…..Just a little taste of what you’ll find at the Daley Gator Videos site:
PAT CONDELL: LAUGHING AT THE NEW INQUISITION
MONTY PYTHON’S FLYING CIRCUS: MINISTRY OF SILLY WALKS SKETCH
DR. PAUL VITZ: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ATHEISM (PART 1)
“Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile; so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.” – Ronald Reagan
To whom it may concern,
Just as I predicted, the cowardly, unprincipled leadership of the Republican party has surrendered to Obama and his gaggle of socialist parasites after less than three weeks of pretending to take a stand against Obamacare. For this reason I will be unregistering as a member of the Republican party as soon as possible and sending email announcements of my decision to every GOP member of the House and Senate, as well as to the party’s chairman, Reince Priebus.
As Ronald Reagan said in 1962 upon formally embracing the Goldwater conservative movement, “I didn’t leave the Democratic party. The party left me.” This is exactly how I feel today with respect to the GOP, however, I have no intention of joining any other political organization in its place. And while I will continue to support truly conservative candidates like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Trey Gowdy in the future, I’ll never give another thin dime to the GOP or any affiliated group. That once noble party is dead to me now.
Edward L. Daley – Independent
Attention House GOP members. Karl Rove is not the solution to your problems, Karl Rove IS your problem
BUZZFEED – Republican strategist Karl Rove huddled with a group of House GOP leaders in the office Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy Thursday morning to discuss the party’s messaging efforts, Republicans familiar with the meeting said.
Details of Rove’s presentation to a group of McCarthy’s “whip team” — a subset of the broader conference tasked with educating the rank and file, rounding up votes on key bills and generally enforcing discipline within Republican ranks.
Following the meeting, several lawmakers could be heard instructing staff to setup meetings with Rove.
Rove’s trip to Capitol Hill may not be met with enthusiasm from every Republican. Rep. Steve King, one of the House’s most vocal conservative firebrands, has been eyeing a run to replace Sen. Tom Harkin now that the veteran Iowa Democrat is resigning.
King is in many ways the sort of conservative candidate that makes the party’s establishment nervous about the coming general election, and King told the Iowa Republican earlier this month his is now strongly considering a run — in part as a response to Rove.
“If I would back up in front of Karl Rove’s initiative, that would just empower him, and he would go on state after state, candidate after candidate,” King told the Republican.
Conservatives like Steve King have always made the GOP establishment nervous, Reagan made them nervous, the Tea Party makes them nervous. That is the problem, these weasels are so busy being nervous, they cannot lead, so we keep getting stuck with “safe” candidates that lose, McCain,Romney, that type of candidate. Here is a BIG HINT to the GOP leadership. Stop backing the candidates the Democrats WANT you to run! See the Democrats will signal which candidate they fear by going hard after those candidates in the primaries. The ones they do not fear they will ignore. And the candidate they want us to nominate? They will praise them and talk about what a “good presidential candidate” he or she would make, and how “formidable” they would be. By the way the media does the same thing. I have to point this out since you, Karl Rove, and his stupid white board cannot figure it out!
Tell you what. Fire Karl Rove, he is all about Karl Rove, not the GOP anyway. Call me, I work cheap, Hell I will advise you for free. Why? Because I actually care about Conservatism. Or you can keep getting advice from Rove, and his ilk. Tell me how is that working out for you?
Ronald Reagan can count 40 states that still remember the Gipper fondly.
On his 102nd birthday Wednesday, 40 states – a record – have proclaimed February 6 “Ronald Reagan Day.” Eight Democratic governors have refused to recognize Reagan Day and two others are on the fence.
The Reagan honor is also a tribute to Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform. He also heads the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project which asks the nation’s governors to set the day aside for Reagan.
“Ronald Reagan led America forward to defeat the threats to our prosperity of high taxes, inflation, and recession at home and a surging Soviet Empire abroad. He left America stronger, freer, and safer than the day he became President,” said Norquist, whose project also encourages the naming of roads, buildings and landmarks after Reagan.
Here is the Reagan Legacy Project’s list of those backing–and rejecting–Reagan Day:
Alabama – Robert Bentley (R)
Alaska – Sean Parnell (R)
Arizona – Janice Brewer (R)
California – Jerry Brown (D)
Colorado – John Hickenlooper (D)
Florida – Rick Scott (R)
Georgia – Nathan Deal (R)
Idaho – Butch Otter (R)
Illinois – Pat Quinn (D)
Indiana – Mike Pence (R)
Iowa – Terry Branstad (R)
Kansas – Sam Brownback (R)
Louisiana – Bobby Jindal (R)
Maine – Paul LePage (R)
Maryland – Martin O’Malley (D)
Michigan – Rick Snyder (R)
Mississippi – Phil Bryant (R)
Missouri – Jay Nixon (D)
Montana – Steve Bullock (D)
Nebraska – Dave Heineman (R)
Nevada – Brian Sandoval (R)
New Hampshire – Maggie Hassan (D)
New Jersey – Chris Christie (R)
New Mexico – Susana Martinez (R)
New York – Andrew Cuomo (D)
North Carolina – Pat McCrory (R)
North Dakota – Jack Dalrymple (R)
Ohio – John Kasich (R)
Oklahoma – Mary Fallin (R)
Pennsylvania – Tom Corbett (R)
Rhode Island – Lincoln Chafee (I)
South Carolina – Nikki Haley (R)
South Dakota – Dennis Daugaard (R)
Tennessee – Bill Haslam (R)
Texas – Rick Perry (R)
Utah – Gary Herbert (R)
Virginia – Bob McDonnell (R)
West Virginia – Earl Ray Tomblin (D)
Wisconsin – Scott Walker (R)
Wyoming – Matt Mead (R)
The eight governors who have refused to issue a proclamation declaring Ronald Reagan Day in their states:
Arkansas – Mike Beebe (D)
Delaware – Jack Markell (D)
Hawaii – Neil Abercrombie (D)
Kentucky – Steve Beshear (D)
Massachusetts – Deval Patrick (D)
Minnesota – Mark Dayton (D)
Oregon – John Kitzhaber (D)
Vermont – Peter Shumlin (D)
The two governors who have not yet decided whether or not to issue a proclamation declaring Ronald Reagan Day in their states:
Connecticut – Dannel Malloy (D)
Washington – Jay Inslee (D)
On the One Hand…
These should not be foreboding years. The U.S. is in the midst of a veritable energy revolution. There is a godsend of new gas and oil discoveries that will help to curtail our fiscal and foreign policy vulnerabilities – an energy bonanza despite, not because of, the present administration.
In terms of farming, the United States is exporting more produce than ever before at record prices. Americans eat the safest and cheapest food on the planet.
As far as high-tech gadgetry, the global companies that have most changed the world in recent years – Amazon’s online buying, Google search engines, Apple iPhones, iPads, and Mac laptops – are mostly American. There is a reason why Mexican nationals are not crossing their border into Guatemala – and it is not because they prefer English speakers to Spanish speakers.
Militarily, the United States is light years ahead of its rivals. And so on…
The New Poverty Is the Old Middle Class
We have redefined poverty itself through government entitlements, modes of mass production and consumerism, and technological breakthroughs. The poor man is not hungry; more likely he suffers from obesity, now endemic among the less affluent. He is not deprived of a big-screen TV, a Kia, warm water, or an air conditioner. (My dad got our first color television during my first year in college in 1972, a small 19 inch portable; I bought my first new car at 39, and quit changing my own oil at 44.)
In classical terms, today’s poor man is poor not in relative global terms (e.g. compared to a Russian, Bolivian, or Yemeni), but in the sense that there are those in America who have more things and choices than does he: a BMW instead of a Hyundai, ribeye instead of ground beef, Pellegrino rather than regular Coke, Tuscany in the summer rather than Anaheim at Disneyland, and L.L. Bean tasteful footwear rather than Payless shoes. I was in Manhattan not long ago, and noticed that my cheap, discount-store sportcoat and Target tie did not raise eyebrows among the wealthy people I spoke to, suggesting that the veneer of aristocracy is now within all our reach. When I returned to Selma, I noted that those ahead of me at Super Wal-Mart were clothed no differently than was I. Their EBD cards bought about the same foods.
Put all the above developments together, and an alignment of the planets is favoring America as never before – as long as we do not do something stupid to nullify what fate, our ancestors, and our own ingenuity have given us. But unfortunately that is precisely what is now happening.
The New Hubris
These are the most foreboding times in my 59 years. The reelection of Barack Obama has released a surge of rare honesty among the Left about its intentions, coupled with a sense of triumphalism that the country is now on board for still greater redistributionist change.
There is no historical appreciation among the new progressive technocracy that central state planning, whether the toxic communist brand or supposedly benevolent socialism, has only left millions of corpses in its wake, or abject poverty and misery. Add up the Soviet Union and Mao’s China and the sum is 80 million murdered or starved to death. Add up North Korea, Cuba, and the former Eastern Europe, and the tally is egalitarian poverty and hopelessness. The EU sacrificed democratic institutions for coerced utopianism and still failed, leaving its Mediterranean shore bankrupt and despondent.
Nor is there much philosophical worry that giving people massive subsidies destroys individualism, the work ethic, and the personal sense of accomplishment. There is rarely worry expressed that a profligate nation that borrows from others abroad and those not born has no moral compass. There is scant political appreciation that the materialist Marxist argument – that justice is found only through making sure that everyone has the same slice of stuff from the zero-sum pie – was supposed to end up on the ash heap of history.
Read the News and Weep
That is not conspiracy talk, but simply a distillation of what I read today. On the last day of the year when I am writing this, I offer you just three sample op-eds.
A journalist, Donald Kaul, in the Des Moines Register offers us a three-step, presto! plan to stop school shootings:
Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. …Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. …Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.
Note the new ease with which the liberal mind calls for trashing the Constitution, outlawing those whom they don’t like (reminiscent of “punish our enemies“?), and killing those politicians with whom they don’t agree (we are back to Bush Derangement Syndrome, when novels, movies, and op-eds dreamed of the president’s assassination.)
What would be the Register’s reaction should a conservative opponent of abortion dare write, “Repeal the First Amendment; ban Planned Parenthood as a terrorist organization; and drag Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi from a truck”? If an idiot were to write that trash, I doubt the Washington Times or Wall Street Journal would print such sick calls for overturning the Constitution and committing violence against public officials.
Ah Yes, Still More Redistribution
Turning to a column in The New Republic, John Judis, in honest fashion, more or less puts all the progressive cards on the table in a column titled “Obama’s Tax Hikes Won’t Be Nearly Big Enough” – a candor about what the vast $5 trillion deficits of Obama’s first term were all about in the first place.
Here is the summation quote: “But to fund these programs, governments will have to extract a share of income from those who are able to afford them and use the revenues to make the services available for everyone.”
Note that Judas was not talking about the projected new taxes in the fiscal cliff talks, but something far greater to come. He understands well that the “gorge the beast” philosophy that resulted in these astronomical debts will require enormous new sources of revenue, funds “to extract” from “those who are able to afford them” in order to “make services available for everyone.”
That is about as neat a definition of coerced socialism as one can find. Implicit in Judas’s formulation is that only a very well-educated (and well-compensated) technocratic class will possess the wisdom, the proper schooling, and the morality to adjudicate who are to be the extracted ones and who the new “everyone.”
The Constitution – Who the Hell Needs It?
The third item in my year-end reading was the most disturbing. A law professor (could it be otherwise?) named Louis Michael Seidman enlightens us with “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution” – yet another vision of what the now triumphant liberal mind envisions for us all:
As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.
Did Madison force Obama to borrow a half-billion dollars to fund Solyndra and its multimillionaire con artists?
Note Seidman’s use of “evil,” which tips his hand that our great moralist is on an ethical crusade to change the lives of lesser folk, who had the misfortune of growing up in America – a place so much less prosperous, fair, and secure than, say, Russia, China, the Middle East, Africa, South America, Spain, Greece, Italy, or Japan and Germany (in the earlier 20th century history). When I lived in Greece, traveled to Libya, and went into Mexico, I forgot to sigh, “My God, these utopias are possible for us too, if we just junked that evil Constitution.”
White Guys Did It
The non-archaic, un-idiosyncratic, and anti-downright evil Professor Seidman presses his argument against his inferiors who wrote the “evil” document: “Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.”
Ah yes, old white male Madison, who lacked the insight, character, and morality of our new liberal technocrats in our successful law schools, such as, well, Mr. Seidman himself:
As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. Imagine that after careful study a government official – say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress – reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?
I suppose human nature changes every decade or so, so why shouldn’t constitutions as well?
I can see Seidman’s vision now: Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi decides that semi-automatic handguns, not cheap Hollywood violence or sick video games, empower the insane to kill, and, presto, their “considered judgment” and favored “particular course of action” trump the archaic and evil wisdom of “white propertied men.” But if we wish to avoid the baleful influence of white guys, can Seidman point to indigenous Aztec texts for liberal guidance, or perhaps the contemporary constitution of liberated Zimbabwe, or the sagacity of the Chinese court system?
The Law Is What We Say It Is
Note the fox-in-the-henhouse notion that a constitutional law professor essentially hates the Constitution he is supposed to teach, sort of like Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg warning the Egyptians not to follow our own constitutional example, when South Africa has offered so much more to humanity than did Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, and others: “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa.” Ginsburg obviously vacations in Johannesburg, goes to Cape Town for her medical treatment, and has a vacation home and bank account in the scenic South African countryside.
Seidman looks fondly on Roosevelt’s war against the Constitution (especially the notion that law is essentially what an elected president who has proper “aspirations” says it is):
In his Constitution Day speech in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt professed devotion to the document, but as a statement of aspirations rather than obligations. This reading no doubt contributed to his willingness to extend federal power beyond anything the framers imagined, and to threaten the Supreme Court when it stood in the way of his New Deal legislation.
Free at Last from Constitutional Chains
In the age of Obama, the constitutional law lecturer who once lamented that the Supreme Court had not gone far enough by failing to take up questions of forced redistribution, Seidman writes:
In the face of this long history of disobedience, it is hard to take seriously the claim by the Constitution’s defenders that we would be reduced to a Hobbesian state of nature if we asserted our freedom from this ancient text. Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper.
But I thought it was the Constitution, not the anti-Constitution or egalitarian good will, that separated us from Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Tojo’s Japan, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, and most of the miserable places that one sees abroad today, from Cuba to North Korea, which all had and have one thing in common – the embrace of some sort of national, republican, or democratic “socialism” guiding their efforts and plastered about in their sick mottoes.
The progressive mind, given that is it more enlightened and moral, alone can determine which parts of the “evil” Constitution should be summarily ignored (e.g., the Second Amendment) and which should not be: “This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.”
Give Real Freedom a Chance
I am sure that history offers all sorts of examples where people without evil documents like our Constitution protected free speech and religious worship – out of “respect.” Ask Socrates, Jesus, six million Jews, 20 million Russians, or those with eyeglasses during the days of the Khmer Rouge. Apparently, what stops such carnage is not the rule of constitutional law, but good progressive minds who care for others and show respect. I’ll try that rhetoric on the next thief who for the fourth time will steal the copper wire conduit from my pump.
So just dream with Professor Seidman:
The deep-seated fear that such disobedience would unravel our social fabric is mere superstition. As we have seen, the country has successfully survived numerous examples of constitutional infidelity… What has preserved our political stability is not a poetic piece of parchment, but entrenched institutions and habits of thought and, most important, the sense that we are one nation and must work out our differences. No one can predict in detail what our system of government would look like if we freed ourselves from the shackles of constitutional obligation, and I harbor no illusions that any of this will happen soon. But even if we can’t kick our constitutional-law addiction, we can soften the habit… before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.
I have seen their future and it is almost here right now. Scary times, indeed.
…….A. E. Wilder-Smith
…….Martin Luther King Jr.
………………..Click on the image above to watch the debate.
……………………….This event was brought to you by:
………………………..Click HERE for more information.
While browsing the Yahoo News website yesterday, I came across the following article:
President Barack Obama told cheering supporters at a fundraiser in Connecticut on Monday that Mitt Romney’s tax plan would raise taxes on middle-class Americans to pay for a tax cut benefiting the very rich: “It’s like Robin Hood in reverse. It’s Romney Hood.” His remarks drew laughter and applause.
Obama pointed to a recent study [written by a former Obama staffer and another Obama political ally] …of Romney’s approach… that speculated that, to pay for his proposed tax cut on the wealthiest Americans, the former Massachusetts governor would have to end popular measures like the mortgage and child deductions and the Earned Income Tax Credit – which chiefly benefit middle-class and poor Americans.
“He’d ask the middle class to pay more in taxes so that he could give another $250,000 tax cut to people making more than three million dollars a year,” Obama said.
“They have tried to sell us this trickle-down, tax-cut fairy dust before. And guess what? It does not work. It didn’t work then, it won’t work now,” the president said. “It’s not a plan to create jobs, it’s not a plan to reduce our deficit, and it is not a plan to move our economy forward.”
This guy just can’t seem to understand that raising taxes on the “rich” is no different than raising taxes on everyone, because ALL TAXES TRICKLE DOWN!
As I’ve pointed out countless times in the past, it is a practical impossibility to raise taxes on only the wealthiest Americans. Those are the folks who own and produce most of the things that everybody else needs, so increasing their tax liability causes them to raise prices on nearly everything the rest of us buy; food, gasoline, clothing, electricity, insurance, electronics… you name it. Even a tenant’s rent payments go up when his landlord’s taxes get hiked, and almost all of America’s poor are renters, so they get hit the hardest when tax rates on upper-income earners increase.
Knowing this, it only makes sense that if one is primarily concerned with improving the lives of the poorest of the poor, one should cut EVERYONE’S taxes, most especially those of the well-to-do. Ronald Reagan knew this. Liberal icon, John F. Kennedy, knew this. Heck, even George W. Bush knew this, and he was an average economics student at best. It’s a scenario that conservatives like myself call a “no-brainer”, but one that leftists like Barack Obama call “the failed policies of the past”.
Wow, is our current Commander In Chief dumber than a box of coat hangers or what?
Oh, and it’s also a well-documented fact that cutting the tax rates of people at every income level, simultaneously, always ends up increasing revenues to the government (again, Reagan, Bush and Kennedy prove my point) so if you’re mainly worried about balancing our nation’s books, this policy gets you most of the way there. Unfortunately, to get the rest of the way down this road you have to cut spending by an amount equal to the sum total of revenues collected, and that’s something that our president and every single Democrat in the U.S. Senate refuses to do.
But enough about basic economics. Even leftists as old as ‘charming Barry’ are obviously too out of touch with reality to understand what I was able to grasp with relative ease at the age of 8.
Hopefully, what I’m about to relate won’t completely elude all such dullards indefinitely, although I must confess that I’m not holding out a great deal of hope in this respect. Still, I feel the need to at least try and reach a few of our left-leaning fellow Americans just this once, so here goes.
Robin Hood (aka Robin of Loxley) did NOT “steal from the rich to give to the poor”, as so many of you blathering fools are want to believe.
The earliest references to the fabled outlaw – which date back to mid-13th century England – characterize him as being an affluent landowner who had his wealth unjustly seized by a power-mad monarchy, and it was this affront to him personally that led him to commit unlawful acts against the very regime which had wronged him.
Later retellings of the bandit’s exploits show that the principal target of his robbery was the Sheriff of Nottingham – the chief tax-collecter of the land – whose men were notoriously ruthless in their pursuit of tax revenues.
While Robin Hood certainly identified with the least fortunate around him, he was not some common highwayman who stole money from any old rich person that happened to cross his path.
No, Robin was a man of honor who was motivated by the concept of justice. While he may have started out thinking only of himself and how he might exact revenge on the authorities who had ruined him, he soon came to realize that there were many other people in even more dire straits than he. So he decided to reclaim that which had unfairly been taken from him AND his new-found comrades by a despotic ruler.
In essence, by stealing money from the tax collectors and returning it to the people of his community, he was securing recompense not only for himself, but for all the victims of the King’s tyranny.
It was a win-win situation from his point of view, and the only people who were harmed by his actions were the unreasonable government officials who thought that the needs of the state were more important than the needs of the individual.
Oddly enough, in one of the earliest versions of the Robin Hood tale, our hero is shown to be a money-lender who loans funds to a knight whose son has killed two people. Apparently one could pay off a “debt of sin” with cold, hard cash back in those days.
By any means, I find it interesting that Mitt Romney was also a money-lender, and it’s more than a little ironic that Barack Obama – the most dogmatically blinded, tax-and-spend, leftist president in American history – should be referring to such a man as the anti-Robin Hood, especially when it is Mitt who decries over-taxation and unrestrained federal intrusion into our lives.
Indeed, it’s the sitting president himself who seeks to punish people with ballooning tax rates, oppressive regulations and constitutionally-questionable executive orders simply because he was raised to respect the sovereignty of government instead of the sovereignty of his fellow citizens.
I wonder what Robin Hood would have to say about that.
* Arthur Laffer – Economist, Author, Former Chief Economic Advisor To President Ronald Reagan
* Robert “Bud” McFarlane – Former National Security Advisor To President Ronald Reagan
* Bently Elliott – Former Director Of White House Speechwriting For President Ronald Reagan
* Michael Reagan – Radio Host, Adopted Son Of Former President Ronald Reagan
* Thomas Sowell – Economist, Professor, Social Theorist, Political Philosopher, Author
* James Livingston – Retired U.S. Marine Corps Major General, Medal Of Honor Recipient
* Oliver North – Retired U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel, Military Historian, Author, Political Commentator, Television Host
* Rick Perry – Texas Governor, Former Presidential Candidate
* Nathan Deal – Georgia Governor, Former U.S. Congressman
* Zell Miller – Former Georgia Governor, Former U.S. Senator
* Sonny Perdue – Former Georgia Governor
* Fred Thompson – Former U.S. Senator, Former Presidential Candidate, Actor
* William “Billy” Wilkins – Former Chief Justice Of The U.S. Court Of Appeals (Fourth Circuit)
* Bob Smith – Former U.S. Senator, Former U.S. Congressman
* Trent Franks – U.S. Congressman
* Lynn Westmoreland – U.S. Congressman
* Jack Kingston – U.S. Congressman
* Andy Harris – U.S. Congressman
* Tom Price – U.S. Congressman
* Austin Scott – U.S. Congressman
* Phil Gingrey – U.S. Congressman
* Steve Womack – U.S. Congressman
* Joe Barton – U.S. Congressman
* Michael Burgess – U.S. Congressman
* David Rivera – U.S. Congressman
* Herman Cain – Former Business Executive, Former Presidential Candidate, Former Talk Radio Host
* William “Bill” McCollum – Former U.S. Congressman, Former Florida Attorney General
* Julius Caesar “J.C.” Watts, Jr. – Former U.S. Congressman
* Fred Grandy – Former U.S. Congressman
* Greg Ganske – Former U.S. Congressman
* John Napier – Former U.S. Congressman
* Gary Lee – Former U.S. Congressman
* Bobby Harrell – South Carolina House Speaker
* Frank Gaffney, Jr. – President Of The Center For Security Policy, Opinion Columnist
* Judson Phillips – Founder Of Tea Party Nation
* Charlie Gruschow – Founder Of Des Moines, Iowa Tea Party
* Chuck Norris – Martial Arts Master, Actor
* Sheldon Adelson – Chief Executive Officer Of Las Vegas Sands Corporation, Co-Founder Of Adelson Clinic, 8th Wealthiest Man In America
* Dr. Miriam Adelson – Physician, Co-Founder Of Adelson Clinic, Expert In Drug Addiction Treatment, Wife Of Sheldon Adelson
* Todd Palin – Oil Field Production Operator, Commercial Fisherman, Champion Snowmobile Racer, Husband Of Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin
Idealism and politics do not mix well. The most principled politicians are obliged by the nature of governing real human beings in an imperfect world to practice the craft of statesmanship and the virtue of prudence. This non-utopian reality does not sell well in any election cycle, certainly not in one following a great conservative uprising. The grass-roots repudiation of neo-socialism was to have birthed a true “son or daughter of Buckley.” Though the field does offer several competent statesmen capable of governing the nation, generalized disappointment provokes poignant longing for the great Ronald Reagan.
The memory of the now-divinized Reagan, posthumously purged of the scars of pragmatic political give and take, conjures such nostalgia for “Morning in America” that even the Golfing Marxist and his courtesans have sought legitimacy by laying rhetorical wreaths on the Gipper’s tomb. Understandable. Pardonable.
It would, however, be not only impolitic, but certifiable madness for any candidate to claim to be the reincarnation or vicar of Ronald Reagan. The unworthy and those only slightly touched dare only the alchemy of drawing attention to some likeness between their own ideology and record and that of the great Midas.
Only the ersatz-Republican Rochester’s Wife has climbed on the electoral battlements and actually claimed for himself the title of “He Who Stood with Reagan.” In early September of 2011 Congressman Ron Paul sought to discredit Governor Rick Perry with an ad called Trust vs. Rick Perry:
Pictures of Reagan scroll. The ubiquitous Political Ad Man Voice says, “Reagan was also called extreme and unelectable.” Pictures of a young Paul with Reagan fill the screen. We are told Paul was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Reagan. The lesson concludes:
Rick Perry helped Al Gore’s campaign to undo the Reagan Revolution. Now America must choose who to elect; Al Gore’s Texas Cheerleader or the one who stood with Reagan.
Is this true? Is Ron Paul really “The One Who Stood with Reagan”?
Ron Paul told the late and very great William F. Buckley Jr. on Firing Line in 1987:
(Libertarians did poorly in the 1984 elections because) it was the height of the Reagan euphoria. We were at the height of the spending and the deficits and everybody believed that prosperity was here forever. I didn’t run in 1984 because I thought Reagan would be very popular, but I think that now it’s over and he’s much more exposed and the “conservatism” of the Reagan administration is much more exposed now than in 1984.
It is unconscionable and indicative of malicious duplicity for a man who condemned Reagan’s presidential record to now use this beloved president’s image to win votes, claiming that he, Ron Paul, has the solutions Reagan and his Republican followers eschewed.
In 2008, now-Senator Rand Paul stumped for his father in New Hampshire and told voters what his father really thought about Ronald Reagan:
We fast forward to 1980, to the Reagan Revolution, Reagan wins in a landslide. Did we get some good things? Yeah, we did, we got lower marginal tax rates. What happens when you get lower marginal tax rates, the revenues actually went up, so the supply-siders were right. What happened to the deficit? The deficit went through the roof under Reagan.
So how long did it take Ron Paul to figure out the guy he liked, endorsed, campaigned for, who campaigned for him? The very first budget. Ron Paul voted “no” against the very first Reagan budget. Everyone lauded the Reagan budget. It was $100,000,000 in debt, that’s three times worse than Carter’s worst budget…how much guts does it take to vote “no” against a popular Republican president? He was the only one, I think…only a handful. He continued that throughout the 80s. He was disappointed that the Revolution never really came to its fruition.
In the attack ad, Paul claims that Rick Perry should not be president because the Perry-backed Gore was trying to derail this same revolution.
In 1994 we have another so-called revolution, the Republican Revolution where they take over the House and the Senate and we think good things were coming again, all the things that Reagan had promised, but never did…they all ran on the same platform and what happened? The Republicans got in power and got sick with power and within a few months we had transportation bills that were much worse than any the Democrats had ever given us. The Democrats had put 400 earmarks on the Transportation Bill, the Republicans put down four thousand.
Ron Paul really thinks Reagan was a sell-out. Paul campaign speeches insisted that Reagan was not a good president, but an opportunist who grew government and advanced the American empire. Our democracy defends Ron Paul’s right to assert these opinions, and people who agree with Paul, who are swayed by his substantiation of such claims, are welcome to vote for him.
What should be of serious, rational, and conscientious concern for voters is Ron Paul’s fundamental lack of integrity, clearly seen in his hypocritical use of Ronald Reagan to win the votes of unsuspecting conservatives who do love and honor Reagan’s memory and legacy.
When Ron Paul previewed and approved the attack ad against Rick Perry, he knew he was selling a lie. Voters should know that Ron Paul, who has a sneering and sour disdain for their Reagan “fake conservatism,” does not possess the intellectual honesty to try to win the election based on his actual belief that Reagan destroyed the conservative revolution. Instead, he paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to create an electorally lucrative myth that he is the “Man Who Stood With Reagan.”
His hypocrisy reveals him to be a Brutus who has, since his initial repudiation of Reagan, never rhetorically stood with this most revered statesman except to stab him in the back.