Thou not lead us to temptation

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. 

 (Sodahead.com)

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?

We have seen Obama’s appetite for destruction already regarding deficit spending; so let’s take a peek at the eventual Republican nominee’s (Mitt Romney) insanity.

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.  

(shadowstats.com)

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.

Get 'ya Popcorn ready!

Romney has a bazooka in his front pocket... but an empty wallet in has back pocket

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"

Romney the Gambler - he just donest want you to be one.

 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.”

Leave it to the Cleaver: Congressional Black Caucus overt double standard

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"

Lesser of two evils come November? I cant see it.

 

Is there a difference between Romney and Obama? I have been critical of both Mr Romney and President Obama for various reasons but both being so different in terms of background, surly they cant be that similar, right? When the subject comes up of differentiating between the two I find myself scratching my head. The same head scratching can be said for those folks who ask me my support for either two, and when I reveal my support of Ron Paul regardless if he’s third party or not, it’s often met with the same rebuttal: “it’s a waste of a vote, its better to pick the lesser of two evils”. However, I just can’t seem to grasp the difference between the two men as far as policy is concerned.  

  

Sure, Romney has the business experience, that is unquestionable a difference and he has balanced the budget as Governor in Massachusetts. Both of those are very big props for Romney in my book… but other than that, I looked and I can’t find a difference between the eventual nominee for the Republicans (Mittens) and the incumbent, President Obama (at least not in the pivotal positions).

- Obama has maintained the foreign policy of an empire, just as Romney would do (although Romney said he would actually increase spending on defense) not to mention he chastised the President for pulling out of Iraq. No savings there.    

- Obama has continued to support even more of an assault on our personal liberty’s extending the Patriot Act and signing NDAA, wouldn’t you know it - Romney supports both. Liberty trampled on again.

- Obama passed Universal Healthcare as did Romney. Romney even is proud of his healthcare bill, (‘I’m very proud of my health-care plan and think it should be a model for other states to adopt’) or at least he was before he was against it again.

What do we have left? Taxes. Yes, taxes, death and Mittens oh boy! This is the same guy who didn’t release his taxes because he didn’t wantto show he paid at or under the 15 percentile reserved for Capital gains (between 13.9-15%) on over 40 Million dollars of income. That would show he is using loopholes (although legal) just like many of our corporations do.

Romney said recently that Obama passed 19 tax increases under his terms as POTUS. Most people on the right would believe that to be true, he is said to be the most polarizing president in our history isn’t he? Although the validity to those tax hikes in question has been shaky and even a few of the 19 suspected raises have been actually proved false, Mitt continues his assault. For the record, the Obama tax increases were minimal in nominal terms considering (the large deficit) and directed at very specific small targets; not wide wielding swaths of people and demographics as Romney would have you believe.

The truth of the matter is Obama has cut taxes too. He did so in his 700+ Billion dollar stimulus (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) he then cut taxes in the ‘December 2010 tax deal’ that extended the Bush tax cuts. Those tax cuts were worth $654 Billion and if you factor in the 250+ Billion from the ARRA cuts in his 2009 Stimulus act, we are talking 900 Billion in Tax cuts through his administration. I think its safe to say he has cut more taxes than he has increased taxes by a large sum.

Look at the revenue or receipts our government is pulling in. If we were seeing tax increases, wouldn’t we also being seeing soaring revenue? We aren’t. We are in a massive economic quagmire and tax cuts will not get us out of it. And if we continue to cut taxes and keep the budget as is or increase it, we will only cause even more damage down the road. And that seems like the message from Newt, Obama or Mitt.  

While I agree with the Republican field running for the oval office about the over-regulation that we are seeing under this administration; it’s not what ails us either. What we have is a political atmosphere where nobody wants to make the touch decision and cut major aspects off our budget or raise taxes to pay for the bills we have. Obama or Romney will never do it; they lack the thick skin and willingness to lead by example despite the consequences. responsible debt is one thing, what these kooks are proposing is simply not feasible long term. 

Romney has no plan to cut government just spend an equal amount or more and lower taxes for the richest Americans. Obama seems to have no plan at all and while he lowered taxes he increased regulation and didn't do anything to make cuts. Gingrich? He thinks we can save 500 Billion annually on modernization, he’s also the same guy who said Fannie and Freddie hired him as a historian... not a lobbyist. He won’t be the nominee but it further drives home the point. The 900 lb gorilla in the room remains Keynesian economics. Until we face the reality of the magnitude that beast has in terms of influence and destruction we will be here every four years with the same logical outcome: vote for a Paul (Ron or Rand).

Apparently the Grinch does have a heart after all?

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?

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.

Interesting piece that someone brought to my attention via email courtesy Twitter.This was the poster:

@Samuel_E_Amer

Sam Amer January 12, 2012

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.