Tag Archives: 2012 election

Who Will Decide The Next President – Part Three

As I have mentioned throughout this series, far too many people will simply vote they way their favorite talking head on their favorite news program tell them to. Little to no research will be done, and most will not even know where the various candidates stand on the issues. And as I have said, this is a travesty. But the question that begs to be asked in relation to this is “why do people vote the way the media tells them to vote?” While there are multiple answers to this, such as people are lazy, people don’t want to be bothered with the whole election nonsense, people don’t understand the issues or the process and trust the media to inform them, as well as many others. There is one answer, however, that does bear some thought, and may very well change the way you think about the media. That answer is “Coercive Persuasion.”

Coercive Persuasion (also known as Thought Control, Thought Reform, or Thought Manipulation) is something we all practice on a daily basis. Every parent, when raising a child, engages in this practice. “Don’t talk to strangers, they could be bad people and hurt you” continually drummed into a child’s head will result in that child viewing strangers with a certain degree of mistrust. This would be a good form of thought manipulation as it instills in the child a way to remain safe. Of course on the other side of the coin, there are bad people in the world who will engage in their own form of though control and counter the parents teaching with, “Not all strangers are bad, some of them are good – would you like to have a piece of candy or see a puppy I have?” These bad strangers will generally strive to build up a friendship with the child until they can gain the child’s trust and once that goal has been achieved; they will proceed with their original plan and harm the child.

Law enforcement and the military utilize coercive persuasion techniques in their training of new recruits, in order to change their thinking patterns to be more in line with their new found jobs of protecting and serving the population of America. There are not many people who will voluntarily place themselves in harm’s way, even to the point of being willing to take a bullet, for a complete stranger. And yet, through their training, this is just what police and soldiers do on a daily basis. Coercive persuasion is also used throughout their careers in order to reinforce the officer’s or soldier’s responsibility to serve and remain loyal even in the face of overwhelming odds.

Corporations and companies also engage in coercive persuasion. “Buy Now! Before they’re all gone!” “Go ahead and get it now!” “Buy this for better health, a sexier body, improved performance, and be the envy of your neighbors!” “Buy your lottery ticket to today for a chance to WIN 10 MILLION DOLLARS!” And my all time favorites: “I’m a raccoon in your attic / a torrential rain storm / a deer on your headlights / etc., buy now and be protected from mayhem like me!” These are all coercive persuasion marketing techniques.

Coercive persuasion is not brain washing. I should point that out here. What you see in Hollywood, “The Manchurian Candidate,” etc., is nothing more than myth. Although it can be done, most people cannot be forced to do something they normally would not do. At least not unless the person had those proclivities to begin with. Coercive Persuasion techniques strive to simply change a person’s perception about things, and thus change the way they think. Fortunately, most people are immune from them, but there are some who simply cannot resist them (hence the popularity and success of the home shopping network), and this is the audience for whom these ads are created. I am very confident that once you realize this is being done, you will be able to point out a plethora of examples that I have not mentioned here.

Coercive persuasion seeks to alter or change the thought processes of an individual or group of individuals, who in turn will not only accept that change, but will go on to promote it as well. This not the same as a convincing debate or discussion which may or may not sway a person’s opinions. Coercive persuasion seeks to change a person’s thinking, their thought patterns to the point where they will believe something they may not otherwise believe. (Note I said believe and not do. Although an extensive conversation could be based on that statement alone, now is not the time, and here is not place.).

Dr. Tim Groseclose, the Marvin Hoffenberg Professor of American Politics at UCLA, who is an authority on the subject, has completed a study on how the media uses these techniques to influence and persuade their viewers to behave in a certain way in the voting booth. Dr. Groseclose’s conclusions have led him to say that if people did not watch the news, and simply focused on the issues and the various candidates stand on those issues, the vast majority of America would vote conservative. An interesting conclusion that really stresses the use and impact of coercive persuasion.

As I sat by the fire quietly contemplating the effects of coercive persuasion on individuals (not really, but it makes a great segue way), I began to wonder about the MSM’s treatment of Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. Romney is generally not vilified in the MSM. Yes, they will throw a barb here and a jab there, question his policies, etc., but generally speaking they refer to him as the darling of the conservatives, the object of tea party affection (and we all know how crazy the tea partiers are, right? At least according to the MSM).

Now I will concede that the left has attacked Romney, but they attack his policies and his stand on certain issues. But with Rick Perry it is totally different. The MSM hates him, and vilifies him every chance they get. “He’s crazy! He’s a clown! He’s just Texas BS! He’s all hat and no cattle!” Chris “Tingles” Matthews has even found time in his busy schedule full of “Obama Fantasizing” to really blast Perry. Why? Why the “pull out all the stops” vilification of Rick Perry? I have to wonder if this is some form of reverse psychology. Does the left realize that the harder they pound on Perry, the more likely the right is to vote for him? And if so, then why continue? Do they really want Perry on the ticket and again, if so, then why? Does the MSM secretly believe that Obama has little or no chance in 2012, and they want someone such as Perry (whose record in Texas is not much different than Obama’s is as President, at least with regard to jobs, the economy and islam). Is this a form of coercive persuasion that is being engaged in by the MSM?

That this is practiced by the MSM, through its constant and unrelenting vilification of the Tea Party movement, should be obvious. It is not enough to say that they disagree with the movement and its supporters, nor is it even enough to rationally explain why they disagree with the movement. No, the MSM & liberal elite engage in a continual barrage of invective filled rants against the Tea Party movement. “They’re crazy! They’re holding America hostage! Their ideas have been disproven by respected experts! They’re terrorists! They’re cannibals!” and so on, and so on, ad infinitum ad nauseum. Why?

Very few conservatives (if any) are glued to MSNBC, and other MSM outlets (unless it is to laugh uncontrollably at Al Sharpton as he pretends to be intelligent). The MSM’s primary audience is overwhelmingly liberal, and makes up the supportive constituency of the liberal elite politicians. So why are these liberal memes striving so hard to erect an unbreachable wall between the liberal citizenry and the Tea Party?

To me, the answer can only be that the MSM and liberal elite recognize that the Tea Party represents a real danger to maintaining their liberal base of support. In other words, if their liberal base of support ever sat down and listened, with an open and unbiased mind to the Tea Party platform, then they too would likely realize that the MSM and liberal elite are, for lack of a better phrase, full of sheep dip, and the resulting exodus from that failed movement would cripple the liberal socialist empire for a seriously long time.

Engaging in this intense and unrelenting attack on the Tea Party, the MSM and liberal elite strive to strengthen the liberal support base. As I said, the primary audience of the MSM are liberals. There are some in that audience, however, who are not liberal, and who are either completely undecided, or partially undecided (undecided with either slightly left or slightly right leanings). It is the hope of the MSM and liberal elite who appear on the MSM programs, to coercively persuade those individuals into the liberal support platform. This is clearly in line with Dr. Groseclose’s conclusions.

Clearly then, the MSM and the liberal elite are waging an unrelenting war against common sense, truth, justice, and conservative Americans. The reward, the “spoils of war” that they are hoping to gain is the hearts and minds of those who have yet to decide with side of the fence they are on, as well as strengthening and ensuring the loyalty of liberals throughout the land. The result of this “war” will be, I fear, a country divided as it has not been divided since 1861.

As I have encouraged before, I continue to encourage Americans everywhere to not be swayed by the talking heads that appear on our television sets. I encourage Americans everywhere to study and research the issues and the candidates thoroughly before November 2012, and make an informed decision, one in support of America, and not in support of any agenda covertly promoted by any individual or group.

I believe that our country is at war, and the war I am talking about is not being waged outside of our borders. It is being waged right here at home, and there is not just one “Tokyo Rose” or “Axis Sally” spewing propaganda at us, there is an entire army of them, and at 6:00 pm each evening (to quote Carol Ann in the film Poltergeist), “They’re Baaack!”

Source

Source

Source

Source 

Source

Source 

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 election, Politics

A Fifth Column Move?

Recently, one Abdul Hassan has petitioned the Federal Election Commission to give an opinion as to whether or not he can legitimately run for President of the United States. Hassan is asking because although he is an American citizen, he was not born in this country. He was born in Guyana in 1974, thus, he is not a “natural born citizen” as required by the United States Constitution.

Hassan's Petition pg1 - Click to Enlarge

Hassan's Petition pg2 - Click to Enlarge

What is interesting about this situation is that not only is the Federal Election Commission not authorized to make this sort of determination (they are authorized to monitor campaign finances, and investigate and prosecute should any violation of campaign finance laws occur), but even more interesting is that if the FEC does agree that Hassan can run for President, a dangerous, a very dangerous precedent will be set.

Not that I think for even a second that Hassan could ever win the White House, nor do I believe his candidacy is even about becoming President. I believe that the single and solitary reason this situation exists is to see if the Supreme Court and Congress will step in and overrule any opinions the FEC gives in support of Hassan.

If the FEC does give an opinion in support of Hassan’s candidacy, and if it goes unchallenged, then the “natural born citizen” requirement as stated in the U.S. Constitution is null and void. If Hassan does run (which I am sure he will if he receives the FEC’s support), then although he will lose the election, I am certain that his campaign will be closely monitored as well as the reaction of the American people to ascertain whether or not it would be possible to elect a foreign born citizen to the White House.

Is this something as innocent as a patriotic foreign born citizen desiring to serve his country? It is possible. I am sure there are many in this country who fit that description, as evidenced by those serving in our armed forces. However, this could also be a “testing of the waters” so to speak, by a fifth column movement within our country. Specifically, an islamic fifth column.

Now maybe I have read too many Brad Thor and Vince Flynn novels (but I do love reading them!), and maybe I am falling into a conspiracy theory hole. Anything is possible here. That being said, however, I am nonetheless suspicious of this unknown foreign born citizen popping up out of the woodwork and declaring his candidacy. What makes me even more suspicious is that I cannot seem to find anything about him other than his petition to the FEC and his presidential candidacy website. I cannot seem to even find a photograph of the man, not even on his website, and that alone seems strange to me.

All in all, I believe this situation calls for extreme scrutiny.

Source

Source

Source

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 election, Politics, Uncategorized

Jon Huntsman

This brings us to our last candidate, even as non-viable as he may be. No, I do not believe that Huntsman could ever become president, unless of course aliens landed and abducted every other candidate on the eve of the primary. And even then it is doubtful. This being said, though, here we go with a review of Jon Huntsman.

Jon Huntsman

On the subject of Afghanistan, Huntsman believes that American should just cut its losses and pull out now. No hesitation, no delay. He has said that without a winning strategy, we are doing nothing more than wasting our time, our money and our resources. Although he is correct in saying that the Afghanis are a incendiary tribal people, and that they always will be, I have to wonder if we should not develop a different strategy, one that will deter terrorists in that region from attacking America ever again. A plan which Huntsman does concede to be possible.

Huntsman’s view on the economy and the budget seems to be very straight forward and very austere. He believes the budget should be balanced, and that America should not spend more than it has. Create a budget that enables us to live within our means and stick to it. Creating that budget, however, will require some deep cuts according to Huntsman. He insists there should be no “sacred cows” when it comes to cutting program spending, and believes this should include cutting military spending, Social Security spending and entitlement spending.

I always find it interesting when listening to politicians talk about cutting from Social Security (which they will never have to rely on) or entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and others (which they will never have to rely on). It seems they are always willing to cut just about anywhere that will not directly, if ever, affect them. They always seem willing to cut from everyone but themselves. Where are the cuts to congressional or presidential pay, or benefits, or healthcare? Not that these cuts would be significant enough to balance the budget and reign in spending, but it would go a long way toward making this bitter pill a bit easier to swallow for the rest of America.

Huntsman relies a lot on idealistic sentiments that tug on the patriotic heartstrings of his listeners, but do not offer any real concrete ideas that will benefit America. He says What we now need is leadership that trusts in our strength. Leadership that doesn’t promise Washington has all of the solutions to our problems, but rather looks to local solutions from our cities, towns and states. Leadership that knows we need more than hope; leadership that knows we need answers.

“We must make hard decisions that are necessary to avert disaster… If we don’t, in less than a decade, every dollar of federal revenue will go to covering the costs of Medicare, Social Security and interest payments on our debt. Meanwhile, we’ll sink deeper into debt for everything else – from national security to disaster relief.

“Our country will fall behind the productivity of other countries. Our influence in the world will wane. Our security will grow ever more precarious. And the 21st century will then be known as the end of the American Century. We can’t accept this, and we won’t.

“But here is the challenge. We must proceed at a time of weak economic growth and very high unemployment. We desperately need jobs and the opportunities they carry. So, we must play to our strengths, and give the most innovative society on Earth the tools they need to succeed.

“We must make broad and bold changes to our tax code and regulatory policies, seize the lost opportunity of energy independence and reestablish what it means to be a teacher in society.

“We must reignite the powerful job-creating engine of our economy — the industry, innovation, reliability and trail-blazing genius of Americans and their enterprises — and restore confidence in our people.”

This sounds so good I almost want to grab a set of Pom-Poms and start cheering. Unfortunately, Huntsman doesn’t really say anything definitive here. “We need, we should, we must,” yes, that’s all true and we all understand this but what are you going to do Mr. Huntsman to accomplish these goals?

Huntsman is equally vague on the Second Amendment. When asked where he stood on the Second Amendment. Huntsman made a joke about it saying, “With a name like Huntsman, do you think I have a choice?” Wouldn’t it have been easier to say “I support the Second Amendment” or “I don’t support the Second Amendment” rather than being vague and making a joke that doesn’t really answer the question? Personally, I would prefer a candidate who is more direct, says what he means, and means what he says.
His legislation in the subject does not really reveal his stance either. As governor, he did endorse and sign legislation that allowed individuals to transport and store firearms in privately owned, locked motor vehicles. Is this not already allowed? If not, then how do hunters get from their home to their hunt locations with a firearm? It seems like meaningless legislation to me. He also endorsed and signed a bill which allows and individual to have a concealed firearm in their own residence, on their own property, or in their own place of business without a concealed carry permit. Again, this sounds good, but why wouldn’t a homeowner be allowed to have a gun, concealed, while in his or her own home? It seems to me that this is a piece of fluff legislation designed to make people feel good about Huntsman (when he signed it), rather than provide them with any real benefit. I say this because I am willing to lay odds that prior to this legislation, there were a good many homes in Utah with guns, and a good number of those homeowners would and did conceal those guns when they deemed it necessary.

Additionally, I am not even sure that Huntsman himself truly believes he has what it takes to become President. Especially after he expressed a willingness to take the number two spot of Vice-President if Michele Bachman were to win the White House. This alone makes me question his self-assuredness. His stand on other issues serves to cement it.

Source

Source

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 election, Politics

Newt Gingrich

Well, we’re down to the last two republican candidates that I had planned to review, Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman. Although I must admit, I am not sure why I am even reviewing these last two, because I do not believe they stand a snowballs chance at even making the primaries, and I am positive that neither will win the presidency. In fact, I think even Huntsman believes this, as he has already said that he would be interested in accepting the vice-presidency under Michele Bachman. Of course he very quickly pointed out that he is confident that he will be the next president, but, oops! You let the cat out of the bag there Jon! And you know what they say, “it’s a whole easier letting the cat out of the bag, then it is putting it back in!” So with that in mind, let’s start with Newt Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich

Gingrich has stated that he is completely against abortion, and supports a federal ban on abortions. He later went on to say that he was not sure how a federal ban could be implemented. He supports parental notification before minors can have abortions, and he would like to see Planned Parenthood defunded.

I am not sure what Gingrich’s plans on Afghanistan are, as he has refused to comment, however, he did point out that Obama was wrong to not explain to the American people just how we were going to win the war in Afghanistan, and then later commented that not one general had recommended the speed of the troop drawdown. In light of any form of constructive commentary by Mr. Gingrich, I can only assume he really has no idea what to do with Afghanistan.

Gingrich’s opinion on Pakistan is a different story altogether though. He has, on more than one occasion, condemned Pakistan for their retaliation against those who informed us as to bin Laden’s whereabouts, and stressed that we should have retaliated against Pakistan. He questions why, after receiving more than $20 billion in aid from America since 9/11, we are still allies with them after they hid bin Laden.

His view on the budget is similar to many conservatives, in that he believes America should quit spending beyond its means, the budget should be balanced, and lowering the deficit by cutting spending through the reduction of the federal government. The result of this would be a smaller federal government, (presumably) lower taxes, a quicker paying off of our debt, and less government intrusion into our lives. This is something that sounds good on the surface; however, as Gingrich did not indicate where in government he would cut spending, there is too much left open to speculation.

Gingrich has claimed that if elected, he would be able to successfully balance the budget within five years. As evidence for this, he points out that he was part of the team that produced four surplus budgets between 1998 and 2001, all while paying off $405 billion of federal debt. What Mr. Gingrich does not seem to realize, is that the debt is significantly higher than it was between 1998 and 2001, and is projected to grow even larger, and what he helped do back then, he may not be able to do now. Nor is there any indication that he was a driving force within the team he speaks of. He may very well have been a “seat filler” rather than a productive member of that team.

Newt Gingrich’s view on China seems almost fairy tale like in its naiveté. He believes America should open relations and trade not with the Chinese government, but only with the Chinese people, in order to facilitate friendly relations with China. To further this goal, Gingrich says we should encourage tourism and student exchanges. He goes on to say that while we should be respectful of the Chinese government, we should encourage the Chinese people to demand their God given rights. Of course, common sense will tell you that to ignore the Chinese government, and deal only with the Chinese people is pointless, since the Chinese government regulates Chinese business, as well as all other aspects of Chinese life; and encouraging the Chinese people to demand their “God given rights” is akin to encouraging them to revolt against their government. A revolt that is sure to be mercilessly and brutally put down by the Chinese government. If Gingrich is fantasizing about a war with China, this would be one way to encourage it. A war, I fear, we could not win.

Gingrich has indicated a five-point plan that he would implement upon becoming president. First, he would eliminate the National Labor Relations Board. I am not sure what end he would accomplish with this, however, I would think that a revamp of the Board and its mission would better suit the American people. Second he would replace the Environmental Protection Agency. He does not say what he would replace the EPA with, and this leads me to believe he is merely throwing out his slaying of the EPA-Dragon in the hope that it will gain him votes. Third, Gingrich would repeal Obamacare. As many believe Obamacare is unconstitutional (myself included), I would take this as a given. Fourth, he would cut regulations on financial institutions. This could be good, or it could backfire. The days of the small town, home town bank are long gone. Most (if not all) financial institutions are owned by large, often multinational corporations. Cutting all regulations could very well encourage these institutions to play looser and freer with their depositors money than they currently are. And we all know where that could lead. Fifth, Gingrich would employ a fiscal policy based on Reaganomics. As Reaganomics worked in the past, and worked well, this would be good for the American people. Sixth (yes, his five point plan has more than five points),  Gingrich would implement a one-year tax moratorium coupled with the elimination of the capital gains tax and a lowering of the corporate tax rate to 12.5%. Again, as with his Reaganomics based fiscal policy, cutting taxes virtually always stimulates the economy and results in jobs creation. Seventh (and last), Gingrich would limit unemployment benefits to a maximum of four weeks. Assuming that Gingrich would wait until he had created enough well paying jobs to employ all employable American citizens before implementing this, it would encourage people to become and remain gainfully employed. However, if he implemented while the country is still in the midst of a jobs-poor recession/depression, the result would be disastrous.

Gingrich’s views on education tend to lean a bit toward unreality. He believes high schools are obsolete. Exactly what he means by this I am not sure, as I have seen some very good public high schools, that stress academics and preparing young people for life after school.

He believes that schools and teachers should compete to improve education. However, it is not the schools and the teachers who have the final say in this matter, and it tends to lay with the school boards, and other local resident controlled administrative bodies. He thinks schools should focus on patriotic education rather than multiculturalism, and says he would bring back school prayer with a Constitutional amendment. This in itself, however, would be a violation of the first amendment. To do away with that amendment could easily set a precedent that could lead to the abolishment of other rights as well.

Most interestingly, Newt Gingrich believes that high school girls who graduate as virgins should be rewarded. In what way they would be rewarded is unclear, nor is it clear just how they would be tested to see of their virginity is still intact. The very thought of this brings up the issue of the Egyptian military checking the virginity of Egyptian females. Gingrich also does not include exclusions for those girls who are the victims of rape, and therefore promotes the assumption that they would not be rewarded. This particular plan of Gingrich’s seems eerily akin to certain practices of islam.

Gingrich is also somewhat wishy-washy with regard to our involvements in Iraq. Although he believes that setting a deadline for troop withdrawal would indicate defeat and encourage terrorists and terrorist acts in America, and severely undermine national security (which leads me to believe he is for extending the war indefinitely), he also states that the Iraqi’s should fight their own wars, and if they really want to be free, they will do so without us (which leads me to believe he would withdrawal all troops immediately). These two views are in direct contradiction to one another, and shows that Gingrich is merely trying to appeal to everyone, when in fact, his wishy-washy stands indicate that he is not presidential material.

Gingrich has also indicated that he would not allow North Korea to have nuclear weapons, would stop all North Korean missile launches (by force), and would not rule out war with North Korea. Should Gingrich by some strange twist of fate become President, and begin a war with North Korea, he should recognize that not one of our allies would stand with us, as I am sure they still remember the Korean war, when China (and Russia to a lesser degree) backed North Korea. And they still would today should we go to war with North Korea. War with North Korea would not be a world war, it would be a war between America and every communist country in the world, and rest assured that in the event of such a war radical islam would take advantage of our increased weakness to strengthen their attacks on America as well.

As with many of Gingrich’s ideas, his ideas on poverty are also not in line with many in America today, and would bring back institutions that were in place almost 100 years ago. Gingrich would like to see orphanages and homes for unwed mothers brought back from obscurity and into mainstream America. He would deny welfare for minor mothers, and would increase the opportunities of the poor by teaching values and emphasizing family, education and work to all children.

Needless to say, Newt Gingrich is about as far away from any semblance of America that either I or anyone I have ever known has experienced. I have tried to be unbiased in this review, but Gingrich’s stands on many of the issues are so far out there so as not to appeal to anyone, I am left wondering “why is this man still around? Why hasn’t he been placed in a home yet?” Thankfully, he will never be president.

Source

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 election, Politics

Ron Paul

Today’s review is going to be on Ron Paul, easily one of the most controversial of the 2012 Republican candidates. I say controversial because it seems as if there are only two schools of thought concerning Ron Paul – you either love him or you hate him.

Ron Paul

Paul’s positions on several issues are right out of the conservative handbook, and he fiercely defends those positions. If nothing else, Ron Paul cannot be called wishy-washy.  He Pro-Life and believes that “beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society.” He is also in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood.

That being said, however, Paul is a supporter of embryonic stem cell research, which is anathema to most conservatives, and seemingly in direct contradiction to his stance that “a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection.” I am not sure how one can protect an embryo, while at the same time using it for medical research. Perhaps I’m missing something.

Ron Paul has what I believe to be a semi-accurate, although somewhat naïve view of our role in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other areas of the Middle East. He has stated that if he were president he would order the immediate withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan, regardless of what any military experts or flag officers may say or think. While he is absolutely correct (in my opinion) that our mission in Afghanistan has evolved from apprehending bin Laden and his lackeys to installing a government of our choosing and rebuilding their political system (presumably to create a viable military ally). The problem with this “mission” in Afghanistan is that they will never be a viable ally – but that subject is better left for another article. Suffice to say, Ron Paul is a strict, uncompromising non-interventionist (note, this is not the same as an isolationist and should not be confused as such).

Paul’s stand on the budget is very straightforward and direct. He believes that the United States should live within its means and pay down the deficit, just like every American should. He says that we have come to accept being in debt as the norm, and that we do so to our own detriment. Paul goes on to say that of the government continues to deny the true depth of the recession, then the recession will only get worse.

Ron Paul is against bailing out private corporations and is also against government seeking to control or becoming majority stockholders in any private corporations.

In addition to being a strict non-interventionist with regard to foreign policy, Paul is also a staunch non-interventionist with regard to the federal government’s role with regard to civil liberties. Paul is a literal adherent to the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. For those not overly familiar with these amendments, they read:

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (9th) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (10th)”

Ron Paul’s literal adherence to these amendments dictates his stand on the many civil liberties American’s now enjoy, and often to the point of invalidating or limiting what the Declaration of Independence calls “inalienable rights,” those being “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Paul believes that government should not interfere with the gay and lesbian agenda, i.e. same sex marriages. Paul believes the federal government should not create laws prohibiting illegal drugs including cocaine, heroin, marijuana, methamphetamine and others, and he also believes the federal government should not enact legislation prohibiting prostitution. This is not to say that he condones these things, but that the government, the federal government has no right to limit or prohibit these things because the Constitution does not specifically prohibit these things. Paul believes that the legality or prohibition of these things should be left up to the individual states, and only the individual states have the right to legalize or prohibit them. I personally believe that this stand, while seemingly supported by the ninth and tenth amendments, has the very real potential to open a Pandora’s box of problems (many of them exceedingly expensive), that I do not believe Ron Paul can truly conceive of.

Paul has gone on to say the federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to enact or enforce affirmative action laws, hate speech, abortion or pro-life rights, as well as other rights Americans currently enjoy that various states have indicated they would remove were it not for the federal government preventing them from doing so. In essence, Paul naively believes that the severe limitation of the federal government in our lives with promote liberty, which in turn will promote peace, which will in turn promote prosperity. As tempting as this utopian dream seems, Paul fails to take into account those within our society, many of whom are in state government, who will take advantage of this to promote their own selfish agendas to the detriment of the very people Paul is purporting to protect.

On the other hand, Paul is also a staunch advocate of the second amendment, and has gone on record as wanting to repeal “unconstitutional laws that allow power-hungry federal bureaucrats to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Specifically, … the five-day waiting period and the “instant” background check, which enables the federal government to compile a database of every gun owner in America.”  Paul goes on to call for the repeal of “the misnamed ban on “semi-automatic” weapons, which bans entire class of firearms for no conceivable reason beside the desire of demagogic politicians to appear tough on crime.” Paul also calls for the amending of the Gun Control Act of 1968 by “deleting the “sporting purposes” test, which allows the Treasury Secretary to infringe on second amendment rights by classifying a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun) as a “destructive device” simply because the Secretary believes the gun to be ‘non-sporting’.”

Paul opposes any attempts made by the government to “disarm the citizenry,” and has very correctly said (as evidenced by the increasing mob violence sweeping across America) “In our own country, we should be ever vigilant against any attempts to disarm the people, especially in this economic downturn. I expect violent crime to rise sharply in the coming days, and as states and municipalities are even more financially strained, the police will be even less able or willing to respond to crime. In many areas, local police could become more and more absorbed with revenue generating activities, like minor traffic violations and the asset forfeiture opportunities of non-violent drug offenses. Your safety has always, ultimately been your own responsibility, but never more so than now. People have a natural right to defend themselves. Governments that take that away from their people should be highly suspect.”

As a result of Ron Paul’s literal and unwavering interpretation of the Constitution, he has also gone on record as advocating for the partial, and in some cases complete, disbanding and abolishment of the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the CIA, the EPA, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, FEMA, and the IRS.

Paul also advocates the abolishment of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, calling them “unconstitutional.” He has called for an end to the federal war on drugs, as well as federal prosecutions of obscenity crimes (presumably including child pornography and other pedophilic acts), an end to most foreign aid (including to Israel), the Patriot Act, and “No Child Left Behind.” He also wants America to pull out of the United Nations, NATO, the International Criminal Court, and most international trade agreements.

Paul’s insistence on a literal interpretation of the ninth and tenth amendments, and the resulting relinquishment of responsibility to the states, would allow for the possibility of state extremism on an unprecedented scale. States would be able to prohibit gay marriage, prayer in school, and abortion. States could also allow sharia law to be instituted in state run courts regardless of the wishes of the people of that state. States could also allow crack houses, meth labs, marijuana farms and houses of prostitution and the states could allow them next door to churches, synagogues, mosques, and schools as well.

Ron Paul’s “Taft Republican” policy of strict non-interventionism has also led him to say that he would not have allowed the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, and that rather than ordering the raid, he would have asked Pakistan for their permission to arrest him instead.

In my opinion, although some of Ron Paul’s policies are very enticing, and admittedly I agree and support some of his views, his vision of a severely limited federal government would serve only to endanger America and American’s. Dr. Paul, it is not that we need no government, it’s that we need a better government.

Source

Source

Source

Source

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 election, Politics

Sarah Michele Palin-Bachmann

Today I will be reviewing Sarah Palin. No, I mean Michele Bachman. No, I mean… well, this is difficult because they are so much alike. So much so I have often wondered if they are related in some way – like twins separated at birth or something. Or maybe they’re clones. I mean really, not only do they look alike, but both are pro-life, pro-second amendment, both are advocating balancing the budget – cutting taxes – cutting spending, winning in Afghanistan or leaving with dignity, all typical conservative talking points. Yep, they’re clones – both in thought and looks

Sarah Michele Palin-Bachman

Of course I’m just joking. So put please put away your pitchforks and torches (and umbrellas). Although Palin and Bachman are similar, they do vary a bit on some of the issues. On some Palin is better and on some Bachman is better. And I will say that I do like both Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman and I respect them both very much. I think they are both strong women, and both are very good leaders. I do not, however, think they are presidential material. They may have good records, politically speaking, even excellent records on some issues, but I don’t happen to think they have what it takes to be president, especially after the mess Obama and the liberals have made of America. I think the next president is going to be thrown into the deep end of the pool so to speak, and he or she will either sink or swim. It will take an exceptional individual to be able to keep his or head above water, while repairing the liberal destruction wrought upon our country.

This all said, however, I do believe both Bachman and Palin have important roles to play in this election. Again, that being said, and with all due respect, I do not want Sarah Palin to even run. I think she is currently doing the most important thing she can, and that is support for conservatives, promoting the conservative philosophy, and continually educating the American people by pointing out the lies and fallacies being presented by democrats and liberals (yes, I realize they are the same thing). There is no one better suited to be travelling around America and doing these this. The American people love her (the real Americans, not the liberal memes), and rightly so as she is down to earth, intelligent, and unafraid to speak out on the issues Americans believe in. I believe that because she is doing this, she is providing an invaluable service to the conservative candidates, conservatives across America, and the conservative cause in general.

Michele Bachman is already running, and that’s okay, I sincerely hope she sticks to her guns. But in spite of where she is in the polls, I do not think she will win the nomination, much less the election. Sad, but true. I really don’t believe either Bachman or Palin could win. However, like Palin, Michele Bachman is providing an invaluable service as well by keeping the libocrats (better term?) on their toes and not allowing them to get away with the nonsensical manure they are spreading across America. Bachman is there in the polls, she is there in the debates, she is there in their face, and I like that – a lot. She doesn’t back down even in spite of the liberal media’s unwarranted and demeaning attacks on her, as they appear to make her stronger and more determined to stand her ground. Remarkable. Most people, male and female, would not be able to do so.

I truly believe if it were not for the efforts of Michele Bachman and Sarah Palin, Obama would actually stand a chance at a second term, or at the very least be replaced by a clone, whether libocrat or RINO. I hope Bachman does not give up and I hope she stays in the race for the duration. I hope Palin does not announce her candidacy, and that she continues doing what she is doing now.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 election, Politics

Rick Perry

As many conservatives had hoped, Rick Perry finally threw his hat in the presidential ring and announced his candidacy. On the surface, Perry seems to be every conservatives dream candidate. He is staunchly Pro-Life and he has advocated for the federal defunding of planned parenthood. He has called Roe v. Wade a “tragedy” and is an advocate for both parental consent and adoption as a viable alternative to abortion.

Rick Perry

Perry’s stand on gun control is the dream of gun owners everywhere. He is a strong proponent of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms and is staunchly opposed to any form of gun control. He has said that he believes that rather than imposing gun control, the emphasis should be on educating people about firearms and firearm legislation.

Economically speaking, there are many who believe that Rick Perry is the financial savior of America. His state is doing better than many, if not most other states. In just one year, Texas has seen the creation of over 265,000 jobs, more than any other state in the union. A marked difference from the Obama administration who has promised but failed on its commitment to put America back to work. This, coupled with huge incentives designed to lure companies to invest in Texas, a cap on consumer mortgage loans (something Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should have had) and the resulting effect of sparing Texas from the worst of the housing crash, all serve to paint a gleaming hopeful picture of Rick Perry.

Unfortunately, statistics can be made to say just about anything, and a little research can reveal quite a bit. Although Texas has managed to create so many jobs, it also has the highest percentage of minimum wage workers nationwide (despite record oil prices). Texas has also recorded significant job losses, and as of June 2011 had an unemployment rate of 8.2%, with 25 states having lower unemployment rates than Texas; and most strikingly (at least to me) is the fact that Texas is now facing a $27 billion budget deficit, the fourth largest in the nation.

Perry has gone on record as saying that a return to Biblical principles will restore America’s economy to its past glory. Perhaps he should have applied those principles to his own state, as the facts clearly show that he has yet to be able to restore Texas’ economy, and if he cannot restore the Texan economy then how can he hope to restore America’s?

There are other issues surrounding Perry which demand clear answers – answers that he has yet to provide. Case in point is his 2007 executive order which mandated that all girls in Texas, as young as 11 and 12 years old, be vaccinated with the drug Gardasil, to protect them against cervical cancer, and thereby removing parents from the decision. Although he advocates parental consent for contraception, he did not for HPV vaccinations. Within hours, however, of announcing his presidential candidacy, Perry recanted his 2007 order saying “[T]he fact of the matter is, I didn’t do my research well enough to understand that we needed to have a substantial conversation with our citizenry.” Almost four years after making this “mistake,” Perry suddenly realized he had made one? This begs the question “How many mistakes will he make as President, only to realize them years down the road when the damage is already done, and cannot be undone?”

Perry’s stand on immigration has also drawn loud praise from conservatives across the nation. Perry is currently supporting a bill that will allow Texas police officers to question those who are detained about their legal status. Similar bills have popped up across America, and all are drawing intense criticism from immigration proponents. As encouraging as Perry’s support for this bill sounds, it is markedly different from a 2001 Border Summit speech in which he said President Fox’s vision for an open border is a vision I embrace, as long as we demonstrate the will to address the obstacles to it. An open border means poverty has given way to opportunity, and Mexico’s citizens do not feel compelled to cross the border to find that opportunity. It means we have addressed pollution concerns, made substantial progress in stopping the spread of disease, and rid our crossings of illicit drug smuggling activity.” From an open border with Mexico to a closed border policy is a flip-flop that cannot be ignored. I have to wonder if Perry wins the Republican nomination and the 2012 election, if he will flip-flop on other serious issues such as this.

Perry’s stand on Afghanistan is perhaps an even stronger indication of a different set of values running just below the surface. Perry’s policies on Afghanistan are, well, unknown. He has kept his views silent and has not made any solid comment about the conflict, or his opinion on it. In fact, after a farming delegation from Afghanistan visited Texas in May 2011, and after meeting with Perry, he has been even more silent on the subject.

Perhaps this silence can best be understood in light of Perry’s strong ties to the islamic community. Not only is Rick Perry close to the islamic community, not only has he initiated a teacher training program on islamic history, but he counts as one of his long time friends and admirers the Imam of the Ismaili Shiite muslims, Prince Karim Aga Khan, the Aga Khan IV.

If you are not familiar with the Aga Khan, allow me to introduce you to some of his work. The Aga Khan is the founder of the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development, which  is also part-owner of the Pakistan-based Bank al-Habib, which has been reported to have ties to al qaeda and the funding of that terrorist group.

The Aga Khan Development Network has signed agreements with the Syrian Government to develop “microfinance, healthcare, and cultural tourism” in Syria. Between 2003 and 2008, the Aga Khan spent $40 million to develop business in Syria. And let’s not forget that Syria is still recognized as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. Among the members and supporters of the Aga Khan Foundation is Syrian General Moustapha Sharba, who was involved in Syria’s covert nuclear weapon program.

The Aga Khan has gone on record as saying that the West should negotiate with Hamas (a terrorist organization), and that the main problem between the West and islam is a “clash of ignorance” for which the West is primarily responsible.

While governor of Texas, Perry introduced a pro-islamic curriculum into the Texas public school system. The curriculum was supplied by the Aga Khan, and through it children are introduced to the “beauty and perfection of the qur’an,” and islam as an “ethical and moral vision for leading a life of righteousness.” Would governor Perry also introduce a curriculum promoting Christianity, which would introduce children to the beauty and perfection of the Bible, and the Biblical teachings of Jesus? Probably not due to the Constitutional prohibition of state sponsored religion. However, this did not stop him from introducing the muslim religion at the behest of his friend the Aga Khan.

 

Rick Perry does have definite ties to islam, and in fact, those ties are so close, that CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations – affiliated with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal terrorist investigation) openly supports Perry. Perhaps this is why Perry has yet to address Republican legislators’ proposals to ban islamic shariah law in Texas.

 

CAIR supports Rick Perry

 

Clearly, when all the facts are in, Rick Perry does not seem to be as conservative as he makes himself out to be; and at least to me, in light of these not so commonly known facts, appears to be more liberal than many liberals I have seen.

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 election, Politics