Saturday, December 31, 2011

2012: New Year, New President

Happy New Year to all of the fans of Conservative Samizdat! Have a safe and fun time saying goodbye to 2011 and welcoming 2012! 


My Dad and Mitt Romney Are Alike: Both Like To Save Money

Yesterday, Josh Romney made a statement about his family that has a lot of people talking: 
"My dad has more energy than anyone I've ever seen," Josh Romney said. "He is also tremendously cheap."
As children in Belmont, Massachusetts, the boys said they learned not to leave the tap water running too long, or they would get a rebuke from their father, who was in the process of building the venture capital powerhouse Bain Capital.
"Congress would learn pretty quickly that they're not going to get money from my dad either," Josh Romney said.
My father, who is an attorney,  is the same way.  My Dad's idea of going out to get lunch or dinner is to get one of those cheap 99 cent hamburgers that most fast food chains offer.  Every now and then, we'll go to a nice restaurant and eat good food.  Just as Mitt Romney rebuked his kids if he left the tap water running too long,  whenever I've come home to visit my parents, my Dad will rebuke me if I've let the clothes dryer run longer than he thinks is necessary and he will turn off the machine in mid cycle if he thinks the clothes are sufficiently dry. 
Mitt Romney and My Dad are children of parents who lived through the Depression and World War II. In fact, my grandparents  and my father were Dutch immigrants who came to America after World War II  As a result, those who lived through these tough years in America's history scrimped and saved on everything they could. They also grew up in households where they didn't have a lot of money growing up and became affluent only after years of hard work. 
A few years ago, my Dad bought me two books for me to read. He wanted me to read The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy and Secrets of the Millionaire Mind: Mastering the Inner Game of Wealth. One of the most important and fascinating facts about wealthy people is that they became rich not by living lavishly but by living prudently in which they save money when they can and buy items cheaply whenever possible. As a result, the real secret to financial success isn't having a high power paying job or a business that rakes in millions in cash but living within your means or well below your means.
I think Mitt Romney and My Dad are trying to instill in their children the value of not wasting time, resources and money because that's what they learned from their parents. These are good lessons that people need to learn regardless if they are rich or poor. But more importantly, these are lessons that our elected officials need to learn and I think Mitt Romney would be just the man to help Congress become better stewards of the People's money.

Friday, December 30, 2011

Mona Charen: Mormons Are The Wrong Kind Of Minority in America

Mona Charen has written a thought provoking article for National Review Online about the lack of excitement Mitt Romney that will surely come when compared to other minorities when they have reached a milestone or overcome a barrier if he becomes the first LDS President of the United States: 
The Washington Post proclaimed in a recent headline another historic “first” for the United States — the first female usher-in-chief at the White House. Stop the presses! The accompanying story reveals that the nominee hails from Jamaica, so it’s probably a two-fer. Oh boy.
The Post and other liberal organs are obsessed with firsts. The first female letter carrier to handle the Capitol Hill route will get a mention in the press. The first African-American anything is guaranteed at least a nod. You don’t even have to be first to get “first” treatment. The last two Supreme Court nominees have been women, joining a court that had already seated two women (one retired). Nevertheless, the femininity of the candidates was cheerily chatted up. When Barack Obama became the first black nominee of a major party and then the elected president, dignified notice of an historical milestone would have been appropriate. But you know what happened — the media went on an inebriated, extravagant first binge.
Funny how the first effect only works for some. If Mitt Romney is nominated and elected, he will be the first member of a highly persecuted American minority group to be so honored. Yet no one is celebrating the possibility of the first Mormon president. Anti-Mormon bias, which has proved remarkably persistent over decades, is scarcely ever condemned.
Mona Charen goes on to give a brief history of the persecution that Mormons faced in America just as other minority groups in America have such as African Americans or Catholics have in the past until a member of that group occupied the White House as President. She concludes that if Romney were to become our next President, Romney would make history but some people may not be thrilled with this milestone in American history.
While Mormons might be the "wrong" minority in America, there would be nothing wrong with having a Mormon in the White House because that nothing would change if a LDS politician were ever to become President: 
“I think everyone will find it very boring or normal in the White House itself,” said Joanna Brooks, a Mormon and a columnist at religiousdispatches.org.
“There’d be a Book of Mormon, maybe, in the nightstand,” said Brooks, grasping at straws to come up with some things that would change. Of course, she pointed out, there’s already one in the nightstand in every Marriott hotel room in America.
Mormons obey the Word of Wisdom, a religious law that prohibits consumption of alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea and illegal drugs. But does that mean that under a President Romney or Huntsman, the White House would go dry and sleep-deprived aides wouldn’t be permitted to refuel with coffee?
“I would absolutely predict and bet a thousand bucks that you would not have a dry White House,” Chuck Warren, a Republican strategist and a practicing Mormon, told The Daily Caller.
While he may not personally drink coffee, Romney doesn’t seem have a problem with being around it. The New York Times reported that he discussed his 2008 loss at a holiday party with former aides “over coffee, sandwiches and doughnuts,” and that he has held at least one campaign function at the Buddy Brew coffee shop in Tampa, Fla.
The same attitude appears to apply to alcohol. A Boston Globe write-up of Romney’s inaugural ball as governor identified that there was a cash bar present for those with standard tickets, while those willing to shell out the big bucks were upstairs in the “exclusive Martini Lounge” where “[v]odka flowed down the trunk of an elephant-shaped ice sculpture.” Many guests reportedly took advantage of it.
“We’ve had teetotalers in the White House before, including recently George W. Bush,” pointed out conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt during an interview on his radio show, “so I don’t think a lack of alcohol makes much of a difference.”
“I actually don’t think that their LDS [Latter-Day Saints] faith would in any way change anything that any American would see or observe, even if they were working in the White House,” added Hewitt, who authored a book titled “A Mormon in the White House.”
Mormons who spoke to TheDC were similarly unable to come up with examples of changes likely to come to a Mormon-led White House.
“There’s a strict law of chastity, but I don’t think presidents are required to cheat on their wives; they just do sometimes,” joked McKay Coppins, a reporter for The Daily Beast and Newsweek who is also a Mormon.
“Mormons generally are taught that on Sundays you’re not supposed to work,” mused Coppins. “But we also are taught that there are exceptions for jobs that need to be done on Sundays; for example, doctors. I would imagine that the job of president probably falls under there.”
However, there might be one unique aspect of having a Mormon president and that is his attendance at a LDS temple:
One unique challenge that could face a Mormon president, Coppins pointed out, would be what to do about a security detail when worshiping at temple.
Temples are not places Mormons go for routine weekly services — for that Mormons go to church. Temples are sacred places that Mormons attend more infrequently.
According to the church’s website, “the primary purpose of the temple is to provide a dedicated place where sacred ordinances needed for eternal life can be preformed. Because of its sacred nature, attendance in the temple is limited to Mormons who obey God’s commandments and therefore are worthy to enter.”
That last part could present a security issue for a Mormon president: how to worship at temple with Secret Service agents who may not be worthy Mormons, and without disrupting other worshipers in what Brooks described as a “setting that is highly private and designed to be very peaceful.”
Other Mormons who spoke to TheDC offered several suggestions, though no one could say for sure. The president could, perhaps, enter with Secret Service agents who were worthy Mormons, or simply not attend temple for the duration of his term in office, as it is not required.
The Mormon Church declined to make official comment on the matter. The Washington, D.C. Temple, located in Kensington, Md., also did not respond to TheDC’s request for comment.
Having a Mormon for President might be the very thing America needs. A man who has been successful both in the public and private sector, has been completely faithful to his wife for many years and has raised a wonderful family, and has had a scandal free political career. 
Americans are tired of scandals, corruption, drama and politics that come from the White House. We need a President who will do his job confidently, competently, intelligently and without fanfare just like most hard working Americans do when they go to work. 
Having a Mormon in the White House is the right kind of minority America needs and Mitt Romney is the right man for the job in 2012! 

Ron Paul Flip Flops On His Newsletter

Ron Paul, in an interview with Dave Wiegel for Slate.com, now admits that he did contribute to his own bigoted newsletter:
CALLER: Dr. Paul, how confident were you at the time that the newsletters that bore your name were representative of your views on taxes, on monetary policy, the Second Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, all the things that you hold dear? How confident were you that the newsletter accurately portrayed your views on those things?
PAUL: Well, the newsletters were written, you know, a long time ago. And I wrote a certain portion of them. I would write the economics. So a lot of what you just mentioned… his would be material that I would turn in, and it would become part of the letter. But there were many times when I didn’t edit the whole letter, and things got put in. And I didn’t even really become aware of the details of that until many years later when somebody else called and said, you know what was in it? But these were sentences that were put in, a total of eight or ten sentences, and it was bad stuff. It wasn’t a reflection of my views at all. So it got in the letter, I thought it was terrible, it was tragic, you know and I had some responsibility for it, because name went on the letter. But I was not an editor. I’m like a publisher. And if you think of publishers of newspapers, once in a while they get pretty junky stuff in newspapers. And they have to say that this is not the position of that newspaper, and this is certainly the case. But I actually put a type of a newsletter out, it was a freedom report, investment, survival report — every month since 1976. So this is probably ten sentences out of 10,000 pages, for all I know. I think it’s bad that happened but I disavowed all these views, and people who know me best, people of my district, have heard these stories for years and years, and they know they weren’t a reflection of anything I believed in, and it never hurt me politically. Right now, I think it’s the same case, too. People are desperate to find something.
CALLER: But Dr. Paul, many of the newsletters are filled with conspiracies. You had one newsletter from start to finish with fear that the $50 bill, because it was going to be made pink, and it was gonna have all kinds of things that can track us down, so we should all be afraid that maybe tomorrow they’re gonna require us to turn in all of our old money.
PAUL: The paper money now is pink, you know? No, we haven’t had runaway inflation, but I still fear that.
Just a few days prior to this admission to Dave Weigel, Ron Paul said that he contributed absolutely nothing to his own newsletter: 
Now, Paul says he had nothing to do with the contents of the newsletters published in his name.
"Why don't you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN and what I've said for 20-something years, 22 years ago?" Paul said on CNN Wednesday. "I didn't write them. I disavow them. That's it." Paul then removed his microphone and abruptly ended the interview.
Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the congressman was practicing medicine at the time the newsletters were published and "did not write or approve the incendiary passages and does not agree with them."
Ron Paul's confession is analogous to a suspect who first confessed that he was not in the room when the victim was killed and then admits to being in the room when the victim was shot but not shooting the gun. 
This is a flip flop of the worst kind.
Its impossible to believe that Ron Paul contributed so little to his own newsletter despite being knowledgeable about the questionable facts and statistics that newsletter uses to promote the bigoted articles that were published in his name and has defended it when confronted with it. 
Its also impossible to believe that Ron Paul just stuck with writing purely about economic issues while other unnamed people wrote the bigoted articles. Even if we are to believe that he wrote the good stuff but didn't write any of the bad stuff in his newsletter, he probably let Lew Rockwell or Murray Rothbard ghost write these articles. Both of these men are known for spouting racist and anti-Semitic views in other forums. 
Ron Paul can deny all he wants that he has nothing to do with bigoted parts of his own newsletters, and merely wrote about economic issues, but as one blogger points out:
"Rep. Paul is trying to say that the words above weren’t written by him (but rather someone else helping him with his newsletter), but c’mon. Let’s be serious. If they appeared in his newsletter attributed to him then he’s responsible."
With the Republican caucuses only a few days away, can people afford to elect a man initially denied but now admits that was in the room when the bigoted pieces were written but that he didn't touch the typewritter on any of those articles?

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Mitt Romney Chastizes Ron Paul For His Stance On Iran

In the final days before the Iowa caucus, Mitt Romney went after Ron Paul and criticized him for his position on Iran:
Mitt Romney, beginning a final push in this crucial first-caucus state, this morning took a swipe at Representative Ron Paul, who has been gaining momentum among Iowa voters.
“One of the people running for president thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” Romney told voters here at Elly’s Tea and Coffee Shop, where a line stretched to the door to see him. “I don’t, I don’t trust ayatollahs ... I don’t trust those who back Hamas and Hezbollah.”
Ron Paul denies that his policies are isolationist and chooses to call his foreign policy positions "non-interventionist: 
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today's more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.
It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.
- Dr. Ron Paul, 2007
Ron Paul's foreign policy positions are neither conservative, pragmatic or sane. He has the same foreign policy positions as President Obama. Some people think he is further to the left than Obama.Ron Paul's foreign policy. Regardless of what Ron Paul chooses to call his foreign policy positions, it is isolationist in theory and in application
In fact, a former Ron Paul aide, named Eric Dondero, has this to say about his old boss' foreign policy positions: 
First, Dondero claims that his old boss is such an extreme isolationist that "he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that 'saving the Jews,' was absolutely none of our business."
Second, Dondero writes that that Paul himself is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist: 
He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.
And lastly, Dondero reveals that Paul wanted to vote against the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 but lacked the courage of his convictions to do so: 
There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:
Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.
Eric Dondero also claims that Ron Paul is Anti-Israel and Pro-Hamas and Hezbollah
He is . . . most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general.  He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all.  He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations.  His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer.  He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs. . . .
While the quote above is bad, you should click on the link above to learn more about Ron Paul's support for Palestine and how it reveals his hypocrisy for his non-interventionism/isolationism foreign policy positions. 
In contrast,  Mitt Romney will not lead from behind like President Obama nor will he withdraw from the world stage like Ron Paul. He is a man whose foreign policy positions will keep America and the world safer. He is a strong leader who has the integrity and wisdom to stand up for our nation and to support our friends and allies around the world. 
That is why Iowans and the rest of the country should vote for Mitt Romney in this 2012 Republican primary.

Saturday, December 24, 2011

Merry Christmas!!

I would like to tell everyone who reads my blog that they have a happy and wonderful Christmas. I will be away from my blog for a few days because I will be traveling to visit family for Christmas.
However, I would like to leave my readers with a few Christmas videos I think you might enjoy. The first video is a short clip of Ronald Reagan giving an Christmas message from the White House. The second video is 2012 Presidential candidate Mitt Romney wishing everyone a Merry Christmas. The last video is The Mormon Tabernacle Choir, one of Ronald Reagan's favorite choirs, singing "O Holy Night."
Merry Christmas everyone!!

Friday, December 23, 2011

Ron Paul in 1993: Subscribe To My Crazy Magazine

More evidence of Ron Paul's bigotry towards minorities and kooky conspiracy theories are coming to light now that he is considered a front runner in the 2012 race. Reuters has obtained a copy of a letter that was advertising his controversial letter that promoted a lot of fringe ideas to his followers: 
The letter promoting Paul's newsletters claims that Paul - through what he describes as a network of "extraordinary sources" in Congress, the White House, the Treasury and Justice departments, the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service - had acquired unique insider information that would his subscribers to "neutralize" the plans of "powerbrokers."
Paul's letter went on to describe various plots and schemes that he had "unmasked," including a "plot for world government, world money and world central banking." He also claimed to have exposed a plan by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to "suspend the Constitution" in a falsely declared national emergency.
Despite being "told not to talk," Paul wrote that his newsletters also "laid bare" the "Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica," and a "federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS."
Paul claimed that his "training as a physician" helped him "see through" this alleged cover-up.
Paul also suggested that a planned U.S. currency with new notes designed to curb counterfeiting and money laundering would result in the distribution of "totalitarian bills" that "were tinted pink and blue and brown, and blighted with holograms, diffraction gratings, metal and plastic threads and chemical alarms."
Paul said the money was designed to allow authorities to "keep track of American cash and American citizens."
He urged the letter's readers to send in $99, which would buy subscriptions to his monthly political and investment newsletters, a copy of his book "Surviving the New Money," an investment manual and access to the "unlisted phone number of my Financial Hotline for fast breaking news."
See the advertisement for Ron Paul's newsletter for yourself HERE.

Is Ron Paul A Racist?


Ron Paul has been receiving a lot of attention in the news about some newsletters that was published in his name during the 1990s. The controversy surrounding his newsletters has been around for a long time since 1996 when Ron Paul's opponent, Lefty Morris, during the Senate race began to alert the voters of Texas about these articles. 
Since 1996, numerous articles have been written further exploring Ron Paul's bigoted past. What reporters have found is that Ron Paul just has too many connections to white supremacy and other fringe groups to either personally or vicariously that it is almost impossible to rebut the charge that he's a racist. However, many people credit reporter James Kerchick for making the the American voters aware of Ron Paul's racism, antisemitism and disrespect towards gays in his article "Angry White Man" which was published in The New Republic back in 2008. 
Which explains why Ron Paul abruptly ended an interview with CNN a few days ago: 
Those who have been closely watching Ron Paul for many years, all this information about his bigoted past isn't new. However, most of the American public don't know about it. News reporters during the 2008 Presidential election did some reporting on his news letters but Ron Paul was never the frontrunner in that election so that information wasn't of interest to most people. 
Now that Ron Paul is supposedly the current front runner and may win Iowa, Ron Paul is getting more scrutiny over his controversial writings. Ron Paul ended the interview quickly because he knows that the more the average voter gets exposed to his bigoted newsletters, the less likely they'll vote for him in any GOP primary or in the General election if he manages to become the Republican nominee. 
Which is why Ron Paul has repeatedly been disavowing the controversial newsletter as much as he can and hopes that he can fool the American public into believing he has no connections to the bigoted magazine bearing his name. 
Yet, there was a time when Ron Paul wasn't backing away from his newsletters but actively he actually promoted it:
In modern politics, we call this flip flopping. Ron Paul promoted these racist newsletters before he disavowed them. 
But Ron Paul has gone beyond flip flopping territory into telling absolute lies.
He's lying so badly that no lie detector is needed. It is incredibly difficult to believe that he never wrote any articles nor did he ever read any of the articles in his newsletter that was titled the "Ron Paul Political Report," published by his own company, Ron Paul & Associates, and that made millions in profit between 1978 and 1995.
Ron Paul lies are so unbelievable that not even a convicted felon would believe that Ron Paul had no knowledge and no connection with these newsletters. Too many people close to Ron Paul were involved in Ron Paul's business for him to not know what was being printed in his name: 
"...the officers of Ron Paul & Associates included Paul's wife Carol, Paul's daughter Lori Pyeatt, Paul staffer Penny Langford-Freeman, and longtime campaign manager Mark Elam (who has managed every Paul congressional campaign since 1996 and is currently the Texas coordinator for the presidential run), according to tax records from 1993 and 2001."
He won’t say who wrote them or whether he still associates with the author or authors of his newsletter. They were probably ghostwritten by Lew Rockwell or Murray Rothbard who had, and probably still, maintains a close relationship with.
Ron Paul can deny all he wants that he has nothing to do with these newsletters, but as one blogger points out:
"Rep. Paul is trying to say that the words above weren’t written by him (but rather someone else helping him with his newsletter), but c’mon. Let’s be serious. If they appeared in his newsletter attributed to him then he’s responsible."
In addition to his bigoted newsletter, there are other examples that may reveal how he really feels about ethnic and religious minorities. If you look at all the examples below, a picture starts to emerge. We have a man who:
  1. Has had pictures with Don Black, who is a well known White Supremacist, 
  2. has a photo of himself signing an autograph for Don Black's son, Derek Black,
  3. accepted donations from a white supremacist group and refused to return the money, 
  4. convinced a campaign staffer working during his 1996 Senate election to pose as a devout Jew to disrupt Lefty Morris' news conference as a disinformation stunt to get people to believe Ron Paul wasn't an anti-Semite despite the fact that Mr. Morris had plenty of evidence to support his claim his opponent hated Jews, 
  5. and there is this letter from Bill White, a self proclaimed white supremacist. However, there is some room for debate over the truthfulness andveracity of Bill White's letter. 
  6. He also has connections with the controversial John Birch Society.
  7. There is some undetermined amount of Ron Paul supporters who seem to share his views. For example, The Daily Paul, a well known website for Ron Paul fans posted a video of published links to YouTube videos of Louis Farrakhan giving an anti-Semitic speech.
  8.  White Supremacists are rallying behind Ron Paul to support his bigoted newsletter.  
  9. Finally, MichealMedved gave Ron Paul back the chance to deny and distance himself from the various bigoted groups is alleged to have connections with and he has never done so.
Given the weight of the ALL the facts above, what's easier to believe...that Ron Paul is a racist or that he's not?

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Why Conservatives Cannot Support Ron Paul In 2012

The worst candidate of this 2012 election is Ron Paul. He cannot be allowed to win the Iowa caucus or any primary election in this election. Let me explain why.
Ron Paul's foreign policy positions are neither conservative, pragmatic or sane. He has the same foreign policy positions as President Obama. Some people think he is further left than Obama. However, at least Obama leads from behind on foreign policy whereas Ron Paul, with his isolationist positions, won't lead at all. 
Since he won't be even be leading from behind, Ron Paul won't protect America. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair explains how isolationism is essentially a choice to do nothing and how it weakens a nation and makes the world a more dangerous place:
In the Middle East, where our strategic interests are dramatically and profoundly engaged, it is unlikely that the effect of a regime going rogue and brutalizing its own people will remain isolated within its own borders.
If Moammar Gadhafi were allowed to kill large numbers of Libyans to quash the hope of a different Libya, we could end up with a pariah government at odds with the international community—wounded but still alive and dangerous. We would send a signal of Western impotence in a region that analyzes such signals keenly. We would dismay those agitating for freedom, boosting opposition factions hostile to us.
This underlines another point: Inaction is also a decision, a policy with consequence. The wish to keep out of it all is entirely understandable, but it is every bit as much a decision as acting.
If you look at Ron Paul's record, you will find that he has not made the world a safer place for the United States, our allies or the world.
Ron Paul & Iran
The strongest example of this is his position on Iran's nuclear program. Watch him explain his views on Iran during the most recent Republican debate in Iowa:  
The fact that Ron Paul is fine with Iran having a bomb should be disturbing to anybody regardless if you're on the left, right or in the middle. 
In fact, Ron Paul's isolationist policy means that America will not support people around the world who went to the streets to protest against their government and demanded greater freedoms to the people. For example, Ron Paul was the only person to vote against the House Resolution to support Iranian protesters back in 2009. 
His isolationist policies also means that Ron Paul would not do anything to stop investors from doing businesses in Iran since he  voted against HR 1400, which aimed at blocking foreign investment in Iran, in particular its lucrative energy sector. But then again, why make it harder for foreign companies to invest in Iran's energy sector if he thinks that Iran is using these nuclear plants for peaceful purposes or that the rest of the world should be fine with Iran using these nuclear plants to make nuclear bombs. 
Ron Paul & Terrorism
 He stated that he would not have approved of sending our special forces to kill Osama Bin Laden. He has also voted against  the Terrorism Information Awareness bill which provides funding for offensive and defensive military programs that would help combat terrorism. He also voted against the Project BioShield Act of 2003 which was an initiative to research and develop vaccines, medications, and other countermeasures to combat biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological bioterrorism threats to our national security and speeds up the process of authorization for funds for research and purchase of agents to combat bioterrorism.
Ron Paul & Israel  
During the Western Republican Debate, Ron Paul said that he would cut foreign aid off to all countries including Israel:
As Tuesday night’s GOP presidential debate turned to the topic of foreign policy, Ron Paul said he would cut “all foreign aid.” When asked if such cuts would also apply to Israel, Paul said, “I would cut all foreign aid. I would treat everybody equally.”
“That foreign aid makes Israel dependent on us…They should have their sovereignty back,” Paul reasoned.
“To cut military spending is a wise thing to do. We would be safer if we weren’t in so many places…We have an empire. We can’t afford it,” Paul asserted.
Its not surprising that Rand Paul, the son of Ron Paul, shares the same exact views as his family in which he also wants to cut foreign aid to Israel.  
The problem with Ron and Rand Paul's argument is that from an economic stand point, our problem isn’t how much we spend on foreign aid or on military campaigns. That is not why we are massively in debt. Cutting off foreign aid or bringing all the troops home from wherever they are stationed around the world won't make a dent in reducing the national debt. 
The truth is that we can sustain as many military campaigns as America needs if we weren’t for entitlement spending. Entitlement spending is the single largest driver of our current debt right now. In fact, our government is more efficient in the money it spends on defense related matters than it does with entitlement spending. It is true that our government spends more money than it takes in, but the way Ron Paul wants to reduce the deficit by reducing the amount we spend on national security is neither logical, practical or prudent.
Conclusion
Regardless if you choose to call Ron Paul's position "isolationist" or "noninterventionalist", the  results of his policies are the same: no leadership which results in America taking no action against our enemies at home or abroad. Moreover, if Ron Paul were president, you can imagine that he would have no problem saying no to important programs for national security, counterterrorism, our military or supporting our allies. 
In the end, Ron Paul positions on  foreign policy and national security will never be taken seriously by the general public or by conservatives. The more Ron Paul speaks out on foreign policy and national security, it decreases America's trust in him because it will decrease their ability to feel safe and secure with him as a leader.
That is why Conservatives, moderates, Independents or TEA Party people cannot vote for Ron Paul in any other Republican Primary.  He simply doesn't deserve our support at all.

Mitt To Newt: If You Don't Like It Now, Wait Until You See What Obama Has For You

Given that Newt Gingrich rose quickly to the top only to fall back into place as a third tier candidate, its quite natural that he would be unhappy about it. Rather than find some ways to restart his campaign, he starts complaining about the attack ads that Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have unleashed on him. 
Newt Gingrich is especially unhappy with the Romney's Restore Our Future Super PAC:  
"Well, that makes my point," Gingrich said. "If you see Romney, ask him to take them off the air. I mean, you know, it would be nice if candidates were responsible for the things being done by the people who know them personally who are trying to help them get elected.”

He later closed his 37-minute session with this: "Ask (your friends) if they run into one of these candidates, to tell them they ought to be ashamed of themselves, to take this junk off the air. And don't hide behind some baloney about the superPAC that I actually have no control over that happens to be run by five of my former staff. That's just baloney."
What was Mitt Romney's response? Watch below to see Mitt Romney tell Newt Gingrich that if he's unhappy with the advertisements Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are running, just wait until he becomes the GOP nominee and Obama starts running ads against Newt: 

 Here's a transcript of Mitt Rommey's statement in the video above:
“I know that the speaker would like to say,’we shouldn’t have any negativity.’ But look, if you can’t handle the heat in this little kitchen, the heat that’s going to come from Obama’s Hell’s kitchen will be a heck of a lot hotter. We need to show, as Republicans, that we can stand up to the barrage that’s going to come from the Obama-world,” he said..
If Newt can't handle the pressures of these ads now, he certainly won't be able to handle the attack ads from Obama. As the old saying goes, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Perhaps he ought to drop out of the race now before the heat in the kitchen starts to get hotter.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Franklin Graham: Evangelicals CAN Vote For A Mormon

Reverend Franklin Graham has joined other Evangelical Christians such as Richard Mouw and Pat Robertson who have publicly stated that Evangelicals can vote for a Mormon. Reverend Graham told a Christian television station, Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) that he is not bothered by Mitt Romney's religion and briefly talked about the relationship between a candidate's religion and his ability to be a competent leader:
“You can have the nicest guy and he can be a Christian and just wonderful but have absolutely no clue as to how to run a country, you don’t want that … Mitt Romney is a very capable fellow, I know him. I know Newt Gingrich, another capable person; Michele Bachmann, a very capable lady; Rick Santorum, I like a lot, very gifted guy, a very sharp person and so there are some good candidates out there.”
Reverend Franklin Graham has a point. Voters should not vote for a candidate who is strongly committed his religion but has no ability to lead or doesn't even know how to lead. 
What is equally as important is that just because a candidate is of a certain religion doesn't mean he'll be a good leader just because he is a member of that faith. Its important to remember that every president who has ever occupied the White House has been a Christian. Let us not forget that Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Clinton and Barak Obama were all Christians. men. Yet, their political and social values has had a negative impact on our country politically, financially and militarily. The important lesson from these Presidents is that the negative impact these presidents have had our nation and the world was not because of their political party or their religious affiliation. It was their values. 
Jay Sekulow, a high powered conservative Jewish leader and attorney, had a public debate with Pastor Jeffress about whether or not a person can reject a candidate based on their religious membership. In that debate, Jay Sekulow makes a powerful point that the idea that Evangelicals should only vote for other Christians leads to some very disturbing outcomes if you follow that argument to its logical conclusion by posing a hypothetical to Pastor Jeffress: 
”If Mitt Romney was running against Jimmy Carter, would you support Jimmy Carter because he’s a born-again Christian? I find that premise to be troubling.”
Other disturbing outcomes have arisen when theological leaders talk to the media about Mitt Romney's religion. For example, take a look at Reverend Brad Atkins who made jaw dropping claim about what Evangelical supporters are concerned about: 
"In South Carolina, Romney's Mormonism will be more of a cause of concern than Gingrich's infidelity."
It boggles the mind that South Carolina Evangelicals are more disturbed by the fact that Mitt Romney has been a devout Mormon who has been faithful to his wife for 42 years than Newt Gingrich's serial infidelities and divorces.
This is why I've been forever arguing that a candidate's values is more important than than their theology. You cannot go wrong in voting for a candidate when you focus on their values rather than on their religion or political affiliation. When you vote for a candidate that you feel shares your values but may not be of your faith or political party, you will always be making the right choice. 
I strongly recommend Evangelicals to visit the website Evangelicals For Mitt or joining Evangelicals For Mitt's facebook page and talking to other Evangelicals why they are supporting Mitt Romney. You'll find that almost all of the Evangelical voters who will be voting for Mitt support him because he shares their values.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Mitt Romney Announces Endorsement From Officials Who Served In The Reagan Administration

Today, on the very day of the final Republican 2012 debates, Mitt Romney has announced that he has gathered an impressive list of people who worked in the Ronald Reagan Administration during the 1980s who are all endorsing Romney for President in 2012. Here's the list of Reaganites For Romney below: 
Members of Reaganites for Romney:
Ambassador Gerald P. Carmen – Ronald Reagan 1980 Campaign; Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration from 1981-1984; U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva 1984-1986
Attorney General William Barr – Domestic Policy Staff 1982-1983
Lee Casey – Office of Legal Policy 1986-1990
Jimmy Gurulé – Assistant United States Attorney, Deputy Chief of the Major Narcotics Section (Los Angeles) 1985-1989
William Kilberg – President of White House Fellows 1982-1983; Appointed by Reagan to Chair of White House Fellowships in 1983
Raymond Ludwiszewski – Special Counsel to Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division 1985-1987; Associate Deputy Attorney General 1986-1991
Judge Michael McConnell – Assistant to the Solicitor General; Member of the Presidential Intelligence Oversight Committee 1988-1990
John McGinnis – Office of Legal Counsel 1985-1987; Deputy Assistant Attorney General 1987-1991
David Rivkin, Jr. – Legal Advisor to the Counsel to the VP; Deputy Director, Office of Legal Policy 1987-1993; Associate General Counsel of the Department of Energy; Associate White House Counsel
Jay Stephens – Principal Assistant Deputy Attorney General (DOJ); Assistant US Attorney; Assistant Watergate Prosecutor 1973-1986; Deputy White House Counsel 1986 – 1988; US Attorney for the District of Columbia 1988-1993
Ambassador Rich Williamson – Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs 1988-1989; Special Assistant to the President and Deputy to the White House Chief of Staff 1981; Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs, the White House 1981-83; US Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN Offices in Vienna, Austria 1983-85
Fred Cooper (GA) – Elected Chairman of the Republican Party of Georgia in 1981; Raised money during the 1980 campaign and was on the 1984 Georgia Finance Committee
Marty Connors (AL) – 1980 Communications Director for the Republican Party of Alabama; 1984 Executive Director of the Alabama Republican Party and oversaw the Alabama Reagan re-elect
Attorney General Bill Schuette (MI) – Elected in 1984, served as Member of Congress during the second Reagan administration.
Republican National Committeeman Saul Anuzis (MI) – Elected as the youngest delegate to the 1980 Republican National Convention in Detroit; and served as third vice chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, organizing youth efforts during the Reagan administrations
Ambassador Peter F. Secchia (MI) – Michigan’s Republican National Committeeman, and Vice Chairman of the Republican National Committee during the Reagan Administration, elected in 1980 and re-elected in 1984 and 1988.
Ronna Romney (MI) – Republican National Committeewoman from Michigan, serving from 1984-1992
Curt Hames (IA) – Iowa activist for Reagan
Frank Severino (IA) – Reagan volunteer in Iowa, late father-in-law served as Reagan Iowa Campaign Manager
Jim Click (AZ) – Arizona Finance Chair, 1980 and 1984
Ambassador Glen Holden (CA) – Former Ambassador to Jamaica
Ambassador Barbara Barrett (AZ) – Deputy Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration; also served as Vice Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board, the President’s Advisory Committee on Trade Negotiations, and the Board of the Administrative Conference of the US
Fred Balitzer (CA) – Consultant to the Secretary of the Department of Interior;  Vice Chair - Javits Fellowships, Department of Education;  Spec. Amb. - Brunei, Department of State
Ambassador Rockwell Schnabel (CA) – Former Ambassador to Finland
David C. Fischer (VA) – Special Assistant to the President, The White House; UN Human Rights Commissioner, Department of State; US Commissioner, International Boundary Commission
Joshua A. Muss (VA) – Executive Director, Property Review Board. Office of the President
Jack R. Stevens (VA) – Executive Director (1986-1988) and Western Regional Director (1983-1986), Citizens for America
Jerry Fox (FL) – Associate Administrator, General Services Administration; Associate Archivist (Management), National Archives
The Honorable Dodie Truman Stallcup (UT) – Director of Correspondence and Volunteers at the LA Headquarters and Transition Office, '79-'80; Special Assistant to the President and Director of Special Presidential Messages for the Executive Office of the President '81-'84; US Commissioner for Children, Youth, and Families and Chief of the Children's Bureau at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, '84-'89
Lindy Fekety – Secretary to Associate Director, Office of the President-Elect:  Secretary to Special Assistant to the President, Personal Office of the President - The White House:  Administrative Assistant to Director, Presidential Personnel - The White House:  Director of Administration, Citizens for America
John Agresto (NM) – Former Acting Chair of the NEH; Former President/Chancellor of three colleges and universities; President of John Agresto & Associates
Susan Alvarado (VA) – Assistant to the Vice President for Legislative Affairs, Member, Board of Governors, U.S. Postal Service
Allen K. Bahn (MD) – Co-Coordinator, Ethic Vote - Reagan/Bush 1980, 1984
Bo Denysyk (MD) – Vice Chair, Civil Aeronautics Board; Member, Presidential Advisory Committee on Trade Negotiations; Deputy Administrator, Department of Transportation/FAA
Mitt Romney has been a long time supporter of Reagan. Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, was a supporter of Ronald Reagan. You can view of photo of them together below:
I leave you with a video where Douglas Brinkley, author of The Reagan Diaries, stated during the 2008 Presidential election that he believes there is a a bit of the Reagan shine on Gov. Romney: 

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Ann Coulter: Mitt Romney Is The Most Conservative Candidate Who Can Defeat Obama

 
Here's the transcript of her comments:
"What I changed my mind about is whether -- by the way I changed my mind three months after that on a FOX News show because the economy was so bad. I said, look, I'm generally a pessimist for running against -- actually, maybe I'm not. We have a popular Democratic president, who does has an attractive family, has the entire mainstream behind him, and he's an incumbent. That is why I thought the candidate we ran would lose. I no longer think. I now think Obama has a glass jaw, and I said that a few months after that statement, by the way. It's not really that big of change -- we don't know if my prediction was wrong now -- what I am saying now is of the available candidates, Romney is by far the most conservative, tied with Michele Bachmann. And he has the proven ability to win in a state like Massachusetts," Ann Coulter said on "Hannity" on Tuesday night.
After she endorsed Mitt Romney, she gave a blistering vote of no confidence in Newt Gingrich:
As the discussion continued, it took an abrupt turn to the conservative credentials of both Ron Paul and Gingrich. ”I have a problem with Ron Paul’s foreign policy. And some of his writings that went on for a decade,” Hannity said.
Coulter, seeing an opening, decided to dive into her negative assessment of Gingrich, while comparing his purported lack of conservative ideals to Paul’s. ”I have a problem with Newt Gingrich’s big government conservatism,” she said. “I think of the candidates on the stage, Newt Gingrich is tied with Ron Paul — and only Ron Paul because of his foreign policy — as the least conservative candidate on the stage."

I've always believed that Ann Coulter was a closeted Romney fan  Ann Coulter endorsed Mitt in the 2008 elections and I predicted that she would endorse Mitt Romney again in April of 2011. Turns out my prediction was correct. 
She has given a strong defense of Mitt Romney's health care plan. She also talked about him at the 2011 CPAC conference. Ann Coulter is unashamedly conservative. She wouldn't endorse Mitt Romney unless she really believes Romney was really a conservative himself.

Is Fox News Biased Against Mitt Romney?

Just a few moments ago on Fox News Live with Megyn Kelly, the show recently posted a poll of the 2012 Iowa Republican Caucus. Thank goodness I have a Digital Cable box because I had to rewind it to make sure what I saw was real. Then I took the picture:
 Here's another picture I took:
Look closely at Mitt Romney's picture. Its not Mitt. Its Obama. Is this evidence of Fox News' bias against Mitt Romney? Was this just a mistake? 
As Fox News says, we report, you decide.
UPDATE: Megyn Kelly apologized for "error":
"we put a graphic on the air ... that, as it turns out, was incorrect. It identified Mitt Romney with a picture of Barack Obama. As it turns out, they are not the same man. Not philosophically, not ideologically, not in any other way. So we apologize for that error." 
This wasn't an error. C'mon! They managed to get the picture of all the candidates correct except for Mitt Romney. I believe it was intentional.

Rick Perry's Gambling Problem

While people are focusing on Mitt Romney's $10,000 bet, not to many people are focusing on the fact that Rick Perry has double standard when it comes to gambling. When Mitt Romney offered Rick Perry to take that bet, he declined saying "I'm not in the betting business." Really?
In 2010, the State of Texas was facing an $18 billion budget deficit and the state legislature was again considering expanding gambling in the state, in order to make up some of that deficit, according to a news story in the May 12, 2010 edition of the Dallas Morning News.
Nothing major was proposed, such as permitting casinos in the state or legalizing online gambling.
The suggestions, on the contrary, were pretty innocuous by gambling standards, and included such things as legalizing slot machines at existing horse and dog tracks in the state.
But Governor Perry quickly put his foot down and stamped out any possibility of expansion of any kind of gambling in the Lone Star State, announcing during a public appearance in Richardson, Texas: "The Texas Legislature may find that it (a bill expanding gambling) is something they're interested in--I would highly recommend they don't send it to my desk."
Then, earlier this year, when the issue arose again, "Puritanical" Perry again stomped on it.
After the Fort Worth Star-Telegram printed the results of an opinion poll that showed that 45% of Texans favor expanding gambling in the state while just 34% oppose it, Perry told the newspaper in its January 10, 2011 edition: "I have consistently been an opponent to expanding the gambling footprint in Texas and continue to maintain that position."
Perry's anti-gambling position would be easier to stomach if it were pure.
But it's not.
Like most politicians, he's a phony, easily exposed when one follows the money.
In this case, it's campaign money, and the portrait it paints ain't pretty.
According to official campaign documents examined by G911.co Perry in 2007 and 2008 received a total of $793,356 in campaign donations from gambling entities, including horse and dog racing tracks in Texas and Indian tribal casinos in Oklahoma (the tracks want slot machines, the tribes don't want casinos in Texas).
That makes Perry the No. 2 recipient in the state over that time period of donations from gambling interests, behind top recipient David Dewhurst, the state's lieutenant governor, who got $851,350.
So on one hand, Perry disdains any more gambling in the State of Texas.
But on the other hand--or more precisely in the other hand--he's happy to grab all the gambling cash he can.
Not only is Rick Perry hypocritical when it comes to the issue of gambling, but he's very selective about the kind of gambling he supports. Rick Perry supported privatized video gambling and flip flopped on his support for it. You may not be aware of the fact that Rick Perry used funds from the Foundation School Fund to pay lobbyists to promote video gambling in Texas. In fact, Rick Perry called for a special session of the Texas state legislature in 2004 to consider the issue of legalizing video lottery in Texas: 
To consider legislation and amendments to the constitution that authorize and allow the placement and licensing of video lottery terminals at licensed racetracks and certain Indian reservations, providing that the revenue derived from such activity is dedicated to the Educational Excellence Fund, providing that the racetracks and tribes sign a contract with the state. 
A few years later in 2007, Rick Perry urged the Texas Legislature to allow private gambling business to either buy the state's lottery system or lease it.
Rick Perry reminds me of Obama. Obama will speak out against big corporations, support the Occupy Wall Street protesters and villifiy the rich but he'll happily take their campaign donations while mingling with them. Rick Perry does the same thing with the gambling business. Rick Perry may not be a gambling man but he'll take a firm stand against them but he'll gladly accept their campaign donations. 

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Iowa Campaign Director For Gingrich Steps Down After Calling LDS Religion A Cult

Craig Bergman, (pictured above) who is was the Iowa campaign director for Newt Gingrich for only a few days, voluntarily removed himself from the campaign after he called the LDS religion a cult. 
Bergman told a vote focus group sponsored by The Iowa Republican and McClatchy newspapers that Romney's religion could hurt him with Iowa's influential evangelical conservatives. Iowa on Jan. 3 holds caucuses that mark the first US nominating contest in the battle to determine which Republican will face President Barack Obama in the November 2012 election.

"A lot of the evangelicals believe God would give us four more years of Obama just for the opportunity to expose the cult of Mormon," Bergman said during the focus group, according to The Iowa Republican. "There's a thousand pastors ready to do that."
As soon as the controversial statement was published to the press, the Gingrich team quickly dispatched a spokesman to repudiate Craig Bergman's statement: 
"He made a comment to a focus group prior to becoming an employee that is inconsistent with Newt 2012's pledge to run a positive and solutions orientated campaign," said R.C. Hammond, press secretary for Gingrich.
Another Iowa Gingrich campaign staffer emphasized that Newt did not agree with Mr. Bergman's statement: 
Linda Upmeyer, the chairwoman for Gingrich’s Iowa campaign, reached by telephone for reaction this afternoon, said she’s never heard Gingrich himself say anything negative about Mormonism.
“I’ve never had any discussion that resembled that with Speaker Gingrich,” Upmeyer said. “I have no doubt there are people that reject Mormonism but I’ve never engaged in a conversation regarding that, ever.”
When Pastor Robert Jeffress called Mitt Romney's religion a cult a few months back, Newt Gingrich, along with the other GOP 2012 candidates were all united on one thing: Pastor Jeffress was wrong to call the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints a cult:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said someone's specific religion has no place in the conversation.
What's so interesting is that The Iowa Republican was the first to published Mr. Bergman's comments in an article titled, TIR Focus Group: Evangelicals Will Revolt Against Romney Nomination
While Evangelicals are threatening to revolt in the event Romney is nominated, the 6 million Mormons in this country also might revolt in the event that Mitt Romney loses the Republican nomination:
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the official name of the Mormon church, vote overwhelmingly Republican in most elections.  The last time the state of Utah went for a Democrat in a presidential election was in 1964.  If you think the voters of Iowa are values voters, you ain’t seen nuthin yet. Compared to the nation’s Mormons as a voting demographic, Iowans seem positively liberal.  At the moment, some 30% of Iowa voters seem willing to forgive Newt Gingrich for being a disgraced and corrupt former Speaker, a Washington insider lobbyist, and a serial adulterer.   Mormons, not so much. They may not all be for Mitt Romney, but they seem overwhelmingly against Newt Gingrich.  And considering the slim margins upon which presidential elections have hinged in recent decades, that may be all it takes to throw the 2012 election into disarray.
This battle between Evangelicals and Mormons has been going since the 2008 election and it needs to stop. NOW.
There is a reason why the Founding Fathers put Article 6 in the Constitution because they saw what the what happened when theological disputes between the Catholics and Protestants did to European politics and they didn't want that to happen here. That is why they did not want people running for office to be excluded from holding office merely because they happen to be of a certain religion. The Founding Fathers would be extremely unhappy if they were alive to see what is happening today. 
Political campaigns are NOT the place to carry out religious disputes. It caused too much turmoil and political instability in Europe and it tore many nations apart. The Founding Fathers were aware of this fact and yet we are ignoring this fact at our own peril.
There should be no place for religious bigotry in the Republican party. We cannot tolerate religious division in the GOP. This dispute between two religious groups who may disagree with each other theologically but are in agreement on many of the most pressing moral issues of our day is occur at the expense of the American people who don't want another four years of Obama. 
As I have said before, a candidate's values is more important than than their theology. We should not be bickering over a candidate's religion and threatening to revolt merely because we have theological disagreements. If this long running battle doesn't end soon, we won't like the consequences of it.

Herman Cain: Romney's $10,000 Bet Was Not A Gaffe

Herman Cain went on Fox News the other day to explain that Mitt's $10,000 bet with Rick Perry was not a gaffe despite the media's attempt to make it into one. Watch the clip below:

People are still talking about Romney's bet. Some people think it was a simple bet made only to demonstrate how strongly Mitt Romney felt about Rick Perry's erroneous claims about the difference between his hardcover and paperback editions of his book. Some people, like me, may think that there more behind it than just a simple bet. 
Are liberals and the media manufacturing a gaffe here when there really was no gaffe on Mitt Romney's part in the first place? Personally, I think Herman Cain hits the nail on the head and is 100% accurate that Mitt's bet was not a gaffe at all. I'd go one step further and argue that the media is hypocritical and quite selective about its outrage over Romney's bet when other expensive and high profile bets have taken place on television.