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?

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?

Taliban getting new recruits

I have been on record saying that the war on terror is a front. Sure, extremism is something that does threaten the 99% of us that want to live in peace, but your chances of being killed by a terrorist are about as you being crushed under a vending machine. Although, technically, you stand a 200% more of a chance of a vending machine attack then dying in a terrorist attack.

It is a front for a fledgling empire in its death throes to dominate a vital region for energy and global dominance in the coming future. This isn’t just an educated guess. Richard Cheney was on record saying this before he became VP and was CEO at Haliburton. It was Dick who said in 1999:

“the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow”

So we picked up progress. Even thou we are facing a decay infrastructure and crumbling and exploding entitlement programs that are facing insolvency. But then again, perpetual war and debt are probably our leading service export, so in some ways we did what we were good at. The reality is our priorities are so twisted and we are so much in debt we have a hard time seeing the difference between in and whats out. Illegal aliens kill soo many more American each year then terrorists yet we do nothing about our borders while spending a fortune defending the borders across the globe. Its nation where heart disease kills half a million, yet our programs to defend from this killer dwarfs in comparison to the “War on Terror”. Coincidence? I think not.

In fact CIA Director Leon Panetta, said recently that he thought we were facing about 75-100 Al Qaeda members. No shit. A nine year war costing over a trillion dollars and counting (and im being generous) not to mention countless deaths of our own boys and girls to fight what would be best described as a mid level street gang… in Omaha. The Mission to take out the Taliban in Afghanistan was a relatively short one. We met the objective and could have been out of there, but we went looking for boogie men. We started the nation building. And here we are, still fighting and creating enemies. We are still bogged down with ridiculous rules of engagements and strategies that look to be coming from a 14 year old kid with a mic playing call of duty and sipping mountain dew in his mother’s basement. The opium production there has went through the roof etc etc etc... etc....etc.

And then we get this. Jihad Monkey!



The first paragraph reads, and I kid you not:

"Taliban terrorists have a secret weapon to destroy the infidel American enemy — monkey marksmen. According to The People’s Daily in China, the Taliban in Afghanistan is “training monkeys to use weapons to attack American troops"

I rest my case.