People are typically mistaken about Ron Paul's foreign policy viewpoints. They hear the typical talking point about how Ron Paul's foreign policy is one of isolationism and bowing down to the terrorists. What they fail to understand is that both of these claims are far from the truth.
Ron Paul's foreign policy is one of peace and prosperity. Don't make enemies with nations around the world, rather open up your minds to the possibility of honest trade and if for some reason there needs to be action taken to deal with a hostile country then declare war under the Constitution instead of blindly ignoring the law we have in this country.
This video is a great representation of the foreign policy that is keeping most people from voting for Ron Paul. Pay attention to the message and ignore everything else you have heard from the establishment in Washington D.C.
"Ron Paul's foreign policy is dangerous to American safety"
These are quotes that are repeating themselves on the media outlets and by Republican Presidential candidates in Iowa.
But the question that begs to be asked....is the Constitution dangerous?
Ron Paul has been an advocate of the U.S. Constitution for years and his ideas are based solely on what the Constitution promises the American people. His foreign policy and domestic policy stances are strictly based on what the Constitution states and therefore if Ron Paul is dangerous than so is the U.S. Constitution.
We all remember the attacks of 9/11 like they were yesterday. We remember where we were, and we remember how we felt that day. I remember thinking of vengeance the entire day and for a few years after. It was hard for many of us to imagine that we could be attacked they way we were, and many have tried to figure out why it happened.
In 2008 a Presidential candidate tried to give the nation and explanation of why we got attacked on 9/11 and everybody shunned him off. He claimed that the reason we got attacked was for our continued presence overseas and this candidate got the fat end of the stick from his rivals and the media. How could somebody claim that we have caused a lot of hatred around the world and that is the reason for the 9/11 attacks?
Well if you think about the facts and read the history, you will see that this line of reasoning is absolutely correct. The 9/11 commission report talks about how after interviewing terrorists and talking with people in the middle east this was their explanation for why the United States got attacked on 9/11. We have spent years bombing the hell out of a region of the world that has no real military impact on our safety. The attackers of 9/11 got us simply because of lapses in our intelligence efforts and basic security at airports that allowed them to attack with airplanes flown into buildings. There was no Naval attack, no air war, and no ground war. But here we are dropping bombs and conquering a region of the world that can't even find a light switch in most of their cities.
This country has a policy of intervening in the affairs of the rest of the world. We have stuck our noses in places they do not belong and then we question why other countries, or groups of people, have hate toward the United States. A foreign policy of non intervention has been a staple of American history up until the 2nd World War. Ever since WWII this country has acted as the policemen of the world, getting involved in conflicts simply for the sake of flaunting our power in the world. One can read about this history if they open up a book and stop listening to certain politicians that have ran this country for years. Politicians who profit from the Military Industrial Complex and would give cause to why they would love to get involved in the affairs of other countries.
Ron Paul has been spouting these ideas his entire political career and has been taking the heat whenever he gets into the national spot light.
The Politico ran an article today talking about foreign policy being Paul's soft spot with voters:
With Ron Paul at or near the top of the polls in Iowa, his Republican rivals are sounding the alarms about the Texas congressman’s unorthodox foreign policy views.
So far though, the voters flocking to his events don’t seem especially troubled by Paul’s noninterventionist stance or his take on Iran, Iraq or Sept. 11.
Even the military veterans who attended Paul’s Salute to Veterans Rally at the Iowa State Fairgrounds Wednesday embraced Paul’s views. “He’s fully behind national defense,” said state Rep. Glen Massie, a Marine Corps veteran and Paul supporter, after the event. “Militarism is another animal.”
For Paul, it’s a validation of his core message about government overspending, debt and the heavy cost of overseas entanglements.
There’s one big problem: The forces powering his rise in Iowa are incompatible with the path to the GOP nomination.
The anti-war stance, the sharp criticism of the war on terrorism, the calls to rein in military spending — all of it is fueling Paul’s support among the young voters who throng his events, and among independents and Democrats. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70923.html#ixzz1i3OHiw8A
Why are voters so apprehensive to Ron Paul's views on foreign issues? The simple answer is they have not heard otherwise since 2001. We have been caught up in a world that has seen two wars that have gone on for years, and the same rhetoric that we have to find the terrorists so they don't find us here.
Making sense of why we were attacked on 9/11 will give us a clear picture for a policy that will come out of the White House and realizing that we can't be the policemen of the world anymore, but rather we need to protect this country from within and protect this country from its own financial collapse which is fueled by our endeavors overseas.
Ron Paul's position on foreign policy has been a hot issue for most Republicans who have lived in a world post 9/11. Even though they fail to forget that Paul's position was once the norm in the Conservative movement, the other Republicans have called his position on foreign affairs extreme.
Are supporters in Iowa undeterred by his positions....well it seems like they don't mind at all being that he is poised to take the victory in Iowa on Tuesday.
DES MOINES -- Ron Paul's rivals for the Republican presidential nomination consider his national security views too extreme, but those positions don't seem to bother the Texas congressman's growing contingent of Iowa supporters.
Kent Sorenson, a state senator who backed Michele Bachmann early in the race and served as her state chairman here until Wednesday, switched his support to Paul even though the two candidates' views on foreign policy are diametrically opposed.
"I believe it's a two-person race, and I believe it's time to take sides," Sorenson said after a Paul rally here Wednesday night, asserting that the GOP caucus vote will come down to Paul and Mitt Romney.
Sorenson declined to offer details on his split from Bachmann, who claimed he told her the Paul campaign offered him compensation for the switch. Paul's spokesman later denied that. Asked why he chose Paul over Romney, Sorenson said of the former Massachusetts governor: "I think he's terrible for this country. I think he's terrible for the caucus process."
He continued, "Mitt Romney hasn't [come] to my town," and added that Romney's record is one of a "big-spending liberal." Sorenson then went further, bashing Romney as a "frugal socialist." But pressed to answer how he could switch to a candidate so different on national security than the rest of the field, he said, "I don't agree with every candidate on ever issue -- we differ on some opinions."
Despite the publicity lately with Paul and what he believes, it is a fact that people gravitate to his positions once they really understand what he believes.
It takes a critical mind, not one polluted by higher powers, to see through the nonsense that comes out of Washington and with the two major parties in the past 10 years.
People in Iowa are not taken aback by Ron Paul's foreign policy stance, because the fact is they find it to be legitimate. The more extreme view point on foreign issues is what we have been doing the past 10 years since 9/11. Being aggressive and dominating countries that have no capability to attack a superpower is an extreme form of foreign policy. People in Iowa get this position and that is why Ron Paul is successful with the people in that state.
Iowans believe that Ron Paul is the conservative candidate in this race that has real solutions to fix the problems of this country. Shrinking the size of government and stopping the endless wars overseas is a viewpoint that the majority of Americans already share. They have just found their candidate and the elites in Washington that make their money off of the Industrial Complex are scared out of their tiny minds that Ron Paul has a real shot at winning the Republican nomination.
Even though it is obvious this website supports Ron Paul's candidacy for the Presidency, we are still intrigued by the news coming out of New Mexico today.
Gary Johnson, the former Governor of New Mexico, announced his intentions today to seek the Libertarian nomination for President of the United States.
(CNN) – Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson announced his intention to seek the Libertarian nomination for president Wednesday.
Calling his choice "both a difficult decision-and an easy one," in a statement, Johnson decried the Republican presidential nomination process and pledged to bring a "libertarian voice" to the 2012 race.
Johnson blasted the inclusion of "candidates with no national name identification like Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, and John Huntsman" as well as "candidates with no executive experience like Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum" in presidential debates while he was "arbitrarily excluded by elitist media organizations in New York."
Johnson, who was shunned by the Republican Party, is a very solid choice for President. He was able to turn New Mexico around and making it a functioning state in this country.
It will be interesting to monitor this story, especially if Ron Paul fails to win the nomination for the Republican Party.
Newt Gingrich has finally found a politician he considers even worse than the president he calls socialist, anti-colonialist and radical. That would be his fellow Republican Ron Paul.
"I think Barack Obama is very destructive to the future of the United States. I think Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American," Gingrich said Tuesday in a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer.
Could he vote for Paul? "No." If it came down to Paul vs. Obama? "You'd have a very tough choice at that point."
Newt Gingrich is the biggest Washington insider that we have in this race. He destroyed the Republican Party in the 1990's and now claims that he is the sane choice for the Republicans in 2012? Pathetic!!
I have some news for Gingrich...he is the reincarnate of Barack Obama....he will grow the hell out of this country and pull us further into debt!
The Neo-Conservative establishment has real issues standing behind a candidate like Ron Paul mostly because he will call them out as untraditional Conservatives. Ever since the attacks on 9/11 Neo-Conservatives have hijacked the Conservative agenda for their own and have brainwashed the not so intelligent Republican base into believing their aggressive nature.
Ron Paul challenges their train of political thought on foreign policy by suggesting that our presence in the Middle East has spurred hatred for the United States and caused the attacks we experienced on 9/11. Everyone in the academic world, and intelligence agencies of the United States agree with this analysis, but the Neo-Conservatives have retooled this philosophy to fit their agenda so they can parade around the world and nation build.
Dick Morris, the ultimate Neo-Conservative, has spouted out nonsense about Ron Paul, who is on track to win the Iowa caucuses and potentially the Republican nomination for President.
"Ron Paul is the ultimate liberal in the race. He wants to legalize drugs, repeal the Patriot Act, slash our military spending, pull out of Afghanistan...On these issues, he’s way, way to the left of Obama. What makes him a conservative is hard to tell. But, whatever he is, he would be a disaster as the Republican candidate. His bland assertion in the last debate, that 'anyone' will beat Obama is both self-serving and inaccurate. He wouldn’t. Anyone who votes for Paul and is not brought up short by his denuding us in our defenses against terrorism and his passivity in the face of Iranian nuclear weapons, has to realize that nominating him is tantamount to re-electing Obama."
These so called Conservatives have lost touch with their true history and beliefs. They tend to forget that George Bush ran in 2000 on the idea of no nation building and taking a non interventionist stand point on foreign policy. Morris is simply trying to make a connection that makes no sense. Ron Paul is the most Conservative person in this race because he holds true conservative beliefs. He believes in freedom and less intervention overseas because that is the true nature of a Conservative.
Maybe Dick Morris and Neo-Conservatives need to read their own history and get on the side of true conservatism instead of blasting people who have been the true conservatives their whole career.
I found it strange when a pro-Gingrich article at Foxnews.com claimed Tea Partiers had turned against Glenn Beck because of his anti-Gingrich stance. (link to my article) The evidence given was not a survey of Tea Party participants, but a comment by the Tea Party Nation website founder, Judson Phillips.
In that article (linked above) I said that “I registered at the website, checked and searched, and was unable to find the entry.” I still haven't found it. But after spending a few days with the site, it became clear that Judson Phillips isn't a man filled with the Tea Party spirit at all. He spends his days shilling for big government, Washington insider Newt Gingrich.
It creates an eerie sensation of deja vu all over again. As Mother Jones recently reported, Newt was fined $300,000 and driven out of Congress for extremely reminiscent ethical violations. He had “used a network of consulting firms, educational institutions, and even a charity for inner-city teens to promote a set of clearly partisan political goals.” Why not an organization using the “Tea Party” name?
Phillips' primary tool is the website's open discussion forum, which he dominates like a high priest. Top slots are reserved for some of his blog ramblings, and they quite often are just that. In stark contrast to the Tea Party identity, he tends to play leader to the leaderless movement in his forum posts; primarily by instructing his underlings what to believe and what to ignore, and most importantly who they should vote for and who they must not vote for. No analysis, but it comes up in favor of Newt Gingrich time after time after incessant time. Ron Paul supporters needn't bother. Phillips is purely an establishment Republican – pretty much the anti-Tea Party prototype.
To this, he has gathered a small group that quickly respond positively to his posts. To the casual observer, it can appear as though he has a following. But further down in the comments, you begin to see evidence of the free thinking grass roots core of the movement. They don't agree with Judson Phillips and sometimes object to his commentary and his attitude; although they apparently have not yet considered the possibility that “Tea Party Nation” might not be a genuine Tea Party site. (Why then would they be there?) Their comments do at times reveal their sense that something is amiss. Although apparently in the minority, some in his small group can get out of hand, acting as thugs to discourage dissent. Philips' commentary is typically quite nasty in dealing with opposing views and supporters of other candidates, particularly Ron Paul.
'Gingrich's web of interconnected organizations formed the early prototype for the multimillion-dollar public and private network he established after leaving public office, known now as "Newt Inc."' A reasonable person wouldn't expect him to abandon the most successful scam of his life while running for president. He'd see it as his most powerful asset. It's been rumored that he has no organization. At least it's not one on the books for legal campaign activities.
The Tea Party Nation website does not provide a non-profit or charity claim on its donations page. But if it is part of the Gingrich campaign, donors should be informed as such. Otherwise, those wanting to help in the fight against Washington corruption may not realize they're actually contributing to the campaign of the ultimate “business as usual” Washington insider. And contributions received by the campaign may need to be reported to the Federal Elections Commission.
Newt Gingrich is dropping rapidly in the polls. Rasmussen reports that he would lose rather dramatically to Barack Obama in a general election. (link) The general rule that dissing the opponent isn't enough; you really need a good candidate to run against him has been confirmed. The world may be once again safe for democracy – almost.
Some of the brightest and most honest commentators made the case against Newt Gingrich, saying they'd prefer Ron Paul to the corrupt Washington insider. Some (like me) vowed not to vote for Gingrich no matter what. But I found it surprising, shocking really, that the horror of continued “business as usual” didn't extend to Mitt Romney. Perhaps it's because they feel that he has passed his peak, that there's no chance he'll capture the nomination. “No Mitt” has already been done. He sits in third place in Iowa, and has no momentum. Maybe it just isn't necessary to make the case until New Hampshire is in sight. Or maybe it's just harder to pin the insider establishment label on someone who's never held an office in Washington.
The New Hampshire primary is held merely one short week after Iowa, and then it's on to South Carolina 11 days later. It's not always easy to cut through the spin. Mitt Romney is Newt Gingrich. They've been collectively referred to as Newt Romney. They're both establishment insiders who play the same game. Either would be worse for the country than four more years of Obama. At least with Obama, I've often pointed out, it's understood that we need to fight against the agenda. To the extent that either can fool the public into believing that they're “conservative,” the battle weakens.
Considering his best known crime, RomneyCare in Massachusetts (It was called HillaryCare before that and ObamaCare now.): His argument that implementing it in the states is completely different and nothing to worry about – I think – seems to make sense to some people – otherwise, why would both he and Gingrich continue relying on this reasoning? The state-federal shell game has been going on between the two parties for decades and goes well beyond ObamaCare. It seems to lie at the heart of why neither is “conservative.” It's a core bit of spin that maintains the bipartisan corruption in Washington, spinning us deeper and deeper into debt while a few become wealthy through cronyism.
Here's how the game is played. Mitt Romney uses Massachusetts as a state “incubator” for health care innovation, backed by the federal government. With federal dollars pouring in, he can claim a fiscal miracle. When he did it in Massachusetts, it didn't cost as much as it costs. He adds that to his “conservative” resume. That of course can't ramp up. When all states are doing the same thing instead of one state being supported by all others, the real cost destroys the apparent miracle.
It doesn't matter though. Barack Obama proposes federal mandates for all states to follow and an enormous budget. He can do that because he's a Democrat. Finally, some social justice. It's been a long time coming and we need to force the wealthy to pay their fair share. You know the drill.
RINOs, fake conservatives, need to voice their opposition, of course. They need a fake battle to set the stage for bipartisan agreement. If you were paying attention, you may have noticed that a fast track method was tried first. RINOs go on TV to name a small number of specific details of the Democrat's plan (maybe only one) that are objectionable. If they can reach agreement on a “compromise” for those (or that) detail(s), “conservatives” (they claim) will be happy and all the people will be happy too because they've managed to avoid the gridlock that makes us all so angry. Obviously, we want Washington politicians to pass as many laws and increase spending as rapidly as possible. Gosh, it's just so frustrating to all of us when someone holds things up – even for a minute. Please don't waste time reading the bill!
Now it's election season again and what do Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have to say about being onboard with ObamaCare? It's all wrong. If they're in charge, it will be left to the states as the Constitution demands. To push down that obviously conservative path effectively, they'll put the federal funding in “block grants” and let the states implement the federal mandates on their own. I'm kind of hoping I can just write “LOL!” here. This is the state-federal shell game. It's all done with federal funding and federal mandates. Democrats say they're getting it done in Washington. Republicans support the program by pretending to leave it to the states – to implement the mandates. The only difference is in the spin.
But wait! There's more! What about those budget battles that define Republicans as the fiscal “lesser of two evils”? They're fake too. If you've paid attention to budget issues at all lately, you know that the two parties claim that they're arguing over spending “cuts” while actually arguing over the rate of spending increases. At the end of the day, it doesn't actually matter. Both sides are arguing for more increases than they know what to do with (other than electronic bank transfers to friends). When a “compromise” is reached, they'll still increase authorized spending by far more than needed. There is no “lesser of two evils.” This is the Big Con of bipartisan cooperation and compromise. The fact is, evil is just evil.
Mitt Romney is the same kind of corrupt establishment Big Government RINO as Newt Gingrich, working the system in the same way. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for “business as usual.” I've already pledged not to vote for Mitt, no matter what.
A lot has been written about Newt Gingrich's supposed inconsistency; erratic behavior, flip-flops, his support for far-left causes like global warming taxes and the individual health care mandate, the way he wants to turn anything that might sound like a good idea to anybody into a big and expensive federal program and then takes it all back when the unbridled government expansion comes under scrutiny, claiming to be a staunch conservative. Uhm … oh ... no … I didn't really mean that … look at Ronald Reagan … block grants ... gosh, that was dumb … government is complicated … Chewbacca … that just doesn't make sense … it's easy … here's what I'd really do … yeah, that's the ticket! On the other hand, he's great at debate.
Foxnews has just published a quick fact check (article link) on his claim that he'd “balanced the budget for four straight years, paid off $405 billion in debt.” Aside from the fact that the Speaker of the House plays only a support role in the budget process; they point out that while he was Speaker, the government ran deficits and the debt increased. They also remind us that he spent his glory years helping Bill Clinton with his agenda, not Ronald Reagan.
In the years I've watched Newt Gingrich, from the time he first became Speaker, he has consistently behaved this way. While Speaker, he was basically Bill Clinton's water boy, helping to “get things done” in Washington through bipartisan cooperation. He's a staunch supporter of government expansion, especially the process of federalizing everything, including the weather (if he can get away with it). With great consistency, he lies about it.
His great confusion over whether he worked with Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan is revealing. He really doesn't know the difference. His political world consists of one agenda, pursued by both parties; expansion of federal power, concentration of that power, increased money flow efficiently under control of the Political Class, and to be unjustly rewarded for the effort. The public routine consists of pretending there's a great battle going on between the two parties, and that he represents fiscal and social conservatism. He's even gone so far as to describe himself as a libertarian - "the original tea-partier.” He's claimed to “carry a copy of the Constitution in his back pocket” while driving Constitutional rule off a cliff.
A great example is his signature “welfare reform,” which was adulated and pursued by both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. The reform model was actually plagiarized by a far-left Columbia University professor named Irwin Garfinkel, from Soviet family law.[ref.] Reagan's socially and fiscally conservative sounding call for “government enforcement of personal responsibility” was said to aim at getting parents (especially fathers) to support their own children – then poof – poverty would disappear. It was also an invitation to federalize family law and let government arbitrarily define the details of “personal” responsibilities.
Reagan laid the ground-work, with coordinated efforts between special White House appointees and analysts working for each of the two parties in support of House committee activities. Clinton took over, promising to “end welfare was we knew it.” They called him a moderate – this sounds fiscally conservative or something, doesn't it? Great PR. Republicans and Democrats fought for credit. Newt did have an important role in helping Republicans claim that credit, partially through his “Contract with America,” and by counting Republican votes for “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.”
The title contains the phrase “personal responsibility,” more Reagan than Clinton. But in content, it was based on Bill Clinton's mantra. “Ending welfare as we know it” consisted of renaming a core entitlement program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). Poof – AFDC disappeared.
The whole thing sounded quite conservative, or “moderate” if you're not a member of a party who wants that label. The advertisements claimed a major shift in eligibility requirements. Long-term dependency would be a thing of the past. Welfare recipients could no longer treat government entitlements as life-long support. They'd have to go to work. Fact was (and is) however, that long-term dependency was greatly exaggerated (as was the "crisis" in unpaid child support). The requirements were defined with times and percentages that fit the status quo. That relatively low percent of long-term dependents were given waivers, and for good reason. They were typically people who were unable to work, not people who simply refused to work.
Through the process, family law was federalized; the “means-test” (you can only be involved in welfare programs if your income is low) and limits to government intrusion (you are only involved if you are receiving public support) evaporated. Because of federalization, family law was reclassified from civil law to social policy. Constitutional rule collapsed. The United States was transformed into a welfare state in which government could not only enforce what were previously regarded as “personal” responsibilities, they could arbitrarily define them. (This is also how the institution of marriage, previously established as a "sacred private institution," met its legal demise.)
The power of the federal government greatly expanded and the new power became concentrated in the executive branch were it was assigned to a new bureaucratic army. Cost skyrocketed, not just from new entitlements for single mothers, but mostly through overhead. Piling on even more spending, new “public-private partnerships” were formed that duplicated the personal data collection activities of the bureaucracy; not personal data just to keep track of welfare dependents – but to create and maintain a vast storehouse of personal information on all Americans.
A new industry, entirely dependent on completely wasteful government pork had been created. It was a machine for pumping billions of dollars a year out of the federal budget. Some of the money flowing into that system can no longer be accounted for, lost somewhere in the “block grant” scheme that Gingrich endorses. Nobody can account for it. But this too, in the magical world of political spin, could be portrayed as a good thing. Good thing we support the private sector, isn't it? That's so much more efficient than government. In this case, fairly efficient at removing public funds. Good old "conservative" (cough - RINO) political logic.
I submit this as counterpoint to charges that Newt Gingrich is inconsistent. He is not. Welfare reform does deserve to be his signature issue. This is Newt Gingrich. He wants to turn anything that someone might be able to make sound like a good idea into a big and expensive federal program. To be part of it, he'll jump on anybody's bandwagon, if he thinks they'll get away with it. He wants expansion of federal power and a greater flow of money under the control of the Political Class. And he covets the power that he saw previous presidents wield to create and manage that money and power. Great debater though, if you don't see through him. Yes, he's a very experienced liar. Some people are fooled.
(See also The Mitt Mistake: The state-federal shell game: Mitt Romney is the face on the other side of the same coin.)
.
Overall, Foxnews does not have a good record of “fair and balanced” reporting when it comes to Ron Paul. But some among them seem to think the loss of credibility is worth something … or other.
In a recent interview with Judge Napolitano, Beck characterized Gingrich as a “progressive” and asked what the difference would be between the candidates if he ends up running in the general election against Barack Obama. (Click here for text and video.) He asked, rhetorically: “Is it about Obama's race?”
I say “rhetorically” with a great deal of confidence. It's the Democrats who have constantly accused Tea Partiers (and all Obama opponents and/or anyone who fails to subordinate themselves to Democratic Party rule) of being racists. That's a well known piece of (ongoing) history. Everybody knows that. There really isn't much point in mentioning it except when detailing the absurdity of the Breitbart / Foxnews claims. Glenn Beck has battled against that charge all along.
The apparent tricky bit in building Berger's article is that Tea Partiers are familiar with Glenn Beck. So he did not include even one single quote in support of his article title. Tea Partiers reject the notion that they are motivated by racism. Easy to get quotes on that. But not one expressed any ire toward Glenn Beck. It was the author himself who kept repeating Beck's (and Gingrich's) name. Despite the claim, and the author's incessant editorializing, the evidence of a sense of anti-Beck criticism just isn't there.
In a non-specific and rather disassociated way, the article does claim that Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips made comment on the organization's website that mentions Newt Gingrich by name, but not Glenn Beck. “Those comments” (Which ones?) “can only be described as nutty," says Philliips. I registered at the website, checked and searched, and was unable to find the entry. But inserting “Glenn Beck” in the search box turned up many entries from enthusiastic Beck fans.
But it's easy to find obvious examples of marginalizing Ron Paul and shilling for Gingrich; below featuring Chris Wallace.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul has surged to second place in a new Iowa poll of likely Republican caucus goers, just one percent behind former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the current front-runner.
Paul has consistently placed in the top tier of Republican presidential candidates in recent Iowa polls. With Iowans heading to vote in only three weeks, Gingrich holds a razor-thin 22–21 lead.
The poll, conducted by Public Policy Polling, found weakening support for Gingrich among self-identified tea partiers, and a dramatic rise in Paul’s favorability rating.
If you want a Presidential candidate that will beat President Obama next year then Ron Paul is the choice.
He does not dumb down issues but rather explains that is really going on in this country. He has real solutions and more Americans are starting to realize this fact.
There can be a mighty thin line between politics and fraud much of the time, but on occasion, certain politicians are clearly on one side or the other.
On the basis of their proposals and history, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich should, at the very least be running as Democrats. Or better still, a new “Business As Usual” Party. They are, simply put, part of the problem. They are among the established politicians who have worked relentlessly to create the really big problems that our country faces today; the lack of Constitutional boundaries; a national landscape dominated by a mountain range of bureaucrats and wastelands of oozing corruption and unsustainable debt.
But that's certainly not how they would describe themselves. The difference goes well beyond self-flattering half-truths. Does it go far enough to constitute a criminal act? It is a serious question. Government activity in the United States can no longer be described in terms of political theory. The level of corruption is so high that it can only accurately be described as organized crime. We cannot hope to solve this problem through democratic means by continuing to elect the most skillful and audacious liars.
On the basis of their proposals and history, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are the opposite of who they pretend to be. The Gingrich campaign and the DNC portray him as the “original tea-partier,” dedicated to downsizing government, cutting spending, and supporting business development and job growth. He and Romney (and the Democrats) play the same shell games with federal mandates and block-grants, and “public-private partnerships”, to unnecessarily and destructively expand the size, cost, and power of the federal government at the expense of individual rights, while pushing people and states into bankruptcy (although not immediately – in the short-term, state finances – and the pork that goes with it – can look pretty good, which is why states go along).
The political machinery developed over the decades is still powerful enough to persuade. For the masses, the voters who decide, Barack Obama was promoted more than vetted before he was elected in 2007. The belief in his peaceful messianic “Hope and Change” character was so strong that he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize before he had actually done anything. Political spin on 1990s “welfare reform” was so hopelessly promoted that Newt Gingrich still presents it as part of his conservative Republican qualifications rather than the out-of-control bipartisan pork-barrel government expansion that it actually was.
Most of us suffer from these lies, from the more-or-less direct “redistribution of wealth” to The Political Class, to the long-term effects of a world lying in an economic canyon, to the freedom lost to an ever more powerful and less caring government machine.
And our democracy? It doesn't work. The cost of continuing “business as usual” is far too high.
The Republican Presidential primary season has heated up with candidates that are seeking the highest office in the land. It has been a bitter battle thus far in terms of personal attacks and differences on certain issues. The top three candidates have shaped out and they include Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul. Iowa is roughly a month away and it is going to be a close fight for the nomination.
The Republican establishment seems to be throwing their support to Newt Gingrich more these days, but what most people in the media are not asking should center around why Gingrich is a bad choice for America.
Newt Gingrich embodies the typical Washington insider. From his days in Congress to his leadership as the Speaker of the House he has been involved in a lot of decisions about this country and most of them have caused the current financial problem we face. He had the opportunity when he became the Speaker in 1994 to really change the scope of this country's political direction but he failed to really shake up the establishment and instead became a proud member of that elite group. He paints himself to the voters as somebody who cares about them and will fight for what is right, but it is very apparent that he will continue down the path we have been down for the past 30 years.
There is no fixing this country with Gingrich as President.Gingrich talks a big game in the debates and it seems like he is for unity and the advancement of the Conservative agenda, but he is really striving to gain power rather than fix the problems we are facing in this country. He has the typical rhetoric of cutting spending for the government but has no real solution that people can see, and no real record to back his rhetoric. Other candidates in this race (Ron Paul) have a clear plan for fixing this country and they have laid down specifics on how to fix the problem. Gingrich and a lot of others in this race will probably flop on their positions once they become President and that is a dangerous prospect to think about.
My advice...think twice about Newt Gingrich and go with somebody who has a real proven track record on the issues and will not back down from the political elite in Washington.
Glenn Beck says that Newt Gingrich is the only candidate he will not vote for and has issued a challenge to Tea Partiers.
You read his record. You read his words. [Gingrich] Not just the happy parts like you read about Theodore Roosevelt. Look into his record. See what he believes. This man is a progressive. He knows he's a progressive. He doesn't have a problem with being a progressive.
Personally, I know Newt Gingrich and his record well enough to know that Glenn Beck is right. In my commentary, I haven’t used the word “progressive” because I don't think it's all about political ideology. (Hint: It's corruption.) I'll leave that for now. Sticking with the political description, Glenn Beck is right.
So if you've got a big government progressive and a big government progressive in Obama, one in Newt Gingrich, one in Obama, ask yourself this, Tea Party: Is it about Obama's race? Because that's what it appears to be to me. If you're against him but you're for this guy, it must be about race.
Oh, if we could all have the wisdom of Glenn Beck. It's easy to erase the superficial rhetoric if that's what you want to do. Obama did it to himself in the last election when it was to his advantage. Failing to convince many people that having tea with terrorists was good foreign policy, he insisted, during debate on foreign policy, that he was being advised by the same people who advised George W. Bush and had the same policy; which was also the same policy that his Republican rival John McCain espoused. (Yes, that was before Obama received a Nobel Peace Prize as a backlash against Bush. What was that about?)
The Democrats are knowledgeable about Newt Gingrich's record. It will be easy for them to strip away the superficial rhetoric and make the match any time and in any way that they choose. (I think they'd very much like to have Gingrich win the nomination. See: link: DNC Backs Gingrich as Republican Nominee) And … is there any possibility that you missed it? Democrats play identity politics and they've accused Obama's opponents (especially the Tea Party) of racism quite regularly since as long as I can remember knowing his name. If you think forward, and imagine the two on stage, facing off in debate, seeing through Gingrich's fake conservative rhetoric, stripped down to his record and his actual policy preferences (a tiny bit more on that below when I get to Romney), what's the difference? Why switch horses in mid-stream if they'll both pursue the same agenda? Do you get it?
I'm left wondering though, why Newt Gingrich is the only candidate Glenn Beck wouldn't vote for. The only difference between Mitt Romney and Newt is that Mitt channels Ronald Reagan like a licensed fortune teller while Newt conjures up images of the oval office with his feet on the desk while chatting with The Gipper to help envision the next great expansive big government social engineering adventure and ways of selling it as a conservative sounding idea. “When Ronald Reagan and I … welfare reform … blah, blah, blah.” (He was actually Bill Clinton's go-to guy in Congress during most of his time as Speaker of the House, not Ronald Reagan's. He helped get things done in Washington through bipartisan cooperation.)
Perhaps it's only because Romney and Gingrich served in two different spheres of government. Mitt was a state governor and Newt was a US congressman. They both play the same state-federal shell game to promote big government with a conservative sounding package. They both claim that universal big government at the state level is Constitutionally fine and cost free, while it's not at the federal level. Neither one is suggesting anything different than the Democrats; federal funding and mandates with funds dispersed to states through block grants. The Democrats promote these schemes by saying government (federal) is finally doing something about this and that, while RINOs say it's being left to the states (to implement the mandates).
Magical "block grants” offered as a solution to big government by Gingrich and Romney do not offer states the option of accepting or rejecting federal mandates, nor do they reduce spending. Quite the opposite. The Constitution gives states the right to reject over-reaching federal "mandates". Acceptance is only mandatory if a state opts in to receive federal funding. What block grants do is bundle a larger number of "mandates" together (in a “block”). States cannot opt out of particular mandates without losing all of the funding offered for the entire block. Block grants give the federal government greater leverage in forcing states into compliance through the power of the purse.
Time after time, the federal courts have gotten involved in Constitutional challenges that follow over-reaching federal mandates, for aside from unnecessary and inappropriate federal meddling in state issues, federalization of law intrudes on individual rights. Federalization changes the Constitutional perspective on the law. It must then be treated as if it's part of the area in which the federal government is allowed to act (See: Enumeration of Powers; Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution.) And time after time federal courts, noting that states accept the change and are receiving money for their acceptance, have allowed the transition. It's a bad time to be a person!
Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, etc. etc. etc. know all of this. They all understand that they're playing the same game, pursuing the same agenda, and targeting different segments of the population with different rhetoric to sell it. They are “the establishment.” They are The Political Class. And Mitt Romney is just as much a RINO as Newt Gingrich.
.
The Democratic National Committee has given its endorsement to Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and is backing it with hard cold cash. In a one minute, twenty-five second ad, paid for by the DNC, Gingrich is portrayed as the “original tea-partier,” dedicated to downsizing government, cutting spending, and supporting business development and job growth. Some of the footage comes straight from promotional videos created by the Gingrich campaign, including a smart shot of Gingrich apparently knocking Mitt Romney down a knotch during one of the debates.
There is a built-in escape for the Democrats however. Being associated with Tea Party politics is held in disdain by the far left, a population not voting in the Republican primaries. The ad also suggests that Gingrich would cut Medicare, an idea intended to frighten older voters.
One of the great things about becoming a Paulbot is that you suddenly find yourself surrounded by a lot of other people who are also paying attention.
By Roger F. Gay
First off, I have to say that I like robots. They outperform humans at many tasks and are rarely snooty about it. People interested in robots sometimes discuss what's referred to as the “singularity,” a point at which artificial intelligence generally becomes more intelligent than humans. While reading and listening to some of the political discussions going on, it seems almost certain that day has already arrived.
I've been called a “Paulbot” even though I haven't declared my support for any party or politician. That's something I haven't done for a very long time. I haven't campaigned for Ron Paul. I am however, using my knowledge to help with the public process of vetting candidates. That is something I have done for many years and would be doing whether Ron Paul was in the race or not.
I sense however, that some of the people who seem to use the term “Paulbot” disparagingly really want to belong to something, and just don't know how to join up. The other candidates make it easier. You don't have to know anything – in fact they don't want you to know anything. Just listen to the carefully crafted slogans, milled through millions of dollars in focus groups, and respond with your feelings. If you're part of the market they've focused their advertising to capture, get on board little doggie!
If you think picking the people who will write the laws and run the government is worth a little time and effort and the task of thinking for yourself, then most of the campaign hoopla can be ignored. Most of the talking heads on TV should be ignored, especially those who prey on your need to belong, nudging you not so subtly toward a projected winning team by using the term “front-runner” too many times when their guy is polling well or declaring their unfavored candidates losers from the start. This should have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with your choice. You're not betting on a horse.
No matter that I do not qualify as a true Paulbot, at least not yet. I believe I've started the journey and no matter where I end up, I've learned a little something about the process. At the very least, I can call on my early experience and what I concretely see ahead. (And I have many years head start on understanding the characters that I disparage.)
If you lived in Ron Paul's district in Texas, it would be much easier for you. I lived near his district for years and can tell you that's where Paulbot zero lives. Before that time, I had never heard people talk with such passion and enthusiasm for their representative. I'll assume that you're from elsewhere.
My journey started with what to me is obvious: The rest of the Republican presidential field is horrible. It seems possible that an old corrupt RINO might be nominated to continue Obama's legacy merely because he's wrapped the agenda in conservative sounding rhetoric. Many other articles discuss why we must not continue down our current destructive path. In reality, it doesn't matter which brand is stamped on the politician. Republican or Democrat, painted blue or red, what we need is a different product. We need to dare to wander into unfamiliar territory, to examine candidates that aren't the same as the ones chosen last time and the time before that. We need to think for ourselves and know what we want (need).
I suggest that you should start by asking yourselves where you stand with respect to the Constitution. Are you for it or against it? At this point, there are no in-betweens. We've accepted "lesser-of-two-evils" arguments too many times before. We'll either fix it now or abandon hope of recovery, drifting aimlessly in an uncontrolled sea of corruption. If you think you're for Nancy Pelosi's or Barack Obama's Constitution, the ever-flawed “living document” that is arbitrarily interpretable and easy to ignore, then you're against it. If you want to praise it with words while destroying it with deeds, like Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, then you're against it.
I'm for it, and by process of elimination, that leaves me with only one candidate from either of the two parties to consider. Based not only on his campaign commentary, but on his 24-year history as a US Congressmen, that candidate is Ron Paul.
Now I realize that not everyone can come to this conclusion so quickly. That brings me to the main point. You really must know that you're willing to put forth an effort because the stakes are high. Voting, to select the people who represent you, who write the laws and implement them, who make major decisions that will deeply effect your life and all around you, is not something to be taken lightly. There is more, even beyond the basics of understanding the Constitution, why it's important and how it's been defeated by greed and corruption. If the Constitution litmus test is passed, what about issues?
I learn from my mistakes. I was visited recently by a Paulbot, before I started down the path. I wasn't prepared for the conversation, but as is my normal habit, spoke openly about my sense of things, particularly those things that bothered me about “crazy uncle Ron.” I was wrong about all of them.
That brings me to my final bit of guidance on becoming a Paulbot. You'll never learn the truth about Ron Paul by listening to his opposition. You won't learn about him by listening to the talking heads who want to decide for you. The only way you can learn about Ron Paul is to listen to Ron Paul.
That may seem odd advice. I'd say pretty much the opposite about nearly every other politician. But for decades, Ron Paul has been consistent in word and deed. He's a different product, well worth the time and effort that it takes to seriously consider whether or not to vote for him.
If you decide he's right, you too can be a Paulbot.
I don't know of any atheist event that has been widely recognized through milenia that is commonly celebrated in December. Nonetheless, there is a group that wants to co-opt the holiday season, with the help of local governments, to deliver an atheist message. Hasn't it already gone too far when governments feel forced to present Christmas as a secular holiday, not to be distinguished from holiday myth, merriment, and merchandising?
A Wisconsin group called “Freedom From Religion Foundation” wants to display an anti-Christian message on an East Texas courthouse square to counter Christmas season decorations; something like placing a death warning on cigarette packs. In addition, some of the decorations have recently been vandalized. The group claims that it could target as many as 20-25 spots around the country for such treatment.
The Athens Daily Review provides a copy of a letter sent in response by Henderson County Attorney Clint Davis. In it he explains (excerpt):
In addition to the nativity scene, we have Santa Clauses (multiple), a Santa house, elves, wreathes, garland, trumpeters, dwarfs, snowmen, reindeer, white tail deer, Christmas Trees, Christmas lights, and a plethora of other decorations surrounding our courthouse.
These displays are secular in purpose, and placed in our County in a visible location to create a festive atmosphere for the celebration of Christmas.
As I am sure you are aware, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld these types of displays, and we believe that we are in compliance with the guidelines set forth in Lynch v. Donnell, and the test created in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the U.S. Supreme Court.
More recently, the Supreme Court reinforced those 1980-era decisions in Salazar v. Buono, and made clear that, "the goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm." Salazar v. Buono, 130 S. Ct. 1803, 1817-20 (2010)
“We’ve got an array of decorations, and feel that we are in compliance with federal law,” Sanders said. “We’re not pushing any religion down anybody’s throat. These are holiday decorations we enjoy. If there was a groundswell against it in Henderson County, it would be different. But everybody I’ve talked to in Henderson County has been very positive.”
Perhaps the atheists might consider something more realistically antagonistic, like celebrating the Roman persecution of Christians – maybe somewhere around the summer solstice, or the crucifixion of Jesus. How about celebrating the Holocaust? Probably not good PR.
.
This is only my second effort to handle the complex task of environmental journalism. As in the first, I welcome comments. But I'm afraid I won't have time to read them; for today I am the harbinger of dire news. It's too late. The Earth will explode from global warming within the next 10 seconds; and that's for sure, say scientists.
The final absolute (this time it's real) confirmation of global warming theory came just in time to inform participants in the 2011 UN Conference on Climate Change, and the news is much, much, much, much, much, much, much worse than ever imagined. Everything said before on the subject has come from some kind of myopic drug-induced optimistic dream-world. Most of the people previously promoting action on global warming were probably paid by Big Oil to underestimate the danger.
Unfortunately, the delay tactics held up agreement on a quick final solution at the conference. They're just going to bide their time, time we do not have, implementing centrally planned green policies in their own countries, primarily to the benefit of political friends. I'm not comforted by the fact that they're willing to implement policies even if by at least unethical if not illegal means and you shouldn't be either. It's too little, too late. As reported in my earlier piece, we're all going to “die horrible, horrible, agonizing deaths after suffering in the worst imaginable way for a long time.” So, now it's time for people to take matters into their own hands.
Unless you can get immediate help from the Q Continuum you have no choice. I'll tell you exactly what to do. Come on people, just do it. This is our last (seriously, this is it) and only chance. So don't waste time asking questions and do be quick about doing what needs to be done.
Take all your assets that have legal documents and sign them over to George Soros. That includes, houses, cars, businesses, stocks and anything else of value that can be signed over to another person. Then go to your online bank and send your remaining cash. After that, you can get further instructions by sending an email to imanidiot@globalwarming.stupidity.com
.
I've had reason to take a careful look at Newt Gingrich over the years. In the 1990s, I was deeply involved in studying and analyzing the effect of “welfare reform” on the legal definition of family, expansion of the welfare state, and the basic relationship between government and the people.
The welfare reform issue jumped from Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton and both parties jockeyed to take credit. From Reagan's socially conservative buzz-phrase (federal) “government enforcement of personal responsibility,” to Clinton's centrist-spin phrase “ending welfare as we know it,” to Newt Gingrich's “Contract with America” it all ran down the same track; expanding federal power, increasing spending with no positive effects (plenty of smoke and mirrors though), and downsizing individual rights.
In the 1980s, Reagan's trendy welfare reform agenda, packaged in all the conservative rhetoric “The Gipper”could muster, seemed like an inspiration. (*) In the early 1990s, continued efforts met with standing ovations. But by the mid- to late 1990s, post-“Contract with America,” the applause changed to mumbles and then to boos. By then, too many people understood the actual effect of welfare reform from first hand experience.
“Welfare” was no longer a program limited to providing support for the poor. Not only were costs rising out of control, but it had jumped the rails so that its arbitrary rules and regulations, tracking of personal details and transactions in national databases, employer reporting and enforcement requirements (to name a few) now effected everyone. On family issues, it became obvious that ordinary due process had died. We had all ceased being US citizens living under Constitutional rule and become subjects of the state. A precursor to the grass roots part of the Tea Party movement emerged with a family related identity: the fathers' rights movement.
Gingrich's classic approach to pushing the Big (and All Powerful) Government agenda is illustrated in the video below. In it, he teams up with John Kerry to support the global warming scam. (No, his ad with Nancy Pelosi was not an accident.) He mixes in some magic conservative rhetorical beans to make all the problems disappear and calls for bipartisan cooperation. Oh, let's get something done in Washington - "urgently"! (Before they figure out we're lying.)
* It was actually plagiarized from the old Soviet system and introduced via American academia through far-left Columbia University professor Irwin Garfinkel (who was amply lauded for his efforts by the left-wing media), and first introduced as a “state experiment” in Wisconsin while he headed the Institute for Research on Poverty there. Republican Tommy Thompson later became Secretary of Health and Human Services by virtue of the fact that he later became governor of the state. Thompson and the "Wisconsin Model" were both heavily promoted by Pat Robertson on The 700 Club, which may have helped keep it on the social conservative agenda; i.e. the agenda for so-called "right-wing social engineering."
I've awakened from a long nightmare. As crazy as this may sound – I just can't yet shake this – It still feels a little like I believe it – I dreamt that a guy who'd adopted a Muslim name, Barack Hussein Obama, won the presidential election in 2008 and has since engaged in an unstoppable run of corrupt Constitutional violations, Congress no longer matters because he does what he wants, new wars have been started and the old ones are still going on, the country is technically bankrupt, its credit rating has been downgraded and spending is still going up, we're on the verge of having some kind of crony-socialist nationalized health care, the IPCC still exists, we're still sending people to those goofy international climate change “summits,” public money has been thrown at foolish “green” projects run by campaign contributors and some sort of carbon scheme has been put into effect illegally. And that wasn't the half of it.
I know – wow! You're probably thinking I should see a doctor and take a pill. But it gets worse.
I dreamt that the mass media kept telling me that two old corrupt bipartisan-friendly RINOs who are politically very closely aligned with Barack Obama are leading in primary polls in some states, making salvation appear impossible.
Whew! It's great to wake up. Let me grab another cup of coffee and I'll mention those who've shaken me out of this horrible mind blower. ….
Even before I was half-awake, I turned to Facebook. As always, it didn't take long to find friends, news and wisdom. Apparently, that 10-15% or so of the voting population that makes up the core Republican Party loyalists favor Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. I've been assured that both are of good character and have unquestionable conservative credentials. One poster called one of them “the next Reagan.” I don't remember which one, but I'm sure it doesn't matter.
With descriptions like that I'm reassured that no one such as the Barack Obama in my dream could ever win the White House.
God bless President McCain.
.
Inhofe on Durban UN Climate Conference: Kyoto Process Is Dead
December 7, 2011
Contacts:
Matt Dempsey Matt_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (202) 224-9797
Katie Brown Katie_Brown@epw.senate.gov (202) 224-2160
Inhofe on Durban UN Climate Conference: Kyoto Process Is Dead
But even though cap and trade legislation is gone...done...dead, President Obama is going full force in his efforts to pass destructive global warming regulations through the EPA.
Link to Inhofe Op Ed: Obama's Job-Killing Global-Warming Agenda Continues Under the Radar
Washington, D.C. - Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, delivered a YouTube address from Washington for a press conference organized by Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) held today at the United Nations global warming Conference of Parties (COP) in Durban South Africa. The press conference featured an analysis from Senator Inhofe on the prospects of a new climate treaty in the U.S. Senate and the release of Marc Morano's (editor in chief of ClimateDepot.com ) new report "From A-Z" which details troubles and failings in what has been falsely proclaimed by global warming advocates to be a "settled scientific consensus."
Hello, I'm Senator Jim Inhofe, Republican Senator from Oklahoma. Today, I'm happy to bring you the good news about the complete collapse of the global warming movement and the failure of the Kyoto process, as world leaders meet for the United Nations global warming conference in Durban, South Africa. For the past decade, I have been the leader in the United States Senate standing up against global warming alarmism and cap-and-trade, which would have been the largest tax increase in American history. This victory is especially important today, as families in America and around the world continue to face tough economic times. Tossing out any remote possibility of a UN global warming treaty is one of the most important things we can do for the economy.
I am making this announcement from Washington DC - where I am confident that the only person left talking about global warming is me. The message from Washington to the UN delegates in South Africa this week could not be any clearer: you are being ignored. And you are being ignored by your biggest allies in the United States: President Obama and the Democratic leadership in the Senate.
There is good reason for this - just two years ago, President Obama, along with members of his administration, several members of the Congressional Democratic leadership, and Al Gore, travelled to Copenhagen to tell the world that the United States was ready to join the United Nations efforts and implement costly global warming regulations through cap-and-trade legislation. Knowing this was nothing but a lie, I made the trip to Copenhagen as a one-man truth squad to inform the 191 countries in attendance that there was no way the United States Senate would ever pass global warming cap-and-trade. They didn't like it, but I was right and they were wrong. Now, two years later, my colleagues are nowhere to be found at the latest conference.
Nevertheless, President Obama and his allies in the far left environmental movement are working under the radar to impose global warming restrictions in the United States through regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency. As you will remember, even Lisa Jackson, Obama's EPA Administrator has admitted publically that US action alone would not reduce world CO2 emisssions. Now that the UN global warming movement has completely collapsed, why is President Obama still determined to move forward with costly global warming regulations that will destroy our economy while providing no meaningful environmental benefits?
To make matters worse, President Obama is doing this even though the entire basis of these global warming regulations rests on the science of the now discredited UN IPCC. Of course, the IPCC has refused to reform its process, and I can only assume this is because doing so would undermine those in the Obama Administration who called the IPCC the "gold standard" of climate science.
So even though we've had many victories our fight isn't over. Today we are working to stop President Obama from achieving quietly through regulation what he could not achieve through legislation.
I had originally hoped to join the party in Durban with my good friends and allies from CFACT. I understand that Craig Rucker, Lord Moncton and my former Communications Director Marc Morano are on the ground in Durban to tell whatever press is actually covering the UN Conference the real story.
I am particularly pleased that Marc will be releasing his A-Z Climate Reality Check report. This report shows that on virtually every claim - from A-Z - the promoters of man-made climate fears are failing and the global warming movement is suffering a scientific death of a thousand cuts. It categorizes and indexes the full range of climate developments. It includes key facts, peer-reviewed studies and the latest data and developments with links for further reading, on an exhaustive range of man-made global warming claims.
But let's also remember that even though cap and trade legislation is gone...done...dead, President Obama is going full force in his efforts to pass these destructive regulations through the EPA. And even if we defeat Obama in the 2012 elections, they're still out there. Moveon.org, George Soros, Michael Moore, and the Hollywood elites are not going to give up - and they've got the press and unlimited resources on their side. So it's not over yet.
Let me end by thanking my friends from CFACT for organizing this press conference today. We have worked closely together to expose this costly agenda for years. You should know that global warming skeptics everywhere wish we could be with you celebrating the final nail in the coffin on location in South Africa. And...tell Al Gore hello for me.
United States Constitution, Article III, Sec. III;
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court
If the constitution itself says that treasonous acts consisting of waging war against the United States are to be given the same due process as any other criminal activity-as the above clause clearly lays out, then how is it that our Congress can claim that detaining citizens indefinitely without trial is legal.
How can Congressional Republicans claim they respect and adhere to the constitution, when they are just as guilty as the democrats of ignoring it.
Republican advocates for the provisions in S. 1867 that allow indefinite detention of American citizens argue that those individuals who wage war against the US are the exception to the rule of due process. Yet the constitution clearly says otherwise.
So which is it Republicans? Do you respect the rule of law, individual liberty, due process and the constitution or not?
Seems not when it comes to "the war on terror".
In an article by Madison Ruppert editor of End the Lie he points out how these concerns are not "overblown.":
"To the many people commenting and emailing me claiming that this is overblown and it will not apply to American citizens, you might want to listen to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham’s own words on the Senate floor.
“In summary here, [section] 1032, the military custody provision, which has waivers and a lot of flexibility doesn’t apply to American citizens. [Section] 1031, the statement of authority to detain does apply to American citizens, and it designates the world as the battlefield including the homeland,” Graham said.
Is there really anything even remotely unclear here?" Read entire article here
Where are the patriots and defenders of our liberties that our government is supposedly full of?
Where do we turn when our own representatives have lost respect for the rule of law and the constitution?
Seems once again that our founding fathers were right about the nature of government and how liberties are lost.
"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."
- James Madison in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, 13 May 1798
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, Tue, Nov 11, 1755
Newt Gingrich has a terrible amount of experience as a professional politician, Washington insider, and campaigner. He knows how to say what people want to hear and dodges questions about differences between his conservative public persona and actual political support well enough to inherit the “Teflon” title after Bill Clinton. No doubt his surge was expertly timed to appear to be the last man standing before the Iowas caucuses. He's even managed to paint himself as a dark horse, struggling to find campaign contributors – a “come back kid.”
We are now in a phase when Republican Party loyalists have lost all hope of finding a candidate that appeals to them as well as other voters. They're becoming a bit hysterical frankly. They're not just willing to overlook the overwhelming problems with Gingrich, but have taken on a zombie like quality that involves a full-on mental block against considering he might have any faults at all. Encouraging poll results are taken out of context and exaggerated; a whip-lash effect from months and months of polls demonstrating the weakness of the entire Republican field.
If Barack Obama is to be ousted next year, we're on very dangerous psychological ground. The hope is so strong that the Republicans will produce a viable alternative that it can drive the result more powerfully than Obama's “Hope and Change” rhetoric did in 2008. As distracted Americans start paying attention, just a little, the impression is given that the Republican Party found its winner; already self-declared Republican nominee Newt Gingrich. The danger is that he'll be swept into the nomination on that wave of hope without being properly vetted by primary voters.
To make matters worse, it appears that Nancy Pelosi has joined his campaign. Newt has a long, sad history of cooperation with the Democrats. He's one of the Washington gang, known behind the scenes for engaging in tit for tat cronyism. No matter how much the two may fight, from time to time, over who gets what favors and which party will be in the majority, Pelosi knows he'll play ball. What he needs right now is to make use of one of the most common tactics in politics; a staged battle between two partisan liars to distract us from taking a serious look at what's really important. Nancy Pelosi is the perfect distraction – a politician the right loves to hate. The thought of Gingrich rhetorically eating proxy Pelosi for breakfast will fuel the hope of a victory over Obama even further. It doesn't matter that the left sees it differently. It'll work in the primaries. It'll also work for Pelosi in her odd corner of the universe – battling the evil conservative sounding Gingrich.
If it all works and Newt Gingrich becomes the nominee partially by default and by psychological manipulation of right-wing voters, when will he face the more serious tests? Obviously, that would be during the general election process, and there the grand plan seems exceptionally weak. The Republican Party will once again have nominated a raving RINO and one who'll be more easily crushed than John McCain. The vast differences between what he says he believes in and his record will then destroy him. Every time he tries to tell voters what they want to hear, the response will be that what he's saying is not consistent with what he's done.
Alternatively, he can pull the classic shift left for the general election, claiming it's a move toward the center, strategically (and openly dishonestly) aimed at winning. That didn't work for McCain even with an inspiring more conservative running mate. And Gingrich's "center" is so far left that it will move Obama to his ("the establishment's") relative and obviously arbitrary center, resulting in a strategic loss.
A short list:
A “family values” candidate who worked to federalize marriage and family law; a move that legally destroyed the institution and broke Constitutional protections against arbitrary government intrusion and wants to expand the intrusion of federal politics in education.
A “fiscal conservative” who was a key player in building the current corrupt and inflated welfare state, supported TARP, was paid between $1.6 – 1.8 million by Freddie Mac, promoted Cap-n-Tax, socialized medicine and individually mandated health insurance and an expanded federal government role in education.
A “social conservative” who advocated public funding for abortion and weakened child labor laws, wants to expand the role of federal government in education and thwarts efforts to return family rights to Americans with distractions like DOMA. (Some of you may need to read some of my articles on this topic to understand the problem. Briefly, DOMA does not counter the “family values” problem mentioned above. It merely keeps people focused on fighting each other and supporting more government intervention rather than dealing with the core problem of too much federal involvement and government intrusion to begin with.)
A “Constitutional conservative” who has a record of helping to federalize the Bojangles out of everything and weakly retorts that the things he's helped federalize are state issues. We're then supposed to swallow the idea that states operating under block grants with federal mandates that have Constitution busting side effects (see “family values” as a good example) are as good as actually obeying the Constitution. Feed this also back to the "fiscal conservative" problem. The state issue excuse and block grants push Constitution busting mandates merely by allowing states to play the system to maximize the federal money they receive (at the expense of individual rights), driving costs up. Creating federal control with billions in funding and then insisting something is really a "state issue" is a well-established dodge when faced with scrutiny.
A "small government" guy who's been a key player in a vast expansion of government size, power, and cost due to all of the above and more.
.
