Today is Dec 23, and we will celebrate the birth of Christ in two days. I hope that each and every one of you have a good weekend with your family and friends, as I plan to do. Don't expect to hear anything more from me until December 27, at the earliest.
Enjoy your holiday weekend, and may your Christmas celebration be all you wish it to be.
Merry Christmas, all.
Read the rest...
Friday, December 23, 2011
Romney Pretty Extreme, Too
Yesterday I wrote a post asserting that Newt is more extreme than Ron Paul. Today I'm going to make a similar argument with respect to Mitt Romney.
Ron Paul believes that our health care system will get better if the government gets out of the way and lets the private sector work.
Mitt Romney believes that a government "solution" on health care is not only okay, it's a perfectly "conservative" option. We already know that his Massachusetts health care plan, dubbed RomneyCare, was used as a blueprint for ObamaCare. Today, Romney argues that a big-government solution to health care that requires individuals to purchase health insurance is a perfectly "conservative" plan... if implemented by the states.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/200793-romney-doubles-down-on-argument-that-state-health-mandate-is-conservative
This makes it perfectly clear that Romney is not, in any way, shape, or form, a fan of a small government with limited powers. He thinks that big-government solutions to every day problems are just fine and dandy... an indication to me that he will continue in the footsteps of Bush and Obama, by adopting government-controlled solutions to any problem that may arise. The fact that many of these problems were in fact CREATED by past government actions doesn't matter to him.
So which candidate is more extreme, the one who is perfectly fine with imposing government-run solutions to problems, or the candidate who wants to let the free market work just like it does in so many other areas?
It seems to me that Mitt Romney holds the more extreme position, here.
What do YOU think?
Read the rest...
Ron Paul believes that our health care system will get better if the government gets out of the way and lets the private sector work.
Mitt Romney believes that a government "solution" on health care is not only okay, it's a perfectly "conservative" option. We already know that his Massachusetts health care plan, dubbed RomneyCare, was used as a blueprint for ObamaCare. Today, Romney argues that a big-government solution to health care that requires individuals to purchase health insurance is a perfectly "conservative" plan... if implemented by the states.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/200793-romney-doubles-down-on-argument-that-state-health-mandate-is-conservative
Requiring people to have health insurance is "conservative," GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney told MSNBC on Wednesday, but only if states do it.Really? But if the government is forcing people to take an action, then it's not "personal responsibility," now is it?
The argument aims to improve Romney's appeal to Republican voters concerned about the health care reform plan he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts in 2006. The Massachusetts law contains an individual mandate similar to the one in President Obama's health care law, which conservatives despise.
"Personal responsibility," Romney said, "is more conservative in my view than something being given out for free by government."
This makes it perfectly clear that Romney is not, in any way, shape, or form, a fan of a small government with limited powers. He thinks that big-government solutions to every day problems are just fine and dandy... an indication to me that he will continue in the footsteps of Bush and Obama, by adopting government-controlled solutions to any problem that may arise. The fact that many of these problems were in fact CREATED by past government actions doesn't matter to him.
So which candidate is more extreme, the one who is perfectly fine with imposing government-run solutions to problems, or the candidate who wants to let the free market work just like it does in so many other areas?
It seems to me that Mitt Romney holds the more extreme position, here.
What do YOU think?
Read the rest...
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Newt Gingrich: The REAL Extreme Candidate
Many people have talked about how Ron Paul can't win the GOP nomination for President because his ideas are too "extreme." Many of those same people think Newt Gingrich has a real shot at winning the nomination, and wouldn't be sad to see him do so. But of the two candidates, which one has the more extreme positions?
Ron Paul wants to reduce the size and scope of government, get the budget balanced in 3 years (starting with a $1 trillion cut in year 1), reduce federal regulations, eliminate some government agencies, and implement a non-interventionist foreign policy where we don't have troops stationed in 150 or more countries across the globe. He's also very unlikely to start a new war during his term. Dr. Paul not only opposes the individual mandate, he thinks there isn't Constitutional justification for ANY federal control of health care/insurance markets.
Newt Gingrich supports an individual mandate for health insurance. We can only consider that a "past position" if we consider a month or so ago "the past." Sounds more like a current position to me. In today's environment where anti-ObamaCare sentiment is likely to play a big part in the upcoming election, isn't that extreme? Remember that supporting the individual mandate is to support the huge power grab. If Congress can force us to buy a product we don't want to buy, where are the limits to their power?
But I want to focus mainly on one issue where Newt's positions are unquestionably extreme and, in my opinion, simply crazy and highly unconstitutional. I mentioned this briefly in my post earlier today, but I am talking about Newt's plan to "reign in" the judicial activism by arresting and impeaching judges who render opinions Newt disagrees with. He'd even dissolve entire appellate courts who did such a dastardly thing.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view/2011_1221newt_out_of_order/
His central idea is that two branches of government trumps one. So if a judge issues a ruling that both Congress and the President disagree with, then the ruling has no effect. The judge can be summoned to testify before Congress and, if they wish, Congress can impeach him. If the ruling comes from an appeals court, that court can be dissolved entirely.
But think about this for a moment. In order for a law to pass, it has to be supported by Congress and the President, which means that no court decision can overturn a law. If the Supreme Court overturns ObamaCare's individual mandate in 2012, using Newt's logic Obama could ignore the ruling and order the mandate to be implemented. He could even discipline the judges for the ruling, if he wished.
In Newt's world, there is no such thing as an unconstitutional law, because no judge can overturn new laws. Old laws, maybe, but new laws survive as long as the party that passed them maintain control of Congress and the Presidency. It's an idea that is clearly unconstitutional, as it allows the Legislative and Executive branches to interfere directly with the Judicial branch of government. It also reduces the judicial branch to a waste of time of gigantic proportions.
And Newt's idea, which he is proclaiming loudly and proudly to all who will listen, is also clearly crazy. It's far more extreme than any idea proposed by Dr. Paul... but Newt gets defended while Paul gets dismissed.
Who is more extreme, the candidate who supports the Constitution or the candidate who wants to gut it?
Who is more extreme, the candidate who supports an individual mandate (and the virtually unlimited federal power that comes with it) or the candidate who wants to get the government out of health care?
Who is more extreme, the candidate who wants more troops in more places to fight more wars, or the candidate who wants to bring American troops home to America?
Who is the crazy, extreme candidate here? In my own opinion, it's Newt Gingrich.
What do you think?
Read the rest...
Ron Paul wants to reduce the size and scope of government, get the budget balanced in 3 years (starting with a $1 trillion cut in year 1), reduce federal regulations, eliminate some government agencies, and implement a non-interventionist foreign policy where we don't have troops stationed in 150 or more countries across the globe. He's also very unlikely to start a new war during his term. Dr. Paul not only opposes the individual mandate, he thinks there isn't Constitutional justification for ANY federal control of health care/insurance markets.
Newt Gingrich supports an individual mandate for health insurance. We can only consider that a "past position" if we consider a month or so ago "the past." Sounds more like a current position to me. In today's environment where anti-ObamaCare sentiment is likely to play a big part in the upcoming election, isn't that extreme? Remember that supporting the individual mandate is to support the huge power grab. If Congress can force us to buy a product we don't want to buy, where are the limits to their power?
But I want to focus mainly on one issue where Newt's positions are unquestionably extreme and, in my opinion, simply crazy and highly unconstitutional. I mentioned this briefly in my post earlier today, but I am talking about Newt's plan to "reign in" the judicial activism by arresting and impeaching judges who render opinions Newt disagrees with. He'd even dissolve entire appellate courts who did such a dastardly thing.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view/2011_1221newt_out_of_order/
Somewhere Massachusetts’ own John Adams is rolling over in his grave.Let's take a good, logical look at this proposal, shall we?
Yes, the Founder who is largely responsible for our current three co-equal branches of government would be appalled — as should all genuinely strict constructionists — at Newt Gingrich’s latest rant about bringing “activist” judges to heel by having them subpoenaed by Congress and made to testify about their more controversial decisions.
During last week’s Iowa debate, Gingrich doubled down on his idea that judges he believes have gone beyond the Constitution in their decisions “shouldn’t be on the court.”
His central idea is that two branches of government trumps one. So if a judge issues a ruling that both Congress and the President disagree with, then the ruling has no effect. The judge can be summoned to testify before Congress and, if they wish, Congress can impeach him. If the ruling comes from an appeals court, that court can be dissolved entirely.
But think about this for a moment. In order for a law to pass, it has to be supported by Congress and the President, which means that no court decision can overturn a law. If the Supreme Court overturns ObamaCare's individual mandate in 2012, using Newt's logic Obama could ignore the ruling and order the mandate to be implemented. He could even discipline the judges for the ruling, if he wished.
In Newt's world, there is no such thing as an unconstitutional law, because no judge can overturn new laws. Old laws, maybe, but new laws survive as long as the party that passed them maintain control of Congress and the Presidency. It's an idea that is clearly unconstitutional, as it allows the Legislative and Executive branches to interfere directly with the Judicial branch of government. It also reduces the judicial branch to a waste of time of gigantic proportions.
And Newt's idea, which he is proclaiming loudly and proudly to all who will listen, is also clearly crazy. It's far more extreme than any idea proposed by Dr. Paul... but Newt gets defended while Paul gets dismissed.
Who is more extreme, the candidate who supports the Constitution or the candidate who wants to gut it?
Who is more extreme, the candidate who supports an individual mandate (and the virtually unlimited federal power that comes with it) or the candidate who wants to get the government out of health care?
Who is more extreme, the candidate who wants more troops in more places to fight more wars, or the candidate who wants to bring American troops home to America?
Who is the crazy, extreme candidate here? In my own opinion, it's Newt Gingrich.
What do you think?
Read the rest...
GOP Insane If They Nominate Newt or Romney
It is my considered opinion that if the GOP nominates either Romney or Newt to run against Obama, they are absolutely crazy.
Look, we have three wonderful issues that are fair game for whoever the candidate is. Those three issues are TARP, ObamaCare, and the stimulus. With either Romney or Newt, we lose two of those issues. Why? Because both Romney and Newt supported TARP, and both candidates are on the record as being in favor of a government-run "solution" to our health care problems that include an individual mandate! Romney actually imposed such a system on his state when he was Governor, and his plan was used as the blueprint for ObamaCare. With Romney as the nominee, we lose what is potentially THE major issue of the race!
But Newt isn't any better. He was expressing support for an individual mandate as recently as a few months ago... and that sort of eviscerates any attempt by Newt to attack ObamaCare in any way, shape or form. And Newt has additional baggage that he is voluntarily creating, baggage that will be easy for even Obama to attack. I'm speaking of Newt's insane proposition to arrest and impeach any judges that issue rulings with which Congress and the President disagree. Good heavens, has the man even BOTHERED to read the Constitution? What he wants to do is AT LEAST as bad as approving of indefinite imprisonment without trial for US citizens living in the United States... and that's something that was recently passed by both Democrats and Republicans, with Obama likely to sign the dumb thing.
With either of these two men as candidates, we lose some pretty huge issues that could otherwise have been used against Obama during the election. Newt and Romney have Z E R O credibility on these issues, because it's well known that they have SUPPORTED THEM!
I am not arguing in favor of any particular candidate, here. I am simply pointing out what we LOSE by choosing either of these two men for our candidate. We would be crazy to do so.
Read the rest...
Look, we have three wonderful issues that are fair game for whoever the candidate is. Those three issues are TARP, ObamaCare, and the stimulus. With either Romney or Newt, we lose two of those issues. Why? Because both Romney and Newt supported TARP, and both candidates are on the record as being in favor of a government-run "solution" to our health care problems that include an individual mandate! Romney actually imposed such a system on his state when he was Governor, and his plan was used as the blueprint for ObamaCare. With Romney as the nominee, we lose what is potentially THE major issue of the race!
But Newt isn't any better. He was expressing support for an individual mandate as recently as a few months ago... and that sort of eviscerates any attempt by Newt to attack ObamaCare in any way, shape or form. And Newt has additional baggage that he is voluntarily creating, baggage that will be easy for even Obama to attack. I'm speaking of Newt's insane proposition to arrest and impeach any judges that issue rulings with which Congress and the President disagree. Good heavens, has the man even BOTHERED to read the Constitution? What he wants to do is AT LEAST as bad as approving of indefinite imprisonment without trial for US citizens living in the United States... and that's something that was recently passed by both Democrats and Republicans, with Obama likely to sign the dumb thing.
With either of these two men as candidates, we lose some pretty huge issues that could otherwise have been used against Obama during the election. Newt and Romney have Z E R O credibility on these issues, because it's well known that they have SUPPORTED THEM!
I am not arguing in favor of any particular candidate, here. I am simply pointing out what we LOSE by choosing either of these two men for our candidate. We would be crazy to do so.
Read the rest...
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
An Interesting Quote From Herman Cain
Herman Cain weighed in on the Presidential election yesterday, saying that he will not endorse Ron Paul or Rick Perry. Why not? Apparently, because their views are too extreme for him.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/200519-cain-will-not-endorse-paul-or-perry
But Cain is being so wishy-washy with his endorsement that it won't matter who he eventually picks. I'd wager that most of his supporters have already selected a second choice, and probably wouldn't listen to him now no matter who he picked... or rejected.
The thing is, in defending Newt against Romney's "zany" attack, many people could easily see his comments as supporting Ron Paul! Here's what he said.
Of the seven candidates still in the race (Paul, Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, Huntsman, and Bachmann), their foreign policy appears to be almost exactly the same. They differ in some respects in domestic policy, granted, though they are all fairly close. With the exception, of course, of Ron Paul. ONLY Ron Paul has a different foreign policy. ONLY Ron Paul would NOT start a new war during his term. ONLY Ron Paul is calling for dramatic action on the debt, with his $1 trillion spending cuts in year #1, balancing the budget in 3 years. ONLY Ron Paul stands out with bold positions that differ from his opponents and would directly address major issues with our nation.
This line, in particular, seems apt for Dr Paul, wouldn't you say?
I just found it interesting that Cain rejects Ron Paul as too extreme, essentially, and then says we shouldn't call bold, different positions extreme. (grin) Maybe he should take his own advice.
On a final note, it appears that he just wants to endorse the guy who eventually gets the nomination... the winner.
Gotta love a guy whose two biggest concerns are endorsing the winning candidate and getting something out of his aborted run for the Presidency.
Read the rest...
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/200519-cain-will-not-endorse-paul-or-perry
Former Republican front-runner Herman Cain said Tuesday that he was still mulling whom to endorse for the GOP nomination, but ruled out Ron Paul and Rick Perry in an interview with the National Review.
“I would definitely not endorse Ron Paul or Rick Perry,” Cain said. “It’s nothing personal, we’re just too far apart in terms of our ideas.”
But Cain is being so wishy-washy with his endorsement that it won't matter who he eventually picks. I'd wager that most of his supporters have already selected a second choice, and probably wouldn't listen to him now no matter who he picked... or rejected.
“At this point, there are only two people I would consider endorsing, and only two,” Cain said. “I’m hesitant, however, to endorse because if I endorse one, that may disappoint half of my supporters, and if I endorse the other, it would disappoint the other half. I don’t want to do that."
The thing is, in defending Newt against Romney's "zany" attack, many people could easily see his comments as supporting Ron Paul! Here's what he said.
He still defended Gingrich from criticism, especially comments from Mitt Romney dismissing Gingrich as "zany."
"I wouldn't call it zany. I'd call it bold. That's the problem with the party," he said. "When you step out there with something bold, you get accused of being extreme. That’s why we keep losing. Be bold!
“There is a disconnect,” Cain added. “The political class wants to play it safe. The people are saying, ‘We want bold.’ This country is in a mess and kicking the can down the road.”
Of the seven candidates still in the race (Paul, Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, Huntsman, and Bachmann), their foreign policy appears to be almost exactly the same. They differ in some respects in domestic policy, granted, though they are all fairly close. With the exception, of course, of Ron Paul. ONLY Ron Paul has a different foreign policy. ONLY Ron Paul would NOT start a new war during his term. ONLY Ron Paul is calling for dramatic action on the debt, with his $1 trillion spending cuts in year #1, balancing the budget in 3 years. ONLY Ron Paul stands out with bold positions that differ from his opponents and would directly address major issues with our nation.
This line, in particular, seems apt for Dr Paul, wouldn't you say?
"When you step out there with something bold, you get accused of being extreme. That’s why we keep losing. Be bold!"
I just found it interesting that Cain rejects Ron Paul as too extreme, essentially, and then says we shouldn't call bold, different positions extreme. (grin) Maybe he should take his own advice.
On a final note, it appears that he just wants to endorse the guy who eventually gets the nomination... the winner.
"My objective is not to determine the nominee, to be a big influence, it’s to beat Barack Obama.”
Gotta love a guy whose two biggest concerns are endorsing the winning candidate and getting something out of his aborted run for the Presidency.
Read the rest...
Al Franken Gets One Right
I haven't spoken much about former comedian and current Congressman Al Franken, but I haven't found much good to say about him to date. However, on this occasion, I find myself in complete agreement with him. Franken wrote a piece in the Huffington Post explaining why he voted against the National Defense Authorization Act.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/why-i-voted-against-the-n_b_1154327.html
Well said, Congressman Franken. Well said.
It's a pity so many supposedly freedom-loving Congressmen, both Republicans and Democrats, were so eager to see it pass that they literally ignored the Constitution of these United States.
Read the rest...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/why-i-voted-against-the-n_b_1154327.html
Yesterday, the Senate passed a bill that includes provisions on detention that I found simply unacceptable. These provisions are inconsistent with the liberties and freedoms that are at the core of the system our Founders established. And while I did in fact vote for an earlier version of the legislation, I did so with the hope that the final version would be significantly improved. That didn't happen, and so I could not support the final bill.
With this defense authorization act, Congress will, for the first time in 60 years, authorize the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial, according to its advocates. This would be the first time that Congress has deviated from President Nixon's Non-Detention Act. And what we are talking about here is that Americans could be subjected to life imprisonment without ever being charged, tried, or convicted of a crime, without ever having an opportunity to prove their innocence to a judge or a jury of their peers. And without the government ever having to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think that denigrates the very foundations of this country. It denigrates the Bill of Rights. It denigrates what our Founders intended when they created a civilian, non-military justice system for trying and punishing people for crimes committed on U.S. soil. Our Founders were fearful of the military--and they purposely created a system of checks and balances to ensure we did not become a country under military rule. This bill undermines that core principle, which is why I could not support it.
Yesterday was the anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, and this wasn't the way to mark its birthday.
Well said, Congressman Franken. Well said.
It's a pity so many supposedly freedom-loving Congressmen, both Republicans and Democrats, were so eager to see it pass that they literally ignored the Constitution of these United States.
Read the rest...
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
New Campaign Ad Released In Iowa & New Hampshire
For the past few weeks, Ron Paul has been running some controversial but effective ads in Iowa and New Hampshire, mostly attacking the records of Romney and Newt. Now he's come out with a new ad that portrays Dr Paul as "The one you can trust."
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://youtu.be/XESux7oFMDY
Read the rest...
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://youtu.be/XESux7oFMDY
Read the rest...
NTSB Doesn't Care What We Think
As you may or may not know, the NTSB wants to ban cell phone usage in cars. The fact that such a ban will only remove one of many distractions and do nothing to reduce accidents where distracted driving is a contributing cause doesn't deter them. Nor does the fact that the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to control what a person does or doesn't do while they're driving in, say, Atlanta, Georgia.
None of that matters. Nor does the fact that people don't want them to do it.
http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/automobiles/200301-ntsb-chief-defends-cell-phone-ban-recommendation-were-not-here-to-win-a-popularity-contest
"I think our charge is not worry about what's popular," Hersman said during an appearance on on C-Span's "Washington Journal." "We don't take surveys to try to figure out what we should say. In fact, many of the recommendations that we make are not popular with folks...Whatever happened to legislating with the consent of the governed? If we don't want our government to do something... they do it anyway? I think I missed something, there. Read the rest...
Monday, December 19, 2011
Surprising Fundraising Facts
It's long been known that Ron Paul is more popular with our nation's military than is any other candidate... judging by military donations to Presidential candidates. This is despite (because of?) his foreign policy that GOP insiders say make him unelectable.
But did you know that Ron Paul also gets more donations than any other GOP candidate from Federal Government Employees and government contractors? It may sound counter-intuitive, but it's true.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://youtu.be/elD46aV32o8
Read the rest...
But did you know that Ron Paul also gets more donations than any other GOP candidate from Federal Government Employees and government contractors? It may sound counter-intuitive, but it's true.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://youtu.be/elD46aV32o8
Read the rest...
Ron Paul on Jay Leno
Ron Paul appeared on Jay Leno on Friday, 12-16-2011. The audience LOVED him... a standing ovation when he appeared, and repeated ovations throughout the show. And they loved much of what he said. Strangely enough, they ESPECIALLY loved the section on his foreign policy.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://youtu.be/VMUZIVYuluc
Read the rest...
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://youtu.be/VMUZIVYuluc
Read the rest...
Friday, December 16, 2011
Heads-Up: Speed Cameras In Use Starting Today
A while back, Montgomery started using red-light cameras, an activity that I was, and am still, adamantly opposed to. But now, they've decided that isn't enough. So beginning today, they will deploy speed cameras. That's right, the trend to automate traffic enforcement is well under way here in Montgomery, Alabama.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20111215/NEWS01/112150323/Montgomery-police-start-using-camera-speed-enforcement-Friday
Those of you who like electronic law-enforcement and the de-humanization of our legal system should be pleased. The rest of us will grit our teeth in detestation and continue on with our lives.
Read the rest...
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20111215/NEWS01/112150323/Montgomery-police-start-using-camera-speed-enforcement-Friday
The mobile camera program will be used to issue citations to speeders in school and construction zones as well as residential neighborhoods. The system will be used beginning Friday. A warning period will be in place until Jan. 16, after which citations will be issued.
The photos taken of speeding vehicles will be reviewed by the operating company for the system and then MPD personnel before any citations are issued. The fine will be $60 for first and second offenses and $100 for third and subsequent offenses within a 12-month period.
The citations will be civil rather than criminal and will not count against the offender's driving record. Residents will be able to appeal citations in Montgomery Municipal Court.
Those of you who like electronic law-enforcement and the de-humanization of our legal system should be pleased. The rest of us will grit our teeth in detestation and continue on with our lives.
Read the rest...
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Video: Military Supports Ron Paul's Foreign Policy
For those of you who say that you would vote for Ron Paul except for his foreign policy, for those who say his foreign policy is nutty, wacko, or insane, this is a video that you need to watch. It's a little long, and I apologize for that, but you really should watch this.
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://youtu.be/I8NhRPo0WAo
Read the rest...
If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://youtu.be/I8NhRPo0WAo
Read the rest...
An Endorsement For President You Should Read
Here is an excerpt from an endorsement by Andrew Sullivan, who writes "The Dish" over at The Daily Beast. He's looked at the candidates for President and has picked the one he will endorse. Sullivan describes himself this way:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/ron-paul-for-the-gop-nomination.html
As you can see, he differs with Ron Paul on many issues, but he has nevertheless chosen to endorse Ron Paul for the Republican nominee for President. He even thinks an Obama v Paul matchup would be good for the country.
Here are Sullivan's reasons for endorsing Paul, despite his many disagreements with the man's policies.
Proof that it IS possible to disagree with Ron Paul and still support him for President. I wouldn't say that Andrew Sullivan's is going to be a game-changer, but it IS an interesting read.
Read the rest...
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/ron-paul-for-the-gop-nomination.html
"I am, like many others these days, politically homeless. A moderate, restrained limited government conservatism that seeks to amend, not to revolt, to reform, not to revolutionize, is unavailable. I'm a Tory who has come to see universal healthcare as a moral necessity that requires some minimal government support, who wants government support for a flailing recovery now, but serious austerity once we recover. I favor massive private and public investment in non-carbon energy, because I am a conservative who does not believe our materialism trumps the need for conserving our divine inheritance. I back marriage equality and marijuana legalization as Burkean adjustments to a changing society."
As you can see, he differs with Ron Paul on many issues, but he has nevertheless chosen to endorse Ron Paul for the Republican nominee for President. He even thinks an Obama v Paul matchup would be good for the country.
The constant refrain on Fox News that this man has "zero chance" of being the nominee is a propagandistic lie. Nationally, Paul is third in the polls at 9.7 percent. In Iowa, he may win. In New Hampshire, it is Paul, not Gingrich, who is rising this week as Romney drifts down. He's at 19 percent, compared with Gingrich's 24. He is the third option for the GOP. And I believe an Obama-Paul campaign would do us all a service. We would have a principled advocate for a radically reduced role for government, and a principled advocate for a more activist role. If Republicans want a real debate about government and its role, they have no better spokesman. He is the intellectual of the field, not Gingrich.
Here are Sullivan's reasons for endorsing Paul, despite his many disagreements with the man's policies.
But Paul's libertarianism may be the next best thing available in the GOP. It would ensure real pressure to make real cuts in entitlements and defense; it would extricate America from the religious wars of the Middle East, where we do not belong. It would challenge the statist, liberal and progressive delusion that for every problem there is a solution, let alone a solution devised by government. As part of offering the world a decent, tolerant conservatism, these instincts are welcome. As an antidote - and a very strong one - to the fiscal recklessness and lawless belligerence of Bush-Cheney, it is hard to beat. The Tea Party, for all their flaws, are right about spending and the crony capitalism it foments. So is Paul.
I regard this primary campaign as the beginning of a process to save conservatism from itself. In this difficult endeavor, Paul has kept his cool, his good will, his charm, his honesty and his passion. His scorn is for ideas, not people, but he knows how to play legitimate political hardball. Look at his ads - the best of the season so far. His worldview is too extreme for my tastes, but it is more honestly achieved than most of his competitors, and joined to a temperament that has worn well as time has gone by.
I feel the same way about him on the right in 2012 as I did about Obama in 2008. Both were regarded as having zero chance of being elected. And around now, people decided: Why not? And a movement was born. He is the "Change You Can Believe In" on the right. If you are an Independent and can vote in a GOP primary, vote Paul. If you are a Republican concerned about the degeneracy of the GOP, vote Paul. If you are a citizen who wants more decency and honesty in our politics, vote Paul. If you want someone in the White House who has spent decades in Washington and never been corrupted, vote Paul.
Proof that it IS possible to disagree with Ron Paul and still support him for President. I wouldn't say that Andrew Sullivan's is going to be a game-changer, but it IS an interesting read.
Read the rest...
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Last Day For Presidential Qualifications In Alabama
Today is the last day for Presidential candidates to get their qualification papers filed with the Alabama GOP party headquarters. So far, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, and Mitt Romney have filed, and officials expect papers to be filed today for Newt, Bachmann, Huntsman, and Santorum.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20111214/NEWS/111214001/Last-day-qualify-GOP-presidential-primary-
If you want to be a delegate for a candidate, however, you still have until January 13, 2012 to qualify to appear on the March 13 ballot. If you'd like to be a delegate for any Presidential candidate on the ballot, you can find out how to do so here.
Gingrich and Romney have the most delegates, but there are still unfilled slots. Lots of slots left for Paul and Perry, and the others hardly have any delegates at all. So drop by the ALGOP website to find out how to be a delegate.
Read the rest...
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20111214/NEWS/111214001/Last-day-qualify-GOP-presidential-primary-
Wednesday is the deadline for candidates to sign up for Alabama's Republican presidential primary.
Three candidates — Ron Paul, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney — have already filed qualifying papers with the state party headquarters in Birmingham.
If you want to be a delegate for a candidate, however, you still have until January 13, 2012 to qualify to appear on the March 13 ballot. If you'd like to be a delegate for any Presidential candidate on the ballot, you can find out how to do so here.
Gingrich and Romney have the most delegates, but there are still unfilled slots. Lots of slots left for Paul and Perry, and the others hardly have any delegates at all. So drop by the ALGOP website to find out how to be a delegate.
Read the rest...
Poll: Ron Paul 1 Point Behind Newt In Iowa
This is very interesting. In a new poll by Public Policy Polling, Ron Paul comes in second place with 21%, a single point behind Newt with 22%, and ahead of Romney with 16%.That means Newt and Paul are well within the margin of error for the poll.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/13/in-iowa-paul-closes-to-within-one-point-of-front-runner-gingrich/
So, this means what? Not much. Candidates are proving very volatile this election season, surging rapidly and then falling behind again. Newt surged, what... two weeks ago? And he already shows signs of sagging support. So if Paul is beginning to surge three weeks out, it could mean he's going to take the Iowa straw poll, or it could mean he'll start to sag just before they are held.
Who knows? All I know is that those who learn about Paul's positions instead of listening to critics' interpretations of them seem to like him a lot. We'll see what happens.
Oh, and one lesson? Ignore the media when they tell you who is and isn't "electable." Also ignore them when they try to tell you who is the "likely" nominee. This election cycle seems more volatile than normal, and all bets are off.
UPDATE: Polls from New Hampshire show Paul beginning to move upwards there, too. Since the previous month's poll, Romney slipped one point from 34% to 33%, Newt slipped two points from 24% to 22%, and Paul moved up 4 points from 14% to 18%. He's now within the margin of error for second place Newt in New Hampshire... though barely.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2012_new_hampshire_republican_primary
Read the rest...
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/13/in-iowa-paul-closes-to-within-one-point-of-front-runner-gingrich/
Texas Rep. Ron Paul has surged to second place in a new Iowa poll of likely Republican caucus goers, just one percent behind former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the current front-runner.
Paul has consistently placed in the top tier of Republican presidential candidates in recent Iowa polls. With Iowans heading to vote in only three weeks, Gingrich holds a razor-thin 22–21 lead.
The poll, conducted by Public Policy Polling, found weakening support for Gingrich among self-identified tea partiers, and a dramatic rise in Paul’s favorability rating.
So, this means what? Not much. Candidates are proving very volatile this election season, surging rapidly and then falling behind again. Newt surged, what... two weeks ago? And he already shows signs of sagging support. So if Paul is beginning to surge three weeks out, it could mean he's going to take the Iowa straw poll, or it could mean he'll start to sag just before they are held.
Who knows? All I know is that those who learn about Paul's positions instead of listening to critics' interpretations of them seem to like him a lot. We'll see what happens.
Oh, and one lesson? Ignore the media when they tell you who is and isn't "electable." Also ignore them when they try to tell you who is the "likely" nominee. This election cycle seems more volatile than normal, and all bets are off.
UPDATE: Polls from New Hampshire show Paul beginning to move upwards there, too. Since the previous month's poll, Romney slipped one point from 34% to 33%, Newt slipped two points from 24% to 22%, and Paul moved up 4 points from 14% to 18%. He's now within the margin of error for second place Newt in New Hampshire... though barely.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2012_new_hampshire_republican_primary
Read the rest...
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Ron Paul's Foreign Policy
I've spoken with many people who like most of what Ron Paul is saying and has been saying for decades, but draw the line at his foreign policy. The defects in that foreign policy are so self-evident, they assume, that they don't bother to deal with specifics. They simply describe his foreign policy as wacky, goofy, insane, or any of a dozen strongly negative words.
But just what IS Ron Paul's foreign policy, and how insane is it really? Let's look at it.
In broad terms, his foreign policy can be divided into three categories:
We Can't Be The World's Policeman
Yes, Paul believes that we can't be the cop on the world beat, keeping peace everywhere. Why? Two major reasons. First, it's wrong. We have no moral or legal right to demand sovereignty for ourselves and then meddle in other nation's internal affairs as we please. Second, we can't afford it. We have a yearly deficit of $1.5 TRILLION, and our national debt is approaching bankruptcy levels. We simply cannot afford to keep, according to DOD figures, 1.43 million troops stationed in over 150 countries... and that's not including the 203,000 troops in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan!
What is insane about respecting the sovereignty of other nations and acknowledging our own limitations? Trying to keep this up will drive us into bankruptcy.
Bring the troops home
With so many abroad, we spend a lot of money building and maintaining bases on foreign soil. The recently constructed embassy in Iraq cost us over $1 billion to build, and that's ridiculous. We maintain, by DOD count, 662 bases on foreign soil. An awful lot of money and personnel go into maintaining our foreign presence, when in truth we can adequately defend our nation FROM HOME. Bring the troops home and defend our nation with our impressive collection of submarines and aircraft carriers, supplemented by the Air Force, Army, and Marines. What aspect of our national defense is served by having troops stationed in Malta?
And not all of the facilities we have are dedicated to defense. Did you know that in 2007, the US had 172 golf courses on foreign soil? We also have resort hotels and ski areas, though not nearly as many as we have golf courses.
End foreign aid
Each Year, the US sends $20-$30 billion to foreign nations, many of them unfriendly to us and/or our allies. We have no say in how it is spent, and we simply can't afford to keep giving free money to any nation that wants it. (Remember the whole bankruptcy thing.)
There is another aspect to his foreign policy that seems to stand out, so I want to deal with that separately. Israel.
Ron Paul is being characterized as anti-Israel because he wants to stop sending foreign aid to Israel. But remember, Paul wants to stop sending foreign aid to EVERYBODY. If you look at how much foreign aid we send to the middle east, you'll find that we send 10 TIMES as much money to Israel's Arab neighbors as we do to Israel. And since many of them would like nothing better than to destroy Israel, ending all aid actually turns into a net gain for Israel.
Paul wants us to be Israel's ally, even their friend, something we aren't right now. I mean yes, we send them money, but even ignoring the other aid we send to the region, we attach strings to that money. Our leaders seem to think that because we send money to Israel, we can dictate to them how they run their nation. We've told them how to handle the Palestinians, even where they should set their nation's borders. Think of how intrusive and offensive that is, to dictate to an ALLIED NATION where they should draw their borders.
Ron Paul believes that if we are allied to another sovereign nation, then we should respect them. And that means let them set their own policy, run their own nation, and decide where their own borders are. The interesting thing about sovereignty is that we should respect the sovereignty of other nations, something we aren't so good at. We prefer to stick our noses in anywhere we want, telling other nations how to run things.
And it doesn't usually work out so well for us. We insisted that Mubarek should go, and now Egypt is run by the Muslim brotherhood! They're not particularly friendly to the US... in fact, they're pretty big on the whole "death to the Great Satan" idea. (That's us.)
Ron Paul's foreign policy isn't insane. According to the International Business Times, his foreign policy is "one of Paul's strongest points."
Instead of listening to the hyperbole, learn the facts of Paul's foreign policy. If you do that, then you'll understand he doesn't want us to be a weak nation. He wants a strong defense, but he wants it at home, where it belongs. A period of reduced spending as we consolidate would result in a recovered nation that is stronger than ever.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Read the rest...
But just what IS Ron Paul's foreign policy, and how insane is it really? Let's look at it.
In broad terms, his foreign policy can be divided into three categories:
We Can't Be The World's Policeman
Yes, Paul believes that we can't be the cop on the world beat, keeping peace everywhere. Why? Two major reasons. First, it's wrong. We have no moral or legal right to demand sovereignty for ourselves and then meddle in other nation's internal affairs as we please. Second, we can't afford it. We have a yearly deficit of $1.5 TRILLION, and our national debt is approaching bankruptcy levels. We simply cannot afford to keep, according to DOD figures, 1.43 million troops stationed in over 150 countries... and that's not including the 203,000 troops in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan!
What is insane about respecting the sovereignty of other nations and acknowledging our own limitations? Trying to keep this up will drive us into bankruptcy.
Bring the troops home
With so many abroad, we spend a lot of money building and maintaining bases on foreign soil. The recently constructed embassy in Iraq cost us over $1 billion to build, and that's ridiculous. We maintain, by DOD count, 662 bases on foreign soil. An awful lot of money and personnel go into maintaining our foreign presence, when in truth we can adequately defend our nation FROM HOME. Bring the troops home and defend our nation with our impressive collection of submarines and aircraft carriers, supplemented by the Air Force, Army, and Marines. What aspect of our national defense is served by having troops stationed in Malta?
And not all of the facilities we have are dedicated to defense. Did you know that in 2007, the US had 172 golf courses on foreign soil? We also have resort hotels and ski areas, though not nearly as many as we have golf courses.
End foreign aid
Each Year, the US sends $20-$30 billion to foreign nations, many of them unfriendly to us and/or our allies. We have no say in how it is spent, and we simply can't afford to keep giving free money to any nation that wants it. (Remember the whole bankruptcy thing.)
There is another aspect to his foreign policy that seems to stand out, so I want to deal with that separately. Israel.
Ron Paul is being characterized as anti-Israel because he wants to stop sending foreign aid to Israel. But remember, Paul wants to stop sending foreign aid to EVERYBODY. If you look at how much foreign aid we send to the middle east, you'll find that we send 10 TIMES as much money to Israel's Arab neighbors as we do to Israel. And since many of them would like nothing better than to destroy Israel, ending all aid actually turns into a net gain for Israel.
Paul wants us to be Israel's ally, even their friend, something we aren't right now. I mean yes, we send them money, but even ignoring the other aid we send to the region, we attach strings to that money. Our leaders seem to think that because we send money to Israel, we can dictate to them how they run their nation. We've told them how to handle the Palestinians, even where they should set their nation's borders. Think of how intrusive and offensive that is, to dictate to an ALLIED NATION where they should draw their borders.
Ron Paul believes that if we are allied to another sovereign nation, then we should respect them. And that means let them set their own policy, run their own nation, and decide where their own borders are. The interesting thing about sovereignty is that we should respect the sovereignty of other nations, something we aren't so good at. We prefer to stick our noses in anywhere we want, telling other nations how to run things.
And it doesn't usually work out so well for us. We insisted that Mubarek should go, and now Egypt is run by the Muslim brotherhood! They're not particularly friendly to the US... in fact, they're pretty big on the whole "death to the Great Satan" idea. (That's us.)
Ron Paul's foreign policy isn't insane. According to the International Business Times, his foreign policy is "one of Paul's strongest points."
The truth, however, is that foreign policy is one of Paul’s strongest points.
Paul is a non-interventionist. He wants to bring troops home from Iraq, Afghanistan and from all over the world. He wants the U.S. to stop policing the world, mind its own business and spend less money on defense.
This is in sharp contrast to the current state of U.S. foreign policy, which has the U.S. spending nearly five percent of its GDP on the military each year and stationing troops in over 150 countries (including heavy presences in friendly countries like Japan).
The U.S., in fact, accounts for 43 percent of the total global military spending in 2010, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute…
Instead of listening to the hyperbole, learn the facts of Paul's foreign policy. If you do that, then you'll understand he doesn't want us to be a weak nation. He wants a strong defense, but he wants it at home, where it belongs. A period of reduced spending as we consolidate would result in a recovered nation that is stronger than ever.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Read the rest...
Monday, December 12, 2011
The Real Scoop On Ron Paul
I was cruising through my online sources the other day, and stumbled upon something many of you will find surprising. A very conservative advocacy group has come out endorsing Ron Paul for President. I can actually hear the blood pressure rising in some of my staunchly Republican friends now.
In fact, this group made videos about their support.
In this first video, Molotov makes his actual endorsement for Ron Paul.
As you can see, he didn't go into a lot of details, he just made the endorsement. The reasons for the endorsement are made in this second video. He makes the point that Ron Paul is the most conservative of all the candidates. He also proposes an analogy that if Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter, then Ron Paul is Ronald Reagan.
I've spoken to many Republican Paul-haters, and their major point of disagreement seems to be foreign policy, especially his stance on foreign aid to Israel. Molotov deals with this question in detail, pointing out that Paul's foreign policy will actually HELP Israel. We fund Israel's (mostly non-friendly) neighbors TEN TIMES more than we fund Israel, and we keep trying to micro-manage their nation. Isn't it time we got out their way and stopped treating Israel like our "yarmulke wearing step-child?" If we respect them, then don't they deserve their independence... from us?
And if you are interested in words from Paul's own mouth, here's a short interview with him specifically on his foreign policy and relations with Israel. It's quite interesting.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/12/08/ron-paul-israel-our-best-friend/
So there you go, some really decent videos giving some solid reasons why Ron Paul MUST be the GOP candidate for President. Agree or not, I hope you enjoyed the videos. Hopefully, they gave you something new to think about.
Read the rest...
In fact, this group made videos about their support.
In this first video, Molotov makes his actual endorsement for Ron Paul.
As you can see, he didn't go into a lot of details, he just made the endorsement. The reasons for the endorsement are made in this second video. He makes the point that Ron Paul is the most conservative of all the candidates. He also proposes an analogy that if Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter, then Ron Paul is Ronald Reagan.
I've spoken to many Republican Paul-haters, and their major point of disagreement seems to be foreign policy, especially his stance on foreign aid to Israel. Molotov deals with this question in detail, pointing out that Paul's foreign policy will actually HELP Israel. We fund Israel's (mostly non-friendly) neighbors TEN TIMES more than we fund Israel, and we keep trying to micro-manage their nation. Isn't it time we got out their way and stopped treating Israel like our "yarmulke wearing step-child?" If we respect them, then don't they deserve their independence... from us?
And if you are interested in words from Paul's own mouth, here's a short interview with him specifically on his foreign policy and relations with Israel. It's quite interesting.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/12/08/ron-paul-israel-our-best-friend/
So there you go, some really decent videos giving some solid reasons why Ron Paul MUST be the GOP candidate for President. Agree or not, I hope you enjoyed the videos. Hopefully, they gave you something new to think about.
Read the rest...
Friday, December 9, 2011
Warning To Tea Party: Beware Newt Gingrich
Ladies and gentlemen of the Tea Party, I address this missive to you. I have seen news articles that include polling data showing that members of the Tea Party are choosing Newt Gingrich to be their candidate. In my humble opinion, this is a bad idea... Allow me to explain.
The main reason the Tea Party movement started, the initial spark, was the TARP bailout program. We got together initially to protest taking money from us and giving it to irresponsible businessmen. I don't know about you, but I STILL think TARP was a bad idea.
The problem here is that Newt Gingrich SUPPORTED the TARP bailouts. By choosing Newt, you choose a candidate who is opposed to us over the very reason our movement formed!
Another of the major issues for us was ObamaCare. We didn't like the massive Federal intervention in our health care, and we absolutely detested the individual mandate. If government has any limits at all, we said, surely they cannot force us to spend our money on something we did not choose to buy!
And again, the problem is that Newt Gingrich supported the individual mandate. Well, maybe "supported" is a bad word. How about "supports?" Some of his websites still carried statements in support of an individual mandate as recently as LAST MONTH!
So, in Newt Gingrich, we get a candidate who opposes us on our two major issues. Will someone in the Tea Party PLEASE tell me why they think this is a good idea?
As to other issues, many in the Tea Party cared about immigration reform and gun rights. These two issues make strikes three and four for Newt. He is on the record for wanting a "comprehensive solution" to immigration that doesn't include taking the illegal immigrants and sending them home OR strengthening the border. He is also on the record, way back when he was in Congress, for supporting the assault weapons ban. News Flash: NEWT LIKES GUN CONTROL!
Look, ladies and gentlemen of the Tea Party, PLEASE pick your candidate carefully. If you select and vote for a candidate who holds positions that are contrary to the very reason the Tea Party was formed, you toss all of our hard work into the dustbin of history. You belittle the movement... and you ridicule yourselves.
Read the rest...
The main reason the Tea Party movement started, the initial spark, was the TARP bailout program. We got together initially to protest taking money from us and giving it to irresponsible businessmen. I don't know about you, but I STILL think TARP was a bad idea.
The problem here is that Newt Gingrich SUPPORTED the TARP bailouts. By choosing Newt, you choose a candidate who is opposed to us over the very reason our movement formed!
Another of the major issues for us was ObamaCare. We didn't like the massive Federal intervention in our health care, and we absolutely detested the individual mandate. If government has any limits at all, we said, surely they cannot force us to spend our money on something we did not choose to buy!
And again, the problem is that Newt Gingrich supported the individual mandate. Well, maybe "supported" is a bad word. How about "supports?" Some of his websites still carried statements in support of an individual mandate as recently as LAST MONTH!
So, in Newt Gingrich, we get a candidate who opposes us on our two major issues. Will someone in the Tea Party PLEASE tell me why they think this is a good idea?
As to other issues, many in the Tea Party cared about immigration reform and gun rights. These two issues make strikes three and four for Newt. He is on the record for wanting a "comprehensive solution" to immigration that doesn't include taking the illegal immigrants and sending them home OR strengthening the border. He is also on the record, way back when he was in Congress, for supporting the assault weapons ban. News Flash: NEWT LIKES GUN CONTROL!
Look, ladies and gentlemen of the Tea Party, PLEASE pick your candidate carefully. If you select and vote for a candidate who holds positions that are contrary to the very reason the Tea Party was formed, you toss all of our hard work into the dustbin of history. You belittle the movement... and you ridicule yourselves.
Read the rest...
Why Candidates Should Avoid Trump
So Donald Trump wants to host a debate, and some of the candidates are leery of attending. Ron Paul declined, saying he didn't think the debate would be dignified. Trump replied by calling Paul a "joke of a candidate." Trump also belittled Huntsman when he declined.
The head of the Republican National Committee advised candidates not to attend, because Trump still may declare a third-party candidacy, which makes him moderating a debate a direct conflict.
Look, there are lots of reasons why candidates should ignore this debate, but here's a solid one. Romney declined, citing scheduling conflicts with already planned campaigning activities. Trump's initial response was good, but now that only two candidates are attending and the rest have declined, Trump has decided to attack Romney!
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/198319-trump-romney-lacks-the-courage-to-participate-in-his-debate
Romney politely declines and Trump attacks him. With that as an example, can anybody actually believe that Trump would be a decent moderator for a Presidential debate? For heavens sake, he attacks anybody who doesn't do what he wants them to do!
So my advice to Gingrich and Santorum is to bail. The debate is mincemeat anyway with only two participants. It will be a waste of your time, and could well backfire on you, depending on what else Trump has to say about your non-participating opponents. The more he attacks, maligns, belittles, and smears them, the worse you look for attending the debate.
Read the rest...
The head of the Republican National Committee advised candidates not to attend, because Trump still may declare a third-party candidacy, which makes him moderating a debate a direct conflict.
Look, there are lots of reasons why candidates should ignore this debate, but here's a solid one. Romney declined, citing scheduling conflicts with already planned campaigning activities. Trump's initial response was good, but now that only two candidates are attending and the rest have declined, Trump has decided to attack Romney!
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/198319-trump-romney-lacks-the-courage-to-participate-in-his-debate
"I’m disappointed that he didn’t seem to -- I don’t want to use the word courage -- but didn’t seem to have the courage to do the debate," Trump said of Romney on CNN's "The Situation Room," pointing to Romney's precarious situation position as a frontrunner in the polls.
Romney politely declines and Trump attacks him. With that as an example, can anybody actually believe that Trump would be a decent moderator for a Presidential debate? For heavens sake, he attacks anybody who doesn't do what he wants them to do!
So my advice to Gingrich and Santorum is to bail. The debate is mincemeat anyway with only two participants. It will be a waste of your time, and could well backfire on you, depending on what else Trump has to say about your non-participating opponents. The more he attacks, maligns, belittles, and smears them, the worse you look for attending the debate.
Read the rest...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)