Its been a while for me putting pen to paper, in fact it will be seven months & days days from now between posts and a lot has changed since. Nothing has changed in the grand scheme of things thou, not with having re-elected President Obama. Had it been Mitt Romney would it have been much different? I don't think so, but it couldn't have gotten much worse either. For full disclosure I'm not an anti-Obama guy. I think hes grossly under-qualified for the position and has gotten in way over his head. With that said, as i have stated many times on this blog, i think too much disinformation has been put out in efforts to soil the President and many of them are gross exaggerations - like this obsession with him raising taxes & running up the debt at a record pace.
Plain and simple, Obama has not raised taxes across the board like most think he has, in fact hes been a tax cutter (if you dont count the tax on tattoos parlors and tanning bed companies). Now with that now being said, that will dramatically change over the next few years as the Bush Tax cuts are set to expire and he has stated taxes will go up for the wealthy. Then factor in Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) and you are now talking about sweeping tax hikes, but to this point the narrative of him being a greedy socialist tax whore has been blatantly false.
The Debt? Hes run up the credit card at an alarming rate, but not much more than his predecessor George W Bush did in his eight years before Obama's election. When President Bush took office the National Debt stood at 5.7 Trillion, when he left it was 10.6. So when Obama took office he entered with the 10.6 Trillion, as of this morning it stands at 16.2 (bear in mind that 3/4 of Obama's first year of office was under a GWB budget). So nominally, Obama will easily be the biggest debtor in our nations history but he will will probably "only" double the debt, just as his predecessor did before him.
So, where does that leave us? I think we are in for another recession. The President will have the veto pen and i think if everything is left in place, economically its going to be a long and harsh recovery of virtually no growth. Jobs will not be plentiful and incomes will continue to be slashed through a combination of: lack of work, inflation and debt at every level, public and privately. If his broaden agenda is brought into focus and realized things will be worse. Cataclysmic economic meltdown filled with bread lines and riots in the streets? No. But stagflation circa mid 1970's? Yes.
Hopefully, the administration understands the situation we are in and does its best to curb the rising tides that are on the horizon. If not, Obama's legacy will be nothing short of a an economic dead zone. A presidency that inherited an economic crisis that was undoubtedly dire but after a stabilization, this was a regime that failed to turn the momentum around and instead kicked out its arms every-time it tried to get up off the floor. An 8 year window of high unemployment, economic decline via the continued assault on the dollar through currency manipulation and reckless spending. "Hope" and "Change" were the buzz words of '08 and they were empty words based on the results of the last four years. Lets hope for some change in the next four.
When I was working on my last entry concerning FEMA and Ron Paul, I started to get into a bit of a tirade concerning the debt. This, in this writers opinion, is the United States greatest threat, not some foreign enemy. With most people showing no interest or regard for it, its up to those of us who do hold these truths to be evident, to keep putting that word out there... and that word is debt (specifically insurmountable debt) is slavery and nothing more then a transfer of wealth; from the many to the few.
In this article I want to tackle two situations that I see problematic and the key cogs to insurmountable debt. First, there is the federal government and our elected "leaders" role in this failure to be reasponsible. Secondly, is the Federal Reserve and its banks, that have been culpable in allowing (through the manipulation of interest rates) this economy to take a path that will see it fall off a cliff. What the recoil will be from QE 2,3,4,5,6,7 bailouts and stimulus remains to be seen, but there can be only one thing we know for sure.
That is, we are accumulating debt. And vast amounts of it. The implication of compound interest makes these actions basically treasonous by our elected leaders and criminal by the FED. How can Congress and the executive branch both complicity push the cost of running the government so far out of the realm of practicality? How is it legal for the FED to lend huge sums at what amounts to no interest to those banks that were all considered "too big to fail" who then take that liquidity and invest in T-Bills that will actually yield a 2-3% interest? These practices destroy existing savings and the incentive to save; thus creating only one desired effect - consumption.
Because, without people borrowing and spending the whole thing blows up. Money = debt, debt = money. The biggest problem is that the American population are over saturated in debt thus why the sub-prime in housing was needed. Like its population, the US government, is over saturated as well. They, unlike you and I, have no limits and that defies logic. Lets look at the executive's role.
The Interest payment is the only debt payment required by
the Constitution that must be accounted for in the budget each year to be paid.
With that said, every President hopeful on the Republican
side and President Obama have all released a budget or a proposed budget.
Not one of them have a plan to balance the budget next year,
neither will any one of them do so in four years either (with the exception of
Ron Paul). We will without a doubt have continuous mounting
deficits that will probably be in the 1-2 Trillion mark annually regardless of
who is in office (with the exception of Ron Paul). Starting to notice a trend here?
Mitt Romney wants to increase defense spending by putting 100k
more troops on the ground and rebuild parts of the Navy and Air Force. He would not have left Iraq,
appears to have an itch to scratch in Iran
and will not leave Afghanistan
until its won (the forever war) or at least until his generals say to leave??? His budget has the wealthiest Americans (who
pay the most income taxes) getting a significant tax cut on top of the existing
tax cuts that are already in place.
Romney has no plans to offset the lost revenue that will
surly happen when these cuts take place, nor does he have any plans to make any
significant cuts in existing outlays to recoup the ramped up defense spending. This
defines logic. Mitt Romney's plans are contrary to anything sane in regards to
the federal government living within its means. He’s fiscal policy’s will be train-wreck
like.
That however, is not how Romney sees it. He thinks if he
cuts taxes the gains in receipts will pay for this increase in spending. The
problem with that is that the FED doesn’t think the economy is going to grow by
all that much… and they control the money supply. This leads us into the second part of the equation: the insurmountable tag team.
The FED’s long term forecast is a relatively weak one going
forward with long term GDP growth outlook being in the 2.3 to 2.6 percent ranges.
The FED has also said it will not look to raise interest rates until, at the earliest, 2014. Here you have the economy just barley keeping its head above
water for the foreseeable future, the FED continuing its non-stop intravenous liquidity
therapy into bank’s reserves creating a soon to be inflation tsunami all the
while our elected representatives continue to show no regard for the situation.
I want to take a look at two charts that really speak
volumes for what is going on and what we will being seeing soon enough in our
own backyards. Lets start at 2006, when the FED stopped tracking M3. As you can
see below, when Shadowstats picked up the tab of tracking M3, the growth in
money supply was steadily rising until early 2008. As the recession came, the
Fed lowered interest rates to avoid the fire of deflation but banks weren’t loaning,
so the money supply dropped with it.
A curious situation started occurring by the middle of 2010.
M3 started to rise and its rising still as of now. Meanwhile, Interest rates from 2009 on have stayed basically at zero and as we’ve already heard from the FED,
they will remain that way for years. This does not bode well for the dollar or
anything equity wise going forward in my opinion. If the economy continues its "recovery” like so many in the media says it is, the eventual outcome will be a
pretty substantial increase in inflation. This would, by default, put relatively
the majority of commodities into buy, buy and buy more mode. Most specifically gold and silver.
Equally alarming will be the federal governments penchant
for debt as we have also seen, they will not live within our means, thus piling
more debt on to the insurmountable existing amount. What happens when the FED
has to raise interest rates? If we are seeing 450 Billion interest payments
already (Intragovernmental and Public) imagine what will happen to those when
interest rates go up? They could look something like this:
Just for a little perspective. In 1988, the national Debt
was 2.6 Trillion. The interest payment on that in the budget was 214 Billion. The
interest payment in 2011 was 450 Billion, roughly double. The principal, as we
know, was 14+ Trillion.
The US
government will not cut spending and we will continue to finance the
welfare/warfare system. What happens in 10 years from now will be interesting
thou. Can the FED really raise rates, without completely tanking the economy?
And if they did, what would happen to the interest payment on the debt
outstanding (besides sky rocketing into the trillion dollar mark). If the FED does
not raise rates out of the fear of deflation, isn’t massive inflation the only
alternative?
George Carlin said it best:
When you're born you get a ticket to the
freak show. When you're born in America,
you get a front row seat.
It’s been well documented, Obama owns this economy. The DNC Chair Wasserman-Shultz has said as much, VP Joe Biden has also said it and a vast majority of Republicans all say Obama owns the
economy as well. With piling, Trillion
dollar deficits and unemployment having maintained historic levels for extended
periods of time; the economic malaise Obama reigns over, is one that no
President can tout.
Remember, Clinton's
sign on his desk when he was in the oval office? Contrary to popular belief, it
was not: “The filing cabinet is under the desk, Interns” it was actually: “It’s
about the economy, stupid”.If it is
truly about the economic outlook of this nation; then President Obama is in
trouble come November.
Now personally, I believe the sheer size of the US
economy is so vast and lumbering, that the President gets too much credit when
“his” economy is running on all cylinders just as much he is unfairly ridiculed,
when it’s in the toilet. That however, is not the majority of how Americans
feel or think thou. If they can’t find work, it must be the Presidents fault. The truth of the matter is that the
average American does not have time to research what really are the driving
economic factors behind our economy good or bad; so the person sitting in the oval office is seen as a
personification of the whole economy.
Now, since we are going to use this embodiment to signal a "nay or ya"
regarding the economy, I would like to use this simplistic strategy to point
out something that doesn’t get talked about enough.
President Obama is the first President in 20+ years to see our nation’s top export
be Fuel. He is also the first President since Harry Truman (1949) to oversee
the US being a
net exporter of oil-based fuels. The US
has imported 11% less crude then it did in 2005. Ten years ago, fuel wasn’t or
barley made it in the Top 25 for US exports, but now it stands at #1?
Regardless of how or why, it doesn’t matter. He was the guy in office when
this happened, thus he owns this fast break to energy independence. Never mind
the new developments and discoveries in shale oil/gas or the fact that Obama
inherited the worst economic situation since the Great Depression. Let’s, not
let things like mitigating facts get in the way of our thinking. Mr Obama is
set to become one of the greatest achievers in modern presidential history in
our quest for energy independence and for that he will be looked back on as a
rousing success. Its all about perception isn’t it, or is it context?
Its been a rather hot
item this week. People have been picking apart Mitt Romney's latest budget
proposal and it isnt pretty. The lates offering (or borrowing might fit better)
of a Romney proposed budget would actually result in equal or larger deficits
then we already have under the current administration. I find that odd,
considering Romney has
said recently that it is: "immoral to pass burdens on the next
generation like that" meaning deficits and in turn the national debt.
This is the same Mittens who also said how he "can’t wait to get my
hands on Washington". I had
to ask myself; get your hands on it for what? Clearly, by his own admission in
his proposed budget, he would actually increase the deficit not shrink it, let
alone not balance the budget.
Romney's proposed budget got me thinking... is he seriously supposed to be
the candidate with business experience? You can't argue with the wealth he
built up. Hell, paying only 13% of your income in taxes can have that effect on
a multimillionaire, no? You can't argue with his education background or the
fact that he saved the Olympics, so why is it he has a problem balancing a
budget?
Surely, he had to do so in his business dealings, haggle with budgets. We
know he had to do so as governor, so why is trimming the existing deficit so
hard to do, let alone balance our nations budget? The short answer? He wants to
appeal to everyone. That
why he is flip-flop Mitt. Period.
With that said, I want to focus on one particular part of Romney's budget
and that is defense. Mittens recently said he would not only not cut defense,
he would commission a bump from building "nine per year to fifteen" new ships for the Navy as well as new
aircraft for the Air Force. Apparently, Mittens was feeling the love from the
USS Yorktown and maybe a little patriotic and nostalgic in the World War sense,
because he then dropped this bomb saying (as you can see below) he would
"add at least 100,000 troops to the boots on the ground capability".
The problem with that is first of all, we are not entering a world war. So where could we use this 100k influx? Iraq? We just withdrew (but lest not mention the 15K people left behind to defend the city-like embassy) our combat troops. Afghanistan? It was said two years ago that Al-Qaeda is 75-100 strong in country. That was out of the mouth of then CIA director and now Department of Defense chairman Leon Panetta. I'm guessing Panetta has no advantage of actually underselling our enemy now does he.
These are also the same terrorists who are "on our side" in the uprising that is taking place in Syria. Hmmm, we are going to be supplying and siding up with terrorists to defeat a nation that we do not like today, but will tomorrow in efforts to stop the terrorists that we now all of a sudden hate who once used to help us.... stop me if I am wrong, but have we not seen this movie before; in Afghanistan no less, circa 1979? Oh, never-mind, this movie is titled the "forever war" (thanks Clearwater) thus we never know how it ends and the perpetual boogy man? He just keeps a comin', he just gets a new face (and accent) every now and then, ala Herbert West.
So, why do we need 100,000 additional troops for? To invade Iran? To combat terrorism? Doesn't seem plausible. Seems like using a sledgehammer to swat flies. I would assume the troop levels we have now are more than enough to defend our nation but Mitt doesn't agree:
“We all recognize that America needs to economize, but I don’t believe
that we can economize on securing our nation and protecting our citizens
and ensuring that the world remains safe and free for us and for our
children,”
In fact, if you compare our spending on defense to the rest of the world as I pointed out in an earlier article this year; it's not even close in how much we outspend the rest of the top 17 nations who spend the most on defense combined.
National
defense spending has increased 38% since 2001. This idea that we are going
to spend more on defense and drastically increase its scope and sheer size,
leads me to the answer to my original question. So why do we need 100,000
additional troops for? And the answer is quite obvious. Just look at Romney's quote
when he says:
"ensuring that the
world remains safe and free for us"
There it is. And that is the shared mentality from most of Washington
not just Romney. Kind of reminds me of the newest Navy slogan "A global
force for good". The problem with that? The word "Good" is
awfully ambiguous. How "good" are we, if you're an innocent bystander
whose lost their life or a loved one(s) in Iraq
or Afghanistan.
Is that "good" worth a son who was put into a battle field without
even a deceleration of war from Congress?
"Good", just like the words "safe" and "free"
in Romney's quote are equally indistinct. I thought we already were pretty
safe. Apparently, Romney does not agree and that is why he is touting a pretty
substantial face lift for the DOD. The phrase "free for us"? How can
the world be free for us? Chew on that one, I know i still am.
Which leads me to my final point. Romney is proposing not only an agenda
that is completely out of whack compared to what the rest of the world is
spending on defense, it is also an agenda that is mathematically infeasible in
an environment where we should be embracing austerity measures to live within
our means. Here is a recent quote
from of all people, Valdimir Putin, on the past, current and future US
foreign policy outlook:
"the United States, have
developed a peculiar interpretation of security that is different from ours.
The Americans have become obsessed with the idea of becoming absolutely
invulnerable. This utopian concept is unfeasible both technologically and
geopolitically, but it is the root of the problem. By definition, absolute
invulnerability for one country would in theory require absolute vulnerability
for all others"
I know some of you out there are thinking "why do we care what the
future President of Russia has to say about us" and I understand that
sentiment; however, it's awfully sobering to have the Russians more in line
with reality than a hopeful for the
Presidency of the United States.
To be fair, Romney is not alone on the campaign trail in this insanity, and it
clear the Oval office shares this paranoia as well.
With that, I leave you with a quote, that in today's Republican Party would
be considered a Liberal stance on foreign policy. From the same man who shed
the initial light on the Congressional Military Industrial Complex (how
apropos), former President, Dwight D. Eisenhower:
"We will bankrupt
ourselves in the vain search for absolute security"
What does Rick Santorum have in common with Tony Raines; besides both having no shot to win (I couldn't find any on Pinny or 5dimes
for Raines) in their respective races… both are involved with the
Daytona 500 this weekend. Slick Rick has purchased a ride on the hood of Tony
Raines #26 car in hopes for a little recognition. I guess when you are
having trouble piecing together campaign money; a good bang for your
buck strategy would be to spend a little precious cake on the hood of a
car that has no shot in hell to win the race. Who the hell is his
campaign manager? HR Pufnstuf? Maybe, he is hoping for a crash? Wouldn’t that be
ironic? Santorums sponsored ride crashing much like his presidential
hopes will be when people finally start to understand this sociopath.
This poor guy will be the butt of many jokes this week and maybe
that’s a good thing for Santorum. Other then religious zealots and some
backwards Tea Partiers who obviously don’t grasp the economic aspect
(the only aspect) of the Tea Party, Santorum is a laughing stock. A
little time away from some of the monologues each night might not be a bad thing? Slick Rick is a guy who wants to grab the wheel from Tony Raines clutches and
bring our country back to the century it was invented in. So, in reality
it’s actually a good move made by Santorum to side up with some fly by
night driver with no chance like himself. It shows he at least has a
sense of humor.
Santorum has and will always be a big government "compassionate"
conservative and his record clearly shows that. He will never shrink
government. Because Santorum thinks that government should be involved within every aspect of our lives. Not
only the handling of our taxes and defense of our contracts and borders but he also favors ADDED government power in the business of defense and regulation of morality.
Anytime the government gets involved or makes any move its costs the tax payer. Government as we know creates nothing, all they can do is tax & spend (borrow & spend is more like it). So, with Santorum getting heat this week in an add put out by Ron Paul, in which it calls the former Pennsylvania Senator a "Fake" Conservative, he had to come out and show he wasnt fake and that he was genuine; as his clear rise in the polls would indicate.
Could there be a better time for the Vest to continue to prove his
conservative credentials then the last debate of the primary season last
night in Arizona? I dont think so, and CNN clearly understood what was
going on as it didn't take
long for John King of CNN to fire a 85mph fastball - belt high for Dr
Paul. Within minutes, King asked Dr Paul why his ad this week was calling Santorum "fake"? Ron Paul simply said:
"Because he's a fake".
The good congressman then went on a bit of a rant, on how exactly he thought the Vest was fake and then Santorum's rebuttal was bunch of fluff and rankings from all sorts of conservative organizations supposedly ranking Santorum as some type of fiscal hawk (sic). It was a little later in the debate where Santorum outed himself. Here is the text:
SANTORUM: As Congressman Paul knows, I opposed Title X funding. I've
always opposed Title X funding, but it's included in a large
appropriation bill that includes a whole host of other things,
including...
(BOOING)
... the funding for the National Institutes of Health, the funding
for Health and Human Services and a whole bunch of other departments.
It's a multi-billion-dollar bill.
What I did, because Title X was always pushed through, I did
something that no one else did. Congressman Paul didn't. I said, well,
if you're going to have Title X funding, then we're going to create
something called Title XX, which is going to provide funding for
abstinence-based programs, so at least we'll have an opportunity to
provide programs that actually work in -- in keeping children from being
sexually active instead of facilitating children from being sexually
active. And I pushed Title XX to -- to accomplish that goal.
So while, yes, I -- I admit I voted for large appropriation bills and
there were things in there I didn't like, things in there I did, but
when it came to this issue, I proactively stepped forward and said that
we need to do something at least to counterbalance it, A; B, I would say
that I've always been very public that, as president of the United
States, I will defund Planned Parenthood; I will not sign any
appropriation bill that funds Planned Parenthood.
Here, you have someone who is self described as "the most fiscally conservative senator in the Congress in the -- in the 12 years that I was there", who was also rated "high" in ratings from both the National Taxpayers Union as well as Citizens Against Government Waste actually admitting he was in favor of creating new spending. Not only did he help pass legislation worth billions that he (allegedly) didn't like, he trumps that, with actually admitting to adding more spending for new programs to counter the spending of existing programs he doesn't like. My heads hurts just typing that. Lets try this....
Santorum doesn't like Title X (planned parenthood) but he passes it anyway as a rider on another bill worth billions he does like but because he isn't satisfied with the spending of Title X, he creates (spends) Title XX to satisfy his quest for divine mortality be offsetting Title X.
Nope, this still makes no sense and that is the point. It cant make sense because my logical fiscal conservative brain doesnt compute that as fiscally conservative. That my friends is the antithesis of a fiscal conservative. How does spending new money to offset already spent money create anything but more debt and bigger government? It doesn't. And again... that is the point. That is the very definition of a big government whore... thats what Santorum is, and the Tea Party will line up to support him?
Cox, a veteran of the Iraq War, told Examiner that one of the
highlights for him was the ceremony that took place outside of the White
House. The 500 troops stood in formation in front of the White House
and then did an "about face" and turned their backs to the White House
in a symbolic gesture that displayed their disdain for President Obama
breaking his oath of office, which is the same oath all servicemen take,
to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States.
The veterans were told to render a salute and hold it for as many
seconds as there have been active duty soldiers that have committed
suicide while Obama has been in office. The salute lasted nearly 10
minutes, Cox said. They then bowed their heads in silent prayer for as
many seconds as members of the military have died overseas while Obama
has been Commander-in-Chief, which Cox said was almost 30 minutes.
During the ceremony (as seen in the video to the left), a pair of
soldiers held a flag with words Martin Luther King spake in opposition
to the Vietnam War, warning against America's arrogance overseas. King said:
I call on the young men of America who must make a choice today to take a
stand on this issue. Tomorrow may be too late. The book may close. And
don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine,
messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a
way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I
can hear God saying to America, "You're too arrogant! And if you don't
change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power,
and I'll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my
name. Be still and know that I'm God."
This past weekend we seen two major events take place, the Nevada Caucus and the Super Bowl. Ok, so the Nevada Caucus was hardly a major event, but an event nonetheless. Both of these events taking place on the same weekend however is ironic considering how much they have in common. Nevada for example is the only state where sports betting is legal, and doesn't require bets taking place between six- figure paid elected representatives exchanging food for knit hats. The NFL meanwhile has risen to the top of professional sports for many reasons and betting on its games is one of the pillars of that foundation. But, unless you live in Nevada, you're out of luck and most lawmakers want to keep it that way... although dont tell these guys.
I read this the other day on PokerNews.com about Mitt Romney's view on internet gambling. It seems Mittens is against internet gambling because of its:
"social costs and people’s addictive gambling habits.”
That however didn't stop him from issuing
a 10K wager in a debate a few months back
with the man from Niggerhead Ranch, Rick Perry.
It pretty common to have a politician say he wants you to be safe
and he worries about your well being and its just as common to watch that same politician turn around and do the exact
same thing he wants to protect you from but just in a different light. Take the modern day prohibition of drugs and the old
prohibition of a drug called alcohol for proof of that. Apparently the
lawmakers know whats best for us, i guess you could call it a case
of: do as i say not as i do. I remember hearing that... when i was a kid - from my daddy. And the nanny state lives on; patting us on our asses and heads, for we know not the dangers of the real world.
So when the NFL enables the casinos in Nevada alone to rake in over 100 Million all being legal, while you
at your computer in your own home is illegal to put your$100 on the Giants +3. Kind of odd isnt it? Politicians can bet clam chowder to strip steaks and drink their gin in tonics but if you want to bet on a game or use some drug of your choice; its illegal. They can bet, they can do what drug they like but they also make the rules. I guess daddy knows best.
Its too bad Mitt Romney doesn't apply his quote about how dangerous internet gambling is to Casino gambling, could casino gambling be that much more less addictive or that much less socially damaging? I guess the internet gambling lobby doesn't exist yet? It is also too bad he didn't use that quote to paint his picture of an economic plan as well. What about the social cost of continuing trillion dollar deficits through inflation and interest payments skyrocketing due to a rapidly expanding national debt? What about feeding the addictive habit of politicians who want to cut taxes and increase spending thus feeding those deficits (look at Mitts plan). What about those habits? Crickets. Just like what the current administration has to say on this. Nothing.
And what about that cranky 76-year old from Texas, Congressman Ron Paul?
"People should be free and they should make their own decisions and there should be no regulation of the Internet.”
Maybe it’s just my imagination or has our fine nation become
that hypersensitive that we have started looking for hidden messages because
those actual messages in plain English don’t exist? Seems rather self-serving, doesn’t
it? It also seems self promotion through divisions, such as race, are circling
the drain as pundits scramble through sentences of ideological opponents for
“subliminal racist” messages.
That’s the latest word from the chair of the Congressional Black
Caucus, Emanuel Cleaver (D) of Missouri.
Mr Cleaver is the super sleuth who decoded two recent Presidentialcandidates sentences that appear to be dog whistle words to the Republican red-neck base that President Obama is in fact (gasp) a
black (50%) man.
Yes, it appears that the racist voters who are on the fence
of reelecting a black man need to be reminded that in fact Mr Obama is well…
black, you know… in case they forgot.
I am going to go out on a limb and predict racist’s who vote
based on color or would have their vote’s at least weighted in such nonsense
would not need a reminding; but I’m also not equipped with the: Racist Code Detector
Version 7.5 who can spot such subliminal messages.
See, to a typical person, phrases like Gingrich’s “food
stamp president” and Mitt Romney’s comments on “the very poor” would think:
Poor. However, if equipped with: Racist Code Detector Version 7.5 you would in
fact see the real meaning: “damn the black-man and do no reelect him because he
is only helping blacks”!
So, if racists will vote against whom they despise anyway
without a subliminal message; why the need for the racist code detector version
7.5? The answer is simple. It’s nothing more then a power grab. First, this is the
Webster definition of a Caucus:
: a closed meeting of a
group of persons belonging to the same political party or faction usually to
select candidates or to decide on policy; also: a group of people
united to promote an agreed-upon cause
That seems to be a simple premise, is closed meeting of
persons united to promote an agreed upon cause. Forty years ago the Congressional Black Caucus was founded“to positively influence the course of
events pertinent to African Americans and others of similar experience and
situation.” So, its a closed meeting of like minded people who want to help
black people. Now, this is where it gets interesting…
In a piece done in 2007, Politico’s Josephine Hearn told the story about Stephen I. Cohen, a Liberal Democrat who was rejected for
membership to the caucus because he was white. Despite the fact that 60% of his
constituents were black not to mention the majority of his staff was African
American including his chief of staff. Seems rather confusing considering that
a caucus is “a group of people united to promote an
agreed-upon cause” and being its black, meaning race – Mr Cohen fits, his
policies (Liberal Democrat) and his constituents fit that mission.
It was William Clay Jr (D) from Missouri who had
the courage (or audacity) to lay it out in black and white (pardon the pun) for
why Mr Cohen was not allowed directly from a state from his office:
Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest
of the country will have to accept—there has been an unofficial Congressional
White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the
club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can
change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns
of the black population, and we will not allow white America
to infringe on those objectives.
Now we have the answer. Its not about “the needs and
concerns of the black population” because if it was you wouldn’t reject a man
applying to your “club” who wants to do exactly what your statement above says –
help blacks (you know the people who elected him). This seems like the complete
opposite of representation. And let me remind you again, its not about
representation, its about power – this is just one of many clear examples.
In that same article was also the story of how Al Green (D)
from Texas (now a member of the Black Caucus) got elected despite running
against an incumbent Chris Bell, D-Texas who was also a Democrat but white. Hearn
stated that:
Although House tradition discourages members of the same
party from working against each other, about a dozen black lawmakers
contributed to Bell's opponent, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, the eventual victor.
Even Bell's Houston neighbor, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Black Caucus member), D-Texas, campaigned against him.
That is another example of those in the Black Caucus of favoring
skin color over policy. It would be “subliminal” if it was a Republican but to
be doing this to those in your own party? This is another example of how the
two party system is nothing but a sham, a fraud used to promote division across
many lines and race being one of them and one of the easiest to promote at that.
Last but not least, we have the Chairman – Mr Cleaver, the
guy with the Racist Code Detector Version 7.5. I will let his quotes on the
subliminal messages paint the picture:
“In the last few days, both Gov. Romney and Speaker Gingrich
have been guilty of saying things that are not helpful to a society begging for racial inclusion.
Whether they are intentional or not, I’m not 100 percent certain; I do
know that it doesn't matter in many cases.It’s just unfortunate and it tends to divide.”
Cleaver went on to chide Congress for being “nasty” rather
than “inclusive.”
Is there anything left to say? Do I have to point out the hypocrisy
of the Congressional Black Caucus or do these quotes of double talk do the job?
If not, let these words sink in by J.C. Watts (who is black) was elected to
Congress from Oklahoma in 1994 on his views of the Congressional Black Caucus:
They said that I had sold out and (called me) Uncle Tom. But
I have my thoughts. And I think they're race-hustling poverty pimps"
Newt Gingrich spent much of yesterday making his case against Mitt
Romney on the grounds that Romney’s history with the Massachusetts
health care reform plan would make it impossible for him to draw real distinctions between himself and President Obama
on the issue of health care. As it turns out, though, Romney isn’t the
only one who has that problem. Gingrich’s own support for an individual
mandate during the Clinton years and even a mere year before Barack Obama was elected have already been noted. Now, though, we’ve got Gingrich on the record supporting the idea of an individual health care insurance mandate in 2009 just as Congress was beginning to debate what would eventually become the Affordable Care Care:
The real foundation, the most important part of this, is individual rights, responsibilities, and expectations of behavior. … We
believe that there should be must-carry, that everybody should have
health insurance, or if you’re an absolute libertarian, we would allow
you to post a bond, but we would not allow people to be “free riders”
failing to insure themselves and then showing up in the emergency room
with no means of payment. If you have must carry, then the insurance
companies have told us that we can have must-issue, and you will
therefore have a system in which you don’t have to worry about
cherry-picking and maneuvering. … This is the kind of general model we will be advocating.
The quoted section begins at about the 28 second mark, but the entire
audio clip is relevant. At the time, Gingrich was speaking on behalf of
one of his business
ventures, The Center For Health Transformation, an organization that
received significant amounts of money from the health care industry,
including many large pharmaceutical companies. At the time, it wasn’t
really shocking for Gingrich to say this because it was entirely
consistent with what he’d been saying since the days of the long, hard
debate over HillaryCare in 1994. It wasn’t until the right started
turning on ObamaCare, as it came to be called, that Gingrich changed his
position. Now, Gingrich says he was wrong for all those years. however
as Morgen at Verum Serum notes, the audio clip is fairly damning when it comes to the case that Gingrich himself tries to make against Romney:
Well, here you have it: not only has Gingrich been a
long-standing proponent of a federal health insurance mandate, he
clearly and unequivocally called for it as part of the White House
health reform initiative in May 2009. Mission accomplished then.
There is something else worth noting in this clip. Not only did
Gingrich make the “conservative” argument for the mandate in dealing
with the free rider problem, he also advanced a favorite argument of the
left. Which is that the only way insurers
could be required to offer coverage to everyone regardless of their
health status (“must issue”), was to require everyone to carry
insurance. This was ultimately the argument which convinced none other
than Barack Obama, who remember, opposed an individual mandate during
the Democrat primary campaign in 2008.
Romney is arguably even more compromised on ObamaCare than Gingrich,
but it’s a much closer call in my opinion than some seem to believe.
Call me an Alinskyite, but it seemed like Republican voters should
probably know about this before the general election.
I bet they will after this starts showing up in SuperPAC ads in the near future.
Newton Gingrich, who is said to be the Tea-Part choice (it’s
good the paper muffles my chuckles) for the Republican ticket for November is
angry over cuts Mitt Romney made while Governor. Which I find funny because
Gingrich said himself cutting waste and fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid
program would save $1 trillion over 10 years.
I disagree with much of what Mitt Romney has to say as I have pointed out on
many occasions, but this piece in the New York Post that Gingrich is trying to
use against him in Florida (a big Jewish population no doubt) is one where I cant
fault Mittens. Apparently, in 2003 as governor of Massachusetts,
Romney cast a veto that would nix $600,000 in additional funds for poor Jewish
nursing-home residents to get kosher meals.
Romney said it “unnecessarily” would lead to an “increased
rate for nursing facilities”. That is because of the costs of Medicade and what
it was doing to the budget. We are talking about Medicade here; which means we
are talking about government money. Romney’s spokesman defended his opposition,
saying the state was in crisis and the kosher funding veto was needed to head
off higher reimbursement rates for Medicaid.
Of course there was stiff opposition. Jeffrey Goldshine, the retired CEO of
a company that operated a kosher facility in Massachusetts
said this when being interviewed by the NYPost: “I was outraged. For the
elderly Jewish residents of a nursing home that have always been kosher — they
should be entitled to continue.”
There was also Brooklyn state Assemblyman Dov Hikind, an Orthodox Jew and
Newt Gingrich supporter, who also had this to say: “People who are kosher —
it’s not a choice they have, everybody understands what kosher is. You have
huge communities of Jews who eat only kosher and you have a huge community of senior
citizens”.
Let me state that I have no religious background nor preference and I feel
no religion should be upheld by government and this veto by Romney is no
exception. Then you have a Mormon in Mittens who is not only making cuts to Old
Jewish folks but Catholics as well according to Newt (who is a Catholic) at a
recent campaign stop in Pensacola: “Let me note in passing that Romney as governor imposed on Catholic hospitals
provisions against their religious strictures” said at a campaign stop in Pensacola.
We can debate what waste is and we know what’s fraud, but when do you have
to make tough decisions as to what to cut? Gingrich wants to make serious cuts
to save money as he sees half a Trillion annually in savings on the budget if
you modernize. How do you suppose you “modernize” and “cut waste and fraud in Medicade”
if you never have to make the tough decisions? You don’t. Newt has no plan to
shrink government and this proves he doesn’t even want to make the tough decisions
when its time to break out a scalpel.
For Newton to somehow say on the stump: “he (Romney) has no understanding of
the importance of conscience and importance of religious liberty in this
country” because Romney made cuts to Medicade is
insane. Of course it’s not popular. The Assemblyman and retired CEO of the Kosher Company illustrate that. I see it this way; no religion or beliefs should
be paid for by government across the board. Secondly, Newt is using fear to
drive voters. He even used the infamous “I know of a” to strike his point. “And
in at least one parish I know of, the priest talked about the danger of a
dictatorship that imposed anti-religious standards in all of us.” Stop it Newt.
Lastly, since there is “huge communities of Jews who eat only kosher” as the
Assemblyman says there is, I would suggest they ought to pick up the check and
not the government. This goes for all religious beliefs when it comes to Medicare.
If I fault Romney for anything in this, it is simply not reaching out to said
community, thus giving them a chance to help.
If Gingrich is running to cut government and restore fiscal responsibility, why does he chastise thou that
do? He went after Mittens for his experience at Bain he goes after his
for cutting Medicare expenses when he was Governor. I think there is
much bigger issues to cut besides Kosher food from Medicare as i think
there is more honorable things than basically being a corporate raider,
but Mitt's work history and his balancing budgets is in the realm, I
don't think you can say the same for the Grinch. Maybe is realm truly is on
the moon?
You have to admire Mittens'. He’s the Charlie Brown of this
election and more so than any other election to my recollection. Here is a guy teetering
on the edge (of what feels like has been years) of being anointed the Republican
nominee; and all he does is have the football pulled out from underneath him at
almost every turn. The problem is it’s not Lucy doing it. Lucy (the Establishment)
has been there the whole time. Mitt himself is the one who is doing the
tripping.
Everyone from the media - to the Democrats - to the Establishment
moderate Republican base all wants Mitt Romney. He looks the part; he would be
the opposite of President Obama in background and job experience. Romney could
be a brand name; in the Bush and Clinton mold. His father was a Governor and he
has kids involved in politics; he's the Manchurian Candidate. So why can’t he close the deal?
“I don’t know how many years I’ll release,” said Romney over-top of a booing
crowd. Romney pauses then puts on his best presidential smile. “I’ll release
multiple years, I don’t know how many years.”
Look no further than the issue surrounding his taxes for a
perfect example of why. Romney has always been known for doing or saying whatever pleases
whomever he is standing in front of. Or whomever his handlers inform him of who is in needing of some spooning. That’s why his insistence to not reveal his taxes is incredibly uncharacteristic
of Mr Romney. It’s got him booed in the debates. Its gotten him beat up on the
trail. And it justified or not, cemented people’s views of him being an elite-out
of touch-aristocrat.
Mittens’ own father, former Michigan Governor George Romney,
released 12 years of taxes during his 1967 presidential bid. Mittens’ is on
record in the Boston Globe, in 1994 calling out Ted Kennedy for not releasing his taxes: “It’s time the
biggest-taxing senator in Washington
shows the people of Massachusetts
how much he pays in taxes.” And Romney won’t release his taxes?
This is a guy who everyone knows to be a flip flopper. He
has changed his positions unlike anyone since the day of YouTubes inception. Why,
considering the heat… considering his past demands for his opponents to release
them… considering his own father felt it a need to be transparent. Romney has always
preferred political expedience above everything else including character; why
not simply release them?
I see it either or both two ways:
His
tax rate. Romney is said to worth anywhere between 90-250 million. Gingrich
for example showed income of 3.1 Million in 2010 and paid 31% of it to taxes. If Romney is using the 15% Capital gains tax; it would mean he is
paying half the tax rate of say a Newt Gingrich who is worth considerably less.
That wouldn’t fly in this economy nor would it do much to divorce him from
the picture of him being an elitist taking advantage of loopholes
(regardless if they are legal).
Romney
wants to just get to Super -Tuesday and then coast. Thus wrapping up the
nomination and then promptly releasing his returns in April long after the
dust is settled. Romney knows he isn’t a conservative, thus getting out of
this vetting process will (in his eyes) be his biggest hurdle because he
knows the Republicans will choose him over President Obama. Its then, when
Romney’s true strengths will take over. His blend of moderate ideals coupled
with his keen business acumen can go head to head with Obama in where the
election will be won and lost. In that 15-20 percentile of independent
voters.
Just one problem with his strategy, he has hit his ceiling. We now know he didn't win Iowa, only won New Hampshire because he lives there and now he looks like he will lose South Carolina. We could be witnesses to a meltdown of epic proportions. One that has been years in the making.
Interesting story i seen on Huffington Post yesterday pertaining to Dr Ron Paul attracting Muslim support, or as the articles headline points out:
Muslims Say Ron Paul Is Their Kind Of Republican
Now this was not a piece written by the Huff-Post, but rather by a reporter from Religion News Service named Omar Sacirbey, who covers Islam for the organization. It was a story written around the opinions of three people who were presented to be of Islamic faith. One was a convert to Islam in her 50's named Adolf (no joke) and the other two were:
An 18 year old who said he like Paul because "is the only candidate willing to get tough with Israel." Now that was the authors viewpoint of this 18 year old, those were never his words in the report.
The other, was a man named Rizwan Kadir, a financial consultant in suburban Chicago who voted for Obama (imagine that) in '08 but who now say's he is "very disappointed." Just not enough to give up his support for Obama this year... at least not yet: "If it came down to him and Obama, I don't know," Kadir said.
Nowhere in this piece was anything (statistically speaking) that would indicate Muslim support for Dr Paul is of anything of significance. Maybe there is such support; you just wouldn't know it from this report. The problem is, if its just three people giving thier viewpoints and/or "four 'Muslims for Ron Paul' Facebook pages" or if one of those 3 people aren't even sure they will be VOTING FOR DR PAUL... its not an accurate depiction of the title. In fact, i don't know how a middle school newspaper could approve this of being newsworthy... but there you have it.
Obvious question is, why? Could it be Dr Ron Paul's Foreign Policies are quite controversial in Conservative ranks? Could it be an overwhelming majority of Republican candidates support a war with Iran? Could it be the uneasy topic of Muslim and terrorism and how many US citizens automatically correlate the two? Could it be the crack pot crazy uncle Ron is attracting the gutter once again, like the storm-fronters and 9-11 inside job camp? We have seen this narrative before and the more it goes on the more desperate those drumming up this hogwash look.
I for one, have no issue with Muslim Americans supporting Dr Paul. In fact, I welcome it. Liberty and freedom appeal to all demographics and Muslims that want the same should vote for Dr Paul because he represents just that. However, this tells the reader nothing about this. The Huffington makes no secret of where they butter they're bread. For a website and news-source that has more left turns than Talladega in early May... i find it curious the lengths they too have gone to drive "the agenda". Makes you have to say, hmmm?
You may not read about it in the manistream press or see it on television but Ron Paul is surging in South Carolina.
According to the statistical average at the New York Times poll crunching blog 538, compiled by analyst Nate Silver, Congressman Paul is running third in South Carolina. Of all the candidates, Congressman Paul has the greatest forward momentum. Paul is rallying in all of the South Carolina polls released after the New Hampshire Primary, in which Paul finished a strong second place. In one poll, from the American Research Group, Congressman Paul has gained eleven points since their last poll was taken on January 5th. In the PPP poll, Paul gained six points and former Senator Santorum dropped five points in one week. In the Rasmussen poll, Congressman Paul is up five points and Santorum is down eight points since last week.
Another factor that is contributing to the optimism of Ron Paul's supporters is his surprising over-performance relative to the polls taken right before the New Hampshire Primary. Congressman Paul had an average poll rating of 17.5 percent in New Hampshire on the morning of the Primary. He finished with almost 23 percent of the vote, a five percentage point discrepancy. Each of the other candidates finished close to his final polling average in New Hampshire. This suggests that some pollsters may be under-polling demographic groups that are coming out strong for Congressman Paul.
The weekend talk shows are focusing on the conflict between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, and Senator Santorum's endorsement from a group of Evangelical Christian leaders. As usual, mainstream writers and political commentators are ignoring a big story - Ron Paul is running a terrific campaign and is seeing his support grow significantly in South Carolina.
Rick Santorum is about as polarizing as an elected official can get in today's era of overly sensitive politically correctness. The man who once compared gay marriage to a person marrying a box turtle, is never short on his disdain for anything not Hetro. But it was this curious quote that attacks all Liberty and freedom that got me curious and i went looking and found two other interesting revelations. Its obvious the more people that got to know him from his surprising finish in Iowa why his bounce from the state of corn was only a thud.
"The definition of liberty as our founders understood it, was freedom with responsibility and we've sort of lost that edge. We have a whole society - you've heard the "me" generation - if it feels good do it - just do it, it's an entire culture that's focused on immediate gratification and the pursuit of happiness and personal pleasure and it's harming America."
It was the Declaration of Independence that inspired us and led to the revolutionary war and subsequent freedom from the rule of England. It was this document that paved a way for this Republics rise as a beacon of light in a world full of tyranny and oppression because, as it was said: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are; Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
These are called the unalienable rights of man; thus they are born with each individual and no government has the right to infringe upon, alter or take them away. These are said to be from "their Creator" and knowing Santorum to be a Christian, his Creator is one that allows free will. How can one have free will if a governing body is to dictate what quantifies and qualifies as morality? Wasnt it Jesus who drew the ire of his Jewish elders for the company he kept? Never passing judgement on anyone? So, why doesnt the Senator ask: What Would Jesus Do?
"The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society." Associated Press, 4/7/03
Wasn’t freedom of religion one of the tenants for coming to this nation? Imagine the irony today where one religion reverts back to the ways of the King of England and would rather impose tyranny rather then freedom to further push their interpretation of God. Has the Religious Right forgotten how much it despises others trying to discredit or infringe upon their freedom to worship?
“One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.” 9/4/05 NPR
Rick Santorum and his ilk hate the individual having the freedom to do as they please even if it’s not harming anyone else. He doesn’t like Libertarianism because Libertarianism is based on… Liberty. Liberty is the ability to act out ones own ideas and wishes without discrimination but with respect for others to do the same. It’s the essence and backbone of this nation and this guy doesn’t like it. Worse, he refuses to stand for it regardless if he doesnt agree with it. Enough said.
Amy Kremer, Co Chair of the Tea Party Express was “On the record” with Greta Van Susteren tonight. The Topic of debate was, who the “Tea Party Express” was going to endorse. I thought to myself, who is this Tea Party Express? So I googled it and this was the heading:
The Tea Party Express is proud to stand for six simple principles
No more bailouts
Reduce the size and intrusiveness of government
Stop raising our taxes
Repeal Obamacare
Cease out-of-control spending
Bring back American prosperity
Then I saw this in the history description:
“The Tea Party Express came into existence as the tea party movement was awakened by the famous Rick Santelli rant that swept across the country in February of 2009.”
My knee-jerk reaction is pretty straight to the point. Wasn’t it Ron Pauls 2007 “Moneybomb” record setting fundraiser in which he raised 4.3 million in 24 hours and protests on Tax day in 2008 that started the Tea Party Movement? Santelli’s epic rant was one year later.
If those six simple principals are what this Tea Party is about, and since they are all being of economic matters – how in the world is their any question who to support? Is there anyone more conservative economically than Dr Paul. How do these people get on national TV if a simple search refutes their whole existence?
Or are my thoughts and feelings about the tea party the last few years indeed more than just loose thoughts and instead obvious facts. The "Tea Part" of economic responsibility was hijacked by the remnants of the Neoconservatives and Obama bashers? Afterall, wasn't the tea party in Boston 200+ years ago about... taxes?
That was a headline last week in a piece by David Cohen who served in the administration of former President George W. Bush as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior. No beating around the bush there (pardon the pun). You have to respect the honesty of someone because often time headlines can be elusive of the following story so that is a positive in my opinion. The content thou is where i have the issue.
"As a conservative, I do not make the charge of bigotry lightly. I do not accuse people of bigotry simply because I have good faith differences of opinion with them over policy."
On one hand, in Mr Cohens piece he acknowledges Mr Pauls "Libertarian message" but if he has a libertarian message, doesn't that trump his personal feelings anyway in terms of action-ability? Lets say Ron Paul is in fact a bigot, does that mean he cant stick to his "libertarian message" of individuality and liberty, thus making racism and bigotry null in void? Its like saying Bud Selig couldn't be commissioner because he currently lives and was the owner of the Milwaukee Brewers. Its silly to think one has to always "legislate from the bench". Opinions and integrity are not always one in the same, hence Mr Cohens article.
Not once in this article does Mr Cohen ever talk about votes or policy, not once. Instead the focus is entirely around the eight sentences written 20 years ago that Mr Paul denied writing. My question is, if Mr Paul is a bigot than surly his record would indicate that to be true, right? If we are putting so much stalk in a few outlandish sentences written so long ago than his work as an elected representative for 30+ years should carry at least the same amount of scrutiny and be at least equally viable to help produce the conclusion of bigotry; or at least one would assume? However, that simply isnt the case.
Mr Cohen says he doesnt like to accuse people of something based on policy but he does however feel the need to brand someone as a bigot based on such a small sample size written many years ago without ever taking his voting record or policies into consideration? Is that logical? Or is that emotional? Mr Cohen calls himself a conservative but yet he worked as a bureaucrat under George W Bush the most liberal "Republican" in the history of this nation in terms of expansion of government... hardly conservative. I cant seem to find anything hes says negative about his former boss so therefore Mr Cohen isnt a conservative at all, despite what he calls himself . Hes a Neoconservative. A Big spending (liberal) Neoconservative. In fact that is what this article should have read:
David Cohen is a Neo-Con.
That basically amounts to incomplete gibberish, doesn't it? The defense rests. And what about Pauls record? Can we think of anything that is more destructive to the black community than the alleged "war" on drugs? Not only is this a war on all of our freedoms, but specifically; it is a war on black males. The war on drugs is bigotry through and through, and Mr Pauls stance?
“The "war on drugs" is a losing battle and has put tens-of-millions of non-violent Americans in prison giving America the highest prison population in the world. Doesn't sound like the land of the free afer-all, does it?. Legalizing drugs will make drugs lose their street value thus ending the stealing and killing that drug dealers cause. We need to work to help those that are addicted to drugs, not kill them or throw them behind bars! The losing drug-war has cost taxpayers billions while lining the pockets of government backed cartels!”
Black males make up roughly 7% of Americans yet make up 40% of her prison population; mainly due to drug offenses. Coincidentally enough, our population is the most imprisoned population in the world and not just of a grand total of inmates but also per capita. Is this not a system completely out of the realm of fairness? Is that not bigotry?
This is one last quote ill leave you with regarding Mr Pauls racist viewpoints: "A system designed to protect individual liberty will have no punishments for any group and no privileges. Today, I think inner-city folks and minorities are punished unfairly in the war on drugs. For instance, Blacks make up 14% of those who use drugs, yet 36 percent of those arrested are Blacks and it ends up that 63% of those who finally end up in prison are Blacks. This has to change. We don’t have to have more courts and more prisons. We need to repeal the whole war on drugs. It isn’t working. We have already spent over $400 billion since the early 1970s, and it is wasted money. Prohibition didn’t work. Prohibition on drugs doesn’t work. So we need to come to our senses. And, absolutely, it’s a disease. We don’t treat alcoholics like this. This is a disease, and we should orient ourselves to this. That is one way you could have equal justice under the law."
What holds more weight… a voting record as consistent as there is in any branch of government since the days of our founding fathers, a "libertarian message" that promotes individuality thus eliminating collectivism (racism) and the quotes above and many more like it from the same person? Or, maybe a few sentences from a few newsletters that was of racist content and denied by the alleged author written 20 years ago? How anyone can assume the latter is not only slander based on the content proving otherwise; it’s just not logical or even relevant. Or maybe for Mr Cohen, it’s more than that... maybe Dr Paul's plan to end the Department of the Interior on Day 1 of his presidency hits home thus nullifying his 15 minutes of fame? Or maybe, its just me and my emotion and imagination running wild. Funny how that happens sometimes isn’t it? Bureaucrat to the end it appears.
Doesn't it seem odd, in such a narrow field of TWO CANDIDATES that there would be need for an honor system? Well, that's what the state of Virginia has surmised. ABC reported today that the Virginia State Board of Elections has issued (on behalf of the Virginia GOP) a “loyalty oath” for voters to take before casting their vote for the state primary. Its not a law or a regulation, its clearly of the “honor system” but one has to ask them-self: is their anything honorable about putting party over candidate? Then, you have to consider who put it out… the state GOP. The Establishment. They see party above all else both state and nationally and that is why the GOP is in such disarray.
Ideas that are outside of that narrow thought box that currently dominates the present Republican Party will not be tolerated. Thus, you should be of honor and vote your party regardless who the candidate is; even if the Establishment Republican party is out of touch with a good portion of its base. Gee, what a bummer for the GOP if one of the two candidates on the ballot was to run third party? Or what if one of the candidates supporters didn't like the treatment of said candidate and decided to "spoil" the election for the GOP?
Again, there are only two candidates on the states ballot. That is Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Can you guess who the establishment chosen one is? That only leaves one person left who doesn’t fit the mold. Seems as if “they” are pulling out all the stops doesn’t it?
