The sky IS FALLING (in graphs)

The NCAA tournament isn’t over yet but we know its coming to an end in exactly 16 days. If I was to tell you it’s not over yet, I would be correct. But does change the fact that is will end? Of course it doesn’t. For many people, because we haven’t seen bread lines or riots in the streets the “sky isn’t falling” yet. Does that change the reality that our economy is on the downside of the bell curve?

When the FED dropped interest rates back in ’07 the idea was that it would incur borrowing from the public & private business; therefore creating new/bigger business and in the process creating jobs or at least not hemorrhaging more than the economy was already in the process of doing. Then the rates kept dropping and dropping and wont go up until the very least 2014 and then what? Go up? The debt will explode in a hyperbolic fashion.

This graph shows we paid MORE in interest on our debt in 2008 (10,024,724,896,912.49) then we did in 2012 (16,066,241,407,385.89). How do you pay LESS interest on six trillion more in principal? There is only one solution; you pay substantial less interest. 

As we know, unemployment has dropped from its high of 10.0% back in ’09 to 7.7% as of last month but at what cost?

GDP has only seen moderate gains during the last five years and in fact, as you can see below, the last quarter actually seen our GDP in decline; despite the fact that private GDP rose in the same period. 

Some people will point to the cuts in defense spending as the main culprit and they would be correct (as defense have seen a 22% drop in spending) but if running nothing short of an empire and that is how we are keeping afloat in the first place, well… 

Mortgage rates are now at their lowest rate in recorded history and this has been a yearly trend these last few years. Only now in March of 2013, are we beginning to see signs of the real estate market coming back to life; despite a plummet in interest rates the last six years that were supposed to (as said in my opening) entice borrowers. Was it worth it?

Was it worth it and at what cost are the two questions I pose to you today. At what cost and is it worth it to live for today at the expense of tomorrow?

The CBO estimates of this nation’s debt keep getting worse, study after study. This is a quite simple process: the interest rates remain low, the debt piles up and the economy barley moves. These projections below are based on current conditions. Remember, zero is the end game; there isn’t much that can be done after that. We are basically at zero interest rates now.  

These examples I gave are just the tip of the iceberg and they are all interconnected. And that iceberg is the general public of this nation being so inundated in debt, so much so that we are getting to the point where offers of basically free money can’t move the needle any longer. These last four years of record low interest rates with barley a crawl until four, five sometimes six years later illustrates this quite luminously.

With wages not keeping up with real inflation (not the phony government statistics) and the globalization of the market, incomes for the average American (an overwhelming majority of) are stagnated; if not in decline. Is there any way that changes? Of course not, this is the new reality.

So to keep up, for most Americans, debt is the only logical solution. Afterall, we know saving via the conventional bank route is futile with rates being under 1%. And as we know debt = money, so when the economy can’t jump start and the FED’s QE programs don’t jump start growth; what else can the FED do? It’s been said by Bernanke that the quick death of deflation will not occur, so that only leaves one alternative; go to zero and close its eyes. Then hold on for limb and life as the decent to a slow death via hyperinflation begins.

The political process here has become a joke. A crooked game ran by self-serving lawyers and career politicians hell bent on seeing who can kick the can down the road the furthest. What was once a calling of statesmen has been replace by a bloodthirsty pack of statists. Republicans blame Democrats for not cutting spending despite having no solution themselves and god-damn you if you want to cut a bloated defense budget! Democrats want to actually ADD to the problem with a monstrosity addition to healthcare. While both “sides” will tell you it’s the other guys fault. Then all the puppets and zombies watching/reading the propaganda will parrot it. You think this is going to change?

At this moment, under these terms we are watching the beginning of the end finally become visible before our very eyes. Americans and their distractions have reached the crescendo. They can no longer afford them. The sky isn’t falling, but our economy is. It’s circling the drain, not as fast as Greece or Spain but its circling nonetheless. So move over American Idol, the freak show isn’t just in your living room its right outside your window. Get ya’ popcorn ready.

Stealing is legal, just ask those that got shoved off the cliff.

What can I say, I’m flabbergasted. Are these crooks in Washington really going to assume the American public is that dumbed down to see through this guise? Uh… never mind.

Let’s call it what it is. This idea that Republicans failed in the “fiscal cliff standoff” is pure poppy-cock. This notion that the Democrats somehow “won” is equally a failure if we value logic and reason. For what we seen these last two days has been what the American people have wanted for years now… compromise.

The federal government finally compromised. Republicans and Democrats finally crossed the isle. With its legislative and executive branches all on board, despite all its fury, anger and alleged partisan indignation, the deal was struck. Just like the bailouts before it, along with every other hot potato-political topic involving money; the sides "somehow" came to an “agreement”. On the outside this looks like a victory for the people, and it would be if it wasn’t such an absolute charade.

This was nothing more then a WWE broadcast, the winners and losers were already predetermined. When push came to shove everyone got what they want: more for them and their sugar daddy's and you footing the bill. The fiscal cliff was likening to a pay per view event, where afterwards, backstage the heel and the face toasted champagne and laughed all the way to the bank in their stretch limos and learjet's. Meanwhile the poor bastards who bought tickets returned home in their minivans and via subways, still in awe and totally oblivious of exactly how the farce that was just performed before their very eyes. 

Here’s the impact:

Almost all of the Bush Tax Cuts are permanent, while this helps everyone who pay tax; it helps the wealthiest substantially more.

Wheres the cuts on defense spending?

The Payroll tax cut that saved everyone who works in our nation an average of anywhere between $500-$2,000 has ended (which is good for Social Security in the long run) thus acting as a tax increase from last year for everyone earning a paycheck. This will essentially raise the taxes for anyone making fewer than 100k by 2%.

Wheres the entitlement restructuring? 

We have also seen the definition of "rich" get a facelift, as “rich” is anyone making over 400k per year. They will see their taxes rise from 35% to 39.6%. This is hardly the 250k cap that Obama sought re-election on.

And last but not certainly least... the dreaded “Death Tax”.

From the Republican perspective, one of the biggest hold-ups in this “fiscal cliff deal” was the death tax or estate tax. It was 35% as of 2012 on Estates valued at five- million or more. The President wanted 45%. They reached a deal at 40%, splitting the difference. Now, in case you are wondering why you don’t know what this is or why you’ve never heard the particulars, its because it doesn’t affect you. That is unless you have an estate valued at $5 million or more.

As of 2010, courtesy of the Federal Reserve board, only 4.4% of American households had financial assets exceeding $1 million, much less $5 million. According to the IRS, the estate tax will only affect about 3k families. With the additional five percent of taxation of those that are required to pay, the liability may rise slightly, but with the exemptions staying the same, there will be no new cap, thus the limits stay the same.

What does it all mean? I’m not telling you anything you already don’t know. It is what it is. This idea that there is a real tangible difference between these two parties …is make believe. The only real differences are on the margins and that is by design. From abortion, death-taxes, tax-break for billionaires, tax-breaks for multinational conglomerates, gay-rights, funding public television, praying in schools, you name it. Basically, anything that doesn’t benefit the bulk of the populous & affects less then 10% of the population is a heated, highly-contested debate.

I don’t despise anyone for their success nor do I feel they should be punished because of it. As being of  Libertarian mindset, how could I?  However, the middle class has been exploited by the wealthy elite who then help run elite corporations that are gaming the system, all the way from General Electric to G.M and everyone in between. Meanwhile the small businesses, who make up the bulk of US employment, continue to be stifled with red tape, over regulation and are continuously outmaneuvered by big business lobbying efforts. And not to be outdone, it cuts both ways.

There are a growing number of people on the bottom of the pyramid, who are out to hustle every organization and opportunity they can. Look no further then - Supplemental Security Income (Social Security Retirement Survivors and Disabilities Income is for those who have paid into it) because they are “too depressed to work” or have kids that are born one day early (purposely) so they qualify for 18 years as a premature baby. I got story's for days on that topic.

Before you utter the words “class warfare”, read the writing on the wall. This fiscal cliff deal did nothing to hurt those at the top or the bottom, just everyone in between. The rich were not hit hard nor was those too poor to pay taxes, with their 6-10k tax refunds on $13,000 in income.

One of the paramount reasons Obama was elected in the first place was his promise of transparency. You can at least say that’s one campaign promise he lived up to. The middle & working class, the backbone of this country, is under siege and its right out in plain sight. So if you are looking for politics for an ally on either “side” you might need to look again because the only thing these two parties have compromised on is you. They say jump, you say how high.

Death, Mittens' and Taxes... What doesnt fit?

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:

1. 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).

2. 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.

Ron Paul has mass appeal amongst Islam. 2.5 (people) say so.

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?

Ron Paul surging in South Carolina

Kevin Kervick, Manchester Independent Examiner

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.

Getting to know "The Vest" : in his words

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.

The 1% Are Afraid of Ron Paul

What a difference four years makes?

Tea Party Express pulls into Faux News.

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?

In Response to: "Ron Paul is a bigot"

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.

In his article Mr Cohen opines:

"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.

Virginia up to no good with their (sic) “Loyalty Oath”

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?

Michelle Bachman, a liar and clearly not a physics major (Thank you Mr Hicks:)

There has been much ado about Michele Bachman’s Co-Chair, Kent Sorenson, defecting to the Ron Paul camp and justifiably so; its not often such an important if not visible role in a campaign as chair is - leaves for a rival with the outcome of the primary still in doubt. So to make up for this obvious sucker punch Bachman does what most politicians would do; they threw mud saying Mr Sorenson left for a large sum of money. If he did or did not (he denies it) is irrelevant, because this about as clear of an SOS signal as a sinking ship can deliver.

How does one fall from winning the straw poll with 24% to fall into the single digits just six months later? It’s hard to pinpoint what or how but what is not hard to pontificate is the fact that Michele Bachman just doesn’t get it. This was her quote today on the subject:

"Clearly, I think that was a reaction from the Ron Paul campaign because they've seen the overwhelming momentum that we've had for candidacy. People have left his campaign and have come to ours in terms of supporters and I think that's unruffled their feathers," said Bachmann.

HUH? Overwhelming momentum? The only momentum she has is downward… like free falling. There is no momentum. There are reports of pastors asking her or Santorum to quit! People leaving the Paul campaign for hers? He leads the field with the most veracious support and is often polled as having the people less likely to change their minds, yet they are leaving for her sinking ship at the same time her co-chair leaves it?

Then there is this story from reuters quoting Bachman's own political director in Iowa, Wes Enos who came to the former Co-Chairs defense contradicting Bachmans claim that Sorenson left for money. This was Enos' statement:

"I can say unequivocally that Kent Sorenson’s decision was, in no way financially motivated. His decision had more to do with the fact that the Ron Paul supporters have been something of a family to him since he was first elected in 2008 and here in the end, as it becomes more and more apparent that the caucus cycle is coming to an end, Kent believed that he needed to be with them as they stand on the cusp of a potential caucus upset. While I personally disagree with Kent’s decision, and plan to stay with Michele Bachmann because I truly believe in her, I cannot, in good conscious watch a good man like Kent Sorenson be attacked as a “sell-out” …. That is simply not the case, and it was not the basis of his decision."

A day later, Enos resigned as well. Ouch.

Is Mitt Romney the "hope and change" candidate of '12?

It’s kind of funny to watch Mitt Romney nestle up to the American working man of the mid-west. You see it all over Iowa as if he feels in his heart of heart… he understands their problems and really feels their plight. The man who once joked he was “also unemployed” to a table of alleged people in Florida who were actually… unemployed. All this despite that he sits on a net worth that’s said to be over 200+ million. Hardly, the same situation the almost 10% of Americans face, no doubt.

See, Romney chooses to be unemployed. He quit his job as Governor. What has he done since? He’s run for President ... yes, for four years. So, in reality, Romney should be the shoe in for the Republican nomination. He has obviously concentrated four years on this moment, thus his organization is strong and built up. He has the biggest war chest of anyone running. Last but not least, he has K-Street and big business on his side.

Politico ran a story in July about the super PAC: Restore Our Future, where 90 of the wealthiest citizens poured in 12.2 million dollars for Mr Romney. This was the same month where Jonathen Martin of Politico reported a fundraiser where Romney joined Trent (super lobby) Lott in a “lawyers for Romney” dinner that included a who’s who of lobbyists. According to OpenSecrets.com, Romney at this time, leads all candidates (including Pres Obama) in fundraising in the following sectors:

Commercial banks

Hedge Funds & Private Equity

Securities and Investment

And not just leading; he’s cleaning up, at a rate of at least 2:1 in all three sectors. Why do you suppose Romney attracts the elite? Because, Mr. Romney is quite frankly, one of them. Good or bad he is big business through and through. He’s Wall Street incarnate. He presents both the ideals and the soul of Wall Street. That isn’t necessarily bad, but the soul and ideals of Wall Street are on separate paths.

The soul of Wall Street was and will always be the investing in America. It’s the place where mice become giants; both individually and corporately. It goes back to the time where people bought into companies for the long term because they believed in them. Not because of some algorithm or day trader of the modern era... it was but the true investing in the future of Americana. Mitt Romney is proof of that. He climbed the ladder. However, the ideals of Wall Street are much less clear. The best description would be murky at best; while many might say – haughty and insatiable. And it appears that is how some see Mr Romney as well.

This is a guy who made a fortune off leveraged buyouts; buying up struggling companies (with borrowed money) and then slashing personnel, shipping jobs overseas and selling off assets to pay off his company; while many of them filed for bankruptcy afterwards. If he views corporations as people, what does he see the people inside those corporations as? This is hardly a job creator...think of him more in the Ryan Bingham mold. But, its part of that Wall Street ideal he is a part of. How can anyone go into a job creation business (i don’t agree with this Presidential notion of job creating, it’s the general economy, but I digress) when all they have done is take them away?

Some might point to his tenure at governor where he left with a 2 Billion dollar surplus as an indication of fiscal conservatism and it would be hard to argue but should the government be running a profit? If you think about it, shouldn’t all levels of government look to break even? In an economy where jobs are at the forefront his term as Governor paints a picture that isn’t as rosy as his profits. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in his time in office the state only seen 1.2% more jobs then when he entered office, hardly a guy “who knows jobs”. If you factor in population and other variables; 1.2% isn’t worth a hill of beans. In fact during that time period, it ranked 47^th in the nation.

What does this all mean? It means the country faces an era of uncertainty and a looming battle for what we want and how we will have to pay (without borrowing) for it. There is going to come a time where Americans have to understand that our way of life as we know it cannot be sustained on its current path and tough choices are going to have to be made. Is Mitt Romney a guy to do so? On the outside it appears, yes, he is. He has the credentials and the reputation as a “cleaner” and in this environment that could play well; we need someone to do just that, clean up the mess in Washington. However, underneath the surface what does that entail? His constant politicking and coming off chameleon like has put people off and the perception is he will say anything to anyone to win their vote; that just isn’t principled.

Then you have his ties to Wall Street. President Obama ran on a platform that was about as anti-establishment/Wall Street as you can get; however his cabinet was anything but. We didn’t see any change but instead more of the same old failures. How will Mitt Romney be any different, despite his proven ability to do so? From my view it’s hard to take the Establishment out of an Establishment candidate and if his backers are any indication - it looks like business as usual.

Santorum poses for the first token hunting trip of the season...

With less then a week left Rick Santorum, the social conservative who once lobbied for the WWF (now WWE) apparently learned a thing or two about acting during his work as he "tried" to impress gun owners and hunters with his ridiculous and obvious hunting (for votes) paraphernalia yesterday.

According to Santorum, he took his son out with him for his first hunting trip (i would assume to be true) and bought all his kids guns for Christmas and then ate the wild game he took that day. It seems pretty desperate to put your family through all this to appeal to a voter but if his sons liked it and they had food to eat... i guess its a win-win for all of the Santorum's. However, I don't know what to make of this aggressive pandering by Santorum. I mean he already has the coveted A+ rating from the NRA (just ask him); did he really need to wear the hat?

Its little wonder why Santorum is lagging in the polls. He probably has invested more time into Iowa then anyone, hes also the only candidate to my recollection that has visited every county in the state as well; so its not like he hasn't been noticed. In this election and whats paramount to win, Santorum will always be; a day late and a dollar short.

Mr Santorum represents the essence of the liberal neoconservative. Hes a hawk in our FP who sees the entire Middle East as DEFCON 1 when in reality it appears more and more as an idle threat. This is a person who had a fit over Kosovo and demanded to know an exit strategy and fumed over the cost, while dismissing to know the same for Iraq. And now he wants to wage war with Iran... if they get 1 nuclear weapon.

If that wasnt enough he puts incest and adultery in the same category as homosexuality. He agrees that the deficit and debt are out of control but refuses to cut a penny from the defense budget, concentrating only on entitlements. Hes a compassionate-conservative leftover; out of office and out of touch with reality. He cant claim a seat in the tea party nor can he claim a seat at the adult table at Christmas when talking about adult stuff like...economics. Hes a lawyer who knows whats better for you then you do. Afterall:

"Privacy. [Religious] neutrality. Free Expression. None of these terms is in the Constitution. ... [T]hese 'philosophical' tenets are pure abstractions." Santorum, It Takes a Family

Keep on hunting Iowa Rick, but you might want to pack a lunch(s).

Newt Gingrich now has some explaining to do...

A Memo found by Brody Mullins and Janet Adamy of the Wall Street Journal had some damaging things for "the Grinch" on his apparent flip flopping on Universal healthcare and the much maligned individual mandate. This was what Newt said in his memo gushing over Romney back in '06:

"The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle.”

This is Newt Gingrich from a debate on the 11 of this month on ABC:

"It's now clear that the mandate, I think, is clearly unconstitutional."

"GOP leaders want Ron Paul to lose" by JOHN KASS , Chicago Tribune

With the Iowa caucuses just a few days away, the Republican establishment is busy with some frightening new themes, like:

What happens in Iowa stays in Iowa.

Or: Who cares what happens in Iowa anyway?

My favorite comes direct from the unyielding mind of Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, a Republican who insists that American voters don't care which candidate wins the Iowa caucuses Jan. 3.

"People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third," said Branstad. "If [Mitt] Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and other states."

Losing Iowa helps in New Hampshire? So it's not winning that counts, it's losing? What the?

Is he high?

Republican bigwig minds can't be besotted by Hopium. That's a liberal Democratic leaf for Democratic pipes depressed that Chicago's City Hall has run the country into the ground.

No, Republicans must be smoking something else, something just as potent: Dopium, a leaf so powerful that it allowed many Republicans to call themselves "conservatives" while embracing a series of big-government programs and federal bailouts from the Bush administration, not to mention two wars.

Gov. Branstad isn't alone. The entire Republican establishment is babbling similar nonsense about the importance of being earnest -- and a loser in Iowa.

Meanwhile, the Republican-media high priests are now in full-throated roar. From the secular pulpits they predict unending torment and Obamanation for anyone foolish enough to embrace the current heretical teachings.

And the name of this heretic? Ron Paul, the Texas congressman and libertarian who is leading most polls in Iowa with a message of cutting government, including the defense budget, and staying out of wars.

The problem isn't that he's saying it. Paul has been consistent for years. The problem for the GOP establishment is that the American people are now listening.

And this threatens the coalition that can put Karl Rove and Wall Street and the religious right at the same table to slice the pie of power.

The fact that voters, particularly younger voters, are edging toward Paul has sent the GOP into a panic.

"His supporters are younger and more likely to [use] a cellphone, so he's probably going to perform better than his polling suggests," Iowa State associate professor Dave Peterson told cbsnews.com. "His supporters are also dedicated and will likely turn out on caucus night and not change their minds."

Republicans sure changed their minds about Mitt Romney, a moderate who yearns to be conservative during party primaries. Republicans pegged him for what he is, a corporate stiff, every hair in place, who'll run left the second he secures the nomination.

Tim Pawlenty? Just another can of Spam. Rick Perry stuck both boots in his mouth and kept them there. It's a wonder he has any lips left.

Michele Bachmann had her troubles with American history, and Rick Santorum seems ready to punch anyone who won't let him attack Iran tomorrow morning.

And Herman Cain? With so many "girlfriend" stories buzzing around him, he was tagged on the Internet with an M.C. Hammer-type parody theme song: "Cain Touched This."

Now it's Newt Gingrich's turn to drop his blossoms. What was it exactly?

That $1.6 million chunk that his consulting firm took from federal mortgage giant Freddie Mac as it was getting a massive federal bailout? Or that pledge of marital fidelity he signed the other day, suggesting that his oath to his third wife wasn't nearly enough?

Since August, the media has desperately avoided mentioning Paul. I'm not endorsing him here. But you'd have to be blind not to see Republican bosses in panic. Because if Paul wins Iowa, his ideas might catch fire.

Once there was no more amusing sight for me than watching Democratic mouthpieces appearing on TV, claiming then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Rezko -- backed by all those guys from Chicago's City Hall -- would bring hope and change as he transcended the broken politics of America's past.

The journalistic high priests, their brains swollen by several bowls of Hopium, chattered and repeated the slogans of City Hall's favorite mouthpiece, David Axelrod.

So Americans never quite realized that the man they were electing president had been an earnest but inexperienced back-bencher in the Illinois Legislature who spent his entire career taking orders from machine bosses while trying to get ahead.

Hopium was bad enough. But what worries me are all those clouds of Dopium wafting across Iowa.

Fair and Balanced???? Really?

Its pretty safe to say most of us realize that most all media is slanted one way or another if not for any other reason then marketing segmentation. This is very obvious on cable news with CNN, Fox and MSNBC. Just take a look at MSNBC’s slogan: “Lean Forward”. Does it get more obvious then that?

Fox News tilts to the right and although they say they are “fair and balanced” I had a hunch it wasn’t the case just based off memory from tuning in time to time. What I found was pretty telling. I went to Foxnews.com and did a simple search with this criterion:

Fox News-Story-Past month-Politics

Mentions are pretty obvious and a lead story is when the subject name is in the headline. Now before we see the results, remember... what has went on in the Republican primaries the last month. Cain dropped out, Gingrich fell on his face and Paul has risen to the top of the Iowa Caucus polling. With all that said here are the results:

Romney 82 mentions with 24 lead stories

Gingrich 77 mentions with 23 lead stories

And lastly, Ron Paul… 33 mentions with 1 lead story and it laughably ran today (24 days into the month) entitled:

Newsletters, Statements Cause Campaign Trail Problems for Ron Paul

How is the candidate leading in Iowa the most conservative man running and one who has the most diverse crowds in the field have only one lead story and coincidentally enough it’s a negative one? Isn’t it interesting Romney and Gingrich are almost even? Does the Republican establishment not want Paul to gain traction. Without question they do not. Does Fox news? Obviously they will not cover him, even if he was leading the polls in Iowa... so no, its obvious they have no vested interest in him let alone him gaining traction. So what is the relationship between Fox and the Republican Establishment?

Lets say the newsletters are true, and Ron Paul is a racist.

So what? Do you suppose he would be the first racist to hold office at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave? And i know my statement begs the question.... "does that make it right?" No of course it doesnt, but if ones personal views dont effect the job then i dont think it matters. Everyone has preconceived notions. So in reality, everyone stereotypes to a degree. Does Ron Paul stereotype or not trust people because of their skin color? I dont know. Again. Lets suppose he did write those words. Where in those letters did he say hateful things? Not derogatory but hateful? Where did he spew hatred? If i was to say that Black men are 7% of the population but make up 40% of the prison population, is that racist for me to point that out? No, now if i were to use some hyperbole to make this sound "funny" (if you can even find humor in that) does that make me racist? That is up to the reader i suppose, but in my opinion its doesnt. I think its just poor taste. I dont advocate anything in those letters and i find it trashy, cheap writing.

I don't want to run your life. I don't know how to run your life. And the constitution doesn't permit me to run your life." Ron Paul

However, lets say again they were written by him and not only that Ron Paul is a racist. Where in his platform can racism be applied to politics to hurt people he allegedly despises? Where in libertarianism is it that you put collectivism over individualism. Remember, Dr Paul calls himself the champion of the constitution and what does that paper stand for? Personal liberty. And if we are all guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property) and nothing else... how does that hurt anyone or how is that prejudice? What would he do to apply his obvious racist views? To end the war on drugs? To end overseas military campaigns and occupations that are 50 or more years old? To cut taxes on all working Americans not just the ones that will help an election here and there? Those all benefit the majority of most Americans. Of all race and all economic situations. And that also obviously includes the benefit to minorities. Ask yourself these questions:

1. Are these the views of a closet racist? And if he is, again.... how can his views ever be used against anyone from a Libertarian point of view?

2. What holds more weight, a few newsletter ads that he denied writing 20 years ago, or a 30 year span of consistency and principals matched by nobody else in government since the days of Jefferson and Washington.

Republicans Money(ball) problem

Its often said that Ron Paul has no chance to capture the nomination, and its said so much by so many people in all types of media that there is no need to rehash it. We get it. He is too old, too kooky, to outside of the mainstream and his delivery and appearance isn’t presidential enough.

Every time I hear Ron Paul doesn’t have the appearance to become elected President much less elected the Republican nomination I always think of the quote from the book Moneyball. Right before the amateur draft the GM and his scouts are in a room debating players. Oakland A’s GM Billy Bean is squabbling back and forth with a typical player with an older scout, who finally just says the player doesn’t have the body to be a ballplayer.

Frustrated Beane tells his scouts: “ we're not selling jeans here”.

The book Moneyball is a lot like the current GOP. It’s a good ‘ol boy network of establishment brand names vetted by the press and by the power structure that’s calls itself the RNC. It’s the party of Grover Norquist and Karl Rove. It’s the party that panders to big business and social conservatives or basically anyone that will guarantee groups of people who will be pulling Republican levers down come election days. And lest not be confused, it’s not limited to Republicans. The Democrat’s establishment is just as guilty if not more. You see, the Republican establishment only has one network pandering to it.

Appearance is everything. Content is only credible if it is sellable. With that said, you can get people like Romney or Rick Perry to be in the spotlight. Rick Perry, much like Newt Gingrich is a career politician and both are without question RINO’s. Even Perry at one point was an elected Democrat before he “seen the light”, conveniently after he voted for a 5.7 Billion dollar tax increase in the Texas State legislature. But that doesn’t matter. They are egotistical maniacs who will do whatever a focus group tells them to do that make them look favorable in way or another. Perry might not be so much like this, but he has Jesus on his side, so that works too... that’s sellable.

What about Mitt Romney? If there is anyone that is more fallible to waffling, it’s the Mitt. Nobody has been for more after he was against it. Hes a wet dream for the RNC and Fox and whoever else likes a happy meal - Manchurian candidate. He is good looking, articulate, from Big business and has lots of well connected friends. Mitt has always and will continue to be the golden boy of the establishment Republicans and you cant fault them for that. He’s the ideal company man, the good - trusty servant. But he doesn’t serve your interests, he serves their interests.

That’s where this gets interesting. The book Moneyball was based around new versus old ideas. Modern technology versus the naked eye. That’s exactly what is happening in the Republican Party as we speak. We are seeing the old players; the Limbaughs and the Romneys and Bushes and John MCains of the country vehemently oppose the most conservative man not only in congress but in any federal branch of government for that matter. Because it petrifies them, they might not understand it, why they discount him but its simple. Their brand will be toast. They will not be as viable.

Ron Paul wants to put an end to crony capitalism and corporate welfare. He wants to shrink big government. Everything he wants to do is for freedom. That is republicanism at its core. With a limited government why raise taxes or fight endless wars? If you have a limited government how can you attempt to control and govern morality? You can’t. So if government has less control then that means someone has more and they don’t want that. Give the power back to the electorate; after all the work to strip them of that power? Dig in Mr Paul because if these tired, token and cyclical racists’ newsletters from the early 90’s are any indication; you’re going to get the kitchen sink.

Fox News... loves irony

From the Huffington Post:



Classic

76 years young: Ron Pauls attracting the youth vote

According to the latest survey by Public Policy Polling, Ron Paul owns the youth vote. Iowans under the age of forty-five are 30% of the time aligned with Mr Paul, his closest competitor? Mitt Romney …with half of that number. How is this so? Its not like Ron Paul gets the media attention of his competitors, in fact before his ascension into first place in Iowa; he was only surpassing Rick Santorum amongst Republican candidates in the MSM in terms of coverage according to a Pew Study conducted earlier this month.

Its been said, he has far and away the best network on the ground in Iowa. He has legions of volunteers willing and able to go door to door and work the phones. He also has money and when you have money and enthusiasm in a political process anything is possible and Mr Pauls rise is a perfect illustration of that.

How is it that a 76 year old “crank” is the favorite to young voters in a state where the young vote is not always taken serious? Why is Mr Paul fairing so poorly with older voters, getting blown out by 31-15 amongst Iowan seniors… when hes a senior himself? And yet he still rises to #1 in in Iowa?

The answer is pretty obvious. Ron Paul is a message that resonates with those that want change. And not the change thats artificial and a product of some consultant poll numbers and pushed through the press like a happy meal. We know the type of change (sic) im talking about. Its just that... talk. No, we are talking real, tangible, drastic change in a desperate time. We have all heard it before and its logical, the older you get the less change you want; I mean that is conservatism at its core, right?

The Millennial’s and the Gen-X see the broken foreign policy, the failed economy and the constant bickering and broken ideas proliferating Washington. They see lawmakers out of step with the electorate, something the tea party and the occupy movement tap into. And they want to do a U-Turn. There isn’t a politician in this country more inclined and eager to do just that then Ron Paul.

Ron Paul may not win the nomination, but as he always has said its about philosophy and content over delivery and appearance. Its about changing the conversation more then it is about winning. With so many young voters jumping into the Ron Paul revolution – that appears the biggest story going forward. Win or lose much like his growing army of young "Paul-bots" his message is only going to grow.