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:


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:


Newt is for illegal aliens:


Ron Paul is for illegal aliens


Michele Bachmann gets NumbersUSA highest grade


Further reading:


High-level eco-terror or incompetence?

Is Obama an eco-terrorist or a bungler? You decide.

If the US government had ok’d the Dutch offer for oil spill cleanup assistance, tendered three days after the BP spill leading to the greatest ecological disaster of all time, Louisiana would not be cleaning up its beaches and the backs of oil-smeared pelicans. Its fishermen and shrimp boats would still be on the job. And there would have been no need to destroy tens of thousands of offshore oil platform jobs as Obama has done by issuing a halt order on most offshore drilling. Help was available, but Obama was likely following Rahm Emanuel’s advice not to let a good crisis go to waste. Can you say Scoundrel-in-Chief now? Please try it. It’s cathartic.

I am about to say what most of you have been thinking all along:

How dare a president who once promised to clean up our planet deliberately delay a desperately needed cleanup of our precious Gulf for the obvious purpose of creating an excuse to deny offshore drilling permits — and at a time when the jobs on these oil platforms are so desperately needed?

The slanderous, clueless media lambasted Bush mercilessly for waiting 2 and a half hours to make a decision to send help after he learned the levee had broken in New Orleans.

Let’s see: it has been almost 2 months now. Only about 45 days after the spill, after untold amounts of fish and wildlife have been killed and injured, is your government preparing to accept assistance that was tendered by one of the most credible agencies imaginable – the Dutch government – just three days after the spill.

There can only be two possible explanations, starting with:

Ecoterrorism, the deliberate destruction of habitat, is generally attributed to lone vigilante types acting out their own impulses in a mad effort to influence public opinion and hence government regulation. Yet, what has happened to our Gulf these last 40 some days suggests that ecoterrorism may well have crept into the highest levels of government, with the possible collaboration (http://butasforme.com/2010/06/05/nature-of-the-beast/) of high ranking persons in the business sector. I know that may sound off the wall, but consider the open, known Marxists surrounding this president and the degree to which business is increasingly partnering with government, in an unsavory, un-Constitutional scheme more and more observers are calling either fascism or corporatism. Free market capitalism has all but vanished.

There is only one other possibility:

Obama is clueless. Without a single advisor in business or science and technology, with no palpable science, technology or business background, and therefore having no idea which experts to trust, Obama would have simply let the Gulf be permanently destroyed rather than get involved and show his profound ignorance and total incompetence as a real-world problem solver.

Those are your two options:

Either high level ecoterror, or incompetence. Or maybe a combination of the two?

If Obama were competent to sit in the Oval Office, this would be criminal.

But you know what? I am feeling generous. I’m willing to give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt. Let’s let him off the hook and just call him an incompetent bungling idiot.

At any rate, this late acceptance of an early offer is the first glimmer of real hope — by June 13, they should be starting what could have — and should have — been started on April 23.

If any of you are letting that old “respect for the office” routine interfere with normal brain activity, it is high time to kick that habit right now and switch on your brain again. You’ll need it no later than November to vote out the bottom-feeding scum that rubber stamps everything our Marxist-in-Chief asks for.

It’s cleanup time in Washington too!


Further reading, suggests collusion among top-level execs: