Monthly Archives: December 2011
Arizona College Student Wakes From Coma As His Family Prepared Him For Organ Donation
It’s a Christmas miracle!
An Arizona coma patient woke up just hours before doctors discussed taking him off life support, ABC News reports.
Sam Schmid, a 21-year-old student at the University of Arizona was thought to be brain dead after he was critically hurt in a Tucson car accident in October which killed his friend and roommate.
“I feel fine. I’m in a wheelchair, but I am getting lots of help,” Schmid said recently, as he continues his recovery and is now able to tell his remarkable story.
Schmid’s mom, Susan Regan, might have her son home for the holidays.
“Nobody could ever give me a better Christmas present than this – ever, ever, ever,” Regan, 59, said.
The injuries Schmid suffered could not be treated by the local hospital so he was airlifted to the Barrow Neurological Institute at St. Joseph’s Medical Center in Phoenix where doctors performed surgery for a potentially lethal aneurysm.
.
.
“His recovery was really remarkable considering the extent of his lethal injuries,” said Schmid’s doctor, Dr. Robert Spetzler. “It looked like all the odds were stacked against him.”
Despite the prognosis, Speltzer decided to keep Schmid on life support after the MRI scan did not show any fatal injuries.
Speltzer did not want to give the family false hope so the hospital broached the idea of organ donation. However Schmid then began to respond, holding up two fingers at the command of the doctors.
“I tell everyone, if they want to call it a modern-day miracle, this is a miracle,” said Regan, a Catholic. “I have friends who are atheists who have called me and said, ‘I am going back to church.’”
Idiotic Burglars Nabbed After Posting Pictures Of Themselves With Their Loot On Facebook
Idiotic Burglars Nabbed After Posting Pictures Of Themselves With Their Loot On Facebook – KDKA
Police say they stole thousands of dollars in cash and goods, and then posed with their loot and posted the photos to a popular social media site.
Police say the three suspects, along with another teen, posted the photos on Facebook about an hour after they burglarized Elliott’s Town Market on Chartiers Avenue in the West End.
“We received information the day after the burglary that these pictures were posted on Facebook, and if you look at the pictures, you can see that the individuals are holding a large amount of cash,” Sgt. Kevin Gasiorowski, of the Pittsburgh Police, said.
.
.
Officials say $8,000 cash isn’t the only thing the teens took from Elliott’s.
“Numerous boxes and cartons of cigarettes, cartons of candy, checks and approximately $8,000 dollars in cash,” Sgt. Gasiorowski said.
A family member of one of the teens is the one who spotted the pictures online and tipped off police, officials said.
“She found it very concerning and she also knew of the burglary of the business so she did her civic duty and gave us a call,” he said.
Three juveniles, a 17-year-old and two 14-year-olds have already been arrested. They are charged with burglary and criminal conspiracy and have been released to their parents.
Police are still searching for the fourth suspect. He is identified by officials as 18-year-old Isaiah Cutler. They say the pictures were posted on his Facebook account.
They say its only a matter of time before he is tracked down.
“It makes our job a lot easier when basically they post what amounts to be a confession on the internet for everyone to see,” Sgt. Gasiorowski said.
Police believe Cutler is in the East Liberty area. Anyone with information is asked to call police.
Bye-Bye To The Dentist’s Drill?
Bye-Bye To The Dentist’s Drill? – The Blaze
Just in time for Christmas treats, researchers at the University of Missouri have developed what they think may a device that could eliminate the horrifying buzz of a dentist’s drill going in for a cavity.
In a university press release, researchers state that human trials will soon be underway for a “plasma brush,” making painless – not to mention sound-less – fillings a possibility in the future.
Watch how the plasma brush works:
.
.
According to the release, it only takes 30 seconds for the plasma brush along with chemical reactions to clean out and disinfect cavities before they are filled:
In addition to the bacteria-killing properties, the “cool flame” from the plasma brush forms a better bond for cavity fillings. The chemical reactions involved with the plasma brush actually change the surface of the tooth, which allows for a strong and robust bonding with the filling material.
In less than 30 seconds, the plasma brush uses chemical reactions to disinfect and clean out cavities for fillings. In addition to the bacteria-killing properties, the “cool flame” from the plasma brush forms a better bond for cavity fillings. The chemical reactions involved with the plasma brush actually change the surface of the tooth, which allows for a strong and robust bonding with the filling material.
“200 million tooth restorations cost Americans an estimated $50 billion a year, and it is estimated that replacement fillings comprise 75 percent of a dentist’s work. The plasma brush would help reduce those costs,” said Hao Li, associate professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering in the MU College of Engineering. “In addition, a tooth can only support two or three restorations before it must be pulled. Our studies indicate that fillings are 60 percent stronger with the plasma brush, which would increase the filling lifespan. This would be a big benefit to the patient, as well as dentists and insurance companies.”
If all goes well with the human trials beginning at the University of Tennessee-Memphis in 2012, researchers state the plasma brush could be replacing dentists grinding drills as early as 2013.
Daily Benefactor News – Obama’s Crony-Connected Biofuel Deal Will Cost Taxpayers Up To 9 Times More To Fuel Navy Jets
……………
Obama’s Crony-Connected Biofuel Deal Will Cost Taxpayers Up To 9 Times More To Fuel Navy Jets – CNS
The Obama administration’s deal to buy 450,000 gallons of biofuel for Navy jets comes at a cost of up to nine times higher than regular fuel, a spokesman for Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said, coming at a time when the U.S. military is already facing deep budget cuts.
Inhofe, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and former chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has supported biofuel projects in the past, but has problems with a program the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of the Navy announced earlier this month – one that would pay $26 per gallon for a special biofuel for Navy jets; $16 per gallon when mixed with regular jet fuel.
“Sen. Inhofe’s concern in this particular case as it deals with the Department of Defense is that the alternative is cost prohibitive,” Inhofe spokesman Jared Young told CNSNews.com. “Of late, our nation’s military has had to endure $500 billion in budget cuts, and if the sequestration happens as a result of the super committee’s failure to reach a deal, it would mean an additional $500 billion in cuts to our nation’s military.”
The Navy entered the contract with Louisiana-based Dynamic Fuels for $12 million for aviation fuel. Dynamic Fuels is a partnership of three firms, Solazyme, Syntroleum and Tyson Foods.
Solazyme previously received $21.7 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus, to build a “biorefinery.” T.J. Glauthier is listed on the Solazyme website as a strategic advisor for the company. Glauthier served on President Obama’s White House transition team, where he focused on energy issues for the recovery act, according to the Solazyme website.
“The Department of Defense should not purchase alternative fuels that are priced 9 time higher than conventional fuels – $26.75 per gallon to approximately $2.85 per gallon – because those extra costs will further eat away at other necessary budget items such as operations, maintenance, training, and modernization,” Young continued in a written statement. “In addition, the alternative fuel is less available on the front lines, making its use more restrictive.”
Another energy analyst said it could turn into another fiscal boondoggle, similar to the $535 million Energy Department loan to the solar panel firm Solyndra, a company that went bankrupt before being raided by the FBI.
“It’s another Solyndra situation in that they’re trying to keep some of these businesses afloat when the economics just don’t make sense right now. Give them a few million and they will be able to continue to exist,” Dan Simmons, director of state and regulatory affairs at the Institute for Energy Research, a free-market energy think tank, told CNSNews.com. “They don’t meet the market test. Unless they have radical changes in technology, they’re not going to meet it anytime soon.”
On Dec. 5, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Navy Secretary Ray Mabus announced that the Defense Logistics Agency had signed contracts to buy 450,000 gallons of biofuel – the largest purchase of biofuel by the federal government in history.
That is still a fraction of the 1.26 billion gallons of fuel the Navy fleet uses each year. But, according to the joint news release, “it accelerates the development and demonstration of a homegrown fuel source that can reduce America’s, and our military’s, dependence on foreign oil.”
“The Navy has always led the nation in transforming the way we use energy, not because it is popular, but because it makes us better war fighters,” Mabus said in a written statement. “This unprecedented fuel purchase demonstrates the Obama administration’s commitment to seeking energy security and energy independence by diversifying our energy supply.”
The biofuel, made from a blend of used cooking oil, will be mixed with aviation gas or marine diesel fuel for use in the “Green Strike Group” demonstration, according to the departments’ release. It is a “drop-in fuel,” which means that no modifications to the engines are required to burn the fuel. To prepare for the demonstration, the Navy completed testing of all aircraft, including F/A-18, blue Angels and the V-22 Osprey. It also tested the RCB-X, a command boat.
Mixing the biofuel with conventional fuel will help keep the price to less than what it could be, say $16 per gallon, but that’s still expensive, said Simmons of the Institute for Energy Research.
“This is one of the underreported aspects. It isn’t just $16 per gallon,” Simmons said. “It was actually $26 a gallon for the biofuel, but they mixed it with more moderately priced fuel. If you do the math that comes out to $1,000 a barrel for that fuel, which is just incredibly expensive.”
He cited the federal government’s own numbers that show the United States has 1.4 trillion barrels of oil waiting to be explored. That’s enough to last 200 years, he said. Thus, he argues, dependency on foreign oil is not the problem, rather it’s an unwillingness to open up more areas for drilling.
He added, “Right now gas prices are the highest ever at Christmas time, and at the same time we have the Navy out spending $26 a gallon for jet fuel, for jet fuel. Jet’s burn fuel like crazy. It’s a travesty.”
——————————————————————————————————————–
NOTE TO READERS
THE DAILY BENEFACTOR now provides you with a large selection of NEWS WIDGETS containing RSS feeds from the most comprehensive news sources on the internet, such as THE DRUDGE REPORT, GATEWAY PUNDIT, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER, WORLDNETDAILY, POLITICO, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, CNS, MICHELLE MALKIN, BREITBART, and THE JERUSALEM POST. Check them out!
I must really suck
I mean look, Pat Austin just endorsed Rick Perry, and listed all the bloggers that have also endorsed Perry. Well not quite all, you see, I get left out, the guy who endorsed Perry long before all the rest of these guys, and gals.
Which means that I must suck at endorsements, or that Pat secretly hates me, even though I am pulling for LSU to whip Bama!
The last Conservative standing?
Don Surber says that Conservative is Rick Perry, and makes some other great points. Points which include why Romney and Newt are, well, you know
With Newt Gingrich you have to defend three wives, unethical personal and professional behavior, a career of weird positions, and a tendency to out-Obama when it comes to his own assessment of his intelligence. as I wrote earlier, winning all these debates gives Newt overconfidence in the fall campaign on his debating skills. When he falls behind he will bet it all on winning big in the next debate and guess what? He won’t. Everyone will expect him to win.
Mitt Romney’s baggage is Romneycare and wishy-washyness. He has a great life story and could make a great president who balances the budget and makes the nation strong again. But he is so plodding.
Now, in my view, Mitt has become, next to Ron Paul, and John Huntsman, the least desirable of all the candidates. Newt has some good creds on his resume, but, with apologies to my friend, and blogging partner, Ed Daley, Newt has zero character. And, sorry, it does not matter how well you debate, or how many adverbs you use, a man with a history like Newt’s cannot be trusted! Yes, I know, he has changed right? Yes, I hope so, but sorry Newt, I will support you against Obama, but, until then, no way!
As to Santorum, and Bachmann, well, as Surber points out, they have no chance.
But on a scale of conservatism with 10 being Reagan and 1 being Carter, I give Rick Perry a 9. Sure, the HPV vaccine was a mistake but it was one made for the right reason: To save lives.
Michele Bachmann has no chance. Rick Santorum ditto. Rick Perry is the last conservative standing.
He may be dumb but he did not endorse Dede Scozzafava, did he? And yes, that still matters.
UPDATE: I am reminged by a reader that Rick Perry endorsed Doug Hoffman in that race.
Newt, of course, screwed Conservatives in that NY Congressional race, Perry? He got it!
Now, I am going to have to remind Surber that if he thinks Perry is “dumb” he is grossly mistaken. Perhaps that is just sarcasm and likely is, since no one would rightly rate Perry a 9 on the Conservative scale then question his brains.
Rick Perry has a record that I will happily put up against anyone, yes even Newt the King of Adverbs! Yes, I know, we must not forget that beating Obama IS the end goal here. But, I want to send the best Conservative to beat him next year, and the record speaks volumes!
It’s PAULapaloosa Thursday! Chock Full Of Anti-Ron Paul News, Video And Opinion
The Ron Paul Laundry List – Sensible Conservatism
EXCERPT – Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) says “If you have the inconsistency then you’re not defending liberty.” Paul has always been inconsistent. This inconsistency was noted by conservative commentator Mark Levin who says “Paul is poison. Hate America first crowd.”
A major reason is because the Texan advocates policies which are the exact opposite of his rhetoric. If you visit his website it indicates he supports many things he actually opposes.
With Ron Paul you always have to read the fine print. His speeches before conservative audiences are often impressive, but the reality is completely different. Some examples are:
* Paul is a registered Republican but expresses considerable disdain for the GOP. He says there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. In 1987 the Congressman said “I want to completely disassociate myself from Ronald Reagan,” and described his administration as a “dramatic failure.”
He accused George H.W. Bush of war crimes, and wanted to impeach George W. Bush because of the non-existent North American Union. He says Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) is part of the “international conspiracy” and endorsed his primary opponent.
Paul refused to endorse Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in 2008, and was the only Republican to express approval when Democrats captured control of the House and Senate in 2006. If Paul is not nominated, he refuses to pledge support the 2012 GOP presidential candidate.
* The Congressman says he supports a strong national defense and emphasizes his military service. He was an Air Force gynecologist who never left the United States. Today he wants to cut $1 trillion out of the Pentagon budget. He would abandon NATO and abolish the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.
He would give up America’s veto power in the UN Security Council as well as all military assistance to Israel. He would also ignore the major lesson from WW I and WW II, collective security. He would abandon our allies who paid 100% of the costs of Operation Desert Storm and have suffered 35% of all combat casualties in Afghanistan.
* The Texan says he is an advocate of free trade, but opposes practically every free trade agreement. As the Club for Growth notes, Paul “lives in a dream world if he thinks free trade will be realized absent agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA. Paul himself argues that ‘tariffs are simply taxes on consumers,’ but by opposing these trade agreements, he is actively opposing a decrease in those taxes. While Paul’s rhetoric is soundly pro-free trade, his voting record mirrors those of Congress’s worst protectionists.”
* He claims to be a right to life champion, but his plan allows abortion on the state level. He is against taxpayer funded abortions but not self paid abortions in the states’ rights category.
* He claims to be against illegal immigration. He did vote for the 2006 Secure Fence Act and claims to support the Border Fence, but he also voted against it on numerous occasions and has repeatedly said it is not needed. He says sensors at the border are enough. He also says the military is not needed on the border, and the Border Patrol is sufficient.
The Border Patrol is not mentioned in the Constitution and he use to claim they were unconstitutional. On one hand Paul is arguing for complete sovereignty and isolationism, but on the other hand he is opposing the border fence.
* He also claims to be against amnesty but his book, Liberty Defined, advocates it. He claims to be against birthright citizenship but his book supports it. He also opposes the E-Verify system to check employment.
* He says we should not tell other countries what to do, but is always the first to criticize Israel.
* He describes himself as a fiscal conservative but he has voted for numerous pork barrel projects and was against the Constitutional Amendment for a line item veto. He says it is unconstitutional because it gives too much power to the president. Paul is one of only four Republicans who supports earmarks, and opposes the GOP Ryan plan to cut the deficit by $6.2 trillion over a decade.
* Ron Paul says he is for health care reform, but he opposes the GOP plan. Republicans believe excessive litigation increases health care costs and they advocate tort reform. Ron Paul is against it because it “damages the Constitution by denying states the right to decide their own local medical standards and legal rules.”
According to the Philadelphia Inquirer: “Ten years ago, 19 hospitals in Philadelphia were in the business of delivering babies. Next month, only eight will remain.” This is because of “high expenses for malpractice insurance.” The result is that hospitals lose about “$2000 per delivery” and are being forced to close their OB units.
* He says the growth of entitlements are a major problem and admits they are insolvent, but opposed George Bush’s social security reforms. Paul wants to end social security, medicare and medicaid, but would not accept the Bush plan as a interim step to reduce costs.
* He has criticized welfare for decades but was one of of just four GOP Congressmen who voted against extending welfare reform in 2002. Most Americans are not fond of welfare but the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996″ was a GOP proposal signed by a reluctant Bill Clinton.
When Clinton added his signature the sign on his desk said “Welfare to Work,” and the promise came true. The act resulted in a large reduction in the number of people collecting welfare and that is why Republicans have supported its continuation.
* Paul says he is against gun control but advocates policies which would allow states to disarm their residents.
* He says he is against gay marriage, but voted against the amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The amendment would have outlawed gay marriage but not civil unions. At the 2007 Values Voter Debate Paul said, “True Christians believe marriage is a church function, not a state function. I don’t think you need a license to get married.” By that definition any liberal church would be free to perform gay marriages that would be recognized by the state.
* As a medical doctor he took the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm and to “prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.” Nevertheless, Paul is at the forefront of the anti-vaccine movement which has had a serious impact.
Now the U.S. is struggling with a large number of cases of measles and other disease which were once thought to have been eradicated. According to the Centers for Disease Control, America is experiencing the largest outbreak in 15 years.
* His admirers claim he is the only truthful lawmaker on Capitol Hill, but he tells outrageous lies. Paul falsely claims 1) Israel created Hamas, 2) Palestinians are starving and confined to a “concentration camp,” 3) the United States financed Osama bin Laden during the first Afghan War, 4) the CIA is behind the sale of illegal drugs, and 5) there is an “international conspiracy” focused on the non-existent North American Union.
* Rep. Paul has won the presidential straw vote at the last two Conservative Political Action Conferences, but his 2011 rating from the liberal ACLU is 80%. They oppose all aspects of the War on Terror. Paul voted against the constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. He is against the death penalty, allowing silent school prayer, and school vouchers.
* Paul claims to be a champion of individual liberty but is the only lawmaker to oppose the 1964 Civil Right Act, and voted against the legislation on its 40th anniversary. This is the law which allows blacks to eat at the lunch counter and says they cannot be turned away from hotels.
Ron Paul is not a conservative or a “Constitutionalist.” He is a libertarian who…
——————————————————————————————————————–
Related article:
Ron Paul Tells 9/11 Truther Why He Won’t Come Out About The “Truth” Over 9/11 – MRCTV
Recently, Mitt Romney has been under scrutiny for a video unearthed from 2002 in which he states his views are ‘progressive’. Newt Gingrich was chastised for previous comments. If we want to be fair across the board, Rep. Ron Paul should have to answer for this video which shows him explaining why he can’t talk about the ‘truth’ behind 9/11.
In the video, which appears to be shot in October of 2011, Paul is interviewed by conspiracy theorist group We Are Change’‘. The lady asks Paul why he hasn’t come forward with the ‘truth’ over 9/11, in which he responds that he “can’t handle the controversy.”
He goes on to say, “I have the IMF the Federal Reserve to deal with, the IRS to deal with because, no, I just have more-too many things on my plate- because I just have too much to do.”
While this video doesn’t show Paul specifically stating that he is as a full-blown ‘Truther’, it does show him answering why he isn’t talking about the ‘truth’ behind it.
(h/t Verum Serum)
Click on the image above to watch the video.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Related video:
.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Related article:
Ron Paul Hates Republicans And Everything They Stand For – RedState
Most people already know that Ron Paul refused to endorse John McCain in the 2008 general election. While I don’t necessarily agree with that decision, especially from a contender for the GOP nominee, I can certainly understand it. Lord knows I hated every nice thing I had to say about John McCain and wasn’t entirely pleased about pulling the lever for him (which is a dramatic understatement). Most people assume that Paul endorsed Libertarian candidate Bob Barr in 2008, which is partially true. However, that is not the entire story. Paul also endorsed three other candidates.
The first of those was Chuck Baldwin. I don’t really know a lot about Baldwin except that he has been on record early and often in support of the proposition that the South should have won the Civil War. This sort of thing would ordinarily disqualify most normal people from endorsing Chuck Baldwin, but Ron Paul is not most normal people. And given what most Ron Paul supporters seem willing to forgive, a little Confederate sympathy (or even a lot of Confederate sympathy) seems like small potatoes.
The second was Cynthia McKinney. Yes, you read that correctly, Ron Paul endorsed Cynthia McKinney in 2008. For those who do not know, Cynthia McKinney is a certifiably insane anti-American anti-Semitic lunatic. She first came to widespread public attention when she was arrested for punching out a member of the capitol police who tried to stop her when she wasn’t wearing her pin. Cynthia McKinney is so crazy that she got defeated in a primary by a guy who thought Guam might tip over and capsize. McKinney was once arrested by the Israelis while trying to give aid to Hamas and penned a bizarre anti-American and anti-Israeli screed. See more of her anti-Americanism here.
Now, I know that the above is not necessarily persuasive to the average Ron Paul fan – after all, if they were bothered by siding with terrorists, they’d have probably jumped off the Paul bandwagon already. What is perhaps more important is that Cynthia McKinney is also next door to being a communist in terms of her domestic policy. McKinney is an open and avowed enemy of free market capitalism, preferring instead Ghadaffi-style socialism. Seriously, she literally and openly favors dictatorial socialism. McKinney ran on the Green Party ticket, whose platform explicitly includes guaranteed open-ended welfare (at a living wage) for everyone regardless of their ability or willingness to work, among other quasi-communist and far-left economic policies.
The fourth and final candidate Ron Paul endorsed for President was Ralph Nader. Yes, the same Ralph Nader who was so far to the left on economic matters that he could see no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush. The same Ralph Nader who also longs for the day when the last vestiges of capitalism have died in America. Nader, you remember was the guy who made running as the Green Party candidate famous.
Why, you might ask, would Ron Paul, champion of economic freedom and limited government, endorse two avowed socialists for President? Well, you see, they signed a document:
Paul will offer this open endorsement to the four candidates because each has signed onto a policy statement that calls for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve,” the Paul aide said.
You see, despite a lengthy and public history of supporting massive government expansion and infringement upon personal liberties, and despite running on a party platform that explicitly calls for the massive expansion of Government welfare, these people would clearly have been better at shrinking the government than the Republicans on the basis of signing this absurd pledge. To be fair, Paul was probably just following the Golden Rule here – after all, Paul had just spent the last two years being a truther in front of truthers and denying trutherism in front of the media, so he doubtless was extending the sort of blind eye towards Nader and McKinney’s insanity that he wished everyone else would turn towards his.
For whatever his failings as a Presidential candidate and conservative (and they were legion), no reasonable person would say that John McCain was worse than any of these clowns. It was one thing for Paul to not endorse McCain – but we have to ask what sort of person affirmatively supports anti-American avowed socialists and confederate sympathizers over a Republican? The answer: Someone who, like Howard Dean, hates Republicans and everything they stand for.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Related article:
Ron Paul’s Naive Promises – National Review
EXCERPT – So now it’s Ron Paul’s turn.
According to the latest polls, the diminutive Texas libertarian is poised to win the Iowa caucuses.
Obviously, this would be rough news for Newt Gingrich — who’s in third place and falling — and very good news for Mitt Romney, who has used Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and now Paul as blockers to fend off challenges from the various “not-Mitt” candidates of the moment. (Perry must feel particularly disoriented because he’s been both blocker and blockee.)
And give this to Paul: He most certainly is not Mitt.
Many of Paul’s defenders insist he is a champion — a lone voice, even — of the “true” Constitution and the “real” principles of the conservative movement. Moreover, they are determined to tell you that, often in e-mails written in ALL CAPS.
For the record, I like many of Paul’s positions on the role of the federal government. I find it charming that he’s making a big issue about the freedom to drink raw milk. I don’t believe his positions on states’ rights are racist. I think he goes way too far on the Federal Reserve. He sometimes sounds like he thinks Fed chairman Ben Bernanke is sapping our precious bodily fluids. But he’s also been prescient about the Fed’s unchecked power.
Or maybe it wasn’t prescience. Maybe it was paranoia. After all, if you worry about enough things, some of them are going to turn out to be accurate. When a hypochondriac is finally diagnosed with a disease after years of pointless worrying, it kind of takes the bite out of his I-told-you-so’s.
This is the point in the standard anti–Ron Paul column where I am supposed to denounce his many bad associations, his racist newsletters — which he didn’t write, he just let them go out with his name on them for years — his barmy national-security ideas, and his potted history of American foreign policy. And, should Paul go on to be a serious contender for the Republican nomination, I reserve my right to revisit all of that because — contrary to the claims of many of his supporters — Paul’s background hasn’t been scrutinized nearly enough.
But rather than get into all that, let’s take the idea of a President Paul as seriously as his supporters say we should — though the idea he could beat Obama in the general election strikes me as crazier than Joe Biden on angel dust.
Paul routinely says that he’s the only candidate who promises real change. For instance, he proposes…
——————————————————————————————————————–
Related article:
Is Ron Paul A Republican Or A Libertarian? – We Are Politics
EXCERPT – Thanks to glowing commentary from Ron Paul suppporters I have been called a coward, a traitor, a neocon, a nazi, that I’m sick and a ‘demeanor’ of the modern day Thomas Jefferson all because I said what a lot of Republicans are thinking but won’t say: Ron Paul is a Libertarian and not a Republican. (For the record, with due respect to the Congressman, Ron Paul couldn’t hold Thomas Jefferson’s quill pen.)
Congressman Paul turned his back on the GOP in 1987 and resigned. Instead of trying to fix the problems that he cites in his resignation, he bolts and runs. He then ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988.
Dr. Paul ran for Congress again in 1996, but instead of running as a Libertarian, chose to run as a Republican. (More about this race in a little bit….)
In 2008 Paul ran again for President as a member of the Republican party. He refused to endorse the eventual nominee John McCain, instead stating that he would’offer (his) open endorsement to the four candidates (of the Libertarian, Green, Constitution Parties and an independent) because each has signed onto a policy statement that calls for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve.’ Those candidates were Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader, the last two being somewhere to the left of Karl Marx. Paul held a conference at a National Press Club Conference on September 10, 2008 with all four of the candidates. He then told members of the conference that “we must maximize the total votes of those rejecting the two major candidates.” He would later state that he would not endorse…
——————————————————————————————————————–
Related article:
The Undiscerning And Dangerous Appreciation Of Ron Paul – The Bahnsen Viewpoint
EXCERPT – Let me start this article by saying this: I confess from the start that this is a very, very passionate issue for me. I am not a fan of Ron Paul, and I respond with passion and sometimes vitriol at times when I am confronted with Paulites (my term for those who are devout Ron Paul supporters). I freely admit that I have an axe to grind here, but I deny that my agenda is a result of irrational or unhealthy dislike. In fact, I am going to argue that it is all that I like about Ron Paul that has made me so passionately opposed to him.
I am writing this article for one of two categories of Ron Paul supporters: The well-meaning folks who appreciate Ron Paul’s rhetoric regarding freedom and limited government. The other category of Ron Paul supporters, those who are consciously self-aware in their belief that America is a bad guy military bully, and needs to sit idly by in an isolationist sense as a matter of foreign policy, are not the target of this article. I disagree with them with every ounce of of breath in my body, but I have no hope that I might be able to persuade them. The latter group is aware of the things I am going to say in this article, and they do not care. I am hopeful that the former group will feel that the facts I present in this piece are new information, and warrant a change in their perspective.
I am an advocate of the freedom movement in this country. I believe, with Ron Paul, that the United States federal government has morphed into an eggregious behemoth, violating their own Constitutional jurisdiction on a daily basis. I believe that the federal government was created by the people, for the people, and that if we do not reign in their size and jurisdiction, it will one day represent the end of the Republic (fortunately, I have every confidence that we will be successful in that endeavor, incrementally). I have spent the last fifteen years studying economics and finance, and believe that Ron Paul has some wise things to say on the subject of a strong U.S. dollar. I am not a pure Austrian economist, as Paul is, but I was heavily influenced by many of their leaders when I first became obsessed with the subject, and believe there is a lot to be learned from Von Mises and some of the early Austrian economists.
But my love of freedom economics and my desire for a limited, Constitutionally constrained federal government has not caused me to jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon. In fact, and this is the most important line I will write in this article, it is my deep appreciation for where Ron Paul is right that has caused me to so emphatically reject him where he is wrong. Put differently, Ron Paul is his own worst enemy, and because I care so much for the freedom movement, I believe Ron Paul and his more extremist followers are doing irreparable harm to that very cause in our country. How could I possibly jump on that bandwagon?
I want to start my indictment of Ron Paul where I will surely end it: With the linking of Ron Paul to the American fanatical lunatic, Lew Rockwell. It is dangerous ground when one seeks to take down a person by simply associating him with someone else. As we all know, it is actually a logical fallacy of the first order. But Ron Paul is not merely “associated” with Lew Rockwell; he is Lew Rockwell. And he makes no attempt to deny this or cover it up.
I encourage those of you who are wondering what I am talking about to go spend some time at http://www.LewRockwell.com. It is one of the most insidious properties in the entire web universe. I believe that those of you who are in that camp of Ron Paul followers I am trying to reach may conclude that Ron Paul does not deserve to be linked to Lew, but I do not believe you will attempt to defend this man and his extremist and vile views. My challenge is this: Go spend ten minutes on Lew’s website every day for one month, and then decide if you have the stomach to support Ron Paul. In that month you are likely to hear that Winston Churchill was a worse war criminal than Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler. You will hear celebration that Tony Snow died of cancer (because he did, after all, support the Iraq war). You will find out that Lew believes the Constitution is a statist document. You will read that the men and women serving our military are despicable little immoral creatures, trained to kill innocent parties. I do not need to rhetorically beat up on Lew; he will be his own best accuser. The man is insane, and the only possible justification for someone supporting Ron Paul after becoming familiar with Lew Rockwell is that one just does not believe that the two are one and the same. But this is an irrefutable fact. Allow me to continue.
I became familiar with Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul in the mid-1990’s after being introduced to Murray Rothbard, the now deceased Austrian economist. Rothbard and my dad died around the same time, and I became fascinated with the intersection of Austrian economics and the freedom movement. I attended every Von Mises Institute conference I could find, and read every book their movement ever published. Ron Paul spoke at every one of these events, and…
——————————————————————————————————————–
Related article:
Ghost Of Christmas Past: Ron Paul Favored Federal Slaveowner Bailout Over Civil War – Mediaite
Along with Rep. Ron Paul‘s (R-TX) ascent to the top of the polls in Iowa comes the obligatory media glare. Although not as flashy as the newsletter controversy, here’s a fascinating curio from Dr. Paul’s political closet: in a Christmastime appearance on Meet The Press in 2007, Paul said that Abraham Lincoln should never have started the Civil War, instead ending slavery by having the federal government purchase all of the slaves and set them free. Like many libertarian ideas, it’s appealing unless you think about it for five seconds.
Set aside the question of, if Ron Paul disagreed with starting the Civil War, why he didn’t just tell Lincoln himself. This is serious business.
The late, great Tim Russert asked Paul about remarks he made to The Washington Post. “I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. ‘According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery.’”
“Absolutely,” Paul replied. “Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was that iron fist…”
“We’d still have slavery,” Russert interjected.
“Oh, come on,” Paul replied, dismissively. “Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where the hatred lingered for 100 years? Every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn’t sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.”
Sure, it’s reasonable if you’re one of the people doing the buying, selling, and “phasing out.” Take a look around. We can’t even pass a payroll tax cut extension that benefits 160 million people. How long does Ron Paul think it would have taken to muster the political will to fund a slaveowner bailout that only benefited people who couldn’t even vote? The British bailout plan that Paul refers to freed 40,000 slaves, at a cost of £20 million, 40% of the government’s total annual expenditure. There were almost four million slaves in the US when the Civil War began.
As for that newsletter controversy, Ron Paul has consistently expressed regret over what he says was a mistake, and in the years I’ve been covering him, nothing I’ve seen or heard from him would lead me to believe that the ideas in those newsletters reflect his beliefs. Having said that, part of making up for a regrettable mistake is facing the music for as long as it plays. If people still have questions about it, Paul owes them answers, just as surely as he is owed the chance to give those answers.
Click on the image below to watch the clip from the Dec. 23, 2007 edition of Meet The Press:
——————————————————————————————————————–
Related article:
Ron Paul Knew About His Newsletters Before He Forgot About Them – Right Scoop
More proof that Ron Paul is lying about his newsletters. In 1995 he talked about them on camera as if he did read/write them. Wow, how times have changed (h/t: HotAir)
.
I noticed yesterday that the USA Today had picked up on more evidence that Ron Paul is lying about his newsletters:
In 1996, Paul told The Dallas Morning News that his comment about black men in Washington came while writing about a 1992 study by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia.
Paul cited the study and wrote: “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
“These aren’t my figures,” Paul told the Morning News. “That is the assumption you can gather from the report.”
Nor did Paul dispute in 1996 his 1992 newsletter statement that said,”If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.”
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.
This is what CNN should have asked Ron Paul yesterday before he walked out of their interview yesterday.
.
Man Dead After Eating Cocaine From Brother’s Buttocks (Video)
Man Dead After Eating Cocaine From Brother’s Buttocks – Weekly Vice
Deangelo Rashard Mitchell, a 23-year-old North Charleston man has been jailed after he allegedly pleaded with his brother to eat cocaine that was hidden inside his buttocks.
Deangelo Mitchell’s brother, 20-year-old Wayne Mitchell, died as a result.
According to the Charleston Police Department, Deangelo and Wayne Mitchell were apprehended after officers recovered cocaine inside their vehicle during a routine traffic stop. A camera inside the cruiser recorded the brothers as they began whispering about some narcotics hidden in the older brother’s rectum.
Investigators say Deangelo told his brother to eat the cocaine because he didn’t have any strikes against him. Deangelo was concerned because of his lengthy arrest record.
“I can’t get no more strikes,” Deangelo told his brother. “Eat that shit… chew that shit”
Wayne complied with his brother’s request and ate three bags of cocaine (approx. one ounce) that had been retrieved from Deangelo’s buttocks.
Shortly after taking the drugs, Wayne began convulsing and bleeding from his mouth. The officer noticed that there was white residue on the cruiser’s rear seat. When asked what happened, Deangelo admitted that his brother had ingested a large amount of cocain. Wayne died less than an hour later.
Deangelo Mitchell was booked into jail and initially charged with narcotics trafficking. He was released after posting $50,000 bond. However, after reviewing the police footage, prosecutors decided to charge him with involuntary manslaughter in connection to the death of his brother.
.
Mark Levin: Is Newt Really Satan? – Plus Related Gingrich Videos
Mark Levin: Is Newt Really Satan? – The Right Scoop
While Mark Levin is on vacation, he’s taken a little time to pen his thoughts on the ongoing disgusting attacks aimed at Newt Gingrich by those on the right, including Ann Coulter, George Will, and the NRO:
If you read the comments on some conservative sites you might think so.
Newt Gingrich is not my first choice for the GOP nomination. I have said if I were voting today, I would vote for either Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum. But I don’t feel the need to smear Newt, either.
My friend Ann Coulter says she would vote for Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich. Really? Despite his racism, anti-Semiticism, hate-America first pronouncements, 9/11 truther nuttiness, etc., etc.? What about this?
http://www.jbs.org/birchtube/viewvideo/1007/constitution/ron-paul-at-the-50th-anniversary-of-jbs
What about this?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-21/ron-paul-racist-newsletters/52147878/1
What about this?
What about this?
http://www.textfiles.com/politics/ron_paul.txt
The list goes on and on. Coulter is undoubtedly aware of all of this. How can she or any sensible person, let alone conservative, advocate for or defend this? She backed Chris Christie, telling me that if Mitt Romney is nominated he will lose as John McCain did, and it will be my fault (along with Rush’s and Sean’s). Now, she insists that only Romney can win and the conservatives in the field cannot. Perplexing.
George Will is slamming away at Newt again today, having previously suggested he was a Marxist. A Marxist? Is this the same Will who supported George H. W. Bush and Howard Baker over Ronald Reagan in 1979? Somehow he not only missed the Reagan Revolution, but he initially doubted it and opposed it. Your judgment, George, does not match your conceit, with all due respect.
Over at NR, the hits keep coming. My friend Ramesh Ponnuru is waxing on priest-like about Newt and his Catholic faith. It’s a very odd piece. But Ramesh backs Romney, not Rick Santorum, who is not only Catholic but is clearly a more reliable conservative than Romney. Perplexing.
Most of Newt’s attackers have announced for Romney or are at least fronting for him, overlooking or excusing most of Romney’s deceits — which continue to this day and most recently involve his flip-flopping on the Iraq War. Moreover, Will has not said who he supports, having previously backed Mitch Daniels. No doubt Michelle Bachmann is just too wacky and inexperienced for his tastes, much as Reagan was too old and unsteady back in 1979.
Having consulted a number of friends and colleagues from the Reagan era, they agree with me that we’ve not seen this kind of daily attack on a legitimate Republican primary candidate in modern times, despite Newt’s weaknesses and faults. And most are disgusted by it.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Related video:
Former Congressman J.C. Watts Endorses Newt Gingrich For President
.
.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Related video:
Newt Discusses Mitt Romney’s Dishonest Attack Ads On The Laura Ingraham Radio Show
.
.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Related video:
Newt Challenges Mitt Romney To A One-On-One Debate On Greta Van Susteren’s Show ‘On The Record’
.
.
Police Won‘t Investigate Dutch Hosts’ Alleged Cannibalism On Live TV
Police Won‘t Investigate Dutch Hosts’ Alleged Cannibalism On Live TV – The Blaze
Dutch prosecutors are not investigating a case of apparent cannibalism on a Dutch TV show in which presenters appeared to consume tiny pieces of each others’ flesh that had been surgically removed.
.
.
Amsterdam prosecution spokeswoman Yvonne van der Leede said Thursday no investigation is under way. Thijs Verheij, spokesman for broadcaster BNN, said doctors and others involved in the stunt may have broken laws but police probably have more important things to do. BNN has insisted the case is not a hoax.
The Atlantic notes that cannibalism in the Netherlands isn’t blatantly illegal:
Strangely enough, cannibalism is only illegal in the Netherlands when “it involves maltreatment or when it violates common decency,” which means some people in the legal profession have spent a lot of time thinking about this in the past. Zeno described his piece of meat to be like eating a car tire.
The show “Guinea Pigs” aired Wednesday and showed footage of what appeared to be the removal of tissue from a buttock of one presenter and the waist of another. In front of a studio audience, the pair described cooked fatty tissue as rubbery and disgusting, and muscle as indistinguishable from other meat.
Gee, Who Could Have Predicted This?
Another Obama success story…
At least 60 people were killed today in 14 bomb attacks in Baghdad following the withdrawal of US troops this week.
Here’s amazing raw footage of one of the major explosions today. (Warning: NSFW)
.
.
CBS reported:
A wave of at least 14 bombings ripped across Baghdad Thursday morning, killing at least 60 people in the worst violence in Iraq for months. The apparently coordinated attacks struck days after the last American forces left the country and in the midst of a major government crisis between Shiite and Sunni politicians that has sent sectarian tensions soaring.
The bombings may be linked more to the U.S. withdrawal than the political crisis, but all together, the developments heighten fears of a new round of Shiite-Sunni sectarian bloodshed like the one a few years back that pushed Iraq to the brink of civil war.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility. But the bombings bore all the hallmarks of al Qaeda’s Sunni insurgents. Most appeared to hit Shiite neighborhoods, although some Sunni areas were also targeted. In all, 11 neighborhoods were hit by either car bombs, roadside blasts or sticky bombs attached to cars. There was at least one suicide bombing and the blasts went off over several hours.
New “Politically Correct” Army Manual Defends Jihad
New “Politically Correct” Army Manual Defends Jihad – Pat Dollard
(Judicial Watch) – In this new era of political correctness, the U.S. Army has published a special handbook for soldiers that appears to justify Islamic jihad by describing it as the “communal military defense of Islam and Muslims when they are threatened or under attack.”
Because radical Muslim groups consider Islam to be perpetually under moral, spiritual, economic, political and military attack by the “secular west” they consider military jihad a “constant necessity” and use it as a “rallying cry to resist and attack all this is un-Islamic,” according to the new Army manual.
The handbook was created to help soldiers become “culturally literate” ambassadors with sensitivity and understanding of Islamic civilization. The goal is to help them understand how vital culture is in accomplishing military missions. Military personnel who have a distorted picture of a host culture make enemies for the United States. At least that’s what the publication (“Culture Cards: Afghanistan & Islamic Culture”) says. An organization of scientists dedicated to national and international security issues discovered the new Army tool and published it on its website a few days ago. [...]
The portion on jihad is especially interesting because it’s described as a wide-ranging term that includes the everyday spiritual and moral struggle to live a life submitted to God, the attempt to spread Islam by education and example, and the communal military defense of Islam and Muslims when they are threatened or under attack. Today radical Muslim groups consider Islam to be perpetually under attack by the “secular West” – morally, spiritually, economically, politically and militarily, the Army handbook says. They thus consider military jihad as a constant necessity, and use jihad as a rallying cry to resist and attack all that is un-Islamic.
At the end of each section there is a question that’s supposed to stimulate “critical thinking.” At the end of the jihad section the question is: “How can the concept of jihad add legitimacy to the claims and aims of Al Qaeda and others? It would certainly be interesting to see how most enlisted men and women, or American civilians for that matter, would answer that particular question.
Sheriff Arpaio: ICE Refusing To Take Illegal Aliens From Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
Sheriff Arpaio: ICE Refusing To Take Illegal Aliens From Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office – KPHO
Sheriff Joe Arpaio had his first run-in with a group of suspected illegal immigrants since things heated up with the Department of Justice.
The Department of Justice recently revoked his deputies’ ability to check immigration status inside Maricopa County jails.
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Lt. Justin Griffin says they pulled over a vehicle and have eight people in their custody for human smuggling at 35th Avenue and Durango.
Griffin says they attempted to give four of the detainees to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but MCSO says ICE is refusing to take them.
Griffin says, “We asked ICE, ‘If we were DPS, would you take them from us?’ And we were told specifically, ‘Yes.’”
——————————————————————————————————————–
Related video:
.
.
Daily Benefactor News – New York Democrats Plead Guilty In Voter Fraud Case
……………
New York Democrats Plead Guilty In Voter Fraud Case – Fox News
A total of four Democrat officials and political operatives have now pleaded guilty to voter fraud-related felony charges in an alleged scheme to steal a New York election.
The latest guilty pleas expose the ease with which political insiders can apparently manipulate the electoral system and throw an election their way, by the forging of signatures of unsuspecting voters that are then cast as real votes.
Former Troy Democrat City Clerk William McInerney, Democrat Councilman John Brown, and Democrat political operatives Anthony Renna and Anthony DeFiglio have entered guilty pleas in the case, in which numerous signatures were allegedly forged on absentee ballots in the 2009 Working Families Party primary, the political party that was associated with the now-defunct community group, ACORN.
Former Troy City Clerk William A. McInerney, right, pleads guilty to signing a voter’s signature to a Working Families Party absentee ballot in Rensselaer County Court in Troy, N.Y.
John Brown pleads guilty to possession of a forged instrument, for his role in a ballot fraud case in Rensselaer County Court in Troy, N.Y.
Anthony J. Renna, right, pleads guilty to forgery for his role in a ballot fraud case in Troy, N.Y.
Anthony DeFiglio, right, pled guilty to falsifying business records for his role in a ballot fraud case in Rensselaer County Court in Troy, N.Y.
The four have pleaded guilty to one count of various charges, ranging from forgery to falsifying business records, and criminal possession of a forged instrument.
“Getting at the truth has always been the primary goal of this investigation,” Special Prosecutor Trey Smith said in a statement, while also thanking New York State Police efforts to “bring those responsible for the voting fraud to justice.”
Numerous voters told Fox News that they were stunned that their signatures were faked on absentee ballot applications and ballots, which were cast as real votes in their names in the 2009 primary election.
Brian Suozzo’s absentee ballot application claimed that he was “at home recovering from medical procedure,” which he told us was not true.
“Someone took my signature and voted with it and I feel extremely violated,” Suozzo said when Fox News first broke the story nationally in 2009. “The whole thing seems dirty to me.”
Jessica Boomhower’s absentee ballot application falsely claimed that she was in Boston.
“I can’t believe they thought they would get away with this,” she told Fox News. “I didn’t get to cast my vote on my own… They’re corrupt. I am sure this goes on a lot in politics, but it’s very rare that they do get caught.”
Two of the ballot applications claimed that the voters were unavailable, because they were supposedly on a “bus trip to casino.”
Smith, at one point during the two-year long investigation, even obtained court orders to take DNA samples from five of the seven Democratic members of the Troy City Council. The goal was to try and compare the samples to any DNA evidence found on the absentee ballot envelopes.
In November 2009, Democrat operative Anthony DeFiglio told New York State police investigators that faking absentee ballots was a commonplace and accepted practice in political circles, all intended to swing an election.
“This is an on-going scheme and it occurs on both sides of the aisle,” he told police. “The people who are targeted live in low-income housing and there is a sense that they are a lot less likely to ask any questions.”
He said that “it was common knowledge that these people were never going to receive an absentee ballot. This is a political strategy to get control of a third party line.”
DeFiglio claimed that “the reason that this came to light in this election, was the sheer number of absentee ballots that went out to the Working Families Party… To political insiders in the county, what appears as a huge conspiracy to non-political persons is really a normal political tactic.”
Troy City Council President Clem Campana pleaded not guilty on Tuesday to charges including falsifying business records and illegal voting.
When Fox News asked him about the case last year, Campana was adamant that he did nothing wrong.
“No one tried to steal any election,” he claimed. “I did nothing wrong, I don’t know if anyone did, and if they did, they should be held accountable for it.”
City Councilman Michael LoPorto and Democratic County Elections Commissioner Edward McDonough were indicted earlier this year and they face trial on the felony charges next month.
LoPorto also denied the allegations when Fox News questioned him last year.
“Did you do anything wrong?” Fox News asked.
He answered, “No.”
“Did you try to steal an election?”
“No.”
“Did you forge any ballots?”
“No,” said LoPorto.
“They did steal an election,” claimed Bob Mirch, the pugnacious former Republican Majority Leader of the Rensselaer County legislature, who first discovered the alleged fraud and started the investigation. For his efforts in trying to expose what happened, Mirch says he was voted out of office after serving 16 years and was replaced by a Democrat.
“This is just the tip of the iceberg,” he said about voter fraud. “This case in Troy shows that the political insiders had this scheme down pat. Two years ago the public didn’t believe me, but they know it now.”
The case in Troy echoes a similar election fraud investigation that is now ongoing in Indiana.
St. Joseph County Prosecutor Michael Dvorak, in South Bend, is currently investigating allegations that numerous signatures on 2008 Democrat Presidential primary petitions for then candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, were faked. There are claims that so many signatures were fraudulent, that the Obama campaign may not have actually obtained enough legitimate signatures to have legally qualified for the ballot. And just like the New York voters in Troy who told Fox News that they never signed absentee ballots, voters in South Bend and Mishawaka told us that their signatures were forged too.
——————————————————————————————————————–
NOTE TO READERS
THE DAILY BENEFACTOR now provides you with a large selection of NEWS WIDGETS containing RSS feeds from the most comprehensive news sources on the internet, such as THE DRUDGE REPORT, GATEWAY PUNDIT, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER, WORLDNETDAILY, POLITICO, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, CNS, MICHELLE MALKIN, BREITBART, and THE JERUSALEM POST. Check them out!
Gingrich’s Past, Our Future – Thomas Sowell
Gingrich’s Past, Our Future – Thomas Sowell
If Newt Gingrich were being nominated for sainthood, many of us would vote very differently from the way we would vote if he were being nominated for a political office.
What the media call Gingrich’s “baggage” concerns largely his personal life and the fact that he made a lot of money running a consulting firm after he left Congress. This kind of stuff makes lots of talking points that we will no doubt hear, again and again, over the coming weeks and months.
But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of the nation?
This is not just another election, and Barack Obama is not just another president whose policies we may not like. With all of President Obama’s broken promises, glib demagoguery, and cynical political moves, one promise he has kept all too well. That was his boast on the eve of the 2008 election: “We are going to change the United States of America.”
Many Americans are already saying that they can hardly recognize the country they grew up in. We have already started down the path that has led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster.
Internationally, it is worse. A president who has pulled the rug out from under our allies, whether in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, tried to cozy up to our enemies, and bowed low from the waist to foreign leaders certainly has not represented either the values or the interests of America. If he continues to do nothing that is likely to stop terrorist-sponsoring Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the consequences may be beyond our worst imagining.
Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich’s personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics’ claim that he has not? Nor should we sell the public short by saying that they are going to vote on the basis of tabloid stuff or media talking points, when the fate of this nation hangs in the balance.
Even back in the 19th century, when the scandal came out that Grover Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock – and he publicly admitted it – the voters nevertheless sent him to the White House, where he became one of the better presidents.
Do we wish we had another Ronald Reagan? We could certainly use one. But we have to play the hand we were dealt. And the Reagan card is not in the deck.
While the televised debates are what gave Newt Gingrich’s candidacy a big boost, concrete accomplishments when in office are the real test. Gingrich engineered the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 40 years – followed by the first balanced budget in 40 years. The media called it “the Clinton surplus” but all spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and Gingrich was speaker of the House.
Speaker Gingrich also produced some long-overdue welfare reforms, despite howls from liberals that the poor would be devastated. But nobody now claims that they were.
Did Gingrich ruffle some feathers when he was speaker of the House? Yes, enough for it to cost him that position. But he also showed that he could produce results.
In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available, the question is whether Newt Gingrich is better than Barack Obama – and better than Mitt Romney.
Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared with what Gingrich accomplished as speaker of the House? When you don’t accomplish much, you don’t ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?
Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.
Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Newt Gingrich’s past, rather than on the nation’s future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: “If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost.” If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means we’ve lost, big time.
Gatordoug
darcprynce
Dave C
Ron Paul 2012: Six Comments He Needs To Explain
Dec 23
Posted by darcprynce
Ron Paul 2012: Six Comments He Needs To Explain – Politico
The storyline dogging Ron Paul as his numbers continue to rise in Iowa – the racist content in newsletters published in the 1990s under his name – poses a significant impediment to his campaign’s momentum.
But that’s not his only problem.
Even as he disavows the newsletters – the Texas congressman asserts he didn’t write them and never even read them – Paul’s got a collection of other statements that he’ll likely need to explain in greater detail if he expects to capture the Republican Party nomination.
Here are six of them:
THE “DISASTER” OF RONALD REAGAN’S CONSERVATIVE AGENDA
“I think we can further thank Ronald Reagan for doing a good job [on furthering the Libertarian Party]. He certainly did a good job in 1980 pointing out the fallacies of the Democratic liberal agenda and he certainly did a good job on following up to show the disaster of the conservative agenda as well.”
The first rule in modern GOP politics is that you do not diss Ronald Reagan. The Reagan embrace may not be as tight as it was, say, a decade ago, but he is still a revered figure in the party. Thus, the above line from Paul’s nomination speech at the 1987 Libertarian Party convention in Seattle may not go over well with GOP regulars.
SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE AND MEDICAID ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Fox News’s Chris Wallace: You talk a lot about the Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.
Ron Paul: Technically, they are… There’s no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause.
Technically, he’s right: None of those programs are explicitly laid out in the Constitution. But even as many in the party are looking to reform entitlements and slash spending, almost no one takes it as far as Paul did in this March 2011 appearance on “Fox News Sunday.” His position is not only ripe for devastating ads, it puts him at odds with a constituency that turns out to vote in high numbers.
AMERICAN DRUG LAWS ARE DESIGNED TO FUND ROGUE GOVERNMENTS, CIA PROGRAMS
“I think that might be the No. 1 reason for the drug laws… to raise the funds necessary for government to do illegal things, whether it’s some terrorist government someplace or whether it’s our own CIA to fund programs that they can’t get Congress to fund. I think it’s tragic and the sooner we get rid of the drug laws, the sooner this will end.”
While American attitudes toward drug laws have evolved over the years, Paul’s views on the legalization of drugs are still far out of the mainstream. And they are especially far out of the GOP mainstream.
During his 1988 Libertarian presidential campaign, Paul went after Republican nominee George H.W. Bush over his tenure as the head of the Central Intelligence Agency and made provocative allegations about CIA involvement in drug trafficking.
Paul has gotten much quieter about his views on drug legalization during the 2012 campaign, but there is a video trail that won’t be easy to dismiss. In his 1988 bid, he frequently gave interviews in which he spoke at length about his desire to see drugs legalized. That year, he appeared on “The Morton Downey Jr. Show,” a provocative program designed to have people to yell at one another over political issues (Downey previews the segment by saying: “We’ll talk to a man who could be snorting cocaine in the Oval Office.”); the performance makes the Howard Dean scream video clip seem like Masterpiece Theatre.
None of it will be helpful to him.
U.S. FOREIGN POLICY “SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTED” TO 0/11 ATTACKS
“The flawed foreign policy of interventionism that we have followed for decades significantly contributed to the attacks. Warnings had been sounded by the more astute that our meddling in the affairs of others would come to no good.”
In a 2002 speech on the floor of the House and in other venues, Paul has asserted that the United States helped cause the 9/11 attacks with its heavy-handed foreign policies. Like most of his controversial positions, there is a consistency to his remarks that sets him apart from other pols and a willingness to tackle the most sensitive of issues.
In fact, he was saying the same thing before the 9/11 attacks. In 1999, while debating a defense bill on the House floor, he said, “Our foolish policy in Iraq invites terrorist attacks against U.S. territory and incites the Islamic fundamentalists against us.”
The problem is that his remarks are often viewed in a blaming-America context, and his stances on foreign policy, national security and the projection of American power put him at odds with many conservatives. Equally important, they are especially hard to defend in a political arena that doesn’t lend itself to nuance.
RETURNING WHITE SUPREMACIST DONATION IS “PANDERING”
“I think it is pandering. I think it is playing the political correctness.”
Paul is already battling to distance himself from racist commentary that appeared in newsletters published under his name. So his casual dismissal of a 2007 question regarding whether he would return a $500 donation from a Florida white supremacist will only raise more questions about the kinds of people who are affiliated with him.
In this particular instance from the 2008 campaign, Paul called it “pandering” and “political correctness” to send money back to people with whom you disagree. Returning contributions from unsavory characters is a commonplace practice among politicians; by refusing, Paul may have created an even bigger problem for himself down the line.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT “VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION”
“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty, it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.”
Paul’s voting record is miles long after 11 terms in Congress. While it reflects a principled consistency and a contrarian mindset, it’s filled with political land mines. There’s something for almost everyone to object to, including a vote against a 2004 nonbinding resolution commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. Paul was the only member of Congress to vote against the legislation and even gave a floor speech deriding it.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. He voted against the PATRIOT Act, against awarding Congressional Gold Medals to Rosa Parks and Pope John Paul II, and was the only member to vote “present” on the resolution to support military action in Iraq. He even voted against hurricane relief after Hurricane Rita wrecked his own district in 2005.
In an anti-establishment environment, his lonely stands are certain to win admirers. The problem is that they are also certain to put a ceiling on his appeal.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story
Share this:
Posted in america, batshit crazy, Douchebags, Dumber Than Dirt, Elections, featured, federal, government, headlines, idiot, incredible, links, Moonbats, News You Can Use, online, Politics, republican, Stuck on Stoopit!, united states
3 Comments
Tags: Ron Paul 2012, Six Comments He Needs To Explain