the time, there was no love at all between me and that deer. At that moment, I hated the thing, and I would venture a guess that the feeling was mutual.

Despite the gash in my head and the several large knots where I had cleverly arrested the deer's momentum by bracing my head against various large rocks as it dragged me across the ground, I could still think clearly enough to recognize that there was a small chance that I shared some tiny amount of responsibility for the situation we were in. I didn't want the deer to have to suffer a slow death, so I managed to get it lined back up in between my truck and the feeder - a little trap I had set before hand... kind of like a squeeze chute. I got it to back in there and I started moving up so I could get my rope back.

Did you know that deer bite?

They do! I never in a million years would have thought that a deer would bite somebody, so I was very surprised when ...... I reached up there to grab that rope and the deer grabbed hold of my wrist. Now, when a deer bites you, it is not like being bit by a horse where they just bite you and slide off to then let go. A deer bites you and shakes its head--almost like a pit bull. They bite HARD and it hurts.

The proper thing to do when a deer bites you is probably to freeze and draw back slowly.. I tried screaming and shaking instead. My method was ineffective.

It seems like the deer was biting and shaking for several minutes, but it was likely only several seconds. I, being smarter than a deer (though you may be questioning that claim by now), tricked it. While I kept it busy tearing the tendons out of my right arm, I reached up with my left hand and pulled that rope loose.

That was when I got my final lesson in deer behavior for the day.

Deer will strike at you with their front feet. They rear right up on their back feet and strike right about head and shoulder level, and their hooves are surprisingly sharp ... I learned a long time ago that, when an animal - like a horse - strikes at you with their hooves and you can't get away easily, the best thing to do is try to make a loud noise and make an aggressive move towards the animal. This will usually cause them to back down a bit so you can escape.

This was not a horse. This was a deer, so obviously, such trickery would not work. In the course of a millisecond, I devised a different strategy. I screamed like a woman and tried to turn and run. The reason I had always been told NOT to try to turn and run from a horse that paws at you is that there is a good chance that it will hit you in the back of the head.

Deer may not be so different from horses after all, besides being twice as strong and 3 times as evil, because the second I turned to run, it hit me right in the back of the head and knocked me down..

Now, when a deer paws at you and knocks you down, it does not immediately leave. I suspect it does not recognize that the danger has passed. What they do instead is paw your back and jump up and down on you while you are laying there crying like a little girl and covering your head.

I finally managed to crawl under the truck and the deer went away.
So now I know why when people go deer hunting they bring a rifle with a scope......to sort of even the odds!!

All these events are true so help me God... An Educated Farmer.