There was an error in this gadget

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Palin: GOP better not marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters

Sarah Palin gave her analysis of the Iowa caucuses tonight, refusing to give any single candidate anything close to an endorsement. She also noted rather passionately though, that the GOP had better not marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters after tonight because their fiscal concerns are very legitimate and the GOP had better work with them.

Read More>>

Iowa: America is Calling

Another new Rick Perry ad. I must say, Perry has had some of the better ads so far. - Reggie

Failed Promises: Iowa Edition

Here's an excellent ad from the RNC. - Reggie

On Drudge NOW!

Cast your vote on Drudge for the candidate that you want to win.

- Michael

Chuck Baldwin Endorses Ron Paul for President

Monday, January 2, 2012

Palin on 'Draft Sarah' Campaign

from earlier today

Palin talks about all of the GOP candidates, as well as Donald Trump's possible 3rd party run  and Gingrich floating her name as his VP pick or Energy Secretary. Finally, she suggests that Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann consider dropping out of the race. Ouch! That may hurt Bachmann because she has been riding on Palin's coattails with some of her supporters. - Reggie

More GOP Campaign Ads

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann: America's Iron Lady

Newt Gingrich: Winning the Argument

Congressman Ron Paul:

Governor Rick Perry: Rick Santorum - Unelectable

This last ad was put out by Democrat Rapid Response about Mitt Romney. Now, normally I wouldn't post anything from Democrats but regular readers of this blog know that I am 100% opposed to Mitt Romney so I am posting this ad because I agree with it. - Reggie

Top 5 Mitt Fits of 2011

Why all the Ron Paul Passion?

I wanted to write an article that answers some of the questions that were asked in the article below written by a good friend of mine, Dr. Michael Brown.  I am one of those passionate Ron Paul supporters.  I have many reasons why I am a Ron Paul supporter but I will only focus on answering some of the questions that Dr. Brown brought up in his article: Why Are Ron Paul's Followers So Touchy?

It is true that Ron Paul has the ability to ignite a passion in people that the other candidates just can't.  There are some Ron Paul supporters that are over the top.  Countless times I have read comments posted by his supporters that are full of profanity and abusive language.  These supporters hurt Paul more then they help.

I have come to realize that it isn't Ron Paul the man that is the big deal; it is what he stands for, what he says and believes that people adhere to so much. Almost every other candidate is more polished and speaks more eloquently then Paul does but that does not slow him down nor does it bother his supporters. Ron Paul has the ability to turn the light on and once you have seen that light you rarely will go back or support anyone else.  This explains why, for the most part he only rises in the polls and rarely sinks.  Not many people can say that they agree with everything their candidate stands for.  For the most part, Paul supporters can.

Many times Ron Paul is misunderstood on many of his positions. If you understand his views through the lens of the constitution you may quickly come to the conclusion that he is right. As absurd as some of the things he says sound when you do your homework on the constitution and what our founders envisioned for America you soon see that Paul is right on the money and every other candidate, although having certain strengths, are far from the constitution.

Here are some issues that I will attempt to answer:

Ron Paul downplays the threat of radical Islam:

The fact is, Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to focus on our borders here at home and quit worrying about the borders between other nations. He wants to bring the troops home.  This alone would save us millions. Ron Paul has stated time and time again that he would be concerned if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon but that there is no evidence that they are even close to acquiring one. We also must look at what the constitution says on the matter. In a nut shell it says "mind your own business." I find it humorous that those who claim to be die hard constitutionalists are so willing to turn a blind eye when the constitution does not line up with what they really believe.  Folks, we need to wake up and realize that we are broke.  We can’t afford to nation build anymore no matter what our beliefs are.  Ron Paul is the only one that is willing to face reality on this point.

Ron Paul is anti-Israel:

Ron Paul is probably the closest friend to Israel out of all the candidates.  He firmly believes that they should have their sovereignty.  He also believes that the US should stay out of their business. In Dr. Browns article he quotes a former Paul aid as saying; “most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. . . . He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.” I personally have never heard Ron Paul say anything to that effect. I have noticed that people love putting words in his mouth.

The following is a great video that explains this well:

Ron Paul's Foreign Policy:

In Dr. Browns article he asks the question: Are his foreign policies na├»ve, or does he really understand the nature of anti-American “blowback”?  I have seen time and time again how more people than not are very ignorant when it comes to how our foreign policy affects us as a country.  The CIA is in agreement with Paul when it comes to "blowback".  I find myself laughing at the people laughing at Ron Paul when he tries to educate them on this subject.  Here is a great video on the subject:

Ron Paul's Newsletters:

As far as the Ron Paul newsletters controversy is concerned I encourage everyone to do their homework to make their own decision. I have looked up the videos on YouTube of interviews with Paul during those years and have never heard him say anything like what was written in the newsletters.  Keep in mind that the media is rotating about 8 sentences out of thousands in an effort to discredit him.  In a recent interview he disavowed the “bad” things that were written and reaffirmed that he was not the author of the “bad” stuff.  He also stated that he had 9 employees at the time and was not the editor of the newsletter.  He also humbly said that he was not perfect and it was unfortunate that information got by him while being manager.  I happen to believe him, not just because he said it but because of the mountain of evidence that validates his true positions on the issues.  I think it is good policy to judge a man by what you see him do and hear him say.  Not what others say about him.

One of the comments left in response to Dr. Brown’s article was from Doug.  He said:

"We're touchy about the fact that the money we have worked so many years to save buys less every day. We're touchy because American soldiers are being sent halfway around the world to do nothing but waste money and incite hatred of America instead of being used for DEFENSE against invasion (the Mexican border, perhaps?). We're touchy about little old ladies and little kids being fondled in airports by creepy losers who aren't qualified to operate a deep fryer at McDonald's. We're touchy about local police using federal tax money to purchase tanks and military clothing and weapons to use against Americans. We're touchy about a trillion and a half dollars being added to the national debt EVERY YEAR".

Unfortunately, Ron Paul is THE ONLY candidate that would work to change our nation for the good and stop our runaway government.  He isn't fighting for himself.  He is fighting for each individual American.


Ron Paul Energizing First-Time Caucusers In Iowa

DES MOINES, IOWA — There's a very good reason that long-serving Texas Congressman and Tea Party Godfather Ron Paul has rocketed up the ranks in this crucial early caucus state: passion. Specifically, the kind of wide-eyed enthusiasm and dedication he inspires in young first-time caucusers like Carl Bisenius and his friends.
"I've made my decision and I'm going to vote for Ron Paul," said Bisenius, 19, of neighboring Ankeny, Iowa. "Mostly because he seems the most honest. He's got the best record out of all of them and I really agree with everything he says."

Read more>>

U.S. Presidents Ranked by Budget Deficits

The Heritage Foundation: U.S. Presidents Ranked by Budget Deficits

Will Obama steal the 2012 election?

Honestly, this is my biggest fear. I do not believe a majority of Americans will vote for Obama this November but I do believe his re-election by theft is a strong possibility and our "Justice" Department will do everything it can to make sure that happens. Nothing will stop them whether it is legal or illegal because this administration has proven time after time that they ignore the law. - Reggie

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. claims Jim Crow is returning. In a recent speech, Mr. Holder said that attempts by states to pass voter identification laws will disenfranchise minorities, rolling back the clock to the evil days of segregation. He said that a growing number of minorities fear that “the same disparities, divisions and problems” now afflict America as they did in 1965 prior to the Voting Rights Act. According to the Obama administration, our democracy is being threatened by racist Republicans. Hence, the Justice Department must prevent laws requiring a photo ID to vote from being enacted.

Mr. Holder argues that voter ID laws disproportionately discriminate against poor blacks and Hispanics - citizens who cannot afford to acquire a driver’s license, passport or other form of photo identification. The latest victim is South Carolina; its voter ID law has been blocked by the Justice Department. Liberal Democrats - taking their cue from the White House - are portraying the national movement for election reform as an authoritarian assault upon civil liberties. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has even petitioned the United Nations, asking it to declare states’ voter ID laws human rights abuses. For the radical left, America has become Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

This would be comical if the consequences were not so serious. South Carolina’s legislation provides for free ID cards to be given to anyone who needs it. Not one person - white, black or brown - is discriminated against or discouraged from casting a vote at the ballot box. Moreover, the Supreme Court already has ruled on the issue - upholding state voter ID laws. In the 2008 Crawford v. Marion County Election Board decision, the high court held that an Indiana law mandating photo identification at the voting booth was indeed constitutional. If it is good enough for the Supreme Court and the overwhelming majority of the states, then it should be for Mr. Holder as well.

It isn’t. And the reason is simple: The administration is trying to whip up minority frenzy, propagating the myth of widespread ballot suppression. The goal is to foster a sense of racial persecution of blacks, intending to maximize voter turnout in November. The results, however, will be to poison race relations further. Mr. Holder is cynically playing the race card in order to achieve President Obama’s overriding ambition: re-election.

Racism has nothing to do with states implementing voter ID laws. Rather, it is about protecting the integrity of our electoral system. Voter fraud is rampant; abuses regularly take place. In Chicago, local elections are often marred by ballot stuffing and multiple voting - including by false voters who use the names of deceased individuals. Indiana election officials have found that, during the 2008 Democratic primary, countless pro-Barack Obama and pro-Hillary Rodham Clinton signatures were falsified. In Minnesota, voter fraud enabled Democrat Al Franken to steal the election from incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman. It is precisely to preserve the fundamental basis of our democracy - one person, one vote - that voter ID laws are necessary.

And there is this...

Why Are Ron Paul's Followers So Touchy?

Dr. Michael Brown
I know that every candidate has passionate supporters, but it’s obvious that Ron Paul’s followers are especially passionate to the point of being downright touchy whenever he is strongly criticized. Or am I being unfair in my assessment?

Last week, I received an email via Townhall from an apparent Ron Paul supporter. He wrote, “You want war with Iran send your own [expletive] kids, not mine. Stop sucking up to Isreal [sic]. What a piece of [expletive] this Townhall spews. One can clearly see your [sic] for the Tea Party of Hate. I know becuase [sic] of your hate for Ron Paul.”

Now, the funny thing is that, in several dozen Townhall articles written in 2011, I mentioned Iran a total of twice (in passing, at that), I mentioned the Tea Party twice (in the space of one article, without criticism or endorsement), and most importantly, I never once mentioned the name of Ron Paul. Not once! Yet somehow I am fashioned a Ron Paul hater.

Obviously, this is just one email from an anti-Israel, anti-Tea Party, profanity-using, spelling-challenged reader, and in no way do I judge Ron Paul or the rest of his supporters by one foolish email. Of course not. And yet, there’s something all too familiar about this pro-Paul email, specifically, its unusually rabid tone.

It is an open secret that no one has supporters who are more devoted, loyal, or committed than Ron Paul, and if other candidates had followers as dedicated as his, the current political landscape would look very different.

So is that the answer to my question? Is it simply that Paul’s followers are more passionate than others, implying that they will also be more defensive and even touchy?

Or is this overly simplistic? Perhaps the real issue is that, for years, the media has seemingly failed to give Paul his due, giving other candidates more coverage and attention and even time to respond in public debates. And so Paul’s followers have simply had it with being slighted, becoming especially sensitive to criticism.

Or maybe Paul’s supporters have emulated some of his own style, being more didactic than dynamic and more cantankerous than charismatic? Maybe this is one the reasons they are attracted to him?

Sunday, January 1, 2012

'The Ron Paul Chronicles'

Jon Huntsman has finally put out a new ad and it is a humdinger! It puts Ron Paul in The Twilight Zone.

It's interesting that Huntsman is attacking Paul instead of Romney or Gingrich. - Reggie

Hillsdale College: Introduction to the Constitution

The videos below are from a lecture series. last September, by Hillsdale College. Beginning February 20th, Hillsdale is offering a 10 week online course called “Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution” which promises to be a much more in-depth class than the previous one. You will need to register for the new class at no charge, however, they do request that you consider a donation.

Here's the lecture schedule:

Introduction: The American Mind
Larry P. Arnn
Monday, February 20

The Declaration of Independence
Thomas G. West
Monday, February 27

The Problem of Majority Tyranny
David Bobb
Monday, March 5

Separation of Powers: Preventing Tyranny
Kevin Portteus
Monday, March 12

Separation of Powers: Ensuring Good Government
Will Morrisey
Monday, March 19

Religion, Morality, and Property
David Bobb
Monday, March 26

Crisis of Constitutional Government
Will Morrisey
Monday, April 2

Abraham Lincoln and the Constitution
Kevin Portteus
Monday, April 9

The Progressive Rejection of the Founding
Ronald J. Pestritto
Monday, April 16

The Recovery of the Constitution
Larry P. Arnn
Monday, April 23

Empowered with this knowledge, we will be more prepared to hold our elected officials accountable and, perhaps, be better able to make the best choice in the Republican race for President.

We all need to take advantage of this spectacular opportunity to actually learn about our founding documents in order that we may endeavor to save our nation from the certain destruction we see on the horizon. - Reggie

Introduction to the Constitution - Part 1: Study Guide

Introduction to the Constitution - Part 2: Study Guide

Introduction to the Constitution - Part 3: Study Guide

Introduction to the Constitution - Part 4: Study Guide

"Introduction to the Constitution" - Concluding Session

Anti-Romney conservatives face calls to coalesce

KNOXVILLE, Iowa – Even before votes are cast here, movement conservatives across the country are beginning to fear that 2012 will be a replay of the last GOP presidential primary: conservatives divided between candidates, enabling a center-right contender to march up the middle and claim the nomination.

Time is running short on activist Republicans who have long yearned for a unifying Mitt Romney alternative in the race – leading some to worry that if they don’t stop him in Iowa on Tuesday, they may not be able to stop him at all.

Rick Santorum’s late surge in Iowa, coupled with the apparent determination of Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich to make a three-week stand through South Carolina, could augur for a bloody, multi-party battle on the right while Romney rides strength in Iowa and New Hampshire.

That’s led some movement veterans to call for the base to rally around whichever conservative does best in the caucuses on Tuesday — a distinction that polls are showing is likely to go to Santorum.

“I could see the conservative movement coalescing around somebody that comes out of Iowa strong and sort of becomes the conservative candidate out of Iowa and into New Hampshire,” said conservative strategist Greg Mueller, a onetime adviser to the Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes campaigns. “You could see conservatives nationally start to call on the movement, which is not a monolithic thing, to encourage their supporters to get behind the one candidate who might have a shot at winning.”

In some quarters on the right, exasperation with the fractured state of affairs has already boiled over. David Lane, an influential and low-profile Christian conservative, wrote in an email to associates Friday that he feared a redux of 2008, when Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee split the conservative vote to give John McCain a crucial win in South Carolina.

“We have Fred Thompson to thank for McCain as the Republican nominee in 2008,” wrote Lane, who said he sees Santorum playing a similar role this time by undercutting better-funded opponents.

Referring to the local social conservative leaders in Iowa who have endorsed the former Pennsylvania senator in recent weeks, Lane continued, “If Santorum gets traction, we’ll have Santorum (and the IA ‘Family Policy Boys’) to thank for Romney as the Republican nominee in '12, and the reelection of Obama on Nov. 6, 2012.”

In an email to POLITICO, Lane elaborated: “Right now it looks like 2008. Evangelicals, generally speaking, don’t understand politics.”

But with his strong showing in the new Des Moines Register Iowa poll, it appears that Santorum may have a strong claim to make coming out of Iowa that he is the candidate that can unite the right as they try to head off a Romney nomination.

Perry and Michele Bachmann are headed straight to South Carolina and skipping New Hampshire after the caucuses. Not Santorum. In a brief interview following a campaign stop in this central Iowa town, Santorum said that he was headed to the Granite State on Wednesday in an effort to build on expected momentum coming out of the caucuses.

Read the rest of the article

And there is this...

Associated Press: Gingrich says Romney would buy White House if he could

In Depth with Milton Friedman

September 3, 2000


Mr. Friedman spoke about his career as an author and economist as well as his body of work. Among the topics he addressed were the influence of the Chicago school of economics, his perceptions of past presidential administrations, and America's attitudes toward money. He also responded to viewer questions and comments and was later joined by his wife. This program has a five minute break at approximately the two hour mark before continuing with the interview.

Click here to watch Milton Friedman discuss F.A. Hayek's book, The Road to Serfdom.

'Ominous parallels between Obama, Roosevelt grow'

Dr. Walter E. Williams hosted the Rush Limbaugh program last Friday and he read a column he had written last August that I think is worth posting.

At the end of FDR's life most people thought he had become a dictator thus, because of the fear of a tyrant, the nation passed the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. I truly believe we have the closest thing to a dictator in the White House today since FDR and Obama has done unthinkable damage to our nation in only three years. God forbid he gets another term. - Reggie

By: Walter Williams | 08/15/11

People are beginning to compare Barack Obama's administration to the failed administration of Jimmy Carter, but a better comparison is to the Roosevelt administration of the 1930s and '40s.

Let's look at it with the help of a publication from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy and the Foundation for Economic Education titled "Great Myths of the Great Depression," by Lawrence Reed.

During the first year of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, he called for increasing federal spending to $10 billion while revenues were only $3 billion.

Between 1933 and 1936, government expenditures rose by more than 83 percent. Federal debt skyrocketed by 73 percent. Roosevelt signed off on legislation that raised the top income tax rate to 79 percent and then later to 90 percent.

Hillsdale College economics historian and professor Burt Folsom -- author of "New Deal or Raw Deal?" -- notes that in 1941, Roosevelt even proposed a 99.5 percent marginal tax rate on all incomes more than $100,000. When a top adviser questioned the idea, Roosevelt replied, "Why not?"

Roosevelt had other ideas for the economy, including the National Recovery Act. Reed says:

"The economic impact of the NRA was immediate and powerful. In the five months leading up to the act's passage, signs of recovery were evident: Factory employment and payrolls had increased by 23 and 35 percent, respectively.

"Then came the NRA, shortening hours of work, raising wages arbitrarily and imposing other new costs on enterprise. In the six months after the law took effect, industrial production dropped 25 percent."

Blacks were especially hard hit by the NRA. Black spokesmen and the black press often referred to the NRA as the "Negro Run Around," Negroes Rarely Allowed," "Negroes Ruined Again," "Negroes Robbed Again," "No Roosevelt Again" and the "Negro Removal Act."

Fortunately, the courts ruled the NRA unconstitutional. As a result, unemployment fell to 14 percent in 1936 and lower by 1937.

2012 is Here!




Saturday, December 31, 2011

Happy New Year?

Mark Steyn
At the end of 2011, America has dug deeper into denial. 

Ring out the new, ring in the old.

No, hang on, that should be the other way around, shouldn’t it? Not as far as 2011 was concerned. The year began with a tea-powered Republican caucus taking control of the House of Representatives and pledging to rein in spendaholic government. It ended with President Obama making a pro forma request for a mere $1.2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling. This will raise government debt to $16.4 trillion — a new world record! If only until he demands the next debt-ceiling increase in three months’ time.

At the end of 2011, America, like much of the rest of the Western world, has dug deeper into a cocoon of denial. Tens of millions of Americans remain unaware that this nation is broke — broker than any nation has ever been. A few days before Christmas, we sailed across the psychological Rubicon and joined the club of nations whose government debt now exceeds their total GDP. It barely raised a murmur — and those who took the trouble to address the issue noted complacently that our 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio is a mere two-thirds of Greece’s. That’s true, but at a certain point per capita comparisons are less relevant than the sheer hard dollar sums: Greece owes a few rinky-dink billions; America owes more money than anyone has ever owed anybody ever.

Public debt has increased by 67 percent over the last three years, and too many Americans refuse even to see it as a problem. For most of us, “$16.4 trillion” has no real meaning, any more than “$17.9 trillion” or “$28.3 trillion” or “$147.8 bazillion.” It doesn’t even have much meaning for the guys spending the dough: Look into the eyes of Barack Obama or Harry Reid or Barney Frank, and you realize that, even as they’re borrowing all this money, they have no serious intention of paying any of it back. That’s to say, there is no politically plausible scenario under which the 16.4 trillion is reduced to 13.7 trillion, and then 7.9 trillion, and eventually 173 dollars and 48 cents. At the deepest levels within our governing structures, we are committed to living beyond our means on a scale no civilization has ever done.

Our most enlightened citizens think it’s rather vulgar and boorish to obsess about debt. The urbane, educated, Western progressive would rather “save the planet,” a cause which offers the grandiose narcissism that, say, reforming Medicare lacks. So, for example, a pipeline delivering Canadian energy from Alberta to Texas is blocked by the president on no grounds whatsoever except that the very thought of it is an aesthetic affront to the moneyed Sierra Club types who infest his fundraisers. The offending energy, of course, does not simply get mothballed in the Canadian attic: The Dominion’s prime minister has already pointed out that they’ll sell it to the Chinese, whose Politburo lacks our exquisitely refined revulsion at economic dynamism, and indeed seems increasingly amused by it. Pace the ecopalyptics, the planet will be just fine: Would it kill you to try saving your country, or state, or municipality?

Last January, the BBC’s Brian Milligan inaugurated the new year by driving an electric Mini from London to Edinburgh taking advantage of the many government-subsidized charge posts en route. It took him four days, which works out to an average speed of six miles per hour — or longer than it would have taken on a stagecoach in the mid–19th century. This was hailed as a great triumph by the environmentalists. I mean, c’mon, what’s the hurry?

What indeed? In September, the tenth anniversary of a murderous strike at the heart of America’s most glittering city was commemorated at a building site: The Empire State Building was finished in 18 months during a depression, but in the 21st century the global superpower cannot put up two replacement skyscrapers within a decade. The 9/11 memorial museum was supposed to open on the eleventh anniversary, this coming September. On Thursday, Mayor Bloomberg announced that there is “no chance of it being open on time.” No big deal. What’s one more endlessly delayed, inefficient, over-bureaucratized construction project in a sclerotic republic?

Barely had the 9/11 observances ended than America’s gilded if somewhat long-in-the-tooth youth took to the streets of Lower Manhattan to launch “Occupy Wall Street.” The young certainly should be mad about something: After all, it’s their future that got looted to bribe the present. As things stand, they’ll end their days in an impoverished, violent, disease-ridden swamp of dysfunction that would be all but unrecognizable to Americans of the mid–20th century — and, if that’s not reason to take to the streets, what is? Alas, our somnolent youth are also laboring under the misapprehension that advanced Western societies still have somebody to stick it to. The total combined wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans is $1.5 trillion. So, if you confiscated the lot, it would barely cover one Obama debt-ceiling increase. Nevertheless, America’s student princes’ main demand was that someone else should pick up the six-figure tab for their leisurely half-decade varsity of Social Justice studies. Lest sticking it to the Man by demanding the Man write them a large check sound insufficiently idealistic, they also wanted a trillion dollars for “ecological restoration.” Hey, why not? What difference is another lousy trill gonna make?

Judicial Watch’s ‘Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians’ for 2011: Executive Edition

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2011 list of Washington’s “Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The members of the Obama Administration on the list, in alphabetical order, include:

Dishonorable Mentions for 2011 include:
Attorney General Eric Holder: Attorney General Eric Holder now operates the most politicized and ideological Department of Justice (DOJ) in recent history. And revelations from the Operation Fast and Furious scandal suggest that programs approved by the Holder DOJ may have resulted in the needless deaths of many, including a federal law enforcement officer.

Fast and Furious was a DOJ/Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) “gun-running” operation in which guns were sold to Mexican drug cartels and others, apparently in hopes that the guns would end up at crime scenes. This reckless insanity seems to have resulted in, among other crimes, the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, who was killed in a shootout with Mexican criminals in December 2010. Fast and Furious guns were found at the scene of his death.

The Fast and Furious operation by itself should have resulted in Holder’s resignation, but it is the cover-up that has prompted serious calls for Holder’s ouster.

Read the rest of the article -- Huffington Post Has a Party and It's Democratic

Published December 31, 2011 | Fox

The post-Christmas headline reads: “THE MOLOTOV PARTY,” and it’s not talking about a fiery New Year’s Eve bash. Naturally, it refers to the GOP and accompanies a photo of the top candidates, with every single letter of the headline capitalized for emphasis. Within a few hours, it morphs into “THEY ♥ MANDATES,” an attack this time on Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.

Political junkies would recognize that level of anti-Republican vitriol and readily identify the perpetrator – Huffington Post. HuffPo, as it is sometimes called, has evolved from a simple news aggregator into one of the most sophisticated propaganda operations the world has ever seen.

The site was started by political chameleon Arianna Huffington, who used to be conservative before she discovered it was far more lucrative to be liberal. The zeros that entrepreneur Huffington paid bloggers for their content came back to her as $20 million to $30 million or more, along with $4 million a year. That was part of the $315 million sale to AOL that turned Huffington into a media mogul and the most powerful propagandist since a guy named Goebbels.

Internet denizens might say that last comment violated Godwin’s Law, as Third Reich references often do. And it would, except it’s true. Huffington heads up a “news” team whose two aims are to drive traffic and to drive conservatives and the GOP into the ground. The HuffPo team is good at both.

Read the full post

'A Fiscal Conservative'

New Rick Perry ad. I think Perry puts out a new ad every couple of days and some are pretty good. - Reggie

Virginia AG Intervenes in GOP Ballot Dispute as Blocked Candidates Join Suit

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is intervening in his state's presidential primary dispute and plans to file emergency legislation to address the inability of most Republican presidential candidates to get their name on the ballot, Fox News has learned.

Meanwhile, four GOP candidates on Saturday joined fellow candidate Rick Perry's lawsuit against the state, urging the Board of Elections to either allow them on the ballot or at least refrain from taking any action until a Jan. 13 court hearing.

Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul qualified for the Virginia primary, a contest with 49 delegates up for grabs. Perry and the four candidates joining the lawsuit -- Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman -- did not.

The failure of other candidates to qualify led to complaints that the 10,000-signature requirement is too stringent.

Cuccinelli, who is a Republican, shared the concerns and plans to take them to the legislature while the candidates work through the courts.

"Recent events have underscored that our system is deficient," he said in a statement Saturday. "Virginia owes her citizens a better process. We can do it in time for the March primary if we resolve to do so quickly."

Jordanian Salafi Cleric: The Caliphate Will Be Reestablished in 2024

Isn't it time to take these Muslims seriously? Pay attention, Christians because this is the closest thing to a timeline we've ever had although I don't think he will be 100% accurate on that. Just the same, be prepared. Revelation 13. - Reggie

Yassin Al-’Ajlouni: I bring glad tidings to the Islamic nation: The days of the establishment of the Caliphate are near – the Caliphate that will reside in Jerusalem, and the Caliph who will conquer Palestine. “So when the second warning came to pass, we permitted your enemies to disfigure your faces, and to enter your Temple, as they had entered it before, and to destroy all that fell into their power.” This is the Caliph to whom allegiance will be pledged in Palestine, after he conquers the Arab Peninsula and Persia.

I think – although Allah knows best – that the [Caliph] is among us. We see him with our own eyes. He is Abdullah, who reigns over Jordan at present. The man will be guided by Allah to this great conquest, and Allah willing, in 1446 AH [2024 CE], we will witness the rebuilding of the Al-Aqsa of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the most beautiful manner.

The armies that will conquer Palestine will all agree to have Abdullah as their Caliph. This will be a Hashemite Caliphate, but not the way we want it – it will not be in keeping with the path of the Prophet. Such a Caliphate will be established, Allah willing, by Muhammad, whom we believe to be the son of Abdullah II, the current king of Jordan – but Allah knows best.

Allah willing, I will fill you in with more details on this matter.

Friday, December 30, 2011

The Case for a Conservative

National Review goes Establishment Republican as movement faces 2012 election and the future.

Did you hear the news about National Review?

Somebody dug deep into the archives and came up with a couple of the old classics from the days when William F. Buckley Jr. was sailing at the front of the conservative movement.

Who could forget that great 1964 cover story: Earth to Barry, illustrated by an astronaut-suited, helmeted and visored would-be GOP presidential nominee Barry Goldwater, bug-eyed behind the trademark black-framed glasses, floating above the earth tethered to an Arizona cactus way down below. With the cover banner reading "The Editors: Against Goldwater." In which Buckley's National Review roasted Goldwater for his proclivity to shoot from the hip, his countless verbal miscues ("Let's lob one into the men's room at the Kremlin"), his seemingly perpetual addiction to applying minor ideological rigidities to major policy, giving liberals a chance to paint conservatives as extremist nuts.

Then there was that jewel of a cover story from January of 1980: "Acting Conservative: Reagan's Love Affair with FDR and Truman," the cartoon depicting a lecherous Reagan on bended knee to a demure, smitten GOP elephant wearing a bridal veil. Discreetly pinned to the underside of his wedding tailcoat were political buttons reading "Happy Days Are Here Again: FDR Forever" and "I'm Just Wild About Harry." Accompanied by the cover banner declaring "The Editors: The Case for Bush and the GOP Establishment."This one excoriated presidential hopeful Ronald Reagan for pretending to conservatism when he had voted repeatedly for FDR and campaigned actively for Truman. It scorched Reagan for his inattention to detail, his intellectual idiosyncrasies that let him blurt gaffe after gaffe along the lines of trees being responsible for pollution. And made a strong case that the time-tested wisdom of the GOP Establishment should have Republicans looking at smart, reasonable people like George H.W. Bush, Howard Baker, Bob Dole or John Anderson.

And perhaps best of all there was that famous column by National Review's current editor a mere five years ago titled "Run, Newt, Run," an admiring look at former Speaker Newt Gingrich and urging him to run for president in 2008.

Wait. Stop.

No, those first two stories were never written by William F. Buckley Jr. In fact, they never happened, period. Much less did his famous National Review flee the conservative field as the incoming missiles from the GOP Establishment (not to mention the rest of the outside liberal world) rocketed into the conservative camp in the days of Goldwater and Reagan. Buckley never picked Rockefeller or Scranton over Goldwater, and he chose his great conservative friend Reagan over the GOP Establishment favorite George H.W. Bush and the Establishment rest in 1980. Buckley was first, last, and always making the case for conservatism.

But in fact, yes indeed -- that third story mentioned? "Run, Newt, Run" -- a genuinely admiring 2006 story urging Newt Gingrich to run for president in 2008? That is not a figment of anyone's imagination. It was in fact written by National Review editor Rich Lowry and can be found right here.

Which leads to the obvious question.

When one picks up the current issue of National Review with its mocking cartoon cover of Newt Gingrich entitled Newt's World and a banner headline reading "The Editors: Against Gingrich," one wonders what happened to Mr. Lowry over the course of the last four years. How did Newt Gingrich, the man enthusiastically touted for the White House a mere five years ago by Lowry as having "reestablished himself as a party leader through sheer intellectual energy" -- become transformed into an arrogant intellectual nut whose "character flaws -- his impulsiveness, his grandiosity, his weakness for half-baked (and not especially conservative) ideas made him a poor Speaker of the House."

If the latter assessment from NR is true now, certainly Mr. Lowry should have noticed all this in 2006. But, alas, apparently not. Meaning either Lowry was asleep at the switch in 2006 -- or something else has happened since that period at NR that mysteriously changed the perception of Newt Gingrich's performance in what was already by 2006 long ago history.

I don't mean to pick on Mr. Lowry here, or my friends at National Review. In fact, Andy McCarthy at NR made bold to dissent from his editors, and Thomas Sowell was on the pages of National Review Online differing from the editors as well.

But I do think Lowry and company have provided something to reflect on as we stand at the edge of the 2012 elections. Something that was touched on by our friend Brent Bozell in his reaction to the National Review anti-Gingrich editorial. And for those who came in late and are familiar with Mr. Bozell only from his regular appearances on Hannity discussing the latest findings from the bottom of the liberal media barrel as discovered by his great invention the Media Research Center, why and what Bozell said is important. He is both the nephew of NR founder William F. Buckley Jr. and the namesake son of Mr. Buckley's brother-in-law, himself a prominent conservative Founding Father.

Here's Brent's take on the NR editorial as reported by Newsmax:
"National Review's endorsement of Romney & Huntsman proves only that this is no longer the magazine of William F. Buckley Jr.," he posted on his page above a photo of Buckley and President Ronald Reagan sharing a laugh. "My uncle would be appalled."

Requirement to consider gay couples for adoption forces Illinois Catholic Charities affiliates to close

After the Illinois state legislature passed a requirement that says adoption and foster-care agencies — to be eligible for state money — must consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care or adoptive parents, the Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois decided to shut down most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in the state. This isn’t the first time something like this has happened: Massachusetts and Washington D.C. both passed similar requirements — and many Catholic Charities affiliates closed down in those states, as well. The New York Times reports:

For the nation’s Catholic bishops, the Illinois requirement is a prime example of what they see as an escalating campaign by the government to trample on their religious freedom while expanding the rights of gay people. The idea that religious Americans are the victims of government-backed persecution is now a frequent theme not just for Catholic bishops, but also for Republican presidential candidates and conservative evangelicals.

“In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill., a civil and canon lawyer who helped drive the church’s losing battle to retain its state contracts for foster care and adoption services. …

Critics of the church argue that no group has a constitutional right to a government contract, especially if it refuses to provide required services.

But Anthony R. Picarello Jr., general counsel and associate general secretary of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, disagreed. “It’s true that the church doesn’t have a First Amendment right to have a government contract,” he said, “but it does have a First Amendment right not to be excluded from a contract based on its religious beliefs.

Read the full post

Thursday, December 29, 2011

President Obama Making the Grade on Foreign Policy?

Mark Steyn talks to John Bolton

Ron Paul Jumps into 1st Place in Iowa and Intense Scrutiny has Arrived

Since I have been away from the blog for about ten days or so, quite a bit has happened in the race for the Republican nomination for President. Ron Paul has jumped into first place in Iowa and is getting the scrutiny he has been able to avoid for several years because of his low polling numbers. I am linking to a few of the stories out there but I am barely scratching the surface.

Other candidates are having their own troubles. Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry failed to get their names on the Virginia primary ballot and they aren't the only ones, although they did try to get on the ballot. Bachmann, Huntsman & Santorum did not try. Perry is suing Virginia's board of elections.

Also, Bachmann is losing workers. Her Iowa campaign chairman left her campaign for Ron Paul's. She claims Paul offered the guy lots of money but he says that's not true. And a Bachmann super-PAC has left her campaign to work for Romney. These are two huge blows to the Bachmann campaign and I really don't see how she can stay in the race much longer.

And, finally, Gary Johnson has left the GOP and is trying to get the Libertarian nomination to compete against Obama and the eventual GOP nominee. - Reggie

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Made in America

A family member sent this information to me and I think it's fascinating. Who would have thought that if home builders in this country would increase their American made purchases by 5% they could create over 200,000 jobs? Spread the word, America. Stop buying the Chinese made goods and start buying the American made goods so we can help put America back to work! - Reggie

As Iowa Goes, So Goes Iowa

For all of the media hoopla, GOP caucusgoers in the Hawkeye State have a poor record of choosing their party's eventual nominee.

I don't have anything against Iowa's Republican caucusgoers. They're nice people, good Americans, conscientious and aware of their responsibilities as voters in the state's first-in-the-nation presidential primary. (Iowa Democratic caucusgoers are like this too.)

But the Iowa Republican caucuses have a poor record in choosing their party's nominees. In the five presidential nominating cycles with active Iowa Republican caucus competition, the Hawkeye State has voted for the eventual Republican nominee only twice—in 1996 for Bob Dole, in 2000 for George W. Bush—and only once was the Iowa winner elected president.

The state's Democrats have a better record, producing a surprise victory for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and a big victory for eventual nominee Walter Mondale in 1984. They faltered in 1988 as Dick Gephardt and Paul Simon came in ahead of nominee Michael Dukakis, and in 1992, when Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin swept the field. But they gave big victories to Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008.

One reason Iowa Democrats have been better prognosticators than Iowa Republicans is that more people participate in their caucuses. About twice as many people showed up for the Democratic precinct caucuses as for their Republican counterparts in 2008. In a state of three million people, a bare 119,000 Republicans showed up for the caucuses. Some 60% of them identified as evangelical or born-again Christians—a far higher percentage than in any presidential contest in any large non-Southern state that year.

The small, skewed turnout resulted in a victory for Mike Huckabee, who ran ads identifying himself as a "Christian leader." In later contests in other states, Mr. Huckabee, despite sparkling performances in debate and impressive command of popular culture, failed to win more than 15% of the support of those who did not identify themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians, and he lost to John McCain.

Read the full column

Recent GOP Ads

I believe the ads below are the most recent for these candidates. I searched for a Michele Bachmann and a Jon Huntsman ad but could not find one newer than a few weeks old. Have you decided who to support yet? I'm still contemplating. - Reggie

Newt Gingrich: Main Street

Congressman Ron Paul: Washington Machine

Governor Rick Perry: Part-Time Congress

Mitt Romney: Davenport, Four Years Later

Rick Santorum: Pop Up

Art Laffer Endorses Newt Gingrich

I would say this is a huge endorsement for Gingrich. Art Laffer is the inventor of The Laffer Curve and the architect of the Ronald Reagan economic plan. - Reggie

Dyersville, IA - Renowned economist, father of The Laffer Curve and supply-side economics, and architect of the Ronald Reagan economic plan, Arthur Laffer, announced his endorsement Tuesday of Newt Gingrich for President of the United States.

"Newt has the best plan for jobs and economic growth of any candidate in the field," said Laffer.

"Like Ronald Reagan's tax cuts and pro-growth policies, Newt's low individual and corporate tax rates, deregulation and strong dollar monetary policies will create a boom of new investment and economic growth leading to the creation of tens of millions of new jobs over the next decade. Plus, Newt's record of helping Ronald Reagan pass the Kemp Roth tax cuts and enacting the largest capital gains tax cut in history as Speaker of the House shows he can get this plan passed and put it into action."

And there is this...

The Year in Obama Scandals — and Scandal Deniers

By Michelle Malkin  •  December 28, 2011

With 2011 drawing to a close, it is time to account. As an early-and-often chronicler of Chicago-on-the-Potomac, I am amazed at the stubborn and clingy persistence of President Barack Obama’s snowblowers in the media. See no scandal, hear no scandal, speak no scandal.

Dartmouth College professor Brendan Nyhan asserted in May — while Operation Fast and Furious subpoenas were flying on Capitol Hill — that “one of the least remarked upon aspects of the Obama presidency has been the lack of scandals.” Conveniently, he defines scandal as a “widespread elite perception of wrongdoing.”

So as long as left-wing Ivy League scribes refuse to perceive something to be a scandal — never mind the actual suffering endured by the family of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, whose death came at the hands of a Mexican cartel thug wielding a Fast and Furious gun walked across the southern border under Attorney General Eric Holder’s watch — there is no scandal!

Self-serving much?

Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum likewise proclaimed: “Obama’s presidency has so far been almost completely free of scandal.”

This after the year kicked off in January with the departure of lying eco-radical czar Carol Browner. In backroom negotiations, she infamously bullied auto execs to “put nothing in writing, ever.” The previous fall, the White House’s own oil spill panel had singled out Browner for misleading the public about the scientific evidence for the administration’s Draconian drilling moratorium and “contributing to the perception that the government’s findings were more exact than they actually were.”

The Interior Department inspector general and federal judges likewise blasted drilling ban book-cooking by Browner and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who falsely rewrote the White House drilling ban report to doctor the Obama-appointed panel’s own overwhelming scientific objections to the job-killing edict.

In February, federal judge Martin Feldman in Louisiana excoriated the Obama Interior Department for defying his May 2010 order to lift its fraudulent ban on offshore oil and gas drilling in the Gulf. He called out the administration’s culture of contempt and “determined disregard” for the law.

Read the full column

2012, A Year of Media Savagery

By Brent Bozell

For those Republican presidential candidates who eventually conclude there is no path to the nomination, there is consolation in the notion that they won’t be the ones to face the brutal onslaught being prepared for the GOP king of the mountain by Team Obama and their army of “objective” media allies.

This time around, the Obama machine cannot run on the fairy dust of Hope and Change. They cannot suggest after four years of dreadful executive-branch performance, the Promised One is on the horizon. Their only path to victory is the one that finds their opponents even more disliked. So it can be guaranteed that whoever wins the Republican contest will face one of the most scorching personal assaults the country has ever witnessed.

Occasionally, the old-style thrill-up-my-leg-over-Obama quote still emerges. The Media Research Center’s “Best of Notable Quotables” winners for 2011 provides examples. Stephen Marche of Esquire magazine won over judges of the “Obamagasm Award” by energetically asking “can we just take a month or two to contemplate him the way we might contemplate a painting by Vermeer or a guitar lick by the early-seventies Rolling Stones or a Peyton Manning pass or any other astounding, ecstatic human achievement?” At least when they said this in 2008, it hadn’t been completely disproved. Marche reminds us of Baghdad Bob, the ridiculous propagandist for Saddam, proclaiming the defeat of allied troops while they emerged around the corner.

Marche actually claimed we will look back decades from now and see “a glorious idyll in American politics, with a confident, intelligent, fascinating president riding the surge of his prodigious talents from triumph to triumph.” Someone hearing Marche declare this might rush him to an emergency-room for signs of dementia.

The winner of MRC’s “Media Hero Award” came forward as the congressional career of Anthony Weiner was about to end after having demonstrated his contempt for his wife by showing off his body parts all over Twitter (and actually tweet-exchanging with high school girls).

Read the full column here.

South Carolina and Voter ID: When Politics Drives Law Enforcement

Attorney General Eric Holder put a lump of coal in South Carolina’s Christmas stocking on Dec. 23 when he objected to the state’s new voter ID law. By ignoring inconvenient facts and clear legal precedent, Holder showed once again that politics and ideology—not the rule of law—drive his law enforcement decisions. Given the power of the Justice Department and its potential for abuse, this should worry all Americans, particularly when that abuse has the potential to affect the outcome of next year’s election.

South Carolina passed a voter ID law that is almost identical to those implemented by Georgia and Indiana six years ago. It requires a voter to present a South Carolina driver’s license or other photo ID—a passport, military ID, or a voter registration card with a photo issued by South Carolina election officials. Even if a voter shows up at a polling place without an acceptable ID, he can still vote a provisional ballot that will be counted if he brings an ID to election officials before the results are certified. South Carolina’s law is more lenient than either Georgia’s or Indiana’s. If a voter has a religious objection or a “reasonable impediment” that prevents him from getting a free photo ID, then the voter can simply fill out an affidavit in which he outlines his objection or impediment and swears that he is who he says he is. His provisional ballot will then be automatically counted unless local election officials have evidence that “the affidavit is false.”

This new ID requirement is a common-sense reform that can easily be met by voters regardless of their race, ethnicity, or economic status. However, South Carolina is one of the few states still covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a civil rights-era law that requires the state to get “preclearance” of any voting change from the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Justice Department or a federal court in the District of Columbia. Section 5 was originally passed in 1965 as a five-year emergency provision to remedy widespread, systematic discrimination in the South. Yet it has been frequently renewed—most recently in 2006—even though the official discrimination it was intended to stop has long since disappeared except for isolated incidents.

South Carolina made the grievous error of submitting the state’s new voter ID law to the Justice Department for review, rather than going straight to federal court where it would get an impartial hearing. The history of this Justice Department over the past three years, from the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case to the refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, has been one in which raw politics and ideology are driving law enforcement decisions.

Holder’s flawed outlook on voter ID laws, as he outlined it recently in a speech at the LBJ Library in Texas, matches the racial paranoia of the Democratic National Committee and the NAACP, each of which claims erroneously that voter ID laws are an attempt to suppress minority votes comparable to Jim Crow. This is a historically preposterous idea. But there was no way that South Carolina was going to get a fair, objective, and nonpartisan review of its voter ID law from this Justice Department, particularly given the parallel views of the radicals hired into career civil service positions within the Civil Rights Division.

In its objection letter to South Carolina, the Justice Department wrongly claims that voter ID would have a discriminatory impact on “non-white” voters. To get to that conclusion, however, DOJ manipulated the statistics to claim that “minority registered voters were nearly 20% more likely to lack DMV-issued ID than white registered voters, and thus to be effectively disenfranchised by” the law’s requirements. This is not a legitimate claim, given the actual data and the provisions of the law.

Read the full article

Texas Christmas Honor Killings: Mass Murderer Didn’t Want Daughter Dating Non-Muslim

On Christmas Day Aziz Yazdanpanah shot his family dead. He didn’t want his daughter dating a non-Muslim.

ABC News reported:
A Santa-suited gunman who killed six people on Christmas morning was the estranged husband of one of the victims and the father of two teenagers who died in the massacre.
Aziz Yazdanpanah, 56, showed up to his estranged wife’s apartment on Christmas morning dressed like St. Nick and opened fire shortly after the family had unwrapped presents.
Yazdanpanah then killed himself.
The six victims were identified by ABC affiliate WFAA as: Nasrin Rahmaty, 55, who was Yazdanpanah’s wife; Nona Yazdanpanah, 19, his daughter; Ali Yazdanpanah, 15, his son; Zohreh Rahmaty, 58, his sister-in-law; Hossein Zarei, 59, his brother-in-law; and Sahra Zarei, 22, his niece.
The Dallas Morning News reported more on the killer, via Jihad Watch.

Read the full post here.