Pelosi: Something In Gingrich Past Will Stop Presidency

Nancy Pelosi claims to know "something" about Newt Gingrich's past that will prevent him from becoming president.

CBS News has more:

"The Democratic leader, who served on a four-person ethics committee that investigated Gingrich in the 1990s, has said in the past that "I know a lot about" Gingrich, and that "one of these days we'll have a conversation" about him. But when it was suggested that Pelosi was suggesting in those comments to the possibility of leaking private records from the ethics investigation, Hammill insisted she was referring to "information that is in the public record."

The committee looked into 84 counts of ethical wrongdoing against Gingrich, and ultimately, they voted to reprimand and fine him for wrongdoing involving breaches of tax law and making misrepresentations to Congress. It's unknown if Pelosi was privy to any confidential information surrounding the ethics investigation, but Gingrich himself has pointed to a 900 page report on the investigation that is available to the public.

In a response to Pelosi in an interview with the radio show "America's Morning News," Gingrich dismissed her comments as "hysterical" and "factually incorrect."

"As my campaign has gotten stronger, the attacks have become more hysterical and more factually incorrect," he said. "I have a simple challenge for speaker Pelosi: to speak up or shut up. I have no idea what she's talking about, I don't think she has any idea what she's talking about. But bring it on.""

What exactly Pelosi is talking about, no one knows or no one is willing to discuss it. One thing that could come up is Gingrich's hypocrisy of calling for the resignation and impeachment of President Bill Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky scandal, while at the same time Gingrich was cheating on his own wife with one of his staff.

Gingrich claimed he had an affair because his lust for America needed an outlet. I'm not kidding.

Mitt Romney Lost Iowa, Hiding Millions Offshore

Mitt Romney's fortune just went from the presumed clear cut GOP presidential nominee to potential footnote in history if Wednesday night's news reports have teeth.

First, ABC News reported Mitt Romney is "hiding" up to $33 million in offshore Caribbean accounts, and rumors immediately circulated it was to avoid paying U.S. taxes on the princely sum. Romney's campaign claimed he had paid taxes on all of the money, but Romney continues to refuse to release his tax returns. This latest development could force him to release those returns before he is comfortable, with him citing he would "likely" release the tax information in April, which would be after he has sewn up the GOP nomination and too late for competitors to do anything with the material.

However, the report by ABC News is quickly sprouting legs, with other news agencies and political blogs picking up on it, and the possibility that Romney has been avoiding paying U.S. taxes on the income. Reuters reports Romney also has funds in Ireland, Bermuda, and Hong Kong.

The IRS claims over $100 billion in taxes goes unpaid and unreported every year from money hidden in offshore accounts. To many Americans, the idea of keeping millions of dollars in offshore banks sounds seedy and gives the impression something dishonest is going on. I would bet good money, perhaps the $10,000 Romney offered to bet Rick Perry during one debate, that the Super PAC's will jump on this story and have new commercials attacking Romney as a tax cheat and a fraud airing on South Carolina Television stations by Thursday afternoon. One word we haven't heard yet: Criminal.

The other big news rumored to be announced on Thursday has been brewing for weeks. Recounts and certification of the Iowa caucus results show Mitt Romney did NOT win Iowa. Original results had Romney winning by 8 votes, but the recounts have reportedly found Romney was credited with 22 votes at the Garret Memorial Library when the recount shows he actually had 2. Subtracting 20 votes from Romney's results means Rick Santorum won Iowa by 12 votes. However, the New York Times is reporting late Wednesday night that instead of announce that Santorum won Iowa, the GOP will do the all-American thing and will void the entire election and throw out all results. Iowa will not count and not get to vote in the GOP primaries. The "reasoning" is that the GOP cannot certify the results in their own required time line. I find it fascinating that as Romney has appeared to have the nomination completely sewn up, Santorum appears to have picked up many delegates in Iowa and been given a second chance, only to find those votes will just disappear. So much for the illusion of democracy. Lawsuits will surely follow.

But the Iowa story is likely to be buried by the damning revelations about Romney and his millions hiding in offshore banks.

One GOP consultant told the NY Daily News the truth about Romney is irrelevant, “This will be wrapped around his neck in the fall. It fits perfectly into Obama’s theme that Romney is another Republican robber baron getting rich at the expense of the poor middle class.”

It also fits into the theme that the richest people in the world always find a way to cheat the system, avoid paying their share, and then spin the truth, what we poor people call "lying."

UPDATE: The GOP did announce Santorum won Iowa but the state's results cannot be certified because they have lost 8 precincts votes.

1967 Interview with MLK

This is a fascinating clip of Martin Luther King Jr. on the Mike Douglas show in November, 1967.

I'm almost embarrassed to say that I've never seen any clips of MLK being interviewed before. I've watched his famous "I have a dream" speech, but I have never seen a clip of him in an interview. I can see why people were attracted to him, he sounds move level-headed than any public figure of today.

New Ron Paul Ad Reveals Gingrich Hypocrisy

The GOP presidential nomination appears to be wide open, with Mitt Romney leading the pack but Newt Gingrich of all people starting to gain in the polls. Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, and Michelle Bachmann all have either dropped out or seen their support dwindle to single digits.

But there is a third candidate who is still a force in the polls, despite getting the shaft from major media, and that is Ron Paul.

While I do not agree with everything Ron Paul believes, he still strikes a chord for speaking like an actual human being and not a robot candidate. One senses that Romney and Gingrich will both say and do anything to get elected (which is probably no different than 99.9% of politicians anywhere), but Ron Paul's viewpoints have stayed the same for years.

The first caucuses begin in one month, and today Ron Paul released a 2 1/2 minute web ad pointing out just a few of Newt Gingrich's hypocrisy. People need to remember that Gingrich left Washington in shame, and has a history of questionable, to say the least, personal behavior that for me would rule out ever voting for him.

Here is the new Ron Paul ad:

Now go read an article I wrote 4 years ago that explained a few reasons the media love to paint Ron Paul as a crazy candidate nobody with a sane mind would vote for (when they do actually decide to mention his name): Why The Media Hates Ron Paul And Dennis Kucinich

Microsoft's Siri Competitor Could Get You Arrested

Microsoft claims Apple's revolutionary voice technology, Siri, is no big deal. Microsoft says they've had their own version of a Siri-like service for a year, called TellMe, and that Apple is getting unjustified publicity.

Is that accurate?

Jason from TechAU did a short video comparison of Microsoft's voice technology vs. Siri, with each doing relatively simple (for Siri) tasks...

Bottom line: Microsoft's voice technology works "great," if you want to get arrested for searching for teen anal, or ruin your marriage if your wife finds out what you've been searching.

Cable TV's Excuse For No Ala Carte Channels Is A Farce

We're told we can't just subscribe to only the cable TV channels we actually want because we would only choose channels, and all of the other channels that fewer viewers watch would go out of business.

That reasoning is a farce.

No other industry is allowed to behave like that. We don't have to subscribe to 87 magazines we'll never read just to get the one car magazine we want to read. We don't have to buy 20 different frozen foods just to get the one pizza we want. Nobody forces me to buy 12 pairs of shoes just to get the one I actually want.

Premium cable channels still offer free preview weekends to allow viewers to sample what they offer and decide if they want to subscribe. That should be the business model of all television networks.

Businesses succeed or fail based on their own merits, not some b.s. forced on us with the sole purpose of making and keeping huge conglomerates rich. If a TV network can't stay in business because they don't offer anything people want to watch, it's not our responsibility to pay them anyway. If a person does not watch sports, they shouldn't have to pay for 12 different sports channels in their cable package. The same goes for sports fans who will never watch TLC, NatGeo, Smithsonian, and other informational networks but have to shell out monthly for them anyway.

The cable companies argue that if they were forced to offer ala carte subscriptions, that it would end up costing the consumer more money. Not true.

"The average cable customer watches only 12 to 15 channels on a regular bases, but cable companies bundle 50 to 75 channels in the expanded basic package, and upward of 200 in digital cable packages." (source)

Even if the price passed down to consumers for each individual TV channel tripled or quadrupled, it would still be less expensive to pay for only the 12-15 channels the average viewer watches instead of a huge bundle. The average cable TV channel charge cable companies .50 - $1.00 per viewer. A handful of channels charge more than $1.00 per viewer, for example, ESPN charges an average of $4.69 per viewer for their main channel alone. However, many channels charge nothing or a very small fee of far less than .50 per viewer. Even if the cable companies averaged that out to charging viewers $2-3 per channel, and even charging more for ESPN to over actual costs, it would still be cheaper for 99 percent of viewers to purchase channels ala carte.

It's also not the American people's responsibility to subsidize the destruction of forests and printing and delivery of piles of junk mail just so postal workers and the direct mail industries can survive.

If nobody wants a product, the company offering it should adapt or go out of business, period. That's how it is in the real world, except the world of cable television.

Steve Jobs, 1955-2011

At a 2005 commencement address at Stanford University, Steve Jobs shared the philosophy that drove him.

“Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life,” Jobs said. “Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.”