There was an error in this gadget
0
WordPress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
The cause Ron Paul should champion
Exclusive: Ilana Mercer sees border-security issue as means to united America
by Ilana Mercer
On his website, tricky Dick Morris, former adviser to Bill Clinton, claims comically to be fighting for the soul of the Grand Old Party. Morris has dubbed a potential contest between Republican presidential contender Ron Paul and President Barack Obama as "the biggest [Republican] wipeout in American history."
Less dramatically, the Des Moines Register conceded, in the aftermath of the "the first contest of the 2012 election season," that, while "many Iowa caucus-goers connected with Paul's belief in less government spending and regulation, in free trade and private property rights and in opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan" – they nevertheless "worried about Paul's prospects in the general election."
With 21.4 percent of a volatile vote, Rep. Ron Paul came in a strong third in Tuesday's Iowa Republican caucuses. Assuming second place, and trailing Mitt Romney by eight statistically insignificant votes, was former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, the dark horse in this race.
Still, what separates Dr. Paul from his Republican rivals is this: Whereas their national appeal is likely to plateau – coffined by militarism and social conservatism – Paul's appeal, by contrast, has the potential to transcend the confines of the Republican Party.
For one, Ron Paul can woo Obama's sizeable anti-war base, which is sick and tired of the killer drone. (One definition of a drone is "an idle person who lives off others; a loafer, a drudge," a Barack Obama. Another definition of a drone is "a pilotless aircraft operated by remote control," frequently utilized by the aforementioned "idle person who lives off others" to kill others.)
For example, Ron Paul is far more likely to work with a hero of this anti-war faction, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. Kucinich's opposition to counter-productive, unconstitutional, unjust forays abroad goes back to the Balkan war (in the course of which he stuck up for the much-maligned Serbian population of Kosovo, and forewarned about empowering the Jihadist Kosovo Liberation Army).
Although a national Rasmussen Poll, conducted in December (27-28), placed Romney ahead of Obama by 45 to 39 percentage points, at 43 to 35, Obama bests Ron Paul by only 8 percentage points.
Another December poll (16-18), taken by CNN/ORC, revealed that Paul was already outperforming Obama among independents (48 to 47 percent), rural folks (52 to 45 percent), white voters (51-46 percent), as well as among consistently reliable voters older than 65 (47-46 percent). As against Obama, Paul was making strides among moderates (42 to 56 percent) too, and was inching up with the youth cohort (47 to 53 percent). ( PDF)
Like it or not, this election is about the economy, subsumed within which is the issue of mass immigration.
"More than eight in ten likely Republican caucus-goers – 81 percent – think it is not acceptable to allow illegal immigrants to obtain in-state tuition." This according to a December 2011 NBC News/Marist Poll. ( PDF)
As the Center for Immigration Studies has consistently demonstrated, "enforcement approaches with no increase in legal immigration" were the most popular policy options among a majority of all voters. "Seventy percent of voters said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who wanted to double legal immigration."
Since he rightly celebrates the free, unfettered movement of goods across borders – trade – Paul's protectionist detractors might have "deduced" that he must also rejoice in the free flow of people across our borders. As a man of the classical liberal, unquestionably American, Old Right, Rep. Paul would be wise to vigorously defend the idea of a sovereign America bounded by well-defended borders.
Not only is a highly selective immigration policy an effective, non-aggressive tactic against terrorism – it is also the perfect complement to a peaceful foreign policy, predicated on the negative, leave-me-alone rights of the individual, and not on the positive, manufactured right of humanity to venture wherever, whenever.
However, positions that appeal to most ordinary Americans appall a noisy left-libertarian minority that has taken up residence in the country's most influential newsrooms and television studios.
These libertarians argue against the prevention of trespass on the grounds that restricting immigration amounts to the use of aggression against non-aggressors.
This is the case only if one rejects any form of ordered liberty; only if one believes that telling someone, "No, you can't go there" is tantamount to violence. And only if one trivializes violence.
A well-policed barrier on the Southern border is the definitive, non-aggressive method of defense. You don't attack, arrest or otherwise molest undesirables, who cost more than they contribute; you keep them at bay, away.
Just the other day, "in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash," Ron Paul slammed Santorum as "very liberal." Before the surging Santorum picks up the scent of an incipient left-liberal immigration policy, and gives chase, Ron Paul ought to cement a strong stand on an issue that unites America.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/the-cause-ron-paul-should-champion/
The Arithmetic of a Revolution
By Bill Bonner
01/05/12 Baltimore, Maryland – Hey… That rascal, Alan Greenspan, is back in the newspapers. And this time he has something sensible to say:
"The emerging fight over the future of the welfare state, a paradigm without serious political challenge in eight decades, is accentuating the center's declining. The welfare state has run up against a brick wall of economic reality and fiscal book-keeping. Congress, having enacted increases in entitlements without visible means of funding them, is on the brink of a stalemate…"
Let's back up to bring Dear Readers fully into the picture. Alan Greenspan came to Washington in the '70s…to join Gerald Ford's Council of Economic Advisors. But he arrived with some very unusual baggage. Accompanying him at his swearing in ceremony was none other than Ayn Rand herself, who said that Greenspan was her "man in Washington."
Greenspan was a member of her "collective" in New York, a group of anarcho-libertarian-randites who got together and argued about how to build a better world order. They were in agreement about the basics government had to be cut down to size. And governments' paper money had to be replaced by gold.
Greenspan wrote a famous defense of gold, pointing out that paper money was merely a way of stealing money from the people. You would think that would have disqualified him from taking over the top job at the Fed. After all, America's central bank was charged with promoting and protecting the value of its paper money. And after 1971, that was no easy mission; the dollar had no real value at all.
But Greenspan was a great schmoozer…and somehow he schmoozed his way into the executive branch…and then into the Fed. He was on the job at the Fed when America's finances started to spin out of control. As a share of GDP, financial sector debt doubled on his watch. Each time, the economy threatened to come to its senses, Greenspan gave it more credit. In emergency of the recession of 2001, Greenspan cut rates below the level of consumer price inflation and left them there for years. This was not exactly what you would have expected from a hard-money Randite. Instead, you might have expected him to "pull a Volcker," protecting the nation's money…and its financial integrity, even at the cost of his own career. But Greenspan had long since left his friends, his integrity and his beliefs behind (Ayn Rand died on his birthday).
The emergency low rates lasted much longer than the emergency. But 4 years later they had created another emergency the housing and finance bubble which blew up in 2007. By then, Alan Greenspan had retired.
Since then we have heard from him from time to time. Usually, his newspaper columns have been little more than weak apologia and lame denials. He claimed, for example, that the bubble in housing was invisible…when we Dear Readers saw it very clearly…and that there was nothing that he could have done to stop it.
But now he has a new theme. And we are wondering whether it is not time to reappraise his career and his character.
He now sees with both eyes. "We face a revolution," he says. "Arithmetic demands it."
Whence cometh this revolution? The young have no jobs. The old have no savings. The middle class is becoming more and more desperate. The Wall Street Journal:
More aging Americans are doing something they never would have imagined: turning to family for financial aid. Some are even asking their children for a place to live.
The problem has been building as more Americans 55 and older have lost jobs or run through savings faster than expected.
Thirty-nine percent of adults with parents 65 and older reported giving parents financial aid in the past year, according to a September Pew Research Center survey. Some parents may have trouble acknowledging it: 10% of parents 65 and older reported receiving aid.
The arithmetic that demands a revolution is the arithmetic of a broke welfare state. It makes promises, based on assumptions of growth and prosperity. Now, with neither growth nor prosperity at hand, the politicos wonder how to make good on the promises.
They talk about raising taxes. But no serious observer thinks they could raise enough new money net by increasing taxes in order to forestall bankruptcy.
They borrow money too. But the end of that must be approaching too. The average debt level among OECD countries is over 400% of GDP. At a real interest rate of 5%, one dollar of output out of every 5 must be applied to debt service. That is as if every Monday's work had to be devoted to the dead, rather than the living.
In Europe, all around the periphery, lending rates are edging near the point where lending has to stop. In America, fear of Europe keeps lending rates for the US government low. But the more it borrows, the deeper its hole becomes. For the more it owes the less likely it will be to pay it back.
And sooner or later lenders are going to realize that buying debt from the world's biggest debtor who continues to borrow more and more money it cannot pay back is not a great way to preserve capital.
Let's see. Can't tax…can't borrow…then, what can the feds do to pay their bills and honor their commitments? Print money!
Yes, dear reader. That's what it will probably come to. That is the endgame of paper money schemes. And when the government prints money…as in Zimbabwe or Argentina…or Weimar Germany…all hell breaks loose.
It makes us wonder. What if that were Alan Greenspan's plan all along? What if he really were Ayn Rand's man in Washington? What if he intended to bankrupt the US government, by setting up a financial calamity?
Maybe he knew it was inevitable anyway. Maybe he figured that it was easier to go along with it than to fight it…and that it took him where he really wanted to go towards the collapse of the paper dollar and the Big Government of the USA.
What if he weren't such a scoundrel after all?
We are giving Alan Greenspan the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps we should reconsider Thomas L. Friedman's oeuvre too?
Friedman was among those who pushed and applauded the administration of George Armstrong Bush into the war in Iraq. He didn't mention it at the time, but now he tells us that the reason he backed the war was because he was curious.
"Could we collaborate with the people of Iraq," he wanted to know, "to change the political trajectory of this pivotal state in the heart of the Arab world and help tilt it and the region onto a democratizing track?"
There are a lot of things we'd like to know too. Such as whether Tom Friedman knows a mixed metaphor when he writes one. Or whether he sustained some form of brain injury as a child that causes him to want to experiment with the lives of millions of people killing hundreds of thousands in the process. Or that when he talks about a "democratizing track" is he referring to the kind of track that got Adolph Hitler or Benito Mussolini elected? Or is it some kind of track where voters get run around and around until they get worn out and don't care what S.O.B. gets elected?
Apparently, Friedman saw a 2002 report which said Iraq had a "deficit of freedom, a deficit of knowledge and a deficit of women's empowerment." That was enough for him; he was ready start a war as a result.
Well, maybe if we had seen the major issues framed so clearly we would have been more curious too.
And now that the test is completed, Friedman is happy:
"I don't know if Iraq will make it…but creating this opportunity was an important endeavor….I have nothing but respect for the Americans, Brits and Iraqis who paid the price to make it possible."
Yes, thanks to you dead people…we'll get to see what happens when you invade a foreign country, kill a lot of people, spend a lot of money, and then leave. Thanks a lot.
But maybe Friedman has a hidden agenda too. Maybe this jackass thing is just an act. Maybe he too is merely helping the US along to its rendezvous with destiny. All empires die. Maybe Friedman figures it's inevitable. 'The sooner the better,' he may say to himself. Prodding the US into the spending $3 trillion on a pointless war merely helps it towards the tomb.
Regards,
Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning
http://dailyreckoning.com/the-arithmetic-of-a-revolution/#ixzz1iiezREt7
The Ron Paul Precedent
Iowa results chart the future of the GOP
by Justin Raimondo, January 06, 2012
The results of the Iowa caucus have the news media spinning a "victory" for Mitt Romney, the Goldman-Sachs candidate, and the supposedly all-but-inevitable nominee of his party. Just why he was deemed the " frontrunner" before even a single vote had been cast is a mystery known only to the professional pundits, who seem to have bestowed this title on him because of his perfect hair and his perfectly unauthentic persona. Romney is the Stepford Candidate, robotically repeating those phrases which are expected of him with all the conviction of a simulacrum. Which leads one to wonder: how can this preprogrammed human automaton ever hope to defeat the personable and relatively authentic Obama?
For those with more imagination, the victor in this fight has been Rick Santorum, whose surge toward the end put him within a dozen or so votes of Romney. Hours after the results were announced, we were treated to the sight of breathless commentators anointing a candidate with no money and no real conservative credentials as the One True Anti-Romney who could snatch the crown from Mitt's brow.
The Iowa caucus results are supposed to be all about "expectations," which begs the question: whose expectations? Why, the mainstream media's, of course, a fact which – you'll note – allows these guardians of the conventional wisdom to play their key role as the final arbiters of what all this voting means. And the formulaic "spin" had been determined far in advance: if Romney won, then his coronation was supposed to be foreordained. If anybody but Romney won, it would simply delay Romney's final victory. If Ron Paul won, then the Iowa caucuses would henceforth be deemed " irrelevant."
Peter Feaver, writing on foreignpolicy.com, was typically dismissive of Paul's showing:
"The Iowa results probably indicate that there will not be a big crack-up within the Republican party on foreign policy because the caucus returns are likely to be the high-water mark for the candidate with the most distinctive foreign policy platform in the field: Ron Paul. He did well enough to gain another week of press attention. But in the one contest best-suited to his unusual political operation, Paul did not beat expectations. He would have to really surprise in New Hampshire in order to remain relevant in the later primaries, and those are likely to be even tougher terrain for him."
It's all about "press attention" – but what if it isn't? What if it's possible to bypass the traditional gatekeepers and create a movement weaned on alternative media and rising populist anger at the Washington-New York power elite? Because that is precisely what Paul has done, and that movement has hardly crested in the wilds of Iowa: it's only owing to a deficiency of imagination on the part of Feaver and his confreres, a curious sort of tunnel vision, that allows them that assumption.
The reality of Paul's accomplishment is clear, as the feisty congressman pointed out in his final Iowa speech to his supporters:
"But also, the great strides that we have made has been really on foreign policy. The fact that we can once again talk in Republican circles and make it credible. Talk about what Eisenhower said that beware of the military-industrial complex. Talk about the old days when Robert Taft, Mr. Republican, said that we shouldn't be engaged in these entangling alliance. He believed what the founders taught us. He didn't even want to be in NATO. We certainly don't need NATO and the UN telling us when to go to war.
"But we have seen a great difference. The majority of the American people are behind us on this whole war effort. They're tired of the war. Cost too much money. Too many people get killed. Too many people get injured. Too many people get sick. And the majority – maybe 70% or 80% – of the American people now are saying it's time to get out of Afghanistan."
At every debate, and every campaign appearance, Paul is transforming the discourse. Forced to start noticing him due to his steadily climbing poll numbers, the mainstream media invariably dismissed his ability to expand beyond a narrow libertarian base, which was supposedly limited by his "isolationist" foreign policy views. Yet he managed to pull off what was essentially a three-way tie, denying the alleged frontrunner and the media-anointed "conservative" a clear victory.
I'll note, in passing, that Democrats opposed to our aggressive foreign policy are almost never described as "isolationists," and one can hardly imagine a reporter referring to the demonstrations protesting the Iraq war as "isolationist" rallies. The left-right, red state-blue state lens the media clamps over every event distorts and masks a somewhat more complex underlying reality.
Much has been made of Paul's youthful constituency, and his lead in commanding the support of political independents and Democrats who signed up as Republicans for the evening, and yet less is said about the 18 percent of evangelicals who cast their lot with the one presidential candidate who wants to dismantle the Empire. In spite of a relentless smear campaign led by Fox News and the neoconservative would-be policemen of the right, nearly a quarter of Iowa Republicans stood with Paul at the caucuses.
The icing on this cake is that the candidate made no attempt to downplay or hide his supposedly "controversial" foreign policy views: indeed, he emphasized them even when he was talking about domestic policy, tying the conservative project of dismantling the federal Leviathan to the need to drop the burden of empire. That over 20 percent of Iowa caucus-goers voted to endorse Paul's uncompromising anti-interventionism scares the bejesus out of the GOP establishment because the Paulians aren't going to go away. Well-funded and blessed with a growing army of enthusiastic volunteers, the Paul campaign has the resources to go all the way to Tampa.
The Iowa results lay bare the contours of the GOP's constituency, and the changing face of the American right. The Romney camp represents the often-pronounced dead but never quite moribund Eastern Establishment or "moderate" wing of the Republican party. Santorum, for his part, is an unrepentant Bushian Republican, although you'll never hear that name pass his lips. Ideologically, he represents Big Government conservatism married to an impossibly bellicose foreign policy which has us bombing Iran next week. In this, he is simply a younger, slimmer Newt Gingrich, with two less wives: it's no surprise the original Newt has proposed a non-aggression pact with Santorum, offering to serve as Rick's attack dog against Romney.
The real news out of Iowa is that the terms of the foreign policy debate in this country are being changed, and it's all due to Paul's singular voice. For the first time since the Vietnam war era, the electorate is being given the chance to vote for or against our foreign policy of perpetual war. What's more, that battle is being fought inside the party that presided over and directed America's post-9/11 rampage through the Muslim world: the very heart of the War Party's territory. That this debate is even taking place is a victory in itself. Airily dismissed in the salons of Georgetown and Manhattan's Upper West Side as a "fringe" candidate and the GOP's "crazy old uncle," Paul's solid showing demonstrated his growing political clout.
The various "conservative" aspirers to the role of the Anti-Romney all crashed and burned because the various strands of conservative thought they embodied have all failed to provide Americans with any way out of the crisis we face. Bachmann's paint-by-numbers sloganeering and her reputation as a fount of misinformation, Cain's cynical and formulaic pragmatism, Perry's pastiche of Bush II, Newt's warmed-over " compassionate conservatism" served up with a dollop of corruption – all have failed miserably in the realm of ideas, as well as at the ballot box.
Santorum represents the last best hope of the same neocons who led the Republicans to defeat in 2008. When Santorum denies the very existence of the Palestinians as a people he is appealing to the Likud wing of the GOP – a constituency hotly contested by Romney, whose foreign policy team is weighted heavily with neocons. The problem with this strategy is that the majority of Republicans are just as war-weary as the rest of us: while Santorum and Romney are bemoaning the official end of the US occupation of Iraq, polls show a majority of self-identified Republicans think the Iraq war wasn't worth it. In this judgment they reflect the views of the majority of Americans, who want us out of Afghanistan, too.
We hear loud war cries emanating from the vicinity of Washington and New York, but where are the massive pro-war demonstrations demanding we act to stop the alleged [.pdf] Iranian "threat"? All we see and hear is Michelle Bachmann and a bunch of bleach-blonde Fox News anchors bleating that Paul is "dangerous" because he wants to avert World War III. All we hear is failed presidential candidate and bloated braggart Newt Gingrich declaring he'd vote for Obama rather than the "isolationist" Paul.
At least Gingrich is being honest for once. He's telling us that all the talk about fiscal conservatism, the free market, and individual liberty is just window-dressing: what he and his fellow neocons are really after is the ability to launch more and bigger wars, and if they have to throw their "smaller government" baggage overboard to reach their goal, then so be it.
How long before the Santorum bubble expands beyond its capacity to encompass the truth and pops is anyone's guess: mine is that it will be sooner rather than later. As more of Santorum's Bush era positions come out, especially on economic issues, party conservatives in search of an alternative to Romney will have no one but Ron to turn to.
Paul is often disdained as a "protest" candidate, but every revolution starts out as a mere episodic protest. Paul's Iowa campaign proved two things: 1) the anti-interventionist wing of the GOP is substantial, and 2) it is here to stay. Paul has set an important precedent: for the first time since the 1930s, a Republican politician who challenges the militarist malarkey coming out the mouths of our "conservative" politicians commands a mass following. That is a victory all advocates of peace, on the left as well as the right, ought to be celebrating.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/01/05/the-ron-paul-precedent/
January6th
Mitt Has a Rough Day
Tom Woods
Politico's Roger Simon, writing about a town hall meeting featuring Mitt Romney and John McCain that featured quite a few unfriendly questions from the audience, closes with this:
- After a few more questions, Romney says, "I am told we are out of time for questions." But I wonder how he was told this. No staffer has come up to him or handed him a note.
- But Romney has decided it is time to end the event from heck and walks off the stage into the crowd, where he shakes hands and answers questions that are not miked or broadcast.
- And as I leave the gym, there is a whole bunch of eager young volunteers with eager young faces, who are politely handing out campaign literature to one and all.
- For Ron Paul.
- But Romney has decided it is time to end the event from heck and walks off the stage into the crowd, where he shakes hands and answers questions that are not miked or broadcast.
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/mitt-has-a-rough-day/
xxx
Romney goes to heck
By: Roger Simon
January 4, 2012 09:11 PM EST
MANCHESTER, N.H. For Mitt Romney, it was the event from hell. Or from heck, since Mitt Romney does not use words like hell.
Or any of the other bad words that any other candidate might have used after this event on the day following his narrow victory in the Iowa caucuses.
Let's start with the mic check, that part of an event when a staffer comes out, pings his finger against the microphone and says, "Testing. Testing. One, two, three."
Except the Romney mic check is a little … elaborate. Far more elaborate than any mic check I have ever heard.
A voice booms out over the loudspeakers in the gym at Manchester Central High. "Checking the press riser. Please let us know if you are getting any hums or buzzes. Clean? Is it crispy good?"
If the audience is puzzled by this crispy good? Is this KFC? they must have been downright baffled when a Romney staffer takes the stage and says, "White balance. Get your white balance."
White balance is something video cameras need, but some in the crowd look around to see if someone is doing a racial headcount. Which would have been easy. Out of an audience of a few hundred, I count four black people, three of whom magically! are in the camera shot. (New Hampshire is only 1.1 percent black.)
These detailed checks tell me something: They tell me Mitt Romney likes his campaign to run well. Very well. Extremely well. As in flawlessly well.
And on the flight from Des Moines, everything had gone well. Reporters had their names on pieces of paper on each seat (reporters hate confusion), Romney came to the back of the plane wearing one of his windowpane shirts (he has several) and a pair of faded jeans (he switches between Tommy Bahama and The Gap, though some reporters feel The Gap is more flattering to him) and "banters," saying things like, "You guys got nothing better to do?"
So everything is fine. Everything is dandy. The candidate looks confident and happy. And then he has to ruin things by actually campaigning.
At the high school gym, the campaign plays a medley of oldies "Eye of the Tiger," "You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet," "(Your Love Keeps Lifting Me) Higher" and then the sound cuts out entirely as Ann Romney and political dignitaries enter not to uplifting music but to dead silence.
So, OK, stuff happens. There are some introductory remarks for which the sound is "crispy good," and then Romney and John McCain walk out. McCain had endorsed Romney the night before, the value of which is problematical, but what the heck, he was the last Republican nominee (to lose).
Then Romney announces this is going to be a two-person town hall and that McCain is going to stay on the stage and take questions, too.
This is odd enough the crowd has probably come to see and hear Romney but doubly odd since McCain hates public speaking and is no good at it, which he immediately proceeds to demonstrate.
McCain tells an anecdote involving Grantland Rice, Joe Louis and Billy Conn, who everyone as old as McCain (75) no doubt still remembers, bashes President Obama and then wraps up with patented "heh-heh" McCain sarcasm.
Turning to Romney and then the audience, McCain says, "We forgot to congratulate him on his landslide victory last night!" Heh-heh.
Then Romney starts taking questions. The big gym swallows up sound, and so Romney staffers rush around to bring handheld microphones to the questioners. But each question is oddly hostile.
Oddly hostile as in Romney's opponents Republicans? Democrats? have packed the hall early and Romney keeps taking questions from people in the front rows, which is a mistake. (Note to Romney staff: Put actual Romney supporters in the front rows next time.)
Romney is asked about corporations being people and where the next war will be, and he calls on an Asian woman directly in front of him who says, "I'm Chinese-American, I pay my taxes and I vote and don't put Asians down!"
A staffer takes the mic away from her but she keeps talking and Romney says, "I love legal immigration and if I am president, we will have more of it!"
Then he looks around for someone who might be safe and he calls on a boy of about nine or 10 who has just stood up from where else? the front row.
The kid reads from a piece of paper saying, "Now that the troops are out of Iraq, do you intend to form alliances there?"
Not your average grade-schooler question. I am sitting a few rows back on one of the other sides of the room, and the woman next to me, who has been studying a piece of paper with a dozen printed questions on it, stands up and asks Romney what else? a hostile question.
Romney answers, calls on another person, but there aren't enough handheld mics for a crowd of this size and his staffers are slow in getting to the questioner and Romney says in icy tones: "We decided to save money on microphones here."
Did you hear those thuds? Those were the sounds of heads rolling at Romney headquarters.
Things like this happen to low-rent, seat-of-the-pants, run-of-the-mill campaigns, not the Romney "crispy good" campaign.
After a few more questions, Romney says, "I am told we are out of time for questions." But I wonder how he was told this. No staffer has come up to him or handed him a note.
But Romney has decided it is time to end the event from heck and walks off the stage into the crowd, where he shakes hands and answers questions that are not miked or broadcast.
And as I leave the gym, there is a whole bunch of eager young volunteers with eager young faces, who are politely handing out campaign literature to one and all.
For Ron Paul.
Roger Simon is POLITICO's chief political columnist.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71096.html
'Former Reagan official and Focus on the Family executive champions Ron Paul and LRC'
Posted on January 6, 2012 by Lew Rockwell
Writes Charlie Jarvis:
"I have served as a senior executive in Ronald Reagan's administration (ranked number 3 in one of the unconstitutional departments), as a legislative director for a still-sitting US Senator (where I had the privilege of witnessing first hand the insight and courage of LRC columnists Christopher Manion, Paul Craig Roberts, and Gary North), as a senior executive of Focus on the Family, as father and husband in a wonderful family of six that, without exception, have supported and continue to support Ron Paul for President, as one who was lost for a time in the labyrinthine, seductive world of Washington, DC's blandishments and power hunger.
"Lew, LRC and Ron Paul have together been an intellectual resort for me. For years now I literally couldn't wait to hit my favorite site: Lewrockwell.com. Thank you for never, never, never, never giving up.
"I believe Dr. Paul can own the debates, and I offer one scenario of how it can be done:
- MODERATOR: Congressman Paul, you've been called "dangerous" by Newt Gingrich and other names by Rick Santorum…
- CONGRESSMAN PAUL: I know where you're going with this. My consistent stand as Defender of the Constitution over the decades is certainly not dangerous. But Newt, you and Rick Santorum championed or voted for thousands of unconstitutional laws that created many thousands of unconstitutional regulations and they have bankrupted our country. You speak in the authentic accents of the oppressive British Empire, which attacked our Founders as dangerous for writing the Constitution and demanding protection of personal liberties with strict limits on government and foreign entanglements!
- When both of you were in Congress, when you held government power, you proved what you would do with power NOW! Based on your oath to support and defend the Constitution, both of you had the duty to go to the floor of the Senate and House and say, "Fellow members of Congress, every day, every week, every month we pass unconstitutional laws that are killing this country." You should have said on the floor, "In another era, we'd all be impeached, except perhaps for Ron Paul and a few others, then tarred and feathered, and run out of Washington on a rail!" But neither of you, Newt or Rick Santorum, stood up when you had power in the government.
- While I have asked every day, "why is Congress passing one unconstitutional law after another, making a mockery of our oath to defend the Constitution?" the two of you did the most dangerous thing of all: you made a mockery of the Constitution and your oath to defend it. And therefore you must now bear a huge responsibility for the economic disaster our country faces. If the American people want to know what a person will do with government power, just look to see what they did when they had power and authority in the past.
- My stand for the Constitution is not dangerous. My stand fulfills my oath to support and defend that very Constitution. Now I challenge you and Mitt Romney also to name – right now -- the specific federal departments and agencies that are unconstitutional and which must be immediately defunded.
- CONGRESSMAN PAUL: I know where you're going with this. My consistent stand as Defender of the Constitution over the decades is certainly not dangerous. But Newt, you and Rick Santorum championed or voted for thousands of unconstitutional laws that created many thousands of unconstitutional regulations and they have bankrupted our country. You speak in the authentic accents of the oppressive British Empire, which attacked our Founders as dangerous for writing the Constitution and demanding protection of personal liberties with strict limits on government and foreign entanglements!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2012/01/former-reagan-official-and-focus-on-the-family-executive-champions-ron-paul-and-lrc/#more-9529
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
http://www.foothillsmediagroup.com/articles/2012/01/06/litchfield/news/doc4f077329a5595551334168.txt
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
One should rub both their hands in dog poop before shaking hands with any muslim.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
