Dereliction of duty: How Black America has been hijacked by "race hustling pimps".

Here is a disclaimer. I am not black, I am a white male. Some of you may find this contrived or think I have no place speaking about issues pertaining to a race that I don’t belong to. I can accept that. Some may even go as far as a call me a racist (it’s been done before) and that is your right to feel that way as well. However, facts are not racist. They are facts. I also think it’s very important that black folks receive a different message that they are accustomed to hearing from “the left’. That’s why I spend many posts on this subject and with that said, let’s begin.


This is a tale of two stories, literally. I read in the last two days, two separate articles written by black men regarding race and politics. Now, these stories are not on the same subject matter but I think you will see that they are connected nonetheless and its not a connection based solely on race but instead freedom and prosperity and how you go about achieving both.

This started by me reading a great piece at Investor.com last night regarding how being a black conservative author in today’s world gets you ignored. Or at least that is the claim made towards Ebony Magazine in this article. Now, I purposely led with that first statement because there are simply not enough conservative black voices in media & the political arena as well and it’s about time this becomes a discussion.

That is to not say there is a shortage of black conservatives, on the contrary, they do not exist. In fact conservative values were at the core of the civil rights movement; regardless how progressives try to spin otherwise.

Sure it was progressive in moving blacks forward to having equal rights, but that shouldn’t have been a fight in the first place. Equal rights for all are a tantamount to freedom and liberty. A true conservative/libertarian mindset does not allow for racism and collectivism. This lack of rights for all was a failure as a country from the very beginning. Now as these voices remain isolated, I find myself asking, why is this so?

From a writing point of view it’s probably a lack of readership. I don’t think its bad judgment on black media’s part as much is it is just bad business. Most blacks identify with progressive values or vote overwhelmingly democratically, thus reading about a conservative mindset would simply go unread. Politically, it’s no different but with a slight twist.

At the center of this twist is the Congressional Black Caucus. Nobody politically defines a race in US politics more so than the CBC. With now 42 members of congress, the CBC is not only the largest caucus racially it’s also incredibly strong because they are practically untouchable. Nobody in media wants to even poke, let alone tear a hole inside that bee hive’s nest for fear of being stung by the politically correct swarm that seem to have infiltrated every level of our lives.

But hey, I’m a blogger with such a low (but dedicated) readership; I am perfectly happy to do so. After all, it’s not like this is my first rodeo concerning the CBC anyway.

Now, getting back to the article written by Mr. Larry Elder, a quote by Congressman Cleaver, D-Mo., caught my eye.

"As the chair of the Black Caucus, I've got to tell you, we are always hesitant to criticize the President. With 14% (black) unemployment, if we had a white president, we'd be marching around the White House. ... The President knows we are going to act in deference to him in a way we wouldn't to someone white."

This also isn’t the first time I have written about Mr Cleaver and his obvious double sided coin regarding race. This is just one in a long line of quotes that are obviously inflammatory yet it goes completely unnoticed or at least unchallenged by the masses. Double standard you say? You bet. But this notion that it’s acceptable for a black president to show high unemployment in the black community further drives home my point I have been making about the CBC. They are not concerned with the problems just the appearance that they are concerned.

As we usher in the 113th Congress and with it the CBC gaining more and with it more power and yet here Black America sits with unemployment almost double the national average. Prisons are filling up at all time highs. And what are the solutions that the Congressional Black Caucus has for these dire times in the black community? The same tired excuses & handouts they have been fighting for, for over 30 years and what has changed since in terms of results? Nothing. We have a black President but has Black America taken that next step with his re-election? No.

So what are the solutions? I don’t have the answers nor do I pretend to but I know two things regarding this subject for certain:

1. Freedom and liberty is a cure all because it encourages individual responsibility
2. Self proclaimed black leadership is not leading.

In separate piece written by Dr Wilmer Leon for Politic365.com, there is a slightly different take on this viewpoint. Dr Leon argues that with a new rising class of young educated workers who are settling for lower wages and multiple lower paying jobs, called the “Precariat Class”, this class will be so large that the future for Black America and its relation to employment will be “catastrophic”. This isn’t hyperbole; Dr Leon brings up accurate information that troubles the black community.

What I disagree with the Dr. is the assertion that the government should do more. Because when the government does more as we all know, it means taking from someone else. This happens through a seizure of either a right, freedom and/or their wealth. Dr Leons argument is that austerity measures should not be taken in this economy with many people struggling:

 “In challenging times such as these the government should be investing in the economy not cutting back.”

The problem is we have invested into this economy. We have overspent long before President Obama got into office and we have done so with no results, not only in the black community but the country as a whole. The standard of living for most Americans has remained stagnant for years and yet we continue to pump more liquidity in the market creating inflation that ultimately acts as a tax on those that rely most on cash. Nobody relies more on cash than the poor and destitute, black or white, red, blue or yellow; the poor all spend the green the same.

The question begs; why not try a different path to prosperity if the path that has been tried simply does not work? Why not reach out to the black population and drive home the point that over 70% of black children growing up in a single parent family home is the single biggest reason the black community faces so many challenges? This could also explain why "the wealth accumulation of the average European American family is 20 times that of the average African American family".

Why not try what China has done and encourage its population to buy gold & silver?

Why not encourage the 2nd amendment as a viable option to black on black crime statistics and show that legal gun ownership would be the biggest deterrent to black on black crime?

Why not come out and support an end to the racist drug war that puts so many black men in prison?

Are these guaranteed solutions? Of course not and I don’t know if they will solve all the problems but lets put an end to the patronization of the black community by the black leadership. Engage them like adults. Don’t just hand out a fish, show them how to fish. There is only one way to achieve prosperity and freedom and that cannot be given to you by a government; it comes from within.

The Legend bids farewell...

After years of trying to teach Congress and the country about sound money and encourage freedom, Ron Paul's time in government draws to an end. I wont link story's about him or say anything else, I don't think that does his service justice a the impact is to deep of his time in Washington. I will say however that Ron Paul did indeed cure my apathy. He inspired me to look deeper into issues to find the truth. He's the essence of a statesmen and his place in our government will be missed but he always stay in our hearts and his ideas will carry forward. Freedom and liberty are things people die for and that will always live on. Best of luck in your retirement Mr Paul, enjoy it, you deserve it. We will keep up the fight.

Hyperinflation, the end game or will it be crippling interest? Choose your side.

Recently I saw an interview done with Kyle Bass, which was done in early November as a part of AmeriCatalyst 2011. The interview was over an hour in but if you start at the 46-minute mark, I assure you will be glad you did as it will lead you to the same conclusion that I came to and its one I want to address today. That is concerning the Keynesian debt system and interest payments on the debt. 

Kyle Bass, who founded Hayman Capital in 2006, made a fortune betting against the sub-prime mortgage bond market. Yes, that same bond market that was at the forefront of the great meltdown in 2008-present. You can also find Bass’s surging rise to the top in Michael Lewis’s book 'Boomerang: The Meltdown Tour'.

Towards the latter part of this interview, Mr Bass says that if the FED raises the interest rates, for every 1% point moved higher it will “create an additional 140 billion in interest expenses”. That got me thinking.

The FED is already on record saying they will not move interest rates until 2014 at the earliest, so the amount of liquidity in the system will only explode until then. That we know is a given.

What isn’t a given is what happens when they do raise interest rates. Kyle Bass seems to think that the Keynesian end point is zero and that, of course, would lead to massive hyperinflation. I assume that to be somewhat true as well, although I think the FED will do something to intervene to prevent that from happening, because:

A. they are too arrogant not to

B. their sole responsibility is to control our money supply.

So, even with unemployment news getting better the last few months, we are still (as we have said before) in the period of time of the worst, extended lack of job growth; then any point in modern Keynesian history. There is another factor and that is the FED isn’t going to raise rates for the next few years; then it hit me.

What happens when the FED has to go the Volckeresque route and raise rates too early 80’s height to stave off inflation, assuming zero isn’t the end game?

Will we see a repeat of the “October massacre” of ’79 sometime in the future, where interest rates were raised dramatically? In 1979 inflation was running at 13%. After those interest rate hikes by Volcker over the next few years, inflation dropped to 3.2%.

That, however, was not the politically smart thing to do at the time but it was the prudent thing for the country going forward. It also brought on a recession and I can’t think of any politician let alone anyone from the FED willing to do so in this day in age outside of Ron Paul.

“Strictly speaking, it probably is not “necessary” for the federal government to tax anyone directly; it could simply print the money it needs. However, that would be too bold a stroke, for it would then be obvious to all what kind of counterfeiting operation the government is running. The present system combining taxation and inflation is akin to watering the milk; too much water and the people catch on.” – Ron Paul

 

It is also important to note, that interest rate hike also made the perfect organic soil for a vast economic expansion to blossom as well, go figure.

If we know the interest payments are 450 Billion on the debt last year (combining both public and intra debt) and we have heard from Kyle Bass that for every point raised brings about an additional $140 billion in interest… and if we approached the prime rate today what Volcker’s prime rate topped out at 21.5 percent, what would our interest payment be?

It would be a whopping 2.9 Trillion in additional interest payments…annually. On top of the 450 billion currently obligated by law to pay… annually. Thus the interest payment today, on the debt, at early 1980 levels; would be about as much as the entire federal budget is today. If that isn’t a sign of the times and further proof of us living beyond our means, I don’t know what else is. No wonder Bass thinks the end game is zero. No wonder he has over 20 million nickel coins and bars of gold in his drawer… hyperinflation here we come!

The token FEMA "critique starlet" (Dr Paul) takes his final bow.

As we all know by now, unfortunately, we had another unexpected natural disaster last week, this time in a vast multi-state reach, covering much of the Midwest and into parts of Tennessee. This was a deadly storm that took many lives resulting in tear jerking tragedies. Like this heart wrenching story, where a 15^th month old survived the initial trauma from being thrown by a twister into a nearby field. Her entire family perished that day; both parents and two siblings. Sadly, she suffered the same fate just a few days later. Or like this 36-year old mother, who lost both of her legs; in order to protect her children.

The economic impact of this storm will be in the hundreds of millions, if not approaching the billion dollar range when its all said and done. This will require all hands on deck including those at FEMA. With that said, it appears, like every Tornado and Hurricane season, a reporter (or I should say reporters), tap Congressman Dr Ron Paul on the shoulder to ask him his view on the role of government in the event of natural disasters. This is by no accident.

Dr Paul's response was already prerecorded and written on their notepad, all the crossing of the t’s and dotting of the I’s was already done. That is because Dr Paul’s consistency, can and will always allow, a lazy reporter to get a cheap story that will attract buzz, with little effort in terms of leg work. All they need him to do is go on record and their story is complete, a Presidential candidate says something off the beaten path; It’s a win-win for the reporter and his publisher.

Here is the problem with this.

Does Ron Paul believe FEMA should exist? No.
Does he believe in the federal government having a hands on role in natural disasters? No. 
Is FEMA one of the worst bureaucracies in government in terms of lack of accountability and waste? YES. 

Why does Dr Paul feel this way? Its because the constitution doesn’t specifically allow for it to be funded… period. It’s that simple. So why do they cherry pick this story? Because, asking him what role we have in building up an empire then the subsequent invading of other country’s or allowing the FED Reserve to manipulate interest rates, creating bubbles, isn’t a story. Even though the amount of wealth, blood and treasure those “programs” waste are astronomically higher and oh yeah; neither are written in the constitution either (sorry neo-conservatives, what we have isn’t a defense, its clearly offense).

Now, as Ron Paul has said many times, he has a prioritized pecking order in which he would see programs and departments eliminated and/or trimmed down; specifically aiming at the most costly and unconstitutional programs or agencies we have. Do you know where FEMA would rank on that list?

First, you would have to look to see where FEMA's budget comes from and that would be none other then Homeland Security. How fitting, an agency that was created in 2002 overseeing another program that was initially funded and created in 1979. Hardly constitutional and it fits the exact model and voting record of the self described “defender of the constitution”, but I don’t want to defeat my own point before I have even made it, so I will ignore that tidbit.

Last year, FEMA spent about 13 Billion dollars. That is a big number but it terms of our budget? Is it? It is roughly 0.003% of our budget. I would assume clearly, Dr Paul would look elsewhere for the cuts. Why not start with the national debt? Sure, we couldn’t pay off the 15 Trillion, but what about that 250 Billion interest payment on that debt? Imagine the savings if we actually started to balance the budget annually?

Why not defense? The funding for defense, as I have reported numerous times, is outright offensive and hardly a defense department. Its become a slush fund for big business and a "global force for good", their words, not mine. There is not any justification i can understand in fighting rouge terrorists who claim no allegiance to any nation on principal, let alone for the amount we have spent, and to boot - in this economic environment. The Department of Defense’s base budget has increased 81% nominally and 43% inflation adjusted since 9-11. Throw in the Nuclear budget, and that spending itself has increased 21% (inflation adjusted) since 9-11.

Imagine the savings if we knocked those back to the 2001 levels or at least cut them in half? Or, what about the 1.3 Trillion spent in endless wars in the Middle East? Surly we could find savings there. We are talking about saving TRILLIONS, not to mention lives on both sides and actually using our defense to I don’t know, maybe even defending our own borders? Now that is a novel approach, eh? Using the National Guard to actually guard the nation, as opposed to fighting wars across the globe? Who knows, maybe even providing assistance, logistics and overall support for natural disasters would be available??

Quit these wars, bring the troops home. Let them spend their money here. Let’s have a real stimulus package. We are up to our ears in debt. Trillions and trillions of dollars and no end in sight for these wars. Then we could take care of our people. Matter of fact, I have even proposed on many of these programs that I don’t fully endorse because technically they are not permissible under the constitution. But taking care of sick people and the elderly and children I have nothing against that… IF YOU CUT THE SPENDING. - Ron Paul

Those are places where Ron Paul would start. Even though FEMA is one of the worst bureaucracies in terms of waste and inefficiency, its small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, it would not be a top priority. Cutting FEMA or asking about the role of food stamps surly create emotional responses, but in reality these issues are not what is draining us. In a vacuum, those are philosophical questions that would make an interesting debate… but we are living in a time where the stakes couldn’t be higher as we fight to remain solvent, vacuum type thinking is irrelevant. We need solutions to problems and until we start asking the right questions, we will never have those debates; thus we will never fix the real problems.

"Republicans are starting to realize you cant say “oh, lets cut money for food stamps but not the food stamps for the military industrial complex” because its just not going to work. - Ron Paul

So, the next time a reporter wants to tap Dr Paul on the shoulder for a quick story when hurricane or tornado season comes around, he wont be around. He is retiring form congress at 76 years old. He, as I write this, is well behind on Super Tuesday; thus he will not be our next President. They will have to find someone else to do the work for them. Maybe, they could go out and do actual reporting. Cover the minutes from the FED meetings. Maybe go out and find Stephanie Decker, the mother who lost her legs and bring her story to the masses. Or maybe seek out these heroes from Branson Missouri, who risked their lives in order to save others in the face of a deadly tornado or the hundreds of others  if not thousands from this past week who saved lives.

There are plenty of stories waiting to be told, they just need to be reported. If that’s not juicy enough, cover the destruction of our dollar and our nation through crony capitalism, fractional reserve banking and a debt driven economy that results in war and more spending (debt) to finance it. That, however, may not make it past their publisher or editors desk. We can’t have people actually learning how bad off things really are, now can we?

The Vest wants to spend to offset spending - but dont call him a liberal

Santorum has and will always be a big government "compassionate" conservative and his record clearly shows that. He will never shrink government. Because Santorum thinks that government should be involved within every aspect of our lives. Not only the handling of our taxes and defense of our contracts and borders but he also favors ADDED government power in the business of defense and regulation of morality.

Anytime the government gets involved or makes any move its costs the tax payer. Government as we know creates nothing, all they can do is tax & spend (borrow & spend is more like it). So, with Santorum getting heat this week in an add put out by Ron Paul, in which it calls the former Pennsylvania Senator a "Fake" Conservative, he had to come out and show he wasnt fake and that he was genuine; as his clear rise in the polls would indicate.

Could there be a better time for the Vest to continue to prove his conservative credentials then the last debate of the primary season last night in Arizona? I dont think so, and CNN clearly understood what was going on as it didn't take long for John King of CNN to fire a 85mph fastball - belt high for Dr Paul. Within minutes, King asked Dr Paul why his ad this week was calling Santorum "fake"? Ron Paul simply said:

 "Because he's a fake".

The good congressman then went on a bit of a rant, on how exactly he thought the Vest was fake and then Santorum's rebuttal was bunch of fluff and rankings from all sorts of conservative organizations supposedly ranking Santorum as some type of fiscal hawk (sic).  It was a little later in the debate where Santorum outed himself. Here is the text:

SANTORUM: As Congressman Paul knows, I opposed Title X funding. I've always opposed Title X funding, but it's included in a large appropriation bill that includes a whole host of other things, including...


(BOOING)


... the funding for the National Institutes of Health, the funding for Health and Human Services and a whole bunch of other departments. It's a multi-billion-dollar bill.


What I did, because Title X was always pushed through, I did something that no one else did. Congressman Paul didn't. I said, well, if you're going to have Title X funding, then we're going to create something called Title XX, which is going to provide funding for abstinence-based programs, so at least we'll have an opportunity to provide programs that actually work in -- in keeping children from being sexually active instead of facilitating children from being sexually active. And I pushed Title XX to -- to accomplish that goal.


So while, yes, I -- I admit I voted for large appropriation bills and there were things in there I didn't like, things in there I did, but when it came to this issue, I proactively stepped forward and said that we need to do something at least to counterbalance it, A; B, I would say that I've always been very public that, as president of the United States, I will defund Planned Parenthood; I will not sign any appropriation bill that funds Planned Parenthood.

Here, you have someone who is self described as "the most fiscally conservative senator in the Congress in the -- in the 12 years that I was there", who was also rated "high" in ratings from both the National Taxpayers Union as well as Citizens Against Government Waste actually admitting he was in favor of creating new spending. Not only did he help pass legislation worth billions that he (allegedly) didn't like, he trumps that, with actually admitting to adding more spending for new programs to counter the spending of existing programs he doesn't like. My heads hurts just typing that. Lets try this....

Santorum doesn't like Title X (planned parenthood) but he passes it anyway as a rider on another bill worth billions he does like but because he isn't satisfied with the spending of Title X, he creates (spends) Title XX to satisfy his quest for divine mortality be offsetting Title X.

Nope, this still makes no sense and that is the point. It cant make sense because my logical fiscal conservative brain doesnt compute that as fiscally conservative. That my friends is the antithesis of a fiscal conservative. How does spending new money to offset already spent money create anything but more debt and bigger government? It doesn't. And again... that is the point. That is the very definition of a big government whore... thats what Santorum is, and the Tea Party will line up to support him?

500 'Veterans for Ron Paul' march on White House to media blackout (from Examiner.com))

Terrific read courtesy of Jenn Morrill who writes for the Salt Lake City Independent Examiner. I posted some of the highlights, definitely worth the click.

Cox, a veteran of the Iraq War, told Examiner that one of the highlights for him was the ceremony that took place outside of the White House. The 500 troops stood in formation in front of the White House and then did an "about face" and turned their backs to the White House in a symbolic gesture that displayed their disdain for President Obama breaking his oath of office, which is the same oath all servicemen take, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The veterans were told to render a salute and hold it for as many seconds as there have been active duty soldiers that have committed suicide while Obama has been in office. The salute lasted nearly 10 minutes, Cox said. They then bowed their heads in silent prayer for as many seconds as members of the military have died overseas while Obama has been Commander-in-Chief, which Cox said was almost 30 minutes. 

During the ceremony (as seen in the video to the left), a pair of soldiers held a flag with words Martin Luther King spake in opposition to the Vietnam War, warning against America's arrogance overseas. King said:

 I call on the young men of America who must make a choice today to take a stand on this issue. Tomorrow may be too late. The book may close. And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You're too arrogant! And if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I'll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God." 

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.”

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?

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.

2002 predictions come true.

From the deification by the FED and our federal government on the dollar - to the stripping away of civil liberties here at home via the Patriot act, NDAA, SOPA and body scanners - to the middle east destabilization and us clamoring for an invasion not seen since Vietnam. Dr Paul had it right all along. And people call him the kook??

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.

"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.

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.