Where are the Principles

During the Bush years there was no shortage of folks willing to scream that the policies of war without justification, torture, detainment without charge and domestic spying were tyranny in the making.  And the simple fact is these charges were true.  Unfortunately the only people that voiced these opinions were some liberals, libertarians and paleoconservatives.

Case is point is Keith Olbermann. In what is now called his "Beginning of the End of America" monologue he tackled the the subject of the Military Commissions Act correctly.  That act combined with the Patriot Act before and a slew of enactments for 140 years previous indeed gave our government unprecedented power, a power to be feared.  Olbermann spoke truth, the sort of truth that is born of commonsense. (it is apparent that since commonsense is indeed common groups from all sides of the political divide can occasionally use it to make their points)

One must ask however...where are these voices of reason from the left now?

• Where were they when Obama signed an extension of the Patriot Act without any of the reforms true Patriots believed were required? (the best reform being not extending the nefarious law at all)
• Where are the liberals that protested what they believed to be Bush's private torture camp at Guantanamo?  Has Obama closed the operations there?
• And what of the "Anti-War" crowd that seems to be so silent now?  It seems the only voices that remain are the libertarians and paleoconservatives.  Perhaps all those liberal "anti-war" types were not protesting based upon principle but rather politics.
• Where is the protest from "civil-libertarians" over the intrusive and oppressive health care agenda?

There is but silence from the left because their attacks on Bush were never based upon a principled position.

I suppose that a president that received the Nobel Peace Prize ought to be given a bit of slack.  Never mind that he was just a few months into his term, had done nothing  "visionary" yet and was prosecuting the same wars that that "evil Bush" started - in the liberal mind I guess none of that matters, "he means well". He deserved that award and how dare anyone even question his motives - or so we are told.

In that the Tea Party crowd is primarily an anti-Obama movement there should be shame.  A stand on principles tells us there is much rotten with our system with both parties.  One could and should ask the same sort of questions of the Tea Party types in terms of abuses under Bush - and perhaps ask where they will stand on "freedom and small government" once we get rid of Obama.

I agree that individuals should be questioned - the citizenship status of Obama should be clarified now rather than 50 years hence when historians uncover the truth and add it as just a footnote to history.  However these matters seem to miss the bigger picture.

There are principles to be considered and it would be encouraging to see more people live and act according to those principles.  Perhaps then we would get fewer scoundrels in need of investigation and vetting.

Tea Party: Populism without Principle

One cannot help but stand and cheer the efforts of the Tea Party crowd.  In fact, the title above is likely wrong, there are principles at work behind the movement.  It is the common sense of "old men and simple preachers" that I recently wrote about. We must however admit that the Tea Party Movement is a populist movement and we must be honest about what they means, in terms of past populist movements and in terms of the potential of such endeavors.

I find it particularly distressing that this movement got off the ground without any apparent philosophical underpinnings.  Without such an anchor what is a movement to stand for and how is it to defend against charlatans and demagogues? 

Having accepted that I am an elitist, meaning I have little faith in the masses to stay the course even when they know the correct general direction, I worry that at the end of the day this will ultimately be much to do about nothing.

And why on earth would three Tea Party candidates stand to run against Ron Paul and the seat he holds.  It seems that an ideal two party system would consist of Tea Party type conservatives on one ticket and Ron Paul type libertarians on another but that would be an idealized line-up for some distant future.  Not now, now seems the time to stand together against something of greater evil.  It seems not the time to split-hairs.

The Tea Party is currently drawing on the mass inertia power of the ordinary man and his keen common-sense.  The regular Americans know something is not right.  I would rather see leaders with a philosophical backing standing before them instead of what I fear in many cases as opportunist politicians.

Elections Will Not Fix Things

This is the Way the World Ends - Part III

Say what you will about the Ron Paul supporters the fact is those loyal souls that got into the trenches and went to the Republican Convention as delegates to cast their votes appear to have received the ultimate rebuff.

...20 Ron Paul buttons and a handful of other things, he was stopped by security which called on upon an apparent supervisor, who directed all the materials to be confiscated. She told him, "You can't bring that in here, this is McCain territory. (Federal Jack)

This is but one small account of the hundreds reported during the primaries. The point here is that the two-party system is not receptive to any sort of real challenge or change. I would be curious to see the results of a future historians analysis of the "Ron Paul Revolution". At a casual glance it seems odd to me that the man was able to raise so much money from ordinary people and yet garner less than, at best, 10% of the primary vote count.

Many claim there was widespread hanky-panky afoot, I am not inclined to accept conspiracy theories but with the proven pattern of corruption prevalent in all areas of politics I would not be at all surprised if something nefarious occurred. The web is full of alleged evil-doing committed against the Paul campaign. Of course the Nader folks claim the same thing. My point in highlighting Ron Paul above is to demonstrate a perception (perhaps reality) that the major parties will simply not tolerate a real maverick.

Outside of the "for us or against us", intellectually dishonest two-party system Americans have become accustomed to all sorts of other frauds and perceived fraud within our electoral process. We simply cannot have an election without the taint of scandal.

Here again, it does not particularly matter if these perceptions are based wholly or partly on reality. Ours is essentially a system built upon trust. We the People delegated certain enumerated powers to the government in exchange for an expectation of, if not good government, at least tolerable government. Within the scope of tolerable I believe most reasonable men would include trustworthy. Without trust all the government has to retain legitimacy is propaganda, special interest payouts and coercion. Without the trust of the people government ceases to be tolerable or legitimate.

Americans know that elections and elected officials are frauds, yet 54% of us still pick a team and cast a ballot as if it were American Idol or some such trivial nonsense. A percentage of that group still hopes that a few good men of character and principle might change things yet even that voter block realizes that most of our representatives are influenced primarily by monied interest and their own desire to keep getting elected. We know DC corrupts all but the incorruptible.

I would be guessing but I would put the percentage of voters that believe that real change might be brought about by Mr. Smith going to Washington at below 25%, my observation of the rest is that they are mere party people (i.e. team supporters) that see politics as a duality.

What of the 46% that do not vote? These people have given up, either by ignorance or painfully informed knowledge. They do not trust that a difference can be had, by extrapolation they do not trust the system and have opted out.

In one way or another this 46% has come to realize something that the rest of us have yet to learn. That is the system is broken so completely that no element of the system itself can be used to fix it. It is akin to having a virus on your computer that has corrupted you anti-virus software - you will not fix the system without something new and external to the present system.

The sad commentary on all of this is that the 46 percenters have opted out without a plan of action. They have accepted taxation without representation and government not of their consent. To a government that has lost trust these are the perfect sorts of serfs - perfectly willing to work the plantation without getting uppity.

Considering that another 25% or so (might be a low number) are perfectly willing to play the game and cheer one of the establishment teams along the small minority of us that really see a need for change and want to do something about it are inconsequential.

If on the off chance that one of ours might get more than 1-2% of the votes in say a primary it is too easy to marginalize these "radical views" and perhaps (as suggested in some of the links listed above) outright lie, cheat and steal to keep the system under control.

Voting will not save us from out eventual end -- a few candidates of principle rising up occasionally serve to keep the truth out there and prove the futility of voting but that is about it.

We will happily vote ourselves into our ultimate destruction...as have so many other people that lived under tyranny since the practical application of democracy.

Vertical Huckabee

David Limbaugh is troubled by Huckabee

That's why it troubles me when the ostensibly conservative Mike Huckabee tells Jay Leno he wants us to abandon "horizontal politics. Everything in this country is not left, right, liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican. I think the country is looking for somebody who is vertical, who is thinking, 'Let's take America up and not down.'"

It's perfectly fine for Mike Huckabee to make such pronouncements. I just hope conservatives understand that what takes America "up" are conservative principles – and that it will always be necessary to fight for those principles against those who don't fully understand them or who are committed to their defeat. read more

The idea that conservative principles do not apply to each and every decision we make in our public and private life is - well compromise of the sort we need no more of. It is simply incomprehensible that a true conservative would be willing to compromise on any matter of principle. Men and times change but principles never to paraphrase Stephens.

What does Huckabee mean by "going vertical" and what part of real conservative philosophy has ever taken America down? Huckabee continues to prove that the term Huckster is aptly applicable.

Paul's Family Values

Campaign for Children and Families, a leading West Coast pro-family organization that researches and advocates for the natural family, is pleased to announce the Report Card on the Natural Family to inform voters where the leading Republican presidential candidates stand on protecting the basic family unit.

“While all of the leading Republican candidates claim to embrace family values, let the record show that they’re marching to different drummers on marriage rights, adoption, schoolchildren, and the destructive ‘LGBT’ agenda,” said CCF President Randy Thomasson. “Many pro-family voters will be surprised with the results of this carefully-researched report card. But as always, what a candidate does means much more than what they say. Facts are stubborn things.” see the report

Paul and Huckabee scored 7, McCain 4, Thompson 3, Giulliani 1 and Romny 0. Family is the most important aspect of conservative philosophy. Who says that Ron Paul's brand of political philosophy is not truly conservative? He is the only real conservative in the race.

Silver Tounged Devil

As I sat and listened to Barack Obama's speech after winning the Iowa caucus I thought to myself (half-seriously actually) "this guy sounds exactly how I think the antichrist will sound when he shows up." Ok out of curiosity I googled 'Barack Obama antichrist' and good grief was I shocked. Apparently a lot of people have had this thought before; some have extensive websites with proof of their suspicions.

Well who knows, I seldom speculate on points of Biblical prophecy and I am very wary of those that do - particularly that make such a thing their trade. However, I suppose if I were going to write down a list of attributes Obama has the "silver tongue" required skill-set down pat.

I fear that despite the ideological holes in almost everything he stands for; granted it is hard to pin the man down on positions from his speeches but one can certainly get a picture of his ideological basis from his dancing words; the American polity will eat up what he is serving.

Nothing any of the GOP front-runners are saying will sell at all with anyone other than the lock-step GOP faithful in a general election. People are sick and tired - rightfully so - of the same old GOP story line related to a failed foreign policy. Continuing the course is not an option for the ordinary American - the Democrats are preaching "change" and the American public is ready to say 'amen".

The GOP had a chance to stop the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 (or at least run a candidate that really stood for what the American people really wanted and really needed). Patrick Buchanan (like him or not) stood firm for the change that America needed. The GOP faithful failed to see that and instead decided to try something old again. Bush the Elder represented everything that has always been wrong with the GOP - he was out of touch with conservatism, he represented not the people but special interest. His world view was akin to some profane merger of Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln. His economic policy was abysmal. George was the GOP's man - Pat's warnings were ignored.

We ended up with eight years of the Clinton dark years - forget the sexual exploits, - Clinton was a horrible president. You simply must recall Janet Reno and her gestapo troops in Waco, Ruby Ridge, down in Florida with the Gonzalez family. You must remember the North American Free Trade Agreement (not really free trade at all), Operation Desert Fox (the precedent for regime change in Iraq), the ridiculous war against Serbia, the Brady Bill, the Iraq Liberation Bill, and the silly 'Don't Ask Don't Tell".

We know now, if we are honest we should know, that America was indeed in the midst of a cultural war in 1992. Sixteen year later we see the results of unchecked illegal immigration, in the coming years we will see more and more the follow-on effects of the erosion of culture that this will have on our society. Ask yourself this, is America a more or less moral place today than it was in 1992. The answer to that, if honest, clearly shows that we have been involved in a war we are losing. In Pat's words:

But the cultural war is broader than two battlegrounds.
We see it in the altered calendar of holidays we are invited - nay, instructed - to celebrate. Washington's Birthday disappears into Presidents Day. States, like Arizona, that balk at declaring Martin Luther King's birthday a holiday face political censure and convention boycotts. Easter is displaced by Earth Day, Christmas becomes Winter break, Columbus day is now a day to reflect on the cultural imperialism and genocidal racism of the "dead white males" who raped this continent while exterminating its noblest inhabitants.

Secularism's Holy Days of Obligation were not demanded by us; they were imposed on us. And while Gov. Cuomo may plausibly plead ignorance of the culture war, the Hard Left has always understood its criticality. Give me the child for six years, Lenin reportedly said, quoting the Jesuits, and he will be a Marxist forever. J.V. Stalin, who was partial to Chicago gangster films, thought that if only he had control of Hollywood, he could control the world.

Too many conservatives, writes art critic James Cooper, "never read Mao Tse-tung on waging cultural war against the West. [Mao's] essays were prescribed reading for the Herbert Marcuse-generation of the 1960's, who now run our cultural institutions... Conservatives were oblivious to the fact that ... modern art - long ago
separated from the idealism of Monet, Degas, Cezanne, and Rodin - had become the purveyor of a destructive, degenerate, ugly, pornographic, Marxist, anti-American ideology." While we were off aiding the Contras, a Fifth Column inside our own country was capturing the culture.

The battle is lost and the few Republicans that still believe it can or should be fought at the national level are simply confused. Mike Huckabee is a glimmer of hope for these confused people - they believe supporting a man that claims evangelical Christian beliefs can right all that has occurred. Wrong - perhaps in 1992 there was a slim chance, no chance what-s0-ever exists for this possibility now at the national level.

The American people are ready for a change but what they are really interested in is change that benefits them personally. The only option at all to correct what is wrong is to attack the very core of the belief system that says it is ok to use the Federal government for "good". As we have seen power in the hands of the Federal government is never used for real good.

The only real counter-argument to the noxious touchy feel-good ideas spread by Obama, Edwards and Clinton is the dish Ron Paul is serving up. Everything every other GOP candidate is preaching is defeatism, the same oldism status quo that has failed so miserably thus far.

The only hope for America is to restore the republic, return all of these critical "hot-button" issues that Federal Government has no Constitutional power to act on back to the states. Let us salve the complicated social issues at the local level and keep the Federal Government out of the business of "doing good".

What of Huckabee?

I respect the fact that the man stands up for what he claims as his religious beliefs. I myself am a Christian of the Baptist persuasion (Southern Baptist to be exact). However - there is something significantly dangerous about some of the ideology that many evangelical politicians and "leaders" hold dear.

I know enough about how ordinary Christian folks think and vote to understand why good folks in Iowa placed their voted for Huckabee. I also know enough about the ideology that Huckabee represents and how dangerous it really is.

I will tell you this much, without the probably required data to support my position - Mike Huckabee is a dangerous man, dangerous in the way George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Romney, McCain and Guilliani are dangerous. It is simple enough to rip apart Huckabee from his ideological core - I think between my colleagues here we have done that more or less over time. (see CHRISTIANS NEED TO BEWARE OF MIKE HUCKABEE, The Huckster and Education , Totalitarians Among Us, Sound and Fury, Debate Round-Up to read some of the things we have said about the man).

I am not sure that Iowa means a lot - other than it is refreshing and encouraging that Paul seems to be set to place ahead of Gulliani, Thompson seems to be out of funds and momentum, McCain will self-destruct and Romney and Huckabee will invariably keep beating each other about.

Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that can run a successful campaign against the Democrats - mark it down and put my name beside it!

WSJ "not" on Ron Paul

In case you missed it, Friday’s Wall Street Journal ran an article on "Dr. No’ on it’s front page. No, it was not about Ron Paul. The article was written by Sarah Lueck.

It was about Senator Tom Coburn, from Oklahoma, and how he has caused gridlock in the Senate this year. I expected at the very least a mention of Ron Paul the Presidential candidate who is better known as "Dr No" from the House of Representatives. No mention at all.

If you Google "Ron Paul" and "Dr. No", there are over 23,000 pages found. Google "Tom Coburn" and "Dr. No", and you will find 620 pages.

[...]

In the middle of a primary season, the WSJ runs an article on a politician who is not running for reelection, who upon a casual glance, appears like another candidate who is running for president? Is this a coincidence? No. No to the highest degree. It's difficult to comprehend how the editorial board of the WSJ justified front page space for a politician not even seeking the attention, while the most important race in our nation starts January 3, 2008. (from Speak Up Now)

This is really not a surprise but all the same it is disappointing. A significant portion of the American polity has already spoken with their money, time and dedication in regard to Dr. Ron Paul. How can the MSM still ignore him, or in this case make an obvious case to do him a disservice? Perhaps there is not organized conspiracy to corrupt our political system but there certainly is a lot of collusion.

It becomes more apparent all the time that the only solution to repairing our system and restoring the republic is something beyond an election.

Tancredo - No

Several of my friends supported Tancredo a year ago when he put out feelers in consideration for a presidential run. It seems they were wrong on all counts considering that Tancredo today backed out of the race (a good thing) and endorsed Romney (a monumentally stupid thing).

Insane McCain

Here we have one of the more insane things said in the debate the other night; spoken by the unhinged John McCain.

I have already addressed the fact that it was Wilsonian intervention that led to WWII, not post war isolationism - the die was alread cast Mr. McCain.

I would add also, as an active duty military officer - I gave Dr. Paul another donation today. You do not speak for us John McCain.

Debate Round-Up

I will comment on just a few items from the CNN/YouTube Republican debate.

McCain's claim that isolationism was the direct cause of WWII was ludicrous. It was Wilsonian interventionism that allowed the punitive outcome of WWI that caused WWII. Get your facts straight.

Huckabee's praise of his program to give scholarships to children of illegals was interesting - in an decidedly wrong sort of way.

The idiotic conspiracy question directed at Ron Paul was trivial and low. Paul handled it as well as it could be fielded in 90 seconds.

McCain with the near tear in his eye as he described illegal aliens as "God's Children" in need of our help. I thought that is what our generous foreign policy was all about - to help all of God's children in their lands - not when they come to ours and break our laws.

Romney proved at almost every point that he is not a man I would vote for to hold the office of dog catcher. Guilliani was what we should expect - a wolf attempting to wear sheep's clothing. It was slightly interesting to see Romney and Guiliani beat each other up but ultimately that just wasted air time that could have been better utilized allowing someone with real conservative ideas to speak.

Huckabee talked a good game for the most part but his comments about spending what was necessary on the space program demonstrate that he does not grasp the predicament we are in.

Thompson looked cadaverous but did not say anything really offensive that I can recall. I thought it a bit inane of him to waste his 30 seconds for a commercial about him and his position attacking two of the other idiots.

Seven of the men seem to believe that radical Islam is really a threat - a bigger threat than say the Soviet Union with thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at us for half a century. It is amazing that we faced that demon down without war but seven of the eight are all for globe-trotting adventures aimed at routing out a few thousand radicals that cannot even successfully rule backward nations such as Afghanistan or Somalia. They think these people are actually a threat to us. Let them build their caliphate, build an army and a navy and a economic system to support it and then threaten us and I will personally call for the crusade. As it stands they do not have a chance to do anything more than cause trouble here and there on a relatively small scale.

Only one candidate had the chance to talk about the pending DC Gun ban case going before the Supreme Court and that was Gulliani. He had the nerve to state that he believed the 2nd Amendment was intended as an individual right but with restrictions. Talk about speaking to both sides of an issue. We found out that Romney, Gulliani and McCain do not actually own firearms. (but Gulliani does own matching stiletto heels for his black dress that could count as a weapon you know).

Finally, I am not sure why CNN decided to include the question about the Confederate Battle Flag - perhaps to try and place someone in what would seem to be an untenable position. After all the status of the flag is not the purview of the president or the federal government. However, they included the flag question any way. Romney bit off on it and stated something to the effect "that flag should not be shown, it is divisive". Perhaps he needs a history lesson - maybe he should read Lieutenant Colonel Frematle's (of Her Majesty's Royal Dragoons) account of the Army of Northern Virginia's march into Maryland and Pennsylvania. As Clyde Wilson once wrote (and I paraphrase) "It would be wonderful if black Americans viewed their heritage as a diverse experience rather than merely that of slavery and oppression". If "That" flag is divisive it is because folks do not know of the sacrifice that blacks and whites in the South made under that banner. The question had no place in the debate but it was there and Romney proved himself a moron in his answer. Thompson handled it fairly well but I presume and assume that Ron Paul would have said something to the effect "That flag is part of the history of many of our states and their people and the place the flag holds in those states is up to the states and the people to determine, not the federal government or the president."

John McCain proved himself to be wholly unqualified for further service in elected office - I recall during the campaign of 2000 in a debate in SC where Alan Keyes mopped the floor with McCain on simple constitutional issues - so much so that McCain actually lost his composure.

It is a shame that there are so many candidates at this point - so many that those on the left and right of the stage are not heard enough. Tancredo has it right on immigration but wrong on much else, notably the war; leave him off the invite list. Duncan Hunter - thanks for building the wall but don't show up any more please. I can see why some of my friends are misled about Thompson, I think we need to leave him in future dialogues to unravel what is wrong with him for them. The three front runners you have to leave obviously (not counting McCain as per above). I would love to see three hours of just those men and Ron Paul hosted by Lou Dobbs, Alan Keyes and Pat Buchanan with questions from ME and a few select friends. I would love to see everyone explain how their ideas are 1) conservative 2) constitutional 3) really good for America.

Time For A Change

I read a post the other day and I cannot now recall where or by who but the point that the author made was that the Ron Paul Revolution will be short lived. Those disaffected souls that now support Dr. No will not throw their support behind any of the other GOP candidates and there is not another Ron Paul on the horizon to galvanize the troops and keep the revolution alive (assuming that Dr. Paul does not win the election).

Without discussing those assumptions much further I will simply say that I agree for the most part - what the author proposed is probably a realistic outcome. The fact is real conservatives do not have a home in either party. There is nothing conservative about the Republican or Democratic approach. One wishes to curry favor with the masses by transferring wealth through government programs, the other wishes to curry favor with big business by providing subsidies and protection. The end result of both approaches is bigger government, each approach is progressive, neither approach conserves anything that was or should be in our society.

In the 1980's many believed that conservatism had been vindicated after the failed attempts of Barry Goldwater in 1964 to win the presidency and not only thwart the Great Society but push back the nefarious New Deal.

My father was a Goldwater Republican (I was even named after Mr. Goldwater), I was a Reagan Republican. However something significant occurred between 1964 and 1980. Two significant things in fact. First, the real roots of the Republican party were always there. The GOP owes its very existence to the Federalist/Whig brand of ideology that is responsible for so much of what is wrong with he republic today. It was the Federalist that abandoned their charter to alter the Articles of Confederation. The Federalist gave us the Alien and Sedition Acts, the first legislated tyranny since the revolution. It was the Republican Party that single-handily redefined the Constitutional limits of federal power and killed States' Rights and Federalism. Republicans annexed Hawaii against the will of their monarch and people. The Republican Party played a large role in the idiocy of prohibition - something any conservative knows the Federal Government has no authority or role in. It is the Republican Party that has again passed tyrannical legislation in the form of the Patriot Act and redefined jus ad bellum to include the noxious notion of preemptive war. It is the Republican Party that champions the rights of non-human, soulless corporate entities.

For all of the evils and nonsensical ramblings of the socialist democrats and their flaky ideas regarding nationalized medicine and other inane ideological blunders - the Republican Party is not one inch more Conservative. The two major parties are just different sides to the same coin.

Many of my kin, blood and cultural, rejoiced in the 1980's with the rise of the Religious Right -"Finally, we will put things right". For all of the good intentioned notions of the rank and file followers of the Moral Majority and other similar groups the result and impact on American politics was even more disastrous than the nonsense surrounding prohibition. If the Religious Right was a truly conservative movement - in terms of conserving what America was and should be - their efforts at social conservatism would have been focused almost exclusively at the state and local level. Their national efforts would have focused on true conservatives that understood the Constitution, the 10th Amendment and the nature of federalism and states' rights. Instead of acting as conservatives these groups acted as progressives, seeking to use the political system to effect change, change that required an increase in the role and power of the federal government. That was certainly not a conservative approach.

One day they will see that what you give to the federal government it is hard to take back. Perhaps there was a moral majority in the 1980's but what happens when there is an "immoral majority" that seeks to use that very same federal government power that they foolishly established? You wanted to define marriage, tell states about abortion, define prayer - would you want a majority of heathens doing the same? It will happen because of foolish progressivism in the name of "doing good" and we will be powerless to stop it if the precarious majority fails.

Religious conservatives dismiss Ron Paul because he will not come out and say things like -"If I were president I would work for (insert whatever moral legislation you wish)". This is precisely because Paul understands the Constitution and the dangers of progressivism. It seems we Christians are much happier supporting a reformed Rudy (hey Robertson says he is ok), or one of the other fellows because they take a stand on a moral issues (they talk a good game). We are missing the point, it is not the place of the federal government to regulate these issues, we ought to seek a man that would put these issues back where they belong - with us at out state houses.

Perhaps the Ron Paul revolution will be short lived - then again perhaps the pundits are wrong. Perhaps, just maybe true conservatism will again thrive, perhaps the supporters of Paul will not just fade away (win or lose). Third parties in the 20th Century have not fared well therefore maybe it is high time that the Republican Party became relegated to third party status. If folks that call themselves conservative fully understood what being a conservative meant there would not be a Republican Party - it would have been thrown on the ash heap of history in 1864 or soon thereafter and certainly it would not enjoy the support from otherwise good intentioned folk it counts on today.

If there is the be a Ron Paul revolution (i.e. conservative revival) I welcome it, I sincerely hope it shakes the very foundation of the current political system of a bad choice and an awful choice. It is unlikely that the Republican machine can or will be reformed from within as so many have hoped for - the basic ideology is just all wrong, their heritage of wrong is written all over the party. The only hope is to throw the system away and start anew.

I pray that Ron Paul wins the election but I am prepared for the possibility that the system will simply not allow such (send me your hate mail). This makes me no less of a supporter, it makes me a realist, it means I am committed for the long haul. I am fully prepared to adjure the realm, weather many moons of socialist democratic rule to stand true to conservative principles. A philosophy such as conservatism cannot die so long as people remember. It is time to stop compromising with a system that respects neither the law upon which our nation is built or the principles that gave that law birth.

I challenge you, if you are a true conservative, if you are truly an heir to the legacy of Jefferson and those men that envisioned a republic, not a socialist mobacracy then you must examine your entire concept of politics in America. If you continue to be blinded by the dog and pony show presented by the faux conservative GOP you are either a fool or an enabler.

It is time for a revolution (although it is not a revolution at all it is merely a revival of our conservative heritage and right thinking about the role and nature of our central government). Turn off the talking heads, read the Constitution and support Ron Paul and come what may refuse to ever go back to the role of loyal subject to a party that is neither conservative nor right.

What Does Ron Paul mean when he refers to "Washington"

Just yesterday, Wolf Blitzer, I think, asked RP what he meant when he referred to "Washington". Well, any dummy knows except Blitzer the reindeer, that Washington is the central core of our ills. I don't recall Ron Paul's response, but I'm sure it must have been an abstraction to the power that the anointed have over the rest of us.

But, it got me to thinking about a discussion I had with a DC bureaucrat while visiting friends in Maryland this past July enroute to the deep North.

I found him to be a pragmatist and realist beyond any I'd met before. He didn't seem to have any ideology nailed down for himself, but was extremely well-informed on most of the issues. I'd say he was in his mid-fifties. He promised to watch the Russo DVD I gave him anyway, and I'm sure he did.

But, here's the thing about "Washington" that I gleaned from this politically savvy man. The primary concern of a federal worker, and thus the culture in Maryland and DC, is their JOB. In each election their deep concern is will they keep their job. I don't know the % of voters in the federal workforce, but I bet it's significantly higher than the average. They, if to believe my friend's neighbor, will cast their votes for the candidate who offers a better, or job retention program. These bureaucratic dependents are ideological voided. They have no philosophical anchors, but yet they know the size of the fedgov has greatly exceeded its lawful limit. You want them to vote the commie line? Not a problem. Vote for a Republican? Why not? I think the urban New England centers have pretty much adopted this same "believe-in-nothing but yourself" culture. My chatting friend says they have an ongoing fear what the rest of the country might do. Which is another way expressing a fear that "the people" may determine that "Washington" has been voting themselves a living for way too long. And worse, take action to change it.

But, when you give this perverted view of our system further thought you realize that this distortion is not really different from the corporate socialism that plagues the country at a higher decision making level. Politicians now have assumed the authority to reward financial contributors with contracts, appointments, etc. Even money. Whomever offers the greater expansion of "Washington" gets the funding.

So, don't be discouraged when you don't see much help coming from the national or state-level GOP. These ideological voided hacks want to continue the fire sale of America's institutions, jobs, sovereignty, and general welfare of American citizens.

We just have to work harder. It's Honor, Principle, Virtue, and an appreciation for the individual that's made America great. Not treason to those qualities. We should all remember that as Ron Paul supporters we reflect his views, and how and in what informed manner we do, will determine whether we as a people become "Washington's" nightmare come true.

Think about it. With more of the fedgov's assumed powers returned to the states and their people - - maybe having a state or local job's the place to be!!

I'm seeing the Hope become Reality. What about you?

How to setup a Quasi-Theocratic Dictatorship-Pat Robertson backs Giuliani

Not to be shocked or surprised that christian right evangelist Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani. I guess he had to abstain from making his selection until he saw which way the big money (Wall Street) was going. Oh, were you aware that "reverend" Robertson was given $14 million "faith-based" grant from the federal government? Yeah, baby, there's a lot more money to be made than just passing a plate once a week! It's good to get the counterfeit christian charlatans like Robertson out of the closet now. It'll line up the enemies of freedom even clearer in our sights for firing off our Truth Pellets.
Pat Robertson Backs Giuliani's Bid

Now, even better is this site Faith-based Watch, Media Transparency CBN (700 Club) raked in a whopping $462,563,151 in revenue for 2004! Take that in the face you Ron Paul Christians!



When you realize the significance of distributing over $19 million to selected religious organizations you can begin to construct the mosaic of control Robertson's subversive christianity has over local churches and their pastors. Bona fide Christians best look within their own places of worship. Start your own Know Your Church program!

Robertson was even invited to address the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on January 26, 1987. His subject matter? How the UN could be reformed!

Robertson has long craved national prominence. After losing his own bid for the presidency he threw his support to George-the-Elder.


So what's to know?

CHRISTIANS NEED TO BEWARE OF MIKE HUCKABEE

With Christian conservatives trying to scramble to find a Republican presidential candidate they can support, some of them seem to be coalescing around former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee. Janet Folger, especially, seems to be trumpeting his candidacy. But is Mike Huckabee someone Christian conservatives should be supporting? Not everyone thinks so. By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy

Pat sums up Rudy about as well as it can be said:

A Giuliani presidency would represent the return and final triumph of the Republicanism that conservatives went into politics to purge from power. A Giuliani presidency would represent repudiation by the party of the moral, social and cultural content that, with anti-communism, once separated it from liberal Democrats and defined it as an institution.

Rudy offers the right the ultimate Faustian bargain: retention of power at the price of one’s soul.

We could dissect Rudy's stance on issues and all that but it seems a trivial pursuit - he is the antithesis of conservative principles. There is no point in discussing him, no real conservative would or will support him.

BS Top Issue

There is some excessive language but I thought this was hilarious.

Compassionate Edwards

John Edwards, aspiring dictator-in-chief, is so compassionate he is going to create universal healthcare, housing vouchers, universal pre-K and college, universal this and that, and so forth.

If you are so compassionate, why don't you donate your own fortune to the poor and needy? But alas, he wants to demonstrate his compassion by forcing everyone else to pay for all of this crap. It's no wonder the middle class can't afford anything. After all, government at all levels steals about half of what your average person makes in taxes so it's no wonder that people can't afford healthcare and education as it is right now (I agree that the healthcare issue is a bit more complex than this but this is certainly a major contributor). Moreover, I am sure that many of these things will most likely become compulsory judging from the fact that he thinks everyone should go to the doctor at gunpoint. So not only does he want me to pay for everyone else's education and housing, he thinks that my children and myself are his own private property to teach, medicate, and store away as he pleases. My family and I are not your personal property, asshole.

By the way, I like the way he says there is "no free meal." What is this supposed to mean? If I work hard for my fraudulent federal reserve notes and you STEAL it from me to redistribute it to somebody else, are you saying that I am not entitled to complain because everyone else is equally being molested by the all intrusive state? Indeed, it seems as if there is "no free meal" insofar as keeping the fruits of ones own labor is concerned. And don't give me this nonsense about the good of society. If you want to talk about morality, let's begin the the ABCs. It is wrong to steal.

If you are so concerned about the good of society (whatever that actually means), why bother spending millions and millions of dollars running in an election when you could devote your time to help the poor with your own assets. He tries so hard to make it seem as if he is compassionate but he is really a thieving snake who just wants to exercise power and micromanage everyones life. So take your socialism and phony compassionate whateverism and SHOVE IT!

Mitt Romney - The People's Choice?

We are told by those that say they know that Romney has the most "grassroots" support among all GOP contenders (I guess that would make Ron Paul supporters Salt of the Earth or some such thing). What does he stand for, is it really a conservative agenda and is it the best course?

Let's look at his own agenda-


Affordable Health Care For All Americans

Sounds grand and noble - wait let me check my copy of The Federal Constitution. I do not see any reference to the Federal Government having any business concerning itself with affordable healthcare. The fact that Romney places this as his first point in his agenda is therefore troubling. His plan reads well, it talks about instilling conservative priciples of free market and deregulation but still - within the fine print - we see things like "and helping the low-income uninsured afford the private coverage of their choice."

Consider this:

Governor Romney will end subsidized care for "free riders" by redirecting these existing federal and state resources to help the low-income uninsured purchase their own private health insurance.

Wrong, wrong wrong - you o not redirect my tax dollars from "free care" to subsidized insurance and call it conservatism, free market or smaller government; you get the government out of the healthcare business all together.



A Pro-Growth Tax Agenda

This is of course the catch-all issue of all conservative rhetoric but unless you are really willing to slash spending tax cuts or reductions in marginal rates across the board will just not work - and as part of his agenda he specifically wants to reduce the corporate tax rate. If you are going to start cutting taxes you have to begin with the individual first. Tax cuts without deep spending cuts are not sustainable (see above, even his healthcare plan does not slash spending, it merely moves it around).


Defeating the Jihadist

Oh good grief - Jihad means a holy struggle or striving by a Muslim for a moral or spiritual or political goal - defeating all jihadist could take a very long time and could include bombing the fellow at the 7-11 that has resolved for his own personal jihad to not miss prayer, a student that has decided to veil herself even though she lives in the West and yes followers of Wahbi ideology that wish to restore the caliphate. I am amused at the choice of words for this point, because words are important. If you are going to lead us, you must understand the words you use (we have too many recent examples of a leader muddling important words).

It is hard for Americans to accept, because most have not read deeply enough, but we would never have been attacked in 2001 if our policies were different. Those Muslims that have decided to make their personal jihad that of restoring the caliphate picked the US as a target, the far enemy, because we support their near enemies. Their real goal is to re-order the nature of the governments in their own lands - they saw and see us as a significant supporter of those governments.

You may say "damn right" we don't want them taking over their governments over there - they will then attack us. Doubtful this would really play out - look at their success in running a government in Afghanistan. They took over a backwards and primitive country and after years of work they succeeded in moving it closer to the stone age. If, on the off chance, these radicals did succeed in taking power, reestablishing the caliphate, keeping power and building their new empire into a peer-competitor then perhaps we should be concerned. There are many "if's" in that scenario. It seems pretty foolish to declare war on a bunch of folks that probably could not succeed in all of that just based upon an assumption. If you are not convinced, read about how the wahbi movement started, how their strategy changed over time and their own reasons for attacking the US.

Romney offers us more interventionism, more conflict and more needless war - all based upon a failed understanding of the world.


Competing With Asia - he gets it right

We have to keep our markets open or we go the way of Russia and the Soviet Union, which is a collapse. And I recognize there are some people who will argue for protectionism because the short-term benefits sound pretty good, but long term you kill your economy, you kill the future. What you have to do in order to compete on a global basis long term is invest in education, invest in technology, reform our immigration laws to bring in more of the brains from around the world, eliminate the waste in our government. We have to use a lot less oil. These are the kinds of features you have to invest in, you have to change in order to make ourselves competitive long term.

Stopping Runaway Spending

I don't want to add entitlements. I want to find ways to reform our entitlement programs.

Again, Romney is consulting the old playbook of rhetoric, not The Constitution. You don't reform entitlements, you eliminate them.

Getting Immigration Right

We need to make America more attractive for legal immigrants -- for citizens -- and less attractive for illegal immigrants. I want to see more immigration in our country, but more legal immigration and less illegal immigration.

"I want to see more immigration in our country" - this is not the 1800's with the entire west to settle. Our culture has absorbed too much for now, we need time to acculturate the people that have already come over and have yet to act, think, speak or believe like Americans. We certainly do not need more immigration, a controlled flow of qualified legal immigrants will do just fine thank you. He sounds to me like he is talking to all sides on this issue, he does not address those that are in our country as criminals right now and how he would act to expel them.


Achieving Energy Independence - I do not see anything objectionable here

We're using too much oil," Romney said. "We have an answer. We can use alternative sources of energy -- biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear power -- and we can drill for more oil here. We can be more energy independent and we can be far more efficient in the use of that energy.

America's Culture and Values - I like his nod to States' Rights

I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

Raising the Education Bar

He talks about the importance of education - I agree - and the importance of powering down to schools and communities but he does not mention eliminating the un-Constitutional Department of Education. If you can't get it right by The Constitution your plan is not conservative.


Lastly, it cannot be overlooked that Romney is a Mormon. Mormonism is not Christianity - it is a cult, read their books. This may be alright for Bob Jones and other evangelicals - after all they routinely support men that profess Christianity but obviously do not live it. It is not ok for me. Every Mormon I have ever known has been a decent person, but they follow a false God and that is simply a fact in my mind. If you are really a Christian and a member of The People - Romney cannot be your choice any more than Hillary or Obama can be.

Ron Paul: A New Hope

I am a man that has seen the ugliest face of mankind, I have fought, killed, and seen killing all in the name of "making the world better" - yet I have not seen my service or that of my brothers make anything any better. We have all experienced the growing tyranny of a government filled with hubris and callousness. Who will put an end to this? Who will stand on principles?