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

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?