Showing posts with label LIBERTARIANS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LIBERTARIANS. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Now Is The Time…

By Marion Algier – AskMarion

Do not listen to the nay sayers and doomsday predictors… Now is the time to stand-up and fight.  A coalition of conservative voices, fiscal conservatives, Constitutionalists, independent thinkers and Libertarians are on the verge of taking over the Republican Party and the taste for freedom is in the air around the world, like in Egypt… Yet OBAMA OFFICIALS to Offer Muslim Brotherhood Top Positions in Egyptian Government (Video)

Video:  We Are On The Verge Of Taking Over The Republican Party

The Republican Establishment, the RINOS, who are part of the power elite system that run both parties, are split; half think Average Americans are stupid and the other half fear Conservatives, Libertarians and all common sense thinking Patriotic Americans to the point that they will go to any measures to spy on Americans, manipulate the law and judicial rulings, subvert investigations, manipulate the media and entertainment industries, and destroy anyone who shows the slightest ability and glimmer of possibly becoming a rising star or strong voice of reason and opposition in the GOP or the media, especially if they are conservative minority voices. Opposing voices in the Democrat party tend to become Independents or Republicans rather than fight the leadership within their Progressive party.

The fight and focus for the revitalization of the Republican Party and to save America must be on the forefront and begin with the 2014 Election and then be continued through the 2016 Election.  The Democrat party is very aware of that and preparing for those battles and all the smaller ones leading up to the elections is at least part of what has caused many of the scandals plaguing the Obama Administration… as more and more people are speaking up and in-turn waking up every day.  The IRS investigations, auditing and holding up of ‘tax exempt status’ of hundreds of conservative and religious groups, as well as already existing groups like the Leadership Institute and the Claire Booth Luce Organization, that affected the outcome of the 2012 Election ‘was not’ an accident, just as the subversion of information regarding the Benghazi Attack including the purposeful hiding of witnesses is not a accident.  And sadly some of this comes from support of members in both parties.

It is time to clean house in the Republican Party and as Beck says, we have never been closer to taking over the reins.  It is time for every concerned American to step up their efforts or start getting involved  in the name of truth, honest and fair elections, the Constitution, a government that represents the interests of the people and a clear choice between two parties of differing ideologies.

As Beck mentions in the video, we are at the point where the Republican Party replaced the Whigs, resulting in the election of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln.

The Whig Party: In 1834 political opponents of President Andrew Jackson organized a new party to contest Jacksonian Democrats nationally and in the states. Guided by their most prominent leader, Henry Clay, they called themselves Whigs-the name of the English antimonarchist party-the better to stigmatize the seventh president as 'King Andrew.' They were immediately derided by the Jacksonian Democrats as a party devoted to the interests of wealth and aristocracy, a charge they were never able to shake completely. Yet during the party's brief life, it managed to win support from diverse economic groups in all sections and to hold its own in presidential elections.

Although unable to unite behind a single candidate in 1836, thus permitting Jackson's handpicked successor Martin Van Buren to obtain an electoral majority, the Whigs won a popular vote for their candidates that was close to the popular tally for the Democrats. And in 1840 and 1848, the party captured the White House. Their only loss in a presidential election during the decade occurred in 1844 when Clay lost by a hair to the Democrats' dark horse James K. Polk, who had greater appeal to voters favoring the expansion both of territory and slavery. But in 1852, as slavery's expansion became the great issue of American politics, the Whigs suffered a drastic decline in popularity. And by 1854 they had given up the ghost, no longer able to hold the support of 'cotton Whigs,' who found a more congenial political home in the Democratic party, or of 'conscience Whigs,' who helped form the new Republican party.

Historians have interpreted the Whigs in strikingly different ways. They have been seen as champions of banks, business, corporations, economic growth, the positive liberal state, humanitarian reform, and morality in politics, and as opponents of expansionism, executive tyranny, states' rights, labor, and the democratic suffrage, among other things. These dissimilar assessments are unsurprising given the heterogeneity of the party itself, in its leaders, policies and programs, political style, and rank-and-file supporters.

The Whig party was founded by individuals united only in their antagonism to Jackson's war on the Second Bank of the United States and his high-handed measures in waging that war and ignoring Supreme Court decisions, the Constitution, and Indian rights embodied in federal treaties. Beyond that, however, there were Whigs and Whigs. Some played the demagogic anti-Catholic game; others scorned it. Some spoke critically of working people; others, admiringly. Detailed studies of the Whig party in the states and biographies of such Whig leaders as Clay, William Seward, Daniel Webster, and Horace Greeley reveal dissimilar policies from one state to another and important differences in the character, beliefs, and actions of the leaders. Thurlow Weed was much more opportunistic than his New York State colleague Seward. Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania was more high-minded and not nearly as pragmatic as Clay of Kentucky. For all Clay's political flexibility and his lust for the presidency, he could still inspire the young congressman from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln.

The tendency of Whig officeholders to vote as a bloc on certain issues, in opposition to Democratic blocs, helps account for the tendency of some historians to exaggerate the extent and depth of Whig single-mindedness. In Congress, Whigs supported the Second Bank of the United States, a high tariff, distribution of land revenues to the states, relief legislation to mitigate the effects of the great depression that followed the financial panics of 1837 and 1839, and federal reapportionment of House seats (a 'reform' likely to enlarge Whig representation in Congress). Studies of voting patterns in the states reveal Whig support of banks, limited liability for corporations, prison reform, educational reform, abolition of capital punishment, and temperance. Although the Whig party was hardly an antislavery party, free blacks and abolitionists overwhelmingly preferred it to more ardently proslavery Jacksonian Democrats.

The old notion propagated by the party's enemies-that the Whigs drew their support primarily from the rich and the well-to-do-has been sharply modified by modern scholarship. The relatively few rich men in the country did prefer Whigs to Democrats, but by a modest margin. Whigs fared well at the polls among people of all classes in economically dynamic communities heavily engaged in commerce. Jacksonian propaganda did induce many people to regard the Whigs as an upper-class party (not organized working men, however, whose leaders dismissed both Democrats and Whigs as 'humbugs'). Yet Whigs could win presidential elections, governorships, and state legislature majorities only because they attracted mass support. Although they received the votes of many small farmers, shopkeepers, clerks, and artisans, they appear to have appealed particularly to what some modern historians call distinctive ethnocultural groups: evangelical as opposed to liturgical Protestants; moralists and abstainers; persons unhappy with brutal treatment of blacks and Native Americans. In some states Whig leaders seemed so critical of political parties that they appeared to be religious zealots rather than party leaders. Yet for all their antiparty rhetoric, Whigs were as realistic and efficiently organized as their Democratic opponents.

American major parties develop their own distinctive auras that are no less real for being intangible and unmeasurable. In that time, Whig and Democratic leaders were strikingly similar in such significant characteristics as wealth, occupational prestige, a fundamentally conservative social ideology, materialism, and opportunism. These similarities help explain why both major parties were attractive to moneyed men. But it is unwise to discount the significance of the unique blending of moral values and social philosophies that some imaginative historians have recently discerned in Whig leaders, a blending that helps account for the Whigs' special appeal to one rather than another kind of individual.

Ultimately, however, the Whigs are best understood as an American major party trying to be many things to many men, ready to abandon one deeply held 'conviction' for another in the drive for political power. The party died not because its unique aura no longer appealed to voters but because it could not cope effectively or persuasively with some of the issues of the time.

The Democrat Party has already undergone its own change, morphing from the Democrat Party of our grandfathers to the Progressive Party that it is today.  But because the fresh voices on the right have been thwarted from both sides and were delayed in breaking out of their cocoon, leaving the Republican Establishment, that is all too much like their Democrat counterparts, in power, the opportunity of a real election choice has been stolen from the American people for several cycles now.

And it is the fresh voices within the Republican Party that are rising that the Progressive left fears, because they are an honest alternative choice for Americans.  It is why both the left and the GOP leadership fear (feared) and demonized the Tea Party.  It is why they feared Sarah Palin and why the biased left media created Palin Derangement Syndrome, based on lies, manipulation, and distortions, that little by little have bubbled to the surface in various forms of exonerations proving that Palin was purposely set-up by the left as well as GOP leadership.  It is also why the mainstream media ignores, minimizes coverage and distorts the words and accomplishments of other politicians like Senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee; Mayor and Congressional candidate Mia Love; Representatives Michelle Bachmann, Jason Chaffetz and a long list of others; plus most anyone who speaks out against the machine that is in place.

It is also time to put the in-fighting behind us.  The bitter 2012 primary debates on the Republican side certainly didn’t help anyone.  And the arguments between people who are generally on the same side need to stop as well.  Time to see and focus on the bigger picture.  For those not aware, there has been an on-going, mostly one-sided feud between Mark Levin and Glenn Beck.  This past week Mark Levin recognized on-air that he got a nice note from Glenn Beck the other day and called it an “absolute class act”. He went on to say:

“I think it’s long over due that Glenn Beck and I do what we can in our own roles to help save the country and restore the Republic.”

Side Note: The one sided feud began in 2010 over the direction of the conservative movement. Glenn was bashing progressive republicans and Mark Levin was focused on winning back the House. They just saw things differently. It took off after Glenn Beck’s CPAC speech. But it was mostly Mark Levin ranting about Glenn. Glenn never went after Levin.

None of us agree with anyone all of the time.  If we can agree most of the time there is room for compromise to focus on the bigger issues and common enemies, a concept that President Ronald Reagan firmly believed in.  He was a master of constructive compromise. Far too many Conservatives, Libertarians, Evangelicals, Independents, and just plain concerned patriotic Americans forgot this in 2012.

Get-involved!! Educate yourself and then share what you have learned… not what the mainstream media is feeding you… with friends, family, neighbors and anyone who will listen, however hesitantly.  Get involved in a campaign.  Support issues and candidates locally, statewide and nationally with funds, volunteering or just sharing their message. Run yourself.  Start a blog.  Be present in the truth and if you are so inclined.. pray.

Now is the time to stand-up for choice, freedom, America and fresh voices within the Republican Party!!

New Book: Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election---and How to Stop Them from Doing It in 2016/Kindle

Sunday, March 17, 2013

CPAC 2013 Highlights – Day 3

Sarah and the Big Gulp - CPAC-Back

Sarah Palin Rocks the CPAC House… Holding-Up Her Big Gulp as She Ends Her Speech…

Video: CPAC 2013 - U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN)

Video: CPAC 2013 - President Obama's Prayer Breakfast Club (feat. Dr. Ben Carson and Eric Metaxas)

If you haven’t seen it… See Dr. Benjamin Carson's Amazing Speech at the National Prayer Breakfast with

Video: CPAC 2013 - Mia Love, Mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah

Video:  CPAC 2013- Brent Bozell, Founder and President Media Research Center

Video: CPAC 2013 - Former U.S. Representative Artur Davis

Video: CPAC 2013 - Phyllis Schlafy, Founder, Eagle Forum (Emcee: Steven Crowder)

Video: CPAC 2013 – Former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK)

CPAC Star: We are not here to re-brand a party… We are here to rebuild a country!

Palin rouses the faithful at CPAC

Video: CPAC 2013- Ann Coulter

Video: Senator Ted Cruz Gives Keynote Speech at CPAC 2013

Jeb Bush Beats the Drum for Inclusion and Acceptance at CPAC

rand_paul_s640x347

Rand Paul wins CPAC straw poll

No surprise here, as Paul's supporters worked hard to get out the vote for their man.

Robert Costa:

Rand Paul won the straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday, a victory that cements his status as a tea-party favorite.

Paul, who spoke at CPAC earlier this week, drew the support of many college-age activists and libertarians. Throughout the conference's hallways, the support for Paul was strong, and his backers handed out "Stand with Rand" posters.

Conservative leaders say Paul's victory is a sign of his popularity within Republican ranks. "I'm glad someone who says bold things is rising," says Arthur Brooks, the president of the American Enterprise Institute. "At a time when many conservatives are reflecting on the future, his views are connecting."

Boyden Gray, a former counselor to President George H. W. Bush, agrees. He says Paul may not be cheered in every corner of the party, but he's a formidable figure. "Even within the GOP, people are beginning to question big institutions, from big government to big banks, and Rand Paul is speaking to them," he says.

Senator Paul, a Kentucky Republican and ophthalmologist, follows in the footsteps of his father, Ron Paul, who won the CPAC straw poll in 2010 and 2011.

Paul's supporters were not the only activists pushing a candidate at the Gaylord National Hotel in suburban Maryland. Supporters of Rick Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, and supporters of New Jersey governor Chris Christie also had informal get-out-the-vote operations.

But Paul's group was, by far, the most vocal, and its efforts paid off. According to a CPAC official, Paul was expected to win, and he drew heavy, consistent support.

Other Republicans on the ballot included Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Ted Cruz, Governor Bobby Jindal, and Governor Scott Walker. Rubio, for his part, came in a close second. Paul won 25 percent, and Rubio won 23 percent.

Tea Party favorite, rising Republican star, libertarian heartthrob - but a successful candidate for the GOP nomination in 2016?

It won't be his fiscal conservatism, or his ability to articulate conservative principles. But it may be his foreign policy positions that would make Rand Paul a bridge too far for a majority of Republicans. Is the party ready to accept isolationism as a foundational principle in foreign affairs? This remains to be seen.

Rand Paul is not as stridently anti-interventionist as his father and that has to count for something. But you can bet the major line of attack of Paul's primary opponents will be questions about his commitment to Republican foreign policy principles.

Rand Paul won the CPAC straw poll and was closely followed by Marco Rubio… and many feel that if Ted Cruz had spoken earlier in the event that he would have come in higher in the poll… but again, Sarah Palin rocked the house!!

Related:

CPAC 2013 Highlights – Day 2

CPAC 2013 Highlights – Day 1

Rand Paul takes a stand for the Facebook generation and tears apart Big Government spending

CPAC Star: We are not here to re-brand a party… We are here to rebuild a country!

American superstar: ‘STUPID people’ running country

Saturday, March 16, 2013

CPAC 2013 Highlights – Day 2

Video: CPAC 2013 - U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI)

Video: Sen. Rick Santorum Speech at CPAC 2013

Here is video of Sen. Rick Santorum speaking at CPAC 2013 earlier today. Santorum spoke with emotion, explaining that his nephew had just passed away.

Video: CPAC 2013 - Former Governor Mitt Romney (Intro by Gov. Nikki Haley)

Video: Donald Trump CPAC 2013 Speech US Is Run By " Very Stupid People " Trump

Read more at Ask Marion: American superstar: ‘STUPID people’ running country

Video:  CPAC 2013 - Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA)

Video:  Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR): U.S. Fighting Against “Radical Islamic Jihad”

Read more at Jihad Watch…

Video: NRA’s Wayne LaPierre Rocks CPAC: ‘You Keep Your Advice, We’ll Keep Our Guns’

Read more at The Blaze…

Schedule for (Final) Day 3 – Saturday 03.16.13:

Associated Press – Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin

Conservative Super Star Sarah Palin: Brought the Red Meat to CPAC 2012 and They Loved It… Loved Her!

9:05 a.m.: Rep. Steve King (R., Iowa)
9:45 a.m.: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.)
10 a.m.: Dr. Ben Carson
10 a.m.: Technology panel
Noon: Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska
3:45 p.m.: Reince Preibus, chairman of the Republican National Committee
3:55 p.m.: David Keene, president of the National Rifle Association
5:10 p.m.: Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas)

Dr. Benjamin Carson Reveals Why He Spoke Out Against Obamas Policies at National Prayer Breakfast

Associated Press

Dr. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital

Related:

CPAC 2013 Highlights – Day 1

Rand Paul takes a stand for the Facebook generation and tears apart Big Government spending

CSPAN will be covering the CPAC Event

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

A Case against Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy and a Rebuttal

A Case against Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy.

Propagator of liberal pseudo-reality

A keen observation of academia reveals that the largest, most active constituency of Ron Paul supporters roughly parallels that of President Obama. Ron Paul’s largest base is an amalgamation of liberal anti-war activists, liberal university professors, and liberal college students. And like the President, Ron Paul and his fervent constituency promote liberal pseudo-realities.

Why Do They Hate Us?

Immediately, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the liberal Main Stream Media took up the propagandist campaign, “Why Do They Hate Us?” This campaign was one of the most successful “Blame America First” campaigns since the Vietnam War. Liberals eagerly accepted the erroneous premises and conclusions of this campaign, as it reinforced their animus for America. Unfortunately, Paul and supporters also embraced the false reality proposed by this campaign.

In their rush to blame America, liberals failed to ask an essential question: Who are “They” that hate us?

“They” are terrorists: who hate for no reason at all, who hate for the sake of hating, and who justify terrorism with any available delusion. American military bases are just a convenient excuse for terrorists to hate us. Even if we isolated ourselves on the North American continent, as Paulists propose; the terrorists would still hate us and still try to destroy us.

And yet, liberals, in absolutely schizophrenic logic, conclude, on the one-hand, that all Muslims hate us because we have military bases on Muslim land. And then, simultaneously, on the other hand, liberals self-righteously lecture us about “moderate Muslims” and that we are not to assume that all Muslims hate us. One thing was made absolutely clear for liberals: the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were America’s fault.

So for logical observers, it is astounding that during debates Ron Paul parrots the excuses and rationalizations of the irrational, hate-mongering terrorist, Osama bin Laden. There is little doubt that Osama bin Laden would be still alive, if it were up to a President Paul. Paul’s allegiance to international law (see policy on interrogation techniques), as well as pandering to his anti-war base, would have precluded military action into another sovereign country.

(For the record, like conservatives that happen to be African American, there are moderate Muslims that reject the imposition of radicalism; as is evidenced by Indonesia and Jordan.)

Bases on Muslim Land

Ron Paul’s rationale for his isolationist policies is his liberal-based insistence of Muslim anger over United States military bases on Muslim land. Paul’s erroneous talking point is that:

The United States would not like it if Muslims put military bases in the United States.

This argument not only ignores facts, but also promotes an anti-American pseudo-reality:

Bully America, with aggressive malice and greed attacked Saudi Arabia (and other countries) and took their land for military bases.

The reality is that Saudi Arabia (and other countries) welcomes these US military bases as protectorates against the historic aggression of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and the looming future Iranian aggression. The placement of US bases around the world has been legally authorized through international agreements and treaties between the USA and cooperating nations. The pseudo-reality of “America the Aggressor”, promoted by terrorists, liberals, Ron Paul and his supporters, is central to their anti-American policy for isolationism.

Does America need a President Paul, who believes that Status of Forces Agreements between the US and her allies are equivalent to an act of war by an enemy force invading the United States?

December 20, 1983

In the pseudo-reality of liberals, there are only 3 events that define their view of history: the Vietnam War, the second Iraq War, and December 20, 1983. This last event was when President Reagan’s envoy Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein. This has solidified the liberal assertion that:

America is no better than our enemies, because we just replace one dictator with our own dictator.

They fail to recognize that we were in the middle of the Cold War, as well as dealing with a very belligerent Iran. So our choices were: 1) Work with Hussein against Iran and the Soviets; 2) Depose the dictator Hussein, nation-build, impose democracy; while simultaneously holding the USSR & Iran at bay; or 3) the liberal and Paulist preference --- retreat to North America and surrender the Middle East and its petroleum resources to the USSR.

No matter historic, current, or future conflicts; the third choice of appeasement and surrender is a central foreign policy tenet of liberals and Paulists; the descendants of Lindbergh’s “America First” isolationists.

American Empire

Liberals and Ron Paul falsely propagandize that America is imperialistic. What evidence do they have of that? After World War II we rebuilt and left Europe and Japan. America, after purchasing the Philippines from Spain via the Spanish-American war, granted them independence in 1946. America left Kuwait after we liberated it from Saddam’s Iraq. To label America imperialistic is to fundamentally misunderstand: American exceptionalism, American societal values, and America’s fundamental devotion to freedom for all. Americans, as a whole, would stand against any attempt at national imperialism.

====================

Non-intervention; the Feint of Isolationists.

Just as Obamacare (regulations that eliminate private health insurance companies) is the liberal ruse to gain single-payer (government) health care; Ron Paul’s non-intervention policy is a bid for isolationism.

There are two important fundamental foreign policy principles that Paulists choose to ignore.

Strategic Proximity

The strategic proximity of our internationally hosted military bases is an important protectorate for our allies and deterrents for our enemies -- Peace through Strength. If there was another world war, the isolationists would have us waste lives and treasure, “on the beaches and battlegrounds of Europe” and “on island-hopping across the Pacific” to regain our former bases from an entrenched enemy. This liberal utopian/isolationist ignorance would also waste all the past lives (World War II, the Korean War, etc.) sacrificed to gain these strategic bases.

Power Vacuum

A fundamental principle of all human history (past, present, and future) is the absence of power vacuums. Whether local, state, national, or geopolitical; whenever a power vacuum occurs it is quickly, often violently, filled. The isolationist, embarrassed by our sole superpower status, would have the United States retreat to the North American continent; effectively surrendering our allies, our interests, our economy and the entire globe to Communist China and/or a reconstituted USSR; as these nations would quickly and easily fill the vacuum we left. We already see this in the Gulf of Mexico and South America, as China & Russia are filling the energy and foreign policy vacuums left by the Obama administration’s lack of engagement.

The “anti-war” movement is actually pro-war. Without the stabilizing effect of a freedom-loving American superpower on the world stage, the resulting power vacuum would result in convulsive turmoil, war, and suffering. Local, regional, and global powers would violently struggle to fill the vacuum.

Unlike Reagan and conservatives, who see America as a “Shining City on the Hill”; Paulists and liberals do not believe America is a force for good in the world. On the contrary, they view America as the central problem in the world; a bully that needs to be cut down to size.

“Non-interventionist” Gambit

The “non-interventionist” gambit retorts that Ron Paul would have America retreat from international militarism, but not international trade. How does one trade, when Communist China or a reconstituted Soviet Union confiscates the international assets of US businesses, controls the natural resources and trade of the whole eastern hemisphere (along with their current efforts in South America)? The resulting forced isolation would be the surrender of our international trade and ultimately our national liberty.

Do the “non-interventionists” reject America, preferring Communist China as the sole world power? Do they support a policy in which America’s national liberty is forfeit to the mercy of a global Communist China? It would seem that liberals and Paulists, in their utopian fervor, place more faith in Communist China than a sound American government? Are we the global leader or the global pacifist?

We can’t afford Strategic International Military Bases.

On National Defense, Ron Paul’s website states: “Ron Paul believes national defense is the single most important responsibility the Constitution entrusts to the federal government.” And yet, Ron Paul insists that America cannot afford our strategic military bases around the world.

Paradoxically, the contradictory remedy to this fiscal argument is in Ron Paul’s own “Plan to Restore America”, in which he proposes the elimination of 5 national departments (Education, Energy, HUD, Commerce, and Interior), the transformation of entitlement programs; as well as other governmental austerity measures, including eliminating defense department waste and corruption. Ironically, such measures would preclude the fiscal necessity to dismantle strategic bases.

If Paul truly believes in the primacy of National Security, then why does he promise that a primary objective of his administration will be the unnecessarily abandonment of America’s strategic bases?

It leaves the logical observer to conclude that Ron Paul’s national defense policy is “Isolationism through Weakness.”

====================

Other Notes

Ron Paul: American President or Iranian Advocate?

‘nough said.

The Score Card

Obama: Promised to close Gitmo; has not.

Paul: Promises to close Gitmo and our strategic bases.

Obama: Promised to afford terrorists constitutional rights

Paul: Violating their liberty to reject America’s constitutional rights and values; Paul promises to impose his values and America’s constitutional rights on terrorists. (What part of “to ordain and establish this Constitution OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.” does Ron Paul not understand?)

Obama: Promised to be friends with Iran; recently applied sanctions.

Paul: Promises to be friends with Iran and opposes sanctions.

Obama: Constantly insults our ally Israel.

Paul: Promises to abandon our ally Israel.

Obama: Uses drone strikes to kill terrorists.

Paul: Condemns the killing of terrorists.

Obama: Killed Osama bin Laden.

Paul: Would not have committed “such a criminal act of war”, across the borders of a sovereign country providing terrorist havens.

How is it that Ron Paul is considered conservative and yet is more naïve about national security than Obama? To nominate someone that is weaker on national security than Obama would be a strategically colossal political blunder.

==============================

From Ron Paul’s advocacy for Iran’s anti-American regime, to being an apologist for terrorists, to his indignation of America’s global superpower status; one wonders if a President Paul will indulge, like his predecessor, in another international apology tour for what Paul perceives to be American indiscretions.

Source:  TPN By: James Flowers

MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT RON PAUL ABOUND AND IT'S TIME TO CORRECT THIS.

It is a duty to know the truth about a Presidential Candidate

By Edna Mattos

12/5/2011

It’s impossible to understand politics unless you understand liberty – that we should all be free, and that all of our inalienable rights come from our creator and not government.  Once you understand this, it is easy to differentiate good government from bad.

I became a Ron Paul supporter when I fully understood what inalienable rights meant to me personally.  We’ve all heard that inalienable rights are granted by our creator and that government exits to protect them.  But do we live it, breath it, and really believe it?  Many of us take this for granted, and many more of us, simply do not care. What follows is informational only and not to be construed as trying to dissuade anyone from continuing to support whichever candidate they prefer.  My candidate is better than your candidate is not the intent that I wish to convey in this article.  I only want to correct some misinformation.  I will start with those issues that some consider impediments when considering Dr. Ron Paul as a viable presidential candidate.

Ron Paul does not support Israel: This is completely false.  But, before I tell you why, let me first say that the U.S. does not, and has not, supported Israel for years.  The U.S. Government told Israel to cede the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians from which attacks are launched against Israel.  We called them racists when they built their wall to protect themselves.  Our government made Israel deny Jews property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as a precondition for peace talks with the Palestinians.  Our government has accepted Hamas as a legitimate actor in Palestinian politics.  Our government made our support for Israel at the UN conditional on Israeli concessions to the Palestinians.   The U.S. encouraged Israel to give back the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt for the sake of peace and nothing changed.  The U.S. told the world that Israel must revert back to the 67 borders and split Jerusalem in half leaving them completely and totally unprotected for peace.  Between 2006 and 2010, we allowed the United Nations’ Human Rights Commission to condemned Israel in 20 of its 25 resolutions.  The U.S. is now demanding that Israel go back ‘to the damned table’ and negotiate peace.  Israel has always conceded their land for peace, and there is no more to give.  Has our government implemented any recent policies that would send a message to the world that they need to lay off Israel?  The answer is no, our U.S. foreign policy is restricting and weakening Israel’s defenses.  The foreign aid that the U.S. sends to this region helps Israel’s enemies to further their attacks and hostilities against them.  Ron Paul believes that by stopping all foreign aid to this region, Israel will be in a much stronger position militarily.  He believes the U.S. needs to get out of Israel’s way and allow them to protect their national sovereignty anyway they see fit.  Make no mistake, there will be war in this region and the U.S. will be in no position to help Israel.  America is broke, we cannot afford any more wars.  We cannot continue to borrow money to give away to foreign governments that hate America or, to anyone else for that matter, without it negatively impacting our own defenses.

"[W]hen all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Charles Hammond, 1821

Ron Paul is an isolationist.  This is also completely false.  Dr. Ron Paul believes in a ‘non-interventionist’ foreign policy as did our founding fathers.  Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." George Washington similarly urged that the US must "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments.”  Many refer to war as propaganda and a racket

(you may want to listen to this video: http://citruscountycitizens.ning.com/video/war-is-a-racket-libya-the-real-story). 

Ron Paul believes that we should take care of our own problems first. His creed is millions or billions for defense, and not one cent for empire building.   Ron Paul is in favor of a strong national defense, but we will not be in any position to help anyone, if we cannot first help ourselves.  Our government is fallible when it comes to foreign policy.  Our annual national security budget is now $1.2 trillion dollars and growing.  Our young men and women need not be risking their lives to protect foreign empires.  Our government lies and exaggerates issues that happen in the home front, so it is conceivable that they are also lying about their reasons for foreign intervention  in the middle east.  The globalist and the elitists do have a foreign policy agenda, and it may not necessarily be to spread democracy around the world.   (Listen carefully to this video http://citruscountycitizens.ning.com/video/war-is-a-racket-libya-the-real-story.)

Please understand, that this is all food for thought.  You always have the right to believe whatever it is you want.  But, then again, we need to question our leader’s motives and, we need to rethink some of our positions that are based on what neocon and progressive war mongers in our government spread for their own reasons.  Ron Paul supports the true position of freedom and conservatism which is nonintervention and peace, without nation building.  He does not accept, irrefutably, what our government peddles, and this is how it should be.  We need to move away from the foreign policy disasters we’ve had under Clinton, The Bushes, and the Obama administrations, otherwise, the world will detonate from war because that is where they are taking this.

Dr. Paul would let Iran get the nuclear bomb:  This is false and misleading also.  Dr. Paul does not believe that the way to stop Iran is by continuing to issue threats and/or sanctions because they haven’t worked so far.  If Iran wants to go nuclear, there is very little that the U.S. can do other than to declare another war.  Russia, China, Germany and France would have something to say if the US invaded Iran, or engaged in any form of military action.  In fact, many believe that they may be already preparing for this.  Dr. Paul respects all governments and all religions, and as President his policies would defuse some of the tensions that are currently taking place in this region.  Under Ron Paul's leadership and for the sake of world peace, we may get a short reprieve to defuse this escalating issue.  The middle east conflicts are going to be hard to resolve, especially since the U.S. is forcing Israel to accept the negotiations offered by the Palestinians which will resolve nothing, and then you have the Egypt, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan conflicts on the sidelines.  And, the situation is now escalating in Pakistan.  The current actions by our government will never solve the hostilities that are taking place in this region because they hate our interference, and because we are inflaming an already dangerous situation with our interventionist foreign policy.  It’s time to try something different, because nothing else has worked.  We need to remember that America is broke, we do not have the funding to engage in any more wars.

One of the most important enumerated powers of the Federal government is to protect our national sovereignty against any foreign invasion.  It’s important to stress that Dr. Paul is a true constitutionalist that follows the Constitution to the letter.  Dr. Paul will diligently, and unfalteringly respond to any form of attack against the U.S. 

Dr. Paul wants to legalize drugs.  This is also false.   Dr. Paul wants to get the Federal government out of the drug business by turning this over to the States to control.  If any drug is considered illegal at the Federal level, it will most likely continue to be illegal at the State level, unless the State and its people decide differently. 

Dr. Paul is authentic, what you see is what you get.  He is principled, trustworthy, consistent, honorable, noble, truthful, sincere, plainspoken, wise, ethical, honest, educated and smart.  In all the years of public office, he has never voted to raise taxes, or voted for an unbalanced budget, or voted for any kind of federal restriction on gun ownership, or voted to raise congressional pay.  He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch or has taken a government-paid junket.  He voted against the Patriot Act, voted against the Sarbanes-Oxley which was created as a result of the Enron scandal and it’s costing taxpayers millions; he voted against regulating the Internet, voted against the Iraq war, does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program,  returns portions of his annual congressional office budget back to the U.S. Treasury every year. Dr. Paul is also against a National ID, and he is against all bailouts.  Lobbyists avoid knocking on his door.  It has been said that even under great pressure from the Texas branch of the American Medical Association and the Texas Medical board, Dr. Paul refused to accept Medicare and Medicaid payments even as he served many of the poorest residents in his county.  Unquestionably, he has set the bar for standards for politicians higher than anyone else. 

Did I mention that he is called the Champion of the Constitution? Or, that he tried to warn legislators about the housing bubble with Fanny and Freddie a decade before it occurred, but no one listened?  He also has been warning about the Student Loan bubble, and the possible collapse of the U.S. dollar, and the dealings in Wall Street, and many are still not listening.  Or, that because of his persistance for the first time in 100 years the Federal Reserve was audited, and it was not even a complete audit by any means.  It was discovered that they gave themselves, their crony bankers in the US and abroad, and their favorite corporations, $16 trillion dollars over three years without congressional approval!  Why wasn't more made of this raid on our Treasury by the media and on Capitol Hill?  Because they are all somehow benefiting from this theft.  Why is Dr. Paul’s forecasts so accurate, and powerful?  He understands the monetary cycles and is a disciple of the Austrian school of economics.  He knows what the problems are, and he has the solutions to fix them.  He also believes that we must return to the gold standard, stop the Federal Reserve from raiding our treasury of trillions of taxpayers dollars, and stop them from printing fiat currency before we reach the point of no return.  One of the reasons is that it will prevent overall inflation as it did for over 100 years before the Federal Reserve was established, because gold cannot be created like paper money or computer generated money. The cruelest tax of all is inflation caused by the Federal Reserve printing and borrowing that lowers the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar, and that it is at the root of why the U.S. dollar is now at the point of collapsing.

As President, Dr.Paul will cut spending, end the Income Tax, bring our troops home, end foreign wars, stop foreign aid, secure our borders, fix health care, repeal the unconstitutional Patriot Act, return power to the States (as in the 9th and 10th Amendments), balance the budget in the first year, abolish corporate subsidies, return spending to 2006 level, abolish all unconstitutional Executive Orders, abolish the Department of Energy, cut back EPA funding, get us out of the United Nations, get rid of the Federal Department of Education giving more power to the States and local boards, abolish the Department of Energy, audit the Federal Reserve with the initial intention of reducing their powers.  He endorses free trade but rejects membership in NAFTA.  To stand with the American people, Dr. Paul will take a salary of only $39,336 annually, equal to the average pay of U.S. workers, instead of the $400,000 current presidential salary.  Now which other candidate do you think is principled and determined enough to accomplish this?   None!

Ron Paul will serve the American People, not the special interests, not the military industrial complex, not big corporate Wall Street, and certainly not the political establishment.  He doesn’t hedge his bets, he says what he feels, and does what is right by the American people and for the preservation of our U.S. Constitution!  And, please believe that it needs preserving!
Other Ron Paul Information: 

He is the most searched candidate on Youtube, Facebook and Google.

He has delivered 4,000 babies.

He is the only veteran running for office.

He has received more donations from active military that all candidates combined.

The overwhelming majority of donations come from folks like you and me.

He is a man of consistent principled integrity and a Christian leader who does not use religion for political gains.

He is pro life.

His supporters are very loyal.

He is appealing more and more to a vast number of young Americans.

He is the author of eight books.

He was a frat boy.

He is a pretty good baseball player and was a track star in college.

He is leading in the Independent polls against Obama.

Many Democrats disillusioned with Obama’s foreign policy in New Hampshire and other States are now supporting Ron Paul.

Many Herman Cain supporters are now supporting Ron Paul.

Ron Paul told the Trump ‘you’re fired’ and declined to be part of his reality TV debate circus to take place at the end of December because to do so would diminish the status of the office of the presidency.  And, Mr. Comb-over is seeing red.  I agree that this is a step-down-type of debate, and it should be boycotted by every American who takes presidential elections seriously. 

My personal opinion is that we need a president who will follow the Constitution and inspire other politicians to do the same.  Dr. Paul is the only politician who has reliably shown unwavering adherence to the Constitution.  The rest of the candidates will continue to drift away from our founding principles, perhaps even more.  And, very little will change.  Under Ron Paul’s plan he will create jobs and turn our economy around.  Many of us recognize that Ron Paul is not the best statesman, but many concerned citizens are hearing his message nevertheless, because he is honest, sincere and genuine.  The only one with a consistent constitutional message.  We either accept our U. S. Constitution in its entirety, or we might as well shred it.  No candidate is perfect, that is true, but why would anyone want to pick the most imperfect of them all, when you can vote for Ron Paul.  Ron Paul supporters are growing by the minute, a fact that many politicos and elitists are afraid of.  Ron Paul has a brilliant mind, read his books and see for yourself.  He is the only constitutional candidate running that will return our country to the founding principles of liberty and freedom even if it is for only a few short years.

This man is real folks.  Our country needs this principled American in the White House and it is up to us to make this happen.  Too much is at stake.  We cannot afford to settle for less.

If you agree with this article, please help spread this message to all. 

May God bless America and may HE help Americans continue to be loyal to our U.S. constitution to the end!

For Liberty,

Edna - http://citruscountycitizens.ning.com/profiles/blogs/misconceptions-...

Monday, July 25, 2011

Why Sarah Palin Will Be the Next President of the United States

On Sunday, July 17th, I braved heat and Harry, (No disrespect to fellow fans!) and traveled to Independence, Missouri to see The Undefeated, the documentary of Sarah Palin’s accomplishments as Governor in Alaska.  I left the theater certain of two things: Sarah will run in 2012 and she will win.

What convinced me?  Two things:  The Palin Platform and 80%.

The Undefeated chronicles the four areas upon which Governor Palin focused, the Palin Platform.

1.  Ethics Reform.  Governor Palin basically built a wall between those writing or enforcing the law and major corporations profiting from the shared resources belonging to Alaskans.  Before Sarah’s arrival, the conflicts of interest were such that politicians and Big Oil conducted business in a manner that mutually benefited each another while neglecting the best interest of the ordinary citizens.

2.  “Kitchen Table Economics.” When Sarah Palin arrived at the Governor’s Mansion, she was asked by the director to give a detailed list of what groceries she would like purchased.  The new Governor told the director that she wanted to use up all the food and supplies still in the pantry from the previous tenants before buying fresh groceries.  Sarah’s spirit of “using what’s in the pantry first” is indicative of her application of simple household money management principles to general government.  This spirit is detailed in the The Undefeated.  She literally sat at the table and, pen in hand, personally removed almost half a billion dollars of wasteful spending from the State’s Budget.  She spent money on building infrastructure that would bring business to towns and improve economy, rather than on wasteful programs.  She insisted on balanced budgets and that legislators remember they were spending other people’s money.

3.  Independent Energy Revolution.  Sarah lay the foundation for a total transformation in American Energy Policy and total energy independence for the United States from all foreign sources.  She worked to  open new areas for drilling and restructured the state tax code so that oil companies now receive tax benefits in proportion to the lowering of energy costs.  Sarah pushed for new privatized pipelines that would bring more American energy resources and new jobs to Alaska and eventually, the entire nation.

4.  American Exceptionalism-Inspired Foreign Policy.  Sarah believes that an energy independent America is the basis for a less tangled foreign policy, one that focuses on securing our freedoms and those of our true allies.  This independence permits America to stand for those unique values in areas of the world where these values are compromised by our dependence on oil produced by countries who hate us and our way of life.

The Undefeated begins with a five-minute montage of derision aimed at Sarah Palin by liberal media, celebrities,  and politicians.  Her opponents often spoke of her as ignorant or incompetent, but none ever attempted to address the significance of her 80% approval rating.  During the months preceding her Vice-Presidential campaign,  though she advanced legislation and reforms that had the potential to alienate many Alaskans, Sarah Palin’s approval rating never dropped below 80%.  This level of approval is unheard of in politics after the first three “honeymoon” months are over.  The only way Governor Palin could have maintained these ratings is if her policies were really and truly good for all her citizens, ordinary people as well as corporations and businesses in Alaska.

Policies generated by a metal dwarf, or an incompetent narcissist would produce chaos and please only the few who benefit from them.  Only well-balanced and intelligent government that weighs the common good of all can create the order in which people with varying needs are all, or nearly all content and find they are able to go about their lives and business uninhibited by intrusion or neglected where good intervention is needed.

I believe that Sarah will run because she believes profoundly in the efficacious principles of governing she applied, with great success, in Alaska.  The Undefeated presents the reality of Sarah Palin as an inspirational leader who is actually most apt, not at the podium, but in her ability to envision and execute practical solutions to state problems.  Sarah will run because she is passionate about her Platform of simple principles that she knows, from personal experience, will fix the crisis we are facing in America.

Sarah will probably announce in early September that she is seeking the office of President of the United States.  This announcement, contrary to what the media, Hollywood, the Democrats, and the GOP Luminaries have told us, will be met by a storm of enthusiasm and relief, support we have yet to see for any GOP Candidate to grace the field.  For the first two years his reign, Sarah was the most vocal opponent of the Obama madness and is the de facto, respected, seasoned representative of the Conservative electorate.  Once declared, her rapid rise as the logical and enthusiastic nemesis of post-American Obama will be met with ridicule by overconfident opponents until it is too late.  They will pay the ultimate price for ignoring her abilities, real record, tenacity, and proven Platform for the restoration of our country.

Posted on July 23 2011 - 2:41 PM - Posted by: Submissions (Guest Submission by Jeanette Pryor) at Conservatives 4 Palin  Cross-posted at Lipstick2012 and the Daily Thought Pad

Palin 2011

Video:  Palin 2011

Related:

Why Sarah Can Win

Long Lost Sarah Palin Emerges From Released Emails Victoriously

Comedian George Lopez Threatens to Flea America of Sarah Palin Is Elected President  -  I wrote him a note and suggested he leave now!  And from the looks at the comments at the bottom of the article seems that a lot of people would be happy to help him move!  I noticed he said he’d move to Canada… wonder why not Mexico?!?

Sarah announced that she will be in Iowa on September 3rd… perhaps that will announcement time??

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Sarah on the Cover of Newsweek… I Can Win!!

Yes you can!

“Of course she is running. She just is refusing to play by the “rules” the establishment and the media have set. There isn’t the slightest reason to announce yet, all that would do is give the enemy a fixed target. It would force every aspect of every thing she does to fit into campaign law.

The bus tour would have been impossible.

If this was the 1980 election, Reagan’s announcement would still be several months away.  November 13th.

She is Sun Tsu, refusing to march onto a battlefield that her enemy is standing on, fully prepared, in a location they chose. And she is attacking elsewhere.

It is driving them bats*^t insane. They are running this cover to goad her. They exclude her from every poll to goad her (“see, we excluded her until she announces”… Guliani is in some polls but not Sarah)

Meanwhile, she is touring the primary states in the NE, Touring Iowa… etc

Oh yes, she is running. But she is employing asymmetrical warfare.”

By: Andrea Shea King  - The Radio Patriot

The Extraordinary Sarah Palin

by Dan Riehl  -  Big Government

When it comes to former GOP Governor and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, if any ordinary Republican politician could generate as much contemporary free media coverage, including a new high profile cover story from Newsweek, while a positive full length documentary on their legitimate political career, The Undefeated, was opening nationally on July 15, the Republican establishment and most all of the base would be clamouring for him or her to enter the race for President in 2012. But Sarah Palin is no ordinary Republican politician.

Based upon my own observations, along with some recent conversations with friends, including Andrew Breitbart, who recently spent some time talking with Palin, my image of Palin has been becoming more well-defined of late. Take, for instance, the only real criticism I could find in the Newsweek piece. It jibes with another criticism I’ve observed, that she too often engages her critics directly, as opposed to allowing surrogates to do it for her. Are these valid criticisms of Palin? Along with providing some insight into her - she’s a fighter, it might also tell you much about how you view Palin. If you’re looking for an ordinary politician, Sarah Palin ain’t it.

This formula—bucking Republicans and counting on the situational cooperation of Democrats—made for a fragile governing model, one further attenuated by the fact that political insiders found Palin too sensitive to criticism and too eager to deal in payback. But to the public she was a heroine, with an approval rating above 80 percent two years into her term, making her by far the most popular governor in the country.

Once I put aside any notion of a mostly plastic, glad-handing politician and contemplated how I myself might actually react in this, or that, situation Palin has faced, a clearer image of her as an every man politician began to take shape. There’s a good chance I’d have handled a good deal of the criticism precisely as has she in this, a new media age. And she is far more in touch with the concept of new media, than is almost any other American politician – hence the reliance on Facebook and Twitter to get her message out.

“The mainstream press is becoming less and less relevant,” she said, adding that she would have no hesitation in shunning media outlets she does not trust.

As The Undefeated makes clear (my earlier review here), she’s not in politics because her daddy held office, or won, or was denied a Presidential nomination, or election. She entered politics as an individual because she cared about the relationship between government and the people and wanted to make a difference. Sarah Palin was not schooled by some mostly Eastern U.S. Preparatory and Secondary school system one might think is the only acceptable schooling for serious American political leadership today. In fact, in many ways, that monopoly has all but driven America off a cliff - including under the current administration.

Of course, Ronald Reagan wasn’t a product of it, either, as a matter of fact.

Still, even some of her biggest fans may have a mistaken notion of the kind of politician Sarah Palin actually is. True, she’s a Conservative … but she’s also a common sense pragmatist, not an uncompromising ideologue, as portions of the media would have one believe. As wonderful as conservative ideals are, rigid thinking can not always solve every problem. As her tenure in Alaska demonstrated, first and foremost, Sarah Palin is a problem solver.

The centerpiece achievement was a significant tax hike on the profits derived from Alaskan oil, which pro-industry Republicans opposed, and which passed only because Palin allied herself with the legislature’s Democrats (who insisted, to Palin’s acquiescence, on raising the tax even higher).

So, why are there not more establishment voices calling for such a visible and pragmatic Palin to toss her hat in the ring? My guess is, because she is more one of us, than any political establishment. If you begin to understand – and accept that – you may be beginning to understand Palin and what she represents to so many. Unfortunately, as shocking as it may seem, the fact is, more than fearing the political opposition in the form of Democrats, or Republicans, what America’s political establishment fears most of all is “we the people.” That, in large part, is what Ronald Reagan represented leading to such strong opposition to him from the GOP establishment, as well.

“You know, I rarely use the term ‘bipartisanship,’” she said. “I use the term ‘independent.’ Piper’s middle name is ‘Indie.’ That’s the Alaskan way of life. Seventy-three percent of Alaskans aren’t registered Republican or Democrat, they’re independent. Todd’s not a registered Republican. Most of the people I know, they’re independent people saying, ‘Just use common sense.’”

If there’s a conclusion to be inferred from the Newsweek item, it would seem to be that she is running. Her family seems on board with it and that is the only real obstacle she mentions, after all. However, that’s merely an inference and, as with some other potential late entries, the question remains open. What’s also true of Palin is that, until she says it, assuming otherwise is no guarantee of accuracy.

What is clear is that her road to any presumed GOP nomination would not be easy, or typical. It would likely require a far greater number of people to actually understand Sarah Palin apart from the many characters and caricatures the media has made her out to be. That said, if it did, or does happen, I do believe that, not only could she win the GOP nomination, but she could win the Presidency, as well.

At this point thirty-years ago, Reagan was thought to be both unelectable and unacceptable, even as a nominee. Not only did he go on to win the nomination and Presidency in 1980, his landslide re-election in 1984 remains as a testament to the success of common sense, mostly conservative-based politics capable of reaching across, if not erasing, party lines in America.

I wouldn’t want to have to assign odds as to the likelihood that Sarah Palin could repeat such a hallmark record of achievement in American politics. However, if one thinks it impossible at this point, then one may not know, or understand, Sarah Palin and her appeal, or the American people, at all. After all, both are extraordinary and have proven themselves capable of accomplishing rather exceptional things before.

Why Sarah Can Win

Long Lost Sarah Palin Emerges From Released Emails Victoriously

Fear Factor: Palin Derangement Syndrome

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Palin Update Alert: And… Why Palin Can Win

Video: Bristol on Fox:  Mom Has Decided; I Support Her 2012 Bid If She Runs – Sounds like an announcement may be imminent

Bristol was on Fox and Friends promoting her new book:  Not Afraid of Life My Journey So Far 

Today, Tuesday 06.28.11, both Obama on so-called official business and Sarah Palin for the opening of Undefeated were in Iowa… Wanna guess who drew the largest crowd?  Hint: It wasn’t Obama!!

Why Palin Can Win

One of theSarah hitting the road most talked about subjects in politics is whether or not Sarah Palin will run for the presidency.  It's frankly anyone's guess which direction she will go with her decision and when she will make the decision.

However, if Palin doesn't run it will be a disaster for the Republican Party and quite possibly the country.

Aside from the fact that there isn't another libertarian-conservative in the race, at least not another one who isn't an international isolationist, if Palin doesn't run, it will represent an enormous victory for the Republican beltway establishment and the big players in the left-wing-dominated media.  Furthermore, the leftist media will learn a fool-proof means to destroy any political opponent in a manner that will likely result in another four years of Obama.

In watching the coverage of the announced candidates, the alarm bells should be clanging violently.  The fact that the leftist media hasn't really gone after the other Republican politicians in the race should be a violent warning to all conservatives and libertarians out there.  It's totally out of character for the leftist media to not bring up Newt Gingrich's infidelity every ten minutes, or to have squads of reporters interviewing every foster child of Michele Bachmann that can be found to try to dig up some dirt.  The rigorous inspection that has been visited upon Sarah Palin hasn't even started on the remainder of the Republican field.  However, that doesn't mean the media has tacked suddenly to the center; far from it.

Throughout the last two years the media has embarked on a vitriolic, obsessed campaign to destroy Sarah Palin, not just as a politician but also as a person.  They manipulated the legal system to try to bankrupt her while in office; they hacked her personal email and forced the release of her official email.  When all of that produced nothing consequential, they simply made up the stories they wished and put them out to be in every headline for two weeks until they have the majority believing their deceits.  As an example, ask any ten people you know who said, "I can see Russia from my house," and probably most of them will incorrectly name Sarah Palin rather than the comedian Tina Fey who actually said it.  To the media, facts are unimportant so long as the story forwards the agenda.

If Sarah Palin doesn't run for president, the operatives in the media and Beltway establishment will have learned a fool-proof method of destroying any political opponent.  If they are allowed to successfully paint a politician as stupid without any facts, merely because they disagree with the "aristocracy," America will be left with a choice of RINOs or progressive socialists.  If that happens then the transformation of America from a libertarian culture to one of socialism and government dependence may very well be irreparable.

Assuming that Sarah Palin doesn't run the campaign will go sort of like this: the media will talk up the largest RINO they can find in an attempt to split the Republican Party from within.  However, the real dirt will be kept securely under wraps.  As the Republican primary nears its close, the research effort will go into full force.  They will send squads of lawyers to go into every tiny detail of the candidate's personal and professional life.  They will examine every detail of the life of the nominee from the day of their birth.  The researchers will talk to every ex-boyfriend or girlfriend, every business partner, and any employees they can find.

After the primary is over, they will start to dump the juiciest tidbits in carefully edited and scripted special stories.  National interviews will be granted to jilted lovers and business acquaintances that felt wronged by the candidate, or perhaps could be persuaded to feel wronged with a little interview stipend.  The candidate will be mocked for their lack of intelligence and any microscopic mispronunciation or slip of the tongue will result in a weeklong national news cycle about why that candidate is too stupid to be president.  The candidate will not have time to counter the perception and, combined with the media adoration of Obama, likely Obama would get another four years.

By contrast, if Sarah Palin runs, the media has already shot all of their ammo.  They have done everything they can possibly do to destroy her but she has learned how to counter them via Facebook, Twitter, and streaming video.  The accusations against Palin and her children have been flying in for two years and have failed to destroy her.  All they have left is to repeat the old tired line of "Palin is an idiot."  Of course it wouldn't take more than a debate or two, nationally televised with live video, to dispel that myth with everyone that can possibly be persuaded.  The problem with the media is that all they have left to shoot are lies which can't stand in the light of day, and even all the plausible lies have been spent by Palin's opponents.  If Palin wins the primary, the leftist media will be left to incoherent rage watched by fewer and fewer Americans. 

With a properly run campaign, Palin will be able to easily counter the media perpetuated perception of stupidity with all except those that are so ideologically or emotionally committed as to be unpersuadable.  Furthermore, on the issues Palin will be able to bring all guns blazing against Obama rather than being handicapped by prior records of endorsing government-mandated healthcare or global warming hysteria.  On the issues, Palin's conservatism combined with her small-government libertarianism will make a stark contrast to Obama who will now be forced to defend his policies rather than run on emotion ad-hominem attacks and catchy phrases.

When the political calculus is done, it is clear that Palin is the only real conservative with libertarian leanings that can possibly be elected in the country.  Although there are other conservatives with promise such as Bachmann, Cain, and West, they have not been subjected to the vetting that Sarah Palin has and there should be no doubt that the media will do everything they possibly can to destroy them should they win the nomination.

By Robert Eugene Simmons Jr.American Thinker

Donna Brazile:  Yes, I said Sarah Palin for President

Long Lost Sarah Palin Emerges From Released Emails Victoriously

Palin Movie to Debut in Key Presidential Caucus State

Brazile:  Are You Ready to Hear ‘Sarah Palin’ for President?

Can Any Republican Presidential Candidate Withstand Being Palinized?

Stealing Election 2012

A Steady Whiff of  B.O. Emanating From the White House

Will Ignorance Lead to a Second Obama Term??

A Governor for President