Another rah rah moment in American history

Trump victory: another rah rah moment

by Don Hank

I wonder if you will recall that the GW Bush wars were started by rah rah talk, as when Dubbya stood at ground zero and, with his arms draped around two NY firemen, proclaimed “the people who knocked down these buildings are going to hear from us.”

So ask yourself: Did “the people who knocked down these buildings” really hear from us? Now every American who experienced that moment lived through the wars that followed. But remember that the “people who knocked down these buildings” were mostly Saudis because it was they who founded and funded – together with the US Deep State – Al-Qaeda. But instead of declaring war on the Saudis, our real enemy, we attacked the enemies of our enemy, the Taliban (which had around that time plotted to oust the Saudi royals) and Saddam, who ran a secular type government with little or no emphasis on Shariah and even had a Christian in his cabinet. The Saudis hate secular leaders and the US helps them eliminate them. (Here is a clue as to why we are so obliging to them: http://laiglesforum.com/how-the-petrodollar-perpetuates-islamic-terror-2/3315.htm).

Thus, absurdly, Dubbya was aiding and abetting the “people who knocked down these buildings” and killed up to 3000 Americans.  And he and his Neocon pals had to know that the Christians and other large groups would leave Iraq in droves if we “won,” and that chaos would ensue, forcing the US to occupy.

And how about that Afghanistan? What a great victory! Rah rah. Not. US and allied troops are still there and the carnage is heart-wrenching – for all but the arms industry and its financiers.

Thus we can state with confidence that, facing the TV cameras at ground zero that day, George W. Bush was thumbing his nose at a bleeding America. (This fits in perfectly with Bush’s cover-up of the Saudi role in 9-11 as reported subsequently by the Washington Post ).

Now with that deception in mind, you will note the unbridled euphoria over the Trump election. Rah rah. Millions of Americans were relieved that we would now have peace.

And in fact, we might.

But we might not either.

Yes, Donald Trump had promised he would cooperate with Russia. The prospect of peace that this signaled is one important reason many Democrats crossed over to vote for him, for example.

But what many of us have forgotten is the eerily similar rah rah moments of the Bush years and what rah rah moments usually mean in our great country. The greatness often lies solely in the rah rah, not in the situation on the ground, in the aftermath, our bleeding hearts and pocket books.

Some exceptionally alert observers are already pointing out that Trump has picked two rank Neocons for his cabinet, who have both warned about “Russian aggression” in Ukraine, despite the fact that it was the US and Europe who started and supported the bloody coup in Kiev for the obvious purpose of goading Russia into a defensive action that could be spun by our media into “aggression.”

Trump’s presumptive defense secretary has warned that the Russian “aggression” in Ukraine is “worse than we think.” This is a lie, as you know if you follow the web site that provides regular sitreps on the conflict in E. Ukraine. Bookmark this site and go there at least once a week. If enough Americans did, our “leaders” would not dare arm the Kiev fascists. Even, if you followed the OSCE’s regular Ukraine reports, you would also know the aggressor is Kiev’s troops (many of which are fascists, eg, the Azov Battalion) that the US government supports.

But Mattis is not the only one beating the war drums against the country Trump promised to “cooperate with.” Mike Pompeo, Trump’s pick for CIA director, recently returned from a trip to Kiev, and after fruitful discussions with the Neo-Nazis there, says that “Putin’s aim is to take over Ukraine” (Mike would have fit in nicely in a Clinton cabinet) , implying that Russia wants to attack Ukraine militarily. If that were true, Putin would have done the job a long time ago before NATO had deployed troops all over Eastern Europe, including 30,000 at the Russian borders (reminding Russians of Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa that destroyed much of Russia and killed millions of Russians). No one is saying that a Ukraine thoroughly disgruntled with US and EU lies, like the false promise to let the country join the EU, might not voluntarily ally itself with Russia. It would be hard to paint that as Russian aggression, but recent anti-Russian (hence racist) drivel from the Western msm shows that no lie is too big for the warmongering elites to manage.

The latest E. Ukraine (Novorossia is the real name) sitrep shows that the Neo-Fascist sympathizers the US government supports in Kiev are now recruiting Lumpenproletariat, common thugs, with promises of free land, stolen from Russian speakers.

Now we are at another crossroads, another rah rah moment in American history. The euphoria over the Trump victory is great. Many are willing to go along with anything this leader wants. Like Bush, the Evangelicals have anointed him as God’s servant. The chessboard is arrayed exactly as before.

The question is: will you forget the lessons that Dubbya taught us and say to yourself: this time is different and the rah rah heralds a better world? Or will you recognize the rah rah moment for what it is: a time for you to say “not this time!”?

Postscript:

Writing for a news and opinion site is an endless job, as it should and must be. Since this was written, Trump is reportedly eyeing shifty arch-Neocon Mitt Romney for the position of Secretary of State.

So what’s wrong with that you ask? Here is a video featuring Mitt saying “Russia is our worst geopolitical foe” who always “lines up with the world’s worst actors”, among whom he counts Assad, the most pro-Christian leader in the Middle East, who is fighting for  his country’s life against Al-Qaeda and ISIS, groups that are armed and trained by our “ally” Saudi Arabia.

Trump has said he will cooperate with the same Putin that Romney has spent much of his career smearing.

 

Why do so many pro-life leaders support war?

Why do so many pro-life leaders support war?

 

by Don Hank

 

In an article titled “Corey Lewandowski set up by man-hating scammer,” Kelleigh Nelson portrays Michelle Fields as a feminist scammer posing as a conservative.

I also saw reports that Fields is a serial accuser of men but did not forward them, waiting instead for confirmation. I just now found confirmation of her accusation against Allen West here. It is hard to imagine that this woman is constantly being harassed by conservative men — especially when there are plenty of Democrat satyrs like Bill Clinton out there, with whom she must have come into contact plenty of times. It doesn’t smell right.

BTW, I am surprised that almost the entire pro-life community seems to have condemned Trump for saying that if abortion is declared to be a crime, then women who attempt abortions should be punished. Pro-lifers have always said that abortion is murder. A woman who tries to have an abortion would be an attempted murderer in that case, no question. Yet, the pro-life community has done what appears to be an about-face, as if they accept at face value the hype that feminists have been peddling for years.

After all, if women are to be treated as untouchables, then what if the abortion provider is a woman? Wouldn’t she have to be let off as well?

I suspect the whole issue is centered around the fact that Cruz, who glibly condemns Trump no matter what he says or does, has used the same tactics as GW Bush, portraying himself as God’s man.

If Bush was God’s man when he invaded Iraq, why were the Assyrian Christians forced to leave the country after we “won” the war there?

If he is not God’s man, then how can Evangelicals be so sure that Cruz, whose view on war is almost identical to that of Bush, is God’s man?

Has God really chosen a man to lead us to the promised land? Or is this another delusion — like so many many before it?

The Neocons said they wanted to use Christians to do their bidding. If they succeed again in deceiving Christiasn, how are non-Christians to take our faith seriously? Should we not be looking to our Savior instead of seeking an earthly Messiah?

Here is what I wrote about Neoconservatism:

http://laiglesforum.com/the-framing-of-iran-by-the-godless/3443.htm

Irving Kristol, dubbed the “godfather” of the (Neoconservative) movement, “has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere. (using naive Christians to do their dirty work — Don)

At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were “a pious fraud.” [my highlighting] (any “Christian who allows himself to be led around by the nose by such ungodly people is disobeying God and committing a grievous sin!)

Jesus said be wise as serpents. That was a commandment, not a suggestion.

This commentary is not intended as an endorsement for any candidate. All of them are grievously flawed. However, there is a contrast in the area that I consider more important than all the rest, and that is, the flippant attitude of so many conservatives toward war, particularly with Russia and its allies (including China). The Neoconservatives have always shown an irrational and virtually racist hatred of Russia and many thoughtless Christians have bought into the now-debunked myth that God and Magog in Isaiah represented Russia (these place names were recently found in the Assyrian court records and were found in what is now Turkey).

Judging by the reckless statements of these people in the GOP campaign, many of them are more afraid of losing political power than they are of nuclear war. Americans have never seen war up close and personal, let alone nuclear war and are wholly unqualified to flirt with it – need I remind you, nuclear war could wipe out all of life or at least set civilization back 4000 years or so.

We ought to know that all the elements for such a war are in place and all we need is a warmongering Russian hating president to usher it in.

Cruz has said we should “push back Russia” in Syria. How can we reconcile this with the fact that the US was a co-creator of ISIS in the first place and has no political will to defeat ISIS? Or that Russian ally Assad is the only Middle Eastern leader who protects Christians? Russia is the only world power in Syria that does not have dirty hands and at the same time, is effectively combating ISIS. How can we therefore ignore our ignominious role in creating and even arming ISIS and pretend that we are morally superior to Russia? Cruz also calls Putin a dictator, hewing to the Neocon party line. Yet Putin is the duly elected president of Russia and enjoys a popularity rating that is the envy of the world.

If Christians, particularly those who are part of the pro-life movement, are seen as supporting a pro-war candidate who recklessly wants to push around another nuclear power, regardless of his pro-life statements, what does this do to their image, their credibility and their effectiveness in the pro-life movement?

I welcome comments both pro and con. This is the time for an honest objective debate on this issue.

A true conservative candidate vs. a libertarian/ Part II

 

by Don Hank

 

Does Ron Paul understand cultural Marxism?

Ron Paul’s scoffing attitude toward those of us who care about culture makes me wonder whether his administration would cater to the cultural Marxists.

America has been victimized by cultural Marxism for decades. First it was the feminazis, who ushered in the “woman’s right” to kill her unborn and discredited fatherhood, influencing the courts to separate men from their children, effectively separating families under welfare rules, and generally declaring men evil abusers.

Now it is the homosexual activists (not gays as a group) who are organizing to discredit  candidates who oppose gay marriage. Ron is unfairly benefitting from this radical movement to gain ground with the gay agenda. It is cowardly and does him no credit.

And it is illegal aliens who are now demanding special rights, even as border guards sit in jail for essentially doing their jobs. The administration has contrived to make it look like it is protecting our borders, but that is a lie. They are in fact arresting and deporting fewer of them.

Paul’s position on illegal immigration? A true Von Mises libertarian, Ron Paul has never been strong on the border and illegal immigration. In fact, NumbersUSA has given him an F on immigration. A very big red flag.

 

Is there anyone left?

Who has the best grade NumbersUSA grade on immigration?

Why that would be Michele Bachmann. And just what if people could be focused on illegal immigration again, and made to understand that it is costing jobs? Wouldn’t that help her poll numbers? Of course, the GOP would have to stop catering to lawbreakers.

Further, regarding cultural Marxism (of which illegal immigration is a facet), Michele Bachmann is one of the few people in politics who understand what 100% of politicians should understand about cultural Marxism. For example, she recently set a feminazi straight on the Kinsey myths, ie, who Kinsey was, and what his agenda was. She probably could also have shown why he should have gone to jail instead of being hailed as a great researcher.

Anyone who still believes the Kinsey myths needs to check out the work of Dr. Judith Reisman at:

http://drjudithreisman.org/

I doubt any of the other candidates have a clue about this, and other, cultural Marxism issues.

 

But can Bachmann win against Obama?

The GOP wants you to think she can’t and that only a leftwinger who is ideologically indistinguishable from Obama can beat Obama. So why not just clone Obama, give him another name (would that be a third?), and run him?

But they are forgetting a few things.

Here is what one poster commented on a blog regarding a recent PA poll:

And now for a little course in Political Science 101: This poll is not of ‘likely’ voters. It included a sample of 500 Pennsylvanians. It was done by PPP which is a democratic polling group. It is notoriously flawed because in past polls PPP has been poorly predictive when identifying Republicans and Republican leaning Independents for the sample. It is also flawed because of its proximity to the general election in November of 2012. Polls taken long before elections are inherently non-predictive of the actual election results.

Added to this is that fact that the poll didn’t even include Bachmann, although she was not trailing Santorum by much, and he was included. It also doesn’t show the fallout of another 6 months of further job losses and other Obama incompetency that  may well make him unable to beat a warm body. Finally, let’s admit that Ron Paul has been successful largely because of his fund raising, and much of his money has come from libertarians, recreational drug enthusiasts and anti-war groups. What would happen if the GOP got behind Michele Bachmann and backed her financially instead of giving her the cold shoulder? Can we admit her poll numbers would rise significantly?

One of the main reasons Bachmann is showing so poorly is that the GOP and RINOs in the MSM are either unfairly attacking her or ignoring her sterling conservative and fiscal merits. There are no real conservatives left in the GOP leadership, which is bringing the party dangerously close to irrelevance.

If they were suddenly to turn around and show how Reagan-like Bachmann is, for example, that would change everything. After all, who would not want to return to the boom times under Reagan? It would be Reagan-Carter all over again.

A lesson that the GOP learned the hard way – again – is that when you try to hype a candidate like Newt or Mitt, who in important ways are indistinguishable from a Democrat, and who have ethical and moral issues as well, the public will eventually focus on these blemishes. Not because conservatives point them out, but because the Democrat-leaning MSM won’t let us forget.

Bachmann, to her credit, has no major skeletons, and all the criticism she has reaped so far looks like what it is: extreme nitpicking. For example, apparently one of her advisors fed her a false statement about an IEAE report showing that “Iran will have a nuclear weapon in 6 months.” I have read the latest IAEA report and although it does not say that, it actually shows that Iran has been weaponizing nuclear materials for a long time, and one can infer that it most likely will have a warhead in the near future. Ron Paul crucified her for the inaccuracy but ignored the relevant facts of that report.

At this point, the GOP has a worrisome dilemma: either choose Ron Paul, whose star is rising even as Newt’s wanes, or choose squeaky clean candidate Michele Bachmann and give her that much needed, and much deserved, extreme PR makeover.

Now would be a good time to act, before Ron Paul takes the nomination.

Michele Bachmann is probably their – and our — only chance.

Evidence that the difference between libertarianism and liberalism is paper thin:

Romney is for illegal aliens:

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/gingrich-romney-amnesty-immigration/2011/11/24/id/419071

Newt is for illegal aliens:

http://cis.org/krikorian/more-gibberish-from-newt

Ron Paul is for illegal aliens

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/7393-anti-illegal-immigration-group-awards-an-qfq-to-ron-paul

Michele Bachmann gets NumbersUSA highest grade

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/2012-presidential-hopefuls-immigration-stances.html

Further reading:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=379089

A true conservative candidate vs a libertarian. Part I

A true conservative candidate vs a libertarian. Part I

 

by Don Hank

 

A libertarian who says he is more constitutional than the rest

 

Before you read this, check out this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMUZIVYuluc

Ok, here’s what I saw when I viewed it.

I was impressed by Ron’s observation that defending individual property would have been a more effective approach to combating pollution than making federal environmental safety laws. This may be a simplistic notion, but Ron does at least think outside the box. (They say Newt is “smart” too, but that was last week).

He also said he would save $1 trillion a year. That was a major promise, and if you’re focused on the economy, it carries a lot of weight. A promise that just might win an election on its own.

On the Constitution, he knows the original document well and basically understands states’ rights.

On the other hand, what he said on seat belt laws, narcotics laws and gay marriage made me cringe.

Here is what I heard:

Seat belt laws are bad because they rob the individual of freedom.

Partly true. But if there were no seatbelt laws, the insurance companies would have to insure the idiots who don’t use them at the same cost as the smart people who do. No one would say to their insurance agent, when asked: Nah, I don’t believe in seat belts.

Insurance rates would have to go up because there would be many more people injured and killed in accidents. That would affect us all. This is libertarianism gone amok. On the other hand, would these deleterious effects be anywhere near as significant as the effects of not stopping the runaway spending by government? And Ron promises to do that.

Narcotics. Ron thinks we should all have the right to use drugs that may cause us to harm ourselves. Unfortunately, when people fall into drug use, they do things that hurt not only themselves but others and they cost agencies like the police and social assistance and charitable agencies a whole lot of money – for example, when users, especially addicts, steal to get drug money, or perpetrate violence due to a state of stupefaction and a subduing of conscience. I had shown that the libertarian take on drug use legalization is nothing but pure propaganda:

http://laiglesforum.com/cato-portugal-drug-study-based-on-false-government-data/2602.htm

Ron is wrong on this issue. But again, could drug use cost more than the current runaway spending by government? Maybe not.

Gay marriage? He didn’t use the word, but we all know what part of the interview that was and we heard him say he was bored with the subject.

What he failed to say, and may fail to understand, is that the state and national governments are moving toward the acceptance of a new and radical definition of marriage at the insistence of a radical group that has shown itself to be not only undemocratic but also violent at times. It is part of cultural Marxism, the original purpose of which was to prepare the ground for economic Marxism. Thus, ironically, while paying lip service to the free market, libertarians like Ron may well indirectly contribute to the malaise of the socialism they eschew.

Further, with regard to same-sex marriage, Ron ignores the fact that government has no right to or interest in changing standard time-honored definitions of words, not for any reason. Language has always been the domain of the people, and the changes in language, as well as its preservation, is supposed to be up to the people, not to a few whiners.

Ron Paul also seems to ignore the dangers of creeping Islam. Now, assuming Paul is not part of the elites that want to import hordes of Muslims to our shores, that may be a moot point. But can’t he identify what common sense tells us?

His idea that Middle Eastern dictators like Ahmadinejad deserve our “friendship” (not mentioned in the interview) could also be a problem. Militarily, Reagan cost America fewer lives than the presidents who came after him, and not because he made nice to the enemy but because he scared the bejeebers out of them.

Ron’s position on abortion has also been shown wanting by one of our contributors earlier today, who says that under the 14th Amendment, the executive has the duty to protect the Constitutional right to life of every citizen — born or unborn. If this position is derived from the Constitution, then it is not a matter of states’ rights, as Ron so blithely insists.

This is a real watershed issue because it separates godliness from wickedness. You don’t even have to know the Bible to understand that.

Those are some of the blemishes.

On the other hand, if Ron is willing and able to make good his campaign promises, he may turn out to be the best enemy the Fed and their cronies could ever have, and hence, no doubt the best friend we the people could have in combating a runaway Congress bent on spending us into oblivion. He could perhaps turn out to be another Andy Jackson and send the bankers packing. But yet, critics point out that, in his tenure in Congress, Ron has not made significant inroads in this direction. So is he just a talker, like Obama? Or will he, at age 76, have enough energy, mental clarity or will left to roll up both sleeves and fight as promised?

No doubt the US would still be standing after a Ron Paul presidency.

No doubt most people would still be using seat belts.

No doubt most marriages would be traditional ones.

Ron’s ideals are not all my ideals. But then a $15 or 16 trillion debt is even further from my ideal because it is a direct threat to our existence. And it is the reality we live with.

Evidence that the difference between libertarianism and liberalism is paper thin:

RINO Romney is for illegal aliens:

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/gingrich-romney-amnesty-immigration/2011/11/24/id/419071

RINO Newt is for illegal aliens:

http://cis.org/krikorian/more-gibberish-from-newt

LIBERTARIAN Ron Paul is for illegal aliens

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/7393-anti-illegal-immigration-group-awards-an-qfq-to-ron-paul

Michele Bachmann gets NumbersUSA highest grade

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/2012-presidential-hopefuls-immigration-stances.html

Further reading:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=379089

Outing Ron Paul

Outing Ron Paul

 

by Sapient

 

Is Ron Paul, “Mr. Constitution,” uniquely channeling the spirit of the Founders of our nation and their thinking as clearly embodied in our founding documents, the Federalist Papers, etc — so much so that his seeming eccentricities are due to OUR having forgotten our own true national principles, perhaps because we naively cling to a party loyalty, are deceived by the media, etc?

Is it true that that there is NO good reason for a Constitutional Conservative to question Ron Paul, let alone reject him?   

This, Ron Paul and his followers would have us believe.  Always sounded a bit elitist even cultish to me, but no matter for now.

May I suggest that you should heed your gut instinct and explore Ron Paul a bit — to come to peace with that sense you have that Ron Paul just might be out of bounds in some way, maybe WAY out of bounds.  Explore the possibility that Ron Paul is even something totally foreign to his persona, that he is actually espousing principles foreign to and even antithetical to those of our Founders, and is cloaking those foreign principles in the authority of the Constitution and Founders — carefully tossing in a majority agreeable issue or two or naming the Constitution to promote acceptance.

Could such a thing be possible?  Could Ron Paul be so out of line with our nation that the idea sin qua non of a government by the people, i.e. “We the people…” upon which our nation rests is antithetical to his vision?  Would that concern you?  Is he perpetuating fraud and deception to gain acceptance?

FWIW: 

An atheist once argued that “Christian / Jew–you say you believe the Bible?  Well, the Bibles explicitly says in Psalm 14:1 ‘there is no God.’  Do you believe the Bible or not?”

One slight problem–the atheist omitted the portion that “The FOOL HAS SAID IN HIS HEART ‘there is no God,'”  and from beginning to end the Bible assumes and confirms the existence of God.  The words the atheist quoted were there, but hardly the truth of it.  We want the consistent truth of it — right?

Context and the consistent whole make all the difference.  Same with Ron Paul and the Constitution and Founders.  A word or two here or there is NOT proof of anything.  A “wolf in sheep’s clothing” is the word for a person who claims to be one thing with a very contrary end in mind.  

As noted previously, Ron Paul embraces the philosophy of voluntaryism, a form of anarchism.  I report that without apology.

That has several flavors of voluntaryism of course, but they are cut from the same bolt of cloth. Make no mistake — Ron Paul admits his embrace of this philosophy in no uncertain terms.  His writings and speeches are consistent with that philosophy,.

Follow the links I am providing and you will get to hear it from his own lips, and read his own words, and written by his own supporters.  

Now, it is our responsibility to understand the significance of that philosophy as someone running for POTUS embraces it and is asking us to entrust him with the power of office, OVER US.  If we have never caught that Paul embraces voluntaryism before, we should do so now.  Decision time approaches.  If we were ignorant of either our Constitution and Founding principles, or ignorant of Voluntaryism, and how they compare,  we should become educated.  Again, this view is asking for power over us:

“If a nation, in a state of civilization, expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be. ”  –Thomas Jefferson

So, take a look at what we are dealing with in this Voluntaryism.

First, a video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92ybf2L4Guw

Listen to Ron Paul’s words, and take a moment to peruse the comments section for some real flavor of the people who support it.  It seems they thought no one else would read what they are saying.  Compare what Paul said to the “philosophy” link above.  Is this what you believe?  Is this what you believe the Founders believed?  It IS what Ron Paul believes.

Now, from the Mises Institute:  http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/25612.aspx ,  founded and once chaired by Lew Rockwell, former chief of staff to  Ron Paul, and other close associations with him.  So far, I found nothing to prohibit this reproduction.

The purpose of this video at that link is stated:   to illustrate Ron Paul’s voluntaryism, in no uncertain terms, with the caption:

In this video, using Ron Paul’s own words from his books and interviews, it is shown that Ron Paul’s goal is voluntaryism. He adopts limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society, absent any State.

Notice that Ron Paul has a long term strategy:  to adopt limited government positions and appeals to the Constitution, before the American people, for purpose of implementing  Voluntaryism. Does this concern you?  Remember, this written by people who support him, not his enemies.

Now, watch the video, and then read the comments there on this same page.and note things like whether the readers think promoting this video outside this circle is a good idea and why they have that opinion.

Why, one even compared it to a “coming out of the closet” for Ron Paul. 

  • Right, this might be well for us here [readers of Mises], but I don’t think we should be outwardly promoting that as his [Ron Paul’s] position.  His “anarchism” might not appeal to the voters we need to elect him.

 Read it again, and again until it sinks in what was said there.

That is clear intent to deceive, to twist, to cloak, what Ron Paul is — and they are FINE WITH IT.  It’s their strategy.

Note how elitist it is:  

We [the elite] need the support of the unsuspecting / deceived [voter–non elite] so that we [the elite] can gain power in our Republic-so we {the elite] can do what is actually best for us, and that the voters” [non elite] would never put us [the elite] in office if they knew the truth about us or our intentions–it’s just too far above them…so, we lie.

Pretty bold huh? 

Friends.same old problem, and same basic decision.  I give you Thomas Jefferson:

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.”  —Thomas Jefferson

See Jefferson’s choices…self governing, or elite governing.  Where is Ron Paul and his followers in that choice?

Historically, for the elite, honesty is optional–but justified.  Truth is optional but justified by the glorious ends in view.  They see themselves as great souls, self anointed, on a mission the rest of us just cannot understand and appreciate…but we will, they say.  Their intentions are good.

The Founders spoke of such:

Daniel Webster  – “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power . it is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”


Now, we can see what Jefferson meant:  

“Where the principle of difference [between political parties] is as substantial and as strongly pronounced as between the republicans and the monocrats of our country, I hold it as honorable to take a firm and decided part and as immoral to pursue a middle line, as between the parties of honest men and rogues, into which every country is divided.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795. ME 9:317

Same issue.  Same basic choices:  honest, rogue, or the immoral who can’t tell the difference, believing someone a win-win compromise can be reached between the honest and the rogue.  Wanna hazard a guess at just which of those an elitist falls into–those who recognize no law above themselves?  I don’t have to say it, do I?

Where does Ron Paul and his followers fall in that grouping?

Let’s continue as these Ron Paul / voluntaryists discuss whether Ron Paul should admit who and what he is…a voluntaryist and anarcho-capitalist-anarchist rather than the Constitutionalist he claims to be:

  • Graham asks:  What do other people think of this ?  Is there a chance that widespread promotion of this video could undermine what Ron Paul is trying to do?
  • To Graham: I think it’s highly likely that it would damage his campaign temporarily.  But in all reality, he’s got to “come out of the closet” sometime, or else all he’s done is spawned a bunch of “We the People!” types, which is still antithetical to Paul’s ideal society.  I have said in the past before that if he did come out as an an-cap [anarcho capitalist] that it would isolate a good portion of his fan base.  But at the same time, if hangs onto it all the way to the grave, we’d probably wind up with fewer an-caps in total. In addition to these clips, he was also at a debate in 2007 at FreedomFest with Doug Casey and said in the following speech after Casey said he was an anarchist that he would love to give Casey the VP nomination if nominated.

Read it carefully:  Among other things, there is a danger for Ron Paul staying in the voluntaryist closet too long.  It might spawn the wrong kind of following–“We the people types.”

Before we go past that, note the first and most sacred words in our Constitution. “We the people….”

These people are on a MUCH different page already.”We the people” types are FAR from what they desire to have around.

“We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The Constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” –Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 1824

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it. —John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

These Ron Paul / Voluntaryist folks disagree at a basic level.  “We the people types, which is still ANTITHETICAL TO PAUL’S IDEAL SOCIETY” — read it again.  You are a “We the people” type?  YOU do not belong for YOU are against what they seek!

Still think Ron Paul is a “We the people…” Constitutionalist as he claims?  Still think he is channeling the spirit of the Founders?   The Founders held that “We the people” were key while Ron Paul and his ilk say “we the people are antithetical.”  It’s “we the people” or an elitist.  Those are the choices.

They say they believe in the individual, and the amassed wisdom.  Do they really?  If they did, they would be honest, and allow real choice.  Deception that is characteristic of the elitist.  Watch now as they ask and answer a great question:  What should Paul do if confronted in front of the American people. How should he answer if asked if he is an anarchist? That is, should he be honest about who and what he is and where he would take us if entrusted with power:

  • Question:  If Ron Paul is asked if he is an anarchist — yes or no — during a televised debate, how do you think he will answer?  How do you hope he will answer?  I agree that it would damage his campaign short-term if he said yes, but I think it could well also do long-term damage to the voluntaryist movement.  He is currently acting as a filter: he turns liberals / conservatives into constitutionalists, and some of them (the ones that follow his leads to LRC [Lew Rockwell dot com] and LvMI) [Ludwig von Mises Institute] become voluntaryists by resolving their cognitive dissonance.  If he “came out” he would be less effective at converting socialists to constitutionalists, and by extension, less effective at leading people to voluntaryism.
  • Answer:  It is a different question, but it’s kind of the same thing.  If us anarchists spread the video around, it would functionally be the same thing as “outing” Ron Paul.  So they are similar in that fashion.  If he’s asked in a televised debate whether or not he is an anarchist, my guess is that he’d answer no and say he thinks the society with the least amount of coercion would be the best society, but that he believes a Constitutional government would the best means to achieve those ends.

Obviously I would hope he’d answer in the positive, but that would turn him into a laughingstock. If the people asking questions at these debates like Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, Chris Matthews, or Anderson Cooper did 5 seconds of research, they would discover that Ron Paul a) has all of these clips floating around on the Internet, b) is affiliated with the majority anarcho-capitalist Mises Institute, and c) alludes to a load of anarchist literature in Liberty Defined (such as the LvMI publication “Let’s Abolish Government,” a collection of essays by Spooner).

I agree that Ron Paul’s role is as an educator.  He gets people interested in libertarianism and then turns people onto the Mises Institute.  If you took a poll here on this message board, I’d bet that 50+% of the people first heard of this place through Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign.  Changing somebody into a voluntaryist is a gradual thing and it’s something that’s probably easier to glide into rather than jump into.  So I think you’re right.  But there comes a point where you reach critical mass and Ron Paul has appealed to all of the people who are serious thinkers and at that point he can drop the anarchist bomb on his fans.

Seen enough?  Are you frightened as to what might happen if this man gets into office?

Can you imagine entrusting  the highest authority in our nation of United States, and our Federal State to someone who believes that the whole idea of a state is immoral and should not exist — and is more than willing to lie and deceive to gain power with the intent to dissolve the very state he was elected to preserve, protect, and defend?

He lied about who he was in order to get elected?  What is his oath worth?

I ask you to read carefully about this “eccentric uncle” in the GOP before you even consider supporting him.  Hopefully having some key words will help:  Voluntaryism, anarcho capitalism, Lew Rockwell.com. Ludwig Von Mises Institute, anarchy, statelessness, stateless communism, etc.

While it may be hard to decide who to support, it should not hard to decide who to oppose, and do so.  FWIW:  Many of these groups embrace the philosophy, not of the American Revolution, but the FRENCH REVOLUTION — that spawned the Reign of Terror.  So, make sure and take a look.

I know you will conclude that Ron Paul is hardly in tune  with the Founders after all.  In fact HE is what they warned us about:

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers 15– “Why has Government been instituted at all?  Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.” 

Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.  —Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 1, October 27, 1787

Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few.  –John Adams, An Essay on Man’s Lust for Power, August 29, 1763

 

Note this:

 

Ron Paul and his people believe so strongly in the sanctify of non-compelled choice, that they are more than willing to perpetuate fraud and deception on you and me and the rest of the American electorate, in order to get their way and to impose THEIR WILL on us — for our own good of course.  So are a lot of tyrants.

Being defrauded is hardly voluntary choice.  It negates free choice, and is its very antithesis, just as is coercion, etc. 

They violate their own standards to gain power.

Heads up.

Further reading:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=379089

Déjà-vu: McCain-Obama all over again

We didn’t learn the last time

 

by Don Hank

I showed yesterday that Newt Gingrich lied when he denied that

1-      he had peddled lobbying services,

2-      he had supported cap and trade

3-     he  had supported an individual health care mandate.

A thrice denial of New Testament proportions.

I provided links to articles that showed this was all true. It is a matter of public record.

But you know what I found out today?

Today, people who lie about the public record are praised as being expert debaters. Lying is in vogue.

Telling the truth, as Michele Bachmann did, is considered bad sportsmanship and she is being spanked for it. I should have known.

We the People know the GOP has anointed Newt, so we need to shut up and fetch their water. It’s that simple. Newsmax, a faux conservative rag, ran two very telling articles today, one praising Newt as a “true conservative” and another on how Bachmann’s book sales have plummeted, while Newt is selling books like hotcakes. To prove it, Newsmax is helping their darling sell his books, offering us a discount.

I am no prophet and I don’t pretend to know the future. Michael Savage predicts that the “fat little white man” can’t win against Obama.

I won’t go so far as to say that. He could, given a miracle.

But I will say we are reliving 2008, with another McCain clone, and we all saw how that worked out last time.

Here is the danger behind this kind of strategy, where you run a candidate who talks like a conservative but is not all that far to the right of the far-left candidate you are trying to beat, in hopes that people who sort of like Obama’s policies but not the man himself will mistake Newt for a white, fat Obama and reverse their racism again.

Two out of the 3 links I chose for yesterday’s article were taken from the far-leftwing mainstream media and one from Fox News, which is now center-left but still mistaken for “alternative” news by the gullible masses. I chose those links to show that these were not just from some little blogger like me blowing off steam.

Now most of the mainstream is pro-Democrat, even if they aren’t necessarily pro-Obama (how could they be any more?).

So while the three major blemishes I pointed out in yesterday’s article may be glossed over by the GOP and the RINO press, they will be taken under the MSM’s microscope as soon as Newt gets the nod and you will see his pimples, blackheads and fat rolls up-close and personal around the clock ad nauseam until election day.

Now we see through the glass darkly, but then face to face.

Once those blemishes are magnified 1000X as only the MSM can magnify them, even conservatives who backed Newt will be appalled at their naked little emperor.

Many will still vote for him, of course. Conservatives are herd animals.

But it is that amorphous middle that must be courted and brought into our circle to make this work.

And the image they see of Newt, who has never been the darling they cherished in the first place, will not endear him to them, quite the opposite.

They will see the cap and trade endorsement, the individual healthcare mandate, the shameful lobbying for the drug companies, the loot from the discredited Fanny and Freddy, the parade of trophy wives and much more, probably even worse.

As a result, many will vote third party, possibly Ron Paul or the like, and Obama will have a shoe in. (That is, unless Ron Paul has some tricks up his sleeve. He is, after all, closing the gap).

I will make only one prediction. If Newt gets the GOP nod, we are in for some real trouble up ahead. That is absolutely certain.

So why do the top brass at the RNC keep making the mistake of running smelly RINOs every single time? Not being very smart, they think they can convince you that all these blemishes I spoke about, as well as the unspoken ones, are only liberal lies. After all, they did show up in the liberal press.

But here is what they ignore. When the liberal press printed Gingrich’s pronouncements in support of, say, cap and trade, or an individual health care mandate, Gingrich did not go on record denying that he had said those things. He wasn’t running for president as a “conservative.” He was pleasing what he perceived to be the middle. So for Gingrich to deny these statements now makes no sense. He is very obviously lying. Unlike his crony Bill Clinton, he didn’t do something behind closed doors with no witnesses present. Bill was a better liar than Newt. He only miscalculated.

Newt just doesn’t know how to lie. And you won’t have to figure all this out for yourself. The press will eventually tell you. And everyone else, including the vast amorphous middle.

That’s Newt’s problem. And now it’s ours.

Newt Gingrich thrice denies the public record in public debate

Newt was once touted as the “best debater” in the Republican candidate field. He was also supposed to be the smartest candidate. But would a really smart debater brazenly lie about something that is a matter of public record? How stupid does he think we are?

by Don Hank

Last night there was a Republican debate among the candidates in Iowa. Michele Bachmann told three easily proven truths about Newt Gingrich, all a matter of public record (as evidenced below, see links to articles by PBS, Mother Jones and Fox News):

These 3 truths were as follows:

1–Newt Gingrich supported cap and trade.

2–Newt Gingrich supported an individual health care mandate

3–Newt Gingrich worked as a lobbyist and tried to influence congress on behalf of his clients.

Incredibly, despite the ready provability of these documented facts, Newt – who has, incredibly, been labeled the most effective debater by some conservative analysts — countered simply by telling a big lie:

“Well, Michele, you know, a lot of what you say just isn’t true, period. … You know, I think it’s important for you, and the – this is a fair game, and everybody gets to – to- to pick fights. It’s important that you be accurate when you say these things. Those are not true.”

Pitiful, just pathetic, when you consider how easily proven all three of Bachmann’s accusations are, as shown below (these are only a tiny sampling of the mainstream sites mentioning these damning facts). The first two are direct Gingrich quotes from before he thought about running as a “conservative.”

1–Newt Gingrich Supported cap and trade:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/gingrich.html

Gingrich:

“I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.”

 

2–Newt Gingrich supported individual health care mandate:

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/newts-big-whopper-individual-mandate

“In order to make coverage more accessible, Congress must do more, including passing legislation to: [deletia] and require anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year to purchase health insurance or post a bond.”

3–Newt worked as a lobbyist and tried to influence congress for his clients:

http://nation.foxnews.com/newt-gingrich/2011/11/21/newts-lobbyist-problem

“ A former employee of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, (the main industry lobby) told me Gingrich was being paid by someone in the industry at the time. A spokeswoman for Gingrich’s health care consulting firm, Center for Health Transformation, told me that drug companies have been CHT clients. PhRMA confirmed in a statement that they had paid Gingrich. Bloomberg News cited sources from leading drug companies Astra-Zeneca and Pfizer saying that those companies had also hired Gingrich.”

 

Obviously, there can be no question that Michele Bachmann nailed Newt on all three counts. So the main question for Americans is this:

Does honesty matter?

And another important question is:

Why didn’t any of the other candidates mention these 3 devastating facts?

 

The Newt behind the suit

Newt is a good talker. So was Obama, remember?

Don Hank

In election cycles, Newt Gingrich knows how to talk like a conservative. Like Obama, he knows how to cater to his constituency (see link and quotes below).

But when the chips are down, he has proven to be quite at home in Democrat territory. Too much at home.

Now, the GOP establishment (and the “Tea Party,” which they have virtually co-opted) is saying that only the left-leaning Newt can save us from Obama because he can appeal to “both sides of the aisle.”

As Michelle Bachmann pointed out in the debate, Obama is so weak the Democrats are thinking of replacing him, and the notion that Obama can’t be beaten is patently false. It would be more plausible to say he can hardly win against a warm body.

This election cycle, more than any time in recent history, we don’t have to resort to a centrist or “moderate.” A conservative can win. So it isn’t the lefties and moderates who will determine the direction our country takes in 2012. It is you.

Now look, Greece and Italy, two bankrupt nations, were just forced to accept new presidents, both of whom are big central bankers — the group that blew up the global economy — and on top of that, they are members of the Trilateral Commission, a group that — like the CFR — has designs on world government. That is not a democracy, Folks. It is a technocracy of the EU kind, where your vote is meaningless and you are told what to do, where to sit, what medicine you can take (not natural medicine. Monsanto owns you)  and what you are allowed to raise in your garden, if anything.

America, you do not have to don this yoke. You aren’t bankrupt yet. Well, I could be wrong there….  But at any rate, you don’t have to accept a leader who is in lockstep with the NWO gang who wants to micromanage your life more tightly than the CP controlled the slaves in the USSR. As a member of the CFR, Newt is one of them. He will never be one of us, not even close!

Of course, defeating Newt would require a sufficient number of Americans to toss aside the GOP Kool-Aid, stop being spectators and join the fight!

Do you have it in you?

Don Hank

 

Quote:

In 1995 Newt Gingrich made a dispassionate appeal in the well of the US House of Representatives to increase the power of the Presidency by repealing the War Powers Act. After voting for $1.2 billion dollars in 1994 to fund increased NATO peace keeping missions, the very next year he urged President Clinton to expand the US military presence in Bosnia [SUPPORING MUSLIMS AGAINST CHRISTIANS–DON]! Newt has been pro abortion, pro amnesty for illegal aliens, in support of higher taxes at one time or another, and in favor of expanding the role of the Federal government! He is viewed as being anti-family by many, not only because of his pro choice stance on abortion, but also for his support of gay marriage, and because he has twice divorced and been married three different times. Actions speak louder than words!

 

Quote:

Newt Gingrich has been a member of the ‘progressive’ Council on Foreign Relations since 1990. This NGO, founded in 1921, and bankrolled with BIG MONEY from the Rockefeller Foundation and J. P. Morgan among other internationalists, has been dedicated since its inception to dismantling American sovereignty, de-constructing our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, and promoting the idea of One World Government!

 http://www.lessgovisthebestgov.com/Newt-Gingrich-Candidate-President-Republican-Primary.html

 

Farewell time for Mitt and Hermann?

Time to bid Hermann and Mitt farewell?

 Don Hank

As it turns out, both Mitt and Cain have tons of baggage.

Seriously folks, is it time to take a fresh look at, say, Bachmann?

Opinions welcome (you may post yours below). 

So far, any baggage Michelle may have seems to be the carry-on type. Nothing aggravating. Plus she was the only one at the debate who called herself a “Constitutional conservative.” That, of course, was ignored by the press and by Fox News, who told us the lackluster Mitt performed brilliantly. Actually, the most memorable thing Mitt said was “nice try,” a line he repeated several times to parry Perry’s criticism. In response to the question about how to solve the economic crisis, he muttered something incoherent about “patriotism.” Mitt’s response on that number one issue was probably the most conspicuous non-sequitur in the debate.

A lot of you are starting to support Bachmann. I don’t see the kind of drawbacks with her as I do with these 2 sad sacks.

Let’s look at Hermann Cain. It seems Cain’s wife is unable to support him against these persistent sexual harassment accusations and has backed out of a planned TV interview slated for that purpose (see link below). Most people who have been in politics or worked closely with a candidate know that a wife’s support is absolutely crucial in this kind of scandal.

Not only that, well-known radio personality Steve Deace says Cain has personally shown him an example of questionable morals prior to a scheduled appearance on the air.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/cain-scandal-wife-interview/2011/11/04/id/416910?s=al&promo_code=D704-1

 

As for Mitt, the news about the Romney family’s relationship with a criminal Ponzi scheme is all over the internet (see below) and apparently, the MSM are licking their chops waiting until Romney’s candidacy is officially announced to bruit this to the world.

Assuming that happens, with this scandal in his background (even though it is via his son Tagg), it seems doubtful that Romney can win the election against anyone.

Now, GOP, will you finally start looking for a candidate who can win?

Or is losing “what you do”?

http://www.coachisright.com/the-stanford-group-solamere-connection-a-romney-scandal-the-media-is-just-waiting-to-write-about/

 

Does the Left control you?

Don Hank

Answer: only if you let them

I received an email from a friend, incl several warnings about the Occupy [somewhere] movement, written by well-known conservative authors and exhorting conservatives to shun the Occupy Wall St. [or wherever] movement because it is linked to Obama groups and pals like ACORN and Van Jones and is a false flag movement.

Now I agree that we must be careful whom we stand with, because we may be suggesting to people that we agree with the Left — unless we are perfectly clear where we stand!

Consider this: The Left has been pretending to stand with good people ever since day one, while in fact standing with Satan. Stealth is their middle name.

I believe it may be time to turn the tables on them.

Yesterday, I got an email from a TX friend with an attachment showing a pamphlet on the “Occupy Houston” movement.

His point seemed to be that their literature was not well written and that it wasn’t clear what their goals were, so maybe they are bad guys to be avoided.

Ya know what? To me, that is a perfect opportunity for us to go to work. Because they can’t control the sidewalks and there’s no way they can control me.

If I lived in that part of the country and had a few extra hours, I’d make up a large poster reading “BRING BACK THE FREE MARKET” or “NO MORE SOCIALISM, MR. PRESIDENT,” or “SOLYNDRA, THE FRUITS OF ‘STIMULUS’ ” or the like, and I would unabashedly bring it along to the rally and hold it high. Look, if this is a false flag movement and they are just pretending to be on our side, then who would dare to stop me?

This morning I was listening to NHK News from Japan, and they had an international segment featuring the Occupy Wall St. movement in the US.

Unsurprisingly, the people they interviewed said nothing remotely suggesting they were socialist sympathizers, quite the opposite.

I almost fell off my chair when one lady said:

“When Barrack Obama was elected, we assumed that because he was a black man, he would do all he could to help the poor and underprivileged. He has done none of that.”

Yes, yes, I understand Van Jones and ACORN may have ties to the movement.

So what?

When I was in Lancaster, I attended a Tea Party rally and there were some people there who obviously were trying to infiltrate. I suspect they were from ACORN.

Here is what I don’t get: The LEFT infiltrates us all the time and we can see it happening and take it for granted.

Yet if a conservative wants to do the same back to them, all of a sudden, that “taints” us. Funny thing. The Left isn’t “taintable,” but conservatives are? Are we really that weak minded that getting too close to a lefty will rub off on us?

Well, look, if being around a bunch of lefties taints you — that is, influences you — then you are not well enough grounded in your conservatism and your Christian faith to leave your home.

As for me, I say with Paul: I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I’ve committed unto Him against that day.

I mean that with regard to both my Christian faith and my political views. They are intertwined. Jesus’ view on socialism is clearly enunciated in John 6: http://laiglesforum.com/the-religious-left-in-bible-times-part-1/57.htm.

But if you are so timid in your faith and politics, and afraid of being misled by some half-baked Marxists who don’t know even a tenth of what the average conservative knows about history and economics, here is what you need to do:

Don’t ever have anything to do with a leftist. He’ll rub off on you.

Don’t go to town hall meetings and express your views. These meetings are full of lefties. It might rub off.

And don’t take part in surveys, online or off. The other respondents may be leftists. Ooooh, creepy!

Don’t write letters to the editor. The publication in which they are published is probably left of center and you might be thought of as a lefty. What would your conservative friends think of you?

Don’t go to the polls to vote. The polls are full of lefties and might persuade you to pull the wrong lever.

On the other hand, if you know what you believe and why, then go right ahead and attend any meeting or rally you darned well please and let people know how you think. Go ahead and listen to their misguided statements but be prepared to counter them – without fear, without anger, with love. You are dealing with the lost – with the weak, the ignorant. They’re in a much more precarious position than you will ever be. You can be their lighthouse. Why would you want to miss that opporunity? So, assuming you are educated on the issues (don’t try until you are), don’t be afraid to speak your mind and don’t be afraid to hold a poster advertising your view of why America is in a mess. These misguided lefties are the very ones you need to minister to, lovingly, compassionately and in God-given faith and wisdom. The chances are, many, maybe even most, will agree with you by the time you have told them what you think and why.

Consider that one of the main reasons they are in the dark is that conservatives have left them there.

We are the ones who have failed America. It’s time to grow a spine and do our job.