Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
The Republican Party is not a Serious Political Party
By Roger F. Gay
Oh, the showmanship! If you're booking for the Jerry Springer Show, Newt's your man. Viagra? Again, Newt. Hair gel, toothpaste, or gold investments? Mitt's a better choice. Insurance? That would be Rick and his family. Imagine if they got together in a half-hour sit-com; three men constantly playing tricks and lying, always on the lookout for the big score. That's real down-home trailer park entertainment!
Political parties are private organizations that can legally pander to anyone or anything. They make up their own rules and change them as they go along. They don't have to stand for anything in particular, nor are they beholden to the public for any promises, explicit or implied. This makes them very special organizations. You can't (I guess) sue them for fraud no matter how much their members engage in the practice.
I've been reading comments lately about how the Republican Party has lost its way. It's lost its identity. It doesn't know what it is or what it stands for anymore. The most frequent suggestion for dealing with the problem is directed at the voters. We should all unite around one candidate and show that we stand for something. But what? I don't have a stake in the Jerry Springer Show, Viagra, hair gel, toothpaste, gold or any insurance business.
At present, the Republican Party is defined by the showmen on the stage. It's a sad sight really, if you have any serious interest in politics. We're held, against our will for the most part, to choices between members of just two parties. And lately, there isn't much way to tell them apart. So really it's down to one, which we've grown accustomed to calling “the establishment.”
Our system, defined by the Constitution, does not include any mention of political parties. Introduce them and there's a problem, but only if you believe that political parties mean something. If you don't, you can do things the way the Constitution means for you to; vote for the candidates that you like. You know it's not that simple. Party members sometimes vote together and there's more power in more votes. So, sigh, you figure you must take the bad with the good, and then more bad, and then more.
Now that we've established that political parties have destroyed our Constitutional democracy (I mean the democracy part of our Constitutional system) by their very existence, let's get back to the current state of the Republican Party.
Political candidates really need to be showmen. Perhaps they always have been, to one extent or another. But today, they need to tune themselves to one particular branch of the modern entertainment industry. We call it “the news.” I didn't make it to the copyright office in time, with my idea for a sit-com I mean. “The news” is already doing it. And that's why the Republican Party isn't a serious political party. They're onboard with it; totally!
Now if they wanted to be a serious political party, they'd take responsibility for the primary election process. A bit less lying please. A bit less Jerry Springer. And perhaps a party platform that says what the party stands for rather than a nonsensical “Contract with America” type populous deception, a thing that constantly changes with the winds of polls and focus groups.
They won't of course, not unless we some day make them do it. They'd have to stop pretending they can be all things to all people, all at the same time. And that would not be nearly as entertaining.
.
Oh, the showmanship! If you're booking for the Jerry Springer Show, Newt's your man. Viagra? Again, Newt. Hair gel, toothpaste, or gold investments? Mitt's a better choice. Insurance? That would be Rick and his family. Imagine if they got together in a half-hour sit-com; three men constantly playing tricks and lying, always on the lookout for the big score. That's real down-home trailer park entertainment!
Political parties are private organizations that can legally pander to anyone or anything. They make up their own rules and change them as they go along. They don't have to stand for anything in particular, nor are they beholden to the public for any promises, explicit or implied. This makes them very special organizations. You can't (I guess) sue them for fraud no matter how much their members engage in the practice.
I've been reading comments lately about how the Republican Party has lost its way. It's lost its identity. It doesn't know what it is or what it stands for anymore. The most frequent suggestion for dealing with the problem is directed at the voters. We should all unite around one candidate and show that we stand for something. But what? I don't have a stake in the Jerry Springer Show, Viagra, hair gel, toothpaste, gold or any insurance business.
At present, the Republican Party is defined by the showmen on the stage. It's a sad sight really, if you have any serious interest in politics. We're held, against our will for the most part, to choices between members of just two parties. And lately, there isn't much way to tell them apart. So really it's down to one, which we've grown accustomed to calling “the establishment.”
Our system, defined by the Constitution, does not include any mention of political parties. Introduce them and there's a problem, but only if you believe that political parties mean something. If you don't, you can do things the way the Constitution means for you to; vote for the candidates that you like. You know it's not that simple. Party members sometimes vote together and there's more power in more votes. So, sigh, you figure you must take the bad with the good, and then more bad, and then more.
Now that we've established that political parties have destroyed our Constitutional democracy (I mean the democracy part of our Constitutional system) by their very existence, let's get back to the current state of the Republican Party.
Political candidates really need to be showmen. Perhaps they always have been, to one extent or another. But today, they need to tune themselves to one particular branch of the modern entertainment industry. We call it “the news.” I didn't make it to the copyright office in time, with my idea for a sit-com I mean. “The news” is already doing it. And that's why the Republican Party isn't a serious political party. They're onboard with it; totally!
Now if they wanted to be a serious political party, they'd take responsibility for the primary election process. A bit less lying please. A bit less Jerry Springer. And perhaps a party platform that says what the party stands for rather than a nonsensical “Contract with America” type populous deception, a thing that constantly changes with the winds of polls and focus groups.
They won't of course, not unless we some day make them do it. They'd have to stop pretending they can be all things to all people, all at the same time. And that would not be nearly as entertaining.
.
Gingrich Supporters in Florida Endorse … wait for it … Gingrich!
By Roger F. Gay
The pro-Gingrich website, dailycaller.com reports Newt Gingrich wins Tea Party Patriots Florida straw poll. Since this is a blog, may I be allowed the informality of an LOL!
Newt's earlier “ethics violations” included misuse of various groups to promote his political agenda and there's at least one rather obvious example of a fake Tea Party endorsement. Anyone can invent a group or create a website that incorporates the words “Tea Party.” Some for-profit organizations stretch credibility far beyond the breaking point.
I have not investigated the local Florida Tea Party Patriots group that held the straw poll. I couldn't even look at their ABOUT page without signing up with them (which would apparently mean that I also have some part in endorsing Newt Gingrich, which I don't). So I don't know, for example, whether they're a for-profit or non-profit organization. One thing I find a little “fishy” however, is that they held a straw poll and released the results. If they're a non-profit organization, it violates IRS rules to endorse a political candidate. I've read what seem to be carefully worded statements from the group's “leaders” before, suggesting that their members tend to favor Gingrich. I was a little wary. What's an endorsement other than saying you favor someone? It kind of seemed like an endorsement pretending not to be one. And what about that idea that the Tea Party has no leaders?
But my LOL! need not be supported by an in-depth formal investigation, digging up dirt on the organization to get them into trouble with the IRS. Newt Gingrich is an aficionado of the manipulative arts. So, let me just introduce you to something called “sampling bias.”
People who sign up at “Tea Party” websites are just people. Anyone can, and you don't need to actually have any knowledge of politics or politicians to join. Along with imagining anything you want to about the candidates, including just believing everything they say, you can believe what you want about what the Tea Party stands for. You might read the guidelines or principles of course, but then who actually reads the terms and conditions before checking “yes” to get access to a website?
What would it take, you might ask, short of a complex and possibly expensive “conspiracy theory” kind of plan, to stack participants in a “Tea Party” website in your favor? It's actually not the difficult. You just claim to be the “Tea Party favorite.” It's cheating really, and Gingrich has done it in spades. He's “The Original Tea Partier” according to himself.
What happens then? You get more Gingrich supporters signing up for Tea Party websites because they believe it's a place where Gingrich supporters belong. Once there, they cause some conversions or make those who support other candidates feel unwelcome. If you've watched a Gingrich supporter interact with a Ron Paul or Mitt Romney supporter, you know what I mean. If not, and you're against Gingrich, think how you'd react when the "leaders" are running around saying the group supports him. Is that the place for you?
And there you have it. Next step is to get the “leaders” to issue a non-endorsement endorsement of some kind and you might get a bounce in the statewide polls. Of course, they probably won't do that unless they're for Newt Gingrich anyway. And who knows why they would be. Newt Gingrich's principles are about as far from the stated Tea Party principles as one can imagine. But I suppose neither he nor the “leaders” of the organization bothered to read them before checking “yes.”
.
The pro-Gingrich website, dailycaller.com reports Newt Gingrich wins Tea Party Patriots Florida straw poll. Since this is a blog, may I be allowed the informality of an LOL!
Newt's earlier “ethics violations” included misuse of various groups to promote his political agenda and there's at least one rather obvious example of a fake Tea Party endorsement. Anyone can invent a group or create a website that incorporates the words “Tea Party.” Some for-profit organizations stretch credibility far beyond the breaking point.
I have not investigated the local Florida Tea Party Patriots group that held the straw poll. I couldn't even look at their ABOUT page without signing up with them (which would apparently mean that I also have some part in endorsing Newt Gingrich, which I don't). So I don't know, for example, whether they're a for-profit or non-profit organization. One thing I find a little “fishy” however, is that they held a straw poll and released the results. If they're a non-profit organization, it violates IRS rules to endorse a political candidate. I've read what seem to be carefully worded statements from the group's “leaders” before, suggesting that their members tend to favor Gingrich. I was a little wary. What's an endorsement other than saying you favor someone? It kind of seemed like an endorsement pretending not to be one. And what about that idea that the Tea Party has no leaders?
But my LOL! need not be supported by an in-depth formal investigation, digging up dirt on the organization to get them into trouble with the IRS. Newt Gingrich is an aficionado of the manipulative arts. So, let me just introduce you to something called “sampling bias.”
People who sign up at “Tea Party” websites are just people. Anyone can, and you don't need to actually have any knowledge of politics or politicians to join. Along with imagining anything you want to about the candidates, including just believing everything they say, you can believe what you want about what the Tea Party stands for. You might read the guidelines or principles of course, but then who actually reads the terms and conditions before checking “yes” to get access to a website?
What would it take, you might ask, short of a complex and possibly expensive “conspiracy theory” kind of plan, to stack participants in a “Tea Party” website in your favor? It's actually not the difficult. You just claim to be the “Tea Party favorite.” It's cheating really, and Gingrich has done it in spades. He's “The Original Tea Partier” according to himself.
What happens then? You get more Gingrich supporters signing up for Tea Party websites because they believe it's a place where Gingrich supporters belong. Once there, they cause some conversions or make those who support other candidates feel unwelcome. If you've watched a Gingrich supporter interact with a Ron Paul or Mitt Romney supporter, you know what I mean. If not, and you're against Gingrich, think how you'd react when the "leaders" are running around saying the group supports him. Is that the place for you?
And there you have it. Next step is to get the “leaders” to issue a non-endorsement endorsement of some kind and you might get a bounce in the statewide polls. Of course, they probably won't do that unless they're for Newt Gingrich anyway. And who knows why they would be. Newt Gingrich's principles are about as far from the stated Tea Party principles as one can imagine. But I suppose neither he nor the “leaders” of the organization bothered to read them before checking “yes.”
.
No, taxes shouldn’t be a “fairness” issue
Excerpt here from Theoptimisticconservative's Blog: No, taxes shouldn’t be a “fairness” issue by J.E. Dyer, January 28, 2012.
.
What are we, six years old? Taxes should pay for the costs of government. That’s what we have taxes for.Continue reading No, taxes shouldn’t be a “fairness” issue.
The proper purpose of taxes is not to establish a condition of “fairness.” It’s to pay for government: a legislature, executive, military, police, firefighting, courts, schools. But for 100 years now, the percentage-based income tax has been shifting public dialogue on taxes steadily away from their proper purpose, and toward increasingly juvenile arguments over “fairness,” as if the tax code is like Mom, telling Makayla to share the toys and be patient because Brendan is little.
If we let taxation be about “fairness,” rather than paying for the cost of government, the two big problems we have are defining “fairness,” and defining the role of government in promoting it. Those questions will never be settled to the satisfaction of all.
It might seem that the first question – “what is fair?” – is the more contentious one. We discuss it incessantly, after all. But the more fundamental question is actually what government should be doing about fairness. The freighted nature of our discussions about fairness is largely relieved if we assign a limited, utilitarian role to government. It doesn’t much matter what other people think is “fair,” in a lengthy list of situations, if they can’t harness the power of the armed state to enforce it on their fellow men.
.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Cain (the Womanizer) Endorses Gingrich (the Adulterous)...No Shock Here!
In a grand turn of events Herman Cain, who had to leave the Presidential race after being accused of sexual harassment from multiple women, has endorsed Newt Gingrich, the former speaker who has cheated on two of his wives.
From the Politico:
“I hereby officially and enthusiastically endorse Newt Gingrich for president of the United States,” Cain told the cheering crowd here. “Speaker Gingrich is a patriot. Speaker Gingrich is not afraid of bold ideas,” he said.
“And I also know that Speaker Gingrich is running for president and going through this sausage grinder — I know what this sausage grinder is all about. I know he is going through this sausage grinder because he cares about the future of the United States of America.”
Either it is just pure irony that Cain would endorse another candidate that has women issues, or it just shows that these type of filthy men band together to fight for a common cause.
It still plagues my mind how the Republican Party could support candidates that do not hold moral values. Like I have said I don't typically care about one's personal life, but the one thing I hate is hypocrisy and right now that seems to be the trend among Republican voters that support somebody like Newt Gingrich.
Lets just say...if he ends up in the White House and does something fishy like Bill Clinton did, then I get the grand privilege of saying "told you so!"
Robot Ethics Goes Mainstream
By Roger F. Gay
From my articles here, you know me as a guy who engages regularly in unspinning political news and filling in public knowledge gaps on politics as usual. (Being an “old guy” with very heavy political analysis experience over many years and nothing to care about but the fate of the country, I can do that.) But as any thinking person might expect, I'm not this one-dimensional caricature with no other interests.
I have a blog but this isn't it. My own blog is about something called High Level Logic (HLL), a new concept for moving software technology, including Artificial Intelligence, into the next generation. The concept itself has been under consideration since the mid-1980s, but the first working prototype wasn't built until just a few years ago when it was funded as part of an advanced robotics project. One of the proposed applications for this technology is in the developing field of “Robot Ethics.”
I've spent much of my career in software R&D … no, really. I'm not just saying that. I've spent a lot of time developing new, sometimes cutting-edge products and the R part includes mostly industrial research. That's the kind of research that leads to new products during one's own lifetime, not contemplation of a far, possibly parallel future in which actual live humans have been mostly replaced by robots carrying our avatars. I think for example, that we have already developed artificial intelligence. It's not all that it can be, but we already have machines that perform complex tasks very efficiently that in the past required human skill and knowledge. So, what's the next step and the one just after that? Can we leap ahead instead of walking? Is the proposed idea feasible, practical, and commercially viable? What will it cost to do it? When will it be ready?
I shouldn't be too surprised then that, provoked by real-world events, the two interests have come together, enough so that I'm mentioning one of my alternative realities in a space usually reserved for my political character. You might be wondering at this point, whether I have anything to say on the subject beyond introducing another me. Just a little right now; a start. If you think about this at all, you should see it as even more urgent to vote for people who really believe the Constitution should be obeyed rather than those who only mention it as a talking point to help get conservative votes.
It's not the technology that's the problem. It's how they use it. Let me jump quickly to another example, one I think many people will find familiar. Database systems are fantastic tools. We need data and ways to store and handle it efficiently to run the modern world. They even help make government operations more efficient. But allowing government to have an unrestricted license to operate a national database system for keeping track of intimate details of the lives of all Americans is a very bad idea.
Drones are unmanned aircraft that can be used as nothing more than a cost effective alternative to helicopters with human pilots and cameramen onboard. They can keep us informed about traffic conditions, let police know when and where there is an accident or stranded motorist, patrol the border, chase criminals, and engage in other worthy activities that are quite legitimate and helpful. But multiply them by 1000 (or even if you don't) and use them in every nook and cranny of our lives and you have a big problem.
It's new technology but nothing has changed really. We still need government restrained by the rules.
From my articles here, you know me as a guy who engages regularly in unspinning political news and filling in public knowledge gaps on politics as usual. (Being an “old guy” with very heavy political analysis experience over many years and nothing to care about but the fate of the country, I can do that.) But as any thinking person might expect, I'm not this one-dimensional caricature with no other interests.
I have a blog but this isn't it. My own blog is about something called High Level Logic (HLL), a new concept for moving software technology, including Artificial Intelligence, into the next generation. The concept itself has been under consideration since the mid-1980s, but the first working prototype wasn't built until just a few years ago when it was funded as part of an advanced robotics project. One of the proposed applications for this technology is in the developing field of “Robot Ethics.”
I've spent much of my career in software R&D … no, really. I'm not just saying that. I've spent a lot of time developing new, sometimes cutting-edge products and the R part includes mostly industrial research. That's the kind of research that leads to new products during one's own lifetime, not contemplation of a far, possibly parallel future in which actual live humans have been mostly replaced by robots carrying our avatars. I think for example, that we have already developed artificial intelligence. It's not all that it can be, but we already have machines that perform complex tasks very efficiently that in the past required human skill and knowledge. So, what's the next step and the one just after that? Can we leap ahead instead of walking? Is the proposed idea feasible, practical, and commercially viable? What will it cost to do it? When will it be ready?
I shouldn't be too surprised then that, provoked by real-world events, the two interests have come together, enough so that I'm mentioning one of my alternative realities in a space usually reserved for my political character. You might be wondering at this point, whether I have anything to say on the subject beyond introducing another me. Just a little right now; a start. If you think about this at all, you should see it as even more urgent to vote for people who really believe the Constitution should be obeyed rather than those who only mention it as a talking point to help get conservative votes.
It's not the technology that's the problem. It's how they use it. Let me jump quickly to another example, one I think many people will find familiar. Database systems are fantastic tools. We need data and ways to store and handle it efficiently to run the modern world. They even help make government operations more efficient. But allowing government to have an unrestricted license to operate a national database system for keeping track of intimate details of the lives of all Americans is a very bad idea.
Drones are unmanned aircraft that can be used as nothing more than a cost effective alternative to helicopters with human pilots and cameramen onboard. They can keep us informed about traffic conditions, let police know when and where there is an accident or stranded motorist, patrol the border, chase criminals, and engage in other worthy activities that are quite legitimate and helpful. But multiply them by 1000 (or even if you don't) and use them in every nook and cranny of our lives and you have a big problem.
It's new technology but nothing has changed really. We still need government restrained by the rules.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Rand Paul's Response to the President's State of the Union
We know that this is a few days late, but it is a great response nonetheless.
Ron Paul Highlights in 1/26/2012 Debate
Ron Paul was on fire in last nights debate. Here are the highlights:
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Nashville airport releases security footage of Sen. Rand Paul
Nashville airport releases security footage of Sen. Rand Paul: U.S. Sen. Rand Paul showed no visible signs of being “irate” as Nashville International Airport police asserted in an incident report, according to newly released video of a run-in with airport security.
Monday, January 23, 2012
TSA Detains Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky for Making a Constitutional Stand
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky took a stand today that said we will no longer be bullied into submission by the police state and refused to be patted down by the Transportation Security Administration.
From Infowars.com:
GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul issued the following statement on his campaign website this afternoon, following his son Rand’s treatment at the hands of the TSA in Nashville.
“The police state in this country is growing out of control. One of the ultimate embodiments of this is the TSA that gropes and grabs our children, our seniors, and our loved ones and neighbors with disabilities. The TSA does all of this while doing nothing to keep us safe.
“That is why my ‘Plan to Restore America,’ in additional to cutting $1 trillion dollars in federal spending in one year, eliminates the TSA.
“We must restore the freedom and respect for liberty that once made American the greatest nation in human history. I am deeply committed to doing that as President of the United States.”
Obviously the White House would defend the actions by the TSA because they are ones to prompt the police state in this country.
From the Hill.com;
The White House is standing by the Transportation Security Administration in its standoff with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and his father, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).
The elder Paul called the TSA a "police state" Monday after Rand Paul was reportedly detained by TSA after he refused to take a pat-down from TSA officials at the Nashville International Airport.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday that he didn't have any reaction to Paul's "police state" comments.
But Carney sided with the TSA saying, "I think it is absolutely essential that we take necessary actions to ensure that air travel is safe."
Sunday, January 22, 2012
2012 Sociopath Wins South Carolina
By Roger F. Gay
Traditional family values candidate Newt Gingrich could not have performed any better in the second South Carolina Republican debate if each of his answers had been subjected to extensive focus group testing throughout the state. He started off by slapping down CNN moderator John King for offering the opportunity to respond to recently televised interviews with one of his former wives, who appears to have been left emotionally scarred by the politician's infidelity and general misbehavior.
Gingrich was helped by being in that part of the south that he can claim as home turf, aided by a well cultivated popularity in the region. His problems with marital infidelity and divorce are common knowledge and had already grown as ripe for backlash politics as his criticisms of Mitt Romney for “engaging in free market capitalism” while at Bain Capital. There had been a great build-up to the event and the audience expected a great performance, cementing Gingrich's reputation for being “good at debate.”
Even the phrasing of the question favored him. John King asked; “Would you like to take some time to respond to that?” The opening retort, “No, but I will.” was a perfect lead to bash the great left-wing media conspiracy and cue for a standing ovation from the crowd.
Newt's "I did not have sex with that woman" momentIt was some of the best Gingrich political theater yet as well as a clarifying moment for me. Having probed into Newt Gingrich's political activities more deeply in the 1990s, while he acted as Speaker of the House, I immediately reflected on his persistent dishonesty and behavior toward others, including his infidelity toward people who vote for him and believe in him, and those he “served.” The image that came to mind was that of the character Edmond Burke in the film Edmond.
Edmond's delusional racism-filled sex and murder tour leads to imprisonment, where he is promptly raped by his black cell-mate. William H. Macy's performance as Edmond delivers an even more intense drama than the Republican campaigns. During Edmond's subsequent interview with a prison minister, an extremely creepy clarification of his character emerges.
Upset by being raped, Edmond angrily asserts that God has been unfair to him. Asked about an innocent girl that he had murdered in cold blood, he has no answer, other than it was a mistake. Coldly and impatiently, he says that he has already admitted that it was a mistake. He perceives the question as nagging. Isn't it obvious that it was a mistake due to the fact that he's incarcerated? Maybe his lawyer could have done better. Unable to empathize with the girl and deal with his role in her fate, his emotion returns as he focuses back on himself. He was raped. That was wrong. “What about MY civil rights?” he asks.
Gingrich's flip-flops on profound issues are somewhat well-known, although I can't imagine them being on the minds of the live audience in South Carolina. He's been for the most destructive policy ideas in modern times; destroyers of the Constitution and economy alike. He seems unable to empathize with the people whose lives they would devastate and coldly describes his support as “mistakes” and revises his rhetoric on them whenever the corrupt underpinnings of those ideas come to public light.
Perhaps the best known example is this. While Republicans in the Senate were introducing evidence to expose the global warming scam, Newt Gingrich appeared in a television advertisement with Nancy Pelosi to promote the scam. When evidence of corruption reached the public and the deal was falling apart, he simply called it “probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in years.” Congress knew already! (And I presume then, so did Newt Gingrich.) Would further questions be nagging? What about the trillion dollars in public money already down the tubes? What about the honest scientists who'd been denied research funds and lost their government jobs? What about the lives he would have been ruined through economic devastation and the others that would be destroyed if Gingrich et al. had not been caught? What about the fact that he'd been, once again, promoting federal take-overs on a grand scale? What about the fact that he still portrays himself as an honest, hard-working conservative?
That's just one example, and a brief introduction at most. During his time in Congress, Gingrich's personal attacks did not end at the borders of Washington, D.C., nor were they singularly aimed at individuals who had ample opportunity to defend themselves. Government began its trial against the American public, aided by a relentless media propaganda campaign. Perhaps 100 million people became the symbolic target of ridicule and contempt in the pursuit of his signature issue, “welfare reform.”
Ostensibly, at least in the marketing campaign, “welfare reform” was aimed to “enforce personal responsibility” against “welfare queens” and “deadbeat dads,” which was drawn for propaganda purposes as including nearly every welfare recipient and every divorced or never married father. Objectively, the legislation that Newt Gingrich had a hand in creating involved the federal take-over of marriage and family law. Once again, the motive was money; pure pork. The effect of the scam was profound. Traditional marriage was legally abolished (it had to be in order to fit into federal jurisdiction) along with the privacy and civil rights that went with it (they had to be in order to fit the Constitutional character of federal “social policy”). For the time being, you're still allowed to have a traditional marriage in spirit, and remain unmolested in the care of your children, unless the government arbitrarily decides to intrude – and they have, in millions and millions of cases.
If they're going to enforce their views on “personal responsibility”, then they have to keep track of you and what you're doing. The Gingrich era “welfare reforms” funded development of a national database to keep track of the detailed financial transactions of every man and woman in America. Children too. At least everyone with a job. (Investors like Mitt Romney, certain lobbyists and major campaign contributors, Congressmen and their staff may be exempt.) For the sake of “government efficiency,” new and expensive government agencies were created, old ones redefined and reorganized, and a better communication network was established for the joint purpose of collecting and sharing personal information.
Newt Gingrich hasn't called any of this a “mistake” yet, because public exposure of the corruption has not yet produced a critical mass against it. Many of the articles I read today still link the beginning of this level of federal intrusion to the Bush era and legislation and the War on Terrorism. The arbitrary nature of politically defined “personal responsibility” and the despicable character of such a thing in the eyes of the Constitution are of no concern to Newt Gingrich. He still lists it on his resume as a great accomplishment despite the widespread economic and personal devastation it has caused.
How far would he go? He speaks as though he would go as far as he believes he can get away with. “That's what we do to our enemies,” he proudly declared in the first South Carolina debate. “We kill them.” That's one of the coldest comments I have ever heard from a presidential candidate. It's not about national defense. It's about ruthlessly destroying anyone who gets in the way, with little to no concern for “collateral damage.” With the press and the American people regarded as his enemies, what fate should we expect if he becomes president?
What is absolutely certain is the Newt Gingrich displays a different sense of justice, a different sense of right and wrong, depending on whether he is offending others or others are offending him. The absolute coldness of his manner in promoting policies that have profound destructive effects on millions of personal lives suggests an even deeper problem than the simple obsessive dishonesty of a typical politician. But he is "good at debate."
.
Gingrich was helped by being in that part of the south that he can claim as home turf, aided by a well cultivated popularity in the region. His problems with marital infidelity and divorce are common knowledge and had already grown as ripe for backlash politics as his criticisms of Mitt Romney for “engaging in free market capitalism” while at Bain Capital. There had been a great build-up to the event and the audience expected a great performance, cementing Gingrich's reputation for being “good at debate.”
Even the phrasing of the question favored him. John King asked; “Would you like to take some time to respond to that?” The opening retort, “No, but I will.” was a perfect lead to bash the great left-wing media conspiracy and cue for a standing ovation from the crowd.
I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office, and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.I reflected briefly on Bill Clinton's impeachment proceedings that began just before Gingrich resigned from the Speakership in response to ethics violations and poor Republican election results and then continued to listen.
Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it [emphasis added], two days before the primary, a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.I reflected ever so briefly on how the character issue used to be so fundamentally important in the Republican Party before being interrupted by his continued commentary.
My two daughters wrote to the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate.APPLAUSE! *blink* APPLAUSE!
Newt's "I did not have sex with that woman" moment
Edmond's delusional racism-filled sex and murder tour leads to imprisonment, where he is promptly raped by his black cell-mate. William H. Macy's performance as Edmond delivers an even more intense drama than the Republican campaigns. During Edmond's subsequent interview with a prison minister, an extremely creepy clarification of his character emerges.
Upset by being raped, Edmond angrily asserts that God has been unfair to him. Asked about an innocent girl that he had murdered in cold blood, he has no answer, other than it was a mistake. Coldly and impatiently, he says that he has already admitted that it was a mistake. He perceives the question as nagging. Isn't it obvious that it was a mistake due to the fact that he's incarcerated? Maybe his lawyer could have done better. Unable to empathize with the girl and deal with his role in her fate, his emotion returns as he focuses back on himself. He was raped. That was wrong. “What about MY civil rights?” he asks.
Gingrich's flip-flops on profound issues are somewhat well-known, although I can't imagine them being on the minds of the live audience in South Carolina. He's been for the most destructive policy ideas in modern times; destroyers of the Constitution and economy alike. He seems unable to empathize with the people whose lives they would devastate and coldly describes his support as “mistakes” and revises his rhetoric on them whenever the corrupt underpinnings of those ideas come to public light.
Perhaps the best known example is this. While Republicans in the Senate were introducing evidence to expose the global warming scam, Newt Gingrich appeared in a television advertisement with Nancy Pelosi to promote the scam. When evidence of corruption reached the public and the deal was falling apart, he simply called it “probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in years.” Congress knew already! (And I presume then, so did Newt Gingrich.) Would further questions be nagging? What about the trillion dollars in public money already down the tubes? What about the honest scientists who'd been denied research funds and lost their government jobs? What about the lives he would have been ruined through economic devastation and the others that would be destroyed if Gingrich et al. had not been caught? What about the fact that he'd been, once again, promoting federal take-overs on a grand scale? What about the fact that he still portrays himself as an honest, hard-working conservative?
That's just one example, and a brief introduction at most. During his time in Congress, Gingrich's personal attacks did not end at the borders of Washington, D.C., nor were they singularly aimed at individuals who had ample opportunity to defend themselves. Government began its trial against the American public, aided by a relentless media propaganda campaign. Perhaps 100 million people became the symbolic target of ridicule and contempt in the pursuit of his signature issue, “welfare reform.”Ostensibly, at least in the marketing campaign, “welfare reform” was aimed to “enforce personal responsibility” against “welfare queens” and “deadbeat dads,” which was drawn for propaganda purposes as including nearly every welfare recipient and every divorced or never married father. Objectively, the legislation that Newt Gingrich had a hand in creating involved the federal take-over of marriage and family law. Once again, the motive was money; pure pork. The effect of the scam was profound. Traditional marriage was legally abolished (it had to be in order to fit into federal jurisdiction) along with the privacy and civil rights that went with it (they had to be in order to fit the Constitutional character of federal “social policy”). For the time being, you're still allowed to have a traditional marriage in spirit, and remain unmolested in the care of your children, unless the government arbitrarily decides to intrude – and they have, in millions and millions of cases.
If they're going to enforce their views on “personal responsibility”, then they have to keep track of you and what you're doing. The Gingrich era “welfare reforms” funded development of a national database to keep track of the detailed financial transactions of every man and woman in America. Children too. At least everyone with a job. (Investors like Mitt Romney, certain lobbyists and major campaign contributors, Congressmen and their staff may be exempt.) For the sake of “government efficiency,” new and expensive government agencies were created, old ones redefined and reorganized, and a better communication network was established for the joint purpose of collecting and sharing personal information.
Newt Gingrich hasn't called any of this a “mistake” yet, because public exposure of the corruption has not yet produced a critical mass against it. Many of the articles I read today still link the beginning of this level of federal intrusion to the Bush era and legislation and the War on Terrorism. The arbitrary nature of politically defined “personal responsibility” and the despicable character of such a thing in the eyes of the Constitution are of no concern to Newt Gingrich. He still lists it on his resume as a great accomplishment despite the widespread economic and personal devastation it has caused.
How far would he go? He speaks as though he would go as far as he believes he can get away with. “That's what we do to our enemies,” he proudly declared in the first South Carolina debate. “We kill them.” That's one of the coldest comments I have ever heard from a presidential candidate. It's not about national defense. It's about ruthlessly destroying anyone who gets in the way, with little to no concern for “collateral damage.” With the press and the American people regarded as his enemies, what fate should we expect if he becomes president?
What is absolutely certain is the Newt Gingrich displays a different sense of justice, a different sense of right and wrong, depending on whether he is offending others or others are offending him. The absolute coldness of his manner in promoting policies that have profound destructive effects on millions of personal lives suggests an even deeper problem than the simple obsessive dishonesty of a typical politician. But he is "good at debate."
.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
South Carolina Has Proven Their Stupidity w/Newt Gingrich
Tonights results from the South Carolina Primary has just proven how stupid the voters are in that southern state. But before I go any further I will preface my analysis with the following....I will not talk about how Ron Paul because he did not pay that much attention to South Carolina because he probably understood their stupidity way before I understood.
This site has expressed its views on Newt Gingrich and his ability to lead this country before. It amazes me as a Libertarian how people who consider themselves voters of high moral values can vote for somebody who has committed adultery not once, but twice! Granted I could care less about the personal lives of people, but the one thing I hate is hypocrites and Newt Gingrich is the ultimate hypocrite. It is just amazing how much people are defending him for his actions!
The other reason that makes South Carolinians stupid is their ability to vote for the ultimate Washington insider. We need real change in Washington D.C. and picking somebody who has a track record of being an insider just shows their iggnorance. Gingrich is a big government progressive that will keep the same policies going that have ruined this country for many years to come.
South Carolina could have saved their stupidity label by voting for Mitt Romney or Ron Paul, but they really threw a curve ball tonight by voting for Gingrich the cheater!
We need real change and it is looking like Republicans are really confused with what they want. They have now chosen their third candidate tonight, but maybe they need to really start looking at that other guy....we will call him Ron Paul...Google him America!!!!
This site has expressed its views on Newt Gingrich and his ability to lead this country before. It amazes me as a Libertarian how people who consider themselves voters of high moral values can vote for somebody who has committed adultery not once, but twice! Granted I could care less about the personal lives of people, but the one thing I hate is hypocrites and Newt Gingrich is the ultimate hypocrite. It is just amazing how much people are defending him for his actions!
The other reason that makes South Carolinians stupid is their ability to vote for the ultimate Washington insider. We need real change in Washington D.C. and picking somebody who has a track record of being an insider just shows their iggnorance. Gingrich is a big government progressive that will keep the same policies going that have ruined this country for many years to come.
South Carolina could have saved their stupidity label by voting for Mitt Romney or Ron Paul, but they really threw a curve ball tonight by voting for Gingrich the cheater!
We need real change and it is looking like Republicans are really confused with what they want. They have now chosen their third candidate tonight, but maybe they need to really start looking at that other guy....we will call him Ron Paul...Google him America!!!!
Senator Jim DeMint Agree's With Ron Paul's Foreign Policy
Now if the rest of the Republican Party would wrap their heads around this idea then our country might be better off:
Newt Gingrich is Not To Be Trusted
This election cycle has talked about the ultimiate Washington insider and the Republican candidates have given their views on who might be classified as such.
What Republicans in the early primary states, especially South Carolina, don't realize is they are being brainwashed by the ultimate Washington insider and they are on the verge of voting this country right down the garbage disposal. Newt Gingrich might have the experience it takes to be a President, but that experience is nothing more than continuing the same policies and style that we have seen from both Democrats like Obama and Republicans like Bush.
Newt Gingrich can not be trusted to run this country. First off I don't trust anybody that cheats on their loved one. Who cares about the stories of his second wife suggesting he "asked" for an open marriage. The fact is he cheated on her and he cheated on the wife before her. Newt is the ultimiate hypocrite and his personal relationship with women is a factor in judging his character and ability to be a leader for the United States.
The main reason not to trust the former speaker is simple....he has been involved in the problems of this country during his tenure as Speaker and during his time as a consultant for the federal firms Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac. He was not smart enough to judge the insanity that comes from federal housing programs like the Freddie's; so how is he smart enough to judge out of control spending and endless wars that are costing this country Trillions of dollars.
People shouldn't trust somebody that believes it is his enherient right to assume the Presidency. Newt is under the assumption he is being payed back for his time as Speaker and believes that he has a right to sit behind the desk in the oval office and none of the other guys can take that away from him.
What this country needs is a real statesman and Newt Gingrich is far from that definition. We need somebody who stands on principle and conviction and will do what is best for this country instead of preparing for the next election cycle. Fix this country and bring us back to the brink of stability.
Another reason not to trust Washington insiders like Newt who is on his third wife and preaches values??? Time to start trusting real statesmen like Ron Paul!
From the Drudge Report:
**Exclusive**
Wed Jan 18 2012 18:47:14 ET
Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband's career with a single interview.
Earlier this week, she sat before ABCNEWS cameras, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
She spoke to ABCNEWS reporter Brian Ross for two hours, and her explosive revelations are set to rock the trail.
But now a "civil war" has erupted inside of the network, an insider claims, on exactly when the confession will air!
MORE
ABCNEWS suits determined it would be "unethical" to run the Marianne Gingrich interview so close to the South Carolina Primary, a curious decision, one insider argued, since the network has aggressively been reporting on other candidates.
A decision was tentatively made to air the interview next Monday, after all votes have been counted.
Gingrich canceled a press conference on Wednesday to deal with the matter.
"He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don't have to be connected," Marianne Gingrich, Newt's wife of 18 years, explained to ESQUIRE last year.
Developing...
UPDATE: The AP reports ABC is now likely to air the segment Thursday on NIGHTLINE.
Watching the Republican debate last night in South Carolina was an interesting experience. The crowd was hooting and hollering over different statements by the candidates and it was sad to see the crowd cheering the killing of people when it came to foreign policy. Now, whether you agree with actions taken by terrorists overseas it is a sad state to hear people, who probably consider themselves Christian, cheering the talking of life no matter what the reason might have been.
So it begs the question....why is there this divide in the Republican Party today? Sadly, it is not just foreign policy that divides the Republicans.
Foreign Policy
It has been over 10 years since this country was attacked on September 11, 2001 and for some it is still a throne in side of our country. We have waged war in Afghanistan since, started a war in the country of Iraq, bombed the country of Libya, and now the drums are beating for a war with the country of Iran. There have been many questions about why our foreign policy is so aggressive and some answer simply because we need to protect this country and our interests overseas.
There is a divide taking place in the Republican Party over our involvement overseas and what role should we have as a nation when it comes to foreign activity on the dime of the American taxpayer.
One wing of the Republican Party has been beating the drum of war ever since 9/11/01. People known as neo-conservatives took control of the Presidency and have tried to push their agenda of an aggressive foreign policy and the idea of preemptive war ever since the attacks 10 years ago; however, the Republican Party fails to remember their history on this subject and where they once stood in terms of foreign issues. The idea of policing the world and starting wars to prevent wars was an idea taken hold by Democrats way before the Republicans adopted this idea following 9/11. President Bush ran for President in 2000 preaching the gospel that people like Ron Paul preach today. He claims that 9/11 changed his viewpoints, but one could argue he was manipulated by the likes of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who have been beating this idea of neo-conservative for decades. The difference is they finally found their opportunity to seize control and used the attacks of 9/11 to brainwash a President and a vast number of American people into believing their philosophy of preemptive war.
People like Ron Paul are running for President in 2012 trying to get the Republican Party back to where it once was before the neo-conservatives took hold of the Presidency and changed the course of American history.
What voters fail to notice is the idea of non-interventionism has been around the Republican Party since statesman like Robert Taft preached it during WWII. The Republican Party, and Ron Paul, want a strong military, but they do not want to use that military to be the policeman of the world. This wing of the Republican Party believes that our actions overseas cause anger against this country and we should rather be using diplomatic means to deal with hostile countries and use aggressive action as a last resort.
For every action there is a reaction and this needs to be the basis behind our foreign policy. We pissed off a lot of countries during the 90's under Clinton when he went around and bombed countries like Iraq which then caused hatred for the United States. A huge majority of Republicans opposed this action by Clinton in the 90's, but now we have done a total 180 and have taken the approach that Democrats have taken for years.
We should not be cheering the killing of people, but rather looking at the reasons they keep attacking us and realize that our actions do cause reaction by people in the Middle East. It is time to do another 180 and come back to the old principles of the Republican Party.
Size of Government (i.e. spending)
The other issue that is dividing the Republican Party is how big should the government be and how do you stop the out of control spending taking place in Washington D.C.
All of the Republican candidates will say they are for reducing the size of government, but history teaches us something else when it comes to this issue...chances are most of them will increase the spending, increase the size of government, and increase the national debt.
One wing of the Republican Party will follow the Santorum approach and say that some government is necessary and that is the wing of George Bush and that is when you get policies like No Child Left Behind, and Prescription drugs that will balloon the national debt.
The other wing of the Republican Party is the Ron Paul wing that says we need to shrink the size of the federal government and bring down the national debt. This wing also preaches transparency from the federal reserve and an eventual end to this monopolistic organization that has ruined the financial stability of this country.
We get these two wings from the Republicans again from the neo-conservatives that believe they can spend money that is not there in order to finance their wars overseas so their parent companies can benefit from the military industrial complex. A lot of people in the Republican Party have been brainwashed into believing the neo-conservatives and now that directs who they vote for in an election. They will not vote for people like Ron Paul now because the memory span of the American electorate is extremely limited.
The Divide
This divide in the Republican Party is real and this election in 2012 has been testing the waters of what conservatives, or libertarians, will believe for the next 20 years.
Here is where we should be headed as a group and as a nation.
First off: Government needs to be extremely limited and we need to have policies in place that will actually reduce the size of government and bring down the national debt.
Secondly: We need to have a foreign policy that once existed in the Republican Party that says preemptive war should not be our motto and we should have a policy of non-intervention so we do not spend this country into bankruptcy with situations half way around the world that have no real effect on the security of this country.
Which path do you chose?
Ron Paul gets descredited by members of the media and a lot of Republicans for being "crazy" or "weak" on certain issues; however, it would seem a lot of these same people have no clue what Ron Paul stands for nor what his plan is to save the United States of America.
Well here is that plan, so pay attention America:
11. Energy Independence: Eliminate the federal gas tax of $0.18 per gallon and eliminate the EPA, allowing prosecution of polluters to answer to citizens, not Washington, and allowing coal, oil, nuclear and other forms of energy to be safely explored.
10. Education: Dr. Paul would like to see the U.S. Department of Education return its powers to the states and parents. He proposes and intends to give parents a $5,000 tax credit per child for kids K-12 to help with all the costs of education. He is supportive of home-schooling and will veto legislation that interferes with parents choosing to home-school their children.
9. Workers' Rights: Dr. Ron Paul is against forcing workers to join unions and pay dues if they do not want to, citing the $8 billion that union leaders bring in annually that is often given to political candidates. He does not want workers forced to belong to unions or to be under union control against their will.
8. Protect Gun Rights: Protecting the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Here is an example of a town that required each head of household to own a gun. This policy resulted in decreased crime.
7. Heath Care: Dr. Ron Paul will repeal Obamacare, allow for tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses and not allow money that belongs in Medicare or Medicaid to be misused for other purposes. He will protect the privacy of American citizens' medical records from the federal government, remove barriers for all citizens to have HSAs and keep the FDA out of vitamins and alternative treatments. Also, he wants to provide payroll deductions for terminal illnesses and caregivers.
6. Pro-Life Issue: Here is the one fact all Americans need to know. Dr. Paul is the only Republican candidate who has said, "So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." Abortion is one of the most divisive issues and may always be a divisive issue as long as Americans have freedom of religion and the right to be, think and feel differently. Dr. Ron Paul may be personally pro-life; however, his voting record indicates that, even if a bill attempting to make abortion illegal federally in the U.S. were passed by the House and Senate, Dr. Paul would veto the bill as unconstitutional. Which other Republican candidate has a track record to indicate that? Would Dr. Paul look to put pro-life judges on the Supreme Court bench? Probably as much as past Republican presidents. The current Democratic President has recently placed two women on the Supreme Court, and new Justices are appointed only when a Justice dies or retires. Six Republican Presidential candidates have already signed the Susan B. Anthony List 2012. Dr. Ron Paul is the safest Republican candidate because he would veto anti-abortion bills at the federal level and support states that chose to protect women's reproductive rights. His other strong Constitution-based reforms outweigh the small risk that Roe v. Wade would be overturned during his term, returning the power to the states, who can then protect women's reproductive rights, as Vermont has. Would he truly respect the states' rights on this, considering his strong personal stand? Many progressive states have anti-abortion laws on their books that are not enforceable due to Roe v. Wade. So far, Dr. Paul has written bills to make it possible for states to make abortion illegal in the Sanctity of Life bill. He wrote the We the People Act, which, if passed, would render Roe v. Wade invalid and return powers to the states. He signed the Susan B. Anthony list, which describes federally defunding all abortions and Planned Parenthood. If Dr. Paul can fix the economic mess, is the slight chance that Roe v. Wade would be rendered invalid something Americans are willing risk for the betterment of the country in many other important areas? We will not ever go back to a time before birth control, morning-after pills, RU 486, the Internet and other advancements. Certain states, even with Roe v. Wade, are extremely restrictive.
5. Immigration: In Dr. Paul's own words:
Immigration reform should start with improving our border protection, yet it was reported last week that the federal government has approved the recruitment of 120 of our best trained Border Patrol agents to go to Iraq to train Iraqis how to better defend their borders! This comes at a time when the National Guard troops participating in Operation Jump Start are being removed from border protection duties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas and preparing to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan! It is an outrage and it will result in our borders being more vulnerable to illegal entry, including by terrorists. Also, we need to take serious steps to prevent terrorists from gaining easy access to targets on our soil. Quite alarmingly, even with the knowledge that the 19 terrorist hijackers entered our country legally, and that 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia , student visas from terrorist sponsoring countries are still far too easily obtained. In a baffling move President Bush struck a deal with Saudi King Abdullah in 2005 to allow 21,000 more Saudi young men into the US on student Visas. Of course, not all students from terror sponsoring countries are terrorists, but I place a higher premium on the security of the American people than the convenience of citizens of hostile countries. We should not be making the goals of would-be terrorists easier to accomplish, but rather should be vigilant about defending against enemies at every turn. They should not be slipping through our doors so easily, using our immigration laws against us, and that is why I proposed the Terror Immigration Elimination Act (HR 3217) to toughen standards for VISAS from countries on the State Department's list of terrorist sponsoring countries in addition to Saudi Arabia . Just as you decide who to invite to a dinner party in your home, we should be in charge of who we allow in this country, without apology. Also:
Both the Bush administration and congressional leadership have promised to spend the next two months addressing national security issues. But real national security cannot be achieved unless and until our borders are physically secured. It's as simple as that. All the talk about fighting terror and making America safer is meaningless without border security. It makes no sense to seek terrorists abroad if our own front door is left unlocked. In short, Dr. Paul's plan is to secure the border, end amnesty, abolish welfare to illegal immigrants, end birthright citizenship and protect lawful immigrants.
4. National Defense: Dr. Paul's approach is simple. He believes in a strong national defense and is against militarism -- in other words, protect the U.S. but do not police the world and require congressional approval before declaring war. The last time the U.S. formally declared war was World War II in 1941. Dr. Paul would bring the troops home to protect America. Dr. Paul said he would get the troops home as soon as the ships would get here. He is the largest recipient of donations from soldiers in the U.S. military, getting 71 percent of all military donations.
3. Taxes: Dr. Paul would support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that abolishes income and death taxes. Ideally, he'd like to close the IRS. He would seek to repeal capital gains taxes and reduce then abolish taxes on Social Security. Before a flat or fair tax would be implemented, Dr. Paul would ensure that the 16th Amendment, which made income taxation legal, would be repealed so we don't end up with both.
2. End the Fed: The Fed was created in a time of turmoil and seems similar to the Patriot Act in that it was done from a position of hysteria, not logical and rational decision-making. The U.S. Constitution is considered such a well thought-through document as it was drafted in a time of peace rather than as a reaction to a panic. Documents and policies that are reviewed and seen in the light of day by calm, rational people tend to be better for the long-term wellness of the people than policies passed quickly in an emotional, reactive and hurried manner. Dr. Paul equates the Fed with deeply-in-debt parents sending their teenagers out with credit cards and blank checks. Dr. Paul's ultimate goal would be to see the Fed end, yet he would not act rashly. What his focus would be is a full and complete audit of the Fed, as Congress is currently unable to audit the Fed. Dr. Paul would commit to passing legislation that requires transparency and accountability from the Fed. At this time, the Fed can keep secret to whom they are lending trillions of taxpayers' dollars. If the Fed is handling American money responsibly, for what reason would they refuse to open their books? We American citizens are all subject to audits from the IRS, but the U.S. central bank is not? Please take three minutes to watch this amazing video of Bernie Sanders asking Ben Bernanke, where $2.2 trillion of taxpayer money is. Bernanke will not answer the question and will not disclose where $2.2 trillion went, and he doesn't have to.
1. Economy: Dr. Paul's plan is to audit the Fed, veto any unbalanced budget and refuse to raise the debt ceiling. He is also committed to getting rid of self-dealing and corruption in D.C. Additionally, he will eliminate income taxes, capital gains taxes and death taxes. It would be a breath of fresh air to have the Fed audited and wasteful government spending eliminated, and to actually be able to keep more of the money we make. America's debt did not come out of nowhere. In 2008, the U.S. had spent $3 trillion on the war in Iraq. The current costs are at $3.2 to $4 trillion. How much did we vote to increase the debt ceiling? We raised the $14.3-trillion debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion, to $16.7 trillion on Aug. 2, 2011. Here is a great 10-minute video with Dr. Paul clearly stating how, if elected president in 2012, he would balance the budget in one year.
What Republicans in the early primary states, especially South Carolina, don't realize is they are being brainwashed by the ultimate Washington insider and they are on the verge of voting this country right down the garbage disposal. Newt Gingrich might have the experience it takes to be a President, but that experience is nothing more than continuing the same policies and style that we have seen from both Democrats like Obama and Republicans like Bush.
Newt Gingrich can not be trusted to run this country. First off I don't trust anybody that cheats on their loved one. Who cares about the stories of his second wife suggesting he "asked" for an open marriage. The fact is he cheated on her and he cheated on the wife before her. Newt is the ultimiate hypocrite and his personal relationship with women is a factor in judging his character and ability to be a leader for the United States.
The main reason not to trust the former speaker is simple....he has been involved in the problems of this country during his tenure as Speaker and during his time as a consultant for the federal firms Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac. He was not smart enough to judge the insanity that comes from federal housing programs like the Freddie's; so how is he smart enough to judge out of control spending and endless wars that are costing this country Trillions of dollars.
People shouldn't trust somebody that believes it is his enherient right to assume the Presidency. Newt is under the assumption he is being payed back for his time as Speaker and believes that he has a right to sit behind the desk in the oval office and none of the other guys can take that away from him.
What this country needs is a real statesman and Newt Gingrich is far from that definition. We need somebody who stands on principle and conviction and will do what is best for this country instead of preparing for the next election cycle. Fix this country and bring us back to the brink of stability.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Sociopath Wins South Carolina Debates
By Roger F. Gay
Traditional family values candidate for the Republican Party presidential nomination Newt Gingrich could not have performed any better if each of his answers had been subjected to extensive focus group testing in South Carolina. He started off by slapping down CNN moderator John King for offering the opportunity to respond to recently televised interviews with one of his former wives, who appears to have been left emotionally scarred by the politician's infidelity and general misbehavior.
Gingrich was helped by being in that part of the south that he can claim as home turf, aided by a well cultivated popularity in the region. His problems with marital infidelity and divorce are common knowledge and had already grown as ripe for backlash politics as his criticisms of Mitt Romney for “engaging in free market capitalism” while at Bain Capital. There had been a great build-up to the event and the audience expected a great performance, cementing Gingrich's reputation for being “good at debate.”
Even the phrasing of the question favored him. John King asked; “Would you like to take some time to respond to that?” The opening retort, “No, but I will.” was a perfect lead to bash the great left-wing media conspiracy and cue for a standing ovation from the crowd.
Newt's "I did not have sex with that woman" momentIt was some of the best Gingrich political theater yet as well as a clarifying moment for me. Having probed into Newt Gingrich's political activities more deeply in the 1990s, while he acted as Speaker of the House, I immediately reflected on his persistent dishonesty and behavior toward others, including his infidelity toward people who vote for him and believe in him, and those he “served.” The image that came to mind was that of the character Edmond Burke in the film Edmond.
Edmond's delusional racism-filled sex and murder tour leads to imprisonment, where he is promptly raped by his black cell-mate. William H. Macy's performance as Edmond delivers an even more intense drama than the Republican campaigns. During Edmond's subsequent interview with a prison minister, an extremely creepy clarification of his character emerges.
Upset by being raped, Edmond angrily asserts that God has been unfair to him. Asked about an innocent girl that he had murdered in cold blood, he has no answer, other than it was a mistake. Coldly and impatiently, he says that he has already admitted that it was a mistake. He perceives the question as nagging. Isn't it obvious that it was a mistake due to the fact that he's incarcerated? Maybe his lawyer could have done better. Unable to empathize with the girl and deal with his role in her fate, his emotion returns as he focuses back on himself. He was raped. That was wrong. “What about MY civil rights?” he asks.
Gingrich's flip-flops on profound issues are somewhat well-known, although I can't imagine them being on the minds of the live audience in South Carolina. He's been for the most destructive policy ideas in modern times; destroyers of the Constitution and economy alike. He seems unable to empathize with the people whose lives they would devastate and coldly describes his support as “mistakes” and revises his rhetoric on them whenever the corrupt underpinnings of those ideas come to public light.
Perhaps the best known example is this. While Republicans in the Senate were introducing evidence to expose the global warming scam, Newt Gingrich appeared in a television advertisement with Nancy Pelosi to promote the scam. When evidence of corruption reached the public and the deal was falling apart, he simply called it “probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in years.” Congress knew already! (And I presume then, so did Newt Gingrich.) Would further questions be nagging? What about the trillion dollars in public money already down the tubes? What about the honest scientists who'd been denied research funds and lost their government jobs? What about the lives he would have been ruined through economic devastation and the others that would be destroyed if Gingrich et al. had not been caught? What about the fact that he'd been, once again, promoting federal take-overs on a grand scale? What about the fact that he still portrays himself as an honest, hard-working conservative?
That's just one example, and a brief introduction at most. During his time in Congress, Gingrich's personal attacks did not end at the borders of Washington, D.C., nor were they singularly aimed at individuals who had ample opportunity to defend themselves. Government began its trial against the American public, aided by a relentless media propaganda campaign. Perhaps 100 million people became the symbolic target of ridicule and contempt in the pursuit of his signature issue, “welfare reform.”
Ostensibly, at least in the marketing campaign, “welfare reform” was aimed to “enforce personal responsibility” against “welfare queens” and “deadbeat dads,” which was drawn for propaganda purposes as including nearly every welfare recipient and every divorced or never married father. Objectively, the legislation that Newt Gingrich had a hand in creating involved the federal take-over of marriage and family law. Once again, the motive was money; pure pork. The effect of the scam was profound. Traditional marriage was legally abolished (it had to be in order to fit into federal jurisdiction) along with the privacy and civil rights that went with it (they had to be in order to fit the Constitutional character of federal “social policy”). For the time being, you're still allowed to have a traditional marriage in spirit, and remain unmolested in the care of your children, unless the government arbitrarily decides to intrude – and they have, in millions and millions of cases.
If they're going to enforce their views on “personal responsibility”, then they have to keep track of you and what you're doing. The Gingrich era “welfare reforms” funded development of a national database to keep track of the detailed financial transactions of every man and woman in America. Children too. At least everyone with a job. (Investors like Mitt Romney, certain lobbyists and major campaign contributors, Congressmen and their staff may be exempt.) For the sake of “government efficiency,” new and expensive government agencies were created, old ones redefined and reorganized, and a better communication network was established for the joint purpose of collecting and sharing personal information.
Newt Gingrich hasn't called any of this a “mistake” yet, because public exposure of the corruption has not yet produced a critical mass against it. Many of the articles I read today still link the beginning of this level of federal intrusion to the Bush era and legislation and the War on Terrorism. The arbitrary nature of politically defined “personal responsibility” and the despicable character of such a thing in the eyes of the Constitution are of no concern to Newt Gingrich. He still lists it on his resume as a great accomplishment despite the widespread economic and personal devastation it has caused.
How far would he go? He speaks as though he would go as far as he believes he can get away with. “That's what we do to our enemies,” he proudly declared in the first South Carolina debate. “We kill them.” That's one of the coldest comments I have ever heard from a presidential candidate. It's not about national defense. It's about ruthlessly destroying anyone who gets in the way, with little to no concern for “collateral damage.” With the press and the American people regarded as his enemies, what fate should we expect if he becomes president?
What is absolutely certain is the Newt Gingrich displays a different sense of justice, a different sense of right and wrong, depending on whether he is offending others or others are offending him. The absolute coldness of his manner in promoting policies that have profound destructive effects on millions of personal lives suggests an even deeper problem than the simple obsessive dishonesty of a typical politician. But he is "good at debate."
.
Traditional family values candidate for the Republican Party presidential nomination Newt Gingrich could not have performed any better if each of his answers had been subjected to extensive focus group testing in South Carolina. He started off by slapping down CNN moderator John King for offering the opportunity to respond to recently televised interviews with one of his former wives, who appears to have been left emotionally scarred by the politician's infidelity and general misbehavior.
Gingrich was helped by being in that part of the south that he can claim as home turf, aided by a well cultivated popularity in the region. His problems with marital infidelity and divorce are common knowledge and had already grown as ripe for backlash politics as his criticisms of Mitt Romney for “engaging in free market capitalism” while at Bain Capital. There had been a great build-up to the event and the audience expected a great performance, cementing Gingrich's reputation for being “good at debate.”
Even the phrasing of the question favored him. John King asked; “Would you like to take some time to respond to that?” The opening retort, “No, but I will.” was a perfect lead to bash the great left-wing media conspiracy and cue for a standing ovation from the crowd.
I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office, and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.I reflected briefly on Bill Clinton's impeachment proceedings that began just before Gingrich resigned from the Speakership in response to ethics violations and poor Republican election results and then continued to listen.
Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it [emphasis added], two days before the primary, a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.I reflected ever so briefly on how the character issue used to be so fundamentally important in the Republican Party before being interrupted by his continued commentary.
My two daughters wrote to the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate.APPLAUSE! *blink* APPLAUSE!
Newt's "I did not have sex with that woman" moment
Edmond's delusional racism-filled sex and murder tour leads to imprisonment, where he is promptly raped by his black cell-mate. William H. Macy's performance as Edmond delivers an even more intense drama than the Republican campaigns. During Edmond's subsequent interview with a prison minister, an extremely creepy clarification of his character emerges.
Upset by being raped, Edmond angrily asserts that God has been unfair to him. Asked about an innocent girl that he had murdered in cold blood, he has no answer, other than it was a mistake. Coldly and impatiently, he says that he has already admitted that it was a mistake. He perceives the question as nagging. Isn't it obvious that it was a mistake due to the fact that he's incarcerated? Maybe his lawyer could have done better. Unable to empathize with the girl and deal with his role in her fate, his emotion returns as he focuses back on himself. He was raped. That was wrong. “What about MY civil rights?” he asks.
Gingrich's flip-flops on profound issues are somewhat well-known, although I can't imagine them being on the minds of the live audience in South Carolina. He's been for the most destructive policy ideas in modern times; destroyers of the Constitution and economy alike. He seems unable to empathize with the people whose lives they would devastate and coldly describes his support as “mistakes” and revises his rhetoric on them whenever the corrupt underpinnings of those ideas come to public light.
Perhaps the best known example is this. While Republicans in the Senate were introducing evidence to expose the global warming scam, Newt Gingrich appeared in a television advertisement with Nancy Pelosi to promote the scam. When evidence of corruption reached the public and the deal was falling apart, he simply called it “probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in years.” Congress knew already! (And I presume then, so did Newt Gingrich.) Would further questions be nagging? What about the trillion dollars in public money already down the tubes? What about the honest scientists who'd been denied research funds and lost their government jobs? What about the lives he would have been ruined through economic devastation and the others that would be destroyed if Gingrich et al. had not been caught? What about the fact that he'd been, once again, promoting federal take-overs on a grand scale? What about the fact that he still portrays himself as an honest, hard-working conservative?
That's just one example, and a brief introduction at most. During his time in Congress, Gingrich's personal attacks did not end at the borders of Washington, D.C., nor were they singularly aimed at individuals who had ample opportunity to defend themselves. Government began its trial against the American public, aided by a relentless media propaganda campaign. Perhaps 100 million people became the symbolic target of ridicule and contempt in the pursuit of his signature issue, “welfare reform.”Ostensibly, at least in the marketing campaign, “welfare reform” was aimed to “enforce personal responsibility” against “welfare queens” and “deadbeat dads,” which was drawn for propaganda purposes as including nearly every welfare recipient and every divorced or never married father. Objectively, the legislation that Newt Gingrich had a hand in creating involved the federal take-over of marriage and family law. Once again, the motive was money; pure pork. The effect of the scam was profound. Traditional marriage was legally abolished (it had to be in order to fit into federal jurisdiction) along with the privacy and civil rights that went with it (they had to be in order to fit the Constitutional character of federal “social policy”). For the time being, you're still allowed to have a traditional marriage in spirit, and remain unmolested in the care of your children, unless the government arbitrarily decides to intrude – and they have, in millions and millions of cases.
If they're going to enforce their views on “personal responsibility”, then they have to keep track of you and what you're doing. The Gingrich era “welfare reforms” funded development of a national database to keep track of the detailed financial transactions of every man and woman in America. Children too. At least everyone with a job. (Investors like Mitt Romney, certain lobbyists and major campaign contributors, Congressmen and their staff may be exempt.) For the sake of “government efficiency,” new and expensive government agencies were created, old ones redefined and reorganized, and a better communication network was established for the joint purpose of collecting and sharing personal information.
Newt Gingrich hasn't called any of this a “mistake” yet, because public exposure of the corruption has not yet produced a critical mass against it. Many of the articles I read today still link the beginning of this level of federal intrusion to the Bush era and legislation and the War on Terrorism. The arbitrary nature of politically defined “personal responsibility” and the despicable character of such a thing in the eyes of the Constitution are of no concern to Newt Gingrich. He still lists it on his resume as a great accomplishment despite the widespread economic and personal devastation it has caused.
How far would he go? He speaks as though he would go as far as he believes he can get away with. “That's what we do to our enemies,” he proudly declared in the first South Carolina debate. “We kill them.” That's one of the coldest comments I have ever heard from a presidential candidate. It's not about national defense. It's about ruthlessly destroying anyone who gets in the way, with little to no concern for “collateral damage.” With the press and the American people regarded as his enemies, what fate should we expect if he becomes president?
What is absolutely certain is the Newt Gingrich displays a different sense of justice, a different sense of right and wrong, depending on whether he is offending others or others are offending him. The absolute coldness of his manner in promoting policies that have profound destructive effects on millions of personal lives suggests an even deeper problem than the simple obsessive dishonesty of a typical politician. But he is "good at debate."
.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Newt Gingrich Defensive At Start of Debate Tonight....Is the Criticism Legitimate?
Newt Gingrich came out firing tonight when the moderator of the CNN debate in South Carolina brought up the subject of his ex-wife Marianne speaking to ABC News that divulgues damaging information about his relationship with her and his inability to be a moral leader for a country that is in desperate need of that leader.
Watch the video:
Watch the video:
What Speaker doesn't realize is his personal life is a big deal for somebody that wants to be the leader of this country. Voters in America vote on character and values, even though it might not be a good indicator of how that person might lead the country.
Newt Gingrich is a despicable human being for the acts he committed in his personal life. He is an adulterous that does not deserve a seat behind the Resolute Desk and with his defensive nature it just proves how much scum he really is as a person. It is fine to divorce a wife because you don't get along and have lost love for one another, but to cheat on your wives (even when one is diagnosed with MS) is a despicable act.
People like Ron Paul, and even Rick Santorum, have a strong moral compass that is deserving of a shot at the White House. Gingrich does not deserve such an honor.
Romney and Gingrich Supporters Front-Runners in Biggest Jerks Contest
By Roger F. Gay
Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, (fill in the blank, other candidates and their supporters), and the establishment media would have it that Ron Paul supporters are unruly pot-smoking teenagers impressed by the hippies of the 1960s. Unable to reason or articulate a sound basis for their political views, these Paulbots (What!?! Name calling?) are simply rude and profane. A lot of time on the Internet leads me to believe that front-runner status in the biggest jerks contest goes to Romney and Gingrich supporters. Ron Paul supporters are typically the more civil and well-informed.
Romney and Gingrich supporters just don't have a civil argument to make. Romney was anointed the “presumptive nominee” by media companies that seem to have a stake in the outcome. He came into the race with stronger polling numbers, but not particularly impressive for someone who'd been continuously campaigning, alone, for five consecutive years. That makes him more of a Hillary candidate, ruling the early days of the primaries but destined to be overtaken. Aside from not having an early lead, Newt Gingrich is Mitt Romney with more personal problems and less money.
It's not just Romney's profits from Bain Capital that have floated his effort. He has an impressive list of big-money financial backers. Unfortunately for his supporters, there is too much overlap between his list and Obama's. This cripples his effort to convince people to ignore his political record and policy positions and believe there is any real difference between them. He's running on the facade of a different attitude. He can spin that until he's dizzy and falls to the floor while the money keeps calling him a liar. He is an “establishment candidate” ready to continue the corrupt agenda.
Despite a strong “Not Romney” sentiment among Republican voters, his campaign has kept about a quarter of them hooked on the idea that he is the only Republican candidate that can beat Barack Obama. Why that would matter still remains a mystery. It may be better for conservatives if Obama remains in office. More important to at least some in the Romney 25% (of 25%) club, his current poll numbers in the match-up show him neck-and-neck with Obama, not as a clear winner, and he may be doing that well only because he's been anointed the “presumptive nominee.” What would actually happen in the general election? Newt Gingrich asks, “Why would you nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama in 2008?” Indeed!
The only other potential nominee, Ron Paul is polling just as well in a match up against Obama, has a much more enthusiastic base of support, and appeals to essential voters who are not participating in the Republican nomination process. In terms of advantages for winning the election, he is the Ronald Reagan candidate, ready to excite independents and bring “Paul Democrats” on board. It's quite telling that Paul is already polling as well as Romney against Obama even while the establishment media is still promoting Romney and diminishing Paul.
But how long can Foxnews, for example, continue to play this game? MSNBC has shown more objectivity and honesty regarding this race and will likely take market share because of it. Fox leaves it to others to report the big stories, that for example, contrary to opposition claims, Ron Paul is actually strong on national defense, does not spend government money lavishly on himself while talking up fiscal conservatism, doesn't hate Israel, is not a racist, etc. Those stories are as much about the other candidates as they are about dishonest media coverage. Those who expose the truth are seen as heroes, and certainly the more reliable sources of information.
Fox looks very much like an extension of the Romney campaign. Romney can't beat Paul on an honest comparison of their records or policy positions, and certainly not on attitude or character. The Romney campaign handled this problem by going into denial. They haven't been running against Ron Paul. Ron Paul doesn't exist. Ron Paul doesn't matter. He's only doing that well because his supporters are too enthusiastic. Will he run third party? Is he hoping to get something at a brokered convention? At every turn, Fox remains in tow. But even the questions demonstrate the trend as each one in turn comes closer to treating him as a serious candidate for the Republican nomination.
Even against establishment election rigging efforts, Ron Paul hasn't been stopped from making impressive gains in the primaries or demonstrating that he would be at least as good in a match-up against Obama. That's a very strong candidate! Romney and Gingrich supporters can't compete with facts and logic. They're doing all they can do; panicking, running in circles, and screaming profanities (CAPS-LOCK ON). These are the front-runners in the biggest jerks contest. At the moment, I'd say Gingrich supporters are in the lead. But since their candidate doesn't have staying power, I think Romney supporters will win this one in the end.
.
Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, (fill in the blank, other candidates and their supporters), and the establishment media would have it that Ron Paul supporters are unruly pot-smoking teenagers impressed by the hippies of the 1960s. Unable to reason or articulate a sound basis for their political views, these Paulbots (What!?! Name calling?) are simply rude and profane. A lot of time on the Internet leads me to believe that front-runner status in the biggest jerks contest goes to Romney and Gingrich supporters. Ron Paul supporters are typically the more civil and well-informed.
Romney and Gingrich supporters just don't have a civil argument to make. Romney was anointed the “presumptive nominee” by media companies that seem to have a stake in the outcome. He came into the race with stronger polling numbers, but not particularly impressive for someone who'd been continuously campaigning, alone, for five consecutive years. That makes him more of a Hillary candidate, ruling the early days of the primaries but destined to be overtaken. Aside from not having an early lead, Newt Gingrich is Mitt Romney with more personal problems and less money.
It's not just Romney's profits from Bain Capital that have floated his effort. He has an impressive list of big-money financial backers. Unfortunately for his supporters, there is too much overlap between his list and Obama's. This cripples his effort to convince people to ignore his political record and policy positions and believe there is any real difference between them. He's running on the facade of a different attitude. He can spin that until he's dizzy and falls to the floor while the money keeps calling him a liar. He is an “establishment candidate” ready to continue the corrupt agenda.
Despite a strong “Not Romney” sentiment among Republican voters, his campaign has kept about a quarter of them hooked on the idea that he is the only Republican candidate that can beat Barack Obama. Why that would matter still remains a mystery. It may be better for conservatives if Obama remains in office. More important to at least some in the Romney 25% (of 25%) club, his current poll numbers in the match-up show him neck-and-neck with Obama, not as a clear winner, and he may be doing that well only because he's been anointed the “presumptive nominee.” What would actually happen in the general election? Newt Gingrich asks, “Why would you nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama in 2008?” Indeed!
The only other potential nominee, Ron Paul is polling just as well in a match up against Obama, has a much more enthusiastic base of support, and appeals to essential voters who are not participating in the Republican nomination process. In terms of advantages for winning the election, he is the Ronald Reagan candidate, ready to excite independents and bring “Paul Democrats” on board. It's quite telling that Paul is already polling as well as Romney against Obama even while the establishment media is still promoting Romney and diminishing Paul.
But how long can Foxnews, for example, continue to play this game? MSNBC has shown more objectivity and honesty regarding this race and will likely take market share because of it. Fox leaves it to others to report the big stories, that for example, contrary to opposition claims, Ron Paul is actually strong on national defense, does not spend government money lavishly on himself while talking up fiscal conservatism, doesn't hate Israel, is not a racist, etc. Those stories are as much about the other candidates as they are about dishonest media coverage. Those who expose the truth are seen as heroes, and certainly the more reliable sources of information.
Fox looks very much like an extension of the Romney campaign. Romney can't beat Paul on an honest comparison of their records or policy positions, and certainly not on attitude or character. The Romney campaign handled this problem by going into denial. They haven't been running against Ron Paul. Ron Paul doesn't exist. Ron Paul doesn't matter. He's only doing that well because his supporters are too enthusiastic. Will he run third party? Is he hoping to get something at a brokered convention? At every turn, Fox remains in tow. But even the questions demonstrate the trend as each one in turn comes closer to treating him as a serious candidate for the Republican nomination.
Even against establishment election rigging efforts, Ron Paul hasn't been stopped from making impressive gains in the primaries or demonstrating that he would be at least as good in a match-up against Obama. That's a very strong candidate! Romney and Gingrich supporters can't compete with facts and logic. They're doing all they can do; panicking, running in circles, and screaming profanities (CAPS-LOCK ON). These are the front-runners in the biggest jerks contest. At the moment, I'd say Gingrich supporters are in the lead. But since their candidate doesn't have staying power, I think Romney supporters will win this one in the end.
.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
NEWT EX-WIFE UNLOADS ON CAMERA; NETWORK DEBATES 'ETHICS' OF AIRING BEFORE SC PRIMARY
Another reason not to trust Washington insiders like Newt who is on his third wife and preaches values??? Time to start trusting real statesmen like Ron Paul!
From the Drudge Report:
**Exclusive**
Wed Jan 18 2012 18:47:14 ET
Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband's career with a single interview.
Earlier this week, she sat before ABCNEWS cameras, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
She spoke to ABCNEWS reporter Brian Ross for two hours, and her explosive revelations are set to rock the trail.
But now a "civil war" has erupted inside of the network, an insider claims, on exactly when the confession will air!
MORE
ABCNEWS suits determined it would be "unethical" to run the Marianne Gingrich interview so close to the South Carolina Primary, a curious decision, one insider argued, since the network has aggressively been reporting on other candidates.
A decision was tentatively made to air the interview next Monday, after all votes have been counted.
Gingrich canceled a press conference on Wednesday to deal with the matter.
"He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don't have to be connected," Marianne Gingrich, Newt's wife of 18 years, explained to ESQUIRE last year.
Developing...
UPDATE: The AP reports ABC is now likely to air the segment Thursday on NIGHTLINE.
New Ron Paul Ad Calls Out The "Three of a Kind" Candidates in the Republican Primary
Ron Paul's new ad calls out Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney as one in the same in a deck of cards. Ron Paul stands alone as the true conservative candidate in this race that will not give in on his principles and actually shrink the size of government.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
The Great Divide in the Republican Party...Ron Paul or the Neo-Conservatives?
Watching the Republican debate last night in South Carolina was an interesting experience. The crowd was hooting and hollering over different statements by the candidates and it was sad to see the crowd cheering the killing of people when it came to foreign policy. Now, whether you agree with actions taken by terrorists overseas it is a sad state to hear people, who probably consider themselves Christian, cheering the talking of life no matter what the reason might have been.
So it begs the question....why is there this divide in the Republican Party today? Sadly, it is not just foreign policy that divides the Republicans.
Foreign Policy
It has been over 10 years since this country was attacked on September 11, 2001 and for some it is still a throne in side of our country. We have waged war in Afghanistan since, started a war in the country of Iraq, bombed the country of Libya, and now the drums are beating for a war with the country of Iran. There have been many questions about why our foreign policy is so aggressive and some answer simply because we need to protect this country and our interests overseas.
There is a divide taking place in the Republican Party over our involvement overseas and what role should we have as a nation when it comes to foreign activity on the dime of the American taxpayer.
One wing of the Republican Party has been beating the drum of war ever since 9/11/01. People known as neo-conservatives took control of the Presidency and have tried to push their agenda of an aggressive foreign policy and the idea of preemptive war ever since the attacks 10 years ago; however, the Republican Party fails to remember their history on this subject and where they once stood in terms of foreign issues. The idea of policing the world and starting wars to prevent wars was an idea taken hold by Democrats way before the Republicans adopted this idea following 9/11. President Bush ran for President in 2000 preaching the gospel that people like Ron Paul preach today. He claims that 9/11 changed his viewpoints, but one could argue he was manipulated by the likes of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who have been beating this idea of neo-conservative for decades. The difference is they finally found their opportunity to seize control and used the attacks of 9/11 to brainwash a President and a vast number of American people into believing their philosophy of preemptive war.
People like Ron Paul are running for President in 2012 trying to get the Republican Party back to where it once was before the neo-conservatives took hold of the Presidency and changed the course of American history.
What voters fail to notice is the idea of non-interventionism has been around the Republican Party since statesman like Robert Taft preached it during WWII. The Republican Party, and Ron Paul, want a strong military, but they do not want to use that military to be the policeman of the world. This wing of the Republican Party believes that our actions overseas cause anger against this country and we should rather be using diplomatic means to deal with hostile countries and use aggressive action as a last resort.
For every action there is a reaction and this needs to be the basis behind our foreign policy. We pissed off a lot of countries during the 90's under Clinton when he went around and bombed countries like Iraq which then caused hatred for the United States. A huge majority of Republicans opposed this action by Clinton in the 90's, but now we have done a total 180 and have taken the approach that Democrats have taken for years.
We should not be cheering the killing of people, but rather looking at the reasons they keep attacking us and realize that our actions do cause reaction by people in the Middle East. It is time to do another 180 and come back to the old principles of the Republican Party.
Size of Government (i.e. spending)
The other issue that is dividing the Republican Party is how big should the government be and how do you stop the out of control spending taking place in Washington D.C.
All of the Republican candidates will say they are for reducing the size of government, but history teaches us something else when it comes to this issue...chances are most of them will increase the spending, increase the size of government, and increase the national debt.
One wing of the Republican Party will follow the Santorum approach and say that some government is necessary and that is the wing of George Bush and that is when you get policies like No Child Left Behind, and Prescription drugs that will balloon the national debt.
The other wing of the Republican Party is the Ron Paul wing that says we need to shrink the size of the federal government and bring down the national debt. This wing also preaches transparency from the federal reserve and an eventual end to this monopolistic organization that has ruined the financial stability of this country.
We get these two wings from the Republicans again from the neo-conservatives that believe they can spend money that is not there in order to finance their wars overseas so their parent companies can benefit from the military industrial complex. A lot of people in the Republican Party have been brainwashed into believing the neo-conservatives and now that directs who they vote for in an election. They will not vote for people like Ron Paul now because the memory span of the American electorate is extremely limited.
The Divide
This divide in the Republican Party is real and this election in 2012 has been testing the waters of what conservatives, or libertarians, will believe for the next 20 years.
Here is where we should be headed as a group and as a nation.
First off: Government needs to be extremely limited and we need to have policies in place that will actually reduce the size of government and bring down the national debt.
Secondly: We need to have a foreign policy that once existed in the Republican Party that says preemptive war should not be our motto and we should have a policy of non-intervention so we do not spend this country into bankruptcy with situations half way around the world that have no real effect on the security of this country.
Which path do you chose?
Monday, January 16, 2012
Ron Paul's 11 Point Plan to Save America....Start Listening America!
Ron Paul gets descredited by members of the media and a lot of Republicans for being "crazy" or "weak" on certain issues; however, it would seem a lot of these same people have no clue what Ron Paul stands for nor what his plan is to save the United States of America.
Well here is that plan, so pay attention America:
11. Energy Independence: Eliminate the federal gas tax of $0.18 per gallon and eliminate the EPA, allowing prosecution of polluters to answer to citizens, not Washington, and allowing coal, oil, nuclear and other forms of energy to be safely explored.
10. Education: Dr. Paul would like to see the U.S. Department of Education return its powers to the states and parents. He proposes and intends to give parents a $5,000 tax credit per child for kids K-12 to help with all the costs of education. He is supportive of home-schooling and will veto legislation that interferes with parents choosing to home-school their children.
9. Workers' Rights: Dr. Ron Paul is against forcing workers to join unions and pay dues if they do not want to, citing the $8 billion that union leaders bring in annually that is often given to political candidates. He does not want workers forced to belong to unions or to be under union control against their will.
8. Protect Gun Rights: Protecting the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Here is an example of a town that required each head of household to own a gun. This policy resulted in decreased crime.
7. Heath Care: Dr. Ron Paul will repeal Obamacare, allow for tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses and not allow money that belongs in Medicare or Medicaid to be misused for other purposes. He will protect the privacy of American citizens' medical records from the federal government, remove barriers for all citizens to have HSAs and keep the FDA out of vitamins and alternative treatments. Also, he wants to provide payroll deductions for terminal illnesses and caregivers.
6. Pro-Life Issue: Here is the one fact all Americans need to know. Dr. Paul is the only Republican candidate who has said, "So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." Abortion is one of the most divisive issues and may always be a divisive issue as long as Americans have freedom of religion and the right to be, think and feel differently. Dr. Ron Paul may be personally pro-life; however, his voting record indicates that, even if a bill attempting to make abortion illegal federally in the U.S. were passed by the House and Senate, Dr. Paul would veto the bill as unconstitutional. Which other Republican candidate has a track record to indicate that? Would Dr. Paul look to put pro-life judges on the Supreme Court bench? Probably as much as past Republican presidents. The current Democratic President has recently placed two women on the Supreme Court, and new Justices are appointed only when a Justice dies or retires. Six Republican Presidential candidates have already signed the Susan B. Anthony List 2012. Dr. Ron Paul is the safest Republican candidate because he would veto anti-abortion bills at the federal level and support states that chose to protect women's reproductive rights. His other strong Constitution-based reforms outweigh the small risk that Roe v. Wade would be overturned during his term, returning the power to the states, who can then protect women's reproductive rights, as Vermont has. Would he truly respect the states' rights on this, considering his strong personal stand? Many progressive states have anti-abortion laws on their books that are not enforceable due to Roe v. Wade. So far, Dr. Paul has written bills to make it possible for states to make abortion illegal in the Sanctity of Life bill. He wrote the We the People Act, which, if passed, would render Roe v. Wade invalid and return powers to the states. He signed the Susan B. Anthony list, which describes federally defunding all abortions and Planned Parenthood. If Dr. Paul can fix the economic mess, is the slight chance that Roe v. Wade would be rendered invalid something Americans are willing risk for the betterment of the country in many other important areas? We will not ever go back to a time before birth control, morning-after pills, RU 486, the Internet and other advancements. Certain states, even with Roe v. Wade, are extremely restrictive.
5. Immigration: In Dr. Paul's own words:
Immigration reform should start with improving our border protection, yet it was reported last week that the federal government has approved the recruitment of 120 of our best trained Border Patrol agents to go to Iraq to train Iraqis how to better defend their borders! This comes at a time when the National Guard troops participating in Operation Jump Start are being removed from border protection duties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas and preparing to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan! It is an outrage and it will result in our borders being more vulnerable to illegal entry, including by terrorists. Also, we need to take serious steps to prevent terrorists from gaining easy access to targets on our soil. Quite alarmingly, even with the knowledge that the 19 terrorist hijackers entered our country legally, and that 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia , student visas from terrorist sponsoring countries are still far too easily obtained. In a baffling move President Bush struck a deal with Saudi King Abdullah in 2005 to allow 21,000 more Saudi young men into the US on student Visas. Of course, not all students from terror sponsoring countries are terrorists, but I place a higher premium on the security of the American people than the convenience of citizens of hostile countries. We should not be making the goals of would-be terrorists easier to accomplish, but rather should be vigilant about defending against enemies at every turn. They should not be slipping through our doors so easily, using our immigration laws against us, and that is why I proposed the Terror Immigration Elimination Act (HR 3217) to toughen standards for VISAS from countries on the State Department's list of terrorist sponsoring countries in addition to Saudi Arabia . Just as you decide who to invite to a dinner party in your home, we should be in charge of who we allow in this country, without apology. Also:
Both the Bush administration and congressional leadership have promised to spend the next two months addressing national security issues. But real national security cannot be achieved unless and until our borders are physically secured. It's as simple as that. All the talk about fighting terror and making America safer is meaningless without border security. It makes no sense to seek terrorists abroad if our own front door is left unlocked. In short, Dr. Paul's plan is to secure the border, end amnesty, abolish welfare to illegal immigrants, end birthright citizenship and protect lawful immigrants.
4. National Defense: Dr. Paul's approach is simple. He believes in a strong national defense and is against militarism -- in other words, protect the U.S. but do not police the world and require congressional approval before declaring war. The last time the U.S. formally declared war was World War II in 1941. Dr. Paul would bring the troops home to protect America. Dr. Paul said he would get the troops home as soon as the ships would get here. He is the largest recipient of donations from soldiers in the U.S. military, getting 71 percent of all military donations.
3. Taxes: Dr. Paul would support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that abolishes income and death taxes. Ideally, he'd like to close the IRS. He would seek to repeal capital gains taxes and reduce then abolish taxes on Social Security. Before a flat or fair tax would be implemented, Dr. Paul would ensure that the 16th Amendment, which made income taxation legal, would be repealed so we don't end up with both.
2. End the Fed: The Fed was created in a time of turmoil and seems similar to the Patriot Act in that it was done from a position of hysteria, not logical and rational decision-making. The U.S. Constitution is considered such a well thought-through document as it was drafted in a time of peace rather than as a reaction to a panic. Documents and policies that are reviewed and seen in the light of day by calm, rational people tend to be better for the long-term wellness of the people than policies passed quickly in an emotional, reactive and hurried manner. Dr. Paul equates the Fed with deeply-in-debt parents sending their teenagers out with credit cards and blank checks. Dr. Paul's ultimate goal would be to see the Fed end, yet he would not act rashly. What his focus would be is a full and complete audit of the Fed, as Congress is currently unable to audit the Fed. Dr. Paul would commit to passing legislation that requires transparency and accountability from the Fed. At this time, the Fed can keep secret to whom they are lending trillions of taxpayers' dollars. If the Fed is handling American money responsibly, for what reason would they refuse to open their books? We American citizens are all subject to audits from the IRS, but the U.S. central bank is not? Please take three minutes to watch this amazing video of Bernie Sanders asking Ben Bernanke, where $2.2 trillion of taxpayer money is. Bernanke will not answer the question and will not disclose where $2.2 trillion went, and he doesn't have to.
1. Economy: Dr. Paul's plan is to audit the Fed, veto any unbalanced budget and refuse to raise the debt ceiling. He is also committed to getting rid of self-dealing and corruption in D.C. Additionally, he will eliminate income taxes, capital gains taxes and death taxes. It would be a breath of fresh air to have the Fed audited and wasteful government spending eliminated, and to actually be able to keep more of the money we make. America's debt did not come out of nowhere. In 2008, the U.S. had spent $3 trillion on the war in Iraq. The current costs are at $3.2 to $4 trillion. How much did we vote to increase the debt ceiling? We raised the $14.3-trillion debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion, to $16.7 trillion on Aug. 2, 2011. Here is a great 10-minute video with Dr. Paul clearly stating how, if elected president in 2012, he would balance the budget in one year.
Ron Paul Receives “Game Changing” Endorsement From South Carolina Senator
GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul received what his campaign described as a “game changing” endorsement Sunday, as influential South Carolina State Senator Tom Davis, officially gave his support to Paul.
The Senator, a heavyweight fiscal conservative in the South Carolina General Assembly, is extremely well regarded amongst Republicans and Tea Party activists and will undoubtedly bring voters to Ron Paul’s campaign ahead of the “First in the South” primary.
Romney Not Vetted Yet on Jobs and the Economy
By Roger F. Gay
Mitt Romney characterizes himself as someone who knows how jobs are destroyed and how they're created. Leaning on his experience on the board of Bain Capital, the wealthy eternal political candidate and one term Massachusetts governor projects real-world management experience that would be a benefit to the nation. Botched attempts by Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry to challenge the character of that experience backfired. The would-be exploration into Mitt Romney's character and its potential effect on jobs and the economy was morphed into a referendum on “free-market capitalism”.
Fox News presents a conflict of views between Romney's “vulture capitalism” as portrayed in the Winning Our Future Gingrich PAC documentary "King of Bain: When Mitt Romney Came to Town" and an advocate of “limited government and free market enterprise”.
The distortion in Fox's argument should be obvious. None of the actual subjects, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Mitt Romney, can honestly be associated with limited government. Nonetheless, the stage is set to see who can come off as the most simple-minded extremely capitalistic economic freedom lover verses what “Michael Moore and President Obama offer." Adam Smith would not be amused but it's great two-party political theater.
The Gingrich PAC mishandled some facts. That's quite consistent with Newt Gingrich. We'll never get an honest understanding of what Romney did and how he did it at Bain from Mitt Romney and his supporters either. We know that Romney was in the money business. He was an investor, not the guy on the working end of building businesses and creating jobs. Romney supporters argue that it doesn't matter to a president. In the spirit of total black-and-whiteism; government doesn't create jobs, the private sector does.
Nonetheless, Romney himself continues to see his limited private sector experience at Bain Capital as a huge plus on his political resume. These are some guys with access to a lot of money who exercise the old adage that it takes money to make money, or perhaps a corollary: it's not that difficult to make more money if you start with a lot. There's no hint of experience outside of understanding how some wealthy people get wealthier. In theory, there may be nothing wrong with that of course. But at a time when everybody else is getting poorer, there's good reason to consider the broader impact of his limited experience and world view. He's not running for CEO of a venture capital firm. He's trying to become the Republican nominee for president.
.
Mitt Romney characterizes himself as someone who knows how jobs are destroyed and how they're created. Leaning on his experience on the board of Bain Capital, the wealthy eternal political candidate and one term Massachusetts governor projects real-world management experience that would be a benefit to the nation. Botched attempts by Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry to challenge the character of that experience backfired. The would-be exploration into Mitt Romney's character and its potential effect on jobs and the economy was morphed into a referendum on “free-market capitalism”.
Fox News presents a conflict of views between Romney's “vulture capitalism” as portrayed in the Winning Our Future Gingrich PAC documentary "King of Bain: When Mitt Romney Came to Town" and an advocate of “limited government and free market enterprise”.
The distortion in Fox's argument should be obvious. None of the actual subjects, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Mitt Romney, can honestly be associated with limited government. Nonetheless, the stage is set to see who can come off as the most simple-minded extremely capitalistic economic freedom lover verses what “Michael Moore and President Obama offer." Adam Smith would not be amused but it's great two-party political theater.
The Gingrich PAC mishandled some facts. That's quite consistent with Newt Gingrich. We'll never get an honest understanding of what Romney did and how he did it at Bain from Mitt Romney and his supporters either. We know that Romney was in the money business. He was an investor, not the guy on the working end of building businesses and creating jobs. Romney supporters argue that it doesn't matter to a president. In the spirit of total black-and-whiteism; government doesn't create jobs, the private sector does.
Nonetheless, Romney himself continues to see his limited private sector experience at Bain Capital as a huge plus on his political resume. These are some guys with access to a lot of money who exercise the old adage that it takes money to make money, or perhaps a corollary: it's not that difficult to make more money if you start with a lot. There's no hint of experience outside of understanding how some wealthy people get wealthier. In theory, there may be nothing wrong with that of course. But at a time when everybody else is getting poorer, there's good reason to consider the broader impact of his limited experience and world view. He's not running for CEO of a venture capital firm. He's trying to become the Republican nominee for president.
.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Intelligence Officer: Ron Paul Is Right on Iran
When will Republicans start realizing that Ron Paul is the old Republican thought on foreign policy and stop letting the neo-cons to hijack the debate on foreign issues.
He has tons of support from the intelligence community and this is just another example:
He has tons of support from the intelligence community and this is just another example:
Liberty Merchandise
Looking for some Liberty Merchandise....check out these new styles and start showing your support for the cause!
Breaking! RON PAUL WARNS OF WORLD CURRENCY PLAN
In South Carolina Congressman Ron Paul warned of a plan to create a world currency that would replace the dollar. Every candidate, except Ron Paul, would allow this to happen because they don't understand the power of economics and you can not allow the world governing body to take over this country!
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Mitt Romney's Magical Mystery Tour
By Roger F. Gay
In the video below, “establishment candidate” for the Republican nomination and amateur magician Mitt Romney describes a seemingly miraculous trick of fiscal conservatism. In Massachusetts, he managed to socialize medicine and institute a host of other progressive changes together with a left-leaning Democratic Party legislature while at the same time cutting taxes and balancing the budget. Barack Obama ran as a “moderate” while copying RomneyCare and is now adopting another part of Romney's campaign, promising to “downsize government” through reorganization while implementing progressive programs that dramatically increase government size, intrusion, and cost.
Oh gosh, you might be thinking. We've already seen the Obama show. Aren't sequels always disappointing? If either of these guys becomes president, there is no hope for change. You'd be right. Like Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama, Mitt Romney has never balanced a budget. Like with Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama, the rhetoric is a set-up for a con.
At the risk of running afoul of the magicians' guild, let me explain the trick with RomneyCare as an example. Politicians at the federal level expressed an interest in instituting socialized medicine. If you've been watching politics since at least the Clinton era, you know that already. The idea was called HillaryCare back when hubby was POTUS. It-Takes-a-Village Hillary resided over months of public “conversation” on the topic, ending in the unequivocal conclusion that it was a very bad idea. It didn't make sense in terms of health care quality or coverage and was extremely fiscally irresponsible.
But in the bizarro establishment world of politics, that doesn't make it go away. Lots of money, you say? It'll be up to us to decide how to spend it, you say? All the rest fell on deaf ears.
Romney's Massachusetts then became the “incubator” in which to hatch the marketing program. Armed with tons of federal money, provided not altogether willingly by taxpayers from all states, it was certainly affordable in the short term. It's the ultimate Ponzi scheme, beginning at the end of the game by forcing the greatest mass of “investors” to pay into the limited “experiment.”
This isn't balancing the budget at all, any more than it would be to ignore borrowing and debt to make that claim. Taxpayers are still paying the bill even when costs are shifted to the federal level. It's not a new trick. Governors all over the country do the same thing while pretending to be fiscal conservatives, or at least “moderates,” while collectively forcing the entire nation into bankruptcy. And gearing up under either the name RomneyCare or ObamaCare will destroy the illusion. As the cost adds up in all states, the Ponzi scheme collapses.
This same trick is also used by federal politicians to fake political conservatism. They'll tell us that these things are best left to the states, just as the Constitution says. Laughing all the way to their own personal banks, they'll add “to implement the federal mandates.” Yes, federal funding comes with strings attached. Funding, together with “mandates” is the way power is traditionally shifted to the federal government, which also causes civil rights to disappear.
.
In the video below, “establishment candidate” for the Republican nomination and amateur magician Mitt Romney describes a seemingly miraculous trick of fiscal conservatism. In Massachusetts, he managed to socialize medicine and institute a host of other progressive changes together with a left-leaning Democratic Party legislature while at the same time cutting taxes and balancing the budget. Barack Obama ran as a “moderate” while copying RomneyCare and is now adopting another part of Romney's campaign, promising to “downsize government” through reorganization while implementing progressive programs that dramatically increase government size, intrusion, and cost.
Oh gosh, you might be thinking. We've already seen the Obama show. Aren't sequels always disappointing? If either of these guys becomes president, there is no hope for change. You'd be right. Like Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama, Mitt Romney has never balanced a budget. Like with Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama, the rhetoric is a set-up for a con.
At the risk of running afoul of the magicians' guild, let me explain the trick with RomneyCare as an example. Politicians at the federal level expressed an interest in instituting socialized medicine. If you've been watching politics since at least the Clinton era, you know that already. The idea was called HillaryCare back when hubby was POTUS. It-Takes-a-Village Hillary resided over months of public “conversation” on the topic, ending in the unequivocal conclusion that it was a very bad idea. It didn't make sense in terms of health care quality or coverage and was extremely fiscally irresponsible.
But in the bizarro establishment world of politics, that doesn't make it go away. Lots of money, you say? It'll be up to us to decide how to spend it, you say? All the rest fell on deaf ears.
Romney's Massachusetts then became the “incubator” in which to hatch the marketing program. Armed with tons of federal money, provided not altogether willingly by taxpayers from all states, it was certainly affordable in the short term. It's the ultimate Ponzi scheme, beginning at the end of the game by forcing the greatest mass of “investors” to pay into the limited “experiment.”
This isn't balancing the budget at all, any more than it would be to ignore borrowing and debt to make that claim. Taxpayers are still paying the bill even when costs are shifted to the federal level. It's not a new trick. Governors all over the country do the same thing while pretending to be fiscal conservatives, or at least “moderates,” while collectively forcing the entire nation into bankruptcy. And gearing up under either the name RomneyCare or ObamaCare will destroy the illusion. As the cost adds up in all states, the Ponzi scheme collapses.
This same trick is also used by federal politicians to fake political conservatism. They'll tell us that these things are best left to the states, just as the Constitution says. Laughing all the way to their own personal banks, they'll add “to implement the federal mandates.” Yes, federal funding comes with strings attached. Funding, together with “mandates” is the way power is traditionally shifted to the federal government, which also causes civil rights to disappear.
.
Friday, January 13, 2012
POLL: Paul Surges, Santorum Plunges in South Carolina...
Coming off a strong second place showing in the New Hampshire Primary, Ron Paul has surged in the South Carolina polling conducted this week by the American Research Group:
Mitt Romney leads the South Carolina Republican presidential primary with 29%. Newt Gingrich is in second place with 25% and Ron Paul is in third place with 20%.
Paul has gained the most and Rick Santorum has lost the most since the last American Research Group survey on January 4-5. In that survey, Paul was at 9% and Santorum was at 24%.
Gingrich and Romney are tied among self-identified Republicans with 29% each, followed by Paul with 18%. Paul leads among independents and Democrats with 29%, followed by Romney with 27%, Gingrich with 12%, and Rick Perry with 11%.
Gingrich leads among those likely primary voters saying they are supporters of the Tea Party with 28%, followed by Romney with 24%, Paul with 20%, and Santorum with 11%. Romney leads with 33% among those saying they are not supporters of the Tea Party or are undecided about the Tea Party, followed by Gingrich with 23%, and Paul with 21%.
Gingrich leads among evangelical Christians with 40%, followed by Perry with 15%, Romney with 13%, Santorum with 12%, and Paul with 10%. Among likely voters saying they are not evangelical Christians, Romney leads with 48% and followed by Paul with 33%.
Gingrich leads among men with 29%, followed by Paul with 23%, Romney at 18%, and Santorum with 14%. Among women, Romney leads with 38%, followed Gingrich with 22%, and Paul with 18%.
Mr. Romney and the Bane of Capitalism
By Roger F. Gay
Mitt Romney's behavior at Bain Capital has been a subject of interest lately, triggering a discussion on capitalism itself and Mr. Romney's relationship with it. According to Michael Lind of the New America Foundation, it's Mitt Romney's naiveté that may have caused the accidental looting of companies and investors for profit. Romney's public service psyche is like a George Bailey (It's a Wonderful Life) who just doesn't understand what modern day Mr. Potters do with money.
Lind describes two kinds of capitalism; “stakeholder” and “shareholder.”
The dichotomy set up by Mr. Lind seems to give us a choice between a more Western European / George Bailey style capitalism (the nice kind) and the naughty and destructive post-1970 American version, properly characterized by Edward Lewis (the “corporate raider” in Pretty Woman) before he fell in love. In this context, Mr. Romney's political progressivism may be forgiven; especially if the fact that he actually represents the Edward Lewis sector has somehow been lost to his George Bailey heart.
Lind ends his commentary with this.
.
Mitt Romney's behavior at Bain Capital has been a subject of interest lately, triggering a discussion on capitalism itself and Mr. Romney's relationship with it. According to Michael Lind of the New America Foundation, it's Mitt Romney's naiveté that may have caused the accidental looting of companies and investors for profit. Romney's public service psyche is like a George Bailey (It's a Wonderful Life) who just doesn't understand what modern day Mr. Potters do with money.
Lind describes two kinds of capitalism; “stakeholder” and “shareholder.”
According to the theory of stakeholder capitalism, corporations are and should be quasi-public entities with responsibilities to the nation-state and to the communities in which they are embedded. The corporation should make a profit and provide a fair return to investors. At the same time, workers who contribute their labor to the company have a legitimate interest in it as well as investors who provide capital. Managers serve the company and the country, not merely the investors.While Lind points out that stakeholder capitalism is the “norm in Europe and East Asia,” which is actually owing to less historical distinction between the public and private sector, he insists that it prevailed in the United States until the 1970s. This somehow places Romney in its grace; even though he co-founded Bain Capital in 1983 and led the business during the periods 1984 to 1990 and 1992 to 1999. Just prior to 1970, he was living in France as a Mormon missionary. (Not exactly a third world country.)
In the theory of "shareholder capitalism," the corporation exists solely for the purpose of the investors, whom the managers serve as agents. In shareholder capitalism, short-term profits are the only goal, and if that means laying off workers instead of retraining them or reassigning them, breaking up the company and selling the assets to enrich private equity partners and shareholders, so be it.
The dichotomy set up by Mr. Lind seems to give us a choice between a more Western European / George Bailey style capitalism (the nice kind) and the naughty and destructive post-1970 American version, properly characterized by Edward Lewis (the “corporate raider” in Pretty Woman) before he fell in love. In this context, Mr. Romney's political progressivism may be forgiven; especially if the fact that he actually represents the Edward Lewis sector has somehow been lost to his George Bailey heart.
Lind ends his commentary with this.
Nominated as secretary of Defense by President Eisenhower in 1953, former General Motors CEO Charles "Engine Charlie" Wilson, a symbol of old-fashioned stakeholder capitalism, told the Senate that "I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa."Should Americans wait until Mitt Romney becomes president to find out whether he's good for the country? To me, that seems worse than passing a bill in order to find out what it says. Suggested reading: How to Become a Paulbot.
Does Mitt Romney, today's symbol of shareholder capitalism, believe that what is good for Bain is good for America? If he wins his party's nomination and this year's presidential election, Americans will find out.
.
What's the Tea Party?
Roger F. Gay
On TV, the Tea Party looked like a grand plan to bring the Republican Party establishment back from the dead. “Taxed Enough Already” (TEA) set the often arbitrary and easily manipulated mantra of fiscal conservatism at its core; the one area they said, in which we would all agree. The objective at the top, it seemed, was nothing more than to put the Republican Party in power.
But one could not help but notice the trimmings that attracted the crowds. There was a lot of talk about returning to Constitutional rule. It was rather easy to say back then, with Democrats holding both the House and the Senate as well as the White House. Another thing to move in that direction once the Republicans took back the House. And then there's the great challenge of getting a serious transformational presidential nominee out of a field clustered with RINOs.
It was more interesting to consider the “grass roots” of the Tea Party; the ordinary people drawn in by talk of a government under control; Of The People, By the People, and For the People. After the initial hoopla, what seemed almost an underground movement emerged. They talked not only about defeating the Democrats, but quite seriously about taking back the Republican Party. And they had a plan.
If ordinary people were too powerless to cut off the head of the great RINO snake, they would work from the bottom up. Eventually, with enough time and effort, the prize would be theirs. In the mean time, I was told to just vote Republican – the presumed lesser of two evils. This is not to be taken as an official Tea Party statement or position – see below. It's only a summary of comments by some individuals who were active in the idea that the Tea Party is a mechanism to reform the GOP.
Maybe old habits die hard. That was a little pessimistic in my view and potentially counter-productive.
What I've seen lately of the Tea Party unravels the paradox of a leaderless organization intent on accomplishing concrete positive change. There are people getting together all across the country. Some of them meet and exchange information and ideas on the Internet, on sites such as FreedomConnector (promoted by Glenn Beck). There is no official spokesman associated with these operations that can endorse any candidate. Claims to the contrary are bogus.
(UPDATE: See also; Man on probation, fined for role in tea party scam)
But while Mitt Romney is buying endorsements from other Republican politicians, a poll at FreedomConnector (as of Jan. 13, 2012) shows Ron Paul as the favorite (44%) among participants with Romney holding a poor fourth (5%).
What's striking is that people are paying attention, learning about candidates, considering their positions like I've never seen before, and trying to sift through the crud to sort out who's actually naughty and who's nice. They can take that knowledge to the polls when they vote. And this, it seems to me, is how they can have the power to set things right.
Knowledge is Power! Visit The Libertarian Examiner often.
.
On TV, the Tea Party looked like a grand plan to bring the Republican Party establishment back from the dead. “Taxed Enough Already” (TEA) set the often arbitrary and easily manipulated mantra of fiscal conservatism at its core; the one area they said, in which we would all agree. The objective at the top, it seemed, was nothing more than to put the Republican Party in power.
But one could not help but notice the trimmings that attracted the crowds. There was a lot of talk about returning to Constitutional rule. It was rather easy to say back then, with Democrats holding both the House and the Senate as well as the White House. Another thing to move in that direction once the Republicans took back the House. And then there's the great challenge of getting a serious transformational presidential nominee out of a field clustered with RINOs.
It was more interesting to consider the “grass roots” of the Tea Party; the ordinary people drawn in by talk of a government under control; Of The People, By the People, and For the People. After the initial hoopla, what seemed almost an underground movement emerged. They talked not only about defeating the Democrats, but quite seriously about taking back the Republican Party. And they had a plan.
If ordinary people were too powerless to cut off the head of the great RINO snake, they would work from the bottom up. Eventually, with enough time and effort, the prize would be theirs. In the mean time, I was told to just vote Republican – the presumed lesser of two evils. This is not to be taken as an official Tea Party statement or position – see below. It's only a summary of comments by some individuals who were active in the idea that the Tea Party is a mechanism to reform the GOP.
Maybe old habits die hard. That was a little pessimistic in my view and potentially counter-productive.
What I've seen lately of the Tea Party unravels the paradox of a leaderless organization intent on accomplishing concrete positive change. There are people getting together all across the country. Some of them meet and exchange information and ideas on the Internet, on sites such as FreedomConnector (promoted by Glenn Beck). There is no official spokesman associated with these operations that can endorse any candidate. Claims to the contrary are bogus.
(UPDATE: See also; Man on probation, fined for role in tea party scam)
But while Mitt Romney is buying endorsements from other Republican politicians, a poll at FreedomConnector (as of Jan. 13, 2012) shows Ron Paul as the favorite (44%) among participants with Romney holding a poor fourth (5%).
What's striking is that people are paying attention, learning about candidates, considering their positions like I've never seen before, and trying to sift through the crud to sort out who's actually naughty and who's nice. They can take that knowledge to the polls when they vote. And this, it seems to me, is how they can have the power to set things right.
Knowledge is Power! Visit The Libertarian Examiner often.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)