Here, the NBC sketch show mocks former House Speaker and current presidential candidate Newt Gingrich for his lofty plans to colonize the moon.

Newt Gingrich became the latest Republican to learn you can’t just crank up the classic rock to rally the base.

Survivor, the ’80s band best known for “Eye of the Tiger,” is suing the former Speaker for using “Tiger” on the campaign trail.

The suit, filed Monday in Illinois District Court, alleges that Gingrich has made “unlicensed and unauthorized use” of “Eye of the Tiger” since “at least as early as 2009” at political conferences and campaign events. The complaint cites one recent instance in Doylestown, Pa., when “Mr. Gingrich entered the packed Moose Lodge for a speech as the song ‘pulsed,’ according to the Newt 2012, Inc. website.

Singers routinely force Republican politicians, from Sarah Palin to former President George W. Bush, to stop playing their music on the campaign trail. Free publicity takes a back seat to ideology, the same ol’ song in today’s celebrity circles.

Count Simmons in the Mitt Romney camp, and his reasons for choosing the former governor over Newt Gingrich come down to a pragmatic view of modern women. Simply put, they won’t stand for a first lady who came in third.

Mitt Romney’s got a chance … and he’s got the experience. He’s run successful companies, knows how to make money and knows how to be taxed at 15 percent instead of 48 percent if he lived in Beverly Hills the way I get taxed,” he says. “If you invest you should be taxed at 13-15 percent because if you invest you could also lose everything, so it’s all fair.

Simmons is more cynical regarding former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s hopes of beating President Barack Obama in the fall, and it’s not because Gingrich isn’t qualified to become Commander in Chief.

Fifty percent of the population are women, and they’re not gonna put up with a First Lady as the other women, the mistress … I really don’t give a shit. I just want to know if you can do the job. I don’t care what you do with your schmekel or who’s in bed with you.

Silverman certainly catches her share of flak from the anti-Israel left; she was recently criticized simply because a pro-Israel group happened to buy a bloc of tickets to one of her shows.

But to the extent that she is trying to strike a critical pose–as she did in a recent tweet lampooning Newt Gingrich’s staunch pro-Israel views–there is no better illustration of why Obama risks losing pro-Israel support in the 2012 election.

On the one hand, Obama is attempting to claim he has not just been pro-Israel, but more pro-Israel than any president in American history.

On the other, his penchant for confrontation with the Israeli government, and the anti-Israel passions of his core left-wing supporters, tend to undermine his pitch. Democrats are trying to redefine what it means to be pro-Israel–and it’s not quite working.

Silverman’s posture is an example of that contradiction–not because it’s axiomatically “anti-Israel” to be pro-Palestinian, but because those on the pro-Israel side who support a two-state solution have become increasingly aware that their empathy is not reciprocated. It is hard to imagine a Palestinian actor provocatively setting her location to “State of Israel,” for example.

In 2008, Silverman led “The Great Schlep,” an effort to bring pro-Obama Jews to Florida to convince their allegedly racist grandparents to give the black candidate their swing-state vote. Part of that effort included reassuring Jews about Obama’s support for Israel: “Barack Obama’s foreign policy is much more stabilizing than John McCain’s, and much better for Israel,” Silverman claimed.

It’s harder to make that case today, when Obama–and, now, Silverman–seem to be at pains to show solidarity with the Palestinian cause (and when the Middle East is more unstable today than in 2008).

Criticism of Israel is not the issue; sometimes that criticism is entirely appropriate. What’s troubling to Silverman’s intended audience is that they are being asked to accept that criticism of Israel, or solidarity with the Palestinian cause, is the essence of support for Israel.

Similarly, criticism towards Israel–or outright hostility–has become the litmus test of true membership in the “progressive” movement, creating a dilemma for pro-Israel Democrats who otherwise empathize with the Occupy Wall Street movement and its purported “social justice” aspirations. Occupy activists, for example, have announced their intent to protest and disrupt the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

If Obama were to confront his allies in the Occupy movement, and if Silverman were to confront the anti-Israel left in general, her case for Obama might be a bit more convincing.

Ken Tucker

Lowlights from an elitist frustrated over his inability to defend President FailureTeleprompter: [emphasis added]

Huntsman was undoubtedly relieved he didn’t have to stand on-stage Monday night to face the most raucous, roused-rabble audience of any Republican debate held thus far.

[T]he people in the seats hailed lustily the history lesson offered by “Professor” Newt Gingrich: “Andrew Jackson knew what to do with his enemies — he killed them.”

It was a wild, schizo crowd. They yelled their approval of Rick Perry’s suggestion that America should “go to zero on foreign aid.”

The audience showed a nasty streak in the booing Fox questioner Juan Williams for asking Gingrich[.]

The jeers that erupted the second Williams uttered the phrase “black Americans” was chilling on this Martin Luther King Day. Gingrich didn’t help matters much when he said a bit later, “Barack Obama has put more people on food stamps than any president in history.”

It was a light laugh line in a night that was heavy with malice — not from the candidates, but their supporters. Moderator Bret Baier might have done a bit more to try and quell the mob.

What Tucker is doing is trying to scare off moderates from joining the “nasty mob.” This is the same approach these MSM liars used against the Tea Party.

And the left obviously hates the fact that Obama owns the food stamp record, so it’s now racist to speak the truth, especially on Martin Luther King Day — because we all know Dr. King would want his day used as racial club to stop people from speaking the truth. You know, because he was all about that. For Tucker to exploit one of our greatest Americans in such a cynical, divisive, and racially charged way is about as low as you can get.

But it’s early in the election, and you can bet the house Tucker and company haven’t come close to hitting a bottom.

People always accuse me of hating the media. I’m just hating them back.

Highly recent testimony to Chicago’s immortally blackened reputation, however, is here.

God bless Ann Coulter!!

Furthermore, after having channel-hopped two of the United States’ greatest film noir classics – 1954’s “On The Waterfront” and 1957’s “Sweet Smell of Success” – there is something misleadingly American about the disease still infecting the United States.

Both Chicago’s Unionized Obama Nation and New York’s Bloomberg Occupation on Wall Street?

To coin a relevant movie title, they are “The Swampy Smell of a Waterfront Success!” A “triumph” born of the string-pulling games played by pecking orders in power. A Grand Revival of Political Malevolence in the American Bloodstream is erupting out of the possibly inner-party, Republican opposition to Herman Cain. It not only smells of racism, according to Donald Trump’s accusations, but also of a political desperation that will eventually solidify Cain’s integrity and endurance.

Newt Gingrich is the only one among Cain’s Republican opponents who came to the black candidate’s defense. Meanwhile some of Cain’s other major opponents, Rick Perry and Friends, were blaming Mitt Romney for the dirty tricks being pulled against the increasingly formidable Cain.

This Michael Ramirez cartoon leaves little left to be said about Progressive Racism.

“All Herman Cains, please step to the Right!”

The hypocrisy involved is as breathtaking as the Biden/Pelosi/Pro-abortion/Progressive Catholicism.

Who is running the show over their at the Democratic National Committee? And how often does Pope Benedict XVI have to lecture a former Speaker of the House about abortion?

Fifteen years ago, the minute I announced in Hollywood Reporter and Daily Variety that I would leave America because of the Clinton administration’s unconstitutional assault on television’s freedom of speech, I envisioned the likes of Michael Bloomberg coming to my hometown of New York. Although I didn’t expect the next big villain after Clinton to be a black Chicago politician with an Ivy League
degree.

The racial insanities contained in that name alone are mind-boggling! A separate sink for conservative blacks in Washington’s politically correct outhouses?! If anything captures the truth about an American Communist toilet, it is Ramirez’ cartoon.

Veiled by the Democrat Party’s “Liberalism,” the Marxist heart of the DNC erupted when William Clinton described himself in his biography as not just a Baptist but a “Progressive” Baptist.

Senator William J. Fulbright was the most “Progressive” of “Progressive” Democrats, and Bill Clinton was nursed at Fulbright’s “well-connected” breast. Clinton’s Rhodes scholarship was cinched by the creator of the Fulbright Scholarship.

I was a Fulbright Scholar and soundly punished in a singularly “Progressive” manner for having publicly voiced my faith in God. A Fulbright Scholar doesn’t return to London from Catholic Italy, praising the power and works of God without being called insane and duly served up electro-shock treatments.

Ironically, the Leftist world might have been better off not giving me such an “electric” deferment from military service, or I could very well have died in Vietnam. There would be no Michael Moriarty of “Law and Order” setting the records straight at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood.

Not only was Sen. Fulbright a Marxist but a flaming racist as well.

Fulbright is a small glimpse of how far back racist Marxism has existed in the heavily “Southern” Democrat Party out of Arkansas. Scratch a Clinton deeply enough and you will find a racist Bill Fulbright.

An authentic but profoundly gifted Far Lefty, Joseph Papp, creator of the New York Shakespeare Festival, was a judge on the Fulbright committee which selected the 1963 Fulbright “Scholars.” Fulbright’s choice of Papp was hardly an accident. Papp’s tragedy was that he could not, try as he may and did, integrate Marxist polemics into William Shakespeare’s Judeo-Christian genius.

I recall my first falling out with Papp when he insisted that I, as The Chorus in Shakespeare’s “Henry V,” recite the opening incantation with a rabble-rousing, noisy crowd of Brechtian back-ups behind me, shouting and basically behaving like extras in a Larry Cohen horror film. I so declined the offer of “help” with my sacredly solo speech that I left the production during rehearsals.

Papp called me back, promising to take out his Marxist improvements of Shakespeare.

Years before that, however, he had advised me, “Don’t take the Fulbright Scholarship! Stay here in New York and build your acting career!”

I doubt if my life would have been altered one bit had I not gone to London. The Left in London was still the same as “Marxists in New York” – now there’s a song for you – but with a more high-toned and seemingly civilized delivery to hide behind.

The last Brit Marxist I’ve spoken with now disguises himself as an “Anarchic Syndicalist!” Now there’s a Communist AKA for you!!

My title for this editorial, Quintessentially American Evil, boils down to the singularly brilliant Community Organization for all of American corruption: the Soviet, decades-long campaign to turn American politicians, gangsters, dizzy-headed youth and shamelessly ambitious American families like the Clintons into “useful idiots.”

Some Brits, including a few in the BBC, have woken up to Soviet “creepiness” faster than Americans.

“Stalin’s useful idiots” have geometrically exploded since the Soviet monster’s death, despite the BBC’s best efforts.

The Obama Nation is hopefully the smelliest but also the last and most undeniably rotten fruit on The Expanding Tree of Useful Idiots.

America would never be able to survive anything worse than this. Four more years of such bipartisan corruption, and a United States without Cain as President will, like my character did in Report To The Commissioner, have hung itself. Cain, unlike the Yaphet Kotto character, is not ashamed of traditionally American Law and Order!

That I played my own character of Bo Lockley as a bit of a lost puppy from the beginning was why the film and I received such bad notices from the likes of far Left critic Pauline Kael.

The useful idiots of Hollywood film and Leftist criticism wanted the Report’s hero played throughout as a completely healthy, lovable puppy who offs himself because of American Evil, American Corruption, American Lies, American Insanity. That way America is the villain! Nothing could be further from the truth than that!

Only now has America approached the insanity of such seemingly irreversible evil as found in “Report To The Commissioner.” Even now, however, the healthiest of us, like Cain, won’t quit on authentic America.

Only Cain is strong enough to renew hope in the likes of “Report’s” Bo Lockley. I, thank God, am not Bo Lockley!

I am now a wizened, 70 year old Ben Stone of “Law and Order.” I prosecute in a courtroom called Big Hollyood.

You gotta problem?

After two seasons behind one of the nation’s most talked-about programmes and with two Golden Globes, four Emmys, and 10 million viewers under its belt, the musical drama’s creators are aiming their satirical howitzers at the choppy waters of electoral politics.

A third [season], which starts in the US on Tuesday, and in the UK shortly afterwards, will feature the storyline of an attempt by high school PE teacher Sue Sylvester to run for the US Congress. Controversially, given Sylvester’s pantomime villain status, Glee’s influential profile among young viewers and the impending 2012 election, her bid will be built on an exaggeratedly conservative platform, so satirising the Republican right.

Later in the same programme, she suffers an indignity that befell Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich, two Republican presidential hopefuls: a “glitter bomb” attack, in which opponents video themselves throwing glitter at Sylvester, before uploading footage of the incident to YouTube.

So far, so cheeky, you might think. But given the polarised state of US politics, the public airwaves are no place for light-hearted satire. So news of the storylines has enraged right-leaning pundits.

“This is unbelievably typical of Glee, which has become the most subversive show in the history of network television,” said Ben Shapiro, an author whose recent book Primetime Propaganda highlighted what he describes as Hollywood’s leftist agenda. “They are using Sylvester’s character to mirror the rhetoric and policies of Michele Bachmann. When conservatives watch this show, it will be clear that the creators hate our guts.”

Full story here.

If you remember, on Sunday night, film critic Roger Ebert was all excited after Salon’s Joan Walsh and NBC’s David Gregory (two people with racial issues of their own) called Newt Gingrich out for the hideous crime of labeling our failed food stamp president the “Food Stamp President.”

Here’s his tweet:

So “food stamp President” is “coded racism,” but when you fast-forward a mere couple of days to today you’ll find Roger Ebert publishing at his Chicago Sun-Times Journal a report written by Chaz Ebert that contains a lot of excuse-making for a famous director of pretentious films trashing Israel and proudly declaring he’s a Nazi:

[Von Trier] said he grew up thinking he was a Jew, and he was very happy to be a Jew. Then he discovered he was a Nazi, and that also gave him some pleasure. “Yes, I am a Nazi!”, he declared.

While his cast (Charlotte Gainsbourg, Udo Kier and John Hurt) looked on in horror, Kirsten Dunst tapped him on the shoulder and whispered to him to moderate his comments. He looked at her in confusion and said, “But this has a point, it will be okay.”

Then he proceeded to dig himself in deeper, saying that he understood Hitler, and that he could sympathize with his being down in that bunker toward the end. He continued, “Well that doesn’t mean I have anything against Jews, except Susanne Bier (Danish filmmaker, “In a Better World”).

“Well, Israel is a pain in the ass …

“Okay, I am a Nazi…

“Nazis tend to do things on a grander scale…

“Perhaps we can have a Final Solution for journalists….”

With that moderator Henri Behar called a halt to the conference because it was clear at that point that Von Trier just could not stop himself.

That’s some fine reporting on Chaz Ebert’s part, more information than we received from the video clip we posted earlier. But in the following paragraph, Chaz Ebert doesn’t condemn these objectively outrageous and offensive remarks. Instead, excuses are made on Von Trier’s behalf:

It is widely known that Von Trier suffers from bouts of depression, and “Melancholia” obviously reflected his state of mind. Ironically, before the declaration about Hitler and Nazism, Von Trier looked happier and more relaxed than he had at any of his previous press conferences at Cannes. He announced that he has broken through his depression and he has stopped drinking.

Leftists don’t have values, only tactics.

What kind of man hears coded racism in the words “food” and “stamps” on Sunday but publishes excuses for pro-Nazi/anti-Israel remarks on Wednesday?

Comments are open…

—–

Dana Loesch at Big Journalism:

In a conversation about race, when one immediately thinks of black Americans when one hears food stamps, is not that a clear indicator of prejudice and stereotyping?

If you said yes, then check out the latest column from Salon’s Joan Walsh. Apparently, Joan Walsh believes food stamps are something inherent to black Americans only. When she could have nabbed Gingrich on his remarks yesterday morning about the individual mandate (insane) or his criticism of Rep. Paul Ryan’s goal of reforming entitlements (off-base) she went straw man.

Food stamps equals “Black”?

Wethinks Mr. Ebert (and Ms. Walsh) might want to do a little soul-searching.

Unfortunately, their enthusiasm might have caused them to jump the gun. Since last Thursday’s GOP debate was devoid of A-list candidates, “Saturday Night Live” didn’t have any solid characters to parody. So rather than make the late night ensemble work, the writers just fictionalized a debate between the more famous undeclared candidates; using characters they will probably be able to recycle during the upcoming campaign.

It was like watching a focus group, each actor trying out catch phrases they hope to use over the next year and a half. They even had Keenan Thompson resurrect his Jimmy “Rents 2 Damn High” McMillan character (personally I would think they could have gotten the real Jimmy McMillan, at or below AFTRA rates, which would have had the added bonus of making the skit funny).

For even less of a reason, they decided to trot out Tina Fey, to perform her award-winning impression that she thought was tired three years ago. This makes no sense. Sarah Palin doesn’t even have a Presidential exploratory committee; at least Jimmy McMillan once suggested that he would run for President as a Republican. Back in 2009, CNN thought it was necessary to fact-check “Saturday Night Live” for an Obama skit, I wonder what those fact-checkers are doing today?

Much like jokes about airline food and phone booths, Tina Fey’s impression seems like it’s from another era. I was puzzled why they didn’t bring in Rich Little to do his Nixon impression. If it’s okay to add Republicans who aren’t even running for President, why limit yourself to the living?