Ron Paul Sweeps Louisiana and Keeps On Winning!

Doug Wead was on The Robert Scott Bell Show yesterday talking about the sweep in Louisiana and the continued winning strategy of the campaign.

I would not vote for Obama if he were the Republican nominee. That explains why I'll never vote for Romney.

By Roger F. Gay

OMG! OBAMA! AAAAAAAAAHHHHH!

By now you're familiar with Mitt Romney's argument in favor of himself. He's not Barack Obama. Many people have their doubts. It's hard to imagine two politicians as equal in politics and character. In an effort to overcome this rather glaring problem, his guys are asserting that Barack is a Communist. “At least Romney is not,” they argue. Well, look guys; you can't have it both ways.

Among the dirty and sometimes sad last minute tricks with automatic dialers, the Romney folks have been running the old familiar “I'll repeal ObamaCare” routine, as if we should all have an enormous stake in referring to it as RomneyCare instead. If it were to come to pass, Ms. Clinton would probably defeat Romney in 2016 by holding “a conversation” to remind everyone that it was called HillaryCare before it was called ObamaCare or RomneyCare.

The details, intended to convince voters that Romney's approach to national socialized medicine is substantially different when compared to Obama's approach to national socialized medicine is that Romney will “leave it to the states.” If you've read my articles regularly, you weren't fooled by that. I've described the trick more than once. Let me summarize once again for those just tuning in.

The federal government does not have Constitutional authority to establish or manage any sort of welfare system, including a national health care (or health insurance) system. Through step-by-step “slippery slope” developments, survivor benefits provided as part of military compensation evolved into the welfare state that we have today; but not by allowing the federal government to directly establish or manage any sort of welfare system.

The federal government offers large amounts of money to the states to run their welfare programs; but it's not without strings attached. In order for the states to receive the funding, they must agree to implement “mandates.” This is how federal takeovers work. Politicians and bureaucrats manipulate the mandates and states effectively become administrative units under the control of the federal bureaucracy. And it's a lot of money, more than enough to have invited a vast amount of corruption.

States occasionally resist, but rarely say no. To make federal leverage even more powerful, the funds for a variety of programs are packaged together in “blocs”, and called “bloc grants.” States are then not allowed to choose which of the programs they agree to and which they reject. They must participate in all the programs in the bloc, implementing all the mandates, or receive no funding at all for that entire bloc. States occasionally complain, but never say no.

This is the way that it's done, and it doesn't matter whether the president has a D or an R behind his name. It wouldn't matter in the least whether the project is commonly called ObamaCare or RomneyCare or HillaryCare. It really doesn't matter at all which party succeeds in taking credit. The only difference is in the spin. The Democrats would call it a federal government accomplishment, more proof that consolidation and expansion of central control is always a good thing. Republicans, claiming to be “conservative” (while developing national socialized medicine – how bizarre is that?) will say that they're “leaving it to the states” (sshhh … to implement the mandates).

There is another trick, and one you should know about. Lots of this stuff that the federal government funds doesn't actually do anything good. That's become tiresome for the politicians because geeks like me come along and point out that many of the programs don't produce the advertised results. So, they started releasing states from some of the mandates, “leaving it to the states” to defend themselves. But the states don't need to either. There are no mandates, just money being passed to the states and getting lost somewhere and nobody seems able to find it. Money? What money? Program? What program? What purpose? What goals? (Yes indeed, “earmarks” are not the definition of federal “pork”.)

It's a racket. It's a money machine, pumping 100s of billions of dollars into the hands of political (and business) friends (and into their own pockets). It's not about political ideology or theory. They're just stealing stuff, and it doesn't matter whether there's an R or a D behind their names.

.

FOX News Admits Ron Paul Will Be On The Ballot at The National Convention in Tampa!

Mitt Romney: The Fake Republican Nominee

By Roger F. Gay

Throughout my decades of studying and writing about policy and politics, I've made a continuous effort at being accurate. Picking the right word to replace the wrong word used by Big Media is part of the process. The thoughts behind this article, that Mitt Romney is a “fake” nominee, got started by accident. I was making a comment somewhere and misspelled “presumptive,” the word that's constantly being used to pretend, falsely, that Romney has won the Republican nomination, or can't possibly lose. Using the spell-checker too quickly resulted in a new description, Mitt Romney as the “preemptive” nominee. Hmmm … I thought. Thanks spell-checker! That's actually a more accurate description.

It's an awfully good word choice that perhaps requires of some readers a little too much knowledge and logic. For starters, you need to know what the word “preemptive” means. In context, “the establishment” is afraid of losing to Ron Paul. Mitt Romney, the most sociopathic and criminally minded candidate in the Republican field, is their choice. So, they “preemptively” declared Mitt Romney the winner and continue to pretend that Ron Paul isn't a serious contender, never has been, and never could be. This media campaign can only promote acceptance of the intended outcome as establishment thugs work continuously to stuff ballot boxes in Romney's favor.

That says a lot, doesn't it. There is an overwhelming national media bias in Romney's favor, going so far as to totally ignore his only serious rival when they're not trashing his campaign; and yet, even given this 100% handicap to help him along, they still have to cheat at the polls just to keep him in the game. Where the voting masses have managed to take control and carry out a fair and honest process, Ron Paul has totally beaten the crap out of Mitt Romney every time.

For those who are paying attention, the difference between Paul and Romney support is obvious. You see it in the overwhelming contrast in turn-out when the two speak in public. Ron Paul packs stadiums. Mitt Romney uses close-up shots of 20 paid supporters waving signs produced by his staff. Big Media shows you Mitt Romney type shots in both cases, so as not to let on that there's a difference. In a bizarre twist of logic, Bill O'Reilly found Ron Paul's support so awesome when conducting online polls that he decided that it shouldn't count, reporting only the results of the pathetically trailing pack, scaling those results up as if they had more support.

Is media bias, vote rigging, and rally turn-out not enough to convince you? Well, that's not all. Consider once again the total media bias against Ron Paul, pushing for acceptance of Mitt Romney as the nominee. Now, in that context, with this huge handicap in Mitt Romney's favor and every ounce of muscle Big Media can muster working against Ron Paul; Ron Paul has consistently polled well, in reliable polls, against Barack Obama. Mitt Romney has not. Although it's a bit close at the moment, Rasmussen has conducted two match-up polls recently, both giving the same order of voter preference: #1 Ron Paul, #2 Barack Obama, #3 Mitt Romney.

OK, I know. Romney's team is lying about the polls. They give different results and those results are often parroted by Big Media. So let's do one more. If you're not convinced after this one, then you might be as brain-dead as Bill O'Reilly seems to be and there is no amount of facts and logic and common sense than can help fix you; or you just need to try harder to figure out what's going on yourself than the establishment wants you to.

We know that we are a politically polarized nation. There are people on the left and people on the right. That's a vast oversimplification, but it's the reason we've tolerated a de facto two-party system for so long. In theory, if you have two groups of people who identify with each side of this polarity selecting two different candidates, you end up with a choice between two different kinds of presidents. Given the national experience of the past three and a half years, we also know with great certainty what kind of president the people don't want.

Barack Obama has a lower approval rating than any American president before him. “The right” didn't want him in the first place. Since he assumed office, people from across the political spectrum have turned out in the streets to protest his agenda along with the overwhelming corruption, the lack of Constitutional control of government activities that is destroying the country politically, and certainly the vast amount of pork and cronyism that is destroying the country economically.

Barack Obama may still be the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party if challengers cannot overcome the power and money of the “assumptive” president. But what would you say the odds are that an honest process on the other side of the political spectrum would yield a nominee who is politically indistinguishable? The answer is in definition and a very real slice of reality. The probability of that happening through any honest means is absolute zero.

Mitt Romney is not the choice of voters in the process. He is not the nominee now, no matter how much he and Big Media pretend him to be. If he is installed at the Republican Convention later his year, he will be a fake nominee; a fraud, an illegitimate contender for the presidency.

It's so obvious this time around that it's worth taking a good hard look at the corruption in the process and how “the establishment” rigs elections. Once you see it, you'll question other races as well. It's very likely that many in Congress, state houses and legislatures, and even Supreme Court justices (appointed by presidents), the people who have been ruling the country, are not supposed to be there at all.

 

 

 

.  

It's Easy to Spot a Fake Conservative

By Roger F. Gay

If you're paying the slightest bit of attention, you've heard it or read it, and probably both. Support Mitt Romney because Barack Obama is bad, mmkay! If you've been reading my articles, you're also aware of my occasional nagging about the “lesser of two evils” con. I'm not the only one nagging about it either. It's all part of the new awakening. People are jumping on the “I'm Not Stupid” bandwagon. We're not going to fall for it.

Mitt Romney shows us what may be the closest example of a pure negative campaign strategy. Slip into debate and analysis of his record and character and there isn't a dime's worth of difference between this wanna-be R candidate and the D rival. He lies about it of course. What's important is to create enough distraction so that there's just too little time questioning and challenging his lies. His opposition will question them, but hey – who's going to believe them?

His best strategy does not include encouraging any detailed examination of his politics. In fact, his only reasonable strategy is “Obama is bad, mmkay! Don't vote for Obama. Obama is bad!” Then hope there are enough people who don't pay much attention who will think that R is their only alternative and no matter who the candidate is, imagine he might be better. There will of course be many. The question is whether there would be “enough”. In Romney's case, it is quite doubtful that there would be, but that's not the subject of this article.

Blindly throwing out the known bad guy is a time honored tradition. Can't get worse, right? Of course it can. I used to think this way myself. Turns out that it can get worse and it does get worse, and then it gets worse some more before getting much worse. Not everybody knows that, apparently. Pure negative campaigning wouldn't work at all if they did. We'd all be asking, “What makes you better?” and not letting the details fly over our heads. We'd yank them down and subject them to reality checks. Big Media wouldn't get away with slipping them past us or ignoring details altogether. They'd either do a proper job or we wouldn't tune in.

Let us imagine, just for the sake of argument, that Romney is in some way or another slightly better than Obama. Heck; we can even imagine that he's better than “slightly better.” It's still extremely simple to know that Mitt Romney is not a conservative and that his supporters know it. For example, both Obama and Romney are for national socialized medicine. Romney claims his approach to it is better than Obama's. It's not. When the details are subjected to a reality check, it's obvious they're the same. How could they not be? It's national socialized medicine no matter how you spin it. But that's not the subject of this article.

“Somewhat better”? Last time I actually used my brain to consider that idea, it seemed quite relative. Isn't that an obvious give-away? Conservatives believe in absolutes. Sure, some things are relative. $100 trillion is more than $100 billion. But conservatives still know that $100 billion is a lot of money even when it's compared to a larger amount. And even conservatives-light understand that when you spend $100 billion here and $100 billion there; pretty soon it adds up!

Real conservatives can and do come to grips with absolute minimum standards for political candidates. I mean, if you've got two armed men hell-bent on raping and pillaging breaking into your home, one at the front door and one at the back, you don't waste time wondering which one might pretend to respect you in the morning. The right answer is to shoot 'em both.
.

A FORMER SANTORUM SUPPORTER EXPLAINS HIS SWITCH TO PAUL

Adrian Murray of Fort Worth Texas, a former Rick Santorum supporter, shares his conversion to Ron Paul. This blog post has gone viral and for good reason–Mr. Murray’s sober insight should be read by anyone concerned about protecting liberty and saving this country. Thanks you Mr. Murray for your intelligent observations and everyone, please share.

Having lost my preferred choice for a presidential candidate on Tuesday, I determined that after a suitable period of mourning and reflection the only viable option was to shake it off and begin the search anew, the presumptive, media-anointed frontrunner not being desirable or acceptable.

Last night, as part of this Quixote-like quest, I ventured into the heretofore unexplored dimension of a Ron Paul rally and was witness to something that can only be described as all parts exhilarating, befuddling, encouraging, depressing, moving, maddening and, ultimately, inspiring. More on all that later.

Over the years I have been to more political rallies, events, forums, roundtables, discussion groups, debates and whatever than I care to remember… Attending a Ron Paul campaign rally is a singularly unique experience. I have never seen anything like it before. Perhaps phenomenal is the word that comes closest in accuracy, not in the ordinary “awesome” sense, but in the other-worldly, spatiotemporal sense…

The purpose of this piece is not to analyze Mr. Paul’s specific policies, although my worldview does not coalesce with his on many fronts…

I have spoken before a lot of groups in the last several years as we have all grappled with the seeming dissolution of our country… My point has been that the greatest issue facing the conservative cause is a demographical one, a lack of diversity that will shortly render the conservative message irrelevant. Where are the youth? I and others have asked. Where are the people of color? Why doesn’t the conservative message resonate?

The answer to where they are could be found last night at the Will Rogers Auditorium. Often at political events there is a sense of excitement, anticipation, a certain buzz in the audience while waiting for the main event. Excitement, anticipation and buzz are weak and inadequate words to describe the pre-rally crowd last night. Energy is even inadequate. What undulated through the thousands who thronged outside before the doors opened last night was a kinetic power, the power of hope, the power of liberation, the power of anger at a system turned upside down, the power of liberation and, yes, the ultimate and emancipating power of freedom. You had to be there to understand it.

Once inside, for the only time in my politically active life, I was transported to a world I had not seen before. There was enough energy in that room to power a skyscraper. Teenagers, college students, whites, Hispanics, African Americans, Asians, middle-aged, elderly, every racial, ethnic, socio-economic, cross cultural ingredient of the American melting pot was there. The auditorium was a cauldron of American citizens who understand and have grasped the true nature of the tyranny which has befallen this nation, a conflagration, if you will, of passion and anger and joy and determination. This is where the fire starts this time. The eruption when Mr. Paul took the stage was deafening…

Foreign policy, while a crucial element of any president’s agenda, has slowly shifted from my center of attention to domestic policy, I having long come to the conclusion that the greatest threat to American freedom comes not from foreign governments, but from our own. Sadly, America has become one of the least free nations on earth. Increasingly, everything in our lives is being regulated by a faceless bureaucracy, to a degree that neither Orwell nor Huxley could have imagined…

What exactly is our national security securing? Certainly not our liberty. We have been sacrificing ever larger chucks of our liberty to the gods of security for decades now and in the interests of securing our liberty have given it all away. Go to an airport if you want to witness the loss of liberty in all its glorious humiliation…

This part of Mr. Paul’s message, if I have interpreted it correctly, is what resonates with me. All the other things pale in contrast to our becoming a nation of slaves.

So what did I come away with last night? It can be captured in one picture. Before Mr. Paul was introduced, part of his family took the stage: his wife, one of his sons, a smattering of cousins, nieces and nephews. That picture tells us all we need to know. They are us. They weren’t pulled from central casting, exquisitely coifed and finely tailored, prepped and ready for the cameras. No. They are a family. They are us.

Where personally do I go now? As I said, I have more internal debates than an outwardly sane person should admit. For over three years now I

have been looking for an army – an army to take on the anti-Americans, the Communists, the statists, the outright criminals running our government. An army of citizens fiercely devoted to liberty and the founding principles of America…

The flame of liberty’s torch is no longer just slowly being extinguished. Each day brings new Executive Orders, new laws, new regulations, each more ominous than the last. Corruption in our government and our financial markets is rampant. The disease of dependency is infecting every layer of society. America is dying. We need an army of citizens, motivated and committed, to restore liberty in America, to breathe new life, new vibrancy into a nation on life support…

Which logically only leads to one question:

Is there a doctor in the house?

Which logically only leads to one answer:

Ron Paul 2012

Click here for source article.
.

John Stossel Speaks to Former Federal Reserve Employee

It is quite known that the Federal Reserve is one of the most secret corrupt agencies in the Federal Government.

Stossel discusses competing currencies and central planning with a former Federal Reserve employee.

Breaking!!! Ron Paul Wins National Convention Delegates in Colorado and Minnesota

Ron Paul's strategy of picking off delegates from Mitt Romney seems to be paying off in the states that are not winner take all in terms of delegate count. The states of Colorado and Minnesota had their conventions this week that elected delegates to the Republican National Convention in Florida later this year and the news coming out of these two states is very good!

From the Examiner:

2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul achieved consequential delegate wins in Colorado and Minnesota today, affirming his delegate-attainment strategy and auguring a prominent role for Paul at the Republican National Convention in Tampa. 

 In Minnesota, Ron Paul supporters swept the three district conventions that occurred today, winning nine of nine delegates to the national convention.  Minnesota is set to hold more such conventions next week.

In Colorado, supporters of the 12-term Congressman from Texas won 12 delegates and 13 alternate delegates.  Paul’s state operation is confident that it can win over more of the Rick Santorum delegates to its side who were elected on a combined Paul-Santorum slate.  The Paul-Santorum coalition’s combined delegate total is 20—more than establishment candidate Mitt Romney's estimated 16.  In addition, the Paul-Santorum coalition denied Romney delegates all the committee spots within the Colorado National Delegation.  Two Ron Paul supporters will serve on the Rules Committee and the Paul coalition dethroned known Romney supporter and Colorado State Party Chairman Ryan Call from his position as Delegation Chairman.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Ron Paul wins Minnesota, Colorado delegates to Republican National Convention - Wilmington Elections 2012 | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-wilmington/ron-paul-wins-minnesota-colorado-delegates-to-republican-national-convention#ixzz1s7s8oAvE

Ron Paul has gained tremendous momentum by staying in the race as long as he had done and it seems to be paying off for the Congressman. The national media will bury this story way deep because they know that there is going to be a problem for Mitt Romney in Florida even though they are hyping him up as the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party.

The ideas of Paul and the libertarian movement are taking hold in this country and they are sweeping the Republican Party with ease. People are tired of the way things are going in this country and they are looking for an alternative to the status quo. Ron Paul is that alternative and he is now the anti-Mitt Romney wing of the Republican Party with Santorum having dropped out of the race.

The R3VOLUTION has started!!!

BREAKING: Romney Suspends Campaign for Republican Nomination!!!

By Roger F. Gay

(Click for related article: Can We Please Stop Apologizing To Anne Romney?)

Mitt Romney has apparently suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination to join a side show arranged the DNC.

It's been said that the more people get to know Mitt Romney, the more they dislike him. He has often been seen as “the stealth candidate,” hiding in the shadows and either refusing to take positions on important issues or waffling back and forth to fit the day's audience, and leaving much of the actual campaigning to advertising executives. Now he's apparently dropped out to participate in a side-show.

Click here: Rosen vs. Romney: Anatomy of a controversy

Democratic strategist and CNN contributor Hilary Rosen apologized Thursday to Ann Romney, wife of presumptive GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, for criticizing her choice to be a stay-at-home mother -- but not before sparking a political firestorm with her remarks.

Sure, any man would defend his wife, right? Here's what sparked the Romney to suspend his campaign and Big Media to leave the political trail to follow. (transcript)

What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, "Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues. And when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing."

Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and how do we -- why we worry about their future.

Classic 20th Century political theater to be sure, the likes of which we haven't seen since (link) Nancy Pelosi worked with Newt Gingrich in December. Rosen wants “working women” to vote for Democrats. Getting the Gender War up and running again is pretty easy. Most people know that what takes effort is not to have one. Of course, the controversy sparked Hillary Clinton quotes on Facebook, now representing all women everywhere against the oppression of men.

Good for Romney? He wants a new distraction now that he's facing Ron Paul by his lonesome. He also hopes to pick up some Santorum voters with some “social conservative” lines. But now he's apparently running against Hilary Rosen. She's not in the race for the Republican nomination.
.

How Ron Paul Can Beat the GOP Nomination Fix

By Roger F. Gay

This article is being offered to a group think process. Help finish it by adding your suggestions.

Last year, when the Republican candidates were trotted out, it took less than two seconds for all the talking heads to agree that Mitt Romney is “the establishment choice.” The other “mainstream” candidates were there to put on a show, make it look like a horse race to help with their ratings, and to give the impression that Romney is a winner at the end. Ron Paul, the only serious politically conservative candidate, quickly became “the 13th floor of a hotel.” (Jon Stewart)

The other candidates also helped the media keep attention from the only genuine political contest; the establishment verses Constitutional rule; the establishment's choice verses a steadfast warrior for legitimate, limited government and the rule of law. Even more concretely, they have captured “not Romney” votes, many from people whose primary concern is that Romney not get the nomination. There are people who express their feelings about Romney by saying things like they wouldn't walk across the street to have a free breakfast with him, or more crudely, to relive themselves if he was on fire. Their votes now constitute delegates that may be turned over to Romney at the convention.

By all factors that I've been able to observe and test, the “not Romney” sentiment is much stronger than Romney support. In fact, the only “Romney supporters” I've run into lately in regular online political discussions have been paid operatives acting like thugs trying to bully and intimidate a much larger number of Paul supporters.

At this point, if you don't know that “establishment” thugs have been rigging the election, you're just not paying attention. At one caucus location where an operative tried to ram through a list of Romney delegates, and caucus goers objected, the meeting was summarily ended, and the police were ultimately called in to remove the caucus participants, whose only goal had been to see that the caucus process played out honestly according to the rules. The video evidence was so strong that they got a “do over.” One of the people who had been arrested the first time was elected to lead the caucus process. It was carried out calmly and coolly according to the rules. All of the delegates chosen “by the people” were for Ron Paul, not Mitt Romney.

That may be the most famous case at this point, but it's by far not the only case. “The news” has even covered a few; railroading through whole lists of delegates, changing the rules to add delegates for Romney, vote and delegate counts emerging from behind closed doors that don't match the counts that were officially turned in. (Click here for "Reality Check" videos.) Similar problems have been reported by every caucus goer I've been in contact with, regardless of location. Their guy can't win legitimately, so yes, “the establishment” is cheating. (It's what they do.)

(to be continued …)

.

Witness the Power of an Idea: Ron Paul Massive Rallies 2012

So, you don't think you're brainwashed?

By Roger F. Gay

One of the features of a good brainwashing is stealth. The washed mind doesn't know that it has given up control and is carrying out the will of others. That's why it is so difficult, for example, to wrestle a cult member back to the real world. They are entirely convinced that they have attained a level of understanding that you do not possess and that it would make much more sense to pull you into their “reality” rather than the other way around.

Is there anything in the results of brainwashing that are so easily recognizable that it would tip someone off to the fact that they'd fallen into the trap? If they can identify key behaviors in themselves, will it become easier for them to find their way out of the illogical maze of indoctrination?

At least one of the results of political brainwashing becomes quite obvious when you know to look for it. People will fight savagely for candidates they know little to nothing about, pounding the importance of issues they do not understand, and repeat talking points (from TV's talking heads, etc.) that make little to no sense when examined objectively. The same is true in the negative. They attack opposition candidates that they have not examined, whose positions on issues they have never investigated, because that's what their programming says needs to be done to anyone who stands in the way of their goal. They lie whether defending or attacking, knowing that they're lying, even when they really have no idea what benefit they might actually receive from success.

Obvious enough? If you've engaged in much political discussion, you have seen the behavior. Have you linked it with brainwashing? More importantly: Do you behave this way yourself? If so, do you ever ask yourself why you do it? If you search yourself honestly, admitting that you know less than you often pretend, that you often find yourself out on a limb hoping that your opponent suffers from the same affliction and won't be able to expose you (insisting that everyone is as you and behaves as you – wishful thinking), and the only real answer you have is a will to win, then you have been brainwashed. Your behavior is that of an addict. You want to get a rush from winning. But winning is less satisfying than you imagined (especially since what you've actually won is a mystery). You push farther, with ever more extreme behavior, in the hope that the dull rush of the senseless battle will somehow be turned into ecstasy.

The first step in getting over the addiction is to admit that you have a problem. You don't have to tell me about it. I don't have a clinic. Admit it to yourself. The cure is not as difficult as you might imagine, as long as you're really a “normal” person and your political behavior is an aberration. Once you've recognized this problem, you're well on your way to solving it.

Think about who you really are and just be yourself. You are not the political candidate. You are not being paid to shill for the candidate. There is no reason you should be acting like you're on their team, with a bright and happy extremely well-paid future if he wins. You're just a person. A voter. The benefit you get from the process comes from learning all you can, judging the candidates honestly and objectively, and casting a vote for who you – in the end – believe are not only the best (relative), but that are actually good (hold to at least a minimum acceptable standard).

“In the end” is a key phrase in that explanation. It makes no sense to pick a candidate without learning first, simply by responding emotionally or thinking what the ad said was nice. It makes no sense to throw your support his way as early as possible as if you're giving yourself more chances to win a stuffed Teddy Bear if it goes in the right hole. The primary season begins at least a year before the general election. That gives you plenty of time to dig and learn. If you don't know enough during the primaries, don't participate. If you still don't know enough in November, then admit who you are. Politics just isn't your thing.
.

ObamaCare and the Imaginary Constitution

Just because politicians think something is a "good idea" doesn't make it constitutional.


.

What Ever Happened to the Constitution? | Andrew Napolitano

Presented by Judge Andrew Napolitano at the 2010 Mises University. Includes an introduction by Mises Institute founder and chairman, Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. Recorded 29 July 2010 in Auburn, Alabama.


.

Why the Constitution Had to Be Destroyed | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Archived from the live Mises.tv broadcast, this lecture was presented by Tom DiLorenzo at the Mises Circle in Houston on 14 January 2012.


.

Romney's Losing Political Strategy

By Roger F. Gay

If you're considering entering online political discussions for the first time, let me give you a tip about Romney supporters. They have nothing to say about why we would ever want him to be president. The simple summary of their argument is this: OMG! OBAMA! AAAAAAAAHHHHH!

Laura Ingraham (apparently forgetting that the Republican primary isn't over yet) recently opined that Romney needs to address his poor polling against Obama. He should work to capture right-wing voters who want someone to “restore our national path to prosperity and invigorate our commitment to our founding principles.” She recognized that many are “doubtful that Romney has the commitment to common sense conservatism to get the job done.”

Her prescription “to get those folks to really rally for him” is that “Romney needs to demonstrate quickly that he will take the fight to President Obama.” … “Governor Romney should arise as the adult in the room offering a mature fact-based plan to restore the American dream to all people regardless of race or gender.”

The problem isn't new, nor has it been limited to Mitt Romney. From the very first time the entire Republican field of presidential candidates presented itself last year, the question has been; Where is the Republican candidate who actually represents what is needed? Where is the candidate who has the credibility to present politically conservative ideas convincingly? Most voters agree that it's “not Romney,” a phrase that became the nickname for other establishment candidates during their often short-lived spikes in popularity. They failed too, while only Romney had enough money to maintain support from those who don't really pay much attention but feel the need to participate in primaries anyway. The constant drum-beat of media bias and more than a little election rigging helped too.

The major flaw in the argument given by Romney supporters and the major impediment to curing Romney's problem with Laura Ingraham's prescription is how closely matched Mitt Romney is to Barack Obama. There is a very heavy overlap between their lists of big financial donors. Not surprisingly, there is a very heavy overlap in their political agendas that spin and lies won't cover up.

During Newt Gingrich's day as "not Romney", his supporters argued that he had the medicine Ingraham prescribes. He's really good at debate, they said. Just imagine him in a debate against Obama! What led to Gingrich's downfall wasn't his ability to spin a yarn. Although he displayed no personal insight, intelligence, or imagination of his own, a lot of people liked his canned song and dance, especially his use of jailhouse two step logic to confuse and misdirect. The problem was that Newt Gingrich does not represent the good things he wanted to convince voters that he represents. So, in the end, he didn't come off as the guy who could save America. He came off as exactly the guy that he is; a lying little weasel; a political deadbeat.

Compare Mitt Romney to Newt Gingrich and here's the deeper problem: Mitt Romney is not nearly as good a liar as Newt Gingrich. The fact that Mitt Romney does not represent what voters want is much more well-known and obvious. Throwing him a few extra talking points isn't going to fix it. The problem is with who Mitt Romney is; another lying little weasel; a political deadbeat.

So, let's imagine Mitt Romney “taking the fight to Obama.” Romney uses the new talking points to show that he's the adult in the room, differentiating himself from Obama, and claiming to represent what voters really want. Obama responds, time and time again, with; “Hey wait a minute. You've pursued and promoted the same stuff I am.” Game over!

It's not enough to state that Barack Obama is bad (mmkay), even when emotionally emphasized and in caps. What you need is a better candidate.

The only note of optimism that can end this discussion is what's behind the blinders that Laura Ingraham was apparently wearing when she wrote her commentary. The Republican race isn't over yet. There is another candidate still in the race, one who can, with absolute credibility, present a conservative case for saving America. He already has “a mature fact-based plan to restore the American dream to all people regardless of race or gender.” Folks who want to “restore our national path to prosperity and invigorate our commitment to our founding principles” already do really rally for him. Despite not being reminded by Fox commentators, you know who he is.

Santorum Supporters Should Switch to Ron Paul

By Roger F. Gay

I was aghast! There I was, innocently spending a bit of time in an online discussion on the topic of the Republican primaries, when a Santorum supporter likened the Rickster to John Adams. It is apparent, that in general, his false argument is one that Rick Santorum needs to maintain his level of support. As the argument (rather than the man) indicates what people really want, I must present the case that the majority currently giving support to Rick Santorum should, for the sake of their very souls, switch to Ron Paul.

The trick of his argument was that Adams, a major contributor to thoughts on the American style of government and descendent of puritans, said; "We have no government armed with the power capable of containing human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made for the governance of a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the governance of anything else." This was part of a case, in the mind of the poster, for portraying Santorum as an “original intent” type political conservative, dedicated to the task of restoring Constitutional rule.

The founders cared a great deal about religion. In the first evolution of the Constitution, in the form of the first 10 amendments, the very first clause of the first amendment deals with freedom of religion: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The fallacy of the argument lies in the fact that Rick Santorum is no John Adams, or Ben Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson, or any of the other founding fathers. His perspective on the relationship between the people, morality, and government are entirely transposed from the positions established by those men.

Adam's statement, applied to the act of governance can remind us that the designs of corrupt and immoral political players can be thwarted if we play by the rules. The limitations to power in the design and the goal of liberty and justice for all are of little use to them. By recognition of these same virtues, it is obvious that it does not in any way support the case for a big government “establishment” presidential candidate with designs for intrusive "right-wing social engineering." Nor do I believe that on the basis of Adam's logic, could we conclude that it would ever be a useful course; especially because it is not the one that Adams chose.

His statement does focus on ideas that became central to the left-right political debate in the US and elsewhere. American conservative guidance holds that the people are to be trusted to govern themselves, which actually makes "right-wing social-engineering" an oxymoron. The international left takes it as first principle that whatever collectivist vision they choose should be imposed upon the people. In a purely political analysis, it doesn't matter that the vision may be said to have a basis in religion.

Some of the founders had God in their hearts and may have seen their work as divine, but they understood that governments are not churches and politicians are not clergy. Our presidents have by and large been unaffiliated with specific religions or Protestants (except Kennedy, who in response to his membership in the Catholic Church, vowed publicly to serve faithfully in his presidential role). The choices tell us what the American people have consistently required from our political leaders; a world view that rejects the imposition of an hierarchical power structure upon our personal lives.

Regardless of the role of religion in our nation's development and success; it is impossible for someone whose policy preferences are broadly and zealously driven by religion to be a defender of the Constitution. Even if you consider yourself to be equally zealous in your desire to impose Rick Santorum's lifestyle on others, consider this. How would it be then, when a country on the rebound elects the next would-be atheist or Muslim dictator from the other party? Will you be equally pleased as they work, with all the power and force at their disposal, to impose their will upon you? (Dude! It's not a liberal trick. It's the Golden Rule applied to a concrete case in the real world.) If your personal answer is no, then you must recognize that the correct political answer is to deny such power to government.

It's about liberty. The good argument, which does not apply to Rick Santorum, is one in which religion and liberty, for all, are compatible. Because liberty is moral. And because liberty is moral, the so-called “right wing social engineers” are no more moral than social engineers from the left. Their political goals, which require expansions of government power and reductions in civil rights, are directly incompatible with the goal of maintaining liberty, and there is no logical argument that will correct that flaw.

There is only one acceptable candidate, one for which there is no incompatibility between religion and liberty, who knows that liberty is the highest goal of his political career, and who has consistently acted faithfully in that cause. You know who he is.
.

Judge Napolitano: I Think the President Is Dangerously Close to Totalitarianism

(Sarcasm alert!) Yeah, we're probably not in dire need of a president who respects the Constitution.

Election Fraud: Republican Establishment May be Subject to Litigation and Criminal Charges

By Roger F. Gay

If you've been paying attention at all, you're at least aware that there have been widespread problems in Republican primary caucuses. Party representatives who open the meetings have refused to follow established rules, appointed leaders that according to the established rules must be chosen by caucus participants, refused to follow Robert's Rules of Order as specified in rules, ignored motions, … longer list to get it all … and ultimately misrepresented the votes cast for nominees and delegates to represent them.

Cumulative complaints have led to a clear picture about what's going on now. The people currently overseeing the process are trying to assure that caucus participants are irrelevant to the process. The attendees in local caucuses are there to decide what delegates will attend state caucuses and which candidates will be favored by their participation. It's supposed to be a ground up operation, reflecting the cumulative choices made by caucus attendees at the local level.

The current Republican Party organization however, has turned things around. They've chosen meeting leaders and a slate of delegate nominees ahead of the caucuses and are jamming them down the throats of participants. The process is sometimes accompanied by slimy, seemingly stupid tricks; like presenting fake rules that block democratic election of caucus leaders and presenting misspelled names of other potential delegates in random order on difficult to read projections while flipping back and forth between the names and pictures; simply not allowing people to get the information needed to express support for anyone but the establishment slate. Participants who've objected and have attempted to play by the rules have their microphones shut off and some have even been arrested.

There is a false presumption that this behavior is not subject to any kind of litigation or criminal charge. The Republican Party is not a government body. It is a private organization. They can be as democratic or undemocratic as they wish. They do not however, have any fundamental or other right to commit fraud. The costs resulting from rigged primaries, which are represented as part of a democratic process for electing public office holders, are enormous, not only to individual participants but also general election voters who cannot vote for someone who was dealt out in the primaries through fraud and to the nation as a whole and all its people who are ultimately cheated out of their right to select people for public office. Keep in mind that the context is a “two party system” that the Republican and Democratic parties and their operatives in the “news business” have conspired to maintain. The effort that goes into effectively limiting choice is enormous.

When we look at people in office today, whether it's a Congressman or the president, we don't really know whether they were elected or put in place by a corrupt machine. When we look at the level of corruption produced by Congress and the White House, it seems the latter is more likely. How can we imagine that so much corruption in office comes from people who played by the rules to get there? And we can see this in the context of a general conspiracy to deny Americans their right to democratic elections. The two most successful parties have no right to accomplish those ends, nor are they exempt from litigation or criminal charges in relation to their activities.
.

Conservative and Liberal, Now Both Words Stolen from the English Language

Roger F. Gay

Anthony Gregory, a Research Analyst and Editor for The Independent Institute weighs in on an aspect of the current global political conspiracy in Modern Conservatism = Rightwing Progressivism?

I know that I should sometimes forgive a failed attempt at sarcasm. Writing sarcastically is a much trickier business than speaking sarcastically. The problem with failed sarcasm is mostly that the reader really can't tell whether the author meant to be sarcastic. No one can see the author touching his nose or winking at his computer screen when the piece is published. Readers can only take the text at face value and respond to it if it seems worth doing. What I'm about to point out to you really, really ticks me off. This will not be my first commentary on the subject. Note to political commentators everywhere: Don't make me come back to this again! (← I'm emphasizing that I'm ticked.)

According to Mr. Gregory:

Conservatives often cheer on the presidencies of Teddy Roosevelt—a progressive if ever there was one—and New Dealers like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. They also defend a leviathan different from that envisioned by the progressive left more as a matter of degree than of kind. On economics, all too many conservatives have embraced the national welfare state, and although they are still more attuned to traditional limits on state power in this arena, they are often worse than the other side when it comes to policing and warfare issues. All in all, both wings of the modern spectrum have been different flavors of the progressive ideology that completely conquered the Republican Party a century ago, and then overtook the Democrats and modern liberalism as well. Many of the features of “conservatism” from the Cold War to George W. Bush—militarism, national statism, welfare statism with paternalistic garb, police statism, anti-immigration sentiment, cozying up to big business while expanding the regulatory state—have clear origins in the progressive presidencies of Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and even Woodrow Wilson. Thus I find the question as to whether Bush was a conservative or a progressive to be a trick question. He was both.

No, it isn't a trick question. It only seems tricky when the term “conservative” is used to mean progressive in contradiction to its established meaning. If the meaning of the two words is taken to be the same, it's not the least bit logically tricky to understand that the two words can be used interchangeably. That is a property of synonyms. If something can be characterized with one of the words, it can also be characterized by another with the same meaning. But here's the thing.The question isn't the trick. The two words, in fact, do not have the same meaning.

If they look like progressives, act like progressives, and quack like progressives; then in all likelihood they are progressives. If they also call themselves conservative, they're lying.

This deception is the smoke that indicates that a fire is burning. If you understand the fire to be corruption, all of the confusion in terminology and shifting political directions immediately disappears. The fact that two groups that on occasion physically sit on two different sides of an aisle idealize the same politics in different ways and ultimately push a similar agenda is in no way strange. It has nothing to do with political ideology. It all comes down to power and money. They're all just stealin' stuff and blowin' smoke.

Being an honest and fit leader, including a commentator who hopes to lead people in thought on important topics, or any person who is concerned about their own well-being and that of others, must provoke a sense of urgency to join the volunteer fire brigades. Grab the axes and aim the hoses directly at the fire, giving every sincere effort to put it out. For writers, this means knowing what the words mean and using them properly to state unambiguously what needs to be stated.
.

So Newt Gingrich Wants to Stop Mitt Romney Does He?

By Roger F. Gay

How Newt Gingrich will finally end his failed bid for the Republican nomination may be partially answered. The underlying issue here is to make sure Mitt Romney doesn't get it. Although the faithful Republican, vowing to support whoever becomes the nominee, he's apparently offered to join forces with Santorum supporters to lock Romney out of a first round victory at the convention. Rumors of a Santorum-Gingrich ticket losing to Obama in November abound.

But if the point is to be a faithful “establishment” Republican, why should Newt Gingrich care which of the other two stooges gets the nomination? The answer is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with loyalty to party or political ideology. It has to do with access and how to make the most money out of a Republican victory.

Newt, Inc. offers history lessons and historical consulting services for 100s of thousands of dollars a minute, or some such amount. It may seem strange that history consulting commands such high fees, but it turns out that people in organizations that are highly dependent on political decisions for their existence and exorbitant executive salaries have an enormous interest in history, especially when explained by a former Speaker of the House.

And sure, I mean, if you want public endorsement from someone who calls himself a conservative, for something as corrupt and far-left as a global warming initiative, you can probably get it from Newt Gingrich. Climate has history, right? And if there's any uncertainty in the public mind, that history can be anything you want it to be, leading to any possible political activity, no matter how expensive, to possibly being the right thing for the future.

The ultimate issue however, is political access. Post-election, how much access will Newt, Inc. have to influence the actions of the president? The answer, apparently, is not much, if any at all, if Mitt Romney becomes president. Regardless of the unlikelihood of a Romney ticket beating Obama, Newt Gingrich would see it as the only possible game in town if Romney gets the nomination. Problem is, Mitt, Inc. is a competitor and he'd not be included in the game.

The other choices: Direct access to Obama is off the table. Another possibility that's not on the table for Newt, Inc. is the ability to influence the incorruptible Ron Paul. That leaves the other “establishment” candidate, Rick Santorum. Newt Gingrich doesn't need the VP slot from him, just an invitation to the White House, if he's elected, to chat about the policy agenda from time to time. Newt, Inc. will surely have a list of important ideas generated by his history business.


.

Ron Paul: 'I'm Trying To Save The Republican Party'

Ron Paul shines with the history of the Republican Party that was once valued before September 11, 2001.

Paul is trying to bring the Republican Party back to were it was once glorious.

We Should Encourage Newt Gingrich to Drop Out

By Roger F. Gay

Of the three stooges in the Republican presidential race, Newt Gingrich most strongly symbolizes the corruption that has been transforming the United States from the greatest nation on Earth into a bankrupt shell for the games of petty dictators. His confused self-portrait, a Washington outsider with loads of Washington insider experience, only suggests that corruption defines his core identity more than the role of politician. America has been through enough trouble and heartache over Newt Gingrich. He represents what we want to expunge from Washington, not our hope for the future.

His campaign failed. At this point, he can only be in for the money, book sales, and vanity. Understanding the vanity part requires some effort, as he regularly experiences rejection and expressions of outright disgust throughout his stumblings around the campaign trail. At some point in the future, when he hopes people have forgotten who he is (a miscalculation on his part that we would have forgotten already), he imagines that staying the full course will look good on his resume.

One can more easily imagine that continuation of his embarrassing campaign efforts could serve as both punishment and as a public example of the most rotten aspects of the current political “establishment.” There has been some benefit to public education, by trotting out the truth of what he presents as proud accomplishments. Newt Gingrich lives in the reverso-world, where defense of liberty means limiting and controlling it, balancing a budget means dramatically increasing spending and covering it over with debt, “family values” means destroying the institution of marriage and rights related to families, and the conservative goal of welfare reform is to break the grip of Constitutional rule to allow absolute arbitrary control of all aspects of personal life by a politically controlled bureaucracy. At the root of it all; not a political ideology, but money and power. Like the others in the “establishment” crowd, he's just interested in stealing stuff.

The problem is that we have something more important than Newt Gingrich to deal with. Corruption is forcing the United States into a deep gully and the sooner we start pulling ourselves out the better. We still have two more stooges to push off the stage, and Newt Gingrich, now playing the sad clown in the Republican race, is still a distraction. We waste valuable time whenever a Gingrich troll breaks into a discussion, tries to overload us with personal attacks, or engages in other underhanded mischief. (His supporters reflect his character.)

Most do not want Mitt Romney to be the nominee. We need to focus attention on the mechanisms of his on-again off-again front-runner status. He's never been the front-runner because he'd be a good president. He wouldn't. He's never been the front-runner because people like him. They don't. He's never been the front-runner because he'd be a strong contender against Barack Obama. He probably can't beat him. And then there's Rick Santorum, the only alternative to Mitt Romney that the establishment controlled media will acknowledge. What can people possibly imagine when they think of him as President of the United States? Can they seriously imagine he could win the presidency?
.